f13.net

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/121/1217257p1.html
http://kotaku.com/5879202/sources-the-next-xbox-will-play-blu+ray-may-not-play-used-games-and-will-introduce-kinect-2?popular=true


I call horseshit since well, it's a sourceless Kotaku article and the last time we heard this sort of thing (when Sony filed a patent for a method of preventing used games from being played before the PS3 dropped) it turned out to be wrong.

Still an interesting discussion all the same. The less onerous solution is to just go all digital and tell people without an internet connection to get stuffed. Still a shitty thing to do, but it lacks the anger-inducing factor for parents/users of buying/trading a used game and discovering you can't play it after you put the disc in.

There's a pretty huge incentive for them to do this, so it would not in the least surprise me. And naturally any attempt to work around it, even for games you bought, would count as a DMCA transgression.

Anything that kicks the retail games industry in the nuts is fine with me. As a PC gamer they've long been irrelevant.

They had better not call it the 720 either.

Is there anything stopping Sony from saying "no, we won't license blue-ray to you"?

Sony doesn't own Blu-Ray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

Just slap an "Internet connection required for game activation" sticker on the side of the box. Job done.

Perhaps make it work similarly to steam, where the games are tied to your account.

This could make bans an even larger threat, as your entire library could be invalidated.

Little Timmy losing 500 bucks of his parents money worth of games because he said something racist one too many times makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

This.  A million times fucking this!

While I dislike the pawnshop mentality that has taken over the retail arm of the industry, as someone who owns more than 1 xbox (well, my wife and I), and also uses (more than 1 of) them at work, it'd certainly stop me from buying a vast library of titles, as I have with the 360/PS3.

I tolerate steam's DRM format because the games are cheap, discounted regularly, and on sale constantly. Console games don't hit the deep discount in the same was that Steam does.

We're definitely heading towards the dropping of physical versions of a title, but probably not in time for the next Xbox release.

I can see it being tied to accounts though, much like Steam. Plus possibly increasing incentives to go fully digital (and MS exclusive) rather than releasing box copies as well.

For those interested in such things, a GamaSutra look at XBLA sales in 2011 (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39713/Xbox_Live_Arcade_by_the_numbers__the_2011_year_in_review.php).

It could also be an MS 'leak' to get GameStop worried and compliant as well.  

EDIT: The current focus of a lot of tech companies is to 'own' as much of their customers' data as possible. A revamp to the MS system to introduce a Facebook-esque / Steam-esque account management system / social network is also a feasible step.

I have no idea of the real truth, but I suspect a surprisingly large number of Xboxes are not attached to any network, but just used to play single player games straight from the disk.

If you can believe number floating on the 'net, the percentage of connected units is > 73 for PS3 and xbox.

http://www.destructoid.com/higher-percent-of-net-connected-ps3s-than-other-consoles-170797.phtml

Clicking a few links deep, the survey is bullshit.
Sauce (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28058/Study_PS3_Has_Highest_Percentage_Of_Connected_Consoles.php)

Other sources indicate there are 35m Xbox Live users (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/18/xbox-live-now-topping-35-million-users/) and MS says that 65.8m Xbox 360s sold to date. (http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/SegmentResults/EntertainmentAndDevicesDivision/FY12/Q2/Kpi.aspx)

So maybe about 50% of Xbox 360s have net access. How many are active users is a different story, of course, but that's the same with Steam's claim of 40m users as well.

EDIT: should have used the 40m Xbox Live users on the same page as the Xbox 360 sales. So 61% of Xbox 360s have a Live account, roughly. Other stats indicate about 50% of Xbox Live users are Gold members, so that's another piece to the puzzle.

2000 is plenty large as long as the rest of the survey work/analysis/whatever is well done.

The claim that the PS3 has the highest percentage of users connected is a bit spurious when the difference between PS3 and 360 in that survey was only 5%. I'd be surprised if they could reliably claim <5% margin of error.

You can also spin that survey result however you like. The Wii has a larger userbase and therefore the highest absolute number of connected units, despite the lower percentage.

Either way, I suspect that increasingly draconian DRM and similar moves won't actually increase new game sales. It'll just reduce 2nd hand sales. As a comparison, it doesn't look like reducing piracy has a positive impact on music sales (link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/24/hadopi_working_yesno/)).

You mean stopping piracy won't force people to buy shitty shit shit? I'm amazed!  I'm no fan of piracy but the argument that it was what was causing the decline of purchases was always spurious at best.

Cala said what had to be said about survey #'s.

Also, despite Wii's greater numbers I expect MS and Sony to still place a  >$500 console on the market, not having learned that lesson at all.

Given the 360 failure rate, that puts the percentage of connected boxes to near 100%. ;D

Fixed it for you, heh.

My point of contention isn't the number of people, it's that they only surveyed people who have broadband internet. There are tons of people out there who are either a) too poor or b) live in rural areas and thus don't have broadband/the internet at all. I suspect at least some of these people also own Xbox 360s, but they were discounted entirely in the survey and therefor the survey is inaccurate.

The ars technica article referencing this kotaku rumor quoted some report that estimated 27% of Xbox users do not have their console connected to the internet.

The Wii benefited from a lot of supply chain "issues" and built in buzz. The actual cost of entry into the world of Wii went well north of what consoles were selling at, even when not counting the inflated prices through ebay or even from brick-and-mortar stores inflating the cost. The stock price was $249. Not really much less than the XBox.

The 360 launched at $299/$399, and the PS3 launched at $399-$599. Microsoft doesn't really have something to learn, but I would agree Sony does. And I do think they have learned their lesson a bit, given the Vita pricing. It came in well below what a lot of industry folk were speculating at. Of course, the Vita has.... other issues to contend with.

You also have to remember that the XBox was actually a loss for Microsoft at those prices - the console was a loss leader, whereas the Wii at $249 was already making a profit for Nintendo because it was so much cheaper to make.

True. But largely irrelevant in the discussion of what will generate sales. Profits, sure, but not what will sell.

If they were smart they'd do sales like Steam. I don't have the figures in front me but I have read before about valve bragging how they basically get insane profit spikes off of steam sales. Apparently everybody wins. I've certainly bought a crapload of PC games on -80% sales that I would have never touched at full price (some I never even end up playing heh), since you've got no costs beyond a little bandwidth, it's pure profit.

Valve may be getting "insane profit" because in a lot of cases, regardless of what the item sells for, the distributor (in this case, Steam) gets the same amount per unit as they would if it sold for full price.

I am not privy to the details of what their agreements with studios are, but there is likely something that guarantees Valve a minimum dollar value per unit sold, regardless of cost.

Of course Valve doesn't have a looming parent company like Microsoft or Sony or stockholders.

Valve are making an insane profit because they are selling a lot of product for a 30% cut. They aren't spending on developing that content, just on maintaining (and expanding) the Steam platform.

Microsoft and Sony aren't developing that content either. They just maintain the stores the 3rd party developers use. Or am I missing something here?

It's sort of irrelevant when the argument is based on Chimpy's conjecture.

I am not sure either where the argument you perceive is, nor how any of it ties directly to what I said.

 :oh_i_see:

If they replicate all the things that make steam acceptable, i.e. regular bargains, download/install/update, offline mode, easy access for indie developers etc, then I suppose it won't be the worst idea ever.

How Valve makes money on sales.  It's just sort of a pointless argument to start, unless you happen to have Gabe Newell bound and gagged in your basement.  If you do, please chain him to a workstation.  The next installment of Half-Life has been delayed enough as it is.

MS and Sony are also spending on promoting their platforms, funding development / publishing titles and other associated costs related to their consoles. Yes, they are earning revenue on the titles sold through the online shops, but their expenses are higher.

Steam, to my knowledge, doesn't fund the development or publishing of any title other than their own, aren't spending on promoting the PC platform or a host of other things. If you have a title that meets their publishing criteria, they'll put it up on the shop and if it sells they take (reputedly) a 30% cut. But if it doesn't sell, it doesn't cost anything notable to keep it on Steam either.

Valve is spending to extend the Steam platform - iOS and Android shop and community fronts were announced this week - but their costs in comparison to MS and Sony are a lot smaller, hence the "mad profits".

In the internet age, it is a lot more profitable to be a content aggregator and distributor than a content developer.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them put in some sort of cheap wireless like ebooks.  That would let them do some bare minimum "register the game to run it" and some other functions.

If you own an Xbox, and don't have it connected to your network, you're doing it wrong. My family leverages every bit of the Xbox for entertainment value. If I want to play music that isn't on vinyl, I run it through the Xbox into the stereo via Windows Media Center. TV? With the fuckload of apps available for the Xbox now, we have Netflix, HuluPlus, and a bunch of other options to explore.

If I want to see stuff that HuluPlus blocks as "PC Only," I can use PlayOn to get those shows on my TV. I can also get The Daily Show this way, which is nice.

The Xbox is really competitive with the Roku now, especially given that it has games. Kinect is also actually useful for voice commands and the version of Fruit Ninja for Kinect kicks ass.

Nope.

Broadband penetration still largely sucks for a big chunk of the country, so things like Roku mean little to them... including hooking ones XBox up to the internet.

This is the point I was making a page ago about that survey being bullshit.

Broadband penetration is great for me, it was impossible to watch on dial-up.

I'm surprised you guys think they care about the small amount of people with no Internets or non-boardband. I bet this thing comes bundled with AOL.


Same with the PS3.

It's all about the 1% these days.

I do as Slack does, but with the PC. It has bluray!  :grin:

Know why you cater to the 1%? 

They have all the money.  Catering to the 99% is just a long slow road to the poorhouse.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is true, for now. But if they do it, they'll simultaneously kill their tie ratio and any benefits from the long tail.

People don't make a decision between Roku or an Xbox 360 :) The 360 is great and has become Microsoft's strongest entrant into the living room since they bought WebTV. But it's premise is to offer ancillary services to enhance a gamer's experience with the TV. Roku (and Apple TV and Boxee) cater to a different market.

CLASS WAR!

I'm surprised this gen of consoles haven't at least had a replacement for them announced.

Aiming at the bottom of the pyramid (as it is called) means you have a lot more people, but they have less cash. It can be a very profitable group to target, but you have to plan accordingly.

Everyone goes after the 1%.

I distrusted the survey more on the grounds it seemed to be more about that company's customers than a broad population survey. At least that was how I saw it at a glance.

Make a silly comment and everyone gets all serious.  Jesus y'all are old.

Fixed. 

No need. The PS3 has that whole "we have a 10-year lifecycle" thing going for it, has finally gotten itself to an affordable price point, and Blu-Ray has killed both HD-DVD and is supplanting DVD as the movie format of choice. Granted, Sony as a whole doesn't seem to be doing all that well and the PSN hacking scandal probably has them bleeding from the corporate anus, but there's no reason to announce anything that won't release until 2014 anyway. It's only entered its sixth year in release. The 360 is only in its seventh year, has had a freshening up with the somewhat successful release of the Kinect (it wasn't an unmitigated disaster like I thought and it seems to be talked about more than the Move), and is getting major support from non-game media sources. Oh and it doesn't have a huge, horrible security PR scandal hanging around its neck (yet). Again, I expect some announcements next year, but not this one.

The number that get any sort of reliable/any broadband is probably well north of 1%. Add in lack of education/clarity of what you can do with such and/or plain old "I don't give a shit."

Us forum readers/gamers are a minority of the general audience.

I guess I should have made my point in a different way. For me, the 360 beats the Boxee Box or the Roku. I already have one. I want fewer, not more boxes in my entertainment center thing, and MS has managed to get enough app support that I have a Boxee that also plays games.

