Support NeoGAF

[danielcw]

these steam comparisons are annoying, considering they're wrong.

Steam is there, we know it now. We never really got the chacne to know all the rules of Microsoft's new plan.
When steam started out, it was badly recieved, but at least people exactly knew what it meant.

If you compare the DRM of a typical Steam release versus the Xbox 360 non-disc games, there are many ways the 360 does better.
The only thing Steam does better is the offline mode, and even that strongly depends on your use case.

 

[iMax]

I see iMax is really working overtime, making petitions now

Someone's gotta speak up!

 

[lionkitten]

You damn right people who may not have bought an Xbone made their voices heard. If MS had succeeded in their scheme to force this DRM garbage down the industry's throat, it would have trickled down to every other facet of the industry. Then, people who avoided the Xbone because they didn't want to deal with their draconian DRM shit would now have to deal with it. Nip this in the bud now before it even gets a chance to take hold.

It's just so BS. The billions of dollars spent on iTunes and android and PSN and XBLA and Steam and Origin and on and on by the same people all up in arms is evidence of the staggering ignorance or hypocrisy. That bolded line is the complete opposite. It's trickled down to consoles already. The consoles aren't the Minnesota in this Mississippi RIver. The consoles are the New Orleans.

Gamers wrapping themselves in some sort of consumerist or anarchist cloak of self-righteousness and patting themselves on the back is utterly ridiculous.

 

[lionkitten]

So it's okay for you to play Nostradamus then?

As a PS3/360/WiiU owner I had PS4/Xbox One on equal ground at the start. Their policies/actions/price/features are what determined which console(s) I was going to get.


And I wasn't trying to re-write the past or peer into the future, I was explaining from a rational standpoint as to why the sharing plan most likely wasn't what some, such as yourself and Heretic, seem to think it was.
.

If you actually read the post, I clearly said I have no idea where it was going. I wanted to see the plan unfold. If it was good for gamers, awesome. If it was bad, then no one buys the platform and they change or they die and I'm out $600. Who cares?

 

[R3TRO]

At first I wanted it back but then I realized that I wouldn't want to share my shit and I'm going full digital for both next Gen consoles so the disc having to be in the drive doesn't affect me; F the Drm.

 

[professor_t]

I'm probably going to sound like a crawled out from under a rock after two months of hibernation, but what were the two or three worst things about Microsoft's pre-reversal policies? I have a general sense of things, but I can't really articulate it into a few main points.

 

[bj00rn_]

I've been receiving hate mail, messages, tweets, etc since the drm reversal. There are a lot of people that think we ruined their utopia. That's fine, I don't really mind it... but the truth of the matter is that Microsoft pulled their 180 because they were getting absolutely slaughtered in preorder sales. Since the change their sales rose.


And that's all that Microsoft cares about. Sorry.


We made drm a big issue and sony took the ball and ran with it. Indirectly i think this affected Microsoft. But i dont think we had any direct affect on them. Money did.

A simple thing like the name "#PS4noDRM".. Heh, I mean, you are aware that most people are taking it literally don't you? People actually think Sony has no DRM on their boxes and think neither box will have DRM now when the internet "won", which is hilarious.

Just look at what happened in the thread with the news were Sony seems to be changing their PS4 DRM to match Microsoft's existing DRM on the 360. Some people in the thread are praising Sony in the thread and sticking it to MS at the same time. It's bizarre.

I'm probably going to sound like a crawled out from under a rock after two months of hibernation, but what were the two or three worst things about Microsoft's pre-reversal policies? I have a general sense of things, but I can't really articulate it into a few main points.

Microsoft wanted to move the DRM check off the discs and rather tie the game to the user data (just like Xb marketplace works today) but via an added mandatory once per day online DRM check. This could mean the end of used console games. On the flip side it would mean no mandatory disc in the tray.

 

[Cheesemeister]

A simple thing like the name "#PS4noDRM".. Heh, I mean, you are aware that most people are taking it literally don't you? People actually think Sony has no DRM on their boxes and think neither box will have DRM now when the internet "won", which is hilarious.

You're talking about copy-protection, right? Just open the flood gates to piracy, then?

 

[shinobi602]

You know, just when I thought you couldn't possibly be, any dumber...you go and do something like this.

 

[Demon Lizardman]

I actually want them to bring the DRM back to see the reactions.

 

[bj00rn_]

I actually want them to bring the DRM back to see the reactions.

How can you bring back something that never left? It's still there fully integrated with the discs and marketplaces, PC, Xbox and Playstation, and handhelds, and iTunes and Netflix, HBO and Spotify... and...etc, they all have up the wazoo with DRM.

