I thought all of this was already known? Microsoft lets it up to the publisher and requires a connection once every 24 hours. Sony also lets it up to the publisher which will do their own online check when the game is started or require a constant internet connection while being played. I don't know why journalists are still writing articles about it.
I don't recall Sony saying that.Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
I DO recall Sony saying if a game is an online only game (like an MMO) obviously (due to the structure of the game) you would have to be online to play it.
But maybe I didn't see what you are referring to. I think at best Sony's "stance" is very unclear presently and I think they are doing it on purpose for one of two reasons (1) let MS take the heat while they do the same thing - your belief or (2) let MS take the heat and then come out and say that's not PS4 and run win it.
You are correct. Sony is leaving DRM up to the publishers.
Well if that is the case when EA goes DRM they will CEMENT their place as "worst company in America" in perpetuity. No need to ever have a vote again.
Same exact setup as Microsoft, except the publisher will have to do their own online checks to make sure you own the game should they incorporate that type of system.More relief... At a roundtable this morning, Sony's game studios chief, Shuhei Yoshida, told reporters that any requirement for users to register a game online in order to play it would be left to game publishers. Sony won't require that.
Well if that is the case when EA goes DRM they will CEMENT their place as "worst company in America" in perpetuity. No need to ever have a vote again.
Absolutely. But, the bad thing is, it wont just be EA. Ubisoft will definitely do it. Activision will definitely do it. I'm 50/50 on Sony right now. I think they're doing a good job at staying hidden of these potential requirements and they probably want to keep the good press, meaning no requirement for first party games. However, they had an online pass in virtually all their first party games, so I'm unsure about them.
I really hope this doesn't catch on, especially on Sony's system. At least on Microsoft's, if a publisher chooses to do it, it's through Microsoft's system. Sony doesn't have such a system. If publishers decide to do it, you'd be potentially looking at 4 or 5+ systems. This generation is going to be a massive headache.
Yeah I did some Google research and Kotaku's own staff wasn't even clear on it even after your article so Sony is clearly lying low on this issue allowing MS to take all the heat.
Absolutely. But, the bad thing is, it wont just be EA. Ubisoft will definitely do it. Activision will definitely do it. I'm 50/50 on Sony right now. I think they're doing a good job at staying hidden of these potential requirements and they probably want to keep the good press, meaning no requirement for first party games. However, they had an online pass in virtually all their first party games, so I'm unsure about them.
I really hope this doesn't catch on, especially on Sony's system. At least on Microsoft's, if a publisher chooses to do it, it's through Microsoft's system. Sony doesn't have such a system. If publishers decide to do it, you'd be potentially looking at 4 or 5+ systems. This generation is going to be a massive headache.
Smart strategy but sleazy. Hoping they changed their minds and decide to go for the kill but they probably won't. Its just odd/sad that the gaming industry wants to create a false market that virtually no one else has.
Cars, clothes, homes, etc.... can all be bought used and that fact isn't killing those industries.
I'll still buy PS4 b/c I buy all my games new. However, I'll buy fewer now b/c I won't be able to rent games and then buy them when I like them. I would have NEVER even bought UC had it not been for GameFly. Me renting the 1st UC led me to buy the others and now I'm buying TLOU at launch. I won't be able to learn about new titles I like now w/o potentially wasting $60. I'm notoriously tight with my money so I'll just pass now on a number of probably great games that I would have bought new after renting it for a brief period of time.
That's not even half the story. At least with Microsoft, we know. We know games aren't going to be required to be connected (unless they use features of the cloud, in which case, duh) but rather they check for licenses once every 24 hours. If a publisher wants to block used games, they have to do it Microsoft's way.
Sony doesn't have a way. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping someone like EA from requiring the use of their Origin service and potentially requiring the game to be connected at all times in order to be played. Ubisoft has UPlay and could do the same. Who's to say EA wouldn't put a limit on their service? Say, "each game can only be installed on 2 different consoles." You have a console, you later upgrade the hard drive, then it breaks. You're officially fucked.
I REALLY don't like where this generation is heading. Granted, publishers may never go to those extremes, but the potential is there.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micro...t-359264.shtml
I'm using Tapatalk 2 and the Cleveland Browns STILL suck.
That is hilarious. You'll waste money on that but you won't allow game rentals and force internet connections on gamers. The decisions they are making are not gamer friendly. I think this stuff may bite them in the ass more than anything. It won't prevent PS4 sales imo.
Wow. That is some underhanded bullshit.
That smacks of desperation and if true might make Sony want to "retaliate" by oh I dunno stay with the status quo on used games and just crush MS at E3 and end it.
They don't have the choice in the matter. If publishers want to not allow used games, Sony is quite literally powerless to stop it. Same with Microsoft. It's up to the publisher, as they both have stated, and if a company is blocking used games on Xbox, they're most certainly doing the same on PS4 whether Sony likes it or not.
It also does not mean anything.
A. Since when was some poster on Neogaf a source?Sure, I've seen some things leaked over there, but I've also seen 5 times as much stuff supposedly leaked turn out to be completely wrong.
B. They all do it. Why do you think Diablo 3 for consoles was presented at the PS4 reveal? Why do you think Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed 4 have exclusive DLC on PS4? Why do you think Call of Duty content is available first on Xbox?
There's a big fuckin' difference between having some bullshit exclusive "content" on one console and not allowing publishers to show things for a console during the biggest video game conference in the world.
It's underhanded bullshit. But, what do you expect from the company that built it's entire reputation from stolen ideas?
Yeah, because Microsoft is holding a gun to publishers' heads and forcing them not to show their games at Sony's conference. Please. If the story is even true (they're using a poster from Neogaf as a source lol), the publisher is just as dirty for taking the money in the first place.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Apple's going to be at E3?
Yep. MS can offer all the shit they want, but it takes the publisher to accept it for there to be a deal. If I want to bribe someone, I can offer them everything and the goddamn moon, but it doesn't matter shit if no one accepts the bribe. In this case, yeah, lets blame Party A for offering the bribe, but lets not put any blame on any of the fucktards in Party B for accepting the bribe. The publishers that take MS up on the offer deserve equally just as much blame, if not maybe even more for actually accepting it.
Even if this is true I don't think it reaches the legal definition of bribery. CLW may smack me down as it has been a long time since I was "pre-law". Seems no public or legal obligation is being influenced.
Why would you not place more blame on the one trying to alter behavior as opposed to the one that is altered? Granted if true or in cases where the crime of bribery is committed your a douche for altering your behavior for the $ but you would have never had the chance without the party trying to alter you.
Legally, I doubt it could be called bribery. But essentially it's what it is, just probably not legally. MS is trying to essentially bribe the publishers to not show their games on the PS4 at E3. The publishers can either accept that "bribe" or not. It's no different than me trying to bribe someone I know with something like cash or beer in return for something that I want. Legally, it probably wouldn't be called bribery, but on the basic level, it's essentially what it is.Even if this is true I don't think it reaches the legal definition of bribery. CLW may smack me down as it has been a long time since I was "pre-law". Seems no public or legal obligation is being influenced.
Either way, as I OU stated, it ultimately comes down to the publishers accepting the money or not. If they do, they are at a minimum at least equally as guilty as MS in the whole deal, if not more because they actually accepted the money, whereas for MS, it very well could just be business as usual and something they do regularly in all areas that they operate.
Both Sony and Microsoft do it anyway. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks