Fortunately DRM was scrapped.

[quote]When you buy a game, you’re not buying a physical object, you’re not buying an item with a measurable depreciation value. When you buy a game, you’re buying an interactive experience. Many aspects of that interactive experience will be unchanged over the course of years, such as the physics sandbox and the singleplayer modes. Unlike physical objects that experience a deterioration in quality over time, the quality of a game remains the same so long as the medium in which it is stored remains in good condition. [/quote] 1. You are buying a physical object in a sense, you are spending your hard earned money on compiled code that creates an interactive entertaining experience. 2. Wrong, the quality of a game deteriorates when newer and more fun games are released in the future. By your argument, a reasonably maintained 1982 LaSabre should cost just as much as a brand new Lexus LFA. A LaSabre can be just as fun as driving an LFA, but costs a miniscule amount in comparison. [quote]The cost of bringing a video game experience to Consumer A is identical to the cost of bringing that identical experience to Consumer B. So why should Consumer B pay less because he bought it “used” from Consumer A? In what measurable way did Consumer B have a lesser experience playing his game used compared to Consumer A buying it new? What degradation in quality of experience did Consumer B have that would justify a price drop, that would justify denying proper financial restitution to the creators of the experience?[/quote] 1. The issue with that is "new" games sold on the market to console gamers are hilariously over priced to begin with. Steam "sales" for example are not a profit loss for developers in the slightest, as most games cost perhaps 2$ per disc to print, and to ship to the US from China. The disks themselves are worthless. 2. We have no way of knowing where the arbitrary 60$ tag on games came from. I'm sure that the vast majority of it goes to publishers--not developers. 3. The price drop has more to do with the fact that a game ages. Everything decreases in value over time from the second it is released, it is called inflation. [quote]We have to treat the gaming industry differently than other industries because it is inherently different. The top of the industry, the console makers and developers, are realizing this, and shifting their strategies accordingly. And they are right. Developers who own their IP, their interactive experience, have a right to make money selling access to that experience. People who don’t pay, shouldn’t have access to that experience. [/quote] 1. No, we don't. The gaming industry is part of the entertainment industry, and the entertainment industry like every other market produces a product that people buy. 2. In buying a product--physically giving money to the creator of the product, by rights, the seller has NO SAY in what the user does with it. If a sale, which, last I checked, walking into Gamestop and buying a new game and giving them money for a disc is, is completed, Microsoft shouldn't be able to say anything about what I do with their game. I get that ToS need to be kept, but they go against the very idea of capitalism: "Let the buyer beware" which also goes both ways. Once its out of the sellers hands its not their problem. [quote]So why are you complaining about DRM? If you buy your games legally, it's not a problem. If you don't get your games legally, get your priorities straight because you paid a few hundred dollars for a console, and you pay for internet, and you probably pay for a lot of other things, so pony up like the rest of us or you don't get to enjoy, boo freaking hoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the hell over it. [/quote] 1. Because as an industry we let them go to far with everything. Because games exist somewhere between entertainment and toys, they are never treated as part of either group, and we let them get away with this crap. 2. Imagine a toy dumptruck that would not function unless it was taken to the toy store once a week to be inspected by the company to ensure that the child playing with it was not using an "illegally copied" dump truck. That is the DRM piracy argument thrown out the window. Why does it need to check if a disc is pirated constantly? Why would someone buy a REAL copy and THEN pirate it? 3. Following the dumptruck argument, the kid cannot let other kids play with the dumptruck, because it has a camera on it that scans who plays with it, and if he plays with someone else with it, it gets confiscated. That is exactly what is happening with Xbox One games, except we are paying 60$ for it instead of a 10$ dump truck. 4. Lets compare it to entertainment then as well. It is comparable to going to see a new movie, then not being able to tell my friends about it. Or a better example would be buying a DVD of Macgyver Season 5, and being able to show a single episode to a friend instead of watching the whole season together, because he didn't also purchase his OWN copy of Macgyver Season 5. The rules of console gaming used to be simple: You bought the console, you bought the game, you played the game. Now the rules are: You buy the console, hook up Kinect so they can spy on you, connect to the internet constantly, download your profile, download the game, instal it to your profile, play the game exclusively on your profile. How is this simplifying or bettering the process? Why is it needed? And when will we start treating gaming companies like this like real companies and realize that just because they make INTERACTIVE media, it doesn't give them a free ride to do whatever they want in comparison to entertainment or toy companies?

