Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM PlayStation (Games) Sony Games

PlayStation 4 'Orbis' Rumors: AMD Hardware, Hostile To Used Games 371

Posted by Soulskill
from the fans-clearly-want-more-broken-games dept.
silentbrad writes "Kotaku reports some 'details' about Sony's next console given to them by a 'reliable source.' They say that the console's codename is Orbis, and it is planned for release by the 2013 holiday season. Developers are reportedly being told to plan for an AMD x64 CPU and AMD Southern Islands GPU. Further on, they mention that there will be no PS3 backwards compatibility and, like rumors about the next Xbox, will have anti-used game DRM. Specifically, 'new games for the system will be available one of two ways, either on a Blu-Ray disc or as a PSN download (yes, even full retail titles). If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account. ... If you then decide to trade that disc in, the pre-owned customer picking it up will be limited in what they can do. ... it's believed used games will be limited to a trial mode or some other form of content restriction, with consumers having to pay a fee to unlock/register the full game.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PlayStation 4 'Orbis' Rumors: AMD Hardware, Hostile To Used Games

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:39PM (#39525807)

    If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account. ... If you then decide to trade that disc in, the pre-owned customer picking it up will be limited in what they can do

    You expect this kind of craven, heavy-handed behavior out of a Samsung or a Panasonic, sure. But Sony?!?!?

    But seriously, it's been clear that developers have been asking for this for some time. They already killed the used market for PC's. Now it's console time. Sadly, I suspect MS and Nintendo will follow suit if Sony goes through with it.

    • by mofolotopo (458966) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:43PM (#39525883)

      Color me unsurprised. And also not buying.

      • by poetmatt (793785) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:49PM (#39525981) Journal

        I think it was only two weeks ago someone told me consoles have less restrictive DRM than PC's on slashdot. Excuse me while I go chuckle.

        This hostility to used games is *exactly* why you don't buy consoles.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:08PM (#39526345)

          Why, because there's a rumor that the next generation of consoles might have the same restriction that's been standard on PCs for a decade? Seriously, when was the last time you legally bought or sold a used PC game? And now Steam and Origin have closed up the vast majority of those fringe cases, and even the all mighty, for the gamers, indie gem Minecraft is unsellable and untradeable.

          • by Baloroth (2370816) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:38PM (#39526879)

            Why, because there's a rumor that the next generation of consoles might have the same restriction that's been standard on PCs for a decade?

            A decade? Hell no. The last one I, personally, sold, was my copy of Oblivion to a friend (mostly because I don't tend to do the whole used-game thing, I like to keep my games around if I want to play them in 5 years again). However, except for the online activation systems (which have, granted, become popular recently), you've been able to trade any boxed PC game since forever. Many of them you still can. In fact, you can trade most of the on-line activation ones too (you just have to deactivate it or not install it more than the activation limits).

            Steam obviously prevents that, but steam wasn't "standard" until 5 years ago or so. Up till then, every single PC game (except MMOs) could be freely traded used. If there are any exceptions, I don't know of them (Counter-strike, maybe? Didn't play the original).

            • by sortius_nod (1080919) on Friday March 30, 2012 @05:54PM (#39529823) Homepage

              Even with steam you can send games to friends. This all smacks of trying to profit off piracy, has nothing to do with used game sales. Used games, in this day and age, mean profit in DLC. If you never paid for the game, you're less likely to pay for DLC (free to play titles not withstanding).

              It really does seem like console makers are trying to squeeze the market without thinking of the consequences. I own both PS3 & Xbox 360, but if this crap comes in, I won't be buying the new systems.

              • by Suddenly_Dead (656421) on Friday March 30, 2012 @06:44PM (#39530373)

                With Steam, you can send games you have not redeemed to friends. There's no trading of used games. Any boxed game that uses Steam activation (there's a lot of them now) cannot be traded to friends after you've activated it on your account.

