I don't see where either of the bottom two are changed in any way.Sam Posten said:This kind of bums me out a little tho, I was never one of the ones truly up in arms. Microsoft's proposed scheme would have been better for me in many ways:
-Allowing me to share my games with my nephews and other friends
-Allowing me to buy games at retail discounted prices and then convert them to full digital immediately.
They announced that family sharing is dead too:mattCR said:I don't see where either of the bottom two are changed in any way.
In regards to the top 1, realize you aren't just hurting Gamestop, Sam, you're hurting a lot of people who buy and sell used on places like Craigslist, Ebay, etc. direct to other consumers; and you're preventing people from being unreturnable "lemons" in titles, etc. or passing them on to someone who might like them.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/rumor-microsoft-set-to-reverse-controversial-game-licensing-policies/Microsoft has confirmed to Kotaku that the "family sharing" and digital cloud library access features that were planned to be in the Xbox One are indeed gone thanks to today's policy reversal. Xbox one users will also apparently have to download a "Day One" patch to enable the offline mode.
I don't know much (nothing) about video games but how do used games hurt the industry? Or more specifically, I would think that the good of the used market would outweigh the bad since anything that allows people to play a game seems like it would be a boost to the industry in the end.Sam Posten said:I get that others besides Gamestop would be hurt. But the sooner that vampirish bloodsucker is dead the better for the industry as a whole. F the pawnshop mentality.
WORD.It’s a messaging problemThe root reason why Microsoft had to back down on their changes and make things stick with the way they are, it’s because they did a horrible job selling their new features and what they could have meant for the consumer.
What they should have done is said that they’ve made the Xbox One an entirely digital experience, where people can purchase games directly from Microsoft on day 1 without having to wait in line, preorder or deal with physical discs. They should have said that they’re still going to make physical discs available for people who don’t have the appropriate bandwidth to download 50GB games, but that their focus is on digital. They should have said that because their focus is digital, all these features listed above are like Steam, but better. But instead they focused too much on the physical discs and lost people along the way.
I'm a huge fan of steam. These features were actually better than what Steam allows.• If you purchased a physical disc game, your game was tied to your account and you could go to any other Xbox One and be able to have access to your entire library without carrying physical discs around
• You could re-sell your physical disc game to Gamestop or any participating outlet that opted into Microsoft’s revenue sharing system
• You could buy a used physical disc game from a participating retailer and play it like a new game
• You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up all the time to swap discs
• You could buy a digital copy and sell it or gift it to a friend (a previously unheard-of policy in digital games)
• You could potentially share your entire library with 10 friends/family members, with the only limitation being that you couldn’t play the same game at once
Not a single penny spent on used games ever goes to a developer's pockets.TravisR said:I don't know much (nothing) about video games but how do used games hurt the industry? Or more specifically, I would think that the good of the used market would outweigh the bad since anything that allows people to play a game seems like it would be a boost to the industry in the end.
I understand that but like I said, I think that someone playing a game- whoever is getting the money- keeps up interest in the industry as a whole and that's worth the trade off. I have little to no interest in video games (the only reason I'm in this thread is to get an idea of what is happening with the new systems) but the prices that they go for would stop me from buying anything but what I was absolutely positive that was going to like. Drop the price $10 or $20 or $30, I'd be more inclined to buy more games and that would benefit the industry.Sam Posten said:
You can't look at it as one big sum. You have to look at it from all sides. Gamers have been conditioned to expect that they can get used games almost immediately from a game's launch. They can wait as little as 3 days and buy a AAA title and none of that money goes to the dev. They can then trade that game in any time and the used title can be sold to another buyer, none of that money goes to a dev. You have a shadow market where only initial sales go to the makers and then the vast long tail they never get a cent from it.Type A said:
The flip side to this though is it's money the developers weren't going to see anyway. The developers got there money when it was purchased the first time. People buying the used game are the people who might not of been as committed to the game as to want to drop the $59. I'd also argue that there a lot of people buying used games are also the collector types buying lots of new games, similar to the torrenting movie/music stuff that the industry doesn't want people to know about.Sam Posten said:It's leeching out money from Devs hands from the start.
Absolute nonsense. Quite a lot of the money spent on new games comes from the sale proceeds and/ or trade credit from used games. Granted, it's an indirect chain -- credit from game A funds the purchase of game B, but that works both ways.Sam Posten said: