Edge-Online: Next Xbox Will Require Always-On Internet, No Used Games.

  • 179 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

I'm renting Ni no Kuni from GameFly now (great game!), and I could buy from them for $38 with the $5 dicount coupon and 10% discount I've got. Kinda ridiculous how cheap they let you buy games for.

c_rake

Yes, it is. For example, I just got X Com and opted to keep it after a day of play, and it cost me $29. Granted there were sales over the holidays when it got that low, but it's much more convenient to do it on my terms rather than the publisher's. My "keep it" percentage with them is also very high... not all who rent games are cheapskates that never support the developers. Rather, I consider them savvy shoppers in a very consumer unfriendly environment. 

Since publishers are insistent on forcing me to buy $60 games with multiplayer components I don't want or need, I consider renting perfectly fair. If the campaign is indeed worthy of a purchase, I'll buy it, if it's an afterthought to the online, then it goes back. Perhaps before doing crap like banning used games, they should look into WHY the used game market is as big as it is, and WHY people are increasingly renting them. They could start by separating the multiplayer component out and selling it separately. That way, people who don't care about the campaign get what they want at a reduced rate, and campaign-centric folks like myself don't have to waste money on online modes they'll never use. 

There are so many other solutions than to do what Microsoft is rumored to be doing, and I sincerely hope they fail if they try. Take a look at the used car market, for example. Instead of whinging and carrying on about used car sales eating into new sales, car makers are increasing the quality of the cars so PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO TRADE THEM TO BEGIN WITH. Take the Toyota Tacoma for example. You can barely find one used, and that's if you try REALLY hard. People see that value and they hang on to them. Maybe *gasp* game makers could try the same thing. 

#102 Posted by Bigboi500 (29139 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

I'm renting Ni no Kuni from GameFly now (great game!), and I could buy from them for $38 with the $5 dicount coupon and 10% discount I've got. Kinda ridiculous how cheap they let you buy games for.

Shame-usBlackley

Yes, it is. For example, I just got X Com and opted to keep it after a day of play, and it cost me $29. Granted there were sales over the holidays when it got that low, but it's much more convenient to do it on my terms rather than the publisher's. My "keep it" percentage with them is also very high... not all who rent games are cheapskates that never support the developers. Rather, I consider them savvy shoppers in a very consumer unfriendly environment. 

Since publishers are insistent on forcing me to buy $60 games with multiplayer components I don't want or need, I consider renting perfectly fair. If the campaign is indeed worthy of a purchase, I'll buy it, if it's an afterthought to the online, then it goes back. Perhaps before doing crap like banning used games, they should look into WHY the used game market is as big as it is, and WHY people are increasingly renting them. They could start by separating the multiplayer component out and selling it separately. That way, people who don't care about the campaign get what they want at a reduced rate, and campaign-centric folks like myself don't have to waste money on online modes they'll never use. 

There are so many other solutions than to do what Microsoft is rumored to be doing, and I sincerely hope they fail if they try. Take a look at the used car market, for example. Instead of whinging and carrying on about used car sales eating into new sales, car makers are increasing the quality of the cars so PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO TRADE THEM TO BEGIN WITH. Take the Toyota Tacoma for example. You can barely find one used, and that's if you try REALLY hard. People see that value and they hang on to them. Maybe *gasp* game makers could try the same thing. 

Hell yes, I've been saying the same thing all generation and I'd love to see that happen.

#103 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

They could start by separating the multiplayer component out and selling it separately. That way, people who don't care about the campaign get what they want at a reduced rate, and campaign-centric folks like myself don't have to waste money on online modes they'll never use. Shame-usBlackley

Now there's an idea. Plus, that way they're getting extra cash that goes straight to the developer and publisher. Killzone 3 starting selling its multiplayer separately as its own game and I thought that was a great idea.

#104 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]They could start by separating the multiplayer component out and selling it separately. That way, people who don't care about the campaign get what they want at a reduced rate, and campaign-centric folks like myself don't have to waste money on online modes they'll never use. c_rake

Now there's an idea. Plus, that way they're getting extra cash that goes straight to the developer and publisher. Killzone 3 starting selling its multiplayer separately as its own game and I thought that was a great idea.

This is what needs to happen a lot more often. If I buy a multiplayer shooter like COD or Battlefield, give me the option to purchase the game without the singleplayer (let's say $45 new, instead $60). Likewise, I don't want to bother with some half-assed multiplayer in games that are singleplayer dominated, so give me the option to just purchase the singleplayer. Seperating the two modes and selling them apart from each other would be great both for consumers and publishers. 

#105 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

There is no formula or evidence to quantify the assertion that used sales stir up fervor for sequels to pre-existing games.

None.

Most games that are successful enough to generate sequels can be easily purchased, new, at retail for a low price so even assuming you were correct, the used market isn't crucial to the proliferation of hype for an upcoming sequel.

However, the notion that a game cannot be easily re-sold might affect those who don't purchase games with the intention of keeping them. The problem is that we have no data as to what percentage of such consumers make up the overall market space.

Pedro

There are no evidence to say to the contrary so, that point is rather mute. However, here is an undisputed fact, used games exist because of the purchase of new games. Gamestop has created a system for gamers in which used games sustains the purchase of newer games. A person can trade in an old game for a reduction in price for the new game, it gives value to the new game purchase. Once this value is removed, the purchase of new games would be jeopardize and folks would be more like steam users where they purchase the bulk of their games when they are drastically discounted. 

Actually, the point is far from moot. I am not obliged nor required, logically or rhetorically, to disprove a baseless assertion. When such a claim is made, the onus is upon that person to back up their postulation with some semblance of evidentiary substantiation.

I can't disprove the lost continent of Atlantis, Bigfoot or alien abductions but the inability to procure evidence that negates these theories doesn't make them any more viable, nor does it render the debate a de facto stalemate.

As to your point regarding used game trade-ins propelling the sale of new software, I agree entirely that this occurs on a frequent basis. My point is that we don't have any viable data as to how commonplace these transactions are thus we have no metric to predict how the removal of this current model might affect new game sales.  

The data necessary to properly gauge this paradigm shift would need to be manifold; not merely how many new sales are buoyed by trade-ins but also, on average, the amount of cost these trade-ins subsidize. If say, 35% of new game purchases are made using trade-ins but the average trade-in only yields a five or ten dollar price relief for the consumer then it could be argued that the used game market really doesn't offer the consumer that much of a subsidy thus, the ability to offset the price with used games really wouldn't hurt the new game trade significantly.

