Xbox One Thoughts
- Thread starter S1ght
- Start date
DCWarhound
Dakka Dakka
We need option 3:neither.
Toxin
New member
Yeah and option 4: Wii U
Add option 5 while you're at it: Both
I'll be getting both. Not at the same time mind you, that would be crazy, but I'm pretty sure that I'll have both consoles within a year or so of release. That's what I did with my Xbox360 and PS3.
I might have done the same if they didn't decide to shaft second hand sales. My Xbox360 is my third console and I just won't spend R600-R700 per game on it. All of my xbox360 games are second-hand.
Last edited:
Toxin
New member
While this doesn't affect me much I completely understand why people would consider this a deal breaker. I'm still waiting for confirmation on the whole second hand gaming thing tho. This activation fee is the key. If it's full price of the game then they're stupid, but if it's only 5-10% of the game price...... then it gets interesting.
Let us hope they're not stupid.... they probably are tho.....
Yeah, I would be very surprised if they differ much from MS. I have this sneaky suspicion that it's coming from the game devs and not the console devs. The tail is wagging the dog.Rumor has it PS4 may follow the same route... a fee to play 2nd hand gamesThis will probably be the end of my gaming career...
I am convinced that these changes will result in a massive jump in piracy on consoles.
Hoping that PS3 Digital Download Titles will be available on PS4....
I hope so for your sake, but they always use the architecture as the biggest reason why backwards compatibility isn't possible, and if that truly is the case then it wouldn't make sense that your digital download titles would still be working.
S1ght
New member
The only way I see this working is if they reduce console game prices to the same rate as PC Games..
Rumor has it PS4 may follow the same route... a fee to play 2nd hand games
'Cept that they often make a loss on the console sales and make it up in the game sales. So if they had to reduce the game price, they'll have to up the console price.
Toxin
New member
You may have to spread that hate over to Sony as well. With all the bad press surrounding Microsoft's stand on 2nd hand gaming, they have yet to say which direction they want to go in. You'd think they (Sony) would jump at the opportunity to one-up Microsoft.
Guess we'll find out at E3......
jasong
New member
Personally I would just relax. The new consoles will be great.
Tydmors
New member
Then just go and get yourself ps+.
Hopefully they will give free ps4 games to ps+ users once it launches, so i will be adding them to my account and have a bucket full by the time i can purchase a ps4.
JudeC
New member
I'm with you on this, having said that, as much as I don't like waving my hands about trying to control the tv, I do appreciate a good laugh when watching other people do it.
For digital download titles it's less of an issue vs disc based games. Reason being that the games on the discs will be the PowerPC RISC architecture games' data files while the digital download versions would be whatever you end up downloading.
It's worth keeping in mind that very many games for both the Xbox 360 and PS3 exist as PC versions as well. 'Porting' those games over to the new consoles would be far less of an issue than having to completely re-launch disc versions of previous-generation-console games for the new consoles.
If you already own the game on your 'account' and can only be logged into your account on one console at a time anyway, then there shouldn't be much, if any, reason for you to be unable to play that game on the new consoles aside from publishers' greed.
You're hating the wrong people. You should be hating publishers, because it's up to publishers to determine whether or not they want to have a tax applied to the sale of used games and whether or not they want to have a fee associated with lending out games.
There are very good reasons for these two systems to exist, and they could benefit gamers more in the long run than I'd wager you could imagine. All people like you are seeing in the short term is "I'm going to get less money for my used games" and "I'm going to have to pay money to borrow games". Never mind that when you lend out a game to a friend, particularly in the case of single-player only games with limited or no replay value, the publisher often makes absolutely nothing off of what you'd just done. Likewise, when you sell a used game to someone, the publisher is losing out on a sale of their title entirely, and every subsequent re-sale of that used title is another lost sale from which they could have made some profit.
It may sound like greed on the publishers' case, but if this system were to be implemented there's a very real possibility that they will bring down their games' base costs to more reasonable figures to make up for the deficit.
As it stands, right now publishers make an absolutely disgusting amount on a per-copy-sold basis, but have to make that much to accommodate the lost sales on their games that get resold as used games or lent out to who knows how many people.
Can you imagine how many more games there would technically be available for people to play, and how much more likely they would be to buy a copy of their own if games' prices had to be slashed in half or be brought to an even lower figure? We might see more content developed for games and more IP generation thanks to publishers not necessarily needing to be as concerned with creating a product that would only satisfy a niche market, but that has to be priced accordingly to other games they publish just so people don't (wrongly) start bitching about this game being so cheap but that game being so expensive.
As far as I'm concerned, games like Fable 1-3 shouldn't cost more than R150 at launch in South Africa, because they have limited to no replay value and are single-player only. A game like Demon's Souls on the other hand has at least some kind of multiplayer and so could be slightly more expensive for the more expansive gameplay potential it offers, at R200. Then a game like Calladoodie, which has immense persistent replay value could be priced at R300 versus its current R550-R650 launch price - because it has both a single-player campaign as well as greatly replayable multiplayer content. If it cost just R300/title versus its current cost, just imagine how many more people would happily go out to buy it.
jasong
New member
There is one flipside to the used game argument which is - and I haven't done the used game thing in quite a while, but in my Uni days I was fairly prolific - that I used to sell a few games in order to afford the purchase of a particularly desirable new game. I didn't sell them for pocket change. It was a reinvestment back into gaming. And if there hadn't been used games, I just wouldn't have bought a lot of the games that I did because I couldn't have afforded them - so it was used or nothing; or selling used to fund new. I can't imagine that I hurt developers by that practice.
As for the cost of gaming, I think it has much less to do with volume of sales than with the effects of 1) piracy and 2) ramped up development costs. AAA games now are spectacularly expensive to produce, such that a game like Tomb Raider can sell millions and still not really recoup costs for the developer. Replay value or lack of it has no bearing on anything; some games are intrinsically linear and others are intrinsically multiplayer, and you can't expect the SP developer to charge less because of the fact.
As for the cost of gaming, I think it has much less to do with volume of sales than with the effects of 1) piracy and 2) ramped up development costs. AAA games now are spectacularly expensive to produce, such that a game like Tomb Raider can sell millions and still not really recoup costs for the developer. Replay value or lack of it has no bearing on anything; some games are intrinsically linear and others are intrinsically multiplayer, and you can't expect the SP developer to charge less because of the fact.
Last edited: