Support NeoGAF

[rvy]

The weird thing is Ubi, Activision and EA now have said they are fine with the way things currently are with second hand games...

But Activison doesn't use online passes, I don't understand why they wouldn't be OK with the way things are. EA and Ubi are the ones who want to sell the same game 2 or 3 times.

 

[hesido]

If this is true, then it's an excellent political manoeuvre. I salute Sony for it.

And let's remember all those patents Sony filed for blocking second hand use. Genius if it is really meant to be as a mis-direction. And if your competitor uses your patented technique, sue them. I hate patent trolls tho, I hope Sony doesn't go so low.

 

[famousmortimer]

Everything isn't a conspiracy.



The article claims there is some sort of secret conspiracy to mislead customers. And now reaction in this thread is that the EDGE is part of some moneyhat microsoft PR team.



#truthfacts


1. Sony is VERY clear about how the DRM works. It's online passes and service based games. That's it


2. This isn't part of a larger plot by microsoft, this is just one singular awful and shitty article by edge.



Both sides need to chill.

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

If offline passes happen, then it should be the publisher(s) who implements them that should be dead to you, not Sony, for it is not Sony who is implementing the offline DRM, but the publisher whom Sony cannot restrict from implementing offline DRM through "phone home" machinations of their own design. At least you will know that Sony is not the one providing the DRM enforcement infrastructure as Microsoft is; it is overhead publishers are going to have to incur on their own.

And the consumer's wrath. I agree with Pachter that most of the publishers won't dare to try their own drm schemes and if one is dumb enough it will fail miserably. My line of thinking is that the publishers despite loving the idea of drm, have seen the backlash to Microsoft's scheme and will use Sony's stance as the way to distance themselves from the black hole that is sucking up the Xbox One.

 

[methane47]

Hey guys, remember this "Edge source"?

Edge sources: PS4 to miss Xmas release in Europe

Oh gawd, you so are saying MS has started there FUD campaign? crap.

 

[SolidSnakex]

This is exactly what I mean. And what EDGE seems to think.
Might happen, might not happen - I honestly think it´s too early to party.

Except what Seanspeed is saying isn't accurate when saying that they can implement any sort of DRM that they want. They can't. Sony has flatout said that they aren't allowed to touch the offline portion in terms of implementing some of DRM. It's strictly limited to the online portion of the game.

 

[Seanspeed]

Microsoft started all of this shit. Not the publishers.

Most of this isn't completely new if you were ever a PC gamer(product keys to block resale, online registration/authentication). Consoles are just catching up in this increasingly digital age.

 

[TheHater]

please stop the "EDGE is trying to be anti-sony" stuff..

just go to the site. look at the top banners..

it´s not like they aretrying to make the Xbox One look better..

to me it looks like they are reporting what their sources are saying.. which seem to contradict some of the stuff Sony is telling the press.

We have been hard on lots of sites lately, telling them to report better and ask tougher questions. EDGE is reporting what they hear, and they seem to have contacted Sony to answer the questions they have.. isn´t that what we have asked for..?

They might have gotten some wrong info from their sources, but at least they are trying to get the right info, and follow up on this.

Then why the fuck did EDGE wrote this article in the first place? Sony has answer the DRM question a 100 times over regarding DRM on the PS4, yet EDGE felt the need to write this garbage without looking at those interviews, twitter response, or even asking SONY themselves.

 

[FrankT]

Is this a surprise to anyone when they have both said we leave it up to the publisher.

As I've said over and over there is zero difference in this policy stance.

 

[News Bot]

This article is more of a PR play.

Aren't EDGE just stating the exact same thing Sony did? No DRM from Sony, but publishers still have the ability to implement their own, as with the PS3. Status quo maintained.

 

[RoboPlato]

Sony has laid out their policies pretty clearly and I think publishers have seen the backlash over DRM is far worse than expected. MS' solution allows publishers to impose strict DRM without being the ones to take the heat. Any publisher that pulls that on PS4 will be the ones in the crosshairs of the backlash and I don't know if they'll want to take that risk.

 

[spwolf]

Yes it is because PS4 games cannot require any kind of Internet connection EVER.

After how clear Sony was during the press conference, I can't believe there are STILL naysayers.

its not only during conference, but yesterday it was repeated in separate PR and by Tretton and another Sony guy in interview.

It is very clear policy that opens nothing for discussion.

So when all these news sites keep repeating "but it is really the same as xbox", it makes you wonder whats going on - to me, it is clear that all these "sources" are MS PR.

 

[GYNGA]

Let's get this straight: PS4 will not have DRM on *****RETAIL DISCS*****. Watch that part of the conference again. If they say that you can enjoy multiplayer with PS+, that means you can't do that without it. If they say retail discs will not have DRM, that means it can still be implemented on digital games.

What that means? Basically, that most of the PS4 games won't have DRM restriction and you will be able to trade and sell your discs with ALL PS4 games. Again, J. Tretton and S. Yoshida said it's up to publishers to implement DRM. That means publisher will have to use their own servers, which will result in additional expenses for them. And in this case, DRM on PS4 will be completely useless. DRM can be used for either blocking used-games or preventing piracy. It's confirmed that retail discs can be sold/re-used and digital copies prevent used-games by anyway. Piracy won't be a problem for the first few years of PS4, if ever.

Sure it's just my assumptions, but judging by what they said at the conference that's how it'll be. Theoretically, PS4 is not DRM-free, but I doubt we will see m(any) publishers using it since it's practically useless if you can't prevent user from reselling disc.

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm honestly not sure what we are even discussing--whether or not Sony has sufficiently furnished us with enough information to quell our own personal skepticism?

 

[Dunkers92]

Microsoft started all of this shit. Not the publishers.

Yep. Microsoft are now trying too offload the problem they created onto publshers

 

[FeiRR]

The reason you connect every 24 hours is because MS needs to be able to remotely deactivate a game. If they couldn't do that, the trade in system wouldn't work. With MS's system, when you go to trade in a disc at retail, you'll bring the disc, it'll get registered by the retailer through an online system, and that system will deactivate the game on your machine. Otherwise you could keep playing your installed copy after you traded in the disc. If you're not connected at least once a day, or whatever, an installed copy would remain activated indefinitely after you gave up ownership of a disc. (Or should I say 'ownership', since it's a very different concept on Xbox One...)

Then you could connect to the Internet when you want to deactivate your game (as it works with PSN purchases - you can deactivate them once every half a year in case your console breaks). Or login to your XBL account at the store while leaving the disc. Or when you delete the content from the HDD, the game could ask you if you want to deactivate it and then try to connect to the Internet and refuse do deactivate game when this is not available. There are many convenient ways to do it without 24 hour check. If not for the consumers' convenience (because they seem not to care), then for their own business model. Mind you, Microsoft is abandoning roughly 30% of their previous population who've never bothered to connect X360 to the Internet and make a Silver account. Why are they doing that, are they insane?

 

[gofreak]

But as EDGE reports

"We were also told that final publishing agreements will not be drawn up for at least another month, so the terms of engagement could yet change once more before each console launches at the end of the year."

If Sony did drop DRM plans last minute, there would be a lot of shite flying around behind the scenes.

Yep, I can certainly believe that deals are still being inked and all of that. But given Sony's very strong public position, and given the public messaging from most other pubs around this, I don't think Sony will be giving any ground here.

 

[scytherage]

I don't know what to believe, honestly. While pubs definitely see the benefits of DRM for them, I'm sure they're reading all the feedback people are giving and are thinking things through right now.

 

[HaRyu]

"In general free-to-play games will not require PS+ but it is up to the publishers. Subscription based games will not require PS+." - Scott Rohde

Oh cool, I was wondering about the f2p games. So those aren't really behind a paywall. Did we ever get any confirmation from MS about whether f2p on their system still require Gold?

 

[spwolf]

Is this a surprise to anyone when they have both said we leave it up to the publisher.

As I've said over and over there is zero difference in this policy stance.

no they didnt, this is completely wrong.

1. Microsoft MANDATES used game DRM and internet activation/check to all games published on the platform.

2. Sony MANDATES NO used game DRM and NO internet activation for offline/single player games published on the platform.


Difference is that policies are opposite.

 

[News Bot]

I don't know what to believe, honestly. While pubs definitely see the benefits of DRM for them, I'm sure they're reading all the feedback people are giving and are thinking things through right now.

Your faith in corporate scumbags is cute.

 

[marrec]

I wonder how Steam and GOG managed to implement such discounts while the rest of the industry insists on having digital games at retail prices. Other than pc games traditionally being cheaper I mean.

They get away with it because the publishers are the ones setting the price. It's an economic model that makes them boatloads of cash on the backend of a games lifecycle. Why don't publishers just follow a similar model on the Console digital distribution systems? Because they fear change. They think people will continue paying the high prices of these games well into the games lifecycles if they can control how and when they're installed and played.

At least, that's my opinion.

 

[GlamFM]

Yes it is because PS4 games cannot require any kind of Internet connection EVER (online only multiplayer games/modes not included).

Now you´re just reading too much into what SONY said.

Of course they can.

 

[Seanspeed]

Except what Seanspeed is saying isn't accurate when saying that they can implement any sort of DRM that they want. They can't. Sony has flatout said that they aren't allowed to touch the offline portion in terms of implementing some of DRM. It's strictly limited to the online portion of the game.

They haven't said anywhere that 3rd party publishers aren't 'allowed' to touch the offline portion of a game. One of the quotes even hints that publishers have every power to add what sort of DRM they like:

"My personal opinion is that it's hard for me to believe that any major publisher is going to put an extra set of used DRM onto game titles because that wouldn't put them in a good spot, right?"

 

[Pug]

Yep, I can certainly believe that deals are still being inked and all of that. But given Sony's very strong public position, and given the public messaging from most other pubs around this, I don't think Sony will be giving any ground here.

For gamers who are worried about DRM I hope you're right.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Sony/Yoshida has said that pub options on how to control/treat second users etc. are limited to online play/dlc/modes/services. So I don't think they can do that, I think offline single player content can't be subject to gating.

They CAN design games to fundamentally require a net connection, make them online only, etc. but that's another matter. That's been possible since PS2 and probably will become more prevalent, but pubs will have to judge the market on that and whether online features in single player modes should be graceful, optional additions (think Journey or Demons Souls) or fundamental necessities, game breakers if not connected.

Oj wow, that's great news. With Gaf being down much, I haven't been able to follow all the developments.

Let's hope it stays that way.

 

[Alej]

Don't forget Sony is a publisher himself.

 

[Replicant]

Yes, they cant control what happens with a game offline, but all a publisher has to do is require 'always online' or at least some sort of online authentication and bam, they get complete control over the ability to charge for single or multiplayer and also if a user can sell the game. A user will be able to sell the disc, sure, but does that automatically mean the person buying it will get to play it?

Some of that is reassuring, but it hasn't put my mind at ease yet.

And what about those people who don't have online access? You seriously think they wouldn't return the disc or worse, sue EA or Ubi for deceiving them? And once we find out who these publishers are, we can spread the news about their douchiness like we do to MS now.

 

[Malice215]

Why are people trying to throw dirt on Sony just because MS screwed up royally?

Sony has been pretty clear on their approach. There's no longer a need for Sony to use online passes now that you have to pay for multiplayer on the PS4. And anything else will be up to third parties, which will get bashed by people once they're found out such as Capcom with the DRM in Final Fight.

 

[Kyon]

Now you´re just reading too much into what SONY said.

Of course they can.

what are you talking about it was already confirmed twice

 

[GSG Flash]

The only way it can be the same is if publishers make their games always online.

Sony has made it pretty clear that their console is going to work the same way as the PS3, which means that for disc based games the disc is needed for the verification.

The DRM on the Xbone is inherently tied to the nature of the console. You don't need the disc inside the console to play the game on the Xbone, and going that route is impossible without some sort of DRM.

 

[gofreak]

Then you could connect to the Internet when you want to deactivate your game (as it works with PSN purchases - you can deactivate them once every half a year in case your console breaks). Or login to your XBL account at the store while leaving the disc. Or when you delete the content from the HDD, the game could ask you if you want to deactivate it and then try to connect to the Internet and refuse do deactivate game when this is not available. There are many convenient ways to do it without 24 hour check. If not for the consumers' convenience (because they seem not to care), then for their own business model. Mind you, Microsoft is abandoning roughly 30% of their previous population who've never bothered to connect X360 to the Internet and make a Silver account. Why are they doing that, are they insane?

That depends on trust between Microsoft and the user, for the user to deactivate a game before taking it to a store. Something Microsoft doesn't seem to have much of.

Now, you could say, the retailer could check if a disc has been deactivated before accepting it, but that would require a greater logistical burden on retailers. They'd have to process games on MS's system up front, they'd be unable to do it if their network was down etc. The way it's done, with deactivation being assured by MS, means retailers can accept discs without any fuss and process them at their convenience later en-bulk for deactivation etc., and keep accepting discs if the network goes down etc. etc.

 

[maquiladora]

Is this a surprise to anyone when they have both said we leave it up to the publisher.

As I've said over and over there is zero difference in this policy stance.

All pubishers can do is restrict online gamplay on used games, like they can already do.

Outside of just giving access to multiplayer, it's at publishers' discretion to come up with a new business model and offer to consumers.

But that's limited to just the online aspect?

Yes.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/413102/interviews/the-ps4-interview-shuhei-yoshida/

 

[Burai]

No, it is Sony that should be dead to him. It's bullshit to burn Microsoft like that and then come out and say "WE'RE LEAVING IT UP TO PUBLISHERS." And Sony could totally restrict publishers from doing it. If they don't, they're disingenuous as fuck and mislead consumers on Monday.

Exactly. It's their infrastructure. No games get released without being certified either so to claim they are powerless to stop publishers from doing their own DRM is utter bullshit.

 

[Bedlam]

Except what Seanspeed is saying isn't accurate when saying that they can implement any sort of DRM that they want. They can't. Sony has flatout said that they aren't allowed to touch the offline portion in terms of implementing some of DRM. It's strictly limited to the online portion of the game.

Furthermore, publishers CAN'T institute the same restrictions on their PS4 games simply due to the fact that the PS4 doesn't require regular online checks.

Online passes is the worst case scenario here. And that'll make publishers look bad. Especially EA since they just flatout said they're anbandoning them because of user feedback.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

But as EDGE reports

"We were also told that final publishing agreements will not be drawn up for at least another month, so the terms of engagement could yet change once more before each console launches at the end of the year."

If Sony did drop DRM plans last minute, there would be a lot of shite flying around behind the scenes.

Let the shit fly.
I mean if it is not going to hit us.

 

[Tripp Daily]

Realistically, publishers could only use online passes for the PS4, right? Or is there another method available to them?

They can make the game online only.

 

[Bunta]

Sony people have clarified this numerous times in the last 24 hours. Here's the CVG article.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/413102/interviews/the-ps4-interview-shuhei-yoshida/

There's been some clarification over your exact policy from Jack today. We understand that third party publishers can still opt to implement some kind of online restriction on pre-owned games?

What he talked about is with the offline portion there's no difference from PS3 in that every game is playable on PS4. In terms of just getting access of multiplayer online, it's now taken care of at a platform level by PS Plus. So our first party titles had the online pass on PS3 and Vita. That we are not doing on PS4 because of that platform level. It's the same for third parties; when it comes to just giving you access to online multiplayer, it's PS Plus going forward.

There are lots of different reasons. One is that publishers are providing the network services. The simplest example is an MMO; you have a huge community and your constantly adding content... It's an online service. It doesn't make sense that a disc gives you access to all of the online service forever, right?

Another example is games that have content DLC included in a season pass. Outside of just giving access to multiplayer, it's at publishers' discretion to come up with a new business model and offer to consumers.

But that's limited to just the online aspect?

Yes.

 

[SolidSnakex]

They haven't said anywhere that 3rd party publishers aren't 'allowed' to touch the offline portion of a game. One of the quotes even hints that publishers have every power to add what sort of DRM they like:

"My personal opinion is that it's hard for me to believe that any major publisher is going to put an extra set of used DRM onto game titles because that wouldn't put them in a good spot, right?"

Yes they have

There's been some clarification over your exact policy from Jack today. We understand that third party publishers can still opt to implement some kind of online restriction on pre-owned games?

What he talked about is with the offline portion there's no difference from PS3 in that every game is playable on PS4. In terms of just getting access of multiplayer online, it's now taken care of at a platform level by PS Plus. So our first party titles had the online pass on PS3 and Vita. That we are not doing on PS4 because of that platform level. It's the same for third parties; when it comes to just giving you access to online multiplayer, it's PS Plus going forward.

There are lots of different reasons. One is that publishers are providing the network services. The simplest example is an MMO; you have a huge community and your constantly adding content... It's an online service. It doesn't make sense that a disc gives you access to all of the online service forever, right?

Another example is games that have content DLC included in a season pass. Outside of just giving access to multiplayer, it's at publishers' discretion to come up with a new business model and offer to consumers.

But that's limited to just the online aspect?

Yes.

 

[methane47]

Most of this isn't completely new if you were ever a PC gamer(product keys to block resale, online registration/authentication). Consoles are just catching up in this increasingly digital age.

If i'm not mistaken, this was done because of the RAMPANT piracy on PC. Not because of Used game sales.

PC DRM started simply as, please enter this word from this location in the user manual. Then when people started simply copying user manuals. PC games switched to, Checking if the CD is in the tray, then when daemon tools and other noCD hacks came out, they switched to a CD Key, which was authenticated online, after CD key hacks People are now moving towards Always online,

but that fight is almost SOLELY due to piracy NOT used games. You just cannot Equate PC to Console.

 

[we.are.the.armada]

Wrong and misinformed. I think that Sony made it very clear where they stand on this.

The console doesn't have a mandatory full game install, doesn't have an internet parole check, doesn't have the 30-day friend lockout, etc.

Furthermore, when DoritoPope asked Jack about it, he pretty much said it's going to be like we have today - DRM is up to the pubs.

 

[the nightman cometh]

People saying ”its just like the PS3" are technically correct but missing the point.

Multiplatform publishers are NOT going to release a locked down version of their game on the Xbox and an open version on the PS4.

Microsoft's policy is going to influence what publishers do on the PS4.

I believe this as well. Look at it from the publishers point of view, if they release an open version on PS4 they would be tacitly encouraging people to buy their game on PS4 and to own a PS4 instead of an xbox. While the Xbox is the version that would make them the most money and give them the control they have been wanting over their games.

 

[Corto]

FUD

 

[BattleMonkey]

This is to be expected, nothing to stop a publisher from putting shitty DRM into the game. It's not really PR play by sony, they simply are not making it mandatory like MS are. If the game has shitty DRM practice, then it's the game's publisher's own fault.

 

[Seanspeed]

And what about those people who don't have online access? You seriously think they wouldn't return the disc or worse, sue EA or Ubi for deceiving them? And once we find out who these publishers are, we can spread the news about their douchiness like we do to MS now.

Pretty sure it would just have to have something on the box saying 'online required' or something and they'd be in the clear. Thats not really anything completely new.

 

[Shayan]

Yep. Microsoft are now trying too offload the problem they created onto publshers

Had any publishers been involved, MS would have spoken about them? It was a ploy to make more money. What they didn't realize was the decision could kill their console even before release

 

[RobbieH]

Yes, they cant control what happens with a game offline, but all a publisher has to do is require 'always online' or at least some sort of online authentication and bam, they get complete control over the ability to charge for single or multiplayer and also if a user can sell the game. A user will be able to sell the disc, sure, but does that automatically mean the person buying it will get to play it?

Some of that is reassuring, but it hasn't put my mind at ease yet.

"The best clarification is, it's the same way it was on PlayStation 1, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4. If you understand it now, then it's exactly the same way going through. In terms of physical play of discs, it doesn't matter if it's first-party or third-party, every game for PlayStation 4 will play not only for the original consumer. If you give it to a friend or sell it to somebody or trade it in to a retailer, the second owner will have no trouble playing it offline. I was saying it's up to the publisher to determine the model, I was referring to online, but I didn't literally say 'online' so it was 'Aha!'" - Jack Tretton

He even said during the press conference that a connection is not required for PS4 and games will not stop working if you don't check in every 24 hours. Combining everything they've said publishers have control only over how we play used games online, but even then Sony wants them to follow suit and get rid of online passes as multiplayer is behind the PS+ paywall. That's it. There's been no indication anywhere that any other systems can or will be put in place.

 

[gofreak]

I believe this as well. Look at it from the publishers point of view, if they release an open version on PS4 they would be tacitly encouraging people to buy their game on PS4 and to own a PS4 instead of an xbox. While the Xbox is the version that would make them the most money and give them the control they have been wanting over their games.

It's questionable whether a regime like this will make pubs more money. There was one study out there that laid out the issues, it's not black and white.

As for pubs asking for this control, if you listen to their public messages it sounds like they didn't, but will work within the rules first parties lay down. Now that might be just PR, but as I said earlier, even if they wanted 'DRM parity' between the systems, that wouldn't be possible if PS4 has a policy around singleplayer and offline disc content being off limits.

 

[Screaming Meat]

When an x360 game which gets 7 from others get an 8/9 from EDGE , then its fine right? But not when it comes to the PS3 games? 7 for R1/KZ2/Infamous and so on

LOU was made by a British dev studio . maybe they gave it 10/10 because of that and LOU got 34 perfect scores from numerous publications including IGN

Just a suggestion, but maybe you should actually read the articles and not just the score? To reiterate, an EDGE 7/10 is GOOD, as it should be.

 

[Akainu]

My understanding is that we'll hear about FROM's PS4 exclusive at Tokyo Game Show. A lot of people think it's Demon's Souls 2. I was told it was a spiritual successor. We'll see.


TGS is actually going to have a few bombs. Sony (obviously) wants to hit hard in their homeland as well.

Don't do this man. DON'T YOU FUCKING DO IT!!! ;^;