Rumor that next Xbox won't play used games

I think that it would increase the number of rentals, causing the rental services to purchase more copies of new games. It is understandable that they want to stop the used games thing for a new console, but it could also cause gamers to be more picky when shopping for a new game. Also, used games are good for when you want to play a game that might not be easy to find new in a store, such as games that were released early in the console's lifecycle.
 
We already have some examples of platforms that eliminate used games sales. Several are highly successful. Others are crashing failures.

The Apple iOS ecosystem, the Android platform in various manifestations, XBLA, and PSN are some of the most familiar successes. On the failure side we have the PSPgo. It isn't hard to figure out why the PSPgo failed. It was a platform that was driven by physical media sales in all of its previous versions but then tried to cut the cord, leaving users with an existing library no options, and new users presented with a wide array of very low price clearanced or used games they couldn't access for lack of an optical drive in their model. Nor could the drive be added as an option.

The big successes are platforms that relied on digital downloads entirely or had titles that were exclusively digital downloads as their primary focus. Another critical aspect of this was the purchases were tied to an account rather than a machine. The iOS and Android platforms were always thus and the consoles have become more so over their careers. Thus the owner of a particular game can go to a friend's house, download a copy of the game to his friend's console and play it so long as he stays logged in. As broadband speeds improve this becomes less and less of a hassle compared to carry discs about.

Physical media that becomes tied to a particular machine is a non-starter. But there is another way. We've already seen one approach with Patapon on the PSP, a downloaded game sold at retail. This was a test run for a format Sony was hoping would keep the B&M retail channel engaged if a platform like the PSP were to win their support. If the PSPgo had been an entirely new platform this might have been effective but as already mentioned above Sony severely miscalculated their ability to make people forget the UMD-based models existed.

If Microsoft took this approach from launch on all software for the new machine, it might work out. But they need to do more. The new platform has to have a substantially lower average price for new titles, for one thing. Publishers would scream bloody murder but they would be compensated for greatly reduced capital outlays needed to launch a new title. Instead of paying in advance for the manufacture of millions of packages for a AAA title, as well as the royalty fee to the console maker regardless of how well the game sells, on a download they pay for nothing but bandwidth and the royalty that is only incurred when a sale is made.

Another thing Microsoft would need to do is stop massively overcharging for hard drives. On a pure download driven console hard drive capacity is a big issue. Reverting to the lower cost 5.25" inch drives would help as well. Further, there needs to be provision for adding additional storage with USB 3.0 ports. This would use either proprietary drives with encryption in the hardware or a custom encrypted partition on a off the shelf external model.

There would be strong emphasis on downloads and streaming beyond games. TV and movies has turned into a significant piece of Xbox revenue. To push this aspect the new machine would probably not include an optical drive. This would also help mitigate the cost of a very high capacity hard drive in the base system.

Instead, the optical drive is an optional add-on Blu-ray unit. This allows the play of DVD and Blu-ray videos and also offers backward compatibility to the original Xbox and Xbox 360. Those games would be sold as downloads of course but offering an optical drive at a high profit margin will make both the existing customer base and retailers with lots of older game stock happy. Even those selling used games.

This can work but it has to be done in a way that offers something for everyone. Well, almost everyone but GameStop. In a few years they'll know how it felt to run Blockbuster in its declining years.
 
I'd be nice if Microsoft would concentrate on building a console that works at launch, and doesn't have a 65% failure rate.

As for blocking used games... well, I've hoarded enough games I've never played to last me many years. I can sit out the next console cycle entirely and never run out of new (to me) games to play. Either that or I'll hack/root/jailbreak my console if possible. Or I can go back to the PC.

There are many possible solutions for me and none of them involve me spending a single penny on such restrictive devices.
 
The biggest problem I have with this, is that the consumer is losing. Developers need to stop blaming used sales as a reason for their deficits. Used sales are no more responsible for lost sales than goodwill is for clothing stores. A consumer should have the right to buy, sell, and trade a product without this nonsense of trying to double dip. It didn't work with the used CD market, it didn't work with the used DVD market, it will not work on the game market. It will not harm Gamestop as much as it will hurt small scale game stores. I don't support any company or product that puts its business ahead of the consumer's satisfaction. And let's suppose this does get implemented. What will they blame once they can't make ends meet? Piracy again? The game industry makes more money and sells more copies of games than it ever has, but instead of looking at itself for problems of why they can't profit, they instead blame the consumer. Bad move. I've been gaming since the days of Atari 2600. And we've gone from having games that were finished, polished, quality games to getting half-baked releases, on-disc DLC, at the same prices that I paid 20 years ago. The consumer is getting shafted.
 
