If Gaming went Netflix

[Nademagnet]

With all the talk about the ownership of games/(media in general) and how even that in which we purchase (according to the developers and publishers) does not belong to us, but rather we are buying the privilege to play/watch/listen, I couldn't help wonder what kind of future there will be for gaming.

     Microsoft is trying to push restrictions on the sale of second hand games, and that's not sitting well with the majority of gamers, and PC hasn't supported/allowed the resale of a game for years. For the money we spend on these titles, how can we not own it? Why cant we resell it or share it(Not copy and share, but lend your copy)? The answer is that if we resell or share it, the publisher/developers/artists don't get anything from the resale, or potentially lose out on a sale of a new copy. My personal opinion is that they are not entitled to anything from the resale unless it was sold back to them directly, as they made their money off the original sale. However, this is not what i started this topic for. 

      The main reason I started this topic was to address the industries stance on the ownership of the content they sell and how they can remove that confusion. There are already popular services for Video and Music that removes the question of ownership and still delivers the content to the people, such as Netflix or Music Pass. These services offer you access to on-demand content for a monthly fee that is affordable, and the user has no claim to ownership of anything delivered by the service.

       If Xbox/PS/PC/Nintendo decided to offer a service like Netflix for games where you could have complete access to their entire Library for a fee (Say, the cost of one new game a month, or USD $59.99/month), would anyone go for it? Assume that this service replaces/includes your LIVE/PSN+ subscription, offers offline mode play similar to Steam, and allows you to download titles to your hard drive. Games would all be F2P basically, supporting cosmetic microtransactions rather than P2W.

      

        While I'm all for actually owning a game on disc based media (as long as i can play said game offline without check ins and trade/share restrictions) i would probably have no issue with a subscription based game service if it was affordable and executed efficiently, but id like to hear what the community thinks of this, and the future for gaming.

[ObeseWalrus]

Interesting topic, we could look at OnLive that is pretty good(i think?) and that's subscription based. So if we can get something, like the steam library and pay like $20 a month for it, then I'm fine.

 

Edit: Offline play should be available too, for like a month.

Edited June 16, 2013 by ObeseWalrus

[Eddyall]

Just want to point out that on the legal plan when you buy a video game you buy a licence, so if you pirate a game you haven't done something wrong until you use (launch) the software.

 

So with that in mind you can't give a game to your friend but that not what editors really care about, what they care about is the fact that on X copies sold only a fraction of them are legal sales technically.

 

Steam, uPlay, GoG work on the same principles as disk games AFAIK but not Origin unless they fix their EULA, see here.

[Nademagnet]

Just want to point out that on the legal plan when you buy a video game you buy a licence, so if you pirate a game you haven't done something wrong until you use (launch) the software.

 

So with that in mind you can't give a game to your friend but that not what editors really care about, what they care about is the fact that on X copies sold only a fraction of them are legal sales technically.

 

Steam, uPlay, GoG work on the same principles as disk games AFAIK but not Origin unless they fix their EULA, see here.

I wasn't referring to sharing pirated copies, but lending a purchased disc (license is bound to the disc) to a friend. Ive actually convinced friends to get into Xbox gaming by lending my spare Xbox and a few games i thought they'd like. These friends couldn't justify the cost of the system/games/live at first, but after a week or so with the box, they returned it to me and bought their own. Sharing can actually be positive for the industry in some respects. Since lending to them, they have purchased not 1- but 2 or 3 xboxes for their respective households, not to mention dozens of games.

   Thats interesting about Origin, had no idea they had such clauses in their EULA, glad I stayed clear.

 

Interesting topic, we could look at OnLive that is pretty good(i think?) and that's subscription based. So if we can get something, like the steam library and pay like $20 a month for it, then I'm fine.

 

Edit: Offline play should be available too, for like a month.

I agree about the offline mode. If its a monthly subscription, then it should be allowed for 1 month offline play. M$'s 24hr mandatory check-in is far too strict. 24hr at a friends console? Id be happy with that, but id like at least a week on my own console, preferably a month.

