Why the XBox One reversal is bad for gaming.

[d3m0nd00d]

From what I have been reading in all the forum sites over the past week or so there seems to be only a few people that understand why XBox One reversal is bad for gaming. Please read a couple of these links before posting in this forum.

 

http://www.gdinews.com/2013/06/microsoft-xbox-one-and-why-microsofts-reversal-is-bad-news/

 

http://n4g.com/news/1286987/microsoft-xbox-one-and-why-microsofts-reversal-is-bad-news

 

http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/21/why-forcing-a-microsoft-reversal-on-xbox-is-bad-for-the-games-industry/

 

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/the-xbox-one-reversal-has-only-postponed-an-inevitable-drm-future-1160535

 

Sorry for all the links, but I figured copy and pasting would take up too much room.

[Gigabehemoth]

Their DRM plan was stupid in the first and not carefully planned. Most of the requirements they want to put out were  internet required so that was useless. Selling in 21 countries while the PS4 can be sold and imported in many countries was not smart. 

[Piggie_Pie]

But sooner or later we're going to have to accept that its vision for a digital future is one that's coming whether we like it or not, and that's not such a bad thing.

-techradar.com

 

I believe this... but i feel like it needs to be a smoother transition... such a radical change can make or break (points to the PSP-GO... the all digital PSP)

 

I have read a lot of these articles but they are flawed... the arguments aren't valid right now... I feel like they will be in the future but we aren't at an all digital world yet... some of us old guys like to collect things still... I choose retail copy when at all possible and will probably continue until they force my hand... but a certain Sony representative said that the world isn't there yet and i have to agree... about 5-10 years ago they came out with an all digital PSP and it was a big flop and the reason is that people like me would like the option to trade games in (yes i know that game trades will eventually be a thing of the past but its not at the moment)... my argument that might be flawed is that if i pay for a game that i play for 5 minutes and realize that i hate the game all sales are final and you can't go back... at least in a use game market you can try out a game before you buy it...  One of the best parts about the 80's and 90's was the ability to rent games (even now we can do this through gamefly and redbox etc.) this gives you the option to try before you buy.

 

I know that the future will be all digital but we just aren't there yet.  and if game makers want to create games and make them digital ONLY then they should just force the hand... its really up to them... there are games on my vita that are download only so there is a perfect example... if they want everyone to pay full price for a game and they are trying to get to an all digital world then there is your answer... force the hand... also they would need a playable demo for every game otherwise you have no idea what you are buying into and that scares some people (myself included).

 

I would be more concerned with how Microsoft handled the whole thing... they said that they simply couldn't do it but once they projected that sales would be low they changed their ways... really it was all about the money... every company is all about the money even Sony but the bold faced lies and the way that the Xbone was presented was just flawed.

 

and the argument about the core gamer and so on is a little bit flawed too... its not like parents of young kids don't shop around for good deals like a "buy two get one free" used game sale at gamestop... i know they do... and to argue my point further, casual gamer will probably seek a used game because its not a major hobby for them so they won't pick up a brand new copy of a game that they won't spend a lot of time playing... usually these people might wait till a game goes on sale or buy it used...

 

this is really just my opinion... the future will eventually go all digital but honestly we aren't there yet... sorry for the long rant

 

thanks for posting d3m0nd00d

[Bullstomp]

Their ideas were very much like communism; great in theory but not so much in practice. M$ had plenty of time to really think things through. However, they didn't and they ended up rushing to the finish line with a bunch of poorly contructed policies and requirements. Now they are paying the price.

[Pipsqweek]

If MS really want to embrace a digital future, why put an non-upgradable HDD in their latest console?

The way I see it, sell digital games for RRP minus the retailers cut, give us a reason to want to buy digital.

[lporiginalg]

I skimmed through the first article out of curiousity. How could this possiblybe bad I asked myself. The only argument that guy made is basically that digital versions are "much cheaper" on release than the retail versions, "just like on steam".

 

WTF is that guy smoking? He's obviously never compared prices of new steam releases vs retail copies as it's usually cheaper to buy the boxed version - or other digital distribution networks, like PSN where you can buy The Last of Us for 59.99, omg so much savings, yay.

[DK_Scuba]

In my opinion its as everyone says, all digital with these requirments may come in 5-10 years. But the transition can't be this sudden and abrupt. I think Sony saved this next generation of gaming by choosing to hold back on these policys and by bringing Microsoft around on them. Without the 180 Sony would have no competition, and every industry neds competition to thrive.

[x_First2Fight_x]

If MS really want to embrace a digital future, why put an non-upgradable HDD in their latest console?

The way I see it, sell digital games for RRP minus the retailers cut, give us a reason to want to buy digital.

 

This is how I feel about the 'digital future' right now. For some reason, there is no consistency and there are things that make absolutely no sense. Like why Deadpool launches in retail at $39.99, but launches in digital at $59.99 ??? If I get no case, no booklet, no disc, or anything else, than those costs need to be subtracted from the total. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. 

[Nagflar]

Yeah, I did think about it but the fact that they couldn't even explain why it would be good (and instead decided to make moronic remarks) was a huge turn-off. There's also the fact that many people don't have a high-speed internet connection, which would lead to hours of waiting for a game to be downloaded into their HDDs, which is just another huge turn-off. Steam might be great for PC gamers, but PC gamers aren't console gamers and their necessities and wants are different, so the transition to this digital era would've been much harder.

 

There's also that moronic region lock idea, hell-bent on screwing many people over. Most of the people I know that own a 360 preffer to import their games due to them being cheaper, so this would've essentially fucked them over.

[Memnoch]

Omg, can you guys agree on if you like the xbox or not?

Neither are perfect products, but neither are without purpose.

[Arkthur]

This is how I feel about the 'digital future' right now. For some reason, there is no consistency and there are things that make absolutely no sense. Like why Deadpool launches in retail at $39.99, but launches in digital at $59.99 ??? If I get no case, no booklet, no disc, or anything else, than those costs need to be subtracted from the total. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. 

Booklet, disc and case are like.....3% of the cost.

The reason why a digital release costs more is because the developers need to pay a "fee" to use the server. Either way I disagree with the articles the OP posted, if MS would've kept the policies it would ruin them, probably letting SONY as the only one on the console war and that, would be bad for gaming.

[Pipsqweek]

Booklet, disc and case are like.....3% of the cost.

 

Yeah, but the retailers cut isn't which just compounds the potential savings.

Even if you took the 3% as the hosting fee, then the game would still be cheaper by removing the retailers profit.

[Parker]

I think the articles have some valid points, but they don't apply right now. Until internet becomes much more stable and available to all having a console that is required to connect online everyday, even for singleplayer games, is a terrible idea. The XBone had some decent ideas but the cons of the system far outweighed the pros and I'm not ready to give up a lot of my gaming freedoms for a few things I'd enjoy. Maybe next generation we can come closer to what the XBone was "supposed" to be, but right now in this point in time the XBone was a bad idea and the consumers let Microsoft know. 

 

 

Parker

[x_First2Fight_x]

Booklet, disc and case are like.....3% of the cost.

The reason why a digital release costs more is because the developers need to pay a "fee" to use the server. Either way I disagree with the articles the OP posted, if MS would've kept the policies it would ruin them, probably letting SONY as the only one on the console war and that, would be bad for gaming.

 

My neighbor works for Epic games, and I had this discussion with him a few weeks ago. So I am going to go off what he said and assume he's right.

 

Based on a game that costs full retail ($59.99), usually: $12 is retailer markup, $7 is royalties, $3-$5 is packaging, plus $3 for shipping costs. So, if assuming all of that is true, there is roughly a $25 "markup" in the end. So, we take away the retailer markup and packaging, and leave the rest to server support, and a retail game in digital format SHOULD NOT cost more than $44.99 per game.

Edited June 27, 2013 by x_First2Fight_x

[Dr_Mayus]

My neighbor works for Epic games, and I had this discussion with him a few weeks ago. So I am going to go off what he said and assume he's right.

 

Based on a game that costs full retail ($59.99), usually: $12 is retailer markup, $7 is royalties, $3-$5 is packaging, plus $3 for shipping costs. So, if assuming all of that is true, there is roughly a $25 "markup" in the end. So, we take away the retailer markup and packaging, and leave the rest to server support, and a retail game in digital format SHOULD NOT cost more than $44.99 per game.

 

On top of that you can't sell or trade a digital game so people lose even more going digital. If any company wants people to get on the digital wagon then they have to lower the price to make it worthwhile.

[ReVision92]

To transfer into the digital age:

1. Prices reduced drastically due to lack of a physical came therefore consumer loss

2. A "Steam like" marketplace that feature those crazy deals I'm always hearing about

3. A very VERY good speaker to release this idea to the public and us not want to throw shit at him

Mainly due to my first reason I doubt it would be possible since there is no way in hell any day one digital will start below $50 on a console IMO

[x_First2Fight_x]

I get that there are server and network costs to be covered when you start talking about an entire digital revolution, but if PS+ is becoming a mandatory for online gaming, that $49.99 should cover all storage/server/network related costs for that person, and then some. Then, take the money being saved by being digital and not retail, and that money can cover any other expenses. It can be done, but it's going to take a company that's willing to eat the upfront costs for a few years, to show everyone how truly great the feature can be, and they'll make billions off of it.

 

Could you imagine a 'GameFly' like subscription for digital games!?? Say you pay $29.99 a month, buy you have unlimited access to all games available?

[Wolvie_181]

I think MS should have stuck to their guns with what they had planned.

 

Reversing all that makes them look like they're cowards,desperate,and not taking risks.

 

Gamers were upset with them at first,but how do we know it would have failed?

Now we won't know if the X-Box One's DRM or Always online connection would work or not.

There's going to be a point in time where we will have consoles with DRM & Always online Connection.

[Bullstomp]

There's going to be a point in time where we will have consoles with DRM & Always online Connection.

 

Agreed. BUT that time isn't now. Its when hi speed internet is more prevalent around the world, which is easy to overlook if you are in a country that already has hi speed internet.

[Arkthur]

I think MS should have stuck to their guns with what they had planned.

 

Reversing all that makes them look like they're cowards,desperate,and not taking risks.

 

Gamers were upset with them at first,but how do we know it would have failed?

Now we won't know if the X-Box One's DRM or Always online connection would work or not.

There's going to be a point in time where we will have consoles with DRM & Always online Connection.

I agree they backed out too soon, maybe they should have waited for a couple of months after the release, because who knows if all this hate they are getting it's just a rant-fest or if it would've hurt the sales in the long term.

[d3m0nd00d]

Agreed. BUT that time isn't now. Its when hi speed internet is more prevalent around the world, which is easy to overlook if you are in a country that already has hi speed internet.

 

All the games are downloaded to the HDD so the hi speed internet thing doesn't really apply.

[Pipsqweek]

All the games are downloaded to the HDD so the hi speed internet thing doesn't really apply.

 

It does for downloading the game in the first place.  Some people's internet takes several hours to download a game.

Look at Uncharted 3, for the whole package it's well over 30Gb, if you don't have a good download speed, that's going to be a LONG time.

Plus, PS4 games could be even weightier in size and unless all downloads use the download enough to play and background download the rest, you're going to need to be patient.

[Nasty_Rory]

All the games are downloaded to the HDD so the hi speed internet thing doesn't really apply.

Sorry d00d but it kinda does.

I have 8mb/s broadband internet, I can get 78mb/s but its capped at 40GB per month where my 8mb/s is unlimited. I have worked out my monthly dl rate for games and movies only runs at about 65GB per month - that does not include all the usual surfing or BBC iplayer etc.

The place where I work is only 10 miles away. The internet speed there is 1.4mb/s and its reckoned that it will be at least another 2 years until it improves, no matter how much money the company would wish to throw at it.

Of the 8mb/s the PS3 pulls about 6.5 of that in the mornings and might get 3.5 in the evenings. My PS3 is slowed down by being wirelessly setup and to be honest it gets killed by the Vita in dl speed.

4 hours should download 2GB of data for me - in the morning - in the evenings as the whole country looks to pester the internet it could take twice that. I cannot stream movies in the evening time as they stutter and stop continually.

A 50GB video game would take me at least 100 hours to download and if there was any substantial update to any video game in the next gen I can imagine that it will make the patches for the PS3 look tiny.

The long and the short of it is that low speed internet access would seriously hamper any console aspiration to have an always connected environment within a game.

A beautiful idea, but its not going to work in 95% of the planet!

[Bullstomp]

Sorry d00d but it kinda does.

I have 8mb/s broadband internet, I can get 78mb/s but its capped at 40GB per month where my 8mb/s is unlimited. I have worked out my monthly dl rate for games and movies only runs at about 65GB per month - that does not include all the usual surfing or BBC iplayer etc.

The place where I work is only 10 miles away. The internet speed there is 1.4mb/s and its reckoned that it will be at least another 2 years until it improves, no matter how much money the company would wish to throw at it.

Of the 8mb/s the PS3 pulls about 6.5 of that in the mornings and might get 3.5 in the evenings. My PS3 is slowed down by being wirelessly setup and to be honest it gets killed by the Vita in dl speed.

4 hours should download 2GB of data for me - in the morning - in the evenings as the whole country looks to pester the internet it could take twice that. I cannot stream movies in the evening time as they stutter and stop continually.

A 50GB video game would take me at least 100 hours to download and if there was any substantial update to any video game in the next gen I can imagine that it will make the patches for the PS3 look tiny.

The long and the short of it is that low speed internet access would seriously hamper any console aspiration to have an always connected environment within a game.

A beautiful idea, but its not going to work in 95% of the planet!

 

 

It does for downloading the game in the first place.  Some people's internet takes several hours to download a game.

Look at Uncharted 3, for the whole package it's well over 30Gb, if you don't have a good download speed, that's going to be a LONG time.

Plus, PS4 games could be even weightier in size and unless all downloads use the download enough to play and background download the rest, you're going to need to be patient.

 

What they said

[Artemisthemp]

Microsoft may had good intention with their DRM, but their execution was bad.

 

The requirement for internet and making it impossible to active US copy in EU, even if you own a US console, basically mad it useless to Army.

 

Then again as Xbox Fanboy roughly said: The army should stop been wankers and just fight all day, because that ain't hard. I know that because I have play all CoD and will also buy CoD: Dog Wars.