By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - New DRM on PSN: Forced Online

 

New DRM on PSN: Forced Online

Awesome! I don't need my... 10 20.41%
 
Wait, what!? DRM on a DRM'd system? 39 79.59%
 
Total:49
joeorc on 24 April 2010
KylieDog said:
joeorc said:
KylieDog said:
joeorc said:
papflesje said:
@Kyliedog: Can you give more explanation about it, never heard about DRM options on PSN before.

like i said before 3RD party's can have their own DRM!

example:

Your access to third party content and services may be subject to third party terms and conditions which you should read and understand before you access those services and any complaints about those services should be made to the third party provider. All content and services purchased through the PlayStation®Store, including in-game stores which are part of the PlayStation®Store, are sold to you by us, including where you access the PlayStation®Store via a third party game or website.

3rd party can have their own DRM.

a good example of this is netflix they have their own DRM.

 

 

You are reaching and reading stuff not there.  First Netflix runs different to games on PSN.  Secondly it does not state anywhere publishers can use their own DRM, those third party terms and conditions are not to do with the PS Store side of things, that is SONYs business.  They are for what is in the content, like a third party may want to drop online multiplayer support for a game after a set time.

How am I:

you do know 3rd party's can run their own server's for game's!

first of all every Net flix DVD has it's own encryption right on the disc.

here is a question: does Sony publish every PS3 game on the PS3?

that answer is no!

your trying to say every 3RD party has to use Sony's DRM or else, which is not true at all.

Sony offer's the developer's DRM to use, but as long as the 3rd party's DRM is compliant it can be used.

if that was the case Netflix would have to use Sony DRM just like any other  game! in order to run.

 

 

 

@ the red.

 

How you you reach the third line with the first two?  There is no link there at all.   I've already said Sony do not publish all games, but publishers and devs DO have to use Sonys DRM options.

 

Netflix is not a game, its a service run on PS3.

so what if it's a service so is a game! they are both entertainment!

look you have yet to prove that 3rd party's cannot use their own DRM. if netflix can have DRM on a blu-ray disc outside of Sony publishing it so could other game publisher's!

example:

Dragon’s Lair

published outside of Sony and has it's own DRM

 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
almcchesney on 24 April 2010

@kylie dog
yea its a program inside the game that checks your psn account name and tries to match it and when it sees it doesnt returns an error, simple enough. that is capcom who did this otherwise they would patch every single sony published psn game to use your so called "sony's drm" and thats not gonna happen. your looking way to into it.



Loud_Hot_White_Box on 24 April 2010
KylieDog said:
Wagram said:
KylieDog said:
Wagram said:
finalsquall said:
I think you better sell your ps3 and get an xbox... They said sorry :P

Uhhhh....What?

This is capcoms doing not Sonys.

 

No, it is Sonys.   Sony create the DRM options for publishers to use.

Twist it whatever way you want. But Sony isn't FORCING them to make games online only.

 

Sony created the DRM option for a reason.  There is no twisting, that is just fact, but its cool to hate on Capcom even when Sony is the one responsible.

Sony is the one responsible for having a default policy of allowing 5 copies of each PSN game.  Publishers can then make their own more restrictive policies. 

So if Sony doesn't go to bat against all publishers on our behalf, and if Capcom makes a restrictive requirement, you're saying it's not Capcom's fault, it's Sony's?  That's ridiculous.

Elsewhere you argue that other games also have similar online requirements.  The thread linking the two assertions is that you are trying to defend Capcom at all costs. 

5 copies is extremely liberal.  2 or 3 would be enough...and Capcom could perhaps have limited the game to 2 copies or something.  Or perhaps Sony would have done it for them.

Sony created the DRM option for a reason: so that Capcom and others could choose to walk the plank, which Capcom are cheerfully doing here.



Loud_Hot_White_Box on 24 April 2010
KylieDog said:
JerCotter7 said:
A PSN game that requires you to be online? GT5:P forced me to do this as well? About 2 years ago.

 

But that is a Sony game, you are only allowed to hate on third parties who do this, unless they make Braid and other sgames that also already did this.  Inf act unless they are Capcom you are not allowed to say anything bad about it.

Then it would be proper to say that others have done it as well, but not that this is "Sony's fault."  The fact that you said it is Sony's fault rather than Capcom's shows that you are just out to defend Capcom.  But if Sony and other publishers do it, it's not their fault either, if it isn't Capcom's here.

I also think that a copy-limitation on a $40 game makes a lot more sense.  And yes, it would make sense for Capcom, too.  If they had SSFIV as a download option, they shouldn't allow 5 installs according to Sony's ultra-friendly policy.  That would lose them a ton of money.



