If you own a PlayStation 5 and have an active PlayStation Plus subscription, then you can redeem and play 20 or so excellent PlayStation 4 games as part of the PS Plus Collection. It’s a great sweetener for next-gen early adopters, and you can actually enjoy all of the games on the company’s previous console once you’ve redeemed them.
Of course, this has triggered a lightbulb moment for some industrious players, who have been selling access to their PS5 in order to allow other accounts to redeem the games and then enjoy them on their own PS4. In Malaysia, one next-gen console owner was charging around $8 to add all of the games to the library of a customer’s account.
Some early adopters have already racked up over 50 clients, and the Japanese giant has sniffed out what’s been going on and banned them. For the seller, it’s a permanent ban, while those who purchased access to the PS Plus Collection games have received a two month ban as well. We suppose it’s not a massive surprise really; this is undoubtedly exploiting the system.
I suppose there’s probably fine print somewhere which makes it against the rules to sell access but I wonder if there are such rules against doing it for free?
@nessisonett I’d like to know that too. I’d like to share the games with my bro.
I imagine you'll get a way with that if you do it with one or two people. These accounts had over 50 people doing it which is a bit extreme!
But Sony, I have 50 brothers and sisters and they all live in different countries. You have to believe me!
So many games to play I haven’t even had a chance yet to dip into the plus collection.
I’m loving Demon’s Souls and Cold War so far and my fiancé is loving Until Dawn.
I mean, if you do it for free, and use the guest sign in function (the one that’s set up to delete the account from the system automatically), then Sony has themselves to blame. You told the system - and Sony - the account wasn’t there to stay.
No ban should come from that. Nothing told you not to do it.
To me this just shows the flaw of the logic that these games are only accessible for ps5 owners. Makes their ps plus service less valuable for those who didnt win the preorder lottery and thus trying to find an alternative to get the ps plus collection that they theoretically are paying for as part of their ps plus subscription.
How going after the scalpers selling a PS5 for $1000 as well Sony.
I'd make such a terrible criminal mastermind. The concept of doing this at all, let alone for money, would never have occurred to me.
@God_of_Nowt I get nervous with the term "household" in the modern age. I do use it within the household same as you guys... But that sort of thing needs better context in that sharing with a family member that lives in another physical location versus a family member under the same physical roof shouldn't automatically be "different".
These big tech platforms are pushing for digital software purchases but are very quick to ban accounts. Facebook does this with their VR as well. It really exposes that digital purchases are never truly owned, just rented licenses that can be taken away at anytime. For every blatant fraudulent act (like these sellers) there are other examples of people being banned for wrong reasons. If big tech wants the abundance of digital software profits, they need to start being much more cautious with the ban hammer.
@Jaz007 I mean just because you didn't take the time to read the eula/Tos doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are multiple paragraphs or parameters of acceptable sharing and what you can/can't do with your license. None of which allows you to do something like this. Doing something like this is a pretty blatant abuse and breach of the license agreement.
Mmm i share my account with a friend and he shares his account with me. We buy games together, some games go to his and others to mine (account). We have done that for all the ps4 lifespan and we pretend to do the same with ps5 (which should arrive next week for both)... We don't shared the accounts with nobody else... I hope we're still fine.
They should just allow ps4 owners to access them anyways as a thank you imo.
Ouch for permaban, at least sony should add the option for ps4 owners to add the collection to their library, but can only play them on ps5 system. Just like anyone can add bugsnack, but it can only be played on ps5.
@Jaz007. Careful... that kind of unethical thinking can lead to immorality and criminal behavior.
@Jayslow People don’t deserve everything they feel entitled to.
@doctommaso Sharing it to a few friends for free while telling the system the account is temporary? I think that’s a reach. I’m pretty far from an “unethically thinking” person as you get.
@PhantomMenace84 I’m sure selling it is, but not doing it for a friend.
Damn, that person's already made back at least $400. Essentially making his PS5 free.
