Sony to sell software "license" only, no pre-owned games

[RobertR1]

In japan, sale of used games is illegal, so this can be taken WAY outside of its meaning totally, as in sony removing the japanese blackmarked sale from sale in stores who operate half illegal (as in, its illegal, but noone care).

An other possibility is the games is connected to an user account, sony got pattents who could make shure an disc would be unsellable as 2. hand used if it needed online autenthication, and the disc would be non-readable witout proper autorisation.

Forcing games to be authenticated online only would be a bad idea. It'll piss of a lot of consumers. Just as not everyone is on xbox live, they might not like the need to be forced online with their PS3.

 

[Kryton]

Didn't Epic have a fit over this issue a year ago? The argument is almost the same as net-neutrality 'we provide a service [generating new games] then someone builds one on top [trading in old ones] and makes money [by selling old games at a higher price than they are bought]: we want some'. Isn't an almost pure monopoly enough for them!

 

[Titanio]

I do not think the story suggests such a system would be used. I'm getting much more of a "licensed to play" vibe in the same way I'm licensed to use office etc. Not a physical license, but simply an agreement that in and of itself would be enough to take used game sales out of stores.

we want some'. Isn't an almost pure monopoly enough for them!

Yes, the gamestores really ought to benefit and the developer and publisher - those who actually created the game - not at all. Used games are a complete "monopoly" if you wish - for the retailer, that is - in that they profit from such sales and the developer doesn't see a penny. I've some sympathy for the used-game-buying consumer, but absolutely none for the retailer in such an instance. With new game sales, everyone gets a slice, with used game sales it's virtually pure profit only for the retailer.

 

[Tap In]

...

Yes, the gamestores really ought to benefit and the developer and publisher - those who actually created the game - not at all. Used games are a complete "monopoly" if you wish - for the retailer, that is - in that they profit from such sales and the developer doesn't see a penny. I've some sympathy for the used-game-buying consumer, but absolutely none for the retailer in such an instance. With new game sales, everyone gets a slice, with used game sales it's virtually pure profit only for the retailer.

I LOVE that I can trade in 2 (or 3) old used games and get a new game.


I can see why though a Publisher would be pissed that a game that sold 800,000 copies also had 250,000 users play their game without them getting a penny.

How about this, Sony puts a system such as this in place (or one like it) simply to force Gamestop-like stores to pay a licensing fee for every used game sold?

 

[JarrodKing]

Some old info from Sony's PR concerning locking games to individual consoles (seems that won't happen)-

[UPDATE] While US Sony reps think the best way to deal with gossip is silence, Sony Europe spokespersons have apparently decided to put this particular rumor to rest. According to the London Guardian's tech blog, SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian. [Thanks Lefein and stoner02]

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409

Has Sony ever discussed GamesRadar's purported "licensing system" idea elsewhere?

I think it's a crying shame if used sales are outlawed. I think it's a great motivating force for developers to make quality games. All the crap games end up in the EB Games used section and the best games, which contain genuine WORTH and replayability, are bought at the stores new, because you can't find them used.


Edit: Quote from Sony is old not new.

 

[Carl B]

Some new info from Sony's PR, but no discussion of Sony's "licensing system" idea and its prevention of used game sales in stores-

[UPDATE] While US Sony reps think the best way to deal with gossip is silence, Sony Europe spokespersons have apparently decided to put this particular rumor to rest. According to the London Guardian's tech blog, SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian. [Thanks Lefein and stoner02]

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409

Yeah, but that deals with the patent rumor of last year. This is different.

 

[RobertR1]

Some new info from Sony's PR, but no discussion of Sony's "licensing system" idea and its prevention of used game sales in stores-

[UPDATE] While US Sony reps think the best way to deal with gossip is silence, Sony Europe spokespersons have apparently decided to put this particular rumor to rest. According to the London Guardian's tech blog, SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian. [Thanks Lefein and stoner02]

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409

While it takes about no licensing per machine (thank god) it does not address the no resell clause which was initially brought up.

