| Forum Index > General Games |
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On June 22 2013 17:40 paralleluniverse wrote: http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905 I agree. The benefits far outweigh the downsides imo | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 22 2013 21:06 Hrrrrm wrote: It isn't a guarantee and companies would not want to take the risk of lowering initial pricing to $40 because of how hard they have worked to make $60 the norm. People can continue to fantisize all they want that this was the future MS was working towards, it wasn't. Even Steam generally starts with games at $60 but they add value to it by throwing in other games. BioShock Infinite being the best example lately. If you or I are going to give up ownership I need some upfront guarantees about pricing. Not some hope and pray that it might happen. And now it's you who needs to do some reading, not me. I never said prices of new AAA games would drop below $60 since people who buy games on day one tend to be willing to pay more. But on Steam prices tend to fall faster, and be lower on average. I said: AAA new releases on Xbox One are $60. AAA new releases on Steam are $60. People don't go to Steam for cheaper AAA new releases, it's everything else that's cheaper. I accurately stated what the study found. I didn't argue that the study was absolutely correct and directly applicable to the real world. If you actually read the paper, then you'd notice it says: On average, the elimination of the used video game market reduces consumers’ willingness-to-pay for new copies of video games in the earlier part of the product lifecycle – this is mainly because the resale effect dominates the substitution effect. As a result, we find that the average profits per game declines by 10.3%. We then compute the optimal prices of new copies when there is no used game market, and quantify the change in profits. We find that the optimal flat prices are on average 33% lower than the observed prices, and the elimination of the used video game market could increase the average profits per game by 18.6%. [...] As we will describe in the next section, Japanese video game publishers have historically been using flat-pricing for new copies. However, in the U.S., price skimming has been a common practice. The paper assumes flat pricing (since that's common in Japan and it uses Japanese data) instead of price-skimming (set a high price initially, and lower it as time goes on). Thus, if this result is to be applied, it makes sense to apply it to the average price of a game over time, not the starting price, i.e. the average price of games over time will reduce by 33%, despite still starting at $60. If they killed resale, which Microsoft was too spineless to do (Sony is just too stuck in the past, they have no innovations), you seem to have missed the part that profits will fall by 10% unless they reduce prices. You talk about "upfront guarantees" instead of "hopes". It's not possible for anyone to make any guarantees. I doubt anything is ever going to convince you unless Microsoft forces this down everyone's throats and then you see prices start to reduce over time, like it did for PC games. Because, unless that happens, people will just make nonsensical arguments QQing about DRM and causing this sort of cowardly backdown from Microsoft, so that it will never be tried on consoles. | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
On June 22 2013 21:06 Hrrrrm wrote: It isn't a guarantee and companies would not want to take the risk of lowering initial pricing to $40 because of how hard they have worked to make $60 the norm. People can continue to fantisize all they want that this was the future MS was working towards, it wasn't. Even Steam generally starts with games at $60 but they add value to it by throwing in other games. BioShock Infinite being the best example lately. If you or I are going to give up ownership I need some upfront guarantees about pricing. Not some hope and pray that it might happen. And that is the problem Microsoft has had to deal with the entire time. They did a horrible job of explaining the future while that was their selling point. At least for myself, I am not looking to a console as merely an investment tool for down the line. My goal is to play the games I purchased where I want and when I want. If I went with the Box, that desire on my part would have been given up for something that might occur down the road. The problem with focusing so much on the future is that you begin to lose track of the present which is pretty important and without the present, there is no future. Plus, I have issues with the author anyway. This section in particular: It's oddly fitting that the news comes as fan-saved Futurama gets ready to go off the air again. But today also proves how widely that nerd-influence can swing an entire generation of hardware, based solely on the whims of internet jokes based on information that isn't even accurate, and tinfoil fears about worst-case scenarios. Cheaper games. Easier sharing. The end of discs. The Xbox One would have been just fine despite the chorus of haters, would have been a better system for ignoring them. Microsoft losing its nerve on this isn't just disappointing for the features we lose. It's unfortunate because it shows just how heavy an anchor we can be. Yes, this does not have anything to do with his point but it irks be to see this sort of mindset. The author felt the need to belittle the opposition. Way to misrepresent a rather large group of people that opposed the changes as merely relying on internet jokes and inaccurate information. It is almost naive in nature to dismiss the people in such a manner. Sorry but the fact of the matter that thousands, tens-of-thousands, or perhaps even hundreds-of-thousands of people would have been negatively effected. Microsoft made that decision and as customers, we made our