I know my Gamefly subscription would be pretty much ruined on that console.
I know my Gamefly subscription would be pretty much ruined on that console.
Gamefly will adapt, or it will go under. It may find a way to work out a distribution/licensing deal with Microsoft or publishers.
When I bought my Xbox 360, it had been out for about two years. I bought it and about 6 pre-owned games to get me started. I bought some DLC for those prowned games.
This iteration is going to try and kill the secondhand market by charging a fee just to play a game? That's vindictive, that punishes consumers.
Why does it strike you as unreasonable of them to charge a fee to play a game?
Especially given the reasons that have been provided in this thread?
I know my Gamefly subscription would be pretty much ruined on that console.Gamefly will adapt, or it will go under. It may find a way to work out a distribution/licensing deal with Microsoft or publishers.
Or Microsoft could stop being asshats. That would be my preferred solution.
Why does it strike you as unreasonable of them to charge a fee to play a game?
Seriously? It only takes about 3 seconds of thought.
How many things do you borrow in your life? Pencils, sugar, tasting someone else' meal, and so on. All of these are common things that make life go smoother for everyone.
Likewise, so is letting a friends borrow a DVD or game or book and them returning the favor somewhere down the line.
This takes that whole concept, throws it to the ground, and then stomps on its nuts repeatedly until there's nothing but chunky salsa left.
Especially given the reasons that have been provided in this thread?
Forgive me if I missed something, but the only "reason" you provided is that "You don't really own the product" which in no way explains your question ("Why is it unreasonable?").
Your reasons explain why it is legal, yes. But not in any way why it is REASONABLE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they have. The proliferation of middleware engines is evidence of this. The reality is that producing bleeding-edge titles requires a crap-load of man-hours, many of those spent invested in the development of new engines to take advantage of ever-developing hardware capabilities.Yeah, I'm definitely out on this gen of consoles if that is where they're going. I've been finding them less interesting the past couple years and the lack of a used game market is the nail in the coffin for my interest.
Scott, restrictions on reselling have regularly been struck down in the courts. Instead of focusing on how to protect their precious profits, companies should be investing in new technology that reduces the man hours needed to make a video game.
That's the real problem for the industry IMO. They've increased the polygons on models, but they haven't figured out a way to streamline the process and make their programming time more efficient.
Let me see if I have this right.
I claim games are too expensive because they require too many man hours.
No, you said that video game companies were spending too many man-hours because they refused to invest in lowering the labor requirements for producing new games. I agreed that they're spending a lot of man-hours, but I pointed out that this is primarily because it takes a lot of man-hours to produce a modern, bleeding-edge game, and that game developers are already spending a lot of money on middleware products that reduce the amount of labor they need to put into a new title.
If they could reduce the amount of time and money it takes to make games, they would. They're not stupid. Making bleeding-edge games requires developing new technologies, and that's an expensive process - moreso today than ever before.
I like how you still told me I'm wrong, and then cite the exact same problem.
The man hours for video games is going up, nearly exponentially. The cost of video game development has also risen exponentially. It's nearly quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and again from 2006 to 2010.
People make bad choices all the time. They even do it when they're really smart, and when there's a lot of people looking at the same thing.
Trying to control the second hand market is not the answer. It's a short term fix for a long term problem, and it is clearly not in the consumer's interest. There is zero benefit to me, either as a buyer or seller, that they want a cut of second hand sales. Supply and demand tells us they're going to lower demand, because the price goes up. Since you can't recoup money from your purchases by selling them, that means less money to buy new games.
Meanwhile, in 5 years, the development cost of a game will probably exceed $100 million.
Killing the used market is not going to increase sales by 500% over the next 5 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like so many other threads, I find myself understanding what Scott says and why he says it, but being completely turned off by *how* he says it (whether I disagree or not). :P
Seriously? It only takes about 3 seconds of thought.
How many things do you borrow in your life? Pencils, sugar, tasting someone else' meal, and so on. All of these are common things that make life go smoother for everyone.
Likewise, so is letting a friends borrow a DVD or game or book and them returning the favor somewhere down the line.
You haven't answered the question: Why is it unreasonable of them to charge a fee to play a game?
Forgive me if I missed something, but the only "reason" you provided is that "You don't really own the product" which in no way explains your question ("Why is it unreasonable?").
Your reasons explain why it is legal, yes. But not in any way why it is REASONABLE.
I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to require payment of those who enjoy something they produced. Do I need to explain why I believe that is reasonable? I hope I don't, but I will if it's confusing you.
Like so many other threads, I find myself understanding what Scott says and why he says it, but being completely turned off by *how* he says it (whether I disagree or not). :P
You're only turned off because you can't see me typing all this out. I can do such naughty things with a keyboard.
Meanwhile, in 5 years, the development cost of a game will probably exceed $100 million.
Killing the used market is not going to increase sales by 500% over the next 5 years.
I don't think anyone expects that wiping out the used game market will single-handedly cause sales to increase by 500% in 5 years, so why pretend that's what they're thinking?
developers developers developers developers
It isn't a real party until Ballmer shows up.
I saw someone claim it doesn't have to be always online.
Has there been a confirmation of that, because I have seen implications of the contrary.
Then again, I never bought an Xbox nor a 360, and Xbox One isn't on my to-buy list either way!
|
Scott you tend to believe in the permanency of Monopolies.No, I believe in the probability of industry giants remaining industry giants (Microsoft is, at this point, a pretty ideal illustration of exactly what a monopoly isn't).
Microsoft is going the way of WoTC.Are you under the impression that WotC is struggling?
Because you'd be very wrong.
I am under the impression that Microsoft and WoTC are rapidly loosing market share in a field they once unquestionably dominated because they don't seem capable of adjusting to the time and are holding on to preconceptions of old markets.
Show me how I'm wrong. :)
Scott you tend to believe in the permanency of Monopolies.No, I believe in the probability of industry giants remaining industry giants (Microsoft is, at this point, a pretty ideal illustration of exactly what a monopoly isn't).
Microsoft is going the way of WoTC.Are you under the impression that WotC is struggling?
Because you'd be very wrong.
I am under the impression that Microsoft and WoTC are rapidly loosing market share in a field they once unquestionably dominated because they don't seem capable of adjusting to the time and are holding on to preconceptions of old markets.
Show me how I'm wrong. :)
I'd love to see him try...
I don't think anyone expects that wiping out the used game market will single-handedly cause sales to increase by 500% in 5 years, so why pretend that's what they're thinking?Meanwhile, in 5 years, the development cost of a game will probably exceed $100 million.
Killing the used market is not going to increase sales by 500% over the next 5 years.
Simple yes/no will suffice: are they going after the used game market to increase profits?
Follow up question: which do you think eats into their profits more, the used game market or the 400% increase in development costs every 5 years?
|
|
I don't think anyone expects that wiping out the used game market will single-handedly cause sales to increase by 500% in 5 years, so why pretend that's what they're thinking?Meanwhile, in 5 years, the development cost of a game will probably exceed $100 million.
Killing the used market is not going to increase sales by 500% over the next 5 years.
Simple yes/no will suffice: are they going after the used game market to increase profits?
Follow up question: which do you think eats into their profits more, the used game market or the 400% increase in development costs every 5 years?
Better question is "Why will I buy a console that I have to pay extra to use games I've already paid for, when other consoles with the same titles don't charge me"
Answer? I won't.
Xbox One apologists....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Seriously though it's terrible. Its like they hate video games. All those features that gamers don't cares about or hate. I'm not sure who target audience is but its certainly not gamers. First generation of consoles I not enthusiastic about. In fact I dread the next generation. I wish the next video game crash comes soon.
|
I really don't want to pay a crazy amount of money for a glorified remote control for my TV, oh and, yeah, it can play video games too.
It's a freaking video game console! VIDEO GAME. Once you loose the video game centric part of the console, it completely looses the appeal. I don't need another remote. I have one, next to me.
I'm actually more sad about what I heard Namco Bandai say about Dark Souls 2...
If they sell me a license, I'm not going to buy. As simple as that.
Im pretty sure you said you were a PC game first and foremost. I find it add that a PC gamer would be bothered by this at all seeing as any time you have ever bought a PC game, or any software for that matter, you have really only bought a license for the game even if you bought a physical disk. Why is it so bad that they are adapting that model to consoles?
Last night’s X-Box announcement, as spread across the gaming part of the Internet:
1) Rubbish and confusing name.
2) TV media guff.
3) New Remedy game.
4) Musings on ramifications of new console for second-hand sales and backwards compatibility.
5) New CALL OF DUTY game, dull it’s just another OHMYGODIT’SGOTADOGINIT.
6) Dogdogdogdogdog!
7) Dog meme gifs commence.
8) Dog gets own Twitter account*.
9) Rest of world looks on in bewilderment.
* https://twitter.com/CollarDuty
I'm not sure who target audience is but its certainly not gamers.
Indeed. As that 'famous publisher anonymous spokesperson' on Kotaku said a few months ago, no-one is targeting hardcore gamers any more because they do not exist in numbers to be massively bankable. Casual people who'll buy four games a year (basically the new FIFA, the new CALL OF DUTY and maybe two other games that catch their eye) are where it's at, as that's where the 30-million-sales-per-title come from. Even the games which sell 2-3 million in their first month are now regarded as somewhat disappointing (see TOMB RAIDER and even MASS EFFECT 3). For the big publishers, it's got to be insaneo sales from the off or they're not interested.
To be fair, Sony have played a better game of emphasising the games first, the other features second. Microsoft have gone the other way around. The result of this this is that Microsoft have gotten the attention of non-gamers (which Sony didn't really do) but possibly alienated their base. Whilst the hardcore gamers can't be the sole target audience for any AAA title any more, they're still the people who get out and buy the new consoles at full price on Day 1, and Sony appears to have done better at wooing them. Microsoft can reverse that if its game line-up is superior, though so far both companies look like they're not exactly going to have lots of games out for the machines. 15 XB1 games by the end of 2014? Doesn't seem a lot.
Not sure how this will affect my gaming future. I gave up on PC games after too many experiences buying a game I THOUGHT would run on my machine, but then wouldn't unless I paid to upgrade something or other--consoles made each game purchase 'safe' technologically. But I don't want to pay ongoing fees to access a game, I want to own it (which is why I'm purchasing Skyrim Legendary Edition, and wish that all the Mass Effect DLC was available on disc). As to making back some $$$ by reselling games I'm done with, the return is not enough to be a factor. And as to buying used from the secondary market, the decision to buy would ultimately be affected by final price point (I do like Gamestop's 'window of return' policy, so I can evaluate my purchase).
You haven't answered the question: Why is it unreasonable of them to charge a fee to play a game?
I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to require payment of those who enjoy something they produced. Do I need to explain why I believe that is reasonable? I hope I don't, but I will if it's confusing you.
Because the fee has already been paid by the original purchaser. This is not a difficult concept.
Do you REALLY not see why stamping out the act of borrowing is a bad move?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You haven't answered the question: Why is it unreasonable of them to charge a fee to play a game?
I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to require payment of those who enjoy something they produced. Do I need to explain why I believe that is reasonable? I hope I don't, but I will if it's confusing you.
Because the fee has already been paid by the original purchaser. This is not a difficult concept.
Do you REALLY not see why stamping out the act of borrowing is a bad move?
You're talking to a guy who doesn't like libraries.
Because the fee has already been paid by the original purchaser. This is not a difficult concept.
Do you REALLY not see why stamping out the act of borrowing is a bad move?
I believe Scott's point is that the game publishers believe that EVERYONE, in whatever context, should pay to sample the game they have produced (or rather a sub-developer probably working too many hours for not enough money has produced), even if that is simply borrowing a game from a friend.
Technologically, previously this was impractical so it was not enforced (although it was also the law then, all that spiel before the game or DVD booted up). Now it is, so they are enforcing it. Based on the experiences of other formats (the DRM wars on PC), the publishers know that lots of people will moan about this, but the number who do and then boycott their products will be negligible. A lot of other people will moan their heads off and then nuckle under and hand over their money.
I agree that it's ideologically and philosophically a bad move, not in the spirit of the idea of purchasing a product and not in keeping with precedent. But it's something they are going to do, and the only thing that's going to stop them is legal action. In fact, it may have already done so: Microsoft were musing not having any resale capability at all until the EU courts told them that would not fly.
On a purely practical basis, a lot of gamers no longer buy games new because they know they can wait 3 weeks and pick it up second-hand. When they buy the game second-hand, none of the revenue goes back to the original developers, who spent years making the thing. We keep hearing about how the gaming business isn't making money, but in real terms it is, just that not enough (from their POV) of the money is going back to the developers. This is an attempt to change that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't really have a horse in this race at the moment, I do find it fascinating that about the time the XB1 press conference ended there was a decrease (not a lot but still visible on the charts) in microsoft's stock price and a uptick (again not sizable but still noticeable) in sony's stock price. Add that to the fact that Microsoft opened almost a full percent down from where it opened yesterday, and you have a potential indicator on whom Wall St thinks is in the lead right now.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott isn't wrong about the terms of service. He's wrong about such restrictions being enforcable in a practical and profitable way, and people being interested in the cost benefit.
