Microsoft 180: Xbox One will NOT have ANY Used Games or Online DRM.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]And there is definitely nothing wrong with people who dont care for DRM. If you can afford to buy a new game at full price then why should you care about DRM? S0lidSnake

I understand the implications. I just dont understand why I should dislike someone because they did not have a problem with a certain policy that does not affect them at all. 

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] There's a world of wrong: by cutting off peer to peer trading, they were going to create a monopoly in concert with gamestop. Which means they had you by the balls and your games would have been worth a fraction of their value mere minutes after purchase.Black_Knight_00

I understand the implications. I just dont understand why I should dislike someone because they did not have a problem with a certain policy that does not affect them at all. 

Just read his post again. He said trust=0.

nvm me. I am imagining things. 

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

I understand the implications. I just dont understand why I should dislike someone because they did not have a problem with a certain policy that does not affect them at all. 

S0lidSnake

Just read his post again. He said trust=0.

nvm me. I am imagining things. 

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"]I will believe it when i see itdab198

Same here.......I wouldn't be surprised if M$ is planning to troll everyone later.......

Bullshit alert. http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/19/xbox-one-drm-policy-changes-waited-on-gamers-knowing-complete-story/

Microsofts eyebrow-raising reversal of its Xbox One DRM policies has been in the works for some time, corporate vice president of Xbox Marc Whitten has said, but Microsoft wanted to tell the complete story before it made such a dramatic public reversal.

Speaking to Polygon, Whitten agreed that public opinion cited by Xbox executive Don Mattrick as the primary motivator for the changes has been strongly against DRM policies ever since they were first hinted at during the Xbox One reveal.

What we wanted to do was tell our complete story, Whitten said of the delay in letting gamers know things had changed.

We knew our complete story was partially told at the Xbox One unveil and partially told at E3. We wanted to put our story out there and show the great games we have coming. We did that and people gave us a ton of feedback.

The complete story included a number of features which, thanks to todays reversal, have been thrown out the window sharing your games library with up to nine other household members; taking your full games library to a friends house just by logging in on their machine; and the ability to play without a disc. These conveniences werent enough to keep gamers on side, it seems, so Microsoft has returned to a more conservative model.

There are some positive changes though, notably that the console will be region-free, but also should you take your disc to a friends house and install it there, they have the option to purchase it after you leave, saving them the hassle of getting their own disc; it will be as if they bought it from Xbox Live.

Its worth remembering that the DRM changes dont make the Xbox One an offline console; games which require cloud processing will need an always-on Internet connection, like any MMO or online multiplayer game.

You have to be connected [for cloud processing to work]. All of the things that require the internet will require the console to connect. We want and expect most people to take advantage of those things, but we also want to give people the choice that they can play offline, Whitten said.

Finally, Whitten could not give any reassurance that Microsoft will not change its policies in the future.

There are our policies and we are really excited about them. By adding them we have shown that we are definitly listening, he said.

So they had this planned before E3 and decided to not unveil this when everyone was watching, instead create a ton of hostility and backlash. GENIUS!!

BS. I love how the dude tries to spin it like the consumers rejected the great features, that we want an old fashion console, what an asshole. 

dvader654

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Woah, hate the sin, not the sinner. I don't think Shameus meant we should dislike anybody. Rather explain to them why their tolerance (or worse: support) of DRM would kill the industry.Black_Knight_00

Just read his post again. He said trust=0.

nvm me. I am imagining things. 

I am not convinced that DRM would have killed the industry. You know what is going to kill the industry and raise the prices of games? Piracy and used game sells.  I get the sense that a lot of folks overlook the fact the developers are running a business. No one looks at DRM from a business perspective, and what it collectivley means for developers. The indusrty looses an additional billion in lost revenue to the secondary market used game sells market. Gamestop is a racket.

