They never said that. They said it's up to the publishers/devs.
If a publisher wants their game to be always on, or have a DRM authentication, they can put it on.
They only thing I have heard confirmed regarding that is publishers can require a game to be registered online before you can play it, but I have not heard any requirements about always on or 24 check ins for certain games.
Tretton: "Any game that is made for PS4 that is physical goods, whether first-party or third-party, can go into a PS4 and play regardless of where it came from. The first player will play it, no problem, the second player will play it, no problem. What I was referring to was the online proposition."
The online proposition they were refering to is that some companys could still set up their version of online passes for multiplayer content (like the ps3 / 360 currently does).
I think the way Microsoft is doing it might be a bit too much, but comparing games to used cars just sounds stupid.
Games don't age inside the game, buttons don't just start to act weird, games doesn't get more buggy based on it's age, the customer of the used copy gets a 100% first hand experience.
and also the sale we get is the only income "for most times" we get of a game.
Also games is an experience, most finish it once then its done and finished, It's not something you need to get to work, someone buys a game then that one copy maybe gets bought and paid by 10 people, does that mean we should sell the game 10x the current price instead?
I'm more for a personal game type of system, with cheaper prices then today, more like steam.
But I'm all for finding ways around it, like selling a game cheap then charching monthly for multiplayer, seems weird that someone that didn't pay one cent to the makers are using servers that has to get paid for.
I get the feeling you just skimmed my comment because you used the exact same reasoning that I just addressed and explained why that's not valid reasoning. Of course a game doesn't wear out and lose quality, but that doesn't make a difference. There are physical goods out there which are unaffected by age and wear, but lose value over time just the same and so do games. You certainly can't sell the games that came out 7 years ago for the same return that you get when you resell a recent release. Madden '13 will get you more credit than Madden '06 would, for example.
As I've said previously, a person keeps their car because it has value to them beyond the initial use. Cars are not throw away goods. They have a reason to keep that car rather than use it and sell it before the resale value drops. The same needs to be done with games. If games had value to the consumer beyond the initial play-through, they'd be compelled to keep the game for years (or at least months) rather than beat it in a week and trade it in for credit on other games. The game industry created the problem themselves by making games a disposable experience. They've watered down most game experience so much that it's typically not worth more than a single play through.
I'm inclined to wonder how many used copies of Little Big Planet there are in proportion to other games since LBP has the benefit of user generated content. I think UGC is a good way to create value that would compel consumers to keep their games for the long term. What they're doing now is punishing the consumer for something that is the industry's own fault and that's bad for everyone. You should never do stuff to piss off the customer base. They're pissing on the day-old cake to get you to buy it new. Once the customer gets that bad taste in their mouth, it's hard to get rid of it.
I'm not denying that, but MS were the people that stuck their foot in their collective mouth and made us aware of it. So, yeah, PS4 sucks just as much and that's why I'll be sticking with my current consoles and my PC.
Both systems will have their titles available for purchase digitally the same day as discs hit the streets so it's a foregone conclusion. Gamestop is going bye-bye and the small town mom & pop stores they put out of business will start to come back, so we all win in the end. Hopefully as a bonus it means retailers can't strong-arm publishers into pricing digital the same as physical sales.
How would the mom&pops come back? If they aren't 'approved retailers', they won't be able to rent games out either. And they won't be able to sell used games. They will suffer the same blows as Gamestop, if not worse, because they can't pay into the system, to get 'approved', so the ones who have managed to survive, will be shut down before Gamestop.
Why should it be limited to a select few?
I don't know if it's like videos, but video stores pay 5 times as much for each video. That's why they use to charge so much to replace them, if you didn't return them
The rules of digital mediums have completely changed and shifted copyright laws, ownership of material, and licencing.
And the very content creators are dictating what the rules of their content are. That's always been the case.
I don't understand the point you were trying to make here
you didn't ditch your PC when ubisoft started going crazy with DRM years ago, tho
it's a valid idea not to order any of consoles early to wait and see what exactly publishers are planning to do with drm on ps4
they might be thickheaded, but they might be listening too. some of those, at least.
I didn't ditch my PC because Ubisoft didn't make my PC, I did. MS builds the XB1. Sony builds the PS4, and Nintendo builds the Wii. I build my own PC. When software uses DRM and offends me, I avoid their software, not my hardware. Try to remember that Ubisoft is merely software.
Last Ubisoft PC game I bought was Blazing Angels in 2006. The DRM bricked my DVD drive, would 'validate my install' every time I booted my machine (which took ages) and worst of all operated like some sort of rootkit, so when I uninstalled the game it was still there, and worse, after using the provided 'DRMN Removal Tool' that supposedly fixed this issue, would instead get a stream of error messages on every boot.
I had to wipe my HDD and reinstall windows to get rid of the fucking thing.
Do you realise the PS4 likely has all of the same restrictions?
The only thing Sony said was 'We will let the publishers manage how they do it'.
As a result, M$ lost the PR battle, and very likely the entire console war.
Whatever Drm the publishers implement will be useless because the console is not required to be online at all for any check ins.
The publishers would have to require all their games to be online even single player, it would have to clearly state this on the disc. They would have to pay for the whole infrastructure.
If they did do this there would be a huge backslash from gamers, so they likely wouldnt sell much of the game anyway.
