Sony May Try To Stop PS3 Game Resales 423
Next Generation reports on Sony's hopes that it will be able to prevent the resale of PS3 games. The article argues that it is unlikely they'll succeed in this goal. From the article: "One expert in retail law told Next-Gen.Biz, 'Sony can theoretically sell a license to play the game, but the user would have to acknowledge acceptance of the license. You've seen this when you install software on a PC. I'm not sure that the license agreement is enforceable if the licensee doesn't agree to it. Also, even if the agreement is enforceable, it's hard to preclude subsequent sale of the disc. The consumer could theoretically agree that he doesn't own the right to transfer his license, but why couldn't he sell the medium that held the license (the disc)? Sony can't enforce the agreement against a third party, as it lacks privity with the third party.'"
I lost count (Score:5, Insightful)
How to fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Another for the rumor bin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh Sony... I pity you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ka-BLAM. - The sound of Sony falling to dust.
Really, truly, why would Sony do this?
I mean, I heard rumours of something similar a while back. They were going to try and make a disc you buy to only be able to play on a single system. No more copying, no more renting, no more lending.
Hell, what happens to me when my PS3 goes the same way as my PS2 and I need to get a new one? Better yet, what happens when they release a new slimmer version and suddenly I'm not able to play anymore?
Mind you, this may not be the case with this new system of theirs, but why kill the second hand market like this? I can't remember the last time I bought a game brand new. Game Boy Advance and Game Cube both, nearly all my games are second hand copies. Why? Because not only are they cheaper, but because it's sometimes harder to find games new after they're released. Especially the rare gems.
On top of the fact that used games would be near impossible, what will they do for rentals? I'm certainly not going to go fork out $80 (CDN) for a new game that I've never tried. I want to go out and rent it, and if it is worth it, sure I'll pick up copy. "Greatest Hits" games hardly count, because they are simply cheaper because they've been out longer, and a few people liked them.
If they do this, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. There won't be a PS3 in my place (mind you, the PS2 belongs to the finacee), and I guarantee there won't be one in many of the living rooms I know of.
Unlikely? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-w
could it be true? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the article also points out how technological enforcement would be difficult, and how such a move would completely piss off both retailers and consumers.
I can't see Sony actually doing this, I really don't think it makes a lot of business sense. But then, I never thought they would charge $600 for a PS3.
Killing off the game rental market as well? (Score:4, Insightful)
EULA (Score:2, Insightful)
Story based on nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, hey, the new rules of gaming media are
- Is it about Sony?
- Does it make Sony look bad?
If so, then there is no step 3. The rumor must be right, and it's getting printed on Slashdot.Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
If true, such a move would be a massive boost for publishers and developers which do not profit from the lucrative and damaging retail trade in used games. In fact, many publishers are furious that they have to spend support money on consumers who have not actually contributed a dime to the company's coffers.
The secondary market adds value for the consumer. The average consumer will be more likely to buy a new release for $60 if they think they'll be able to resell it for $35 when they're done with it. Furthermore, publishers wouldn't be spending support money if they didn't release buggy products to begin with. All in all, the secondary market probably has a very small effect on how much publishers actually pocket.
Easy workaround? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:1, Insightful)
What it boils down to is this: there has been a standard (exponential) rate of growth in the cost to produce a game per generation.
Aproximate Average Game Development Cost
NES: $25,000 - $50,000
SNES: $100,000 - $200,000
N64/Playstation: $500,000-$1,000,000
PS2/Gamecube/XBox: $2,000,000-4,000,000
Estimate PS3/XBox 360: $5,000,000-$20,000,000
If you're spending in the $20,000,000 you need to sell 2 Million copies before you break even; this would put you in the league of Super Mario Sunshine or The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker in sales before you break even. Sony can't afford to have you to save a couple of dollars by buying a used game.
I'm not defending Sony, just trying to explain what they are doing.
Would prevent rentals, too (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, just how stupid can Sony be? I'm reminded of that old Einstein quote about how only two things were infinite--the universe, and human stupidity--and he wasn't sure about the first one of those.
More FUD from the anti-Sony cabal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I lost count (Score:5, Insightful)
1- installed a root kit on my In-laws machine through a Neil Diamond CD
2- increased the price dramatically
3- announced that they would like to uni-laterally revoke my right to resell items I purchase.
4- generally bone headed their way through every press conference they have had without apologizing directly for any of their bad behavior.
so I don't have an exact count of reasons, but I know the sum == enough.
I'm REALLY looking forward . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
With all the bloody restrictions they should be paying me to take the damn thing.
Seriously; wasn't that the "promise" of all these locked down DRM systems? Hardware free, software as a service, copy protection means that companies can easily recoup their investment.
I couldn't imagine _ever_ buying one of these. It would _really_ have to blow me away.
Online games... (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Long live great games (regardless of the console) and competition (because it benefits us).
Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
People are lazy and really could careless, right up until the point it really does affect them, but then its too late...
How to Make Your Company The Most Hated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
The story is about technological tieing of the software to the hardware. So, if this was true at all, the person likely to sue would be the person to whom grown-up-Timmy sold the software, having claimed it was a playable game when, in fact, it was inert except on the console for which it was licensed, which Timmy, presumably, did not sell with the game.
Of course, it seems unlikely that this is practical with a game disk, unless it has a phone-home activation which then gets a key which is stored on writable media (memory card, hard disk), that depends on a second key which is unique to the hardware.
GamesRadar again... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/articl
I know it's probably totally unreasonable to ask Slashdot to "consider the source" but GamesRadar has a reputation of inaccuray and sensationalism.
Game specialty stores still account for over 25% of US sales of video games, systems and accessories. They are also successful in large part because of used games. This move would essentially hamstring them and either lead to them dropping Sony product from their stores or just going out of business.
Re:I lost count (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
DVDs are highly profitable for the studios because the movie has possibly/probably/hopefully already broke even before the DVD comes out, thus the DVD is a very profitable venture.
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the PS3 turns out to greatly overpower the XBox 360 (which I doubt), the graphics of either system are limited by the time and artistic resources of the companies that develop the games. Most developers are going to make the most money be releasing a game on both systems. Given the already massive cost of developing 3D artwork, they will most likely design the game for the weaker one, and just up the poly and particle count on the stronger. I doubt either system will really outshine the other.
Speaking of competition: Am I the only one that thinks both Sony and MS are going to lose big on this next round of counsels no matter what they do? In the past, many people bought both a PS2 and an XBox. Because of the high price of both systems, consumers are being forced to choose between the two, which means the market will be halved for either company. I predict the only company that is really going to make out is IBM --as they are making the chips for both.
Re:I lost count (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I lost count (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not purchase second hand products (I prefer the artist, producers and manufacturers to be paid for my purchases)
Um, why? It isn't like secondhand goods are black market - Sony already got paid the first time, and trading used goods is a good way to save money. Why are you so intent in giving Sony your money?
Re:I lost count (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I lost count (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that kind of like saying "I didn't kill the guy. It was the bullet's fault."
This is a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
The story is a lie. Clearly Slashdot editors hate Sony enough that any slander they come across is promoted immediately to a top level article.
They must expect to win big (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Most people don't know
2) Many who know will forget in less than a year
3) Some
Re:I lost count (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people do not consider reselling a used DVD as immoral.
DVDs are a product.
But on the other hand most people would consider reusing (with or without reselling) a movie theater ticket to get into a movie twice would be immoral.
Movie theatres are a service.
When purchasing a used product, you are, in most cases, receiving the benifit of the product without any compensation given to the people who worked hard to produce the product.
Why is that? They don't work any harder, and they don't actually have a right to be compensated every time someone uses what they made. Do you have some sort of problem with buying a used car without giving the manufacturer a cut?
Re:I lost count (Score:4, Insightful)
Scenario 1: Person (a) buys a photograph from me for $100. Five years from now, he sells it to person (b) for $100, who also keeps it for five years.
Scenario 2: Person (c) buys a photograph from me for $100 and keeps it for ten years.
At the end of these ten years, in both scenarios there has been a net transaction value of $100. All $100 of this is in my pocket. Also in both scenarios, only one of my photographs has left my hands (I did not lose a second photograph when the first was sold, nor did a second come into being). In both scenarios my photograph has gotten ten years of use. The only difference is that in the first scenario this use was split between two people, whereas in the second it was a single person. So how is this anything like theft? The only way I lose out is if person (a) sells to person (b) for a (inflation-adjusted) profit. But this is generally unlikely during an artist's lifetime, and would basically never happen with mass-produced works such as CDs, DVDs, and games.
You may argue that person (a) selling to person (b) cost me a sale because person (b) did not buy directly from me. But maybe I raised my prices when person (b) decided to buy, and he didn't like my higher prices. Maybe person (a) actually sold it for a loss, and person (b) was unwilling to pay the full $100. There are a number of reasons why person (b) may never have been a potential sale. Further, person (a) may not have been willing to buy in the first place if there was no secondary market.
The only way you could argue it's theft is if the original purchaser has gotten "full use" out of a work. But it is impossible to get full use out of an item that has "unlimited usage", as you put it. Say I buy a DVD, for example. I watch it 100 times. I watch it so many times I don't think I could ever watch it again. Have I gotten full use out of it? No, of course not - I could change my mind and watch it 100 more times. Or I could sell it after those initial 100 screenings, and the purchaser could watch it 100 times. Either way, the DVD is getting watched 200 times. The copyright owners didn't lose out by having the secondary purchaser watch it 100 times any more than they lost out by me watching it 100 more times.
Really what this sounds like, though, is a thinly-veiled desire to do away with "unlimited usage" items entirely and, for example, make DVDs self-destruct after x number of viewings. Because, you know, me getting 400 hours of enjoyment out of a $15 DVD just HAS to be theft.
Re:I lost count (Score:3, Insightful)
It's "My friend" class 2 - when you wouldn't even admit to being friends with someone with a Neil Diamond CD. Remember, you can choose your friends but not your relatives (or I guess you could technically choose your in-laws, but it's sort of a package deal).