Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Apr 2013 10:47 UTC
Games More and more evidence is pointing towards the next Xbox requiring an always-on internet connection in order to play any games - i.e., once you lose your connection, you can't play any game at all. Three minutes after losing your connection, "your" game will suspend itself and stop playing. Microsoft's Adam Orth took to Twitter to defend this anti-consumer practice, but he did so in the most ungraceful of ways.
Thread beginning with comment 557748
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G
by kwan_e on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"I'm not a business person, so I've never understood this practice. Why would I want to prevent someone in another country from buying my wares, especially if I've never spent an advertizing dollar in that country and it costs almost nothing to deliver it?


As I said, control of the market.
For example they could plan to sell at a later date, when the demand in the other markets has gone down, or want to sell a slightly different product, or want to have "exlusivness" as a bargaining chip when negotiating with local distribution channels, etc.
"

I fail to see how it actually controls the market. As I said, they wouldn't have to negotiate with local distribution if they just allowed it to be bought online outside of a country. With "multimedia" any delay is likely to just cause interest to die down.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G
by anda_skoa on Fri 5th Apr 2013 15:48 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I fail to see how it actually controls the market. As I said, they wouldn't have to negotiate with local distribution if they just allowed it to be bought online outside of a country.


The control in this case is that they can offer exclusivness. Local distributiors are often willing to pay for the guarantee that nobody else will be able to sell a thing that has certain demand.

One occasion where this is used heavily is TV series. US based producers sell exclusive licenses for different European countries, often only allowing one broadcaster per country.

This business practise is the sole reason why there almost not TV series streaming service in Europe. Even if content right owners would like to sell streaming licenses, their previously struck deals with TV broadcasters contained exclusivness guarantees.

With "multimedia" any delay is likely to just cause interest to die down.


Sure, a certain part of the target audience will circumvent the "ban", e.g. using DVD players without region code check or downloading the content, but they don't see this as a problem per se. It is an opportunity to push more control features and strengthens their "it's because of piracy" scapegoat.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G
by Drumhellar on Sun 7th Apr 2013 21:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Well, it allows one to charge a higher price in regions that can afford higher prices. Example: $20 for a movie in the US, and only $5 for the same movie in Malaysia.

Or, a movie may be coming out on DVD/Blu Ray in the US before it comes out in theaters in Europe. You don't want to cannibalize ticket sales in Europe by allowing people to import DVDs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G
by adkilla on Mon 8th Apr 2013 04:17 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Unfortunately the opposite is true. In Malaysia, the movies are often released late and are heavily censored. With these issues, people would rather import it from the US themselves or download it if there are import restrictions. Prices of original Blu-Ray/DVDs here are way over the top and are also censored because of (utterly lame) eastern sensitivities.

On cable TV we get re-runs and terminated series because we don't have much of a choice due to local cartels abusing their monopoly of broadcasting licenses.

I don't see how giving MS money to harm us in a similar manner is a good idea.

Edited 2013-04-08 04:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G
by zima on Tue 9th Apr 2013 14:28 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, it allows one to charge a higher price in regions that can afford higher prices. Example: $20 for a movie in the US, and only $5 for the same movie in Malaysia.

I know what you want to say - but, in the future, perhaps you should keep in mind that relative pricing (in the US vs impoverished places) of luxury goods is too often the other way around.

Reply Parent Score: 2