Veteran game designer Jesse Schell just shared his idea that listening to users regarding the DRM policy change was a mistake by Microsoft.
Wha...??!?! You can be Steam if you want to... But i just wanna borrow some games from my friends and vice versa...
If they want to be steam, the need to go all the way or go home. Prices need to drop hard, major sales need to happen, discounts, steam-type rewards etc.
Honestly if Microsoft kept the drm, I highly doubt we would've seen sales or even the standard price of games drop. When people like Schell used the Steam comparison they obviously not seeing the big picture. For one, major publishers like EA, Capcom, Activision isn't going to drop their prices even if Microsoft go "Steam". Just look at some of their games on Steam. Sure those publishers' older games are cheap but their newly released games are usually priced at $60.
Thats the thing too people say that this would of lead to sales and stuff like steam but when you really add in the fact that its Microsoft its highly doubtful. I mean they were the only guys being payed for there service for years before PS plus and they still gave us basically crap. This isnt the players fault alone, its MS's as well because of there absolutly horrible description of the service while leaving out how easy it actually would of been with the DRM when everyone has a kinect and such.
No offence but Jesse Schell just made a big mistake by thinking that MS reversed DRM because they listened to gamers. They did that because of poor pre-orders. The numbers weren't there and they were FORCED to change their stance.
They went to the neighbor's home lol looks like the neighbors were doing much better and decided to stick with them.
@zee yup you're spot on. Microsft listened to the Excel spreadsheet with projected sales over the next 12-18 months had Xbox One pre-orders been close with PS4 pre-orders it would still have all the original features like DRM, no indie self-publishing, family share etc.
Zeee Is it not the gamers who place the pre-orders?
Exactly what they did was half assed. The cost/distribution of physical disc was still there. Physical disc were just becoming digital copies to limit customer control, the used market and reduce piracy with the 24 hr checks. When they release a console with no disc drive then they are fully digital then maybe we will get cheaper prices, discounts etc like steam until then they should offer options to consumers not forcibly turn physical copies to digital copies when these same games were going to be available day on digitally anyway.
I booed the announcement of the DRM policy at my screen at home when I heard this. Even though I did not plan on buying the Xbox one anyway I still got angered by this DRM policy. And I am glad that it was abolished. But for someone to say they made a mistake by retracting the DRM? No. This guy I will not listen to. I won't respect his opinion, and I won't respect his ideals. Forcing that type of DRM only makes me lose another right to gaming that has yet to be protected. Good bye Jesse.
Its funny because the biggest anti-drm talking point is "I don't want to give up my rights" then the same people acknowledge Steam is great but only because Steam is cheaper....which of course is true. So lets come down off the moral high horse and put this into perspective, the "my rights" propaganda was BS if its just really about price. Micro was right digital is the future but like I said they screwed up the message by not giving the consumer tangible incentive up front, basicly they just came out and said "hey no more used games", if they would have said "hey no more used games but here are the benefits you get in return" then I think the strategy would have been widely accepted. Also saying just do everything on the digital side is not as simple as it sounds because now that creates more management of a two tier policy structure, theres alot that goes into making everything mesh behind the scenes, and is it beneficial for them, however I suspect at least some of their original plans will be back as they have stated publicly.
That's why I'm getting the Xbox, it's a cross between steam and the 360. And I'm going to down load all my games. Hopefully they'll be rereleased a few weeks before the physical game.
it does sound like an oxymoron telling us m$ made a mistake by listening to there customers. but if you do sit back and think rationally and take a deep breath there is some credibility to what the author says, even if i dont agree with it. article, "Why is it that big companies fail when the technology changes? It happens in every industry, so what's the pattern? What are they all doing wrong? Everyone says, 'Oh, it's because they're stupid." they might not be stupid but it would be stupid to alienate your customers and that is how some feel when they make comments like buy a x360 if you want to be offline. but when you look at someone such as nintendo you get the feeling they are too wrapped up in history. it hurt them with the rise in hd as it put them behind in development. it hurt them with the explosion of online gaming as we can see with many features still being years behind. it does take a bold move to change direction. look at how aggressive m$ was with kinect. some may argue they had to do that to make it successful. they spent a lot of money on advertising where many thought should have been put in game development. there needs to be a balance and instead of having kinect as an additional concept it looked like m$ held back on making new games and shifted focus. can you imagine if sony did that with the vita and stopped ps3 game development? did nintendo balance wii game development while supporting the 3ds properly? m$ had less of an excuse, they dont have a handheld market to support. even now many dont see many benefits with kinect. at least when it comes to gaming. article, "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different." true and false. some new games like dishonored did fairly well. but games like tomb raider had very vocal supporters and non-supporters. that had a mixed crowd. the new devil may cry had a very vocal fanbase that hated the changes but it ended up being a good game. so to generalize doesnt do much good but there is some truth in it. many of us complain about call of duty each year but it ends up being the top seller. we are our own worse enemies and all these sequels show that. but at the same time you need an established franchise to help push hardware sales. gamers want that familiarity buying next generation hardware. they want new and created games but also known titles like killzone and forza for example. the hardcore wants both it seems. would a game like the last of us have succeeded like it did if we didnt know naughty dog was behind it? probably but having that name recognition certainly doesnt hurt and new intellectual properties can be hit and miss. yet on the other hand titanfall is getting lots of attention for its fun gameplay. the media will certainly help sell that title from feedback, otherwise it being a new game might be ignored. it is true that m$ will have a harder time than someone like valve and steam. history has shown m$ is not as eager to drop prices (look at hardware prices and how hesitant they are at price drops). many fear software wont drop like it does on steam. its a bit more complicated because of the retail end and partnerships. that makes it more difficult for consoles. if games like destiny show real benefits or forza then gamers will naturally gravitate to that ecosystem. they just dont like being told you have to be connected and not know why. its far easier for apple to sell songs online because they never sold cd's. they dont have that hurdle. steam didnt sell hard copies and then move to digital. but what they did do is offer consumers a good alternative with more affordable prices, unlike the xbox store.
Consoles will NEVER be like steam. Steam exists on an open platform where it must be competitive with other services. Once you buy a console, your only option to buy games is through one service, but when you have a PC you have lots of options. Unfortunately, we will continue to see idiots beg for Microsoft to give them DRM because of this misconception.
@zeee "No offence but Jesse Schell just made a big mistake by thinking that MS reversed DRM because they listened to gamers. They did that because of poor pre-orders. The numbers weren't there and they were FORCED to change their stance." - I see this argument a lot and all I can say is, who cares? Who cares why they changed it? Are laws being broken as a result? Is criminal or malicious or violent activity taking place as a result? No? Then who cares... A good thing happened for many gamers. MS either changed or removed like 90% of the things people were upset about - gamers essentially got what they wanted. You should be happy....but no...people like you still have to find a way to turn it into a negative event - this is MS after all... MS is a business, and thus, they made a business decision, that happen to be an overall positive one - accept it for what it is. MS is not some non-profit charity running off donations, so I wouldn't be too upset when decisions are made from a business perspective, rather than a humanitarian one.
Just read the article... This guy just like to hear his self talk.. Apparently to him any change is positive change, and since consumers were against an anti consumer policy, we want MSFT to not change anything... WTH is this dude going on about. @H0RSE We care why they changed it because if they changed it for the wrong reasons, they don't see why their policies were bad, which means they are ignorant to what the consumers want, which means that down the line they may try to pull something similar again. Imagine a murderer apologizing for a murder because he got caught... yea. I see this "MS is a business" argument all the time.What you fail to realize is that companies know that its a partnership with its consumers, because without the consumers they will fail.They cant just say , f' all consumers and some how still make money.
@H0RSE "I see this argument a lot and all I can say is, who cares?" Maybe because there's a major distinction between the two? In one situation, they listened to their customers, and in the situation grounded in reality, they did not. They got caught with their pants down, not deciding to listen to the very loud majority.