100 percent of the profit of used game sells goes back to Gamestop. Used games are also a rip-off for gamers too. Sure, the idea of receiving trade-in credit to use towards a new game sounds very appealing. However, the depreciation of a brand new game's value drops fast, as soon as you tear off the plastic, instant depreciation. The $60 you paid for your game, is now worth $25-35 dollars (depending on how old the title is, the reviews for the game) and Gamestop will turn around and sell your game for $45-55 dollars used. The best part for Gamestop, is that it can re-sell the same used game, over and over again. Can we say...more money, more money and more money. And none of that goes back to the developers. 

Consumers would be wise to just sell their games on their own and at least maximize their own used game value. I think what MS was trying to do with console DRM was to create Steam like service for consoles and allow the developers to get a piece of the action from used game sells, by placing more controls on used software sells. Piracy, lost revenue from used game sells...these are the things that will hurt the gaming industry.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Just read his post again. He said trust=0.

nvm me. I am imagining things. 

Areez

I am not convinced that DRM would have killed the industry. You know what is going to kill the industry and raise the prices of games? Piracy and used game sells.  I get the sense that a lot of folks overlook the fact the developers are running a business. No one looks at DRM from a business perspective, and what it collectivley means for developers. The indusrty looses an additional billion in lost revenue to the secondary market used game sells market. Gamestop is a racket.

100 percent of the profit of used game sells goes back to Gamestop. Used games are also a rip-off for gamers too. Sure, the idea of receiving trade-in credit to use towards a new game sounds very appealing. However, the depreciation of a brand new game's value drops fast, as soon as you tear off the plastic, instant depreciation. The $60 you paid for your game, is now worth $25-35 dollars (depending on how old the title is, the reviews for the game) and Gamestop will turn around and sell your game for $45-55 dollars used. The best part for Gamestop, is that it can re-sell the same used game, over and over again. Can we say...more money, more money and more money. And none of that goes back to the developers. 

Consumers would be wise to just sell their games on their own and at least maximize their own used game value. I think what MS was trying to do with console DRM was to create Steam like service for consoles and allow the developers to get a piece of the action from used game sells, by placing more controls on used software sells. Piracy, lost revenue from used game sells...these are the things that will hurt the gaming industry.

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

Huge news. I honestly did not see this coming at all. 

Definitely taking steps in the right direction. Unfortunately Kinect still appears to be mandatory, that would have to be dropped for me to consider purchasing the console over the PS4. 

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Just read his post again. He said trust=0.

nvm me. I am imagining things. 

Areez

I am not convinced that DRM would have killed the industry. You know what is going to kill the industry and raise the prices of games? Piracy and used game sells.  I get the sense that a lot of folks overlook the fact the developers are running a business. No one looks at DRM from a business perspective, and what it collectivley means for developers. The indusrty looses an additional billion in lost revenue to the secondary market used game sells market. Gamestop is a racket.

100 percent of the profit of used game sells goes back to Gamestop. Used games are also a rip-off for gamers too. Sure, the idea of receiving trade-in credit to use towards a new game sounds very appealing. However, the depreciation of a brand new game's value drops fast, as soon as you tear off the plastic, instant depreciation. The $60 you paid for your game, is now worth $25-35 dollars (depending on how old the title is, the reviews for the game) and Gamestop will turn around and sell your game for $45-55 dollars used. The best part for Gamestop, is that it can re-sell the same used game, over and over again. Can we say...more money, more money and more money. And none of that goes back to the developers. 

Consumers would be wise to just sell their games on their own and at least maximize their own used game value. I think what MS was trying to do with console DRM was to create Steam like service for consoles and allow the developers to get a piece of the action from used game sells, by placing more controls on used software sells. Piracy, lost revenue from used game sells...these are the things that will hurt the gaming industry.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

There is nothing wrong with liking Kinect. And there is definitely nothing wrong with people who dont care for DRM. If you can afford to buy a new game at full price then why should you care about DRM? 

