Microsoft loves console gamers

Yeah Dec 31 is definitely not official...it was the same thing for the normal PS4.
 
I hope not I havnt fully decided tho which console I want to buy first. I kinda want to wait with the Xbox one so maybe they will change the used game policy even tho it doesn't effect me bc I rarely buy used games but I do understand the implications for others! But I've been leaning to the ps4 bc of the elder scrolls online beta that's a ps+ thing I'm assuming!
 
http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

Personally I had no issue with M$'s used game or daily connect policy, and am not sure why anyone does. The used game policy was still considerably more gracious than ANYTHING on the PC market. And I know not one soul that isn't able to connect their 360 to the net on a daily basis (even those over seas on military deployment).

So many are like Sony wins, or PC wins, but why? PC has NO used game policy. PC is still the most expensive gaming platform. And Sony did nothing but bash M$ while hiding the fact that the PS4 will require PSN+ to play online multiplayer... So if anything Sony is the one being greedy here. One of the most often arguments for the PSN was the free online Mutliplayer, and that's going away.

No one wins here. The PC market and console market is just as greedy as the other, there are no winners. To say PC wins makes not sense, to say PS4 wins, makes no sense, to say Xbox One wins, also makes no sense. What all this comes down to, is what YOU prefer...
 
Last edited:
I personally do know people that couldn't connect for daily check-ins. It would affect people. They may not the majority of Xbox fans, but they do exist.

And "more gracious than PC market" is an iffy argument. The PC market is a load of nonsense in the way that so many publishers use the grounds of "we're licensing you access to the game, not selling you a copy of it" in order to avoid First Sale Doctrine. It's stupid. Even the EU courts declared that software licenses should be able to be re-sold the same as physical copies.* That Microsoft's proposed used game control was less restrictive than Steam licensing, for example, ignores the part where it's dealing in legal loopholes that evade the intent of the law in the first place.

Still, the problem with both issues was far less a matter of practical implications than it was a matter of Microsoft needlessly claiming more control over consumers being able to do what they please with the things they purchase. I fail to see at all (though this could be my fault for not investigating the matters more thoroughly) how daily check-in benefits the consumer. The control over the used market, even if it turned out to be functionally insignificant in the long run, is still a matter of giving up freedoms (and getting nothing that I'm aware of in return). Arguments can be made that used game sales take away from publisher profit and ultimately hurt gamers, but I'm too much a fan of freedom to get behind that argument as a reason to give up freedoms.


*Switched the link to the Eurogamer article I first read about the matter on. I went on to read EU docs on the matter too. I think Eurogamer even links to one of them.
 
Last edited:
Kendrik said:
I personally do know people that couldn't connect for daily check-ins. It would affect people. They may not the majority of Xbox fans, but they do exist.

And "more gracious than PC market" is an iffy argument. The PC market is a load of nonsense in the way that so many publishers use the grounds of "we're licensing you access to the game, not selling you a copy of it" in order to avoid First Sale Doctrine. It's stupid. Even the EU courts declared that software licenses should be able to be re-sold the same as physical copies.* That Microsoft's proposed used game control was less restrictive than Steam licensing, for example, ignores the part where it's dealing in legal loopholes that evade the intent of the law in the first place.

Still, the problem with both issues was far less a matter of practical implications than it was a matter of Microsoft needlessly claiming more control over consumers being able to do what they please with the things they purchase. I fail to see at all (though this could be my fault for not investigating the matters more thoroughly) how daily check-in benefits the consumer. The control over the used market, even if it turned out to be functionally insignificant in the long run, is still a matter of giving up freedoms (and getting nothing that I'm aware of in return). Arguments can be made that used game sales take away from publisher profit and ultimately hurt gamers, but I'm too much a fan of freedom to get behind that argument as a reason to give up freedoms.


*Switched the link to the Eurogamer article I first read about the matter on. I went on to read EU docs on the matter too. I think Eurogamer even links to one of them.
Click to expand...

The issues here are: Do you really think gaming "freedom" is on the mind of the big AAA gaming companies? No, their thoughts are "how can we make more money". Gaming "freeedoms" will continue to drop and drop, especially since we continue to accept them. Steam was hated for what it was and is. It's the ultimate DRM, yet even DRM haters love Steam... Makes no sense...

