Used-game restrictions next-gen *spawn

[DoctorFouad]

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1302046/nextgen_playstation_4_orbis_source_is_a_monkey_pachter.html

Reports of anti-pre-owned technology in the next PlayStation are wide of the mark says Michael Pachter.

"Both the PlayStation 4 - rumoured to be codenamed 'Orbis' at Sony - and the next Xbox are highly unlikely to feature anti-pre-owned technology according to Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter.

"The anti-piracy rumors started in 2005, when Ken Kutaragi patented a technology for it prior to the PS3 launch," Pachter told NowGamer, adding that the 'Orbis' rumour's "reliable source is a monkey".

Sony considered, but ultimately decided against including such technology in PS3 he explained. "Today’s rumor is just a re-hash of that old rumor and the recent one about the Xbox 720," he said in a statement sent to NowGamer and gi.biz.

Anti-pre-owned consoles would lead to a "consumer backlash" if a platform holder incorporated it alone. "If they all do it, they are susceptible to a collusion charge, and if one does it and the others don’t, the one who does it will see a loss of market share," Pachter explained.

But how important is it to Microsoft and Sony to lock out pre-ownd software? Not very, added the analyst, with Sony and Microsoft software sales amounting to "less than 10 per cent of sales on their respective consoles."

"It isn’t really in Sony’s or Microsoft’s best interests to block used games," Pachter added, reasoning that traded games also fund new game purchases.

While publishers would benefit, retailers would suffer and could refuse to stock any new hardware with the feature.

"If Sony unilaterally did this, I could see GameStop refusing to carry their console, and sales of the PS4 would thereby suffer," concluded Pachter. "On balance, it’s a dumb idea, making it a dumb rumor. Of course, you never know.""

 

[babybumb]

It wont be total used games block. It will just be the next step from Online passess. More automated and sophisticated system

Publishers just want a cut from the billion Gamestop makes from these. I´m very sure it´s there and every publisher can implement it the way they want

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is a thread for discussing whether or not it's going to happen, and how it'll get implemented, and how it could affect the business of gaming. The ethics of the discussion, and how capitalist/socialist either side of the argument is, is here.

 

[manux]

Blocking/Reactivating used games could also be optional allowing publisher to decide per title basis. This would make more sense than having binary it's either on all titles or none of them.

 

[patsu]

The real breakthrough is here.

"The anti-piracy rumors started in 2005, when Ken Kutaragi patented a technology for it prior to the PS3 launch," Pachter told NowGamer, adding that the 'Orbis' rumour's "reliable source is a monkey".

Has a Planet of the Apes ring to it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Pachter's about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball. I think it's not something I can rule out, given how publishers have been complaining about used software sales for years now. But I also think they're not thinking about this very carefully. When you force the resale value of a product to $0, you are going to lose customers unless you drop the price. Not all the customers, and there's no simple, mathematical formula to determine how many, but in any market, there are marginal customers who you will lose by either raising the price or devaluing the product.

But I also think Pachter has a point--Gamestop has as much reason to promote the PS4 as described as it did to promote the PSPGo, i.e., absolutely none. Sony would turn Gamestop into The Official Xbox Store.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

When you force the resale value of a product to $0.

That's an exaggeration. A $10 activation fee knocks $10 off the resale value. That's all, and it can be tuned. If they find that overall takings are down, they could always reduce the activation fee, or even set it to zero.

 

[fearsomepirate]

That's an exaggeration. A $10 activation fee knocks $10 off the resale value.

No, it doesn't, because the resale value depends on consumer demand. A $10 activation fee basically changes a used game into a demo disc. If a particular customer would buy a used game for $45, there's no guarantee that you can sell him a demo disc for $35 that he can take home, register online, pay $10 for, and turn into a real game. You've added layers of inconvenience, and more inconvenience means less value. I think that customers are going to see little value in demo discs that have to be taken online in order to turn into full games, so the value of used games will collapse.

I could be wrong.

 

[Prophecy2k]

No, it doesn't, because the resale value depends on consumer demand. A $10 activation fee basically changes a used game into a demo disc. If a particular customer would buy a used game for $45, there's no guarantee that you can sell him a demo disc for $35 that he can take home, register online, pay $10 for, and turn into a real game. You've added layers of inconvenience, and more inconvenience means less value. I think that customers are going to see little value in demo discs that have to be taken online in order to turn into full games, so the value of used games will collapse.

