|
On June 18 2013 00:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:25 s3rp wrote:On June 18 2013 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much. Maybe you should read it. :/ The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed. Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight. Please actually read to article. No, you. Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist. The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything. Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use. I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff? I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games? I admit that I didn't recall reading that line, which amounted to a minor footnote at the end. But the point that you seem to have missed the main point of the article stands. You say, in bold, that digital distribution isn't new, and you're puzzled by why Xbox One requires a 24 hour check-in. But if you had paid more attention to the primary argument of that article you would understand why this is: because Xbox One allows you to resell games which you have attached digitally to your account. I do not think this feature is avalaible on Xbox 360 or PS3, where I believe you can't resell games that you have digitally attached to your account. If you could then, then it would be currently be possible to do this following: Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. . Moreover, I gave a further reason. The 24 hour "DRM" is needed due to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. This would make it possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent. What DRM does Sony employ to prevent this? They limit digital downloads to 3 different PS3s. This has led to account sharing on PSN in which 1 person buys the game, shares it with 3 people and splits the costs, which increases the probability of account compromises and reduces revenues for developers. The cost of these freeloaders is borne by everyone, just like how the cost of freeloaders on public transport is borne by higher ticket prices for everyone. These restrictions "DRM" restrictions are not much different from Steam. In some way they are more stringent, but in other way they are less stringent (e.g. allowing you to resell games digitally attached to your account). And what exactly is so bad when friends share their games or buy them together ? Do you really think those 3 people would've bought 3 individual copies of games if that feature wasn't possible ? Even the new Xbox gets that feature it's just a bit more complicated . The shared games in most cases are SP games and their replay value is let's say questionable at best Great games will allways make enough money . No, I don't think those 3 people would have all bought the game. But some proportion of those account sharers would have. On the margin, it reduces revenues for developers, promotes password sharing, and creates a free rider problem.
Those people aren't free riders because someone paid for the product . Those are within the terms of use . Do you really think in those accounts not everyone in some form contributes ? Hell i argue stuff like this leads to more games beeing bought in general.
So for you people that share a product are all freeriders ? So i'm a freerider because i use a fridge one of by flat mates own while they free ride with my microwave etc etc ?
|
On June 18 2013 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:29 s3rp wrote:On June 18 2013 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 19:08 s3rp wrote:On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. They can't do that without alienating everyone with bad , mediocre or capped internet ( Thats alot of people ) . Most users can't download 10-50 gigs for every game . You cannnot eliminate discs completely at this day and age especially with the size of games thats only going to get bigger. Thats not even the case on PC. You can still get the discs if you like and the prices are basically the same as Steam alot of time even cheaper besides the Sales . One would assume that supporters of Steam have good internet. Otherwise, how do they download games from Steam? You can still buy a disc even for PC games for bigger ones ? It's not like those don't exist anymore magically because Steam now offers digital products as well. I'm just saying that people who have no problem with Steam, which doesn't sell any discs, should have no problem with Xbox One. So if you're buying PC games on disc because you can't download them on Steam, then my argument that you should have no problem with Xbox One, doesn't apply to you. It applies to people who have no problem with Steam--people like Athene. I almost always agree with what he says. But his video criticizing Xbox One (linked above) and praising Steam and Steambox is baffling to me. Steambox doesn't even have a disc drive. You can't resell games on Steambox. So it's quite hypocritical of him to criticize Xbox One. Show nested quote +I mean i still buy records and CD's even with MP3's existing hell i even prefer those , especially records. lol
What ? Records are way superior to MP3's in terms of sound . There's nothing like a good record when it comes to music. CD's well are kinda meh and i only get special editions these days but still sometimes i just want something i can put on my shelf.
Not like i don't use MP3's or anything i do.
