PDA

View Full Version : Edge reports durango to block used games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



IHatedSega
02-06-2013, 02:28 PM
http://kotaku.com/5982097/report-the-next-xbox-will-require-an-internet-connection-block-used-games?popular=true


A new Edge report suggests that Microsoft's next Xbox gaming console, code-named Durango, will require an Internet connection to use. It also won't be able to play used games, Edge says.

We have not been able to confirm the veracity of this new report, which claims that Durango discs will ship with one-time-use activation codes that render them irrelevant to anyone but the person who first uses them.

Edge also says that the next Xbox will use Blu-ray discs, ship with a new version of Kinect, and hold an AMD eight-core CPU that runs at 1.6GHz and 8 gigabytes of DDR3 RAM.

Early last year, Kotaku reported that the next Xbox will use Blu-ray discs, ship with Kinect 2.0, and contain some sort of anti-used game protection.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/the-next-xbox-always-online-no-second-hand-games-50gb-blu-ray-discs-and-new-kinect/


Microsoft’s next console will require an Internet connection in order to function, ruling out a second-hand game market for the platform. A new iteration of Xbox Live will be an integral part of Microsoft’s next console, while improved Kinect hardware will also ship alongside the unit.

Sources with first-hand experience of Microsoft’s next generation console have told us that although the next Xbox will be absolutely committed to online functionality, games will still be made available to purchase in physical form. Next Xbox games will be manufactured on 50GB-capacity Blu-ray discs, Microsoft having conceded defeat to Sony following its ill-fated backing of the HD-DVD format. It is believed that games purchased on disc will ship with activation codes, and will have no value beyond the initial user.

Our source has also confirmed that the next Xbox’s recently rumoured specs are entirely accurate. That means an AMD eight-core x64 1.6GHz CPU, a D3D11.x 800MHz graphics solution and 8GB of DDR3 RAM. As of now, the console’s hard drive capacity is said to be undecided, but Microsoft’s extended commitment to online delivery suggests that it will be the largest unit it has put inside a console to date.

Though the architectures of the next-gen Xbox and PlayStation both resemble that of PCs, several development sources have told us that Sony’s solution is preferable when it comes to leveraging power. Studios working with the next-gen Xbox are currently being forced to work with only approved development libraries, while Sony is encouraging coders to get closer to the metal of its box. Furthermore, the operating system overhead of Microsoft’s next console is more oppressive than Sony’s equivalent, giving the PlayStation-badged unit another advantage.

Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft is continuing to invest heavily in motion-control interfaces, and a new, more reliably responsive Kinect will also ship alongside the next Xbox. Sony’s next-generation console camera system is said to have a similar set of features, and is expected to be discussed at the company’s PlayStation event on February 20.

The Adventurer
02-06-2013, 02:37 PM
As someone who has been using Steam for nearly 10 years to buy new games, nor makes a habit of trading games in, I don't really see a particular problem with this. What all this anti-used game trend seems to be geared to is pushing players to buying digital downloads over physical media. Because undoubtedly the NEXT general will be discless. So you better get used to it.

Kitsune Sniper
02-06-2013, 02:52 PM
As someone who has been using Steam for nearly 10 years to buy new games, nor makes a habit of trading games in, I don't really see a particular problem with this. What all this anti-used game trend seems to be geared to is pushing players to buying digital downloads over physical media. Because undoubtedly the NEXT general will be discless. So you better get used to it.

And then they can price gouge us by selling us system-locked hard drives instead of letting us use our own (which the PS3 does... even if it has all that stupid DRM on it.) AND price gouge us on game downloads too since there won't be any competition or chances for clearance sales.

Congratulations, I am now a PC gamer for life. You'll take away my used games, but you'll never take away my DRM Free game purchases and cracks.

retroguy
02-06-2013, 02:52 PM
Not trying to troll, but I told you so. WiiU FTW!

IHatedSega
02-06-2013, 03:06 PM
Not trying to troll, but I told you so. WiiU FTW!

Ive been expecting this whole time the Wii U would be the next console Id buy.

Im against cloud gaming as the future. This antisecond hand gaming is nothing but greed, stupid blind greed. You can say "Well, the people who bought our games used didnt matter anyway", but your games would be more popular if MORE PEOPLE PLAYED THEM. People buy used because they simply cant afford $60 for one game. For you to say "either buy or game at the price we want, or dont play our game at all." Is so stupid and people will simply choose another product over yours.

This is definitely going to lead to gaming being less popular if Sony also implements its patents to also stop second hand games being played on the PS4.

Bojay1997
02-06-2013, 03:06 PM
Not trying to troll, but I told you so. WiiU FTW!

I have a WiiU and I'll be honest and say I haven't played it since Christmas. The game selection is poor and third party support is virtually non-existent. I'm hopeful that better games will come out in the future, but for now I'm not sure how anyone could be a strong advocate for the platform.

IHatedSega
02-06-2013, 03:09 PM
Third Parties are going to have to go to the Wii U if they want their games to be sold. This thing single handedly kills the Durango. Besides Bayonetta 2 is coming out soon. :D

Bojay1997
02-06-2013, 03:11 PM
Ive been expecting this whole time the Wii U would be the next console Id buy.

Im against cloud gaming as the future. This antisecond hand gaming is nothing but greed, stupid blind greed. You can say "Well, the people who bought our games used didnt matter anyway", but your games would be more popular if MORE PEOPLE PLAYED THEM. People buy used because they simply cant afford $60 for one game. For you to say "either buy or game at the price we want, or dont play our game at all." Is so stupid and people will simply choose another product over yours.

This is definitely going to lead to gaming being less popular if Sony also implements its patents to also stop second hand games being played on the PS4.

As noted in all of the other threads about these rumors, people are already paying $55 or so for used games from Gamestop, so asking people to pay the full $60 is not really that much of a stretch. That doesn't even include all the sales and discounts that retailers apply on a regular basis which results in many games selling well below $60. Publishers can also adjust MSRPs and respond quickly to sales numbers and set prices accordingly, especially if they are getting 100% of revenue instead of losing a significant portion to use sales. The reality is that unless something changes fundamentally in the business model, console gaming is not something that can survive long-term, especially in the face of more and more powerful mobile and set-top devices with massive libraries of cheap games.

Bojay1997
02-06-2013, 03:14 PM
Third Parties are going to have to go to the Wii U if they want their games to be sold. This thing single handedly kills the Durango. Besides Bayonetta 2 is coming out soon. :D

Not gonna happen. If sales collapse on the next Xbox and Playstation, publishers will simply move to other platforms like mobile, iOS and PC where there are massive user bases. Bayonetta was a great game, but it won't move hardware in the United States.

retroguy
02-06-2013, 03:18 PM
I have a WiiU and I'll be honest and say I haven't played it since Christmas. The game selection is poor and third party support is virtually non-existent. I'm hopeful that better games will come out in the future, but for now I'm not sure how anyone could be a strong advocate for the platform.

Well, even though I'm a huge Nintendo fan, I was skeptical of it at first. But when I tried Nintendo Land at my sister's house and saw how the gamepad could be used for entirely fresh takes on old gameplay concepts, as well as having the potential for brand new concepts that haven't been thought of yet, I was seriously impressed. If the purpose of that game was to sell people on the system, it worked. And seeing videos of ZombiU and New Super Mario Bros U makes me want one even more. I'm hoping I'll be able to save up and get one for my birthday, but time will tell.

IHatedSega
02-06-2013, 03:25 PM
Not gonna happen. If sales collapse on the next Xbox and Playstation, publishers will simply move to other platforms like mobile, iOS and PC where there are massive user bases. Bayonetta was a great game, but it won't move hardware in the United States.

So, a console game company will stop making console games rather than try making them on a different console? Im sorry, but I dont see how mobile gaming will take over the console gaming market. Its different.

I just cant see Street Fighter 5 or Final Fantasy 15 or GTA 6 being released for an Iphone.

wingzrow
02-06-2013, 04:02 PM
Wow, anyone who buys this is LITERALLY the cancer killing video games if these rumors are true. I only own an XBOX 360 for the better versions of Bayonetta & Ashura's Wrath, and I never even go online with the thing. I don't even like the 360, and buying their next system looks like it would be the biggest case of buyer's remorse of all time for me if I wasn't informed about this sort of thing beforehand.


I have a WiiU and I'll be honest and say I haven't played it since Christmas. The game selection is poor and third party support is virtually non-existent. I'm hopeful that better games will come out in the future, but for now I'm not sure how anyone could be a strong advocate for the platform.

You bought your system WAY too early. Just like with the DS & 3DS, the system launch and lineups start slow, but usually build up steam a year or two after the system launches. There's a lot to be excited for, but clearly owning one right now is not the time. This list may not seem like much, but I would wait until E3 to see what the system really has to offer.

UPCOMING WII U EXCLUSIVES

Bayonetta 2
wonderful 101
new xenoblade sequel
Shin Megami tensei x fire emblem
Dragon Quest X
New mario kart
New 3d Mario
Pikmin 3
Monster Hunter
Super Smash Bros sequel
Legend of Zelda Wind Waker HD remake (upscaled port, but whatever)
New Legend of Zelda game
Game and Wario
Rayman Legends
New Yoshi Game

Frankie_Says_Relax
02-06-2013, 04:16 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080

...this shit again.

Have fun kids.

