How will you choose between MS & Sony's new consoles?

Mitch Connor

Penn wrote: »

Yeah going by the picture koHd put up (depending on how valid it is), that'd seem to be the case. Only one person can access your games at a time, but you can play that game too.

Though again, this will all surely come down to cloud gaming and an individual's internet capabilites.

I would think the person would need to download it - I can't imagine they are streaming the game from your system or from the cloud. I would also imagine that it may depend on the game and what you want to do with it. For instance I have seen it said you can't use the one copy to play Multiplayer against a friend, but that was in reference to you installing the game on their console and playing off your profile on their console (with a 1 hour checkin). I would assume similar rules would be in place for use of the shared 'family' games.

Again though - that image says I couldn't play Forza at the same time as a friend sharing Forza from my Library - while I have seen it said elsewhere you will always have access to your games and it is limited to two people accessing the same files (you and a 'family' member).

This could be an awesome feature, but MS are again shooting themselves in the foot over by not explaining exactly how it will work. Arguements range from best case scenarios (10 people accessing library at once, but only one family member, apart from you, accessing any one game at a time) to worst case scenarios of only one access to the library at a time which could lock you out of your own games.

Its is so frustrating to see MS provide more and more ammunition for people to use against them purely through incompetence and laziness. If MS just did an honest hour long Q&A it would improve their situation 10fold (or 3fold;))

Penn

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Again though - that image says I couldn't play Forza at the same time as a friend sharing Forza from my Library - while I have seen it said elsewhere you will always have access to your games and it is limited to two people accessing the same files (you and a 'family' member).

It does say you can play Forza when a friend is also playing it. Just that another friend can't play another of your games (Halo) at the same time (because another of your friends is in your shared library). But then that friend is able to play a game from your other friend's library while he's in yours.

I'm understanding it a little better now after that picture, but it's still pretty confusing. They really need to start doing up some proper diagrams and stuff because it's clear they can't explain it verbally.

FlyingIrishMan

I don't think that picture is right, but really its not worth arguing over anymore.
MS need to clear it up asap.

Retr0gamer

I don't really care about lending games to friends or getting a lend from them. I'll be buying all my games. For me what MS offers gives me absolutely no advantages. Instead my system might stop working if I get a job abroad (a very likely possibility) and I'm paying extra to MS for them to abolish private sales and to control the second hand market.

Grumpypants

NotorietyH wrote: »

They're not saying that at all. That's completely different from charging you to play used games. The Xbox 360 has had online passes too and they charge to play online. Online passes and paying to use online multiplayer are completely different issues. One relates to used games sales and the other is to use a service. Just because both are used to access online play doesn't make them analogous in the slightest. If that was the case using an online pass from an EA game on the 360 should circumvent the need for a live subscription and it doesn't. One is theoretically to pay for say EAs servers for a specific game, the other is for Microsoft and Sony's online infrastructure.

Saying Sony are charging you to play used and new games in the context of the used game conversation is misleading at best.

Why are you mixing in third party publishers? Why should an online pass circumvent the Xbox Live payment?

What I am saying is that Sony are now in a position to say we will no longer be using online passes on their own titles. They can only do this because they have a new revenue stream to support that infrastructure. They are taking all the online services and the games servers and wrapping it up in one fee rather than charging players twice.

btw I'm again not saying this is a ****ty move I think it is a very clever move to use PS+ as it is a great service.

I am just pointing out that when people say you don't have to pay a fee to Sony to play your used games online that this is not factually accurate. You still have to pay a fee to Sony to play your games online for both new and used titles.

It's like a pub saying you get free admission when you pay for two drinks, or you get two free drinks with your price of admission. It's the same thing, its just worded differently.

NotorietyH wrote: »

Online passes and paying to use online multiplayer are completely different issues.

Yea one involves paying to play your game online, the other involves paying to play your game online......... oh wait.

NotorietyH

Grumpypants wrote: »

Why are you mixing in third party publishers? Why should an online pass circumvent the Xbox Live payment?

What I am saying is that Sony are now in a position to say we will no longer be using online passes on their own titles. They can only do this because they have a new revenue stream to support that infrastructure. They are taking all the online services and the games servers and wrapping it up in one fee rather than charging players twice.

btw I'm again not saying this is a ****ty move I think it is a very clever move to use PS+ as it is a great service.

I am just pointing out that when people say you don't have to pay a fee to Sony to play your used games online that this is not factually accurate. You still have to pay a fee to Sony to play your games online for both new and used titles.

It's like a pub saying you get free admission when you pay for two drinks, or you get two free drinks with your price of admission. It's the same thing, its just worded differently.



Yea one involves paying to play your game online, the other involves paying to play your game online......... oh wait.

Online passes were created to prevent used game sales or at least get some money from them. Microsoft and Sony's online fee is to support their online infrastructure and maintenance. I don't see how I can lay it out any clearer than I already did. I give up honestly. It's feeling like I'm arguing against Microsoft PR at this stage with the amount misdirects.

I brought in third parties as, I could be wrong, but as far as I know EA were the first to implement them. If EAs online passes have nothing to do with Microsoft or Sony's online infrastructure, then what are they for, to try and get some revenue from used games sales. Which is exactly what I said.

Grumpypants

NotorietyH wrote: »

Online passes were created to prevent used game sales or at least get some money from them. Microsoft and Sony's online fee is to support their online infrastructure and maintenance. I don't see how I can lay it out any clearer than I already did. I give up honestly. It's feeling like I'm arguing against Microsoft PR at this stage with the amount misdirects.

I brought in third parties as, I could be wrong, but as far as I know EA were the first to implement them. If EAs online passes have nothing to do with Microsoft or Sony's online infrastructure, then what are they for, to try and get some revenue from used games sales. Which is exactly what I said.

What misdirects? point to one single thing I said that is incorrect?

I understand perfectly what you are saying. That the PS+ subscription goes to pay for the huge cost involved in creating and maintaining a service that lets you play online. In the same way Live does. I never said it didn't.

I also understand that Online passes were introduced to try recoup some money for publishers (including Sony this is why Sony use them) I never said any differently.

What I am saying is that Sony now are going to replace the online pass (which allows you to play used games online) with PS+ (that you need to play new and used games online). They are merging the two.

Why? because it is a better, smarter and more lucrative system for them. It allows them to run their online service as well as paying for the upkeep of game servers so they don't need to have an online pass for used games.

There is no misunderstanding here at all.

I am also pointing to the fact that right now Sony do not require PS+ to play your PS3 games online. Yet they still release games with Online passes (games they publish themselves).

why is it that on a platform where PS+ is not required to play online they still use Online passes, but on a platform where PS+ is required to play online they are scrapping Online passes. Why is it so difficult to see these are connected?

The misunderstanding comes when people say you can't buy used Xbox games without paying a fee to Microsoft. I am simply pointing out you pay no extra charge to either. The only fee you pay to MS is for Xbox Live & the only fee you pay to Sony is for PS+. There are absolutely no extra charges on either platform when it comes to play used games.

Both parties have said they will not dictate to third party developers in regards to their own methods of recouping revenue. As third party publishers do not have a Live or PS+ option to supplement the income they have to think of something else.

FlyingIrishMan

NotorietyH wrote: »

I brought in third parties as, I could be wrong, but as far as I know EA were the first to implement them. If EAs online passes have nothing to do with Microsoft or Sony's online infrastructure, then what are they for, to try and get some revenue from used games sales. Which is exactly what I said.

Most, if not all of EA's multiplayer games use dedicated servers, so I'd imagine its to recoup the costs of that, along with getting a bit in their pocket too.

Beefy78

You're linking the withdrawal of online passes with the establishment of the PS+ subscription when other people don't see the link between the two. I don't see the link between the two because online passes are there to compensate publishers for second hand sales.