By contrast, if the data yielded evidence that consumers who traded in their games are saving twenty or thirty dollars on their new purchases then such data might suggest that the used market is actually a crucial component of this industry.

But again, without the data, it is difficult to know.

Personally, I think if the data were to suggest that used games are a significant contributor to new sales, that is something Gamestop would have released to the industry a long time ago as it would prove their current model is mutually beneficial for them and the developers/publishers.   

#106 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
There is no way this can be true. It would be complete commercial suicide for the Xbox. For one the always on internet thing doesn't make sense. What advantage do they gain by forcing this versus the disadvantage of segregating a large demographic of offline users? There is no upside that I can see, and if there is some kind of upside I am not seeing I seriously doubt it trumps the downside of throwing away probably 30% of their userbase or so. That is a guess on my part on the percentage of offline users, maybe it's significantly less so they don't care? Still it's not good business, it' makes little sense to do this. The used game thing is even more ridiculous. I trade games with my brother all the time. People trade games with their friends. People rent games. People buy used games. Who is Microsoft to tell me how to use my games? Fvck them in the ass with a hot pepper. There would be no reason to buy a gaming machine that enforces all these anti consumerist practices versus one who offers a near identical experience, and games, that does not enforce these practices. People will go elsewhere.... right next door to the practically the same thing Sony except they love gamers and they say "Don't bother paying for online that's cool we get you" "You like used games? Us to!" "Always on online? LOL that;s lame" Yeah there would be no reason to buy an Xbox. This would be commercial suicide.
#107 Posted by contracts420 (1956 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Always online, no second-hand games. Who in their right minds would buy something so draconian?

I know some of you don't buy used games, but what about sharing them with your family and friends? Forget about it. They're cramming Kinect down everyone's throat this time too. Don't have a network system in place for your consoles, then you're screwed.

Does this mean Sony will do this crap too?

CarnageHeart

The article you are quoting contradicts your claim about the Kinect.

A new iteration of Xbox Live will be an integral part of Microsofts next console, while improved Kinect hardware will also ship alongside the unit.

*Shrugs* I know a lot of people hate the idea of 'no used games' but we'll see how big a deal it is. Heck, the console market (the slowest growing one in terms of gaming) is the only game market where used games are a factor If cost savings (read: digital discounts) are partially passed on and there are aggressive pricecuts and lots of sales (think Steam) then digital could benefit consumers as well as developers.

As I've said many times before, I don't think much of how hard Gamestop works to screw developers out of a cut. When I picked up Ni No Kuni the other week, there was a kid ahead of me buying an X360 and a couple games. He was buying the console new and he wanted the games new and his father was willing to pay, but the employee first tried to talk the father out of it, and when that failed, browbeat the kid for a couple minutes ('If you don't like it, you can't return it new, but you can return it used! You played it at a friends house, but you might get bored quicker than you think) until the kid agreed to buy used.

For me, digital does not provide me with security in my purchases. When buying a physical title, I understand that I will be able to play it in ten years. Whereas digital takes this away from me. I have purchased a couple of titles from PStore, after Sony drops PSN from PS3, will I still be able to download all of my purchased content again after with no download limits based on how many consoles I have played it on?

This is my problem, especially with consoles, is that everything you purchased is essentially gone once that console loses support. What if something is tied to your PSN account on PS4, after they drop the network and I can't sign in will I still be able to play my games? What if it's tied to my console... and it breaks? Physical media gives me security in my purchases. The day I lose that is the day I quit gaming, or they better make even triple AAA big budget titles 8$ upon release, because there is no way in hell I am paying anything more than rental prices for something that is exactly that... a glorified rental.

#108 Posted by lloveLamp (2890 posts) -
It would be pretty cool if they also required the Kinect to have a positive match for you face scan 24/7 when playing a game also. To prevent people from coming over and playing games for free. Don't you all fellow kids agree
#109 Posted by Pedro (21015 posts) -

Actually, the point is far from moot. I am not obliged nor required, logically or rhetorically, to disprove a baseless assertion. When such a claim is made, the onus is upon that person to back up their postulation with some semblance of evidentiary substantiation.

I can't disprove the lost continent of Atlantis, Bigfoot or alien abductions but the inability to procure evidence that negates these theories doesn't make them any more viable, nor does it render the debate a de facto stalemate.

As to your point regarding used game trade-ins propelling the sale of new software, I agree entirely that this occurs on a frequent basis. My point is that we don't have any viable data as to how commonplace these transactions are thus we have no metric to predict how the removal of this current model might affect new game sales.  

The data necessary to properly gauge this paradigm shift would need to be manifold; not merely how many new sales are buoyed by trade-ins but also, on average, the amount of cost these trade-ins subsidize. If say, 35% of new game purchases are made using trade-ins but the average trade-in only yields a five or ten dollar price relief for the consumer then it could be argued that the used game market really doesn't offer the consumer that much of a subsidy thus, the ability to offset the price with used games really wouldn't hurt the new game trade significantly.

By contrast, if the data yielded evidence that consumers who traded in their games are saving twenty or thirty dollars on their new purchases then such data might suggest that the used market is actually a crucial component of this industry.

But again, without the data, it is difficult to know.

Personally, I think if the data were to suggest that used games are a significant contributor to new sales, that is something Gamestop would have released to the industry a long time ago as it would prove their current model is mutually beneficial for them and the developers/publishers.   

Grammaton-Cleric

If both parties lack evidence/data to support their claim then the argument is mute and strongly reliant on speculation. As for seeking some validity to you argument by the inaction of Gamestop is rather stretching. In addition, there is absolutely no need for Gamestop to release such information. If you falling back on such a claim then one can argue to that Pre order exlusive bonus for Gamestop purchases is an indication that the relationship with developers/publishers is solid.

#110 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

If both parties lack evidence/data to support their claim then the argument is mute and strongly reliant on speculation. As for seeking some validity to you argument by the inaction of Gamestop is rather stretching. In addition, there is absolutely no need for Gamestop to release such information. If you falling back on such a claim then one can argue to that Pre order exlusive bonus for Gamestop purchases is an indication that the relationship with developers/publishers is solid.

Pedro

I'm not making any claim one way or the other. My point is that a lack of evidence is not, in and of itself, evidence. When somebody makes an assertion but cannot back that claim up with any type of evidence, that assertion is, by default, nullified. I don't have to disprove what they have already failed to prove.

