It would be cool to see what they could have done, but the simple fact is the Xbox community isn't ready yet. Try giving it a generation or two. Even then, who knows if console gaming should go that way. (food for thought, please don't reply with your golden cents anyone)
Great. Microsoft gave up original ideas and capabilities dependent on the presence of DRM to satisfy the needs of Reddit in the false hopes of increasing profits when in actuality they fail to alter many opinions. As previously stated, both the PS4 and Xbox One are nearly identical except that the latter has an added $100 in motion sensing technology. I completely agree that Microsoft has and currently still suffers from corporate greed, yet never has its attempts to win over the gaming community's capital been so desperate, blatant, and unsuccessful. That being said, I am purchasing the Xbox One for its exclusives and the freedom to play with my friends. Without limitations on businesses in such unusual worlds, I will have to deal with such **** until another console appears with much more valuable advantages.
Couple things, Microsoft was obviously prepared to to go ahead with its licensing system and to turn around in policy means they will have to change how their architecture works. That's what this "first day patch" their tech guys are talking about now. I'm sure millions of people would much rather be able to play games the same way they do now then jump through hoops and restrictions for something slightly neat. That being said, Microsoft COULD STILL DO ALL OF THAT STUFF. They just have to rework their architecture to separate digital bought games from physical disc games. Once they do that all the sharing plans could come back as the ground work for those plans is still in the system. That way both sides of the fence are satisfied. The people who like to play games but don't have a stable internet (or none at all) can buy the system and enjoy what offline features it gives and the people who want a richer online experience could experience that down the road but in the mean time maintain the status quo (which isn't half bad people). This point hasn't come up specifically here but I've seen in other discussions (and kinda in that dorkly joke sky posted). To the people who think the greater emphasis on digital games and forced licensing would end up with cheaper new games prices. No. A millions times no. The publishers had their chance with both PSN and Games on Demand to charge cheaper prices for digital versions of their games but they didn't. Not only that but they didn't depreciate the value of their games at the same rate as they did with brick and mortar retail stores. I've seen new games in stores for 30 bucks while their digital counterpart stayed 60 for weeks (to their credit they have gotten better at this and have seen it happen less often). There is no evidence to back up any statement that publishers would charge less for their games if there was a forced digital distribution channel. To anyone who wants to go with the Steam comparison. No one likes the fact that they don't own their steam games either and that many games have DRM on them. People put up with it because of the incredible sales and sheer amount of cheap games. It is extremely doubtful had Microsoft kept with their policies that publishers would embrace a Steam level slashing of their games' prices because again, what's currently stopping them from doing so? So far Don Mattrick has not definitely stated that the family sharing plan would go away forever, just that it wouldn't be possible at launch because if that once every 24 hour check isn't mandatory they have no way as it stands to verify the game as owned by your gamertag but that doesn't mean they couldn't figure out a way to set up that check for digitally purchased games (if you purchased the game through Games on Demand you undoubtedly have an internet connection). And no, Xbox did not capitulate to "reddit"...Every single tech publication, gaming journalist, and hell even Jimmy Fallon has commented negatively on the DRM/Used Game restriction polices. When there is that much negative feedback (and Sony giving them a gut punch during E3 didn't help either) you can't keep plugging on in the hopes consumers weren't listening or going on the internet. As far as "well now the two consoles are virtually the same" argument...are you guys high? They're two distinctly different eco-systems. Now their gaming capabilities are more in line with each other but that is about as close as it gets between the two. Xbox One will still be an entertainment hub capable of multi-tasking, watching live tv, recording game content and live streaming it to twitch plus all the other benefits of the Xbox live system (achievements, expanded friend list, etc) as well as a bunch of exclusive games. Not that I've ever been a fan of exclusive games as it's nothing more than fanboy fodder and limits the potential of a game.
Because both this change policy and the loss of family sharing arent necessarily permanent, we can still see their return in a more refined form later on in the consoles life, perhaps when people are more willing to accept that drm and connectivity requirement. I've said it to my friends, its not what they wanted to do that was bad, it was how. There are countless other ways they could have implemented both disc and digital sharing while not making an online connection mandatory for both. One way could have been a Steam-like offline mode where it verfied all digital content on the xbox and allowed you to play any of it and disc based games offline, indefinitely, while blocking any new digital games to go on the xbox. Now, Im no software engineer or anything, but that sounds easy enough to do. Instead they opted for this. Sadly now, both consoles are pretty much the same.
**** jimmy fallon, i hate that loser. im honestly more inclined to buy a ps4 now. now its just 2 consoles that are basically the same, one with an extra hundy added. people saying theyre still sticking with ps4 because sony "cares about gamers and their customers" are just mindless drones. sony isnt your friend, and ms isnt your enemy. both of them are just businesses trying to make as much money as they possibly can. ms just read the tides wrong. they thought people would be more willing to accept change and a bit of innovation, but they were wrong. sony thought people would want things to stay where theyre comfortable, thus selling more consoles and making more money by making the exact same console as last generation with more juice. and they were right. even if they didnt go about it perfectly, i agreed with microsofts attempt at innovation. i realize it would have screwed over some people, or maybe a lot of people. but thats how technology advances and is pushed forward faster. so yeah, brand loyalty or buying a console because you think the company is better is just dumb, buy the better product. thats capitalism, thats how you get companies to make better products. and i think sony has the better product right now. but before today, i didnt think that was so clear to be honest.
This thread is full of people talking sense. Yay. The funniest bit is that many 360 players think they're "going home" to the PS4. No you're not, you're just buying a different console because you can't stand change. Shows how fickle and weak some people really are.
**** the pomposity in here. No, people at large did not object to these things simply because they "dislike change." I feel like we're having the Reach discussion all over again. You liked the new feature of game sharing, fair enough. I'm not gonna go around basically telling you that you're objectively wrong to dislike this backtrack and the changes (or rather lack thereof) that it brings, so maybe extend the same goddamn courtesy and consider that maybe people prioritise things like physical lending, reselling and permanent offline functionality over the sharing system, rather than just disliking change. A lot of you guys clearly prioritise the sharing feature over those things, fair enough. I don't. A lot of other people don't. Get the hell over it. Bitching about how reddit et al whined their way in to getting a backtrack, whilst basically doing the exact same thing because your preferred feature gets axed? Give me a break. Both plans have downsides, the initial one having heavy restrictions and the current one not allowing the cool new feature of game sharing. Maybe, just maybe, people actually have a legitimately difference preference than yours, and maybe MS feel like they're doing the right thing by more customers with this plan than they were with the old one.
I'm still confused by this notion people have that the consoles are now "the same". I said this in my last post that apparently noone read because words frighten people but are you guys high? Are the 360 and PS3 the "same" now? They both currently can play games without needing a connection or place restrictions on used games. I didn't realize that was the only thing that differentiated them. Not the games, and the expanded feature set of both consoles, PSN vs Xbox Live, cloud enhanced capacities, and etc. Nope the only difference between the new consoles was apparently whether of not you can play without a disc or share your DRM licensed game to 10 other people in a vague unexplained way. And this is going to sound mean but f it. Every single person who supported the original policy is essentially saying **** you to millions of potential gamers who would be excluded because it makes your personal experience slightly more convenient. Says a lot about personality. I'd much rather have Microsoft add the sharing functionality in later as neat optional feature than force it on fewer people at the start.
Not really Pac. I supported the original policy because it allowed for some pretty neat things, such as sharing games over the cloud. And I doubt millions of people who game lack an internet connection, given that you REALLY arn't getting your moneys worth for a single player campaign, with the notable exception of Skyrim and other RPGs. Almost eveyrbody who changed to PS4 said it was because they don't have a stable internet connection. Once every 24 hours is nothing. Can't take it on holiday? Well, ITS A BIG WORLD. GO OUTSIDE. AIR. WALK. BREATH. NICENESS. EXCERSIZE. LIFE. LIFENESS. CAPS LOCK. And nobody would be "excluded." There are other alternatives avaliable. You can't make generalised, sweeping claims like that one. Trust me, expect some flames for that :O
The people that don't like the Xbox One can buy the PS4. The people that do like the Xbox One can buy the Xbox One.
Then you haven't been on many other forums or game news sites. I just did the math a few posts back of people without Internet, it's still a lot of people and even if only a tiny percentage of those with zero Internet were also gamers that's still a lot of people overall. There have been massively more people complaining about the required connection than people complaining about a lost feature that makes playing a game more convenient. Mind you its a lost feature THAT DOESN'T NEED TO STAY LOST. The architecture to support it is already there they just have to tweak it to only apply to games bought digitally. Your complaint is essentially in support of an optional nice to have that if it were forced would screw many people out of a system. I mean do you see that on any level of understanding? You could still get what you want without ****ing over people at the start. You're right, why even argue about gaming systems. We should all just go outside for a walk. Seriously, do you plan these posts out ahead of time or just fart out words when they immediately come to mind.
I don't know Microsoft's code base or the complexities involved here but just with general programming knowledge this is how I would handle this situation to make everyone happy. Have the publishers put a unique ID on just the digital version of their game that goes on Games on Demand. Have xbox live verify the game through that unique ID to your gamertag. That way all the benefits that come from a licensed product (as well as its downsides) would be available to people who don't want to worry about the physical disk. Publishers would be happy because you can't resell a digital copy of a game and consumers with good internet connections (or just ones capable of getting on Live to purchase the game in the first place) are happy because they can share that digital game with the rest of their digital games in the manners Microsoft described. People who value the physical disc as personal property that they can then sell, lend, whatever get all the benefits of that system without restrictions and people who want a licensed game experience get that and the two never have to meet. The benefit of such a plan is other than the basic step of having the publisher add an extra line of code to their game (on just the digitally distributed version) is that it requires little overhead due to the architecture already being in place to handle such a system.
**** that, its not pomposity, its not change for the sake of change like the reach crap, its innovation. an advance in technology. things are going to be all digitized at some point, and it was good that ms was moving towards that. i know that they didnt do it in the best possible way, but i liked that they were at least doing something. i love steam. i want consoles to be more like steam. but thats never going to happen without someone pushing the industry forward. an no, we're never going to have the best of both worlds. theres not going be huge digital game sales when the physical copy is still sitting in gamestop for 50 or 60 bucks, thatd be nice, but i dont think its going to happen. now we have 2 consoles that dont do anything significantly different than last generation, so yeah, that makes me a bit upset. i realize that the general gaming population seems to disagree, i realize that ms pretty much had to do this to actually sell consoles, and thats what upsets me even more.
man this thread is retarded. Nothing but hate for DRM before yesterday and now everyone wants it back at least partially. Make up your minds people.
Its not just here, its pretty much that way everywhere. The vocal majority is almost always the party that is unhappy with things, before it was people who didnt want drm, and now it is people who wanted it. People in general see more purpose in voicing what they dislike rather than what they like, and negatives always weigh heavier on memory than positives.
Just to correct you a tad, and to further your point... You actually DO own every game you purchase on steam. When you purchase your games, you're actually purchasing your game's serial and the right to use that serial to activate the game. While most games' serials aren't available by just clicking a button in steam, you can retrieve them for every single game. I have an encrypted notepad file on a hidden partition of my hard drive that contains the serials for every single game in my steam library. Even if my account were to be suspended from steam's entire service (which wouldn't happen unless I committed credit card fraud), I still own and can operate every single game in my library. Now, another reason to tack on to this is that Steam is on PC. Once your game is downloaded, you can do whatever the hell you want to it to make your experience with the game the best that you possibly can. Want to make the game look better by adding on a community made texture pack? Sure, go ahead. Want to add cool HDR effects to a game that doesn't have 'em? Yup. Go right ahead. Want to add a custom community-made mission, quest, or world to your game to lengthen your experience? Hell yeah! Do it! None of that is possible on any console this generation (Well, without extensive modification that goes against your ToS and stops you from going online). It's almost certain that this will happen next gen as well. Having the freedom to do what you want with a game you own (Such a weird concept, right?) adds tremendous value to every single game you buy. That's really saying something about the gaming Industry, isn't it. Maybe we need the developers and publishers to change, not the consoles? So, if you don't have an internet connection or if your connection's being bogged down by everyone wanting to be online at the same time, you shouldn't be allowed to use the console you paid $500 for and the games you paid $60 each for? Way to segregate society even more, there, Oli! Oh my god my sides... The ****ing irony... See my reply to Pac. Consoles can never be like steam. Especially not the Xbox. They are closed platforms that don't allow the user any freedom with the software on board. Furthermore, Xbox is disgustingly anti-indie in their business model. You HAVE to have a publisher to get your game on Xbox. It also costs disgusting amounts of money to put patches out for your games on Xbox. Microsoft wasn't pushing the gaming industry forward at all. They were locking it off from the ever-growing indie market and ensuring that all the big name publishers can continue to rake in the cash. The PS4 has neither of these, so in reality, it's pushing the industry forward more than the Xbox One. It's saying that the consumer still has rights and it's providing an even ground for indie developers to make their mark in the living room. (A task that the OUYA has ultimately failed to achieve) Why not? It happens on PC all the time!