On PC? I don't think so. On consoles they already do, so that's another issue.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EDGE: The next Xbox: Always online, no second-hand games, 50GB Blu-ray and new kinect
- Thread starter Hanmik
- Start date
On PC? I don't think so. On consoles they already do, so that's another issue.
Yet somehow the music, movie, and publishing industries have survived all these years.
Buggy Loop
Member
I get less and less interest to switch to next gen, especially if xbox live is still a subscribtion. PS4 could be interesting if there is BC and if it supports used games, otherwise, i keep my pc and buy a wiiu for my xenoblade and retro studio fix.
"Why did you not make a WiiU version of your game?"
"Because people could buy used copies of it."
This also gives direct control to the publishers over when you can get a copy of the game - say you miss out on a release and don't pick up a copy then 6 months later you want to buy it but it's no longer printed...
no used game market - can't ever play that game.
Basically it forces you to play all new releases within a short time frame.... or you have to wait for a rerelease. That's crazy.
I know Disney do this with DVDs but at least then you have an option of getting a second hand one.
no used game market - can't ever play that game.
Basically it forces you to play all new releases within a short time frame.... or you have to wait for a rerelease. That's crazy.
I know Disney do this with DVDs but at least then you have an option of getting a second hand one.
I don't know about publishing, but I do know that music has touring and films have theatrical releases/TV as alternative revenue streams.
I really think eliminating second hand gaming right now could be a big slip-up for the industry, and I'm not exactly sure how Microsoft or Sony would benefit from doing this, at least more so than not rocking the boat right now in terms of what consumers expect to do with their games. Games are still far too expensive to reach a lot of larger audiences, and second-hand gaming has helped with that a bit.
My guess is that this is just click-bait by Edge, and that they know as little about this stuff as the rest of us.
If it is true, then
Always online - Strike 1
No second hand games - Strike 2
Continued focus on Kinext - Strike 3
My guess is that this is just click-bait by Edge, and that they know as little about this stuff as the rest of us.
If it is true, then
Always online - Strike 1
No second hand games - Strike 2
Continued focus on Kinext - Strike 3
Nostalgic Nightmare
Member
Another thing , the games will be on 50gb brds.
So if i decide i want a digital only copy, can you imagine the bandwidth consumption? I know they wont be that big off the bat but still. This no second hand thing must be pushed by top publishers, the ones that want every game to cost multimillions and have a trillogy minimum. They want you to pay off the name and brand alone now, no renting if you have a gut feeling you wont like it, and are being cautious befkre dropping $60.
Im tired of this and its obviously the way a game is envisioned at conception. It really did pan out just like the movie industry, damn. Reviews and their integrity will be more important than ever and i dont even want to get into that vipers nest of a discussion this early.
So if i decide i want a digital only copy, can you imagine the bandwidth consumption? I know they wont be that big off the bat but still. This no second hand thing must be pushed by top publishers, the ones that want every game to cost multimillions and have a trillogy minimum. They want you to pay off the name and brand alone now, no renting if you have a gut feeling you wont like it, and are being cautious befkre dropping $60.
Im tired of this and its obviously the way a game is envisioned at conception. It really did pan out just like the movie industry, damn. Reviews and their integrity will be more important than ever and i dont even want to get into that vipers nest of a discussion this early.
This is actually a really complex issue.
On the one hand, as another poster mentioned, much of the money acquired from selling used games gets spent on new games, thus driving more sales for the industry. Furthermore, a person like myself is much more inclined to think a console is a good investment if I think I can get 6 new games and 20 used games over the course of its lifetime, while 10 or so new games (for the same money) might not justify getting the console, and thus I would pass it up. So used games also drive sales in the sense that people buy the systems anticipating getting some cheap deals to complement their new game purchases.
On the other hand, people who buy used games exclusively give absolutely no money to any of the publishers. And someone like myself, who only buys 1 or 2 new games a year but tends to buy more used games, may not be making up for the lost revenue with those few new games.
The fact is, used games both pull money away from publishers, and also push more money toward publishers. Both definitely happen. The question is, do used games drive enough new sales through the means mentioned above to make up for the lost revenue?
Obviously, if someone only sort of wants a game, and they end up buying it used, that used game is driving sales, since that person wasn't going to buy the game anyway. This is the argument I often hear. But this is focusing only on the marginal buyer. For someone who definitely wants to play CoD, and then they see a $55 used-for-a-few-days version sitting next to a $60 new version, that is a lost sale, and it likely sucks away far more money from developers a single instance than the first example would likely contribute to publishers. (I.e. One lost new sale = $60 gone, while one used sale from the marginal consumer may contribute $30 or so. (I obviously pulled that latter number out of my butt.))
But adding to the equation is the public perception of the console market. The closed nature of shutting off used games could make the marginal consumer decide to find a different hobby, even if they had no intention of buying used games. The control the companies would have over your content, even if not abused, could be off-putting to a large number of marginal consumers, thus hurting the industry.
It definitely could go both ways. Just keep this in mind, guys: the industry as a whole is failing. It's losing revenue, and countless developers have kicked the bucket. So while we don't really sympathize with big publishers like Activision or EA, there are a lot of developers that could provide us great content if the industry weren't so sick.
The question is, is DRM like this going to help or hurt those developers in the long run? It's such a complex and nuanced question that all the definitive statements I've read from posters on both sides are just not accurate in their confidence. Is there a right answer? Absolutely. But I get the idea no one will really know what it is until we're polishing our retrospectacles on our 2020 shirts.
On the one hand, as another poster mentioned, much of the money acquired from selling used games gets spent on new games, thus driving more sales for the industry. Furthermore, a person like myself is much more inclined to think a console is a good investment if I think I can get 6 new games and 20 used games over the course of its lifetime, while 10 or so new games (for the same money) might not justify getting the console, and thus I would pass it up. So used games also drive sales in the sense that people buy the systems anticipating getting some cheap deals to complement their new game purchases.
On the other hand, people who buy used games exclusively give absolutely no money to any of the publishers. And someone like myself, who only buys 1 or 2 new games a year but tends to buy more used games, may not be making up for the lost revenue with those few new games.
The fact is, used games both pull money away from publishers, and also push more money toward publishers. Both definitely happen. The question is, do used games drive enough new sales through the means mentioned above to make up for the lost revenue?
Obviously, if someone only sort of wants a game, and they end up buying it used, that used game is driving sales, since that person wasn't going to buy the game anyway. This is the argument I often hear. But this is focusing only on the marginal buyer. For someone who definitely wants to play CoD, and then they see a $55 used-for-a-few-days version sitting next to a $60 new version, that is a lost sale, and it likely sucks away far more money from developers a single instance than the first example would likely contribute to publishers. (I.e. One lost new sale = $60 gone, while one used sale from the marginal consumer may contribute $30 or so. (I obviously pulled that latter number out of my butt.))
But adding to the equation is the public perception of the console market. The closed nature of shutting off used games could make the marginal consumer decide to find a different hobby, even if they had no intention of buying used games. The control the companies would have over your content, even if not abused, could be off-putting to a large number of marginal consumers, thus hurting the industry.
It definitely could go both ways. Just keep this in mind, guys: the industry as a whole is failing. It's losing revenue, and countless developers have kicked the bucket. So while we don't really sympathize with big publishers like Activision or EA, there are a lot of developers that could provide us great content if the industry weren't so sick.
The question is, is DRM like this going to help or hurt those developers in the long run? It's such a complex and nuanced question that all the definitive statements I've read from posters on both sides are just not accurate in their confidence. Is there a right answer? Absolutely. But I get the idea no one will really know what it is until we're polishing our retrospectacles on our 2020 shirts.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Maybe a few smaller ones. But you honestly don't think EA, Ubisoft etc. will release their top games with DRM on PS4/X3 and without DRM on WiiU? They won't.
alexandros
Banned
Two reasons:
1) You can actually get new games at really affordable prices.
2) There's no way to universally enforce a DRM scheme on an open platform. Even if some publishers decide to use a DRM system, others will ignore it. Hell, there's a whole store (GOG.com) dedicated to DRM-free games.
We (PC gamers) warned people years ago of the perils of locking themselves in proprietary, locked-down platforms. This was inevitable, get out while you still can.
Haven't you heard? Unlike say, movies or high end consumer products, games cost lots of money to make, so the producers can do whatever the fuck they want and you best not get lippy, wouldnt want to be all entitled or anything!
Q
qizah
Unconfirmed Member
Wow.
I hope this is just a rumour and nothing more. I don't think Microsoft is that desperate to block used game. I'd hope at least.
