Sony "unreasonably" restricts PS3 software to two consoles only

[Frizz]

Shit like this is what should make people BOYCOT the Sony Playstation and it's games period. If people continue to bend over for these Sony Pricks, then so be it, don't bitch and complain.

You should have a right to play a game you purchased anytime you want on any PS console you want. And you should have the right to buy and sell anything you buy regardless. Letting a company do something stupid like this is just asking for more stupidity in the near future.

Completely agree, if you buy a game you should be able to use it anyway you want as long as you don't counterfeit it. Resell it, letting your friends borrow and play with it, use it as a Frisbee etc. I am glad Anonymous attacked the PSN to send a message because Sony is becoming real bad.

 

[WhiteNoise]

Considering this is just digital content then I don't care at all. I own two PS3's so I'm good anyways but I don't see this as a problem for the average person.

 

[newtekie1]

Shit like this is what should make people BOYCOT the Sony Playstation and it's games period. If people continue to bend over for these Sony Pricks, then so be it, don't bitch and complain.

You should have a right to play a game you purchased anytime you want on any PS console you want. And you should have the right to buy and sell anything you buy regardless. Letting a company do something stupid like this is just asking for more stupidity in the near future.

Welcome to the world of software, I see you are new here. So I'll give you basics. Companies have been limiting installs since at least 2000. This is nothing new.

At least Sony is only limiting digital content, you can still play your physical games on as many consoles as you want. And honestly, how many times have you gone over to your friends and wanted to play the $5 Pixel Junkies type games...

 

[Mr McC]

Shit like this is what should make people BOYCOT the Sony Playstation and it's games period. If people continue to bend over for these Sony Pricks, then so be it, don't bitch and complain.

You should have a right to play a game you purchased anytime you want on any PS console you want. And you should have the right to buy and sell anything you buy regardless. Letting a company do something stupid like this is just asking for more stupidity in the near future.

I can agree with the sentiment, but the argument comes too late: let's face it, even Steam, which many of us begrudgingly tolerate or even confess to enjoying, is, to a very large extent, in place to prevent resale. The second-hand market perished long ago.

We can blame this on a number of factors, perhaps legislative lethargy in the face of technological advance, but certainly, as you point out, our own stupidty is not to be discounted. But there is no use bemoaning the fact that we no longer purchase games, but rather acquire licences, our ability to alter this has passed.

What we once owned we now lease, so the question becomes not whether companies can or should do this, but rather, how far we're willing to let them go. The attentive will be eager to point out that the Steam analogy above fails, given that I can install my games on any machine in any location, and that's precisely the point: it's not that Sony does anything that is innately worse than its competitors, it's simply a question of it doing so in a blundering, inept and ineffcient manner, to the extent that it always seems to appear like to penny-pinching control freak, even to paying customers.

 

[digibucc]

what you neglect to recognize is that in denying resale, steam also has massive sales that allow people to get all types of games, AAA and indie, not limited by dev/pub - for half price or less, often within a year after release.

tell me one distributor that has those kind of deals. show me where the local gamestop is that doesn't rip you off when you trade in a game. or the easy online service where you can trade games for their worth and actually get paid.

you make it sound as though reselling your games ever turns out well. you only ever get 14% of their worth. steam takes that and gives you 70% off sales. psn has decent sales as well actually. personally the choice is easy.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Welcome to the world of software, I see you are new here. So I'll give you basics. Companies have been limiting installs since at least 2000. This is nothing new.

At least Sony is only limiting digital content, you can still play your physical games on as many consoles as you want. And honestly, how many times have you gone over to your friends and wanted to play the $5 Pixel Junkies type games...

PAIN = awesome so your argument on $5 game is invalid, its ridiculously awesome when drunk

mod nation racers = also pretty damn awesome

then of course theres the older PS1 and PS2 games that are digital now.

funny how you can use a physical copy of many PS2 games before but that feature was phased out and now i can buy a digital version of what i already own. that has limited installs lol, still most of the content there limiting theres easier ways to play it then dealing with sony. but thats besides the point on a purely digital front it can still have negative effects on many end users. that are to stupid to actually you know think for themselves lol eitherway, its comical, cant wait for next gen consoles i greatly hope there games are more PC like in that you can only have it on a single machine ever lolz authenticated by a code and tied to a digital account that cant be on more then 2 consoles lolz if that happens ill do a barrel roll of epicness.

 

[Easy Rhino]

why do you need to install a game you downloaded on more than two machines?

 

[Mr McC]

what you neglect to recognize is that in denying resale, steam also has massive sales that allow people to get all types of games, AAA and indie, not limited by dev/pub - for half price or less, often within a year after release.

