Just what was Microsoft thinking?

[Kodie]

I think you have a misunderstanding of what drm is. It can be handled in many different ways and online check ins are only one of them. Digital games inherently have their own drm because you can't share them.

The problem with the bolded is that consumers expect those big budget experiences but they aren't willing to pay more. Prices have gone up for EVERYTHING over the last 12-15 years yet game prices have stayed the same. In your idea of lowering costs, then we'd be stuck with games that would have less resources and work put into them than games had 12-15 years ago. It's easy to sit on the Internet and say "they should lower costs" but none of us really want to be playing a bunch of low budget titles.

I think it's you that has the misunderstanding. See gog.com or humble bundle for games that are digital but can be shared since they have no DRM.

The truth is there isn't enough room for all the big budget games in the ecosystem. People aren't willing to spend that money right now and the AAA pubs are refusing to accept that and instead are trying to brute force their wishes to reality. Combatting used games is going to do nothing. People trade in used games to buy the new games in the first place! Removing used games will just make consumers MORE risk averse and not less.

You say people wont buy lower budget games but how do you explain App Store darlings and minecraft?

 

[King Sun]

that goes both ways though (nohomo). there's plenty of people that won't take a game seriously if it doesn't have big-name voice actors, a hans zimmerman score, and all the trappings of a big budget movie

I don't mean to call people out, but I feel like people are getting on this 'support indie games' bandwagon, but not even supporting indie games (usually because it's suits some narrative within the 'console-wars')



it's also true of asking for more 'original' and 'creative' games. everyone gets on that raw raw, but then spends their money on the same rehashed crap

tbh I don't care about indie games too much I like playing devils advocate . Most of the best gaming I experienced were developed under a 7 figure budget

 

[Kodie]

It's all the Sony fans. Y'all call uc2 and TLOU goat games. But those are just the types of games we won't get anymore if developers just "quit spending so much money"

I haven't even played TLOU yet and I don't think UC2 is GoAT. You have me confused homie

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I haven't even played TLOU yet and I don't think UC2 is GoAT. You have me confused homie

I wasn't directly speaking about you. Sorry if it came off that way.

 

[King Sun]

I haven't even played TLOU yet and I don't think UC2 is GoAT. You have me confused homie

You don't bash sony so you must be a fanboy of sony

 

[daze23]

tbh I don't care about indie games too much I like playing devils advocate . Most of the best gaming I experienced were developed under a 7 figure budget

Skyrim cost like 85 milly

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I think it's you that has the misunderstanding. See gog.com or humble bundle for games that are digital but can be shared since they have no DRM.

Those are limited services that are not viable for a resurgence of the games market.

The truth is there isn't enough room for all the big budget games in the ecosystem. People aren't willing to spend that money right now and the AAA pubs are refusing to accept that and instead are trying to brute force their wishes to reality.

As gamers this should be a bleak reality to us. I want devs to keep making big games. I don't want a future of all free to play/iphone games with only a few big titles. This is why I wouldn't mind signing up for drm because if it saves those expierinces that I've come to love then I have no problem with checking in once a day or whatever the stipulations may be.

Combatting used games is going to do nothing. People trade in used games to buy the new games in the first place! Removing used games will just make consumers MORE risk averse and not less.

It's not about ending used games, it's about finding a way for publishers to be compensated for the sale of their games.

You say people wont buy lower budget games but how do you explain App Store darlings and minecraft?

I didn't say people wont buy them, I said that's all we will be left with and I and most other people who consider themselves "gamers" wouldn't want that to happen.

 

[King Sun]

Skyrim cost like 85 milly

 

[5n0man]

I'm sorry your still wrong. 2010 and 2011 were the only profitable years for Sony games division, but overall Sony has lost money on the entire ps3 project.


Consumers are happy when they get what they want, but sometimes consumers don't understand what needs to happen for them to get it.

I already spoke on that with the blu ray, they lost so much money at the beginning just getting their system out there, that it took until 2010 to finally see profit.

The system was selling against a cheaper Xbox that was seemingly just as good with better online. It was also selling at a 400$ loss with the cheapest blu ray players at the time being 1000$. We all know why they lost a shyt load of money at the beginning. You sitting here acting like it was cause the ps3 was a failure is wrong.

You think Sony didn't know they would lose money at first and it would take a while to turn profit? The only things they were delusional about is people willing to pay more for the playstation brand and the slow start with getting their online together.

Microsoft on the others and built a mini PC for pretty cheap with specs just as good and caked, they also tried to rushed the market without enough testing and that can be seen as just as big a failure as whatever you consider a failure about ps3.

I agree in some instances that customers need to be told what they need but not in this case. Gamers are not just uninformed customers that have no clue what they are looking for.

From a business perspective, since you like to bring up the business aspects of gaming, it wouldn't make sense to cut off possible buyers that can't meet the online requirement, and I know you will say that wont affect most people, it will affect some. 30 million Xbox owners don't have a live account, to cut them off is just bad business no matter how you flip it.

 

[5n0man]

Those are limited services that are not viable for a resurgence of the games market.


As gamers this should be a bleak reality to us. I want devs to keep making big games. I don't want a future of all free to play/iphone games with only a few big titles. This is why I wouldn't mind signing up for drm because if it saves those expierinces that I've come to love then I have no problem with checking in once a day or whatever the stipulations may be.


It's not about ending used games, it's about finding a way for publishers to be compensated for the sale of their games.



I didn't say people wont buy them, I said that's all we will be left with and I and most other people who consider themselves "gamers" wouldn't want that to happen.

I don't see why they don't all just band together and make GameStop cut them 15% of whatever used game they sell, they have the licenses after all

 

[Kodie]

Those are limited services that are not viable for a resurgence of the games market.


As gamers this should be a bleak reality to us. I want devs to keep making big games. I don't want a future of all free to play/iphone games with only a few big titles. This is why I wouldn't mind signing up for drm because if it saves those expierinces that I've come to love then I have no problem with checking in once a day or whatever the stipulations may be.


It's not about ending used games, it's about finding a way for publishers to be compensated for the sale of their games.



I didn't say people wont buy them, I said that's all we will be left with and I and most other people who consider themselves "gamers" wouldn't want that to happen.

I agree that no DRM is basically impossible on consoles but XBox One was going in the wrong direction in my opnion.

I suppose there being a smaller market for big games should be a bleak reality for some people but that doesn't mean it's the fault of the consumer. Personally for me, it's not a bleak reality. I'd rather invest small amounts in more experimental games than large amounts in games that have expensive voice acting, motion captured animation and the marketing budget of a blockbuster movie. But I understand I don't represent gamers as a whole and gamers on Coli, much less. I personally wouldn't be mad if there were fewer Homefronts, Medal of Honors, Hitman Absolutions and Splinter Cell Blacklists, and instead there were more of the types of games on my Steam Wishlist: Steam Community :: kodie :: Games

Also I think compensating the publisher is a nice goal but not at the cost of consumer convenience. This is apples and oranges but I like the used car model, it's really convenient to sell your car to a dealer which will get the manufacturer back a cut but there's nothing stopping you from independently selling it. If the publishers want a cut, make it convenient for me to do so instead of completely removing rights I previously had. There was nothing magic about iTunes that stopped people from downloading music en masse - it just became super convenient to buy from iTunes.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I already spoke on that with the blu ray, they lost so much money at the beginning just getting their system out there, that it took until 2010 to finally see profit.

The system was selling against a cheaper Xbox that was seemingly just as good with better online. It was also selling at a 400$ loss with the cheapest blu ray players at the time being 1000$. We all know why they lost a shyt load of money at the beginning. You sitting here acting like it was cause the ps3 was a failure is wrong.

The ps3 wasn't a failure. The console business model in general is no longer viable. It's not blu-rays fault they are making money off of the blu-ray business. It's just that without other monetary streams(DLC, online subscriptions, peripherals, ect) profit margins are too slim. The "hardcore gamer" can't sustain the industry anymore, yet anything that is perceived not to cater to the "harcore gamer" is met with vehement backlash from the game community.

You think Sony didn't know they would lose money at first and it would take a while to turn profit? The only things they were delusional about is people willing to pay more for the playstation brand and the slow start with getting their online together.

They didn't think they would loos money over the course of the entire generation. Sure they expected to operate at a loss for the first year or so, but they also expected to recoup that money and turn an overall profit which they have not done yet.

Microsoft on the others and built a mini PC for pretty cheap with specs just as good and caked, they also tried to rushed the market without enough testing and that can be seen as just as big a failure as whatever you consider a failure about ps3.

M$ had a huge PR failure recently though I'm not sure how much that will effect they're bottom line in the future. And I'm not trying to bash the ps3, I'm just talking about the games industry in general. The ps3 catered to hardcore gamers and have them the options and experiences they asked for, yet they still lost money. It's just not a viable business plan anymore.

I agree in some instances that customers need to be told what they need but not in this case. Gamers are not just uninformed customers that have no clue what they are looking for.

Yes they are. Gamers still haven't figured out that by protesting the changes the industry is proposing that they are impeding the progress of the industry. The industry is failing and gamers have just as responsibilty to save it as the suits and devs.

From a business perspective, since you like to bring up the business aspects of gaming, it wouldn't make sense to cut off possible buyers that can't meet the online requirement, and I know you will say that wont affect most people, it will affect some. 30 million Xbox owners don't have a live account, to cut them off is just bad business no matter how you flip it.

That 30 million number is users without gold accounts. Not users without the Internet. And from a business prospective its not worth it to cater to limited/budget customers at the detriment of moving the industry forward and maximizing profits from paying customers.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I don't see why they don't all just band together and make GameStop cut them 15% of whatever used game they sell, they have the licenses after all

There is no way to enforce it. They could tell GameStop to cut them a check, but without a way to enforce it GameStop and other stores/private sales will continue on as they have been.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Also I think compensating the publisher is a nice goal but not at the cost of consumer convenience. This is apples and oranges but I like the used car model, it's really convenient to sell your car to a dealer which will get the manufacturer back a cut but there's nothing stopping you from independently selling it. If the publishers want a cut, make it convenient for me to do so instead of completely removing rights I previously had. There was nothing magic about iTunes that stopped people from downloading music en masse - it just became super convenient to buy from iTunes.

The reason this works for the used car market is because for one manufacturers profit off of every car sold, so even if that car is sold at a later date, the manufacturer already got their money for it.

As for trade ins the manufacturers get a cut if the car is "certified used". This works for the auto industry because cars deteriorate with use so if you can certify to a buyer that the car is just like new then that car becomes worth more and buyers have an incentive to pay that higher price.

This wouldn't work in the games industry because there is absolutely no difference between a new and a used game, so there is no customer motivation to pay for the more expensive one.

I personally don't know what the answer is. I didn't have a problem with M$ plan. And I think it could have been succesful in the long run.

As a steam user why are you ok with drm and online requirments with one service and not with the other?

 

[Kodie]

As a steam user why are you ok with drm and online requirments with one service and not with the other?

That's a really great question that I had to think critically about. The truth is I didn't love Steam at first and Steam wasn't all that good at first. Valve had to make it worth my while for me to buy on Steam. Once they did, I was all in.

Steam also just makes it convenient and cheap for me to buy on their platform. But I'm not loyal to them either. I'll buy on Origin, Amazon, Humble Store, GreenManGaming, GOG or any number of PC digital stores (which is the other problem with console marketplaces... there's ONE store).

It's the same for consoles, the burden is on them to prove to me that it's worth my while. Honestly, I do think some of what MS was planning would have been good but the messaging was extremely poor to begin with. Oddly, they kept talking about all the bad stuff without talking about what's great. And the bad stuff was pretty bad for me.

Also this video does a good job of answering that question: The Escapist : Video Galleries : Jimquisition : Why PC Gaming Gets Away With It