If a publisher releases a game that I cannot resell on console, but offers it to me for ten bucks, then yes, I'm OK with this.BrotherRool said:
Certain Pre-Owned Games Can Be Blocked on the PS4!!
- Thread starter Mr.Mattress
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Like PoolCleaningRobot said that's hardware related. Where's the evidence that Sony/Microsoft have prevented software content i.e. Online-Passes, Questionable Moral Content etc.Crono1973 said:
Besides why would you want a single entity dictating what publishers/developers can do with their games?
edit: I should probably expand on what I mean by "Hardware related"
With the PSP link, Sony may have capped the processor speed, but they haven't prevented a publisher from releasing a game based on moral/ethical reasons.
The only way they could prevent publishers from used sales from a hardware perspective would be to remove internet connectivity.
If you refuse to purchase games that have any form of anti-piracy (because it shows that you "don't trust your consumers to buy your game"), you're limited to gog.com. EVERY game has some form of DRM, even if it's only basic (except stuff sold from gog.com, as mentioned).Smeggs said:
Nintendo censored games coming to North America, did you know about that? Oh, but they can only control the hardware??wulf3n said:
Why would I want a single entity dictating?? It isn't what I want it's just how it is. That you can't accept that is your problem, not mine.
Like I told the algea scrubbing robot, forget it.
"Eat your vegetables or go hungry" is somewhat insulting to a person whom you expect to be a loyal customer. Somehow I get the feeling that none of the higher ups at Sony have any experience in customer service. I buy games that have anti-piracy. I buy from Steam quite a bit and even a few of EA's online-pass games (though mostly those were launch-purchases anyway, so the online codes don't really effect me). I'm saying I'm not going to purchase a game if they're giving me an ultimatum of forking over $60+ on the spot or never playing it at all.lacktheknack said:
As I said, I'm not a child to be lead by the ear. They shouldn't treat their consumers as if they don't trust them or the product enough to turn a profit.
Yes, that's why I said before I know NINTENDO do it. I was looking for Sony/Microsoft examples.Crono1973 said:
The "evidence" you provided merely showed Sony limiting hardware capability. What am I supposed to infer from that without pulling bullshit out of my arse?Crono1973 said:
Is it how it is? I've only seen Nintendo doing it, and you claiming Sony are bad because they don't!Crono1973 said:
Crono1973 said:
Ok, its almost midnight here and I have an 8am lab tomorrow so last post from me:
A console manufacturer like Nintendo has the right to say "no" to any game that wants to be published on their system. THAT'S Nintendo's censorship. All they can do is say "I won't let your game on my system unless you change (insert thing here)". That's it. There is no in between. They can't say "oh this publisher put a code in their game that prevents used game sales. We should press this button and make it go away".
That, my good friend Crono, is why the console manufacturer won't prevent it. Because it would mean that there would be less games on their console and less money in their wallets.
Why the two separate standards?PoolCleaningRobot said:
If a console manufacturer can say "change this or you can't release your game on this console" then why can't the "change this" part be code that enables anti-used technology.
Also, I am not sure you understand the extent that Nintendo censored games. What was a church in the Japanese version would be a school in the NA version. What would be nudity in a Japanese version would be changed for the NA version (Celes in Final Fantasy III). They stopped doing that for the most part but I am quite certain they still have the power and so does Microsoft and Sony.
Neither did EA but you can bet your ass that they will be blamed when they implement Origin/Steam anti-used technology on consoles. I wasn't aware one needed to invent DRM to be blameworthy.Vault101 said:
The success of Steam is probably just the motivation behind this. I wonder if people defending Steam realize that.
the difference here is people hate EA because (lets face it) theyre arent too far from being outright moustache twirling bond villans for how they gleefully misreat both developers and consumersCrono1973 said:
people Like Valve because they see them as cool and ethical
its like stephen fry vs bill o'reily (and I'm finding it harder not to hate EA)
Crono1973 said:
To understand this, you need to know more about the history of gaming. Nintendo had a lot more pull back then. that isn't the case anymore. you won't release my game on your WiiU? well then I'll just go to one of the dozens of other publishing methods. back in the day, it was either Nintendo or nothing because otherwise didn't make no money (Sega too I guess).
Console manufacturers don't have that kind of power anymore because games can be released on a lot of other platforms (android os, PC, etc). Every game a manufacturer turned down translates to money lost in licensing fees. and those censorships you mentioned were due to localization, not because Nintendo as a whole didn't like it
(lab got delayed till 9 so I'm allowed 1 final post. please, no more questions. Can't take it anymore)
It doesn't matter why Nintendo censored games coming to NA, they did and they had the power to do so. That is the point. Now you can say they no longer have that power but you really can't prove that. I have shown that the power did exist so you need to show that the power no longer exists (lab allowing).PoolCleaningRobot said:
Sega chose not to censor but it was a choice.
Crono1973 said:
Yes it does matter why Nintendo censored games coming to North America. In your example they changed the games in a way that would help them sell and make them fit better with North American culture. We're not ok with hardly any nudity in a device that was (originally) designed for kids. And as for churches? Lets just say Japan's ideas of how Christianity works are both hilarious and awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JapaneseChristian) but by extension offensive to some people.
Ok, now put on your reading glasses because its story time. Once upon a time in the days of Super Nintendo, if a publisher wanted to get their game licensed for a Nintendo release, they had to drop their pants and let Nintendo bum fuck them with all their might. It was expensive for the publisher and they had to work under constraints put forth by Nintendo. Why could Nintendo do this I hear you ask? Because Nintendo wanted a monopoly on their own console which was possible because games didn't require years of time and studios of hundreds of people. In fact, sometimes a game's development could be carried out by one person. So Nintendo didn't have to care about 3rd party publishers because they ALREADY HAD a lot of good and well known games. I read in Game Informer that Sega intended for the Genesis to be just like Nintendo with a monopoly on their titles. EA didn't like this so reverse engineered Genesis cartages and threatened Sega if they didn't make a deal with them. That's how much pull console manufacturers had. EA spent a bunch of money and time to hack Sega's console so wouldn't have to deal with bullshit.
You simply can't do this anymore. Consoles NEED publishers. Video games cost too much and take too much time to make for a console to be able to survive on first party titles alone. Let me break it down:
more games = more console sales = more money from licensing titles
If you DON'T have games, people WON'T buy your console and you WON'T make any money off licensing fees. If no one buys your console, your company goes bankrupt and you die a homeless person on the streets.