The PS4 (Orbis) and XBOX720 (Nextbox) Mega thread!

[Darren Stephens]

It seems that both Sony and Microsoft maybe gearing up to release the new versions of their home consoles at the end of this years. The internet is full of rumours and speculation about the specs of both and talk of an always connected XBOX with no way of selling used games getting many gamers in a tizzy! This could really change the way a lot of people pay and play thier games. It would also, most likely, spell the end of the highstreet game retailer. So, what do you guys think?

Note : I couldn't see a thread about this. If there is already one, please feel free to ignore this one and let it die peacefully.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

Used games WILL be resold in some manner. A recent decision of the European Courts dictates that some kind of right of re-sale of electronic goods is to exist. Europe is too big a market for these companies to shirk from, and they will need to deal with this.

Money talks. I suspect that what will happen is that Sony and Microsoft will either (a) create their own eBay equivalent or (b) dictate a second hand price for their games (the second option being a bit legally suspect). Either way, they are not going to be against second hand games. No one is, per se. What hacks off the hardware and software companies is that they do not get a slice of the money. For what it is worth, I have some sympathy with that. Some. But of course, you just KNOW that they will be greedy about it.

I suspect what you will see is something like this, all digital:

"NEW" GAME + DAY 1 DLC = premium price

RESELL GAME (NO DLC) = eBay style auction, % to publisher, % to hardware company (the % by way of fee)

EPISODIC GAMES = dependant on you owning old episodes.

[MercZ]

I think it would be impractical to go through with the total used game bans. I know especially with the PS4 rumors that has been going around a lot but it really wouldn't make sense to jump on board with it. Granted that was before news about the next-gen xbox doing the same thing also made the rounds. They will probably the drive for restricting MP access to used copies unless they pay a fee to get it.

I'm going to remain optimistic here because it would suck a lot for them to go to the nightmare scenario a lot of people are speculating on.

[JamesC]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a registration code for new games that ties it to one user account or machine, so that if you bought a game second hand you'd have to pay a fee to register it to your own account/machine.
Rental services like Lovefilm would have to pay for a rental licence allowing the game to be registered multiple times without additional charge.

[Professor Bear]

Microsoft already require registration for pc games, so this would be no different, though I find it hilarious that they're planning on defending their "it doesn't work without an internet connection" stance on the Xbox by saying a connection is needed to constantly update the adverts that will now be displayed on the dashboard at all times even though you're a paying subscriber.  Oh yes, you also need to pay a subscription, like with a phone - you pay Microsoft to put pop-ups on your tv.  Awesome.
As for PS4, I already have a blu-ray player, multimedia hub and games machine in the PS3, why would I throw that out and commit to an untested console with draconian DRM and limited - if any - compatibility with my existing games library?  I also suspect something similar to Microsoft's anti second-hand market tactics is in the works.

Eh.  Fuck the next generation of consoles.  I can't stop playing San Andreas anyway.

[Darren Stephens]

Speaking personally, I have never purchased a second hand game. Not out nod snobbery, but the few games I do buy tend to be things that I know I will like and keep.  The always on said of it doesn't bother me either. However, almost all the gamers I know do buy second hand and like to trade in when they are done. I could see that hitting a lot of folks hard in the pocket, squeezing them out of the hobby. We will have to see what info comes our way in the coming months.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

Microsoft already require registration for pc games, so this would be no different, though I find it hilarious that they're planning on defending their "it doesn't work without an internet connection" stance on the Xbox by saying a connection is needed to constantly update the adverts that will now be displayed on the dashboard at all times even though you're a paying subscriber.  Oh yes, you also need to pay a subscription, like with a phone - you pay Microsoft to put pop-ups on your tv.  Awesome.
As for PS4, I already have a blu-ray player, multimedia hub and games machine in the PS3, why would I throw that out and commit to an untested console with draconian DRM and limited - if any - compatibility with my existing games library?  I also suspect something similar to Microsoft's anti second-hand market tactics is in the works.

Eh.  Fuck the next generation of consoles.  I can't stop playing San Andreas anyway.

This kind of sums up my feelings. Having had a PS, PS2, Xbox, GameCube, Wii, and 360 - I spend most of my time playing games on the PC. (Although I did start Halo 4 last night - jolly good fun).