@Jaz007 So based on their rules, if you give a friend access to your games or your account, and that person doesn't live with you, or you don't actually go over there to play, you are breaking terms because the licenses are for you and your household alone. Now this doesn't mean that Sony is going to crack down on you for one or two people. It's basically the same situation as sharing a Netflix or HBOMax sub with friends and family that don't live with you. They aren't going to necessarily come after you unless you draw enough attention to yourself. But it is still breaking your license agreement.
Also, I occasionally share my account with a buddy, so I'm not sitting here saying you shouldn't, just that you need to be smart about it. Because technically they could crack down at any time. Or if they want to remove it, they can force gps/Ip locks, or other drm, for content so they know you are the one playing. But again, not likely to happen.
What does a "permanent ban" mean/consist of?
@PhhhCough it means that you will never regain access to the PSN that is banned, and you would lose access to all content tied to that account for breach of agreement.
Don't agree that people should be doing this but this actually leaves a bad taste in my mouth with regards to Sony's approach because on the one hand there are a few people are making a few extra bucks a month selling thier account and Sony puts bans for life on them and the other hand, companies are buying 3500 PS5 consels while there is a global shortage and selling them at double the price and Sony takes no action on them. I know who I despise more and its not the guy making a few extra bucks
-Everyone with a plus account pays for these games but only people who bought the new console can play them.
-But the console was/is next to impossible to buy as scalpers snatched them up by the thousands to sell at 3-4 times the sticker price.
-Then somebody sells access to the PS5-only games to people who don't have a PS5 and, in Sony's eyes, he's the bad guy.
This gen is a joke so far.
@Jaz007 I was talking about selling it online to tens of people and assumed you were, as well. But yeah that's still unethical or immoral, it's just degrees. That's why it's dangerous. One step leads to another.
@PhantomMenace84 so, no system updates and/or game updates? Would disc' still work? Sans any patches.
@PhantomMenace84 Rules aren’t always what you think. I wanna say how you set your primary PS4 is really upto you entirely, but one thing that surprised me is 6 or 8 devices can watch my Funimation at once. It literally says friends and family. So considering you won’t all watch at once l, that’s 8-10 people allowed on one account. (Setting aside there’s no multiple profiles and the watch history would an absolute mess. 😂)
Your prob right about someone else literally using your account, though. But here’s another thing about using this. My account actually has nothing to do with giving the free PS4 games to someone. You use their account with Plus they paid for on your console. Your account doesn’t actually come into play.
@doctommaso I said free in my initial post. Actually selling it comes across a bit different.
Yes I agree. Both are exploiting the system. I wish Sony could do something to prevent scalpers growing ugly business. I'm not sure they can. 🤷♂️
Retailers need to do better.
@PhhhCough well someone I know that got a temporary ban could still play disks but lost access to their digital titles because of authorization during the ban. My wife who had a psn name, that was allowed at the time of creation, got forced to change it after Sony changed their name rules. Back on the PS3 era. It messed with digital games because Sony hadn't fixed the ability to change your PSN at that point. But essentially, they could take your digital license to the game/games away for a breach. You could create a new PSN to keep playing online but you would lose everything from the other.
@Jaz007 yeah, like I said, if they hadn't drawn a lot of attention to themselves, by basically posting a sales page for the service, Sony probably wouldn't have done anything. They could have just taken money under the table and done it for some friends. I'm also guessing, that Sony knows exactly what accounts have purchased a PS5 because of how they set the licensing when you actually set up the PS5. While a lot of eulas are very similar, all of their wording can be slightly different and change the meaning completely. Companies like Apple, google, Facebook and Amazon have crazy strict eulas that allow them to do whatever they want. Amazon actually has a clause stating that you don't actually own movies purchased on Prime, you are paying for a lease and the movies can be removed at any time. I don't read all things I agree to, but people really need to have a better idea of what they are getting into before just hitting agree.
@MattSilverado you'll be fine, I do it with my brother as well
I redeemed them all and put them on my PS4, as gifting the console to my niece for Christmas. Thought it was best to share the wealth instead of wiping the console completely
While creating a business out of it is distasteful, Sony only have themselves to blame. Hopefully Sony are doing it under the “not for commercial purposes” clause, and won’t, for example, ban a long time customer for letting his brother redeem said games.
@Emperor_Rusty the difference is, is that with scalping, Sony are still selling consoles. With game sharing and the ps5 collection on PS4, Sony are losing sales from owners that may be otherwise buying games instead of getting them free.
Have to disagree with playsation on this one.
I pay the same price for ps plus as any
Ps5 users. I also wish to own a ps5, yet due to playstation’s failure to produce enough units, I cannot.
I think it is unfair for the rest of us not to have access to ps plus collection. Despite the risk of a ban I will still do this if the opportunity arises.
As someone noted on Reddit, two consecutive logins to the same account from many miles away within less than an hour will probably raise a suspicion or two.
And seriously, giving random people access to your account AND paying them for that is generally an idea I couldn't make up if I tried.😐
Yeah, it's not "industrious" players, it's not industrious to breach terms & conditions of service. If you've come up with some amazing idea the get around an "issue" there's a good chance you're breaching T&C of some service.
I thought about doing this after I realised I could gift the PS Plus collection to my friends. Saw on Ebay that people in the UK and US were doing it for £10/$10.
Then realised it probably broke some sort of agreement and thought better of it. Glad I didn't.
I know scalpers are scum, but I also wouldn’t want any company to be able to tell people who buy their products to whom they can resell them and for how much.
It’s the government that needs to crack down on these companies using bots, and even employees, to Hoover up all pre-orders, but looking at how ineffective that’s been against companies doing it for concert tickets I’m not sure anything short of criminal prosecutions, incarceration and massive fines will even make these company owners think twice.
@God_of_Nowt Hey man. Do you know if there's going to be any changes to PS Now? Or will PS Now just always stay the same where Sony add games monthly and that's it. I don't understand why they don't add PS3 games anymore.
@Jaz007 but that's not what the article is about, is it?
oh ***** stake .
@pepsilover2008 That's my thinking too. Seems very tight of Sony to only allow gamers to have these games for free if they own a PS5, rather than adding them into PS Plus for PS4 owners too.
@EllZ89 the other difference with scalping is that sony control very little of the b2c channel (this might vary country to country) so it's tough for them to control retail whereas obviously it's much easier for them to directly influence their own digital distribution.
@nhSnork I don't think that's how it worked. More likely: you pay the PS5 owner, he creates a new account with a PS+ sub, redeems all the games and gives the login info to you. You log in on your PS4, change the password, set it to primary console and go back to playing from your own account.
@Jayslow I was under the impression that this collection was specifically for new PS5 owners. Why would Sony just give out their biggest titles for free? You don’t get it because you didn’t make the sacrifice we did even if you couldn’t.
Yeah, it’s clearly Sony’s intention for this to be an incentive pushing people to get a PS5. I agree. However, it’s not anyone’s fault but Sony’s that they couldn’t / didn’t release an SKU which locks PS4 owners out.
Then again people would still complain about these being PS4 games locked out of the PS4 system .
As long as Sony are only banning people for the commercial use clause I don’t think anyone but businesses flouting those rules will have issue. If they ban users for unlocking it for family though, that’ll be a bit much.
Good point about people with both consoles being able to use it on either. Didn’t think of that.
And I do generally always try to explain to people the legitimate business reasons behind companies not giving away everything for free even though, clearly, to do so would be best for the customer (at least until said business goes bankrupt).
But I do feel the entire digital game sharing and ownership model needs to be replaced.
It’s not fit for purpose.
In my view, the simple solution would be to remove the primary Account system, and just allow any number of people to play the game, but just not simultaneously. Same as exchanging discs. This way there are a limited number of lost sales, likely made up for through the removal of Primary account abuse.
Sony could even use this as a way to allow digital sale of used games. They can do it through PSN at prices dictated by them and take a small cut
@thefourfoldroot that would require players to be always online though and that's a pretty big downside for some
Would only need log in briefly once an hour (Sony allow game sharing in hour increments currently so they can track this).
And if one cannot have a very slow internet connection once an hour...we’ll, then you can’t borrow or lend a game.
