News - Sony cracks down on PSN game sharing on PSP and PS3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExHail

I don't see how you can support restricting customers in order for Sony and publishers to maximise their profit... Customers used to be free to play any game they bought where ever they'd like to. The major reason I use Steam is because I can go anywhere I like and still play my games if I log in to Steam. Take that away and I'll drop Steam.

People have forgotten the freedom there used to be when playing games, you could use any number of devices to play your game on as often as you want; it's now getting too restrictive. How would you like to be forced to watch the DVD you bought by yourself and only in the first DVD player it enters? If that seems unfair then why is it not unfair to do the same for games?

---

sure you can login to steam at someone else's house but when you leave there and go log back in from home he'll no longer have access. also the DVD analogy doesn't work - any user on the console can play it, it's a per-device restriction.

and to stick with the DVD analogy, it's more like putting copy protection on the disc to stop it being duplicated and given away.

they really only had 2 options, either lock to machine or to account. imagine how much worse it would work out if they locked to account - sure you could go to a friend's house and play it there, but nobody else living with you could play it with their account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amdavies

Hasn't the EU got some sort of policy on recycling ?
Wouldn't this be in contravention to that by forcing people to buy new games when recycled ones could be made available but for this impending practice by Sony ?

---

i think it needs to physically exist ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

They've already been trying to knock that on the head with the "online serial numbers".....

What really annoys me, is that they are doing everything possible to ensure they always sell more copies than they previously did, regardless of whether the game is good or not.....yet there seems to be no price reductions to reflect the increase in sales and the extra revenue from selling "online keys" to second-hand purchasers.

So, yet another case of Sony taking away and not giving anything back......

---

most games now are more about the multiplayer than the SP, and the lifespan of a game goes from being measured in hours to months, asking for a 1 time fee to help cover the costs is pretty sweet

it's especially important for PS3 because their online is free

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tunnah

most games now are more about the multiplayer than the SP, and the lifespan of a game goes from being measured in hours to months

---

Yes, because counterstrike was all about the single player. And Baldur's Gate was beatable in just a few hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tunnah

they really only had 2 options, either lock to machine or to account. imagine how much worse it would work out if they locked to account - sure you could go to a friend's house and play it there, but nobody else living with you could play it with their account.

---

They could of left it the way it was... It's not like they were making a loss on the games. That's the issue I have, they aren't saying we'll be paying more to produce the content than we get back; they are saying we aren't making as much money as we want, therefore we must ensure we get more.

As long as that is their motivation I will be against it. If you want customers to be loyal and continue to purchase your games you need to treat them with respect. Jeffrey Rosen summarises the issue brilliantly: "How many legitimate users is it ok to inconvenience in order to reduce piracy?" The answer should be none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

Yes, because counterstrike was all about the single player. And Baldur's Gate was beatable in just a few hours.

---

yeah i really enjoyed playing those 2 on console..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExHail

They could of left it the way it was... It's not like they were making a loss on the games. That's the issue I have, they aren't saying we'll be paying more to produce the content than we get back; they are saying we aren't making as much money as we want, therefore we must ensure we get more.

As long as that is their motivation I will be against it. If you want customers to be loyal and continue to purchase your games you need to treat them with respect. Jeffrey Rosen summarises the issue brilliantly: "How many legitimate users is it ok to inconvenience in order to reduce piracy?" The answer should be none.

---

thing is they do make a loss. with people sharing map packs, DLC, games etc. they lose out on quite a lot.

why is it not ok to inconvenience a legitimate user ? if a game developer is going bust because of piracy because the only way to implement copy protection is to slightly inconvenience you, you'd be ok with that ? extreme example but i don't get what's so world ending about a little inconvenience in order for a company to protect themselves from theft

and really how is it an inconvenience, how many playstations do you plan on going through ? or having in your house ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tunnah

thing is they do make a loss. with people sharing map packs, DLC, games etc. they lose out on quite a lot.

---

A shared or pirated game does not equate to a loss of sale, never has and never will. If you don't provide an adequate service you won't get pirates to buy your game. No DRM has prevented pirates from getting games without paying for them so what's the point in wasting resources on it? You need to focus on what you can do, and that invariably ends up being catering for your legitimate customers.

Those publishers that focus on producing good content that meets the expectations of the customers tend to do well, Valve and Stardock come to mind in this regard. Neither of them focus any efforts on "fighting piracy", instead they focus on making great games and are rewarded for doing so by loyal customers... me being one such loyal customer for exactly that reason.

Gabe Newell and Brad Wardell have admirable and beneficial views on the matter:

"My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary - our customers ..." - Brad Wardell CEO of Stardock

“It doesn’t take much in terms of providing a better service to make pirates a non-issue.” - Gabe Newell CEO of Valve

I've not used PSN so i don't know how it works but how does it compare to the LIVE way of doing things where:

you have a console which LIVE recognises as 'yours', anything you buy/download from LIVE on that console can used by anyone using that console...

you can also download it use it on other consoles, provided the account that bought it was signed in...

[as far as i can remember it still works like that]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExHail

A shared or pirated game does not equate to a loss of sale, never has and never will. If you don't provide an adequate service you won't get pirates to buy your game. No DRM has prevented pirates from getting games without paying for them so what's the point in wasting resources on it? You need to focus on what you can do, and that invariably ends up being catering for your legitimate customers.

Those publishers that focus on producing good content that meets the expectations of the customers tend to do well, Valve and Stardock come to mind in this regard. Neither of them focus any efforts on "fighting piracy", instead they focus on making great games and are rewarded for doing so by loyal customers... me being one such loyal customer for exactly that reason.

Gabe Newell and Brad Wardell have admirable and beneficial views on the matter:

"My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary - our customers ..." - Brad Wardell CEO of Stardock

“It doesn’t take much in terms of providing a better service to make pirates a non-issue.” - Gabe Newell CEO of Valve

---

...you can't be snerious. yes it's true that the measures used for illegal downloads are absolutely useless but it's just as useless to assume that everyone who pirates does so because they had no intent to buy the game anyway

DRM has had a massive effect on piracy. back in the day PC games would be released on the same day (usually 7-14 days) that the supplier uploaded them. this is because they had automated tools that bypassed the protection instantly. nowadays PC games are released as much as a week after store date because each new release has different styles of DRM that can't be "scripted"

and it's this delay which boosts sales. games are much like film piracy - if they can get it early, or even on same day as release, then why pay for it ? even a small delay boosts sales in an unmeasurable amount. and it's unmeasurable because so many people talk absolute bollocks about their intentions.

do you think BF3 sales were so high on the PC because people wanted to support the developers ? no. it's because they couldn't play online with a pirate copy. same for any game where people want to play online on the PC. hell if the threat of being banned off XBL/PSN wasn't so prevailent then game sales would be a lot less than they are.

and i'm saying this as a long time follower of piracy. i'm an ex-warez scene member who worked with top level groups for over 10 years i've seen first hand the effects of piracy and DRM

do some research before you pull nonsense statements out smileyface smileyface no aggresion intended etc.

edit: also to address those quotes - the first is from a developer working on games the second is coming from someone who works for a company that distributes primarily through a system that is designed to counteract piracy

@ Tunnah

Your the one assuming... I never said pirates don't intend to buy games, they certainly don't buy games they pirate and for what reason I couldn't say. The fact remains that it happens and regardless of how much your product costs or what DRM you choose to use it will continue. The Humble Bundle is a perfect example, you can legitimately buy the games for 1p yet people still pirate it: http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Savi...e-Indie-Bundle

You argue from the standpoint of money, revenue and profit, values devoid of any meaning to me because they don't relate to people. Anyone can justify despicable acts with money as a reason, not saying DRM is despicable just that money is an empty reason to do something. How does DRM boost the gaming experience of their customers? That is the important question.

Valve aren't only developers, they publish hundreds of games themselves. Stardock may be strictly a publisher but they focus on enabling developers to make good games, not DRM. That is why Demigod was released without any DRM, and despite this was a best seller... They are doing well, perhaps not raking in the cash like others but they haven't neglected their customers in order to do so. The less important customers are in a companies decision the less likely I am to support it. Games development and publishing is a service business and as such customers should be the most important factor in any decision made, clearly DRM does not have customers interests at heart.

In summary I'm against publishers squeezing every last penny out of customers, I'm against restricting customer's gaming experience to improve sales and most of all I'm against justifying actions with money.

Sounds fair enough to me, as mentioned xbox live is a case of its activated to work on your console online/offline and then you can use it on any other console if you are signed in.

Perfectly fair I buy it I can use it, I don't buy it I can't use it.