Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony 'Anti-Used Game' Patent Explored

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the good-rumours-never-die dept.

435

Sometime in 2000, Sony patented a process that would 'verify a disc as legitimate, register the disc to that particular game console, then wipe out verification data so the disc would be rendered unreadable in other PlayStations'. Despite unrest in the gaming community over this technology, the company has repeatedly stated they have no plans to use it in the PS3. The LA Times explores this persistent debate, examining why Sony developed the tech and why gamers are nervous. From the article: "Whatever Sony's plans, the tempest [over the patent] illustrates the changing nature of ownership as millions of people accumulate vast collections of digital entertainment. Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection." Thanks to 1up.com for the link.

cancel ×

435 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Blockbusted (5, Insightful)

TheFlamingoKing (603674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707660)

Maybe because this completely kills the rental business? I for one haven't bought a game in a long time, but I have rented a few...

Re:Blockbusted (4, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707691)

Maybe because this completely kills the rental business? I for one haven't bought a game in a long time, but I have rented a few...
That's it on the nose. How many crappy games did you decide not to buy your own copy of, after renting it for a couple of dollars and being disappointed? If game rental was squashed, if even borrowing a game from a friend was squashed, they'd sell many more copies thanks to people not being able to try things out on the cheap beforehand to find out how much it sucks.

Re:Blockbusted (4, Insightful)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707758)

Alternatively, they might sell none at all, as all the customers go and buy hardware that doesn't implement such restrictions, and has a plentiful supply of less expensive titles. I can see why Publishers might THINK they want this, but unless it is implemented universally (and it can't be really, modded consoles would render this moot for everything except online games, and if you're going to mod your console, you might as well pirate the games) but in reality other companies would offer a more custumer friendly approach and reap the benefits in the market.

Of course, I hate Sony anyway, so I'm all in favor of them implementing this kind of scheme. Nintendo Wii FTW.

Re:Blockbusted (2)

dubmun (891874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708356)

Wii FTW indeed!

On the flip side of not selling as many games, I think game stores (EBGames/GameCrazy/GameStop) would have to keep demos of everything so that potential customers could try them. That might solve this particular problem.

Re:Blockbusted (3, Insightful)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707778)

they'd sell many more copies

Doubt it, unless this was an industry-wide thing. More likely, launch sales would be crap as people waited for reviews, and companies not using the tech would see a significant bump in market share as well.

Re:Blockbusted (3, Interesting)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707823)

Good point. Also, if we think the reviews scene is clogged with thinly-veiled ads nowadays, how much worse would it get if the reviews really were the only source of info? Say hello to slews of paid-off game journalists, "official" shill magazines in the vein of early Nintendo Power, fake spam blogs, and employees posing as players on message boards. Nothing would be a trustworthy source of reviews anymore.

Re:Blockbusted (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708046)

Im sure Sony is glad you're that impulsive but for most of us, not being able to rent or borrow means not buying it at all. I've been burned by hype and advertising too many times in the past to buy a game without at least checking it out first, I would imagine the majority are in the same boat.

Re:Blockbusted (3, Insightful)

mrxak (727974) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707707)

It also kills people bringing over games to a friends house to play it there. With this, you'd have to bring your own console over as well.

Re:Blockbusted (5, Interesting)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707816)

It also means you'd have to re-buy your game collection every time your console died.

Re:Blockbusted (2, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708288)

But if you're really buying a license they should be willing to replace your destroyed content for a nominal "replacement fee" after all you still OWN the license.

I'm curious how this would effect those of us with multiple consoles or when you upgrade to the next generation. For instance the PS2 plays PS1 games, the PS3 will play PS2 and PS1 games... will the PS4 play PS3 games if all the licenses are stored on the PS3?

Re:Blockbusted (4, Insightful)

Who235 (959706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707722)

Amen to that.

I almost always rent a console game before I buy it because I don't have the kind of money it takes to buy a $70 POS that I'll hate after a week.

Games are way too expensive to allow those kind of restrictions on them.

I think a move like that will ensure that only big name titles get purchased and it will choke the life out of smaller games that nobody will want to pay for without the security of being able to sell them if they suck.

Re:Blockbusted (4, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707723)

It won't kill the rental business. It will let game publishers sell two types of copies:

1. Single console copies for the home market.
2. Multiple console copies for the rental market.

#2 will cost more than #1, but not so much that Blockbuster will want to leave the video game rental business.

Re:Blockbusted (5, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707788)

1. Single console copies for the home market.
2. Multiple console copies for the rental market.
Wait until a formerly new title's hype has blown over and Lackluster Video wants to get rid of their 20 extra copies. Hello again, used market. Even better, hello used market for games with better functionality than new retail copies. Same goes for when someone eventually finds a way to pirate rented games. Hello, 0-day no-strings-attached ISO files that beat legit shelf copies in every way but the DVD sleeve.

Re:Blockbusted (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708152)

You think Sony won't force Lackluster to sign a contract preventing them from selling on their used stock?

Re:Blockbusted (3, Insightful)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708276)

You think Sony won't force Lackluster to sign a contract preventing them from selling on their used stock?
Right of First Sale doesn't just apply to you and me.

That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection."
But it doesn't violate anything for people to sell THEIR copy of their music collection. Denying that right through this system denies me the Right of First Sale, and thus denies me my fair-use rights.

Re:Blockbusted (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708323)

Agreed.

Becides, even if you're buying a "license" to use the media as opposed to the media itself, why shouldn't that license be transferable?

Re:Blockbusted (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707908)

It won't kill the rental business. It will let game publishers sell two types of copies:
Correction: It would permit publishers create two copies for the PS3. If Sony did go forward with this tactic, it would be in Microsoft's and Nintendo's best interest to steer clear of it, hold up their games, and state proudly "We don't care if you play this game on a friend's console".

Furthermore, what should happen if a PS3 suffers first-generation flaws, and is exchanged or a critical component is replaced? The gamer would still be playing their copy of the game on their PS3, but would the new machine allow for this?

Re:Blockbusted (1)

tdk2fe (666211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708244)

I'm pretty sure they already do this. The copies of console games (and movies) that companies like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video purchase are under a different license than the copies a casual consumer purchases. This is the reason that if you've ever lost something you rent, the cost to replace is much higher than simply buying a new copy from Best Buy.

Re:Blockbusted (1)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707959)

I know that I sometimes bring my games to my friend's PS2s. I still own the license to the game, but I want to avoid schleping my own system whenever possible. I would be veryangry if they outlawed this practice.

Re:Blockbusted (1)

E-Rock (84950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707980)

I don't see that as a limitation. Movie studios already sell special rental versions. I've run into discs edited for content at Blockbuster and stripped of speical features with NetFlix. They can just press special 'unlocked' discs and sell them at a premium to rental houses.

I think this move would drive customers away in droves, but Sony seems to enjoy seeing how long they can piss in the face of their customers before they go away.

Re:Blockbusted (1)

hcob$ (766699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708307)

Maybe because this completely kills the rental business? I for one haven't bought a game in a long time, but I have rented a few...
Since in the rental business they buy special vhs tapes, dvds, etc., what's to keep Sony from distributing special "rental" games? I'm sure that if they've got a way to tie a game to a specific console, they surely have the ability to tie the game to all consoles (lets call them promiscuious"... Probably even have a nice way of defeating any attempt (for now) of copying said "promiscuious" disks.

Another win for the Wii (0, Flamebait)

chrnb (243739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707698)

If they implement any of this, it will be another win for the Wii.
which i might say makes me very happy ^^ as there is nothing i would rather see than Sony dying a slow painful death, and this is from someone who 5 years ago, bought a "luxury" sony discman. Just goes to show their decline.

Wii is not so great either (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707802)

Isn't the virtual console a big part of Wii? And aren't virtual console games downloaded instead of bought on disc? And do you think there's any chance of buying, selling, or renting used virtual console games?

Re:Wii is not so great either (1)

another_fanboy (987962) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707859)

If the games can be downloaded for free or extremely cheap, is there a need to burn them?

Re:Wii is not so great either (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708135)

There's a big difference between "free" and "cheap." If it's free, no -- I can just download it again. If it's cheap, however, I'd be upset about having to re-buy it regardless of the cost -- it's the principle of the thing!

Re:Wii is not so great either (0, Offtopic)

another_fanboy (987962) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708214)

Just curious: has Nintendo announced a price yet, or are they still holding off?

Re:Wii is not so great either (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708040)

That's no different than the XBox Live Arcade.

And, more importantly, the Wii's form factor is TINY, so it's pretty easy to move to, say, a friend's house to play one of the downloaded games.

there's a reason so few realize the rules (5, Interesting)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707700)

From the summary: "Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. " Well, duh. Staying current on ever-shifting rules is virtually impossible.

And, lest any defenders of "paying for license" jump in, the rules whether they be the actual rules themselves, or how the providers are choosing to enforce them are shifting.

If in fact in the past they really did sell only the license to play, watch, etc., there was a wink and a nod for those who owned the games should they choose to sell their games at some point. Now under increasing pressures to maximize profits every stone is being turned for ways to eke out more profits.

The electronics industry is seemingly insane with their obsession to beat down their consumers. Case in point, we just upgraded all of our cell phones, none of the really worked that well, and the only real options included cell phones with camera builtin.

We did have a blast the first day with the phones, and even found a couple of trick ways to get our own customized dial tones to the phones without paying for downloads. But, aha, Verizon was on to those tricks, didn't mention the surcharge for sending pictures to each other (actually they at least strongly implied within the "plan" we could send pictures back and forth free ad nauseum), and we found lots of nasty little extra charges to the tune of ~$20 ... all within the one week pro-rated new-phone period.

This was such an annoying and unexpected treatment, we've all pretty much retired the cameras for any use at all... Too bad, it was kind of fun, and I'd have been willing to even look at pricing plans, had they not sucked me in without any heads up.

Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty. Ninety-nine percent of them will treat you with money! (The other one percent you really don't (or shouldn't) give a shit about anyway.)

Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (3, Insightful)

SuperMog2002 (702837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708267)

Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty. Ninety-nine percent of them will treat you with money! (The other one percent you really don't (or shouldn't) give a shit about anyway.)

This just might be my new favorite quote.

Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (2, Insightful)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708316)

Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty. Ninety-nine percent of them will treat you with money! (The other one percent you really don't (or shouldn't) give a shit about anyway.)

Huh? You're saying Napster and P2P was starting because the consumers felt like they got dissed yo... give me a break. People want free shit. Bottom line... they'll pay for it only when getting it free isn't worth it (e.g. AllofMp3). Consumers, on the whole, could give a shit about copyright owners... they only care about whether or not they'll get caught.

The reality is actually different (1)

vlad_petric (94134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708355)

You buy a license to play the content bound to the medium. When the medium dies ... well tough luck. Even though the current copyright law allows you to make a backup copy, you apparently wave that right when accepting the license...

Obvious Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15707710)

With the noise going up over the PS3, I think Sony realized that if they included this feature, they'd be utterly doomed. Even fanboys would go out and get Wiis/360s.

Copyright Laws (2, Insightful)

Moqui (940533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707711)

Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.

Perhaps it is time to rethink the current legal method of digital ownership. Copyright laws, even the most current ones that lawyers attempt to enforce still are based on earlier, non-digital cases.

While precedent has its place, maybe it isn't the best method of deriving new laws.

Re:Copyright Laws (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708148)

The whole idea of "digital ownership" is stupid. If we had the ability to replicate objects, the concept of property ownership would probably be radically different. But we do not.

However, the ability to replicate bitstrings is not only a part of digital technology, it is essential for its operation. The characteristics of physical objects lends itself well to the concept of property; the characteristics of information do not. On this basis, I reject the notion of "intellectual property", "digital ownership", or whatever you want to call it.

If you want to have a legal framework whereby the distribution of certain information is restricted for limited periods of time (and definitely not in the range of lifetimes, as copyright is done today), that is a compromise that can probably be worked out. But it should be made clear that it is not ownership.

I can only hope that the powers-that-be come to realize this without too much more duress.

Re:Copyright Laws (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708297)

Copyrights are limited. You accept the premise of copyright, but reject the limits. But... to accept the premise of copyrights you also accept that someone can own the rights to control how a digitally recorded work is copied. So you in fact accept digital ownership and intellectual property really just trying to make the statement "I don't like how long people can have copyrights for" sound really intellectual.

Re:Copyright Laws (5, Informative)

stubear (130454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708204)

The article os full of shit, there is no license when you purchase movies, music, etc. Copyright laws are like any other law, and no other laws act as a license between the individual and the state. Intellectual property has not changed with the advent of the digital world. It's easier to distribute but this doesn't mean the copyright holder should lose their right of distribution. in fact, this the most important right that needs to stay the same. While I agree that things like this Sony contraption should be considered illegal to manufacture, I do not weep for those who are busted for illegally distributing intellectual property.

I really wish people would actually ready USC 17 instead of relying on what they heard about copyright law from a blog on the internet. The conversation to address and improve upon copyright limitations in the digital world would be so much easier.

So... (4, Interesting)

LordEd (840443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707714)

what happens if my playstation dies and I buy a new one? Do I get free replacement disks, or do I go buy a console that isn't a slot machine for games?

Exactly (3, Insightful)

sRev (846312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707930)

Right. If I'm buying this license, I feel I should be entitled to my purchase for the duration of my life. I had my car broken into twice in 6 months, losing tons of CDs. I should be able, as a licensee, to receive a replacement copy of all those CDs.

Re:Exactly (3, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708186)

I had my car broken into twice in 6 months, losing tons of CDs. I should be able, as a licensee, to receive a replacement copy of all those CDs.

Try it.
Dig out your receipts, get the police crime reference and contact the publishers/RIAA.
It might cost you a small amount, but technically you should be able to do it.

In the world of software, usually you can get replacement media for a restocking and admin fee.
Even in the world of games, you can do this.

If they won't do it with all this clear evidence then you will come away with proof that you own the data and it was not a license in the first place.

Re:Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708314)

I don't think they're under any obligation to furnish you with replacement media. You do still own the license though, so you could then probably download a copy off the net somewhere or copy a friend's cd and you shouldn't be penalized.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

Necroman (61604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708092)

I couldn't agree more.

I'm on my third Playstation 2 right now, and if I had to rebuy the games every time I got a new console, I'd have some yelling and screeming to do.

First PS2 was stolen when I was moving out of the dorms in college.
Second PS2 (which I bought I week before, replacing the first PS2) broke. I was living in a hotel for a summer internship and the maid service that came through knocked it off the desk I had it on.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708318)

You buy a modchip that allows you to play the games you bought.

PSO Anyone? (1)

tenchi90 (668754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707730)

Didn't Sega do the same thing with the Original Phantasy Star Online for the ill-fated Dreamcast?

Re:PSO Anyone? (1)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707909)

no, it was your character file that was tied to your console.

Re:PSO Anyone? (2, Interesting)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708106)

Incorrect on both counts. PSO v1 tied the game's serial number to the DC for online play only. You could rent and resell PSO as many times as you wanted as long as you didn't want to play online. However, if you did purchase the game used with the intent of playing online, you could call Sega and have your disc serial reset. They discontinued the service at some point before PSO v2 came out.

Sony would be out of their minds to enable this (3, Interesting)

grapeape (137008) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707760)

With the overheating and lens problems of the 1st and 2nd generation consoles from Sony, doing this could and probably would become their worst public relations nightmare. Also cant forget homes with more than one console, I have had 2 ps2's in the house at one time, and still have two GC's one for the kids and one for me, do they really expect me to buy two copies? They might as well have labeled this one "Patent For Future Class Action Suit". Of course I would love to see them try it, since a good bitchslap has been months overdue for them. I give 2 weeks after release before the first lawsuit fly.

Re:Sony would be out of their minds to enable this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708087)

Are you honestly suggesting that someone might buy TWO PlayStation 3 systems for $1200?! I guess someone might want to have one for his home and one for his private jet, but that guy could buy a couple of copies per game too.

Re:Sony would be out of their minds to enable this (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708252)

Ok you have a good point there, I guess comparing my console habits, I buy 1 new than after the price drops I usually hunt the pawn shops for a cheap second one.

Re:Sony would be out of their minds to enable this (5, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708233)

Quite. My home has TVs in all four bedrooms and the living room, and quite honestly, the hassle of unplugging the system and all of its cables to move it around is more than a little bit of a PITA (not to mention the issues when different members of the family want to play different games at the same time.)

That's why when the PS3 comes out, my family intends to buy six (one for outdoors by the pool too). Now, I know that my son and daughter have very different opinions about what makes a great game, as do my wife and I, but there are games that appeal to all of us, and for those games to only work on one of the consoles is going to royally suck. Are we supposed to play it exclusively on the living room console or the pool console? What about late at night? What if some of us want to play the game, and the rest of us want to relax in the living room in peace and quiet?

In the end, the only solution is going to be to buy multiple copies, and I don't know about you, but I think that's an outrage as it is. It's bad enough that we have to buy seperate copies for use on the PS2-based system we have wired up in the back of both my wife and I's Hummers, for when we're taking the kids out on longer trips. We were thinking of including the Hummers's PS2s as another pair of consoles we were going to upgrade to PS3s when the PS3 comes out, but on hearing this, it sounds like it would be a complete waste of money.

With gas prices being what they are, the notion we should pay for six (or eight, if we're to include the Hummer PS3s) copies of each game on top of everything else is quite simply asking too much. Where are we supposed to find the money?

Now THAT is forward thinking. (0, Redundant)

BluePariah (987431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707764)

What happens when your console explodes? You have to rebuy all of your games? Not only will this pissoff Gamefly and the like, but I can't imagine developers would be too happy about it. It's like parking your brand new car in the garage at home and then only being able to park it there for ever and ever. Even if your house falls over and your garage burns down. Now all they need is consoles that only let their owners play on them... Thumbprint please. Thank you, Billy, you may play now. How many feet does Sony have to shoot itself in?

Re:Now THAT is forward thinking. (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708091)

I believe your car analogy was a bit forced, wouldn't you agree?

Despite what many believe, car analogies don't always make things clearer.

Re:Now THAT is forward thinking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708310)

How many feet does Sony have to shoot itself in?

They already blew through their originals, but they have since found a prosthetics supplier.

LA Times apparently unfamiliar with copyright law (5, Informative)

ChaosDiscord (4913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707784)

Apparently Dawn C. Chmielewski of the L.A. Times had some sort of seizure causing her to type the following insanity:
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.

No. Absolutely wrong.

When you buy a copyright protected item, you own that particular thing. You need zero license to make standard use of that particular thing you purchased. Thus, the lack of EULAs on console games, works on DVDs, music on CDs, novels, and even the L.A. Times itself. The reason it's illegal to make and distribute copies isn't that you somehow agreed to some license. The reason is that copyright specifically denies you that right.

Re:LA Times apparently unfamiliar with copyright l (4, Funny)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707942)

When you buy a copyright protected item, you own that particular thing.

That particular instance of that thing, yes. If you buy a copy of a book, you own that paper and ink and binding glue.

You need zero license to make standard use of that particular thing you purchased.

You need zero license to make NON-standard use of that thing either, as long as that use is legal. You can run your brand new copy of "The Da Vinci Code" through a crosscut shredder and use it as confetti, if you like. In fact, I recommend this.

The only things you CAN'T do by law with a purchased copy of a copyrighted work are those actions expressly forbidden by the copyright law.

Re:LA Times apparently unfamiliar with copyright l (3, Funny)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708020)

And the right of first sale has been upheld repeatedly to grant you the right to sell your book - although converting it to confeti might make it a derivative work in which case it's not legal.... Unless it's a parody of the work at that point...
My brain hurts now ... I'll go kill some pixels before they start liscencing the images so I can only view them once....

Re:LA Times apparently unfamiliar with copyright l (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708197)

That's pretty-much exactly what I thought.

Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.

The day that that happens, is the day I stop buying copyrighted works and start planning a revolution instead.

Re:LA Times apparently unfamiliar with copyright l (1)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708279)

Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.

That may be true for most things, but it is not true for software that includes an end user license agreement. Remember, you don't need to sign, in ink, to have a binding contract.

Re:LA Times apparently unfamiliar with copyright l (1)

Random832 (694525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708342)

Remember, you don't need to sign, in ink, to have a binding contract.

No, but you do have to gain something. Even if you do sign it in ink, it's not a contract without that.

Scraping The Bottom Of The FUD Barrel (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15707794)

There are about four more months until the PS3 hits the shelves and Zonk Microsoft's prime FUDster is running out of material.

The $499 PS3:

1080p BluRay movies over component
BluRay Live support - additional dynamic content updates and information for movies
DNLA compliance - http://www.dlna.org/home/ [dlna.org]
1080p Games over component
Free online play for all non-MMORPG titles - confirmed over and over again by Sony
Full backwards compatibility for all PS1 titles
Full backwards compatiblity for all PS2 titles - PS2 chips included in the PS3
Linux
Online movie and music store
Webbrowsing and other desktop apps
Tilt controller
Every single developer that supported the PS2 onboard with their games for the PS3
All parts of the system except the HDMI port are upgradeable
Harddrive upgradeable with stadard store bought drives
All PS3 games are going to be region free.

For 100 dollars more you get:

60 gig harddrive
WiFi
HDMI

The anti-PS3 FUD isn't even fun anymore. It has become boring.

Re:Scraping The Bottom Of The FUD Barrel (0, Troll)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707831)

The $ony guerilla marketing is gettingm ighty old too. Who the hell cares about these features, they are announced and not open to speculation or debate. Possibilities like TFA are.

Re:Scraping The Bottom Of The FUD Barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15707846)

A lot of the points in your list are speculation and rumors. There is some FUD against the PS3, but you need something stronger than rumors to fight it.

Oh, and 1080p over component is impossible.

Re:Scraping The Bottom Of The FUD Barrel (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15707900)

"Oh, and 1080p over component is impossible."

Gee, wonder why TV makers have sets that support 1080p component input?

Gee, wonder why you can buy 1080p rated component cables right now?

Gee, wonder how my current set is managing to do so...

Re:Scraping The Bottom Of The FUD Barrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15707949)

Every single developer that supported the PS2 onboard with their games for the PS3

What about SNK?

Where's Metal Slug going to be?

Oh yeah, that's right ... Sony said they didn't want 2D games on the PS3 thus eliminating 1/4 of PS2 game developers ...

1080p BluRay movies over component

Until content providers decide to plug the analogue hole, which will happen soon after Blu-Ray movies are ripped and released online (say, sometime in 2007 some companies will switch to HDMI only).

Free online play for all non-MMORPG titles - confirmed over and over again by Sony

Link please ...

Online movie and music store

Will this be DRM free? Will I be able to play them on my iPod? Will I be able to burn them to a CD? Oh what, these are foolish questions, the answer is no ...

Webbrowsing and other desktop apps

Its called a PC ('PeeCee') and I have one, as do you ... that is I don't care

Tilt controller

Correction Crappy Tilt controller

hm (2, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707796)

I don't get why the bothered patenting this, they will not, and could not, use it. People would leave the company and it would die instantly. going round to a mates house "oh, I got this ace game, but my PS3 is too big to carry with me and it won't play on yours... but we can look at the box". Not only that second hand games are a great source of revenue (despite what some people think). Over the last 2 days I've traded in about 6 games and bought two new ones, one itself was second hand (metriod DS) the other was new (new mario DS). So nintendo has really won because they get a sale they otherwise wouldn't have had and when I eventually trade in metriod/mario I might buy another new game... the market keeps going. They might not make as much money because people aren't always buying from them, but for me, if I didn't do that they wouldn't have got anything. Besides, I'm now going to buy a Ninty Wifi adapter for my DS so I can play online (even though it doesn't work on linux) so they will get even more money.

