As i've said before,
Don't fuck this up Sony.
The ball is in your court.
As i've said before,
Don't fuck this up Sony.
The ball is in your court.
Give your games to friends: Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.
New?
Sony has talked about markets with bad internet, they want and need those. These markets usually don't have GameStop either and I doubt publishers will make contracts with every little electronics chain in every little country, so these are all up for grabs for Sony because you would be fucked with Xbox One. I'm sure that's their plan, to beat Microsoft all these different places.yeah i'm genuinely confused about sony being pulled into this, when they have repeatedly stated the ps4 will not need a persistent internet connection, or even the internet at all (IIRC)
Please explain to me oh benevolent video game journalist god, how these policies from lord Microsoft are good for me, the peasant.
It all makes sense now.
The used games sales publishers have been bitching about aren't their retail partners at Gamestop, Best Buy, etc. giving $10 in trade value for a game they'll turn around and sell for $55.
No, the used games "problem" in the industry is us shitty consumers. We let untold MILLIONS of people just borrow our games, we sell them on the black market that benefits NO ONE (not directly affiliated with the publishers themselves), and we have this inordinate sense of entitlement whereby we think that if a game is shit we shouldn't be stuck with it until they personally feel it's acceptable for us to trade it in to their specific list of retail partners.
This isn't anti-used games. This is anti-consumer in it's purest form. Consumers are the only target here (except Gamefly I guess). Microsoft and their partners are literally saying the problem with the industry are their customers.
Absolutely brilliant conclusion. How could this have played out any better? Gamestop, Best Buy, etc. were just handed a monopoly on buying used games. Why give $10 for that game you'll sell for $55 now? Why not just give $5? Its not like these poor saps will KEEP it since it won't work in 10 years when the XB1 servers are shut down and you can't update your 24 hour registration.
Fucking hell. Die in a fire games industry.
I think all of the policies they announced are logical extensions of the fact that this is a digital-only console. The "retail" titles, such as they are, are like Steamworks games. It's not a retail+digital console, it's a digital-only console. I mean, imagine if a competitor to Steam popped up that had all of these policies. It'd be fairly standard--in some respect forward-thinking (being able to transfer a game you own to a friend, even once, is better than what Steam has right now; being able to trade in at select retailers is better than what Steam has now for both the retailer and the customer), in other respects a little behind the curve (offline mode being a 24 hour limit) I don't personally have a problem with digital only, I've got 600 games on Steam. And I'm generally a pretty future-proof kind of guy, none of my computers have optical drives anymore. I use Dropbox for everything. I love tablets I'm not someone who typically needs to be encouraged to adopt new tech or who worries about trading off the stability of current options for the cutting edge of new options.
But here are the problems:
1) No one views these policies as an advantage in any digital-only platform. They're a necessary evil. And they're one that's overcome with sweeteners. One sweetener is pricing. In Steam that's manifested in a few ways--frequent and steep sales on the whole catalogue, and the ability for developers to produce unlimited keys for free (and thus for third party resellers to sacrifice margin for volume and offer discounts). Will Xbox One games be $35 to pre-order? Will they drop to $5 within 6 months? I doubt it.
2) Digital-only PC platforms emerged in response to the decline of retail. Retail has not declined for consoles. It's still there. The Xbox One's direct competitors will have retail space. And the direct competitors will not necessarily have these policies. Maybe Microsoft ends up correctly predicting the future and riding the wave in advance, but it seems like Microsoft's competitors are healthy enough that this is too much too soon.
3) There exists no digital-only platform that requires an ongoing membership fee (or that encourages an ongoing membership fee). Ongoing membership fees tend to be for unlimited, all-access type services like Netflix--or even in the more limited form, Playstation Plus, or discount programs like Amazon Prime or Costco membership. It's true that Gold exists today, but today there's a platform that doesn't necessarily need the kind of sweeteners that the One will need.
So, I guess my conclusion is that given that we now know that Xbox One is a digital-only, not digital-first system, the policies are fairly unremarkable and the next question becomes how Microsoft will blunt these inherent limitations of digital-only systems and show advantages.
B logs in to any console he wants, plays any disc he owns, problem solved.
