Info on the new X-Box and it's not looking good.

[QuickSciFi]

So far I'd rather buy a WiiU than any other next gen console. Anyone who blocks used games is not getting any money from me. Who cares if WiiU is underpowered, at least you can sell games.

This

[Splatterhouse5]

Yeah, blocking used games would be a deal breaker for me. Most games I purchase are second hand, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to buy a system that wouldn't play them. Gougers will certainly have a field day with out of print games if that's true.

I'm going WiiU this gen if the other systems can't play used games, and I'm sure a ton of other gamers will too. This might inadvertantly get Nintendo a ton of quality 3rd party support if that's the case. I simply can't imagine this coming across very well to people that are used to trading, or selling, games in order to get new ones. I mean, this doesn't endear itself to the consumer at all, which is why I don't really think it's going to happen, but if it does, it'll certainly be interesting to hear the gamer's voice on the issue when it does.

[Knuckle Duster]

I can imagine it being inevitable, as physical media becomes less convenient for the average consumer than simple downloading.

I don't encourage it, but I won't complain about the proposed change. It's too obvious why they would block used game sales, the majority of gamers are parasites to their bottom line, saving and losing money in the Gamestop ecosystem, while developers and publishers get one sale out of it and need to compete with their old copies diminishing profits. The hardcore gaming scene is full of passionate, self-entitled lunatics; largely due to youth. Constantly demanding perfection, constantly complaining and whining about trivial issues within games. A ruthless culture that thrives on ridicule, demanding multi-million dollar AAA titles, and never willing to pay the extra 5-10 bucks above used price to feed the industry.

That's the state of things, and we can also see arguments from the old school gamers saying: "Well, fuck you! Stop spending so much on graphics! Make games for less money! Why should we have to deal with not being able to sell our games! Why shouldn't we be allowed to buy out of print old games?!" All of that angle misses the point.

It's never been about ownership, in console territory. The culture of lending & sharing games that grew out of it has become more of a burden to the industry than simple digital distribution and direct sales.

The issue about your rights of ownership, the fear mongering about services going under one day, all the outrageous boycotting talk hinged on the wants for a physical artifact such as a game disc or cart to preserve your purchase. All of that shit is poorly thought out. The fickle consumer wants convenience above all... what is more convenient than not needing to visit a big box store, having all your games on a single account to download whenever you want them? Is it really too much to lose, by not having the means to resell games?

The arguments between used game sales, and digital VS physical aren't the same, and I'm not going to digress too far on that. I will say that I welcome the bind-to-account shift on consoles. Why? Because publishers will need to drop prices to make games worth buying.

Not everybody is a collector. I used to be, but I see gaming as a money pit for short-term enjoyment, not a long term investment. If I felt otherwise about it, I would petition law reforms for data retention & public domain access. I have no doubt that in 10-20 years time, our PS3's and Xbox 360s will be beyond obsolete, and very few people will care enough to play games from them. Those who want to though, will have the means to do so for free through virtualization of some sort, whether it's legal or not is where the fight should be focused, not by jerking off in protest at how horrible modern gaming has become or how it should be boycotted.

I see this whole no-used thing becoming a non-issue after a short time, and if they drop game prices it will be even sooner. Fighting over the inconveniences of entertainment is a huge fucking waste of time, especially when we all collectively piss on feeding the system in the first place to remove our say in the matter. Yes. It will suck that you will no longer be able to flip games, and need to pay full price to the actual publisher to acquire them now. Existing at the mercy of publishers will be scary for a change, I mean, What if they turn EVIL?!

If any of this shit really mattered, people would boycott consoles already for locking them into a non-modular piece of closed hardware with planned obsolescence at it's core. Instead, we leech off the convenience of subsidized hardware, used games, and complain to no end about what we want.


Go ahead and say I'm trolling because of my previous comment, somehow implying that it goes against the very ideals behind this retro gaming forum. I will just laugh and disregard that as misunderstanding the differences between a fan of retro games, and a collector games in general. I will say I think it is a shame that our favorite entertainment industry is not set up to retain, preserve, and provide it's content openly after a limited time. I believe it should be, legally, if they choose to use closed platforms in the first place. That's where the self-entitlement should exist. Gaming isn't worthy of being considered an art form if it's not being legally preserved and accessible for all people, rather than a select few relic hoarders.


Food for thought.

[Soulis]

what is more convenient than not needing to visit a big box store, having all your games on a single account to download whenever you want them? Is it really too much to lose, by not having the means to resell games?

You assume that you only lose your right to sell your games. You also say "whenever you want to DOWNLOAD them" instead of "PLAY" them. And that's not a coincidence i think. You are absolutely right on this.

Lets see, whats more convenient: I'd like to be able to play my games whenever and wherever i want. Because if these rumors are correct i'm also going to be dependent on two extra things in order to do so, along with electricity: Having a working internet connection and having to rely on servers that i have absolutely no control of. I don't have internet where i spend my vacations so i guess video-gaming during that time (you know, when you have more free time) is out of the way. And i can only play a game as long as the servers exist/support the game.

Another convenience i will lose is that i can now go to a store and rent a few games that i wouldn't buy anyway. Because a) i don't have enough money, b) im saving for a game that i really like or, c) i'm just curious about a game and i want to try it out. Also, how about trading with friends? See, its a convenience that i can play a game my friends lend me or the opposite. But you won't be able to do so anymore.

So that's some other 3 perks/conveniences you are going to lose.

So, yeah. Its more convenient to stay on the sofa and don't go out and buy stuff because i guess we hate being outside, walking using our feet, seeing other earthlings in the stores, i don't know. I could agree to that but only if it weren't for the draconian DRM schemes that restrict the hell out of your gaming experience. DRM isn't a convenience for you and me. Its only a convenience for the publisher. And if the ONLY thing i earn is that i won't have to use my feet to buy a game then its not worth the sacrifices.

[NeoVamp]

I heard that the new Xbox is being designed to not red ring anymore, instead they are designing it so that this time it will actually burn your entire house down.

On the Sony side however.. I heard that their first model PS4 will play games, a feature that will be removed with further (cheaper) revisions of the hardware.

[EclecticGroove]

This might inadvertantly get Nintendo a ton of quality 3rd party support if that's the case.

The problem with this is that the 3rd parties are the ones who WANT this change. They would have been pushing for this capability for years. So if MS and or SOny get it, most 3rd parties would say fuck Nintendo, we're 100% Ms and/or Sony, they are doing what we want.

Small dev studios who don't care one way or another, or who are run by those who agree with the hardcore gamer sentiment would obviously be the exception... but the COD/MOH, the Mass Effects, Borderlands, etc... all the big multi million seller games? Those are all by big publishers who WANT this change.

So the only way this would go bad is if the sales for the console were abysmal, because people actually protested with their wallets... which isn't going to happen. Look at the huge stink about Diablo 3 being online only and always needing a connection. People were incised and said they would never buy it... it's sold millions.

For all the ideological arguments, when it comes down to making the call with your wallet, the gaming majority has decided it usually doesn't give a shit so long as it works well enough to let them play their game.

[Occutell]

Because publishers will need to drop prices to make games worth buying.

This part is particularly sticking out. You know as well as I do, that if a game sells, that a publisher will have NO incentive for price drops. Skyrim, MW3, and BO2 were released over a year ago, and all 3 are still to this day fetching for $60 on Steam. But this is usually not a problem for me at all. When GreenmanGaming was selling skyrim(now they only do expansions) I could've bought the game at it's peak for almost half the price Bethesda was asking for on Steam ($32 vs $60). But that's the luxury of an open platform and competition.

If anything the most positive benefactor of pushing digital is that it forces publishers to be more competitive with their actual games because consumers would not buy as many games. And even that's finicky.

For all the ideological arguments, when it comes down to making the call with your wallet, the gaming majority has decided it usually doesn't give a shit so long as it works well enough to let them play their game.

This is also an unfortunate reality. I never know what's worse. That they went ahead and bought the game regardless because of expectation, or because they are trying to convince themselves that it was worth it.

[ThugsRook]

and each generation gets dumber and dumber...

[Chilly Willy]

I heard the new Xbox has being designed to not red ring this time, instead they are designing it so that this time it actually burns your house down.

On the Sony side however.. I heard that their first model PS4 will play games, a feature that will be removed with further (cheaper) revisions of the hardware.

Tried to rep you for this, but it won't let me. You pegged it, though.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

The issue about your rights of ownership, the fear mongering about services going under one day, all the outrageous boycotting talk hinged on the wants for a physical artifact such as a game disc or cart to preserve your purchase. All of that shit is poorly thought out. The fickle consumer wants convenience above all... what is more convenient than not needing to visit a big box store, having all your games on a single account to download whenever you want them? Is it really too much to lose, by not having the means to resell games?

Those services will eventually shut down, and in some cases they already have. See the original Xbox live and SegaNet for prime examples. Now because those systems didn't require the connection it's not a big deal, as we can still play most our games. But with these new consoles that require the connection to play, what will happen in 10 or so years when the next generation of consoles come out and this service shuts down? Congratulations the games you've been buying over the past 10 years are now all coasters and your console is now a brick! Doesn't that sound great?

Sure some games might be put up on the new systems to download again, but not all of them. If you need proof look at the Wii's virtual console listing or XBLA's listing and count the number of Genesis games then compare it to the complete library. There's 75 games on Wii's Virtual console out of roughly 700. That's over 600 games still only available on the Genesis. And then there's the fact you'd have to pay to redownload a game you already purchased before. This isn't like the PC where the game will still run because it's still the same basic environment of Windows, these games are built for the specific hardware of these systems, they won't run as easily on the next system to come out. Look at Xbox 360's Backwards Compatibility or the non backwards Compatibile PS3's for proof of that.

And going digital won't lower the price as dramatically as you think, all it will do is give more excuses for larger game budgets. Right now developers make roughlhy $30 profit on the games they sell new for $60, both retail and digital. The average game budget this generation is about $30 Million to $60 million. That means developers need to sell 1-2 million copies of their games to just break even. If your game is Call of Duty that's not a problem, but what if your game is something less popular, such as a JRPG or a game like NiGHTS? You probably will be lucky if you break 500k copies sold, let alone 1-2 million, which means you will lose money. That's the true problem of the industry right now, and stopping the sale of used games wont solve that issue, if anything it will just make it worse as people will be even more careful with their money.

[Knuckle Duster]

You assume that you only lose your right to sell your games. You also say "whenever you want to DOWNLOAD them" instead of "PLAY" them. And that's not a coincidence i think. You are absolutely right on this.

Lets see, whats more convenient: I'd like to be able to play my games whenever and wherever i want. Because if these rumors are correct i'm also going to be dependent on two extra things in order to do so, along with electricity: Having a working internet connection and having to rely on servers that i have absolutely no control of. I don't have internet where i spend my vacations so i guess video-gaming during that time (you know, when you have more free time) is out of the way. And i can only play a game as long as the servers exist/support the game.

Not being able to play the games is assuming that it won't just dial in to authenticate once, and continue to let you use it on that machine offline. Everybody is assuming the worst with the rumors, making it a constant online connection requirement. The game servers going down for good is the only real concern, and again it comes down to complaining to the wrong people about what you want. Everybody should be pushing for digital property rights, and the easiest way to do that is to give the government teeth.

It would be more productive to regulate the industry, require they keep their servers active or fast track that game toward public ownership.

Another convenience i will lose is that i can now go to a store and rent a few games that i wouldn't buy anyway. Because a) i don't have enough money, b) im saving for a game that i really like or, c) i'm just curious about a game and i want to try it out. Also, how about trading with friends? See, its a convenience that i can play a game my friends lend me or the opposite. But you won't be able to do so anymore.

So that's some other 3 perks/conveniences you are going to lose.

We don't know what the industry will look like yet. For all we know, physical copies of the games that you pick up will extend beyond being install files that save on bandwidth consumption, and include game demos or time limited features of a full game. That internet authentication might include the option of renting those games directly for a few bucks to offset the whole market that buys new and flips the games while it's still popular. We just don't know yet, and there's a number of things they could do to appease the customer in that situation. The publishers are not totally stupid. They don't want to piss off their fans.

So, yeah. Its more convenient to stay on the sofa and don't go out and buy stuff because i guess we hate being outside, walking using our feet, seeing other earthlings in the stores, i don't know. I could agree to that but only if it weren't for the draconian DRM schemes that restrict the hell out of your gaming experience. DRM isn't a convenience for you and me. Its only a convenience for the publisher. And if the ONLY thing i earn is that i won't have to use my feet to buy a game then its not worth the sacrifices.

Staying on the sofa isn't the point. The point is it is making games become like everything else in your digital life, Music, Movies, TV shows, all digitally stored where ever you want, in your cloud, on your network, all able to be backed up to other devices and hard drives, so you never need to think about physical storage, just the interface you want to use to access that content.

The DRM was there all along in the console space, as far as access goes. The platforms themselves are becoming a cloud, arguably with a longer commercial lifespan, and people are suddenly up in arms about it being totally worthless.

This part is particularly sticking out. You know as well as I do, that if a game sells, that a publisher will have NO incentive for price drops. Skyrim, MW3, and BO2 were released over a year ago, and all 3 are still to this day fetching for $60 on Steam. But this is usually not a problem for me at all. When GreenmanGaming was selling skyrim(now they only do expansions) I could've bought the game at it's peak for almost half the price Bethesda was asking for on Steam ($32 vs $60). But that's the luxury of an open platform and competition.

If anything the most positive benefactor of pushing digital is that it forces publishers to be more competitive with their actual games because consumers would not buy as many games. And even that's finicky.

If the only thing keeping prices high is platform DRM restrictions that lock out competitors, why wouldn't consumers just buy the more open platform? A PC Steambox would make more sense to buy since it will address these concerns by letting you install GFWL, Origin, Desura, and other store services. If the Xbox and PS4 aren't going to loosen up their control by letting you back up, and run your games in an offline mode, or replace all the conveniences of the used & rental market with something they profit from directly, then they are just making gaming more worthless and inaccessible to consumers.


I think this is a necessary and natural evolution for the market sustaining itself and growing, and the accessibility rights need to be not just curated by the developers and publishers. Digital property rights, regulations, faster public ownership & access as a compromise to DRM. Those are what I think needs to happen, and most gamers would rather bitch about times changing, spew bullshit about boycotting sales, grit their teeth and still buy the game anyway. It's always the same.

Those services will eventually shut down, and in some cases they already have. See the original Xbox live and SegaNet for prime examples. Now because those systems didn't require the connection it's not a big deal, as we can still play most our games. But with these new consoles that require the connection to play, what will happen in 10 or so years when the next generation of consoles come out and this service shuts down? Congratulations the games you've been buying over the past 10 years are now all coasters and your console is now a brick! Doesn't that sound great?

Sure some games might be put up on the new systems to download again, but not all of them. If you need proof look at the Wii's virtual console listing or XBLA's listing and count the number of Genesis games then compare it to the complete library. There's 75 games on Wii's Virtual console out of roughly 700. That's over 600 games still only available on the Genesis. And then there's the fact you'd have to pay to redownload a game you already purchased before. This isn't like the PC where the game will still run because it's still the same basic environment of Windows, these games are built for the specific hardware of these systems, they won't run as easily on the next system to come out. Look at Xbox 360's Backwards Compatibility or the non backwards Compatibile PS3's for proof of that.

And going digital won't lower the price as dramatically as you think, all it will do is give more excuses for larger game budgets. Right now developers make roughlhy $30 profit on the games they sell new for $60, both retail and digital. The average game budget this generation is about $30 Million to $60 million. That means developers need to sell 1-2 million copies of their games to just break even. If your game is Call of Duty that's not a problem, but what if your game is something less popular, such as a JRPG or a game like NiGHTS? You probably will be lucky if you break 500k copies sold, let alone 1-2 million, which means you will lose money. That's the true problem of the industry right now, and stopping the sale of used games wont solve that issue, if anything it will just make it worse as people will be even more careful with their money.

