XBOX Next-Gen -> Anti-used-game technology?

[Icarus]

Just glanced at this at Redmond Pie, and the snippet itself is doing the rounds on gaming and tech news sites. Apparently, MS is considering implementing something into the next-gen XBOX that will make it difficult/costly to play used or borrowed games - a variation on the current online-pass system perhaps, that will tie a purchase to a user account near-permanently.
http://kotaku.com/5879439/why-an-xbox-w ... fect-sense
Can't see me investing in the next gen systems at this rate, if it's going to drive up the costs of buying used games. -_-;;

[Gus]

Devs like making money off their hard work shocker

[Friendly]

I've been buying video games for over 20 years, but if/when companies take away my rights (first sale doctrine, my right to transfer ownership of things I own), then I will stop giving them my money.
They think their products are somehow special, and unlike movies, music, books and everything else on this planet should not be resold because they don't get a cut. Not because it's their moral right, but because they can.
They don't understand that an economy is a cycle: Most people have a limited budget. If people can't resell goods (and that's what games are, goods, not services), then they will have less money to buy new games. If people are prevented from selling a game they don't enjoy, they will be more hesitant to buy another game next time. These comapines fail to understand how business works and that they are actually hurting themselves. Greed kills brains.

A secondary market has never hurt anything. On the contrary, it gives consumers more money to buy new things. Used books have been sold for millennia and it didn't kill the market for new books.

By artificially crippling used games and reducing their resale value (as they are doing now with "online passes"), they are effectively stealing money from the consumers. They charge you full price for a product that doesn't come with full rights. This is bad practice and should not be supported. Online passes make no sense: Unlike illegal copies, used games don't increase the number of players. Each sold game can only be played online by one person at a time. The required online infrastructure does not change just because a game changes hands as the number of players remains constant.

Why should they be paid twice for the same product? They already got money for each used game: When it was sold the first time, before it became used.

I refuse to buy goods that curb my rights and so should you. Rewarding companies for grossly immoral behaviour sends the wrong signal.

PS.
For the collectors and fans of retro-gaming among us: Imagine the video game industry would have been like this from the start. Then you wouldn't be enjoying (m)any old games right now (unless you happened to buy them when they were new), and the ones you would have would be crippled, with levels and features missing. The same will happen to future collectors of modern games (DLC, online/download passes, locked out content).

[maxlords]

It was only a matter of time. And they can do whatever they want with their product. I'd be willing to bet that if they do it, it falls under fair use. That being said, I'm unliely to invest heavily in such a system. I'm not ENTIRELY against it....cause I like playing current gen games and I di think that people should buy the damned things, but I'd be VERY unlikely to buy many, that's for damn sure. I think they'd lose more money than they would gain...and good gods..what a target for hackers that would be! The second that thing got cracked.... lol

I'd be willing to bet they're considering it as much to get sales back from places like EB as to curb piracy.

Also....who ever pirated books until recently when they went digital? Pretty uncommon I would think. Completely different market...there are no comparisons there.

[Udderdude]

It's almost like they're begging to have the current videogame market crash again.

[Gus]

I refuse to buy goods that curb my rights and so should you. Rewarding companies for grossly immoral behaviour sends the wrong signal.

The music/movie industry comparisons actually seem to work against you. I mean just look at how hard they try to deal with pirates. I also think the used market presents a much bigger problem than in movies or music as people don't tend to keep games around so they can rewatch or relisten to them. We live in a market dominated by AAA blockbuster titles that have people buying them, "completing" them, then immediately turning around and reselling them so they can be bought by an entire section of people who've learned to wait several weeks and get the game at a used price all the while giving no money at all to the publisher. You can argue morals and all that but at the end of the day it has a similar effect on the publisher's ability to make money as piracy so it comes as no surprise to me that they would want to curtail it.

Also to continue the music/movie industry comparisons and to respond to your complaints about the online pass thing just look at the whole DRM business or even how MS gets away with charging people $60 to be able to play online. Yeah, it's horrible but it's really just something that people will come to accept and in the long run assist in the company's ability to make money. EA hardly deserves to be the only one treated like the devil. It's just greedy corporations being greedy corporations.

[Udderdude]

I also think the used market presents a much bigger problem than in movies or music as people don't tend to keep games around so they can rewatch or relisten to them. We live in a market dominated by AAA blockbuster titles that have people buying them, "completing" them, then immediately turning around and reselling them so they can be bought by an entire section of people who've learned to wait several weeks and get the game at a used price all the while giving no money at all to the publisher.

They could make games that aren't multi-million dollar throwaway weekend fodder .. nah, that'd take actual effort >_>

[DragonInstall]

Eh. I'm already pretty selective about what game I buy. Guess I'll have to be even more selective.

Wouldn't this kill gamestop?

Although this would have some public backlash, I think this practice would create a buttload more money for devs.

[Jeneki]

I'd be more inclined to believe this if it got reported from a, how shall we say, less sensationalist website.

That said, if this does happen it would likely only change the timing of when I buy. I can't sell any games I bought on Steam, but when I only buy during a sale and pay $1-10 for a full game in the first place, I really don't feel any need to "recover my costs". If they don't react to the market and discount games accordingly, no big loss, I already have a big enough backlog to last me for years.

It would pretty much kill any chance of using such a system in my public game room events though, since I rely on people bringing in games for everyone to play.

[Friendly]

to curb piracy

Are we living in the same plane of reality? If anything, this will make people turn to piracy, understandably and predictably so.
Piracy is immoral, but creating goods that are damaged by design is no less immoral. As simple logic dictates, this will make piracy increase, not decrease. People don't usually react well to being punished for being honest, and that's what anti-used-game technology is doing.

Anyway, this isn't really related to piracy all; I don't know where you got that from.

[Gus]

It's related to piracy because both services support the industry to a similar degree. (not at all)

[Friendly]

I also think the used market presents a much bigger problem

Re-read my above post. I think you didn't quite get the economy cycle thing. Contrary to the corporate brain-farts that have been inserted into your head, used games are no problem.

This is the problem: Creating games that are sold for 50-60 USD/EUR and that offer 5 hours of gameplay, after which there is no point in keeping them unless you are a hoarder/collector.

[Udderdude]

The end result will be more piracy, less people playing games and thus less incentive for people to buy and continue to play more games.

Meh. Let them dig their own graves, I'm really starting to not care >_>

[Friendly]

It's related to piracy because both services support the industry to a similar degree. (not at all)

Is it really that hard to grasp? Re-read my above post. Every used game was at one point a new game that the company which sold it earned money with.
By selling it, the consumer who originally bought it can recoup part of his investment, which can then be used towards purchasing more new games. If he can't get any money back this way, he will have less to spend on new games. =the companies will earn less.

How many 60 USD / 5H gameplay games a year do you think people will buy if they can't resell them? More or less than before?

[burgerkingdiamond]

Completely sickening. This along with moving more and more towards digital distribution just makes me sad.

If companies were making interesting games with replay value that people would want to keep around for longer than the weekend it takes to finish them then maybe the resale market wouldn't be so strong. People still play NES, Genesis, SNES. Thats 20+ years of replay value. Do you think people are going to be playing Gears of War in 20 years? I don't..

[maxlords]

I'm NOT arguing for this move. Don't get me wrong...I'm not in favor of it. That being said, this is ALL about piracy and control of one's copyrights, as well as making money by being the primary seller of an item. This is a business move pure and simple. And it makes PERFECT sense in that respect. It has a two-fold purpose; Be the only one making money off of your product, and prevent people from sharing it with others. No one can rent your games this way, no one can undercut you and sell them cheaper used. They have to be purchased new.

Companies are losing a SHIT-TON of money to rental stores and places like EB. A rental store buys ONE copy at retail for example....and profiteers off of it over and over and over again. This has been acceptable for years, but the companies had no way to combat it. Digital distribution and online passes give them the ability to fight that loss. Essentially rental stores are like leeches, sucking away the profits from the company that made the item, while producing nothing of their own. Downloading is killing all the rental stores now...there are hardly any left in my area. Same goes for EB who sells the new product, but then buys it back from almost everyone at a ridiculously low cut-rate price, then resells it again over and over for $5 under retail. Most people will spend a little less if they can, especially in this economy, EB provides no real service, other than giving credit towards other purchases, and profiteers TREMENDUOUSLY off of this practice. And with every used copy sold retail in this manner, the company loses a bit more profit. It adds up to millions in lost sales in each instance. Millions that might fund better games or keep companies in business longer.

On top of that, assuming a system isn't cracked, and/or if it is, it's not easy to crack (such as the PS3), piracy becomes a minimal issue. With online passes and DLC only content, companies can control this too. Sure it sucks, but we've been getting this shit for free for YEARS! If you were making it, watching that money NOT come in, wouldn't you want to be able to say "Oh, we can put a stop to that now...so we will!"? Of course you would. This is not a case of companies shitting on the little guy. This is a case of them protecting their legitimate interests. Anyone that's complaining about this, knowing full well how much it costs to make a modern game as well as what broadband internet and used sales do to the market is an idiot. No offense to Friendly here, but those responses are a knee-jerk reaction of "hey, but I'm entitled, this is how things have always been....who are you to change them?" It's not realistic in this day and age.

To address burgerkingdiamond's comments as well...yes, this is sickening. Yes, replay value is something we've grown accustomed to. Yes, people are still playing those old classics. But overall, companies aren't making money off of them anymore. If you keep all your old systems like most of us collectors and hard-core gamers, how does that benefit the company in ANY way? It doesn't. It's an outmoded business model. The exact same thing we saw happen with the automobile is now happening with video games. Cars were built like tanks for YEARS. You could get 20+ years out of a car properly maintained, and probably more. Then people in the car industry realized how long cars were lasting...and how people weren't buying the damn things fast enough to keep the companies afloat. They started introducing cheaper cars with plastic parts, making them more complex and harder to work on. They covered this by adding features, making them more fuel efficient, but only a little at a time, etc. People love vintage cars still, collect em still, but they have accepted that a car lasts around 5-8 years now. The goal of most car companies is for you to buy a new car every 3-5 years...and most people do. Same goes for gaming. We're getting shorter lived systems with more features, more compatibility, more of "everything people want". But our games aren't as replayable anymore. There aren't as many classics. Most games last around 5-8 hours. On a side note...most NES games are 3-5 hours long...it's just that they're harder And people still collect the classics....but they accept that gaming has moved on in the same way they accepted cars did. It's shitty, but that's how our economy works. All about the almighty buck. And as long as the vast majority go out and buy, it will never change.


WHEW! [/rant-tacular rant]

[burgerkingdiamond]

maxlords, that last paragraph about car's makes a lot of sense. I've never thought about that.

Anyway, this sucks, but I'm pretty jaded towards modern gaming anyway. And there's so much history that I haven't even checked out that I don't think I'll be missing much.

[neorichieb1971]

I'm all for giving my monies to companies to make more exciting products. However, if its only to make their shares go up in price you can bet I won't pay them a penny. I barely buy games at all at the moment so that penny isn't much more than I'm giving them now

Shareholding companies are the devil at work. They force financial efficiency to the point of breaking point and that in itself suffocates any creativity or risk taking. Which is why I don't buy games, because they all play roughly/or look the same.

then again, the baffoons out there want to play another 60 versions of GT, COD or Uncharted. Let them have it, I wouldn't pirate most of the games out there, let alone play them or buy them.

Part of me thinks the internet was designed with a 20 year free trial period. Soon enough it won't be free anymore. Even if you login you'll be paying for it.

[burgerkingdiamond]

I'm all for giving my monies to companies to make more exciting products. However, if its only to make their shares go up in price you can bet I won't pay them a penny. I barely buy games at all at the moment so that penny isn't much more than I'm giving them now

Shareholding companies are the devil at work. They force financial efficiency to the point of breaking point and that in itself suffocates any creativity or risk taking. Which is why I don't buy games, because they all play roughly/or look the same.

then again, the baffoons out there want to play another 60 versions of GT, COD or Uncharted. Let them have it, I wouldn't pirate most of the games out there, let alone play them or buy them.

Part of me thinks the internet was designed with a 20 year free trial period. Soon enough it won't be free anymore. Even if you login you'll be paying for it.

seriously. we're living in the Wild West version of the Intenet. At the current rate things will likely be a lot different in the future. Enjoy the freedom while we have it.

[njiska]

Rant

At the end of the day it all comes down to this. I like video games, but I'm a collector. There is no way I can afford to buy every single game new, but I do want to buy them down the line. If a console will prevent me from collecting for it, then I'm not going to invest any money in it at all. Online passes don't work when the service goes offline. Rarely do I believe in taking a moral stand, but I will not support this attempt to force an even more extreme digital ice age.

I spend a lot of money on games and that's money that won't be going to this bullshit.

[Friendly]

At the end of the day it all comes down to this. I like video games, but I'm a collector. There is no way I can afford to buy every single game new, but I do want to buy them down the line. If a console will prevent me from collecting for it, then I'm not going to invest any money in it at all. Online passes don't work when the service goes offline. Rarely do I believe in taking a moral stand, but I will not support this attempt to force an even more extreme digital ice age.

I spend a lot of money on games and that's money that won't be going to this bullshit.

Very well said, my point exactly.

PS.
So far I have spent 0 money on games that use online passes. I intend to keep it that way.

