-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EDGE: DRM-free PS4 is a PR play expect similar policies across both consoles.
- Thread starter Hanmik
- Start date
I would urge you to listen to Giant Bombs talk with Scott Rohde: http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/sony-s-scott-rohde-answers-your-burning-ps4-questi/1600-504/
I really don't think drm is going to be a thing on ps4 for the vast majority of games now they've put the onus on publishers. Any publisher which decided to impose their own restrictions is going to have a pr nightmare on their hands after the last few weeks. The 2 best examples of publishers trying to implement their own drm are diblo 3 and simcity, and it was a catastrophic failure both times. There is no reason to believe any publisher designed online required authentication system would be any more successful on ps4, because it still won't make business sense to buy enough servers to launch smoothly when you're only going to need most of them for a week.
Maybe a couple of games experiment with it but they will learn very quickly that it simply isn't worth it for them to go that route given the horrible customer experience of not being able to play games at launch it causes, and the damage it does to their brand.
Maybe a couple of games experiment with it but they will learn very quickly that it simply isn't worth it for them to go that route given the horrible customer experience of not being able to play games at launch it causes, and the damage it does to their brand.
cookie-monster
Member
If amongst various quotes today and earlier you're willing to believe CBoaT, and these:
1. EA and Ubi were interesting in Xbone DRM, Activision sceptical
2. Peter Moore reiterated the death of the Online Pass today, citing it to be a waste of time
3. Sony have said PS+ covers their requirements better than Online Pass
4. Sony have twice now stated no online requirement and no OS level DRM
5. Ubi have given up on their always online PC DRM
My conjecture:
Online pass was a response to JTAG and PS3 key hack. With the generational shift, these are less of a concern.
Origin, Uplay to remain. Activision more than happy to carry on as-is and take MS' moneyhats for early DLC.
1. EA and Ubi were interesting in Xbone DRM, Activision sceptical
2. Peter Moore reiterated the death of the Online Pass today, citing it to be a waste of time
3. Sony have said PS+ covers their requirements better than Online Pass
4. Sony have twice now stated no online requirement and no OS level DRM
5. Ubi have given up on their always online PC DRM
My conjecture:
Online pass was a response to JTAG and PS3 key hack. With the generational shift, these are less of a concern.
Origin, Uplay to remain. Activision more than happy to carry on as-is and take MS' moneyhats for early DLC.
Same as PS3, it is up to the publishers. Online only was possible on PS3 and Capcom did implement it on a couple of games. So Sony can still tell the truth while the end result is similar. It basically boils down to which publisher takes the first step then the others will follow.
Why Activision? I get the whole Activison is evil thing, but I can't remember a single CoD or Wolfenstein having an online pass. It was Sony, then EA then THQ which were at the forefront of online passes. I wouldn't be suprised if the internal reason for online passes going away was because EA counted on the new drm policies being standardized.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
If EDGE is right and this was done last-minute, I could see how Sony hasn't had time since E3 to contact everyone and say, "This anti-used game DRM isn't allowed."
I'm reading this as third-party devs being taken by surprise and thinking they're still going to go ahead but will have a rude awakening when Sony says no.
I'm reading this as third-party devs being taken by surprise and thinking they're still going to go ahead but will have a rude awakening when Sony says no.
Surely big stickers are going to have to be plastered over the Xbones box and advertising saying it requires mandatory online to meet trading standards guidelines?
Conversely from a trading standards point of view, Im not sure how ethical/legally persuable it would be to have the ps4 not to have similar warnings if some single player games required such authentifications and others didn't. Sure you'd have labels on the individual game boxes if needed but I can see some consumers reporting it as being disingenuous which is why I just don't see it happening.
I realise this happens with the PC market but with consoles you have people who are far less technically aware in some cases so its quite different
Conversely from a trading standards point of view, Im not sure how ethical/legally persuable it would be to have the ps4 not to have similar warnings if some single player games required such authentifications and others didn't. Sure you'd have labels on the individual game boxes if needed but I can see some consumers reporting it as being disingenuous which is why I just don't see it happening.
