PS3 Gamesharing Thread

[Shifty Geezer]

One could argue that you'd only hand out account details to real friends, whereas a link in a PM could be sent to any old Joe. If it wasn't possible to change passwords, would content sharing with strangers happen, or would it be confined to people you trust? So perhaps they aren't making it difficult enough to ensure the sharing isn't further than friends sharing their gaming experiences on PS3?

Edit : In response to Patsu, it's not just price sensitivity, which on £5 games isn't a huge issue, but also a general broadening of tastes. I have shared my purchase of flOw with friends who wouldn't have bought the game but have enjoyed it a bit. It's an experience they'd never be willing to pay for which they'll only experience as a freebie, but which doesn't impact sales of the game because they wouldn't have bought it anyway. This ties in with what some developers have said against DRM - those who pirate a game would never have bought it anyway so you're not losing a sale. Now I don't think that's accurate, but the theory carries some water, and one cannot equate a PSN game shared to being a sale lost.

 

[tha_con]

I think some things need to be made clear.

There is no "game sharing system". None at all.

What there is, however, is a system for DRM that allows one user to download his content on up to 5 different machines. So, if you do have a run of back luck, and happen to go through 5 PS3s (or perhaps are wealthy and own 5) you can use that content on all of those systems.

When you give your PSN email and password out to individuals over the internet, you effectively reduce the number of activations by one with each "shared" account.

Now, you try telling someone who now has access to all of your content to deactivate that system because your PS3 broke, and they have to lose all of that content they once had open access to, for free. More than likely, you'll never get a response, and you'll be screwed.

Be smart folks, know what the system is, don't take it at face value.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What there is, however, is a system for DRM that allows one user to download his content on up to 5 different machines. So, if you do have a run of back luck, and happen to go through 5 PS3s (or perhaps are wealthy and own 5) you can use that content on all of those systems.

If you deactivate all those PS3's, you can install on any number of subsequent PS3's. If that was the only reason for 5 downloads, they could have just had one download and as long as you deactivate your broken PS3, it's not a bother. The reason for the 5 system is sharing across multiple units, either at home or around a friend's. If I buy Flower and download to the PS3 downstairs, and then want to play it on the PS3 in the bedroom, I can copy across the content I have bought. If I buy PJ Monsters and want to play coop with my mate round his house on his PS3, that's made possible by me being able to download the content I bought onto his PS3, onto my account on his PS3. And of course, I'm not going to put my account on his PS3 without some level of trust between us.

It is definitely game sharing, by design.

 

[tha_con]

If you deactivate all those PS3's, you can install on any number of subsequent PS3's. If that was the only reason for 5 downloads, they could have just had one download and as long as you deactivate your broken PS3, it's not a bother. The reason for the 5 system is sharing across multiple units, either at home or around a friend's. If I buy Flower and download to the PS3 downstairs, and then want to play it on the PS3 in the bedroom, I can copy across the content I have bought. If I buy PJ Monsters and want to play coop with my mate round his house on his PS3, that's made possible by me being able to download the content I bought onto his PS3, onto my account on his PS3. And of course, I'm not going to put my account on his PS3 without some level of trust between us.

It is definitely game sharing, by design.

False, it is not game sharing by design. 100% inaccurate. It is DRM.

You can read the Terms of Use, etc, all of this is explained in great detail.


"Game Sharing" was an idea of Jack Trettons (well, made famous by him at least) to attempt to "inject value" into the PS3's price.

If you tell people "hey, you're buying this $600 console, and games on PSN, but you can share them with your friends" they will think *that* is a "feature". Unfortunately, the reality is, you're losing out on your activations.

Fact: Sony will not always reset your activation count. They MIGHT, but not always. I got burned through "gamesharing" before. I shared with TWO people, and went through 3 PS3's. I was extremely close to losing all of my content. I had to beg and convince customer support to reset my activations. I then had to immediately change my password, because the individuals I shared to would not return my messages to deactivate the content.

I'm not telling you this "just because". I know from experience, I did the research. This is DRM, game sharing is simply a buy product of their DRM system.

So, as I said before, be cautious, you could screw yourself in the end. Especially when you're game sharing over the internet.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

False, it is not game sharing by design. 100% inaccurate. It is DRM.

You're arguing definitions here. "Game sharing" means "sharing your game with other PS3's", at least by the symantics of the phrase.

Fact: Sony will not always reset your activation count. They MIGHT, but not always. I got burned through "gamesharing" before. I shared with TWO people, and went through 3 PS3's. I was extremely close to losing all of my content.

If you deactivated those PS3's before replacing them, you wouldn't have lost anything. Sony don't publicise this, and as a result I've lost one activiation of my content because my old PS3 was returned before I found where to deactivate the unit, but the 5 console limit isn't a limit on how many replacement PS3's you can work through.

So, as I said before, be cautious, you could screw yourself in the end. Especially when you're game sharing over the internet.

That's not a risk of the system, but life in general. Be cautious who you lend money to, and who you leave in your house when you're not there, are equally valid maxims. There's nothing within the concept of 'game sharing' that means it's safe or sensible to share with anyone off the streets, and the fact you can share with bad people doesn't prove game sharing was never intended. It's sensible to allow an owner of PSN content to use their content on a friend's PS3, the ability to deactivae/unregister a PS3 goes against the idea of a PS3 cap on how many boxes you can work through, and Tretton said that's what they were wanting to do, all of which points clearly to game sharing being an intended feature of the PSN network.

 

[tha_con]

You're arguing definitions here. "Game sharing" means "sharing your game with other PS3's", at least by the symantics of the phrase.

If you deactivated those PS3's before replacing them, you wouldn't have lost anything. Sony don't publicise this, and as a result I've lost one activiation of my content because my old PS3 was returned before I found where to deactivate the unit, but the 5 console limit isn't a limit on how many replacement PS3's you can work through.

That's not a risk of the system, but life in general. Be cautious who you lend money to, and who you leave in your house when you're not there, are equally valid maxims. There's nothing within the concept of 'game sharing' that means it's safe or sensible to share with anyone off the streets, and the fact you can share with bad people doesn't prove game sharing was never intended. It's sensible to allow an owner of PSN content to use their content on a friend's PS3, the ability to deactivae/unregister a PS3 goes against the idea of a PS3 cap on how many boxes you can work through, and Tretton said that's what they were wanting to do, all of which points clearly to game sharing being an intended feature of the PSN network.

lol, this is stupid. We can argue all day, you're clearly not going to change your mind, and I sure as hell am not changing mine. I stick to the fact that it is simply a buy product of DRM.

Its possible, but that does not imply that a bunch of joes around a desk were talking about game sharing. They clearly had an idea and system for DRM in case a users system dies. In fact, it's modeled directly after iTunes system.

Also, it's a bit difficult to deactivate a system that will not turn on, or has a damaged GPU and will not display any video, as was the case with defective systems.

 

[ShadowRunner]

I dont think it is just because of consoles dying that they have the multiple activations.

Its quite obvious they want you to be able access your own content on multiple consoles. The debatable part is whether they want other peopl to be able to access your content.

I think the fact there is no system in place to share with other people speaks volumes about what there intentions were with the DRM. The abiliy to share with other people is just a byproduct of allowing you to access your own content on multiple PS3s.

 

[Arwin]

Maybe, but you have to realise that the system (for most games, not all!) allows for enabling the software simultaneously on five different and at any time completely interchangeable systems. Very notable is that there are a few games that make an exception and which only allow you for instance to play the game on only one physical machine, locking your account out of the game for 24 hours if you install the game on a different machine before you can play it again.

 

[tha_con]

Maybe, but you have to realise that the system (for most games, not all!) allows for enabling the software simultaneously on five different and at any time completely interchangeable systems. Very notable is that there are a few games that make an exception and which only allow you for instance to play the game on only one physical machine, locking your account out of the game for 24 hours if you install the game on a different machine before you can play it again.

Right, but systems that are nearly identicle for other software delivery services (like iTunes) are also capable of this (using the same media on 5 systems).

That is also a byproduct of the DRM, it is not "music sharing".

