the be all end all video game thread

For those too lazy to click, Microsoft requires all games to be downloaded to the HDD to play. To prevent discs from being "passed around," they are going to charge a fee for a disc to be installed on a second system. So if you loan a game to a friend, they have to pay a fee to play it. If you rent a game, you must pay a fee. Buy used? Pay a fee to install it.

This kills rental chains and systems like Gamefly. But the most bullshit part?

The biggest (and most persuasive) argument against the used games market is that game developers don't see profit from their work. Now, they still won't, Microsoft will. Essentially, Microsoft is getting their hands in the pot, but the developers still are getting the shaft. Unless they take the fee and give it to the developers, it's kind of bullshit. Microsoft has found a way to profit from the used games market without letting the developers in on it. Hopefully, they do share the "fee" with developers, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Before torches are lit, Microsoft isn't killing off used games. Click. Details later, etc etc.

 

Are they taking PS4 orders already? Jesus.

The used games/always on DRM/fee bullshit has been coming for awhile now, of course nobody except Microsoft and Sony want it.

 

I never said they were killing off used games. I said they were finding a way to make money off used games, and questioning if the developers of said games would ever see any of said money Microsoft was now planning on making on the used games market.

 

On the flipside, the cheapskate in me sees the opportunity to just rent games I know I want and then pay the “small fee” to Microsoft to get around paying full price for new releases.

 

I'm pretty sure there is a revenue share with the developers. Unless the publishers are getting huge advances for XBOX to get permission to do this.

 

The thing that amazes me about the "always on DRM" crowd is the fact that usually, they have absolutely ZERO problem with Steam doing the same thing. Steam requires an internet connection, right? If you can't get on, you can't play games, right? So why doesn't Valve get crucified? Is it because Valve makes great games? Well, Microsoft and Sony first party studios aren't shitty by any means. Forza, Halo, Fable, and Gran Turismo, Uncharted, God of War respectively. So what's the problem?

My bad, that quote wasn't directed at you. That was directed at everybody that's in the "MICROSOFT HATES US BLAH BLAH OMGWTF" bandwagon that rolls around whenever Microsoft does anything in the video game industry.

As to the rest of your quote, I find it extremely unlikely that a publisher would allow Microsoft to keep all of their resale dollars. I can't imagine a guy like Bobby Kotick, nominally the most hated man in the world of gaming, to roll over and let Microsoft fuck Activision out of millions of dollars. Especially considering that since Kotick took over, Activision is using language like "exploited" when referring to their franchises.



While the idealist in me is glad that publishers and developers will get a slice of the resale pie that they've been fucked out of for decades, the realist in me knows that extra money will go towards CEO bonuses and not back into making better games.

 

Well the problem isn't that they don't have enough money to make better games. It's just they culturally don't have Q/A methods in place or don't have enough time to make better games. They're afraid if they don't keep pumping out Call of Duty games, they might pick up Battlefield and like it. Its an odd belief system, part of it might be true.

 

Yup. It's not the consumers fault that a lot of developers have bloated budgets and expectations, and we shouldn't be punished for it. I think From and the Souls games are perfect examples of good development. The games are creative and fun, and while it didn't sell the "AAA" numbers I'm sure From is very happy with the results economically. Developers complain about pirating and used games when they should be more focused and developing good games at a cost that is economically viable.

 

Yeah, it looks like that fee could very well be full retail price. I missed the event and found an article that sums it up. The part about used games is in the second set of red text.

 

I get why always-on DRM is bad (and agree with the statement), but personally I don't care, because there is almost no situation where I want to play a game and I have no Internet connection. That said, Steam's offline mode works pretty damned well now.

 

If you compare Steam (a PC application) to always on DRM on a console, you are ignoring the way people differentiate between those two things. PCs are expected to be always connected to the internet in this day and age, and have been for the past ten years. Consoles have always been a thing you can enjoy without being tethered to an internet connection. Personally, I've got an old-model 360 without wi-fi, and I never connect it to the internet.



