Poll: Which Next Gen Console will you buy?

[NokkonWud]

Really can't see your argument? Your trying to say that giving a select few retailers a monopoly on used games is a good thing for the consumer?

Any publisher, it's on a game by game basis. If it's on an Ubisoft game, they get it. MGS game, then they get it etc. If they stump up, they get money back. I'd rather they have it than GAME/Gamespot etc.

These retailers will not need to compete with ebay or any other 3rd party reseller, game prices of used games will undoubtedly be close to retail price, and trade in prices will be ridiculously low. For all intents and purposes the trade in feature on Xbox may as well not exist.

Trade is still new for this type of sale, but there is no guarantee that prices will remain high. Only recently we've seen first party Sony games get sold at retail price (The Last of Us sold at £39.99 digitally.) and Steam has shown that you don't need to compete to offer the best deal. If publishers continue to get money back then they'll be more inclined to offer games in sales at a later date, again, ala Steam.
This was the original intent of 'Project $10' but when everything went through retailers they took the monopoly on it and publishers were cut out.

Also Microsoft don't give a damn about creativity and or risks, they care about money. Just look at the god awful indie policy. The new Oddworld game won't be coming to Xbox, why? Because to put the game on the console they need a Micorosoft authorised publisher to split the profits with despite the fact they have made the game completely with their own money.

It's not Microsoft's risk to take for interesting games, it's the publisher. The only studio this would affect would be MGS, but given they're the ones that have published some of the interesting XBLA games, I don't agree. This however does stem from the one, true evil, of Microsoft's game strategy, not allowing self-publication - this is the same case on Xbox 360 and isn't new to Xbox One.

Even if they did manage to get it on the console how much does it cost to patch a game on the Xbox? That's right it costs developers lots of cash to deploy patches on the console, to make the games better. This is why DayZ will be coming to PS4 and not Xbox One. Because to patch a game on the Xbox costs tens of thousands of dollars, however PS4 fully supports self publishing and patching for free.

The cost is $50,000.

 

[m4rk84]

It seems more likely the controls are there to allow you to have roaming digital copies of the game. The trading in arrangement ensures the previous digital (fully installed) copy is deactivated rather than you install it and then sell the game and carry on playing. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

This makes no sense to me. Why would the toggle need to be there to allow this?

The toggle is there to give publishers the ability to disable game trade ins if they so choose, it's the sole and only purpose of it.

Microsoft could very easily have made game trade in's through selected retailers mandatory. They have not done this and have instead implemented a fully featured system for them to disable trade ins.

 

[m4rk84]

Any publisher, it's on a game by game basis. If it's on an Ubisoft game, they get it. MGS game, then they get it etc. If they stump up, they get money back. I'd rather they have it than GAME/Gamespot etc.

So GAME/Gamespot are going to resell games for free without getting anything out of it for themselves? The fact developers get some cash just means GAME/Gamespot have to charge more to make some money.

Trade is still new for this type of sale, but there is no guarantee that prices will remain high. Only recently we've seen first party Sony games get sold at retail price (The Last of Us sold at £39.99 digitally.) and Steam has shown that you don't need to compete to offer the best deal. If publishers continue to get money back then they'll be more inclined to offer games in sales at a later date, again, ala Steam.
This was the original intent of 'Project $10' but when everything went through retailers they took the monopoly on it and publishers were cut out.

If you honestly think retailers are going to be willing to sell on games with little to no profit your very mistaken. Steam sales have a proven track record, Origin sales, not so much.

It's not Microsoft's risk to take for interesting games, it's the publisher. The only studio this would affect would be MGS, but given they're the ones that have published some of the interesting XBLA games, I don't agree. This however does stem from the one, true evil, of Microsoft's game strategy, not allowing self-publication - this is the same case on Xbox 360 and isn't new to Xbox One.

How does it only effect them when I have linked articles to several studios who have made very popular games who can't get their games on Xbox because they aren't willing to give an authorised Microsoft publisher money for free.

The cost is $50,000.

Thanks for that, $50,000 does indeed qualify as tens of thousands.

 

[Macro]

This makes no sense to me. Why would the toggle need to be there to allow this?

