Edge reports durango to block used games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skaar]

Third Parties are going to have to go to the Wii U if they want their games to be sold. This thing single handedly kills the Durango. Besides Bayonetta 2 is coming out soon. :D

You speak with your emotions and not your brain.

[kedawa]

I could excuse a one-time activation that authorizes the game on that console, since XBLA games already do that, but requiring a persistent connection is crossing the line.

I don't even really mind that the disc has become nothing more than a convenient alternative to choking your internet connection with a multi-GB download, and ideally you could just toss it after it installs or pass it along to a friend. I just don't want to be cut off from my games whenever I have no connection.

[PreZZ]

If this really happens, ill just stick to collecting retro games and playing those. Just got a X'EYE today and playing rocket knight adventures!

[zakthedodo]

I don't understand why you wouldn't make a system as user friendly as possible.

I think it was Sony a few years back that tried to make rip protected CD's.
So you buy the music, but can't rip it to your collection to put on your MP3 player without a code or something.
It didn't last very long.

[WCP]

I think part of this is the whole piracy thing. Microsoft suffered pretty strongly with piracy this generation. If you look on any craigslist, you'll see people with advertisments to mod your 360 and make you backups. They want to kill GameStop, GameFly and Piracy in one fell swoop.

The thing is, has any of these always-on connections really worked when it came to piracy ? For example, with Diablo 3 was Blizzard able to avoid a lot of piracy with that game, or was it pirated just as much as anything else ? You have to wonder why companies go through with these measures if they really don't work very well.

[Collector_Gaming]

Well if there is one thing that is for certain piracy will never disappear. They come out with something new to block them. Someone will come up with a way to work around it and then cash in on it for themselves.

As for the safe bet that was mentioned earlier.

Companies especially corporations go where the money is. They don't care how many bridges they burn along the way to get there its just that they get there.

So if it means pissing off the hardcore gaming community to cash in on the huge boom in casual gaming thats happened in the past decade they will do it until that cash cow runs dry and then go for something else.

They don't care about you... they don't care about me... they only care about the figures that sit in their bank accounts.

The only thing I personally think they are shooting themselves in the foot with is jumping to the whole it has to be online to work thing.

Not everyone has cable internet. Some places still can't even get cable internet believe it or not. Some your small town residents that live on back country roads that comcast and verizon have yet to stake claim to. I mean yes the majority of us have finally moved onto cable over the years but not everyone has it.

[danawhitaker]

I don't know if anyone's bothered to mention it, and I'd completely forgotten, but we shouldn't forget about things like the PSN outage either. That took the PSN out for almost a month. Games like Everquest, DC Online, and Star Wars Galaxies were in the same boat. Would you really want to be unable to use your console for the better part of a month - AT ALL - if something like that happened again? Compensation after the fact isn't good enough when I plunk down hundreds of dollars for the console plus $60 for a game that I'm not even going to be playing online in the first place. And all the redundancy in the world wouldn't help if the network had to be shut down because of a breach like that rather than just stability problems. And Sony's not some small company. They're one of the big ones. There's no guarantee something similar won't happen in the future. I'd hope they'd be able to fix it more quickly than that one took, but I don't have much confidence that would be the case.

[IHatedSega]

They want to kill GameStop, GameFly and Piracy in one fell swoop.

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

[FayeC86]

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

Gamestop might have to restructure their business, but so would many of the companies. Sure Nintendo, Activision and EA can probably take to the change, but XSEED, Atlus or NISA isnt going to be able to sell the next Persona, or Phantom Brave at walmart.

I have a Wii U, a Vita and a 3DS to complement my past systems. If the next PS and Xbox wont allow used games I'd gladly pass on them. It will just give me more funds to by used games for consoles I already have.

[IHatedSega]

Im pretty sure if someone knows about Persona theyll be able to order it online from Amazon.

[Collector_Gaming]

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

They don't hate gamestop entirely. They hate the fact game stop sells used copies of their games which they claim they don't see a dime from. Game stop thrives on used game sales according to their business model which is why employees are forced to annoy you with trying to push you into buying a used copy.
They want gamestop to just buy their new product and sell it. Which if what their business model shows towards new game sales is true they would have to increase sale prices from 60 dollars to probably 70 if not more to make a true profit and we know how well that will work. Hence it will force gamestop to file for Bankruptcy eventually and close up shop regardless if the game companies like it or not.

I have noticed because i very very rarely shop at gamestop any more that they have adopted to changing times as best as they could.
My local game stop has taken up selling smart devices and accessories. They took down their gameboy section and consolidated it into the Wii/Wiiu section and replaced it with this new section.

[Griking]

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

I disagree. I don't believe that many people shop at Gamestop for the new games. You can easily find better prices on new games at several other retailers.


Gamestop might have to restructure their business, but so would many of the companies. Sure Nintendo, Activision and EA can probably take to the change, but XSEED, Atlus or NISA isnt going to be able to sell the next Persona, or Phantom Brave at walmart.

No but they'd be able to sell them on Amazon, eBay, and other popular online retailers.

[Greg2600]

Piracy has not been a legitimate concern with consoles, really ever. Computers were a different story back in the day. I personally do not understand the reason for this. The software publishers simply don't understand their customer base if they expect sales to go up because you stop used games. The reality is people will simply buy LESS games.

[Collector_Gaming]

Could this be considered a case where we are advancing a little too fast for our own good?

[Bojay1997]

Piracy has not been a legitimate concern with consoles, really ever. Computers were a different story back in the day. I personally do not understand the reason for this. The software publishers simply don't understand their customer base if they expect sales to go up because you stop used games. The reality is people will simply buy LESS games.

That's not accurate. In the PSOne days, it was actually impacting Sony and its third party developers pretty heavily to the point where Sony was citing it in their annual and quarterly reports. It also was/is a huge problem on the PSP and the DS with knock off carts flooding Ebay to this day on the Nintendo platforms. I think there was less piracy on the PS2 and the 360/PS3, but it certainly exists.

Software publishers do understand their customer base. It's not about increasing unit sales, it's about increasing profitability per unit. When Gamestop makes a 50% gross profit margin on used sales per their recent annual reports, that is just a ton of money that's being lost by publishers. People will still buy plenty of games, the only difference is that Gamestop and other third parties hoping to profit from customer laziness and willingness to accept pennies on the dollar for used items will disappear.

[Press_Start]

Could this be considered a case where we are advancing a little too fast for our own good?

In terms of unbridled skyrocketing game development costs, yes we have. Jeez, PS3 game costs tripled to $15 mill in 2006. We don't necessarily need the next "BIG" graphical leap. We have enough right now. Heck, we have the graphical sandbox of the Sahara Desert. Look at Xenoblade Chronicles, the whole premise takes place on the two godly titans, addictive MMO-like strategy, and massively uninterrupted locals. They did it all on the Wii. They can do more on PS360. They just have to stop obsessing over "da pahfeeTs".

[marlowe221]

Regarding piracy rates - I see/read stuff about publishers/developers blaming high rates of piracy for their financial failures but it makes me wonder.... How do you measure piracy rates in any reliable way?

Do they call up people and poll them? I mean seriously, just how do they know how many people are pirating a game?

(The cynic in me says they don't actually know and just playing the blame game but I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong).

As far as no used games.... That's not cool. I would echo the comments that others have made when they said that used products are bought and sold all the time of other kinds and you don't see producers of new products complaining about it. Furthermore, the fact that publishers/developers imply some moral side to it is just laughable. You can't guilt people out of buying used products - there's nothing wrong with doing so!

The real problem is that the business side of video games has been headed the wrong way for several years now and the big publishers/developers don't know what to do about it. They won't admit when they put out a bad game, they won't take responsibility for questionable DLC practices, the list could go on. Instead they blame their own customers - always a great way to make people love you right?

Only the airlines and video game companies seem to have mastered the art of bad-mouthing paying customers and staying in business.

Personally, I will not purchase a console that will not play a used game. I will not purchase a console with an always online requirement. I think it's bad enough that I have to pay money for having the "privilege" of being advertised to as much as I am already. I also think that IP laws are already screwy enough in the USA on the consumer side (read: virtually non-existant) without all of that.

So far, Nintendo seems to be the company least likely to engage in such shennanigans but time will tell....

[danawhitaker]

That's not accurate. In the PSOne days, it was actually impacting Sony and its third party developers pretty heavily to the point where Sony was citing it in their annual and quarterly reports. It also was/is a huge problem on the PSP and the DS with knock off carts flooding Ebay to this day on the Nintendo platforms. I think there was less piracy on the PS2 and the 360/PS3, but it certainly exists.

Software publishers do understand their customer base. It's not about increasing unit sales, it's about increasing profitability per unit. When Gamestop makes a 50% gross profit margin on used sales per their recent annual reports, that is just a ton of money that's being lost by publishers. People will still buy plenty of games, the only difference is that Gamestop and other third parties hoping to profit from customer laziness and willingness to accept pennies on the dollar for used items will disappear.

Pff. That's like a furniture store arguing they lose sales because Goodwill sells used sofas and tables. They have no proof that those people would ever have bought the item new in the first place. They might lose some, but they can't claim they'd lose all of it, and they have no real way to prove a specific amount. It's just speculation on their part. Someone not willing to buy it full price might not buy it at all. It's the same fallacy anti-piracy arguments use. You can't prove the people who pirated your product would have paid for it if they couldn't pirate it.

[Bojay1997]

Pff. That's like a furniture store arguing they lose sales because Goodwill sells used sofas and tables. They have no proof that those people would ever have bought the item new in the first place. They might lose some, but they can't claim they'd lose all of it, and they have no real way to prove a specific amount. It's just speculation on their part. Someone not willing to buy it full price might not buy it at all. It's the same fallacy anti-piracy arguments use. You can't prove the people who pirated your product would have paid for it if they couldn't pirate it.

Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

While I can't dispute that piracy numbers are more speculative, if a pirate is a console gamer and there is no longer a way to pirate console games, they will either be forced to give up console gaming or will buy the games. Sure, some pirates will give up gaming or move to PCs and other less protected formats, but many will also simply suck it up and actually start paying for games. It's not a complex issue, it's just a matter of how willing Microsoft and Sony are going to be this time around to shake up the status quo at the risk of short-term loss of sales in exchange for significantly better long-term profitability.

[marlowe221]

Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

While I can't dispute that piracy numbers are more speculative, if a pirate is a console gamer and there is no longer a way to pirate console games, they will either be forced to give up console gaming or will buy the games. Sure, some pirates will give up gaming or move to PCs and other less protected formats, but many will also simply suck it up and actually start paying for games. It's not a complex issue, it's just a matter of how willing Microsoft and Sony are going to be this time around to shake up the status quo at the risk of short-term loss of sales in exchange for significantly better long-term profitability.

Two things.

1. GS sells LOTS of used games that are way less than $5 off the price of new. Most of the used games I have purchased at GS have been in the $15-25 range. Now you have to wait 6 months to a year for the game to get to that kind of price but it often does. I don't think the argument that a used sale is a lost new sale really holds water.

2. Locking out used games =/= stopping piracy. I honestly don't know how to pirate a game on a modern console (or even a retro one, for that matter). My guess is that 95% of GS's customers don't know how to do it either. I am all for stopping piracy. But I don't see how locking out used games gets us to that goal.

[Bojay1997]

Two things.

1. GS sells LOTS of used games that are way less than $5 off the price of new. Most of the used games I have purchased at GS have been in the $15-25 range. Now you have to wait 6 months to a year for the game to get to that kind of price but it often does. I don't think the argument that a used sale is a lost new sale really holds water.

2. Locking out used games =/= stopping piracy. I honestly don't know how to pirate a game on a modern console (or even a retro one, for that matter). My guess is that 95% of GS's customers don't know how to do it either. I am all for stopping piracy. But I don't see how locking out used games gets us to that goal.

You probably need to start shopping around more if you're paying $15-$25 used for games six months to a year after release. Most new games hit $20 or less six months to a year after release with very, very few exceptions. Also, I believe something like 80% of Gamestop's used sales are for games that have been released within the last 60 days. The typical Gamestop used customer actually uses Gamestop as something like an expensive rental service and gets into the Gamestop ecosystem by buying a used, new release game and then keeps coming back to trade the game for the next one on a weekly basis. Even with trade-in bonuses and other promotions, I think Gamestop averages something like $25 in revenue for each used sale/trade-in each time it comes through the system. Imagine if publishers just dropped new game prices to the $25-$30 level and kept all that revenue for themselves?

Essentially, used buyers are paying $25-$30 each time they "rent" a used game for a week from Gamestop and after two games, they have essentially paid full MSRP for something they don't even own anymore because they've traded it in on some other used game. It's an incredibly lucrative business model for Gamestop.

Locking out games stops piracy by tying the game purchase to a specific user and/or console. It combats piracy the same way it has for a number of years on PC games. Yes, it's not foolproof, but it keeps the more casual/lazy pirates from stealing software and/or playing on-line.

[danawhitaker]

Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

While I can't dispute that piracy numbers are more speculative, if a pirate is a console gamer and there is no longer a way to pirate console games, they will either be forced to give up console gaming or will buy the games. Sure, some pirates will give up gaming or move to PCs and other less protected formats, but many will also simply suck it up and actually start paying for games. It's not a complex issue, it's just a matter of how willing Microsoft and Sony are going to be this time around to shake up the status quo at the risk of short-term loss of sales in exchange for significantly better long-term profitability.

How are Gamestop's numbers proof? Unless they ask the customer whether they would have bought the new copy instead of the used one (which I know for a fact they do not at the Gamestops around here), it's still speculation. I'm stingy with what I'm willing to spend. I almost never buy a new game for $60. For me, being willing to buy the game at $55 does not mean I would always have paid $5 more for a new copy. You cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's a lost sale. Instead, people who do the whole buy used-trade in-buy used cycle that you discuss might simply have gone with a rental service like Gamefly or Blockbuster and wouldn't buy at all. Or they would have maybe borrowed the game from a friend or relative. Or they would have checked the game out of the library for free (our library rents games for free).

$5 doesn't seem like a lot, but for some of us, it's a deal-breaker. The last three games that I've bought I paid $55 (Super Mario Wii U on Amazon, new), $15 (Forza Horizon, new, Amazon), and $20 (Angry Birds Trilogy, new, Amazon), respectively. The only one of those I would have paid $60 for is Super Mario Wii U, and that's because it was a present for my daughter - but I shopped around and got a deal before Christmas. I would normally have waited until Forza or Angry Birds were heavily discounted. I just got lucky with Black Friday weekend sales and found them ridiculously discounted shortly after launch.

Edit: And when it comes to used games at Gamestop, they can be returned for your money back (not store credit, your money back) within 7 days if you aren't satisfied. That means that in theory, that person's never actually spending any money at all. Now, Gamestop might cotton on after a while if someone's doing this repeatedly and regularly. But if they do it fairly infrequently, it would probably slide under the radar. I can count on one hand the number of times I've done that over the years, but I have. I think the last time I did was in 2004 with Phantasy Star Online 1 & 2 for the Gamecube. I realized I didn't enjoy the game as much as I had when I owned it on Dreamcast and I returned it within the 7 day period for my cash back. Once a new game has been opened, however, that option is out the door. That's another reason I argue you can't guarantee that used sale would translate to a new one. Someone might choose to buy the used copy for $5 less knowing they can return it if they discover that they hate the game. They wouldn't gamble $60 on a new copy that they couldn't return. Again you have a scenario where someone who can't buy the used copy will turn to renting it or borrowing it from a friend.

[Bojay1997]

How are Gamestop's numbers proof? Unless they ask the customer whether they would have bought the new copy instead of the used one (which I know for a fact they do not at the Gamestops around here), it's still speculation. I'm stingy with what I'm willing to spend. I almost never buy a new game for $60. For me, being willing to buy the game at $55 does not mean I would always have paid $5 more for a new copy. You cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's a lost sale. Instead, people who do the whole buy used-trade in-buy used cycle that you discuss might simply have gone with a rental service like Gamefly or Blockbuster and wouldn't buy at all. Or they would have maybe borrowed the game from a friend or relative. Or they would have checked the game out of the library for free (our library rents games for free).

$5 doesn't seem like a lot, but for some of us, it's a deal-breaker. The last three games that I've bought I paid $55 (Super Mario Wii U on Amazon, new), $15 (Forza Horizon, new, Amazon), and $20 (Angry Birds Trilogy, new, Amazon), respectively. The only one of those I would have paid $60 for is Super Mario Wii U, and that's because it was a present for my daughter - but I shopped around and got a deal before Christmas. I would normally have waited until Forza or Angry Birds were heavily discounted. I just got lucky with Black Friday weekend sales and found them ridiculously discounted shortly after launch.

Edit: And when it comes to used games at Gamestop, they can be returned for your money back (not store credit, your money back) within 7 days if you aren't satisfied. That means that in theory, that person's never actually spending any money at all. Now, Gamestop might cotton on after a while if someone's doing this repeatedly and regularly. But if they do it fairly infrequently, it would probably slide under the radar. I can count on one hand the number of times I've done that over the years, but I have. I think the last time I did was in 2004 with Phantasy Star Online 1 & 2 for the Gamecube. I realized I didn't enjoy the game as much as I had when I owned it on Dreamcast and I returned it within the 7 day period for my cash back. Once a new game has been opened, however, that option is out the door. That's another reason I argue you can't guarantee that used sale would translate to a new one. Someone might choose to buy the used copy for $5 less knowing they can return it if they discover that they hate the game. They wouldn't gamble $60 on a new copy that they couldn't return. Again you have a scenario where someone who can't buy the used copy will turn to renting it or borrowing it from a friend.

But here's the thing, today publishers make zero from that used sale, so even if you and every other person on the planet who generally buys used gives up gaming for good, the audience that has always bought new games and led to publisher profitability will still be intact. The rental/used/borrowing market will be eliminated if Sony and Microsoft do what the PC publishers have been doing for years now and simply do a CPU/User based license for their games. Yes, manufacturers may sell fewer consoles, but it takes years now for manufacturers (with the notable exception of Nintendo) to make a profit on their hardware. So, used buyers not only don't support the profitability on the software side, but also cause greater losses on the hardware side. Ultimately, publishers will come to the market and if $55 is really the price point that used buyers need to be comfortable buying a new copy, there's no reason why new software MSRP won't decline to $55. Publishers could care less about retail price, their only concern is to make the maximum of profit and eliminating used sales assures them a bigger piece of what could become a smaller, but more profitable pie.

I only buy new games, but I can count on one hand the number of times I have paid full MSRP for anything other than truly limited collector's editions in the past few years. Between Amazon, Best Buy, Kmart, Target, Toys R Us and other retailers offering coupons, bundle (B2G1) deals, discounts, price matches, gift cards and other incentives for new release games, the real MSRP for new is never $60 if you are a smart shopper and don't have to have a game on the day of release.

[danawhitaker]

Ultimately, publishers will come to the market and if $55 is really the price point that used buyers need to be comfortable buying a new copy, there's no reason why new software MSRP won't decline to $55. Publishers could care less about retail price, their only concern is to make the maximum of profit and eliminating used sales assures them a bigger piece of what could become a smaller, but more profitable pie.

I don't think $55 would be the sweet spot though. I don't even think $50 would be the sweet spot. For me, it wouldn't even be at $40. For games from smaller developers and publishers, people consider those games "risky" investments. It's basically a mentality of not being willing to risk spending what is a significant amount of money on a game that's not going to live up to your expectations. I guess what I'm getting at is, people want to really be able to try something before they buy it. Those people would not purchase the game at all if they had no means for returning it if they found it not to their satisfaction. I can sympathize with them. And for a lot of them, I bet they only way they'd purchase that game new is if they had a guaranteed return within a short period of time for an opened copy, which few if any retailers are willing to do. Gamestop might as well do it, because half their "new" games have been checked out by employees and re-shrinkwrapped anyway.

I'm still frustrated with a purchase I made a few years ago. I loved the Project Gotham Racing series on Xbox. And I bought Project Gotham 3 for the 360 and enjoyed that greatly. So I didn't hesitate at all to plunk down cash for a new copy of Project Gotham 4. The reviews addressed almost every concern I had, and it was a franchise I trusted. I get it home, and I start playing it, and what do I discover? Between 3 and 4, they modified the control scheme. In every racing game I've played since Gran Turismo, the standard (for people who don't like using the triggers as accelerate and brake, which I don't, because I find that inhibits my ability to steer with the control stick) is that A is the gas, and X (or whatever position X is on the other console controllers, I'm talking from the 360 right now) is the brake. In this game, B is the brake. I've tried desperately to play the game, and enjoy it, because I like the courses themselves, and the challenges, but I cannot get a handle on the controls. Years of playing racing games one way has pretty much hardwired my synapses and fingers to do it one way. And it wasn't an issue that I saw addressed in reviews I went over before I bought it, and I couldn't find any complaints about it after either. So now I'm stuck with a game that I paid good money for that I find unplayable. When I bought it, it never occurred to me that the game would change the design of the control scheme in such a subtle but frustrating way for someone who's used to the opposite. Heck, I even tried holding the controller at a strange angle to see if I could get used to it that way. There was even a variety of button configuration options, but nothing I could customize to my liking, and nothing using that standard button setup. It blew my mind. It still blows my mind. And every time I scan over the title on my shelf I get annoyed just looking at it.

There are a lot of cool games out there that I'd like to play, but the reality is, when you have a system like the PS2 that churned out almost 2,000 games, there's going to be a lot of junk in there. A lot of bad games, a lot of plain-old mediocre games. I'd like to see developers and publishers start releasing fewer games that are of better quality rather than flooding the game market with tons of mediocre stuff.

It's not like this is the only industry out there with a used market. I just fail to understand why this one should be so different. I'm sure if you approached any manufacturer of new products in almost any industry they'd whine around about the same problems the game industry does.

[Spartacus]

The first time I read about this was in a brief article at IGN.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/06/xbox-720-allegedly-requires-online-connection

It mentions that the next-gen Xbox will use Blu-ray discs, something I had wondered about.
It also suggested that development sources found Microsoft's next-gen OS "oppressive" and preferred working with Sony's platform. I found that curious.

Whether next-gen consoles prevent playing used games or not is out of my control. I collect video games for a hobby and have little interest in renting digital content. If the next-gen marks the end of owning video games, then I'll just be grateful that I lived through a different gaming era and appreciate my collection of retro games all the more.

[Collector_Gaming]

Whether next-gen consoles prevent playing used games or not is out of my control. I collect video games for a hobby and have little interest in renting digital content. If the next-gen marks the end of owning video games, then I'll just be grateful that I lived through a different gaming era and appreciate my collection of retro games all the more.

Thats the one thing I am have a feeling our generation will be known for we saw the collapse of physical media. From records to 8 tracks to cassette tapes to CD's. From reel to reel to Beta to VHS to DVD to Blu Ray Carts to once again CD and DVD and Blu Ray game media and all the quirks in the middle such as Mini discs HD DVD Super VHS Laser Discs and so on.

When we leave this world it will be I imagine all digitally downloaded and uploaded on smart devices whether that can be a cell phone to tv's. :|

Kinda depressing when ya think about it and look back to that day you watched your first owned VHS tape that you bought for yourself (mine happened to be THE CROW) and so on.

Times are changing and is it for the best. I guess we will never know for certain really

[Mr Mort]

My feeling on the whole topic boils down to this:

I will not be told how, where, and when I play my games.

That means if it requires a persistent online connection or blocks used or borrowed games, it's a deal-breaker for me, and I absolutely will not buy the console.

As someone said earlier, what if XBL or PSN goes down, or my ISP is having issues? If the console requires a constant connection to play, I'm screwed.
What happens to these consoles 10-15 years from now? Will they even be usable?

That being said, I think we all need to hold judgement until after the consoles are revealed and details about how they function are known. Until then, we're all getting worked up for nothing.

[Rickstilwell1]

I don't understand why you wouldn't make a system as user friendly as possible.

I think it was Sony a few years back that tried to make rip protected CD's.
So you buy the music, but can't rip it to your collection to put on your MP3 player without a code or something.
It didn't last very long.

Velvet Revolver's first album had this, but there was a hidden folder in the disc where you could still copy and paste the songs onto your computer drag and drop style. Windows Media Player wouldn't import it like a normal cd. I think when iTunes came out that circumvented it and allowed people to rip it the normal way though, as iTunes isn't programmed to lock that stuff out. Those cds were out in 2004 and 2005 and the big iPod boom was somewhere around late 2005 or 2006 when the whole Guitar Hero/Rock Band craze was in full effect.

[Greg2600]

This goofball is not happy about it. But he makes excellent points.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJkHSUwixT4

[Gamevet]

A real life Elf! Who'd a thunk?

[Robocop2]

Hug your carts and your disc cases and reminisce about the good ol days.
Honestly though I could see a drive for the online pass thing like some already do. But to require an always on, one time use activation code on a console is ludicrous. Though I suppose XBLA and the downloadable full retail games Sony, Microsoft and even now Nintendo offer are harbingers of the future. I don't want any part of a future like that. I foresee the likelihood of not playing used games (without paying some kind of fee for an activation code) far more likely than a requirement for an always on connection. Not even iOS makes you do that.

