Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th May 2013 17:26 UTC
Games So, the Xbox One disaster continues. Microsoft's policy for dealing with the used games market has reportedly leaked - and it's a clear and direct attack to destroy the used games market. Prices for used games will be set at the retail value of a new game, and retailers have to hook into Microsoft's computer systems and comply with Microsoft's terms and conditions.
Order by: Score:
v Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Fri 24th May 2013 17:36 UTC
RE: Comment by jigzat
by Kochise on Fri 24th May 2013 17:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

There is protecting, and there is robbing.

Protecting would imply using a 'token'-based system, the original user getting his original price paid back (minus some fee) and the second hand user getting the copy at a bargain price.

To sum it up, after each selling iteration, an original copy would generate 100%, 100-90+100=110%, 110-90+100=220%, ... (cost rounded and approximated)

Robbing is making almost 100% profit$$$ on each sales, that's to say 100%, 195%, 290%, 395%, ... profit on each originally sold copy.

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

truth, but a way of protecting their investment is actually charging more for those who actually pay, is the same logic some countries use for their taxes. But remember right now everything is a rumor, as someone says "It's the economy stupid" if they charge a lot people would simply not buy it, after all there is competition and they know that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by jigzat
by B. Janssen on Fri 24th May 2013 18:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

We all have done it, is legal, we all have friends but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.

This is a terrible, terrible wording. Nobody has a right to profit. And nobody has a right to protect anything by trampling on the rights of others. This is another real "old Europe" achievement, look it up.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by BushLin on Tue 28th May 2013 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

I totally agree with your sentiment...

Then I looked up "old Europe" as you suggested but couldn't see how it related to what Microsoft are doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_%28politics%29

If anything "old Europe" seemed to a body upholding the rights of others in the face of disingenuous arguments for starting a war.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 24th May 2013 22:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

For us gamers feels like friendship or fair use but when that means a developer might get just 1/5 of the projected profit it becomes dangerous. We all have done it, is legal, we all have friends but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.


That's obviously wrong. Who cares what percentage of total revenue a single game generates is? I don't. Its not my responsibility. There are already great games today with our current system, changing the system to push more revenue towards one party many not result in a better system for all interested parties.

I have not purchased a game system since 2003, so I can't really call myself a gamer. But your ploy to make me weep over the largely successful game developers is just absurdly wrong on so many, many levels. If I were to buy one, I would favor any other company due to the used games situation. And I've heard all of my colleges, who do buy several console games a month say the same.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Sat 25th May 2013 01:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The blurry line between fair use and developers and publishers bankruptcy


There's no blurry line.

but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.


Except that in many countries with decent consumer protection developers, or publishers actually, have no right to dictate what I do with merchandise after I have purchased it. I can give it to a friend, sell it to some guy on the street or tear it to shreds and burn it. It is none of their business.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by Moredhas on Mon 27th May 2013 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Now there's a point. If you don't really own your game, if it represents future profits for the publisher, what happens if you do destroy it? Are you depriving them of a future sale? Will there be laws against defacing the media?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Actually it is, when you purchase software your are not buying it, they are licensing it to you for your own use, in fact if you purchase a copy of Windows for example you shouldn't be re-selling it, first because you click on the agree button and accepted the user agreement and second the law actually forbids it. Most companies and countries don't enforce that law because is very difficult to trace but, for example, in my country the tax recollection institution actually verifies that companies have a properly licensed software. It is only a matter of time for the law to enforce the law to consumers too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by WereCatf on Wed 29th May 2013 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

in fact if you purchase a copy of Windows for example you shouldn't be re-selling it, first because you click on the agree button and accepted the user agreement and second the law actually forbids it.


That may be true in your country, but that's not true everywhere. Here in Finland, for example, EULAs are invalid except for the portions covered by copyright laws, so clicking on that agree - button does nothing. Secondly, the law states that if it quacks like a duck, walk likes a duck and sounds like a duck it is a duck, ie. if it's sold as a shelf product then it is a shelf product -- not a license -- and can be re-sold.

Just pointing this out because it seems you believe EULAs and the likes are the same all over the world.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Wed 29th May 2013 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Interesting, I thought that Microsoft would modify the user agreement depending of the country. But still some dogs look and act like wolfs but they are not wolfs. From a costumer point of view getting charged for friendship feels rude, but as I said internet is like a magnification glass. A picture of a nude girlfriend for example, If I show it to a friend doesn't look that cruel but if I send it to all my friends trough email I will create a chain letter that will destroy someones reputation and dignity.

Video games also work on offer demand principles, if a company has mores costumers prices will fall as simple as that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by WereCatf on Wed 29th May 2013 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Video games also work on offer demand principles, if a company has mores costumers prices will fall as simple as that.


Nope. The games cost more-or-less the same as they did during the NES-era, even though the amount of customers is multiple times bigger. Sure, development costs have also gone up, but there is no incentive for the companies to actually lower their prices when they can just pocket the difference and keep the price the same.

Just wait and you'll see.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

problem is that you cannot directly compare a physical product with a virtual one. The production model is different, with a physical product the production cost is differed during the life cycle but in software the whole cost is used before selling the first unit. And when you purchase a DVD or a blu-ray or what ever that is not the actual product, it is a distribution form. Is very similar to movies although the time frame to make a profit is smaller.

Let's put an example, when you purchase a movie theater ticket, the ticket is not the movie itself, is just a permission to watch the movie, and lets say that instead of actually paying for a movie ticket you print a very similar one and access the theater or you give it away to everyone around you because you are so cool and believe in freedom, you are not physically robing anyone or breaking into the theater during the night, but you are decrementing the profit of the producers their investors and the theater.

As long as the company remains profitable no biggie, you could say, "you see... printing movie theater tickets doesn't hurt anyone look at X company they are still making profit" but this company makes a big mistake and invest into a crappy movie and they lost a lot of money, so much they declare in bankruptcy because they didn't had any savings. That is when a company say, "look if all the people that watched the previous movie had purchased the ticket we could have more saving to keep working in a different project".

Developing software specially games is not easy, is really expensive, not every product is successful even if it is technically good. You could use as an example free software but most of free software is supported or subsidized by hardware vendors.

I might used the wrong words before, but I meant that investors have the right to protect their profit not to profit no matter what.

So far we have only heard rumors, there is no official stance towards used games so those numbers might be overblown. Thankfully there is competition and they are not going to shoot themselves into the foot.

Piracy is a harsh word that is used broadly by media companies and although the motivation is different the effect of piracy or game borrowing is the same to them.

Some others have said that there are studies that show that people who uses piracy products are more prone to purchase it, but I have only read that study about music, and you are wrongfully applying the same logic to every media.

In music is logical since you listen to you music several times a week during many years, but with movies and video games you won't. Although we all have a favorite movie that we have watched many times in most occasions you play a game or watch a movie once or twice, so most people are not going to pay for a movie after they have seen it.

Just conclude you cannot compare software to a physical product.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Wed 29th May 2013 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Let's put an example, when you purchase a movie theater ticket, the ticket is not the movie itself, is just a permission to watch the movie


Right but I'm also allowed to give my ticket to anyone else or even sell it.

Developing software specially games is not easy, is really expensive, not every product is successful even if it is technically good.


And that's different from, say, building cars or airplanes or stereos or computers? Sorry, software and games are not uniquely hard and expensive to make.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Wed 29th May 2013 03:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Let's put an example, when you purchase a movie theater ticket, the ticket is not the movie itself, is just a permission to watch the movie

Right but I'm also allowed to give my ticket to anyone else or even sell it.


Yes but not after having used it, that is why they tore it down. It is like complaining because the ticket checker tore it down

Developing software specially games is not easy, is really expensive, not every product is successful even if it is technically good.

And that's different from, say, building cars or airplanes or stereos or computers? Sorry, software and games are not uniquely hard and expensive to make.