 

[Open Source]

It's just so BS. The billions of dollars spent on iTunes and android and PSN and XBLA and Steam and Origin and on and on by the same people all up in arms is evidence of the staggering ignorance or hypocrisy. That bolded line is the complete opposite. It's trickled down to consoles already. The consoles aren't the Minnesota in this Mississippi RIver. The consoles are the New Orleans.

Gamers wrapping themselves in some sort of consumerist or anarchist cloak of self-righteousness and patting themselves on the back is utterly ridiculous.

Yup.

Used games are a dead man walking, anyway. The DRM thing was just more obvious a death blow than the transfer of investment dollars to digital platforms/social/f2p, the shift of focus to online gameplay, monetization via DRM-protected means such as DLC, etc. When it's the swift mercy killing of full DRM or the slow, wasting death of starvation, either way, they are dead.

Anyone who thinks they saved used games and defeated DRM is delusional. They just made it so that DRM is implemented in ways that fuck up game design instead of a design-neutral fashion.

As a player and as a developer, it doesn't really affect me either way. I play and develop on digital platforms with DRM, and I'm quite happy there.

 

[leadbelly]

Microsoft wanted to move the DRM check off the discs and rather tie the game to the user data (just like Xb marketplace works today) but via an added mandatory once per day online DRM check. This could mean the end of used console games. On the flip side it would mean no mandatory disc in the tray.

Imagine if you will, a world where discs become a thing of the past. This is not science-fiction, the capabilities already exist! Welcome to the brave new world of online DRM.

The revolution is now!

 

[HyperCubed4]

I'd sign it. I don't want two consoles that are practically the same, with slightly different focuses. I want two different consoles with two different philosophies on game distribution. As such, I want to see how the industry changes because of it. We won't know if Family Sharing would have become a staple of console gaming. God damn it, I don't want to see very similar consoles. I want to see two companies doing their own thing.

Fuck it, I'm signing it.

 

[ParenegadeM]

Neither are yours. Just because a 10 second disc swap is the bane of your existence, doesn't mean that everyone else is willing to sign away their game ownership for that one minor feature. Guess what, people were upset about the trade-off, they spoke up, and Microsoft reversed their policy.

It's too bad for you it didn't work out in your favor, but if you hate physical media so much you can just buy digital.



You are right, none of us can see the future. All we can do is make informed decisions based on the information we have. The information Microsoft gave us was garbage, and it led to a bunch of people not being too keen on purchasing the system. I don't see how you can be mad at people for not inventing a future where everything is sunshine and rainbows, and Microsoft just wants to make everyone happy, and then assuming that is the only possible future. Most people are not so optimistic about the intentions of multi-billion dollar companies, sorry.



And the persecution complex rears it's ugly head once again.

Multiple people in this very thread have said they would sign this petition just to see MS fail. This is the reality of the situation not something made up by fanboys.

 

[eastmen]

Heretic, you're more apt to lend your physical copy to someone that you know personally.

With a digital library shared with whoever you choose, the opportunity for abuse is increased significantly. That's why the time limit makes infinitely more sense - the person playing the game gets a real taste of the full title, maybe earns some achievements, and then is primed to upgrade to a full price copy in order to continue. They are now invested. The other description where people can just play forever? Makes no sense at all in comparison.

Don't get salty at me because you miss Bobby Ryan, man.

I'd assume the majority of xbox one owners would have had people they actually know on their 10 person list. I know the majority of people I talked to would have. Sure some people may have come on gaf or other sites and traded. But here is the thing. Only one person on your list of 10 can have access to the game at once.

So I think it would have broken down in one of two ways for the majority of gamers.

1) You buy a game that's popular lets say call of duty. Are your 10 friends going to wait for you to beat it and then play it ? Your 10 friends will most likely be people you play multiplayer with. So the majority of them would have to buy a second copy.

2) You buy a quirky new game like say project spark. Your friends start to try it out on your account. Some might beat it and move on , some might hate it and stop playing. But some might buy it and expand the audience for a game and perhaps sequal


My list of friends would mostly ecompass the same time zone as I am in. So most would end up fighting over who gets to play it in the evenings and on weekends .


I have said before , I liked the DRM structure for DD . The ability to buy in store or online and have the ability to shop around for the best price just like on steam. Unlike steam I would have had family sharing. Unlike steam I would have to connect online once every 24 hours but as I've said before aside from sandy I haven't had internet shortages that long and sandy I actually got internet back before power.

 

[spookyfish]

People thinking the Family Plan was seriously going to let 10 people share a game on a system that wouldn't let them lend a physical game to someone they know baffle me.