Doesn't mean I want that to be the future though as it will kill the future generations of collectors for these systems. Makes me kinda sad really for our kids. They won't get to rediscover what they enjoyed as kids the way we can. Of course all of this is still purely speculation still as no official word exists that either the PS4 or the NextBox will have all these "features" that I am aware of.

[Collector_Gaming]

This goofball is not happy about it. But he makes excellent points.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJkHSUwixT4

I honestly think that guy is a complete tard but for once he makes some valid points.

I think the only solution to the whole thing is Cloud which tech companies are pushing like mad these days. I don't trust it and i am sure i am not alone with that feeling.

[JSoup]

This goofball is not happy about it. But he makes excellent points.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJkHSUwixT4

This guy....he generally makes decent points in his videos, he just presents them in amazingly childish ways.

[The 1 2 P]

Didn't feel like making another thread but here's another rumored report stating the PS4 will cost more than $400 (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/07/rumor-sonys-ps4-priced-at-over-400-dollars.aspx).

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Didn't feel like making another thread but here's another rumored report stating the PS4 will cost more than $400 (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/07/rumor-sonys-ps4-priced-at-over-400-dollars.aspx).

Um, this is the Durango thread.

[kupomogli]

Didn't feel like making another thread but here's another rumored report stating the PS4 will cost more than $400 (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/07/rumor-sonys-ps4-priced-at-over-400-dollars.aspx).

$499 US dollars?

[The 1 2 P]

Um, this is the Durango thread.

Yes but we already have enough Durango and Orbis rumor threads. So I chose to put it here instead of bumping the older thread.


$499 US dollars?

Not quite that much according to the report. But remember that it's just a rumored price based on what the Japanese price(also rumored) is going to be. Sony learned alot of hard lessons last gen so theres no way they would price that high again.

[Greg2600]

Hug your carts and your disc cases and reminisce about the good ol days.
Honestly though I could see a drive for the online pass thing like some already do. But to require an always on, one time use activation code on a console is ludicrous. Though I suppose XBLA and the downloadable full retail games Sony, Microsoft and even now Nintendo offer are harbingers of the future. I don't want any part of a future like that. I foresee the likelihood of not playing used games (without paying some kind of fee for an activation code) far more likely than a requirement for an always on connection. Not even iOS makes you do that.

Doesn't mean I want that to be the future though as it will kill the future generations of collectors for these systems. Makes me kinda sad really for our kids. They won't get to rediscover what they enjoyed as kids the way we can. Of course all of this is still purely speculation still as no official word exists that either the PS4 or the NextBox will have all these "features" that I am aware of.

Look, I can't sit here and tell MS, Sony how to run their business to suit collectors like me. My thing continues to be the foolishness or not allowing particularly kids to buy used games on the cheap, or trade games among friends. This goes against 35 years of video game culture. Not to mention is just asks for piracy.


This guy....he generally makes decent points in his videos, he just presents them in amazingly childish ways.

Yeah he's a little too WWE, although I have to give him credit for spewing so much in such a short video! His game purchase videos are usually all I watch of his.

[Zthun]

Look, I can't sit here and tell MS, Sony how to run their business to suit collectors like me. My thing continues to be the foolishness or not allowing particularly kids to buy used games on the cheap, or trade games among friends. This goes against 35 years of video game culture. Not to mention is just asks for piracy.

It's even worse than that. There's no preservation with this model. Once those servers go down, you're done. The online only games cannot be played anymore unless someone sets up a private server or hacks the console. We've speculated that this next gen would be downloaded games only, but it was verified that the next gen consoles will have blu-ray players. Problem is, whats the point of owning the disc, when all you need is a code that unlocks the game? Diablo III sits on my shelf as a useless coaster. I hated the game, but I can't:

1. Trade it in for something else.
2. Sell it on eBay without also giving my entire battle.net account.
3. Lend it to my friend to try and play for awhile.

I never thought I would say this, but my days of current gen console gaming are coming to an end if this is implemented. I like digital downloads; I like steam. But having a console and having it offer disks that are completely useless except for shelf displays goes beyond the boundaries of what I personally want as a gaming consumer. I'll stick with steam and humble bundle and just skip the next generation of consoles, and probably the next one after that. My consoles will be everything from the past 8 generations that I have more than enough to last me my entire lifetime.

[Gamevet]

This is what I was thinking at first but honestly the used game thing doesn't kill it for me. Now if the next gen systems ONLY played digital games and they were still $50-$60 on release then yes I would stick with my PS3/360/Wii.

I know alot of people are complaning about this but you know that alot of them would still buy it anyway. I mean it's already happening this gen. All of Sony's first party games for the last two years have required online passes for the multiplayer and the same thing can be said about EA's games. Yet this has not slowed down sales of Uncharted, Madden, Battlefield, etc. I personally buy most of my games new but I definitely enjoy buying games used at yard sales and flea markets too. I may not like it if Microsoft and Sony did this with all their games(especially since I play alot of online multiplayer) but it's something that people would just have to get used to. But it's not going to kill off console gaming over night and I also doubt it will send waves of people flocking to the WiiU.

I didn't buy Uncharted 3 to play the tacked on multiplayer content. I did buy games like Black Ops II for multiplayer though, but waiting for a used copy to show up cheap really puts you behind in the game; it's one of those titles that you're better off playing online on day one, or you'll end up being outclassed on the battlefield by players with all of the added gear.

I have a couple of older Xbox Live games that won't function without being online. The arcade game of TRON, won't work without being logged in. :(

[Leo_A]

I have a couple of older Xbox Live games that won't function without being online. The arcade game of TRON, won't work without being logged in. :(

That's no fault of the games themselves. Your licenses simply aren't tied to your current console. Reassociate them by doing the license transfer process and you will restore offline access.

Tron and Disc of Tron work just fine for me offline.

[Gamevet]

That's no fault of the games themselves. Your licenses simply aren't tied to your current console. Reassociate them by doing the license transfer process and you will restore offline access.

Tron and Disc of Tron work just fine for me offline.

I don't know why, I've done that when my 360 Elite had the RROD. Discs of Tron just doesn't seem to work out for me. All of the other downloaded games work fine while I'm offline. *_*

And yes, I did download the title again, after doing the license transfer.

[Niku-Sama]

those specs on paper are pretty weak, they better change before they release otherwise they will be hurting for horsepower

[Greg2600]

It's even worse than that. There's no preservation with this model. Once those servers go down, you're done. They online only games cannot be played anymore unless someone sets up a private server or hacks the console. We've speculated that this next gen would be downloaded games only, but it was verified that the next gen consoles will have blu-ray players. Problem is, whats the point of owning the disc, when all you need is a code that unlocks the game? Diablo III sits on my shelf as a useless coaster. I hated the game, but I can't:

1. Trade it in for something else.
2. Sell it on eBay without also giving my entire battle.net account.
3. Lend it to my friend to try and play for awhile.

I never thought I would say this, but my days of current gen console gaming are coming to an end if this is implemented. I like digital downloads; I like steam. But having a console and having it offer disks that are completely useless except for shelf displays goes beyond the boundaries of what I personally want as a gaming consumer. I'll stick with steam and humble bundle and just skip the next generation of consoles, and probably the next one after that. My consoles will be everything from the past 8 generations that I have more than enough to last me my entire lifetime.

Yes I think the worst scenario is a physical media that ONLY works on your machine. That is the dumbest business model of all. If I were MS or Sony, I would begin offering people the choice, physical or digital, like the movie studios have been. I think flipping everything over in one big swoop is too much of a shock to the consumer system. People get crazy when there's big change like that. Look, Blu Ray's are still sold, many specifically to collectors. Why not do the same with games in the future? The physical copies cost them a couple bucks to make, they sell for $50 or $60, and money is made. Not to mention it is incredibly arrogant for MS/Sony to expect everyone to have high speed internet.

However, to expect that this change is not going to take place is fooling yourselves. The hardware, even on an iPad, is getting to the point where it's all going to be plenty capable of running any game there is. At that point, the console makers are out of business. Now I always thought that MS would make their next platform Windows compatible, allowing customers to play games on devices like the Surface or their PC's. Sure it hurts the Xbox, but it keeps them Microsoft aligned gamers. Sony and Nintendo are in far worse position, I think. I mean, the whole point of a console was that it was too expensive to buy a PC, and smaller cheaper devices didn't exist or weren't powerful enough.

