Kotaku’s Stephen Totilo recently posted a bunch of “Xbox 720” rumors. The most interesting one was that it will have some sort of anti-used-games measure. Half of me thinks this is preposterous, while half of me sees this as the way the business is going. Naturally, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Before I get to that, here’s an excerpt from the article:
I’ve heard from one reliable industry source that Microsoft intends to incorporate some sort of anti-used game system as part of their so-called Xbox 720.
It’s not clear if that means that the system wouldn’t play used games or how such a set-up would work. Obvious approaches–I’m theorizing here–like linking a copy of a game to a specific Xbox Live account could seemingly be foiled by used-game owners who would keep their system offline. My source wasn’t sure how Microsoft intended to implement any anti-used game system in the new machine.
This would have huge ramifications for the gaming business. Developers and publishers would love the move, while many retailers and most consumers would hate it. Part of me thinks that it’s a little too bold of Microsoft, as it would alienate too many partners that have helped the Xbox and Xbox 360 become so successful. Part of me thinks that it doesn’t matter too much, since physical media will eventually become obsolete; people will bitch and moan for a year and eventually forget that it was even an issue. As a verbal entertainer, I’m hoping that the rumor is true. I’d sit back, grab some popcorn, watch the crazy fallout, and talk about with all of you.
What do you make of the rumor that Microsoft’s next console will have anti-used-games measures?
hahahaha.
I don't buy used games but have in the past. The last few PC games I have purchased have been thru Steam and Origin. The used game market isn't an active market for me but I do understand that this would indeed be damn near a dealbreaker for those that are.
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding?
Totilo is smart and has great connections. I would bet against a misunderstanding. I'm going to guess it's a matter of his source being good or not.
I don't buy used games either, but some people can only afford used games and others rely on trade ins to buy their new games. Also, I can see Microsoft requiring an online connection to use the next Xbox. Being online required would stop people from playing offline.
I'd have to imagine that if such a thing existed, it wouldn't differentiate between used games and rentals, effectively destroying that corner of the market as well.
I'm not in favor of this, at all. I'm not made of money. Trading in games for store credit and using a rental service like GameFly is how I get to play as much stuff as I do. This would seriously impact my ability to play all the games that I want to, and would in effect, lower the amount of money in profits the gaming industry gets from my wallet.
That issue would be easy to get around since the discs are pressed by Microsoft. Games sold to rental services could have a code that would require online verification.
Either way, I'm not a fan of the idea.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with "that would suck".
I manipulate the market all the time. With games that have low replay value and great stories, I tend to beat fast, and swap out before the value goes down. I play catch up on alot of games I haven't played this way too when they're running a buy 2 get one or some other deal. The games I actually keep for long periods are kinda few and far between.
It's really not an affordability issue for me as much as it is smart money management. Saving money is always good. But at the same time, I only play most games I play because I get them crazy cheap manipulating the system the way I do.
So…. I think that since I wouldn't have incentive like I do with the used game market, I'd only get the games I think would last me a while with high replay value and skip most titles bringing my gaming total to an average of 4 games a year…. That's sad. I'll probably lose interest in gaming at that point just because I'll get wrapped up in something else.
Hmm I hardly buy used games, especially with great deals you can find on amazon but another rumor I heard is that prices for games would go up to 69.99, if that's the case I don't feel that DLC should be extra especially if used video games will no longer be an option.
Oh yeah….
FORE!!!!!!!
I would like physical media to go away as fast as possible, so this is not an issue for me.
I'm with you on that man, but a few people here still love boxes and discs and all that jazz. I totally understand the collectible aspect of things and being able to swap discs between machines, but neither are for me.
Until the digital media is platform neutral then I'm not cool with physical media not being an option. I can play a BD disc in any BD player for example.
in five years, we are going to look back at this topic and laugh our asses off.
