Gaming Signal: Sony to nix game resale oppertunity for PS3 games. In fact, when you buy them you dont even own them!

Sony to nix game resale oppertunity for PS3 games. In fact, when you buy them you dont even own them!

So if I'm the resident Sony hater, I need to do my job of, ummm, "hate!" This news is yet to be confirmed by Sony but it looks pretty solid at this point. Sony aims to only license the use of their games and not allow you to actually own them. This also means that you can't resell them for store credit at a participating store like EB Games or Gamestop. This is pure greed in my opinion.

This could have something to do with Blue-Ray DRM and the fact that it might phone home to Mothership Sony to let them know which DRM key infection you own, but that is pure speculation by me trying to read between the lines here.

Both Shacknews - PS3 to Block Used Games articles Games Radar - [PS3] Sony makes moves to stamp out lucrative second-hand market that broke this story do state that this is still speculation at this point but if it does turn out to be true you can most assuredly bet places like Gamefly will not be carrying PS3 titles. Gamefly is the only place I buy from now so this is yet another reason I probably will not get a PS3.

If I were Sony, the first thing I would say to the pundits is "(no phoning the mothership as Trent suggests)". The "Trent suggests" part should really throw them for a loop!

Can you really say that it won't? I think I sufficiently said I was trying to "read between the lines" so I concur, I AM speculating still. But in my opinion, Sony's track record is not good as of late so I will remain skeptical until they prove me wrong.

In fact I hope they prove me wrong, so I can consider buying this thing again. I am however not holding my breath. Sony is the MPAA and RIAA's beyatch, so who knows.

Posted by tditto on Thursday May 25, 2006 at 1:52 PM

Sorry to bleat on but I'm still thinking about this:

I know you use Gamefly Scott. I just can't believe you are ignoring this fact (limitation). The 10% off from Gamefly is too sweet for me to ignore purchasing through them.

In fact, looking around on the net more at this issue, Sony has already been unable to make that very same licensing part of their EULA stick to those who bought Sony/BMG music titles so how is Sony going to stop consumers from reselling PS3 titles?

I think it just really shows they don't really care about the consumer or the consumers desires. This is all just to appease the MPAA's concerns about Blue-Ray.

Posted by tditto on Thursday May 25, 2006 at 2:07 PM

The ShackNews article lays out the possibilities. I make the assumption that everybody has read it - if you haven't, go read it then come back here. Sony has stated that they won't do anything to lock a title to your PS3. There is a quote from Sony on that topic. Although they could go back on that, it's unlikely.

What might happen is that they might go after resellers for buying and reselling used games. This would prevent the secondary game market - at least from the big name stores. It would be interesting to see how they think they could enforce that in the thousands of smaller players.

This would have no impact on GameFly - they are renters, not used game resellers.

Posted by Scott on Thursday May 25, 2006 at 2:33 PM

So I guess its too early to tell for Gamefly. I found this on thier site but its quite old. (2005)

Question: Will you carry X-Box 360, PS3, and Nintendo Revolution games?

Answer: We plan to stock all of the newest releases for these Next Generation consoles as soon as they become available. As always, GameFly is committed to providing you with the newest and hottest titles.

Note the lack of "Wii". It's old. :-(

ArsTechnica had this forum post ( http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/11/9/1779 )which others have the same concern as I do but its 2005/2004 as well. :-(

Posted by tditto on Thursday May 25, 2006 at 2:48 PM

Honestly, this has been a desire of the game manufacturers for some time. From thier opinion, they are losing sales by having the second hand market, and to play devil's advocate - they are. They only recieve payments for the initial sale and then it is the EB/Gamestops that recieve the money on second hand sales.

In the long run, will this stand up? Probably not since folks will simply buy games from thier friends or some other venue. I put it in the same venue as used movies and used CDs - there is a strong market for second hand merchandise and folks will not play a given title indefinitely. Therefore it will always exist and companies should work out a mechanism to embrace that - not punish the consumer.

Posted by Tim on Friday May 26, 2006 at 9:11 AM

Well supposedly this is supposed to put this issue to bed: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17283

Still sounds murky to me. Maybe Sony was "testing the water"?

I just can't bring myself back to embracing Sony. It's to the point that I even ignore my PSP because of it. I'm all for protecting your IP, but the whole DRM thing is not the way.

It's not just Sony either. I plan to resist Microsoft DRM in Vista for as long as possible. Oh, and that Apple iPod mini I bought for my daughter, it's DUSTY. She would rather use my wifes Archos because the whole rip/play process is soooooo much easier. Amazing that a 12 year old can easilly tell the difference in versatility/usability when faced with DRM vs. complete compatibility with all CE devices.

No sir, I don't like it!

Posted by tditto on Friday May 26, 2006 at 11:08 AM

DRM is a fact of life from this point forward. It exists in almost every piece of technology we encounter. That 360 you have is full of it and will continue to be enhanced with or without your approval. Your DVD player comprehends it and so do the multitude of software applications that play DVDs and CDs. As to your rip and play mentality - Itunes works for me since I rip all my music to MP3 and then synchronization is automatic to my iPOD, but I understand your frustration. Maybe she is used to mechanisms you have setup to handle the transition of audio data...

The best way to fight this is with your pocketbook and have your friends stand up to it as well. Don't buy the games and these companies will start to get the hint that maybe a mistake was made in the "protection" of the company's assets. Some members of the PC industry are starting to get it and realizing that punishing your consumers is a one way ticket to piracy and lowered sales numbers. My hope is that through some intelligent conversation and proper resistance to "the man", we will see an environment where everyone gets what is needed. Some level of protection on the media to stop the casual pirates, a decent second hand market where the consumer and the producer see value, and an environment where being the first point of sale means more in either special content or downloadables to help increase the value of that initial investment.

Posted by Tim on Saturday May 27, 2006 at 1:34 AM

I couldn't agree with Tim more here. DRM is a fact of life - to deny it is to deny the future. Content will not be 'free' and frankly it shouldn't be. If Sony or Bioware or Pearl Jam can't benefit financially from the generation of content they won't produce it and then we all lose. I agree that all kinds of issues with DRM needs to be resolved (and I believe that ultimately it will be through the content licenses being stored online in the equivalent to a Microsoft Passport) but I also know that it has to exist.

Oh and Trent, if you're giving up the PSP, can I have your stuff? ;)

Sony has made mistakes with here - the rootkit being a pretty major example. But then so has Microsoft, Apple, Valve, Bioware, and many others. The reasons are simple - they are trying to find out what works and still have a way to keep the content safe. While I feel the growing pains as well as anybody I know it's just that.

Posted by Scott on Saturday May 27, 2006 at 10:11 PM

Sorry for the long time on the reply but Memorial Day got in the way.

(Trent pulls out his shiny bright red soapbox and says,) "Kaka-poo-poo!"

Those on the DRM bandwagon are on it because there is no other wagon for them to ride on. What are the companies who use DRM actually gaining? It's not "security" because any WAREZ organization out there defeats that in about a week. It's not gaining you any functionality, in fact it limits that aspect.

The real looser is the consumer whom the owner of the IP who added the DRM has already received money from. It's stupid. Limit the people who actually pay for your DRM infected crap?

Heres the one that really kills me. Add DRM to something to stop convergence to other device mediums without offering that some IP in that other medium. So in effect you are being made a criminal for lets say copying a DVD movie to your PSP when the IP owner of said movie does not offer their movie in UMD format. The IP owner already has your money because you bought the DVD, but now they want to limit you copying it to your PSP because they fear you might also copy it to a P2P network? Poo-Poo! Sue the guy who already paid you? Rediculous. I have copied MANY DVD's to my PSP and never once uploaded one to a P2P network.

All I'm saying is that DRM is not the answer. Take all that DRM money and apply it to lobbyists so they can lobby lawmakers to make the penalties for actual "pirating" much stiffer. Or use that money you saved on DRM to fund the lawsuits against TRUE pirates selling hundreds of thousands of copies illegally.

Why punish the consumer who is willing to pay?

I don't want to re-hash all this stuff with you guys that has already been said on many other forums, but I consider you guys to be much more intelligent than I am and it just boggles me that you are willing to be "sheep" for this crap. Scott you said: "DRM is a fact of life - to deny it is to deny the future." You are enabling that future my friend, not I. I want no part of that future.

I realize that I can work around this DRM just as well as any other real hacker. This DRM stuff up to this point has really been a joke so far, but the better they write DRM, the more of our "fair use" rights get taken away from us and we are all just watching it slip away right under our noses and the impression I'm getting is that your are OK with this just because thats business?!?!

If that makes me naive, so be it, but if I were the CEO of a major movie industry you can be assured that DRM would not be the answer I applied, and guess what. The first music/movie studio that steps up and says "we won't use DRM" is going to make MILLIONS from us consumers. I know I would buy in to that on sheer principle alone.

Just so we are all clear here too, I'm not angry, just trying to discuss the issue and I got to say that I am shocked at the responses.

On the "vote with your wallet" opinion. I'm doing that with music already. I'm on my 7th year now of no RIAA purchases. I have bought a lot of "indie" music and I've got to say, I don't miss the "big name" products that much. The only one so far that I really wish I could own is "Matisyahu - Youth" album which is a Sony/BMG CD and ya know what? Eventually all the songs will be on Sirius SAT radio so I don't really care that much.

So to quote Peter Finch as "Howard Beale" in "Network": 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'

Posted by tditto on Tuesday May 30, 2006 at 2:43 PM

I do agree with your statements Trent, but I was simply stating the fact of the market as it exists today. Personally, I would love an environment that truely embraces fair use of the content that I have purchased, but alas that is a pipe dream from what I have seen. The wonderful folks in charge of the actual publishing (not creation) of content believe that enforcing a set of rules on the content will some how garner them more money than trusting that people won't share it with the rest of the world on a peer to peer network. Which in my opinion, is probably warrented given the behavior I have seen in some folks.

From my standpoint, the future of content and protection of said content must reside in value for the consumer and some guarantees of revenue for the provider (and the creator). Cory Doctorow has spoken at length about DRM and the evils of its ways, but until we can get to a situation where the provider recieves revenue for the content - there must be some protections in place. There exists a group of folks who feel that everything should be free, but it costs money for bandwidth and power and all sorts of things required to create the content, and as such there must be a mechansim to recoup that investment - and make money to produce more content.

Is DRM the mechanism for that?

Yes, assuming several factors:

1. the security is designed that it allows you to use the content fairly (and this is the tough definition). You should be able to downsample it for use on a PSP or other media device. You should also be able to play it on the devices you own within reason.

2. The security must not so complex that playing the content requires so much software and authorizations that it becomes too difficult to use.

3. It must work across all platforms. Emphasis on all platforms...

That is my take on the things, and I really enjoy this discusson. You know what would be great is if somebody would do a podcast on this and then we could have it as our first GamingSignal/SFSignal Podcast... Now only if we could find somebody to do it...

Posted by Tim on Tuesday May 30, 2006 at 3:01 PM

LOL, you don't want me to do a Podcast. First, I know not of which this "Pod" thing is that you "cast." I know that audio files can be used in RSS to make it to a CE audio device automatically, but this whole "Pod" thing... sounds like something a tree-hugging comapny like Apple might come up with.

I would have fun doing it (it being the casting of... um... pods?) but I'm a little too opinionated in the opposite direction to this topic to be of any use on this one. If there were two of us on it and I was cast (not of the Pod variety) as the EVIL side to this arguement, then maybe, but I think I have proven that I'm a little too agitated on this topic.

Posted by tditto on Tuesday May 30, 2006 at 3:10 PM

DRM is here, and its here to stay - you can't play an XBOX 360 or watch a DVD without it, Blu-Ray and HD DVD have it, and the music format that replaces CDs will have it too. You can hate it and try to avoid it, sure. But Trent I know you own a 360 and its full of it. You've been talking about Blu-Ray and you know its in there too. You're aware that Blu-Ray discs won't be able to be ripped to a PC, right?

Let me take you down the slippery slope - let's assume I buy some music, maybe online, maybe as a CD. I want it on the digital music player in my car, so I transfer it there. Let's say my son wants it to - should he be able to copy it to his portable player as well? I play the music on my home stereo using my Roku Soundbridge and my brother likes it. Can I email it to him? What about you, Trent? I tell you about how great this new tune is and you want to listen to it, so can I burn a CD for you? What if you only borrow the CD and give it back to me after a couple of months?

I agree with Tim - the technology needs to come to maturity here and allow reasonable use. The problem is we all have a different view of reasonable.

Anyway, at this point we probably have to move this to a new post - it no longer has much to do with the tempest in a teapot that was the rumor since debunked above.

Posted by Scott on Tuesday May 30, 2006 at 7:26 PM

Fair enough. I agree its here to stay. I guess the difference is that some of it is in my face and others its not. I have yet to taste the burn of DRM on my 360. It hasn't limited me yet in any way that I can perceive. I still don't like it though. MS so far seems to keep it out of my face but then again, the true DRM infection of Palladium in Vista is yet to be tested.

Who knows, I might be one of those idiots who sticks with XP as long as I can.

I can tell you this, the minute something I own gets downrezed because I dont have an HDCP connection going from my PC through Vista to my monitor I might just put my fist through the monitor. Or, I might just only by content without the downrez flag turned on, in the same light as not buying CD's with that crap on it.

I think the only situation I might could deal with is Netflix. I'm just renting the DRM laden crap. I might could tolerate that.

I honestly envy you. I wish it didn't irritate me so. Everyones got a crazy tick, mines DRM apparently.

Posted by tditto on Tuesday May 30, 2006 at 10:37 PM

The only thing my naive self will add to this is that I think today DRM isn't there to stop hackers or pirates. Sure, in their ideal world they would like to do this, but this is some years off (if it ever can happen.) At this stage, with the current state of DRM, I think they're appealing to peoples' sense of right and wrong by making it more apparent where the usage boundaries are (though there are still gray areas, as listed above.)

People that will hack/pirate can and will still hack/pirate, but the point of DRM (today) is to let people know that what they're doing is illegal. It forces people to be conscious of the choice to obtain the content illegally.

As a provider of content (though not digital, yet) I can tell you that I encourage companies to do what it takes to protect their material (except for Hip Hop and Rob Shneider movies, which suck and I encourage everyone to rip them off so that they stop making them.)

Posted by Kevin on Tuesday June 13, 2006 at 9:33 AM