115 replies to this topic

[Doomdrinker1]

Agreed in certain senariao's (That might I add don't happen often anyway) checking in once every 24hr is annoying but atleast it isnt always on. It could of been better but it could of been way worse.

[Authrix]

I live in a rural area. Constant internet isn't a viable option. I don't really want to fork out £400 for a console I can play for an hour offline then potentially not at all until Internet's back.

You said to wait for E3, and here we are. I really think only a minority of people will buy the XB1. Sony have it in the bag.

[xxxblackspider]

I personally think that the restrictions on used gaming is a VERY GOOD thing... I personally enjoy, you know, playing video games... don't know about you guys... used gaming is killing the game market and I only buy new games because when you buy used you are taking money out of the developers pocket

[Doomdrinker1]

Well the "one" has a great line up so it WILL do well in this generation so we now have another good console war on our hands YAY!!!

[ajar1189]

I personally think that the restrictions on used gaming is a VERY GOOD thing... I personally enjoy, you know, playing video games... don't know about you guys... used gaming is killing the game market and I only buy new games because when you buy used you are taking money out of the developers pocket

This 100 times.

The used game market is akin to online piracy. You take the money out of the hands of the developers and people that actually deserve the money for making the product and you put it into the hands of the middleman used-game retail chains.

[Opeth Of Epica]

I personally think that the restrictions on used gaming is a VERY GOOD thing... I personally enjoy, you know, playing video games... don't know about you guys... used gaming is killing the game market and I only buy new games because when you buy used you are taking money out of the developers pocket

True, but there's a difference between economic sustainablity and anti-consumer. Microsoft need to learn that difference badly.

[Doomdrinker1]

You do realise killing used games haas no negative impact on microsoft this one you can and have to plame on the devs and the publishers microsofts hands are clean in that matter.

[Opeth Of Epica]

You do realise killing used games haas no negative impact on microsoft this one you can and have to plame on the devs and the publishers microsofts hands are clean in that matter.

Dead Wrong.

It's MICROSOFT that made all these anti-used game add ons on the Xbox One, NOT the developers. You can't say the developers and publishers did anything when it's Microsoft's console.

[Doomdrinker1]

Yes but the devs and publisher preasured microsoft to do that and if microsoft refused then we get another wii u with next to no core games and barley anyone developing for it.

[Opeth Of Epica]

Yes but the devs and publisher preasured microsoft to do that

Evidence for that claim?

[Authrix]

The only people that have ever had a problem with the used market are the big companies, and that applies to all areas of marketing, not just gaming.

[Doomdrinker1]

Well not sure if it is actualy rumour will try and find out but this does make sense devs can make alot more money on a console with used games regulation.

On the flip side look at the bonuses of a system without used games the PC market for example they have no used game (well nearly) and they are doing great in term of deals and cheap games.

[JC 042]

I'm going to find it funny as hell if this sites been a mainly Xbox site and will end up a mainly PS4 site. Even funnier when you consider JC being caught on the wrong side of the fence both times ^~

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW PISSED I AM ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!! 

This is fucking funny

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwjsYJWrvtE

I loved that  

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ekOtn7L1N0

5:30

I CALLED IT! 

Yes but the devs and publisher preasured microsoft to do that

Evidence for that claim?

EA (maybe), but they at least must have known about it to make the no online passes statement to give them rep they don't deserve only to have it no matter what with XboxOne.

If Microsoft WAS pressured it was from greed from bribes of exclusive titles from the worst companies in the world and nothing more. 

And used games being piracy is bull shi*. It also kills off game renting so even more companies like BlockBuster are going to go bust from this, PS4 is going to be their life line.