TonyTheTiger
02-06-2013, 04:18 PM
If it happens then it happens. We'll see how it plays out. What is it, like the 50th time a rumor like this has circled? At this point I kind of wish it'll just happen so we can see the actual results.

Digital distribution isn't so much a bad thing (in fact, it can be extremely good) as it is highly dependent on just a couple of variables to maintain equilibrium, unlike physical media which has at least a few more elements protecting the institution from total collapse. Steam managed to strike a great balance, successfully managing convenient distribution along with customer satisfaction and should probably be the model for future endeavors.

It's just that digital distribution can suffer in ways physical media can't. No matter how many roms a person downloads, they'll never own the cartridge (barring advancements in 3D printing, at least). There's at least a psychological benefit that comes from real ownership preventing everyone from becoming pirates. You don't want to get to the point where people start to feel that paying for something doesn't net them any gain over outright piracy, which generally doesn't repel people as the idea of physical theft might. If your $60 game gets you exactly the same thing as my free game, well, it's a tough sell once the digital locks in place are inevitably circumvented and the five finger discount is anonymously available at the push of a button.

What's worse is if people have a reason to feel like piracy is the better option for more than just financial reasons. Then there's going to be hell to pay in the long run. Continuing with physical media at the very least maintains the status quo which can prevent the formation of united efforts to undermine the system due to outrage, justified or not. Ex: the PS3 probably wouldn't be nearly as compromised if not for the OtherOS debacle. And at least with physical media there are other forces at play which keep your average PR nightmare from leading to mass thievery. If there's something about the infrastructure that's off-putting in just the right (wrong?) way to cause the pot to boil over, it'll become a free for all. Righteous indignation is one of the most powerful human emotions. Entire governments have fallen to it.

I think that's the real flaw of digital distribution. As good as it can be, it's also extremely volatile. And the mere delivery method is unlikely to increase or decrease consumer activity in any meaningful way. The fantasy publishers seem to have is that it's a panacea to their revenue woes when it's really a game of whack-a-mole. They see a problem and they blame used games so they "cure" that. But it's not going to solve much of anything because tomorrow they'll have the same problem and they'll try a different cure. And so on. To me, digital distribution is no better or worse. It's just different, with its own benefits and flaws.

JSoup
02-06-2013, 04:26 PM
I've said it once and I'll say it again. If this anti-used game crap comes to pass, I'll be switching to 100% piracy (up from my current 50%).

Guyra
02-06-2013, 04:28 PM
o hai, not buying the next Xbox then. Simple as that. :P

Collector_Gaming
02-06-2013, 04:30 PM
So, a console game company will stop making console games rather than try making them on a different console? Im sorry, but I dont see how mobile gaming will take over the console gaming market. Its different.

I just cant see Street Fighter 5 or Final Fantasy 15 or GTA 6 being released for an Iphone.

With hardware extremely rapidly on smart devices catching up to consoles. I'd give it 4 years and i bet it will be right on par with consoles and then screaming ahead.

The whole idea of buying a physical copy of a game and not being able to share it or anything like that is just pointless. If the console requires online capabilities and one time use discs. then might as well make it download only which at that point you are basically gonna feel like you got a dumbed down gaming pc. I might actually skip this generation of consoles. None of it tickles my fancy at all.

TonyTheTiger
02-06-2013, 04:43 PM
The whole idea of buying a physical copy of a game and not being able to share it or anything like that is just pointless. If the console requires online capabilities and one time use discs. then might as well make it download only which at that point you are basically gonna feel like you got a dumbed down gaming pc.

Assuming this is all actually true, then it is effectively download only. The existence of the discs would just be a means of conserving HDD space. I'd assume under these conditions every game would be offered digitally for those who'd rather go that route.

dendawg
02-06-2013, 05:05 PM
I've said it once and I'll say it again. If this anti-used game crap comes to pass, I'll be switching to 100% piracy (up from my current 50%).

So, essentially the videogame companies are losing a customer they never really had.

The Adventurer
02-06-2013, 05:40 PM
I've said it once and I'll say it again. If this anti-used game crap comes to pass, I'll be switching to 100% piracy (up from my current 50%).

Also congrats on being part of the problem.

JSoup
02-06-2013, 06:10 PM
So, essentially the videogame companies are losing a customer they never really had.

Kinda, keep in mind that 50% covers all of my gaming habits, so old NES & Gameboy games are covered under it. I buy from Steam and Sony all the time, with the odd game here or there from Microsoft. Pretty much everything Nintendo I've played since about halfway through the GBA's lifespan I've pirated. So, Nintendo isn't really losing a customer, as they already lost me. I'd really like to stick with Sony, as they've been reasonably good to me, from the PS1 and on, but I don't know that I'm ok with this trumped up DRM thing.


Also congrats on being part of the problem.

Thank you. I try to do my part to make sure people who get all hot and bothered over piracy feel relevant.

Collector_Gaming
02-06-2013, 06:31 PM
Assuming this is all actually true, then it is effectively download only. The existence of the discs would just be a means of conserving HDD space. I'd assume under these conditions every game would be offered digitally for those who'd rather go that route.

considering Terrabyte drives are dirt cheap these days what you save on the blue ray player you put into the bigger hard drive and be done about it... I still don't see the point.

specially since everything is pushing this whole cloud service thing (which i am still not fond of). It will probably push the stuff you don't pay attention to onto a cloud service to be reused again later when you feel like playing it.

Kitsune Sniper
02-06-2013, 06:49 PM
considering Terrabyte drives are dirt cheap these days what you save on the blue ray player you put into the bigger hard drive and be done about it... I still don't see the point.

specially since everything is pushing this whole cloud service thing (which i am still not fond of). It will probably push the stuff you don't pay attention to onto a cloud service to be reused again later when you feel like playing it.

Terabyte drives are cheap, but only if you can buy your own. Microsoft still charges $130 (Edit: MSRP price) for a 320GB drive.

Greg2600
02-06-2013, 06:56 PM
I wonder if MS will fire up their old Windows XP licensing servers for this? I mean, you couldn't fool those.

Press_Start
02-06-2013, 07:20 PM
So, essentially the videogame companies are losing a customer they never really had.


Also congrats on being part of the problem.

And you sirs, have spoken like corporate mouthpieces w/ your heads up each other's butt.

Gamevet
02-06-2013, 09:34 PM
I guess that makes it easier to spend $335 on a GTX 670, over paying that much for the next console.

If this is the way MS and Sony plan to go, I'll just ride out the software available for the PS3 and 360 until they drop support. The PC will be my source for next-gen gaming, since it's already more powerful than what these consoles are going to be.

The Adventurer
02-06-2013, 09:40 PM
And you sirs, have spoken like corporate mouthpieces w/ your heads up each other's butt.

No. I believe in supporting artists and creators. As opposed to be an entitled toolbox.

Griking
02-06-2013, 09:43 PM
We have not been able to confirm the veracity of this new report, which claims that Durango discs will ship with one-time-use activation codes that render them irrelevant to anyone but the person who first uses them.

You know, all the talk has been about not being able to play used games but what will this do to used console sales?

Will all of the used Xbox 720 consoles in Gamestop already have a library of games pre-loaded in them or will used consoles not be able to be resold either? Maybe there will be a system restore of sorts when a console is resold.

Griking
02-06-2013, 09:53 PM
Congratulations, I am now a PC gamer for life.


As a life long PC gamer this always makes me happy to read.

WCP
02-06-2013, 10:01 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing.


This does appear to be the beginning of the end in regards to the rights we have as consumers of video games. The rights that we have, with physical games on the current platforms is something that so many of us take for granted. I can go to Craigslist or Ebay, and find a used copy of Halo 4. I can buy it, play it for as long as I want, and sell it off to somebody else. I can give it to my cousin. I can give it to a nephew. I can go to Redbox or Blockbuster and rent a game. I can have a rental service with GameFly. All of this, is eventually going to become a distant memory.

So, yeah... That part sucks.


On the other hand, there is the total and complete downfall of GameStop....




Man... which to choose , lol ?

retroguy
02-06-2013, 10:07 PM
WCP, the gaming community is already full of elitist snobs (sorry, but it's true). All Gamestop has ever done is level the playing field (no pun intended) so that normal people can have just as much fun with it as the rich kids. If Gamestop goes away, elitist snobs will be the only gamers left and, at least as far as I'm concerned, it won't be a hobby worth pursuing because even if you shell out the cash for a new console and games, you'll be surrounded by jerks all the time. Who in their right mind would want that? Not me.

Collector_Gaming
02-06-2013, 10:31 PM
You know, all the talk has been about not being able to play used games but what will this do to used console sales?

Will all of the used Xbox 720 consoles in Gamestop already have a library of games pre-loaded in them or will used consoles not be able to be resold either? Maybe there will be a system restore of sorts when a console is resold.

You know you raise a very interesting point there. Which i just thought of how its gonna work. Everything's gonna work through cloud service. As messed up as that sounds. Its the only way. Unless.... You sell the console by what is on it for software.
I am almost positive its gonna be cloud serviced which to me drops a super huge f bomb to the consumer. To me cloud is the worst thing ever to be made up in tech world. I dont trust it for one second.

Gamevet
02-06-2013, 10:35 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing.


This does appear to be the beginning of the end in regards to the rights we have as consumers of video games. The rights that we have, with physical games on the current platforms is something that so many of us take for granted. I can go to Craigslist or Ebay, and find a used copy of Halo 4. I can buy it, play it for as long as I want, and sell it off to somebody else. I can give it to my cousin. I can give it to a nephew. I can go to Redbox or Blockbuster and rent a game. I can have a rental service with GameFly. All of this, is eventually going to become a distant memory.

