|
On June 20 2013 12:54 Epishade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 10:08 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 20 2013 10:06 Dantat wrote:
Microsoft's message to consumers: "we would fuck you so hard if we could get away with it" They still are lol. They know that the vast majority of people will still be always online with their xbox, and getting that kinect cam into your house is top priority. Why is the kinect cam so important? So they can spy on you?
It's a device that I'm assuming you still need to plug in for the console to operate but now that you can play offline it isn't that much of a factor regarding privacy. Don't want creep cam to monitor you then cut internet to the console. 
|
On June 20 2013 15:34 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 15:31 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. Are you that naive? What does region locking your fucking CONSOLE accomplish in this your far-sighted future? Does PC has that? What does locking your whole library of single player games accomplish, if you want to play them offline, taking it like a laptop to away from internet for example? This has got nothing to do with region locking and always online (which Xbox One isn't). So try again.
It was part of the deal. Region lock in duo with always online - dead console for a lot of countries - like Poland, for example. They cant login into xboxlive cause they are part of region lock, and they cant play because they cant login. Amazing Microsoft logic.
Besides, they said it will be up to publishers to impose on how used games will be restricted. Don't publishers already do that with online activation fee, if you buy used games. It works just fine.
There were many ways to do what they wanted but not with such rhetoric and practice, hence the backlash.
|
On June 20 2013 15:42 NightOfTheDead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 15:34 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 15:31 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. Are you that naive? What does region locking your fucking CONSOLE accomplish in this your far-sighted future? Does PC has that? What does locking your whole library of single player games accomplish, if you want to play them offline, taking it like a laptop to away from internet for example? This has got nothing to do with region locking and always online (which Xbox One isn't). So try again. It was part of the deal. Region lock in duo with always online - dead console for a lot of countries - like Poland, for example. They cant login into xboxlive cause they are part of region lock, and they cant play because they cant login. Amazing Microsoft logic. Besides, they said it will be up to publishers to impose on how used games will be restricted. Don't publishers already do that with online activation fee, if you buy used games. It works just fine. There were many ways to do what they wanted but not with such rhetoric and practice, hence the backlash.
I wasn't talking about the region lock. I never argued that the region lock was good. In fact, ditching the region lock was the only good thing that came out of today's announcement.
In case you missed the news today, it's not up to publishers anymore. All disc-based games can be resold, and there's nothing publishers can do to stop it. You think it's fine? Really? Then why are the prices of console games more expensive than PC games? What's so fine about that? Why do console games require a disc in a tray? For god sake's, a disc in the tray (!!), this is the sort of ancient, archaic stuff you'd expect to see if you took a time machine back to 1999. This is fine for the next console generation? This is fine in 2019?
|
On June 20 2013 15:09 fuzzy_panda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 14:05 semantics wrote:On June 20 2013 10:46 fuzzy_panda wrote:Hmm I still don't trust Microsoft. Apparently this will be implemented with a Day 1 patch. If it's THAT easy to implement and take off, who knows maybe sometime down the road they'll reintroduce it. That coupled with Kinect, nah fuck that. Still sticking with PS4. Sure Microsoft has more exclusives atm, but looking at the past history Sony usually have more varied, better exclusives both in quality and quantity. None of the exclusives shown at the moment interest me except Forza. This image made me lol + Show Spoiler + Atleast Microsoft doesn't brick your console every update like sony. What is it PS3: patches 4.45, 4.40, 4.21, 3.70 3.55, 3.41, 3.21, 2.40 and 3.0 - 3.01. All had a small to medium chance of bricking your console. Not even mention Play-station Network's stellar stability and security. You're right, Xbox 360 only had the red ring of death that killed 3 of my mate's Xboxes
The original Xbox 360 was severally under-designed for the amount of heat generated during a long play session+dust+non airconditioned rooms during hot summers, flaws in the original chip processes produced extra heat as well.
That being said I'm on my 2nd PS3(disk drive just stopped working and i've actually had to send one in due to patch bricking the console) and 2nd Xbox360, true like pre 2008 xboxs were very susceptible to general hardware failure over a 3 year period. But current revisions are just as reliable as current revisions of ps3.
Don't see your point really the only consoles i've had that i've never bought a replacement for are nintendo consoles, still have a working NES, SNES, N64, GC(keep it around to lug it around to play ssbm GC seems sturdier then a wii) and Wii(No wiiU yet but i probably will after a good single player mario and zelda game comes out).
I've replaced my PS1 and my PS2 due to them breaking, didn't replace my original xbox though. Consoles now of days breaking after long periods of use seem to be the norm not the exception. They aren't being designed like washers/home appliances meant to last 10+ years, hell they should be as reliable as your TV at-least but that's just now how companies are operating.
|
On June 20 2013 15:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 15:42 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:34 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 15:31 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. Are you that naive? What does region locking your fucking CONSOLE accomplish in this your far-sighted future? Does PC has that? What does locking your whole library of single player games accomplish, if you want to play them offline, taking it like a laptop to away from internet for example? This has got nothing to do with region locking and always online (which Xbox One isn't). So try again. It was part of the deal. Region lock in duo with always online - dead console for a lot of countries - like Poland, for example. They cant login into xboxlive cause they are part of region lock, and they cant play because they cant login. Amazing Microsoft logic. Besides, they said it will be up to publishers to impose on how used games will be restricted. Don't publishers already do that with online activation fee, if you buy used games. It works just fine. There were many ways to do what they wanted but not with such rhetoric and practice, hence the backlash. We're not talking about the region lock. They didn't flip-flop on the region lock. It's still region locked and I never argued that the region lock was good. So why are you bring up this irrelevant fact and changing the subject? In case you missed the news today, it's not up to publishers anymore. All disc-based games can be resold, and there's nothing publishers can do to stop it. You think it's fine? Really? Then why are the prices of console games more expensive than PC games? What's so fine about that? Why do console games require a disc in a tray? For god sake's, a disc in the tray, this is the sort of ancient, archaic stuff you'd expect to see if you took a time machine back to 1999. This is fine for the next console generation? This is fine in 2019?
I didn't miss the news. I was talking about their 'future' vision for consoles, and how wrong they approached it.
De facto it isn't region locked right now. When you setup your console, you can choose whatever country (that is part of allowed region) and you can get access to xboxlive. They wanted to remove that, by marking the console to not work in other country, just where it was bought.
It is still up to publishers. EA and some other publishers has long done the practice that once you buy new game, you get activation code. When you buy used game, you don't have that, and you must still buy it online, cause the original buyer already used it. It was already in effect without Microsoft 'future' vision.
Disc tray thing might be archaic, but the new 'features' they wanted to implement are far worse.
|
On June 20 2013 15:53 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 15:09 fuzzy_panda wrote:On June 20 2013 14:05 semantics wrote:On June 20 2013 10:46 fuzzy_panda wrote:Hmm I still don't trust Microsoft. Apparently this will be implemented with a Day 1 patch. If it's THAT easy to implement and take off, who knows maybe sometime down the road they'll reintroduce it. That coupled with Kinect, nah fuck that. Still sticking with PS4. Sure Microsoft has more exclusives atm, but looking at the past history Sony usually have more varied, better exclusives both in quality and quantity. None of the exclusives shown at the moment interest me except Forza. This image made me lol + Show Spoiler + Atleast Microsoft doesn't brick your console every update like sony. What is it PS3: patches 4.45, 4.40, 4.21, 3.70 3.55, 3.41, 3.21, 2.40 and 3.0 - 3.01. All had a small to medium chance of bricking your console. Not even mention Play-station Network's stellar stability and security. You're right, Xbox 360 only had the red ring of death that killed 3 of my mate's Xboxes The original Xbox 360 was severally under-designed for the amount of heat generated during a long play session+dust+non airconditioned rooms during hot summers, flaws in the original chip processes produced extra heat as well. That being said I'm on my 2nd PS3(disk drive just stopped working and i've actually had to send one in due to patch bricking the console) and 2nd Xbox360, true like pre 2008 xboxs were very susceptible to general hardware failure over a 3 year period. But current revisions are just as reliable as current revisions of ps3. Don't see your point really the only consoles i've had that i've never bought a replacement for are nintendo consoles, still have a working NES, SNES, N64, GC(keep it around to lug it around to play ssbm GC seems sturdier then a wii) and Wii(No wiiU yet but i probably will after a good single player mario and zelda game comes out). I've replaced my PS1 and my PS2 due to them breaking, didn't replace my original xbox though. Consoles now of days breaking after long periods of use seem to be the norm not the exception. They aren't being designed like washers/home appliances meant to last 10+ years, hell they should be as reliable as your TV at-least but that's just now how companies are operating.
Yeah my SNES and N64 work perfectly after all these years (Plugged them back in to play Killer Instinct 1 and 2 ). And I still actually have my original Xbox360 that I got on release, it never RROD'd on me (Yet anyway). The problem is that I can't really play discs on it because the disk tray just scratches my discs! Nintendo consoles are beastly though, I dropped my 3ds off of the roller coaster ride Scream in Six Flags Valencia, California and beside a few scratches, it still works perfectly (The drop was really high going really fast, I had no case for it and it landed on concrete. So the fact that it didn't get destroyed is a miracle).
The only console that gave me problems is PS3. It broke exactly a year minus a day to the date of purchase. Luckily I still had that 1 year warranty so it was covered. I just hope that the new generation is as stable as Nintendo products.
|
On June 20 2013 10:22 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:24 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:20 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 08:15 FakeDeath wrote:
XBONE should be called the Xbox 180 now. Pretty petty. On June 20 2013 08:18 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:13 Elwar wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. Hey, get this...I'd rather pay once for the game, have it be my property, and then let it be up to me whether or not I sell it privately to a mate or to any company I want. I don't even sell my games but still screw people trying to get rid of my rights. The irony of course is they weren't cutting gamestop out anyway, it would've been one of the only places you could sell your games, meaning less competition for them, lower resale value for you. But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it. On June 20 2013 08:14 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. I guess you're new here? Well welcome to the internet! Email your address and we'll send you your starter package of pitchforks and bottled rage and instructions on how to never be happy with anything unless its awesome and free. Just because it is the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The contents, ideas, art and such are the IP of the dev/publisher. However, that disc that I buy which contains the content to be played is mine. Or should be. If I buy the disc, I have the right to use that disc how I see fit. And they want to make that disc basically worthless, just like PC gaming has done for years, and just as is their right to do since it is the access portal to their IP. If you see a problem with this, you have a distorted idea of property. If you created something original, would you want a third party to be able to cut your potential profits by buying and reselling access to your content that you had no control over? Wouldn't you want control over the access to your content? That's what developers and publishers obviously want. The problem is that console consumers are used to an outdated model of selling games that ignores the realities of the 21st century. EDIT: The point here is that SOMEONE is going to make money selling "used copies" of games, and Microsoft and their publishers want control over that. The theory debate over property is practically meaningless because you're arguing against something larger than DRM in that case. DRM is a control, nothing more, nothing less. If you think companies shouldn't own the games they make, this is an entirely different argument. Well, I respectfully disagree with your idea of property. How do you reconcile your position with the TV/Movie/Music industries and their lack of "DRM" to continue accessing your CD or your Blu-Ray which holds their IP? I can sell those items without issue. Those industries do not seek to interfere with my property. How do you reconcile your position with any number of designer or luxury items (whether it is a car, clothing, jewellery or whatever), which are not worth their price tag on account of the materials alone, which also have used-goods markets? Should Aston Martin get a cut of my DB9 when I sell it to a third party on account of the effort they put into the design, branding and marketing of the car? I mean, by your logic, used car dealers impact upon car manufacturers by reducing future sales in the manner that Gamestop, EB and other major outlets do. I don't see them on a crusade to crush used-car dealerships. The industry is in crisis at the moment for reasons other than used-game sales and piracy (not that I excuse piracy at all, I personally consider it theft/crime). These have been issues that have existed since day one and are being used as a scape-goat in the present day. The real issue is the inability of developers to control their costs. When RE6 sells 6 million copies and is a failure, there is a problem internally at the developer.
Buying a physical copy and buying an electronic version are two different transactions. If I buy a physical copy of Diablo 3,I have to pay tax on it because its property. On the other hand, if I buy the electronic version, there is no tax because this isn't property. If game publishers are moving toward having no physical medium (like CD) through which to distribute their software, then the old method, one that involves an actual property transaction, is no longer viable and that is just how it is. The customer ends up with the same product regardless of how he got the software, but now it is a service, not a property. Same product but a different delivery system. you may say its unfair that it restricts the customer's rights but at the end of the day, it's entirely up to the publisher how they want to distribute their games/software. For example, I can't sell my kindle books because kindle books are not delivered in physical media. Is amazon ripping me off? because I can no longer sell it to anybody unless I sell my account? Whether it's fair or not, the fact of the matter is, the nature of the product has changed even if the product has remained exactly the same.
From now on, software is a service not a property whether anybody likes it or not. It's the same reason why if your steam account is blocked, you can't access any of your games. you agreed to a service.
|
MS saved themselves from real headaches down the line, I feel. Yes, their PR and initial sales took a hit, but the PR that would be surfacing at release would be even worse if MS had stuck to their vision. People losing their games, thinking they were only "lending" them. People complaining about not being able to play because their ISP took a dump, etc.
On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Requiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers.
This isn't a PC, paralleluniverse, it's a console. This isn't WoW or LoL -- and people who want WoW or LoL will by a PC. Let a console just be a console. edit: and why is it so popular to rag on Gamestop and EB? Yes, the only real video-game-exclusive stores still in existance -- **** them, amirite?
"Oh they're such "leeches" and without them games would be cheaper". That's called BS. MS was planning on selling their games for as much as they could, $60. They were going to eliminate secondhand sales and give the consumers absolutely nothing in return -- that's a fact, jack. Secondhand sales have been around for as long as consoles have.
|
On June 20 2013 16:01 NightOfTheDead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 15:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 15:42 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:34 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 15:31 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. Are you that naive? What does region locking your fucking CONSOLE accomplish in this your far-sighted future? Does PC has that? What does locking your whole library of single player games accomplish, if you want to play them offline, taking it like a laptop to away from internet for example? This has got nothing to do with region locking and always online (which Xbox One isn't). So try again. It was part of the deal. Region lock in duo with always online - dead console for a lot of countries - like Poland, for example. They cant login into xboxlive cause they are part of region lock, and they cant play because they cant login. Amazing Microsoft logic. Besides, they said it will be up to publishers to impose on how used games will be restricted. Don't publishers already do that with online activation fee, if you buy used games. It works just fine. There were many ways to do what they wanted but not with such rhetoric and practice, hence the backlash. We're not talking about the region lock. They didn't flip-flop on the region lock. It's still region locked and I never argued that the region lock was good. So why are you bring up this irrelevant fact and changing the subject? In case you missed the news today, it's not up to publishers anymore. All disc-based games can be resold, and there's nothing publishers can do to stop it. You think it's fine? Really? Then why are the prices of console games more expensive than PC games? What's so fine about that? Why do console games require a disc in a tray? For god sake's, a disc in the tray, this is the sort of ancient, archaic stuff you'd expect to see if you took a time machine back to 1999. This is fine for the next console generation? This is fine in 2019? I didn't miss the news. I was talking about their 'future' vision for consoles, and how wrong they approached it. De facto it isn't region locked right now. When you setup your console, you can choose whatever country (that is part of allowed region) and you can get access to xboxlive. They wanted to remove that, by marking the console to not work in other country, just where it was bought. It is still up to publishers. EA and some other publishers has long done the practice that once you buy new game, you get activation code. When you buy used game, you don't have that, and you must still buy it online, cause the original buyer already used it. It was already in effect without Microsoft 'future' vision. Disc tray thing might be archaic, but the new 'features' they wanted to implement are far worse.
Yes, I noticed that the region lock was removed. But I never argued in favor of the region lock.
As for online passes: Firstly, EA no longer does online passes. Secondly, it's unclear whether online passes will be possible on Xbox One. Lastly, there's nothing Microsoft will do to stop game resales so online passes or not is completely irrelevant to single-player disc-based games.
The main thing wrong with what Microsoft was previously trying to do was that it didn't completely kill used games. Now you can have fun screwing around with discs, propping up worthless leeches like Gamestop, and paying more for your console games than PC games.
Have fun with the removal of online sharing, which is no longer possible (if it were you could have 10 people download the game and all play it offline forever and at the same time, without paying a cent). Have fun carrying discs around. You can say that these aren't a large inconvenience. But neither is requiring a 24 hours check-in.
Enjoy.
|
On June 20 2013 16:10 Leporello wrote:MS saved themselves from real headaches down the line, I feel. Yes, their PR and initial sales took a hit, but the PR that would be surfacing at release would be even worse if MS had stuck to their vision. People losing their games, thinking they were only "lending" them. People complaining about not being able to play because their ISP took a dump, etc. Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. This isn't a PC, paralleluniverse, it's a console. This isn't WoW or LoL -- and people who want WoW or LoL will by a PC. Let a console just be a console. edit: and why is it so popular to rag on Gamestop and EB? Yes, the only real video-game-exclusive stores still in existance -- **** them, amirite? "Oh they're such "leeches" and without them games would be cheaper". That's called BS. MS was planning on selling their games for as much as they could, $60. They were going to eliminate secondhand sales and give the consumers absolutely nothing in return -- that's a fact, jack. Secondhand sales have been around for as long as consoles have.
Tell me, what good does Gamestop and EB do? Why do they deserve money?
Why are PC games cheaper?
|
On June 20 2013 16:08 dongmydrum wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 10:22 Brett wrote:On June 20 2013 08:24 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:20 TheRabidDeer wrote:On June 20 2013 08:15 FakeDeath wrote:
XBONE should be called the Xbox 180 now. Pretty petty. On June 20 2013 08:18 yamato77 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:13 Elwar wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 yamato77 wrote:I'd rather have the developer getting money from sales of its game than GameStop. Maybe other people disagree. Hey, get this...I'd rather pay once for the game, have it be my property, and then let it be up to me whether or not I sell it privately to a mate or to any company I want. I don't even sell my games but still screw people trying to get rid of my rights. The irony of course is they weren't cutting gamestop out anyway, it would've been one of the only places you could sell your games, meaning less competition for them, lower resale value for you. But the game isn't your property when you buy it. The game is the intellectual property of the developer/publisher. So I fully support the idea that they should have more control over the sale of their game, yes. You don't have a right to anything but to play the game when you buy it. On June 20 2013 08:14 takingbackoj wrote:On June 20 2013 08:07 yamato77 wrote:
So Microsoft wanted to make Xbox One more like PC gaming, console players vehemently rejected it, and people are still trashing Microsoft for changing their stance on DRM and always online?
