Playstation 4

[DarkVirus]

I brought a ps3 for FF13, was disappointed... still havent tried 13-2 apparently it makes up for what 13 was.... but meh.

Not interested in a console.

[deanox]

Yeah FFXV was always going to be. We'll see much  better cross console porting since both consoles are using a x86  architecture x)

I'm not surprised that KH is exclusive, pretty sure sony has secured some of its rights also.

You not read article?

[Codex]

You not read article?

Not even a little bit. Have now though, interesting though. Good for those few who will invest in next gen xbox lol

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

'The Last of Us' looks pretty good. I wound consider getting a PS3 just to play that.


So if anyone is selling one...

[Codex]

It's amazing tbh

[Scunner]

Seriously, game of all the years.

[Lazza]

Software isn't like other second hand goods because the quality of the product stays exactly the same no matter how many people sell on.
People don't realise that they never actually own a computer game, because a computer game is just a $#@!load of code which you don't have access to, you are really buying a licence to run that code.
So I see no reason why people think they have the right to on-sell, gamers really think they are an entitled bunch.

I disagree with a whole lot of that. Second hand games like PS3 for example have built in obsolescence like the console life cycle so the original doesn't need to deteriorate. Furthermore other copyright material like say music albums on vinyl can last for 100 years in perfect condition and it's still legal to sell it. Also (in the US at least) you are allowed to copy your original to prevent damage and wear to it. Just because it may last longer or be less tangible than other consumer goods doesn't automatically grant exemption from consumer law. There were never degrees of applicability to the right of second sale before for goods that lasted longer or were less tangible than others. This is basic common sense and one reason why consumers prefer to buy goods that last longer. You simply price your goods on demand, with the used market affecting that price accordingly. There is no need to go rewriting the law books to accommodate their greed.

A EULA might tell you that you are buying a licence to run the code only but that is a lie. If you don't sign a contract before making a purchase, right of first sale is assumed to apply. Therefore you do own your copy and are entitled to sell it, and the EULA is invalid, whether it's a digital download or not. Also it is easy to defeat any accusation based on a EULA because they are so called boilerplate contracts that are often seen as unethical and in law they are usually unconscionable (but again the MPAA has had success in some cases in the US against this). Breaking a EULA is simple breach of contract, and not illegal. Breaking copyright law however is illegal.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/top-eu-court-upholds-right-to-resell-downloaded-software/

What if you buy and download a $1,500 commercial software product to support a contract you have and then 2 weeks later you lose the contract? In recognition of this some publishers already provide a function so within the program, or online, you can release the licence (serial key) and on-sell the software. What if you buy Resident Evil 6 Premium Edition which was US $1,338 then lose an arm a week later and can't play anymore? Are these examples of entitlement? Why should delivery method (download vs. physical) affect your consumer rights? At any rate either way you buy the right to install from the same 0's and 1's, be they online or in your drive, why should it even matter where the installer was?

Steam are currently in court in Europe for barring users from selling used Steam games. This may be why it appears that Steam are going to launch sharing, to appease users.
What about users who have $5,000 invested in software in a company which could go tits up any day, or change their terms and conditions preventing access to their library, or changes those terms such that the owner does not want to accept them? That, justifiably is entitlement.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/01/valve-sued-by-german-consumer-group-because-steam-users-cant-resell-games/

I think the problem here is that as we are told of the piracy cost, of companies going out of business, we start to believe invalid EULAs and their invalid terms, etc. and it all becomes the new norm. If the right to second sale is to be forfeit then this should be reflected in a discount in retail pricing, but that would never happen and even if it did prices would soon be back up again. Here in NZ, and in Oz, UK, and S America we should be particularly concerned about all this as we are gouged for double the retail cost that the rest of the world are paying.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

^ I disagree with a whole lot of that.

[monpepe]

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/06/29/the-road-to-the-playstation-4

[Retardobot]

I tried watching that.

I only got 5 minutes in before I wanted to punch the guy in the mouth when all he could do was to gloat about getting a job as a game dev at the age of 17. Back when he was 17, they would have given dev jobs to dildos if they knew they could program.

[deanox]

More interesting in the later stages when discussing architecture.

[Scunner]

Release date for Australia is November 29. I assume that would be for New Zealand as well.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/08/ps4-release-date-is-november-15/