Curious (not arguing) about the guys that are going the PS4 route...

What happens IF publishers have used game policies for the PS4 that state that their game, not the PS4, requires DRM to play?  Would that be enough to change your minds about buying the PS4 or is it already set in stone.  I think there will be some interesting things popping up in the next 5 months.

Not really.  First off, not every publisher would require it, if any at all.  If anything it would more likely keep me from buying that game, unless it was a "must buy" game.  But also, DRM it self is not why I am buying a PS4.  Sure I don't like DRM but it really doesn't effect me personally since I have a good internet connection (unless their servers crash like Diablo3 or Simcity).  For me it is a combination of several factors.  Mostly, I just don't like the MS policies or how they have approached this generation of consoles.  I think there restrictive policy hurt some gamers and leave them out in the cold.  They have taken a major focus on an all-in-one entertainment device and I don't like that stance either.

Furthermore, I have more faith in Sony exclusives and their 1st party studios.  From the current gen systems, I have enjoyed more PS3 exclusives than 360.  I like Sony's marketing better so far and they have come across as a company trying to genuinely do better for the gamer.  Less restrictive policies and more helpful for developers.  In the end I think Sony is going to hold a greater market share of the next gen and ultimately, that means better games and support.

And finally, it's $100 less.  I can get a bundle right now with a PS4, BF4 and a year of PS+ for the same price as the bare bones XTV.  Not to mention it looks like I won't have to buy a new headset.  Combine all those facts and that is why I am buying a PS4.  DRM sucks, but it's not a deal breaker.

P.S. Not trying to flame here but actually honestly answer an honest question.

I’m not necessarily going the PS4 route (I plan on getting both), as I will get an Xbox One at launch and hopefully the PS4 at Christmas.  I thought I would chime in as I can answer your question. I’m getting the Xbox One to play with friends, and the PS4 more for singe player games. If I only played singe player, was never online, or didn’t play games with the clan, I might look at the PS4 first, but I primarily playe online competitive games. The main reason at all for me to pick up a PS4 is it doesn’t look like you can rent games on the Xbox One. So if the DMR stuff was the same, then I probably wouldn’t get a PS4 at all.  I don’t care too much for exclusives (particularly single player) as I don’t have time to play everything and would just shift over to a different game anyhow.


On a side note, with the remote play possibilities of the Xbox one, I may get to play more single player games than I thought without the rentals, as friends and family could switch out purchasing the games and still play them all for probably less than the monthly GameFly prices.

Also, if you want/get the camera- it's only $40 less. Sure $40 or $100 is a bit of money, but to base 5+ years of basically daily usage for the more active gamers on $100 less seems a bit silly to me. 

 
~mrmiller

I'm also buying both within the first few months of launch.

That being said, I actually have somewhat an opposite view to Interseptor. I think what MS is doing with their policies is helping the gaming community and economy. Used games leach massive amounts of money out of the companies pockets. Does this matter to me? Actually yes. I'd much rather send more $ straight to a developer for a discount digital download and initial game sales - this leads to them being able to spend more in their games = better quality games.
Does it hurt some gamers? The only ones it hurts are the ones who currently aren't supporting the industry that makes all the games they love. XBO has done a lot by not completely shutting out used games, allowing you to have a family group to share games, and encouraging digital distribution. That's the main reason I'm buying the XBO first. They seem interested in helping the developers stay in business, which in turn gives us better games.

I was not referring to game rentals/used games as "hurting" gamers.  I was speaking to those who do not have access to a constant internet connection.  Military service men and woman, 50% of the people who live in my town etc...  I just don't like they are leaving these people out of the next gen and think it's unnecessary.  And "just buy a 360 if you need an offline device" is not an acceptable answer to me.  Buy a PS4 seems like a much better solution since you, it's a next gen console.

And Atrum, I assume you are NEVER going to play a game for free on the Friends and Family sharing system?  Cause by sharing a game, you are NOT giving any money to those developers you are talking about.  It's basically as bad as used games for the eco-system.

The Xbox One is basically Batman at the the end of the Dark Knight. The PS4 is Harvey Dent. The Wii U was some dude in a scene that didn't make the edit.

Lol @ Epic

I cant imagine there is no upside for the developers built into the friends n   family system.

S7 Interseptor wrote:And Atrum, I assume you are NEVER going to play a game for free on the Friends and Family sharing system?  Cause by sharing a game, you are NOT giving any money to those developers you are talking about.  It's basically as bad as used games for the eco-system.

Not true, they made it 10 people for a reason. Games with solid mechanics, gameplay, etc are going to be 'hot' items. So if you don't but it, there will be plenty of people trying to access your library. People will get to try the games, but if they want to play a decent amount will be much better of just buying it.
It exposes people to more games and increases the chance of buy-ins from people that would have never seen the game otherwise.

Used games do the complete opposite. They let people get a complete copy of the game with no chance of the developer ever seeing it. Will I use friends libraries? Of course, it's a fantastic way to demo games without having to rent them or wait years for them to be super cheap used.

Still don't like used game and never have.  I agree it's a rip off to both the consumer and developer.  Game sharing, as you describe it, sounds more like the equivalent of renting which I do like.  I get to try out new game I might not have ever tried.  I buy the game I like and even buy in to their sequels.  Like Borderlands for example.  I bought it after trying it from GF and ended up pre-ordering the 2nd game too.

I also, think what you purpose is a "best case scenario".  Mostly I see it as people getting free copies of games they will never have to buy.  Especially SP games.  People are greedy by nature and will take advantage of FREE stuff when ever they can.  Not all people mind you, but people by in large.  And in that light, many people will take advantage of this system, and developers will have lost money on potential purchases.

So at best it's like renting and at worse is like giving away 10 free copies of every game you purchase. Or worse since it is automatically available to those 10 people instantly.  If you actually had to make 10 copies and give them to people you might not ever do it, or give away all 10 copies.  But here, it automatically gives all your games to everyone on your family list.

Again, don't get me wrong.  I this it's a great feature from a consumer stand point and a BIG PLUS for features to put in the plus column for the XTV.  But let's not pretend is something it's not.

Yeah, I think it's a balancing act. They need to let you have a big enough 'xbox family' that people won't always be able to play, but small enough that you can play sometimes. Very easy to exploit though. Especially if you keep it small. For instance, if only me and you were in the group, we would only have to buy half the games. As soon as a 3rd person joins in someone would have to buy a 2nd copy for big releases.

Only for MP games really.  SP game would be much easier to get around to playing later'.  Especially after a library has 10 games each, 30 games total.  In fact the more I think about it the worse it gets.  At least with Game Fly, I can only have access to 2 games at any one time.  This encourages me to either keep games I like so send something back to get the new releases.  Also when I keep a game, it takes a game out of rotation, forcing them to buy a new copy to replenish the loss.  With sharing, I get to "keep" all the games all the time and no new have to ever be purchased to replenish the one I am "keeping".

Again, I think it's great.  I just have a hard time trying to swallow that it is "good for game developers".

S7 Interseptor wrote: And finally, it's $100 less.  I can get a bundle right now with a PS4, BF4 and a year of PS+ for the same price as the bare bones XTV.  Not to mention it looks like I won't have to buy a new headset.  Combine all those facts and that is why I am buying a PS4.  DRM sucks, but it's not a deal breaker.

This is pretty much how I feel.  If I can use my XP500 for a PS4, cool, if not, I'd need to get a new handset for a Xbone.  Also, as I said yesterday, I'm not too concerned with the pvr, the kinect, or most of the Xbone exclusives.  Anyways, I'll probably be waiting till Xmas or a good Black Friday sale before getting either system. If everyone is on the next gens before I get one, that'll be fine cuz I've got Borderlands 2, Witcher 2, MW3 & Blops 2, and two playthrus on SKYRIM!!! to finish if I'm stuck playing by myself.

Oh, and I'm not dead set on a PS4, but it makes more sense with a new baby here.

Zak, only 1 friend can access the library at a time. If I was making games and it was this setup vs massive losses on used games, itd be an obvious choice. I already laid out the logic, no point in explaining it further.

Right, so if someone is playing that title you might have to come back later to play but with access to 30+ titles, is that a big deal and are you going to go buy it instead of just playing something else?  Sorry but I just don't think that is the answer to fighting used games. Also, what about access to digital titles. Right now there is no way to buy used digital titles but those would be shared all the same, cutting out valuable sales. How do you justify that logic?

Used digital titles? That isn't a thing anywhere. I've been saying for a long time MS is moving towards steams business model. It didn't take them long at all to have developers start selling digital copies of older games at discounts. Look at them now! Devs are literally lining up to be in the Steam summer/winter sales. And we get games at amazing prices. Obviously devs wouldn't be flocking towards steam if the model didn't work.

That is not what I asked. I also think the digital model is a good one. I was asking about sharing games that were purchased digitally. Sharing 1 game with 10 people that was purchased digitally. How is that justified since they would be missing out on 9 potential sales?  Seeing as how digital sale do NOT currently have a problem with the whole used games problem. This would cut into their sales, not alleviate an ongoing problem.

It's pretty basic supply and demand. The nature of games is such that there is no physical shortage of the product. Especially true in digital form. So other than hype/reviews how do you drive sales? You create a supply and demand situation. By allowing enough people access to shared libraries you let them experience the product. Historically 'free trials' have consistently boosted sales in any market.
Then, you set a limit that will make the libraries somewhat inaccessible for the majority of the populace. Only 1 friend can access your library at a time. Now you have a whole group of people trying to access your library. Some of the 'hardcore' people will never buy games. That's true in any market, there is always 'that guy' that for some reason feels like it's his life goal to be useless to the industry he enjoys the products of. So we ignore that guy, he'll find ways to be cheap anyway.
Now you have the regular populace that will get annoyed at not being able to access the libraries during prime gaming hours. This creates the supply and demand situation they want. During big launches game sales won't be hurt because those people won't want to chance missing their gameplay. I doubt this will boost sales during big launch events.
During 'lulls' in releases, that is where I predict sales to rise. If nothing has been out for a while people will check out other peoples libraries, discover games, and get annoyed at not being able to access them.
Hopefully around that same time they will do sales on games to further encourage people on the ropes to purchase.

Is there room for abuse? Definitely. I'm sure some people a lot better at market analysis and prediction crunched the numbers and gave it the go ahead.

Also, I doubt DLC is sharable...

S7 Epic wrote:Also, I doubt DLC is sharable...

Microsoft specifically said DLC is.

Hmmm, that seems silly (business-wise).

Falls under the same 1 friend can access at a time rule.

Guess I can see some sense in it. People are probably more likely to buy the game itself, rather than DLC for a game they can't play whenever they want.