So, yeah... That part sucks.


On the other hand, there is the total and complete downfall of GameStop....




Man... which to choose , lol ?

That also includes the luxury of being able to take a game to a friend's house for play. Will you be able to do it, if you log in on your friend's console?

WCP
02-06-2013, 11:18 PM
All I know is, 2013 is going to be very, very interesting year in gaming. Can't wait for Feb. 20th and the PS4 announcement, and then of course, Microsoft will have a MTV special or something. If both companies are jumping on the anti-used game bandwagon, we're going to find out pretty soon. This is something I'd imagine both companies would want to leak out early to "prepare" consumers for this new paradigm.

The 1 2 P
02-06-2013, 11:21 PM
You'll take away my used games, but you'll never take away my DRM Free game purchases and cracks.

I read that totally hoping you were going to end with a Braveheart-esque " but you'll never take my FREEDOMMMMMMMMM" monologue. Maybe next time.


Not trying to troll, but I told you so. WiiU FTW!


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

I think you two are overestimating the WiiU. I have a feeling that even if the Next Box and PS4 didn't allow used games they would both still outsell the WiiU, atleast here in the US. I'm going to give all three the benefit of the doubt but the WiiU doesn't seem to be exciting gamers the way past Nintendo systems have. From all the feedback I've gotten(based on my personal experience of course) gamers are more excited about the PS4/Next Box and neither have even been announced yet. I'm not completly counting Nintendo out yet but I don't see the WiiU being another run-away success for Nintendo.

The 1 2 P
02-06-2013, 11:35 PM
If this is the way MS and Sony plan to go, I'll just ride out the software available for the PS3 and 360 until they drop support.

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

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

Jack_Burton_BYOAC
02-06-2013, 11:39 PM
As someone who has been using Steam for nearly 10 years to buy new games, nor makes a habit of trading games in, I don't really see a particular problem with this. What all this anti-used game trend seems to be geared to is pushing players to buying digital downloads over physical media. Because undoubtedly the NEXT general will be discless. So you better get used to it.

Or... if enough people get pissed off and refuse to buy the thing, they might wise up.

danawhitaker
02-06-2013, 11:54 PM
As someone who has been using Steam for nearly 10 years to buy new games, nor makes a habit of trading games in, I don't really see a particular problem with this. What all this anti-used game trend seems to be geared to is pushing players to buying digital downloads over physical media. Because undoubtedly the NEXT general will be discless. So you better get used to it.

Hmm. Nope. I'm not going to get used to it. I'll simply choose not to consume the product I guess. Why does the game industry think they're so special when it comes to second-hand products? I don't see the car manufacturers moaning around about people buying used cars. Lots of people buy used books (look at stores like Half-Price Books). Lots of people buy used DVDs/Blu-ray discs. You don't see the Gap crying around about people buying their used clothing at thrift stores. Imagine this world if second-hand markets didn't exist for anything at all. I doubt there's anyone on this forum who likes the idea who doesn't have at least one second-hand product. Heck, imagine if all houses had to be new, and you couldn't buy a house that had already been built. Of course every company would prefer you pay for a brand new item rather than buying it used. But that's not only wasteful, it's unreasonable to expect. Buying second-hand products is a way for people to acquire things they want or need and still be able to afford other necessities.

One of the biggest problems I see with this idea is what happens fifteen years down the line, when this console becomes "classic". It will be difficult if not impossible to acquire games without resorting to paying the (what I'm sure would be) inflated prices they'd want on their download servers. For those of us who prefer physical copies, we'd have to be seeking out sealed copies with intact activation codes - and that of course assumes those activation codes would still be valid, and that the activation servers would be up and running for eternity. I value still being able to play my older consoles, and that's a freedom I don't ever want to give up. There's also the fact that sometimes, even after a few years on the market, a new copy of a game will be nearly impossible to track down. I had that problem with Super Mario Galaxy for the Wii. No one had it new, not even stores that only sell games new. I could have bought it online, but I wanted to purchase it from a physical store. So, I had to go the used route.

Now, while I don't agree with piracy, I also do not agree with the arguments that anti-piracy people love to make. Just because someone buys an item second-hand doesn't mean they ever would have paid full-price for that item in the first place. I know this has been the case for me with some games. I either wait until they go dirt-cheap on sale, or I buy them used at Gamestop. I'm a single parent, gaming is one of my few hobbies, and I like to stretch my budget as much as I can. I can still remember when new games would cost about $40, now they're generally up to $60 (plus any download content they want to milk you for, if you're into that). And exposure to products through second-hand means allows people to discover new content they necessarily wouldn't have been able to otherwise, and means they might start investing in newer stuff, and recommending games to their friends, who in turn will also buy them.

This move, along with the always-online component, is a deal-breaker for me. It basically turns console gaming into PC gaming, and if I wanted to game on my PC, I would. When I played World of Warcraft actively, and my internet connection would go down or would become unstable, I'd turn to my console. I do not want to be in the position of not being able to play my console games just because my internet connection is down. That's ridiculous. I should not need to be connected to the internet to play single-player offline games like Angry Birds Trilogy, or the single-player mode of Band Hero. That is the game industry trying to over-reach and control how I use my devices, and I want no part of that. I love the internet, but single-player games should not need an always-on connection to function. Diablo 3 failed hardcore in this regard. I played it a lot when I got it for "free" with a one year commitment to World of Warcraft. I had some issues with my internet connection over the summer after getting it at certain times of day that were hard to track down and fix, and whenever I would get disconnected, it would screw up whatever I'd been doing. It made me not even want to play (well, so did the game itself, but that's another story for another thread).

JSoup
02-07-2013, 12:51 AM
No. I believe in supporting artists and creators. As opposed to be an entitled toolbox.

I believe in fair pricing for good products and rewarding artists/creators for not trying to spoon feed me absolute shit. As opposed to blindly encouraging those same artists/creators to make more shit by buying shoddily made products with my nose jammed in the air about it.

The Adventurer
02-07-2013, 12:54 AM
Hmm. Nope. I'm not going to get used to it. I'll simply choose not to consume the product I guess. Why does the game industry think they're so special when it comes to second-hand products?

They aren't special. All media is heading this way; from books, to magazines, to comics, to movies, to TV shows, to Video Games. Its just the way the economics are moving in the entertainment industry as a whole. Obsessing about the storage medium of a game being integral to the gaming experience is about as short sighted as saying the most important part about reading is being able to smell the book.

The Adventurer
02-07-2013, 12:56 AM
I believe in fair pricing for good products and rewarding artists/creators for not trying to spoon feed me absolute shit. As opposed to blindly encouraging those same artists/creators to make more shit by buying shoddily made products with my nose jammed in the air about it.

If you're not going to pay for what you know are shitty games, WHY PLAY THEM AT ALL?

I don't care for Call of Duty and its ilk. But, I don't make a statement about bad games being popular by playing off stolen copies. I just don't play them. Because that makes sense.

AlphaGamer
02-07-2013, 01:01 AM
.........................

JSoup
02-07-2013, 01:09 AM
Edit: No, no, no, I'm not doing this. I'm not doing this "piracy is this, piracy is that" round-robin again. If I want to pirate a game, I will, deal with it. If you want to pay for an overpriced product, you will, I'll deal with it.

Rickstilwell1
02-07-2013, 01:15 AM
The main problem I see here is not the disc activation codes themselves, but the whole online required thing in general. It's going to cut out a lot of communities in general just because not everybody has the kind of Internet required to run it. With the Wii U, you don't have to install that update unless you want to use the unnecessary online features. So people who can't afford monthly high speed internet are just going to get a Wii U when the price goes down and more games come out.

danawhitaker
02-07-2013, 01:15 AM
They aren't special. All media is heading this way; from books, to magazines, to comics, to movies, to TV shows, to Video Games. Its just the way the economics are moving in the entertainment industry as a whole. Obsessing about the storage medium of a game being integral to the gaming experience is about as short sighted as saying the most important part about reading is being able to smell the book.

That's funny you mention that, because one of the things I enjoy most about reading is the feel and smell of the books. I'm not going to pay for e-books when I can go buy a physical copy of the same thing. Same goes for comics. I don't like forking over money for things that I don't get a physical item for except in certain scenarios. Everyone who embraces everything digital-only will be sorry when their power goes out for more than two minutes and they realize they don't even have any books to read because they only bought digital copies of them. You really want to trust everything to the cloud and to the corporations? I love seeing a shelf full of books or games or CDs, and organizing them, putting the things I enjoy most in places of honor on my shelves. I can't do that with digital stuff. Or, "Merry Christmas, daughter. Here's a piece of paper I printed out with the download code for that game you wanted" - yay?

It's not that I shun technology, or the internet, or social media, or new advances in technology. But I think that things can coexist without physical things disappearing. It makes me sad to think that if everything goes digital, all the "stuff" that we pass on to people when we die won't exist, and will probably be locked up in some online account, inaccessible behind TOS and unable to be passed to our offspring and family and friends. Which is really the entertainment industry's wet dream - making people pay for the same things over and over forever.

The Adventurer
02-07-2013, 01:31 AM
Everyone who embraces everything digital-only will be sorry when their power goes out for more than two minutes and they realize they don't even have any books to read because they only bought digital copies of them.