And btw Steam is not even remotely close to what Xbox is doing . At least not for me . With Steam products i can allways make a private copy of product i purchased which i'm allowed within German law as long as i don't make a profit or those or make them publically available. Thats not possible with Xbox one. I sincerly doubt the new Xbox will allow me to copy game data onto external harddrives .
|
On June 18 2013 00:45 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 18 2013 00:25 s3rp wrote:On June 18 2013 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much. Maybe you should read it. :/ The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed. Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight. Please actually read to article. No, you. Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist. The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything. Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use. I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff? I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games? I admit that I didn't recall reading that line, which amounted to a minor footnote at the end. But the point that you seem to have missed the main point of the article stands. You say, in bold, that digital distribution isn't new, and you're puzzled by why Xbox One requires a 24 hour check-in. But if you had paid more attention to the primary argument of that article you would understand why this is: because Xbox One allows you to resell games which you have attached digitally to your account. I do not think this feature is avalaible on Xbox 360 or PS3, where I believe you can't resell games that you have digitally attached to your account. If you could then, then it would be currently be possible to do this following: Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. . Moreover, I gave a further reason. The 24 hour "DRM" is needed due to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. This would make it possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent. What DRM does Sony employ to prevent this? They limit digital downloads to 3 different PS3s. This has led to account sharing on PSN in which 1 person buys the game, shares it with 3 people and splits the costs, which increases the probability of account compromises and reduces revenues for developers. The cost of these freeloaders is borne by everyone, just like how the cost of freeloaders on public transport is borne by higher ticket prices for everyone. These restrictions "DRM" restrictions are not much different from Steam. In some way they are more stringent, but in other way they are less stringent (e.g. allowing you to resell games digitally attached to your account). And what exactly is so bad when friends share their games or buy them together ? Do you really think those 3 people would've bought 3 individual copies of games if that feature wasn't possible ? Even the new Xbox gets that feature it's just a bit more complicated . The shared games in most cases are SP games and their replay value is let's say questionable at best Great games will allways make enough money . No, I don't think those 3 people would have all bought the game. But some proportion of those account sharers would have. On the margin, it reduces revenues for developers, promotes password sharing, and creates a free rider problem. Those people aren't free riders because someone paid for the product . Those are within the terms of use . Do you really think in those accounts not everyone in some form contributes ? Hell i argue stuff like this leads to more games beeing bought in general. So for you people that share a product are all freeriders ? So i'm a freerider because i use a fridge one of by flat mates own while they free ride with my microwave etc etc ?
I've been looking for some analysis on this, and I think you may possibly be write that there's no free rider problem with digital goods like video games as explained here. Although there may be more to the story, as increasing revenue of the developers should reduce prices through competition. And even if it overcompensates developers, the result is that more money (or at least some proportion of the overcompensation) will be put into future games.
But your fridge example is a very standard example of free riding. You're using up the space, thereby preventing others from using that space in the fridge, without paying.
|
On June 18 2013 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:45 s3rp wrote:On June 18 2013 00:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 18 2013 00:25 s3rp wrote:On June 18 2013 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much. Maybe you should read it. :/ The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed. Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight. Please actually read to article. No, you. Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist. The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything. Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use. I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff? I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games? I admit that I didn't recall reading that line, which amounted to a minor footnote at the end. But the point that you seem to have missed the main point of the article stands. You say, in bold, that digital distribution isn't new, and you're puzzled by why Xbox One requires a 24 hour check-in. But if you had paid more attention to the primary argument of that article you would understand why this is: because Xbox One allows you to resell games which you have attached digitally to your account. I do not think this feature is avalaible on Xbox 360 or PS3, where I believe you can't resell games that you have digitally attached to your account. If you could then, then it would be currently be possible to do this following: Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. . Moreover, I gave a further reason. The 24 hour "DRM" is needed due to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. This would make it possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent. What DRM does Sony employ to prevent this? They limit digital downloads to 3 different PS3s. This has led to account sharing on PSN in which 1 person buys the game, shares it with 3 people and splits the costs, which increases the probability of account compromises and reduces revenues for developers. The cost of these freeloaders is borne by everyone, just like how the cost of freeloaders on public transport is borne by higher ticket prices for everyone. These restrictions "DRM" restrictions are not much different from Steam. In some way they are more stringent, but in other way they are less stringent (e.g. allowing you to resell games digitally attached to your account). And what exactly is so bad when friends share their games or buy them together ? Do you really think those 3 people would've bought 3 individual copies of games if that feature wasn't possible ? Even the new Xbox gets that feature it's just a bit more complicated . The shared games in most cases are SP games and their replay value is let's say questionable at best Great games will allways make enough money . No, I don't think those 3 people would have all bought the game. But some proportion of those account sharers would have. On the margin, it reduces revenues for developers, promotes password sharing, and creates a free rider problem. Those people aren't free riders because someone paid for the product . Those are within the terms of use . Do you really think in those accounts not everyone in some form contributes ? Hell i argue stuff like this leads to more games beeing bought in general. So for you people that share a product are all freeriders ? So i'm a freerider because i use a fridge one of by flat mates own while they free ride with my microwave etc etc ? I've been looking for some analysis on this, and I think you may be write that there's no free rider problem with digital goods like video games as explained here. Although there may be more to the story, as increasing revenue of the developers should reduce prices through competition. But your fridge example is a very standard example of free riding. You're using up the space, thereby preventing others from using that space in the fridge, without paying.
