I am concerned about that as well. I don't understand why they're required to be connected/left on; that is unnecessary. The whole used game fiasco doesn't affect me that much since I tend to buy new and keep most of my games anyway. It sucks I won't be able to lend my games, for example, to my brother who I visit in a different city every other month. I love my 360 and was really excited for Xbox One. Not so much anymore. As of now, I'll probably still get it, but I'm now definitely keeping a closer eye on Playstation.
It literally says to expect no privacy and they will give as much of your information to the government (as "legally" possible) when they see fit.
Then charge the resold owner to use the online servers... not to play the offline portion. I don't really even agree with that though. If someone buys a used copy of a game, the studio's still supporting the same number of units for online play - the original number of units sold. Console games haven't been licensed as software to the end user in the past... this change is basically a move by Microsoft to change the archetype to where it is. The majority of Gamestop's business is based on selling used games? That's a revelation DD, thanks. I thought they sold pizza or something. And the 10 year old kid that wants to take a new game over to his buddy's house.
Oh wow. Looking into that led me to this: http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa. Basically MS applied for a patent where the Kinect will monitor how many people are watching content played by the Xbox... # of viewers will be licensed for certain content/videos.
They were saying there is safety in place so that the camera isn't always on or something... I was busy when I read the article so I skimmed it. If the camera is simply 'off,' I still don't trust it. I think there should be some sort of physical cover that comes over it when the camera is off.
I think there are plenty of alternatives, all better than what is proposed here (especially since it sounds like MS wants to charge the FULL PRICE of the game for it to work with another system/profile...and as mentioned, that's the case even for single-player only games). I completely agree with you that the used game market is an issue, and developers should be getting more money (not GameStop). But you have to be careful with how you attempt to fix this. Angering your consumers could prove to be too much, especially when there are other ways of cutting into those used game profits. In a generation where online passes, game subscription services, digital downloads, micro-transactions, and F2P games are becoming more and more popular (and very effective business models), I think doing something this extreme just isn't necessary (also, note how other industries have handled this same problem). Might fix the problem, but might also introduce several others. Don't mean to answer for him, but: http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/meet-eric-peterson/ We need more info on this. It would make sense (given the XBL fees), although given how sneaky MS has been with wording, the "dedicated servers" could just be "dedicated authentication servers" (they'll definitely need some of those for every game). Not actual dedicated gaming servers. It would be tough for Sony to match that, unless they also started charging a fee for online play. They usually leave this up to the publisher, although I do believe most of the popular/good multiplayer games on PS3 had dedicated servers (Sony actually pushed this pretty hard early on with PS3). Switching gears a bit, I was really surprised by this: http://www.edge-online.com/news/ps4...crosoft-will-catch-up-says-avalanche-studios/ Sony really has stepped up with their dev tools (and/or maybe MS is really dropping the ball). Think I saw somewhere that a dev was commenting about how the PS tools integrated into Visual Studio better than XB1 tools. I swear it almost seems like these companies swapped places from 7-8 years ago...
Still leaves the microphones on. If the big brother aspects end up being true and they don't run me off altogether, at the least I would probably put the One and the Kinect on their own power strip that would get yanked when I'm done playing. Preferably also the Kinect would be facing a wall.
Doesn't work that way - there are recurring costs associated with running servers, and if the revenue from new sales has dried up, they can not afford to keep running them for free. I believe you are incorrect, they have always been, just not enforced. That 10 year old can always do this by taking his gamer tag with him. DD
Ashamed? Hardly. This is business, it is creative content. There is a simple choice, just don't buy the game if you don't like it. As for greed, yes, it is, shocking that businesses are in business to make money. Just like all other businesses. DD
Wing Commander 3, 4. Privateer 2, Starlancer PC & Dreamcast, Conquest Frontier Wars, Freelancer just to name some... And currently the number 1 crowd funded game of all time, Star Citizen. www.robertsspaceindustries.com Come check it out, we are blowing consoles out of the water anyway with our level of detail. Also, host a webcast on Youtube called Wingman's hangar. DD
Here is what I would do if I were in charge. I would charge any used game a $10 fee to play it. All this would do is take $10 off the enormous profit that Gamestop is making it would not change anything with the end user - as Gamestop would have to lower their used prices. Here is how it currently works. Within 2 days of a release, where games are $60 - Gamestop will have it up for $55 as some folks rushed through beat it and sold it back for $20. So consumers that would normally happily pay the $60 will now save $5 costing the publishers/developers revenue - and giving Gamestop enormous profits. This is not going to hurt consumers, it is only recapturing some of the used revenue that Gamestop gets...they will now have to lower their resale price by $10 or so to compensate and in the end it just redirects money to where it should be in the first place. DD
Being not able to resell the game reduces the value of the game itself. It would make sense if future standard price a xbox game is $50 instead of $60.
It's the only way I see myself buying a new game if I had an xbox one. That and all the personal information that they will gather and sell off for PROFIT!! I don't need to subsidize your buisness AND not be allowed to let people barrow MY games. I'm not you're w****.
This is not as abrupt as your normal response. Still, what about a plan where game developers offer a better price than gamestop does for used games, and then sell them back at lower prices.... say $30 for the used game instead of $20, and sell them back at lower prices as well, say $45 instead of $55. Seems like there has to be a better plan than how they are handling it. This whole "you must do as we say, to excess" method is pretty draconian and won't win them supporters, not to mention Sony watching in amazement readying their own battle plan.
