The sharing feature wasn't a problem. It was all of the XBox Ones other "features" that people were raging at and it wasn't a "vocal minority" either. It was most people.
When the "vocal minority" begins to actually hurt us consumers.
- Thread starter Sargonas42
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The difference being that when you buy from GreenManGaming, Amazon, or a physical store, Steam doesn't get that money. It's still included as DRM, sure, but you can technically use Steam without paying into Valve's coffers, which is closer to the moral high ground if you're anti-Steam but still want Steamworks games.Thoralata said:
And the difference here being that if you happen to lose internet for 24 hours, your entire game library won't brick itself arbitrarily until such time as you regain an internet connection.Thoralata said:
Yes, PC gaming pretty much requires an internet connection nowadays, when digital distribution is so much more common than physical copies and many things refuse to run without activating on Steam first. But nothing about PC gaming strictly requires you to reconnect your PC to the internet every day. You already see people complaining about how buggy and unreliable Steam's offline mode is, imagine the riotous anger that would arise if it locked you out of everything when you spent 24 hours disconnected?
And another point of contention for me personally is that my internet is pretty crap. I have no wireless to speak of, and as such generally like to keep my PC connected at any given time because it gives me the most usability, with being able to surf forums, read news articles, watch videos, or download games, or any combination all at once. The last time I connected one of my consoles to the internet was when I downloaded Banjo-Tooie to my Xbox 360, which would probably be going on about half a year now. Half a year later, I could still turn on my Xbox or PS3 and play a game just fine, without any restrictions and without needing to switch over my ethernet cable.
Also, more generally aimed at the thread and/or people who say "Well, PC gaming is going digital, why stop that progress for consoles!?!" -
Why not have both? Oh, sure, publishers can whinge and ***** about how much production costs lose them until they're blue in the face, but it's just another scapegoat for them to avoid admitting they just can't budget worth a damn. Why do we need to kill off physical copies in favor of going fully digital? Why can't we have digital for those who like it, and physical for those who prefer it? I, for one, hate that it's practically impossible to get physical versions of PC games unless they're the newest, biggest things. But beyond that, I've always enjoyed the little things about popping open a video game box and sliding the cartridge/disk into the system and watching it boot up for the first time. It's nowhere near as satisfying to just load up a .exe.
That's not fair . FromSoftware did not want to make a PC port because they didn't know how . And the told us that. People signed a petition , and said they didn't care if the port was bad , so From Software complied with the best of their ability , that again they told us outright they had none .teh_gunslinger said:
OT: vocal minority? Are you kidding ? I have never seen the entire internet band together for a cause . It was quite inspiring actually . That being said ,i don't think microsof should have backpedaled. They should have proved that the console was worth buying , but that's a topic for another time . The difference between steam and Xbone is the the Xbone is a console . You are essentially paying 500$ for a DRMbox . Steam on the otherhand is a free game client , that you are under no obligation to use .
The big thing was the always-online NSA "you are a pirate" DRM that everyone hated. Nobody had a problem with the game sharing portion.
Jim Sterling actually did a video on why this kind of thing is more acceptable on PCs than on consoles. (In this case, it's because Steam is a far "nicer" platform, and anyone who has it has a high-speed internet connection by default.)
I get the impression OP kinda missed the point. One required a mandatory daily check in and such which was restrictive to customers, and the other is adding an extra service on top of one it already provides with no downside as it's free and you can be offline as long as you want with Steam.
Not to mention Microsoft's poor attempt of PR, mismanagement of information (different people in the company giving different answers to the same questions.) and general attitude toward their potential customers. They all have a part to play in why a lot of people disliked them as well. You don't just get to walk from that as a company.
Not to mention Microsoft's poor attempt of PR, mismanagement of information (different people in the company giving different answers to the same questions.) and general attitude toward their potential customers. They all have a part to play in why a lot of people disliked them as well. You don't just get to walk from that as a company.
Hair splitting FTW.TehCookie said:
Hmmm....Perhaps you should od more research before making such assertions, then.
