PDA

View Full Version : New Xbox with or without optical drive?


The Produca
07-05-2012, 11:46 PM
Would you care if the new Xbox did not have an optical drive? It would get rid of disc scratches.

ChickinOnaChain
07-05-2012, 11:55 PM
I probably have bought my last console, when I got my current one a few months ago. So I don't care and not in a shitty way.

fastNcurious
07-06-2012, 12:32 AM
I don't know about "optical" drive specifically, but I would like some sort of drive/reader for physical game purchases. I do not like the idea of all games being downloadable only. A cartridge reader, USB thumbdrive port or something similar is a must, imo.

Dz06lt
07-06-2012, 12:37 AM
no physical media = fuck off

FFFreak1129
07-06-2012, 02:25 AM
If its digital only I doubt I would buy it.

DecadentBeaver
07-06-2012, 02:38 AM
I like to have a physical copy of a game if available. Gotta love that new manual smell! If it became digital only, then we would be charged through the nose for games, and have no resale at all. If it does happen, I'm sticking with the 360. Plenty of life in it yet.

PMS Green1Chaos
07-06-2012, 03:18 AM
I would rather have a hard/disc drive on the next xbox, than going without...It'll bring the rep further down from the playing field.

1 up
07-06-2012, 03:23 AM
i don't care i probably wont be getting the next xbox.

colt415
07-06-2012, 03:45 AM
I like to buy psychical copies of games so yes I would like one.

Drewdude1023
07-06-2012, 04:51 AM
I prefer having a physical copy of my games. However, I'm sure Microsoft would much prefer people downloading games, but at the same time they can't afford to lose the customers who don't like/can't download games. So I think they'll still make physical discs, but they'll also release every game for download on XBL on their release dates. And to give people incentive to download, the downloads will probably be a little less expensive than the discs.

DOOKH8R
07-06-2012, 04:53 AM
How am I going to play my Golden Girls Complete Series DVDs without an optical drive?

Capn Doug
07-06-2012, 05:12 AM
There either needs to be something that I can hold in my hand (doesn't necessarily need to be a disc, but something beyond just a code) for me to pay more than $10 for a game. I have no problem trekking over to the store to get a game, and I have no problem downloading games, but if they want me to download Dragon Age 3, they can't charge more than $10 for it.

List of arcade games that I have paid more than 800MSP for:
Raskulls (if you include the DLC)

runswithscissors
07-06-2012, 06:58 AM
I'd prefer if it did but I'd probably still get it if it doesn't. Too much of a gamer to give up now I think... probably

H2O
07-06-2012, 07:53 AM
It wouldn't quite be the end of the world for me if they left the drive out but i really hope they don't.


Globally (or just across the uk) the internets infrastructure is no where close to good enough to support many current services/ ideas for services.

Unless you live in a city you really need an option other than digital download/ streaming and will almost certainly continue to need said other option for many years to come.

Broodjekipkorn
07-06-2012, 08:15 AM
I don't like the idea of downloading games, actually. I like to have a physical copie of it. Since I game, it's always been this way and I like to keep it this way, because I like it.

I would also like to be able to play my Xbox 360 games on my new console. How am I gonna do that when there's no physical drive?

Joel78
07-06-2012, 08:49 AM
Definately a drive for me, hopefully blu ray or something where the disks are more scratch proof. If people had to buy the games from MS at the prices they set...I am not sure they would be too happy....

rikib004
07-06-2012, 08:54 AM
Not only does it need to have a disc drive it needs Blu Ray... Give us the quality in movies and also put an end to 2 and 3 disc games!

Barad
07-06-2012, 12:44 PM
I like my discs, so yes!

cjdavies
07-06-2012, 12:54 PM
I don't want digital only.

StillTIPPIN187
07-06-2012, 04:21 PM
Blu Ray or nothing at all.. I happen to prefer digital games more anyway because buying them is such a pain in the dick and a hassle.. But i still like buying Physical Blu Rays..

Gackt
07-06-2012, 04:27 PM
100% digital is fine with me. Next console should also require online connection at all times like some PC games are doing.

Ehrenfried
07-06-2012, 04:46 PM
We are far from digital only, MS&Sony would loose so many customers who haven't "real" DSL, like in villages etc. and then there is the thing with the retailers like amazon & Co.
who earn a lot of money on/through the game sales, and it would be anabsolute monopoly for MS/Sony if the new consoles had no optical discdrive, they would dry out amazon and the other companies.

And here's why digital only will not happen in the next generation...

If amazon can't sell any games because all is digital, they would treaten with "we sell nothing from MS anymore" and ms isn't capable of building such an infrastructre like amazon to sell as much consoles as needed.

Xtowers
07-06-2012, 04:58 PM
I like playing/renting used games. It is so much cheaper than buying retail. A release of a console without an optical drive is an attempt to prevent a second-hand market and increase margins. As a gamer, I'm tired of being nickle-and-dimed for my hobby, and I would not welcome a digital-only platform.

WipeoutBoy1
07-06-2012, 06:03 PM
No physical media no buy.

ZedChuva
07-06-2012, 06:18 PM
It will have an optical drive. A BluRay drive to be precise.

A system without one... eeehhhh... I don't know. I "get" the "future" is moving towards a digital media, but that's not here yet. Next next gen, then sure, and even then, there will still be physical media, cause not everyone can afford to download a 30gb game. They'll move to SD card type peripherals I'm assuming (ass-u-me)

Would I buy the next system if it were sans optical drive? Not a chance. At least, not any time soon.

Oh, and the new Xbox will NOT be backwards compatible, especially without an optical drive... duh.

HellspawnRei
07-06-2012, 06:21 PM
Im a disk lover so...100% yes.

DOOKH8R
07-06-2012, 06:24 PM
I want a five disc changer!

StolenPaper18
07-06-2012, 06:27 PM
I want a five disc changer!

I'm in full support of this.

I think they should start releasing games both on disc and digitally. That way it makes everyone happy. I'd buy a lot of games digitally because to be honest, I hate getting up 4-5 times a night to change my disk out when my party decides they want to play something else. Yes, I am that lazy.

Walecs360
07-06-2012, 07:39 PM
With, because that means I can buy used games and sell them.

mrj3d
07-06-2012, 11:18 PM
I'd prefer some kind of physical media. I don't buy many digital games.