Yes. Services will go down, that's why they need to be expropriated for the public through government regulation. Nobody is arguing that the architecture shifts won't kill backwards compatibility, or denying the potential issues that pop up with the new market. I'm arguing that complaining about these concerns by shitting from the mouth, and buying the games anyway accomplishes nothing, and seems to be the majority's favorite gaming related activity. Gamers need to step up and say that gaming isn't worthless, and is worth preserving access to. Gamers need to compromise the loss of their fair use property rights by seizing access to it sooner, or by making the act of digital piracy legally inert. Government oversight exists for a reason, folks.

[MrSega]

Internet and professionally accredited sites: "Next PlayStation to offer PS3 BC in the form of Cloud streaming"
Mr. Sega: "Next PlayStation to be mostly cloud only."

See the discrepancies?

It would seem that you didn't read the WSJ article. It states the system being mostly cloud based and Streaming PS3 games "as one of its features".

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Who said I'll buy the games anyways? I clearly said if this turns out true I'll be going Wii U and PC only next generation. And considering a lot of people seem to be in the same boat, if the next Xbox and Playstation are utter failures because of this, that should send a clear signal that gamers don't want that kind of system.

No one here is shitting from their mouths, they are voicing clear concerns about this issue. The point here is that we shouldn't need government regulation for these systems and their online services, as the online component shouldn't be a requirement to play those games.

[Knuckle Duster]

Who said I'll buy the games anyways? I clearly said if this turns out true I'll be going Wii U and PC only next generation. And considering a lot of people seem to be in the same boat, if the next Xbox and Playstation are utter failures because of this, that should send a clear signal that gamers don't want that kind of system.

No one here is shitting from their mouths, they are voicing clear concerns about this issue. The point here is that we shouldn't need government regulation for these systems and their online services, as the online component shouldn't be a requirement to play those games.

Shouldn't need government regulation, when it's the issue of digital property rights and the gray area of products VS services? I disagree, I think it needs to be addressed sooner before we go further down the path of pure internet integration. Not necessarily heavy regulation, but laws set to diffuse the fallout of a service going down.

Beyond that, my point about gamers is that the legitimate concerns such as this issue, are always blown out of proportion and never see any meaningful progress. All I hear is doom and gloom bullshit and people who say "Yeah, well the current gen sucks anyway. There's nothing appealing about them. I just won't buy them." Which is only true for the mainstream big budget titles that get marketing attention, and a moot point when you habitually pay into the profit suppressing used game ecosystem in the first place.


If Microsoft or Sony lets gamers pay $5 or $10 for a week-long pass to play a curated list of the latest and greatest games perhaps a few weeks after release. The uproar will be minimal & the market can focus on similar scheme to Theatre & Home releases for movies. Lending game culture can die, multiplayer games can be sold and marketed with free rentals you throw at your friends list. Game gifting or rewards can be implemented to encourage customers to buy and share stuff. It's not too far fetched to see them doing that, and keeping almost everybody happy. Prices may or may not come down, but they can certainly be adding more value to the product by offering that kind of convenient experience.

Hoarding games for 10+ years is the biggest concern I see being thrown around, and I honestly don't see the point in fighting for that option, instead of fighting to let the whole public have access to it, beit for the sake of preserving art in a medium, or just for educational or fair use purposes. If a company goes under, the IP can keep it's value, but the already created content should be fast-tracked to a free fair use ecosystem. It would not only preserve gaming, add legitimacy to the "Art form" claims. It would also justify waiting for those who aren't willing to pay the premium up front, extend IP brands lifespan (Not saying they should lose the IP rights after 10 years, just the ability to own and control the existing game distribution & back end), and give developers more reason to innovate.

[Kamahl]

Hoarding games for 10+ years is the biggest concern I see being thrown around, and I honestly don't see the point in fighting for that option, instead of fighting to let the whole public have access to it, beit for the sake of preserving art in a medium, or just for educational or fair use purposes. If a company goes under, the IP can keep it's value, but the already created content should be fast-tracked to a free fair use ecosystem. It would not only preserve gaming, add legitimacy to the "Art form" claims. It would also justify waiting for those who aren't willing to pay the premium up front, extend IP brands lifespan (Not saying they should lose the IP rights after 10 years, just the ability to own and control the existing game distribution & back end), and give developers more reason to innovate.

There's actually an European Union project regarding just that: http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/89496_en.html