I can't begin to imagine how all of you rationalize your hate towards Microsoft when PC gaming has had these sort of features for forever. I guess you're new here? Well welcome to the internet! Email your address and we'll send you your starter package of pitchforks and bottled rage and instructions on how to never be happy with anything unless its awesome and free. Just because it is the status quo doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The contents, ideas, art and such are the IP of the dev/publisher. However, that disc that I buy which contains the content to be played is mine. Or should be. If I buy the disc, I have the right to use that disc how I see fit. And they want to make that disc basically worthless, just like PC gaming has done for years, and just as is their right to do since it is the access portal to their IP. If you see a problem with this, you have a distorted idea of property. If you created something original, would you want a third party to be able to cut your potential profits by buying and reselling access to your content that you had no control over? Wouldn't you want control over the access to your content? That's what developers and publishers obviously want. The problem is that console consumers are used to an outdated model of selling games that ignores the realities of the 21st century. EDIT: The point here is that SOMEONE is going to make money selling "used copies" of games, and Microsoft and their publishers want control over that. The theory debate over property is practically meaningless because you're arguing against something larger than DRM in that case. DRM is a control, nothing more, nothing less. If you think companies shouldn't own the games they make, this is an entirely different argument. Well, I respectfully disagree with your idea of property. How do you reconcile your position with the TV/Movie/Music industries and their lack of "DRM" to continue accessing your CD or your Blu-Ray which holds their IP? I can sell those items without issue. Those industries do not seek to interfere with my property. How do you reconcile your position with any number of designer or luxury items (whether it is a car, clothing, jewellery or whatever), which are not worth their price tag on account of the materials alone, which also have used-goods markets? Should Aston Martin get a cut of my DB9 when I sell it to a third party on account of the effort they put into the design, branding and marketing of the car? I mean, by your logic, used car dealers impact upon car manufacturers by reducing future sales in the manner that Gamestop, EB and other major outlets do. I don't see them on a crusade to crush used-car dealerships. The industry is in crisis at the moment for reasons other than used-game sales and piracy (not that I excuse piracy at all, I personally consider it theft/crime). These have been issues that have existed since day one and are being used as a scape-goat in the present day. The real issue is the inability of developers to control their costs. When RE6 sells 6 million copies and is a failure, there is a problem internally at the developer. Buying a physical copy and buying an electronic version are two different transactions. If I buy a physical copy of Diablo 3,I have to pay tax on it because its property. On the other hand, if I buy the electronic version, there is no tax because this isn't property. If game publishers are moving toward having no physical medium (like CD) through which to distribute their software, then the old method, one that involves an actual property transaction, is no longer viable and that is just how it is. The customer ends up with the same product regardless of how he got the software, but now it is a service, not a property. Same product but a different delivery system. you may say its unfair that it restricts the customer's rights but at the end of the day, it's entirely up to the publisher how they want to distribute their games/software. For example, I can't sell my kindle books because kindle books are not delivered in physical media. Is amazon ripping me off? because I can no longer sell it to anybody unless I sell my account? Whether it's fair or not, the fact of the matter is, the nature of the product has changed even if the product has remained exactly the same. From now on, software is a service not a property whether anybody likes it or not. It's the same reason why if your steam account is blocked, you can't access any of your games. you agreed to a service.
There is still a lot of quality software sold on PC, and even on Steam, that doesn't require Steamworks or any form of DRM. The PC itself demands NOTHING fron the publishers, developers, or consumers, unlike the Xbox One's original idea, which would mandate DRM. No machine has ever actually done that. I can be offline on my PC and still play a wide library of great games offline, until I delete them or my machine breaks. On the PC, it's really up to the software designers and no one else.
It's not the same as what MS was doing.
|
On June 20 2013 08:34 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:32 sc4k wrote:
Getting rid of the retarded online DRM shit that clearly is much better when used with PCs than with temporary consoles is great. Well done Xbox, there's nothing to be ashamed of with listening to the consumer. HOWEVER, the Kinect forced bundling, the high price, the worse specs, the unimpressive increase in specs when compared to PCs...the obsession with getting the customer to pay for some TV based gimmicks...these are things that upset me almost as much. I fail to see how DRM is any worse for a console than a PC, aside from the console gamers' objections. EDIT: And by that I mean that console gamers somehow see themselves as more entitled than PC gamers, not that the objections themselves are legitimate.
It seems my response to this was lost last night while my internet was fucking me around.
Basically, Xbox One servers will most likely be tied to the Xbox One. With games only working if you log into the servers, Xbox would have complete control over whether or not your games mean anything in the future. They could charge an elevated subscription status to keep the servers operational, only give the privilege to people who buy their next console, etc etc. Without the servers your Xbox and all your paid for games would turn into a brick if they chose it to. Too much power AND responsibility under Micro's control.
Steam, being not tied to a console generation, will be able to last far longer. And in general I trust Valve to not fuck up and disappear WAY more than I trust the entertainment division of Microsoft.
|
On June 20 2013 16:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 16:10 Leporello wrote:MS saved themselves from real headaches down the line, I feel. Yes, their PR and initial sales took a hit, but the PR that would be surfacing at release would be even worse if MS had stuck to their vision. People losing their games, thinking they were only "lending" them. People complaining about not being able to play because their ISP took a dump, etc. On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. This isn't a PC, paralleluniverse, it's a console. This isn't WoW or LoL -- and people who want WoW or LoL will by a PC. Let a console just be a console. edit: and why is it so popular to rag on Gamestop and EB? Yes, the only real video-game-exclusive stores still in existance -- **** them, amirite? "Oh they're such "leeches" and without them games would be cheaper". That's called BS. MS was planning on selling their games for as much as they could, $60. They were going to eliminate secondhand sales and give the consumers absolutely nothing in return -- that's a fact, jack. Secondhand sales have been around for as long as consoles have. Tell me, what good does Gamestop and EB do? Why do they deserve money? Why are PC games cheaper?
Most cross-platform games are the same price on PC as they are on the consoles. The games that are cheaper are usually PC-exclusives, and even that is changing. Rome II: Total War. PC-only game. Currently on Steam for $60. It's not just one market, it's just that consoles had an easier time raising their prices first, because frankly, there are a lack of choices in that market.
Gamestop is the only store I know of in a hundred mile radius from where I live that simply sells gaming products and nothing else, and yes, buying used games is cheaper than buying new. That is a service that holds value to me.
I see no reason to applaud them going out of business just so MS can be the sole rake-owner.
|
On June 20 2013 16:23 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 16:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 16:10 Leporello wrote:MS saved themselves from real headaches down the line, I feel. Yes, their PR and initial sales took a hit, but the PR that would be surfacing at release would be even worse if MS had stuck to their vision. People losing their games, thinking they were only "lending" them. People complaining about not being able to play because their ISP took a dump, etc. On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. This isn't a PC, paralleluniverse, it's a console. This isn't WoW or LoL -- and people who want WoW or LoL will by a PC. Let a console just be a console. edit: and why is it so popular to rag on Gamestop and EB? Yes, the only real video-game-exclusive stores still in existance -- **** them, amirite? "Oh they're such "leeches" and without them games would be cheaper". That's called BS. MS was planning on selling their games for as much as they could, $60. They were going to eliminate secondhand sales and give the consumers absolutely nothing in return -- that's a fact, jack. Secondhand sales have been around for as long as consoles have. Tell me, what good does Gamestop and EB do? Why do they deserve money? Why are PC games cheaper? Most cross-platform games are the same price on PC as they are on the consoles. The games that are cheaper are usually PC-exclusives, and even that is changing. Rome II: Total War. PC-only game. Currently on Steam for $60. It's not just one market, it's just that consoles had an easier time raising their prices first, because frankly, there are a lack of choices in that market. Gamestop is the only store I know of in a hundred mile radius from where I live that simply sells gaming products and nothing else, and yes, buying used games is cheaper than buying new. That is a service that holds value to me. I see no reason to applaud them going out of business just so MS can be the sole rake-owner.
No. Games on PC are cheaper. Sure, they usually start at the same price, but prices fall faster and are generally lower on Steam than on console. Even for cross-platform games. On Amazon, look at some recent games, Metro: First Light, Saints Row 4, Tomb Raider, outside of sales, PC prices are cheaper. How is there a lack of choice on console? Not enough console games? Because it's the game publishers that set the prices, not Sony or Microsoft. You also didn't answer the question.
You talk about resales being cheaper. And that's the problem. Future resale opportunity could increase consumers’ willingness-to-pay for new copies. Because of this, the profit-maximizing price of video games is 33% lower than current prices if the resale market is killed, according to this paper.
