Playstation 4

[user 1190]

They don't

Really? I can't think of a single multiplayer game I have bought that didn't have a pass.

 

[The Stig]

Most likely, and they will probably try different ways to limit access to their games on PS4, but with Sony's mandate, the PS4's framework won't do it for them. And that's what's significant.

It's important to note that what Sony is doing is nothing different from what we've had this past generation. Publishers have ALWAYS had the ability to implement crappy DRM on any of their 360/PS3/PC games. The only practical, functional difference this time is that Microsoft gave them the system-level key to do it on their box One hardware, and that's just philosophically apprehensible. It opened the door on that platform.

Otherwise, it's all about leading by example. Sony did the right thing yesterday, and did so in a manner that didn't completely alienate publishers and gamers both.

Well said.

 

[plasmid303]

Maybe, but as a publisher and you watch gamestop make huge profits off your effort to build a game why wouldn't you want to get some of that action if you can. They started with online passes and I think someone else said there was even game with even a single player pass.

Publishers wanted this way more than Microsoft. So as I have said for sometime Sony could have a backlash from publishers long term for not backing them.

Absolutely, publishers are businesses too, and they are also entitled to make profit any way they can...that do not impugn on consumer rights. I bought a physical copy of a game, it is mine to do whatever I want with it. Gamestop and other retailers work on a similar philosophy. And I don't want to hear about licenses and unenforcable EULA bs.

Online passes suck, but still within reasonable boundaries of what publishers should be able to get away with.

As for how publishers will react to Microsoft and Sony's policies, time will tell.

 

[Mogli]

What happened to that post? It was hilarious.

 

[Snake Plissken]

The Xbox ragers in these threads are hilarious.

 

[jonny88]

Xbox I don't want One.

The consoles should be called

Xbox one, i don't want one.
Playstation 4, four the win.

 

[jonny88]

Xbox I don't want One.

The consoles should be called

Xbox one, i don't want one.
Playstation 4, for the win.

 

[user 1190]

Absolutely, publishers are businesses too, and they are also entitled to make profit any way they can...that do not impugn on consumer rights. I bought a physical copy of a game, it is mine to do whatever I want with it. Gamestop and other retailers work on a similar philosophy. And I don't want to hear about licenses and unenforcable EULA bs.

Online passes suck, but still within reasonable boundaries of what publishers should be able to get away with.

As for how publishers will react to Microsoft and Sony's policies, time will tell.

So your rights are being infringed upon even though you might have already agreed to rules when you played the game?

I bet you also think your rights were infringed when they shutdown napster originally too.

 

[Snake Plissken]

The consoles should be called

Xbox one, i don't want one.
Playstation 4, for the win.

 

[darthviper107]

Really? I can't think of a single multiplayer game I have bought that didn't have a pass.

Halo 4 didn't have an online pass, neither did Call of Duty

Less games are getting online passes than before, EA dropped online passes from all the games that had it.

 

[SOLIDSNAKE]

[ame]https://youtu.be/fACOL4FchsY[/ame]

 

[Privyet]

I'd rather have online passes than one system is only able to play a game.

 

[Privyet]

The only online passes I had that I can remember are ones for saints row 3 and Tekken tag. And maybe sims 3

 

[Serpentor]

Sony has now clarified things a bit, Publishers can only block used games from playing online via online passes https://www.gamefront.com/sony-third-party-drm-refers-to-playing-used-games-online-only/

So single player games will no matter what be able to be sold lent and all that other great stuff.

Also for Gamestop screwing up the market, who was given the ability to give out Catwoman codes for Arkham City with every used game they sold for FREE? Gamestop, Gameinformer which gets previews for all kinds of games owned by Gamestop. Countless pre order DLC given to Gamestop. Gamestop sell DLC in store now. Who do you think will be the primary Authorized retailer for XBox One games? Gamestop

Publishers wants to paint Gamestop out to be the devil, yet they keep doing business with them. Gamestop's CEO talked about how their clients wouldn't be likely to support a console that blocked used games. Funny how they didn't come out and condemn the One, they merely said they expect transition of trading games to be seamless.

Gamestop are not the problem, they are only part of a larger problem with this industry. It's called Greed.

 

[plasmid303]

So your rights are being infringed upon even though you might have already agreed to rules when you played the game?

I bet you also think your rights were infringed when they shutdown napster originally too.

This has nothing to do with playing the games, it's about what I can do with the physical disk.

Good try with your straw man argument, though.

 

[moose]

Man this is just another attempt by game developers to try and block piracy but I think if used games are taken out of the market then it will only make piracy more prevalent as the incentive will be even greater since you have to pay full price for the game even if its old.

 

[VASith]

Man this is just another attempt by game developers to try and block piracy but I think if used games are taken out of the market then it will only make piracy more prevalent as the incentive will be even greater since you have to pay full price for the game even if its old.

Lending a game to someone is not piracy. Selling a used game isnt piracy. If that's the case how many university students commit piracy by buying and selling used books for their classes.

This is a pure and simple way for MS to stick the knife in a little bit deeper. Ironic thing is, it's going to cost them in the long run.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

Think a Vita is worth getting now?

 

[ZombieRepublican]

Think a Vita is worth getting now?

always wanted one, just waiting for good exclusive games!

plus a price drop. Maybe they could do a sexy PS4 + Vita bundle

 

[GasparZizou]

After watching the "no restrictions" part of the Sony conference, I really see no room for "double talk" as Mfoga was groundlessly saying, let's recap:

(1)It will support used games with complete freedom of trading, lending and OWNERSHIP, why even mention that if the developers around going to impose a lock to their games, why's Sony promise something that can't be done? Even if devs would want to impose some locks, how would they do it if:

(2)Games don't require to be connected or any kind of authentication what so ever.

This only leaves room for Multiplayer lock, which some companies already cut loose, wouldn't they look silly if they go back on their word?