I neglected nothing, I was fully aware that you were on call to rectify matters.

tell me one distributor that has those kind of deals. show me where the local gamestop is that doesn't rip you off when you trade in a game. or the easy online service where you can trade games for their worth and actually get paid.

Too tired, but bear in mind that I recall gaming on a ZX81, long before online services.

you make it sound as though reselling your games ever turns out well. you only ever get 14% of their worth. steam takes that and gives you 70% off sales. psn has decent sales as well actually. personally the choice is easy.

Well, I can vouch for the fact that reselling your games doesn't turn out to well as far as things stand. I bregudgingly tolerate Steam, but it is by no means above criticism.

 

[Mr McC]

why do you need to install a game you downloaded on more than two machines?

Why do they need to remove the possibility?

 

[Easy Rhino]

Why do they need to remove the possibility?

prevent piracy and give game developers/distributors peace of mind.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

why do you need to install a game you downloaded on more than two machines?

again hardware failures rhino

a buddy is on his 3rd PS3, if the current plan was in place earlier he would be denied access to his entire digital library at this point, granted again sony's only cock blocking him on some older things at this point but its something to keep in mind,

 

[Easy Rhino]

again hardware failures rhino

a buddy is on his 3rd PS3, if the current plan was in place earlier he would be denied access to his entire digital library at this point, granted again sony's only cock blocking him on some older things at this point but its something to keep in mind,

3 hardware failures? clearly this would fall into a very small niche group of users who having registered their product(s) could have their digital downloads reset.

 

[Mr McC]

prevent piracy and give game developers/distributors peace of mind.

Actually it redefines piracy, without ever preventing it: now by lending one of your games to your second sibling you become that unholiest of filth: the thing responsible for causing developers/distributors to lose peace of mind.

And with that, I will take my hat and my leave.

 

[newtekie1]

PAIN = awesome so your argument on $5 game is invalid, its ridiculously awesome when drunk

Yes, so awesome that your friends should already have it installed on their consoles, and not rely on you to install it for them.

mod nation racers = also pretty damn awesome

See the PAIN example above.

then of course theres the older PS1 and PS2 games that are digital now.

Yeah, I can't see a bunch of friends getting together to play old PS1 and PS2 games...

funny how you can use a physical copy of many PS2 games before but that feature was phased out and now i can buy a digital version of what i already own. that has limited installs lol, still most of the content there limiting theres easier ways to play it then dealing with sony. but thats besides the point on a purely digital front it can still have negative effects on many end users. that are to stupid to actually you know think for themselves lol eitherway, its comical, cant wait for next gen consoles i greatly hope there games are more PC like in that you can only have it on a single machine ever lolz authenticated by a code and tied to a digital account that cant be on more then 2 consoles lolz if that happens ill do a barrel roll of epicness.

If I want to play a PS2 or PS1 game, I put it in my PS2. Rebuying games that I already own is completely stupid, and a waste of my money. It is something that people will do, I understand, but that doesn't make the idea any less stupid.

again hardware failures rhino

a buddy is on his 3rd PS3, if the current plan was in place earlier he would be denied access to his entire digital library at this point, granted again sony's only cock blocking him on some older things at this point but its something to keep in mind,

I've confirmed this with Sony. If you send the console in, and they confirm it is dead, they will re-activate the downloads so you can redownload them on your replacement console.

They also confirmed that if you buy a new PS3, you can just take the HDD out of the old console and put it in the new, and have access to the downloaded content. Though I haven't tested this.

Actually it redefines piracy, without ever preventing it: now by lending one of your games to your second sibling you become that unholiest of filth: the thing responsible for causing developers/distributors to lose peace of mind.

And with that, I will take my hat and my leave.

You are loaning digital content to your siblings a lot?

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

okay so were expecting to take an 60-80gb hdd and pop it in a console that we paid for thats 120 or 250gb yea thats brilliance,

awesome spend $30+ shipping a PS3 back to sony to deauthorise content, thats great lolz you would think they would have a better system then that, kinda sad even EA has a better system in place

and i guess then you dont like older games many of my friends including myself do,

we played through the entire Resident Evil franchise this weekend on an old First Gen PS3, granted we used the discs, but point is digital versions do tend to look and play a bit better and loading is far faster as well. Theres also many great game series aka Metal Gear Solid etc or other games that are hard to find but can be bought digitally. SO maybe you and people you know dont play older games, I can honestly say I spend more time playing old games then newer ones, most since the newer games tends to be just so piss easy the challenge is gone and graphics dont make it better.

and my friends dont depend on me to install games so how does Pain for $5 enter into the friends need me to install it for them i dont get that response in the least.

i simply mentioned the fact that there are many great games for $5-15 on PSN that do get played fairly often,

 

[newtekie1]

okay so were expecting to take an 60-80gb hdd and pop it in a console that we paid for thats 120 or 250gb yea thats brillance,

You made do with the smaller hard drive before, so why does it matter. Of course, if you are like me, you already have a 500GB drive in your PS3...

Of course, you can always put the older drive in, then use the built in backup function of the PS3 to backup the smaller drive to the larger if you really must have the larger drive.

awesome spend $30+ shipping a PS3 back to sony to deauthorise content, thats great lolz

If the content is really that important, $30 is nothing. Especially if you are talking $200-300+ in content. I think at that point, I'd be more pissed that I have to pay $200+ on a new console than I would be about the $30 to get my content back.

and i guess then you dont like older games many of my friends including myself do,

we played through the entire Resident Evil franchise this weekend on an old First Gen PS3, granted we used the discs, but point is digital versions do tend to look and play a bit better and loading is far faster as well. Theres also many great game series aka Metal Gear Solid etc or other games that are hard to find but can be bought digitally. SO maybe you and people you know dont play older games, I can honestly say I spend more time playing old games then newer ones, most since the newer games tends to me just so piss easy the challenge is gone and graphics dont make it better.

If they are so important to you, you should have the old consoles to play them. As I said. I've got a PS2 connected right next to my PS3, for when I want to play PS2/1 games.

and my friends dont depend on me to install games so how does Pain for $5 enter into the friends need me to install it for them i dont get that response in the least.

You responded to my comment about going over to play $5 games on your friends consoles. You responded with PAIN is awesome! Yeah, if it is awesome, your friends should already have it, so you shouldn't have to worry about not being able to play it when you go over there.

i simply mentioned the fact that there are many great games for $5-15 on PSN that do get played fairly often,

Yes, and you did so in response to my comment about going over to your friends and playing them. If they are so great, your friends should already have them. They should rely on you installing them on their consoles.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Actually it redefines piracy, without ever preventing it: now by lending one of your games to your second sibling you become that unholiest of filth: the thing responsible for causing developers/distributors to lose peace of mind.

And with that, I will take my hat and my leave.

the problem isn't in loaning the game to your sibling, it is dealing with people who like to redefine terms to suit their own mischievous behavior. pretty soon the guy you randomly met down the street is your sibling. why should you be denied the right to give it to people on "loan." lol

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

You made do with the smaller hard drive before, so why does it matter. Of course, if you are like me, you already have a 500GB drive in your PS3...

Of course, you can always put the older drive in, then use the built in backup function of the PS3 to backup the smaller drive to the larger if you really must have the larger drive.



If the content is really that important, $30 is nothing. Especially if you are talking $200-300+ in content.



If they are so important to you, you should have the old consoles to play them. As I said. I've got a PS2 connected right next to my PS3, for when I want to play PS2/1 games.



You responded to my comment about going over to play $5 games on your friends consoles. You responded with PAIN is awesome! Yeah, if it is awesome, your friends should already have it, so you shouldn't have to worry about not being able to play it when you go over there.



Yes, and you did so in response to my comment about going over to your friends and playing them. If they are so great, your friends should already have them. They should rely on you installing them on their consoles.

eitherway so im expected to buy another console to play old titles, no thanks, i already own them i just run them emulated, but it is a pain in the ass to have to have 3 consoles now when but a few years ago a PS3 would play them all, shouldnt have to buy them digitally but its business, eitherway i wiped my hands of the situation and sold my PS3, i got no worries any games on older consoles i want i already got from gamestop for 99 cents vs the $5-20 they want for limited digital copies, so eitherway it comes down to the end user, and lets face it newtekie the average user is a moron, i mean how else do we explain modern gaming trends lol but eitherway im waiting to see how this pans out for sony, if there gonna drop to 2 console limit they should at least have the ability to deauthorize content that dosent require sending in a console etc. I mean as you said they've been limiting installs for years now, so why have a screwed up system that only adds more complications for the end user, oh thats right easier to put hoop after hoop so they just spend money instead of demanding the content they paid for. again business wise great idea. As the 90% will continue to just spend anyway always have always will

 