If they have the same game, why would B need to bring his disc?
you can game offline for up to 24 hours on your primary console, or one hour if you are logged on to a separate console accessing your library
Can we ban the people spoiling Game of Thrones? It's kind of annoying.
I think all of the policies they announced are logical extensions of the fact that this is a digital-only console. The "retail" titles, such as they are, are like Steamworks games. It's not a retail+digital console, it's a digital-only console. I mean, imagine if a competitor to Steam popped up that had all of these policies. It'd be fairly standard--in some respect forward-thinking (being able to transfer a game you own to a friend, even once, is better than what Steam has right now; being able to trade in at select retailers is better than what Steam has now for both the retailer and the customer), in other respects a little behind the curve (offline mode being a 24 hour limit) I don't personally have a problem with digital only, I've got 600 games on Steam. And I'm generally a pretty future-proof kind of guy, none of my computers have optical drives anymore. I use Dropbox for everything. I love tablets I'm not someone who typically needs to be encouraged to adopt new tech or who worries about trading off the stability of current options for the cutting edge of new options.
But here are the problems:
1) No one views these policies as an advantage in any digital-only platform. They're a necessary evil. And they're one that's overcome with sweeteners. One sweetener is pricing. In Steam that's manifested in a few ways--frequent and steep sales on the whole catalogue, and the ability for developers to produce unlimited keys for free (and thus for third party resellers to sacrifice margin for volume and offer discounts). Will Xbox One games be $35 to pre-order? Will they drop to $5 within 6 months? I doubt it.
2) Digital-only PC platforms emerged in response to the decline of retail. Retail has not declined for consoles. It's still there. The Xbox One's direct competitors will have retail space. And the direct competitors will not necessarily have these policies. Maybe Microsoft ends up correctly predicting the future and riding the wave in advance, but it seems like Microsoft's competitors are healthy enough that this is too much too soon.
3) There exists no digital-only platform that requires an ongoing membership fee (or that encourages an ongoing membership fee). Ongoing membership fees tend to be for unlimited, all-access type services like Netflix--or even in the more limited form, Playstation Plus, or discount programs like Amazon Prime or Costco membership. It's true that Gold exists today, but today there's a platform that doesn't necessarily need the kind of sweeteners that the One will need.
So, I guess my conclusion is that given that we now know that Xbox One is a digital-only, not digital-first system, the policies are fairly unremarkable and the next question becomes how Microsoft will blunt these inherent limitations of digital-only systems and show advantages.
Gemüsepizza;61804784 said:
The systems biggest problem is it has a disc drive. I'm sure they included it because of broadband caps but all it did is avalanche all this other shit. If they wanna be steam they need to price like steam.
I want to stab the motherfucker who composed this paragraph in the fucking eyeball.Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games. Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you.
I think all of the policies they announced are logical extensions of the fact that this is a digital-only console. The "retail" titles, such as they are, are like Steamworks games. It's not a retail+digital console, it's a digital-only console. I mean, imagine if a competitor to Steam popped up that had all of these policies. It'd be fairly standard--in some respect forward-thinking (being able to transfer a game you own to a friend, even once, is better than what Steam has right now; being able to trade in at select retailers is better than what Steam has now for both the retailer and the customer), in other respects a little behind the curve (offline mode being a 24 hour limit) I don't personally have a problem with digital only, I've got 600 games on Steam. And I'm generally a pretty future-proof kind of guy, none of my computers have optical drives anymore. I use Dropbox for everything. I love tablets I'm not someone who typically needs to be encouraged to adopt new tech or who worries about trading off the stability of current options for the cutting edge of new options.
But here are the problems:
1) No one views these policies as an advantage in any digital-only platform. They're a necessary evil. And they're one that's overcome with sweeteners. One sweetener is pricing. In Steam that's manifested in a few ways--frequent and steep sales on the whole catalogue, and the ability for developers to produce unlimited keys for free (and thus for third party resellers to sacrifice margin for volume and offer discounts). Will Xbox One games be $35 to pre-order? Will they drop to $5 within 6 months? I doubt it.
2) Digital-only PC platforms emerged in response to the decline of retail. Retail has not declined for consoles. It's still there. The Xbox One's direct competitors will have retail space. And the direct competitors will not necessarily have these policies. Maybe Microsoft ends up correctly predicting the future and riding the wave in advance, but it seems like Microsoft's competitors are healthy enough that this is too much too soon.