It's logic 101.

And again, I'm not claiming that either side is necessarily correct because I don't have the data to make any manner of educated, informed assessment on the impact used games have on new game sales. I agree with you entirely that used trade-ins are something that certainly factor into new game transactions at retailers such as Gamestop but to what degree I simply cannot gauge. The other issue is that we have no idea of the margin that their used inventory redirects consumers from purchasing new software and if those figures dampen or outright nullify the revenue created by the subsidies of game trade-ins that facilitate the purchase of new software.

And I will readily admit my Gamestop data withholding theory to be entirely speculative but regardless, there are a couple of things to consider:

1. Gamestop corporate, like all large retailers, is going to track purchasing data and aggregate said data in such a way as to have a categorical breakdowns of just about every possible aspect of their sales and how those sales work within the construct of their retail model. So we can safely assume that this data exists.

2. If that data exists and the data PROVES that used game sales are actually beneficial to the publishers and developers in terms of generating new sales, releasing that information would only buoy their credibility and cement their value within this industry. I cannot imagine a reason why they would not release such data. (if it exists)

But again, this is speculation on my part. I have no direct evidence and admit so freely.

That understood, your preorder analogy simply proves one inescapable truth: business is business. Despite the fact that Gamestop is the chief purveyor of used software, publishers still opt to use them to offer up pre-order incentives which in turn suggests that, regardless of used game sales, Gamestop is clearly selling plenty of new inventory; enough at the very least to justify a continued partnership.   

#111 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I was reading the EDGE article again and something caught my attention:

Sources with first-hand experience of Microsofts 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.

This reads as if online functionality and the restricting of software to a single system are one and the same when in reality those are two very different issues entirely. What is interesting is that the wording here suggests a disparity between physical media and downloadable software, meaning that perhaps the only games that will be locked to a specific system will be those digitally purchased, which is merely an extension of the current model.  

Now take a gander at this quote:

It is believed that games purchased on disc will ship with activation codes, and will have no value beyond the initial user.

Believed?

Who, exactly, believes that physical discs will ship with activation codes?  

There would be no reason for MS to share that information with a developer at this early stage nor do I think anyone privy to such sensitive information working at MS would leak this to the press so it immediately calls into question the validity of the source and subsequently the veracity of the information. Furthermore, the verbiage employed in this article is clearly speculative in nature, bordering on whimsical conjecture.

Many, many people are taking this rumor as gospel yet I have a growing suspicion this really is mostly BS.

We'll see in the coming months.

#112 Posted by Pedro (21015 posts) -

I'm not making any claim one way or the other. My point is that a lack of evidence is not, in and of itself, evidence. When somebody makes an assertion but cannot back that claim up with any type of evidence, that assertion is, by default, nullified. I don't have to disprove what they have already failed to prove.

It's logic 101.

And again, I'm not claiming that either side is necessarily correct because I don't have the data to make any manner of educated, informed assessment on the impact used games have on new game sales. I agree with you entirely that used trade-ins are something that certainly factor into new game transactions at retailers such as Gamestop but to what degree I simply cannot gauge. The other issue is that we have no idea of the margin that their used inventory redirects consumers from purchasing new software and if those figures dampen or outright nullify the revenue created by the subsidies of game trade-ins that facilitate the purchase of new software.

And I will readily admit my Gamestop data withholding theory to be entirely speculative but regardless, there are a couple of things to consider:

1. Gamestop corporate, like all large retailers, is going to track purchasing data and aggregate said data in such a way as to have a categorical breakdowns of just about every possible aspect of their sales and how those sales work within the construct of their retail model. So we can safely assume that this data exists.

2. If that data exists and the data PROVES that used game sales are actually beneficial to the publishers and developers in terms of generating new sales, releasing that information would only buoy their credibility and cement their value within this industry. I cannot imagine a reason why they would not release such data. (if it exists)

But again, this is speculation on my part. I have no direct evidence and admit so freely.

That understood, your preorder analogy simply proves one inescapable truth: business is business. Despite the fact that Gamestop is the chief purveyor of used software, publishers still opt to use them to offer up pre-order incentives which in turn suggests that, regardless of used game sales, Gamestop is clearly selling plenty of new inventory; enough at the very least to justify a continued partnership.   

Grammaton-Cleric

You stance initially;so it seemed, were countering some elses claim and I found it odd that you would counter a claim when you also lacked data to back up your claim. But since you have clarified that wasn't the case then I withdraw my comment.

As the industry currently stands I don't believe that the release of this data would benefit Gamespot in the eyes of publishers. The fact that they profit significantly with the sale of used games is the main torn in publishers side so, even with if they provided proof that the used game sales help support new games sales, the major profits that Gamestop recieves from used games transactions would still persist.

#113 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

If that is actually true, and it happens, then it has to rank as one of the all-time worst decisions I've ever known. Not being able to let family borrow games or let people who aren't exactly loaded with cash to buy pre-owned is disgusting.

#114 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

As the industry currently stands I don't believe that the release of this data would benefit Gamespot in the eyes of publishers. The fact that they profit significantly with the sale of used games is the main torn in publishers side so, even with if they provided proof that the used game sales help support new games sales, the major profits that Gamestop recieves from used games transactions would still persist.

Pedro

You may be correct; ultimately it would depend on how open-minded publishers and developers were willing to be.

I understand why the proliferation and propagation of the used market aggravates publishers but was I in their position and made privy to quantifiable data that showed trade-in programs bolstering new sales I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the secondary market if I thought it was helping generate revenue.

Then again, I am approaching the issue objectively. Many of those in the upper-tiers of business management are so consumed with revenue that objectivism, even when leading to valuable strategies that could boost sales, are often blind to logic and common sense.

Regardless, I think we are in uncharted waters as we head into a future where digital distribution is going to be a major factor regardless of MS's model and DD entirely changes the landscape of ownership and what it means to buy and own a game.

#115 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69782 posts) -

If that is actually true, and it happens, then it has to rank as one of the all-time worst decisions I've ever known. Not being able to let family borrow games or let people who aren't exactly loaded with cash to buy pre-owned is disgusting.

Venom_Raptor
if this is true, i am going to get PS4 first
#116 Posted by Sstrawberryjam (21 posts) -

Rumour has it that both next-gen consoles will require blood sacrifices to turn on and be powered by the tears of the innocent.

