Xbox One - Where Microsoft actually listens to consumers

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

and developers have gone out of business left and right.

Indeed, Microsoft seems to be doing all it can to lock out indie developers and keep they away from Xbone. Looks like an overwhelming tide of developers are being dismissed by Microsoft unfortunately. A quick Google of "indie developer xbox" shows how one-sided the sentiment is.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/06/1...-over-xbox-one

"For Xbox One [Microsoft has] granted us a license for New 'n' Tasty! but they still say you need a publisher. We don't have a publisher so we're not officially on the platform, even though we're compatible, even though we'll be ready to do it. Period.

"Why do we need a publisher when we self-finance our games, we build our own IP, we manage our own IP and we've turned nearly two million units online as indie publishers sold – not free downloads? Why? What's wrong with us?

"Who's in touch with their audience? And who seems out of touch with their audience? All we know is we've tried to get our games on their platform and we can't do it – and I even helped them release the box."

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I'm really confused about the anger and vitriol directed at Microsoft for the direction they've decided to go. It's almost like people are taking this as a personal affront and are reacting accordingly.

Well, to a lot of gamers, the games matter a lot. It's their primary form of entertainment, socializing and even art wrapped in one.

But more generally, not all DRM is the same.

Steam might be a big player, but if it loses the faith of their customers and/or the game developers, their share of the market will be quickly eaten by other big players like Amazon and smaller ones like GOG.com, GamersGate and what have you. Because most of Steams competition is DRM free (as a marketing edge over Steam), this also forces Steam to constantly make sure that people feel like they're getting something in exchange for the loss of some rights to the game.

Also, if Steam stop working or becomes unacceptable for you for some reason, people will still have something else they can do with their computer. Some of their games might even work, and they can always buy new games.

But if you buy an Xbone, you have the options of
a) putting up with what ever MS tells you to put up with or
b) using the console as a paperweight.

You can also complain a lot and hope it helps, which is what people are doing now.

Also, PR matters. People see Valve as gamer friendly, trustworthy and reasonable, so they trust Steam with DRM. Microsoft hasn't been able to earn to earn that kind of trust.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

In what entitled world does a 11 year old ask their parent for a $500 console and then want a brand new game every month. My parents would and did laugh at me for asking for such an outrageous demand. Either I am giving parents too much credit for being good parents, or parents are becoming extremely easy to push around at all their kids wants and desires.

This is a silly argument, you can't with a straight face think that parents are going to buy their kid a $500 console, $60/yr Live subscription and then $60/game. It's ludicrous. A $500 price tag does not target a casual gamer.

rofl. You can't possibly think with a straight face that this DOESN'T happen. Hell, this has been happening since I was a kid.

Growing up in a relatively middle-class community in Winnipeg, most of my friends had a console from every generation (taking into account our ages). One friend of mine had the NES, then Super NES, then Playstation, then the PS2. This was not uncommon in the slightest.

I was not one of those kids, however, because my parents didn't want to spoil me. I had two video game consoles. One was an 8-bit NES when I turned 4 (my dad wanted one), and one was a 16-bit Sega Genesis that I bought by trading in my NES console and all the games, plus ponying up some cash from my allowance. I didn't own another console until I was 21, when I bought the Xbox 360. But I was the exception, not the rule, and so were you.

Fast-forward to today, every kid is walking around with a $200 iPod or a $650 iPhone (subsidized or not, it's still a healthy chunk of change plus a monthly contract). Most of them have their own computer / laptop or both, and at least one of the Wii, X360 or PS3. You are sorely mistaken if you think that parents won't buy it, because they already do.

[photon]

My first console was an Atari 2600.

My second console was a Gamecube.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by photon

My first console was an Atari 2600.

My second console was a Gamecube.

I grew up in the NE so we were poor. We only had a Gemini! but it had the breakout controllers built into the normal controller.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Casual gamers are the ones who spend $500 on a console and then $60 a game, eh? I know they're trying to target a bigger market, they are trying to get tv people as well.

In what entitled world does a 11 year old ask their parent for a $500 console and then want a brand new game every month. My parents would and did laugh at me for asking for such an outrageous demand. Either I am giving parents too much credit for being good parents, or parents are becoming extremely easy to push around at all their kids wants and desires.

This is a silly argument, you can't with a straight face think that parents are going to buy their kid a $500 console, $60/yr Live subscription and then $60/game. It's ludicrous. A $500 price tag does not target a casual gamer.

Every single kid under 15 that I know has a PS3, Xbox 360, iPhone 5, PSP Vita or a combination of all of them. Also iPad mini. They also get the latest games that come out like FIFA, NHL, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed annually, and some other games here and there.

One of these kids I know is 14 years old and has the following:

1) Macbook Pro
2) PS3
3) Xbox 360
4) iPhone 5
5) tons of games including FIFA, NHL, COD, NBA, Assassin's Creed and others.

You are trying to tell me that kids and casual gamers can't afford these things? I look at the environment around me and I laugh at your opinion.

Oh and these kids....they are already saving up/lining up to a buy a Xbox One or PS4....

[rubecube]

This is why I'm never having kids.

[TorqueDog]

Actually my bad, I forgot that I had an Intellivision, although that was a) bought before I was born so it doesn't count, and b) given away to one of my cousins when we got the NES.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You realilze we live in North America righ? Where people spend hundreds and thousands (monthly bills hand hardware) on smart phones even for their kids? We saw the $250 Wii sell out for a year after it launched to casual gamers of all types.

We get that you hate Microsoft and the Xbox but you aren't making any valid points and are starting to troll the thread. There is a PS4 thread you know.

I own a 360 and over 50 games for it, while I also own a PS3 and own 5 games for it. I wouldn't really say I hate Microsoft and the Xbox.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

I own a 360 and over 50 games for it, while I also own a PS3 and own 5 games for it. I wouldn't really say I hate Microsoft and the Xbox.

Actually, you probably own 5 games for both - they're just spread over 50 disks for the Xbox.

(Just kidding!)

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by robaur

Do you have wireless internet?

Yes? Stop Complaining.

No? Go get it. It's 2013.

Don't really see what the problem is.

The problem, at least for me, with the 24-hour validation is primarily that my console can be bricked at any time.

As soon as I cannot connect to the Microsoft validation servers for more than 24 hours, my console is useless. Whether the problem is on my end because I have a problem with my ISP, router or the wireless card itself or on Microsoft's end because they're server is down, it doesn't matter I won't be able to play games anymore despite not actually needing an internet connection to play them.

This essentially means the game I have bought and paid for is more of a rental, which I must renew every 24 hours. If I do not or cannot, then my rental is revoked until I can renew it again. If I can't renew again, my games are unplayable.

The Microsoft servers are a single point of failure, so it requires me to trust that they will be available at almost all times. And, yes, I'm quite confident they will be. But why take the chance? This functionality adds exactly zero benefit to me as a user, so why would I possibly want it?

Like I'm said, MS is a huge company, so I'm sure they'll have the infrastructure required to support all the required check ins, but that may not be true in the future for other companies that adopt the same technology. I don't like the precedent they're setting my doing this, so I'll protest it by not buying their system. And I'll do the same to any other developer, hardware or software, that insists on doing the same. And I'll hope enough others feel the same way until companies get the message that we do not support technology that adds risk and gives back zero user benefit.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

This essentially means the game I have bought and paid for is more of a rental, which I must renew every 24 hours. If I do not or cannot, then my rental is revoked until I can renew it again. If I can't renew again, my games are unplayable.

Well you don't technically own any piece of software you purchase. You're purchasing a perpetual license, and the IP owner can tell you what you can and cannot do with it, including conditions to keep your license valid.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't go public with this type of explanation to fan the flames. It seems the average consumer really doesn't understand the point of DRM and the benefits for consumers down the road. Simply educating the masses would alleviate a lot of fears. The days of discs are coming to a close regardles of what Sony may say today. What Microsoft is doing is best for everyone except pirates and retailers. A lot of us realize that there's a bigger picture but the masses are following the rest of the herd wich believe Microsoft is evil and Sony deeply cares about their best interests lol which is a joke in itself.

What is this, a Microsoft commercial?

[robaur]

Originally Posted by zamler

What is this, a Microsoft commercial?

it's simply the truth.

Pre-ordered the Xbox One today...

Got Forza 5, Ryse: Roman, Kinect Sports...

Will get FIFA 14, Madden 25, COD, Battlefield, Watch Dogs, Halo, NFS, Metal Gear and many more once I get the console in my house....

Can't wait to watch the Flames season through the Xbox One....should be great!

[SuperMatt18]

I would put more basis into XBox needing to do this in order to drive the "Steam" model of cheaper games for gamers, if the Playstation wasn't already heading down a similar path without needing the DRM.

Look at the PS+ sales over the last 6 months. Some relatively high profile games either going on sale for $20 (Tomb Raider, etc), or for free (XCOM, Uncharted 3).

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Well you don't technically own any piece of software you purchase. You're purchasing a perpetual license, and the IP owner can tell you what you can and cannot do with it, including conditions to keep your license valid.

My point was simply that requiring the user to be online to play an offline game is a requirement that adds zero benefit and introduces risk where I could invalidate my license through no fault of my own. From a cost-benefit standpoint from the user's perspective, it simply doesn't add up, especially when there is a viable, cheaper alternative available without the same restriction. The only logical reason I really see to chose XBone is if you're particularly interested in Kinect or their exclusive offerings.

[Hack&Lube]

Microsoft can't just come out and say $5 games for everyone! (ala the Steam model is what won everybody over in the first place on that platform).

It'd be great if they could convey to the consumer the idea of that possibility because of network software distribution and DRM licensing but as long as you are dealing with a physical games model, people are going to keep thinking of software as $60 in a box and not realize you get charged that much because developers need to recoup more on the original point of sale.

They could completely destroy the PS4's physical game model if they were able to negotiate Steam like $5 or $10 blockbuster games. People won't care about any of this always on, DRM, etc. stuff anymore when the prices are that low except for remote users with no internet access (who are the type who wouldn't use a Steam model anyway). Sony could respond back with their own cheap online distribution model as well but they wisely chose not to tie in the physical game portion of their system to the online service portion.

In the end, Sony gave consumers choice while Microsoft went in one direction only. Microsoft is forcing gamers into this model whereas Sony has the leeway to wean customers off connection-less physical games and onto licensed digital distribution over time.

[SuperMatt18]

Officially have changed their decision to restrict with the DRM.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

Now we just wait for all the XBox 180 memes.

[The Yen Man]

Good on you MS, must have been a gut wrenching decision to backpedal like that. Looks like I'm back to probably buying an Xbox One now.

[devo22]

haha "your feedback matters" ... yeah, right. Desperation move out of fear of getting crushed by Sony if they don't change their policy, nothing else. Good that those stupid plans were put to bed already. Still, the PS4 is 100$ cheaper.