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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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. 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.

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?