So not only would you need internet to play the system, you must have membership in order to use it? even if it is a rumor I still wouldn't want a xbox.

And why should a games publisher support the second hand business?

To be honest, I'd have a bizarre amount of respect if Microsoft did this despite how poorly it would almost certainly sell. Wasting tons of money just to give the middle finger to Gamestop and entitled fans is something I could respect, even if I only partially agree with their logic at best.

@Bankai Okay, now I see the other perspective clearly. However, there are plusses for the games industry as a whole when it comes to used-games. Not enough for publishers to support them, mind you, but enough for Microsoft to support them. Which is why I question why MS would do this. Used games greatly benefit Microsoft.

Microsoft has two sets of customers: The game makers, and the game players.

Game players tend to forget that, but it's the simple reality - Microsoft needs to do right by them as well. And that's what blocking second hand games would achieve.

Game markers are more important anyway. If you get a massive lineup of killer exclusives and third parties on board, customers are going to come anyway, even if they grumble about the second hand game thing.

This could go either way imo. While Cloud certainly eliminates the need of second hand games, it's a serious disadvantage to people living in countries without extremely high speed internet connections (as we would know, @Bankai, the NBN isn't due to roll out until 2015). Unless Microsoft can spring to do more reprints and make sure games don't disappear from the shelves, it'll work.

What I'm most afraid of is that game companies will decide to only target the "profitable" sectors of the world - so, Japan, USA, the UK and select parts of Europe and Oceania. Sure they have no obligation to make video games accessible to countries where the average citizen might not be able to afford to play games regularly, but most onlookers will see it as unfair.

Or they just customise the product to suit the market.

In China Activision launched Call of Duty as a free-to-play game. Nowhere else in the world, just China. Because if people had to pay an up-front cost they would simply pirate the game.

There's no reason to think Microsoft can't customise the Xbox whatever for markets with low Internet penetration by making the consoles sold in that region not require online.

I don't see much of an indication that exclusives are going to happen this gen within 3rd parties for the most part. Ubisoft just stated how they're not going to do that. Unless if used-games are so harmful that it's worth not supporting a system entirely, then games will still be put on the other systems.

There's still the potential for exclusive DLC, or timed exclusivity.

Microsoft would realise that it is going to be harder than ever to encourage third party exclusives. And so Microsoft needs to work harder to please its developer customers.

There have been cases where the pirated copy came before the release of the game.

Rare? These people usually sell hundreds of thousands of games before getting caught.

I don't have any problem with publishers trying to get people to buy their games new. But it's another thing to claim that the used game market is actually worse than pirating (which technically is even fewer sales for them regardless)

Piracy is a far lower scale problem than the second hand trade.

Every shop out there sells second hand games.

Piracy's a problem, no doubt, but if you look at how many dollars are exchanged in second hand trade vs. the damage in lost revenues of piracy, I'd bet you whatever you like that there's more zeroes in the former.

If they somehow prevent used games from being played, I think more people will stick to old consoles where you were free to buy anything. And they encourage hackers to work on something that bypasses this new "feature".

What does that have to do with the rediculousness of your statement? I said nothing about weather publishers should support used games. I simply pointed out that your statement was unreasonable. But to answer your question, there is no need for publishers to support used games. Banning them however is a different matter. They will lose all sales of consoles from people (like me) who won't buy a console if it bans used games. All of the new games we buy will disappear too.

I really think Edge got some bad info. I think they got always online confused with always on similar to the apple TV or most smart phones and tablets.

The verge posted this yesterday about the next gen Kinect.

[quote]Microsoft will greatly improve its speech recognition technology inside the next Xbox, The Verge has learned. Sources familiar with Microsoft's Xbox plans have revealed that Durango, the codename for the next Xbox, will support wake on voice, natural language controls, and speech-to-text. The improved capabilities mean that Xbox users will be able to walk into a room and simply say "Xbox on" to wake up the new Xbox.[quote]

Quote
We understand that Microsoft is also investigating scenarios where a Kinect sensor will detect individuals in a room and suggest appropriate multiplayer games after a user queries the Xbox using voice. The support will include natural language detection, similar to Apple's Siri service, that will let users ask things like "what are my friends playing" to receive a friends list. Xbox will also reply back to users with answers to queries, making it an improved search service too. The current Xbox 360 console lacks natural interaction and context, we're told that's a big focus of the new speech recognition in the new Xbox.[quote]

Users will also be able to automatically resume video content where it left off simply by asking the new Xbox to play a particular movie. With speech-to-text built-in, it's likely that Microsoft will utilize this support to type out messages using the new Xbox. It's widely expected that Skype will make its Xbox debut on the new console. Microsoft will fully detail its new Xbox at E3 this year, with suggestions from sources that the company may hold a separate event to unveil its new hardware ahead of E3. The new Xbox is expected to be released later this year

Don't think MS will do this

Sounds like pure speculation at this point IMHO. But golly if it were true talk about shooting yourself in the foot. :/

I would be OK with though maybe paying a small 'activation fee' of some sorts, like $10-$15 to activate a used game for play (which some companies are doing already for online play on a used game I think?). Especially if I get the game at a much lower price than the original MSRP. I'd be cool with that.

Or if they you know...lowered the price of new games....or made digital significantly cheaper than physical...but that would make too much sense.

Wow, has Microsoft really have gone down in the crapper or what?

1) Paying $60 a year to play multiplayer online games.
2) "Forcing" developers to release games simultaneously with its competitors (THE reason for the Rayman delay, IMO).
3) Now always playing online and no used games (Speculation yes, but are you really gonna be open to that?)

And it will only use Kinect, no controllers!

The first one was a good point, but no one's forcing simultaneous releases. Providing incentives =/= forcing people against their will. And this same speculation was made about Sony. Anyone can make idle speculation about anything. That doesn't necessarily indicate they're going down the crapper. Trust me, there are far better indicators of Microsoft going down the crapper than those.

EDIT: After looking it up, I see that Microsoft does indeed have a policy that, for all intents and purposes, requires either a simultaneous or Xbox-first release. They do reserve the right to refuse games that release on other consoles first, especially if it has less content (which Rayman Legends, for instance, likely will). While it's definitely a good way to lose business with Game Makers, it is something that most of their customers would want, so it's not like they're being wholey unreasonable.

Microsoft has a policy of not releasing games if it's not simultaneous with it's competitors. It's not "forcing" per se (hence the quotes), but it puts the developers in a bad situation, and this was the reason why, IMO, Rayman has been delayed for a simultaneous release. Think about this: why couldn't Ubisoft just release the game for the Wii U now and later for the PS3 and Xbox 360? And why did No More Heroes not have an Xbox 360 release? I didn't know about the policy until today, and I didn't understand why the delay was such a big deal until now.

As far as Sony is concerned, I think it's much more well-known and documented on the Xbox 360 about the online-only/no disc system. Like you said, it still remains to be seen, but this along with the others is why Microsoft is seen in such a bad light right now.