Entitlements not like Xbox Achievements?
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
And I believe Ford, GM, Toyota, etc should get a cut of every used car sold, rented, or barrowed.
NOT!
This is a contrast of consumer rights/ownership versus companies rights to milk consumers. If you pay a premium for a game console (like Sony and MS are asking at $400 and up) and a premium for games (most next-gen games have seen a 20% price hike) being limited, and milked, by console makers/publishers, for reselling the game you already payed $60 for...
If people really wanted to support developers they would buy games through services like Steam or XBL.
And based on past threads on these very forums, if most of you were serious about support developers you would stop pirating software and justifying it with lame, stupid, childish, and selfish reasons and pay for the software you use.
If this "service" ever goes through "as is" it mainly helps Sony and Publishers and harms honest consumers (see: DMR). Why should Sony get a cut of the $60 game I already paid for and I am selling to my friend Joe Bob? The simple answer is: Because they can. Doesn't make it right.
DMR is one of the biggest problems with HD DVD and BluRay (i.e. punish honest consumers and do very little to prevent piracy). I hope Sony never touches the idea of "Entitlements" and keeps in mind: There are "budget" gamers out there. So far the only company that seems to understand this is Nintendo.
I wasn't clear in my previous post. The intention is never to infringe on consumer rights (Fair Use). I am more refering to the retailers' used game shelves today. I believe devs and publishers should not be cut out from those sales. I also maintain that these moves should not damage the used game market (e.g., don't raise the used game price too much, if at all).
As for the DRM and piracy issues highlighted in your post, _technically_ the industry should be able to settle the above without touching on them. They are more a matter of business and reseller agreements (but very difficult to execute today).
Old (unused) or Platinum games do get marked down right ? So consumers can still wait to get their good games.
EDIT: I forgot to mention this...
If game sales is anything like video sales, then much of their sales are achieved within 1st 2 weeks of launch. Most games sold much much less than the hit titles. So the risk is very high. It may not be fair to compare them to car sales which has a longer effective shelf-life. This is the main reason why I think devs and publishers should get something for used game sales.
As for the DRM and piracy issues highlighted in your post, _technically_ the industry should be able to settle the above without touching on them. They are more a matter of business and reseller agreements (but very difficult to execute today).
Old (unused) or Platinum games do get marked down right ? So consumers can still wait to get their good games.
EDIT: I forgot to mention this...
If game sales is anything like video sales, then much of their sales are achieved within 1st 2 weeks of launch. Most games sold much much less than the hit titles. So the risk is very high. It may not be fair to compare them to car sales which has a longer effective shelf-life. This is the main reason why I think devs and publishers should get something for used game sales.
Last edited by a moderator:
Whilst it is a fair point, the scale of purchase in that instance is quite a bit different. You're probably going to see a wider debate about content ownership and distribution among more comparable types of media.
You'll probably be able to do so soon i.e. buy all your games via services like that. And I have absolutely no problem with that. But for others, they may find the even more restrictive rights associated with those services problematic.
Hmmm
If you BUY something, anything, you own it. You being the sole owner are legally entitled to all moneys earned from it's resale. That applies to ANY product that can be bought outright.
IF this whole rumor turns out to be true then technically you would never own the software, which means companies like Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, EB, Gamestop, and a plethora of online movie and game rental businesses would have absoluty no reason at all to carry PS3 products since they couldn't rent and resell the games without giving up part or all of their profits. Furthermore it would be a major pain in the butt for PS3 owners to have to go through this process every time they want to rent or borrow a game.
Would I have a problem with not being able to trade games with my brother for a week without having to give good old Sony a kickback?
You betcha.
In terms of renting, one has to assume how an implementation would work in order to see difficulty - one could also make assumptions about the implementation that would make it a null point as far as renting is concerned (for example, Sony could sell rent-only discs to the likes of Blockbuster that bypassed the whole system).
Again, one has to assume how it would work. There's nothing in the patent to suggest that with such a system you could not transfer rights, charging the other user a sum total of $0, for example. We don't know, this is only a patent.
But my wider point that you're replying to there, is that in the long run, all games distribution is likely heading in a direction that will be much more restrictive of how you can use your games. Look at your rights with XBLA, for example, and consider if the same applied to all games you purchase - because one day, for better or worse, it probably will.
(I was saying that I, personally, don't have so much of a problem with digital distribution and systems like steam etc. Which isn't to say others would not).
But that would defeat the purpose of the whole system. (Selling bypass versions to rental companies) Once these companies can no longer make money by renting the game they sell them to the public. And if Sony is going to allow some game disks that bypass the system to be sold to the general public, why implement the system at all?
Even if it doesn't cost money it's an unnecessary hassle that no other system imposes on the consumer. I don't want to have to go through a 5 minute online verification process before I can play a game every time I put a new game in the drive. The whole point of owning a console is so you can just pop a disk in and play.
The big difference here is that XBLA games are distributed via download and you don't have a physical copy of the disk. That makes renting, trading, or reselling near impossible regardless of your rights.
It doesn't bypass the purpose of the whole system, since the purpose as presented is to incentivise sharing of games (in a manner which benefits Sony too). They could simply set up an agreement with these renting companies that they cannot sell these discs (but even if they did, such discs would be in a tiny minority).
According to the patent it would happen once, and I doubt it would take 5 minutes. The whole thing could even be transparent to the end user..the process described when a new game is placed in a machine wouldn't require user intervention, so it could happen invisibly in the background. It would only require intervention when you put a game in the system that has already been used on another system.
Technically it doesn't. Or shouldn't - it would only be impossible if the platform holder made it so. Why can't I transfer something to a removeable media and transfer it to another HDD to give or sell to my friend? There always is or technically could be a way to move data around. But anyway, my point is simply that this is likely how we're headed ultimately for all games.
To update, the author of the original article has posted on neoGAF re. what he has heard will actually happen on PS3. Still take it as a rumour, but apparently the implementation itself will be as follows - Sony will incentivise the purchase of new games versus used, by making online gaming with a new copy of a game free of charge. Otherwise, if a game has already been played online with another user's account i.e. if it is second hand, it will tell you the game is already registered for online with another profile, and ask you for a once-off fee to play it online. It's a way for Sony to discourage used game sales by effectively making it that bit more expensive for those who want to play online, and it provides a revenue stream for their online service (and a way for publishers to see some money from a used game sale, at least if the second owner wants to play online).
Last edited by a moderator:
Being so damn late, I am rightly confused by the whole process, and in my paranoid fear hope that the only thing to make it out of the starting blocks is the "install and play off your hard drive" part.
This looks like what's known as DNAS (dynamic network authentication system) for PS2. All PS2, PS2 discs, memory cards, etc have their own ID. The original patent application in 2001
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...ation&RS=TTL/Incentive+AND+TTL/Identification
seems not so different from the newer ones (I'm lazy, can someone diff them). SOCOM, FF11 etc. use it AFAIK.
Probably they will use it on PS3 as well now that BD-ROM is more difficult to copy than DVD and all PS3 are network-aware and have HDD.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...ation&RS=TTL/Incentive+AND+TTL/Identification
seems not so different from the newer ones (I'm lazy, can someone diff them). SOCOM, FF11 etc. use it AFAIK.
Probably they will use it on PS3 as well now that BD-ROM is more difficult to copy than DVD and all PS3 are network-aware and have HDD.
As the incentive point thing was not exposed to PS2 users, it may surface in PS3. DNAS was one of the components for SCEI's e-distribution scheme back in 2001-2002
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/020213ae.pdf
but it failed due to low adoption of network adaptor and other reasons. Basically it was too early. If it had been successful you might have seen incentive point system for PS2.
With e-distribution back on track for PS3 ( http://us.playstation.com/beyond/default.htm ) and with BD-ROM as a format with unique ID embedded in a safer place, what was planned but not possible for PS2 can be realized on PS3.
Last edited by a moderator:
Panajev2001a
Veteran
gofreak said:
The patent itself said that it takes advantage of previous work, no mystery:
It is not like you needed to do that much digging
.I do not think it is simply DNAS++, but surely their experience with that platform did help.
You do not think you can fully develop and release a relatively complex system such as this one in 1-2 years
?Sometimes you do test bits and pieces before delivering your full technological solution IMHO.
It is also true that before PLAYSTATION 3 they could not offer a widespread (enabled on all consoles) and well defined centralized Network infrastructure. They are making a big deal of the PlayStation Network and how PLAYSTATION 3 and PSP will be the first devices taking advantages of it when it comes online.
gofreak said:
Well, the patent being filed mid 2001 is not something I'd see realized with only PlayStation 2 in mind: some could say that it was a patent that followed PlayStation 2 and we have previously seen patents being filed after a product was released, but I think ti would be an oversimplification.
DNAS and the online initiative on PlayStation 2 was IMHO just a taste of what they had in mind, like XBLA was for Xbox 1 in a way, and we also have to remember that in Japan only they were able to create a semi-decent BroadBand delivery/e-distribution method.
FFXI surely uses this. An example ? I had to change PS2's as my old one broke down. When I changed it and installed the old HDD on the new one FFXI asked me to re-install the game from scratch (format and install again) so it was quite clear that it knew that the console was not the same one.