Support NeoGAF

[CosmicQueso]

The rumor mill on used games boils down to this:.

Post #666?

Dramaticcuteanimal.gif

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Is it normal that commenting on Youtube videos in the official Xbox channel is disabled? I have read about this in the comments to MajorNelson's Blog.

http://www.youtube.com/user/xbox/videos

 

[androvsky]

The rumor mill on used games boils down to this:

Microsoft is requiring gamers to copy the files on the DVD to their Xbox One hard drives, so that access to games is instant. This is pretty routine for PC games, makes a lot of sense if they want the system to be truly "instant". However, it creates a problem if more than one game is installed, because, obviously, the user can't have the DVD in the disc drive. That creates the potential for the same game to be installed on more than one machine. The gaming press speculated initially (see MCV article over a month ago) that this meant sales of used games would be blocked altogether (rumor #1), and that was initially reinforced by Phil Harrison's interview with Kotaku. I think that the copy to the hard drive requires Microsoft to periodically validate that the same file doesn't work in two places at once; however, the "solution" to this "problem" could be as innocent as deactivating the first install when the disc is copied to the second hard drive. The conclusion that copying to the hard drive the first time will preclude a second copy isn't necessarily the only outcome, and deactivating the first install would serve the same purpose, allowing the resale and second install of the original disc.

The solution to the installed game problem is incredibly easy: Only the game which has the disc in the drive can played. Nobody expects to be able to play two games on the same console at the same time. This is exactly how the 360 handles fully-installed games now.

At the Xbox One reveal, Microsoft said more than once that used games wouldn't be blocked. The rumor than morphed into a discussion of a transfer fee (rumor #2) imposed on the consumer. Microsoft equivocated, and sort of denied, then confirmed, then denied this. At the end, I think someone (maybe Major Nelson) used terms like "enabled" when talking about used games and "no present intention" when talking about transfer fees imposed on consumers.

Then the rumor mill got ridiculous.

Rumor #3 morphed the transfer fee from being imposed on the consumer to being imposed on the retailer, citing "retail sources" and a "retail employee", both apparently in the UK who each claimed that "key retailers" had been "briefed" by Microsoft about its plans to impose a transfer fee on them instead of consumers. I understand that the UK is an important market for Microsoft, but it is dwarfed by the U.S. The largest games retailer in the U.S. is GameStop; that company had an earnings conference call with analysts the day before rumor #3 surfaced in the UK. During its conference call, GameStop management repeatedly praised Microsoft as a valued partner, and said that any announcements about used game policy were Microsoft's to make, not GameStop's. My personal impression was that GameStop management was upbeat, and not downcast, about the potential for the Xbox One launch, so that is inconsistent with the view that rumor #3 is true.

I would now like to offer both a business lesson and a history lesson: Facebook decided to charge a 30% fee on currency purchased for Facebook games only after Zynga had grown games to over a $1 billion annual business. Assuming that Facebook behaved rationally, they allowed Zynga to create a giant business without impediment, then, once it was large, they imposed the "Facebook tax". Zynga was powerless to object, as it depended on Facebook for the vast majority of its revenue.

I now pose this question: IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee on retailers for sales of used Xbox One games, why would they brief key retailers on their intentions six months before the console launch, and 18 months before the Xbox One used games business became meaningful???

In my view, IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee of any kind, it would wait until the installed base for Xbox One was large, until gamers and retail were "addicted" to the console and its software. They could pull a Facebook, and spring the new "tax" on retailers in 2015, and they would not have foregone much revenue at all. While I don't personally believe that Microsoft is Machiavellian at all, I think that from a business perspective, this makes much more sense than briefing retailers six months before launch so that retailers could decide to boycott the device or could attempt to influence consumers to buy the PS4 instead.

Just my two cents, but in my view, Rumor #3 is so idiotic as to deserve ridicule.

Timing, of course, is everything. Consumers have expectations that the way things work with a console will continue as long as the console does, but a new generation of consoles can bring major changes. MS briefed key retailers when they did because they needed to be sure they'd be on board and ready with whatever backend would be required by the time the system launched, so that consumers wouldn't get used to a different (and to them, better) way of doing things.

And considering the crap gamers put up with now, it's entirely possible MS feels that they can get away with controlling the used games market without significant backlash. The only thing they have to do is keep the initial firestorm from the core users to a minimum so there's not too much bad word of mouth spreading to the regular folks that just want the cool new Xbox.

Why Gamestop is seemingly cool with this I don't know. It's possible this is what they talked MS down to, which is a bit scary. It's also likely that although the PS4 as a system isn't going to block used games, if publishers decide to on the PS4 it'll probably block them completely, cutting off Gamestop from getting a cut entirely. So Gamestop might not be too impressed with Sony first-party titles and some niche Japanese games working the same way as PS3 if all the big EA, Ubisoft, and Activision games on PS4 support new sales only.

 

[GeeDuhb]

The more that I think about all this, the more I realize that this could be made a whole lot less "horrible" if they just use the disc as an authorization key of sorts. If you go over to a friends house and install and play the game, the next time you boot up the game on your console, it could simply require you to re-authorize it by putting the disc in your console. That way, you had to prove that you still had the disc. As long as it was never authorized on another account however, you could play disc free. I know...piracy with burned discs could somehow be an issue here...but there is still potential.

 

[strata8]

The more that I think about all this, the more I realize that this could be made a whole lot less "horrible" if they just use the disc as an authorization key of sorts. If you go over to a friends house and install and play the game, the next time you boot up the game on your console, it could simply require you to re-authorize it by putting the disc in your console. That way, you had to prove that you still had the disc. As long as it was never authorized on another account however, you could play disc free. I know...piracy with burned discs could somehow be an issue here...but there is still potential.

Yeah, I said something similar in another thread:

"What about this - games are still fully digital, but someone else activating the game using your disc deactivates it from your account. The online requirement is still there (so 2 people can't have copies of the game at the same time), but games can be freely transferred between anyone just like they are now."

So if you lend it to a friend and they install it, it removes it from your account. When you take it back to your console, it reactivates it on your account and deactivates it on theirs. Requires always online but other than that it works the exact same way as physical discs now with all the benefits of digital games (ie, playing without a disc, can re-download games, etc).

 

[Yoshi]

And if the servers are down you can't play the game at all. No thanks. Always-offline or no buy.

 

[GeeDuhb]

Yeah, I said something similar in another thread:

"What about this - games are still fully digital, but someone else activating the game using your disc deactivates it from your account. The online requirement is still there (so 2 people can't have copies of the game at the same time), but games can be freely transferred between anyone just like they are now."

So if you lend it to a friend and they install it, it removes it from your account. When you take it back to your console, it reactivates it on your account and deactivates it on theirs. Requires always online but other than that it works the exact same way as physical discs now with all the benefits of digital games (ie, playing without a disc, can re-download games, etc).

Yeah, it makes sense that way. AND, to add an additional kink to it, if they want to start taking money from used game sales, they could track it via the same method. The store would have a machine that they stick it in which shows that they sold it. True, there is no incentive currently, but if MS requires them to do it to get support (eg. Digital download codes/new games/etc) they would be forced to do it. Hey, I am all for publishers getting money from used sales. Just don't let it affect the end customer.

And if the servers are down you can't play the game at all. No thanks. Always-offline or no buy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree with it or it's a good idea. I'm simply saying if they are going to do it and we have no say in the matter, do it that way.

 

[quickwhips]

I'm not worried about it because I can play my games on two xbox 360 consoles now and I'm sure it will work the same way with Xbox one.

I buy my games on the living room xbox 360. Then anyone who logs into that console can play the games because its associated with this console and my gamertag.
I download the games again on my bedroom xbox 360 and then I play them in their when I'm logged in even if someone is playing it in the living room because its also associated with my gamertag but I have to be online and logged into play it. Works great. I'm sure when its said and done it will work this way on Xbox one if it doesn't then I think we can freak out then.