Another Patent from Sony Concerning Used/Rented/Borrowed Games

This one appears to be a little better than the last one, although, depending on how it is implemented, is still just as undesirable from a consumer standpoint:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...52".PGNR.&OS=DN/20060069752&RS=DN/20060069752

For an explanation on the patent, read this (I didn't even read the link I gave above):
http://www.neogaf.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=32

For even more clarification and/or interpretations, here's the forum thread at NeoGAF concerning that article:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118192
(Panajev2001a and maybe a few other members like TTP seem to understand the patent and its possible usage best).

I'd try to explain it, but I don't think I fully understand it myself. In any case, it seems like there could be a shift in how we buy and play games in the future if Sony (and possibly others) use the business model mentioned in this patent (could be as early as this year, when the PS3 launches...though services like XBLA and Steam kind of do so already). Seems like it could really help out developers, but the restrictions placed on consumers could be a bit too much to really warrant such a move (at least in the present).

Of course, much like other patents, there's nothing actually saying that any of this WILL happen, at least so soon (and in the exact implementation mentioned in the patent). I think Sony patented the tech for the PS3 controller back in the 90's or so IIRC.

BTW, I'm not sure exactly why Pana used the word entitlements in that article (as well as the forums). I don't believe that the patent uses that word, but if that is what Sony is calling this, then it seems almost for certain that the PS3 will be using at least some of the ideas in this patent (see past PowerPoint slides where "Entitlement Management" was one of the features of the PS3, listed under "Commerce").

Just another possible thing we might find out more about at TGS I guess.

 

I don't mind them screwing used game retailers or retailers that offer rentals. Unless they started giving a percentage of their profits to developers, I don't really care if they are screwed (might even want them out of the way sometime down the line). Of course, depending on how you interpret the patent, it might be possible for this model to be used while not even really hurting the used game and rental businesses (might even help).

I'm more concerned about how the consumer might end up being screwed under this model. It might be possible that things could turn out to be even better than they are now, but it seems MUCH more likely that things would turn out to be worse...possibly much worse (this is a big corporation implementing this...and one that has screwed over consumers before in other copyright-related issues).

Even if this doesn't happen exactly as stated, I'm pretty sure things might start heading down a similar path (already has to some degree). It is an interesting topic to read about and discuss IMO.

 

I don't think it is so much that they don't get much money from new games. It is more about the profit margins from used games being MUCH higher than new games. Think about how much EB/GS give you for used games (not very much, at least compared to say eBay), and then they turn around and sell the games for $5-$10 less than the new price. Some games probably switch hands from the stores to consumers several times, and the stores might end up getting at least $5-$10 profit every time.

The more used games they sell, the more profit they end up making from what I could tell. Especially if people take in-store credit, but don't ever end up using it.

 

Ideally, this would still be possible, although you might find yourself getting your games from other individuals rather than say Gamestop, EB, etc. (though it might still be possible for them to sell used games). Basically, you work out a deal with someone else to "transfer" the authorization to play the game from his/her console to your console. I'm not sure, given the wording of the patent (or the feasibility of things), if that means that the transaction must be done through the network, or if the only thing that needs to be done through the network is the transfer of rights (basically cash vs credit card/prepaid cards). There seems to be a transfer charge that one or both of you might have to pay, although that can be factored into the transaction I suppose (price for used game + transfer charge = final price); there might not even be a transfer charge, although I imagine that there will be in order to maintain this service, as well as to give developers a small piece of the pie.

Strangely enough, I suppose the seller of said game could still actually play the game on his/her console in this example, although it would be running from the HDD in "demo" mode...whatever that means. Also, he/she will get some points for "sharing" the game, which would be used for something on the network (themes, pictures, microtransactions, etc.). Kind of like a Collector's edition versus the regular verion I guess (people who want the extra stuff will pay for it; people who just want the game will pay less).

Of course, if developers are getting more money per game sold (and more games sold), they might be more willing to lower game prices more so than they have in the past (especially since there would be an increase in revenue thanks to in-game advertising and microtransactions). Basically what DaDakota said.

There was also the idea that there might be an incentive to buy games new. I don't think this was addressed in the patent or the article, but I guess it would be possible for the system and network to know if the game you're playing has never been played before (IOW, it is new). Perhaps they could persuade people to buy games new by either giving them more bonus points, or perhaps giving you free themes or whatever (basically microtransactions for free).

Actually, with all the data that could be received with this model, there are a number of things that could happen (sell your copy of MGS4 a few weeks prior to MGS5, and you'll get free maps for MGS5...or something).

Or if your console breaks (or if you just happen to have 2 consoles), playing the same game on 2 systems might prove to be a hassle (at the very least). It is this type of stuff I don't like.

I'm not sure if it would work out, but I don't see why they couldn't pair up the User ID and the Disc IDs. Perhaps you might have to authorize which systems you will end up using (doesn't Itunes do this, or something like it?), but it seems like it would be possible to play one game on multiple systems (assuming you're the one doing the playing...lending out a game might still be a problem, unless maybe you give them your User ID too...yeah, smart idea). I guess if you wanted to give someone your game, there might be a special option for that, where basically the game is sold for $0 (maybe a transfer charge, although I guess the charge could be a % of the transaction, in which case, no transfer charge here). In that case though, I don't think you should end up getting the network points for sharing since you could just keep on "sharing" and get a bunch of points (unless, maybe, there was 1-transfer limit between 2 people for getting points). This brings up the point that, considering how much relies on this system working, there better not be any bugs whatsoever.


Note that everything in this post is based on my current understanding of this model (and basically the best case scenario too). As I said, I'm not completely sure on how everything works, so I might have missed something somewhere. I'm basically rehashing things that were mentioned in the article or the forum thread, so I strongly suggest you guys read through it all, despite how much has already been said (340+ posts currently in the thread so far).

 

Might make a better post about this later (watching UT game right now), but here's something.

As far as I know, it is VERY difficult for a developer to make a profit on a game, or even break even. Maybe DaDakota can comment on this. IIRC, I thought I saw some figures that 90% of game revenues came from 10% of the software (GTA, Madden, Halo, etc., while the average game got squat). Any kind of extra revenue they can get (be it from advertising, microtransactions, or even a restructuring of how used games are sold) can really make a difference in determining a game's success (or even a developer's success).

Charging less for a game is certainly something I'd like to see done in the industry, but it is extremely risky (much like a move restricting the usage of used games). Selling a game for less might end up hurting you a lot more than it might end up helping you (especially depending on how the royalties will end up working...not sure if/how they would be affected).

BTW, I should note that despite all I've said about developers missing out on sales of used games and people renting games, probably 90% of the games I play are either used or rented. So as a consumer/gamer, I definitely understand the appeal (price is what it all comes down to basically).

edit: As for why they're doing this now (or sometime soon anyway), I'd guess that's because the technology is there to do so. This requires a connection to the Internet (or the PS network basically), and that's something that was only started in the last 5 years or so (and even then, only a small percentage take their consoles online). If they could have done so during the NES/SNES/PS1/etc. days, they probably would have.

I don't really know enough about the other goods (books, movies, music) to really explain the differences between selling those products used versus selling games used. I'd have to know things like where the majority of their profits are made and things like that.

 

Something that is, at the very least, related to this:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118700
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4273922&postcount=1
This could be how Sony starts the move over to the model mentioned previously.