The XBox Thread - Page 190

On June 28 2013 01:51 TheRabidDeer wrote:

This is another good point. Games for Windows Live or whatever MS uses on the PC is annoying and it hasnt been improved at all.

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.

Edit: And stop saying I conceded. I can't concede. I agreed that WoW had DRM in the first post. I can't concede points that I agreed to. I cannot reverse my position by having the same position.

On June 28 2013 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:

There is no difference between internet access for computers and consoles. If you have internet for computer you can always use a router to make a wireless network for your console.

On June 28 2013 02:00 paralleluniverse wrote:

So Microsoft is a company that doesn't listen to it's customers, despite the fact that it's had the most epic flip-flop in recent history because of a mob of idiotic angry gamers on the internet demand it do so?

Steam is a good service. You talk about Steam's DRM not being restrictive. Not being able to resell or share games (which would have been possible on Xbox One) is far more restrictive than requiring a 24 hour check-in, which is no inconvenience at all. It's something that could be done on a 56K modem connection.

So given that you have no problem with used games, the only conclusion is that the only Microsoft policy you hated was the 24 hours check-in and not the resale policy. This is laughable because, again, it's something that can be done on a 56K modem connection. And you completely overlook the benefits, convenience of having all games attached to an online account, not requiring discs (which are now back), and a transition to the PC model.

On June 28 2013 02:00 paralleluniverse wrote:

So Microsoft is a company that doesn't listen to it's customers, despite the fact that it's had the most epic flip-flop in recent history because of a mob of idiotic angry gamers on the internet demand it do so?

Steam is a good service. You talk about Steam's DRM not being restrictive. Not being able to resell or share games (which would have been possible on Xbox One) is far more restrictive than requiring a 24 hour check-in, which is no inconvenience at all. It's something that could be done on a 56K modem connection.

So given that you have no problem with used games, the only conclusion is that the only Microsoft policy you hated was the 24 hours check-in and not the resale policy. This is laughable because, again, it's something that can be done on a 56K modem connection. And you completely overlook the benefits, convenience of having all games attached to an online account, not requiring discs (which are now back), and a transition to the PC model.

On June 28 2013 02:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7586-Why-PC-Gaming-Gets-Away-With-It

Please watch this video. It's a really good, concise summary of all of the reasons that the argument of, "The XB1 was just doing what the PC does!" is a bad argument.

Hell, I'll do your work for you.

1) PC digital retailers have significantly higher quality than console digital retailers. The services themselves are significantly faster, more convenient, and more customer-friendly on the PC than the console. There are integrated reviews/community features/etc. that simply make the services superior on the PC.

2) PC digital retailers have significantly better prices. Console digital retailers price everything to match the retail price of a physical copy, which is a ridiculous price to begin with. PC digital retailers have frequent sales on games that are already noticeably cheaper than console games.

3) Consoles create the used game problem themselves. The solution to used games is not to forcefully push them out of the equation; that just pissed people off because the only thing they are left with is a shitty service at bloated prices. The way to defeat used games is to offer a service that is WORTH buying over used games while putting it at an affordable price point (i.e. not $60).

4) PC digital retail is not monopolized. I can buy physical copies of the majority of games that I can buy digitally. I am not REQUIRED to subscribe to digital retailers and the DRM that is tacked onto the system.

5) Furthermore, I can switch digital retailers at any time without much consequence. If I don't like how Steam is doing business anymore? Switch to a different retailer. This isn't possible on the console.

6) Furthermore, far, far more Indy games and customization options/mods are available on the PC.

7) The entire point of consoles and why you would choose a console over the PC is convenience. The PC does the majority of things better, such as running games, giving you more freedom, giving you a better pricing point, giving you better controls/more internet options/etc. etc. etc. The thing that made the console appealing was 1) It's cheaper price point, 2) it's ease-of-use (much easier than using a PC), and 3) it's easy, on-the-couch multiplayer-friendly culture. MS's policies screwed with each of these points in one way or another.

8) There is no benefit given to the customer for what is lost with MS's prior policies.

9) Digital distributors on the PC have things like offline mode, less frequent online check-ins, and a number of social services that are superior to the console.

10) Consoles, for some ridiculous reason, don't do backwards compatibility anymore, so what happens to my games when they finish up with the XB1? The PC doesn't have this problem, as I can play games from the mid-90's on it still, and I'm on Windows 8.

To sum it up, the console doesn't do enough to justify MS's DRM policies, where digital distributors on the PC do plenty to justify DRM/used games policies.

2. “DRM for PC is OK, DRM for Xbox One is Not”
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.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409554&currentpage=187#3726

On June 28 2013 02:42 paralleluniverse wrote:

Please read by post where I specific sited this imbecilic rant from The Escapist:

On June 28 2013 02:42 paralleluniverse wrote:

Please read by post where I specifically cited that imbecilic rant from The Escapist:

On June 28 2013 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I have absolutely no idea why you choose to spam up hundreds of pages of this thread and still can't grasp the concept that comparing XB1 to Steam is completely idiotic. You've been told over and over and over and over again, yet you seem completely incapable of wrapping your head around the concept.

Steam is not PC. PC is not Steam. Steam is a single DRMed platform on the PC. Yet for some ungodly reason you decide that the two are synonymous.

On June 28 2013 06:24 s3rp wrote:
Apparently the new Kinect that comes with an Xbox-one will not work on a PC , like i speculated .

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-kinect-for-xbox-one-will-not-work-on-pcs/

I remember a few guys wanting to pick up the X-bone-one just for Kinect in this thread . So i guess these guys will have to wait for the PC version of Kinect .

On June 28 2013 06:21 semantics wrote:
XB1 had the 24 hour check due to diskless play, this is what their developers came out to combat someone just loaning a game out to 20 of their friends or putting it up on a torrent site then having 100 people all with the same copy of the game install it to their HDD's on the XB1 and playing it by just taking the system offline.

What they should have done is the check is required to play games without the disk, that is all, if you want to play without Internet connection you need the disk.

Steam and XBLive Games are not equivalent, although steam is large it's not the only dialog store available to PC gamers. There would only be one store available on the XB1 so it would only compete with disked based sold games. To that extent it's selling/giving away of games process is also based on the diskless play assumption which yes needs a middle man to verify the translation. Just look at how steam proposes to allow for game transfers, they will still act as a facilitator of 3rd party transactions.

On June 28 2013 06:31 semantics wrote:

It needs software which is stilly to think about now that the consoles are x86 and xb1 runs a modified windows 8 kernel. MS intends to put the kinect 2.0 on the PC like they did for 1.0

On June 28 2013 06:47 s3rp wrote:


They will but the version bundled with the consoles will not be that one . Someone that thought he could buy an Xbox-one to use the bundled Kinect with his PC should rethink that and wait for the the stand alone version for PC.

Can you make it work anyway ? I would think so but probably not as well as with the console.

On June 28 2013 06:41 ZasZ. wrote:


This is exactly right. You would have seen a lot less complaining about 24-hour check-ins if that was only for playing games installed on the system without the disk. Oh, I don't need to be online if I have the disk? Sweet, that's fine. It also wouldn't have alienated people in 21 countries, in the military, or anywhere with a shoddy internet connection.

I really don't know how people were defending it before, and now it's arguably worse because they gave up everything that was unique about their system in order to become a weaker, more expensive PS4 with a forced gimmicky add-on peripheral. At least you were going to get some sales before from people interested in the family sharing and really gung-ho about digital sales, now why exactly would I buy one?