• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
snowmanZOMG

Microsoft and the Xbox One. Thoughts?

268 posts in this topic

I agree that it was Microsoft's messaging that blew it. They blew it by not coming out with a complete, clear message about how the "DRM" worked and what the benefits were for consumers (e.g. being able to sell your *digital* copy, being able to lend your copy to a friend remotely, etc), and they blew it by letting the message get completely away with itself.

 

The 24-hour call-in was over-reaching, but instead of doing a complete about-face on the matter, changing it to a one-time call-in at install, or even a call-in every 2-4 weeks, would have allowed us to keep the intended benefits while still silencing the majority of concerns (read: almost anyone who isn't confined to a naval vessel for months at a time).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, people complaining about upgraded hardware with more expanded features. Kind of ridiculous. tongue.png

"Oh no, upgraded hardware! Egads, it's not evolutionary at all! Oh no! No more DRM, can't have that!".  

Yeah, except now that's all it is. The consoles have pretty much the same distribution model they had in the 90's. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are angry that you have to put discs in the console? Really?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it pretty interesting that they've done a complete and total backflip... not trying to ease their restrictions, or find a balance between old and new, but completely throwing out all of their new DRM work and falling back entirely to the old DRM system.

 

I'd be ok with the "always online" DRM, if you could avoid it by simply putting the disc in... When moving house here, you're usually without (land-line) Internet for about 2 weeks - having my gaming console refuse to work for that period even though all the discs and equipment are present would induce quite the ragerant.

 

Even with their total backflip, the FUD from their initial announcements won't just go away; there'll be rumours of "always online" requirements an "no trade-ins" floating about until well after the console hits the market... plus they've thrown out any of the positives that they could've pointed to with their new system, like the weird family sharing deal.

 

 

Meanwhile, Steam looks like they're positioning to adopt some of the positive aspects that the Xbone was trying to deliver, like the ability to share digital versions of games with your friends:

http://kotaku.com/steam-might-soon-let-you-share-your-games-with-your-fri-514219133

Edited by Hodgman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are angry that you have to put discs in the console? Really?

 

Yes. That's it exactly. That is the only thing we have mentioned in this thread.

 

I cannot fathom how anyone on this forum can say "DRM is good, it's good to only have the ability to share the game with friend FOREVER, and it's good to have an almost always-online console...". Yeah, good, that's why everyone cried out in agony over this. But now that Microsoft's fixed it, people like that Gizmodo author have to go and complain about a console with updated everything that suddenly works just like the previous generations, in that you can play offline and share games? SERIOUSLY!? What the heck kind of sense does that make?

And how come nobody complained that the PS4 was offline-ready and able to share game discs, but now that MS have reversed their stance it's a bad idea and made the console "worse"?

Gotta love double-standards...

 

 

Are you okay? Mentally I mean. Your incoherent rambling makes no sense, and has no basis in reality. 

 

 

So obviously, I don't understand how all of this works exactly. If you have a game from disc, then you shouldn't be able to lend digitally. If you've downloaded a game from the cloud, then you should be able to. So if you digitally lend the game to your friend, then you should be effectively locked out from the game, until your friend gives it back. Why can't this work without (the check-in once a day) DRM?

 

 

Obviously you don't understand how it was going to work. Completely Microsoft's fault for catastrophically bad marketing. Up to 10 people could be in your circle of friends. Those 10 people would have access to play any of the games in your shared library, but only one friend could be playing your games at a time. Your friend playing your game would not have prevented you from playing the game. This means you could play coop games with friends who did not own a copy of said game. They could just play your shared copy. This is a HUGE step forward in sharing games, and is much more inline with the time we're living in instead of just handing over a disc. More and more the people we interact with are not friends across the street who you can just hand a disc over to. In fact, it's not feasible for me to share physical media with a single one of my current Xbox friends. They are almost all in a different state than I am. 

 

The other thing it would have allowed was trading in digital copies of games. The publishers like this, because they would be getting a cut of the resell. The players should like this, because it's currently not possible on any other system. Now we're back to the current system of you buy it, you're stuck with it for life for games bought through the digital market.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it pretty interesting that they've done a complete and total backflip... not trying to ease their restrictions, or find a balance between old and new, but completely throwing out all of their new DRM work and falling back entirely to the old DRM system.

 

I wonder how much has to do with negotiations made with publishers. Once the 24 hour check fell through it was either status quo, or many more months of negotiations. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Oh no, I have to use a disc!". A real shame, that.

"Oh no, I can sell my games back to Gamestop! What a terrible travesty as that's going to wreck the industry!" said no one ever, who enjoyed getting at least something for a used game they didn't play anymore.

"Oh no! I have to share games by sharing the disc, instead of the terrible limit of one share per friend per account! What sort of hell is this?!" A pretty good peak into heaven, me thinks.


1) People have complained THIS GENERATION that having to have a disk in the machine to play in installed game is dumb.
2) You could still sell your games except the plan was instead of Gamestop pushing used copies over new (so more $$$ for them) the people who made the thing would get a kick back instead. This in turn could have been reinvested and better games come out...
3) It was never 'one share per friend per account', yes you can only share the game with one friend at a time (much like now with disks) but if you want to share the game with a friend who lives on the other side of the country you have to send 'em the disk; with the system was it was going to be they could have downloaded a copy and played locally.


1. who, and where? if anything, i've always understood why they require the disk in the system, even with an installed copy.
2. perhaps this is more of a sign that games need to be more competitive pricing schemes. if microsoft had said "also, this drm scheme will reduce the price of X1 games by 10-15$", i'm sure people woudn't be up in arms about it. but when games like CoD: Black Ops are still prices at 50$ new, that's not being competitve, that's just making me want to buy a used copy.

edit: also, let's stop using gamestop as an example, what about services like gamefly?

3. yea, have fun with low data caps downloading that 20GB game. you might be fine with it, but downloading that game would cost me 4x the price of the game new. also, was this ever actually made clear by microsoft officially, or is it now wishful thinking?

 

Even living in the UK if I wanted to share a game with a friend it would have taken a day or more to get to him assuming I sent it on a week day and would have cost me money. With the proposed system I could have digitally lent it to him whenever and he could have downloaded and started playing right away.


I'd like to honestly ask if you do this now? or is just a hypothetical that would probably never come to pass?
 

You all can say what you want about the Xbox One's reversal being a horrible move, but seriously, it's a HUUUGE step in the RIGHT direction.

It's not a step at all, that's the point.. it's a continuation of the status quo.


it's a step for consumers. it means a company as big as microsoft is willing to hear the complaints, and take a step back before going under, and being completely. hell, didn't the sega dreamcast(or w/e their last console was) place the bar way ahead as well, but failed because of over-pricing, and low adoption rates. that imo is what microsoft was just about to set themselves up for.

 

And how come nobody complained that the PS4 was offline-ready and able to share game discs, but now that MS have reversed their stance it's a bad idea and made the console "worse"?



Because there was no discussion over this issue on the PS4 which was a loud. A few of my friends expressed a desire to get the Xbox over the PS4 because of things like no disk in the machine while playing so for them it's a step backwards.

The PS4 was what it was, a faster PS3-style console.. MS tried something new, people moaned, so now we have a faster XBox360.

If that's what people want then that's what people apparently want.. but they HAVE stripped out features and some selling points which does, in a real way, make the Xbox worse than if it had had those features.


those features, imo, made the X1 worse. microsoft could still take step forwards by re-thinking how they deliver that experiance. but they made bad moves, bad pr, and it's blowing up in their face. this is practically the only way they can save face at this point. Edited by slicer4ever
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are angry that you have to put discs in the console? Really?

 

Microsoft has already announced a fix for that:

lcs0.png

A multi-disc disc-changer version for $600.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even living in the UK if I wanted to share a game with a friend it would have taken a day or more to get to him assuming I sent it on a week day and would have cost me money. With the proposed system I could have digitally lent it to him whenever and he could have downloaded and started playing right away.


I'd like to honestly ask if you do this now? or is just a hypothetical that would probably never come to pass?
 

 

I don't lend games to anyone now. It's simply not feasible to send someone in a different state a disc and expect them to send it back once their done. I've given games away to some friends that way, but I certainly didn't expect them back. With a feature like this, I would have obviously been able to share and borrow games MUCH more frequently. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...snip...

 
I don't lend games to anyone now. It's simply not feasible to send someone in a different state a disc and expect them to send it back once their done. I've given games away to some friends that way, but I certainly didn't expect them back. With a feature like this, I would have obviously been able to share and borrow games MUCH more frequently.


but that comes back to my second point, huge game downloads are completely impractical for someone in my position. I can play multiplayer easily, and do the daily checks. but digital sharing/downloading is way outside of my reach.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You guys are angry that you have to put discs in the console? Really?

 

Microsoft has already announced a fix for that:

lcs0.png

A multi-disc disc-changer version for $600.

 

 

Oddly enough.... that would sell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Meanwhile, Steam looks like they're positioning to adopt some of the positive aspects that the Xbone was trying to deliver, like the ability to share digital versions of games with your friends:

http://kotaku.com/steam-might-soon-let-you-share-your-games-with-your-fri-514219133

 

If they follow through on that (and publishers allow it so we can do it with games other than the ones Valve makes) it'd be great, not being able to lend/borrow games is one of the biggest problems with digital distribution and DRM, i got a bunch of great games that people i know wants to try before they buy(and there are a bunch of games i would like to try before i decide if i wish to buy them or not) and i don't want to lend someone my whole account (since that would lock me out of all my other games), Such a move might even boost sales (if it is only used for games that the owner and the borrower are likely to want to play together)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you okay? Mentally I mean. Your incoherent rambling makes no sense, and has no basis in reality. 

 

Wow, you're such a nice, 30-odd-something-year-old guy! Yes, that was such an incoherent ramble of mine. How silly of me. Let me clear it up for someone like you!

I don't understand why people are complaining that Microsoft reversed their policies, essentially rendering the One a regular updated console. No one complained that Sony made an offline, shared-games-are-allowed console, but almost everybody complained about the One's need to check-in every 24 hours, and the lack of support for sharing games. And now that Microsoft have reversed those policies, people like you and that Gizmodo author are raising a big stink, saying how awful it is, and now it's more like an "updated 360" and not really new at all, when it is. It's really silly to say otherwise. 

Here's what people (like you) are complaining about...

1 - Having to use actual discs and change them. What a tragedy.
2 - No required internet. Gee, a shame for people who may not be able to sustain a good connection. People like me.
3 - Being able to trade, buy, sell and play used games. People are actually complaining about this! I can't believe it!

Playing used games won't destroy the industry. No matter what DRM some company tries to implement, there will always be piracy, regardless of what companies might say about DRM preventing it. 

My other point was that nobody complained about the PS4 being offline-ready and was able to share used games. But now that Microsoft have reversed their stance, suddenly everybody is calling the console "worse". I really don't get it. 

Yes, I'm fine mentally, thanks very much. Did this clear it up at all for you, buddy?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived in South Africa for a couple of years, and it was there that I realized how big of an issue Internet really is. In South Africa:

  • Internet is expensive (read: the majority cannot afford it every month)
  • Internet is slow
  • Internet is spotty (horribly so)
  • Internet is capped (you typically get a 1-2 GB a month, though even the wealthy people I knew typically didn't have more than 5GB a month)

 

That alone completely changed how I viewed Internet and technology. Where I'm from in the US, broadband is the norm; it's uncapped, it's fast, it's occasionally spotty but rarely for more than a couple hours, etc. I just assumed the rest of the world had a similar Internet connection to mine.

 

But they don't.

 

If Microsoft wants to target an international audience (or even a wide national audience), it's absolutely critical that they backtrack on what they originally planned. I know people who will save up (some for a very long time) to get a new gaming console and a couple games. But they can't afford the constant, never ending drain of money that a high speed Internet connection would require (and even then, the Internet sucks so bad they can't even really get high speed Internet, let alone a stable connection).

 

Some people, and some parts of the world, are ready for a technological gaming revolution, the kind that the Xbox One was aiming for (with its Internet requirements and all). But the reality is that a lot of the word isn't ready for that. They're still catching up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Microsoft were smart they would have left physical disc licensing as it is

and announced all the good news related to strong DRM-style licensing for download only games

 

"We will allow you to share downloaded games with up to 10 friends" would have been an PR coup!

 

Muppetsoft why are you so confused? Oh yes, too many software people in one place, common sense goes out the window ...

 

Personally I love watching them fail again and again and again ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...snip...

 
I don't lend games to anyone now. It's simply not feasible to send someone in a different state a disc and expect them to send it back once their done. I've given games away to some friends that way, but I certainly didn't expect them back. With a feature like this, I would have obviously been able to share and borrow games MUCH more frequently.

 


but that comes back to my second point, huge game downloads are completely impractical for someone in my position. I can play multiplayer easily, and do the daily checks. but digital sharing/downloading is way outside of my reach.

 

 

And for people like you, because of how the system would have worked, you wouldn't have had to download the game -- You could have borrowed or rented the game disc locally, put it in your box where it would be ripped to the hard drive, and then you would have been able to continue playing it without the disc alongside your friend who actually owned the game. People still don't get this -- XBone discs were, and mostly still are, just a distribution mechanism no different than download. Literally the only thing that's changed now is that they're putting an in-perpetuity license for the game onto the disc itself.

 

Here's what people (like you) are complaining about...

1 - Having to use actual discs and change them. What a tragedy.
2 - No required internet. Gee, a shame for people who may not be able to sustain a good connection. People like me.
3 - Being able to trade, buy, sell and play used games. People are actually complaining about this! I can't believe it!

My other point was that nobody complained about the PS4 being offline-ready and was able to share used games. But now that Microsoft have reversed their stance, suddenly everybody is calling the console "worse". I really don't get it. 

 

1 - It's 2013 now, when was the last time you had to put a disc or any other storage medium into your PC? Your iPod? Your Smartphone? Its not the end of the world, but it would have been nice to have your entire library on the console, and not have to get up and pull the game from the shelf.

2 - I agree they needed to loosen the 24-hour checkin, but only that. If they did a one-time check at install, combined with an on-disc license for those who lack any internet at all, the problem could have been solved without completely axing all the *good* things that the "DRM" enabled.

3 - It is. The point of the "DRM" system that's so maligned was not to prevent used games sales, but to enable you to sell and gift your digital game downloads as well! Now we can sell our physical discs hassle-free, but we can't share, sell or trade our digital copies at all. That's such a step forward.

 

"DRM" for all the bad rap that it has, is not an inherently-evil technology. Its the attached policies that can be evil.

 

They're calling it worse because it is worse. This is a classic case of being wary of what you wish for. Things are back to exactly where they were, and in the process we lost all the good things that were on offer. But its to be expected, because Microsoft let the message get so out of hand that no one actually had the information necessary to judge the value proposition that was being offered, instead, the angry mobs grabbed their pitchforks, Sony made them look like absolute clowns at E3, and some genius in the Xbox division decided that the only way to save face was to do a complete 180, instead of tweaking the system that wasn't fundamentally broken to begin with. The sheer ineptitude with which this whole thing has been handled from the very beginning is mind-boggling. Heads should roll for how badly it was handled. If not now, expect to see some high-profile departures from the Xbox division within 6 months from launch, and a major shakeup in marketing/PR.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Microsoft were smart they would have left physical disc licensing as it is
and announced all the good news related to strong DRM-style licensing for download only games
 
"We will allow you to share downloaded games with up to 10 friends" would have been an PR coup!
 
Muppetsoft why are you so confused? Oh yes, too many software people in one place, common sense goes out the window ...
 
Personally I love watching them fail again and again and again ...

 
You wouldn't mean something like....
 

So obviously, I don't understand how all of this works exactly. If you have a game from disc, then you shouldn't be able to lend digitally. If you've downloaded a game from the cloud, then you should be able to. So if you digitally lend the game to your friend, then you should be effectively locked out from the game, until your friend gives it back. Why can't this work without (the check-in once a day) DRM?


And replace lock-out with "let 10 friends play". Edited by Alpha_ProgDes
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - Having to use actual discs and change them. What a tragedy.

2 - No required internet. Gee, a shame for people who may not be able to sustain a good connection. People like me.
3 - Being able to trade, buy, sell and play used games. People are actually complaining about this! I can't believe it!

 

1. You know what year this is right? Maybe you're okay being stuck with a gaming limitation from the 90's, but I'm ready to shed some of that burden.

2. You know what year this is right? The vast majority of people who will buy a next gen console will also have internet access. This is pretty much a non-issue for the Xbox target market that was blown completely out of proportion.

3. You could still buy, sell and play used games so this really shouldn't be one of the big ideas you're rallying against. The difference was you would also be able to buy / sell / trade digital copies of these games. Of course some infrastructure would have to be in place to support this which is why details were so sketchy. I would almost guarantee GameStop would have been part of that system once it was up and running.

 

Some people, and some parts of the world, are ready for a technological gaming revolution, the kind that the Xbox One was aiming for (with its Internet requirements and all). But the reality is that a lot of the word isn't ready for that. They're still catching up.

 

I fully recognize that, but so what? Why should the gaming technology of first world countries be held back by countries where the vast majority of it's citizens wouldn't be able to afford the console in the first place? The average per-capita income in Africa is $315. I highly doubt there is a huge market there just waiting to pickup a PS4 or Xbox One.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...snip...

 
I don't lend games to anyone now. It's simply not feasible to send someone in a different state a disc and expect them to send it back once their done. I've given games away to some friends that way, but I certainly didn't expect them back. With a feature like this, I would have obviously been able to share and borrow games MUCH more frequently.


but that comes back to my second point, huge game downloads are completely impractical for someone in my position. I can play multiplayer easily, and do the daily checks. but digital sharing/downloading is way outside of my reach.

 
And for people like you, because of how the system would have worked, you wouldn't have had to download the game -- You could have borrowed or rented the game disc locally, put it in your box where it would be ripped to the hard drive, and then you would have been able to continue playing it without the disc alongside your friend who actually owned the game. People still don't get this -- XBone discs were, and mostly still are, just a distribution mechanism no different than download. Literally the only thing that's changed now is that they're putting an in-perpetuity license for the game onto the disc itself.


you missed the point, my argument wasn't about me going and buying a disk, and then turning out i had to dl a 20gb game. no i understand that buying the disk ment i didn't have to dl the game. his argument was that, "o i don't have to actually give my disk to my friend to lend it to them, even if they are on the other side of the planet, i can lend it to them, and they will just dl the game." but for someone in my position, being lent a digital game(where i don't have the physical disk) is completely impractical.

also, let's look at this from another point of view. what's the point of buying single player games, if all i have to do is wait for one of my xbox live buddies to get bored of it? I'd think this would hurt the industry more than used sales. it'd also force devs to always shoe-horn in some type of multiplayer component, even for campaigns.

1. You know what year this is right? Maybe you're okay being stuck with a gaming limitation from the 90's, but I'm ready to shed some of that burden.

then be happy you can still buy them digitally. don't see the problem you are having.

2. You know what year this is right? The vast majority of people who will buy a next gen console will also have internet access. This is pretty much a non-issue for the Xbox target market that was blown completely out of proportion.

no, it is an damn issue. get over you high horse for being someone lucky enough to live where you get decent internet. I don't wanna be left in the past simply because i can't afford good enough internet. I still wanna enjoy some of the great franchises available, that will only continue onto the newer generation. think of what future elder scrolls have in store when their baseline hardware has finally jumped up a notch.


3. You could still buy, sell and play used games so this really shouldn't be one of the big ideas you're rallying against. The difference was you would also be able to buy / sell / trade digital copies of these games. Of course some infrastructure would have to be in place to support this which is why details were so sketchy. I would almost guarantee GameStop would have been part of that system once it was up and running.

none of this was ever made clear, and if it was, i'd like to ask for an official link to microsoft. otherwise, all your doing is grasping at "what-ifs".


Some people, and some parts of the world, are ready for a technological gaming revolution, the kind that the Xbox One was aiming for (with its Internet requirements and all). But the reality is that a lot of the word isn't ready for that. They're still catching up.


I fully recognize that, but so what? Why should the gaming technology of first world countries be held back by countries where the vast majority of it's citizens wouldn't be able to afford the console in the first place? The average per-capita income in Africa is $315. I highly doubt there is a huge market there just waiting to pickup a PS4 or Xbox One.


you could say that about the ps3, it came out more expensive than the X1, and still is played heavily in third-world countrys. you have a pretty strong attitude of "it doesn't affect me, so who gives a rat ass about you." Edited by slicer4ever
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, let's look at this from another point of view. what's the point of buying single player games, if all i have to do is wait for one of my xbox live buddies to get bored of it? I'd think this would hurt the industry more than used sales. it'd also force devs to always shoe-horn in some type of multiplayer component, even for campaigns.


All they would do is put a limit on how long you can borrow it just like Blockbuster did so many years ago. They can DRM the DRM all they like once they fully implement this system.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Microsoft were smart they would have left physical disc licensing as it is
and announced all the good news related to strong DRM-style licensing for download only games
 
"We will allow you to share downloaded games with up to 10 friends" would have been an PR coup!

 
You wouldn't mean something like....
 

So obviously, I don't understand how all of this works exactly. If you have a game from disc, then you shouldn't be able to lend digitally. If you've downloaded a game from the cloud, then you should be able to. So if you digitally lend the game to your friend, then you should be effectively locked out from the game, until your friend gives it back. Why can't this work without (the check-in once a day) DRM?


And replace lock-out with "let 10 friends play".

 

 

Once again, Microsoft PR and marketing is completely incompetent. Pretty much every time they said something, things got worse. I don't think there was any way to recover. They allowed the competition to deliver the message about what the Xbox was more than they did.

 

The only problem I have with the scenario above is it avoids one of the important goals (in my opinion) of the Xbox one which is the unification of downloaded games and retail purchases. Steam has done this somewhat on the PC. Some of the games you buy off the shelf at a retail store require Steam. After you tie the license to your Steam account, the discs just become a means of installation. You can download and install the game if you prefer from another computer or you can use the discs to install the game on as many machines as you want. The primary difference between the Xbox One and Steam is that you would have had more freedom over what you can do with your games. You could share them with friends without losing access to them which Steam may be adopting some form of (Good when Steam does it, bad when Microsoft does!), and you could even trade them in for credit towards other games.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem I have with the scenario above is it avoids one of the important goals (in my opinion) of the Xbox one which is the unification of downloaded games and retail purchases. Steam has done this somewhat on the PC. Some of the games you buy off the shelf at a retail store require Steam. After you tie the license to your Steam account, the discs just become a means of installation. You can download and install the game if you prefer from another computer or you can use the discs to install the game on as many machines as you want. The primary difference between the Xbox One and Steam is that you would have had more freedom over what you can do with your games. You could share them with friends without losing access to them which Steam may be adopting some form of (Good when Steam does it, bad when Microsoft does!), and you could even trade them in for credit towards other games.


However, when changing the landscape you have to do it in phases. If Microsoft did my way first, then by the middle or (definitely) end of this console generation, the way it was originally envision would have been able to be implemented without much complaint. People would have already been used to doing borrowing and trading-in games digitally that doing it otherwise would seem silly.

But like you said, their PR department sucks. But also, their measure of how much influence they have over the gaming and PC markets is obviously off by a wide margin.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some people, and some parts of the world, are ready for a technological gaming revolution, the kind that the Xbox One was aiming for (with its Internet requirements and all). But the reality is that a lot of the word isn't ready for that. They're still catching up.

I fully recognize that, but so what? Why should the gaming technology of first world countries be held back by countries where the vast majority of it's citizens wouldn't be able to afford the console in the first place? The average per-capita income in Africa is $315. I highly doubt there is a huge market there just waiting to pickup a PS4 or Xbox One.

I'm no economist, but I'm think it's in Microsoft's best (financial) interests to target the widest audience possible. Also, some of these countries are on the verge of becoming much more economically stable, and if Microsoft can get a foot in the door early on, it can help future profits as a (financially) growing nation, who is already at least partially familiar with Microsoft because they got their foot in the door, embraces more products from a brand they already know (at least to some degree).

 

I'd love for the world to be waaay more technologically advanced than it currently is, and I think one reason that it's not is that we keep trying to be backwards compatible and target the largest common denominator. But from a financial, profits perspective, it's hard to argue that this move isn't in Microsoft's own best interest.

 

Hopefully for the next console after this the world will be technologically ready for some ground breaking, radical changes. But the global market for that just isn't big enough right now, IMO. And since Sony decided to play it safe and milk today's cow instead of tomorrow's future, Microsoft doesn't have to worry about Sony stealing the future. Instead, Microsoft has to worry about Sony stealing the present.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, let's look at this from another point of view. what's the point of buying single player games, if all i have to do is wait for one of my xbox live buddies to get bored of it? I'd think this would hurt the industry more than used sales. it'd also force devs to always shoe-horn in some type of multiplayer component, even for campaigns.


All they would do is put a limit on how long you can borrow it just like Blockbuster did so many years ago. They can DRM the DRM all they like once they fully implement this system.


but what prevents me from re-borrowing the game? and continuing, it's just a minor annoyance at worse.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0