Technically you can't play old XBox games now without a sanctioned XBox expansion hard drive. Practically you can do so with minimal effort and a little internet searching.
The question is if the price point is worthwhile to the effort. At this point I largely have an XBox to play used games. I have owned once for years and think I've bought one new game, and had one new game bought for me. I would use it to watch Netflix, but I'm not paying a secondary subscription fee when I have a Wii that lets me do it for free. And while I do use my X-Box to purchase movies that aren't on Netflix on occasion, that is a good service they provide that hits a price point, it is only because there is no monthly fee to do so.
XBox got me to buy an XBox because of the secondary game market. If I could not buy cheap used games, I would not have bought an XBox.
This is the mistake they are making.
For the same reason Game of Thrones is the most pirated show, X-Box is making a mistake with the used game plan. You are missing out on making money from a large market for fear of lost revenue from a small market.
Jailbreak aside, if I have to buy new games or pay a fee, I'm not buying a new X-Box. New games are too expensive for my casual interest. My price point is not as high as the hardcore gamer who wants to play it first. And I have a pretty good income, own a house, etc...
But I did buy an X-Box before. I could buy one again. But at the moment I have pretty much no interest.
If I can't get games within my price point, Why buy one? If my current library becomes incompatible, why "upgrade"? If the shift is going to be toward secondary subscription, and I can get that same service without a secondary subscription...
Particularly if I am in the game console market and I can look at what steam is coming out with.
Did they learn nothing from the Simcity Debacle?
|
|
When I bought my Xbox 360, it had been out for about two years. I bought it and about 6 pre-owned games to get me started. I bought some DLC for those prowned games.
This iteration is going to try and kill the secondhand market by charging a fee just to play a game? That's vindictive, that punishes consumers.Why does it strike you as unreasonable of them to charge a fee to play a game?
Especially given the reasons that have been provided in this thread?
Unreasonable. Probably now.
Unlikely. Yes.
Why would I pay to drive on a toll road when there is a free one that runs parallel?
Why am I going to make a significant financial investment in a game system with an additional cost to use it, if I can purchase one that doesn't have this restriction?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another interesting fact that this debate has caused me to look into is the application of the First Sale Doctrine in the case of Video Game software.
The current interpretation (and that of the EU Supreme Court) appears to be is that due to the nature of the software in that it is sold (even if deemed a license) it is considered granted license for an unlimited time there by granting the owner of the physical media (provided the media acts as a limiting factor as in you need a copy to use it) the license is transferable by the owner along with the software.
The key factor in this is apparently two fold 1:The duration of use given by the license which is unlimited, and 2:The fact that possession of the media is required for use as a limiting agent.
Many major production software (Autodesk, Soldiworks, Microsoft Exchange etc) get around this by limiting the duration of the license others by the fact that there is no physical "locking" mechanism such as required media (once installed it can be used with no media in place, no so for console video games, PC and Downloadable games on the other hand...)
Now, if this new generation of consoles acts more like a Pc in that once the game is installed it can be played without media in the system then it removes the second qualification there by granting the licenser the ability to charge that "second install fee" to the licensee.
That is interesting indeed.
EDIT: And by reading further It appears that the EU decision pretty is pretty much based on point 1. That the term of the license is unlimited and and very little to do with the physical medium of transfer. The key is rather that the original owner no longer has the ability to use the software that was sold.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I have a dog in this fight. I'm a late adapater of consoles generally, and I finally broke down and bought a 360 a year ago. I'll probably get a PS4 before I get an Xbox (and I'll probably get a WiiU over a PS4 because I have young kids and always seem to fall for Nintendo despite myself).
I'm in a similar boat. The wife and I bought a Wii years ago, thinking it would be fun. We've hardly played it since the boy was born two years ago. By the time the next version comes out, I'm hoping Charlie will be old enough that I can get it for him.
I buy handhelds almost exclusively, I have two GBAs (an original style one I bought myself in high school, and one of the flip-open ones that was given to me by a moving-out roommate a few years ago) and a DS, and a 3DS is on the list of "things to get when I have cash to spare". Otherwise I'm a PC gamer. I've zero interest in the majority of titles on XBox (of any stripe) anyway.
I saw someone claim it doesn't have to be always online.
Has there been a confirmation of that, because I have seen implications of the contrary.
The most recent information we have is that the console doesn't need to be always-online for most activities, including games. For single player games, for instance, the console will reportedly only need to be connected once every 24 hours. Obviously online multiplayer gameplay will require maintaining an online connection.
