Insert Thought Provoking Quote Here


CRank: 9Score: 0

PS4 vs. Xbox One: The Used Games Debate.

Right, so just now an article was approved that tried to throw the PS4 under the bus in terms of the Used Games debate, claiming that their answer to it was just as vague as Microsoft's was with the Xbox One. Read the article here...

Now, I already wrote a blog about the PS4's stance on Used Games. You can read it here...

I'm not trying to plug myself, just trying to save time.

In my blog, you can read links that discuss what Sony's stance on used games are. Jack Tretton is for them, Shuhei Yoshida is for them. They are both CEO's and would have the knowledge to say "used games will work on the PS4" which they did.

Some are taken to believing the dodgy remarks of one Managing Director of Sony's UK branch when he clumsily stated that Sony haven't taken a stance on it yet. Well, sorry to burst your bubble dude, but yeah they have. Jack Tretton and Shuhei Yoshida made their statements before this Managing Director did, and what makes anyone believe that this guy would have the knowledge or authority to override what two CEO's said?

Moving on to the Xbox One, a lot of varying information was released regarding used games. First it was that a user would have to pay to play a used game on their console, then someone denied that. Then a VP at MS said there is a fee on used games, then Major Nelson said "nothing is set in stone."

Then the final and current stance that people are believing is this one... A gamer can play any game on any Xbox One as long as it was registered to their user profile and they use that profile on any Xbox One they game on. IF the gamer wants to lend that game to a friend or a family member, then that person will have to either play on the original owners profile or pay a price (which that VP I spoke about before said would be full price) to play the game on their own profile.

Phil Harrison tried to perform damage control by saying these are all possible scenarios, BUT no one anywhere has yet said anything to make gamers believe that "yes used games will work without any fees" on the Xbox One.

The hilarity of this is only increased by the knowledge that Microsoft are still charging for online play on Xbox Live in addition to this all-but-confirmed used games fee.

Back to the PS4. The real question that people seem to be talking about, yet getting the issue wrong, is the notion of online registration of used games. The reason this is brought up is due to the patent filed by Sony for blocking used games. Too many have decided to go with their knee jerk reactions and forget that patents for all manner of things are filed every day by countless companies and are never used. In this case, Eurogamer even spoke with other Sony sources who flat out denied that the patent was for the PS4 in the first place. Both Eurogamer, and ArsTechnica who have done the most research into Sony's stance, believe that Sony will allow the continuation of online passes which, as anyone with any sense can clearly see, is online registration of the used game. Since publishers already have this ability, where is the confusion coming from?

To finalize and summarize: Xbox One is currently believed to have used games DRM that extends to every gamer. PS4 WAS thought to have a similar form of DRM based on a patent Sony filed, but every credible source has denied it, or in the case of journalists disbelieves that Sony will follow suit with what Microsoft is doing.

Stop spreading FUD and do some actual research for a change.

**EDIT with Credit to dedicatedtogamers** An excellent point was brought up by dedicatedtogamers that states that since Sony has taken a very clear and direct stance that everything about the PS4's new features are optional, it would be exceedingly difficult to force any kind of used games block.

(My added opinion) Simply put, if you wanted to play used games then you could do so by staying offline. This lends more credence to online passes returning and simply locking people out of the online portion of games. Another thing to consider is that the PSVita, which Sony INSISTS is going to be much more integrated with the PS4, also doesn't block used games. When looking at everything Sony has said as a whole, and what they have out now, the evidence continues to mount in favour of Sony allowing used games on the PS4, while Microsoft tries to justify blocking them on the Xbox One.

The story is too old to be commented.
Donnieboi1825d ago

Excellent Blog. People need to know that Sony already addressed this issue fully.

DragonKnight1825d ago

People already do know, but just like the PSN hack and the amount of people still claiming that credit card details were stolen, facts don't stop the spread of FUD.

PopRocks3591825d ago

True facts. Hope people get this info and spread it further.

darthv721825d ago

it was a nice read but you do need to understand that sony "themselves" can take whatever position they want that benefits them. By being vague in saying its up to the others to decide still does not absolve them of the possibility they can flip flop when they feel the time is right.

Lets go back in time (trust me...its relevant) there were consoles that had no security mainly because their format was non-unified...non-standard. People found ways to rip the games and distribute them.

so the companies change formats and add security measure to try and protect their intellectual property as well as their platform. CD's didnt have much security because at the burners were outside the realm of possibility for the average joe to buy.

But when the drives got cheap, sure as sh!t people bought them and started copying games freely. So then you add another layer of security to the software and still it gets bypassed by those who's intention it is to thwart "the man".

so now lets fast forward to modern times and the use of license keys. Yes there are keygens and cracks but again...the ones that are bypassing these are screwing it up for the legit people because the companies are trying to add more and more layers of protection to cover themselves.

Now both the sony heads can "support" used games but that is just simply stating yeah we are for it. They never once EVER came out and said 100% you can buy a copy of our game and then freely give it to the next guy and so on and so will want to sell that game to the next guy and so on and so on instead. That is where they make their $$

so for them to make a blanket statement of yes we support used games IS vague. There is an underlying method to this madness and they will be first to say its up to the other guys to do this but know damn well they are working on it as well.

this is 2013 not 1993. the used market is a big hit to these companies bottom line now because it was very sparse back in the day. Just be the bigger person and admit that you dont know and neither do these higher ranked people who claim to know because at any time these companies can change their policies.

The big guys at these companies are just like politicians. they say what you want to hear. "Read my new taxes" (as quoted from George Bush) and then there were new taxes. he made a statement that they could not promise.

The heads of Sony are doing the same thing because even they know that is something they flat out cant commit to. Not when there is $$$ to be made from it.

DragonKnight1825d ago

@darth: Don't get me wrong, I don't have delusions of Sony being benevolent and perfect. But based on the evidence and what Sony's plans are in terms of online, it really doesn't look like Sony is following MS' footsteps.

nukeitall1824d ago (Edited 1824d ago )


"Don't get me wrong, I don't have delusions of Sony being benevolent and perfect."

Then I would like for you to pretend like Sony is MS in your eyes and give us that report here.

"But based on the evidence and what Sony's plans are in terms of online, it really doesn't look like Sony is following MS' footsteps."

What evidence?

If you want to talk facts, Sony has:

a) patents to limit game discs to be tied to a console. So they at least have thought about it and developed technology for it.

b) long history with DRM including their music cd rootkit/drm scandal:

c) the only one of the three console manufacturers to implement online passes on their games

d) Sony has not made a statement that to play "used games" you only need the disc! If anything, they can say well you can play used games or even lend it to a friend at a cost! So Sony is intentionally being very vague here.

The latter point, MS has been somewhat clearer what their intentions are.

The suits at Sony is being vague, while sounding specific and absolute indicating something that might not be there.

Furthermore as far as I know, Sony hasn't actually said if online is NOT a requirement.

What is more interresting to me is all the people that *hated* gamestop for selling used games, are now suddenly proponents of it.

Eliminating used games isn't that what is supposedly best for the industrty? After all, more money goes to the developer just like online passes?

caseh1824d ago


'Eliminating used games isn't that what is supposedly best for the industrty? After all, more money goes to the developer just like online passes?'

Ahhh, but do you really believe eliminating pre-owned is a good thing? How many people out there are honestly thinking that when Activision shift 8m copies of the latest CoD, any pre-owned sales/online pass/licensing paid by the gamer during the next gen of consoles will actually go towards being re-invested into the next game to make it that much better...

In a sentence and lets be honest, its highly f*cking unlikely. :)

Outside_ofthe_Box1824d ago (Edited 1823d ago )


***"What is more interresting to me is all the people that *hated* gamestop for selling used games, are now suddenly proponents of it."***

Are you sure people hated Gamestop for selling used games? Or was it that they hated Gamestop's POLICY in regards to used games? Nice try at spin.

***"Eliminating used games isn't that what is supposedly best for the industrty? After all, more money goes to the developer just like online passes?"***

If online passes were sooo profitable then greedy EA wouldn't have dropped it. Agreeing that used games should be eliminated is to agree that your right to sell something you legitimately own should no longer be a right.

In regards to Sony blocking used games your "evidence" a) and b) have been "evidence" prior to the PS3's release yet the PS3 can still play used games. "Evidence" a), b), and c) have "evidence" prior to the Vita's release yet it can play used games. We'll see about the PS4 more concrete come E3 in a couple of weeks hopefully, but I'd say that more evidence points toward the PS4 not blocking used games than the other way around. And hopefully by some miracle Microsoft decides to scrap their plans regarding their confusing used/pre-owned games policy as well at E3.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1824d ago
dedicatedtogamers1825d ago

Thank you for putting all of this info in one place.

Something I wanted to bring up (feel free to edit it into the body of your blog if you want) is that Sony has taken a very, very clear stance against any sort of always-online, online-once-per-day, online-to-register-your-game, online-required, etc. Sony has flat-out said that their system is playable offline, while Microsoft has said "online required".

This is important because a used-game fee is nearly impossible without ALSO implementing an always-online system, or at least a system that requires internet to verify your activation code.

I'm not saying Sony is in the clear yet (who knows? They might still charge a fee and/or lock your game to your account) but the lack of an online requirement for PS4 puts a HUGE dent in any theories that PS4 will have a used-game fee similar to the Xbox One.

DragonKnight1825d ago

Excellent point, and edited into the blog. I also added something about the Vita given that Sony has been pretty vocal about their plans to integrate it with the PS4.

MikeMyers1825d ago

Adam Sessler just had an hour long Google chat and this guy is on the inside, you're just some random person who rarely if ever criticizes Sony for anything. During that hour he mentioned several times Sony did not answer the questions about the used games. The only difference here is Microsoft has been a bit more forthcoming on it.

This is nothing but damage control. You see, someone like Adam Sessler isn't biased. He will view the PS4 and Xbox One from an unbiased perspective. He doesn't go on forums blasting Microsoft day after day while plugging Sony.

rainslacker1825d ago

I think some of the confusion and doubt has stemmed from the fact that with the recent events from MS, people are going back to analyze what was actually said by Sony. It was never a consideration before all this stuff with MS, because people had the notion that being able to play used games meant what it does today, and not what MS is looking at it to mean for the next-gen. The early reports by MS have said that they won't block used games. Basically people are extrapolating potential scenarios based on MS somewhat vague policy, and Sony's original statements which could possibly be the same thing. Sony didn't clarify if there would be a fee, although it was said that the expectation was that people should be able to do what they want with their physical discs...something which I forgot till dragon pointed it out to me in PM's. However, they said that they had some policy in place, but weren't ready to talk about it...again something that MS is doing right now pretty heavily. People are wondering...why do you need a policy if you have no plans to restrict them. Nintendo doesn't have that policy, so there's no need for them to push off the issue.

The reason I think this, is because it's what I did, and you all know me as a Sony fan, so it's not me trying to spread FUD, just trying to figure out if it's true and what it means for me and others.

SilentNegotiator1825d ago

Fanboys and uninformed "journalists" are sweating bullets pushing this "We still don't know for sure yet!" crap.

1825d ago Replies(2)
1825d ago Replies(1)
Show all comments (26)