why the HELL would I buy a console that holds the games I BUY hostage with 24 HOUR DRM??? There are so many better options like pc gaming and possibly PS4 that will allow me to play offline forever. It's stupid. I'm not buying a system that tells me the games I own are only temporary and I can no longer play them in the years to come after the servers get pulled. Single player games should NEVER have daily DRM tied to them/

[quote]When you buy a game, you’re not buying a physical object, you’re not buying an item with a measurable depreciation value. [/quote] You're wrong already. A game is physical just like a book or a movie or a car. You buy the physical part of it, you own it. Video games get no special exception. [quote]Unlike physical objects that experience a deterioration in quality over time, the quality of a game remains the same so long as the medium in which it is stored remains in good condition.[/quote] Unlike real life objects, Microsoft can end your ownership of the game whenever they want. Shut down the servers in 8 years and your medium is removed. I can still play my games from 16 years ago since I own them. A movie also stays the same over time along with books. [quote] So why should Consumer B pay less because he bought it “used” from Consumer A?[/quote] The disk was no doubt scratched in the slightest of ways and experienced some sort of deterioration or damage as it was put in and out of a case. Used game stores price on the condition of the game or the age of the game. You're making up scenarios to seem right. [quote]So why are you complaining about DRM? If you buy your games legally, it's not a problem.[/quote] Because letting friends borrow a game, buying used games, and playing games I bought when I'm experiencing an internet outage aren't illegal. This is unnecessary DRM in an attempt to cash grab more and make the industry more greedy. How is eliminating smaller retailers (only select retailers can resell games, aka goodbye competition and hello higher prices) and forcing us to suck Gamestop's or Microsoft's dick not monopolizing games? [quote] because you paid a few hundred dollars for a console, and you pay for internet, and you probably pay for a lot of other things, so pony up like the rest of us or you don't get to enjoy, boo freaking hoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the hell over it.[/quote] You completely just lost any validity here. So your parents pay for your internet and daddy buys you everything because you're a spoiled little bitch, I don't think you should be on the big boy forums. Why would anyone get a console that you have to pay $500 for the console, $60 for the online, $60 for used games, and more money for each app you want to use (since Xbox Live Gold only makes the subscription available) when I can just get a PS4 this time and pay for the console and the premium account which GIVES me free games rather than charging me money for more things which I can then play for free offline and let my friends borrow for free. [quote] Again, developers have the right to make money creating and sharing their experiences. The game isn't really "used" like you buy a car used, or a house used.[/quote] Yes it is. A disk can be damaged, a disk holds information that can be corrupted or harmed. A disk can be labeled used for many reasons. Just because the car argument completely rips your argument doesn't mean you can make up shit like "the developers have a right to make more money". That's not how the free market works kid. And shouldn't car makers and dealers get more money since other people are experiencing and getting convenience by their car? [quote]Why are you complaining about "always-online"? [/quote] Maybe if you stepped out of your priviledged sheltered life where you get pampered because your parents got divorced, you'll realize that a good amount of people don't have as much money to be using for reliable internet (or internet at all) and a lot of people live in weather conditions that wipes out their internet for weeks. Now, they buy an Xbox One and buy games for it but can't play them while their internet is out because of the DRM doesn't let them. How can you defend that at all? They bought the game to play at a time which is convenient to play and they can't even play it because of bullshit reasons. You're an ignorant terrible person and clearly an Xbot. I had a 360 since it was released and I defended Microsoft but this Xbox One is just clear corrupted bullshit. Suck their dick all you want, it's you getting screwed in the end, not me