Xbone will be shit, and I doubt PS4 will be much better. I honestly think the industry is headed for a slump. Shit is depressing when the people who make your videogame consoles forget they're in the business of video games.

You're being facetious, right? Hard to tell nowadays.

 

Do yourself a favor and sit this generation out. Buy some older games you never got a chance to play. Good games don't go bad over time.

 

The PC gaming market is going to get ugly as well. The people making PC games are realizing that they can make more money with a half-assed F2P model of a previously successful IP than they can with the old finished product system. CoD, MechWarrior, and there will be plenty more. MWO can be blamed for really successfully setting the trend on this. They made $6 million or so on their Founder's Packs, and while most of that goes back into developing the product, when you know you can get people to drop up to $200 on a set of convenience/cosmetic items in a game that's still in a rough beta state, plus hundreds more over the next months, you have no incentive to charge a one-time $60 for a finished product.

 

What if your internet is out? Your service provider goes down. I use Comcast, and I'd say my internet shits the bed at least once a year. Usually only for a day or so, but I'd still be annoyed if I couldn't play a game because my ISP fucked up.

What if your wireless router goes out? It'd be impossible for me to run an ethernet cable from my router (den) into my living room to plug my console in, and if it goes out at night? Or if I can't afford to run out and drop money on a new router? I'm fucked, gaming wise.

What if I am moving, and my cable and internet get shut off about two days before I move. Now, I can't even play video games to pass what little down time I'd have, because I don't have an internet connection.

What if the servers for Xbox go down? What if some hackers decide to attack the Xbox servers and take them out. Suddenly, even though I have a working internet connection and a working Xbox, I can't play my games because things got fucked up on Microsoft's end.

What if servers get overloaded, and you can't log in with your Xbox, and therefore you can't play anything.

Yes, most consoles are already "always on," but if something even mild messes up with the internet, it renders your console into a useless brick. For it to be 'always on" you're counting on a lot of things to go right all the time, and shit happens. There should be some kind of "offline" mode so that I can still play even if something with my internet goes down, because I'd be annoyed as hell if I paid $400 for a console that I can't play because (insert any reason from above).

 

I buy most of my games used a year or two after they're released. If Microsoft expects me to pay $60 to play the copy of Bioshock 1 in 2013, they can forget it. I just won't be buying games. What is more important to me is the fact that I can pull out my SNES and play Super Mario World 20 years later. I'm not interested in buying something that can be taken away from me for no good reason.

 

I'm ashamed to be an example of the F2P model working completely. Over 2.5 years, I've definitely have spent $240 on League of Legends. I didn't know I spent that much, but holy fuck, I have. In comparison, Call of Duty MW3, cost me a total of $110 for the game and all its DLC that came out. Maybe its the same costs year to year, but it just feels like a lot more.

 

Add that to the fact that a lot of PC titles are subpar ports of AAA console games, a year after release. If you look at PC exclusives in 2013, you've got:
-genres like MMO, RTS and MOBA that can't really be done on console. Generally one or two popular games and a whole bunch of crap titles. There's WoW and there's everything else; Starcraft and everything else; LoL/DotA and everything else; etc.
-indie games that are exclusive for now but, if they get popular, will be ported to XBLA/PSN and make a lot more money. (Minecraft, Cave Story, etc)
-buggy DRM-infested sequels to once-loved titles. (SimCity)
PC gamers are suffering from many of the same problems as console gamers going forward (crap games being shitted out with little regard for quality), and some unique ones to boot. A lot of people are bragging about "PC master race" and all that, but they're deluded if they think PC gamers won't be affected.

And people are slowly starting to realize you don't have to buy new games. Like Clutch said, SNES games never go bad; N64 games never go bad; heck, even my OG Xbox games will play forever with just power and a TV. Five years from now, your 360 hard drive fails and your XBLA games are gone forever. You don't connect to the internet for 24 hours and your Xbox One becomes a brick.