PlayStation had "no intention" of messing with pre-owned - and no pressure from publishers, either

PlayStation boss Andrew House says there was never any plan for PS4 to block second-hand games - and publishers weren't asking for it either.

The story is too old to be commented.
Parapraxis2029d ago

I guess this flies in the face of that Tom's Hardware article huh

thebigman2029d ago

TH made an out of context assumption based of his quote most likely just to get hits. Andy House and Adam Boyes both said they never even considered what M$ were doing and that the Twitter campaign made them realize that something had to be said.

Bigpappy2029d ago (Edited 2029d ago )

If I were the PR guy for Sony, I say the same thing. I am not saying he is lying, but what else would you say if you were in his shoes?

This is a negative M$ created on their own. Sony is right to use it as a wedge. Will it be all they need to do until November? I think that would be up to what M$ does between now and then.

I don't believe this issue on it's own is enough to guaranty M$ has no chance to compete. It will come down to what is shown before they go on sale. People buy stuff if they find it appealing. Price is a factor only if they get, what they see as, the same thing or better for less.

lukeb4dunk2029d ago

Wow, I agree with you at least. Well thought out and said, with little fanboy like comments. *shrugs*

nix2029d ago

Yushida himself tweeted/joked about "DRM coming to PSN" long before E3, which later turned out to be a game. Until then we didn't know what Sony was going to do... they did, however, used words like "if publishers wants"... maybe just to give MS the hope that they'll be doing DRM too.

whatever Sony did, MS certainly fell for it. Let's all agree that Sony has been surprising MS this whole year. MS is just so clueless.

Polysix2029d ago (Edited 2029d ago )

Seems obvious to me Sony played a very clever game with MS this time around. Of course they didn't come out and say months back "NO DRM" because they WANTED MS to f-up even more! That's good tactics and I applaud them :)

This doesn't change the fact that Sony were probably not considering draconian DM MS style, they merely wanted to leave it un-qualified and watch MS self-destruct. I don't believe Sony were ever gonna do it - and even the patent rumours about sony DRM may have been done to 'lead Microsoft on' even more.

They played it like masters this time and as the company that basically re-invented console gaming in the mid-90s, also making it 'cool' and popularising it among adults they deserve their success. Anyone who had a PS1, PS2, PS3 know that Sony has great games and they have never deviated from that, only adjusted to market pressure namely stuff introduced by Xbox 360 (better online, but also now paid online). Sony gave positives, MS mostly negatives (other than good online for consoles), Sony are as beloved to console gamers now as Nintendo are/were in the past. Microsoft will NEVER be seen that way, especially after XB1.


Freedomland2029d ago

There is nothing to it whatsoever because Sony revealed their plans before Microsoft in the conference and never mentioned about imposing restrictive policies. Microsoft could have done the same but they didn't although they knew Sony would not go with them.
Stop creating assumptions, both of the companies started in different directions and you know the rest.
In my opinion console gaming is different than computer gaming, I buy console to avoid the hassle of installation and other complexities, I really want to enjoy exclusives and other multiplatform games in a simple gaming manner and Sony made ps4 as a powerful console with the most demanding features not a hybrid child of computer and console. I don't need a underpowered pc as a console.

G20WLY2029d ago (Edited 2029d ago )

House isn't the PR guy for Sony. Even if he was, it wouldn't be a smart move to say something that a disgruntled ex-employee could later disprove and share with the press.

That would be reputational suicide and not something a decent executive like House would ever risk - even less so a PR guy lol

So, happily, we have no reason to distrust House on this.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2029d ago
2029d ago
andibandit2029d ago

I simply dont believe there has been no pressure from publishers on this...they are bleeding so much money to the likes og GameStop

awi59512029d ago

So why did publishers just pressure microsoft to do it? Giantbomb broke that story that they demanded a used game block built into the next xbox at the hardware lvl. So why set microsoft up and not Sony? This has just gotten very weird. I wonder if people like EA could block used games sales in another way because they got rid of online passes because they knew consoles would have a used games lockout. So will EA bring back online passes now?

Roper3162028d ago

"So why did publishers just pressure microsoft to do it?"

well the 360 was a heavily pirated console from a software perspective. Basically every big game getting released was available prelaunch thanks to the pirates. So i could see the publishers going after MS more than the other console makers to fix that issue.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2028d ago
SaturdayNightBeaver2029d ago ShowReplies(3)
MysticStrummer2029d ago

"there was never any plan for PS4 to block second-hand games - and publishers weren't asking for it either."

Publishers weren't exactly jumping onboard with DRM, so this may very well be true and at least part of the reason MS backed down so quickly.

As I said in another article's comments, MS tried something that wasn't as popular as they anticipated.

Companies have to decide when to provide what the market wants and when to influence the market in a certain direction, and MS botched the latter this time.

Bathyj2029d ago

MS never thought it would be popular. They just thought they could get away with it. They love to push at the edges to see what people will put up with, slowly eroding at your expectations until finally what was once thought of as unacceptable just becomes normal.

Thank god gamers rose up in a noisy wave and said in no uncertain terms, "I dont think so Microsoft."

T22029d ago

Yeah and even more disgrace to the xbots crying "sony will do it too then ill laugh at u guys" ... Complete disgrace to wish bad to all because you are a blind fanboy


I think that is what made me laugh the most, the fanboys saying sony will have no choice but to do it so we should not be happy...

it didn't occur to them that if hardly anyone buys the xb1 and everyone buys the ps4, sony will be in a position where they can basically do what they want. it's the publishers who would have to submit to whatever policy sony is running with.

even if they don't want to and they don't release any 3rd party games sony still have enough 1st part games and studios to keep gamers playing without us having to think about 3rd party games.

what a joke..

Anon19742028d ago

Back when the rumors were flying that the PS3 would block used game sales prior to launch (that's right, we went through all this with the PS3) I said at that time this would never happen. For one console to block used game sales/game lending when the others did not would be suicide.

Lo and behold, Microsoft tried it and guess what? It was damaging beyond belief, forcing the company to back down.

For anyone paying attention, there was no confusion. Andrew House said last year that he considered any move to block used games sales as "anti-consumer". You don't just turn around and reverse a statement like that and there was absoluetly no reason to believe that Sony was planning on implementing anything more restrictive than what we'd seen with online passes already.

The people casting doubt on Sony's position were simply trying to smear the company. "Sony never specifically said the PS4 won't eat kittens, so clearly in the dead of night, that's exactly what it's going to do. Otherwise, why wouldn't Sony have clarified?"

It was ridiculous and forced Sony to take time away from their E3 to clarify, even though they had been completely clear in the past. What I find interesting though is if the publishers weren't asking Sony to do this, they weren't asking Microsoft so why did they do it? The only conclusion I can think of is a cash grab. Microsoft wanted to handle used games, digitally themselves (of course taking a cut) and it blew up in their faces.

mcstorm2029d ago

There were + and - sides to the DRM on the xbox one. For me it has more +'s because you did not need to put the disk in to play games and switch from game to game and different services. You could also trade in your game at some places which was not a bad thing as all the big name shops would of been in on it.

I can see why people did not like it but the One was built around this system and now this can only be done via downloaded games.

Im not saying what Microsoft did was right or wrong but it now changes how we use the Xbox one to how Microsoft showed us at there shows.

devwan2029d ago

You've gotta think though, a 500GB HDD would fill up so quickly with the previously proposed method of installing each game.

I'm not sure how much room the OSs/system software take up themselves, I think the Blu Ray disc used can hold about 50GB, so potentially you might have been looking at only around 10 or less games installed at one time.

Actually, I'm not sure that mandatory installs aren't still required, only that the disc has to be in the drive to play - anyone know either way?

mcstorm2029d ago

@devwan I know what you are saying but it was still an option that is not there now because we have to swap out the disk. I kind of wish Microsoft offered both options and you can pick when you setup the console. Im not sure about the installs now infect im not sure what the one can and cant do now there is not drm options.

awi59512028d ago

Giantbomb broke the story that publishers demanded it and they wanted it to be built into the hardware. Thats how we got this xbox 1 mess. They also said if nothing was done game prices would have to be raised again.

So i dont know why they just pressured microsoft and not sony. You can tell by the fact that EA announced that they would do away with online pass. They thought they would get their way anyway so they would pretend to do something good for the consumer but they knew that xbox had DRM for used games from the get go. SO i bet it was EA leading the DRM charge.

MysticStrummer2028d ago

Yeah I didn't mean to imply that no publishers wanted DRM, just that as a group they weren't very vocal about defending it when MS started getting all the backlash. I have no doubt that EA wanted it.

They should have come up with reasons why it was a good thing for consumers, and not just a benefit to themselves (the publishers).

DragonKnight2029d ago

This was known for MONTHS before E3 and people still tried to lump Sony in with Microsoft.

first1NFANTRY2029d ago

they just couldn't fathom the fact that Sony actually cared about gamers and their freedom.

M$ and Sony are in two separate worlds when it comes to gaming policies.

lukeb4dunk2029d ago

Or just business in general.

insomnium22029d ago (Edited 2029d ago )

Yeah all we hear is the same "they are out for profits just like MS" BS. There are more than one way to get to those profits.

MS has no foundation/backbone/ethics in this industry. They even trample on their own friggen fanbase to get to more profits. I have never ever seen as flip flopping company as MS has been with it's X360 and now with Xbone even before it effing launches.

First it was all about the games with core audience like it was with the original xbox. After that they went for casuals full force ignoring their previous install base almost completely. If I still were an xbox customer I would be seriously butthurt over that.

They've acted like a child with a notebook with x360 with stuff like HDMI and 1080p and now it's even worse with Xbone even before it launches. Hell people HAVE GOT TO HAVE an internet connection just to get the initial patch. Why can't they deliver the patch on game discs for example? Why do they have to do things the hard way for the consumer one after the other? It was the consumers who paid for the HDMI port. No HDMI unless you buy a new console. It was the consumers who paid for 1080p, proprietary HDDs coupled with game istallations. Now consumers go through the once online-thing too.

the problem with the things I mentioned is that MS was against all those things and publicly laughed at Sony and downplayed those very same things. HDMI and 1080p wasn't needed. HDD was not needed. Online was required with Xbone and now it isn't but still is required WTF?

I'm pretty sure there is no way MS can recover from the stunts they've done in my eyes. FFS MS you need to have a vision AND STICK TO IT for better or for worse. All this flip flopping is making me dizzy.

devwan2029d ago

Yes and people such as my xbot friend were saying stuff like "Sony will do the same in time, you just watch, it'll happen, mark my words"... not been much comment on that since after it was ms who had to change -their- tune...

XabiDaChosenOne2029d ago (Edited 2029d ago )

So all of this talk about how publishers were the main catalyst behind the Xbox ones drm policies was just damage control from a certain group of obedient enthusiast. Why am I not surprised.
May 21st 2013- June 17 2013 I'll never forget the damage control that thrived during this time period.

Show all comments (81)
The story is too old to be commented.

Out this Month