PSN WarHawk tied to account

By Robert Purchese Published 29 August, 2007

Not signed-in, not playing.

Sony has issued a statement clearing up its latest announcement that downloadable versions of WarHawk will be tied like a lasso to your PlayStation Network account, so only the owner of the game will be able to play it.

The rule has been put in place to maintain the integrity of the free online service, which will also let you download the game on up to five other PS3 consoles. But if you do decide to show it off at your friend's house, bear in mind you won't be able to play it on another PS3 for 24 hours.

WarHawk is due for release tomorrow on the PlayStation Network, lifting-off at GBP 19.99.

But on the bright side of life is news that account-tying won't affect the Blu-ray version that launches slightly later on 21st September.

Head over to our WarHawk gamepage to see why this could be the most essential PSN purchase of 2007.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (54) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ProdigyBE_OPM #1 5 years ago

    First!

  • zoidberg #2 5 years ago

    good for you!

  • Steroyd #3 5 years ago

    shocking.

    Disc i think all digital distribution does this (like Steam) if it was playable on other accounts what's to stop people "sharing" away the game for free?
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 11:32

  • sickpuppysoftware #4 5 years ago

    If you want to sell it on afterwards buy the bluray version.
    It least you have the choice. I'm sure there are/will be other games where you don't have the choice.
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 11:35

  • kangarootoo #5 5 years ago

    @disc

    What on earth are you on about?

    1. If you could just play the game with any account, how exactly would they maintain the security of the product? This is how digital distribution works. Sony didn't invent the concept. iTunes is the same, Steam is the same.

    2. There is a blu-ray version too, so you can't really complain either way.

  • MrGilder #6 5 years ago

    I don't see any problem with this, I only have 1 main account anyway.

    Storm in a teacup me thinks..

  • kangarootoo #7 5 years ago

    @disc

    Of course it serves a point, and for most people this won't matter a jot. Do you actually have more than one PSN account? And if so, why?

  • Fodder #8 5 years ago

    Surely different accounts for different people in a household would be fairly common, so that you get your own profile for saves and whatnot? Isn't that how you're supposed to use them?

  • Eighthours #9 5 years ago

    With all other games on PSN you are allowed to play games with any account. Suddenly we're not allowed.

    With all due respect to superb games like Super Stardust HD, this is the first "proper game" (in terms of price) on the service and therefore it's hardly surprising that Sony want to maximise sales and minimise sharing.

  • Kazzahdrane #10 5 years ago

    Would be a bit rubbish if this became the norm, since XBLA games can be played by any account on the machine they were bought on. As someone else said, good for a household with multiple accounts. My flatmate has his own Live account on my 360 and we've both bought XBLA games and being able to play his games on my account is nice, just like with retail releases.

  • Lacero #11 5 years ago

    FoddeR: That's a good point, people can easily log onto their family's accounts (I doubt many have bothered setting up a password), and all this does it mean people will share accounts on the same machine. People who know about it and use passwords normally might even setup a WarHawk account on the machine and leave that one with no password so anyone can play without getting other game saves confused.

    It seems a bit pointless really.

    [edit: disc: there's no password confirmation step when buying things?? wow, that's harsh. I can see why this would be annoying.]
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 12:01

  • Rirekon #12 5 years ago

    That certainly puts a bit of a dent in Sony's push to make the PS3 a home entertainment system, why buy a game if your siblings/parents/children/pets can't play it too (without using your account obviously).

  • Kill_Crazy #13 5 years ago

    Can't the whingers just log in as the account it was brought under? Surely they can manage that.

  • Moz #14 5 years ago

    Humm locking it to a system would have better then a user.

    Or at least let user with sub-accounts to one the bought it use it. then maybe limit the number of sub accounts you can have.

  • asphaltcowboy #15 5 years ago

    "Understandable. If Sony would maintain the old system, I could have bought the online version and 4 of my friends could play the game for free on their PS3."

    Er... or turn off the '5 authorise' system and allow the game to be played by anyone, on the console it was bought on...

  • dog2_99 #16 5 years ago

    some of us had a PS3 before the EUR network was up, i have two A/Cs US and HK...still need to set up a UK one hehe!

  • asphaltcowboy #17 5 years ago

    It also means that if you have multiple people using your PS3, they either need to each buy a copy (3 times the cost, is that 3 times the download space as well?) in order to play or all use the same account (does the game track stats?)! Rubbish!
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 12:05

  • woodnotes #18 5 years ago

    This means that if your girlfriend has her own PSN account too on your PS3, and wants to play some Warhawk (although I'm sure she wouldn't unless she's an ugly geek), she won't be able to.

  • Steroyd #19 5 years ago

    If only Sony launched the Blu-ray version at the same time as the US Disc wouldn't be bitching. :/

  • Moz #20 5 years ago

    "Can't the whingers just log in as the account it was brought under? Surely they can manage that."

    The main problem for me is stats and Leader boards the reason why there are multiple user on my PS3 is so when other people play they don't effect my online stats. I'm sure there will be unranked games but all logins on my machine should be able to their own ranking

  • Fodder #21 5 years ago

    Logging in to another account is fine for a lot of situations, but kind of buggers up the parental control stuff a bit. If you have limited accounts for your kids, you'd need to give them access to the main account so they could play the game.

  • tonynibbles #22 5 years ago

    Makes sense, it's online only.

  • zuljin #23 5 years ago

    @asphaltcowboy
    "It also means that if you have multiple people using your PS3, they either need to each buy a copy (3 times the cost, is that 3 times the download space as well?) in order to play or all use the same account (does the game track stats?)! Rubbish!"

    Ooooor... You wait 2 weeks, buy the BR version for £9 extra, sell the headset for a tenner, and play the game on as many PS3s as you like for 1 pound cheaper than the online version.

    £60 vs £19 (2 weeks later). Its not rocket science, if you don't like it, just buy the disc version right?

    And when you're done you sell the game, and get even more money back.

  • Moz #24 5 years ago

    Maybe they could offer sub-account "licenses" for £5 a user?



    Also if I buy the game and a friend buys the game can we just sign in and play on each others machines without using a download credit or the 24 hour lockout kicking in?

  • The-Bodybuilder #25 5 years ago

    I too cannot see the problem is. Sony have the right to protect thier property and stop others from just sharing it out.

  • Moz #26 5 years ago

    "I too cannot see the problem is. Sony have the right to protect thier property and stop others from just sharing it out."

    I agree just the method they are using is alittle flawed, locking it to a specific machine would have made alot more sence for alot of people. As people get very protective of their ranking score etc.

    On the other hand we have 2 360's in our house which means buy online stuff twice if you want to use it upstairs and downstairs!

    In short you can't win.

    My personal preference would be to have the game locked to Profile and all sub accounts, but only let you have the one copy of the game running online at anyone point.

    EDIT/ grammer
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 12:42

  • zuljin #27 5 years ago

    Moz - I guess part of the protection is also online stats tracking. Many games you can restart a character, then play with newbies and get your stats up. Warhawk has awards and medals for kill streaks, so these would be easier to get if you know what you're doing against newbies...

  • Moz #28 5 years ago

    "Moz - I guess part of the protection is also online stats tracking. Many games you can restart a character, then play with newbies and get your stats up. Warhawk has awards and medals for kill streaks, so these would be easier to get if you know what you're doing against newbies..."


    But on the flip side of that coin, do want your brother playing with your profile and screwing your stats up?

    /EDIT: Most of my complaints wouldn't exist if the Blu-Ray came out at the same time as the download
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 12:54

  • asphaltcowboy #29 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    Well, yes, obviously that's what a sensible person would do (assuming they're not so desperate to play it as soon as it's available). I wasn't talking about the BR version anyway, it was discussion about the choices they've made regarding the online version.

  • kangarootoo #30 5 years ago

    @disc

    All good points, I didn't really think my question through a whole lot :)

    Though on your "Most people who are Internet aware" comment, I don't think they really represent a majority (not sure if I can really attribute a value to that statement however).

    This probably is all about cash, but I don't see that as some kind of new evil. A developer wants to protect their investment, and we the customers get a choice to make. No one forces us, as always.

    Maybe this is related to it being a "proper" title. Maybe its because of the online nature of the game (not sure why, but it popped into my head so I wrote it down).

  • kangarootoo #31 5 years ago

    I think it is worth bearing in mind that all the points regards multiple people in the same house, friends and relatives, showing your friends on their PS3... these are all issues of convenience. We might not like being inconvenienced, but the truth is we have no right to the things we are complaining about being taken away.

    Yes its easier to be able to have the same copy played by loads of people, but we have no right to that. Yes it easier to have 1 copy playable on your PS3 plus 4 of your friends' PS3s, but we have no right to that either.

