|
On June 20 2013 16:53 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 16:36 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
the part about steam sales is just wrong, steam sales get people to buy games that otherwise wouldn't also it is better for most publishers because after a steam sale they sell more games after the sale is over because of word of mouth, youtube videos etc. Publishers actually have to agree that steam can discount their games for sales if wasn't profitable for them they wouldn't do it.
|
On June 20 2013 16:57 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
what they are doing is damage control, everyone shits on them they notice it and change it. They have made a huge mistake with all their anti-consumer policies they noticed it and changed it. Some people think thats spineless i disagree and think it was the only smart thing they could have done.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 20 2013 15:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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?
People keep bringing up Steam, but before Steamworks games came out, PC games had the exact option Microsoft says they can't do. If you wanted to share discs with your friend, then you bought the disc version of the game. If you wanted convenience and a cheaper price, you bought it from the Steam store. Why does lifting the restrictions on disc-based games stop them from doing all the things they want to do with downloaded games?
In fact, they'd probably win over everyone if they actually did the price thing, and would have a much easier time phasing out disc-based games.
Disc sales drop, used game supply decreases, used game cost goes up, plus used games have a shorter lifetime than something tied to your account. Or you add some DLC code or something that's only for the first purchase, to further incentivize buying from the equally low-priced online store. Yeah, let the game be tied to the account so that people can resell the game or lend the disc while you still have full access. Genius. Yes, they have to kill these features.
You're not good at reading and understanding.
Downloaded version tied to account, disc based not.
|
On June 20 2013 16:57 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Those services wouldn't require that many more servers. Microsoft is already putting up every game made on xbox one to be ready for digital distribution. Controlling authentication/permissions back and forth wouldn't require that many servers even if serving millions of customers, especially sense it's a once a day check in and sharing games etc would be already a one time check during that once a day. Lowers prices were hedged on a controlled secondary market that's no longer possible.
On June 20 2013 17:10 kusto wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Maybe in a backwater area hell if i really need it i could just tether my phone to provide the small amount of internet needed for the one a day check in.
|
On June 20 2013 16:53 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 16:36 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409554¤tpage=138#2755
|
On June 20 2013 18:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 15:32 paralleluniverse wrote: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?
People keep bringing up Steam, but before Steamworks games came out, PC games had the exact option Microsoft says they can't do. If you wanted to share discs with your friend, then you bought the disc version of the game. If you wanted convenience and a cheaper price, you bought it from the Steam store. Why does lifting the restrictions on disc-based games stop them from doing all the things they want to do with downloaded games?
In fact, they'd probably win over everyone if they actually did the price thing, and would have a much easier time phasing out disc-based games.
Disc sales drop, used game supply decreases, used game cost goes up, plus used games have a shorter lifetime than something tied to your account. Or you add some DLC code or something that's only for the first purchase, to further incentivize buying from the equally low-priced online store. Yeah, let the game be tied to the account so that people can resell the game or lend the disc while you still have full access. Genius. Yes, they have to kill these features. You're not good at reading and understanding. Downloaded version tied to account, disc based not.
That's how I imagine it would work. So I still don't see how that would make their sharing features possible. If you can share a downloaded game then you could have 10 people download the game and all play it offline forever and at the same time, without paying a cent. You would need further DRM to prevent this. E.g. to play a shared game you must be always online, even if it's a single player game.
Every time you think about whether "DRM-free feature X" should be implemented, you should first ask whether the feature allows people to have permanent access to play games they do not own or if it could give them permanent access to play games at lower than usual costs. If so, then some form of restriction is needed.
|
United States22883 Posts
Look at The Witcher 2.
The cheapest and most convenient version of the game is through Steam. But guess what? If I want to, I can walk into Walmart and buy the DVDs, and it won't install through Steam and I can give the discs to my friends. See how easy that is?
paralleluniverse has gone all in on Microsoft's narrative, but that's nothing new. The vision Microsoft has for disc-less gaming is still entirely possible for their disc-less gaming approach, if they want to do it. There's a huge number of downsides to used games and the market isn't as bad as the imbecile CliffyB wants people to believe. If Microsoft really wanted to drop prices, they would've done so. They could still do so, and downloaded game sales would crush disc game sales. But yet they announced $60.
Steam took over because they cut prices, and not because of anything else. If MS wants a Steam-like future, they should start with the lower prices.
|
On June 20 2013 18:16 Jibba wrote:
Look at The Witcher 2.
The cheapest and most convenient version of the game is through Steam. But guess what? If I want to, I can walk into Walmart and buy the DVDs, and it won't install through Steam and I can give the discs to my friends. See how easy that is?
paralleluniverse has gone all in on Microsoft's narrative, but that's nothing new. The vision Microsoft has for disc-less gaming is still entirely possible for their disc-less gaming approach, if they want to do it. There's a huge number of downsides to used games and the market isn't as bad as the imbecile CliffyB wants people to believe. If Microsoft really wanted to drop prices, they would've done so. They could still do so, and downloaded game sales would crush disc game sales. But yet they announced $60.
