Mr. GOH! Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) Ethan: If the waiver is in the form of a click-through to an Xbone update reinstating some limited form of DRM, I'd give it pretty good odds of being enforced at the federal level. Not sure at the state level. But, anyway, MS won't do it like that. They won't suddenly require an online check-in for all existing software and hardware that will render customers' Xbones useless without checking in or what have you. Instead, MS will require some sort of check-in or DRM for new features or games. MS will market these features and games heavily, and they may end up being quite good games or features, so that customers will opt into the feature once they already have the Xbone. A spoonful of sugar will make the medicine of DRM go down much more easily. Much like current consoles, both the PS4 and Xbone will be noticeably less feature-rich while offline. I mean, it just feels sad whenever I turn on my current-gen consoles while they're offline. And since I don't really buy used games, this news about the Xbone doesn't really affect my preliminary decision to not buy an Xbone. ETA: Thursday, do you really think enough consumers know who Mattrick is to justify any sort of P.R. move on MS's part making him the bad guy? Edited June 20, 2013 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Consumers, no, but investors might. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Sure, they might. But MS stock has not really dropped all that much in the short term, and it's up year-over-year. MS's stock performance doesn't suggest that investors are mad enough that there will be public executions of middle management to save the asses of the executives, especially in a company as big as Microsoft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Heat Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 http://spong.com/article/29872/Microsoft-Were-Still-Heading-for-an-Xbox-One-Digital-Future Meanwhile, at Microsoft... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 I did say expect them to put everything they've mentioned at launch and E3 into place eventually. Their message is muddy, but it's clear that they want their DRM future in place. They'll just maybe try and woo people into buying a few consoles before the flip the switch back on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Note how game sharing was just a glorified demo. Don't you feel better now? Fuck it, I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Pastebin, so I'm taking it bathed in salt, but if that's true about the family sharing then I'm much less distraught about its loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Heat Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 It reads like someone who seriously bought into the hype machine, if only because of the usage of 'We have a machine for people who want an offline experience!' line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Pastebin, so I'm taking it bathed in salt, but if that's true about the family sharing then I'm much less distraught about its loss. It's unconfirmed, but if you think about it, doesn't this seem a lot more likely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Oh yeah, it totally does. I'm just saying that a guest post on pastebin could be literally anyone, so we have no idea whether it's true or not except whether it seems true. Thruthiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 It makes sense and it's the perfect timing. Sorry to say that he feels sad the industry is dying, but the strongest survive. Indies seem to be doing fine, so are big guys like Nintendo and CD Projekt and studios in EA like Ubisoft. Maybe the problem isn't entirely on the consumer buying used games, but you insisting the game needs to cost 60. You know how many more games I've bought on the 3DS because the $40 price point is so appealing? EVERY game I have for my 3DS I've bought, either with a sale or straight up new. I agonize about spending $60 on a new game and rent the majority. See the difference? It's all psychological. Also sorry to say but if you want more people to buy your games, make better games that have re playability that doesn't involve a shoved in multiplayer experience. Make better games people will buy it more. Also the glorified demo makes sense. Did we REALLY think they were gonna allow people to share games? That would've been just as bad as used games as people would just take turns playing the shared library. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 That's what I would suggest family sharing should be like if I were in the business. Glorified demos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 If I were in the business sure, but every Juan supporter who is bitching about their changes now mainly complained about losing the Family plan. Reading this might make them glad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Some games justify the $60 price point. Most do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Oh agreed. I wish publishers could see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 The family plan thing was actually a step backwards under those conditions. I mean, someone else has to buy the game for you to try a demo? The fuck is that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) The family plan thing was just confirmed as lame bullshit by a trusted insider at neogaf. So really it's no wonder Microsoft backed down. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would have gone down if people held on to the family sharing as the one thing to make the drm worth putting up with, then Microsoft came out and popped the last balloon in their parade? Edited June 21, 2013 by Mister Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Man I feel so disillusioned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 60 minutes? A crummy demo?! Son of a bitch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 When you said lame bullshit I thought you meant it was fake. Word choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) Last night after reading Mr GOH!'s post about if he were a publisher on the steam thread, I got to thinking "Hey, what if the shared games were a stage/level and you'd have to unlock it to play the full game? Would publishers like that?" Then I realized, oh well they should just make the locked game available to everyone then, Like PS+. Then I thought would these things be easier to crack? I wanted to post this on the Steam thread but realized yeah it's probably a dumb idea. When I woke up this morning this shit was exactly what MS wanted to do. I can't believe this is happening! Edited June 21, 2013 by eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Ethan: If the waiver is in the form of a click-through to an Xbone update reinstating some limited form of DRM, I'd give it pretty good odds of being enforced at the federal level. Not sure at the state level. But, anyway, MS won't do it like that. They won't suddenly require an online check-in for all existing software and hardware that will render customers' Xbones useless without checking in or what have you. Instead, MS will require some sort of check-in or DRM for new features or games. MS will market these features and games heavily, and they may end up being quite good games or features, so that customers will opt into the feature once they already have the Xbone. A spoonful of sugar will make the medicine of DRM go down much more easily. Much like current consoles, both the PS4 and Xbone will be noticeably less feature-rich while offline. I mean, it just feels sad whenever I turn on my current-gen consoles while they're offline. And since I don't really buy used games, this news about the Xbone doesn't really affect my preliminary decision to not buy an Xbone. ETA: Thursday, do you really think enough consumers know who Mattrick is to justify any sort of P.R. move on MS's part making him the bad guy? It doesn't matter if people know what his name is. You just do a public "The guy who came up with this has gone." Consumers will know that the bad man is gone, investors will be a bit more informed. Also, you keep using ETA, I do not think it means what you think it means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Double posting since new topic... From that pastebin: Microsoft might be a big company, but we at the Xbox division have always been for the gamer. Everything we've done has always been for them, we have butt heads with the executives many times on what we've wanted to, some times we lost (removing the onboard processor from Kinect 1.0) and other times we've won (keeping Gears of War as an exclusive). How is this "for the gamer"? In what way does keeping a franchise exclusive to one platform benefit anyone except the platform holder? "Oh the poor devs who make blockbusters how will they survive?" Well, perhaps if you didn't insist on exclusivity and effectively cut their market in half it would be a start? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) ETA doesn't mean "Edited To Add?" I swear I've seen it used that way around these parts. I'm still not sure making Mattrick fall on his sword would accomplish that much, publicity-wise. The public narrative of the DRM fiasco and the Xbone isn't really about individual people, and I don't think it's necessarily in Microsoft's interest to make it about individuals. There might be other reasons to can Mattrick, but I'm not familiar with the internal workings of Microsoft's Xbone team/units/departments/whatever. Edit: I would suggest, eleven, that the shared games in a such a system would be more robust than the public demos. More options available, longer playtime, and so on. The idea is that friends suggesting games in this way would be a powerful selling tool. "Leveraging gamer social networks" is the related corporatespeak, I'd imagine. Edited June 21, 2013 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.