S0lidSnake

Because it needlessly constrains other people who can't buy new who would buy the new game I bought and sold used, thus killing off trade potential for me down the road. If someone doesn't care about DRM, they are an enemy to console gaming as far as I'm concerned. I have no use for them. Besides that, it's an asshole thing to do, and thus I think proponents of it are assholes as well. 

I cant afford a Ferrari. Should I go shit on people who can? Why should they refuse to buy a Ferrari because it's too expensive for someone like me? 

Dont get me wrong. I hate the people who said this was a good thing. Watching all these MS apologists shitting up the boards the last few weeks drove me insane. You have no idea how upset I got. BUT there is a difference b/w someone who tried to justify DRM vs someone who just shrugged it off since it didnt apply to them.

But could you buy a used Ferrari? And imagine if you couldn't trade in your Ferrari after a few years to someone who really wanted to buy it? And then some dlck prattles on about how he buys all his cars new anyway, so he doesn't see the need for all the fuss.

You may not be a potential Ferrari buyer, but you don't have to be to see that it is a dickish move to prevent people from selling them used. And that's what all these cock smoking apologists don't understand.

Cliffy the fool hath spoketh! http://www.computerandvideogames.com/415453/sony-forced-microsofts-hand-not-the-internet-whining-says-bleszinski/?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-General-RSS He calls us a bunch of whiners. What a d*ckhead.Black_Knight_00

He completely ignores that they are one and the same. All the "whiners" were going to buy PS4s because they didn't want an Xbone up the old hershey highway.

[QUOTE="Areez"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Well, should we trust the judgment (in terms of gaming) of someone who doesn't see the dangers behind DRM? The only way someone can defend DRM is if they haven't thought things through.S0lidSnake

I am not convinced that DRM would have killed the industry. You know what is going to kill the industry and raise the prices of games? Piracy and used game sells.  I get the sense that a lot of folks overlook the fact the developers are running a business. No one looks at DRM from a business perspective, and what it collectivley means for developers. The indusrty looses an additional billion in lost revenue to the secondary market used game sells market. Gamestop is a racket.

100 percent of the profit of used game sells goes back to Gamestop. Used games are also a rip-off for gamers too. Sure, the idea of receiving trade-in credit to use towards a new game sounds very appealing. However, the depreciation of a brand new game's value drops fast, as soon as you tear off the plastic, instant depreciation. The $60 you paid for your game, is now worth $25-35 dollars (depending on how old the title is, the reviews for the game) and Gamestop will turn around and sell your game for $45-55 dollars used. The best part for Gamestop, is that it can re-sell the same used game, over and over again. Can we say...more money, more money and more money. And none of that goes back to the developers. 

Consumers would be wise to just sell their games on their own and at least maximize their own used game value. I think what MS was trying to do with console DRM was to create Steam like service for consoles and allow the developers to get a piece of the action from used game sells, by placing more controls on used software sells. Piracy, lost revenue from used game sells...these are the things that will hurt the gaming industry.

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Areez"]

I am not convinced that DRM would have killed the industry. You know what is going to kill the industry and raise the prices of games? Piracy and used game sells.  I get the sense that a lot of folks overlook the fact the developers are running a business. No one looks at DRM from a business perspective, and what it collectivley means for developers. The indusrty looses an additional billion in lost revenue to the secondary market used game sells market. Gamestop is a racket.

100 percent of the profit of used game sells goes back to Gamestop. Used games are also a rip-off for gamers too. Sure, the idea of receiving trade-in credit to use towards a new game sounds very appealing. However, the depreciation of a brand new game's value drops fast, as soon as you tear off the plastic, instant depreciation. The $60 you paid for your game, is now worth $25-35 dollars (depending on how old the title is, the reviews for the game) and Gamestop will turn around and sell your game for $45-55 dollars used. The best part for Gamestop, is that it can re-sell the same used game, over and over again. Can we say...more money, more money and more money. And none of that goes back to the developers. 

