|
On June 12 2013 03:45 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:
I agree.
Firstly, I think I'm fairly objective on this Microsoft vs Sony issue, as I don't own or plan to buy any of these consoles.
People should really get over the Xbox One online requirement (which isn't even always online). There are many benefits to requiring always online: So right off the bat you argue that xbone isnt always online, then you proceed to list benefits of always online. So basically, none of the following are relevant to the once/day connection issue. Show nested quote +-Having one unified community (compare everyone playing SC2 using B.net with SC1 where some played via pirate servers, some played via LAN, some played via Hamachi, some played single player, some played on B,net, etc.). You cant have private servers on a console, everything is automatically unified for online play. Achievements can be done offline too. You dont need always on for them. Always on isnt required for this, just having a connection possible allows this. Show nested quote +-Access to game library anywhere with internet and automatically with synchronized saves. This is true, but you have to remember that wherever you go, you have to download the game. This could take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours depending on your internet speed and the size of the game. Sony looks to be working around this by allowing you to play games early on (like Blizzard does with their games) Show nested quote +-And in the future, some of the calculations needed for games or to render graphics can be shifted from the computer/console onto a supercomputer on the cloud. VERY few game related calculations are possible with cloud computing. Also, relying on the cloud is not good because the cloud can be overloaded. When you have 100 different games being programmed to use "the power of the cloud" and 20 million people utilizing "the power of the cloud" you WILL overload very quickly. Blizzard had to use 20k servers for WoW, and no rendering was done by them and very very few calculations. It was mostly just location data and character data. Think of it this way. MS claims to be using 300k servers for their cloud. This means 300k calculations can be done at any one time. What if you have 20 million people that need a calculation? If it takes a quarter of a second for a render calculation before it goes on to the next that is some 10 and 2/3 seconds delay before it reaches the 20 millionth person. Obviously I don't know the specifics of their setup, but this is a possibility and why it wont be relied upon for pretty much anything graphical. Show nested quote +-More data about play patterns helps developers design games (many changes in WoW are based on data, e.g. when to nerf raid bosses can sometimes depend on success rates). This is true, but it shouldn't be necessary for a console game. Player raids are a different beast than anything I have seen on a console so far. Show nested quote +After what happened today, Microsoft is screwed because Sony has jumped on the outraged gamers bandwagon. Indeed, Sony's used game policy seems completely based on the Microsoft backlash. Before this press conference, they said it was up to developers (basically the same as Xbox One). Now they're suddenly fully embracing used games. But the problem is Sony is wrong and Microsoft is right. Like PC or Steam, restricting used games and requiring online is a good thing, not a bad thing. In fact, restricting resale will lower costs for developers or increase revenues, and this I think should lead to lower prices due to competition. I don't think the monopoly excuse works, because Microsoft doesn't set the price, developers do. And no developer has a monopoly. Developers will have to compete with each other. I thought they said it was up to developers for requiring internet connection to play, not used games. Show nested quote +Sony made a big deal of embracing "disc based games". That term was used over and over in their conference. It was epitomized in their hilarious used game demonstration video. But that's the problem. Disc's are last decades technology. I don't think I've physically seen a disc in the last 3 years of my life--that's how obsolete discs are. Xbox One uses a centralized account where all games and saves are on the cloud, discs aren't required. Since Sony haven't announced that all games will be available digitally from release day, unlike Microsoft, Sony is stuck in the past with its use of discs. And it's all just to appeal to the misguided and wrongheaded outrage over Microsoft restricting used games. If you havent seen a disc, you havent played a console. Discs are still nice to have. If your internet is down you can still play games, they are quicker to install, if you have slow internet digital is a nightmare. Show nested quote +Then they should announce always online will allow the use of cloud computing to produce better framerates and gameplay. Moreover, using the money they saved from these features, they should announce that games will sell for between $10 to $50 and prices will reduce as games get older, much cheaper than the usual and unchanging $60 which Sony will almost surely charge. Earlier you said that MS doesnt set the prices, but now you are saying that they both set the prices "I don't think the monopoly excuse works, because Microsoft doesn't set the price, developers do." Which is it? Show nested quote +In short, Microsoft now has the ability to easily undercut Sony on game prices and the capacity to make better games and better graphics with the use of cloud computing. They should make this clear. They can make the claim, but people WILL demand examples. They can probably provide some when there arent millions of people using the live service, but that has to hold up when millions are using it.
Microsoft doesn't set the prices, but Microsoft can set rules about what types of prices can be charged on their shop. Obviously making pricing rules usually introduces market inefficiencies. But they can also help with inertia and menu costs (i.e. developers may feel that there's a cost to changing prices). Given the major backlash against Microsoft, I think Microsoft can easily compete on game prices to win back customers, because the restriction on resale should allow developers to charge lower prices relative to what they would charge without these restrictions, i.e. on the PS4.
I'm pretty sure cloud computing will play an important part in the future of games. I don't buy your complaint of overload. WoW doesn't overload. Well, it use to when it launched, but not for several years now. It's obviously critical for MMOs or persistent worlds. It can be used to simulate player actions for AIs. And it can be used to collect data about the game or the people playing the game to enable better game design. Microsoft understands this is important, they're buying 300K servers. Sony isn't.
Microsoft's move with Xbox One is quite visionary (although not visionary enough for my liking). Sony, on the other hand, isn't moving forward. The PS4 is basically the PS3 with better graphics (the PS3 is basically PS2 with better graphics).
|
This 2013 only, if anyone thinks that they can get rid of physical disc they are so wrong. Internet is available everywhere but its not yet that realiable nor have the bandwidth to handle everything digitally.
MS just failed to understand that internet require both end to have realiable connection to work. Let's say a customer has very good internet, but how about MS? Can they guarantee that they will have no downtime, no problems with their server AT ALL? How about 5-7 years from now when the next gen end, you have to take down your server at some point, so all the stuff that will just suddenly stop working. People are not gonna accept that.
Also, as a human being, we like to collect things, physical things, thats why those thousand years old antiques are so valuable. I think many people will be proud and love to keep their favourite games in some form of physical state. For a gamer a shelf with full of game disks are just like a little library that are worth putting at your living room and stare upon them.
MS is not the king of this gen, if they think that by selling 77 millions Xbox360 worldwide allow them to dictate where the industry is going(in a very bad and sinister way toward consumers), they are so wrong. PS3 sold just as much as Xbox360(and will surpass it from now on), and PS2 sold 130 millions.
Sony has every rights to make treat their customers in a way that generally accepted and they are doing it right by listening to what they did wrong with the PS3 and make them right in this gen.
About the resell used games. If it is digital, you can't resell it and I am fine with that, its just the logical thing. But if you own a physical copy, you should be able to do whatever you like with it. Not allow customers to sell their used games just because you can is kind of a dick move. It's like you go out to buy a new car and the dealer told them you can't lend it to your friend, you can't resell it when you move on to your next car...just imagine if the automobile do something like that, how will you feel?
Things about gaming industry is, the sellers(console holders and publishers) have much more control over their products compare to conventional products(books, cars, clothes) and they over do it, by invading the privacy of their customers just because they can.
Sony is just trying to set an example that, you don't need to cock block the consumers's privacy and rights to be successful. Games for PS3 and Xbox360 are selling fine right now if they are good, used games won't hurt the total sales that much cos if people really love the games, they will buy it. People are willing to buy another systems just to play their exclusives so they will have no hard time to pay for their favourite games on the system they already own.
|
On June 12 2013 21:32 vidium wrote:
I dont understand this exclusive title mumbo jumbo. Why would you gimp your sales to half of the market(or a third is you count in PC) by going just on one platform? Do those guys at Ms or Sony dobule the money you get from selling only on their platfom?
A good chunk of the time it's the console maker just fronting the development cost so they want exclusivity. The best recent example is Bayonetta 2 on the Wii U.
