Third-parties can dictate DRM terms on the PlayStation 4

Speaking to GameTrailers, Sony America CEO Jack Tretton revealed that third-party publishers for games on the PlayStation 4 can dictate their own DRM terms for the console, although Sony first-party titles will not implement DRM. He said:

Well, I mean, we create the platform, we've certainly stated that our first-party games are not going to be doing that, but we welcome publishers and their business models to our platform. There's gonna be free-to-play, there's gonna be every potential business model on there, and again, that's up to their relationship with the consumer, what do they think is going to put them in the best fit. We're not going to dictate that, we're gonna give them a platform to publish on. The DRM decision is going to have to be answered by the third parties, it's not something we're going to control, or dictate, or mandate, or implement

Sony's policy for the PlayStation 4 seems similar to that of the PlayStation 3: publishers were allowed freedom over what methods they used to control gamers, such as using online passes to restrict the playing of used games. While technically this means that publishers could implement persistent online checks for their games, it's unlikely they will do so right away.

When clarifying the statement, Sony specifically said that it would "not dictate the online used game strategy (the ability to play used games online) of its publishing partners", although they reiterated that used disc-based games can be traded-in or sold at will despite their policy for third parties. Sony announced at their E3 2013 press conference that the console will be friendly towards used games, which was met with huge applause from the audience.

Source: Polygon

Neowin's E3 2013 coverage is sponsored by Alienware

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft: If you have no internet, get an Xbox 360

Next Story

TechSpot: Computer Tips & Tricks Everyone Should Know

29 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

As long as they don't touch the offline I'm happy with that. The PS4 can be used as an offline console and that's what matters to me, I don't play online. For PSN games it seems like it'll just be like it is today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...used-games/article12486543/

Sony Computer Entertainment chief executive Jack Tretton is making no bones about it - the upcoming PlayStation 4 will work exactly like each of the company's previous consoles in the way it handles secondhand games.

A report Thursday morning suggested that Mr. Tretton was retreating on that position, that Sony would only apply its policies to its own first-party releases, but third parties were free to block used games.

Mr. Tretton says he made those comments in regards to online portions of games, which some publishers already currently block in the secondhand market unless buyers pay an additional fee.

“We can't control what the publisher does with their online rights. What I was referring to is if a person chose to, as they have historically, put something in that blocks access to the online gameplay, that is something that is within the publisher's purview to do. We're not going to do it,” he said.

Something is up...
MS is taking a LOT OF HEAT.... TONS OF HEAT....

But has anyone noticed, not one BIG TIME PUBLISHER (EA,Activision,Capcom,Take Two, etc), has been asked about this...
MS did this for publishers, and not one has come to MS defense and are letting them get 'Tretton'ed' (I'm copyright'ing that one)....
MS has to shut up for now, come back in September hold a press conference and state that XB-1 games are $44.99 on day one release....
Or XB-1 games drop to $39.99 after 30 days from street date release...

Going cheap very quickly and Super Sales, is working for STEAM big time...
Better start copy catting MS...
Or back pedaling ASAP....

Essentially this means you could well end up with Origin, Rockstar Social Club, Uplay, Games for Windows Live, Steam and so on DRM type systems on the PS4.

I don't agree at all with the Xbox One's DRM, however i would sooner it was one DRM system and not a mix mash of several different ones from various 3rd parties.

On paper at the moment the PS4 looks better, however that could easily change once 3rd parties start messing with DRM.

You should read the comment above, it only applies to the online multiplayer aspect. Single player will and should always be playable directly from the Blu-ray disk, without any additional rights management.

There's been some clarification over your exact policy from Jack today. We understand that third party publishers can still opt to implement some kind of online restriction on pre-owned games?

What he talked about is with the offline portion there's no difference from PS3 in that every game is playable on PS4. In terms of just getting access of multiplayer online, it's now taken care of at a platform level by PS Plus. So our first party titles had the online pass on PS3 and Vita. That we are not doing on PS4 because of that platform level. It's the same for third parties; when it comes to just giving you access to online multiplayer, it's PS Plus going forward.

There are lots of different reasons. One is that publishers are providing the network services. The simplest example is an MMO; you have a huge community and your constantly adding content... It's an online service. It doesn't make sense that a disc gives you access to all of the online service forever, right?

Another example is games that have content DLC included in a season pass. Outside of just giving access to multiplayer, it's at publishers' discretion to come up with a new business model and offer to consumers.

But that's limited to just the online aspect?

Yes.


http://www.computera...shuhei-yoshida/

So basically Sony have said that first party titles won't have any restrictions or passes, third party single player games have to be playable on PS4 without restrictions, multiplayer can be handled by PS+ or like the PS3 there will probably be some publishers who want you to buy access to multiplayer, in the PS4 UI video it shows that you can buy Killzone and prioritise which part of the game you want to download first, single or multiplayer. Some publishers could use that so if you buy a used game you can buy multiplayer from PS Store to enable it.

In other good news publishers who have f2p games are allowed to make their game playable without PS+ subscription, something Microsoft doesn't do.

I think it's hilarious how certain people are trying to sabotage the PS4, even at the worst case it's FAR better than XB1 situation.

TheLegendOfMart said,

http://www.computera...shuhei-yoshida/

So basically Sony have said that first party titles won't have any restrictions or passes, third party single player games have to be playable on PS4 without restrictions, multiplayer can be handled by PS+ or like the PS3 there will probably be some publishers who want you to buy access to multiplayer, in the PS4 UI video it shows that you can buy Killzone and prioritise which part of the game you want to download first, single or multiplayer. Some publishers could use that so if you buy a used game you can buy multiplayer from PS Store to enable it.

In other good news publishers who have f2p games are allowed to make their game playable without PS+ subscription, something Microsoft doesn't do.

I think it's hilarious how certain people are trying to sabotage the PS4, even at the worst case it's FAR better than XB1 situation.

What's hilarious is that you think people try to sabotage anything. Just shows the mentality.

Go look at Sony forums on this very website and see all the Microsoft trolls posting new threads on things that have already been proven wrong and voting all the threads 1 stars.

TheLegendOfMart said,
Go look at Sony forums on this very website and see all the Microsoft trolls posting new threads on things that have already been proven wrong and voting all the threads 1 stars.

Haha, I went to the forums but realized I'd have to enter each post to see its rating .

It's probably both ways anyway.

People are getting the wrong end of the stick and overreacting to this. It was clarified that publishers decisions on DRM would only effect online play, aka online passes. Basically it's the same policy as PS3. They are not pulling a Microsoft in disguise.

Any disc based game on the PS4 can be played on any PS4, if third parties want to implement DRM for ONLINE PLAY then that's up to them. It does not work that way on the Xbox One, if you want to lend the game to someone you have to go though a process to do that, and it can be outright prohibited by the publisher.

PS4 is disc based DRM (like we have now) vs account based DRM.

That's the difference.

But doesn't microsoft specifically states you can trade in games, as long as publisher allows it

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

Difference = "as long as publisher allows it"
Also, the very meaning of DRM is digital rights management, there is a service in place to manage the rights of game license ownership on the Xbox One, that does not exist on the PS4 for disc based games.

Yeah, but I'd much rather have those sorts of things managed through Microsoft (in the cases where some of my games might have DRM) with its scale and dependability. As compared to the PS4, where all the publishers who enable DRM have my data and are managing it on separate servers with varying reliability.

Uhh its the same as Microsoft no big difference, they also said third parties can dictate DRM and what not, just because the xbox has built in DRM that its going to be used for their games, they say for their own games you can

"In our role as a game publisher, Microsoft Studios will enable you to give your games to friends or trade in your Xbox One games at participating retailers"

Ian William said,
This is still better than Microsoft's bright idea.

I have to disagree.

Microsoft's way:
- Only Microsoft has my information
- One connection to check all games at once
- Servers are maintained by a company with a high level of reliability, scale, and dependability
- Able to log on to ANY XBox and have access to my entire games library
- Able to share my games with family members without not being able to play it myself

Sony's way:
- Ever Publisher has my information
- Connects to each Publisher's servers individually
- Higher chance of server problems or issues like Sim City
- Oh, but without any of the benefits...

M_Lyons10 said,

I have to disagree.

Microsoft's way:
- Only Microsoft has my information
- One connection to check all games at once
- Servers are maintained by a company with a high level of reliability, scale, and dependability
- Able to log on to ANY XBox and have access to my entire games library
- Able to share my games with family members without not being able to play it myself

Sony's way:
- Ever Publisher has my information
- Connects to each Publisher's servers individually
- Higher chance of server problems or issues like Sim City
- Oh, but without any of the benefits...

This x 1000. If only people could see this! Microsoft is doing the right thing in the long run by embracing the future of the digital world. Sony is not future-proofing well enough and this might bite them in the end for the reasons you stated.

It truly sucks that in a world like today, Microsoft comes off as the bad guy for being honest.

Worst case scenario: someone thinks it's a bright idea for your game to phone home just for you to play it when you've already bought it.

And then we just don't buy that game, nor any of the future titles that publisher produces. You know... like it already is today!

dead.cell said,
Worst case scenario: someone thinks it's a bright idea for your game to phone home just for you to play it when you've already bought it.

And then we just don't buy that game, nor any of the future titles that publisher produces. You know... like it already is today!

Yeah, I remember when that boycott idea was put forth for CoD MW2 and the no dedicated servers change, that seemed to have been successful.... oh wait.

Developers are going to get you sucked into needing to be online in a number of ways, look at all the team based online games we've seen so far. Hell, even racing games are now team based and co-op MP based with the worlds being expanded each time to finally they'll just be MMOs.

dead.cell said,

And then we just don't buy that game, nor any of the future titles that publisher produces. You know... like it already is today!

Unless it's all the publishers...

THen just don't buy it, just as it happened with ubisoft, I particularly don't support such practices and most of the gaming community seems to act the same way too, unless they are hardcore fans that is.

dead.cell said,
Worst case scenario: someone thinks it's a bright idea for your game to phone home just for you to play it when you've already bought it.

And then we just don't buy that game, nor any of the future titles that publisher produces. You know... like it already is today!


Except, it won't tell you it's doing that, so you'll have no idea...