[Eddyall]

Editor don't care about lending (or shouldn't) because it doesn't make them lose more sale than gain sale. (like in your case)

Problem with XBox One is that it really not clear if you buy:

-A machine for the family and each person has their account

-A machine for the family and you get a shared library for multiple accounts

-A personal machine and people have to sing in as guest

-A mix of all the above

[Nademagnet]

Editor don't care about lending (or shouldn't) because it doesn't make them lose more sale than gain sale. (like in your case)

Problem with XBox One is that it really not clear if you buy:

-A machine for the family and each person has their account

-A machine for the family and you get a shared library for multiple accounts

-A personal machine and people have to sing in as guest

-A mix of all the above

I know what you mean, M$ still doesnt seem to know what they are doing here, or cant seemed to clarify it for the masses.

[brownninja97]

Ask Onlive how they are doing, a company will not get profit from this.

[wkronbaek]

That *kinda* exist in uk. Lovefilm, something like 11£ a month and you get PS3, Xbox 360, PSP, DS, Xbox, PS2, Gamecube and Wii games send by mail (Order them on interwebz), along with standard netflixy stuff like movies.

[alif49]

Ask Onlive how they are doing, a company will not get profit from this.

I was about to mention OnLive as well. There was so much hype about an OnLive Console and how it is taking over the mainstream video game setting from the PC desk to the couch but what happened in the end? It tanked. Sure there were multiple issues like lag, connection problems and maybe it was ahead of its time but I am pretty sure that there were other non-conscious factors involved in OnLive going south. For example, what makes it differ from Netflix is there was not a constant stream of appealing content that kept the members interested. For example, being an FPS fan, I never even demo'd any MMO or platformer titles. Conversely, I love action/thriller movies but when I am done watching all that Netflix has to offer I may watch a horror or drama just to keep myself occupied. Games require large investments in time which is the reason why venturing into different genres is quite rare among gamers but it is quite common for movies and TV shows. This really limits the content that players are appealed by and hence, a subscription service will not work in the gaming world.

[Chevaishr]

 ... onlive .yay.. it's like netflix but with games not movies 

[Nademagnet]

Is Onlive a purely streaming platform? If so, then yes, its way before it's time. If it was a subscription based Steam where you could download a portion of the game to the console and have it run from there, it may have been better, however the hardware would have to have been more inline with that of a traditional console, rather than the cheap client stream box.

[Guerrero]

Cloud Gaming.

[Guest]

Seems like a good idea, i would buy if it was affordable (cost of a game every 1 or 2 months)

[-ism]

I personally like feeling like I actually OWN my games which is one reason I love Steam so much. Every purchases feels like you are building your library bigger and bigger. This can vary on the person however, but that's just my stance in the matter.

 

I do however see cloud gaming or subscription based gaming services catching on. Personally though I wouldn't join though. I know a lot of friends would.

 

The "not owning your games" thing is one thing that turns me off about PlayStation+. I so would have paid the subscription monthly AGES ago, but the games you get from it are only rented in reality. According to PlayStation you only have access to them as long as you have a PlayStation+ account, so because of that I canceled immediately after my 30 day trial.

[IdeaStormer]

I gaming went NetFlix style we'd all be complaining they don't have the good games or they just lost the licensing to the old cool games we like but never play. You'd end up playing the middle of the road games and some nights experience a total drop off in a game, of course you'd be in the best game play of your life when the drop off happened. Then the monthly charge would change once they got you and you'd complain till they changed it back but it still would not be the same, like you'd be preventing from reaching the advanced levels unless you paid more.

 

Its all the same, pay, pay, pay, and maybe get something you want.

 

I say leave it the same and quit whinning!

[_wky]

If I had a better internet connection (I live in the country in the UK) Maybe.

[rashdanml]

Bandwith and usage limitations is a major hurdle to get past. It works fine for movies and music, since the file sizes aren't that large even with HD resolution with decent quality. Games will eat up monthly limits very quickly, and suffers from latency issues.

 

It has a lot of promise though. Maybe in a decade, when Google Fiber is available globally, or most countries have widespread Fiber availability.

[obsidian1200]

I think this is a good idea, but it probably won't be possible until internet connection speeds improve overall (Netflix streaming with my ISP is still a pain sometimes) and I think it'd be difficult to convince publishers that this plan is profitable for them.