I could be wrong.

It's certainly a possibility, but moreso a worst case scenario.

It's true that there are hundreds, probably thousands of gamers that have been for generations weened on purchasing all their games "for cheaper" in the preowned aisle of of their local gaming store. Many of these gamers won't or don't bother looking online for whatever reason to buy games 1st hand, sometimes at even lower prices, from online retailers, as they have become so used to their purchasing habits that they see no need to change as long as their local game store continues selling games pre-owned. There will most likely be a cross section of these gamers who would continue buying pre-owned purely out of habit, even when struck with an extra $10 activation fee for their games.

The size of the cross-section of these particular consumers will dictate whether it would be beneficial for games retailers to continue selling pre-owned games as is, or whether it would be in their interests to work out some deal with the publishers/platform holders such that the extra fee would be absorbed by the retailer and that cost passed on to the end consumer (or not, as the case may be). In such a case, the pre-owned buyer would not see any activation fee, rather would buy his pre-owned game for slighty more and be given a retailer code to activate it online.

I would predict that such a thing would actually happen, and that the end consumer would in effect see very little change to the purchase price (and possibly sale price) of pre-owned games, as I believe that retailers would rather take the hit to their pre-owned sales margins so as to still be able to undercut 1st hand game prices. I also believe that there exists another slightly less likely, but equally possible scenario, where games retailers would absorb the cost entirely for all but the oldest games, as reducing the amount offered to gamers wanting to sell their new games would dissuade those gamers from selling the games to the retailer, thus reducing the stock of pre-owned games that make up a large portion of the retailer's margins in the first place. No, I predict that the retailers would still offer a reasonable price for the pre-owned games so that they can then sell them on, and that the mere fact that they have an upper price limit on what they would be able to reasonably resell the games for (1st hand game prices) they would not increase the resale cost of pre-owned games proportional to the activation fee required by the platform holder/publisher.

I only see the rumoured activation being an inconvenience only to consumers without access to an internet connection. Everyone else however most likely wouldn't see much change at all, save the publishers/platform holders who would suddenly (for their cunning and brilliant scheme) now be getting a cut of all pre-owned sales revenues.

I think it's a win-win for everyone but those customers without a net connection, and obviously the games retailers (who at least would get to make some money, rather than none at all if the industry were to move to a fully DD model).

 

[HolySmoke]

I think it's a win-win for everyone

It may sound like that on the surface but there will be a huge spanner in the works if you're in an unsupported region. Neither Microsoft, Sony, nor Nintendo currently accept my Icelandic credit card in their stores and Live, for example, is only available in about 30 of the world's countries or so.

It's bad enough being region locked out of all the services that would make a Live subscription worth it but not being able to reactivate used games (or play games borrowed off friends) without jumping through hoops would absolutely kill the platform for me. And it's particularly in these smaller countries that gaming tends to be the most expensive to begin with - new games cost 100$ here for example.

 

[Prophecy2k]

It may sound like that on the surface but there will be a huge spanner in the works if you're in an unsupported region. Neither Microsoft, Sony, nor Nintendo currently accept my Icelandic credit card in their stores and Live, for example, is only available in about 30 of the world's countries or so.

It's bad enough being region locked out of all the services that would make a Live subscription worth it but not being able to reactivate used games (or play games borrowed off friends) without jumping through hoops would absolutely kill the platform for me. And it's particularly in these smaller countries that gaming tends to be the most expensive to begin with - new games cost 100$ here for example.

The problem is, and i intend not to belittle your nation in anyway, the smaller countries make up such a small part of MS & Sony's overall revenues that they may deem it a necessary evil to take such a hit in countries like yours, especially if due to the considerable premium on new games there the majority of gamers in countries like yours buy their games pre-owned (thus contributing very little to MS, Sony and pub partners in the first place).

Of course it's then not a win for you guys, as you'd have to buy all your games first hand. However, the continued existence of the pre-owned market would necessitate that all first hand games do eventually come down in price (as they currently do anyway), so in effect all you'd have to change is your buying habits. Simply put, don't buy games at launch and wait till the first hand games come down in price ;-)

(My Main Point: essentially gamers will still spend relatively the same amount on their gaming habit as they did last gen & this gen).

 

[HolySmoke]

I know what you mean but I don't really agree. These markets may be smaller individually but they are not when you combine them. Both Steam and Impulse serve a much smaller PC market yet still have an Icelandic store, and Apple does the same for iTunes.

