|
Holy shit we actually won. I think this is like the first time we won. Ever.
Im still buying PS4, but we won!
|
On June 20 2013 09:14 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ let me just put it in simpler terms: why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet') i dont see gamestop matching steam prices.
So your question is why can't consoles be like steam and not allow us to sell our used games?
|
On June 20 2013 09:23 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:14 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ let me just put it in simpler terms: why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet') i dont see gamestop matching steam prices. So your question is why can't consoles be like steam and not allow us to sell our used games?
Are you braindead dude? You dont need to sell used games if you can buy any game for under 10$ at one point.
|
On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever.
Region locking your PC? Not the games but PC. Sorry, PC has never done that.
Offline locking your PC, so you cant play ANY of your games? Some games, cant be played offline, yes. Not ALL of them. Sorry PC has never done that.
Get your facts straight.
|
On June 20 2013 09:29 NightOfTheDead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. Region locking your PC? Not the games but PC. Sorry, PC has never done that. Offline locking your PC, so you cant play ANY of your games? Some games, cant be played offline, yes. Not ALL of them. Sorry PC has never done that. Get your facts straight.
BRO BUT THEY CHANGED, EVERYTHING IS GOOD! Sorry we wanted to completely fuck our consumers and everything, but we changed so all better? Buy our product please! <3. Reminds me of fucking hitler in the South Park movie to be quite honest. MS is still full of shit.
On June 20 2013 09:23 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:14 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ let me just put it in simpler terms: why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet') i dont see gamestop matching steam prices. So your question is why can't consoles be like steam and not allow us to sell our used games?
Pretty legit since you know steam has massive fucking sales everyday. Summer sales, winter sales, etc. Steam is the single best thing to ever happen to purchasing games.
|
On June 20 2013 09:25 CROrens wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:23 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 09:14 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ let me just put it in simpler terms: why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet') i dont see gamestop matching steam prices. So your question is why can't consoles be like steam and not allow us to sell our used games? Are you braindead dude? You dont need to sell used games if you can buy any game for under 10$ at one point.
Gamestop can sell used games for a cheap price weeks after launch and still make a profit. Steam doesn't sell games for $10 until well after its released. I promise you couldn't have bought Skyrim for $10 or $25 or $35 or $45 weeks after launch. You're over exaggerating steams sales.
|
On June 20 2013 09:33 takingbackoj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:25 CROrens wrote:On June 20 2013 09:23 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 09:14 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ let me just put it in simpler terms: why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet') i dont see gamestop matching steam prices. So your question is why can't consoles be like steam and not allow us to sell our used games? Are you braindead dude? You dont need to sell used games if you can buy any game for under 10$ at one point. Gamestop can sell used games for a cheap price weeks after launch and still make a profit. Steam doesn't sell games for $10 until well after its released. I promise you couldn't have bought Skyrim for $10 or $25 or $35 or $45 weeks after launch. You're over exaggerating steams sales.
i did buy crusader kingsdoms 2 for $20 during sales when its $60 normally. i bought all total war series bundle for $25 dollars. i bought all GTA bundle for $25.
now, gamestop has cheap games? i've been there, looked around and walked right out.
and dont forget the online play pass for used games, which makes used game discount moot (since the pass fee is just as much as the discount)
|
On June 20 2013 09:33 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:29 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. Region locking your PC? Not the games but PC. Sorry, PC has never done that. Offline locking your PC, so you cant play ANY of your games? Some games, cant be played offline, yes. Not ALL of them. Sorry PC has never done that. Get your facts straight. BRO BUT THEY CHANGED, EVERYTHING IS GOOD! Sorry we wanted to completely fuck our consumers and everything, but we changed so all better? Buy our product please! <3. Reminds me of fucking hitler in the South Park movie to be quite honest. MS is still full of shit. Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:23 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 09:14 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think it's haters as much as MS trying to bite the bullet and admit to lying out their ass to secure more bucks from gamers while not providing anything in return. So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM? I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ let me just put it in simpler terms: why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet') i dont see gamestop matching steam prices. So your question is why can't consoles be like steam and not allow us to sell our used games? Pretty legit since you know steam has massive fucking sales everyday. Summer sales, winter sales, etc. Steam is the single best thing to ever happen to purchasing games.
Glad MS listened to the community. Seems to have cooled down the ridiculous rhetoric....
|
On June 20 2013 09:37 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:33 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 09:25 CROrens wrote:On June 20 2013 09:23 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 09:14 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 09:01 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:50 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:40 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:34 jinorazi wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:
[quote]
So people don't see a reason for always online and DRM?
I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. i'd rather have them compete with gamestop rather than completely leave them out of the loop. for example, sell digital content for cheaper price than, say a used disc from gamestop. gamestop used game + online pass fee = same price as new game. so if they make digital games same or slightly lower price than what used games go for, they can win. digital content does not cost them to produce/ship like discs. It would be extremely hard and limiting development wise for them to compete with Gamestop. What do you want them to do? They have to make some kind of profit. They would have to cut the overall budgets and limit their game or sell at a lose and go out of business. Or they can do what they seem to be currently leaning towards and sell a cheaper game while withholding content that would have been in the game to begin with then make consumers pay for it through microtransactions and DLC. do whats always been done and a few months after release drop the price of digital game by $5? new used games are cheaper by $5 if i recall. so from developer's point of view, lose that sale to gamestop or do i make that sale? i dont think it has anything to do with overall budget or something. just adjusting price to be competitive with gamestop instead of giving everything to gamestop. a consumer would have a choice to buy used a disc of Last of Us for $45 at gamestop (without online pass), or buy the digital version for $45 (which includes online pass, since its new). *online pass example i'm basing on ps3. You have to take into account Gamestops ability to further lower their price and still make a good profit. How much do they give you for used games? Between 5-25 dollars depending on the demand of the game. They could sell their games for so much cheaper then they do and still make a decent profit. Competing with that as a dev/pub is impossible. Dropping the price by $5 dollars would only cause Gamestop to drop their price even further until Devs would have to sell at almost a loss if not a loss. It's not feasible from a business stand point. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/ let me just put it in simpler terms: why can't consoles have steam-like pricing for their digital content (other than 'not yet') i dont see gamestop matching steam prices. So your question is why can't consoles be like steam and not allow us to sell our used games? Are you braindead dude? You dont need to sell used games if you can buy any game for under 10$ at one point. Gamestop can sell used games for a cheap price weeks after launch and still make a profit. Steam doesn't sell games for $10 until well after its released. I promise you couldn't have bought Skyrim for $10 or $25 or $35 or $45 weeks after launch. You're over exaggerating steams sales. i did buy crusader kingsdoms 2 for $20 during sales when its $60 normally. i bought all total war series bundle for $25 dollars. i bought all GTA bundle for $25. now, gamestop has cheap games? i've been there, looked around and walked right out. and dont forget the online play pass for used games, which makes used game discount moot.
Im an avid TW player myself as I stated earlier. I don't recall being able to buy any new TW bundle for $25 on steam. My point isn't about older games or games that launched 6 months ago. It's about new games.
And I agree, Gamestop isn't cheap. My point is that Gamestop makes such a huge profit alreay that if devs decided to compete with them, Gamestop buys used games so cheap that they could sell for much cheaper if they wanted to and still make a decent profit.
|
On June 20 2013 07:32 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 07:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now everyone is calling it the Xbox 180 there is no way they can't be mocked. H8ers gonna h8? Really it's to be expected fanboys are always looking for excuses to put others down. It's kind of pathetic when people shout crap like you're ignoring consumers etc, and microsoft listens and makes the changes people want and still get criticized.
How naive people can be... You're foolish to think it's because they've been listening to consumer feedback. Prior to announcing the DRM features, Microsoft sent out mass surveys prior to announceing Xbox wanting to know the 'consumer's' opinions on DRM. This was returned with a huge negative outcry.
From there, Microsoft announces all the DRM shit. Consumers cry even louder. Then Microsoft Exec's spent about a week basically telling consumers to go fuck themselves.
^ What does that boil down to? It's fucking plain to see for anyone. This entire shit isn't about 'consumer' feedback, it's about preorder sales and sale forecasts. They're a business, they don't give a shit about consumer's crying about DRM. However, when that translates to less than projected sale forecasts... Then, let's do something. Oh and hey, we can always say 'we listened to consumer feedback!'.
|
Microsoft's message to consumers: "we would fuck you so hard if we could get away with it"
|
On June 20 2013 10:06 Dantat wrote:
Microsoft's message to consumers: "we would fuck you so hard if we could get away with it"
They still are lol. They know that the vast majority of people will still be always online with their xbox, and getting that kinect cam into your house is top priority.
