Xbox One on the way. DRM removed, more details to come.

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='kill3r7']Actually you are wrong. Shrinkwrap (EULA) licensing has applied to "digital" media such as games, Blu-ray, DVD and Cds for many years now. Essentially companies are granting you a license to play the game (regardless whether a code is present or not). You do not own the game hence Cliffy B's comment on twitter. It is not the same as a book or other tangible good.[/QUOTE]

So then you would agree that consumers have been able to buy or resell shrink wrapped licensed games without restriction so far. Why should anyone be happy that MS wants to change that?
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Actually you are wrong. Shrinkwrap (EULA) licensing has applied to "digital" media such as games, Blu-ray, DVD and Cds for many years now. Essentially companies are granting you a license to play the game (regardless whether a code is present or not). You do not own the game hence Cliffy B's comment on twitter. It is not the same as a book or other tangible good.[/QUOTE]

If the law was actually on their side with EULA licensing then software companies would have made the sale of used games (and movies and CDs) illegal years ago. Regardless of what it says in the manual, the first sale doctrine still applies to physical media.

Unfortunately DRM is a way for companies to get around the first sale doctrine and the current government in the United States tends to side with companies rather than individuals in regards to these matters.
 
[quote name='PenguinMaster']If the law was actually on their side with EULA licensing then software companies would have made the sale of used games (and movies and CDs) illegal years ago. Regardless of what it says in the manual, the first sale doctrine still applies to physical media.

Unfortunately DRM is a way for companies to get around the first sale doctrine and the current government in the United States tends to side with companies rather than individuals in regards to these matters.[/QUOTE]

They way it works is that the Game disc, movie bluray or CD is considered the licenses currently.

You can use that content as long as you want AS LONG as you still own that disc. If you say sell a CD, to be with in the law you have to destroy any copies you burned for the car or any MP3s you ripped as you don't own the license to listen to them any more.

Games and movies are a bit different as you can't legally copy them as they have copy protection on them and courts have held that that is fine and that it is illegal to break the copy protection and make a copy.

Where digital content differs is there's not longer a disc, so you're just buying a license. And thus far courts have ruled that first sale doctrine doesn't apply to digital content and it's fine to have terms of service that say you're just buying a license to play it on your account and that the license can't be transferred, re-sold etc. If they ever apply first sale doctrine to digital goods, it would likely just require a system to deactivate the license and it to be reactivated by whoever purchases the used good--which is what MS seems to be talking about with their required install games and saying there will be some system for trading/selling games.

Where it gets murkier is MS is now making their discs not licenses--but rather just discs to install software that come with a license code you enter. So basically like software, where you just buy a license to use say MS Office on however many machines the license allows--and the disc isn't the license, but rather the CD Key is. Courts have ruled that this is fine with software--there's no first sales doctrine rights with software you buy (including PC games). So no reason courts won't uphold it for console games if they do go that route.
 
[quote name='brandtron8000']So then you would agree that consumers have been able to buy or resell shrink wrapped licensed games without restriction so far. Why should anyone be happy that MS wants to change that?[/QUOTE]

The ingenuity of EULA or shrink-wrapped licenses lies in the fact that it allows the IP owner to determine how their IP should be "treated". You as the consumer have "little" to no say on the terms of the license. However, at the end of the day you always have a say... you can always opt not to support it.

Just a quick point on licenses which everyone seems to neglect. No one has successfully challenged a license and "won". The EU court essentially said sure you can resell your digital license but you must first get rid of the software program on your computer and eliminate any future ability to use the software under the old license.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']you always have a say... you can always opt not to support it.[/QUOTE]

That's kinda the whole point, we support the system as it is now because we are allowed to buy and sell games without any restriction from the media or console itself.

[quote name='kill3r7']Just a quick point on licenses which everyone seems to neglect. No one has successfully challenged a license and "won". The EU court essentially said sure you can resell your digital license but you must first get rid of the software program on your computer and eliminate any future ability to use the software under the old license.[/QUOTE]

To insinuate that anyone who doesn't like DRM is a pirate looking to get extra/free copies of a game is insulting. No one expects to be able to buy a game and give out another copy while you keep yours.

