FF7: Dirge of Cerberus [PS2] Locked to Machine Id? [Archive]

Borys

01-25-2006, 05:46 AM

I really don't know how to word it as a worthwile news post but here goes:

Apparently Square's newest game (Final Fantasy VII - Dirge of Cerberus (http://www.square-enix.co.jp/dcff7/)) not only requires monthly payment (http://www.playonline.com/dcff7/) to play online (and of course a HDD) but also ties your registered account to your PS2's hard disk geometry, so buying a used game or even replacing your dying PS2 means no go for FF7 - DC multiplay.

Here's a quote from GAF's (http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?p=2655691&posted=1#post2655691) official game thread:

okay, apparently people are saying that you have to register a code online for online play and once thats in, you can no longer reregister - effectively meaning that the game is locked to the HDD (YES REQUIRES A HDD) installed on first for online play... so... goodbye second hand sales....
From what I understood single-player game should be available on used PS2.

Yes, anti-Sony news from a Sony believer. *gasp*

agentgray

01-25-2006, 06:24 AM

This is Sony. It's what I have come to expect. I predict this game does about as well as a meh.

Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit. Rootkit.

Kelegacy

01-25-2006, 06:24 AM

Not cool if it's true, not in the least. Is this the future of gaming? Fucking the consumer?

Anyway, I'll be playing the single player game so it shouldn't bother me much, but in the overall scheme of things, this is a overflowing crock.

fitbabits

01-25-2006, 06:26 AM

Salesmunn

01-25-2006, 06:31 AM

Eh, mountain out of a mole hill. If it's really good then I shouldn't have to sell it. I won't buy it now unless I know it's great.

Dr Quincy

01-25-2006, 06:36 AM

There's already been some talk of this sort of strategy for PS3. I'll see if I can find the appropriate article.

Also the HDD requirement immediately excludes the European online multiplayer audience.

Borys

01-25-2006, 06:36 AM

Can you imagine the furore if there's any merit to this? I've been hearing rumors from people about Sony trying to tie new games to a particular PS3 to prevent used-game sales, but I'd brushed them off previously.

This is what annoys me the most.

I couldn't care less about Dirge of Cerberus (milking FF7 much, Square?) but if this system... *works* and consumers don't voice their disaprobate Sony could very well think: "Hell, it's worth to try with PS3!".

And I don't want them to - at least 50% of my PS2 library is used games.

When you add the fact that there should be even MORE online titles on the PS3 this could be a major bummer for me :(

I really hope I'm wrong and this is only Square's and Square's ALONE stupid idea.

normyk

01-25-2006, 06:44 AM

When the rumors of them tying the game to the console for PS3 came up I assumed that it was going to happen. If only new copies of games are sold they make more money. Makes total sense from their perspective. I'm just surprised to see it this generation.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the PS2 hard drives extinct? They are locking out most of the user base from online play. Damn, talk about a total fuck job. They are nailing their users and themselves.

If this is a taste of what to expect in PS3-land I might just opt out entirely.

thecrazyd

01-25-2006, 06:47 AM

Square != Sony

pheriannath

01-25-2006, 06:50 AM

not to mention the fact that the new slimline ps2 CAN'T use the hard drive...

fitbabits

01-25-2006, 06:50 AM

This is what annoys me the most.

I couldn't care less about Dirge of Cerberus (milking FF7 much, Square?) but if this system... *works* and consumers don't voice their disaprobate Sony could very well think: "Hell, it's worth to try with PS3!".

And I don't want them to - at least 50% of my PS2 library is used games.

When you add the fact that there should be even MORE online titles on the PS3 this could be a major bummer for me :(

I really hope I'm wrong and this is only Square's and Square's ALONE stupid idea.
Yeah, easilly 60% of my PS2 library consists of used games. If (and it's a big if) this happens with the PS3 , I'll simply wait till the games I'm interested in drop in price and pick them up then.