 

[ParenegadeM]

People thinking the Family Plan was seriously going to let 10 people share a game on a system that wouldn't let them lend a physical game to someone they know baffle me.

I don't know why this baffles people. Family Share serves as a replacement for physical sharing. It's really simple.

 

[Jomjom]

I don't know why this baffles people. Family Share serves as a replacement for physical sharing. It's really simple.

That's not what is baffling people. What's baffling people is that Family Share was about 100x better than physical sharing, far far more than a mere "replacement", so why would developers be ok with it when they weren't even ok with the original "Family Share" with 4 people that the PS3 had. And you did know that PS3 had a "Family Share" program right? The only difference is it didn't work with physical discs. It technically still does, just that it only works with 1 other person now.

Here's an example why it's WAY more than a replacement: My friend and I NEVER share physical games because we live over 100 miles apart. Sharing a game with him physically meant I would not be able to get it back from him if I had a sudden urge to play again. There was a good chance I wouldn't get the game back at all because I would forget what I had lent him. With the PS3, we shared freaking everything we bought on the PSN, even the 500 combined Rock Band songs we had.

What are these viable solutions then? If there are so many of them, write a blog post about them and you'll probably be offered a job within the week.

Sorry about the late response, but here:

Step 1: Choose your 10 people as your "family members" either directly from the Xbone or the PC.

Step 2: Buy your physical or digital game.

Step 3: Register your game to your account somehow. Any of these methods would work: specific code that could be entered directly on Xbone or through PC, popping disc into the console or even a PC with some software that MS could develop for PC, work with retailers on some sort of registration at point of purchase. (You might be asking why all these options? Because this would allow MS to still say that they don't require online on the Xbone.)

Step 4: Choose one of your friends to share the game with. Since they would have to download the game, the online connection is a necessity and at that point the system would tell said friend that he's been chosen to share _______ game. Friend then has 24 hours, 48 hours, or whatever set amount of time MS wants to set to play the game.

Step 5: Once the time limit is up, friend cannot play the game further until the original game owner uses one of the options in Step 3 to authorize that they still own the game. Original owner can still play the game regardless of whether or not he does this authorization.

There is one solution. Not the best I'm sure. I'm sure people smarter than me (and there are billions) can come up with something better.

I'm going to watch my phone for calls from the 425 area code now. When you said a week, did you mean a work week or a full week? Do MS headhunters work on weekends? Also does it have to be a blog post for them to see it? If so, I gotta go make a blog right now.

 

[Sean*O]

Family share was BS.

 

[Deitus]

Multiple people in this very thread have said they would sign this petition just to see MS fail. This is the reality of the situation not something made up by fanboys.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say there weren't fanboys who just like to twist the knife while Microsoft squirms on the ground. Of course those people are out there, and some of them have posted in this thread. My argument wasn't that there weren't people signing the petition ironically out of spite.

My point was directed at the notion that the majority of people who spoke out against the DRM in the first place were just Microsoft haters who killed the perfect Xbone DRM system because they just want to see the world burn. Obviously some of the people who trashed the DRM were fanboys, just as there are fanboys who support every cause ever. But the reason the PS3NoDRM movement gained as much traction as it did was because people were actually passionate about the cause. People spoke up because they believed that a future where game ownership is heavily restricted would ultimately be bad for them. They spoke up because they wanted to buy one or both of the consoles coming out this year, but didn't want them to be saddled with features that would limit how they play games.

You can disagree with their desires for the next generation of consoles. You can believe that Microsoft's original version of the Xbox One best met your desires out of a console. That's fine. But don't try to paint everyone with an opposing opinion as a rabid fanboy lashing out.

 

[RockTurtle]

why is this a thing now? this all seems like an elaborate ruse to get discussions among the microsoft heads to bring back some of their DRM things and justify it as "look! SOME people want this, we will go ahead and appease those people".

 

[Lenardo]

i agree with sean- unfortunately they can say ANYTHING right now, the way that cboat said was hr trial thingy for the share,

they could say -now- that all 10 could play the same game at the same time and they wouldn't be wrong...because it is not going in.

no worries on my part my son is getting a playstation 4 for xmas

why?

100 dollars less = essentially 2 games & 1controller for the Same price as the xbox1 and a game

 

[FranXico]

That's not what is baffling people. What's baffling people is that Family Share was about 100x better than physical sharing, far far more than a mere "replacement" [...]

Nobody needs to be online in order to play from traded physical discs. How is family share an improvement on that?