In other words, as long as you have some kind of internet connection, you'll be fine even if it goes through an outage or three.
I currently own an xbox 360, with no kinect, I play a lot of games, some co op, but often I play single player games offline to avoid interruptions like chat messages and seeing people come and go online when I'm going for immersion.
(I'm aware the xboxone does not need to be online constantly)
Unless Microsoft has some amazing exclusives (I'll buy xboxone if it has an exclusive, good Tenchu game for example) then PS4 is speaking to my current wants/needs. I just don't want the non-optional features that Microsoft is presenting us with and I don't like their "just deal with it" tone. We'll express ourselves ultimately with our money.
I am under the impression that Microsoft and WoTC are rapidly loosing market share in a field they once unquestionably dominated because they don't seem capable of adjusting to the time and are holding on to preconceptions of old markets.
Let's deal with Microsoft, since I'd prefer not to have this devolve into another anti-WotC sweaty moshpit. Microsoft maintains a 90+% operating system market share - one that has declined less than 3% over the past five years. Their most recent video game console entry (the 360) is the best selling console of the generation, beating out the PS3. Indeed, this is a dramatic change from the previous generation, in which the PS2 dominated. If anything, generation-over-generation, Sony is the only one that can be said to be rapidly losing market share in a field they unquestionably dominated. Microsoft's console division is only two generations old, and they are now dominant (or, at the very least, leading).
In other words, there is precious little evidence that Microsoft is doing anything but great, and quite a bit of evidence that Sony is the company that needs a solid win this generation in order to continue to compete.
Simple yes/no will suffice: are they going after the used game market to increase profits?
Probably.
Follow up question: which do you think eats into their profits more, the used game market or the 400% increase in development costs every 5 years?
If I had to guess, it would be the latter.
Are you saying that they cannot focus on both? Obviously they believe that the used game market is a significant untapped source of revenue, or they wouldn't be pursuing it. Why are you insistent on them focusing only on a single cost factor?
Xbox One apologists....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Oooooooooookay .
Seriously though it's terrible. Its like they hate video games. All those features that gamers don't cares about or hate.
I'm a gamer. I love Kinect. I use my 360 as a media center. Hell, I even like watching basketball towards the end of the season.
But please, continue speaking on my behalf like you're the authority.
I'm not sure who target audience is but its certainly not gamers. First generation of consoles I not enthusiastic about. In fact I dread the next generation. I wish the next video game crash comes soon.
Sounds like you're in for some sad times, then.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their most recent video game console entry (the 360) is the best selling console of the generation, beating out the PS3.
...In the US.
Worldwide the PS3 wins by about a million units.
Because the fee has already been paid by the original purchaser.
Okay. So, hypothetically, if I make a game and there are 20 people in my potential market, and you buy a copy, does that mean you have the right to give that game to nine other people once you're finished with it, eliminating half of my potential market? Do you have the right to give it to 14 people? All 19 other people? What portion of my potential market do I have the right to actually sell my game experience to, versus the portion of the market that you have the right to give my game experience to for free? And, if you are going to give it away for free, should I just start charging you more? If I know that you'll probably lend it to four other people to fully enjoy, should I charge you $300 for it?
This is not a difficult concept.
It sure must seem simple to you. That's not a good thing.
You're talking to a guy who doesn't like libraries.
On the contrary, I love libraries.
Some of by best friends are libraries.
Their most recent video game console entry (the 360) is the best selling console of the generation, beating out the PS3....In the US.
Worldwide the PS3 wins by about a million units.
I'm seeing conflicting figures that put the PS3 at either 70 million or (an estimated) 77 million worldwide sales, and figures that put the 360 at 77.2 million worldwide sales.
So I'm not sure anyone knows which console has sold more at this exact moment. It is, however, abundantly clear that the last few years have been exceptionally good to Microsoft's console division, and that this generation represents a fall from glory for Sony's.
What portion of my potential market do I have the right to actually sell my game experience to, versus the portion of the market that you have the right to give my game experience to for free?
You have the right to try to sell it to anyone you wish to.
You do not have the right to expect people to buy it.
This is, forgive me if I'm mistaken, how Capitalism works, no? You have no right to expect profit, you only have the right to try and sell most anything you wish to most audiences you wish to.
I'm seeing conflicting figures that put the PS3 at either 70 million or (an estimated) 77 million worldwide sales, and figures that put the 360 at 77.2 million worldwide sales.
These figures I'm thinking of are from January, but I'm fairly certain the PS3 has kept a slight lead since.
