or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Xbox One thread... - Page 118

post #3511 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by henhowc View Post

Interesting to see the difference in reaction in this forum compared to other "hardcore" gaming forums like neogaf.

I think there is difference in age between this forum and the average user on neogaf. I think with age normally comes family and friends who no longer live around the corner or across the hall.
post #3512 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I'm seeing quite a few people here and in other threads that seem relieved and are now leaning back towards the X1, I think it changed quite a few minds. If it was all about just listening to the complaints, they'd never have tried this, based on the reactions to the rumors. I think it was the hard reality of a solid week of preorder data that finally forced them to reconsider their stance, that those complaints actually weren't just a vocal minority.

While I agree that preorder data had a part in this decision. Reality is noone can purchase these products yet, consumers havent even had a chance to use them yet.

Its premature to judge what customers want, when they have not had the opportunity to even try it yet. Imagine if every product sold in life worked like this.. advancements in technology would be held back because companies would never try. Smartphone screens would still be 3.5".. if noone dared to make a 4" or bigger screen smile.gif
post #3513 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I'm seeing quite a few people here and in other threads that seem relieved and are now leaning back towards the X1, I think it changed quite a few minds. If it was all about just listening to the complaints, they'd never have tried this, based on the reactions to the rumors. I think it was the hard reality of a solid week of preorder data that finally forced them to reconsider their stance, that those complaints actually weren't just a vocal minority.

I pre-ordered a launch day console after the news broke. I had no plan on purchasing a One if MS stayed their course.
post #3514 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yrd View Post

I don't know why you're bringing this up. Maybe I should have quoted.

I'm still talking about the sharing thing.

I'm aware. You said
Quote:
You're paying for Fing ONLINE service


in order to justify that Microsoft should allow the game sharing for Gold subscribers, and also pointed out that Sony gives free games, as if there's some sort of outrage over paying for an online service. Well, Microsoft is also giving free games and PS4 is also charging for an online service. If both consoles are doing it. The two services are equivalent, so it's not like it's entirely crazy that you're paying for the service on the Xbox.
post #3515 of 14775
Fooking whiners. I hate you mad.gif
post #3516 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

While I agree that preorder data had a part in this decision. Reality is noone can purchase these products yet, consumers havent even had a chance to use them yet.

Its premature to judge what customers want, when they have not had the opportunity to even try it yet. Imagine if every product sold in life worked like this.. advancements in technology would be held back because companies would never try. Smartphone screens would still be 3.5".. if noone dared to make a 4" or bigger screen smile.gif

So the company that is deciding the future of gaming changed their stance based on some fake outrage and meaningless preorders. That does not give me confidence in their vision.
post #3517 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

Oh I already know.

I've been on this forum for over 12 years. I know who is who. I know the exact people who never bothering coming to the Xbox forum to post anything, unless its something "console war" related.

There are several Playstation guys who are in this thread right now, commenting more than anyone, who NEVER are going to purchase the XB1 for any reason. Yet you will see them continue to complain about it on every page. I have no doubt the same thing is happening on other forums, blogs and websites all around. For whatever reason there are some human beings who get more enjoyment from complaining about a product they do not like.. than they get enjoyment from actually using a product they do like.

Hate = human nature.

Oh this is classic coming from you. But really, why is anyone so invested in a company and a brand? I'll never understand it.

This change in policy is good for all gamers. MS being more competitive with Sony is good for all gamers. Companies really having to try to think on how to add value to DD, and not just throw up a walled garden and withholding access to their IP's is good for all gamers.
post #3518 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhoff80 View Post

I'm aware. You said
in order to justify that Microsoft should allow the game sharing for Gold subscribers, and also pointed out that Sony gives free games, as if there's some sort of outrage over paying for an online service. Well, Microsoft is also giving free games and PS4 is also charging for an online service. If both consoles are doing it. The two services are equivalent, so it's not like it's entirely crazy that you're paying for the service on the Xbox.


You are completely misunderstanding my point.

I'm talking about sharing games. You were explaining to me why it can't work without online check-ins.

I'm still saying it could work with the changes, if they include it with your live gold membership. Because paying for an xbox live membership hinges on the fact that you have an internet connection.

I used PS+, the service, providing you with free games as long as you have a subscription, as an example. Xbox could allow you to share games as long as you have xbox live gold.


I wasn't using free games as a bullet point of how much better PS is than xbox.



And I didn't need reminding of MS now giving free games.



edit: I have to remember to use the quote button....
post #3519 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhoff80 View Post

Except it doesn't work like that. To enable sharing, they need to have some sort of regular check-in to the server, and they just were forced to kill the 24 hour check-in.

Sure, and you make it known thats how it work. You opt in and it needs to check, or you opt out and sharing is disabled.

Seems simple to me. People get options, and tradeoffs. They can make their own choices to whats best for them. Everybody wins. MS isn't forcing a thing and letting the market go where it may.
post #3520 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

While I agree that preorder data had a part in this decision. Reality is noone can purchase these products yet, consumers havent even had a chance to use them yet.

Its premature to judge what customers want, when they have not had the opportunity to even try it yet. Imagine if every product sold in life worked like this.. advancements in technology would be held back because companies would never try. Smartphone screens would still be 3.5".. if noone dared to make a 4" or bigger screen smile.gif

Well with larger smartphone screens, the benefits are obvious...you have to use it for a while to see the drawbacks. That's a much easier sell, than when the disadvantages are more apparent than the advantages.

Although I think it would end up causing massive consumer confusion, it would have been interesting if MS sold both traditional discs, as well as "hybrid digital discs". Those would work as they previously outlined, sharing and all. Then we'd really get to see how well it would have been accepted on its own terms.
Edited by bd2003 - 6/19/13 at 6:35pm
post #3521 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Well with larger smartphone screens, the benefits are obvious...you have to use it for a while to see the drawbacks. That's a much easier sell, than when the disadvantages are more apparent than the advantages.

Although I think it would end up causing massive consumer confusion, it would have been interesting if MS sold both traditional discs, as well as "hybrid" digital discs, that would work as they previously outlined. Then we'd really get to see how well it would have been accepted on its own terms.

Last time I checked smartphones come in a hundred different sizes. My current smartphone still has a slide keyboard.

Options. Let the market lead, but cover your bases with options. MS just wanted to march everyone into their box.
post #3522 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Well with larger smartphone screens, the benefits are obvious...you have to use it for a while to see the drawbacks. That's a much easier sell, than when the disadvantages are more apparent than the advantages.

This keeps being brought up in different forms. If you capture the imagination or needs of consumers at a price they feel is of value, you will sell product. MS obviously feels they did not meet this standard well enough to go to market. Ideas are killed all the time before they are sold in the marketplace. Most companies do market research in private, not in public like MS apparently did though, so this is very visible.

I guess I am a marked Sony fanboy now for defending good (to me) gaming practices. I guess I will need to trash the Xboxes I have purchased for myself and the kids of my friends.
Edited by ThumperII - 6/19/13 at 6:47pm
post #3523 of 14775
LOL at people who were defending the DRM policies treating whoever was against it like they're narrow minded and won't accept "change".

Well NEWSFLASH, not every change is GOOD and a human brain CAN predict bad changes, for example if a company wants to give us a console that would literally **** on our heads every time we turn it on, is that a GOOD change to you? I guess it might be to some people if the marketing was done well enough lol
post #3524 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThumperII View Post

This keeps being brought up in different forms. If you capture the imagination or needs of consumers at a price they feel is of value, you will sell product. MS obviously feels they did not meet this standard well enough to go to market. Ideas are killed all the time before they are sold in the marketplace. Most companies do market research in private, not in public like MS apparently did though so this is very visible.

I guess I am a marked Sony fanboy now for defending good (to me) gaming practices. I guess I will need to trash the Xboxes I have purchased for myself and the kids of my friends.

Amen. If MS did this at a $150 price point, we probably wouldn't be talking about any of this because they'd give consumers much, much, much more value. At least up front.

