When the "vocal minority" begins to actually hurt us consumers.

[Something Amyss]

And my ranting about internet didn't give you a clue which one I meant? Do I need to specify I mean video games instead of board or card games as well?

You conflate the issue by claiming Steam does not have an offline mode, so of course you have to clarify. That would be like me claiming my Xbox didn't let me play my games when the internet went out (which used to be a thing), and so we're again at the "same as consoles" scenario. No, you don't have to clarify what kind of games you're talking about when you say consoles vs Steam, but you do have to clarify when you're making general rants about no DRM vs DRM.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

snip

I've got to interject something here.

I am a card carrying Xbox fan. In many ways, a card carrying Microsoft fan but we'll stick to the relevant parts as it applies to your post.

I prefer Xbox 360 to PS3, I preferred Original Xbox to PS2 and Gamecube. I love Halo, I love Dead Rising, and Forza is THE ONLY racing game I really like (since Collin McRae Rally turned into DiRT anyway). And even though I've always been console agnostic and picked up most of the major consoles since the Atari 2600, I've been accused of being a full blown Microsoft fanboy. And I didn't even bat an eye at the suggestion.

With all that in mind, even I was planning to opt out of the Microsoft ecosystem before the One-80 took away so much of the bad stuff. So I don't know if we can call it a case of Silent Minority. When a decade long fan of a product is turning up his nose at what they were offering, That's more in line with a fumble of epic proportion than a case of a few rotten apples ruining the bunch if you take my meaning.

With the One-80 taking away most of my issues with the X1 I've since gotten cautiously excited for the new machine and the games that it will bring. But even though I'm back on board with the system, I'm still not trying to talk anyone into buying one other than me. I happen to enjoy a decent amount of disposable income at the moment, so I'm jumping in on launch for the first time in my gaming history. But had the reversals not happened, I would have only been bringing home one console this year instead of two.

 

[theuprising]

No you guys are are wrong. You cannot have all games you own be digital and able to share with people unless you have online DRM. This is not a greedy move, piracy rates on consoles are VERY low already compared to the PC thanks to physical DRM, when you make things digital you need digital DRM. This would not make MS any more money if they went digital, they were just following market trends.

If they didn't have online DRM on an all digital console, then it would VERY easy to pirate stuff. See the PC. People hate change is all. Keep a note that there is no reason for them not to have family sharing on games bought digitally. Not sure why they didn't announce as much already.

Also, yes it was a vocal minority, what was it, 40% of twitter responded positively to the XB1 REVEAL. This was BEFORE the 360's. The avg consumer has internet. They like the new Kinect and motion gaming. So yes, it was very clearly a MINORITY.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I don't even get why this conversation is really happening.

When you buy a PC or a Mac, you're not buying steam. You're never buying steam. If you don't connect, Steam doesn't limit all of your computer's functions until you connect online again. Sharing games? hell, you can legally do that now if you just have your friend's password and enough space to keep the game on your harddrive.

There's never been a gaming experience without drm. Please, let's get that correct now. We didn't have the term for it, but you had to buy the copy to install it. Then you had to put down a key to install it. Then you had to have the CD or DVD always in the drive to play it. We never lived in a DRM free environment.

However, Xbox One raised holy Hell not because they implemented something beyond DRM. It was the first system to cut everything off and completely limit your experience no matter what game you were playing, no matter if you were even playing the console, just because it made an arbitrary decision to cut off your ability to use the Xbox One as a gaming system if you didn't have constant online access.

That is not DRM. That is control. Get that right.

 

[theuprising]

I don't even get why this conversation is really happening.

When you buy a PC or a Mac, you're not buying steam. You're never buying steam. If you don't connect, Steam doesn't limit all of your computer's functions until you connect online again. Sharing games? hell, you can legally do that now if you just have your friend's password and enough space to keep the game on your harddrive.

There's never been a gaming experience without drm. Please, let's get that correct now. We didn't have the term for it, but you had to buy the copy to install it. Then you had to put down a key to install it. Then you had to have the CD or DVD always in the drive to play it. We never lived in a DRM free environment.

However, Xbox One raised holy Hell not because they implemented something beyond DRM. It was the first system to cut everything off and completely limit your experience no matter what game you were playing, no matter if you were even playing the console, just because it made an arbitrary decision to cut off your ability to use the Xbox One as a gaming system if you didn't have constant online access.

That is not DRM. That is control. Get that right.

If transferring byte's worth of data once a DAY is constant internet access, then you are right, that's lame for ppl who like single player games. But that's not the case. Also if you mostly like single-player games you would be with the PS4 and their ghetto online services, which they are bribing you to subscribe for with 20+ indie games, anyway.

You always had a choice, if your internet is so bad that it goes off DAYS at a time, get a PS4. No one was forcing you to get an X1, I don't understand.

 

[Windcaler]

No one that I can recall wanted the family sharing plan gone until microsoft explained what it was. Originally they were painting it as a 10 person list where anyone could download/play the games without any kind of restrictions. Later on they revealed that the plan was actually one where you basicly got a 60 minute demo which is pretty lame IMO.

