|
"Video game publishers often claim that the existence of the used game market lowers the sales of new games. The claim is often based on the conjecture that if there were no used game market, most of the used copies buyers would switch to a new copy. However, our cross-price elasticity of demand indicates that this concern is likely unimportant in Japan."
Type-1 consumers in the article are typically consumers that purchase new in the first period (70% of new copy sales are from type-1 consumers). It isnt until the 5th week in that type1 tend to purchase used rather than new.
"These findings suggest that if the used good market is shut down, the increase in the sales of new copies mainly comes from type-1 consumers"
This means that any new sales comes from these type 1 consumers months after release.
Also, the sentence directly after your quote about the used game market:
"Also, note that since type-1 consumers seldom sell, they are not affected by the eliminated selling opportunity."
These are basically people that have enough money to not care as much about the prices, so it stands to reason that they would continue to buy. This ignores the 30% of type-2 consumers that rely on the used game market to make any new game sales.
EDIT: Type 2 consumers are only 30% of new game sales, but provide for 99% of the used game market.
Further:
"This paper does not explicitly model the supply-side competition between video game publishers and used game retailers."
"Although we find that the average profits of the games we examined could increase after eliminating the used game market, we do not know if the game publishers are setting their prices optimally in the current situation."
It feels like I am not making a solid argument right now, I shouldve slept more.
EDIT: BTW, still unaddressed:
Possible solution so as to not require 24 hour checkins
One console is flagged for a user. You check in once then can go offline. If you want to use another console (to play games remotely) you must go online and check out on that offline console. Is this not a solution that could work?
Games for Windows Live or whatever MS uses on the PC is annoying and it hasnt been improved at all. This means they don't have the best of track records for listening. Then you can look to Windows 8, they removed the start menu... despite lots of anger. This is something that has to change, as this is the stigma that MS has in relation to their products. They need better PR to sell us their products.
Paralleluniverse what you fail to include in your argument between Steam and Consoles is that Steam is just a Platform which has nothing to do with the system that runs the platform. This is not the case with Consoles and Xbox-live/PSN those are integral parts of the console . Which means the console manufacturers do have more say than Steam does
|
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this.
|
On June 29 2013 02:55 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:53 Excludos wrote:On June 29 2013 00:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2013 00:46 Excludos wrote: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.
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. 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. 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. I think I've responded to virtually every main argument or new argument. But if you expect me to personally respond to every attack or response, then I must tell you that it's not physically possible. There's hundreds of you and only one of me. If I did that, then I would have no time to do anything else.
No, you avoid the real points and go on endless rants that have no point and no meaning. And you falsely conflate change with innovation.
1) Steam is not PC. Steam is not PC. Steam is not PC. Steam is not PC. STEAM IS NOT PC. Do you understand yet? So stop talking about the PC platform and basing every single one of your arguments on Steam.
2) 24 hour check-in is not required. Suggesting such a thing shows a severe lack of creativity and problem solving on your part.
3) Disc based games are not dead on the PC. You are blind or willfully ignorant if you believe such a thing.
4) There is still a used PC game market. You are blind or willfully ignorant if you don't believe that.
In fact, the entirety of your "conclusion" post is a complete work of fiction because you apparently know nothing about the PC game market. You believe that the PC gaming market is the Steam Box. It is not. Until you can wrap your head around that concept, your ranting and raving will continue to be a giant joke.
