zomgbbqftw said:No more gamesharing is good for developers. Less theft!
If only that were true!
zomgbbqftw said:No more gamesharing is good for developers. Less theft!
Miburou said:If only that were true!
People will be annoyed because it's what they've got use to, but in the reality of things, this is a good move. Online activation management has been needed since day 1. With previous content remaining at 5 activations as well entitled game sharers have less to complain about.
jkoch said:Entitled game sharers? It was advertised as a feature since the beginning and Sony confirmed that it was working as intended when they were pressed on it.
E-phonk said:What if my console breaks Sony?
Edit: ok, this quote helps a lot, should've read better:
Hazaro said:I hope at least 1 dev comes out with before and after numbers on sales or someone does some research on the impact of this.
I don't know how bad it was, but it still doesn't seem as big a deal as some people are making it out to be? Maybe I've been swayed too much over by Valve.
Hazaro said:I hope at least 1 dev comes out with before and after numbers on sales or someone does some research on the impact of this.
I don't know how bad it was, but it still doesn't seem as big a deal as some people are making it out to be? Maybe I've been swayed too much over by Valve.
Skeksis said:Didn't Sidhe's Mario (or maybe it was Dylan from PixelJunk?) post an estimation on the breadth of game sharing based on leaderboard scores vs actual sales?
Edit: Yes he did: "If you want an "actual" number based on data across multiple games, the number of users for any given game who obtained that game via gamesharing is ~20%."
Hmm, that seems higher than I expected. I wonder how many of those are lost sales since it is a higher profile game?Skeksis said:Not entirely what you asked for, but tangentially related: didn't Sidhe's Mario (or maybe it was Dylan from PixelJunk?) post an estimation on the breadth of game sharing based on leaderboard scores vs actual sales?
Edit: Yes he did: "If you want an "actual" number based on data across multiple games, the number of users for any given game who obtained that game via gamesharing is ~20%."
It's across multiple games, so it's probably a number Sony came up with.Hazaro said:Hmm, that seems higher than I expected. I wonder how many of those are lost sales since it is a higher profile game?
I'm more interested in some of the smaller titles that people may not have bought at all at a $5/$10 price point since entry cost would be lowered to $1/$2. Maybe I'm naive about it and people only want to buy the good games at less cost.
shagg_187 said:I own 3 PS3s. Sony, I am not amused.
I fucking hate this nonsensical bullshit. Same stuff pirates use to justify their "theft".Gvaz said:Most of the people doing the gamesharing would never have bought half these games in the first place, so I can't see this helping them.
But what about the other half?Gvaz said:Most of the people doing the gamesharing would never have bought half these games in the first place, so I can't see this helping them.
Yep. Now I'm questioning resubscribing to PSN+.Coxy said:what a fucking shitty move, I have 3 ps3s so this is going to seriously put me off buying anything from PSN in future
something tells me a move this ill concieved could only have come about under pressure from someone like capcom
Uh, you're getting a game where the cost of the game was prohibitive to that person, and they have a chance to get the game for cheaper they otherwise would not have bothered with. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Now it's limited to two consoles total.MrPliskin said:I fucking hate this nonsensical bullshit. Same stuff pirates use to justify their "theft".
finallySony will be opening a PlayStation Network account management website, and you'll now be able to handle your rights there.
jkoch said:Entitled game sharers? It was advertised as a feature since the beginning and Sony confirmed that it was working as intended when they were pressed on it.
The PS3's ToS did a pretty good job of validating that too, in my opinionjstevenson said:Fairly that the PSN Store DRM (5 copies to YOUR activated PS3s) was never supposed to be marketed as "Game sharing" - something this news would only seem to validate
I'm making a popular generalization that because you could share your games this way, people had more of an incentive to go through with this model. Now they can't do this, and as such are less likely to buy the game like normal.sublimit said:But what about the other half?
jstevenson said:Fairly that the PSN Store DRM (5 copies to YOUR activated PS3s) was never supposed to be marketed as "Game sharing" - something this news would only seem to validate
duckroll said:I agree that 3 would be a better buffer. I don't even think reducing it is a good idea for consumers (obviously there are reasons why they're doing it which will benefit them, and decrease the rampant level of gamesharing taking place), but what I'm really happy about is that they're finally crawling out of the dark ages and allowing activations to be managed online.
jstevenson said:Fairly that the PSN Store DRM (5 copies to YOUR activated PS3s) was never supposed to be marketed as "Game sharing" - something this news would only seem to validate
lupinko said:Yep, this is no different than Apple's iTunes account 5 limit Activations as well.
Gamers just got greedy. lol
OldJadedGamer said:It isn't personal units Jack Tretton said 4 other friends. Here is his full quote:
"You can send that content to four other friends for that initial investment, We want to get the game in as many hands as possible. Its not about generating profits at each and every interaction with the consumer, I think that really offsets the argument that says, Wow, thats a really pricey system.