No reselling PS3 games.

grimloch

Roffle at this it it turns out to be true or is actually implemented:

http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006

I think it turned out to be untrue but could it be something that happens?

4Xcut

T'wont make any difference to renting as the licencing/fees for that are completely different to that of retail.

steviec

It's completely untrue.

Although they did patent technology to do it, a possibility for the Playstation 4 maybe but 100% not an issue with PS3.

blobert

steviec wrote:

It's completely untrue.

Although they did patent technology to do it, a possibility for the Playstation 4 maybe but 100% not an issue with PS3.

Thats good to know.

monument

Oh please, will people stop re-posting this crap.

projectmayhem

monument wrote:

Oh please, will people stop re-posting this crap.

ffs this news is weeks (months actually) old. it keeps getting re-hashed by teamxbox or some other such website... and each time sony keeps shutting the rumour down. phil harrison even said he doesn't know where this stuff is coming from...

in the long-run though, this will come into play at some point. sony don't want to be the first out of the gate to do it. it hurts the industry when you pay €20 for a second hand game, because sony/ms/nintendo or the devs/publishers don't really profit from it. they don't do much business from rentals either.

i can see in the next NEXT generation of consoles, we get a PC-like system in place for software

Vegeta

"I know sony are not implementing this so the following is all hypothetical"

well its not just the reselling of games that i fear, fair enough i cant buy a secondhand game, i'll just buy it online for a cheaper than gamestore price anyway.

What does piss me off is that if I want to bring my games and play them on my friends PS3 I cant cos they're protected. If I want to lend a game to my friend so he can play it or I borrow one of his games. That wont work either will it.

Maybe if in the future they use some sort of memory dongle where the games set up info is stored i.e. if i install a game on my PS4 the set up data (much like cd keys with current PC games) is encrypted onto some usb type dongle so if I want to play my games on a friends PS4 all I bring is the game and my dongle. If I want to lend him the game i give him a lend of the dongle thingy as well.

Rental games would have to be reworked so that they give temporary set up data so if you rented a game and then tried to buy it second hand using the rented set up data it wouldn't work,



Vegeta scurries off to sell idea to playstation and Microsoft. he he he he he

4Xcut

This is nothing to do with the hardware thing that was posted months back it is sony changing LICINCING and not permitting shops to sell their games second hand, nothing to do with protection

steviec

4Xcut wrote:

This is nothing to do with the hardware thing that was posted months back it is sony changing LICINCING and not permitting shops to sell their games second hand, nothing to do with protection

Doh, the other rumour has been rehashed so many times that I just assumed this was it again.

Hadn't heard about that, however it's exactly the same website that reported the previous rumours that proved to be untrue so I wouldn't pay it too much heed.

However, I think it would actually be a good move. It means people can still sell their games on boards/buy and sell/whatever(and not get fleeced by Game in the process), and it won't effect the rental market or lending games to friends and things like that.

If you go into Game and buy a game second hand - that's exactly the same as downloading it from Bit Torrent for all the good it does the industry and the people who actually made the game. So I can certainly see why they'd want to close this down, given that I'd imagine a very large percentage of all console games sold are second hand ones - most discs probably get past on three or four times(I have no statistics to back this up but most people I know actively trade in games and buy second hand ones) so it is a logical step to take.

It might push down the price of new games too. Lets say a game gets exchanged 4 times, thats one 60 euro sale, from which the developer gets a cut, followed by 4 10-50 euro sales(depending how old the game is), from which Game get 100% of the proceeds. If that market disappeared the game would be sold 5 times brand new, with the developer getting a cut all 5 times, and in theory this could allow them to lower the price(in practice it probably won't)

It'd be very good for developers, good to bad for consumers depending on if they shop smart or not and mainly it'd be very bad for retailers. And cutting the amount of money retailers suck out of the industry is theoretically for the best in the long run - hence the push for more digital distribution.

quinnd6

Just thought Id add my opinion.
I think the whole idea of sony or any other company stopping people from selling their games or ever doing this is completely ludicrous.
Sony or whoever arent losing money from people buying games second-hand.
Everyone who buys a game at full price has the right to be allowed to sell it or lend it to other people or do whatever he/she wants with it.
If they stop people from doing what they want with games that they are paying full price for we are getting into a dictatorship type situation which is a very bad thing.

I myself dont buy games secondhand and actually havent ever sold any of my games but will likely do so in the future.
I do however believe that if someone buys a game full price thay should be allowed to sell it when they're finished it and that should be the case forever.

Anyway thats my opinion.

monument

This week, why the idea of not owing a CD you buy is a no go...

The problem for console software is that it is still, despite the gradual maturing of the marketplace, aimed at young people and children, who could not be legally bound by a complicated terms of use licence. Even if a child were to indicate their acceptance to the terms, such a contract would not be enforceable and the courts would in all likelihood take a very dim view of any such practice. The licence would therefore either require a user to be over eighteen years old (a minor is anyone under the age of eighteen for litigation purposes in the UK) or provide a means of opt-out, which would presumably involve a circumvention of whatever form of registration the system would use.

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17599


A week or two ago, countering Games Radar's bit...

The fact that this week's story, ***which has been equally strongly decried as utterly false***, has circulated so far and wide since it first appeared on Games Radar yesterday is an indication of just how strong feeling would be about such a move.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17298


In short you cant do this with disks, Steam-like downloads are another story.

But (even out side the land with little BB internet) there's still the problem of the gap between retailers are selling and what a download system in regards to consoles could sell.

projectmayhem

quinnd6 wrote:

I think the whole idea of sony or any other company stopping people from selling their games or ever doing this is completely ludicrous.
Sony or whoever arent losing money from people buying games second-hand.
Everyone who buys a game at full price has the right to be allowed to sell it or lend it to other people or do whatever he/she wants with it.

it's not ludicrous, it's been part of PC-gaming for years... and PC's have been doing fine. in fact, apparently "they're back"..

and sony and devs are loosing money from second hand sales. saying otherwise is just plain wrong. the only benefactor from second hand sales are the retailers... it's cool and interesting for consumers to do this, but fact remains, none of those €20 you splashed out on that 3 month old game actually ends up in the coffers of the programmers to slaved away for 2 years making it.

in a round-a-bout way, the second hand sales market hurts developers... and because of that, developers are less likely to take risks on games like katamari etc. instead, just to make sure people DO pre-order and DO spend the €60 odd on the game, they'll invest their money in an FPS or sports title that's as generic as possible in order to appeal to as many people as possible.

sony and microsoft would love nothing more then do lock down titles to one console... but it wont be popular with fans and kids, so the easiest option is to go down the digital distrobution route, which we're slowly seeing this gen. right now you get "content" sent to your machine. next gen, maybe the one after, you'll see full games being sent to your machine. and the price will mean it's not worth popping down to HMV or gamestop to buy a game... and it'll mean more interesting titles from developers, hopefully.

/long post

stev2604

It is ludicrous really, its like sayin you cant sell your house because the estate developer paid money to build it despite the fact that youve paid for it!

steviec

stev2604 wrote:

It is ludicrous really, its like sayin you cant sell your house because the estate developer paid money to build it despite the fact that youve paid for it!

They won't stop you selling it. They'll stop retailers from buying it. You can still sell it privately.

Case 1:
You return GTA 3 to Game. They give you €2 for it.
Bob arrives at Game looking for GTA 3, he would have bought it new but he sees your copy on the shelf. He hands over €15 for it.
Net loss to gamers: €13
Net profit for retailers: €13
Net profit to developers, who actually made the game and without whom it wouldn't exist: €0

Case 2:
You upload GTA 3 to a file sharing network and Bob downloads it.
Net loss to gamers: €0
Net profit to retailers: €0
Net profit to developers: €0

Now, nobody argues that case 2 isn't bad for the industry, but is it any worse than case 1? The only difference is that the greedy shopkeeper has more money and we, the gamers, have less(and lets face it, that's money we might have spent on other games in the future, the shop keeper will probably invest it in researching new ways of fleecing us instead)

So, the industry quite rightly wants to eliminate Case 2. So why wouldn't they want to eliminate Case 1, which is in many ways just as bad? I'd imagine the number of sales lost to second hand sales is probably greater than the number of sales lost to downloads, simply because not that many people are computer literate to download games, get their console chipped, whatever.

Now, before you scream "but I want my €2 for GTA 3!", let's present case 3, the option you'll have on the Playstation 3(*if* this report is true, and it's totally unconfirmed, otherwise you'll still have all of the above options too)

Case 3:
You have GTA 3. You put it up on boards.ie
Bob sees your ad and offers €10. You've made €8 more than you would have and he's spent €5 less. You're happy and Bob is happy. The developers are still unhappy because they still don't get anything like they would have if Bob was buying it new, but they're not going to infringe on your right to sell the game.

Mostly though, Game are unhappy, and that thought makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

wayne040576

Let's also put a stop to the sale of second hand cds, second hand dvds, second hand cars, in fact lets stop the reselling of everything. It's a rubbish argument based on one thing and one thing only, greed.
Also the word developers is thrown about far too Loosely here. Actual develpers don't get most of the money. Games developers tend to be paid lower than developers in other industries, a lot of it goes to the publishers (the real greedy middle man). Killing the second hand market isn't going to change that. It just means less people will own the games.
It actually brings up an important question, sony (I know other companies do too) are complaining about this, but is it sony as a developer or sony as a publisher? If it's the latter then so what. Publishers are the first to make their money back. It's the lowly developers who have to wait to see the money. Instead of trying to kill off the second hand market, would it not be wiser to reach an agreement were some royalty of each second hand sale goes to the actual developers? For example, I bring back a game I don't need to a shop and get 5 quid for it. The game goes back on sale for say 20 quid. The shop gets a cut of the profit and an agreed percentage goes to the developers. This type of system would increase the product life cycle for its creators.

chump

steviec wrote:

They won't stop you selling it. They'll stop retailers from buying it. You can still sell it privately.

Case 1:
You return GTA 3 to Game. They give you €2 for it.
Bob arrives at Game looking for GTA 3, he would have bought it new but he sees your copy on the shelf. He hands over €15 for it.
Net loss to gamers: €13
Net profit for retailers: €13
Net profit to developers, who actually made the game and without whom it wouldn't exist: €0

Case 2:
You upload GTA 3 to a file sharing network and Bob downloads it.
Net loss to gamers: €0
Net profit to retailers: €0
Net profit to developers: €0

No offence pal but you keep using net profit. Surely you have to subtract the overheads involved with such transactions, storage costs, and resale costs. And I'm sure there's more. The profit you're referring to is gross. Get it right next time. Alree?

projectmayhem

wayne040576 wrote:

Let's also put a stop to the sale of second hand cds, second hand dvds, second hand cars, in fact lets stop the reselling of everything. It's a rubbish argument based on one thing and one thing only, greed.

well actually, the music industry would gladly end the sale of second hand cd's... but the technology really isn't there. why do you think they're trying to push DRM and other such restrictive software on itunes et al? the movie industry doesn't really have as much of a problem yet, because only now is broadband getting to the stage where it's viable to download that film rather then go out and buy it... but you'll see all this happening then.

as for cars, when you buy your €25,000 car, you're paying for everything in the car. when you buy your €60 game, you're not even close to covering the cost of the development and publishing it (around €30-40mill in top games cases).. same goes for the movie and music industry.

wayne040576 wrote:

Also the word developers is thrown about far too Loosely here. Actual develpers don't get most of the money. Games developers tend to be paid lower than developers in other industries, a lot of it goes to the publishers (the real greedy middle man). Killing the second hand market isn't going to change that. It just means less people will own the games.

no doubt devs get paid less then other IT devs, but that's quickly changing. of course the publishers get more money, but their money is mostly being spent on the damn things. they take most of the risk. killing the second hand market will stop games being sold without the people in the middle or the people at the start getting no pay...

wayne040576 wrote:

It actually brings up an important question, sony (I know other companies do too) are complaining about this, but is it sony as a developer or sony as a publisher? If it's the latter then so what. Publishers are the first to make their money back. It's the lowly developers who have to wait to see the money. Instead of trying to kill off the second hand market, would it not be wiser to reach an agreement were some royalty of each second hand sale goes to the actual developers? For example, I bring back a game I don't need to a shop and get 5 quid for it. The game goes back on sale for say 20 quid. The shop gets a cut of the profit and an agreed percentage goes to the developers. This type of system would increase the product life cycle for its creators.

i know that sony tried to cut deals with the major players in the states (gamestop, ebgames etc.) but they couldn't agree on a "fair" price. the retailers were completely unreasonable, and as such, microsoft or nintendo didn't even bother. instead, the companies are now going to push digital distribution so that in future, your games WILL be locked to you, much in the same way PC games are. i say you, and not your machine, because all 3 companies will have accounts, which'll no doubt log what games you have bought, so when you get a ps4 or xbox<insert horrible PR-laden name here>, when you sign into xbox live or sony connect (or whatever it's called) the system will know you bought MGS4 or Halo3...

j4vier

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2158170/sony-ban-second-hand-ps3-games

My thoughts of buying a ps3 were put off after they announced the price of the console
Now I'm just not gonna bother about a ps3..

aidan_walsh

Just a few posts down...

steviec wrote:

It's completely untrue.

Although they did patent technology to do it, a possibility for the Playstation 4 maybe but 100% not an issue with PS3.

monument wrote:

Oh please, will people stop re-posting this crap.

j4vier

ops
sorry didnt see that one.

Vyse

projectmayhem wrote:

in future, your games WILL be locked to you, much in the same way PC games are.

Are PC games locked to you? I have often given my brother my PC games and he has no problem playing them. The only one I ever thought there was a problem with was Half Life 2.

projectmayhem

Vyse wrote:

Are PC games locked to you? I have often given my brother my PC games and he has no problem playing them. The only one I ever thought there was a problem with was Half Life 2.

well, they're technically supposed to be.. the serial is unique to you, and you only (that's the idea anyway). that's why most games these days ship with secureROM (you have to pop the disc in to authenticate), and i'm sure the steam idea will be done a lot more in future.