I don't dismiss the draconian DRM stuff so lightly. It truly was an assault on gamers rights. Requiring online check ins basically guaranteed your games had a limited shelf life of however long Microsoft decided to keep servers active for the console. Furthermore what makes steam great is competition. That's what brings down prices. That and a business model that prays on after-initial-release sales by getting consumers to impulse buy at discounted prices.
Microsofts version aimed to be digital delivery with retail pricing structures. There was nothing really innovative about it outside of it screwing consumers. Without the ability to trade in games and no competition to foster more consumer friendly pricing through its digital store we the consumer were beholden to however Microsoft felt they should price something. In fact by eliminating used games and indicating that digital releases were going to remain 59.99 Microsoft was actually raising costs for many consumers who were consumers that traded in old games.
Their were maybe one or two neat features xbone was introducing(some in response to initial backlash) but the overall picture was grim and the overall package for consumers was regressive.
What happened to Microsoft recently is exactly what needed to happen. They were cocky, getting lazy and overreaching. If they started out gen 8 as the console leader those issues would only compound in magnitude and any complaints would be dismissed and taken much less seriously until sales dropped. Meaningful structural changes would have been harder to implement after the fact and the incentive to do so would have been lower. No, what happened to Microsoft and the timing of it is fairly perfect. They feel truly threatened and that is going to initiate reactions that will only benefit the consumer as long as the consumer holds them accountable.
But I truly don't see it really benefittin the consumer in the long run since the business model has stayed exactly the same. 60+ dollars game that are tradeable for a really small fraction of the initial cost to be sold at almost the same base price. And sure some gamers tend to go and buy used stuff, but those gamers really don't help or contribute to the business since with used games the developers don't get a cent of their money back. It's too bad a couple of generations back the prices became bigger and this made gamers to become cheap. Because you can't argue that gamers have become the cheapest of consumers and IMO you can't justify the industry with consumers that only buy the games a year later when it is dirt cheap. That doesn't and should never factor in to the decision because that would mean gamers like me, that support developers on day 1 if I like and want their game are not part of the picture.
I sure see how that initial MS strategy could be set out to screw us up, but the frenzy of hate that accompanied it was totally blown out of proportion and I would bet my left nut that about 70% or more of the people making fun of/complaing are those types of cheap gamers that would have never have bought the system on launch day, maybe not even at all.
The thing is that us consumers could have used the way MS introduced this stuff as a way to make them change it for the better, not just remove completely. The constant hate and bashing in all media outlets led to Ms caving in into Sony's stragey of screwing the gamer the old fashioned way, because they may look liek the good guy, but they just rode the wave and gave us what we think we want. I know this new model was not neccesarily good, but the actual model is not good at also. Looking over all the fun Sony had at E3 and GC with their jabs at MS, they have done nothing to innovate in the business side of things. Hell they even made PS+ possibly a mandatory service!
IMO what would have been best would be for MS to stick to their guns until the actual release and then they could have changed what was already implemented into a better thought system. Nothing is perfect in its first iteration, not even Steam, but it was worse of them to back off completely. Hell the MS model lent intself for cheaper games since one copy could be played in one way or another in 10 different XBO; friends could join in to buy a 60 game in a /40/30/30 scheme that would have one player keeping the copy and the other playing their "family" connected versions. This and other innovation sounded to me better than what is in place and if for some reason we as a gaming community decided it actually sucked and was unfair after we ACTUALLY TRIED IT, then we could rise up and get these changes up. We eat up all the Sony promises nowadays, but we don;t even give a decent chance at MS. Next Gen it will reverse again.
Even if you don't know it or see it, even STEAM has some sort of draconian DRM stuff, you have to actually be online at least once to get to download/play/register your game. It hasn't been a problem there. I just mean MS and the community could have reached an acceptable compromise without resorting to a dated model. A model that does NOTHING for me an actual contributor to the industry as it is meant, no disrespect to others. Because living off used games only makes it a problem. I also always thought this draconian DRM would lead to cheaper prices, better online sales, and best of all preloading vs Gamestopmidnightrelease shit.
You see PC have ALWAYS had this draconian DRM that people are dreading so much in XBO and it hasn't stopped them, sure the competitive prices are there, but they could have eventually landed on XBL since i don't remember Steam being the big hit it is right now when it started back in the day. Just a thought, innovation vs complacency.
. Well, actually, don't, because I have lost interest at this point. I suspect you'll take this as me conceding on something no doubt :/.
.