|
On June 29 2013 03:04 TheRabidDeer wrote:"Video game publishers often claim that the existence of the used game market lowers the sales of new games. The claim is often based on the conjecture that if there were no used game market, most of the used copies buyers would switch to a new copy. However, our cross-price elasticity of demand indicates that this concern is likely unimportant in Japan." Type-1 consumers in the article are typically consumers that purchase new in the first period (70% of new copy sales are from type-1 consumers). It isnt until the 5th week in that type1 tend to purchase used rather than new. "These findings suggest that if the used good market is shut down, the increase in the sales of new copies mainly comes from type-1 consumers" This means that any new sales comes from these type 1 consumers months after release. Also, the sentence directly after your quote about the used game market: "Also, note that since type-1 consumers seldom sell, they are not affected by the eliminated selling opportunity." These are basically people that have enough money to not care as much about the prices, so it stands to reason that they would continue to buy. This ignores the 30% of type-2 consumers that rely on the used game market to make any new game sales. EDIT: Type 2 consumers are only 30% of new game sales, but provide for 99% of the used game market. Further: "This paper does not explicitly model the supply-side competition between video game publishers and used game retailers." "Although we find that the average profits of the games we examined could increase after eliminating the used game market, we do not know if the game publishers are setting their prices optimally in the current situation." It feels like I am not making a solid argument right now, I shouldve slept more. EDIT: BTW, still unaddressed: Show nested quote +Possible solution so as to not require 24 hour checkins
One console is flagged for a user. You check in once then can go offline. If you want to use another console (to play games remotely) you must go online and check out on that offline console. Is this not a solution that could work?
Games for Windows Live or whatever MS uses on the PC is annoying and it hasnt been improved at all. This means they don't have the best of track records for listening. Then you can look to Windows 8, they removed the start menu... despite lots of anger. This is something that has to change, as this is the stigma that MS has in relation to their products. They need better PR to sell us their products. Show nested quote +Paralleluniverse what you fail to include in your argument between Steam and Consoles is that Steam is just a Platform which has nothing to do with the system that runs the platform. This is not the case with Consoles and Xbox-live/PSN those are integral parts of the console . Which means the console manufacturers do have more say than Steam does
This is an irrelevant diversion and a strawman argument.
No one has said anything about whether people who buy used games will switch to new games if resale is eliminated. And no one has claimed that the price of new games is high "because of the used games market reducing profits". Yet you've falsely accused me of the latter (or you randomly added in this completely irrelevant statement). This is already part of the model so none of this changes the conclusion of the paper that the profit-maximizing prices reduces by 33% if resale is killed. So I do not see how any of this is relevant or changes anything.
Regardless, you say that 70% of new sales are from type-1 consumers, but that's partly because 84.6% of all consumers are type-1 consumers (page 26).
Then you write:
"These findings suggest that if the used good market is shut down, the increase in the sales of new copies mainly comes from type-1 consumers"
This means that any new sales comes from these type 1 consumers months after release.
You completely twisted that statement by inserting, seemingly out of nowhere, that this happens "months after release".
Also, the sentence directly after your quote about the used game market:
"Also, note that since type-1 consumers seldom sell, they are not affected by the eliminated selling opportunity."
These are basically people that have enough money to not care as much about the prices, so it stands to reason that they would continue to buy. This ignores the 30% of type-2 consumers that rely on the used game market to make any new game sales.
You pulled the underlined part seemingly out of nowhere too.
What is the question? What is the point?
I think the point you are trying to make is that people who would have bought used games would not switch to new games if resale is killed. But this is completely irrelevant to the question of prices. However, if you look at Table 6, you'll see that 90% of used game sales are done my type-1 consumers (in fact, most sales are done by type-1 consumers, because 85% of all consumers are type-1 consumers). Then on page 32 it says:
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.
So in conclusion, you're bringing up random facts, that do not form a cohesive argument, I do not see your point. And these facts are completely irrelevant to the argument that is being made and the conclusion of the paper, that killing resale lowers the profit-maximizing price.
No, the paper doesn't examine whether the current prices is optimal. If current prices are below optimal (games are currently too cheap and increasing prices will increase profits), then the conclusion of the study can be in doubt. But if current prices are above optimal, the findings of the study are reinforced.
On the other posts:
-Your DRM solution still allows people to play games that they've sold, since it doesn't have to go online to check that you no longer have the game.
-Blizzard didn't listen to my suggestion to remove the RMAH from Diablo 3. They don't care. Valve didn't listen to my idea to reverse trading scams and ban scammers like GMs do in WoW. they don't care. Yes, Microsoft needs better PR. Microsoft should never be allowed to implement Steam for consoles because you're annoyed by their service?
