sony is baning used games

well looks like sony is really doing it.... so ps4 for sure wont have it

if you dont feel like reading video with most of the info below

-------------------------
sony's 2013-dated new console supposedly code-named Orbis, will boast system that locks games to single PSN account; no backward compatibility for PS3 library planned.
Buckle up, Sony enthusiasts. A tipster has told Kotaku that the PlayStation 4 is named "Orbis" and that it will feature an anti-used-game system, offer no backward compatibility with PlayStation 3 titles, and ship in holiday 2013.


Orbis is just a code name…or is it?
As for the first part of the rumor, multiple sources told the blog that the Orbis will sport some sort of anti-used-game measure. Full Orbis games will be available via Blu-ray disc or as a PlayStation Network download and will be locked to a single PSN account. Players will not be able to circumvent the system by remaining offline, as the source said users will be forced to be connected to the PSN to boot up their games.

Gamers will be free to trade in Orbis games, but the person who purchases a secondhand disc will be restricted to a limited trial mode or "some other form of content restriction." These gamers will be forced to pay a fee to unlock the full title, according to the source.

An earlier report suggested Microsoft's next-generation Xbox would also include some method of blocking gamers from playing used titles. Microsoft has not commented on the matter.

As for backward compatibility, Kotaku's source says Sony has no plans to offer such a service with the Orbis. This would mark a change in approach for Sony, as the PlayStation 2, PS3, and PlayStation Vita have all supported their predecessors' games at launch in some form.

Concerning timing, the Orbis will ship during holiday 2013, according to the tipster. This person says Sony has been sending Orbis dev kits to "select developers" since the beginning of the year. New iterations of these kits were reportedly dispatched earlier this month, with "finalized beta units" headed to developers at the end of 2012.

This matches up with an earlier rumor, which suggested that several studios--including one "major Sony-owned" developer--had moved entirely to PS4 game development.

What kind of technology will the Orbis run on? The site is reporting that developers are being told to plan for an AMD x64 CPU and AMD Southern Islands GPU, the latter of which is capable of running Orbis titles at a resolution of 4096x2160 and 3D games at 1080p. It has been previously suggested that the next-generation PlayStation would be powered by AMD technology.

A Sony representative declined to comment on the matter. For more on speculation concerning the next generation of consoles, check out GameSpot's rumor roundup feature.

Either these details are inaccurate or misconstrued... or this is the beginning of the end for Sony in the gaming market. I bet Microsoft will pounce on these weaknesses.

Backward compatibility - it is a given when you get a new system you retire the old. Maybe you give it to a sibling, sell it, or maybe it collects dust somewhere. Since your new system is the same brand and series as the old you expect the games you paid for to still work. Are they afraid it will run up the cost and therefore the sales price? Well I would pay $100 more so that the two dozen or so $60 games I have still work. Maybe they will have a way to digitally download the titles you have purchased, but I'm not seeing how - they would need serial numbers on each disc to track them and I don't think there are.

Used Games - I'm on the fence on this issue. I really don't buy used games, but this change would eliminate the possiblity of selling most any game. Of course, the only way to keep someone from playing a used game on their system is for both the previous owner and the new owner having internet connections and sending that usage info to Sony. Since they still like selling their systems to people that live in the sticks, I don't believe they can eliminate the used game market entirely. It's their perogative, but I'm sure there will be more than one person who would take this into account when they decide which console to buy.

Remember- stopping used games also eliminates rented games

Bye-bye Game-fly.

~mrmiller

S7 mrmiller wrote:Remember- stopping used games also eliminates rented games

Bye-bye Game-fly.

~mrmiller

Yup, and that would be bullshit!

and most people would be like thats good news for XBOX user's


yes if this goes about xbox will SELL ALOT more
but if you get rid of a big competitor like sony what will keep MS from jacking up prices and so on

I think if Sony does it, MS will too. It's been talked about for years, and it's the software developers wanting it more than the console manufactures.

~mrmiller

Exactly. Sony and M$ both have plans to ban used games. They have both been talking about it for years and both are rumored to be using this tech in the new generation of consoles. The question is whether or not they will actually bite the bullet or back down.

It's a touchy subject and in my opinion will actually cost new sales if you think about it. If I am going to buy a game, I am going to buy it. I use GF for a reason. To try games that I would NOT normally buy. So the game developer did not lose a sale here. Let's use the example of Hitman: Absolution. I was NEVER going to buy this game (and in fact I did not). But, I got the game from GF and played it and enjoyed it very much (it's a pretty good game after all). Now, in this case, GF bought Hitman (and probably a lot of copies).

So GF did not cost them a sale in the end, it actually provided several sales. If we were in a future without GF rental, I would still NOT buy the game and they would also lose the sales to GF as well. How many copies does GF buy anyway? 500 copies? More? Less? More than I buy at any rate.

I agree it isn't a smart move.

Bad move IMO. Like Zak said a lot of people use Gamefly for the reasons he listed.

This will probably cause a significant surge in piracy. Some games I wait 1-2 years to buy used because I don't want to spend more than 5-10$ on them. If that option is gone, people will either have to pay full price, or pirate it.
Not a good situation for consoles.

Both MS and Sony have been rumored to support the banning of used games on their consoles. If that is the case then I won't be purchasing either one. 95% of my gaming comes from gamefly. I can't afford to buy a new game every time I want to play something.

I just hate stuff like this. It all comes down to greed. I can't think of any other media or consumable that bans older/used versions. Let's ban used cars to help new car sales! No more video rentals, see it in the movie theater or tuff sh1t!

I don’t see it too much as simple greed. To me greed is overcharging for things like bread, milk, and gas- stuff you really can’t go without and are forced to pay the higher prices. Video games are a luxury, and that makes this either good or bad business. I think it is bad business and they will loose out on a lot of money. The thing that really worries me is we will see less and less new IP. I wonder how many people rented something like Dead Island, then later purchased it and have already pre-purchased Dead Island 2? Or Dead Space, or Far Cry, or any of the others? Things like Halo and COD are always going to have big sales numbers as they are and established brand, but new IP probably gets tried out a lot by the renters who then purchase the titles and make it possible for sequels. Cutting that rental stream out would seem to hurt future business more than help it as people tire of old franchises but do not want to risk $60 or more on new ones. As much as I dislike the online passes that some games have, it seems like a much better business model than outright banning of used or rented games. I would guess we see something similar where you have to buy a "license" fee to even play the game on your console, but that is 100x worse and will completely devastate the rental market.

~mrmiller

S7 mrmiller wrote:I don’t see it too much as simple greed. To me greed is overcharging for things like bread, milk, and gas- stuff you really can’t go without and are forced to pay the higher prices. Video games are a luxury, and that makes this either good or bad business. I think it is bad business and they will loose out on a lot of money. The thing that really worries me is we will see less and less new IP. I wonder how many people rented something like Dead Island, then later purchased it and have already pre-purchased Dead Island 2? Or Dead Space, or Far Cry, or any of the others? Things like Halo and COD are always going to have big sales numbers as they are and established brand, but new IP probably gets tried out a lot by the renters who then purchase the titles and make it possible for sequels. Cutting that rental stream out would seem to hurt future business more than help it as people tire of old franchises but do not want to risk $60 or more on new ones. As much as I dislike the online passes that some games have, it seems like a much better business model than outright banning of used or rented games. I would guess we see something similar where you have to buy a "license" fee to even play the game on your console, but that is 100x worse and will completely devastate the rental market.

~mrmiller

i would agree i rented deadspace 1 and i was hooked bought it new and also dead space 2 and will get 3

I hear quite a bit of stuff about the PS4 but I haven't heard anything like this from anyone. So, I'm inclined to call BS on this for now, but tbh, if they are going to do this, it really wouldn't surprise me.

Not this time Epic.
I'd read this before from a very reputable source that both Sony and Microsoft were thinking about this concept. Sony was "for sure" about doing it long time ago and Microsoft was kicking around the idea. If things go bad for Sony, expect Microsoft to pull the plug on the idea and vice-versa.

Also, if anyone had questions on this thread title:

Banning:



Baning:

Meh. I buy all my games new, I don't rent, and I don't trade back my games. With the time I have anyway, I propbably spend about one to two months playing one game. Paying $60 for a game every one to two months is definitely something I can afford.

Xpert2010 wrote:Meh. I buy all my games new, I don't rent, and I don't trade back my games. With the time I have anyway, I propbably spend about one to two months playing one game. Paying $60 for a game every one to two months is definitely something I can afford.

If I only played that much I'd agree and it wouldn't really be an issue, but with gamefly I get the chance to play many different games, most of which I would have never been able to play if I had to spend $60 on them. There are a lot of games I would have never given the chance to impress me, but once played I changed my mind about them. I'm not about to go and spend $60 on a game if I really don't know much about it.

You still have to be connected to the net for this to work. Are they banning all offline play?

Figured as much, they wouldn't want you to do something as easy as being offline to play a game. I'm curious to see how they'll do with this. I'm pretty sure this is a topic that they wouldn't touch on at the next E3 press conference. lol

They'll have to answer this.
The gaming community all know about it and will certainly ask the Sony reps because the people want to know why they're doing it.

OneBadHuskerFan wrote:
I'm not about to go and spend $60 on a game if I really don't know much about it.

I just make use of the internet by watching gameplay vids, review game features, or play any demos if they're available to make the decision to buy a game. I became a lot more into researching games after buying Two Worlds... The one game that I hate more than CoD. lol

Ugh, Two Worlds could have been so great. That frame rate.

On topic: I am skeptical about them not allowing any offline play. Especially of Microsoft doesn't do the same thing. Who wants to connect to the internet to play Final Fantasy? Or what about LANs? It'll all become much more difficult.

The reason I could see it happening: Starcraft II.
SC2 has a bigger LAN community than just about any game, and they've managed to deal with having to connect online. (Not without massive amounts of pain on the communitys part when B.Net had issues)

That being said, even SC2 lets you play Single Player offline.

StarCraft 2 is similar in the way that you can only tie that single key to your Battle.net account. Playing single player is possible offline, but then you're voiding yourself of earning acheivement and unlocking portraits. Not a big deal, but I like seeing what kind of challenges the game throws at me that a player normally wouldn't do during a playthrough you know?

I'd imagine that you'd only need to be online to register your game once for playstation and then you could play the game offline if you deisred. It's all a bit strange how they're going about this, but I'm not bothered by it.