Xbox OneFollow

Two things that would make the Xbox One's new strategy more palatable to the majority of complaining users, at least in my opinion:

1.) Offline mode (They want to be like Steam, right?) I'm sure this would be better even if once Offline'd, your Live account could no longer download already purchased games to other consoles without first turning that offline'd console back online. Then you still remove the disc based license, and only allow one license per game purchase. (Unlike Steam, where I'm pretty sure you can technically offline one PC with installed games and go play online on another PC, but hey, that's how Steam works now, and they still dropped the prices by getting rid of evil Disc based licensing.).

2.) Move non-Microsoft services out of behind the Gold paywall. Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, Internet Explorer, etc, etc.

Yeah, well... erm....

Their points would be a lot better if their cloud-based argument had ANY kind of actual example, and didn't just read like BS tech-babble. And there's a whole wealth of worries there - think about how horrible unstable every CoD game is at launch. Do you want a single cloud network to be managing computations for ALL multiplayer games AND be hosting that hellhole? And god forbid there's more than one major multiplayer launch at a time.

Plus, because it isn't an always-on console, they can't use cloud computing for anything other than multiplayer stuff. The reality here is that, had they actually been able to offer a tangible cloud computation service, then they COULD have sold always on DRM to players. Granted, I'm extremely skeptical that we're anywhere near the point where this would be technologically feasible. But if it WAS possible, that would be a big deal.

It's also worth noting that the PS4 has been citing cloud features as well, and I'm just as doubtful that this kind of implementation is truly possible there. In my opinion, they're trying to make the cloud more exciting to a consumer by seriously stretching the truth on what it could do. I'm sure there's plenty of exciting aspects to cloud support for devs. I seriously doubt the average person cares about any of them - only the finished product. Either way, this isn't unique to the X-Bone.

Then we have the fact that, unlike Steam, this service isn't being limited to digital games. Because Steam requires you to download a game, requiring a single authentification of that game makes perfect sense. Then you get to use offline mode to your heart's content.

But this system is applying that concept to a non-digital system, and it has ramped up the DRM checks to one-per-day (or more) instead of one-per-game.

To pretend that this is just like Steam is actually a bullsh*t argument that completely removes player experience from the talking points. That's been Microsoft's problem from the very start. They keep talking like they're selling this to corporate execs, not like they want to sell it to consumers.


Other points:

No one cares about Glass support. The Wii U has it's weird controller, the PS4 has innate touch support and the ability to link to the Vita, which actually have implications for gameplay.

Plus, why should I care about being able to "swipe" through menus? Isn't the point of the Kinect supposed to be to make my browsing incredibly simple? If not, why the f*** are you making me use it? And at the end of the day, this is functionality that already exists for the 360. I literally never hear people talking about it, caring about it, etc.

Yeah, I get it, you want to use it to sell windows phones down the line. You still haven't made me care now.

And the last thing? If I have my tablet on my lap, why am I not browsing the net on that and doing something useful/fun with the console? Are there occasions I'd want the internet on my TV? I suppose. If it has flash enabled, more than otherwise. But it's still not something I care about in general.

It also requires you to have a supported device. Let's hope Microsoft doesn't **** off Apple enough they remove the app.

Wrong.

You are buying a full, stand-alone version of that game. You can drop it into your X-Box and play the entire game while never going online. Ever. And once you are done with that game, you can either sell it or trade it as you see fit.That's always been one of the advantages of a console.

No, it's addressing the game developers' desire to make more money by eliminating the used market, as if that were somehow the solution to all the industry's woes.

Steam can have massive sale prices because they understand a digital copy costs an tiny amount as compared to producing physical media, and the bulk of those sales are meant to lure you into their store where you wind up buying a bigger title right alongside that smaller priced item.

Meanwhile, the gaming industry is starting to fall apart. Development costs are skyrocketing; investors and focus groups make games, not gamers or developers. So how can they fix their monetary woes? Why micro-transactions, day one DLC and now DRM to kill any perceived competition to their $60 games. The gaming industry has forgotten why people play games and only want a paycheck.

Edited, Jun 15th 2013 4:52pm by Pawkeshup

Uh.... nooooo.