Consumers would be wise to just sell their games on their own and at least maximize their own used game value. I think what MS was trying to do with console DRM was to create Steam like service for consoles and allow the developers to get a piece of the action from used game sells, by placing more controls on used software sells. Piracy, lost revenue from used game sells...these are the things that will hurt the gaming industry.

 

 

Areez

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....

Has that happened with digital releases on the consoles?

How much less is a version of, say, Metro Last Light sold digitally over Live with no packaging, retail costs, or what have you compared to the cost on Amazon?

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

Areez

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....

I don't see console games decreasing in price due to console manufacturers not wanting to keep taking a loss on the hardware.  

[QUOTE="Areez"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Well, should we trust the judgment (in terms of gaming) of someone who doesn't see the dangers behind DRM? The only way someone can defend DRM is if they haven't thought things through.Black_Knight_00

I am not convinced that DRM would have killed the industry. You know what is going to kill the industry and raise the prices of games? Piracy and used game sells.  I get the sense that a lot of folks overlook the fact the developers are running a business. No one looks at DRM from a business perspective, and what it collectivley means for developers. The indusrty looses an additional billion in lost revenue to the secondary market used game sells market. Gamestop is a racket.

100 percent of the profit of used game sells goes back to Gamestop. Used games are also a rip-off for gamers too. Sure, the idea of receiving trade-in credit to use towards a new game sounds very appealing. However, the depreciation of a brand new game's value drops fast, as soon as you tear off the plastic, instant depreciation. The $60 you paid for your game, is now worth $25-35 dollars (depending on how old the title is, the reviews for the game) and Gamestop will turn around and sell your game for $45-55 dollars used. The best part for Gamestop, is that it can re-sell the same used game, over and over again. Can we say...more money, more money and more money. And none of that goes back to the developers. 

Consumers would be wise to just sell their games on their own and at least maximize their own used game value. I think what MS was trying to do with console DRM was to create Steam like service for consoles and allow the developers to get a piece of the action from used game sells, by placing more controls on used software sells. Piracy, lost revenue from used game sells...these are the things that will hurt the gaming industry.

Abusive? You do not think that it is abusive that Gamestop ripps off gamers with trade-ins? You dont think it's abusive that developers loose out on additional revenue, which another company profits off of?  I understand that used game sales go towards new game sales. However, why noy sell your own game instead of going to GS to be ripped off? Maximize your return per say...A study is out now, that suggest eliminating used games could in effect lower game prices by 30%....Sounds good to me...

Oh and piracy is a REAL problem...I have heard of folks with modded Xbox's...who have over 100 game titles...times those games by a value 60...

[QUOTE="Areez"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

Shame-usBlackley

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....

Has that happened with digital releases on the consoles?

How much less is a version of, say, Metro Last Light sold digitally over Live with no packaging, retail costs, or what have you compared to the cost on Amazon?

No...because we still have used games to contest with...And Retailers like Gamestop will not allow digital to be cheaper than disc...They threaten developers by not stocking their games in they do so...

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....Areez

I don't see games becoming cheaper at retail. Games get more expensive with each new console cycle. They would more likely go up in price, as such.

Used games aren't the problem. The concept is hardly a threat to the well-being of the industry. It's how used games are... well, used that's the issue. GameStop abuses the system to make an absurd amount of money from it. If they want to fight used games, then attack GameStop, not us. As I said before: vilifying consumers is never the way to go. There's already enough animosity between us and the developers. Last thing we need is more.

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

S0lidSnake

How does the money Gamestop makes from used game sales get fed back to the industry? As it is, gamers get a pittance of what they paid for a game by Gamestop and have to sell several games back just to buy one game. Gamestop makes approximately 50% of its profit from used game sales (I guess the rest of the money goes to overhead). How does EP, Ubisoft or Valve get any of that money back? It certainly isn't because large numbers of new games are sailing off the shelves, especially when gamers talk about wanting to save what they can by buying used due to games being so expensive. 

