Rumor: Sony Fighting PS3 Piracy With Install Keys

[Asuka Soryu]

If this is true, wouldn't it be funny if it stopped piracy but put a huge decline in PS3 sales.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Personally, I don't really care. I keep my games. I tend to buy new when as much as I can so the money goes to the devs and not the store.

I have to wonder, if buying games new is the only way the developer's get the money, does that mean the games are donated to the store, and then the store gives them a some of the money they made off said product?


I always assumed they sold the games to the store, and then it was the store trying to make money off the games they just spent money on.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Personally, I don't really care. I keep my games. I tend to buy new when as much as I can so the money goes to the devs and not the store.

I have to wonder, if buying games new is the only way the developer's get the money, does that mean the games are donated to the store, and then the store gives them a some of the money they made off said product?


I always assumed they sold the games to the store, and then it was the store trying to make money off the games they just spent money on.

Yes, the stores pay for a certain amount of games. But, look at it this way, say GameStop and Target each have a demand for 1000 copies of a given game at their stores.

Target, since it doesn't offer used games, would have to in turn purchase all 1000 copies they sell from the developer.

GameStop offers used games. So say they are able to meet half the demand with used copies. That means they are only paying for 500 games from the developer.

And, the developers know that in the future, their games will not sell as well at GameStop, and GameStop will consistently order fewer copies.

And yes, it is the only way (outside of DLC and monthly subscription costs) that devs make money, and games cost millions of dollars to make. They have to make it up somehow.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Personally, I don't really care. I keep my games. I tend to buy new when as much as I can so the money goes to the devs and not the store.

I have to wonder, if buying games new is the only way the developer's get the money, does that mean the games are donated to the store, and then the store gives them a some of the money they made off said product?


I always assumed they sold the games to the store, and then it was the store trying to make money off the games they just spent money on.

Yes, the stores pay for a certain amount of games. But, look at it this way, say GameStop and Target each have a demand for 1000 copies of a given game at their stores.

Target, since it doesn't offer used games, would have to in turn purchase all 1000 copies they sell from the developer.

GameStop offers used games. So say they are able to meet half the demand with used copies. That means they are only paying for 500 games from the developer.

And, the developers know that in the future, their games will not sell as well at GameStop, and GameStop will consistently order fewer copies.

And yes, it is the only way (outside of DLC and monthly subscription costs) that devs make money, and games cost millions of dollars to make. They have to make it up somehow.

All used copies were already bought new.

Yes, they were. But that doesn't change a damn thing. Math still works out to show that used games are a serious loss for game developers.

Let's say LittleBigPlanet had a total of 1,000,000 people who owned the game. By total, I mean bought used or new.

Now, say that the average cost between the brand new price tag and the Game of the Year edition was $45. If every one of those million people bought it new, the developer would have made $45,000,000.

Now, let's say that 1/4 of their players bought it used, so there were only 750,000 copies bought new. that means they only made $33,750,000 off the game.

That is a loss of $11,250,000.

Just because a game was originally bought new does not mean that when it is resold that the company is not losing money.

 

[susvox]

its just not worth owning a ps3 in the first place there arn't a significant amount of good games for it. its over priced and the developers dont have the money to really use it to its full potential. its sad really, and dont you ever get a that wierd feeling of akwardness any time someone says they own a ps3? lol

 

[tthor]

you know, as long as this doesn't require me to completely install my ps3 games or fuck things up in any other way, i really don't mind this. i was really pissed when Spore had that 3 download limit, but that was a PC game, the difference being: #1: there are half a dozen computers in my house, and only one PS3. #2. people generally upgrade computers every couple of years, and with PS3s, the next time I get a new console probably won't be till the PS4 (and even then, I wouldn't need to use the PS3 game on the PS4), and #3, i have hardly any friends with PS3s, so theres not many people i could lend the game to, (and even if i did have ps3 friends, i think 5 installs is enough.)

 

[The Youth Counselor]

All the supposed pros of console gaming are now going away.

-Consoles now cost 300 dollars and over
-You now need to install games and patches.
-You now need to enter in installation keys.
-You need to be connected to the internet for many features.

 

[felixader]

Oh For Fucks Sake Sony. If you just hadn't removed Linux from your Console. X-P

 

[13lackfriday]

I'll probably use them all up on MGS4 so I can watch Snake smoke for 15 minutes at a time.

 

[Mcface]

for fucks sake people JUST BUY A PC.

What you are essentially getting now is a inferior PC with a controller. Installs, CD-KEYs, DRMs, etc. You are pretty much just using a outdated PC.

 

[Mcface]

Personally, I don't really care. I keep my games. I tend to buy new when as much as I can so the money goes to the devs and not the store.

I have to wonder, if buying games new is the only way the developer's get the money, does that mean the games are donated to the store, and then the store gives them a some of the money they made off said product?


I always assumed they sold the games to the store, and then it was the store trying to make money off the games they just spent money on.

Yes, the stores pay for a certain amount of games. But, look at it this way, say GameStop and Target each have a demand for 1000 copies of a given game at their stores.

Target, since it doesn't offer used games, would have to in turn purchase all 1000 copies they sell from the developer.

GameStop offers used games. So say they are able to meet half the demand with used copies. That means they are only paying for 500 games from the developer.

And, the developers know that in the future, their games will not sell as well at GameStop, and GameStop will consistently order fewer copies.

And yes, it is the only way (outside of DLC and monthly subscription costs) that devs make money, and games cost millions of dollars to make. They have to make it up somehow.

All used copies were already bought new.

Yes, they were. But that doesn't change a damn thing. Math still works out to show that used games are a serious loss for game developers.

Let's say LittleBigPlanet had a total of 1,000,000 people who owned the game. By total, I mean bought used or new.

Now, say that the average cost between the brand new price tag and the Game of the Year edition was $45. If every one of those million people bought it new, the developer would have made $45,000,000.

Now, let's say that 1/4 of their players bought it used, so there were only 750,000 copies bought new. that means they only made $33,750,000 off the game.

That is a loss of $11,250,000.

Just because a game was originally bought new does not mean that when it is resold that the company is not losing money.

Now, let's extend your example. Let's say that 25% wouldn't have bought it for full price so they now don't have the game at all. Not only have they still only made 33,750,000 off of new sales, but they have now lost any sales from DLC and day one sales for the sequel from that 25% who could have bought it used and invested money in DLC and the sequel.

I'm with Garak on this one. I rarely ever pay full price for games, and only when I KNOW i'm going to like it, usually by playing the first one at a cheaper price.

But now this will just crush Sony's game sales.
Gamestop will refuse to sell newer titles (most likely) and refuse to buy them. Less games will be sold, less DLC will be bought etc etc.

It's why gamestop never sold or bought used PC games.

And what about Block Buster and Gamefly? Plus all of the smaller rental stores? No longer carry sony products, less publicity, again, awful move, will be the start of a slow death for sony.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Wow this is incredibly stupid, those codes get turned into key-generators before they even launch games.
The only ones that will have problems with this will again be the legitimate buyers, way to go Sony... driving off your clientele.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Microsoft need to leap on this.

Not to copy the idea of course, but to get some ads out quickly.

'XBOX 360 - the console where you can buy a game and just play it, don't want to buy? Just rent it first! No internet connection, no problem, just put the disc in and play! NOT AVAILABLE ON PS3!'

I'm not an xbox fanboy, I have an old xbox and a ps2 and love em both, but damn, MS could clean up here, if they're smart and use the differences to market to the uninitiated, rather than copy them and make the 360 f'ing worse too!

Seriously, is console piracy really that big a deal? I know a lot of people who had a Dreamcast with copied games, and most of them now feel guilty that the DC died, knowing they had a part to play, but I now know NO-ONE who has a modified console or a single copied console game. They do however have PC games, movies, music, TV shows, etc, and they all have consoles, but choose to buy when they want to play on console instead of subjecting their shiny machine to a screwdriver.

I still think MS had the most effective anti piracy solution, make your console so shoddy, and so prone to failure in the first few years that no-one would dare to invalidate the warranty in the first 12 months

 

[Mcface]

Like this is a suprise to anyone. As a PC gamer I am wholly used to this.

Welcome aboard PS3 users, this boat is filled with hatred.

Companys will keep trying this until 'THE' method is discovered, if it ever is. Until then, blame the people pirating. If it wasn't for them, this wouldn't be an issue.

It's not the pirates fault, it's the comapanys. Pirates wouldn't pay for the game anyway, even if they couldn't pirate.

It's like if all retail stores forced you to be patted down and searched in order to enter and exit the store, just to cut down on thieves.

In the end, the pirates still pirate, the company makes money. the only people affected are the people who actually pay for the game.

 

[Mcface]

Can't you pirate 360 games? How did Microsoft deal with it?

They do a lot of console updates, and if its caught, the console is just banned from LIVE.
Pretty effective. Most Xbox pirates dont last too long unless they are on the ball.


Microsoft knows how to make money. They know if sony does this, it will be unpopular. They will exploit this by highlighting it, and continue to do what they do.


But think of this.
if Microsoft and Nintendo followed suite for whatever retarded reason, that would probably be the end of a lot of gamestop stores minus some central hubs. Also, gamefly would be pretty much wiped out.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Yes, they were. But that doesn't change a damn thing. Math still works out to show that used games are a serious loss for game developers.

Let's say LittleBigPlanet had a total of 1,000,000 people who owned the game. By total, I mean bought used or new.

Now, say that the average cost between the brand new price tag and the Game of the Year edition was $45. If every one of those million people bought it new, the developer would have made $45,000,000.

Now, let's say that 1/4 of their players bought it used, so there were only 750,000 copies bought new. that means they only made $33,750,000 off the game.

That is a loss of $11,250,000.

Just because a game was originally bought new does not mean that when it is resold that the company is not losing money.

That is some neat marketing BS, but the real world works a bit differently.
Alot of people buy games because they can get atleast half the money back once they had their fun, and then the guy buying it second hand pitches in to the full price that they would individually not be willing to pay.
The same goes for games as it does for cars, people only buy new cars because they know it can be resold in about 5 years for half the price so they can again pick up a new car, and almost noone keeps their brand new car until it is truly dead, games here have the upside that most people actually do keep them.
You own what you buy, saying you can't resell your game is like saying you can't resell your car, ludicrous.

I understand publishers have an issue with GameStop(and others) that made the second hand market into their own little industry, but then the same goes for second hand car dealers, yet we never heard how that is "killing the industry"... but I'm sure they will pick that cheesy line up from their fellow marketing men someday.

 

[robert022614]

I think if Sony goes through with this i will pretty much stop using my ps3 for anything other than a bluray player...well until bluray movies start having install keys and install viewing limits (Sony can keep that idea free of charge *wink*). as a long time playstation fan, i have over 30 titles for the ps3 compared to about 10 for xbox 360 and like 5 for the wii, if this really goes into effect and i cant take my games to more than 5 friends houses to play together i will probably end up having a moe sizable xbox 360 library and hell even wii. PS3...it only does console suicide!?

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Personally, I don't really care. I keep my games. I tend to buy new when as much as I can so the money goes to the devs and not the store.

I have to wonder, if buying games new is the only way the developer's get the money, does that mean the games are donated to the store, and then the store gives them a some of the money they made off said product?


I always assumed they sold the games to the store, and then it was the store trying to make money off the games they just spent money on.

Yes, the stores pay for a certain amount of games. But, look at it this way, say GameStop and Target each have a demand for 1000 copies of a given game at their stores.

Target, since it doesn't offer used games, would have to in turn purchase all 1000 copies they sell from the developer.

GameStop offers used games. So say they are able to meet half the demand with used copies. That means they are only paying for 500 games from the developer.

And, the developers know that in the future, their games will not sell as well at GameStop, and GameStop will consistently order fewer copies.

And yes, it is the only way (outside of DLC and monthly subscription costs) that devs make money, and games cost millions of dollars to make. They have to make it up somehow.

All used copies were already bought new.

Yes, they were. But that doesn't change a damn thing. Math still works out to show that used games are a serious loss for game developers.

Let's say LittleBigPlanet had a total of 1,000,000 people who owned the game. By total, I mean bought used or new.

Now, say that the average cost between the brand new price tag and the Game of the Year edition was $45. If every one of those million people bought it new, the developer would have made $45,000,000.

Now, let's say that 1/4 of their players bought it used, so there were only 750,000 copies bought new. that means they only made $33,750,000 off the game.

That is a loss of $11,250,000.

Just because a game was originally bought new does not mean that when it is resold that the company is not losing money.

Now, let's extend your example. Let's say that 25% wouldn't have bought it for full price so they now don't have the game at all. Not only have they still only made 33,750,000 off of new sales, but they have now lost any sales from DLC and day one sales for the sequel from that 25% who could have bought it used and invested money in DLC and the sequel.

I'm not saying buying used is bad, or wrong, or anything like that.

But, I know that not all people who buy used would not have bought it new if the used was not an option.

The person I was replying to was asking if developers got most of their money from sales, so was buying used really a big deal for them.

I'm pointing out that yes, it is.