With the method they have now it allows them to be both the good guy and the bad, without much negative publicity as Microsoft takes all the heat, and everyones thinks their good for releasing stuff drm free on PS4.
The main reason though is money, their not going to pay for drm themselves, otherwise why'd they get Microsoft to do it in the first place.
The way they have it now they can see exactly how drm used games and all that effects their bottom line by comparing sales between the consoles.
For those that have pre-ordered, Day One console comes with a free year of XBL. The rest of the Day One stuff is meh, but for no extra charge you might as well. Just a heads up.
I don't understand the point you were trying to make here
The distribution methods, and the value of ANY digital medium has always been in the hands of the distributor.
It can't be compared to a used car.
Try trading in a used disk of WoW (or any MMO)
Try returning a used disk of Half Life 2 that you've already tied to your steam account.
Those distributors decided to bundle their media as a service. The only thing you can chose to do, is either Not play those games, or subscribe to their service.
Let's extend this beyond games:
Try trading in a used iStore/Amazon cards. You purchased a coupon that has zero value when you bought it. Much like a Disc, that coupon with a scratch-able serial card holds absolutely ZERO monetary value.
CD's in and of themselves are essentially worth NOTHING. When you purchase a game, the actual tangible plastic is not what you are paying for.
How would the mom&pops come back? If they aren't 'approved retailers', they won't be able to rent games out either. And they won't be able to sell used games. They will suffer the same blows as Gamestop, if not worse, because they can't pay into the system, to get 'approved', so the ones who have managed to survive, will be shut down before Gamestop.
Fuck all middle men. If they did not exist, our games would cost $30 at launch.
Whatever Drm the publishers implement will be useless because the console is not required to be online at all for any check ins.
The publishers would have to require all their games to be online even single player, it would have to clearly state this on the disc. They would have to pay for the whole infrastructure.
If they did do this there would be a huge backslash from gamers, so they likely wouldnt sell much of the game anyway.
With the method they have now it allows them to be both the good guy and the bad, without much negative publicity as Microsoft takes all the heat, and everyones thinks their good for releasing stuff drm free on PS4.
The main reason though is money, their not going to pay for drm themselves, otherwise why'd they get Microsoft to do it in the first place.
The way they have it now they can see exactly how drm used games and all that effects their bottom line by comparing sales between the consoles.
The console is not required, but the game might be. Sim City anyone? Sure, your PC isn't required to have the internet. But if you want to play Sim City........
Sony is looking like they are setting it up to say, "Don't blame us, blame EA, etc."
The distribution methods, and the value of ANY digital medium has always been in the hands of the distributor.
It can't be compared to a used car.
Try trading in a used disk of WoW (or any MMO)
Try returning a used disk of Half Life 2 that you've already tied to your steam account.
Those distributors decided to bundle their media as a service. The only thing you can chose to do, is either Not play those games, or subscribe to their service.
Let's extend this beyond games:
Try trading in a used iStore/Amazon cards. You purchased a coupon that has zero value when you bought it. Much like a Disc, that coupon with a scratch-able serial card holds absolutely ZERO monetary value.
CD's in and of themselves are essentially worth NOTHING. When you purchase a game, the actual tangible plastic is not what you are paying for.
My original post, was about used games, and rentals. Why should that be limited to the few people that MS/Studios choose? What you're discussing is a completely different subject (movement of digital subscriptions).
The issue is the limitation of renting/reselling the hard copies. This is only going to be allowed by those who are 'approved'.
And your additional examples aren't relevant. Of course I can't sell a used copy of WoW. Why would you, and why would someone buy it used? It's a subscription service. I honestly don't know why there is any upfront costs for WoW.
Returning used games? That hasn't existed for any media for a LONG time, because of attempts to stop people from copying, and returning.
What you're discussing is your belief in ownership. Claiming the disc has no value, and is essentially just a form of transportation for digital content. I disagree. I can still fire up my PS2, and push in a disc, and start playing a game. The publisher can not come in my home and take that digital content off my disc. I own it.
What you're saying is like saying, when you buy a book, your paying for the authors thoughts, and the book is just worthless paper and ink. I own the paper/ink, but I don't own the thoughts/story. And before you suggest that's different, an optical disk is plastic (instead of paper), with holes burnt into it (the ink).
Fuck all middle men. If they did not exist, our games would cost $30 at launch.
Would they? The pricing is based on studies, which determine what is the most people are willing to pay. That's what companies do, even outside of gaming. Why is it that a game for the consoles is still $60 a year later, but the PC version is already down to $40 (or much less)? The middle man had nothing to do with that. I have no confidence, that the day 1 prices would drop, or fluctuate, if the games were delivered via digital download only (on consoles).
What you're discussing is your belief in ownership. Claiming the disc has no value, and is essentially just a form of transportation for digital content. I disagree. I can still fire up my PS2, and push in a disc, and start playing a game. The publisher can not come in my home and take that digital content off my disc. I own it.
I'm pretty sure by teh law he could if he wanted to or had the technical ability to do so. You never own a software, you are granted a temporary license to use it. It may not seem fair but that's how it is.
The distribution methods, and the value of ANY digital medium has always been in the hands of the distributor.
It can't be compared to a used car.
Try trading in a used disk of WoW (or any MMO)
Try returning a used disk of Half Life 2 that you've already tied to your steam account.