    If a company does something that impinges the rightful use of their product, we might have a genuine complaint to raise, but we can hardly get too outraged just because a publishers stops us doing stuff we should have never been doing in the first place. We are all adults, so we can tell the difference right?

  • Moz #32 5 years ago

    "Maybe this is related to it being a "proper" title. Maybe its because of the online nature of the game (not sure why, but it popped into my head so I wrote it down)."

    But the online nature of the game give you other options to restrict the game, as it's online for the most part mean you can stop people running more then one copy at the same time.

  • Dizzy #33 5 years ago

    "Disc i think all digital distribution does this (like Steam) if it was playable on other accounts what's to stop people "sharing" away the game for free? "

    Maybe link it to machineId? Just like Live.

    "On the other hand we have 2 360's in our house which means buy online stuff twice if you want to use it upstairs and downstairs! "

    Err??? No you can log in with your GT and play games on any 360, but you NEED to be logged in to Live IF you want to play on a different machine as the original download. So you can play on any 360.

    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 13:25

  • Les #34 5 years ago

    Besides the fact that it's a bit confusing to have two different DRM schemes, can't see much fault with it. And how many of you know 4 other people that own a PS3? ;)

  • Moz #35 5 years ago

    Err??? No you can log in with your GT and play games on any 360, but you NEED to be logged in to Live IF you want to play on a different machine as the original download. So you can play on any 360. "

    Does that work for game content like extra tracks in Guitar hero or shivering isles expantion for Oblivion as you can't download a trial version?

    EDIT:\ "And how many of you know 4 other people that own a PS3? ;)" - I have 8 in the flesh friends with PS3's
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 13:36

  • Dizzy #36 5 years ago

    "Does that work for game content like extra tracks in Guitar hero or shivering isles expantion for Oblivion as you can't download a trial version? "

    Yes ofc... you just need to download the game and/or content on that "new" 360 using your account (it is free since you already paid ofc)
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/07 @ 13:45

  • JYM60 #37 5 years ago

    If you're interested in an EG clan see the official forum thread.

  • kangarootoo #38 5 years ago

    "Does that work for game content like extra tracks in Guitar hero or shivering isles expantion for Oblivion as you can't download a trial version?"

    Yeah. The content won't work unless you are signed in.

    My 360 died and I got a replacement, transferring the HDD. I thought nothing of it till I moved house. On trying to play Oblivion before I had got my broadband sorted, the game complained that some of the downloaded content used by my game save was not present. "Uhh?" I thought to myself, then realising later what had happened after seeing that the error disappeared once I had broadband sorted and could sign into Live (that is an awfully constructed sentence, but you get my point).

  • zuljin #39 5 years ago

    @asphaltcowboy
    "I wasn't talking about the BR version anyway..."

    I fully realised that you weren't, but the download is not the only option available. To me its like saying: "The Xbox core is shit because it has no hard drive".

    The point is that the download is an extra release with a different set of features for a different price. As long as people are made aware of the differences, separate versions, allowing people a choice, is a good thing in my opinion.

  • Fodder #40 5 years ago

    "If a company does something that impinges the rightful use of their product, we might have a genuine complaint to raise, but we can hardly get too outraged just because a publishers stops us doing stuff we should have never been doing in the first place."

    What stuff is that? I take your point on the sharing of files to other people, but surely multiple users accounts for different people is exactly what you are supposed to do. What else are they for?

  • asphaltcowboy #41 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    But the 360 Core is shit because it has no hard drive ;)

  • kangarootoo #42 5 years ago

    @Fodder

    Do you mean multiple accounts for multiple people, or multiple accounts per person?

    I'm not sure either PSN or XBLive was designed in mind of people creating multiple accounts per person. Again, creating an extra account to pretend you are in a different country does not fall into the category of normal and legitimate use.

    @Wonga

    Yes.

  • Moz #43 5 years ago

    "
    Would 2 people in the same household have to purchase the game individually? Say if you buy a game like Stardust on PSN, and your brother wants to play under his own identity, with his own friends list, and high scores, etc. "

    For stardust and the other arcade esc titles then no, any user of the system can play the game.

    But with Warhawk they have made it so you have to logged in to the user that downloaded the game. This does not apply if you buy the BD

  • scaramanga10 #44 5 years ago

    So basically you can play it on 5 different PS3s(as long as you log-in with your account), but it'll be locked to the last PS3 you played it on for the last 24hrs. Sounds fair enough.

  • Fodder #45 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Yes, I mean multiple accounts for multiple people (one account each). It seems to me more than slightly insane that if you're using the account system as you're meant to, you'd have to buy several copies of the game.