                PC games have been definitely been doing online activation like this for longer than console games. The first I can remember buying is Tribes 2 in 2001, which required an account tied to a CD key. That's more than ten years ago, nearly a decade before I'm aware of any console games doing their current soft version of it (buy used and you need to pay ~$10 to get all the features). Most single player titles weren't doing it until Steam started to become popular, though.

                Now, of my recent purchases which can be physically purchased, Skyrim, Civilization 5, Shogun 2, Mass Effect 3, Batman: AC, and Assassin's Creed 2:3 are all tied to a single account once activated, and they're all single-player games.

          • by ogdenk (712300) on Friday March 30, 2012 @05:08PM (#39529263)

            Seriously, when was the last time you legally bought or sold a used PC game?

            Been a while.... almost impossible to do and leave the game intact and unaltered. So now I just refuse to pay for PC games. If it's good it'll get cracked. The Nintendo Wii was likely my last console purchase. I have refused the PS3 and XBox 360 because of this insanity and "pay-to-play" paid content bullshit. I won't buy one for myself OR my 3 children. And after explaining why to my son.....*gasp* he understands.

            I depend on the used game market for affordable games. If they can't lock down a book and keep me from selling it intact, then they can't do it with my fucking software. Without it, I'm not buying. I'm not going to put up with being treated like a criminal and I'm not going to let them believe that playing games I paid for is a privilege that they have the right to control.

            My kids whining for Sony's overpriced shit is not going to make me capitulate and give up my rights. F**K YOU SONY. There's plenty of used PS2 games out there and I have a feeling we'll see a wave of 3D-enabled multicore ARM-based low-cost game machines soon WITHOUT the bullshit.

          • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Friday March 30, 2012 @06:25PM (#39530181) Journal

            Because i can buy AAA titles all day off of Steam for less than $20, often less than $10? Anybody who pays $60 for a game that is so hamstringed by DRM is frankly insane. This kind of stupid shit is why I'm glad i just finished converting my kids over to Steam off the consoles. Now instead of $60 a game (more like $90 when you figure in the DLC that more and more games are having locked onto the discs) my boys get their games for $10-$20, often WITH the DLC, and those nice new PCs (one with an AMD quad, the other AMD Hexacore, both with HD4850s) they can not only play games and watch video but do their schoolwork, chat, play against each other over the LAN or meet up with me in Steam for a match, oh and with solid caps they'll easily last until 2020 and probably beyoond with nothing but a $60 GPU upgrade in a year or two.

            As we have seen with the Vita (sales have dropped more than 72% since launch) people are getting tired of overpriced DRM in a box. All they are doing is slitting their own throats and they are welcome to it as the cheap multicores and TVs all having HDMI more and more of my customers are switching to HTPCs. they are cheap, do so much more than gaming, and with wireless controllers play games with better graphics and better responsiveness than the consoles. All i have to do is show folks how I can play a game AND have a chat session open AND rip a DVD and all at the same time and its frankly an easy sale. Valve has it right with Steam, make it easy, simple, and cheap. The new consoles will take tow of those three away, so let them rot.

        • by jythie (914043)
          Well, that is IF they actually do this, right now it is just a rumor. Until then consoles have a pretty solid used market going on.
        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          I think it was only two weeks ago someone told me consoles have less restrictive DRM than PC's on slashdot.

          They do.*

          .

          .

          .

          * After ingenious crackers have had a few months to break the DRM.

          • AFAIK and correct me if I'm wrong, console owners (like in SONY, not you and me) will promptly loack you out of their gaming networks and DL services if you run a cracked OS. So I would say that this isn't a viable option.

      • by DJRumpy (1345787)

        I have to wonder if this won't present legal challenges to Sony. Although I understand their reasons, since when is it illegal to sell something you've purchased? There are some ties here to licensing, but the ability to sell used titles already exists and as far as I know, hasn't faced any serious legal challenges.

        Is there a lawyer in the house?