The toggle is there to give publishers the ability to disable game trade ins if they so choose, it's the sole and only purpose of it.

Microsoft could very easily have made game trade in's through selected retailers mandatory. They have not done this and have instead implemented a fully featured system for them to disable trade ins.

Sorry, I'm being a bit thick can you point me at the MS details that publishers can disable second hand sales, I've missed it somewhere.

To be fair I'm pretty sure existing generation consoles publishers could enforce this now through DRM if they wanted to (and generally don't). I could be wrong.

 

[m4rk84]

Sorry, I'm being a bit thick can you point me at the MS details that publishers can disable second hand sales, I've missed it somewhere.

To be fair I'm pretty sure existing generation consoles publishers could enforce this now through DRM if they wanted to (and generally don't). I could be wrong.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-xbox-ones-used-game-policies-to-lie-with-publishers

Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers. Microsoft does not receive any compensation as part of this.

 

[Shamikebab]

Well that doesn't matter does it? If the DRM/used sales issues have all been decided by MS and the publishers didn't push for it (as plenty have claimed) then I'm sure nobody will be blocking used sales.

 

[Macro]

Ta... So it seems pretty much the same as now where a Publisher could disable second hand use of a game through requiring an online pass or similar if they really wanted to.

Granted having the ability in the OS make life easier I just don't see it happening in any widespread way in particular as it seems MS have gone to some length to work with retail partners to specifically enable second hand games.

I have to be honest, I think the "there will be no second hand games" seems like a massive exaggeration to me. Much the same as Sony saying Publishers can implement DRM on PS4 if they want to, I just can't see any publisher wanting to unless as a side effect they cut the price - i.e. £40 on PS4 and £30 on Xbox but no resale.

I can see why it makes people nervous but on the plus side it sounds like it paves the way to enable a lot of the digital sharing stuff without publishers panicking that you buy one copy, install in on 20 Xbox and then flog it.

 

[NokkonWud]

So GAME/Gamespot are going to resell games for free without getting anything out of it for themselves? The fact developers get some cash just means GAME/Gamespot have to charge more to make some money.

They get the money out of the first resale through shops. You can sell digitally via the system (releasing of license) where publishers get the money. Retailers are *not* cut out entirely.

If you honestly think retailers are going to be willing to sell on games with little to no profit your very mistaken. Steam sales have a proven track record, Origin sales, not so much.

As above, they make money out of the first resale. Steam gets more sales because a) it's older than Origin and b) Origin is EA games.

How does it only effect them when I have linked articles to several studios who have made very popular games who can't get their games on Xbox because they aren't willing to give an authorised Microsoft publisher money for free.
I mentioned you can't self-publish (and that that's Microsoft's true evil.) This has always been the case. My point is publishers take the risk for retail developed games, this was the intention of my point (which is why I specifically mentioned XBLA in the second half of the paragraph.) and that Microsoft are willing to put their names to riskier games on their digital system. For games like El Shaddai (as an example), which isn't your standard, mainstream game, it's the publisher who took the financial risk in putting that on the market. Should they not be rewarded for resales of that game and not GameStop/GAME? I certainly think so.

Thanks for that, $50,000 does indeed qualify as tens of thousands.

Yes, it's a silly amount of money for patching (a real qualm of mine, as I mentioned, it's the part of Microsoft's strategy that I do not, nor ever will, defend.)

 

[XeNoN89]

Well that doesn't matter does it? If the DRM/used sales issues have all been decided by MS and the publishers didn't push for it (as plenty have claimed) then I'm sure nobody will be blocking used sales.

It does still matter because the ONLY place you will be able to sell on the game is to the specific shops that Microsoft are partnered with to do so. You still won't be able to just finish your game and pop it on ebay or into your local independent game store etc. So you're still extremely restricted as to what you can do with your used game

 

[NokkonWud]

In regards to the third-party DRM being able to opt in or out, there's still a lot of talk that that will be the case with PlayStation 4 too, but that they're using the controversy to drive sales for their own system (the same business strategy I'd use.) and that the no DRM policy relates specifically to first-party, exclusive games.

Whether it comes to fruition or not, we don't know. I'm absolutely not against it though.

 

[m4rk84]

In regards to the third-party DRM being able to opt in or out, there's still a lot of talk that that will be the case with PlayStation 4 too, but that they're using the controversy to drive sales for their own system (the same business strategy I'd use.) and that the no DRM policy relates specifically to first-party, exclusive games.

Whether it comes to fruition or not, we don't know. I'm absolutely not against it though.

No there isn't the policy on PS4 is very clear. It's exactly the same as PS3's.

 

[ps3ud0]

In regards to the third-party DRM being able to opt in or out, there's still a lot of talk that that will be the case with PlayStation 4 too, but that they're using the controversy to drive sales for their own system (the same business strategy I'd use.) and that the no DRM policy relates specifically to first-party, exclusive games.

Whether it comes to fruition or not, we don't know. I'm absolutely not against it though.

Oh of course, the only real difference is MS are embracing it but putting the framework in place for publishers, Sony have just told third party publishers, if you want it, you implement that framework. Not much either of them can do outside their respective networks...

ps3ud0

 

[XeNoN89]

No there isn't the policy on PS4 is very clear. It's exactly the same as PS3's.

Exactly, and any rumours saying otherwise are suspicious and probably instigated by Microsoft or people on Microsoft's payroll. It was even discussed on the last Annoyed Gamer episode on Gametrailers. He had information to suggest that apparent leaks suggesting Sony is going to be doing something similar were coming from sources linked to Microsoft.

 

[biron_w]

I honestly can't believe people are trying to defend this decision by MS/publishers to possibly block second hand games.
It's utterly ridiculous that we could possibly not be able to sell a game when we don't want it anymore. Or that we may have to go to "selected retailers" if we want to sell/trade.
If I have a game I want to be able to sell it to whoever I want and wherever I want. I can do this with every other single item that I own. Why should games be different?

 

[McBain]

I honestly can't believe people are trying to defend this decision by MS/publishers to possibly block second hand games.
It's utterly ridiculous that we could possibly not be able to sell a game when we don't want it anymore. Or that we may have to go to "selected retailers" if we want to sell/trade.
If I have a game I want to be able to sell it to whoever I want and wherever I want. I can do this with every other single item that I own. Why should games be different?

Because Microsoft say so.

 

[Macro]

The decision lays with publishers, just like it does with PS3, PS4 and 360.

 

[Shamikebab]

I honestly can't believe people are trying to defend this decision by MS/publishers to possibly block second hand games.
It's utterly ridiculous that we could possibly not be able to sell a game when we don't want it anymore. Or that we may have to go to "selected retailers" if we want to sell/trade.
If I have a game I want to be able to sell it to whoever I want and wherever I want. I can do this with every other single item that I own. Why should games be different?

Really? Can you do it with ebooks from Amazon? albums bought on itunes? movies bought on itunes? games bought on Steam?

 

[Quinnaay]

Really? Can you do it with ebooks from Amazon? albums bought on itunes? movies bought on itunes? games bought on Steam?

Now ask him if he does any of them... Because i dont.

 

[ps3ud0]

I honestly can't believe people are trying to defend this decision by MS/publishers to possibly block second hand games.
It's utterly ridiculous that we could possibly not be able to sell a game when we don't want it anymore. Or that we may have to go to "selected retailers" if we want to sell/trade.
If I have a game I want to be able to sell it to whoever I want and wherever I want. I can do this with every other single item that I own. Why should games be different?

I think its just worth stepping back and realising that its perfectly fine for people to make a decision based on how it directly affects them, which to some here its little to none. Its also perfectly fine for people to base their decision on a wider scale beyond their personal situation too...

To dictate how someone comes to a decision and their intended/final allegiance is pointless. Only time and how it fitted with their initial criteria will tell. Im sure we will get a much better idea where we are heading a year from now and nothing is that set in stone.

ps3ud0

 

[XeNoN89]

The decision lays with publishers, just like it does with PS3, PS4 and 360.

No it's completely different. The only choice publishers have is if they want their game to be available to trade in at the stores that Microsoft select, not just to do anything you want with.