So I'm not sure anyone knows which console has sold more at this exact moment. It is, however, abundantly clear that the last few years have been exceptionally good to Microsoft's console division, and that this generation represents a fall from glory for Sony's.
I'm not sure that being neck and neck with your competitor throughout the entire lifecycle represents that much of a "fall from glory". It's unreasonable to expect to have a commanding lead with every product you put out.
That's true - at the same time, one certainly can object to the practice of selling licenses, rather than games, especially given that there hasn't been any sort of reduction in price in return for the purchase now providing an inferior product.
That's not entirely true, but I get where you're coming from.
I think, however, that the equation changes dramatically when you look at the current state of PC gaming. Not only have prices dropped (through abundant digital distribution service discounts like Steam's sales events), but the product itself has arguably improved, with community features, the obviated need to keep track of physical media, and the ability to purchase and play a game within minutes without ever leaving your chair. It has become really convenient to be a PC gamer in the last five or six years.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has become really convenient to be a PC gamer in the last five or six years.
Which is why it's all the more baffling that Microsoft is trying to make console gaming more INconvenient.
You have the right to try to sell it to anyone you wish to.
You do not have the right to expect people to buy it.
Do I have the right to expect people to have purchased it from me in order to enjoy it? If I don't have that right, then what is your argument against one of my customers just putting my game up on the internet for everyone to download for free?
I'm not sure that being neck and neck with your competitor throughout the entire lifecycle represents that much of a "fall from glory". It's unreasonable to expect to have a commanding lead with every product you put out.
Going from 75% market share to 40% market share in six or seven years is a pretty steep decline. Particularly since you were the one who claimed that Microsoft was "rapidly" losing its OS market share (when, in reality, it's dropped by maybe 5% in the past eight years).
So does Microsoft's 5% drop qualify as rapidly losing market share like you claimed? And, if so, what do you call Sony's 35% drop?
It has become really convenient to be a PC gamer in the last five or six years.Which is why it's all the more baffling that Microsoft is trying to make console gaming more INconvenient.
I don't think they are. In fact, they said they were implementing a way for you to sell licenses back, or to other people, online, once you're done with them. That strikes me as incredibly convenient. I've never sold one of my games back to a retailer in my entire life, but if I could get a few bucks for the license once I'm done with the game without having to drive over to a GameStop, I'd have little reason not to.
Do I have the right to expect people to have purchased it from me in order to enjoy it?
No.
If I don't have that right, then what is your argument against one of my customers just putting my game up on the internet for everyone to download for free?
If your product was worth spending money on, people would buy it in order to see more good products from you.
Yes, it requires a bit of trust in both your product's merit and the consumers, but it's been pretty well proven in recent years that taking drastic measures to prevent piracy is only going to make more people pirate out of spite if nothing else.
And if you decide to apply similar measures to simple borrowing as well, it will likely have a similar effect.
Yes, supposedly you are losing 3/4 of your profits if I buy one copy and lend it to three friends.
That's still better than you losing 100% of your profits by me not buying it at all, especially since the 3 friends I lent it to obviously weren't interested enough in the game to spend money on it in the first place, or they would have bought it.
So does Microsoft's 5% drop qualify as rapidly losing market share like you claimed?
When did I claim this?
I don't think they are. In fact, they said they were implementing a way for you to sell licenses back, or to other people, online, once you're done with them. That strikes me as incredibly convenient. I've never sold one of my games back to a retailer in my entire life, but if I could get a few bucks for the license once I'm done with the game without having to drive over to a GameStop, I'd have little reason not to.
While that is nice (though I don't often trade in games either, I simply keep them or give them away), convenience in one aspect at best only partially balances out inconvenience in another aspect. Now, if they do allow for a digital transfer of rights to another person (the "deactivate and pass on" thing Alceste just mentioned) much of my complaint about this would go away.
|
|
My two cents:
1. The ability to loan out games to my friends is important. Microsoft did say that they would have some method to allow you to deactivate and give. I will wait and see on this.
2. The console phoning home once a day is not that big of a deal. This phoning home is real similar to Steam. Steam pretty much requires a check in once in awhile or everything stops working.
3. Backward compatibility is going to be available through Sony's cloud (repurchase games?). I would like to see Microsoft supply something similar. Otherwise, this is a big plus for Sony.
4. The Kinetic being part of the base unit affects price and controls. I am not a Kinetic fan, except for voice commands. The inclusion of Kinetic in the base unit is not a real positive or negative.