ps4 PlayStation 4 DRM policies get a bit more complex

[giantpotato]

Leaving publishers in charge of DRM worked out great on PC, with GFWL, Origin, uPlay and Steam competing. It's much better having games separated into separate, incompatible services, rather than having one unified service. :/ /s

[Matrix XII]

This means nothing. This is exactly how it currently is.

People who are saying this is the same as the Xbone are incorrect. The Xbone has DRM restrictions enforced on every game as a system wide requirement out of the box which includes a 24 hour online check in.

Sony has none of this implemented out of the box and if a publisher like EA wants to do an online pass, they have no control over that.

[dead.cell]

On the flip side, PS+ could also be viewed as the ultimate DRM scheme :p By that I mean, you pay each month to take advantage of their offer, but the moment you stop paying you lose access to IGC. Plus what happens in 5, 10, 15 years when PS+ might not even exist any more? This sort of relates back to backwards compat again and how much effort are MS/Ninty/Sony going to put into preserving their catalogues in the future.

I believe there are whispers online that Steam have a contingency plan if they were to ever go out of business they would remove all the DRM restrictions from gamer's libraries, but who knows if there is any truth in that. Would Sony do the same thing or eventually would those PS+ licenses expire because you can no longer authenticate/buy PS+.

It's something all of the platforms, including phones/tablets, are going to have to deal with as apps/gaming become more digital.

Same could be said for Netflix though, but if the subscription gives you numerous perks including but not limited to the access of a small library of content, then I'd say it's worth it. Consider this: $5 in the past would get me ONE game rental for a week. Even less if it was brand spanking new and I went through Blockbuster. (I recall 2-day rentals they had there)

If they introduce a model of being able to pay less than $5 a month, it would be quite interesting to drop $5 to play online and check out some of the games on PS+ for a month, then let it go until I see something interesting. Hell of a lot better than resubbing to a subscription MMO for that matter, only to keyboard turn and realize not much has changed.

I think the model is solid, and am glad that Microsoft has finally been pushed hard enough to try to compete with it. It's an easy win for the consumer, as opposed to paying just a fee for multiplayer or worse: access to things you already subscribe to like Hulu and Netflix.

(considering how stupid I was as a kid paying $5 maybe about 8-9 times to rent Wrestlemania 2000, I guess it's easy for me to be okay with these offerings hah)

Edit - It's good to see you posting here again btw. (Y)

I want to play my SP games when I want to play them and wherever there is a plug socket. Needing an internet connection to play a game that has no need to go online is not something I want not within my control. To me its called SP for a reason. If I can go online and get some extra benefits like score boards, cool, thanks, but if the core game can quite clearly be able to be played completely offline I would like that choice thank you very much.

Totally agree with you. I remember when I first moved into a new house, we were without Internet for a good while. That's when I first discovered Steam's offline-mode and started using it. Was without Internet for a few weeks, but man if that didn't save my ass and make the experience much more bearable. I still took my PC over to a friend's on the weekend just to play Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Those were the days where Steam wasn't the greatest platform either, and jokes about it were the big thing. :p

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Same could be said for Netflix though, but if the subscription gives you numerous perks including but not limited to the access of a small library of content, then I'd say it's worth it. Consider this: $5 in the past would get me ONE game rental for a week. Even less if it was brand spanking new and I went through Blockbuster. (I recall 2-day rentals they had there)

If they introduce a model of being able to pay less than $5 a month, it would be quite interesting to drop $5 to play online and check out some of the games on PS+ for a month, then let it go until I see something interesting. Hell of a lot better than resubbing to a subscription MMO for that matter, only to keyboard turn and realize not much has changed.

I think the model is solid, and am glad that Microsoft has finally been pushed hard enough to try to compete with it. It's an easy win for the consumer, as opposed to paying just a fee for multiplayer or worse: access to things you already subscribe to like Hulu and Netflix.

(considering how stupid I was as a kid paying $5 maybe about 8-9 times to rent Wrestlemania 2000, I guess it's easy for me to be okay with these offerings hah)

Edit - It's good to see you posting here again btw. (Y)

I agree with you but at the same time Sony have never really advertised PS+ as a rental program. Alternatively they've never explicitity stated you own anything in your membership either. That is the big confusion among "casual" gamers is they think they own the games on discs, when really all you own is the license to play it.

With Blockbuster (and to a lesser degree Netflix, do they still do physical rentals in US?), you know it's a rental scheme. You pay $5 and can watch a movie/play a game for 2-3 days whatever it is, and then you have to return it. With PS+ they've left that choice in the gamer's hands how long they want to keep something, but can they keep it forever?