I can see how a non-gamer wouldn't see the value in an Xbox 360. I can also see how a fish doesn't need a bicycle.  :why_so_serious:

MS has done a great job of finally getting the Xbox to the point where it can truly be an all-in-one entertainment box (minus BluRay), and I think it's pretty darn cool. It has me very surprised, because my first self-purchased console was the original PS. Sony lost me on the PS3 price point. MS got me as an initial customer because I wanted to play stuff like KOTOR and Jade Empire. At one point, the Xbox was my "RPG console" and the PS2 was "everything else."

I waited until well after launch to get a 360 (I think I got mine in late 2008/early 2009), so I've managed to enjoy it while a steady stream of improvements were in the works/coming to fruition.

Now if they'd just figure out a way to let my damn MS points zero out without some strategic buying of shit + points loading, I'd be 100% happy.

Rumour is that MS points will be going and your account will just show the $ amount you have. But hey: rumour.

Rumour from where? The schoolyard? Friend of a friend? A guy down the pub? Your mum?


seriously, you know better than that.

PC Gaming - Report Microsoft Points Will Be Phased Out (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399281,00.asp)

Better. Thank you.

I wonder how many of those xboxen not connected to the internet are intentionally done that way. You don't connect a rooted xbox full of pirated software to the network.

In any case they've got a fairly long operational life so I'm sure they're planning for the possibility of digital distribution and online verification. And after all, if they invalidate second hand games that removes one competitive advantage from retail and makes online distribution a much better deal, plus keeps the publishers happy.

Mine hasn't been connected for an extended period of time for the last 4-5 years, except for when the few games I have bought for it demanded a newer version of the dashboard or whatever it is they call that shit UI thingy. Not rooted, hacked, modified or filled with pirated software, I just don't see the need.

And I know 2-3 people who have xboxes that will never be connected to the internet for the reason I mentioned. It would be really fascinating to know how many there are, but on a survey they are only going to show up as "not connected to the internet".

Look, this is obviously personal/non-empirical (I can't think of the word I want to use) evidence, but I work with a lot of kids/teens, and at first it's really surprising just how many of them have consoles that aren't connected to any form of network, even though many/most of them have some form of broadband at home. When you see similar numbers year after year, you stop being surprised how many aren't connected. (and not chipped consoles, either).

Anecdotal.   :oh_i_see:

I use our XBox for Netflix on occasion, but the streaming invariably goes to Crap(tm) Quality at some point in the show, so I've been doing it less and less.  And so XBox Live is about one month from being cancelled - I got it for multiplayer Forza, but it turns out that I am apparently the worst race car driver in the world, so bah, I'll play against the computer where I have a chance.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to suggest that there aren't many legitimate xboxen not connected to the net. It's just a personal curiosity.

Then again not all PC's are attached to the internet or a decent connection and that didn't stop Ubisoft being asses and making a connection required. And that's for games now, with a platform expected to launch in the future and have a multi-year lifetime I can see them building the functionality into the hardware.

Thank you!

I was wracking my brain for that for ages. Even asked a few other staff to help me think of it. First real day back at work (after 2 days of nonstop meetings). Brain not in work mode yet. Or used to being awake so early..

Just some further thought on this - I guess I happily tolerate it with Steam since I can install my stuff on pretty much any computer I like. We have 4 functional computers at home, and steam on all of them. Hell, I even have it installed here on my work laptop. There's no "I can't play my games on my wife's machine" and if my machine bricks, I can just reinstall it again without any phone calls or access issues.

Out here it's easier to tolerate steam because there never was any real market in used PC games, the money was all in the console titles. Not entirely sure why: more cost conscious customers, higher volume and churn I guess, but I think that was part of the reason retail had lost interest in carrying a lot of PC titles and thus opened the market to steam.

In any case even if they implement the system I'd imagine they'd still allow distributors to choose if they buy into it. It's just that quite a few of them probably would.