#117 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

Rumour has it that both next-gen consoles will require blood sacrifices to turn on and be powered by the tears of the innocent.

Sstrawberryjam
Well sounds par for course for what it takes to get a 360 to work so sounds about right.
#118 Posted by rragnaar (27023 posts) -

Rumour has it that both next-gen consoles will require blood sacrifices to turn on and be powered by the tears of the innocent.

Sstrawberryjam
Manufactured at FoxConn!
#119 Posted by The-Apostle (12144 posts) -
Companies like eBay, Gamestop or Amazon should sue.
#120 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

Companies like eBay, Gamestop or Amazon should sue.The-Apostle

They would have absolutely no basis for a lawsuit.

Just as developers and publishers can't stop used game sales, companies that profit from those sales can't stop the publishers or console makers from implementing these types of measures.

#121 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Looking at this rumor again I just can't see how this would be true. Heck, I was playing my 360 just yesterday and couldn't connect to Live for an hour because my stupid router was having some random issue. Locking people out of the system if the internet goes down just seems so ridiculous.

#122 Posted by Systems_Id (8155 posts) -

I forgot to post this but a poster from NeoGAF brought forth compelling evidence that wiping out the used game market would hurt far more than it would help.

Link here.

#123 Posted by unrealtron (3148 posts) -
Thats going to be a problem.
#124 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I forgot to post this but a poster from NeoGAF brought forth compelling evidence that wiping out the used game market would hurt far more than it would help.

Link here.

Systems_Id

I have a number of problems with his assertions, use of evidence and his final conclusion.

Here is my own breakdown and rebuttal to some of his points:

 

"used games only account for 1/3rd of the game sales out there. New games sales still equate for the other 2/3rds and sell more than used titles still."

That is still a huge amount of revenue that isn't going into the pocket of developers and publishers but rather straight into the coffers of retailers like GameStop.

"for roughly every 2% used game sales increased in 2012 digital game revenue increased by nearly a full 1%. Used game sales were letting publishers sell DLC so they were penetrating that market and likely making multiple DLC sales per single unit made as it got resold."

Without knowing specifically what DLC was purchased, I think we can safely assume that a significant portion of that revenue was from Online Passes; a measure that publishers felt forced to implement in response to used game sales.

"75% of games traded in were traded in toward the purchase or pre-order of NEW games or hardware. The used market was making it affordable for the weary pockets of consumers to afford their games."

That number is a bit of a smoke screen. While it is certainly logical that most trade-ins would go to the purchase of new software, what we still don't know is how many actual new purchases are subsidized by these trade-ins and we also have no idea, on average, as to how significant that subsidization actually is.

 

"Around 100 million units of used games were sold in 2012 on estimate equating to around $2 billion sold. However, for the summer quarter alone digital game revenue equaled $1.47 billion in the US and $983 million in Europe...this means that quarter alone saw the videogame industry make more from digital revenue than it lost the whole year in used sales. Digital revenue goes up as market penetration of titles increases."

Again, same problem as before: without knowing what type of DLC is being sold there is a possibility (perhaps even a probability) that much of this DLC revenue came from Online Passes. If anything this evidence actually supports the DLC and Online Model as being necessary in a marketplace where a third of the software being sold is used.

"Eliminate the used game market and you not only eliminate a ton of digital revenue potential, but its incalculable how many new game purchases you'll limit yourself to without a used market for consumers to trade titles back into for money to aid them in the purchase of new titles in this economy."

It is incalculable because none of the retailers engaging in this model have released data to buoy this thesis. I think this might actually be a very real and distinct possibility but without firm data we have no idea just how much used game trades boost new software sales.

"Not to mention its also incalculable how much popularity some series will be costing themselves without a used market to help them penetrate into more units of their title in households. 100 million used units a year is a big number and you can bank that without that number a lot of titles wouldn't have as big of a fanbase as they do."

This is baseless conjecture; a clear extrapolation on the part of the author. Firstly, sequels and franchises are predicated on the success of their previous entries, meaning the only viable evidence for a publisher to consider is the sales of new software. Used software isn't data they track nor do they build franchises on the sales of games that do well in the secondhand market. (How would they even know?)

Secondly, if the consumer interested in the game bought the earlier title used, there is a strong possibility they will opt to do the same with the sequel, thus, outside of possible DLC, their purchase is meaningless as revenue to the publisher. Penetration only matters when it directly leads to more sales and there is no evidence to suggest the used market is some great facilitator of this. One could also argue that a person who buys Dead Space or Assassins Creed II for 9.00 in a bargain bin at GameStop might not necessarily be the type of consumer who would pay 59.99 when the sequel arrives later.

There are still far too many unknown variables and a dearth of quantifiable, empirical data to fully gauge just how much actual damage (of lack thereof) the used market is causing.

#125 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

The guy did his college thesis on this subject, and that's what he came up with?

Well, I guess that if you assume that your professor won't have the slightest idea about how the video games market works, he's likely to not see the ridiculousness of some of those arguments and you don't have to actually dig up interesting, relevant numbers. It's a hell of lot more complicated than "DLC revenues > Used games sales, therefore if used games sales increase, DLC revenues will increase at a higher pace!"

#126 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
What is with the anti used games movement here? The fvck does anyone care? There are used books, movies, clothing, cars... why do videogames get to be the one thing on earth that they should shut down the aftermarket on? Jesus.
#127 Posted by Bigboi500 (29139 posts) -

[QUOTE="Venom_Raptor"]

If that is actually true, and it happens, then it has to rank as one of the all-time worst decisions I've ever known. Not being able to let family borrow games or let people who aren't exactly loaded with cash to buy pre-owned is disgusting.

The_Last_Ride

if this is true, i am going to get PS4 first

Me too, unless Sony pulls this nonsense as well. Being in such a financially bad place, you'd think they wouldn't want to piss off consumers and take such a bold risk though, so hopefully Sony does the right thing and starts making some smart decisions.

#128 Posted by The-Apostle (12144 posts) -

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]Companies like eBay, Gamestop or Amazon should sue.Grammaton-Cleric

They would have absolutely no basis for a lawsuit.

Just as developers and publishers can't stop used game sales, companies that profit from those sales can't stop the publishers or console makers from implementing these types of measures.

They could claim monopolistic practices or forcing them out of business, especially Gamestop.
#129 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]Companies like eBay, Gamestop or Amazon should sue.The-Apostle

They would have absolutely no basis for a lawsuit.

Just as developers and publishers can't stop used game sales, companies that profit from those sales can't stop the publishers or console makers from implementing these types of measures.

They could claim monopolistic practices or forcing them out of business, especially Gamestop.

That wouldn't constitute a monopoly.

None of these companies have an obligation to facilitate a secondary market.

Furthermore, they may place any and all restrictions on a product they wish; the consumer has to make that final decision if the value outweighs the restrictions.

#130 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

What is with the anti used games movement here? The fvck does anyone care? There are used books, movies, clothing, cars... why do videogames get to be the one thing on earth that they should shut down the aftermarket on? Jesus.GodModeEnabled

To be fair, I don't think the used game market runs parallel to other secondary markets in quite the same manner as some would suggest.

Most used media has a very limited secondhand market where by contrast GameStop created a model where the procurement and resale of used games now siphons a third of this industry's revenue, which is substantial, and none of which goes back to the publisher or the developer.

We are not dealing with the loaning of a few games to a friend or the selling of a game on eBay; this is a massively concerted and organized approach that allows retailers, specifically GameStop, to essentially acquire (and often re-acquire) merchandise for pennies on the dollar and then resell it at often grossly inflated, sometimes near-retail prices.

In some ways the used game market is unprecedented. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist but I also think those of us who are passionate about this medium need to consider the issue in its entirely rather than merely draw shallow parallels between used gaming and other forms of media.

Personally, I buy new software almost exclusively but at the same time I have traded in literally hundreds of games over the years so I am as much a part of this current system as those buying secondhand software.

#131 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]What is with the anti used games movement here? The fvck does anyone care? There are used books, movies, clothing, cars... why do videogames get to be the one thing on earth that they should shut down the aftermarket on? Jesus.Grammaton-Cleric

To be fair, I don't think the used game market runs parallel to other secondary markets in quite the same manner as some would suggest.

Most used media has a very limited secondhand market where by contrast GameStop created a model where the procurement and resale of used games now siphons a third of this industry's revenue, which is substantial, and none of which goes back to the publisher or the developer.

We are not dealing with the loaning of a few games to a friend or the selling of a game on eBay; this is a massively concerted and organized approach that allows retailers, specifically GameStop, to essentially acquire (and often re-acquire) merchandise for pennies on the dollar and then resell it at often grossly inflated, sometimes near-retail prices.

In some ways the used game market is unprecedented. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist but I also think those of us who are passionate about this medium need to consider the issue in its entirely rather than merely draw shallow parallels between used gaming and other forms of media.

Personally, I buy new software almost exclusively but at the same time I have traded in literally hundreds of games over the years so I am as much a part of this current system as those buying secondhand software.

Not to pick on you but I just want to understand this, what is with this whole trade in game mentality? If that didn't exist this giant used game issue wouldn't be a problem. Was it GameStop that convinced everyone that trading in was the right thing to do? Don't you guys believe in keeping the products you buy? Do you trade in movies? Books? Music? No other media has this trade in epidemic. If you don't want to own a movie you rent it, renting a game saves you a ton money. Somehow someone convinced gamers to do it backwards, pay full price up front and if you don't want to keep it return it rather than the correct way which is rent an buy if you like it. I understand renting can be a pain but still it's a much more viable option. I seriously do not understand the trade in phenomenon.
#132 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]What is with the anti used games movement here? The fvck does anyone care? There are used books, movies, clothing, cars... why do videogames get to be the one thing on earth that they should shut down the aftermarket on? Jesus.Grammaton-Cleric

To be fair, I don't think the used game market runs parallel to other secondary markets in quite the same manner as some would suggest.

Most used media has a very limited secondhand market where by contrast GameStop created a model where the procurement and resale of used games now siphons a third of this industry's revenue, which is substantial, and none of which goes back to the publisher or the developer.

We are not dealing with the loaning of a few games to a friend or the selling of a game on eBay; this is a massively concerted and organized approach that allows retailers, specifically GameStop, to essentially acquire (and often re-acquire) merchandise for pennies on the dollar and then resell it at often grossly inflated, sometimes near-retail prices.

In some ways the used game market is unprecedented. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist but I also think those of us who are passionate about this medium need to consider the issue in its entirely rather than merely draw shallow parallels between used gaming and other forms of media.

Personally, I buy new software almost exclusively but at the same time I have traded in literally hundreds of games over the years so I am as much a part of this current system as those buying secondhand software.

You can't equate the market share of used game sales to automatic revenue loss though. There is no certainty that a person who buys a used game would just buy it new instead. You would have to take a wild stab in the dark at a number that would be actual revenue loss, and my stab would place that 28% of the market at a much lower value of actual loss of sales. You just cannot equate the percentages into a factual number. Let's not forget the "poor publisher" is making mass sales in many other areas that fall pretty damn nicely into the "shades of grey" area of ethical business practices, like withheld or cut content to be sold as DLC, possible reviewer payoffs, and other kinds of dirt that while some people like to think doesn't exist is quite prevelant in the industry today. Just food for thought that Gamestop isn't necessarily the only bad guy around. Besides Gamestop there are a lot of mom and pop videogame stores, rental places like gamefly and many other areas that if the no used games thing were to happen would result in a lot of people losing their jobs. Lastly the best thing about the used games market by far is retro gaming. You just can't get a lot of older games new anymore, or niche kind of games. It's awesome that if I was so inclined I could go buy a nice PS2 library of games and enjoy that generation again if I wanted to. In the future people won't really have that option, but it's win win for the publishers because they will sell old games digitally and people will buy them that way. Sure is nice to have the choice though. I buy a lot of new software too. Usually you don't have to wait too long for a pricedrop either. I don't know who the morons are that buy new games used for $55 instead of $60 (fvck those guys) but buying a game that's been out for a while for $20 less here or there adds up. I also don't see the problem with trade ins either, they are most times used to go towards buying a new game so that's a win for the publisher, the developer, Gamestop and me as a consumer.
#133 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Not to pick on you but I just want to understand this, what is with this whole trade in game mentality? If that didn't exist this giant used game issue wouldn't be a problem. Was it GameStop that convinced everyone that trading in was the right thing to do? Don't you guys believe in keeping the products you buy? Do you trade in movies? Books? Music? No other media has this trade in epidemic. If you don't want to own a movie you rent it, renting a game saves you a ton money. Somehow someone convinced gamers to do it backwards, pay full price up front and if you don't want to keep it return it rather than the correct way which is rent an buy if you like it. I understand renting can be a pain but still it's a much more viable option. I seriously do not understand the trade in phenomenon.dvader654

For nearly 10 years, I didnt trade in a single game after Gamestop ripped off back in 2003. (I traded in 6 games just to fund Silent Hill 3) I stuck with renting games I didnt want to buy, but after Blockbuster went out of business I was left with no choice other than to fund my new game purchases by trading in games after I finished them. Did I like returning Rayman Vita, Uncharted vita and Unit 13? Nope, but if I hadn't I simply wouldn't have been able to afford games even after they went on sale. No everyone is wealthy and can afford to buy 40-50 games a year at $40-$60 a game. 