[quote]When you buy a game, you’re not buying a physical object, you’re not buying an item with a measurable depreciation value. When you buy a game, you’re buying an interactive experience. Many aspects of that interactive experience will be unchanged over the course of years, such as the physics sandbox and the singleplayer modes. Unlike physical objects that experience a deterioration in quality over time, the quality of a game remains the same so long as the medium in which it is stored remains in good condition. [/quote]So if i go into my local game store, I should expect to be able to buy Halo CE for $60? No, games devalue like everything else (you could argue they devalue faster because of the industry works), and this is especially true for physical copies because, you know, they're not immune to the effects of time/wear and tear. [quote]The cost of bringing a video game experience to Consumer A is identical to the cost of bringing that identical experience to Consumer B. So why should Consumer B pay less because he bought it “used” from Consumer A? In what measurable way did Consumer B have a lesser experience playing his game used compared to Consumer A buying it new? What degradation in quality of experience did Consumer B have that would justify a price drop, that would justify denying proper financial restitution to the creators of the experience?[/quote] It's this little thing I somewhat mentioned above called depreciation, you should learn what it is. [quote]Sure you can get tired of games; sure you can abandon old games for newer, shinier, sexier games. But does that make the old game lose actual (not subjective/emotional) value? All games will experience the point when they are no longer the cutting edge in technology, when they are no longer mainstream, and the playerbase dwindles into tiny cult followings. But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release?[/quote]Again, games are not immune to depreciation. [quote]I say no. You say no every time you fire up an old game instead of a new one. And now for the first time, the industry is saying no. And we're right to say no.[/quote] I say yes, because the game industry is not immune to depreciation, I don't know why people suddenly think this way. [quote]We have to treat the gaming industry differently than other industries because it is inherently different. The top of the industry, the console makers and developers, are realizing this, and shifting their strategies accordingly. And they are right. Developers who own their IP, their interactive experience, have a right to make money selling access to that experience. People who don’t pay, shouldn’t have access to that experience. [/quote] Why? what is it that makes the game industry so radically different from every other industry that it is suddenly immune to even the most basic effects of economics? is it because M$ told you so? is it because the AAA side of things has such a monopoly that people just roll with it? why? [quote]So why are you complaining about DRM? If you buy your games legally, it's not a problem.[/quote] "If you're not a criminal you have nothing to hide" Please keep your big brother mentality away from us, we consumers have this little thing called rights, they're kinda important. [quote] If you don't get your games legally[/quote] used games are legal, try again. [quote]*A whole lot of insults*[/quote]Cool. [quote] Again, developers have the right to make money creating and sharing their experiences.[/quote]I'm going to stop right here and go on a slight tangent: If used games really are loosing them that much money, then why don't they do something about gamestop? why don't they force them to sell new games more aggressively?, why don't they threaten to stop doing business with them?, why don't they just sell their own games directly, be it brick and mortar shops or digital distribution? Well, there are two possible answers to that: 1. They are honest to god trying to shove a square peg in a round hole, in which case they need to change their business strategy and adapt to the changing times(maybe by doing what i listed above) 2. They're lying and trying to nickel and dime us, in which case they can go -blam!- themselves with Echidna >.> [quote]Why are you complaining about "used game fees"? The game isn't really "used" like you buy a car used, or a house used.[/quote] Once again, games are not magically exempt from depreciation. [quote] Why are you complaining about "always-online"? You're online playing with friends all the time anyway. It's not going to inconvenience or affect your life in any way that it isn't already.[/quote] Now we're not, not everyone uses online all the time, millions of people who own a 360 don't even have gold, yet alone online; and you're completly ignoring the concept of single player games. Let me ask you this, as a consumer, how does 'almost always online' benefit you? (remember that there is no such thing as the mythical "cloud gaming will revolutionize everything" that people are suddenly talking about) I'll answer that, it doesn't. [quote] So suck it up. [/quote] I'd really rather not. [quote]All the industry is doing is making sure everyone plays by the same rules.[/quote] No, they're really not. [quote] If you've got a problem with that, you're part of the problem as to why the industry has to do this in the first place.[/quote] Pot. Kettle. Black.

