Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Publishers and DRM
xxpigxx
Member UncommonPosts: 412
Things that make you go hmmmmm
--" . . . we are waiting to see what Sony will do, and then we will decide after that. For us it is too early to take a position on that; we are really watching what the three players are doing."
Given that Guillemot had been waiting on Sony's stance towards used titles, we'd wager a guess that Ubisoft won't be making any plans to charge any fees.
Guillemot, however, doesn't see a problem with Microsoft's stance per se. "I think it's good Microsoft gave us their position, so we actually know what they are going to do," said Guillemot. When queried if Ubisoft had known about Microsoft's position in advance, he said they didn't know exactly what they would decide.--
Seeing as how MS is blaming the publishers, yet the publishers had no clue!
Furthermore, Used game "piracy" is bad for the industry?
Not according to Ubisoft. Quite the opposite, actually
--"Lots of people are buying a game, reselling it, and buying another one. It has a very positive impact on the industry," Guillemot said. "Because it [gives] the customer the possibility to buy many games. It gives them a chance to play more games. I think it has been good for the industry; what we have to make sure is that there's not too much money lost in between so there's good efficiency there."--
http://www.gamespot.com/e3/ubisoft-ceo-says-used-g
The hole that MS has dug for themselves is theirs and theirs alone.
Comments
i guess because publishers are always truthful and honest and dont tell people what they want to hear.
EA said the same thing: http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/12/ea-did-not-lobby-for-used-game-drm/
I'm not entirely sure if I buy it. Honestly the X1 just seems like it's a system completely designed for DRM, I just feel that it really could have been Microsoft's idea. But I do think the big publishers always knew ahead of time (just not the full details).
Having said that, now that they've seen the reaction, I think they're distancing themselves somewhat from the whole thing. Yet they can't just say "we won't use it." Heh, so it does seem like its something they want to do, but might be worried about their sales.
I think X1 not selling well might be good for everyone; it could be that the publishers will all decide to allow trading and sharing as a selling point then (on X1). If it sells well regardless of all this, they may just go with it and not allow it.
http://hothardware.com/News/If-You-Resell-Your-Used-Games-The-Terrorists-Win/
http://kotaku.com/used-games-arent-to-blame-for-all-the-video-game-indus-509593780
http://www.destructoid.com/used-games-and-aaa-games-are-incompatible-good--256227.phtml
Because it could not possibly be anything in the industry itself. The industry should conform to the market. Not the market to the industry.
I don't think that it's all on Microsoft. Publishers, if they really didn't want this, they wouldn't stand for it. Do you think if Ubisoft or EA stood up and said, "This is a terrible idea and we won't support you or your system with these changes," that Microsoft wouldn't change it?
I don't like any of the AAA companies right now for supporting Microsoft in their decision (Gamestop is included at the moment since they'll likely get the pre-owned stations for Microsoft to trade in or whatever), but they could have helped change it if they didn't want it. The simple fact that for multi-console releases things will have to change now goes to show they they are probably more in favor of the DRM than not.
Aim Small, Miss Small.