Chimpbot

01-25-2006, 06:52 AM

I didn't know it was going to have online multiplay anyway...so, I wasn't planning on using that aspect of the game.
I'm still going to get this game, but I'm definitely not going to bother searching for a hard drive and pay a monthly fee simply to hop online with this game. It's three separate kinds of not worth it.

Dr Quincy

01-25-2006, 06:52 AM

not to mention the fact that the new slimline ps2 CAN'T use the hard drive...

A very good point. This clearly isn't a workable strategy.

Shadowmage952

01-25-2006, 06:55 AM

Square != Sony

I'm going to have to go with thecrazyd on this one. As much as I like Square, would this not be there fault instead of Sony's?

disc

01-25-2006, 06:56 AM

fitbabits

01-25-2006, 07:01 AM

Oh for fucks sake.

1. It's Square-Enix who decides about their game.
2. The patent for locking discs to one machine is not going to be used in a PS3 or PSP or anything. It was a copy-protection system more than making used-sale games impossible to play.
1. Actually, it will be Sony who decide how the PS3 works, not Square or anyone else. If Sony tell developers they need to add code to their games that will assigne a unique ID to a particular game/machine combination upon first playing, do you really think Square will say no?
2. You state this like it's a fact - do you know something we don't?

Borys

01-25-2006, 07:03 AM

Yeti2005

01-25-2006, 07:06 AM

Just in case you forgot Sony was the one who tried the whole rootkit thing on their CDs. It seems perfectly plausible that they would try a similar "one copy per person" with their games as well. In fact, why wouldn't Sony try this on a few high profile PS3 games to see if works out?

YoungAlCapone

01-25-2006, 07:18 AM

Sony will never sell me a Ps3 should this be the case. I know they won't miss my one sale but not buying it is one of the most significant ways of showing your disapproval.

I already only keep my PS2 around because once in a while a great exclusive comes around, but as of this moment I do not own a single PS2 game. Just an old PS2 that hasn't even been turned on in a coupole of months. Only still have it so I can play Shadow of Collosus when it gets all cheapified.

Chandler

01-25-2006, 07:24 AM

not to mention the fact that the new slimline ps2 CAN'T use the hard drive...
this should dispell the rumour quickly, no need to get worked up about it boys

IagoTheHunted

01-25-2006, 07:26 AM

Oh for fucks sake.

1. It's Square-Enix who decides about their game.
2. The patent for locking discs to one machine is not going to be used in a PS3 or PSP or anything. It was a copy-protection system more than making used-sale games impossible to play.

1. I fucking wish that were true but game decisions are handed down by publishers all the time (I'm a developer). There's little doubt in my mind that Sony made the call for that sort of copyprotection. They have the patent, not Square, and they did that rootkit crap. Developers love their games too much to risk pissing off players, copyprotection bullshit like this is a purely buisness idea.
2. Why wouldn't they throw this shit onto PS3? If online connectivity is standard than some stuffed suit at sony thinks he can make more money by fucking over paying customers. They've already proven this mindset in spades.

This all pisses me off to no end.

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-25-2006, 07:35 AM

I cant believe you guys are getting worked up about what some random person said on a random forum about a stupid game.

51|RandoM

01-25-2006, 07:36 AM

Citizen Philip

01-25-2006, 08:08 AM

Doesn't bother me at all.

This is already quite common for PC software.

Is really funny to watch people take a rumor, then automagically decide it is Sony and not Square, as well. The 'net has really made it easy for the knee-jerkers to band together and jerk en masse.

I was about to say, PC games have had unique CD keys for multiplayer for quite awhile. They've also had hacks and key generators for about the same length of time.

IndependentGMR

01-25-2006, 08:19 AM

just like pso for dreamcast.

Nadreck

01-25-2006, 08:39 AM

51|RandoM and Citizen Philip, I think we're reading this a wee bit differently. PC games do NOT currently do what this is talking about. Generally, a CD Key is nothing more than a hash; this is why key generators work (if you figure out what they're looking for post-decryption, you can generate your own keys easily). It does not lock the game to your specific hardware, it merely means you need to have the CD in order for it to function.

For an example of what we're talking about (hardware locking), check out the most recent version of Photoshop. The application needs to be authenticated with Adobe's central server; they track where that application has been authenticated by checking unique hardware identifiers. It is thus "locked" to the hardware.

In the case of Adobe, they've made some concessions: 1) they allow two machines per license, not just one; 2) you can deauthorize a computer and then reauthorize it on another (useful if you, say, upgrade to a new computer).

In the case of the Dirge of Cerebus rumor, there are none of these concessions made; once it's locked, it's locked. You can't bring it to a friend's to play, you can't replace your Playstation, none of it. Without a method to transfer it to another machine, they are creating a staged obsolescence, and effectively killing the second hand market (bad for consumers, AND bad for retailers, whose business is more and more driven by the used sales).

You might say that it's only one game, or that it's Square and not Sony, or that it's just a rumor so there's no need to get worked up about it. I think you're missing the point. If one company (whether Square or Sony) starts doing this, others will follow -- this is the nature of business. The point isn't who is doing it, the point is that we need to express our displeasure over this idea NOW in order to make sure this rumor never becomes a reality.

Borys

01-25-2006, 09:00 AM

Great post Nadreck.

I really love the PS2 and think Sony did a tremendous job with it but recently they are scoring just too much own goals. It's not a optimistic forecast for the PS3 which is #1 console on my "to-buy" list BTW.

if76

01-25-2006, 09:10 AM

OK if you're a used game consumer then you're the one fucking over Sony, the development studio and videogames as a whole. quit your bitching

fitbabits

01-25-2006, 09:14 AM

OK if you're a used game consumer then you're the one fucking over Sony, the development studio and videogames as a whole. quit your bitching
You're saying that you've NEVER bought a used game before? There have been literally hundreds of used games I've bought that have turned me on to a particular series or developer that I would otherwise have been unfamiliar with. And you know what? I'm more inclined to buy their next game NEW because of that!

The Radical Cleric

01-25-2006, 09:15 AM

My former CEO is now the CEO at a major publisher and he confirmed that he is aware of Sony pursuing this line of technology, and as a publisher, he's all for it.

I argued with him but he's mostly pissed at the retailers who put a used copy in front of somebody before a new copy and he thinks this will end this practice.

I work for a major publisher as well but I'm a gamer first and I certainly don't want to have to buy new games every time, especially at the new going rate of $59.99.

Citizen Philip

01-25-2006, 09:26 AM

For an example of what we're talking about (hardware locking), check out the most recent version of Photoshop. The application needs to be authenticated with Adobe's central server; they track where that application has been authenticated by checking unique hardware identifiers. It is thus "locked" to the hardware.

In the case of Adobe, they've made some concessions: 1) they allow two machines per license, not just one; 2) you can deauthorize a computer and then reauthorize it on another (useful if you, say, upgrade to a new computer).

Lots of highend software has required you to contact their servers to allow you to play. I believe a popular workaround is a bit of software that emulates the authetication server using a particular address, the location the program looks for the server address is redirected to the emulated server: hacked. I believe any software that has the potential to be fully operational out of the box, only requiring authentication: can and will be cracked.

I don't pirate anything so maybe there are flawless authentication processes. But I doubt it. The "hands-off" approach to the operational software in a console definitely adds a layer of challenge.

Mason

01-25-2006, 09:41 AM

Citizen Philip

01-25-2006, 09:43 AM

I kind of agree, brick and mortar are trying to score an extra buck at the developer and publisher's expense. The response: we limit your ability to resell our games.

Greedy companies screw the customer. Nothing new happening here.

Lord Dongkey

01-25-2006, 09:46 AM

The only "flawless" anti-piracy/authentication process is making a game that's so damned good that people will buy it. Or pricing your steaming shit-pile of a game appropriately. Rumor has it that there's people out there who will download a game, check it out, and buy it if they like it or delete it if they don't. Whatever happened to shareware anyway?

Ah, well, who are we to argue. The root of what Sony does is tries to make money, not try to produce fantastic games at affordable prices to help keep the spirit of gaming and the community alive. If they can get away with doing the locked game to console model, the amount of money they would make preventing used sales would probably outweigh their losses due to EvilAvatar readers boycotting Sony (and everyone else that would, btw). This would also strike a *nasty* blow to retailers, since many of the big video game retailers have *targets* of at least 35 to 40% sales as used product. I'm sure Sony is ready and willing to strike a deal with them on that one as well...

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Mirabelle

01-25-2006, 10:09 AM

Score one for Mason.

Remember the used game discussions of a month ago? I predicted that the game retailers and cheap-ass gamers that are abusing the used game market would cause the consoles to seek inconvenient and unpleasant methods of preventing game resales. And lo.

If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the retailers who pimp used games first and foremost, and use their stores like a very profitable and expensive game rental service. They're the ones raking in the money by selling used copies of brand new releases. Now, as predicted, the consumer is getting fucked over just so that the studios and publishers can earn a little money from their games.

This isn't a good move, but it's hard not to see that it is an economic necessity that is being forced on studios by the greed of retailers. Consumers are just caught in the cross-fire. I hope that publishers and retailers can work out a deal, though, as I'd hate to see this kind of resale-protection become common.

Several of the posters have said that 50 - 60% of their collection consists of used games. If this is anything near the norm, it is obvious why publishers would pursue this type of strategy. This kind of practice seems kind of shitty to me, too, and certainly not ideal. But the alternative is for gamers not to put the industry in a position where profitability takes a 40%+ hit thanks to used game sales.

Also, this is very likely a decision by Sony. We developers generally have very little say in the business decisions. Granted, Square may be powerful enough to be an exception.

Phades

01-25-2006, 10:13 AM

OK if you're a used game consumer then you're the one fucking over Sony, the development studio and videogames as a whole. quit your bitching

That's just an idiotic comment. If I buy something, I have the right to sell it. Get over yourself. Are you saying that you've never bought or sold used property?

I for one would buy far fewer games if I could sell my existing ones on the used market. I currently buy several games a month. This doesn't bother me so much to spend all that money because I know that when I'm done with it (bored or finished) I can just sell it and get back part of my investment. I don't buy very many used games, but every now and then I see a good price and I'll go for it.

Also, a number of people would be far less interested in Sony's console if they were told at Retail "you can't buy used games for the Sony, but you can for the Microsoft."

If Sony tries to destroy the used games market for their systems, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

doyama

01-25-2006, 10:44 AM

That's just an idiotic comment. If I buy something, I have the right to sell it. Get over yourself. Are you saying that you've never bought or sold used property?

Actually in reality you have no right to sell the game, because you don't own it. All you games are licensed from the distributor/developer. They in theory, have ultimate control over how you are able to play it and how you can transfer the license of the game. You own the physical media, but the 'game' itself is never actually yours.

The used game market is a bit of a double edged sword for the developer/distributors. To them it is in essense a sense of semi-piracy. When you buy a used game, the developer/distributor is not compensated in any way for that sale, so for them its pratically like you pirated it. Of course for the retail chains used games is a lucrative business because they make jack shit on new games but get a big cut in the used game market. Course you don't really want to piss off your retail customers by not allowing used games, but at the same time its a revenue stream that is 'invisible' to you.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, but merely that perhaps the gaming industry is now seeing the used gaming market as a potential threat or a potential revenue stream that they need to tap in order to increase growth.

Knightsaber

01-25-2006, 10:47 AM

For some reason I had an urge when I read the OP, to say something along the lines of 'legal, activated Windows XP', but decided not to. Oops I just did.

