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

[danawhitaker]

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.



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.

Except used goods aren't piracy. Seriously, that attitude needs to end. It is greed to expect people to pay $60 for your product and not be able to do what they want with it when they're finished. If I buy a book and resell it, the author doesn't track me down and yell at me. ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goods are affected by this, across the board - the game industry is *not* special.

[kedawa]

But you could lend it to a million friends!

[Collector_Gaming]

Except used goods aren't piracy. Seriously, that attitude needs to end. It is greed to expect people to pay $60 for your product and not be able to do what they want with it when they're finished. If I buy a book and resell it, the author doesn't track me down and yell at me. ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goods are affected by this, across the board - the game industry is *not* special.

been like that for hundreds if not 1000s of years too! Thats just how it is.

[BydoEmpire]

ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goodsWhich is why the video game industry is trying so desperately to turn games into non-physical, consumable goods. :) Every time you hear some CEO talk about "games as a service" this is what they mean.

[Bojay1997]

Except used goods aren't piracy. Seriously, that attitude needs to end. It is greed to expect people to pay $60 for your product and not be able to do what they want with it when they're finished. If I buy a book and resell it, the author doesn't track me down and yell at me. ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goods are affected by this, across the board - the game industry is *not* special.

So what? Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time that is no longer working doesn't mean it can't be changed. I personally think it's greed to expect that you can pay for a game once and then do whatever you want with it. You're also ignoring the fact that software has been sold under a license model for many, many years and your copy of Windows 7 on a disc is also a physical non-consumable good but cannot be resold or lent to others.

I don't have a problem with some type of model akin to the movie industry where first run games are licensed to specific consoles/users and months later games are released on disc at a purchase price point and then that disc can be resold or lent to others. I just don't think the sale price of that unrestricted copy can be as cheap as the individual user license since it can be resold multiple times and none of that revenue will flow back to the publisher.

[danawhitaker]

So what? Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time that is no longer working doesn't mean it can't be changed. I personally think it's greed to expect that you can pay for a game once and then do whatever you want with it. You're also ignoring the fact that software has been sold under a license model for many, many years and your copy of Windows 7 on a disc is also a physical non-consumable good but cannot be resold or lent to others.

I don't have a problem with some type of model akin to the movie industry where first run games are licensed to specific consoles/users and months later games are released on disc at a purchase price point and then that disc can be resold or lent to others. I just don't think the sale price of that unrestricted copy can be as cheap as the individual user license since it can be resold multiple times and none of that revenue will flow back to the publisher.

Why is that greed? It's *my* money. I spent my hard-earned money on something, and if I decide I'm done with it, and choose to sell it, give it away, etc., why should any corporation have the right to tell me I can't? I could understand if it meant I still retained the ability to play the game once I got rid of it - but that's not the case. Do you think all goods should be like this? You mention the movie industry - but you can still buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs and resell them the way the used game market currently works. They aren't locked to your player. You can loan them out, rent them, borrow them, etc, pretty much without restriction. The same goes for books. You can buy them, loan them, trade them, sell them, borrow them from the library. If I buy a shirt from the Gap and decide I don't like the way it looks, the Gap doesn't prohibit me from giving it to a friend, or donating it to Goodwill. I'm sure they'd prefer that I'd send my friend in to buy a brand new shirt from them instead. Every industry would love it if we all patronized their establishments more and paid full price for everything, and never shared or traded. Cars manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone had to buy new cars. Do you think any of these moves would actually be good for the economy? Prohibiting people from being able to purchase things second-hand (and more affordably) is a slippery slope that I'm just not willing to go down. It's bad enough we've gotten to the point we have with software licensing. I wish I could sell my copy of Diablo 3 because it's garbage and not worth the $60 someone has to pay. Unfortunately it's tied to my Battle.net account for eternity, where maybe I could allow my daughter to play it. But only while she's a minor. Then Blizzard restricts you from sharing your Battle.net account. I love corporations telling me what I can and can't let other family members play on the computer I paid for, with the software I paid for.

Even with licensed software, if I give away or sell my entire computer, with all the software installed, Microsoft has no idea that I've transferred my copy of Windows to someone else. They have no way to stop it. The only way they'd be able to is if they take the Steam, Origin, or Blizzard model and require you to tie your software keys to a single-user account. Why are you so willing to sign away your rights to use products you buy? Do you really hate gaming the way it was in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s so much that you want to see all our rights as collectors out the window? I'm absolutely at a loss I guess as to how people in the gaming community can be so willing to roll over and let the corporations trample all over us. Or maybe there are just some industry shills here pushing the agenda. I can't fathom people choosing to be anti-consumer-rights.

Why is it for a few decades many companies have been able to do just fine in this industry, yet all of a sudden it's a problem? I saw yesterday the 360 has sold 76 million units worldwide? Cry me a river about lack of profits. Even if the slim profit margin on hardware, that's a lot of money by itself. No one is advocating a model where all games are free and cost no money. Show me ten game companies that went out of business because people were buying used games instead of new ones. I bet you'll find significantly more went of business due to mis-management, failing to understand the demands of the market, and developing or publishing games that were sub-par on a consistent basis. In fact, I bet you won't find one that went out of business because of used games.

[Bojay1997]

Why is that greed? It's *my* money. I spent my hard-earned money on something, and if I decide I'm done with it, and choose to sell it, give it away, etc., why should any corporation have the right to tell me I can't? I could understand if it meant I still retained the ability to play the game once I got rid of it - but that's not the case. Do you think all goods should be like this? You mention the movie industry - but you can still buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs and resell them the way the used game market currently works. They aren't locked to your player. You can loan them out, rent them, borrow them, etc, pretty much without restriction. The same goes for books. You can buy them, loan them, trade them, sell them, borrow them from the library. If I buy a shirt from the Gap and decide I don't like the way it looks, the Gap doesn't prohibit me from giving it to a friend, or donating it to Goodwill. I'm sure they'd prefer that I'd send my friend in to buy a brand new shirt from them instead. Every industry would love it if we all patronized their establishments more and paid full price for everything, and never shared or traded. Cars manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone had to buy new cars. Do you think any of these moves would actually be good for the economy? Prohibiting people from being able to purchase things second-hand (and more affordably) is a slippery slope that I'm just not willing to go down. It's bad enough we've gotten to the point we have with software licensing. I wish I could sell my copy of Diablo 3 because it's garbage and not worth the $60 someone has to pay. Unfortunately it's tied to my Battle.net account for eternity, where maybe I could allow my daughter to play it. But only while she's a minor. Then Blizzard restricts you from sharing your Battle.net account. I love corporations telling me what I can and can't let other family members play on the computer I paid for, with the software I paid for.

Even with licensed software, if I give away or sell my entire computer, with all the software installed, Microsoft has no idea that I've transferred my copy of Windows to someone else. They have no way to stop it. The only way they'd be able to is if they take the Steam, Origin, or Blizzard model and require you to tie your software keys to a single-user account. Why are you so willing to sign away your rights to use products you buy? Do you really hate gaming the way it was in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s so much that you want to see all our rights as collectors out the window? I'm absolutely at a loss I guess as to how people in the gaming community can be so willing to roll over and let the corporations trample all over us. Or maybe there are just some industry shills here pushing the agenda. I can't fathom people choosing to be anti-consumer-rights.

Why is it for a few decades many companies have been able to do just fine in this industry, yet all of a sudden it's a problem? I saw yesterday the 360 has sold 76 million units worldwide? Cry me a river about lack of profits. Even if the slim profit margin on hardware, that's a lot of money by itself. No one is advocating a model where all games are free and cost no money. Show me ten game companies that went out of business because people were buying used games instead of new ones. I bet you'll find significantly more went of business due to mis-management, failing to understand the demands of the market, and developing or publishing games that were sub-par on a consistent basis. In fact, I bet you won't find one that went out of business because of used games.

I don't hate old games at all, in fact, I've been collecting for more than two decades now. Having said that, I also love modern games and many big budget games. I don't want those to go away and I certainly don't want to go back to playing simple games programmed by one or two people as the only alternative. As such, I understand that the pay once do whatever you want model doesn't work for big budget modern games. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that financially it's not a stable model.

I would disagree with your premise that everything has always been great in the video game industry. All of the big players in the pre-Nintendo era collapsed and no longer make consoles or games. Sega is software only. Panasonic, Philips, 3do, and countless other companies saw their video game divisions shutter in the 90s or early 2000s. There are actually a relatively small number of publishers remaining and even fewer hardware manufacturers. Did used games kill all these companies? Of course not. Did it have an impact on their profitability and their ability to stay in business? Absolutely.

I'm pro consumer, but I'm also someone who makes a living in the entertainment industry, so I understand the underlying economics. There are some types of media where used resale is not a big part of the bottom line. There are others where a pure direct, unrestricted resale model doesn't work. If there was no pay cable, no VOD, no pay per view, no broadcast release and no theatrical release, there would be no profitability in the movie industry. In fact, the physical disc based model of movie sales has collapsed despite the fact that prices have come down significantly. You can't have it both ways. You either have to accept much less elaborate games or accept being nickeled and dimed on DLC or accept a single user/licensed model. Personally, I buy my games new, so I would much rather have more and more elaborate games without worrying about DLC. Does it suck as a collector? Sure, but I haven't bought a DVD or Blu Ray in months and the last physical CD I bought was literally years ago. Frankly, it means less clutter and it's the way all media is going.

[kedawa]

The current model would work fine if companies stopped wasting money on doomed projects and using the few games that make it to retail to subsidize their failures.

[Bojay1997]

The current model would work fine if companies stopped wasting money on doomed projects and using the few games that make it to retail to subsidize their failures.

