Just what was Microsoft thinking?

[5n0man]

So more restrictions and no benefits to gamers or publishers is your idea?

What's the point?

Explain to me how more restrictions applies to what I said.

It's actually right inbetween their old policy and the new one.

You would still be able to play from any Xbox via cloud, but you can't assign 10 friends who can play also( which I didn't believe)

You could however still loan out your disk to one friend and they can play from the disk( like the new policy)

You can still buy used games but they would work like games work now, no cloud play, no changing between games instantly

encouragement to buy games new. And online for cheaper(where they can't be sold)

The fact that they didn't go this way leads me to believe that they had money on their mind more so than pushing the industry foward or benefiting gamers

 

[MeachTheMonster]

the industry is fine as long as corporations like MS back real games and not shovelware like Kinect...that is what will destroy the industry not used games.

I use to debate this with someone else on how MS is doing its best to destroy the gaming industry by promoting shovelware Kinect and not real games, its no different than what happened to the rap industry with the promotion of garbage rappers.

the fanboy force is strong with you.

Microsoft doesn't make all the games or steer the industry. Game devolers are closing their doors with or without Microsoft. Sony LOST money with the ps3.

There have been forecasts of the industry imploding for years now, and no one seems to care. Y'all so stuck on the console wars that you can't see what really happening.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Explain to me how more restrictions applies to what I said.

It's actually right inbetween their old policy and the new one.

You would still be able to play from any Xbox via cloud, but you can't assign 10 friends who can play also( which I didn't believe)

You would still need the 24 hour check to implement this. Yet gamers wouldn't get the benefit of being able to share games remotely

You could however still loan out your disk to one friend and they can play from the disk( like the new policy)

You can still buy used games but they would work like games work now, no cloud play, no changing between games instantly

This would take publishers out of the loop and would defeat the purpose of all the restrictions in the first place.

encouragement to buy games new. And online for cheaper(where they can't be sold)

There would be no encouragement to buy new, and again devs wouldn't get money from used games so they would have no in incentive to lower prices.

 

[5n0man]

You would still need the 24 hour check to implement this. Yet gamers wouldn't get the benefit of being able to share games remotely


This would take publishers out of the loop and would defeat the purpose of all the restrictions in the first place.



There would be no encouragement to buy new, and again devs wouldn't get money from used games so they would have no in incentive to lower prices.

First, nobody said it had to be a 24 hour check in, how bout once a week? A month? Both better than a day. In the case that someone doesn't want to/cant go online for whatever, the disk could still be used to authenticate, instead of becoming useless weed plates.

If publishers were willing to allow even two people to share games, then why should they have a problem with someone installing a new game then lending it out to one more person, one would need to connect to authenticate, while the other needed the disk in the tray. Again, gamers have already shown that they rather be able to loan a disk than share with ten people

The online version of a game being cheaper than the retail would lead to more people buying online which as your article points out, makes producers a lot more money. The inability to sell online games helps cut back on used game.

If done right they could even turn online sales into the majority of games sold

 

[Rico]

the MS fanboys are truly pathetic, yall believe everything they spoon feed you. The bottom line is MS got too greedy and gamers clowned them for it.

All the crap MS overcharge people for you really think they trying to lower cost on anything?

Yet people keep tellling me they are getting a ps4 for the naughty dog games that have yet to be announced.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

First, nobody said it had to be a 24 hour check in, how bout once a week? A month? Both better than a day. In the case that someone doesn't want to/cant go online for whatever, the disk could still be used to authenticate, instead of becoming useless weed plates.

How could they stop one person from installing the disc then selling it to the next person?

If publishers were willing to allow even two people to share games, then why should they have a problem with someone installing a new game then lending it out to one more person, one would need to connect to authenticate, while the other needed the disk in the tray. Again, gamers have already shown that they rather be able to loan a disk than share with ten people

They would only go along with it if they knew they would be getting the money used games sales. Your plan removes that benefit from publishers, so what would be the point in allowing people to install and share the games.