To your first point about the game being less of a physical product and more of an experience, I have to disagree. You could make that argument for [i]any[/i] product or service. For example, next to me is a Nerf blaster I paid full retail for. One could argue that the $40 I spent for that Nerf blaster wasn't so I could own the physical blaster and darts that came in the box I got a Fred Meyer, but instead that $40 went toward the [i]experience[/i] of being able to better play in a game of Humans Vs. Zombies on my university campus. And so long as I take good care of it and keep it in good condition, it should be able to deliver that experience... right? But obviously it won't. As time goes on, even if I do keep it in new condition, better blasters and darts will come out, which reduces the value of the experience my particular blaster can offer, because no product has a fixed value that never changes. [quote]But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release?[/quote]Yes, I believe it does become lower in quality compared to its quality on release. You can't tell me that the experience Halo: Combat Evolved offered is exactly the same today as it was when it first came out. Because a lot of the value of Halo: Combat Evolved when it first came out was in how fresh it was. It was the latest thing back then, not just fresh for people that played it for the first time, it was also graphically advanced for its time and one of the few decent First Person Shooters on a console. But today, the market of console FPS titles is over-saturated with options, and many of them have better graphics, better features, and provide better experiences than Halo: Combat Evolved. [quote]You're online playing with friends all the time anyway. It's not going to inconvenience or affect your life in any way that it isn't already.[/quote]Nope. Just last night, I had the ability to play PlanetSide 2 with friends online. Instead, I opted to play Half-Life 2... because I [i]wanted[/i] to. I was connected to the internet while I played Half-Life 2, but I certainly did not [i]need[/i] to be. I've played Half-Life 2 on my laptop while riding public transit before... there was no way for me to connect to the internet there, but I was still able to play the game I'd paid for. Requiring an online connection in order to play a game is for many games an arbitrary requirement. It's like requiring we sit while playing a game. A huge number of us are sitting down while playing a game, the same way many of us are connected to the internet while we're playing a game. But why would you require someone to sit while they play a game? Why would you design a console to shut off the moment the player decides to stand? To me, it doesn't make sense, and it is for these exact reasons that I will not be buying Microsoft's Xbox One console.

Hey Squirrely. Nice post. I had a hard time coming up with a few counter reasons to justifying posting. (the sign of a well-thought out OP) My main issue with the new direction of the industry is it's customer destructive. The policies enacted by Publishers/Developers put roadblocks in the experience of legitimate, paying customers while do little to nothing to dissuade their true target: Piracy. I'll hit your arguments point by point. [quote]When you buy a game, you’re not buying a physical object, you’re not buying an item with a measurable depreciation value. When you buy a game, you’re buying an interactive experience.[/quote] I see your point here. You're arguing a used game is unlike a used car. When you buy used, you're still getting the same experience as if you bought it new. (unlike the care which will have degraded somewhat) It's a valid point. However, I disagree. While video games may not suffer from direct physical degradation, (they do to some degree with disk scratches) most video games suffer from consumer degradation. They are like a flash in the night. 60-70% of a games total sales are made in the first 2-4 weeks, with an additional 15-20% made off mark-off sales later in the release year. Thus, from a profit standpoint, Developers and Publishers see little to no damage from gamers reselling their gamers are local retailers. To attack it from another angle, consider console games vs. PC games. PC gaming has gone through a massive revival in recent years due in no small part to the accessibility of Valve's Steam platform. Not only does this service allow a central hub for gaming, the sales Steam pumps out are absolutely ridiculous. I now own more PC games than ever before thanks to such sales. However, on the console spectrum we see no such service. Console games tend to stay at full price longer. (some even until they go out of stock) There's not central service with which to access these games and blowout sales (like Steam's) are very rare indeed. Thus we see the used/traded games system coming into play to fill this cheaper void for accessing titles you may not normally have payed full price for. It's a direct reaction to Publisher's refusing to drop console game costs. Now, there is a possible solution. The next-gen consoles feature downloadable games via individual marketplaces. That sounds somewhat like Steam no? However, these marketplaces are still console-specific AND directly managed by the creators of the consoles themselves. One of the strengths of Valve's platform is that they're 3rd-party compared to any hardware manufacturers or publishers. It gives them unique perspective and market practices that makes everyone love them. I don't trust Sony or M$ to do the same. (M$ even less so) Then there's the issue of the Sync. (XbOne) Another strength of Steam is that you can play any game you download offline via the client. That's convenient. Especially for us rural gamers that frequently see several day blackouts or lack of service. Making a console unable to play ANY of it's titles because the player lacks an internet connection is a deal-breaker in the grandest of senses. There's no reason for such a system to exist. It hurts M$'s legitimate customer base. [quote]But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release?[/quote] Not necessarily. Though the answer to the question is more complex than you're making it. As games continue to improve, gamer expectation increases, thereby depreciating the value of previous titles in comparison. It's like playing Halo:Reach vs. Halo 1. I have a really tough time justifying booting up Halo 1 because Halo:Reach has so many little improvements that Halo 1 eventually just ends up feeling incredibly dated. I think your question should more be issued as "Does the passage of time make the POTENTIAL experience of the game less?". In that case, the answer is a resounding no. But there's no reason why a gamer should pay $60 out of pocket for a game released 2+ years ago. The potential experience is still there, but market expectations have increased exponentially, thereby depreciating the game's value. [quote]And they are right. Developers who own their IP, their interactive experience, have a right to make money selling access to that experience. [/quote] I again feeling you're simplifying. If their experience is persistent or constantly receiving updates, yes. Hence MMO subscriptions. Again, there is a point at which that experience will depreciate in regards to market expectations. And in this situation a developer can either let their title die quietly at $60, drop the price in hopes of pick-up sales, or rely on used game circulation to continue to create exposure for their company. [quote]So why are you complaining about DRM?[/quote] As I've said previously, DRM impedes the legitimate buyer by putting ineffective and unnecessary checks on their freedom to do a variety of things with the product they've purchased. It also little benefits the company instituting the DRM, as it fails to address the issue to which it was created to combat. (piracy) If we're talking directly about Next-gen, DRM (and online checks) will cause greater depreciation over time than used games ever did. I am of course talking about the scary "server shut-off" eventuality. On the far-off day when the XbOne servers are no longer viable to keep running, an entire generation of games will depreciate to zero. No Sync means no play. And no play means zero value games. So honestly, I'd be a bit concerned about 'always online' and 'DRM'. It's checks on your freedoms as a gamer and a paying customer of the industry. Don't go quietly into the dark my friend. Question, don't accept. Not all these policies are customer hostile, but it's our job to continue as informed consumers to let the Industry know what is okay and what isn't.

