Top
210°

Are game publishers on the verge of bringing a no-share/no-resale model to the console game market?

Since the launch of the PS4, Sony has been the flag bearer of pro-consumer policies. The console maker has been evidently clear with its marketing message prior to the console’s launch back in 2013. Meanwhile, Microsoft has often been lashed out at on the internet for originally embracing an anti-game sharing/anti-resale model for the Xbox One prior to its launch. Eventually, the software giant altered these plans and reverted back to the traditional console retail game model.

Read Full Story >>
gearnuke.com
The story is too old to be commented.
JoeMcCallister945d ago

Nice touch adding the Shu/Boyes video, this might be a pretty uphill battle for pubs/devs to win with the inevitable backlash they'll get from the communities. It's interesting there's such a split between PC players who haven't been able to trade for years and the console gamers that are used to being able to get their $20 for a $60 title a few weeks later. Should be interesting to see how this goes over.

darthv72945d ago

"Microsoft has often been lashed out at on the internet for originally embracing an anti-game sharing/anti-resale model for the Xbox One prior to its launch."

just to be fair, MS did have a game sharing program outlined with those you put in your family group (friends/family). And they also had a trade in program outlined through authorized retailers (Gamestop for ex).

Most people didnt understand how it worked and prob never will because it's gone. All we are left with are "what if's"

deadpoolio316945d ago

Its no different than you people who didn't understand how it worked either and jizzed on about it like it was the second coming of christ...

They NEVER said that the family share plan was going to allow full unlimited play of the game. For all anyone knows because MS loves their smoke and mirrors it was going to end up being shareplay 1hr time limit without being unlimited or worse and give people a glorified demo... The Xbox fanboys need to STFU and quit trying to pump something they had no clue about just as much as the other people who instantly hated the idea altogether. Nobody is EVER going to know exactly what their plans were, cause at the end of the day they had no faith in the vision nor felt any need to clarify it

And we all know that GameStop was probably going to be the only "authorized" retailer.

_-EDMIX-_945d ago (Edited 945d ago )

It simply won't happen due to consumers. Gamers won't let such a thing happen......ever. It also makes little sense for publishers as it merely lessens the methods to sell games....which in turn makes you less money.

Even worse, would likely cause many to go the pirate route. I"m sorry but I would have no issue pirating a game if the publishers feel I should pay to temporarily own a game up until they say so.....or, or I could not pay and have it forever.

Who the hell is going to pay for LESS consumer rights?

darthv72945d ago

going the pirate route... well there is that situation in Brazil with the PS4. but that should get fixed pretty quick by Sony.

Nyxus945d ago

This is not allowed in the European Union, so I don't see how they could do that.

http://www.computerworld.co...

"Europe's highest court ruled on Tuesday that the trading of "used" software licenses is legal and that the author of such software cannot oppose any resale."

Volkama945d ago

Yet I still can't sell or trade my used digital games through an official channel on any platform.

945d ago
Death945d ago

@Ulysses,

You may need to elaborate on your statement. Since digital copies don't have wear and tear and they don't take shelf space, shouldn't they hold a higher resale value? Currently we pay the same amount for digital downloads that we do for physical copies. It makes very little sense that digital copies are the same price and have no trade value. We do not own the games we buy, just the license to use them. When we resell a game we are reselling the license, not the intellectual property and certainly not the $0.38 in plastic.

Gilgamesh15945d ago (Edited 945d ago )

@Ulysses

Time, time is the wear and tear on digital content. It's value goes down based on demand dropping off, has very little to do with physical wear and tear. Pretty much what Death said.

P.S. Voted you down for being a prick to Volkama, that was unnecessary.

caseh945d ago

@Volkama

I think that is due to the agreement signed when you agree to use any digital platform. Not sure about Steam but PSN doesn't allow any kind of trade, sale or leasing of your PSN account which also covers any software related to it.

Volkama944d ago

I was just pointing out the obvious hole in the ruling that was linked. Nothing ridiculous or entitled about it.

Good job flying off the handle though. Quite an impressive display.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 944d ago
Gwiz945d ago ShowReplies(1)
N0TaB0T945d ago

Even more of this and there will be an eruption.

Palitera945d ago (Edited 945d ago )

There will be MUCH more than this, and it is gamers we are talking about, so there will obviously be an eruption, but also sales records being broken.
The big money companies on the industry will decide and it will be done.
The fun fact is that some idiots will, as they always do, defend the companies on their restrictive policies. Sit and watch.

Gwiz945d ago

Yes,that's exactly going to happen.

Chanogram945d ago

"Sony has been the flag bearer of pro-consumer policies."

Really? Cant read past that sentence. EA Access being a "bad value" for customers (when in reality it's because they dont want it to compete with PS-Now) is just one example of how they are, in fact, NOT pro-consumer. I will never understand why people champion any of these large companies. They want your money, that's it.

MasterCornholio945d ago (Edited 945d ago )

Well I find Microsoft's previous DRM policies a lot worse than not having EA access but that's just my opinion.

If I had to chose between the two I would choose having a DRM less system over EA access.

rdgneoz3945d ago

Yep, MS did 180s on DRM policies / no used games, always online ("if you want an offline console, get a 360" / can't flip a switch), camera always watching you / no kinectless model, etc.

From the initial reveal till release (and even after), they spent a ton of time backpedaling and reversing policies in place because of consumer backlash / low preorders.

Sony spent their time telling customers what they wanted to hear (used games, no online only, PS4 region free, etc).

Death945d ago

Which system is DRM less? The disk based verification we all have is DRM. Microsoft was ridding console owners of disk based verification with the online check in that verified we still owned our library of games. The only thing the disc was being used for is ripping the game and later for trading in if we wanted to resell it.

