• 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.

Xing Interactive: Our sources say next Xbox will block used games, require online

Ninja Scooter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
123,718
6
0
I find it hard to believe that these rumors an speculation would persist if this were completely unfounded. You know the old saying, where there is smoke there is fire. They might not be 100% accurate but id be shocked if there wasn't something to them.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
Jun 18, 2004
23,394
3
1,575
www.borgh.us
My guess is that if it does ban used games... That the console is going to be noticeably less expensive than the PS4 ($100 at least).

A used game ban almost entirely benefits the publishers only. The licensing MS sees is not a whole lot, especially compared to digital sales and Live subscriptions.

So if MS is doing this for the publishers, they still need a way to sell it to the consumers. So how? Drop the price of the system. PS4 debuts at $500 and fully decked out 720 debuts at $400. Consumers are very impulsive.. and even IF they know they can't play used games, $100 off the price at the register will be too good of an offer to pass up.

Still not sold that this is real (even though I've already determined I'm getting a PS4 barring any MS bombs dropped at E3 or before). If it is though... MS has to sell it to the consumer... I mean they can't possibly just "have it in there" and not address it.

edit - online only though is real. While that fired guy was a total dick about it, the fact that he went as far as he did should be proof enough that it is real.
 

Reiko

Banned
Apr 29, 2012
11,000
0
0
it would be a futile effort for nothing...why go through all the trouble of spreading false rumors about services, when they will be shot down within a month? Why is Microsoft being so silent and letting Sony spread these rumors? Doesn't make any sense to me :p
It kinda worked before:p
 

bigboss370

Member
Oct 31, 2009
14,209
0
680
what if MS do this just as an experiment? start out with blocking used games, and if they think its negatively affecting their business, then they'll take the block away?
 

jwhit28

Member
Feb 27, 2010
6,102
1
0
North Carolina
My guess is that if it does ban used games... That the console is going to be noticeably less expensive than the PS4 ($100 at least).

A used game ban almost entirely benefits the publishers only. The licensing MS sees is not a whole lot, especially compared to digital sales and Live subscriptions.

So if MS is doing this for the publishers, they still need a way to sell it to the consumers. So how? Drop the price of the system. PS4 debuts at $500 and fully decked out 720 debuts at $400. Consumers are very impulsive.. and even IF they know they can't play used games, $100 off the price at the register will be too good of an offer to pass up.

Still not sold that this is real (even though I've already determined I'm getting a PS4 barring any MS bombs dropped at E3 or before). If it is though... MS has to sell it to the consumer... I mean they can't possibly just "have it in there" and not address it.
The issue is now big enough that even the regular media outlets will ask about it though. How do you explain it as for the consumer?
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
Jun 18, 2004
23,394
3
1,575
www.borgh.us
what if MS do this just as an experiment? start out with blocking used games, and if they think its negatively affecting their business, then they'll take the block away?
oh, I should add to my previous post that if this is real, I absolutely believe it will be able to be done on a per SKU basis. So yes, I agree that MS will be able to turn it on and off for given/specific titles.
The issue is now big enough that even the regular media outlets will ask about it though. How do you explain it as for the consumer?
lower prices. either system pricing, software pricing, or both. if one of those is not the case... then yeah, MS would just be insane to go ahead with it...
 

Ninja Scooter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
123,718
6
0
How does any of this make stupid anti-consumer policy any better?
The shit GameStop did with the Deus Ex coupons is far more anti-consumer than this policy or almos any other policy a publisher or console maker has instituted. They deserve a lot more scorn than they get and if this policy hurts their business good riddance.
 

BradleyLove

Member
Oct 18, 2008
1,417
7
780
Seems unlikely. They still buy the console, they still buy games and MS still get a somewhat healthy cut from both.

I'm sure they'd like everyone to be online, just like Sony would, but to cut off millions of potential customers because they don't go online is a bit silly. Also, there's no real conclusive evidence that people don't take their consoles online to download content. They may do this but are primarily offline gamers as it's not possible for them to keep their console online at all times.
Sony/MS have traditionally taken a loss on console hardware. Now consider someone not connected, are they really going to spend much on games?

Pulling a number out of my arse for a second, lets say MS take a $100 loss per Durango sold. Do they really want to sell 10 million Durango's to people who'll never likely spend enough for MS to recoup that loss?

This is a real problem for MS and up until this generation, MS/Sony didn't really have any means to assess buying patterns. MS will know a hell of a lot more about offline gamers than you or I do.

So again, if MS has determined that offline gamers are not profitable, why on Earth would they be interested in dealing with them? All companies sell consoles to make profit; it's not out of the good of their hearts.
 

AHA-Lambda

Member
Jul 19, 2011
23,084
0
0
A big part of me hates this, but another part of me likes that fact that the piece of shit company known as Gamestop will suffer because of this.

Microsoft wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't some sort of accord with EA, Activision, and other big dogs as well.
And your point is?

GameStop is easily the lesser of 2 evils here. Oh waah, they sell used games! They're evil!! Waah!
 

Salaadin

Member
Apr 5, 2009
11,718
0
805
34
Pennsylvania
The shit GameStop did with the Deus Ex coupons is far more anti-consumer than this policy or almos any other policy a publisher or console maker has instituted. They deserve a lot more scorn than they get and if this policy hurts their business good riddance.
What about gamefly and redbox?
 

jwhit28

Member
Feb 27, 2010
6,102
1
0
North Carolina
Sony/MS have traditionally taken a loss on console hardware. Now consider someone not connected, are they really going to spend much on games?

Pulling a number out of my arse for a second, lets say MS take a $100 loss per Durango sold. Do they really want to sell 10 million Durango's to people who'll never likely spend enough for MS to recoup that loss?

This is a real problem for MS and up until this generation, MS/Sony didn't really have any means to assess buying patterns. MS will know a hell of a lot more about offline gamers than you or I do.

So again, if MS has determined that offline gamers are not profitable, why on Earth would they be interested in dealing with them? All companies sell consoles to make profit; it's not out of the good of their hearts.

The gamers more likely to be offline seem more likely to buy the system later in it's life when it is profitable. 360 is around 77 million lifetime sales (roughly), let's say 80% of players are online. That would leave 15.4 million offline users out in the dust. That certainly changes the 360's perceived situation compared to other devices on the market.
 
Jun 9, 2011
16,653
0
0
www.neogaf.com
I'm under the impression from what's been stated that Sony will allow publishers to impose whatever they'd like on a game to game basis, so MS going an overall route wouldn't really surprise me.

I'm more curious how they intend to make the next Xbox appealing as the family entertainment hub by giving it a paywall and forcing it to be always online. Do they figure people are comfortable with cable boxes so they'll figure this is similar, especially if they've already been paying for XBL for years?
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Jul 31, 2007
39,660
0
0
In the last thread the response was, "Wait! He's talking about always on, NOT a required connection!"

This source completely destroys that argument.
 

Aquamarine

Member
May 24, 2012
18,812
119
650
what if MS do this just as an experiment? start out with blocking used games, and if they think its negatively affecting their business, then they'll take the block away?
I think you're underestimating just how much Microsoft is going to focus on the cloud this time around.

Durango is POWERED by the Cloud, according to Microsoft.


Before people claim "Source!" it's IEB's mantra for Durango development:

"Led from the living room, powered by the cloud, across multiple screens."
 

Ninja Scooter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
123,718
6
0
What about gamefly and redbox?
I was simply comparing anti consumer practices, of which I think GameStop is about as bad as they come.

As for businesses being hurt by changes in the market, shit happens. Did we cry for FYE, Sam Goody, Wherehouse and Suncoast?
 

RobotRocker

Member
Nov 19, 2010
704
0
0
In the last thread the response was, "Wait! He's talking about always on, NOT a required connection!"

This source completely destroys that argument.
Call me crazy, but I'm not sure a publisher who are responsible for such fine "Quality Products" such as "Maze-Man Mania 3D" would be privy to such information. Unless Microsoft rejected them for some reason and he's bitter. But why would they do that?



Look at that graphic showcase. Microsoft's clearly afraid if they let this masterwork on XBLA, they have to shut down the service because it just obliterates the competition.
 

Sorc3r3r

Member
Jun 6, 2007
1,499
12
1,000
Seriously. Exclusive DLC? Sure. Co-marketing? Easily believable. Next gen exclusive to X720? Not a chance, folks.

Damn, I can't wait for the 21st so we can be done with this rumor one way or another.
Why are you guys so convinced this is not going to happen no matter what?

At the start of a new generation there is a minimal install base for both the new console.
Going exclusive for one of the two how much can hurt the sales?
Little in my opinion, a little that can be covered by the money of the exclusive deal.
This could happen for the 1st year alone, but it will be a great boost for for the platform that have the exclusive and a little impact on the sales of the game,almost negligible if you consider that the deal should be only for the 1st year.

i will add this too in the launch window be an exclusive can help to have a spotlight.

Am i totally mistaking in this?
 

Espada

Member
Feb 26, 2007
4,798
20
870
New York City
Goddamn, this is the rumor that just won't die. Just when we thought it was finally over after that big info dump/leak business a while back it rears it ugly head. I really don't want this to be true because it'll set a nasty precedent in the console market.
 
Oct 26, 2007
9,043
0
1,025
PA
Microsoft will partner with EA, Activision, or Bethesda (or a combination of the three). Wait and see. The writing has been on the wall for some time. I hope that whoever gets involved with them receives a ton of scorn.
It's the only way this rumor makes sense. No used games on Durango is exchange for some kind of major exclusivity
 

Chamber

love on your sleeve
Jan 31, 2006
30,532
0
1,270
32
Why are you guys so convinced this is not going to happen no matter what?

At the start of a new generation there is a minimal install base for both the new console.
Going exclusive for one of the two how much can hurt the sales?
Little in my opinion, a little that can be covered by the money of the exclusive deal.
This could happen for the 1st year alone, but it will be a great boost for for the platform that have the exclusive and a little impact on the sales of the game,almost negligible if you consider that the deal should be only for the 1st year.

i will add this too in the launch window be an exclusive can help to have a spotlight.

Am i totally mistaking in this?
In the case of Battlefield 4, it's because EA's CFO already mentioned it in conjunction with PS4 during their conference call with investors. Obviously, he's not under the same NDA that DICE is.

As far as Activision is concerned, they've never even supported online passes in the majority of their games. None of the Call of Duty games have an online pass. I'm not sure why they get thrown in with Ubisoft in this regard.
 

george_us

Member
Jul 23, 2008
9,034
0
775
They'll speak with their wallets.


By showering MS with money.
I don't think this'll be the case. No used games probably means A) no rentals and B) you won't be able to trade your games in which effects the wallets of gamers immediately. The Halo/Forza crowd will obviously be there but I honestly believe it won't be close to the 70 million they've managed to acquire.
 

abadguy

Banned
Jun 14, 2012
5,624
0
0
I'd still like one of the 'sources' to explain how Microsoft plans on giving up whole territories worldwide, since they don't even offer Live to every country they sell the system in. Or how they plan on convincing retailers in areas without a good internet infrastructure to sell the thing? Because this ongoing speculation without context makes zero sense.
Thank you. Which is the main reason i see this rumor as BS.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
Oct 29, 2006
42,985
0
0
I am guessing EA and Activision right? I have a feeling both BF4 and CoD will be exclusive to Durango (excluding the PS360 versions)
BF4 is already confirmed for PS4 and the DICE tech team is really excited about the platform based on their twitter posts. Activision wouldn't let BF4 be on PS4 with no CoD to counter it. I think Durango will see something exclusive from Bethesda but EA and Activision will only probably do some DLC deals.

Hell, Destiny (which originally wasn't even slated for PS4) is going to have exclusive DLC for Sony.
 

Mass Effect

Member
Apr 24, 2011
11,120
4
0
Ugh, these rumors are killing me. I don't know what to think anymore. I'll just wait until MS officially announces the damn thing. When is that supposed event? Sometime in May?

BF4 is already confirmed for PS4 and the DICE tech team is really excited about the platform based on their twitter posts. Activision wouldn't let BF4 be on PS4 with no CoD to counter it. I think Durango will see something exclusive from Bethesda but EA and Activision will only probably do some DLC deals.

Hell, Destiny (which originally wasn't even slated for PS4) is going to have exclusive DLC for Sony.
Right. If BF4 is already confirmed to be on PS4, then there's no way Activision would allow for it to have no competition like CoD. That would potentially allow it to do what the 360 did for CoD.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we saw a Bethesda exclusivity deal. Out of the three (EA/Activision/Bethesda) it makes the most sense for it to be them.
 

Marleyman

Banned
Jun 21, 2010
10,536
0
0
IF this happens they better have secured some damn sweet exclusives, DLC deals, etc for it to be worth it.
 

GoofsterStud

Member
Mar 22, 2007
5,838
0
0
tistats.com
Activition: The developers who are making Diablo 3 a Sony exclusive.... The developers willing to allow BF4 to get a greater fanbase.

Seriously how does anyone believe COD will be a NextBox exclusive?
 

Beer Monkey

Member
Mar 3, 2005
23,926
5
1,225
Cincinnati
www.tehbias.com
Online-only consoles make no sense.

Online-only devkits make perfect sense, given that every gen some end up in unauthorized hands and stuff gets leaked.

If I were making a devkit for a console, I'd make sure it phoned home and reported its IP address every few minutes, and if it couldn't reach home after a while it would lock itself down.

Of course, if I did such a thing, and didn't explain everything to developers, some of them would probably jump to conclusions as to what that means about the production platform. ;)

Microsoft wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't some sort of accord with EA, Activision, and SONY as well.
Fixed.

The offline gamer is useless to MS.

They won't pay for XBL. They won't buy XBLA games. They won't buy video content. They won't buy DLC. They won't subscribe to Random MS Service #7.

From MS's perspective offline users cost MS money (assuming the new Xbox is sold at a loss).

So why would MS support offline gamers? It doesn't make sense to their financial desires.
What a load of shit. Microsoft makes ten bucks off every third-party disc sold, and we are talking everything from Call of Duty to Need for Speed. And much more money per disc on profitable first-party games like Halo and Forza. The revenue generated by the offline 360 gamer has to be in billions of dollars at this point. They aren't going to walk away from that, it isn't going to happen. Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by leaving billions of dollars on the table.
 

Huff

Banned
Nov 10, 2010
5,835
0
0
Activition: The developers who are making Diablo 3 a Sony exclusive.... The developers willing to allow BF4 to get a greater fanbase.

Seriously how does anyone believe COD will be a NextBox exclusive?
I wouldn't expect Diablo to be exclusive
 

pvpness

Member
Mar 27, 2007
2,667
0
860
Im not really afraid of MS doing this, I'm more afraid of people buying the console in droves and accepting it.
That's my concern as well. I actually expect it considering the culture xbox has fostered throughout the years.
 
Jun 27, 2010
41,276
0
0
What a load of shit. Microsoft makes ten bucks off every third-party disc sold, and we are talking everything from Call of Duty to Need for Speed. And much more money per disc on profitable first-party games like Halo and Forza. The revenue generated by the offline 360 gamer has to be in billions of dollars at this point. They aren't going to walk away from that, it isn't going to happen. Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by leaving billions of dollars on the table.
The ads lend substantial weight to this. Then again, MS have made some colossal blunders, so it's still somewhat believable they might try this.

I doubt they will, as you stated, there's money to be made from both online and offline gamers, seems short-sighted and stupid of them to completely ignore millions of sales.
 

Myshkin

Member
Oct 4, 2012
901
0
0
And while you're at it don't forget unlimited blowjobs and beer. The Durango will be able to provide both and all you need to do is wave your penis in front of the Kinect camera while making whale sounds.
Damn me and my inept whale sound ability.

Just musing... with that possibility that always-online comes from MS development tools for Durango required to be always in touch with MS. After devs lose a lot of productivity from that irritation, it could put some off of always-online DRM. MS might be trying to do us a solid.
 

CrunchyFrog

Member
Mar 25, 2010
10,626
0
755
My guess is that if it does ban used games... That the console is going to be noticeably less expensive than the PS4 ($100 at least).
From a business standpoint, Microsoft isn't "saving" any money, this tactic is one being used to recoup costs that are otherwise being lost. And even if they were, your assumption is dangerously similar to the "trickle down economics" bunk. It purports that if the people at the top are saving money that they'll actually pass those savings to the consumer instead of pocketing the extra profits for themselves. While in an ideal world this might be true, in practice in just about any business (especially in the US), this just simply isn't the case. In a capitalist system of publicly traded companies which predicates success with constant growth and increasing profits instead of stability, there's no room for passing the buck to the non-invested consumer.