Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Next Xbox and Playstation to Block Used Games

Wyank

By Wyank,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Wyank Rookie

Wyank

Posted
Posted

Xbox Link

Additionally, a "reliable industry source" tells Kotaku that Microsoft's Next Xbox may incorporate a system that blocks gamers from playing used titles. Further details concerning the implementation of such a system were not offered.

PS3 Link

Buckle up, Sony enthusiasts. A tipster has told Kotaku that the PlayStation 4 is named "Orbis" and that it will feature an anti-used-game system, offer no backward compatibility with PlayStation 3 titles, and ship in holiday 2013. As for the first part of the rumor, multiple sources told the blog that the Orbis will sport some sort of anti-used-game measure. Full Orbis games will be available via Blu-ray disc or as a PlayStation Network download and will be locked to a single PSN account. Players will not be able to circumvent the system by remaining offline, as the source said users will be forced to be connected to the PSN to boot up their games.

Both will require user to be always online to play games as well. Link above for next Sony product already states this.

Xbox Link

Gamers will need an Internet connection to play next-generation Xbox titles, if a report proves accurate. VG247 cites sources who claim the next Xbox will require a constant Internet connection as a method of fighting piracy. No further information concerning this was offered.

There's other info on the systems coming out like 720 will come with blue ray drive and kinect 2. Expected release dates of holiday season of 2013. But the blocking of used games might be a deal breaker for me. I like buying used games. I like selling my new when bought games to get back some of that $60. Just not fond of where this is going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KendrickPanther Apprentice

KendrickPanther

Posted
Posted

They will kill their own business. The only way people stomach spending $60 on a game is to know they can recoup some of it towards a future purchase. I personally will stick with my ps3 because the best part is playing games when I don't have access to internet. Gamestop is going to die from this. Smaller local places will thrive selling old consoles and old games.

I've really become disgruntled with the entire gaming industry. It started as a bunch of nerds enjoying a passion. But those small nerd companies needed investments from big business and it became about money. I bought a used copy of ncaa 11' because it had Cam Newton in it. To gain online access was $10 because it was used. To open all of the features was going to be another $30. Opening features should be done by in game achievement, not money. There is nothing worse than realizing you just bought a bad game. That is why I rarely if ever buy games these days. If Nintendo really wants the Wii U to bring the company back to glory they should allow used games on their network. That will give them an edge they haven't had since the N64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KendrickPanther Apprentice

KendrickPanther

Posted
Posted

I like selling my new when bought games to get back some of that $60.

The $60 price point drives me nuts because not all games are created equal. Madden has been running the same engine for 10 years. They tweak it a little each year but their development costs are very low compared to a stand alone game like Uncharted 1. I bought this Xmen Destiny game and it was a got damned joke. Any college kid could have made this game in his dorm room and it cost as much as an epic title like Zelda Skyward sword. A lower quality game should start at $20. You wouldn't pay the same price for New Balance as you would for Jordans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSpan Grand Master

KSpan

Posted
Posted

And if you have to be online the entire time, what's to stop them from implementing a system that cuts off the ability to play older games, i.e. cutting off Madden 12 once Madden 13 comes out, etc? Not sure I'd put it past the companies at this point. The move towards "licensure" from "ownership" continues to have horrible implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...