238 replies to this topic

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Yeah, games are definetively moving towards new business-models. That can be both good and bad, but when it comes to the whole used-game issue, I don't really find it that big of a deal. Yes, it'd suck if we could no longer go to Gamestop and buy a used game for a little less, and heck, that'd also suck a whole lot for Gamestop considering used sales is their primary source of income. Though Gamestop has way too much power in this industry at the moment, and something like this would have a big impact on their position. Which could be a very good thing. Gamestop is the only reason we've seen shit like online passes and so on. The only reason.

 

Now, that said... online passes is not new. It is in fact a concept much older than most people might think. For years PC gamers have been forced to input serial keys in order to play their games - this is exactly what the online pass is, though I believe it was first put in place to combat piracy, rather than used sales. It achieves the same effect though, and you don't see PC-gamers bitching.

 

Should they bitch, though? Perhaps, but I do think that the system has worked well for the most part, even though it is annoying having to enter a long-ass serial key just to install your game. Microsoft has yet to really release any proper details about this, and a lot of what people are running around bitching about is stuff that's more or less unconfirmed. My point being; we don't know what they're going to be doing yet, though it seems clear that they are putting in some sort of restriction.

 

This is pure speculation, but I'm thinking they're gonna have a system where if you want to sell your game at Gamestop, the game will have to be deactivated from your account, and once you're in the store, the guys behind the counter would run the disc through a system that 'resets' it as a new game. This would probably involve a fee that Gamestop would have to pay to either Microsoft or the developer/publisher, so that they too get a cut. Because I do think that is all they want - I don't think Microsoft really wants to make it so that you can't borrow a copy from your friend or whatever.

 

Basically, I think this whole restriction-thing is something that's put in place in order to combat used game-sales, and hopefully it won't affect the consumer too much, or preferably at all. At the same time, I'm open to new ideas of distribution and business-models, so I'm looking forward to hearing the facts once Microsoft holds their E3 conference. I can't say I'm not skeptical, because I am. But yeah, I'm keeping an open mind for now, because at this point we don't actually know if we're going to get screwed or not.

[Nicholas Steel]

Granted, that seems correct, but when that excuse is used to explain why people must pay to repair their wii if they want to transfer content over to another wii, explaining that the games are tied to te system unless transferred otherwise? Lucky for me I got mine repaired for free. But this is not about wii, but it makes me wonder what limitations this new direction Microsoft is taking.

Clearly it is licences we are purchasing and Microsoft wants to push into our heads that reselling their games is on their terms unacceptable and a breach of the new licence rules (or that it would seem).

What scares me most about hearing that is the reality of the situation. We are not purchasing games, but licences to use them in the bigger scheme of things. Who says that in our near future that the entire concept of owning a game becomes obsolete and expiry dates are set.

I dear hope the video game industry ain't heading towards expiry dates and renewals because, hell! Who says they can't, video games began with quarters, and companies may come to realize that the ability for unlimited play (which is something we take for granted) causes us to demand from the market unrealistic expectations, and again I state, if video games become licences that can very well expire at set dates, it would make us realize what we took for granted and gain a certain level of appreciation for what we have now.

Anyways, I'm just rambling, but I am amazed how pointless video game collections really are considering that if what we really are purchasing is licences, and licences can change.

We've been buying licenes since at the very least 2004 (More likly earlier then that). You've probably never tried reading a games EULA right? Serial Keys were okay, back when you didn't need the internet for the process to work. Now you run the risk of the authentication servers going down and your physical copy becoming a paperweight unless you visit unsavoury websites and download certain tools to bypass it.

 

PC/Old Console users used to get lots of physical bonus items with there physical purchases too, which likely halted the masses from complaining... now physical bonus items have shifted to pre-orders and more and more people (Those that don't preorder) are noticing that the serial number/authentication processes don't offer any incentive. So they calmed those people down by creating Online Passes but this comes at the detriment of pre-used copies of the product.

Edited by franpa, 01 June 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[Koh]

I guess the major issue would be if you can't get to the internet at all, or are having internet issues.  Actually, now that I think about it, did the XBoxOne talk ever say anything about it needing to be constantly connected?  If that's the case, wouldn't that be an issue when you get those random DNS errors now and again that make your connectivity shuffle?

[TheLegend_njf]

Migokalle addressed some very good points, and he's right when he says that the biggest complaints are about things that have not even been confirmed.

