Nextbox rumors..

MannishBoy wrote:

I don't see how it would be that hard to block used games. Just put a code in every retail box that ties the game to a particular gamertag. You can play or install from the disc, but without a license for a GT, you can't play it.

Yeah, the Ars stuff is way too anti-consumer to fly. NextBox would go the way of DiVX. But the one time code I could get behind if it meant I could install the game and not need the disk in the drive. That'd be good for me but even better would be if it entitled me to downloads too.

I can't see them reducing their market by going download only, but if it's an augmentation rather than replacement it's actually a perq. Perhaps they could have a licensing agreement with rental companies to sell them more expensive code-free versions. I don't rent games and hardly ever sell them though, so I can see why people would want to keep things as they are now. Still, give me my disk-less game swapping!

I wouldnt be surprised if any of these companies shoot themselves in the foot next generation. Sony should've learned the most from their mis-steps this generation that they will probably be pretty consumer friendly however they go to market next time. Nintendo probably learned something from the 3DS, though it is doing much better now.

Of all three I think MS, for all it has done right (and overcome) this generation, is probably poised to over-estimate itself and blunder.

LiquidMantis wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I don't see how it would be that hard to block used games. Just put a code in every retail box that ties the game to a particular gamertag. You can play or install from the disc, but without a license for a GT, you can't play it.

Yeah, the Ars stuff is way too anti-consumer to fly. NextBox would go the way of DiVX. But the one time code I could get behind if it meant I could install the game and not need the disk in the drive. That'd be good for me but even better would be if it entitled me to downloads too.

I can't see them reducing their market by going download only, but if it's an augmentation rather than replacement it's actually a perq. Perhaps they could have a licensing agreement with rental companies to sell them more expensive code-free versions. I don't rent games and hardly ever sell them though, so I can see why people would want to keep things as they are now. Still, give me my disk-less game swapping!

I can imagine a "physical disk is $60, download-only is $50" strategy; at that point, you're not coming out and saying you're banning used games, you're just effectively killing that market bit by bit. There could even be a justification--less physical cost, less money lost along the retail chain.

Simply banning used games would be pretty suicidal.

Blind_Evil wrote:

That's the easy solution, but how fiery would the internet rage get over actually doing so? Are they willing to take the risk? I'd bet not yet. Sony flew a test balloon about this before the launch of the PS3 and people got pretty hot.

True, it would have initial rage. But if you think about it, that's basically how Steam works. Problem is people are used to physical control of their gaming where if you have the disc, you can play. However, that's been eroding with Project $10 from EA and other online passes.

They would probably do like it is now and also tie it to a console so that a family could play.

No way Gamestop would allow those kiosks in their store. Well maybe, but that would basically be them rolling over and accepting their fate unless they got a hefty kickback on it.

Too early for full download I think (although I expect they'll be pushing digital distribution more at some point in the next-generation), no idea about the Blu-Ray thing. I believe Steam has the ability to do something similar with encrypting the .exe files and Impulse had a similar scheme when it was owned by Stardock. So that's not totally unheard of but seems unlikely with a disc solution.

MannishBoy wrote:

I don't see how it would be that hard to block used games. Just put a code in every retail box that ties the game to a particular gamertag. You can play or install from the disc, but without a license for a GT, you can't play it.

That seems like probably the best solution although that's some pretty heavy handed DRM if you think about it. What do you do if you're playing offline?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I can imagine a "physical disk is $60, download-only is $50" strategy; at that point, you're not coming out and saying you're banning used games, you're just effectively killing that market bit by bit. There could even be a justification--less physical cost, less money lost along the retail chain.

Yeah, that's not going to happen either, unless Microsoft (or anyone else who wants to implement it) is prepared to lose all retailer support; and since probably 95% of their game sales still happen through retailers, I don't see it.

When you as a content provider also set yourself up as a retailer, you have to build in protections for all the 3rd-party retailers who have traditionally been hocking your goods. If you start selling those goods yourself at a cheaper price than they do, you make a lot of powerful enemies very quickly. Notice how Sony, NOA and Microsoft never discount full games that are sold on their own sites? Classic stuff like old PSN games are different, as those are typically otherwise removed from the marketplace, but you'll never see Microsoft selling an online download of CoD 17 for $45 when retailers are still carrying it for $60. It's simply not how the retail world works.

The whole killing used sales bit is being way overblown. It's either someone at Microsoft who wanted to test the waters for five years down the road, or just a couple of yahoos having a few giggles trolling the entire internet and enjoying the ensuing nerd rage. It's simply not going to happen. At least, not this time.

I think one problem with any anti-used policy is that it's full effects wouldn't be felt for a few years. It seems like the sort of thing that should have a nice positive for the industry, "everyone buys first-hand!" but they don't really think much of the knock-on of consumer's money rolling around. If anything I guess it's down to how much they can track it, without numbers from shops that do the used sales the approximation they can do is number of units sold and number of accounts that have played it (and that only accounts for online gamers again).

The other thing about anti-used and steam comparisons is that I very much doubt they'll implement everything needed to make it as successful as steam. I don't see the industry moving away from the 'big product in a box with a big price tag' model, and being more flexible and fast to react in it's pricing. I don't see them taking full advantage of everything they can do with DRM-box they sell and going all-out on DLC. They dip their toes in, but never take the plunge because they're too risk adverse.

They could do it, they could get rid of used sales and take the consumer along with them, maybe willingly, but I just doubt they will, so, we're stuck with the $60 game in a box model.

I bet next generation we'll see another layer of 'next gen' surcharging. Will today's 60 per box turn into tomorrow's 70? Why not. They did it successfully with the current gen. There is nothing to say that an early adopter user community won't accept the "Technology requires greater investment" value proposition.

shoptrol wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I don't see how it would be that hard to block used games. Just put a code in every retail box that ties the game to a particular gamertag. You can play or install from the disc, but without a license for a GT, you can't play it.

That seems like probably the best solution although that's some pretty heavy handed DRM if you think about it. What do you do if you're playing offline?

The gamertag tied DRM is a real drag in household with a family size > 1. It also makes it a little trickier when you have more than one machine (i.e. an upstairs / downstairs one). That was exacerbated a bit with early hardware issues this generation, but it will always remain an open possibility. DRM is what it is, but I wish the console companies could come up with a slightly more family friendly solution (that folks can't abuse, because I realize they will if they can).

shoptroll wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I don't see how it would be that hard to block used games. Just put a code in every retail box that ties the game to a particular gamertag. You can play or install from the disc, but without a license for a GT, you can't play it.

That seems like probably the best solution although that's some pretty heavy handed DRM if you think about it. What do you do if you're playing offline?

It would work like XBLA games do today. The console also has a license. If your offline, you can still play once it's gotten the DRM key for that particular console.

The reason I suggested this if they go that route is that all the stuff is already in the current Xbox with XBLA and Xbox Games on Demand.

Scratched wrote:

The other thing about anti-used and steam comparisons is that I very much doubt they'll implement everything needed to make it as successful as steam. I don't see the industry moving away from the 'big product in a box with a big price tag' model, and being more flexible and fast to react in it's pricing. I don't see them taking full advantage of everything they can do with DRM-box they sell and going all-out on DLC. They dip their toes in, but never take the plunge because they're too risk adverse.

They could do it, they could get rid of used sales and take the consumer along with them, maybe willingly, but I just doubt they will, so, we're stuck with the $60 game in a box model.

I kind of expect whatever goes on, it's a halfway solution where they sell new games day and date, and even allow other retailers to sell game downloads day and date (Amazon sends you a code), but there's still physical games as well.

Retailers could still discount codes, MS can run sales like they've been getting better at, etc. So the sales model isn't completely different, but if you've bought online or via code, you can't trade the game. Games will probably still tie features to online codes, etc, but it won't be completely binary this next gen.

The Next Next Gen is when it really happens.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I can imagine a "physical disk is $60, download-only is $50" strategy; at that point, you're not coming out and saying you're banning used games, you're just effectively killing that market bit by bit. There could even be a justification--less physical cost, less money lost along the retail chain.

Simply banning used games would be pretty suicidal.

There are a couple issues with that approach, namely the volatile nature of games retail and glacial movement of platform holders in the digital space. Usually a $60 game is reduced to $40 within two-three months of release, but it stays full price on XBL for 6-8 months. Used prices on Amazon will almost always beat the download price, making the only benefit to buying digitally convenience. Most people have more time than money, so seeking the deal is usually preferred.

That particular pricing structure also could be outmaneuvered by Gamestop. They make such a huge markup on used sales that they could take a $10-$15 hit and still make bank.

Scratched wrote:

I think one problem with any anti-used policy is that it's full effects wouldn't be felt for a few years. It seems like the sort of thing that should have a nice positive for the industry, "everyone buys first-hand!" but they don't really think much of the knock-on of consumer's money rolling around. If anything I guess it's down to how much they can track it, without numbers from shops that do the used sales the approximation they can do is number of units sold and number of accounts that have played it (and that only accounts for online gamers again).

I think it would be felt immediately. This phenomenon in the book world is also very applicable to the games world; perhaps even more so for video games than for books. A very significant percentage of week-one buyers are planning on reselling those games when they finish them, and are okay paying full-price because they know they can sell it for full price minus $5-$10 when they're done.

Irongut wrote:

I bet next generation we'll see another layer of 'next gen' surcharging. Will today's 60 per box turn into tomorrow's 70? Why not. They did it successfully with the current gen. There is nothing to say that an early adopter user community won't accept the "Technology requires greater investment" value proposition.

Well... we already saw it with the 3DS where the price is up about $5-10 due to the increased manufacturing costs for the carts.

MS also raised XBL Gold membership $10 a couple years ago.

I think it really comes down to how much the new consoles costs and how much they need to subsidize the hardware. If we actually end up with a sub-$100 graphics card from 2011 as the GPU in a 360 I expect they won't be doing a massive subsidy like they did with the 360.

MannishBoy wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I don't see how it would be that hard to block used games. Just put a code in every retail box that ties the game to a particular gamertag. You can play or install from the disc, but without a license for a GT, you can't play it.

That seems like probably the best solution although that's some pretty heavy handed DRM if you think about it. What do you do if you're playing offline?

It would work like XBLA games do today. The console also has a license. If your offline, you can still play once it's gotten the DRM key for that particular console.

The reason I suggested this if they go that route is that all the stuff is already in the current Xbox with XBLA and Xbox Games on Demand.

This comes back to requiring people to have an online xBox. And we know that their is a significant percentage of 360s that never go online. Would that wan't to cut that part of the market out?

EvilDead wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I don't see how it would be that hard to block used games. Just put a code in every retail box that ties the game to a particular gamertag. You can play or install from the disc, but without a license for a GT, you can't play it.

That seems like probably the best solution although that's some pretty heavy handed DRM if you think about it. What do you do if you're playing offline?

It would work like XBLA games do today. The console also has a license. If your offline, you can still play once it's gotten the DRM key for that particular console.

The reason I suggested this if they go that route is that all the stuff is already in the current Xbox with XBLA and Xbox Games on Demand.

This comes back to requiring people to have an online xBox. And we know that their is a significant percentage of 360s that never go online. Would that wan't to cut that part of the market out?

At some point, just like Steam, they're going to require online at least once to get the license.

After all, MS's original goal with the Xbox was to get their services into people's living room. And those services all require internet connectivity.

Minarchist wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I think one problem with any anti-used policy is that it's full effects wouldn't be felt for a few years. It seems like the sort of thing that should have a nice positive for the industry, "everyone buys first-hand!" but they don't really think much of the knock-on of consumer's money rolling around. If anything I guess it's down to how much they can track it, without numbers from shops that do the used sales the approximation they can do is number of units sold and number of accounts that have played it (and that only accounts for online gamers again).

I think it would be felt immediately. This phenomenon in the book world is also very applicable to the games world; perhaps even more so for video games than for books. A very significant percentage of week-one buyers are planning on reselling those games when they finish them, and are okay paying full-price because they know they can sell it for full price minus $5-$10 when they're done.

I see what you're saying, but I guess it depends where in 'the pipeline' the companies involved are measuring results. Consoles and game releases don't happen instantly, install bases take time to build, and games take a while to get played and be traded in for the next round. I think there will always be winners and losers with a changes like this, and anti-used (and online passes, etc) is designed to filter the money to the publishers/platform holder rather than the middle-men.

The problem of less money in total being spent on anti-used-gen might take a few years to be apparent, and by that point those companies might be well invested in that system. The only solution I can see to that is if they're smart about other factors than DRM, and provide alternatives to keep that money in the system that used games used to serve, such as a lower price point alternatives.

The danger is if they're not smart, a lot of people lose the shirt off their back.

There's no way Microsoft would weather the hate if they built in some form of system to block the use of used games.

That said, this new system will no doubt have a strong emphasis on downloadable titles - possibly releasing the same date as disc based games. I'm guessing Microsoft sees this as the system that will transition consumers away from physical discs and over to digital downloads over it's lifetime.

This will effectively kill the used game market, which is where this rumor is probably coming from.

MannishBoy wrote:

At some point, just like Steam, they're going to require online at least once to get the license.

After all, MS's original goal with the Xbox was to get their services into people's living room. And those services all require internet connectivity.

"At some point", yes, but not now. The comparison to Steam isn't like-to-like, as you're comparing something that is specifically a digital download service to something that's both physical and has a long history (>30 years) of not requiring internet activity.

Scratched wrote:

I see what you're saying, but I guess it depends where in 'the pipeline' the companies involved are measuring results. Consoles and game releases don't happen instantly, install bases take time to build, and games take a while to get played and be traded in for the next round. I think there will always be winners and losers with a changes like this, and anti-used (and online passes, etc) is designed to filter the money to the publishers/platform holder rather than the middle-men.

No, it would still be at the front end of the pipeline. What I'm saying is that, if such a policy were enacted, we would see a precipitous drop of week-one sales of games, the only number that many publishers care about. People would say "well, I can't resell it, so I'll just wait for it to go on a big sale." Then your launch numbers drop, buzz isn't built, and people are unhappy. It would have an immediate consequence to game sales (to say nothing of the NERDRAGE! boycotts that would ensue).

Minarchist wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

At some point, just like Steam, they're going to require online at least once to get the license.

After all, MS's original goal with the Xbox was to get their services into people's living room. And those services all require internet connectivity.

"At some point", yes, but not now. The comparison to Steam isn't like-to-like, as you're comparing something that is specifically a digital download service to something that's both physical and has a long history (>30 years) of not requiring internet activity.

They also had a long history of having no connectivity at all, then very limited connectivity. Now they are arguably half functional without connectivity.

As I said, I think next gen is more of a half way solution. The Next Next Gen is where it's fully online.

There will certainly come a day when all devices (especially media-focused devices) will be required to be online.

In the meantime, I doubt this sytem will require it, and discs aren't going away anytime soon. But this next generation will almost certainly see the shift from physical to digital.

This new system will still have discs that work completely offline, but that system is in no way a definite for the system after that. This 'nextbox' will be the transition device to a fully online Steam-like system.

PaladinTom wrote:

This new system will still have discs that work completely offline, but that system is in no way a definite for the system after that. This 'nextbox' will be the transition device to a fully online Steam-like system.

Hmmm, how about a meet-in-the-middle solution?

What if instead of online or bust, all or nothing, they just provide heavy incentives to go online, and the base offline disc version is the absolute bare-bones game. Essentially next-gen online pass.

Scratched wrote:
PaladinTom wrote:

This new system will still have discs that work completely offline, but that system is in no way a definite for the system after that. This 'nextbox' will be the transition device to a fully online Steam-like system.

Hmmm, how about a meet-in-the-middle solution?

What if instead of online or bust, all or nothing, they just provide heavy incentives to go online, and the base offline disc version is the absolute bare-bones game. Essentially next-gen online pass.

Seems very possible, as does "Buy new, enter code and get some free DLC". A carrot instead of a stick.

Now that seems totally plausible.

PaladinTom wrote:

There's no way Microsoft would weather the hate if they built in some form of system to block the use of used games.

Regardless of the technical means to pull such a scheme off, this is basically my opinion. If Microsoft implemented a system like this to block used sales (and let's not forget rentals which is how I get about half my console games these days), all Sony has to do to win the next generation is not implement their own similar system. That's it, generation won. Regardless of how the PS4 will be technically inferior or superior to the next Xbox, if Sony says "You can resell, rent or lend games on our system but you can't on Microsoft's", I'm willing to bet most of the Xbox fan base suddenly buys PS4s instead.

Scratched wrote:
PaladinTom wrote:

This new system will still have discs that work completely offline, but that system is in no way a definite for the system after that. This 'nextbox' will be the transition device to a fully online Steam-like system.

Hmmm, how about a meet-in-the-middle solution?

What if instead of online or bust, all or nothing, they just provide heavy incentives to go online, and the base offline disc version is the absolute bare-bones game. Essentially next-gen online pass.

It depends how you define the bolded, which would be on a game-by-game basis. If it's too bare-bones you'll get too many people returning the game, complaining of it being incomplete. I'm struggling to think of good ways to toe that line right now, using existing franchises.

Blind_Evil wrote:

It depends how you define the bolded, which would be on a game-by-game basis. If it's too bare-bones you'll get too many people returning the game, complaining of it being incomplete. I'm struggling to think of good ways to toe that line right now, using existing franchises.

Probably something like you have to buy DLC in order to get the ending. I mean, Fallout 3 already did that...

IMAGE(http://forosdz.com/imgcache/61803.imgcache.jpg)

Super weird that Bethesda figured out the perfect way to do that in Fallout 3, but nobody nudged anyone at id to remind them to sell Rage's ending for $10 online.

Whatever happens on whatever generation, this is going to be co-operative between the console companies and the publishers. If publishers get this at MS, they'll demand similar at Sony because they see it as protecting THEIR revenues. MS just gets a percentage cut, most of the money goes to the publisher.

MannishBoy wrote:

Whatever happens on whatever generation, this is going to be co-operative between the console companies and the publishers. If publishers get this at MS, they'll demand similar at Sony because they see it as protecting THEIR revenues. MS just gets a percentage cut, most of the money goes to the publisher.

Of course it is, it's about changing the direction of where money goes. Just like piracy the see used as "lost income" and often equate the two, or even say used is worse. This appears to be about exercising power (through DRM) to funnel the money to them, seemingly without taking into account all the potential side effects.

I personally think used game sales is the younger sibling to gaming piracy. Blocking the sale of used games would be basically a giant nuclear option and I find it really hard to believe that with so many games now using the DLC model to generate additional revenue post-sale that they want to just end used sales all together.

If they wanted to deal with used sales they should figure out ways to get the cost of the game down. I know Riccitello (or some other EA mouthpiece) has talked at length about carving games up to be sold in smaller slices. I'm not saying F2P or episodic is the one true path out of the perceived mess, but making it so that the price difference between old and new copies is smaller seems like a better way to combat used sales, no matter how true or outlandish these rumors are.

Just like piracy, people aren't buying new because the alternative is a better option / value proposition. They need to sweeten the reason to buy new and I'm not just talking about making it so that you have to spend $15 to play online or get some piece of DLC. People aren't doing anything wrong by buying used, but the industry needs to build a better case for buying new. Be it offering things like OSTs/Artbooks like Atlus in the standard edition, or even a voucher for all the DLC if you buy new and support the developer/publisher.

Oh, and stop churning out yearly iterations of games that don't really move the franchise forward significantly. I'd be surprised if there's not a significant number of people scooping up older editions of Madden, CoD, Assassin's Creed every time a new version comes out. I know i'm just shaking my fist at the sky but I'm sure the success of some franchise's is their own worst enemy.