I think as time goes by you'll see more and more timed exclusives. Where after a year it goes multiplatform unless Sony or MS owns that particular developer.
|
On June 12 2013 21:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:25 FakeDeath wrote:On June 12 2013 20:59 paralleluniverse wrote:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/An interview with Yusuf Mehdi today. He makes the same arguments that I've been making: 1. Discs are stupid, and Microsoft is trying to get rid of them. "We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better." Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't think people are prepared to go fully digital yet, although I suggest they should do it anyway: Mehdi noted that purely digital game marketplaces like the iOS App Store have thrived despite having absolutely no physical media. Implementing that kind of disc-free system on the Xbox One "may not [have been] the best thing for consumers, and it may not [have been] the thing they [would have] wanted," Mehdi said, which is part of why Microsoft decided to keep discs as an option. 2. Restricting resale will lower prices. He also suggested that the transition to a world of strictly downloadable and online-connected games would help allow for "a diversity of business models" for publishers to take advantage of, from free-to-play titles to $60 AAA games to Xbox Live Arcade games somewhere in between. "As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models and consumers are saying 'hey, if I can't resell the title, provide for me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers." In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale. All I read from his statement. Is a PR manager trying to sell a product with so many restrictive components and telling you that in time you will like it and it will be good for everyone. And how about him saying "This is a big change, consumers don't always love change, and there's a lot of education we have to provide to make sure that people understand." So wrong. More like now Consumers are going to educate you how to not treat them. Screw MS anti-consumer rights. I know he's a PR guy. I'm not saying it's right because a PR guy said it. I'm just noting that his reasons happen to align almost exactly with my arguements. This is a big change only for 2 types of people: 1. console players who are stuck in the past, 2. people who legitimately don't have usable internet. But apart from that this is not a big change, PC games have worked like this for many years, many stores are digital only, and no it's not wrong. It's better.
Better?
And PC gaming =/= Console Gaming.
And what if MS decided to shut down their XBOX live servers after 10 years or so.
Guess what?
Your game library also go poofed.
Going digital doesn't mean better.
Physical content(disk games example).
Means you can keep it FOREVER and still play it.
Like PS2 after 10 years of so.
I still take out my old-schooled MGS3 games to play.
There are pros and cons to both physical and digital( convenient).
1. Pretty naive for you to say console gamers who are stuck in the past.
People want to have options.
PS4 give you online but IT IS OPTIONAL.
And the PS eye is also OPTIONAL.
Not everyone wants to be forced down under their throats with DRM/Used game issues and also having a Kinect forced into it.
Funny thing is that at the press conference.
None of the games display at MS conference actually utilize the Kinect except for voice-detecting.
Which is kind of a joke.
|
"exclusive" was also more frequent in previous generations where the architecture differences between platforms meant that was often costly to port games to other platforms and often resulted in subpar quality. In the next generation, PC, XOne, and PS4 will have nearly identical architecture, which makes "exclusives" not really make sense.
|
On June 12 2013 21:32 vidium wrote:
I dont understand this exclusive title mumbo jumbo. Why would you gimp your sales to half of the market(or a third is you count in PC) by going just on one platform? Do those guys at Ms or Sony dobule the money you get from selling only on their platfom?
There are 2 reasons for games to go exclusive:
1. It was developed by an inhouse studio that belong to Sony/MS/Nintendo. I am sure you don't want to publish your game to your opponent's consoles
2. Third party games become exclusives 'cos Sony/MS/Nintendo pay them to do it. Let's say I am creating a game and MS told me that if I make it Xbox exclusive, they will give me $100 millions.
Talking about exclusives, Sony and MS both are competiting for as much exclusives title as possible with PS3/Xbox360. But it seems like Sony is now backing down, they don't pay third party to make that much exclusives anymore instead they rely on their own studio to make them. While MS is paying around a billions dollars just for third party exclusives since they don't have as strong inhouse studio as Sony.
On June 12 2013 21:57 Kupon3ss wrote:
"exclusive" was also more frequent in previous generations where the architecture differences between platforms meant that was often costly to port games to other platforms and often resulted in subpar quality. In the next generation, PC, XOne, and PS4 will have nearly identical architecture, which makes "exclusives" not really make sense.
Nah, it still make alot of sense. PS1 was able to win against Nintendo because of their exclusives. Square was previous on Nintendo system but switch to Sony and just look at how much Final Fantasy 7,8,9 do to Sony's reputation.
Exclusives still matter alot if the two consoles are neck to neck in everything else, but in this case, if things stay like this. A few good exclusives are not gonna cut it for Microsoft.
|
On June 12 2013 21:45 Caphe wrote:
This 2013 only, if anyone thinks that they can get rid of physical disc they are so wrong. Internet is available everywhere but its not yet that realiable nor have the bandwidth to handle everything digitally.
MS just failed to understand that internet require both end to have realiable connection to work. Let's say a customer has very good internet, but how about MS? Can they guarantee that they will have no downtime, no problems with their server AT ALL? How about 5-7 years from now when the next gen end, you have to take down your server at some point, so all the stuff that will just suddenly stop working. People are not gonna accept that.
Also, as a human being, we like to collect things, physical things, thats why those thousand years old antiques are so valuable. I think many people will be proud and love to keep their favourite games in some form of physical state. For a gamer a shelf with full of game disks are just like a little library that are worth putting at your living room and stare upon them.
MS is not the king of this gen, if they think that by selling 77 millions Xbox360 worldwide allow them to dictate where the industry is going(in a very bad and sinister way toward consumers), they are so wrong. PS3 sold just as much as Xbox360(and will surpass it from now on), and PS2 sold 130 millions.
Sony has every rights to make treat their customers in a way that generally accepted and they are doing it right by listening to what they did wrong with the PS3 and make them right in this gen.
About the resell used games. If it is digital, you can't resell it and I am fine with that, its just the logical thing. But if you own a physical copy, you should be able to do whatever you like with it. Not allow customers to sell their used games just because you can is kind of a dick move. It's like you go out to buy a new car and the dealer told them you can't lend it to your friend, you can't resell it when you move on to your next car...just imagine if the automobile do something like that, how will you feel?
Things about gaming industry is, the sellers(console holders and publishers) have much more control over their products compare to conventional products(books, cars, clothes) and they over do it, by invading the privacy of their customers just because they can.
Sony is just trying to set an example that, you don't need to cock block the consumers's privacy and rights to be successful. Games for PS3 and Xbox360 are selling fine right now if they are good, used games won't hurt the total sales that much cos if people really love the games, they will buy it. People are willing to buy another systems just to play their exclusives so they will have no hard time to pay for their favourite games on the system they already own.
Your argument doesn't make sense. You say it's sensible that digital games can't be resold, and that not everyone has internet ready for digital only yet. Does that mean that when everyone has internet fast enough for digital only, that you would be OK if everything was digital and hence no resales allowed? Microsoft isn't going completely digital yet. They still use discs, because they understand this.
There's a few differences with cars. If you're not allowed to resell cars, then that would lower the cost of cars. E.g. if a representative person is only willing to buy a $20000 car knowing that he can resell it for $5000, then the car has cost him $15000 actually. If he can't resell it, then the representative person would only buy a $15000 car, so that demand will fall, and the price of cars will reduce.
Also, the utility of games (and movies and books) gets used up once it's consumed. E.g. after you've finished reading a book or finish a game, it's close to worthless to you. Cars don't get used up in the same way. This makes used games a much larger loss than to the developer than used cars are to car makers.
Lastly, cars and physical good suffer from wear and tear. Digital items like games and movies and ebooks don't. This means that there is almost no reason to buy a new game or movie or ebook if you can get it cheaper by resale. So again, it's a much larger problem for game developers than car makers.
Restricting the resale of cars introduces inefficiencies. For example, if you value your car at $4000, but someone else values it at $6000, both of you will benefit from the sale. But this logic is harder to apply to digital goods where the utility vanishes once it's consumed, like games. Either you haven't finished the game and you still derive high utility from it so you shouldn't want to sell it, or you do finish it, and derive almost no utility from it, and hence you should sell it even at a very low price. But in the latter case, it causes bigger problems for game developers as explained above.
|
On June 12 2013 21:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:25 FakeDeath wrote:On June 12 2013 20:59 paralleluniverse wrote:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/An interview with Yusuf Mehdi today. He makes the same arguments that I've been making: 1. Discs are stupid, and Microsoft is trying to get rid of them. "We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better." Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't think people are prepared to go fully digital yet, although I suggest they should do it anyway: Mehdi noted that purely digital game marketplaces like the iOS App Store have thrived despite having absolutely no physical media. Implementing that kind of disc-free system on the Xbox One "may not [have been] the best thing for consumers, and it may not [have been] the thing they [would have] wanted," Mehdi said, which is part of why Microsoft decided to keep discs as an option. 2. Restricting resale will lower prices. He also suggested that the transition to a world of strictly downloadable and online-connected games would help allow for "a diversity of business models" for publishers to take advantage of, from free-to-play titles to $60 AAA games to Xbox Live Arcade games somewhere in between. "As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models and consumers are saying 'hey, if I can't resell the title, provide for me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers." In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale. All I read from his statement. Is a PR manager trying to sell a product with so many restrictive components and telling you that in time you will like it and it will be good for everyone. And how about him saying "This is a big change, consumers don't always love change, and there's a lot of education we have to provide to make sure that people understand." So wrong. More like now Consumers are going to educate you how to not treat them. Screw MS anti-consumer rights. I know he's a PR guy. I'm not saying it's right because a PR guy said it. I'm just noting that his reasons happen to align almost exactly with my arguements. This is a big change only for 2 types of people: 1. console players who are stuck in the past, 2. people who legitimately don't have usable internet. But apart from that this is not a big change, PC games have worked like this for many years, many stores are digital only, and no it's not wrong. It's better.