[RyanMurf]

How about this idea. Maybe Microsoft isn't killing used games all together. We all know about online passes and how they function. Maybe this one time use activation code can be generated at a store like gamestop just like how they generate activation codes and other dlc. Maybe Microsoft will build a contract with gamestop to publish new paid for activation codes on your receipt when you buy a used game. I really don't think Microsoft can really thrive by eliminating the #1 retailer in the world for games and consoles. Microsoft would loose a huge chunk of system sales by doing this also because gamestop then wouldn't sell the new console. They also wouldn't just eliminate the number of console sales but sales like dlc, Microsoft points, and every other accessory for the system like headsets and controllers. Sure you can go else where to buy but you can't beat the availability of a gamestop on every corner.


Lastly I think that edge report generated their own suspicion on used games by the always on Internet. My thought of this was all for piracy. To constantly have a check on your console and immediate eliminate any threat of a mod. This is just an advancement that future technology brings. Company's now always want to know what your doing at all times. It's simple marketing.


This was just my thoughts on this situation. My final opinion though is that the chances of no more used games is slim to none.

[PROTOTYPE]

My take? Saturday was in gamestop and Pick up Quake 4 mint condition with bonus CD For $4.49! You tell me why they want to kill the used game market? That don't count the game sharing and illegal downloading.That is costing them tons of money.I don't like where this is going but for this hobby to survive it will have no choice. We have only to look at ours selfs for all this.Also we use to have a lot more money to waste on games, not anymore.[ recession ] They really don't care about people who don't buy new, so cry all you want. To me, saw it coming with on-line gaming.Will I buy download games only? I already did, but the game has to me something I really want to play and you will to unless its GAME OVER.:fist:

[Zthun]

How about this idea. Maybe Microsoft isn't killing used games all together. We all know about online passes and how they function. Maybe this one time use activation code can be generated at a store like gamestop just like how they generate activation codes and other dlc. Maybe Microsoft will build a contract with gamestop to publish new paid for activation codes on your receipt when you buy a used game. I really don't think Microsoft can really thrive by eliminating the #1 retailer in the world for games and consoles. Microsoft would loose a huge chunk of system sales by doing this also because gamestop then wouldn't sell the new console. They also wouldn't just eliminate the number of console sales but sales like dlc, Microsoft points, and every other accessory for the system like headsets and controllers. Sure you can go else where to buy but you can't beat the availability of a gamestop on every corner.


Lastly I think that edge report generated their own suspicion on used games by the always on Internet. My thought of this was all for piracy. To constantly have a check on your console and immediate eliminate any threat of a mod. This is just an advancement that future technology brings. Company's now always want to know what your doing at all times. It's simple marketing.


This was just my thoughts on this situation. My final opinion though is that the chances of no more used games is slim to none.

Walmart, Target, BestBuy, KMart, Cosco...all of these stores are just as readily available as Gamestop. Gamestop is great for used games and used console systems, and you can find some real great deals sometimes on them, but it's nothing magical to buy new there. The costs are the same as the other stores; plus, the other stores have better policies when it comes to new games. People would just move on to other stores to buy their games.

[RyanMurf]

Walmart, Target, BestBuy, KMart, Cosco...all of these stores are just as readily available as Gamestop. Gamestop is great for used games and used console systems, and you can find some real great deals sometimes on them, but it's nothing magical to buy new there. The costs are the same as the other stores; plus, the other stores have better policies when it comes to new games. People would just move on to other stores to buy their games.

Totally agree with you here. But the amount of gamestops per town don't even come close to the amount of single location Walmarts, targets, Costco.....especially, and kmarts. Just would be anywhere near as convenient anymore.

[Tupin]

Don't know about anyone else, but I think that if a company announced that their console didn't play used games, Gamestop would refuse to carry it or carry much less.

They're the largest retailer of both new and used games. A lot of their profit comes from the latter. I'd imagine they have quite a lot of power over companies simply by choosing not to carry certain things.

[Griking]

Don't know about anyone else, but I think that if a company announced that their console didn't play used games, Gamestop would refuse to carry it or carry much less.

They're the largest retailer of both new and used games. A lot of their profit comes from the latter. I'd imagine they have quite a lot of power over companies simply by choosing not to carry certain things.

If Microsoft and Sony really are looking to kill off used games I'm pretty sure that they weren't expecting full support from Gamestop.

There's plenty of other retailers where you can buy a new console and games.

[Tupin]

Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Best Buy, K-Mart and many other stores now sell used games, because it is pure profit for them.

I don't know how they'll manage to convince these stores it's worth stocking their product when they break a source of income these stores have been relying on for a very long time.

[The 1 2 P]

I did buy games like Black Ops II for multiplayer though, but waiting for a used copy to show up cheap really puts you behind in the game; it's one of those titles that you're better off playing online on day one, or you'll end up being outclassed on the battlefield by players with all of the added gear.

I also buy my Black Ops versions of COD used(and the Modern Warfare versions new) so I can relate. But the trick is to not jump right into deathmatch multiplayer when you get the game. Take some time to learn the adjusted/newly tweaked controls by first going thru the campaign or playing online multiplayer modes that don't focus strictly on killing such as capture the flag and domination. If you simply must jump right into deathmatch then do free for all. That way it will be a much more leveled playing field since you won't have to worry about being team killed and you can get a fair amount of kills while others are battling each other, regardless of what gear you have so far.

[WCP]

I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


When I first got back to PC gaming (Spring 2010), it was a bit of culture shock for me. I actually went to Craigslist and bought a few used PC games. I got Civ 4 and COD4. Civ 4 worked fine, but COD4 woudln't work, because it was tied to a Steam account. At the time, I was such a newb regarding PC gaming, that I had no idea that buying used PC games was a very bad idea. I just assumed it was like anything else.

It didn't take me too long to realize that digital downloads was the way to go. I'm normally pretty anti-digital download anything, but what I ultimately realized was that it had more to do with price than anything. You start to price something low enough, and I don't care that I really don't own it. I know it's sad to say such a thing, but it's the God's honest truth. I have to be real and admit the fact that it ultimately boils down to money.

I know that we are basically only "leasing" the games for a certain period of time, and that our rights to the games are extremely limited, but at the same time, when I only paid $5 for the thing, it's pretty hard for me to really get all hot and bothered about the whole ownership issue. I look at it more like an extended rental. I recently got Crysis 2, when Origin had it on sale for 5 bucks. Yes, I know that I don't own that game. I know that I can't let a friend borrow it. I know that my rights to that game are virtually non existent.

Did I mention it was 5 bucks ?


See, that's the thing. Just think of it as a rental. It can be a pretty long, extended rental, but that's pretty much what it is. I would never pay $40 or $50 or even $30 to rent a game, so I don't even consider my games until they are in the $20 or lower range. Normally I don't even consider them unless they are under 10 bucks, and 90 percent of what I buy is $5. Certainly, I'm talking about Steam, GamersGate, Green Man Gaming and Amazon Digital Downloads. I know that when Microsoft and Sony truly enter into this restricted world, they aren't going to be pricing things anywhere as cheap. For example, that Crysis 2 game that I got for $5. I don't think Microsoft or Sony would want a game like that going for only 5 bucks. Maybe eventually, when the thing is like 4 or 5 years old, but it just isn't in their DNA to ever price AAA games so cheaply.

However, if Microsoft and Sony were to think of trying the extreme sales that Steam and Amazon do, then just maybe, just maybe, some of us that are extremely patient, won't really give a damn about it, because if you look at all the PC gamers out there, they don't seem to be bothered by this scenario. I know the argument might be that 60 percent of them are pirating all their games, so that's why they don't care. I'm not so sure if that is true or not, but I do know that there are quite a few PC gamers like me that don't pirate stuff, and we still don't really care too much about our lack of rights.

It all comes down to money...

[danawhitaker]

I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


When I first got back to PC gaming (Spring 2010), it was a bit of culture shock for me. I actually went to Craigslist and bought a few used PC games. I got Civ 4 and COD4. Civ 4 worked fine, but COD4 woudln't work, because it was tied to a Steam account. At the time, I was such a newb regarding PC gaming, that I had no idea that buying used PC games was a very bad idea. I just assumed it was like anything else.

It didn't take me too long to realize that digital downloads was the way to go. I'm normally pretty anti-digital download anything, but what I ultimately realized was that it had more to do with price than anything. You start to price something low enough, and I don't care that I really don't own it. I know it's sad to say such a thing, but it's the God's honest truth. I have to be real and admit the fact that it ultimately boils down to money.

I know that we are basically only "leasing" the games for a certain period of time, and that our rights to the games are extremely limited, but at the same time, when I only paid $5 for the thing, it's pretty hard for me to really get all hot and bothered about the whole ownership issue. I look at it more like an extended rental. I recently got Crysis 2, when Origin had it on sale for 5 bucks. Yes, I know that I don't own that game. I know that I can't let a friend borrow it. I know that my rights to that game are virtually non existent.

Did I mention it was 5 bucks ?


See, that's the thing. Just think of it as a rental. It can be a pretty long, extended rental, but that's pretty much what it is. I would never pay $40 or $50 or even $30 to rent a game, so I don't even consider my games until they are in the $20 or lower range. Normally I don't even consider them unless they are under 10 bucks, and 90 percent of what I buy is $5. Certainly, I'm talking about Steam, GamersGate, Green Man Gaming and Amazon Digital Downloads. I know that when Microsoft and Sony truly enter into this restricted world, they aren't going to be pricing things anywhere as cheap. For example, that Crysis 2 game that I got for $5. I don't think Microsoft or Sony would want a game like that going for only 5 bucks. Maybe eventually, when the thing is like 4 or 5 years old, but it just isn't in their DNA to ever price AAA games so cheaply.

However, if Microsoft and Sony were to think of trying the extreme sales that Steam and Amazon do, then just maybe, just maybe, some of us that are extremely patient, won't really give a damn about it, because if you look at all the PC gamers out there, they don't seem to be bothered by this scenario. I know the argument might be that 60 percent of them are pirating all their games, so that's why they don't care. I'm not so sure if that is true or not, but I do know that there are quite a few PC gamers like me that don't pirate stuff, and we still don't really care too much about our lack of rights.

It all comes down to money...

It all comes down to money - and consoles aren't going to be as bargain bin as PC gaming is. If I pay $350+ for a device that only plays games (not a PC that I use for many different functions), I expect to be able to use that physical device on my terms, especially if those games cost at least $60. And I certainly don't want to buy a game at launch and then twiddle my thumbs until games (maybe) go to bargain bin prices. Now, if they offered a flat monthly fee for access to the entire game library for the console, that might be different (sort of like how Club Pogo works for most of its games). I probably still wouldn't buy the console, but I could see it being an appealing option and probably cheaper than buying every individual game you want. I've noticed a bit of a disturbing trend like that with recent PS3 console relases. The pack-in games are often digital only, or you get stuff with a PSN+ subscription for a year instead and then your access is revoked. I won't even argue that most of the PC gamers are pirating their stuff. I think there's something that's happened with people under the age of about 45 now (not all of them, because I'm 31, and I know plenty of people under that age too who are opposed to these ideas) that are willing to accept corporations enslaving their entertainment content behind all kinds of gates.

But I shouldn't be surprised with this mentality either. This is the same generation that has forgotten things like the VCR ever existed and that's willing to fork over $15-20 a month to their cable or satellite provider for a glorified VCR with a hard drive. See, I'm not into the rental/lease model at all. Either I "own" it, or I don't want it. And if I'm feeling like I'm getting ripped off, well, there are about 18,000 other console games out there from all generations that I can play instead. That would keep me entertained for decades.

The problem is that I suspect the model they'll push will never have those digital downloads (especially for AAA titles) at any significantly discounted cost, despite the fact that they'll claim that method is cheaper and easier than physical distribution. They argue that, but then you see the prices end up being identical for the physical copy and the digital copy. So would it really be any better cost-wise? I guess I don't have much faith in the corporations involved.

[scaleworm]

I say Fuck 'em.
I have enough great games, many of which I have not had the time to play let alone play through to worry about next gen anything. I have more than enough to support my own family and theirs, into the future.

I get all of my gear second or third hand anyway.

Think about it. Except for a new characters or "stories" (NONE) ALL of the genres already exist. ALL of them.
How many Platformers, Puzzlers, Figters, first/third person shooters, Shumps, or RPGS do we all already own? Realistically the stories are all the same. There has been nothing new in a very long time, as far as I am concerned.

I have been in this for a long time, since Pong's launch, and I see NO NEED to worry my long grey hair over what Sony, Nintendo, or MS (the EVIL empire, just north of my abode) plan on doing to the masses in the future.

I have thousands of games, thousands of LPs, too many systems, and seriously killer electronics to support them all.

I will sit in my room, warm, nourished, musically and gamerly content while i watch the world of digital Hell around me burn.....

Fuck 'Em!

...As to the metal-oriented gentleman in angry guy mode in the video posted, I think what he said is valid, clear, and justified. I think him a well spoken young man with a very valid argument.

[IHatedSega]

You know, I hadnt even heard of this site before, I just listened to it because of Kotaku. Maybe this wont happen, but Kinect using a censor to see how many people are in the room when you watched things and charging you for unauthorized people, makes this sound real to me. I wonder if itll also scan for others while playing games? Thatll end them being used at conventions for dancing games.

[LordsOfSkulls]

As someone who has been using Steam for nearly 10 years to buy new games, nor makes a habit of trading games in, I don't really see a particular problem with this. What all this anti-used game trend seems to be geared to is pushing players to buying digital downloads over physical media. Because undoubtedly the NEXT general will be discless. So you better get used to it.

See the problem is that Steam is Awesome... but technically speaking it is Used games.. (But Developers will get Some Profit out Of It)

It just one filed copied 1000s of times. and Sold. Their no difference between Steam's user copies other than randomly generated CD Keys. You cant steam games are "Brand New, Like New, Very Good" cause this dont exist.


They also sale alot of their games for prices even lower than USED Games go anywere on the market. While i dont mind seeing prices to get that low to get money to the developers for brand new games... problem is the Middle Man "Best buy/Gamestop/Wal-Mart/Ebay/Amazon/Glyde, etc etc etc"

Wont make any money thus unable to run their business.

Especially during Summer/Christmas for Steam their are Sales... that can get you off brand new games 30-77% off.. that is HUGE. I got over 100s of Video Games on Steam just because how cheap it was... I spend over $500 for $3000+ worth of GAmes in last 2 years. That is something that even "Used Game Market" will never be able to do.

So if developers want more money, and want people to buy brand new copies more, lower the prices, put that price tag of "39.99 and 49.99" You dont need the Eye Candy people are tired of the Eye Candy.... They want the Awesome Taste (Gameplay) cause that what it all about, not Just to Look Good, But to taste good as well.... (Reason why people ignore Cherry Falvor and go for stuff like Apple/Blueberry)

Is what costing the developers most money/time. PS2/PS1/SNES era is still considered one of best Eras because we didnt have DLC, we didnt have that many games that were 2-8 hours long, we gotten more worthy product/better quality on those systems than any today. We have too many companies go for clones, cause they still sell well.. If your tired of COD... dont buy it religiuesly everyone of them that comes out each year.

Not to mention games lose money now so fast... that $59.99 game especially if it a AAA title will get 10% to 50% price cut within next 1-3 months. (makes it even worse for consumer + angry cause they buy the game for $65 and later in 31 days goes on sale for $33 and you lose money

[Zthun]

I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


When I first got back to PC gaming (Spring 2010), it was a bit of culture shock for me. I actually went to Craigslist and bought a few used PC games. I got Civ 4 and COD4. Civ 4 worked fine, but COD4 woudln't work, because it was tied to a Steam account. At the time, I was such a newb regarding PC gaming, that I had no idea that buying used PC games was a very bad idea. I just assumed it was like anything else.

It didn't take me too long to realize that digital downloads was the way to go. I'm normally pretty anti-digital download anything, but what I ultimately realized was that it had more to do with price than anything. You start to price something low enough, and I don't care that I really don't own it. I know it's sad to say such a thing, but it's the God's honest truth. I have to be real and admit the fact that it ultimately boils down to money.

I know that we are basically only "leasing" the games for a certain period of time, and that our rights to the games are extremely limited, but at the same time, when I only paid $5 for the thing, it's pretty hard for me to really get all hot and bothered about the whole ownership issue. I look at it more like an extended rental. I recently got Crysis 2, when Origin had it on sale for 5 bucks. Yes, I know that I don't own that game. I know that I can't let a friend borrow it. I know that my rights to that game are virtually non existent.

Did I mention it was 5 bucks ?


See, that's the thing. Just think of it as a rental. It can be a pretty long, extended rental, but that's pretty much what it is. I would never pay $40 or $50 or even $30 to rent a game, so I don't even consider my games until they are in the $20 or lower range. Normally I don't even consider them unless they are under 10 bucks, and 90 percent of what I buy is $5. Certainly, I'm talking about Steam, GamersGate, Green Man Gaming and Amazon Digital Downloads. I know that when Microsoft and Sony truly enter into this restricted world, they aren't going to be pricing things anywhere as cheap. For example, that Crysis 2 game that I got for $5. I don't think Microsoft or Sony would want a game like that going for only 5 bucks. Maybe eventually, when the thing is like 4 or 5 years old, but it just isn't in their DNA to ever price AAA games so cheaply.

However, if Microsoft and Sony were to think of trying the extreme sales that Steam and Amazon do, then just maybe, just maybe, some of us that are extremely patient, won't really give a damn about it, because if you look at all the PC gamers out there, they don't seem to be bothered by this scenario. I know the argument might be that 60 percent of them are pirating all their games, so that's why they don't care. I'm not so sure if that is true or not, but I do know that there are quite a few PC gamers like me that don't pirate stuff, and we still don't really care too much about our lack of rights.

It all comes down to money...

Steam is awesome because it is tied to an account, not a piece of hardware. Steam can transcend generations of hardware. If I want to upgrade to a newer, faster PC, I can do that, and have the exact same steam account and games on it. If, however, my games are tied to a console system, once that system no longer has support, all the games you bought are worthless. Even though the company is still in business, they've essentially told you that they will not let you play what you've purchased anymore.

$5, or $60 dollars, the major issues is that there is no preservation with this model. At least with some of the indie games on steam, there are DRM free copies so even if Valve went kaput, at least some of the games that I've bought through humble bundle will allow me to play them at a later date.

There are still SNES, playstation, PS2, and Gamecube games that I will play with friends. Future preservation is personally important to me and I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[WCP]

Especially during Summer/Christmas for Steam their are Sales... that can get you off brand new games 30-77% off.. that is HUGE. I got over 100s of Video Games on Steam just because how cheap it was... I spend over $500 for $3000+ worth of GAmes in last 2 years. That is something that even "Used Game Market" will never be able to do.



The only problem, is that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo aren't going to ever have such drastic sales on their flagpole games. It's just not going to happen. With Steam, (or PC gaming in general), you're losing tons of unauthorized rights (ability to trade, sell, give to cousin) , and you're gaining the ability to get triple A games for dirt cheap if you're willing to wait long enough. When Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo eventually all go download only, we will loose all those unauthorized rights that we took for granted, but we really aren't going to be gaining much of anything. We aren't ever going to see the crazy kinds of prices that show up on Steam and Green Man Gaming and Amazon, etc.


Even more worrisome, is that if Steam starts getting "too" big, with the whole Steam Box thing, the days of the 80 percent off sales might be gone as well. I personally believe that the Steam sales that we currently enjoy, aren't going to be around forever. The sales will still be there, but the discounts won't be as drastic. (if Steam's popularity explodes).

[The Adventurer]

Steam has the advantage of being A) a third party distribution hub, and B) Pretty Altruistic when it comes to their own content. The sales are a good sign of strong competition in the video game field, as publishers and developers are jockeying for more sales. With Valve brokering and negotiating the deals.

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft will be handling their distribution systems in house. So there is practically no incentive to pass huge deals on to consumers because they control the supply and the platforms. Which is quite worrying actually.

[GhostDog]

Sony better see what Microsoft is doing and not go that route. Sony even said they're waiting to see what Microsoft is doing with their new system before making their move. Well, Sony, now you see and don't make the same mistake.

[LordsOfSkulls]

what awesome about Steam is they get the developers wanting to put their games from different companies under their service........... so they are not under no one shoes like microsoft/nintendo or sony if you start arguing with them they just ignore you and be like w/e and are not going to bag you to put it thru them.

= Bad idea cause that were most PC population is now... and most of them refuse to use any other programs similar to Steam. (Myself Included)

Reason why i still dont have Battlefield 3 ;p

[Griking]

I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


I think that we pretty much accepted the fact that piracy was too easy under those circumstances and that not allowing the sale of used games was a necessary inconvenience. Sure, piracy is easy without used games but there's no reason to make it even easier.

Also, its hard to complain about not being able to resell a used game that I bought for $2.99-$5.00 on Steam.

[WCP]

I think that we pretty much accepted the fact that piracy was too easy under those circumstances and that not allowing the sale of used games was a necessary inconvenience.

Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that ? I'm not sure what you're implying about a relation between piracy and used games..

[danawhitaker]

Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that ? I'm not sure what you're implying about a relation between piracy and used games..

I think I get what's being implied. Games have shifted to an always-online/internet-required activation system instead of being the way they were back when I was in high school. You'd buy a game, it would have a key (maybe), but you didn't have to be online to authenticate that key. And then, when you were done playing that game, you could sell it, give it away, etc, and someone else could still play it with that same key. Now, that's not piracy by itself (if the original owner removes the game from their system, that is) - but we gave up our freedom to do that when we shifted to the always-online or activation that requires connecting to servers somewhere. And then that activation can only be used once, or, like with Steam, that purchase is forever tied to your account and you can never give or loan that copy out. The game companies found that requiring the CD to be in the computer wasn't enough of a deterrent, so they took it a step further. Even I looked for no-CD cracks for games that I legitimately had paid for because I hated tying up my drive.

Personally, that's *a* reason (not the only reason, but a reason) I have shifted away from PC gaming. I loved the Sim City series of games, for instance, but I want no part of the new always-online component. As much as I'd love to play the game, I will be passing it up. I played Diablo 3 since I got it for free, but I loathed the always-online component of that too. I have cable internet, it's not that that's a problem, I just don't like game companies breathing down my neck making me feel like a freaking criminal just for installing the game and having the audacity to want to play it without being connected to the internet.

I personally don't think the sacrifice was worth it. I remember, way back in the day, when someone mentioned to me he felt like he was on an electronic leash. That's how I feel now. I buy something, I take it into my home, and I can't even use it without phoning home to the company I bought it from to prove I got it legitimately.

[Griking]

Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that ? I'm not sure what you're implying about a relation between piracy and used games..

Well, years ago when Internet speeds weren't what they are now it wasn't practical to download a full CD of few hundred megabytes of information from the Internet. Sure some people did it anyways but it wasn't that easy. However it was a much easier buy a game, make a copy of it and just download a 100k crack to disable any copy protection and then just return it or sell it back to Gamestop. Getting the source data was the challenge and used/rented games was a very easy and very cheap source for it. Piracy on consoles certainly exists but it's generally a lot more difficult than just making a copy of a DVD and running a crack since they're closed systems unlike PCs.

[Mangar]

Sony better see what Microsoft is doing and not go that route. Sony even said they're waiting to see what Microsoft is doing with their new system before making their move. Well, Sony, now you see and don't make the same mistake.

If Sony followed suit, I'd hardly call it a mistake. At least financially speaking.

People/Customers are sheep. Look at people waiting in line on Black Friday,, or even lines for popular gadgets or games for evidence of this. If Sony follows suit, they will both be equal and customers will still buy these consoles at the same rate they have every previous console. However, if Sony decides to make it VERY CLEAR they will allow used games - They will have a major marketing opportunity to destroy Microsoft's market share. Possibly for good. It's not even about "Used Games" really. People are losing sight of the various kids who simply let their friends borrow games, or go to each others houses and bring (insert game here) over to play. It would be absolutely devastating for your average high school kid to NOT be able to bring his latest "Call of Duty" over to a sleepover and have it locked out, because it's not registered to that console. Not to mention that the parents who by and large purchase these games would adamantly boycott the system that eliminates used or borrowed games. The TV commercials write themselves....

Little Jimmy Brings "Mega Man 87 - The Elder Years" over to little Bimmy's house - Inserts it into his friends X-Box when a screen pops up - "You cheap ass. You are locked out. Go buy this game for full price Welfare Boy!" - FLASH: Announcer pops up showing the New Sony Console, with kids lending games to one another, buying used ones, hot chicks fawning over the console, trading games with each other when a big graphic caption pops up. "Plays any game. Used, New, Borrowed, or found. No Lockout's like those other guys. We don't discriminate against the 99% like those other guys. Occupy Xbox!" - BAM, what kid or parent is going to choose an Xbox over the Sony?

The reality is that the ball is in Sony's court at the moment. They can either destroy the used games market entirely, or they can destroy Microsoft's console aspirations. It will be interesting to see what they opt for, however any decision made, won't be based on people threatening to not buy either, or pirate games. It will be based purely on which option they think will benefit them long-term. It will be interesting to see.

[WCP]

The reality is that the ball is in Sony's court at the moment. They can either destroy the used games market entirely, or they can destroy Microsoft's console aspirations. It will be interesting to see what they opt for, however any decision made, won't be based on people threatening to not buy either, or pirate games. It will be based purely on which option they think will benefit them long-term. It will be interesting to see.


I'd be willing to bet that some collusion has already taken place. They must already have an agreement. Microsoft probably was the one that really wanted it, and Sony was willing to agree, as long as Microsoft got more out in front of the issue, and then Sony can look like they are just hopping along for the ride. Sony probably wasn't as insistant as Microsoft about this strategy, so they'd prefer that MS takes a bit more of the net rage than they will. MS is in a stronger position financially, so they can look a little bit more like the bad guys, and it's not necessarily going to kill their company. Sony is on dangerous ground, so I don't see them championing this anywhere near as much. I expect them to eventually follow suit before launch, with their plan to have the disc marry the console.

Both Microsoft and Sony could "allow" a one time license transfer for a fee of $15. Your rights to the game would be revoked, it would delete off your system, and would transfer to another system. It can only be done once, and there is a $15 fee paid by the buyer to activate the disk.


I also would expect that both Sony and Microsoft would offer a rental plan of some kind. If games are locked to one system, then there wouldn't be a rental market either. I would expect both companies to fill the void digitally. You can rent games and download them level by level. The fees will probably be similar to RedBox / Blockbuster.


Basically, I see both companies trying to kill several industries that are leaching off their products. You have the used game market, the rental market, and possibly the pirate market (if their always online system has the right security). They want to replace two of those, with their replacement version, except with them getting all the money. Think about every bit of revenue that GameFly and Blockbuster and RedBox and all the other rental places get from renting games. All that revenue would go directly to Microsoft and Sony (to be shared with the publishers of course). Same thing with the used game market. Used games can still happen, it's just that any time a game changes hands, Microsoft and Sony get $15 (to be shared with the publishers). Also, an exchange can only happen once. One game doesn't end up constantly being flipped to the next owner. It's a one time deal.


These companies have to do this now, because we could be looking at another long gaming cycle, possibly more than 5 or 6 years. I'm sure MS and Sony might not want to rush into the no used games thing right now in 2013, but at the same time, they know that these new systems could have to hold their forts down for the next 7 or 8 years. They have to think long term. I'd be dollars to donuts that they will both have DD only versions of their respective systems before their lifetimes are over with. They know they can't get away with it in 2013, but in 2018, it could be a totally different story.

[Tupin]

Same thing with the used game market. Used games can still happen, it's just that any time a game changes hands, Microsoft and Sony get $15 (to be shared with the publishers). Also, an exchange can only happen once. One game doesn't end up constantly being flipped to the next owner. It's a one time deal.


They could never make this happen with physical media. Again, I think companies like Gamestop would rather just not carry the products at all than give up their most profitable source of income. They've already said that they expect consoles that allow no used games to sell much worse than ones that don't. And if they want to go into digital distribution, they're going to be butting heads not with the retail industry, but major ISPs.

If gaming companies really want to cut out the middle man, they need to own their own factories, run their own independent ISPs, and sell only their games only via digital distribution from their proprietary online stores.

I don't think any company is big enough to do all of this.

[danawhitaker]

They could never make this happen with physical media. Again, I think companies like Gamestop would rather just not carry the products at all than give up their most profitable source of income. They've already said that they expect consoles that allow no used games to sell much worse than ones that don't. And if they want to go into digital distribution, they're going to be butting heads not with the retail industry, but major ISPs.

If gaming companies really want to cut out the middle man, they need to own their own factories, run their own independent ISPs, and sell only their games only via digital distribution from their proprietary online stores.

I don't think any company is big enough to do all of this.

Oh, they're already making this happen, in little bits and pieces, with physical media. Someone I talked to rented Dead Space 3. He couldn't play online without being told to cough up 800 Microsoft points to unlock it. This trend is disturbing enough, but if they can lock down specific aspects of games, there's not much to prevent them from doing it with the entire game, on the console itself, especially tying it into a forced always-on mode. And that forced always-on mode would eliminate anyone living in the dorms at my former college, because they had (and still have) a strict policy of not allowing non-computer devices on their network, and not allowing students to run their own routers or hubs to try and bypass that.

GameStop did a study that said supposedly 60% of people said they wouldn't buy a console that wouldn't allow for used games. The site where I saw this linked had a poll asking the same question, and at the time I answered yesterday, the percentage was 65% of people saying they wouldn't buy it. I don't think as many people are willing to roll over and take this as the game industry would like. I noticed EA already backpedalling a bit today by calling the used game market a "double edged sword" rather than saying it's inherently bad, and mentioning positive aspects of it. That tells me they've been watching consumer reaction over the past week or so pretty closely, and they aren't willing to alienate customers just yet.

I also found this comment interesting:

"Jorgensen said that the industry "will probably never be 100 percent digital" do to "bandwidths constraints" and the limitations of in-home storage, pointing to the continued importance of high street retail channels."

If people in the industry are even saying that, I think that's a sign that a fully-digital console is a long, long way off, and they realize it's definitely not a viable model within the next few years.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/390861/used-market-debate-is-double-edged-sword-ea/

[WCP]

They could never make this happen with physical media. Again, I think companies like Gamestop would rather just not carry the products at all than give up their most profitable source of income.



What if Sony and Microsoft both do it? Do you really think GameStop could afford not to carry their games at all ? Target, Best Buy and Wal-Mart would still carry them, and GameStop would end up becoming irrevelent even faster than they already are. They would only have Wii U games and legacy games. No PS4, no Xbox Infinity. I don't see it.

[kupomogli]

If both PS4 and NextBox lock out used games, Wii U is the winner this next gen. Probably not, but to those of us who want our discs to be useful 20-30 years down the road, it will be the winner. I'll still get a PS4 or NextBox if they have exclusives I like, but all my multiconsole games will be purchased on PC or Wii U. Wii U if it even gets a multiconsole version that's worth picking up and PC because so much cheaper and much better version than the PS4/NextBox versions.

[Press_Start]

What if Sony and Microsoft both do it? Do you really think GameStop could afford not to carry their games at all ? Target, Best Buy and Wal-Mart would still carry them, and GameStop would end up becoming irrevelent even faster than they already are. They would only have Wii U games and legacy games. No PS4, no Xbox Infinity. I don't see it.

Technically, Walmart's #1 in video game retail sale volume. Gamestop's only #2. But even so, GS is the public face and goto guy for non-online video game shopping to your average joe schmoe and THAT gives them huge sway. Whether they ultimately agree with the anti-used game feature or not, GS, as a business, is screwed either way. So, yeah, expect a huge fight between now and 2014 crippling MSony cause I don't see them coming out unscathed. A substantial chunk of their userbase buy their new games from Gamestop. So, I wouldn't be surprised if GS start counterattacking by informing their customers of the "Evils" in banning the second-hand market or facsimile thereof. Forget WiiU. It's MSony vs Gamestop!

[IHatedSega]

All the ads and commercials you see from Gamestop is advertising a NEW game or console somehow. If Sony and Microsoft and distributors stopped channeling their stuff to Gamestop then people would walk in there, see a bunch of crappy coverless boxes on the walls, and walk out. Its that simple, if they became a use only store, theyd go out of business, unless they started taking in older games, which most people who sell off their old games know to take them to a local used store. If they didnt go totally out of business theyd have far less stores.

DRM is all about greed, thats it.

[Griking]

If both PS4 and NextBox lock out used games, Wii U is the winner this next gen.

I don't see it that way. The way I see it is that I have the choice to buy a Xbox or PS4 that won't play used games or buy a Nintendo console that will play used games but generally doesn't have any games that I enjoy playing. Personally I never trade in my used games so my decision would likely be to purchase the Xbox though I wouldn't do so until I saw how much they were going to charge for the games. If the games are still in the $50-$60 range then I probably wouldn't purchase any console and will continue to be an almost 100% PC gamer.


DRM is all about greed, thats it.

It's greed to not want a single copy of a game that you might have spent a year making pirated a million times? Personally I see nothing wrong with developers wanting to get paid for their product.