Just something I noticed this very instant in the issue of PSM3 magazine I picked up today, there are claims published therein that Sony are not actually making a move against second-hand games and that, though they looked at the possibility of adding in technology that disallowed games to be used on multiple machines, it never came to fruition.

Is this actually true?? I haven't seen any news about this from either camp in a little while.

I heard a while back that those plans had been dropped, although I never could remember if it was a credible source or not. Since I don't really know one way or the other, I've just been keeping my mouth shut on that issue.

keeping your mouth shut on it why?

it's kind of destined to happen eventually imho, whether it's this generation, the next, or a few down.

there is no way they are going to ban second hand games.

you mean now or ever?

it's something they want to stop, as it's seen as a huge loss of revenue. the first step that I see happening is not shipping games to retailers that also sell used games.

Well see, my only problem was that PSM3 is incredibly biased towards Sony's camp for obvious reasons, and they've never seemed critical of anything Sony has done. So I have no idea whether to believe them or not to be quite honest.

Sony never said they were going to ban second-hand games in the first place; the controversy was surrounding technology implemented in the PS3 that was blown out of proportion. The technology is actually a part of BD-ROMs; the idea that a disc can be 'linked' to a certain console or player. This is something that the big movie companies were pushing, and is a feature unique to all Blu-ray devices, not just the PlayStation 3.

While it can be applied to games (and Blu-ray Movies) no company has decided to do so yet. You can bet if they do there will be a huge public outcry.

If they (or any other company) were to ban second-hand games, it would most likely be one of the worst decisions they could make. If that technology were in the PS3, I'm sure that a lost of gamers would make a huge public outcry and boycott Sony's PS3, making it's sales crash to the floor.

They would basically be helping Microsoft and Nintendo because most people (me as one of them) would rather have an XBOX 360 or Nintendo Revolution because they can rent games, sell their old ones, and buy games that have been previously used.

What exactly is the problem? I never heard of this before.

Sony was going to be all like yo our games will now only work in the first system they are played on so no sharing, borrowing, renting, or selling games ever again jerks.


or something i think

You can bet if they do there will be a huge public outcry.

just like the huge public outcry over hdcp & other drm on vista? ~

you mean now or ever?


It'll never happen.

Or if it does happen, 2nd hand games will come back on the market some time later. Only for them to be stopped once more!

Whatever the case, it won't be from refusing to ship to stores which resale unless the stores doing that business were so few that losing them wouldn't really effect new game sales.What's more likely to happen is that more big chains will gradually get into used sales. Best Buy was looking into it some time ago, I don't know what came of that though.

just like the huge public outcry over hdcp & other drm on vista? ~

The difference is that there are corporations that make a large portion of their living off second-hand software; in Australia, EB sells 'pre-played' software for only 10% less than the brand new price.

If you think about that, that's a massive profit margin.

Business aren't going to let go of part of their profits willingly.

you mean now or ever?

it's something they want to stop, as it's seen as a huge loss of revenue. the first step that I see happening is not shipping games to retailers that also sell used games.

So... all of them, then?

Okay, I'm exaggerating. But seriously, it's a huge chunk of the market. Huge. Sony can't just tell every place that sells used games that they're not allowed to do it anymore, and they have to know that. If they threaten not to send them new games they are effectively cutting themselves off from massive amounts of consumers, both geographically and in terms of fanhood. The companies are not simply going to bend over and let Sony fuck them out of humongous amounts of revenue.

Still, I don't doubt that Sony is going to try to fuck with the second-hand market, but it won't do it overtly.

Top Sony Computer Entertainment execs have been making noise about digital distribution lately, which statements like "The PlayStation 4 probably won't even have a disc drive."

If broadband speeds increase exponentially in the next 9 years (the projected life-cycle of the PlayStation 3), digital distribution of class A titles becomes a more realistic prospect. Early adopters Valve have already demonstrated success of the digital distribution model by it's Steam system. When you buy a license to download a game, and there is no method to transfer that license, the second-hand market disappears.

Well yeah, but I think that getting rid of the second hand market is a perk in that sense. It's the march of technology. Eventually that's probably going to be how it's done with movies, games, music, and whatever other media you may want.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction. Sony's not going to utilize the BD-ROM feature that would limit games to a single console in the first run of games. However, their stance against second-hand game sales is well-known, so I figure they'll experiment with it within the first year of the PS3's release. It will probably be implemented on a marginally high-profile title so Sony can test the waters and see what sales on it will be like. If it goes over well, they'll likely add it to more games.

"goes over well" being defined as "the public doesn't really mind all that much."

and they won't. the public didn't care about cd's having viruses when you stick them in your computer, the public didn't care about hdcp, the public didn't care about itune's drm. the public is ignorant.

they can probably come up with some spin on it all to make it sound beneficial, too. if it wasn't for the drm, we'd have to charge more for games !

