“Sources with first-hand experience of Microsoft’s next generation console have told us that although the next Xbox will be absolutely committed to online functionality, games will still be made available to purchase in physical form. Next Xbox games will be manufactured on 50GB-capacity Blu-ray discs, Microsoft having conceded defeat to Sony following its ill-fated backing of the HD-DVD format. It is believed that games purchased on disc will ship with activation codes, and will have no value beyond the initial user.” Crap like this should be illegal. If I can’t buy second-hand games at my local favourite game store, Microsoft can shove this new Xbox where the sun don’t shine. Which it obviously doesn’t do in Redmond if they can come up with this kind of user-hostile bullshit. You can pretty much guarantee that they have made a silent agreement with Sony to implement similar anti-user feature on the next Playstation.
I think Sony and MS think that by doing this they will help their publishers, I imagine that many people will just buy less games as they can’t get money back for their old ones.
Also anyone with more than one machine is going to have to buy multiple copies.
Ultimately they will have to drop the price or drop anti-second hand block.
Irony would be if one side is bluffing the other into doing this knowing how it will benefit them not to do it.
Doubt it will matter, this is hugely different to the DRM Steam has.
I’m honestly not surprised with the amount of Piracy and the spiraling costs of game development.
I can’t say I like it, but it been going this way for years with things like DLC packs and Xbox Live and similar services.
Microsoft products. So a company has repeatedly shown that it’s hostile to the customer. Why keep purchasing their products?
Of course Microsoft is also a publisher, but in the last years there has been growing an uneasiness among all publishers to even allow a second hand market to exist.
This is why most AAA games now have DLC as a way to prevent the games to be re-sold.
Second hand shops don’t need to give any money back to the publishers, nowadays if you read game developer’s magazines the phenomenon is seen as worse as piracy, because currently it cannot be legally forbidden.
Why the hell should it be forbidden!? 2nd hand books can still be sold and bought legally in a lot of countries. No publisher demanded money for that.
I guess people in book publishing have a lot more brains than the ones doing games/music/movie publishing.
Edited 2013-02-06 14:11 UTC
Greed is the word you’re looking for. Greed.
They have brains, they just have them filled with greed.
Actually, the book publishers would love to get rid of secondhand book sellers. They haven’t had luck with physical books, so they are working really hard on ebooks. That’s why there are so many stupid drm schemes involved in the ebook world.
On the other hand, it’s not really difficult to get DRM-free books, is it? I bought (admittedly all technical) ebooks straight from O’Reilly, Manning, Packtpub and PragProg and none of them use DRM. I can download them in multiple formats (pdf, epub) and use them on any device I like. The only thing that some do, is “personalise” those ebooks. And if you subscribe to their newsletters, it’s not that difficult to buy those ebooks with interesting discounts.
Now try that in a less liberal environment.
Like say… popular fiction.
Can you get any of the Harry Potter books without DRM? I’ve yet to see.
This is how it works in the real world. It works better than passing laws and other worthless ventures.
XBL was supposed to have dedicated servers. MS backtracked. No one said a word.
MS is making it’s users pay for basic online capabilities. This is a free “feature” on every other platform. No one complains.
Yeah, and despite making people pay for features that other consoles offer for free, they put ads all over the dashboard. Plus, 360s were dying by the thousands, and some people have bought 3 or 4 of them because of this.
Just goes to show you that gamers, as a whole, love nothing better than to take it up the ass. Repeatedly.
If they do this they are creating a lot of demand for competition.
Considering their 85% failure rate on the 360’s I don’t think it’s impossible for another company to build competing hardware.
The real issue is OS. Maybe it would create enough demand for steam box (linux based) to add a physical disk drive or give Ouya (android based) a better footing in the market.
I still have the original “100% failure” xboxes that came out in 2005.
Still running fine.
Edited 2013-02-07 18:52 UTC
The “100% failure rate” is definitely an exaggeration, but insinuating that because yours is fine the problem is likely more trivial than reported is also unreasonable. There’s a reason “Red Ring of Death” became a phenomenon. Studies were even done by those in the industry with statistically significant samples of hardware to show that the failure rate was extraordinarily high.