Like it or not, Steam is one the biggest evils on gamers, yet it's now accepted...
 
I've been deployed to several places where daily check ins would be a problem. But it doesn't matter... Microsoft just did an about face on the whole issue. It's gonna kill a bunch of the features people were looking forward to but it's what the vocal fans wanted.
 
Wolfeman said:
I've been deployed to several places where daily check ins would be a problem. But it doesn't matter... Microsoft just did an about face on the whole issue. It's gonna kill a bunch of the features people were looking forward to but it's what the vocal fans wanted.
Click to expand...

I think it does matter and it will always matter. If we let companies get accustomed to having their way, they'll keep pushing the envelope until the rights of the consumers are jeopardized (the XBone will still watch you if you use it to play a DVD...).

The fact that Microsoft went so far as to publish the XBone limitations regarding (1) used games, (2) once per 24 hours check-ins, and (3) always online DRM shows how certain they were that they just sell gamers something new and shiny and that they wouldn't have to worry about gamers being concerned about the violations of privacy.

I'm not one to hold a grudge, but this one is worth remembering.
 
Odale said:
I think it does matter and it will always matter. If we let companies get accustomed to having their way, they'll keep pushing the envelope until the rights of the consumers are jeopardized (the XBone will still watch you if you use it to play a DVD...).

The fact that Microsoft went so far as to publish the XBone limitations regarding (1) used games, (2) once per 24 hours check-ins, and (3) always online DRM shows how certain they were that they just sell gamers something new and shiny and that they wouldn't have to worry about gamers being concerned about the violations of privacy.

I'm not one to hold a grudge, but this one is worth remembering.
Click to expand...

Do you play Steam games? Then why do you have an issue with always on DRM? That is what Steam is. So much support for Steam, yet hated attacks against M$? This make no sense to me... The fact the consoles would follow suite of the most popular PC platform only makes sense.
 
PCs have abilities that set them far apart from consoles. PCs can do so much more than consoles can, including hacking and reproducing game files. So I can understand more intensive DRM on PCs. Also, PC games have always been more restrictive than console games, so the sharing issue for PC games is lost on me (think about it - at LANs back in the day everyone had to have their own copy of whatever game you all were playing, right?).

Not all DRM on PC video games are always-on - this applies to Steam, too. The first time you open up a Steam game, you have to be online, but all times after that you can be offline. The cloud feature won't work, but that's a given. In a lot of cases cloud can be turned off so your saved games stay on that PC.

I am not sticking up for Steam, and in all honesty, the only problem I have with them is their ridiculous return policy. I personally have no quarrels with paying less for a game (Steam games are often fairly cheap) and always having the ability to find the install files for that game, but receiving no physical copy to manipulate as I see fit.

I've never been someone to think that PC gaming and console gaming are equals, or even comparable. It's because they aren't.
 
Odale said:
PCs have abilities that set them far apart from consoles. PCs can do so much more than consoles can, including hacking and reproducing game files.
Click to expand...

Actually they aren't that different. The only real difference, is the OS. People have been hacking and replicating gaming files on consoles since forever, and even more now on the current gen.

What is comes down to, is M$ was about to do something revolutionary. They were going to use a strict DRM service on a console, which is not to restrict the user, but to eventually (just like the path Steam took), increase the amount of games while considerably lowering prices. And it would've worked too.

Unfortunately people just want what their used to, instead of something that in the long run would be new and awesome...
 
I think Microsoft was better off leaving things as they were, but the fact is: consoles and PCs are two very different platforms. Gamers who play games that are often multiplatform and have the same or similar functionality on both (such as many Xbox 360 users for instance) would not be terribly affected by DRM etc, but gamers more used to the Japanese developed side of things (particularly on the Nintendo and Playstation platforms), such DRM would be absolutely destructive. It's for this reason that I had no issues with the Xbox One (unlike most of my console-loving friends) because I realize that the market is different, but I would not stand for such with the games I truly care about. (Also, as far as the connection with Steam, I overall dislike Steam as a gaming platform since it does not provide much in terms of my gaming interests, but that being said, its main redeeming value in regard to what I use it for is its common sales/Humble Bundle support, something I don't see being as well-implemented in Microsoft's system).
 