And if your house burns down, or you have a flood you lose all your books. Straw Man is made of Straw. If the power goes off for any period of time where you're electronic device runs out of power, you've got bigger problems going on then not being able to read.

EDIT: You can't read a print book in the dark either. So again. Straw Man argument.

Rickstilwell1
02-07-2013, 02:08 AM
And if your house burns down, or you have a flood you lose all your books. Straw Man is made of Straw. If the power goes off for any period of time where you're electronic device runs out of power, you've got bigger problems going on then not being able to read.

EDIT: You can't read a print book in the dark either. So again. Straw Man argument.

That whole arguement only really matters depending on where you live. There are places that are just never going to be affected by floods, and places where if your power goes out all you have to do is go to your friend's house or a library/store/mall.

There really is a different place for each thing. Digital content is convenient for x purposes and physical media is convenient for y purposes. In my life there really isn't one or the other. It's often best to have them in both places so you have a backup in either case. Classic gaming will become to modern gaming what a flashlight or candle is to a power outage. That thing you can always fire up when your internet goes out.

To me all digital content is really useful for though is portability so when it comes to games I try to only buy ones that I know I will like no matter what. Usually this means sequels or copycats of old games I used to play and enjoyed.

Griking
02-07-2013, 03:09 AM
And if your house burns down, or you have a flood you lose all your books. Straw Man is made of Straw. If the power goes off for any period of time where you're electronic device runs out of power, you've got bigger problems going on then not being able to read.

EDIT: You can't read a print book in the dark either. So again. Straw Man argument.

I can if I lose power in the day :ass:

That being said, I don't see ebooks completely replacing physical books any time soon.

IHatedSega
02-07-2013, 05:13 AM
No. I believe in supporting artists and creators. As opposed to be an entitled toolbox.

I emulate because I cant afford Link To The Past for $75! Let alone a new game console and a $60 game. I dont play new games because I cant afford it. If I were to buy a console now then I could because its prices are down on the games I want. If they continue wit h$60 prices and no used game options, this industry is never going to be as popular again. Or at least the console side.

And if theres a flood or earthquake where their servers are and not your place then you still cant play your games. Just because one area is being hit by a force of nature and no one else lived around it, then were all affected even though we shouldnt be. Where are they servers going to be stored? Underground?

dendawg
02-07-2013, 05:51 AM
And you sirs, have spoken like corporate mouthpieces w/ your heads up each other's butt.

Oh, look...a half-assed attempt at trolling....how adorable!:ass:

The Adventurer
02-07-2013, 05:55 AM
And if theres a flood or earthquake where their servers are and not your place then you still cant play your games. Just because one area is being hit by a force of nature and no one else lived around it, then were all affected even though we shouldnt be. Where are they servers going to be stored? Underground?

Companies are generally smart enough to have multiple server locations for just this reason. That's what the 'cloud' is all about. Data isn't stored in one place. Its spread out, duplicated, redundancies on redundancies. It can't be disrupted easily.



I should probably clarify, I'm not for high level DRM crippled games, DRM is bad. Heck, I'm even against system locked games (its the main reason I've not bought any digital games for my 3DS, because they are tied to the device, and not a personal log-in ala Steam) I'm just against the notion that physical media is integral to the video gaming* experience. I know its not, because I haven't bought a boxed PC game since 2004, and it hasn't slowed me down one bit. I'm not saying system locked gaming is the future (I sure hope its not), but direct download is. Physical media just isn't going to hack it for storage space or cost effectiveness 5 or 10 years from now.

*or Comic Books. Or Music. Or Books.

IHatedSega
02-07-2013, 06:12 AM
Well, most people's internet isnt good, hence the 6 hour download time for the Wii U update. If we had this this generation Metal Gear Solid 4 is 50 gigs, FIFTY GIGABYTES! How long would that take to download, even if they broke up the game into 5 parts you still have 10 gigs to wait for to download. That would take half a day for me to do on my internet service at night when not as many people are online using the tower. The average storage space someone has for their PS3 is 250 anyway, so how many games can you really have?. Capcom's solution to not taking up space on a hard drive was to have the unlockable characters on the disk, wasnt good of them to charge people for that stuff though.

Tanooki
02-07-2013, 08:48 AM
Well glad I have no trust or interest in microsoft systems at all, though it does bother me a bit with Sony in on the racket too. I'm guessing they think that the $5 less Lamestop asks on used stuff won't be much of a deterrant to a new buy, but I think it will be. Used games there can be returned and swapped for another at face value, yet that dick shop will give you like 10-30%~ of your purchase price of a new game turned in which is no good and now with a captive audience they'd do it even more if second hand wasn't killed by this move. Nintendo seems to be the only one with their head only partially in their ass as they're not blocking used, but they are still using asinine system tied accounts which is why I have virtually no downloads on my 3DS and stopped buying them on Wii when it was setup that way when Nintendo Points hit as DSi arrived.

Blocking used games is just unique to games and just arrogant. They try and whine that used games are ruining them and killing jobs. Yeah, right...if used product did that how come all the car companies don't lawyer bomb the shit out of Carmax to put them under? How come the RIAA or the MPAA don't squash the shit out of retailers like FYE that peddle used movies and music on discs? What about used book stores being taken down by Barnes and Noble? It's because it's a fucking lie, a control freak arrogant lie to mask the real problem. The gaming industry thinks it is hollywood and can operate on those kinds of budgets and to bring that level of bang to ever disc and it's entirely unneccessary. A real good game doesn't need a triple AAA actor cast, and a 50 million dollar budget just to create the visuals and audio aspects of the world while hiring some big shot Michael Bey or James Cameron to direct the game. Look at Homefront, hired a huge hollywood writer/director to put that hot mess together along with their coding staffs at THQ and all they did was make an overpriced commonly happening piece of mediocrity which ultimately led to them selling studios, firing middle level employees (to cover the asses of still employed fuckups causing the problem) to cover their asses, and in the end being dissolved and sold off in pieces just recently.

The gaming industry needs to get its own ass, budget, and priorities straight. Used games aren't the problem, THEY ARE. I know it will, I worked in it for years both in development and much longer in media, and I have a brother who still now is a producer at one of those studios.

Rob2600
02-07-2013, 09:09 AM
I believe in fair pricing for good products and rewarding artists/creators for not trying to spoon feed me absolute shit. As opposed to blindly encouraging those same artists/creators to make more shit by buying shoddily made products with my nose jammed in the air about it.

If you feel like developers are trying to spoon feed you poop, that's fine. But then why would you go ahead and pirate the poop?


You know, all the talk has been about not being able to play used games but what will this do to used console sales?

Will all of the used Xbox 720 consoles in Gamestop already have a library of games pre-loaded in them or will used consoles not be able to be resold either? Maybe there will be a system restore of sorts when a console is resold.

No need to wonder- this is already happening. People buy used iPhones all the time. Someone even bought *my* used iPhone in 2010. I did a factory reset, and I assume the person who bought it entered his or her credentials and bought new games and apps from scratch.

With all the posts on these forums about how iOS and Android are killing traditional gaming, I'm surprised so many of you are completely ignorant of those platforms and the methods they employ. Game companies don't need to reinvent the wheel.


It's just that digital distribution can suffer in ways physical media can't. No matter how many roms a person downloads, they'll never own the cartridge (barring advancements in 3D printing, at least). There's at least a psychological benefit that comes from real ownership preventing everyone from becoming pirates. You don't want to get to the point where people start to feel that paying for something doesn't net them any gain over outright piracy, which generally doesn't repel people as the idea of physical theft might. If your $60 game gets you exactly the same thing as my free game, well, it's a tough sell once the digital locks in place are inevitably circumvented and the five finger discount is anonymously available at the push of a button.

Good points, but again, iOS and Android are extremely successful and are based solely on digital distribution. There is *no* physical media whatsoever on either platform, but somehow hundreds of millions of people are perfectly fine buying games and apps. I realize games for those platforms rarely exceed $10, but still, I don't hear anybody complaining about the lack of physical media.

And the lack of physical media doesn't seem to encourage piracy either. Yes, people can and do jailbreak their iPhones, but what percentage of owners actually go through the trouble to do that? It's easier to pay a few dollars for a game in the App Store than it is to jailbreak a phone. And that's the key- game companies have to adopt a digital distribution method that's easier, safer, and more convenient than piracy.


I'm sure 80 years ago, some people complained that their local horse buggy store went out of business thanks to these newfangled cars. Magnavox, Atari, and Coleco were pioneers of the entire video game industry and none of them even exist anymore. Times change and as iOS, Android, and Steam have shown, hundreds of millions of people are fine with that.

JSoup
02-07-2013, 10:57 AM
If you feel like developers are trying to spoon feed you poop, that's fine. But then why would you go ahead and pirate the poop?

I don't know about this poop you're talking about, but as for developers trying to throw shit at me, perhaps I should clarify that a bit. When I say shit, I'm talking about the result from what I spent to what I'm getting. If I'm being asked to spend $40 on a game with $20 worth of content, yo ho ho, it's a pirates life for me.

jb143
02-07-2013, 11:44 AM
And the lack of physical media doesn't seem to encourage piracy either. Yes, people can and do jailbreak their iPhones, but what percentage of owners actually go through the trouble to do that? It's easier to pay a few dollars for a game in the App Store than it is to jailbreak a phone. And that's the key- game companies have to adopt a digital distribution method that's easier, safer, and more convenient than piracy.


Actually, for android anyways, the piracy rate is astronomical. Some people still think that 99cents is too much to pay for games.

IHatedSega
02-07-2013, 11:55 AM
Maybe a big problem for games is the way theyre reviewed and the whole hack journalism that exists now. Every single article you read on a site is a commercial for a product, doesnt matter how its written, all that matters is that its for a game or has to do with a game. Theres no professionalism in the whole thing. Everyone is a young 20 something. No Roger Ebert in gaming, and even if there was Roger Ebert reviews only matter to older people, so all those teenagers and kids that are the back bone of the console industry dont care.

Rob2600
02-07-2013, 12:04 PM
If I'm being asked to spend $40 on a game with $20 worth of content, yo ho ho, it's a pirates life for me.

But how do you know you're only getting $20 worth of content before you buy the game?


Actually, for android anyways, the piracy rate is astronomical. Some people still think that 99cents is too much to pay for games.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but nobody I know who has an Android device pirates games or apps. I'm not saying piracy doesn't exist on Android, but out of the hundreds of millions of people who use the platform (phones, tablets, Kindle Fires, etc.), it has to be an extremely small percentage. It's simply too much trouble for the average user, plus the fact that the Play Store is so convenient and inexpensive.

Does music piracy still exist? Of course. But the average user doesn't want to mess with torrents, viruses, etc. It's more convenient to download songs from iTunes or Amazon for 99 cents.

To the average user (not tinkerers and hackers), if the next generation of home game consoles forgoes physical media, they're perfectly fine downloading games as evidenced by iOS, Android, Steam, and the Mac App Store...as long as the overall experience is easy, convenient, and a good value.

JSoup
02-07-2013, 12:50 PM
But how do you know you're only getting $20 worth of content before you buy the game?

Learned about the concept through bad purchases.
Then started doing my research on games I was interested in and found that there is generally enough information out there to figure out if a game is worth it or not.
Now I just make blanket assumptions, IE: If it's got a Nintendo sticker on it, it's probably not worth what it's being sold for.

retroguy
02-07-2013, 01:11 PM
If it's got a Nintendo sticker on it, it's probably not worth what it's being sold for.

It depends. Wii Sports is fun and all, but I wouldn't buy it unless it was five bucks or something. Super Mario Galaxy, OTOH, would absolutely be worth it, at least for me. Ditto Skyward Sword.

jb143
02-07-2013, 01:18 PM
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but nobody I know who has an Android device pirates games or apps. I'm not saying piracy doesn't exist on Android, but out of the hundreds of millions of people who use the platform (phones, tablets, Kindle Fires, etc.), it has to be an extremely small percentage. It's simply too much trouble for the average user, plus the fact that the Play Store is so convenient and inexpensive.


I'm going mainly by what I've heard from developer press releases, news stories, and android developer forums.
Here's a few that a quick google search yielded...
http://www.develop-online.net/news/41526/Madfinger-android-app-suffers-80-piracy-rate
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/02/android-market-game-piracy
http://www.develop-online.net/news/38848/Android-app-pirated-2300-more-than-iOS-edition

LordsOfSkulls
02-07-2013, 01:24 PM
only problem is when it comes to unable to buy used games.... is that some games out their are $100+ dollars, because they had limited physical copy printed out/people hold on to good games,

I hate buying games digital, i prefare to have my games a physical copy, not for resale, but for the fact that i dont have to download a game i want to play and wait 3-7 hours before it finishes to play the game.

Also it makes me feel like i actually paid for something... with physical copy of box/manual and box art, than some data on the internet.



That why i am supporting/signed up for

http://www.gaijinworks.com/

in line for a pre-order/copy of a physical for PSP Class of Heroes 2.


Only time i am okay with digital copy is if the developers cant bring the game in any other format than a digital copy to state side (form of a good game i take it any way as long as i can have it). For example Unchained Blades for 3DS on eStore, or Corpse Party 1 and 2.

Heck i bought and imported Arcana Heart 3 and Siren's Blood PS3 copies from europe just so i can have a physical copies of this games over digital.

retroguy
02-07-2013, 01:28 PM
Interesting. If I had a PSP, I might preorder it too, but I don't. Oh well.

JSoup
02-07-2013, 01:29 PM
It depends. Wii Sports is fun and all, but I wouldn't buy it unless it was five bucks or something. Super Mario Galaxy, OTOH, would absolutely be worth it, at least for me. Ditto Skyward Sword.

I am exaggerating a bit, yeah. There are plenty of current Nintendo products that are provably worth the price tag. I normally find the Pokemon and Zelda games deliver quite a bit for what is being asked.

Griking
02-07-2013, 01:45 PM
If and when consoles all go primarily digital download I doubt that physical copies will completely disappear though pre-orders may actually become required for some games. Think about it this way, down the road there will likely be a lot more rare and desirable games for collectors.

Rob2600
02-07-2013, 02:20 PM
I'm going mainly by what I've heard from developer press releases, news stories, and android developer forums.
Here's a few that a quick google search yielded...
http://www.develop-online.net/news/41526/Madfinger-android-app-suffers-80-piracy-rate

Based on the comments, a lot of people think that game is overpriced ($11 USD) and was a quick, sloppy port of the iOS version. I'm not defending piracy, but an expensive sloppy game isn't going to rake in sales.


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/02/android-market-game-piracy

That game appears to be a glitchy mess. "The audio was so buggy we couldn't work out how to fix it, so we didn't," said Appy Entertainment exec Steven Sargent. Again, a sloppy game isn't going to rake in the sales.

People want an easy, convenient way to buy games *and* good value for their money.

TonyTheTiger
02-07-2013, 03:04 PM
Good points, but again, iOS and Android are extremely successful and are based solely on digital distribution. There is *no* physical media whatsoever on either platform, but somehow hundreds of millions of people are perfectly fine buying games and apps.

I think the difference is that outlets like iOS, Android, Steam, etc. didn't have an established status quo. They emerged as independent alternatives. If run of the mill console gaming is Coca-Cola then an iPhone is Diet Coke or even just Pepsi. But taking something that's already established and running smoothly and suddenly replacing it with something else, that's New Coke.

To me, it seems like a sucker bet since at the risk of pissing people off and suffering whatever consequences that can come from people being pissed (which in the digital world usually means focused attempts at piracy), the benefit of cutting off used games is unlikely to be significant enough to overcome the financial woes that are likely the result of bloated budgets. I just can't see the revenue stream growing that much if the only meaningful change is the annihilation of the used market.

XYXZYZ
02-07-2013, 04:22 PM
So... if Atlus releases some cool Japanese game, and they only print a few thousand copies, which are all bought up, and I really want to play that game, my only option is an astronomically priced sealed copy?


To me, it seems like a sucker bet since at the risk of pissing people off and suffering whatever consequences that can come from people being pissed (which in the digital world usually means focused attempts at piracy), the benefit of cutting off used games is unlikely to be significant enough to overcome the financial woes that are likely the result of bloated budgets. I just can't see the revenue stream growing that much if the only meaningful change is the annihilation of the used market.

Also, whenever the media companies develop some draconian anti piracy scheme, hackers and modders always respond. I know MS did a pretty good job keeping console modding at a minimum with the 360, but I think the demand for used games is going to be a much more significant force than the average mod-chip customer in the past. Perhaps they can make mod chips that redirect the internet connectivity to some P2P thing on TOR that hosts cracked versions of whatever the game is trying to access?

The Adventurer
02-07-2013, 04:28 PM
So... if Atlus releases some cool Japanese game, and they only print a few thousand copies, which are all bought up, and I really want to play that game, my only option is an astronomically priced sealed copy?


Or you can buy he digital copy, who's price will gradually lower over time, or get offered at a steep discount sale periodically.

AlphaGamer
02-07-2013, 04:43 PM
.........................

The Adventurer
02-07-2013, 04:53 PM
I can purchase a used copy of Rainbow Six Vegas at Gamestop for $2.99. You can't buy it digitally on the Xbox 360 Marketplace that cheap.

I bought Deus Ex Human Revolution for $5 off Steam at Christmas time, I've not seen it that cheap elsewhere.

Anecdotal evidence is not a statistic.

Gameguy
02-07-2013, 04:56 PM
Companies are generally smart enough to have multiple server locations for just this reason. That's what the 'cloud' is all about. Data isn't stored in one place. Its spread out, duplicated, redundancies on redundancies. It can't be disrupted easily.
What happens when the company decides years later that it's no longer worth keeping the servers running? That's what happened with Adobe CS2, they decided it wasn't worth keeping the activation server running so they shut it down. Plenty of people were complaining that they couldn't reinstall their copies of CS2 so Adobe did the right thing and basically released it for free, they made available a version that doesn't require online activation and provided everyone a new serial number. That doesn't mean other companies will release their products for free if they take down the servers, you could just be out of luck.

The Adventurer
02-07-2013, 05:02 PM
What happens when the company decides years later that it's no longer worth keeping the servers running? That's what happened with Adobe CS2, they decided it wasn't worth keeping the activation server running so they shut it down. Plenty of people were complaining that they couldn't reinstall their copies of CS2 so Adobe did the right thing and basically released it for free, they made available a version that doesn't require online activation and provided everyone a new serial number. That doesn't mean other companies will release their products for free if they take down the servers, you could just be out of luck.