One of the reasons i sold my xbox. I am not much happier with the playstation either.
At least on the playstation you don’t have to pay for a service that enables you to use netflix which was important to me.
I rather play games on the pc. I battled that with myself for a long time and in the end i play anyway not that much anymore, although i still play somewhat moderate rpg’s so i am still playing.
Well this truly sucks. Sony is worse than MS and obviously I won’t be buying PS4 (PSN multiple hacks and remaining silent for a long time, dropping PS2 support, dropping otherOS support, and just plain Sony with their trojans).
I just hope some developers will be smart enough to realize that charging 60 euros for their 12 hour games is way too much when they won’t be “losing” sales from used games.
Or that it will be easy to jailbreak the console. >:)
Because no way I’m going to PC gaming (troubleshooting, steam, origin – shoot me now).
Edited 2013-02-06 14:09 UTC
Nintendo has the same problem.
Games are expensive because they have to be printed on media, packaged and distributed. Add to that the fact that retailers will take a cut.
Nowadays, digital publishing allows for much cheaper distribution and Steam has shown that this is a success.
It would completely make sense that digital versions of games cost significantly less.
The problem is that retailers have made very clear that they won’t sell physical goods if a digital version is available for less than the retail cost. They boycotted the PSPGO for this reason, and would have happily boycotted Apple except for the fact they have their own retail stores.
While the balance is shifting towards digital distribution, retail still accounts for the larger part of the income of Publishers. Until this changes, games will be expensive and people will have to resort to purchasing second hand goods.
In any case, I think Valve is going the right way with Piston and I’m sure that model will be the doom of Sony and Microsoft.
You are absolutely wrong. Manufacturing full retail-ready packages is dirt cheap — literally a buck and some change. Retailers have low margins. Games are like movies.. Some cost an insane amount to make, some not so much. But they all aren’t cheap. Couple that with MAP pricing and there you have your $59.99 retail price.
You’re greatly over-estimating the cost of physical distribution. That is simply not where the bulk of the cost comes in so no, digital versions aren’t and won’t be significantly less.
Again, retail packaging and distribution is not where the majority of cost comes from. Look at what has happened with music. Is an mp3 album significantly less than buying the physical cd? NO, and often times the digital version is more expensive. For albums where the digital version actually is cheaper, it isn’t by much — typically a couple bucks at most.
People are going to continue paying a lot for games whether they buy a physical or digital copy because how the game is delivered is the smallest piece of the puzzle.
That isn’t true at all. Games are expensive because of development costs, production and distribution are a minor factor. Retailers add to developer profits by advertising and distributing games. They’re partners, not the enemy.
Steam has shown what I predicted would happen which is that they still sell digital games like Black Ops 2 for $60 and keep the difference. We’re heading towards a future where Steam, Microsoft and Sony will have no reason to discount games. Black Ops 5 will be $75 everywhere and not transferable or worth any material value after purchase. They won’t care and will laugh in your face when you ask where the retailer’s cut went.
Oh and thanks a lot Steam fans for cheering on a business model that results in a market with less pricing pressure. Thanks a lot.
Why would a business model like Steam result in a market with less pricing pressure?
I don’t like the DRM on Steam, but it’s not really bothering me, because Steam just works and I think it’s really easy and handy.
Aside from that, they have regular sales on games, and if you can live with waiting a bit before getting the newest games, you can get big discounts on games. The standard price on Steam is similar as the price in regular shops. However, I think that probably 90% of my Steam games was bought at 75% or 50% off. For sure a better deal than in regular shops. In the end I might have spent the same amount of money, as I would spend in a regular shop, but I end up with more games.
Another thing that I like about Steam, is that they make indie games more accessible. In my experience, it’s easier to find out about indie games, and it’s easier to buy them.
Because there is only one distributor. If you don’t like the price then you can’t go down the street and buy one cheaper.
Used games act as pricing pressure by allowing customers to go elsewhere.
Well it should bother you because it doesn’t work which means you are accepting limitations for …. ???
