Xbox 720 to ban second hand game sales ?

[Vagrant0]

 

The analogy would be if Steam required a monthly fee, even if you bought a game, just because it required an online activation through a service you would still have to register and connect through that service and be responsible for any related fees.

 

Something like this will likely also kill game rentals and such since games which become locked to one specific console can't really be rented out. This alone might kill console sales since it will lead to players who don't have the option of trying out new games, seeing them at friends houses, ect. without making a sizable investment at the game's retail price. All it takes is buying a few crappy, overhyped games and have no other option to make them run away from anything related to your company, or spend the effort and risk involved in illegal activities.

 

Give Steam some time and once they have the market locked up (like they are close to doing already) and I wouldn't be surprised if they start charging a monthly fee !!

 

And killing the rental and resale market is exactly what STEAM was designed to do for the PC market (Even though they try to say it was to stop Piracy !) and since everyone has gone along with the concept it is now going to start to be brought to the Console market as well -- Figure the developers and distributors would like nothing more than to have the rental and resale market disappear so that they can control the pricing of their games and make more profit. It is a natural evolution of the DRM scheme and was the plan from the beginning so no surprises here !

I think you're missing things.

 

Steam wouldn't do that because right now they're making money hand over fist. Charging a membership fee, unless it was something in addition to the normal account (like a premium membership with extra perks), would essentially kill their service and probably lead many loyal users of Steam to show up at their office with torches and pitchforks. It would be corporate suicide on a mass scale.

 

The rental and resale market for PC games never was big to begin with. Sure, once E-bay came around things changed a bit, but by their nature PC games have always had that aspect of not being media locked, so were prone to people just copying the disc, repackaging it, and returning it. This is why many stores had "no refund" policies on PC software, even before DRM was more than a glimmer in someone's eye. They have always tried to control this sort of thing, but it wasn't until there was this exposed system of piracy (Warez sites/trading boards have existed since the late 80's) that the cost of running a service to activate games and the related software appeared to be worthwhile. The same thing is essentially happening with consoles now. Usage of hacked and modified consoles has become more publicly known, so the company (in usual fashion) reacts by tightening down things more. :facepalm:

[Korodic]

^ however console modding is already difficult. There is a chance you brick it in the process. I once looked into it when one guy had these fun mods in GTA IV online. He could fly his buses and shoot rockets. PC GTA actually supports native trainer <3.

 

Also when you log on the 360 can detect certain software additions and ban the users account. So by doing so they risk losing their online account. Most games have online capabilities now, so to pirate a game people really can't go online without a huge risk of making their xbox banned, or their account, or both. That also hurts the resale of the xbox (assuming it gets banned from online). So there is a lot to weigh in before modifying it. Whether it be for piracy or legitimate purpose.

 

I doubt piracy will ever fully be defeated when everything can be manipulated digitally, but there are features and such that give companies the most protection they are going to get from piracy. There are just a ton of exploits from poorly secured applications.

[ziitch]

Korodic, your previous post partially hits the nail on the head - Adaptation. Seems to me that these companies think we will just adapt to their new attempts to control parts of the industry. However, the expanding minds that is the player base see right through what they are doing and instead want more freedom of what they can do. In other words, they think they can adapt us, even as going as far as trying to enact legislation like PIPA and SOPA, but it's really the reverse - They need to adapt to us. We are society - If they can't take the change that's taking place, then they might as well accept death. In fact, it's one of principles of nature and survival - Adapt to the evnironment or die - And they definitely are not exempt from this, because otherwise they're going to be a dinosaur. I can tell you right now, that if a new first-party company came in with a new console, and let you do almost anything you want with it and their games that's within legal standards, the current competition will have to pull some serious desperation moves all because they weren't willing to provide this one thing console owners simply wanted, or had to do knowing that they would gain guilt and/or consequence in return.

 

But otherwise, what lesson is there to learn when the industry crashes and this form of entertainment essentially dies because of attempting to control things like this? Simple - The customers aren't cattle. Don't try to prod them into a crowded pen, let alone try to make them follow lines, even herding is a very difficult task unless you let them do it themselves.

Edited January 30, 2012 by ziitch

[Stevedog13]

I'd like to thank Steam users everywhere for this development!

[Vagrant0]

Also when you log on the 360 can detect certain software additions and ban the users account. So by doing so they risk losing their online account.

Only an issue if they care about online or use the official network. Care to guess how much effort it would take to program an Xbox to connect to some sort of renegade network? I don't know of any such networks, but could be sure that some probably exist. Modern consoles aren't much different from a computer once you crack the OS. If a simple virus can redirect Windows Update and many other native services to its own subnet, it wouldn't take much to do the same with a console. Consoles already connect to their own subnetwork, but if you remember that Sony incident, these can be accessed by things other than the console.

