PSN game sharing to become more exclusive

@ShadowSoldier89 Me too man, it's about time they did that.

@ShadowSoldier89

I can finally deactivate my account off 2 ps3's that either broke or got stolen.

This is incredibly short sighted and will drastically affect profits and hurt small devs. Some of you decrying 'gamesharing' as piracy have not fully thought it through. Gamesharers not only spend money on the games they share, but they buy tons more than non-gamesharers. We buy all those little hyped games -- giving much needed sales to all the little devs that otherwise get ignored. Sure, we don't spend full price per person, but we spend far more money on games simply because we can share them. For example, there are many $10 games I would never, ever buy. However, if my group wants them, I don't mind spending $2. I do it all the time.
I spend hundreds of dollars a year on PSN because of gamesharing, and so do the other 4 in my group. You know how much I spent before I got into gamesharing? $10. One game, over the course of over a year.
You holier than though 'anti-gamesharing' people simply have not thought about the significant ramifications of your stance. You're so glad you spend full price, and you think that somehow gives you 'integrity'. Sure. Let me tell you this -- it's our gamesharing dollars that support the small developers. Get over yourselves. You do not keep the gears of PSN turning, we do. And Sony will soon regret this decision, as our wallets dry up.

@ferret
While my case isn't like this one of my friends would buy a game. I'd try it out, if I liked it I then bought it. It's the reason why I got Arcana Hearts 3. I wasn't about to lay down $40 especially with no demo.

@ferret I don't understand. Apparently because you and your friends spend money while gamesharing, everyone else does too? I gameshare a lot myself (littlebigplanet DLC is so godamn expensive) but I don't think I spend more money on PSN because of it.

@Hank Hill
you can't gameshare without someone spending money. the entire point of the gamesharing community (and it's a large one) is that the established group of 5 people split the cost. this enables us to buy almost everything that comes out -- thus supporting the small devs with no brand awareness. If we haven't heard of something, we generally just buy it anyway since it's only $2 a person. None of us would ever think to buy full price at $10 to $20. Sure, I'll probably still buy the next Pixeljunk game, but good luck getting me to buy any of the hundreds of games I've bought thanks to gamesharing. It sounds like you don't understand the gamesharing community and think of it as you sharing some LBP dlc with your buddy... that's not the community. I know of many, many groups that buy pretty much everything that comes out, every week. We're going from spending a ton of money a week to.... um.... well, maybe i'll buy the next pixeljunk game. Sony is turning off a cash faucet -- as I said, I'll never buy a PSN game for $15, but I'll never not buy one if my group wants it for $3 (the gameshared price). That's $3 sony and the dev get to share (and $15 total) that they would not get otherwise. It's sad, because it will directly affect sales of games that nobody has heard of, the ones most people will never buy full price... but we do.

Some of the anti-gameshare people simply don't understand the economics of it. They think that we're pirating -- we're not, we're paying for the game. They think that we're stealing - we're not, we're paying for the game. They think we hurt developers -- we don't, we help them by supporting their games by buying them. I can almost guarantee I've spent more on PSN (just my share alone) than the vast majority of people. I own 95% of the games on PSN. That's my money in Sony's hands. And now? I won't be buying anything, because while any game is worth $2 or $3 gameshared, no game is worth it to me at $15. Sad but true. And I am not alone. It's simple economics -- raise the price, and demand will fall. And those hurt worst will be the small developers that don't get the press games like Shatter, PixelJunk X, Braid, and Dead Nation get.

@ferret

Totally agree with you. I think this is gonna end up having the opposite of the desired effect for Sony. In aggregate, people are going to buy less games, not more. Like you said, people are willing to pay a lot more for games, knowing their friends will get access to them also. From my perspective, the value of all PSN games just dropped significantly. So unless they price of all PSN games drops 75% on Nov 18th, I will be buying a hell of a lot less PSN content. I think it's another false assumption that each "shared" game is a missed sale, cause it's not, not by a long shot.

I have a suspicion though that Sony is actually trying to create an artificial surge in psn game sales as everyone buys a bunch of games before Nov 18th, so they'll be accessible for their friends, as all purchases before Nov 18 will still be shareable on 5 systems. (Still not sure how you'll have old games that are allowed on 5 systems, and some that are on 2, which makes me more suspicious) So then a few weeks after pulling access on 5 systems, Sony will respond to "popular demand" and give the access back, while flattering themselves with how much they look out for their customers. But then again Sony usually isn't that smart, so my suspicions are likely wrong.

Another side effect - no one will ever consider buying a 3rd PS3 now.

@ferret
Somehow, ferret, the vehemence of your reply--just like replies to various anti-piracy measures--are less about how it's going to hurt Sony and more about how its going to make you pay full price for the games you want to play (rather than 20%). And no, I'm not calling gamesharing piracy. Just pointing out a bit of similar hypocrisy.

I think in a VERY small # of cases, you may be right. But for the most part its reasonable to assume that people buy games because they want to play those games. And if only one person out of the 5 in a gameshare group likes a game enough to buy it for themselves, then the company just made the exact same amount of profit as your group. And if just 2 out of the 5 in your group like it enough to buy it, the company's profits just DOUBLED.

Let's say a company that produces My Little Pony Carnival Cavalcade never would have gotten your money without your gameshare group (because one member wanted it). Okay. I can believe that. But what about the really killer downloads? The ones that everyone in your group wanted? Did you each buy an individual copy, you know, to support those developers that you care so much? Or did you just cut 80% of their profit out by gamesharing that title, too?

@ferret Here's my take. When individuals -- such as yourself -- make rational arguments about sensitive subjects -- such as this one -- it often invokes the 'tunnel vision' response because too much sentiment and mechanical effort has been invested into this false-hood or denouncing game-sharing.

We have a growing audience of disgruntled gamers and slip-shot developers who're qualifying 'failure' with 'not the most maximised profits'. As though some of these gems didn't already sell well enough, but that's another issue for another time.

Short end of it: I totally agree with you and hope that others can look beyond their blinders and stop buying into these short-sighted economic arguments that actually defy the fundamentals of logistics and consumer psychology. It's high time that consumers took charge of their expected role in a free market rather than buying into false rhetoric.

@Zippon Nice attempt at missing the point. Unfortunately, I doubt that you missed it unintentionally.

Confirmation biases are. . . I'll save the language. This isn't 2007 on PSPfanboy.com anymore.

@JimmyHACK
It's not "stealing", and it was announced as a feature by Jack Tretton himself.
I rarely share with my friends anymore anyway, but I can tell you right now, I bought A LOT of Rock Band songs because of this, songs I would have never considered.

@mywhitenoise
i honestly think that was a misinterpreted feature...
i think when he said you could share the content with 5 ps3's i think he meant share amoung 5 ps3s that you have access to... case and point there were a number of people who got their account suspended because of game sharing... if we were aloowed to share with friends then why would peoples accounts be suspended over it?

@JimmyHACK Yea, well I have 3 systems.

@JimmyHACK Yeah, awesome, stealing, right. If this was retroactive or had been in effect since the beginning, I'd be out of luck. My PS3 broke so I bought a new one and I have a PSP. That's three consoles activated for my PSP games, one more than will be possible now. So I'd be able to play my PSP games on one or the other, not both. This is bullshit.

@Teus
No, he specifically said you could share games with 4 other friends, not 4 other PS3s.

@Roto13 - "you'll be able to deactivate and reactivate consoles online"

So, you'll be able to deactivate that old PS3 and it shouldn't be an issue.

It should have been 3 systems. Thankfully they kept it to 5 this long tho, considering how many dead PS3s I've had to replace. I've had to have Sony clean out my account because when they send you a refurbished system to replace YLOD's systems they dont remove the old one from your account. at this point there are so many PS3s that they HAD to offer this or theyd be cleaning out accounts forever. But the Vita better not count as a PSP because I already have two of those.

@Teus

Nope.

If a player logs into his PlayStation 3 account on a friend's system, he can download any game he has already purchased. "You can send that content to four other friends for that initial investment," said Tretton. "We want to get the game in as many hands as possible."

http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2006/10/71982

@Teus

Who has access to 5 PS3's? That's (in most cases) completely stupid.

While I don't know *why* you are allowed to share games (Xbox certainly doesn't allow it and perma bans you if you game the system) I doubt the intention was to allow you only to put it on 5 PS3's you own.

@PN04
The PSV does count with the PSP ones. Read the PS blog post. A lot of people were asking that and they answered it.

@DeadRabbits

The 360 doesn't "perma ban you" it just doesn't let you play the game.

If you buy a game then the console it was purchased on allows any account on that console to have access to the game/DLC, you can download it onto infinite other consoles, but only your account will be allowed to play them.

@LionheartAce but...they were bought

@That One Guy wasn't being a hipster...I was being technical...maybe a smartass...just saying

@blessrok You don't buy the game... you buy a license to play it..
besides, if you were to buy a physical copy, only one console can use it at anytime (apart from that magic PSPs do)... Developers need that money.. no money, no new games

@Mazrael what if all parties paid equal shares for the license? no guilt =D

God, I'm just joking anyways. I share w/one other person. Have no other consoles so really my 5 licenses go unused for the most part. It's not like I'm crying over this or anything. I'm glad they changed it cuz I know it's abused heavily. Matter fact as soon as I turned my ps3 and added friends the first week I was hit up with "hey wanna game share?". So I know it's a widespread thing. All I'm saying is technically the product is paid for...even if it's just once.

@That One Guy

Its a system the industry set up themselves, that people then used. Being mad at them would be like being mad at people who frequent a fastfood restaurant and order a combo that comes with a "free drink" for not paying for the drink ..... those drink stealing bastards !!1!!oneone!!1!!one!

Now they are changing the terms of the agreement and people are coming onto the scene from both sides...The first being people who are upset about the change and the second the people who seem to somehow feel some sense of accomplishment because they changed the system and lulz at everyone else.

When the proper response to this is ...... meh ......whatever.

@That One Guy

The definition of "hipster" has been screwed...

@blessrok

Maybe your game buddy has other game buddies on the side that you don't know about.

@blessrok And I'm going to buy another PS3 (mine's screwed up), won't be able to share games with anyone. Forever alone

@JasonA Roman would never cheat on me!! *looks worried*

@Rogerrr57

Why do so many people ignore the deactivation thing? This isn't a lifetime limit. If your old system broke, deactivate it.

@darkprime you are asking them to cater to probably 1-2% of the install base? This was something continually abused by people for piracy, and I'm surprised it took them this long.

@sammo21

That's not what piracy is. Try again.

@sammo21

I know I'm in the minority, in fact, the majority probably own only one system. I admit the policy change is sensible, however I wish they could expand it (i.e. increase the number of systems) for PSN+ subscribers. They could consider that another perk of signing up.

@darkprime So you have 3 ps3's in the same house, in the next room, I understand convenience but you're just lazy if you are the only one using those ps3's or tv's.

@JasonA Hopefulyl it keeps people from cheating, yes.

@JasonA yes, because what they are doing is stealing as well as violating terms

@JimmyHACK

Thanks.

I'm with you on the whole it's bad what they are doing thing.

I could easily get the map packs free from them but I pay for them because I don't like stealing.

@JasonA - It won't prevent it completely but it will cut down on it drastically.

@sammo21

2 is a far cry from 20. Anyone under age 40 that doesn't buy PS3s as their 3D BR player is a moron. Some of us work hard so that we can afford 60s for our bedrooms, livingrooms, and game rooms. Really not that uncommon for suburban America so your 1% theory is way off.