Game-sharing has garnered a notorious reputation in the time it has been available.  Since its reveal at [Sony] Gamer's Day '06, Sony has stated that game-sharing encourages a sense of community among gamers and helps bring them together.  However, not everyone agrees with Sony nudging you to share the wealth.

Q-Games' Dylan Cuthbert recently spoke out against the act, singling out individuals and calling it freeloading behavior.  Although his sentiments weren't expressed in the most professional manner, Cuthbert's statements raise some provocative questions. Just how strongly do other developers, both corporate and independent, echo his feelings?  And could it be that Sony's policy on multiple device activations, or game-sharing, is affecting game developers' perception of success on PSN? 

The Game-sharing Legacy

Game-sharing is actually the by-product of eliminating device-oriented product activation across Sony's computer entertainment products in favor of a server-side account based retention.  Various devices can be activated and deactivated at your leisure, provided you have access to each system upon which you
download your purchased products.  It's an alternate method of DRM that has proven both efficient and useful.

The DRM utilized in Sony's device activation system is simple enough, capable of locking out anyone else with a system activation for 24 hours after the game was last accessed.  2007's Warhawk made this method well known, also requiring that you be logged into the account where the product was originally
purchased.  The 5 device limit was still in place, but original account authentication was required to protect the game's distribution.  Gran Turismo 5: Prologue subsequently received the same treatment.  But not all PSN titles are given the same special care.

 It has been established that DRM measures are possible within the architecture Sony has put in place. The enigma is why nobody else seems to take advantage of it.  We can only speculate that it's a hierarchical issue that is dealt with or altogether ignored by Sony Computer Entertainment's marketing &
distribution departments. It should be noted that anyone who wishes to release a game on PlayStation Network, especially exclusively, will already know of this feature. Any complaints they have regarding consumer (and potential customer) usage should be discussed with Sony itself.

That said, we'll be exploring game-sharing's benefits and issues.

The Pros

Unlike Microsoft, Sony does not enforce a mandate that every digital game must have a demo.  Game-sharing can, in fact, function as a means of demo play for those who don't make blind purchases.  thatgamecompany's flOwer is a perfect example this philosophy.  flOwer, which had been hyped as the definitive PlayStation 3 experience, had many on the fence, failing to understand what made it an experience as opposed to a game.  The lack of a demo most likely did it no favors.

PSN's absence of demos for every digital game has been frustrating at best, but we have been offered a window of possibility for playing games before buying. I'm sure fine games like Cuboid, Everyday Shooter, Shatter, and Wipeout HD have all been passed over by many who aren't looking to get burned on impulse buys.

The Woes

Cuthbert and those who would take his stance on the scenario aren't the enemy.  Game development is a difficult trade that usually yields little praise.  Any sales lost due to game-sharing are painful, and I can empathize, as should all gamers.  The average consumer experiences a lapse in judgment very quickly,
and notions of supporting products they enjoy quickly wane.  After all, why buy something you already have full access to?

The question of whether or not game-sharing is ethical has not escaped the many corners of gaming community either.  Debates have raged back and forth for as long as it's been implemented.  Some find it to be nothing more than a service they're entitled to use when buying a PS3 and signing up on PSN, others consider it nigh-piracy and a downright abhorrent act.  

The subject is a pure shade of grey; neither side can be right.

Question of Value

In the current state of the economy, many people find it difficult to keep up with what each platform has to offer, and digitally distributed games aren't making things any easier. People are clinging ever tighter to their money.  Spending your hard earned $10 will yield the mindless Heavy Weapon or PixelJunk
Eden's immensely replayable gardens. Both of those games have demos on PSN, but who's to say which is more worth your money between Rag Doll Kung Fu or Savage Moon?  As ambitious as many downloadable titles have become, scope is definitely a deciding factor.  There's a question of value in games these days and maybe most use game-sharing as a means of finding answers.  

Media Molecule offers game-changing level content packs and throw-away costumes, but the value of either is left to the consumer. Burnout Paradise's Big Surf Island is practically a new game worth owning while their toy car pack is just fishing for loose change. The varied price points publishers are allowing to
slip through the cracks are creating market confusion in regards to perceived value.

Another point to hypothesize is the retail-bypass experiment Sony performed with Siren: Blood Curse and Ratchet & Clank: Quest for Booty.  Both of these were retail quality game experiences (and were, in fact, sold at retail everywhere but North America), but how much has game-sharing affected them?  Did they succeed as downloadable titles? Or were their sales hampered by game-sharing that limited their potential? SCE has never stated the degree of success either title received in the North American market as digital exclusives.

To Be Continued

When all is said and done, Sony keeps their online sales figures hidden from the public, preferring to only disclose monthly top 10 software purchases.  While, as gamers, we shouldn't make it our business to be so invested in product sales, it doesn't help our understanding of the situation.  It still leaves us wondering about the moral implications of this system and whether or not the amount of simultaneous activations is too high for mutual comfort. 

Cuthbert may feel some remorse for how he projected himself earlier, but as an individual whose well-being depends on the success of his products, he cannot be faulted too much for speaking on impulse.  The flaw in his outcry was whom he decided to target: the consumer.  The consumer cannot be blamed for using a system that is so heavily encouraged and readily available.  Any issues with the game-sharing architecture should be taken up with Sony and are not to be blamed on well-informed consumers.  The final decision of just how much an individual wishes to support the products they enjoy is left to them and them alone.  As the PixelJunk franchise has seen rampant growth in its two years on the PlayStation Network, the products developed under Cuthbert's lead are sure to remain successful for years to come.  However, due to how he saw fit to convey himself, he has lost a customer.  And he can't blame the system to which he agreed for that.

Addendum: Cuthbert has since recanted his statement; stating that he doesn't mind game-sharing too much but finds the limit too high.