ps4 hardware1111111 -
ps4 hardware1111111 -

SCEE UK & Ireland MD Fergal Gara has attempted to clarify comments made by SCEA president Jack Tretton earlier today, telling that Tretton's comments were referring to the use of online passes or "certain [other] restrictions" by third-party publishers, rather than an option to lock disc-based titles to user accounts.

Confusion over PS4's DRM policy arose earlier today, after Tretton suggested that third-party publishers would be able to dictate DRM policies on their titles, hours after the firm stated that PS4 would not have DRM restrictions.

But Gara states that Sony is "not enforcing DRM" and that it "will not be locking" disc-based games on PS4, with a SCEE PR representative explaining that, though Sony has to "respect our third party publishers", PS4 "isn't designed to support [DRM]".

Below is the conversation with Gara as it played out: Jack Tretton suggested that DRM policy [on PS4] was down to third-party publishers. Is that the case?

SCEE PR representative: We've been trying to clarify that point because obviously it seemed counter to what we said last night and... Our stance is, it'll be the same as PS3, basically. Our position, certainly from a first-party publisher is, we are not having DRM and the architecture has been built actually for that. Clearly we have to respect our third party publishers and look to them to look to their own models. That's the open system, the open relationship we have with them, but the system isn't designed to support that.

Fergal Gara, SCEE UK & Ireland MD: We think it comes down to the fact that a lot of the online gameplay will use the servers owned and operated by the third parties. It's not out of the question that they might decide they want certain passes or certain restrictions, so I think that is all that Jack was getting at. The point remains true that we are not enforcing DRM. It still seems to be unclear whether third-parties will be able to lock disc-based PS4 games to user accounts. Can you clarify whether or not they [will have that option]?

Fergal Gara: For disc-based games I believe that is not the case - we will not be locking them. It's also interesting now the Online Pass goes, so by virtue of including online multiplayer in PlayStation Plus that effectively replaces and supersedes any Online Passes that we may have used in the past. Does that apply to third-parties as well or will third parties still be able to implement Online Passes if they so wish.

Fergal Gara: I think the same will apply to them. PlayStation Plus gives you online multiplayer, so I think it would be foolish - it might still be their decision but I think it would be foolish to have a double mechanic in place for online multiplayer.

New stuff to check out

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments

Endless's Avatar

Endless@ guyderman

Apologies, My response to you're comment was more or less in the first paragraph.

Everything else is responses to several people in the rest of the thread and not directly aimed at you yourself.

Although there was confusion over who/what my comments were directed at, my general stance still holds: I'm not telling you what you can and can't do. The evidence available to us speaks volumes about the kind of experiences that developers and publishers are pushing to produce and what the majority of mainstream gaming buys; You're entitled to disagree, more power to you. The industry may well be heading one way and that it's not what you want. But sooner or later if the experiences you want slowly begin to disappear, you either have to accept that gaming as you know and love has changed and roll with it, or stick with what you have.

This isn't directed personally at any one individual, but there are lots of people on here that dont want the online experiences and wish to stick with the offline games. I personally dont think we'll ever lose the single player games, but the focus is sure heading for a majority online experience and platforms need to be geared up to support that as best they can.
Posted 17:47 on 13 June 2013


SOME of the industry is headed online. Not giving gamers a choice will narrow the market and provide less income, so having one plan for all games just seems nialistic and constrictive.

If Sony and Microsoft do head to a fully online experience for all titles, Nintendo would find they have a much bigger audience.

But I don't think it will ever come to that. As long as you have multiple publishers and a wide audience then you'll have many genres, both online and offline.
Posted 16:05 on 12 June 2013
guyderman's Avatar

guyderman@ Endless

Your response has baffled me a bit - to sum up my statements I basically said that the price of games needs to come down if they truly want to hit mainstream markets! Not sure where I mentioned about MMO's being free based on my PSplus subscription - I never even made any comments about not accepting paying extra for the online element of a game.

it's been obvious for a number of years where the industry is headed and if these connected, persistent world experiences are not what you want, then it may be time to either adapt and embrace, or stick with your older technology where these experiences are plentiful.

I'm more than well aware of where gaming has been headed for the last few years, but this doesn't mean that I should not be able still expect to be able to play and enjoy a single player experience on newer technology.

'Adapt and embrace' - Played for a fair few yaers online before I got bored of playing the same ol' same ol' over and over again and listening to the same pathetic 'banter' night after night.
Fallout 3 and NV, Skyrim, GTA4, Uncharted 2, God of War Series, Batman Arkham Series, Gears of War series, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect series, Bio-shock series, Dead Space series to name just a few have all had fantastic SP experiences that will be long remembered after the MP will be shut down and forgotten!

'Stick with my old Technology' P!ss off!!
Posted 14:55 on 12 June 2013
Endless's Avatar

Endless@ guyderman

It's not as simple as that though. It doesn't matter what price is set for the new version the used version can always be cheaper, and they have no control over that.

The used car analogy isn't accurate for the same reason a used loaf of bread isnt accurate. Those products degrade and wear out over time. Video games and other digital products do not.

And if you're still harbouring under the illusion that somehow your Live/PS+ subscription entitles you to free access to MMOs then there's a hefty wake up call heading your way.

Running those games takes a source of regular income, Microsoft and Sony do not pay these companies to keep their game servers running, support agents paid, not to mention additional events and content added after launch. Subscription and micro-transaction models make that possible.

Gaming these days is connected, persistent, dynamic and collaborative. There are still disconnected single player experiences to be had, but technology these days makes it possible to do so much more. I don't profess to tell people how to take part in their hobby, but it's been obvious for a number of years where the industry is headed and if these connected, persistent world experiences are not what you want, then it may be time to either adapt and embrace, or stick with your older technology where these experiences are plentiful.
Posted 13:50 on 12 June 2013
guyderman's Avatar


If the price of games was more accessible then it wouldn't be such a specialist market. The number of consoles and gaming devices in the average home as increased massively over the last 10 years - I know many people who are not 'Gamers' but have gaming devices and play the occasional titles. If the price was a lot less, say £20 rather £40, for a new title more titles would sell and this would reduce the need for used sales. Surely it's better to sell a lot more copies at £20 on day of release than selling a few at £40 while people wait for the innevitable price drop where the game is sold at £20 anyway or even worse for the developer bought on Ebay for £20. Movies and albums cost a hell of a lot more money to make than games do but their price tags are a lot lower making them more accesible. You can argue that movies appeal to a wider audience, but without a reasonable price tag games will never appeal to as wide an audience as they could do.
Posted 11:11 on 12 June 2013
MJTH's Avatar

MJTH@ rza2k4

Car Companies sell used versions of their own cars. So they do make money of off used sales.

The Music industry makes money, via disks yes, but also via radio syndication, selling royalties of music to movie studio, having bands go on tour, via streaming services. So used doesn't effect them

The film industry makes money via DVD's yes, but also through, people going to the cinema, syndicating movies to TV channels, and via streaming services.

The games industry makes movie via retail and.... that's it. So the used game market does eat into sales of games, because developers have to compete with the prices of retailers second hand stuff, whilst also expecting retailers to sell they're games new.

And even if the developers do make DLC they still need to spend time after the game is made to make the DLC. That requires money. If DLC needs to recoup the money needed to make it expecting it to also recoup all the losses from second hand games is a ridiculous suggestion. And when ever developers make DLC prior to the release of a game there is always a backlash to Day One DLC or on disc DLC. Plus the kind of people who play and trade in used games for the most part aren't the kind of people who will buy DLC.
Posted 10:48 on 12 June 2013
DancingRhino's Avatar


The savings from buying second hand games from shops maybe negligible(I never bother). But buying online you can routinely save 10/15 pounds plus. That's a significant saving for those of us who aren't rolling in it. And every game I've bought like that has been pretty much pristine.
Posted 10:43 on 12 June 2013
rza2k4's Avatar


I didn't mind when sonys online was free but if we now have to pay for online play with playstation plus, I don't think we should be expected to pay again just because we saved ten or fifteen quid months after the game was released. I'm sure they'll still recoup any so called "potential loss" through dlc
Posted 10:35 on 12 June 2013
rza2k4's Avatar


Publishers shouldn't be thinking of profits from used sales. If your game is good enough it will sell well enough at retail new.

If I buy a used car. The company that makes it doesn't expect a cut of the sale because they've made their profit off of

Developers shouldn't be any different. If I buy a game and keep it forever, they still make no money so why should they if I sell it. It's not a new game any more. Furthermore it's not their game to sell anymore, it's mine

Dlc s fine but online passes for each game on top of paying for online multiplayer with ps+ or live takes the piss. If I'm paying £40 for the privilege of playing online I don't then expect to pay again to play online
Posted 10:31 on 12 June 2013

Neon-Soldier32@ BrySkye

In the majority of cases the pre owned copy is the same price, if not a higher amount than a new copy.
Posted 10:20 on 12 June 2013
MJTH's Avatar

MJTH@ Endless

I can see that happening. Even without the Xbox One's must check in every 24 hours thing, we've begun to see more game with a focus on online play on console. Destiny, Titan fall, etc. The fact that World of Tank is coming to the 360 is kind of fore shadows the way the games industry is going with consoles. Developers are trying to make experiences that can't be "finished" like single player games and have longevity, so there is less incentive to trade that experience in.

I'm like BrySkye. I've never been one for the used game market anyway. The used games market, in my opinion, really should only be for the stuff that you can't find new. I recently bought my first used game, but that was because I couldn't find a new copy anywhere. Most games now a days if you wait a good month or so, you could save even more then you would if you bought a pre owned game at launch. So essentially time (and patience) = money and savings.

In the end, a lot of people complain that there aren't many new experiences any more (which looks set to change with all the new IP's in this E3), but if buy a used game, you haven't contributed to making sure this game franchise continues.
Posted 08:37 on 12 June 2013

BrySkye@ Endless

Mind you, I tend to avoid GAME/Gamestation stores anyway, because they often take the discs out of the boxes and store them in cardboard or plastic sleeves.
Apart form potentially damaging the discs, that also makes it actually impossible to know for sure that you're not being given a used game anyway.
Grainger Games do the same thing, and I really don't trust them very much, lol...

Paranoid? Maybe, but the seal is the only guarantee you've really got.
And I have seen stores which will put on a new cellophane wrap saying its new, but it's not actually an original wrap. Lacking, for example, the Nintendo branded cutting strip.

I stick to online. If you're willing to wait a couple of weeks, you can easily buy games new and sealed from Amazon for quite a bit less than the prices GAME are charging for used.

But I digress.
Posted 02:19 on 12 June 2013
Endless's Avatar

Endless@ BrySkye

Used games are guaranteed to work from Game/Gamestation, so says their policy etc. But I know what you mean. They're just not as shiny ;)

Personally I dont think online passes will return. I do however think there will be more emphasis on DLC, micro-transactions and subscription models. There's a lot of MMO-style games at E3 this year, I cant believe that they'll all be without a subscription.
Posted 01:56 on 12 June 2013

BrySkye@ Endless

Yeah, it's cheaper for a disc that might not be 100%

Personally and from my own experiences, I just don't think it's worth it.
I'll pay an extra £5 quite happily for that factory seal.
Posted 01:45 on 12 June 2013
alphafour's Avatar

alphafour@ BrySkye

As for EA, they will develop for both regardless because even if X1 sold 100 million units and PS4 sold 60 million units (and people regarded X1 as the leading platform by far), that would still be 60 million lost potential new sales. There may be a lot of people buying preowned, but there are still A LOT of people who buy brand new.

I expect that EA will have the same policies with regard to online passes etc. (they say they got rid of it but it'll be back in some form), so they will be getting the same money back from people who buy preowned and decide to play online. It just means that there won't be a situation where EA gets money even if someone buys their game preowned and DOESN'T go online with it.

The ones who are winning big now are.. you guessed it.. GAMESTOP! They are probably getting near-on exclusive rights to deal in preowned Xbox One games, and they will be able to deal in preowned PS4 games just like before without having to implement any new systems (like MS's Azure or something).
Posted 01:36 on 12 June 2013
View Full Site