Heres the thing with used games most people turn in their games "used" because they think the game is garbage. That $60 value as you put it is for a "high quality" experience when playing the game. When that experience is bullshit players will turn in the game and when another person comes in to buy the used game it is worth less because people have realized the game truly isn't worth the $60 price tag. So yeah if they want a piece of the pie for every used game sale you better make sure you make a -blam!-ing perfect game with no patches, errors, glitches, or you can expect a lawsuit on every damn game you provide. Expect that in the future and I can guarantee you developers haven't thought of it either.

[quote]Why are you complaining about "always-online"? You're online playing with friends all the time anyway. It's not going to inconvenience or affect your life in any way that it isn't already.[/quote] This is the point where you're wrong. On used games I agree with you. But always online has been rather disaterous for other titles in the past (Diablo 3, Sim City) when the servers can't handle the intial launch stresses and people can't play the game they paid for. And MS hasn't really proven themselves reliable in being able to get enough servers to handle loads.

i agree with you but there are some things you didn't touch on, the reason why they are doing the whole you can olny give to one friend and you can only give to approved retailers is soo that people dont get the game for free, with the xboxone once you install the disc you no need it so theoretically one person could buy the game and give it to everyone for free if they didnt do this. they arnt trying to skew you over and put a monopoly on the game industry they are just making sure people pay for their games. i agree with all of you that is isnt the most elegant solution but all they are trying to do is make the transition from discs to digital, and make gaming more convent for you without letting people get the game for free(btw squirrely the ranting isnt for you its for the people that read this)

I'm glad some people are starting to mature a little bit and see that console devs don't want to bleed the industry die to get a quick cash grab any more than the consumer does, Microsoft wants the industry to grow so it can gain even higher profits, it's a mutual goal, but that means they have to do some things people aren't going to like, such as moving on from retailers. Out of curiosity, OP, have you watched Total Biscuit's video on Used games? You echo a lot of similar points.

You should have programmed in some exception handling, because when I came across your first argument it threw an error. Video games do experience relative depreciation. Call of Duty 4's MP becomes less valuable once Call of Duty 5 rolls around.

I think it's a good idea also, but not for the reasons you stated. Developers who release complete shit are doomed. That means utter crap like Aliens Colonial Marines is a death sentence. So guess what this door swings both ways and the consumer is going to stomp the crap out Microsoft and any developer and publisher who releases anything sub par. They are going to get stomped across the Internet . Pre Orders are going goodbye. Buying a game on impulse is over. Any game under 8 or lower in reviews is a dust collector on a Target fixture. So go ahead make it harder for consumers. They in the end are going to make it even harder on your bottom line. So yeah it's a good thing because it's going to make games better while crap developers and publishers die off.