Still, I don't doubt that Sony is going to try to fuck with the second-hand market, but it won't do it overtly.

Top Sony Computer Entertainment execs have been making noise about digital distribution lately, which statements like "The PlayStation 4 probably won't even have a disc drive."

If broadband speeds increase exponentially in the next 9 years (the projected life-cycle of the PlayStation 3), digital distribution of class A titles becomes a more realistic prospect. Early adopters Valve have already demonstrated success of the digital distribution model by it's Steam system. When you buy a license to download a game, and there is no method to transfer that license, the second-hand market disappears.

Has Valve suffered in the least due to the complete absence of a second-hand market?

Hell, PC gaming in general has already instituted countless DRM-esque anti-reselling measures and is still steadily gaining in the gaming market.

Also: Third-party games developers shouldn't be affected by this.

Has Valve suffered in the least due to the complete absence of a second-hand market?

Hell, PC gaming in general has already instituted countless DRM-esque anti-reselling measures and is still steadily gaining in the gaming market.

Also: Third-party games developers shouldn't be affected by this.

Of course Valve hasn't suffered. Hell, the fact that Half-Life 2 is practically impossible to sell second-hand means that every person playing has lined Gabe Newell's pockets.

The business that suffer are stores like EB Games. And while game sales aren't quite the multi-billion dollar industry games development is, it is the medium through that transcation is processed.

he public didn't care about cd's having viruses when you stick them in your computer

? (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e9e41f72-56f4-11da-b98c-00000e25118c.html)

Of course, they're all wildly different things. One was basically illegal so a reaction was quick, HDCP isn't even an issue for most people right now but there is still crying all over the interweb about it, and unless I'm misunderstanding something, the only thing itunes blocks is mass distribution through computers and playing on not-ipods in a bit of jerkiness. You can still backup and share with your pals. I would guess that people aren't ignorant of what's going on in that case so much as they don't have much of a problem with the conditions. In any case, public reaction can't be written off as a general "they won't care" especially when how something will go down is unknown.

It can be said that they won't do it by refusing to ship to game stores that resale because those places care a great deal about it. The only time Sony could ignore them is if they simply no longer mattered(plus Sony doesn't have a say in the distribution of everyone else's games?) And using games on multiple systems isn't some rare practice that will go unnoticed by most gamers,passing games around has always been common, and the number one game in the states is freaking Madden. If they can limit games to working on a single system(and how is that possible exactly, out of curiousity?) people will notice, and probably start giving their money to Microsoft, who for now is still more concerned about marketshare than profits I think?

Of course Valve hasn't suffered. Hell, the fact that Half-Life 2 is practically impossible to sell second-hand means that every person playing has lined Gabe Newell's pockets.

The business that suffer are stores like EB Games. And while game sales aren't quite the multi-billion dollar industry games development is, it is the medium through that transcation is processed.

I fail to see how EB Games "suffering" over not being able to sell used copies of Half-Life 2 (or any other game) is a valid argument. As has been said, given that I'm only going to save $5-10 on a "used" game at EB Games, I usually go ahead and buy a new one so that I know the disc isn't scratched or otherwise fucked up (or if it is, I have recourse with the store; whereas used games are sold "as is").

Also, I have no pity or sympathy for companies that survive solely because they play middle man price markup schemes that bitch because one of their suppliers threatens to cut them out.

i doubt it is much of a loss of revenue, tbqh. most second hand games here are at least 50% less than new ones. quite often they're about €10-20. a lot of the people that buy them are kids or other people who dont have €70 to waste on a game that will last about 4 days anyways. it's only a loss of profit if any of the people buying these second hand were liable to buy them first hand to begin with. if they do destroy the second hand games market, i am far more likely just to get a pirate copy than to pay extortionate prices for games im not even all that interested in.

the second hand games market, here, at least, is quite big. i can only see attempts to stop it hurting console sales.

in any case the idea that you dont have the right to do whatever you want with your own property is patently insane. =(

the second hand games market, here, at least, is quite big. i can only see attempts to stop it hurting console sales.

But on the other hand, Sony is taking a big loss on each console they sell right now and relying on software sales to make up the difference. If wiping out the second-hand market reduces their console sales, but keeps game sales up for the consoles they do sell, it seems like it might actually work out better for them. Of course, that could easily not be the case since I haven't really thought much about it.


in any case the idea that you dont have the right to do whatever you want with your own property is patently insane. =(

And their answer to that is to make the games NOT your property in the first place. According to the powers that be, you're not paying for the game itself. You're merely paying for the license to play it.

And their answer to that is to make the games NOT your property in the first place. According to the powers that be, you're not paying for the game itself. You're merely paying for the license to play it.

Thats stubit. I dont think anyone would ever accept this. You will not even be able to rent a game to see if u like it or not

But on the other hand, Sony is taking a big loss on each console they sell right now and relying on software sales to make up the difference. If wiping out the second-hand market reduces their console sales, but keeps game sales up for the consoles they do sell, it seems like it might actually work out better for them. Of course, that could easily not be the case since I haven't really thought much about it.

The only companies that benefit from used games are resellers. Period. Sony has nothing to gain or lose by banning second-hand games (used-games buyers are also among the used console buyers; every late adopters at any rate).


And their answer to that is to make the games NOT your property in the first place. According to the powers that be, you're not paying for the game itself. You're merely paying for the license to play it.

Did anyone ever think things were different? When it comes to software, all you're ever paying for is a license to use it, or do you people never actually read the agreements/disclaimers in the manuals?

If I'm not mistaken, ROKI, that's already common practice.

Also, rentals are still perfectly legal. It just means that the actual software (and the disc it's printed on!) doesn't belong to anyone but the developer/publisher and that rental companies are renting out the license to play the games.

Just something I noticed this very instant in the issue of PSM3 magazine I picked up today, there are claims published therein that Sony are not actually making a move against second-hand games and that, though they looked at the possibility of adding in technology that disallowed games to be used on multiple machines, it never came to fruition.

Is this actually true?? I haven't seen any news about this from either camp in a little while.

Yes this is true. I said in another thread that they were but I read it wrong and they aren't putting on the ban. Though that would be a real rip-off considering games are �60.

The only companies that benefit from used games are resellers. Period.

Yup. If you're going to bother with buying and selling used games it's honestly best to ignore stores almost completely. You'll get more money and better deals elsewhere. The stores sell games for much more than the price they buy them for, and used copies of new releases are often just 10% less than an actual new copy.


i doubt it is much of a loss of revenue, tbqh. most second hand games here are at least 50% less than new ones. quite often they're about �10-20.

Except for in the crazy land of foreigners.



i am far more likely just to get a pirate copy than to pay extortionate prices for games im not even all that interested in.

On the other hand, you'd be more likely to buy the games you are actually interested in new. And if the pirated game you weren't interested in much turned out to be amazing would you go buy a copy even though you already have it? For most people that answer is no, but perhaps it would lead to a small percentage of them picking up the sequel on release. The availability of pirated,used,borrowable,discounted or whatever goods does influence what people consider worth paying full price for, and if games were suddenly unpiratable or couldn't be bought used, some people who could afford them would buy them new where they otherwise wouldn't have and those are the sales they're looking for.

The only companies that benefit from used games are resellers. Period. Sony has nothing to gain or lose by banning second-hand games (used-games buyers are also among the used console buyers; every late adopters at any rate).

sony has nothing to lose or gain by banning them? how do you figure?

there are two possible outcomes:

1) it leads to fewer new retail sales (quite possible)

2) it leads to more new retail game sales (quite possible)

they won't know unitl they try. my hunch, however, is that they will try. maybe in small markets at first to see how to works. they may tweak it to see how it make it work out best, but it IS something they're interested in, because sony makes no money when a game is resold. how you could claim there's nothing at stake for them one way or another completely baffles me.

Also there are going to be less games being made for the PS3 because of their annual allowance. You see most games that came out in the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube were $1-3 million to produce and their annual allowance was $100 million. Now that games are becomeing harder to make the average game will cost $10 million to produce and the annual allowance stays the same resulting in less games being made (at lest 3 times less to be exact). The PS3 will now have 14 games at launch I think the figure is.
Though the Wii is still going to only cost $1-3 million to produce so that means more third-party companies will go for the Wii. Also the Wii is supposed to have 32 games at launch.

Also I know my english is crap so don't be going on about it.

Also if this has already been said I am sorry for the spamming.

sony has nothing to lose or gain by banning them? how do you figure?

there are two possible outcomes:

1) it leads to fewer new retail sales (quite possible)

2) it leads to more new retail game sales (quite possible)

they won't know unitl they try. my hunch, however, is that they will try. maybe in small markets at first to see how to works. they may tweak it to see how it make it work out best, but it IS something they're interested in, because sony makes no money when a game is resold. how you could claim there's nothing at stake for them one way or another completely baffles me.

The history of the PC gaming market when one looks at that segment of the gaming industry's sales history comparable to the advent of various licensing software programs.

If I'm not mistaken, ROKI, that's already common practice.

Also, rentals are still perfectly legal. It just means that the actual software (and the disc it's printed on!) doesn't belong to anyone but the developer/publisher and that rental companies are renting out the license to play the games.

First time i realise how complicated this can be! But really, most people dont even know (or care) about licenses. You walk into the shop, buy a disc, for most people you own the game (software)!:-\

man sony is sure trying to find out how to get the belt off cena hats off to them