25 replies to this topic

[cimerians]

Let the hate commence.....

http://www.shacknews...g-november-18th

I have three systems. According to this it looks like I cant play my games on my third system at all.
I wonder how this will work if you buy a used PS3 in the future and the seller never de-activated it before turning it into Gamestop. This can become ugly. I don't know.

Anyone have more than two?

Can the next Xbox come out any quicker...............

Edited by cimerians, Fri Nov 4, 2011 8:56 AM.

[Metal Ghost]

Unfortunatley I can't get to that website right now (websense....d'oh!), but the thread topic definitely caught my interest. Huh...yea, that doesn't sound good. Without admitedly having read the article, I can't even fathom how this would work or why they would want to do it. Is it for digital downloads only?

[cimerians]

Here it is:

"
The days of Game Sharing for PlayStation owners is over. Previously, downloaded content from the PlayStation Store could be shared across five devices. While the policy was originally intended to allow flexibility for consumers that owned multiple systems, many gamers exploited it by sharing their passwords--essentially allowing one purchase to be used freely across up to five machines.
That policy is changing beginning November 18th, with newly purchased content being restricted to two machines, not five.

The new terms of service will allow users to play PlayStation content on up to 2 activated systems. For example, PS3 games will be available on up to 2 activated PS3 systems; PSP games will be available on up to 2 activated PSP systems. Once the Vita releases, it will also adhere to the same restrictions.

The revised policy will not affect game purchases made before November 18th.

According to Sony, the new policy will "protect the rights of content providers." However, some PlayStation users are already calling it "restrictive and unfair DRM" and "anti-consumer." Of particular concern are consumers that have failed consoles, which were unable to be deactivated before malfunctioning. Sony says that it will be providing a new PlayStation Network account management website, allowing users to remotely deactivate PSN accounts via the web--similar to how iTunes works.

For more on how to deactivate a PS3/PSP system, visit PlayStation customer support."

So going forward you can only play your games on two machines max (of that type of machine).
According to that article it doesnt affect purchases made before the 18th.

I think most people aren't like me though and only have a max of about 1 or maybe 2 machines. Still bad for me at least if I continue to buy any downloadable games.
I wonder if this counts towards DLC.....

Edited by cimerians, Fri Nov 4, 2011 10:19 AM.

[keilbaca]

Out of all the PS3 owners that I know of, only one has two, the rest have one. This makes sense, due to the small amount of people who have more than one, vs the amount of sharing going on.

With that though... does that really matter, with the ps3 ripped wide open as far as DRM is concerned? Unless they patched it somehow, this really seems like a useless move. Pirates are gonna pirate, and most already have the patches made to make this a non issue.

[Reaperman]

5...3...2...next will be none.

It's a shame, because IMO, Sony's hardware has been just great, but their business practices have stripped almost all the value from it, where they used to add value.

Seriously, do they think they have a chance selling anybody a PS4? These orporate mistakes are 100% forward compatible...

At the moment, I think Onlive and I are going to be hanging out next gen and that's about it.

Edited by Reaperman, Fri Nov 4, 2011 10:57 AM.

[HammR25]

If people hadn't abused the machine limit by sharing passwords it would still be at 5 machines. Does the PS3 let people use content on a machine as long as they're logged in like the 360?

[cimerians]

HammR25, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:38 AM, said:

If people hadn't abused the machine limit by sharing passwords it would still be at 5 machines. Does the PS3 let people use content on a machine as long as they're logged in like the 360?

You never have to login as long as the PS3's are "activated" with the PSN ID that owns the games.

Kind of nice right?

In other words:
- I get 4 PS3's. 2 for me and 2 for my friends.
- I activate all 4 of them (under the activation menu) under an account that has 50 games. I download all the games to all the PS3's one at a time. (You cannot login multiple times. ie. once I'm done with one PS3 I do the next and so on....)
- From now on ANY person with ANY PSN ID can login to any of the 4 PS3's and play the games on there.

College kids must have pooled together and went nuts with this.

Of course if the game is deleted, they need the account that owned the game to login once more and re-download it.

Its like itunes. Where you cant listen to your music on more the "X" computers. You have to log in and de-activate one to be able to play on another.

At this point I almost prefer the Microsoft method where you just put you gamertag on a stick and you can play and download your games on a hundred Xbox's.

Edited by cimerians, Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:04 PM.

[Cybergoth]

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:01 PM, said:

College kids must have pooled together and went nuts with this.

I always thought that was the whole idea of it, in order to boost hardware sales. I also don't get why on other boards like Kotaku it's considered "stealing". People apparently bought games with the option to install the game on 5 different machines - and just did that.

BTW: I can install my dozen gog.com games on an infinite number of machines...

[cimerians]

Cybergoth, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:31 PM, said:

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:01 PM, said:

College kids must have pooled together and went nuts with this.

I always thought that was the whole idea of it, in order to boost hardware sales. I also don't get why on other boards like Kotaku it's considered "stealing". People apparently bought games with the option to install the game on 5 different machines - and just did that.

BTW: I can install my dozen gog.com games on an infinite number of machines...

Yeah I dont know. Whether you give the password to someone or not they put the rule in and now they are taking it away. Kind of like the other OS feature. Here today gone tomorrow. (or at least cut more than in half).

[Reaperman]

Cybergoth, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:31 PM, said:

I always thought that was the whole idea of it, in order to boost hardware sales. I also don't get why on other boards like Kotaku it's considered "stealing". People apparently bought games with the option to install the game on 5 different machines - and just did that. BTW: I can install my dozen gog.com games on an infinite number of machines...

When I bought my PS3 (~late 2008), I swear they were using it as a selling point. IIRC there was even a video describing the process of "gamesharing" in the PSN store. (of course when I went back to check, over a year ago, all references to this being okay were removed)

'Go over to your friend's house and you can both play the game. No need to carry discs around.'

Now there's DLC which is locked to account as well as a machine--specifically the GT5 DLC, but maybe more as well. If you have more than one account (or sub-account), for your racing league, enjoy buying the DLC again.

Edited by Reaperman, Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:51 PM.

[cimerians]

Reaperman, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:48 PM, said:

Now there's DLC which is locked to account as well as a machine--specifically the GT5 DLC, but maybe more as well. If you have more than one account (or sub-account), for your racing league, enjoy buying the DLC again.

I had no idea that some DLC was locked to accounts or that some games are starting to do that.

Thats what I've always hated about PSN. Its so up in the air and non-standard where the rules change.

Unlike Microsoft where they are thankfully up front about it. At least its always been the same as I can tell. One account and thats it. Done.

[Hatta]

HammR25, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:38 AM, said:

If people hadn't abused the machine limit by sharing passwords it would still be at 5 machines.

Have we realy bought into the copyright cartel's message so much that sharing is abuse now? Any kindergartner knows better than that.

[Metal Ghost]

Reaperman, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:48 PM, said:

Cybergoth, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:31 PM, said:

I always thought that was the whole idea of it, in order to boost hardware sales. I also don't get why on other boards like Kotaku it's considered "stealing". People apparently bought games with the option to install the game on 5 different machines - and just did that. BTW: I can install my dozen gog.com games on an infinite number of machines...

When I bought my PS3 (~late 2008), I swear they were using it as a selling point. IIRC there was even a video describing the process of "gamesharing" in the PSN store. (of course when I went back to check, over a year ago, all references to this being okay were removed)

'Go over to your friend's house and you can both play the game. No need to carry discs around.'

Now there's DLC which is locked to account as well as a machine--specifically the GT5 DLC, but maybe more as well. If you have more than one account (or sub-account), for your racing league, enjoy buying the DLC again.

Well, even in that statement, which I'll admit is probably not verbatim, the idea is that the content purchaser goes to their friends house to play the game with their friend. Not to simply give the game away. Realy worse than that, because you're not really giving the game away, but making copies and giving them away. I don't know where that was ever really 'right'. I can't see where that is fair to the content creator. I can't speak to whether or not this was used as a selling point though. If it was, then I agree that taking it away is not really fair....although even then, they're not really taking it away. The new limit is only taking affect on newly purchased content.

I know that's not the popular view, but all I'm saying is that for all the things that Sony has royally messed up re: treating their customers right, this isn't as high as I originally thought.

[Cybergoth]

Metal Ghost, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:14 PM, said:

I know that's not the popular view, but all I'm saying is that for all the things that Sony has royally messed up re: treating their customers right, this isn't as high as I originally thought.

I actually agree. But then I didn't buy my PS3 with the intention to share games with anyone

In fact the only money I ever spend on PSN is for renting movies, which is faster, more convenient and usually even cheaper than the local stores around here.