Assembling a car is different than developing software. Sure cars are also designed and there is research but the teams are a lot smaller, most engines were already developed years ago, chassis are almost the same across the same line, most of the time they just get a facelift, and most importantly the production cost is divided by each assembled car during the production time. A mayor game development can cost around 50 million dollars and they employ just in the game creation hundreds of people (not accounting resellers advertising distribution packaging). And the whole 50 million is expended before selling the first game. A car program might cost more in the long run but the cost is differed, if they see the car is not selling well they could just stop the line and save some money, that just can't happened right now in video games model. If the game is a failure there is no chance to spare some cash.

Edited 2013-05-29 03:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by WereCatf on Wed 29th May 2013 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Assembling a car is different than developing software. Sure cars are also designed and there is research but the teams are a lot smaller, most engines were already developed years ago, chassis are almost the same across the same line, most of the time they just get a facelift, and most importantly the production cost is divided by each assembled car during the production time. A mayor game development can cost around 50 million dollars and they employ just in the game creation hundreds of people (not accounting resellers advertising distribution packaging). And the whole 50 million is expended before selling the first game. A car program might cost more in the long run but the cost is differed, if they see the car is not selling well they could just stop the line and save some money, that just can't happened right now in video games model. If the game is a failure there is no chance to spare some cash.


Your comparison to the car industry is terribly short-sighted. Even just the act of altering an existing model involves re-configuring the production line, something that may already in and of itself cost millions, but there is a lot of engineering involved as even the slightest change may affect fuel economy, balance and safety of passenger and any change in such requires updating EPA-ratings and the likes, there's constant on-going crash dummy test that are definitely not cheap stuff and so on and so forth. It's not just "get parts, slap them together, call it a car." Also, if you count publishers, resellers, advertising companies and the likes with games you need to count all those same things with cars, too. Cars don't just magically appear from the thin air.

Also, your claim that if a game is a bust there are no costs to be saved is not correct. There are many games that have been bust, but the companies have still managed to get some of their money back from selling the IP related to the game, for example. Also, the tools and assets made could be used for another game, saving both time and money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Wed 29th May 2013 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Assembling a car is different than developing software. Sure cars are also designed and there is research but the teams are a lot smaller, most engines were already developed years ago, chassis are almost the same across the same line, most of the time they just get a facelift, and most importantly the production cost is divided by each assembled car during the production time. A mayor game development can cost around 50 million dollars and they employ just in the game creation hundreds of people (not accounting resellers advertising distribution packaging). And the whole 50 million is expended before selling the first game. A car program might cost more in the long run but the cost is differed, if they see the car is not selling well they could just stop the line and save some money, that just can't happened right now in video games model. If the game is a failure there is no chance to spare some cash.

Your comparison to the car industry is terribly short-sighted. Even just the act of altering an existing model involves re-configuring the production line, something that may already in and of itself cost millions, but there is a lot of engineering involved as even the slightest change may affect fuel economy, balance and safety of passenger and any change in such requires updating EPA-ratings and the likes, there's constant on-going crash dummy test that are definitely not cheap stuff and so on and so forth. It's not just "get parts, slap them together, call it a car." Also, if you count publishers, resellers, advertising companies and the likes with games you need to count all those same things with cars, too. Cars don't just magically appear from the thin air.

Also, your claim that if a game is a bust there are no costs to be saved is not correct. There are many games that have been bust, but the companies have still managed to get some of their money back from selling the IP related to the game, for example. Also, the tools and assets made could be used for another game, saving both time and money.


I could also say that you vision about software and game development is short sighted too, I'm actually a software developer although I'm not in the car industry so I don't have the whole vision about car development. But if you look around you could see some hints about it.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/date/19961126/news02590.html
http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/projekte/Sensoria/del_24/D3.b.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/09/us-japan-summit-nissan-id...

What it basically say is the amount of zeroes behind a card development, and also that the software might account for 80% of the cost, and also confirms that in order to reduce cost they use the same platform and of course a new engine is not designed for every car.

Of course not all cars cost the same, the development cost for a chevy volt is huge but it is a hybrid car so is not the average car.

And the same thing goes to software and games, not all games cost the same. As the other guy pointed some games are basically just recycled specially sports games where they just add new teams and player names. But they are not the rule to measure the industry.

Speaking of cost the development of both cars and games might be in the same rank, although the time is different but the car industry is enormous and is backed up by very deep pocket investors and banks. If both BMW and Criterion (a development team for example go to the same bank and ask a loan they will receive with more attention the people from BMW since is a known brand and industry.

Yes you could license back some IP if you have a strong one which is not the rule but not the tools since most of the time they are licensed to a specific company (except in counties like yours) and cannot be re-sold. Sure some tools and engines are given for free while the game is being developed but you must pay a fee for every unit sold.

Now regarding the production line, altering a production line is not that expensive (I am not saying it cost a dime), that is the whole point of production lines, they reduce costs, but my point is that if you projected for example 100 cars and the production cost for each one is 10 but your are not selling much so you decided to stop the production and launch a new model, that is not going to cost you 1000, if you stop the production at 20 you could save 800.

In the case of videogames burning a DVD doesn't cost much and if game is screwed (Medal of Honor for example) the whole investment was basically lost, you cannot spare much by calling the packaging company and say "you know what the game is not selling well stop burning discs".

Of course in cars you would also lost the development cost but they have deeper pockets,a model pipelines, different model lines, and they can sell the already built cars in a different country at cost.

Someone pointed out about the cartridge back in the 80's and 90's but the business model was basically the same, the memory cartridges served as intellectual protection method since they were really expensive to make and the profit margins were low (compared with today media) and there was no internet nor ebay, when the industry wrongly moved to a broad format like CD they were hopping to get more margins which they got initially but since the same format was open to computers duplication began and the internet make it worst.

I don't think they are worried about you lending the game to your best friend, they are worried about actually piracy and turning game lending into a business.

Edited 2013-05-29 19:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Wed 29th May 2013 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Sure cars are also designed and there is research but the teams are a lot smaller, most engines were already developed years ago, chassis are almost the same across the same line, most of the time they just get a facelift


Oh, you mean just like how most games today use existing 3d engines, physics engines, AI systems and scripting languages?
Facelift? I see, quite unlike the gigantic differences between Madden 2011 and Madden 2012 or FIFA 2008 and FIFA 2009 or L4D and L4D2...
Oh yeah, the game industry is never resting on the laurels.

and most importantly the production cost is divided by each assembled car during the production time


And unlike a game, each new car costs a significant amount of money to manufacture while a new DVD costs close to nothing and a new digital copy does cost nothing.

Edited 2013-05-29 03:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by TM99 on Wed 29th May 2013 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Here's the deal, and perhaps this is just because you are younger than I. Or maybe you just don't know the history of that which you are attempting to speak about.

Video games may be 'software' but they have never ever been sold in the same business model as software.

An NES cartridge of Donkey Kong is a physical product. I can buy it, use it, destroy it, sell it, gift it, etc. I always have been able to do so with games on consoles. From the Atari 2600 to the Playstation 3. If I purchase the physical cartridge or DVD or CD, I own the product outright and Fair Use laws come into play legally.

Software on the computer has gotten to the point where it is not an object. It is considered a leased product that the physical medium simply gives you a means for installing. The license to use it is what has always mattered. Yet even then, I could transfer a license. I could sell Photoshop 7 used and someone could buy it and install it legally.

These are two distinctly different models and always have been. Until now... With the release of the Apple App store and casual gaming, the game development corporations are wanting to now go with the 'software' model of sales and licensing. With the release of the Xbox One, Microsoft has now provided them a means to do so on a grander scale.

What remains to be seen is whether Sony & Nintendo will follow Microsoft, and whether consumers will accept it in the marketplace.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by phoenix on Mon 27th May 2013 17:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.


Nobody, nowhere, has a "right" to profit! Period.

Everyone has the option of going into business and trying to sell things. But nobody has a "right" to actually make money and stay in business.

If you have a product or service that people want to pay for, and that you can sell for more than it costs to produce, great!

But don't go complaining about your "right to profit" if nobody wants your product/service, or you can't sell enough, or you can't sell it for more than it costs to produce.

Adapt, or get out of the business. Simple as that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

investors DO have the right to protect their profit, is part of all business legislation across the world… well except communist countries but as the history has tell us many times communism doesn't work. Look at China the are supposed to be communist (socialist ) but in reality they are as capitalist as the USA or maybe more. If we have a communist economy where no one has the right to profit their investment we would still be playing mahjong or chess and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Wed 29th May 2013 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

investors DO have the right to protect their profit


Fortunately for everyone, except greedy bastards, that right is not unlimited and it does not mean they can do anything they want to protect their investment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Wed 29th May 2013 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Nobody, nowhere, has a "right" to profit! Period.


Andrew Ryan disagrees.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by phoenix on Wed 29th May 2013 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And, why should I care what some random stranger somewhere says? Am I supposed to know that name? At least provide a link to where this person is disagreeing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by erak on Tue 28th May 2013 01:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
erak Member since:
2006-09-24

developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.

So if they didn't protect their profits before, how were they able to produce games?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Internet has change the way we access information, in the past sharing was confined to a small number of people but today sharing means thousands of people, in the past there were limitations that gave them some type of "protection" internet was slow, storage was limited and burnable media was scarce. The other way of protection is actually charging more to those who actually pay.

Video games are not like movies where most of the time you can at least recover your investment in the theaters and after that is all profit, video games have a small window of opportunity to make a profit.

Reply Score: 1

That's marketing...
by Kochise on Fri 24th May 2013 17:37 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

...and brains have worked on that and were paid a large amount of money to conclude this.

Gamers have another logic though, let's see who'll win in the end.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's marketing...
by kragil on Fri 24th May 2013 18:20 UTC in reply to "That's marketing..."
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Exactly,

while you cannot easily resell Steam games(you can sell your whole accounts which I have done numerous times without any problem), you can get them really cheap and you will be able to play them on your next PC and the PC after that.

SO: The Steambox just needs to be a fast and cheap PC and MS is in big big trouble.

(Maybe it won't be as fast as the Xbox 1 at first, but in 2014 will be a lot faster and in 2015 it will be no contest)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: That's marketing...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 24th May 2013 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: That's marketing..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Good point about the steam box. it doesn't allow used games either, it just provides older games at reduced prices which scratches the same itch budget conscious gamers have. Microsoft would be smart to emulate that. Reduce their take on sales of older games, and most people would be happy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's marketing...
by Soulbender on Sat 25th May 2013 01:46 UTC in reply to "That's marketing..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Gamers have another logic though, let's see who'll win in the end.


The logic that makes most of them buy "AAA" games all the time, regardless of price and regardless of restrictions?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 24th May 2013 17:51 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Microsoft won't stop the shift of gaming to open platforms (Linux). So whatever crazy stuff they do on their Xbox or even on Windows, that's not the future of gaming, so no need to be frustrated about it, just ignore them.

Edited 2013-05-24 17:52 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by shmerl
by bnolsen on Sun 26th May 2013 05:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Microsoft must think they can lock up the big game development houses who hold rights to most all sports, cartoons, comics books, etc. or else they wouldn't pull this. It's almost a type of hollywood style collusion.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Phloptical on Sun 26th May 2013 23:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Microsoft won't stop the shift of gaming to open platforms (Linux). So whatever crazy stuff they do on their Xbox or even on Windows, that's not the future of gaming, so no need to be frustrated about it, just ignore them.


You can have all the open platforms you want. The trick is getting the game developers to kick MS out of bed, and to develop killer titles that are exclusive to said linux "open" platform. Releasing a title on both xbox _and_ linux isn't going to cut it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by TM99 on Mon 27th May 2013 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

There is actually an excellent article in the May issue of Game Informer about the mass exodus of Indie game developers from Xbox Live. Microsoft has become increasingly controlling and ripping them off financially.

So it is happening and with the new One I expect not just Indies but possibly even large development houses will leave as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Soulbender on Mon 27th May 2013 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Perhaps you could link to that article so other can read it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by TM99 on Mon 27th May 2013 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

It is a print magazine subscription but let me see if I can find it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by TM99 on Mon 27th May 2013 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

I can't link to that article as it is either available as print or pdf for paid subscribers.

However, here is a very recent article that addresses what I read about XBLA and indies. It seems to suggest that with the One announcement, things are even worse!

http://monthlygames.com/indie-developers-abandon-xbox-one-as-xbox-l...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by rrife on Wed 29th May 2013 12:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
rrife Member since:
2006-12-12

I've not seen any shift as of yet. The core of the system is irrelevant to the end-user.

Reply Score: 1

So what if I give a game to a friend?
by andrewclunn on Fri 24th May 2013 17:58 UTC
andrewclunn
Member since:
2012-11-05

So what if I give a game to a friend? I'm done with it, and I don't want to play it anymore. I'm not lending it to them. I'm giving it to them. Do I now have to go through a licensed used game dealer so that I can 'give' the game to my friend at a discounted price? Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if GameStop simply refused to sell the new X Box (as it would kill their used game sales if it won).

Reply Score: 7

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Or you could probably give them the whole console...

I actually wonder what'll happen to theft statistics of consoles after this.

Reply Score: 2

andrewclunn Member since:
2012-11-05

Red ring of death... Time to re-buy all my games!

Reply Score: 2

bluedodo Member since:
2006-03-26

Red ring of death... Time to re-buy all my games!

No as it is Microsoft lets you transfer XBLA content (DLC, games etc.) from machine to machine with the Xbox 360 that are locked to hardware and gamer tag. There are two licenses one for the hardware one for the gamer tag and you can move the hardware one from machine to machine. I've had to help people with this process but it seems to have gotten easier over the years.

Still not sure if I want to buy an XB1 despite that fact that it wouldn't affect how I use it, I don't lend games or sell them on and really the only game I'm interested in is Forza 5 and what else is there to care about COD, meh I can get that on PC and I'm not into COD.

Reply Score: 1

andrewclunn Member since:
2012-11-05

Holy shit. I just realized, what about game rentals?!

Reply Score: 2

btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

Speculation: Time-bomb rental discs / download-only rentals.

No more pesky Red Box taking away those sales.

Reply Score: 1

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

As I understood it in the first place there was no problem if you uninstalled the game and brought the disk to your friend who then installed it?

I understood it as you couldn't borrow them the disk and they installed and played it while you also had your copy activated. Which really would make some sense.

Though a "Deactivate this copy" or some such action in the system menu would had been nice for such purposes.

I don't know how it really is. Not all that interested in an Xbox console.

Reply Score: 2

Re:
by kurkosdr on Fri 24th May 2013 18:07 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

When the publishers start accusing the second hand market for being "leeches", something no other industry does (car industry, electric appliances industry), you know the government has overdone it in the copyright protectionism department. If publisher's hadn't been given so much leeway on other things (restricting free trade via region lock, restricting the right to personal copies and fair use via DRM), they wouldn't consider restricting the second hand market their "right". But they do.

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; el-gr; LG-P990 Build/GRJ23) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1 MMS/LG-Android-MMS-V1.0/1.2

Reply Score: 11

Illegal in some countries
by protomank on Fri 24th May 2013 18:13 UTC
protomank
Member since:
2006-08-03

I'm curious to see how microsoft will deal with some countries where software is a product, not a service.
In Brazil, even EULAs era mostly not legal, and resseling is completely legal and fair, and if the manufacturer impose restrictions you can LEGALLY unlock the system. Guess what? Most people will unlock the xbox one, and piracy ratings will... raise for xbox!

Meanwhile, PS3 piracy ratings in brazil are absolutely nothing, with just a few oners of old firmware version consoles unlocking it, and resseling is a major part of this piracy lowering.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Illegal in some countries
by jigzat on Wed 29th May 2013 20:36 UTC in reply to "Illegal in some countries"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Xbox piracy was uber easy because the medium format, PS3 security although it was apparently a shame had blu-ray which just a couple of years ago was way more expensive compared to a DVD.

