The XBox Thread - Page 189

On June 28 2013 01:24 Plansix wrote:

Right, and people decided that they didn't like that and wanted to buy a PS4 instead(or we assume this because microsoft buckled so quickly). Its not shocking that with two similar products, people choose the one that gave them the most options.

On June 28 2013 01:25 paralleluniverse wrote:

For the 4th time you continue to dodge the question. Why not campaign for the removal of Steam's DRM anyway? Why should Steam have a 30 day DRM (it doesn't)? You say Steam is good now, but wouldn't it be even better without this DRM?

So it's OK to give Valve a chance, but not Microsoft?

On June 28 2013 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:

Right, given that you no longer dispute the parallel in the WoW DRM vs Xbox One DRM analogy, so you concede that WoW's online requirement is DRM now.

Yes, people made a choice. And the point of my 3700 word post is to say people are short-sighted idiots.

On June 28 2013 01:25 paralleluniverse wrote:

For the 4th time you continue to dodge the question. Why not campaign for the removal of Steam's DRM anyway? Why should Steam have a 30 day DRM (it doesn't)? You say Steam is good now, but wouldn't it be even better without this DRM?

So it's OK to give Valve a chance, but not Microsoft?

On June 28 2013 01:22 TheRabidDeer wrote:

Those features may still be put in. They said they were investigating methods to still have them.

Having WoW not online would remove almost every core feature of WoW. Group play is what it is about. You can't have a balanced online world with cooperation and still have that offline solo experience.

Indeed, WoW is DRM. You can't play WoW offline. DRM! Twitter is DRM. You can't tweet without access to the internet. DRM! Oh, but some people have argued that WoW is a MMO, as if that semantic argument relieves WoW of being DRM. Being online is intrinsic to WoW and Twitter, whereas it is not necessary for Xbox One to have a 24 hour check-in, so the argument goes, therefore, the online requirement of WoW and Twitter is not DRM. But this is completely wrong. The online requirement for WoW is just as much of a free choice by Blizzard as the 24 hours check-in is by Microsoft. Blizzard didn't have to make WoW an online game. They could have put in an offline mode, making the game more like Skyrim. It's also not necessary that Twitter requires the internet. It could have used the cell phone system, like SMS. By this sort of flaky logic, WoW and Twitter are DRM, just like Xbox One, and therefore should be boycotted, and internet rage should be directed by internet users on Blizzard and Twitter for requiring an internet connection to use their service. The second part of the argument is also wrong--Xbox One does necessarily require a 24 hour check-in. It is necessary. Without it, it would be possible to have your friend login with his account on your Xbox One, then download all his games on your console so that you have access to them forever. It would also be possible to resell a physical game, but still play the game by staying offline so the console does not know that you've sold the game.

On June 28 2013 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:

Right, given that you no longer dispute the parallel in the WoW DRM vs Xbox One DRM analogy, so you concede that WoW's online requirement is DRM now.

Yes, people made a choice. And the point of my 3700 word post is to say people are short-sighted idiots.

On June 28 2013 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:

They may be put in. But that would require an alternative DRM scheme.

The fact that having WoW not online would make WoW a different game changes nothing about by argument, in fact it supports it because not having the 24 hour DRM makes Xbox One a completely different (and far inferior) console. None of this changes the fact that my argument is completely valid:

On June 28 2013 01:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:

So the people that run MS are short-sighted idiots then. It was their decision to not do it, not ours. Blame microsoft.

On June 28 2013 01:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:

The difference in features and experience between the two are what make it not a legitimate argument.

Difference between WoW and offline WoW is night and day, completely different game.
Difference between XB1 and offline XB1 is.... no sharing. All of the games stay the same. The content is the same and aside from sharing the features are the same.

On June 28 2013 01:37 paralleluniverse wrote:

Don't go diverting blame, you were part of the chorus of outraged gamers who forced Microsoft to flip-flop. You all share part of the blame.

I did blame Microsoft, I called them spineless cowards. But you're part of the problem too. Too blind to see that the console market is complete shit. Yet you advocate perpetuating this overpriced and inefficient system and resisting a change to the PC model, which has made PC gaming amazingly better than the trash that is the current console market.

On June 28 2013 01:40 paralleluniverse wrote:

The difference is absolutely night and day, as I've already said. No disc required, the liberating convenience of a central online account that games are all attached to, sharing games, reselling games, and move towards to PC model, as opposed to remaining stuck in the past.

You should read my post before making such a completely wrong claim that the two Xbox One's are virtually the same. Moving to the PC model for console games would have been a big fucking deal.

On June 28 2013 01:30 Plansix wrote:


Yes, Valve is a more responsive company that clearly that has proven that they are willing to listen. Microsoft's response to this was flat out terrible. The rules were confusing, their messaging was poor and they provided little reason for the consumer to think they were not being screwed. When people like Cliff Bleszinski call out Microsoft's PR team and say "It's amateur hour out there. They should be prepared for these questions, not acting like people are crazy for asking."

In theory, people don't have a problem with DRM. People can be sold DRM if they see that it makes their use of the counsel or product better. Microsoft did a shitting job of selling it.

On June 28 2013 01:33 Plansix wrote:


I stated the WoW had DRM in my first post, so I am not conceding anything. I also said it didn't fucking matter because the consumer got value out of the DRM.

On June 28 2013 01:37 paralleluniverse wrote:

Don't go diverting blame, you were part of the chorus of outraged gamers who forced Microsoft to flip-flop. You all share part of the blame.

I did blame Microsoft, I called them spineless cowards. But you're part of the problem too. Too blind to see that the console market is complete shit. Yet you advocate perpetuating this overpriced and inefficient system and resisting a change to the PC model, which has made PC gaming amazingly better than the trash that is the current console market.

On June 28 2013 01:37 paralleluniverse wrote:

Don't go diverting blame, you were part of the chorus of outraged gamers who forced Microsoft to flip-flop. You all share part of the blame.

I did blame Microsoft, I called them spineless cowards. But you're part of the problem too. Too blind to see that the console market is complete shit. Yet you advocate perpetuating this overpriced and inefficient system and resisting a change to the PC model, which has made PC gaming amazingly better than the trash that is the current console market.

On June 28 2013 01:44 paralleluniverse wrote:

Well, then we're agreed. The whole argument was that WoW has DRM and Twitter has DRM. And you've conceded that point.

Now the next point of the argument, which you continue to dodge for probably the 5th time is why don't you complain? You argue that Steam DRM is acceptable, but why don't you complain to have it removed? Steam is good, but surely removing the DRM would make it even better?

On June 28 2013 01:34 YMCApylons wrote:
The Steam analogy is invalid.

Even ten years ago, there were already virtually no computers, and definitely no gaming-capable computers, that did not have internet access. The same is not true at all for consoles. Hence the uproar from the military, et cetera.

Sometimes, it is pointed out that other groups, often the military, in an attempt to engender sympathy, are being screwed over. But the war in Iraq is over and the war in Afghanistan is ending in 2014, only a short time after the release of the Xbox One. So get over it or get a PS4, because the benefits of online play are numerous and the console market should not be designed as if the entire world is without internet.

From: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409554&currentpage=188#3759

On June 28 2013 01:48 Plansix wrote:

Not that much better. Steams is a great service and Valve is very responsive. Microsoft is a pain in the ass to deal with and fixing problems with my Xbox live account has been a pain.

You seem confused on the subject. People don't dislike DRM automatically. They dislike DRM that is created by crappy companies that don't listen to them. I don't mind DRM that doesn't suck.

On June 28 2013 01:46 s3rp wrote:


You can't an open platform like PC with the closed systems of consoles. On PC i can play any games without having to worry about backwards compatibility ( even though i'll sometime require mods or Patches made by fans ) . Not to mention how many forms of destribution there are on PC . MS or Sony are not going to open digital distribution to third parties like its on PC.

What MS was trying to do is implement the negative side of PC gaming without even promising us ONE positive . Everything potentially positive was speculation by people that had nothing to do with MS.

And btw concerning DRM and Steam it's extremely easy to circumvent the DRM . ( which btw is not illegal if i bought the product ) on PC . With my Masseffect 3 i switched a few filed out and changed a few lines of code and it didn't need Origin anymore at all . ( i dislike Origin and didn't want to deal with it after registration ) I could still play Single and Multiplayer just fine afterwards.

Those who argue that DRM for PC gaming and Steam is OK, but that it's not OK for Xbox One, are valueless hypocrites. These failed arguments are made, for example, in this imbecilic rant from The Escapist and this screed of fallacious arguments from Eurogamer. The argument essentially boils down to DRM is OK on Steam because Steam has sales, but it's not OK on Xbox One, because Xbox Live doesn't have sales.