Re:hm (1)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707925)

An alternative is to just use any normal wireless router. The DS uses standard 802.11b for its online stuff. You don't have to use the proprietary wi-fi USB adapter, the DS can also connect with any standard 802.11b/g access point.

Re:hm (1)

computertheque (823940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708044)

Second hand games are not a source of revenue for game publishers. They create a cycle of profit for the resale shops though. Publishers only see revenue from the purchase of a brand new, unopened game. If it's used, 100% of that purchase goes to the resale shop. The only upside for publishers and development houses is that resale shops do provide a great system for game awareness, but this is a backhanded compliment in that they are not making any money from each new person that buys the single copy of a game that's been traded in by 15 different people.

BR disc players (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15707798)

I honestly think this would apply more to Blue ray movies, and disc players, than games. Sony may be crazy and racist, but they aren't stupid.. or are they stupid and racist but not crazy?

Either way, I doubt they would risk killing off the ps3 by doing this to games.

Could this be bypassed? (3, Interesting)

Elros (735454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707800)

Would some sort of hack to bypass the check/overwrite be possible. I realize that we have no example to work on, but I highly suspect that if Sony were to put this in a console, it would get bypassed in no time.

Re:Could this be bypassed? (1)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707904)

It would completely depend on how they implemented it. There is pretty much NOTHING that can't be bypassed/spoofed/hacked... it's just a matter of how long it takes and how much it costs to do it.

Re:Could this be bypassed? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708004)

Until console makers start vacuum sealing their consoles and making circuit boards out of special materials that vaporize when exposed to nitrogen, OF COURSE it can be bypassed.

Re:Could this be bypassed? (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708051)

Vacuum/Helium boxes to work in solve that problem - I recommend Helium, vacuum gloves are a pain to work with. Takes about 1 sheet of plexiglass, $10 of fittings and a $20 baloon canister of helium.

Re:Could this be bypassed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708119)

I can hear a Sony exec screaming at the tech department for not thinking of this earlier.

The true reason (-1, Troll)

DarthMojo (988504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707803)

Because getting the PS3 at a 599 price point is a gift from Sony they decided to challenge the regular users who go into ebgames and gamestop to drop 200 used games towards the purchase of a console. Because buying it outright in cash is the $ony way.

$500 (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708017)

Like many anti-sony people, you make the common mistake of thinking the base console price is $600 when in fact it is $500. That's already a lot of money, why inflate the figure arbitrarily? It just makes people suspect the rest of whatever you are talking about is similarily inaccurate or ill-considered. Basically the $600 is a "fanboy flag" that marks you as being anti-Sony out of the gate.

Odd idea, customer-wise... (1)

compilator (987349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707808)

What if my playstation burst in flames... and I need to get a new one?
Will I need to buy new discs for every games I own?

And what about bringing my games along with me at a friend's place, for a gaming evening on his machine?

"Fair use" anyone?

Re:Odd idea, customer-wise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15707982)

>What if my playstation burst in flames... and I need to get a new one?

Yes.

>Will I need to buy new discs for every games I own?

Yes.

>And what about bringing my games along with me at a friend's place, for a gaming evening on his machine?

Our research shows that gamers don't leave their parent's basements, so your question is irrational and stupid.

>"Fair use" anyone?

If by 'fair use', you mean our right to use our customers to make loads of cash, sure.

Thanks for your support,
Sony USA

Hmm.... (2)

another_fanboy (987962) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707809)

$600 for the PS3 and $70 per game, and now when my system dies in a year I have to buy it all again?

That's very incorrect (5, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707891)

The article is incorrect.

In ordinary transactions, when you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you buy it outright, you do not license it. Software is the only area in which licenses in
such transactions are really known. Even there, there is lively debate in the legal community as to whether or not the licenses are actually in effect. Cases
have gone both ways on the software issue.

Remember, a license is either implied or express, and if express, either oral or written. In these kinds of transactions, they'd pretty much have to be express
and written. They would resemble software EULAs in their content, length, and visibility. I have a lot of DVDs and a lot of CDs. I've never seen licenses in any
of them. Note that a (typically exaggerated or inaccurate) statement of law such as 'public performance is prohibited' (see 17 USC 106 for the law that says so)
is not a license. If you download music in some lawful fashion -- from iTunes, for example -- then you're likely doing so pursuant to a license agreement that
would've been quite prominent. This is necessary since downloading is reproduction, and would otherwise infringe. Implied licenses exist for works that are put
up on web sites authorizedly.

I also would point out that the article is wrong when it says that it's illegal to sell used music. It is perfectly legal and quite commonplace. Caselaw and 17
USC 109 make it noninfringing to do so.

Frankly, if this is the caliber of their reporting on these issues, I wouldn't bother wrapping fish with their paper.

Re:That's very incorrect (3, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707977)

I also would point out that the article is wrong when it says that it's illegal to sell used music. It is perfectly legal and quite commonplace. Caselaw and 17
USC 109 make it noninfringing to do so.


FWIW, she said selling COPIES of your music collection is illegal.

Re:That's very incorrect (1)

VanillaBabies (829417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708221)

As would be selling copies of books and movies. However, the rest of the quote implies that it would be illegal to sell originals due to the supposed license associated with those products, of which there is thankfully none. The article was either poorly researched or poorly written.

Umm... did they change the OTHER law to that too? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15707905)

When I buy a game, I buy a license to use that game. This license allows me to access the content using one of the defined accessing devices (i.e. game consoles).

Does the license dictate that I can only access it using a single specific console? Can the license dictate it? If it does not, am I entitled to getting additional media (since, quite obviously, it does not play on any access devices save a single one)?

Re:Umm... did they change the OTHER law to that to (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708309)

A license can dictate that, but a sale cannot. You didn't buy a licence, for a license is a contract. You picked up a box, put it on the counter (real or virtual) and exchanged money for an object. You can do what you damned well please with it (provided it doesn't violate any other laws).

The digital realm has offered companies the opportunity to claim that you are only licensing the content, not purchasing a product. That's a legal battle yet to be fought, but given the dollars and players involved, I foresee first sale doctrine being nullified - at least for all digital works - within the next decade.

Microsoft needs to license this... (1)

Icepole4 (978286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708021)

First of all, no way Sony is going to implement this so let's get over that now. They had the tech before the PS2 and PSP, if they were going to do it they would have done it. Besides it would be suicide for the PS3. It would seem Microsoft would be all over Sony to license this tech with rampant piracy of their software, OS, etc. Heck I don't think anybody I knew in college had an "authentic" copy of Microsoft Office. We got our hands on the disc and just copied it or passed it around to whoever needed it. This tech would have definitely put an end to that.

Re:Microsoft needs to license this... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708379)

"First of all, no way Sony is going to implement this so let's get over that now." The why did the patent it?
"It would seem Microsoft would be all over Sony to license this tech with rampant piracy of their software, OS, etc."
Not really. Microsoft had very little interest in preventing piracy of Windows. They wanted to be the standard. They want every new computer to come with a copy of windows on it. The more people that copy it the better in many ways. Microsoft didn't care that you and your friends copied Office. The want you to know it so when you go to work for a company that is what you and everybody else want to use. Your company will pay the big bucks for 5000 seats of Office because Microsoft would come after them.
Also PCs are not like consoles. There hardware is very open and it would be extremely difficult to create a workable copy protection system... Many have tried and failed.

Good for reducing prices (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708041)

This should serve as a method to reduce prices. It has got to bring them down in two different ways:

1: Because more games will be sold due to the inability to share games with your friends, and the ending of the Used Game market, game manufacturers and sellers can reduce prices and still make the same profits. In addition, the lower prices will further increase sales as they induce people to try games they would not have purchased before due to the lower prices. The risk of a bad game experience is reduced when the price is lower.

2: The prices should be reduced because the value of the game is now correspondingly less. Before a game had residual value after you were done with it. You could sell or trade it for a game you hadn't played yet. With this reduction in value of the new games, they should be priced less because you're getting less.

Sure, yeah, right -- greedy bastards!

Re:Good for reducing prices (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708326)

Pricing is perceived value and the rate people are willing to pay for an object, not the relative value to an item which no longer exists.

Have you stopped using gasoline because the price has tripled? Will you get a reduction in cost because the ethanol laced gasoline provides fewer miles-per-gallon due to lower energy density? Of course not. Supply and demand drive prices, not value.

The toilet paper business model (1)

krell (896769) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708059)

White Cloud has all those shiny happy profits, because (sure enough!), you just don't re-use their products. I think Sony is in the wrong business. I know with this news, I'd not consider a Sony console without making sure that there is some sort of reliable backup to keep the media safe from being vandalized in this fashion when it is the console.

Call for "zonked" flag (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708060)

Slow news week for consoles? WHy not dredge up an older anti-Sony story - no need to worry about it being killed already by Sony previously saying they wouldn't make use of this technique. Bring it up again so that people will THINK they will!

It's all about the FUD and this is the minimum weekly dose.

Re:Call for "zonked" flag (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708380)

mod parent up, I'm really getting sick of all of this, and it's really turning me off to /.

License is irrelevant (1)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708082)

From the article:
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.

The fact that you're buying a license in many circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of whether copying violates copyright law. A simple analogy should explain it:

When I buy a book, I am buying the book, not simply a license to read the book. However, because the book is copyrighted, I do not have a right to make copies of the book because the work is copyrighted.

It's that simple. A license for software (or music or a movie) usually takes away rights you would have had if you had just purchased outright a copy of the software. But the right to make copies is not one of those rights, because you never had that right anyway.

Why This is an Issue (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708111)

Why this is an issue at all is because Sony simply isn't trusted any more by just about everybody! We don't believe what they say they'll do, that they'll keep any promises that don't have their feet held to the fire, or that they won't try to screw us out of every list dime (pence, lira, yen, won...) in our pockets. That's why this is an issue despite any and everything Sony says to the contrary.

Other reasons? (2, Insightful)

tenton (181778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708131)

So, nobody thinks that this might be used for developmental purposes or beta testing? Perhaps for developmental systems (and software for a dev machine) or for beta testing? That's always been my first guess on what the purpose of this was.

An Incorrect Clause in the original post. (2, Informative)

CherniyVolk (513591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708180)


That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.

This is inherently not true. Otherwise, garage sales, individual sales and even medium sized business sales would be illegal. Pawn shops, and record shops who, I garuntee do not pay royalties to noone on resale of digital content (whether it be a game medium or CD/DVD). For the price they buy it from the customers, it's often more expensive to download the CD (even on 'illegal' networks) than the return on selling one to a pawn shop (you might get a 0.25 cents from a pawn shop).

There is nothing illegal about me selling my Metallica Master of Puppets CD to a friend; in contrast, there's nothing illegal about me giving it to him either. There's nothing illegal about me buying a CD, and throwing it in the trash (to imply that the whole idea of 'you only get a license' is BS, becuase you OWN a physical peace of merchandise. In contrast, when you finance a car, the bank OWNs the car, and they have legal right to REPOSESS the car in the case of non-payment. Record companies have NO right to reposess a CD from any individual who has purchased one, so ownership of that property is more than just a license grant.)

WTF ! LA Times forgot about First sale doctrine !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708192)

ARGH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [wikipedia.org]

Sorry for posting as AC, just needed to shoot this in, before too many folks forgot about this.

DS games have this, of a sort (1)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708205)

The Nintendo Wi-Fi Connect system identifies gamers via Friend Codes. These codes are generated as a function of the game card's unique serial number and the DS's unique serial number (likely the MAC address). If you try to use the same game card in two different DSes, say moving from a regular DS to a DS Lite, you will wind up with a new Friend Code and be unable to use the old one (as a game card cannot be tied to more than one DS at a time).

It's a similar mechanism with the notable and welcome difference that buying the game doesn't lock you into the game for all of eternity; conversely, people who want to buy the game aren't screwed if they choose to save a few bucks and line EB's pockets.

Still, with all the "nothing should impede used games" FUD that Slashdot spreads, I'm surprised that nobody's bitching Nintendo out for minimizing piracy while still ensuring fair use rights.

The usual disclaimers: I own a DS and not a PSP. I'm OK with DRM that doesn't actively screw me over because nine times out of ten when I buy something without a physical medium, I mean to keep it (and the DRMed things I do buy, I do keep); it's called a compromise, learn it use it love it. I believe game makers have to choose: physical medium or DRM, one or the other, not both. I realize that admitting being a mild Nintendo fanboy doesn't excuse it; but I'm not calling Nintendo out, just the anti-DRM fanboys. Mod me a troll if you want, but I want to know why nobody's raised a fit about the DS weak DRM yet? After all, DRM = always bad, right? Or maybe, just maybe, that whole "compromise" thing might just make sense?

Re:DS games have this, of a sort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15708374)

sorry, but your info regarding the DS is wrong. under the WI-FI->OPTIONS menu, there is an ability to transfer your wi-fi settings - including your friends code.

nobody has raised a fit about the DS's DRM because there isn't one.

But if that's true . . . (1)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708215)

"Whatever Sony's plans, the tempest [over the patent] illustrates the changing nature of ownership as millions of people accumulate vast collections of digital entertainment. Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.

Well, that's what the media monopolies claim you're buying. The courts haven't agreed that this is binding on the buyer, and since even their own ads say "own it on dvd", not "license it on dvd" they might not. If they do find in favor of the media monopolies, you will be unable to sell even your original copies of purchased media because the license will be "non-transferable". The law of First Sale prohibits this kind of crap for standard purchases (which is why they're using this 'license to access' method). But it is/were true, since I'm buying an license to listen/watch it would seem to undercut their legal basis for controlling what carrier I listen/watch it on.

If MY ps3 breaks... (1)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708322)

I am not only out the what, $1000 console, but also the games worth hundreds or thousands of dollars? This sounds line the grounds for a whale of a law suit, but of cource, that leaves the consumers screwed and a dirtbag^^^^^^^lawyer rich...

A purchase is a purchase, not a lease (1)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708331)

When I buy a music CD, I am buying a physical product, not a lease. I exchange my money for a physical product, and it becomes mine. I also have the right to make a working copy of that particular CD, and resell it as it is a physical product which I legally own.

There is no lease, so quit trying to propogate that kind of bullshit.

Re:A purchase is a purchase, not a lease (2, Informative)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15708371)

You are wrong. If you live in the U.S., or are under any sort of international copyright law, you do not have the right to copy content unless the owner of that content gives it to you. I know it's fun to delude yourself into thinking you can, but you can't.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>