Rayman Pirate-Community

Haruka wrote:If Sony ever does this it would mean suicide.

With the PS3, Sony started by selling the consoles at a significant loss for a huge amount of time until components became cheaper, so pretty much all of their profits would come from games, and they don't make a single penny on used games, and neither do the developers, do this makes perfect sense to me. I hardly ever buy used games anyway (only really old ones) so it doesn't affect me, but I understand how it would upset some people. Also the rental market would be defunct. But in an era where everyone's moving towards digital downloads, how much is this really going to matter anyway?

Basically my point is that they will surely make more money this way, even if they alienate all the people that buy used games.

However, as a customer, you pay the money in order to receive a presentation in return, and not an interview saying "Sorry, we need to make more money."

What about collectors? They prefer to get the retail goods, which is my case. I only buy in digital format when there aren't retail alternatives.

I personally think it would upset a lot of people, with many not bothering to buy the new system. It's the kind of thing that only the most loyal consumers wouldn't be turned off by, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of Sony's customers do not belong in this group.

But what really bothers me is that the whole "buying and selling used is bad" mentality only seems to exist in the gaming industry. I've never seen a lamp manufacturer go out of its way to make sure that nobody sells (or even gives away) a used lamp, yet this industry that makes shitloads of money is so afraid that a few copies will be passed around. I'm disgusted by the idea that you can't do what you want with a product you've already bought, and I certainly won't get myself a PS4 if they go through with this.

On this subject, I really wish I could actually sell games that I've downloaded from the PSN Store. I found the Prince of Persia Trilogy to be surprisingly disappointing. There were parts that I liked about all of them, but a ton of stuff that annoyed the fuck out of me. But as it is, the money I paid have been a bit of a waste. Next time I should be more careful with what I buy, maybe spend less time listening to popular opinions and more time watching actual gameplay footage.

Understandable points... I think it's really more about Sony's current financial situation and how they can't really afford to lose money for much longer (from what I gather). I think they can lose the customers who only buy used games because they don't make money from them anyway, although there would be obvious repercussions greater than this.

@Haruka - I agree that retail games are much better, and I much prefer to have a physical copy with box art etc. and I only really buy downloads for Steam/Arcade titles, but it's just a matter of time before the industry switches to a wholly digital model, which would suck at current bandwidth levels.

@El Dango - While from the consumer's point of view, you're argument makes complete sense, from Sony's point of view they actually lose money on people who buy their console at a loss, and then purchase games in a way where they don't get paid. Movie makers don't also sell you a thousand-dollar playback device for only 500 dollars. Also, do you not agree that the developers should get paid for every copy that people purchase of their game? In some bad cases they may not even be able to make games anymore.

I honestly don't see this system coming into effect, at least not at the beginning of the PS4's life, but if it does, I still see their logic behind it.

TBH though, Sony are kinda idiots. They've practically ruined the Vita in a year, and it's going to be extremely hard for it to recover, and the PS3/PSN has been pissing me off more and more as of late, so much so that I've actually switched console preference back to the 360 which I never thought would happen, so I'm really more excited about Microsoft's next console at the moment (something I never would have said a year ago)

I'd like to point out that I'm playing devil's advocate here, I'm a consumer, and as such I don't want to see this come into effect, but I still have to argue how much it makes sense.

"Buying and selling used is bad", why's that? I for example arrived kinda late to the market of some consoles (and I'm sure there are many people in the same situation), and you want a game that isn't in shops anymore. Only nowadays I can occasionally get games from discontinued consoles, or games that aren't seen in shops anymore. You can only get it by buying it used from someone who is selling. There are also people that aren't willing (or simply can't) to spend 40/50/60 or even 70€ for a single game (lets underline the fact that very few games do value those prices themselves). And yes, the digital games have the disadvantage of not being able to sell, which is problematic if you really do not care about the game anymore or simply it wasn't the game you expected to be. Lets not forget that by lending retail games to familiars or friends contribute for the profit of some companies. Rayman for example: I was showing Rayman to friends, and they liked so much that they bought copies for them. With the lending, Ubisoft managed to profit thanks to me.

Sony doesn't really want this to finish, right? Like this they would be killing third-party companies aswell, not just Sony.

I'm guessing we're discussing the used games patent filed by Sony, am I right in saying that?
Have we actually had a confirmation that it's even being used for the PS4's games yet? As far as I know, it hasn't yet been explicitly stated.

*EDIT* Okay then, apparently that has been confirmed since I last heard about this. Sorry about that, should've looked up on this before playing devil's advocate I guess.

And while I can agree that Pre-owned games definitely allow a lot more people to buy games that they wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise (Myself included), in the end the profit from said used games goes to the retailer and not to the original developer of the goods. While this probably won't necessarily change a viewpoint or anything it's certainly worth noting.
While I can definitely say that this isn't the best idea that Sony has thought up in recent years, I can kinda see why they're doing it. Even if I don't necessarily agree with how it's been carried out. For me it's a good idea, but horrible execution.
I guess you could say I'm still on the fence about whether I agree or disagree with this one. Yes and no.

*EDIT* In fact, I've got a better idea. Instead of restricting how you can use the games on their system, why don't they just lower the price tag on every one of them? I understand that they want to turn a profit and all, but I just can't afford £40 for each and every new game coming right around the corner, and as chances are games are going to be even more expensive this generation it'd make sense to keep their titles at a sensible value. Then maybe "used-buyers" would be a bit more likely to spend money on them.

With almost every game having a downloadable counterpart now, the main thing they will have to change is having the prices of games lower as they get older, which doesn't happen enough at the moment. A lot of older games are still available new on sites like Amazon Marketplace, so I normally buy old games there, or on games on demand (I don't download PS3 games because my HD is only 40GB).

Also I think that demos and trials can easily replace people lending games, what with their increasing availability.

There's also the question of whether it's fair that someone is able to buy a game that is worth ~£40 for a lot less and have the same experience. The biggest problem with this is the limiting of competition, with shops lowering prices etc.

I think we can safely assume that video game shops won't exist for very much longer, with the possible exception of retro/collectible ones. With the industry very likely turning completely to digital downloads or even cloud games in this coming generation or the one after.

Also, do you not agree that the developers should get paid for every copy that people purchase of their game? In some bad cases they may not even be able to make games anymore.

I agree that passionate developers who work hard to produce a quality product deserve to be paid as much as possible, but I don't think it should be enforced like this. It's way too extreme, and ends up affecting other people in a largely negative way. It might make sense on a technical level, but again, it depends on what consumers are willing to put up with.

El Dango wrote:

Also, do you not agree that the developers should get paid for every copy that people purchase of their game? In some bad cases they may not even be able to make games anymore.

I agree that passionate developers who work hard to produce a quality product deserve to be paid as much as possible, but I don't think it should be enforced like this. It's way too extreme, and ends up affecting other people in a largely negative way. It might make sense on a technical level, but again, it depends on what consumers are willing to put up with.

This. As I said in my post above, while I can understand why Sony has decided on this, it's in actual fact a terrible idea.

Sony in a bad financial period? When did this happen?

El Dango wrote:

Also, do you not agree that the developers should get paid for every copy that people purchase of their game? In some bad cases they may not even be able to make games anymore.

I agree that passionate developers who work hard to produce a quality product deserve to be paid as much as possible, but I don't think it should be enforced like this. It's way too extreme, and ends up affecting other people in a largely negative way. It might make sense on a technical level, but again, it depends on what consumers are willing to put up with.

I understand this completely, and I agree that for the consumer it sucks. They will lose fans, but only fans that don't pay them in the first place, fans they don't necessarily need. I don't think that what I'm saying is how it should be, I'm just saying it makes sense.

Also a benefit for the consumer is that if Sony/Developers have more money, they can keep bringing us better and better experiences in the future, which I'm all for. Imagine if more games had the budget that Halo 4 had!

MrBadGuy wrote:Also a benefit for the consumer is that if Sony/Developers have more money, they can keep bringing us better and better experiences in the future, which I'm all for. Imagine if more games had the budget that Halo 4 had!

And actually present something that looks like it needed that budget!

Keane wrote:

MrBadGuy wrote:Also a benefit for the consumer is that if Sony/Developers have more money, they can keep bringing us better and better experiences in the future, which I'm all for. Imagine if more games had the budget that Halo 4 had!

And actually present something that looks like it needed that budget!

Well considering the age of the Xbox 360 tech - Halo 4! It's incredible that they managed to make it look so good running a computer that's less powerful than my laptop from 2009, and at 720p no less. And no, I'm not a graphics whore, I just feel that better graphics help with immersion into a universe. With the next gen of consoles, production costs will rise along with graphical detail. Also a shit ton of money goes towards marketing which is essential. Devs need money to make games, yes there are exceptions, for example indie games like the excellent Minecraft, but I wouldn't be ok with eliminating more realistic games with cutting edge graphics, just so that I can buy games at a slightly marked down price in slightly worse condition. I am a fan of the industry, I take advantage of it by playing the games, I'm willing to do my part in supporting it.

I found Halo 4 the most unimpressive from the series, and graphics don't fix that for me.

I feel that Sony focuses way too much on graphics, but that's probably because half of the video game fanbase are fucking idiots and never play some of the most outstanding games because they're not in HD. If a great option to save big deal of money gets removed so they can make something look just little better doesn't motivate me to buy a PS4. I'm willing to support a company, but as long as a Super Nintendo game can look appealing, it doesn't do it for me.

Graphics aren't the only thing that's going to require bigger budgets next gen, the better tech will also allow for more interesting gameplay and interactivity, but again, this takes more work, more people and more money.
You're point about HD is interesting, and it's true. I must admit that sub-HD games are a pet peeve of mine, it's just so bloody obvious on a 1080 screen that it detracts from the immersion, and things like text can be hard to see, so when something renders in 720p at least, it's a relief, but I really hope they settle at 1080p next gen, which should be fine until much bigger screens become the norm and we'll be using 4k or whatever.
I still play sub-HD games from time to time, like MGS, Crash Bandicoot and Spyro games, but with modern games they really should be HD, especially in 2013 when HDTVs have been around since when? Like 1997?

Also, for me Halo 4's story wasn't outstanding, but the gameplay was fun as balls, just like the other games.

I hope Sony focuses on better performance of their hardware for the PS4. HD is great as is, and to be honest that little bit of better graphics would have no effect on me. Just improve the performance of your hardware Sony, I've had more that one instance of my FPS dropping very low for a few seconds, and this really takes away from my time in the game.

Anyway, I got Borderlands GOTY Edition recently, and I've been playing the crap out of that game. Before getting it I heard complaints of bland environments, repetetive missions and boring story, some of which I agree with, but Borderlands just has this unexplainable to charm that makes me keep coming back to it. To quote someone from a random forum, "Borderlands is like crack. Once you start, you can't stop until you've finished it." I don't know if that's good or bad, but imma go play some more of it anyway.

I want Sony to come with something new. The still rumoured "Glass controller" seems uninteresting. It's just a tiny little menu on the controller. I don't hope it's real because that would be shame, considering that the PS3 wasn't introducing anything huge (And what it had also came to the XBox and Wii in 1-2 years) and while being a good console, didn't get the same attention my Wii got, which introduced so many new ways of gaming.

Coming back to graphics. Yes, by now a game should be HD, and Nintendo finally updated. Personally, I think that a game also need a sense of originality to come with the graphics. When I put in Super Mario and Nintendo Land into my Wii U, it really felt different because 90% of the PS3 game library wishes to look as realistic as possible, not realising that their game has identical looks to ten others. Take a game like Kirby's Epic Yarn or Mad World. Neither is in high definition, but the creative looks add unbelievably much to the experience. Just look at the new PlayStation advertisements. In these adds they grab a bunch of characters from different games and put them together. All characters have the exact same graphical appearance except maybe one or two. Watching a Nintendo add showing a bunch of different games looks more refreshing, and appeals to more than just "hardcore gamers".

I apologise for the large use of certain words.

Have you heard about the Valve's idea to make a controller that reads biometric data? That seems pretty cool, they think it's a better way to go than motion control and it's a pretty interesting idea. Source

Nintendo's got some pretty fun games, like the Metroid Prime series, Mario Galaxy 2 and 3D Land, but the problem is not enough good games came to the Wii, and I'm worried the same will happen to the Wii U, with only the first party titles being worth playing, and even the good Nintendo games are often lacking in story. Sony's exclusives are probably my favourite from last gen, with stuff like MGS4 and Uncharted games being awesome, then Xbox 360 versions of multiplatform games were almost always better. TBH recently I've switched to PC for multiplats until the next gen comes out, which is looong overdue if you ask me. Except Minecraft, for some reason I much prefer Minecraft on Xbox and hardly ever play on PC/Mac.

Wait, when did this become a future of gaming opinions thread? haha

Well, as [N]Gamer wrote, it depends on two factors: If companies work together, and if people stop being idiots. Meaning as in:

1. Nintendo bringing in popular series to their console, and companies wanting to do so

2. There is no way to deny it: If the PS3 was made by Nintendo, everyone would argue that it was a terrible console purely because they made it. People are hugely biased and will buy anything because it has a slapped on it

Anyway, that link looked great. Love Valve.