meltpotato
Member
Zaptruder said:
:lol as much as i sympathize with you on the retards, you can't tell me free headset is a BAD thing. not that his troll comment is really worth anyone's attention
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rumor: (PS3+entitlements management) might it start out like this ?
- Thread starter Panajev2001a
- Start date
:lol as much as i sympathize with you on the retards, you can't tell me free headset is a BAD thing. not that his troll comment is really worth anyone's attention
Bojangles said:
Games are costing more and more to make but they aren't selling substantially more from generation to generation. Publishers have to charge more to make their ROI. If publishers could earn revenue from used games, believe me, prices WOULD come down. Games are getting way too expensive and publishers know they are out of the sweet spot with $59.99.
plagiarize
Banned
i don't know... do you live in the reality where SNES and Genesis games were more expensive ten years ago ignoring interest than they are now? because i do.meltpotato said:
this is about sony trying to come up with a different revenue stream to pay for online gaming isn't it?
do you know why they need to do that? it's because running servers isn't free. it's because a multiplayer game generally requires MUCH MORE support after release. that's why when you buy a game with multiplayer they don't HAVE to ensure that it works forever. they run the servers... if they want to start charging, it's well within their rights.
this doesn't change the rights of the gamer, it just gives a service to people that buy new games for free... this isn't the pc world where everyone can set up their own servers. this is the console world where some companies charge an extra fee already if you take the game online.
hello EA.
this is a capitalist society. capitalism works. if this shit is over priced people won't begrudgingly pay.
meltpotato said:
Well, I've just said how a free headset can be a bad thing.
An extreme analogy would be like saying;
How can free handguns be a bad thing?!
Sure, free stuff is great, but when that stuff is used for idiocy (that inflicts others) by the average person... well... maybe the barrier for obtaining that 'free stuff' might want to be reconsidered
Still, the PS3 should be bluetooth headset compatible; expensive as all get out, but something that is also compatible with other bluetooth products (specifically mobile phones)... so for some customers, they'll already have a headset.
Marty Chinn
Member
RuGalz said:This rumor has zero effect on me as consumer, heck I may gain from it by registering my new games and get free reward points to buy new songs for SingStar. I've got nothing to lose as a consumer. As developer, I'm glad I'm seeing some other forms of money return as an alternative to plastering all games with in-game ads while Sony takes all the blame. I don't have anything to lose there either. Glad I'm not the one getting raped.
Sure it affects you. I can't loan you a game for you to try it online and you can't rent games anymore to try online. Heck, you'd have to pay money if I gave you a game after I was done with it. There are definite drawbacks to what is being proposed here even for you as a consumer. This is why I can't support it because it makes the experience worse for the consumer in the end.
meltpotato
Member
Zaptruder said:
oh come on. that analogy is ridiculous. i have to think you are just forgetting your /sarcasim tag somewhere.
If oyu can use any BT headset thats pretty cool.
Ninja Scooter
Member
this doesn't really bother me to be honest. Most of the online games i want to play i buy right away at launch anyway. By the time you wait and wait and get it used, the online community is either going to be non-existant or suckass.
Marty Chinn
Member
Bojangles said:
The sad thing is, most developers will never see that money anyway so I don't see how it really benefits them. The publishers will pocket the money and move on. Second hand sales are over the long term where as when it comes to the bottom dollar, they will see initial sales of new copies only. You can't rely on second hand sales as a way of recouping dev costs since you'll only get a fraction of the money there and since it is long term you don't know how to predict that type of revenue. As a developer it doesn't mean job security because again second hand sale revenue is long term and you could have already lost your job by the time that happens. So unless you're at the top of the food chain in a developer or publisher, this new method of getting more money doesn't mean jack to you unless you get royalties but even then that seems to be less and less common these days than it used to. I'm a developer, but I know if this model was in place, it wouldn't benefit me. Nor does it benefit me as a consumer. It makes things worse if anything.
HocusPocus
Member
meltpotato said:
Ah asking a question about what comes with a console to someone who is following it heavily is trolling ahah. Ok.
Marty Chinn
Member
TTP said:
So then why wouldn't someone "authorize" it when he does a second hand sale? Rental games would then have to be specialized versions of the game if they are always online enabled. So then either rental games would cost more, like video rentals versions used to be, or there would be a better version of the game to acquire that I'm sure some people would love to get their hands on. If not, then that hurts smaller stores. There's definitely a draw back here.
scuse me for missing this thread but why has the conversation shifted to headsets? PS3 includes one, doesn't it?
also, I think this story is ridiculous. Sony will not implement something like this. It is a frontal attack on the rental and used game markets and they need the support right now from everyone to be untainted. NA is too important for them.
also, I think this story is ridiculous. Sony will not implement something like this. It is a frontal attack on the rental and used game markets and they need the support right now from everyone to be untainted. NA is too important for them.
ghostlyjoe
Member
Ok, for some of you:
Please take your toungue out of Sony's asshole and repeat after me:
"Sony doesn't give a f*** about me."
"Sony doesn't give a f*** about me."
"Sony doesn't give a f*** about me."
Good. Now the healing can begin.
Please take your toungue out of Sony's asshole and repeat after me:
"Sony doesn't give a f*** about me."
"Sony doesn't give a f*** about me."
"Sony doesn't give a f*** about me."
Good. Now the healing can begin.
Since when was the last time I ever borrowed a game from you or anyone...Marty Chinn said:
Besides, the online part, they could easily allow used game if you pay for premium account. Rental game can be easily done by giving rental copies unique rental game disc ids and allow those to be played freely online. (Obviously a different economy model would have to be in place for rental special discs to make sense such as release games as rental 2-4 weeks before retail store and charge more for rental copies.) There's so much unknown at this point like how much are they charging, how are they handling letting friends borrow games, etc. Sure there's going to be some chagnes just like when Steam was first introduced. But I am not going to write it off as OMFG SONY IS RAPING ME AS A CONSUMER just yet.sonycowboy
Member
snatches said:
You mean bluetooth? Currently, they're pretty expensive @ retail. ~$25-$100.
First I've heard about Famitsu discussing what's included or not? Do you have any online sources DC?? What's included in the box? PS3, wireless controller, component/composite cables (ala 360), & ???
meltpotato
Member
Wollan said:
i think you are SOL on the ethernet cable and cloth, but you can probably expect the USB cable for charging the controller. also, the whole component cables is another issue, but that has its own time and place.
meltpotato
Member
snatches said:
that has no source. thats why i didnt state it as a fact.
sonycowboy
Member
snatches said:
There's no remote in the 360 anymore
I wish there were.Marty Chinn said:
I dont really know (I've been wondering about that issue myself actually). I'm just pointing out one of the possibilities described in the patent.
BTW, how does it work when you want to buy a second hand Half-Life 2 or give it to a friend? Honest question. I don't have Steam.
If it was a sale to a friend or a sale through ebay you would probably just add the person to your buddy list. I think it is the EB 2nd hand sales that are thier big problem though. Since you wouldn't know the person who owned the game prior to you buying it at EB they couldn't cheat the system and add you.
I don't think you can give someone your copy of HL2. You could give them you steam account info. But if they tried to log in at the same time... One of the neat things about steam though is the portability. I was bored one day at work so I downloaded steam and logged in and it let me DL HL2 at work. I could throw the CD away if I wanted to
I don't think you can give someone your copy of HL2. You could give them you steam account info. But if they tried to log in at the same time... One of the neat things about steam though is the portability. I was bored one day at work so I downloaded steam and logged in and it let me DL HL2 at work. I could throw the CD away if I wanted to
Flo_Evans said:If it was a sale to a friend or a sale through ebay you would probably just add the person to your buddy list. I think it is the EB 2nd hand sales that are thier big problem though. Since you wouldn't know the person who owned the game prior to you buying it at EB they couldn't cheat the system and add you.
I don't think you can give someone your copy of HL2. You could give them you steam account info. But if they tried to log in at the same time... One of the neat things about steam though is the portability. I was bored one day at work so I downloaded steam and logged in and it let me DL HL2 at work. I could throw the CD away if I wanted to
Steam is essentially the same thing. But it's the only PC system (afaik) where they do this. Otherwise, you can give away or sell your PC games+CD Keys away with no issues.
My big concern about this is the 'slippery slope' as some have mentioned, and the annoyance of having to enter cd-keys for every online game I want to play. I wonder if it'd tie the cd-key to the console serial number, as you could have multiple users using the same console. Otherwise it'd be even more awful.
I seem to remember there where some threads around the time it came out with people bitching about it People were worried about all the same stuff you see in this thread. It turns out that their goal was not to assrape consumers, but to provide a secure distribution channel for thier games while cutting out the middleman (those bastards!) The only drawback is that if you have no net connection to log in, you have to pop the CD in to play (the only reason I don't throw my disks away).
People were worried about all the same stuff you see in this thread. It turns out that their goal was not to assrape consumers, but to provide a secure distribution channel for thier games while cutting out the middleman (those bastards!) The only drawback is that if you have no net connection to log in, you have to pop the CD in to play (the only reason I don't throw my disks away).TTP said:For the 235th time: you don't have to enter any cd-key!
Each game as an ID Number "inside" it. Not on the manual or whatever. You put teh disc into the system, the system reads the code and ties it with the system and the user.