RMan

01-25-2006, 10:50 AM

Since they're getting a monthly fee I doubt they'll stick to this setup, I'm sure they want to keep people from sharing accounts, but after the game's been out for some time they'll not want to lose that monthly fee from the people buying the game used. They likely just don’t yet have an effective account reset feature. Although this would be a deterrent from buying a used vs. new game it wouldn’t be very effective since most people wouldn’t know about it until after purchase, so I doubt they want to lose monthly payments for that.

Kefkataran

01-25-2006, 11:05 AM

FUCK YOU Sony if this is true and FUCK YOU if you try this with the PS3.

This is a Square-Enix game, so it would be them deciding how it works with the PS2 right?

Fuck misplaced rage.

Nimos

01-25-2006, 11:18 AM

2006 :

Final Fantasy VII : Dirge of Cerberus
Final Fantasy XII
Final Fantasy VII : Crisis Core (PSP)

OMG !!!! OMG !!!! OMG !!!!

agentgray

01-25-2006, 11:20 AM

The root of what Sony does

Hahahahahaha!

IagoTheHunted

01-25-2006, 11:55 AM

This is a Square-Enix game, so it would be them deciding how it works with the PS2 right?

Fuck misplaced rage.

No we went over this already. It's almost certainly a publishers role to try and force copyprotection into a product, pluss they own the patent. Square is likely just along for the ride.

Kefkataran

01-25-2006, 12:07 PM

No we went over this already. It's almost certainly a publishers role to try and force copyprotection into a product, pluss they own the patent. Square is likely just along for the ride.

Admittedly, my idea that it's Square-Enix is an assumption. That said, it sounds like this is an assumption too. I wouldn't buy into it unitl someone can 100% confirm for sure that not only would this be something Sony is normally involved in, but also that Sony specifically is the one making the decisions for this.

Grifter

01-25-2006, 12:10 PM

Sony is the one who put in for a patent on this technology and is most likely sharing this tech with squeanix. Sony also said they are not going to use this on PS3 games, but who knows?

As far as the used game industry goes if publishers dont like it they need to get together with these retailers and set up some kind of used games plan that way everyone gets credit where credit is due, maybe reverse the profit margins.

What really worries me is the rental market. If these companies expect me to pay $60 for a a game on faith or someone elses opinion and not give me a way to insure my purchase they can go fuck themselves.

IagoTheHunted

01-25-2006, 12:37 PM

Admittedly, my idea that it's Square-Enix is an assumption. That said, it sounds like this is an assumption too. I wouldn't buy into it unitl someone can 100% confirm for sure that not only would this be something Sony is normally involved in, but also that Sony specifically is the one making the decisions for this.

Yes I was making an assumption but at the worst it's a well educated guess. Like I said I'm a developer, and these things aren't as random as you seem to think, publishers and developers have clear roles to play. A developer has no interest in copyprotection because they know it pisses their fans off and even though it might result in higher sales, it's money they aren't going to be seeing much of (if any). Publishers on the other hand have no ethical standard where art is concerned and are in the exclusive buisness of making as much money as possible off the projects they're funding. It's an idea that makes money for sony at the expense of Square-Enix, who are going to be flooded with complaints as soon as legitimate paying customers find out their favorite game doesn't work with their new playstation2.

Sony decided installing rootkits to protect their IP's was a good idea. Sony developed the technology to perminately tie the life of a $60 game to a single console system. Sony is currently in the full force buisness of being greedy fucks, it makes sense that this would be their choice.

Balthasar

01-25-2006, 12:47 PM

Yes I was making an assumption but at the worst it's a well educated guess. Like I said I'm a developer, and these things aren't as random as you seem to think, publishers and developers have clear roles to play. A developer has no interest in copyprotection because they know it pisses their fans off and even though it might result in higher sales, it's money they aren't going to be seeing much of (if any). Publishers on the other hand...
When did Sony become a publisher for Square-Enix? Last time I checked, Square-Enix publish almost all of their own games.