Those distributors decided to bundle their media as a service. The only thing you can chose to do, is either Not play those games, or subscribe to their service.
Let's extend this beyond games:
Try trading in a used iStore/Amazon cards. You purchased a coupon that has zero value when you bought it. Much like a Disc, that coupon with a scratch-able serial card holds absolutely ZERO monetary value.
CD's in and of themselves are essentially worth NOTHING. When you purchase a game, the actual tangible plastic is not what you are paying for.
Fuck all middle men. If they did not exist, our games would cost $30 at launch.
If you can't see how it can be compared to a used car, then you fail to understand what makes the used game market possible in the first place. This is, however, an issue exclusive to console games. Console games are shackled to their distribution medium, the disc. So the game is as much a physical good as the disc. By inseparably tying to two together, the market value of the game is applied to the disc it's stored on. Of course some people mod their console to get around this, but it's not a mainstream practice.
So, if you have a game that possesses a market value printed on a physical disc, you have a disc that's worth the value of the game. Since the disc is as transferable as any other physical goods, the used market exists because A: The game is fixed to a physical good and B: because the game has value to the market. So you now have a physical good with real market value and because of that, you have a second hand market for that good. There's nothing more to it.
So it matters little that the game doesn't wear out or degrade, it's exclusive, rivalrous, and a demand for it exists. Exclusivity means I posses my own copy and rivalry means that my having it diminishes the possibility of others having a copy. That's all it takes and the value will depreciate as the demand for it drops.
PC games don't fit into this because you can't effectively transfer a copy to someone else, not in the sense you can a physical good. There is only one mode of distribution for PC games and that is to make copies. I have a copy and I give you a copy. Now we both have a copy. To fully dispossess myself of the copy, I'd have to delete or destroy it and any backups I may have.
PC games don't fit into this because you can't effectively transfer a copy to someone else, not in the sense you can a physical good. There is only one mode of distribution for PC games and that is to make copies. I have a copy and I give you a copy. Now we both have a copy. To fully dispossess myself of the copy, I'd have to delete or destroy it and any backups I may have.
You could transfer a copy through its disc until Steam arrived and the PC market switched to a Service-bound distribution system. You can still buy discs for PC games, but they are now tied to your account.
The same thing is happening to the console market.
Did it kill the PC market? Quite the opposite actually. There is no point in fighting that transition.
Fuck all middle men. If they did not exist, our games would cost $30 at launch.
If you think for a moment that if tomorrow all second hand game sales were gone; that new games would cost $30, you are mistaken, in my opinion. I cannot for a moment believe that publishers would suddenly say "Hey, we're such stand up guys that now we have full control over the market we'll lower the prices on everything."
Individual retailers (brick and mortar) may have sales on items, sure, but the fact that PSN and Xbox live are essentially closed off markets for digital distribution gives close to no reason to lower prices. Why would they? It's not as if you can buy the product digitally elsewhere. And if they wouldn't lower prices digitally at release, it is not as if you're going to see that change in stores either.
You could transfer a copy through its disc until Steam arrived and the PC market switched to a Service-bound distribution system. You can still buy discs for PC games, but they are now tied to your account.
The same thing is happening to the console market.
Did it kill the PC market? Quite the opposite actually. There is no point in fighting that transition.
And people can easily crack the DRM, negating that whole system altogether. Unlike the consoles, breaking the DRM is a mainstream activity and it makes restricting copies impossible.
Would they? The pricing is based on studies, which determine what is the most people are willing to pay. That's what companies do, even outside of gaming. Why is it that a game for the consoles is still $60 a year later, but the PC version is already down to $40 (or much less)? The middle man had nothing to do with that. I have no confidence, that the day 1 prices would drop, or fluctuate, if the games were delivered via digital download only (on consoles).
If you think for a moment that if tomorrow all second hand game sales were gone; that new games would cost $30, you are mistaken, in my opinion. I cannot for a moment believe that publishers would suddenly say "Hey, we're such stand up guys that now we have full control over the market we'll lower the prices on everything."
Ok. I concede that was a bad example.
Let me reframe this:
I hate walking out of my home, and waiting in line for a game release. I would much rather download it and play it. It is both more convenient for me, and is simply a better service.
Steam > Walking to a store and buying something.
Much like my personal preference to this, and what's becoming an exponentially growing population, we firmly believe that hard media is becoming completely obsolete. I live in a crowded apartment in a city, and I HATE clutter. I would rather have all my books be ebooks rather than take up shelf space. I would rather my music be in MP3 format than a shelf of discs I have find, and swap out when I want to listen to a different song (same goes for my movies and games).
So I honest to god do NOT care about providing a bunch of services that pander to fans of what I consider to be obsolete formats. I don't care about used games. I don't care about what happens to the market of used games if the entire market goes digital.
It's not HATE. It's complete apathy. I honest to god did not care about what happened to all of those music stores when I bought my first MP3 player. I haven't given it much of a thought since. And I won't care about the used game market when hard formats inevitably die.
People hated steam when the service first started, but eventually Valve was able to offer a great service and earned the respect of PC gamers. Mircosoft has a lot of work and proving themselves to do before people want to give up their discs and offline play.
It's not about cheap. It's about relative price:
$499 US = $499
499 = $661.22
£429 = $667.78
$599 AU = $564.38
Basically, they're both (PS4 is $399/399/£349) still implementing a fuck-Europe-fee.