What happens when eventually Microsoft/Ninty/Sony turn off their servers even for the PSN/Wii VC/XBLA titles? We've already seen Nintendo start this with the Wii and the Channels closing down. We know Microsoft have done it in the past with the original Xbox Live in 2010. It's one reason why I keep absolutely everything I own on XBL downloaded to my HDD. I don't trust them to always have the downloads available nor keep my licenses stored locally. That can't be the solution for everyone though as there is god knows how many still playing on the original consoles with 20/40/60 GB HDDs so there has to be something more to secure collections.

And thanks, it's good but weird to be back :p

[trooper11]

Naively?

I want to be able to sell my used games, trade them in, give them to my friends and GF to borrow. For me that's pro-consumer.

It seemed clear that you will still be able to sell or trade in games like normal on the XB1. I think the sticking point is the fact that they didn't say how a store becomes eligible to do that. If the system is simple enough for them, then you the end user shouldn't see any changes to buying and selling games. I can certainly see a simple system involving the store having access to a license database that can be released from your ownership when you sell a game. But we will if it is simple for them.

As far as giving the games, I do think MS needs to clear this up. To me, it sounded like you could add friends/family to a list that can access your entire library of games, plus your Gold account perks. Unless they change it, you could do that with ten people and still retain your own copy and even play any game that they are also playing.

If you then want to sell your license or give it away outside of a store, then you can once. The 30 day friend requirement is a poor choice imo, so they could improve this function. If I get an XB1 I would likely add my friends to that ten person list before 'selling' them my license to a game.

Honestly, its the 24hrs limit that really needs to change. Its the big piece that has a real impact imo. Its a pr nightmare and it excludes customers from your product. MS needs an alternative. In fact, if they had just left the drm tied to digital copies of games and let us choose to tie the discs to these digital copies (if we don't, we don't get access to features tied to online access), then I think it would set better with everyone. I don't know if that is technically possible, but I would like to see it.

[spenser.d]

Naively?

I want to be able to sell my used games, trade them in, give them to my friends and GF to borrow. For me that's pro-consumer.

I do not buy console games digitally unless its PSN titles. Why not? For the reason that digital DRM on consoles is horse ****. I own over 100 retail ps3 discs and thankfully that will continue with my PS4. **** ****ty DRM which has a stranglehold over my games collection.

I want to play my SP games when I want to play them and wherever there is a plug socket. Needing an internet connection to play a game that has no need to go online is not something I want not within my control. To me its called SP for a reason. If I can go online and get some extra benefits like score boards, cool, thanks, but if the core game can quite clearly be able to be played completely offline I would like that choice thank you very much.

DRM 9 times out of 10 is simply about restricting user choice and making us feel like we have to play on your terms, not our own. I didn't get into a relaxing hobby like playing games to have some guys in suits tell me how I should enjoy my games.

And that's fine if that's how you feel. But as you'll see in the coming months and years there are plenty of people that don't feel the same way - that what the Xbox is implementing isn't very restrictive and that we still get to play how we want.

[spacer]

I would rather get a console that doesn't required an internet connection for every game and where the DRM is left to the developer. That way voting with my wallet on a per game basis is more meaningful. A developer can release the greatest game in the world, but if it has retarded DRM it's a no-buy.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

It seemed clear that you will still be able to sell or trade in games like normal on the XB1. I think the sticking point is the fact that they didn't say how a store becomes eligible to do that. If the system is simple enough for them, then you the end user shouldn't see any changes to buying and selling games.

You certainly will see a change. How? The prices will rise. It's basic math; the publisher is taking a cut of every game traded which traditionally retailers like Gamestop have built their business around. If that profit is being eaten into now their only option is to bump the prices up to offset what the publisher is taking.

Of course who knows what game prices are going to be like this generation. Maybe the margins will change which cover trades for retailers and we won't see any change besides the price labels.

And that's fine if that's how you feel. But as you'll see in the coming months and years there are plenty of people that don't feel the same way - that what the Xbox is implementing isn't very restrictive and that we still get to play how we want.

Well that's not true. I want to play offline via my discs, but can't...

[Matrix XII]

And that's fine if that's how you feel. But as you'll see in the coming months and years there are plenty of people that don't feel the same way - that what the Xbox is implementing isn't very restrictive and that we still get to play how we want.

That really is not correct...

Not sure how you could say it's not restrictive when anybody without an internet connection is unable to play the games.

[spenser.d]

That really is not correct...

Not sure how you could say it's not restrictive when anybody without an internet connection is unable to play the games.