 

[TheChefO]

I do not think the story suggests such a system would be used. I'm getting much more of a "licensed to play" vibe in the same way I'm licensed to use office etc. Not a physical license, but simply an agreement that in and of itself would be enough to take used game sales out of stores.



Yes, the gamestores really ought to benefit and the developer and publisher - those who actually created the game - not at all. Used games are a complete "monopoly" if you wish - for the retailer, that is - in that they profit from such sales and the developer doesn't see a penny. I've some sympathy for the used-game-buying consumer, but absolutely none for the retailer in such an instance. With new game sales, everyone gets a slice, with used game sales it's virtually pure profit only for the retailer.

True - perhaps a compromise of the retailers get no cut from new game sales - only used
or give publishers a cut of the used sales. Personally If a game is good enough I'll buy new but the vvast majority I buy are used about a year from release.

 

[Naboomagnoli]

Hello, casual lurker here.

Firstly I'm pretty sure that Gamesradar have been wrong on a number of occasions regarding the PS3. I believe they said that the standard PS3 wouldn't support wireless pads at all, and that the hard drive couldn't be upgraded (though I'm not going to go and find links to prove it - hey, what am I going to lose, my reputation? ). My point is that I very strongly doubt how much of Gamesradar should be taken seriously. I don't really intend to cast aspersions but this site was formerly msn.gamesradar.co.uk..


Anyway, let's suppose this was true.

In my opinion I'd only support licensing over pre-ownership if Sony were to do the following:-


- allow the game owner to take their game round to a friend's house and then enter their online user password to temporarily activate their licence on the "foreign" PS3;

- assign special codes for rental copies of games so that Blockbuster etc could operate as per usual.

Then, with regards to trade-ins (which I sincerely doubt due to the popularity of trade-in of games in Japan), I would want Sony to allow you to sell your license back to a games shop.

If not, then I'd definitely want games to become cheaper than they would otherwise be. This technology would impede piracy and stop publishers losing revenue to pre-owned sales, and I'd like to finally see the high prices blamed on such things cut down to something a bit more current-gen at first, but eventually lower than that which we are charged for PS2 games today. It'd be more likely that publishers would want to fill their pockets, but I'd like to think they'd embrace Sony's risky gesture rather than seek to get more profit in the short term and watch Sony suffer.


Of course, i don't believe this story anyway!

 

[Sis]

I LOVE that I can trade in 2 (or 3) old used games and get a new game.


I can see why though a Publisher would be pissed that a game that sold 800,000 copies also had 250,000 users play their game without them getting a penny.

How about this, Sony puts a system such as this in place (or one like it) simply to force Gamestop-like stores to pay a licensing fee for every used game sold?

And this is shortsighted on the publisher's part. A portion of that 800,000 people bought a copy because they knew they could trade it in after they were done playing it. A portion of that 250,000 users bought the consoles knowing they could buy games (at a later date) for cheaper than retail. You cut out those users and it could have an overall negative effect on sales. Instead of selling 800,000 copies, maybe they only sell 720,000...

It's not like the dozens of games I bought used would instantly turn into new purchases. I just would have bought less games.

 

[Sis]

Firstly I'm pretty sure that Gamesradar have been wrong on a number of occasions regarding the PS3. I believe they said that the standard PS3 wouldn't support wireless pads at all, and that the hard drive couldn't be upgraded (though I'm not going to go and find links to prove it - hey, what am I going to lose, my reputation? ). My point is that I very strongly doubt how much of Gamesradar should be taken seriously. I don't really intend to cast aspersions but this site was formerly msn.gamesradar.co.uk..

But if being wrong was an indication of poor journalism and paid bias, tell me one game site that wouldn't fall into that bucket.

Of course, i don't believe this story anyway!

Neither do I.

 

[Titanio]

I LOVE that I can trade in 2 (or 3) old used games and get a new game.

I totally appreciate that, I can see the benefit for those consumers who avail of it, absolutely. But I also quite keenly appreciate the POV of the content creators.

(Also, as a "net seller" so to speak, you might not be so damaging, for want of a better word, since you're buying new games. But some may mostly or only buy used games, and thus benefit from all the content without the developer seeing a cent. The number of sales gained because of net selling are likely highly outweighed by sales lost to net buyers).

How about this, Sony puts a system such as this in place (or one like it) simply to force Gamestop-like stores to pay a licensing fee for every used game sold?

That could certainly be worth consideration, and TBH, if it's got to the point where Sony would be proposing a model as reported, it's possible they suggested this and were rejected. Used games are such a cash cow for retailers, that I'd say they'd defend against any attempts to compromise it, perhaps thinking that Sony or whomever might be bluffing about going one further. But hey, maybe some a compromise could still be reached in the event Sony did go that one step further. But the problem for Sony would be how to track all this..

 

[Tap In]

And this is shortsighted on the publisher's part. A portion of that 800,000 people bought a copy because they knew they could trade it in after they were done playing it. A portion of that 250,000 users bought the consoles knowing they could buy games (at a later date) for cheaper than retail. You cut out those users and it could have an overall negative effect on sales. Instead of selling 800,000 copies, maybe they only sell 720,000...

It's not like the dozens of games I bought used would instantly turn into new purchases. I just would have bought less games.

good points

it goes back to my original thinking about reducing new game fees through this system.

If this system allows them to do that, then perhaps it would still meet those (expense/cost) needs.

Also what about forcing the resellers to pay a licensing fee on used games?

 

[Sis]

Also what about forcing the resellers to pay a licensing fee on used games?

I don't know legally how they could do that, though.

 

[Titanio]

good points

The thing about selling to buy new is that...three or four other people might buy the games you sold instead of buying new. So you bought one new game, but they've lost potentially x new sales in the process. I know we could argue that the people who bought your used games may not have bought them new anyway, but that kind of reasoning sounds a lot like the justification some give to piracy. They might have bought them new, and they'd certainly be more likely to if they couldn't buy them used.

 

[Tap In]

I don't know legally how they could do that, though.

Well, I'm just throwing stuff against the wall here but...


I was thinking, perhaps using the restriction on reselling a game (as discussed above) to make a deal that forces them to either have no used games to sell or to give a piece of the pie to the Pubs. an offer they can't refuse IOW.

 

[Naboomagnoli]

Also what about forcing the resellers to pay a licensing fee on used games?

Why not just allow games shops to have a system whereby they can contact Sony, electronically retrieve the license from your collection of licenses, and then resell the game as your standard pre-owned game? All that'd really mean is that Sony know at all times where these game discs are, so that they can keep track of those which are being legally distributed and those which are not. It'd be a bit of a pain for the games shops but I'm sure they'd adapt.

 

[Titanio]

Why not just allow games shops to have a system whereby they can contact Sony, electronically retrieve the license from your collection of licenses, and then resell the game as your standard pre-owned game?

I don't think the model proposed leverages electronic licenses, just conceptual ones. Sony has said before that they won't lock down games to specific systems using online authorisation etc. etc. but a system as reported wouldn't bother the user at all like this, but would still curb used game sales - by the rather effective power of the law, rather than some digital doo-hickery.

A system whereby the publisher got a slice of used game sales would be desireable, but the problem for sony or the publisher would be tracking such sales. And perhaps even just getting agreement on the part of the retailers in the first place, who may be willing to call Sony's bluff.

 

[Naboomagnoli]

Ah, I see. I had assumed this was electronic, which would have been more effective but would also have been an issue for offline PS3's.

So, just to clarify how I understand things atm: it's the same sort of thing as the EULA's in PC games? So Sony would be wagging their finger and saying "don't trade this or I'll be very cross", and will be able to prosecute against game trading; if you claim ignorance they'll say "ah, but you agreed to our terms and conditions"..

 

[Carl B]

Ah, I see. I had assumed this was electronic, which would have been more effective but would also have been an issue for offline PS3's.

So, just to clarify how I understand things atm: it's the same sort of thing as the EULA's in PC games? So Sony would be wagging their finger and saying "don't trade this or I'll be very cross", and will be able to prosecute against game trading; if you claim ignorance they'll say "ah, but you agreed to our terms and conditions"..

It's not targeted at the individual really though, this is to crack the secondary market 'system' in place by the game retailers.