If you're against Xbox One for DRM, yet subscribe to this argument, you're a sellout. You're selling out your anti-DRM values for cheaper games. No one has been able to articulate why digital games, such as those on Steam, should have DRM, whereas physical games, like discs, should not have DRM. Why is it OK that a digital game cannot be resold, but it's not OK if a physical game cannot be resold? As you rail against Microsoft's rather weak DRM, why don't you complain about Steam's DRM? Because Steam has cheap games? This is a non-sequitar. If you're against DRM, the fact that Steam has cheap games does not imply that Steam's DRM should skate past without scrutiny. Why not take Steam's cheap games and still boycott and rage against Valve for their oppressive and draconian policies that outright stops you from reselling games and sharing games? Is it because you're scared that without such DRM policies that Steam games wouldn’t be so cheap? Unless you're harshly criticizing Valve, which no one in these arguments is, for their outrageously restrictive DRM policies, you're a massive hypocrite selling out your values.

Then we turn to the question of why games are cheaper on Steam. The most common argument is that there is competition on PC because of platforms like Steam, Origin, Greenman Gaming, and GOG (which sells mostly old games that no one cares about anymore), whereas there's no competition on consoles. Xbox Live is the only way to get digital games on Xbox. But this is completely wrong for at least three reasons.

Firstly, publishers, not Microsoft, set prices. They set the price on Steam, Origin, Amazon, Xbox Live, PSN, etc. And publishers do not have a monopoly. Publishers compete with each other. So it makes no sense to say that Microsoft has a monopoly on Xbox Live and that's why prices are high. Microsoft doesn't set prices on Xbox Live. When Microsoft announced the price of first-party Xbox One games, why do you think they didn’t announce the price of third-party Xbox One games too? Because they have nothing to do with those prices.

Secondly, why doesn't this argument imply that game prices are high on all platforms? Prices on Xbox Live are high because that's the only place you can buy digital games for Xbox. Then prices on Steam should be high because that's the only place you can buy digital games for Steam. Prices on the Blizzard store should be high because that's the only place you can buy digital games for Battle.net. Share prices of UK companies should be high because the only place you can buy them is at the London Stock Exchange. The argument simply makes no sense.

Thirdly, the premise that prices are high on Xbox Live because that's the only place to get Xbox games is simply not true. You can buy Xbox games on Amazon, at Gamestop, on Ebay, and various other outlets. So there is competition between sellers of Xbox games. The same is true of PS games. But then why hasn't this competition driven down the prices of console games to the levels of PC games. Due to being distracted by the faulty premise to their arguments, no one has convincingly answered this fundamental question. Why is it that console games cannot be as cheap as PC games?

The haters wouldn’t dare say it's because PC games cannot be resold. Admitting that would be just too much hypocrisy: believing that DRM is bad, but it's good if games are cheap, but games can't possibly be cheap because of DRM. A recent paper agrees with my arguments by showing that customers are currently willing to pay higher prices for console games because they know they can recover part of that cost later by resale, and that killing resale would mean they are not willing to pay as high of a price. The conclusion of the study is that killing resale but leaving prices unchanged will reduce profits by 10%. But killing resale and lowering prices by 33% will increase profits by 18%, and this is the profit-maximizing price. In other words, killing resale is a win-win, consumers pay lower prices and game makers get higher profit. So who loses? The resellers.

But then why are Xbox One games $60? But why are AAA new releases on Steam almost always charged at full recommended retail price, which is usually $60? Because people who buy games at release are fans that are willing to pay a higher price. But like Steam, prices on Xbox One would have likely dropped faster as a result of DRM. Games which aren’t AAA would likely have been cheaper. However, they wouldn’t be as cheap as Steam, because Xbox One’s restrictions, contrary to the exaggerated complaints, was rather mild compared to Steam’s draconian DRM policies which so many people hypocritically give a free pass to. One of the mistakes of Xbox One was not supporting backward compatibility. Just like Steam, that would have allowed publishers to sell new games at full price in almost all situations, and old games at significantly cheaper prices. Regardless, you can now continue to enjoy overpriced console games courtesy of your misguided outrage.

From: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409554&currentpage=187#3732