ThermoNukePanda Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's widely being reported around the net now a few key details regarding Sony's next console.The successor to the PS3, code named "Orbis", is supposedly going to be running on advanced AMD architecture and graphics cards rather than Sony's proprietary Cell chip. This is good news because it will allow much greater integration with the PC market and would be much easier to program for (a problem many developers complained about with Cell).With a planned release of sometime in 2013, there is some key things that have me a little unsettled. One of them I can deal with, and the other one sucks.I can deal with the proposed idea of Sony absolutely 100% not caring about PS3 backwards compatibility. It makes sense. PS3 runs on Cell programmed stuff and it would be difficult to implement with a whole new AMD setup. I can keep my PS3 around and use it as needed.The other thing however is an idea that's been bandied about and rumored even with the new Xbox console, code named Durango. Locking out used games.This infuriates me. It's getting worse and worse lately with how all of this is working. What if you want to loan a game to a friend? Receive a game from Gamefly? It's outrageous and honestly needs to stop.Sony's plan is basically to offer downloadable titles (seemingly the wave of the future lately for instant access) in addition to the regular retail bought physical disc format games. The key is these purchases and discs will somehow "lock" to a singular PSN account. Other accounts who attempt to play the same title will reportedly be only allowed to access a timed trial or restricted access version of these games."Orbis" will also reportedly require players to be constantly logged in to the network to verify these things, another issue which does not make me a happy panda.So what are your thoughts on all of this? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGWyant Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 The account locking is bad enough, gameflow would get a huge blow, but requiring internet to play.... Didnt they learn anything from the pc games that tried this bull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eminutia Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 This requires too much critical thinking for me to process right now, but for some reason I'm leaning toward this idea. It's good for business, and will give more money to developers to produce better content, which is better for the consumer. People like me with money issues have to deal with the fact that we can't afford to play 20 games a month, but we can enjoy one or two good titles that have lasting value, and have to choose wisely what we play. Which ever this way goes it will not stop me from playing games though, it's probably just the next step in logical evolution of gaming, and consumer electronics. I don't like the idea of the requirement to be online to play though, **** that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kira Onime Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Being online required to play otherwise suck it?Retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dateranoth Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I don't like it at all. Another way they are denying you your purchase rights. Software is bad enough already. I HATE where this is going. It would put a lot of people out of work. We've already accepted it with steam, but doesn't mean I have to like it. If someone told you the tv or car or whatever you bought wasn't yours to do what you like with it would you stand for it? It's complete BS that software and games stand apart from a real product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGWyant Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Steam doesnt have to always be connected to play downloaded games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dateranoth Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 No but they are non transferable. So you buy a product that is basically licensed. My entire issue is with not being able to resell or give away a product I purchased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylark95 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Isn't selling your own property a legal right? Sad that some software and game developers say you don't "own" anything but you are paying to "lease" it.Companies want to stop piracy, but if they keep doing this crap it is going lead more and more people to pirate their own software and games just so they can get around DRM or other unwanted items that are tied to your purchase.Here is a working example of what we "should" get when we buy a game: https://buy.louisck.net/purchase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avahra Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Other than the mighty dollar what is the purpose of not being able to use pre owned games? If it weren't for that I wouldn't have played half the games I have, That's stupid, and it goes to show they'll do anything to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.