AND their messaging would've been a lot clearer. They could've even done digital pre-loading before release to somewhat nullify the long download times. Instead, they wanted a piece of the physical pie since users would have to a pay a fee to register discs.
I agree. But that also doesn't speak to any idea that they were ready to make their case in favor of this transition in as much as they expected it to just be the new status quo that people would simply accept. Which is why I'm taking issue with a misguided notion that they didn't get the chance to make their case. I don't think they were prepared to make their case since they probably assumed they didn't need to.
We believe, for some consumers, the time is, but for other consumers, the time is still not, Yoshida tells us. So we believe the time is still not right to go download-only as a platform.
Well most people here have been posting comments about all digital.
Second considering MS changed their whole policy Their DRM policy was never set in stone and could change.
Since there is no rule you have to buy a console in the first year I actually wanted to see where MS was going with their idea and see it evolve.
If people didn't buy Xbox One with the old policy it might of been easier for MS to sell off the division as so many people hope.
No, they wanted to change how game disc resale, rentals, and trade-ins work on the Xbox One. The console software market is more than just the Xbox One, after all.
Agreed. The Digital Distribution market will continue to grow side-by-side with physical retail but it won't kill it, unless these closed ecosystems start doing the things that retail/online stores can do with physical, like discounted games.I'll NEVER go all digital. So fuck MS.
Yeah, I don't think anyone's complaining about digital distribution here. I myself avoid physical media as much as possible even on the PS3, and I hope to never buy a game on disk again with the PS4. I embrace my digital future, but I don't embrace their DRM and I don't think you should have to embrace the digital future (with DRM) if you don't want to.
You just keep hearing them say "It was a really good thing for reasons!!" Without ever actually saying what those reasons were...
Forward Unto Dawn?
Agreed. The Digital Distribution market will continue to grow side-by-side with physical retail but it won't kill it, unless these closed ecosystems start doing the things that retail/online stores can do with physical, like discounted games.
I will buy physical media over digital download EVERY TIME, and only buy digital titles when they're only available as digital.
He is completely right.
I don't like it. But we don't have a choice.
Without a doubt, Microsoft is going to drag us into authentication by the end of this next generation kicking and screaming if they have to. I have no doubt in my mind that they'll slowly phase in their intended DRM strategies under the guise of some new program with added perks... Hopefully they realize simply asking for all or nothing authentication without making an equal trade across the table won't fly.
I was ready.
For those with shit internet connections who weren't.
Tough shit. Throw your clogs (and prams) into the machine.
Correct idea and future thinking. Wrong execution and customer awareness.
#SonyGaf
Totally agree. Sony and Valves digital future are a-okay in my book, while Nintendo and MS' are not. MS thinks the problem is that I'm ignorant, which is frankly insulting.
You guys are really going to be pissed when Sony goes all digital. It will happen and Sony has already shown it is slowly pushing in that direction.
Precisely. Besides the announcement, the time between the announcement and E3, E3, time after E3..."I do feel like we never got a chance to have a rational conversation about what we were trying to do," Penello told Engadget.
I certainly agree on that. What I was trying to get at was that I think they just assumed that Sony's radio silence on the issue combined with the heat they were likely getting from publishers led them to believe that Sony's was going to follow suit going all-digital. I don't think they really conceived of the idea Sony would take the opposite tack. The fact that they never really tried to make a case for all-digital is to me, evidence that, as you say, they never thought they'd have to.
Er, there weren't any planned fees to register discs. You buy the game once, and then install it, just like any other game. The 24 hr check was basically there to support trade-ins and "easily" prevent abuse (otherwise, there's no real point to having it)
I guess in a roundabout way, one could argue that places like Gamestop would've lessened trade-in values under this newer system, and therefore that's a "fee", but that's harder to follow.
He is completely right.
I don't like it. But we don't have a choice.
it really makes me wonder though.
I am pretty sure a number of publishers wanted the DRM options in place to make money and not having to deal with some consumers waiting for a used copy or the fact that people used to share their games with others resulting in a potential loss of sale for them.
I am also pretty sure the gaming media which has close associations with publishers and the console manufacturers wanted some sort of DRM options too to maximize their profitablity and control of content
Then I see the launch games for Xbox One and PS4 and it makes me think. Why would the publishers want to have such a unilateral partnership with a console which is weaker in the hardware and future sense. It can be one thing or the other. MS wants to flourish its system with enough exclusive content that when the gamers do accept the current form of the Xbox One environment, they push the DRM features on an audience in love with the exclusives OR the fact that Publishers want to flourish the Xbox One environment with enough exclusives that attract consumers to an extent that when they are locked into that environment, MS pushes the DRM like both the MS and Publishers want. Or it could be a combination of both
Look at the games coming out:
Ryse exclusivity
Dead Rising 3 (when it went multiplatform on DR2)
Titanfall (even the developer wanted it to be multiplatform but EA made the deal to make it PLATFORM exclusive.)
