Top
800°

Cliffy B on Xbox One Losing Used Game DRM: “Studios Will Close”, Microtransactions Will “Skyrocket”

"During E3, we let you know about Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski’s thoughts on the Xbox One blocking/charging for used games, with the developer saying that it was positive and was the only way to make AAA games financially viable. But with Microsoft backtracking faster than a family-focused politician after a sex tape, what are his thoughts now?" - PSLS

Read Full Story >>
playstationlifestyle.net
The story is too old to be commented.
-Mika-1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

This is what I been saying all along. The used game DRM was better for the gaming industry as a whole since it would have been putting more money into the developers pocket. They wouldn't have to worry about potential lost of sales. Games like sleeping dog of most likely reached Square sales expectations and more developers wouldn't have to worry about layoffs or nickle and diming consumers to make a profit.

@Fool
I been saying this since rumors of the DRM started but all i got was a bunch of disagrees and called a bunch of names. Gamers need to start looking at things from the game developers perspective because the gaming industry is tough to profit from. HD games these days cost 10+ million to make. It not cheap. Game developers are just doing what necessary to stay in business and If DRM stayed. Just as sCliff said, we would not be seeing online passes and microtransactions.

Foolsjoker1553d ago

And this is the first I've heard of it from you?

nosferatuzodd1553d ago

ha bring Microsoft off their high horse

NegativeCreepWA1553d ago

Sony's always been the one on a high horse, with comments like "the next gen doesn't start until we say it does", they won E3 by running their big mouths, while MS concentrated on showing games.

Sony's one of the most arrogant companies around.

zebramocha1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

@cliffy b and mika.
@negative because it's true.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://iruntheinternet.com/...

ger23961553d ago

How were developers going to make money with the family share plan? One person buys s copy 10 people share it. Sounds like that would have been worse for the industry.

pompombrum1553d ago

Ger hit the nail on the head.. the 10 game sharing thing would cost the industry just as much. DRM isn't the answer to used game sales. I don't see why publishers can't still negotiate with game retailers like gamestop and game to get a cut off of used game sales.

TOSgamer1553d ago

Used games puts money back into the pocket of gamers to spend on more games. If game devs think the elimination of used games would some how force people without a lot of money to spend their rent money or food money on new games they are just delusional. People would just do something else they could afford. As much as some of them may like games I'm sure they like a roof over their head and food on the table more.

Septic1553d ago

I fear that Cliffy B is correct here. Whilst I was skeptical about MS' policies, Sony forced their hand and this might set a negative trend in the manner which he elucidated. Also, the loss of game sharing really hurts actually. It could have potentially been brilliant.

AliTheSnake11553d ago

He's actually right in everything he said.

justastranger101553d ago

Most people aren't seeing the big picture right now. When more studios close and less companies willing to make new and interesting games (mainly because they are too risky). The industry will just be about Madden and Call of Duty.

badz1491553d ago

just like the Xbone DRM, if microtransactions getting worst, lets vote with our wallet and don't give in to the SCAM! just like the DRM, show them what we want! more power for the gamers

Testfire1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

Cliffy is once again full of shit and just trying to find a scapegoat for people like him who will still anyway nickel and dime consumers. Do you Mika honestly think that with DRM pubs and devs will magically say "Hey guys, lets ease back on the microtransactions, we don't need those extra $10 million because we have DRM now."? No, we will never see a cutback in microtransactions and dlc, the cat has been let out of the bag and it's not going back in. In fact, the FTP model is starting to make an impact on consoles and that will only increase next gen. Again, cliffy is full of it.

sobekflakmonkey1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

@everyone who thinks the DRM thing was a good idea, to the people who think studios will close.

Just to kinda let you guys know how much bs that is, lets say a company spends 50+ million making a game, they sell that game for 50-60$, if they sell 1 million (mind you that's rarely the case) copies of that game they effectively make 50 million to 60 million back, that's breaking even, and that's a AAA title, but lets say that AAA title sells 2-4 million copies(mind you they usually do), they're probably making around 120 million to 240 million, that's more than enough to cover a studio, and lets look at COD for example, that game sold 14 or 15 million copies...do the math...used game's aren't hurting game studios and DRM isn't gonna help at all, especially with the sharing with 10 people thing, it's all bullocks, they're just a bunch of greedy fucks, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

ALSO, side note, even if a dev only spends 10+ million on a games development, and that game only sells 500 thousand+ copies their gross income is still 30 million....their profit is about 20 million....see what I'm getting at here? So I don't really know what the problem is, it's basically just that these companies want the most profitable option, these are million/billion dollar corporations, and they will only ever want more money.

DOMination-1553d ago

Umm no that is a very naive approach to your mathematics. After distributors, retailers and of course the developers are paid the BEST case scenario is a publisher sees 25-30 dollars from a $60 game.

BattleAxe1552d ago (Edited 1552d ago )

I have no respect for Cliff. What he doesn't realize is that people don't have to buy every game that comes out, and so to say that micro-transactions will skyrocket as some kind of punishment is ridiculous. I believe that if companies do not deliver the full experience of a game for $60.00, and instead try to get an extra $20.00 - $40.00 per game out of consumers, people will simply by fewer games. Also, if you stop people from trading in used games, then people will be far less likely to take a chance on buying a new game because they know that they are stuck with the game even if they end up not enjoying that game.

On my own experience with the PS3 and digital downloads, I will never buy digital downloads on a console ever again since I am getting royally screwed by not being able to download my 35 or so games that bought from the Playstation store, onto a PS4. My library of games that I built on the PS3 has no value whatsoever, and whenever Sony decides to shut down the Playstation Store for the PS3, four or so years from now, my games collection will cease to exist, especially if my hard drive corrupts.

So, at least we are able to trade in used games next generation, but this is bitter sweet, as now we have to pay to play online on the PS4. I understand that PS+ gives out free games and such, but personally I don't need tons and tons of games. I'm happy with the games that I have chosen to buy, so to say that everything is ok because PS+ gives you free games, really doesn't do too much for me. I was excited about the PS4 around E3, but now that I've had time to think things through, I almost want to cancel my PS4 pre-order.

We pay for the internet connection, we pay for the console hardware, we pay for the games, we pay for the DLC, and now we must pay to play online on top of that....this pisses me off as a matter of principal. So Cliffy, the least that these massive multi-national companies can do is let us trade in the games that we have purchased lawfully.

Khimarhi1552d ago

@ sobekflakmonkey

You're math is off. The misconception that many people make is that a developer gets the full $60 from a sold game, this is simply not true. They make a small portion of that money after retailers take their cut the console creator takes their cut, the publisher takes their cut and then paying for packaging disks and advertisements. In the end the publishers get closer to 10 to 15 bucks probably per game sold. Meaning to make money off of a game that costs 50 million, they would need to sell 4 to 5 million. Which is a target many games fail to reach.

Mounce1552d ago

@NegativeCreepWA - They do that on purpose, you taking them that literally and seriously is pretty sad.

Pretentious/Exaggerated claims to sound Confident and strong is different from Arrogance. Sony's ACTIONS prove the lack of arrogance. However, idiots like you will take words beyond what they are and perceive them as action too am sure....

Sony's words are a loud 'roar' to the industry and their actions are precise and to the point. Microsoft is "We're the best, because we say so, if you don't like it, go fuck off as we only want your money, our company is on a throne" kind of attitude.

That and, I'd say Sony was arrogant during PS2 to the launch of PS3 - But, they learned from their mistakes - Microsoft doesn't seem to learn a thing from their mistakes, they sweep faults under a massive rug and pull blinds and curtains down on their problems and pretend it never existed and make use of misinformation to blind people from truth with maybe-possibly responses.

Rite - Sony is the most arrogant company around... LOL.

I'd say: Microsoft > Activision > Nintendo > That guy who made Fez > Blizzard > Apple > Sony in the long run of arrogance.

Mike134nl1552d ago

to be fair we have seen a fair number of developers going bankrupt or struggling in the last few years games.

Developers need to understand that great games matter they do not only need to be bigger (at least for most people), they need to be fun to play.

Topshelfcheese1552d ago

@sobekflakmonkey

Your math is off, the publisher/Dev dont get 100% of the sales back in profit, they sell the game to stores for around 50-55 dollars and from that they have to deduct the cost of production and the fee they pay to MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc. You need to drop your numbers by about half to get a more accurate idea of profit.

