The next Xbox: Always online, no second-hand games, 50GB BD and new kinect

[McKay]

Definately won't be "Always on" there's too many people that play it offline completely.

[neufuse Veteran]

just wait for the day that you have to pay a monthly fee just to use that $400 game console you just bought... I can see XBOX live someday being a mandatory monthly fee, and PS doing something similar just to milk you like cell phone companies do

[BajiRav]

just wait for the day that you have to pay a monthly fee just to use that $400 game console you just bought... I can see XBOX live someday being a mandatory monthly fee, and PS doing something similar just to milk you like cell phone companies do

Xbox already does that to some extent :pinch:

[neufuse Veteran]

Xbox already does that to some extent :pinch:

$39.95 a month gets you 500 minutes of play!

[George P Global Moderator]

Curious,

[/font][/color]

In other words, Sony's dev. tools/environment suck...again.

But then how would that work in a single household? If I bought a game and played with my ID and then someone else (younger brother etc.) wants to play the game - will they have to pay again? If they tie it to a console instead of a profile then what happens if I have multiple consoles in my home?

I don't think they can practically enforce this without causing a lot of hassle for us.

I don't think either Sony or Microsoft are stupid enough to pull such a stunt.

Well, how do games that have online passes work for you right now? If you go online with your copy and use the code that came with it what would your brother have to do then to also go online? He can't use the same code you did so doesn't he have to pay for his own pass in the end?

[srbeen]

Always requires internet connection, PLUS expensive Xbox Live gold, PLUS all titles are really 'loaned' to you for the limited life of the console expectancy. Servers go down the console don't work..

Add on top the article that nearly every US company (minus google) selling internet make a 97% profit margin on it? Seems we know what's up here...

http://nextbigfuture...-margin-on.html

I hope this irradiates console gaming finally. Sony and MS are going the same route and the 4 pages so far in this thread isn't congratulating them.

Rather than shell out for a DRM box that drives up my internet usage meter, maybe I'll get a computer and play on that. Hell, maybe even an android tablet with HDMI out or an Ouya. This generation of gaming is only improving the profit margins. Both Sony and MS will have to do something unprecedented to win me and my money over this round. Sony especially. The PS3 was the biggest disappointment in console gaming I ever wasted $820 on.

I also don't think it would be too hard to 'log' your 'console blobs' and 'replay' them to the console on boot to 'fake online' via a bit of internet trickery and a local server.

[HawkMan]

Always requires internet connection, PLUS expensive Xbox Live gold, PLUS all titles are really 'loaned' to you for the limited life of the console expectancy. Servers go down the console don't work..

Add on top the article that nearly every US company (minus google) selling internet make a 97% profit margin on it? Seems we know what's up here...

http://nextbigfuture...-margin-on.html

I hope this irradiates console gaming finally. Sony and MS are going the same route and the 4 pages so far in this thread isn't congratulating them.

Rather than shell out for a DRM box that drives up my internet usage meter, maybe I'll get a computer and play on that. Hell, maybe even an android tablet with HDMI out or an Ouya. This generation of gaming is only improving the profit margins. Both Sony and MS will have to do something unprecedented to win me and my money over this round. Sony especially. The PS3 was the biggest disappointment in console gaming I ever wasted $820 on.

How is gaming improving profit margins, when I can buy brand new AAA games today for half the cost of what a SNES games cost back in the day, add in inflation and the price difference is more than that. and the cost of development, the SNES games where developed by 2-10 guys in a garage. modern triple A games cost as much as a high budget movie to make.

[neufuse Veteran]

the SNES games where developed by 2-10 guys in a garage.

wow, that's just... wow.... SNES game development was no different then it is today, heck some of it was harder because you did a lot of it in assembly, had to actually proof funcitons and know a LOT about hardware optimization and scheduling that you don't have to think about now days.... some teams where huge..... Super Mario World had 50+people working on it in total (testing, coding, graphics, Sales, etc), 16 of them being coders..... some of the smaller games had teams of 20+ in total (with a minimum of usually 2 coders).. but SMW took three years to make!

[HawkMan]

And games today ahve the same amount of coders, they just also have 10's of 3D graphics artists, 10's of 2D graphics artists, animators, sound artists, sound effects guys, sound studios, voice actors, on modern AAA games there are often hundreds of people working on them.

[Shadrack]

I hope that rumor isn't true! If so it will definitely influence my decision. Especially if Sony decides not to go the same route and continue to allow second hand sell of games. I wouldn't be surprised if the publishers have forced Sony and Microsoft's hand on the second hand game issue.

[Emn1ty]

Also if there is a game I want buying it first hand means the developer gets the money.

This is a common misconception. If the game is being sold second-hand, the devs already got the money. There is literally no point in trying to end "second-hand" game purchases, since the mindset of any consumer purchasing such games will either a) not buy new games anymore or b) wait till they drop in price naturally. In most cases, games that get returned and resold heavily either saturate the market enough for it not to effect them or people stopped buying the game on release, the few who did returned it and the only reason any even buys it is because its a bargain bin item (in which case the devs aren't losing any sales).

The only real change this will make is that less people will buy games, because there are less points of access. I'm sure a lot of us who played the Gears series, or even the Metal Gear (or any other long running, highly popular franchise) purchased the first or second game used to try it out, liked it and bought into the rest. Without "second hand" games, that won't happen (at least not short of pirating it, which is another discussion altogether).

[HawkMan]

1 person buys the game brand new, 3 people it the game at bargain bin, the developer made money from 4 sales

1 person buys the game, sells it back to GameStop, GameStop resells it to another person, repeat three times. The developer made money from 1 sale, GameStop made money from 4 sales, and since the traders bought new games there with the credit, they actually made money from 8 sales.

It's not a misconception. Games are not like a carton of milk which is empty after you used it, when you pass on a game it's still 100% the same, unlike a used car which is a "used" car.

[Lord Zog]

Guess I can't lend games to my family or friends anymore either with this system..

[TheLegendOfMart]

In other words, Sony's dev. tools/environment suck...again.

Where does it say that?

If anything Microsofts dev tools are going to suck because Microsoft wants developers to use MS libs for developing which means overheads. With Sony developers can do what they want which means being able to super optimise their games and squeeze every last ounce of power out of the hardware they can.

It's not a misconception. Games are not like a carton of milk which is empty after you used it, when you pass on a game it's still 100% the same, unlike a used car which is a "used" car.

Why do developers think they are entitled to a cut of the money every time the game resells?

I don't care if a game is 100% the same, and in many cases its not such as included DLC and online passes that get used and not transferred, developers got their cut when the game sold. Instead of screwing the consumer why not go after these second hand shops.

Movie studios don't get a cut from second hand movie sales, publishers don't get a cut from second hand book sales, artists don't get a cut from second hand music cd sales, all these are 100% the same as they were new.

[Torolol]

No second hand market?

I STRONGLY doubt it.

I would be strongly surprised if they did such a thing. People would jump ship in a heartbeat, and/or they would find a way to hack the Xbox in order to play games. Microsoft would bend in the end.

already rumored though: http://www.techspot....tion-codes.html

second hand market is large, and lot of money swirling on it but none of that money are within companies reaches,

of course companies would loves if that "Second Hand" needs are transformed into "First Hand" sales,

just how much profit they could gain that way?

Companies envying the second hand market is not new, example:

Bruce Willis vs Apple co. : why can't i transfer my legal iTune purchaces to my beloved daughter?

Supap Kirtsaeng vs John Wiley & Sons : sued for "copyright" ingfringment for re-selling legaly obtained textbooks.

So, yeah U.S companies coveting the imaginary profits that they may get if all those "Second Hand" sales were actually companies's "First Hand" sales.

and dont' forget to use the new XBOX you must agree to not filing any Class Action Law Suit against Microsoft. (pending in europe until MS 'contributes' significant sum of money to EU govements)

therefore you can't form a class-action suing Microsoft for fair-use infringment.

[HawkMan]

Why do developers think they are entitled to a cut of the money every time the game resells?

I don't care if a game is 100% the same, and in many cases its not such as included DLC and online passes that get used and not transferred, developers got their cut when the game sold. Instead of screwing the consumer why not go after these second hand shops.

Movie studios don't get a cut from second hand movie sales, publishers don't get a cut from second hand book sales, artists don't get a cut from second hand music cd sales, all these are 100% the same as they were new.

BEcause int he super extreme millions of people could play a single copy. They make a product and you play it, they deserve the money for it, especially when bargain bin costs the same or barely more than buying a used copy which only goes to fill the pockets of gamespot and similar.

why do you want t give money to gamespot and not the actual developers? that's the questions.

Also the DLC is a completely separate issue, they're not part of the cost of developing the game, you pay for the DLC for the cost of the DLC. it's like saying buying PEZ packs pays for the PEZ dispenser..

Also movies are different and not comparable, firstly most movies make all their money back on cinema. secondly movies are not traded as much as games since most people today buy movies for collecting, those who just want to watch the movie, they rent it or stream it. which, guess what, brings money back to the company who made it.

I do wonder if we'll see better support for special rent versions of games in the next generation though, since gamefly and oneplays(in europe/scandinavia) and such services offer a nice extra revenue for the developers.

[ShadowMajestic]

Not going to happen.

Also in several EU countries (and not to long entire EU) You are by law allowed to sell any property you buy.

The maker can in no way make the product unuseable just because someone buys it second hand.

So MS risking its european market? haha no, they have enough legals running around.

That the console requires an Always on connection seems plausible though. MS its market is focussed in internet rich area's. I for one know noone with a PS3, Xbox or Wii that has no internet connection (on the other hand, i know really few people that dont have internet, even homeless people have internet :/)

[HawkMan]

Actually, you can still resell the disk, but the license to use it is bound to you. just like your digital purchases.

