While this article is framed as a victory for the consumer, it is yet another reminder that technology [such as Cinavia [wikipedia.org]] can, and will, be used to subvert our existing rights [to lend, copy, borrow, make backups].

Step by step, resistance will be overcome and we shall be reduced to facilitators of consumption, thanks to the ever-increasing apathy amongst the general public.

Also, you'll be able to run linux on it!

Just like Linux and the PS3.

Other than graphics, there haven't been improvements in gameplay since the beginning of games.

That would be fine except that Sony has shown that they are OK with removing features later, as they did with OtherOS and several others.

Remember Linux compatibility? Remember the PS3 initially was able to play PS2 games? Why would we believe anything that Sony says?

No, you're just overreacting, like most people on Slashdot

Tell that to those who ran Linux/BSD on their PlayStation 3 [wikipedia.org]s.

I'm pretty sure the reason Quake is more addictive than Pong despite the learning curve is down to more than just fancier graphics.

Because it doesn't follow from "Sony did this bad thing once" that "the malevolent theory I have about Sony is true".

I suspect Sony really don't want to withstand another volley of terrible publicity. I also doubt that they want to drag the whole issue through a court, which would almost certainly happen.

The current rules seem to be ill defined. Gamers technically own the games, but are at the whim of the PS Network. This gives Sony enormous power over defining what "ownership" actually means.

Prohibiting second hand games formally now would jeopardize the console sales. Doing it gradually or suddenly (like with Linux on the PS3) a year or two down the line by way of PS Network T&C changes would be far safer for them.

Don't pay attention to what he says, but what he doesn't. Sure it will play used games, he did not say what you have to do to play them. They might require you to sign into playstation network and pay an unlock fee which may or may not equal the price of the game as new for example. or you might be limited to X amount of hours to play a game that has been linked to a different console unit.

It's sad that it is news when corporation announces that they are going to treat their customer nicely...

...except "bad thing" and Sony is not limited to "once".

There were also a lot of other things that were sold with the original PS3 that were then removed in future releases of the console. PS2 backward compatibility as an example. The first gen PS3 had it in hardware, the second gen had it in software. Then it was silently removed altogether. Luckily they didn't retro actively remove it. I know it's a little different because by the time you both the PS3 thin it was well known it didn't exist any more. To me that seems like an easily repeatable, first gen PS4 allows used games then before people know it all the sudden the feature is removed or phased out.

Sony's demonstrated that you can't believe what they say. I bought into the PS3 partly for the Other Os and was burned. Anyone who buys into the PS4 after know what with the PS3 deserves to get burned when Sony pulls another stunt.

Even if Microsoft / Sony start embedding the serial nrs onto the disc it's fundamentally no different than what happened already for years. It just means users don't have to type in the code.

What is more worrying is that there are numerous ways that the serial nr's activation status can be used / abused. For example, one game might decide to disable online without a refresh code which is semi reasonable (the person buying the game didn't pay for the servers that run the online portion). But what if games become glorified playable demos, or the game starts showing annoying interstitial adverts in second hand form unless you buy a refresh code? You can bet the likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft are already salivating at the ways they can claw back cash from second hand titles and they'll go as far as the console vendors let them unless there are reasonable limits.

Even then, one of the big selling points for Valve is that they offer steep sale prices frequently.

Sony & MS on the other hand will sell a download game for more then the it's retail counterpart because they do not want to piss off the retailers. Valve does not have this concern since few places still sell retail copies, and even then only the biggest AAA game of the month.

The only difference is the PS+ offering which is more like renting for an unknown time since games can come and go from the service.

Also it's unfair to demonize just Valve for the digital goods. Apple and other retailers of digital goods have been trying the whole "license/lease" argument for years, long before Steam became popular.

If you simply buy and play games (or watch movies or listen to music), you are already just a facilitator of consumption, you just don't realise it.

The main "right" you have is the right to stop buying/downloading/borrowing stuff and go and do something creative instead, if you're that worried about it.

The Ps3 feature removal, the CD root kit, credit card number breaches. Sony has very little credibility left for me and won't get anymore of my money.

Or, as likely, there will be no *requirement* for games to be locked to a particular account or console, but the device will support that feature. That way some companies can sell games in the traditional manner (on a resellable optical disc), lending credence to Sony's claim. However, increasingly publishers will make use of the PS4's built-in DRM system so as to lock games to particular consoles or accounts, which are then impossible to resell. The former category of games rapidly dwindles to a trickle

That way Sony won't be lying; you can play (some) used games on the consoles, if the games support it. You just won't be able to buy games with that feature anymore.

It's too bad that publishers just don't start offering games at reasonable prices right from the get-go. I've built my Steam library almost solely on deals on got on games - in fact, the only new release I bought at full price was Skyrim. For the 40 or so titles in my library, I maybe spent $600 - an average of $15 per games. My library has a good cross section of cheaper indie titles (Trine, Limbo) to "premium" titles (Batman AA & AC).. If first run games were offered at say half the price, I think it would cut way down on used games (profit margin would be way to low at that point), and maybe some piracy. Right now, I can't spend $60 on a game just coming out. I wait until they drop the price. Unfortunately I got my kids a Wii U, so bargain shopping may be a ways off...

I'm sure all 13 of them will be heartbroken. PS Speaking as someone who makes a living using Linux, Linux on the PS3 was beyond useless.

The scene was stagnant for a year before Sony pulled the plug. If even half of the people who cry about it on Slashdot actually used it, maybe Sony wouldn't have taken it away.

Despite initially permitting Playstation 4 owners to play used games, a recent update silently removed this feature. Responding to outrage on the Sony forums Sony stated that the cause of the removal was increased rates of piracy, you don't want to be a pirate don't you. Sony also reminded users that they are too financially and emotionally invested in the Playstation already to go to any of their competitors so they should just suck it up and take it. Another poster pointed out that according to the Playstation 4 EULA, Sony owned their dicks.