Steam’s DRM is a joke, have a look at piratebay if you don’t believe me.
Yes they have sales on games but I already pointed out that they will sell games like Black Ops 2 at full retail price (without the disc or used sale rights) if they can get away with it. They also currently are under pricing pressure from consoles and do not exist in a completely locked market. If Sony and Microsoft go the same route then it’s just a few steps away from these 3 companies having zero reason to lower prices. It will be just like with cable companies in locked markets that decide “going rates” of entertainment and there won’t be a goddamn thing you can do about it except for turning it off.
Ok, right. But a couple remarks: a lot of games that are available right now in traditional shops, are also tied to a Steam or an Origin account. When you install those, you are already forced to use those services, and that means there’s no way to resell those either.
That might be another reason to hate Steam, but I’m saying this because it doesn’t necessarily mean that when you buy a game in retail that you’re free of Steam.
I really have no idea how much of the price goes to the original developers of the game, to the publisher of the game, and to the distributor of the game. So I wonder who has the biggest influence on those prices.
Don’t need to convince me about that. I hate DRM and I believe that any DRM or copy protection scheme will be broken, given enough time. And I extra hate it because we as consumers have to pay for the cuffs they put on our hands. And about breaking DRM/copy protection: that is why I like the pc platform, because it’s a platform where we as a user are “still” free to do what we want. However, I am worried that in the future this might no longer be true either.
But honestly… what if the major game publishers decide to higher prices? There’s nothing we can do about it either.
I respect your opinion and admire your persistence.
But personally, I’ve given up resistance against Steam, because like I said, I think it works nicely and is easy to use. There are 2 games I wanted to play but at first didn’t buy because of the always-on internet connection requirement: Driver San Francisco and Diablo 3. In the end, I got both as a present and ended up playing them anyway.
The only thing to my defense, is that I only buy games on (big) discount: if Steam can sell a majority of games at 75% off during sales periods, that means indeed that they must have big margins, and that means I’m not willing to pay full price and always delay buying until the sales period. And in my case, that means that I actually pay less per game than I would in retail stores.
Edited 2013-02-07 07:35 UTC
Game production is where the expense comes in, distribution barely plays a role in the direct costs.
Where digital distribution has the potential to help is in increasing the number of impulse purchases.
This is risky for the publisher, though, because they need to lower the price in order to help encourage impulse buying on the internet and this means less profit per sale, so they need to hope that the tactic is successful.
The real problem publishers have is when they cease to support older, but still relatively popular, games.
These include games like Age of Empires and Battlefield 2. These games are still HEAVILY played – even though both require extra trickery to get them to work properly with Windows 7/8. Battlefield 2, in fact, can be quite tricky to get running on Windows 7 x64 – and is probably the last quality FPS capable of being played on the LAN without an internet connection… granted you need to use tricks to do that.
I can buy either of those games for $5 today, but I’d GLADLY pay $20 for an updated version that had the latest patches incorporated as well as proper patches for the compatibility issues – and I’m certainly not alone.
Publishers are losing out on additional revenue because they want everyone focusing on The Next Big Thing…
–The loon
Heroes of Might & Magic 3!
Anti-piracy is one thing, but this is complete bullshit.
As if piracy and running Linux on a console wasn’t enough motivation to hack the shit out of it.
Steam has a similair problem where games that you bought are games you do not actually own, since Valve does not allow you to resell the game you are supposed to own. A second lawsuit against this is underway in Germany.
It funny how people are disgusted by this, but don’t have a problem with Steam which is essentially the same thing.
I’m disgusted by both and Steam fans sicken me.
For years I heard about how Steam is great since they will “pass on the savings” but no one explained why Steam wouldn’t just take the retailer’s cut.
Black Ops 2 is still $60 on Steam and yet you can find the retail Xbox version for $50. Where did the savings go?
The worst thing gamers can do is cheer away retail discounting and used game pricing pressure. Microsoft, Sony and Steam are not your pals and just want your goddamn money. Retail discounting and used games are unwanted competition for them, it’s really that simple.
I have about 20 games on steam, most are cross platform and all were either bundled (in one of those pay what you want Humble Bundle Games deals) or were under $5. Do I care that they are tied to Steam? Not really – makes it easy to set up a new PC or Mac. As few cost me any sizeable chunk of cash, none really matter to me, plus about half of them came with DRM free downloadable versions too (Steam was an added “bonus”.)
That’s nice, I don’t really care about pc gaming anymore and can live without it. PC gamers have voted for Steam and less pricing pressure.
Many of us former pc gamers switched to consoles and don’t want to see more power ceded to fewer hands.
Steam charges a royalty rate that is higher than the retail cut and Microsoft and Sony are surely slobbering over the prospect of doing the same.
Did you find Black Ops 2 for PC cheaper than 60$ in retail then? (No point mentioning the Xbox version since it’s not the same thing.) It’s not because you have Steam installed on your pc, that you can no longer buy games from retail. Actually, depending on where I get the better deal, I buy the game from retail or from Steam.
You mention Black Ops 2. I noticed that the retail price of Black Ops was pretty high (definitely until before Black Ops 2 was released) even though that game is already a couple years old… The price for Black Ops was high both on Steam and on retail (50 euro). I was surprised by that because I have the impression that in recent years most games drop in price a lot faster than about 5 years ago. I noticed that with most popular (PC) games the price starts around 50-60 euro, and drops to 25-30 euro after only a couple of months. But Black Ops stayed on 50 euro after over a year and I still don’t get why.
Yea actually the retail pc version is $50 on Amazon as well. Newegg is also listing it for $50.
No it isn’t the same thing, the pc version should always be cheaper since there is no console royalty fee for Microsoft or Sony. But Steam takes that cut AND the retailer’s and doesn’t give a shit about “passing on the savings” to pc gamers.
Steam is a racket, not just with their pricing but in their ability to convince pc gamers that they are on the same team.
Steam is on team “empty your wallet” and is not your buddy. That should have been clear when they released their own L4D2 on Steam for $60. Disgusting.
Edited 2013-02-06 21:57 UTC
Fair enough, but I wouldn’t call Steam a racket. Of course Steam is not my buddy. Any company’s primary focus should be on making money. And they might act like they’re our buddy and portray themselves as the good guys that really care about their customers (both consumers and producers in this case), but they’re not a charity and so making money should be their primary focus. And obviously they will ask as much money for games as they can get away with.
Thats why i rather buy my games from GoG than from Steam. I do like Steam since it has also the community aspect, but i don’t play much online really.
The other thing that i think is valuable on Steam are the Indie games that are promoted.
Before people sold their account over ebay but that is outlawed too. Not sure if that ever was legal anyway.
Except that there’s no physical disk, so the fact that I can’t resell a disk that doesn’t exist is mute, I can log in from any computer and play my games and accesses my save files (that they store for me for free), and I’m able to redownload the games as many times as I like if I reformat my machine or clear games temporarily for space.
But you know, they’re the same as Microsoft if you just hate paying for things and want to justify why you pirate software rather than support developers.
Steam has both positives, and negatives about their DRM, and they have managed to keep the positive side stronger, so many people (including myself) support them.
I know that I cannot sell, or gift my existing games on steam. On the other hand, I sell my games to make funds to buy more, and steam is already at least 60% cheaper for me (thanks to holiday deals).
Also Steam allows me to download not only my games, but also all my saves on any computer, at any time.
When I balance everything, I prefer steam even to GOG (which is also another great service, btw).
If MS wants to do this… so be it. Let the market figure it out. I’d hope people would rebel and jump to others who don’t do this kind of thing. If you make it illegal you just keep the market from punishing these bad ideas.
At the same time… we need to have the DMCA and such killed so when someone figures out how to get around such “features” the government isn’t breaking down your door on MS’s behalf.
There has long been a debate on this very topic. Anyone following gaming sites will remember. Sony even has a patent on a technology that does this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-03-sony-patents-tech-to-b…
However the debate was between publishers, who has to close studios due to low sales, and gamers who can actually afford games by trading others in. There are many arguments on both sides, but as a gamer I of course prefer to keep my used games. I would not have purchased even 20% of my new games, if I did not know I could resell them after being done (meaning finishing the 8 hours long campaign).