[JACCX023]

Well im gonna tell you guys something about buying used games in other parts of the world like where i live you have any idea how much you have to spend when a new game comes out? im gonna put it in american dollars a 100 dollars per game you know ohhh and plus the dlcs add in those thank god i do have a job that lets me buy games every now and then

Used games is a big deal where i come from because most of the people cant afford those pricces every time a new game is released and taking money from the developers? im sorry but that is not piracy they allready got their moneys worth heck even sony just showed how can you let your friends play your games *hey pal here! *thank you!* and im pretty sure thats not gonna affect their business because they know somebody allready paid the full price of the game

As JC said yes this is gonna be a total cluster fack of fail for renting games like in blockbuster imaging going to blockbuster rent a game you pay for the rent and when you get home TADAAAA!!! you have pay more freaking money to play a game that you just rented WTF!

Noo no that is just being waaaaay to greedy

[xxxblackspider]

Well honestly the only people who can afford to put out big name titles are big name developers... who have the money to sustain the losses ascribed to used gaming. Here is a link to a guy who makes some very very good points, the ones specifically supporting my argument are:
"If no used games means more money in publishers' pockets, we'll reap the benefits. When publishers have to worry less about the bottom line, they have more liberty to take chances with independent games and studios. They won't have to put all of their eggs in the annual first-person shooter basket. They can spend more money on risky ideas.

"No matter your opinion on the way publishers treat both developers and gamers—and the big ones have done some undeniably nasty things over the years—they still put out games we enjoy. It's not in our best interest to see them fail. And if used games are really as bad for the industry as game makers have claimed, why not let publishers show what they can do when borrowing is no longer a factor?

Maybe we'll see more interesting products. Maybe we'll get cheaper games. Whatever happens, it might not be so bad to let publishers have this victory. At least until they find something else to complain about."

quick edit: I highly recommend reading the whole article, its pretty short.

Spoiler

http://kotaku.com/5897180/five-reasons-a-world-without-used-games-might-not-be-so-bad

[JC 042]

Used games shouldn't be charged, if you borrow a game from a friend and like it then you will buy it, then developers get money for making a good game someone likes. By using a fee developers are getting money by using greedy marketing.

Why do you think EA have been making shit games recently? They're being rewarded with greedy marketing methods and don't care about making good games anymore. We don't want developers and publishers to have that attitude, we want them to be rewarded with money for making a great game, not for being a penny pinching asshole!

Bethesda for example: they make AMAZING games and get huge sales out of it, they don't use fucked up marketing that pisses people off, and they don't release DLC's of stuff that should of been part of the game in the first place, people love them and will throw money at them because of how much they love them.

We want developers to have an attitude to games like Bethesda, not EA! Which is what these damn used game fees will do!

[xxxblackspider]

Oh and the last time I rented a video game, I was 9 years old... That is my opinion, I will probably still buy the ps4 because I want a gaming machine not all the extra shit like fuckin kinect and voice control 

Bethesda for example: they make AMAZING games and get huge sales out of it, they don't use fucked up marketing that pisses people off, and they don't release DLC's of stuff that should of been part of the game in the first place, people love them and will throw money at them because of how much they love them.

Bethesda was ruined by skyrim. They used to be my favorite game developer until they started using shitty ass marketing techniques like releasing a game (skyrim) that has half the hand-made content of its predecessor and then releasing things that should have been part of the original game, as DLC, for $20 a pop. Pissed me off to the point where I broke the game disc over my knee rebought the game on PC and modded the shit out of it.

Edit: And yet, for some reason, I still throw money at them :/

[JC 042]

Spoiler

http://kotaku.com/5897180/five-reasons-a-world-without-used-games-might-not-be-so-bad

There are many arguments against the points in that article as well though

[spoiler=One of the comments to the article]

Gimme a C! Gimme an O! Gimme an R! Gimme a P!

/out of breath

Gimme a ORATION!

What's that spell!? C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-O-N!!!! YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!

"Whatever happens, it might not be so bad to let publishers have this victory."

C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-O-N YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

—————————-

1) Everything's going digital anyway.

Right, it's inevitable. That makes it a good reason. It's like a force of nature, like the passage of time, it's actually just happening naturally without our input at all.

"For every Vita disc available in stores, there's an accompanying digital release (that is usually cheaper)."