[Reaperman]

Metal Ghost, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:14 PM, said:

Well, even in that statement, which I'll admit is probably not verbatim, the idea is that the content purchaser goes to their friends house to play the game with their friend. Not to simply give the game away. Realy worse than that, because you're not really giving the game away, but making copies and giving them away. I don't know where that was ever really 'right'. I can't see where that is fair to the content creator. I can't speak to whether or not this was used as a selling point though. If it was, then I agree that taking it away is not really fair....although even then, they're not really taking it away. The new limit is only taking affect on newly purchased content. I know that's not the popular view, but all I'm saying is that for all the things that Sony has royally messed up re: treating their customers right, this isn't as high as I originally thought.

It's fair in that a single purchase of the content, licensed you to install it on up to 5 machines, which is something the competition didn't offer at the time.

Can't find the video, but I find a lot of quotes of this:

Quote

Approved by Jack Tretton, President and CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment of America

Sony announced that players who download games from PlayStation's online shop can share them on up to five other PS3 machines.

If a player logs into his PlayStation 3 account on a friend's system, he can download any game he has already purchased. "You can send that content to four other friends for that initial investment," said Tretton. "We want to get the game in as many hands as possible." "It's not about generating profits at each and every interaction with the consumer," he said. "I think that really offsets the argument that says, 'Wow, that's a really pricey system.'"

[cimerians]

Cybergoth, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:22 PM, said:

In fact the only money I ever spend on PSN is for renting movies, which is faster, more convenient and usually even cheaper than the local stores around here.

Wow...in my area PSN movie renting is pretty expensive. I stick with Netflix streaming. Do you have to download the movie when you rent it or is it cache\streamed?

As I admited, this change only effects those who do it or in my case own more than 2 systems. It sucks to be me then.

[Cybergoth]

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:33 PM, said:

Wow...in my area PSN movie renting is pretty expensive. I stick with Netflix streaming. Do you have to download the movie when you rent it or is it cache\streamed?

It ranges from 1€ to 5€ for SD quality and 1€ more for HD quality. Since on our 40" Sony LCD my wife and me usually can't tell a difference between SD and HD (or DVD and Blue Ray for that matter), we always opt for SD. Renting discs here is about the same price but that's two extra rides and only for 1 day instead of 2.

It's a download, but you can already start watching it before it's finished. On our connection we usually let it download at least 50%, so we can start watching it after ~ 1 hour. I think you can even download it onto the PSP as well and watch it there too

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:33 PM, said:

As I admited, this change only effects those who do it or in my case own more than 2 systems. It sucks to be me then.

I might be missing something, but why would you want to install a game on more than 2 systems simultaneous? I kinda imagine you have a PS3 installed in the living room, one in the bedroom and one in the kitchen and it's too much of a hassle to change the room if the desired game is only installed on the other two machines?

[cimerians]

Cybergoth, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 3:29 PM, said:

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:33 PM, said:

Wow...in my area PSN movie renting is pretty expensive. I stick with Netflix streaming. Do you have to download the movie when you rent it or is it cache\streamed?

It ranges from 1€ to 5€ for SD quality and 1€ more for HD quality. Since on our 40" Sony LCD my wife and me usually can't tell a difference between SD and HD (or DVD and Blue Ray for that matter), we always opt for SD. Renting discs here is about the same price but that's two extra rides and only for 1 day instead of 2.

It's a download, but you can already start watching it before it's finished. On our connection we usually let it download at least 50%, so we can start watching it after ~ 1 hour. I think you can even download it onto the PSP as well and watch it there too

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:33 PM, said:

As I admited, this change only effects those who do it or in my case own more than 2 systems. It sucks to be me then.

I might be missing something, but why would you want to install a game on more than 2 systems simultaneous? I kinda imagine you have a PS3 installed in the living room, one in the bedroom and one in the kitchen and it's too much of a hassle to change the room if the desired game is only installed on the other two machines?

I was wondering how the renting worked. I find the HD is overpriced a lot.

Well I have a living room where everyone watches movies and blu-rays. The den where I game mostly and one bedroom. Everyone in the family games as does people who come over so as you can see having games on all three is pretty cool. We can all play Uno or Fat Princess etc on each system.

Edited by cimerians, Fri Nov 4, 2011 3:55 PM.

[HammR25]

Reaperman, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:28 PM, said:

Can't find the video, but I find a lot of quotes of this:

Quote

Approved by Jack Tretton, President and CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment of America

Sony announced that players who download games from PlayStation's online shop can share them on up to five other PS3 machines.