Microsoft seems to have sided with publishers, hoping to bring more games to their platform, therefore increasing its value. On the other hand, gamers will be reluctant to come to that said platform, decreasing the value significantly.
In Brazil, software is considered a product, not a setrvice. because of that, most EULA are simply trash and have no legal ground. Also, schemes that limit a consumer right to resell are illegal, and government often makes new laws to prevent and ban such tactics for new technologies.
There is even a law that mandates old systems (not supported by the manufacturer) with DRM unlocking completly legal. For example, if you own a Super Nintendo game, your console crashes and there is no new console being made by Nintendo, you have the legal right to dump the ROM and play it on any modern system with an emulator withtout any legal worries.
I am glad in Brazil we have a strong consumer-law, even if this same law is not respected by some conglomerates such as telecoms.
TBH I doubt Nintendo, Sony or Sega care about ripping off what is essentially abandon-ware now.
I don’t think that is true at all. Look at the Wii Virtual console. SNES, NES and other console titles are being sold on these. I think Nintendo very much care.
Do you really think the few enthusiasts that run emulators are such a large segment of the market that Nintendo would give a shit?
The only time game companies have ever given a shit about emulators in my memory was Bleem when the PS1 was at its height of success.
You understand what the Virtual Console is, right? It’s a large section of the Wii store. In the Wii store you get 3 options,
1) Virtual Console
2) Wiiware (Wii games for digital download)
3) Wii channels (things like the Internet channel and Netflix channel)
So, yes, the Virtual Console is a big part of the digital downloads for the Wii. Far from being “emulators”, the games download as individual channels that are self contained. As an example, we have “Blades of Steel” for the NES which we got free because we paid for the Internet Channel with star points and then Nintendo made it free. It acts like it’s own Wii channel, it lives on the home screen and all it does is run the game as if it were a native app. We also have the Homebrew NES and SNES emulator channels installed, and they are a completely different kettle of fish (and Blades of steel runs quite differently on the NES channel too.)
Nintendo still regularly DMCA take down Mario, Zelda and Donkey Kong games for the NES and SNES. I doubt they care about games they published for other developers though.
Yes but something like EPSXE or zSNES for Windows really isn’t taking away business from Nintento as opposed to something like an emulator that could run on the Wii.
While they might serve DMCA takedown notices there is much they can do about torrents with ROMs on.
Edited 2013-02-07 13:01 UTC
Look at what the OP said:
Nintendo still make money from Virtual Console. Sony still make money from PS3 and PSP sales of PS1 titles (I have Resident Evil 2, 3 and Silent hill 1 on my PSP that I paid money for from Sony as digital downloads.) Sega is a trickier one, as downloading Dreamcast games is trivial. Save Sega, none of the games are “essentially abandonware.” Sega license games to be remade and licence games to be made in to those plug-and-play TV games, so even they still care up to a point. Even stuff like the Neo Geo is still licensed (they even just released the new Neo Geo X console.) Wanting something to be abandoned because it suits your desires to acquire it and something actually being abandoned are two completely different positions.
It is essentially Adbandon-ware for all intents and purposes on the original media.
I find it hard to believe they will be knocking on people’s doors for the few enthusiasts like myself that have MAME and similar emulators set up on a Acer Revo box.
Legally, that depends on your location and local laws. The fact that companies do indeed (try to) block illegal distro of (some of) their original games in a ripped format indicates that they at least don’t believe your statement.
It’s the same thing as with any large company. “Will it cost us more to prosecute X million individuals running an emulator or the website providing the files?” And of course, when the websites providing the files become as widespread as they currently are, there’s a sweet-spot between going rabidly after every single infringement and picking your battles. But it doesn’t make it right, nor does it make it any sort of legal argument to throw around the term “abandonware” and claim the moral high ground.