Same thing happened here in Colombia, almost from year one there was an Xbox 360 hack to run pirated games, and most people purchased the Xbox here because of that. People actually said I want an XBOX because I can run pirated games. Of course you could blame importing taxes which I have heard are extremely high in Brazil.

For the PS3 the hack came almost at the end of the life cycle.

If you look at the XBOX numbers Microsoft has barely make a profit considering the looses of the first XBOX and the 360 investment and initial RROD issues, no wonder why they are trying to secure their IP to make more profit.

The PS3 initial years were very trouble too and expensive thanks to the high hardware subsidizing but they manage to break even just in time.

Reply Score: 1

This won't just be Microsoft
by rthrust on Fri 24th May 2013 18:27 UTC
rthrust
Member since:
2013-05-24

I would agree that this appears to a cynical move to kill-off the used games market and get themselves a bigger cut. Furthermore, I can see this being supported by games publishers in general, as it will also allow them to exploit a market that was if scant if any value to them.

However, it seems to be the case that games on a disc or cartridge are going to dramatically decline anyway, as internet use grows and digital downloads become the norm. Consider the explosion in downloaded game use since 2005 when the last generation of consoles launched. Games bought this way will at best be tied to user accounts, and at worst to hardware (Nintendo, I'm looking at you).

It's not a lot different to DRM-protected downloadable videos in some ways. It sucks, but it's coming anyway and Microsoft might be the pioneers, but they are unlikely to be the worst or the last.

Reply Score: 1

You don't own it...
by runjorel on Fri 24th May 2013 18:30 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

I think this is a crap move by MS, but I think this adds fuel to the fire of that old adage, 'you never really own software'. You pretty much have a license to use it and this goes back to that.

While I hate it, it seems like the industry is moving to make it clear you never own the software you have, you are merely renting either at a subscription level or for a one-time fee.

Reply Score: 2

This will kill new game sales
by WildSubnet on Fri 24th May 2013 18:32 UTC
WildSubnet
Member since:
2012-01-24

I rarely buy used games. But I also rarely buy new games at $60, too. Used game market drives down the retail price of new games. This will disappear. New games will hover around $50 much longer than they do now. Some are saying this is the Steam model, but that's simply not true. Steam has competition. By forcing everyone into Microsoft's Database, competition will be an illusion.

Funny thing is, isn't Apple getting ready to get spanked by the Justice department for similar price fixing on e-books?

Reply Score: 2

RE: This will kill new game sales
by Bengar on Fri 24th May 2013 23:02 UTC in reply to "This will kill new game sales"
Bengar Member since:
2009-07-30

It's slightly different though. Apple forced publishers to change the price of books on their competitor's platforms. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the game market and is not forcing publishers to go down this route with their PC, PlayStation or Wii releases.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This will kill new game sales
by skpg on Tue 28th May 2013 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE: This will kill new game sales"
skpg Member since:
2012-09-21

No, but Microsoft has a monopoly in the pc desktop market.

Edited 2013-05-28 09:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

And if Microsoft gets its way and turns the game console into just another media PC with DRM, constant need for internet connectivity, and software leasing, then yes, the industry will sadly like follow this bullshit.

Reply Score: 2

Times are changing for worse
by sukru on Fri 24th May 2013 18:39 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

This has been discussed to death, but the console manufacturers and game publishers cannot see the errors in it due to their "maximum profit at all cost" agenda. We actually should not have expected anything else from people who fire their best employees in order to hold back their creativity or bonuses (like the Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed's designers). And continue to cash their cows.

My fear is that Sony has not explicitly said a similar thing is not in PS4. Both MS and Sony has told they are going to allow used games, and technically they do, even if in a completely broken way. If Sony also succumbs to publisher pressure, the end result will be end of games for many people.

They are probably looking at Steam's success. I do also buy a lot of games on steam, however Steam offers reasonable prices, and a lot of positive addons with the purchase (or perpetual license rental in better terms). But it looks like Microsoft will take the worst parts of it (DRM), and will bring almost none of the benefits (except for being able to play games without the disc).

These are not good times in the next generation, and I'll hold on my purchase until they fix this nonsense.

Reply Score: 5

Well, $5 won't break your bank...
by CaptainN- on Fri 24th May 2013 18:39 UTC
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

The difference in price for a used game and a retail game is usually about $5, and usually a lot less - at least in the US. That $5 difference won't break my bank, but the difference in compensation for all but the largest developers can break their bank. On balance, with the reality of where used games' price points are (at least in my region), relative to full retail, this is BETTER for everyone except Game Stop, not worse.

Reply Score: 0

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Good, then this means game prices should drop drastically, as the developers will make far more money than they used to right? We'll see.

Reply Score: 3

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Developers ? They get profit/interest shares ? Aren't they replaceable little keyboard bashing monkeys that we already have to pay too much ?

I though stocks would only be shared with the people that cannot be offshored, like head management, marketing people, etc... in fact the people that don't actually produce the value.

/sarcasm

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

My point above is that a used games market that is already pinned against retail prices hasn't lead to any downward pressure on prices (at least where I live). If your real world experience (not your philosophy or theory) is different, I'd love to hear about it, but for me there is not a substantial benefit to the existence of a used games market, only a mild benefit.

There are two kinds of economic theory taught in higher education, what they teach in the philosophy department (economics), and what they teach in business school (how to generate demand, and the perception of value, amongst other things). The one about "market forces" is taught in the philosophy department. The other one runs the world, and doesn't care about any laws of supply and demand that they don't write.

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

In many European countries you get to pay up to 5-10 € for a used game, whereas the original costs around 60€.


Additionally you can get them for free from the local library or video rental shop.

Edited 2013-05-25 06:59 UTC

Reply Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Thank you for helping me realize the error of my ways. That made up example helped me understand how limiting my choices and having to pay higher prices are of great benefit to me, as a consumer.

Reply Score: 9

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

You might not agree with what I wrote, but you could at least have the respect to avoid making accusations. I carefully qualified what I wrote, and there's nothing made up about it. Used games generally cost around $5 less than the retail version, and sometimes less where I live. If your experience is good, or if you have some kind of theoretical opposition to the reality I've shared, that's fine, we'll just have to disagree. But to the accusation of having lied or attempted to mislead you, my only response is fuck you.

Reply Score: 0

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

hey now... no need to use such a potty mouth. I am just but a poor soul who was under the mistaken opinion that choices, specially at the channel level, leading to lower prices were to my benefit as a consumer. Alas...

Edited 2013-05-24 21:43 UTC

Reply Score: 7

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Just don't make such accusation. I was being honest, and you had no reason to doubt that, but you did it anyway.

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

getting mixed messages; are accusations good or bad?

Edited 2013-05-26 22:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The difference in price for a used game and a retail game is usually about $5, and usually a lot less - at least in the US. That $5 difference won't break my bank, but the difference in compensation for all but the largest developers can break their bank. On balance, with the reality of where used games' price points are (at least in my region), relative to full retail, this is BETTER for everyone except Game Stop, not worse.


Sucks to be you, then.

Around here, used games are around $20 CDN, sometimes more, sometimes less.

New games are rarely less than $50 CDN, unless you find them in the Bargain Bin, but that doesn't happen for 6-10 months after release.

Just because your region has expensive used games doesn't mean that's how it is everywhere.

Reply Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Sucks to be you, then.

Around here, used games are around $20 CDN, sometimes more, sometimes less.

New games are rarely less than $50 CDN, unless you find them in the Bargain Bin, but that doesn't happen for 6-10 months after release.

Just because your region has expensive used games doesn't mean that's how it is everywhere.


One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention is private sales of used games; we do not have any used-games chains like the Gamestop here in Finland, people mostly buy/sell such on the Finnish eBay-like site called Huuto.net. I am actually aware of a single store selling used games and that's 500km away.

Now, I can see loads of used games on Huuto.net, like e.g. there's listings for Xbox360 - games starting as low as 4€/pop! But if you are required to contact Microsoft for every game sold and the buyer must also pay £35 just to active what he/she has bought no one will bother anymore, it'll literally be the death of used-game sales here!

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Microsoft for every game sold and the buyer must also pay £35 just to active what he/she has bought no one will bother anymore


Wouldn't Finnish consumer protection laws prevent this kind of thing though?

it'll literally be the death of used-game sales here!


And so the plan comes together perfectly...

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"Microsoft for every game sold and the buyer must also pay £35 just to active what he/she has bought no one will bother anymore


Wouldn't Finnish consumer protection laws prevent this kind of thing though?
"

No. You can still sell what you've bought and Microsoft has no say on that, but the laws do not state anything about online services having to play the ball, too; the part where the game is associated with a Xbox Live - account is a service and thus falls under different set of laws.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Oh right, it's for the online service activation.
On the other hand, the game is completely useless without the activation so you're more or less forced to do the activation.
A bit of a grey area, perhaps.

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

A bit of a grey area, perhaps.


The laws are simply horribly outdated. Alas, I fear that the situation won't be getting any better here as it's clear that the politicians here have adopted the US-way of thinking -- you know, the one where they're entitled to expensive gifts and donations and the likes which will influence the way they steer the country.

Reply Score: 4

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

True. And what about just giving your old games to your little brother, nephew, grandkids, neighbor, etc? This just had "corporate screw over" written all over it. Customers be dammed.

Reply Score: 3

kompak Member since:
2011-06-14

One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention is private sales of used games; we do not have any used-games chains like the Gamestop here in Finland, people mostly buy/sell such on the Finnish eBay-like site called Huuto.net. I am actually aware of a single store selling used games and that's 500km away.


I don't know where you live, but at least in my hometown there's two Gamestops and at least one smaller used games shop. And we are barely in the top10 of biggest cities in Finland. Surely huuto.net has killed off many of the smaller stores, but there are still quite a few left. They just don't usually advertise very much.

Reply Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Obviously it's not the same everywhere in the U.S. It's a big country, remember? Where I live (just outside of Atlanta, GA) I've snapped up used Xbox 360 games for as low as $5-$15, and that's at GameStop of all places. And I'm not talking boring yearly sports releases or games that are useless without DLC. I recently got the last two Final Fantasy games for $16 total out the door.

Old Playstation, PS2, and Gameboy Advance games are even cheaper. If I hit the stores at the right time I can get some of the best titles for those platforms for under $5 each. I even managed to get a great Nintendo DS game that had been out for less than six months for $18. Retail for that game was still at $40, so it was less than half price.

Of course, all of this is anecdotal, but then so was your comment. My point being, just because it's a certain way for you in your specific area doesn't mean it's a nationwide experience, and certainly not worldwide.

Reply Score: 4

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

I felt like I clearly indicated that I was talking about my experience and my region. It's good to hear that some folks are seeing those kinds of price differences, you certainly don't see them online or in my area.

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The difference in price for a used game and a retail game is usually about $5, and usually a lot less - at least in the US.


Sorry, but you were clearly speaking for the entire nation as a whole, when you couldn't possibly know the prices for every game in every used game store in the nation.

And it does indeed vary greatly based on the local economy. In the rural town where I grew up, used prices are much closer to retail. In the metro area where I live now, less than 50 miles from my hometown, the prices for used games (and CDs and DVDs) is very competitive.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Hayoo!
by Hayoo! on Fri 24th May 2013 18:48 UTC
Hayoo!
Member since:
2013-04-13

I'm sure some hacker group will come up with some sort of parallel black market universe shortly after the console's release that disgruntled users will flock into. Microsoft's gonna get a hurt real bad.

Reply Score: 1

Pathetic
by benali72 on Fri 24th May 2013 19:53 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

MS is desperate because they're floundering in the phone and tablet markets. So it's time to put the squeeze on their loyal user base. It's one with the "secure boot" attempt to cripple OS competition for desktops & laptops. Pathetic.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Pathetic
by ricegf on Sat 25th May 2013 11:36 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Yes, funny thing, that. I used to think nothing of buying a Windows computer to wipe and use with Linux. But now with Microsoft's new "Windows or nothing" tech, I've moved to buying pre-installed Linux or custom builds only. It's not that I cannot determine which machines can be repurposed - it's just no longer more convenient to buy off the rack.

I wonder if I'm not so unique that part of the unexpected drop in PC sales is related to this. Probably not, but in a perfect world, it should.

Reply Score: 4

Opportunity
by bnolsen on Fri 24th May 2013 21:23 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

Just think of this as "opportunity" for someone else to grab marketshare.

So what will Sony do? Will the game companies try to force them to follow MS's lead?

If a company tries to screw you does that make piracy legal? (no it doesn't). But it's fun to screw "da man".

Edited 2013-05-24 21:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Opportunity
by Laurence on Fri 24th May 2013 22:06 UTC in reply to "Opportunity"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'd rather see people boycott Xbox rather than turn to piracy. Arguments about the moral high ground and peoples livelihoods aside, if people are pirating Xbox games then they're still buying the Xbox and Microsoft are still gaining over their competitors in the race of the highest market share (much like how pirated copies of Windows are still better for Microsoft than people switching to Linux / OS X).

Reply Score: 5

So basically...
by tylerdurden on Fri 24th May 2013 21:51 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

Microsoft does not want a repeat of the ipod/iphone/ipad debacle (for them), and they're trying to anticipate Apple's move into the teevee/living room space (if there is any truth to some rumors) by making the xbox ecosystem very attractive to the interests of (large) content providers.

It'd be interesting to see the price points for this generation of consoles.

Reply Score: 3

jnemesh
Member since:
2008-04-08

If what the developers said were true, then how do authors survive with used bookstores? Maybe we should force all readers to buy NEW copies of their books, so the publishers can be "fairly compensated". This is crap, pure and simple, and I hope the readers here have better sense than to waste their money on this JOKE of a console!

Reply Score: 3

Bengar Member since:
2009-07-30

I think that is a wrong analogy as used book stores mostly deal with out of print stock. It would be like arguing that publishers are competing with retro-gaming shops that sell products from discontinued consoles such as the Sega Dreamcast or PS2.

Reply Score: 1

r00kie Member since:
2009-12-10

Give it some time, they'll get there eventually.

Reply Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

used book stores mostly deal with out of print stock.


Can you cite a source for that? My sister is an avid book reviewer ( http://historical-fiction.com ) and while she gets a lot of her books via giveaways and publisher advance copies, she also does a lot of browsing in used book stores for current, in-print books. She also once worked as a manager at a used book store that I still visit frequently, and while they have a good selection of old out of print stock, the bulk of their inventory is in print.

It's been my general experience that there are two types of used book stores: Antique stores that sell books older than the building that houses them, and general used book stores that deal mostly in current works.

Reply Score: 5

TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

That is such bullshit it isn't even funny.

Have you ever actually read a book? Have you ever bought a book from a used bookstore?

Half Price books stock is about 80/20 new versus out of print stock. Used book stores won't buy books older than a few years given that no one wants used books any more. If you want to find rarer out of print books, your only choices are online or very small specialty book shops that are usually only in cities with college campuses.

This new model that Microsoft is pushing is exactly in sync with the used car, used book, or used CD analogy.

Imagine buying a used Kayne West CD and having to pay to play it on your computer or CD player. That is ludicrous!

Reply Score: 5

ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

http://majornelson.com/2013/05/24/xbox-one-and-used-games-2/

Let's just wait out and see what they're planning.

Reply Score: 2

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Wait and see ? Nope, already seeking for alternatives... They don't deserve my attention anymore, they decided to introduce me with their screw-you machine, yet I'm not into this.

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Planning? Making the one disc work on any console does not require "planning". It comes free. Let's not start bending the language as if it requires any effort on Microsoft's part to 'allow' us simple freedoms.

This whole disc-registration system took a lot of people a long time and a lot of money to plan, design and implement. Robbing people of their right to trade discs does not come intrinsically with the hardware and Microsoft have to invest time and effort in making this freedom available, it's the other way around!