Dz06lt
07-07-2012, 12:41 AM
100% digital is fine with me. Next console should also require online connection at all times like some PC games are doing.


ha are you the posterboy for DRM?

Veedrock
07-07-2012, 12:46 AM
With, because that means I can buy used games and sell them.

Not really. They're already taking steps against used games with online passes (among other things), they could very well have discs, but lock out the full game with a code. This was actually a serious rumor for next gen awhile ago.

Several developers have expressed interest in doing this already, but they're hesitant to implement it because to be successful (from a business standpoint) they would need everyone to do it, and the only way for that to feasibly happen is for the console to require it.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 12:48 AM
100% digital is fine with me. Next console should also require online connection at all times like some PC games are doing.

There's no chance in hell I would ever buy a system that's that restrictive.

And there's a long, long list of reasons why going all-digital is a very, very bad idea.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 12:50 AM
Not really. They're already taking steps against used games with online passes (among other things), they could very well have discs, but lock out the full game with a code.

I will not buy any system with this crap. I already avoid games with online passes. I will gladly buy a competing system if that system did not have these lock-outs. And if this is what the gaming industry as a whole devolves into, I will gladly find a new hobby.

Dz06lt
07-07-2012, 12:50 AM
There's no chance in hell I would ever buy a system that's that restrictive.

And there's a long, long list of reasons why going all-digital is a very, very bad idea.

newsflash you already have one that is almost there.

Skillet
07-07-2012, 01:46 AM
newsflash you already have one that is almost there.

The ratio of Arcade games to Retail disc-based games is extremely low.

Also, when comparing sales of the Games on Demand version of games to the Retail disc-based versions, sales are very low. Even in the rare instances when the GoD versions are actually cheaper due to sales.

So your statement is false at worst, and misleading at best.

Think about it... how many Games on Demand games do you have that could have been purchased in a disc-based format?

The only way any next-gen console is going to nix a disc drive is if they offer up a suitable replacement. Like a proprietary SSD that you would jam into a slot on the front. But that would probably increase the cost of retail games, which most people would object to.

The last statistic I heard, I believe something like 80% of Xbox 360 consoles were connected to the internet at least once. I don't believe Microsoft would intentionally alienate 20% or more of their customers by simple not giving them the option to purchase and play games offline. That's a lot of money flushed down the tubes.

Am I saying that Microsoft or any other console manufacturer won't push towards digital releases more than retail? No. It's too tempting, getting people to buy games that they can't sell back or give to a friend. But they won't write off a large portion of their customers to do it. And if they did... I wouldn't buy a console that only supported digital download releases.

No, I think we're several generations away from a home console that only allows you to play games via digital downloads.

Dz06lt
07-07-2012, 02:00 AM
The ratio of Arcade games to Retail disc-based games is extremely low.

Also, when comparing sales of the Games on Demand version of games to the Retail disc-based versions, sales are very low. Even in the rare instances when the GoD versions are actually cheaper due to sales.

So your statement is false at worst, and misleading at best.

Think about it... how many Games on Demand games do you have that could have been purchased in a disc-based format?

The only way any next-gen console is going to nix a disc drive is if they offer up a suitable replacement. Like a proprietary SSD that you would jam into a slot on the front. But that would probably increase the cost of retail games, which most people would object to.

The last statistic I heard, I believe something like 80% of Xbox 360 consoles were connected to the internet at least once. I don't believe Microsoft would intentionally alienate 20% or more of their customers by simple not giving them the option to purchase and play games offline. That's a lot of money flushed down the tubes.

Am I saying that Microsoft or any other console manufacturer won't push towards digital releases more than retail? No. It's too tempting, getting people to buy games that they can't sell back or give to a friend. But they won't write off a large portion of their customers to do it. And if they did... I wouldn't buy a console that only supported digital download releases.

No, I think we're several generations away from a home console that only allows you to play games via digital downloads.

if you had more than one 360 console you would understand my post and there would be no need for the giant wall of text. And to part it our would take too much time, but sony already tried a digital only console the PSPgo so to say several generations away with systems like Onlive is a more than a bit premature

Capn Doug
07-07-2012, 02:16 AM
if you had more than one 360 console you would understand my post and there would be no need for the giant wall of text. And to part it our would take too much time, but sony already tried a digital only console the PSPgo so to say several generations away with systems like Onlive is a more than a bit premature

The PSPgo seemed to be closer to the iPhone or nGage than an actual console, so I wouldn't say that it has been tried in the same way that something like Steam or OnLive has tried it. And OnLive is streaming rentals, not digital ownership, so I wouldn't even put that in the same catergory as Games on Demand or Steam.

Can't believe I just typed nGage with a straight face...

Dz06lt
07-07-2012, 02:18 AM
The PSPgo seemed to be closer to the iPhone or nGage than an actual console, so I wouldn't say that it has been tried in the same way that something like Steam or OnLive has tried it. And OnLive is streaming rentals, not digital ownership, so I wouldn't even put that in the same catergory as Games on Demand or Steam.

Can't believe I just typed nGage with a straight face...

no you can own or rent with onlive, just because the PSPgo is a handheld doesnt make it any less of a console btw it was not a phone.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 02:22 AM
if you had more than one 360 console you would understand my post and there would be no need for the giant wall of text. And to part it our would take too much time, but sony already tried a digital only console the PSPgo so to say several generations away with systems like Onlive is a more than a bit premature


You are correct in that the technology already exists for an all-digital system. But the gaming industry and gaming community as a whole is not ready for one. Just in the US alone, large chunks of the US do not have the broadband internet available that is necessary to download today's games or maintain an always-on connection. As skillet said, switching to an all digital system would alienate at least 20% of their customer base. And that doesn't count people like me who could handle an always on connection and download games at reasonable speeds but do not want to.

There's also the recent EU ruling regarding first sale doctrine and digital games. Not even industry experts know exactly how that ruling will ultimately affect the gaming industry. Until we figure out exactly how that affects the industry, launching an all-digital system there is a very, very bad idea.

And neither the PSP GO nor the OnLive system are exactly setting the gaming industry on fire. Sony went away from all-digital with the PS Vita, which is a pretty strong indication that going all-digital wasn't a very good idea. OnLive has been getting mixed reviews at best due to the bandwidth issues.