YNWA961552d ago

Sony seems to have a populace of some serious whores...

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 1552d ago
caseh1553d ago

None of Squares games hit their slaes expectations recently but theres a reason for that. They are expecting each game to top 5mil to be classed as a 'success'.

Lets be honest here, when you sell 4m units and expected 5m units its clearly a failure right? /s

It's greed, nothing else but greed and pre-wned sales wouldn't have changed the outcome by the margins they are indicating.

SynGamer1553d ago

This is because studios have completely unrealistic expectations for games and invest way too much money into their development. There is NO efficiency in most of these large studios, that's why they lose money.

A small team of highly talented people with a moderate budget and easily turn out a "AAA" game given the right environment. They don't need (and shouldn't need) teams of 50+ and $10's of millions...

medman1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

Cliffy B aka Nostradumbass strikes again. It's business 101...in order to thrive, you must evolve. Studios have to change with the gaming landscape. Evolve or die. That is life. Nobody is going to shed tears for some company exec who no longer gets to drive his lamborghini to the office. You know these folks are out of control when games sell copies in the millions and somehow "underperform" according to the suits.

Blackdeath_6631552d ago

@medman
LOL "Nostradumbass" that made my day. bubbs up for funny.

on topic: Cliffy B speaks very vocally and confidently about what he thinks about the industry and where its heading which begs the question, if he is so confident on what he says about the gaming industry i wonder why he isn't using any of this infinite pool of endless wisdom to be apart of something really successful. nothing he's been apart of strikes me as "ground breaking"

Shadowstar1552d ago (Edited 1552d ago )

@SyncGamer: I'm anti-DRM (well... I'll qualify that, some DRM is worse than other DRM, I didn't like the way this was being done for the One's disc-based games), and I don't think this is going to close studios any more than the usual closures, but a AAA game needs more than just a few people in a garage. The studio I work for has > 50 people, and that's not including all the people we have behind us at the publisher level or outsourcing... and we don't even make AAA games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1552d ago
Haules1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

@-Mika-

No! your wrong! its putting more money in publisher pocket and not developers...

hay1553d ago

This, precisely. Bubs up.

WildArmed1552d ago

Bingo, all those activation fees, etc etc would have been going to both the publishers and MS themselves.

BlindGuardian1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

MS can easily fix all those problems for developers making digital games cheaper by leaving out of the price all that doesn't go back to them in retail

but they're not doing that, aren't they?

@dcbronco (below)

if MS is charging the same for digital games than what they cost at retail then they are making a lot more money with one digital sale than with one retail sale

if all the money that goes to shipping cost and retail stores would be remove from digital prices leaving thus the same profit fro MS then digital versions of full price games would cost around 40 and people would go for them everytime

they're not doing that out of greed

dcbronco1553d ago

The only thing that goes to MS is the royalty fee. On digital copies there may be a fee for storing the games and delivering them, but I would bet that is a small fee. And I don't see why they would drop the royalty. If they did that what would be the point of making a console at all. Just wait for someone else to make one and become a developer.

cee7731553d ago

No try 33% micro,google,apple and Sony get 1/3 of the income from A digital sale which is why they would rather sell A digital copy than physical because that way you cut back on shipping, packaging and the cut the store make devs have way more to gain selling you A digital copy than physical.

Enate1553d ago

Its funny you mention this because we were having this discussion an I've seen it pop up a lot lately. The problem is though M$ weren't looking to pass on the savings. They just wanted you to buy it digitally at the same price an deal with it.

MikeMyers1553d ago

People only care about themselves. 100 studios could close and they wouldn't care as long as they don't infringe on their consumers rights (which don't even exist in the first place when it comes to disc based games).

It is Microsoft's fault, they did a very poor job explaining how it works and why it's beneficial. What really hurt them is there was no signs that the consumer was going to get any compensation like Steam does with it's pricing and sales.

It's a hard sell to expect gamers to pay to play online, pay to access media services (Gold Live need for a lot of things) and then pay $60 for games with less freedom.

Riderz13371553d ago

Cliffy...is...is that you? Oh my I didn't know you had an N4G account...

MariaHelFutura1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

Most developers get paid salary, it goes to the publishers pocket. The problem w/ the gaming industry is most publishers consist of zero gamers, they see trends and repeat. The industry has became saturated in the same type of experiences from game to game and are gamers are becoming exhausted of them (and this long generation) and not buying them. It's the publishers faults, not ours.

Death1553d ago

Publishers typically fund development for games so developers can get their salary between releases. If the publisher makes money, the dev makes money. The amount the devs make varies and depends on their expected sales. The publishers publish what gamers buy. Triple A titles generate enough revenue to support Triple A titles which are typically sequels since they are safer. If the publisher recovered lost revenue from used games, newer IP's wouldn't have as large a hurdle.

Thank got ignorance prevailed and new IP's will be fewer and far between. Let's go ahead and start blaming Microsoft now.

I'm still absolutely amazed at how ignorant gamers can be. Afraid to think on their own and question why things are the way they are. Spoiled children that have no idea what they are doing.

Yeah, n4g users are much more qualified to guage the gaming industry than a developer like Cliff. Forget the fact that he actually works in the gaming industry, if he says something other than conventional ignorance, he must be wrong.

The bitch about it all is the most vocal opposers to "DRM" still aren't buying an XboxOne. They never planned on it in the first place. The ones affected are the ones that are actually getting it.

caseh1553d ago

@Death

Just because Cliffy B works in the industry doesn't mean his opinion is any more valid than the next person.

He states no pre-owned usage would have meant no micro-transactions but lets be honest here, thats bullsh*t considering Killer Instinct is already taking this approach straight out of the gate and this was prior to Microsofts announcement to remove the DRM etc.

Lets not forget DLC on top of that, the industry isn't about to rewind 8 years because a console prevents pre-owned games from working.

MariaHelFutura1553d ago

I'm not buying The Xbox One because of the camera needing to be connected, because of what Microsoft tried to pull and because the PS4 in general is just better.

gamertk4211553d ago

Well, since he is a developer, I would have to say his opinion is more important than most, because he sees how these things affect his wallet directly. It's the same with a doctor and how Obamacare affects them directly. There is a bit more personal insight and relevance to them.

gamertk4211553d ago

@maria. C'mon, you are one of the Top5 Xbox haters on this site, and that is saying a lot! You have never had any intention of getting an XB1, now or ever. Even if they gave a free PS4 with a purchase of an XB1, you wouldn't buy it, so don't act like there are small things they could still alter that would change your mind. Sheesh...

KillrateOmega1553d ago

@gamertk421

But is Maria really in the wrong?

Seriously, based on current knowledge, why should I get the Xbox One over the PS4? Because right now it's still looking like the more inferior, more restrictive, and more expensive console. This was true even before the changes.

If you can give me a level-headed list of reasons as to why the Xbox One is now the superior console, then I'd appreciate it.

Mikeyy1552d ago

@Death

It will only be a microsoft problem, because Sony's first party sudios had no problem trying out new titles last gen. You can bet they will continue next gen.

I tell the gaming industry exactly what I tell the Music industry, negotiate a better deal with your publisher, they are the one taking all your money, not the consumer.

Especially if you are a well known developer with numorous AAA titles under your belt, you should have ZERO problems finding a publisher that will cut you a fair deal.

At the end of the day if you made better games, you would get better sales.

Tyre1552d ago (Edited 1552d ago )

@Death I can't believe you still want to make this look like some fanboy war...it is most definitely not. This affects us all and is beyond any platform...it is about the future of our hobbies. MS was clearly trying to hijack our hobbies, they brought this criticism on themselves. forgot about Cliffy he is in favor of microtransactions all along and just tries to seize this opportunity to reinstate it for the greedy opportunitist that he is. Abusing these concerns for your own greedy scaremongering is low, Cliffy. Finger pointing and guilttripping just like MS. Just straightforward excuses and use your creative insights to build new 'fair & balanced' policies in favor of both the customer & the industry. The gaming industry is too beautiful to be wrecked by a handful of greedy bastard with unrealistic profits margins (Tombraider?).

andibandit1552d ago

@mariehelfutura

You fail too see that this is a downward headed spiral. Gamers buy games used, publishers wont fund new projects, game development companies go bankrupt, publishers are forced to fund projects that have proven to be successful before, gamer sees another iteration of a game decides to it get it used.

So to your comment that this is all the publishers fault......that is only part of the truth

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1552d ago
zeal0us1553d ago

Studios will close, pff Cliffy B is exaggerating heavily. The game industry is 70 billion dollar industry. Used games don't affect companies as much the big suits want you to think it does.

We all know tons of studios got closed down because of used games /Sarcasm.

baodeus1553d ago

so how do you suggest companies stay afloat? Making better AAA games?

zeal0us1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

@boadues

Companies like EA,Capcom, Activision and etc who make AAA games aren't dying because of used games.

I suggest they do their budget for these triple AAA games better. It seems silly that a game like Dark Souls which only sold 2million be a success but Tomb Raider which sold more is deem a failure. I'm pretty sure Dark Souls budget was way lower than Tomb Raider's budget.

Other things companies could do
-Listen to more of their customer's/player's feedback

-Stop bastardizing games with co-op, MP in order to make a quick buck. Some games obviously don't need co-op or MP. Thats money these companies could be saving.

-Buyback their customer's games. Theres nothing stopping these companies from buying back their customers' games. It wouldn't be hard to cut one of Gamestop's sources of revenue. All they would have to do is offer a better priced for customer's used games than Gamestop. Given how people complain about Gamestop screwing them over this shouldn't be hard. Sure it won't be easy its better than doing nothing at all.

-Add a replayability factor to their games or increased the length of their games.
By doing either it decreases the chances of the game being traded in or sold.

BitbyDeath1553d ago

Exactly. Free Radical didn't shutdown cause everyone was buying Haze secondhand.

zeal0us1553d ago

@Bitby

Free Radical got brought by Crytek,they didn't shutdown. They are known as Crytek UK nowadays.

BitbyDeath1553d ago

@zeal0us, true but they may as well be shutdown since they haven't produced a new timesplitters :-(

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1553d ago
grassyknoll1553d ago

DRM is expenive, pointless & neeedlessly restrictive. It kills game sales. If DRM was so great for profits, all developers would only sell games on PC.

PSjesus1553d ago

You mean to publishers pocket not developers,must hard worke devs live in one room apartments and get less than 30-40 percent of there work,and that's why a duch like Bobby Kotic earn 50 million per year.

sAVAge_bEaST1552d ago

I know,, why doe Microsoft think we care about publishers?? Activision, and EA are just as bad as microsoft, in killing the industry... same re-hash of games.. paid DLC, timed exclusives.
micro-transactions.. F-that.. At least sony is focusing on Developers-(you know the people that actually have a passion for/make the games.) not the Umbrella Money Grubbers.

mydyingparadiselost1553d ago

OR studios and publishers can stop bloating out their budgets with ridiculous ad spending and stupid long development times and make money. The movie industry is having the same problem of spending too much and not receiving their money back but well directed movies with smaller budgets make a killing. Spend money wisely and money will always come back to you.

jmc88881553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

BS

Used games lead to higher new game sales.

If people cannot sell used games.......they won't buy as many new games.

The people who sell, generally take that money, and either add 10-20 to it, or trade in multiple games...and then they buy a new game they would not of otherwise bought.

So let me put it to you this way.

If I was to sell Bioshock Infinite and some other games, and bought a new game that Cliffy made, does Cliffy gain money or lose money?

If they take that option away, and thus I couldn't buy Cliffy's game, does he gain money or lose money?

The reason games aren't selling as well are the following....

1. Derivative games on older tech
2. We are living in the greatest depression of mankind ever.

The economy isn't getting better, it's still falling apart.

So if studio's go under, it's because of those factors, plus their inability to put out a hit game in a more difficult environment.

AceBlazer131553d ago

not to mention ppl who buy those used games end up buying stuff like dlc and maybe even sequels or other titles from the devs because of that used game. ppl fail to realize that used games help sales

thehitman1553d ago

A lot of studios are poorly managed as well and they have only themselves to blame for that. SE is notoriously bad at developing FF games in a decent time frame. Maybe its because they are RPG games that require just more development, but I believe those projects have been poorly mishandled as well. Also the whole HD games require more money to make I believe is overblown. The tools are out there the engines are out there its not like every game has its own engine these publishers own and use very great gaming engines across their games that dont require much resources being spent on them after the start of every generation. EA uses frostbite for the most part across their games and maybe 1-2 other engines max. SE have their own engine they use, so does activision and ubi. For those developers that cant afford to develop their own they have the Unreal Engine which is still very good and doesnt cost millions to buy.

Developers need to learn to be more effecient and Publishers need better management in place. Also fact is not every game made is good whether hard work was put into it or not so closing and opening of studios is life.

Skynetone1553d ago

@Mika

they can release a download only title, if there that concerned about used games

Utalkin2me1553d ago

At least without drm you have a option to buy microtransactions or not.

Foliage1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

I've worked for a publisher for 4 years; followed by my current spot as a developer for the last 3 years. I can 100% guarantee that the used game market has absolutely no relationship with the amount of money a developer gets paid.

Here is the blunt truth:
Publisher: 60%
Everyone else: 40% (up front)

If the game does better than expected; the Publisher (investors) see that money. The developer does not even see half of the original budget.

Developers are also typically paid by milestone delivery. Every month you deliver your product; the Publisher confirms you hit their targets for the milestone; you get paid for the month. If you miss your milestones; you have a hell of a lot of explaining to do; as the Publisher is not going to gladly pay for additional work outside the estimate. In this case; you get developers working for extended periods; getting paid the same amount of money for a single milestone.

I hope at this point; you start to see why unpaid overtime is a huge problem.

Finally the developer delivers their final milestone; get their last payment. The game is then complete. Some publishers at this time will give you additional work for DLC; which is developed after the product has hit gold (sometimes there is overlap). When you see "Day 1 DLC" it isn't because they want to milk you; it is because it was worked on after the build was finalized and sent for manufacturing and distribution. You NEVER want a team to switch projects and return for DLC later; you want them working on it immediately; as the tools are still fresh to them. Unless a game gets a sequel; it's rare to see continued DLC (for this reason). Make no mistake; most DLC is ready at day 1; the publisher may delay release for other reasons (user retention; to get returning players). If you have "Day 1 DLC"; it just means that you don't have to wait for the content that would otherwise be sitting there.

Aside from a free copy of the game; the success of the product does not pay a developer anything additional. They were paid for their work; not for the result of their work. The result of the work is risk dependent; which is the reward for investing in the product as a publisher.

It's a two-sided sword. If your project fails; you were paid and the Publisher does not get the 60% investment minimum figure that is always expected. It's not all gravy for Publishers; I've learned that lesson first hand.

I know I'm a bit of a dick on this site; but it's because I use it to relax and just screw around. My credentials are 100% legitimate.

Continuing onward; you are left with the self-publishers (indie devs). These guys are their own investors and make all the profit; suffer all the consequences.

On a very rare occasion; developers may get a percentage of sales (very minor amount; but these tend to be top flight studios; so the userbase makes a small percentage very significant). I can't even stress how rare this case would be; it only really happens with ties to restrictions (like exclusivity).

baodeus1553d ago (Edited 1553d ago )

This is what I think you are missing (given that i trust your credential :D):

1. Used game does not generate any profit for publisher correct (100% goes to retailers like Gamestop for example)?

2. Do you think that used game do compete with new game sell (it does right because in the consumer minds, why buy a more expansive game when you can get it cheaper without loosing anything? And as a matter of fact, people would opted for $55 used game over $60 new ones. It can also be sell over and over and each time it gets cheaper too)

3. If used games do compete with new games, there are less money going into publisher who invested in it correct?

4. If publisher don't see much profit in investing into the game, would they still invest in developers (who needed the money support to make game that they wanted) who are making those games?

5. So if developers don't have the money support, what happen?

Everything runs in a circle. Just take China as an example analogy for used game market. China don't play by the rule and keep everything so dam cheap. What happen to the rest of the economy?