I am not claiming to have the moral high ground or that it suddendly becomes abandonware. Everyone has borrowed or copied a game, dvd or music.
And a few people getting hold of a few old roms and isos for games that they long since lost the working hardware and media for is hardly piracy.
If I was creating a way for those to rip them straight off nintendo from their existing store … then that would be wrong.
What does do a lot of hard especially for PC gaming, is when a new titles are released and they pirated to the nth degree.
Also acting like the toss when you clearly understood what I meant … becomes tiring.
Edited 2013-02-08 11:08 UTC
UltraHLE (the N64 emulator) was also a big thing back then. With PS1, it was also/more about the VGS emulator from Connectix.
I wonder if those emus were part of the reasons why later consoles got weird/complex (hence harder to emulate) architecture, and avoidance of x86 CPUs…
The same is valid for most European countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine
There have been several legal battles over that in the past already and the software companies always lost.
In Germany, court even already forced Valve to change their TOS in that regard a bit.
I am not really worried, I don’t think Sony and Microsoft will be getting far with this.
Banning used games is forbidden in the EU, as they have the right to sell the “game” wdoesn’t matter if in the EULA it says it’s a license or not, it’s being sold in a physic media or just as a download.
More info about this here: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp1…
Consumer rights are going to enjoy ripping Microsoft apart if they dare to this anti-consumer insane bullshit.
And in 2023, the EU will smack Microsoft / Sony on the wrist with a fine for having done this; but that won’t stop them doing it right now, will it?
I think this is going to happen, like it or not.
The last console I bought was the Wii. Never have owned (and never will), the 360 / PS3 and especially none of the next gen.
PC / Indie is the only way to put your wallet where your mouth is these days.
Fully agree.
My last console was the PS2, and I even bought the Linux toolkit for it.
After what Sony did to Linux on the PS3, I lost my interest on their systems.
The XBox 360 is actually quite cool, specially given the XNA framework, but that is now history.
Never been a Nintendo fan.
Nowadays I play mostly on Android.
Offtopic: what is the origin of your avatar, undu? (I seem to remember it from somewhere, a game probably…)
This current gen PS games come with online codes so you have to register the online component and once registered the mp is locked out. the SP will still work but the multiplayer you have to buy a code from the ps store for it to work, they introduced it around a year ago, actually mainly done by EA but Sony publishing has also been doing this. Strangely enough Activision haven’t employed this scheme.
I bet this exact same model will be employed by the PS4 but for all games, not sure about the Microsoft / xbox tactic but I think again the exact same thing.
Its horrible that they want to double dip essentially, so get paid twice for the sale of 1 game. All publishers are incredibly greedy, whether it be the music / movies or games industry, they are just leeches.
Truthfully though second hand games are such a rip off. A second hand game bought here at game / hmv etc costs within £5 of the retail price, but when the retailer buys the second hand game they pay well under half the retail price. I’ve never seen the value in selling my games to a retailer, for them to make a massive profit on it and for me to make a massive loss.
The best thing about both of them is that they will still be using physical media, give a game 3 – 6 months and it drops in value massively, that’s what I personally do. If I really want the game buy it day 1, if I don’t really want it I wait until the game has dropped to an affordable price.
Also to the steam argument, one thing Steam has going for it which actually adds a lot of value, is the fact that once you buy a game, that game license is valid on any platform Steam supports. So you could buy a game for windows but the game will still work on Mac or Linux without having to re-buy it, which I personally think adds value to the platform.
Second hand games cost less than new games. If you think they are overpriced then buy new. It’s called a choice and getting rid of that choice will take away pricing pressure on new games and so even gamers who buy all new will be affected by this.
How is that value for the majority of gamers that only run Windows? With retail I can play a game without needing to get Valve’s permission and when I am done I can give it to a friend or charity. I have given dozens of games to charity but now we get to march towards a future of $80 lifetime rentals under a megacorp’s ever-changing terms.
I did not put up with Steam’s $60 digital games sheep shearing BULLSHIT and if Microsoft/Sony pulls the same stunt then I will divert my entertainment funds to other venues. I don’t even buy used games so they will have to make up my losses from someone else.
