Support NeoGAF

[FlashFlooder]

I see this stated quite often with no evidence to back up this statement. How are they kinder to gamers? I'm always baffled by the notion that a corporate entity is in any way kind.

For one, their current DRM policy is quite generous (game-sharing and the likes).
The PS plus package (even when it becomes required for online play) is unarguably more generous than MS' offering.

 

[nib95]

I would have to think that part of the reason publishers agreed to it was the control of used game sales.

Sharing a game to 10 different people is the equivalent to that if not worse. At least with used games the vast majority of the time (based on studies) the credit gained from trade ins are used towards purchasing new games (which in turn benefit publishers and developers). Game Sharing to 10 people the way some folks thought it would work would be considerably worse to publishers.

That said, everything points to the game sharing thing being little more than a demo'ing scheme, hell even Microsoft hinted at this. I should also add that in Microsoft's original statement on their site, it stated that Game Sharing would not be available at launch and that they were still in talks with publishers regarding the policy. So it wasn't even something set in stone. Just a trojan horse dressed as a pipe dream.

 

[test_account]

But again you also leave off the list Charging for multiplayer. Remember for years it was a rallying point as to why buy the ps3 over the xbox 360 ...

Its interesting how quickly gaf and the internet in general has swallowed that load from Sony. Now its never brought up , instead its about apps behind a pay wall.

It was brought up several of times to begin with. But just like with Xbox Live, the multiplayer part is hardly brought up now either, at least after my experience. Many people also already have PS+ and have plans on subscribing to PS+, so the multiplayer being behind PS+ now have no affect on those people. They wont pay anything extra for multiplayer outside of what they planned to pay for PS+ anyway. If PS+ didnt excist and Sony chose a Xbox Live solution for PS4 (putting basically everything behind a paywall), i think you would see much more talk about it.

 

[Wizman23]

Wow. That's like PR stuff there. Good work.

Of course it is. It's Nib aka Wollan 2.0

 

[jond76]

I just can't wait until these things are out so the pissing match can subside a bit (because lets be honest, it won't ever end)

Once people have games to focus on it'll be a lot more tolerable in here.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I always find the PS+ comparison funny. Right now, it's a completely different type of service. Basically a way "in" to get people to start paying for it for the PS4. Now they throw MP behind a paywall and (I'll eat my crow if not) the free games are going to be less and less available or at least nothing like what we've seen. I don't see how they could support that.

Well, look at it this way:

PS Plus was a service where the money paid into it by subscribers was used to pay publishers and independent developers for providing content to the service. The fact that they managed to get so much stuff on the service is all the proof we need that it was a good deal for Sony and publishers both. Now what do you think will happen when they put online behind the paywall?

They will get a lot more subscribers than before, and because of the epic failure that is the XBO they will not only be able to get the PS3 owners that weren't quite convinced of the value of the service before, but lots of former Xbox fans as well, and we all know that they are willing to put up with online fees. So, Sony will get more subscribers and consequently more money to give to publishers for content for PS Plus. Do you think this would lead to a situation where they would be able to put more content on the service or less content? Also, how do you think the fact that, contrary to the PS3, all games on the PS4 will be available digitally will affect their ability to offer digital content with PS Plus? Obviously, there is no back catalogue on the PS4 yet, so it will take some time for it to get going, but two years from now, I would be very surprised if the service is not at least as good as it is now on PS3.

It still sucks that we need to pay to play online though :/

Not a chance. The reality of EVERYBODY sharing their games 10x over is extremely slim. the reality of the billion dollar used games market being completely obliterated probably was a lot more business friendly than the 'possibility' of 1 person sharing it 10x over.

The billion dollar used games market spreads awareness of game franchises to potential customers, puts more money into the hands of the people that buy games day one, and makes gamers more willing to take risks on unknown entities. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that ten-person game sharing would impact the sales of new games much more than the used games market.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Sharing a game to 10 different people is the equivalent to that if not worse. At least with used games the vast majority of the time (based on studies) the credit gained from trade ins are used towards purchasing new games (which in turn benefit publishers and developers). Game Sharing to 10 people the way some folks thought it would work would be considerably worse to publishers.
.

Not a chance. The reality of EVERYBODY sharing their games 10x over is extremely slim. the reality of the billion dollar used games market being completely obliterated probably was a lot more business friendly than the 'possibility' of 1 person sharing it 10x over.