Like Grammaton, i havent bought a single used game in years. I always buy my games new, but I trade in games like a mother f*cker. 

#134 Posted by dagreenfish (1817 posts) -
Yeah, if they're blocking used games then I will not be getting one.
#135 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Not to pick on you but I just want to understand this, what is with this whole trade in game mentality? If that didn't exist this giant used game issue wouldn't be a problem. Was it GameStop that convinced everyone that trading in was the right thing to do? Don't you guys believe in keeping the products you buy? Do you trade in movies? Books? Music? No other media has this trade in epidemic. If you don't want to own a movie you rent it, renting a game saves you a ton money. Somehow someone convinced gamers to do it backwards, pay full price up front and if you don't want to keep it return it rather than the correct way which is rent an buy if you like it. I understand renting can be a pain but still it's a much more viable option. I seriously do not understand the trade in phenomenon.S0lidSnake

For nearly 10 years, I didnt trade in a single game after Gamestop ripped off back in 2003. (I traded in 6 games just to fund Silent Hill 3) I stuck with renting games I didnt want to buy, but after Blockbuster went out of business I was left with no choice other than to fund my new game purchases by trading in games after I finished them. Did I like returning Rayman Vita, Uncharted vita and Unit 13? Nope, but if I hadn't I simply wouldn't have been able to afford games even after they went on sale. No everyone is wealthy and can afford to buy 40-50 games a year at $40-$60 a game. 

Like Grammaton, i havent bought a single used game in years. I always buy my games new, but I trade in games like a mother f*cker. 

You are essentially paying like $40 to rent a game. How is that saving money?
#136 Posted by getyeryayasout (7065 posts) -
I am not interesred in buying an always online console that won't play used, barrowed, or rented discs. It's hard for me to believe MS would make these things mandatory, but maybe they've decided to take Xbox in a new direction. I'll be disappointed if it's true, but probably not as disappointed as MS investors. A year after launch you'll probably be able to unlock used game access for $50 through XBL.
#137 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

You can't equate the market share of used game sales to automatic revenue loss though. There is no certainty that a person who buys a used game would just buy it new instead. You would have to take a wild stab in the dark at a number that would be actual revenue loss, and my stab would place that 28% of the market at a much lower value of actual loss of sales. You just cannot equate the percentages into a factual number. Let's not forget the "poor publisher" is making mass sales in many other areas that fall pretty damn nicely into the "shades of grey" area of ethical business practices, like withheld or cut content to be sold as DLC, possible reviewer payoffs, and other kinds of dirt that while some people like to think doesn't exist is quite prevelant in the industry today. Just food for thought that Gamestop isn't necessarily the only bad guy around. Besides Gamestop there are a lot of mom and pop videogame stores, rental places like gamefly and many other areas that if the no used games thing were to happen would result in a lot of people losing their jobs. Lastly the best thing about the used games market by far is retro gaming. You just can't get a lot of older games new anymore, or niche kind of games. It's awesome that if I was so inclined I could go buy a nice PS2 library of games and enjoy that generation again if I wanted to. In the future people won't really have that option, but it's win win for the publishers because they will sell old games digitally and people will buy them that way. Sure is nice to have the choice though. I buy a lot of new software too. Usually you don't have to wait too long for a pricedrop either. I don't know who the morons are that buy new games used for $55 instead of $60 (fvck those guys) but buying a game that's been out for a while for $20 less here or there adds up. I also don't see the problem with trade ins either, they are most times used to go towards buying a new game so that's a win for the publisher, the developer, Gamestop and me as a consumer.

GodModeEnabled

It's difficult to make any substantive assertions without better data, which is why I don't necessarily fall entirely on one side of the issue or the other.

However, there are a few logical extrapolations we can make based on what we currently know.

For example, if 33.3% of game sales are used, we can logically deduce that a good number of those people would have purchased those games new because clearly, they want the software. This is especially true considering that many of the used prices, especially in regards to newer games, are only marginally less expensive than the price of new software. These are not the same statistical demographic as those who pirate software; these people are willing to pay for their games so even without a used market they would have either purchased the game at launch or waited for a sale or price drop.

As to DLC, I would argue that is a separate issue entirely. Like any sales model there are examples of abuse and there are plenty of instances where the DLC was not only fairly-priced but delivered excellent content. Regardless, Online Passes are actually a direct response to the used market, as publishers are looking for ways to garner revenue for secondhand software because of these stark statistics regarding used game sales.

The mom and pop store by the way is entirely incidental. Small enthusiast shops aren't the factor that is causing this massive siphon in sales revenue and they never were. GameStop and other retailers who have followed their model made the used game market a concerted force that changed the proverbial retail model permanently, which was my earlier point: the used game market at the corporate level is a machine designed to maximize profits by cutting the developers and publishers right out of the loop of their own products.

 I'm not advocating strictly for the publishers or developers but the reality is that they make the games we play while GameStop is merely an intermediary exploiting the work of others. If they were to fold tomorrow I can still buy software where by contrast without the developers there is no software to purchase.

That understood, I'm not against the used market at all. I'm just not willing to entirely dismiss evidence that suggests it might be potentially harmful to a medium we love.

#138 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

Not to pick on you but I just want to understand this, what is with this whole trade in game mentality? If that didn't exist this giant used game issue wouldn't be a problem. Was it GameStop that convinced everyone that trading in was the right thing to do? Don't you guys believe in keeping the products you buy? Do you trade in movies? Books? Music? No other media has this trade in epidemic. If you don't want to own a movie you rent it, renting a game saves you a ton money. Somehow someone convinced gamers to do it backwards, pay full price up front and if you don't want to keep it return it rather than the correct way which is rent an buy if you like it. I understand renting can be a pain but still it's a much more viable option. I seriously do not understand the trade in phenomenon.

dvader654

Fair Question.