The problem with that argument is that there is no perfect analogy. There has never been a single used store for books, cds or clothes that sold used items for 5% off the new price. Used clothes, books and cds are sold like a used product should be sold, dirt cheap. If there was a cap on used game value, say $10, would that make a difference? Sure you're drooling over getting the latest release for $10 used, but is anyone really going to drop $60 on a game and sell it back a week later for $.75 cents?

In fact the whole situation is odd. If a used CD shop in the 90s sold a cd for $15 new and $14.00 used they would have gotten laughed out of business. Same for books & clothes. I'm not sure why the Gamestop model succeeded.

There also hasn't been a single company with 3k locations bragging about raking in billions of dollars off other used media. That's what stirs this whole pot anyway. If we were talking about mom & pop/Goodwill/ebay, selling used games we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be like the other industries, just a blip on the radar. It's the fact that a single company makes more off used games than most of the companies that make the actual games.

I'd say it's less about used games that's the issue, it's more about Gamestop robbing the industry blind. That's the kicker too. Everyone knows Gamestop is to blame, but it's the consumer that takes the fall. So in a roundabout way it's the consumers fault for continuing to support Gamestop's business model. We only have ourselves to blame.
 
The gamestop monopoly is a problem. Though to be fair their are trading sites like Goozex, the trading forum on here etc.

My issue is I'm not a collector of games. I rarely replay a game and I have no interest in having a game case/disc gather dust and clutter up my condo after beating it.

I don't care all that much about being able to buy used. I care about not having anyway to ditch games after beating them beyond chucking them in the recycling bin. And I hate not being able to recoup some costs, as most games aren't worth the prices they go for.

So losing ability to trade/resell would really be a big blow to my interest in gaming. Maybe I could live with it if it goes download only and prices drop into the $20 and under range on most digital games after a couple years. Then I'd just buy consoles mid-generation and download the AAA games after prices had dropped.

But I'm wary that prices won't drop when things are download only and publishers have total control of selling their games. I don't think we'll see the deals we see with Steam on the PC. PC gaming has pretty much died off relative to console gaming, so that's just desperation in trying to sell some PC games to more than just the dwindling crowd of hardcore PC gamers.
 
The prohibitive price tag of new video games breeds a used or discounted market. If they really want to kill used sales, simply price new video games cheaper - like eBooks or Apps.
 
A lot of ebooks cost the same (or sometimes more) than the cheapest print version. The only ones that are generally cheap are indie press books and self-published books.

Not much form major publishers is cheap, and prices are the same on those in all e-book stores since publishers insisted on agency pricing where they, rather than retailers, get to set the sales price for their ebooks.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Y'all keeping score?[/QUOTE]

I don't see it happening. Not unless the xbox wants to lose the next gen console wars.

Incidentally I don't blame the guy for being honest. Who wouldn't love getting more money without making any effort? Who wouldn't love to force the customer to buy the product new and get the used market for their product banned? Like any businessman he just wants more profit and he's willing to wade into a morally grey area to do it.
 
What's a site like Gamefly going to do? Are they going to get special versions of discs that can be played by multiple consoles or is this meant to cripple Gamefly as well as Gamestop(not that I'm against hurting Gamestop)?

Personally I try to avoid the stores when doing the used-game thing...Amazon, craigslist, ebay, those are all better values. But I'm not sure what this does...games aren't really being pirated, and if anything there's just going to be a massive negative backlash when people end up buying crappy games at launch and are stuck with them.
 
Things like this never work in the long run. Game makers realize that the quality of their products (beyond graphics and music) is sinking lower and lower, so they will do whatever it takes to trick people into buying garbage.

Eventually this decline will lead gamers to stick with .99 games on their tablet or free games on Facebook and other sites. They'll try to bring in digital distribution but the masses won't pay full price for a glorified rental.

I don't think Nintendo will try this solely because their bread and butter is the brick and mortar shopper.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I'd be nice if Microsoft would concentrate on building a console that works at launch, and doesn't have a 65% failure rate.[/QUOTE]

Microsoft's Xbox Line - "Shoddy QA is just part of the mission"
 
[quote name='ChiaEstevez']What's a site like Gamefly going to do? Are they going to get special versions of discs that can be played by multiple consoles or is this meant to cripple Gamefly as well as Gamestop(not that I'm against hurting Gamestop)?
[/QUOTE]

I'd assume publishers would want rentals to die of as well ideally.

But they could do special discs. Many movie studios due that with special rental discs now that have no special features, unskippable previews at the beginning (can be fastforwarded usually, but not skipped) etc.
 
Ok let's look at it like this

Why do people buy used instead of new?

Simple. Price. People would pay for it if it's cheaper.
Lower your prices and you will have more sales. I personally can't afford 60.00 for a game. 30.00 is alot more reasonable. I'm constantly buying games at this price.

I would also buy more digital if it were cheaper. Why should I download a game off xbl for 29.99 when I can buy the disc new for 15.99.
Shouldn't digital be cheaper? You didn't have to make a cd, make an instruction manual, didn't have the thing packaged, or shipped? Digital should be cheaper right off the bat. I probably buy it then.
 
Digital could be cheaper, but all that printing and shipping stuff doesn't cost that much per copy. Development costs are sky high due to making the game--just look how long the credit list is for games these days. Lots of salaries being paid to make these games. Even downloadable games like Bastion have super long credits.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A lot of ebooks cost the same (or sometimes more) than the cheapest print version. The only ones that are generally cheap are indie press books and self-published books.

Not much form major publishers is cheap, and prices are the same on those in all e-book stores since publishers insisted on agency pricing where they, rather than retailers, get to set the sales price for their ebooks.[/QUOTE]

Give it a few years. The Big Six publishers are seeing their dead tree market declining badly and major new talent forsaking them in favor of either self-publishing or going through agents who can now double as publishers.

The book business in 2020 will look nothing like it did in 2000.

The game business is already seeing similar changes. What can be done on the web platform without dependency on any one hardware maker is improving every year. Increasingly you can just set up a site where the game can be played along with a PayPal button. Some people will pay and some won't but as long as the bandwidth cost is within reason it can be a good business for an individual or small group.
 
[quote name='Mr_hockey66']Ok let's look at it like this

Why do people buy used instead of new?

Simple. Price. People would pay for it if it's cheaper.
Lower your prices and you will have more sales. I personally can't afford 60.00 for a game. 30.00 is alot more reasonable. I'm constantly buying games at this price.

I would also buy more digital if it were cheaper. Why should I download a game off xbl for 29.99 when I can buy the disc new for 15.99.
Shouldn't digital be cheaper? You didn't have to make a cd, make an instruction manual, didn't have the thing packaged, or shipped? Digital should be cheaper right off the bat. I probably buy it then.[/QUOTE]

The cost of media and packaging is only a major issue after the game is in profits. That is the point, assuming a successful title, you start cutting the price to reach a wide audience. At that point the lack of those costs swings in digital's favor instead of being a minor chunk of the big picture.

This is why it was a big deal for indie developers when Microsoft recently increased the size limit for games selling at the lowest prices. Most indie developers would rather try to make their money in volume with a 'bubble gum by the cash register' price where the buyer feels there is minimal risk and thus minimal resistance if the game looks at all interesting.

The problem at the high end is that most publishers very badly want to hit the sales number for profitability within the same quarter of release. If the game launches on 4-1-2012, it needs to have made some net by 6-30-2012 or the quarterly report will make the guy running that part of the company look bad. This is a big problem games and movies that take a long time to build their audience. The 1936 'The Wizard of Oz' was long considered an expensive failure because it didn't do well in its initial theatrical run. It didn't redeem itself until the late 50s when it became a showpiece for color TV.

This distorts a lot of the decision making in publishing. This is slowly changing but has a long way to go in the fields where production costs can run very high, such as film, TV, and of course, games.
 
I wonder if Microsoft has considered Windows/Xbox cross-compatible software. I think that might be a good way to boost sales.

While digital distribution, mobile phone and web gaming do break up the market, there is still something to be said for a small, easy to set up device dedicated to playing games. I don't think game consoles will fade away unless the industry shoots itself in the foot with harebrained schemes similar to the one in the OP.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I wonder if Microsoft has considered Windows/Xbox cross-compatible software. I think that might be a good way to boost sales.

While digital distribution, mobile phone and web gaming do break up the market, there is still something to be said for a small, easy to set up device dedicated to playing games. I don't think game consoles will fade away unless the industry shoots itself in the foot with harebrained schemes similar to the one in the OP.[/QUOTE]

I can guarantee you they have. Read up on what they're doing with WOA aka Windows On ARM. The Microsoft Store that will be the sole source for Metro software (stuff using the new user interface very similar to Windows Phone 7.x) will offer apps you select and buy without any consideration of whether they're for ARM or Intel systems.

There are a few way this can be done. You can have Fat Binaries, which contain multiple sets of code that determine which to use at installation time. (This was used on Mac during the transition from PowerPC to Intel.) You can have multiple binaries stored at the back-end and which one you get is determined on the fly. Or you can have interpreted code running in the .NET CLR.

This is what Java was supposed to do for us almost twenty years ago but the performance issues were a really big problem. Even so, there is very little native code in smartphone and tablet apps. The Microsoft development tools already make it pretty easy to write an app that runs on Windows Phone, Xbox, and Windows. The requirements for Metro apps take this further.

The biggest drawback is performance limitations. The most demanding games will remain platform specific but what can be done in interpreted code with JIT compilation is pretty impressive now. Developers will have access to a much larger audience for the same amount of work.
 
My 360 fanboy co-worker was telling about how it was rumored at the start of the PS3's life that the PS3 wouldn't play used games. This was the beginning of his upset with Sony, so much that he didn't bother with the PS3.

I wonder if this will be true with the next Xbox won't play used games because if that's the case I wonder if he will buy a PS3 now for at least a few titles.

He still advocates buying used because it is cheaper. He said that situations like this where used games can't be played on a console and one save files on games (first Resident Evil on 3DS) will really hurt companies.

My thought is well I'll still buy the console for the exclusives and hopefully CAG will help me get them cheap. Until then, I have a backlog to last me probably up until the first price drop on the next generation console.
 
1). Sony already has this implemented in a way w/ it's $10 Online pass, so it's already kind of happening.
2). Rather than force disc games to have a code they'll just move more and more to digital download, which can't be traded in or resold, which is why I almost never buy a digital copy of anything, though I play all the cheap PS+ rentals they'll lend me.
3). As somebody already said above - some of US flyover country doesn't have broadband, so no go on either digital downloads or always on connections for verification. Which makes me wonder how they play PC games, hmmm?
 
my biggest gripe with download online games;

Samurai Warriors 2 can be had for $5-$10 used numerous places. Great for when I'm in the mood to play a particular game, grab a cheap copy from Gamestop.

The expansion, SW2 XL, is DLC only. It's still 2400 points ($30), and as far as I know has never gone on sale.

I have a feeling that's the route most games will go. Especially niche games.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Things like this never work in the long run. Game makers realize that the quality of their products (beyond graphics and music) is sinking lower and lower, so they will do whatever it takes to trick people into buying garbage.

Eventually this decline will lead gamers to stick with .99 games on their tablet or free games on Facebook and other sites. They'll try to bring in digital distribution but the masses won't pay full price for a glorified rental.

I don't think Nintendo will try this solely because their bread and butter is the brick and mortar shopper.[/QUOTE]

I think the opposite, I think ideally every developer wants to go to this model and for this reason it will happen in the long run. PC gamers have a leg up in realizing this, as the runaway success of Steam is an example that not only will people accept that business model, they'll eat it up with a spoon if you handle things the way Valve has.

Granted, there are still the 1% of holdouts who say, "It's my game, I'm not *renting* it, wake up sheeple!", however the other 99% are going apeshit over Steam sales and the accessibility and ease of the Steam library. By and large, people aren't bitching over not being able to resell or trade games from their Steam libraries. They've exchanged ownership for convenience and value (in terms of money spent to play time per title).

It's absolutely the future of gaming, there's no going back now. Consoles will catch up to PCs sooner or later in this regard. I don't know what to say to people who reject this outright and say, "Well, I'm not getting a console if this happens." Okay, I guess you're done with gaming then? Because it's happening, the industry is freaking out over controlling content, and now that they've been shown a way that works, there's no way they're getting down like it's 1985.
 
I agree we'll eventually get there when everyone has broadband etc.

I'm less optimistic that we'll see games go as cheap as we see on Valve. PC developer are more desperate to sell their wares since console gaming has grown and PC gaming has shrank in terms of market size.

If games are pretty quickly dropping to $20 and under I could deal with digital distribution. If they're staying $40+ for a long time I may just bow out as playing through a game once (which is all I do with 99% of games) just isn't worth that kind of money to me. I pay no where near that out of pocket even for games I buy on disc near launch as I can trade or sell the discs to recoup a lot of the cost.

But I don't enjoy games enough to shell out $40+ I can't recoup. There's a lot of other things I enjoy more and would spend that money on if games go download only and prices stay up.
 
A winnar is dothog.

Some sort of system to prevent the use of pre-owned games? Microsoft could probably muscle it in. But is it worth the effort? Digital distribution is coming, and it will be dominant. And none of this will matter then.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Some sort of system to prevent the use of pre-owned games? Microsoft could probably muscle it in. But is it worth the effort? Digital distribution is coming, and it will be dominant. And none of this will matter then.[/QUOTE]
I think it's completely in MS's best interests to do it. It's worth the effort because 1) developers will love the shit out of them for it and 2) gamers largely won't care, the used games market is a niche concern.

On #2, if people are dumb enough to line up for a new Madden or COD every year, they're dumb enough to overlook the fact that they can't resell a title in order to get the latest and greatest. Seriously, the general reaction will be "oh well," not "you've crossed the line!"

Because what are those console gamers who rely on used game trades going to do? Are they going to give up gaming entirely in protest? Hell no, they're just going to have to suck it up. Somehow they've convinced themselves they need to rebuy the same shitty sports title every year, when in reality all they're looking for is a superficial roster upgrade that could and should be free DLC. In the same way they've convinced themselves paying full title price for new rosters is par for the course, they'll accept the lack of used games.

And like you said, eventually the broadband infrastructure will be improved enough to go completely digital and make whatever controversy comes out of this forgettable.
 
Sales are declining already, switching to digital distribution would only decrease the potential market.

If companies scale back development and drop the prices of their games they could probably swing it. Producing a physical copy is pretty inexpensive and expands the potential customer base exponentially.
 
[quote name='dothog']I think it's completely in MS's best interests to do it. It's worth the effort because 1) developers will love the shit out of them for it and 2) gamers largely won't care, the used games market is a niche concern.

On #2, if people are dumb enough to line up for a new Madden or COD every year, they're dumb enough to overlook the fact that they can't resell a title in order to get the latest and greatest. Seriously, the general reaction will be "oh well," not "you've crossed the line!"

Because what are those console gamers who rely on used game trades going to do? Are they going to give up gaming entirely in protest? Hell no, they're just going to have to suck it up. Somehow they've convinced themselves they need to rebuy the same shitty sports title every year, when in reality all they're looking for is a superficial roster upgrade that could and should be free DLC. In the same way they've convinced themselves paying full title price for new rosters is par for the course, they'll accept the lack of used games.

And like you said, eventually the broadband infrastructure will be improved enough to go completely digital and make whatever controversy comes out of this forgettable.[/QUOTE]



I do agree that that's the truth.

They may sell fewer games total in terms of considering both new and used sales currently. But developers and publishers have no reason to care about that, as they'll make more money as a lot of the people buying used will buy new (rather than quitting gaming) so they make more money.

I'm just one who may quit. I don't give a rat's fart about any new consoles right now as I could easily fill my gaming needs for another 5 years or so with the 3 current gen consoles even if they didn't put out another game for any of them after this year as there's so much I haven't had time to play on both disc games and cheap downloadable games.

So I'll ride out at least the first 2 or 3 years of the next gen on the sidelines while playing cheap games on the 360, PS3 and Wii regardless of what they do. So I can just sit back and see how things pan out, and buy after a price drop or two if I'm interested at that time.
 
[quote name='dothog']
Granted, there are still the 1% of holdouts who say, "It's my game, I'm not *renting* it, wake up sheeple!", however the other 99% are going apeshit over Steam sales and the accessibility and ease of the Steam library. By and large, people aren't bitching over not being able to resell or trade games from their Steam libraries. They've exchanged ownership for convenience and value (in terms of money spent to play time per title).[/QUOTE]

Digital versions of launch 360 games are still $20. Retail version of said games can be found for
 
I'll agree going download-only now would be foolish. Download-only isn't the only way to kill used game sales though.

If Microsoft really wanted to, I'm sure they could cook up a way for a retail disc that becomes "locked" to a user's account, thus preventing used sales. Could be as simple as putting a small sector on each disc that gets written with the registered user's info. That's if they want to allow for an offline solution. If they're willing to restrict it to just online users, it's even simpler...include a registration code, and the console only needs to send/receive kilobytes of data to run the game.
 
[quote name='Mr_hockey66']Ok let's look at it like this

Why do people buy used instead of new?