|
On June 20 2013 16:16 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 16:01 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 15:42 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:34 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 15:31 NightOfTheDead wrote:On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. Are you that naive? What does region locking your fucking CONSOLE accomplish in this your far-sighted future? Does PC has that? What does locking your whole library of single player games accomplish, if you want to play them offline, taking it like a laptop to away from internet for example? This has got nothing to do with region locking and always online (which Xbox One isn't). So try again. It was part of the deal. Region lock in duo with always online - dead console for a lot of countries - like Poland, for example. They cant login into xboxlive cause they are part of region lock, and they cant play because they cant login. Amazing Microsoft logic. Besides, they said it will be up to publishers to impose on how used games will be restricted. Don't publishers already do that with online activation fee, if you buy used games. It works just fine. There were many ways to do what they wanted but not with such rhetoric and practice, hence the backlash. We're not talking about the region lock. They didn't flip-flop on the region lock. It's still region locked and I never argued that the region lock was good. So why are you bring up this irrelevant fact and changing the subject? In case you missed the news today, it's not up to publishers anymore. All disc-based games can be resold, and there's nothing publishers can do to stop it. You think it's fine? Really? Then why are the prices of console games more expensive than PC games? What's so fine about that? Why do console games require a disc in a tray? For god sake's, a disc in the tray, this is the sort of ancient, archaic stuff you'd expect to see if you took a time machine back to 1999. This is fine for the next console generation? This is fine in 2019? I didn't miss the news. I was talking about their 'future' vision for consoles, and how wrong they approached it. De facto it isn't region locked right now. When you setup your console, you can choose whatever country (that is part of allowed region) and you can get access to xboxlive. They wanted to remove that, by marking the console to not work in other country, just where it was bought. It is still up to publishers. EA and some other publishers has long done the practice that once you buy new game, you get activation code. When you buy used game, you don't have that, and you must still buy it online, cause the original buyer already used it. It was already in effect without Microsoft 'future' vision. Disc tray thing might be archaic, but the new 'features' they wanted to implement are far worse. Yes, I noticed that the region lock was removed. But I never argued in favor of the region lock. As for online passes: Firstly, EA no longer does online passes. Secondly, it's unclear whether online passes will be possible on Xbox One. Lastly, there's nothing Microsoft will do to stop game resales so online passes or not is completely irrelevant to single-player disc-based games. The only thing wrong with what Microsoft was previously trying to do was that it didn't completely kill used games. Now you can have fun screwing around with discs, propping up worthless leeches like Gamestop, and paying more for your console games than PC games. Have fun with the removal of online sharing, which is no longer possible (if it were you could have 10 people download the game and all play it offline forever and at the same time, without paying a cent). Have fun carrying discs around. You can say that these aren't a large inconvenience. But neither is requiring a 24 hours check-in. Enjoy.
Ah so they removed the online activation policy (EA). Well, I guess they can always come back.
Thing is Microsoft and Sony had to stand together on the used games policy. Sony didn't. Therefore, in the market as a whole this wouldn't effectively kill the used games. More people would buy PS4 systen, and the trend would have continued. Not defending the used games in any way, just other parts of Microsoft approach, which weren't anything similar to how PC gaming works.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
It's a shame Microsoft caved on used games and online checks.
|
On June 20 2013 16:36 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 16:23 Leporello wrote:On June 20 2013 16:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 16:10 Leporello wrote:MS saved themselves from real headaches down the line, I feel. Yes, their PR and initial sales took a hit, but the PR that would be surfacing at release would be even worse if MS had stuck to their vision. People losing their games, thinking they were only "lending" them. People complaining about not being able to play because their ISP took a dump, etc. On June 20 2013 15:26 paralleluniverse wrote:So Microsoft is too spineless to stick up for their principles and have decided to u-turn on their DRM policies. They've jumped on the bandwagon with a mob of irrational, short-sighted, and economically-illiterate gamers on the internet (oh so they do have access to the internet!) who are stuck in the past. What Microsoft was trying to do was to make the console market more similar to the PC market by restricting the sale of used games. Ask yourself why console games tend to be more expensive than PC games. Why haven't Gamestop and EB and Amazon and developers and publishers competing brought prices down to the level they are on PC? Why can't console games have PC-like pricing? The main difference is resale and the fact that Gamestop and EB leeches money that they simply do not deserve. They are the real winners here, the losers are console gamers who will have to pay higher prices. And now we return to disc-based games, a relic from last decade which is quickly becoming obsolete. As I had previously explained, the 24 hour check-in was required to prevent people from getting access to every Xbox One game for free or at a significantly reduced price, and every company and platform, including Sony, uses DRM to restrict this. So with this flip-flop, what DRM have Microsoft employed instead? Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray. Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/updateRequiring the disc to be in a drive is an antiquated artifact from PC gaming circa 1999, which has been rejected by even some Xbox One haters. PC gaming eventually got over this phase, to emerge more efficient, cheaper and better for gamers. It looks like console gamers will continue to remain stuck in the past a while longer. The fact is that most people have no problem with the internet. Indeed, the most popular games like LoL and WoW are internet and social games. Have fun paying high prices for console games and propping up the current inefficient status quo. A status quo where a sizable proportion of the money that gamers spend goes to leeches like Gamestop and EB, businesses that are unnecessary and add little to no value to the games, businesses that deserve nothing, instead of going to developers. I have no horse in this race because I play PC games, nearly all of which are online, but the loser of Microsoft's cowardly and pathetic flip-flop is ultimately the console gamers. This isn't a PC, paralleluniverse, it's a console. This isn't WoW or LoL -- and people who want WoW or LoL will by a PC. Let a console just be a console. edit: and why is it so popular to rag on Gamestop and EB? Yes, the only real video-game-exclusive stores still in existance -- **** them, amirite? "Oh they're such "leeches" and without them games would be cheaper". That's called BS. MS was planning on selling their games for as much as they could, $60. They were going to eliminate secondhand sales and give the consumers absolutely nothing in return -- that's a fact, jack. Secondhand sales have been around for as long as consoles have. Tell me, what good does Gamestop and EB do? Why do they deserve money? Why are PC games cheaper? Most cross-platform games are the same price on PC as they are on the consoles. The games that are cheaper are usually PC-exclusives, and even that is changing. Rome II: Total War. PC-only game. Currently on Steam for $60. It's not just one market, it's just that consoles had an easier time raising their prices first, because frankly, there are a lack of choices in that market. Gamestop is the only store I know of in a hundred mile radius from where I live that simply sells gaming products and nothing else, and yes, buying used games is cheaper than buying new. That is a service that holds value to me. I see no reason to applaud them going out of business just so MS can be the sole rake-owner. No. Games on PC are cheaper. Sure, they usually start at the same price, but prices fall faster and are generally lower on Steam than on console. Even for cross-platform games. On Amazon, look at some recent games, Metro: First Light, Saints Row 4, Tomb Raider, outside of sales, PC prices are cheaper. How is there a lack of choice on console? Not enough console games? Because it's the game publishers that set the prices, not Sony or Microsoft. You also didn't answer the question. You talk about resales being cheaper. And that's the problem. Future resale opportunity could increase consumers’ willingness-to-pay for new copies. Because of this, the profit-maximizing price of video games is 33% lower than current prices if the resale market is killed, according to this paper.