I hope this is just a rumour and nothing more. I don't think Microsoft is that desperate to block used game. I'd hope at least.
KennyLinder
Member
Ah OK.. I guess that's two vastly different things.
- Online activation
- Online always required
I can see the idea behind online activation if they want to go down the game registration route.
Does Steam require an always on connection?
You're being flippant, but skyrocketing dev costs are a real issue.
MikeE21286
Member
I'd imagine that retail will still exist.
You'll still have a physical disc that goes into your system, it'll just read an activation code from your account (hence needing to be online all the time) and see if the disc that is in your system is registered to your account.
You won't have to download a full 50GB game if you want to just buy it at the store.
Messofanego
Banned
Please Sony, don't follow in Microsoft's footsteps.
Look, see...
There's a face you can trust.
What the...how did you do this?
Why would 3rd parties ditch Sony? Sony is still the best bet for European and Japanese developers. Notice how those two groups of developers generally aren't bitching about used game sales? Its a U.S. problem, and therefore is disproportionately weighted on MS since the Xbox brand is U.S. reliant.
At the same time no 3rd party is going to jump to either side of the isle in this generation until a clear winner is declared, as doing otherwise could kill their company. Imagine if CoD became an Xbox 720 exclusive but Sony still prevailed through an overall stronger catalog and plenty of other good online shooters. CoD would have isolated itself from the dominant audience and allowed competitors to take over. They'd be screwed.
This is why 3rd parties want hardware that is close enough to each other and the PC to allow parity in development. No one wants to go out on a limb only to have it snap off.
Conrad Link
Member
"Why did you not make a WiiU version of your game?"
"Because people could buy used copies of it."
"Shut up Garry! Just say something stupid about the unique controller being not a good fit."
On ps3 you have limits but i think the account management tools can undo it irrc. I know if your doing a system transfer you can transfer the rights over.
Xbox doesn't have limits.
bishopcruz
Member
I hope this ends up being false. Always on internet is different for a console than for a PC. For years now the PCs main focus has been its online functionality, so it not being online has been the exception rathen than the rule, that's why always on DRM, while silly, never bothered me and it only made sense for certain games. For consoles it is a different beast. Yes online has become more important, but it is still not the primary reason for their existence. If a particular game wants me to be online all the time, fine. But as a rule? Very bad idea.
The used game thing is stupid. Yes I understand publishers and devs hate the idea of people being able to not give them money and still enjoy thier game. They are being short sighted and have been for years. Used game sales not only fund new game sales in many cases, but the ability to lend games also leads to higher sales as well. I've bought tons of games because I had them lent to me by someone, or had friend buy games that I lent them at one point, if not the game itself, then the sequels.
With PCs I live with individual DRM on systems like Steam because a) the games are generally very cheap and b) the PC is by its nature personal you aren't expecting a lot of theor people to use your accounts and the like. How will it work on a console when a family has an Xbox, little Jimmy moves out to college, buys a new system and tries to play the games that he had on his home 720?
The used game thing is stupid. Yes I understand publishers and devs hate the idea of people being able to not give them money and still enjoy thier game. They are being short sighted and have been for years. Used game sales not only fund new game sales in many cases, but the ability to lend games also leads to higher sales as well. I've bought tons of games because I had them lent to me by someone, or had friend buy games that I lent them at one point, if not the game itself, then the sequels.
With PCs I live with individual DRM on systems like Steam because a) the games are generally very cheap and b) the PC is by its nature personal you aren't expecting a lot of theor people to use your accounts and the like. How will it work on a console when a family has an Xbox, little Jimmy moves out to college, buys a new system and tries to play the games that he had on his home 720?
Tripp Daily
Member
but cutting out used games all together doesn't insure that $2.5-$3 billion will be there in sales for the developers. The only things it insures is a $1.8 billion dollar loss.
I see what you mean and in a way I'd agree that it's bizarre that everything about Orbis sounds awesome and everything about Durango sounds like shit but going by the latest rumors there's definitely a lot of negativity surrounding Durango for various things (performance, programming restrictions, always online req/no used games)...I don't know what to think at this point, either everyone is biased against MS spreading negative & false rumors or there is a slice of truth to all of this.
The only sure thing though is that with all these negative rumors piling up lately dismissing or doubting them becomes harder and harder.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
Wasn't there a rumour of Sony doing this a few months back? (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=506560)
Surely they aren't both in cahoots and blocking used games together? The end of Gamestop and GAME?
Surely they aren't both in cahoots and blocking used games together? The end of Gamestop and GAME?
i agree. i live in a semi-rural area where there is decent internet in town but out in the sticks it is terrible. there are people who still only have access to dial-up. there is no way microsoft loses what has to be a significant percentage of the consumers out there. i bet 50% of the consoles in my area have never been online.
Visualante2
Member
I'm so torn between wanting Edge to be wrong, and seeing Sony make a massive come back.
According to Edge's article, MS aim to suppress 2nd hand sales.
Sony's patent aims to CONTROL it. Their solution even enables offline users to buy new game [or 2nd hand game with deauthorized old PSN ID [gamestop/amazon/even maybe ordinary users could do that]] and start playing it without internet connection.
electricpirate
Member
GoingGreen
Banned
Most likely by buying a XBL Family Subscription... :/
minus the deals I guess, i haven't payed more than $11 for a steam game and I refuse to may more than that
GlamFM
Banned
The entire problem started when Gamestop started to make a business out of it.
I´m always amazed at how hard it is to convince the idiots at Gamestop to sell me a new game.
Gamestop should have given the devs/publishers a cut and we wouldn´t have this discussion.
Gamestop is to blame and no one else.
If activation codes will save this industry and the devs I´m all for it.
I´m always amazed at how hard it is to convince the idiots at Gamestop to sell me a new game.
Gamestop should have given the devs/publishers a cut and we wouldn´t have this discussion.
Gamestop is to blame and no one else.
If activation codes will save this industry and the devs I´m all for it.
Elginer
Member
Really putting my love of Alan Wake to the test huh Microsoft. I was really looking forward to the next Xbox but if this is likely, then damn. I may get a PS4 and pray that they do something with those terrible damn analog sticks.
Why the hell would any company do this? I mean sure, I understand that third parties are probably pissing their pants in excitment over this being true (if it is). But this is actually doing them more harm than good. A lot of people trade in software to get new software, this will only hurt them with crappier sales.
I mostly by new, but if this is true for both systems, then Sony and MS need to strap the fuck up for sales being low of day one software as many gamers will be a hell of a lock pickier about their purchases and if AA games are having a hard time now, I laugh at their chances next-gen.
Why the hell would any company do this? I mean sure, I understand that third parties are probably pissing their pants in excitment over this being true (if it is). But this is actually doing them more harm than good. A lot of people trade in software to get new software, this will only hurt them with crappier sales.
I mostly by new, but if this is true for both systems, then Sony and MS need to strap the fuck up for sales being low of day one software as many gamers will be a hell of a lock pickier about their purchases and if AA games are having a hard time now, I laugh at their chances next-gen.
maverick40
Junior Member
That argument is not true though. Besides the steam sales every now and then, steam is a rip off. That doesn't look cheap to me? I can get it cheaper on ps3.
I'm being flippant because people are genuinely putting forth the argument that games cost lots of money so its ok to throttle the second hand market as if other mass media products dont have similar costs and second hand markets. Is development cost an issue? Yes. Is fucking the consumer because of it an option? No. Other markets have adapted without eliminating second hand sales or curtailing the consumers basic rights, videogames could do so as well. To say they cant because "they cost a lot of money", is frankly ridiculous.
We lose either way.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Is there any other industry where consumers are seen and treated like the enemy?
Projectjustice
Banned
The more I hear about ms and sonys new consoles the happier I am with wii u. Lol
MR BLACKMAGIK
Member
I really cant see MS going anti-used without Sony/Nintendo doing it also. If MS was the only console to do it, everyone would just switch. It would be a hard decision for be, but I will definitely be switching to PS4 if this is the case.
Probably not, no.
what are you talking about?!
you are also talking about the software company where their software is running on 92% of traditional computers! after your mini rant i expected to see a drop in Microsoft share prices in the graph you linked to, but i see its been going up and down all decade and certaintly doesn't look like its on the decline.
Felix Lighter
Member
Yikes. If this report is accurate, I have a feeling Microsoft has made some miscalculations similar to Sony's miscalculations at the beginning of last gen but there would be no turning back or redeeming these choices.
I often take my xbox to gatherings to play fighting games with friends. I wouldn't be able to do that with "always online." I absolutely would not buy a new console with this "feature."