Topic: Sony patents tech to block used games

[TJ Spyke]

Yesterday Sony patented a technology that would allow them to block used games from being played. Essentially every disc would have a RF tag. When the system checks the disc, if the tag doesn't match (i.e. it's linked to another system), the disc will not play. In the patent application, Sony says game creators receive no compensation from sales of used games. New reports out today say Sony themselves might not use the tech, but would put it in the system and let developers choose if they want to use it for their games.


http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-01-03-sony-patent-would-suppress-second-hand-sales


I saw a note on IGN's Daily Fix which correctly pointed out that this would also stop you from sharing games with friends.

[ShyGuy]

Tied to a console? this makes me lolololololololol

[MrPhishfood]

I think it makes sense. If you follow the business side of the games industry then you'll know the alternative to this technology is even worse.

Online passes, DLC, tacked on multiplayer, higher priced games... and maybe a few more I haven't thought of.

Generally more money is being spent making and marketing games yet we are still paying the same for them and that's just this generation. I don't even want to know how bad its going to get if the next Xbox and PS4 are going to have much higher specs.

If they include this tech we may see more "complete" games in the future.

[Ceric]

I be fine with this if it would allow me to fully install the game to my system after calling home and registering it and if I do get a second hand copy it allows me to pay an appropriate price aka not full price to unlock it.

[Pixelated Pixies]

This makes no sense whatsoever. If developers aren't garnering enough sales to justify the cost of development then they can do three things. They can push for legislation which would prevent retailers from taking advantage of certain loop holes which have facilitated the second-hand market, they can make more cost effective games, or they can make better games. In no way should the choices of consumers be constricted. Consumers who buy a game and, therefore, own that item should have the right to sell that item. I don't understand why game developers feel their industry should be treated differently from every other. If I buy a physical product I own that item. Whether or not I decide to share, give away or sell that item is my business.
 
 

[TJ Spyke]

Pix, if you give or sell the game, you would be fine. It would be the person getting the game from you who would be screwed.

[Pixelated Pixies]

Pix, if you give or sell the game, you would be fine. It would be the person getting the game from you who would be screwed.

haha. Very sardonic. 
 
Removing people's ability to play pre-owned games for all intents and purposes removes people's ability to sell their games.

[Ian Sane]

To do this the system would have to be always online.  I can't see any other way to do it.

Dumb move because you're not going to gain any sales from the consumer on this.  Meanwhile Nintendo's system has no such feature so it's just giving a positive bullet point to the competition.  "Doesn't play used games" is not a selling point.  I think all three companies have to go in on this at once or whoever doesn't can play it up as being user friendly.  As the industry switches to digital distribution, used sales won't exist anymore anyway.  So attacking it at this point is stupid.

The worst thing about this for the consumer is that games aren't in stores forever.  Yeah Gamestop will have recent games available used for $5 off but what about something like an Atlus game that is only in stores for a brief time?  So if you missed out on an obscure game when it was brand new you can NEVER BUY IT EVER!!  There are gamers that never fall for Gamestop's stupid $5 off **** but will buy used games for titles they missed out on that are no longer available in stores.  Those gamers are fucked and they're just trying to get a copy of the game PERIOD, not save five bucks.

[EasyCure]

Pix, if you give or sell the game, you would be fine. It would be the person getting the game from you who would be screwed.

haha. Very sardonic. 
 
Removing people's ability to play pre-owned games for all intents and purposes removes people's ability to sell their games.

Ever heard the phrase "there's a sucker born every minute"?

As far as legislation goes, I don't think it will help the game industry. (In the US at least) Legistlators still find it illegal for me to make any sort of back-up copy of software I've purchased (and yes, I understand the piracy issue...) and have recently stated that transferring software between devices is just as illegal. So even though I decided to buy a few physical albums recently, instead of pirate them, the fact that I'm ripping it to my mp3 player is still illegal. Basically, any from what I've read there is a very gray area regarding the digital copies of movies that come with dvd/blu-rays I've bought.. so yeah, I wouldn't trust legislation in these issues. They're stupid

[TJ Spyke]

Actually, it's legal to make back-up copies (hell, game consoles like the PS3 and 360 even let you rip your CDs to their hard drives), you just can't distribute them to other people.

[EasyCure]

Actually, it's legal to make back-up copies (hell, game consoles like the PS3 and 360 even let you rip your CDs to their hard drives), you just can't distribute them to other people.

not according to something I recently read but am too lazy to find (c'mon wikipedia lite, get to work)

[NWR_insanolord]

Making a backup for your own personal use is considered fair use under US Copyright Law. However, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act made breaking encryption on copyrighted material a crime, so depending on how you make your backup it may still be illegal.

[Shorty McNostril]

Game rentals just flew out the window.

[Luigi Dude]

If Sony does this they might as well not even release the PS4 in Japan.  The used game market is insanely huge over there and a major part of the industry.  A lot of it has to do with the fact you can't rent games in Japan so buying used is the cheapest way to play as many games as possible. 

To go through with this would be literal suicide for them in Japan. 

[Adrock]

Japanese 3rd parties probably know better than to mess with this over there (less so everywhere else). That would doom the PSFour. There were rumors that Microsoft was considering somehow blocking second hand games as well so that makes Durango even less of an option in Japan if true. This could be good news for Nintendo.

[Spak-Spang]

many patients are never used....and Sony could always allow developers to opt out.  I actually like the idea somebody had about unlocking a used game purchase...then developers could force Gamestops hand to lower used game prices. 

[UncleBob]

many patients are never used....and Sony could always allow developers to opt out.  I actually like the idea somebody had about unlocking a used game purchase...then developers could force Gamestops hand to lower used game prices. 

From a consumer's point of view, it doesn't do any good if Gamestop lowers their prices but we have to make up the difference by paying someone else.  In fact, it just makes things more complicated.

[Kytim89]

Locking out used games would be suicidal on Sony's part if they were to implement such as system on their next system. They would try to do something like this with the intent to bring in more revenue for themselves and third parties, but it would backfire and destroy their holdings in the industry. If Sony really wanted to make more money by taking a bigger cut from their games from retailers would be to modify their store to be similar to the eShop and offer their games day-and-date with the retail version. Sony could then offer $39.99 for the digital version of Uncharted 4, which would be pure profit for them, while Game Stop gets to sell a used copy for $55.00. 

[broodwars]

If Sony really wanted to make more money by taking a bigger cut from their games from retailers would be to modify their store to be similar to the eShop and offer their games day-and-date with the retail version.

Sony already does this, and they were doing it long before Nintendo did.  However, with the exception of Vita games (which tend to be $5 less digital), their prices are usually the same as (if not worse, due to retail price drops) than the retail prices.

[nickmitch]

I hate the term "pure profit."

[Kytim89]

I hate the term "pure profit."

Instead of Sony having to split its pizza with retailers they could have the whole thing for themselves.

[nickmitch]

Except they can't have their pizza and eat it too? There's no such thing as pure profit. Everything about making a sale costs at least SOME money. Sure, what you described would have a high contribution margin ratio, since there's essentially no variable cost, but it's still not gonna be "pure profit."

[TJ Spyke]

I hate the term "pure profit."

Instead of Sony having to split its pizza with retailers they could have the whole thing for themselves.

With retail, the publisher still gets about 85% of the revenue (for a $50 game, the publisher gets about $42). So it's not like they are losing out.

[Ceric]

...
They can push for legislation which would prevent retailers from taking advantage of certain loop holes which have facilitated the second-hand market
...
In no way should the choices of consumers be constricted. Consumers who buy a game and, therefore, own that item should have the right to sell that item.
...
Whether or not I decide to share, give away or sell that item is my business.

I'll finish the thread but I like to now in Pix's post that the bolded statement is directly conflicting with the statements afterwards.  Not to mention that the government should need to regulate how a game console goes about its business.  Their is a enough competition that hopefully the Market will tell the companies otherwise. (This is a front line issue that directly effects the buyer unlike say workers rights.)


Edit:
Alright finished reading.  I hate to say this but this is a when not an if.  One day we will live in a world were when we buy a game we can't resell it easily.  Now in the EU you will be able to sell it by my understanding because Digital Property has been determined to be the same thing as Physical Property, Here is an Extra Credits on it.  The rest of the world we may not be so lucky and the mechanism could still be hidden and relatively difficult while still holding to the intent of the law.

[TJ Spyke]

The EU ruling said consumers have a right to sell digital games, but that doesn't mean companies have to provide a way for consumers to do it.

I don't think Pix contradicted himself. He said they CAN push for legislation, but doesn't think they SHOULD.