This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

HOLY ****!!! SONY just confirmed no used games on PS4.

#31archizzyPosted 1/3/2013 3:29:48 PM
yes if it's a patent then that is already a confirmation that they are considering adding to one of their consoles in the future, the patent was submitted on the 9th dec 2012 so that is very recent too.

Sony is consistently in the top 10 every year for receiving patents. Literally thousands of them over the last decade in which the majority never see the light of day or come to fruition. They are often updated.

Ever since the 90's there has been an explosion of patents. Especially with Internet based websites and the number of frivolous patents.

You probably believe that biometric sensing for the PS3 and Vita is going to be released soon too and sense your blood-oxygen level and your heart beat? After all there is a patent on it. Don't be so paranoid.
---
PSN ID: sled_dogs76
60" Pioneer Kuro Elite PRO151FD, Yamaha RX-V3900 A/V Receiver, Oppo DV983-H player. Coming soon: 2 Seaton Submersives from Mark Seaton
#32therickmu25Posted 1/3/2013 3:31:57 PM
*Minimizes Gamefaqs tab to reveal open Steam application*
*Sees game collection of 60 games that I will own forever*
*Sees sales on AAA games for $5*

I'm only buying Brand new Exclusives on the next consoles, no need for used games when you can get anything you want on PC for cheap.
---
http://i.imgur.com/34Fj8.jpg
#33EoinPosted 1/3/2013 3:35:18 PM
Ebak_the_cat posted...
Most of those are valid reasons. I get the whole loaning to friends and trading etc and bringing it over. I don't agree with selling the games to fund new game purchases as I have said in a previous post.

No, all of those are valid reasons. Selling your property is valid.

Ebak_the_cat posted...
However I do think we don't have enough info on this

You're correct, it is important to remember that the most likely outcome is that nothing happens and that used games work on PS4. However, it is important to establish, clearly, in advance, that any hardware manufacturer placing restrictions on used game sales is wrong.

Ebak_the_cat posted...
there are also equally good reasons for why it should happen.

No there aren't. There's publisher propaganda.

Ebak_the_cat posted...
Every used game sale is money going into the pocket of the store and not the actual developers or distributors.

Why should it go into the pocket of the publishers? It's not their property. They sell a copy, once, they get money, once. If they want more money, they sell more copies.

Ebak_the_cat posted...
It costs a lot of money to make and a game should ideally make back what it cost to produce.

No, that's inherently a flawed idea. Imagine me saying that it costs me a lot of money to run my restaurant, so I should make back that money, even though people aren't eating there enough. Or it costs me a lot of money to make a car, I should make that back, even though I can't compete with other car companies. Publishers who are trying to convince you that used game sales are bad are saying "out business model can't work in the real world, so the thing that should change is the real world".

Developers do not have a sacred right to succeed. Publishers do not have a sacred right to make a profit. If they fail, tough, that's how it works.
#34RyuuHou25Posted 1/3/2013 3:36:15 PM
Ebak_the_cat posted...
Eoin posted...
Ebak_the_cat posted...
However my main problem with that is the money lost to the developer, publisher/distributer

No.

No money is "lost".

If I spend money on a used game, the publisher did not "lose" that money. They just didn't gain it. Please don't fall for word tricks. If you spend money on something you like instead of giving it to me, I do not "lose" anything. The publishers get money from the first sale and that is all that they are entitled to.


Yes, but that person who bought a used game could have bought the game new and caused the company to gain something.

A new game is bought = Company and the Gamer gain

A used game is bought = Company gains nothing while the gamer gains a game they could have potentially bought new and given the company some gain.

The company didn't loose anything as you say since the game has already been sold, but they lost out on a potential sale which is still loosing out in the long run.


That's the problem with business logic, you think everything is a potential this or that. Only in business is that logic sound and accepted no matter what, even if all evidence to the contrary says NO.
---
PSN ID: RyuuHou24
"I never said that....and even if I said it, I never said it" - Dr Peter Venkman RGB
#35EoinPosted 1/3/2013 3:38:00 PM
Ebak_the_cat posted...
The company didn't loose anything as you say since the game has already been sold, but they lost out on a potential sale which is still loosing out in the long run.

Not it is not. They are attempting to spin it that way, but it is not true. They lose money on a used game sale in the same way they lose money on the sale of a DVD, or a car, or a chocolate bar: it's money that wasn't spent on their product. That's all. They have no right to it in any of those cases. If an EA executive said that EA should get a cut from sales of Kit Kats, you would call him crazy. When he says that EA should get a cut on sales of used EA games, it's just as crazy. They are exactly as "not an EA product" as a Kit Kat.
#36Ebak_the_catPosted 1/3/2013 3:51:50 PM
Eoin posted...

Developers do not have a sacred right to succeed. Publishers do not have a sacred right to make a profit. If they fail, tough, that's how it works.


Uh...where did I ever say anyone had a right to succeed? A game isn't always traded in because its bad, as you say people trade it in to afford the next game. They don't have a sacred right to succeed or make a profit. However this has nothing to do with right, this has to do with circumstances.

As for business logic, business is how the games industry is run. People like CoD and pay through the nose for CoD..therefore they make more CoD and FPS games, its how the bloody system works. It still doesn't detract from the fact that two gamers are getting something while the company (Developer or distributor, doesn't matter, my point is someone loses out) gets the profits from only one of those two gamers.

The point I am mostly trying to make to everyone is that there are multiple sides to any argument and all people seem to see is 'what's best for me' never do they think why this is being done and the reasons behind it.

Its become clear for years that developers and distributors have tried to stop used sales by enticing people to buy new and now (if this news is true) to buy games used. Why are they trying to do that? Well maybe because the used market presents a big problem to them.

I'm not saying what they are doing is right or wrong. I support that some people can't afford it, I support that people (myself included) want to be able to go visit a friend with the game etc etc. my point is, never look at just the one side and that's it, do a bit of thinking upon the big picture of how things work and actions.

For me the answer is simple, in retail stores at least (not personal sales such as ebay) the relative companies involve who should get the money get a cut, not the entire price, that pleases everyone, the companies get money back, gamers still save money and can trade in and the stores get thier slice of the pie as well. Prehaps it would also get rid of online passes and all this junk we get.
---
Video Game Design Graduate - University Campus Suffolk - Class of 2012
#37EoinPosted 1/3/2013 3:53:34 PM
Ebak_the_cat posted...
Uh...where did I ever say anyone had a right to succeed?

You said "a game should ideally make back what it cost to produce". It shouldn't. Games should sometimes fail.
#38vu_cometPosted 1/3/2013 3:54:59 PM
Eoin posted...
Ebak_the_cat posted...
However my main problem with that is the money lost to the developer, publisher/distributer

No.

No money is "lost".

If I spend money on a used game, the publisher did not "lose" that money. They just didn't gain it. Please don't fall for word tricks. If you spend money on something you like instead of giving it to me, I do not "lose" anything. The publishers get money from the first sale and that is all that they are entitled to.


This should have ended the topic. Publishers don't sell used games, they sell new ones. Therefore in order for a game to become used, a new one had to be purchased. Publishers are paid by the retailers, not the consumer.
---
With your bad back, I don't think you should be picking up any girls.
I went ice fishing the other day and all I caught was a cold.
#39RyuuHou25Posted 1/3/2013 3:57:14 PM
Eoin posted...
Ebak_the_cat posted...
The company didn't loose anything as you say since the game has already been sold, but they lost out on a potential sale which is still loosing out in the long run.

Not it is not. They are attempting to spin it that way, but it is not true. They lose money on a used game sale in the same way they lose money on the sale of a DVD, or a car, or a chocolate bar: it's money that wasn't spent on their product. That's all. They have no right to it in any of those cases. If an EA executive said that EA should get a cut from sales of Kit Kats, you would call him crazy. When he says that EA should get a cut on sales of used EA games, it's just as crazy. They are exactly as "not an EA product" as a Kit Kat.


Precisely.
---
PSN ID: RyuuHou24
"I never said that....and even if I said it, I never said it" - Dr Peter Venkman RGB
#40Ebak_the_catPosted 1/3/2013 3:58:12 PM
Eoin posted...
Ebak_the_cat posted...
Uh...where did I ever say anyone had a right to succeed?

You said "a game should ideally make back what it cost to produce". It shouldn't. Games should sometimes fail.


You are right, I did say that, ideally. If a game is good, it should make its money back, however not every used sale is a bad game, people just sell on the good games they finished. Yet there are people who buy all their games used no matter what, regardless of whether the game is good or bad.

I agree with you that if a game fails then it fails, there's no obligation to be successful. However if a game is good should it loose out on that sale just because someone doesn't want to or can't afford the extra 10 which would then give...whatever company collects the money what they deserve for making a good product?
---
Video Game Design Graduate - University Campus Suffolk - Class of 2012