 

Like when I myself addressed my concern of games expiring, after some rational thought about it, my theory about that just doesn't quite seem right.

 

But anyways, about the issue of reselling, I think this is where you got it wrong Migokalle, as in I believe you are seeing things too positively, I simply don't think Microsoft wants people to sell their games. I am not laying any hint of a conspiracy here, or even suggesting a money making scam. I believe with how Microsoft is approaching this is by this explanation I will provide right now.

 

So lets say I'm Microsoft, and I want to tell you, the fan, how it goes. This is what I'll say about this. "Once you purchase our game, no, you will not be able to sell it, it's worth in money turns to $0. We will compensate for issues like if the disc cracks while taking it home, but once you load the game in your system, it no longer has any physical value, you can't sell it, you keep it, because, clearly if you purchased it, you wanted our product, so why on earth would you ever need to sell it? It's just common sense really, we don't sell our games so that you can play it for a few weeks, than sell it again, that's just taking rental into your own hands. You purchased the game, so own up and actually keep the game. If you fear that you may make a poor decision before you buy a game, than we fell that it is your responsibility to choose wisely on what game you want to invest in. We are providing demos for many of the leading games, there is so much information on the internet about the leading games, so we are assuming that you, the customer know that the game you are purchasing from us is a game you want to keep. What you really lose is that ability to taste test every single game that exists through your compulsive need to test try games and than sell them immediately, and again I repeat, we are not a rental company, you purchase it, you own it, live with it, you want to play another game? buy it. Can't afford it? Than don't play games"

 

I am not saying that little me pretending to be Microsoft speech an accurate display on how they are approaching this, but it does seem like the most reasonable form of attitude or fuel that is motivating these new changes.

 

And you know what? Maybe if that's what they're thinking, they just may be right. Maybe where it stands today, it's just too easy to play every game we want today, than we wonder why the entire industry is struggling, it's because they've been spoiling us for the past 20 years and now they are giving a taste of reality.

 

But, I am still just running on theories and hunches, and I am not completely confident yet that what I'm saying here is fully correct, but it does spark my curiosity now to explore this subject further, as it should. 

[NoeL]

Which raises the question ... Why aren't video game consumers protected by the same doctrine? Perhaps by the reasoning NewJourneysFire describes above? That we're not purchasing copyrighted content at all, but a license to access it? Seems like a pretty big, irritating loophole designed to screw over consumers.

Bingo.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily opposed to the "license" model - what I'm opposed to is that they're trying to palm off a lesser product for the same price. If you're going to offer a bullshit anti-consumer "license" then you've got to bring those prices waaaaaay down. Valve is going in the right direction with their frequent sales, but publishers like EA and Nintendo that are selling digital copies for as much or HIGHER than physical copies are just being flat-out greedy. There's no way in hell the cost of keeping a server up for downloads matches the cost of printing a physical game. I know physical/digital isn't the same thing as owner/licensee as they're pushing the license shit with physical copies too, but it perfectly exemplifies their "We can do whatever and the peons will eat it up" mindset.

Either sell me the game, which then becomes my property that I'm free to resell if I choose, or sell me a substantially cheaper "license" to play the game until I decide to delete it.

Actually, now that I think about it, did the XBoxOne talk ever say anything about it needing to be constantly connected?

It needs to connect every 24 hours, which is almost as bad as "always" online. If your net goes down you can still play... provided it's back up by tomorrow. It's still a kick in the guts for people in rural areas that have shitty/no internet.

Edited by NoeL, 02 June 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[LinktheMaster]

I guess the major issue would be if you can't get to the internet at all, or are having internet issues.  Actually, now that I think about it, did the XBoxOne talk ever say anything about it needing to be constantly connected?  If that's the case, wouldn't that be an issue when you get those random DNS errors now and again that make your connectivity shuffle?

From my understanding, the XBox One "requires" people to reconnect every 24 hours and connect to the internet to install games.  So you don't have to be constantly online, but you do have to have an internet connection.  The reason I put requires in quotes is that when it comes to what this locks you out of, Microsoft hasn't really elaborated.  It could be that it locks you out of all games.  It could be that it's specific to developers where they can determine what content they prevent you from using.

 

Also worth noting is that Microsoft is pushing their Azure cloud computing for the system.  So if any game developers make heavy use of that, then those games will require you to be online.

 

Edit: Ninja'd by a NoeL edit.