That's the nature of creative endeavors unfortunately. You really never know if something is going to be both good and financially successful until you put it out there. Frankly, that's a big reason we get so many sequels nowadays and publishers are very hesitant to take risks. Eliminating used sales won't correct that problem, but it will give developers and publishers a much larger buffer and the ability to take more risks.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I don't hate old games at all, in fact, I've been collecting for more than two decades now. Having said that, I also love modern games and many big budget games. I don't want those to go away and I certainly don't want to go back to playing simple games programmed by one or two people as the only alternative. As such, I understand that the pay once do whatever you want model doesn't work for big budget modern games. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that financially it's not a stable model.

I would disagree with your premise that everything has always been great in the video game industry. All of the big players in the pre-Nintendo era collapsed and no longer make consoles or games. Sega is software only. Panasonic, Philips, 3do, and countless other companies saw their video game divisions shutter in the 90s or early 2000s. There are actually a relatively small number of publishers remaining and even fewer hardware manufacturers. Did used games kill all these companies? Of course not. Did it have an impact on their profitability and their ability to stay in business? Absolutely.

I'm pro consumer, but I'm also someone who makes a living in the entertainment industry, so I understand the underlying economics. There are some types of media where used resale is not a big part of the bottom line. There are others where a pure direct, unrestricted resale model doesn't work. If there was no pay cable, no VOD, no pay per view, no broadcast release and no theatrical release, there would be no profitability in the movie industry. In fact, the physical disc based model of movie sales has collapsed despite the fact that prices have come down significantly. You can't have it both ways. You either have to accept much less elaborate games or accept being nickeled and dimed on DLC or accept a single user/licensed model. Personally, I buy my games new, so I would much rather have more and more elaborate games without worrying about DLC. Does it suck as a collector? Sure, but I haven't bought a DVD or Blu Ray in months and the last physical CD I bought was literally years ago. Frankly, it means less clutter and it's the way all media is going.

WAIT.

WAIT.

WAIT.

WAIT.

WAIT.

GUYS.

WAIT.

...

...

...

...

Did somebody just say something that made sense in this fucking thread?

[kedawa]

I'm not just talking about games that sell poorly, though. There are developers that cancel more than half of all projects, and it's often in the later stages of development that they pull the plug. I was speaking with someone who worked for either Gantz or Gameloft, I don't recall which, who told me that he had been working there for several years and not a single project he has worked on has made it to market.
That isn't the fault of piracy or used game sales, it's the result of fickle and/or negligent management.
If a company can't make money selling a plastic disc for over a hundred times what it costs to make, then they have only themselves to blame.

[danawhitaker]

I would disagree with your premise that everything has always been great in the video game industry. All of the big players in the pre-Nintendo era collapsed and no longer make consoles or games. Sega is software only. Panasonic, Philips, 3do, and countless other companies saw their video game divisions shutter in the 90s or early 2000s. There are actually a relatively small number of publishers remaining and even fewer hardware manufacturers. Did used games kill all these companies? Of course not. Did it have an impact on their profitability and their ability to stay in business? Absolutely.

This is the part where I need other people's commentary, because while I gamed as a child and teen, it wasn't until the very late 90s/early 2000s when I started getting into gaming the way I am now and I was born in 1981 so I missed out on most of the pre-NES stuff. Gamestop didn't exist in its current incarnation in the late 90s, at least in my area. It still went by Software Etc., and didn't push used content nearly as hard was they do now, and we had a FuncoLand in a part of town that no one ever went to that was eventually acquired by them.

How much of an impact did used games actually have on the companies that went out of business in the 80s (pre-NES stuff) and early 90s? I don't even remember seeing used games anywhere except rarely at video rental stores, well after the games had been popular. There was no selection, it wasn't like you could say, "I want to buy X used" and go find it (again, at least where I lived). You might stumble onto a game you wanted, but I found that was rare. Your mileage may have varied with this when it came to larger cities. If I wanted a game back then, new was pretty much the only option. Or rental. But that was no guarantee either.

I always got the impression that the failures of the 3DO and CDI were due more to the cost of hardware and lack of availability of worthwhile titles than anything to do with the used market. I don't think I've ever seen that cited as a reason for either one. And while I could see where the Dreamcast might have issues with piracy, and used games were becoming more prevalent where I live then, if the used market was the problem why did Sega stop making hardware and choose to focus on software (which would seem to be there the issue would lie if it were related to second-hand sales, right?) Isn't one of the prices of having a free market system the fact that inevitably some things *will* fail? It seems unlikely that a lot more game companies would have been able to thrive if not for second hand sales.

I guess I'll issue an easier challenge than I posed in my last post - name the one company that you think was most significantly impacted by the used game market on its road to failure, and why that was the case.

I also didn't say that everything has been "great" in the industry. I said things were fine. Some companies have thrived, and done amazingly well. Others were not so lucky. That's pretty much the way things work. Not every company will ultimately be a success. That's true out of the game industry and within it.

[Greg2600]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/nat-brown-xbox-apple_n_2679696.html

This been discussed yet? Founder of Xbox says Apple will rule because MS/Sony suck to deal with. They need to get their act together because if nothing else, I do not want Apple to be the video game destination of the future. Though if it were just Apple, they would start gouging the small time devs with fees as well. Wall Street......

[IHatedSega]

Yeah, games, without actual controllers area bad idea to me. I really dont want consoles to die, but the way they were this last generation with the PS3 and 360 theyre just cheap crappy computers. Steambox and Wii U are probably my next 2 consoles.

[TonyTheTiger]

If there was no pay cable, no VOD, no pay per view, no broadcast release and no theatrical release, there would be no profitability in the movie industry. In fact, the physical disc based model of movie sales has collapsed despite the fact that prices have come down significantly. You can't have it both ways. You either have to accept much less elaborate games or accept being nickeled and dimed on DLC or accept a single user/licensed model.

I think less elaborate games (or, rather, games with more conservative budgets which isn't necessarily the same thing) is the more sensible option in the long run. The games industry screwed up by trying to compete with Hollywood. You said it yourself, the only reason movies can get away with insane budgets is because they have a perpetual revenue stream. A film studio's library is worth it's weight in gold. Back to the Future still makes money for Universal. But how much has Nintendo really made off of the original Super Mario Bros. lately outside of a handful of low cost rereleases? The inherent value isn't in the individual title. What's valuable is the IP, which puts publishers at a noticeable disadvantage compared to film studios because it means that Square Enix has to get off its ass and make a brand new Final Fantasy every so often. MMOs can last longer but they're also expensive to maintain.

But here's the catch, no pricing scheme can fix this. You can't magically make these fucktarded budgets make sense by raising prices or nickel and diming. The numbers are so whacked out that you'd have to price your games right out of the market to insulate yourself enough so that one major flop doesn't lead to catastrophe. Concocting schemes that risk confusing, annoying, or otherwise complicating the process for people can only help so much. It's like reinforcing a house of cards. No matter what you do, it's still a house of cards. It's all just band-aids meant to avoid acknowledging the real problem. It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about because it's uncomfortable to think about. But we have to face it because it isn't going away. Everyone expects more. Every sequel has to be bigger and better. It used to be that a fighting game could dazzle with a cast of 15. These days if you release one with even 20 characters you get lambasted for your "tiny" roster. Every one of them now needs a highly cinematic story mode or it's "missing something." Our standards keep going up and budgets grow to match but at some point it's just not sustainable no matter what pricing shenanigans you pull. As much as people like to say gaming is growing and more people are playing now than ever before, it isn't growing fast enough and there are way too many alternatives vying for attention.

Curt Schilling should be the poster boy for this problem and is one hell of a cautionary tale. The man lost his company because Kingdoms of Almur: Reckoning (a perfectly competent game, mind you) sold "only" 1.2 million copies in three months. It needed to sell about three times that to break even. To put that into perspective, it needed to match Final Fantasy VII's total North American sales just to break even. When your million seller puts you out on your ass something is really fucking wrong. And, let's be real here, it's not because of used games, DLC, piracy or some other smoke and mirrors.

When the games industry pulls these kinds of shenanigans (be it this used games issue, bizarre nickel and diming, etc.) it's not that I find it morally wrong, unethical, or some other sensationalist nonsense. I just think it's flat out stupid or willfully ignorant. Go right ahead, get rid of all used games, jack all prices to $70, nickel and dime for all the DLC you can think of and I guarantee that five or six years from now we'll be right back where we are hearing once more how publishers can't sustain themselves and how we should feel bad for them when some new scheme devised to "fix" it shows up. But you know, I don't feel bad for bad business. And these budgets are bad business. If anything is hurting the industry it's people acting like the problem is everything except bloated budgets and making excuses for why all these other things need to be done. Because all these other things? They're not going to help. But it's a lot easier to make excuses than to find solutions to make games that are just as impressive but cost less to make.

[Bojay1997]

I think less elaborate games (or, rather, games with more conservative budgets which isn't necessarily the same thing) is the more sensible option in the long run. The games industry screwed up by trying to compete with Hollywood. You said it yourself, the only reason movies can get away with insane budgets is because they have a perpetual revenue stream. A film studio's library is worth it's weight in gold. Back to the Future still makes money for Universal. But how much has Nintendo really made off of the original Super Mario Bros. lately outside of a handful of low cost rereleases? The inherent value isn't in the individual title. What's valuable is the IP, which puts publishers at a noticeable disadvantage compared to film studios because it means that Square Enix has to get off its ass and make a brand new Final Fantasy every so often. MMOs can last longer but they're also expensive to maintain.