decision by not preordering. Even the point as a whole that mere complaining was the cause. No, this was purely a financially driven change. The Box was going to be sold in only 21 countries this year. Since they are limiting the number, they would have to do well in those otherwise it would look like a compete failure. Well guess what, the Box surpass the "standard" version of Playstation 4 in the Amazon/US 4 days ago. Now keep in mind that there is the Launch day version, the Standards version, and 3 Playstation 4 bundles in the top 10 (so purchases were split). So for just the Standard version of the Playstation to have been beating the Box for so long and hold such a strong force in top 10 is telling of Microsoft's screwup. It gets worse though; at that time as well (1.5 days before the reversal of the policies), the Playstation 4 was ahead of the Box in every main Amazon site. In France, the Playstation 4 was in 4th place whereas the Box was in 36th place for their best seller (games). The people complaining, ranting, defending rights, taking into account those in the military would have an effect on sales but not all. The Box simply was not doing well period, and that is why they changed their policy. Since the change in policy, their sales have actually improved quite a bit. People like the author annoy me quite a bit... Edit: Oh and if the letter from the Microsoft employee is accurate, Microsoft should be happy that they changed their policies. If it was true that the sharing would have been 15-45, 60 min in total play time limited and it was released that way, people would have been up-in-arms. So if it was true, Microsoft would have just dodged that bullet. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Honestly, the sharing system would be way worse for their sales than used games are. They won't admit it, but it was a poorly thought out hail mary. It had the most rushed UI of any of their sub-systems, and the logic behind it would do a huge number on single player games. It was probably dreamed up following the poor reception in March or whenever, but it was a dangerous solution and part of MS is probably glad they got an excuse to kill it. | ||
|
FromShouri
United States862 Posts
So the article pretty much says we ruined everything when all those things he listed were still "in development" and had so much misinformation flying around between major neilson, don whats his face, their twitter account, and their website, about what you can and can't do? Btw, they even mentioned developers can opt out of family share library....... | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 22 2013 23:27 Jibba wrote: The author is pretty far off-base. It's the same thing I talked about before. None of the disc stuff truly precludes Microsoft's vision, they're just throwing a fit and cancelling everything. My guess is because they realize it's an easy out and the things they promised, especially the sharing system, were equally unviable and problematic. Honestly, the sharing system would be way worse for their sales than used games are. They won't admit it, but it was a poorly thought out hail mary. It had the most rushed UI of any of their sub-systems, and the logic behind it would do a huge number on single player games. It was probably dreamed up following the poor reception in March or whenever, but it was a dangerous solution and part of MS is probably glad they got an excuse to kill it. Oh so now you're suddenly concerned about how much money they make? You keep saying that Microsoft's previous features are still possible, but you admitted that sharing is no longer possible without requiring it to be always online, even if it's a single player game being shared. DRM. Right? Indeed, requiring always online is more DRM than a 24 hour check-in for these shared games. It's also possible that sharing games isn't killed yet, they seem open for it to return sometime after launch. They might be evaluating what DRM is necessary to make it work in light of the recent changes and perhaps whether it can be applied in a more targeted way. You keep saying it's possible, but you fail to outline how it's possible, other than mentioning that Witcher 2 did it. So why can't everyone? Why can't Blizzard release WoW free of "DRM" like Witcher 2? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 22 2013 23:58 paralleluniverse wrote: Oh so now you're suddenly concerned about how much money they make? You keep saying that Microsoft's previous features are still possible, but you admitted that sharing is no longer possible without requiring it to be always online, even if it's a single player game being shared. DRM. Right? Indeed, requiring always online is more DRM than a 24 hour check-in for these shared games. It's also possible that sharing games isn't killed yet, they seem open for it to return sometime after launch. They might be evaluating what DRM is necessary to make it work in light of the recent changes and perhaps whether it can be applied in a more targeted way. You keep saying it's possible, but you fail to outline how it's possible, other than mentioning that Witcher 2 did it. So why can't everyone? Why can't Blizzard release WoW free of "DRM" like Witcher 2? So you're still really bad at reading. This is pathetic. Their previous features are still possible through the online downloads. The sharing is as possible as they want to make it. It doesn't require always online. I didn't say that anywhere. It could if they want it to. I said the Family Share system they developed is terrible for their own business, and it was a hasty decision. There is no reason it was necessary to kill it, but I think they wanted to kill it because they never wanted to release it. At 10 players without blood family verification (which they won't do), it would be far more costly than the used game market is to many types of games. I told you exactly how it was possible before. If you weren't so intent on defending Microsoft and could wipe away your angry tears, you would've seen that. The disc system does not have to be connected to the downloadable games system. ~ ~ ~^-^~ ~ ~ = paralleluniverse Your idiotic rhetorical statement is to compare an account and subscription based multiplayer game with a single player game? How daft are you? | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
