Jack Tretton, CEO of SCEA, is not digging all this "used game blocks". According to Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter, Tretton mentioned that he's not speaking on behalf of everyone at Sony but he really does think blocking used games is anti-consumerist.
Looks like we have a winner, folks.
According to That Video Game Blog, Pachter mentioned in the Bonus Round that Tretton spoke out about his stance on allowing consoles to play used games and Jack wasn't feeling it, saying used games are “great for consumers†and that blocking second-hand games is very "anti-consumer". He went on to explain that "Japan might think something different."
In the same way that his words are partially comforting because it means a higher-up actually cares what consumers think, it's also a little troubling when Jack mentions that he's not really speaking on behalf of Sony because it means that the company may have something of that ilk planned for the PS4, also rumored to be Orbis.
Another upside is that GameStop certainly would take a huge hit from a console that blocks used games, and that's not to mention that the loss of revenue would be greater than any of the profit that big publishers would stand to gain. Take into consideration that most of GameStop's annual used game revenue pales in comparison to what EA or Activision makes in most fiscal third quarters each year, especially since Activision has been doing annual iterations of Call of Duty and EA has stepped into the free-to-play arena, in addition to retail and subscription-based games.
The idea that so many developers have come forward to support the blockage of used games spells a dire situation of just how greedy some people have become, especially considering that devs are only sometimes paid via royalties after their initial payments during the production of the game. However, the royalties only kick in if the game continues to sell well and beyond standard expectations. However, blocking used games does not equate to more newer copies being sold, it probably just means that said gamer wouldn't buy anything else. It's about the same as the piracy debate, and assuming that blocking a pirated copy of the game would coerce that same gamer to fork over cash for a full priced retail copy is flatout ludicrous. So basically, blocking used games is about on par to trying to stop piracy and turn pirates/used game consumers into retail consumers. No dice.
So where does that leave us with the PS4? Well, at least we know one of Sony's higher-ups is on the side of gamers and that they're not completely diluted with the plague of greed circulating around some publishing studios.
cinemablend