|
On June 20 2013 08:24 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:20 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 08:15 FakeDeath wrote:
XBONE should be called the Xbox 180 now. Pretty petty. On June 20 2013 08:18 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:13 Elwar wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. Hey, get this...I'd rather pay once for the game, have it be my property, and then let it be up to me whether or not I sell it privately to a mate or to any company I want. I don't even sell my games but still screw people trying to get rid of my rights. The irony of course is they weren't cutting gamestop out anyway, it would've been one of the only places you could sell your games, meaning less competition for them, lower resale value for you. But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it. On June 20 2013 08:14 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. I guess you're new here? Well welcome to the internet! Email your address and we'll send you your starter package of pitchforks and bottled rage and instructions on how to never be happy with anything unless its awesome and free. Just because it is the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The contents, ideas, art and such are the IP of the dev/publisher. However, that disc that I buy which contains the content to be played is mine. Or should be. If I buy the disc, I have the right to use that disc how I see fit. And they want to make that disc basically worthless, just like PC gaming has done for years, and just as is their right to do since it is the access portal to their IP. If you see a problem with this, you have a distorted idea of property. If you created something original, would you want a third party to be able to cut your potential profits by buying and reselling access to your content that you had no control over? Wouldn't you want control over the access to your content? That's what developers and publishers obviously want. The problem is that console consumers are used to an outdated model of selling games that ignores the realities of the 21st century. EDIT: The point here is that SOMEONE is going to make money selling "used copies" of games, and Microsoft and their publishers want control over that. The theory debate over property is practically meaningless because you're arguing against something larger than DRM in that case. DRM is a control, nothing more, nothing less. If you think companies shouldn't own the games they make, this is an entirely different argument.
Well, I respectfully disagree with your idea of property.
How do you reconcile your position with the TV/Movie/Music industries and their lack of "DRM" to continue accessing your CD or your Blu-Ray which holds their IP? I can sell those items without issue. Those industries do not seek to interfere with my property.
How do you reconcile your position with any number of designer or luxury items (whether it is a car, clothing, jewellery or whatever), which are not worth their price tag on account of the materials alone, which also have used-goods markets? Should Aston Martin get a cut of my DB9 when I sell it to a third party on account of the effort they put into the design, branding and marketing of the car? I mean, by your logic, used car dealers impact upon car manufacturers by reducing future sales in the manner that Gamestop, EB and other major outlets do. I don't see them on a crusade to crush used-car dealerships.
The industry is in crisis at the moment for reasons other than used-game sales and piracy (not that I excuse piracy at all, I personally consider it theft/crime). These have been issues that have existed since day one and are being used as a scape-goat in the present day. The real issue is the inability of developers to control their costs. When RE6 sells 6 million copies and is a failure, there is a problem internally at the developer.
|
On June 20 2013 10:06 Dantat wrote:
Microsoft's message to consumers: "we would fuck you so hard if we could get away with it"
To be fair that's model of 90% of business.
|
On June 20 2013 09:13 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I don't see why anybody buys OR sells to gamestop.
Sell it to gamestop for $15 or sell it to a person for $30 and you both win from that situation.
because people are lazy
|
Something tells me think that MS is not done with DRM almost as if they are putting this on the back burner till later.
|
I will buy Sony anyway.
If sony decided to do the same shit we would have all been f***** thank you sony for making Microsoft "Listen to the community"
And this guy is a visionary
+ Show Spoiler +
And it was so obvious this would happen or else microsoft would dive into hell.
Microsoft never heard the community, it was the only move they could do to still be in the market. And since they are such a strong enterprise they are capable to deliver a message like this and then get away with it
But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it.
Have you ever heard about Used books ? Used Cars ? Second Hand clothing ? Paintings ? And many kinds of Art pieces ? Seriously, what in hell are you saying dude...
They are and they will always be the intellectual property of somebody, but at the moment you have a contract that gives you the OWNERSHIP of that product, that product is YOURS. That is why slavery was abolished, because they were selling PEOPLE, not THINGS. So yeah, you have the right to do WHATEVER YOU WANT when you buy something, or at least until the point of not trespassing another person freedom.
|
The change to their policies is a good thing. I really applaud Microsoft for this but this shouldn't have been in place in the first place.
My worry is even when Microsoft finally did it, Sony still took advantage of it because of Microsoft's first initial stance.
Better late then never though. Regardless of what was going on, I would have gotten both systems eventually.
Edit: Honestly, I really believe people who could have, would have gotten both systems anyway. But it is what it is right? Microsoft is really doing this. "We release something people hate, then change it." Win8? No Start Button? Everyone hated the damn thing (including myself, I won't use Win8) then they release a recent patch to finally re-include it.
|
Hmm I still don't trust Microsoft. Apparently this will be implemented with a Day 1 patch. If it's THAT easy to implement and take off, who knows maybe sometime down the road they'll reintroduce it. That coupled with Kinect, nah fuck that. Still sticking with PS4. Sure Microsoft has more exclusives atm, but looking at the past history Sony usually have more varied, better exclusives both in quality and quantity. None of the exclusives shown at the moment interest me except Forza.
This image made me lol
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 20 2013 10:26 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 10:06 Dantat wrote:
Microsoft's message to consumers: "we would fuck you so hard if we could get away with it" To be fair that's model of 90% of business.
Most businesses at least say they are going to buy you dinner first.
Not the case with microsoft. hell I would settle for some lube.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1iD7IHu.png)
![[image loading]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/196490_490085711068175_1529676678_n.jpg)