Simple. Price. People would pay for it if it's cheaper.
Lower your prices and you will have more sales. I personally can't afford 60.00 for a game. 30.00 is alot more reasonable. I'm constantly buying games at this price.
[/QUOTE]

Hell, who needs used? Look at all the stuff on this site. Tons of games come with $10 or even $20 gift cards with a preorder. If you miss out on that, just wait a month and the game is on sale for $10 or even $20 off. Game prices drop farther and faster than ever before with precious few exceptions (Call of Duty, first-party Nintendo games, etc.).

If you are paying $60 for games (or even $55 used) these days, you're either impatient or lazy or both.
 
I don't need used to buy used. I need used to have a way to sell/trade my games as I'm not a collector and seldom replay games.

But I do like to buy some things at launch as I'm impatient, and it's nice to be able to beat those and sell them and end up paying the same out of pocket in the long run as people who wait for deals.
 
In the article I read, it said no disc drive but it would play Blu-Rays. The only thing I can figure is they meant a no HARD disc drive. It said something about "interchangeable modules". That sounds like more proprietary garbage (which may help with the "no used games"), but I would still hope it's some type of flash memory accessible via USB.
 
It will be interesting to see what they do. I doubt I'll buy a next gen X-box as I'm still miffed over my hacking debacle and the shitty MS CS--have barely touched the replacement 360 they sent me after I sold mine off in frustration.

If all the console makers go no disc/no way to resell games I doubt I'll buy any next gen consoles. Just not worth it to me as someone who has no interest in collecting games.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']In the article I read, it said no disc drive but it would play Blu-Rays. The only thing I can figure is they meant a no HARD disc drive. It said something about "interchangeable modules". That sounds like more proprietary garbage (which may help with the "no used games"), but I would still hope it's some type of flash memory accessible via USB.[/QUOTE]

The wording may be important here. When the time comes, don't be surprised if the ad copy says 'Blu-ray content' rather than Blu-ray. There is no technical reason streaming content cannot include the extras normally found only on the disc so long as the studios think there is money in it.

The studios don't care if they sell a disc or stream it. The stream that really matters to them is the revenue stream.

I very strongly doubt they'll eliminate hard drive support. It remains the most cost effective option for mass storage. The real issue is whether they do away with optical disc support or limit it to USB drive for those who care about playing Blu-ray discs. This goes hand in hand with th ebig question of whather Microsoft feels the world is ready for a platform where a minimal broadband connection is a requirement.
 
[quote name='epobirs']
I very strongly doubt they'll eliminate hard drive support. It remains the most cost effective option for mass storage. The real issue is whether they do away with optical disc support or limit it to USB drive for those who care about playing Blu-ray discs. This goes hand in hand with th ebig question of whather Microsoft feels the world is ready for a platform where a minimal broadband connection is a requirement.[/QUOTE]

Not that I'd predict it, but the broadband connection could be in line with getting rid of the hard drive. They could raise the cost of Live to $60 a year and include cloud storage with the subscription. Then only offer USB drive alternatives as a way to push you towards Live and for people who won't purchase Live. Cloud storage is becoming a big thing and would allow them to cut the console price in the process.

Then of course you market it as never lose another game save or DLC. Xbox's next console, welcome to the future, welcome to the cloud.
 
Right so your telling me. I BUY a game which becomes mine, then i lend MY game to my friend and he can't play it? Whats next? You can only play your own dvd's? ridiculous
 
[quote name='Michael Essien']Right so your telling me. I BUY a game which becomes mine, then i lend MY game to my friend and he can't play it? Whats next? You can only play your own dvd's? ridiculous[/QUOTE]
You already don't "own" it. You own a license to use it.
 
Of course it's not true.

I bet you someone leaked that the next xbox wouldn't play "old" (360) games and some idiot at Kotaku interpreted it as it couldn't play used games.

Or this is an experiment by Kotaku on how quickly they could spread a ridiculous rumor.
 
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite'] They could raise the cost of Live to $60 a year and include cloud storage with the subscription.[/QUOTE]

The cost of Live already has a $60 SRP.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']You already don't "own" it. You own a license to use it.[/QUOTE]

And this is the problem to me with digital distribution. Could you imagine if all the previous game generations were digital only? Honestly, how much of those games would be preserved?

I like DD, but I prefer physical media. I have 28 fantastic XBLA games and can't play them on the 360 in my bedroom because it's not connected to the internet, If I copy them to the harddrive I still can't play the full game due to the license issue and no connectivity. I think that is dumb. I don't know if the games industry is ready to move to an all digital format due to the amount of people that aren't even connected to online services.

Eh, who knows. But if the next console doesn't have a Disc drive, the probability for me buying it is pretty low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top