@Dmarc "We care why they changed it because if they changed it for the wrong reasons, they don't see why their policies were bad, which means they are ignorant to what the consumers want, which means that down the line they may try to pull something similar again. Imagine a murderer apologizing for a murder because he got caught... yea." What a completely inaccurate and pointless rebuttal... First off, whether directly or in-directly, there decisions come down to the wants of the consumer, since consumers fuel their revenue. So regardless if MS changed their stance due to simply wanting to make the X1 more marketable and try to gain more customers, or if they changed due to a guilty conscience and feeling sorry for offending the playerbase, it doesn't matter - consumers were a result for the change either way, so the "ignorance" you see, is largely subjective. Second, the murderer analogy...really poor example... MS wasn't caught being involved in illegal activities, effectively "forcing" them to change their stance - they did so on their own. It was a choice they made. So to make your analogy more accurate, it would be like a murderer turning himself in, but not because he felt guilty for what he did, but rather because he was sick of running from the cops and he thought this may result in a shortened sentence. -- @SilentNegotiator "Maybe because there's a major distinction between the two? In one situation, they listened to their customers, and in the situation grounded in reality, they did not." But as I listed above, it comes down to the customer one way or another. Either directly - "sorry you don't like the features, we're going to change them specifically for that reason," or in-directly - "our numbers aren't where we'd like them, so lets change the less desirable features to try and boost them." In either case, you the customer, were a result for the change. --- "They got caught with their pants down, not deciding to listen to the very loud majority." Again, your point? MS had a poor explanation for the initial policies of the X1, which led to an embarrassing PR shitstorm along with confusion, frustration and extreme backlash from the community, which in turn, whether for moral or business reasons, resulted in MS doing an "about face" and changing much of the features customers weren't happy with. I'm not really seeing the "sinister plot ending" that I should be upset with...
@Horse Apparently you dont see the major distinction between the two reeasons.Some people including myself do.If your too stubborn to see how and why we think theres a distinct difference why are you asking? I mean its obvious your not trying to see how and why people think theres a diffrence between the two because you basically just reworded your first comment. Btw How is your analogy any different from mine?The murderer still doesnt apologize for the murder. People saying things they dont understand is pointless and doesnt make seems to be becoming the norm on here.
@HORSE Like Dmarc is saying, listening to your consumers is different than waiting till preorder numbers to drop. Remember, a business cannot profit without it's consumers and when a consumer's comments get ignored, they turn around because they're not guaranteed to get what they want as soon as possible. If Microsoft would of listened, I could guarantee you that they would of announced the removal of the DRM before E3 and that would of been much more respectable versus waiting till pre order numbers to drop and having that to help you make a decision. It shows Microsoft do not know what the consumers want, what if they do another mistake in the future? Are they going to wait a month for sales numbers and make a decision off that? Bring up something really dislikable in the beginning of the month then wait a whole month to change it? I would of rather see Microsoft make quick fast decisions based on consumer critism rather than to take longer for sales charts to be presented at a meeting. Consumers know best, and guess what? They were right the whole time before the first pre order numbers popped up for the console. If they would of listened, trust me, most of this negativity would of died a long time ago. Most of it is because MS takes too long to give answers. They need to listen more and they'll do much better and that would mean more consumers for them.
Microsoft DIDN'T LISTEN to their customers. You'd be naive to believe that. They saw how terrible they were doing in the pre-sale market. People were pre-ordering the PS4 almost tenfold. It's about the money. Not saying Sony isn't doing things for the money as well, after all, they are a business. But there are good and bad ways to do it. Make your product appealing to your target audience = Good. Make your product a hostile anti-consumer machine for profit = Not as good.
@ JokesOnYou Please stop these distractions rather than focussing on the point at hand. Steam IS a great service which came at the cost of true ownership if you decide to use that service. Steam is not a gaming machine though is it? Steam the most popular, but it is not a PC or a Mac's exclusive point of sale (well it is for certain games, but that's not the point). You can buy games from GOG.com, Humble store and other no-DRM outlets. You can buy discs, and use them on your PC, or Mac or on Linux. It's not comparable. Microsoft's DRM plan meant afford the consumer zero choice if they wanted Xbox One. The only point of sale is the Xbox Store. You couldn't have bought non-DRM versions of games on XBox One. It was a stranglehold, nothing less. And they wouldn't have offered benefits to counter any negative reaction. The game sharing was never going to be what people were led to believe. People reacted how they should have for something that was forced system-wide DRM on a gaming console, that doesn't have the same benefits or flexibility of a computer.
No well said bubble yet? Wow, tough crowd lol.
You don't DO a mistake. You MAKE a mistake. Moron. Grade A journalist can't even use grammar correctly
@Dmarc Wow...is there really this much miscommunication between us?! Jesus Christ.. let's try breaking this down... "Apparently you dont see the major distinction between the two reeasons..." - I do see the distinctions. I figured this was evident in the fact that I explain the 2 viewpoints and their differences, numerous times, in my posts. --- "If your too stubborn to see how and why we think theres a distinct difference why are you asking?" - The word that sticks out here is "thinks." You say, " why we THINK theres a distinct difference." Are you implying that you (and others) simply "believe" there is a difference, even if there actually isn't? As I mentioned, I know the differences. If you would have read the first paragraph from my first post, you would have seen that it isn't about me not seeing the differences, it's about me not caring about them, because in the context of the situation, I see the end result - MS changing their policies - more important than their reasoning for why they did it. As a result of their "change of heart," no orphans died, no criminal act was perpetrated, no malicious or violent activity took place as a result, so what really is the big deal? The only reasoning I can think of that people would be so upset, is because they feel neglected and/or worthless, like MS didn't give enough of a shit about them or their opinion to care, until after it stared effecting them personally. If that is it (and I really hope it isn't) that is such a trivial, juvenile take on the situation, and only a individual with an over-inflated sense of self importance could take things in such a personal manner, where essentially "getting what you want" (MS's change in polices) amounts to nothing, because of the "principle" of the manner...is this really an issue of being upset because your feeling were hurt, and MS didn't acknowledge it? I really hope it isn't that petty. The end result is the focal point, so I don't care if MS personally shook the hands of every disappointed and offended gamer, and offered their change in stance as a peace offering, or if they simply saw all of us as potential lost dollar signs and reacted accordingly. A good thing happened, and nothing "evil" took place as a result nor was it the intent, so I really don't care. --- "How is your analogy any different from mine?The murderer still doesnt apologize for the murder." - The difference is that in your analogy, there was no choice on behalf of the criminal to turn himself in. He actually didn't turn himself in - he got caught, and that isn't what happened with the MS debacle - MS made a choice to change their polices. The reasoning may not have been up to your standards, but that isn't the point. The point is they changed them. As for not apologizing? I don't see what MS has to apologize for, other than poor communication. The policies themselves need no apology, nor does their choice or reasoning to changer them. Just because you and others didn't see "eye to eye" with MS and their initial plan, doesn't mean they need to apologize to anyone for it - A disagreement in this regard, doesn't warrant an apology.