-I don't see your point. More say on what? And why does it matter?
|
On June 29 2013 04:33 paralleluniverse wrote:
Microsoft should never be allowed to implement Steam for consoles because you're annoyed by their service?
Do you not understand what Xbox Live Arcade is?
|
On June 29 2013 04:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 04:33 paralleluniverse wrote:
Microsoft should never be allowed to implement Steam for consoles because you're annoyed by their service? Do you not understand what Xbox Live Arcade is?
He missed that part. Also, I didn't know you could argue just by calling every argument a strawman and ignoring it. It is a good skill to have.
|
On June 29 2013 03:27 NeMaTo wrote:
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this.
I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good.
I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens my DRM argument, and you seem to admit that there's a double standard about DRM. And this hypocrisy is very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK, but if it's new DRM, even if it removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage, regardless of the merits of either. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking.
The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it, it would be possible to play every single game for free, isn't something that would easily follow for gamers whose thinking is stuck in the outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled by the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards.
As for different groups of players not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM.
So in conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it.
|
On June 29 2013 05:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 03:27 NeMaTo wrote:
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this. I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good. I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens by DRM argument, and you seem to admit that the there's a double standards about DRM that are very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK. If it's new DRM, even if removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking. The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it would be possible to play every single for free, isn't something that would easily follow if you're thinking is struck in outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this outdated mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled to the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards. As for differnt group of players, not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM. So I conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it. It doesn't excusing that such thinking is retrogressive.
Every single one of your arguments boils down to calling the other person dumb and then disregarding what they said. Calling people who disagree with you stupid is, in fact, the weakest form of argument.
|
Parallel just Quad posted on the last page and literally took half the page with just his posts. And I thought double posting was bad...
I hereby nominate Parallel the Forikorder of The Xbox One thread.
|
On June 29 2013 05:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2013 03:27 NeMaTo wrote:
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this. I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good. I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens by DRM argument, and you seem to admit that the there's a double standards about DRM that are very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK. If it's new DRM, even if removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking. The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it would be possible to play every single for free, isn't something that would easily follow if you're thinking is struck in outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this outdated mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled to the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards. As for differnt group of players, not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM. So I conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it. It doesn't excusing that such thinking is retrogressive. Every single one of your arguments boils down to calling the other person dumb and then disregarding what they said. Calling people who disagree with you stupid is, in fact, the weakest form of argument.
I've called many ideas as dumb, but I've never called anyone dumb and disregarded what they said.
In fact, I complimented this poster for writing a defensible point of view that wasn't riddled with bad arguments.
|
On June 29 2013 05:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:02 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2013 05:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2013 03:27 NeMaTo wrote:
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this. I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good. I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens by DRM argument, and you seem to admit that the there's a double standards about DRM that are very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK. If it's new DRM, even if removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking. The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it would be possible to play every single for free, isn't something that would easily follow if you're thinking is struck in outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this outdated mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled to the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards. As for differnt group of players, not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM. So I conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it. It doesn't excusing that such thinking is retrogressive. Every single one of your arguments boils down to calling the other person dumb and then disregarding what they said. Calling people who disagree with you stupid is, in fact, the weakest form of argument. I've called many ideas as dumb, but I've never called anyone dumb and disregarded what they said. In fact, I complimented this poster for writing a defensible point of view that wasn't riddled with bad arguments.
The entirety of your arguments are built upon willful lies. You lie about how games work on the PC, you lie about what Steam is, you lie about what Microsoft and Sony have on their existing platforms.
And the only way your points remotely work is if you believe every single one of your lies.
|
On June 29 2013 05:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 05:02 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2013 05:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2013 03:27 NeMaTo wrote:
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this. I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good. I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens by DRM argument, and you seem to admit that the there's a double standards about DRM that are very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK. If it's new DRM, even if removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking. The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it would be possible to play every single for free, isn't something that would easily follow if you're thinking is struck in outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this outdated mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled to the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards. As for differnt group of players, not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM. So I conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it. It doesn't excusing that such thinking is retrogressive. Every single one of your arguments boils down to calling the other person dumb and then disregarding what they said. Calling people who disagree with you stupid is, in fact, the weakest form of argument. I've called many ideas as dumb, but I've never called anyone dumb and disregarded what they said. In fact, I complimented this poster for writing a defensible point of view that wasn't riddled with bad arguments.
