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

Forums - Sony - Sony now requires online check in for purchased PSN games

Chrkeller said:

Can someone explain something to me? We have a thread bashing Sony, while someone in the same thread is claiming Sony gets a free pass.. am I the only one who is baffled and sees the clear paradox?

My guy, you are literally saying this is a "non-story", a "Boogeyman", a "minor anti-piracy thing" in this very thread.



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
TheRealSamusAran said:

Isn't it "one time" every time you purchase a new game? If you check-in, then buy another game and try to use that exploit, what do you think will happen?

"In the former case, respectfully, what's so wrong about that?"

And even in that case, it's as wrong as Nintendo going after piracy. There has been so much discourse about we not owning console X, Y or Z, but here is a clear example of Sony telling us what we can't do with the console we paid for. And before anyone says that refunding a digital game and keeping it is stealing, tell me, what downloading a ROM is then?

And btw, the only PlayStation I have is an old PS2 from a bygone era. I just want to see public discourse about something being consistent for once.

Nintendo isn't wrong for going after piracy and downloading roms is piracy.  

My view is something like pirating S1 or S2 games is flatly stealing.  I think downloading older games that are not reasonably available is still technically piracy but has an edge of justification.   One those games are not being sold new anymore, thus revenue back to the developers is not circumvented.  Two, reasonable access.  I wanted to play Soul Blazer earlier this year, not a whole lot of options.   

As for consistency, here you go.  MS, Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic all have a right to prevent piracy and there isn't anything wrong with a harmless internet background check that has zero impact on 99.9% of gamers.  

Which is a thing they don't do, Nintendo only tackles on Switch piracy, and they're on their right to do so. My personal views on piracy is that I don't care if someone does it or not, but it objectively *does* hurt sales of modern games (which yes, it is a thing that piracy advocates claim that it doesn't happen), and game companies are in their right to fight against it. Having to online check every new game for 30 days is still not great.



TheRealSamusAran said:
Chrkeller said:

Can someone explain something to me? We have a thread bashing Sony, while someone in the same thread is claiming Sony gets a free pass.. am I the only one who is baffled and sees the clear paradox?

My guy, you are literally saying this is a "non-story", a "Boogeyman", a "minor anti-piracy thing" in this very thread.

I am, most aren't.  Your view seemed to be the forum is giving Sony a pass, most aren't.  The forum shouldn't be held to my personal thoughts.  

either way, feels like we are mostly aligned.  Anti-piracy is fair by all companies, the check-in isn't great, but not a huge deal.



rtx 4090, 32 gb ram, i7-13700k

Switch 2

Very weird decision.
This will cause a decline in PS5 sales. Who cares? ;)



Video games and consoles collector from Poland.

SonicWariatPOL said:

Very weird decision.
This will cause a decline in PS5 sales. Who cares? ;)

Really?  You think the average gamer will even know?  Those who know probably already have a ps5.  The price increase will hurt sales 1000x more than this.



rtx 4090, 32 gb ram, i7-13700k

Switch 2

Around the Network
TheRealSamusAran said:
Chrkeller said:

Nintendo isn't wrong for going after piracy and downloading roms is piracy.  

My view is something like pirating S1 or S2 games is flatly stealing.  I think downloading older games that are not reasonably available is still technically piracy but has an edge of justification.   One those games are not being sold new anymore, thus revenue back to the developers is not circumvented.  Two, reasonable access.  I wanted to play Soul Blazer earlier this year, not a whole lot of options.   

As for consistency, here you go.  MS, Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic all have a right to prevent piracy and there isn't anything wrong with a harmless internet background check that has zero impact on 99.9% of gamers.  

Which is a thing they don't do, Nintendo only tackles on Switch piracy, and they're on their right to do so. My personal views on piracy is that I don't care if someone does it or not, but it objectively *does* hurt sales of modern games (which yes, it is a thing that piracy advocates claim that it doesn't happen), and game companies are in their right to fight against it. Having to online check every new game for 30 days is still not great.

You only have to check it once.

Apparently it happens in the 15h day after purchase, the game will be issued a 14 days license which, without needing internet connection later, will automatically turn into a permanent license on the system into the 15th day.

You don't need to check games for 30 days, just once.

The period is 14 days because that is the refund period for digital games, which was being sploited via support chat by jailbroken PS4s.

It's still not optimal, but it really is not the kind of problem we initially thought it was. There is no constant DRM being applied to games, at all 

IMO, this check needs to happen immediatly after you first launch the game, Sony will hardly every refund a game you have already played (extremely rare exceptions being broken mess launches like Cyberpunk 2077), so if refund will be very rare regardless, downloading the game (you'll need internet for that) and immediatly booting it up should already transition the license status from temporary to permanent, in which case that would be 100% a non issue.



While this change should not have been made, thankfully the awful monthly check-in is not a thing until Sony or someone might implement it in the future. The only time I lose internet are brief connection issues from my device, Wi-Fi, or maybe a 24-hour outage from the internet provider.
I still think online checks are scummy, but this is not as awful as it seemed.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 159 million (was 73 million, then 96 million, then 113 million, then 125 million, then 144 million, then 151 million, then 156 million, then 161 million)

PS5: 116 million (was 105 million, then 115 million, then 122 million)

Xbox Series X/S: 38 million (was 60 million, then 67 million, then 57 million. then 48 million. then 40 million)

Switch 2: 120 million (was 116 million)

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

I have no idea what is wrong with the big platform holders. They sell consoles, yet they make the experience so subpar in comparison to PC, at some point most of their customers are going to migrate to Steam, retro, or the seven seas.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

can we update the topic/title now that we know this is just for the refund window



TheRealSamusAran said:
Chrkeller said:

Nintendo isn't wrong for going after piracy and downloading roms is piracy.  

My view is something like pirating S1 or S2 games is flatly stealing.  I think downloading older games that are not reasonably available is still technically piracy but has an edge of justification.   One those games are not being sold new anymore, thus revenue back to the developers is not circumvented.  Two, reasonable access.  I wanted to play Soul Blazer earlier this year, not a whole lot of options.   

As for consistency, here you go.  MS, Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic all have a right to prevent piracy and there isn't anything wrong with a harmless internet background check that has zero impact on 99.9% of gamers.  

Which is a thing they don't do, Nintendo only tackles on Switch piracy, and they're on their right to do so. My personal views on piracy is that I don't care if someone does it or not, but it objectively *does* hurt sales of modern games (which yes, it is a thing that piracy advocates claim that it doesn't happen), and game companies are in their right to fight against it. Having to online check every new game for 30 days is still not great.

1 time check, it's all you need. You have 10 new games in the last 30 days? > 1 single online connection > Done, you don't need New connections.

I see no problem with this.

Imho, this thread should be locked. Rumor was debunked.

Last edited by Manlytears - on 30 April 2026