If you're talking about the entire market as a whole. I was responding to a post that used restrictive in the sense that it restricts an individual gamer, and that is entirely dependent on each gamer. I (and I'm sure there are others) don't think it's restrictive. I still get to play how I want. I can say this because none of the "restrictions" actually affect how I play.

[BajiRav]

So how does PSN+ DRM work with the "free games"? What if I have a bunch of games from PSN+, stop paying for it and then disconnect internet forever? Does it have a perpetual license?

[Boxster17]

Interesting read here with EA's Peter Moore on DRM, quick little quote below so take it for whatever it's worth (at least they admit online passes were a mistake, though I never had a problem with them):

The narrative I've heard is that EA lobbied hard to have the hardware companies come up with a solution so you guys are not faffing around with online passes and you're not losing potential used game profits to retailers.

Moore: "Absolutely incorrect. As the guy who is the chief operating officer of Electronic Arts I can tell you that EA did not aggressively lobby for the platform holders to put some gating function in there to allow or disallow used games. I am on record as being a proponent of used games. I like the ecosystem. I like the fact that it's kept pricing at a good level for eight years. I like the fact that someone can buy a physical game and see some equity in that game. That keeps GameStop vibrant and they are a great launch and marketing partner for us.

"EA has never had a conversation, and I have been present at all of them, with all of the manufacturers, saying you must put a system in place that allows us to take a piece of the action or even stop it. Absolutely incorrect."

[TheLegendOfMart]

As I've been saying....

People think it's publishers who pushed Microsoft into DRM, Microsoft thought up the cloud processing as the sugar that helps you swallow the bitter pill of DRM which is the only reason they thought it up.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

So how does PSN+ DRM work with the "free games"? What if I have a bunch of games from PSN+, stop paying for it and then disconnect internet forever? Does it have a perpetual license?

You can keep playing them as long as you're a PS+ sub. Same as this gen. You do not need to have an internet connection to play PS+ games. When downloaded a time bomb is attached to them, that is the length of time you have left on your sub. Obviously if you resub that is extended.

[TheLegendOfMart]

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.

[illage3]

Its still not as bad as the Xbox.

You can still trade in your games, and since the PS4 doesn't have the fascist DRM they can still use online passes. And EA saying they had nothing to do with lobbying DRM on the Xbox is a load of bull****. Its a bit funny how near when the next Xbox shows they suddenly decide that online passes are a bad idea ......

EA removed online passes for two reasons

- EA Games multi player Xbox 360 and PS3 servers are shutting down soon (before next year)

- EA has had access to the Xbox One since 2012, and they knew that MS would have the fascist DRM on there, so they no longer need online passes.

Don't forget that EA have had access to the PS4 and Xbox One (Dev kits at least) since late 2012, so they knew full well that the Xbox would have this DRM. If EA didn't lobby for the "gating" then why didn't try to stop it?

[illage3]

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.

:o F2P games don't need PS+? :o When did this happen? Thats awesome.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

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.

Haha.

For those that are saying the MS policy is beneficial, they're sure trying to say IF Sony done the same thing it wouldn't be good. Strange.....

Good thing they simply arent.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Patrick Klepek talks with Scott Rohde and they talk DRM for 30 minutes.

Online passes by third parties? Not allowed; Consumers already are paying for online.

http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/so...esti/1600-504/

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Patrick Klepek talks with Scott Rohde and they talk DRM for 30 minutes.

Online passes by third parties? Not allowed; Consumers already are paying for online.

http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/so...esti/1600-504/

BOOM, headshot. Deserves it's own topic.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Yeah, feel free. I've had enough of people whining at me.

[spenser.d]

BOOM, headshot. Deserves it's own topic.

Hooray? The main point I've been trying to get across is that the policies aren't as big of a deal to people as the internet would have you think. But that doesn't fit your "PS is the best thing ever always omg" world view so its easy for you to continue to **** on the Xbox because of it. We can revisit this in a few years and see where the industry is at. As I've said elsewhere, I doubt the status quo changes much.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Hooray? The main point I've been trying to get across is that the policies aren't as big of a deal to people as the internet would have you think. But that doesn't fit your "PS is the best thing ever always omg" world view so its easy for you to continue to **** on the Xbox because of it. We can revisit this in a few years and see where the industry is at. As I've said elsewhere, I doubt the status quo changes much.

Talk about taking it personally.

[spenser.d]

Talk about taking it personally.

Yes, you've been doing it all day.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Seems to be the Xbox fans which are invading PS4 threads trying to drag them down and giving them 1 stars. Shame it doesn't log who votes things down, I would be interested to see who keeps doing it.