The predicament:
1. Consumer always want quality and affordable price
2. Business want to be able to sell their product to consumer, so what do they have to do, try to lower the cost as much as possible. How do they do it?
3. Move jobs and production to China (to get it cheap) and try to bring it back to sell in their own countries (obviously China ain't buying it).
4. Since job and production are gone, people don't have money to buy it, so the entire economy is in a predicament.

2 things to remember
- you do get what you paid for (some truth to it at least) or rather what goes around, comes around (china is a bottle neck).
- majority of consumer aren't very smart or don't think in the long run (this is something a lot of people on N4G also said, but incorrectly stated)

NextGen24Gamer1553d ago

I have a possible solution. When you register your console you can choose the always online model or play from disc model of doing things. When you select always online you can family share with other always online devices.

If they do that they will make everyone happy. I would be willing to be that 2/3 of the consoles will choose always online.

AceBlazer131553d ago

@NegativeKreepa im guessing microsoft is humble and honorable? lol stfu

HammadTheBeast1553d ago

@Negative

And strutting around saying "DRM is the future suckers", and "We have an offline product: get an Xbox 360" and #dealwithit are completely humble and honest.

dennett3161553d ago

Publishers and developers are making rods for their own backs due to their own incompetence. Used games and piracy have always been there, this is nothing new.
Publishers are losing money despite selling almost 3.5 million copies of a game (Tomb Raider) because they are budgeting poorly, marketing poorly, and using Metacritic as some sort of barometer for their sales projections. They want every game to sell like Call of Duty, and they think copying that formula and throwing money at that problem is the way to do it.
They're wrong.
Dark Souls sold 2 million copies and turned a healthy profit by doing something different and targeting a relatively niche audience. Some publishers and developers - like Cliffy "I'm going to whine about my latest Gears of War sequel only getting an 8 out of 10" B - are short sighted and, frankly, greedy.
If they can't compete creatively, that's their problem. If they can't create a game that people want to keep, or create additional content that people want to pay for, then that's their problem...not ours. If they haven't the basic business sense to not spend so much on a sub-standard product, again, that's their fault.
Rail-roading and restricting customers is never a good thing. Games developers aren't special, they make a product and then sell it...they have no right to dictate to us what we do with that product after we buy it.
Gamers need only look at things from their own perspective, we owe publishers nothing, they need to EARN our loyalty and business. They have sponsorship deals with retail stores, junk food companies and countless other sources. The industry makes more money now than it ever has...they are far from poverty stricken. The ones that go down will do so because of shoddy management and creative bankruptcy....not because some gamers trade in their old games to fund the purchase of new ones.
Publishers are partly to blame for the Gamestop's of the world focusing on used titles so much....if they weren't quite so greedy in terms of the cut of the sales of games they receive (stores make as little as $2 on each game sold) then those stores would not have to try to increase their profit margins by dealing in used games. Publishers and developers may want to look in the mirror when looking for someone to blame for their "plight".

c64days1553d ago

What about the IDEA of buying a product - legally - and knowing it will work with no doubt?

What about knowing that many years from now, when microsoft will shut down there servers i'll be able to play my old games on the xbox one and not having to threw it away since noting will work on it anymore?

I wanted to order the xbox one but i'm afraid eventually it will not work! I know i don't have support for microsoft DRM in my country and i'm afraid that - even now when microsoft remove it - the console will not work since it need this "one time" connection to make it work.

I'm paying a lot of money on the console, more then a US citizen and yet i'm not sure if it will work for me eventually!

tonywood1553d ago

Most things in this country are sold used. The same thing exists in gaming, rather the geeedy companies and/or nerds like it or not. Only an idiot will accept charging twice for a game.

If developers don't like it....make a good game! People need to get off cliffy B's nutz, this geeedy smuck made made millions off the gears franchise. (He just wanrs more....and stoping someone from trading in used games is whack.

Trekster_Gamer1553d ago

Publishers when they make a good game make money the way it is. People say MS is the greedy one and I think the Publishers are the most greedy! IF they make a good enough game they will make there money from those of us who will buy it day one! But to try to manage what we the gamers, we the ones who make there paycheck possible try to tell us that they deserve money on games they have already been paid for then they are out of the freaking minds!

The people spoke with there wallets and thankfully Microsoft listened!

Cliffy B ST_U and becoming a quiet memory!