Next Generation Console News: Xbox One, PS4, Wii U

[Bucknut24]

The cloud can still exist without DRM. It just wouldn't be mandatory. There is no reason that people who choose to participate could not still share their games with friends, like MS originally planned, except because MS is being petty.

These features depending on the online check DRM to not just be giant piracy loopholes.

Removing the online check DRM removes the feasibility of the features.

Problem with that is that it required the "disk not in the drive" concept.

Which can't be for "some consumers," as it makes it impossible to tell what games are currently locked to one persons license and which ones weren't.

Hence the system they were going to put in place where only certain retailers could do resale.

Very convoluted and confusing to do a half ass approached to that. It would still require the trade in restrictions and everything else...

You'd also end up with a free copy that works offline.

This ignores the entire point of what they were trying to do.

They wanted to make buying disks like buying digital.. to encourage people to continue to buy disks.. in support of their retailers, who they were going to monopolize resale for.

Giving people a huge advantage for DD purchases is not in their business model. They need retail to thrive, and were trying not to compete against them too much.

All of this is bad news for retailers.. because it gave gamers even more reason to go DD only.. and now we can sell our games on Craigslist/Ebay/etc.... making the sharing feature DD only would be another dagger in the heart of retail..

It's not what MS wants.. they believe retail is incredibly important.. hence their own retail store efforts, spending big on retail relationships/expanding MS store into Best Buy, etc.,etc.

from someone who is much smarter than me in this field

 

[BrutuStrength]

from someone who is much smarter than me in this field

Then they could still do the sharing for any games that are purchased via download instead of via disc.

So they should still be able to offer that to you for downloaded games. If they don't, then it's likely because of sour grapes that the entirety of their DRM program was not universally loved and accepted.

 

[Buckeye Maniac]

Then they could still do the sharing for any games that are purchased via download instead of via disc.

So they should still be able to offer that to you for downloaded games. If they don't, then it's likely because of sour grapes that the entirety of their DRM program was not universally loved and accepted.

What he said.

 

[Bucknut24]

Then they could still do the sharing for any games that are purchased via download instead of via disc.

So they should still be able to offer that to you for downloaded games. If they don't, then it's likely because of sour grapes that the entirety of their DRM program was not universally loved and accepted.

Giving people a huge advantage for DD purchases is not in their business model. They need retail to thrive, and were trying not to compete against them too much.

All of this is bad news for retailers.. because it gave gamers even more reason to go DD only.. and now we can sell our games on Craigslist/Ebay/etc.... making the sharing feature DD only would be another dagger in the heart of retail..

It's not what MS wants.. they believe retail is incredibly important.. hence their own retail store efforts, spending big on retail relationships/expanding MS store into Best Buy, etc.,et

 

[BrutuStrength]

Giving people a huge advantage for DD purchases is not in their business model. They need retail to thrive, and were trying not to compete against them too much.

Yeah, because there "business model" was so well thought out initially. Spare me the head shake. They can continue to modify their business model, it just means it won't be in their pre-selected format (which it no longer is now, anyway).

If they sell download games for $50, then they will be incentivizing consumers to purchase games digitally, in a manner that will follow their original "big brother" DRM concept. That provides the library sharing that you desire. Hell, even without providing pricing incentives, the incentive still exists for consumers, such as yourself, that want to have a shareable library.

Then, they can also continue to sell the games via disc, in a sharable/giftable/re-sellable format. These are not eligible for library sharing, but they boost sales for big retail. And here's the thing, it also boosts sales for any company that wants to be in the re-sale business (not just the select few that M$ selects).

The real "business model" that this affects is M$'s attempt to control the fleecing experience it wanted to administer upon it's customers. This is a big win for consumers as a whole. The more things that get locked up in DRM formats like they were trying to push, the more limited our market options are likely to be, as a whole, going forward.

Edit. Please provide links to external quotes in the future.

 

[buxfan4life]

Because making the font bigger makes it true.

Yeah, you aren't a M$ fanboy at all.

Bottom line is that M$ tried to lock down gamers into paying through the nose for games that might suck ass with no way to sell back/give away those games. The consumers (who are the only reason for selling a product) said we won't buy something that we don't own, and M$ said tough shit, you will do what we say. The consumers then said, fine, we won't buy your shitty model that corners us into wasting money.

M$ doesn't give a shit about retailers, so that statement is huge lie. The whole DRM thing was to supposedly protect the game developers from their so called loss to the resale market, and that was all it was. It was M$ way of sweetening exclusive title deals with certain developers.

And the "not moving forward with technology" is crap since both new systems have some big advances in their processors and memory.

Basically, M$ got their hand caught in the cookie jar and are now moping that they got caught.

 

[Mac]

PS4 To be released November 13?

 

[Bucknut24]

Because making the font bigger makes it true.

Yeah, you aren't a M$ fanboy at all.

Bottom line is that M$ tried to lock down gamers into paying through the nose for games that might suck ass with no way to sell back/give away those games. The consumers (who are the only reason for selling a product) said we won't buy something that we don't own, and M$ said tough shit, you will do what we say. The consumers then said, fine, we won't buy your shitty model that corners us into wasting money.

M$ doesn't give a shit about retailers, so that statement is huge lie. The whole DRM thing was to supposedly protect the game developers from their so called loss to the resale market, and that was all it was. It was M$ way of sweetening exclusive title deals with certain developers.

And the "not moving forward with technology" is crap since both new systems have some big advances in their processors and memory.