It is, for the record, a gross expansion of the existing DRM. You get one console that doesn't need to be connected to the internet, assuming you don't have any fuck-ups. I've had such fuck-ups, and were I to apply the same "it doesn't work for me" mentality, it would very well behoove me to insist the entire system is broken.
My thoughts are that these 'revolutionary features' were total bullshit and sold to us by inept marketing executives who were incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence to explain their reasoning.Sargonas42 said:
Also; as much of a shock as this might be to the engineers of Microsoft; not everyone has got stable FTTH connections available to them. Who knows, perhaps the console was 20 or 30 years ahead of it's time. If it had been released in a market where 98% of the world has that kind of stable, cheap connectivity then perhaps it would been incredible. As it stands: it was a console being sold on Anti-Consumer DRM, requiring infrastructure that didn't exist in huge chunks of it's market, emphasizing features that you needed OTHER paid services to use or would be unavailable outside of the United States.
Microsoft is a company known for their anti consumer business practices. They cut corners on the production process of the X360, leading to the infamous RROD. They were the first business to participate in giving our private information to the NSA in the recent PRISM scandal. They created a universally reviled DRM platform (Games for Windows Live.) The perception is that Microsoft is like that mechanic that will charge you $300 extra for changing your brakes (that did not need to be changed) when you come in to fix a busted tail light.Sargonas42 said:
Valve, however, is a company primarily know for selling games for 75% off. And for not releasing Half Life 3. People trust Valve - the general experience is that Valve is our partner, earning our money by offering the most competitive product. To continue the anology, Valve is percieved as the honest mechanic
Besides, you are ignoring the most relevant fact: Microsoft did not announce a game sharing plan. They announced a DRM scheme. They then tried to justify the DRM scheme with features that were poorly explained. The details were vague so we didn't understand what was actually happening and if these features were as good as Microsoft claimed. When we asked for clarification they gave no answers. Microsoft didn't announce "Look at all these awesome features! Unfortunately there is this one little string attached that will make all these great things possible." They announced "Look at all the ways we are going to lock down our new console and restrict the way you play games! By the way, we might add some cool functions in to make up for it, but we really haven't figured the details yet." This sends the wrong message - that they are more concerned with making sure the limitations are in place than the awesome new features that it will supposedly allow. From the consumer perspective, this was Microsoft adding in a new type of DRM - the big one we have all been dreading - with vague promises that they are not trying to screw us over. And because of their terrible reputation no one believed that promise.
Valve, on the other hand, already had sold their platform and the DRM that goes with it (primarily by selling us games at 25% the market value.) Valve does not need to do this to justify the platform, we already use Steam. And notice how the announcement is very clear. All the details are already there. We know exactly what Valve is going to do here. The purpose of this new feature is, of course, for them to remain the most competitive platform in the growing digital distribution market. But from the consumer perspective this is a free bonus to a platform we already love.
Value is the favorite of the community and they have worked very hard to make that the case. Microsoft has done very little to make us love them. That makes all the difference.
He's implying that they're morons for saddling the game with Games for Windows Live, which was an inexcusably silly decision regardless of how inexperienced they were with the platform.krazykidd said:
As for the fact it was a shoddy port...a community modder fixed most of the issues with it in what...a day or two? Are you telling me From couldn't have found someone to stick on the payroll to do the same? Sorry, but they did kind of earn a "morons" label. It can be a kindly "moron", accompanied by a fond pat on the back, but it was still pretty fucking stupid.
OT - XBone was launching into a very different market place with very different community expectations. If it really was a brave new world Microsoft was selling everyone, then it was a marketing disaster of epic proportions, and that's on Microsoft, not consumers.
There are a great many problems with this logic.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
1) The traditional ownership is seen as sacrosanct without even the slightest lip service paid to it's fundamental problems. Most notable are that the IP owners generally do their absolute best to ensure your "ownership" is as minimal as possible and the fact that the only real power you currently have is possession of physical media which you are free to sell or give away after opening but can only return for a copy of the same regardless of any issues the software may have.