IagoTheHunted

01-25-2006, 12:51 PM

When did Sony become a publisher for Square-Enix? Last time I checked, they publish almost all of their own games.

thinking.... yeah actually that sounds right.
Doesn't change anything though, Sony has to approve all games published on their platform and they get a meaty royalty cut. So everything I said applys, just replace the word publisher with... uh... greedy-overbearing-platform-owners.

You've got a point though. If they self-publish than there is motivation on their end to back up copyprotection crap. Sony still ownes the patent though, and they would have final say on any above-game-level feature that was going to be in the game. Especially something hardware related like this.

Borys

01-25-2006, 01:37 PM

Look guys, maybe I overreacted, I admit it.

Point is I don't want any of this crap on my PS3, period.

Balthasar

01-25-2006, 02:12 PM

Look guys, maybe I overreacted, I admit it.

Point is I don't want any of this crap on my PS3, period.
I would agree with both points. We don't know if all of this is even true in the first place, nor do we know how much influence Sony has on this at all (considering they do not own Square-Enix).

Kelegacy

01-25-2006, 02:56 PM

Look guys, maybe I overreacted, I admit it.

Point is I don't want any of this crap on my PS3, period.
Don't fuck up again or you're out of the club.

Kefkataran

01-25-2006, 03:32 PM

Don't fuck up again or you're out of the club.

Don't let him bother you. He says that to me three or four times a minute.

Also, Kelegacy, is your title from Transmetropolitan?! Did you finally start reading it?!

Kelegacy

01-25-2006, 03:34 PM

Also, Kelegacy, is your title from Transmetropolitan?! Did you finally start reading it?!

No and no. It's no quote. It means exactly what it says.

fushi

01-25-2006, 04:06 PM

Come back to Nintendoland, Borys.

I feel so alone :(

Kefkataran

01-25-2006, 04:36 PM

No and no. It's no quote. It means exactly what it says.

You should start reading Transmetropolitan, you crafty little psychic, you. This is just further proof that you would love Warren Ellis.

bobbler

01-25-2006, 05:13 PM

I don't mean to burst the bubble of the mindless Sony hate. But the copy protection patent was pretty old, and who knows why it surfaced only recently (it was circa ~2000 when it was filed, and it was merely an update of previous patents going all the way back to 1980s). Sony debunked the rumor shortly after it surfaced, because for some reason some of you nutcases believed it (infact I'm pretty sure it was posted on these very forums, because I remember some clown commenting on how somehow it was bad/desperate for Sony to be debunking rumors).

Additionally, this is a Square game, and has nothing to do with Sony... the insanity of the misplaced hate here is almost enough to make me shoot a baby. SE is the publisher, and the developer. Hate all you guys want, but you should probably place the hate in the proper place.

Another thing, you guys do realize that things in Japan work a bit differently than na/europe? The likelihood that it will cost money to play online here is pretty low. The game works on Square/Enix's playonline network (like FFXI) and likely works the same way that does... thats why the cdkey comes in and I have my doubts about it actually linking itself to the HDD.. it's more likely its the same way FFXI works (where you'd still run into the problem with used copies). Of course, the problem only happens if you actually plan on buying this likely awful game, and then proceeding to try it play it online.

Feel free to come back to reality whenever you want, guys.

bobbler

01-25-2006, 06:01 PM

thinking.... yeah actually that sounds right.
Doesn't change anything though, Sony has to approve all games published on their platform and they get a meaty royalty cut. So everything I said applys, just replace the word publisher with... uh... greedy-overbearing-platform-owners.

You've got a point though. If they self-publish than there is motivation on their end to back up copyprotection crap. Sony still ownes the patent though, and they would have final say on any above-game-level feature that was going to be in the game. Especially something hardware related like this.

Surely you can't be this stupid?