Sunset Overdrive (a former PS3 developer switching to Xbox One exclusivity)
But thats just my thought
And still people are willing to buy their trojan horse of a product.
iTunes doesn't have a 24-hour check. I can install apps with or without a connection in the event Apple goes out of business or stops supporting these devices.
I just drag that file into iTunes and sync it right to my phone.
With Steam, I don't need a constant connection:
I didn't need a 24-hour check. Right now it's TWO WEEKS, but Valve is already trying to make it last forever: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...urce=postit&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=all
And here's the kicker of that:
THAT'S A BUG. It is MEANT TO BE FOREVER ALREADY.
None of these abilities came close to offering what the Xbox One did.
And finally, to drive the point home:
Uplay
GOG
GreenManGaming
Impulse
Origin
What do all those have in common?
They run on the same platforms as Steam. If Steam goes tits up, or becomes some post-apocalyptic wastleand, competitors will step up. What happens when MS starts requiring your stem cells to make the game work? Where will you go for games on the Xbox?
I seriously thought by now they had learned to stop saying this in public, even if it's what they believe.
Anyone shocked by this is beyond naive. I like the games, but the rationale behind their DRM approach is beyond repugnant.
Amazing... they still don't get what they did wrong.
Yeah, I agree with you. If Sony had gone with a similar DRM as many expected, I don't think they would have faced as much resistance themselves. Obviously, many consumers would have still been irate at both Sony and Microsoft, but if they both held strong, the argument for the inevitability would have been easier to make. They were clearly caught with their pants down after Sony's E3 conference.
They are only a step removed. Just require Gold to use any aspect of the console. Gold authentication already requires that you be online, so they get the always-online requirement without explicitly stating it.Without a doubt, Microsoft is going to drag us into authentication by the end of this next generation kicking and screaming if they have to. I have no doubt in my mind that they'll slowly phase in their intended DRM strategies under the guise of some new program with added perks... Hopefully they realize simply asking for all or nothing authentication without making an equal trade across the table won't fly.
That isn't entirely true. What you got in return for that horrible 24 hour check in was the ability to trade in your games. Something that Steam doesn't allowThis cannot be quoted enough. Introducing an all-digital future can be a good thing. Heck, it can be a great thing. But the model MS tried to push was essentially stripping away consumer rights with NOTHING in return. I really wish MS and it's supporters would stop claiming the Could-Have-Been Xbox One was following the Steam model. It simply wasn't.
"Infrastructure just isn't ready" would be more accurate
.
They think it was a PR problem.
They genuinely do.
You guys are really going to be pissed when Sony goes all digital. It will happen and Sony has already shown it is slowly pushing in that direction.
Yeah, I agree with you. If Sony had gone with a similar DRM as many expected, I don't think they would have faced as much resistance themselves. Obviously, many consumers would have still been irate at both Sony and Microsoft, but if they both held strong, the argument for the inevitability would have been easier to make. They were clearly caught with their pants down after Sony's E3 conference.
I wonder the extant to which Sony rope-a-doped Microsoft here.
Were they telegraphing increased DRM lock-down? If they did, I don't remember it. But why else would MS make such a leap of faith unless they expect Sony to come with them?
This, absolutely.all digital itself isn't the problem, it was the ridiculous DRM
They don't need to force all digital to support all digital.
Lol when they flick the switch back on.
I meant for trade ins or for borrowing. If you lent the game to someone they could only play it for a limited time before having to pay some fee. At least that's what I remember, and MSoft never clarified if it was in fact a fee or a full purchase price. I could be mistaken in some details though, everything was very unclear back then.
I wonder the extant to which Sony rope-a-doped Microsoft here.
Were they telegraphing increased DRM lock-down? If they did, I don't remember it. But why else would MS make such a leap of faith unless they expect Sony to come with them?
I think people working for these giant corporations forget that not everyone has access to fiber networks and/or unlimited bandwidth. It would only take 3 next gen games to cap my bandwidth, and I know there's providers out there that provide much less.
It wasn't all digital though. It was some weird "have our cake and eat it too"-ital