 

The more unnecessary restrictions they try to place, the more people will try and search out ways around them. It's natural behavior.

[ziitch]

The more unnecessary restrictions they try to place, the more people will try and search out ways around them. It's natural behavior.

 

And that's what irks me - There's a growing pessimistic view regarding people wanting to mess around with their consoles, and it's going to hurt everyone with such restrictions. Let go of stuff like this, I say - If they screw up, they have to buy a new console, or if you're courteous enough, be willing to fix their self-caused problem for a fee.You know what companies are passing up by restricting stuff like this? A learning experience for both parties - The console company can learn what the user has discovered that wasn't found in R&D, while the user learns how things are done, and with the right experience and expertise it can be done even better in the next incarnation. How is that not win-win?

[Vagrant0]

The more unnecessary restrictions they try to place, the more people will try and search out ways around them. It's natural behavior.

 

And that's what irks me - There's a growing pessimistic view regarding people wanting to mess around with their consoles, and it's going to hurt everyone with such restrictions. Let go of stuff like this, I say - If they screw up, they have to buy a new console, or if you're courteous enough, be willing to fix their self-caused problem for a fee.You know what companies are passing up by restricting stuff like this? A learning experience for both parties - The console company can learn what the user has discovered that wasn't found in R&D, while the user learns how things are done, and with the right experience and expertise it can be done even better in the next incarnation. How is that not win-win?

Kinda missing the point.

 

Console companies don't want people messing with their hardware or software because it allows users to do something that that console company doesn't control, and therefore cannot make money on. For example, PS3s rigged as processing farms for distributed computing programs, or all those hacks and such for the Xbox motion capture thing. The company generally doesn't care to see how users are using things, short of preventing it, but is more concerned with users using things as they allow and things that earn them money directly. They already know how they want their products used.

[Vagrant0]

The more unnecessary restrictions they try to place, the more people will try and search out ways around them. It's natural behavior.

 

And that's what irks me - There's a growing pessimistic view regarding people wanting to mess around with their consoles, and it's going to hurt everyone with such restrictions. Let go of stuff like this, I say - If they screw up, they have to buy a new console, or if you're courteous enough, be willing to fix their self-caused problem for a fee.You know what companies are passing up by restricting stuff like this? A learning experience for both parties - The console company can learn what the user has discovered that wasn't found in R&D, while the user learns how things are done, and with the right experience and expertise it can be done even better in the next incarnation. How is that not win-win?

Kinda missing the point.

 

Console companies don't want people messing with their hardware or software because it allows users to do something that that console company doesn't control, and therefore cannot make money on. For example, PS3s rigged as processing farms for distributed computing programs, or all those hacks and such for the Xbox motion capture thing. The company generally doesn't care to see how users are using things, short of preventing it, but is more concerned with users using things as they allow and things that earn them money directly. They already know how they want their products used.

[themoonbear45]

If you ask me, then maybe Microsoft and Sony should take a hint from Valve and get into the micro-transaction business. Portal 2 And Team Fortress 2 run on this concept and they are two of the most successful PC games on the market. Seriously, I'm tired of all this DLC pack crap. But, since I practically worship anything with Valve's name on it, this post may be a little one-sided.

P.S. Mr. Newell, get off your ass and get HL3 on the market!

 

https://www.playfire.com/bestgame/ZQOWQ0

[themoonbear45]

Korodic, your previous post partially hits the nail on the head - Adaptation. Seems to me that these companies think we will just adapt to their new attempts to control parts of the industry. However, the expanding minds that is the player base see right through what they are doing and instead want more freedom of what they can do. In other words, they think they can adapt us, even as going as far as trying to enact legislation like PIPA and SOPA, but it's really the reverse - They need to adapt to us. We are society - If they can't take the change that's taking place, then they might as well accept death. In fact, it's one of principles of nature and survival - Adapt to the evnironment or die - And they definitely are not exempt from this, because otherwise they're going to be a dinosaur. I can tell you right now, that if a new first-party company came in with a new console, and let you do almost anything you want with it and their games that's within legal standards, the current competition will have to pull some serious desperation moves all because they weren't willing to provide this one thing console owners simply wanted, or had to do knowing that they would gain guilt and/or consequence in return.

 

But otherwise, what lesson is there to learn when the industry crashes and this form of entertainment essentially dies because of attempting to control things like this? Simple - The customers aren't cattle. Don't try to prod them into a crowded pen, let alone try to make them follow lines, even herding is a very difficult task unless you let them do it themselves.

I completely agree. If we have a repeat of the great video game crash of 1983, I some how doubt that Nintendo will be able to save the industry again.