The XBox Thread - Page 191

On June 28 2013 10:10 semantics wrote:
I think microsoft will reintroduce diskless play in a similar fashion that i mentioned but now they can sit back and not annouce it until they are secure about their decision. Probably lead in with like you could play with the disk or without and just gloss over the Internet connection really microsoft has pisspoor PR.

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 02:42 paralleluniverse wrote:

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

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 17:25 Piledriver wrote:


No, the problem is that Microsoft has done nothing so far to earn the trust of gamers. Steam faced the same problems and backlash initially, but the biggest factor was that people had alternative ways to get games on their PC, so steam was just an option for them to get their games. From there Steam/Valve slowly earned the trust of people by providing them with enough reasons to install it on your PC. I don't think I would have even purchased half the number of games as I have, if it were not for those ridiculous steam sales where you got games for less than 2 dollars. Its the same reason why people are still wary of installing Origin and GFWL on their systems. The problem is not with digital content delivery. The problem is an issue of trust. And EA has been doing a bang up job of shutting down game servers for a lot of their games, which leads people to trust EA even less. Most people I know have Origin installed only to play BF3, and they use steam for everything else.

Which leads us to the XBOX One. It doesn't offer the same alternatives as steam at launch. If you bought the console (as originally designed), you were pretty much Microsoft's bitch in terms of buying and using your own game. Add to that, the fact that MS has a really poor history with gamers(especially on PC), combine it with region locking (did you know that the XBOX one can only be used in 17 countries for now, and doesnt include a whole lot of EU countries), 24 hour checkins, always on Kinect and so on, and you have far more backlash than what steam went through. If you bought your console, and had to move to for example, India for a year, you are SOL with the hardware you bought, since its not usable there.

So forgive me if I don't trust MS. They deserve the backlash they got, and their PR was even worse.

On June 28 2013 04:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Wrong. There are several arguments. You just chose to ignore them.



No shit. That's how the world works. Take some kind of benefit from the consumer? Give them something else to make up for it. Can't re-sell games? They should be cheaper. This is middle school-level logic.



Um, no. You literally completely ignored EVERY SINGLE POINT that people make as to why these DRM policies are OK.

The EXACT REASON that Steam's DRM policies are forgiven is because their service makes up for it. Very few issues in the gaming world are purely on principle; it's a matter of what the customer gets from the overall deal. When Steam has no re-sales of any kind but offers cheaper games in an incredibly convenient way with a far superior platform of delivery, then customers are satisfied because, despite the DRM policies, they are satisfied with all other aspects of the experience, so the money is worth it. Just saying the word non-sequitar doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you look incredibly pretentious and arrogant when you use it to completely ignore these points when they do, in fact, have relevance.

Oh, and why can't you re-sell digital products? Because that's just how digital products work. This is common sense here. Data isn't "used" in the way that a physical product is used, and to try to argue that digital products should be re-sellable in the same way is disingenuous and shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the subject. It's akin to saying that pirating a song is the equivalent of stealing something from a store; it's ridiculous and simply not true.



Strawman. This is NOT the most common argument and isn't the argument that the Jimquisition presents. The point about multiple digital distributors is a different issue and is simply a superior service by the PC over consoles.



None of your arguments have any relevance to the actual point. The point is this; when prices are higher, the service needs to be significantly better to justify this high price tag. The fact that these prices are lower on the PC while at the same time offering a superior service on the PC simply shows that MS's policies are failures. If MS wants to justify its heavy DRM policies, then it needs to get the publishers to lower the pricing points. You can't just hide behind, "B-b-b-b-b-but it's the publishers' fault!" when (if you are correct) the publishers are lowering their prices on the PC on platforms that also offer a better service than the XB1.

Even if it is incorrect that monopoly drives up the prices on XBL, you haven't explained what actually caused the prices to be high, and this needs to be done for these three points to have any relevance.



You're making an assumption with zero evidence. You have no evidence to support the idea that used games drove the price of retail games up and that the prices would drop if the used game industry died tomorrow (in fact, you'd be incredibly naive to assume that). It is just as likely that the used game market thrives so much BECAUSE retail games are so expensive.

Oh, and throwing around that same single study for the last two weeks doesn't make you look smart.



You have no evidence to suggest that XB1 sale/price drops would occur more frequently w/o the used game industry. Sales and price drops almost never happen on the current markets, and to tell the customer that they have to trust the industry and give up their safety/position first and hope that the industry then does something good for them is so fucking stupid that you deserve to be smacked. The industry has tried to royally screw the customer at every possible turn in almost every industry; capitalism isn't some Utopian land of flowers and sunshine where the business actually acts in the customers' interests just to be nice. To tell the customer that they have to give up the used game industry and then trust that the industry will drop prices is absolutely absurd and simply insulting.

Not only this, but here's an important point that everyone forgets; consoles have to go up against the used game industry with sales? Well, guess what, the PC has to go up against piracy, which is much, much, much MUCH more prevalent on the PC. Why doesn't piracy drive UP prices so PC developers get more money from their sales? Oh, that's right, because that's an idiotic model. Trying to milk more money out of fewer sales just pissed more people off. It is much more logical to 1) improve your product and 2) lower your price so that your product is actually worth buying compared to piracy/a pre-used product. Anyone in the world would tell you that, given competitive pricing, they would buy a new copy over a used one. Why? Because used copies are, by the nature of being used, less desirable. Everyone who's ever bought a used copy can tell you stories of things that were supposed to be in the physical copy that were missing or CD's that were damaged so that the game didn't last as long. Actually compete with pricing and you can start beating the used game industry, but to ask the consumer to just give up the used game industry and just say, "Oh, we'll lower prices if you do this for us" is ridiculous.

So, in summary, you ignored 90% of the points that those articles/videos made, built them up as strawmen, made a bunch of assumptions and conclusions based on very little evidence, and tried to pass yourself off as smart by constantly insulting people while actually coming across as an arrogant ass.

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.

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.

On June 28 2013 11:09 erin[go]bragh wrote:
Credit where credit is due Parallel, you've got the stamina of a fucking mule when it comes to arguing with people. For the record, as a lurker I usually really enjoy your posts. You were my favorite poster in the U.S Presidential election thread because you always argued your points coherently, were well versed in economics, and your posts were very well sourced.

That being said, I'm really not following you on this one. I think what bothers me the most is your unabated vitriol towards anyone who had anything bad to say about XB1's policies pre-flip flop. As someone who's into economics I'm surprised you're so mad at consumers for... being consumers. In a capitalistic society it's our duty as responsible consumers to be critical about everything that we hear. It isn't our job to lay down and take it while saying "Well, Steam is nice I guess." It isn't our job to project what their plans are, or how they will utilize their DRM. It's their job to show us their vision and answer our questions.

And as somebody pointed out earlier with the CliffyB quote, they should have been expecting this backlash. They should have been prepared with answers, likely many of the same things you've been spouting (you could probably replace their entire PR department tbh so long as you clean up the insults.) I'm not sure exactly what the perfect way to handle the PR situation would be, but I'll tell what is most assured the wrong way; canceling all your fucking post-E3 interviews/info sessions.

The blame for this flip flopping shit lies entirely on Microsoft, not the consumer, so stop trying to pile the blame on them just because they asked questions and received no answers.

And as others have pointed out, Steam faced enormous opposition during it's release. It was through years of improvement and good will that they won over PC users. If Microsoft really had this grand vision of cheap games and DRM induced euphoria, they should have either done a better job of projecting it to us or just fucking done it. Who cares about preorders? Console life spans are long these days, and if XB1 was really able to deliver on all the things you anticipated, they clearly would steamroll PS4 in the long run, right?

Regardless, arguing this stuff is kind of pointless since we'll never know now, barring some post release turn around (or perhaps another flip flop of epic proportions! Responding to the outcry of the outcry!)

I would go on but others have been making very good points already and you seem to have your hands full.

On June 29 2013 00:20 paralleluniverse wrote:

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to argue a point of view that I disagree with.

On June 29 2013 00:46 Excludos wrote:


and therein lies your whole problem. You're not trying to see things from both sides, discuss it, and come to a conclusion. You've already come to a conclusion based on your own narrow views, and have been trying for the last 191 pages to push that view onto everyone else.

This is a very bad way of socializing, and to live in general. No matter how much you think you're right, always try to view it from someone else's perspective. You might learn a thing or two.

On June 29 2013 00:49 paralleluniverse wrote:

I've thought about this and viewed it from many sides, and have come to the conclusion as expressed in this post.

I could also just say that most of the haters have thought about it from the perspective to evolving the console market from it's current state which is essentially the state of the PC market 10-20 years ago, to the current PC model, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction that restriction = bad.