Online passes are being replaced because micropayments are more lucrative. I think the PS+ payment would have happened either way.

Grumpypants

Beefy78 wrote: »

You're linking the withdrawal of online passes with the establishment of the PS+ subscription when other people don't see the link between the two. I don't see the link between the two because online passes are there to compensate publishers for second hand sales.

Online passes are being replaced because micropayments are more lucrative. I think the PS+ payment would have happened either way.

Sony are a publisher that uses online passes to recoup some money from used games. this goes to the upkeep of game servers or to the devs. Thats the story anyway.

The PS3 does not require PS+ to play online.
The PS3 games published by Sony right now still come with an Online pass.

PS4 will require PS+ to play online.
PS4 games will not come with Online passes.

They are replacing one payment system with another. I can see a direct link there. I find it hard to understand why no one else can see that connection.

People are making the mistake of saying that your PS+ money will only be used to run the online service. When it is rare for a company to use a single income source for a single service. Most likely all this PS+ money will go into a big pot and Sony can then use that to pay for the upkeep of game servers as well as the online service. Along with a host of other stuff.

They no longer need to worry about the revenue from Online Passes because they will make enough from PS+ to cover both costs.

NotorietyH

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Most, if not all of EA's multiplayer games use dedicated servers, so I'd imagine its to recoup the costs of that, along with getting a bit in their pocket too.

Yeah, but it's part of the used game problem. They factor in the expected amount of time a purchaser of a new game will likely stick with playing multiplayer and reduce servers over time, someone buying a used copy will of course extend the amount of time that game will be used on their servers, increasing the cost theoretically.

I understand the point. But the discussion was about ownership of used games and I suppose what I took exception with was using an online subscription service to make a blanket statement about Sony and Microsoft both charging for new and used games, was moving the goalposts away from your ownership of a used game argument by implying parity between Sony and Microsofts policies. It's not about playing online. It's about that under microsoft's policies, which I might be wrong, I wouldn't be able to sell that game privately unless that person was on my friend's list for more than 30 days. I've sold maybe one game privately in the last ten years, so it doesn't really affect me particularity, but I'm not entirely happy with the precedent. The online argument is incidental to what was being discussed, and I think trying to tie Sony now charging for PS Plus, is a misdirect, Or at least it's pulling it away from the real issue, which is essentially DRM.

So yes, there is some overlap between online passes and charging for online services, but it's not what people's fundamental problem with Microsoft's policies, or at the very least they way they're presenting those policies, that's what I took exception with. That's why it feels like arguing with Microsoft PR at points, but there's so much conflicting information from both sides of the argument that it's getting pulled away from the heart of it, which is basically Digital rights, which is going to be a massive issue in every industry soon enough. The question has already been raised about iTunes, and who owns your library after you die. Microsoft's approach has, on appearances anyway, been very anti-consumer. Not saying that Sony won't have plenty of anti-consumer measures themselves, but at the moment, at least the PS4 is the least anti-consumer of the two, because they're offering some semblance of a choice. Microsoft are trying to shove it down our throats.

Grayditch

It was my understanding that Online Passes were nothing to do with Sony, but the developers, akin to Map Packs etc.

Genghiz Cohen

Grumpypants wrote: »

Sony are a publisher that uses online passes to recoup some money from used games. this goes to the upkeep of game servers or to the devs. Thats the story anyway.

The PS3 does not require PS+ to play online.
The PS3 games published by Sony right now still come with an Online pass.

PS4 will require PS+ to play online.
PS4 games will not come with Online passes.

They are replacing one payment system with another. I can see a direct link there. I find it hard to understand why no one else can see that connection.

What Sony published games used an online pass?

FlyingIrishMan

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What Sony published games used an online pass?

The Last of Us did anyway.

Grayditch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What Sony published games used an online pass?

Well, The Last Of Us, as I've just entered the code today

Grumpypants

NotorietyH wrote: »

Yeah, but it's part of the used game problem. They factor in the expected amount of time a purchaser of a new game will likely stick with playing multiplayer and reduce servers over time, someone buying a used copy will of course extend the amount of time that game will be used on their servers, increasing the cost theoretically.

I understand the point. But the discussion was about ownership of used games and I suppose what I took exception with was using an online subscription service to make a blanket statement about Sony and Microsoft both charging for new and used games, was moving the goalposts away from your ownership of a used game argument by implying parity between Sony and Microsofts policies. It's not about playing online. It's about that under microsoft's policies, which I might be wrong, I wouldn't be able to sell that game privately unless that person was on my friend's list for more than 30 days. I've sold maybe one game privately in the last ten years, so it doesn't really affect me particularity, but I'm not entirely happy with the precedent. The online argument is incidental to what was being discussed, and I think trying to tie Sony now charging for PS Plus, is a misdirect, Or at least it's pulling it away from the real issue, which is essentially DRM.

So yes, there is some overlap between online passes and charging for online services, but it's not what people's fundamental problem with Microsoft's policies, or at the very least they way they're presenting those policies, that's what I took exception with. That's why it feels like arguing with Microsoft PR at points, but there's so much conflicting information from both sides of the argument that it's getting pulled away from the heart of it, which is basically Digital rights, which is going to be a massive issue in every industry soon enough. The question has already been raised about iTunes, and who owns your library after you die. Microsoft's approach has, on appearances anyway, been very anti-consumer. Not saying that Sony won't have plenty of anti-consumer measures themselves, but at the moment, at least the PS4 is the least anti-consumer of the two, because they're offering some semblance of a choice. Microsoft are trying to shove it down our throats.

I do feel like a Xbox PR rep because I am battling so much incorrect information and to be honest they are doing a crap job of it themselves. Most of the information going around is wrong and from hearsay because they have been slow to come out with a definitive statement. You have to search but it is there.

On selling Xbox One games.
Yes you are free to sell your games. You can sell it privately or you can trade it in at a store. There is no restriction whatsoever and you are not charged a fee. This is just as it is now.

The person who buys that game also does not pay a fee to MS. They will pay a fee to you or the store for the game. But there is no extra fee to unlock used games. It is quite possible that you can trade a game in and keep playing it until someone else registers that licence. At which time the game will stop working on your machine and start on theirs. But this is to be confirmed.

When MS says you can trade in at participating stores, they simply mean that not every store accepts trade ins. The store must offer this service and this is not something they are dictating to stores about.

The 30 days friends list thing. This is a separate service. You can choose to gift your game to a friend for free. You simply transfer your licence to your friend. This is limited to people on your friends list for at least 30 days. I guess to avoid selling to random people. You can only transfer the game licence once (makes sense) and then the game is gone you no longer own it. Same as handing the disk to your friend and saying i don't want it back.

The Family service is by far the best. You can allow ten of your friends access to your games library without transferring any licences or swapping disks. They do have it limited to 1 person using your library at a time. This has no impact on your access to your games.

The main reason for checking in every 24 hours. The xbox allows you to install your game and never have to use that disk again. The disk is little more than a method to move data. But because you can install that one disk on 20 consoles one after the other they need a way to check for that licence. So the Xbox will check your licences every 24 hours. If they find you don't own a licence the game will stop working.

Yes it is not ideal but I can't think of any other way to allow you such control over your digital library without having some check. If it never checked in you could buy a game, install it and sell it then keep playing forever as you never need the disk.

If anyone can think of a better way to manage it I'd be all ears.

FlyingIrishMan

Grumpypants wrote: »

On selling Xbox One games.
Yes you are free to sell your games. You can sell it privately or you can trade it in at a store. There is no restriction whatsoever and you are not charged a fee. This is just as it is now.
Yes there is a restriction. Anyone you sell to has to be on your friendslist for 30 days, that pretty much eliminates selling over amazon, adverts etc unless someone is willing to wait 30 days.

The person who buys that game also does not pay a fee to MS. They will pay a fee to you or the store for the game. But there is no extra fee to unlock used games. It is quite possible that you can trade a game in and keep playing it until someone else registers that licence. At which time the game will stop working on your machine and start on theirs. But this is to be confirmed.
This is true, not sure about the waiting until someone activates the license.
However, as I said earlier, you can only trade in games if you are the original buyer, and if you buy a used game you can not trade it back in or sell it to anyone else, its yours forever.

When MS says you can trade in at participating stores, they simply mean that not every store accepts trade ins. The store must offer this service and this is not something they are dictating to stores about.
It means that if a small business wants to trade games, they will have to contact Microsoft, and/or the games publishers and join their participating retailers.
We're not even sure if MS will accept any small time retailers.

The 30 days friends list swap. This is a separate service. You can choose to gift your game to a friend for free. You simply transfer your licence to your friend. This is limited to people on your friends list for at least 30 days. I guess to avoid selling to random people. You can only transfer the game licence once (makes sense) and then the game is gone you no longer own it. Same as handing the disk to your friend and saying i don't want it back.
Yes, this contradicts with your point up above.
And its also worth noting that the friend you give it to can no longer trade that game in.

The Family service is by far the best. You can allow ten of your friends access to your games library without transferring any licences or swapping disks. They do have it limited to 1 person using your library at a time. This has no impact on your access to your games.
All true.


This is the main reason for checking in every 24 hours. The xbox allows you to install your game and never have to use that disk again. The disk is little more than a method to move data. But because you can install that one disk on 20 consoles one after the other they need a way to check for that licence. So the Xbox will check your licences every 24 hours. If they find you don't own a licence the game will stop working.
Yes, this is true. But not having to use discs isn't worth the 24 hour checks.

Yes it is not ideal but I can't think of any other way to allow you such control over your digital library without having some check. If it never checked in you could buy a game, install it and sell it then keep playing forever as you never need the disk.

If anyone can think of a better way to manage it I'd be all ears.
If the disc is in the console, no 24 hour check.

Corrected some.

C14N

Does anybody know if you can install the full game to your PS4 like the Xbox One? I'd imagine that would create a minefield for second hand games too and if it did then I wouldn't really be that bothered about it since games tend to stay in my PS3 until they're finished but it would be nice to be able to install them.

FlyingIrishMan

C14N wrote: »

Does anybody know if you can install the full game to your PS4 like the Xbox One? I'd imagine that would create a minefield for second hand games too and if it did then I wouldn't really be that bothered about it since games tend to stay in my PS3 until they're finished but it would be nice to be able to install them.

No, a 24 hour check would really be needed for that.
Though you can download all games digitally on their release date.

C14N

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

No, a 24 hour check would really be needed for that.
Though you can download all games digitally on their release date.

Yeah, I do tend to avoid digital downloads though for the most part (unless there's a really good sale on), just because I like having a physical copy on the shelf, as well as it usually being cheaper.

Not really a problem for me though, I'd take this over a restricted 2nd hand games market.

Richard Dower

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

No, a 24 hour check would really be needed for that.
Though you can download all games digitally on their release date.

I'd prefer digital games, but the problem is they are WAY more expensive then disc based. Eg. a new copy of Call Of Duty II is 35 quid, but the digital version is 70 flippin euro!! :eek:

They dont drop the prices of digital formats at all, the prices stay full retail for many months after release, sometimes over a year or more.

Its stupid!....even new games drop in value over time, digital should reflect that + with digital there are no chances or crap associated with lost revenue due to second hand games changing ownership multiple times.