If a player logs into his PlayStation 3 account on a friend's system, he can download any game he has already purchased. "You can send that content to four other friends for that initial investment," said Tretton. "We want to get the game in as many hands as possible." "It's not about generating profits at each and every interaction with the consumer," he said. "I think that really offsets the argument that says, 'Wow, that's a really pricey system.'"

I didn't remember them advertising it like that. That's hilarious. They'd probably argue now that the system is less than half the price it was at launch so they don't need to save people money anymore.

[Atariboy]

Cybergoth, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 3:29 PM, said:

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:33 PM, said:

As I admited, this change only effects those who do it or in my case own more than 2 systems. It sucks to be me then.

I might be missing something, but why would you want to install a game on more than 2 systems simultaneous?

An easy reason is for insurance. I was fully intending after a few more years went by on picking up several additional PS3's and taking advantage of the game sharing capabilities to get my content on several systems, in case I had a hardware failure in the future.

Hopefully when I pick up a slim one of these days, it will be bulletproof and one spare system will be more than I'd ever need.

Edited by Atariboy, Fri Nov 4, 2011 8:27 PM.

[Atariboy]

Come to think of it, that doesn't torpedo those plans at all. I can just take a system offline permanently, disassociate the licenses through their website, and associate them with another console. The offline console will have no way to know that it isn't supposed to have access to that DLC unless it is taken online again.

Edited by Atariboy, Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:38 PM.

[Agent X]

Atariboy, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 8:26 PM, said:

Cybergoth, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 3:29 PM, said:

cimerians, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:33 PM, said:

As I admited, this change only effects those who do it or in my case own more than 2 systems. It sucks to be me then.

I might be missing something, but why would you want to install a game on more than 2 systems simultaneous?

An easy reason is for insurance. I was fully intending after a few more years went by on picking up several additional PS3's and taking advantage of the game sharing capabilities to get my content on several systems, in case I had a hardware failure in the future.

Hopefully when I pick up a slim one of these days, it will be bulletproof and one spare system will be more than I'd ever need.

My original PlayStation 3 broke about 2½ years ago. Since it couldn't boot up (due to the famed "yellow light of death"), I was never able to deactivate it from PSN, and I got a replacement PS3 sent to me instead.

When I initially saw the news about the reduction from five to two activations, my first reaction was discomfort. I figured that if my current (second) PS3 broke, then I'd have burned all my activations, and wouldn't have access to my downloadable games again.

However, upon further investigation (including some comments and responses on the PlayStation.Blog), I was relieved to learn that Sony would be setting up a new account management Web site, enabling users to deactivate their systems from a PC. This is a great tool to have in case your system breaks unexpectedly, or it is lost or stolen, or you sell it and forget to deactivate it.

So, from my perspective, this is more beneficial than harmful.

[cimerians]

Atariboy, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:37 PM, said:

Come to think of it, that doesn't torpedo those plans at all. I can just take a system offline permanently, disassociate the licenses through their website, and associate them with another console. The offline console will have no way to know that it isn't supposed to have access to that DLC unless it is taken online again.

I didnt think of that. Activate the system. Download the games. De-activate it and then play the games offline permanently. Sounds good to me.

[Atariboy]

Agent X, even if that were the case, your existing content still has three activations left. This only affects purchases made after that date.

[Mord]

HammR25, on Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:38 AM, said:

If people hadn't abused the machine limit by sharing passwords it would still be at 5 machines. Does the PS3 let people use content on a machine as long as they're logged in like the 360?

That's assuming too much out of Sony imo. Half the fear of piracy by corporations is that they can't prove it all the time. So just having that limit at 5 would have made content providers whine.


I don't plan on giving Sony any money for downloads of any kind so this shouldn't affect me, however I would have hoped they'd be smart enough to make sure this new method of remotely deactivating consoles from user accounts that they talk about "making available" would actually BE available before they lower their limit AND that the website it will be on was debugged and tested sufficiently to show that it could withstand at least moderate levels of hacking attempts. Last thing they need is for that service to get hacked and have a bunch of script kiddies remotely deactivating every PS3 registered to an account.

I have popcorn for if it happens. Not sure if it's wise to say "if" instead of "when", but I'll give them a benefit of one more doubt. Mainly because I won't be taking a PS3 or PSP online any decade soon.