Third Party Publishers Could Bring Restrictions to PS4

[Dark Knifer]

snip

Slight spelling mistake, in your link you say xbox one and ps3, thought that might help.

OT: In theory, but sony doesn't seem too open to that option so it might be rather difficult.

Psh... I don't know what E3 you were watching but Jack Tretton totally said "PS3."

Thanks for the help!

I could believe that lol.

No problem

 

[jericu]

It's the same DRM that the PS3. This isn't news. They were just clarifying that they won't deny the kinds of DRM and Online Pass stuff we saw last generation, probably because there's nothing they can realistically do to prevent it.

 

[Callate]

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it in brief:

It's much easier to pull off DRM on a console whose creator has insured that everyone's connected to the Internet and doing so more or less amounts to flicking a switch than one that has insured that its users don't need to be connected to the Internet and would need to retrofit their own means of doing so. If you put features into your product that mean that a third or more of the hardware's users will be locked out, people can and will cry bloody murder.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

So it's pretty much exactly like on the PS3, in short. Okay, if the publishers really want to put DRM in their games, that's their business. I'll just be over here, buying the games that don't do that.

Seriously, games industry, I don't see how I can possibly make this any less complicated: DRM = No Sale, period. This is not open to negotiation, or even discussion--the moment the letters "DRM" cross your lips is the moment I walk away from you.

 

[RicoADF]

Considering single-player games can be played offline, third-party publishers would have to do some pretty amazing magical tricks to block that part.

The really important part, is that any game that does that will find itself shunned, and it will be the publisher that takes the blame fully.

So it's pretty much exactly like on the PS3, in short. Okay, if the publishers really want to put DRM in their games, that's their business. I'll just be over here, buying the games that don't do that.

Seriously, games industry, I don't see how I can possibly make this any less complicated: DRM = No Sale, period. This is not open to negotiation, or even discussion--the moment the letters "DRM" cross your lips is the moment I walk away from you.

Thats basically it, any game that is that stupid especially if the PS4 ends up smashing the XBone in sales, will deserve the failure they bring on themselves.

 

[Roander]

"Technically" publishers could do the same thing with a Wii game. All you need is a unique identifier for the machine (friend code), a unique identifier for the disk (which might be more expensive to do but isn't impossible), a server to keep track of which machine is authorized to use which disk, and code in the game to check in with that server before it does anything else.

The difference here isn't whether or not it's possible to set up DRM, it's how difficult it is to set it up, or not set it up. If publishers want DRM on their PS4 products they have to go through some effort to implement it; there is no DRM by default. Xbox One, on the other hand, has DRM already set up for them, whether they want it or not. I haven't read anything anywhere saying they have the option to disable it. The closest option publishers have to a DRM free game on Xbox One is to allow the game to be resold (through an authorized reseller only, of course) and even that is not enabled by default.

 

[piinyouri]

Fairly sure the PS3 had the same policy and it never turned out absolutely horrible.
All I ever found were a couple of games by EA that I couldn't copy to a flash drive.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You know, the more I hear about the next generation of consoles the less I like it.

 

[RJ 17]

Even so, that still leaves the choice as being "Possible DRM" vs "Guaranteed DRM.......and a Kinect."

Yep, still think that if I don't make the jump to PC, I'll be going PS4.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Isnt this exactly what Xbox is doing? "Oh, you can have used games, but its up to the publishers if they are going to allow it."?

So that means that there should be just the hostility towards Sony as there is to Microsoft... lets hope this so called equality that is talked about in R&P is used here to.

The difference is Microsoft have provided anti-used game support and said 'you can use this if you want' and Sony have done none of that but have said they can't stop publishers forcing you to sign up with some random website and tie an account to their online system, as they couldn't with the PS3. That's still a very different thing and is a lot less evil on Sony's part

Yeah the important difference is that Microsoft have integrated this system into their consoles and network infrastructure and are offering it as a service to publishers. Sony, on the other hand, have basically said "Okay, it's not worth the effort of pissing the publishers off by blocking this crap but we're not going to help them do it either."

Also, Sony could have blocked all that sort of crap on the PS3. That's the thing about 'walled garden' networks, the console manufacturers have control over what's accessible via their network and could have simply not allowed publishers to connect their authentication servers and what-not to the network... However, doing so would have antagonised the publishers and when a console has as many teething problems as the PS3 had, the console manufacturer can't afford to piss off major publishers.

 

[Frostbite3789]

http://www.destructoid.com/did-sony-confirm-drm-on-ps4-after-all-not-quite--256052.phtml

Please read this. It really clarifies a lot.

Yeah I think the OP was worded mostly for traffic.

Starting to become a bit too common here.

Starting to? It's been that way for a good long while.

 

[J Tyran]

There is still the risk of always online games, sim city style for example.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

They've been able to do that for a long time. But since PS4 doesn't require online authentication and check-ins they can't do much.

 

[Kiya]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already but Sony have blocked online passes - publishers/devs who sell games for the PS4 are not allowed to force people who have paid for a second hand game to pay for an online pass

http://www.gamefront.com/sony-further-clarifies-drm-policy-no-online-passes/

Quote from the linked article

We?ve already come right out and said we?re not going to allow online pass. And the word ?allow? is key there. Specifically with online, with PS+ requiring a charge to play online, we would not want any publisher [to charge.]

 

[josemlopes]

So basically, it's exactly the same as the PS3.

And with EA dropping online passes, there aren't really many big publishers using them any more. The only one I can think is Ubisoft.

At least it hasn't been misinterpreted in this article like has been in other places.

No, 3rd Party publishers are allowed to go beyond online passes, Sony is allowing them to use any DRM they want.

Again, exactly like with the PS3. Like how some use online passes, and some like Capcom occasionally require you to be online to play them.

http://www.1up.com/news/capcom-always-online-psn-drm-decided-case-by-case

Basicly publishers will play low for a year or two for PR purposes but they will eventually start to abuse of DRM.
With the amount of stupid things they did this gen and the amount of disrespect they already treated us with the only reason I see them not supporting DRM is to not be on Microsoft side since those guys praticly lost all their followers because of it.

 

[loa]

But there's no architecture built into the console specifically for that like the xbone has, right?

 

[Madman123456]

I love that. He's not making excuses, he says that it is possible to put DRM software on your ps4 version. Well, it is indeed no secret that publishers don't like used games. Or games. Or gamers. So any publisher who puts any kind of malware on the game will hopefully have a publicity nightmare on their hands that they can not recover from.

 

[Jamous]

I'm going to hope that people will see the reaction to ridiculous restrictions and will decide 'No, we're not going to do that; it will lose us sales and popularity.'
I hope so, at the very least.

 

[Vivi22]

Isnt this exactly what Xbox is doing? "Oh, you can have used games, but its up to the publishers if they are going to allow it."?

Not quite. Even if publishers do nothing to stand in the way of used sales in terms of a fee, your game is still registered to your account and only certain retailers will be able to de-authorize it so it can be resold. This means that you're pretty much going to be stuck going to places like Gamestop, and small Ebay stores, flea markets, independent game stores, and just selling a game yourself will likely be out of the question. Less competition, less value for the customer when buying and selling used.

So that means that there should be just the hostility towards Sony as there is to Microsoft... lets hope this so called equality that is talked about in R&P is used here to.

Sony's stance on the PS4 is no more deserving of hostility than the PS3 is. Sony is basically saying it's business as usual. Microsoft is saying you can only buy and sell in certain places, you need an online connection, etc. Microsoft's policies, even without used game fees, are substantially worse than Sony's. Even better, in ten years or so when support for the Xbone is dropped, you'll have a nice paperweight instead of a console.