So let me get this straight, XionTawa. You're actually comparing XBox to Steam? Okay, let's see how that stacks up:

  • Steam does not charge you $60/year to buy a game or use Netflix or any of the other inane things Microsoft does...then blast you with ads.
  • Steam offers MUCH better pricing
  • Steam offers a service you wouldn't otherwise have - a library function and achievements
  • Steam never had any regular check-in for offline games
  • Steam is good for Indie devs, Microsoft is pretty terrible here.

I'm not knocking anyone's console of choice, and I especially understand why 360 users might buy an XBone. I know it would take a lot for me to give up my PSN collection (which is vast, thanks PSN+!). I also think the online functionality was better on the Live than PSN.

But I would not use the word "gracious" to describe this move by Microsoft. They got their faces collectively stomped in by bad PR and had to weakly recant. It's not the "same thing" as Sony because Microsoft is not exactly choosing this course of action; one does not win brownie points for such a move.
 
Last edited:
Slightly off-topic, but I think Kinect is really going to bite them. People are already comparing the price of the Xbone to PS4 and pointing out the huge difference; it's a big win for Sony. Pretty similar hardware other than the faster RAM.

But what about next Christmas? The one after? Price drops are going to happen and I believe it will be impossible for MS to keep up. As far as I can tell, the infrared camera isn't going to get much cheaper, while other components will. So as consoles fall in price, we'll see $300 vs $400, $250 vs $350. Not good.
 
On a side note, do you read XBone as X-bone or XB-One? I think it's funny I've been reading it as X-Bone.
 
Kahiel said:
On a side note, do you read XBone as X-bone or XB-One? I think it's funny I've been reading it as X-Bone.
Click to expand...

I read it as X-Bone. I'm not trying to be snide, but I feel it's bad/annoying branding. No one says "Nintendo Wii" or "Sony Playstation" on a normal basis, and I refuse to call it "The One"...which is what I'm guessing MS wants people to settle on. I'm not sure why it bothers me...maybe it's not my dislike for XBox, but it just comes off as very arrogant.

XBox One is too long, X1 is weird, "new xbox" is non-specific, etc.
 
RyanB said:
So let me get this straight, XionTawa. You're actually comparing XBox to Steam? Okay, let's see how that stacks up:

  • Steam does not charge you $60/year to buy a game or use Netflix or any of the other inane things Microsoft does...then blast you with ads.
  • Steam offers MUCH better pricing
  • Steam offers a service you wouldn't otherwise have - a library function and achievements
  • Steam never had any regular check-in for offline games
  • Steam is good for Indie devs, Microsoft is pretty terrible here.

I'm not knocking anyone's console of choice, and I especially understand why 360 users might buy an XBone. I know it would take a lot for me to give up my PSN collection (which is vast, thanks PSN+!). I also think the online functionality was better on the Live than PSN.

But I would not use the word "gracious" to describe this move by Microsoft. They got their faces collectively stomped in by bad PR and had to weakly recant. It's not the "same thing" as Sony because Microsoft is not exactly choosing this course of action; one does not win brownie points for such a move.
Click to expand...

First, XBL Gold is not required for game purchasing.
Second, Steam can only offer that pricing because they spent years being hated for have the MOST STRICT DRM in the market.
Third, Steam "services" are okay, but XBL services are MUCH better IMO. Better achievements, better social, oh and voice chat?
Fourth, never had? You must not have had Steam long, Steam used to require CONSTANT check-ins for offline games. Half-Life 2 anyone? Made me want to stick a drill in my head.
Fifth, M$ was trying to fix this with offing strict DRM. Yes, those go hand in hand, along with time. But not now...

This is how the gaming industry works: If you want a HUGE selection, much lower prices that the competition, and maintain that, you have to offer the publishers something in return. Which Steam did. Steam offered terrible DRM, but this (over time), led to super cheap prices and an amazing selection. M$ was simply trying to do the same thing, but on a console. And it would've worked too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top