I agree with what your saying and see it already with the vita and the ps3, it pisses me off that a digital download costs more than physical media. The single biggest thing PS has going for it is PS+ Most of the games I would wait to buy after a price drop are in PS+ for the £40 a year rental price, ps+ has become a next gen rental service of sorts.
I have no disagreements with the choice argument, in fact I prefer physical because I can sell the games on ebay or give them away or sell them on play. I don’t give them to charity (never occurred to me to do that, but that’s a good idea) usually when I get rid of my old console I end up donating it to some young kid with all of the games for them to enjoy, which digital just wont allow and I can lend out the physical copy to a friend, basically I completely agree with you.
Steam is pushing its platform heavily onto Linux and I wont have to buy the games again to play on Linux. The biggest problem with consoles are that hardware changes make previous gen games useless on the new gen platform, at least Steam the games remain on the same platform ie x86 / x64 which will mean they will work regardless of hardware changes, the PS / Xbox alternative will be so much more limited.
That’s a really good point and I’m glad you brought it up.
I’m not familiar with the Vita but I know with the PSP Go Sony kept most of the library at a fixed price even for games that were half the price at retail.
Retailers put pressure on gaming companies to lower prices to boost sales and the retailers themselves will sometimes take a hit as part of a promotion. Companies like Wal-mart and Target don’t even care that much about profits from game sales, what they really want is for you to buy games from them to get you in the store so you pick up anything else you need while you are there.
This will lead to implicit price collusion on the part of Sony, Microsoft and Valve. It will be a similar situation to Pepsi and Coke where it is in the best interest of both to not undercut the other on price to keep margins high.
This will be horrible for gamers. We’re just a few steps away from games being a fixed price the entire generation. Don’t want to buy a game for $80? Too bad, go find a different hobby then.
Best advice one could ever give a gamer these days. You should go find different hobbies. If enough of you do, this situation will stop before it starts. You don’t like this? Stop bloody supporting it then. Don’t buy Xboxes, Playstations, or Nintendos. Don’t buy games from Steam. Vote with your wallet, starting right now. In the meantime, do something productive with the time you used to spend gaming.
Alas, people don’t play games to be productive, they play games for entertainment and relaxation. Giving up gaming would just drive people to other entertainment avenues, most of which are even worse choices.
I do not hold a share in this, i do not own any microsoft products at all. BUT the supreme court has clearly defined second hand sale terms and rights, and so has the european courts and several other big markets courts. This will not fly in the EU, Russia, China or the US for that reason.
I thoroughly disagree, how would one even phrase and enforce this law? Don’t give legal support for DRM, but don’t outlaw it either. Trying to legislate what technology is allowed and not, whether you are on the pro- or anti-consumer side will always end up a race you can’t really win, and will create a mish-mash of laws that hardly anyone can navigate.
The law already ensures that Microsoft has to be clear about what they are selling, and that law should be enforced, but it is really none of your business if Microsoft sells activation codes and people who are properly informed are willing to buy them.
No borrowing games from friends and family? No taking a game at a friend’s house to play together?
No second hand games to buy for Christmas when you give presents to 8 kids? Kids will get a new game only when they are given a 60€ present?
No old games that have become difficult to find?
No cheap games to simply play with a few hours, just to enjoy the music, the setting and the production, without the intention of sinking all the hours necessary to play it through?
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I will buy a console like this, nor will anyone who listens to me for a second.
The sun usually doesn’t shine in Redmond for over half the year. It’s just as cloudy and rainy as the rest of the Seattle area.
You would have a point if this was 1990. Seattle hasn’t been like that in years.
One SteamBox to rule them all, SteamBox to find them,
One SteamBox to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
“Microsoft’s next console will require an Internet connection in order to function, ruling out a second-hand game market for the platform”
Can someone explain why the two are exclusive? Requiring online Internet connection does NOT rule out 2nd hand games.
Xbox, while it doesn’t “require” internet connection now still has it. So what? Making it a requirement won’t change a thing as far as used games.
I don’t get this statement. Explain it to me?