Well in the PC piracy is a choice. Online stores were not competing with physical stores but with online pirates. You can pay for games that you want to, and also play games without paying for them. Typically you would only buy those games that have a strong online component because you know that you won't enjoy it as much if you don't play online. But for purely single player games, you can still get it for free online and pretty much enjoy the game to its fullest.
|
On June 12 2013 21:54 FakeDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 12 2013 21:25 FakeDeath wrote:On June 12 2013 20:59 paralleluniverse wrote:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/An interview with Yusuf Mehdi today. He makes the same arguments that I've been making: 1. Discs are stupid, and Microsoft is trying to get rid of them. "We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better." Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't think people are prepared to go fully digital yet, although I suggest they should do it anyway: Mehdi noted that purely digital game marketplaces like the iOS App Store have thrived despite having absolutely no physical media. Implementing that kind of disc-free system on the Xbox One "may not [have been] the best thing for consumers, and it may not [have been] the thing they [would have] wanted," Mehdi said, which is part of why Microsoft decided to keep discs as an option. 2. Restricting resale will lower prices. He also suggested that the transition to a world of strictly downloadable and online-connected games would help allow for "a diversity of business models" for publishers to take advantage of, from free-to-play titles to $60 AAA games to Xbox Live Arcade games somewhere in between. "As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models and consumers are saying 'hey, if I can't resell the title, provide for me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers." In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale. All I read from his statement. Is a PR manager trying to sell a product with so many restrictive components and telling you that in time you will like it and it will be good for everyone. And how about him saying "This is a big change, consumers don't always love change, and there's a lot of education we have to provide to make sure that people understand." So wrong. More like now Consumers are going to educate you how to not treat them. Screw MS anti-consumer rights. I know he's a PR guy. I'm not saying it's right because a PR guy said it. I'm just noting that his reasons happen to align almost exactly with my arguements. This is a big change only for 2 types of people: 1. console players who are stuck in the past, 2. people who legitimately don't have usable internet. But apart from that this is not a big change, PC games have worked like this for many years, many stores are digital only, and no it's not wrong. It's better. Better? And PC gaming =/= Console Gaming. Imagine if your XBONE damaged/broken. What happened to your game library? All of your games will just go poofed. And what if MS decided to shut down their XBOX live servers after 10 years or so. Guess what? Your game library also go poofed. Going digital doesn't mean better. Physical content(disk games example). Means you can keep it FOREVER and still play it. Like PS2 after 10 years of so. I still take out my old-schooled MGS3 games to play. There are pros and cons to both physical and digital( convenient). 1. Pretty naive for you to say console gamers who are stuck in the past. People want to have options. PS4 give you online but IT IS OPTIONAL. And the PS eye is also OPTIONAL. Not everyone wants to be forced down under their throats with DRM/Used game issues and also having a Kinect forced into it. Funny thing is that at the press conference. None of the games display at MS conference actually utilize the Kinect except for voice-detecting. Which is kind of a joke.
Actually, the benefit of an internet-based account that Xbox One is using is that if your Xbox is destroyed, you games are still attached to your account. They're not lost, you can access your games on another Xbox if your original got destroyed.
Whereas with discs and PS4, if you lose your disc, you've lost the game (unless the game is also attached to your account).