I'm not saying it's illegal, I just think people should be aware of what it is they are actually doing and getting involved in, as the risk becomes far greater when you start to get into the realm of many many games.

Personally, I have hundreds of dollars invested into the PSN, and I only share with two people, my brother, and a very close friend. Still, that's already 3 activations that I have used, and should my PS3 "die" I may not be able to deactivate it.

 

[vazel]

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??

Agreed this isn't like lending a DVD. This is more like pirating since the person gets to keep the copy on his PS3. I was expecting this thread to be closed but I see a mod is justifying this so I guess it's now A-OK on B3D.

btw an Insomniac developer looked unfavorably on game sharing in the Ratchet & Clank PSN game thread at NeoGAF. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[goonergaz]

It's interesting isn't it.

A way of looking at it is that I have a budget - so does one of my friends. That budget is £10pm on DLC. Last month we both bought R&C:Booty. Insomniac are happy but no other devs. However with game sharing I could buy R&C and my friend could buy Flower and Noby Noby - we share with each other so we get £20 of DLC for £10, and more devs win (tho of course Insomiac in this example) take a bit of a hit.

But another example would be that I and a friend might not have bought R&C @ £10 - we're tight - or skint - or don't think it's worth it - whatever - BUT if my friend bought it and I gave him £5 towards it then what was a 'no sale' becomes 1 sale.

I think both examples show how this system could help stimulate sales.

 

[PARANOiA]

It's interesting isn't it.

A way of looking at it is that I have a budget - so does one of my friends. That budget is £10pm on DLC. Last month we both bought R&C:Booty. Insomniac are happy but no other devs. However with game sharing I could buy R&C and my friend could buy Flower and Noby Noby - we share with each other so we get £20 of DLC for £10, and more devs win (tho of course Insomiac in this example) take a bit of a hit.

But another example would be that I and a friend might not have bought R&C @ £10 - we're tight - or skint - or don't think it's worth it - whatever - BUT if my friend bought it and I gave him £5 towards it then what was a 'no sale' becomes 1 sale.

I think both examples show how this system could help stimulate sales.

Would you argue the same case if your friend modded his 360 firmware so you could both help stimulate the sales of Halo Wars by burning him a copy?

 

[goonergaz]

Whilst I can see what you're saying, the fact remains that this isn't endorsed.

If Sony wanted to add a similar restriction on DLC (i.e. only purchaser may use) it could be implemented, but it's not, and as stated elsewhere game sharing has been openly encouraged by Sony (unless my memory fails me - which wouldn't be the first time!).

Can I ask you a question. Do you think the 2nd hand market is good or bad for the industry? Because (like this) I feel it's a tough one and there's pros and cons (I just listed the pros as most seem to hit on the cons).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Would you argue the same case if your friend modded his 360 firmware so you could both help stimulate the sales of Halo Wars by burning him a copy?

That would be a violation of copyright laws, as the disc games are not licensed to be copied by owners. PSN games are licensed to be deployed on up to five PS3's. If the back of the XB360 game box said 'You are allowed to burn and distribute up to 4 copies of this disk' then it'd be an equivalent situation.

 

[tha_con]

That would be a violation of copyright laws, as the disc games are not licensed to be copied by owners. PSN games are licensed to be deployed on up to five PS3's. If the back of the XB360 game box said 'You are allowed to burn and distribute up to 4 copies of this disk' then it'd be an equivalent situation.

Not necessarily.

If you burn 4 copies of the disc, then they are no longer tied to you after distribution.

When you "share" an account (and subsequently, a game) on 4 accounts, those games are still specifically tied to your account. Even if you keep the system activated, deleting the account that is tied to the content will disable all of that content on that system. This further illustrates that it is a system of DRM, and not a system for "sharing".

"Sharing" is simply something that Sony decided to spin out of their DRM system in order to "add value" to their rather expensive system at launch.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

When you "share" an account (and subsequently, a game) on 4 accounts, those games are still specifically tied to your account. Even if you keep the system activated, deleting the account that is tied to the content will disable all of that content on that system. This further illustrates that it is a system of DRM, and not a system for "sharing".

"Sharing" is simply something that Sony decided to spin out of their DRM system in order to "add value" to their rather expensive system at launch.

Again, you're reading completely different semantics to me. Why can't DRM be sharing? Digital Rights Management. Rights. The right to buy, copy, lend, borrow, sell content. If someone buys a game and is bestowed the right to copy that game to another PS3, it is DRM. They are also sharing the game. So it's game sharing. I'm not sure what definition of game sharing you're using, but in my mind, the fact someone can share my copy (held on my account, analgous to being my physical copy of the DVD) makes the DRM of PSN content 'game sharing'.

Edit : Putting it another way, how could you have a game sharing system without any form of DRM?

 

[tha_con]

You're not "game sharing" though. You're account sharing. Because the games are tied to your account. It's not just one game, it's the entire account and all content tied to it.

What I'm trying to get across is that it is not a game by game basis, nor was the system intended for you to "share" content among friends.

It is meant so that you can activate your account on multiple systems, be they in your house, or replacements.

I guess we could go back and forth all day long, but it would be best if we just left it alone. I feel that "sharing" is just a way to exploit the DRM, and it is condoned by Sony. There's really nothing more to it. The fact that you have to activate your account on another system to use the content pretty much illustrates that it's not a system built for "sharing" rather, a system built for you to use your content on systems other than the one you initially purchased it on.

If it really were sharing, IMO, then Sony would have allowed you to gift the game out to 4 friends, similar to the way that you can gift points over XBLA and Wii. The fact that it's not convenient or easy should be a giveaway that sharing was never the intent of the system, just a byproduct of how it works.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It is meant so that you can activate your account on multiple systems, be they in your house, or replacements.

But other PS3's don't have to use your account to play. They use their account, and not log in as you. Thus the purpose of having your account is only to verify the PS3 as a legitimate user of your purchases. Once downloaded, other accounts are free to access to. This means no-one but you needs your account details as long as you have access to the PS3 to download content.

If it really were sharing, IMO, then Sony would have allowed you to gift the game out to 4 friends, similar to the way that you can gift points over XBLA and Wii. The fact that it's not convenient or easy should be a giveaway that sharing was never the intent of the system, just a byproduct of how it works.

This could well be a cyclical argument so we ought to put an end to it so as not to bore people, but I have one last question regards your defintion - What do you call me going round a friends house for us to both play coop PJM on his PS3 that I bought, if not 'game sharing'? I am sharing my game with him. Likewise we all share another mate's FIFA. 'Share' is a fairly broad word and nothing in the definition seems to exclude calling PS3's DRM system 'game sharing' in what it enables purchasers of content to do. One could argue that your idea would be better called 'game gifting' as it's more open to other people without the first buyer being involved. Seems nothing more than arguing semantics over the word 'share'.

 

[PARANOiA]

That would be a violation of copyright laws, as the disc games are not licensed to be copied by owners. PSN games are licensed to be deployed on up to five PS3's. If the back of the XB360 game box said 'You are allowed to burn and distribute up to 4 copies of this disk' then it'd be an equivalent situation.

I'm not saying my scenario is legal - I'm simply point out that saying the PSN scenario is good because it boosts sales doesn't really float when very real comparisons (like if you could theoretically do the same thing by giving four friends a copy of Killzone 2 or Halo Wars).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not saying my scenario is legal - I'm simply point out that saying the PSN scenario is good because it boosts sales doesn't really float when very real comparisons.

There are arguments for and against that though. The music industry has found cases of sales improving due to people illegally sharing music files. Then of course there are products where sales have taken a dive due to people pirating. Because none of this is readily predictable, there's no clear direction, and different companies are balancing differently. MS allows no DRM sharing. Sony allow a little freedom. Both have plusses and minuses. Developers are free to support whichever platforms they think are financially viable. It's a real shame we don't get any DLC figures! Comparing the markets for cross-platform content might be a real eye-opener. Still, I trust companies like Capcom have enough info to know if releasing a title on PSN is going to have far fewer sales than on XBL Arcade and when they still support PSN and aren't making public complaints, that in itself is enough to convince me that the system as-is works well enough.