**XBOX ONE** Official Thread

I'd be really surprised if Sony didn't follow almost exactly the same path as MS. Just because they've said they aren't going to require an internet connection and will allow used games doesn't mean they'll keep their word, it wouldn't be the first time a company has gone back on what they said after all.

I imagine that a lot of this is down to publisher pressure. Without the major publishers like EA, Activision and Ubisoft, MS and Sony would really struggle (just look what's happening with the Wii U for example). The publishers know they can dictate to the console manufacturers.
 
Nymins said:
Sony can just clean up in the "console war" very very easily if they do the opposite of what Microsoft are doing here.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't see that happening. We're the minority here - people who follow this stuff online and care about the details. There are likely legions of people who will get an Xbox One just so they can carry over their gamer score. Others just because they like the 360 and all their friends have one. None of this stuff is going to have an effect.
 
Warbie said:
Unfortunately I don't see that happening. We're the minority here - people who follow this stuff online and care about the details. There are likely legions of people who will get an Xbox One just so they can carry over their gamer score. Others just because they like the 360 and all their friends have one. None of this stuff is going to have an effect.
Click to expand...

Words getting out, even The Sun are running stories.
 
Skyfall said:
What percentage of the UK can't connect to the internet at least once a day?

I get it, if you have crap internet or live in the ******** of beyond then you're maybe not going to like this move by MS, but it's not their fault you're behind the curve.
Click to expand...

But it is their fault for implementing the feature.

I can't see any reason that requires you to login once a day. Why would you need to do it?
 
nicktay2605 said:
I'd be really surprised if Sony didn't follow almost exactly the same path as MS. Just because they've said they aren't going to require an internet connection and will allow used games doesn't mean they'll keep their word, it wouldn't be the first time a company has gone back on what they said after all.

I imagine that a lot of this is down to publisher pressure. Without the major publishers like EA, Activision and Ubisoft, MS and Sony would really struggle (just look what's happening with the Wii U for example). The publishers know they can dictate to the console manufacturers.
Click to expand...
That's how I figured it, if Sony wanted to take a line different to MS could they? Why would publishers back a console that makes them less revenue.

The debate here is wider than "zomg I can't trade in my games so it's more expensive" it's about the economics of game developers, publishers and the relationship of the end user to them. The fact is that developers are losing freedom and publishers are losing options because the market is going in a bad direction, good games just don't sell well whilst consumers lap up every iteration of COD.

If game prices are high, developers and publishing houses keep going out of business what is the problem?
 
Skyfall said:
That's how I figured it, if Sony wanted to take a line different to MS could they? Why would publishers back a console that makes them less revenue.
Click to expand...

The problem is, they will make more money in theory.

Lots of people will probably opt for the ps4 from all this backlash, so publishers won't get their MS money anyway.
 
It would be a bold move for Sony to go the opposite to ms. It's an all our nothing move. Can a corporation as big as Sony risk it?

Credit to them if they do
 
Nymins said:
But it is their fault for implementing the feature.
Click to expand...
But the problem is the person who does not have or have bad connection, how are these people going to make MS money on their myriad of online services, they're not. Those people are not going to make MS the same amount of money as those with internet and they're such a small group it's inconsequential to them.

Nymins said:
I can't see any reason that requires you to login once a day. Why would you need to do it?
Click to expand...
I figured it was related to DRM, system security etc so they can ensure the best they can that the owner is not playing pirated games offline or somesuch.

Maybe they just want to make it mandatory for users to connect to the internet so that that majority of people who have always on broadband can be fed all of the content MS want to throw at them instead of leaving their box unattached to their network.
 
Skyfall said:
That's how I figured it, if Sony wanted to take a line different to MS could they? Why would publishers back a console that makes them less revenue.

The debate here is wider than "zomg I can't trade in my games so it's more expensive" it's about the economics of game developers, publishers and the relationship of the end user to them. The fact is that developers are losing freedom and publishers are losing options because the market is going in a bad direction, good games just don't sell well whilst consumers lap up every iteration of COD.

If game prices are high, developers and publishing houses keep going out of business what is the problem?
Click to expand...

Yeah nobody makes games for the pc because of the same reason....

Oh hang on.

The paradox is if people can't sell used games there will be less disposable income in the market for people to buy new ones. There's even less chance of people taking a punt on a new series other than COD if there's no way of trying it out by buying used. Haven't you ever bought a game and hated it? You have? Great, now you are stuck with it. Next time you'll make sure you make the correct purchase and stay with stuff you know.

We'll even ignore the fact that the industry has seen record revenue growth even with them letting us peasants actually decide what happens to the discs we have paid for.
 
Nymins said:
The problem is, they will make more money in theory.

Lots of people will probably opt for the ps4 from all this backlash, so publishers won't get their MS money anyway.
Click to expand...
I had this discussion at work the other day, the situation is again more complex than it first seems.

Firstly, many, many of the people who speak out against such things will inevitably not vote with their wallet. They will continue to whine and procrastinate whilst still partaking.

Then you have to wonder what kind of percentage of the people playing the most played games are actually the people buying the consoles. Little 13 year old timmy doesn't care how much games cost because he's not buying them.

I see a lot of meetings going on behind closed doors something to the tune of "so MS are offering a no trade in ecosystem, are you going to do that" and I'm pretty sure publishers want this.

The other consideration regarding DRM and not being able to trade in games is that people LOVE steam, I mean it's popular and theres a great swathe of people who use it and on these forum who want every game to be on steam... But you can't trade any of those games in... Other people usually have the option of not buying there but the mentality definitely exists to accept and even revel in a great online, non physical and non trade able ecosystem.

kitch9 said:
There's even less chance of people taking a punt on a new series other than COD
Click to expand...
This is what I figured too.

Which is one of the reasons I personally like the online ecosystem for PC, I can wait until a game is under £10 to take a punt on it. How that works out for the people making or selling the game I have no clue whether that's sustainable.

I just wish there were some workable system of pay as you play or try before you buy, there are so many games I would try for a small price even if I ended up not liking it. This is why I always used rentals when I had xbox & ps3, I could get games for as long or as short as I wanted and it made no difference.

People probably wouldn't like this idea, but a tiered monthly subscription service encompassing all games and delivered digitally would work for me. Devs/Publishers would get a percentage of everyone's sub based on how much people played or downloaded their game. However the major problem with that model is it cuts out retailers =/
 
Last edited:
Woden said:
This is the thing. All it would take is a single statement from Activision. "Due to concerns with security on the Playstation 4, we will not be publishing games for that platform".
Click to expand...


That simply won't happen. Publishers still make a lot of money from new game sales+dlc etc etc.
I've tried to find out how much money publishers make and can only find the first quarter of 2012 for EA
PC delivered $276 million, the Xbox 360 $292 million and the PS3 $267 million.
Click to expand...
If you take that over a year it's roughly $1billion from the PS3. Are they really going to be willing to lose that much money just because Sony won't block used game sales on the PS4?
 
You can't make the Steam comparison. The pricing is the major factor that makes that argument defunct.

Steam have sales on all the time and the prices are so cheap that it makes no sense trading games. Bundle packs are available as well to give copies to your friends. Steam has offline mode as well.
 
AtreuS said:
I agree if games were much cheaper say £25 max then I could accept that I couldn't trade it in or sell it. They wont be though, most pundits think they will in fact cost more then they do now.

If developers produce naff games and go bust it is their own fault...

The other problem now is that since you will be unable to rent games to see if you would like to purchase them, you have to take a gamble that the £50+ you splash out is on a game you actually like!

They are being greedy in stopping the second hand market, its as simple as that. What right do the developers have in demanding money because you sell something THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR?!?!?!

Anyway the sales will speak for themselves in the long run. IF the ps4 allows second hand games and the Xbox doesn't then MS's folly will become apparent very quickly.
Click to expand...


I'd have a model where you hired the game for say £1 an hour which maxed out at £25 ish, you could use the game as much as you like after that.
 
Skyfall said:
Why would publishers back a console that makes them less revenue.
Click to expand...

Because even though they'd be making less money from each game on the less restrictive platform they would still be making money. They'd probably make more money by combing the sales on the restrictive and not as restrictive consoles than they would by just supporting the more restrictive one alone.

biron_w said:
If you take that over a year it's roughly $1billion from the PS3. Are they really going to be willing to lose that much money just because Sony won't block used game sales on the PS4?
Click to expand...

This also, there is no way in a million years that a company like Activision or EA are going to cut their nose off to spite their face, just as much as some Microsoft fangirls would love it, it simply will not happen.
 
Aslong as the price is right for games (around £30) I don't mind all my content being digital. Steam is awesome for this but it also has a offline mode. When Sony/Ms servers go down for maintenance I want and should be still able to play games regardless. I'll play along with day one dlc, servers being shut down after 2 years and no trading in but I want to play games when I want to.
 
I guarantee the if the Xbox One has this 24 hours activation thing, that it will be hacked to work without it.
 
Please... big developers aren't going to shun Sony due to a lack of harsh DRM. What a world we'd have for ourselves with the only competition for MS being Nintendo.
 
Macky said:
I guarantee the if the Xbox One has this 24 hours activation thing, that it will be hacked to work without it.
Click to expand...

There must be a few hacking groups taking notice.

Good luck to em, but some of the new hardware encryption methods are insanely hard to crack. Randomly generated keys hide access to..... More keys. Gone are the days of one master key for the hardware which once cracked means that the console is open for ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom