So, I take this to mean you don't believe what I said about the weapons grade uranium powering the new Xbox processor?

I cant imagine having more then one game running. It would be useful if I something came up all of a sudden that I had to exit without time to save. Or they could be using it as people use it right now, such as switching from a game because they got a message from facebook, e-mail, or some other app.

It may seem pretty weird now, but if it works the way that I'm thinking, it may be pretty damn impressive in execution. One thing, though, this only makes sense if the game disc is no longer needed after the first install. Because if you have to put in a game disc to swap between games, then we're effectively talking about one badly implemented idea. If you can quickly swap between 2 games that are installed on the HDD without requiring the game disc to validate either of the two games as you're going back and forth between them, then it might seem pretty cool.

For example, if there are two specific games that I'm focused on at the moment, I wouldn't mind being able to quickly switch between the two and start playing either one right away without having to sit through some extended wait times like you do when you're waiting for a game to load up before you can start playing it. Do I mind that wait time as a game is loading up to start for the first time? No, not at all. Would I be happy to only have to ever sit through that specific wait time once, so I can instantly jump back into a game and resume my last session? Absolutely.

I would still take advantage of the in-game save feature, because you just never want to take a chance with something new, but to be able to temporarily suspend one game, jump to another, and then come back to the first game whenever you feel like, and have it instantly pick up exactly where you last left off, far quicker than if you booted up the game for the first time and sat through the company logos and all that stuff? I wouldn't underestimate that feature in the slightest. Do I need it? Hell no, do I like what I can use it for? Definitely. Don't think of it like switching between games for the sake of switching between games. Think of it like when you want to start a game session, but don't want to have to wait for all the company logos and information to go past your screen first before you have the chance to play. It'd be a truly instant on gaming console experience.

This is why the activation codes / no used games makes sense. One time activation, game installations and no need to swap discs other than for a reinstall. I like the notion of it, I install all my games anyway just to stop the xbox sounding like a jet engine so if the 720 can do it while playing the game the first time then great.

Only worry is what the read and write speed are for the HDD, could they have a flash drive in there too or just a small flash area for the are of the game that is being used (like the ESRAM only much bigger), write to the HDD while reading from the flash area.

if that turns out to be true, and you can't even buy used/rent/take games round friends houses etc...i can only hope sony havn't followed suit with that. but i can't imagine one would do it and not the other, it would be a death sentence for the one that did.

Not really, let’s say sony did it and ms did not, and sony then got more 3rd party backing and exclusive games because of it, no matter how pissed gamers are about it, if there’s a game they want to play they will buy it. if on the other hand the 3rd parties did not give any pref to the one that disallowed second-hand games then i'd agree that would def hurt that consoles sales, but then i'd have to ask the question why would (sony/ms) risk it as a company if they did not know beforehand that they would at least get pref dev backing to compensate for the gamer backlash??

i don't think any amount of third party support would be able to offset the backlash from gamers. unless of course games where prices accordingly based on their now "one use" function. games would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper. we're talking £20 MAX as opposed to £40. and even that could be too much. games are expensive, people's standards are higher then ever. games drop into the £15 price bracked within a week nowadays, they would have to combat that sort of pricing head on if you couldn't buy used or rent, and i just don't see that happening. can you really imagine seeing halo 5 or uncharted 4 being sold brand new for £15? cos i certainly dont. which means they'll be charging full price for something you can only use once. just look at the prices on digital releases on PSN. they are essentially the same thing, one use games attatched to your account. and they're verging on £59.99 in most cases...MORE then the physical, tradable, sellable, take round your mate-able versions, which is precisely why i don't support that sort of crap.

it would be suicide to do it. nothing would change that.

MS won't do it unless sony do it, I expect they have both colluded with each other and the publishers to curtail the 2nd hand market in some fashion. If thats access codes (like multiplayer codes on EA games) or whatever form it takes they don't want game shops making 100% profit on reselling games when it hurts the sale of original copies. I expect them to sell codes to reactivate games at a % of the cost, say £10 per code so the resellers will have to take that extra cost into account instead of charging 95% of the price of a new game.

It's kinda how they threatened to downres movies / not play them at all if you didn't have the correct display chain when the ps3 launched but because the 360 didn't do the same thing they kept it turned off until HD-DVD was dead.

Game companies dont want rentals, they want you to have a short demo or pay retail. It serves the console makers aswell as they get a portion of each sold game. If it shrinks the market they dont care as they get little money from that market anyway in their view and they expect people to cool over the issue eventually anyway.

I dont it would be as bad as you think, i know allot gamers like myself that only really buy new games they really want anyway, and thoes that rent like yourselves will just play less and continue to buy only the games you really want.True... there will be an intial oh my god why! cry for awhile then it will die down, but yeah i still think if one does it the other will, as deep down both Sony and MS want to do it for more revenue.

I dont rent, but i do borrow games i'm not to fusssed about from my mates, so that would suck.., but on the plus side i would get that time back from playing absolute cack games and would only spend my money and time on my most anticipated titles. :)

I could imagine that MS or Sony did not came up with this whole idea.

I guess that big game developers put some pressure on them to invent some activation system in order to kill the used game marked to make more cash...

Imagine Activision saying: We only bring COD to the next gen consoles that have some sort of activation codes...

What would you do?

i'd be like "but you don't even have online activation codes activision, making them used game/rental/borrow friendly, why would you want to start doing something infinately worse next gen?"

Grift, I do 99% of my gaming on pc. Think i've bought like 1 or 2 360 games in the last 2 years, think my last PS3 game was uncharted 2. I have no care either way if they support used games or not, I generally don't resell games. I usually wait till they're heavily discounted rather than buying on day 1 though.

LOL so true.

i thought digital only releases was going to be the death of gaming for me. the moment i'd opt out and simply not bother anymore. find another hobby. but this could be even worse. the high street is already dying on it's arse, this is going to outright kill it.

No if you read what he says, he would only buy his most anticipated titles, the ones he will buy anyway.

Not at all as i only buy the games i have been looking forward to since announcement (my most anticipated), and i keep them all anyway.

the problem with it is it ends any sort of "oh, i hear it's good, my mates going to lend it to me" or "it's seems ok, but maybe not worth paying full whack for, i'll rent it or pick it up cheap in the used bin" and the thing is, those sort of games often get me to buy a sequel since i know what it's like. i rented deadspace becasue i was unsure about it. i then went on to buy the sequel. with this system i wouldn't have even played the first one, and thus not the second... hell i've played a lot of good games this gen either used or rented, that i otherwise wouldn't have. and i don't see how killing used games outright will make developers or publishers any more money? people arn't suddenly going to throw money at "ok" games just becasue they have no other option, they'll just ignore them completely and opt for "great" releases. this is just going to speed up the current problem we have today, where the only way in which games can succeed, is if they're MASSIVE, AAA, big name publisher releases, or they're small, low budget indie releases. this is going to kill the middle ground developers. it's been happening as it is, with the likes of bizzare, free radical etc. but it's going to speed it up considerably. i don't see how people can be OK with it. and i just hope these rumours stay rumours.

Well the borrowing side is cack as i said as i borrow most games i'm not willing to shell out on or a deem avg, but other than that its not a big thing for me. If the devs are small or indie how is a used market going to help them, they dont get any money from it? and most of those titles are released on xbl or psn anyway so their sales will be unaffected.

If they end up going that way i wont be pleased at all, it's just not the end of the world for me, if MS did not and Sony did i would still end up getting a ps4 for the few exclusives i know i will want to play, same if it is the other way around.