Bandwidth issues are another issue. Some areas have tight bandwidth caps as it is -- caps which can easily be exceeded by your average gamer if they're forced to go all-digital and be online all the time. ISPs aren't going to like Microsoft very much for giving consumers yet another bandwidth-hogging device, and gamers aren't going to be too keen on continually fighting with their ISP over bandwidth issues just so the gaming industry can enjoy their online DRM. It's a lose-lose for the consumer -- they lose by having to bump heads with their ISP, and the reason why they're bumping heads with their ISP is so that the gaming industry can impose more DRM on them via a forced always-on connection. There's no upside for the customer.

And this doesn't even take into consideration the effects on the used game market (which contrary to what the gaming industry wants you to believe, would have a huge negative impact on the industry as a whole), other issues with DRM, the fact that I want to actually own my game, etc. etc. etc.

tl;dr: Just because the technology exists doesn't mean that the industry is ready to go all-digital.

Dz06lt
07-07-2012, 02:28 AM
Dont get me wrong, if you read my original post you would clearly see i have zero interest in digital only distribution. None of that however changes the fact that the 360 has very clear DRM issues if you try to use your content on more than one console, which is what i way trying to point out in more recent posts

Capn Doug
07-07-2012, 02:38 AM
Dont get me wrong, if you read my original post you would clearly see i have zero interest in digital only distribution. None of that however changes the fact that the 360 has very clear DRM issues if you try to use your content on more than one console, which is what i way trying to point out in more recent posts

Why would you need to use more than one console at once?

Veedrock
07-07-2012, 02:54 AM
I will not buy any system with this crap. I already avoid games with online passes. I will gladly buy a competing system if that system did not have these lock-outs. And if this is what the gaming industry as a whole devolves into, I will gladly find a new hobby.

If you buy used, game companies are losing exactly $0 from you switching hobbies. Just saying.

I don't know why the concept of single-use games seems so foreign to some people. There's no used market for PC games but it's as strong as ever. Why is it that consoles need to be exempt from single-use games, or else it will spell immediate doom for consoles?

None of that however changes the fact that the 360 has very clear DRM issues if you try to use your content on more than one console

What issues are there with using your gamertag? The system is miles better than how the Wii or PS3 handles it.

Gackt
07-07-2012, 02:57 AM
ha are you the posterboy for DRM?

No, but 100% online requirement seems to cut down piracy for PC games. If it could help consoles be more secure than I am all for it. As for all digital, works fantastic with steam, not sure why everyone is so afraid of it.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 03:26 AM
Why would you need to use more than one console at once?

Maybe he's discussing a situation where, for example, me and my son are both playing our X-Boxes? That's pretty common in my house. And my daughter is beginning to show an interest in video games, which could mean we could eventually become a 3-console family.

If you buy used, game companies are losing exactly $0 from you switching hobbies. Just saying.

No, they're not. To give one of many examples where this is entirely wrong.....I cannot afford all the $60 games I want to play. I can, however, afford $30. So I trade in some games I'm no longer playing for $30 in credit, pay the rest in cash, and buy a new game. That way, the game industry is still getting $30 off me. If that were not an option, they would be getting $0.

As another example, I hear about a new game franchise. I'm unwilling to spend $60 on a game I do not know whether or not I like. So I buy it used. If I like the game, I'm more willing to buy DLC, and I'm more willing to buy sequels new. Being unable to buy the game used means that the company wouldn't be getting my money for their DLC, nor will they be getting my money for sequels.

So yes, me switching hobbies costs them money.

I don't know why the concept of single-use games seems so foreign to some people. There's no used market for PC games but it's as strong as ever. Why is it that consoles need to be exempt from single-use games, or that it will immediately spell doom for consoles?

Why does the gaming industry think they're somehow exempt from having a second-hand market? I could sell my car, my toaster, my pants...heck, my X-Box, and I don't have to pay Microsoft, Ford, or GE. Why does the gaming industry think they're somehow entitled to money if I decide to sell my game?

There's no used market for PC games but it's as strong as ever

The recent EU rulings may very well change that.

No, but 100% online requirement seems to cut down piracy for PC games.

Online requirements, nor any other form of DRM, has ever had any notable effect on piracy. Most games are cracked to have offline modes, no-cd required, etc. within days if not hours of a game's release. Go look on TPB and see thousands of seeders and leechers for every popular game out there. Pirates are going to pirate and laugh at DRM in the process.

If it could help consoles be more secure than I am all for it.

Every console of this generation has been cracked. It may take a while, but every console of the next generation will be cracked as well. A 100% online mode will only hurt consumers, while pirates will continue to pirate.

As for all digital, works fantastic with steam, not sure why everyone is so afraid of it.

1)Not everybody has connections reliable enough to remain online all the time.

2)Not everybody has the bandwidth necessary to download games at any reasonable speed.

3)Some people have bandwidth caps that would make use of an all-digital system impossible without continually running into bandwidth cap issues.

4)One of its primary purposes is to eliminate the used game market, and in the process attempt to go around the first-sale-doctrine in the US, and the recent EU ruling allowing the sale/transfer of used digital product.

5)My system shouldn't have to "phone home" just to ask for permission to play a game I already fucking paid for. If I want to play *my* game on *my* system, I should be able to do so online, offline, or on Mars.

6)Ask people who bought Diablo III how well they like having to be online to play single player.

7) What happens to the game I legally purchased if the game company that made it goes out of business and/or decides to shut down the authentication servers? Look at the 38 studios debacle as an example. If we were all digital, people who purchased Kingdoms of Amalur would no longer be able to play at all. Prototype 2 is another example of a popular game who's developer went out of business shortly after release. It can happen. Are the customers SOL?

Capn Doug
07-07-2012, 05:03 AM
No, they're not. To give one of many examples where this is entirely wrong.....I cannot afford all the $60 games I want to play. I can, however, afford $30. So I trade in some games I'm no longer playing for $30 in credit, pay the rest in cash, and buy a new game. That way, the game industry is still getting $30 off me. If that were not an option, they would be getting $0.

Actually, in that argument, you are buying new, not used. The people buying your traded gamesare the ones buying used. Some hobbies cost money in order to participate. Want to play hockey in a beer league? Gonna need to but skates, a helmet, a stick, pay your entry fee and probably the general team supplies for total minimum of about $500.

As another example, I hear about a new game franchise. I'm unwilling to spend $60 on a game I do not know whether or not I like. So I buy it used. If I like the game, I'm more willing to buy DLC, and I'm more willing to buy sequels new. Being unable to buy the game used means that the company wouldn't be getting my money for their DLC, nor will they be getting my money for sequels.

In order to provide DLC or a sequel, they need to make money off the game. By buying used, you are giving them $0 to put toward the development of DLC or a sequel. So you are kind of defeating you argument that you are helping the franchise by buying used.

Why does the gaming industry think they're somehow exempt from having a second-hand market? I could sell my car, my toaster, my pants...heck, my X-Box, and I don't have to pay Microsoft, Ford, or GE. Why does the gaming industry think they're somehow entitled to money if I decide to sell my game?

Maybe because the United States Supreme Court said they could? The first sale doctrine does not apply to digital information in the United States, and I doubt a ruling by the European Courts will change that.

The recent EU rulings may very well change that.

Didn't you just read what I wrote? EU rulings don't supercede the United States Supreme court in the jurisdiction that it covers.

1)Not everybody has connections reliable enough to remain online all the time.

2)Not everybody has the bandwidth necessary to download games at any reasonable speed.

3)Some people have bandwidth caps that would make use of an all-digital system impossible without continually running into bandwidth cap issues.

These are actually the best reasons for the console market not to go 100% digital. Particularly since almost every ISP is adding in caps of some sort to prevent having to beef up infrastructure. You're making a little bit of sense.

4)One of its primary purposes is to eliminate the used game market, and in the process attempt to go around the first-sale-doctrine in the US, and the recent EU ruling allowing the sale/transfer of used digital product.

5)My system shouldn't have to "phone home" just to ask for permission to play a game I already fucking paid for. If I want to play *my* game on *my* system, I should be able to do so online, offline, or on Mars.

6)Ask people who bought Diablo III how well they like having to be online to play single player.

7) What happens to the game I legally purchased if the game company that made it goes out of business and/or decides to shut down the authentication servers? Look at the 38 studios debacle as an example. If we were all digital, people who purchased Kingdoms of Amalur would no longer be able to play at all. Prototype 2 is another example of a popular game who's developer went out of business shortly after release. It can happen. Are the customers SOL?

And now that sense is gone...

4) see previous argument and yes, they are trying to get around GameStop who are making a profit multiple times off the same product without giving a dime to the developer. When they started deliberatly underordering to create a demand for used games, the developers kind of had to do something to stop that.

5) They aren't your games. You are licensed to use them for your own personal use under the circumstances laid out in the EULA.

7) Who says that the authentication service will be run through the developer?

There are a lot of reasons not to go digital only, but "I own it! It's mine!" has got to be the most retarded.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 06:21 AM
Actually, in that argument, you are buying new, not used. The people buying your traded gamesare the ones buying used. Some hobbies cost money in order to participate. Want to play hockey in a beer league? Gonna need to but skates, a helmet, a stick, pay your entry fee and probably the general team supplies for total minimum of about $500.

1) Without the buyers to buy my used games, I cannot sell them. Therefore I couldn't come up with the rest of the money needed to buy the new game in the first place. Which means the game industry gets $0 of my money instead of $30 or whatever.

As for the hockey league analogy.....Minus the entry fee, I could buy all that stuff used for a much cheaper price.

In order to provide DLC or a sequel, they need to make money off the game. By buying used, you are giving them $0 to put toward the development of DLC or a sequel. So you are kind of defeating you argument that you are helping the franchise by buying used.

They produce DLC and sequels in order to make more money. If I buy their used game, then follow it up by buying their $10 DLC and their $60 sequel, they make $70. If I cannot buy their game used and don't want to gamble $60 on a game I may not even like, they make $0 off me as I find another product to buy instead.

Maybe because the United States Supreme Court said they could? The first sale doctrine does not apply to digital information in the United States, and I doubt a ruling by the European Courts will change that.

The EU ruling may very well change how they develop the console though. They're going to have to develop a console that is in compliance with the recent EU ruling, and I doubt they're going to want to either abandon the european market entirely or develop what would essentially be two different consoles.

In theory, they could prevent EU players from selling their digital games to US players, but I'm not sure if the EU ruling would prohibit them from doing so. Nobody knows exactly what the EU ruling means yet or how it will play out.

4) see previous argument and yes, they are trying to get around GameStop who are making a profit multiple times off the same product without giving a dime to the developer. When they started deliberatly underordering to create a demand for used games, the developers kind of had to do something to stop that.

Second-hand stores reduce demand for new clothes.
Used car lots reduce demand for new cars.
Ebay and Amazon reduce demand for new.....everything.

Again, I don't see why game developers suddenly feel that there should be no used market for their products when there's a used market for almost every other product on the planet. Every other industry has no problems compensating for the second-hand market. Why can't game companies?

And games have been around for 30+ years. I rented games for the old NES system from Blockbuster. I bought my Atari 2600 games from flea markets and yard sales. The used video game market has been around as long as there have been consoles. Yet the game companies suddenly have a problem *now*? Bullshit.

5) They aren't your games. You are licensed to use them for your own personal use under the circumstances laid out in the EULA.

The developers have indoctrinated you well. If I buy a Monopoly game, I don't "license the right to use it" from Parker Brothers. I own the fucking game. Just because it's on a disc instead of a piece of cardboard doesn't change the fact that I fucking own it and have the right to do what I want with it. More and more rulings concerning the ownership of digital goods are in favor of the consumer, and digital property is quickly becoming recognized by the courts as holding the same value as physical property.

7) Who says that the authentication service will be run through the developer?

Doesn't matter who it's run by. I shouldn't have to phone anybody in order to play a single player game I purchased -- used or new. My ability to play my legally purchased game should not be dictated by the whims of the developer, nor should I ever be in a position where I'm unable to play because my modem is on the fritz, or my ISP is having an issue, or the authentication server is down. I shouldn't have to be connected to the internet at all.

There are a lot of reasons not to go digital only, but "I own it! It's mine!" has got to be the most retarded.

Heaven forbid people want to excercise their rights of ownership of a product they paid money for......

Skillet
07-07-2012, 06:41 AM
There are a lot of reasons not to go digital only, but "I own it! It's mine!" has got to be the most retarded.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/092009/1253784913_jack_nicholson_fuckyou.gif

pacmon
07-07-2012, 07:05 AM
Only if I could walk into a store and buy the game on a usb drive. I don't like digital download (partly because downloading 8+ GBs still takes too long). Plus when the hard drive eventually fails....

cjdavies
07-07-2012, 07:11 AM
1)Without the buyers to buy my used games, I cannot sell them. Therefore I couldn't come up with the rest of the money needed to buy the new game in the first place. Which means the game industry gets $0 of my money instead of $30 or whatever.

Also, for me it will only build up more clutter in my home if I have finished with them and will no longer play them.

Skilled
07-07-2012, 07:44 AM
Certain things I'm happy to have digital only, other things such as my console games... Nope.

hydrosugar
07-07-2012, 08:36 AM
It's not likely I'm gonna buy the next xbox anyway, whatever it ends up being called. But being digital only would lower those chances even further.

CHIRUNO99
07-07-2012, 10:31 AM
This is all just rumour and speculation, we have no idea what to expect until Microsoft announces more.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 01:42 PM
http://gifs.gifbin.com/092009/1253784913_jack_nicholson_fuckyou.gif

On a side note, this is now my second favorite "celebrity fuck you". :D

Here's my favorite:

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/2/0/128620.jpg?v=1

Skillet
07-07-2012, 01:48 PM
This is all just rumour and speculation, we have no idea what to expect until Microsoft announces more.

MS isn't going to do it. Rumors are stupid anyway. The site that started the "no disc-drive" rumor also said that the new Xbox would be released this year. And we haven't even seen an announcement, let alone a release date.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/04/10/pachter-on-rumors-of-next-gen-consoles-locking-out-used-games-quot-not-happening-quot.aspx

Which is where I got most of my argument from a few posts back. The rumor is stupid for a whole host of reasons, and the number 1 reason for MS or any other company to not release a console without a disc drive is money. Plain and simple. The only way they'll do this is if digital sales ever (on consoles) exceed retail sales. And even then, it's slim.

I mean look at PC. Digital sales and piracy have produced far higher numbers than boxed game sales for years. And yet... publishers are still producing boxed retail games.

It would be stupid not to.

The only way I see a console removing the disc drive in the future, is if we go back to a proprietary cartridge-like design. Obviously, these wouldn't be standard cartridges, they would be some kind of SSD... like an SD Card. Think of it like sticking your Nintendo DS game right into a slot on the front of your console. And this is the next logical step for games, in my opinion. Unless somebody creates a new disc format that can be read instantly...

On a side note, this is now my second favorite "celebrity fuck you". :D

Here's my favorite:Anger Management was a great movie. :p

Dz06lt
07-07-2012, 02:05 PM
Why would you need to use more than one console at once?

I had 2 of the non slim consoles for different rooms in my house, sometimes i would pull the hdd and try to play games on the second non connected to the net console. All of the XBL games were unplayable and whats worse is games where i had purchased single player DLC also became unplayable becuse of the DRM required by the console. Its not complicated....

Skillet
07-07-2012, 02:09 PM
I had 2 of the non slim consoles for different rooms in my house, sometimes i would pull the hdd and try to play games on the second non connected to the net console. All of the XBL games were unplayable and whats worse is games where i had purchased single player DLC also became unplayable becuse of the DRM required by the console. Its not complicated....

lol so not allowing somebody to play games that they've downloaded on a different console, while not connected to the internet to verify that the account that purchased the game is the one playing the game, is a sign of them going digital-only?

Seems more like a smart business plan, to me.

Renedald
07-07-2012, 02:26 PM
I also like my hard copy of games... I'm the kind of person when I open a game and there is only a slip of paper inside saying "download the manual here" I get a little pissy.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 02:28 PM
MS isn't going to do it. Rumors are stupid anyway. The site that started the "no disc-drive" rumor also said that the new Xbox would be released this year. And we haven't even seen an announcement, let alone a release date.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/04/10/pachter-on-rumors-of-next-gen-consoles-locking-out-used-games-quot-not-happening-quot.aspx

To be fair, the guy's track record on his predictions apparently isn't the most stellar. And the source is a company who's business model almost entirely relies on the used game market remaining viable. They're obviously going to be heavily biased towards the used game market, and their articles will reflect that.

With that being said......the guy does have valid points. But his are only a couple of the long list of reasons why going all digital would be batshit retarded.

Which is where I got most of my argument from a few posts back. The rumor is stupid for a whole host of reasons, and the number 1 reason for MS or any other company to not release a console without a disc drive is money. Plain and simple. The only way they'll do this is if digital sales ever (on consoles) exceed retail sales. And even then, it's slim.

An all-digital product may very well be viable for the 9th generation. But while it is technologically possible, it is not a viable idea for the next generation.

Sony already tried this with the PSP, and failed miserably. They're not going to be dumb enough to say "Hey, our handheld product failed miserably when we tried going all digital...I've got an idea! Let's do the exact same fucking thing with our flagship product! Yeah, that'll work!!!"

Not even sony is that stupid. And if Sony doesn't do it, MS isn't going to do it and just concede a huge competitive advantage to Sony.


The only way I see a console removing the disc drive in the future, is if we go back to a proprietary cartridge-like design. Obviously, these wouldn't be standard cartridges, they would be some kind of SSD... like an SD Card. Think of it like sticking your Nintendo DS game right into a slot on the front of your console. And this is the next logical step for games, in my opinion. Unless somebody creates a new disc format that can be read instantly...

I can't be the only person who finds a huge amount of irony in that. When you think about it....going back to a cartridge based system *would* solve a lot of the problems that optical discs have -- long load times, piracy issues, space limitations, etc. Heck, DLC could be saved right to the cartridge itself. They'd be taking a huge step forward by taking one step backward. :D

And actually, switching to a cartridge based system would give them options to comply with the recent EU rulings regarding digital downloads. The cartridge would have to be proprietary to reduce the risk of piracy (you will never eliminate it...), but people would be able to save their DLC to their game cartridges and sell them when the sell the rest of the game. Digital downloads can be saved to a blank cartridge and re-sold just like any other game.

I know it's far too late in the development cycle now to switch to a cartridge based system, so it's not going to happen in this generation. But the more I think about it, the more I think going back to cartridges would be a win-win for everybody involved.

Dz06lt
07-07-2012, 02:32 PM
lol so not allowing somebody to play games that they've downloaded on a different console, while not connected to the internet to verify that the account that purchased the game is the one playing the game, is a sign of them going digital-only?

Seems more like a smart business plan, to me.

I didnt say anything about going digital only, the discussion was in reference to DRM discussion, and not its not smart for their consumers. Say i had to cancel my internet basically all the games i have anything downloaded for beccome unplayable not good customer service

Capn Doug
07-07-2012, 06:43 PM
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf

No, you don't own it. It says so right there in a court ruling that has been on the books and upheld for 2 years. The EU courts do not supercede the United States Supreme Court which upheld that decision.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no desire to see a 100% digital console, but the "I bought it, I own it" first sales doctrine does not apply to software. And disagreeing with the law won't make it go away. Think (insert some controversially illegal act) should be legal? Go do it in front of a cop. You may wake up in the prison hospital after a severe nightsticking. Even if you dislike the law, you are still bound by it.

I'm pretty sure that the money lost from people not being able to buy the games will not be less than the money gained from increased profit on them. I'd see the next gen acting as an intermediary, more than anything. Same day GoD releases, maybe even for slightly cheaper than retail to try and push the service ($5 cheaper at launch maybe?) and other tactics to try and get console gamers more accustomed to buying digital. Heck, I can even see a version being released with out an optical drive, kind of like the versions without a hard drive this gen, for the people who are just so gung ho about 100% digital. But I can't see the optical drive being dropped entirely in the next generation.

I didnt say anything about going digital only, the discussion was in reference to DRM discussion, and not its not smart for their consumers. Say i had to cancel my internet basically all the games i have anything downloaded for beccome unplayable not good customer service

Do a license transfer and redownload when you get a new console. That makes it so you can play offline.

Oh, and Skillet, you are a mod. You're supposed to be stopping the flame wars, not trying to start them.

ChromiumDragon
07-07-2012, 10:02 PM
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf

No, you don't own it. It says so right there in a court ruling that has been on the books and upheld for 2 years.



I know exactly what the law is. I strongly disagree with it, mind you. And numerous other cases regarding the ownership and sale of digital goods has been much more consumer-friendly. And there is still a chance that the case may get overturned and we may end up with a ruling similar to one given by the EU.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/stand-owners-rights

The EU courts do not supercede the United States Supreme Court which upheld that decision.While the EU decision carries no legal weight in the US, it would be foolish to think that the SC won't review the decision and take it under advisement.

There's also the fact that the EU decision is going to play a role on how the next generation's consoles will be designed. All parties are going to have to design their firmware to comply with the EU decision, and I doubt they're going to want to essentially design two separate consoles.

And while the EU decision has no legal weight as far as the US is concerned, it does have legal weight as far as businesses who want to continue to serve the EU are concerned. A prime example is the World Wrestling Federation vs. the World Wildlife Fund. In a nutshell, the Wildlife fund sued the World Wrestling Federation for copyright infringement. A British court ruled in favor of the Wildlife fund. the World Wrestling Federation could have told them to go fuck themselves and not conduct business there any more, continuing to run business as usual in the US. But rather than risk losing the European market, they chose to rename themselves to the WWE and blur out old references to the WWF, even in America where they were not legally obliged to.

I would expect gaming companies to do the same.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no desire to see a 100% digital console, but the "I bought it, I own it" first sales doctrine does not apply to software. And disagreeing with the law won't make it go away. Think (insert some controversially illegal act) should be legal? Go do it in front of a cop. You may wake up in the prison hospital after a severe nightsticking. Even if you dislike the law, you are still bound by it.Right now, I can sell my games used. The day I can no longer sell my used games when I am done with them, or have to pay extra to play a used game I legally purchased, or cannot play used games at all is the day I find another hobby. As a consumer, any product I purchase is *mine*. Period. End of story. The day I cannot do as I see fit with a product I purchased is the day I no longer purchase that product. The law may not currently be on my side, but I feel that law will change. And if it doesn't and the industry continues to lean towards the ridiculous notion that I don't own what I fucking paid for, then I will not do business with that industry.

The idea that I no longer own a product I purchased but instead am "renting" or "licensing" it from a company so that company can make more money is completely fucking retarded, and it's a damn shame that there are people out there willing to go along with that. Walk up to someone and say that they don't own their TV, their fridge, or their lawn mower and are just "licensing" it from the manufacturer and watch them laugh in your face. The notion of "licensing" something you bought is ridiculous when it applies to physical goods. Why should it apply to digital ones?

Again, I know the law is not on my side, but the law is starting to change. Hopefully, the SC will see that the original ruling was retarded and rule accordingly this time.

I'm pretty sure that the money lost from people not being able to buy the games will not be less than the money gained from increased profit on them. I'd see the next gen acting as an intermediary, more than anything. Same day GoD releases, maybe even for slightly cheaper than retail to try and push the service ($5 cheaper at launch maybe?) and other tactics to try and get console gamers more accustomed to buying digital. Heck, I can even see a version being released with out an optical drive, kind of like the versions without a hard drive this gen, for the people who are just so gung ho about 100% digital. But I can't see the optical drive being dropped entirely in the next generation.And this is where it begins. Minor increments...a little at a time....let people get a bit riled up while others think "it's no big deal". And that's how they slowly erode your rights as a consumer away. They don't do it all at once. They spoon feed it to you one baby spoonful at a time. Then by the time you realize that they've gone too far, it's too late to do anything about it.

The time to stand up for your rights as a consumer is now. If you're willing to accept these small erosions to your rights as a consumer slowly over time, you have no right to complain when you wake up and realize you have no rights left.

TyrannoSpank
07-07-2012, 10:19 PM
I hope there is. Even if not for next gen games. Should be at least for 360 and first Xbox games compatible.

But for next gen i'd prefer tiny sdcard sized media lol. In little tiny green Xbox game cases, with little tiny instruction books.

Yea.


Anyway, 100% digital = 100% no deal for me.

Skillet
07-07-2012, 10:43 PM
I didnt say anything about going digital only, the discussion was in reference to DRM discussion, and not its not smart for their consumers. Say i had to cancel my internet basically all the games i have anything downloaded for beccome unplayable not good customer service

That's not true at all. The console that you download DLC or arcade games, or GoD games onto, remains playable offline. With any gamertag on that console. Forever.

Can you not see that this method reduces piracy by a lot? On a PC, all you have to do is download a game and use a crack or keygen to steal it. Though this process is usually a little more troublesome than a lot of people care to deal with.

But if they allowed you to download a game onto as many consoles as you wish, and play it on all of those consoles offline... what would stop every Tom, Dick, and Harry from buying a game and then, literally, copying it for all of their friends?

What is this, 1995?

I remember 1995... I copied the original Red Alert for about 12 of my friends at school. I purchased the game... and 12 other people got it and played it for free.

It would be exactly like that with arcade games or anything else. And I never said that it was smart for their customers. I said it was a smart business decision.

All you have to do to play DLC or arcade games or whatever on any other console, is have that console connected to the internet. If you don't have internet, you just have to play on the console you originally downloaded the content to. It's not that hard... and it's far from the all-controlling, evil DRM you're making it out to be.


I'm pretty sure that the money lost from people not being able to buy the games will not be less than the money gained from increased profit on them. I'd see the next gen acting as an intermediary, more than anything. Same day GoD releases, maybe even for slightly cheaper than retail to try and push the service ($5 cheaper at launch maybe?) and other tactics to try and get console gamers more accustomed to buying digital. Heck, I can even see a version being released with out an optical drive, kind of like the versions without a hard drive this gen, for the people who are just so gung ho about 100% digital. But I can't see the optical drive being dropped entirely in the next generation.

Oh, and Skillet, you are a mod. You're supposed to be stopping the flame wars, not trying to start them.

Oh, of course they'll push digital sales as much as they can with the next generation. They already are now. But that's not the argument at hand, it's whether or not one of the next generation of consoles will have nothing more than an on switch and a few plugs on the back.

Thanks for the tip on moderating the forums though. I'll try to remember not to attempt starting any imaginary flame wars with you in the future.

Capn Doug
07-08-2012, 12:26 AM
@ ChromiumDragon

I'm not going to pretend like I'm responding to your entire argument (though laws in Europe have a different basis than those in the United States or Canada or Japan, etc.) but you mentioned consumer's rights quite a bit. I don't so much think that is a term that should be pluralized, since you really have one right as a consumer: You have the right not to buy it. It is a powerful right, since companies make and design things on the idea that people will buy it. If people don't buy it, the product goes nowhere and it is scrapped for the future. Think of all those horrible ideas that were abandoned after the itteration flopped. If people won't buy it, companies won't make it.

Oh, of course they'll push digital sales as much as they can with the next generation. They already are now. But that's not the argument at hand, it's whether or not one of the next generation of consoles will have nothing more than an on switch and a few plugs on the back.

Thanks for the tip on moderating the forums though. I'll try to remember not to attempt starting any imaginary flame wars with you in the future.

Like I said, I can see an model of one of the next gen consoles being available without the disc drive, just as we had versions of the 360 that did not include a hard drive or HDMI output or proper soddering. Use that option to guage the response to digital only console gaming without doing a full conversion. Plus, the hardware would probably be cheaper to manufacture without the disc drive and I would think that fewer replacements would need to be covered.

And you're welcome. Just trying to make you a little better at your job ;)

Dz06lt
07-08-2012, 12:50 AM
Do a license transfer and redownload when you get a new console. That makes it so you can play offline..


That's not true at all. The console that you download DLC or arcade games, or GoD games onto, remains playable offline. With any gamertag on that console. Forever.

Can you not see that this method reduces piracy by a lot? On a PC, all you have to do is download a game and use a crack or keygen to steal it. Though this process is usually a little more troublesome than a lot of people care to deal with.

But if they allowed you to download a game onto as many consoles as you wish, and play it on all of those consoles offline... what would stop every Tom, Dick, and Harry from buying a game and then, literally, copying it for all of their friends?

What is this, 1995?

I remember 1995... I copied the original Red Alert for about 12 of my friends at school. I purchased the game... and 12 other people got it and played it for free.

It would be exactly like that with arcade games or anything else. And I never said that it was smart for their customers. I said it was a smart business decision.

All you have to do to play DLC or arcade games or whatever on any other console, is have that console connected to the internet. If you don't have internet, you just have to play on the console you originally downloaded the content to. It's not that hard... and it's far from the all-controlling, evil DRM you're making it out to be.

.

Cant do a liscence transfer since only 1 is allowed at a time, defeats the entire purpose of owning 2 consoles.... What im saying is far from complicated why cant you two grasp it?

the real a 0bsolete
07-08-2012, 01:50 AM
i don't want to DL all of my games. keep the disk drive

Capn Doug
07-08-2012, 02:14 AM
Cant do a liscence transfer since only 1 is allowed at a time, defeats the entire purpose of owning 2 consoles.... What im saying is far from complicated why cant you two grasp it?

There's a purpose to owning two consoles in the first place? News to me. Doubt you'd be able to play them both at the same time so why spend the extra money?

kyboy
07-08-2012, 02:29 AM
I know exactly what the law is. I strongly disagree with it, mind you. And numerous other cases regarding the ownership and sale of digital goods has been much more consumer-friendly. And there is still a chance that the case may get overturned and we may end up with a ruling similar to one given by the EU.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/stand-owners-rights

While the EU decision carries no legal weight in the US, it would be foolish to think that the SC won't review the decision and take it under advisement.

There's also the fact that the EU decision is going to play a role on how the next generation's consoles will be designed. All parties are going to have to design their firmware to comply with the EU decision, and I doubt they're going to want to essentially design two separate consoles.

And while the EU decision has no legal weight as far as the US is concerned, it does have legal weight as far as businesses who want to continue to serve the EU are concerned. A prime example is the World Wrestling Federation vs. the World Wildlife Fund. In a nutshell, the Wildlife fund sued the World Wrestling Federation for copyright infringement. A British court ruled in favor of the Wildlife fund. the World Wrestling Federation could have told them to go fuck themselves and not conduct business there any more, continuing to run business as usual in the US. But rather than risk losing the European market, they chose to rename themselves to the WWE and blur out old references to the WWF, even in America where they were not legally obliged to.

I would expect gaming companies to do the same.

Right now, I can sell my games used. The day I can no longer sell my used games when I am done with them, or have to pay extra to play a used game I legally purchased, or cannot play used games at all is the day I find another hobby. As a consumer, any product I purchase is *mine*. Period. End of story. The day I cannot do as I see fit with a product I purchased is the day I no longer purchase that product. The law may not currently be on my side, but I feel that law will change. And if it doesn't and the industry continues to lean towards the ridiculous notion that I don't own what I fucking paid for, then I will not do business with that industry.

The idea that I no longer own a product I purchased but instead am "renting" or "licensing" it from a company so that company can make more money is completely fucking retarded, and it's a damn shame that there are people out there willing to go along with that. Walk up to someone and say that they don't own their TV, their fridge, or their lawn mower and are just "licensing" it from the manufacturer and watch them laugh in your face. The notion of "licensing" something you bought is ridiculous when it applies to physical goods. Why should it apply to digital ones?

Again, I know the law is not on my side, but the law is starting to change. Hopefully, the SC will see that the original ruling was retarded and rule accordingly this time.

And this is where it begins. Minor increments...a little at a time....let people get a bit riled up while others think "it's no big deal". And that's how they slowly erode your rights as a consumer away. They don't do it all at once. They spoon feed it to you one baby spoonful at a time. Then by the time you realize that they've gone too far, it's too late to do anything about it.

The time to stand up for your rights as a consumer is now. If you're willing to accept these small erosions to your rights as a consumer slowly over time, you have no right to complain when you wake up and realize you have no rights left.

there is absolutely nothing that anyone could add to that post! and i 100% agree with every thing.

Skillet
07-08-2012, 02:37 AM
Cant do a liscence transfer since only 1 is allowed at a time, defeats the entire purpose of owning 2 consoles.... What im saying is far from complicated why cant you two grasp it?

I'm a little baffled as to how you seem to be incapable of understanding that all you have to do is connect the console that you want to use to the internet, and you'll never have this issue again.

If you're not using two consoles to boost games online, then what, exactly, IS the purpose of owning two consoles? I really don't understand the reasoning behind owning two consoles, having one offline, and then complaining about games you download on one not working on the other.

You're making my brain hurt.

Kairi
07-08-2012, 04:25 AM
I apologize if this is a stupid question...but what exactly is an optical drive? Is it different than a normal disk drive or is it just another name for a disk drive?

judd90
07-08-2012, 04:35 AM
Its stupid I think.

People with low bandwidth would be fucked and offline users to. I just don't see the point, but in my situation it doesn't bother me.

Skillet
07-08-2012, 05:11 AM
...or is it just another name for a disk drive?

Yup. Just a disc drive.

Yannie Boy
07-08-2012, 05:49 AM
Didn't read all posts, but for me, I'd have a problem if things were left to digital only. Just like XBLA games of the past, they remove/delist stuff all the time. If I purchase something, I want to have access to it when I desire, hence physical works best for my needs.

Kairi
07-08-2012, 11:26 AM
Yup. Just a disc drive.
Ah okay, thanks for answering my question!

I would say that I want the next Xbox to have a disk drive. I like having physical copies of things and I don't think I would like not having one.

nomadicmarbs
07-08-2012, 06:38 PM
First off I think the new console should have an optical drive. I want to be able to play 360 games on it. Second, I am a little surprised at the responses saying they probably won't get the new console. What is keeping you from buying it?

StillTIPPIN187
07-08-2012, 07:14 PM
There are some people in here spouting BS about Digitial and Xbox LIVE Games on Demand..

Let me clear a few things up..

I own probably the most GoD games on this forum.. Not sure how many but i could list them if i wanted but.. anyways.

When you purchase a GoD game you get a license on the console it was originally downloaded.. this allows you and any other gamertag to play that GoD game offline and online..

NOW, if you haven't license transferred in the last 4 months.. You can then transfer that GoD title to any other Xbox, including a friends or a second xbox in your home.. this license transfer will now allow the console your first downloaded the game to play the game offline and online with any gamertag, and the new console you just downloaded the license for to play offline and online with any gamertag..

4 months later.. YOU CAN DO IT WITH ANOTHER XBOX CONSOLE.. making it no 3 copies of the game for 1 price.. and im pretty sure you can do it as many times as you want.. just have to wait for the 4 months to clear..

Do you want to know another cool trick you can do?

Ever wanted to split a game price with a friend only thinking, well shit then we have to share the disc.. what fun is that?

well with Games on Demand you can share the price and both get a copy of the game..

Make a NEW silver account and set it up for PP and your CC... whatever.. Put some points on it for the game.. Now buy it on your xbox and download the game.. Then have your friend recover the account and liscense transfer the game to his xbox.. Now you both have a copy you can play online and offline with any gamertag.. and you just collect his payment for the game the next time you see him..

OR, You could put your CC/PP on the account and buy HALF the points the game needs.. then tell your friend to recover the account and tell him to put his CC/PP and buy the other half of the required points for said game.. the proceed to buy and download on 1 console and then download to the other as usual

You'll have to do this with every game you buy.. for obvious reasons if you've been paying attention to my post...

Embrace digital..Its more reliable, You can never loose your games or have them stolen, and they can be cheaper if you have a brain.. I have a nice virtual collection on my dashboard that i can scroll through with out a bunch of plastic green boxes taking up space in my house.

Oh, What i just said may be frowned upon by MS and is probably against the terms of service..

And yes i know what im talking about..

Dz06lt
07-09-2012, 01:01 AM
There's a purpose to owning two consoles in the first place? News to me. Doubt you'd be able to play them both at the same time so why spend the extra money?

I can own 10 if i want, the point is to not have to move the console all over the house. Holy shit people got stupid on the brain lately

I'm a little baffled as to how you seem to be incapable of understanding that all you have to do is connect the console that you want to use to the internet, and you'll never have this issue again.

If you're not using two consoles to boost games online, then what, exactly, IS the purpose of owning two consoles? I really don't understand the reasoning behind owning two consoles, having one offline, and then complaining about games you download on one not working on the other.

You're making my brain hurt.

Not complicated, the original consoles didnt have wifi, im not running cords all over the house nor am i paying MS rediculous price for a wifi adaptor.