The bigger issue, I think, is that the used game market still contributes to the overall gaming economy. That is, most people sell off their old games to buy new ones. Cut that aspect out and people will buy fewer new ones which applies especially to kids and students without a fixed income.

All I know is that if I couldn't have borrowed games off my friends as a kid then I wouldn't be a gamer today.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I know what you mean but I don't really agree. These markets may be smaller individually but they are not when you combine them. Both Steam and Impulse serve a much smaller PC market yet still have an Icelandic store, and Apple does the same for iTunes.

The bigger issue, I think, is that the used game market still contributes to the overall gaming economy. That is, most people sell off their old games to buy new ones. Cut that aspect out and people will buy fewer new ones which applies especially to kids and students without a fixed income.

All I know is that if I couldn't have borrowed games off my friends as a kid then I wouldn't be a gamer today.

But used games isn't being cut out completely. gamer will still be able to sell their games and use the proceeds for new games. It's those buying pre-owned games that would have to make the choice between swallowing the added fee (that's assuming it ends up being a visible cost and not absorbed by retailers) or buying new.

Also, for whatever reason I don't know that MS or Sony don't have online stores in Iceland, there's a major difference in a store or service that carries all kinds of myriad licensing and legeslative requirements in the many different countries, and a simple server for authenticating used games. There's no reason that not having a store in Iceland means that you wouldn't be able to authenticate used games.

If indeed MS and Sony are serious about this kind of used-games system, then they would install the required infrastructure to ensure that in whatever region they operate, the authetication servers can be accessed (they don't have to be located there).

 

[HolySmoke]

Contacting authentication servers shouldn't be the problem but authenticating used games would presumably require buying a new 'license' for it. It's not about having an Icelandic store but they would need to accept my credit card for this to happen. I wouldn't take much issue with this if they did but it still completely hinges on it.

Then again, I don't put too much stock into this rumor. It sounds like marketing suicide to me. Not many parents would knowingly buy their kid a console that forced them to buy every single game for it and actively prevented them from borrowing off their friends. At least not if a competing console didn't.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not about having an Icelandic store but they would need to accept my credit card for this to happen.

Or sell you points cards in a store.

 

[HolySmoke]

Or sell you points cards in a store.

Sure, but it's a hassle. And overpriced once you factor in a retailer. A 35 pound PSN card costs 50 pounds here, for example. Unless you buy online, of course, but then you need a credit card anyway and is the crux of the whole issue. Why can I buy cards from a lowly online retailer but not from their own stores?

In any case, I don't see why I should support their products if they won't.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Not many parents would knowingly buy their kid a console that forced them to buy every single game for it and actively prevented them from borrowing off their friends. At least not if a competing console didn't.

But they buy their kids ipads, ipod touchs and iphones... oh wait...

 

[Prophecy2k]

Sure, but it's a hassle. And overpriced once you factor in a retailer. A 35 pound PSN card costs 50 pounds here, for example. Unless you buy online, of course, but then you need a credit card anyway and is the crux of the whole issue. Why can I buy cards from a lowly online retailer but not from their own stores?

In any case, I don't see why I should support their products if they won't.

A £25 PSN card here costs £25, unless you buy online, and then it includes shipping.

I'm not sure why it would cost twice as much in Iceland. That's not Sony's fault though.

i very much doubt also that there are many countries in which Sony and MS sell alot of software for their platforms that they would not have useable online payment systems.

Again, I understand your particular position and the frustration it would warrant. However very much doubt that the major regions for Sony and MS (in terms of sales and revenue) would share those same complaints, and even for most of the ones that do, there would always be ways around such things.

In your position, you'd still be able to buy a new license by buying points cards. Yes they're expensive but the point is they exist. It's really only up to Sony and MS to ensure that there IS an avenue for gamers to buy/authenticate software. The costs of which will of course vary between regions.

 

[Invalid]

But they buy their kids ipads, ipod touchs and iphones... oh wait...

So?They also buy them books that can be read by anyone family or friends and don't require internet connection although they are intellectual property..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So?They also buy them books that can be read by anyone family or friends and don't require internet connection although they are intellectual property..

This isn't the place to discuss the ethics of copy protection; that discussion is here. The argument you're responding to is one of commerce - will consumers avoid the console with copy protection where you can't share games?