Level 2
According to a reveal on Sunday from Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter, Sony Computer Entertainment of America CEO thinks it would be anti-consumer to block used games with the Playstation4.
Rumors of next-gen consoles blocking used-games have cropped up over recent months and it is something that Pachter called "the dumbest rumor I've ever heard" in an episode of "Bonus Round" from GameTrailers.com.
Pachter got to talk with Sony of America about what it plans on showing at this year's E3 that starts on June 5 and he said he asked CEO Jack Tretton "point blank" about his personal view on next-gen consoles playing used games.
According to Pachter, Tretton said, "For the record, I'm totally opposed to blocking used games. I think it is great for the consumer that they can buy those. We have a customer that buys our console late in the cycle, pays less and is looking for value-priced games. I think it would be anti-consumer for us to do that."
tahirpasha wrote:According to Pachter, Tretton said, "For the record, I'm totally opposed to blocking used games. I think it is great for the consumer that they can buy those. We have a customer that buys our console late in the cycle, pays less and is looking for value-priced games. I think it would be anti-consumer for us to do that."
Of course he'll say that - it's publishers that lose out from second hand game sales, not hardware manufacturers. And I suspect Sony has more vested in it's hardware than it's publishing, so it makes sense to earn early kudos for any future platform.
But of course the publishers have clout in this decision as well, as without games, your hardware isn't going to do very well...
Level 3
InfiniteStates wrote:
tahirpasha wrote:According to Pachter, Tretton said, "For the record, I'm totally opposed to blocking used games. I think it is great for the consumer that they can buy those. We have a customer that buys our console late in the cycle, pays less and is looking for value-priced games. I think it would be anti-consumer for us to do that."
Of course he'll say that - it's publishers that lose out from second hand game sales, not hardware manufacturers. And I suspect Sony has more vested in it's hardware than it's publishing, so it makes sense to earn early kudos for any future platform.
But of course the publishers have clout in this decision as well, as without games, your hardware isn't going to do very well...
Actually I think thats wrong. I believe that they recieve royalties on first hand software sales which keeps them afloat/is were the money is made since consoles don't usually make a profit for the first few years.
Level 3
He has no say in the matter, hes SCEA SEO, not Sony CEO.
He is saying this because like I said a while ago, the investors and shareholders will cut and run if they introduce anti consumer measures while not making profits. Anti consumer measures have never paid for themselves.
If i was sony I would make the ps4 easier to hack, easier to pirate on, and I would dump the cost and loss assossiated with piracy back where it belongs, onto the developers who are making gigantic profits either way.
So this is a message to the investors of Sony, not gamers, its asking them to please not cut and run until anything has been announced.
How many of the developers have remained loyal to sony? why should sony continue to harrass their consumers on behalf of them when they in the blink of an eye switch to xbox which is vastly easier to pirate on.
360 is pretty easy to pirate on, has it hurt them? have developers that were sony only stayed away from them because of piracy?
sony needs to wake up and put consumers first, not allow piracy, but not lock up the system so tight that it drives people away.
fenian wrote:
If i was sony I would make the ps4 easier to hack, easier to pirate on, and I would dump the cost and loss assossiated with piracy back where it belongs, onto the developers who are making gigantic profits either way.
Care to explain how it's the developer who should be bearing the cost, and not the publisher?
Level 3
InfiniteStates wrote:
fenian wrote:
If i was sony I would make the ps4 easier to hack, easier to pirate on, and I would dump the cost and loss assossiated with piracy back where it belongs, onto the developers who are making gigantic profits either way.
Care to explain how it's the developer who should be bearing the cost, and not the publisher?
Not really, care to explain why publishers should bare the cost of xbox piracy and if there is indeed any cost involved, and if so why metal gear solid and gta when to xbox?
Level 11
fenian wrote:
InfiniteStates wrote:
fenian wrote:
If i was sony I would make the ps4 easier to hack, easier to pirate on, and I would dump the cost and loss assossiated with piracy back where it belongs, onto the developers who are making gigantic profits either way.
Care to explain how it's the developer who should be bearing the cost, and not the publisher?Not really, care to explain why publishers should bare the cost of xbox piracy and if there is indeed any cost involved, and if so why metal gear solid and gta when to xbox?
both those games went to the Xbox original and both Ps2 and XBox's were high in piracy
Well MGS 2 went to Xbox anyway.
The reasion many games did go multi platform is that with the pirates on the XB360 more money can be made instead of them being exclsuive.
Blocking 2nd hand games will only back fire as more people will move on from gaming or remain with current consoles.
Publishers will make more money now buy having the online/exclusive pass.
Level 3
CrustyJockStrap wrote:The reasion many games did go multi platform is that with the pirates on the XB360 more money can be made instead of them being exclsuive.
That makes no sense, no pirates on the ps3, but they need to go on the xbox 360 because the pirates on that console mean they can make more money?
End of the day its about installed userbase, sonys only concern is building a huge userbase of customers for devs to have as possible customers.
Thats what microsoft did, piracy is simple, has it hurt them? has having an outdated format hurt them? no, the huge customer base they are building protects them, they got minecraft etc.
Devs & publishers may grumble about second hand sales, but neither of them would provide games to a console that has no userbase or they would all be developing for the nokia ngage.
Blocking second hand games, and pircay, and taking away features to protect a game = smaller user base = devs developing for other consoles to make up the money = downward spiral.
fenian wrote:
InfiniteStates wrote:
fenian wrote:
If i was sony I would make the ps4 easier to hack, easier to pirate on, and I would dump the cost and loss assossiated with piracy back where it belongs, onto the developers who are making gigantic profits either way.
Care to explain how it's the developer who should be bearing the cost, and not the publisher?Not really, care to explain why publishers should bare the cost of xbox piracy and if there is indeed any cost involved, and if so why metal gear solid and gta when to xbox?
Because developers are more often than not work for hire, i.e. publishers pay them a lump sum to develop a game. Publishers then take the cost of bringing it to market and marketing it, and also reap the rewards of sales. In some instances developers may self publish or be paid royalties, but the work-for-hire model is by far the most common.
Your proposal that developers bear the cost of piracy is equivalent to making arable farmers bear the cost of thievery from supermarkets.
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