  • kangarootoo #46 5 years ago

    @Fodder

    I don't see how this breaks the model you are describing. One person, with one account buys a game and is fully able to play it. Where is the problem with that?

    You might say that the other users of the system, each with the their own account, should also be able to play the game. I would say that is an example of something that we have got used to doing, but never actually had any right to. When you buy a game, you buy the right to use for yourself alone.

  • RexRunti #47 5 years ago

    You don't have the right to record something off the TV either kanga, it's something we got used to doing. If ITV suddenly started sueing people for doing it would that be OK? The fact is once you become used to something it feels like a right so it stings when it get's taken away.

  • Moz #48 5 years ago

    @kanga

    That's not strictly true.

    On thinking about this some more, maybe a good middle ground would have been to offer you 3 or 4 ranking slots with in the game. So you have to be logged in with the profile that bought the game but could then have myPSN(1) myPSN(2) and myPSN(3) as separately ranked players. That way family members would be able to have their own separate rankings.

    Another thing that I've just relised as far as compairing this to the Xbox goes is that on Xbox you have to pay £40 per different profile that wants to play online. Not to mention that this size of game isn't currently available on XBL so if you end up needing to copies of the game your still only spending £40 which is what you'd pay for any new game of this size on the Xbox anyway plus you'd have XBL Gold subscription on top of that

  • deepmenace #49 5 years ago

    imo they should have stuck with steams' model. you buy *one* and that *one* can only be played by 1 account at any given moment.

    i wanna play against mates then we all gotta buy it.
    i just wanna let my little bro have his owns stats when he plays on my ps3 and that cool too.

  • kangarootoo #50 5 years ago

    @RexRunti

    "The fact is once you become used to something it feels like a right so it stings when it get's taken away."

    I utterley agree, but thats not the point. I already said that people get used to something and thats why they complain, but they have no RIGHT to complain because they had no right in the first place to what is then denied to them.

    Talking about ITV suing people is a bit sensationalist. A better example would be if they somehow simply stopped you recording TV programmes. Isn't that what Sky and NTL already do? Yes it would/does sting, but that doesn't mean you have a right to anything (other than a hug and a "there there, nevermind";).


    @Moz

    What you are suggesting are alternative ways that the system could be run, and they are fine ideas. I'm not sure that makes what I've said not strictly true.

    I need to make clear, I am not saying the way this is being done is right, or ok, or the only way it could be done. What I am saying is that people complaining on the basis that they can no longer do things they shouldn't have been doing in the first place aren't exactly on hallowed ground. Of course there will be perfectly legitimate examples that have now been rendered impossible, and I would probably agree that is a bad thing if someone showed me such an example. My only issue is when people say "thats not fair, 'cos now I have to buy 3 copies". "You were always SUPOSED to buy 3 copies, muppet brain" is my response to that sort of thing.

  • kangarootoo #51 5 years ago

    Here is an analogy. It might not take off, but lets see how it goes.

    I have a car. I insure my car so I can drive it. If my friends or family want to drive my car, they have to pay extra in order to do so with insurance. EVEN THOUGH we can't drive it at the same time, the insurance company still wants extra money to cover us all.

    Hmmm, that analogy might be shite. But I love analogies too much to walk ten steps without wheeling one out anyway. Maybe a better one will come along. A shiny apple to the first poster who can use a good analogy to either agree with me or demonstrate I'm talking rubbish (either is good, the debate itself is king).

  • krudd #52 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Well i'm using your car insurance analogy! Lets say that I want a child of mine to be insured on my car then I do have to pay a bit more for the car but not the full price as if they were going to get their own insurance on the car.....that is the way it could (should be imo)

    The main account that bought the game pays full price, then someone else with their own account on the same console would pay a smaller fee and get to play the game as well.......ish!?!?!

    I'm just really thinking out loud here!

  • MrMagoo #53 5 years ago

    http://ww w.jolt.co.uk/index.php?articlei...

  • Steroyd #54 5 years ago

    This bitching would SO be averted if the Blu-ray version in Europe launched earlier it seems it's the version everyone wants.

    Sony's already covered the multiple accounts thing by offering it over Blu-ray disc, this is why we look at the pros and cons of looking between dl'ing warhawk and buying it in retail it's why people appreciate choice.

    Sure Sony's DRM rule might not gel with people, we just have to get used to the fact that Companies have the type of control over these type of properties that they've been wanting for years.