PlayStation Orbis & XBOX 720... the end of used gaming as we know it.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

PlayStation:

http://kotaku.com/5896996/the-next-playstation-is-called-orbis-sources-say-here-are-the-details

Xbox:

http://kotaku.com/5879202/sources-the-next-xbox-will-play-blu+ray-may-not-play-used-games-and-will-introduce-kinect-2?popular=true

SO LONG, USED GAMES

BACK IN DECEMBER... A post left on Pastebin back in December also referred to the PlayStation 4 as Orbis, calling it a codename in the same vein as Microsoft's Durango. The system specs in that post differ significantly from what Kotaku has heard, and the lack of a hard drive by default goes against the idea of downloading full games to the system.

The Pastebin post also mentions that big name developers like EA were disappointed by an Orbis much less powerful than Microsoft's next machine, so there's a chance that it's the story of an earlier prototype that didn't make the grade. We've reached out to EA for comment.

Just like the next Xbox/Durango, we've heard from multiple sources that the Orbis will likewise have some kind of anti-used games measures built into the console. Here's how our main source says it's currently shaping up: new games for the system will be available one of two ways, either on a Blu-Ray disc or as a PSN download (yes, even full retail titles). If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account, after which you can play the game, save the whole thing to your HDD, or peg it as "downloaded" in your account history and be free to download it at a later date.

Don't think you can simply buy the disc and stay offline, though; like many PC games these days, you'll need to have a PSN account and be online to even get the thing started.

If you then decide to trade that disc in, the pre-owned customer picking it up will be limited in what they can do. While our sources were unclear on how exactly the pre-owned customer side of things would work, it's believed used games will be limited to a trial mode or some other form of content restriction, with consumers having to pay a fee to unlock/register the full game.

This would allow used games to continue to be sold at outlets such as GameStop, while also appeasing major publishers who would no longer have to implement their own haphazard approaches to "online passes".

Use gaming has become a joke IMO. Gamestop will sell you a use game for only $5-10 cheaper, after they only paid less than half of that for it. What this will really hurt the most is Gamefly and the old "borrow from your buddy" system. Gamefly could still work as a onboard app, but Red Box is SOL.

[Myk JL 1,731]

I'm either going to be switching to PC Gaming or I may quit gaming completely. So this news doesn't change much for me.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

This sounds like a shitty deal for used game sales. I like used games mostly for older games that are no longer available new. Or if the price is good. But limiting games so they can't be resold sounds like it might encourage more people to piracy and getting system mods.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

/sigh

Yet again the game industry shoots itself in the foot. Looks like my days of gaming are numbered because I don't want to support a system that basically screws the consumer. The move to requiring an internet connection to even play games (thank you EA) screws those gamers over that either can't afford an internet connection, don't have quality internet in their area, or just don't want/need an internet connection.

Now they want to screw people out of the used game market. Don't get me wrong buying used games isn't my thing, have only done it three times and have only traded in games twice (I think it's a stupid concept) but I know more then my share of people that game this way because it's the only way they can afford to game (I mean game prices aren't getting any cheaper (I've already spent $500 this year in games and it's going to get worse)). This is just going to push game sales down when the new systems hit the market if this ends up being true.

Hooray for greedy idiots that run the game industry.........

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

I blame Gamestop. They're used game polices are absurd. I remember during the NES days, at the local Video Game Exchange place, you could pick up used games for $5-$10 bucks, and new NES games still ran close to $40 back then. Maybe if they weren't making such a large ass profit margin off use games, the developers wouldnt have ever bothered with is... It seems like the are more concerned about how much money Gamestop is making off them, than actual piracy. The whole thing doesn't effect me in general. I only buy 3-5 games a year anymore.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

True, Gamestop is making more profit off of used games then most game developers/publishers make off the initial sale but it does offer a service most gamers like. I understand the pricing of their games from a greed standpoint, why not charge $5 less for a game that just came out and resold right away if its a popular games (I mean it was ridiculous when MW2 came out, the used price tag on that was $40+ up until MW3). Still though it's a system that actually helped the industry out in more ways then it didn't and this will alienate quite a bit of the gamer population as a source of revenue.

Honestly though this isn't an answer to stopping the system. I mean forcing us to register games to an account is retarded. Sometimes you just can't afford the game when it comes out so you borrow it from a friend to play it, this screws those of us that do that over since all you'll get is a trial game that forces you to actually pay to activate the whole game.

Honestly the game industry has been making some questionable moves over that last few years that are really starting to make me despise the entirety of this whole subculture. Sooner or later this industry is going to do something that will finally put the last nail in the coffin for them and leave them questioning why all their fans/revenue sources quit playing games.

