4196 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravensword]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

-snip-

Here's hoping for an industry crash!

[GreyLycanTrope]

billy the squid wrote...

Yep, I've seen that. I doubt it's actually credible, I mean it's pastebin. But, think about it logically. They were attempting to lock down the used games market, but they're going to let you share games with 10 of your "family" from your library?

It's entirely counter productive. It also highlights, that MS didn't really say anything about the Share system. Other than games can be shared from one's game library, there was absolutely no detail as to what that actually entailed.

If what's written is to be believed. They were going to allow sharing for maybe an hour at most, at which point the person playing would have to option to buy the game and they'd limit the amount of time a person could do a demo run of a game. Basically game sharing would turn into extended demos.

I actually wrote at lenght about my thought one the potential loss of innovation if anyone cares, and why I saw the proposed concept as a pipe dream. Guess I was right.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 juin 2013 - 10:33 .

[Ravensword]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

-snip-

Here's hoping for an industry crash![smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

Tens of thousands of people losing their jobs! WooHoo! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

I don't care. If these people continue to make mediocre games and attempt to institute DRM, they shouldn't be employed anymore.

Modifié par Ravensword, 20 juin 2013 - 10:33 .

[2Pac]

J. Reezy wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

I hadn't finished readfing but something stuck out: THEY WANTED TO THROW GEARS AWAY AS AN EXCLUSIVE?!

Microsoft, I'mma let you finish, but what the hell are you even doing in the console space? Do you not understand how important the console exclusive is to a consumer, psychlogically?

I remember when bioshock was an xbox exclusive then it got ported to ps3.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ravensword wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Here's hoping for an industry crash!

Tens of thousands of people losing their jobs! WooHoo! 

I don't care. If these people continue to make mediocre games and attempt to institute DRM, they shouldn't be employed anymore.

I hate to say it but a gaming industry crash is actually something I would welcome with open arms. It might be hard to believe it now, but such a crash would eventually be beneficial to all of us in the long run.

Just look at the crash of '83 and tell me that it didn't turn out for the better eventually.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 juin 2013 - 10:38 .

[Dave of Canada]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

Woah, I would gladly be force-fed their DRM and have entire regions of the world have no access to the console simply to have the ability to give ten other people a gameplay demo! With Xbox TV™, all my friends and family could know all the vile pornography which I watch in private!

God dammit, gamers. Why did you have to ruin something which no-one really asked for?

Edit: Have to give the guy credit, though. He's trying to diss Sony and be passive-aggressive rather than bending over like the Xbox 180 did.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 20 juin 2013 - 10:37 .

[GreatBlueHeron]

Too bad about developers going under. The ones who push out crappy product and blame consumers for not buying their crappy products get no sympathy from me. I don't do video game charity---I buy the products that appeal to me. Want my money, publishers? Then put out something I'm willing to pay full price for. This means a lot of content. The last 2 games I bought full retail were me3 collector's ed. and skyrim ( one year after it came out and the major issues were fixed for ps3...still $60.00 at the time). I don't regret either purchase---both are excellent games and have replay value. Also, because I like/d the games so much, I GLADLY spent money on dlc. It's a thank you....a tip. I support the ones who do it right.

[2Pac]

J. Reezy wrote...

alliance commander wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

I hadn't finished readfing but something stuck out: THEY WANTED TO THROW GEARS AWAY AS AN EXCLUSIVE?!

Microsoft, I'mma let you finish, but what the hell are you even doing in the console space? Do you not understand how important the console exclusive is to a consumer, psychlogically?

I remember when bioshock was an xbox exclusive then it got ported to ps3.

Do you just sit with things in the standard reply screen for minutes at a time before you reply? I edited this ten minutes ago!

lolno. I just logged back on...

Modifié par alliance commander, 20 juin 2013 - 10:42 .

[BouncyFrag]

Taking out the family share plan seems like a petty move from MS, much like you taking your ball and going home like a petulant child. It would have worked perfectly fine with digital downloads by offering an innovative feature that the ps4 doesn't have. The ps4 is $100 cheaper, doesn't force motion control devices, and, on paper, seems a bit more powerful. Family share would have been a good bullet point to keep around in light of the PR nightmare they had brought upon themselves. It is not the gamers who removed family share. We didn't want the BS that the X1 was representing and said 'NO' to these horribad policies.MS reached into the big box that is the X1 and ripped it out family share themselves. I really like xbox and had resigned myself to switching to ps4 or pc in a few years once the 360 had run its course. I don't have to do that now, but I'm going to wait a year or so just to see how the X1 shakes out since I actually really like the games they have lined up for launch.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 20 juin 2013 - 10:48 .

[billy the squid]

The GAF can sum it up better than I.

"Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, **** it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end."

Modifié par billy the squid, 20 juin 2013 - 10:47 .

[Ravensword]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

Woah, I would gladly be force-fed their DRM and have entire regions of the world have no access to the console simply to have the ability to give ten other people a gameplay demo! With Xbox TV™, all my friends and family could know all the vile pornography which I watch in private!

God dammit, gamers. Why did you have to ruin something which no-one really asked for?

Edit: Have to give the guy credit, though. He's trying to diss Sony and be passive-aggressive rather than bending over like the Xbox 180 did.

He seemed more butthurt to me, but I guess that was b/c he was being passive-aggressive.

Still, really, really butthurt, lol.

Modifié par Ravensword, 20 juin 2013 - 10:47 .

[billy the squid]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

What are these rights as customers? Because it seems to me that our only right is to pay for something, and then use it. It also seems that you're upset that companies are more interested in staying afloat in an economy where developer after developer is going under, rather than catering to every whim that gamers have.

Copyright Law, Sale of Goods Act, Warranties Act, Rights of Exhaustion. Look it up. 

Just a question since I don't completely understand how everything works, since you can't resell games on Steam, are they breaking the law? Or do their games not fall under this jurisdiction?

It's why they're implementing the trading system on Steam at the moment. The Usedsoft v Oracle case ruling that "the owner of copyright in software cannot prevent a perpetual licensee who has downloaded the software from the internet from selling his ‘used’ licence."

[OdanUrr]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

If I'm reading this right, then the Family Sharing idea was basically demos for the family for up to an hour, after which they'd have to buy the game? I'm sorry but if that's the case, it's one of the most useless features I've ever seen.

[Cyonan]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Taking out the family share plan seems like a petty move from MS, much like you taking your ball and going home like a petulant child. It would have worked perfectly fine with digital downloads by offering an innovative feature that the ps4 doesn't have. The ps4 is $100 cheaper, doesn't force motion control devices, and, on paper, seems a bit more powerful. Family share would have been a good bullet point to keep around in light of the PR nightmare they had brought upon themselves. It is not the gamers who removed family share. We didn't want the BS that the X1 was representing and said 'NO' to these horribad policies.MS reached into the big box that is the X1 and ripped it out family share themselves. I really like xbox and had resigned myself to switching to ps4 or pc in a few years once the 360 had run its course. I don't have to do that now, but I'm going to wait a year or so just to see how the X1 shakes out since I actually really like the games they have lined up for launch.

The sharing system causes a lot of problems if you don't have the DRM there.

Being able to give out your game to 10 other people for free would be more harmful to the industry than used games or piracy ever was.

[Ravensword]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Meh, I don't really feel strongly about this one way or another. It just doesn't feel right that consumers are playing the victim the when developers have been getting screwed over for over 10 years try to put systems into place when they protect themselves. It's more of a matter of principle to me rather than how I feel about an individual company's quality. At the end of the day, the consumers won.

As it should be.

And as for who is playing victim, well it's pretty much the devs. This whol "BAAAAAAWWW! Used games are hurting our sales of Battlefield Medal of Duty!"

Modifié par Ravensword, 20 juin 2013 - 10:57 .

[OdanUrr]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

What are these rights as customers? Because it seems to me that our only right is to pay for something, and then use it. It also seems that you're upset that companies are more interested in staying afloat in an economy where developer after developer is going under, rather than catering to every whim that gamers have.

Copyright Law, Sale of Goods Act, Warranties Act, Rights of Exhaustion. Look it up. 

Just a question since I don't completely understand how everything works, since you can't resell games on Steam, are they breaking the law? Or do their games not fall under this jurisdiction?

It's a bit of a grey area actually. If you're up to it, here's something I wrote not that long ago.

[billy the squid]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

There's a main difference between this industry and other industries that have second hand markets. Take music for example. Money can be made from CD sales, Tours and places like iTunes. So a guy giving his friend a CD or random stores selling the CDs dirt cheap do not affect people that much. Movies have first-time theater sales, second-time theater sales, random 3D remakes theater sales, Redbox, Cable providers, PPV, DVD and Blu-ray sales. Gaming is one of the few entertainment industries where the provider only has an opportunity to make money off of one sale. Other practices where they try to make money are greatly frowned upon, such as online passes, DLC and microtransactions. Since it is a unique industry it at least deserves unique considerations. I wish I could quote the YouTube guy who pretty much said all of this, but I can't remember his channel's name.

Irrelevant, and no it's not unique. The special snow flake mentality has got this industry into trouble and now it expects to get away with it. 

If you're talking about Totalbiscuit. He's an utter prat, and completely wrong.