3) There exists no digital-only platform that requires an ongoing membership fee (or that encourages an ongoing membership fee). Ongoing membership fees tend to be for unlimited, all-access type services like Netflix--or even in the more limited form, Playstation Plus, or discount programs like Amazon Prime or Costco membership. It's true that Gold exists today, but today there's a platform that doesn't necessarily need the kind of sweeteners that the One will need.
So, I guess my conclusion is that given that we now know that Xbox One is a digital-only, not digital-first system, the policies are fairly unremarkable and the next question becomes how Microsoft will blunt these inherent limitations of digital-only systems and show advantages.
Go into his post history, straight up MS shill.
And my personal favorite, RE Sony not bundling the camera with every system (IE what pretty much every GAFfer wants to keep the price of the PS4 down)
They don't give a shit about the people with no money. They are targeting people who do have money to spend.
The 80/20 rule of business. Pareto's Law. They'll get 80% of their business from the 20% of the world's population who have money and broadband. No point in creating a console to instead target the 80% of the world's population who are only worth 20% of your potential business.
And that 80/20 rule applies to the entirety of Microsoft's next-gen strategy, including the % of people who are anal about graphics vs the people who will appreciate an all in one device with Kinect, and the % of people who care about DRM vs those who will just appreciate no discs. GAF is firmly in the 20% camp I'm afraid.
@XboxSupport
So I guess private sales are still somehow possible? What a mess.
On Facebook some of my friends are just calling me a Microsoft hater.
They are god damn right.
You mean I can give a friend a game from my steam library that I'm done with?
A game can be given to someone on your friends list. It's something than can only be done once. And don't forget that is just something 3rd party publishers "can" allow you to do, they don't have to.
I don't think it is.
With MS leaving this up to the publishers, I get the feeling that it was the powerhouse publishers like EA and Activision that are driving this. EA wouldn't have dropped online passes if they didn't know they'd have control over used games on both major platforms.
So Sony probably has no choice but to do the same and leave it up to publishers. They have to have CoD, Madden etc. on their console or they might as well not bother launching in the US.
So if it is the publishers driving this, the ball isn't in their court with anything but their first party games.
I think all of the policies they announced are logical extensions of the fact that this is a digital-only console. The "retail" titles, such as they are, are like Steamworks games. It's not a retail+digital console, it's a digital-only console. I mean, imagine if a competitor to Steam popped up that had all of these policies. It'd be fairly standard--in some respect forward-thinking (being able to transfer a game you own to a friend, even once, is better than what Steam has right now; being able to trade in at select retailers is better than what Steam has now for both the retailer and the customer), in other respects a little behind the curve (offline mode being a 24 hour limit) I don't personally have a problem with digital only, I've got 600 games on Steam. And I'm generally a pretty future-proof kind of guy, none of my computers have optical drives anymore. I use Dropbox for everything. I love tablets I'm not someone who typically needs to be encouraged to adopt new tech or who worries about trading off the stability of current options for the cutting edge of new options.
But here are the problems:
1) No one views these policies as an advantage in any digital-only platform. They're a necessary evil. And they're one that's overcome with sweeteners. One sweetener is pricing. In Steam that's manifested in a few ways--frequent and steep sales on the whole catalogue, and the ability for developers to produce unlimited keys for free (and thus for third party resellers to sacrifice margin for volume and offer discounts). Will Xbox One games be $35 to pre-order? Will they drop to $5 within 6 months? I doubt it.
2) Digital-only PC platforms emerged in response to the decline of retail. Retail has not declined for consoles. It's still there. The Xbox One's direct competitors will have retail space. And the direct competitors will not necessarily have these policies. Maybe Microsoft ends up correctly predicting the future and riding the wave in advance, but it seems like Microsoft's competitors are healthy enough that this is too much too soon.
3) There exists no digital-only platform that requires an ongoing membership fee (or that encourages an ongoing membership fee). Ongoing membership fees tend to be for unlimited, all-access type services like Netflix--or even in the more limited form, Playstation Plus, or discount programs like Amazon Prime or Costco membership. It's true that Gold exists today, but today there's a platform that doesn't necessarily need the kind of sweeteners that the One will need.