I already laid out what you'd be giving up by supporting MS' DRM:

[quote name='brandtron8000']
Here's what you're giving up: Borrowing a game from a friend or loaning one out to them, Renting a game, Buying and/or selling a used game through your own channels.
[/QUOTE]

This form of DRM may be primarily aimed at pirates, but it hurts every gamer. And I guarantee hackers will hit this DRM hard just to prove a point.
 
[quote name='brandtron8000']That's kinda the whole point, we support the system as it is now because we are allowed to buy and sell games without any restriction from the media or console itself.[/QUOTE]

No we don't. A large portion of people pay to play their games online (Xbox Live) meanwhile Sony offers the service for free. At the end of the day, you pay for what you want. This idea that somehow folks are going to abandon the XBone is asinine.



[quote name='brandtron8000']To insinuate that anyone who doesn't like DRM is a pirate looking to get extra/free copies of a game is insulting. No one expects to be able to buy a game and give out another copy while you keep yours. [/QUOTE]

I didn't insinuate that at all. I'm sorry if you were offended. At the end of the day everyone needs to remember that the IP owner/creator has the power to create and sell his or her IP as they see fit. If you want to consume their product you should respect their wishes. Otherwise don't buy it.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']No we don't. A large portion of people pay to play their games online (Xbox Live) meanwhile Sony offers the service for free. At the end of the day, you pay for what you want. This idea that somehow folks are going to abandon the XBone is asinine.

I didn't insinuate that at all. I'm sorry if you were offended. At the end of the day everyone needs to remember that the IP owner/creator has the power to create and sell his or her IP as they see fit. If you want to consume their product you should respect their wishes. Otherwise don't buy it.[/QUOTE]

Just because someone creates a product doesn't mean they should have full control over the future of that product. Just think of all the controversy surrounding George Lucas changing Star Wars. If the original releases of Star Wars had DRM then when Lucas changed Star Wars the original version wouldn't exist anymore, it would have been automatically updated when you connected to the servers and you could never revert to the previous version. When I buy a game (or any other product) I expect to be able to play it as it currently exists for as long as I see fit, no one should be able to permanently alter it or take away my access.

Xbox Live is a service, not a good. It is therefore completely different.
 
[quote name='PenguinMaster']Just because someone creates a product doesn't mean they should have full control over the future of that product. Just think of all the controversy surrounding George Lucas changing Star Wars. If the original releases of Star Wars had DRM then when Lucas changed Star Wars the original version wouldn't exist anymore, it would have been automatically updated when you connected to the servers and you could never revert to the previous version. When I buy a game (or any other product) I expect to be able to play it as it currently exists for as long as I see fit, no one should be able to permanently alter it or take away my access.[/QUOTE]

We agree to disagree. I think/thought that George Lucas had the right to do whatever he wanted with the movies. He created them. They represented his vision and we as fans were blessed to have enjoyed the originals but they were his work. His to alter as he saw fit.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']We agree to disagree. I think/thought that George Lucas had the right to do whatever he wanted with the movies. He created them. They represented his vision and we as fans were blessed to have enjoyed the originals but they were his work. His to alter as he saw fit.[/QUOTE]

Would you feel the same way if he stopped supporting the movies completely? With the DRM in the Xbox One they simply have to stop supporting the games and no one can ever play them again.
 
[quote name='PenguinMaster']Would you feel the same way if he stopped supporting the movies completely? With the DRM in the Xbox One they simply have to stop supporting the games and no one can ever play them again.[/QUOTE]

Sure. Home video and gaming are relatively new developments in media consumption. I don't see myself replaying Bioshock 15 or 20 years from now because I will not own a 360. Although, I'm sure if there is a market for it, it will be rereleased on some future box.
 
[quote name='brandtron8000']I don't know how it works up in Canadia, but we have this thing called the First Sale Doctrine. A European court has even protected the right for the consumer to resell digital software. Even Cliffy B took some flak on twitter about it recently after tweeting that no one "owns" their games.

