Xbox One Used Game Policy Leaks: Publishers Get a Cut of Sale

Chewbacon writes "Details about the used-game policy on Microsoft's newly-announced Xbox One console have been leaked. The policy explains how used-game retailers can survive Xbox One destroying the used-game market as we know it: they have to agree to Microsoft's terms and conditions to do so. In summary, the used game retailer can still buy the game from the consumer, but they must report the consumer relinquishing their license to play the game to a Microsoft database. They must also sell it at a market price (35£ in the UK), but the publisher will get a cut of the price. The article goes on to explain how Xbox One will phone home periodically to verify a player hasn't sold the game according to the aforementioned database." A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games. A potential upside pointed out by Ben Kuchera at the Penny Arcade Report is that this would unquestionably boost revenue for game publishers, giving the smart ones an opportunity to step away from the $60 business model and adopt pricing practices seen on Steam and iTunes (neither of which allow the purchase of "used" games/media). Also, it's worth noting that even if the policy leak is 100% correct, it could change before the console actually launches.

Comments

Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

If game stores have to sell used games back at market price, why wouldn't they just sell the new game? Why would they buy back the old game at any price?

Re:Where's the profit

[gl4ss]

If game stores have to sell used games back at market price, why wouldn't they just sell the new game? Why would they buy back the old game at any price?

..and uh, if they have to sell the used game at £35, why would the games companies sell them at that..

what it does is makes buying physical copies fucking useless. plenty of companies going to sell games at live for ten bucks though.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

If game stores have to sell used games back at market price, why wouldn't they just sell the new game? Why would they buy back the old game at any price?

Brings customers into the store. They also have the option of not giving the customer cash but higher value in store credit which helps with additional sales of new titles and store loyalty.

Re:Where's the profit

[alen]

in the USA the $60 game costs them somewhere around $50 to buy from the publisher. with store expenses its a loss leader.
in reality almost every retail store makes their profits on a small part of their inventory. almost everything else is a loss leader meant to get people into the store.

there is no way gamestop or anyone else can survive on new game sales. especially in the age of the internet and the ability to buy accessories cheaper online and get your game guide from youtube

the $50 used games at gamestop were bought for less than half that price which is why gamestop pushes used game sales

Re:Where's the profit

[Dunbal]

The whole thing reeks of anti-trust.

Re:Where's the profit

[Holi]

Except Gamestop has admitted that their main profit driver is New Games, not used games. Kinda blows a hole in your theory.

Re:Where's the profit

[al3]

And if the floor price for a used game is 35£ that creates a much narrower window for Steam-style sales. You wouldn't price a new copy below a used one.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

And why would I, a consumer, buy a used game when it's the same price as a new game? Game stores aren't idiots. They won't buy used goods they can't then sell for a decent markup.

This sounds like MS promising they'll play nice with the used games market while still trying hard to kill it.

Re:Where's the profit

[Mitreya]

If game stores have to sell used games back at market price, why wouldn't they just sell the new game?

Hahahah, probably because 35£ is the used game market price, not the new game market price.
Things have gotten so crazy, that 35£ is now the "reasonably low/used game" price?

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if they want to kill used game sales they could make it possible for game-specific retailers to actually survive off new game sales. (I originally wrote "small retailers" there, but it's not like Gamestop is small, just specialized. Although "small" does apply to their stores.).

It really seems like they just want to kill used game sales, which will kill the game specific retailers, which will leave them beholden to the big-box stores (i.e. Best Buy and the dreaded Walmart) to retail their games. For all the shit they take (much of it deserved), Gamestop does employ a lot of people who actually care about games, and will (sometimes) push games based on quality and not marketing.

At the big-box stores, it'll all come down to marketing dollars. Games are just another commodity, and when's the last time you asked a Walmart employee about the best brand of toilet paper? For the most part, only games by the biggest publisher will sell, which will push games even further into the blockbuster-driven business model in which Hollywood has trapped itself. So, yeah. A large corporation being ridiculously short-sighted. What else is new?

Re:Where's the profit

[PRMan]

Not true. Most games that are $59.99 on a console are $29.99 to $34.99 on the PC. Which means the consoles are charging $25-$30 per game.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

And if this is because "it doesn't degrade with use", what the hell does that do to the DLC and other one-time "upgrades" that make the game less worthwhile?

And if 2 year old games are "worth as much" as new ones (i.e. £35), this kills the "White Label" style of old game sales where a title is bought up for reproduction later at a much cheaper price, collecting those who neither MUST have the latest-and-greatest game, don't have the current top-of-the-line system, and have less disposable income, therefore cannot afford "full price" (i.e. £35) for a game.

Lastly, if the game is worth £35, then how can they sell it in other locations for much less (or much more for the poor saps living in Australia, for example)?

Re:Where's the profit

[asm2750]

Amazon >>>>> Big Box stores and Gamestop.

I feel Steam and PCs will see a resurgence this generation.

Re:Where's the profit

[Merk42]

It's their console, which also doesn't have a majority marketshare (since it's not even available yet). Antitrust isn't just "Microsoft thing I don't like"

Re:Where's the profit

[adamstew]

The summary got it wrong. According to TFA: "The retailer can then sell the pre-owned game at whatever price they like, although as part of the system the publisher of the title in question will automatically receive a percentage cut of the sale. As will Microsoft. The retailer will pocket the rest."

It looks like the customer's cost is going to be £35. According to the article: "Many readers are asking whether the £35 will be additional cost on top of the price of buying the game. No, we believe that the £35 figure – which is not our number, incidentally – would cover the entire transaction. If correct this would leave retail with a cut per sale of around £3.50." So, to me, it sounds like the retail cost of used games to the buyer will be £35...of which the retailer would get a 10% slice of. The person trading in the game would also get some amount of that money, and then microsoft would get the rest and split it with the publisher.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Most games that are $59.99 on a console are $29.99 to $34.99 on the PC.

Then why are new AAA titles on Steam listed at 60 bucks?

Re:Where's the profit

[Kielistic]

Antitrust isn't just majority market share either.

Re:Where's the profit

[AmiMoJo]

Don't most people buy new games by trading in old games with cash on top? I think they would sell a lot fewer new games if people couldn't fund the purchases by selling old ones.

Re:Where's the profit

[Kal Zekdor]

If game stores have to sell used games back at market price, why wouldn't they just sell the new game? Why would they buy back the old game at any price?

The order of actions would likely follow something like this:

1. 1. Gamer A buys Game from Publisher for $60.
2. 2. Gamer A decides they no longer want said Game for whatever reason.
3. 3. Gamer A sells Game to Used Game Shop for ~$30.
4. 4. Gamer B buys Game from Used Game Shop for $60.
5. 5. Used Game Shop gives Publisher ~$10.

In this case, of the $60 that Gamer B paid for the game, Gamer A gets $30, Used Game Shop gets $20, and Publisher gets $10. The prices are just estimates, of course.

This model makes sense for Gamer A, Used Game Shop, and (mostly for) Publisher. Though, I have no clue why Gamer B would purchase a used game, if it costs the same as a new one. They need to do something about that, otherwise the used game market will die indirectly.

Re:Where's the profit

[Penguinisto]

what it does is makes buying physical copies fucking useless. plenty of companies going to sell games at live for ten bucks though.

...ever stop and think that maybe eliminating physical copies is the whole idea behind the plan?

Re:Where's the profit

[ezelkow1]

because your looking at steam prices, and non-sale ones at that. The vast majority of AAA titles can be had a few months later for half the price or less. Just look at the latest hitman, released in november and by february you could get it for 10$

Same goes for borderlands 2, picked it up for 10$, along with skyrim

It takes years for a drop that much in a console title

Re:Where's the profit

[MozeeToby]

It really seems like they just want to kill used game sales, which will kill the game specific retailers, which will leave them beholden to the big-box stores (i.e. Best Buy and the dreaded Walmart) to retail their games.

And here's where you're wrong. You are making the assumption that that they will be beholden to anyone. Obviously they don't want that and obviously they know that killing off the small retailers is effectively giving up power to the big boxes simply by reducing competition. So what are they up to?

The upcoming generation will perform various tricks to push downloadable games so that in 5-10 years they will be able to push out a medialess platform without an uproar in the demographics that matter. What kind of tricks? How about a $15 credit to the online store to relinquish the license you have on a current game? How about pushing episodic content, where only the first episode is available in disk format? How about requiring a credit card for "age verification purposes" on Mature rated games (getting the CC info greatly increases future sales simply by reducing the hassle factor of the first purchase)?

You know all those games that you've picked up on sale or clearance or used for $20 after they've been out a year? Those are going to be a thing of the past.

Re:Where's the profit

[drinkypoo]

Except Gamestop has admitted that their main profit driver is New Games, not used games. Kinda blows a hole in your theory.

Gamestop's main profit drivers are self-identified hardcore gamers who will come in to get every new iteration of whatever FPS is hot this year, and little kids. They don't even have PS2 games any more, they're just not a used game store. I go in there occasionally to see if I can score a good accessory, but the vintage accessories are pretty much gone now. I've got amazing things out of those packets over time, like a five dollar NegGCon and so on. They still have PS3 remotes and they're down to $13 now, so if you were wondering what kind of bluetooth home theater remote to pick up, hop in there while they still have those. I don't know of a cheaper bluetooth remote that's worth one tenth of one crap. Pairs with Android with the "bluetooth pairing" app. Various instructions exist for XBMC. etc. And, I went there to buy Ouya, because I wanted to walk into a store and pay with cash, so I've done the preorder shuffle because otherwise they don't get launch consoles. But why would you go there to buy a game? You can't get vintage games any more, and you can get newer used games cheaper online.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's also "Microsoft things I like" and "Microsoft things I don't care about". ;)

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a digital download, there is no difference between a used copy and a new copy...

Re:Where's the profit

[Somebody Is Using My]

        1. Gamer A buys Game from Publisher for $60.
        2. Gamer A decides they no longer want said Game for whatever reason.
        3. Gamer A sells Game to Used Game Shop for ~$30.
        4. Gamer B buys Game from Used Game Shop for $60.
        5. Used Game Shop gives Publisher ~$10.

Don't forget:
        6. Gamer B pays Microsoft additional $10 "reinstallation" fee to actually play his used game.

Re:Where's the profit

[lord_mike]

They have enough of a marketshare that they can still be illegally conspiring with other manufacturers to price fix. That's why apple got sued by the DOJ in regards to eBooks, even though Apple's e-reading marketshare pales compared to the Kindle. Vertical monopolies of any size are illegal, and monopolies don't have to be 99% of the market to be considered a monopoly under the law. Having a large enough economic influence over an overall market is enough to invite legal antitrust scrutiny. Why no one has sued apple over the the App Store is beyond me, since they are blatantly violating antitrust laws with their restrictions.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, they'll make $2-$3 like they do off of new games now. Which means they *will* go out of business if they have to conduct it this way. I can buy a used car from anyone without the car companies getting mad, why can't I buy a used games without the game companies getting mad? Like the car, I'm only getting last year's version, it's not the latest and greatest which is still at full price.

Re:Where's the profit

[weszz]

The last few times I bought a new game it was one I wanted pre-release, so I went to Best Buy, traded in all the games I don't play anymore and put that to a pre-order, which gave additional credit for doing a tradein to put money down on a prerelease, so it made the new game practically free for me after giving up the old games. then each time I do this, the money I put up gets a bit more because now I trade in one game to get one game... I play the crap out of that game to get the cost per hour well below $1 an hour (really cheap entertainment) and move on. if you take the first month you have a game, and play it one hour a month every day, it comes down to $2 an hour quickly. A good game should be multiple months, so it gets cheap for the consumer that way.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DMCA doesn't override anti-trust, like it does fair use, I'm sure there'll be another law to handle that soon enough.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. If I buy it, it's MY console. But technically, because MS doesn't own a monopoly on video games, this is not anti-trust.

Re:Where's the profit

[suutar]

ah, but if you make step 3 $20 and step 4 $45, now it makes more sense for gamer B while still making a reasonable amount of sense for gamer A and the shop. And out of that initial $60, the publisher is probably netting around 10 after the store's cut and the expenses related to making and shipping the physical disk, so they're likely getting about the same out of the used sale as a new sale. (Unless I'm missing something, which is not unlikely :)

Re:Where's the profit

[Kal Zekdor]

ah, but if you make step 3 $20 and step 4 $45, now it makes more sense for gamer B while still making a reasonable amount of sense for gamer A and the shop. And out of that initial $60, the publisher is probably netting around 10 after the store's cut and the expenses related to making and shipping the physical disk, so they're likely getting about the same out of the used sale as a new sale. (Unless I'm missing something, which is not unlikely :)

Yeah, but TFS said "[The used game seller] must also sell [the used game] at a market price " I might be misunderstanding that, but I took that to mean the same price as the publisher is selling new copies. In those circumstances, there's no incentive for a gamer looking to buy used games.

Re:Where's the profit

[Gravatron]

All depends on the game, really. A lot drop in price rather dramatically these days, usually withing 4-6 months. PC titles and retail console games are normally around the same cost, outside major sales.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Which made sense when the consoles were using cartridges. (Which they could back to now with no trouble whatsoever but they are too cheap to).

Re:Where's the profit

[JMJimmy]

So do it, don't piss people off with this crap.

Re:Where's the profit

[JMJimmy]

They aren't doing this because they allow the retailer to set the price, they just structure it so that in order for the retailer to make a profit they must set their prices artificially high... it's a fine line but might be enough to let them steer clear.

Where they may run into trouble, in Canada at least, is the following:

The cartel provision in Section 45 of the Act stipulates that it is per se a criminal offence to conspire, agree or arrange with a competitor to fix prices, allocate customers or markets or control the production or supply of a product. A “competitor” includes a person who would be likely to compete with respect to the product in the absence of agreement. A “product” includes any article or service.

And if they don't qualify under that section as a cartel, there's also a less restrictive version which would allow a review of their competitor agreement.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

And people were saying PC gaming is dying. Looks more like the death of consoles, or at least consoles made by the big three.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bullshit. Find me a brand new game that is retailing at $59.99 on consoles and $39.99 on PC.

Re: Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but this is false. Wholesale pricing on new games is anywhere from $18-$33 a game.

Re: Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah they did. This gen.

Re:Where's the profit

[Dunbal]

If I buy it, it's MY console

Want to bet? I'm sure Microsoft firmly believes that they are licensing the console to you.

Re:Where's the profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Gamestop has admitted that their main profit driver is New Games, not used games. Kinda blows a hole in your theory.

More like newly released used games.
Buy new: $50, Sell New, $60. Profit $10 (less expenses).
Buy Used back for $30, Sell Used copy of newly rel;eased, beaten on day 1 game: $55, $50 after 10% card discount. Profit: $20, less expenses).

And they don't buy many copies back for $30, more like $20-$25.

Re:Where's the profit

[Darinbob]

"Market price" is stupid. This is one problem I see with digital downloads direct from publishers, is that they don't understand what the market price is and try to sell it for a higher amount. Digital downloads means no inventory pressure on the shelves, so where a brick and mortar store is under pressure to get those old games out the door fast, even if they sell it for $5, the digital market doesn't care and will happily insist that their 5 year old games are worth $50.

The market should dictate what the market price is, not Microsoft.

Re:Where's the profit

[Darinbob]

The whole idea behind the plan is to make more money. What other product allows you to resell it but only if the original maker gets a portion of the resale price? Can you imagine if you were forced to pay a fee to GM when you sold your car? What is really happening here is that they are no longer selling you a game, they are instead renting you the game for an arbitrary period of time.

If they only cared about physical copies then they would not care at all about how much it was resold for.

Re:Where's the profit

[Darinbob]

I remember back when a used game store would sell games for $5-10 in the bargain bin, more popular games at maybe $25. I got some of my favorite games that way. I never saw them selling used games for full price (and $50 is essentially full price, even if during the first week it was selling for $60). Then gamestop showed up and suddenly things seem to change. Don't know why people put up with that.

Re:Where's the profit

[Darinbob]

It's a trust because they're mandating that third parties also follow their rules in order to allow the games onto the console. It's a closed and locked down platform, a walled gulag.

Multiple parties colluding in order to keep prices above market rates while also undermining the customer's legal rights, sounds like both anti-trust and RICO to me.

Re:Where's the profit

[Darinbob]

And yet I can very often get a new game more cheaply than the same game on Steam. Just shop around on ebay or retail stores for old physical copies of the game. Steam and most digital retail will keep prices higher than normal market rates, there is no incentive for them to drop prices just to find a few more bargain hunters, whereas the retail store really needs to get rid of all that old junk that isn't selling anymore.

Re:Where's the profit

[suutar]

That's true. I assumed that the used market price, while apparently fixed, would be less than the new market price, because (as you note) having them the same seems... silly. But I suppose we can't rule it out until we see it...

Re:Where's the profit

[AlphaWolf_HK]

On that note, it is possible that if this goes too far, you'll see industry pressure for legislation to mandate unrestricted resale of previously owned digital media. Larry Lessig referred to this behavior as "little greedy bastards vs big greedy bastards" when congress banned the practice of transaction processors from forcing merchants to pay debit card transaction fees (which subsequently resulted in BofA threatening to add a $5 a month fee to debit card users.)

Used Games?

