pkay wrote:you guys do realize if microsoft doesn't put in the 'online all the time' requirement, the developers and their indivdiual publishers simply will do it themselves? This has been churning in the gaming industry for years and this generation will be its largescale birth. PS3 will not be immune to this. I'd bet my lunch money that by end of 2014 you won't be able to play any square, EA, or Activision game without logging in to one of their accounts and interacting with the servers constantly.
As far as used games DRM, this is how the publishers will handle the situation if you don't let microsoft handle it. At least with microsoft handling it there would be some uniformity of standards. Without them involved and their approval your agreement is with the developer and you'll see abortions like Batman and lots more release day massacres (see SIM City).
Stop bitching about DRM. Not allowing DRM's will kill ingenuity and developers/publishers taking risks.
Witcher 2 had an estimated 5 million illegal downloads, about 2.5 times what it actually sold and about as much as witcher 1 and 2 have sold combined. Think about that for a second. People obviously enjoy The Witcher series. Think what that studio could accomplish if even 10% of the illegally downloaded copies actually purchased Witcher 2. That'd be 500k copies. That's about a 30ish% sales increase.
Piracy in games will always exist even with DRM its going to happen, but the content will be slightly limited. People freaking out over it is stupid and contrarian.
And yet CD Projekt still release their titles DRM free including The Witcher 3 and run GOG which is all DRM free... people need to stop estimating pirated copies as lost sales as it's often not the case.
DRM only punishes legitimate customers as pirates will always find the way around, saying having no DRM stifles ingenuity is just stupid especially since when a product underperforms or receives a poor reception it's always "due to pirates" not because heaven forbid, it's just a bad product.
A good chunk of the actual innovations and risks aren't coming from large devs and publishers but bedroom studios and indies.
Right this is how the gaming industry works.
Dope game gets released tons of innovation..... dope company doesnt make any money. Dope developers get hired on to bigger companies for more money because dope company didnt make anything off of their game. Dope company now sucks and dope developers never can recreate the chemistry because they're now spread accross 20 companies.
I'm not sure how DRM stifles anything. 8 of the top 20 selling videogames of the past 5 years have required you to be online at all times. Not only that but speaking from experience when discussion our selling price of past games we increased our price accounting for used games and the lack of revenue involved.
You gonna sell a used MP3?
Funny how some European consumer rights groups have defined it as consumers have ownership of digital products they buy hence why this shit won't fly there, so yes you can sell a used digital game.
Being online primarily multiplayer games does not equal DRM, forcing you to be online when it's an unnecessary component is and often loses customers.
When companies like Square Enix are calling titles like Tomb Raider not successful financially after shifting 3.4 million+ units, of Hitman Absolution which shifted a bit more than Tomb Raider maybe it's time to actually look at your budget and scale back.
I don't see why you're defending the large publisher model as it's the reason why many of the dope companies who made dope games no longer exist and those dope franchises have become generic or completely shit to the fans of the originals.
Here's an idea if you don't want to encourage used game sales STOP PROVIDING EXCLUSIVE CONTENT LIKE DLC FOR PREORDERS FOR THE RETAILERS LIKE GAMESTOP THAT ONLY EXIST DUE TO USED GAME SALES.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:36 am
by Forum
Even if Microsoft take out the always online, how do you justify paying the extra $100?
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:44 am
by Johnlenham
I like that its now being called the Xbone 180
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:52 am
by Reese_Liar
southstar wrote:Even if Microsoft take out the always online, how do you justify paying the extra $100?
Well the Xbone has Kinect included in the box, if you want the PS Eye that's an extra 59 bucks, so really the difference is not that big.
Of course, you could always argue that you don't need Kinect, but it seems to be a very integral part of Microsoft's plans.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:54 am
by Sexual_Chocolate
why would you want kinect though?
the whole concept behind it is just ridiculous.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:11 am
by mIrReN
"often loses customers"
only 2 drm games I've played are diablo 3 (because diablo 3) and LOL, when I see drm it's an instant "won't buy"
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:19 am
by Reese_Liar
Also, what the hell is up with people branding MS as the "moneygrubbing, evil corporate guys" and Sony as the "gamer-loving company"?
Both companies are about one thing: profit. They have different ways of achieving that but don't kid yourself into thinking one of them is more "on your side" than the other.
If they could fuck you over and take all your money with no repercussions, I'm pretty sure they both would.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:31 am
by Forum
Reese Liar wrote:Also, what the hell is up with people branding MS as the "moneygrubbing, evil corporate guys" and Sony as the "gamer-loving company"?
Sony isn't a US corporation is the most likely answer to that.
Stupid when Sony for decades made their money ripping people off with overpriced electronics
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:06 pm
by deadly_habit
Nevalo wrote:why would you want kinect though?
the whole concept behind it is just ridiculous.
The concept is solid, just the implementation has been horrid. Same with the Wii U controller, it has a ton of innovative potential, but it's being wasted on stupid things like maps or inventory like the DS's second screen.
Honestly I find the Oculus Rift much more interesting and innovative from a development standpoint, especially when it comes to immersion.