Taking away ownership rights at $500 is a tough sell, and it wasn't even the only issue.
post #3525 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

This change in policy is good for all gamers. MS being more competitive with Sony is good for all gamers. Companies really having to try to think on how to add value to DD, and not just throw up a walled garden and withholding access to their IP's is good for all gamers.

Congratulations on your appointment to spokesperson for all gamers! Did I miss the vote or was it rigged? You, and many others, are still operating under the antiquated notion that DRM = anti-consumer. It is the implementation of DRM that is, or is not, anti-consumer, not its mere existence. From the actual information that was published by Microsoft prior to this reversal your consumer rights were not being trampled on by default, internet rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. Could they have been abused at some point in the future? Certainly, but it would not have been in Microsoft's or any publisher's best interests to do so. If you are unwilling or unable to see how, in time, this system would have worked like Steam for consoles then that's on you. I will agree with you insofar as to say that MS would have been better served by giving gamers a choice of whether to opt into the program or not, but their previous consoles have dragged gamers kicking and screaming into the future (broadband only for XB1, HD Only for XBox360) that they probably didn't foresee the backlash or how severe it would have been. I don't agree that their reversal is good for all gamers, as it isn't good for me and I am a gamer. I know quite a few others who feel the same way so let's try and limit the blanket statements about the welfare of all gamers, hmm.
post #3526 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Max View Post

Congratulations on your appointment to spokesperson for all gamers! Did I miss the vote or was it rigged? You, and many others, are still operating under the antiquated notion that DRM = anti-consumer. It is the implementation of DRM that is, or is not, anti-consumer, not its mere existence. From the actual information that was published by Microsoft prior to this reversal your consumer rights were not being trampled on by default, internet rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. Could they have been abused at some point in the future? Certainly, but it would not have been in Microsoft's or any publisher's best interests to do so. If you are unwilling or unable to see how, in time, this system would have worked like Steam for consoles then that's on you. I will agree with you insofar as to say that MS would have been better served by giving gamers a choice of whether to opt into the program or not, but their previous consoles have dragged gamers kicking and screaming into the future (broadband only for XB1, HD Only for XBox360) that they probably didn't foresee the backlash or how severe it would have been. I don't agree that their reversal is good for all gamers, as it isn't good for me and I am a gamer. I know quite a few others who feel the same way so let's try and limit the blanket statements about the welfare of all gamers, hmm.

Agree with the first half, but dead wrong on the second. That people are still trying to equate what we knew about MS's DRM scheme to Steam is nothing short of delusional. It takes quite a bit of leeway in assuming MS policy that simply wasn't, and apparently no firsthand knowledge of what or how Steam works. But yeah, it was a good talking point for a while.

Example, they would not talk about pricing DD cheaper and passing on value. Why not? It would alleviate quite a few fears.
post #3527 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

While I agree that preorder data had a part in this decision. Reality is noone can purchase these products yet, consumers havent even had a chance to use them yet.

Its premature to judge what customers want, when they have not had the opportunity to even try it yet. Imagine if every product sold in life worked like this.. advancements in technology would be held back because companies would never try. Smartphone screens would still be 3.5".. if noone dared to make a 4" or bigger screen smile.gif

I don't know if they really had a choice in letting it play out. With the Xbox being one of the few things that is making money for them these days, I don't know if they would jeopardize that revenue stream.
post #3528 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomNinjaAtk View Post

I haven't gotten to read the last couple of pages yet. But I'm PISSED that there reversing this! Looks like I have to cancel all my pre-ordered games to go digital only and loosing many features because this digital system was going to be more flexible, but now it can't! mad.gif

Thank you, hardcore gaming community for sending us to the PAST! mad.gif
you are welcome.
post #3529 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolltide1017 View Post


Also, do you guys remember posts like this a few weeks ago: "Could the people posting the same negative things about the XB1 over and over please stop, it's getting annoying." It's funny because I could say the same thing right now.

I remember those posts and still think they were annoying.
post #3530 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Max View Post

Congratulations on your appointment to spokesperson for all gamers! Did I miss the vote or was it rigged? You, and many others, are still operating under the antiquated notion that DRM = anti-consumer. It is the implementation of DRM that is, or is not, anti-consumer, not its mere existence. From the actual information that was published by Microsoft prior to this reversal your consumer rights were not being trampled on by default, internet rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. Could they have been abused at some point in the future? Certainly, but it would not have been in Microsoft's or any publisher's best interests to do so. If you are unwilling or unable to see how, in time, this system would have worked like Steam for consoles then that's on you. I will agree with you insofar as to say that MS would have been better served by giving gamers a choice of whether to opt into the program or not, but their previous consoles have dragged gamers kicking and screaming into the future (broadband only for XB1, HD Only for XBox360) that they probably didn't foresee the backlash or how severe it would have been. I don't agree that their reversal is good for all gamers, as it isn't good for me and I am a gamer. I know quite a few others who feel the same way so let's try and limit the blanket statements about the welfare of all gamers, hmm.

I do not think it is a lack of vision that was causing the concern but a lack of evidence. Steam is not a good allegory for MSs plan because it has competitive pressures placed on it. MS failed to make the case of why these measures were required to create a great gaming experience. I do not think they ever promised cheaper games, that was conjecture. So, we were left with a lot of restrictions and no clear upsides with the same pricing as the current generation. I do not think it is odd to understand that many saw a real lack of value to that MS proposition.

If MS wants to take us into the future, they need to clearly articulate how and why we should follow. What they gave was a lot of vague future possibilities, which is par for the course of new consoles. Unfortunately, a lot of the vague future possibilities fail to pan out.
post #3531 of 14775
post #3532 of 14775
Microsoft did a poor job of conveying the benefits of their plan all around, pricing just being one of those areas. That being said, you can't really start talking about getting cheaper games to people before you even get the system up and off the ground in the first place. You first have to succeed in routing more revenue back to developers/publishers with the sale of used games. I don't think anyone has an issue with part of the proceeds of buying a used game going back to the people who made and released the game, do they? But that's the kind of story they should have been telling and about their long term vision for the system and not rely on others to have the ability to see if for themselves. In that respect they get an F and there's no way around it.

There are people, like myself, that will probably go completely digital this generation, regardless of the price of the games, simply for convenience. And I can get my disc based games for just over cost to the retailer! If enough people bypass the retailer for the digital version then the prices of digital versions will come down as there's nothing to kick back to the retailer so there's no reason for the publisher not to lower the price, plus that means the game won't be sold used which is an added bonus and more reason to ensure that as many people as possible buy their games that way.
post #3533 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Face View Post

MS removes game sharing restriction and must connect every 24 hour restriction!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/tech/gaming-gadgets/xbox-drm/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1164155/elmo-dance-o.gif

Hmm, can this be true?! biggrin.gif
post #3534 of 14775
Okay there is one thing I don't understand about the backtrack on DRM.

Lets say I download a game, will that be saved to my console or will it be stored in the cloud so I can play on another console under my Live ID. I am confused about this.
post #3535 of 14775
I saw an article on Engadget about the initial online setup. It supposedly is to switch the Xbox one into this new setup.

My question is, doors this mean they are already making and boxing systems?
post #3536 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Max View Post

Microsoft did a poor job of conveying the benefits of their plan all around, pricing just being one of those areas. That being said, you can't really start talking about getting cheaper games to people before you even get the system up and off the ground in the first place. You first have to succeed in routing more revenue back to developers/publishers with the sale of used games. I don't think anyone has an issue with part of the proceeds of buying a used game going back to the people who made and released the game, do they? But that's the kind of story they should have been telling and about their long term vision for the system and not rely on others to have the ability to see if for themselves. In that respect they get an F and there's no way around it.