@God_of_Nowt I didn't mean whether Sony are going to merge PS Plus and PS Now together into one subscription. I just meant is there going to be any changes to PS Now in the future or is it always just going to stay the same as how it is now? Like are they just going to keep putting a few games on there a month and that's it, nothing else changes?
The one thing i can't believe is how Sony only puts about 3 games a month on there, before they lowered the price they used to put about 10 - 14 games on there a month. Just because they've lowered the price they've also taken games away because of that.
Look how many games Microsoft put onto Game Pass, there's games going on there all the time.
I dont understand like you said in your reply that backwards compatibility is barely used when it is. People seem to downplay it when it is a big deal. Over half of Xbox gamers have played a backwards compatible game and not only that but it's also one of the biggest draws to Xbox. If it wasn't a big deal then Microsoft wouldn't of put all the effort into that they have done. It means a lot to them and is important to them.
@Tasuki that's not against the law or ToS my friend that's why.
True, taking something away from people is never a good look. I don’t account share with two systems like this, but I know others do. I would hope that, if implemented alongside a digital trade and/or sell back policy then the good may even out the bad, but people will always kick up a fuss.
@God_of_Nowt Very well said 👍
GamePass makes a loss for Microsoft which is the way everyone sees it, and you've confirmed it true. How do you think they're making that money back?
Do you see the quality/ length of future games struggle because of it? Or is it case of if they get a certain number of subscribers it'll turn to profit. I feel like alot of the GamePass got it at a reduced rate in the first place.
Personal playing previous gen doesn't appeal to me anymore, and am happy with just the PS collection. But I don't want the future of gaming to suffer because of subscription services.
I have already got a friend with a ps5 to sort the titles for my ps4... Hope I don't get in trouble. XD
I did notice Uncharted 4 didn't work (something about not being able to dow load because I own "Uncharted 4 digital currency... What? Haha) and I already have a few of them.
When you think about it, it’s incredible no platform holder has tried to set up their own second hand digital marketplace. Physical stores make far more money from it than they do new game sales. Have a minimum resell price and ensure that only one console at a time can ever use that license, and they can sell the same game multiple times and kill the resale physical market from which they get nothing. They’ll still get the day one adopters buying at full price if they ensure they don’t start reselling the games until 3 months after release, say.
What got them is sharing personal log in information.That is against Sony's TOS. All the buyers had to send Name and passwords to the seller so the seller could log them into their PS5.
The bad news is if this gets to widespread Sony could STOP all forms of game sharing even with 1-2 siblings in the same household.
@NateGoesLive Any chance you figured if you have to keep the account you left for your Niece on the ps5 and set as main?
@Jayofmaya I left it as 2 users, my account and then her PSN account. Didn’t seem like she needed to pay PS PLUS either, as was able to play fall guys on her account.
It worked, so I didn’t change it, just told them if she ever wanted a new game, get me to order it on my account
So in short quality drops are going to be inevitable, I would happily keep the current format going of paying for singular titles if I could but I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to the grand scheme of things.
@God_of_Nowt Maybe get some product placement type ads to increase the funding.
Like the next GTA where drinking Coca Cola or eating Dairy Milk refills your health. So it's not obtrusive but still enough that massive companies would pay to have it in there.
@God_of_Nowt Yeah, though I get nervous with anything that uses IP tracking. VPNs, the rise of 5G replacing wired internet where each person may have their own IP (or worse, everything is sifted through random carrier grade NAT, etc, etc. I worry that trying to do a complicated "we intend it to be used this way for this purpose and will try to analyze if you're doing it this way" leads to more problems than just a fair and clear policy of "it works with any 2 machines, 3 machines, whatever."