@Kryptix "...listening to your consumers is different than waiting till preorder numbers to drop." - The reasons why take backseat to the end result. --- "...when a consumer's comments get ignored, they turn around because they're not guaranteed to get what they want as soon as possible." - "get what they want as soon as possible?" sounds a little over self-entitled, don't you think? --- " If Microsoft would of listened, I could guarantee you that they would of announced the removal of the DRM before E3 and that would of been much more respectable versus waiting till pre order numbers to drop and having that to help you make a decision. " - Something you're not factoring in is that MS didn't "have" to change anything. Regardless what you and others say, and regardless of the ore-order numbers, MS could have stuck to their guns and went ahead with their initial plan. --- "It shows Microsoft do not know what the consumers want..." - since when do consumers even know what they want? --- "what if they do another mistake in the future?" - you're implying that their initial plan was a mistake - that is opinion. The only "mistake" MS made, was how they went about explaining everything and responding to the community. Just because you and others didn't approve of it, doesn't make it a mistake. --- "Bring up something really dislikable in the beginning of the month then wait a whole month to change it?" - So they "had" to change, because it was "really dislikable," despite the fact that it wasn't explained that well from the start and hadn't actually been experienced first-hand by anyone complaining,...MS didn't have to change anything. The fact that they did at all, should be seen a plus. --- "Consumers know best..." - lol, really? Do they? Consumers are constantly bombarded with commercials and ads telling them what to wear, what to watch, what to eat. They are told what's cool, what's not, what they just "HAVE" to have. They form allegiances to companies and products based off nothing more than brand loyalty, and hate on other for the same reasons. They are manipulated on a daily basis to think that that their every want and desire is more important than actual necessitates of life. Yeah...consumers really know best... People in general don't really know what the hell they want, just what they think they want. The instance where "consumers know best," tends to be when leaving reviews or other feedback about products based on hands-on experience. In the case of MS and the DRM fiasco, not only did they have zero experience with the product/service they were complaining about, they literally knew nothing about it, other than what was revealed and explained to them. For all you and others know, the original policies of the X1 may have made for an exceptional gaming experience, perhaps to the point that it turned out to be more desired than what the consumer(s) originally thought they wanted. --- "They were right the whole time before the first pre order numbers popped up for the console." - This was never a matter of being "right or wrong." It was simply a difference in opinion. --- " If they would of listened, trust me, most of this negativity would of died a long time ago." - Although you make a point, trust me, it will still die down. MS will still sell a lot of X1's and lots of people will still be having fun playing them.
It would never happen, it's MS.
I don't see the mis communication,I just see your lack of understanding and your stance that "the end result is all that matters as long as no one got killed" as a result of your lack of understanding. You notice the differences but you don't understand the substantial differences,between doing it for the right reasons and wrong reasons.My apologies for not making it known that I meant understand instead of notice when I said "see". If you actually understood the differences you would see that changing for the wrong reasons would mean the current end result wouldn't be the actual end result, making this current end result no where near as important as their reasonings for change as I said earlier.Therefore the current end result isnt the focal point. The word "think" has nothing to do with the point of that sentence, so I don't understand why put so much emphasis on that one word and take it out of context?We don't "think" theres reason to worry about their reasonings for change, we know there is reason to worry.You did however answer my question. I see its not stubbornness its instead ignorance ( im mot calling you ignorant )or lack of understanding on the subject An analogy isn't an example,nothing should be taken literally from an analogy .MSFT apologizing has nothing to do with the point of the analogy.. "People saying things they dont understand is pointless and doesnt make sense seems to be becoming the norm on here." To make it clearer for you, my analogy meant, if you dont understand why what you did was wrong, your bound to do it again.Something parents have been teaching kids since day 1
@HORSE Buddy...just stop. Its clear you either are being paid by MS or should be or are some sort of blind fanboy. Even the most die hard fanboy is STILL A GAMER! I'm not really sure what you are. MS was in the wrong. Period. No they didn't listen to gamers. That is such a load and everyone knows it. They had almost 3 months of rumors of there whole DRM and used games blocking system and it came with a whole flood of negative backlash mind you...they were RUMORS! So...your MS...want to listen to your fans? How about not adding in that feature that is getting the whole net up and arms? Not only do they get to leave looking like heros, they don't even EVER have to admit that those rumors were true, they can chalk it up to "here say" or "rumors" etc. But....MAY 21st....they drop the bomb and confirm it. Not enough? Well the hate continues after for about 3 weeks...E3 comes around and they are STILL down with DRM. PS4 is shown, price announced etc. MS.....ARE STILL DOWN WITH DRM? So...where on earth did you get this was for some damn fans? Cause...they had a awful long time to change it for um...."da fanz" and yet they STILL