I keep the vast majority of software that I purchase. I have a HUGE collection and consider myself a collector. (A reason I rarely buy used)

So for me, the issue isn't about keeping products because I keep most of what I buy.

However, I purchase so much, often at such low prices, that there are, inevitably, games I don't want or need in my collection. I also get rid of games when the superior HD version gets released or if a sequel nullifies my need for a certain game on my shelf. I'm a collector, not a HOARDER, so at some point I will do some tidying and, if I can score some decent value on trade-ins, I'll sell stuff to places like GameStop or Best Buy.

Also, I often nab games for such low prices that I actually make a profit flipping them.

And yes, I've sold movies and books I didn't want either, though without such a concerted used market I often end up giving books away. Again, for me it is about thinning my own collection and not merely having a trove of software based on sheer volume.

#139 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Not to pick on you but I just want to understand this, what is with this whole trade in game mentality? If that didn't exist this giant used game issue wouldn't be a problem. Was it GameStop that convinced everyone that trading in was the right thing to do? Don't you guys believe in keeping the products you buy? Do you trade in movies? Books? Music? No other media has this trade in epidemic. If you don't want to own a movie you rent it, renting a game saves you a ton money. Somehow someone convinced gamers to do it backwards, pay full price up front and if you don't want to keep it return it rather than the correct way which is rent an buy if you like it. I understand renting can be a pain but still it's a much more viable option. I seriously do not understand the trade in phenomenon.dvader654

For nearly 10 years, I didnt trade in a single game after Gamestop ripped off back in 2003. (I traded in 6 games just to fund Silent Hill 3) I stuck with renting games I didnt want to buy, but after Blockbuster went out of business I was left with no choice other than to fund my new game purchases by trading in games after I finished them. Did I like returning Rayman Vita, Uncharted vita and Unit 13? Nope, but if I hadn't I simply wouldn't have been able to afford games even after they went on sale. No everyone is wealthy and can afford to buy 40-50 games a year at $40-$60 a game. 

Like Grammaton, i havent bought a single used game in years. I always buy my games new, but I trade in games like a mother f*cker. 

You are essentially paying like $40 to rent a game. How is that saving money?

Wait, how did you get that? 

I bought Mass Effect 3 for $30 on sale from Amazon. Traded it in after two months for $24 at Bestbuy. So technically, it cost me $6 to rent the game for two months.

I bought the MLB The Show from Amazon for $40, the vita version for another $20. Again on sale, traded in the vita version back to Amazon for $16, and got $35 from Bestbuy for the PS3 version. $9 to keep the game for a month. 

I ALWAYS look for great trade in deals just like I do great sales. The worst deal I've gotten in the last year since I started trading games was the $32 I got for the Wii U version of BLOPS 2. So I kept the game for two months for $28 and put in over 100 hours just in the MP. And the only reason I settled for that deal was because after breaking my Wii U controller over it I didnt want that game in my house anymore. 

#140 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -
Oh ok then so neither of you are ones who pay full and trade in for half or less. Ok then.
#141 Posted by BranKetra (47875 posts) -
If Microsoft's next console only works while online then I will not be buying one.
#142 Posted by BuldozerX (269 posts) -
I had to create a membership just so I could discuss this BS. There are so much wrong with banning used game, so let`s begin: After reading about this everywhere I see it pisses almost every consumer off. When we pay full price for a game we should be able to do what we want with it. Thats how everything works, and it`s wrong to ban used games just because you have the patent to do so. This will turn consumers away from buying both their consoles and their games. Stores like Gamestop will die, and they are selling new consoles, and games as well. It`s BS that they don`t make money out of used games. I pay for Xbox Live because it allows me to play used games online. When I bought a used copy of Mass Effect I payed real money for every single DLC. When I bought a used copy of Far Cry 3 I payed for a online pass. No used games will probably mean less people will pay for DLC`s. So now I have to pay for Xbox Live, the console, full price games, and Internet? Wow, that`s a lot of money . On Norway I have to pay more than 100 dollars each game as well. We have something called taxes you know. We won`t be able to trade games, loan games, rent games..... What happens the day the consoles dies or turn old? The day they shut down the online servers. Am I the prideful owner of 200 games that I no longer can`t play because the online support is gone? Will these games never have a future within retro gaming? Another issue is that pirate will find a way to hack this, they always do. When that happens, it could create some black marked for used games on these consoles. We can still sell our "useless" copies you know. But to one of my biggest consernes. What will happen when games are out of stock and we no longer are able to find new copies? Publishers will always produce a limited amount of games, and they stop doing so when the game is not longer popular among the consumers. What happens then? Do we have to go on Ebay and pray that someone is selling a brand new copy of that game? And if they do, we probably have to pay a huge amount of money, because when the other copies are useless, the new copy is a rare treasure. I know some of you will say; they will probably let you download the game digital then. I say **** NO. Aren`t these game supposed to be released on 50 GB discs? Yeah ok, I guess everyone can just download 50 GB without problems.
#143 Posted by MirkoS77 (7015 posts) -

Rumour has it that both next-gen consoles will require blood sacrifices to turn on and be powered by the tears of the innocent.

Sstrawberryjam

Poetry.

#144 Posted by BuldozerX (269 posts) -

I was reading the EDGE article again and something caught my attention:

Sources with first-hand experience of Microsofts 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.

This reads as if online functionality and the restricting of software to a single system are one and the same when in reality those are two very different issues entirely. What is interesting is that the wording here suggests a disparity between physical media and downloadable software, meaning that perhaps the only games that will be locked to a specific system will be those digitally purchased, which is merely an extension of the current model.  

Now take a gander at this quote:

It is believed that games purchased on disc will ship with activation codes, and will have no value beyond the initial user.

Believed?

Who, exactly, believes that physical discs will ship with activation codes?  

There would be no reason for MS to share that information with a developer at this early stage nor do I think anyone privy to such sensitive information working at MS would leak this to the press so it immediately calls into question the validity of the source and subsequently the veracity of the information. Furthermore, the verbiage employed in this article is clearly speculative in nature, bordering on whimsical conjecture.

Many, many people are taking this rumor as gospel yet I have a growing suspicion this really is mostly BS.

We'll see in the coming months.

Grammaton-Cleric
Not the coming months. We`ll see when Sony announcing their PS4 this month. If Sony doesnt pull this BS and allows used games like Nintendo DID (why the **** hasnt this been mentioned?) MS will HAVE to do the same.
#145 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

Hope these rumors are false, but if they aren't it would be a good chance to finally become a PC gamer. 