And in terms of value: for 500 I can buy a brand spanking new PC. Or, for less than half that, a nice upgrade of the GPU. And if you consider that most people have a PC/laptop for Office and Email and Facebook anyway, an extra 500 goes a long way towards a gaming capable one.
Edit: okay, not 500 exactly.
:thumbup: Can't agree more, PS4 or XboxOne are great, but PC/laptop is Greater
It's a lot easier to spend $1-5 on an app, than $60 on a game. And apps that don't require a network connection work fine when you don't have a signal. Microsoft is going to have to battle the same paradigm shift, and I don't know if they will do it as well as Valve.
this whole MS wants to make the next steam.... This will only happen if they ACTUALLY put games on sale... How often do you see console games at a really cheap price, or cheaper than in the store when they are on the online store? Next to never? Thats what always pissed me off about the online stores through ps3 or 360. They were always the same price. If they really wanna get away with all this, they have to have digital download be cheaper.
It's not HATE. It's complete apathy. I honest to god did not care about what happened to all of those music stores when I bought my first MP3 player. I haven't given it much of a thought since. And I won't care about the used game market when hard formats inevitably die.
It sounds like the people read into your words to think that you did hate it, simply because you brought your opinion to the table. The Internet is like alcohol, it intensifies. So simply declaring that you don't care about used-games carried the implication that you were adversely against them. Especially in a discussion like this.
Unfortunate I know.
In my own opinion, I concern for all those music stores because of the people who work in them. I don't consider my own collection clutter, and even though the world is filling up, I don't think it would be great to invite people to our houses with featureless walls and empty shelves.
I'm pretty sure by teh law he could if he wanted to or had the technical ability to do so. You never own a software, you are granted a temporary license to use it. It may not seem fair but that's how it is.
That's not how it is in your own country. If you have the disk, you own it and have the legal right to resell it. Digital licenses are actually the same, the EU needs to start actually enforcing shit.
That is the hurdle that Microsoft is going to be dealing with.
To be fair, this isn't the first time Microsoft has dealt with an obstacle like this in the console space. When XBox Live first launched, Microsoft made a high-speed, broadband connection a requirement. Part of the motivation for that was similar to what they're attempting now. Using high-speed internet as a base standard allowed them to provide a superior on-line service.
With the XBox One, it is clear that Microsoft intends to off-load more and more of the gaming experience onto external servers, as opposed to running everything from the local client. And there is some validation for this approach. Microsoft and Google are the only two companies that can be said to own and operate true "cloud" systems. Tying the XBox One more thoroughly into an infrastructure that will be exclusive to them can give Microsoft an edge in certain gaming experiences. There will be some games on the XBox One that simply wouldn't be possible on the PS4 or Wii-U, thanks to the network of servers that Microsoft already has in place.
The problem is the entrenched retail system that is already in place, as well as the price tag of their hardware, and the lower market segments. A lot of the big money for home consoles doesn't come from early adopters, but from late-cycle sales. That's where its possible to really expand the install base, and start drawing in extremely large software sales. And the best way to get that larger install base is to appeal to the lower-end consumers. The constant log-in requirements on the XBox One, as well as leaning too heavily on the cloud for game integration, will turn away a lot of lower-end consumers who don't have high-speed internet access. The initial price tag will limit how quickly the XBox One expands near launch, but the other factors will prevent it from expanding its install base after the hardware has dropped in price.
It doesn't seem to be the right move for a major home console. A smaller, cheaper effort would have been better for paving the way to a digital-only system. The upcoming wave of Android-based consoles might actually eat up a decent chunk of the market that the XBox One is pushing away.
Ouch. It's hard to quantift, but that's got to be a geographical coverage of less than 25%.
If you remove uninhabited zones from the map it's probably a lot more than that.
Again, if MS makes the connection a requirement, they most certainly had their numbers checked a bazillion times by at least 3 different companies and they know it's worth it.
And US cities by night...
There are reasons they tested nukes where they did way back when. Where there are mountains, deserts and prairie land you aren't going to find a lot of people.
Take the West Coast for example, as you move from the west coast east, you see civilization just stops, that's because there is a giant mountain range, no one expects broadband in the freakin cascade mountain range.
It's just pointless to spend all of that money stringing all that cable and putting in all that infrastructure if only a handful of people are going to use it and the whole project can't pay for itself much less turn a profit.
So yea you can look at the map and say "pfft the whole thing should be blue before you can talk" but most of the people, unless they choose to live like mountain men aren't going to have too much of a problem getting a fast enough connection.
PLUS it sounds like they are going to allow offline gaming IF you have the disc in the drive so the whole thing stops being such a big issue.
With the XBox One, it is clear that Microsoft intends to off-load more and more of the gaming experience onto external servers, as opposed to running everything from the local client.
I really have huge doubts about that. The so-called *power of the cloud* has been yet another dumb popular marketing term overly used in the last few years, but the problem with it is that the target audience that can actually benefit from it is tech-savvy enough to know that any magical claim about it is BS.
Let's be practical. Today, the oh-so-mighty cloud can be used for three things : remote data storage, server based game systems like MMO's, and intensive remote calculation.
- We all have experience with data storage and syncing - Steam does that with game library items, save files and screenshots. Even the current 360 has the option to store the savefiles locally or remotely ; this is a very trivial use of remote storage. So obviously, since MS is claiming that they plan to rely on remote computing for "extra power", mere data syncing is not what they mean (right !)
- The MMO/Multiplayer use of remote servers is nothing new either ; online games have been doing that for decades, either for player and enemy movement or to reflect the influence of the players on the game world.
- Therefore, the oh-so-magical new cloud that the Xbox one is supposed to rely on and get "extra power" from can only be remote computing and number crunching. Autodesk did that with their photo-to-3D reconstruction service 123Catch : upload the images from your plain computer or notebook, click the process button, and wait for the powerful servers to crunch away the data and send you back the final 3D output.
Now I would love to hear a single example of how this could be applicable for games. Just one ! If we are talking about, for instance, rendering the background of an extremely complex cityscape on the MS servers as opposed to doing so on the local GPU ... then there is no way at all to get the video feed back onto the screen at less than 1/60th of a second (and that's not even counting the actual data processing time on the server, wich is by nature, kinda long because it is intensive by nature).
Therefore I am really, really annoyed whenever a MS exec claims that the magic power of the cloud will offload heavy tasks away from the console. It's just not possible for realtime use. At best it could reach Gaikai/Onlive speed, but there is no way this can be fully synchronized to the local 60fps gameplay of the "foreground", so to speak. They simply have a bunch of servers ready for deployment, they are solid enough for data storage, server authored movement, and maybe remote gaming like Onlive, and that's great. But trying to confuse the user base with false claims is not exactly smart.
At least Sony is being honest about Gaikai - they don't claim anything magical here, simply announcing streamed gaming through video, which is really great for demos and non-twitch games. And the gaming world had the chance to try it out recently with success.
Now on a side note, what's *really* interesting to me is that, if both MS and Sony have such solid infrastructures in place and are both ready to roll out decent Gaikai/Onlive quality game streaming ... that means that nothing prevents them from delivering PS4 and XBone content to PS3, 360, and even PC already. I am surprised that no one brought that up in E3 interviews, actually. If they can stream next-gen content to an Ipad with a minimum amount of noticeable video artefacts, then they sure can stream that stuff to my current game console right now. And they could also offer *full* library-wide retro compatibility that way too (at the cost of just a bit of latency). I really don't understand why they are not trying to use that as selling point !
I really have huge doubts about that. The so-called *power of the cloud* has been yet another dumb popular marketing term overly used in the last few years, but the problem with it is that the target audience that can actually benefit from it is tech-savvy enough to know that any magical claim about it is BS.
I agree that it is more of a marketing buzzword at the moment than an applicable solution. For the time being we haven't seen it properly applied to a running title.
I suspect that one of the first games we will see deliver somewhat on the "cloud" promise will be Titanfall. That game is going to be entirely multi-player focused, making it a good test case for applying "cloud" support. (high-speed on-line support would be necessary for it even if no cloud servers were involved)
As to what they will actually do with the extra processing power, you're guess is as good as mine. As you pointed out, even with additional calculations possible, you would still have a bottleneck between the client and the server. Even a high-speed internet connection isn't going to provide the same speed you would get from crunching numbers on the client's hardware. (between the system's CPU, GPU, and RAM) I can only imagine that some physics simulations for the environment might benefit from this kind of processing. Aside from that I'm at a loss. There would be no point in rendering backgrounds or such on the cloud, those elements wouldn't add enough to the visuals to make a difference.
I fear that Microsoft might be chasing after diminishing returns with their emphasis on cloud support. Until we see an example that is meaningful to gameplay and interaction, I won't be convinced.
Replies
They only thing I have heard confirmed regarding that is publishers can require a game to be registered online before you can play it, but I have not heard any requirements about always on or 24 check ins for certain games.
Tretton: "Any game that is made for PS4 that is physical goods, whether first-party or third-party, can go into a PS4 and play regardless of where it came from. The first player will play it, no problem, the second player will play it, no problem. What I was referring to was the online proposition."
The online proposition they were refering to is that some companys could still set up their version of online passes for multiplayer content (like the ps3 / 360 currently does).
THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
I get the feeling you just skimmed my comment because you used the exact same reasoning that I just addressed and explained why that's not valid reasoning. Of course a game doesn't wear out and lose quality, but that doesn't make a difference. There are physical goods out there which are unaffected by age and wear, but lose value over time just the same and so do games. You certainly can't sell the games that came out 7 years ago for the same return that you get when you resell a recent release. Madden '13 will get you more credit than Madden '06 would, for example.
As I've said previously, a person keeps their car because it has value to them beyond the initial use. Cars are not throw away goods. They have a reason to keep that car rather than use it and sell it before the resale value drops. The same needs to be done with games. If games had value to the consumer beyond the initial play-through, they'd be compelled to keep the game for years (or at least months) rather than beat it in a week and trade it in for credit on other games. The game industry created the problem themselves by making games a disposable experience. They've watered down most game experience so much that it's typically not worth more than a single play through.
I'm inclined to wonder how many used copies of Little Big Planet there are in proportion to other games since LBP has the benefit of user generated content. I think UGC is a good way to create value that would compel consumers to keep their games for the long term. What they're doing now is punishing the consumer for something that is the industry's own fault and that's bad for everyone. You should never do stuff to piss off the customer base. They're pissing on the day-old cake to get you to buy it new. Once the customer gets that bad taste in their mouth, it's hard to get rid of it.
