XMNR: According to a reveal on Sunday from Michael Pachter, Sony Computer Entertainment of America CEO Jack Tretton thinks it would be anti-consumer to block used games with the Playstation 4.
Jack is the man.
Wonder if this will atleast slow down the Orbis anti-used games rumors? Next gen consoles rumors in general (I think someone at MS said that they were against having that as well).
It should, the man is the ceo of the greatest gaming company in the world, im pretty sure he has some say so on how things will turn out regarding used games.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Orbis wont have anti used game tech. Tretton is the CEO of SCEA not sony in general and it is SCEJ that designs the playstation systems. Like he said in the article, Japan aka SCEJ may still decide to go anti used. @tentonsoftube: Unfortunately he has no say. Tretton is only in charge of north american distribution, not design. It will be up to SCEJ whether PS4/Orbis has anti used tech or not.
If he had no say , all the more reason they wouldnt let him do that kind of statement for the company
Whilst the second hand market DOES impact negatively on the current gen, it impacts positively on the last generation because it helps sell hardware that has lost developers support. it's a difficult balance to strike but Sony have proven they can do it with the PS1 and the PS2.
I'm still surprised this is even being discussed. Sony I know dismissed for the PS3 and i'm pretty sure Microsoft have looked into it as well and decided it was basically an insane idea. The devs however seem to love the idea and that's probably why it has lingered on.
Sony had patented a system to "sign" games onto a console so that only that console could play the games, thus eliminating used games sales. They patented this system before the PS3's release and I remember at that time everyone was screaming "OMG! They're going to put this in the PS3." They didn't, and they aren't going to now. It's just the same rumours we saw before.
They may make the tech available and just let it up to devs and publishers to decide game by game which cases to use it. It could be a point for getting extra support with some publishers (EA?) and devs, but I don't believe Sony will enforce it to every game. As Darkride66 said, we had seen this talk before.
JT definitely has a say, but it's the greaseballs in Japan that will make the decision. If it is done I think it will only be exclusives that practice it.
@darkride: Sometimes patents are taken to block the use of it, and in any case, the tech can be used to award the first user instead of blocking the second, which Sony was aiming to do (they had an award program in beta, dunno what happened to it, tho)
I still don't see what's different between used games and used books, movies and music. I think the video game industry is filled with spoiled brats. I think they'd be biting themselves in the foot once they see how many people don't buy their game when they know they won't be able to re-sell it later.
@inveni0, it is no different from used books, movies, or CD's. And they would change their tune when the see so many people not buying their system. I agree with Pachter (Oh, my God! Did I just say that? I must really be getting dumber with each day.) Banning used games is a dumb idea. I for one know that I am not going to buy any system that forces me to be on the internet in order to play it. If all the consoles do that next gen, the I will be forced to declare that gaming has passed my by. I guess then I will have to focus on having kids and other stuff.
@inveni0 and @ darrius Cole : it is different if the game has online; you log on and take up further server space etc and store data on there not very much at any one time but it's clearly enough however this costs money; money the original buyer paid a small part of his RRP he paid to cover this cost whereas the used byer has not :p
That is completely unrelated. They're already limiting multiplayer. But is THAT even okay? How many multiplayer games are P2P? If the company servers are only storing stats, the cost is so minimal that it costs them more to enact a fee on used games than they lose from used games. But that's if it's P2P. If the company runs servers for gameplay, then I totally agree that used game buyers should have to pay a fee. But I'm not at all interested in online, so I couldn't care less about that. Should I be punished? It's a double standard. Video game publishers feel like they're special for some reason. But they're not. They've done less for society than movies, books OR music, and those industries are doing just fine with the prospect of used media.
well, if i had any doubts of sony before, they're certainly gone now. I mainly game on my 360 right now, but I doubt I'll be picking up the new xbox due to the anti-used game rumors that I've been hearing.
You would think if he was going to show off a pair of cards they would be two Jack's
Anyway I total agree with him, I think ti would be a bad move if this happens
How DIBBLE DARE YOU criticise the Tretton >:(
I think those are the two cards he held on his last poker hand in a tournament that he won......i think.
You missed the point, Tretton won that tournament and by the photo, most people think he won bluffing, so this photo is generally posted to mean he's bluffing or he wins. But what actually happened is that he indeed called all in with that hand, indeed I believe he was trying to bluff, but the other guy with one high card din't bited and called, lefting Tretton behind. When most would grant Tretton as dead meat, the flop paired Tretton and left the other guy on an open ended straight. It was decided on the river, which made Tretton a two pairs hand. It was the first Sillicon Valley Poker Challenge if I remember correctly.
i don't think any company has the balls to block used games sales because that console will be a huge failure
Just picture how much money that company will lose... I think by having online pass is good enough for greed. I just don't see how any company can consider that insane idea..
MS has the balls to do it. 360 still sells in droves with hardly any exclusives worth a damn.
Jack may not be the most charismatic CEO but he is a very okay guy. Used games are a lot of people entrance to gaming. Its stupid to shut it for them.
Tretton is the CEO of all of Sony or even the world-wide Playstation division. Still, he will have some say. He won't make the final decision, but as the CEO of the North American distribution, they will consider his input, especially if he says that he doesn't think it will sell in North America. They sell more units in North America than they do in Japan.
Then why do all Sony games have online passes now?
Because developers make absolutely no money from used games whatsoever. The online pass is just a fair method that if you buy a used game for cheap, the developers see a cut of it too. You can get the full game, developers get their due, it's a good system. Developers were losing lots of money from used game sales and game shops were making a mint.
I definitely wouldn't call it "fair".
Thank god. Seriously, online passes are enough.
I feel the same. I wanted to borrow my friend's Battlefield 3 to play the multi-player for a while and turned out I had to fish out 10 bucks even to just access the mp. :/ I doubt I'll purchase any future games with online passes associated with them.
Even though I always by my games new (not day 1 as I wait for it to be discounted), I think the online pass is a fair system for publishers.. What should really be happening is the trade in/re-sale prices should adjust accordingly.. In other words, margins made on used games need to change... Whether people agree or not with the above, Im sure we all agree, It should be advertised with a sticker, if its online component requires a online pass. It should be made law . How many times has a mom/dad bought a 2nd hand game for the kids, or themselves, not knowing? Cha Ching... Moneys in the till....... As for borrowing, Its definitely harsh... Maybe they should have a free 48hr pass system that counts down from first MP Play?
Well sorry but the game developer's worked there ass off and maybe you could acully spend 5 or 2 more dollars and not buy a used game so they would get the money not fuckin game stop (Gonna get a lot of dislikes for this but all of this is true)
That's true, but online passes have actually acted as a deterrent to buying second hand games for me, but like you said, I have the option. A author of a secondhand book or the crew of a secondhand DVD don't get back any money for secondhand sales. But now, because of the advent of the online pass, even with secondhand game, if I want to play it's full capabilities and contents, I have to get an online pass. It actually works out better waiting for the game to drop in price on online retail sites.
You know used games can actually be cheaper than just by $2 or $5 more dollars. Some people purchase through Amazon (great used prices).
So if you sell a book, a car, your clothes, or anything else you own, you should give a portion of your profits to the original manufacturer? Yo go right ahead and do that; I'm gonna keep the money I make from selling my own property. And that includes games. I understand that (some) developers put a lot of work into their games; when I truly appreciate it, that game stays in my library eternally. But if someone decides to get rid of that game, it means the developers probably didn't do a good enough job.; the developers don't suddenly deserve to get money from my copy- that I already bought- if I think the game sucks and I sell it to somebody else. Edit: So... if I keep my copies of all these various multiplayer games I own (Uncharted, Battlefield, GT5, etc.), they'll charge me for the continued server use? No? Then your excuse doesn't hold weight.
@Hicken So when you sell that book or DVD does it cost the distributor of that product any more? No it doesn't, but with games it can. When you play online you're using up server resources that someone has to pay for. Selling a game with an MP component extends the average server utilization per copy sold. You can argue about how much it costs to keep the servers going but it is certainly more than 0, so someone has to pay for that. Either the original purchaser is going to get charged more or they have to add in the multiplayer passes.
@KNEON Servers really aren't that much to run. These games make allot of money. More so then movies do in today's world. All of this greed stems from profit and shareholders. This greed boat has no end and won't stop until people start using common sense. We are a long long long way from that. I'd say maybe another 500 years of being raped by corporations to the point that you pay for the air you breathe, only then will the dumb average consumer start using the mystical ancient powers of common sense. Greed Greed Greed, profit profit profit... Most cancers are caused by chemicals that are used in products for the sole purpose of profit. eyes wide shut
Its funny on how people think the rumors are real, until the company that is making the system says it is true. All it is a rumor. -_- I didn't think they would do this and even if they did, it doesn't effect me. Maybe because I buy most of my games brand new.
You couldn't borrow games either though. That's what gets to me.
There you go rumor dead , and plenty ink wasted .
Not really. It's just Pachter asking Tretton for his opinion on the subject of blocked used games. Tretton isn't speaking for Sony, it's just his view and he does say that ultimately it depends on what the Japanese decide.
True but it isn't like he doesn't have any say in the matter and Sony have dismissed this idea before. I think it was just a scare tactic to gain hits for a lot of websites. If you look into it these rumours don't have much past a couple of patents filed before this gen started. Luckily for us the one thing MS and Sony aren't is insane.
^ Might not be so lucky. Both Sony and MS are corporations and their primarily goal is money. If they think blocking used games will be more profitable, then they'll follow that course of action. If there's one thing this generation has shown us, it's that respecting consumers isn't necessary to net big profits, and in a lot of cases, the more abusive publishers have ended up being more financially successful as well. You'd have to be insane to charge for online gaming or day-1 DLC, yet both have proved to be quite a profitable move.
The difference is though DLC and online passes don't affect console sales. If they did this they would haemorrhage potential buyers at an unbelievable rate and the money they love would be hard to come by. I for one would go back to only playing on PC. Plus, it seems to be something developers are worried about rather than the console manufacturers. I think the developers pushing for it is causing this discussion to linger. And if Sony and MS dismiss the idea (which they have in the past) there isn't alot the developers can do. I honestly believe that doing this would be equivalent to punching a sleeping grizzly in the face.
Perhaps, but let us paint the following scenario: SONY - Hey GameStop, we have a great new System coming out next year! GAMESTOP - We'll take humptybillion of them! SONY - Great! Just an idle FYI, it won't play used games. GAMESTOP - Yeah...on second thought, we'll take a baker's dozen! You want to cut out our primary source of income, we'll cut our order down and support your hardware with passive interest. SONY - OK great. Thanks for your support! I'm sorry, but no business would flourish in light of such a massive oversight. There is no way in hell this would be a smart move for Sony in this economy. Sony might as well only project a dozen units worldwide if they think any big-box retailer that supports a preowned system is going to support them! This rumor was dead in the water at inception!
Think about that for a minute. Is Gamestop the ONLY place you can buy a system? Toys R Us, Walmart, Target, etc etc. And these shops have other retail they supply not just game electronics.
But Gamestop is just games, what if Sony and MS came out with systems that blocked used games and Gamestop decided not to carry a huge amount which they never do in the first place. It would only hurt Gamestop. Consumers could go to other spots who have their console in stock.
If Gamestop decided to not carry a system due to its anti used game functions. That would only hurt Gamestop since all they do is carry games for the big three. Getting rid of one of those big three would alienate and get rid of a huge amount customers who have that system.
Gamestop is big but its not as powerful to dictate what the big three should do.
I'm hoping the rumour that used games will no longer be supported is simply just a rumour and doesn't turn into a fact.
The sad truth of the matter is if one company does it the others will follow suit. Maybe not in the same way or as harsh but they will do something similar. Look at online passes for example. One studio did it..now most do. If Microsoft or Sony start this it will literally be the end for game stores throughout. We'll be buying games at Walmart and Target. As much as I am not a fan of Gamestop for hiring people that know nothing about games. Occasionally I like going there knowing at least they only sell games here and they probably know more than the guy at Walmart.
And this is the same company that issued online passes.
Actually either Ubisoft or EA started it.
EA was the first
Ubi do online passes?
It was THQ back in 2010 with UFC
Yeah, EA started this crap with "Project 10 dollar". And people try to claim that Activision is worse. They don't even come close to EA's douchebaggery.
It' s not a very smart thing to lie about a topic in a place where many people are well informed.
You give the Canadian Turtle population a bad name with stupid comments like that.
I just replied to your stupid comment so you could come back and see just how many disagrees you got. Good day!
I am glad. But don't go changing your minds on us. @ CanadianTurtle. So because they did one thing that means they will do another? Impeccable N4G logic my man.
Although it doesn't mean that if they do one they'll do the other, but it does put them in an odd position because of their online passes. Online passes can be viewed as an 'anti-consumer' tactic, yet publishers still put them on games even when a developer doesn't want their game to have an online pass. It should be worth mentioning that the comment is being narrated by Pachter. Untill either MS or Sony actually makes an official statement, the rumors will still persist.
Of course he has to say that, gamestop would drop all sony products otherwise. BUT when sony and msoft announce the new consoles at almost the same time, they will both say used games are out, cuz then gamestop will have no choice. I guarantee they are collaborating on this.....and they should be, down with gamestop!!!!!! nobody wants your scratched up, defective products anyway :P
Well until they actually do that you have to take their word for it. You can't just guess what they are going to do before they do it unless you know something we don't.You can't guarantee they will do anything until they actually do it. Despite what people always think about a companies they are not ALWAYS up to something you know.
Good, i know its just a rumor but if microsofts goes thru with blocking used games sales will suffer.
But its ok to add online/offline pass drm or an incomplete game out of the box(day one dlc)... You can't trust no one...
Good to see this for Sony's sake. If Sony had blocked used games and MS didn't, you would have had a major hurdle to overcome in next gen's competetion. Smart move !