Words like "planning", "enabling" are weasel words. Freedom comes free, with no effort required. You do not "enable" a second-hand market, it just is. You do not "plan" how a second-hand market works, it happens on its own without Microsoft's blessing.

I swear one day we'll be cheering Microsoft / Apple / Google for "allowing" us to "lend" our games to select, authorised friends under strict conditions -- AND at a reasonable price! :|

AAA gaming is going down the pan. The plug has been pulled on consumers. You can either be in the vortex as it swirls down the plughole or you can watch from the sidelines.

Reply Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And you have the freedom not to buy an Xbox One. If you don't like how it works ... don't buy one.

Also Steam, Origin and UPlay do exactly the same thing and nobody batters an eyelid. The level of hypocrisy is astounding.

The reason why DRM and other nasty tactics like this have come into fashion is because it makes piracy harder for most people, because games in the last decade have been pirated to death.

Thom, You or someone else will pipe up and go "I want some proof" ... We all know it happens and all one has to do is go on the pirate bay and see how ridiculously easy it is.

If you think triple A releases are going anywhere soon you are a fool. Modern Warfare 3 sold I believe more than most Hollywood Movie releases in its first week.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I still want proof. Sorry for opting for science instead of just regurgitating corporate speak. Some of us are independent.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://www.pcworld.com/article/182010/xbox_users_banned.html


Didn't really take much googling did it? This was a massive story because Modern Warfare came out short before-hand.

This would be the only reliable source (but because it comes from Microsoft it probably tainted ... so I already know what you are going to day) of data because on PC you are trying to make me prove a negative. It like trying to measure the Desktop Linux install base ... you can't.

Following this ban, a large number of modded Xbox 360 consoles are being put up for sale on sites such as Craigslist. The average price for such a console is now around $90, much under the normal market price of around $200. Precaution when buying such a console is advised, as Microsoft warned that anyone who accidentally purchased a modded Xbox 360 console would not receive any help or compensation from the company


Everyone knows it exists and it happens. Playing dumb like this Thom is quite frankly tiring.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, Microsoft bans up to 1 million Xbox Live accounts for piracy. Huh. That's 2% of the total amount of Xbox live subscribers.

Yup. Piracy is rampant!

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

2% is quite a lot of money when it is that many users.

If they had bought Call of Duty: MW2 that would be £70 million pounds ... that is a lot of money. That would probably fund quite a bit development on a triple A title.

We have 4 million users a month on the site that I work on. 1% are IE7 users and 2% Opera users ... That is still 120000 people giving us money that otherwise wouldn't.

Also 2 million people doing something that isn't a right thing to do in the first place is okay?

EDIT: Also It isn't the point Thom, they are getting a free ride when I can tell you being a developer getting a release out can be like going through hell.

I would like to see if you had the same attitude after doing all nighters, having arguments with your spouse and not having a life for a few weeks/months outside of work. Which btw happens far to often all over the software industry.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HeroicProgramming

Edited 2013-05-25 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Also Steam, Origin and UPlay do exactly the same thing and nobody batters an eyelid. The level of hypocrisy is astounding.


Both Origin and UPlay suck arse, to be honest. I have never heard of anyone actually liking either service.

Valve atleast works hard to try and keep Steam relevant and improve it. Also, one of the reasons why people tend to give Steam more slack is because the games simply are cheaper than console games -- especially so if you just wait for the various sales that Valve arranges on Steam all around the year! What little I've checked in on PSN on the PS3, for example, their "sales" consist of a mere handful of titles and the price reduction is 5%-10% whereas Valve offers hundreds of games at reduced prices during both the summer and Christmas sales and even 90% reduction in price ain't unheard of.

Basically, getting games on the PC is leaps and bounds cheaper than on consoles. And because they're so much more expensive on consoles people want to be able to buy and sell used games so they can save a penny here, a penny there.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It not really the point of what I was saying was it? If you are actually sticking to your principles ... you would complain about these services also.

If you are shouting you mouth off about something as much as some people on here because Microsoft are doing it a bit more blatantly than Valve and then you don't take the same stance against Valve well?

At least a shmerl, while I don't like him is at least consistent with his hate of DRM.

As to the quality of UPlay and Origin, They work acceptably in most cases and to get an English copy of the game (I live in Spain, I am an Expat), Origin is a bit better than Steam (though the store thinks I speak Spainish).

Steam fires up Uplay btw for Ubisoft titles:

http://i.imgur.com/A0J6Ltr.jpg?1

BTW Far Cry 3 : Blood Dragon is lots of fun to play.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It not really the point of what I was saying was it? If you are actually sticking to your principles ... you would complain about these services also.


I have, actually.

If you are shouting you mouth off about something as much as some people on here because Microsoft are doing it a bit more blatantly than Valve and then you don't take the same stance against Valve well?


It took me ages to start using Steam exactly because of these very same reasons and I actually complained about it for a long time. In the end I didn't really have a choice if I wanted to continue playing as these days more-or-less all games worth playing require Steam/UPlay/Origin on the PC. The only games that come without DRM are some crappy Indie-ones or really old games.

Steam fires up Uplay btw for Ubisoft titles:


I know it does, I just don't understand how that's relevant.

BTW Far Cry 3 : Blood Dragon is lots of fun to play.


Meh. I'm not into retro-stuff.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I have, actually.


I know, I was asking rhetorically, maybe that wasn't clear.

If you are shouting you mouth off about something as much as some people on here because Microsoft are doing it a bit more blatantly than Valve and then you don't take the same stance against Valve well?


Again I was asking rhetorically. It seems it is easy for this to get mis-understood.



Meh. I'm not into retro-stuff.


Fair enough.

Edited 2013-05-25 19:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Also Steam, Origin and UPlay do exactly the same thing and nobody batters an eyelid.


It's not the same thing when it involves physical media that have been purchased. And for the price I'm expected to pay for a new game I damn well own that copy.

because games in the last decade have been pirated to death.


And yet, the industry keeps growing an' growing and is profitable.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It's not the same thing when it involves physical media that have been purchased. And for the price I'm expected to pay for a new game I damn well own that copy.


It is the same thing and been like that for a while now. Most games on PC whether they are disk or come from an online store won't want to start unless they get connected to an online account.

Half Life 2 was one of the first games I believed that did this. Except again this is easily forgotten.

]And yet, the industry keeps growing an' growing and is profitable.


And the development costs keep on growing as well. Also it is totally besides the point.

Edited 2013-05-26 07:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It is the same thing and been like that for a while now.


Yes, you are correct. They're the same and as such the consumer has, or at least should have, the right to give or sell his digital or physical copy to anyone else. This goes for Steam as well as XBO.
It's not like it's technically difficult and in fact the DRM helps, in a way, since it would make it very unlikely that the seller could keep a working copy.
The only reason it's not done is greed and lack of regulatory pressure.

Granted people don't complain about this for Steam but that's probably because they generally pay much less for the games there. It's much easier to live with not being able to sell, or give away, a $5-$10 product than a $60-$70 one.

(And seriously, $70 for a game? That I can't sell second-hand? That's robbery, that is.)

Reply Score: 2

TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Look Lucas, here is the bottom line which you just don't seem to want to understand.

We get that Steam and PC gaming has been heading into this always on, cloud based, downloading and activate gaming model now for a few years.

But, and here is the rub, the console industry never fucking ever worked this way.

This is NOT how games were in the past. If I own Skyrim for the Xbox 360, I simply pop in the game and it runs. Maybe some parts are stored on the hard drive, such as saves, but in essence, it just plays. I can pop out the disc, take it to my friends 360, pop it back in, and he can now play. I can take it to Gamestop and sell it. They give me cash or trade. Some other dude comes in and buys it, takes it home, and pops it in and plays it. The same has been true from the Atari 2600 to the PS3. I own a game. It does not require activation, the internet, or any of the bullshit associated with PC gaming today to play. The game disc is an actual object. I can sell it. I can trade it. I can gift it. Once I purchase it, well, it is no different than a music cd or a book.

