News and Rumours: PS4

[wco81]

Heard that with the Amazon Kindle, you can check out ebooks from a public library and when the loan period expires, you can turn off the network connectivity and then continue to read the ebook after the loan period has expired?

Maybe this scheme is more about online play, just make it universal that all games will have to activate a code for online play and that code is tied to one account so people who buy the game used will have to purchase a code if they want to play online.

 

[upnorthsox]

One possibility is that you can have an advanced XBL or PS+ account (so XBL+ or PS++) that includes activation for all used games during subscription period. That'd make it easier for the gamer and leave the divying up to the platform holders and Devs.

 

[upnorthsox]

Heard that with the Amazon Kindle, you can check out ebooks from a public library and when the loan period expires, you can turn off the network connectivity and then continue to read the ebook after the loan period has expired?

Maybe this scheme is more about online play, just make it universal that all games will have to activate a code for online play and that code is tied to one account so people who buy the game used will have to purchase a code if they want to play online.

Online play, DLC, and patches. You need to have online access for all 3 anyhow.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It'll probably cost you the same, MS, Sony and publishers just want a cut from used games. So EB, Games, etc would need to price used copy at lower price to attract customers.

They can't price used copy+activation cost higher than new games. Used-games gamers being the cheap-ass as they are would work things out and LOL at EB and the rest. I think retail gameshop will go out of business without second hand. So I;m sure they'll just price things lower to compensate.

Game prices will be higher anyway next gen.

I take issue with the idea that developers are entitled to, or deserving of, a piece of secondary sales. If they can't afford to support their games, at the price they charge for them, that is not my problem. They should price their games appropriately. They should not devalue the product I'm reselling. They are essentially taking the money from me, not from Gamestop or the person I choose to sell to. If this goes through, people won't want to pay the same prices for used games, which means I have to sell it for less. Gamestop will give me less, because they know they want be able to sell it for the same price they used to. An average person will give me less because they know they'll have to activate it when they get home.

Most of the arguments about multiplayer as a service don't make any sense. If I have a game, that's one player to support. If I give it to someone else, they still only have one player to support, not two. Trading hands should not make any difference to the developer. This is just a money grab, plain and simple.

Then you get the "my hard work, I deserve money" argument, and it's bogus. If I buy a book, the author/publisher doesn't get a cut my reselling of that book, and they shouldn't. If I buy a bicycle, same thing. I don't believe games are any different. Don't tell me I don't own the things I bought and paid for.

I do buy direct download titles from Live Arcade, but they are cheap and I wouldn't be able to get much for them if I were able to sell them. I'm not a fan of switching the industry to a direct download system unless I am able to pass my games on to someone else. Either that or they have to massively reduce the price of games, which they won't do.

 

[Scott_Arm]

But that's happening with the publishers anyway, via activation codes. MS and Sony supporting it in the systems is only helping the publishers out with what they want. If MS and Sony don't do anything, used games are still going to get increasingly gimped. And if you give up console gaming, the PCs only going to offer draconian DRM!

It's just the way things will go. Selling a game, you'll get much less than you bought it new for, and buying a used game, you'll need to add $10-15 activation price on the asking price. C'est la vie.

I could just give up gaming period. Not impossible to do. Not particularly happy about the activation codes either, and unfortunately a few of my favourite games use them. It's complete bullshit really.

 

[3dilettante]

Lets suppose linking a game to an online verification server becomes required.
If the companies want to define what we do as buying a license, and our ownership as renting a service, then there should be an SLA with teeth along with some kind of binding sunset provision.

Right now, they expect people to pay money, but make no binding promise for uptime, reliability, or quality of service. They provide no firm window on how long they will offer the service, nor do they make provision for what happens should the service terminate or fail, either in total or for a specific title or subset.


What's it going to be like if there's another outage, a big title comes out and servers get swamped, or they bork a pile of user registrations?
They need to pay their pound flesh, and it can't be in discounts or free downloads.
It'll have to be cash or some real liability, at least in a more just world.
Top it off with the expanded liability or compensation for any physical retail products, should they still be on the shelf when the validation for a title goes off.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I support the model where devs and publishers get a cut from the used games sales. Comparisons to other type of products are invalid. Games are an unique situation. There aren't other products that have the same combination of typically having as short selling window, production costs are as high and revenue streams are as limited in number. Games are risky business even without the risk of losing huge portions of the revenue from people that are enjoying your product. I understand people being upset about this, but idealism and theories wont hold against the practicality of the situation. Manufactures and publishers will take action against other entities selling their creation, because they can and it will benefit them, maybe not as much as they think, but it will benefit them.

 

[3dilettante]

For single player, the publisher has undertaken no further effort or taken on any additional risk for that used sale.
The developer has not done one lick of extra work.
In terms of non-subscription multiplayer, there is no additional work or burden aside from the possible incremental delay in the final trail-off of userbase size.
Unfortunately for them, this sort of phone-home system means they have to keep systems running for the game anyway.

The seller and buyer in return have their transaction dependent on the consent of the publisher/developer, their transaction cost increased in terms of time or money, their transaction tracked, and the publisher/developer reserve the right to fail maintain the system or sabotage said purchase through overt action or neglect at any time without repercussions.

This is not a healthy scenario. In order to manage their risk, they are insisting that consumers undertake more risk, lose ownership and reliability of even single-player functionality, and pay more money with no obligation that their good faith be honored.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I'm personally not fussed about the used games market. Anything that enables devs to get rewarded for all their hard work is to be applauded. Especially if it drives the development cost of games down and, hopefully, the prices too.

Publishers will try to nickel and dime, and generally fuck you over regardless if there's a used games market or not. The used games market is nothing more than a convenient scapegoat which works well as a fallback lie in case of failure since there's no real data to back up any sort of argument.

Sorry, but whenever I hear a developer crying about used games I'll just continue to play the world's smallest violin. I might even call the Whaaaaambulance just in case.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It might be best to move on from the used-game market. There's at least one other thread for that somewhere. How Sony might implement that has some merit. Plus the rest of the rumour, which is very rumourish.

Who here really believes in 2 GBs RAM?

 

[AlNom]

Who here really believes in 2 GBs RAM?

Why would they need an x64 CPU?

 

[dobwal]

If MS and Sony both go this route, having users buying an activation for full use of a used copy, I will have to consider ditching console gaming altogether.

Unless, fully activating a used copy is a responsibility thats accepted by the used game retailers.

Given that every owner will not have an internet connected console, it would be advantageous to have the activation mechanism to be handled by the retailer versus the buyer. Retailers like GameStop might not be too thrilled with sharing profits might benefit because they will offer a more streamlined experience than gamer to gamer sales.

 

[Scott_Arm]

... Who here really believes in 2 GBs RAM?

I hope it's more, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it were true. I know everyone wants 4GB+, but 2GB would still be a huge bump from what we have now, and it would be more than what you'd get in an iPad or other tablet. I guess tablets will hit 2GB in a few years, but it's pretty surprising how far we've gotten on 512MB. I'm hoping for 4 GB, but I'm not exactly willing to put a wager on it.

 

[dlm]

There's another scenario here. I may be Internet connected, but I'm not necessarily Internet connected everywhere I play games.

Not everyone in my family has an Internet connection, but today, nothing prevents me from bringing my PS3 to my brother in law's house and playing some games. If an Internet connection suddenly becomes mandatory, then what?


There's another more niche thing that hits close to home for me. We have a group of people that meet up once a month for a game night. We bring in a bunch of different games and play them on the big projectors in the conference rooms at work. We can't get access to PSN/Live because the corporate firewall locks down those ports.

This means that even if a system like the XBox DRM where you can still play on the originating console existing, everyone that brought a game would also have to bring their own personal system for the game not to be in lockdown mode. Yuck.



This is horribly anti-consumer. Honestly, if this actually goes through, I'd really have to think twice about buying in to the next gen at all.

 

[Cornsnake]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. What they need to focus on for next gen is userfriendliness.

This is what you potentially have to go through if you want to play a new game that you've just bought today. Download new firmware, download preorder bonus / special edition extras, activate online pass, download one or more patches, install game, and then maybe you can actually play the game.

They want to add account locking and some always online scheme to that? That's insane.

They are leaving the door wide open for some to step in who doesn't treat all his customers like potential criminals, and just gives them what they want in a fast easy to use manner. We see a lot of talk of new markets for games being discovered. I wonder if they aren't mearly picking up what consoles have left behind.

 

[SedentaryJourney]

Why would they need an x64 CPU?

Without any details on the specific CPU, it could be x64 Cell for all we know. Point taken though, these specs seem like rather generic extrapolations from current AMD tech based on rumours that Sony and AMD are working on PS4. Codename and art kinda sells it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why would they need an x64 CPU?

Well, duh. 64 bit processors are twice as fast as 32 bit, obviously.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

2nd hand market talk here.

 

[3dilettante]

Why would they need an x64 CPU?

If it's x64, the cheapest option is to just disable 64-bit mode on an otherwise capable chip.
Why pay extra money to physically remove that capability?

 

[patsu]

Lets suppose linking a game to an online verification server becomes required.
If the companies want to define what we do as buying a license, and our ownership as renting a service, then there should be an SLA with teeth along with some kind of binding sunset provision.

Right now, they expect people to pay money, but make no binding promise for uptime, reliability, or quality of service. They provide no firm window on how long they will offer the service, nor do they make provision for what happens should the service terminate or fail, either in total or for a specific title or subset.


What's it going to be like if there's another outage, a big title comes out and servers get swamped, or they bork a pile of user registrations?
They need to pay their pound flesh, and it can't be in discounts or free downloads.
It'll have to be cash or some real liability, at least in a more just world.
Top it off with the expanded liability or compensation for any physical retail products, should they still be on the shelf when the validation for a title goes off.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. What they need to focus on for next gen is userfriendliness.

This is what you potentially have to go through if you want to play a new game that you've just bought today. Download new firmware, download preorder bonus / special edition extras, activate online pass, download one or more patches, install game, and then maybe you can actually play the game.

They want to add account locking and some always online scheme to that? That's insane.

They are leaving the door wide open for some to step in who doesn't treat all his customers like potential criminals, and just gives them what they want in a fast easy to use manner. We see a lot of talk of new markets for games being discovered. I wonder if they aren't mearly picking up what consoles have left behind.

Yeah... fundamentally, I think the consumers should come first. So these 2 posts I think point out the real issues.

Whatever DRM they put in place has to be non-intrusive. Hope the vendors sort their used games problem out with the retailers behind the scene. If it becomes an Ultra-Violet debacle, then good luck to the gaming industry.

Fortunately, I don't see Nintendo in the discussion (yet ?).