Xbox One was a great leap forward until you guys ruined it...

[QUOTE="AD216"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Of course they would.  Guess now we'll never know, but considering all their DRM BS happened in the first place doesn't give me any faith in anything they say.

MirkoS77

[QUOTE="lockjaw333"][QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

The Used Game Market IS the industry.

If it wasn't for the Used Game Market the industry wouldn't be where it is today and that's a fact.

So never once in your life were you ever loaned a game or given a game because a friend got bored of it or even bought a used game or even let a friend borrow a game of yours?

That's funny stuff there.

The Used Game Market IS the industry.

If it wasn't for the Used Game Market the industry wouldn't be where it is today and that's a fact.

LegatoSkyheart

Someone's mad.clyde46

To those who like to bash Xbone for it's policies, you are foolish. You need to move on with the times and accept that always online is the future. However, because of you guys, they had to do a 180. Thanks a lot. You've slowed down any advancement in the gaming industry. 

At least Microwin were trying to make a change, Sony did nothing new. 

I know you all secretly agree but you're too scared to admit it.

HyperWarlock

 First, consider the 360. They've sold over 70 mil by now. We can play with numbers because of the RROD disaster and how people had to buy newer models because the original had no HDMI so userbase can't be specified. But it's safe to say that doesn't mean a userbase equal to that number. It is also no stretch of the imagination that not all of the users play online. 

Microsoft invested BILLIONS (as is the usual case) in their next gen console. An online mandate by default cancels out a huge number of buyers from the previous gen. Not only is it that people may have no internet or experience connection issues, but many people are simply turned off by a "check in". 

The global infrastructure is just not where it needs to be to support an idea like that. We've all considered always online years ago, but understood that the conditions aren't right for it. They wouldn't sell enough to get a return on their investment because the online mandate would serve as a factor that inhibits growth (sales wise). 

If MS and XB1 enthusiasts were intent on moving forward with the DRM model, the userbase would fall well below numbers from the previous gen. I'm sure it would be a great experience owning an XB1. But that is the consumer's side. As a business, MS would have to deal with their console selling much less than their rivals'. If they were content with that idea, they would have moved forward with their model. They obviously were not.

People arguing that it was good idea are extremely ignorant and that is sad.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

The Used Game Market IS the industry.

If it wasn't for the Used Game Market the industry wouldn't be where it is today and that's a fact.

robybaggio

History.

I have never purchased a used game. Never. Sure, I brought games to friends houses when I was a kid, and they brought theirs to mine and such. I maybe have borrowed a few games in my lifetime. Having a few friends in the game industry, I understand the damage that used games can cause. Its a real issue whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Think about the employees, not the large companies. Whether they are impacted by the sales of the game they worked on, and a large chunk of sales are stripped from them by second hand used purchases, you start to understand why used games suck. So gamestop seels you a game for $5 less than new, and they get ALL of the profit. Developers don't see any of that. I'm sure you know and understand this but think it really doesn't have an impact on those working in the industry, but it does. I see your point that used games have helped the spread of gaming. I won't directly refute that, but I'm not sure it has helped as much as you think it has. Its a complicated issue, but I think the main reason people fought what MS was trying to do was fear of change..not knowing how they would handle this, feeling they were having their ownership rights taken away. I don't think that was the intention, but we probably disagree on that point.lockjaw333

In order for a game to be used in the first place it has to be sold.

Used gaming isn't Piracy. There's a sale behind that game.

Does it hurt those that made the game? Yes, because that money isn't going to the company, but you really should be honest with yourself when you're in this business cause the Gaming Industry is just like any media out there.

You'll swing and sometimes you'll hit your target, rarely would you ever get a homerun and most of the time you're going to strike out.

Not every Movie made is going to see record breaking numbers, Not every book is going to get a Hit HBO TV series, Not every Musician is going to be shown on David Letterman, and Not every Video game is going to be the Next Call of Duty.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="lockjaw333"] I will ask you to elaborate before I instinctively laugh.lockjaw333

So never once in your life were you ever loaned a game or given a game because a friend got bored of it or even bought a used game or even let a friend borrow a game of yours?

That's funny stuff there.

Is it really the developers suffering directly because of used games, or is it how they get shafted by publishers who had exagerated expectations when it comes to the release's revenue? Tomb Raider was quoted as a "disappointment" by the publisher for "only" selling a "measly" 2+ million. That's ridiculous!