        • by jythie (914043)
          It is indeed not illegal to sell used games (doctrine of first sale), BUT it is not legally required either, so hardware manufacturers are free to build their devices in such a way that they tie first usage to a particular user. And of course they can use DMCA to ensure that people are not legally allowed to modify the consoles in order to play used games.

          So the law is kinda on Sony's side in this case.
          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            As long as there's no force of law behind things, and only the force of technology, I don't have much of a problem with it (but the DMCA part I am against; if people can crack it, they should be allowed to, though if cracking it involves any modifications to the machine the vendor should not be required to honor the warranty).

            At some point, consumers need to take responsibility for themselves and stop buying defective-by-design products. Plus, games are a luxury, not a necessity for modern life (unlike, fo

    • I don't quite understand the surprise. Hasn't it already been mentioned that Sony luvz proprietary-anything? Why should this be any different?

      Also, I can't say I'd trust any "reliable anon. source."

    • by Tsingi (870990)

      You're surprised that this is coming from Sony?

      Seems like SOP to me.

    • One of them will back down and use it to their advantage and selling point.
  • I bet this won't fly, in the end. This is going to tick off everyone, so I bet it will be so unpopular that they will relent. Gamers will revolt... retailers will revolt. It's a revolution calling! Then again, I could be wrong, of couse. ;-)

    • Re:Revolt! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rwven (663186) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:51PM (#39526023)

      Not only will retailers revolt...but they're straight go out of business. Gamestop makes the vast majority of its money off of used game sales.

      When a large percentage of their income evaporates...it won't bode well for them.

      On the flip side, if MS doesn't put this limitation on the next XBOX, sony can probably kiss their console goodbye before it even launches...

      • by rwven (663186)

        s/they're/they'll

      • Not only will retailers revolt...but they're straight go out of business. Gamestop makes the vast majority of its money off of used game sales.

        When a large percentage of their income evaporates...it won't bode well for them.

        If summary is correct, I see an anti-trust suit on the horizon...

        • by rwven (663186)

          I dunno, I think Sony is well within their rights to do this... Not to mention...gamestop COULD technically still re-sell the games, but players would then have to pay more to get them fully working.

          If gamestop came up with a standard sales model that would work well, but I can't see them selling hampered games for more than $5 with any success... That means players would only get a dollar or two, if that, for their trades. Players wouldn't even bother trading anything anymore.

          The biggest annoyance of the w

      • by DarkOx (621550)

        Right what would be interesting is if the retailers took a stand. This certainly will end the business model of all the game specific retailers, who as you say do make most of their money in the used market. The Targets, Best Buys, and Walmarts of the world less so.

        What would it do the launch of these next gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft if the likes of Game Stop, Fye, FunCo, etc got together formed a little video game retailers working group and agree to not carry these consoles or their games?

        • by rwven (663186)

          Sounds good in theory, but people would just go to target, walmart, or best buy instead.

        • Re:Revolt! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rwven (663186) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:21PM (#39526595)

          However, the more likely scenario is just a repeat of what happened with PC games.

          You can't really buy PC Games used anymore, so a large portion of the pc game traffic moved on and got consoles instead. When consoles suffer from the same thing, people are going to move on to mobile games on platforms like the iPad, Android, and soon windows 8 tablets.

          Sure, you can't resell mobile apps, but it's a rarity when a mobile game costs more than $10. At that price, you can afford to buy 6 games for the same price as 1 console game. Who cares if you can't sell them back. And, for that matter, most mobile games are less than $5, and the majority are stuck squarely at $0.99.

      • by Khyber (864651)

        "Gamestop makes the vast majority of its money off of used game sales."

        You've never been to an actual release night at a Gamestop, have you?

        Even in the tiny town I was living in, Red Dead Redemption release night had a line going across half the mall's parking lot. That's not a small lot, either. Easily a thousand people.

        Imagine that across the country.

        • Re:Revolt! (Score:4, Informative)

          by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday March 30, 2012 @03:34PM (#39527915)
          I worked at gamestop. It's not a matter of traffic or customer numbers, it's a matter of margins. On those midnight releases, a lot of money is flowing from the customer to gamestop. However, before that, a lot of money has flowed from Gamestop to whoever is publishing the game. Gamestop charges you $60 maybe for red dead redemption. They have though likely paid $55 for the disc to sell you, making $5.

          Meanwhile, kids trickle in during the majority of the time gamestop is open. They might be selling back a game they bought two weeks before at $60. What gamestop gives them in return depends on supply and demand, but it's likely the kid will get $20 for it. Gamestop will then put the game on the shelf for $55. Someone else will come in for the new game, the cashier will point out that they can buy it gently used for 5 dollars less. Gamestop has therefore made $35. Moreover, that $20 is store credit. If the kid wants cash, then gamestop will give him $16, so the kid takes the store credit. Which, of course, means that gamestop keeps that too. Gamestop essentially made $55 on reselling a two week old game.

          This is no secret. Bring any game into a gamestop, ask how much you will receive for it in cash, and compare that to how much they're selling it for used. It's less than half of what they'll get. They do not make that profit margin on new game sales. The cashier or manager can and will confirm that.

          They make very little comparatively on new game sales. In fact, the only reason they sell new games at all is to get people going into the store so they can advertise to them and try to get them bringing in lightly used games. Gamestop is, essentially, a used game store, despite the fact that they occasionally sell a lot of new games at once.
      • by digitig (1056110)

        It will drive games sales down. Sony will claim that games sales have gone down because of piracy, and will press for piracy taxes on all storage media (like some countries already have) and heavier penalties for piracy, and will apply even more intrusive DRM.

        Gamestop doesn't enter the equation. The nearest UK equivalent, Game, has just gone bust, and Sony won't care a bit if Gamestop follows.

      • On the flip side, if MS doesn't put this limitation on the next XBOX, sony can probably kiss their console goodbye before it even launches...

        Clearly, MS needs to make Sony think they're going to go with a similar mechanism, let them hit the market first, and then come out with a system that plays used games just fine.

      • Re:Revolt! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by freeze128 (544774) on Friday March 30, 2012 @03:52PM (#39528169)
        Sony probably will not prevent used games from playing... AT LAUNCH (of PS4). They even did this before:

        Their first PS3 allowed the user to play PS2 games. Subsequent PS3s dropped that feature.
        The PS3 had an "other OS" option... Then they took it away.

        It would be a PR nightmare to release the PS4 with a catchphrase like "now only new games can be played", so they will allow the used games to be played initially, then, once they have sold enough consoles to get some serious market share, they will make an update that screws us all.
    • by Artraze (600366)

      They're already proven they're willing to do this on a per-game basis, and I haven't seen much revolt from gamers because those games are "must have" or what have you.

      As far as retailers are concerned... Well, how much do you think game companies care about them? After all, what percentage of game sales do you thing Walmart and Target (who don't deal in used games) represent? They'd probably be on board with this actually if they care at all. Now, sure, they might be able to offer quite the variety as, s

    • by Bieeanda (961632)
      The vast majority of gamers won't give a shit. They didn't give a damn about DLC or DRM, and they won't about this.

      Boutique retailers dug their grave when they made used games the bulk of their income, and adopted the pre-order scheme to keep their purchases down to absolute minimums. It's been pissing off console developers and game publishers for years, and now that Wal-Mart, other big box stores and even grocery stores stock games in wide variety, they don't have to play nice with outfits that do their d

  • by Picass0 (147474) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:43PM (#39525881) Homepage Journal

    ...Sony cooks up another draconian DRM scheme....

    Another brilliant example of not understanding your audience. Used games are part of the lifeblood of the hobby. Make me pay full retail for every game and I will skip the platform.

    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:35PM (#39526839)

      Look at all this from Sony's perspective - what has been one of the wilder gaming successes in recent years?

      The iOS platform.

      There people cannot trade or otherwise share games. But it ends up not really mattering because in the iOS world there are so many developers vying for purchasers that the real world has actually had an impact on pricing - pricing is quite low per title.

      Or you could even come at it from the PC side and note the only model that is really growing there very well is Steam - again no sharing of games, but lower prices.

      So I would submit it's you who are out of touch with what modern gamers accept.

      Of course it remains to be seen if Sony REALLY understands that for the no-sharing model to work, prices must also come down substantially for each title. They are adopting the DRM protected no-sharing model because it's innately what they desire anyway, but can they unclench the greed fist just a little? Hard to say. All I know is I have a PS3 but am pretty unlikely to get an Orbis, even if it supports Vorbis...

    • Both Xbox links referencing their console making use of similar DRM schemes date back to January, yet Sony just dreamed this up?
  • "Reliable source?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AuralityKev (1356747) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:44PM (#39525887)
    Um... Yeah, and this far out in the PS3 dev cycle we thought we'd be stuck with those horrible boomerang controllers too. So I'll take it with a grain of anti-Sony-bias salt. Not that I'd put it past them, just that it's too early to start shitting myself with worry.
    • Um... Yeah, and this far out in the PS3 dev cycle we thought we'd be stuck with those horrible boomerang controllers too.

      It's not like their controllers were EVER any good...

      • by Dyinobal (1427207)
        I'm sorry but the original dual shock controllers were awesome. I don't even own a PS1 or PS2 any more but I have an adapter to use a Dualshock controller for my PC, I've yet to find a controller I enjoy as much.
        • Personally, I find the Dualshlock almost unbearable. The whole shape of it is bad, the split d-pad is lame, but the analog sticks are the worst: who the fuck thought it was a good idea to put them near the center of the damn thing? It makes you stretch your thumbs to an unnatural position. No matter how much I try to use that thing, it never feels right.

          • by Chris Burke (6130)

            The whole shape of it is bad, the split d-pad is lame, but the analog sticks are the worst: who the fuck thought it was a good idea to put them near the center of the damn thing?

            Not the Sony engineers who originally designed it for the Playstation.

            They understood that the primary controls should go where the thumb naturally rests, which is where the D-pad and the face buttons were on the original PSX controller.

            But this was an add-on for an existing console with an extensive library of games designed around a digital pad, and they weren't sure if the analog stick would take off. So they kept the original controls in the ideal spot, for both familiarity and compatibility. The made

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mordermi (2432580)

      Agreed. EVERYTHING in this article is very subject to change. No point in getting upset this early.

    • Yeah, and this far out in the PS3 dev cycle we thought we'd be stuck with those horrible boomerang controllers too.

      Yeah, good thing everyone raised a fuss and got those horrible things scrapped before they could be forced into gamers' hands. I mean, who cares whether they were easy and comfortable to use--it's the look of a controller that matters, right?

  • by alen (225700) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:45PM (#39525919)

    what exactly is going to be so cool about this console except better graphics?

    $60 games with no resale means i buy one or two awesome games per year

    i mostly game on my x-box and use the PS3 for movies and netflix. the xbox has enough $20 GOTY editions of good games that i have years left to play them and no need to buy any of the new systems for a long time.

    my dream system for next gen is x-box with blu ray and backwards compatibility. i'll buy it even if the new next gen games are locked down since i'll play the old and use it as a blu ray player after dumping my current x-box and PS3

    • by cob666 (656740) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:07PM (#39526317) Homepage

      $60 games with no resale means i buy one or two awesome games per year

      Seems that that many manufacturers and game studios fail to grasp this concept. Many buyers of new titles only pay top dollar for the game because of the resale value. I'm sure that no secondary market will hurt the sales of new games, the game studios will of course claim the decline in numbers is due to piracy.

      • by dgatwood (11270) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:53PM (#39527183) Journal

        That's a fair point, and it's going to be a bigger problem for Sony than you might think.