Those must be few and far between. Every post I have read you call people who dislike the DRM dumb, people's writing skills poor or you just claim the arguments are nonsense.
Personally, I had no need for the Xbox One DRM. I didn't need any of the features is added to physical games, so I wasn't going to buy it. I didn't think it was evil, but I can see why people wouldn't want it.
|
XBox One DRM is dumb.
Anyone who thinks it's good is even dumber.
Do I win?
|
On June 29 2013 05:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 03:27 NeMaTo wrote:
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this. I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good. I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens my DRM argument, and you seem to admit that there's a double standard about DRM. And this hypocrisy is very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK, but if it's new DRM, even if it removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage, regardless of the merits of either. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking. The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it, it would be possible to play every single game for free, isn't something that would easily follow for gamers whose thinking is stuck in the outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled by the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards. As for different groups of players not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM. So in conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it.
You keep making your argument based on the assumption that a 24-hour check-in was necessary to the system functioning. Explain why that is? Why can't there be no online requirement to play a game from a disk, and a check-in on loading a game up that's installed on the console without the disk in the tray? I guarantee you there wouldn't have been nearly the same kind of backlash had they utilized a system like that. At least not about DRM, the other issues would have stood.
|
On June 29 2013 02:50 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 01:37 NeMaTo wrote: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. @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. Here's where this started: Show nested quote +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." He seems to be implying that I shouldn't criticize consumers for exercising their rights. I'm saying I have the right to criticize consumers for exercising this particular right. And you're free to criticize me for criticizing consumers. I see no circularity here, because any such criticism must be based off substance and sound reasoning. As for if there's anything to support my criticism: the criticism and the arguments in it are here.
Just for the record, I wasn't saying that you shouldn't criticize consumers, just that I was genuinely surprised that you were. Maybe its a bit of hubris on your part. It's always the business's job to convince people of the usefulness of their product. You can call people short sighted or idiotic but the fact of the matter is that so much of what you're talking about is very esoteric. This doesn't make people who aren't well versed in the PC gaming ecology idiots, it just means they either choose not to or don't have the time to read up on the subject. Again, this is something that should have been done for them, by Microsoft.
An example. I work in retail selling wine. If someone doesn't know the grapes that comprise a Bordeaux wine, or they pronounce "Merlot" wrong, I could be a snob and turn up my nose while snickering in their faces. But that would be terrible for business. People don't like being treated like idiots. Furthermore, the notion that I'd look down on someone for lacking that kind of information is ridiculous. Most people are casual drinkers, much like gamers. Most have no need or desire to read up on the intricacies of something that I personally enjoy and am surrounded by. And thats perfectly okay.
Microsoft fell victim to their own arrogance. They thought they could ride on the success of the 360 while pushing the "entertainment box" aspects of their console while ignoring their core demographic. They plugged their ears to criticism rather than respond with well argued points and expected everyone to either fall in line like sheep or "buy a 360." As I said before, they could have had half the things you've said in this thread prepared for naysayers and I feel like they could have done a good job holding back the flood.
And let me be clear about this: you do make a lot of good points. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Pushing consoles closer to what PC has is IMO a very good thing. But as much as you say that Microsoft were trying to be trailblazers and bring consoles into the next generation with their imaginativeness, it's really the complete opposite of that. They looked at how digital distribution works on PC and tried to apply that to consoles without really adding any (well thought out) innovation of their own, or adapting it to the clearly different console market.
They could have done so much of what they wanted to do, and they could have seemed like heroes for it. If they weren't so fucking dumb. The 24 hour check in was too restrictive, especially when applied to non digital single player games. They could have kept the rules for digital and physical separate, and gave people the choice. Consumers love choice! What they hate is "Here, everything is changing and if you don't like it, buy a 360." Once digital started providing better deals and more convenience than physical copies, people would naturally gravitate to it more. The "used game problem" would be stamped out by the consumers' own volition, rather than Microsoft seeming to force the issue, which people hate.