There is no reason to think that making MicroSoft the sole proprietor of new and used sales would lower prices. You are nuts for thinking so. Games were still slated for the $60 tag -- what makes you think the price was going to drop? You want to blame used-game sales for driving prices up? Okay. Your solution to dropping prices, on the other hand, is what I really disagree with.
You're theorizing that games will somehow drop in price if consumers are forbidden from buying used games and are forced to trade entirely through MS... That's nuts.
Look, Microsoft knows the value of monopolizing more than any company on Earth. I do not believe, for a second, that games will end up being cheaper, used and new, if we rely solely on MS's online marketplace. I really think that's beyond absurd.
And I did answer your question, I believe. Gamestop manages retail stores across the country and employ thousands and thousands of people. They provide a service that people obviously are using, for them to still be in business. I don't call that nothing. You don't like them? That's fine, but enough customers do like them.
Ragging on independent retailers driving up prices is just a tired, old scapegoat. Claiming that we'd be better off all buying from THE SAME PLACE -- Microsoft of all places -- is just insanity. Microsoft points to Steam as if they'd provide the same benefit -- but's that's total BS as well. First of all, Steam does not monopolize PC-gaming. Steam is just one option of many for people to buy their PC games. Also, Steam is not Microsoft. Steam has done a much, much better job, and have a much, much better track record at listening to their consumers and giving the consumers great value.
Steam probably doesn't need to hold sales like it does. It might be more profitable if it didn't. Steam sales are actually just the sort of nicety that one should NEVER expect from a company like MS. But more importantly -- the reason Steam holds those sales is that there are other online retailers selling PC games, that Steam has to compete against -- whereas there is no other retailer when buying games online on a console. That's a small difference, don't you think?
Microsoft was simply trying to monopolize a market, can you really not see that? Oh, it'll drive down prices? Sure, just like Windows and MS Office are sooo cheap and consumer-friendly. Hey, I get them for "free" when I buy a new retail PC -- nevermind that these programs are included in PC's pricetag and are on almost every non-Apple retail PC you can buy, so you have no choice in the matter. Oh, yeah, that's the kind of "value" I want to see come to the console.
|
On June 20 2013 14:43 Jibba wrote:
Is it just me or is it disingenuous of Microsoft to say that they have to drop the new features (like sharing, account tied games and lower prices) because of the change in DRM to disc-based games? Since when are those entirely dependent upon each other?
It really makes one wonder... Just WHAT does microsoft plan on doing with those 300,000 servers that they had all setup for those very services? If anything this move is perhaps even WORSE than the initial announcement of the drm. As it stood, they had already taken the full blown wave of criticism, and it seemed that they were continuing regardless (which would of been the right choice). By backtracking now and the way they are doing it, they are putting themselves miles behind Sony who had opt to stay with the status quo leaving MS in a very uncomfortable situation. Whats more, Instead of coming out with a unique system with a bold new future, they are now mimicking the PS but with a damaged image. At this point it just seems the exec's are attempting to please to many people at once which will end up hurting them.
Then again, whose to say they just wont roll out all of the drm, et al in a patch? Apparently it is as simple as "flipping a switch", no reason they cant turn it on again.
|
Russian Federation823 Posts
On June 20 2013 16:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
Have fun carrying discs around. You can say that these aren't a large inconvenience. But neither is requiring a 24 hours check-in.
Enjoy.
A 24-hours check-in is a pain in the ass. "Carrying discs around" is not and never was.
|
Now where MS has changed their direction everyone's like "They did not have the balls to pull it off".
Before everyone was bashing their policy.
People these days..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/196490_490085711068175_1529676678_n.jpg)