Here's what you're giving up: Borrowing a game from a friend or loaning one out to them, Renting a game, Buying and/or selling a used game through your own channels.[/QUOTE]

Cool. So you have some inside source that nobody else has, I take it? One who 100% confirms that what the new consoles are going to lock down absolutely everything, only permit the resale of games through authorized channels and charge some outrageous fee for the transfer of licenses? That's a pretty incredible crystal ball you've got there! I'd love to pick your brain about stock tips!
I don't see how a simple periodic online license check and license-deactivation-for-resale is any less plausible than "ZZZOMMMMGGG THEYRE GOIN 2 STEAL R RIGHTS & PUT US IN METAPHORICAL RUSSIA VIDEOGAME JAIL".
The point that I've been trying to make is that NOBODY KNOWS WHAT MS's AND SONY'S PLANS ARE. Freak out about some nebulous, unknown future if you want; I'll wait to see what their, y'know, actual plans are before deciding whether or not to lost my mind about it.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']We agree to disagree. I think/thought that George Lucas had the right to do whatever he wanted with the movies. He created them. They represented his vision and we as fans were blessed to have enjoyed the originals but they were his work. His to alter as he saw fit.[/QUOTE]

+1
The creator absolutely should retain the right to control and modify his/her own work as he/she sees fit. A movie doesn't automatically become public domain just because a bunch of people watched and liked it.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Sure. Home video and gaming are relatively new developments in media consumption. I don't see myself replaying Bioshock 15 or 20 years from now because I will not own a 360. Although, I'm sure if there is a market for it, it will be rereleased on some future box.[/QUOTE]

I can easily name plenty of old games that I still play that haven't been rereleased and I'm sure many others can as well. It's not the publishers responsibility to rerelease all their old games on every new system, nor is it their responsibility to continue supporting the old systems. But without DRM, they don't have to. The fact that you aren't interested in old games or even the majority not being interested in old games shouldn't dictate everyone's ability to play them.

Until recently I was willing to deal with DRM to play the superior version (PC) of some games. I knew that if anything happened in the future I could easily buy the Xbox 360 or PS3 version. But if every copy of the game in existence uses DRM then that game won't exist anymore as soon as the publisher pulls support.

It can even happen with popular games if there are disputes over licencing. Nobody would be able to play Goldeneye past 2001 if DRM had existed on it (not even the original creators).
 
[quote name='kill3r7']We agree to disagree. I think/thought that George Lucas had the right to do whatever he wanted with the movies. He created them. They represented his vision and we as fans were blessed to have enjoyed the originals but they were his work. His to alter as he saw fit.[/QUOTE]

Alter new revisions or versions? Yes, and I have no problem with that.

Alter the copies I already have in my possession? No way. He can't change the copies I already own. Or disable them and force me to buy the new shitty versions.
 
[quote name='PenguinMaster']I can easily name plenty of old games that I still play that haven't been rereleased and I'm sure many others can as well. It's not the publishers responsibility to rerelease all their old games on every new system, nor is it their responsibility to continue supporting the old systems. But without DRM, they don't have to. The fact that you aren't interested in old games or even the majority not being interested in old games shouldn't dictate everyone's ability to play them.

Until recently I was willing to deal with DRM to play the superior version (PC) of some games. I knew that if anything happened in the future I could easily buy the Xbox 360 or PS3 version. But if every copy of the game in existence uses DRM then that game won't exist anymore as soon as the publisher pulls support.

It can even happen with popular games if there are disputes over licencing. Nobody would be able to play Goldeneye past 2001 if DRM had existed on it (not even the original creators).[/QUOTE]

Where is it written that a company must provide us, gamers, with the ability to play our games in perpetuity. Things go in out of print all the time. You get an opportunity to enjoy the game when it comes out but ultimately there is no obligation on their part to support a game 20 or 30 years down the road. If you don't like their business practice then don't support it.
 
[quote name='waldo21212']Alter new revisions or versions? Yes, and I have no problem with that.

Alter the copies I already have in my possession? No way. He can't change the copies I already own. Or disable them and force me to buy the new shitty versions.[/QUOTE]

They can and they do every time they update a media format. In due time DVDs are going to become obsolete. Thus, you are forced to update to the new Lucas approved Star Wars version... if you so choose. So they "WIN".
 
Ok, so I'm a bit confused on how the LIVE TV will work (well, actually the DVR will work).

I currently have Comcast DVR HDMI to receiver, and XBOX 360 HDMI to another input on my receiver.

Assuming I get the XBOX ONE, I would run HDMI to my XBOX ONE, then XBOX ONE to my receiver (thus I would only need ONE HDMI input on my receiver).

Now this is where I am confused. Apparently the XBOX ONE will NOT control my DVR, so how will I be able to control my DVR on my Comcast box since my HDMI out of the box will be going into the XBOX ONE? Will I need an HDMI splitter? If so, that just defeats the purpose of this console IMO.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Where is it written that a company must provide us, gamers, with the ability to play our games in perpetuity. Things go in out of print all the time. You get an opportunity to enjoy the game when it comes out but ultimately there is no obligation on their part to support a game 20 or 30 years down the road. If you don't like their business practice then don't support it.[/QUOTE]

Things go out of print, they don't go out of existence. If I want to continue playing a game that's out of print I will. If they don't put DRM in the game in the first place the company doesn't have to provide any support for me to play the game.

[quote name='kill3r7']They can and they do every time they update a media format. In due time DVDs are going to become obsolete. Thus, you are forced to update to the new Lucas approved Star Wars version... if you so choose. So they "WIN".[/QUOTE]

If I'm happy with my DVD copy of Star Wars, I can watch it for the rest of my life. If I'm happy with my Xbox One version of Halo 5, I can't play it past 2025 (or whenever Microsoft pulls support). Something being "obsolete" does not stop it from functioning, unless it has DRM.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']No we don't. A large portion of people pay to play their games online (Xbox Live) meanwhile Sony offers the service for free. At the end of the day, you pay for what you want. This idea that somehow folks are going to abandon the XBone is asinine.[/QUOTE]

No we don't what? What does this have to do with XBL or PSN online services? If you've ever bought any console game ever then you have supported the system as it is now, which is DRM free.

[quote name='kill3r7']At the end of the day everyone needs to remember that the IP owner/creator has the power to create and sell his or her IP as they see fit. [/QUOTE]

The IP owner has the right to control the sale of their product, FOR THE FIRST TIME, after that their right is exhausted, and the consumer has the right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='kill3r7']Where is it written that a company must provide us, gamers, with the ability to play our games in perpetuity. Things go in out of print all the time. You get an opportunity to enjoy the game when it comes out but ultimately there is no obligation on their part to support a game 20 or 30 years down the road. If you don't like their business practice then don't support it.[/QUOTE]

Where is it written that an IP owner has the right to sell and resell the same copy of that property in perpetuity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really see Microsoft pulling back on any of this. I'm sure a lot of deals and infrastructure was put in place to do this stuff because third parties wanted it, and going back on this would cost them money and relationship strength.

And even if they did, they'd obviously try again in the future.
 
i doudt we see 70 doller games. microsoft said they are leaving the pricing up the publishers. what happens if most put it at around 40 or 30 thanks to the drm.
 
Apparently Microsoft didn't realize xboxone.com was taken until after the presentation. Shouldn't securing the website be one of the first things done after deciding the name?
 
[quote name='DNukem170']Apparently Microsoft didn't realize xboxone.com was taken until after the presentation. Shouldn't securing the website be one of the first things done after deciding the name?[/QUOTE]
What is there to worry about? They have a highly paid team of lawyers. :cool:
 
Anybody going to the keynote press conference? I just got invited to it. Wondering if it's worth going or not. I've always wanted to go to one. Hell, why not!
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']Anybody going to the keynote press conference? I just got invited to it. Wondering if it's worth going or not. I've always wanted to go to one. Hell, why not![/QUOTE]
You should definitely go, it's not like they announce a new console every year. Have fun! :D
 
[quote name='htz']You should definitely go, it's not like they announce a new console every year. Have fun! :D[/QUOTE]

that's true. maybe I'll be able to give a quick hi to Cheapy and Shipwreck, I think Wombat is going to miss it though :/
 
[quote name='TimboSliceGB']i doudt we see 70 doller games. microsoft said they are leaving the pricing up the publishers. what happens if most put it at around 40 or 30 thanks to the drm.[/QUOTE]

EA already said 'yeah, probably going to happen, but we'll go back down later on.' Just like they did for this generation...oh wait.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']EA already said 'yeah, probably going to happen, but we'll go back down later on.' Just like they did for this generation...oh wait.[/QUOTE]

DRM + 17% increase in prices. Hah and you thought it would only be one or the other!
 
Pretty much the only games I buy right when they come out lately are lengthy rpgs because you usually get your money's worth. If prices go up I don't see that changing.
 
