Other Gaming Forum

Topic: Next XBox: always online, no used games

Showing 81 to 99 of 99

AuthorMessage
Avatar

sdcazares1980

81. Posted:

@CanisWolfred

Microsoft does have the right, but I suspect most of the customers don't know about it, yet I can imagine why this would piss off not only Nintendo owners, but PS3 owners as well. Is this what the Xbox 360 owners want? I don't know. I don't think they would care about it much, but even they have to consider that this is not an ethical practice.

Either that or Ubisoft can tell Microsoft to F-off. That would be the braver approach.

sdcazares1980

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

82. Posted:

"And why did No More Heroes not have an Xbox 360 release?"

Hm? Because The 360 doesn't have a motion controller, which you need to play it on the PS3.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

Avid Fan of Anime, JRPGs, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
Avatar

sdcazares1980

83. Posted:

CanisWolfred wrote:

"And why did No More Heroes not have an Xbox 360 release?"

Hm? Because The 360 doesn't have a motion controller, which you need to play it on the PS3.

Good point.

sdcazares1980

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

84. Posted:

sdcazares1980 wrote:

@CanisWolfred

Microsoft does have the right, but I suspect most of the customers don't know about it, yet I can imagine why this would piss off not only Nintendo owners, but PS3 owners as well. Is this what the Xbox 360 owners want? I don't know. I don't think they would care about it much, but even they have to consider that this is not an ethical practice.

Either that or Ubisoft can tell Microsoft to F-off. That would be the braver approach.

How is it not an ethical practice? It's ensuring that your customers don't get the short end of the stick from developers that want to cut content or release exclusive content elsewhere but not on the Xbox. It's also ensuring that your console gets games the same time as everyone else (or even first). I don't see what's so bad about it. It's pretty much the situation everyone wants their prime console to have. I'm more surprised Sony doesn't have a policy like that.

And business isn't about bravery. It's about doing what will benefit you most financially. There are still tons of Xboxes out there. It would be stupid to tell off Microsoft. They'd simply refuse the game be released on their system, and Ubisoft will be out a crap load of money.

Avid Fan of Anime, JRPGs, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
AvatarStaff

Unca_Lz

85. Posted:

Jaz007 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

Jaz007 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

And for the record, no one is stopping you selling your games if a console blocks a second hand game. It's just that the person that you're selling it to is going to feel ripped off.

As they should.

Thats kind of rediculous, it's like saying no one is preventing you from pirating games. I can't sell a game if I know it won't work.

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

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.

To be fair...pushing away customers that only buy used games isn't much of a loss at all :P

Nintendo Life moderator and duck. Nintendo sux!

My Retrologgery

3DS Friend Code: 2234-7139-4188 | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

AuthorMessage
Avatar

sdcazares1980

86. Posted:

CanisWolfred wrote:

sdcazares1980 wrote:

@CanisWolfred

Microsoft does have the right, but I suspect most of the customers don't know about it, yet I can imagine why this would piss off not only Nintendo owners, but PS3 owners as well. Is this what the Xbox 360 owners want? I don't know. I don't think they would care about it much, but even they have to consider that this is not an ethical practice.

Either that or Ubisoft can tell Microsoft to F-off. That would be the braver approach.

How is it not an ethical practice? It's ensuring that your customers don't get the short end of the stick from developers that want to cut content or release exclusive content elsewhere but not on the Xbox. It's also ensuring that your console gets games the same time as everyone else (or even first). I don't see what's so bad about it. It's pretty much the situation everyone wants their prime console to have. I'm more surprised Sony doesn't have a policy like that.

And business isn't about bravery. It's about doing what will benefit you most financially. There are still tons of Xboxes out there. It would be stupid to tell off Microsoft. They'd simply refuse the game be released on their system, and Ubisoft will be out a crap load of money.

I know that it's Microsoft's job is to make money, but c'mon, even you have to admit this: if you didn't own an Xbox 360 (assuming you do own one, like I do, along with the Wii U), you'd be pissed because it's policy has put Ubisoft in an uncomfortable position of "sell this for all 3 systems or don't sell it at all." It's just like you said: it would be stupid for Ubisoft to not release this for Microsoft. Microsoft did not have this policy until LAST YEAR, so there would have been simultaneous releases anyway. I think MS just got a little power-hungry here.

Edited on by sdcazares1980

sdcazares1980

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

87. Posted:

Yes, I'd be mad. But not as mad as I would be if there were no more Rayman games. We're talking about the lesser of two evils, here.

Actually, I think I'd be more mad that my console favorite console developers don't do the same thing. :P Again, though, you need to look at it from a different perspective to understand where Microsoft is coming from. I'm not in the business, but if I were, and I had enough market-push to enact such a thing, I would. It'd be better for my customers, and better for my company.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

Avid Fan of Anime, JRPGs, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Token_Girl

88. Posted:

It really depends on what percentage of the gaming population has stable enough internet for an always-online system to be viable. I would say potentially, not enough. A large part of M$oft's demographic is the always online type anyways, but they have been reaching more into the local multiplayer market with Dance Central type stuff. PC gamers (who likely go out of their way to have top notch internet) complain about always-online DRM for single player games all the time - so methinks the general US internet infrastructure is not there yet.