Look the problem are not the private people that share games amongst friends or sell a copy to someone on Ebay or at a Flea market. The whole free rider arguement is totally irrelevant why do think MS implemented those complicated sharing options ? It's what the retailers are doing with buying back products barely used on the cheap and selling them cheaper than the new ones .
And i get that . But the way they're approaching it in the end hurts the end consumer the most .
I also wanna mention this doesn't benefit the devs it benefits the publishers that pay the devs for the products . If MS wanted the devs to benefit they'd enable self-publishing.
Btw the fridge use would only be free riding if i wasn't allow to put stuff in the fridge. If someone allows me use something without pay i'm not free-riding . ( well maybe literally but this has nothing to do with the "free rider problem" )
|
fridge example doesnt work because a fidge has limited space, by sharing it with others, you share your space.
Better example would be not paying for a trainride. Its actually quite similar to digital products...the train will move with or without you and by using it, you dont actually cost much. Just like digital products.
But its illigal because if everyone would do this, the system doesnt work anymore.
Not that i support microsofts measures, though. Today i have read that games will be country locked, so when you move around europe, your xbox1 will be useless.
|
On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do.
2 thing: a) the fact that they require 24 hours online checks. Steam is far more liberal with that shit.
b) The fact that xbox is part of a series, and when the Xbox One servers go down, because they will when it's time to move onto the next console (and xbox isn't known for backwards compatibility), your downloaded games will be worthless. The beauty of Steam is that it's not tied to any specific console period - it will theoretically be useful forever...hence alienated Steam users.
|
On June 18 2013 01:37 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 18 2013 00:45 s3rp wrote:On June 18 2013 00:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 18 2013 00:25 s3rp wrote:On June 18 2013 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much. Maybe you should read it. :/ The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed. Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight. Please actually read to article. No, you. Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist. The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything. Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use. I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff? I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games? I admit that I didn't recall reading that line, which amounted to a minor footnote at the end. But the point that you seem to have missed the main point of the article stands. You say, in bold, that digital distribution isn't new, and you're puzzled by why Xbox One requires a 24 hour check-in. But if you had paid more attention to the primary argument of that article you would understand why this is: because Xbox One allows you to resell games which you have attached digitally to your account. I do not think this feature is avalaible on Xbox 360 or PS3, where I believe you can't resell games that you have digitally attached to your account. If you could then, then it would be currently be possible to do this following: Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. . Moreover, I gave a further reason. The 24 hour "DRM" is needed due to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. This would make it possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent. What DRM does Sony employ to prevent this? They limit digital downloads to 3 different PS3s. This has led to account sharing on PSN in which 1 person buys the game, shares it with 3 people and splits the costs, which increases the probability of account compromises and reduces revenues for developers. The cost of these freeloaders is borne by everyone, just like how the cost of freeloaders on public transport is borne by higher ticket prices for everyone. These restrictions "DRM" restrictions are not much different from Steam. In some way they are more stringent, but in other way they are less stringent (e.g. allowing you to resell games digitally attached to your account). And what exactly is so bad when friends share their games or buy them together ? Do you really think those 3 people would've bought 3 individual copies of games if that feature wasn't possible ? Even the new Xbox gets that feature it's just a bit more complicated . The shared games in most cases are SP games and their replay value is let's say questionable at best Great games will allways make enough money . No, I don't think those 3 people would have all bought the game. But some proportion of those account sharers would have. On the margin, it reduces revenues for developers, promotes password sharing, and creates a free rider problem. Those people aren't free riders because someone paid for the product . Those are within the terms of use . Do you really think in those accounts not everyone in some form contributes ? Hell i argue stuff like this leads to more games beeing bought in general. So for you people that share a product are all freeriders ? So i'm a freerider because i use a fridge one of by flat mates own while they free ride with my microwave etc etc ? I've been looking for some analysis on this, and I think you may be write that there's no free rider problem with digital goods like video games as explained here. Although there may be more to the story, as increasing revenue of the developers should reduce prices through competition. But your fridge example is a very standard example of free riding. You're using up the space, thereby preventing others from using that space in the fridge, without paying. Look the problem are not the private people that share games amongst friends or sell a copy to someone on Ebay or at a Flea market. The whole free rider arguement is totally irrelevant why do think MS implemented those complicated sharing options ? It's what the retailers are doing with buying back products barely used on the cheap and selling them cheaper than the new ones . And i get that . But the way they're approaching it in the end hurts the end consumer the most . I also wanna mention this doesn't benefit the devs it benefits the publishers that pay the devs for the products . If MS wanted the devs to benefit they'd enable self-publishing. Btw the fridge use would only be free riding if i wasn't allow to put stuff in the fridge. If someone allows me use something without pay i'm not free-riding . ( well maybe literally but this has nothing to do with the "free rider problem" )
The problem absolutely is people reselling games, much more so than it is account sharing. It's already been explained why Microsoft implemented it's DRMs: so that you can't download the entire Xbox One library without paying a cent or at a significantly discounted price via resale. Sony has it's own DRM to prevent this. Go complain about that. If games can be resold then people will take into account that they can recoup costs by resale, so that they are willing to pay a higher price for the game than if resale isn't possible. Therefore, restricting resale means that people are less willing to pay that price, so that demand falls unless prices are reduced. So restricting resale will lower the price of games. I think it's no surprised that PC games are cheaper than console games because they cannot be resold.
The account sharing problem doesn't make much difference probably because it's not large enough to have much of an affect on revenues, and a few people sharing a game doesn't create a large enough negative externality. Using someone's fridge, even if you've been given permission, is free riding, your usage of the fridge burdens all the other users of the fridge by taking up space.
Also, I see no reason why people can't self-publish on digital platforms like Steam and Xbox Live. Indie games like Torchlight are self-published.
|
On June 18 2013 01:53 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. 2 thing: a) the fact that they require 24 hours online checks. Steam is far more liberal with that shit. b) The fact that xbox is part of a series, and when the Xbox One servers go down, because they will when it's time to move onto the next console (and xbox isn't known for backwards compatibility), your downloaded games will be worthless. The beauty of Steam is that it's not tied to any specific console period - it will theoretically be useful forever...hence alienated Steam users.
As much as I hate the XBONE and plan on getting a PS4, I have a hard time believing that all Xbox ONE games will become worthless once they shut down the servers for the console. By that time, as this generation of consoles is coming to an end, won't it be possible for Xbox to turn off the DRM for it's older games? It has nothing to lose by doing so, since they only way they will generate additional revenue once the servers are off is by turning off the DRM and allowing people to play the games without the check-in or Xbox live services.
