Zoramon089
Banned
What's wrong with Steam offline mode? I played it when my internet was down for a week and I didn't run into any problems.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EDGE: The next Xbox: Always online, no second-hand games, 50GB Blu-ray and new kinect
- Thread starter Hanmik
- Start date
That's because up until this month it was 40 dollars.
Show me the sales numbers now that it's 170.
If microsoft wants to give me the new xbox for 50 bucks, maybe I'd be all for this without bothering to consider what it means for the industry. But I highly doubt we're going to see a windows 8 model for the next console.
It doesn't work all the time, it needs to be severely patched, but there's nothing in it for valve to do such a thing.
You have clearly never used Steam if you think there is an equivalent on consoles or if there will ever be among the current major players.
RussellXV
Member
I'll be getting the next Xbox regardless of today's news. I'm glad MS is going Blu-ray, but it is disappointing to hear that it may not be able to play used games. This isn't a problem for me on the 360 since it does not use Blu-ray. I only buy used games for my PS3 since disc scratching is not an issue.
OmnipotentO
Member
Unless Xbox is also copying Steam prices then the Steam comparisons have to stop.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Yes, games with separate always online DRM on top of steam, and not being able to download updates while offline are both things that do not work with steam offline mode.
Neither of those are exactly related to steam offline mode.
you also cant play any online only games offline either.
We will see I'm not going to speculate but even so within a month it has already surpassed Linux marketshare in total and that's free vs paid.
Xbox 720's OS is running on the same kernel as Windows 8.
WiiredShawn
Member
Somehow the movie and book industries have survived, despite the ongoing presence of a second-hand market.
It's not the fault of used games, it's the fault of business models that can only survive on particular revenue levels and a Wall Street mentality that profits can never be just stable, but always (somehow) need to be growing. In short, it's monopolizing: one or few companies wanting to ensure that they maintain perfect control over their products and consumer choices so as to dominate the market and thus the money within it.
Some people are acting like this is a good thing simply because they have some bizarre spite for GameStop. Whether or not you like GameStop is really irrelevant because they are not the only ones who would be affected. We're talking about a basic inability to even share games with friends. Imagine reading a good book or watching a good movie and not being able to loan it to your friend or family member; or imagine reading a crappy book or watching a crappy movie and not being able to sell it - in either case, you're screwed out of an option so that a company like MS can make gobs of money.
The 360 is sure, I'm talking about 9 months from now when everyone's staring down a 399.99 dollar barrel.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Oh, right, I remember you now.
i'm just going to point to your title under name.
im basically exclusive to steam. you guys really think amazon wont have sales? theyve been whooping steam's sales ass the past two sales.
youre living in a dream world if you think "forza 7" is never going to be 1.99. you may be waiting a few years, like most well selling games. im still waiting on skyrim to hit that price on steam...oh wait i have some sense and realize it sells well still, so i shouldnt use that as an example.
its steam on xbox. you add a gifting option, and you have a "used" game section.
And that's somewhat disingeniune considering that almost every windows 8 licence out there was a 40 dollar Windows 7 upgrade (whether you had 7 or not...) and there's still a reasonable barrier of entry for Linux, no matter what version you decide to use. It's the difference between buying your grand mother an NES and buying her an Apple IIGS. Sure, one can do more, but GOOD LUCK FUCKER!
This makes literally no difference in this conversation.
PC gaming needed Steam. The breadth of indie titles and major sales has established new life in the platform. Consoles don't need what is being proposed.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I'm glad I'm such a known idol on NeoGAF, infamous even.
You could at least try to refute my claims instead of saying "oh it's you."
Fail, sorry whether you consider Windows 8 a failure or not it's still selling as much as Windows 7 did(number of sold copies of Windows 8 are already almost matching the number of Xbox 360s sold this entire generation.)
Not to mention the $617 million dollar Windows 8 contract with the US Military which is not included in the numbers known.
http://www.ittamil.com/showthread.p...ct-Signed-Between-Microsoft-and-US-Government
If your going to baghdad bob someone at least host the image.
steam has competition from amazon with sales now. they also have to compete with console games. theres a reason GabeN is rolling in money. if you really expect a "well this game is only 4 bucks, and ill probably never play it" mentality on a console, you have other issues.
vagabondarts
Member
I predict a lot of media types essentially doing damage control and spinning this as a good thing for gamers.
Hold on for $69.99 per game guys.
All my hype for these new systems is just completely deflated.
They are going to get a firm wake up call from consumers. When people don't jump in and fall all over themselves to buy their stuff it will be our fault, according to them.
Hold on for $69.99 per game guys.
All my hype for these new systems is just completely deflated.
They are going to get a firm wake up call from consumers. When people don't jump in and fall all over themselves to buy their stuff it will be our fault, according to them.
What the fuck?