[Koh]

I mean, I really don't see myself getting one at all, but I'd like to know what it can and can't do.  IF it does need to connect every 24 hours, it'd be like a ridiculous Steam.  Steam only requires you to log in once, and that's it.  If your internet goes down or whatever, it doesn't matter due to the fact that you're already logged in, and the games are installed on your harddrive (unless it's an online game).  What I don't get is why the CrossBOne would need to NOT operate like that.  DRM is one thing, but hindering gameplay is a more vicious act IMO.

[TheLegend_njf]

Random question. Does anybody know out of these things, what playstation 4 is doing as well? I heard PS4 is doing the exact same things, but I feel that's just a rumor.

Also, a hunch just occurred to me. Could it be called Xbox One because the power exceeded 1000? I mean, everybody kept calling it Xbox 720, but who said that was the limit they had to go to? What if the system is 1347? Something completely different from the norm, they couldn't call it XBox 1347, so perhaps the one in the name means "exceeding One thousand"

Edited by NewJourneysFire, 02 June 2013 - 07:55 AM.

[Dawnlight]

Random question. Does anybody know out of these things, what playstation 4 is doing as well? I heard PS4 is doing the exact same things, but I feel that's just a rumor.

According to Kotaku (CLICK HERE), it is strictly up to the developers and Sony games will not be using this at all.

[Ventus]

 and Sony games will not be using this at all.

And this is why I'm going for a PS4 in this next generation of consoles.

Microsoft has lost me as a customer for the new CrossBoxone.

[Dawnlight]

And this is why I'm going for a PS4 in this next generation of consoles.

Microsoft has lost me as a customer for the new CrossBoxone.

Agreed. Instead of an Xbox ONE, I plan to just build a nice PC and rely on Sony and Nintendo for exclusive games. Microsoft clearly does not care about gamers. They just want to think of dirty tactics to get your money.

[Koh]

I don't think it's that they're neglecting gamers altogether, moreso than it is just them trying to grab all the markets.  Casuals (not as in, Casual vs Hardcore gamers, but casual people who watch TV), Developers and Gamers are their targets this time around.  It may or may not turn out to be a big mess in the end due to poor execution in a few areas, but it's certainly a good business practice; to interest as many different groups of people as possible.

[DashSim]

It is true that they've mentioned reselling via deactivation at GameStop. Even so, this doesn't sound to solve much for me. I would be immensely uncomfortable with the idea that I am fully at the mercy of MS/publishers/GameStop as to the prices at which I am allowed to sell my games. What they think I should get, instead of what the game is actually worth to other people. Maybe they'd feel generous, maybe they wouldn't. I would be completely at their mercy, unable to take any action that didn't, on some level, go through them first. It removes my freedom with the things I purchase and gives Microsoft a hand in what I choose to do with my things with little to no benefit to me.

 

The always-online requirement (and I'd argue 24 hours check-ins are essentially that) sounds like it's just begging to cause problems.

 

If, when later this year the Xbox One launches, its servers end up not handling the load and therefore preventing many new owners of the console from being able to just use it... would anyone be surprised? We don't have to look back very far to find the last always-online disaster launch.

 

Though, in all fairness, the launch of this console is clearly very important to Microsoft and I've no doubt they'll be better prepared to handle things than, say, EA was for SimCity -- particularly in hindsight of that same disaster. But given the recent track record of always-online launches, I can see great potential for problems. Though there could also be inherent differences between the recent always-online game launches and the Xbox One launch that I'm not considering, maybe? Differences in how the Xbox One's launch couldn't potentially be as bad as those. I'm not well-versed on the technical side of these things, so I'm just speaking from an 'always online seems to often go horribly wrong!' sort of perspective.

 

 

Something which I don't think I've ever seen discussed, and I don't think I've seen any Microsoft PR person address, is what happens if your Xbox Live account is banned. As far as I know, how it works now is that you lose access to any Live/Internet functions when banned, right? How would this work for a console requiring an Internet connection? Could you potentially be locked out of your games/console entirely? I've read about people being wrongfully banned from Live. Consider being wrongfully banned and losing access to your games.

 

Of course, I might be overblowing everything and none of these nightmare scenarios I've imagined may ever come to pass. But if the system didn't have DRM of this sort and online requirements, the potential for these scenarios wouldn't even be there in the first place. There wouldn't be any worries or concerns about these things. And even if none of the problems come to pass - Microsoft plans to release a way to continue playing games after the servers are shut down someday, their servers are enough to handle all loads in the meantime, you can't be banned from playing your games, the used game solution is actually really brilliant and easy, and more - then even then, at best, at absolute best, what we have is a system that is merely not worse than a system without the DRM and online requirements. The highest best-case-potential hope I see is that it is not broken and terrible.