Regardless, that bridge is years from being crossed anyways. I think there are many valid criticisms and concerns with the console, but I'm not sure the "In 10 years my games might be worthless!" argument holds as much water. It is win-win for both Microsoft and the consumer for them to allow people to continue playing XBONE games after the online servers are no longer supported, assuming that makes sense for the game in question.
|
On June 18 2013 01:53 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. 2 thing: a) the fact that they require 24 hours online checks. Steam is far more liberal with that shit. b) The fact that xbox is part of a series, and when the Xbox One servers go down, because they will when it's time to move onto the next console (and xbox isn't known for backwards compatibility), your downloaded games will be worthless. The beauty of Steam is that it's not tied to any specific console period - it will theoretically be useful forever...hence alienated Steam users.
If you can use Steam and download games on Steam, I see no reason why you can't check-in every 24 hours. I don't think the Xbox One servers will shut down. Probably not for 50 years. It's too far away to matter. For example, the original B.net servers are still up.
|
On June 18 2013 02:05 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:53 sc4k wrote:On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. 2 thing: a) the fact that they require 24 hours online checks. Steam is far more liberal with that shit. b) The fact that xbox is part of a series, and when the Xbox One servers go down, because they will when it's time to move onto the next console (and xbox isn't known for backwards compatibility), your downloaded games will be worthless. The beauty of Steam is that it's not tied to any specific console period - it will theoretically be useful forever...hence alienated Steam users. As much as I hate the XBONE and plan on getting a PS4, I have a hard time believing that all Xbox ONE games will become worthless once they shut down the servers for the console. By that time, as this generation of consoles is coming to an end, won't it be possible for Xbox to turn off the DRM for it's older games? It has nothing to lose by doing so, since they only way they will generate additional revenue once the servers are off is by turning off the DRM and allowing people to play the games without the check-in or Xbox live services. Regardless, that bridge is years from being crossed anyways. I think there are many valid criticisms and concerns with the console, but I'm not sure the "In 10 years my games might be worthless!" argument holds as much water. It is win-win for both Microsoft and the consumer for them to allow people to continue playing XBONE games after the online servers are no longer supported, assuming that makes sense for the game in question.
Most like you'll be able to use the same live account on Xbox Zero in 10 years, and simply copy all of your games over. This way MS will have loyal costumers by simply forcing them to keep buying their consoles or not be able to play their games any longer.
edit: Maybe XBox Zero isn't the worst of names. Here's a few other good candidates: XBox one x+, XBox Origins, XBox Reloaded, XBox Box, or, if we're going by gaming trends as of late: XBox.
|
On June 18 2013 02:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:53 sc4k wrote:On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. 2 thing: a) the fact that they require 24 hours online checks. Steam is far more liberal with that shit. b) The fact that xbox is part of a series, and when the Xbox One servers go down, because they will when it's time to move onto the next console (and xbox isn't known for backwards compatibility), your downloaded games will be worthless. The beauty of Steam is that it's not tied to any specific console period - it will theoretically be useful forever...hence alienated Steam users. If you can use Steam and download games on Steam, I see no reason why you can't check-in every 24 hours. I don't think the Xbox One servers will shut down. Probably not for 50 years. It's too far away to matter. For example, the original B.net servers are still up.
For every battle.net(which lets be honest, can be taken down at blizzard's discretion literally any day) there are tons of other services that didn't even last 10 years. Take Company of Heroes 1, it had a nice run of (came out sometime 2008) 5 years and just this last may they shut down the servers. Original Xbox only lasted 8 years before they pulled the plug on those servers. I'm sorry, but investing money into a system that is dependent years from now on microsoft keeping up their servers is so stupid it hurts.
I just, literally before this post, got done playing my Nintendo 64. 15 years down the line and I can still plug in a game and play like its 1998. Can you say the same about your xbox one after 15 years? I guess only time will tell.
Edit@Zazz and his reference to turning off the DRM, in a recent interview with Major Neilson provided to use by Angry Joe, Neilson commented on this and elluded it was next to impossible. We'll see how true that rings and if it gets hacked or not like that Sim City 5 bull shit where you can play offline after installing this hacked mod.
|
On June 18 2013 02:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:53 sc4k wrote:On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. 2 thing: a) the fact that they require 24 hours online checks. Steam is far more liberal with that shit. b) The fact that xbox is part of a series, and when the Xbox One servers go down, because they will when it's time to move onto the next console (and xbox isn't known for backwards compatibility), your downloaded games will be worthless. The beauty of Steam is that it's not tied to any specific console period - it will theoretically be useful forever...hence alienated Steam users. If you can use Steam and download games on Steam, I see no reason why you can't check-in every 24 hours. I don't think the Xbox One servers will shut down. Probably not for 50 years. It's too far away to matter. For example, the original B.net servers are still up.
Dude, I play Steam on my laptop every time I travel. Every single time. Pretty much any journey over 30 mins on the train. Epic FTL or Kotor on Steam on my Mac is pro and awesome fun. Completely offline. Although granted this is irrelevant for a console - in the last 3 years I have probably had about 6 periods of no-internet, the longest lasting about 3 weeks. That's a pretty brutal amount of time to not have any gaming which you paid a SHIT tonne. The xbox one costs more than the 360 did and is less playable. And the graphics increase by the way is SHOCKINGLY bad. The new CoD doesn't even look like it can compete with Crysis 1 on non-max settings.
I think my trepidation about the whole idea of being completely reliant on Xbox supporting the xbox one in order to play owned games is completely reasonable. The strange middle ground between Steam and physical ownership is just a really clumsy attempt at DRM from Xbox and really does not sell itself.
|
Why would anyone get a XBONE over a PS4?
Comparing overall specs/performance/online services/price/consumer friendliness.
PS4>>>>>>>>>>>>XBONE.
Well good luck paying for $60 overprize rental games.
|
To me I do wonder at times how many people will be effected by Microsoft's new policy. I mean just in terms of numbers, Microsoft has 40 million xbox live members and 70 million xbox 360's sold (so a difference of 30 million). Now can take into account various things like multiple ones getting purchased and such and can even be quite liberal and say only half of the 30 million are single standard purchases. That still leaves 15 million without xbox live. Question is, how many of the 15 million will end up getting screwed over?
Oh and side note--when the whole online bit popped up during the debate, one thing did always come to mind.
PS3 for Soldier
Granted it is not really an argument but hen I first saw this video, I was actually quite happy. Props to this guy for helping them out. And then I began realizing, how many will not not have access to xbox one. I guess they will just have to do as Don Mattrick said, just buy a 360 then.
|
On June 18 2013 05:44 FakeDeath wrote:
Why would anyone get a XBONE over a PS4?
Comparing overall specs/performance/online services/price/consumer friendliness.
PS4>>>>>>>>>>>>XBONE.
Well good luck paying for $60 overprize rental games.
Weird i swear ps3 people said the same about this about the xbox360. "Lol bunch of chumps paying to play games online" "Xbox360 is so underpowered compared to the ps3" "All the xbox has is halo playstation has shit like final fantasy, kingdom hearts, god of war etc etc etc." Really i'd leave comments like this until the shit hits the market because large parts of the ps4 software side are being left out and alot of misinformation is going around about the XB1. Which worked out for sony they let microsoft try to explain things that changed while sony just let flamers hate changes and left a ton of things ambiguous.
|
On June 18 2013 08:31 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 05:44 FakeDeath wrote:
Why would anyone get a XBONE over a PS4?
Comparing overall specs/performance/online services/price/consumer friendliness.
PS4>>>>>>>>>>>>XBONE.
Well good luck paying for $60 overprize rental games. Weird i swear ps3 people said the same about this about the xbox360. "Lol bunch of chumps paying to play games online" "Xbox360 is so underpowered compared to the ps3" "All the xbox has is halo playstation has shit like final fantasy, kingdom hearts, god of war etc etc etc." Really i'd leave comments like this until the shit hits the market because large parts of the ps4 software side are being left out and alot of misinformation is going around about the XB1. Which worked out for sony they let microsoft try to explain things that changed while sony just let flamers hate changes and left a ton of things ambiguous.