There were many other issues such as the 24 hour check in which many people (rightfully so IMO) called it an always online DRM. It got even worse when using a friends console where the check in was once an hour. Treating customers as criminals is not, nor will ever be, a good way to inspire consumer loyalty or gain consumer goodwill. Furthermore with the need to register discs it took away one of the major strengths consoles have "pick up and play". With this registration procedure it required long setup times which are on par with PCs option menus.

There were also concerns about the permanently online Kinect which was a requirement for the system to work. Considering Microsofts involvment with NSA spying methods used on American Citizens I can certainly understand peoples reservations about using a device that could (read: Could not necessarily would) be used to spy on them in their homes.

All that said, what did the consumer get in return for all these potential issues? The answer is nothing. If they had at least offered something good in return a compromise could have been reached but they didnt even go that far. It also didnt help that Sony's system and PC was more attractive in every way I personally care about. Ultimately many of us said "Im not buying your console" and when preorders ended up with the PS4 having 9-10 times the XB1 preorders Microsoft new this wouldnt fly.

If 10 times the people buying the PS4 over the xbox 1 is the vocal minority then I would like to know what your opinion is on what would be the majority not buying their console.

For the record I have no plans to get an Xbox 1, PS4, and I dislike Steam as well as any DRM riddled digital distribution platform

 

[theuprising]

You don't like DRM? LACK OF DRM on the PC is the reason lots of devs are hesitant to make PC games or PC ports, especially single player PC games. All consoles have physical DRM, unless you hack it, but then you can't use their online services.

 

[Spacemonkey430]

I knew it. I knew by looking at the title that this would be yet another thread with somebody whining about the Xbox 180. I don't know why I clicked this thread because it's the same thing every time: somebody pisses and moans over the fact that everybody actually liked all the forced DRM (false) and that it is just the same as Steam (also false). Why do I bother? Roll over and accept your consumer beating if you will, but don't blame other consumers for voicing their opinions.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

If transferring byte's worth of data once a DAY is constant internet access, then you are right, that's lame for ppl who like single player games. But that's not the case. Also if you mostly like single-player games you would be with the PS4 and their ghetto online services, which they are bribing you to subscribe for with 20+ indie games, anyway.

You always had a choice, if your internet is so bad that it goes off DAYS at a time, get a PS4. No one was forcing you to get an X1, I don't understand.

You're completely right. No one is or was forcing me to get an Xbox One. No one held a gun to my head and made me gather the money to purchase it.

I merely stated that due to what Microsoft was offering with the console, it turned me and a great deal of other people off. PS4 did and does look better to me. Say whatever you want about their online services, but I don't even play games online on console. That's what I use my pc for. So, you're right. People like me wouldn't have found much in Xbox One.

What I think you might not understand is that there might be more people like me than you or Microsoft thought.

 

[Tanakh]

Tpiracy rates on consoles are VERY low

I would like to see a source on that, if you were so kind.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

You know, I've about had it with the hypocrisy of the vocal minority of gamers. I'm well aware it's a running joke of sorts, and one of the fundamentals of the internet (much like cat pictures) but it's still bullshit and it needs to stop.

Three months ago Microsoft tried to revolutionize the concept of digital distribution and content ownership by allowing unprecedented capabilities to share your digital downloads with family and friends. It was ground breaking and a huge step forward for moving towards an all digital model. The underpinnings of the digital rights management that were, for all intents and purposes required, to power this caused a completely RIDICULOUS amount of backlash. So much so, Microsoft reversed their position and removed said DRM, and a major casualty of that being we now LOST all that ground breaking functionality that would not work without the associated rights management.

Fast forward 3 months to now, and Valve announces the SAME functionality, and powers it with the SAME type of content control underpinnings, and they are hailed as the heroes of the industry and placed on a golden pedestal by the same people!

I love Valve, I love their products and I have great friends there who make great things, but this deification of them needs to bloody stop! So too does the knee jerk reactions towards any "big company" trying to do anything new and exciting. It used to be that the vocal minority was annoying but harmless, but with the Xbox One it's been proven that they are bad for the rest of us consumers, and are now holding back the industry from progress.

Thoughts?

Yeah, just one. Does Valve's implementation of game sharing require that my computer be rendered completely unusable if I don't get an internet connection once every 24 hours?

 

[Ticklefist]

This argument has been shut down all day all over the internet. You just made this thread to tell people they weren't in the majority. They were.

 

[DarkSeraphim02]

I don't know how relevant this little comparison is, but given all the DRM stuff customers would have had to agree to just to get whatever benefits Microsoft was trying to push with the original form of the XB1 it reminded me of a telemarketer lady who tried to sell me a vaccuum cleaner alongside "$300 worth of free stuff".
I turned her down, and she, shocked, said "you don't want $300 worth of free stuff!?". Considering said stuff would have been crap I most likely would have needed the vaccuum to use in the first place, it's not exactly a good deal.

