Google+

236 comments

  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    MS was stupid. They relied on people to read their official statement about games. They should have known that gamesites like to have 'creative license' when it comes to assuming how it works (ie- what nonsense will get them more hits that day). And they also didn't have a snazzy PR guy who can lie on camera better. Sony Wins.
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    I'm SO confused. So, Sony's Jack Trenton just said in an interview that "Sony Games are free to buy, trade. lend and do what you want with. IF HOWEVER 3rd party developers want to impose some sort of protections, that's their choice." And Microsoft's policy is the exact opposite. They say "Microsoft Game Studios Games are free to buy, trade, lend and do what you want with. IF HOWEVER 3rd party developers want to impose some sort of protections, that's their choice and our machine can do that for them"... and it's the end of the f&$*(ki&g universe. So I'm guessing it's in the wording somewhere that this is the end of the world for us gamers? Because- if the people that MAKE the games want to have some sort of protection as to how many free loaders or second hand retailers get to make more profit on their games than they do... that's wrong to give them a tool to do that. Riiiight. Okay. I think I see it now! It's because the 'knee jerk' journalism that hasn't done ANY research at all on the subject is the ONLY sources we should be reading up on! I got it now! OH- AND we should clearly state that NOBODY is going to or ever has bought a game digitally and that those games have the exact same restrictions and always have. But that's different because... that's been happening for years now and THIS is totally new.
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    YESTERDAY they clearly announced they don't have those restrictions. TODAY they slipped out the juicy nugget of Sony FIRST party games don't have any restrictions, but 3rd party games can do what they want- that SONY has no say in it. That's EXACTLY what MS said two weeks ago when they announced their plan. The fact that, as of right now, the One has the ABILITY to block content if 3rd party developers want to, is somehow EVIL and DRACONIAN but... I don't see the difference. Is it because the Xbox One is an online system and the PS4 isn't? Is it the fact that one lets you hide and the other doesn't?
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    But I'm not the only one! There are about 20 more post on this site saying exactly the same thing! Sony 'slipped' out a little piece of their plan to a small audience that had a reporter ask the right question. What they did on stage was make a BIG announcement that had holes in it- because they controlled the way they got to say what they wanted to say (or us to hear). If Sony had said EXACTLY what MS said, you people would be supporting it completely. That's the absolute truth. Remember how the Xbox One was the ugliest thing ever seen... then the PS4 came out- looking like a slanted Xbox One and it's perfectly beautiful? Same thing. This '1st vs. 3rd party' thing is a slanted version of the same thing.
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    I'm not trying to spin, I'm trying to get down to the core truth of it. Xbox One is allowing publishers to block the use of pirated games (which, second hand retailers that take money for games and don't pay the publishers is nothing more than legal loophole piracy). You're saying that it's fine for Sony to say "it's up to the publisher to do it, but we're not going to do it with our games" but it's not okay for MS to say "It's up to the publisher to do it, but we're not going to do it with our games" because the Xbox One is online and it's reporting directly to the publishers that don't want their games pirated. Sony is copping out because they allow you to hide from your sins while MS is always online and you'll get caught! If not a SINGLE publisher decides to use this feature that MS is making an option- there won't be a SINGLE difference between the two console's policy! Halo- free to buy,sell, trade or lend. Killzone- free to buy, sell, trade or lend. Call of Duy 18- up to Activision. The difference is who's enforcing Activision's wishes and who's not.
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 7:38 p.m.

