| Adinnieken said: Why? If that announcement comes several months to a year after you've bought your PS4, they've got you locked into their product. |
And what exactly would stop someone from never going on PSN again (and never buying a Playstation product again) and simply playing their games offline forever? Because that's sure as shit what I'd do.
| Adinnieken said: As much as you may not like it, Cliff is right. |
Cliffy is not right about anything. The closest he comes to being right is when he says that the AAA model is not sustainable, but then he gets even that all wrong by qualifying it with "while also having used and rental games existing".
| Adinnieken said: Sony is going to have to develop a solution, if it doesn't, and it puts that responsibility on third-party publishers other then what happens when the solution is one which is a more bitter pill than the one Microsoft had created? In fact, what happens if third-party publishers become a poison pill for the PS4 because Sony has put it upon the publishers to come up with their own solution and in doing so they make the PS4 noxious for third-party developers publishers? I don't mean intentionally, but imagine the SimCity debacle on the PS4, but imagine every third-party developer using a third-party publisher having their own solution. |
There is no need for a solution to a problem that does not exist. Why is it that everyone else can accept that second hand sales exist, but not the precious video game industry which is apparently entitled to spend absolutely ridiculous amounts of money making the games they want? And if their increasingly narrow target demographic can't support their bloated budgets anymore, they must be allowed to trample all ownership rights into the dirt chasing phantom foes like "used games" before all going belly-up anyway.
| Adinnieken said: People want cheaper AAA games, but they don't want the technology that enables them to have cheaper AAA games. They praise Valve for Steam, but when Microsoft tries to do something similar, they breakout the pitchforks and torches. |
Because Microsoft is not Valve. Valve offered a service and said, "This is what it is." Some people accepted it, and some didn't, but over the past decade they have made Steam ever more enticing, turning countless doubters into loyal customers. They have earned every bit of praise they receive and all the trust that people place in them.
Microsoft, in trying to serve too many masters at once, is creating anger and confusion by keeping a presence for retail games (which gives the appearance of being the same as past generations) while harshly restricting what you can do with your disc because they want to now use it as a mere vehicle for what they will essentially treat as DLC (see: the outrage over on disc DLC this gen). If they'd just made a digital only console with optional offline play, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
And there's every reason to doubt that consoles will achieve Steam-like pricing by eliminating used games. Steam is just one walled garden on an open platform and has to compete with myriad similar services. Consoles are walled gardens unto themselves, and if they aren't lowering prices on digital downloads already to compete with used game sales, why are they suddenly going to lower prices when the pressure from used games is removed? Hint: they won't.