 

[famousmortimer]

That's really pretty sad. I think the campaign was a little misguided, but the sentiment behind it was definitely a good thing. Personally, I wanted policies to be more lax and forgiving, and there needed to be a digital marketplace/offline mode designation. I was hoping the campaign would spur that kind of change--one that only unilateral benefits everyone, not the reversal that happened that does take away some benefits even if only for the vast minority.

Console Warriors gonna warrior, I guess. About the hatemail stuff, I'm referring (QUICKEDIT)

I never wanted or advocated for Microsoft to reverse any of the seemingly good ideas they had, I just took issue with the loss of rights in physical media. But why not allow people to opt into the proposed program or opt out if they need to be offline (like military folks) or if they just chose not to be a part of that. I certainly wasn't against the ideas that Microsoft was putting forward, I just didn't like being forced into them. Why they seemingly threw all of them away is beyond me. I have serious doubts that Microsoft was going to create this consumer friendly marketplace where everyone can share and games were cheaper... but I wasn't against them trying.


As for posting the trolls... nah. They want a reaction out of me and they aren't going to get one. Posting them would be giving them what they want.

There is definitely a lot of room to innovate in the digital space and I hope someone does. It's just my personal belief (that a lot of people agreed with, certainly) that they didn't have to throw owners rights of physical media under the bus to reach them.


I mean people keep saying "it was going to be like steam!" I don't see why it still can't be. In fact, and I know this is rare, but currently Alice is on sale on steam for $5. It's on sale on the PSN for $4. You don't need to strip rights to be like steam, or in this rare case... better.

 

[Lord Error]

Yup.

Used games are a dead man walking, anyway. The DRM thing was just more obvious a death blow than the transfer of investment dollars to digital platforms/social/f2p, the shift of focus to online gameplay, monetization via DRM-protected means such as DLC, etc. When it's the swift mercy killing of full DRM or the slow, wasting death of starvation, either way, they are dead.

Anyone who thinks they saved used games and defeated DRM is delusional. They just made it so that DRM is implemented in ways that fuck up game design instead of a design-neutral fashion.

As long as physical game discs exist that are available for you to sell to anyone, used game market will be just fine (despite online, dlc and whatnot, I think you underestimate just how many people simply want to play the game and sell it quickly afterwards), and the game discs will have to exist at least for as long as the upcoming consoles will. I don't understand your comment about DRM being implemented in a way that screws up game design. Keeping disc in the drive can't really compromise anything IMO.

Microsoft's mistake was really that they attempted this with a physical media. It's nowhere near as counter intuitive to expect some rules like this for downloaded games, but when you can freely sell practically every single physical product you own without some arbitrary restrictions, it really is not hard to see how it feels like what they tried to do makes no sense. Hell, it would even be nice to be able to sell downloaded games to another user, with a sales cut going to developer, and this could technically be implemented, which I've even heard Steam plans on doing.

There is definitely a lot of room to innovate in the digital space and I hope someone does. It's just my personal belief (that a lot of people agreed with, certainly) that they didn't have to throw owners rights of physical media under the bus to reach them.

This is really all that needs to be said.

 

[Nafai1123]

The stupidity in this thread is mind boggling.

 

[Open Source]

As long as physical game discs exist that are available for you to sell to anyone, used game market will be just fine (despite online, dlc and whatnot, I think you underestimate just how many people simply want to play the game and sell it quickly afterwards), and the game discs will have to exist at least for as long as the upcoming consoles will. I don't understand your comment about DRM being implemented in a way that screws up game design. Keeping disc in the drive can't really compromise anything IMO.

It affects what gets produced. When used games are a major issue, you design the game in a way that mitigates it. You push content and features to online so that people hold onto the game. You stop investing in single player games and game modes. You push content to DLC. You make games f2p and go for depth of sales to compensate for shrinking breadth of sales. And so on. And so the core product isn't as good, because its goodness has moved to these other parts of the game, or has been transformed from actual entertainment into wallet-grabbing brain hacks disguised as entertainment.

 

[Jomjom]

Nobody needs to be online in order to play from traded physical discs. How is family share an improvement on that?

Because its easier to be online than to have one disc in 10 places at the same time.

It affects what gets produced. When used games are a major issue, you design the game in a way that mitigates it. You push content and features to online so that people hold onto the game. You stop investing in single player games and game modes. You push content to DLC. You make games f2p and go for depth of sales to compensate for shrinking breadth of sales. And so on. And so the core product isn't as good, because its goodness has moved to these other parts of the game, or has been transformed from actual entertainment into wallet-grabbing brain hacks disguised as entertainment.

But yet we have many games that invest in amazing single player campaigns like most recently The Last of Us. Also you seem to dismiss multiplayer modes out of hand as if they are universally bad. If the multiplayer mode is poor and adds nothing of value, it will have absolutely no sway on getting the consumer to keep the game. Is it not possible that some designers at least create a multiplayer mode not simply to mitigate used games, but because it adds perceived value in the first place to justify a $60 price tag? Most people will not even buy a game in the first place that consists of simply a 6 hour single player with no multiplayer mode for a full $60 price tag.

Are you implying also that if used games weren't an issue that people would no longer push content to DLC? I find that a little hard to believe. Lower revenue may have been the thing that caused the invention of DLC, but now that that Pandora's box has been opened, I don't believe developers will simply stop when they know if they keep compelling content behind that DLC paywall, people will buy it. For instance there are plenty of digital only release games that don't ever have and have never had to compete with used games that push content to DLC.

Also, your comment about used games causing a transformation from "actual entertainment into wallet-grabbing brain hacks disguised as entertainment." Isn't that what all companies do in every industry? In the video game industry this would happen regardless of whether used games existed or not would it not? From your title I assume you work for Zen studios, so I don't know if you can really comment on this but wasn't selling every single Marvel pinball table separately a bit of a wallet-grabbing strategy? I mean you could have sold all of the tables together for a low price, but obviously selling them separately makes more. Please don't read this as an attack either, because I believe as a company you are entitled and should try to make the largest profit you can, but I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that but for used games, companies wouldn't utilize "wallet-grabbing" strategies.

As for F2P games, the majority of that is happening in MMOs and mobile games. Both of these games do not have to compete with the used game issue whatsoever. F2P models in MMOs came about because nobody could keep subscriptions up on the scale of WoW and mathematically banking on the whales and larger free-to-play user base who will spend on fluff items equated to an overall larger revenue than collecting subscription fees from a smaller user base. In mobile games, F2P was again not due to used games, but because depending on the type of game, continuous expenditures from players who were lured in to the game for the price of free meant greater revenues than charging once for the full game. Both of these were simple business decisions for what would maximize profits that were completely independent of the used game issue. I actually cannot even think of one game that was designed as F2P because of used games, can you?

 

[NullPointer]

Because its easier to be online than to have one disc in 10 places at the same time.

There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that one disc would be allowed to be used in 10 different places at the same time. Not a shadow of a whisper of a thought of a chance.

You're dreaming.

 

[BradleyLove]

There's literally no reason for MS not to reintroduce "Family Share" for DD purchases. The lack of disc-based DRM should not preclude this feature from being there.

Hell, they can even make it a DD-only scheme you opt in to with the caveat of online check-ins.

Family Share doesn't have to be dead if MS really don't want it to be dead. But for some reason it is... I wonder why?

I never wanted or advocated for Microsoft to reverse any of the seemingly good ideas they had, I just took issue with the loss of rights in physical media. But why not allow people to opt into the proposed program or opt out if they need to be offline (like military folks) or if they just chose not to be a part of that. I certainly wasn't against the ideas that Microsoft was putting forward, I just didn't like being forced into them. Why they seemingly threw all of them away is beyond me. I have serious doubts that Microsoft was going to create this consumer friendly marketplace where everyone can share and games were cheaper... but I wasn't against them trying.


As for posting the trolls... nah. They want a reaction out of me and they aren't going to get one. Posting them would be giving them what they want.

There is definitely a lot of room to innovate in the digital space and I hope someone does. It's just my personal belief (that a lot of people agreed with, certainly) that they didn't have to throw owners rights of physical media under the bus to reach them.


I mean people keep saying "it was going to be like steam!" I don't see why it still can't be. In fact, and I know this is rare, but currently Alice is on sale on steam for $5. It's on sale on the PSN for $4. You don't need to strip rights to be like steam, or in this rare case... better.

Exactly. There's nothing to stop MS offering their original plan but excluding physical media.

MS threw some bullshit out there and some are lapping it up... still.

It's simple. Make DD attractive enough and folks will automatically migrate over time. Don't force it, don't use a stick, just allow it to naturally happen.

 

[rdrr gnr]

It affects what gets produced. When used games are a major issue, you design the game in a way that mitigates it. You push content and features to online so that people hold onto the game. You stop investing in single player games and game modes. You push content to DLC. You make games f2p and go for depth of sales to compensate for shrinking breadth of sales. And so on. And so the core product isn't as good, because its goodness has moved to these other parts of the game, or has been transformed from actual entertainment into wallet-grabbing brain hacks disguised as entertainment.

Yeah, I agree that what you have above said is true when it comes to current trends in console gaming. Yet, not for a fucking second, do I believe the death of used games would have in any way, shape, or form altered that paradigm (ugh) in a meaningful manner. The trends you have listed above would have continued onto next-gen with the only real difference being less consumer power. We had a choice -- the potential proliferation of more diverse/single-player/experimental/complex titles with the guarantee of DRM. That's not a trade-off in favor of the average gamer. If the goal of a publisher is to maximize profits as is the goal of the platform creator -- you really think those savings would have trickled down to us? Why not continue cutting out content and selling it as DLC? Why not continue throwing single players onto MP games or MP onto single player games? Why not add microtransactions? Why not turn everything into F2P if the prospects for profit are marginally better? Why not do all of these things on top of the guarantee you will not lose a single dollar to used games? DRM would have solved this issue only if used games were the preponderant cause. This measure wasn't going to save the $19.99 - $49.99 AA title; it wasn't going to guarantee brand new AAA titles at $49.99; it wasn't going to stop all of those terrible publisher monetization influences. Not when every publisher wants something else. It's almost delusional -- like those who believed MSFT's digital offerings were going to compete with Steam.

 

[avaya]

Those who believed in thd family share plan are in so much denial it is sad.

 

[Open Source]

Because its easier to be online than to have one disc in 10 places at the same time.



But yet we have many games that invest in amazing single player campaigns like most recently The Last of Us. Also you seem to dismiss multiplayer modes out of hand as if they are universally bad. If the multiplayer mode is poor and adds nothing of value, it will have absolutely no sway on getting the consumer to keep the game. Is it not possible that some designers at least create a multiplayer mode not simply to mitigate used games, but because it adds perceived value in the first place to justify a $60 price tag? Most people will not even buy a game in the first place that consists of simply a 6 hour single player with no multiplayer mode for a full $60 price tag.

Are you implying also that if used games weren't an issue that people would no longer push content to DLC? I find that a little hard to believe. Lower revenue may have been the thing that caused the invention of DLC, but now that that Pandora's box has been opened, I don't believe developers will simply stop when they know if they keep compelling content behind that DLC paywall, people will buy it. For instance there are plenty of digital only release games that don't ever have and have never had to compete with used games that push content to DLC.

Also, your comment about used games causing a transformation from "actual entertainment into wallet-grabbing brain hacks disguised as entertainment." Isn't that what all companies do in every industry? In the video game industry this would happen regardless of whether used games existed or not would it not? From your title I assume you work for Zen studios, so I don't know if you can really comment on this but wasn't selling every single Marvel pinball table separately a bit of a wallet-grabbing strategy? I mean you could have sold all of the tables together for a low price, but obviously selling them separately makes more. Please don't read this as an attack either, because I believe as a company you are entitled and should try to make the largest profit you can, but I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that but for used games, companies wouldn't utilize "wallet-grabbing" strategies.

As for F2P games, the majority of that is happening in MMOs and mobile games. Both of these games do not have to compete with the used game issue whatsoever. F2P models in MMOs came about because nobody could keep subscriptions up on the scale of WoW and mathematically banking on the whales and larger free-to-play user base who will spend on fluff items equated to an overall larger revenue than collecting subscription fees from a smaller user base. In mobile games, F2P was again not due to used games, but because depending on the type of game, continuous expenditures from players who were lured in to the game for the price of free meant greater revenues than charging once for the full game. Both of these were simple business decisions for what would maximize profits that were completely independent of the used game issue. I actually cannot even think of one game that was designed as F2P because of used games, can you?

You'll see fewer and fewer games that are designed around single player. You already have. I mean, isn't the "6 hour corridor shooter" one of the stereotypical modern console games? And isn't "tacked on multiplayer" also becoming a bigger and bigger complaint? Spec Ops: the Line, for instance? Games that focused on a single player experience, like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, were once fairly common. Now they are not, and they will get even rarer. Didn't EA say they were done making single player games? This is why.

DLC would certainly still exist, used games or no. But since games could survive and succeed without it, you'd see a mix. Now everything relies on DLC as a revenue stream. And we're talking about retail games here, not digital - games that use DLC to compensate for used games. Obviously, digital titles don't have to compensate. And that's why some digital titles have DLC and others don't, and they can be successful either way.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the pinball tables. We do sell packs at a discount. And the margins on them are quite small. Each table takes months for several people working together to produce, which is why it took us over two years to produce all the existing Marvel tables. I really don't see how that is equivalent to charging someone $5 for a consumable in-game powerup. No doubt that this happens with many digital games. But what I am saying is that it will become more prevalent on consoles as publishers search for ways to mitigate the effect of used games. Same scenario as with content being pushed to DLC - it will happen to some degree regardless, but now it will happen more.

F2P is so common on mobile and MMOs because they are compensating for something other than used games - oversupply. There simply aren't enough paying users to support the game at a fixed price, so they have to get more money from those who do pay, while giving away the basic game to increase visibility in a crowded market. So you are correct. However, publishers will also see this as a solution to the used game issue, and thus it will become more common on consoles as well, sucking away investment capital and paying users from retail games. For f2p to harm retail games, there need not be a direct decision making process that says, "hey, let's make the sequel to our big FPS f2p instead of a retail game!" Rather, retail games simply get dropped here and there because the numbers no longer add up, and f2p games simply get made here and there because the numbers do add up. Publishers and developers making retail games go out of business and no new ones come along to replace them. That kind of thing. So it's not necessary for a cut-and-dried "game to be designed as f2p because of used games" for a sea change to take place. Investment shifts because of used games (and because of many things). And it shifts to places like f2p.

 

[Open Source]

Yeah, I agree that what you have above said is true when it comes to current trends in console gaming. Yet, not for a fucking second, do I believe the death of used games would have in any way, shape, or form altered that paradigm (ugh) in a meaningful manner. The trends you have listed above would have continued onto next-gen with the only real difference being less consumer power. We had a choice -- the potential proliferation of more diverse/single-player/experimental/complex titles with the guarantee of DRM. That's not a trade-off in favor of the average gamer. If the goal of a publisher is to maximize profits as is the goal of the platform creator -- you really think those savings would have trickled down to us? Why not continue cutting out content and selling it as DLC? Why not continue throwing single players onto MP games or MP onto single player games? Why not add microtransactions? Why not turn everything into F2P if the prospects for profit are marginally better? Why not do all of these things on top of the guarantee you will not lose a single dollar to used games? DRM would have solved this issue only if used games were the preponderant cause. This measure wasn't going to save the $19.99 - $49.99 AA title; it wasn't going to guarantee brand new AAA titles at $49.99; it wasn't going to stop all of those terrible publisher monetization influences. Not when every publisher wants something else. It's almost delusional -- like those who believed MSFT's digital offerings were going to compete with Steam.

Of course all these practices would have continued, but they would not be necessary for a game's success. And thus retail game projects without them would have higher chances than they would otherwise of being greenlighted and produced. And thus there would be more of them. And gamers who disliked those practices would have the opportunity to support them at retail.

Some of these projects can still be made as digital games, but that comes with a lower sales expectation from the reduced visibility. And so the economics of some games that would otherwise be viable at retail no longer work, and they don't get made.

 

[Ushae]

People thinking the Family Plan was seriously going to let 10 people share a game on a system that wouldn't let them lend a physical game to someone they know baffle me.

It replaces physical disc sharing, what's so baffling?

Those who believed in thd family share plan are in so much denial it is sad.

Denial of what, the actual duration we could share? Wasn't it confirmed by Greenberg that is was for full games, no timed borrowing? Anyway what's the point in discussing something that (as of launch) isn't a feature anymore.

 

[Zephyrus]

God bless America. Even stupid people have a voice.

Even?

Don't know in what magical world you live in, but they've always had a voice... everywhere... and it's by far the loudest.

 

[Vermillion]

I'll take comfort knowing that their dream is dead.

 

[gngf123]

I really hope this petition doesn't end up having more votes than the Nintendo region free one. http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...n-blocking-make-the-3ds-and-wii-u-region-free

I can already see it happening.

 

[Zephyrus]

A. Your preferences are not everyone's preferences. Just because it's easy/quick/unirritating for you to change inputs or swap discs doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. Why is it preferable to install everything on a PC or a phone or a tablet and run without media swapping, but for a console, it's "HEY, Let me stop everything and use this piece of outdated physical media for no reason. That'll add to my enjoyment!" Just stupid.

B. You don't know what would have happened with sharing, and aftermarket and retail prices or publisher deals or any of it. And now we won't. Oh, I know, all the interweb Nostradamuses had it all figured it out instantly. Just like they knew Home wasn't gonna make any money and that Live would never work if it required broadband and that the Wii was a low-res disaster waiting to happen.

Just like this thread and the Sony fanboys and the PC Master Race-rs rushing to sign the petition as a farce, a good proportion of the screaming and moaning and whining on the web was fueled by people that weren't going to buy the damn thing anyway, which is what irritates me more than anything.

We do know what would have happened with sharing.

This "magical" feature was just a one hour trial of the games someone else bought.

You bought Halo? You can allow your family and friends to DEMO it for one hour.