Thing is, I don't really see what a new Xbox or PlayStation will add. There is no real quantum leap forward in terms of the games, not like movement sensing and not in terms of power. Sure, the bits inside will be better by a factor of X but, really, I don't see there being a quantum leap forward in terms of fidelity from the exisitng generation. The 360 and PS3 had digital streaming and HD to differntiate them from the previous gen. The new machines, as far as I know, have nothing other than a shiney new-ness, even more adverts and some draconian walled gardens.

The missus asked me if I would get either of the new machines. Despite games being pretty much all I spend my money on and, if I'm honest, being my main time-killer - I play more games in a week than I watch telly - I said "probably not."

I can see me getting a Wii U for my kids. They love Mario and Nintendo I think are spot on in their strategy of pursuing children. They see the Wii as a toy, while MS and Sony see their machines as adults' entertainment hubs. Problem is, in this world of free apps and downloads, adults don't fancy the corporate sell.

Yup. A Wii U for my kids and a Steam box for my games console.

The think is, Steam - which has its problems - has one major ace in the hole. Unlimited backward compatibility for every game I ever buy. Playable anywhere, and not limited to one device or location.

That is the future.

[Keef Monkey]

I work in games, so I'm obviously all for anything that means a bigger cut of any sales going to the folks putting their blood, sweat and tears into making the product.

At the same time though I think if one platform was to announce they wouldn't be supporting pre-owned then that would make up a lot of people's minds about which console to go with next gen, so I can't really see either platform-holder wanting to be the first to break that news.

I've never understood why they can't adopt an adjusted version of the PRS music licensing that goes on. If a shop wants to sell pre-owned games they could pay a license fee to do so (which I think in many regions they may already do) and similarly to musicians' radio royalties the publisher would receive a small amount for each pre-owned sale, with the money for these 'royalty' payments coming out of the big pot of money generated by the license fees.

It would never be anywhere near as big a cut as a first-hand purchase, but it would at least be some amount of money that would be trickling through the publisher to the developer and would go a long way towards making the whole thing more palatable. So far the closest to that has been the 'project ten dollar' style intiatives where portions of optional content (MP or day one DLC) are only available through single-use codes or by paying a small fee that offsets the publisher's loss on the pre-owned sale, which I've always thought to be a pretty fair way of doing things.

[radiator]

I've never understood why they can't adopt an adjusted version of the PRS music licensing that goes on. If a shop wants to sell pre-owned games they could pay a license fee to do so (which I think in many regions they may already do) and similarly to musicians' radio royalties the publisher would receive a small amount for each pre-owned sale, with the money for these 'royalty' payments coming out of the big pot of money generated by the license fees.

It would never be anywhere near as big a cut as a first-hand purchase, but it would at least be some amount of money that would be trickling through the publisher to the developer and would go a long way towards making the whole thing more palatable. So far the closest to that has been the 'project ten dollar' style intiatives where portions of optional content (MP or day one DLC) are only available through single-use codes or by paying a small fee that offsets the publisher's loss on the pre-owned sale, which I've always thought to be a pretty fair way of doing things.

Agreed. In fact, I could see an almost FTP model becoming the norm, where all games are sold for a modest amount and are free to trade in etc, but progress is capped, and must be unlocked by paying. Of course, the dedicated fan could pledge the full amount (£40 or whatever) upfront and crack on with the game without having to worry about further payments.

In theory, everyone's a winner. Unless of course one party gets greedy and spoils it for everyone else.

I think the current problem conventional games face is their high costs -the ability to trade-in is almost necessary insurance against the risk of plonking down a small fortune on something that turns out to not be to your taste. It's a bit galling downloading a full-price title that you don't enjoy, knowing you can't sell it on.

[JamesC]

I've never thought of games as being particularly expensive.
I suppose £30 could be considered a fairly substantial initial outlay but if you get even 10 hours playtime out of it then it's twice as good value as the average cinema ticket.
If you're not sure you'll like a game then download a demo or rent it!

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

The think is, Steam - which has its problems - has one major ace in the hole. Unlimited backward compatibility for every game I ever buy. Playable anywhere, and not limited to one device or location.

That is the future.

This. Exactly this. Steam may not be perfect, but it is good value and Valve make you feel like a respected customer, instead of a potential criminal, hellbent on pirating their content.

In some parts of the internet, people are completely up in arms about how Microsoft and Sony (along with a few devs like EA) are evil and greedy. Maybe instead of whining about it, these people should consider not giving those companies any of their money. No console/game is so good that you just can't live without it.

[I, Cosh]

I've never understood why they can't adopt an adjusted version of the PRS music licensing that goes on. If a shop wants to sell pre-owned games they could pay a license fee to do so (which I think in many regions they may already do) and similarly to musicians' radio royalties the publisher would receive a small amount for each pre-owned sale, with the money for these 'royalty' payments coming out of the big pot of money generated by the license fees.

Wow! I really can't see how there's any equivalence between the two. Buying a game is not like licensing a song for broadcast to the public, it's the equivalent of buying an album. A finished product which I own and can do with as I see fit, whether that be keeping it locked in my special games vault, selling it to some idiot on eBay for a profit, giving it away to my girlfriend's little brother or smashing it up with a hammer.

What you suggest makes it sound more like I'm leasing my game for an undisclosed period of time. Do I get a discount if I promise not to resell it? At least some PRS money eventually makes its way back to the band; would you propose the same happens to actual devs/testers/translators/etc or does it all go to the publisher/record label? If games, why not books, comics, records, DVDs, furniture and so on?

Sorry, I know you were just making a simple comparison and I've taken it all a bit too seriously but I do think this is an immensely problematic area.

If studios want to cut out the second hand market, then they need to keep games available. Easier said than done, I realise, but if I can get an XBLA port of Ico or G-Police or whatever then I'm less likely to waste my time raking through used game racks or eBay listings.

Ultimately, I assume it's not even the studios or publishers (although I'm sure they'll be happy about it) who are the driving force behind this. It's about the percentage of new game sales that finds its way back to the console manufacturer.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

One thing for sure. The industry's problems could be solved if they just did what this thread says.

In fact, all problems should be solved by the Hivemind.

[Keef Monkey]

I've never understood why they can't adopt an adjusted version of the PRS music licensing that goes on. If a shop wants to sell pre-owned games they could pay a license fee to do so (which I think in many regions they may already do) and similarly to musicians' radio royalties the publisher would receive a small amount for each pre-owned sale, with the money for these 'royalty' payments coming out of the big pot of money generated by the license fees.

Wow! I really can't see how there's any equivalence between the two. Buying a game is not like licensing a song for broadcast to the public, it's the equivalent of buying an album. A finished product which I own and can do with as I see fit, whether that be keeping it locked in my special games vault, selling it to some idiot on eBay for a profit, giving it away to my girlfriend's little brother or smashing it up with a hammer.

Completely agree with you, which is why I'm not at all suggesting that you shouldn't have the right to do with it what you please. Under my idea you could still sell it on willy nilly, it would be the retailers who make most of their cash selling pre-owned games who would pay a license fee for the privilege, and that if sales were tracked then a cut of that pot could easily be distributed back to the source. I'm not saying it's the same as music licensing, I just mean that the mechanics of it would function similarly.

As for who the money should actually go to (publisher/studio), a much smaller proportion of a first-hand game sale actually goes to the developer in comparison to the publisher anyway (with studios largely kept in business through publisher-funding) so I can't see any reason why the proportions would need to change.

I know it's a really complicated area, and I'm not suggesting I'm remotely smart enough to have it all worked out, but it strikes me as an idea that would keep both parties happy. Or happier than outlawing pre-owned at least. In some cases first-hand sales only account for about a 3rd (or less) of actual individual players, so it's understandable that with game development being as costly and high-risk financially (just look at all the studios going under all over the place nowadays) that they would want to look into ways to actually make some money from the bulk of their market.

Whatever happens it'll be interesting to see anyway!

[Professor Bear]

Note that Edge, not Microsoft themselves, broke this news about the second-hand market being elbowed out after it was leaked to them by "an insider": to me, it seems awfully convenient that news that is pretty much un-spinnable leaks out ahead of industry fairs and official announcements and thus doesn't have to be addressed at PR spots.  By the time actual announcements are to be made, this bad news will be old news.

I also have a theory that Microsoft want to knacker their next console deliberately because they make a loss on hardware but make profits on software.  Industry scuttlebutt has it that they only made the Surface as a Trojan horse for getting a rival tablet OS on the market that could compete with Android, and that they plan on abandoning the Surface within a couple of years after they've developed killer apps to make people want to switch to Windows,and it's no secret that the new Xbox will be run on Windows, so I suspect something similar may be going on there, that they want to create an OS for home consoles that any company could theoretically assemble themselves from the many lower-cost parts that MS have suspiciously opted to go for instead of developing more powerful proprietary hardware.