What does EA Access have to do with which DRM we are currently using? Instead of addressing the statement, you deflected it.

Gwiz945d ago

There is no such thing as a DRM less system,on a Personal Computer you have and had the most draconian DRM systems ever.

gangsta_red945d ago

Considering Sony did implement online passes for all their 1st party games for PS3 before they made the switch to a mandatory paid online for PS4. I hardly call Sony the "flag-bearer of pro consumer policies".

Spotie945d ago

And how long did that last?

gangsta_red945d ago

How long did DRM for Xbox One last?

magiciandude945d ago (Edited 945d ago )

The Orbis has hinted DRM on the PS4 similar to the Xbox One, but it looks like Sony pulled back after watching MS' revealing of the Xbox One and the gamer reactions. Sony would be just as willing to use the technology if it works for MS.

_-EDMIX-_945d ago

"Sony did implement online passes for all their 1st party games for PS3"

...you can't be this slow? I mean legit. No, that never happened to "all their 1st party games" bud.

At this point, Sony is not locking one's system to online only or taking down youtube videos because they are streaming PS games.

...I would call them the flag-bearer as they need physical as they make a business on selling media formats, media formats being the main DRM MOST gamers want to deal with.

I would call that being a flag-bearer for consumers bud.

http://www.pcworld.com/arti...

Their wants and needs in the movie, tech industry and game industry actually is most gamers same wants and needs are.

A hard copy legitimizing the use of their games long term.

Sony wants to sell a format in the future for data storage, 4k films, PS5 etc.

Gamers want a hard copy. Its clear that both want the same things....

gangsta_red945d ago (Edited 945d ago )

Sony did implement online passes to their 1st party games "bud".

The rest of your rant has nothing to do with anything of reference just more of your tired opinions of why you think Sony is not looking at an all digital future.

- "bud"

wegetsignalx941d ago (Edited 941d ago )

Sony implemented multiplayer patches in 1st party games to make up for PS3 PSN being completely free. 3rd parties also did this. They dropped it for PS4.

You're cherry picking a tiny thing and trying to compare it to Microsoft's massive anti-consumer push at the start of this gen, for very obvious reasons.

Sony had no plans for 24 hour DRM check-ins.

Playstation will continue to be produced in an offline-capable console form.

Playstation doesn't have a spotless pro-consumer track record but it's far better.

gangsta_red941d ago

@wegetsignalx

"Sony implemented multiplayer patches in 1st party games to make up for PS3 PSN being completely free. 3rd parties also did this. They dropped it for PS4."

No they did not. You are not only making this up but trying to make excuses as to why Sony implemented online passes. Sony implemented this as a direct result of battling use games. Sony made online free to battle Xbox 360, to offer users an incentive to buy a PS3 after a year. This is why they offered Plus later on.

They dropped it for PS4 because they now have mandatory pay to play online. No reason to for online passes now.

You would be foolish to think that Sony wasn't thinking of an always online console. But they saw the backlash MS received. Sony also had a day patch for their new console, who knows what that patch fixed or took away.

ziggurcat940d ago

@gangsta:

first of all, EA was the first to implement online passes.

secondly, sony did away with the online passes long before the PS4 came out, so you can't use it as an excuse as to why they required PS+ for MP.

gangsta_red940d ago

@Ziggurcat

Who cares who did it first, that is not what is being discussed here.

Sony still implemented online passes for their first party titles. When they did away with them was close to the PS4's release and doesn't change the fact they still had it.

Anymore defense or excuses from anyone else?

ziggurcat940d ago

"Who cares who did it first, that is not what is being discussed here."

you're discussing online passes, and you've conveniently only mentioned sony in some lousy attempt at painting them as a villain.

EA is a games publisher, they were the first to implement the practice, so they are relevant to the discussion. if you're going to discuss online passes, you should be including them as well.

gangsta_red940d ago

@Ziggurcat

Good lord...are you for real?

I am replying to m0lt0n in reference to the article's statement of,

"Sony has been the flag bearer of pro-consumer policies."

You know the actual quote he put in his comment. The very first thing he put in his comment.

It has nothing to do with who did what first. I am directly responding to that quote from the article, that he mentioned in his post.

Sorry if i didn't have the time to go through the history of online passes and discuss every company that had them. Maybe next I will so you won't feel I'm trying to make Sony the villain.

ziggurcat940d ago

you cited online passes... which wasn't mentioned in the comment... as an example of sony being anti-consumer... despite the fact that sony wasn't the only one (or even the first) to implement the practice. only EA access was mentioned in that comment, so why not mention EA as well since they also utilized online passes for their games?

it's an article postulating on the idea that publishers (EA, activision, ubisoft, etc...) could potentially implement a no resale/no sharing policy by specifically citing *bethesda* (who, to my knowledge, are not sony *or* MS), who are implementing a CD key for TESO. the CD key is also going to be applied to the xbox version, just in case you weren't aware/didn't bother reading past the first two sentences.

hell... it's not even a sony good/MS bad article, so your sony-is-anti-consumer-because- online-passes, and m0lt0n's arguments are off-topic to begin with. the article *only* talks about TESO, and bethesda's implementation of a CD key (that applies to *all* platforms), and presents the question whether other publishers will follow suit in their future games.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 940d ago
wegetsignalx941d ago

Sony should have accepted EA Access, but they've done more right than wrong according to most consumers.

Ristul945d ago

Thanks Bethesda, I will not buy your game!

rdgneoz3945d ago

Actually, as one of the commenters mentioned above (about 4 hours ago...), ESO will not have a CD key for the PS4/xbone versions.

"A Bethesda representative has told VideoGamer.com that the PS4 and Xbox One versions of The Elder Scrolls Online do not require a CD key to play after all, and that the publisher's original forum post was incorrect"

Show all comments (57)
The story is too old to be commented.