The other question is the pricing model - are people going to be willing to shell out tons of $$$ for a next generation system that won't work at ALL if they don't pay for a live subscription? They'll have to work something out there as well.

I am way too lazy to think of something clever.
My Backloggery
Pokemon Platinum FC: 0517 9582 3270
Pokemon SS FC: 4512 4783 5710
Mario Kart DS FC: 4211 7712 2928

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Gamesake

89. Posted:

LordLzGlad wrote:

Jaz007 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

Jaz007 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

And for the record, no one is stopping you selling your games if a console blocks a second hand game. It's just that the person that you're selling it to is going to feel ripped off.

As they should.

Thats kind of rediculous, it's like saying no one is preventing you from pirating games. I can't sell a game if I know it won't work.

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

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.

To be fair...pushing away customers that only buy used games isn't much of a loss at all :P

But no matter what, there's nothing Microsoft or Sony can do to force people to buy games. Anyone who believes that is in for a rude awakening. Alienating gamers won't help them at all. They'll see no difference in sales (if they're lucky). Odds are gamers who enjoy renting and trading their console games will abandon them. Between the Steambox and the Wii U, it's not like they don't have options.

...in my pants.

AuthorMessage
Avatar

sdcazares1980

90. Posted:

CanisWolfred wrote:

Yes, I'd be mad. But not as mad as I would be if there were no more Rayman games. We're talking about the lesser of two evils, here.

Actually, I think I'd be more mad that my console favorite console developers don't do the same thing. :P Again, though, you need to look at it from a different perspective to understand where Microsoft is coming from. I'm not in the business, but if I were, and I had enough market-push to enact such a thing, I would. It'd be better for my customers, and better for my company.

I understand where Microsoft is coming from, but mind you, the world doesn't revolve around it. If I were Ubisoft, I would just release the game for the Wii U now, and release it later for the PS3, and forget about having the game for Microsoft. If MS wants to play economic chicken, then I can take my case to the consumer and tell them about Microsoft's business practices. It didn't need to happen.

And it's not just the consumers that are mad, but the developers that put countless hours of hard work and sacrifice, only to have Ubisoft to "kowtow" to MS and say, "Sorry, but we're going to have to release the game for ALL 3 systems simultaneously." All this because Microsoft said "You release the game for us first or simultaneously or we won't buy it." Since Ubisoft has no control over what Microsoft does, the ultimate decision falls on them, but Microsoft had a lot do with as well.

sdcazares1980

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

91. Posted:

sdcazares1980 wrote:

CanisWolfred wrote:

Yes, I'd be mad. But not as mad as I would be if there were no more Rayman games. We're talking about the lesser of two evils, here.

Actually, I think I'd be more mad that my console favorite console developers don't do the same thing. :P Again, though, you need to look at it from a different perspective to understand where Microsoft is coming from. I'm not in the business, but if I were, and I had enough market-push to enact such a thing, I would. It'd be better for my customers, and better for my company.

I understand where Microsoft is coming from, but mind you, the world doesn't revolve around it. If I were Ubisoft, I would just release the game for the Wii U now, and release it later for the PS3, and forget about having the game for Microsoft. If MS wants to play economic chicken, then I can take my case to the consumer and tell them about Microsoft's business practices. It didn't need to happen.

It's a good thing you're not in charge of Ubisoft, then. You'd probably run them to the ground with that attitude. :| Either you miss out on millions of potential customers, or you play by their rules. It's really that simple.

sdcazares1980 wrote:

And it's not just the consumers that are mad, but the developers that put countless hours of hard work and sacrifice, only to have Ubisoft to "kowtow" to MS and say, "Sorry, but we're going to have to release the game for ALL 3 systems simultaneously." All this because Microsoft said "You release the game for us first or simultaneously or we won't buy it." Since Ubisoft has no control over what Microsoft does, the ultimate decision falls on them, but Microsoft had a lot do with as well.

Their customers would've been mad no matter what they did. That's the part no ones realizing through all of this. If they released the Wii U Version first, their Xbox and PS3 customers would be mad. Especially the Microsoft customers if it doesn't come out on their system at all. Now they're only angering the Wii U fanbase - their smallest potential consumer-base. Again, it's the lesser of two evils. Granted, I hope the games get delayed until after GTAV and the other big games come out, because right now they really are screwed no matter what they do, but if it's out of they're control, there's nothing anyone can do.

BTW, I think we should take this tangent to the proper thread, since even if we were to come to any kind of agreement, it will ultimately fall on deaf ears here...

Edited on by CanisWolfred

Avid Fan of Anime, JRPGs, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
AvatarStaff

Unca_Lz

92. Posted:

@Everyone: If Ubisoft had to choose between the smaller Wii U fanbase and the much larger Xbox fanbase, who do you honestly think they will choose?

Nintendo Life moderator and duck. Nintendo sux!

My Retrologgery

3DS Friend Code: 2234-7139-4188 | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Reala

93. Posted:

LordLzGlad wrote:

@Everyone: If Ubisoft had to choose between the smaller Wii U fanbase and the much larger Xbox fanbase, who do you honestly think they will choose?

Ouya of course

there's nothing that's certain... of that you can be certain

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Jaz007

94. Posted:

LordLzGlad wrote:

Jaz007 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

Jaz007 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

And for the record, no one is stopping you selling your games if a console blocks a second hand game. It's just that the person that you're selling it to is going to feel ripped off.

As they should.

Thats kind of rediculous, it's like saying no one is preventing you from pirating games. I can't sell a game if I know it won't work.

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

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.

To be fair...pushing away customers that only buy used games isn't much of a loss at all :P

But what about those who buy both?

I'm gonna try again.
Currently playing: Rune Factory 4, inFamous: Second Son, and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune.

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Knux

95. Posted:

LordLzGlad wrote:

@Everyone: If Ubisoft had to choose between the smaller Wii U fanbase and the much larger Xbox fanbase, who do you honestly think they will choose?

The Sony fanbase, since it's even larger than those two fanbases. ;)

supersonic1990z@hushmail.com Twitter Wii FC: 4579-0293-6760-7162 [10:25] DarkwingLz: D**mit Knux, tell Sony to release Vita TV here >:[

3DS Friend Code: 4167-4499-6603 | Nintendo Network ID: Knux1990 | Twitter: Knux1990

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Gamesake

96. Posted:

Knux wrote:

LordLzGlad wrote:

@Everyone: If Ubisoft had to choose between the smaller Wii U fanbase and the much larger Xbox fanbase, who do you honestly think they will choose?

The Sony fanbase, since it's even larger than those two fanbases. ;)

Yeah but Ubisoft sells games not movies, so they can't solely rely on Sony's base.

...in my pants.

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

97. Posted:

sdcazares1980 wrote:

CanisWolfred wrote:

Yes, I'd be mad. But not as mad as I would be if there were no more Rayman games. We're talking about the lesser of two evils, here.

Actually, I think I'd be more mad that my console favorite console developers don't do the same thing. :P Again, though, you need to look at it from a different perspective to understand where Microsoft is coming from. I'm not in the business, but if I were, and I had enough market-push to enact such a thing, I would. It'd be better for my customers, and better for my company.

I understand where Microsoft is coming from, but mind you, the world doesn't revolve around it. If I were Ubisoft, I would just release the game for the Wii U now, and release it later for the PS3, and forget about having the game for Microsoft. If MS wants to play economic chicken, then I can take my case to the consumer and tell them about Microsoft's business practices. It didn't need to happen.

And it's not just the consumers that are mad, but the developers that put countless hours of hard work and sacrifice, only to have Ubisoft to "kowtow" to MS and say, "Sorry, but we're going to have to release the game for ALL 3 systems simultaneously." All this because Microsoft said "You release the game for us first or simultaneously or we won't buy it." Since Ubisoft has no control over what Microsoft does, the ultimate decision falls on them, but Microsoft had a lot do with as well.

So in two generations of hardware Microsoft has gone from having no gaming presence to having a very competitive slice of the market share.

Just purely out of interest here, who exactly are you to criticise Microsoft's console strategy? Because I do suspect it is doing better than any console you have launched.

Regarding ethics. It is entirely ethical to come up with a set of rules and conditions for third parties to release products on your platform. Nintendo does. Sony does.

If you don't like Microsoft's conditions, well... Tough. Don't buy the console. I suspect you're more upset about this than literally anyone who works in the industry though.

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

turtlelink

98. Posted:

LordLzGlad wrote:

@Everyone: If Ubisoft had to choose between the smaller Wii U fanbase and the much larger Xbox fanbase, who do you honestly think they will choose?

The Neo Geo X fanbase

TurtleLink's backloggery
Brawl FC: 4425-1340-4519
The Sister Complex Kingpin of Steel!

AuthorMessage
Avatar

pikku

99. Posted:

I kinda like the way Nintendo does it honestly. new games come with a PIN that you can enter on Club Nintendo and gain some coins, which can be used to get free stuff in exchange for some feedback on their game. A lot of the time, this Club Nintendo thing gives me an incentive to buy the game new instead of used, just so I can get stuff on Club Nintendo. And the option is still there to buy used if you so desire, though.
I mean sure the idea has some loopholes, such as buying a used game that may or may not have an unused PIN number inside it, but I still think it's a great system.

pikku

3DS Friend Code: 1891-1165-2008 | Nintendo Network ID: pikmaniac