Basically, M$ got their hand caught in the cookie jar and are now moping that they got caught.

it's only their biggest busniess, that's all

jfc I didn't realize I was arguing with half brained monkeys over here

 

[Bucknut24]

Yeah, because there "business model" was so well thought out initially. Spare me the head shake. They can continue to modify their business model, it just means it won't be in their pre-selected format (which it no longer is now, anyway).

If they sell download games for $50, then they will be incentivizing consumers to purchase games digitally, in a manner that will follow their original "big brother" DRM concept. That provides the library sharing that you desire. Hell, even without providing pricing incentives, the incentive still exists for consumers, such as yourself, that want to have a shareable library.

Then, they can also continue to sell the games via disc, in a sharable/giftable/re-sellable format. These are not eligible for library sharing, but they boost sales for big retail. And here's the thing, it also boosts sales for any company that wants to be in the re-sale business (not just the select few that M$ selects).

The real "business model" that this affects is M$'s attempt to control the fleecing experience it wanted to administer upon it's customers. This is a big win for consumers as a whole. The more things that get locked up in DRM formats like they were trying to push, the more limited our market options are likely to be, as a whole, going forward.

Edit. Please provide links to external quotes in the future.

why, it's not from any news article

as I said it's from a poster who knows a whole more about this stuff than me or you...

if you want to sign up for the forum then I will be more than happy to give you the link so you can argue with him over there, if not, then so be it, I'll just keep dropping truth bombs

 

[Bucknut24]

do you guys honestly believe Sony gives a shit about anyone and MS doesn't? no neither does

you know why Sony wants disc based games still? RETAIL


in the end, both companies want $$$, if you don't think Sony is the business in what will make them money, then I think you need to go back to school




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG7LjVCj50Y"]I feel like I'm taking CRAZY PILLS - YouTube[/ame]

 

[buxfan4life]

Resort to name calling. Yep, that will get you respect.

Retailers mean nothing to M$, since all they care about is selling product. If they could sell everything direct online without going through a retailer, they would. Why do you think they were trying to push the pure digital format? To get around retailers and give their exclusive title developers a kick back.

 

[BrutuStrength]

why, it's not from any news article

You can still provide a link. At least to the page of the forum, if not to the direct post itself.

as I said it's from a poster who knows a whole more about this stuff than me or you...

How do you know how much more of anything someone might know than me (or anyone else for that matter)? Does that poster work for the M$ business model department? Or is he some teenager/college kid spouting his own theories?

What makes him appear to be so knowledgeable in your view? Is it because you think he truly knows the answers, or do you just agree with his reasoning?

Look, I've got a business degree (marketing) and 15+ years working in the real world. I understand "business models." And I've explained to you how all that has changed is that they are no longer going to impose their preferred (money squezzing/controlling) model on their consumers.

They changed their business model due to the feedback from their consumers. My point is that simply shifting a business model, does not mean that they can no longer provides certain features.

Part of the compromise might be that download purchases may be part of one system (shareable libraries subject to their stringent DRM model, requiring daily network connections and the like) and disc purchases may be part of another system (resale, physically shareable, trade-in, etc). Those combined systems might make up a new, more comprehensive business model.

So it's not impossible, but it's something that they need to work out. It's their business to work such details out (not mine or the guy from the other forum... unless he really does work for their business model department).

The bigger point to me, is that this is a win for consumers for the reasons I have previously stated.

if you want to sign up for the forum then I will be more than happy to give you the link so you can argue with him over there, if not, then so be it, I'll just keep dropping truth bombs

Again, it would be nice to at least provide a link to the post so that others can view it in it's proper context and decide for themselves how knowledgeable the person may or may not be.

Also, one guy's post on another forum does not constitute it as being a "truth bomb."

Look, I've been a big Xbox guy for a long time, so I'm not trying to give you a hard time about this. You certainly have your right to be upset/disappointed that features you were looking forward to using might no longer be available. I'm trying to help you see that M$ can still find ways to incorporate those features if they really want to (and maybe it would cause issues with retailers or what not, that's not really my concern). The fact is, they have changed their business model to a new one, because they see it as being better/more profitable going forward.

 

[BrutuStrength]

do you guys honestly believe Sony gives a [Mark May] about anyone and MS doesn't? no neither does

you know why Sony wants disc based games still? RETAIL

I would suggest that retail is a bigger concern for Sony, since Sony sells most of their products via retail outlets. M$ primarily deals with software/digital content that really doesn't require retail... other than PCs/laptops being pre-loaded with their operating systems and such.

in the end, both companies want $$$, if you don't think Sony is the business in what will make them money, then I think you need to go back to school

In the end, all companies care about $$$. But long-term successful companies know that without happy customers, they will ultimately run out of $$$. That's why both providers have reverted to similar models.

 

[jlb1705]

I'm imagining Bucknut24 all excited about library sharing, only to find out that he was the only person he knew that actually bought an Xbone.

 

[jwinslow]

Giving people a huge advantage for DD purchases is not in their business model. They need retail to thrive, and were trying not to compete against them too much.

All of this is bad news for retailers.. because it gave gamers even more reason to go DD only.. and now we can sell our games on Craigslist/Ebay/etc.... making the sharing feature DD only would be another dagger in the heart of retail..

It's not what MS wants.. they believe retail is incredibly important.. hence their own retail store efforts, spending big on retail relationships/expanding MS store into Best Buy, etc.,et

If they believed retail was so important they wouldn't have introduced such a huge shift to digital downloads and the even bigger "don't buy just mooch it off your friend" library system.
.

Instead of letting best buy make the profit on the markup, they are shifting it to their own wallets and pocketing the difference with far less overhead. Obviously they aren't killing off retail but like music and books they are overhauling the way power users get their content and doing so in their ecosystem.