If content was tied to your gamer profile (instead of the console, since those can break/become outdated with enhanced models) and an "always online" connection wasn't a requirement, I'd be all over that. It would be markedly better than Steam, which is what I currently use for most of my gaming.MikeWehner said:Totally hypothetical, but what would you folks think about this: Consoles without used game support (it would be tied to your console and/or your gamer profile) but new games cost $40 on launch. Thoughts?
Now, if content was locked to the system, I'd be a bit more wary, because why buy the Playstation 4 now, when the Playstation 4 Awesome edition could be coming out in a month? I can wait a month. But then they could announce the Playstation 4 Amazingly Awesome edition right after the Awesome edition and I can wait for that, right? I don't want to have to re-buy my library every time I want to upgrade my console, so unless they're going to start releasing modular upgrades (hard drive, graphics, chassis if they're feeling ambitious), I'd probably want to wait a long time before actually getting it. I wouldn't want to deprive myself of options.
If content required an always-online connection, this would be unfortunate, but possibly not a deal-killer, depending on what was on the system at the time that I'd be interested in. If it's mostly single player games or games with local multiplayer, I'd probably try to find a system with those games that doesn't require an internet connection to work. Yeah, everyone should have internet by now, and the games would most likely be downloadable anyway, but sometimes I want to drag my gaming equipment places where wifi costs too much per hour or there's a TV, but no internet. My Xbox sometimes just likes to drop its internet connection, because it's bored with it. If I were ever in a game when that happened on an always-online system, I'd be miffed with that alone.