This is one of those few times I'm glad I haven't gotten my foot in the industry yet. Would rather work my soul crushing night job at Wal-Mart then work for this type of industry.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

I think the best solution to all of this... which would be a somewhat fair trade off to all parties is to deactivate trophies/achievements for non registered games... You can play the full game all you want, borrowed or rented... but maybe a $5 fee would be incurred if you wanted to get the trophies/achievements for the game that you did not buy new.

There are a lot of trophy/achievement whores out there. They could make a ton of cash off them with these small fees. I'd be all about used games if they weren't $5-10 less than a new game. $5-10 is nothing to me when it comes to new or used. I take good care of my games, but i know a lot of people do not. That's why I always buy new.

We can say that this method would lead to more piracy all we want, but Piracy has a lot to do with why the industry has turned this way, outside of gamestop. Kotaku posted an article about how a non-used games industry could be good... and had some good points... we all know the gaming community is owned by EA, Activision, and Blizzard now.... sad but true... maybe without the loss of profit the big 3 will be more willing to take a chance on independent developers.

I don't know about anyone else, but I miss games with an old school touch to them. Side scroll space shooters. top down military shooters. Contra clones, etc. Hell. Electronic Arts had a Strike game and Road Rash game in development that I was really excited for... both were canceled because of fear they wouldn't sell. Thats BS... hardcore gamers would have bought them in droves... something needs to be done.

You're right though, this console era could make or break everything. I dont game as much as i use to because of the lack of quality and the ignorant following of blockbuster series that have become lackluster money whores (*COUGH* CALL OF DUTY *COUGH*)

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

Honestly I'm all for the charging of trophies/achievements. I've always said since the beginning of this generation that trophies/achievements were a stupid inclusion to games. We didn't have them through the other generations and your feelings of accomplishment came from actually beating a boss or getting past that one part, not how many achievements/trophies you can get for a game (something I feel has killed most of the fun of games, I suffer from it from time to time (I mean there are games I try to get all achievements for)).

Also, Blizzard is technically Activision now since the merger a few years ago (back when Blizzard's parent company merged with Activision (hence why Blizzard is suffering from lack of quality in some of there games *cough* WoW and Diablo III *cough*).

I do miss the old days, back when gaming was gaming. How I'd love for a new Contra game to come out (I used to love the original). Sadly everyone wants pretty graphics and crappy gameplay as opposed to games that actually require skill. I've always said games are about story and gameplay, not pretty graphics and crappy innovations.

Alas though those days are gone. The bottom line is milking franchises because they bring in the most money and new ideas are frowned upon because it could lead to devastating profit losses if they don't do well. Sadly most of my gaming lately has been on the computer through ToR and flash games (flash developers know what it means to make a game). I barely turn my Xbox on for anything anymore other then watching Netflix and watching movies (I mean I am playing ME3 (alright but kind of a disappointment), KoA, and AC5 (a huge let down coming from AC4, too much emphasis on multiplayer. Kinda wish I wouldn't of bought it)). Really starting to wonder why I sink as much money as I do into this hobby anymore.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Yeah, Sadly I don't really buy a game unless I have friends to play it with, so even if the game isn't all that great, it can still be fun playing with them. Diablo will be my next purchase... after that... Borderlands 2... thats really All I can think of.

The industry has definitely been done it by its own success. Competitioin is completely gone with the lack of 3rd party exclusives, and having more than 2 competing developers.... hell. Sony and MS might as well build their next console together as one unit.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

Trophies are nice and all, but I could care less for them compared to actually playing a full game.

I don't know about anyone else, but I miss games with an old school touch to them. Side scroll space shooters.

Have you played Cave Story+ ? Its a side scroller action/adventure shooter, but not a space shooter. That game is awesome tho. Best indie game I've ever bought. I played over 13 hours in that game and got 2 of the 3 or 4 endings. I highly recommend it.

I've been playing the hell out of indie games on steam over the past 6 months. With all those humble bundle and other indie deals I've accumulated about 70 games on steam for under $40. These are some of the most entertaining games I've played in years.

Btw, have either of you seen a crappyish/addicting game called Binding of Isaac? You get 1 life to play thru the game. If you die you have to start the game all over (permadeath). Sounds stupid and when I first started playing it, it annoyed me.. but honestly I keep loading that game up randomly for 10 minute play throughs and as far as I know that team of guys that made the game have made shit tons of money off it.

Heres an interview with the main developer guy:

http://indiegames.com/2012/01/Interview:%20Edmund%20McMillen%20Spills%20The%20Beans%20on%20The%20Wrath%20Of%20The%20Lamb%20&%20More.html

Honestly, as long as you have a means of delivering your product, like through steam or some other company, then being a 3rd party developer seems like the best way to get paid in the gaming industry now.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

I might have to check that out. I'm pretty excited they are doing an HD remake of Baldur's Gate! I really wish they'd redo Streets of Rage!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hikFCwduCIQ[/ame]

[Eli 474]

Much of what's been said in this thread has me face palming. Nothing will change in terms of revenue in the long run. The short of it is that gamers will not stop gaming. I sure as hell won't. I'll adapt to whatever solutions the industry comes up with. Just like we always have. Quality in games is purely perspective. There are a ton of "contra clones" out there being made all the time by indy developers. Support them!

Quit ragging on companies like Blizzard who are literally pioneering into new territory with this industry and are honestly doing the best they can with what they have to work with. Not 1 or 2 people run the whole company. Tiers and tiers of employees all having varying degrees of responsibility who still answer to other people. Don't condemn the whole because of the few. Activision actually has little to do with the development process of Blizzards games. They were simply put there to manage their finances better and have done an excellent job financially. WoW is not lacking from quality in the least. Its the best out there, hands down. There simply aren't enough resources to go around to make everyone happy. They don't exist. Money is not a resource, by the way. Talent is what I'm specifically talking about.

Christ, there is so much to tackle in this thread and on this topic, I'm kind of bouncing around irritated. lol

I know I've kind of been playing the devils advocate here, but I do have my own similar opinions concerning all of this. What aggravates me the most is that the majority of people bitch and complain about the -wrong- things. The ignorance surrounding the industry is astounding to me. If you're going to complain, be productive about it, consider all sides of the story first, get the facts straight and make a legitimate argument.

I think it does suck that they are seriously considering doing away with used gaming instead of there being a way to work around it that makes everyone involved relatively happy. Gamestop has been screwing the gaming industry for years. Despite popular belief, game developers don't make a hundred grand a year and money grub all they can from the consumers. Things have been tight for many, many developers out there resulting in lay offs, companies closing, etc. I don't blame them for wanting to stiff arm Gamestop and similar stores for practically stealing the ridiculous profit they are making off of used games.

But you know what? I'll get over it. If they do something that just isn't financially feasible for the consumer, they will feel it. They will hear about it. They will change it. That's how it works everywhere, especially in the gaming industry.

I apologize for the ranting wall of text, but this is something that is and always has been very near and dear to me and I keep up with many aspects of the industry on a daily, sometimes hourly basis. The forum threads and blog posts from the self-important, overly opinionated masses are dripping with ignorance, spite, and unproductive whining. To these kinds of people, I say: Shut the fuck up and buy some more games or go the fuck away. Your business won't be missed.

[Myk JL 1,731]

My gaming future is probably in MMOs. Unless PS Home is somehow considered an MMO. In which case a good chunk of my current gaming is in MMOs.

I'd probably be playing DCUO if only it had Lobo.

I also at one point bought City of Villains though my PC can't handle it.

And currently the title that has most of my attention is the rumored Elder Scrolls Online.

In those cases I would definitely need to be constantly online to play them. So I'd probably shrug off whatever is happening to something like Sim City.

The only argument I see against constantly being online is about how it would effect single player. But its hard for me to enjoy single player anyway when I keep getting friends who want to co op with me.

That really annoys me to the point where I wouldn't mind quitting single player games just because someone else wants to buzz kill my "one man army" mood.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Shut the fuck up and buy some more games or go the fuck away. Your business won't be missed.

I'm sure blockbuster video felt this way a few years back about their rental policies. X'D

[Eli 474]

"Sony won't block used games, says analyst"

A widely reported leak from an unnamed industry source about the next iteration of the PlayStation came from "a monkey," according to well-known industry analyst Michael Pachter, of Wedbush Securities. The suggestions that the next PlayStation will block used games is just as unlikely as when it was suggested in 2005 that the PlayStation 3 would block sales of used games following a patent application, Pachter said in a statement released to industry news site GamesIndustry International.

It is "just a rehash of that old rumor and the recent one about the Xbox 720," he continued, before saying that the story's "reliable source is a monkey." The "consumer backlash" from blocking secondhand games would be huge, Pachter said. It would also be unlikely to help the firm financially, he said, though he did admit that it might benefit the larger publishers such as EA and Activision "slightly."

This backlash will prevent Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft from unilaterally blocking used games, he said. While a multilateral move might mitigate some of the fallout, none of the three firms "are evil enough to do it together."

As well as a consumer backlash, Pachter indicated that GameStop--which he sees as the biggest potential loser in this scenario--would simply refuse to carry the console. This refusal would naturally hurt sales of the platform, he said.

I honestly don't think this will happen. The big 3 know how many hoops they would have to jump through to make that whole concept a feasible reality.

I think it's interesting how it would play out if this concept came to fruition. Anything is possible, but the only way it could happen that made it all worth it is if all 3 companies agreed to adopt this standpoint. Would that happen? Or would one go for it and another pull out to watch their rivals suffer in sales? If they all agreed to it, Gamestop would likely go under. Which is the whole point, right? If they won't agree to a much more reasonable share split for the developers and publishers from the sale of used games, put them out of the industries misery, right? Only possible if they all agreed and had some sort of legal document binding them to their agreement. Would that be considered illegal in some way, conspiring to end a company like Gamestop? A convoluted monopoly of some sort?

Just some random food for thought. =)

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Would that be considered illegal in some way, conspiring to end a company like Gamestop? A convoluted monopoly of some sort?

Just some random food for thought. =)

Nah, Wal-Mart has been getting away with it for years against local businesses.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

Nah, Wal-Mart has been getting away with it for years against local businesses.

So true, so very true.

Honestly there is no fair share split of profits because Gamestop will never agree to split the profits in an equal way with publishers (note publishers, game developers only get 6% on royalties for any game sold (at most) the first time around (doubt they'd get much more on a used game sale). Publisher pockets most of the money). Most of their revenue would be lost if they did that. Plus most publishers would want most of the profit since they're the ones that did all the work releasing the game, marketing it, etc (even if it is used).

Vicious little circle it is. Oh well, can only hope this is all just part of the multitude of rumors surrounding the fabled new generation of consoles.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

I've realized that all the developers will probably be better off with gamestop in business selling used games. And its because of DLC. I wouldn't be surprised that DLCs become much bigger than what they currently are now.. You buy a game for $60, then you can buy an extra campaign, dungeon, costume, weapon, etc. All those microtransactions will add up quick to huge profits. And when you sell that game used to gamestop, all those DLCs don't carry over to the used game purchaser. Sure there are game of the year editions, but new DLCs will be a constant source of new revenue. But honestly, all the DLC stuff is getting a bit ridiculous as it is.. look at this list of DLCs for FFXIII-2:

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Final_Fantasy_XIII-2_Downloadable_Content

So many DLCs for a single game. And I'm sure there are games with even bigger more costly lists. With an ever growing expansion of DLCs, everyone can customize the way their characters look and some fans will want every DLC ever made for a game. But even with a game of the year edition that includes extra campaigns that was bought used, you'll still never get all the full content unless you spend more money.

And then when a new system comes out thats not backwards compatible, you'll have the chance to rebuy all your old games in better quality. You might even get them cheaper but you can't sell them to gamestop because it'll all be digital. Hell, I recently bought FFVII from the PSN store, even though I still own it for PS1 and even bought the PC version years ago. I'm sure as long as companies make products people like, they'll pay for it and still make money.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

The only problem with DLC is the price keeps going up on them, and of course people... are willing to be ripped off. lol Dropping anohter $60 on a game and paying $120 as a whole investment every time is a bit steep. Although I dislike the game COD Elite is a interesting concept. $50 for a years subscription saves you about $10 on all the DLC scheduled to come out that year, plus challenges, tournaments, and extra unlocks for the game. But then again 10 different games, 10 different subscriptions, 10 different apps on your console... and thats saying you only buy 10 games that year... not a feasible thing for every series.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

Look at DC Universe. Free game, but they also have a membership plan. If you don't want to buy all the DLCs, buy a legendary membership upgrade for $15 a month or $120 a year and you get all DLCs and maximum game features unlocked.

I can understand a free game having to make money somehow, but I like Guild Wars 1 & 2's approach to the MMORPG. Buy the game, don't pay a monthly fee, and have micro transactions for appearance, storage, unlock upgrades, etc. Of course a game like Guild Wars probably uses less server resources as compared to most standard MMOs because all the out of town/city exploration is all session based as opposed to a giant world where everyone sees everyone all over the place. But each game is different and the costs involved reflect on how the company has to get it's money.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

I do like Diablo III's plan. People are raising a stink about nothing over it. Yeah ok, there are auction's for loot people find... all Blizzard is doing is taking the business from ebay, and putting it in their own pockets... I'll never hit the auctions... im not that hardcore. I just like playing the game with friends... not into PVP. I don't see what the fuss is about.

[Eli 474]

I do like Diablo III's plan. People are raising a stink about nothing over it. Yeah ok, there are auction's for loot people find... all Blizzard is doing is taking the business from ebay, and putting it in their own pockets... I'll never hit the auctions... im not that hardcore. I just like playing the game with friends... not into PVP. I don't see what the fuss is about.

Thank you! I agree.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

[ame]

[/ame]

1:38

X'D

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

http://kotaku.com/5892370/magic-card-freakouts-are-the-best-kind-of-freakouts