I think you bring up a vital point about a price difference as little as $5 that ends up hurting sales. They could help their case trememdously if digital releases cost less since the retailer is eliminated out of the equation. They would see increased revenue (of course it would require a solid system in place for expanded external storage. I'm sure they could work something out). 

I (along with most other gamers I'm sure) am glad MS retracted their DRM policies for XBO. But I'm just gonna play devil's advocate for a minute.

It seems pretty obvious they were following the PC/Steam model for product distribution and management. This is especially noteable with the game being attached to the users account, creating the difficulty with re-selling.

But since XBO was emulating the Steam business model, would people be raising as much hell if they also followed their pricing structure, where a lot of new and relatively new games could be purchased (let's assume namely for the DD copies) for $50-$40 within the first 2 months, and then going lower as time went on?

AdobeArtist

[QUOTE="robybaggio"][QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

The Used Game Market IS the industry.

If it wasn't for the Used Game Market the industry wouldn't be where it is today and that's a fact.

LegatoSkyheart

History.

Nothing. Well done. robybaggio

So you're going to deny that Arcades did nothing to innovate the industry.

The Arcades were purely run on Used gaming. Any Arcade machine you go to it was already played by another person.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="lockjaw333"] I will ask you to elaborate before I instinctively laugh.lockjaw333

So never once in your life were you ever loaned a game or given a game because a friend got bored of it or even bought a used game or even let a friend borrow a game of yours?

That's funny stuff there.

The funny part is, the old system from MS woud not have done anything to the corporate used game market.  In fact, by only allowing autherized retailers to participate, it would've secured the place of Gamestop, etc. and prevented the gamers from lending their games or selling them on their own.

As far as the used market in general, if the publishers want a cut, why not get in the market?  If amazon can handle used sales, certainly EA and such can.

I'm so sorry you were deprived of your Orwellian Console TC.

lol 11 pages on a troll thread

lol 11 pages on a troll thread

HyperWarlock

Yet it's worrying that so many come defending the DRM, even though it's a troll thread.

Are all the MS DRM policies defenders trolls as well? I hope so.

Or people are just accepting the business propaganda that used games are damaging like piracy or something like that.

Companies shouldn't blame their consumers for their lack of good business. Could GM and Chrysler blame consumers for their almost bankruptcy? While many other companies in the same market, and same "crisis period" profited as hell and ranked up in the market, like Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, Renault-Nissan, etc?

The same goes for gaming... some companies are not profiting like others, but we can't neglect that the gaming business is still one of the biggest (it's been bigger than Holywood for ages) and one of the most profitable as well.

I really think it's worrying that there are people accepting that their rights as owners is something bad, and not something they should just take for granted.

lol 11 pages on a troll thread

HyperWarlock

Well, you both make a good point. Maybe its because I have a few friends in the industry and have a more direct pulse on the issue, but macroscopically you both make valid arguments. The used car market being a very good argument.

The Used Game Market IS the industry.

If it wasn't for the Used Game Market the industry wouldn't be where it is today and that's a fact.

LegatoSkyheart

Try not to be stupid.

[QUOTE="robybaggio"][QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

The Used Game Market IS the industry.

If it wasn't for the Used Game Market the industry wouldn't be where it is today and that's a fact.

LegatoSkyheart

History.

I think I see Eminem.

To those who like to bash Xbone for it's policies, you are foolish. You need to move on with the times and accept that always online is the future. However, because of you guys, they had to do a 180. Thanks a lot. You've slowed down any advancement in the gaming industry.

At least Microwin were trying to make a change, Sony did nothing new.

I know you all secretly agree but you're too scared to admit it.

HyperWarlock

Wrong.

That wasn't a "change" they were attempting. That was a mammoth step BACKWARDS into the dark ages. What they were doing was an insult to every nerd that's ever picked up a video game controller. In fact, how dare they even attempt what they did. they deserve all of the flack they got. Just like how they similarly deserve any praise for reversing these decisions.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

I (along with most other gamers I'm sure) am glad MS retracted their DRM policies for XBO. But I'm just gonna play devil's advocate for a minute.

It seems pretty obvious they were following the PC/Steam model for product distribution and management. This is especially noteable with the game being attached to the users account, creating the difficulty with re-selling.

But since XBO was emulating the Steam business model, would people be raising as much hell if they also followed their pricing structure, where a lot of new and relatively new games could be purchased (let's assume namely for the DD copies) for $50-$40 within the first 2 months, and then going lower as time went on?