But here's the catch, no pricing scheme can fix this. You can't magically make these fucktarded budgets make sense by raising prices or nickel and diming. The numbers are so whacked out that you'd have to price your games right out of the market to insulate yourself enough so that one major flop doesn't lead to catastrophe. Concocting schemes that risk confusing, annoying, or otherwise complicating the process for people can only help so much. It's like reinforcing a house of cards. No matter what you do, it's still a house of cards. It's all just band-aids meant to avoid acknowledging the real problem. It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about because it's uncomfortable to think about. But we have to face it because it isn't going away. Everyone expects more. Every sequel has to be bigger and better. It used to be that a fighting game could dazzle with a cast of 15. These days if you release one with even 20 characters you get lambasted for your "tiny" roster. Every one of them now needs a highly cinematic story mode or it's "missing something." Our standards keep going up and budgets grow to match but at some point it's just not sustainable no matter what pricing shenanigans you pull. As much as people like to say gaming is growing and more people are playing now than ever before, it isn't growing fast enough and there are way too many alternatives vying for attention.

Curt Schilling should be the poster boy for this problem and is one hell of a cautionary tale. The man lost his company because Kingdoms of Almur: Reckoning (a perfectly competent game, mind you) sold "only" 1.2 million copies in three months. It needed to sell about three times that to break even. To put that into perspective, it needed to match Final Fantasy VII's total North American sales just to break even. When your million seller puts you out on your ass something is really fucking wrong. And, let's be real here, it's not because of used games, DLC, piracy or some other smoke and mirrors.

When the games industry pulls these kinds of shenanigans (be it this used games issue, bizarre nickel and diming, etc.) it's not that I find it morally wrong, unethical, or some other sensationalist nonsense. I just think it's flat out stupid or willfully ignorant. Go right ahead, get rid of all used games, jack all prices to $70, nickel and dime for all the DLC you can think of and I guarantee that five or six years from now we'll be right back where we are hearing once more how publishers can't sustain themselves and how we should feel bad for them when some new scheme devised to "fix" it shows up. But you know, I don't feel bad for bad business. And these budgets are bad business. If anything is hurting the industry it's people acting like the problem is everything except bloated budgets and making excuses for why all these other things need to be done. Because all these other things? They're not going to help. But it's a lot easier to make excuses than to find solutions to make games that are just as impressive but cost less to make.

I agree with most of the points that you made, but it doesn't change the fact that the gaming public, including many of us here, want these games to be bigger and better with each iteration. The sad truth is that like most forms of older media, there aren't a whole lot of new ways to tell a story (in this case play mechanics) available to developers and at this point, it's really a continuing race to tell those same basic stories in new and interesting ways. There are lots of really well constructed indie and lower budget games out there, but frankly, they don't keep me interested for very long, if at all, because many of them rely on gimmicks to harness the same exact gameplay that arcade and console programmers developed in the 1970s.

You're right, long term it is a very unsustainable financial model, just like the music industry was in the 90s and movies seem destined to be again in the coming decade. In fact, one of the major reasons the movie business has continued to return record profits despite sharp declines in home video sales and lower cable and broadcast licensing fees is that ticket prices have sharply climbed over the past decade. The number of movie goers and tickets sold has remained pretty stable over the past decade or so and in some markets has actually declined somewhat. Back to the Future might continue to generate licensing and retransmission revenue, but it sure isn't the gold mine it was a decade ago when there were far fewer cable channels and far less original programming being pumped at out faster and cheaper rates.

Frankly, the busines model behind the games industry has been broken since at least the late 90s when Sony decided that it would sell the PS2 at a significant loss and Microsoft followed suit with the Xbox, both foolishly counting on a high software attach rate to make up for the deficit. Maybe the solution is to charge actual cost plus reasonable profit on consoles so that used buyers won't essentially cause a continuing loss by first getting a subsidized console and then never buying any of the software in a way that some of those revenues return to the manufacturers. I'm sure used buyers will balk at that as well and new users like myself won't be too happy to pay more for our hardware. I will say that what may delay the inevitable a little longer is the emergence of a growing international middle class in places like China and India where console gaming is really just starting to be introduced. Maybe it is short sighted, but if getting rid of used sales buys me another five years of great games, I'm perfectly happy to take that bargain.

[biohazard326]

But here's the catch, no pricing scheme can fix this. You can't magically make these fucktarded budgets make sense by raising prices or nickel and diming. The numbers are so whacked out that you'd have to price your games right out of the market to insulate yourself enough so that one major flop doesn't lead to catastrophe. ....

right here is a big problem i have. games are priced to a point these days where my disposable income cannot keep up with the amount of titles that come out. now...that being said, i said "titles coming out", i never said GOOD titles. lately i noticed that a good 1/4 of the games i see that are $60 are games that are terrible. i got suckered into the hype of "titles" too many times lately. i was the idiot that LOVED resident evil and when i heard RE6 was coming out with a MASSIVE pre-order bonus, i didnt flinch at the $90 price tag, i ordered it, paid in full, and went on my way. fast forward to release day, i actually left my job early so i could get the game. i rushed home, threw it in my xbox and went to town.....for about 10min and realized that the game was TERRIBLE. now who is to blame? the fanboy (me) who shelled out the $90 or the game devel team that brought out a button smash versus an actual horror game? i read reviews now and the game is flamed BADLY about terrible game play. so here i am with a $90 game that most game stores will buy for $20 MAX....yeah, nope, im stuck with it


When the games industry pulls these kinds of shenanigans (be it this used games issue, bizarre nickel and diming, etc.) it's not that I find it morally wrong, unethical, or some other sensationalist nonsense. I just think it's flat out stupid or willfully ignorant. Go right ahead, get rid of all used games, jack all prices to $70, nickel and dime for all the DLC you can think of and I guarantee that five or six years from now we'll be right back where we are hearing once more how publishers can't sustain themselves and how we should feel bad for them when some

they pull this crap cause sadly there are people that dont pay attention to the prices of games, they buy the game for the game, and that hurts a lot of us gamers. there are people who will buy a game/title on name alone and spend $60/$70/$100 on a subpar game. when people do that it shows the studios "hey....people WILL pay for this crap, lets make another!". i personally am VERY much against DLC costing or 0day DLC. why do i need to be nickle and dimed to death once i get a game? why couldnt that have been implemented into the game beforehand? i dont think the problem will be back in 5 or 6 years like you think. i think its going to hit us HARD with the next gen of consoles coming into play

[WCP]

Why is that greed? It's *my* money. I spent my hard-earned money on something, and if I decide I'm done with it, and choose to sell it, give it away, etc., why should any corporation have the right to tell me I can't? I could understand if it meant I still retained the ability to play the game once I got rid of it - but that's not the case. Do you think all goods should be like this? You mention the movie industry - but you can still buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs and resell them the way the used game market currently works. They aren't locked to your player. You can loan them out, rent them, borrow them, etc, pretty much without restriction. The same goes for books. You can buy them, loan them, trade them, sell them, borrow them from the library. If I buy a shirt from the Gap and decide I don't like the way it looks, the Gap doesn't prohibit me from giving it to a friend, or donating it to Goodwill. I'm sure they'd prefer that I'd send my friend in to buy a brand new shirt from them instead. Every industry would love it if we all patronized their establishments more and paid full price for everything, and never shared or traded. Cars manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone had to buy new cars. Do you think any of these moves would actually be good for the economy? Prohibiting people from being able to purchase things second-hand (and more affordably) is a slippery slope that I'm just not willing to go down. It's bad enough we've gotten to the point we have with software licensing. I wish I could sell my copy of Diablo 3 because it's garbage and not worth the $60 someone has to pay. Unfortunately it's tied to my Battle.net account for eternity, where maybe I could allow my daughter to play it. But only while she's a minor. Then Blizzard restricts you from sharing your Battle.net account. I love corporations telling me what I can and can't let other family members play on the computer I paid for, with the software I paid for.

Even with licensed software, if I give away or sell my entire computer, with all the software installed, Microsoft has no idea that I've transferred my copy of Windows to someone else. They have no way to stop it. The only way they'd be able to is if they take the Steam, Origin, or Blizzard model and require you to tie your software keys to a single-user account. Why are you so willing to sign away your rights to use products you buy? Do you really hate gaming the way it was in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s so much that you want to see all our rights as collectors out the window? I'm absolutely at a loss I guess as to how people in the gaming community can be so willing to roll over and let the corporations trample all over us. Or maybe there are just some industry shills here pushing the agenda. I can't fathom people choosing to be anti-consumer-rights.

Why is it for a few decades many companies have been able to do just fine in this industry, yet all of a sudden it's a problem? I saw yesterday the 360 has sold 76 million units worldwide? Cry me a river about lack of profits. Even if the slim profit margin on hardware, that's a lot of money by itself. No one is advocating a model where all games are free and cost no money. Show me ten game companies that went out of business because people were buying used games instead of new ones. I bet you'll find significantly more went of business due to mis-management, failing to understand the demands of the market, and developing or publishing games that were sub-par on a consistent basis. In fact, I bet you won't find one that went out of business because of used games.





I agree with most of what you're saying. Certainly, we as consumers are enjoying certain rights with our physical games, and those rights are in danger.


However.... You're saying that all the game devs that went out of business was because of mismanagement and stuff like that, but I think I'd have to disagree on that. All it takes to go out of business nowadays is one poor selling game. Key word is "selling". There are plenty of games that didn't sell well, that are still excellent games. The console business right now is in this weird place where only the megahits make any money. Megahits and low budget downloadable games. There is no middle ground. This business model is unsustainable, so I see why Sony and Microsoft are going in the direction that they are going.