I realise this happens with the PC market but with consoles you have people who are far less technically aware in some cases so its quite different
Well they can't really do anything if a publisher decides to use DRM or online checking. Same goes with Microsoft and Nintendo. But Microsoft made the decision to have built-in online checks. Sony didn't say they would enforce their 1st party games no drm policy: they simply can't.
But on PS4 and WiiU, it's basically the same situation as the current gen.
TheContact
Member
I think games with DRM restrictions should sell for $49 at most, since the game is devalued with no trade options.
Nikodemos
Member
I suspect it's because many people are completely incapable of understanding Legalese. It's disappointing to see even those who should hve a more informed opinion fall for this, but then again to comprehend Legalese one must have some sort of at least rudimentary legal studies.
I have to take this entire article with a grain of salt.
"The entire console business may not Survive without this" ---AND I THOUGHT GAF DID HYPERBOLE WELL.
We're now heard from Jack and Yoshp after the fact that PS4 will be like PS3, is Edge saying that this is false? Because to me it looks like they've been answering questions pretty straight up.
"The entire console business may not Survive without this" ---AND I THOUGHT GAF DID HYPERBOLE WELL.
We're now heard from Jack and Yoshp after the fact that PS4 will be like PS3, is Edge saying that this is false? Because to me it looks like they've been answering questions pretty straight up.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Can I get a summary?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
This just seems like more spin to make MS look less bad.
Bottom line, the narrative from these anonymous "sources" to the press leading up to E3 was that Sony was going to do the same as MS, and of course it didn't happen.
Pinch of salt time.
The simple reality is that if publishers want to buff their bottom line, all they need to do is load up on DLC, in-game purchases and add-ons. It won't be poopular but a piecemeal approach is an easier sell than an all-encompassing "system" of DRM enforcement.
Consider that EA are dropping their online pass system NOW, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of sales this holiday season (and most likely for at least a year hence) are practically guaranteed to be on 360/PS3.
How they choose to monetize these titles are a far better indication of their future plans than these dubiously speculative articles.
Bottom line, the narrative from these anonymous "sources" to the press leading up to E3 was that Sony was going to do the same as MS, and of course it didn't happen.
Pinch of salt time.
The simple reality is that if publishers want to buff their bottom line, all they need to do is load up on DLC, in-game purchases and add-ons. It won't be poopular but a piecemeal approach is an easier sell than an all-encompassing "system" of DRM enforcement.
Consider that EA are dropping their online pass system NOW, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of sales this holiday season (and most likely for at least a year hence) are practically guaranteed to be on 360/PS3.
How they choose to monetize these titles are a far better indication of their future plans than these dubiously speculative articles.
'can't wait to see reactions on monday when Sony reveals the same thing'
Sony does completely opposite. In fact, they went way beyond that and completely obliterated your belief.
Granted, they are a capitalist corporation with a proven track record to take out features, or do complete uturns, but you should at the very least own up to eating crow for now.
Always online can very easily mean used game blocking. They are not completely seperate ideas.
Sounds great if all you want is small/indie games and Sony 1st-party titles. Me? I'm a huge fan of 3rd-party AAA games. I want games like Watch Dogs, GTA, The Division, Destiny, Battlefield, Madden, FIFA, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc etc. This affects me very much.
Metalmurphy
Member
They removed OtherOS.
this.
EDGE and a few publications have so much hatred for SONY. They just cant stand that PS4 would be dominating the gaming world once again
Shame on these publications
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
DRM-free PS3 and Xbox360 was a PR play.
What are you saying?
Sony have said, multiple times since the conference that they will not dictate at a system level DRM or anti used games policies, and will not use DRM or anti used policies when it comes to first party software.
Everything else is up to third party publishers.
That is what they said, so how would you consider this stated scenario as "backtracking"?
Methinks some aggrieved Xox fans are getting high from huffing on this Edge bullshit and are settling in here to start playing with themselves.
Any sort of DRM for an online game, yes.
If pubs want to make every game online only and link the service of that online game to your account etc. ala a MMO, there's nothing a platform holder can do to stop them.