@JacqueChoi
I'm not denying that, but MS were the people that stuck their foot in their collective mouth and made us aware of it. So, yeah, PS4 sucks just as much and that's why I'll be sticking with my current consoles and my PC.
it's a valid idea not to order any of consoles early to wait and see what exactly publishers are planning to do with drm on ps4
they might be thickheaded, but they might be listening too. some of those, at least.
How would the mom&pops come back? If they aren't 'approved retailers', they won't be able to rent games out either. And they won't be able to sell used games. They will suffer the same blows as Gamestop, if not worse, because they can't pay into the system, to get 'approved', so the ones who have managed to survive, will be shut down before Gamestop.
I don't understand the point you were trying to make here
I didn't ditch my PC because Ubisoft didn't make my PC, I did. MS builds the XB1. Sony builds the PS4, and Nintendo builds the Wii. I build my own PC. When software uses DRM and offends me, I avoid their software, not my hardware. Try to remember that Ubisoft is merely software.
Actually, I didn't buy any games from Ubisoft since then until got rid of their DRM. I didn't ditch my PC though, no. I simply bought other games.
I had to wipe my HDD and reinstall windows to get rid of the fucking thing.
Never. Again.
Whatever Drm the publishers implement will be useless because the console is not required to be online at all for any check ins.
The publishers would have to require all their games to be online even single player, it would have to clearly state this on the disc. They would have to pay for the whole infrastructure.
If they did do this there would be a huge backslash from gamers, so they likely wouldnt sell much of the game anyway.
With the method they have now it allows them to be both the good guy and the bad, without much negative publicity as Microsoft takes all the heat, and everyones thinks their good for releasing stuff drm free on PS4.
The main reason though is money, their not going to pay for drm themselves, otherwise why'd they get Microsoft to do it in the first place.
The way they have it now they can see exactly how drm used games and all that effects their bottom line by comparing sales between the consoles.
http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/day-one-edition-of-xbox-one-includes-1-free-year-of-xbox-gold-19889
The distribution methods, and the value of ANY digital medium has always been in the hands of the distributor.
It can't be compared to a used car.
Try trading in a used disk of WoW (or any MMO)
Try returning a used disk of Half Life 2 that you've already tied to your steam account.
Those distributors decided to bundle their media as a service. The only thing you can chose to do, is either Not play those games, or subscribe to their service.
Let's extend this beyond games:
Try trading in a used iStore/Amazon cards. You purchased a coupon that has zero value when you bought it. Much like a Disc, that coupon with a scratch-able serial card holds absolutely ZERO monetary value.
CD's in and of themselves are essentially worth NOTHING. When you purchase a game, the actual tangible plastic is not what you are paying for.
Fuck all middle men. If they did not exist, our games would cost $30 at launch.
The console is not required, but the game might be. Sim City anyone? Sure, your PC isn't required to have the internet. But if you want to play Sim City........
Sony is looking like they are setting it up to say, "Don't blame us, blame EA, etc."
My original post, was about used games, and rentals. Why should that be limited to the few people that MS/Studios choose? What you're discussing is a completely different subject (movement of digital subscriptions).
The issue is the limitation of renting/reselling the hard copies. This is only going to be allowed by those who are 'approved'.
And your additional examples aren't relevant. Of course I can't sell a used copy of WoW. Why would you, and why would someone buy it used? It's a subscription service. I honestly don't know why there is any upfront costs for WoW.
Returning used games? That hasn't existed for any media for a LONG time, because of attempts to stop people from copying, and returning.
What you're discussing is your belief in ownership. Claiming the disc has no value, and is essentially just a form of transportation for digital content. I disagree. I can still fire up my PS2, and push in a disc, and start playing a game. The publisher can not come in my home and take that digital content off my disc. I own it.
What you're saying is like saying, when you buy a book, your paying for the authors thoughts, and the book is just worthless paper and ink. I own the paper/ink, but I don't own the thoughts/story. And before you suggest that's different, an optical disk is plastic (instead of paper), with holes burnt into it (the ink).
Would they? The pricing is based on studies, which determine what is the most people are willing to pay. That's what companies do, even outside of gaming. Why is it that a game for the consoles is still $60 a year later, but the PC version is already down to $40 (or much less)? The middle man had nothing to do with that. I have no confidence, that the day 1 prices would drop, or fluctuate, if the games were delivered via digital download only (on consoles).
I'm pretty sure by teh law he could if he wanted to or had the technical ability to do so. You never own a software, you are granted a temporary license to use it. It may not seem fair but that's how it is.
If you can't see how it can be compared to a used car, then you fail to understand what makes the used game market possible in the first place. This is, however, an issue exclusive to console games. Console games are shackled to their distribution medium, the disc. So the game is as much a physical good as the disc. By inseparably tying to two together, the market value of the game is applied to the disc it's stored on. Of course some people mod their console to get around this, but it's not a mainstream practice.
So, if you have a game that possesses a market value printed on a physical disc, you have a disc that's worth the value of the game. Since the disc is as transferable as any other physical goods, the used market exists because A: The game is fixed to a physical good and B: because the game has value to the market. So you now have a physical good with real market value and because of that, you have a second hand market for that good. There's nothing more to it.
So it matters little that the game doesn't wear out or degrade, it's exclusive, rivalrous, and a demand for it exists. Exclusivity means I posses my own copy and rivalry means that my having it diminishes the possibility of others having a copy. That's all it takes and the value will depreciate as the demand for it drops.
PC games don't fit into this because you can't effectively transfer a copy to someone else, not in the sense you can a physical good. There is only one mode of distribution for PC games and that is to make copies. I have a copy and I give you a copy. Now we both have a copy. To fully dispossess myself of the copy, I'd have to delete or destroy it and any backups I may have.
You could transfer a copy through its disc until Steam arrived and the PC market switched to a Service-bound distribution system. You can still buy discs for PC games, but they are now tied to your account.
The same thing is happening to the console market.
Did it kill the PC market? Quite the opposite actually. There is no point in fighting that transition.
If you think for a moment that if tomorrow all second hand game sales were gone; that new games would cost $30, you are mistaken, in my opinion. I cannot for a moment believe that publishers would suddenly say "Hey, we're such stand up guys that now we have full control over the market we'll lower the prices on everything."
Individual retailers (brick and mortar) may have sales on items, sure, but the fact that PSN and Xbox live are essentially closed off markets for digital distribution gives close to no reason to lower prices. Why would they? It's not as if you can buy the product digitally elsewhere. And if they wouldn't lower prices digitally at release, it is not as if you're going to see that change in stores either.
When the US isn't even in the Top10 but multiple EU countries are? Pot kettle.
And people can easily crack the DRM, negating that whole system altogether. Unlike the consoles, breaking the DRM is a mainstream activity and it makes restricting copies impossible.
Ok. I concede that was a bad example.
Let me reframe this:
I hate walking out of my home, and waiting in line for a game release. I would much rather download it and play it. It is both more convenient for me, and is simply a better service.
Steam > Walking to a store and buying something.
Much like my personal preference to this, and what's becoming an exponentially growing population, we firmly believe that hard media is becoming completely obsolete. I live in a crowded apartment in a city, and I HATE clutter. I would rather have all my books be ebooks rather than take up shelf space. I would rather my music be in MP3 format than a shelf of discs I have find, and swap out when I want to listen to a different song (same goes for my movies and games).
So I honest to god do NOT care about providing a bunch of services that pander to fans of what I consider to be obsolete formats. I don't care about used games. I don't care about what happens to the market of used games if the entire market goes digital.
It's not HATE. It's complete apathy. I honest to god did not care about what happened to all of those music stores when I bought my first MP3 player. I haven't given it much of a thought since. And I won't care about the used game market when hard formats inevitably die.
We KNOW what those benefits are to a point where newer devices like smartphones and tablets don't even have any hard media inputs.
:thumbup: Can't agree more, PS4 or XboxOne are great, but PC/laptop is Greater
It's really gonna suck for them.
I really do want to know if there are any benefits to checking in every 24 hours, or if that can simply be dropped with enough consumer outrage.
I don't know many (if anyone) that is planning on getting this console at launch.
and the poor nations pay the heavy price for YOUR entertainment :poly121:
I think fundamentally the whole tech industry is becoming the new oil industry :poly122:
It sounds like the people read into your words to think that you did hate it, simply because you brought your opinion to the table. The Internet is like alcohol, it intensifies. So simply declaring that you don't care about used-games carried the implication that you were adversely against them. Especially in a discussion like this.
Unfortunate I know.
In my own opinion, I concern for all those music stores because of the people who work in them. I don't consider my own collection clutter, and even though the world is filling up, I don't think it would be great to invite people to our houses with featureless walls and empty shelves.
That's not how it is in your own country. If you have the disk, you own it and have the legal right to resell it. Digital licenses are actually the same, the EU needs to start actually enforcing shit.
That is the hurdle that Microsoft is going to be dealing with.
To be fair, this isn't the first time Microsoft has dealt with an obstacle like this in the console space. When XBox Live first launched, Microsoft made a high-speed, broadband connection a requirement. Part of the motivation for that was similar to what they're attempting now. Using high-speed internet as a base standard allowed them to provide a superior on-line service.
With the XBox One, it is clear that Microsoft intends to off-load more and more of the gaming experience onto external servers, as opposed to running everything from the local client. And there is some validation for this approach. Microsoft and Google are the only two companies that can be said to own and operate true "cloud" systems. Tying the XBox One more thoroughly into an infrastructure that will be exclusive to them can give Microsoft an edge in certain gaming experiences. There will be some games on the XBox One that simply wouldn't be possible on the PS4 or Wii-U, thanks to the network of servers that Microsoft already has in place.
The problem is the entrenched retail system that is already in place, as well as the price tag of their hardware, and the lower market segments. A lot of the big money for home consoles doesn't come from early adopters, but from late-cycle sales. That's where its possible to really expand the install base, and start drawing in extremely large software sales. And the best way to get that larger install base is to appeal to the lower-end consumers. The constant log-in requirements on the XBox One, as well as leaning too heavily on the cloud for game integration, will turn away a lot of lower-end consumers who don't have high-speed internet access. The initial price tag will limit how quickly the XBox One expands near launch, but the other factors will prevent it from expanding its install base after the hardware has dropped in price.