had it in and were very much ok with it. PS4 outselling it in pre-orders 4 to 1 might of had something to do with it or debuting on Amazon UK at NUMBER 70 while PS4 debuted at NUMBER 4 (mind you in 24 hours becoming the second best selling system that year) So...why does it matter? Um...this company needs to show face, it sorta..kinda MATTERS A WHOLE LOT! They just sat there and tried to pull this DRM crap over consumers and mind you...if Sony didn't have PS4 like PS3 or Wii U didn't have Wii U like Wii...or really every other damn Nintendo system, MS would had just went ahead and did it and really..I'm not even too sure about THAT! You need to understand that MS said on RECORD that they were not going to change XONE polices over PS4's reveal at E3. So...what did you change it for if not that? Sales maybe? So...if the number was right...MS was NEVER going to change it? It make me wonder if XONE got some more pre-orders if MS would had ever really changed it. and yes Dmarc and Zeee are 100% correct. Just saying...look at the agrees and you can see what everyone is agreeing with the most. Sorry but getting caught during a damn murder and then saying sorry and making it seem as if "no harm no foul"? I have to ask you? Are you slow? Thank GOD you are not a damn police officer or don't have anything to do with public policy, I feel you might be out of your mind. So if someone tried to kill someone in your family...you would befriend them because they were STOPPED? I mean.....buddy...you may need some damn help. Your getting to the point were its almost funny because you sound like a Good Guy Greg meme. MS is not doing this cause they like you...they are doing this because they were losing money. They don't have a vested interest in you, they have it with your money. Yes business is about making money...but sorry it is about making a damn connection with your consumers too, I need to equally want something just as much as you want my money. MS seems to miss the good old days when they had zero competition and you just had to "dealwithit". With Google, Linux, Apple, Sony etc its getting hard for them to just make there "F U" products. They now need to "offer" something for us to want in return. No more handouts MS...its time you competed a bit. Competitions is good! =)
I never want to read another wall of BS from HORSE again. Gotta love that ignore-button.
If you look at what games Jesse Schell has made, you'll see that he's a talentless hack, which is why he's so opposed to used games. Maybe he would sell more copies of his games if they were actually good and worth buying? Might be an idea to take a good look at himself before he starts blaming his failures as a developer on everybody else.
the xbox brand cannot and never will be anything like steam with their console mentality. steam is probably the most inexpensive way to game EVER. right this moment, sleeping dogs is on there for 6 dollars. dishonored is about 10 bucks. the console software pricing strategy is absolute garbage compared to steam on just about every level.
That's the biggest factor in the whole used sale argument - bad devs are the ones who favor online passes, hates used games, etc however good devs find ways around it.
""Microsoft did a big mistake by listening to customers", says Jesse Schell" That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Why listen to costumers ? It's not like it's them that buy their product... oh wait...
Correct. The X1 would have had a very short console shelf life (3DO). One of, if not 'the' most important thing that MS did this generation is listen to the customers (through the pre order and post launch sells projections).
He's concept is that, more often than not, customers don't actually know what they want or what is "good" for them. I have issues with this since the people who manage digital game pricing and DRM on consoles are publishers. Publishers have not shown any signs of caring about their customers, so I'm not sure his evaluations holds up very well. The reason Steam does so well is because they are like most retailers and only care about their profit from the games sold. On the consoles, it is a two-party system of Sony/Microsoft getting their flat rate per sale and the publishers deciding the pricing based on that. The publishers want the most money for as long as possible and keep prices high for long periods of time, rarely ever getting game prices down to what you can get on disc 6 to 12 months after release (a price controlled by retailers much moreso than publishers, though game sales to retailer costs on disc also diminish much faster than digital).
@cgoodno Well he's right about that, in general consumers are pretty stupid, just look at how often inferior products outsell their competitors even when priced the same or higher. So you just need to deal with the fact that customers are are stupid, so you either need to educate them or do what they want. It's almost always easier to do what they want.
@ kneon People buy the games that better suit their preferences, same as you. It's not right to deny them choice just because they don't share your perspective on quality. That's the equivalent of saying "voters are stupid, so lets choose the government for them". Developers and publishers are the ones making a big mistake if they think suppressing the used games market will make that money fly straight into their pockets. I really don't understand the business logic of these people! Do they even have any? Do they truly believe that an unhappy costumer will come back to spend more money?!
@information Voters are consumer and they are both stupid, doesn't matter what each political candidate actually believes my state will vote Republican every time.
all im going to say on the matter is first impressions last. first impressions of things are always what sticks in peoples heads and make their minds up for them and im sorry but as a gamer what microsoft tried to do is unacceptable and no amount of twisting and reversal of policies is going to do anything except bring back a few of the xbox diehards that backlashed against micro in the first place.