Difference is that now its not only the ps3 people saying its, its the xbox people and the neutral as well.
|
But xbox 360 was the cheaper choice and now xbox one is the expensive choice, don't underestimate that.
But I do agree, definitely best to let the dust settle before buying. The real chumps are the people who buy either console on launch.
|
On June 18 2013 07:53 Nilrem wrote:To me I do wonder at times how many people will be effected by Microsoft's new policy. I mean just in terms of numbers, Microsoft has 40 million xbox live members and 70 million xbox 360's sold (so a difference of 30 million). Now can take into account various things like multiple ones getting purchased and such and can even be quite liberal and say only half of the 30 million are single standard purchases. That still leaves 15 million without xbox live. Question is, how many of the 15 million will end up getting screwed over? Oh and side note--when the whole online bit popped up during the debate, one thing did always come to mind. PS3 for SoldierGranted it is not really an argument but hen I first saw this video, I was actually quite happy. Props to this guy for helping them out. And then I began realizing, how many will not not have access to xbox one. I guess they will just have to do as Don Mattrick said, just buy a 360 then.
i'm sure of those millions, millions will just buy the new xbox because its a new xbox and be confused when they take it overseas or dont have internet at their cabin or something.
i hope microsoft's "futuristic" model dies a horrible death.
i'm fine with digital content, steam seems to do it well, so is sony...but microsoft wants to do their own thing when others use a similar method that makes more sense.
|
On June 18 2013 08:37 sc4k wrote:
But xbox 360 was the cheaper choice and now xbox one is the expensive choice, don't underestimate that.
But I do agree, definitely best to let the dust settle before buying. The real chumps are the people who buy either console on launch.
That's quite right but we need chumps like that to get burned else we wont know unless we do it ourselves.
On June 18 2013 08:41 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 07:53 Nilrem wrote:To me I do wonder at times how many people will be effected by Microsoft's new policy. I mean just in terms of numbers, Microsoft has 40 million xbox live members and 70 million xbox 360's sold (so a difference of 30 million). Now can take into account various things like multiple ones getting purchased and such and can even be quite liberal and say only half of the 30 million are single standard purchases. That still leaves 15 million without xbox live. Question is, how many of the 15 million will end up getting screwed over? Oh and side note--when the whole online bit popped up during the debate, one thing did always come to mind. PS3 for SoldierGranted it is not really an argument but hen I first saw this video, I was actually quite happy. Props to this guy for helping them out. And then I began realizing, how many will not not have access to xbox one. I guess they will just have to do as Don Mattrick said, just buy a 360 then. i'm sure of those millions, millions will just buy the new xbox because its a new xbox and be confused when they take it overseas or dont have internet at their cabin or something. i hope microsoft's "futuristic" model dies a horrible death. i'm fine with digital content, steam seems to do it well, so is sony...but microsoft wants to do their own thing when others use a similar method that makes more sense.
Who goes overseas to a cabin and brings their game console with them? What sort of weird imma go travel to the woods and stay at a cabin to play video games...
There are legit problems if people actually move from one country to another, but we already know the markets listed for XB1 release are not all the markets they plan to have XB1 services, it's just those are the country available at launch. Obviously japan and other countries will come at a later time.
|
On June 18 2013 09:00 semantics wrote:
Who goes overseas to a cabin and brings their game console with them? What sort of weird imma go travel to the woods and stay at a cabin to play video games...
There are legit problems if people actually move from one country to another, but we already know the markets listed for XB1 release are not all the markets they plan to have XB1 services, it's just those are the country available at launch. Obviously japan and other countries will come at a later time.
I am guessing you do not often because it happens quite often. I have a cabin in Colorado (which in many areas has horrendous reception and borderline nonexistent internet access) but there is a TV so during the nights, one can watch movies or even play video games.
Not sure if people are living a very sheltered life or what but the internet infrastructure within the States is actually pretty bad. essentially what I am seeing is the mentality by many that, "since this does not effect me, it is just fine so why complain".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
