For all the wasteful red tape and redundancies that the federation over there deals with, their pro-consumer approach to shaping modern technology is light-years ahead of North America.
Printable View
For all the wasteful red tape and redundancies that the federation over there deals with, their pro-consumer approach to shaping modern technology is light-years ahead of North America.
It'll be a shame if the Wii U is the only next-gen console that won't actively block using a game on more than one console, considering it's so underpowered that most next-gen games will probably miss it.
If the majority of gamers all choose for the WiiU instead of the PS4/Xbox90000 then most next gen games will make it to WiiU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogogadget
Personally I hope this will happen, would be a nice way to show Sony/MS that they can't dick their userbase around any longer.
(it won't happen though, gamers have always been douchebags when it comes to graphics, gotta have da best lookin Call A duty Black Ups 4 eh!!)
Like I said earlier, one would be silly to assume this is something Ms and Sony have just decided they wanted on their consoles.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoVamp
This is a feature the people MAKING the games have been asking for. If people actually vote with their wallets and stop buying the systems, and by extension games, then you could expect the game devs to change their minds and then both MS and Sony would patch their systems to remove this "feature".
And that's assuming it's something that MUST be used. If such a thing is there in the next consoles, it is much more likely it will be an available feature that each company can decide to implement in whatever way they see fit on a game by game basis.
Major AAA title with a huge online component (COD/MOH)? If it isn't authorized and checked in then you can only play the single player campaign (all or in part), but everything online is disabled.
Primarily offline game like Dragon Age? Major quest/equipment perks disabled, maybe a more restrictive level cap or party members missing, etc.
Not that there won't be at least a handful of games that use the "not online, not verified, completely nonfunctional" model, if the capability is there, SOMEONE will no doubt use it.
But as someone else stated, developers are not entirely stupid. They will absolutely see how far they can push it, but they don't want to lose money on it, so they are going to push bit by bit to get people used to the model they want people to see in place.
It's not about hoarding games for 10+ years, it's about the fact I paid for it, I should still get to play it as long as the hardware and game are in working condition. If I buy a car I would expect it to still work in 10 years, why is it so crazy to expect the same for my video games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
As for your market idea of $5-$10 all the games you want kind of service, I highly doubt that will ever happen. Developers want this system because they want to make more money. They are already losing money selling their games for $60, not because of the retail costs, but because of the development costs. Going digital only and selling the games cheap wont help in that matter. Don't believe me? Look at the game Journey on PSN. That game broke sales records on the Playstation Network for digital sales. And the company still bankrupted itself because the development costs were too high.
No that is false micro$oft is terrible greedy company. If it is because a publisher wanted this changed then they must have bribed/payed micro$oft alot. Support GNU/Linux and boycott micro$oft.Quote:
Originally Posted by zyrobs
On the bright side if this gen does end up the way that people seem to be prophesying; I will have ALOT more funding for my collection.
True dat, I was disgusted by Capcom's DLC policy in SF X Tekken, they had this build in DLC shop thingy with like a billion little DLC's (mostly different palette's)Quote:
Originally Posted by EclecticGroove
I'm not even talking about the on disc expansion, just their enormous collection of different palette's that you could buy.
Unnecessary and should have been free to begin with, but the allmighty dollah eh!
I'm not a big of the way they do business in this era of gaming, its no wonder they're trying to gain even more power with the next gen.
Edit : then again I might become a pirate again if they do this, custom firmwares seems to come out pretty quickly these days. http://www.sega-16.com/forum/images/...e%20Smiley.gif
The hardware is becoming an interface for your cloud content. Virtualization is easier than ever, and all I'm saying is that boycotting this shift by disregarding modern platforms won't work, and change needs to happen in the form of digital property rights. The onus shouldn't be on publishers who need to make money on their games now more than ever to compete with the parasitic nature of used game sales. It's fighting the wrong fight to want to keep the same paradigm that is unsustainable. Consumers need to compromise, and to do that they should be setting up their demands through solid positions that guarantee their rights. Publishers should be bound by these terms & given a free hand to jack up the prices, or do whatever they want to do to try and avoid bankruptcy, failure, backlash, irrelevance to their customers. They're not stupid, they will try to make buying their games affordable and profitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
Also, Journey's developers were stupid. Piss-poor management of time and resources to eventually create a great game. We all got lucky that it wasn't a piece of shit, we all should go out and buy it and appreciate it, sure; but we shouldn't consider them good developers in any rational business sense. They should have been saved by Sony eating the losses, and attempting to build a better brand out of their content generation, but that's mostly a strategic failure on Sony's part too... if you believe Sony should care more about quality and developer support.
Journey's developers weren't the only ones to be stupid, more and more developers are getting this way. That is the core problem. Used game sales have been around since the start of the industry, if they were truly a problem then developers would have gone after them a long time ago. The reason they didn't is because they used to be in better control of their budgets. It used to be 500k sales for your game was ok and you made a profit off that. Now if your game doesn't sell over 2 million copies you're in deep trouble.
Stopping used game sales wont get development budgets back down to a realistic level. The problem is more and more games having budgets the size of Hollywood movies and a market that is not big enough to support them in sales. Used Game sales, digital distribution, etc. they are not the cause of the issue or a solution. They are simply scapegoats to hide the real problem.
Used game sales have long been around because the industry had no infrastructure that wasn't a middle man re-seller delivering that content to you, with no way to police or lock the game to your machine. They have been trying for years though. DRM that requires physical booklets or gimmicks sold with the product, CD keys to access online features, DRM copy protection in cartridges & on CDs. Even region locks. Obviously the internet has grown to make it happen. The game lending culture that grew around it isn't profitable or relevant beyond some marketing good will. They can please those customers easily by implementing a share or gifting program while putting a stop to competition with their own works.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
The real problem of ballooning costs isn't ours to be concerned about though, unless you're only focused on preserving the AAA big budget titles & view their absence as a dead industry. You're right to think it's bad for the industry for them to pump out big expensive losses in the hopes of getting the next billion dollar Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto game, but it's as if you're disregarding the entire indie game scene right now, which is where there are more kick-ass games today, on many platforms, than there were on the old consoles. It's easier than ever to get assets and tools to make games these days, and not necessarily more expensive.
I understand there's the Indie scene, but honestly few games in that scene interest me. While many indie games are good, they still aren't enough to satisfy everyones gaming thirst and many of them leave a lot to be desired. If you like JRPGs, the indie scene isn't going to satisfy you. RTS games are also severely lacking. Same with good 3D Racers and Fighting games. For low budget retro styled games like Arcade games, 2D Platformers, point and click adventures, and some experimental and artsy style games the scene is great though.
The ballooning cost of game development is our concern when it's causing developers to punish consumers. Stopping used game sales wont get their budgets under control and it wont help their sales enough to break even. If your game is not Call of Duty, Halo, Sonic, a Nintendo Franchise, or a major RPG like Skyrim or Final Fantasy, don't expect your game to sell over a million copies. And in that case don't write budget checks your games sales can't cash.
And sure they could implement a share feature, but they wont. It's pretty obvious they want to milk as much money out of every game as possible with this. And it still doesn't address the issue of "I paid for this game, I should be able to play it for as long as I own it." This is the case for every single entertainment industry from music to movies to books. Why should video games be any different?
People often trade their used games at Gamestop towards new releases. Every used copy on the shelf was new once. Take away trade-in value and you'll have far less people buying new games day one for full price. Used games aren't harming the industry. And if even they did reduce some profit for publishers, so what? That's their problem. Buying and selling second hand stuff is a long standing consumer right, and it's common sense to want to save money. You don't have to be a self-entitled lunatic to want that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster
Yeah, although it is fair enough really, the Wii was (almost) novel enough to consider buying, but it's not just graphics, the 360 and PS3 out-class the Wii heavily and most games miss it because well.. it's just way out of their league really.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoVamp
My gaming PC already out-classes the Wii U, so it would be a really pointless purchase unless it gets some seriously great exclusives (Wind Waker is not it).
All in all, pretty pessimistic about this upcoming generation.
I have a feeling this generation will mainly suck, unless another company jumps in and makes a console to compete with Nintendo because Sony and Microsoft are alienating a lot of the fanbase by dropping used games. If that doesn't happen, WiiU will most likely get many of the best exclusives of this gen, despite the fact it is most likely less powerful than Sony and Microsofts consoles.
You can only have so many indie shmups before it gets old...Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118