So, I guess my conclusion is that given that we now know that Xbox One is a digital-only, not digital-first system, the policies are fairly unremarkable and the next question becomes how Microsoft will blunt these inherent limitations of digital-only systems and show advantages.
November 2014, you are enabled to trade in your COD Ghosts copy for -20$ off COD Ghosts 2
Gamestop exclusive.
Simply put.Exactly. It's Steambox without Steam or any of the flexibility the PC environment provides. It's the worst of the 360 and PC combined into one box.
Gemüsepizza;61804784 said:
I don't get it.
Gemüsepizza;61804784 said:
Sharing games with up to 10 people?
That's sensational. So good.
Really? I had a few friends from the states telling me that they couldn't play online with me in their dorms since the included internet wouldn't let them.I have literally never heard of this happening, ever.
@XboxSupport
So I guess private sales are still somehow possible? What a mess.
Nice find. Did you check out the video at the 9:17 mark? Wow!
This is a fantastic post that summarizes everything far more calmly and analytically than I'd be able to, given how pissed off I am right now. It really shouldn't get lost in this 50 replies per minute thread.I think all of the policies they announced are logical extensions of the fact that this is a digital-only console. The "retail" titles, such as they are, are like Steamworks games. It's not a retail+digital console, it's a digital-only console. I mean, imagine if a competitor to Steam popped up that had all of these policies. It'd be fairly standard--in some respect forward-thinking (being able to transfer a game you own to a friend, even once, is better than what Steam has right now; being able to trade in at select retailers is better than what Steam has now for both the retailer and the customer), in other respects a little behind the curve (offline mode being a 24 hour limit) I don't personally have a problem with digital only, I've got 600 games on Steam. And I'm generally a pretty future-proof kind of guy, none of my computers have optical drives anymore. I use Dropbox for everything. I love tablets I'm not someone who typically needs to be encouraged to adopt new tech or who worries about trading off the stability of current options for the cutting edge of new options.
But here are the problems:
1) No one views these policies as an advantage in any digital-only platform. They're a necessary evil. And they're one that's overcome with sweeteners. One sweetener is pricing. In Steam that's manifested in a few ways--frequent and steep sales on the whole catalogue, and the ability for developers to produce unlimited keys for free (and thus for third party resellers to sacrifice margin for volume and offer discounts). Will Xbox One games be $35 to pre-order? Will they drop to $5 within 6 months? I doubt it.
2) Digital-only PC platforms emerged in response to the decline of retail. Retail has not declined for consoles. It's still there. The Xbox One's direct competitors will have retail space. And the direct competitors will not necessarily have these policies. Maybe Microsoft ends up correctly predicting the future and riding the wave in advance, but it seems like Microsoft's competitors are healthy enough that this is too much too soon.
3) There exists no digital-only platform that requires an ongoing membership fee (or that encourages an ongoing membership fee). Ongoing membership fees tend to be for unlimited, all-access type services like Netflix--or even in the more limited form, Playstation Plus, or discount programs like Amazon Prime or Costco membership. It's true that Gold exists today, but today there's a platform that doesn't necessarily need the kind of sweeteners that the One will need.
So, I guess my conclusion is that given that we now know that Xbox One is a digital-only, not digital-first system, the policies are fairly unremarkable and the next question becomes how Microsoft will blunt these inherent limitations of digital-only systems and show advantages.
You're being dishonest.Nope, but nobody complains about Steam. I don't blame some people for not liking things, but many are being completely unreasonable. The most controversial thing in the entire policy is the requirement of an internet connection. Everything else sounds completely reasonable and like a decent compromise between what could have been a worse case scenario.
GAF was pissed about fees when giving games to friends or when trading them in or reselling.
Microsoft announces that there are no fees for giving games to friends or trading them in or reselling. GAF still pissed.
GAF was pissed about no used games.
Microsoft announces, unequivocally, that used games are definitely supported on Xbox One, and even describes how they are supported. GAF still pissed.
Yeah, there is a chance that you'll get a worse experience when you're under 1,5 which is pretty horrible.It says recommended, not required. If you want to play online games, you'll want as fast as possible. If you just want to play, you should be fine...unless the game relies on the cloud.