#146 Posted by BuldozerX (269 posts) -
http://meemsy.com/v/6844 hitler is not happy
#147 Posted by Gamefan1986 (1317 posts) -

If this turns out to be true, which I kind of doubt, I'll still buy one because it'll have the games that I most want to play on it. I don't care for the always online part but if I think about it I'm always online with my 360 and PS3 whenever I play now anyway so that probably won't be an issue. As for playing used games I don't buy used games and I don't care for lending, borrowing, trading, or selling them anyway so again this is another non-issue for me as well. Still though this is all just speculation and I'm highly skeptical that either Microsoft or Sony will implement this features next gen.Archangel3371

Im always online with my 360 and PC as well but an online only ecosystem didn't exactly help Diablo 3.

#148 Posted by BuldozerX (269 posts) -
Error 37, can log the **** on you mean? Yeah, and thats only one game. I dont see the problem in letting the developer decide this for themself. If they want to ban used game, make a code to do so. Then we can choose what game to ignore.
#149 Posted by contracts420 (1956 posts) -

I had to create a membership just so I could discuss this BS. There are so much wrong with banning used game, so let`s begin: After reading about this everywhere I see it pisses almost every consumer off. When we pay full price for a game we should be able to do what we want with it. Thats how everything works, and it`s wrong to ban used games just because you have the patent to do so. This will turn consumers away from buying both their consoles and their games. Stores like Gamestop will die, and they are selling new consoles, and games as well. It`s BS that they don`t make money out of used games. I pay for Xbox Live because it allows me to play used games online. When I bought a used copy of Mass Effect I payed real money for every single DLC. When I bought a used copy of Far Cry 3 I payed for a online pass. No used games will probably mean less people will pay for DLC`s. So now I have to pay for Xbox Live, the console, full price games, and Internet? Wow, that`s a lot of money . On Norway I have to pay more than 100 dollars each game as well. We have something called taxes you know. We won`t be able to trade games, loan games, rent games..... What happens the day the consoles dies or turn old? The day they shut down the online servers. Am I the prideful owner of 200 games that I no longer can`t play because the online support is gone? Will these games never have a future within retro gaming? Another issue is that pirate will find a way to hack this, they always do. When that happens, it could create some black marked for used games on these consoles. We can still sell our "useless" copies you know. But to one of my biggest consernes. What will happen when games are out of stock and we no longer are able to find new copies? Publishers will always produce a limited amount of games, and they stop doing so when the game is not longer popular among the consumers. What happens then? Do we have to go on Ebay and pray that someone is selling a brand new copy of that game? And if they do, we probably have to pay a huge amount of money, because when the other copies are useless, the new copy is a rare treasure. I know some of you will say; they will probably let you download the game digital then. I say **** NO. Aren`t these game supposed to be released on 50 GB discs? Yeah ok, I guess everyone can just download 50 GB without problems. BuldozerX

I'm surprised everyone just ignored your post as well as my own from earlier.

Once PSN and Xbox Live are removed from PS3 and Xbox 360, what are we supposed to do with our digital titles? I won't be able to download them again as I won't be able to sign in. If my console breaks, I can't call Sony or Microsoft to help with the license transfers either. Everything you purchased will be gone, everything turns into a glorified rental.

This does not work for consoles, whereas PC is a singular platform, consoles are not. Once the hardware dies everything you purchased dies with it. With PC everything transfers from one to the other. I'd also like to point out that here in Canada some of use have download caps, otherwise it will cost me even more. My internet speeds are also troublesome at times, forcing me to be online in order to play would absolutely ruin my gaming experience.

#150 Posted by Bigboi500 (29139 posts) -

[QUOTE="BuldozerX"]I had to create a membership just so I could discuss this BS. There are so much wrong with banning used game, so let`s begin: After reading about this everywhere I see it pisses almost every consumer off. When we pay full price for a game we should be able to do what we want with it. Thats how everything works, and it`s wrong to ban used games just because you have the patent to do so. This will turn consumers away from buying both their consoles and their games. Stores like Gamestop will die, and they are selling new consoles, and games as well. It`s BS that they don`t make money out of used games. I pay for Xbox Live because it allows me to play used games online. When I bought a used copy of Mass Effect I payed real money for every single DLC. When I bought a used copy of Far Cry 3 I payed for a online pass. No used games will probably mean less people will pay for DLC`s. So now I have to pay for Xbox Live, the console, full price games, and Internet? Wow, that`s a lot of money . On Norway I have to pay more than 100 dollars each game as well. We have something called taxes you know. We won`t be able to trade games, loan games, rent games..... What happens the day the consoles dies or turn old? The day they shut down the online servers. Am I the prideful owner of 200 games that I no longer can`t play because the online support is gone? Will these games never have a future within retro gaming? Another issue is that pirate will find a way to hack this, they always do. When that happens, it could create some black marked for used games on these consoles. We can still sell our "useless" copies you know. But to one of my biggest consernes. What will happen when games are out of stock and we no longer are able to find new copies? Publishers will always produce a limited amount of games, and they stop doing so when the game is not longer popular among the consumers. What happens then? Do we have to go on Ebay and pray that someone is selling a brand new copy of that game? And if they do, we probably have to pay a huge amount of money, because when the other copies are useless, the new copy is a rare treasure. I know some of you will say; they will probably let you download the game digital then. I say **** NO. Aren`t these game supposed to be released on 50 GB discs? Yeah ok, I guess everyone can just download 50 GB without problems. contracts420

I'm surprised everyone just ignored your post as well as my own from earlier.

 

Once PSN and Xbox Live are removed from PS3 and Xbox 360, what are we supposed to do with our digital titles? I won't be able to download them again as I won't be able to sign in. If my console breaks, I can't call Sony or Microsoft to help with the license transfers either. Everything you purchased will be gone, everything turns into a glorified rental.

 

This does not work for consoles, whereas PC is a singular platform, consoles are not. Once the hardware dies everything you purchased dies with it. With PC everything transfers from one to the other. I'd also like to point out that here in Canada some of use have download caps, otherwise it will cost me even more. My internet speeds are also troublesome at times, forcing me to be online in order to play would absolutely ruin my gaming experience.

As it stands now, you don't have to be signed in to play your digital titles that are already on your hard drive. As far as expecting to have and download them on next gen systems, good luck with that.