As for the Kinect, I don't expect much games to make use of it, apart from maybe voice commands. The voice commands are cool though. Instead of scrolling through menus or an inventory in-game, it would be nice if you could just use a voice command.
|
In terms of arguments, I found it funny that one mentions that digital only is not ok for consoles but ok for pc. And the main argument that is argued for non digital is when the servers shut down or when the hardware breaks? That isnt an argument
For one, if it works as an option for pc games, it can work for consoles. The only issue is really the always connected requirement just to play. Take that out and thats one less major demerit against xbone.
arguing about the hardware breaking and not being able to use it on the new one seems stupid. Isnt it tied to your account? Therefore if you sign in on the new hardware, it should run.
The main push I can see for going all digital is the scenario that ps is seemingly building. The same ps plus account cross platform. Imagine a future where backwards compatibility and porting over to the next gen is not an issue since you did buy it already. Wouldnt that be awesome?
About the servers shuttung down, same dilemma with those using steam but the for that risk, the upside is the more competitive prices. Plus, since it hasnt happened yet, who is there wont be a patch to resolve the server requirement before it does shutdown for non multiplayer games.
It wouldnt be unfathomable to me.
The only real issue I have with xbone is the checkin requirement. I would like to see how their online digital marketplace shapes up.
|
On June 12 2013 22:18 17Sphynx17 wrote:
In terms of arguments, I found it funny that one mentions that digital only is not ok for consoles but ok for pc. And the main argument that is argued for non digital is when the servers shut down or when the hardware breaks? That isnt an argument
For one, if it works as an option for pc games, it can work for consoles. The only issue is really the always connected requirement just to play. Take that out and thats one less major demerit against xbone.
arguing about the hardware breaking and not being able to use it on the new one seems stupid. Isnt it tied to your account? Therefore if you sign in on the new hardware, it should run.
The main push I can see for going all digital is the scenario that ps is seemingly building. The same ps plus account cross platform. Imagine a future where backwards compatibility and porting over to the next gen is not an issue since you did buy it already. Wouldnt that be awesome?
About the servers shuttung down, same dilemma with those using steam but the for that risk, the upside is the more competitive prices. Plus, since it hasnt happened yet, who is there wont be a patch to resolve the server requirement before it does shutdown for non multiplayer games.
It wouldnt be unfathomable to me.
The only real issue I have with xbone is the checkin requirement. I would like to see how their online digital marketplace shapes up.
I agree.
I also don't much like the check-in requirement. I believe it's needed to restrict other people installing games that you don't own when they play on your console. But I wonder why it's not needed for Steam.
I've never had someone login to their Steam on my computer, so I don't know how Steam handles this. Does anyone know?
For example, if my friend logs on with his Steam account on my computer to play Bioshock Infinite (but I don't have this game), then the game will be downloaded and installed to my computer. What stops me from playing Bioshock Infinite offline on my computer after he leaves and logs out?
|
On June 12 2013 22:31 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:18 17Sphynx17 wrote:
In terms of arguments, I found it funny that one mentions that digital only is not ok for consoles but ok for pc. And the main argument that is argued for non digital is when the servers shut down or when the hardware breaks? That isnt an argument
For one, if it works as an option for pc games, it can work for consoles. The only issue is really the always connected requirement just to play. Take that out and thats one less major demerit against xbone.
arguing about the hardware breaking and not being able to use it on the new one seems stupid. Isnt it tied to your account? Therefore if you sign in on the new hardware, it should run.
The main push I can see for going all digital is the scenario that ps is seemingly building. The same ps plus account cross platform. Imagine a future where backwards compatibility and porting over to the next gen is not an issue since you did buy it already. Wouldnt that be awesome?
About the servers shuttung down, same dilemma with those using steam but the for that risk, the upside is the more competitive prices. Plus, since it hasnt happened yet, who is there wont be a patch to resolve the server requirement before it does shutdown for non multiplayer games.
It wouldnt be unfathomable to me.
The only real issue I have with xbone is the checkin requirement. I would like to see how their online digital marketplace shapes up. I agree. I also don't much like the check-in requirement. I believe it's needed to restrict other people installing games that you don't own when they play on your console. But I wonder why it's not needed for Steam. I've never had someone login to their Steam on my computer, so I don't know how Steam handles this. Does anyone know? For example, if my friend logs on with his Steam account on my computer to play Bioshock Infinite (but I don't have this game), then the game will be downloaded and installed to my computer. What stops me from playing Bioshock Infinite offline on my computer after he leaves and logs out?
Valve has a "handshake" online requirement similar to what microsoft is rolling out but it lasts for a month instead of 24 hours. Other then that you can play your friends copy to your hearts content.
|
|
|
On June 12 2013 22:35 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 12 2013 22:18 17Sphynx17 wrote:
In terms of arguments, I found it funny that one mentions that digital only is not ok for consoles but ok for pc. And the main argument that is argued for non digital is when the servers shut down or when the hardware breaks? That isnt an argument
For one, if it works as an option for pc games, it can work for consoles. The only issue is really the always connected requirement just to play. Take that out and thats one less major demerit against xbone.
arguing about the hardware breaking and not being able to use it on the new one seems stupid. Isnt it tied to your account? Therefore if you sign in on the new hardware, it should run.
The main push I can see for going all digital is the scenario that ps is seemingly building. The same ps plus account cross platform. Imagine a future where backwards compatibility and porting over to the next gen is not an issue since you did buy it already. Wouldnt that be awesome?
About the servers shuttung down, same dilemma with those using steam but the for that risk, the upside is the more competitive prices. Plus, since it hasnt happened yet, who is there wont be a patch to resolve the server requirement before it does shutdown for non multiplayer games.
It wouldnt be unfathomable to me.
The only real issue I have with xbone is the checkin requirement. I would like to see how their online digital marketplace shapes up. I agree. I also don't much like the check-in requirement. I believe it's needed to restrict other people installing games that you don't own when they play on your console. But I wonder why it's not needed for Steam. I've never had someone login to their Steam on my computer, so I don't know how Steam handles this. Does anyone know? For example, if my friend logs on with his Steam account on my computer to play Bioshock Infinite (but I don't have this game), then the game will be downloaded and installed to my computer. What stops me from playing Bioshock Infinite offline on my computer after he leaves and logs out? Valve has a "handshake" online requirement similar to what microsoft is rolling out but it lasts for a month instead of 24 hours. Other then that you can play your friends copy to your hearts content.
Really? Then why don't more people do this? E.g. 1 person buys a game on Steam (this would only work for single player games). Then he shares the account password with 100 friends. Each person logs in to the account once to download the game. Then all 100 friends can play and finish the game within the month. And all of this was enabled from 1 original copy of the game.
My main point is trying to figure out why Steam doesn't need a 24 hour check-in but Xbox One does.
|
To do that don't you have to force offline mode? And which would only work if you first was signed in?
|
On June 12 2013 22:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:35 PassiveAce wrote:On June 12 2013 22:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 12 2013 22:18 17Sphynx17 wrote:
In terms of arguments, I found it funny that one mentions that digital only is not ok for consoles but ok for pc. And the main argument that is argued for non digital is when the servers shut down or when the hardware breaks? That isnt an argument
For one, if it works as an option for pc games, it can work for consoles. The only issue is really the always connected requirement just to play. Take that out and thats one less major demerit against xbone.
arguing about the hardware breaking and not being able to use it on the new one seems stupid. Isnt it tied to your account? Therefore if you sign in on the new hardware, it should run.
The main push I can see for going all digital is the scenario that ps is seemingly building. The same ps plus account cross platform. Imagine a future where backwards compatibility and porting over to the next gen is not an issue since you did buy it already. Wouldnt that be awesome?
About the servers shuttung down, same dilemma with those using steam but the for that risk, the upside is the more competitive prices. Plus, since it hasnt happened yet, who is there wont be a patch to resolve the server requirement before it does shutdown for non multiplayer games.
It wouldnt be unfathomable to me.
The only real issue I have with xbone is the checkin requirement. I would like to see how their online digital marketplace shapes up. I agree. I also don't much like the check-in requirement. I believe it's needed to restrict other people installing games that you don't own when they play on your console. But I wonder why it's not needed for Steam. I've never had someone login to their Steam on my computer, so I don't know how Steam handles this. Does anyone know? For example, if my friend logs on with his Steam account on my computer to play Bioshock Infinite (but I don't have this game), then the game will be downloaded and installed to my computer. What stops me from playing Bioshock Infinite offline on my computer after he leaves and logs out? Valve has a "handshake" online requirement similar to what microsoft is rolling out but it lasts for a month instead of 24 hours. Other then that you can play your friends copy to your hearts content. Really? Then why don't more people do this? E.g. 1 person buys a game on Steam (this would only work for single player games). Then he shares the account password with 100 friends. Each person logs in to the account once to download the game. Then all 100 friends can play and finish the game within the month. And all of this was enabled from 1 original copy of the game. My main point is trying to figure out why Steam doesn't need a 24 hour check-in but Xbox One does.
I don't think it works as easily as you just stated there are safeguards iirc. EG how many IP are using one account, and at the same time, and how many times a game is downloaded for one username. But I guess the poster is somewhat right. You could play the game, beat it, give the account name/pw to a single friend, let them do the same, so on and so forth until everyone has played the game. That might take a bit of time and the sequel would be out maybe even the sequel's sequel.
|
I think xbone still has hope here in terms of rectifying it. Physical copies will essentially get serial numbers with each copy. You will be required to register it to your account. If you plan to resell it, then its a simple fact or unregistering the game from your account.
numbers to register to the owners account, require login during install to tie it to your account only.
STill not sure how steam works though so that a console could do something similar just to check that there is no abuse of the system in terms of 'using an account and its games'
|
I don't like the 24 hours policy, it's problematic that you can't take the Xbox wherever you go. Also had two days without internet a month ago, first time in ages I touched my Xbox360.
I think I still might be getting the xbox one anyway. I wouldn't buy ps4/xbox for a year after release, to few titles and hard to choose at release.
Haven't bought a physical disc in several years, won't start doing that either. Digital content only is a plus for me really.
Also even my summer home in the deepest forests of Sweden has wireless internet now so not really a problem for me 
|
On June 12 2013 22:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:35 PassiveAce wrote:On June 12 2013 22:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 12 2013 22:18 17Sphynx17 wrote:
In terms of arguments, I found it funny that one mentions that digital only is not ok for consoles but ok for pc. And the main argument that is argued for non digital is when the servers shut down or when the hardware breaks? That isnt an argument
For one, if it works as an option for pc games, it can work for consoles. The only issue is really the always connected requirement just to play. Take that out and thats one less major demerit against xbone.
arguing about the hardware breaking and not being able to use it on the new one seems stupid. Isnt it tied to your account? Therefore if you sign in on the new hardware, it should run.
The main push I can see for going all digital is the scenario that ps is seemingly building. The same ps plus account cross platform. Imagine a future where backwards compatibility and porting over to the next gen is not an issue since you did buy it already. Wouldnt that be awesome?
About the servers shuttung down, same dilemma with those using steam but the for that risk, the upside is the more competitive prices. Plus, since it hasnt happened yet, who is there wont be a patch to resolve the server requirement before it does shutdown for non multiplayer games.
It wouldnt be unfathomable to me.
The only real issue I have with xbone is the checkin requirement. I would like to see how their online digital marketplace shapes up. I agree. I also don't much like the check-in requirement. I believe it's needed to restrict other people installing games that you don't own when they play on your console. But I wonder why it's not needed for Steam. I've never had someone login to their Steam on my computer, so I don't know how Steam handles this. Does anyone know? For example, if my friend logs on with his Steam account on my computer to play Bioshock Infinite (but I don't have this game), then the game will be downloaded and installed to my computer. What stops me from playing Bioshock Infinite offline on my computer after he leaves and logs out? Valve has a "handshake" online requirement similar to what microsoft is rolling out but it lasts for a month instead of 24 hours. Other then that you can play your friends copy to your hearts content. Really? Then why don't more people do this? E.g. 1 person buys a game on Steam (this would only work for single player games). Then he shares the account password with 100 friends. Each person logs in to the account once to download the game. Then all 100 friends can play and finish the game within the month. And all of this was enabled from 1 original copy of the game. My main point is trying to figure out why Steam doesn't need a 24 hour check-in but Xbox One does.
maybe steam doesnt think that the loss' from friends playing each other games would be made up for by introducing stricter policies that would surely upset people.
I think they are also aware that the common belief that one friend playing another friends game equates to one lost sale is false.
|
I don't understand why people think it's good for the console to have an always on Internet connection when you can just leave it to the individual games. Naturally you need Internet for an mmo, and you can have a cloud system in place without a complete restriction on the console itself. But some people seem to like drm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