This article seems to support that Microsoft did a 180 on its designs because it listened to its customers and therefore lost its advantage with advancing the technological aspects of the market. Can't Microsoft still do this with all digital products instead of just dropping all elements of the new delivery concepts? Why can't Microsoft be like Steam when it comes to digital content delivery? Why does their stances on used game sales when it comes to disc-based games affect their overall big picture plans with digital content delivery?
This is what most of the rational gaming community was thinking. It gives us pause to think that most of the online only benefits were either BS (..not finalized and unsupported by some of the major devs) or was not going to be available at launch. Either way, I'm sure that we will see a form of their online roll out in the next couple of years.
I think the messaging would still confuse consumers. You still kind of have the "hated" system, so MS probably decide on being cautious and just completely distance itself from it. Besides, like any change there is a two way street meaning having a hybrid system wasn't enough (benefits to MS) so they scrapped it along to avoid the bad reputation. Possibility is one thing, good business decision is another.
Didn't MS state they were still going to implement this, or at least some features, into digital content?
Theres the issue of retail partner ships. Sony and MS can't price out their own partners or those partners will start to disappear. Thats a non factor for Steam, they can do basically what they want. Sony and MS might have to start waiving their fee and run their stores like regular retailers. It's going to be a tricky transition to digital. I'm also starting to worry about the monopolies Sony and MS are going to have on their consoles and how thats going to effect pricing, when they finally do go fully digital. We can't rely on good faith when it comes to money and I think we deserve to know how these companies intend on keeping prices reasonable when the digital era finally begins. /highmind
Well if you read reports about the drm, you would know that you could do that at any time. Even to people you dont actually know. You let me borrow it digitally. We lost more then we gained in MS turning on the original policy. While I agree that if they were to focus on going digital we should see more discounts, a lot more. We still lost more then we gained. WOW!! I get to hand my game to someone instead of hitting a button on my menu to do the same thing. AWWW I always have to be online?? Wtf?? My xbox is connected all the time anyway but thats bullshit I "have" to be atleast once every 24 hours so I can have access to my games over cloud. This is just MS trying to be big brother taking my choices away. Positive out weighed the negative with the oroginal policy. Backtracking turned the xbox one into the xbox 360.5
No, the 24-hour check is to prevent you from illegally keeping the game after you sold, traded, or gifted away your digital games. How else is MS going to enforce it? However, I agree that we lost way more than we gained. Physical disc is stone age technology, and we just got held back another half a decade, maybe more!
@nuke I knew that. I forgot to say that. Thanks for including that. Got distracted with my rant. Edit: For my orginal post, after rereading it i can tell where people are confused. It was ment to be sarcastic. I was totally for everything ms was going for. I knew thats why we had a 24hr "check-in".
Good post, but to nukeitall, I understand you might want an all digital world, but there are still many people out there that want to own their products forever. I like Steam and digital, but in 20 years can you say for sure digital options such as Steam will be around? Maybe. Maybe not; but I do know that I can always pop in my Atari and Nintendo cartridges and play them whenever. I know they could always break down, but it's going on over 20 years now and they're still working fine. I get the appeal of an an all digital future, but I'll always want a physical option.
Does anyone on this site actually read the article, or do you just read the headlines and then come on here to spout some nonsense that has nothing to do with the content of the article? Please, all of you, I'd like you to read the article, and if you already did, go re-read it. He is not talking about them "listening to their customers" and reversing the DRM policies. He is talking about them implementing the DRM policies in the first place because they thought that digital was the future of what people wanted, when the customers weren't actually ready for that kind of change. Seriously, go read it again. "Your customers want you to stay the same, even if it drives you into the ground," Schell says. "Somehow, Microsoft didn't seem to think that would be a reality, or even a problem. "The reality is that they can't do what the customers want. Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?' And we all said, 'No, we hate that. We hate you. You're an idiot to do that.' "They came out and said, 'We're gonna do this new thing.' And the customers said, 'No, we don't want that, we hate that' - even though it's what they really want and what they will ultimately buy. So now Microsoft has had to say they won't do all that stuff, but someone will.
It's N4G, most of the people here read headlines, maybe the first couple of paragraphs, and comments instead of actually spending 5 minutes to read the article; they'd rather spend 30+ min to read comments and base their opinions off someone elses wording. OT "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' (in the article) The problem with the majority, they aren't specific enough in what they want/looking for. Biggest examples are people who read what someone else wants, copy/paste, then complain because it's either changed too much or not enough; instead of taking the time to post individually to at least get your voice heard. I see countless times (Especially on this site) people arguing in favor/against something, then the next article 180 their entire posting going on about what they like/hate when in the previous article it was the opposite (Without playing/testing the game/console first). I get surveys all the time from Sony involving psn+, the Vita, PS3, etc and I always take the time to fill them out; yes I have seen some changes (not to say I'm the only one however I do see I can help make a difference), and yes I understand I'm only one person, however if I can take the few minutes to get my voice heard, and at least vote what "I" want, so can other people.
microsoft is dumb dont waste your 500 hard earned bucks on them when you can do so much better.
much better, while spending 100$ less! :)
Microsoft didn't listen to consumers. They read the writing on the wall and looked as the pre-order numbers and realized that they would have to backtrack if they wanted to compete. Mark my words though- you WILL get what they attempted the first time around eventually. They are just going to implement it one piece at a time.
Absolutely, if there was a backlash online against their DRM but enough lemmings went ahead and pre-ordered those voices of discontented gamers would have been ignored, it all came down to pre-orders of the PS4 vastly outnumbering the XBOX One on key indicators like Amazon etc. They will introduce this DRM at some point, they will not waste the development of it, it will be mothballed and then slowly brought in, probably for big blockbuster titles like Halo, Gears or Forza where they will claim its for the greater good and will make your games better if they can check every 24 hours in case you need an update. By then people will have already bought the XBOX One thinking the DRM is gone and will be suckered into buying because they just HAVE to play Halo and won't have a choice. In the meantime I'll enjoy my Steam games collection where I'm not forced to authenticate every 24 hours, can play offline if I wish and enjoy a large collection of games many of which I picked up for knock down prices in the regular sales. Or I might just go and play one of my non Steam games because choice is good.
yes its not like almost all of their fanbase was pissed at them so that's right they did wrong by listening to us jackass
well, I think the person who wrote that article didn't check the pre-orders charts before and after the DRM changes.... Microsoft did it because things were going bad.
No it was a mistake to announce DRM without any give to the consumer. It was just plain arrogance which was highlighted in the "if you want to play used games get a 360". Have DRM all you want but reduce the price of games. Give us something for making the service more restricted than before. Game sharing was not enough Since the change the One has become a more attractive proposition
Please never allow this guy to speak again. I'm not trying to be mean, but when I hear/read about game designers and developers supporting DRM, all I hear/read is "My game is probably not all that great, so let's make sure that it can't be resold to maximize game sales". That's the problem nowadays, developers putting out games they don't have faith in.
They would have had no customers if they continued.
They would had customers. You recall the petition a month ago people demanding MS return the drm? People like them would've brought the Xbox One day one.
They were most likely trolls. Did you read the comments on the petition page. It was stuff like "sign if you want the One to die" or "PS4 rulzzzz" (note I spelt rules wrong because that is the calibre we are dealing with here)
hardly anyone signed it in the grand scheme of things.
Well, that's a bit of a stretch, but certainly it would have been less popular.
There are plenty of people on this very forum that "have no problems" with the previous DRM ideas. Plus, the mass market consumer wouldn't probably even educate themselves enough to know what DRM means. With Xbox having such a strong brand in the US, at very least there would be many US loyalists. That being said, once they found out about the limitations, would they be willing to stay with the Xbox One for the long haul?
Yes, less players on Ps4.
Are you the same person that wrote the headline 'did' a mistake? What on earth are you trying to say?
The only real mistake is they made all their claims about their vision look like BS :/