I don't think that's going to happen short term though. And if the market shows an appetite for single player offline vs online games, it'll be filled. You're still going to have games with single player offline and games with mixed modes and games that are online only, and the difference in platform holder policy will be evident in those different types of game.
Microsoft wants to control how every type of game functions, and apply service/digital/account models to EVERY game regardless of functional need, and is enforcing that across the board regardless of publisher preference (the only publisher options being to what degree these things are controlled). That's the difference in policy and it's a huge one.
edit - and there is no backtracking. In the conference they specified they were talking about single player/offline content on discs and how it would function. When you're talking about digitally distributed games and online modes and services it's of course a different scenario, and always has been.
A sony rep from an interview that gianbomb did said that they are not allowing online passes. http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/sony-s-scott-rohde-answers-your-burning-ps4-questi/1600-504/
Yeah I saw a lot of confusion on this point. The way I understood the MS drm policy was that publishers have the option of
1. Allowing no trade ins period
2. Allowing trade ins at Microsoft approved retailers
There is no third option of letting the user do whatever they want with the disk.
QuiteWhittle
Member
Didn't Sony clarify that all single-player titles can be played offline and that the publisher's DRM decision power only extends to online multiplayer? I swear there was a thread on GAF about it.
intheinbetween
Member
I wasn't talking about the first PS3 console shown, with its banana controller, or any of its suppossed features as you said, but we all know they had to rectify many of the initial features and design.
My launch 60GB PS3 had more USB ports than the newer models (not redesigns), and I forgot to talk about the hw backwards compatibility in the 80gb models and the sw one in the european ones.
Monty Mole
Member
He's software development head at the worldwide studios. He's not the man who would be making such strategic decisions.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Generally. At the very least, they are one of the few publications that you can rely on to not make decisions based on ad revenue.
To what end, exactly...?
and again you're wrong. they stopped shipping consoles with emotion chips, they only nixed linux with firmware.
ComputerMKII
Banned
This deserves its own thread if true.
If the publisher decides to impose online passes, you, as a customer, can simply AVOID buying their game. Easy.
There was nothing ambiguous about Sony stance.
He is in the know. He even got a (PR?) guy to check statements he's making. It's a clear picture.
Came across this interesting article on gamestop stock:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/11/did-sony-just-save-gamestop-stock.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/11/did-sony-just-save-gamestop-stock.aspx
Nikodemos
Member
Lol, no, they physically extirpated the Emotion Engine (PS2's CPU) off the mobo in the first PS3 revision, then took out the Graphics Synthesizer (PS2's GPU) in the second rev.
dragonelite
Member
Time will tell.
I mean the 8gb rumors was said to be bullshit and there sony came with the first strik 8gb gddr5.
Maximilian E.
AKA MS-Evangelist
ONe question that totally seem to have been forgotten is piracy.
Is this "draconian" style of DRM that MS is imposing, the price we have to pay in order to keep piracy at bay?
What is neogaf stance on piracy?
Is this "draconian" style of DRM that MS is imposing, the price we have to pay in order to keep piracy at bay?
What is neogaf stance on piracy?
Sho_Nuff82
Member
At the very least, games like Destiny, Watch_Dogs, and eventually Titanfall will require an internet connection to play, even on PS4.
Metalmurphy
Member
wow, so they're actually blocking online passes from third parties as well?
Didn't think they could actually do that.
intheinbetween
Member
basically this
not to talk about the messed backwards compatibility between the different PS3 SKUs
Canis lupus
Member
DRM in the form of online passes for PS4, Tretton clarrified again: its gonna be how it was with the PS3. Not blocking used games or connect every 24h.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Questioning Edge's motives was a last minute decision
Celestial Mortal
Member
Is there something wrong with Sony trying to do right by the gamers after what happened with PS3?
Even IF they changed their decision at the last minute it still reflects the best of interest of the gamers. PS4 hasn't launched yet, still giving them plenty of time to implement what they said.
BrainZEROX
Member
Us acknowledging Sony's decision doesn't mean we consider everything's said and done. We now have to be sure Sony will act true to its words. We know how twisted PR people's minds are...
Similar threads
- Poll