PSN games purchased after November 18 can only be activated on two consoles.
Sucks for those who gameshare with more than one person, but the new account management website is a plus.Sony will make this process easier by allowing remote deactivations via a PlayStation Network account management website instead of having to deactivate the game from a console.
http://www.siliconera.com/2011/11/04...n-two-systems/
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
Yeah, it was only a matter of time before those using that feature to "share" their software library with others who didn't purchase those games caused the feature to be limited in some way.
Still, two consoles is better than one, and yes, the online "active console" management tool is a plus.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
Also, one thing that's not mentioned on Siliconera but two consoles doesn't mean one PS3 and one PSP. Two of each. So two PS3s, two PSPs, and more than likely two Vitas can all be activated.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/...ation-network/
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
GAMESHARING IS PIRACY.Originally Posted by kupomogli
I could give a crap if they decide to enforce this, it's a long time coming.
<Sothy> its the internet <Sothy> who cares
Gamesharing -does- have valid uses, like when you're visiting a friend and want to play your games on his / her console. Having an easily accessible deauthorization tool makes this easier to manage. Keep your main system always active and the second one is for whenever you're out at a friend's place.
However all those people that basically rented out their gameshares? Yeah, they can go fuck themselves.
eBay Auctions / GameTZ profile / DP Feedback / Youtube / Twitter / RateYourMusic
Agree 100% on valid uses for multiple consoles/travel/etc.
And max two consoles at once makes all those uses entirely possible.
Had they no management tool for this I could fault them. I still sort of can since it does require an additional device to auth/de-auth on, but meh.
People abusing this through "group buys" and the like are screwed now. And I think that's funny.
<Sothy> its the internet <Sothy> who cares
Not surprised at all nor troubled by this. Sony essentially missed a ton of revenue as did developers/publishers under the previous approach and frankly, it won't hurt legitimate users in any way.
coming from someone who currently game shares with 3 other people and on my last account like the max 5.....im amazed i got away with it for this long lol
i cant even be mad, sony did alot more than they had to, i always thought 5 was kind of generous, and 2 seems like the perfect number just about, im still gamesharing with my godbrother tho since he's the only one outside of myself who actually purchases the games and doesnt just leech like the other 2
in short.....meh *shrugs*
"Kidnap the presidents wife without a plan..."
Surprised this didn't happen sooner it was really easy to abuse.
Doing something that was officially encouraged during the first couple years the system was out can hardly be considered piracy,
Jack Tretton comment at PS3 launch:
"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/gamingre.../2006/10/71982
"It’s not about generating profits at each and every interaction with the consumer," he said. "I think that really offsets the argument that says, ‘Wow, that’s a really pricey system.’"
For the record, there are many uses for game sharing. When someone didn't have time to review something, I could download it from them because only one review code was sent out.
People own more than one PS3. Different TVs, different consoles, and now that content can't be shared between them.
It wasn't theft or piracy (clearly by Tretton's comments, which as usual for Sony, they're rolling back on now), and I don't think I'd call it abused either. I'm sure there were many sales that were made that otherwise would not have been were it not for people pooling cash together. It'll be interesting to see sales numbers going forward to see if there's a small dip.
I don't think it's some great thing for consumers, but it also doesn't seem terribly draconian either. The terms seem reasonable. But the most important thing is that they're NOT applying it retroactively.
So they're letting people know what they're going to do, when they're going to do it, and giving them some time to buy some games they not want it to apply to. If they're going to do it, that seems like the right way to do it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