    I like you Eightboll, you're a very respectful debater and I have nothing but admiration for the way you're expressing your opinion. Having said that... Keeping things status quo is not going to help the current state of gaming. If you read articles found on sites like Gamasutra or other game developer websites, the people that make the games say- PLEAD really- that second hand software sales are killing their companies (smaller studios obviously, not the giants). When you say "i like a game enough to buy it" the next part should be "so I'll pay 100% of a new game price (even if that's on sale at 50% off) and the portion of that purchase will go to the people that make the game." It should not be "I'll buy that game at 90-95%% of the retail price, but not 1% will go to the people that earned it by making the game". Now- if a developer or publisher says "that's fine, we just want you to play our product and have a good time" then all is great and count yourself gifted. But IF the developer/ publisher says "hey- we worked for YEARS on that game and we deserve to be paid for our efforts and your enjoyment!" then it's only fair that there's SOME way that they have protection. Just because you pay money to a middleman who's found a loophole in the law doesn't mean you can ignore that, according to the publisher, you're stealing their game. It's legal- but it's not helping the game industry that we ALL love. The way you explain this situation is "I'm going to play the game on the machine that lets me get away with crossing the developers expressed wishes and lets me pay 90% of the retail price to a company that keeps that money and gives nothing back to the makers." And again- if the developer says that's fine- great. My side of it is: I feel that MS is giving an extra tool to the developers to stop piracy in a more effective way than an online pass code. Sony and MS are both saying the same thing about THEIR OWN private publishings (first party games) but MS is saying "we're not going to just stand back and pretend there's nothing we can do to help our partners should they feel differently than we do." PC gamers have been playing by these rules for years now and the PC developing field is thriving- from major corp. to indie developers. And prices reflect that- they go on RIDICULOUS sales all the time because they're getting so much more back, sales don't hurt them the same way they do retail console games (where it's all or nothing in the first 4 weeks). And how often do you see PC games in second hand stores like Gamestop or Bestbuy? When Sony says "we're doing it the same way... but if 3rd party publishers come up with a way of blocking their games- that's on them, not us" it's the same exact thing MS is saying. But MS has given them a tool of protecting themselves should THEY (the publisher) decide to use it. I do wholeheartedly agree with you that there shouldn't be a surprise. I would guess/ hope/ believe that there will be SOME form of a label on the packaging that says "This product is protected by the 'oh no you can't!' copy protection DRM" and we'll know BEFORE we buy. If that's not in place, I would feel very threatened before buying anything. And honestly, I likely wouldn't buy from that publisher again if I had to find out the hard way. Okay. That's all I have to say about that. I think you made yourself clear and I hope I made myself clear as well. If we are at an impasse, I would like to think we can at least go our own ways without bitter feelings. You seem a decent fellow and that's pretty rare to find that on the internet. Thanks!
  • chad-munn - June 12, 2013 5:18 a.m.

    I'm going to take a copy/paste approach to a conversation I'm having on my FB account with a friend of mine- some of it may be redundant from what I've said before, but there are points in there that should be made: "I work for a photography company now. We make our money by shooting pictures, editing them and selling them. When we sell prints of that, we're selling every part of the company from the storefront they walked into to the envelope they received the pictures in. From step 1 to step 15. If they were to take those photos and photocopy them to resell, at a 190% markup, we get nothing but they profit over and over and over from our work. And again, I feel it's unfair for a loophole in the law to say it's okay for you as a consumer to buy a used product from a store that's there to provide new goods. And it comes down to price. It's not as if the Gamestop's out there are offering $8 and then selling at $10. They're gouging the market and offering $8 and selling it for $55. If the do that over and over- they end up making more money than the publishers per unit sold- in just 2 sales! And that's the large scale picture that's a bother. Small, individual to individual sales don't cause problems- large scale resellers do. I think MS knows that and that's why they're allowing the '1 time sale' and the 'friends list lending' AND the '10 "family" members' that get to just play ANY game from your library- regardless of where they're at or what Xbox they're on. And when you buy a movie or an album- it's fine for you to sell it (much like a game) but you're not allowed to charge admission to your house for the sake of playing the movie or an album like a theater. And the same with even a book- you can buy it, sell it, but you can't charge for people to read it. There's this idea that ALL publishers are classified as EA's or something. EA makes a shit ton of money because they're HUGE and Madden 2025 will sell a gillion copies after Madden 2024 comes out 3 months before. But smaller companies that have a MUCH smaller sell thru have no way of protecting their works and those are the ones that get screwed to death (literally) by used game sales. Lionhead, one of my all time favorites, is hit tremendously because Fable is the ONLY game series they make. While they're a part of MS, they are their own entity as far as profit margins and sales numbers. When you see a copy of Fable 3 go in and out of Gamestop 3, 4, 82 times, Lionhead suffers greatly. It was Peter M. that gave such a great interview with Gamasutra about how Used Game shops are destroying the business of gaming. Without the profit and the numbers- publishers are less and less willing to bet on small companies because it's not a sure thing that they'll get their money back for their investment. 1 in 12 games turns a profit now. That's a huge risk for a publisher to take- investing in a retail release with less than a 10% chance of seeing your money come back. But Gamestop should make that money instead of the little guy that made the game or the company that took the chance on them? I think this is merely a tool the MS is giving those companies to protect THEIR lifeblood. People want to turn the idea of "ownership" into entitlement. Yes- you SHOULD be allowed to sell a thing you own. Not an issue. But when a company with nearly limitless founds can corner a market so thoroughly that it's largest source of income is the reselling of items they themselves sold the first time- it's largely a matter akin to banking and Interest. THEY spend the money once then reap the rewards and interest 5x over. How many times have I walked into a Gamestop and been told/pushed to buy the 'used copy for $5 less I wonder? A hundred? A thousand? Of course they want to push the used version, it's like 90% profit for them! That's not fair- in the spirit of 'ownership', it's not fair to the RIGHT way we should be dealing with a product that loses no value once it's used (unlike a car or a house or a professional fighting chicken)." Okay, not I'm back to live posting. The key points I want to make on your post are this: "Adapt or die. That's the law of everything." That says it all. Online is the future of gaming. It's how we've been moving and where we're heading. Mobile gaming... online. That's a great example. Services like Live and PSN... they're not only popular for gaming, they're getting more and more popular for distribution as well. IT IS the future. And you said that about MS having billions- that's true, as does Sony, as does Nintendo. But each division answers to it's own issues. Xbox is MS, MS is NOT Xbox. And that only goes to the point that MS is NOT charging for their used games. As of right now, a butt ton of publishers are all saying "Hey- we don't want that! We didn't tell them to do that!" which means they won't be taking that as an option! So... where are we going to see this "draconian" control being used? I've run out of room with this one... more later.
  • CharThom - June 19, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    Great Reply good sir, Great examples and I agree with most, if not all of your points! Thanks
  • shinkeidei - June 11, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Let me help you there buddy, pretty much what Jack Trenton said was: "everything remains the way it is on PS3". Sony is not imposing or creating any type of restriction on a console/infrastructure basis as MS is, if a publisher wants to impose any DRM or restrictions on used games, said publisher will need to come with its own solution (like those pesky online passes and stuff). An I'm very positive that, at least two big publisher that I can think of, will start with activation fees and stuff, the good part, is easier to boycott a dishonest publisher than a whole console. Although most gamers have made their minds already and PS4 seems to lead preorders and such I still think that (sadly) the xbone will do just fine, at least in the states, so I don't think MS will suffer that much. We should take the hate to the greedy publishers too.
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    I am NOT in any way trying to start a flame war. IN NO WAY. Calling the Xbox One an Xbone is... doing that sort of sh*t so... keep that in mind. What i saw yesterday was Sony poking a lot of sticks into MS, but then quietly saying the same exact thing as MS to a smaller audience. If the only real form of piracy protection changes have to do with a passcode made of paper and a passcode made of DRM... I don't see the difference. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm pointing out that there's no difference. To say that it's unfair because the Xbox One is online and the people that make the game can actually stop you from pirating their game is just a loophole being closed and a form of protection going to the developer/publishers. I don't know which publishers you mean- I'd guess EA is one of them but... not too sure as they just dumped their Pass system (although that could be preemptive). So it seems to me the BIGGER issue is the way the internet is blowing sh*t up about MS, but letting Sony slide by because the PS4 is offline. Is that right?
  • shinkeidei - June 11, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    No, it is not about the console being online or not. And trust me I'm replying cordially and trying not to be blunt because I personally don't like to flame on gamesradar (my personal favorite gaming site). I invite you to do some research as a consumer, Now, I refer to the xbone as the xbone, because I'm just showing the same level of respect that M$ has shown to me in past weeks. I don't want to resummarize what David gallantly exposed in this article again so re-read , got to other gaming sites and see for yourself why the positive reaction towards PS4. And remember, first party M$ game or not, you cannot lease, rent, or resell more than once your games, at a hardware and infrastructure level. Besides, Sony is also offering as a robust online offering as Mshaft (not counting the advantages of PSN+ over Live and not going into M$ virtual servers). Pretty much Sony is offering a better console, at a better price, with virtually the same (or superior) service, without the restrictions.
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 8:17 p.m.

    Okay, I think David did a crap job of being a journalist and I think he only added gas to the flame war. Second, MS saying, back in April that they were going to talk about Hardware at their reveal with no games, and GAMES ONLY at E3 and not features or hardware was a promise they kept. Journalist like David here had a full list of the features and promises (as they were openly stated my Microsoft) but he and those like him chose to fan the flames instead of re-reporting articles that sites like this had clearly posted. SO. No, I don't feel MS has disrespected anyone. They posted their plans and goals very openly- if you chose to read OTHER people ideas instead of going to the source, that is your failing. And on that point- in Microsoft's very first posting of their plans and outlines- they stated in black and white that THEIR FIRST PARTY GAMES from Microsoft Studios will NOT be using the DRM features. They are all able to be lent out, traded in and resold. That's not from any Pro-MS thread, that is directly from MS and it's on their official website. And Sony is, by the way- canceling the 'free to play online' with the PS4. The only way to play with friends is via playstaion plus. Just like Xbox Live. So let's knock that nonsense off as well. And as to whether or not the PS is a 'better console' is of your own personal opinion and nothing more- whatsoever. Using petty names doesn't degrade the console, it degrades yourself. The "positive reaction" that Sony has gotten thus far pretty much extends to which sites you're visiting. I like Gamesradar but with articles like this- it's not surprising the demographic they're catering to currently.
  • HalfBlackCanadian - June 11, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge that trade-in/used games are kind of a necessity of the past that isn't required anymore? Think about it; before digital downloads if a game went out of print, it was no longer available on shelves (unless you happened across an unnoticed copy in the middle of nowhere). When Earthbound sold out, it was sold out. Now, we have way more copies around (thank you CD/DVD/BluRay) and the ability to find a version online almost indefinitely. Used isn't a tool for gamers to try things they missed as much as a tool to avoid paying full price for a brand new game. I understand that digital games especially have a price discrepancy with retail, but that's a separate problem that needs to be addressed. Higher development costs and time, not to mention way more releases consistently throughout the year, means companies have to capitalize on what money they can get immediately after release of their game to a) consider dropping the price and b) continuing to develop games. I think the whole single trade-in element should be timed (first 6 months) if only to discourage a quick turn-around, but the argument isn't Microsoft piggy bank vs. the world, it's developers trying to survive vs. gamers-who-apparently-never-pirate-and-also-lend-games-out-all-of-the-time-and-trade-in-games-to-buy-new-games.
  • chad-munn - June 11, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    You shut your mouth! You just SHUT your MOUTH!! You keep making sense like that and saying practical things and they will KICK YOUR BUTT off the interwebs! BE ANGRY and irrational about things like teh rest of us! AARRGGHHH!!!11!!!
  • sxh967 - June 11, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    As soon as you start treating people who buy used games or trade in their games to buy new games as CRIMINAL, you immediately look like a self-interested prick.
  • ObliqueZombie - June 11, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    I just don't understand why any of this needs to happen. There are plenty of developers that have made it on PC-only services (and then translated later into the console, see CD Projekt) that relied on the good will of their customers. I don't condone pirating. Never have and never will. But shoving DRM in the gamer's faces makes them angry, and like a new parent overly scolding his child, it'll make things worse, at least in the short run. Personally, this is all just fucking nutty. Just make a good console, release some great games, and stabilize the online portion over time. I don't get why it's so hard all of a sudden and hasn't been for decades.
  • HalfBlackCanadian - June 11, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    Yeah, screw you Microsoft! Who cares about developers anyway?! Why the hell should THEY have jobs in a career they love? I say allow easy piracy and the ability to have a third of your market purchase AAA releases one week later at 5% off with ZERO dollars going to the people who actually created the games. Who do you think you are? The audacity disgusts me...
  • ParagonT - June 11, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    How DARE us, consumers, want products cheaper?! Whats wrong with us? We should be bending over backwards for corporations who's main goal is to charge as much for a product as they possibly can! How dare we lowly consumers want whats best for us? We should just be throwing money at them so that they can still make the same quality of game and charge the same! The nerve of us.... Actually, LETS ALL BUY A XBOX ONE! Then we can really give them everything they want! Your also buying a Xbox One too right!? I hope we have fun being treated like pirates and thieves! We should definitely meet us at the game store, and buy used game... Actually lets go to Walmart and buy some lube. Because we sure do love getting screwed!
  • HalfBlackCanadian - June 11, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    Have you bought used lately? They are not giving them away...saving $5 makes some sense to budget tight consumer, and makes EB games' CEO happy for sure. Can't talk about developer greed (D0CCON) without bringing EB/Gamestop into play. They rake it in for being a trading post. And how exactly is no DRM "the best for the consumer"? Sure, it can be done wrong (and to a degree it is being done a little heavy handed in this case) but protecting content isn't evil like everyone makes it seem to be. Plus game prices can actually go down with competition and actual sales going to the people who created them. Why in their right mind would a company lower the price of a game they are still trying to make money off of? $150 million to develop, requires at least 2.5 million copies sold to break even, at full price. That takes longer if every 5th person buys used, especially for the first month where the sales are the hottest. What's best for the gamer is a healthy industry and due to the many who cannot seem to want to pay the people who make the games (via piracy or second hand almost exclusively) this may require a tighter control on who gets money and how.
  • sxh967 - June 11, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    Just look at the interview om Gametrailers with Reggie Fils-Aime. You know what he said when asked about Nintendo's stance on DRM and used games? He said something to the effect of: "We make quality games built to last that people will want to keep on playing. In that sense, we don't really need to worry about people trading in our games" THAT is how you make games and do it profitably. If you can't make a game that the vast majority of people want to keep, don't make that game in the first place. When I buy FIFA, I play it ALL YEAR because I want to do the career mode, I want to play online and get a high score and get a high level. When I buy Battlefield, I want to keep playing to get to a higher rank and get all the trophies/achievements. When I buy Skyrim, I want to play through the incredibly long story and then start all over again with a new character type that will fundamentally change the way I play the game and my experiences. Games with no longevity and no replay value WILL get sold on and that is how it SHOULD be. If someone makes a game that is only useful for 10 hours (without any real replay value) and cost $150 million to make, maybe that is a bit of a stupid business decision. If you're going to make a game that is likely to get traded in then you have three options: 1) Don't make it in the first place. 2) Make it on a lower budget so that you can make a profit on a lower volume of sales. 3) Don't sell it for $60.
  • sxh967 - June 11, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    LOL. I enjoyed reading this ;)

Showing 201-220 of 236 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.