Still, does that give them the right, to take away all of our rights as consumers ? Not really. But the alternative is going to be Halo 5 and Uncharted 4 ad naseum, until we can't stand it anymore. The huge flagpole releases will be the only games that get budgets over 20 million. Nobody is going to spend 20 million making a mid-tier game. Instead, they will spend 10 million, and cut corners. The only games that will get the full treatment, are the proven blockbusters. So get ready to play the same old shit, over and over.

[danawhitaker]

I agree with most of what you're saying. Certainly, we as consumers are enjoying certain rights with our physical games, and those rights are in danger.


However.... You're saying that all the game devs that went out of business was because of mismanagement and stuff like that, but I think I'd have to disagree on that. All it takes to go out of business nowadays is one poor selling game. Key word is "selling". There are plenty of games that didn't sell well, that are still excellent games. The console business right now is in this weird place where only the megahits make any money. Megahits and low budget downloadable games. There is no middle ground. This business model is unsustainable, so I see why Sony and Microsoft are going in the direction that they are going.


Still, does that give them the right, to take away all of our rights as consumers ? Not really. But the alternative is going to be Halo 5 and Uncharted 4 ad naseum, until we can't stand it anymore. The huge flagpole releases will be the only games that get budgets over 20 million. Nobody is going to spend 20 million making a mid-tier game. Instead, they will spend 10 million, and cut corners. The only games that will get the full treatment, are the proven blockbusters. So get ready to play the same old shit, over and over.

I think mismanagement can encompass a lot of things. That includes releasing or allotting development and large amounts of money and time to games that aren't likely going to sell well, that you don't market or promote well, or that are just flat-out bad games. Those will all lead to a game that, ultimately, will not sell well. Personally, I think one of the scourges on the game industry today is the whole movie/TV show tie in. Many of those games are so *bad*. Make the ones that have the potential to be good and to translate well into game-form, but it's like any remotely popular franchise in movies or TV has to end up becoming a game. I mean for crying out loud, someone made a Grey's Anatomy game. I adore that show, but really? Even I haven't bought that yet, and I tune in religiously every week and have for about six years. Desperate Housewives never made it to the console, but there's another one that had me scratching my head. I watched the show for a while, and I'm a woman, but I didn't even consider buying that. Garbage in, garbage out. If the concept and design of the game are bad at the core, the release isn't going to magically be good, no matter what IP it's tied to. Just because a lot of people watch it on TV or go to the theater to see it doesn't mean that will translate into game sales. Games like those exist because of the path of least resistance - there's existing story, throw it all together, release it, and hope suckers will buy it because they saw "X".

It's okay to make smaller, niche games that don't appeal to the broad base of players - but then the budget needs to be reined in to account for that fact, rather than letting it balloon out of control to the point where the game will be considered utter failure even when it sells by what would be considered reasonable standards. Or the budget needs to be balanced in a way that makes sure the game gets marketed properly so that people will know it exists. I do research almost every day for my console database, and at least 3-4 times a day I will stumble onto a game that's been released within the past few years that I never heard about. I think game stores can be a bit at fault in this department too - not ordering many copies of game, or, as some people have said about Gamestop as of late, not ordering any copies at all unless someone preorders. If I don't see it on the shelf, I don't know it exists. I'm starting to become more proactive in paying attention to the release schedule so that I can make sure to try and support games that I would have missed in the past. Part of me wants to get a PS3 just to play Ni no Kuni, after reading about that one. That one ended up being the #11th selling game (in terms of physical copies) in January I think? I looked at everything above it on the list, and everything else was part of some massive franchise - Madden, Halo, Call of Duty, Just Dance, etc. I think in a way we've already hit that dreaded point of having most games be rehashes of the same franchises. And some of that's okay - I loved the Super Mario for the Wii U. No one's saying those games should go away. But I think that maybe the industry could look at more balance when it comes to how often they're released, so that the market doesn't feel quite so saturated.

I don't want to see the game industry continue to be the same stuff over and over with no real alternatives either. But I do think that there are things they could do to try and bolster sales of lesser-known games, and get people excited about the games, before they launch. And really, with social media playing such a significant role today, companies can try to take the bull by the horns and do more about that without spending large amounts of money.

[IHatedSega]

If games cost less, theyd sell more, thats the key to used games, theyre cheaper. But, even then, the used games would be less still so then people would really buy them up. I hope the next consoles arent too expensive, thats the most expensive thing involved in gaming.

[Rob2600]

The huge flagpole releases will be the only games that get budgets over 20 million.

Do you mean flagship?

[retroguy]

If games cost less, theyd sell more, thats the key to used games, theyre cheaper. But, even then, the used games would be less still so then people would really buy them up.

It depends. When I got my PS1 in high school, brand new games cost $40 and Greatest Hits or games that had been out for awhile were $20 and at the time, even with only making $6 an hour at my job, I thought that was reasonable and bought most of my games new from Walmart. These days, though, if I have a choice between paying $60 for a new game or $25-30 for used, I'll go with used every time. I think game companies need to reduce the cost of new games across the board and if that means reducing budgets on the more niche titles to have a better chance of making a profit, I can't see where that would be a bad thing.

[IHatedSega]

if that means reducing budgets on the more niche titles to have a better chance of making a profit, I can't see where that would be a bad thing.

The "realistic graphics" whores would throw a fit.

[kedawa]

I'm more of a playable framerate/logical physics whore, and current tech does not cut it.

[IHatedSega]

I'm more of a playable framerate/logical physics whore, and current tech does not cut it.

Framerates? And what about physics? Do you hate Dead or Alive with a burning passion?

Oh yeah, I played Dodonpachi Resurrection , and there was a LOT of slow down, I said it needed blast processing for the game, no one got the joke.

[TonyTheTiger]

I agree with most of the points that you made, but it doesn't change the fact that the gaming public, including many of us here, want these games to be bigger and better with each iteration.

Yeah, well, we're stupid. But that's why consumers don't have a say in the business other than "buy" or "don't buy." Playing through the Mass Effect trilogy was one of the best gaming experiences of my life. But I know that things like that need to be the exception rather than the rule. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. We can still have our blockbusters. But they can't all be blockbusters. And each sequel can't be allowed to cost more than the last.


Maybe it is short sighted, but if getting rid of used sales buys me another five years of great games, I'm perfectly happy to take that bargain.

Who says you have to lose great games? There's an old saying, restriction fosters innovation. I imagine if GTAVI proceeded with a scaled down budget they could still make it fantastic even if it costs less than IV and V. It should be possible to stop the bleeding without a noticeable dip in quality. We didn't exactly feel starved for entertainment back in the 90s. Nobody was bemoaning that Star Fox 64 could have been just that much better if only they spent an extra $20 million.

GTAIV alone cost $100 million. You know what you can make for $281 million? The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. You want to buy another five years? Well, what do we lose out on in that deal? You know what, I liked Kingdoms of Almur. I think it showed promise. I would have liked to see what 38 Studios could have produced down the line. But that isn't happening. You get your five years but how many companies fall in the interim? How many great games do you lose out on because the companies that would have produced them never got the chance?

That's why this anti-used games thing is terrible. It's bad for the industry because it diverts everyone's attention away from the real problem. It masquerades as a solution when it's really just a delay tactic. They put it into motion and everyone feels better. But the bleeding hasn't stopped and now because we got our placebo we aren't even driving to the hospital. Those extra five years will sacrifice many developers and publishers just so everybody can feel a little bit better for the time being. How is that good for the industry? How does that help us get better games? It's like there's a hole in the bottom of the boat and the solution is to just keep bucketing out the water. You might stay afloat a bit longer but you're still going to sink. Tend to the actual problem before its too late and you'll make it to shore. A transition to a new generation is the perfect opportunity to really sit down and fix the problem rather than prolong it.

[Bojay1997]

Do you mean flagship?

I believe the term he was going for is tentpole.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

That's why this anti-used games thing is terrible. It's bad for the industry because it diverts everyone's attention away from the real problem. It masquerades as a solution when it's really just a delay tactic. They put it into motion and everyone feels better. But the bleeding hasn't stopped and now because we got our placebo we aren't even driving to the hospital. Those extra five years will sacrifice many developers and publishers just so everybody can feel a little bit better for the time being. How is that good for the industry? How does that help us get better games? It's like there's a hole in the bottom of the boat and the solution is to just keep bucketing out the water. You might stay afloat a bit longer but you're still going to sink. Tend to the actual problem before its too late and you'll make it to shore. A transition to a new generation is the perfect opportunity to really sit down and fix the problem rather than prolong it.

I don't think it's diverting attention from the "real" problem as much as it is highlighting one aspect of a multifaceted problem with profitability/stability that the entire industry presently has.

Eliminating used game sales is not a cure-all for the industry's bleeding problem, but it's got to have a measurable impact to some degree and is hardly something that's negligible to continue to ignore.

As long as closed economic ecosystems like STEAM and App stores are operating as successfully as they are we can't expect console developers to not try to ape that model on a larger scale.

Like Mr. Dylan says: "Times They are a-Changin" We've GOT to believe that Microsoft and Sony at the very least have recognized and calculated the success and profit of XBLA and PSN in this console generation down to the penny. If they feel that this is the generation to move stronger on digital distribution, we'll see.

That aside, I STILL don't believe that on February 20th that Kaz is going to walk out on stage and say "Here is the PS4, games will come on disc with a one-time activation code, you won't be able to buy or sell them used. Also, Ridge Racer! Goodnight! Remember to tip your wait staff!" and if he doesn't - and Nintendo AND Sony aren't doing it, what sense would it make for Microsoft to burn all the good grace that they've earned in the past generation?

[Bojay1997]

That aside, I STILL don't believe that on February 20th that Kaz is going to walk out on stage and say "Here is the PS4, games will come on disc with a one-time activation code, you're won't be able to buy or sell them used. Also, Ridge Racer! Goodnight! Remember to tip your wait staff!" and if he doesn't - and Nintendo AND Sony aren't doing it, what sense would it make for Microsoft to burn all the good grace that they've earned in the past generation?

I agree with you. Frankly, I don't think Microsoft or Sony will announce that this time around or even require it of publishers. That doesn't mean individual publishers couldn't implement their own single use activation codes down the road on the PS4 and Xbox 720. I mean, some publishers are already half way there with season pass type schemes. This isn't a huge marketing or technology stretch to go the rest of the way.

[marlowe221]

Why is that greed? It's *my* money. I spent my hard-earned money on something, and if I decide I'm done with it, and choose to sell it, give it away, etc., why should any corporation have the right to tell me I can't? I could understand if it meant I still retained the ability to play the game once I got rid of it - but that's not the case. Do you think all goods should be like this? You mention the movie industry - but you can still buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs and resell them the way the used game market currently works. They aren't locked to your player. You can loan them out, rent them, borrow them, etc, pretty much without restriction. The same goes for books. You can buy them, loan them, trade them, sell them, borrow them from the library. If I buy a shirt from the Gap and decide I don't like the way it looks, the Gap doesn't prohibit me from giving it to a friend, or donating it to Goodwill. I'm sure they'd prefer that I'd send my friend in to buy a brand new shirt from them instead. Every industry would love it if we all patronized their establishments more and paid full price for everything, and never shared or traded. Cars manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone had to buy new cars. Do you think any of these moves would actually be good for the economy? Prohibiting people from being able to purchase things second-hand (and more affordably) is a slippery slope that I'm just not willing to go down. It's bad enough we've gotten to the point we have with software licensing. I wish I could sell my copy of Diablo 3 because it's garbage and not worth the $60 someone has to pay. Unfortunately it's tied to my Battle.net account for eternity, where maybe I could allow my daughter to play it. But only while she's a minor. Then Blizzard restricts you from sharing your Battle.net account. I love corporations telling me what I can and can't let other family members play on the computer I paid for, with the software I paid for.

Even with licensed software, if I give away or sell my entire computer, with all the software installed, Microsoft has no idea that I've transferred my copy of Windows to someone else. They have no way to stop it. The only way they'd be able to is if they take the Steam, Origin, or Blizzard model and require you to tie your software keys to a single-user account. Why are you so willing to sign away your rights to use products you buy? Do you really hate gaming the way it was in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s so much that you want to see all our rights as collectors out the window? I'm absolutely at a loss I guess as to how people in the gaming community can be so willing to roll over and let the corporations trample all over us. Or maybe there are just some industry shills here pushing the agenda. I can't fathom people choosing to be anti-consumer-rights.

Why is it for a few decades many companies have been able to do just fine in this industry, yet all of a sudden it's a problem? I saw yesterday the 360 has sold 76 million units worldwide? Cry me a river about lack of profits. Even if the slim profit margin on hardware, that's a lot of money by itself. No one is advocating a model where all games are free and cost no money. Show me ten game companies that went out of business because people were buying used games instead of new ones. I bet you'll find significantly more went of business due to mis-management, failing to understand the demands of the market, and developing or publishing games that were sub-par on a consistent basis. In fact, I bet you won't find one that went out of business because of used games.

I am quoting this post because it makes as much (or more) sense as any other in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that the video game market is changing. Or already has changed. With services like Steam and GOG out there that create opportunities for console-like experiences on the PC, not to mention the rise of mobile gaming (love it or hate it, it's there), and the fact that the quality of experiences offered by more traditional handheld game systems (DS/3DS/PSP/Vita) has only gone up over the years, traditional console companies and console developers/publishers find their market share under attack from more directions at once than ever before.

The simple fact is that "AAA" game developers and publishers have managed to paint themselves into a corner. They pretty much have to keep delivering "bigger and better" experiences in order to avoid journalistic criticism and meet customer expectations. Meanwhile, the sales targets keep going up and up to increasingly unrealistic numbers - numbers that are required in order to turn a profit due to the huge amounts of money spent making the games in the first place. It's a vicious cycle and wholly unsustainable.

All the while, many gamers have found that they can have just-as-fun/valuable/memorable gaming experiences with "indie" games and the huge library of gaming's glorious past.

So what do the developers/publishers do? They aren't going to blame themselves - heaven forbid! Instead they turn to the old boogeyman of piracy and create a new boogeyman in used video game sales. Nevermind that measuring the true extent and effect of piracy is virtually impossible in any reliable way! Nevermind that used video game sales have gone on for a few decades without a word of complaint from developers/publishers and is now suddenly a problem! Anything not to focus on the fact that the industry has created a huge, starving beast that it cannot possibly feed and threatens to consume them all. Used games are the real problem!

Personally I don't think the video game industry is headed for a crash a la 1983. But a "AAA" video game crash would not surprise me in the least.

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't think it's diverting attention from the "real" problem as much as it is highlighting one aspect of a multifaceted problem with profitability/stability that the entire industry presently has.

Eliminating used game sales is not a cure-all for the industry's bleeding problem, but it's got to have a measurable impact to some degree and is hardly something that's negligible to continue to ignore.

But I think it's only a problem because they let it be one. Think about it. If you find yourself putting more money in to something than you can get out, what's the cure for that? That's what it boils down to whether it's flipping a house, publishing a video game, or running a lemonade stand. What makes video games so unique that the industry gets to skirt this and settle upon all these other fringe issues that may or may not (I'm heavily leaning toward not) actually help in the long run? I can't bring myself to feel bad for them because they aren't doing the one thing they need to. Instead they've effectively engineered other problems by ignoring this one. Competition from Steam? Adapt. Competition from iOS? Adapt. They've done so spectacularly, I think, by making XBLA and PSN as good as they are. But your big budget games aren't selling enough to justify their cost? Why is adapting to that so impossible?

People stopped buying comics sometime in the 90s. We've gone from X-Men #1 selling a million copies to current top sellers like Superman barely cracking 100,000. Yeah, that sucks. But you know what would be worse? If Marvel and DC didn't get their shit together in order to adapt to the change. Going after used games isn't "adapting." It's making excuses. The way I see it, if you put more money into a game than you can get out then it's your fault for putting too much into it. It's not GameStop, it's not piracy, it's not this guy or that guy that you already knew existed. You know those things are out there. Maybe some of them shouldn't be, but they are. Plan for it.

This has to be about restoring rationality. Back when Marvel vs. Capcom 2 came out it's roster of 50+ characters was pretty impressive. But based on reviews for Marvel vs. Capcom 3 you'd think Capcom had magically pulled 56 characters out of its ass from scratch rather than it being the culmination of five games over the course of about six years worth of work. Marvel vs. Capcom 3, with a roster of 36 characters actually built from scratch, gets a review like this (http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/02/14/marvel-vs-capcom-3-review).

"Compared with MvC2, we've lost 20 characters." Really? Because a mostly copy/paste job is the same thing? Isn't that like pointing out that the animation in an episode of The Simpsons isn't quite up to par with The Lion King? This is where we are now. As consumers we either don't understand or don't want to. And it keeps getting worse. Tekken Tag Tournament 2 has just about every character to ever appear in the series. What do you think people are going to expect come Tekken 7? Getting rid of used games is not going to mitigate the problem because the problem is of perception rather than just revenue. We've been weaned to want bigger and better without any form of rational thought tempering our expectations. We're like a toddler who is offered three cookies and then gets pissed off when denied a fourth.

We've hit the point where a game sells a million copies and doesn't even come close to breaking even. It's not going to stop. With expectations constantly going up the only solution is to bring them down. Get rid of used games and it's like giving one more spin to a compulsive gambler. Even if revenue does get a bump (which I think won't really happen since I imagine people would just play less) that extra revenue is going to look like nothing when expectations raise once more and now selling 2 million copies isn't enough to break even or 3 million isn't enough to break even. Get rid of used games so they don't feel the crunch as hard? No, make them feel the crunch. Don't give them the easy, temporary out. I think everyone needs a wakeup call and indulging the "let them be special" attitude where ordinary things in just about every industry like used merchandise is suddenly considered expendable for video games is an attitude that's only going to give everybody (publishers and consumers) reason to dodge the real issues until the next crisis when something else is labeled the problem. I want decent games over the long term. I don't want to get rid of used games to fund five more years of AAA blockbusters followed by more mass shutterings. Lower budgets, lower expectations, and find an actually sustainable business model. I can't condone these extra shenanigans because they're not part of an actually sustainable business model. They're just band-aids at best or the "one more spin" at worst.


As long as closed economic ecosystems like STEAM and App stores are operating as successfully as they are we can't expect console developers to not try to ape that model on a larger scale.

Like Mr. Dylan says: "Times They are a-Changin" We've GOT to believe that Microsoft and Sony at the very least have recognized and calculated the success and profit of XBLA and PSN in this console generation down to the penny. If they feel that this is the generation to move stronger on digital distribution, we'll see.

But that still doesn't address the elephant. It's not the delivery method that's going to solve the problem of games winding up in the red after moving a million copies. Whether that happens on store shelves or on Steam the end result is the same. While it's true that it can be cheaper in the long run to publish digitally, I'm doubting that it makes enough of a difference given the extravagance.


That aside, I STILL don't believe that on February 20th that Kaz is going to walk out on stage and say "Here is the PS4, games will come on disc with a one-time activation code, you're won't be able to buy or sell them used. Also, Ridge Racer! Goodnight! Remember to tip your wait staff!" and if he doesn't - and Nintendo AND Sony aren't doing it, what sense would it make for Microsoft to burn all the good grace that they've earned in the past generation?

I actually agree. I don't think it's especially likely and I'm sure everyone's apprehensive about being the first.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

But I think it's only a problem because they let it be one. Think about it. If you find yourself putting more money in to something than you can get out, what's the cure for that? That's what it boils down to whether it's flipping a house, publishing a video game, or running a lemonade stand. What makes video games so unique that the industry gets to skirt this and settle upon all these other fringe issues that may or may not (I'm heavily leaning toward not) actually help in the long run? I can't bring myself to feel bad for them because they aren't doing the one thing they need to. Instead they've effectively engineered other problems by ignoring this one. Competition from Steam? Adapt. Competition from iOS? Adapt. People stopped buying comics sometime in the 90s. We've gone from X-Men #1 selling a million copies to current top sellers like Superman barely cracking 100,000. Yeah, that sucks. But you know what would be worse? If Marvel and DC didn't get their finances in order to adapt to the change. Going after used games isn't "adapting." It's making excuses. The way I see it, if you put more money into a game than you can get out then it's your fault for putting too much into it. It's not GameStop, it's not piracy, it's not this guy or that guy that you already knew existed. You know those things are out there. Maybe some of them shouldn't be, but they are. Plan for it.

This has to be about restoring rationality. Back when Marvel vs. Capcom 2 came out it's roster of 50+ characters was pretty impressive. But based on reviews for Marvel vs. Capcom 3 you'd think Capcom had magically pulled 56 characters out of its ass from scratch rather than it being the culmination of five games over the course of about six years worth of work. Marvel vs. Capcom 3, with a roster of 36 characters actually built from scratch, gets a review like this (http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/02/14/marvel-vs-capcom-3-review).

"Compared with MvC2, we've lost 20 characters." Really? Because a mostly copy/paste job is the same thing? Isn't that like pointing out that the animation in an episode of The Simpsons isn't quite up to par with The Lion King? This is where we've gotten. As consumers we either don't understand or don't want to. And it keeps getting worse. Tekken Tag Tournament 2 has just about every character to ever appear in the series. What do you think people are going to expect come Tekken 7? Getting rid of used games is not going to mitigate the problem because the problem is of perception rather than just revenue. We've been weaned to want bigger and better without any form of rational thought tempering our expectations. We're like a toddler who is offered three cookies and then gets pissed off when denied a fourth.

We've hit the point where a game sells a million copies and doesn't even come close to breaking even. It's not going to stop. With expectations constantly going up the only solution is to bring them down. Get rid of used games and it's like giving one more spin to a compulsive gambler. Even if revenue does get a bump (which I think won't really happen since I imagine people would just play less) that extra revenue is going to look like nothing when expectations raise once more and now selling 2 million copies isn't enough to break even. Get rid of used games so they don't feel the crunch as hard? No, make them feel the crunch. Don't give them the easy, temporary out. I think everyone needs a wakeup call and indulging the "let them be special" attitude where ordinary things in just about every industry like used merchandise is considered expendable for video games is an attitude that's only going to give everybody (publishers and consumers) reason to dodge the real issues until the next crisis when something else is labeled the problem. I want decent games over the long term. I don't want to get rid of used games to fund five more years of AAA blockbusters and then more mass shutterings. Lower budgets, lower expectations, and find an actually sustainable business model. I can't condone these extra shenanigans because they're not part of an actually sustainable business model. They're just band-aids at best or the "one more spin" at worst.



But that still doesn't address the elephant. It's not the delivery method that's going to solve the problem of games winding up in the red after moving a million copies. Whether that happens on store shelves or on Steam the end result is the same. While it's true that it can be cheaper in the long run to publish digitally, I'm doubting that it makes enough of a difference given the extravagance.



I actually agree. I don't think it's especially likely and I'm sure everyone's apprehensive about being the first.

I absolutely agree that studios need to reign in the spending in an effort to make games more profitable in the next generation.

Smaller dev. teams, more affordable projects, less overhead, less extravagance, etc.

I also believe that we NEED a disruption in the status-quo of the traditional/standard MSRP pricing structures.

The days of $20/$40/$60 standard pricing on games simply won't cut it where STEAM and App stores provide alternative price structures with the majority of things starting at FREE and a median of less than $10.

[danawhitaker]

I absolutely agree that studios need to reign in the spending in an effort to make games more profitable in the next generation.

Smaller dev. teams, more affordable projects, less overhead, less extravagance, etc.

I also believe that we NEED a disruption in the status-quo of the traditional/standard MSRP pricing structures.

The days of $20/$40/$60 standard pricing on games simply won't cut it where STEAM and App stores provide alternative price structures with the majority of things starting at FREE and a median of less than $10.

I don't use Steam, but I've spent a fair amount of time on the App store with my daughter's iPod. Most of those games aren't anywhere near the level of any console game I've bought in the past few years. Even Angry Birds Trilogy on the Xbox feels much more fleshed out than the same games on the App store. And the "free" games on the App store are usually riddled with microtransactions (which is another direction I loathe to see console gaming head) and advertisements. Even the full versions of some games like Cut the Rope push you to buy stuff with microtransactions. My daughter loves to play stuff like Theme Park and Monopoly Hotels, and those are free but they try to nag you into tagging your friends on Facebook constantly - and they're also riddled with microtransactions. I'd rather pay $60 for a game outright than, say $20-30 for it with lots of microtransactions or DLC. You start to forget at that point just how much you're spending for a game because it's just a little here and a little there.

I'm not saying the current model is perfect either, but given the choices that have been discussed so far, I'll gladly choose the traditional model.

One thing that I do wonder about, in a hypothetical situation with required activation and always-on connectivity - how much would it cost to handle tech support for those systems? How much would that offset any theoretical losses from used games? I can count on one hand (zero) the number of times I've had to call any game company over the years because I've had trouble getting a game to play in my console. Now imagine when activation is required, and people inevitably have numerous problems, or can't get their console connected to the internet. Maybe they already have the employees in place to handle that, with things like the PSN and Xbox Live. But I'd assume since every player would be required to use those things, when they're somewhat optional right now, you'd see an uptick in the number of support cases you'd have to handle. Maybe I'm wrong.

[biohazard326]

One thing that I do wonder about, in a hypothetical situation with required activation and always-on connectivity - how much would it cost to handle tech support for those systems? How much would that offset any theoretical losses from used games? I can count on one hand (zero) the number of times I've had to call any game company over the years because I've had trouble getting a game to play in my console. Now imagine when activation is required, and people inevitably have numerous problems, or can't get their console connected to the internet. Maybe they already have the employees in place to handle that, with things like the PSN and Xbox Live. But I'd assume since every player would be required to use those things, when they're somewhat optional right now, you'd see an uptick in the number of support cases you'd have to handle. Maybe I'm wrong.



what about the lessened lifetime of the online adapters if its literally having to be connected everytime you boot the console

[kedawa]

what about the lessened lifetime of the online adapters if its literally having to be connected everytime you boot the console

The network interface could be connected constantly for years at a time and not skip a beat.
Optical drives are the real problem, and hopefully they're not long for this world.

[biohazard326]

The network interface could be connected constantly for years at a time and not skip a beat.
Optical drives are the real problem, and hopefully they're not long for this world.



in a perfect world yes, but remember most of these parts are being crafted by the LOWEST bidder.

[Greg2600]

I believe the biggest barrier is that MS/Sony force you to sell 75K units of the game before you get any money for it.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I don't use Steam, but I've spent a fair amount of time on the App store with my daughter's iPod. Most of those games aren't anywhere near the level of any console game I've bought in the past few years. Even Angry Birds Trilogy on the Xbox feels much more fleshed out than the same games on the App store. And the "free" games on the App store are usually riddled with microtransactions (which is another direction I loathe to see console gaming head) and advertisements. Even the full versions of some games like Cut the Rope push you to buy stuff with microtransactions. My daughter loves to play stuff like Theme Park and Monopoly Hotels, and those are free but they try to nag you into tagging your friends on Facebook constantly - and they're also riddled with microtransactions. I'd rather pay $60 for a game outright than, say $20-30 for it with lots of microtransactions or DLC. You start to forget at that point just how much you're spending for a game because it's just a little here and a little there.

I'm not saying the current model is perfect either, but given the choices that have been discussed so far, I'll gladly choose the traditional model.

One thing that I do wonder about, in a hypothetical situation with required activation and always-on connectivity - how much would it cost to handle tech support for those systems? How much would that offset any theoretical losses from used games? I can count on one hand (zero) the number of times I've had to call any game company over the years because I've had trouble getting a game to play in my console. Now imagine when activation is required, and people inevitably have numerous problems, or can't get their console connected to the internet. Maybe they already have the employees in place to handle that, with things like the PSN and Xbox Live. But I'd assume since every player would be required to use those things, when they're somewhat optional right now, you'd see an uptick in the number of support cases you'd have to handle. Maybe I'm wrong.

If you haven't noticed, most AAA retail software is littered with the same amount if not more microstransactions as free apps.

Microtransactions are here to stay no matter what happens. I'm fine with them. They're optional.

I do a lot of iOS gaming and I rarely if ever bite on microtransactions, in fact, I've probably bought more DLC/add on content for the $60 console software I've purchased in the past few years than I have on the freemium stuff.

[danawhitaker]

If you haven't noticed, most AAA retail software is littered with the same amount if not more microstransactions as free apps.

Microtransactions are here to stay no matter what happens. I'm fine with them. They're optional.

I do a lot of iOS gaming and I rarely if ever bite on microtransactions, in fact, I've probably bought more DLC/add on content for the $60 console software I've purchased in the past few years than I have on the freemium stuff.

I guess you're right. I hadn't stopped to think about that. But even years ago when I played a lot of Guitar Hero, and more recently Band Hero, they tried to convince you to buy a bunch of download tracks and stuff. And some of the racing games I've come across had cars to download. Angry Birds Trilogy even has some content already. I guess one reason I don't notice is that I don't play on buying it so I don't look that closely.

[marlowe221]

Well, we're really talking about two different issues here.

One issue is the business model for publishing video games. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that changes are on their way in that department and it is not inconceivable that that the big "AAA" blockbuster games may be a thing of the past - at least as we know them now.

The second issue is that of console online requirements, whether it is always-on or an activation system. I have serious doubts that we will see always-on in this coming generation of consoles. Even in the USA there is a significant percentage of the population that lives outside of major metropolitan areas whose consumption of the product would be somewhere between mildly inconvenienced to severely hampered by an always-online requirement. The current business model of most ISPs might cause some problems as well since most have admitted to capping bandwith on their users, etc.

I can't imagine MS or Sony wanting to limit their own customer bases if they can avoid it. Requiring internet connections to use the consoles would probably have that effect at our current level of internet technology and distribution. Sure, the game developers/publishers might want to do it but that's a slightly different ball of wax.

[Gameguy]

But even years ago when I played a lot of Guitar Hero, and more recently Band Hero, they tried to convince you to buy a bunch of download tracks and stuff.
And now Guitar Hero is dead.

[kedawa]

If you don't have internet, then you aren't the target market.
It's not like online activation is going to use 100GB of data.

[RyanMurf]

I just spoke with one of my friends who is a Sony rep. He has gotten some confirmation from some pretty high up sources in the company that they WILL NOT be blocking used games. He said the company understand how many customers they would not have by limiting the options consumers would have on the selection of games.

Just thought I would share some good news here.

[danawhitaker]

If you don't have internet, then you aren't the target market.
It's not like online activation is going to use 100GB of data.

It's not about the amount of data (that would be a concern more with a digital-only model and no discs). In a hypothetical scenario where being online was always required, that would mean always having your internet connection active. That would mean never taking your console anywhere where you wouldn't have internet access. As a kid, I loved to take my NES and later, my SNES, when I went on vacation to my uncle's house. My uncle still doesn't have broadband today - they live out in a rural area where they don't really have any options. Most people have access to some form of internet - but there are a lot of people who don't have access to reliable broadband. You may not be one of them, but don't assume they don't exist. And like I pointed out in previous posts, some colleges completely block game consoles from being on their networks at all. So what, for four years of college you can't use your game console? At what point did some segment of the gaming community decide your opinion doesn't matter if you don't have broadband and aren't online 24/7?

I'm glad to hear Sony won't be going the route of blocking used games.

[WCP]

I just spoke with one of my friends who is a Sony rep. He has gotten some confirmation from some pretty high up sources in the company that they WILL NOT be blocking used games. He said the company understand how many customers they would not have by limiting the options consumers would have on the selection of games.

Just thought I would share some good news here.


I still think it's possible that both Sony and Microsoft will ship consoles that are "capable" of stopping used games, but that they will leave the "feature" turned off in the beginning. For example, Sony might still have the ability to have the discs marry to the system, but they won't activate that security at launch. Both companies have to realize that they could be in another drawn out life cycle that takes 7 or 8 years. At some point during that 7 or 8 year period, they will probably decide to go ahead and turn on the no used game prevention system.

[retroguy]

Exactly. And they probably won't announce it ahead of time either. I would almost be willing to bet money that when they activate that feature it'll be via a mandatory firmware update that downloads automatically in the middle of the night when no one's looking. Sneaky bastards.

[IHatedSega]

I just spoke with one of my friends who is a Sony rep. He has gotten some confirmation from some pretty high up sources in the company that they WILL NOT be blocking used games. He said the company understand how many customers they would not have by limiting the options consumers would have on the selection of games.

Just thought I would share some good news here.

Thank you, I hope this stays true.

I saw a guy say that he saw on IGN that the new PS4 controller that leaked is going to cost $100 and not be included with the PS4.

The rumors of the next consoles are getting so bleak I cant believe them anymore, they just cant be real.

[RetroBot]

well that lessened my intentions of grabbing the new Playstation and XBOX.

[RyanMurf]

I still think it's possible that both Sony and Microsoft will ship consoles that are "capable" of stopping used games, but that they will leave the "feature" turned off in the beginning. For example, Sony might still have the ability to have the discs marry to the system, but they won't activate that security at launch. Both companies have to realize that they could be in another drawn out life cycle that takes 7 or 8 years. At some point during that 7 or 8 year period, they will probably decide to go ahead and turn on the no used game prevention system.

Our current gen consoles like ps3 and xbox 360 are also capable of the company's turning on that switch to block used games. It's called just putting an activation code in the case and stating on the box and online connection is mandatory to play.

[IHatedSega]

Our current gen consoles like ps3 and xbox 360 are also capable of the company's turning on that switch to block used games. It's called just putting an activation code in the case and stating on the box and online connection is mandatory to play.

If they did it now it would make people so mad they wouldnt buy the consoles theyre getting ready to launch. If they do this they may in fact begin to block games after the launch hype has died down.

[kedawa]

Our current gen consoles like ps3 and xbox 360 are also capable of the company's turning on that switch to block used games. It's called just putting an activation code in the case and stating on the box and online connection is mandatory to play.

I was thinking just that.
The only thing the current consoles can't do is the RFID codes that were alluded to in Sony's recently uncovered patent application.

[danawhitaker]

The problem is, there are people out there who've probably never connected their PS3s or 360s to the internet for various reasons. If My 360 wasn't in the same room as my computer, I wouldn't be able to, because I don't have wireless on it. The authentication service would require being online, and I don't think either one would want to risk the sales of new games because of players who've chosen not to be online. They could start to make that mandatory, but it would rub people the wrong way. If they're going to go that route, it'll have to be with the next one, where they can put everyone on equal footing from the start and be clear up front that it would be a requirement.

I mean legally, they could probably do it, I'm sure somewhere in the fine print we've all signed away whatever rights we had just by accepting the TOS, etc. But the backlash would be high - probably higher than with just forcing it on the newer console. Essentially bricking a device you already paid for vs. bricking a device you might pay for in the future.

There's also the fact that the horse is long out of the barn with this generation of consoles. There are massive libraries of used games out there for people to choose from that wouldn't be under the thumb of activation requirements.

[Bojay1997]

The problem is, there are people out there who've probably never connected their PS3s or 360s to the internet for various reasons. If My 360 wasn't in the same room as my computer, I wouldn't be able to, because I don't have wireless on it. The authentication service would require being online, and I don't think either one would want to risk the sales of new games because of players who've chosen not to be online. They could start to make that mandatory, but it would rub people the wrong way. If they're going to go that route, it'll have to be with the next one, where they can put everyone on equal footing from the start and be clear up front that it would be a requirement.

I mean legally, they could probably do it, I'm sure somewhere in the fine print we've all signed away whatever rights we had just by accepting the TOS, etc. But the backlash would be high - probably higher than with just forcing it on the newer console. Essentially bricking a device you already paid for vs. bricking a device you might pay for in the future.

There's also the fact that the horse is long out of the barn with this generation of consoles. There are massive libraries of used games out there for people to choose from that wouldn't be under the thumb of activation requirements.

Except that both the PS3 and the 360 have had on-line only disc games in the past five years and all they do is simply stick a banner on the box saying "requires broadband connection". You already can't use XBL or PSN without broadband and that's a huge part of both Microsoft and Sony's next gen plans. People will learn to deal just like all the people who complained when Apple made the decision to start removing optical drives from iMacs and laptops or when Sony tookl away backwards compatibility on later revisions of the PS3 and Microsoft stopped doing patches for Xbox games on the 360. Frankly, consumers who don't have broadband and only buy used games result in zero profit to video game console makers. As such, they are not the target nor the concern of the next generation regardless of whether games are locked to one user or console or not.

[danawhitaker]

Except that both the PS3 and the 360 have had on-line only disc games in the past five years and all they do is simply stick a banner on the box saying "requires broadband connection". You already can't use XBL or PSN without broadband and that's a huge part of both Microsoft and Sony's next gen plans. People will learn to deal just like all the people who complained when Apple made the decision to start removing optical drives from iMacs and laptops or when Sony tookl away backwards compatibility on later revisions of the PS3 and Microsoft stopped doing patches for Xbox games on the 360. Frankly, consumers who don't have broadband and only buy used games result in zero profit to video game console makers. As such, they are not the target nor the concern of the next generation regardless of whether games are locked to one user or console or not.

Which games were online only with the exception of DC Universe for PS3? I'm not disputing that there are some, I just haven't stumbled across something that didn't have some single-player offline content that wouldn't require being connected and I'm curious what they are. The changes we're talking about would be more like Apple forcing you to bring in your current iMac or laptop and removing the optical drive from it, or Sony releasing an update that disabled backwards compatibility on all existing PS3s, and Microsoft removing all existing patches for original Xbox games on the 360. Hence why I'm saying this applies to the coming generation, and why it would be foolish for them to attempt it with this generation. Telling people you're going to be removing something from the next version is a lot different than taking away something they already have. One thing impacts you directly and immediately, while the other is something far-off and more vague that you can make a decision about down the road.

Also, just because someone doesn't have broadband doesn't mean they only buy used games. There's no correlation between those two things. Blaming people for living in areas without adequate broadband coverage and making them sound like leeches on the gaming community is unhelpful at best. In fact, how does me having broadband translate into profit for Microsoft? I don't pay for Live Gold. I use the basic free Live service, which, well, is free. That seems like a $0 profit to them for me having broadband. What percentage of Xbox 360 owners actually subscribe to Live?

[The 1 2 P]

Which games were online only with the exception of DC Universe for PS3?

Looking at my collection both MAG and Socom: Confrontation are online multiplayer only. Theres probably a few more though.

[Bojay1997]

Which games were online only with the exception of DC Universe for PS3? I'm not disputing that there are some, I just haven't stumbled across something that didn't have some single-player offline content that wouldn't require being connected and I'm curious what they are. The changes we're talking about would be more like Apple forcing you to bring in your current iMac or laptop and removing the optical drive from it, or Sony releasing an update that disabled backwards compatibility on all existing PS3s, and Microsoft removing all existing patches for original Xbox games on the 360. Hence why I'm saying this applies to the coming generation, and why it would be foolish for them to attempt it with this generation. Telling people you're going to be removing something from the next version is a lot different than taking away something they already have. One thing impacts you directly and immediately, while the other is something far-off and more vague that you can make a decision about down the road.

Also, just because someone doesn't have broadband doesn't mean they only buy used games. There's no correlation between those two things. Blaming people for living in areas without adequate broadband coverage and making them sound like leeches on the gaming community is unhelpful at best. In fact, how does me having broadband translate into profit for Microsoft? I don't pay for Live Gold. I use the basic free Live service, which, well, is free. That seems like a $0 profit to them for me having broadband. What percentage of Xbox 360 owners actually subscribe to Live?

I know Warhawk and Starhawk for PS3, as well as Shadowrun, Phantasy Star Universe and Final Fantasy XIV for 360 are multiplayer and/or online only. I think you may be able to play the two PS3 games on local LAN, but they don't have any single player campaign. In any event, you're not "removing" anything. The registration/lock can be done on a game by game basis and eventually rolled out to all new releases. It's no different than PC games today where some publishers like EA and Ubisoft require a constant connection to play their newer games. Yes, some gamers object and won't buy them, but plenty still do and that number grows with each release.

I never said that not having broadband means you only buy used games. I said that people that both don't use broadband and buy used games are worthless customers to Microsoft and Sony. Essentially, if you're buying a subsidized console, not paying for either PSN+ or XBL and only buying used, you cost the two companies money. As of 2010, 50% of the 25 million XBL users were annual subscribers (i.e. 12.5 million subscribers). I can almost guarantee that Sony will charge for on-line this coming generation and their acquisition of Gakai is a sign that they are looking for new revenue models, many of which will be based around streaming and on-line services.

[Gamevet]

Looking at my collection both MAG and Socom: Confrontation are online multiplayer only. Theres probably a few more though.

Warhawk.

[danawhitaker]

So, interesting tidbit.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/26/eidos-president-next-xbox-uses-watermarked-discs.aspx

"“With the next Xbox, you supposedly have to have an internet connection, and the discs are watermarked, whereby once played on one console it won’t play on another," Livingston said."

[kedawa]

I don't that guy knows what a watermark is, because that makes no sense.

[Bojay1997]

I don't that guy knows what a watermark is, because that makes no sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense. A digital watermark is a means of tagging a disc in a unique way so that it can be tied to a particular user or console. It's a modern version of a serial number. When the studios send out awards screeners, each one is watermarked and if it gets pirated, they can use that watermark to trace it specifically back to the user who was sent that screener in the first place.

[kedawa]

A digital watermark. Well that's something entirely different.
An actual watermark on the the disc would be very difficult for the machine to discern.

[Rickstilwell1]

So, interesting tidbit.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/26/eidos-president-next-xbox-uses-watermarked-discs.aspx

"“With the next Xbox, you supposedly have to have an internet connection, and the discs are watermarked, whereby once played on one console it won’t play on another," Livingston said."

If that's true, PS4 will probably win the next competition.

[Bojay1997]

A digital watermark. Well that's something entirely different.
An actual watermark on the the disc would be very difficult for the machine to discern.

People in recorded media regularly refer to a digital watermark as just a "watermark" so I wouldn't exactly call it different.

[TonyTheTiger]

If it's true I wonder how many people will be forward thinking enough to buy up all the "useless" used discs for pennies and wait for the inevitable exploit that bypasses the watermark. That's assuming there won't be a system in place to transfer the game to another console, which I think it's obvious there would be.

[kedawa]

The watermark and the online requirement seem kind of redundant. If you're signed in to your account, and the game is authorized to it, what does it matter if the watermark matches?

[Zthun]

I'm seriously doubting that Microsoft will go this route in the end; especially after Sony announced that the PS4 will play used games.

In order for this to work, all major console makers will have to do it. If only Microsoft does it, it will be suicide for their next gen system. With the amount of consoles coming out next generation, Microsoft has too much competition to be taking crazy risks like this.

[kedawa]

What do you mean? There are two.

[danawhitaker]

What do you mean? There are two.

You could argue three really, if you count PC gaming.

[BricatSegaFan]

With the amount of consoles coming out next generation, Microsoft has too much competition to be taking crazy risks like this.

What consoles other than ps4 and Wii U? Ouya?

[bb_hood]

I'm seriously doubting that Microsoft will go this route in the end; especially after Sony announced that the PS4 will play used games.

In order for this to work, all major console makers will have to do it. If only Microsoft does it, it will be suicide for their next gen system. With the amount of consoles coming out next generation, Microsoft has too much competition to be taking crazy risks like this.

I kinda dont see it as a crazy risk making a console not able to not play used games. I think nintendo microsoft and sony are all tired of getting their profits raped by gamestop. If good games are made for the ps4 and they are reasonably priced people will definitly buy them. I know there are other places to buy used games, but I think many consumers only have the choice of getting video games new or used from local retailers, so they always end up at gamestop.

[danawhitaker]

I kinda dont see it as a crazy risk making a console not able to not play used games. I think nintendo microsoft and sony are all tired of getting their profits raped by gamestop. If good games are made for the ps4 and they are reasonably priced people will definitly buy them. I know there are other places to buy used games, but I think many consumers only have the choice of getting video games new or used from local retailers, so they always end up at gamestop.

The one risk I see is what happens when a game's been on the market for a year or two, and you can't *find* new copies anywhere. Then you're forced to go the Gamestop route. If Microsoft theoretically does this, that means that publishers will have to keep up the supply of games or people won't be able to find them at all. And while I know they don't directly make money off the second-hand sales, they might still end up losing out on potential revenue from DLC purchases as well as just making consumers frustrated at not being able to find what they're looking for.

I've sometimes wondered if that hasn't driven used sales a bit. When I'm buying games for my daughter, I always try to buy new games because they're usually gifts. But occasionally I've run into titles that have been out for several years that I wanted to buy her that I couldn't find new anywhere local. I could sometimes order online, but I couldn't find a new copy in stores to save my life. Perhaps they'd do a better job of this under the locked-to-console model.

[bb_hood]

The one risk I see is what happens when a game's been on the market for a year or two, and you can't *find* new copies anywhere.

I would agree with this in the case that you would need a disc to play, as opposed to downloading all the content from the playstation network. I think eventually there will be no media and the content will all just be transferred online and bought from the playstation network. I think this would eliminate the need to go out looking for older games. The current library of games currently on the playstation network is pretty big, and over time the older stuff gets cheaper (so many really good cheap ps1 titles for example), and they often have sales. They dont remove the older titles from sale so nothing becomes rare or unavailable, just cheaper.

[danawhitaker]

I would agree with this in the case that you would need a disc to play, as opposed to downloading all the content from the playstation network. I think eventually there will be no media and the content will all just be transferred online and bought from the playstation network. I think this would eliminate the need to go out looking for older games. The current library of games currently on the playstation network is pretty big, and over time the older stuff gets cheaper (so many really good cheap ps1 titles for example), and they often have sales. They dont remove the older titles from sale so nothing becomes rare or unavailable, just cheaper.

Yeah, some of us still prefer purchasing physical media though. I love technology, but I have yet to embrace digital content. Blizzard games are my only exception to this, and that was to negate standing in line on launch night so I could play with my guild immediately when the expansions went live for WoW. Developers have already said that this generation won't be fully digital, so I may have to worry about that a generation or two from now. But not yet.

[Bojay1997]

The watermark and the online requirement seem kind of redundant. If you're signed in to your account, and the game is authorized to it, what does it matter if the watermark matches?

Not really. In theory, games would be released long after a particular piece of hardware was in the field, so the watermark database would continue to be updated and the console or user would have to log in at some point so the check could be performed. Similarly, the authorization probably won't happen at the point of sale, so there would have to be some type of on-line authentication check in case pirates figured out a way to override the security or there was some kind of glitch in the watermarking and a change had to me made.

[The 1 2 P]

I'm seriously doubting that Microsoft will go this route in the end; especially after Sony announced that the PS4 will play used games.

In order for this to work, all major console makers will have to do it. If only Microsoft does it, it will be suicide for their next gen system. With the amount of consoles coming out next generation, Microsoft has too much competition to be taking crazy risks like this.

Thats what I'm thinking. Of course the technology is already in place if Microsoft or Sony wanted to go this route(even on today's consoles) but I don't see that happening. I could be wrong but I don't think thats a gamble Microsoft wants to take. Maybe if they had been number one worldwide I could see them being that...arrogant, for lack of a better word. But they are only dominating the US and parts of Europe so it's not like they are the one system to rule them all. And they will have a difficult time achieving that status if they start doing stuff like blocking used games. But we'll find out the truth in a few months when they make their official announcements.