Next Xbox May or May Not Require Online/Allow Used Games (Update 4/25/13)

[quote name='KingBroly']The big difference is that retailers make good profits off iPads and Tablets. They don't on Game Consoles.[/QUOTE]

Retail stores like Best Buy don't make good profits off of TVs, but they sure as hell make huge profits off of those overpriced cables and warranties. Same shit can be applied to these new consoles if this garbage does happen.
 
[quote name='hankmecrankme']Easily fixed with this next round of systems. The hardware they are using (from the rumored specs, mind you) isn't cutting edge in the slightest. Was the Wii $250 worth of hardware? No, Nintendo made a profit off of every system sold from day one. Sony lost money on every console. So, apply Nintendo's scheme to Durango and Vorbis, and that's what we'll get.[/QUOTE]

The reason Wii sold for $250 was because retailers told them they wouldn't stock it at $200, since at the time everyone believed the Wii would die very quickly and be Nintendo's last console.
 
[quote name='distgfx']Retail stores like Best Buy don't make good profits off of TVs, but they sure as hell make huge profits off of those overpriced cables and warranties. Same shit can be applied to these new consoles if this garbage does happen.[/QUOTE]
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
 
[quote name='Calinks']I don't buy these either because they are terrible ideas. Always online sounds feasible because yes, so many people have broadband internet but even still, not everybody does. There are still many people that don't have access [/QUOTE]

This. Broadband is not an option where I live. Even the satellite options like Hughes get crap reception around here. So these systems would be an automatic no-go for me whether I wanted them or not.

The ironic thing is that being an offline only gamer I'm going to be screwed by this policy, when I actually buy more new games than the online gamers. I buy lots of new games so I have new things to play, where many online gamers mainly play 1 or 2 games until the sequel to their preferred franchises come out.

Does the WiiU have any of these BS restrictions? I haven't payed much attention to it because I had intended to only get the next Xbox, but if it doesn't it will be my next system by default.
 
[quote name='defpally']There are few things that I think would make me embrace this (and honestly it would soften the blow in general to gamers):

1. Make games cheaper, run regular specials on digital versions. If you are going to tie me into new, I better get a cut of your profits. $60 games are ridiculous if you are eliminating the used market/piracy. Don't make legitimate customers pay for your security, this is for YOUR bottom line, not mine.
2. Tie the game to your ID, not the system. I should be able to take my game over to a friend's place, log in and play.
3. Do not make it always on. Validate on first play, require renewal only periodically (preferably monthly, but weekly might be ok), and do it every time you start up the console and a connection is available to keep it current. If my ISP goes down, I don't want to be locked out of my console unless it is a very extended outage.
4. Offer digital versions, but don't get rid of retail. Find a happy medium, charge a fair price that balances that some games need retailer markup and digital versions do not. Retailers will never go for more expensive versions of the same game and digital sales don't need to be a profit windfall where you keep the retailer markup for yourself. I'll pay retail price for digital IF the price is low enough.
5. Another interesting idea would be the ability to "sell" games back to MS for credit, removing the license from your account. Or be able to transfer a license to someone via an interface for a small fee. I really doubt they would go for this one.

Overall, if games came in cheaper this would be a much easier pill to swallow. Somehow I don't see this happening. Both MS and Sony will use this to cut out used/piracy hits to their bottom line, but won't pass the savings on to us. We just get the inconvenience.[/QUOTE]

I just don't see any scenario where console games come out cheaper.
 
Another thing that nobody ever mentions but I think has some import, is the fact that this also utterly destroys the rental market. No more gamefly, Redbox, Gamerang, Blockbuster, whatever. The only way the rental market can be saved is if they got some special copies of games that worked universally or they were able to do some digital rental system.

Hmm.. digital renting does sound pretty cool actually though lol.
 
[quote name='Calinks']Another thing that nobody ever mentions but I think has some import, is the fact that this also utterly destroys the rental market. No more gamefly, Redbox, Gamerang, Blockbuster, whatever. The only way the rental market can be saved is if they got some special copies of games that worked universally or they were able to do some digital rental system.