Its a multi billion dollar industry, and online distribution is a lucrative future, the danger of a (growing) distribution channel like Steam or Marketplace going away is practically nil. Or at least no more dangerous then the already existing phenomena of online play servers being taken down over time, or MMOs shutting down. I mean, where online play is concerned that is always a concern. Gaming being physical media based is irrelevant in those cases.

Also, fun fact. You can back up all your Steam purchases locally for personal back ups. I'm not an expert, but I think you can back up your console purchases too for safe keeping. But don't quote me on that.

AlphaGamer
02-07-2013, 05:17 PM
.........................

AlphaGamer
02-07-2013, 05:19 PM
.........................

skaar
02-07-2013, 07:05 PM
Third Parties are going to have to go to the Wii U if they want their games to be sold. This thing single handedly kills the Durango. Besides Bayonetta 2 is coming out soon. :D

You speak with your emotions and not your brain.

kedawa
02-07-2013, 07:56 PM
I could excuse a one-time activation that authorizes the game on that console, since XBLA games already do that, but requiring a persistent connection is crossing the line.

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

PreZZ
02-07-2013, 09:53 PM
If this really happens, ill just stick to collecting retro games and playing those. Just got a X'EYE today and playing rocket knight adventures!

zakthedodo
02-07-2013, 10:10 PM
I don't understand why you wouldn't make a system as user friendly as possible.

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

WCP
02-07-2013, 11:15 PM
I think part of this is the whole piracy thing. Microsoft suffered pretty strongly with piracy this generation. If you look on any craigslist, you'll see people with advertisments to mod your 360 and make you backups. They want to kill GameStop, GameFly and Piracy in one fell swoop.

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

Collector_Gaming
02-08-2013, 12:41 AM
Well if there is one thing that is for certain piracy will never disappear. They come out with something new to block them. Someone will come up with a way to work around it and then cash in on it for themselves.

As for the safe bet that was mentioned earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

danawhitaker
02-08-2013, 02:25 AM
I don't know if anyone's bothered to mention it, and I'd completely forgotten, but we shouldn't forget about things like the PSN outage either. That took the PSN out for almost a month. Games like Everquest, DC Online, and Star Wars Galaxies were in the same boat. Would you really want to be unable to use your console for the better part of a month - AT ALL - if something like that happened again? Compensation after the fact isn't good enough when I plunk down hundreds of dollars for the console plus $60 for a game that I'm not even going to be playing online in the first place. And all the redundancy in the world wouldn't help if the network had to be shut down because of a breach like that rather than just stability problems. And Sony's not some small company. They're one of the big ones. There's no guarantee something similar won't happen in the future. I'd hope they'd be able to fix it more quickly than that one took, but I don't have much confidence that would be the case.

IHatedSega
02-08-2013, 03:04 AM
They want to kill GameStop, GameFly and Piracy in one fell swoop.

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

FayeC86
02-08-2013, 10:57 AM
If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

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

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

IHatedSega
02-08-2013, 11:25 AM
Im pretty sure if someone knows about Persona theyll be able to order it online from Amazon.

Collector_Gaming
02-08-2013, 12:30 PM
If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

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

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

Griking
02-08-2013, 02:03 PM
If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

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


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

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

Greg2600
02-08-2013, 02:28 PM
Piracy has not been a legitimate concern with consoles, really ever. Computers were a different story back in the day. I personally do not understand the reason for this. The software publishers simply don't understand their customer base if they expect sales to go up because you stop used games. The reality is people will simply buy LESS games.

Collector_Gaming
02-08-2013, 03:10 PM
Could this be considered a case where we are advancing a little too fast for our own good?

Bojay1997
02-08-2013, 03:38 PM
Piracy has not been a legitimate concern with consoles, really ever. Computers were a different story back in the day. I personally do not understand the reason for this. The software publishers simply don't understand their customer base if they expect sales to go up because you stop used games. The reality is people will simply buy LESS games.

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

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

Press_Start
02-08-2013, 04:41 PM
Could this be considered a case where we are advancing a little too fast for our own good?

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

marlowe221
02-08-2013, 05:01 PM
Regarding piracy rates - I see/read stuff about publishers/developers blaming high rates of piracy for their financial failures but it makes me wonder.... How do you measure piracy rates in any reliable way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

danawhitaker
02-08-2013, 05:05 PM
That's not accurate. In the PSOne days, it was actually impacting Sony and its third party developers pretty heavily to the point where Sony was citing it in their annual and quarterly reports. It also was/is a huge problem on the PSP and the DS with knock off carts flooding Ebay to this day on the Nintendo platforms. I think there was less piracy on the PS2 and the 360/PS3, but it certainly exists.

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

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

Bojay1997
02-08-2013, 05:23 PM
Pff. That's like a furniture store arguing they lose sales because Goodwill sells used sofas and tables. They have no proof that those people would ever have bought the item new in the first place. They might lose some, but they can't claim they'd lose all of it, and they have no real way to prove a specific amount. It's just speculation on their part. Someone not willing to buy it full price might not buy it at all. It's the same fallacy anti-piracy arguments use. You can't prove the people who pirated your product would have paid for it if they couldn't pirate it.

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

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

marlowe221
02-08-2013, 05:36 PM
Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

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

Two things.

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

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

Bojay1997
02-08-2013, 05:44 PM
Two things.

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

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

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

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

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

danawhitaker
02-08-2013, 06:01 PM
Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

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

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

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

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

Bojay1997
02-08-2013, 07:54 PM
How are Gamestop's numbers proof? Unless they ask the customer whether they would have bought the new copy instead of the used one (which I know for a fact they do not at the Gamestops around here), it's still speculation. I'm stingy with what I'm willing to spend. I almost never buy a new game for $60. For me, being willing to buy the game at $55 does not mean I would always have paid $5 more for a new copy. You cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's a lost sale. Instead, people who do the whole buy used-trade in-buy used cycle that you discuss might simply have gone with a rental service like Gamefly or Blockbuster and wouldn't buy at all. Or they would have maybe borrowed the game from a friend or relative. Or they would have checked the game out of the library for free (our library rents games for free).

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

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

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

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

danawhitaker
02-08-2013, 08:54 PM
Ultimately, publishers will come to the market and if $55 is really the price point that used buyers need to be comfortable buying a new copy, there's no reason why new software MSRP won't decline to $55. Publishers could care less about retail price, their only concern is to make the maximum of profit and eliminating used sales assures them a bigger piece of what could become a smaller, but more profitable pie.

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

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

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

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

Spartacus
02-08-2013, 10:02 PM
The first time I read about this was in a brief article at IGN.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/06/xbox-720-allegedly-requires-online-connection

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

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

Collector_Gaming
02-08-2013, 10:15 PM
Whether next-gen consoles prevent playing used games or not is out of my control. I collect video games for a hobby and have little interest in renting digital content. If the next-gen marks the end of owning video games, then I'll just be grateful that I lived through a different gaming era and appreciate my collection of retro games all the more.

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

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

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

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

Mr Mort
02-08-2013, 11:14 PM
My feeling on the whole topic boils down to this:

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

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

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

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

Rickstilwell1
02-09-2013, 12:46 AM
I don't understand why you wouldn't make a system as user friendly as possible.

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

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

Greg2600
02-09-2013, 12:59 PM
This goofball is not happy about it. But he makes excellent points.


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

Gamevet
02-09-2013, 01:00 PM
A real life Elf! Who'd a thunk?

Robocop2
02-09-2013, 01:21 PM
Hug your carts and your disc cases and reminisce about the good ol days.
Honestly though I could see a drive for the online pass thing like some already do. But to require an always on, one time use activation code on a console is ludicrous. Though I suppose XBLA and the downloadable full retail games Sony, Microsoft and even now Nintendo offer are harbingers of the future. I don't want any part of a future like that. I foresee the likelihood of not playing used games (without paying some kind of fee for an activation code) far more likely than a requirement for an always on connection. Not even iOS makes you do that.

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

Collector_Gaming
02-09-2013, 02:01 PM
This goofball is not happy about it. But he makes excellent points.


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

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

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

JSoup
02-09-2013, 02:30 PM
This goofball is not happy about it. But he makes excellent points.


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

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

The 1 2 P
02-09-2013, 02:55 PM
Didn't feel like making another thread but here's another rumored report stating the PS4 will cost more than $400 (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/07/rumor-sonys-ps4-priced-at-over-400-dollars.aspx).

Frankie_Says_Relax
02-09-2013, 03:14 PM
Didn't feel like making another thread but here's another rumored report stating the PS4 will cost more than $400 (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/07/rumor-sonys-ps4-priced-at-over-400-dollars.aspx).

Um, this is the Durango thread.

kupomogli
02-09-2013, 03:23 PM
Didn't feel like making another thread but here's another rumored report stating the PS4 will cost more than $400 (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/07/rumor-sonys-ps4-priced-at-over-400-dollars.aspx).

$499 US dollars?

The 1 2 P
02-09-2013, 03:45 PM
Um, this is the Durango thread.

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


$499 US dollars?

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

Greg2600
02-09-2013, 09:24 PM
Hug your carts and your disc cases and reminisce about the good ol days.
Honestly though I could see a drive for the online pass thing like some already do. But to require an always on, one time use activation code on a console is ludicrous. Though I suppose XBLA and the downloadable full retail games Sony, Microsoft and even now Nintendo offer are harbingers of the future. I don't want any part of a future like that. I foresee the likelihood of not playing used games (without paying some kind of fee for an activation code) far more likely than a requirement for an always on connection. Not even iOS makes you do that.

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

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


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

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

Zthun
02-09-2013, 10:22 PM
Look, I can't sit here and tell MS, Sony how to run their business to suit collectors like me. My thing continues to be the foolishness or not allowing particularly kids to buy used games on the cheap, or trade games among friends. This goes against 35 years of video game culture. Not to mention is just asks for piracy.

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

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

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

Gamevet
02-09-2013, 11:13 PM
This is what I was thinking at first but honestly the used game thing doesn't kill it for me. Now if the next gen systems ONLY played digital games and they were still $50-$60 on release then yes I would stick with my PS3/360/Wii.

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

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

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

Leo_A
02-09-2013, 11:42 PM
I have a couple of older Xbox Live games that won't function without being online. The arcade game of TRON, won't work without being logged in. :(

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

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

Gamevet
02-10-2013, 01:35 AM
That's no fault of the games themselves. Your licenses simply aren't tied to your current console. Reassociate them by doing the license transfer process and you will restore offline access.

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

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

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

Niku-Sama
02-10-2013, 02:11 AM
those specs on paper are pretty weak, they better change before they release otherwise they will be hurting for horsepower

Greg2600
02-10-2013, 10:17 AM
It's even worse than that. There's no preservation with this model. Once those servers go down, you're done. They online only games cannot be played anymore unless someone sets up a private server or hacks the console. We've speculated that this next gen would be downloaded games only, but it was verified that the next gen consoles will have blu-ray players. Problem is, whats the point of owning the disc, when all you need is a code that unlocks the game? Diablo III sits on my shelf as a useless coaster. I hated the game, but I can't:

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

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

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

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

RyanMurf
02-10-2013, 10:41 AM
How about this idea. Maybe Microsoft isn't killing used games all together. We all know about online passes and how they function. Maybe this one time use activation code can be generated at a store like gamestop just like how they generate activation codes and other dlc. Maybe Microsoft will build a contract with gamestop to publish new paid for activation codes on your receipt when you buy a used game. I really don't think Microsoft can really thrive by eliminating the #1 retailer in the world for games and consoles. Microsoft would loose a huge chunk of system sales by doing this also because gamestop then wouldn't sell the new console. They also wouldn't just eliminate the number of console sales but sales like dlc, Microsoft points, and every other accessory for the system like headsets and controllers. Sure you can go else where to buy but you can't beat the availability of a gamestop on every corner.


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


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

PROTOTYPE
02-10-2013, 10:50 AM
My take? Saturday was in gamestop and Pick up Quake 4 mint condition with bonus CD For $4.49! You tell me why they want to kill the used game market? That don't count the game sharing and illegal downloading.That is costing them tons of money.I don't like where this is going but for this hobby to survive it will have no choice. We have only to look at ours selfs for all this.Also we use to have a lot more money to waste on games, not anymore.[ recession ] They really don't care about people who don't buy new, so cry all you want. To me, saw it coming with on-line gaming.Will I buy download games only? I already did, but the game has to me something I really want to play and you will to unless its GAME OVER.:fist:

Zthun
02-10-2013, 11:44 AM
How about this idea. Maybe Microsoft isn't killing used games all together. We all know about online passes and how they function. Maybe this one time use activation code can be generated at a store like gamestop just like how they generate activation codes and other dlc. Maybe Microsoft will build a contract with gamestop to publish new paid for activation codes on your receipt when you buy a used game. I really don't think Microsoft can really thrive by eliminating the #1 retailer in the world for games and consoles. Microsoft would loose a huge chunk of system sales by doing this also because gamestop then wouldn't sell the new console. They also wouldn't just eliminate the number of console sales but sales like dlc, Microsoft points, and every other accessory for the system like headsets and controllers. Sure you can go else where to buy but you can't beat the availability of a gamestop on every corner.


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


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

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

RyanMurf
02-10-2013, 12:46 PM
Walmart, Target, BestBuy, KMart, Cosco...all of these stores are just as readily available as Gamestop. Gamestop is great for used games and used console systems, and you can find some real great deals sometimes on them, but it's nothing magical to buy new there. The costs are the same as the other stores; plus, the other stores have better policies when it comes to new games. People would just move on to other stores to buy their games.

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

Tupin
02-10-2013, 01:45 PM
Don't know about anyone else, but I think that if a company announced that their console didn't play used games, Gamestop would refuse to carry it or carry much less.

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

Griking
02-10-2013, 03:38 PM
Don't know about anyone else, but I think that if a company announced that their console didn't play used games, Gamestop would refuse to carry it or carry much less.

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

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

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

Tupin
02-10-2013, 04:54 PM
Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Best Buy, K-Mart and many other stores now sell used games, because it is pure profit for them.

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

The 1 2 P
02-10-2013, 06:06 PM
I did buy games like Black Ops II for multiplayer though, but waiting for a used copy to show up cheap really puts you behind in the game; it's one of those titles that you're better off playing online on day one, or you'll end up being outclassed on the battlefield by players with all of the added gear.

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

WCP
02-10-2013, 08:38 PM
I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


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

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

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

Did I mention it was 5 bucks ?


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

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

It all comes down to money...

danawhitaker
02-10-2013, 09:52 PM
I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


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

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

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

Did I mention it was 5 bucks ?


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

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

It all comes down to money...

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

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

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

scaleworm
02-10-2013, 11:02 PM
I say Fuck 'em.
I have enough great games, many of which I have not had the time to play let alone play through to worry about next gen anything. I have more than enough to support my own family and theirs, into the future.

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck 'Em!

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

IHatedSega
02-11-2013, 10:29 AM
You know, I hadnt even heard of this site before, I just listened to it because of Kotaku. Maybe this wont happen, but Kinect using a censor to see how many people are in the room when you watched things and charging you for unauthorized people, makes this sound real to me. I wonder if itll also scan for others while playing games? Thatll end them being used at conventions for dancing games.

LordsOfSkulls
02-11-2013, 10:49 AM
As someone who has been using Steam for nearly 10 years to buy new games, nor makes a habit of trading games in, I don't really see a particular problem with this. What all this anti-used game trend seems to be geared to is pushing players to buying digital downloads over physical media. Because undoubtedly the NEXT general will be discless. So you better get used to it.

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

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


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

Wont make any money thus unable to run their business.

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

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

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

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

Zthun
02-11-2013, 01:41 PM
I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


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

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

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

Did I mention it was 5 bucks ?


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

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

It all comes down to money...

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

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

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

WCP
02-11-2013, 05:46 PM
Especially during Summer/Christmas for Steam their are Sales... that can get you off brand new games 30-77% off.. that is HUGE. I got over 100s of Video Games on Steam just because how cheap it was... I spend over $500 for $3000+ worth of GAmes in last 2 years. That is something that even "Used Game Market" will never be able to do.



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


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

The Adventurer
02-11-2013, 06:03 PM
Steam has the advantage of being A) a third party distribution hub, and B) Pretty Altruistic when it comes to their own content. The sales are a good sign of strong competition in the video game field, as publishers and developers are jockeying for more sales. With Valve brokering and negotiating the deals.

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

GhostDog
02-12-2013, 09:56 AM
Sony better see what Microsoft is doing and not go that route. Sony even said they're waiting to see what Microsoft is doing with their new system before making their move. Well, Sony, now you see and don't make the same mistake.

LordsOfSkulls
02-12-2013, 10:01 AM
what awesome about Steam is they get the developers wanting to put their games from different companies under their service........... so they are not under no one shoes like microsoft/nintendo or sony if you start arguing with them they just ignore you and be like w/e and are not going to bag you to put it thru them.

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

Reason why i still dont have Battlefield 3 ;p

Griking
02-12-2013, 01:23 PM
I always wonder how Steam and PC gaming in general doesn't have to deal with so many people being angry about the fact that you can't rent or sell PC games.


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

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

WCP
02-12-2013, 07:50 PM
I think that we pretty much accepted the fact that piracy was too easy under those circumstances and that not allowing the sale of used games was a necessary inconvenience.

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

danawhitaker
02-12-2013, 08:15 PM
Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that ? I'm not sure what you're implying about a relation between piracy and used games..

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

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

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

Griking
02-12-2013, 08:40 PM
Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that ? I'm not sure what you're implying about a relation between piracy and used games..

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

Mangar
02-13-2013, 07:59 PM
Sony better see what Microsoft is doing and not go that route. Sony even said they're waiting to see what Microsoft is doing with their new system before making their move. Well, Sony, now you see and don't make the same mistake.

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

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

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

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

WCP
02-13-2013, 10:50 PM
The reality is that the ball is in Sony's court at the moment. They can either destroy the used games market entirely, or they can destroy Microsoft's console aspirations. It will be interesting to see what they opt for, however any decision made, won't be based on people threatening to not buy either, or pirate games. It will be based purely on which option they think will benefit them long-term. It will be interesting to see.


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

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


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


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


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

Tupin
02-13-2013, 11:05 PM
Same thing with the used game market. Used games can still happen, it's just that any time a game changes hands, Microsoft and Sony get $15 (to be shared with the publishers). Also, an exchange can only happen once. One game doesn't end up constantly being flipped to the next owner. It's a one time deal.


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

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

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

danawhitaker
02-13-2013, 11:32 PM
They could never make this happen with physical media. Again, I think companies like Gamestop would rather just not carry the products at all than give up their most profitable source of income. They've already said that they expect consoles that allow no used games to sell much worse than ones that don't. And if they want to go into digital distribution, they're going to be butting heads not with the retail industry, but major ISPs.