[Vanderhoth]

Can't sell used games for a console, if no one buys the console. Anyone foolish enough to fall into this trap and buy one deserves what they get.

Re:Used Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't sell used games for a console, if no one buys the console. Anyone foolish enough to fall into this trap and buy one deserves what they get.

As opposed to buying games on Steam? I must've missed it -- where's a link to the "transfer this" page?

Re:Used Games?

[Sockatume]

The funny thing is that it could turn out to be a thousand times less bad than it sounds, but by being cowards and refusing to lay out the system at the event itself, leaving the explanation of the service to a confused mass of PR statements, Phil Harrison interviews, and FAQ entries, they've made sure it looks absolutely as bad as possible.

Perfect.

Re:Used Games?

[NeutronCowboy]

Yeah..... I normally don't buy used games, but do swap games with friends. Not sure I'm liking where this is going. I was already very lukewarm about the Xbox, but this is moving me from lukewarm to wait more. Enough events like that, and I will just never get around to getting a new Xbox.

Re:Used Games?

[afidel]

It's coming, the July 2012 EU Court of Justice of the European Union ruling around the right to sell used digital assets will ensure it does (at least for people with EU country accounts).

Re:Used Games?

[0xdeadbeef]

Can't sell used games for a console, if no one buys the console. Anyone foolish enough to fall into this trap and buy one deserves what they get.

Seriously. It is doomed to failure.

Re:Used Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-128/11

Re:Used Games?

[Vanderhoth]

Apples and oranges my friend

I have well over a doze friends who are pretty big Xbox fans who have all said they won't be buying into this.

The Xbox 1 is going to be about as popular as the surface.

Re:Used Games?

[Mike Buddha]

Bye bye sweet sales prices in Europe...

Re:Used Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

but that doesnt mean that m$ or anyone could charge a fee to use the licence

Re:Used Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep on playing your indie Linux games...this technology is not for you, anyway - they want money for their product, not free or stolen that you live on. Dipshit.

Re:Used Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling it a "right" is overstating it a bit. Yes, you can sell used digital assets but the original vendor is under no obligation to facilitate this. If DRM prevents the sale you are SOL.

Re: Used Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam also steeply discounts games during sales a few months after release. I picked up com for $17 several months ago for instance

Re:Used Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming, the July 2012 EU Court of Justice of the European Union ruling around the right to sell used digital assets will ensure it does (at least for people with EU country accounts).

Legislation could change that.

Re:Used Games?

[Darinbob]

And yet the kids will get it, they will whine to mom and dad to get the latest gadget. There will be peer pressure from other kids who laugh at them if they're forced to use and older system, or (gasp) a PC. They wont' buy used games anyway, they will be laughed at for playing a game that isn't one of the currently approved cool games.

Re:Used Games?

[Vanderhoth]

What other parents do to their kids isn't of my concern.

That being said, I'm a parent and it's my responsibility to raise my child to be the best they can. To me that means teaching them they don't need or get crap because others have it. It also means teaching them to think for themselves. A bit of razing from the little dink down the street teaches humility, which is a valuable quality to have in the adult world.

I'm actually ok with it, because the qualities my child will develop for going without and learning to deal with the bullies will give them the leg up in real life. I know, because it's done well for me. I have a family, a house, a car, great job and can afford whatever I really want all because I learned those lessons growing up. At my 10 year high school reunion, it was pretty interesting to hear about what happened to the people that gave me a hard time in school. Fliping burgers, jail, failing marriages/devoiced paying child support and alimony. All from well to do families, all had the latest and greatest in cloths, music and games growing up. All developed the "I have to have it" mentality that ultimately lead to the major issues they've suffered in life.

So again, it doesn't matter what other parents do to their kids, mine will be just fine.

Re:Used Games?

[gl4ss]

but that doesnt mean that m$ or anyone could charge a fee to use the licence

they can charge a fee to use the _service_.. but not a fee for the license.

it would also mean though that they would need to charge the first dude who bought it to use the service.

Re:Used Games?

[Pseudonym]

Let me quote you (as verbatim as I can remember) my 13-year-old daughter's reaction: "Cool! That means that XBox 360 games will be really cheap!"

So the smart kids get it, at least.

Fuck you, MS

[realmolo]

Seriously.

I won't be buying ANY console that doesn't allow me to sell/trade/lend my games to WHOMEVER I want, for WHATEVER PRICE I want.

And frankly, I fully expect MS to get sued by various states, and possibly the feds. This is exactly the kind of "screw you" that consumers HATE. Maybe, possibly, this whole mess could finally get the Supreme Court to clarify what "first sale" rights are, and to do away with this whole bullshit of "we didn't sell you software, we just sold you a LICENSE TO USE our software".

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Scutter]

You're not buying anything. You're temporarily renting a license. The whole idea of "buying" any form of media has been bullshit for at least the last 15 years.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[UnknowingFool]

Especially since Sony announced the PS4 will play used games. If I were Sony, I would blast the airwaves with ads on how their competitor will not allow you to play used games without a feee. Sony has burned a lot of bridges in the past; they could use some good PR.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[TheRealMindChild]

This is what they WANT you to think

Re:Fuck you, MS

[multimediavt]

Maybe, possibly, this whole mess could finally get the Supreme Court to clarify what "first sale" rights are, and to do away with this whole bullshit of "we didn't sell you software, we just sold you a LICENSE TO USE our software".

Yes, but they may have patented said software that they just declared nothing but a license in their terms of use. How does that work? I don't mean specifically in this case per se, but I would imagine there are patented software components in the Xbox console's software. How do they declare the software not a thing but a license in the terms of use but have a software patent for code used in the software? Doesn't this circular logic invalidate software patents by terms of use?

Re:Fuck you, MS

[UnknowingFool]

Patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software. Copyright only prevents resales when there has been modification. The only thing that MS can do is specify that all games are leases (which require) you to agree to a EULA.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[redemtionboy]

I don't know if I'm convinced Sony isn't doing this either. Sony said they won't "block" used games. Technically Microsoft isn't either. Both companies were holding secret meetings about a year ago. I doubt both companies having similar architecture and other features is a coincidence. Sony has also said that you would install games to the drive like Microsoft claims. I'm betting they're just playing quiet.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading isn't stealing. It's temporarily making a replica. There was no intention to make a sale, so no sale is lost.

Don't download or buy kids! Punish by obscurity.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Nerdfest]

Absolutely, because if there's one company you can trust, it's Sony.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[mark-t]

Downloading isn't stealing.

Did you reply to the wrong post or something? Who was saying that it is?

Re:Fuck you, MS

[gl4ss]

I don't know if I'm convinced Sony isn't doing this either. Sony said they won't "block" used games. Technically Microsoft isn't either. Both companies were holding secret meetings about a year ago. I doubt both companies having similar architecture and other features is a coincidence. Sony has also said that you would install games to the drive like Microsoft claims. I'm betting they're just playing quiet.

what sony is smartly doing is that sony is pushing it to be a problem of the publisher - if they want to limit it to one player per physical copy, then be it.

what publishers(EA) did with MS was that they made MS hold the shit stick.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Endo13]

Don't download or buy kids!

I agree completely. I think your idea for punishment is a bit off though.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[tankbob]

Actually you are buying it in Europe... The European Court of Justice ruled on July 3, 2012, that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is exactly the kind of "screw you" that consumers HATE.

LOL. Don't be so fucking naive. Apple's astonishing success with the "app store" proves that consumers will buy anything that is well marketed.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Artraze]

That is entirely untrue: you are buying a copy. What you can do with that copy is limited by copyright law (including the concepts of fair use) and every other applicable law (e.g. DMCA). A copy may come with an explicit license altering what you may do with it. For example, software EULAs will usually allow you to install a copy and create a backup. Without the ELUA you still have a copy; whether it has any value is another argument. Could there be exceptional cases where a copy might come with a shrink wrap license that says you must return the copy (without refund) if you violate it or don't agree? Possible, but it would quite likely unenforceable.

Even in this case, you are totally welcome to sell your game without going through MS's hoops; just don't expect it to work on MS's console. Why? Because that's what the copy does. If you modify it to work, you've broken copyright law by creating a derivative work. A license doesn't even come into play.

The only way your 'temporary/rental' bit makes any sense is if you meant it in the same way that one is only renting a car before it's eventual return to it's proper form of stardust. Just like a book from 100 years ago or a CD right now. A copy is a copy and the thing you bought. Just as owning a car doesn't entitle you to gas to make it go, owning a game copy doesn't entitle you to a console and authorization to make it play.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[stewsters]

Playing used games probably will be a nice feature that they decide will remove in 2014.

Sent from YellowDog on PS3... Oh wait, no it wasn't.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[TheDarkMaster]

Yep. their policy that it is selling or licensing float at the mercy of their convenience.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Mitreya]

first-sale doctrine applied ... thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software

Ah, but have they also ruled that the game cannot be bound to the first-activated account? Otherwise, you can sell the game all you want, but it won't work without the original owner's account

Kinda like DMCA -- you can do X, but making/sharing/distributing any tool that would allow you to do X is against the law. Good luck exercising your (hypothetical) rights...

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Bacon Bits]

Personally I expect Sony to wait for the really bad PR storm to settle down, and then they're going to essentially say "yeah, we're going to be doing that, too".

Re:Fuck you, MS

[PRMan]

This was already decided for books in the 1800s. They can say it all they want. Doesn't make it true or legal.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[invid]

The goal of the Media Corporations (MCs) is to not allow ANY digitizable media to be experienced by any consumer without them knowing about it an monetizing it. If they get their way, the only way consumers will experience media is while connected to the internet. Thus they will HAMMER the consumer with a multitude of micro-payments. This is known as the MC Hammer strategy. (and yes, they have to pay MC Hammer a penny every time they use the name, otherwise they would be hypocrites.)

Re:Fuck you, MS

[firex726]

But leasing it also comes with certain consumer protections, which industry groups have argued against when consumers make use of those protections.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[firex726]

Tell it to the European court where they ruled last year that you were buying a full copy, not a license; and first sale doctrine did apply.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. Then they should charge rental price. I'd be willing to pay $5.00 to rent a game that I can't continue to play after Microsoft has turned off their activation servers for it. They want me to pay full price for it? Then they should sell it to me, not rent it to me.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Artraze]

> Patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software.

Completely incorrect, and so blatantly so I am uncertain how you even came to that conclusion.

Among the things patents can restrict, courtesy of the MPEG-LA:
*) Having a copy of software
*) Running software
*) Distributing software
*) Distributing the output of software.
Where "software" is any executable doing a patented operation, regardless of the copyright.

This is, in part, because software patents essentially cover "a machine that does X" rather that "X". Thus, putting a program that does X on you computer means that you constructed a machine doing X without a license from the patent holder. I'm not entirely sure how/why distribution of the machine code can be restricted or how they can attach strings to the output, but rest assured that those restrictions are very real. One fun consequence of that latter is that you can owe the MPEG-LA distribution royalties on a movie you shot using a consumer camera because the license on the camera's encoder only covers very limited commercial usage.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[ilguido]

No, Sony confirmed that "PS4 games will be playable without an Internet connection". That pretty much nails it: this used game policy can only be enforced with an online DRM. That's why the Xbox One FAQ states:

Q: Does Xbox One require an “always on” Internet connection?
A: No, it does not have to be always connected, but Xbox One does require a connection to the Internet. We’re designing Xbox One to be your all-in-one entertainment system that is connected to the cloud and always ready. We are also designing it so you can play games and watch Blu-ray movies and live TV if you lose your connection.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[CodeHxr]

Don't download or buy kids!

I think the trafficking of children is illegal most everywhere...

Re:Fuck you, MS

[drinkypoo]

Patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software.

I don't know about that. Isn't it illegal to use a patented invention yourself, in some cases even not for profit? Couldn't you prevent resale on the basis of patent violation in the case of software protected by patent?

Copyright only prevents resales when there has been modification.

First Sale explicitly permits resale when there has been modification. It also requires the transfer of all materials involved. What copyright does it prevent distribution without permission. A modified item may be covered by the laws which address derivative works, but that's something else.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[malkavian]

Except you can sell on a car, and it'll run on the fuel you put into it.
What's actually happening is that companies are attempting to make sure that after the initial sale, if your logic worked as you were intimating with that analogy, the car wouldn't work by putting the correct fuel in it, unless you'd paid to have the car unlocked by the original company that manufactured it. And this company enforced a set of rules that ensured it got a massive share of the original price of the car just to perform an administrative function of saying "Yes, you now own the car".
Now, none of your friends would be able to drive it unless you paid the fee to this company, so there'd be no lending it to someone for the weekend while you didn't need it, and it covered their car being in for repairs or something. You couldn't give it away, without the authority of this company (who you'd have to pay for the privilege of giving it away, even though you'd purchased it and now were the owner by law).
So, in effect, you'd not be buying a "car", as that describes a vehicle that moves when you put fuel in it. You'd be buying an expensive heap of junk that you'd need to pay a third party (who has no legal right to be involved in the resale of the car, apart from them putting a 'tracking' system of owner in there that won't let the heap of metal do anything, even open the doors, unless you pay them this money).
Unless you can play this game, as is, on the console, you can't describe it as a game for the console, because it isn't. It's a medium with data on it. That data is not a game, and can't be described as one, because if you put it in the console with the expectation that it'd work, you'd find it didn't. That doesn't meet the criteria for being described as a workable game.

It'd be a very interesting fight if people took it up en masse; I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make out.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not buying anything. You're temporarily renting a license.

They may claim that as much as they like but as long as the sign in the store says "Buy!" that is what I did.
If that was not the case then I have been the victim of fraud.
35£ sounds like a lot for a mere license. If the case is that they are only renting me a license then they'd better put it down to 5£ if they want me to jump on that deal.
Considering that I'm not guaranteed to be able to connect the system and play in 20 years like I can do with my SNES I'm not even sure that I am interested. Part of the value I put in gaming consoles is the nostalgia I feel when I play through old games. When there is a requirement that it should be connected I'm not sure that I want to invest too much time on it, regardless of price.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Qzukk]

Don't download or buy kids!

Kids wiggle too much to get them into the tubes. That's why I only download cars.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to license a game, I'd need to sign a contract.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Artraze]

Your analogy is flawed because you are conflating ongoing service with one time service.

The correct analogy would be if your required special gas only sold by the company the created you car, and they would refuse to sell you gas unless you could be shown to be the 'authorized owner' of the vehicle. This is something you would know when buying the car and with the full expectation and understanding that it is a limitation of the car.

Incidentally, a more accurate analogy is already what happens with car registration: you may not drive it without having ownership transferred to you and paying for the transfer (known as "sales tax") . If you want to argue that you can loan it out, I'd point out that you can almost certainly do the same, and with fewer limits, with your XBox / account.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[UnknowingFool]

Please tell me how MS intends to patent "executing used software on a game console" for the end user. Patents are normally for developers and publishers not for end users.

One fun consequence of that latter is that you can owe the MPEG-LA distribution royalties on a movie you shot using a consumer camera because the license on the camera's encoder only covers very limited commercial usage.

And I challenge the MPEG-LA to sue me or the makers of Blair Witch Project (or most indie films). The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on MPEG-LA's claims but patent exhaustion would preclude them from doing so. In Quanta vs LG, the court unanimously ruled that patent exhaustion can be applied to method patents. In that case LG licensed method patents to Intel which then made chips. Quanta bought the Intel chips and made PCs with Intel and non-Intel chips. LG sued Quanta in that Quanta never entered in a separate agreement with them for the patents as Intel's agreement with LG specified that anyone making products with Intel and non-Intel chips required a separate agreement. Quanta won. The court ruled:

(a) The patent exhaustion doctrine provides that a patented item’s initial authorized sale terminates all patent rights to that item. . . (b) Nothing in this Court’s approach to patent exhaustion supports LGE’s argument that method claims, as a category, are never exhaustible . . . (c) The Intel Products embodied the patents here. Univis governs this case. There, exhaustion was triggered by the sale of the lens blanks because their only reasonable and intended use was to practice the patent and because they “embodie[d] essential features of [the] patented invention . . . (d)Intel’s sale to Quanta exhausted LGE’s patent rights. Exhaustion is triggered only by a sale authorized by the patent holder. Univis

Part c is the most important part as the court said you can't license a patent and then prevent the licensee from using the patent as it was intended. Part d says that since LG licensed it to Intel (and Intel used the patent as intended), anyone that bought Intel's chips are protected by patent exhaustion. It needs clarification that Quanta only purchased the chips as-is and made no modifications. Essentially the court says that it doesn't matter what clauses LG has with Intel, they can't put in a clause that defeats patent exhaustion.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[gman003]

I'm honestly having a hard time deciding if I distrust Sony or Microsoft more.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[UnknowingFool]

I don't know about that. Isn't it illegal to use a patented invention yourself, in some cases even not for profit? Couldn't you prevent resale on the basis of patent violation in the case of software protected by patent?

If that were the case, no consumer could use any electronic gadget without first obtaining a license from the patent holders. For example, Motorola and Nokia owns a lot of cellular patents. Do I need to enter in an agreement with either company to use my phone? No. They licensed the patent to whoever made the chips in my phone. When I buy the phone it is understood that patent exhaustion has already occured and I don't need a separate license. This is also Apple's argument against Motorola Mobility. Motorola licensed patents to Qualcomm who made chips. Apple bought the chips and put in their phone. Motorola is suing Apple for standards patents that were in the Qualcomm chips.

First Sale explicitly permits resale when there has been modification.

Please cite it in the First Sale doctrine where it says modification is allowed. It does not mention modification at all. By your interpretation, then MS can embrace and extend Linux without ever releasing source code modifications. I can release my version of Beattles songs without paying Apple Records if I play it on harp.

What copyright does it prevent distribution without permission. A modified item may be covered by the laws which address derivative works, but that's something else.

Um no. Copyright prevents modification AND redistribution without permission. Distribution is always/had always been controlled by the copyright holder. In this case we are talking about reselling which is redistribution not distribution. USC 117(b) specifically says:

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. - Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're the one who is completely wrong. To borrow your words, "so blatantly so I am uncertain how you even came to that conclusion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine

Patents prevent commercial sale, use, distribution and sale without the patent owner's consent but the patent owner's consent is given in the initial sale of the patented product. Once that sale is made, the patent owner's exclusive right to control the sale, use, etc. is exhausted and the purchaser is free to use and resell the product as they see fit without any further restriction.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Mike Buddha]

Why do you have to choose?

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

Everyone seems to forget that practically all the major selling points of the PS3 in 2007 were gone just a few years later.

PS2 disc compatibility? Gone
Linux compatibility? Gone
Media card reader? Gone
Plethora of USB ports? Down to 2
Fancy futuristic touch-sensitive buttons? Gone
Fancy futurist slot-loading bluray drive? Gone
Ability to sort installed games by alphabetical order? Never had it

Re:Fuck you, MS

[petermgreen]

No, Sony confirmed that "PS4 games will be playable without an Internet connection". That pretty much nails it: this used game policy can only be enforced with an online DRM.

I don't see why.

You could have a writable area on the media that "bound" the copy to the first console it was used on. A game shop reselling the game would "unbind" the copy (and pay a fee for doing so) before reselling it. If you bought a copy privately you'd have to either take it into a game shop for unbinding or connect your console to the internet and pay the unbinding fee online. Or you could sell "unbinding cards" with little NFC chips in them that the user held up to their console to unbind the game. Or you could supply unbinding codes over the phone like how windows activation is handled without an internet connection.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Artraze]

First, I was responding exactly to the very general claim "patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software." They most certainly do. Whether or not the exhaustion doctrine applies is a different issue altogether. If you want to say this is clearly in the context of a legally purchased copy, frankly I disagree: that was a very blanket statement. You'll note that it doesn't even say "reselling".

Second, the exhaustion doctrine is not so trivially applied, for reasons that should be obvious given my prior answer: patents don't cover "software doing X" so much a they cover "a machine doing X" and/or "a machine readable storage device with code doing X". The exhaustion doctrine would apply to the resale of the disc, however the actual use of said disc requires constructing "a machine doing X" which is not only outside the scope of the sale (which was storage not a machine) but also requires remaking the patented materials which would no longer be covered by exhaustion, according to Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs.

As a result, I cannot see any case where exhaustion would allow anything but reselling the original disc. If you have any relevant case law to point out why this wouldn't be true, I'd be curious.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

A copy is a copy and the thing you bought. Just as owning a car doesn't entitle you to gas to make it go, owning a game copy doesn't entitle you to a console and authorization to make it play.

Uh, GM can't tell me I can't drive my car anymore. It's mine.

True, they don't have to give me the gas (console,) but authorization to make it drive (what, now they can remotely kill my engine? because I didn't pay them an additional fee?) fuck off now.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Artraze]

I wouldn't be so quick to discount the MPEG-LA's claims based on Quanta vs LG.

The decision came down to the fact the LG's contract with Intel said (basically, of course):
a) Intel had an unrestricted license to produce and sell parts
b) LG did not license third parties to use those parts in combination with other parts.
Ostensibly the point was to allow Intel full ability to create parts and to collect further royalties should parts be used.

This is what backfired: the court said that because the parts were created and sold without restriction exhaustion doctrine applied.

The court did not, however, rule on restrictions and how they affect exhaustion so Mallinckrodt vs Medipartvery still stands. Basically this says that if a patent holder licenses a product and sale for a specific purpose, using that product for any other purpose constitutes a violation of the patent.

You will find that consumer cameras feature a very specific restriction of the use of their video encoder license from the MPEG-LA, so there is no reason to believe that Quanta vs LG would apply to them. Thus, I they do sue you expect that they either win or we get a landmark ruling.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Jason Levine]

Then why do all of those commercials say "Own it on Blu-Ray today!"

Yes, I know that's movies and this thread is about video games, but it's the same general concept.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[UnknowingFool]

The court did not, however, rule on restrictions and how they affect exhaustion so Mallinckrodt vs Medipartvery still stands. Basically this says that if a patent holder licenses a product and sale for a specific purpose, using that product for any other purpose constitutes a violation of the patent.

First of all, Mallinckrodt is a 1992 Federal Circuit court decision. The 2008 SCOTUS Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc case effectively limited Mallinckdrodt. Second the Mallinckrodt court had said conditions are allowed “[u]nless the condition violates some other law or policy (in the patent field, notably the misuse or antitrust law),” patentees enjoyed freedom of contract to impose post-sale restrictions on customers under a rule of reason. “ Patent exhaustion is a noted prinicple in patent law.

You will find that consumer cameras feature a very specific restriction of the use of their video encoder license from the MPEG-LA, so there is no reason to believe that Quanta vs LG would apply to them.

There are four scenarios:

1. The MPEG LA patent covers commercial usage in the language of the patent. If this were the case, Quanta (c) effectively forbids this kind of behavior.
2. MPEG LA patent only covers non-commercial usage. Then MPEG LA cannot pursue patent claims on a conditions which they did not patent.
3. MPEG LA patent does not mention commercial or non-commercial usage. Same as (2) above, MPEG LA cannot pursue claims.
4. MPEG LA has two patents: One for commercial and one for non-commercial. If this is the case, then MPEG LA only has a claim against the camera makers, not the end users. The makers put the technology in products aimed at professionals knowing that it would be used for commercial usage and should have opted for the commercial patent for their professional products. Quanta (d).

Thus, I they do sue you expect that they either win or we get a landmark ruling.

The first thing I would do would be to ask to see all documents Google agreement with MPEG LA. I suspect that Google with all it's legal and monetary muscle shut down MPEG LA's claims and that MPEG LA got a small license fee for their troubles not the millions they expected.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[UnknowingFool]

As a result, I cannot see any case where exhaustion would allow anything but reselling the original disc. If you have any relevant case law to point out why this wouldn't be true, I'd be curious.

The point which isn't clear to you is that the end user explicitly protects end users. If I created software then I am subject to patents. If I license the patents with the patent owner knowing that I would make and sell a product with patents, patent exhaustion says my customers are immune from any liability

Re:Fuck you, MS

[ilguido]

Because those other solutions are not as cost effective, safe from hacking and practical.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

that is effectively "preventing the resale of their software"

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Aerokii]

You're that guy who's using 77 TB of data, aren't you?!

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell it to the European court where they ruled last year that in the ituation where you were buying a full copy, not a license; and first sale doctrine did apply.

there. fixed that for you.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like DIVX all over again.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Darinbob]

Then game publishers should say this clearly. Instead they're LYING to the customers when they say they are selling games.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Darinbob]

I sort of see what you're saying. You have the legal right to make a copy, but the publisher prevents you from making a copy. The fault here lies with the game publisher by preventing you from excercising your legal rights while they thumb their noses at the courts. However it may also technically be illegal to circumvent the encryption in some places. So what this means is that the next step is to have someone sue a game publisher in the EU if they do not allow fair transfer of product ownership.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Darinbob]

If the EU courts are held to be correct, then it is illegal for a game publisher to prevent resale of the games through use of DRM. They can keep the DRM though (to maintain the fiction that it's really about piracy) as long as they allow some way to transfer ownership. No one has the right to take away one of your rights.

Assuming the courts are correct, If you give the game away to a friend and the friend can't get it to work because MS included some DRM, then MS is violating your rights and breaking the law. Now maybe it doesn't mean anything because MS is huge and powerful and EU courts are tiny and weak and take decades to get anything done. Technically speaking though, you'd be well within the boundaries of all moral systems I've heard of if you had to resort to cracking the game to get it to work.

If game publishers wish to continue downt his route, then they need to be clear and up front that they are not selling you a game.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Darinbob]

The analogy should be expanded so that it is illegal in the US to modify your automobile or to repair the engine on your own.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

When is the consumer presented with the EULA? Is it printed on the outside of the box, on a slip of paper inside the box, or does it remain invisible until the consumer attempts the install the software?

Unless the EULA is printed clearly on the outside of the box/packaging, then it is invalid at best, illegal at worst. This is due to the publisher attempting to enforce extra terms and conditions upon the sale, after the goods have been purchased. Most countries would have provisions within their consumer laws that would invalidate EULAs on the grounds that all terms and conditions of a sale MUST be presented to the consumer prior to the point of sale.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[sjames]

The answer is, "yes, you did. And I sold MY license to use your software to Fred."

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo-fucking-hoo

Re:Fuck you, MS

[crtreece]

The only thing that MS can do is specify that all games are leases (which require) you to agree to a EULA.

Great. Maybe we can then get more court cases questioning the validity of EULAs.

In the US, minors cannot enter into a contract, which brings up some other questions.

Will XB1 game sales be limited to adults with proper ID?

What happens if an XB1 game is given to a minor? Or the adult that purchased the game has a minor press the "I agree" button when the EULA is presented on screen? A minor cannot legally agree to, and be bound to the terms of, a EULA.

Will an adult have to sign a contract when a game is purchased? How does that work when making an online purchase?

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not buying anything. You're temporarily renting a license. The whole idea of "buying" any form of media has been bullshit for at least the last 15 years.

This is only true if you believe that allowing unethical legal conduct to be the norm is a good idea.

Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system. Extending contract law to cover transactions that would be considered sales (with a right to later transfer the item, like a used book) in a rational and ethical legal system wasn't in the interest of the legal profession.

This kind of ethical conflict of interest, and the inability of the legal profession to resolve the situation ethically, is arguably the norm in current US legal practice (and has been for decades). This is why we have abuse of tort law (hence "land of the lawsuit"), it's why we have a broken copyright system, and it's why we have a broken patent system. There's also issues with property law, though these mostly seem to affect people living in areas with HOAs. The unneccesary complexity of the tax systems in the US can also reasonably be supposed to involve ethical conflict of interest on the part of the legal profession.

Of all the many rights that can reasonably be asserted under the 9th Amendment, by far the most important is the right to ethical government and ethical legal practice. After all, any other rights can be destroyed if we don't have that. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[Uberbah]

You're not buying anything. You're temporarily renting a license. The whole idea of "buying" any form of media has been bullshit for at least the last 15 years.

If that's what you think, I have a great deal on some ocean-front property in Nebraska for you, as well as some pre-IPO shares in the Brooklyn Bridge...

Re: Fuck you, MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the harshness towards Steam? Apple? Android? They haven't been sued yet.

Re:Fuck you, MS

[jp10558]

Except for perhaps the PS2 compatibility, I would hazard a guess that very few people found any of the above a *major* selling point of the PS3. As far as I know, the *major* selling point was the ability to play *PS3 games*. Possibly followed by being a decent, cheap Blu-Ray player...

EU law?

[Viewsonic]

This sounds like it might run counter to the new EU law that mandates all software can be resold, regardless of licensing, agreements, and dongles. Didn't they make it specifically clear that when you buy software, it is yours, and yours alone, and you are free to resell it, and it then becomes theirs, and theirs alone. The actual publishers have no say in what you want to do with it.

Re:EU law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations only care about the law when somebody drags them into a courtroom, the existance of the law itself is often hardly a deterrent.

Re:EU law?

[gl4ss]

This sounds like it might run counter to the new EU law that mandates all software can be resold, regardless of licensing, agreements, and dongles. Didn't they make it specifically clear that when you buy software, it is yours, and yours alone, and you are free to resell it, and it then becomes theirs, and theirs alone. The actual publishers have no say in what you want to do with it.

ms didn't think of eu one bit with xbox one.
if ms wanted to turn their new console into a steam box, they have succeeded.

I suspect there was one big company, namely EA, who lobbied for MS to do this so it wouldn't be their fault. they knew what was coming when they made an empty announcement about dropping the online pass.. which was fucking stupid shit pr - ONLY people who care about it are the people who are now angry at both EA and MS. just shit poor PR.

"hey let's make a reveal about the new console.. what shall we tell about it? I KNOW, let's tell only the crap they'll be getting! and let's not show them one bit of cool gameplay or tell about the hw! ". it really seems they were fucked by the PS4 release and someone just decided that they had to announce something.. but what do they announce? that you can watch TV! live TV! and that you might just as well buy all your games from steam, you're not going to be reselling or loaning them anyways.

Re:EU law?

[Kartu]

I wonder how that applies to Starcraft II that I bought (I do live in EU)... =/

Re:EU law?

[Xest]

One of the guys at the top of EA, Peter Moore, was at the top of Microsoft's XBox program for years too, so it's no surprise really to see the level of collaboration.

I don't think there would've had to have been much lobbying in all honesty, I think the MS-EA relationship is extremely cosy.

Re:EU law?

[tgd]

This sounds like it might run counter to the new EU law that mandates all software can be resold, regardless of licensing, agreements, and dongles. Didn't they make it specifically clear that when you buy software, it is yours, and yours alone, and you are free to resell it, and it then becomes theirs, and theirs alone. The actual publishers have no say in what you want to do with it.

How would that run counter to the law? The law says you can resell it, not how you can resell it.

This has become common with event tickets in the US, too -- you're free to resell a ticket you've got, but you have to do so via the original issuer via a "transfer this to this other person" function. (Which, frankly, is good for both parties -- you don't need to meet the buyer as the seller, and the buyer knows they're not getting a counterfeit ticket.)

I fail to see how this is even remotely an issue... the leak doesn't say Microsoft isn't going to make it free for a personal person-to-person "gift"... Now, maybe they'll charge you either way, but until it comes out that Microsoft is charging person-to-person transfers, I'm not going to get all up in arms. As long as they don't explicitly block a transfer back, it doesn't prevent lending, either.

Hell, it means I'd be able to lend a game to a friend who is across the country. That'd be great, IMO.

Frankly, unless I was a retailer who was raping people on used games sales , I can't see why this isn't a great solution.

Re:EU law?

[Artraze]

My admittedly cursory understanding of the EU judgement is that it basically states that a copyright holder cannot enforce their right to control distribution after first sale. To reiterate: The right to sole distribution, one of the many rights included in copyright, cannot be used to restrict resale.

The go on to explicitly indicate that a contractual term may forbid resale. Also, they do not address any extent to which resold software be usable. As a result, this basically doesn't address a system like this; it's merely a decision on the scope of copyright law as far as I can tell.

Re:EU law?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well yes, the user did hand money over the counter, and did receive a physical item in return, and all the ads do say 'buy', as do the buttons people click on when purchasing online, but you see, consumers do in fact only license the content, subject to any restrictions imposed on them in an EULA available online and changeable at any time, and subject to unilateral termination at any time at our discretion. The license is of course void if the user loses or breaks the physical media, and does not entitle the user to obtain the licensed content in any other way or format."

Re:EU law?

[serviscope_minor]

How would that run counter to the law? The law says you can resell it, not how you can resell it.

It really depends on whether the law is written and interpreted to say you can resell, or written and interpreted to say that the original seller has no right to exert further control on sales.

If it's not the latter, then nothing stops them from saying, oh yeah, you get $0.01 for your sale, and we get to resell it at $60.00.

Frankly, unless I was a retailer who was raping people on used games sales , I can't see why this isn't a great solution.

Because they and the publishers get a cut of something they have no moral (and quite possibly no legal) right to get a cut of.

Re:EU law?

[drinkypoo]

How would that run counter to the law? The law says you can resell it, not how you can resell it.

The law says you can resell it. But Microsoft is setting it up so that only they can resell it, and you get a cut.

This has become common with event tickets in the US, too -- you're free to resell a ticket you've got, but you have to do so via the original issuer via a "transfer this to this other person" function. (Which, frankly, is good for both parties -- you don't need to meet the buyer as the seller, and the buyer knows they're not getting a counterfeit ticket.)

What's best for everyone but the event/venue is if the buyer can confirm that the ticket is valid through a website or phone number, perhaps for a very small fee closely related to the actual costs, before making a purchase.

Hell, it means I'd be able to lend a game to a friend who is across the country. That'd be great, IMO.

The USPS has a thing called media mail. You put the disc in a mailer, and you drop it in the USPS, and it goes very cheaply and in very reasonable time to the other party. Or, in a sane world, you simply either copy to an image and send them the image and they burn to a RW or play directly from the image, or you copy to a RW and send it to them. But since we are living with a bunch of insensible mostly useless copy protection and idiotic laws to support it, you have to be grateful that Microsoft will permit you to lend a game.

Re:EU law?

[spire3661]

The fundamental change is this: On an Xbox360, you put the disc in and it plays without question. WIth the Xbox One, the disc is no longer the license, and it will not play by default.

Re:EU law?

[tgd]

Because they and the publishers get a cut of something they have no moral (and quite possibly no legal) right to get a cut of.

Your morals are not my morals.

As a content producer, as far as I'm concerned my right to get paid for my work trumps your right to resell something. I don't care if I don't get paid for the media -- I didn't make the media. I do care if the thing I made -- the experience of the game or application -- is something you get without compensating me.

*My* morals say that you, if you play a game having not paid for it, are a thief. You stole the experience from the person who created the game. Simple as that.

Re:EU law?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I play a game at a friend's house, I need to send you a cheque in the mail? That's what's wrong with the Imaginary Property industries, you're all self-entitled pricks.

Re:EU law?

[serviscope_minor]

*My* morals say that you, if you play a game having not paid for it, are a thief.

Do you feel the same way about me listening to a friend'd music round at his house or borrowing a book from a library, or buying a book from a seconf hand store.

If not, you're a hypocrite, if so, then frankly you are broken in the head.

Re:EU law?

[timmyf2371]

Quite frankly, your post does not make any sense. It doesn't seem like you're trying to troll so let me help you out.

Firstly, your right to get paid for your work actually goes hand in hand with my right to resell an item I bought. The word "resell" suggests that it has been sold in the first place and that a payment has taken place. I do have the right (under the first sale doctrine in the US and similar legal rulings in Europe) to resell an item I have bought, such as a disc containing copyrighted material.

Secondly, if I purchase a game from a friend or from a used games store, I have paid for it. Only if I steal it from my friend/store would I be a thief. I might not have paid anything to you, but then you've already had your money from the original sale of that product.

You seem to think that you are entitled to a cut from each resale of something you originally created or sold. Think for a minute how that would play out when taken to its logical conclusion; homeowners would have to pay the architect and building firm a fee when they bought or sold a house, used car owners would have to pay the manufacturer a fee when selling a used car, people selling used cell phones would have to pay the manufacturer a fee when selling it on the used market. Then you have all the people selling stuff like exercise bikes on Craigslist, used clothes on Ebay, etc.

To be honest, "morals" is the wrong choice of word. These might be your beliefs or your wants, but none of them are compatible with the legal position in the US and Europe, nor are they realistic in any way whatsoever.

Re:EU law?

[Uberbah]

How would that run counter to the law? The law says you can resell it, not how you can resell it.

How are you free to resell something if you have to get the permission of the original publisher to do so while giving them a chunk of any sale?

This has become common with event tickets in the US, too -- you're free to resell a ticket you've got, but you have to do so via the original issuer via a "transfer this to this other person" function. (Which, frankly, is good for Ticketmaster's bottom line

Fixed that.

Your morals are not my morals.

Graft is the opposite of moral.

Re:EU law?

[tgd]

Fixed that.

No, you didn't. Because Ticketmaster is one of the few places that isn't doing that yet, and the places that do don't charge a fee for it.

Re:EU law?

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that they intend to have some sort of arrangement for private individuals to transfer licenses between each other. This seems to provide a method for retailers to keep doing the used game thing on a model similar to today. That said, I suspect that what would be a violation of the EU rules would be to prohibit "unregistered" retailers from creating a mechanism for sellers to "privately" transfer the license to them, and then for them to do the same.

My guess is that they WON'T actually prohibit that, at least in the EU, but will make the method to do these transfers impractical for any volume (remember the days you had to call MS and speak to an actual rep just to cancel XBox live? Think this to give a used game to a friend. You won't be seeing EB doing it even if they technically could without violating anything.

Re:EU law?

[Uberbah]

and the places that do don't charge a fee for it.

So you're saying you were making a comparison that's irrelevant to Microsoft's system of graft for their next console, and just wasting everyone's time?

Re:EU law?

[tgd]

and the places that do don't charge a fee for it.

So you're saying you were making a comparison that's irrelevant to Microsoft's system of graft for their next console, and just wasting everyone's time?

No, I'm saying the discussion is ignorant trolling. You use the word graft, which is not accurate. You make claims based on things you have quite literally zero information on. Your anti-MS bias shines though. If you look up the definition of graft, you'll see that you're either mistaken about what it means, or just being ignorant for the purposes of trolling.

You have absolutely no basis for assuming that Microsoft will charge *anything* for a person-to-person transfer of a license. You have third party information from a second hand source claiming that a commercial transfer will incur a fee. If that's true (and, Microsoft would be moronic for it not to be true), that wouldn't be graft -- its their systems the licenses are maintained in, their system that needs to ensure the security on that transfer. The "graft", if there is any, comes from places like GameStop giving $5 in trade for a game they'll turn around and charge $20 for. If Microsoft tacks a buck or two onto that, are you angry that the charitable GameStop is going to lose a couple bucks? If you put it on your credit card, they're losing a buck, too. Are you mad about that?

As of this moment, you have absolutely no basis for assuming there's any negative impact to anyone on the basis of the changes, except for used game *resellers*. And, personally, I don't give two shits about GameStop and their long history of screwing gamers and independent resellers. A stock collapse couldn't happen to a more deserving company. And if I get the ability to play any of my games without getting up and digging out a disc? Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.

Legal?

[fermion]

I don't normally assume that major companies do not have competent lawyers, but as far as I know price fixing is illegal in the US. There are ways to keep prices set for new products, but for the most part we have "suggested retail price". This also would seem to violate the first sale doctrine, which has been upheld in many court cases.

Re:Legal?

[LordLimecat]

You're buying a license. You also are not allowed to re-sell licenses to Blizzard games, or MS Office, or a lot of software, and I dont believe that has ever been successfully fought.

Re:Legal?

[Krojack]

I kinda figured this goes against First-sale. How can the publisher demand that the used product be sold for a set amount then try to take a cut? They already got their cut from the first sale. What's next? Auto manufactures going after used car dealers?

Re:Legal?

[SirAstral]

Yep, paid much attention to the market lately?

You will not be hard pressed to find things that are effectively price fixed, but you are essential correct, this should technically be illegal as it circumvents first-sale, and anti-monopoly law.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should have been fought a long time ago. The concept of "licensing" is horrible and the reason its horrible will become evident as soon as 3D printing goes mainstream.

Humans copy behavior just like their ape cousins. Licensing says "You can't do something you were genetically predisposed to do because money."

It's such a stupid, foolish thing and the longer people buy into it the more evident the stupidity will become.

Re:Legal?

[gl4ss]

I kinda figured this goes against First-sale. How can the publisher demand that the used product be sold for a set amount then try to take a cut? They already got their cut from the first sale. What's next? Auto manufactures going after used car dealers?

yeah, the only way this would be ok if gamestop etc would have to start labeling their xbox bin as "rentals".

Re:Legal?

[UnknowingFool]

It's funny that maybe a dozen years back, my older brother started getting into country music, particularly Garth Brooks. Garth Brooks has this crusade where he wanted used music stores to pay royalties on used music they sold. My brother thought this was a great idea until I told him that meant that book publishers could demand a cut of every book sold on the used market which meant his college books would be even higher in price. The only thing that the publisher has is that since this is software it has a license whereas other goods like cars, books, etc do not. The Kindle books are in a gray area here.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only price fixing if they're selling something. They're taking the position that they're not. Which is fine with me, because I'm not buying, either.

Honestly, consumers should retaliate by adopting a dollar license, which limits what the company can do with the dollar that you give them.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

> buying a license

so why can' I resell it?

Oh, you meant leasing in perpetuity a license.

Wait, why can't I sell that right?

Oh, because of some lawyer bullshit they stuffed in the implied contract to the sale.

You know, they tried doing that with books once. It ended with the government clarifying copyright to include a right of first sale.

They removed a statement from my submission

[Chewbacon]

Anyway, I wanted to spell it out for you all, but it was removed. This proves to us that this plan for used games has nothing to do with countering piracy, but only feeding greed.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Zeromous]

Slashdot editors, shame on you. There is nothing hyperbolic about this statement.

Man why is every site I like just a corporate shovel fest these days?

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, I wanted to spell it out for you all, but it was removed. This proves to us that this plan for used games has nothing to do with countering piracy, but only feeding greed.

We prefer to make our own conclusions and we don't need it spelled out for us. Thanks!

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Greed, aka paying development costs. Now, I believe that people should be able to sell their games (even though I never do). The big issue, as I see it, is that there are stores that make a great deal of profit off of buying back games and slightly undercutting the cost of the new copies. To me, this is a bit different than an individual selling to another individual since the store itself is controlling prices of both the new and used markets. Not all titles are hurt by this practice, but those with no online component and average game length (~10 hours) definitely are.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad they removed that statement from your submission.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Because capitalism poisons everything. America is all about scamming as much cash off your fellow-man as possible.
Unfortunately it seems like all other systems are worse.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[drinkypoo]

Anyway, I wanted to spell it out for you all, but it was removed. This proves to us that this plan for used games has nothing to do with countering piracy, but only feeding greed.

Brevity is the soul.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Anonymous Coward]

People can draw their own conclusions from the summary. The appropriate place for this remark is in the comments, right where it ended up. So it looks like the editors did something right for a change....

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[gl4ss]

Greed, aka paying development costs. Now, I believe that people should be able to sell their games (even though I never do). The big issue, as I see it, is that there are stores that make a great deal of profit off of buying back games and slightly undercutting the cost of the new copies. To me, this is a bit different than an individual selling to another individual since the store itself is controlling prices of both the new and used markets. Not all titles are hurt by this practice, but those with no online component and average game length (~10 hours) definitely are.

the games are only hurt if they're not good/lucky enough to do a profit.

you have to remember that the games market is in constant oversaturation. it's not possible for every game to be mega successful. people just don't have enough money. and if they did, there would be more games made until it would be at oversaturation again.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Darinbob]

There is nothing about DRM in games that is about piracy. It has always been about preventing resales. It's a digitally enforced licensing contract, despite the fact that most customers don't realize that they're entering into such a contract and are instead misled into thinking that they "purchased" a product.

Let's be honest though, most users don't give a shit about this stuff since they'll be bored with the game in two weeks anyway. The people who are concerned about the direction this is going are a small minority that the game publishers can happily ignore.

Meanwhile, a shout out to GOG.com; good old games, DRM free games that work on modern computers.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Chewbacon]

That's my point, but many have compared this to DRM and then it raised the question whether or not piracy on the Xbox is that bad.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have made your submission more neutral to begin with.

Re:They removed a statement from my submission

[Uberbah]

It's a digitally enforced licensing contract, despite the fact that most customers don't realize that they're entering into such a contract and are instead misled into thinking that they "purchased" a product.

That's backwards. It's the industry selling people products, and then trying to mislead them into thinking they've only bought a license.

People don't complain at Steam

[earlzdotnet]

I already see the trolls coming to say "So what if Microsoft does it, Steam's been doing it for years". Well, look at Steam's prices and sales. I saw a game that came out a few months ago for $20 on Steam in a sale. The best "sale" of new-ish games on the Xbox (online) market is a $60 game being sold at $50. Steam's prices are competitive, Microsoft's isn't.

In fact, if they are making used game activations fixed at ~$35, this is basically price fixing. Here's to hope that some publishers will see that they can offer new copies for $35 or $40, instead of the typical $60. If they allowed distribution across the internet, this would *completely* destroy the used games market, which I wouldn't say is a super terrible thing if the pricing will be fixed. This would lead to a chain reaction of the used game market fighting to have non-fixed prices.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[porges]

35 pounds, not dollars, aka (right now) $53.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Luthair]

You're making excuses for Steam, many stores sell off slightly older titles at a steep discount. If Microsoft goes this route I won't buy their system any more than I will buy a game on Steam.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[UnknowingFool]

In the case of Steam, if you want to buy the original game, you can (if you can find it) and install it on your PC. Steam offers you convenience as you can get the game easily and not have to worry about compatibility. For some of the really old games, there are some work to go through to make them work on Win 7 for example.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[bickerdyke]

And at least with Steam, you get back a few of the advantages of media-less game distribution. Like immedeate delivery (download), free replacement delivery (try that with a broken physically DVD) and no need to jam the DVD in just for the useless copyprotection check.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[gl4ss]

uh xbox live already exists.

what this is, is pushing people towards more to it.

which makes xbox not have any advantages over steam box/pc. hell, you can even watch the fucking halo tv series on pc so no need for that even!

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[PRMan]

And that difference is the "console license fee". It's around $30.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

I already see the trolls coming to say "So what if Microsoft does it, Steam's been doing it for years".

"Troll" does not mean "person who makes a point I disagree with". And you know it.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

The article seems to think that Steam is what creates low prices, and maybe that's correct. So maybe low digital prices will follow here. But I suspect that console used markets create low prices, and Steam sales exist to compete with the used console market since Steam doesn't allow a used market.

I'm a bit concerned that I'll see Steam game prices rise as the console used market dies and $60 begins to be considered a reasonable price to pay for each game. Right now it seems like many gamers view $60 as a special occasion kind of game price. I'm not sure I want to increase my game spending.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[MacBurn11]

One really big advantage is that steam automatically downloads the latest patch for any game you have installed through it.

Especially for older games it can be a pain to find the right patch, since there often is a distinction between languages, sometimes there are even different patches for the US and UK versions.Plus you don't have to figure out if the latest patch is cummultative or if you have to download every other patch before you can apply the latest one.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[spire3661]

DO you have any idea how many AAA titles i have bought on Steam for $5? It cost me more in bandwidth to download RAGE then it did to buy it. I really dont give a shit if i 'own' it at those kind of prices.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[guidryp]

Steam is OPTIONAL on a PC. You aren't forced to use it and I don't.

Also some people do complain and choose to avoid steam. This scheme on Xbox One is Standard, you can't escape it, unless you skip the whole Xbox HW platform.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[lgw]

Game prices are generally the same number of dollars pounds or euros. (And from what little I've seen, it's not just game prices - it's consumer prices in general for anything hard to buy abroad and ship, like convenience store prices and restaurant prices.)

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

what this is, is pushing people towards more to it.

Finally, someone realizes what MS (and no doubt EA/other big publishers. and probably Sony as well) is really trying to do.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I like steam as well.
I get the game right now.
I don't have to open my dvd drive that I haven't used in a year.
And the games are cheap. If I'm paying a couple dollars for a game I can accept that I'm buying the licence and not the game.
If I'm paying $60, I'd damn better well be getting the game and not a licence. (this is also why I don't buy full price games on steam)

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Khashishi]

Yeah, not long ago I got Psychonauts on Steam for $2.50. I can't imagine buying it used for that cheap.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you have proven that you aren't intelligent enough to read and comprehend the next 4 sentences.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Darinbob]

I dont' see many Steam sales for games I want, you really need to monitor them every week. Generally you're better off on Steam prices for old or indie games. You will get the best price by shopping around outside of Steam. Retail prices for physical copies are very often cheaper, though Steam is getting a bit faster now about dropping prices to match (or else retailers are keeping prices up). Steam sales are temporarily and the prices rise back up quick, sometimes the sale are very short so you miss them (you really need to keep monitoring them). When prices for retail physical copies drop they stay low, as the retailer is anxious to get those old games off the shelves to make way for newer fads.

Even better than Steam games that come encumbered with evil DRM (Steam fans keep conveniently forgetting the evil part) is to see gog.com, where you get cheapest games with no DRM at all. And they're digital downloads, for those DRM fans who think DRM is a necessary evil for digital downloads.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Darinbob]

You must monitor steam sale prices constantly. All the AAA games I've gotten at steam were very high. Even Skryim which is a couple years old now is still $30 on Steam, with the DLC going for $20.

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Darinbob]

Most gog.com games have been patched to work with windows 7, some of them even come with dos emulators. Those really old games at gog.com are very cheap, even more so when on sale, and no DRM (back it up on a thumb drive and store it away, and if you get bored you can give it to a friend legally and without dealing with cracks).

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Darinbob]

It's only immediate if you have infinite bandwidth. I had it fix up some broken Skyrim files and it was an hour and a half download using 12mpbs. And Steam takes a looong time to start up. Oblivion starts essentially instantly, Skyrim takes about a minute while waiting for the unnecessary Steam steam component. I have games that install faster from DVD than over the network, I suspect if I knew it was in the store I could get to the store and back and install it faster than a download would take.

I have boxes full of game, never once has a CD or DVD gone bad on me. Take care of them and they'll last a very long time.

I do use no-dvd patches though. After going through getting all the mods and patches and such before playing, getting one more no-dvd patch is pretty simple. Though with some games like Fallout 3, you didn't even need that since the main game has zero DVD checks and zero DRM (only the launcher has that). (Which bummed me out when I found out Fallout New Vegas required Steam, which I did not know until after I purchased it, and I would not have bought it at that price had I known)

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Darinbob]

I wouldn't mind if I only paid a couple dollars. I don't see that on Steam though. Steam is overpriced for me. All the games I want are $40 or higher usually, _after_ a wait a year to see if the price drops. If I want a $2.99 game I go to gog.com.

Steam will gladly sell you a $60 game and encumber it up the wazoo with DRM. Hmm, Fallout New Vegas still hasn't hit the $10 price point even though 3 years old... I bought it anyway though when it new because I naively thought it was like Fallout 3 and thus wouldn't have Steam (the problem with buying from amazon is that you can't read the find print on the packaging).

The good thing is that there are so few worthwhile games anymore, games look better but are dropping in quality faster than hollywood movies are. There will be nothing on the new xbox worth playing anyway. Games are so expensive to make now (like movies) that all the producers are only making what they think are sure fire hits, no one takes a chance with something different (ok, a few rare indie things that tend to be either boring or genres I don't like).

Re:People don't complain at Steam

[Darinbob]

First thing I turn off is the auto-patching. I want the play the game, not wait half an hour for a patch to download. There have even been patches that have broken games.

For other games I keep the patches on my PC and keep them backed up. It's no big deal. I'm often saving up all the unofficial patches and mods and guides and such as well.

PC Gaming

[puddingebola]

If you find this onerous, being tied to a console and the policies of the manufacturer, why not vote with your dollars and return to PC gaming? Crazy first person shooting, online RPG playing, live-action strategy obsessing gamers have never had more options to choose from in terms of platforms and services to supplement their addiction.

Re:PC Gaming

[93 Escort Wagon]

You didn't list anything that would indicate the "PC gaming" situation is any different than that of console gaming. Given your lead-in, you should've pointed out how PC game prices are better, capricious manufacturers aren't a problem, resale works flawlessly, etc. - but since you didn't say any of that, I'm left to conclude PC gaming has the exact same issues as console gaming.

If you don't like the policies Microsoft (or anyone, really) puts in place for their products... don't buy the product. Don't pirate it either, since that just a) shows them there's demand for it and b) reinforces their self-justification for the onerous practices. Buy something else, or nothing at all - but don't buy into their system.

Re:PC Gaming

[puddingebola]

I was sure someone would make the case in the comments. In the future, I'll develop my argument with better evidence and examples. :)

Re:PC Gaming

[PRMan]

No $30 console license fee. I got Arkham City and all the Lego titles for $29.99-$34.99 when they were $59.99 on consoles. That's 50% off.

Re:PC Gaming

[organgtool]

why not vote with your dollars and return to PC gaming?

Because I:

- Don't run Windows
- Don't want to deal with Windows Activation
- Don't want to deal with Windows Update
- Don't want to fiddle with buggy drivers
- Don't want my computer to be affected by every game's brand of invasive DRM
- Do want to play on my big-screen TV using a proper 10-foot interface
- Do want to play games that aren't being released on the PC

I'm not trying to say that that everyone should play console games over PC games, but there are legitimate reasons why some people prefer consoles over gaming PCs and vice-versa.

Re:PC Gaming

[organgtool]

Forgot to mention the most important point: if I am upset because I can't buy or sell used games nor lend or borrow them, then why would I switch to a platform that has absolutely no potential to do so?

Re:PC Gaming

[geminidomino]

Because the only difference between the onerous behavior on consoles and PCs is that it's usually easier to find utilities of questionable legality to work around it. In the US, at least (I'm not up to speed on the developments re the legal decision in the EU that digital goods are resalable), Valve, EA, Activision, etc.. don't let you sell used games at all, and with Steam and Origin, e.g., they also get to hold "your" games hostage to whatever garbage they decide to throw into the TOS.

There are certainly advantages to PC gaming, but the lack of obnoxious DRM isn't one of them.

(Disclaimer: Primarily a PC gamer, since "community mods" are one of those advantages I mentioned earlier)

Re:PC Gaming

[Darinbob]

DRM is already on PCs. First sale doctrine is essentially dead for PC games, not because laws have changed but because the users are apathetic.

YRO

[multimediavt]

A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games.

Ummm, no. The big downside here is the death of the First Sale Doctrine in the United States and the ridiculous court proceedings that will ensue to try to defend it and revise copyright law that has gone completely off the rails from its original intent.

Re:YRO

[Anonymous Coward]

"...we're likely going to see the end of [the XBox]."

FTFY

HaHaHa

[SirAstral]

I am glad this will not be affecting me as I will not be buying any more consoles for the remainder of my life. It is time for them to die and just use the PC or a smartphone in my opinion.

I wonder how people would react to Ford, Chevy, or GM not only requesting to be compensated when that vehicle is resold, but also controlling its price? It is time to stop selling vehicles and licensing their use!
It takes a publisher nearly nothing to copy/create/spawn a new disk where the auto maker still requires the expertise of staff and systems capable of building the same machine repeatedly with quality.
We must all look forward to the future where we do not own any of our technology.

Re:HaHaHa

[gstoddart]

I am glad this will not be affecting me as I will not be buying any more consoles for the remainder of my life. It is time for them to die and just use the PC or a smartphone in my opinion.

You seem to think they won't be applying the exact same things to your PC and smartphone games. I would argue, you'll get no better deal on those platforms.

We must all look forward to the future where we do not own any of our technology.

Awesome, I look forward to not having to pay for stuff I don't own. Oh, wait, you mean a future where I'm still expected to pay, don't have any rights, and don't own anything. What's in it for me again?

Re:HaHaHa

[MitchDev]

/sarcasm

Oh, but 3D printers are here and soon they'll be just like Star Trek replicators /sarcasm:off

Re:HaHaHa

[SirAstral]

They do try to apply the very same deals to PC's and Smartphones. this is exactly how Steam works, and yes I do use steam, but I also never pay full price for any game unless I get it off GOG.com where I actually get to own my game from a functionality perspective. And that is the real gist. With GOG.com I can install my game anywhere and not have to worry about DRM breaking it if I want to play the single player version 20 years from now.

So for me, if they want to lock me into a game on their terms, then that game better be very inexpensive like say movie cheap at $10~$20. So there is a trade off, however I still at least own and fully control my PC, and if MS wants to step on that too much there will be Linux. The market does tend to favor the most open,easy, and compatible systems and right now that is still Microsoft Windows love it or hate it. Linux may be more open that Windows and almost as easy to access now, but it sure as hell is nowhere near compatible, despite things like WINE. I will continue to use Windows but when/if Linux finally steps up I will not hesitate to jump ship.

On the last part, it was sad sarcasm... yes we are losing our rights and ownership to everything as a people and we keep voting in the idiots to do this.

market research?

[Zimluura]

some anon yesterday(i think) suggested that all the info info we're getting about the drm sheme is just ms doing clandestine market research.

they leak news that makes it sound bearable - people respond positively.
then they leak news that gives them more control - people respond negatively.
through enough iterations they may find out the approach that will be most accepted.

who knows if that's what's really going on; but it sounds plausible.

Re:market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. MS have already said games are going to be locked to a single account and using a disc elsewhere will require paying an installation fee. Resellers are going to have to pay to have access to MS's disc/key system to be able to reset the disc within the system. We know all the details and how it will work, what we don't know is the price for each part.

Re:market research?

[LBt1st]

I'm wondering if this will shutdown the sale of used games on ebay and the like. That would be shame if so. Pretty much every game and console I buy eventually gets resold (they are mine so I ought to be able to sell them) to someone who will get use out of them after I've had my fill.

Re:market research?

[tlhIngan]

Not at all. MS have already said games are going to be locked to a single account and using a disc elsewhere will require paying an installation fee. Resellers are going to have to pay to have access to MS's disc/key system to be able to reset the disc within the system. We know all the details and how it will work, what we don't know is the price for each part.

Negative.

The installation fee applies if you don't do the license transfer - the disc is basically a medium to convey the gigs of game, because the games are so big it's not practical for most people to download them.

What happens is this - you own the game, and once you install it, the disc is useless. The game is in your account and like Steam, you can redownload it all the time. Or reinstall from disc.

Now, you can pass the disc onto a friend - and this is where the magic happens. If you don't give your friend the license, then your friend has to pay for a copy of the game (at whatever the digital download price is), and both you and your friend own the game.

Or, you can pass on the license, in which case you can't play the game anymore, but your friend can. Now, supposedly these license transfers incur a fee. Possibly, who knows?

The thing is, Microsoft by doing this has eliminated the need for disc based DRM, and in theory, one could download a game from Bittorrent and burn their own disc. Or one could bring in a thumb drive and have a new release downloaded to it for playing, so stores never run out of inventory, either.

And in theory, rare or low-print games will be available indefinitely as well since new license can be bought (the "installation fee").

Re: market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens when I take the full price game I bought on per-order out of the xbox downstairs and give it to the wife or kids or sibling or a guest to play on the Xbox upstairs? This is all such anti-consumer bullshit. Why do devs and publishers have so e inherent right to get a cut of every game sold and resold and gifted and shared? How is this even allowable? Why is that okay, but we would 't Pply it to books, movies, cable tv, houses, cars, clothing, appliances, or fur iture? Bunch of greedy cunts.

Re:market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

Market research is something Microsoft needs to do badly.

They need to understand the basic premise of used games, they - to me - are FULL PRODUCT TRIALS.
If I like the "trial" /used game, I will then spend my hard earned dollars buying more from that game franchise.

Downloading a "trial" game isn't the same experience as playing a used game.

Re: market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an idea. stop playing with Xbox's they're shit. Always have been. Quit paying them monthly to do things you can do for free on a PC, fool.

Re: market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up! There is no other solution kittens. Don't give this company money unless you enjoy being wallet-fucked. There are plenty of other entertainment options.

There are far too many pussies out there that love to piss and moan about this shit and then line up and bend over. STFU already and put your money where your mouth is. They only get away with it because you put up with it and they'll only stop when market forces insist.

Not exactly rocket science.

Re:market research?

[makomk]

Or, you can pass on the license, in which case you can't play the game anymore, but your friend can. Now, supposedly these license transfers incur a fee. Possibly, who knows?

According to this story, you can't actually do that. The only way to transfer your license is if you sell the game to one of Microsoft's approved second-hand game retailers for a fraction of the resale value and they then resell it to someone else for near-retail, splitting their profits with Microsoft and the game publisher. You can't transfer the game to someone else and you can't bypass the middleman and their cut by reselling your used games on eBay or Craigslist anymore.

Re:market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, Microsoft by doing this has eliminated the need for disc based DRM, and in theory, one could download a game from Bittorrent and burn their own disc. Or one could bring in a thumb drive and have a new release downloaded to it for playing, so stores never run out of inventory, either.

And in theory, rare or low-print games will be available indefinitely as well since new license can be bought (the "installation fee").

Ooooooh, no, it isn't going to be that easy. Once the only thing that causes the transfer of money is the 'license', artificial constraints will be put into place to drive various markets, and the 'license' itself, that people have been forever bleating to have, is going to have 3 miles of red tape on it.

I'm thinking, with numbers pulled from my posterior, 3 resales per license max, original media ALWAYS required, and uh...what else would be really annoying... oh yeah, how about that 'optional' always-on requirement to make sure you can't somehow keep a working copy of the game in your console's memory that would bypass your licensing! You don't HAVE to keep your Xbox connected to the internet...unless you want to sell a game.

Here's the thing about all of this hoopla: You are not thinking far enough ahead. You are reacting to what you see now, but these plans and more have been in place for years. You have to think like an insane person and invent ways to make money out of nothing.

Re:market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

In bad taste, I reply to myself from the future! Like Hofstadter's law, I didn't think far enough ahead even when attempting to think far ahead!

You can give a game to a friend...once. If they've been on your friends list for 30 days. I'm not even talking about loaning, or renting, or anything. Three resales max looks foolishly optimistic now, which I suppose is probably Kevin Bacon's fault.

Re: market research?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah just built my decent comp and really am fed up. All I want todo is play games and people keep making it hard. If ps4 can play used games and doesnt have the 24hr crap, sony wins. Sony will be pulling in so much cash. Cmon sony no brainer here dont mess up. Possibly biggest console debackle ever..

Unbelievable

[furbyhater]

Muahahaha!!!

I used to be an avid gamer during the first 3-4 console generations, but when I see what they're trying to push nowadays (less freedom/revenue for consumerls and SMBs, more control and profits for the most useless parts of the chain (distributors), I can't believe that people continue buying this stuff. Get yourself a few good emulators for SNES/GBA/PS1/PS2/N64/GCN and you've enough old-school gems to stay entertained for the rest of your life. If you want new games, buy PC games and join kickstarters.

I hope the younger generations still hasn't and won' get used to such a blatant rip-off.

Re:Unbelievable

[SirAstral]

Yep, this is pretty much the model I have adopted! If I had the financial muster I would start a gaming company just to keep things the way they should be!

No always on DRM, no stupid snoopity systems and quality diverse selection of games not where titles are just FPS based with an endless sequence of ever changing numbers.

Re:Unbelievable

[furbyhater]

Glad I'm not the only one.

Seeing a lot of small kickstarter projects getting funded still gives me hope for the future of gaming. I hope Sony and Nintendo won't copy MS policies. With node.js and the javascript-everywhere mindset, maybe we could have MMCOG (Massively-Multi-Created-Online-Games) running on free software in the future, who knows?

Re:Unbelievable

[NoImNotNineVolt]

less freedom/revenue for consumerls and SMBs

I don't think the Super Mario Brothers are really hurting for money.

Re:Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo won't - Sony probably will if they can get away with it (Or might at a moments notice at any time).

The price premium for console games was because they used cartridge which cost money to make.

They should just use cartridge. (Advantage less pointless cut scenes in games because it is cheaper).

Fairly sure for $30 they could get enough rom for any game.

This generation there has not really been any benefit to either the 360 or PS3 compared to using a PC.

Everything is least common denominator but they don't even optimize properly. The reason for consoles were the way it was super tight when it came to timing by necessity.

There is none of that attention to detail these days.

Most Important
----------------------

Good idea for a game (Or use one that already exist but if you do don't add gimmicks to it)
Perfect Tight Controls
No visual artifacts (Good timing
Good Sound
Graphics (With graphics if it messes up the timing make it less good in order to keep it running smooth).

Least Important
-----------------------

I might get a wii u when there is loads of good games and the virtual console is fleshed out well.

I would buy a console based on current arcade hardware running the exact same games. (Tatio Type 2 or whatever).
Everything else is too shoddy for me to care about it.

This almost feels more evil

[duckgod]

Am I the only one that feels worse about this plan then if they had banned used games alltogether. So I won't be able to sell my games first hand anymore. I am at the mercy of GameStop(which is at the mercy of Microsoft).

So if GameStop receives a million requests to sell back Madden whatever because of poor quality. Supply and demand would normally mean used prices would go down both for the seller of the game and the resseller. But in this scenario Gamestop can't give much money for game because they are going to have to sell it for X amount of $ according to Microsoft.

Meh I aint no economist but the feeling I get is consumer will get screwed worse then if they were just 1 use license like PC games have adopted.

Re:This almost feels more evil

[bickerdyke]

For me, Gamestop dies at the moment when I discovered that used games cost more there than new games at Amazon.

Consumer policy leaks:

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not going to buy it.

Windows 8: The Console

LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[Apharmd]

They are more likely to RAISE prices if anything. Whatever game journalist actually believes that DRM makes prices lower is extremely naive.

Re:LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[Luthair]

Exactly, new expensive games compete with older games that you can buy at a discount. Artificially inflate the price of older games and that will decrease the need to be price competitive on new games.

Re:LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[jellomizer]

Not if people will not buy the games at that price.
Games are controlled by market forces. And unlike say Windows of Office where you are more or less need the product, or suffer the pain of using 3rd party alternatives (Please no LibreOffice works for me and my business examples, I get it!, I am talking broadly here). Games people can get by without it if they are too expensive.
You do not need to play video games.
Not playing a video game will not negatively affect your life, in any grand scheme of things.

So if you don't like the price don't buy it. So if makers start raising the prices in dollars, while also raising the price in loss of freedom. You can choose not to buy it.
Chances are if you lose your freedom, you can buy the product for a cheaper price, because you are choosing to give up say reselling your game for the ability to get it for a lower price.

Re:LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Games are controlled by market forces.

Bullshit. There are no market forces except what our corporate overlords tell us.

There's no competition, there's no alternatives, there's no such thing as downward pressure on prices. There's just a bunch of mega corporations who run the whole damned show.

Know what happens if you decide to vote with your dollars and not buy something? They'll either raise prices to make up for the losses, or get the lawmakers to pass a law to make up the shortfall -- you know, you have a TV, so you must be pirating our stuff, so we demand a tax on TVs.

Loss of corporate profits means something needs to be fixed in the system to ensure them, not that consumers have decided they don't want your product. That would be impossible, and even if it was possible, we can't have that.

Welcome to an oligarchy. The free market is anything but, the needs and wants of consumers are irrelevant, regulations are offloaded to self-governing bodies which don't do anything, and governments have learned they must toe the line or risk the backlash. And we're told this is the perfect economic system which will lead us all to prosperity.

Your only role is to keep going to your job (as long as they decide you can keep it), buy shit, shut up, hold on, and be pray they don't alter the deal any further.

If you think consumers have any clout these days, you're delusional. The modern economy is a giant ponzi scheme, with lawmakers getting a piece of the pie to ensure it stays that way.

Re:LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[furbyhater]

Most "game journalists" are the PR-agency of the publishers...

Re:LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[Apharmd]

This is true. If you read the comments on the Xbox One announcement and stories about things like used game restrictions and online licensing check-ins, they are overwhelmingly negative. If you read the big game and mainstream journalism sources, most of them are glossing over it. There's a huge disconnect here. Gamers have accepted a lot of crap in the last 5 years, stuff like day-one DLC, for instance. But it seems like with the Xbox One there's just a massive outpouring of disgust and dissatisfaction. I've been on gaming sites since 1997 and I can't remember an announcement as poorly-received as the One.

Re:LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is people eventually say 'enough' on the price. People are doing it with cable and satellite right now. Things like steam do ok as they are always having 'good' sales. Sure the first few weeks a game comes out it is 40 bucks but after a year you can get it for 5 bucks and have just as much fun. Will MS and EA do this? Will they keep their servers up to let you do this 4 years from now?

When your game costs more than 1 month of cable you start to wonder what value you are getting out of that game.

They will also destroy their own game ship numbers on this. As I know *many* people who sell their older games to buy .... wait for it... newer games.

So instead of 3 million customers. They will have 1.4 million. Less numbers shipped than say one of the other consoles or PC will make game makers think twice about making the game for a particular console in the first place. You see they are still getting the money. But they are getting it from customers buying their old product with a middle man who wants the new product.

I see many people buying a lot of games at first. Then one or two times with the hassle of selling 1 or 2 games they will take the cash and do something else with it...

They will have to resort to flash sales and that sort of thing like steam does as they will eliminate the used market. But its going to be a bumpy ride.

Re:LOL Publishers Backing Away from the $60 Mark?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that. They're just shitty at their job and:

- Assume good faith from organizations they should have learned better about but act friendly to them while not-technically-lying

- Learn towards the idea that actually reporting on an industry instead of just games is too "inside baseball".

- Know that the writing about video games model is drying up and are sympathetic to the business interests of an industry they enjoy the output of, employes their friends, and faces rapidly increasing competition and unsustainable business models at the high end.

- Assume that because gamers on the internet act like assholes their opinions are wrong

- Only care about things when it personally impacts them. For example their unusual access to lots of game hardware means that the only DRM they have a problem with is Nintendo locking purchases and accounts to individual pieces of hardware, but don't care about always-online because internet service is high quality in and around silicon valley or the other metropolitan area their publication is based in.

Collusion?

[mrjatsun]

Excuse my ignorance of the law, wouldn't this be considered collusion between Microsoft and the game companies to fix game prices?

Re:Collusion?

[KillaGouge]

I believe it would only be collusion if they said that all new games must cost $80 and cannot cost less. Also if they said you must only pay $x for games traded in, and I don't believe that is the case. Microsoft and publishers are just saying that if you want to accept games you need be attached to Microsoft's database and agree that Microsoft and publishers will take a percentage of whatever price you set. They are not setting prices for used games, just asking for a slice of the pie. Immoral maybe, but not illegal.

Re:Collusion?

[KillaGouge]

I know TFS says market price, but the article states "The retailer can then sell the pre-owned game at whatever price they like, although as part of the system the publisher of the title in question will automatically receive a percentage cut of the sale. As will Microsoft. The retailer will pocket the rest." https://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/publishers-to-receive-cut-of-xbox-one-pre-owned-sales-at-retail/0116137

Re:Collusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK the games are still being sold to Competition such as Sony/Nintendo/etc. at varying prices which were not set between game companies and Microsoft. I don't think setting a minimum price of 35 for used game sales is collusion.

In the article it specifically says two things: 1) The activation price of 35 is 'suggested'. (There is no specific confirmation of this being a minimum or maximum) and 2) The retailer can then sell the pre-owned game at whatever price they like.

So a retailer could still charge say 45 or 50 for a used game - which ultimately is still a better deal than 60. They just can't charge 20 or 30, presumably without eating some costs it would owe to the publishers and Microsoft.

On a personal note, I'm not really sure how this affects the user-game retailer model. Customer comes in with game they paid 60 for new. They receive 5 or 10 dollars from the retailer for the trade-in. Customer then buys a different used game for 45 (well, 35 or 40 + the credit they just received). Depending on the actual sale prices, the retailer will make a no more than $5 for the sale. This sucks for sure, but I don't really see how its any different experience for the customer? This is pretty much what you expect now, unless the games are for a really aged console (which isn't affected by these changes at all).

Re:Collusion?

[MitchDev]

Why is any any fucking company's fucking business how much a used game sells for?

It's not.

Corporate greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I foresee Xbox 1's license server being dos'd into the ground day 1

Re:Corporate greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I foresee Xbox 1's license server being dos'd into the ground day 1

Well, when I saw this part of the summary:

In summary, the used game retailer can still buy the game from the consumer, but they must report the consumer relinquishing their license to play the game to a Microsoft database.

...I figured everything would be just fine, because how secure can a Microsoft database be, really?

Re:Corporate greed

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be so fucking sweet. Make their servers so unreliable for paying customers that they are forced to strip the phone-home requirements out of games and beg their customers for forgiveness.

Craiglists and friends ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This means we can't sell the game thru any other channel than a certified used game store ?

Re:Craiglists and friends ?

[MitchDev]

But why would anyone buy that "used" game when it's full price?

Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets show ourselves a little respect and not give Microsoft our money anymore...

time to short game stop stock?

[Joe_Dragon]

time to short game stop stock?

Re:time to short game stop stock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late, you already missed the big drop.

Re:time to short game stop stock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like it's already tanking.

In a while it may be time to buy to catch a small rebound and short it again.

The question is

[Kartu]

Whether Sony will follow them, or try "we are better, we don't!" route.

I don't see how Microsoft's scheme could work without forcing you to activate your game online.
Bought a disk, don't have even a dial up internet connection, can't play, wonderful...

And regarding "boosting revenues" argument, Activision Blizzard has been grabbing money for quite some time, remind me, how that had changed the quality of their games. Or how their games have become cheaper.

Re:The question is

[UnknowingFool]

Well, the new Xbox One will require an internet connection. MS has not disclosed many details other than it will be required to play games. They have said different answers to questions but the most common message is that the Xbox One will contact MS at least once a day. So if your internet goes down, you have one day of playing time.

Longevity

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the biggest issues I have with this console is the uncertainty of how long it will be supported. I'm not a fan of people selling used games next to new ones, but I often buy used games that are no longer in production. I like buying old ds games that didn't sell well or N64 games I lost many years back, but if they did this, why would anyone resell their games? Would used games be stil sold and then get the fee added on? What happens when MS discontinues support of the Xbox 3: Xbox One? Too much uncertainty.

So much for right of first sale ...

[gstoddart]

This largely wipes out your right of first sale, and it props up the business model for the buggy whip makers.

Why should a video game company get a cut of used sales? Oh, right, because it's software, you licensed it, and have no rights.

This pretty much cements the fact that XBox One is something I will definitely not be interested in.

Right now I can buy used games, take a game over to a friends place, and sell my games -- and it's none of Microsoft or the game publisher's business. This basically says we will need their permission to do anything, and entrenches their own revenue stream.

There's no way in hell this leads to companies charging less for games, they'll just take their cut on both ends and expand their profits.

Sorry Microsoft, but I'll pass thanks. There's nothing about this that's good for consumers.

Re:So much for right of first sale ...

[Anonymous Coward]

PC gamers have no trouble with Steam. Can't sell your account or games. Don't tell me about the great sales. They come and go. A market for used games on Steam would mean all games would be on sale all the time. Steam is the one that started all this server-side DRM garbage in the first place and I say this as a PC gamer. Ya, I use Steam, but I don't follow their sales because it's a waste of time.

Steam wouldn't have these sales if PC gaming was the dominant choice. These sales only exist because they have to compete with console games. PC gaming would be weaker without these sales.

Fuck Steam

Re:So much for right of first sale ...

[Anonymous Coward]

steam games also cost signifigantly less and wont be obsoleted the second you buy a new machine

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I pay market price for a used game instead of buying it new? This will absolutely not make used game sellers any money, they will lose a lot of money, which in turn will screw consumers selling their games.

M$ has failed as usual...

Re:Why?

[TheSpoom]

I'm not sure I would consider forcing the used game buyers to buy new instead a "failure" from Microsoft's perspective.

Double payment

[intermodal]

What I want to know is why in the world the publisher deserves a cent for a game already paid for. Not why they legally can put it into their license, but why they deserve it.

Re:Double payment

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is why in the world the publisher deserves a cent for a game already paid for.

Because America has staked her entire future on the needs of the copyright/IP lobby, and is entirely dependent on these companies being able to grow their profits indefinitely, to the point that business models are now entrenched in law.

Without corporate profits and executive bonuses, the entire economy would grind to a halt.

Who cares if they cut out jobs and outsource everything and actually gut the economy they're supposed to be driving? Capitalism demands that you work for the same wages as someone in Mumbai, or are just an impediment to profits.

Why do you hate America? You must be some sort of commie if you don't recognize the primacy of corporate profits.

Re:Double payment

[intermodal]

AC doesn't bother to comprehend a post before responding. Go figure.

Re:Double payment

[MitchDev]

Methinks intermodel doesn't understand SARCASM...

Re:Double payment

[Anonymous Coward]

AC doesn't bother to comprehend a post before responding. Go figure.

I fully comprehended your post, did you even remotely comprehend mine?

Re:Double payment

[intermodal]

Not its relevance to my question, particularly with my specification of what my question was not. my question was why users should GAF, not why politicians GAF.

Re:Double payment

[Uberbah]

Or he's a Libertarian Loon and the supremacy of corporate right to profit is his religion after all...

Re:Double payment

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe you missed his (difficult to convey via text) sarcasm.

Price-fixing

[phorm]

Well, they're allowing sales, but they're still fixing the price. I think the issue at hand is this:

They must also sell it at a market price (35£ in the UK)

It looks like pretty much straight-up price-fixing to me. By similar logic, ebooks are also "licenses" rather than physical copies, but Apple and various publishers are still in trouble for price-fixing in that market.

Re:Price-fixing

[mattventura]

It's not the same at all. Wal-Mart is free to set their prices as they wish. However, if I wish to sell a Wal-Mart product that I purchased, I can sell it at whatever price I want. Wal-Mart already got my money. This is nothing but greed.

Trinity: Dodge this!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Seems like they could be heading for legal problems, where sales are, and simultaneously are not, actual sales, depending on which laws they are trying to dodge.

It's not sales to they can dodge warranty and liability laws, but it is sales so they can get money, but it's not so people can't resell discs, but they do anyway, so it is so we will do it, but it's not because we will force you to give us a cut of something you already bought from us, but didn't.

"Own" is dead? Time to rent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dropped $60 for a product, not a rental. This means I own it, it's my property.

If you're not gonna sell me a product, I'm not buying. If you're gonna "license" it out to me, I'll rent properly and not pay you shit. I'll gamefly, I'll netflix, I'll blockbuster. Okay, that last one might be tricky.

Re:"Own" is dead? Time to rent.

[MitchDev]

This will kill Gamefly, since the disc if effectively useless without paying M$ "their cut"...

Re:"Own" is dead? Time to rent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this will probably destroy gamefly, and any other game rental service. Though I'm sure they like netflix and blockbuster have to pay a portion to their respective content providers all the same, so you're still paying them.

Only stores can sell 3rd party games

[CimmerianX]

So, this effectively kills my ability to ebay off an old game I don't play anymore. Only 'big' stores will be able to sell used games after they remove the original buyer from the database? I can easily forsee many many people unable to play games because some minumum wage gamestop employee typoed a game's serial number or something. Plus, you might as well paint a big bullseye on that database for hackers. Can you imagine all of xbox losing all it's user/game data at once.... lol

Amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amusing to me that anyone thinks that the game publishers will voluntarily reduce their prices. Will. Not. Happen.

This kills the rental market

[Nyder]

Guess no one will be renting Xbox One games either. I know back in the day I'd rent games I'd be thinking about buying.

But then, maybe no one rents games anymore. Well, we know they won't be renting Xbox One games.

Re:This kills the rental market

[MitchDev]

But then, maybe no one rents games anymore.

Never heard of Gamefly, eh?

What I want to see is

[medv4380]

Nintendo and Sony having commercials at launch highlighting the problem of friends sharing games under the model. I will not give Microsoft One Dime of my gaming budget. I will not allow my children to on a console they can't lend games to their friends. I will not eat Green Eggs and SPAM.

I wonder if they've fully considered..

[Troggie87]

I really have to wonder if they even consider gaming the primary market for this next Xbox, or if they are thinking that the Xbox will find its way into homes primarily as a unified entertainment system. If the latter is their goal, they must believe that most families aren't going to own multiple expensive gaming devices, so once established they have a captive market on the gaming front.

Of course if they are wrong, they might literally cause the decline of gaming in society. If we operate on the premise that modern young people are "addicted" to media in general, and gaming in particular, Microsoft is assuming that they can spike the price in their drug and extract more from the junkies. In the real world when this happens, the junkies typically turn to crime (I suppose piracy in this case, though I'm not a big advocate of copyright), stop using, or move on to another drug (sometimes a homemade variant of the original).

What we might very well see in the future is a shift in media consumption habits away from the big publishers to smaller studios making games for pc and mobile devices, underscored by a drop-off in "traditional" gaming in general (as people start to see more value in a movie and a meal for $20 instead of paying $60 for a 10 hour long game). If the big publishers actually implemented a steam-style pricing model that could change, but I seriously doubt any will try. Companies very rarely evolve into an entirely different animal, and a Steam-esque change would be one hell of an evolution for the likes of EA and Activision.

Re:I wonder if they've fully considered..

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has said since the early days of the 360 that they were going for home entertainment, not just games. This is exactly what they're continuing with the ONE. I enjoy playing games, but gaming has nothing to do with my interest in the ONE. Everything else it provides does.

Re:I wonder if they've fully considered..

[daniel.garcia.romero]

I really have to wonder if they even consider gaming the primary market for this next Xbox, or if they are thinking that the Xbox will find its way into homes primarily as a unified entertainment system. If the latter is their goal, they must believe that most families aren't going to own multiple expensive gaming devices, so once established they have a captive market on the gaming front.

They didn't bring Spielberg to that conference for nothing: they want to fully blend games with cinema (new hot stuff + century old backward stuff = AAA, no wonder most games suck). My bet: it's going to backfire. I cringe at every movie I watch these days. I loved Oblivion, but there was some parts that made me almost angry. Prometheus? Save me, JEBUS! As for TV, I used to watch a lot in the past, today I'm dragged by my fiance to watch. I cringe at every movie! I HATE every channel, even History or Discovery with all the ghost and alien bs. So they think I will fork $400 bucks to talk to the tv? I already YELL at TV, for free!

Of course if they are wrong, they might literally cause the decline of gaming in society. If we operate on the premise that modern young people are "addicted" to media in general, and gaming in particular, Microsoft is assuming that they can spike the price in their drug and extract more from the junkies. In the real world when this happens, the junkies typically turn to crime (I suppose piracy in this case, though I'm not a big advocate of copyright), stop using, or move on to another drug (sometimes a homemade variant of the original).

What we might very well see in the future is a shift in media consumption habits away from the big publishers to smaller studios making games for pc and mobile devices, underscored by a drop-off in "traditional" gaming in general (as people start to see more value in a movie and a meal for $20 instead of paying $60 for a 10 hour long game). If the big publishers actually implemented a steam-style pricing model that could change, but I seriously doubt any will try. Companies very rarely evolve into an entirely different animal, and a Steam-esque change would be one hell of an evolution for the likes of EA and Activision.

I think console gaming will decline, not gaming in general, since we still have PC, Android, IOS and Web to run to. (there still hope for Sony thou, I'm almost certain they win this round of the console wars)

Game price reduction? Don`t make me laugh!

[CmdrEdem]

Here in Brazil we saw comparable situation. Our import taxes pretty much doubled the price of the games. So a few business started to print discs here while the game industry lobby worked on a tax reduction. They got the reduction and guess what? Most games are still the same price as before, with exceptions like Ubisoft that at first reduced the price by 25% (From 200R$ to 150R$), but since then already increased the prices again from 150R$ to 180R$ at launch. They will just increase profit margin per unit and hope people are dumb enough to buy a console that takes away your right as owner of the product.

I don`t but used games, but I respect the right of a user to do to his game as he pleases. Games should not be different from any other physical property. If I pay for someone to build a house, I don`t have to pay the contractor a part of the rent or part of my money if I sell the house. That`s absurd! The difference is that since games still have market value when the original owner is done with them they are trying to milk us once again for our money.

Re:Game price reduction? Don`t make me laugh!

[CanHasDIY]

Games should not be different from any other physical property. If I pay for someone to build a house, I don`t have to pay the contractor a part of the rent or part of my money if I sell the house.

I knew there was a good physical property analogy out there, just couldn't think of it myself.

Kudos, Commander.

Re:Game price reduction? Don`t make me laugh!

[daniel.garcia.romero]

Here in Brazil we saw comparable situation. Our import taxes pretty much doubled the price of the games. So a few business started to print discs here while the game industry lobby worked on a tax reduction. They got the reduction and guess what? Most games are still the same price as before, with exceptions like Ubisoft that at first reduced the price by 25% (From 200R$ to 150R$), but since then already increased the prices again from 150R$ to 180R$ at launch. They will just increase profit margin per unit and hope people are dumb enough to buy a console that takes away your right as owner of the product.

