Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation.... - Page 141  

Wonder how they handle hardware failures and software activations? We all know how well MS came out of the gate w/ the Gen I and II 360's ....

Same way they do now....purchases are tied to the account, and you just redownload them.

Unless you're Nintendo, and purchases are tied to the console, which I will never, ever buy into.

Valid point. I would assume the activation info would be cloud based. It could verify that you're the owner of the new Xbox and all your activation info comes down to it. What sucks is that eventually you know they won't support those activation codes. So in 20 years you won't be doing any retro gaming on your Xbox 720.

20 years from now you'll be able to buy a gamepad in mall kiosk for $50 that has every 720 game ever made already built in.

So I've heard, and no I won't be heartbroken. My gaming time is so limited now that I have yet to delve much into this gen, there's TONS of 360/PS3 games I haven't played. Between that and building a gaming rig, I was already of the mindset that upgrading to the next gen consoles would be very far away if at all and if these reports are true, it makes not buying the next consoles that much easier. My backlog is big enough, at the rate I play games now, to last another decade if I never bought another game or console.

Edit: even if I were accepting of these practices and bought in, with no ability to resell or trade my games typically to fund new games( a practice as old as gaming itself) I would be extremely selective about the games I buy at $60 a pop, knowing I'm stuck with them. Hell, guess I'll never buy another sports game, at least on the consoles. Who wants to be stuck with annual sports games that effectively lose their value after the newest version anyway, and now you can't even sell the old version off? No thanks.

Here's the flip side to that though. If activations are tied to your account, then they know which games you actually own. They can start running promotions where the upgrade from madden 12 to 13 is only $30 via DD, your stats and everything carries over.

Like you say, people will get more selective. This will push prices down and/or quality and value up. The end result isn't going to be so bad. Ultimately it just means more money funneled to the devs and console manufacturers instead of GameStop. The gamers will always win, too competitive an industry for it to be any other way.

I don't ever see EA letting you just upgrade for $30. Why would they want to do that when they can just get $60 from you. Especially when you take out used game sales and prices won't drop on consoles.

Very wishful thinking that EA will do anything like that. We'll see how this all turns out, while I think there's some truth to these rumors the possibility exists that this info is deliberately being released early so that MS can gauge the feedback and act accordingly. If memory serves the 'no used' game thing came up with the PS3 pre-launch and nothing came out of it. We'll see....

Because if people can't resell their old version they'll be less likely to buy it every year. And even less likely to buy it the next. Giving people a "deal" like that makes them far more likely to buy it, and keep buying it. Overpricing like that makes people look elsewhere, gives the competition a chance to make a impression and undercut them.

I'm sure they'd love nothing more than to extract $100 a year from every man, woman and child with zero effort, but it isn't that simple.

I'm sure someone at Sony was asking themselves, "why give people the vita version for free when you can just sell them the same game twice?" Because no one wants that. But giving it away adds value....now I have so many vita games, that I bought a vita. Now I'm buying Vita games and PS1 classics I never would have before. And further endears me to their whole ecosystem. What they lost in exploitation they made back twice over in loyalty.
Edited by bd2003 - 2/6/13 at 9:18am

bd2003 makes a good point. EA are not stupid, they know that Madden fans flip the games every year. They know that people don't have shelves full of every Madden game since Genesis. People are not spending $60 on Madden every year, they are spending $60 - X, where X is what they sold the last one for. If X becomes zero, less people will buy it.

Upgrades like that are the sort of thing that could give some value to customers. Publishers need to be innovative here.

You will be able to reactivate a used game I am sure. For $60.

I just don't know is MS would do this if Sony isn't. And I am sure that the new activation code is something they will sell, that way the studios get some money out of used games, but I doubt the code will cost $60.

If they wanted to remain on retail's good side, they could still allow trade-ins through officially sanctioned dealers like GameStop. Trading in the game deauthorizes the old code, prevents the game from working on the previous account, and a new one is created. The gamer gets store credit, dev gets a cut from the purchase of the new code, and GameStop gets to profit on the sale.

well to add more fire to the always online rumor
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/06/ascend-new-gods-beta-coming-requires-online-connection

If they're going to do this they should require all games to have demos. This along with paying for gold probably means I won't get the next xbox anyway--maybe a few years down the line after a price cut and there are lots of cheap games.

Always the pessimist.

Sure, maybe they won't allow you to reactivate used games, but that would be pretty stupid on their part.

If they make it too cheap (like $5-$10 for a $60 game), it completely undermines the whole idea of it. Why bother with all this nonsense if there is such an easy workaround?

They will let you reactivate by buying a new code.

I am hoping this info is either wrong or is just a trial balloon to see if the public would accept it. If it turns out that the Next Box is always online/No used games and the PS4 does not follow suit, it will be goodbye xbox for me.

Not that cheap. I would think ~$20. It wouldn't undermine it as right now they make $0 from used game sales. This is used game sales where they get a piece.

