Sony Patents a Way to Sabotage Used Game Market
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've already had to boycott Microsoft consoles due to all 5 I've owned, including my 360 elite, 3 light red-ringing on me and if Sony ever actually incorporates this patent into their systems, I'd immediately due the same to them. It's already BS enough that there is no way to resell or trade digitally downloaded copies of games. All using this tech would do is piss off and alienate currently satisfied paying customers and give pirates and hackers a new challenge to overcome (for all of 10 minutes). Publishers and developers need to stop this crybaby BS about the used game market and just keep it in mind when making their financial decisions. And what Sony is really doing with this patent is holding onto it until another company employs a similar or more oppressive DRM measure to use it so that they only appear to be jumping on the bandwagon and have finger pointing rights to dodge the inevitable blame and outrage. Once a product has been purchased by a consumer, that product belongs to that consumer, period. That includes the right to resell and trade that product for whatever price they deem fit. Why is it the video game market is the only market that can't wrap their minds' around this very simple concept?
The particulars don't matter to me here. Whether they actually patented it or not, whether the technology is viable or not, or whether it'll be in any of their future consoles is moot. The fact that they went this far to develop it sends me a clear message that Sony doesn't care about me as a consumer, but as only the potential fount of ever increasing amounts of money. Instead of seeking ways to increase the value of my purchase and thus encourage me to part with my money directly with them through incentives or a lowering of gaming prices to remain competitive in the industry, they seek ways to LIMIT how and what I PURCHASE. That's an act of war for me.
I won't be buying any further Sony gaming systems or products until they can demonstrate to me that the quality of the PRODUCT is the main selling point for them, and not because I'm somehow obligated to pay large amounts to them because they so "demand" it. And if Microsoft pulls the same stunt, they can expect the same response.
Enough is enough. Companies need to make games, adjust the prices of those games accordingly (Not every newly released title needs be $60 outright), and understand that how and where I acquire my games is as much a personal choice as the games I'm buying to begin with.
I won't be buying any further Sony gaming systems or products until they can demonstrate to me that the quality of the PRODUCT is the main selling point for them, and not because I'm somehow obligated to pay large amounts to them because they so "demand" it. And if Microsoft pulls the same stunt, they can expect the same response.
Enough is enough. Companies need to make games, adjust the prices of those games accordingly (Not every newly released title needs be $60 outright), and understand that how and where I acquire my games is as much a personal choice as the games I'm buying to begin with.
I think we agree about the principles, I just think that calling it "property" is a waste. The digital era itself already opened a can of worms in IP laws, and going along with that faulty analogy will just cause even more grief.Nicolaus99 said:
I agree that the rights of the individual should come first, but this applies not just to used sale rights, but I also believe that copyright lenght needs to be shortened, Fair Use needs to be expanded, and trademark laws need to be completely rewritten.
By claiming that a game copy of a game can be our "property", we would just play into the industry's hands by also admitting that the copyright itself can also be their "property", and any liberalization would be like taking bread out of their hands, as opposed to just changing the details of monopoly rights that they got granted.
At least there will be one positive, it'll end the console wars. It's only a big thing because xbox 360/PS3 are so similar and take up roughly equal chunks of the console market. If PS3 used game sales (which is probably where a massive chunk of the average gamers money goes) are gone then are people going to stick with them? I doubt it.
While you'll still have your die hard PS4 fans they'll just be the new Beta-max fans.
While you'll still have your die hard PS4 fans they'll just be the new Beta-max fans.
So, unlike the many that have done so already, I'm choosing to not jump the gun and make wild accusations in the process, but to withhold my judgment until after I've heard what Sony has planned for the patents (which hasn't even been made official yet). For all we know, they could be hoping to obtain the patent to prevent other companies from using that sort of technology with malicious intent. I'm not saying that it is their plan, so please don't tell me I'm wrong for my speculations.
[HEADING=2]Let's not point fingers, mkay?[/HEADING]
God, this reaction to use game purchases is so stupid. What makes video game developers such a special case? Book publishers and authors don't whine about used book sales. DVD companies and film producers don't ***** about used movie sales. Also, is it just me, or is it ironic that this restrictive tech is coming from the producers of the PS2, which is famous for doing well because of having a back catalog of PS1 games that could be played on it? Yeah, I'm sure a lot of those were from PS1 owners who got the latest console and didn't want to have to throw out their old games...but I'll bet there was a significant number of people who chose a PS2 over an Xbox or a Gamecube because they could also buy used PS1 games from Gamestop, Ebay, flea markets and garage/yard sales.
Not being concerned about this is like saying that it's fine for countries to pursue nuclear weapons research even though they "promise" not to use it.
Tell you what: we'll accept them developing this if they accept hackers tweaking their machines on the grounds that they "only" use it for homebrew and not piracy or exploiting multiplayer.
Tell you what: we'll accept them developing this if they accept hackers tweaking their machines on the grounds that they "only" use it for homebrew and not piracy or exploiting multiplayer.
oh look another random patent which more than likely wont be used.
but i digress, they know better, they know for a fact that doing this would destroy whats left of there already meger reputation, there marketing department would tell them in much sterner words, no, thats why they have a marketing department. This looks like another case patent hoarding.
but i digress, they know better, they know for a fact that doing this would destroy whats left of there already meger reputation, there marketing department would tell them in much sterner words, no, thats why they have a marketing department. This looks like another case patent hoarding.
If anyone thinks that all consoles wont be doing this within the next ten years they are kidding themselves. All your downloaded games already do this and as retail purchases shrink this will be more and more common. In the end it is for the best. It eliminates a middle man that gets a huge cut of the profits for doing little to nothing. This means prices can match supply and demand more fairly and developers will be able to invest further into their franchises.
I acknowledge that it sucks for consumers that use rental/trade services and even more for people who simply share games with friends. This is simply the future. Buy/trade stores' days are limited. Retail's days are limited. Rental services will adapt into something new. Also publishers don't know it yet but their days our just as limited as record companies.
I acknowledge that it sucks for consumers that use rental/trade services and even more for people who simply share games with friends. This is simply the future. Buy/trade stores' days are limited. Retail's days are limited. Rental services will adapt into something new. Also publishers don't know it yet but their days our just as limited as record companies.
So, how many of you are prepared to buy $60 console games without any chance of ever selling them?
Practices like this are why I am slowly transitioning into PC gaming on a laptop. Recently played through Assassin's Creed and didn't even notice a difference in my overall entertainment experience. What I did notice is not having to deal with a ton of firmware updates and waiting for the game to install additional data before I could play it.
The Extra Credits guys did something on this once. Basically a game shouldn't be sold as a fully priced unit, instead it would be made up of a cheaper core, with the rest as unlockable extras.04whim said:
For example take Black Ops 2. It has 3 parts - campaign, zombies, multiplayer.
Most people don't play all 3, they usually only play 1 or 2. So release a game with only a small part unlocked and allow players to pay to unlock the rest of the content already on the disc.
So lets say you sell a disk for $20 that has the first half of the campaign, a 10 game multiplayer demo and a 30 minute zombie trial unlocked. After that you can pay:
$15 for the rest of the campaign (and maybe unlock extra features like the weapon loadout customisation option)
$15 for unlimited multiplayer
$10 for unlimited zombies
Game still costs $60 for the whole package but only if you want it all so it's a better deal for players.
It also has the advantage of the developers getting more money. A physical copy sold in a store means developers only get around 50% (according to EC) as the store gets a cut, so they only get $30 out of each game. If they now sell $20 games and tell players to go buy unlock codes directly from their website they get all of the money from those code sales. So if a player buys all the unlocks the company has got $50 dollars out of the game instead of $30.
They can also use this to reward players, if you unlock all three you get a new bonus mission, a new multiplayer weapon/skin/badge or a new zombie map (maybe let the player choose). Little incentives to encourage a player to pay 'full' price for the game out of choice rather than necessity.
Only problem is it could discourage stores from selling games as they're making less off their cut of the sales, meaning they have to rely on preowned copies, which are now worth less as well as they have to go below a much lower threshold to stop players just buying new and reducing how much of a share they get.
Also whether "right to resell" is a theoretical excercise, and measures like this are technically legal, as they still recognise your right to resell the product - they merely made it physically impossible.Nicolaus99 said:
The EU still hasn't forced Digital Download services as Steam and Origin to implement the possibility for resale, so this new tech might not be initially struck down.
They might be forced to disable it if somebody brings it to court, but that's quite a way off.