2) The current model of ownership already sees widespread purchases of software where your limited rights in the "traditional" (that is, based upon an actual physical distribution of media) model are eroded to absolutely nothing. Digital distribution, be it on a console or on the PC through any of the major vendors, almost entirely eliminates any option of return or resale - one of the slim few rights you possess. It is often difficult to return a game to a digital distribution service that you've never installed or launched even though it is relatively easy to return a physical product that has never been opened.
3) The proposed model of Microsoft offered comparatively greater flexibility and freedom for digital purchases than you have with then now and more than was offered, at the time, by competitors in the PC market.
4) The argument often cited as to why valve gets away with it (See Jim Sterling's video on the subject) uses, as it's primary points, the idea that there exists competition in the PC space and that valve has simply proven they can do it. The first argument falls largely flat as you often simply don't have a choice with where you purchase your software and, in many cases, even a retail box copy still requires steam to install and function. The second is a similarly feeble argument as proving you can do something required, at some point, that you do something for the first time. Refusing Microsoft the opportunity to prove what they could or could not do with the service on the basis that they had not proven they could run the service because they had never really tried to run the service is a silly enough argument that it deserves entry into the TvTropes page for Catch-22.
5) Underlying the entire backlash was the assumption that the evil corporation (Microsoft) was somehow going to make life worse for the average gamer. Broadly speaking, the fear was largely that a game would simply cost more once you take into account the difficulty (if not outright impossibility) of reselling games, the complete elimination of competition, and the complete elimination of a used market. This argument finds it's flaw from the very piece of evidence used to support it: Microsoft, as a company, wants to make money. Ideally, they want to make as much money as possible and thus it can be assumed will follow a course designed to maximize returns. Valve does not run sales out of charity - both they (and various indie studios) say they do it because it makes more money than not running sales. By contrast, Microsoft's games on demand tend to have wildly inflated prices that never seem to shift. Starting with the obvious problems of direct comparison, Microsoft is in a position where competing with a retail chain (by, say, undercutting their price on a product) is a risky endeavor as they depend upon that same retail chain to sell both hardware and software. By contrast, Steam does not depend upon the traditional retail chain in the slightest and thus they thus cut prices without risk. People often forget much of the problem with the modern game market is the result of the vicious co-dependence of developer and retail channel. At the most extreme version of the end goal of Microsoft, the dependence upon traditional retail would be entirely severed at which point modifying prices of games arbitrarily in order to maximize return can be done with that singular consideration without risking alienating a hostile but necessary partner.
6) The current system that people stand and defend is broken. Your rights are limited at best, the used market can only be described as consumer hostile (on both sides of the sale), and those companies that take the enormous financial risk of development are constantly forced to cede income to unrelated third parties all in service of maintaining a system that does the consumer virtually no favors.
I may not necessarily agree with Microsoft's approach but they at least presented a plan that offered a different path than the current one. Yet people screamed and moaned about those changes because of the potential for problems and malfeasance down the line while apparently ignoring that the devil you know isn't any less vile for being familiar.
3+ solid pages of people DESTROYING the OP's argument; no refutation offered.
Gee, this doesn't reek of badge fishing at all.
EDIT (9/15/13): As of the time of this writing, the OP hasn't even been logged on the Escapist since ~2 hours after posting the topic. Looks like a giant Parthian Shot at the Escapist userbase to me.
Gee, this doesn't reek of badge fishing at all.
EDIT (9/15/13): As of the time of this writing, the OP hasn't even been logged on the Escapist since ~2 hours after posting the topic. Looks like a giant Parthian Shot at the Escapist userbase to me.
Awarding badges every time someone has their "argument" blown out of the water seems like a waste of time.Atmos Duality said:
Atmos Duality said:
I don't know, I had fun in this thread imitating Friend Computer from Paranoia.ThingWhatSqueaks said:
And let's not forget Microsoft's groundbreaking solution to mem and women serving overseas that wouldn't be able to check into Microsoft Live: "Stick with the 360." Fucking Brilliant!
Just shut down all of yall's nonsense. You are in the clear minority, an "echo chamber" according to the article. Goodbye.ticklefist said:
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/xbox-one-the-mainstream-media-reacts-are-we-the-20-percent/