On June 29 2013 00:20 paralleluniverse wrote:

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to argue a point of view that I disagree with.

Yes, there probably has been some vitriol. Some of that is reflected in what I write, but what I write is a reflection on the vitriol that Microsoft has been getting absolutely mobbed by. If it isn't obvious, this is a very one-sided mobbing.

I see no reason why I can't argue that the consumer backlash was wrong, because my argument isn't that their right to boycott and rage against Microsoft should be taken away--it shouldn't. They have that right. And I have the right to argue that they're wrong.

Other's have pointed out that Steam faced massive opposition. But so what? What's the point?

Yes, Microsoft's PR was terribly bad. Their communication was bad. Yes, they should have just done it. I didn't agree with everything that Microsoft was doing, I pointed out things I disagreed with here. But I recognized that despite the flaws, they were trying to move the console market in the direction set by the PC market, and that the benefits of this were great.

I see no reason why I can't argue that the consumer backlash was wrong, because my argument isn't that their right to boycott and rage against Microsoft should be taken away--it shouldn't. They have that right. And I have the right to argue that they're wrong.

On June 29 2013 01:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Parallel, that Japanese study you keep linking to does not entirely say what you think it says.

First, it says that used games are NOT a close substitute for new games. This means that the sale of used games is independent of the sale of new games. A person that buys a used game is not somebody that buys a new game. Second, it says consumers are forward looking. Which means we are more willing to pay the higher price because we can sell it later. This does not mean that new games are priced so high because of the used games market reducing profits. The conclusion seems to indicate that game prices are in fact too high. Since the new and used market are independent (as indicated earlier), they can get more profit if they optimally adjust their prices even without removing the used game market.

This section discusses elasticities of demand and supply based on the estimates of the full model.
[...]
Our primary focus here is on
E.2 and E.3, which show the cross-price elasticity of demand for new and used copies, respectively. Our
estimates show that the cross-price elasticities are generally very small for both new and used-copy demand,
suggesting that new and used copies are poor substitutes in Japan.

Source: Page 31

After the elimination of the used game market, the type-1 consumers who used
to buy a used copy in later weeks switch to new copies.

Source: Page 32

Used games absolutely do have an effect. If games can be resold then people will take into account that they can recoup costs by resale, so that they are willing to pay a higher price for the game than if resale isn't possible. Therefore, restricting resale means that people are less willing to pay that price, so that demand falls unless prices are reduced.

Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409554&currentpage=138#2755

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.

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

-More expansions, less DLC: There should be less DLC and more expansions. This is what we see in the PC market. It’s unfortunate that there is still so much DLC on PC, but the problem is much worse on consoles, where developers also use them as part of a desperate attempt to extend the life of games and to reduce resale. DLC are a massive ripoff. Preorder bonuses are completely ridiculous in both ripping people off and wasting developer resources on making content that is arbitrarily restricted by the physical store you preorder at, for absolutely no justifiable reason. Also, while not caused by used games, microtransactions have ruined the MMO genre and many other games, allowing those with more money to buy much greater conveniences and even power increases.

On June 29 2013 01:37 NeMaTo wrote:


@parallel
Your stance on this matter puzzles me. You say that the customer backlash was wrong. This means you think the customers were wrong. Then you defend your point by saying that "I'm not saying they don't have the right to rage. I'm just saying that I have the right to call the customers wrong too." With this type of argument, anyone could respond to you and say "I have the right to call you wrong too," and we'll just have a cycle of circular reasoning impeding any real progress. Defending your point by saying that you have the right to say whatever you just said doesn't prove anything. Last time I checked, no one was arguing about the freedom of speech. No one here forbid you to say what you want to say. I want to know if you have anything else to support your point of view, beyond the gimmickry of "I have the right to say that."

Edit:
Also might I add my two cents? Consumers are ALWAYS right. This isn't a monopoly. If Microsoft wants to sell their products, their products better meet the wants of the consumers.

As someone who's into economics I'm surprised you're so mad at consumers for... being consumers. In a capitalistic society it's our duty as responsible consumers to be critical about everything that we hear. It isn't our job to lay down and take it while saying "Well, Steam is nice I guess."

On June 29 2013 00:53 Excludos wrote:


You're also extremely good at only viewing certain aspects, skipping parts or entire posts, and talking down to everyone else. And yet you haven't found a single person who agrees with you over these 191 pages, you still stick to your views and desperately attempt to convince everyone that you're right.

No, you're not convincing me.