[Casper<3]

A few thoughts.:

1. I'm sure we'll see this tested on a current generation console with some triple a title that requires an unlock code just to play the campaign.

2. I think it's a lot less than "Piracy" (Note: most torrent sites reported that games weren't even in their top download searches in 2011) and more about the fact Microsoft and Sony are going to release a new system far before we/the economy are ready for it. Games already take millions of dollars and years of time. A more advanced system is going to sky rocket those costs. I imagine if game companies can't sell 500,000 copies of their game at 60$ a pop, they can't even justify putting it into production. We'll have no game companies.

3. I don't want a new console. I'm quite content with my current 360 (though I wish the previous dashboard was back) and the games that are currently being released. I've never been an early adopter of new consoles and with this move, there is even less incentive to be.

[njiska]

At the end of the day it all comes down to this. I like video games, but I'm a collector. There is no way I can afford to buy every single game new, but I do want to buy them down the line. If a console will prevent me from collecting for it, then I'm not going to invest any money in it at all. Online passes don't work when the service goes offline. Rarely do I believe in taking a moral stand, but I will not support this attempt to force an even more extreme digital ice age.

I spend a lot of money on games and that's money that won't be going to this bullshit.

Very well said, my point exactly.

PS.
So far I have spent 0 money on games that use online passes. I intend to keep it that way.

I've have bought some games with online passes, but usually they're ones where the pass is for true bonus content, like Alice: Madness returns, rather than barring online play.

[Skykid]

Terrible idea. They can shove their next-gen console up their next-gen ass.

[Davey]

maxlords, that last paragraph about car's makes a lot of sense.

Except it's the opposite of the truth: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/average- ... d=15406801

Anecdotally, I remember my dad, now in his mid-60's, telling me something that was mentioned article: "Baby Boomers and older generations are conditioned to think that cars start to fall apart after four or five years." He said it used to be a major milestone to hit 100k miles. Nowadays, I'd be disappointed if my car didn't last to 150k if properly maintained.

</offtopic>

As for people playing games like Gears of War in 20 years... assuming they have the capability, they sure will, if only for nostalgia. Although anything that relies on online multiplayer to be entertaining will probably die, of course. Some people still play NES games, but unless they're nostalgic or seeking terribad hilarity, they're probably ignoring the unplayable chaff (which constitutes like 90% of its library). I've been mostly out of the loop for the past two console generations, but I don't see why they won't see similar play in 20 years, assuming the hardware lasts that long (ha).

[Estebang]

The Vita already has a somewhat less evil version of this. You can use a game on any system, but it has to be connected to your account, so no lending games to a friend.

I'm sure whenever Gamestop begins selling used Vita games, they'll have to check to make sure they've been deactivated.

[burgerkingdiamond]

I feel sorry for people that will only have Gears of War to be nostalgic for.

[Davey]

Agreed, but...

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/inde ... ate=072211

[Herr Schatten]

Companies are losing a SHIT-TON of money to rental stores and places like EB.

Not nearly as much as they claim to, because for most people the alternative to renting a game or buying it used is not buying it new, but simply not owning it at all. Contrary to what the media industry seems to believe, you can't force anyone to buy you product. You simply can't.

In fact, this is the central error in reasoning that makes so-called anti-piracy measures based on it look so depressingly idiotic.

[maxlords]

maxlords, that last paragraph about car's makes a lot of sense.

Except it's the opposite of the truth: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/average- ... d=15406801

Anecdotally, I remember my dad, now in his mid-60's, telling me something that was mentioned article: "Baby Boomers and older generations are conditioned to think that cars start to fall apart after four or five years." He said it used to be a major milestone to hit 100k miles. Nowadays, I'd be disappointed if my car didn't last to 150k if properly maintained.

</offtopic>

Well, I work for one of the largest car companies on the planet in a production factory and honestly, they still proceed on that notion. Whether it reflects reality or not, that's the standard that they're TRYING to reach, and that was the original intent of redesigning cars. The statements I made are ones that I've been given in training and by management within my company. They are also some of the reasons the car companies are where they are at today. I think both could be true, depending on the timeline from which you are proceeding.

America is a strange market right now too with the economic crash. Here in Canada, people are routinely trading in their cars much sooner than that. Almost everyone I know has a new car every 3-5 years. Granted that's a small % of people, but it DOES indicate a bit of a trend.

Sorry for the OT!!!



And yeah, I think people will just buy fewer games if this happens. I will. I also think that Gamestop is unlikely to test to see if those Vita games are deactivated or not