Basically this is a very long winded post of me saying that Microsoft shoulders all the blame for their fuck up, and they did a terrible job at realizing what I agree could have been a great step forward for consoles. They got exactly what a company deserves when they try to treat consumers like sheep, and now maybe next time they'll actually devote some resources to proper PR and have a bit more success out of the gate.
Businesses improve because we give them shit until we get what we want. And while I agree that what we want isn't always what we need, there is always a middle ground. And there are always ways to sway consumers to your side while making them think its by their own choice. Microsoft just tried to much too soon with a demographic of people unfamiliar with PCs, and they did a terrible job of explaining the benefits of what they were doing.
|
On June 29 2013 07:55 erin[go]bragh wrote:Basically this is a very long winded post of me saying that Microsoft shoulders all the blame for their fuck up, and they did a terrible job at realizing what I agree could have been a great step forward for consoles. They got exactly what a company deserves when they try to treat consumers like sheep, and now maybe next time they'll actually devote some resources to proper PR and have a bit more success out of the gate.
Businesses improve because we give them shit until we get what we want. And while I agree that what we want isn't always what we need, theres always a middle ground. And theres always ways to sway consumers to your side while making them think its by their own choice. Microsoft just tried to much too soon with a demographic of people unfamiliar with PCs, and they did a terrible job of explaining the benefits of what they were doing.
Pretty much this--Microsoft was thinking too far into the future and had forgotten about the present. Had they gone with a slower paced, gradual approach toward moving to digital, things would have been fine. But they had decided to strip away choice in such a manner that seemingly gave the middle finger to millions of current 360 owners.
The outrage over the whole thing was just--Microsoft knew there would be backlash and still went ahead with their plan. In the end, they believed that even with backlash, their preorders would have be fine. Unfortunately for them, their decisions had hindered sales quite substantially and hurt them more so than they expected. And because of their lacking preorder sales compared to the Playstation 4, they made the financial decision to reverse the whole thing.
What is worse is that not only has Microsoft screwed up their PR, they have done it repeatedly. You would think they would learn from their lackluster E3 performance and seemingly nongamer-friendly dialogue going on. But they did not and continued to screw things up--even the reversal was poorly done and even delivered in such a corporate manner.
We are gamers, treat us like gamers and not statistics.
Edit: Just realized the time for TL differed so it shows its my bday when it is actually tomorrow haha. Happy early bday to me! haha
|
So we would have to pay and still see adverts... Just waiting for popups to come along.
“Xbox is moving more outside of the bedroom. We’re seeing much, much more people use it in living rooms where there is family, friends, there is lots going on, so there is a context of perceiving the content,” says the Senior Digital Art Director/UX Designer. “It’s not like when you’re at work when you sit in front of a screen and your experience is very personal. But with Xbox, it’s lots of people in front of once big screen. They are playing or watching together and advertising is being consumed in a totally different way.”
And like all advertising agencies, the Xbox team are just as interested in their audience. As an Xbox 360 user for around 4 years who never clicks on the ads and is fully aware on where they are placed on the dashboard, it was certainly interesting to hear their facts and opinions on the Xbox audience who do, and could potentially, engage with advertisements on the console.
“On Xbox, the ad is part of the actual experience, it’s not something that is outside. The only difference is that the advertisement we have is quite small and not disruptive so people are not aware of clicking on the banners because they know this is a part of the whole experience on the dash,” said the Senior Digital Art Director/UX Designer. “So the users know that this is something that when they click on it, they won’t be hit by something crazy or something dangerous like on the web. Everything that lands there, we create.”
Source
|
On June 29 2013 08:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So we would have to pay and still see adverts... Just waiting for popups to come along. Show nested quote +“Xbox is moving more outside of the bedroom. We’re seeing much, much more people use it in living rooms where there is family, friends, there is lots going on, so there is a context of perceiving the content,” says the Senior Digital Art Director/UX Designer. “It’s not like when you’re at work when you sit in front of a screen and your experience is very personal. But with Xbox, it’s lots of people in front of once big screen. They are playing or watching together and advertising is being consumed in a totally different way.”