Not if you buy an X-Box copy of it. The thread is about how X-Box One is going digital, not about Steam >.>;;

Edit:

Honestly, I don't even know how PC games work for off-the-shelf purchases anymore. The last I bought was Fallout 3 and I registered it online the day I got it, so I cannot even say if you could play it offline without some form of DRM. My point was that consoles have never required authentication methods, and really shouldn't.

Edited, Jun 15th 2013 5:22pm by Pawkeshup

Um... no.




Thiiiiis is what he said.

Thiiiiis is factually incorrect.

Steamworks games may just be a gateway, but X-Box 360 games are ready to play, no install, out of the box. Yes, they can update, but they never register to your account in the same way a Steam title does. Yes, I get that is what they want to do for X-Box One. And no, I am not OK with it.

Clear?

Edited, Jun 15th 2013 5:35pm by Pawkeshup

No, because Joph never said the 360. You added that. He used Skyrim as an example for how Steam currently works. You are taking Skyrim back to the Xbox 360 console, rather than focusing on the Xbox One console currently being discussed.



Edited, Jun 15th 2013 5:45pm by TirithRR

Aside from that...

It's pretty much Steam in every way except:

You cannot set up a permanent Offline Mode.
You can share your library with up to 10 family member accounts on any Xbox system, and anyone who has physical access to your main Xbox system. (All without allowing them access to your account credentials)
You can trade in your digital licenses at authorized retailers.

I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you here or what.

Steam decides to have their big seasonal sale. They reach out to publishers and say "Hey, sale time coming up... you want in?" and some sort of negotiation goes on for deciding on discounts. The publisher has ultimate say in their pricing but Steam doesn't want to look stupid with a bunch of 10% off prices. Likely, it something like "If you're 50% off we'll feature you on the front page, if it's 75% off, you'll be the top of the daily deals..." and so on. If you want 10% off, you'll get it but you'll be one of the numerous discounted games that never gets a daily or community choice or whatever they're doing these days.

Steam does this because they get a cut of each thing sold via the Steam store. Publishers like it because it's a big event and draws a lot of eyeballs and they sell more stuff due to the buzz. Since there's lots of sales each day, customers are likely to buy multiple products. Yay for everyone. Non-Event Daily deals are generally less attractive ("Oh boy, Magicka for 75% off... again") but exist to keep people in the habit of visiting Steam regularly which means more people see their pre-order advertisements and everything else.

Reading stuff from the Amazon rep, a lot of it is pro-active (at least from Amazon, I assume Steam or GMG does largely the same) where Tony contacts Square-Enix and says "How do you feel about a 75% sale on Hitman?" and they say yes, no or "Maybe 66%". A lot of times I've seen people say "Hey, a sale on XYZ would be awesome or maybe bundled with ABC" and Tony says "Let me talk to my guy at Publisher [...] Looks like end of July and we're aiming for $9.99 for the complete set". So while the publisher has ultimate veto power, they don't plan their sales unilaterally.

Edited, Jun 15th 2013 5:10pm by Jophiel

Ya, it's not like I've had to install games on my PS3 before being allowed to play them. I figure any time I buy a new PS3 game I should expect to wait 10-20 minutes before being allowed to actually play it.

Quit hanging back in the PS2/Xbox Era man. People put 500GB HDDs in their PS3 and are buying 320GB HDDs for their 360 for a reason.

Edited, Jun 15th 2013 6:17pm by TirithRR

I'm not sure how this deviates from what I said?

All sales, whether digital or physical, are realistically controlled by the publishers was really all I was getting at.

That comment specifically was addressed at Pawke, with regards to why Steam had sales. He was arguing that it was to pull people in, so they'd buy full-price items at the same time. I was pointing out that outlets negotiate all sale prices with publishers, so they can reap higher profits through bulk sales, rather than through larger margins on fewer items.

Obviously an outlet can request sales. Whether or not they can sell an item at a smaller profit margin without approval, I have no clue. But any significant sale occurs because a publisher agrees to it. Otherwise, everything would be sold at a signficant loss to the outlet, which isn't really going to help them if they bulk of their sales are heavily discounted.