Support NeoGAF

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

CVG has a good interview here. Mostly because I think it has the clearest outline of Sony's policy on DRM and used games to date.

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

On policies:

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.

On being on stage to present:

I was totally excited and lots of people tweeted me to say that I looked so happy. I was happy there, but going in at the beginning of the planning of E3 I said, because it's in English, we have a great presenter who's the head of US development - he did the press conference last year - and he should do it. But people said, "this is the launch year of PS4 - people want to hear from you." Initially I was like "ah!" but in the end I felt great.

On pricing:

Designing PS4 was all about learning lessons from PS3; the system architecture, ease of development, network services... And the cost of the system is a big part of it. So we always wanted to hit $399 and we designed the system and carefully chose out of all the potential inclusions of the core hardware components and we made a system that we could sell for $399.

So we just did what we aimed to do and we were hoping that people would like it. But we were not totally expecting the external factors that kind of helped us do our business. In short, I was very surprised about the announcement yesterday by some other company... In a good way (laughs).

Lots of other things at the link too.

Pranay · Jun 12, 2013

Online passes canceled now ?

New thread ?

Trakdown · Jun 12, 2013

Pranay_ said:
Online passes canceled now ?

Not much point with PS+ being standard now.

toastyToast · Jun 12, 2013

Pranay_ said:
Online passes canceled now ?

New thread ?

Pretty sure I read it earlier. Sony is discontinuing online passes for first party titles on the PS4. Now we know its because of the expectation that everyone is going to have Plus

SlowRevolution · Jun 12, 2013

some other company

:lol

King Beyond the wall · Jun 12, 2013

(Laughs)

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

Pranay_ said:
Online passes canceled now ?

New thread ?

I think it has been talked about.

I'm not totally sure on whether this is something Sony will force or something they're just putting a stake in the ground with publishers on.

But here's my take on everything:

- no new DRM allowed on offline portions of discs
- no online passes for multiplayer, covered by PS+ now
- but with other online business models Sony has to give discretion to publishers to allow things like MMO subs, DLC and other services that are account based rather than disc based
- in other words, it's the same as PS3 and there are policies on what Sony does and doesn't allow

Certainly for offline content.

Which is all good news IMO. It's the most Sony can do/say about this stuff as a platform holder.

Graphics Horse · Jun 12, 2013

That makes it sound like they might be sharing out some cash to publishers based on the amount of network use of each game.

Boogalogist · Jun 12, 2013

I like how he mentions "some other company". LOL.

"Thanks, Microsoft!"

benny_a · Jun 12, 2013

gofreak said:
IWhich is all good news IMO. It's the most Sony can do/say about this stuff as a platform holder.

The real issue in the future is how publishers will try to sell us customers "DRM as a service" because there are no restrictions to limit online-parts of games and there shouldn't be from a platform holder as to not restrict creativity.

DRM as a service for me is Sim City. That game can be continued to be played when you edit your local copy of the game. No calculation takes place on the server side.

A game that wouldn't be DRM as a service and legitimately requires online would be World of Warcraft.

Edit: I also don't think the online pass is dead. It's dead for Sony first-party yeah, but other publishers can still do it.

Ashes · Jun 12, 2013

gofreak said:
I think it has been talked about.

I'm not totally sure on whether this is something Sony will force or something they're just putting a stake in the ground with publishers on.

But here's my take on everything:

- no new DRM allowed on offline portions of discs
- no online passes for multiplayer, covered by PS+ now
- but with other online business models Sony has to give discretion to publishers to allow things like MMO subs, DLC and other services that are account based rather than disc based
- in other words, it's the same as PS3 and there are policies on what Sony does and doesn't allow Certainly for offline content.

Which is all good news IMO. It's the most Sony can do/say about this stuff as a platform holder.

I think a lot of those are logical inferences, not mandates.

Blablurn · Jun 12, 2013

Boogalogist said:
I like how he mentions "some other company". LOL.

"Thanks, Microsoft!"

I like that too

Drencrom · Jun 12, 2013

Yoshida: In short, I was very surprised about the announcement yesterday by some other company... In a good way (laughs).

lol

gofreak said:
I think it has been talked about.

I'm not totally sure on whether this is something Sony will force or something they're just putting a stake in the ground with publishers on.

But here's my take on everything:

- no new DRM allowed on offline portions of discs
- no online passes for multiplayer, covered by PS+ now
- but with other online business models Sony has to give discretion to publishers to allow things like MMO subs, DLC and other services that are account based rather than disc based
- in other words, it's the same as PS3 and there are policies on what Sony does and doesn't allow Certainly for offline content.

Which is all good news IMO. It's the most Sony can do/say about this stuff as a platform holder.

I'm okay with this, it seems Sony actually stood their ground against greedy ass pubs (EA etc)

sakipon · Jun 12, 2013

Of course consumers would like everything to be free of charge, but I do agree about online being a service instead of a product sold once like the single player. I never really hated online passes (unlike the thought of crippling discs with retailer DRM).

I'm more than okay with this setup.

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

Ashes1396 said:
I think a lot of those are logical inferences, not mandates.

It sounds like it is a matter of what Sony does or doesn't allow, at least between offline and online content/services. I think in the online space it sounds like there's not so much mandates on things like passes etc. but what Sony is heavily leaning publishers towards. From what they've said I don't see wiggle room on the 'offline content' stuff.

But, of course, there is nothing to stop pubs designing online only games and turning them into, basically, a subscription service. But without platform support for every machine being online etc. you're potentially cutting out audience.

NeoUltima · Jun 12, 2013

So in short, same as PS3, but PS+ is the replacement for online passes.

I wonder if Sony is giving 3rd parties a cut of PS+ depending on what games a user plays online. I have to assume so if they are outlawing online passes.

so1337 · Jun 12, 2013

gofreak said:
But here's my take on everything:

- no new DRM allowed on offline portions of discs
- no online passes for multiplayer, covered by PS+ now
- but with other online business models Sony has to give discretion to publishers to allow things like MMO subs, DLC and other services that are account based rather than disc based
- in other words, it's the same as PS3 and there are policies on what Sony does and doesn't allow Certainly for offline content.

If paying for online multiplayer means no more online pass headaches and codes that don't work then I'll happy. Not to mention all the free stuff and rebates that PS+ gets you.

I tip my hat, Sony.

Azure Phoenix · Jun 12, 2013

Trakdown said:
Not much point with PS+ being standard now.

Online passes still exist on the 360, where you obviously need Live Gold as well.

BlazinAm · Jun 12, 2013

NeoUltima said:
So in short, same as PS3, but PS+ is the replacement for online passes.

I wonder if Sony is giving 3rd parties a cut of PS+ depending on what games a user plays online. I have to assume so if they are outlawing online passes.

Pubs are getting a cut of psn+ which might explain why it is a standard.

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Jun 12, 2013

I want to see what they do with account sharing. Can I share my games between PS4s, that's what I want to know.

Basileus777 · Jun 12, 2013

Trakdown said:
Not much point with PS+ being standard now.

That doesn't matter for third parties. Any change there is from Sony changing their policies and forcing third parties' hands.

BlazinAm said:
Pubs are getting a cut of psn+ which might explain why it is a standard.

They are? Where does this come from?

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

NeoUltima said:
So in short, same as PS3, but PS+ is the replacement for online passes.

I wonder if Sony is giving 3rd parties a cut of PS+ depending on what games a user plays online. I have to assume so if they are outlawing online passes.

I assume there is some arrangement here, yes. From what Scott Rohde said, I don't know if there's an absolute mandate around online passes, but they're leaning against them heavily, probably with an arrangement on revenue sharing from Plus.

Poona · Jun 12, 2013

Trakdown said:
Not much point with PS+ being standard now.

Not sure why it'd be expected that they'd have both. You pay for online and then need a pass to get online? If it was a choice between online passes and subscription fees (in this case ps plus) I really wish it was online passes. You get that when you buy the game, and don't need to pay some regular ongoing fee.

Rhindle · Jun 12, 2013

gofreak said:
It sounds like it is a matter of what Sony does or doesn't allow, at least between offline and online content/services. I think in the online space it sounds like there's not so much mandates on things like passes etc. but what Sony is heavily leaning publishers towards. From what they've said I don't see wiggle room on the 'offline content' stuff.

But, of course, there is nothing to stop pubs designing online only games and turning them into, basically, a subscription service. But without platform support for every machine being online etc. you're potentially cutting out audience.

I think you're reading way too much into this. I'm not hearing them use terms like "mandate" and "not allow."

Also you left out the most interesting response:

You're a man who deals with a lot of game developers around the world. What's your sense of the demand for pre-owned fees? Do you anticipate that many publishers will take the option to implement online fees for used games?

The trend is that more and more games are becoming a service. It's a transitional period. It used to be just what's on the disc and then that became what's on the disc, plus additional content. Now it's becoming what's on the disc, plus additional content and additional services. So when it becomes more and more like an online services model, going forward publishers will need to get revenue from these additional services they are going to provide. It's just natural. It's not like 'used' or 'not used' - these are services. You cannot use services and give them to other people. It's going to be always account based in that case.

It sounds like he's projecting that console games are going to move in the direction of F2P or "cheap to play" models. Meaning lower initial cost of entry, with more revenue coming from online DLC & service fees. That would make the whole used game policy kerfuffle fairly moot.

baekshi · Jun 12, 2013

shagg_187 said:
I want to see what they do with account sharing. Can I share my games between PS4s, that's what I want to know.

Yes, I want to to know if I can share with my *family members*.

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

Rhindle said:
I think you're reading way too much into this. I'm not hearing them use terms like "mandate" and "not allow."

CVG asked what pubs can opt to do around preowned copies of games, and then followed up to ask if their options were limited to online aspects, and Yoshida said 'yes'. It sounds very clear cut to me that they thus don't have options around offline content on discs. That's not reading into what they said, it's basic comprehension - publisher options on how to treat a second owner are limited to online business models.

MightyKAC · Jun 12, 2013

This whole week has been like some sort of weird new world order for video gaming.

Eusis · Jun 12, 2013

sakipon said:
Of course consumers would like everything to be free of charge, but I do agree about online being a service instead of a product sold once like the single player. I never really hated online passes (unlike the thought of crippling discs with retailer DRM).

I'm more than okay with this setup.

Online passes were, at worst, an excuse to get a game on Steam or something instead, and that's largely because buying on PC DD eliminates the need to type in a code for the most part.

But... yeah, PC also has people who host their own servers, so it's almost like a charity there, and you probably have a certain kind of dedication there that won't happen on closed platforms. For someone who tends to prefer buying games new and typically never cared about the online component of used games (if they're even still running) this is ostensibly bad news, but maybe if it helps keep player bases more active longer it'll be better. Plus I do wonder if Sony's giving a cut (if they're not allowing online passes I have to assume that's the case), and if they are did Microsoft commonly do this? For that matter were online passes there mainly a matter of platform parity, or did Microsoft just not give a fuck about trying to stop it?

SneakyStephan · Jun 12, 2013

It doesn't make sense that a disc gives you access to all of the online service forever, right?

...

I can't even.

I remember buying half life + Opforce + blue shift almost 14 years ago and I can still play that today, without any shitty matchmaking, with mod support and with full rcon support.

Now suddenly it doesn't make any sense apparently.

Fuck this industry so much.

Why didn't they make a paywall for the vita? It doesn't make any sense to let people play online for free, right?

OH wait that's right they didn't think they'd get away with it on a handheld.

Mithos · Jun 12, 2013

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?

So pay for PS+ and MMO/monthly fee?

Omega · Jun 12, 2013

I'm confused.

Does this mean if you don't have PS+, it's up to the publishers on whether you get free online or not? I assumed PS+ was mandatory for everything, then they said third parties make their own decisions.

wilflare · Jun 12, 2013

in the other threads, Sony said they want to set the standard/tone for the platform and leave it up to the publisher to decide whether to follow it or not (saying that the publishers all saw the fan reaction)

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

Clint Beastwood said:
I'm confused.

Does this mean if you don't have PS+, it's up to the publishers on whether you get free online or not? I assumed PS+ was mandatory for everything, then they said third parties make their own decisions.

I think it's up to pubs if they accept PS+ cut to cover MP costs for a second owner. I think for MP in general you have to have + as a consumer. But it sounds like there can be exceptions for free-to-play.

wilflare said:
in the other threads, Sony said they want to set the standard/tone for the platform and leave it up to the publisher to decide whether to follow it or not (saying that the publishers all saw the fan reaction)

That was Scott Rohde's interview, and he was answering a question about online passes. That's why I think there isn't necessarily an absolute mandate on how second-player MP is treated by pubs, but Sony is leaning heavily to get rid of passes.

BlazingDarkness · Jun 12, 2013

Loving his honesty about being surprised over the Bone price :lol

Rhindle · Jun 12, 2013

gofreak said:
CVG asked what pubs can opt to do around preowned copies of games, and then followed up to ask if their options were limited to online aspects, and Yoshida said 'yes'. It sounds very clear cut to me that they thus don't have options around offline content on discs. That's not reading into what they said, it's basic comprehension - publisher options on how to treat a second owner are limited to online business models.

You're reading what you want to hear into responses to leading questions. Is there a policy mandate that games with authentication for on-disc content will be rejected? Perhaps, but it's not been articulated.

RobbieH · Jun 12, 2013

Sony first-party is getting rid of online passes entirely.
Online passes / some other form of DRM for used games (online only) is up to the publisher but Sony is setting the precedent in getting rid of online passes and would hope publishers do the same. EA, Activision and Ubisoft have all said the current model is fine.
For network games requiring subscription or F2P games, PS+ being mandatory is again up to the publisher.

benny_a · Jun 12, 2013

Rhindle said:
You're reading what you want to hear into responses to leading questions. Is there a policy mandate that games with authentication for on-disc content will be rejected? Perhaps, but it's not been articulated.

Shuhei Yoshida also used the example that a game like Batman: Arkham City would always be able to be sold and lend to a friend as that's a traditional singleplayer game.

I think that's as much context as you can ask without reading the actual contracts between platform holder and publisher on a platform.

Teppic · Jun 12, 2013

How will the PS+ online play work? Can I take my profile and go to a friends house who have PS+ and play online there?

benny_a · Jun 12, 2013

Teppic said:
How will the PS+ online play work? Can I take my profile and go to a friends house who have PS+ and play online there?

One account per system needs PS+ to play online is what has been said. So if your friend has PS+ then you would be able to play online regardless of your PSN account status.

Sorc3r3r said:
They have to clear if with free to play games ps+ will be required.
Planetside 2, Warframe, Backlight and the others i'm sure will join.
By putting them behind a paywall you are doing a disservice to your customers and to the devs negating the whole free to play concept.

Some online games (like some F2P titles) don't require PS+ paywall.

Sorc3r3r · Jun 12, 2013

They have to clear if with free to play games ps+ will be required.
Planetside 2, Warframe, Backlight and the others i'm sure will join.
By putting them behind a paywall you are doing a disservice to your customers and to the devs negating the whole free to play concept.

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

Rhindle said:
You're reading what you want to hear into responses to leading questions. Is there a policy mandate that games with authentication for on-disc content will be rejected? Perhaps, but it's not been articulated.

I think you're being picky, which is fair enough given the nuance in these issues, but I'm satisfied with the clarity of what he said. The first sentence in his answer says that offline content will play on a PS4 as on PS3. They then talk about how 'publisher options' refers to additional online content and services - MMOs, DLC etc. He then confirms publisher options here are limited to online stuff.

I think it would be no harm for someone to ask him to say that offline content on a disc cannot be subject to an online authentication scheme but in the context of this interview I think it would be labouring the point.

RobbieH · Jun 12, 2013

Sorc3r3r said:
They have to clear if with free to play games ps+ will be required.
Planetside 2, Warframe, Backlight and the others i'm sure will join.
By putting them behind a paywall you are doing a disservice to your customers and to the devs negating the whole free to play concept.

They said it's up to the publisher.

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Jun 12, 2013

baekshi said:
Yes, I want to to know if I can share with my *family members*.

LOL! Unlike you, I really share with family members. It will be a decision maker whether I buy physical or digital, and it has always been.

DBT85 · Jun 12, 2013

This is STILL causing confusion?

It stays the same as the PS3. Why is this still an issue?

shagg_187 said:
LOL! Unlike you, I really share with family members. It will be a decision maker whether I buy physical or digital, and it has always been.

Are you talking about sharing digital or disk copies?

I'm assuming digital.

Marked_Bravado · Jun 12, 2013

Could it possibly be something that is monitored online. Say a user is playing a used games multiplayer and with this proof Sony cuts a percentage to the publisher?

bigbaldwolf86 · Jun 12, 2013

Great interview and he clears any confusion people may have.

It's quite simple. Everything is going to be as it is now with the exception of having to pay to play online multiplayer.

Sorc3r3r · Jun 12, 2013

RobbieH said:
They said it's up to the publisher.

I can't read between the lines sorry, i would like a precise statement about this.

EDIT

Found in another topic.

gofreak · Jun 12, 2013

It sounds like Japan might still be a possibility for this year, but they are indeed waiting on manufacturing results... he says in another Japanese interview that they'll announce the plan for Japan by TGS at the latest.

dragonbane · Jun 12, 2013

SneakyStephan said:
...

I can't even.

I remember buying half life + Opforce + blue shift almost 14 years ago and I can still play that today, without any shitty matchmaking, with mod support and with full rcon support.

Now suddenly it doesn't make any sense apparently.

Fuck this industry so much.

Why didn't they make a paywall for the vita? It doesn't make any sense to let people play online for free, right?

OH wait that's right they didn't think they'd get away with it on a handheld.

He is talking about MMOs dude. Your Half Life example doesn't make any sense.

maquiladora · Jun 12, 2013

So publishers will not be able to block used games, but they will be able to do something like charge you to unlock the online modes in used games, if they want to.

Support NeoGAF

CVG: Shu Yoshida on pre-owned policies & more

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Member

extra source of jiggaflops

Banned

Member

Member

Member

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

Banned

Member

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Member

Banned

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Member

Member

extra source of jiggaflops

Member

extra source of jiggaflops

Member

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

GAF's Bob Woodward

Member

Member

Similar threads