We Recommend By ZergNet


  • ipaqi - May 24, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    Yeah, I'd appreciate if you updated and corrected this article to match this other article you posted:
  • Shinn - May 25, 2013 4:32 a.m.

    It's an editorial, it's meant to reflect Cooper's opinion based on information available at the time of writing. You may have noticed the disclaimer at the end of the text?
  • ipaqi - May 25, 2013 5:22 a.m.

    I admit, I didn't read it all the way through, because I'm fairly bullish on Xbox One, and this very pessimistic opinion wasn't one I was going to read all the way through, having read through five or six others in the past couple of days. However, I still think that if he's going to make the determinative statement in the very title of the article "Xbox One is the [...] Used-Game-Killing [...]", he should redact that now that it seems that MS is making an effort to make used games something that's better for the industry than it is now. While not dishonest, it seems unnecessarily harsh, and though it is an opinion piece, the title doesn't seem to suggest that as much as it suggests an informed news-article. And news-articles get corrected.
  • BladedFalcon - May 25, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    If you didn't really read it all the way trough, you really don't get a right to complain about what's written or not. Inform yourself properly first, I'd suggest. Furthermore... You should know better than to judge an article by it's headline, AND know that Headlines are often written like that precisely to grab attention. Correct practice or not, it is what it is, and at least this one isn't as manipulative or outright misguiding as the ones used in sites like, say, IGN. Lastly, unless Microsoft stop dancing around the issue and actually says succinctly, and with clarity how they will handle used games, then no, the headline here doesn't merit changing. Because it's precisely Microsoft's reluctance to give a straight answer that is the central theme of this article. Which of course, you would have known that already had you bothered to properly read things...
  • ipaqi - May 25, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Speaking of informing oneself, you should probably have read (on this site, no less) that Used game sales are going to proceed much like they do now. The difference is going to be that only stores that pay a percentage to MS and the game's publisher will be able to resell the used copy, otherwise they'd just be buying a disc. No difference as far as the user is concerned. There are certainly problems with Xbox One (The Kinect being an always-on always-internet-accessible webcam and microphone right in your living room being what I would consider most problematic), but the used game thing, specifically, isn't it. And the title of this article specifically - and erroneously - implies that it is. A fallacy that I feel should be corrected. Whether or not the GR crew agree or even care is up to them, but from the beginning I wasn't protesting the content of the article or the form of it, but the misdirecting nature of the headline. And I personally believe that factual errors can (and should) always be corrected when encountered. It's a matter of respect and of the website's integrity as a news/punditry company.
  • BladedFalcon - May 25, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Yeah... you might wanna read again on that article you mentioned, and THEN you should read about what is known about what happens when the disc is tried to be used on another account, even when it's on the same Xbox. You make it sound as if that new reveal regarding how stores can re-sell games makes every other console regarding used games null or solved, which is not. What happens if I have a brother and a sister living in my house that both want to play the game but using their own accounts? So far as what Microsoft has described, in this scenario, both my brother and my sister would have to pay the full price of the game again EACH if they want to play the game in their account. Or what if I have a friend I want to lend the game to? the article I linked says that sure, the game can play fine if he uses my own account... But doing that is kinda unfair, don't you think? The whole article you posted above does NOTHING to clarify what happens in this scenario. And for a LOT of people, including myself, this is a serious concern and problem. And don't tell me it's unethical to want to lend a game or let a person living with you play the same game in their own account. So, I'm sorry, but you're wrong, the used game thing is STILL very much a problem and a big concern. And Microsoft has done nothing to correctly address this situation. So this entire article and what it talks about very much stands.
  • BladedFalcon - May 25, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    "You make it sound as if that new reveal regarding how stores can re-sell games makes every other """"console"""" regarding used games null or solved, which is not." Argh, in the highlighted space, i meant to say "concern", not console, my apologies.
  • ipaqi - May 25, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    First off, no, I wouldn't say that I'm wrong, because we're now having a semantic difference between what most people refer to as "Used Games" and game lending, which the apparent consequences to, I agree, are still a problem. However, not being able to lend your game to a friend or not being able to play a game on your own account if your brother used it on his account is a completely different thing from MS "Killing" the used games market. It is also exceedingly difficult to differentiate between the lending issue and plain old piracy, as any ol' Xbox 360 pirate can (but probably won't) attest to. This goes to explain why they've had to put in Steam-like mechanisms to monitor these things. You may disagree with the act, but I don't see how you could reasonably disagree with the need to have done something. If this approach is disagreeable to you, then perhaps when Sony says what their approach to used games and game lending will be, you'll find theirs more agreeable. I, however, very much doubt that you will. In any case, I objected to the determinative statement that is part of this headline. You're making an argument out of the issue of the content, where I do not necessarily disagree with you. Continuing to argue over this is foolish and helps no one, especially seeing as you and I are stalwart in our differing opinions. All I am saying is that the headline is now misleading, and I personally believe it should be corrected. I won't argue with you anymore about used games and lending. I won't even reply. If you want to talk about whether or not the headline should be corrected, that I may be convinced to converse with you over.
  • BladedFalcon - May 25, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    I'm, not talking about any semantic difference concerning the headline. See for yourself: "Xbox One is the always-online, used-game-killing nightmare we feared" Notice how nowhere do they mention the words "market", nor "sales". Which what you keep fussing about over. They are saying "used-game killing", which can mean anything related used games, from selling them, to lending them or using them in different accounts. As long as MS doesn't clarify what it meant about the full fee regarding playing a used game on a different account, which they haven't, the headline is not misleading at all. That fee, if it works as well all assume it does, would effectively kill used game sharing.
  • ipaqi - May 25, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    You're wrong: 1) Literally anyone can be an approved outlet. It's just a matter of agreeing to give the percentage. It's not pre-selection, it's making sure the market isn't harmful to the industry. 2) Why'd you have to pull a number out of your ass? Well, here's mine: MS currently charges a 5$ licensing fee; Publishers are paid a good deal less than 50% of the rest of the sale (There was a big hullabaloo about how Steam is insanely profitable for companies because they get, usually, 70% of the money from sales). 3) "Innocent until proven guilty." Also, "Benefit of the Doubt". 4) Maybe so, maybe not, there have also been reports (in other sites) about MS considering special prints that don't need web-authenticating, this for places like US Military installations abroad, where the internet isn't necessarily available. These may also be extended out to places like Gamefly and local shops. Much like special rental versions of DVDs, which are the only ones that can be legally rented out. 5) Again with your bullshit 10/90 split. And guess what, Gamestop will take it on the chin. When Amazon sells new copies for at most 60$ and doesn't handle used games, Gamestop can't afford to raise the price more than 5$. If they decide to raise it further, most people will just get it from amazon with day-1 shipping. So the price isn't going to rise. Gamestop's profit margin is going to fall. And guess what, I don't give two shits about Gamestop's profit margin. First off, I'm not even a US-citizen. I live in Israel and have no need or care for Gamestop. Second, Gamestop has been doing very well in the last six years. A bit too well. And very little of that secondary market money has gone back to the actual industry. Only one point that has been raised against me in this entire issue hasn't been misinformed, mistaken or straight up disingenuous, and that's the one @BladedFalcon gave about lending games. My feeling is, if you're not going to give any money to the publishers, console makers and developers, why should you give it to someone just because they own a store? You'd be doing better things for the industry by pooling the money you'd have otherwise spend on used games, and use it to buy non-used copies. As to the other games you want to play, just pirate them. At least this way, Everyone gets a cut, and you don't waste any money.
  • BladedFalcon - May 25, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    ....Did you just endorse piracy? ._.
  • ipaqi - May 25, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    Over buying all of your games used? Definitely. Legalities aside, it's better for the industry to pirate some and buy the rest new than to buy everything used. Plain and simple.
  • BladedFalcon - May 25, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    I can sort of see your point... And yet something tells me every single publisher and console maker would heavily frown at your statement :P
  • grendel007 - May 25, 2013 10:20 p.m.

    Do you believe this to be true for all used products? Cars, houses, clothes, etc? So you think that any time anyone sells a product used they should have to pay the original producer royalties? If you think this is stupid then take a look at current ideas being bandied about concerning used BOOKS. Some people are saying this should be made ILLEGAL because the original writer/publisher gets no royalties from the sale. Living outside the US should make your concerns stronger in this instance, not negate them, as this issue will affect you there more than me here
  • ipaqi - May 25, 2013 10:31 p.m.

    Well, I do think that for cars. I don't know about Houses and clothes because the original "producer" doesn't give a guarantee or give maintenance services on the product after it's left their care. Cars and Games do get those, so yeah, I think first resale should give money back to the original maker. As to the international issue; we don't have game rental or used-games besides eBay-like second hand, etc. Same for many other countries. So I'm actually not affected and can look at this objectively.
  • ZeeCaptain - May 26, 2013 5:15 a.m.

    Wait, besides the point on the video games, why should there be a profit margin for the automotive manufactures that produced the used vehicles that are getting sold by a third party. There are hundreds of used car lots in just about every state, maybe thousands in California, and sure there has been a lot or scrutiny over them the past few years, there are now many a law that keeps them a bit more honest, but to put this "tax" for lack of a better word on the used car industry is a terrible idea. If anything it would stop the used car dealers from using sources like Kelly blue books for pricing vehicles, they would instead charge enough to where they feel they get their fare cut. Sure this will cause a fall in the market at first, especially if it would seem more of a gamble then just shelling out the extra couple of grand for the non-used car from the actual dealer, but it wouldn't kill the used car industry, eventually it may even cause a rise in the prices of the newer cars from the manufacturers, who now feel they can get away with it.
  • ZeeCaptain - May 26, 2013 5:17 a.m.

    Also your not looking at this objectively, your having an argument between yourself and BladedFalcon, you have your points and he has his. For someone to look at this objectively they couldn't be a part of this, or be so easily lured in for a rebuttal.

Showing 21-40 of 161 comments

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


Connect with Facebook

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