So each disc is has an individual number? That's great, if they manage to do that, but I've never seen it in any games out there with this sort of thing (would make each produced disc different,) which is why I never even considered such possibility.
contaygious
Member
Flo_Evans said:
lol
I do wonder how they will handle multiple users on the same machine. Lets say I buy gran turismo, and my roomate wants to play online with his gamertag (or whatever sony calls them) Does he have to pay? And if he does, do I have to pay again to play with my gamertag? Or would it say "hmmm Flo and bob bought one copy of GT and play on the same machine, one time fee of $10 for bob!"
TTP said:
I don't know about that. People had no choice about it, simply put, and it only happened with HL2. Whether such a scheme would be as successful (notice that this is HL2 after all, which is one of the few that could possibly weather such change,) on a wider basis, or with less known/successful brands remains to be seen.
This is true. After all the kinks were worked out steam turned out to be a hell of a service. The difference is that the majority of HL2 owners bought the game over steam, so they don't have physical copies. With this case, its being applied to physical copies of ALL PS3(at least online enabled ones) games. Two very different beast were dealing with.TTP said:
meltpotato said:
And this is a good point. I can sympathize with individual devs who want to see bigger returns on their games, but the publishers seem to be doing fine. Yet instead of demanding a greater share of the profits from them, it seems that devs would rather support schemes like this in the hopes that the added revenue will boost their sliver of the pie to a more acceptable level under the current split. Maybe they feel uncomfortable biting the hand that feeds them, or maybe they believe publishers when they say, 'Oh, we would pay you more for your work - we want to, really! - it's just that those damn used game stores keep cutting into our margins! If it wasn't for them, you guys would be rich!'
If developers really want a bigger piece of the pie (and I think they deserve it - they're the ones making the products that keep these mega-publishers afloat), they need to take it up with the publishers. Organize. Form a union. The whole point of unions is give workers the leverage they need to negotiate for fair wages and working conditions, two things I think this videogame industry could use more of. Demand what you feel you rightfully deserve. That's the answer. Supporting the efforts of companies to fundamentally undermine the way property rights work in the US in the hopes that a little bit of the profit publishers would reap from the change will trickle down to you is not.
Show some balls, guys. If you're a dev and you're backing something like this, you're supporting the wrong team.
datruth29 said:
Well, yeah, but with Steam people accepted not to have a physical copy and not to be able to give it to a friend. (And this applies to Xbox Live Arcade games too).
Yet, in what seems to be the PS3 case, people will have physical copies and will be able to give them to a friend (albeit he might not be able to play online unless he pays a fee or is authorized).
Is this really THAT bad?
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
Like i say, i haven't seen it in Famitsu myself personally - and i was surprised because i thought nothing had been revealed. I will try and double check but the details were that there was no headset of remote - might have just been a what _isn't_ in the pack.
I'd be surprised to be honest - remote? okay, i can see that you can ditch that, but no headset ? i'd doubt that.
Need to mail the person to get my CoD2 back today, so will ask.
one other difference is that this was HL2 , the follow up to one of the biggest PC games ever, so Valve could get away with Steam. Pretty much all the PC gaming friends i had were all like "OMFG! HL2... IF I GET IT ON STEAM I CAN ACTIVATE IT AT MIDNIGHT! OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT"
I'm sure Final Fantasy etc could get away with a similar set up, but for midsales/mid profile games it wouldn't really work.
I like STEAM but it only gets a break because it gave me HL2 quicker than i could get it elsewhere. And also - don't registration keys pretty much do the same things for PC games anyway? Even if i had the original, if it has a Reg key aren't you pretty much hosed?
It isnt THAT bad. Just the online part makes it more of an bothersome. I would much perfer your system by the way. Sony should hire you.TTP said:
My point was that Steam and this system are two different beasts. I'm interested in seeing how the system turns out. I just hope (pray?) that its one that doesnt screw over the customers and instead empowers us (I'm so naive ).are publishers doing fine though? someone said earlier in the thread only 1 out of 7 games makes a publisher profit. Correct me if I am wrong, but the publisher is the one who pays the devs to make the game. If the game tanks, the dev will still get paid (although not for long) while the publisher takes a bath. For example see: doublefine (nothing against them) but they spent a good chunk of change making psychonauts and the game tanked. Of course this affects their future employment opportunites, but in my book (capitalist pig manual) the one who risks the initial investment is the one who reaps the benifits when you have a hit.
datruth29 said:It isnt THAT bad. Just the online part makes it more of an bothersome. I would much perfer your system by the way. Sony should hire you.
Yeah, we cannot but wait and see for now. But maybe I'm more naive than you and actually believe the patent when it says:
This has me going "hells yeah", but then the authorization thing kicks in, Panajev goes crazy about it and threads like this are born.
Edit: Pana, I'm just kiddin'
Similar threads
- Poll