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

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

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

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

I also found this comment interesting:

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

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

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

WCP
02-14-2013, 12:26 AM
They could never make this happen with physical media. Again, I think companies like Gamestop would rather just not carry the products at all than give up their most profitable source of income.



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

kupomogli
02-14-2013, 12:36 AM
If both PS4 and NextBox lock out used games, Wii U is the winner this next gen. Probably not, but to those of us who want our discs to be useful 20-30 years down the road, it will be the winner. I'll still get a PS4 or NextBox if they have exclusives I like, but all my multiconsole games will be purchased on PC or Wii U. Wii U if it even gets a multiconsole version that's worth picking up and PC because so much cheaper and much better version than the PS4/NextBox versions.

Press_Start
02-14-2013, 02:17 AM
What if Sony and Microsoft both do it? Do you really think GameStop could afford not to carry their games at all ? Target, Best Buy and Wal-Mart would still carry them, and GameStop would end up becoming irrevelent even faster than they already are. They would only have Wii U games and legacy games. No PS4, no Xbox Infinity. I don't see it.

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

IHatedSega
02-14-2013, 03:06 AM
All the ads and commercials you see from Gamestop is advertising a NEW game or console somehow. If Sony and Microsoft and distributors stopped channeling their stuff to Gamestop then people would walk in there, see a bunch of crappy coverless boxes on the walls, and walk out. Its that simple, if they became a use only store, theyd go out of business, unless they started taking in older games, which most people who sell off their old games know to take them to a local used store. If they didnt go totally out of business theyd have far less stores.

DRM is all about greed, thats it.

Griking
02-14-2013, 03:46 AM
If both PS4 and NextBox lock out used games, Wii U is the winner this next gen.

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


DRM is all about greed, thats it.

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

danawhitaker
02-14-2013, 04:23 AM
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
02-14-2013, 03:31 PM
But you could lend it to a million friends!

Collector_Gaming
02-14-2013, 03:53 PM
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
02-14-2013, 05:46 PM
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
02-14-2013, 06:02 PM
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
02-14-2013, 06:33 PM
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
02-14-2013, 06:59 PM
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
02-14-2013, 07:52 PM
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
02-14-2013, 07:55 PM
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
02-14-2013, 08:37 PM
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
02-14-2013, 08:38 PM
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
02-14-2013, 09:31 PM
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
02-14-2013, 10:07 PM
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
02-14-2013, 10:31 PM
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
02-15-2013, 12:17 AM
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
02-15-2013, 01:01 AM
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
02-15-2013, 01:12 AM
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
02-15-2013, 02:10 AM
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
02-15-2013, 03:31 AM
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
02-15-2013, 05:10 AM
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
02-15-2013, 08:51 AM
The huge flagpole releases will be the only games that get budgets over 20 million.

Do you mean flagship?

retroguy
02-15-2013, 09:20 AM
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
02-15-2013, 09:25 AM
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
02-15-2013, 09:40 AM
I'm more of a playable framerate/logical physics whore, and current tech does not cut it.

IHatedSega
02-15-2013, 09:55 AM
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
02-15-2013, 10:52 AM
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
02-15-2013, 12:35 PM
Do you mean flagship?

I believe the term he was going for is tentpole.

Frankie_Says_Relax
02-15-2013, 01:45 PM
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
02-15-2013, 02:36 PM
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
02-15-2013, 02:40 PM
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
02-15-2013, 04:39 PM
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
02-15-2013, 04:55 PM
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
02-15-2013, 05:40 PM
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
02-15-2013, 05:52 PM
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
02-15-2013, 06:26 PM
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
02-15-2013, 06:45 PM
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
02-15-2013, 06:55 PM
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
02-15-2013, 10:30 PM
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
02-15-2013, 10:41 PM
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
02-15-2013, 11:12 PM
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
02-16-2013, 01:25 AM
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
02-16-2013, 12:52 PM
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
02-16-2013, 12:56 PM
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
02-16-2013, 01:09 PM
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
02-16-2013, 02:22 PM
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
02-16-2013, 04:16 PM
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
02-16-2013, 04:22 PM
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
02-16-2013, 04:36 PM
well that lessened my intentions of grabbing the new Playstation and XBOX.

RyanMurf
02-16-2013, 04:51 PM
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
02-16-2013, 05:04 PM
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
02-16-2013, 05:07 PM
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
02-16-2013, 05:22 PM
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
02-16-2013, 06:02 PM
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
02-16-2013, 06:18 PM
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
02-16-2013, 09:35 PM
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
02-16-2013, 09:48 PM
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
02-16-2013, 11:56 PM
Looking at my collection both MAG and Socom: Confrontation are online multiplayer only. Theres probably a few more though.

Warhawk.

danawhitaker
02-26-2013, 04:43 PM
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
02-26-2013, 06:57 PM
I don't that guy knows what a watermark is, because that makes no sense.

Bojay1997
02-26-2013, 07:08 PM
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
02-26-2013, 08:03 PM
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
02-26-2013, 08:20 PM
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
02-26-2013, 08:44 PM
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
02-26-2013, 08:49 PM
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
02-26-2013, 09:32 PM
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
02-26-2013, 10:09 PM
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
02-26-2013, 10:14 PM
What do you mean? There are two.

danawhitaker
02-26-2013, 10:19 PM
What do you mean? There are two.

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

BricatSegaFan
02-26-2013, 10:30 PM
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
02-26-2013, 10:53 PM
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
02-26-2013, 11:23 PM
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
02-26-2013, 11:41 PM
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
02-27-2013, 12:07 AM
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
02-27-2013, 12:21 AM
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
02-27-2013, 01:43 AM
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.

bb_hood
02-27-2013, 02:07 AM
Yeah, some of us still prefer purchasing physical media though.

I understand this and I think alot of people feel this way. Its ultimatly up to sony to create a product that you want to buy. Here is an example of how I think digital downloads CAN BE (not nessecarily ARE, though) better than buying media on disc. Both me and my brother wanted to get Marvel v Capcom Origins so we could play together online. Its a 15$ download in the playstation store. The game was not released on disc because its probably not finacially feasable and/or there is just not a big enough audience. Also, because you can share your account with one other user, we were able to split the cost and share the download, so it cost us both 7.50$ each, and we both can play it all we want. If we needed the disc we would have each had to buy our own hard copy, which also would have cost more due to packaging costs.

Words iManifest
02-27-2013, 11:41 AM
Edited...Sorry, had a few windows open and replied in the wrong topic and not sure how to delete.

Nature Boy
02-28-2013, 10:19 AM
I personally have zero problems with used games being a thing of the past.

At the start of this gen I was really hesitant about buying digital download games, but I own quite a few now, and have no problems buying them, not being able to trade them in if I dislike them, and not being able to find them cheaper used somewhere.

Disc based games that work the same way at least give me that physical copy I like. Although even then I'm trying to get over the fact that owning the physical copy doesn't actually matter - what matters to me most is that I enjoy the game. And I kind of like the fact that if I feel like buying something new at 10pm on a Wed night, all I have to do is log onto the PS Store with my Vita and buy away, as opposed to waiting until I have time to drop by a store or waiting for the postman to arrive with my online order.

Will I miss it? Well yes and no. I like buying stuff for my 360/PS3 used and saving a few bucks (not the $5 off a newer game, I'm talking getting something for $20 that retailed at $60 when it was new). So I'll miss that. But I'll always be able to buy used copies of games for older systems, and I'll always be playing older systems, so from that perspective there is nothing to miss :)

Frankie_Says_Relax
02-28-2013, 10:46 AM
Without weighing in too much on this topic - you know what I'm NOT going to miss when there's a full transition from physical to digital?

Not being able to find something because it's "sold out" (or some similar thing).

How many hours of our lives, miles on our car, money on gas/transportation fees have we collectively spent "looking" for games that happened to be out of stock/sold out/out of production/"rare"/hard to find, etc.?

Sure, "thrill of the hunt" will be gone, but that's more of an irrational side effect of this supply/demand system in the first place.

Daltone
02-28-2013, 10:51 AM
Without weighing in too much on this topic - you know what I'm NOT going to miss when there's a full transition from physical to digital?

Not being able to find something because it's "sold out" (or some similar thing).

How many hours of our lives, miles on our car, money on gass/transportation fees have we collectively spent "looking" for games that happened to be out of stock/sold out/out of production/"rare"/hard to find, etc.?

Sure, "thrill of the hunt" will be gone, but that's more of an irrational side effect of this supply/demand system in the first place.

I think the risk becomes that the item is no longer available for download. Then you are chasing people who have downloaded it and you probably need to crack the file to make it work.

EDIT: I am actually very much in favour of Digital Downloads, but that is by-the-by.

Frankie_Says_Relax
02-28-2013, 11:29 AM
I think the risk becomes that the item is no longer available for download. Then you are chasing people who have downloaded it and you probably need to crack the file to make it work.

EDIT: I am actually very much in favour of Digital Downloads, but that is by-the-by.

I know. Nothing sucks more than a de-listing!

kedawa
02-28-2013, 07:43 PM
I have no love for optical disks or floppies.
To me, if it's not a cartridge, it may as well just be a file on my hard drive.

skaar
03-01-2013, 10:06 AM
Well, sounds like my gaming ends with this generation...

http://i.imgur.com/VDRwpKo.gif

Oh wait, I never sell my games anyway. I don't care.