Microsoft could have promised me the bloody moon and my dream girl and I would still turn it down because it would mean having to let them essentially treat me like I'm a criminal.

The 24 hour check in is quite frankly, an incredibly stupid idea because if either Microsoft or I had any kind of prolonged issue I don't get to play my games. This problem would also surface after the XB1s support stops X number of years down the road.

In regards to the whole concept of my not owning the physical games I buy, in the words of Yahtzee, "There is no middle finger big enough".
I don't care what Microsoft or anyone else thinks, if I go out and buy a physical copy of a game, I own that copy and if I want to let friends play it, or give it to someone as a gift, or god forbid sell the damn thing that's my right as I own that copy.
Now to be fair, if I buy a digital copy of the game, ok fine. I don't own that, as that is merely the programming and such used to make the game, and that belongs to the developers/publishers.

Now, the fee related to used games on the original form of the XB1. On that thing, if I bought a game used, I would have had to pay a fee to play it. Given that the used game market is legal and I'm not doing anything wrong by purchasing a game used, why the hell should I have to pay a fee? Wouldn't I in essense be paying twice to play the game? once at the store for X amount of money, then again when I put the game in the system. I'm not sure how much the fee was, some said it was a small one, others said it was full retail value (I don't have citations, sorry). I'm probably wrong on the legal aspect of this, but to me that sounds almost like extortion. I wouldn't buy a used car for 10 grand if I had to pay another 3 to get the damn keys.

In it's original form, with all the DRM and crap, the X-box One, in my eyes, destroyed any chance of ever getting a sale from me. In fact I personally believe that had the system actually shipped in that state it would have bombed, badly.

In it's new form, with the DRM gone and even the mandatory kinect apparantly being made optional, like it should have been from day one, I might pick one up some day, but only if it actually releases something I'm interested in.

 

[Azrael the Cat]

The Xbox One wanted an all-online present and declared war on the traditional sense of ownership of console games. It deserved what it got.

But Steam has similarish online requirements, and long ago destroyed the concept of physical media on the PC platform. Why should consoles ignore the same future progress that came to PC years ago?

The difference, such as it is, is that on the PC you can choose not to use Valve if you don't like their DRM scheme.

I'm not entirely sure we really have that choice any more. More and more publishers consider steam to be the "only" way to publish their titles, and release it solely through there. However Publishers ARE beginning to take note of this and the fact that it is not an ideal monopoly for either them or consumers, which is why we are seeing the roll out of things like EA's Origin, Ubisoft's UPlay, and Activision's upcomming platform.

Uhhh...no it doesn't. Go to the pull-down menus, select the first on the left (entitled 'steam') and the 2nd option if 'Offline mode'. You can play all of your games to your hearts content without having an always on connection - in fact you don't need any net connection at all other than when you're actually downloading the game.

 

[Tanakh]

Actually, Piracy on consoles is much higher than that of PC

I would like to see a source on that (non based on anecdotes), if you were so kind.

Have been looking for anything solid on this, so far have found nothing.

 

[Yopaz]

I'd also like to point out that Microsoft never really clearly stated what the game sharing would actually entail, simply that you could do it with up to ten people on your friend/family list. The cynic and conspiracy theorist in me would posit that they were intending to make it little more than a glorified demo service, because allowing that many potential customers to play entire games at no cost seems like business suicide.

This has been my main issue with giving credit to Microsoft this coming generation. They have been so careful to share something that might be an improvement on what we have today that I don't really know how it's going to work.

Some sources claim it would be a 15-45 minute demo which would then transfer you to the store where you're told you can either buy the game or fuck off, also preventing the owner from playing it while you play the demo, neat.

Then there are the stories about how it was actually going to be really awesome. Two friends playing the same game at the same time regardless of how far apart they live. A massive step forward compared to lending out discs.

OT: As others have already said, we're not complaining about Microsoft's game sharing and praising Valve's game sharing. We are complaining about getting DRM forced down our throats and praising game sharing.

Steam is already DRM, but it does it right. Personally it helps me keep my game library organized, it lets me chat with my friends, it lets me purchase my games, it feeds me the product key for games that require that so I won't have to type it in myself misreading Q and 0 for O. We accept this because PC has been feeding us product keys for a long time. Ownership is a thing of the past, at least Steam sweetens the deal.

 

[Callate]

The people who heaped scorn on the original policies of the X-Box One were only a "minority" in the literal sense that it wasn't 51% of gamers. The issues weren't getting mainstream coverage and filling Amazon.com and virtually every major game site message board off the back of a mere handful of malcontents. And while there was undoubtedly a certain amount of bandwagon-jumping, as there always is, the root causes for the discontent were not minor or based on misunderstandings.

As there are already plenty of people covering how Steam's policies and standing within the wider market differ from Microsoft's, I'm not going to bother pitching in there; suffice it to say I find the comparison rather strained.

 

[Tanakh]

snip

Thanks for the link. Forbes has some of the less biased articles about videogames that I have seen.