[quote name='DNukem170']...Seriously? They were afraid of the name getting out? I know many people dislike the name, but it's nowhere near as WTF as the Wii was.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it's a pretty lame excuse because these companies routinely register sites that they never use.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I don't really see Microsoft pulling back on any of this. I'm sure a lot of deals and infrastructure was put in place to do this stuff because third parties wanted it, and going back on this would cost them money and relationship strength.
[/QUOTE]

Moving forward with this may very well cost them far more to them and the industry as a whole.
 
They should have gone with Xbox Fusion. Cheaper URL. Better name. :)

I think, in spite of reports to the contrary, that Microsoft knew there would be a blow up. That's why they revealed it well before E3, but didn't show any significant games. Get all the upset over the design out of the way. If they'd showed games at the reveal they would have been overshadowed by the blow up. Now people will have time to cool off and then they show the games at E3 and *bam* pre-orders. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
 
[quote name='confoosious']There is nothing on either site. It is obvious he made the site when the name was revealed. Sunday 3:11pm[/QUOTE]

Except they have documentation that he registered it in 2011
 
[quote name='crunchewy']They should have gone with Xbox Fusion. Cheaper URL. Better name. :)

I think, in spite of reports to the contrary, that Microsoft knew there would be a blow up. That's why they revealed it well before E3, but didn't show any significant games. Get all the upset over the design out of the way. If they'd showed games at the reveal they would have been overshadowed by the blow up. Now people will have time to cool off and then they show the games at E3 and *bam* pre-orders. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)[/QUOTE]
Yeah your probably right, considering they didn't change course with the Adam Orth issue. We are also seeing Mirrors Edge 2 leaking out from Amazon Italy and Amazon Germany the past few days. It might be exclusive to the xbox one.
 
[quote name='8bitArtist']when has an EA published game this generation been console exclusive?[/QUOTE]

Boom Blox*

*Technically a version of the game was release for the N-Gage
 
[quote name='8bitArtist']when has an EA published game this generation been console exclusive?[/QUOTE]
Timed exclusive? I'm not sure but a rumor was going around that EA is partnering up with Microsoft for the xbox one with a few exclusive games. One of them was a game from respawn studios.
 
wii titles dont count haha.

EA has been in bed with sony this gen just like activision has been in bed with ms this gen. i doubt EA would partner up with ms.
 
It is within the realm of possibility for Microsoft to sign some sort of time exclusivity on some games no? I wouldn't be shocked if Microsoft got a couple of publisher to get their games out a month or two early on Xbox One first, for the exchange of a couple of millions in cash. Its more than possible. Companies do DLC timed exclusive deals, why not a game or two. Maybe even for one or two weeks of exclusivity, but that week can mean a lot to hardcore gamers (this shows how impatient the current generation of gamers is).

I would definitely buy Mirror's Edge 2, so that is some sweet news if true.


[quote name='crunchewy']They should have gone with Xbox Fusion. Cheaper URL. Better name. :)

I think, in spite of reports to the contrary, that Microsoft knew there would be a blow up. That's why they revealed it well before E3, but didn't show any significant games. Get all the upset over the design out of the way. If they'd showed games at the reveal they would have been overshadowed by the blow up. Now people will have time to cool off and then they show the games at E3 and *bam* pre-orders. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)[/QUOTE]

You might be right. Microsoft is not a dumb company in the slightest, to the contrary to what most of the internet wants to believe they are. They know EXACTLY what they are doing, and what the reactions will be ahead of time.

We get hyped up for something one day, only to forget it exists the next day. We are more forgiving than anything in this day and age. By the time the Xbox One actually comes out, and we know what games will be out, most won't care about the last few days and all the bad stuff the system does, only that it has games.
 
Yeah people used to say the same thing about Atari and later Nintendo.

"They're the king" until they're not.

"They can do no wrong" until they do.

History's shown it doesn't matter who you are if a game company screws up enough times people are gonna get tired of the bullshit and they're gonna fall by the wayside. It's just that simple. Microsoft is certainly showing signs that they're heading in that direction. They just better hope that no one's smart enough to take advantage.
 