And like all advertising agencies, the Xbox team are just as interested in their audience. As an Xbox 360 user for around 4 years who never clicks on the ads and is fully aware on where they are placed on the dashboard, it was certainly interesting to hear their facts and opinions on the Xbox audience who do, and could potentially, engage with advertisements on the console.
“On Xbox, the ad is part of the actual experience, it’s not something that is outside. The only difference is that the advertisement we have is quite small and not disruptive so people are not aware of clicking on the banners because they know this is a part of the whole experience on the dash,” said the Senior Digital Art Director/UX Designer. “So the users know that this is something that when they click on it, they won’t be hit by something crazy or something dangerous like on the web. Everything that lands there, we create.” Source
Yeah, its the nature of the beast I guess. Making those the UI and creating a market place costs money, so I don't mind ads all that much, as long as they aren't on the home screen. I can deal with movie ads in the movie sections and ads for games in the game section. I just don't want ads for shampoo in the system menu.
|
On June 29 2013 05:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 03:27 NeMaTo wrote:
@parallel
The situation in which Microsoft finds itself against its customers is not about ethics or morality. Whether these consumers are "hypocrites" or "morons," as you put so mildly, does not make a difference to Microsoft because it is a variable that is outside their control. Because this is beyond their control, they need to conform to what consumers say if they want to be in business. The competition among Microsoft and other companies prohibits any of them from dictating the terms on which consumers and they agree on. As long as there is fierce competition, consumers will have options that give them power to influence the direction in which the market is headed. Now, calling these consumers in derogatory terms such as hypocrites is unnecessary, and it has no real effect on the outcome that has already been decided in this case.
If XB One's restrictive policies made consumers reject this product, then that is evidence enough to call these policies anti-consumer. I don't need to allocate any more words to defend this point because that is already self-explanatory in the definition of "anti-consumer."
DRM
You are absolutely right to call on the double standards for DRM. Whether we are talking about the disparity between consoles and PC, or the WoW model and XB One, double standards that consumers have set for DRM give companies a headache as they walk the thin line between maximizing their profit and repelling their customers away.
But here is the thing. The points you made are only strengthened if we generalize the consumer base as an entity. But in reality, WoW players are not necessarily the same demographics as the potential XB One purchasers. Steam users are not necessarily the same people who are considering next-gen consoles. Moreover, the DRM of WoW is accepted because it is the business model that they introduced from the get-go. "If you want to play on our servers, you have to be online." Well, that made sense to a lot of people, no problem. It is another matter when Microsoft surprises people who already expect certain things by saying "now you need online connection for verification purposes, or your console will lock up after 24 hours." Now consumers are upset because they were already expecting XB One to be a product to which they will have full ownership of, yet they were being told that they cannot exercise their full ownership under certain circumstances. This weakens your analogy about DRM, and justifies the double standards for DRM a little bit.
Whether I accept or reject DRM is a completely different matter. To me, the idea of DRM is as normal as a lock on people's front doors. But I cannot deny that the way in which some companies tried to implement DRM has been questionable to me, and to a lot of people apparently. You seem to take on an extreme end of "DRM = GOOD," but it shouldn't be a surprise to you that most people disagree with you, seeing as how your perspective is at the extreme end of a broad spectrum.
You questioned how in the world are people okay with Steam, but not with XB One. I cannot explain how everybody thinks, but I can explain how I think. For me, Steam is a good way of implementing DRM, because it is also the medium through which people make purchases. Their game purchases are saved onto their accounts, so it is only natural for people to log on in order to play their games, no problem. But XB One games could be bought in stores, on discs! People like to think that after paying $59.99, that they own the game. They can throw it, trade it, give it away all they like because they own it. But on XB One, now consumers are threatened this liberty (aka ownership), and are at the mercy of Microsoft to let them play the games that they own. In homes with stable internet connections, no problem. But the idea of forfeited ownership still repelled consumers away, and Microsoft failed to communicate with consumers.
To sum it all up, I think consumers' reactions to XB One policies were a long time coming. I don't agree with you on calling them morons or hypocrites, seeing as how I would also fit that definition. It was up to Microsoft to make an appealing product or "go home," and in the last minute they made changes to give them a fighting chance against Sony. I don't see any cowardly action here, unlike you. I just see a logical, business decision driven by the market.
Thanks for reading this. I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good. I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens my DRM argument, and you seem to admit that there's a double standard about DRM. And this hypocrisy is very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK, but if it's new DRM, even if it removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage, regardless of the merits of either. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking. The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it, it would be possible to play every single game for free, isn't something that would easily follow for gamers whose thinking is stuck in the outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled by the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards. As for different groups of players not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM. So in conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it.
I don't think gamers just blindly hate new DRM, they just hate it when the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Not sure if this has been said yet, but Steam cannot really be compared to the Xbox for several reasons.
1. Steam is an OPTIONAL program that you install on the PC that you purchased, to play specific games that are released for steam. Not all PC games have to be played on Steam.
2. Steam was total shithouse for a long time, Valve eventually fixed a lot of the issues and these days offer, quite regularly, ridiculous sales up to 90% off. They have excellent PR and are generally very direct, whereas Microsoft love their PR corporate talk as if we're a bunch of investors.
3. PC games traditionally have more rampant piracy due to ease of the install process, therefore some light forms of DRM like Steam is accepted by the majority of gamers. Ubisoft, Blizzard, EA tried more restrictive DRM policies, which were all shot down. So far Ubisoft has backed down, Blizzard has lost a lot of goodwill and EA is just EA.
XboxOne (before the 180) is a very expensive $500 system that you buy that pretty much becomes a brick if you didn't have online. I'm sure people have discussed about the military servicemen's access to the games, as well as people in rural areas and all that. The fact is, consoles are not always connected to the internet, whereas PC's tend to be always connected, so it tends to be less of an issue for people to install an extra program that let's them play games. 77million Xbox360s were sold, there's something like 40 million with Xbox Live accounts. That should tell you enough that a decent portion of the customer base use their Xboxes offline. Microsoft wanted to turn their console into a PC. Sadly there is already such a thing...it's called a PC. You just can't make all these limitations and restrictions all in one go on the console, when there is another console that has NONE of that shit, and expect people to swallow that up. You want people to have mandatory installation of every game, 500GB non-removable HDD, 24-hr DRM, trade-ins only at participating retailers and only if the publishers allow it? Too many restrictions all in one go. Consoles are not PCs, no matter how much their architectures look like it
They could have done so much of what they wanted to do, and they could have seemed like heroes for it. If they weren't so fucking dumb. The 24 hour check in was too restrictive, especially when applied to non digital single player games. They could have kept the rules for digital and physical separate, and gave people the choice. Consumers love choice! What they hate is "Here, everything is changing and if you don't like it, buy a 360." Once digital started providing better deals and more convenience than physical copies, people would naturally gravitate to it more. The "used game problem" would be stamped out by the consumers' own volition, rather than Microsoft seeming to force the issue, which people hate.
YES please read this part
|
On June 29 2013 09:14 fuzzy_panda wrote:Show nested quote +They could have done so much of what they wanted to do, and they could have seemed like heroes for it. If they weren't so fucking dumb. The 24 hour check in was too restrictive, especially when applied to non digital single player games. They could have kept the rules for digital and physical separate, and gave people the choice. Consumers love choice! What they hate is "Here, everything is changing and if you don't like it, buy a 360." Once digital started providing better deals and more convenience than physical copies, people would naturally gravitate to it more. The "used game problem" would be stamped out by the consumers' own volition, rather than Microsoft seeming to force the issue, which people hate. YES please read this part
That interview was just so bad--for myself, it illustrated exactly how out of touch with the gaming world Microsoft can possibly be. During the interview, when he said that, the guy interviewing was almost in shock (I would have been as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