Damnyouall on 24 April 2010

I hope the 3 votes in favor are joke votes... for the sake of the human race.

This is another example of DRM failing on all levels.



"Well certainly with the Xbox 360, we had some challenges at the launch. Once we identified that we took control of it. We wanted to do it right by our customers. Our customers are very important to us." -Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb (10/2013). Note: RRoD was fixed with the Jasper-revision 3 years after the launch of 360

"People don't pay attention to a lot of the details."-Yusuf Mehdi explaining why Xbone DRM scheme would succeed

"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it's called Xbox 360,”-Don Mattrick

"The region locking of the 3DS wasn't done for profits on games"-MDMAlliance

Around the Network
radiantshadow92 on 24 April 2010
KylieDog said:
So much fail in this thread. I'm not going to bother responding to people posting bullshit anymore because there is a clear Sony bias from some people which means they want to close their eyes put hands over ears and scream its Capcoms fault. Nobody can put a game on PSN unless they use one of Sonys DRM options, if they don't, Sony will not allow it on PSN.

Was it not Capcom to pick this DRM option though? I don't really care who's fought it is, but it looks like Capcom decided this. I mean Sony did not tell them to do it, right?



greenmedic88 on 25 April 2010
KylieDog said:
radiantshadow92 said:
KylieDog said:
So much fail in this thread. I'm not going to bother responding to people posting bullshit anymore because there is a clear Sony bias from some people which means they want to close their eyes put hands over ears and scream its Capcoms fault. Nobody can put a game on PSN unless they use one of Sonys DRM options, if they don't, Sony will not allow it on PSN.

Was it not Capcom to pick this DRM option though? I don't really care who's fought it is, but it looks like Capcom decided this. I mean Sony did not tell them to do it, right?

 

Capcom wanted a better DRM than the one most games use, this is the only other option besides a one time download only that I mentioned above in a post.  Would people have preferred that?  I cannot be bothered responding the the double standards of Sony and others doing this for years now and people only complaining when Capcom does it.

 

I honestly don't see what the issue is anyway, ignoring the huge amount of bullshit scenarios people post on the internet (like everyone suddenly using LINUX and suffering the loss even though a month ago almost nobody used it) I doubt there are many people who actively play on more than 1 PS3 console in a 24 hour time span, I doubt many people even have 2 PS3 consoles, let alone 2 actively used ones.  I seriously doubt many people do not have the ability to connect online at will either, for most people this isn't an issue and incase people do have very limited capped broadband connecting to PSN for 5 seconds while the game launches then disconnecting isn't going to drain shit from their usage.  Any comments like "but what if in 20 years I want to play" are worthless because for all we know PS3s will still be able to connect to PSN then, just not access any new content, or near end of PS3s life Sony could alter the licensing to remove the sign-in need.

I think a lot of the complaints are unwarranted and coming from individuals who this doesn't even apply to directly.

Some people just like to bitch about anything and everything, particularly when it comes to anything game related.

And some are protesting since this could set up a bad precident for other publishers, which is a legitimate concern.

But... always online DRM is kind of stupid for a console IMO, even for a console that is typically always connected to the net. There are plenty of consoles that aren't connected at all (which would mean they don't download/buy PSN games anyway). Rare is the case where users only connect when they want to access the online media store portal and then immediately disconnect once they have their games/demos/media (actually used to do this with the Xbox 360 before I was able to plug it directly into the router via ethernet).

I'll be the first to say that SCE's inherent "5 console activation limit" DRM has probably cost publishers a significant amount of money, given the number of users who abuse this by going family style on PSN games with friends, but there's probably a better solution than the one Capcom has come up with.

And yes, I actually install my PSN games on two consoles that I own (and I've bought a lot of PSN titles over the years), one of which isn't always connected to the net, but rare set ups like mine don't warrant the number of bitch complaints we've been seeing.

 

 



Galaki on 25 April 2010

Remember how you were taught that sharing is good when you were young?

Me neither.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

papflesje on 25 April 2010
Damnyouall said:

I hope the 3 votes in favor are joke votes... for the sake of the human race.

This is another example of DRM failing on all levels.

So... you gave two stupid options for a poll, not giving anyone actually a chance to vote for some options that would've actually helped discussion and then you bitch about people who probably just pressed on the poll either to screw with the poll, because they actually believe, because that option was closest to what they wanted to say, just to do you a favour?

 

 

When you give good options for a poll and it then turns out completely to what you thought, then complain.

 

If you go "Which team is better, Man utd or chelsea" and then give the options "MAN UTD SUCKS" "FOOTBALL FANS ARE FAGS", don't complain that people actually choose one of the two options.