Abusive? You do not think that it is abusive that Gamestop ripps off gamers with trade-ins?Areez

[QUOTE="Areez"]Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....c_rake

I don't see games becoming cheaper at retail. Games get more expensive with each new console cycle. They would more likely go up in price, as such.

Used games aren't the problem. The concept is hardly a threat to the well-being of the industry. It's how used games are... well, used that's the issue. GameStop abuses the system to make an absurd amount of money from it. If they want to fight used games, then attack GameStop, not us. As I said before: vilifying consumers is never the way to go. There's already enough animosity between us and the developers. Last thing we need is more.

You're right, publishers and hardware manufacturers should target the company that is making the killing. Still, can Gamestop make said killing if games have limits on their use by hardware manufacturers? Tie games to a gamers account. Gamers are willing to pay for XBox Live (MS learned the hard way that PC gamers were not going pay extra to play online the way XBox gamers do), why not just tie games to those accounts? Allow for the games to be uninstalled from said system and have a way to revoke the licenses so those games could be transferred to another gamer.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

WhiteKnight77

How does the money Gamestop makes from used game sales get fed back to the industry? As it is, gamers get a pittance of what they paid for a game by Gamestop and have to sell several games back just to buy one game. Gamestop makes approximately 50% of its profit from used game sales (I guess the rest of the money goes to overhead). How does EP, Ubisoft or Valve get any of that money back? It certainly isn't because large numbers of new games are sailing off the shelves, especially when gamers talk about wanting to save what they can by buying used due to games being so expensive. 

X buys The Last of Us for $60. Naughty Dog gets that money.

X Trades in The Last of Us for $35.

X uses that $35 in credit to purchase Bioshock Infinite. 2K gets that money. Not Gamestop.

It's pretty simple really.

It's still too late. The damage is already done. It's like having them take your stuff by force and then returning it without apologizing.

I'm still getting a PS4 in the end.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

How does the money Gamestop makes from used game sales get fed back to the industry? As it is, gamers get a pittance of what they paid for a game by Gamestop and have to sell several games back just to buy one game. Gamestop makes approximately 50% of its profit from used game sales (I guess the rest of the money goes to overhead). How does EP, Ubisoft or Valve get any of that money back? It certainly isn't because large numbers of new games are sailing off the shelves, especially when gamers talk about wanting to save what they can by buying used due to games being so expensive. 

S0lidSnake

X buys The Last of Us for $60. Naughty Dog gets that money.

X Trades in The Last of Us for $35.

X uses that $35 in credit to purchase Bioshock Infinite. 2K gets that money. Not Gamestop.

It's pretty simple really.

That $35 does not buy a game, not when a game is $60. Said gamer has to sell back at least 2 games, if not more if complaints on this very forum are true about the lack of value of said games when selling back to GS. 

GameStop abuses the system to make an absurd amount of money from it. If they want to fight used games, then attack GameStop, not us. c_rake

[QUOTE="c_rake"]GameStop abuses the system to make an absurd amount of money from it. If they want to fight used games, then attack GameStop, not us. Hallenbeck77

A conundrum for sure.

It's still too late. The damage is already done. It's like having them take your stuff by force and then returning it without apologizing.Metamania

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....

Areez

While I specifically and almost exclusively purchase new products at retail to support developers, your assertion that they deserve used revenue is ridiculous.

Once a game has been sold the publisher/developer doesn't deserve an additional cent from that specific copy.

It's called a secondary market for a reason.

There's also no real evidence to suggest any of these proposed DRM models would drive down software costs and clearly, despite initially imposing such measures, MS had no plans to lower prices.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

S0lidSnake

How does the money Gamestop makes from used game sales get fed back to the industry? As it is, gamers get a pittance of what they paid for a game by Gamestop and have to sell several games back just to buy one game. Gamestop makes approximately 50% of its profit from used game sales (I guess the rest of the money goes to overhead). How does EP, Ubisoft or Valve get any of that money back? It certainly isn't because large numbers of new games are sailing off the shelves, especially when gamers talk about wanting to save what they can by buying used due to games being so expensive. 

X buys The Last of Us for $60. Naughty Dog gets that money.

X Trades in The Last of Us for $35.

X uses that $35 in credit to purchase Bioshock Infinite. 2K gets that money. Not Gamestop.

It's pretty simple really.

But Gamestop sells The Last for Us for $50 making a $15 profit.....Profit of GS, The Last For Us used sell does not go to developer Naughty Dog...It is a vicious cycle and one that hurts us and the developers. Its amazing how many consumers go to Gamestop to trde in udes games, when in reality, they would do better selling their games on their own. 

Also...think about the USED game titles gamers buy over new versions of the game....Not a win win for the gming industry

It's really not as simple as you think it is....

No used games = 30% price drop...how is this bad again?

[QUOTE="Areez"]

 

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....

Grammaton-Cleric

While I specifically and almost exclusively purchase new products at retail to support developers, your assertion that they deserve used revenue is ridiculous.

Once a game has been sold the publisher/developer doesn't deserve an additional cent from that specific copy.

It's called a secondary market for a reason.

There's also no real evidence to suggest any of these proposed DRM models would drive down software costs and clearly, despite initially imposing such measures, MS had no plans to lower prices.

Eh why is it so ridiculous? Their is some evidence that suggest (studies) that eliminating used games would drive down cost. Forbes had an article that addressed this....

It's still too late. The damage is already done. It's like having them take your stuff by force and then returning it without apologizing.

I'm still getting a PS4 in the end.

Metamania

This also. I still don't trust Microsoft one bit, this just appears to be them realizing they'd be screwed if they launched the X1 in its (now former) state. It kind of annoys me how a lot of people seem to be embracing the X1 now as if Microsoft had not been trying to shove this down our throats just days before. 

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

How does the money Gamestop makes from used game sales get fed back to the industry? As it is, gamers get a pittance of what they paid for a game by Gamestop and have to sell several games back just to buy one game. Gamestop makes approximately 50% of its profit from used game sales (I guess the rest of the money goes to overhead). How does EP, Ubisoft or Valve get any of that money back? It certainly isn't because large numbers of new games are sailing off the shelves, especially when gamers talk about wanting to save what they can by buying used due to games being so expensive. 

dvader654

X buys The Last of Us for $60. Naughty Dog gets that money.

X Trades in The Last of Us for $35.

X uses that $35 in credit to purchase Bioshock Infinite. 2K gets that money. Not Gamestop.

It's pretty simple really.

And thats precisely my point. 70% of trade-in money is used to buy new games. Only 30% of it goes towards used games. 

Think of it like this. David Cage said they sold 2 million copies, but he saw that 3 million people earned the final trophy which means 1 million people either bought used games copies or borrowed it from there friends. Just for argument's sake, let's pretend that 1 million were all people who bought it used. Now that means 1 million of the people who bought it NEW bought it with the intention of trading it in. So now one can make the argument that Heavy Rain would've sold only 1 million copies if people couldn't trade it in because the other 1 million bought it NEW with the intention of trading it in. 

BTW, Heavy Rain still made a huge profit even though only 2 out of 3 million sales were new. It cost 16 million and they made over 100 million according to the Quantic Dream CEO.

I have no idea why you are forcing people to pay for the online pass. Why? There is no additional server cost. It's the same copy so why should they be forced to pay and additional fee? 

Personally i am for online passes, you want to get the multiplayer mode, buy the damn game new (or pay the fee). Make DLC free to people who buy the full game, that also makes sure they hang onto the game rather than it becoming a used game.dvader654

Yeah, online passes are fine. Ten bucks for access to multiplayer is reasonable.

Honestly, though. I'm surprised no one's tried selling the multiplayer seperately at launch. Sony's experimented with it Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3's multiplayer components, but those were well after the fact. If they split the game in two, I'm certain there would be plenty of folks willing to pay just for the single-player or multiplayer portion alone. Could very well be a profitable idea.

I find it amusing that publishers blame GameStop for selling used games, yet they sell exclusive "collector editions" or specific DLC content thru them. If they are really so bad, why do business with them to begin with? Hallenbeck77

They're still the biggest game retailer around. Have to keep them happy in order to get your game on store shelves. General stores like Wal-Mart only have so much reach in the game space.

lol posting this in the last of us thread. :lol:

F*cking Major Nelson. He was a dismissive c*nt to Angry Joe just last week 

It was pretty simple now, wasnt it you piece of shit?

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Areez"]

Still not 100% ....which is what these developers should get. If used games sales were eliminated...It would poteinally drive the current cost of games down 30%....

Areez

While I specifically and almost exclusively purchase new products at retail to support developers, your assertion that they deserve used revenue is ridiculous.

Once a game has been sold the publisher/developer doesn't deserve an additional cent from that specific copy.

It's called a secondary market for a reason.

There's also no real evidence to suggest any of these proposed DRM models would drive down software costs and clearly, despite initially imposing such measures, MS had no plans to lower prices.

Eh why is it so ridiculous? Their is some evidence that suggest (studies) that eliminating used games would drive down cost. Forbes had an article that addressed this....

Because First-Sale Doctrine specifically protects the secondary market from those who would try and extract unreasonable revenue extensions on products already sold.

A publisher is entitled to the legal sale of each copy of a game once, period. They shouldn't get to slither their way into the secondary market and extract a toll on a product already sold.

When I purchase a game I should be allowed to give that game, at least in physical form, to somebody else, either for money or simply because I wish to transfer ownership.

What MS was trying to do was entirely alter the nature of ownership as it relates to software, including physical copies of full-priced retail games.

Basically, they wanted to control each and every piece of software we purchased and reduce us all to glorified renters. As it stands, digital distribution allows publishers to get around First-Sale doctrine and MS was looking to extend that to physical copies.

And feel free to link the Forbes article as I'd love to read it.

They're still the biggest game retailer around. Have to keep them happy in order to get your game on store shelves. General stores like Wal-Mart only have so much reach in the game space.

c_rake

True, but there's so many more options to get games aside from them--tons of other brick-and-mortar stores, Amazon, Newegg, etc.  Heck, why don't some publisher just sell the games themselves from their website or something?   I'm just spitballing ideas here.

 

But Gamestop sells The Last for Us for $50 making a $15 profit.....Profit of GS, The Last For Us used sell does not go to developer Naughty Dog...It is a vicious cycle and one that hurts us and the developers. Its amazing how many consumers go to Gamestop to trde in udes games, when in reality, they would do better selling their games on their own. 

Also...think about the USED game titles gamers buy over new versions of the game....Not a win win for the gming industry

It's really not as simple as you think it is....

No used games = 30% price drop...how is this bad again?

 

Areez

So what? They make $12 from every new copy sold. Are you upset about that? Do you think all $60 you pay for a new copy should go to Naughty Dog? 

The Publishers and Developers deserved ZERO dollars of used games sales. It is my product now and I can do it with as I wish. How would you like it if you werent allowed to sell your car because some idiot fought for the rights of Ford and Toyota and how they werent getting a cut of used car sales. If Gamestop has a business model that lets them make some profit then fine. Sony is welcome to implement a trade-in policy on PSN that allows me to trade in my PSN games. This way they are the ones who get all the cash. This is business. They have their own store. If they are upset about Gamestop making $15 profit from used games then they have a perfectly valid avenue to do their own sales. 