There's your magical feature that was so worth of the draconian features that Microsoft would impose on you. A demo.

No one whined and cried about Xbone's good features. People complain about always online, no used games, camera that is always on watching you, etc. Features no one wanted to see on consoles.

Microsoft took those away. Not us. Microsoft.

And damn right I would never buy the damn thing. That doesn't mean I should allow it's business model to exist.

It's a business model that is severely detrimental to me, the consumer. Should it end up being a successful one, it would be emulated by other companies.

You can check xbox LIVE for an ideal example. It's successful. And now Sony is making us pay for PS Plus. People want to pay to be able to play online, so let's make everyone else pay too.

 

[Durante]

How can you bring back something that never left? It's still there fully integrated with the discs and marketplaces, PC, Xbox and Playstation, and handhelds, and iTunes and Netflix, HBO and Spotify... and...etc, they all have up the wazoo with DRM.

I would like to note that PC is the only hardware platform with DRM-free distribution platforms.

 

[wizzbang]

Trolls being trolls or stockholm syndrome hardcore MS fans in action here, nothing to see here people, move along.

 

[Ironchef3500]

Fixed.

+1

 

[Rebel Leader]

Trolls being trolls or stockholm syndrome hardcore MS fans in action here, nothing to see here people, move along.

That's alot to see.

 

[FranXico]

Because its easier to be online than to have one disc in 10 places at the same time.

1. Even if you share the same game with up to 10 people in your friends list, the sharing feature had a limit to how many people could be playing the game at the same time. Hint: it's less than 10. I find very disingenuous of you to compare borrowing physical discs to a requirement that goes beyond the scope of family sharing anyway.

2. Nice way to dodge my question in the first place. Suppose those people are offline. Can I share my game with any of them at all?

3. Orth, is that you? Being online is not a trivial requirement. Certainly not in those countries Microsoft considered "lower tier" and did not plan to support initially.

 

[Zephyrus]

Multiple people in this very thread have said they would sign this petition just to see MS fail. This is the reality of the situation not something made up by fanboys.

I would.

The only reason I won't is that I'm afraid people would actually buy the product.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Of course all these practices would have continued, but they would not be necessary for a game's success. And thus retail game projects without them would have higher chances than they would otherwise of being greenlighted and produced. And thus there would be more of them. And gamers who disliked those practices would have the opportunity to support them at retail.

They aren't necessary now -- yet they are there because they make money not because they are the difference between 1 and 5 million units (though I'm sure they are intended to be). I agree that a few middling titles may have survived (maybe there is a Darksiders III in some other universe) but that would be a drop in the ocean. The trends would still overwhelm most titles. Again, the potential of what you are saying against the guarantee of user restrictions does not work out favorably. Exactly where would these titles come from when EA could do 20 million units of the next Battlefield and Ubi could do 10 million with the next AC with 500 man teams.

Some of these projects can still be made as digital games, but that comes with a lower sales expectation from the reduced visibility. And so the economics of some games that would otherwise be viable at retail no longer work, and they don't get made.

But that all factors back into the initial cost of the title which would be appropriately limited given how it would be advertised and distributed. These games still exist, but it's not EA and Acti that are pushing them out. Besides, the profile of digital/"indie" games is only going to get bigger and better next-gen.

 

[tino]

Only 250 more signatures needed to reach 10k.

 

[ruttyboy]

Of course all these practices would have continued, but they would not be necessary for a game's success. And thus retail game projects without them would have higher chances than they would otherwise of being greenlighted and produced. And thus there would be more of them. And gamers who disliked those practices would have the opportunity to support them at retail.

Some of these projects can still be made as digital games, but that comes with a lower sales expectation from the reduced visibility. And so the economics of some games that would otherwise be viable at retail no longer work, and they don't get made.

You seem to be handily forgetting that people use the money from trading in used games to buy new games. If removing used games decreases people's purchasing power anyway you've got nowhere.

Perhaps the lower sales expectations for a digital game are for just this reason?

 

[Ushae]

There's literally no reason for MS not to reintroduce "Family Share" for DD purchases. The lack of disc-based DRM should not preclude this feature from being there.

Hell, they can even make it a DD-only scheme you opt in to with the caveat of online check-ins.

Family Share doesn't have to be dead if MS really don't want it to be dead. But for some reason it is... I wonder why?



Exactly. There's nothing to stop MS offering their original plan but excluding physical media.

MS threw some bullshit out there and some are lapping it up... still.

It's simple. Make DD attractive enough and folks will automatically migrate over time. Don't force it, don't use a stick, just allow it to naturally happen.

Thankyou somebody with some sense