Heil68

Sony competing with MS has nothing to do with my post. My point was simply to ask, if MS emulated the DD pricing of Steam on PC, since they were practically emulating that distribution and content management model, would we have seen this much of a backlash with their original XBO strategy?

[QUOTE="robybaggio"] Nothing. Well done. LegatoSkyheart

So you're going to deny that Arcades did nothing to innovate the industry.

The Arcades were purely run on Used gaming. Any Arcade machine you go to it was already played by another person.

What is this... I don't even... :?

OK, let's get something clear here. Arcade games were never purchased by the gamers in the first place, so there is no product ownership transfer to speak of. Arcade gaming was really more of a "rental" model. People paid for the amount of gaming time they could afford, and when they were done, the next person in line paid for their usage. Essentially arcades are a temporary usage, and you leave it behind when you're done.

Buying games from a store is literally buying a product for personal use, with no time limits. It's the same as buying a book, a toy, TV, computer, clothing, etc... The money is paid for use in your own home for as long as you like with no need to relenquish it after an hour, day or week.

How did you even come up with this comparison?? :|

[QUOTE="robybaggio"] Nothing. Well done. LegatoSkyheart

So you're going to deny that Arcades did nothing to innovate the industry.

The Arcades were purely run on Used gaming. Any Arcade machine you go to it was already played by another person.

lol 11 pages on a troll thread

HyperWarlock

Shut up troll.

A lot of in the closet Xbox fans..lol

its ppl like TC that prove lems have very low IQ lvlsreaver-x

Yes, and using stupid generalisations have always been a sign of intellectual power.

To those who like to bash Xbone for it's policies, you are foolish. You need to move on with the times and accept that always online is the future. However, because of you guys, they had to do a 180. Thanks a lot. You've slowed down any advancement in the gaming industry. 

At least Microwin were trying to make a change, Sony did nothing new. 

I know you all secretly agree but you're too scared to admit it.

HyperWarlock

Nope.

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

To those who like to bash Xbone for it's policies, you are foolish. You need to move on with the times and accept that always online is the future. However, because of you guys, they had to do a 180. Thanks a lot. You've slowed down any advancement in the gaming industry.

At least Microwin were trying to make a change, Sony did nothing new.

I know you all secretly agree but you're too scared to admit it.

Darth-Samus

Wrong.

That wasn't a "change" they were attempting. That was a mammoth step BACKWARDS into the dark ages. What they were doing was an insult to every nerd that's ever picked up a video game controller. In fact, how dare they even attempt what they did. they deserve all of the flack they got. Just like how they similarly deserve any praise for reversing these decisions.

[QUOTE="Heil68"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

I (along with most other gamers I'm sure) am glad MS retracted their DRM policies for XBO. But I'm just gonna play devil's advocate for a minute.

It seems pretty obvious they were following the PC/Steam model for product distribution and management. This is especially noteable with the game being attached to the users account, creating the difficulty with re-selling.

But since XBO was emulating the Steam business model, would people be raising as much hell if they also followed their pricing structure, where a lot of new and relatively new games could be purchased (let's assume namely for the DD copies) for $50-$40 within the first 2 months, and then going lower as time went on?

AdobeArtist

Sony competing with MS has nothing to do with my post. My point was simply to ask, if MS emulated the DD pricing of Steam on PC, since they were practically emulating that distribution and content management model, would we have seen this much of a backlash with their original XBO strategy?

[QUOTE="robybaggio"][QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

The Used Game Market IS the industry.

If it wasn't for the Used Game Market the industry wouldn't be where it is today and that's a fact.

LegatoSkyheart

History.

All I'm gonna say is that if MS had this game changing brilliant plan, they should've taken the TWO MASSIVE OPPORTUNITIES they had to explain it... Instead they got coy with the public as to not explain much of anything... Shit, I love the xbox brand and I still have no idea what they were trying to accomplish. The shame belongs to them, not the gamers. TheEroica

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="robybaggio"] Statistics? Articles? Reports? Or just unadulterated BS? MirkoS77

History.

I dont think it was ever communicated well to the public, and Sony did a smart thing by undercutting the price and the NO DRM at e3.    I think we will see some kind of  DRM in the future offered by Microsoft as an option.    I loved the always on idea, it would of had devs always delivering new content on a daily basis, now not so much.   we just arent ready as a society, but then again, at one time we used to say we would never send mail on a computer

I agree and was set to go with the X180, but then MS did the unthinkable, they shit canned their whole vision of the console. I had no other choice but to go with the PS4. Heil68

[QUOTE="Heil68"]I agree and was set to go with the X180, but then MS did the unthinkable, they shit canned their whole vision of the console. I had no other choice but to go with the PS4. Broomes70

Oh ma gundum style

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"][QUOTE="cainetao11"] did that apply to forcing blu ray on consumers with ps3? It wasn't needed for gaming this generation. Now costs are cheap and it makes sense. cainetao11

But it was an extra selling feature that is actually USED. There are no multi disc games on PS3, textures can be of higher resolution because of the extra storage space, sound can be uncompressed and like in FFXIII's case, can give me pure 1080p uncompressed gorgeous cutscenes while the 360 had 3 discs, horribly compressed 720p cutscenes. Many people bought a PS3 because it was the best quality blu ray player out there and being cheaper than the crappy stand alones.

Sony adding blu ray only effected cost, not functionality. MS implementing 24-hour online checks limits the console to the owner HAVING TO HAVE GOOD RELIABLE INTERNET for it to even function. Plus Blu-ray wouldn't be cheaper now if Sony never pushed it in the first place. All technology costs more when it's first released. Once it's been out for years the price drops. Its really that simple.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="lockjaw333"] I will ask you to elaborate before I instinctively laugh.lockjaw333

So never once in your life were you ever loaned a game or given a game because a friend got bored of it or even bought a used game or even let a friend borrow a game of yours?

That's funny stuff there.

I sorta agree with you, I agree the idiots who buy used to only save 5 bucks are really screwing the the Developers, but the longevity of it is that some games are not always in print, and if you didn't buy it day one, you may be hunting down a game used because it's no longer being printed. I had to do that with MGS: The Twin Snakes, Xenosaga 3, Tales of the Abyss, Pokemon Platinum F.E.A.R and so forth. Also keep in mind that they can take down a game for sale when it's digitial and it's gone forever unless they decide to put it back.

Imagine this senrario, say you missed out on some game that you want to play at launch, it's only released digitally, but for some reason there is a legal complication with it and it gets pulled after being for sale for 4 months and because the stupidity of companies arguing over rights its gone for good. Now you CAN NEVER play that game on your own console. You will have to hope one of your friends did in order to play it. 

These are the reasons why blocking used games suck. But again, I do agree that people should not buy used if they have the option to buy it new.

[QUOTE="cainetao11"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] lol, sony didn't force blu-ray on people. It didn't stop you from using your dvd's on it or playing games on it. failryangcnx-2

But it was an extra selling feature that is actually USED. There are no multi disc games on PS3, textures can be of higher resolution because of the extra storage space, sound can be uncompressed and like in FFXIII's case, can give me pure 1080p uncompressed gorgeous cutscenes while the 360 had 3 discs, horribly compressed 720p cutscenes. Many people bought a PS3 because it was the best quality blu ray player out there and being cheaper than the crappy stand alones.

Sony adding blu ray only effected cost, not functionality. MS implementing 24-hour online checks limits the console to the owner HAVING TO HAVE GOOD RELIABLE INTERNET for it to even function. Plus Blu-ray wouldn't be cheaper now if Sony never pushed it in the first place. All technology costs more when it's first released. Once it's been out for years the price drops. Its really that simple.

I didn't know bluray stores higher resolution textures than DVD.

[QUOTE="ryangcnx-2"]

[QUOTE="cainetao11"] sure they did the console could have been cheaper at launch, they wouldn't have had to take BC out, drop price so quick, take massive losses, and go further into debt. There was no option of a cheaper, non blu ray ps3.poptart

But it was an extra selling feature that is actually USED. There are no multi disc games on PS3, textures can be of higher resolution because of the extra storage space, sound can be uncompressed and like in FFXIII's case, can give me pure 1080p uncompressed gorgeous cutscenes while the 360 had 3 discs, horribly compressed 720p cutscenes. Many people bought a PS3 because it was the best quality blu ray player out there and being cheaper than the crappy stand alones.

Sony adding blu ray only effected cost, not functionality. MS implementing 24-hour online checks limits the console to the owner HAVING TO HAVE GOOD RELIABLE INTERNET for it to even function. Plus Blu-ray wouldn't be cheaper now if Sony never pushed it in the first place. All technology costs more when it's first released. Once it's been out for years the price drops. Its really that simple.

I didn't know bluray stores higher resolution textures than DVD.

It stores bluray video quality cutscenes compared to DVD video quality, that alone is a huge improvement (but many lazy devs arent bothered to make 2 versions and some ps3 games end up with the same low quality video as Xbox360, like Borderlands 2)

As far as textures, some games DO have higher res textures on ps3 because of the extra space. Just go through a few DF faceoffs and you will find several references to it.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="ryangcnx-2"]

But it was an extra selling feature that is actually USED. There are no multi disc games on PS3, textures can be of higher resolution because of the extra storage space, sound can be uncompressed and like in FFXIII's case, can give me pure 1080p uncompressed gorgeous cutscenes while the 360 had 3 discs, horribly compressed 720p cutscenes. Many people bought a PS3 because it was the best quality blu ray player out there and being cheaper than the crappy stand alones.

Sony adding blu ray only effected cost, not functionality. MS implementing 24-hour online checks limits the console to the owner HAVING TO HAVE GOOD RELIABLE INTERNET for it to even function. Plus Blu-ray wouldn't be cheaper now if Sony never pushed it in the first place. All technology costs more when it's first released. Once it's been out for years the price drops. Its really that simple.

ManatuBeard

I didn't know bluray stores higher resolution textures than DVD.

It stores bluray video quality cutscenes compared to DVD video quality, that alone is a huge improvement (but many lazy devs arent bothered to make 2 versions and some ps3 games end up with the same low quality video as Xbox360, like Borderlands 2)

As far as textures, some games DO have higher res textures on ps3 because of the extra space. Just go through a few DF faceoffs and you will find several references to it.

Uncompressed sound I think is a good advantage, although personally I couldn't careless about cut scenes. As for textures, well I've yet to see any differences that could justify the inclusion of a bluray player.... talk of these extra advantages really hark back to the conversations of 2007 - in reality: negligible... 

[QUOTE="ManatuBeard"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]

I didn't know bluray stores higher resolution textures than DVD.

poptart

It stores bluray video quality cutscenes compared to DVD video quality, that alone is a huge improvement (but many lazy devs arent bothered to make 2 versions and some ps3 games end up with the same low quality video as Xbox360, like Borderlands 2)

As far as textures, some games DO have higher res textures on ps3 because of the extra space. Just go through a few DF faceoffs and you will find several references to it.

Uncompressed sound I think is a good advantage, although personally I couldn't careless about cut scenes. As for textures, well I've yet to see any differences that could justify the inclusion of a bluray player.... talk of these extra advantages really hark back to the conversations of 2007 - in reality: negligible... 

FFXIII - 40gb , GOW3 - 40gb, GoW Ascension- 34Ggb, Uncharted 3 - 45gb, The Last of Us - 32 gb, MGS4 - 26gb

To me its more than enough justification for using bluray for games.

A single comparison of FFXIII ps3 vs FFXIII xbox360 is enough to realize why.

8gb is not enough for nowadays games, DVD belongs in a museum.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Lolno. Just keep bashingclone01

pretty much true, maybe even could happen this gen iwth an opt in on xbox live...  i know i would be the first to sign up, the xbox live deals would surely have been good and if it was like a steam model i would have been in heaven.   the family share plan was awesome but again they didnt communicate it well so be it...  

[QUOTE="Heil68"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

I (along with most other gamers I'm sure) am glad MS retracted their DRM policies for XBO. But I'm just gonna play devil's advocate for a minute.

It seems pretty obvious they were following the PC/Steam model for product distribution and management. This is especially noteable with the game being attached to the users account, creating the difficulty with re-selling.

But since XBO was emulating the Steam business model, would people be raising as much hell if they also followed their pricing structure, where a lot of new and relatively new games could be purchased (let's assume namely for the DD copies) for $50-$40 within the first 2 months, and then going lower as time went on?

AdobeArtist

Sony competing with MS has nothing to do with my post. My point was simply to ask, if MS emulated the DD pricing of Steam on PC, since they were practically emulating that distribution and content management model, would we have seen this much of a backlash with their original XBO strategy?

They could and still can implement all those "innovations" while still maintaining current policies of game ownership on the hard disc market. But by doing so those new policies wouldn't serve as DRM.

Just to remember that the PC market has both standards co-existing without problems.

The thing is: on the PC market, companies that provide services like GOG, Steam, etc, have competition, between themselves and also the physical market. If one of those companies managed to have complete control over the selling of games for the PC platform (like Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft each have over their platform), would that company still be doing such great deals for us consumers, or would they make use of that to profit more?