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

[TonyTheTiger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

[danawhitaker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[biohazard326]

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

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

[kedawa]

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

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

[biohazard326]

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

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

[Greg2600]

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

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[danawhitaker]

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

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

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

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

[marlowe221]

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

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

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

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

[Gameguy]

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

And now Guitar Hero is dead.

[kedawa]

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

[RyanMurf]

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

Just thought I would share some good news here.

[danawhitaker]

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

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

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

[WCP]

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

Just thought I would share some good news here.

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

[retroguy]

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

[IHatedSega]

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

Just thought I would share some good news here.

Thank you, I hope this stays true.

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

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

[RetroBot]

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

[RyanMurf]

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

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

[IHatedSega]

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

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