Steam took over because they cut prices, and not because of anything else. If MS wants a Steam-like future, they should start with the lower prices.
Microsoft doesn't set the prices, neither does Steam. I never expected AAA games to release on Xbox One at lower than $60. Even on Steam, AAA games release at $60. I just expected prices to lower faster than on PS4, similar to Steam.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 20 2013 18:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 18:06 Jibba wrote:On June 20 2013 15:32 paralleluniverse wrote: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?
People keep bringing up Steam, but before Steamworks games came out, PC games had the exact option Microsoft says they can't do. If you wanted to share discs with your friend, then you bought the disc version of the game. If you wanted convenience and a cheaper price, you bought it from the Steam store. Why does lifting the restrictions on disc-based games stop them from doing all the things they want to do with downloaded games?
In fact, they'd probably win over everyone if they actually did the price thing, and would have a much easier time phasing out disc-based games.
Disc sales drop, used game supply decreases, used game cost goes up, plus used games have a shorter lifetime than something tied to your account. Or you add some DLC code or something that's only for the first purchase, to further incentivize buying from the equally low-priced online store. Yeah, let the game be tied to the account so that people can resell the game or lend the disc while you still have full access. Genius. Yes, they have to kill these features. You're not good at reading and understanding. Downloaded version tied to account, disc based not. That's how I imagine it would work. So I still don't see how that would make their sharing features possible. If you can share a downloaded game then you could have 10 people download the game and all play it offline forever and at the same time, without paying a cent. You would need further DRM to prevent this. E.g. to play a shared game you must be always online, even if it's single player game. Sure, fine. The original policies towards downloaded games would be fine. And if the sharing feature is good and they actually come through with lower prices, then most people will stop buying disc games. A few will still want disc games, but everyone will be happy that they get a choice.
But it's not all or nothing. Screw over retailers by offering special DLC or something on first party titles for the downloaded version only, to get people aware of the online system.
There's a lot of problems with used disc games. Between similarly price used or online (with restrictions), I'd certainly go for the online version.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 20 2013 18:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 18:16 Jibba wrote:
Look at The Witcher 2.
The cheapest and most convenient version of the game is through Steam. But guess what? If I want to, I can walk into Walmart and buy the DVDs, and it won't install through Steam and I can give the discs to my friends. See how easy that is?
paralleluniverse has gone all in on Microsoft's narrative, but that's nothing new. The vision Microsoft has for disc-less gaming is still entirely possible for their disc-less gaming approach, if they want to do it. There's a huge number of downsides to used games and the market isn't as bad as the imbecile CliffyB wants people to believe. If Microsoft really wanted to drop prices, they would've done so. They could still do so, and downloaded game sales would crush disc game sales. But yet they announced $60.
Steam took over because they cut prices, and not because of anything else. If MS wants a Steam-like future, they should start with the lower prices. Microsoft doesn't set the prices, neither does Steam. I never expected AAA games to release on Xbox One at lower than $60. Even on Steam, AAA games release at $60. I just expected prices to lower faster than on PS4, similar to Steam.
Isn't it problematic that Microsoft never even brought up the pricing issue? Word only got out because of an anonymous post on Neogaf. I'm still not convinced Microsoft wants to do that.
|
Just curious, but is there any particular reason why devs choose Steam to make the awesome deals on? I always hear devs/publishers rave about those specials and how they boost sales, so why do they not do the same on consoles? Do MS/Sony take a bigger cut or something?
Not that I'm complaining or anything. :D
|
On June 20 2013 17:17 He4dsh0t wrote:
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..
If you're going to do something as monumentally unpopular as XB1's always on/check-in/no used sales policies, then you'd better have a damned good reason.
The flip-flop basically shows that they had no good reasons, and this was purely about thinking they could get away with consumer unfriendly policies. And by removing things like downloaded title sharing, we know that the XB1 is fully capable of brand new features, but MS will only add those privileges if they better ones in return.
|
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.
Console games are more expensive than PC games because that is what the console market could bear. It was more lucrative as a developer to sell to more people who were willing to pay at a higher price point than PC gamers.
Walmart, Amazon, publishers etc don't need to lower the price of console games since a lot of money is already made at current prices.
Though when it comes to retailers they make more money in accessories and developers have been failing to budget their games accordingly so there is more risk in failure in the past 5 years than the preceding decade.
Why should console games have lower prices when they make more money than PC game sales even if the PC version is the best version?