Well, look at it this way:

PS Plus was a service where the money paid into it by subscribers was used to pay publishers and independent developers for providing content to the service. The fact that they managed to get so much stuff on the service is all the proof we need that it was a good deal for Sony and publishers both. Now what do you think will happen when they put online behind the paywall?

They will get a lot more subscribers than before, and because of the epic failure that is the XBO they will not only be able to get the PS3 owners that weren't quite convinced of the value of the service before, but lots of former Xbox fans as well, and we all know that they are willing to put up with online fees. So, Sony will get more subscribers and consequently more money to give to publishers for content for PS Plus. Do you think this would lead to a situation where they would be able to put more content on the service or less content? Also, how do you think the fact that, contrary to the PS3, all games on the PS4 will be available digitally will affect their ability to offer digital content with PS Plus? Obviously, there is no back catalogue on the PS4 yet, so it will take some time for it to get going, but two years from now, I would be very surprised if the service is not at least as good as it is now on PS3.

It still sucks that we need to pay to play online though :/

That's a good point. But how much of that was really being funneled back into the developer's hands? I understand the optimism, PS+ is an amazing thing for people at this point in time. I just don't see how it's going to continue with the titles and activity it has into the PS4 future with more things focused on online, and developer costs rising and the fact that nothing was really done to "curtail that evil used games market".

I'm just being pessimistic, Sony has done me no favors and neither has MS. I do agree with most about the Sony "vision" but as the PS3 early cycle showed me this can change. Live was an INCREDIBLE value on Xbox and for the first few years of 360. The most unified online, party chat, cross-game invites, achievements, EVERY Live game had a demo ... I mean, you can't argue at the beginning it was great, now we see that everybody is charging.

I really think it's idiotic that MS puts so much behind the paywall though, Sony is 100x better in that regard. But where either is truly going we'll have to wait for a couple years to see.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I just can't wait until these things are out so the pissing match can subside a bit (because lets be honest, it won't ever end)

Once people have games to focus on it'll be a lot more tolerable in here.

Can't wait to discuss Ryse. If it's awesome, NeoGAF won't know what to do. If it's terrible/mediocre, the gifs should be golden.

 

[Joni]

Not a chance. The reality of EVERYBODY sharing their games 10x over is extremely slim. the reality of the billion dollar used games market being completely obliterated probably was a lot more business friendly than the 'possibility' of 1 person sharing it 10x over.

The amount of people gamesharing (using one account to buy content spread over 5 people on the PS3) was large enough for Sony to change the policy because of devs complaining. Q Games spoke loudly against it for instance.

 

[ElTorro]

I see this stated quite often with no evidence to back up this statement. How are they kinder to gamers? I'm always baffled by the notion that a corporate entity is in any way kind.

Sony's product strategy with the PS4 is just much more appealing to most who want a gaming console to be geared towards playing games, technology- and messaging-wise. That is not some form of "kindness" but it definitely makes Sony more sympathetic and increases the trust in that their business decision will be compatible with what we want. One is not naive to appreciate that and still recognize that Sony wants to make money.

While I agree with most people here that the Xbone is inferior to the PS4 as a gaming console in any way that matters to me, that in itself would not prevent me from getting both (which I still will). My main beef with Microsoft is not the actual console but that they made up so much PR bullshit that it borders on lying. Of course they wanted to have a system-wide DRM mechanism to prevent used games without killing retail. Of course all that talk about "the future" was meaningless wordplay. Of course they wanted every console to be connected to the internet to sell XBLG and rub their online store ads in everyones face. Of course they ridiculously exaggerated and misrepresented the "infinite power of the cloud" to make up for Sonys significant performance advantage.

 

[flyinpiranha]

The amount of people gamesharing (using one account to buy content spread over 5 people on the PS3) was large enough for Sony to change the policy because of devs complaining. Q Games spoke loudly against it for instance.

Totally, but I think it was going to be an accepted 'risk' in the wake of having the used market essentially either controlled or completely eradicated.

 

[Metfanant]

Sony's product strategy with the PS4 is just much more appealing to most who want a gaming console to be geared towards playing games, technology- and messaging-wise. That is not some form of "kindness" but it definitely makes Sony more sympathetic and increases the trust in that their business decision will be compatible with what we want. One is not naive to appreciate that and still recognize that Sony wants to make money.

While I agree with most people here that the Xbone is inferior to the PS4 as a gaming console in any way that matters to me, that in itself would not prevent me from getting both (which I still will). My main beef with Microsoft is not the actual console but that they made up so much PR bullshit that it borders on lying. Of course they wanted to have a system-wide DRM mechanism to prevent used games without killing retail. Of course all that talk about "the future" was meaningless wordplay. Of course they wanted every console to be connected to the internet to sell XBLG and rub their online store ads in everyones face. Of course they ridiculously exaggerated and misrepresented the "infinite power of the cloud" to make up for Sonys significant performance advantage.

Holy shit....get out of my head!

 

[Quadraphonic]

But i agree that Sony seems more consumer friendly than MS lately...

AND developer friendly, despite what some people claim. Sony is very open and forgiving when discussing issues about things. MS? For some XBL connection issues I have to specifically EMAIL them the error code to get what it means. It's intentionally not in ANY documents on partner net.

 

[PanicFreak]

Well, look at it this way:

PS Plus was a service where the money paid into it by subscribers was used to pay publishers and independent developers for providing content to the service. The fact that they managed to get so much stuff on the service is all the proof we need that it was a good deal for Sony and publishers both. Now what do you think will happen when they put online behind the paywall?

They will get a lot more subscribers than before, and because of the epic failure that is the XBO they will not only be able to get the PS3 owners that weren't quite convinced of the value of the service before, but lots of former Xbox fans as well, and we all know that they are willing to put up with online fees. So, Sony will get more subscribers and consequently more money to give to publishers for content for PS Plus. Do you think this would lead to a situation where they would be able to put more content on the service or less content? Also, how do you think the fact that, contrary to the PS3, all games on the PS4 will be available digitally will affect their ability to offer digital content with PS Plus? Obviously, there is no back catalogue on the PS4 yet, so it will take some time for it to get going, but two years from now, I would be very surprised if the service is not at least as good as it is now on PS3.

It still sucks that we need to pay to play online though :/



The billion dollar used games market spreads awareness of game franchises to potential customers, puts more money into the hands of the people that buy games day one, and makes gamers more willing to take risks on unknown entities. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that ten-person game sharing would impact the sales of new games much more than the used games market.

At times like this you have to ask yourself, if PS+ was so profitable for the publishers, independent developers and for Sony, why would they make the change?

Sony is moving to a platform tax model. There will still be free games but it won't be like it was.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

That's a good point. But how much of that was really being funneled back into the developer's hands? I understand the optimism, PS+ is an amazing thing for people at this point in time. I just don't see how it's going to continue with the titles and activity it has into the PS4 future with more things focused on online, and developer costs rising and the fact that nothing was really done to "curtail that evil used games market".

An extra revenue stream to publishers from Sony for Plus will definitely be welcome in times of rising costs, as will getting a game into players' consciousness at a strategic time just before the release of the sequel.

 

[Quadraphonic]

At times like this you have to ask yourself, if PS+ was so profitable for the publishers, independent developers and for Sony, why would they make the change?

Sony is moving to a platform tax model. There will still be free games but it won't be like it was.

Yeah. It's better now. Auto-updates are no longer behind the PS+ wall.

 

[dragonbane]

Because you could buy the disc install it as a digital title and then give the disc to your friend who doesn't have online checks and he could play from discs.

Then they should have went with the same method that Sony has patented. Use actual chips on the disc that the console can write on. This way the user could put the game into his digital library and then the console would just deactivate the disc. His friend couldn't play the game with the same disc, because the console would detect that the disc is already linked to another account (would also work offline). If the user wants to sell the game, he deletes it from the library and the console activates the disc again.

Of course hacking might be a concern, but it always is. It's not like there is no way for MS to still do this if they really wanted.

Can't wait to discuss Ryse. If it's awesome, NeoGAF won't know what to do. If it's terrible/mediocre, the gifs should be golden.

Sad that it is that way, after Crysis 3 I lost all faith

 

[PanicFreak]

Yeah. It's better now. Auto-updates are no longer behind the PS+ wall.

That's nice, I'm referring to the PS4 v. PS3 and the free games you can expect to rent with a PS+ membership.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Plenty of people said they had deals with publishers though. The perceived value of the game sharing feature comes down to which insiders you chose to believe. We'll probably never know for sure unless MS brings it back, so I find it pointless to speculate.

The ability to have a digital license for a physical disc was known for sure though and losing that one does sting a bit.

Mind linking to some of the bolded claims?

I have been pretty on point about the Family-sharing stuff as that was a HUGE selling point of the X1 to a lot of people

I've stated before and I'll state it again

3rd party confirmation on the family-sharing holds a lot more weight than anything MS says on the subject

If Ubisoft or EA even said they were all for the family-sharing plan that might convince me it ever actually existed

Now they'll never admit it but has any insider actually claimed they were willing to accept it?

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Can't search user posts on mobile, did cboat reveal today's juice yet?

 

[dragonbane]

At times like this you have to ask yourself, if PS+ was so profitable for the publishers, independent developers and for Sony, why would they make the change?

Sony is moving to a platform tax model. There will still be free games but it won't be like it was.

I don't see why it wouldn't be that way. Sony is still going to try to offer as much value as possible to convince people to make the jump. Of course it will take 1-2 years before it is going to be that way, they can't offer $60 games right at launch.

 

[nib95]

Yeah. It's better now. Auto-updates are no longer behind the PS+ wall.

Glad you popped by. This is always poignant.

XBONE Detective

 

[Chitown B]

Yeah. It's better now. Auto-updates are no longer behind the PS+ wall.

when did that happen?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

At times like this you have to ask yourself, if PS+ was so profitable for the publishers, independent developers and for Sony, why would they make the change?

Well, it may be profitable in that they had a nice profit margin per subscriber for everyone involved. But they still weren't able to convince every gamer to buy into it. Not me, for example. So what do you do if you have a service that has a good profit margin per subscriber, but not a lot of subscribers?

Why, you would try get more subscribers. And regardless of how shitty putting the online behind the paywall is, I will grudgingly pay up if it would be the only way for me to play Demon's Souls 2 online. At least the free stuff will make me feel less bad about it. So, as you can see, it seems to be working for getting more people into their game distribution model; at least, it seems to be working on me.

 

[Myshkin]

That's why in my earlier post I added the phrase "oft gullible consumers". I was referring specifically to the people who bought in to what was basically a false pipe dream, the 10 person game sharing. In reality it was little more than a 1 hour demo'ing scheme. It's sad that a lie is essentially the main proponent of the argument in favour of Microsoft's launch reveal anti consumer policies.

The amusing thing about it is that there is literally no reason why Microsoft couldn't still offer all of those previous policies for their digital store and library. Obviously the less naive realise that is never going to happen. Publishers squeezed Sony to reduce game sharing from 5 to 2, and somehow Microsoft is going to get away with 10 lol.

I find it interesting that there are developers who know exactly what the X1 family plan was but of course can't talk about it. But once CBOAT leaks it they can say "see, we can assume it was this." Very useful that CBOAT.

It was brought up several of times to begin with. But just like with Xbox Live, the multiplayer part is hardly brought up now either, at least after my experience. Many people also already have PS+ and have plans on subscribing to PS+, so the multiplayer being behind PS+ now have no affect on those people. They wont pay anything extra for multiplayer outside of what they planned to pay for PS+ anyway. If PS+ didnt excist and Sony chose a Xbox Live solution for PS4 (putting basically everything behind a paywall), i think you would see much more talk about it.

I think there is some concern out there. My concern is that after the multiplayer masses get locked into Plus, the extra value being offered with it could dissipate.

when did that happen?

At the reveal iirc.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I find it interesting that there are developers who know exactly what the X1 family plan was but of course can't talk about it. But once CBOAT leaks it they can say "see, we can assume it was this." Very useful that CBOAT.



I think there is some concern out there. My concern is that after the multiplayer masses get locked into Plus, the extra value being offered with it could dissipate.

Developers are confirming the 1 hr time limit?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I find it interesting that there are developers who know exactly what the X1 family plan was but of course can't talk about it. But once CBOAT leaks it they can say "see, we can assume it was this." Very useful that CBOAT.

I haven't seen this. And exactly what are you implying about CBOAT?

 

[AndyD]

That's a real issue, then. At least with the MS version of game-sharing, only 1 person could probably play it at a time. In that sense it functions like a physical copy. I bet it would still be a tough sell to publishers, though.

That would require a constant internet connection though. Supposedly, the point of the 1 hour check-in on non-home console was to limit "guest" play to 1 hour. While the home console had a 24 hour limit so that if you traded-in/sold a disk it would be deactivated from your system at the next check-in.

But it's all speculation because that system won't be in place as far as we know, and the details were never officially confirmed, only speculated, leaked, denied and disappeared.

 

[Embearded]

That's why in my earlier post I added the phrase "oft gullible consumers". I was referring specifically to the people who bought in to what was basically a false pipe dream, the 10 person game sharing. In reality it was little more than a 1 hour demo'ing scheme. It's sad that a lie is essentially the main proponent of the argument in favour of Microsoft's launch reveal anti consumer policies.

The amusing thing about it is that there is literally no reason why Microsoft couldn't still offer all of those previous policies for their digital store and library. Obviously the less naive realise that is never going to happen. Publishers squeezed Sony to reduce game sharing from 5 to 2, and somehow Microsoft is going to get away with 10 lol.

I really dont know what was truth and what wasn't. I can only guess now.
But i used to think of this "sharing library" as something similar to Gran Turism 5 car sharing.
In Gran Turismo you can share your cars but you cant drive them when they are online available to your friends.
The more i think of it, the more complicated it gets and many questions pop up!

 

[lupin23rd]

MS did drop the OG Xbox abruptly, but there were well documented reasons and there's no indication the same thing is happening with the 360. There aren't as many non-digital first party releases in the pipeline as Sony has for the PS3, but all indications are MS will continue to support and market the 360.

I think they did a terrible job of "supporting" the 360 this year and expect that trend to continue with new hardware coming, but with all these rumors of yield or production issues they probably don't have a choice to continue marketing it as much as they can.

 

[Chitown B]

it's not complicated. your friend checks out your game. they can play it until you check it back in (or, as was the rumor, you can always play it but only one other person can at one time). You all have the internet. The end.

Same as borrowing a disc, without the disc having to be carried to their house.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I think there is some concern out there. My concern is that after the multiplayer masses get locked into Plus, the extra value being offered with it could dissipate.

I doubt it will.

Games have a pretty short window to sell before drying up.

So developers aren't losing much by putting games that are pretty much done selling up on PS+ where they may get gamers who never tried them into the series/developer and buying sequels or future games from that developer in the future.

 

[PanicFreak]

I don't see why it wouldn't be that way. Sony is still going to try to offer as much value as possible to convince people to make the jump. Of course it will take 1-2 years before it is going to be that way, they can't offer $60 games right at launch.

They clearly want their margins to go up. That's why they moved to off the shelf parts for the PS4. Do you agree?

Taking that a step further, they are able to tax you to use their MP services and will therefore make more revenue per PS4 owner and reduce the content costs associated with the PS+ service. Those two go hand in hand toward increasing their margins.

Well, it may be profitable in that they had a nice profit margin per subscriber for everyone involved. But they still weren't able to convince every gamer to buy into it. Not me, for example. So what do you do if you have a service that has a good profit margin per subscriber, but not a lot of subscribers?

Why, you would try get more subscribers. And regardless of how shitty putting the online behind the paywall is, I will grudgingly pay up if it would be the only way for me to play Demon's Souls 2 online. At least the free stuff will make me feel less bad about it. So, as you can see, it seems to be working for getting more people into their game distribution model; at least, it seems to be working on me.

I have a better method for you: a platform tax. You charge people to use standard features of your box and cut costs where you can. Content = costs.

I'm not saying that they will eliminate the free games. I'm saying they will be older and of lesser quality on average for the PS4 than with the PS3.

I don't see a netflix type subscription being a great way to distribute video games.

 

[Quadraphonic]

Developers are confirming the 1 hr time limit?

No, because MS hadn't gotten past the stage of approving this with publishers. They pulled this feature out of their butt and once it caught on as the single bulletpoint in the sea of shit, they realized once people found out the truth, they'd be under even more fire.

 

[jond76]

No, because MS hadn't gotten past the stage of approving this with publishers. They pulled this feature out of their butt and once it caught on as the single bulletpoint in the sea of shit, they realized once people found out the truth, they'd be under even more fire.

Sounds like you got it all figured out...

 

[Chitown B]

People are kinder to Sony because Sony have shown time and time again they are kinder to gamers, where as Microsoft has a habit of doing the complete opposite (que anti consumer and value proposition policies, nickel and diming galore, using as much proprietary stuff as possible along with the pitfalls that come with it, cutting off support for their consoles abruptly late in the cycle etc). Only the most ardent actually disagree on this front. It's never been clearer to see than recently, with Microsoft back peddling en masse just to try and get closer to where Sony already was.

yeah...... all of their one consoles they've retired in the past. That's a pretty ridiculous bullet point.

Both are businesses. Take a look at Sony in the 80s... and even 90s. They're no saints. Even now Sony has memory cards which are the ONLY thing you can save things to on their portable systems and they are double what a comparable SD card costs. Bluray is proprietary (at least license-wise). UMD. Mini Discs, etc.

The only things MS has that are proprietary is the audio chat frequency, wifi connector (if you don't have the Slim, or a bridge), and play and charge kits. They even got rid of memory cards and let you use any USB drive.

They're not that different.

Sounds like you got it all figured out...

Q knows everything and you know nothing, don't you know?

 

[AndyD]

I don't see a netflix type subscription being a great way to distribute video games.

I think it could work wonders with their Gaikai idea in areas where the service quality would be good. This was done by OnLive, where a subscription gave you unlimited access to an instant library of titles, and they rotated in and out over time, but it was always large in total. Very similar to Netflix.

 

[scaryrobots]

No, because MS hadn't gotten past the stage of approving this with publishers. They pulled this feature out of their butt and once it caught on as the single bulletpoint in the sea of shit, they realized once people found out the truth, they'd be under even more fire.

I don't believe the one hour bs at all. There is literally no reason to have family sharing for something that is only one hour. It's just a demo at that point and demos already exist.

 

[Myshkin]

Developers are confirming the 1 hr time limit?

I haven't seen this. And exactly what are you implying about CBOAT?

I'm not implying anything about CBOAT. Not any kind of coordination or whatever you're thinking.

Not all devs are like Jon Blow, willing to cut all ties and go on the warpath. Follow the bread crumbs.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Why exactly has this thread has turned into a bunch of people questioning Cboat's credibility and rehashing old rumors we continue to know nothing about?

 

[chubigans]

Why exactly has this thread has turned into a bunch of people questioning Cboat's credibility?

You think people would have learned by now.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I'm not implying anything about CBOAT. Not any kind of coordination or whatever you're thinking.

Not all devs are like Jon Blow, willing to cut all ties and go on the warpath. Follow the bread crumbs.

You wrote that developers said, "see, we can assume it was this." Which developers said this? Just wondering if I missed this somewhere.

 

[PanicFreak]

I think it could work wonders with their Gaikai idea in areas where the service quality would be good. This was done by OnLive, where a subscription gave you unlimited access to an instant library of titles, and they rotated in and out over time, but it was always large in total. Very similar to Netflix.

I was about to put the "rotating titles" qualifier in my statement but I couldn't think of how to say it that didn't require a ton of explanation. You did it in two words!

I don't think it would work with permanent libraries.

I'm interested to see what comes of Gaikai.

 

[AndyD]

I don't believe the one hour bs at all. There is literally no reason to have family sharing for something that is only one hour. It's just a demo at that point and demos already exist.

The reason is the same that Sony has 1 hour trials. No need for demos and the impulse buy as the game is already downloaded. And achievements/trophies that you have earned (through playing) but not unlocked (through buying the game).

 

[Pennywise]

Why exactly has this thread has turned into a bunch of people questioning Cboat's credibility and rehashing old rumors we continue to know nothing about?

Butthurt fans, shills, trolls and alot of people who probably don't know him.

Well, it's okay to be sceptical, but if there is one insider who's proven himself for such a long time it's Cboat.

 

[tfur]

Why exactly has this thread has turned into a bunch of people questioning Cboat's credibility and rehashing old rumors we continue to know nothing about?

Its turned into delirium tremors about vapor ware plans, while drowning in bidet tears.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Its turned into delirium tremors about vapor ware plans, while drowning in bidet tears.

New thread title?

 

[scaryrobots]

The reason is the same that Sony has 1 hour trials. No need for demos and the impulse buy as the game is already downloaded. And achievements/trophies that you have earned (through playing) but not unlocked (through buying the game).

The difference is you were able to share this stuff with your friends and family. If it was like Sony's one hour trials, there would be no reason to share them. This is one time I actually do believe MS when they say, it would be full games. It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

 

[ymmv]

yeah...... all of their one consoles they've retired in the past. That's a pretty ridiculous bullet point.

Both are businesses. Take a look at Sony in the 80s... and even 90s. They're no saints. Even now Sony has memory cards which are the ONLY thing you can save things to on their portable systems and they are double what a comparable SD card costs. Bluray is proprietary (at least license-wise). UMD. Mini Discs, etc.

Blu-Ray is not proprietary tech at all since it's freely licensable and developed by a large consortium of various tech companies. It was started by nine companies ( Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung). There were dozens of contributors to the final Blu-Ray standard including Microsoft. Although MS supported HD-DVD to combat the PS3 which was strongly associated with the Blu-Ray medium, they also contributed to the Blu-Ray standard. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is part of the official Blu-Ray standard.

 

[Chitown B]

ok, that's a lot of blu-ray retort. It's still licensed. What about the meat of what I wrote, the rest of it?