[newtekie1]

eitherway so im expected to buy another console to play old titles, no thanks, i already own them i just run them emulated, but it is a pain in the ass to have to have 3 consoles now when but a few years ago a PS3 would play them all, shouldnt have to buy them digitally but its business, eitherway i wiped my hands of the situation and sold my PS3, i got no worries any games on older consoles i want i already got from gamestop for 99 cents vs the $5-20 they want for limited digital copies, so eitherway it comes down to the end user, and lets face it newtekie the average user is a moron, i mean how else do we explain modern gaming trends lol but eitherway im waiting to see how this pans out for sony, if there gonna drop to 2 console limit they should at least have the ability to deauthorize content that dosent require sending in a console etc. I mean as you said they've been limiting installs for years now, so why have a screwed up system that only adds more complications for the end user, oh thats right easier to put hoop after hoop so they just spend money instead of demanding the content they paid for. again business wise great idea. As the 90% will continue to just spend anyway always have always will

Yes, I'm so broken up that you have to pay $40 to buy a PS2 console to play your PS2 game...

 

[Mr McC]

the problem isn't in loaning the game to your sibling, it is dealing with people who like to redefine terms to suit their own mischievous behavior. pretty soon the guy you randomly met down the street is your sibling. why should you be denied the right to give it to people on "loan." lol

And this moral crusade against "mischievous behaviour" is being enforced by the company who made how many millions from blank video and music cassettes, who in the digital era suddenly became interested in authors' rights? keep laughing

The point is that companies were perfectly willing to accept that the items they sold could and would be lent, given away and resold, until the digital era. In most cases this did not constitute piracy until the digital era and that's primarily because you or I calling at a politician's doorway does not quite have the same impact as a high-ranking Sony rep.

I thought I left my hat here somewhere.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Yes, I'm so broken up that you have to pay $40 to buy a PS2 console to play your PS2 game...

except i dont PCSX2 = no need

i get 1080P with anisotropic filtering and msaa, so in the end i get better quality visuals then the digital versions in most cases. and i paid 99cents per game so i lucked out, average user with new PS3 its either pay for games or buy older console,

and i honestly cant stand the older consoles on HD tvs it just looks like shit

 

[newtekie1]

And this moral crusade against "mischievous behaviour" is being enforced by the company who made how many millions from blank video and music cassettes, who in the digital era suddenly became interested in authors' rights? keep laughing

The point is that companies were perfectly willing to accept that the items they sold could and would be lent, given away and resold, until the digital era. In most cases this did not constitute piracy until the digital era and that's primarily because you or I calling at a politician's doorway does not quite have the same impact as a high-ranking Sony rep.

I thought I left my hat here somewhere.

The problem is that with Cassettes they didn't really mind, because the quality was degraded with each copy. So pre-digital era, each copy lost quality, it wasn't as good as the original. So they didn't mind as much.

And when CDs were first invented, the ability to copy them wasn't anywhere near being in the consumers hands. So DRM wasn't a concern in the standard. With CDs they did start to mind once it became cheap enough to just copy a CD, once burners were readily available, and the media was cost effective. It is almost impossible to institute DRM on the media itself without breaking stand alone CD players. That is when they instituted the rootkit to stop people copying their CDs. But it got them in more hot water than it was worth, but they did care about people making copies of their CDs. And now we live in a world where CDs are freely copied between people, even the layman computer user can copy a CD and give it to all their friends.

DVDs were the same way, but they thought ahead with DVDs, and included the DRM in the standard from the beginning. And to this day the basic DRM still keeps your average computer user from copying the DVD and giving it away. Though the above average user has no problem still.

Now we turn to games. With physical games, you have one disc, and that disc is required to play the game. That works for them, because they know that at any one time, only one person is playing that game. One purchase, one use at a time. But enter digital content. That security no longer is there. A person can put their PSN account on any number of consoles, and each console then gets to use the game. You can go to your friends and put your PSN account on his console and he gets to play the games that you paid for. No more one buy one play.

 

[qubit]

Now we turn to games. With physical games, you have one disc, and that disc is required to play the game. That works for them, because they know that at any one time, only one person is playing that game. One purchase, one use at a time. But enter digital content. That security no longer is there. A person can put their PSN account on any number of consoles, and each console then gets to use the game. You can go to your friends and put your PSN account on his console and he gets to play the games that you paid for. No more one buy one play.

I know you've answered this before for me on here, but I'd like to hear it again. Why can't it just work like Steam, where it checks over the internet with the Sony servers and logs off the first instance, thereby allowing only one system to play at any one time? They could also disable offline play, as that could get around it otherwise.

 

[Wile E]

The problem is not that it's 2 consoles at a time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's the implementation that needs work.

 

[qubit]

The problem is not that it's 2 consoles at a time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's the implementation that needs work.

Yeah, agreed. With Steam it's only one at a time.