Sony Joins the Offensive Against Pre-Owned Games 461
BanjoTed writes "In a move to counter sales of pre-owned games, EA recently revealed DLC perks for those who buy new copies of Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Now, PlayStation platform holder Sony has jumped on the bandwagon with similar plans for the PSP's SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3. '[Players] will need to register their game online before they are able to access the multiplayer component of the title. UMD copies will use a redeemable code while the digital version will authenticate automatically in the background. Furthermore ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
Weeeellllllllll. (Score:5, Insightful)
If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?
I have a feeling Sony has traded getting no money from resales to getting no money because everyone's downloading a cracked version.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has a varying level of difficulty, depending on which PSP you've picked up.
As of my last foray into that realm:
PSP-1000 was the easiest to exploit, depending on firmware version. May need to have a go at it with a service mode battery if the firmware version is too high.
PSP-2000 usually requires a service mode battery and a 256 MB or larger memory stick to exploit. The batteries are cheap (about $7 [dealextreme.com] online if you know wher).
PSP-3000 had only a HEN exploit to date, which would allow one to run homebrew, bu
Re:More than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy a Sony TV because of my past experiences with Sony's car radios etc. The whole DRM thing is useful to tell the good ones from the bad ones.
Having such cool products.... I wonder if they fully appreciate what they're doing to their brand.
I don't buy Sony products because:
I think any of those alone are enough reason to boycott any company. Put more than one into a single company and there's no excuse to buy anything from them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Canada is the reason we have Celine Dion, not Sony... Move along now, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Canada made up for all of that with Dan Akroyd, Rick Moranis, and John Candy.
Re:More than that. (Score:5, Funny)
Now, now, the Canadian government has apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More than that. (Score:5, Informative)
I readily admit that on paper Blu-Ray was better technically regarding higher density disks. The slightly higher transfer rates are irrelevant regarding movies, since there's no bandwidth issues there unless your source is using an inefficient compression algorithm.
Both BR and HDDVD support TrueHD audio, so I'm not sure where your misinformation on audio comes from. You should also note that almost all movies are in 5.1 audio, not the 7.1 that's supported.
But, BR the implementation was hamstrung from the beginning by DRM requirements, and the implementation at the time of the "win" was far below what HD DVD already was capable of. (we really should just say "bought in as gross an example of monopolistic anti-competitive behavior as is available in history" as Sony mortgaged half the company to do so)
Add to that the fact that the hard coating was a requirement on BR disks, and could have easily been added to HD DVD disks, the only thing left is capacity. Now as to capacity, most BR disks use the less than optimal MPEG2 encoding which is a space hog, yet still leaves lots of room on most BR disks, essentially stating they could also easily fit on HD DVD disks. MPEG4 encoding, which is much more efficient and actually preserves more quality even when a movie is compressed to a smaller file size than MPEG2 equivalent would completely negate the size argument at least as far as movies go - the primary reason for these disks existence in the first place.
Re:More than that. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:More than that. (Score:5, Interesting)
The capacity and bitrate were the only advantage. On the other hand HD-DVD was a "finished" platform, with dozens of other advantages. It was doing dozens of things that simply wern't possible with the profile 1.0 (then later 1.1) BR disks. Its also pretty much given at this point, that putting java on the player has guaranteed that its been (and will be for the near future) a firmware upgrade/incompatibility nightmare. For a couple of years there, BR was just a scramble to throw in features (think picture in picture directors commentary, that required everyone except the PS3 owners to buy new players) when some hot HD-DVD title came out using a feature. I have a rule about my Blury player, if the disk I'm trying to play is newer than the firmware, then go to Sony's site and upgrade the firmware.
As someone familiar with the actual BR movie streams (chuckle) very few of them actually utilize more than single layer BR (25G) even when they are originally on dual layer. The extra capacity is almost always a second copy of the movie, or some extra crap encoded at 1080p originally filmed with a 480i camera. Even then, they generally come in under 30G (the default HD-DVD dual layer format). Frankly, even now, I can boot my HD-DVD player, drop a disk in and compare the "experience" with recent BR disks. HD-DVD continues to have more polish, and an unnoticeable quality difference. Part of that is the movie studios fault. For example, the default behavior for a HD-DVD is to start playing the movie (not previews) when the disk is inserted. If you want to select another audio stream (cause your system settings weren't correct) the popup menus over the movie allows you to do it dynamically while the movie is playing. The sequence for HD-DVD is "insert movie, watch movie", where is with BR, its "insert movie, fast forward through 3 commercials, navigate menus to start movie, watch movie". Then there are technology problems, for example, probably over 1/2 of the BR movies still can't be resumed from the middle, if you decide to finish watching at another time. This is apparently due to some issue with... wait for it.. the java (BD+?) running on the disks.
Finally, the hard coating was "required" because without it, the disks were to fragile as the data layer is right on the surface. I'm not sure that's an advantage. Someone could amended the CD, DVD or HD-DVD spec to require it too. It won't happen. It isn't necessary with those specifications as minor scratches don't ruin the disk. You can by DVD blanks with the same coating, but very few people do that either. If HD-DVD were still around, they probably would be using the scratch resistant coating to compensate for the error correction changes they were making right at the end to create 23G layers.
Re:More than that. (Score:4, Informative)
The fact is Sony made a bunch of back-room deals that cut off a competitor that was doing better than they were. When Blu-Ray "won" there was already an HD-DVD player for roughly $100, at which point critical mass would have happened in a natural economic climate. That isn't what happened here.
Re:More than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
"They did underhanded deals to foist a sub-optimal solution (Blu-Ray) on everyone."
After putting out a superior product in the days of VCR's and getting owned, they learned their lesson. This is the way business is done. You make the deals that you need to make in order to turn a profit.
Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't look like a smart move to me after all the bad press with the sony DRM and rootkit.
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:5, Insightful)
How long before there is a class action lawsuit against Sony for articifically reducing the value of assets that are purchased in good faith. What happens if you wish to sell your PS3 and all of the games? The package will be devalued by the amount of resubscriptions required for the online games.
And that's grounds for legal action because? Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.
A flip side to this is it benefits someone who doesn't play online - used game prices will drop to accommodate the subscription fee; and if you don't plan to play online you now have a code that you can sell to someone who bought a used game. Either way your price for the game would drop if you don't play online.
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I don't want to play online, am I allowed to return the code to Sony for a $20 refund? I should be.
Re: (Score:2)
you make a good point.
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I pirate the game and then pay Sony $20 does that make it legitimate?
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you've just described the MMORPG model popular in the west.
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except it's not up to the company -- the fact that they're trying to invent that right by stripping away the property rights of the buyer is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!!
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:5, Interesting)
"In the US (YMMV) you have a right to do anything you want with your physical copy of the game (outside of making illicit copies). However, any rights for any subscription services are not "basic" - they depend on the contract/license for the service."
This is not true. We have the Doctrine of First Sale. If I pay for a game, that means all features. When I resell that game, the purchaser expects the exact same thing.
Forcing the second purchaser to pay extra money to access what should come with the game AS ADVERTISED is fraud in the purest sense.
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Sony is not stopping you from reselling the games; just not letting you transfer the subscription; something you knew when you bought the game.
Online play is a part of the game as advertised on the retail box. Therefore barring use from another machine is a crime on Sony's part. There is no "subscription' - I'm not paying Sony to play this game, I paid the store and online play was included.
What if my PS3 breaks down due to a technical failure and Sony's warranty replaces the unit. I would then have to pay $20 again for each game?
Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your one of those people who say X will always be enough activations/repairs/replacements.
I can assure you that X will NEVER be enough. I have had to purchase a new Xbox 360 because I've had 4 years of RROD's. I have had to call two software companies/hack 4 games to get around "too many activations" limitations due to product defects (all on a single box). I have had to do the same thing for work related commercial software. I have also been involved in activation issue from the software vendors side.
T
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most likely not. With their current setup, you're allowed 5 downloads of a game that you purchase over the PSN. After 5 downloads and reinstalls though, you're required to purchase again.
No, you're not. You're allowed to de-authorize previous consoles and get that download back.
Sony's store is fairly sane with regards to their policy. However, I still don't like the trend to sell us half of a game, and then force you to buy the additional content digitally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People have a right to use their own personal property; Sony does not and should not have the authority to interfere!
The physical game disc that you bought is your property. The services that you access with it are not. Sony has the right to decide who can access external services for a game. They have a right to create ToSs for it and the right to enforce it.
If you are an abusive fuck, they have every right to prohibit you from using THEIR servers to play online. Furthermore, if you accept the premise
Re: (Score:2)
It is so quaint that you assume a code (Score:2)
It is possible, but it is also possilbe that they will use some unique identifier associated with your XBox instead.
END COMMUNICATION
Re: (Score:2)
1. Most people STILL don't know about that. What's more, some of the people I have discussed it with are not exactly joes on the street -- they are people with technical experience, knowledge and inclination.
2. It was so long ago, most people don't have that on the forefront of their minds.
With that said, I agree with you that it's a dumb move for Sony, but many many companies are becoming increasingly aggressive and arrogant when it comes to the consumer. Perhaps their creation and backing of ACTA is mak
Bypassing doctrine of first sale (Score:2)
Digital downloads and online registration bypasses the doctrine/right of first sale which states, essentially that copyright owners cannot control downstream sales of the product purchased. For some reason, this is more difficult to apply to computer software, most likely because of eulas being supported by the courts.
Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale (Score:5, Insightful)
I know car analogies are old on slashdot but I seriously wonder how long before car manufacturers start building the electronic components of their cars such that they are needlessly dependent on some online system run by the manufacturer so that your fuel indicator only works correctly if your car has been able to update this month from the manufacurers online fuel level measuring methods database and your aircon shuts down unless authenticated with a secure server on a regular basis as a "car theft prevention measure".
Idiot lawmakers make bypassing or removing the "anti car theft" systems for any reason a crime.
Drivers pay through the nose to have an account with the manufacturer.
Manufacturers get more profit since now people have an incentive to not buy used cars.
Shills start trolling car enthusiast message boards talking about how it's a good thing because this way the car companies get more money to build better cars and everyone wins except those dirty car thieves.
I can honestly see it happening.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can honestly see it happening.
Completely different market. With a computer game, the software is the product, it can be (illegally) copied very cheaply so the manufacturers need to find more creative ways to sustain their business models. With a car, the car is the product, and the software is just a component of it. And the car can't be copied cheaply so the existing business models work just fine.
That doesn't mean they won't try it of course... but unless there is collaboration across the whole car industry it won't fly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it is a different market, but the concept here is basically the 'right of first sale', 2nd hand sales etc... not piracy. No, the car cannot be copied, but your right of reselling he car could very well be restricted.
Say a car manufacturer considered 2nd hand sales of it's cars to be theft, just as video game makers see 2nd hand sales of their games. So, you must register your vehicle with the manufacturer in order for it to continue to work beyond five minutes at a time with a ten minute 'cool do
Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a one of the big european car manufactorer's. I can assure you that car manufactorer's have absolutely no interest in crippliing used cars sales.
If people could not sell their cars(to the dealer or to another user directly) they would keep using the same old car until it can. Car manufactorer's are instead very interested in people changing thir car every few years(2-3-5 are the most interesting spans), so they can seel a new one. People buyng a used medium size sedan are not likely to buy the same car new, while people changing their medium size sedan every 2-3 years are not likely to resort to used cars market(they clearly like having brand new cars), so there is very little overlap.
Also a used car is a very very different product from a new one. They have different values and there are many risks for non competent people buying 5 or more years old cars.
A car, even if there is no newer version, gets old with use and get less and less "useful" with time. There are very little istances of cars which are more than 10 years old and still good for everyday use, at least not without major maintenance(old fasghioned cars are a good example, if well kept they can be in perfect working order, but the cost of mantaining a 50's car in mint condition are very high. What you spend on it in 5 years is for syure much more than what you'd spend to buy a maintain a brand new car for the same time, and you'd have to factor that newer cars have better mileage, and much bettere safety systems, not to mention comfort).
Used games are the same, as long as the instalation media is not ruined they don't loose value due to use or abuse. The only limiting factor in a game value is aging, which is devalueing because newer better games come out. So These people just want to spend less money making new games, and keep milking old cows.
Car makers used not to have this problem up to a few years ago. they did start in the nineties to make new models every 2-3 years because they wanted to push obsolescence on their previous models just to sell more(they mostly succeeded here in europe).
Re: (Score:2)
No, in both cases the experience is the product. Get with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And, to boot, every car manufacture supports and participates in the second-hand market. You can buy a used GM directly from a GM dealer. T
Re: (Score:2)
More likely the car drives at the lowest legal speed unless its speed limit database is up to date.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the market reaction would be ugly; but there is no technological reason why such a system could not be used for all sorts of exciting pricing schemes.
Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale (Score:4, Insightful)
They already tried something similar when cars first started having diagnostic ports - you had to use a special machine to read the diagnostic code which was only available from the manufacturer to franchised dealers. This is why OBD-II was developed and is now mandated in much of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Grr, we hateses the OBDII.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't it depend on how they present the product ? Let's say the product is the software, the physical media, the packaging, and maybe online access.
- if 'online' is an option, then I should be able to get a refund if I'm not interested. By law, 'linked sale' must be breakable into constitutive parts in my country (France).
- if 'online' is an integral part of the product, then I should be able to resell it along with the software itself.
We're going to see some fancy marketing-legalese footnotes on those games...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesnt bypass anything. The first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony has to allow the transfer of DLC to other accounts. Of course someone has to sue them first to force them to respect the law, until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Refusing you to resell their online offer is refusing you to resell. The fact that the product have an online activation changes nothing. And yes, since refusing you to enable you is refusing you to resell, it does force them to enable you to do so..
Pre-owned = Piracy (Score:5, Funny)
Pirates are very likely to notice it. (Score:2)
Yes, charging buyers of pre-owned games 20 bucks will show those dirty pirates.
And sure, all the people who get their games from Pirate Bay are VERY likely to notice what happens to regular buyers~
Preowned? (Score:2, Funny)
Root kit?
It benefits the consumer, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.
Re: (Score:2)
Exclaimation mark!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.
It's the oldest story in the book. If you repeat something enough people will eventually believe it. Besides, how often have you seen press statements that don't appear to make any sense at all, but they still play the "Hai, this is what we do" statement. It's sad, but it works in the bigger picture. A lot of investors simply lap that shit up.
"recieved positively", not by consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.
At this point, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that one or more of the Sony executives are in the pay of their competition. It would make perfect sense.
Illogical? (Score:2)
Given that the former owner doesn't have access to the game, wouldn't Sony be profiting off someone not using their online subscription anymore? If they want money so badly, they should require an annual subscription.
NOT PIRACY (Score:4, Interesting)
This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the "software as a service" paradigm.
Nowadays, a lot of games you "buy" contain only a very small offline playing offering.
I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friends (at home two!). I just got the "Spyborgs" game for Wii... I haven't had so much fun in some time; it is the first "cooperative player with a history when playing both of them" I have been able to play (since I played Army of Two for PS3!).
Re: (Score:2)
This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the "software as a service" paradigm. Nowadays, a lot of games you "buy" contain only a very small offline playing offering.
I don't have any problems with software as a service. I have subscribed to a LOT of MMOGs. That's perfectly fine in my books. It's a service they give. They keep adding content, I buy an occasional expansion, we carry on happily.
What rubs me the wrong way however, is when a package that isn't actually software as a service is painted to look like one. A normal shooter, with online play, that's not a service. That's what you damn well expect.
With a little luck, these bone heads will eventually learn th
Re: (Score:2)
DNAS Error -103 (Score:2)
I don't mind so much if Sony charges me to use their servers
But I do mind if Sony pulls the plug on the server just before the tournament that we planned out on a forum, or if Sony pulls the plug before I even break the shrinkwrap on a new-in-box game (which has happened to me twice).
I beg to differ - this *is* Piracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
See, *hey've already s*olen my "*" key!
Fuck all of you (Score:2, Interesting)
I am in the position now where I don't really care about money anymore. So I tend to purchase good products because I feel like the creators deserve to be compensated.
I already avoid Sony products but now I will actively pirate your shit and help other do so as well.
FUCK YOU!
Digging their own grave (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me be neither the first nor last to say (Score:3)
Let me be neither the first or last to say:
Fuck you, sony and EA.
Smart move? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why on earth do they do everything in their might to discourage people from buying games and instead pirating them? Im starting to believe its intentional and that for some reason the media industry think they will make more money out of lawsuits than from selling games the normal way.
bleh (Score:3, Insightful)
Should we try the hollywood approach here instead?
You wouldn't sell a car..
Pre-owned? (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with the word "used"? Are you all car dealers now?
Re:Pre-owned? (Score:5, Funny)
Pre-owned.... pwned... I never made the connection until just now!
Sony! You win! (Score:2)
I won't be pirating or renting or selling any of your games... or game systems... I won't be buying any of them either.
EA/Bioware compared to Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps if sony took away something like character customization in multiplayer, that would
Used games are not harming the New Game Market! (Score:5, Informative)
So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market. They are completely wrong. Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.
Let me explain. Wouldn't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary, for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank's holdings, for no reason whatsoever?
Yep, that would be awesome, no doubt about it. But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you don't deserve? Nope.
That's what's going on with the new game and used game markets. The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market. Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement. In the United States we have the right of first sale. What that means is that we can sell what we bought, even if what we bought was copyrighted material. So we have a right to sell our DVDs, CD, and used games.
Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they don't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling. If you think that, you're completely missing the point.
The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales. It does not have such a right to profits. None whatsoever. No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold. GM created the truck, does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale? What about your house, should the contractor get a cut when you sell it, when it's sold 100 years from now? (I live in a house originally built in 1856, exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out?)
My point is, much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay, and much like how you have no rights to your bank's holdings, the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market. None whatsoever.
Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market "Is profiting from the sale of our games." It's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game; it is no longer their game. They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy. So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.
I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales. I.e., consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.
Let's get one thing straight: Losing sales to a competitor is not harm. It's competition.
The new game industry's claim that it's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.
Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing, for example, if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.
But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market. It's not illegal for consumers to resell their games. It's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.
If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition, then it's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work. You are not entitled to someone else's profits, merely because you want them. Get over it.
Unfortunately, this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games. Despite what corporations say, they don't really want to compete in a free market, they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition.
Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market! (Score:5, Insightful)
By the reasoning that you've used, I think that one has to endorse what Sony's doing here. After reading through most of the comments, I think I do anyway. All Sony's doing, after all, is competing more effectively. Their competitor is a reseller. Therefore, is there really anything wrong with Sony creating a product that is more useful when purchased new than when purchased from their competitor? Let's try a different spin on this: Sony isn't selling crippled software. They're selling software bundled with a one-time use subscription code. $30 for the software, $20 for the code. Sorry, no refunds, though. If you're interested in just the single-player experience, you should buy the game used. It's fine if you choose to sell the software but the new user will also have to subscribe.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with what Sony is doing here. They are selling a physical game, which can be resold without impediment. And an online service, which each subsequent purchaser of the game needs to buy if he wants to partake in it.
My post came from my blog and was merely about the general idea about used and new game sales.
Re: (Score:2)
So you were looking to profit (in karma) from a USED blog post! You are as bad as those you rail against!
Re: (Score:2)
But I did not link back to my old blog post! That makes it ok, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it harms new game sales. If someone can buy a new game for $60 vs a used game for $50 then obviously some people would choose the latter. The money from that sale goes to store, not the publisher.
How much they're losing is the big question. I wouldn'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the entire inference sailed past you - that game was sold once, the publisher has their money from the stores. The publishers want a SECOND DIP, and that's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
They are in other words competing with their own older products, just like the car industry
If Ford started producing rubbish cars then the second hand car market would take up the slack and people who want a Ford would buy second hand cars
If the games industry are not producing games people want anymore then people will buy second hand games
The solution is to make games people want to buy, rather than crippling or charging for older games
What's next the music industry charging more for older songs so that n
It's a company. Of course it's right. (Score:5, Funny)
A company can do whatever the hell it wants! Nobody forces you to buy these games after all. Between bong hits, you hippies whine that policies like this lead to decreased consumer choice, greater entrenchment of established players, less innovation, and price increases [wikipedia.org] across the board. So what? That's just too bad. The right of a corporation to do anything it wants it spelled out in the Book of Job. If a corporation does it, that makes it right.
Still whining, huh? Are you a successful executive? No? When what business do you have talking about anything, loser? Don't like it? Go read a book, or move to a France, or preferably, impress your boss by putting in 12 hours at work tomorrow instead of the expected 10.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to your logic a company can charge you for a product and then not provide it, if they do provide it can be faulty, dangerous, or not as advertised "If a corporation does it, that makes it right"
Strangely the law disagrees with you ....as it probably does in this case as well, as soon as someone takes Sony to court ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If a corporation does it, that makes it right.
This is just wrong in so many ways. By that logic we wouldn't have anti-trust laws, safety regulations, or anything cause the corporation is always in the right. Well lets look at three examples where corporations were in the wrong and it required legislation to fix it.
We now have food regulation in place because a can of beef contained more than just beef. The corporations believed they could save money by filling a can of beef with half beef and half whatever the hell they wanted without telling us. N
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you, and more. My comment was intended to be satire. (Check my comment history if you doubt me.)
That so many people took me seriously is really an indictment of how absurdly far right the discussion [wikipedia.org] has moved. If corporations were natural persons, they'd be seemed psychopaths, a danger to themselves and others, and locked up where they couldn't do any harm. It's absolutely preposterous that some people elevate them above a democratically-elected government.
The right to form a corporation is not
Mod my comment down (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't believe you and at least three other people took my comment seriously. I thought the satire was clear. I was wrong [rationalwiki.com]. It really reflects terribly on our society that you could read the bible reference and the "10 hour workday" and think I meant those things in earnest. Only monsters like this man [nytimes.com] would do that.
Moderators, just moderate my original comment down to -1. I'd rather see it there than at +5 Insightful where someone might get the impression that corporate feudalism is a good thing.
this really saddens me (Score:3, Insightful)
What nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
We used to buy a silver disk and it contained a game. As long there was an active userbase playing it, you would have multiplayer. Otherwise, you'd organize a night of multiplayer gaming with friends or play single player mode. But the game was yours to play.
If I look at it, the games industry is evolving to a SaaS-model; you pay a subscription fee on a games base and when you stop paying you are denied access.
it wouldn't surprice me, with latest Nvidea's realtime rendering farm et al, we'd soon have a subscribers base "gamers account", where you can pay monthly for "casual gaming", a more expensive "regular gaming"-account or "extreme all the latest games at fuckplenty fps"-account giving you access to certain titles/types of games which you can play realtime over wire.
Gaming like we've known before, on brown or silver disks, seems to be phasing out forever.
You think you bought it but actually you didnt (Score:2)
basically this is what they are saying you.
cut the bullshit. this 'right to use' has to end (Score:3, Insightful)
do you think what will happen if this 'right to use' bullshit takes hold ? what if all service and goods providers take up on it and you end up buying your car as 'right to use' only ?
there is NOTHING preventing any business from selling their products and services with these type of contracts that will make you only 'own the right to use'. (whatever the fuck that is, since it can be so easily redefined by the provider)
you need to stop buying into this exploitative crap. if you buy a copy of a piece of soft
Getting sick of this shit (Score:3, Interesting)
Repeat (Score:5, Informative)
Just when i was almost ready to buy a PS3... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a cycle, and I'm stuck in it. When the PS3 came out, first I waited simply because I wanted to be sure the platform took off. I eventually said to myself "It's going well, as soon as they drop the price I'll buy one." Well, they not only dropped the price, they dropped the emotion chip. ...so I didn't buy it. Later they were to drop the price, and they dropped the Emotion chip EMULATOR TOO, then Linux boot support, now they're dropping my ability to get good value on resale of games (since that $20 is getting passed to the consumer, my game is not $20 less valuable at resale, especially since most used games I BUY are only $20 or less, that's a huge hit). I was all set, finally just willing to admit there were few enough PS2 games I have that I'd actualyl play it was worth just keeping the PS2 slim i have around to play them, and I was going to buy a PS3 this summer when the price inevitably dropped again.
Sorry Sony, your screwed yourselves again. I'll just buy another PC based game or two, maybe a new Vid Card.
Free DLC versus screwing people... (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly EA's free DLC for new only is only fluf. the freebies they give you for ME2 are a joke and useless compared to other gear in the game it's nothing you need to finish the game and honestly only gives you a leg up for the first hour of playing (the black hole gun will actually screw you if you use it instead of the grenade launcher.) and the cerebus network is 100% useless.
free DLC is typically junk that only impresses people for a very short time.. like the crap free DLC that Dr Pepper is giving away.
Taking away the ability to play online? that's simply screwing people and disabling a big part of the game.
Can I join the war against the term "pre owned" (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, it is "used." I have no idea why used has become a dirty word. "Pre-owned" is a BS term, that is more complex than it needs to be. Used is fine.
Great for single players (Score:3, Interesting)
It's cool, this is a shining example of capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
They feel the need to screw their customers, and I feel the need not to buy their products.
Shine on, Sony. Shine on.
Yawn. Who cares. (Score:4, Insightful)
So long as Sony is upfront about its policy (which may be in question given it is Sony) who cares.
There is a very easy solution. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy the game. If you feeling really pissed, don't buy Sony products. They will get the message eventually, or if they don't they won't be around much longer.
It really is that simple.
However if they "trick" people into buying their products, and then once it is too late announce that "Oh BTW that thing you just bought is now crippled by this DRM, you must be online or register online, etc... to actually play our game". That would piss me off to the point where I would be demanding my money back.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that pretty much what steam does (well there isn't anything technially stopping you reselling your whole steam account but unless you create an account per game that doesn't help you all that much) already?
Re: (Score:2)