If they do this it is I suspect because

1. the publishers forced their hand and both consoles will have it, or they have said that IF MS does this, they will only release their games on their platform untill Sony does the same. in which case MS did the coup of the century.

2. physical and digital purchases will be combined, you buy a physical disc and get a code, the code binds the game to you, and you know own the right to use it, and can download it whenever you want if you lose the disk, and digital downloads will be released at the same time as discs. in this case they may have two type of games, digital/physical ones that binds to you, and regular physical copies.

[George P Global Moderator]

If they do the whole license tie to your account then they should also let you deactivate it if you want to resell it. Then when the next guy gets it and runs it they'll have to get a new code for a price. That way the developer doesn't lose out on the second hand sale. If this is how it goes down it's really no different from having to buy a pass to play your copy online that many developers have put into place.

[saltysaltybk]

What an sham scam.

The Devs have already gotten their money from the initial sale and the back end to support the multiplayer is factored in to that cost. The buyer could spend 24x7 for 10 years playing the game. It makes no difference whether its the initial buyer or a second have buyer- the longevity of the game support is still the same.

[Dapen]

You're just promoting piracy Microsoft. :)

[Salutary7]

It's easy to see why some companies would like to maximize their profits per disc. And it's easy to see the potential for backfire too. I hope they know their audience well.

[srbeen]

How is gaming improving profit margins, when I can buy brand new AAA games today for half the cost of what a SNES games cost back in the day, add in inflation and the price difference is more than that. and the cost of development, the SNES games where developed by 2-10 guys in a garage. modern triple A games cost as much as a high budget movie to make.

By improving profit margins I mean they only offer DRM solutions to the table, and faster hardware to handle the DRM and growth of lazy coders/bloatware, and strong-arming a cut of every game sales with revocation of resale value by enacting an unlock code. I don't hear anything about revolutionary gaming, amazing features, or anything that is a selling feature so far above and beyond whats capable on the 360. Its very likely ALL 360 support will be dropped (live servers offline as well) as soon as the new unit is launched - thus forcing the console upon us just like with the original xbox. Im sure the 360->next xbox ports will play amazing though.. Im just not buying it.

SNES pricing wasn't good but there wasn't market saturation either. ROI was unknown as it was an untouched market. Now you can go to college to specialize in only adding shadows to 3D elements. Add in super fast computers and robust SDK's - employing thousands of folks to develop don't mean they ALL do it at once. Each one may spend a couple hours working on a single title opposed to months previous with a small team completing it.

[HawkMan]

Ummm, no to all of the above.

[Emn1ty]

BEcause int he super extreme millions of people could play a single copy. They make a product and you play it, they deserve the money for it, especially when bargain bin costs the same or barely more than buying a used copy which only goes to fill the pockets of gamespot and similar.

Yeah, cause everyone is willing to wait in line for one freaking copy to save $5-$20 off the retail price. Your worst case scenario is not a realistic one. In reality the vast majority of people who exclusively buy used games will not purchase new games, in which case the developer isn't losing anything. Instead they are getting their foot in the door with the consumer, hence the possibility of a repeat customer on their next release (the most important thing any salesmen would want).

why do you want t give money to gamespot and not the actual developers? that's the questions.

Its not our fault that the developers spend more money than movie studios and have to nickel and dime us to get a profit. And this is coming from someone who almost never buys used games.

Also the DLC is a completely separate issue, they're not part of the cost of developing the game, you pay for the DLC for the cost of the DLC. it's like saying buying PEZ packs pays for the PEZ dispenser..

Repeatedly unfinished content has be released after the game and marked up in price despite being budgeted for the original development process. Is that really fair?

Also movies are different and not comparable, firstly most movies make all their money back on cinema. secondly movies are not traded as much as games since most people today buy movies for collecting, those who just want to watch the movie, they rent it or stream it. which, guess what, brings money back to the company who made it.

And most games make their money on release, where there are no used copies available. And many gamers buy games to collect them, in fact I have 5 copies of Halo CE and 3 copies of Chromehounds.

The only way for you to possibly see reselling of games as an actual financial problem for developers/publishers is for it to be considered in the worst possible scenario. And that's that around a 1000 people buy the game, and that 1000 copies is redistributed among the rest of the world. This will never be the case, ever. If someone likes a game, studio or publisher they are highly more likely to purchase into it upon release, which means (as I said before) that used games can get a foot into the door for many developers and bring repeat business. Would you rather someone never buy a game from you because they are a) not sure about it and b) don't want to fork over $60? Or, would you rather lose out on a $60 sale for them to buy all your releases from then on day 1? Perhaps lose $60 (which you aren't actually losing, you just aren't making it) so that you can make $60 * X number of subsequent releases?

Business wise, I'd want the latter. Developer wise, same thing.

This is why I just don't understand the games industrie's beef with resale.