There are people, like myself, that will probably go completely digital this generation, regardless of the price of the games, simply for convenience. And I can get my disc based games for just over cost to the retailer! If enough people bypass the retailer for the digital version then the prices of digital versions will come down as there's nothing to kick back to the retailer so there's no reason for the publisher not to lower the price, plus that means the game won't be sold used which is an added bonus and more reason to ensure that as many people as possible buy their games that way.

DD by definition is cheaper. All around. The question is who gets the margins.

All they needed to say is that they would push aggressive DD pricing along the lines that lower cost DD warrants. End of story, happy DD license customers.
post #3537 of 14775
I don't really understand why people would be truly upset about MS reversing their position here. I mean, sure the Family Share and no-disc needed playing was a cool idea, but how many games would you realistically expect to have on the Xbone at a given time? With only a 500 GB harddrive and no way to personally upgrade it, it would fill up quicker than many people would want. The Family Share seemed cool too, but I read many people on this thread alone talking about ways to take advantage of this.

This should be a win for consumers/gamers all around. Whether you're a Sony or MS fanboy or simply an open-minded game lover, you should benefit from the Xbone being more competitive with the PS4.

I don't understand why some on this thread are complaining about how internet complainers are the reason why MS reversed their stance.

Now, a question I would like to have answered is what is the extra $100 for? Is the Kinect really worth $100? Now that the Xbone is essentially a slightly weaker PS4, the Kinect seems to be the only additional item included in the price. Does anyone know if the "Media" aspect is still intact?
post #3538 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yrd View Post

You are completely misunderstanding my point.

I'm talking about sharing games. You were explaining to me why it can't work without online check-ins.

edit: I have to remember to use the quote button....

at this point, the only way of sharing games would be with digital only games. and that makes the plan less useful.

I think the game sharing plan would've locked people into the ecosystem if given a chance. Like Apple doesn't care about marketshare per se. They want a customer base that's locked in and spends money and that's what the Apple fan base is. Of course, they would love to dominate in terms of marketshare but not by sacrificing the insane profit margins that Apple enjoys. People are willing to spend money if they enjoy an ecosystem.

the first person to call me about the change was my Gamestop-leeching friend. The one that uses the 7-day Gamestop rental (buy the game, play it for 7 days, and return it for a free rental). She was so ecstatic. She was already set to jump to PS4 to keep leeching.

And now that there's no additional revenue for publishers and Gamestop keeps being a leech on the industry, there's no way the publishers would tolerate a game sharing plan.

That said, having a 360/PS3 style world is okay. I mean, we have been living with this system for the past 8 years. It just could've been so much more.
post #3539 of 14775
post #3540 of 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Max View Post

There are people, like myself, that will probably go completely digital this generation, regardless of the price of the games, simply for convenience. And I can get my games for just over cost to the retailer! If enough people bypass the retailer for the digital version then the prices of digital versions will come down as there's nothing to kick back to the retailer so there's no reason for the publisher not to lower the price, plus that means the game won't be sold used which is an added bonus and more reason to ensure that as many people as possible buy their games that way.

This is only true if products (games) are sold based on cost. Unfortunately for your assertion, games are sold based on what the manufacturer feels will allow them to maximize revenues. Selling to you more cheaply because they have decreased their own expenses does not maximize their revenues. Cheaper games will come about through competition, at the publisher, console and retail levels, and products life cycle. The competition between consoles and publishers is imperfect because games are unique and many gamers are tied into a specific console for whatever reason. This means that they can command higher prices because of more perceived value.

Retail competition does not impact MS or the pub/devs because the retailer takes the price cut out of their share. This is done to drive customers into their stores in the hope of other revenues and will disappear with DD. This will actually make games more expensive for longer because retail will not be able to pull the people that would pay higher prices but got a sale at Target out of the pool of consumers willing to pay more.

There is no real incentive to offer deals expect to drive traffic to their own store and time. Games go down in price over time to attract buyers that cannot be captured at a higher price. This only happens when they deplete the customers from their current pricing levels.

Limiting competition always causes prices to increase and service to decrease unless tempered by law. This is why oligopolies and monopolies are broken up or regulated.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...