This is now ending with the One. If I own Halo 5 for the Xbox One, I pop in the game, install it to the hard drive, activate it through my paid-for subscription to Xbox Live, and I play the game. Some parts are done locally. Other parts are done via their new cloud server farm. I can pop out the disc, take it to my kids One and if I log in via my account, yes, I can play it on his machine. But, and this is critical, if I log out, and he logs in, even if it is installed on the machine, it is not yet activated on his account. He must purchase now a separate license to make it run. If I turn around and give this game to a friend, he must also purchase a license once it is installed on his One's hard drive. It is also looking like if I want to give or sell the game used, that I must deactivate the disc from my system and Live account so that some one else can then do it. That is how a Photoshop license is done. I transfer ownership. They buy the physical media from me and then they must buy a license as well for activation. The serial that came with my physical media WILL NOT work for them beyond a 30 day trial basis unless I transfer that key to the buyer for them to then activate it!

Now does everyone get how radical this is? Microsoft is hoping to completely change the gaming industry to make it exactly like their Office and Windows OS software industry. They are selling you hardware. They are selling you a subscription to a service that you must purchase to use said hardware. They are then leasing you software through Live and the big gaming corporations. The physical media is now irrelevant. What is necessary is the licensing and activation of the software. The media is only important as far as transfer of ownership and licensing goes. Eventually they will replace the physical media with complete downloadable software.

So a console is no longer a console but is instead just another fucking PC. If I want to play PC games then I will go through the bullshit of Steam (I prefer GOG with no DRM thank you very much!) and activation schemes, and dll's calling home to verify my legit software. That is one reason why I moved away from PC gaming except for older games or some emulation of older systems, and instead I play on the Wii, PS3, and 360! I don't want another fucking PC experience. I don't want Facebook. I don't want Cloud services. I don't want mandatory phone home's once a day. I just want to buy a game disc, pop it in, and play it when I want to play just as I have done since I was a fucking kid with my Atari 2600 and River Run. And when I am done, I will do with the disc as I please. I can gift it, sell it, trade it, or fucking trash it. Microsoft and Betheseda have no say in what I do with it AFTER I purchase it.

Do you get it now?! And if this is where it is all heading and the PS4 and the WiiU2 does this as well, the industry will crash as it did in the 1980's. I remember it very well - greedy fuckers! Let them enjoy the money from the casual gamer with their Fruit Ninja games. I have more than enough consoles and real games to last the rest of my life without buying into this bullshit. And I am not alone.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Get this, they don't care about the few people like you ... doesn't matter how much you whine.

There is no evidence so far that there will be any consumer backlash.

iTunes -- success
Steam -- success
Spotify -- success

God, I heard similar arguments when people heard you had to pay for Xbox Live. Guess what, it is pretty successful.

Reply Score: 2

TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

But see that is the problem - there are more than a few people who feel as I do.

Sure Live is 'pretty successful' but no where near as successful as the PSN which is free.

iTunes - no choice if you are using a Mac or want to run an iDevice. Lock in there instead of choice.

Steam - again, no choice if you want to purchase certain PC games.

Spotify - who gives a shit. This generation doesn't know anything except digital music apparently.

We'll see how this turns out, I guess.

But considering that E3 has not even occurred and really the only talk about the new Xbox One is uniformly about the controversies and the negatives, this really isn't a PR marketing win for Microsoft.

First impressions are what we remember - marketing 101 for any one with a business education. ;)

Reply Score: 3

yester64 Member since:
2012-07-28

I think thats why i don't buy games over steam anymore. Rather i buy them if i can over Gog. For the newer games i prefer a console so i can at least avoid DRM apps on my computer.
But it does get increasingly harder to avoid DRM these days. I actually stopped to buy newer games since i feel that there are not as good anymore.
The mass will buy whatever comes out and whats popular.
My kind of games are now in decline and so i look more on the indie front.

Reply Score: 1

skpg Member since:
2012-09-21

Developers and publishers don't lose too much money on piracy because under copyright law piracy is illegal. Now if we had no copyright law, there would be no such thing as piracy.

The PS1, PS2, and PSP were pirated to death and they were very profitable for Sony, unfortunately Sony burned it all on the PS3 and recent business decisions.

Reply Score: 1

loonies
by l3v1 on Sat 25th May 2013 09:18 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

The retailer can then sell the pre-owned game at whatever price they like, although as part of the system the publisher of the title in question will automatically receive a percentage cut of the sale. As will Microsoft. The retailer will pocket the rest.


Well, that's fairly clear, to some extent (publishers and MS want more money, unsurprisingly). What is not clear however, whether one'd be able to just give a game to someone, for free, basically transfering ownership of it, without any monetary compensation. Of course we all know what we can expect at this point. Yet, the big problem is that they simply do not come out and explain all the terms in a simple and clear manner, which is in itself a collective screwfest of all interested people.

Well, the least I can do is express myself clearly: if I can't give or sell (i.e. transfer) a game easily, quickly and optionally free to someone, then I won't buy it in the first place.

Lots of places I can spend my money with less hassle. Just get the point.

Reply Score: 3

RE: loonies
by BlueofRainbow on Sat 25th May 2013 12:03 UTC in reply to "loonies"
BlueofRainbow Member since:
2009-01-06

From what seems to emerge you won't be able to give it for free to a friend unless one can de-register the game from the system first. If de-registration can only occur via a MS recognized used-game-store, then giving it for free won't work - I doubt very much a store would do this service for free.

It does not seem possible to give away (for free) a downloaded tune or e-book. Also, Amazon and Apple are developing ideas (patents) to profit from the secondary content distribution market along with others like ReDigi.

The need for the distributor of the content taking a cut on its re-sale is a bit ludicrous. It would be like the great-great-great grand children of Leonardo da Vinci taking a cut of the resale of every pieces of arts ever produced by him.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by fran
by fran on Sat 25th May 2013 09:28 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

I wonder if this will drop the price on some of those games.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by fran
by WereCatf on Sat 25th May 2013 09:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by fran"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I wonder if this will drop the price on some of those games.


Short answer: no.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by fran
by lucas_maximus on Sat 25th May 2013 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by fran"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

We will see.

There is the argument:

http://tay.kotaku.com/everything-you-hate-about-the-xbox-one-and-wh...

Okay, fine. Let’s say you’re onboard with money going to developers instead of retailers. That doesn’t make gaming any more affordable. Or does it? This move towards an all-digital future is hugely beneficial to publishers. Digital has a much better profit margin than physical, and by phasing out physical you phase out secondhand sales which take a huge bite out of revenue. With these money sinks out of the way, publishers are free to offer the same sort of massive discounts on Xbox One as we see today on PC’s via services like Steam. With physical overhead gone, and confidence that 1 sale will not be turned into 9 additional sales that they see no return on, the possibility space for innovative marketing solutions opens wide up, and if Steam’s any indication, people will want to take advantage of that.

Alright, so more money goes to the developers, and it’ll help keep costs down. But what if I just want to bring the game over to a buddy’s house and play on it there? Well, you’ll be able to. The games are tied to your LIVE account, and your LIVE account exists in the cloud. Go to your friend’s Xbox One, log in to your profile, pop in the disc, and you’re good to go. What if you’re home, but different people in the house have different LIVE accounts, what then? Also no problem. The games are tied to a single LIVE account, but any other account on the owning account’s “home unit” are free to play the game as well.


Maybe what is happening on Steam will happen on Xbox One.

Who knows at the moment?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by fran
by Darkmage on Sun 26th May 2013 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by fran"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

Basically Microsoft is inciting piracy with these policies. It's no justification. it's just reality. People will do whatever they can to get what they want the way they want it. Prohibition didn't work for booze and strong DRM isn't going to work for games.$110 a copy is excessive. I bought 30+ PS3 games this generation because I was grey market importing the games at $20-40. Take away that option and I am gone from the console scene.

If all my friends are on the consoles and there's no other option then I'll probably turn to piracy. There is a point where you're not selling a product anymore, you're ripping me off. You can not like it, you can say I'm a bad person all you want. But at the end of the day if people I know are playing the games and I want to play. I'm not shelling out $500 for console hardware, $400 for controllers and $110/game which is the current Australian retail cost of gaming. Gaming is a hobby, it's not a necessity for living.