So the *must* for studios is a digital sale, but they never drop prices to reflect any of what i stated :rolleyes:

The_Valeyard

Im more of a PC fan, have a great Alienware system, but i do play my xbox360 & ps3 from time to time (Halo, The Last of Us, etc) But looking at the new systems coming out, at the moment I am firmly in the PS3 camp. (Never thought id say that) Just the whole online-one day thing annoys me and in general Sony seem much more consumer focused rather than DRM focused.

FlyingIrishMan

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Im more of a PC fan, have a great Alienware system

pffft. :rolleyes:

Richard Dower

In positive MS news....the 360 is the top console in the US for 29 straight months!

http://news.softpedia.com/news/NPD-Group-Xbox-360-Makes-It-29-Months-at-the-Top-in-US-361797.shtml

I'm not surprised the X1 launch was such US focused and entertainment focused, Microsft obviously have stats that show its usage of the media/tv apps outstrips games etc.

I dont think MS pulled that one box to rule them all entertainment hub out of their asses, its based on research....but US based research. those in the EU use the 360 very differently.

MS just forgot the rest of us exist, a rather typical American syndrome.

Grumpypants

Richard Dower wrote: »

I'd prefer digital games, but the problem is they are WAY more expensive then disc based. Eg. a new copy of Call Of Duty II is 35 quid, but the digital version is 70 flippin euro!! :eek:

They dont drop the prices of digital formats at all, the prices stay full retail for many months after release, sometimes over a year or more.

Its stupid!....even new games drop in value over time, digital should reflect that + with digital there are no chances or crap associated with lost revenue due to second hand games changing ownership multiple times.

So the *must* for studios is a digital sale, but they never drop prices to reflect any of what i stated :rolleyes:

It was their hope to roll out a decent digital service like Steam with much cheaper digital games but it turns out no one wants this. They would much rather get a fiver from Gamestop for their old games than have steam like sales on XboxOne.

Richard Dower

Grumpypants wrote: »

It was their hope to roll out a decent digital service like Steam with much cheaper digital games but it turns out no one wants this. They would much rather get a fiver from Gamestop for their old games than have steam like sales on XboxOne.

There is no guarantee we'd see prices drop or the Steam model work for next gen. If they had said but digital and get 25% off retail....great!, but they havent.

NotorietyH

Richard Dower wrote: »

I'd prefer digital games, but the problem is they are WAY more expensive then disc based.

Well on the Vita, the digital versions, at least the sony first party games anyway, are generally 5 euro cheaper than retail. Most other games are the same price. The Vita was really only when Sony started taking digital seriously I think as it was there from the start with digital day one releases so I'd imagine you'll see a similar pricing structure on the PS4 at least.

Captain Chaos

If they started selling digital releases for 10% less than retail then we'ed get somewhere. As it is Sony and MS are charging 15-20% over retail prices for digital downloads. All the overheads a B&M shop has to cover and they can still sell for less than a digital copy, something is not right. When digital downloads sales were being promoted as the future as they would be cheaper than physical copies, the exact opposite has happened. Pay more for a game you can't even trade in when you are finished, why would you bother. I like my physical copies and game box art. Used to love reading big game manuals back in the day and the new smell from them, before games got easier and hand hold tutorials made them redundant.

Example: Ni No Kuni when released was €40 delivered from Amazon, came out as a digital download on PSN at the same for €59.99. That's a joke, and it's not right or justified. Until that's sorted out I will continue to buy physical copies only.

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

It was their hope to roll out a decent digital service like Steam with much cheaper digital games but it turns out no one wants this. They would much rather get a fiver from Gamestop for their old games than have steam like sales on XboxOne.

The only thing driving sales on Steam is competition. In a closed system like on XBox One it's a total monopoly and therefore sales and value for money are dreadful. It's the same on all the closed system consoles and it will be the same for these consoles when they are released. Believing you'll get steam style sales is absolute fantasy.

The_Valeyard

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

pffft. :rolleyes:

Its pretty damn cool, better than PS&MS :P

Still going for PS4 though. And cheaper i believe.