 

 

The oftentimes conflicting and contradictory responses from Microsoft PR about all of these things really makes this all difficult to discuss. It can certainly be argued that we don't know enough to judge how well or poorly the Xbox One's online/DRM features will be implemented, but I can't help but feel that, if Microsoft had really good news to share about all of these things, they'd have eagerly rushed out to give us it, and done so in a direct, straightforward and consistent way. And while it's entirely, wholly possible they'll have clever solutions to every issue and prove every worry overblown... I can't help but feel that, if they really did have the best interest of their customers at heart, we wouldn't be talking about an always-online DRM console in the first place.

 

 

I'm not all that invested in the Xbox One, myself, in the sense that I wasn't planning on buying one anytime soon, even before the conference the other day. (I actually own every Sony and Nintendo console, but not a single Xbox! Not out of trying to avoid them -- I'd like an Xbox/360, but those particular stars just haven't aligned for me yet.) I think my biggest concern is what effect this will have on the rest of the industry, and I'd be incredibly saddened if all of this became the standard.

[TheLegend_njf]

The online thing goes back to what I said before. The Internet is being used for a whole lot more than it was originally intended to be built for. Microsoft should know this by now with their experience. I mean physically, do they know what the Internet is? Do they realize its limitations? I would assume Microsoft of all companies would have their head wrapped around this elusive fact.

It pains me to think the entire world is naive to the fact that the Internet can break, it's not spiritual or ghostly as we like to believe it is. Most of the technology runs on over 50 year old wires used in the war.

Please, if I am wrong, correct me.

But I have done a bit of the research on the possible consequences of how we are using the Internet today, and it seems to be inevitable that we are heading towards an Internet crash, but I am not sure the amount of damage that could take or if any. It could be just limited to a few outages, but than, how does that compliment Microsoft as a company? Already nearly everything they do is depended on the Internet. So their bright idea is further dig themselves I to the Internet hole? It doesn't make sense, it is as it would seem that the image that the Internet is so perfect has them more fooled than anybody.

So I repeat, the Internet can break.

Now I just realized what the One stands for in the name, it stands for the middle one they are holding up to everybody that's ever supported them.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Let me just add that I doubt the console is going to boot you off your game if you lose your connection, or if the Xbox can't connect within 24 hours. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but Microsoft is a business interesting in earning money, and if the reactions to these rumors says anything, is that a restriction like this would be a deal breaker for a loooot of people. Microsoft has to know that.

 

Microsoft has said that there will be 'stuff' for people to do while the console is not online, and that's probably going to involve playing your games (as long as the game itself does not require an online connection, like say a multiplayer-game, obviously). If I turn out to be wrong, then as has already been mentioned, they really are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

I really don't have an issue with players not being able to resell their games, like I mentioned earlier, that's something the PC-platform has had to deal with for ages, and as an avid PC-gamer I have never really found that to be a big issue. It does kind of suck that I can't borrow a PC game from a friend, but it's something that I've gotten used to, and I think console gamers could as well. The always-online is much more of a serious issue in my mind.

 

At the same time, Microsoft might simply not be interested in the people that don't have good internet connections. I know that sounds... bad for those of you who don't have reliable connections, but there is some logic behind the thought. See, as we already know, the Xbox One is going to be focusing a lot on online-features. Always-online has a lot of negative sides to it, and I really don't think this is the way to go... but if you look at mobile phones, they are more or less useless once you don't have a connection. Sure, you can use your apps or play your music, but 90% of the device's features are useless without either a connection or WiFi. If your area doesn't have good 3G or 4G coverage, for example, you simply can't use a lot of the features that your smartphone has. Basically, if you don't have a good internet connection, you might simply not be a part of their targeted audience.

 

I can see Microsoft doing something like this, and at this moment, it would seem like the most realistic approach. I still don't think they're gonna boot you out of a game no matter what happens to your connection, but we'll have to wait and see. They're probably gonna explain this properly at E3, because if they don't mention it at all, they're just gonna keep digging their grave. And it really doesn't have to be any deeper right now, if we are to believe more or less the entire internet.