I don`t but used games, but I respect the right of a user to do to his game as he pleases. Games should not be different from any other physical property. If I pay for someone to build a house, I don`t have to pay the contractor a part of the rent or part of my money if I sell the house. That`s absurd! The difference is that since games still have market value when the original owner is done with them they are trying to milk us once again for our money.

I also live in Brazil. I smelled bs right from start. The "price is high because of taxes" is just an OLD hoax, they charge that much because people will pay. I already speculate the price of Xbox One here: R$ 3.500,00 - R$ 4.200,00 (thats $1.700,00 - $2.100,00 folks, and they call us 'Poor Country').You bet there will be fricking lines to buy it! I think it's time for us to learn to use our consuming power and stop buying. Nah, Dream on! LOL.

Re:Game price reduction? Don`t make me laugh!

[praedictus]

I have a hard time getting my head around Brazilian prices. I live by -caveat emptor- . I just bought a very nice Dell monitor at pretty much the US price, processors are pretty close to par, but motherboards and videocards are close to double. Most of the kids XBOX games I bought used/from their friends, full retail is truly a ripoff. And dont get me started on car/motorcycle prices :( Need to get the boss to bank some trips out of the country again.

Re:Game price reduction? Don`t make me laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Brazilian copies of Dota 2 & Counterstrike could cost 10,000% more....

Re:Game price reduction? Don`t make me laugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Brazil we saw comparable situation. Our import taxes pretty much doubled the price of the games. So a few business started to print discs here while the game industry lobby worked on a tax reduction. They got the reduction and guess what? Most games are still the same price as before, with exceptions like Ubisoft that at first reduced the price by 25% (From 200R$ to 150R$), but since then already increased the prices again from 150R$ to 180R$ at launch. They will just increase profit margin per unit and hope people are dumb enough to buy a console that takes away your right as owner of the product.

We have the same situation in Australia.

Our games are in English so we either get the EU version or the US version depending on the company with no extra work involved but all games retail at about AU$80 -> AU$110. This used to kind of make sense due to the relative difference in the value of the AU$ vs US$, but we hit parity about 5 years ago and stuff is still absurdly expensive. There are specific online stores that sell imported games from the UK for less than half the local retail price, including shipping from the UK. Game publishers are dicks.

Best line

[Anonymous Coward]

"as profit margins rise it's possible we'll see prices drop"

Yeah, and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a WAGON. Good fucking luck with THAT pipe dream, PA Report guys.

The article also fails to mention a key component of AAA game purchasing nowadays: the de-facto acknowledgement that you're paying WAY TOO MUCH for 10-15 hours of shiny, badly-plotted shit but that it's OK because you can sell it after you're done and only end up $20 in the hole. Take that away, and now you're paying $60+ for that 10 hours with no recourse: publishers had better *hope* that their profit margins increase, because their sales are almost certainly going to drop.

Yeah, such a credible source too..

[adycarter]

The source of all this is an email, from a guy, who spoke to someone who does something at a game store.

Totally legit man, lets just take everything from here http://thexboxreveal.com/ as gospel too!

Android Gaming Wins Again

[tuppe666]

I started writing a post about who the hell could afford this new gaming environment...how bland and safe games in that market will become(have already become), and about Microsoft squandering another opportunity at this crossroads(the smart TV while we have dumb TV's)...where they could have dominated the living room(Bill is going to be squirming in interviews again)...the whole point of the Xbox anyway.

The fun is going to be in $1-to-$4 android (and platform independent indie) games I've been there for a while...I'm adding OUYA to the mix, but there is already a cheat choice of consoles.

Re:Android Gaming Wins Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back with Android (or IStuff) games aren't just shitty 5 minute time wasters and crap implementations of ancient titles. Ouya is dead on arrival, it's nothing more than a cheap way to run XMBC on a small tidy box.

Re:Android Gaming Wins Again

[jythie]

I suspect this is why EA is claiming that they are going to continue making 360/PS3 games for the next few years... seeing how much of a market there really is going to be since cell/tablet games are really taking off and the current gen consoles are still pretty capable.

Re:Android Gaming Wins Again

[Anonymous Coward]

I've yet to find a $1-$4 game I can remember or relate with more than a month after purchase. They just have no production value and are typically used the first 5 minutes of meetings when no one else has showed up yet. I can twiddle my thumbs for free during that time as well and still not relate with them (my thumbs) a month after doing so :)

they can offer online renting / free weekends

[Joe_Dragon]

they can offer online renting / free weekends

Steam looks better by comparison

[SirGarlon]

Well, I'm one of the trolls -- I've complained about Steam more than once. Let's just say I prefer the model where I have a physical medium I can lend to my friend or resell. If Microsoft is abandoning that model, then my reason to prefer Xbox over Steam goes away.

Re:Steam looks better by comparison

[earlzdotnet]

Personally I like both models when done completely seperately, but what Microsoft is doing here is taking worst of both worlds.

As someone else said, Steam is nice and convenient. They have more aggressive pricing, immediate downloads(that can go faster than 500Kbyte/s, unlike Xbox Live), and no need for annoying disks that you'll eventually end up losing

Microsoft appears to be combining the physical aspect with the virtual aspect. Sure, being able to sell your game is nice, but if you take that ability away you damn well better keep me content with your service in other ways. Steam does that, Xbox doesn't.

Re:Steam looks better by comparison

[spire3661]

You can backup steam games to physical media. I do it all the time.

Re:Steam looks better by comparison

[lgw]

The last thing I want is a physical thing to schlep around just to play a game. It's al digital, and should stay in the digital domain. Between Steam and GOG, I can't imagine buying a physical item just to get a game any more, and I've been purging my boxes of old games as soon as they show up elsewhere.

Yes, that's right, I'll throw away the "physical medium I can lend to my friend or resell" and pay GOG $5 for the privilege. OK, partly because the DVD player on my gaming rig broke and I'm lazy, but also because I'm tired of hauling boxes of old crap around when I move.
 

This is exactly what consumers want!

[Alejux]

To boost revenues of game publishers! Microsoft is really in touch with their consumers, it's like magic. First the Windows 8, now this.

Get a clue

[SINternet]

MS and others have been wanting to get Consumers away from Physical Media anyway. This "leak" is on par with that. Everything is intended to be downloadable. What that does for Gaemstop and the like who knows.

Used games at same price as new game? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now. Come to Crazy Eddie's Used Game Emporium, where we have ... the same prices as if you went to buy the game new.

That's a strange definition of "used game". Technically "used", with no price savings for the purchaser? Useless. What's the point of that?

Half the games that I own have only been purchased *because* they were available at a cheaper price. If they're on the shelf at the original price whether new or used, guess what? They're going to stay on the store shelf.

Two Thumbs

[thestudio_bob]

Guess what has two thumbs and is not planning on buying an XBox One.

Re:Two Thumbs

[Anonymous Coward]

An incompetent Tokyo husband and wife who both work for the Yakuza and prefer Japanese console gaming?

Do I win a prize?

Re:Two Thumbs

[thestudio_bob]

You get a golden star for effort, but no prize. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGTrWlzK3Ho

So basically like Steam except selling used games?

[nhat11]

Perhaps one day the games will come down in price to be as cheap as Steam? I can only hope so....

Underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's one way to create a black market for used video games.

Re:Underground

[Mike Frett]

But how so if the Game is locked to the original owners box?. That's not even the worst part, the worst part is that people will buy this new Console, oblivious to the downfalls. I have a question also, what if your Console breaks and you need to buy a new one, do you also need to buy new games? I suspect not, but I imagine you would need to jump though hoops.

I've been pimpin' the Ouya to people as much as possible. So even if a few percent of the Market Share is taken away from the 'Big Dogs', I'd be happy.

make a deal with the devil

[zeroryoko1974]

Microsoft has already shown that they will cast off any business partner when it suits them fine. Make a deal with the devil and you will get burned. Once the used game retailers are done away with, Microsoft will "adjust" their deals for the cut to the publishers and they will cite some user agreement that you can only sell games back to them

WTF!?!?

[MitchDev]

"They must also sell it at a market price"

Then what the FUCK is the point of used games?

Fuck you Microsoft, you are dead set on killing the multi-billion dollar video game market, eh?

Re:WTF!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of it is that the middle-man (the used game retailer) is being cut out of the picture. This guarantees that the game publisher will see some money out of the used game sale. Money that they currently do not see. This is truly only beneficial to the Publisher and the platform manufacturer/support (Microsoft). The customer isn't all that much affected in terms of trade-ins and buying used games. While not exactly comparable, buying used XBox 360 games can easily cost $30-40 dollars from a game that was $60 new. This will not change to the buyer. The used-game store on the other hand will lose a large amount of profit on these deals and I don't know how they will be able to maintain that section of business, if at all.

Also to your point of used games --- you seem to think that used game must equal free or practically free. Why is this? One person paid full price for it. Now someone completely different is going to get the same experience - zero difference between a new and used game. Why does the 2nd person 'deserve' to pay significantly less? There is no reason. Getting a discount, even up to 40 or 50% (which is massive) should be a good deal. Otherwise publishers and game makers might as well stop making games because 1 person will buy the game new and then redistribute it for free. Regardless of your feelings about the game itself (good or crap) that is not a justifiable business model for anyone.

Used games

[sproketboy]

"A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games."

No. Only maybe used games on XBox which no one will use any more. PS4 has officially won.

Re:Used games

[Anonymous Coward]

"A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games."

No. Only maybe used games on XBox which no one will use any more. PS4 has officially won.

And what exactly do you consider a cheap, used game? Is it required to be 25% or less than the new price? Maybe several years after release I could agree with that, but there is no way that a $60 game that had 1 previous owner should cost less than 50% of its original price (and that is a ridiculously amazing deal). With what this article talks about 35-40% discount is certainly possible, maybe even 50% if the used-game store makes no profit. Now should a game cost $60 to begin with? that's an entirely different debate (My vote is no, they shouldn't).

PS4 wins? Says who? There is no clear winner yet. Wait until E3 and further reveals. I think you are incredibly ignorant if you think that Sony and the PS4 will not have similar restrictions. Several people have already pointed out in other comments that Sony also said that games are installed to the hard drive. That can easily be interpreted as the system will have DRM, hence a means for used games to be controlled. How? and what will be the costs? I guess we'll find out soon. In the meantime, if you really care about games and less about the ONE or whole entertainment center experience -- play on the PC.

Put an EULA on your money.

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll fuck 'em.

Media bitches

[tuppe666]

The source of all this is an email, from a guy, who spoke to someone who does something at a game store.

Totally legit man, lets just take everything from here http://thexboxreveal.com/ as gospel too!

You mean a minimum wage joe with insider knowledge rather than a trained (and paid) media shills. Have you seen the ARS web site recently well written propaganda.

RENTING?!?!?!

[rjejr]

I see so many of these articles about "used' games but somehow nobody ever even mentions "renting" a game, even in passing. Gamefly makes it's living renting games. Redbox has 27 Xbox360 games in it's red boxes now. Why doesn't anybody ever write about how this will affect the rental market?!?!?!

Re:RENTING?!?!?!

[jythie]

That is actually an interesting question. I suspect it has a cultural answer, something about the people who rent and people who buy, and how represented each are in the various high profile forum/blogging gamer community.

Re:RENTING?!?!?!

[dsvick]

I was just wondering the same thing. I won't buy most games unless I can rent them first and try them.

So, MS is saying you have to just buy the game, no more trying it out first. Oh, and you have to buy it at pretty close to retail price too, even if it is used. You can't borrow one from a friend to try it out (my son does that all the time and we go buy the ones he likes). You can't take them to someone else's house for a game night.
I guess I wont be getting an xbox 1

What you said was the bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sold.

Copyrights? Not sold, but copyrights do not forbid copying altogether and you do NOT need a license to use what you bought.

Hell, not even the industry itself thinks your statement is true: the P2P networks have the game, NOT THE LICENSE, downloaded and if you're not buying a game, you're buying a license, then the price of the game is zero, therefore the loss is, likewise, zero.

No, they know it's a sale.

But you'll just keep bleating out against anyone who knows better than that this load of smeg "you're not buying the game, you're buying a license".

wrong title

[Anonymous Coward]

should read...end of microsoft gaming as you know it.
NO one is gonna do it thus the entire market will die
good move idiots, seem to be on the path of idiot lately, i dunno like telling me my desktop needs a phone operating system lol
now just move that into the xbox and get out of desktops and let others do whats right
YOU OBVIOUSLY have no clue

No added revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

I dispute that this will result in more revenue for publishers. This will result in gamers getting less money for their trades. That means less money spent on new games which means LESS revenue for publishers. Where do publishers think this added money will come from? Gamers aren't going to get second jobs so they can spend more on games. It's certainly not going to come from pizza / beer budgets.

You know who buys used games? Kids. If they can't get last years madden for $10, they aren't going to buy the new madden for $60. They aren't going to buy any Madden at all. Fewer kids playing games means fewer adults playing games down the road. This move is incredibly short sighted.

No sale...

[CodeHxr]

Too much corporate ass-hattery, not enough consumer-friendly. I will not buying into this round of consoles at all.

Speaking of...

[puddingebola]

Speaking of alternative game consoles.... Ouya http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/05/ouya-impressions/

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah, but have they also ruled that the game cannot be bound to the first-activated account?"

Yes.

Just because the law against murder doesn't say "Not even with a pointy stick" doesn't mean it isn't murder if you use a pointy stick to kill someone deliberately.

Or alternatively XBOX one is a failure

[aepervius]

If you are used to sell/buy used game, would you buy an xbox one ? No. You will buy the concurrence, say PS4, or buy much less game.

Sony need to think

[tuppe666]

PS4 has officially won.

I really liked the PS3. It was a great product, and in every way head and shoulders better than the Xbox...They killed Linux(only every partially supporting it)...and it cost the same as a kidney. They had the Xperia Play...and left it unsupported for the lackluster (yet again great hardware) Vita. You know they are going to much it up.

Greed.

[JohnRoss1968]

"this would unquestionably boost revenue for game publishers, giving the smart ones an opportunity to step away from the $60 business model and adopt pricing practices seen on Steam and iTunes"
OR
They will accept the boost in revenue but ignore the "opportunity" to step away from the $60 business model. More likely they will take a cut of the used games and keep their prices as high as they are now.
Plus since the used game market wont be as attractive to consumers they can now raise their prices instead of lowering them.

Re:Greed.

[dsvick]

No. They'll have to maintain the $60 model, for xbox games at least, since they will be selling so many fewer of them after this.

Re:Greed.

[bluefoxlucid]

It's called "economic rent seeking" and it's a way to transfer wealth, weakening the economy and leaving society more poor.

conspiracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Microsoft conspires with EA or whomever to fix prices of product they do not own? WTF?

Short-sighted fools

[Anonymous Coward]

When Joe Public goes to Gamestop, hands over his money, and realizes that he is no longer BUYING a game, his perception of the worth of that game will change accordingly. When he goes to trade it in and gets a voucher for $5, he will cheated. He will remember feeling cheated next time he buys a new game, and might decide to do something else with his money.

These short-sighted fools are killing the used game market in the middle of the biggest recession since the 1920s. The vast majority of the money earned from selling games titles second hand never leaves the shop. The customer spends the money on NEW GAMES.

The game publishers are going to be in for a hell of a shock when sales of new games dip 40% for the next console generation. Sure, they will have plenty of excuses. "It's piracy!" will be a favorite, and I'm willing to bet that "console games aren't as popular as they used to be" is going to be trotted out plenty of times to defend poorly selling titles. But their absurd lack of understanding of their own customers will be what really does for them.

What about person to person sales?

[WayToGoPhil]

I see Gamestop and other retailers will have access to the MS database for authorization of keys for games but what about person to person? What happens if I purchased it second hand off of Ebay/Amazon/Craigslist and they didn't deauthorize the game from their account before selling. Am I to pay a small fee on top of the purchase of the game to be legit, file a dispute with Ebay/Amazon? This will just add more cost on to them and I hope they push back. If the publishers want more money how about you quit spending $10+ million on making a game and charging $60 for the privilege to sit and wait for patches to be downloaded and installed before we can play because you rushed it out to market to fast. How about you actually make a complete game that doesn't require spending $X more for DLC that should've included in the first place. Its stunts like this that make me long for the days of cartridges.

Callback to the 80s

[MrLint]

I don't believe for a second that the $60 price point from big studios will change. This is built solidly into their business model. The money from the used game fee is going to be all for extra profit.

For an example all we have to do is look at Sony. It was asserted that CD prices were high because of fabrication costs, and when those come down prices will drop. That never happened, its been 30 years. We are well entrenched into the the business model in which any efficiency or savings or new income becomes profit and never saving for the consumer. Well ok that's not exactly true; but that only because the person who bought the xbox isnt the consumer. They are yet another product that can be resold to advertisers.

Cross Device Gaming

[tuppe666]

Come back with Android (or IStuff) games aren't just shitty...

...hold on do not confuse the fact that phones are great for five minute games, and those are pretty good and fun too. As being the whole gaming market, and do not confuse Android with iOS, as Steve (whichever one) never cared about gaming...which is why there are a plethora of Android gaming consoles and not one single Apple one.

I have no idea how the OUYA will work out, but at the price it is even if I only use it as an XMBC it will more than pay for itself. I notice price is something still not mentioned for the Xbox.

Microsoft sucks...

[tiker]

Microsoft closed my "Gold" membership live account quite a few years back because they had problems billing my credit card. When I called to get things resolved their response was "the account is closed". I asked them to re-enable the account but they refused. To access my saved game data I was told to boot my console with no internet connectivity and I'd be able to access old content again. Now, with game licenses being bound to the account, people will lose a lot more than a friends list, saved game data and achievements. You will lose the licenses you own. Their policies have ruined them for me and others with similar experiences. Microsoft can go to hell!

If you don't like it, change

[munitor]

A lot of folks are looking at the details instead of asking the bigger question: where's the open source alternative? Supported by the indie community and users, who provide server capacity. As long as we're talking proprietary business models, companies will try to take every advantage they can. That's the reality of competition.

And offline mode

[Anonymous Coward]

On Steam at least you get to "go offline" where your system doesn't have to be connected to the internet to authenticate the license. I don't even know why MS's Xbox One has to connect to the internet to authenticate, wasn't it deemed an authentic copy when you put the disc in and the Xbox One accepted it as an original and not a copy?

Re:And offline mode

[Darinbob]

Xbox will have DRM, Steam has DRM. Treat these the same please. Do not divide DRM games into good guys and bad guys, otherwise you start having passive consumer acceptance of DRM. DRM is evil, do not cooperate with it, do not apologize for it, do not invite it in when it's convenient since it won't leave when the party is over.

This is not a hypothetical slippery slope, we've already gone so far down the slope already. The fans gushing over Steam and passively accepting their DRM has already encouraged so many companies to adopt DRM and try to have more and more restrictions. The reason Microsoft is trying this more heavy handed approach can be directly attributed to Steam leading the way.

Re:And offline mode

[Uberbah]

Xbox will have DRM, Steam has DRM. Treat these the same please.

No one's said Steam isn't DRM. Keep the Hatorade in check, please.

Do not divide DRM games into good guys and bad guys

Don't pass by the fact that there's a difference between inconvenience and draconian with a side of graft.

The fans gushing over Steam and passively accepting their DRM has already encouraged so many companies to adopt DRM and try to have more and more restrictions.

There's no connection between those dots. If other companies were following Vavle's lead, you wouldn't have always-on requirements or limited installs.

The reason Microsoft is trying this more heavy handed approach can be directly attributed to Steam leading the way.

Hate.

Or.

Ade.

Xbox 360

[Anonymous Coward]

Xbox 360, the last Xbox I will ever buy.

Yard sales

[neghvar1]

and how will this policy be enforced or even forcible when a game is sold at a yard sale from one user directly to another?

'unquestioned?'

[jythie]

This word 'unquestioningly', I do not think it means what they think it means.

While it is fair to guess that such a move would increase revenues, it is a hotly contested topic with historical economic examples unclear on what impact it would have. It might increase revenues, it might decrease them. The outcome is currently unpredictable, thus it is far from unquestionable.

flaw in logic

[slashmydots]

The publishers actually aren't going to make a penny because nobody's going to buy the stupid Xbox One in the first place for this exact reason. They might as well install Windows 8 on it and pack a Zune inside because nobody's touching this stupid thing.

Re:Used games at same price as new game? WTF?

[jythie]

Best guess? Store credit. Used stores will still be able to give credit for games people want to trade in, though I do not know if that will be enough of a draw to keep the stores going.

From a publisher's perspective it institutionalized double dipping, they get to sell the same unit multiple times with no additional production or stocking costs.

Price Fixin' (Sqore:300,000 Astounding!)

[Anonymous Coward]

They must also sell it at a market price (35£ in the UK), but the publisher will get a cut of the price.

This is okay, because in the U.S., this is called "Price Fixing". In the United States, Price Fixing can be prosecuted as
a criminal federal offence under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act which is the way it should be handled. This prevents
me, as a seller, from being competitive to the market by selling at a fair price under the artificial fixed price set by MicroSoft.

And I'll be dammed if I'm going to pay protection money to the original publisher of my "first sale" property.

Borg Gates should be very ashamed of himself is all I gotta say.

middle men get cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep it up and self-published will be the way to go again. This is what the internet was supposed to enable us to do. Being enslaved by app stores was not what I signed up for.

Defective by Design

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens when they stop supporting this server in 10 years? Will they release a patch that allows any game to run on the system, or tell me to pound salt?

My NES still plays Tetris just fine. Do you know why? It doesn't need to ask permission to run!

And I worked for that money paid to you

[Anonymous Coward]

So my right to know my money isn't being abused or used without me getting a cut of its use trumps your right to spend the money paid to you.

First Sale Doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Microsoft, you cannot get rid of First Sale Doctrine by trying to force your illegal policy on people.
Just doesn't work that way.

I for one will not be paying Microsoft any money for their new piece of shit (Sony hasn't gotten anything from me in over 20 years).

So you paid more than double sticker price

[Anonymous Coward]

So you paid more than double the sticker price, since you had to pay for delivery for the game.

This is the "Budget Airline" version of "cheap", right? Where the ticket gets you on the plane, but an actual seat is more. And you can't not buy the seat.

That would be 100% pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since that backup could not be used to play the game without you logging in to Steam to verify and then it would decide to reinstall it again anyway.

Re:That would be 100% pointless.

[spire3661]

The point is i hold the vast majority of the artwork and assets that make up the game. A simple crack and im back in business.

And if we avoid the middleman altogether?

[rs1n]

When I was a kid, trading video games was the norm. Sometimes I would just borrow my neighbor's copy of a game. We also skipped the middleman altogether -- there was no used video game stores at the time. If I wanted a game that my friend was willing to sell, any used sales happened between the endusers. I am curious what this would mean for people who still consider swapping games, or borrowing each other's games.

A different sort of Third World

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but that's Europe. We don't do that "rationality" and "reason" and "logic" baloney here in God's own 'Murrica.

Re:A different sort of Third World

[Darinbob]

It's because Europe sees how the sellers are presenting the games as products to be purchased. The game publishers do not tell the consumer that they are renting a game, they give all outwards appearances of selling a product. Even more if you buy the game as a physical copy at a store where it even feels like a real product that you can touch.

Re: A different sort of Third World

[Mabhatter]

Don't forget that the DMCA and similar laws legally bind the licensed material to the media. As the customer, you are not ALLOWED to make a backup copy of your Xbox games, or even your system data beyond what is presented by Microsoft's DRM. IN effect, the physical Disc is the license to the game. You don't LEALLY need a license to play a console game, because it NEVER is released as a copy to media YOU OWN. You need a LICENSE to use Excel because you perform a copy from Microsoft's media to YOUR PERSONAL MEDIA to use the software. Xbox One doesn't pass the test that Excel uses to need a LICENSE as the only media you are allowed to "copy" the Disc to is BONDED (via DMCA BACKED DRM) to your device. Even patches do not qualify for license because the patch NEVER TOUCHES PERSONAL MEDIA. I cannot legally save my Xbox patch to my OWN media and reapply it later.

You need a license for an iOS game because Apple downloads the .ipa file to your computer and you can make 100 copies if you want, on any media you have... You just cannot PLAY the game until it is on Apple's license-following device.

Microsoft is again trying to add "shrink wrap to a book" and you cannot do that given the terms they have expressed.. They are still selling "the shiny disc == game" the media is not used for ANYTHING except their device.

STATE OF THE GAME

[Anonymous Coward]

  I'm completely amazed as to what people think is the current state of gaming. This is what I see...

CURRENT Console and PC realities for PHYSICAL and DIGITAL MEDIA.

Physical media can be shared and resold, but is only as good as the copy you have, god forbid you lose it or scratch it. Additionally, major inconvenience for console guys/gals, every time you want to check out a game, you have to get up, open drive, take game out, put it away, pull new game, open and put it in drive, sit back down, wait for the game to start. Same process if you want to check out another game... until your drive starts to choke one day. Oh, and to get a copy of it in the first place requires you to leave your house, during store hours and hope to find a copy of it at your store of choice. And a side not for developers: the used market doesn’t really help their bottom lines. But who cares about the developers.

Digital media, exist SOLELY and is popular because it FIXES every single negative aspect of Physical media. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And in return though, you lose ALL the positive. ALL OF THEM. Cannot share, sell or display a nice little box. Also, you are 100% dependent on the internet. And the concept of Used games becomes obsolete. But guess what, we learn to live with it. Because of all of the convenience that we get compared to physical. And we're all happy. And it’s alot cheaper! Not completely, 100% true if you’re talking about most big games that are out on consoles too though, cause big publishers are like that, but everybody else that’s PC exclusive and the little indy guys look out for us!

PC gamers, have Steam and Piracy for their gaming needs. So, Steam is great, but the pet peeves are you cant lend people games or sell them or attach physical media that follows you around to your collection. And on the other end you have piracy, which is like junk food, easy and tasty, but bad for you and everybody you know. You can freely copy and give away games to everybody and not think twice. Junk food kills you though, and piracy kills the developers. And steam deals with piracy by requiring you to verify online your account and games on a somewhat regular basis. And being online isn’t an issue, cause that’s team you’re routing for. Steam is an online market place. Nobody says “check out my offline collection of games on steam!”. Well, nobody says “check out my online collection of games of steam!” either

Console gamers have Xbox Live and PSN as well as physical media and healthy dose of Piracy too. Same rules apply here as with the PC bunch and steam. You can’t sell/give your digital collection and your physical media doesn’t have the benefits of your Digital media.

FUTURE Console and PC realities for PHYSICAL and DIGITAL MEDIA.

NOW... the natural evolution- driven by consumer demand no less- is for our Physical and Digital Media to converge. And what that looks like right now is just one thing, just one addition to the current state of media. To be able to SELL/GIVE pieces of our digital media collection away for money like Physical media. Not ONE company (Steam, MS, Sony, Nintendo) allows you to do that now, because the concept of USED games in digital is REDICULOUS. It's like rewinding an MP3. It doesn't apply. But we want that ability, to sell or give away digital media. Cause it's a better system.

Microsoft took the initiative, pretty sure Sony too, to bring digital and physical media closer together. All the pros’ of Digital media with some of the perks of Physical. Which is how you’re supposed to look at it. Digital is the future, and we’re enhancing that. That’s who’s side we’re on. Physical is the past, and were phasing it out. What we want are MP3’s that we can’t hold, not tapes that we have to rewind. The details I’m pretty sure will be clarified this E3.

Why is MS getting a cut?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the game was developed and published by a third party, why would MS get a cut of the used game? I thought the argument here was that developers and publishers were losing out on revenue, not console manufacturers.

A little bit better than Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see where this is any worse than what happens when someone buys a game on Steam. In fact, it's better because it actually provides an avenue for resale of some sort. Steam does not.

Contempt for paying customers...

[Bert64]

Why should the original publisher have any right whatsoever to take a cut when someone sells it on? The original purchaser paid for it fair and square, and it should be free for them to do with as they please.
This is just greed and utter contempt for customers, and likely to be illegal in at least some places.

Re:Contempt for paying customers...

[applematt84]

Not *really*; there is a reason why Microsoft is king of the license world. The EULA states that the content (game) is still owned by the publishers and Microsoft. All you really own is the physical disc.

Re:Contempt for paying customers...

[applematt84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Ownership_requirement

^^^^ This is what allows Microsoft and game publishers to claim a profit on your resale.

It seems fair to me, so long as ...

[applematt84]

I think this is a fair idea proposed by Microsoft. The only caveat I would look for is since Microsoft is mandating the game be sold at market price and that the publisher receive a cut, that it's a good deal so long as the [new] end user receives any bonus content that was included when it was originally released. For example, I purchased a new copy of Arkham City about six months after it was released. It came with bonus content of a Nightwing and Catwoman playable character. If I resold this game to (for example) Gamestop, I think it's only fair that since I'm no longer the owner of the license that the new owner receive the same bonus content that I did.

If this is not the case then I would not recommend buying a used game. Then again, if Microsoft is imposing that the retailer resell the used game at market price, you might as well just buy the game from a first-sale retailer. I personally have only ever purchased new games for this reason, so whether or not Microsoft and the publishers include this with used games is a moot point for me. However, given my previous statement, I still care about my fellow gamers and their access to game content. I hope Microsoft and the game publishers have taken this into consideration.

The Very Fact That They're Assuming This Level Of

[Anonymous Coward]

control over what happens to things that you buy after you buy them is offensive. This is garbage. Don't buy it, and even more importantly - teach your kids the difference between buying something and owning it and buying something and not owning it, because it's going to become more and more of an issue with companies driven by greed and desperation as time goes on.

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't buy it. Buy a Wii U. Buy a PS4 if Sony doesn't pull the same stunt. If the Xbox One flops harder than Windows 8, we might be able to stop this madness before it reaches the "half the game is on-disc DLC" state. Just don't buy it.

(And do what you can to help the Call of Duty addicts understand why the Xbox One is bad and they shouldn't buy it. Try to use small words).

The MS strategy

[corvax]

This is similar to miscorsofts desktop operating system strategy. They release something and see how the consumer reacts( me, vista, win8) Then come along with a bunch of "fixes" and get them to buy a new os again a short time later. The strategy here is to allow leaks about the console and see how consumers react and come up with "fixes" ie. they see how far they can push you and step back just enough that youll take it. I bought my son the 360 because it seemed relatively cheap compared to the ps3 back then But we had to buy a wifi adapter hard drive etc ended up costing the same in the end just no blue ray. This time around i think we will go with the ps4 and if they have similar used game strategy then we will go without either.

WILL NOT BUY

[Anonymous Coward]

There is SO MUCH WRONG with this. I could write a big long diatribe, but it comes down to this.. I do not accept this. I will not buy this console, or any console that has similar restrictions. Period. End of discussion.

bullsh*t

[Anonymous Coward]

"this would unquestionably boost revenue for game publishers"

*unquestionably*? no! It may boost revenue, it may have no impact, it may reduce revenue.

In my case (and I am certainly not a representative sample), the game publishers will lose a sale for every game I would have purchased. (I may not be representative of the general population, but I have traditionally bought significantly more games than the average consumer and I always prefer to buy new and never re-sell.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

This completely destroys the people's used game market. I now cannot go on craigslist and sell off my old games without going through a long-ass license transfer. Then, I am UNABLE to play the game. Also, if my brother were to own Halo 4 on Xbox and I didn't, I could not play with him because the license is not in my name. This is just a horrible way for Microsoft to get us to buy new games and a way for them to profit greatly from games people have already paid for, new.

We always have...

[Anonymous Coward]

PC Gaming! Fuck the Xbox and buy a PC and/or PS3/PS4. We don't have to suffer these neo-Nazis' reign over the videogame industry. If you want to play Halo or Gears or some other exclusive, then that's all you have to buy. It may not seem worth it, but when I went to PS3 and lost Halo, I had to go back. Save up your allowance (that I don't even get :P) and your birthday money and get all three. It's the only way to beat the industry bullshitters like Microsoft.

Actually, to an ethical gamer this makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news. Effectively what we have right now is tantamount to bootlegging.

People buy a license for a game, play that game, then sell their license to someone else without giving any of their revenue back to the publisher. Imagine going to a movie theater, watching your movie, and then after you leave, selling your ticket to some random Joe on the street. Game publishers understand that this is what happens, and to recoup revenue loss due to rental and used game sales, they began leaving content off of games the first day they are released, and instead releasing DLC that customers have to purchase on day one. Likewise, they also implemented online passes, etc...

If successful, this should drive down the cost of new game licenses on console platforms. On the PC end, Steam already implements non-transferable licenses at very discounted prices. I would love to see this come to consoles.

Actually this is painful to read

[Uberbah]

Effectively what we have right now is tantamount to bootlegging.

Uh, no. It's a second hand market no different from used cars or thrift stores. When you're the fourth owner of that house built in 1965, how big was the check you made out to the original developer?

Also, First Sale. Google it.

If successful, this should drive down the cost of new game licenses on console platforms.

Bhwhwhwahahahah. Can you name a single instance in history where a more restrictive, captive market has resulted in lower prices for the consumer? One that wasn't managed by a non-profit or regulated within an inch of its life like a utility?

Fuck This Noise

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to be pimped by M$. I have about 20 games on the 360 I still want to play, and another dozen on the old box, plus various PS games I haven't played in 10 years or ever, and christloads more for every system that I can pick up for nothing. They can keep their horseshit DRM and I can say fuck them with my dollar.

What Sony did by jobbing up the PS3 to push a blu ray player, MS is doing simply to pimp the consumer.

Again, fuck you polesmokers. I'll stick to super discounted used games for the next five-ten years, then deal with your shitty new system once you get a fucking clue and stop the bullshit.

Microdicks

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget how this shit is going to go. You know how Red Dead is still $30 in the XBL market, without any DLCs, like six years after launch (while it's ~$10-15 at a used store)? Or how they're still trying to sell you Halo Reach for $40? Or Saints Row 2, with no DLCs, for $30? That's what you'll be paying, no matter what, in the future.

These dicksuckers might just push me back to Sony, and those dicksuckers will probably push me to Nintendo, and those failures of a company will probably just make me give up on games altogether.

Anyone interested in buying my used copy of Diablo

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a scratch on the disc!