PS3 Gamesharing Thread

[chris24680]

I'm not sure if this forum allows these threads. Gamesharing is legal

Usually I go to anouther site, but no one on there wants the stuff i have. Here is the site I usually go to show I wont rip anyone off, I'm Chris24680.

(If a player logs into his PlayStation 3 account on a friend's system, he can download any game he has already purchased. "You can send that content to four other friends for that initial investment," said Tretton. "We want to get the game in as many hands as possible." "It's not about generating profits at each and every interaction with the consumer," he said. "I think that really offsets the argument that says, 'Wow, that's a really pricey system.'"),

but after reading the PS3 forum rules I didn't see an explicit policy.


Here's how to do it.
INSTRUCTIONS/FAQ ON GAME SHARING

For the "sender":

1. Purchase and download a game from the Playstation Store
2. Go to account management for the account and delete the billing information from your personal information if the PS3 saved your credit card info
3. Change your password temporarily for the share
4. Give login info (email address and password) to the receiver
5. When the share is completed, change the password


For the "receiver":

1. In the PS3 XMB menu, add a new user account on your PS3 and sign in to it
2. Select the network on the XMB and create an existing Playstation Network account
3. Use the login information given from the "sender" to create the existing account
4. Login into the account
5. Enter into the Playstation store
6. Click on "Download List" on the upper right near the person's userID and select the game you wish to download and hit download
7. After game is downloaded, notify the "sender" that the download is complete so they can change the password to the account
8. Enjoy!




Q/A:

Q: Should I worry about misuse for my account?
A: If you taken the steps to delete your credit card/billing information and changed your password temporary, it should be safe. If you're paranoid about someone stealing your account, only share with people that you really, really trust

Q: Can't I just make a sub-account and use that to share the games?
A: Not sure if this is allowed, but someone could try and report the results

Q: I just received the game from the sender and the game won't play, help!
A: In order to play the game on your PS3, the game must be activated AND the user account that was used to download the game must stay on your PS3. For example, say you created user account "User1" on your local Playstation 3 and you downloaded a full version of Lemmings. After you download the game, you MUST keep "User1" on your Playstation 3 in order for the game to run on your PS3. If you somehow delete the user account, you must relogin with the sender's account and redownload the game. If the game is still on your HDD, simply redownload then cancel to re-authorize the game.

Q: Do I have to login with the sender's account to play the game?
A: No, it just needs to be authorized on your PS3. You can play the game using your account thereafter. Just do not delete the user account as mentioned above or else the game will be locked out.

Q: I'm trying to download the game from the Playstation store but it is not appearing in the store. Where is it?
A: Games that are purchased disappear from the store. You have to download the game going through the "Download List" screen on the upper right of the Playstation Store.

Q: How many times can I share a game?
A: The store says you can share up to 5 different Playstation 3's.





HERE'S WHAT WE DO

If you wipe your info you should be safe.

i have locoroco cocorecheo, flow, elefunk, pixel junk monsters, all three warhawk expansions, crash team racing for the ps1 and the kratos sackboy costume. Does Anyone have any Guitar Hero World Tour DLC I especially want The Killers track pack But any DLC will do and flower would be good as well. PM me if your interested, but anyone with DLC has to be from england.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, game sharing is legal. I share content with two mates. And yes, if you change your passwords to manage things, it should be safe. Still, I doubt many people would be happy to trade info and content with a complete stranger. If you had been around here posting for a long time, people may have shown more interest.

Anyway, good luck. Although you won't be getting any PM's, because you haven't been around long enough to earn PM priviliges!

 

[ShadowRunner]

It is legal yes, and i do it myself. It doent make it right though, its no better than piracy if you ask me.

 

[Arwin]

I personally don't like gamesharing being used as it is by people right now - I really like the feature as I expect I'll be getting a second PS3 at some point. However, restrictions on gamesharing because of the way it's used now mean that there's a good chance it will become harder in the future for people with multiple PS3s to play there games on more than one machine without restrictions (like 24 hours wait in Warhawk I think).

On the other hand I kind of like the idea that I could go to a friend, logon as myself, and download one of my games and show it there and play it with a friend in coop/competitive as if I'd brought the disc-based copy along.

So it's a bit complicated. In general I think I don't have a problem with gamesharing and that the current restrictions are fairly well balanced out. I guess my biggest worry right now is that some of the fine titles on PSN might lose out on sales and be less likely to go forth and multiply.

 

[ShadowRunner]

I too feel tighter restrictions are likely, and these restrictions could become a pain to normal 'genuine' users as restriction would most likely mean online activation. Its a shame.

It just seems strange to me that some people see it as moraly ok just because it isnt strictly illegal. You are essentially making multiple copies of something and giving out free access to it, which is as good as piracy.

 

[patsu]

It would be balanced by market forces. Most of us don't share games. For those who can't afford to play them, I'd rather they pool $$$ and experience the developers' hardwork.

If it's affecting the developers and Sony too negatively, then I believe they'd speak out and limit it. The onus is on us PS3 owners to reward good developers duely. ^_^

 

[Shifty Geezer]

On the other hand I kind of like the idea that I could go to a friend, logon as myself, and download one of my games and show it there and play it with a friend in coop/competitive as if I'd brought the disc-based copy along.

That's really what it's for. The legal/moral issue is about exploiting a creator's efforts without renumerating them. Now if people never shared books or lent DVDs, I could understand a hard line on that, but we do! People share stuff. A book bought in a store will often be lent to a friend or three if it's considered good. Movies too. And sometimes this loses a sale, and sometimes it creates a new fan who buys their own copy or enthusiastically awaits the next iteration to buy themselves. In this particular case, as long as the developers know the situation and choose to release into it, then the moral aspect is covered.

Also, who decides if a file is locked out of sharing or not? Is that a Sony call? Is it only Sony published titles that are unshareable?

 

[PARANOiA]

I personally don't like gamesharing being used as it is by people right now - I really like the feature as I expect I'll be getting a second PS3 at some point. However, restrictions on gamesharing because of the way it's used now mean that there's a good chance it will become harder in the future for people with multiple PS3s to play there games on more than one machine without restrictions (like 24 hours wait in Warhawk I think).

On the other hand I kind of like the idea that I could go to a friend, logon as myself, and download one of my games and show it there and play it with a friend in coop/competitive as if I'd brought the disc-based copy along.

So it's a bit complicated. In general I think I don't have a problem with gamesharing and that the current restrictions are fairly well balanced out. I guess my biggest worry right now is that some of the fine titles on PSN might lose out on sales and be less likely to go forth and multiply.

I agree with this post. A good concept, but it's going to be the poster-child in future gens as to why MS was right to go stricter when the DD-only PS3 versions sold so poorly in comparison I personally can't wait to happily buy Wipeout and T5DR and not share them with anyone.

 

[ShadowRunner]

That's really what it's for. The legal/moral issue is about exploiting a creator's efforts without renumerating them. Now if people never shared books or lent DVDs, I could understand a hard line on that, but we do! People share stuff. A book bought in a store will often be lent to a friend or three if it's considered good. Movies too. And sometimes this loses a sale, and sometimes it creates a new fan who buys their own copy or enthusiastically awaits the next iteration to buy themselves. In this particular case, as long as the developers know the situation and choose to release into it, then the moral aspect is covered.

Also, who decides if a file is locked out of sharing or not? Is that a Sony call? Is it only Sony published titles that are unshareable?

The difference is that you are not sharing. You are essentially making a copy of the game and giving it away for free. The only way it would be like lending a dvd is if they applied a lock out so that only one person could be using the product at a time, which isnt the case except with warhawk. The issue here is to make this standard all games would need online authentication, which would cause issues.

Abusing the system because it is possible doesnt make it ok, its not fair to say game 'sharing' is moraly ok because a developer realises its possible and decides to release it anyway. The same could be said about devs releasing games on a system that allows piracy, its morally ok to pirate because the devs know the situation??

 

[patsu]

Well... they would need to do a study to see if game sharing encourages consumption. Money saved by sharing PSN games may be re-channeled to renting video and buying full games.

The Playstation Network is a new service. In some cases, the wary consumers may not buy any PSN games in the first place. Encouraging people to browse the PS Store and spend comfortably may be important initially. Moving forward, Sony will have to evolve and optimize their pricing strategy.

Personally, I am more curious to see how their free MMO game plan will turn out.

 

[tha_con]

I don't like Gamesharing, simply because it's an exploitation of DRM, not necessarily a feature.

I do share with a friend, but he purchases games that he enjoys, and everything else is essentially a demo to him (he has a 20GB PS3). He's one of those strange "no demo no buy" folks.

 

[Sander]

NO WAY using another persons login and psw is LEGAL. Stealing is NOT legal.

Game sharing is piracy. it´s exactly like this: order a game midia, copy this midia, and give it to your friend to use (not possible yet on PS3, but you can do that with Wii, PS2 , XBOX, XBOX360, etc).

Hey, I´m not saying you shouldn´t do that... I´m just saying it´s not legal ... I ain´t no saint. I do piracy with PS2, Wii and PSP... but I spend a lot of money with PS3 games... that´s enough money for games.

 

[tha_con]

NO WAY using another persons login and psw is LEGAL. Stealing is NOT legal.

Game sharing is piracy. it´s exactly like this: order a game midia, copy this midia, and give it to your friend to use (not possible yet on PS3, but you can do that with Wii, PS2 , XBOX, XBOX360, etc).

Hey, I´m not saying you shouldn´t do that... I´m just saying it´s not legal ... I ain´t no saint. I do piracy with PS2, Wii and PSP... but I spend a lot of money with PS3 games... that´s enough money for games.

It's legal. What it essentially is, is an exploitation of Sony's DRM.

To be fair, Sony themselves endorsed such behavior prior to the release of the PS3. I still think it's unfair to the developer to do this kind of stuff though. Especially when you do it to the extreme (i.e. sharing out your account to 4 people, etc).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The difference is that you are not sharing. You are essentially making a copy of the game and giving it away for free. The only way it would be like lending a dvd is if they applied a lock out so that only one person could be using the product at a time, which isnt the case except with warhawk.

Hmmm, let's think this one through. The problem with game sharing is that the creator does not get paid for their work, yes? The difference between game sharing and books/DVDs is that with the physical media, only one person at a time can use it right? If I want to read the latest bestseller, I either have to pay for it, or wait to borrow a copy. And we regard that as morally acceptible? So what we're saying is that the creator's rights are upheld if either a person pays them to experience their work, or if there is a delay in the person being able to experience their creation. Does that really sound morally right?! As an artist, if I write a book and loads of people are going to read it without me getting a penny, it really doesn't matter if they're having to wait for it or not! I'm not going to sleep soundly in my cardboard box thinking, "well, they aren't pirate copies. As long as they are all taking turns, all enjoying my work without me getting any money, I'm okay with that."

What we have here is a matter of time, not principle. If in the future we get cybernetic implants that allow us to read a book in 5 seconds, and on the weekends people go down the library and consume hundreds of books, with thousands of people reading the one copy of the latest book in the same day, the effect on the author would be no different to 1000 people now downloading and reading the book in their own time.

If the problem is as raised in my first sentence, using a creator's efforts without renumerating them is morally wrong, then it has to extend to lending content too. I expect the only reason it hasn't is because their was no way to enforce ARM (analogue rights management!) on books! And it's something people have grown up with and accept, both readers and authors. But as you say, and as the media industries prove, DRM is not popular. If the technology appeared that could limit book and DVD experiences to a single user, would humanity embrace it as a moral improvement in the way things are run?

There is a case to be said that all content should be paid for. There is a case that sharing is morally acceptible. IIRC the last time this conversation came up I was arguing from the other viewpoint. If the Devil ever needed legal counsel... But really the moral issues of gaming or content sharing is a topic for the RSPCA forum. For the purpose of this thread, game sharing is legal and Sony and developers who have the choice to prevent game sharing or release their content are accepting to use the service. Capcom aren't abandoning the platform for its rife piracy, for example. We can discuss the economic factors here and how game sharing may impact developers and the service, but the moral debate would have to be moved.

 

[RobertR1]

The difference is that you are not sharing. You are essentially making a copy of the game and giving it away for free. The only way it would be like lending a dvd is if they applied a lock out so that only one person could be using the product at a time, which isnt the case except with warhawk. The issue here is to make this standard all games would need online authentication, which would cause issues.

Abusing the system because it is possible doesnt make it ok, its not fair to say game 'sharing' is moraly ok because a developer realises its possible and decides to release it anyway. The same could be said about devs releasing games on a system that allows piracy, its morally ok to pirate because the devs know the situation??

Didn't you have a modded 360 that got banned off live and were also bragging about early expressions of Gears 2 from a pirated copy? Grew some morals from then till now? Cool!

 

[ShadowRunner]

Didn't you have a modded 360 that got banned off live and were also bragging about early expressions of Gears 2 from a pirated copy? Grew some morals from then till now? Cool!

I already said game sharing doenst bother me and do it my self. My problem is that people believe that its morally ok just because it isnt illegal. If you are going to bassically pirate at least admit it and not pretend its all ok. If you know something is wrong and do it anyway thats up to the individual to decide.

Also, just for the record i never said my copy of gears 2 was pirated and i certainly wasnt bragging about it i was just giving my impressions. Not really relevent in this discussion though is it?

 

[ShadowRunner]

Hmmm, let's think this one through. The problem with game sharing is that the creator does not get paid for their work, yes? The difference between game sharing and books/DVDs is that with the physical media, only one person at a time can use it right? If I want to read the latest bestseller, I either have to pay for it, or wait to borrow a copy. And we regard that as morally acceptible? So what we're saying is that the creator's rights are upheld if either a person pays them to experience their work, or if there is a delay in the person being able to experience their creation. Does that really sound morally right?! As an artist, if I write a book and loads of people are going to read it without me getting a penny, it really doesn't matter if they're having to wait for it or not! I'm not going to sleep soundly in my cardboard box thinking, "well, they aren't pirate copies. As long as they are all taking turns, all enjoying my work without me getting any money, I'm okay with that."

What we have here is a matter of time, not principle. If in the future we get cybernetic implants that allow us to read a book in 5 seconds, and on the weekends people go down the library and consume hundreds of books, with thousands of people reading the one copy of the latest book in the same day, the effect on the author would be no different to 1000 people now downloading and reading the book in their own time.

If the problem is as raised in my first sentence, using a creator's efforts without renumerating them is morally wrong, then it has to extend to lending content too. I expect the only reason it hasn't is because their was no way to enforce ARM (analogue rights management!) on books! And it's something people have grown up with and accept, both readers and authors. But as you say, and as the media industries prove, DRM is not popular. If the technology appeared that could limit book and DVD experiences to a single user, would humanity embrace it as a moral improvement in the way things are run?

There is a case to be said that all content should be paid for. There is a case that sharing is morally acceptible. IIRC the last time this conversation came up I was arguing from the other viewpoint. If the Devil ever needed legal counsel... But really the moral issues of gaming or content sharing is a topic for the RSPCA forum. For the purpose of this thread, game sharing is legal and Sony and developers who have the choice to prevent game sharing or release their content are accepting to use the service. Capcom aren't abandoning the platform for its rife piracy, for example. We can discuss the economic factors here and how game sharing may impact developers and the service, but the moral debate would have to be moved.

The thing is those points also extend to piracy, which is generally thought of as morally wrong. Its interestesting because the distinction is realy whether something is legal or not, thing is law is not so easily changed to accomodate new ideas and technologies game sharing and other loopwholes like it will likely come under piracy laws in the future when the sytem catches up. I agree though there are multiple viewpoints on the whole subject, i too have argued the other side of the coin previously, and the discussion should be moved elsewhere. I also dont think people should be openly game sharing (or trying to) on this forum until the discussion has been had and agreed on, just having this thread opens peoples eyes to the possibility of game sharing and how to do it.

 

[Zend13]

NO WAY using another persons login and psw is LEGAL. Stealing is NOT legal.

Game sharing is piracy. it´s exactly like this: order a game midia, copy this midia, and give it to your friend to use (not possible yet on PS3, but you can do that with Wii, PS2 , XBOX, XBOX360, etc).

Hey, I´m not saying you shouldn´t do that... I´m just saying it´s not legal ... I ain´t no saint. I do piracy with PS2, Wii and PSP... but I spend a lot of money with PS3 games... that´s enough money for games.

Looks like the President of SCEA thinks it's perfectly fine.

"You can send that content to four other friends for that initial investment," said Tretton. "We want to get the game in as many hands as possible."

"It's not about generating profits at each and every interaction with the consumer," he said. "I think that really offsets the argument that says, 'Wow, that's a really pricey system.'"


[MOD NOTE: The above doesn't seem to make sense to me, but I've approved the post none the less.]

 

[ShadowRunner]

If that is in fact the case then it is incredibly stupid in the way they have enabled it.
If they wanted you sharing content to 4 friends why not add the ability to 'gift' people on your friends list content by adding an option into the XMB messaging system, you could then actually advertise the ability as a positive feature for your console!
If they wanted you to do this why on earth would they force you to hand out you account details and make it such a hassle?

 

[patsu]

Gifting is a different mechanism. You can do that via the PSN pre-paid cards.

The main purpose of "game sharing" is probably to serve multi-console owners. Account sharing is not a problem here.

However, it helps to curb unrestricted use of game sharing. If game sharing is an official and easy to use process with no strings attached, then everyone will do it. Their revenue will be affected immediately. As it stands, the account sharing requirement helps to "fence" its use such that only the price sensitive folks are more likely to do it. It's a little like coupon cutting and rebates in the real world. You have to take explicit actions to take advantage of them. If they do it right, most folks won't bother and will just pay full price.