You like to argue that pc gamers have moved on from physical discs but I can tell you that many of us are annoyed that discs have become coasters because of steam licenses instead of property we own.
It's nice that you think most people have internet access but the Xbox One required broadband. Within America, their priority market, 100 million of our 320 million citizens don't have broadband. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june13/broadband_03-22.html) Europe has to pay for their access on bit-rate basis which makes a constant internet connection expensive. The region with the best online infrastructure (Asia) won't be supported for year, if at all (see Japan).
Even the historical Xbox Live records indicated only 25-30% of xbox owners actually bothered to stay always online. You think most of the 70% of xbox owners had reliable internet?
|
On June 20 2013 18:22 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 18:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 20 2013 18:16 Jibba wrote:
Look at The Witcher 2.
The cheapest and most convenient version of the game is through Steam. But guess what? If I want to, I can walk into Walmart and buy the DVDs, and it won't install through Steam and I can give the discs to my friends. See how easy that is?
paralleluniverse has gone all in on Microsoft's narrative, but that's nothing new. The vision Microsoft has for disc-less gaming is still entirely possible for their disc-less gaming approach, if they want to do it. There's a huge number of downsides to used games and the market isn't as bad as the imbecile CliffyB wants people to believe. If Microsoft really wanted to drop prices, they would've done so. They could still do so, and downloaded game sales would crush disc game sales. But yet they announced $60.
Steam took over because they cut prices, and not because of anything else. If MS wants a Steam-like future, they should start with the lower prices. Microsoft doesn't set the prices, neither does Steam. I never expected AAA games to release on Xbox One at lower than $60. Even on Steam, AAA games release at $60. I just expected prices to lower faster than on PS4, similar to Steam. Isn't it problematic that Microsoft never even brought up the pricing issue? Word only got out because of an anonymous post on Neogaf. I'm still not convinced Microsoft wants to do that.
The issue is going to be forced by Steam and Sony. The last systems did not focus on downloadable games, but these new systems will. It is only a matter of time before Sony or Microsoft some using Steam like sales to drum up interest in their direct purchase services.
|
Just a reminder that while MS has said "no always online" anymore, that means jack shit towards their "powar of ze cloud" titles.
|
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.
It's like you are completely ignoring reality and living in your little fantasy world where the countless problems with MS's policies that have been very thoroughly pointed out in this thread and elsewhere just don't exist.
How's it goin' for you in that world? Nice and happy? Cozy, at least? Maybe writin' a book in there?
Nah, but really. That was kind of mean.
Still, you're completely ignoring reality and the numerous problems that have been pointed out in this thread since day one are, in fact, problems, and every other claim you make is based on incredibly faulty logic that has already been debunked.
Internet concerns are serious for many people, especially in the U.S. There is absolutely zero gain from required connections and region-locking.
Discs are not a relic of the past. Just because you live in your cozy, privileged world where you can download all your games doesn't mean that discs are fading into obscurity. The majority of people still use them. Even if we grant MS some credit for trying to push us into a "good future" or whatever, we aren't there yet, and trying to force us into that future when the consumer isn't ready is short-sighted and hurts the consumer.
Console games cost a lot because developers and publishers are stupid. This is a well-documented fact.
Getting rid of used games would not reduce the price of games. That's an absolutely absurd statement with no logical basis. If anything, used games force developers to make a better product at a better price in order to sway people into buying the original product. When you sell shitty games with little content at bloated prices and horrible anti-consumer policies, of course you're going to get people buying used. What, does selling used cars, used furniture, used clothes, all ruin the very fabric of those industries? No, and it's incredibly stupid to say that they do. Anything used 1) is used, so it is of lower quality than if it was bought new, and 2) is at the mercy of the used market, which has a far lower supply than the new market. People buy used games as a direct response to greedy publishers setting stupidly high prices for games. Similar to piracy, there's little ground to say that "every used game is a sale lost" because there's nothing to say that a used game buyer would actually buy a new copy due to cost. The only people that are to blame for high video game prices are developers and publishers.
|
I guess my faith in humanity will never be restored, Microsoft tries to pass some restriction to milk console users dry even more than they are doing now but most people just turn a blind eye on it. After being ridiculed by Sony at E3 they go back on some of the outrageous things they were going to do and now every Xbox consumers are back to get one and give Microsoft the power they want(as in money, sales number is what they want).
You can easily find EU console game with value (after conversion) twice as high as a US PC version of the game. They tried to keep Zoning for those kind of situations. They tried to convert console to the CD-KEY bound games like in the PC market to prevent lending, reselling game, again to maximize profit and sells while taking out a lot of the advantages the console games had over PC.
I just bought a new PC and am glad I did. If I ever get a console from this generation it'll be a PS4 just for all the bullshit MS tried to give us on an already very lucrative market for them.
|
|
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