[quote name='8bitArtist']when has an EA published game this generation been console exclusive?[/QUOTE]

The likely thinking is that Microsoft is going to publish it. Then again, considering how hard EA must have lobbied Microsoft for their used games/always online policies, they just might do it.

And I wouldn't really consider Microsoft to be the King of the industry right now (I don't think anyone is). They didn't win current gen, although they act like they've won 2 gens in a row with how they dictate policy.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']They can and they do every time they update a media format. In due time DVDs are going to become obsolete. Thus, you are forced to update to the new Lucas approved Star Wars version... if you so choose. So they "WIN".[/QUOTE]

How are dvd's obsolete if you still own a DVD Player? Just because something isn't supported and has been replaced by superior technology doesn't make it obsolete or worthless. What Microsoft is doing would be similar to the publishers coming around to your house and taking (with no compensation) all your old DVD's, VHS, cassettes, records, etc. and forcing you to buy the same music, movies, etc. on the newest format.

It is quite obvious from many of these posts that most of you don't fit the definition of a gamer.

"Derp. I don't care about 10 years from now cuz I won't own an Xbox still"

Okay.
 
The problem with licensing, copyright law etc. is that things just haven't been updated to handle the digital era.

First sales doctrine etc. makes perfect sense when you're buying a physical product. There's still a risk of copies being made etc., but for the average consumer they're only using the cd, dvd, game disc, book etc. while they have the physical copy, and they should have the right to sell or trade that physical product--as they'd no longer have a copy of it once they did so.

With digital goods, including games on disc that install and don't require the disc to be in the machine, that's a lot trickier as anyone can install and pass the disc on to a friend to install and on down the line and they can all play at the same time.

That said, I don't want to see DRM that's fully controlled by the publishers or hardware companies and see all our first sales rights go away.

We need some system that both ties the content to only being accessible to the current license holder, while also allowing customers who legitimately purchase content to sell, trade or give away their licenses if they so choose.

Ideally it would be a system that just required a one-time activation (rather than daily or periodic checks), with an online system that allowed owners to deactivate their license and get a new activation code if they want to move it to a new console, or trade, sell or give it away.

That way the publishers are protected much as they are now as the game can only be used on one account at a time (just like a disc) and owners can still trade, sell or give away their games etc. just like they can with physical discs.

Maybe this system will just end up being something like that--especially after all this blowback. Only time will tell. In any case, first sales doctrine, copyright law, and licensing systems need updated to handle the digital age as every year we're going to keep seeing increases in sales of digital content and decreases in sales of physical media as more and more people (collectors aside) move to downloads and streaming for the instant gratification and lack of clutter.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']How are dvd's obsolete if you still own a DVD Player? Just because something isn't supported and has been replaced by superior technology doesn't make it obsolete or worthless. What Microsoft is doing would be similar to the publishers coming around to your house and taking (with no compensation) all your old DVD's, VHS, cassettes, records, etc. and forcing you to buy the same music, movies, etc. on the newest format.

It is quite obvious from many of these posts that most of you don't fit the definition of a gamer.

"Derp. I don't care about 10 years from now cuz I won't own an Xbox still"

Okay.[/QUOTE]

DVDs could become obsolete eventually if companies quit making devices that play them.

My dad has some music boxed up on 8 track and reel-to-reel tapes from decades ago. He'd probably be fairly hard pressed to buy something to play them on that didn't cost a lot--unless lucking into one in a yardsale or something.

Things do become obsolete.

As for not being a gamer, that's a silly comment. He's just not a retro gamer. I still enjoy playing games. But I've never kept old consoles around as I don't care for re-playing games. I'd rather play the latest and greatest game rather than re-play something even from the current gen, much less past gen games with outdated graphics etc.

I want to be able to trade and re-sell my games when I beat them as I don't collect games--so I don't like all this DRM stuff. But I couldn't care less about playing Xbox One or PS3 games 10 years from now, just like I'm not playing Xbox or PS2 or Gamecube games now--much less NES or SNES games etc.

And for classic games I don't mind spending $5-10 to download them on a virtual console on a current console. I actually prefer that to having to clutter up a closet with old consoles and hassle with hooking them up to the TV if I get an itch to play Super Mario Bros 3 or whatever.
 
[quote name='Fallen_Shadow94']Haha thats what i thought about doing.[/QUOTE]
I'm now on a mousepad

uLLYwE2.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top