gizmo wrote: » There really isn't, they simply want to "protect" their platform as they have always done. For instance, they do the same on Windows Phone with the games utilising the Live service needing to be published by them in the event that there is no other publisher involved. However, you're free to release your game on their platform and through their store without a publisher should you wish, you just don't have access to Live. EA's presence at their recent reveal was almost wholly down to the money involved in their forthcoming exclusivity deal for the various sports franchises. If you remember back to E3 2011 it was Sony they stood by as they announced exclusive content for various titles. Companies like that won't be relied upon by platform holders for long term planning.
circadian wrote: » I think EA are cosied up to Microsoft on this one, they both seem keen on clawing back as much cash as they can from the pre-owned market.
hooradiation wrote: » Good.
stevenmu wrote: » Sony are probably under a lot of pressure from the big publishers to follow suit, or at least to allow publishers to introduce similar mechanisms.
F1ngers wrote: » Good. How? I assume you're not a gamer. This is bad for gamers who trade games in order to fund purchasing new games.
hooradiation wrote: » Yeah, my heart fucking bleeds for gamestop et al. How terrible for them. Also, there is this. So, yeah, good. Oh, but you were right on one thing, i'm not a gamer. I'd never want to be associated with such a toxic subculture.
hooradiation wrote: » Oh, but you were right on one thing, i'm not a gamer. I'd never want to be associated with such a toxic subculture.
Grayditch wrote: » This chap...
circadian wrote: » That bothers me, if I buy a game from a shop then I own the item and I should be able to do with it as I see fit.
F1ngers wrote: » And yet here you are, associating yourself with what you call a "toxic subculture". Tells me all I need to know about you.
Genghiz Cohen wrote: » The EU say that people have the right to sell their licenses but it will take a European court case for publishers to give a damn.
Grayditch wrote: » Well, it normally takes a trawl through After Hours for a good laugh at a weirdo, but this came unexpectedly. Well played, GAMER thread.
Burgo wrote: » Looking forward to hearing more about Quantum Break, looks like remedy is making it.
shreddedloops wrote: » I really think PC talk should be left out of this thread. Yes it IS an option but it's useless comparing it to consoles. They're two very different products. We all know PCs exist and what they're capable of but some people just want a console.
valleyoftheunos wrote: » Backwards compatibility is a red herring, everyone wants it at first but ultimately never uses it. I have a stack of PS3 games, should I ever want to play them again I'll play them on my PS3.
Genghiz Cohen wrote: » Meow, this is not entirely true. You have bought a license to use the software. And in using that software you implicitly agree to the terms of the license. If the license were to say 'unauthorised reselling is not allowed', then you would have no right to sell the license to a 3rd party. The EU say that people have the right to sell their licenses but it will take a European court case for publishers to give a damn.
Gott wrote: » I might actually turn to the Dark Side and become PC Master Race.
Bambi wrote: » We have cookies. Srsly, we do.
Mitch Connor wrote: » I'm sure you do....