Reese Liar wrote:Also, what the hell is up with people branding MS as the "moneygrubbing, evil corporate guys" and Sony as the "gamer-loving company"?
Both companies are about one thing: profit. They have different ways of achieving that but don't kid yourself into thinking one of them is more "on your side" than the other.
If they could fuck you over and take all your money with no repercussions, I'm pretty sure they both would.
Sony have better PR.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:24 pm
by NilsFG
Reese Liar wrote:
southstar wrote:Even if Microsoft take out the always online, how do you justify paying the extra $100?
Well the Xbone has Kinect included in the box, if you want the PS Eye that's an extra 59 bucks, so really the difference is not that big.
Of course, you could always argue that you don't need Kinect, but it seems to be a very integral part of Microsoft's plans.
The xbone's specs are lower than the specs of the PS4. So you're paying more for less.
And after you bought an xbone you still need to pay for online gaming. Which should essentially be a 'free' feature of the console not a subscription based feature.
Those extra television features it has don't really look worth it and if you live outside of the US you probably won't be able to fully enjoy those features anyways.
I'm not a console gamer myself but I have no idea why anyone would still buy an xbone.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:29 pm
by Reese_Liar
^ To be fair, you'll have to pay for PS Plus to play online on the PS4 as well, so it's not like Sony have an edge there
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:37 pm
by NilsFG
Really? Now that's a dickmove on Sony's part.
Basicly all the discussions about the next gen have made me realise one thing; consoles are just devices to fuck over gamers.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:50 pm
by hugh
it is true that it is indeed a bit of a myth to say illegal downloads are "lost sales".
Most people just flat out would never/try experience the product at all if they couldn't get it for free.
I used to download cracked games and mp3s etc all the time when I was younger, simply cos I couldn't pay for them.
Now I am older and can actually afford things, I pay for everything.
I think this is the case for a lot of people.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:36 pm
by Sexual_Chocolate
NilsFG wrote:Really? Now that's a dickmove on Sony's part.
Basicly all the discussions about the next gen have made me realise one thing; consoles are just devices to fuck over gamers.
while i agree with that last part, at least its only $5 a month (which i dont mind, as hopefully it will help iron out sonys online problems)
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:03 am
by pkay
Nevalo wrote:why would you want kinect though?
the whole concept behind it is just ridiculous.
yes its so ridiculous . comedy friend
motion sensing/tracking can do insane things
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:12 am
by pkay
NilsFG wrote:
Reese Liar wrote:
southstar wrote:Even if Microsoft take out the always online, how do you justify paying the extra $100?
Well the Xbone has Kinect included in the box, if you want the PS Eye that's an extra 59 bucks, so really the difference is not that big.
Of course, you could always argue that you don't need Kinect, but it seems to be a very integral part of Microsoft's plans.
The xbone's specs are lower than the specs of the PS4. So you're paying more for less.
And after you bought an xbone you still need to pay for online gaming. Which should essentially be a 'free' feature of the console not a subscription based feature.
Those extra television features it has don't really look worth it and if you live outside of the US you probably won't be able to fully enjoy those features anyways.
I'm not a console gamer myself but I have no idea why anyone would still buy an xbone.
The PS3 had better technical specs than the 360 at launch and far more features.... and while there are quite a few good PS3 games, lets be real... the ps3 fucking sucked
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:19 am
by Sexual_Chocolate
pkay wrote:
Nevalo wrote:why would you want kinect though?
the whole concept behind it is just ridiculous.
yes its so ridiculous . comedy friend
motion sensing/tracking can do insane things
yea, because microsoft are gonna be doing anything like than in the near future.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:25 am
by sigbowls
someones going to create a gamepad that will work on every thing ps4, xbox1, pc and wiiu and make loads of money
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:32 am
by Sexual_Chocolate
this was 6 days ago.
wap wah microsoft... wap wah.
Re: Xbox one
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:11 am
by NilsFG
pkay wrote:
NilsFG wrote:
Reese Liar wrote:
southstar wrote:Even if Microsoft take out the always online, how do you justify paying the extra $100?
Well the Xbone has Kinect included in the box, if you want the PS Eye that's an extra 59 bucks, so really the difference is not that big.
Of course, you could always argue that you don't need Kinect, but it seems to be a very integral part of Microsoft's plans.
The xbone's specs are lower than the specs of the PS4. So you're paying more for less.
And after you bought an xbone you still need to pay for online gaming. Which should essentially be a 'free' feature of the console not a subscription based feature.
Those extra television features it has don't really look worth it and if you live outside of the US you probably won't be able to fully enjoy those features anyways.
I'm not a console gamer myself but I have no idea why anyone would still buy an xbone.
The PS3 had better technical specs than the 360 at launch and far more features.... and while there are quite a few good PS3 games, lets be real... the ps3 fucking sucked
Yeah it sucked. 360 sucked too; if it didn't RRoD and you could actually play it.
PS4 and xbone will probably suck too, but if it was up to me I would get the one that's $100 cheaper.
