The Xbox One Just Got Way Worse, And It's Our Fault
-
Microsoft just announced that its much-maligned DRM policies won't look at all like they originally had originally been described. They're going to more relaxed, sort of like the PS3's. Good news, you say? No. Bad news. The Xbox One just got worse. But what? Isn't all DRM bad and anti-consumer? No. Often it is, sure. If applied in the ways that gaming culture has been anxious about for the past few weeks, it would be disastrous. But that's not what was really at stake.
I actually agree with this: if you want last year's gaming experience, stick with Xbox 360.
-
Microsoft just announced that its much-maligned DRM policies won't look at all like they originally had originally been described. They're going to more relaxed, sort of like the PS3's. Good news, you say? No. Bad news. The Xbox One just got worse. But what? Isn't all DRM bad and anti-consumer? No. Often it is, sure. If applied in the ways that gaming culture has been anxious about for the past few weeks, it would be disastrous. But that's not what was really at stake.
I actually agree with this: if you want last year's gaming experience, stick with Xbox 360.
To play the other side for a moment... Most developers will not be motivated (or have the resources) to create a used-games 'hub' market for their game. Why would they really want to spend all that R&D money just to allow people to take a slice of their potential revenue stream? I don't see it happening. It's not profitable. It would have to be Microsoft's job to make a loan-and-resell system either way and it didn't look like they were planning to do that. What happens if the developer goes out of business or gets bought and dissolved? Whoops, no more used game trading or loaning? These companies don't usually last forever. New games could be cheaper? Sure, but why would they actually sell them cheaper when people are already used to paying so much? More speculation about what a kind-hearted CEO might decide to do out of good will and unicorn farts. I can buy a boxed game and a downloadable game for the same price either way from lots of vendors, so I don't see this happening much. In fact, I recently paid $60 for a download-only game that could have included a box and physical media and little fliers and stuff for the same price. What you'll probably see is the A-list games at normal price, and the crappy junk will be cheap, like on all the app stores today. I'd like to see the opposite happen though. Steam is far from the only way PC gamers want to play games. Reference Minecraft, for one great stand-out example, which is not available through Steam. The article also mentioned Blizzard games, which don't go through Steam. WoW, Starcraft, Diablo, etc. didn't need Steam. Guild Wars 2, another giant example. League of Legends, where the community sucks and your points don't matter, also not through Steam. What we want is a minimum of HASSLE when we want to play, or need help with something that broke in the inevitably buggy DRM gatekeeper software. If I can just install it, or download it from a store, that's just great with me. Who cares what software runs it, as long as it stays out of the way and doesn't do anything untoward? Steam is an additional layer of cruft I have to wade through to get to my game and I really don't care about all the achievements or sales or who-plays-what or the screenshots of look at my horse it's totally amazing. It's not thrilling that random online acquaintances can judge your game playing ability by the achievements or hours-played, but whatever. Let's also remember the horrible thing that was/is Origin: These markets don't always work out. Definitely would have been coo
-
To play the other side for a moment... Most developers will not be motivated (or have the resources) to create a used-games 'hub' market for their game. Why would they really want to spend all that R&D money just to allow people to take a slice of their potential revenue stream? I don't see it happening. It's not profitable. It would have to be Microsoft's job to make a loan-and-resell system either way and it didn't look like they were planning to do that. What happens if the developer goes out of business or gets bought and dissolved? Whoops, no more used game trading or loaning? These companies don't usually last forever. New games could be cheaper? Sure, but why would they actually sell them cheaper when people are already used to paying so much? More speculation about what a kind-hearted CEO might decide to do out of good will and unicorn farts. I can buy a boxed game and a downloadable game for the same price either way from lots of vendors, so I don't see this happening much. In fact, I recently paid $60 for a download-only game that could have included a box and physical media and little fliers and stuff for the same price. What you'll probably see is the A-list games at normal price, and the crappy junk will be cheap, like on all the app stores today. I'd like to see the opposite happen though. Steam is far from the only way PC gamers want to play games. Reference Minecraft, for one great stand-out example, which is not available through Steam. The article also mentioned Blizzard games, which don't go through Steam. WoW, Starcraft, Diablo, etc. didn't need Steam. Guild Wars 2, another giant example. League of Legends, where the community sucks and your points don't matter, also not through Steam. What we want is a minimum of HASSLE when we want to play, or need help with something that broke in the inevitably buggy DRM gatekeeper software. If I can just install it, or download it from a store, that's just great with me. Who cares what software runs it, as long as it stays out of the way and doesn't do anything untoward? Steam is an additional layer of cruft I have to wade through to get to my game and I really don't care about all the achievements or sales or who-plays-what or the screenshots of look at my horse it's totally amazing. It's not thrilling that random online acquaintances can judge your game playing ability by the achievements or hours-played, but whatever. Let's also remember the horrible thing that was/is Origin: These markets don't always work out. Definitely would have been coo
djdanlib wrote:
Sure, but why would they actually sell them cheaper when people are already used to paying so much?
Trends in digital marketplaces (especially Steam) have shown that revenue can actually be increased by reducing the price, even temporarily. Unfortunately, no one seems to be taking much notice and applying the same idea to physical media (to be fair, there are additional costs to physical media: manufacturing, transportation, stocking in a store, etc., but you can't tell me it's significantly more than a music CD or DVD movie, which sell for much less). And, less related to the topic:
djdanlib wrote:
Steam is an additional layer of cruft I have to wade through to get to my game
Funny, I always found it to be a faster way, just right click the tray icon and there's the 5 games I've most recently played (which are usually the ones I want to play currently), no need to hunt through the start menu/screen. The community aspects generally don't interest me either, but the messenger in the overlay is useful to talk to friends without having to switch out of the game completely. (But than again, I think all of your counter examples also include similar functionality to the chat.)
-
Microsoft just announced that its much-maligned DRM policies won't look at all like they originally had originally been described. They're going to more relaxed, sort of like the PS3's. Good news, you say? No. Bad news. The Xbox One just got worse. But what? Isn't all DRM bad and anti-consumer? No. Often it is, sure. If applied in the ways that gaming culture has been anxious about for the past few weeks, it would be disastrous. But that's not what was really at stake.
I actually agree with this: if you want last year's gaming experience, stick with Xbox 360.
I'm wondering why MS decided it had to be all one or the other. Offer disc based games that work just like they do on current platforms; and also offer downloadable games that work the way they originally announced. It'd take several years; but I suspect the latter would end up gradually eating the disc based market just like Steam/etc have done on the PC.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
Microsoft just announced that its much-maligned DRM policies won't look at all like they originally had originally been described. They're going to more relaxed, sort of like the PS3's. Good news, you say? No. Bad news. The Xbox One just got worse. But what? Isn't all DRM bad and anti-consumer? No. Often it is, sure. If applied in the ways that gaming culture has been anxious about for the past few weeks, it would be disastrous. But that's not what was really at stake.
I actually agree with this: if you want last year's gaming experience, stick with Xbox 360.
No, it is the game developers' fault. They should charge their new games based on the crappiness of the games, not based on the development costs, or they simply shouldn't develop crappy games if the crappiness based price won't make the game profitable. I have stopped preordering games on Steam after getting screwed up so many times by the games I thought would rock and preordered, but turned out to be a complete crap. To name a few: Rage: stupid game world design: Large clans of angry English men and angry Russian men in the middle of North America, with no explanation how they managed to get there after a global near extinction level event. (also, how do they reproduce since they are ALL male?) crappy no multiplayer: who'd have thought that iD would make a game without proper deatchmatch/team deathmatch? Deus Ex: Human Revolution: Uninteresting and repetitive gameplay Absurd boss fights: you could make your character get Phd on CS and master stealth, but can't use any of these but your weapons in a boss fight Jagged Alliace: Back in Action: Plain bad AI that has to blatantly cheat because, it is so bad Less depth from the previous game in the series Aliens: Colonial Marines: Just wrong on so many levels Dead Island: FPS Diablo clone with zombies and bad character models. The first hour of gameplay summarizes pretty much everything. Stupid leveling system & game design: You are level 1, in a luxurious holiday resort: zombies (turned rich tourists) drop $1 You are level 50, in the ghettos: zombies (turned ghetto folk) drop $100 If I had bought these games on physical media, I wouldn't hesitate to return/sell/give away them after 1 or 2 hours into the game, but now they are just polluting my Steam game library for no reason other than I payed for them.