Actually, it's more expensive. You save $5 on most titles off PSN, and they're mostly 2+ GB each. Memory cards now are $100 for a 32 GB. That means that after getting 16 games, saving you $80 in $5 increments, you would have filled up your $100 card, netting you a loss of $20. Furthermore, this is only going to get worse over time as retailers will drop the price of games MUCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH faster than publishers will digitally. Let's compare Vita launch titles new on Amazon in 1 year to Vita digital titles on PSN. We'll see which is cheaper. What a joke.

2) The future could look a lot like Steam.

Steam is already there for people who want to use it. The future could also look a lot like Origin. Or it could look a lot like PSP games on PSN that are still $40. This isn't even a reason, it's just baseless, wishful thinking.

3) Retailers will have to offer better deals.

Their "better deals" will be nullified by the fee you give to corporations because of this shit.

Plus this point just totally nullifies your entire argument. It's retailers who DO give better deals, not publishers. Cutting out used games is a move towards eliminating the power of retailers.

Not to mention this would potentially eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs from people working at all Gamestops and stores like them around the world, the truck drivers, the warehouse workers, the mom and pop shops that sell used, and on and on and on.

4) Games could be significantly more affordable.

Right, publishers are going against tons of negative fan feedback so they can make less money. That's really a brilliant display of the total absence of logic.

5) Publishers might take more risks.

Yeah right. Publishers are beholden to their shareholders who want more and more and more and more. Your theory is that they're going to get to a point where they're making more money on games then they are now (which kind of nullifies your last point), and then suddenly decide - "you know what guys? we have enough money. let's take more risks on niche markets with little sign of return, what do you say shareholders?" They can take risks now any time they want and release entirely digital games right now. Absolutely nothing would change, and there's zero evidence to support this point.

Do you see any corporations using their new methods of distribution responsibly? Do you trust DLC is being used in a way that benefits consumers, or ethical business?

There is zero evidence to support any of this. Steam is the exception to the rule. They're not even a publicly listed company, and are not beholden to shareholders at all. Just thinking of rainbows and assuming that everyone will be like them is ridiculous.

[/spoiler] 

Spoiler

Bethesda for example: they make AMAZING games and get huge sales out of it, they don't use fucked up marketing that pisses people off, and they don't release DLC's of stuff that should of been part of the game in the first place, people love them and will throw money at them because of how much they love them.

Bethesda was ruined by skyrim. They used to be my favorite game developer until they started using shitty ass marketing techniques like releasing a game (skyrim) that has half the hand-made content of its predecessor and then releasing things that should have been part of the original game, as DLC, for $20 a pop. Pissed me off to the point where I broke the game disc over my knee rebought the game on PC and modded the shit out of it.

Edit: And yet, for some reason, I still throw money at them :/

I have to disagree, none of the DLC was planned to be in the original game. Some of it was based on fan feedback and the rest was when they told all their staff at Bethesda: "Everyone, make what you want, and make it awesome, if it's an awesome enough idea, we'll make a DLC around it." and that is how the Hearthfire DLC was made.Fan feedback wanted mores stuff around vampires and werewolves, thus the Dawnguard DLC.

The only way to counter that argument if people still think it should of been with the original game is that games no longer make DLC's, and instead you have to wait for the next title to be released.

[xxxblackspider]

Spoiler

2) The future could look a lot like Steam.

Steam is already there for people who want to use it. The future could also look a lot like Origin. Or it could look a lot like PSP games on PSN that are still $40. This isn't even a reason, it's just baseless, wishful thinking.

Might shoot myself if the future looks like Origin or U-Play

[JC 042]

Spoiler

2) The future could look a lot like Steam.

Steam is already there for people who want to use it. The future could also look a lot like Origin. Or it could look a lot like PSP games on PSN that are still $40. This isn't even a reason, it's just baseless, wishful thinking.

Might shoot myself if the future looks like Origin or U-Play

I should of took the cheerleader out of the spoiler as well, get's a lot more attention.

I used U-Play once for a Heroes game and I felt murderous thoughts towards EA after that. 
Elder Scrolls Online will be multi platform, another game I really hope it's servers will be cross platform as well as World Of Tanks.