I think both companies see the impetus to implementing it this go around if they think the other company is going to do it.

Sony wanted to be anti-used games with the PS3 but backed off really late. And Microsoft tinkered with the idea of always being online with the 360 but backed off late as well.

Yep, either they both do it, or neither do it.

It very well could be true. The problem is that the market for expensive AAA console games isn't growing fast enough to keep pace with costs. So they may feel the need to pull BS like this to keep feeding the beast.

It's a self-defeating approach, but they're out of options. We saw dozens and dozens of development studios go under this generation because the market has gotten impossible to sustain. And this generation "ended" when one of the big publishers (THQ) went under. The console cycle had to go longer than usual because of the exponentially increased expenses for manufacturers, but the big publishers suffered because of it.

The market has hit a dead end, so they can either dig deeper (by adopting conservative and draconian measures like this) or they can try to follow in the lead of the successful, forward-looking platforms (like Apple and Steam). It remains to be seen which route MS will choose. Based on these rumors, it looks as if they're trying to have their cake and eat it too: they're controlling the resale market and trying to strong-arm a closed digital platform.

I think we saw this coming when the 'online code' system was introduced( was it EA?) a few years back, whereby you paid the publisher via xbox live a fee to access their online servers for multiplayer. I suppose this was the logical next step in that business model....

I'm pretty sure Activision Blizzard is sitting pretty with the COD franchise and Skylanders. I'm not sure I agree with your statement. Sure, all studios don't pull in this kind of money; but it CAN be done if the game is good enough. If there wasn't money to be made in it, you'd see far fewer titles than we do.

$20 seems a bit steep. $10 seems more like the area where you can get away with it without the pitchforks and torches showing up at your corporate office.

Its already being done by companies like EA.. and noone has really complained about it. When you purchase an EA sports game, to play online you must enter the code issued inside the box. If you do not have an online code, you cannot play the game onliine. The overwhelmingly vast majority of used EA games sold, will already have the online code used. But good ole' EA is more than happy to sell anyone a new online code for that particular game.. for the low price of $10. Its there way of making sure they arent missing out on the used game market.. and its not so ridiculously priced/thoughout that people avoid EA sports games all together.

The differnce is you can still play the game without the code. With this new rumored system, you can't even play the game until you have an activation code.

Nor should they make a dime on used game sales IMO. They have invested nothing from a brick and mortar standpoint to justify doing this to customers who prefer shopping and sampling that way. The big 3 automakers get residuals on used cars through parts sales. If those MS & Sony control freaks want a piece of the action, they should just make sure the accessory parts...like DLC...stay within their control. Or invest in a realistic used goods/returned goods marketplace themselves to justify such a power grab. This is not progress for consumers at all. I find it suffocating in principle and practice. This entire argument is akin to Food companies demanding a piece of the resturanteurs profits. Just because resturants resold their products in a different format. A silly...greedy...and desperate suicidal gambit IMHO. It has really attenuated my excitement and interest in the next consoles. I...for one...will not pay a penny more for a game I already purchased to use on anyone's version of the same machine I have. That is just plain stupid to expect people to actually put up with.

If they really persist down this path, I can just about guarantee both closed loop systems will get maliciously hacked. And create an absolute nightmare for both companies and their customers.

I think most people see that as reasonable since there is a cost associated with maintaining the servers. Creating a situation where I have to pay for the used game twice in order to use it moves into sketchy land. I buy way more new games than used, so for me, the always online requirement irks me more. Perhaps they will design it so you register the game once and then if you trade it, the next person who registers it has to pay for a new registration but then they can disconnect and the game will continue to play on that account. Even so, I can already hear the unholy cry of the soccer moms when little Johnny boots up Kinectimals 720 and it won't play because they don't have broadband or they don't allow their kids to keep connected devices in their room.

On the other hand, if the console is always online, then Kinect is always looking into your house and possibly reporting data back to MS. God help them if someone hacks the system.

THQ went under because they spent too much money on bad projects like Darksiders 2 and Homefront. Note: I mean "bad" as in from a sales POV, clearly gamers were not as excited to play these games as THQ thought they were.

Maybe THQ needed to go under. In an evolving industry (and all industries are evolving, all the time), some companies do well and others get left behind. THQ tried to fund projects like EA and Ubi except the projects they funded were nowhere near as good as EA's and Ubi's. They didn't have the resources to manage downside risk so they are gone. Those resources will now go elsewhere, to companies who are presumably better suited to managing them. Sega gets Relic, and Sega has done well in the PC space. Crytek got Vigil's employees. Koch Media got Saints Row, presumably to fatten up their open-world portfolio along with Dead Island.

I dunno.....the more I think about it, the more accepting of the idea I become. And this is coming from someone who buys and sells a lot of used games. It just really depends on the details of how they do it - if its a one way street and its all pain for consumers, then obviously I'm against it. But if its give and take, a lot of good can come with it.