For $1000 I can buy a pretty sweet computer rig, and do better things with my time. Or I can give it to Chris Roberts for making Star Citizen. I know which one I'll do (Mr Roberts got $1000 from me recently). The games industry isn't losing anything to piracy, it's losing sales to shitty products and not catering to their market. When someone pirates for the first time they are being exposed to a completely new business model. It becomes very easy and tempting to then follow that model in the future. Pushing people towards piracy with high prices and tighter controls is a bad idea that is just going to exacerbate the problem.

Edited 2013-05-26 01:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by fran
by Soulbender on Sun 26th May 2013 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by fran"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Digital has a much better profit margin than physical, and by phasing out physical you phase out secondhand sales which take a huge bite out of revenue


It's good that digital distribution has better profit margin but making it a point to get rid of second-hand sales is a bit too much like being a greedy douchebag.
People sell stuff they no longer need or want, that has always been the case. Wanting to stop this just make them seem petty.

and confidence that 1 sale will not be turned into 9 additional sales that they see no return on


Unless those 9 additional sales would otherwise have been of a new game you'd see no increased return on investment. It's not necessarily, or maybe not even likely, that you'd see 9 additional sales of new games and if that's the case, well, it could even be a net negative since your game gets less exposure and mindshare.

With these money sinks out of the way, publishers are free to offer the same sort of massive discounts on Xbox One as we see today on PC’s via services like Steam.


Nice in theory but in practice it may turn out like gas prices: they always go up, never down.

Alright, so more money goes to the developers


Oh come on, we all know that's not where the money will go.

That said, if the game will work as described in that post that seems perfectly ok to me. You can play at your friends house and your family can use your games on your "home unit" (whatever that means).
I do think that in the interest of the consumer you should be able to sell your digitally owned games to someone else at no extra cost, be it Steam or Xbox One. It's really not unreasonable that you should be able to sell something you no longer use or want.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by fran
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by fran"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Sure it will, "It's the economy stupid" someone said. After all there is competition, you don't like Xbox One prices…ok…you could buy a PS4 a Wii U or a better PC.

Reply Score: 1

this is stupid
by muffenme on Sat 25th May 2013 14:27 UTC
muffenme
Member since:
2006-01-05

microsoft, this isn't good for gamers on a budget. i don't think microsft shouldn't about used game market.

Reply Score: 1

RE: this is stupid
by Morgan on Sun 26th May 2013 07:19 UTC in reply to "this is stupid"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The only budget Microsoft cares about is their own, and that's how it should be.

The market will either reward or punish the game publishers, because if they price the games out of the range of all but the most hardcore players they will begin bleeding money instead of earning it. And if that happens, Microsoft will have to convince the publishers to make their prices more palatable.

On the other hand, if the publishers use their heads for more than hat racks and actually price the games to sell, then sell they will no matter the DRM and resale-hostile "features" embedded in the new Xbox. The platform will be considered a huge success and will set the standard for future console gaming.

Personally I don't care since I rarely play games at all, and the only consoles I own today are two obsolete Nintendo handhelds and a Wii with a broken optical drive. But I'll be watching this situation develop with popcorn in hand.

Reply Score: 2

Fair Use
by Lorin on Sun 26th May 2013 10:08 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Lets not forget those Court rulings allowing you to transfer ownership of the software as long as you don't retain a copy.

Reply Score: 4

Me Too
by saidge@yahoo.com on Sun 26th May 2013 22:07 UTC
saidge@yahoo.com
Member since:
2007-11-06

I bought Borderlands 2 the day it came out because a friend loaned me a copy of Borderlands. I then turned around and bought my own copy so I could return the original copy.

Something that hasn't been touched on is that I've been known to take a chance on a popular new game I'm unsure about because I knew if I didn't like it I could turn around and sell it 'like new' on Amazon. Like I'm ever taking a chance on an XBOX One game while they're pulling this crap. No way.

Microsoft, you're making Sony look good to me, but even more, you're making the idea of skipping the whole next generation sound like a brilliant idea.

You're treating your paying customers like software pirates - and what's more, in your greed, you're actually building a market for competitors! I guess that's one way to avoid a monopoly... Kinda sick though, if you ask me.

Reply Score: 4

alib88.com
by alib on Tue 28th May 2013 14:40 UTC
alib
Member since:
2013-05-28

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

( http://www.alib88.com/ )

Believe you will love it.

We accept any form of payment.


http://www.alib88.com/Michael-Kors-Handbags-n2447/

Reply Score: 1

Sasparilla
Member since:
2007-12-07

This is an opening for Sony and the PS4, if (at the executive level) they choose to go for it.

If Sony gives us a normal disc based experience (the disc is what runs, no daily online link needed, not a UserID verified through a server constantly), regular used disc sales experience and I'll be abandoning my Xbox and Xbox360 habit and going with Sony for the PS4.

We'll have to wait and see on the PS4 - with the significantly better video hardware and this opportunity, its totally in Sony Executive's hands (God help us) to win this console round from the beginning if they so choose.

Reply Score: 1

Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

The key is going to be the publishers. If major publishers like EA and Activision have the guts to tell Sony to take a hike until they take similar measures as Microsoft, Sony may not have a choice.

Reply Score: 1

Kind of make some sense...
by rrife on Wed 29th May 2013 12:29 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

They are allowing end-users to fully install the game on the system, thankfully, so they'll need a way to ensure that you don't just copy the disc and give it to a friend (or just rent a game). I suspect the way it'll work is that after you install the game and other user/system attempts to install the game from the disc, the original installer will be asked to pay full price to continue use of the license. I could also see the 2nd user being asked to pay a small fee to use the game as well since they basically skipped buying the disc at retail, thus preventing the retailer from getting a cut of the money.

Reply Score: 1

So uncosumer friendly
by Drunkula on Wed 29th May 2013 12:40 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

To me this is akin to buying a car. If you end up selling the car the manufacturer no longer get's compensation for it (they've already been paid)- the seller does.

Yeah I know about how software isn't sold, it's licensed. That in itself is complete bullshit.

Reply Score: 1

RE: So uncosumer friendly
by jigzat on Wed 29th May 2013 23:55 UTC in reply to "So uncosumer friendly"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Actually the manufacturer might get profit after the original buyer re-sells it in the way of technical service or parts, of course there is a parallel third party business.

In any case cars and car manufacturing is not a good analogy for many reasons, one of them is that usually you re-sell your car years after having buy it (unless you are one of those able to renew car every 6 months), with video games you usually play it in a month or even less and that was it, with very few exceptions you might get to play it once every year if not you just resell it or lend it while the game is still being sold.

There are ways around it, as I said I don't think their concern is lending games to friends but making a business around that in they detriment.

I like the PS3 way with PSN games, you could get your friend to give you access to their account and that lets you install the game in up to three consoles more, if your concern is lending to friends.

In my case I don't buy used games but I usually never buy them at launch, I just wait until the price gets cut by the reseller.

Edited 2013-05-30 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 29th May 2013 15:42 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Am I the only person who thinks it's really dumb to start the original posting with "So, the Xbox One disaster continues."? I understand the opposition to some (or many) of the new changes but to label the Xbox One as a disaster at this stage shows a lack of common sense. I think the truth will paint a very different picture with the Xbox One being quite successful, but I'm not dumb enough to declare it as such until it actually is. The same should be true for the reverse.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by jigzat on Wed 29th May 2013 20:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Agree with you, so far we have only heard rumors.

Reply Score: 1

this is stupid
by muffenme on Wed 29th May 2013 20:44 UTC
muffenme
Member since:
2006-01-05

I refused to buy a system that I can't use used games in it. This is a rip off. We should be able to do almost anything with the game, except for making copy of them then selling them. Are they going to remove the copy protection on the disk so we can make, probably not. I refused to buy any system like this no matter cost of the system.

Reply Score: 1