42 replies to this topic 2 votes

[Pygmy_Hippo]

Osiris, on 02 October 2012 - 04:00, said:

There was a time when this would have gotten me up in arms but tbh it wouldnt surprise me and both MS and sony are likely colluding to ensure the principle applies to both otherwise its a clear advantage of one over the other.

This.

I just can't see Microsoft doing it on their own - it would be suicide, everyone would flock to an alternative using the rational of "just in case (and screw da man!!)". However,if Sony and Nintendo were to make a similar commitment then there may be trouble brewing...

[Deranged]

Xerxes, on 02 October 2012 - 10:47, said:

I'd say it most definitely is false. Unless they go completely digital (which is highly unlikely as it would alienate whole markets) they have no way of policing it. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they follow EA's lead and start making games come with one use codes that you need to enter to access full features of the game. So you'll still be able to buy used games but not without paying a fee (in additional to the cost of the [used] game) to use it fully. Saying that though, I doubt they'll do anything. Used games are more a thorn in the side of developers more then MS, since they still get money from hardware sales, first party accessories and premium services. That is my 2 cents anyway.

MS gets money from every new game sold. That's how they can initially sell the hardware at a loss and not care.

[Xerxes]

Deranged, on 02 October 2012 - 11:05, said:

MS gets money from every new game sold. That's how they can initially sell the hardware at a loss and not care.

I'm aware of that, but they have other means of getting money off the consumers as well. Developers/publishers just have new game sales, so obviously they are gonna care more about anything that affects their main revenue stream. I didn't mean to imply MS didn't care, just that developers/publishers would care alot more...

[Javik]

This is a disturbing trend. People are allowed to trade and sell on practically all kinds of other goods so why should games be any different? The argument that game studios don't make profit isn't a good argument, no entity makes profit when their items are resold privately but it should be a user's right to transfer ownership of something they brought to another person if they so wish.

[Deranged]

Javik, on 02 October 2012 - 11:15, said:

This is a disturbing trend. People are allowed to trade and sell on practically all kinds of other goods so why should games be any different? The argument that game studios don't make profit isn't a good argument, no entity makes profit when their items are resold privately but it should be a user's right to transfer ownership of something they brought to another person if they so wish.

It is their right. However, it's also the right of the publisher providing the extra services to only provide them to the original claimant. Hence, the online passes.

[+TCLN Ryster]

Colin McGregor, on 01 October 2012 - 21:12, said:

that would put every game rental place out of business an cause a lawsuit. i call BS

finally after the 5th time it sent. Neowin is getting so slow. I hit send and it takes forever to actually do it or i gotta refresh and type it again

Aren't game rental places already technically illegal anyway? Does it not say in the license agreement that the game cannot be rented, etc?

Javik, on 02 October 2012 - 11:15, said:

This is a disturbing trend. People are allowed to trade and sell on practically all kinds of other goods so why should games be any different? The argument that game studios don't make profit isn't a good argument, no entity makes profit when their items are resold privately but it should be a user's right to transfer ownership of something they brought to another person if they so wish.

Because games are not a "good", that's a common misconception. The reality is that when you buy a game you are not buying a physical product. You are buying a license to use the 1s and 0s contained on the media inside the case. You do not own the contents of the media, so it's not yours to sell. All games companies need to do is to alter their license agreement to state that the license is non-transferable. They've then got you over a barrel. You can then give your disc to somebody else, but that somebody would not have the legal right to run the software on the disc. The companies could then use any measures they like to enforce that and there's not a legal leg for anybody to stand on.

[Javik]

Deranged, on 02 October 2012 - 11:25, said:

It is their right. However, it's also the right of the publisher providing the extra services to only provide them to the original claimant. Hence, the online passes.

It doesn't cost them a penny extra, it just means one user uses the bandwidth instead of another user. It's just a moneygrab, simple.

[Glassed Silver]

remixedcat, on 02 October 2012 - 05:38, said:

how many GB was your largest game patch download?

Can't remember really, but it often updates and it's quite a bunch.

You get to the point of asking yourself whether they are shipping texture and cutscene updates, too lol

I'll fire up Windows again soon and then check what the update is like.

TCLN Ryster, on 02 October 2012 - 11:26, said:

Aren't game rental places already technically illegal anyway? Does it not say in the license agreement that the game cannot be rented, etc?



Because games are not a "good", that's a common misconception. The reality is that when you buy a game you are not buying a physical product. You are buying a license to use the 1s and 0s contained on the media inside the case. You do not own the contents of the media, so it's not yours to sell. All games companies need to do is to alter their license agreement to state that the license is non-transferable. They've then got you over a barrel. You can then give your disc to somebody else, but that somebody would not have the legal right to run the software on the disc. The companies could then use any measures they like to enforce that and there's not a legal leg for anybody to stand on.

1) No they are not, they get special Rental versions supplied to them only.
2) Uhm, well, that is unless you live in the EU where they say: F*** companies, you cannot forbid that.
Damn are they right. Why do we want to let them screw us? Why would we want to give them that right?
Next time I'm buying a car, I hope it better comes with the license to resell it or what?
Fu**ing ridiculous.

Glassed Silver:mac

[+Brando212]

Javik, on 02 October 2012 - 11:27, said:

It doesn't cost them a penny extra, it just means one user uses the bandwidth instead of another user. It's just a moneygrab, simple.

the online pass thing makes sense to me in that extra money is probably used to maintain the servers

[srbeen]

They are focusing on cloud gaming over disc-based models. DLC-stuff, direct to consumer, no middleman, no shortages, no physical-ness... Basically any way to keep the data out of your hands and have it all remotely served to you. This will irradiate the ease of piracy as well as force people to buy their own games for their own account. But for anything to work you'll need to have an active internet connection.

I heard the new xbox is going to have a BluRay player though - so I don't think cloud gaming is *it* yet, plus people do like to play off-grid where internet don't exist like their cottage or on a ship, etc.

My biggest concern is, consider if this was the Nintendo 64 or even the Dreamcast. systems from decades past. I can buy games on eBay easy enough as well as get lucky with old trade-ins at gamestop.. But if your digital downloads are not all saved when the company pulls the 'ethernet plug', or worse yet - you do save them and your HDD corrupts/fails - you just essentially wasted everything invested and now have a doorstop. To me you are merely 'borrowing' the content, you never truly own it any longer.

For it to work, its essential the distribution is not a monopoly ran by one company. Android as 3 or 4 app stores, the same should be true with consoles

[Glassed Silver]

I won't ever play "regular games" that won't let me save the game save to my local hard drive and won't run without internet connection that I cannot at least crack.

I like retro gaming and owning the stuff I play (licensing my ar*e - the box is in my home, I own it. Cry me a river, I will sell it if the game sucks).

Oh and obvious exceptions would be games like WoW that ONLINE ONLY* happen online by concept as they are multiplayer-only...
I'd still like a local copy of the game, please, best combined with a box and a booklet. (Bring back booklets ffs)

Glassed Silver:mac

edit:
* fixed - what's up with my spelling today?

[JaredFrost]

Brando212, on 02 October 2012 - 17:08, said:

the online pass thing makes sense to me in that extra money is probably used to maintain the servers

It makes sense, and doesn't at the same time, the server costs were covered in the original sale, when someone sells their copy, there isn't magically two people now playing where one paid
One person is still playing, ownership was transferred.

That would be like charging the original owner again after a year, because they played too much, would you accept that? if a game you liked, and they were like, well you played too much, give
us more money. That's more of a WoW payment system, pay to play.

If they ran the servers properly, maintenance wouldn't be a problem(and probably isn't even one), older games have less of an online population, they could migrate them shared servers at some
point in their life, I'm not even against shutting down reasonably older games, not games from last year like they're trying to do with some to push sales of the new version.

One thing Microsoft needs to do, is if they're going to to shutting down online servers, they shouldn't be allowed to have achievements for services that can be shutdown. Period, end of story
I am tired of getting games, not finishing them in whatever timeframe they decide and not being able to get 100%, sometimes it takes me years and years to complete a game, I don't always have
time right away, and I usually purchase new, so I paid for those services myself, I recently purchased Section 8 on Steam only to find out the online servers are down for -maintenance- for the passed
6-7 months...../rant.../fornow

[BajiRav]

Don't they already have it with Games on Demand? I don't see them making exclusive though, it will backfire big time.

Brando212, on 02 October 2012 - 17:08, said:

the online pass thing makes sense to me in that extra money is probably used to maintain the servers

I would say so - only online component of the game makes sense. I can't see them doing this with offline component (single player, LAN games?), that's like preventing people from selling/buying used cars. .
I think Microsoft is also trying another route with Halo 4. The Spartan Ops component is essentially Firefight from ODST/Reach re-packages as DLC at regular intervals. You can't really buy it from someone who has already finished playing it. It's a sort of hybrid model, where you can still trade-in Halo4 but the Spartan Ops stays locked just like Games on Demand.