No doubt but I refuse to by media on say Sony or MS due to it being locked to them. I find iTunes and a combo of my Apple computers and AppleTV to be very acceptable. Hypocritical of me I suppose.Sent from my iPhone 4
For right now, the benefits of physical media outweigh those of digital media, in my opinion. Someone lent me Alan Wake and Arkham Asylum. I have lent someone Bayonetta. If we were all digital right now, I wouldn't have played a bunch of great games people have lent me or I bought used. Think of how reflective my experience is of the whole gaming population as a whole. People would play less games, so demand for games would eventually fall and the number of great games would deteriorate. To counter this, (in an all-digital world) you would have to slash prices like crazy because not everyone is going to pay $60 (or more) for a new game.
If publishers and developers do start cutting prices to do more volume, then they would be "losing revenue" wouldn't they? That is the same argument now that they use when talking about pirates and used game sales. Of course you can argue that at least they would be making something instead of nothing, but my point is that no matter what direction they choose to go, there will always be "lost revenue" because the only way to realize that revenue is if consumers (en masse) would be willing to spend a lot more for games overnight… and that is not realistic. I will not pay even $50 for 99% of the games out there no matter what and I believe a lot of consumers have similar views at various price points.
I really believe that all-digital is a bad idea because that content will be locked to a certain ecosystem and may be taken away from you or erased if the company ever folds. I really think that offering both physical media and digital media (at a reduced price) is the way to go. This way, both groups are happy and you can let the consumers make the decision of which way the industry should go.
-M
I feel like that would get raged at for a long time. Eventually, it MIGHT die down. Then again, without the used game market, I imagine that the incidents of piracy will be more frequent… oh well.
I do enjoy buying used games though, as long as they're not messed up somehow. And what would trade-ins be worth anymore? So much for getting rid of old systems and games you don't need. Just sell them to someone else!!! – who doesn't have any games because they can't buy them used. Shutting down the used market would shut down all non-current consoles, including the beloved DS Lite which is STILL #1 in the handheld market.
Ah but you see, console makers and game publishers view piracy and used sales in the same light. Lost revenue. That opens up a whole other discussion on what is or cannot be realized or quantified though.
They don't seem to understand this simple concept (that so many see) of "piracy and used sales DO NOT EQUAL lost revenue." Is there anyway that we can ge the message out to these suits that if someone pirates or buys used it means that they never intended to purchase the product at full price in the first place?
-M
Douglas Rushkoff has been talking about these types of issues for almost two decades now and this was a large point in his last book. Unfortunately none of the shot callers in the video game industry seems to listen even when an authority on media speaks.
Unfortunately, they don't seem to listen to the consumers either. Which, by the way, is a bad idea.
When I buy games I usually buy them new so if this rumor pans out to be true it won't effect me too much. However, there are some games that I would only buy used. That happens when I get bored and need a quick fix for something mindless.
To me this brings back the debate of which is better: physical media or digital media. For as much as I love the idea of digital media, there are severe (more importantly, costly) consequences for that desire. Personally I do not believe physical media is that easy to get rid of. Digital media is obviously catching on, but physical media is not going anywhere for a while because it provides something that digital media never will- it can be cheaper overall in the end. I love having my movies on my hard drive hooked up to my xbox, but it's difficult if I want to watch one of those movies in the other room, and it is even worse if I want to watch one of those movies at a friends house, my parents house, or my mother in laws house as I often do. Not everyone is going to want the capability of consuming digital only media.
Then we get to the pricing issue. This is something my wife and I have run into already in the past with XBLA games. Peggle and Plants vs. Zombies have both been purchased (with dlc) in full on both of our accounts for a total of 4800 ms points (around $60 I believe). However, we could have had the same games plus one extra for $20 if we would have purchased the physical copy of Plants vs. Zombies, and that disc would have been good for both of our accounts plus any others that the disc was played with. The same thing could be said about any other game that my wife and I have each played separately on our respective accounts. Think about a family of four (using this number because that is how Microsoft bundled it's XBL family subscription) who want to play the same games, they end up buying the same game four times at the minimum when it would have only been one purchase minimum if it was physical media. The same can be said about ebooks, anything purchased through iTunes, and digital only video games. Cost will be a deterrent for people and is something we don't have to deal with by using physical media.
For anyone who is single, or is the only person who wants to consume digital media on their specific devices only, this new proposed system really isn't a problem. For anyone else I see some pretty major financial setbacks. Eventually we can move to a place where all digital consuming devices are as widely available as dvd players are currently, but I don't see that happening in the near future. Once that is the case though, there is still the issue of cost which will hold people back unless something changes in the pricing/sharing model simultaneously.
" physical media is not going anywhere for a while "
Tell that to Tower Records and Border's Books.
There are still book stores and cd stores all over the place. Just because there aren't as many doesn't mean that all physical media like that is going away, it is simply not as widespread as it was before with specialized brick and mortar locations. I still see every major retailer selling physical media, and the ones who aren't doing so well are failing more because they have did not keep competitive pricing compared to their competitors (blockbuster), they have horrible or no customer service (best buy), they don't keep any backstock other than what is on the shelves (wal mart), and they fail to utilize online support claiming that there is no room for it in their business model (circuit city).
Never said anything about it going away completely. Clearly physical media is on its way out. It's far more efficient for publishers to sell digitally. It's far more convenient for consumers to buy digitally. That's simply the way the first world is moving.
Physical media will be around for at least another 15-20 years. I agree with Pachter on this time frame.
Why do you believe this?
Because as long as there is a segment that will require buying this media it will exist.Further to the point, streaming and digital media have an elephant in the room known as the US broadband infrastructure. The average connection speed in the US is pretty paltry and already one of the larger landline ISPs has implemented caps on the service. So at least in this market spinning disc media or some sort of flash memory will be around for at least this next generation in gaming. I believe we'll see more synchronous releases of digital and physical but not a digital exclusive for consoles.These points are only amplified when we start to analyze broadband connections in North America as a whole when Canada is considered.They'll really have to adopt some of the Steam model to make it work for media that isn't a game.
I agree that broadband providers are the biggest hurdle — actually been saying that since I was at G4. I do think that will change as America and Canada ISPs start looking ridiculous compared to their global counterparts.
I would still bet on digital distribution becoming the norm within a decade. Of course physical media will never completely go away. People still buy vinyl records.
I disagree about US ISPs having to compete with global counterparts for “cred” if you will. Why should they care? Short of China building a network the barrier to entry is so high that no matter what the condition is in their limited competition markets they'll still be successful. I know I can't go without broadband nor can my business.I read an article on Gizmodo today (stupid I know) where the author was declaring how awesome vinyl is and why I should go out and buy records and a player. Damn hipsters. I am definitely not deleting my FLAC of classical music to rush out for some damn hiss and pops.
Not really about cred. I think it will be a source of embarrassment and citizens will be alarmed when third-world countries have better Internet service and options.
I don't really think that matters to them. ATT for example isn't embarrassed at offering 6meg DSL with a 150 GB cap in the US when say Comcast has upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 and offers up to 100meg and a 250gb soft cap. Surely you'd think a company offering a cap nearly 50% lower than what a competitor put in place about 5 years ago would be embarrassing? Verizon is no longer rolling out FiOS except to satisfy franchise agreements. What does Time Warner offer where you are at? They seem more interested in moving to low cap with high overages rather than invest in the network.I wish I could agree with you but the american Telcos and Cable companies have proven time and time again they won't compete against one another necessarily so I don't see how options outside of the country would influence them back here.
I agree that it doesn't matter to the ISPs. They will continue to offer the least amount of service for the most amount of money as long as possible. Citizens should be disgruntled by the poor Internet choices they're given. I see it becoming a political issue when, as I mentioned before, third-world countries have better Internet options.
The political issue is an interesting one. In the last year I've been reading that the FBI is disgruntled at the rate in which ISPs are using new network tech that is shrinking and out right eliminating surveillance measures.I'm just not as optimistic as you I suppose. I don't trust DC to do what's right. See Chris Dodd's threat (bribe) and the Trade Council mentioned in the SotU.Sent from my iPhone 4
You've got to get any sort of broadband upgrade through Congress as part of an infrastructure deal, and was we all know, those cats have no problem with America looking ridiculous. They do it live on TV every day.
Yeah, I got the Plants vs. Zombies disk (brand new) for around $15 and I was pleasantly surprised it came with Zuma and Peggle. My wife plays PvZ a lot, but I would have been pretty pissed if I had to buy the same game for each profile twice (if that's what you are saying). Plus, we wouldn't have gotten Peggle and Zuma for free (or part of the purchase price, at least). That comes out to $5 per game for both of us to play whenever and wherever we want… great bargain.
-M
Exactly, I haven't seen a digital sale that comes close to being that competitive with pricing on those games. Physical media has the better prices. I love having those games all digitally on both accounts, but I paid more than three times as much as you did and still didn't get Zuma. I did get the dlc for peggle, and I'm not positive if that is on the physical disc or not, but you could say that evens things in comparing our two purchases since Zuma and Peggle Nights cost the same amount.
That's going to change. Just look at how iOS and Android game sales are handled. The way games are sold is changing drastically.
In digital distribution's defense; I do like Steam. I like the fact that I can log in to any computer and play my games (and/or download them locally) no matter where I am. They often have great sales that reflect the true market value of games and have a very active community. If anything, that's how digital distribution should be. The problem is that you can't really translate this system for the different console companies.
-M
Why can't you? A lot of the problems with PSN and Xbox Live would be addressed by mimicking Steam or Apple's App Store.
Yes, but you would still need to buy the next Sony console and/or the next Microsoft console or other hardware. Steam doesn't require a console, but a PC that can come from any number of manufacturers.
In my eyes, the only way to truly mimic Steam's versatility (and then some) is to have a unified multi-media console that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo can all get behind and distribute content through. This is not likely since each company wants their own ecosystem (hardware, software, network, cloud, etc.).
Another way to do it (that doesn't seem likely) is to allow other multi-media hardware (like Tivo or a DirecTV box) to access the PSN or XBL. This way, they can stream or sell content without the added expense of hardware.
Actually, now that I think about it, Steam should offer it's services through existing multi-media devices so it can compete with XBL and PSN. Imagine if you could play games on Steam through the TV that your Xbox or Playstation is hooked up to.
-M
Not at all. You are missing his point. Steam is platform neutral where as you are promoting stores curated by hardware manufacturers. Very different.
You're both ignoring the second example: the App Store. That's tied to one hardware manufacturer and it's far more flexible than PSN or Xbox Live. Absolutely love the App Store experience on iOS and Mac.
No we aren't ignoring it as much as you are ignoring the fact that Steam can run on a Dell, IBM, Acer, Gateway, Asus, homemade, Apple, etc. The software on Steam also runs on the referenced machines as long as the OS and hardware requirements are met. Honestly I compare Amazon direct download and Steam when considering a purchase since they offer the same digital content usually. For example when I bought The Witcher it was $10 on Amazon digi vs $20 on Steam. Origin however is a different story since big time EA games are exclusive to that store now much how like Live and PSN are or will be. What's great about my example though is that I can run it on my Thinkpad or PC which is homemade.The Apple app store is fine if you ONLY use Apple computers and iDevices. Just like the PSN is fine if you only use certain hardware. I won't argue that the content and pricing flexibility in the App store is superior though. I fall into the Apple camp but I do not buy any movies or TV shows from them due to lack of HD or sales.
I'm not ignoring that point at all. You're being too literal, Do you not agree that there are aspects of Steam and the App Store that can be implemented to make PSN and Xbox Live more consumer friendly? That's the point I was making.
Not sure what you mean by iTunes not having movie or TV sales. Those happen all the time.
Indeed I am being a bit too literal. PSN and Live have a lot of room to improve I agree. The App store so far is the best walled garden store linked to one platform. I'm looking at it through a broader scope I imagine and considering media such as TV, movies and music. I do not like being chained to one hardware manufacturer or service provider for my content. I like having the option of shopping in many outlets for my items and then using said items with whatever I choose.I'm a dying breed I suppose.What sales? They never have HD content on sale. Then again that's not saying much for how much HD they offer. Book of Eli is $10 right now for SD. I buy BDs for that much on sale.