Just_Rocco said:
badgenome said:
Just_Rocco said:
Well im happy to clarify. Instead of Sony's bootleg way, you see, Microsoft had actual agreements with publishers and certain retailers in place. Couple that with the DRM and online check in, and you would've had some actual transparency to the game sharing. Everyone knew exactly how many times a game had been shared or traded in. This allows you to set pricing accordingly, maybe offer promotions (among other benefits) and everyone got a cut. Retailers happy. Publishers happy. Gamers happy.
|
How is Sony's method bootleg? It's not an exploit when they told you outright that you were allowed to do it before the launch of the system. Publishers knew it existed and could block it with DRM if they chose. To date, only Capcom has done so, but ultimately enough of them complained so as to get it nerfed from five to two.
So, the idea that they were all on board with ten people playing a game for the price of one is rather far-fetched. Incredibly so. What good is knowing how many times a game is shared when there's a 9:1 ratio of freeloaders to paying customers? What special promotional offer is going to beat FREE UNLIMITED GAMING? I mean, you know... if you're naive enough to believe that such a thing was going to happen in the first place.
|
Everything you just questioned..again...was already addressed in previous reply. This is not a myth or legend. Its a fact. You just refuse to believe because you hate M$.
|
Sounds more like you refuse to question it because you love Microsoft lol.
I own all 3 systems, and even I thought the sharing feature seemed far fetched. They must have been banking on people not being able to coordinate who buys which game, and groups being no where near 10 people.
You realize if 10 people bought the game shared, thats the equivalent of each person paying 6 bucks for the game.