Why is this not possible still? What was the system before with the check-in that allowed you to sell a game and for a retailer to be able to tell the system that your account no longer owns this game? Why can that not still happen? 1) Most games are multiplayer (which means whenever you log in it can do the same check as before) 2) Those that are singleplayer, what is the worst that could happen? It gets sold as used like it normally would? It gets shared among friends like it normally would? I want to say more but I gotta leave for work for now | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
We were promised lower prices if we just only made this law, we were told from 1/4 page ads and editorials. Nothing's changed, prices went down for two years then "manufacturing costs" put the new products back in their usual pricing bracket. But the law still is in force. I'm glad the Internet won. For now. Remember, MS reserves the right to change the terms and conditions WITHOUT NOTICE. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 23 2013 00:18 Jibba wrote: So you're still really bad at reading. This is pathetic. Their previous features are still possible through the online downloads. The sharing is as possible as they want to make it. It doesn't require always online. I didn't say that anywhere. It could if they want it to. I said the Family Share system they developed is terrible for their own business, and it was a hasty decision. There is no reason it was necessary to kill it, but I think they wanted to kill it because they never wanted to release it. At 10 players without blood family verification (which they won't do), it would be far more costly than the used game market is to many types of games. I told you exactly how it was possible before. If you weren't so intent on defending Microsoft and could wipe away your angry tears, you would've seen that. The disc system does not have to be connected to the downloadable games system. ~ ~ ~^-^~ ~ ~ = paralleluniverse Your idiotic rhetorical statement is to compare an account and subscription based multiplayer game with a single player game? How daft are you? There is nothing to suggest that the family share feature was "hasty". So if now you think that the family share feature is bad (which is something that I agree with and have said previously), then why does it not follow that used games are bad and should be killed off? As for whether it's possible to do game sharing without the 24 hour check-in. Here's what I said: 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. Here's your reply: Sure, fine. The original policies towards downloaded games would be fine. So in this reply you agree with my statement, which says that the family share feature is possible if there is additional DRM. Then you go on to say that the original policy is fine, this is a nonsensical statement because you agreed with my statement on why the original policy was no longer fine with the removal of the 24 hour check-in, and that additional DRM is required to make it work. So how do you expect it to work? Your idea that games should be as free of DRM as The Witcher 2 is like critics proposing that Warren Buffet should write a cheque to the IRS if he wanted higher taxes on rich people, i.e. relying entirely on the belief that people will voluntarily do the right thing. To the contrary, PC games remain far more DRM'ed than console games, yet no one complains about it. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Used games are bad for whom? They shouldn't forcefully kill them off because their customers are used to them and want the option. They should kill them off through lack of supply, by incentivizing online games so much that people don't bother with discs anymore. I used The Witcher 2 as an example to how it's possible to do both, unlike what Microsoft is claiming. Disc Witcher 2 is DRM free and you can give it to any of your friends. Steam Witcher 2 has DRM because it's tied to your account and you can't share it with your friends. Yet Steam Witcher 2 crushes disc Witcher 2 in sales, because it's cheaper and people like Steam. Microsoft is killing the system under the guise of impossibility. I'm saying Witcher 2 is an example for doing what Microsoft is claiming they can't do. The Gizmodo article reads like "MS can't do any of these neat account-based things, because they have to allow sharing discs." The point is no, they don't. Account-based things don't need to affect the disc-based things and vice versa. Microsoft is now going entirely to the DRM-free disc model, when they should be going to the hybrid. Buy a disc, share it irl. Download a game, don't share it. The Family Sharing is stupid for them in both the always-online and hybrid models, but not impossible in either. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 23 2013 00:45 Jibba wrote: It's possible either way. It's a dismissive 'yes' because that's the simplest part of the system to solve and however they choose to do it doesn't make a meaningful difference. The original system already includes an initial check to make sure multiple people aren't sharing the same game at the same time. If they want to go to always-online to prevent people from beginning and dropping, then fine. It's a fairly inconsequential decision, and I don't care which they choose. Whatever they originally intended to do, as stupid a policy as it is, would still be viable if applied only to downloaded games. If they wanted to be more forceful with it, that would be fine too. Are you understanding the term "would be fine" here? It does not mean, "yes, I agree completely." It means, "fine, they can do whatever the fuck they want" because it's not the crux of the issue. Family Sharing is still possible for downloaded games, and whatever check-in system they want to use is fine. Used games are bad for whom? They shouldn't forcefully kill them off because their customers are used to them and want the option. They should kill them off through lack of supply, by incentivizing online games so much that people don't bother with discs anymore. I used The Witcher 2 as an example to how it's possible to do both, unlike what Microsoft is claiming. Disc Witcher 2 is DRM free and you can give it to any of your friends. Steam Witcher 2 has DRM because it's tied to your account and you can't share it with your friends. Yet Steam Witcher 2 crushes disc Witcher 2 in sales, because it's cheaper and people like Steam. Microsoft is killing the system under the guise of impossibility. I'm saying Witcher 2 is an example for doing what Microsoft is claiming they can't do. Microsoft is now going entirely to the DRM-free disc model, when they should be going to the hybrid. Buy a disc, share it irl. Download a game, don't share it. As you admit, there's nothing stopping people from taking shared games offline and continuing to play them without the 24 hours check-in, so no they cannot keep the sharing feature, without additional forms of DRM. They did not pull the shared game features to spite you. It's not feasible without DRM. Sure, they might still add it back in later if they get time to develop the new DRM features for shared games, but that's my point. Also, shared games isn't the only thing that got removed, playing a disc game without having the disc in the device and having all games on your accounts so they can be downloaded on any Xbox One is simply not possible anymore. So these features got yanked. Used games are bad for who? Shared games is bad for who? Used games is bad for everyone except Gamestop. It's bad for consumers who pay higher prices for new games, it's bad for game makers, who get some of their profits leeched by Gamestop. How is Witcher 2 an example of what Microsoft can't do? You say that Microsoft should do a hybrid where discs are not DRM'ed but downloads are and where downloads can't be shared (oh but you just argued they can be shared, even with the original policy). That's exactly what they're now doing, so you're Witcher 2 argument makes no sense. There's 2 other problems with that argument: 1. it doesn't make clear why physical games should be DRM-free, while it's OK for digital games to be DRM'ed, 2. there's nothing to suggest that what's happening with Witcher 2 can be applied on an industry scale as you recommend for Microsoft. If it's such a good an profitable model, why don't more companies like Blizzard do it? It's like saying Lady Gaga is a popular singer, why can't anyone be a popular singer? | ||
|
Trumpet
United States1935 Posts
Nothing can be confirmed 100% at this point because MS will never admit it now, but some sources indicating that the family sharing was just going to be a timed demo. At this point, I think killing it entirely while eliminating the other DRM was the best choice if this was indeed their plan. It's hard to imagine MS getting trashed harder at this point, but it's looking like they've averted at least that disaster. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I can't see any outrage over DRM'ing shared games, but Microsoft seems to just not be bothering. I mean if you borrow a library book you don't get to keep it forever, but no one screams over that. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 22 2013 18:55 TyrantPotato wrote: not our fault. the reporters who are trying to spin the argument to microsoft's side and now point the finger at the consumers are just doing it for views/shock factor hipsterswagyoloiknewitwouldbe bs. Not really Xbox One had some really good features but because the Internet was used to spread misinformation related to how things would work out microsoft reversed course. Seriously Microsoft about the once every 24 hour check up could have just explained it better that it was because you could install games onto the hard drive and not use the disk to verify you didn't sell or loan the disk to someone else. Thus to verify that you didn't give the disk away 20 times and that only one person has the game installed they mandated a 24 hour check up deal. Why? Really i think what microsoft should have done is keep the features and the DRM. But move the check time to when you start up the game, if you want to install the game and play it off your hdd you either need to check in via Internet or insert disk if you have no Internet. DRM existed because of disk-less play. If microsoft PR could have done a much better job getting that point across more people would have been understanding. And the small suggestion to their system would be better, all the benefits would still be there of disk-less play while insuring you aren't just loaning out a game to all your friends. Which is where the game tied to accounts came in etc. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 23 2013 01:15 paralleluniverse wrote: As you admit, there's nothing stopping people from taking shared games offline and continuing to play them without the 24 hours check-in, so no they cannot keep the sharing feature, without additional forms of DRM. They did not pull the shared game features to spite you. It's not feasible without DRM. Sure, they might still add it back in later if they get time to develop the new DRM features for shared games, but that's my point. Also, shared games isn't the only thing that got removed, playing a disc game without having the disc in the device and having all games on your accounts so they can be downloaded on any Xbox One is simply not possible anymore. So these features got yanked. Sharing requires a connection for a single transfer. The transfer generates an encrypted (hidden) key that unlocks the game on the destination machine and locks it on yours. To unlock it, you need someone with an unlocked game to do the same for you (doesn't have to be your original version). There, digital games shared with no 24 hour check-in. And if people can hack that...well, then frankly the entire console is compromised and every game is open to piracy. | ||
|
Infernal_dream
United States2359 Posts
On June 23 2013 02:38 WolfintheSheep wrote: Sharing requires a connection for a single transfer. The transfer generates an encrypted (hidden) key that unlocks the game on the destination machine and locks it on yours. To unlock it, you need someone with an unlocked game to do the same for you (doesn't have to be your original version). There, digital games shared with no 24 hour check-in. And if people can hack that...well, then frankly the entire console is compromised and every game is open to piracy. They can still do this, they are choosing to not to. Which has to make you think why in the hell are they not going to do this? There's something deeper that they are not explaining. We all know MS is shitty at PR and I think at the moment they're trying to use that to their advantage. They can still do the family circle with the requirement of "you have to be online to play another friends game" or some solution like that. Instead they threw the whole thing out the window. But honestly this thread is turning into a circle jerk of repeated statements at the moment. One side is believing MS and the other isn't. Both are saying the same thing over and over again. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
On June 22 2013 19:16 paralleluniverse wrote: Do you have a better suggestion on how we can move toward Steam-for-consoles? Apart from better PR (Microsoft was abysmal here, leaving only a few people, like me, to defend this), how should this transition have been implemented? Yes. By actually offering digital sales at a lower price. Not some random people on the internet defending it, claiming they might do it. Nonono by really doing it, day 1. I don't give a eff whether its the publisher or Microsoft choice that put the prices. If you want it to be good and fight used game, lower the price of digital. No "but at first we have to put it at 60$" bullshit. If a game is supposed to be lower because there is no risk of resell, then its worth less right now, not maybe if M$ is generous. And finally, steam still sell stuff at 60$, but what's great is that its easy to find the game on PC at 40-45$ elsewhere. With a single-service... good luck. If your system is good, people will gravitate towards it, if its not and you try to enforce it, adding the bad PR, you get the shitstorm that you deserved. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 23 2013 02:38 WolfintheSheep wrote: Sharing requires a connection for a single transfer. The transfer generates an encrypted (hidden) key that unlocks the game on the destination machine and locks it on yours. To unlock it, you need someone with an unlocked game to do the same for you (doesn't have to be your original version). There, digital games shared with no 24 hour check-in. And if people can hack that...well, then frankly the entire console is compromised and every game is open to piracy. That wouldn't be sharing the game, that would allow people to steal the game from someone else. Yes, I said it a thousand times, they CAN do the sharing, but they'll need something like: shared games can only be played online (or have a 24 hour check-in for shared games), even for a single player game. Microsoft seems open to possibly keeping sharing after launch. It takes effort to program and implement the DRM flip-flop and the same would be true if shared games had their own DRM restrictions. So it's possible that Microsoft doesn't have the time to get this in for launch. But if might also be possible that Microsoft doesn't want to do it because if it announces shared games are back with this sort of DRM, you can be sure that people will be screaming "DRM!!", while Sony skates by without scrutiny, despite the fact that they offer no game sharing feature. Or as Jibba claimed, although unlikely, perhaps Microsoft realized that sharing games is a terrible idea (yes, it really is) and used this as an excuse to kill the feature. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 23 2013 03:07 rezoacken wrote: Yes. Offering digital sales at a lower price. I don't give a eff whether its the publisher or Microsoft choice that put the prices. If you want it to be good and fight used game, lower the price of digital. No "but at first we have to put it at 60$" bullshit. And finally, steam still sell stuff at 60$, but what's great is that its easy to find the game on PC at 40-45$ elsewhere. With a single-service... good luck. If your system is good, people will gravitate towards it, if its not and you try to enforce it, adding the bad PR, you get the shitstorm that you deserved. Please cut the bullshit. You cannot get AAA new releases at $40-45 anywhere. Not on Steam, not on Amazon, not on Xbox Live, not on PSN. No one discounts their products on day 1, yet you expect Microsoft to announce discounts 6 months before the console is out. Get real. Complaints that Xbox Live has a monopoly on pricing Xbox games is like saying the NYSE has a monopoly on pricing American shares. | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
SOOP Global
Spirit vs SKillous
YoungYakov vs ShowTime
Anonymous
SOOP
HeRoMaRinE vs Astrea
BSL Season 20
UltrA vs Radley
spx vs RaNgeD
Online Event
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Percival vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Spirit
MaxPax vs Jumy
BSL Season 20
TerrOr vs HBO
Tarson vs Spine
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