And again, it does NOT hurt the developers and definitely not us. I havent bought a used game in 10 years I think. Stuntman for PS2 was the last used game I bought. But I have traded in nearly 15 games in the last year alone. All of them towards new game purchases.. most of them on Day 1. It did not hurt me at all. In fact it ENABLED gamers like me and grammaton to buy new games on Day 1 that we otherwise would not have been able to buy. This in turn HELPS the publishers and developers like Naughty Dog

Also, you keep saying No Used Games = 30%. Where are you getting this from? Some Forbes blogger/contributer? All that is bullshit 'prediction' talk. Right now we have hard data that points to only one conclusion. 70% of used games trade-ins are towards new game purchases. Those $700 million in additional sales WILL not be possible if people couldn't trade in their games. 

Also...think about the USED game titles gamers buy over new versions of the game....Not a win win for the gming industry

It's really not as simple as you think it is....

No used games = 30% price drop...how is this bad again?

Areez

Who in the hell says that publishers will actually drop their prices?

Also, what happens to those game sales that were subsidized by used game trade-ins?

What happens when this industry discovers that much of their revenue stream was being helped along by a model they so publically revile?

And feel free to link the Forbes article as I'd love to read it.

Grammaton-Cleric

Forbes articles on video games are done by 'contributors' or freelance video game journalists. I wouldn't put too much stock into their opinion.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

They're still the biggest game retailer around. Have to keep them happy in order to get your game on store shelves. General stores like Wal-Mart only have so much reach in the game space.

Hallenbeck77

True, but there's so many more options to get games aside from them--tons of other brick-and-mortar stores, Amazon, Newegg, etc. Heck, why don't some publisher just sell the games themselves from their website or something? I'm just spitballing ideas here.

I would assume the proliferation of digital distribution would make publishers/developers selling directly to the consumer a viable and eventually widespread option, which in turn should, hypothetically, lower the cost of the games.

My logic is that if publishers want us to buy digital they should incentivize that choice, otherwise, there is no reason not to stay with physical media.

True, but there's so many more options to get games aside from them--tons of other brick-and-mortar stores, Amazon, Newegg, etc. Heck, why don't some publisher just sell the games themselves from their website or something? I'm just spitballing ideas here.Hallenbeck77

GameStop's still the choice retailer for most game consumers. I'd wager most game sales for physical games come through GameStop. It's about the only specialty-game retailer around still. All the other big-name ones went bankrupt long ago, smaller stores having no chance of competing. I imagine Amazon's been gaining more marketshare as time goes on, but nowhere near enough to tople GameStop.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

And feel free to link the Forbes article as I'd love to read it.

S0lidSnake

Forbes articles on video games are done by 'contributors' or freelance video game journalists. I wouldn't put too much stock into their opinion.

Good to know.

My reason for requesting a link is to read this evidence myself and then rebut accordingly.

I seriously doubt this article he vaguely alludes to is going to contain any new information.

I would assume the proliferation of digital distribution would make publishers/developers selling directly to the consumer a viable and eventually widespread option, which in turn should, hypothetically, lower the cost of the games.

My logic is that if publishers want us to buy digital they should incentivize that choice, otherwise, there is no reason not to stay with physical media.

Grammaton-Cleric

Digital media has higher profit margins. So even if we gained nothing on our end -- lower prices or whatnot -- there's still incentive for them to push for it.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I would assume the proliferation of digital distribution would make publishers/developers selling directly to the consumer a viable and eventually widespread option, which in turn should, hypothetically, lower the cost of the games.

My logic is that if publishers want us to buy digital they should incentivize that choice, otherwise, there is no reason not to stay with physical media.

c_rake

Digital media has higher profit margins. So even if we gained nothing on our end -- lower prices or whatnot -- there's still incentive for them to push for it.

All the more reason to insist that we get some manner of benefit for making the choice to buy digital.

I think a lower price is a worthwhile swap for being unable to sell or trade a game.