It doesn't seem to be the right move for a major home console. A smaller, cheaper effort would have been better for paving the way to a digital-only system. The upcoming wave of Android-based consoles might actually eat up a decent chunk of the market that the XBox One is pushing away.
Again, if MS makes the connection a requirement, they most certainly had their numbers checked a bazillion times by at least 3 different companies and they know it's worth it.
Put that probably covers at least 75% of the entire population. MS has done their research and knows how many people have a decent internet connection
I have some doubts, here's Total Biscuts top 25 countries by views, 8 of the top countries do not have Xbox One on launch.
http://hairycow.name/population_density/
And US cities by night...
There are reasons they tested nukes where they did way back when. Where there are mountains, deserts and prairie land you aren't going to find a lot of people.
Take the West Coast for example, as you move from the west coast east, you see civilization just stops, that's because there is a giant mountain range, no one expects broadband in the freakin cascade mountain range.
It's just pointless to spend all of that money stringing all that cable and putting in all that infrastructure if only a handful of people are going to use it and the whole project can't pay for itself much less turn a profit.
So yea you can look at the map and say "pfft the whole thing should be blue before you can talk" but most of the people, unless they choose to live like mountain men aren't going to have too much of a problem getting a fast enough connection.
PLUS it sounds like they are going to allow offline gaming IF you have the disc in the drive so the whole thing stops being such a big issue.
The crossed countries represent a bit under 10% of the total.
The XOne covers 90% of these viewers at launch, that's not as bad as one would think.
I really have huge doubts about that. The so-called *power of the cloud* has been yet another dumb popular marketing term overly used in the last few years, but the problem with it is that the target audience that can actually benefit from it is tech-savvy enough to know that any magical claim about it is BS.
Let's be practical. Today, the oh-so-mighty cloud can be used for three things : remote data storage, server based game systems like MMO's, and intensive remote calculation.
- We all have experience with data storage and syncing - Steam does that with game library items, save files and screenshots. Even the current 360 has the option to store the savefiles locally or remotely ; this is a very trivial use of remote storage. So obviously, since MS is claiming that they plan to rely on remote computing for "extra power", mere data syncing is not what they mean (right !)
- The MMO/Multiplayer use of remote servers is nothing new either ; online games have been doing that for decades, either for player and enemy movement or to reflect the influence of the players on the game world.
- Therefore, the oh-so-magical new cloud that the Xbox one is supposed to rely on and get "extra power" from can only be remote computing and number crunching. Autodesk did that with their photo-to-3D reconstruction service 123Catch : upload the images from your plain computer or notebook, click the process button, and wait for the powerful servers to crunch away the data and send you back the final 3D output.
Now I would love to hear a single example of how this could be applicable for games. Just one ! If we are talking about, for instance, rendering the background of an extremely complex cityscape on the MS servers as opposed to doing so on the local GPU ... then there is no way at all to get the video feed back onto the screen at less than 1/60th of a second (and that's not even counting the actual data processing time on the server, wich is by nature, kinda long because it is intensive by nature).
Therefore I am really, really annoyed whenever a MS exec claims that the magic power of the cloud will offload heavy tasks away from the console. It's just not possible for realtime use. At best it could reach Gaikai/Onlive speed, but there is no way this can be fully synchronized to the local 60fps gameplay of the "foreground", so to speak. They simply have a bunch of servers ready for deployment, they are solid enough for data storage, server authored movement, and maybe remote gaming like Onlive, and that's great. But trying to confuse the user base with false claims is not exactly smart.
At least Sony is being honest about Gaikai - they don't claim anything magical here, simply announcing streamed gaming through video, which is really great for demos and non-twitch games. And the gaming world had the chance to try it out recently with success.
Now on a side note, what's *really* interesting to me is that, if both MS and Sony have such solid infrastructures in place and are both ready to roll out decent Gaikai/Onlive quality game streaming ... that means that nothing prevents them from delivering PS4 and XBone content to PS3, 360, and even PC already. I am surprised that no one brought that up in E3 interviews, actually. If they can stream next-gen content to an Ipad with a minimum amount of noticeable video artefacts, then they sure can stream that stuff to my current game console right now. And they could also offer *full* library-wide retro compatibility that way too (at the cost of just a bit of latency). I really don't understand why they are not trying to use that as selling point !
I agree that it is more of a marketing buzzword at the moment than an applicable solution. For the time being we haven't seen it properly applied to a running title.
I suspect that one of the first games we will see deliver somewhat on the "cloud" promise will be Titanfall. That game is going to be entirely multi-player focused, making it a good test case for applying "cloud" support. (high-speed on-line support would be necessary for it even if no cloud servers were involved)
As to what they will actually do with the extra processing power, you're guess is as good as mine. As you pointed out, even with additional calculations possible, you would still have a bottleneck between the client and the server. Even a high-speed internet connection isn't going to provide the same speed you would get from crunching numbers on the client's hardware. (between the system's CPU, GPU, and RAM) I can only imagine that some physics simulations for the environment might benefit from this kind of processing. Aside from that I'm at a loss. There would be no point in rendering backgrounds or such on the cloud, those elements wouldn't add enough to the visuals to make a difference.
I fear that Microsoft might be chasing after diminishing returns with their emphasis on cloud support. Until we see an example that is meaningful to gameplay and interaction, I won't be convinced.