But how attractive is a $199.99 up front on a 2 year contract at $14.99 a month with access to Hulu Plus and Netflix? Say they go the Sony route, drop the Gold fee for multiplayer and make Gold a true service based around getting free/heavily discounted games and digital media service access all included, does this spark any interest for you?
So say you buy it at $399.99 up front, and online multiplayer is free, but you're paying for services like Hulu Plus and Netflix separately, would you pay yearly for Gold if they included it in the Gold membership?
I'm being hypothetical in all this.
LyleLanley
Banned
Do not hot link his images!
If Microsoft goes this route, I think it's entirely possible they'll price games $5 less than PS4 games and price their console $100 less. If they're going to go bold, they may as well go all the way and try to savage PS4.
bigace33
Member
Uhhh, steam offline mode works just fine. What's trash about it?
I expect a lot of FINANCE pundits spinning this positively.
Until we hear something from microsoft themselves, I don't think we're going to hear shit outside of some wild speculation.
I would honestly not purchase the next xbox if this was true. Sorry, not paying premium to not own shit. Especially always online drm. But i'd have equal problem with just online activation in general.
-This isnt like steam, unless they are willing to debut their games at 40$ MAX and drop them to sub-20$ regularly and often, like steam. Those are 99% of the purchases i make on Steam, with the understanding i own nothing.
-Consoles dont last as long. PCs you can play games on steam released 3 generations ago. Will future xbox's support 720 games and make sure the activation servers stay up forever? I would feel like the disc i spent 60$ on is worthless.
-Even if people did buy into this, nobody would spend anywhere near the amount at the quantity they would during this generation. I could see people willing to invest in something they know they will play the shit out of, mostly online games i imagine, but just 'collecting' new releases is something i wont even be bothering with like i do with this generation.
-I dont even care about them cutting out the used market, its the way they would have to do it to make it effective that sucks and has other implications. I buy my stuff new anyway.
I honestly feel like if next gen is this style of purchasing, i will stick with my already large steam library and try to set the steambox up along with working through my backlog of 360/ps3 games.
-This isnt like steam, unless they are willing to debut their games at 40$ MAX and drop them to sub-20$ regularly and often, like steam. Those are 99% of the purchases i make on Steam, with the understanding i own nothing.
-Consoles dont last as long. PCs you can play games on steam released 3 generations ago. Will future xbox's support 720 games and make sure the activation servers stay up forever? I would feel like the disc i spent 60$ on is worthless.
-Even if people did buy into this, nobody would spend anywhere near the amount at the quantity they would during this generation. I could see people willing to invest in something they know they will play the shit out of, mostly online games i imagine, but just 'collecting' new releases is something i wont even be bothering with like i do with this generation.
-I dont even care about them cutting out the used market, its the way they would have to do it to make it effective that sucks and has other implications. I buy my stuff new anyway.
I honestly feel like if next gen is this style of purchasing, i will stick with my already large steam library and try to set the steambox up along with working through my backlog of 360/ps3 games.
GameStop CEO's comments on anti-used tech. Personally I buy new games by trading old games I've completed so In a sense next-gen would be even more expensive for me.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Well, I have before, but your ...enthusiasm for Microsoft in general and Windows 8 in particular means I don't think doing so will be very productive.
shinra-bansho
Member
What new page?
Anyway, I'm going to go with BS posturing. He needs to put up or shut up frankly.
OmnipotentO
Member
My post is not about not wanting them to competing with Steam. All I'm saying is if they're going to go that route they need to do it right. Amazon is a great example.
Gamespot are just one part of the picture when it comes to used games.
There's nothing altruistic about playing games. Of course it's selfish, it's consumption of mass entertainment.
So I don't blindly hate it like the majority of people?
I can definitely understand some real concerns with Windows 8 but the lies and hate based on lies about it have been quite overwhelming.
As of today.
Really shows 64 bit vs 32 bit nowadays.
Good question. Gamestop's probably the biggest single place.
I'm not sure if that's actually available to the public. All we ever see is total sales of consoles, not individual outlets.
When the PS4 is the same price, has free online multiplayer and has hulu plus and netflix for free like it is now? No, I'd go with the rival.
The problem we have with this hypothetical is that we can only look at the history of microsoft to assume what they'll do, and all we're doing is assuming. Microsoft made a lot of money making people pay for online gaming and there's no reason to assume that they'll suddenly stop because a new console is out. I think it would be great for the industry and for gamers if they decided to go the PS+ role and offer greater discounts for games and services, but they have, literally, 0 reason to do that. They've made their money by paygating (nearly) every secondary function the xbox has and there's really no reason to stop now.
I feel like, for the most part, Microsoft got away with doing a lot of this stuff because Sony didn't know what they fuck they were doing for the longest time. But now, at this point in time, every secondary function the xbox has, sony has. Hell, sony might actually have more with exclusives like MLB insider. When the playing field is leveled with new consoles and you have to take a hard look where you want to spend your money, the current Sony model is simply more appealing (just as many games available for instant download, just as many, if not more secondary services, with an assumed identical pricetag on the hardware, and their pay service offers up a ton of freebees which are free as long as you're willing to pay).
Now, going back to your hypothetical, let's say Microsoft decided to make live a PS+ and make online gaming free with the pay stuff being in the form of membership discounts. THAT'S GREAT and I think they should totally do that and would willingly and happily pay for that. But it only levels the playing field with Sony.
bigace33
Member
I would think gamestop. Don't really know.
I'd assume as much.
Well, if the next Xbox Live iteration has: No monthly fees whatsoever, no advertising (except for games / sales), allows me to freely mod my games, use any control method I prefer, has great sales AND consistently lower regular prices, I won't complain one bit!
It's easy when Valve sells most games at or below used game prices.
You just want a PC...come on now.
You don't remember the first days of Steam.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Wow, 32bit Windows 8 is fucked. Slower adoption rate than Ubuntu and smaller marketshare than Linux.
This is radically off topic.
Mortimer Brewster
Member
Hell will freeze over before you get even one of those from Microsoft. What we'll get is all the nonsense from this gen only with anti used games, always online DRM that will further restrict and nickle and dime the consumer.
*Sigh.*
Steam became a viable business model in an effort to thwart piracy (that in addition to creating an all digital medium). The precedent was a win for consumers as well as publishers on PC. Publishers sold more games legitimately and made more money. Consumers got games at costs that were unprecedented. The PC space is different than the console space for this reason.
MS is not trying to thwart rampant piracy with this move. They are trying to thwart a legitimate business practice that has been around for decades, one that consumers have grown accustomed to and want. Where is the win for consumers here? Seriously, cite one direct perk for consumers, not some indirect reason like "publishers will make more money, and better games."
You need to provide a reason to warrant a move in this direction, one that MS could legitimately cite as a reason (and consumers find compelling) for losing something they want and have had for a long time. The benefit needs to outweigh the cost, and all the bitching here is just citing the fact that there is none. If you're going to assume prices will become as competitive as Steam in doing so, while that would be a win for consumers, no one here sees any reason to make that assumption. There is a reason Steam's prices were so unprecedented and continue to be: consoles did not and generally have not followed suit.
I'd grant that a move to digital media is inevitable, and that there are certain tangible benefits in doing so. But again, when Itunes came around there were clear incentives for consumers to go that route in terms of costs and convenience over physical CDs.
I wasn't the one that brought it up but I guess you're going to blame me for it right?
This is a response to the idea that Windows 8 seems to be failing while it currently has almost 10 percent of the marketshare even through Steams statistics.
Here is what I'm responding to:
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
I completely agree with you.
With Hulu Plus and Netflix I'm saying the actual monthly memberships for each service is included with Live. As we all know to well, most apps are locked behind the Gold wall, what if those apps were usable regardless if you were Gold or not. However, paying for Gold also paid for the service, so like the $7.99 a month it costs to actually access Netflix regardless of your means is just deferred and you get access since you are a Gold member.
I'm just looking at what Microsoft could do to make paying for Gold more enticing to consumers because they are severely outclassed by PS+ in terms of what it offers.
Microsoft has made some serious money with the Gold fees. It essentially what is making the system endeavor a possibility because selling consoles themselves isn't as profitable as most people think. I understand why it was implemented with the first Xbox to begin with, and it made since there. Microsoft knows though people will continue to pay it because there is a very large active community on it.
I'm curious to see how much money is considered profit in the $59.99 price of a year of Live. How is each dollar divided and where does it go? I know Microsoft can just eat losses since it's enterprise side of things just absolutely kills it each year, but how much has people paying for Live lessened the strain on the loss of each console sale initially up until the console became profitable?
This probably isn't the right thread to be getting into this though.
TDLink
Member
If true this is completely idiotic and Microsoft (seriously) has shot themselves in the foot.
Nintendo and Sony are both going to succeed a lot due to this decision.
Can't wait to pay my mandatory Xbox Live subscription in order to play my games. Oh wait, I can. Also, great for countries with bandwith caps!
No thanks Microsoft.
Nintendo and Sony are both going to succeed a lot due to this decision.
Can't wait to pay my mandatory Xbox Live subscription in order to play my games. Oh wait, I can. Also, great for countries with bandwith caps!
No thanks Microsoft.
Cheesemeister
Member
The outrage in this thread expresses exactly how I feel about region-locking. Why should I be blocked from playing games I've legitimately purchased? It's the same BS.
I dunno. Letting it sit a while, I think MS will do fine with some key price points and online pass-esque used game measures.
I can't wait to see how the mainstream takes to this.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
You'd have to assume that they wouldn't follow this course of action without a push from publishers, which begs the question, how will they react if Sony doesn't follow suit?