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.
  • 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.
  • 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 5:17 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.
  • ipaqi - May 26, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    I don't really see myself as having an argument with BladedFalcon, so much as a discussion. At least BladedFalcon and you have been polite enough not to resort to personal insults. Now, whether or not Auto Manufacturers should get a "tax" (although I abhor the term) on the first resale, fact is that they don't. I will put forth that many American auto companies had to be bailed out by the government to avoid a total collapse. I don't want to see that happen with video games. In fact, the bigger a distance you can put between government and games, the better things will be (Just look at 38 Studios). I actually rather regret the comparison because cars are products that last for years and years with proper care, while games are much more quickly consumed and cast aside. The comparison doesn't really do either side justice because of the incredible difference between the products themselves. Thing is, Gamestop and their ilk tend to buy at ridiculously low rates from their customers, and sell at almost full price. This has made them very successful, but it's very hard to see any good in it for consumers. Not to mention that none of the money goes back into the industry for each sale, very little of that sell-back money ever makes it to the publishers because people who buy and sell back used games tend to then buy used games for the same reason they did before - frugality. So without something in the middle, profits for the content-makers begins slowly but surely to decrease, and eventually they can't afford to make any games at all, and Gamestop will collapse on its own, bringing whatever remained of the non-indie industry with it. But that's if I'm being really grim.
  • ipaqi - May 26, 2013 3:54 a.m.

    @eightboll812, as I was sitting on the toilet, reading your comments, i realized that you were literally boring the shit out of me. I stopped reading at some point after your second pathetically constructed ad hominem, but from what I gathered until I had to flush, here are a few of the areas in which you display a basic lack of understanding: 1) What socialism is. 2) What capitalism is. 3) What the Free Market is. 4) Business. 5) The difference between Apples and Oranges. 6) The difference between speculation and fact. 7) Profitability. 8) The symbiotic relationship between retailer and product-maker 9) The concept of conciseness. Beyond all of those, really, tl;dr. Also, I don't intend to react to you again for as long as I remember your username (which probably won't be very long), because falling to ad hominems just make me disrespect you as a person, and I don't intend to converse with someone I don't even have a basic level of respect towards.
  • grendel007 - May 25, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    I agree. I am so mad about this, if it is true I will not be buying a next gen console. I can live without their games
  • ipaqi - May 25, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    I wonder if you meant to reply to someone else? While I commend your maturity - deciding to not be a customer if you don't want the product is the best, most mature decision a person can make in a situation like this - I'm neither mad about this, nor am I not going to get an Xbox One just because of this. I don't know that I'll get it first, but most likely I'll get it eventually.
  • N7Spartan95 - May 26, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    "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." I'm pretty sure I read on this website that when a game is installed on the hard drive, anyone using the same Xbox as you can play the game without any problems, even though the game is linked to just your account specifically. Microsoft hasn't exactly demonstrated good judgment as of late, but they're not THAT stupid.
  • BladedFalcon - May 26, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    If that's true, could you post the link?, as far as I understand it, the article posted here actually stated that Microsoft has NOT clarified what would happen in that scenario, here: "Microsoft did say that if a disc was used with a second account, that owner would be given the option to pay a fee and install the game from the disc, which would then mean that the new account would also own the game and could play it without the disc. But what if a second person simply wanted to put the disc in and play the game without installing – and without paying extra? In other words, what happens to our traditional concept of a 'used game'? This is a question for which Microsoft did not yet have an answer," So yeah... what did you say about them not being THAT stupid? Never underestimate the power of greed when it comes to clouding judgment... and intelligence.
  • N7Spartan95 - May 26, 2013 12:36 p.m. Slide 7. Also, your quote itself implies that the fee comes from installing a used game on one's hard drive and not from playing the game on a console where the game is already installed. Besides, even if Microsoft hasn't directly stated it, it's logical to assume that that'd be the case. After all, EA's Online Passes worked in a similar fashion. If they made it so that every single person with an account would have to pay the full price of the game to play a game that's already installed on the hard drive, that wouldn't just be stupid; it'd be mind-bogglingly insane even compared to all of Microsoft's recent decisions about what to do with this console, and there's no doubt they would lose more money than they would ever hope to gain.
  • michelkeepertje - May 27, 2013 3:11 a.m.

    While the link you provided does contain better news than stated in this article, I don't really see how it would make used games work. Used games sell because they cost less money than new games. With these additional fees and the retailer's abbility to set their own prices, the fees will be added to any set used-game price, thus increasing the consumer price of the used game. This would mean anyone in their right mind would just buy a new copy. At least that´s how i see it
  • Technodude - May 24, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    On the subject of game ownership and management, I've got a scenario I'm very curious about. Take the average 5 member family. Say they own an Xbox One. Dad likes to play games when he gets the time. Mid teenage son plays games almost all the time. You could say the console practically belongs to him, since he buys most of the games. The other two kids play games infrequently also. All of these family members have Xbox live accounts. Now, say the son buys Call of Duty: Ghosts when it's released. He eagerly puts the game into the Xbone, fires it up. Xbox says "The game must install before you play. Continue?" He presses continue and once it's done, starts playing. Now according to Microsoft, that CoD game is now "tied" to his account and he owns rights for that copy of the game, correct? Now take into consideration the comment MS said about playing with friends: "should you choose to play your game at a friend's house, there is no [used fee] charge while signed in to YOUR ACCOUNT." Now, I stress "your account", because different users on Xbox have their own live accounts, right? So MS makes this sound as though the "DRM" is account based, not console based. So the other three family members are going to be charged - potentially - a maximum of £35 just to play Call of Duty, at which point the son gets his right of ownership taken away and when he wants to play he must pay £35 as well! Obviously the only workaround if this scenario is true is that they all play with the son's account, but that's completely impractical, and I know I certainly wouldn't want to share my online profile with people. This is the kind of confusion MS have to clear up very quickly otherwise scenarios like this - a family environment, a demographic Microsoft seem to be aiming the Xbone at in the first place - will cause a lot of problems. If anyone can clarify this I'd be very grateful.
  • Shinn - May 25, 2013 4:36 a.m.

    I'm pretty sure it's the same drm microsoft has always applied to their digital downloads. It will work on the first console your download/install on, but to use it on any other console would require you to purchase the game again or pay the fee unless the account which first downloaded/installed the game has been signed in first. Nobody likes this overly restrictive system.
  • jameel-aboulhosn - May 25, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    If it works anything like it does now there's a possibility it can just tie to that Xbox but who knows. Those situations are fairly unrealistic though as most gamers play by themselves and have one account per xbox. I'd say less than half of the core gamer market on consoles is under 18. I have no data to show that though so if they truly want to market this is as the all in one device, that throws a wrench in the gears if you need to potentially own multiple copies in one household for the same system. Alternatively there's a possibility it could just know that your account is authorized to play that game and so you could have it installed on the xbox and then multiple accounts can get to it, though how much extra would you have to pay for additional licenses? I think they didn't realize there are a lot of unemployed people or actual families or people who needlessly play games in the physical presence of their friends, and that those situations make things complicated. Well okay they realized it but maybe didn't fully think it through. Hopefully at E3 they clarify some things, then PS fanboys can bitch more and then more and more people can be absolutely vitriolic and hateful for no legitimate reason towards Microsoft.
  • zelta38 - May 25, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    I'll admit that I didn't read through all you had to say, but the scenario initially described is completely realistic: gaming is a family activity, moreso with the generation these days where siblings and parents share a console and there is a general economic risk in purchasing expensive video games. You buy one game per household, it is beyond idiotic to expect that someone would pony up say 3 times the cost of one game for 3 family members in the same house on the same console. The PS3 already has a system that allows families to play with all the games owned by all accounts on the system, anyone with some inkling of sense in MS could have done the same. This is one of the main issues I have with Steam in fact, there is no way of sharing games within the same household and the EULA even prohibits sharing, a freaking huge pain in the ass.
  • Divine Paladin - May 24, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    So something I haven't seen often discussed here yet is: What happens if Xbox Live goes down for more than a day? Be it from a Sonyesque hack or due to some other major issue, what happens then? Does every one of the Xbox One owners lose the ability to play games AT ALL until the service comes back online? In that case, I'd hate to see another Lulzsec/Anonymous-type organization knock down Microsoft's servers in nearly the same way or for even half as long as the Sony hacks. The reaction could quite possibly be worse than the RROD outrage.
  • zelta38 - May 25, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    Good point, also what if XBL goes offline for extended maintenance? It's a rare thing but if paying customers are being treated as subscribers (which is increasingly the case), it's business taking over sense and technical feasibility, something worryingly common these days. Kick out these MBA-toting fools and put some real engineers and actual developers in charge! Valve proves that works miracles.
  • Divine Paladin - May 25, 2013 7 p.m.

    Not to mention with 300,000 servers (mostly dedicated to keeping tabs on peoples' games and storage, as well as running half of the console's power), something could easily go wrong and knock out the connection in a certain area of the world; sure, there's always network redundancy, but even a slight absence of servers could royally screw fans over in many ways (with developers likely to crank up the power needed to play games, thus requiring the cloud-stored/locked part of the console, et alia).
  • zelta38 - May 26, 2013 3:04 a.m.

    As per the explanation the head honcho of the cloud part gave in an interview on Gamespot it would seem that the cloud computations would probably stream in the way we sometimes see pop-in and deferred shading "painting" in details shortly after the scene is loaded, theoretically (provided it works) it could be effective if used for the background. I am skeptical about any company having the resources to provide this capability for all users of the system at once though. It could even end up with older games having support for this infrastructure dropped when/if load goes too high. An interesting way of trying to offset relative hardware power reduction over the system's lifetime though.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - May 24, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    I've always been a pretty big Microsoft fanboy, but this... it's like they don't want people to buy the Xbox. It breaks my heart too, because I've never really cared for the Playstation. I'm seriously thinking about just giving up on consoles on investing in a nice gaming pc.

Showing 41-60 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.