Is Sony exploiting the fact that they cannot match a feature for developers?

[radnomguywfq3]

I have come to realize this:


Sony is now encouraging the sharing of video games, which is a huge slap in the face to developers - and they do this not because they particularly want to, but rather because it is a solid point against Microsoft and more importantly because they don't have the ability to offer the developers any features against the sharing (which undoubtedly leads to loss in profits to developers.)


It's a sort of a gamble I suppose. Microsoft is betting that by implementing these security features for developers they will get more developers to tag along with them hoping as well that this and the gained profits of encouraging users to purchase their games rather then lend them will counter-act and possibly overcome the loss of profits to a smaller share of the market.


On the flip-side, Microsoft is getting a smaller share to the market and Sony is getting a greater share of the market (because obviously, the DRM turns off consumers). Consequently though, Sony will lose more money to the sharing of purchased products.


So the question is: Will Microsoft lose more money from the smaller share of the market than they will make money by preventing the unfair trading of purchased games and appealing more to developers?

[Gray]

There's always ways around all of that though.

[Snowkip]

Meanwhile in PC Gaming land...

[Tide]

There is always going to be a work around.

[radnomguywfq3]

There's always ways around all of that though.

True. The DRM is _never_ unbreakable. Time and time again, we see it broken in a matter of months (sometimes less.)

That has been the case so far. However, when you add networking into the mix of DRM - you can do TONS of very tricky things to protect your products. Further, DRM implemented with a client and server portion is very unexplored territory relative to client-only DRM. This is why MS is pushing the networking portion of DRM so much - it is the difference between a virtually impenetrable DRM - and a difficult DRM. Look at, i.e, sim-city - which has proven all its content all client-side yet still with the networked DRM it proves incredibly difficult to break into (AFAIK, still hasn't been broken into.)

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Catering to developers only works if they can profit from the release. Most games are multi-platform to begin with, few aren't. Indie developers really don't affect people's choice of consoles.

Developers can always implement control of the sales of games via software DRM, EA did it for online access (serial keys essentially). However if you buy a disc with a game on it, it's your property, a company shouldn't be able to tell you what you can do with it.

Supporting publishers and developers who do crap like that only enables them. Trading games doesn't take that much away, is a free form of advertising, etc. Sony isn't encouraging it, it's been a feature that's been there since DAY 1 of gaming, and Microsoft wants to take it away.

[radnomguywfq3]

Sony isn't encouraging it, it's been a feature that's been there since DAY 1 of gaming, and Microsoft wants to take it away.

Not only are they supporting it, they're rubbing in our faces.

[[MPGH]Doc]

I thought I already went over this with you. It is illegal to market a purchasable physical item as a license or a leased item. Every item that is purchased can be rented out, resold, or lent. Developers know this which is why they don't care for Microsoft's anti-used games stance. Even if they chose to side with Microsoft and didn't allow anyone to give out their games, all it takes is a lawsuit for them to lose out big bucks and for Microsoft to lose every single potential developer. The only thing that can be done is always online DRM with unique authentication, but a move like that would also spell the death of them.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Not only are they supporting it, they're rubbing in our faces.

They're mocking Xbox and their bullshit. You're coming off as an Xbox fanboi, amirite?

[radnomguywfq3]

I thought I already went over this with you. It is illegal to market a purchasable physical item as a license or a leased item. Every item that is purchased can be rented out, resold, or lent. Developers know this which is why they don't care for Microsoft's anti-used games stance. Even if they chose to side with Microsoft and didn't allow anyone to give out their games, all it takes is a lawsuit for them to lose out big bucks and for Microsoft to lose every single potential developer.

That's an entirely different argument, it being illegal or not (and I am not entirely convinced that it is legal - hence why I haven't replied to your response yet, I'll look into it on my own a little later) is entirely irreverent to the argument I state in my initial post. It being illegal or not has no meaning to the argument - is it fair to the developers is maybe a relevant question.

The only thing that can be done is always online DRM with unique authentication, but a move like that would also spell the death of them.

That is yet to be seen.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Playstation should be exploiting it, it's a sure fire marketing tactic and even the rubbing it in Microsoft's face is good marketing.
Developer's would only lose money if they decided to go with good ole DRM Xbone, think of the profit loss if they only went with one platform.

[666HiddenMaster666]

PC master race does not have to worry with such petty problems

[radnomguywfq3]

Playstation should be exploiting it, it's a sure fire marketing tactic and even the rubbing it in Microsoft's face is good marketing.
Developer's would only lose money if they decided to go with good ole DRM Xbone, think of the profit loss if they only went with one platform.

Consumers entertain exploitation in the market all the time - that is not a surprise to me or anyone else. It makes sense. I am just pointing out the insidious evil plot everyone seems to be falling for.

PC master race does not have to worry with such petty problems

Shouldn't they? Let me remind you. The XBox is the DirectXBox. Microsoft threw OpenGL into a corner and raped it 16 times over with their DirectXBox to thank (and a bunch of fumbling morons working over at OpenGL as well)

Let me also remind you that the Playstation, Mac and Linux all use OpenGL. Are you a PC user, or a Mac user?

[Lehsyrus]

The entire used game debate is completely circumstantial. The reason why it is legal to sell used video games solely resides in the games production itself (physical, not the game or anything involving the data on the disc). When a video-game is created and transferred to physical media for console usage, it is selling a physical product to the consumer. As such the only thing a consumer would need worry about would be possible taxes (such as in my state of NJ where you're supposed to report ANYTHING you sell come tax time). This is ONLY for consoles. When it comes to physical copies for PC, however, a serial code is included. This serial is licensed for that specific copy of the game, and as such, the game itself is being sold as a license. Licenses can not be sold separate.

If developers set up a systematic approach to console development involving serial keys, or some sort of unique key to activate the game on the specified system/account, it would be considered the sale of a license. The disc is simply the data involved in the sale of the license to make the license worth being sold in the first place, though because a console does not utilize this system and sells the physical copy of the game and the data as is, they are thus selling the data as a whole, and once sold it can be dealt with as the consumer who purchased the physical copy as they wish.

The reason Sony is rubbing this into Microsoft's open wound, is because this is how the facts play out. Microsoft is attempting to cut out the consumer from any potential profit to increase their own. It is reasonable to understand WHY MS is doing such, however it is NOT reasonable for MS to give the consumer such a stiff shoulder. By doing so, MS has blatantly proven it cares nothing about its consumer and is solely a business after profits with zero regard to the person being affected by such actions.

[Aborted]

​You have a point there.