Trying to "predict" intended use to suit a particular use rather than a flat rule always seems to end terribly. I'm just grateful it still works at all. I wasn't worried about that with MS, and is part of why I buy all mutliplat there, but vindictive penny-pinching Sony? I half expected they'd intentionally break it this gen. I was elated to fire it up and find out they didn't break it, for sure
At the present moment in time, it doesn't affect me, it's all within the same household, but it's one of those things that you think about because who knows what tomorrow is? It would be more comforting if it were a "this is how you can use it" rather than a "we intend you to use it this oddly restrictive way based on a traditional way of life from before the world went FUBAR and people will start eating each other to buy video games"
@thefourfoldroot @God_of_Nowt Agreed on this one. Steam does the digital sharing one at a time thing. Some love it, but for me, like G_o_N, I use it in-household for two people to play a game at the same time. Partly so that for multiplayer (and that's two plus & XBLG subs so they're getting some cash either way), we can play together (really, even if split screen existed still, if you're willing to buy multiple hardware setups, there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to use them), and even for single player, because other players in the home often need help with the games....and it's a lot harder for me to help if I'm not playing the same game at the same time with the details (and muscle memory) fresh in my mind. So the Steam style sharing doesn't actually work for me. It could be cool to have an option to choose how you want to use it or something though.
"The solution is there is no direct solution, it's going to take both industry leaders, "
On the whole pricing topic, I still think they key is value, value, value, value, value. Sony's moving in the wrong direction of that on pricing. The whole industry is. It's archaic, backward thinking in general. I know you like the price increase but it's an oversimplification. Subs are popular because they offer value. You can say "too much" value, but not really. Some might argue it's too little value. If we look at TV - I want to watch one show 4 times a year, so I have to buy 50 channels I don't want for exorbitant subscriptions. Youtube TV. It was like $35 when I first tried it. Cool, I can get basic cable for a little less than basic calble prices, watch and DVR stuff...great! Since then they've added "value" by adding a dozen premium channels I don't care even slightly about....and raised the price by double to cover that "value" - I'd rather pay a la carte for the half dozen things I want.
But when games say "we want this to be even more exclusive, we're raising prices!" they're breaking their own value. They're reducing the value. They're so fixated on maximizing returns on those early adopters, the preorerders, the month one buyers they've moved gaming into an awkward business model that no other industry emulates. To hit their financial goals they are setting unrealistically high prices for the medium and then seem to be confused as to why consumers might flock to subscription services the help publishers and harm the industry. In some ways Nintendo probably has it right, but they have the most egregiously greedy model of all. Maybe instead of $70+ launches, then price drops down the $49.99 then $19.99 over the year, then spins up the used market, trading, selling, sale watching, etc. , just launch the thing at $39.99, 49.99, and leave it there. No price drop, no deep sales. The price is the price and if you want it you buy it.
While I'm sure all the smart bean counters have worked out "best models" - those bean counters also brought us Spotify, Netflix, and Gamepass. And Patcher-esque analysts. I'm not sure the smart bean counters are worth their weight in feces. Consumers respond to value. Amazon and Walmart figured that out a long time ago. and "To make more money, raise the prices" is an ancient business philosophy that has tanked a far few industrial and retail giants.
I don’t think “make more money by raising the prices” is the point. The prices are dictated by the cost of production. So, why not make cheaper games and sell them for less? They do some, but that part of the market is saturated. Sony have the capability to release high quality games with the highest production values as their USP, and have almost guaranteed sales from the lack of competition. In short, there is room for both price points.
@thefourfoldroot If the prices were dictated by the cost of production, there would be little to no annual growth, growth would not be a target, and investors would be calling for the heads of everyone on the board. The price is dictated by the growth projection targets as a function of market scope minus opex and R&D. If they're charging more, they're either practicing that modern business ethos of charging the maximum the market is willing to sustain for maximum return, or they're charging more to sustain their projected and expected YoY growth as reported to investors, with cost factored in.
But that's beside the primary point. The point is "charging more" does not necessarily yield greater return, and can in fact, diminish return as opposed to lower margins and greater market expansion.
Likely, they are simply seeing a market willing to sustain higher prices and are choosing to capitalize on that to the maximum (but at the potential cost of a larger market.) The alternative, though is that what Sony (and Activision etc) are saying is that they feel the gaming market is now saturated and is not expected to meaningfully further expand. And thus in order to make the expected YoY gains investors expect, they now need to rely on soaking the existing market at greater unit gross because they do not expect to increase returns through market expansion any longer.
Either way, that's a relatively bleak outlook while they want to keep budgeting higher and higher.
It's not necessarily about making cheaper games as much as it's about how to maximize sales. Charging more to a smaller group has the side effect of encouraging the secondary market. Lower initial costs spur more direct sales, etc. But, gaming has put itself into such an odd market space with pre-order culture. It's a very very broken economy now. And it's going to have to hurt, a lot, before it's set right. Eventually that cataclysm will happen.
You are conflating two different issues. Yes, of course, growth of profits is expected, but no economist believes simply increasing prices indefinitely will do that. As you allude, a balance is struck between price and sales volume, the latter being influenced, yes, by the price, but also competition. If nobody is competing with Sony in the big budget blockbuster market then they will monopolise gamers who crave such games. Have they themselves saturated the market of gamers willing and able to pay £70 for such games. They obviously don’t think so and have the data.
It’s also an interesting point as to whether you can expand the market just by selling yourself as something cheap, or whether you need to market yourself as something people will want. That’s been the conversation in the VR space for some time. Selling a low desirability cheap product does not grow the market as well as a more expensive product that non adopters can actually get excited about. Cheap doesn’t sell in its own.
@thefourfoldroot You don't see Ubisoft, Activision, 2K/Rockstar, WB Games, Square-Enix, competing with Sony in the big budget blockbuster space?
Once again, though, you're equating lower sales price with a "low desirability cheap product". I'm not talking about a cheap budget product. I'm talking Uncharted 5 at $49.99, heck $39.99 reaching a bigger market at full price than at $69.99, and then selling at ever deeper discounts and second hand (meaning zero net return) after that. Same game. Same $100m budget. Different sales model, making less margin per unit, and slower ROI, but more full priced sales, and more unique direct sales versus the steep cliff of the current "opening box office" model. Essentially Nintendo's point that marking downgames devalues games and thus that shouldn't be done - but without the Nintendo money grubbing that just charges the max price everyone else charges forever and ever. Imagine if Miles launched at $39.99...or even $29.99....but never ever dropped in price. Or at least not for years. More full price direct sales rather than relying on the first 4m in the first 7 days to drop that price and then selling at stepper discounts from thereon out.
“ Same $100m budget. Different sales model, making less margin per unit, and slower ROI, but more full priced sales”
I think you are ignoring the “oh my god! This expensive £70 game is on sale for 50% off!” factor when it comes to sales. There is a reason every large publisher uses this strategy, as opposed to the more flat lower price for longer strategy. Sales work, and there are early adopters who will pay the higher price.
@NateGoesLive I've now heard for the Collection you don't need to, but as for the case of sharing the ps plus account then that's a good idea you had!
@Sissyrobyn996 most players share their accounts with a parent or friend and nobody got banned for this.
Sorry but the whole "benefit for PS5's owners only " is total BS since you can't access those games if you aren't a PS Plus subscriber. Besides that, a lot of people used to redeem the free PS3 and PS Vita monthly games on Plus even if they never owned these consoles. Now, suddenly, Sony decides that's against the ToS. My point is: this is a benefit for PS Plus subscribers.
Sony is stupid to think nobody would notice this and totally incompetent for not being able to implement a way that only PS5 owner's could access those games. Why did they not add a code for those games inside PS5's boxes???
The ToS talks about selling content (all transactions should be made by the final user so, you can't sell your games or account). Unless someone points out, I don't think redeeming the Plus Collection to someone is against the ToS. If it's, they should ban everyone their share their accounts.
The scalping is "consoles sales, profit".
Game/account sharing is "loss of potential profit."
No surprise for what a giant corporation cares more about. We love games, but we all sometimes seem to forget all Sony does is service that love in exchange for their shareholders benefit.
This isn't fair to the loyal customers who just didn't get their chance yet to own a PS5. I'm siding against Sony here. All subscribers to PS+ should get these games no matter what console they have right now.
@RPE83 Yeah it's true the ramifications from their perspective are different. Just unfortunate that they won't address the scalping, if only for the good PR. Especially since the console was gonna sell out anyway, with or without scalpers.
Is it an account ban or a console ban?
@sanderson72 Some of those games were already added on PS4 before
Tap here to load 76 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...