He is stating if you want to play without a disc and have the "rights" for the game, you have to buy it. Otherwise, as long as you have the disc, you can play a used game.
Let's step back and analyze this rationally.
Does anyone really think that MS would take this alleged stance on used games if Sony were not doing something similar? Why even bother coming to market if this is the case?
He is stating if you want to play without a disc and have the "rights" for the game, you have to buy it. Otherwise, as long as you have the disc, you can play a used game.
so basically it works exactly like it does not, but you can have all games in digital format, and the ones in digital format will be treated like xbl marketplace games?
i don't think it is that simple. if that was the case, then i don't think they would be making claims that buying used games requires an "activation" fee of some sort. because that wouldn't be the case if you could just purchase a used game at gamestop and plop it in your console.
but again, so much vague info that it's causing this confusion. this is crap that should have either been made 100% clear, or they shouldn't have even addressed it yesterday.
I think people are ignoring the developer mindset with this issue. Let's assume that the XB1 does indeed have something that'll require payment for a used game, and let's assume that a PS4 does not. In this case the obvious choice for the consumer is to get a PS4, however the developers may be more apt to either focus on XB1 development (possibly to the detriment of PS4 ports) or release more exclusives on the XB1. If I'm a dev, I'm thinking about money, and a system that guarantees every single copy of my game is going to give me some return for my work is a very enticing thing.
In this hypothetical world, part of me would worry about missing out on some decent games if I went with a PS4. There's no telling how certain devs will prioritize things if there were such a difference in functionality with their games.
You are going to likely need to log into XBL to activate games on every console you play them on. It appears game publishers will have some control over the online v. offline so that could indeed be all over the place. I am thinking more privileges/features/versatility is going to come with a gold sub. Kind of a strong arm tactic to get you to pony up for it. I am thinking people who do not pay the extor... I mean fee, will get boned.yeah that is kind of how i got it as well, but that does not address that same scenario but my friend and i don't have our x1 connected to the net. from the example you gave (which is summing up the example ms stated) they make no mention of it requiring to be online. but then in other statements/faqs, it does mention that it requires being online periodically.
so does that mean if you keep your x1 offline, that after a few days they simply make your console unplayable?
so many unanswered questions. but it's still early and i'm sure these things will trickle out at some point.
The "buying games requires a used fee" stems from them installing a game and trying to play it without the disc. Since it has already been "activated" by another account, they would have t pay a fee to have a digital license for said game. I imagine, if they simply had the disc inside the console, it would work just fine.
And this is where MS made a smart move. They packed in as much gaming as they would have, AND added in all kinds of extra features for people who already watch TV and have cable.I am a Uverse customer, and they worked with MS to make it possible to use the 360 in place of a STB (excluding the DVR) AT&T charges me $7 a month for each extra box beyond the DVR that is include. So at $14 a month it requires only a year to get the money back for the fees involved with using a 360 instead. They stopped offering the switchover a while back, and stated they were working with MS to improve the solution. So, I am hoping that means they have a better solution yet, for the xbox1. If I can replace both mine and my son's 360 with a xbox1 and get rid of the $14 monthly fee, they could pay for themselves just by eliminating the STBs in both bedrooms.
And the ability to control the multimedia experience the way he did in the presentation appeals to me. Hand gestures and voice commands, fast switching, multiple onscreen media sources with interactive apps for some channels = I am in. The lynchpin is the STB thing though, That would make it a financial win if it works out.
Sound like the always online scenario people were making a fuss about recently?if that is the case then this is everyone making a big stink about nothing. but it just seems if that were the case, why hasn't microsoft flat out just said this? this is definitely the way i'm hoping it is going to be though, that would definitely be the best case scenario.
And as a developer, you are at the mercy of your publisher who may decide it is not worth the market to be multiplatform.as a developer myself, i would not think that way if i were making games. as a developer, i understand there is a used game market. i would also understand that from a consumer standpoint, the ps4 would look more enticing, which would mean it may have more of a userbase in the long run, which means more possible sales in the long run too.
i wonder if ms is being so vague about all of this and banking on the fact that the majority of people who buy consoles don't do any research on it, and that the majority of moms that go buy the x1 for their kid will have no clue about the used game fiasco on it until it's too late.
That is how I see it too. And Uverse is IPTV so I will probably even get to keep the Uverse guide system regardless of whether they implement the STB replacement capability or not.And this is where MS made a smart move. They packed in as much gaming as they would have, AND added in all kinds of extra features for people who already watch TV and have cable.
I watched Angry Joe's rant about the Xbox One. While a bit incoherent at times (poor guy was tired) he brings up a lot of valid points. Especially about the effective ban on used games. The old advantage with consoles is if you bought a disc based game, you could take it anyway, trade it, sell it. Which Microsoft isn't outright banning them, what they've done is put discs on par with digital downloads. So there really is no advantage of actually purchasing the BD copy anymore. Naturally GameStop is really nervous since this effectively destroys both sides of their business. Microsoft has effectively erased the advantage their console had over PC.
What's curious about this decision is how their competitors reacted to the same issue. Sony said they would allow users to buy, sell, and trade disc based games. That's what they expect to be able to do and they have no plans to stop that. Nintendo has taken the same approach with the Wii U. I honestly thought Microsoft would be stupid to go ahead with it anyway. Especially after so much outrage from gamers over the rumours. Seems I was wrong. Though they could still backtrack on that decision between now and when it goes for sale, I think the damage has been done.
Even if the DRM benefits publishers, they'll ultimately go to whatever console can sell them the most games. That's why they supported Xbox 360. It was a gamer's console that was easy to develop for. Sony has opted to take that same approach for the PS4 and developers seem to be loving it so far. I don't think Sony will hurt for games this time around. Success in the last generation doesn't guarantee success in the next.
A lot of Xbox fans seem to feel betrayed by the announcement. At least if the comments sections on various gaming sites are to be believed. A console announcement with hardly any games. Most of the games they did show were multi-platform titles, except for Forza.
just because you CAN treat retail games as digital downloads doesn't mean you HAVE to, as we're been discussing now. it does sound like as long as you don't try to play an installed game off your hard drive, without the disc in the drive OR a license to do so, then you can't play it. and that license is tied to the account that "activates" it by entering the code.
so basically it keeps it as it currently is and also adds a way to digitally play it. at least that is what i've gotten out of the reports and discussion in this thread.
HOWEVER ... if that was the case, then what is stopping my brother and i from paying $30 each to buy a $60 game, and i install it on my hard drive and activate it, then he installs it on his hard drive and just keeps the disc in his drive at all times?
that is the scenario that still hasn't been addressed yet, if it is the case that you can play it on any console as long as the disc is in the drive.
The disc is the "key"; it contains the product code for your game. If your brother has the disc in his drive, it sounds like it will try to activate it, but then see that it was already activated on your account.
This brings up a question I have about activation; it basically DOES sound like an Internet connection is required to play the games? I mean otherwise how else can you activate it and prevent spreading the disc around?
This is my biggest fear for this whole thing, and no one seems to have discussed it yet: Microsoft will own the used game market, which means they will own the pricing on everything unless they setup a marketplace where people can put in their own prices. This turns the used game market back into a "for profit" scenario for Microsoft rather than a "hey we're buds I'll give this to you for half off since GameStop will only give me $5" scenario.
there is no way that each disc is going to have a unique key on each disc.
there is no way that each disc is going to have a unique key on each disc.
there is no way that each disc is going to have a unique key on each disc.
there is no way that each disc is going to have a unique key on each disc.