        To give you an idea of what games will eventually be worth on their platform, you need only look at iOS games (iPhone, iPad, etc.), which by their nature cannot be resold or transferred (short of transferring an entire iTunes account, that is). According to c|net [cnet.com], the average price of a game on iOS is on a steady decline, and as of a year ago, was only $1.44. Some websites are claiming that the current numbers are as low as $1.02. The most expensive game I've seen was still under $20. Admittedly, it may take longer for a more tightly controlled market like console games to collapse to that point (because the console manufacturer won't let just anybody develop games for their platform), but $5-and-under games are the direction things are trending, and if Sony isn't run by absolute idiots, they'll think twice before they take an action that is guaranteed to hasten that price collapse.

        Of course, there's a flip side to that. If the game prices do collapse, more people will buy them. So things might balance out for Sony if the decision doesn't drive people to other platforms... which brings me to the other fatal flaw in their plan. If you have to carry your entire console to somebody else's house to play games because your friends' devices can't play your games, that eliminates the only other advantage that consoles have over an iPad. If they do this, Sony can pretty much kiss their console sales goodbye. Not that there's necessarily any good reason for them to care as far as their game titles are concerned—they probably don't make much money on their consoles anyway—but it takes away control, and Sony's biggest flaw has always been their irrational desire for complete control.

        On the one hand, it sucks that Sony is considering this. On the other hand, if I had to pick which console maker I'd rather see go down in flames as an example to other console makers, Sony would be at the top of the list by a sizable margin, so I'm not going to shed a single tear. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of corporate dirtbags.

    • by jmDev (2607337)
      If they reduced the cost to $40 a game if we all had to buy it brand new, I could see it working.. But they will expect the $60 they are getting now with no option of resale. They're just getting greedy.
  • Cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SJHillman (1966756) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:46PM (#39525937)

    If they're planning on limiting the resale value of games, then they better plan on lowering the price. I know a lot of people who justified spending $40 or $50 on a game because they knew they could sell it for $20 or $30 in 6 months when they got tired of it, making the end cost a reasonable $20 or so. A move like this might end up hurting sales in spite of forcing more people to buy directly from Sony (or Sony's retailers) because a large segment of the market can no longer use the money from selling older games to buy newer ones.

    Big companies seem to think that consumers have an endless supply of money to spend on anything and everything they want... no concept of a consumer has $100 to spend on games this year. If titles are $50 each, then only two get sold. If titles are $50, but they can resell each for $25 then three games get sold.

    • If they're planning on limiting the resale value of games, then they better plan on lowering the price. I know a lot of people who justified spending $40 or $50 on a game because they knew they could sell it for $20 or $30 in 6 months when they got tired of it, making the end cost a reasonable $20 or so. A move like this might end up hurting sales in spite of forcing more people to buy directly from Sony (or Sony's retailers) because a large segment of the market can no longer use the money from selling older games to buy newer ones.

      Big companies seem to think that consumers have an endless supply of money to spend on anything and everything they want... no concept of a consumer has $100 to spend on games this year. If titles are $50 each, then only two get sold. If titles are $50, but they can resell each for $25 then three games get sold.

      I agree with this argument, but playing devils advocate, I can get $100 from a given customer in this year. One way I have to make 3 games, the other, 2. The thing that makes supply and demand curves work is that not everyone has $100 a year for games, my budget may be a few hundred dollars, other people may only save up a few dozen. By putting more variety in the game prices rather than having every one cost the same on release day, the guy with $90 can now buy 2 games rather than 1.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      Big companies seem to think that consumers have an endless supply of money to spend on anything and everything they want... no concept of a consumer has $100 to spend on games this year. If titles are $50 each, then only two get sold. If titles are $50, but they can resell each for $25 then three games get sold.

      All they want is that $100. Selling you less games to get it doesn't worry them in the slightest*.

      [*] In fact it's better for them - it means they can control the release schedules and screw over the game developers for an even bigger cut. Every console maker knows how Nintendo used to do things and dreams of being able to do the same.

      • Big companies seem to think that consumers have an endless supply of money to spend on anything and everything they want... no concept of a consumer has $100 to spend on games this year. If titles are $50 each, then only two get sold. If titles are $50, but they can resell each for $25 then three games get sold.

        All they want is that $100. Selling you less games to get it doesn't worry them in the slightest*.

        [*] In fact it's better for them - it means they can control the release schedules and screw over the game developers for an even bigger cut. Every console maker knows how Nintendo used to do things and dreams of being able to do the same.

        Not only that but if they can make that $100 by doing less then they will. Games cost a lot of money, and if they were able to only put out a few titles a year and still gross the same amount of money, their net income is that much better off.

  • Can't wait! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Artraze (600366) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:49PM (#39525979)

    ... until Sony gets hacked, PSN accounts are lost and everyone's games are rendered useless. That lawsuit should be epic.

    • Re:Can't wait! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Nemesisghost (1720424) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:41PM (#39526949)

      That lawsuit should be epic.

      Except that Sony's EULA, which you will now be forced to agree to as you have to have a PSN account to play any game, means that each person must sue separately and then only if they opted out of arbitration. And that later bit is only if they are aware of what they are signing. I had to get a buddy who's a lawyer explain what my options weren't in signing the latest PSN EULA. Luckily, he doesn't think that the "No Class Action Lawsuit" clause will hold up in court.

  • Sigh... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:49PM (#39525997)

    If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account

    no PS3 backwards compatibility

    Sony, I really want to enjoy the games you and your partners put out, but if you go through with this? I have two words for you.
    Buh-Bye.

    (Either that or Yo-Ho, if someone finds a reliable way to pirate games on to the console)

    • by Lithdren (605362)
      Pretty much, I own a PS3, and I got one rather late so it didn't come with PS2 supported games, which I never got around to owning.

      So this new system will come out, render all my hardware for the PS3 useless, render all my games unplayable, and wont let me buy games used anymore. Why, excatly, would I buy this thing?

      I PC game more than I play around on the PS3, this would just nail the door shut on anything future from myself and my family. Really sorta sad, watching these companies eat themsevles. L
    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      (Either that or Yo-Ho, when someone finds a reliable way to pirate games on to the console)

      FTFY

  • Per account??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by masteva (996554) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:54PM (#39526085)

    Wow, this will cause an uproar with families I would think!

    Example: Buy game for 2+ children, but each child has own account as they don't want to have their saves touched / overwritten. Find out that game can only be used on child(a) account. Child(b) cries foul, wants his own saves and doesn't want to share etc. Fight breaks out as parent can't game to work on child(b) account.

    Now I don't think this will be extremely COMMON to be honest, but I could certainly see some backlash from it! I don't like having other people in the house using my account to play games, as I fear that someone would accidentally mess up my saves etc. I'm sure a self entitled child will throw complete fits over it.

    • Me, my wife & my stepson all have separate accounts on our PS3. My stepson & I play most of the same games, my wife & I play Little Big Planet. You have separate accounts so you don't mess up each others save game files. I can definitely say that I will not be buying a PS4 if this turns out to be the case.
      • by preaction (1526109) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:11PM (#39526409)

        This. I love that if I have a friend over, we can play her Xbox Live games after downloading them to my Xbox. When she logs out, I can no longer play the game, because it's tied to her Xbox AND her account. But, if I go over to her house, I can play her games under my account without logging in (again, tied to her Xbox AND her account).

        Used games, not a big deal, I just won't buy AAA-level games.

    • by alen (225700)

      x-box live has a family gold account for $90 a year

      ironically lately there are lots of discounted Live Gold cards being sold now, but no discounted family gold cards

  • Instant Fail (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fallen1 (230220)

    Please see subject, because you know it's true. As soon as people realize they can't trade-in games, everything is tied to one PSN account, and games still cost $60+ this game console will fly ... right back to Japan.

    Same thing with XBOX - if it comes locked down and games tied to a single account and no used game sales then it will be a very expensive paperweight. A dead albatross weighting them down.

    Time for a new game company to step up and create something open or ,rather, more open than the "next gen"

  • by jenningsthecat (1525947) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:00PM (#39526181)
    because perhaps at some point people will simply stop buying into Sony's 'all your stuff are belong to us' attitude and take their gaming and consumer electronics purchases to other companies. The sooner Sony buries itself in its own bullshit and dies a spectacular death, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
  • It will not work long term. The big game studios and makers have enjoyed some of the largest profits in history without doing this. The pirate 'customer' now will have a better product then the paid customer. Sometimes companies fail to understand the ecosystem effect of having these used sellers out there. The used sellers make a small amount of money, but they bring money back to the consumer who spends it on NEW games and the used seller may bring in a second new customer that eventually buys full price
  • I wouldn't see a problem with it, as long as they adjusted the game prices to reflect they no longer have any resale value. Steam, which is quite popular, has the exact same problem, but is offset by a number of advantages. In the grand scheme of things though, the ability to get PC games a lot cheaper, both using online retailers, and from sales within steam itself is what really made this acceptable. Also, to this date, you can still make Steam accounts per game to work around this issue somewhat, rega
  • by tmosley (996283) on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:06PM (#39526295)
    If you do this, I won't buy it. Lots of people won't. Stop this stupid BS.

    You really need to learn to think in the long term. People will pay a lot for a game when it first comes out, but if you do this DRM crap, you MUST follow through and offer older games at much lower prices, and continue to do so for YEARS if not DECADES. Used game stores do this for you, and allow people with less money to remain rabid fans, and buy your big games when they first come out. If you kill the used game market, you cut those players off. Once they are cut off, they will find other things to do. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.

    If you must have DRM, you need to offer games from old systems that run on emulation on your new systems for free or next to nothing, and you need to offer older games at prices that used games get now. You need to keep people playing. If you keep playing these stupid DRM games without offering a substitute, then people will stop playing, and you will go the way of the music industry. Maybe someone like Apple will come along and save your sorry ass, and drag you kicking and screaming into a new, profitable business model, but I wouldn't bet on it.
  • Anyone note the irony to which Sony is going? I mean, they're making the Xbox 2 - still x86 based (like the original Xbox).

    Makes me wonder if Bunnie Huang and eveyrone else will dust off all the old Xbox hacks they have and give them a go on the new machine. Don't think Sony can secure it any better than Microsoft could. Heck, it would be amusing to see if Windows 8 would run on it...

  • Greed - here's what they see

    Ah, this person spends 100$ on games per year. These games are used and cost 20$ each.
    So clearly they buy five games per year.

    BUT, just BUT, if we make it so they have no choice, they will pay 60$ each, getting us an extra 200$.
    That way each person gives us 300 in total!

    IDJITS, We aren't going to spend more. You're just going to sell less, dumbshit.

    Plus we're we'll be less interested overall, and only purchase the big block busters. B- games can kiss their sales goodbye.
    Since I w

  • Sony wants to sell licenses to use software that happens to be distributed via physical media. In contrast, consumers think of themselves as buying physical media containing software. In other words, consumers believe that any license is attached to the media, whereas Sony wants the license to attach to the person. Because there is no physical media associated with digitally distributed content, consumers don't have any trouble with that concept in that arena. However, in the case of physical media, Son
  • Used games do not hurt the industry. In fact they help the industry!

    First off used games have been around since day one. The game industry has only grown since then. Obviously there's no harm. Now onto the specifics.

    Used stores are used by two groups, high volume game consumers and people not willing or able to pay full price.

    The high volume consumers sell the games. Why do they do this? So they have money to buy more games?

    The buyers fall into two basic categories. People who are frugal and people w
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, 2012 @02:50PM (#39527107)

    A rented games is an used game right? What will happen with services like redbox,blockbuster or gamefly?

  • "If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account." So I need to buy two disks to play Call of Duty on multiple accounts... say one for me and one for my kid. That model is absolutely ridiculous.

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...