Hmm.. digital renting does sound pretty cool actually though lol.[/QUOTE]

Digital Rentals? Only way it'll work is if they have a more dynamic downloading system implemented. For an example: with World of Warcraft, whenever a game is patched, it has three stages - setup, available, playable. During all three stages, data is downloaded, but during Available and Playable, you can actually start playing the game, and more data is downloaded in the background, with stuff needed right now getting prioritized. In the current system...does anyone really want to wait for 25 gigs to download?

As you alluded to, if Microsoft really wanted to, they could work with the rental companies to get a solution. Press special rental only discs...have rental services synch up to your account to grant access to that game while you have it rented...codes that grant temporary access to a game...
 
[quote name='JaylisJayP']I honestly think it will push up the value of some current gen games. Good luck getting Xenoblade Chronicles now :)[/QUOTE]

I already have my copy, but I'm willing to bet that Nintendo will release an HD version on the eShop. I never expected that I'd see a Xenoblade 2 or Wind Waker HD... so it's not too far fetched that we get Xenoblade Chronicles HD. Or at least, one hopes we do.
 
[quote name='Navex']I buy new games unless it's an older title that's out of print but I still oppose this. Downright greedy and dickish move if this rumor is true. I don't think they'll do it though...MS can be tyrants but I don't think they'd go this far. I just hope backward compatibility is in, that is a feature I do not want to lose.[/QUOTE]

This brings up a good point - I wonder if companies will be inclined to print less physical copies, so that with no used market plus limited physical copies, people will be required to pay whatever the going digital copy price is once all new physical copies are sold.

That would suck.
 
Good. People buying used games and borrowing games is killing the industry. We wouldn't have all this dlc if it wasn't for you people.
 
This whole rumor infuriates me to no end! Banning used games is nothing but an attack against consumers. In this economy (and it will get worse) MS has to be completely out of their mind to even consider it. I have been a xbox fan boy since the first console but if they choose to screw me over and Sony doesn't I'm totally jumping ship to Sony.

There is no way I'm paying $60 for a game I will be stuck with forever, its madness! What makes developers think they are entitled to another cut after the game as already been sold?! When someone sells a used car Ford does not get a cut. Or when someone sells a used tv or bluray player Sony does not get a piece of that.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Good. People buying used games and borrowing games is killing the industry. We wouldn't have all this dlc if it wasn't for you people.[/QUOTE]

Yes an industry that has sales of roughly 50 billion a year worldwide. More than twice what Hollywood makes. Get that shit out of here.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']This would be great for me... no temptation to buy new consoles![/QUOTE]

Lol. Agreed. It's not like people who buy used games don't buy dlc, they do which supports the developer/publisher. And what if a game goes OOP? Oh well that used copy will look good on your shelf, too bad ya can't play it. I rarely buy used games, just because I'm so picky over scratches and condition. Even so I still wouldn't buy the new Xbox if it had this BS.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Good. People buying used games and borrowing games is killing the industry. We wouldn't have all this dlc if it wasn't for you people.[/QUOTE]
Used trade ins drive new game sales.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Yes an industry that has sales of roughly 50 billion a year worldwide. More than twice what Hollywood makes. Get that shit out of here.[/QUOTE]

Sales don't equal profit.

If it did then they companies wouldn't have to resort to such awful dlc practices that hurt us, the consumers.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Sales don't equal profit.

If it did then they companies wouldn't have to resort to such awful dlc practices that hurt us, the consumers.[/QUOTE]

So you are saying that after 50 billion in revenue that the fact they cannot make money is OUR problem? That used games are somehow the razors edge after collecting 50 billion dollars every year? I still say get that shit out here.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']So you are saying that after 50 billion in revenue that the fact they cannot make money is OUR problem? That used games are somehow the razors edge after collecting 50 billion dollars every year? I still say get that shit out here.[/QUOTE]

It's our problem when it creates things such as season passes and on disc dlc which is bad for us, as consumers.

If you trade in/sell games or let friends borrow then you're part of the problem. Each time you trade in or sell a game that's one less new copy that gets sold.
 
All of these studios didn't shut down or switch to mobile development for shits and giggles. Modern game development is expensive, and clearly the current market is not paying off enough to sustain developers and even some publishers. Some of the better-off publishers are certainly getting away with these "money grabs", but I'm pretty sure others are using it just to try and stay afloat.

Though I can understand the complaints, I'm not sure how much influence the hardcore gamer community will have over this if it turns out to be true. I think the true decider will be Joe Schmo: the guy who doesn't boycott Gamestop when they throw away their DS cases, and buys the new Madden every year. Will they care that they can't trade in their used games anymore, or will they just shrug their shoulders and buy into the next new thing?
 
[quote name='whoknows']It's our problem when it creates things such as season passes and on disc dlc which is bad for us, as consumers.

If you trade in/sell games or let friends borrow then you're part of the problem. Each time you trade in or sell a game that's one less new copy that gets sold.[/QUOTE]

You are assuming these are lost sales. The reality is many used games take no sales from the publisher because people were never going to spend that $60 when the game released anyway. I buy roughly 12-15 games new each year, but I also buy unproven or poorly reviewed titles at basement used prices. I have a great idea for publishers. If you want me to spend $60 then don't make games like Call of Juarez:The Cartel or MoH: Warfighter. Expecting $60 for every game produced is ridiculous. Eliminating used sales will not save this industry.
 
This is an article from Slate a few years back.

"The industry has long discussed going with this "Hollywood model," in which a few games/movies turn a profit, those hits more than covering the other losses. The analogy between the Hollywood blockbuster model and the games business falls apart, however, because of the huge difference in overhead costs. Electronic Arts steadily employs 7,400 developers. The industry standard is a $10,000 man-month, meaning the company burns through more than $74 million for development each month. The big Hollywood studios, by contrast, make movies by giving money to temporary production companies, which then hire temporary crews with one-project contracts. The temporary entity will make the film from start to finish. And once production is complete, the studio receives a finished product that it can distribute to theaters—without the continued overhead expenses that game publishers often face."

The overhead is too big. Revenue is not the issue. People spend more on games now than movies and a crap ton more than on music.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']You are assuming these are lost sales. The reality is many used games take no sales from the publisher because people were never going to spend that $60 when the game released anyway. I buy roughly 12-15 games new each year, but I also buy unproven or poorly reviewed titles at basement used prices. I have a great idea for publishers. If you want me to spend $60 then don't make games like Call of Juarez:The Cartel or MoH: Warfighter. Expecting $60 for every game produced is ridiculous. Eliminating used sales will not save this industry.[/QUOTE]

Those were big budget games. They may not have been the best games ever, but the development costs justify the $60 price and buying those games used is helping people lose their jobs.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Those were big budget games. They may not have been the best games ever, but the development costs justify the $60 price and buying those games used is helping people lose their jobs.[/QUOTE]

Are you really saying those games are $60 games? Who cares if they spent a lot of money on producing it? Shit is shit and that is their problem. Also, if no one buys it new because it is shit then used games have NOTHING to do with its failure.

This is the thing. You pile on DLC, online passses, microtransactions, etc and you may see more revenue from those sources. Guess what happens though? People will not buy an extra $60 game or two. This is exactly what is already happening. Digital sales are up yet physical media sales are down. People only have so much money to spend on entertainment. Ignoring that reality and keeping on with developer models that won't work is the reason for the losses and not used games.
 
This all seems like an overblown PR stunt to generate interest in the console/next gen gaming.

Why bother ranting on a forum thread?

Speak with your wallet.
 
[quote name='antlp89']This all seems like an overblown PR stunt to generate interest in the console/next gen gaming.

Why bother ranting on a forum thread?

Speak with your wallet.[/QUOTE]

Or it could just be click-baiting. Rumors are a wonderful thing. If they're true, huzzah, credibility. If they're false, "It was just a rumor, and subject to change". Either way, you've got clicks and ad revenue.

Speak with our wallets? Ha! Complaining online is much easier. And then there's the question of how much a typical CAG's wallet actually means. It seems like we hate DLC in all forms....we wait long past most games' major profitability points to actually get it...and for what games we do buy new, we're likely pumping them back out into the used market and are the main people stuff like this is out to stop. Hell, the trading forum will become a much more niche market when there's no more used games.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']Or it could just be click-baiting. Rumors are a wonderful thing. If they're true, huzzah, credibility. If they're false, "It was just a rumor, and subject to change". Either way, you've got clicks and ad revenue.

[/QUOTE]

Edge is one of the more respectable magazine around. Their extract word is "If our sources are correct (and we’re confident they are)." This is not Kotaku doing the same shit.
 
[quote name='62t']Edge is one of the more respectable magazine around. Their extract word is "If our sources are correct (and we’re confident they are)." This is not Kotaku doing the same shit.[/QUOTE]

I'll take your word for it. When it comes to any kind of video game "rumors", I am extremely skeptical. I don't have a lot of faith with most video game journalism to begin with, and the entire "statements without evidence" thing doesn't jive with my inner scientist.
 
Edge doesn't post bullshit. So I'm pretty surprised to read this.

[quote name='KingBroly']If one retailer does it, others with similar policies are likely to follow suit. Gamestop and Best Buy are the two biggest culprits here. Wal-Mart sells used games, but not much, and I think that's online only.[/QUOTE]
Not one retailer would do this.

[quote name='KingBroly']The big difference is that retailers make good profits off iPads and Tablets. They don't on Game Consoles.[/QUOTE]

No they don't. Margins are extremely slim on those. It's the warranties and accessories that make real profit.
 
[quote name='whoknows']It's our problem when it creates things such as season passes and on disc dlc which is bad for us, as consumers.[/QUOTE]


You think developers and publishers were motivated to pursue a means to make more money with half the effort just because of second hand sales? Not likely.

They were motivated just by the idea of making more money with half the effort. Never ending streams of DLC would have happened even if every game system had console locked DRM back to the NES.
 
I understand that game development is becoming more expensive but that again is not the consumers fault. They need to find a way to bring development costs down. Not everyone is going to be able to put out a GTA or Modern Warefare.

If the industry has gotten too big and companies can't keep up then I think other alternative should be looked at besides, "Lets force more money from the people who support us". There has to be a better way.
 
Yuck. Take one of the major problems with most modern PC games and NONE of the benefits (cheap digital sales, better visuals, etc.)

I hope this isn't true, although being that it is Microsoft, maybe I don't care. Their exclusives have failed to appeal to me. Still, it's possible they'll finally drift away from alien shooters and do something interesting for once.
 
Fantasy scenario: Microsoft and Sony both go this route.

Sales drop like rocks.

Nintendo scrambles up the ladder, followed by Sega with their new console. Gaming goes back to the late 80's, early 90's as far as companies go. Neo-Geo even steps up with a new console.
 
[quote name='Dr. Venkman']Fantasy scenario: Microsoft and Sony both go this route.

Sales drop like rocks.

Nintendo scrambles up the ladder, followed by Sega with their new console. Gaming goes back to the late 80's, early 90's as far as companies go. Neo-Geo even steps up with a new console.[/QUOTE]

Whoa! Send me some of that good stuff! :applause:

My prediction is that both go that route and most will buy the new systems.
 
[quote name='Dr. Venkman']Fantasy scenario: Microsoft and Sony both go this route.

Sales drop like rocks.

Nintendo scrambles up the ladder, followed by Sega with their new console. Gaming goes back to the late 80's, early 90's as far as companies go. Neo-Geo even steps up with a new console.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't mind this. I've been largely uninterested in the Microsoft/Sony gaming experience lately save for a few games here and there, as well as my Vita.

I, in no way, want any of the companies to go out of business because they all offer something but the industry could use a shakeup.
 
I won't miss used games either. People are acting like new games stay $60 forever. Most stuff is $20 after a couple months new. People have been bending over for GameStop so long they don't know how to stop. The market will eventually adjust to this and the right price points will be found.
 
"Ubisoft will support Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii U with new software following the launch of the next-generation consoles, whenever that may be. Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot tells IGN, "We’ll make sure that we unlock the potential of the new machines when they will be around." However, "We will continue to develop on older platforms, for sure...but the majority of our time and talent [will go] toward taking advantage of those new possibilities.""

Not that this is a huge surprise but I am glad to at see a major developer commit beyond this year to making games on the 360 and PS3. You almost have to at this point with 146 million consoles in home between the 2 systems. All the more reason I will not be a day 1 adopter.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02...+twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Kazuya']I won't miss used games either. People are acting like new games stay $60 forever. Most stuff is $20 after a couple months new. People have been bending over for GameStop so long they don't know how to stop. The market will eventually adjust to this and the right price points will be found.[/QUOTE]

If by a couple of months you mean more than 6-9 then yes. Darksiders 2 has been out 6 months and it is still $50. That game has never been lower than $30 plus it has a season pass. It did not even sell that well either. So with a new system you are looking at $20 games most likely summer of 2014 at best.

It also assumes that with no used market that games will drop at the same rate which may not happen without competition.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']If by a couple of months you mean more than 6-9 then yes. Darksiders 2 has been out 6 months and it is still $50. That game has never been lower than $30 plus it has a season pass. It did not even sell that well either. So with a new system you are looking at $20 games most likely summer of 2014 at best.

It also assumes that with no used market that games will drop at the same rate which may not happen without competition.[/QUOTE]

This is true. I've bought Batman Arkham City GOTY and Saints Row The Third on PC each for under $7 I think it was. Sleeping Dogs has been $10 for PC. Darksiders 2 has been as low as $9. Hitman Absolution $17. I've already bought the upcoming Tomb Raider (don't laugh) for $33. The games are just always cheaper for PC compared to console. They also look better and I just grab my laptop, connect it to my TV via HDMI, and use an Xbox controller and I've got better games for less money (not counting the cost of the PC/console to begin with).

If Sony and MS were to both go the no used games route they're going to have to compete with price or people will just game on PC/Steambox and get better graphics and prices.

I'm still going to be in shock if one company (MS/Sony) does this but the other doesn't. I just can't really believe either could possibly be that stupid.
 
I hope when Sony and MS do it Nintendo has a system update that does the same thing.

Look at how bad they're hurting right now because people are buying used games.
 
I don't care about buying used games as I pretty much just get things new. Be it things I want to play at launch or waiting for cheap deals.

But I would hate loosing the ability to sell games after beating them as I seldom replay games and I'm not a collector. So it's nice to recoup some money and not be stuck with a coaster.

So if that move happens, I'll probably only keep gaming if all the games are available as digital downloads and there are lots of big discounts and freebies like on Playstation+ etc.

I don't mind paying $10-20 for a digital game I'll just play once. Around the same I pay to go to the theater and see a movie (something I do fairly regularly) for more hours of entertainment. Maybe I'd pay up to $30 for longer games or things I really wanted to play.

But I'm not interested in paying $40+ for a game I can't resell, and I'm not interested in buying game discs that I can do nothing but toss in recycling. If I'm going to buy a one time use product, I'd rather go the green route and get a digital version.
 
I can't see either Microsoft or Sony giving the middle-finger to roughly 40% of their potential users by requiring an always-online connection.

It wouldn't prevent hacking and it wouldn't prevent piracy but it would prevent a ton of people from ever using their consoles...at least legitimately.

Steamworks games are pirated and torrented on day 01 so expect much the same for consoles.
 
I have a feeling they will block used games only for individuals to prevent selling on eBay and craigslist. Doesn't gamestop have a system in place with certain publishers where they share revenue for each used game sold while providing an online pass on the receipt? Just replace the online pass with a product activation key and they will essentially have a way to block used games while still allowing them. This is obviously not good for individuals but I don't see retailers like Gamestop will put up much of a fight for us consumers since they will still get to sell used games probably even more since that is the only place you can sell a used game with this method.
 
Doesn't Microsoft and Sony like to have good relationships with retailers, and that is the reason for exclusive DLC and not pricing their online offers more competitively?

I can't see them destroying Gamestop, or other retailers, by getting rid of the used game market.
 
Might as well forget Collector's Editions if used games can't be played. You could have the rarest game in the world but no one will want your boxed items without a working game. Think about how much a mint condition but used Earthbound would be worth if the game was unplayable. That is...unless you plan on buying even more copies of games to hoard.

All no used games will do is enrich hoarders that have boxes of unopened games.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Might as well forget Collector's Editions if used games can't be played. You could have the rarest game in the world but no one will want your boxed items without a working game. Think about how much a mint condition but used Earthbound would be worth if the game was unplayable. That is...unless you plan on buying even more copies of games to hoard.

All no used games will do is enrich hoarders that have boxes of unopened games.[/QUOTE]

Good luck playing any game that requires an always on connection in 10 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top