The online version of a game being cheaper than the retail would lead to more people buying online which as your article points out, makes producers a lot more money. The inability to sell online games helps cut back on used game.

If done right they could even turn online sales into the majority of games sold

Microsoft doesn't control this. Retail resists this and for some reason publishers follow.

 

[ltheghost]

This gif explains the entirity of the Microsoft fukk Up.

They saw those pre-order numbers and changed the direction of the ship. They didn't give a fukk about the consumers until they saw those numbers. This is a business people and if you are seeing that about to lose a LOT of money, you make adjustments. They had a vision and that vision didn't resonate with the people who are buying the consoles. Who gives a fukk what developers have to say. If no one is buying your game you are a non factor. And lets be perfectly fukking honest here....that extra 100 dollars for the xbox one is for that fukking mandatory Kintec. It isnt for "over-delivering value" or whatever bullshyt they made up. I have been with Microsoft since the real Xbox one and I'm pissed at the entire company. The fukking lack of balls that Microsoft has shown over the past three months has being disgusting. You are supposed to be the leader in the video game console world and you come out with this bullshyt?? Then are FORCED, to fall back!?!? And you expect me to spend 500 for new machine that you guys are re-nigging on!?!? GTFOH Microsoft, you are drunk, go home with this weak ass shyt. I could give a fukk about Halo TV. Its not enough to make up for these piss poor decisions and your silly ass President of Xbox who you had to keep quiet because the dikkhead kept insulting consumers. So fukk off Microsoft. I'm heading to Sony for a while until you get your shyt straight.

 

[5n0man]

How could they stop one person from installing the disc then selling it to the next person?


They would only go along with it if they knew they would be getting the money used games sales. Your plan removes that benefit from publishers, so what would be the point in allowing people to install and share the games.


Microsoft doesn't control this. Retail resists this and for some reason publishers follow.

Nothing, other than maybe not wanting to go online to checkin? or buy a game gimped? Its their job to figure that out. What if he sells that game and buys another one at full price cause he could eat that way? Thats more money for publishers already, Instead of selling a game and buying a used one from gamestop

Fact is, if what they were trying to tell us were true then there would be way more people playing the same copy of a game

Again, if they could cut a deal with B&M stores that would allow them to secure a little more profit from new physical copies and at the same tine steer customers towards buying online straight from the source, with cheaper prices, no one would complain.

These are businesses we are talking about, its their job to figure out how to make a profit without forcing the market towards something its clearly not ready for

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[MeachTheMonster]

These are businesses we are talking about, its their job to figure out how to make a profit without forcing the market towards something its clearly not ready for

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

That's why we will have another generation of sequels, DLC, free to play, Call of duty clones, and iphone games.

 

[5n0man]

That's why we will have another generation of sequels, DLC, free to play, Call of duty clones, and iphone games.

And you truly believe microsoft was about to change that?


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[MeachTheMonster]

And you truly believe microsoft was about to change that?


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I think it was the right direction, but I think the entire industry would have had to stand together and sell it to the masses. Which is what the OP was about.

If y'all had read it instead of concentrating on what Microsoft got wrong then y'all could see what I'm trying to say.

In that story it was a dev talking about the industry and how that type of plan is needed and would help them, but he also made the journalist promise to keep his name confidential. This goes to show you the state of the industry. Everybody knows there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but nobody wants to stand and make it happen. And gamers just want to keep shouting "give me more for less and it's your fault if you go broke"

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

I think it was the right direction, but I think the entire industry would have had to stand together and sell it to the masses. Which is what the OP was about.

If y'all had read it instead of concentrating on what Microsoft got wrong then y'all could see what I'm trying to say.

In that story it was a dev talking about the industry and how that type of plan is needed and would help them, but he also made the journalist promise to keep his name confidential. This goes to show you the state of the industry. Everybody knows there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but nobody wants to stand and make it happen. And gamers just want to keep shouting "give me more for less and it's your fault if you go broke"

This is the typical 3cept train of thought. Dudes will be cheerleading like morons until the entire home console gaming market becomes irrelevant. The PS3 nearly bankrupted Sony, yet these clowns want more of the same in the PS4. I'll bet you that the sony is going to lose a boatload of money with that $399 price tag they currently have.

 

[5n0man]

I think it was the right direction, but I think the entire industry would have had to stand together and sell it to the masses. Which is what the OP was about.

If y'all had read it instead of concentrating on what Microsoft got wrong then y'all could see what I'm trying to say.

In that story it was a dev talking about the industry and how that type of plan is needed and would help them, but he also made the journalist promise to keep his name confidential. This goes to show you the state of the industry. Everybody knows there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but nobody wants to stand and make it happen. And gamers just want to keep shouting "give me more for less and it's your fault if you go broke"

They had the right idea, but they took it in the wrong direction

I fully understand the need to go always online, which is why I gave a simple suggestion on how they could slowly lead the industry towards an online infrastructure while solving the concern of those who had problems with online only.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[PS5 Pro]

it's the only realistic option. there were too many games this gen that were obvious re-badged versions of another game. the unreal engine was pimped out too heavy this generation. if a game offers something new and creative to the table, people will buy it.

1.) Unreal pimped out huh..

Spoiler

2.) Which explains why ps3 games, especially the exclusives sold like weeeeellllllll

Spoiler

Exactly... Go indy like others are doing. Indies are the key to preventing another crash

Say what you want about Sony but they KEEP a diversified portfolio

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

You have nostalgia issues. Sony been around longer so they have more of a "well" but like Nintendo there respective "wells" are running dry (Story Tru Muthafukka )
Starting this gen as of today Microsoft clearly has the more diverse portfolio. And has maintained that for this entire gen. You still mad that the industry felt going multiplat made more sense because games suck on ps3 compared to Xbox. First it was in every way, Sony caught up graphically but the online infrastructure was the glaring difference. Now it appears that gap is only gonna get wider, you experts wanna overlook that? Well developers haven't. You nikkaz kill me....

I also stated that they should have borrowed some ideas from steam. A popular app on an operating system they own and probably a big reason why games for windows live has been a complete failure.

All of it is a process in discussing your product to the consumer and microsoft failed in MANY ways.

As far as solutions to the concerns of gamers they could have:
Implemented a disc check for disc based games and still keep the same "benefits" they were first promoting

Offer a service like Amazon does with "Whispernet" via a mobile service provider such as AT&T for free to check your digital library and "shared" games

Require authentication every 2-4 weeks if you are still concerned of piracy or abuse for digital games. 24 hours was absurd and offensive.

Everyone wins that way and are two services that are found today

Those two would have alleviated many of their concerns and do not require a service outside of your purchase of the console to operate. It gives people the incentive to download their games as there is obviously no disc check for digital copies. That way you have a happy medium for each...hate the idea of authenticating? Buy the disc. Hate having to swap discs? Buy digital, but treat them fairly.

You never ever shift blame to a single retailer or treat customers like criminals...piracy is not a big concern on consoles and used games is a cop-out.

your solution is pirate friendly thus making it for lack of wanting to use a better term.... Moronic :fight:

that why I said games could only be installed once to one console.


From there, that online copy would need online drm,

With the disk drm still inplace

And I'm sure GameStop would have been more than happy with the extra profit from new games, and producers would be happy with the ability to see 100% of the income of online games, with the strong possibility of online sales becoming the majority due to cheaper prices.


It's all about compromise meech, gamers woulda seen the benefit of a plan like that and I'm sure Sony would have followed suit

Bruh, your post before this says the you should be able to use the Xbox offline, now you on the fly altering what you said in a 2 chains type fashion. Only difference is all your nikkaz broke as fukk

 

[5n0man]

This is the typical 3cept train of thought. Dudes will be cheerleading like morons until the entire home console gaming market becomes irrelevant. The PS3 nearly bankrupted Sony, yet these clowns want more of the same in the PS4. I'll bet you that the sony is going to lose a boatload of money with that $399 price tag they currently have.

And this is the typical xbot train of thought, always thinking anybody not cheerleading anything microsoft does, must be a sony fanboy.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta