Support NeoGAF

[Thebonehead]

With Microsoft pivoting from a closed console to a Hardware agnostic platform, and allowing Steam and other stores on their next "console" (or whatever it is), they have to give you a reason to choose their garbage UI over Valves ecosystem so they can get a sweet taste of that delicious 30% cut.

We all know that the library lock-in is a thing, but with Helix looming and MS basically owning half the Industry via Activision / Blizzard / Bethesda, they have a unique opportunity to shake up the rules.

If MS moved back to their 2013 vision, could they make inroads into the Steam Oligarchy?

• Digital Resale: You finish your £70 game and can then sell the license for £33 via a 1-click marketplace. The publisher takes 10% of that as a sweetener.
• Gifting / Trading: I recently finished RE: Requiem on Steam and won't be going to go back to it again. I could gift it in the GAF thread for instance. I think we would be rolling in more free games than an Epic store giveaway.
• Library Sharing: True library sharing even if you are online.

Steam can't compete with that without Valve fundamentally changing their entire business model (which they won't, because Gabe absolutely hates the idea of used digital goods as they won't pay for his superyachts).

So GAF, Could you be tempted away from Gabes ice cold death grip on your hands?

For me, personally, I don't really care where my library is - I have a huge Steam library, but if a challenger came about that allowed the above, I would support just to drive the market in that direction.

 

[Miles708]

If you still trust Microsoft with anything at this point you deserve whatever they're planning next.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

The first two are game changers but they would never go that way. The philosophy behind promoting full digital is that you don't actually own anything, the opposite of being able to trade digital goods.

 

[Cakeboxer]

A non-shitty launcher and the first two options without a huge cut would be a good start to make me consider it. But neither will ever happen.

 

[Thebonehead]

If you still trust Microsoft with anything at this point you deserve whatever they're planning next.

I don't trust any of the big players

I buy on GOG where I can

 

[deriks]

Nintendo did their way to share, and it's not bad, but can be better just by *select the game, select your friend*

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Is MS interested in any of that?

That should be the first question.

 

[Thebonehead]

Is MS interested in any of that?

That should be the first question.

Of course they are. It's all about trying to funnel revenue into your own pockets.

My gut feeling is that in the next few years we will see the EU legislature coming in anyway that will drive things in this direction.

 

[Mownoc]

If the feature became so popular that it threatened steam, steam would just add that feature to their platform. Whether Gabe hates the idea or not.

 

[T4keD0wN]

Hard pass, but i would care if they paid me enough.

 

[Thebonehead]

If the feature became so popular that it threatened steam, steam would just add that feature to their platform. Whether Gabe hates the idea or not.

Kind of the point really.

Gabe just thinks you're too happy with his sales to notice you're renting. He spent 10 years in French courts making sure your steam library dies with you.

 

[winjer]

The first thing to consider is that Microsoft is now one of the worlds worst companies at making software. Everything they make is full of bugs, has performance problems and has a terrible UI.
This is the first huge barrier for Microsoft to become the leader on PC gaming. Their software is complete crap.
The second problem is that Microsoft is pushing AI and Copilot into everything they make. It's a complete shitshow, that makes everything that much worse.
The third problem is that Microsoft can't be trusted. They have a 5 decade record of constantly screwing up consumers. They are a strong contender for being the company that got more governments take legal actions against them, in the entire world, for anti-consumer and anti-trust practices.
The final question is privacy and security. Microsoft has little to no concerns about protecting user's privacy and security, they have showed that several times, being the most recent with Copilot and Recall.

So the question is why would anyone choose the company that makes the worst software, with no quality control, with the least privacy and security concerns, that is pushing AI Slop into every corner of their software stack, and that has the worst track record for treating consumers right.

 

[Topher]

Whatever they would offer, it would be a temporary measure that they would eventually take away. Look at what they did to MS Rewards and Game Pass. Used tiers to jack up the price for day one games. Forced you to buy gift cards instead of using MS Rewards points directly at a much lower cost. Nah....I'm good.

 

[Topher]

Kind of the point really.

Gabe just thinks you're too happy with his sales to notice you're renting. He spent 10 years in French courts making sure your steam library dies with you.

Family plans pretty much accomplish the same thing

 

[Thebonehead]

Whatever they would offer, it would be a temporary measure that they would eventually take away. Look at what they did to MS Rewards and Game Pass. Used tiers to jack up the price for day one games. Forced you to buy gift cards instead of using MS Rewards points directly at a much lower cost. Nah....I'm good.

I want someone to make that first move to start those dominoes falling.

Microsoft being in last position need to do something to shake that up.

Let's face it. Not a single other company would be willing to do it and once the genie is out of the bottle we all win

 

[jm89]

Still amazed ms haven't been able to create a store to take on steam on PC.

You'd think this is one area ms would be able to put up a fight considering they are a heavily software focused company and they have the money to hire some really good software devs/designers.

But then again their enterprise software isn't even that great. Alot of it forced on people as companies are so dug into the ms ecosystem.

 

[Generic]

The first two are game changers but they would never go that way. The philosophy behind promoting full digital is that you don't actually own anything, the opposite of being able to trade digital goods.

Gaming is going full digital anyway, the studio that spearheads selling digital games will have an huge advantage.

 

[pudel]

If MS would go the GOG route (drm free offline installers)...I would definitely consider their store....of course. I dont even need the resale option. Just give me the game files without any forced online "services".

 

[Topher]

I want someone to make that first move to start those dominoes falling.

Microsoft being in last position need to do something to shake that up.

Let's face it. Not a single other company would be willing to do it and once the genie is out of the bottle we all win

Sure, but publishers are not going to go along with a lot of that and that's where the problem is. They only real way to get the kind of change you are talking about is if governments pass laws forcing these items. And I doubt that will happen either, unfortunately.

 

[Laptop1991]

No option about Microsoft's closed wall around PC games, until they ditch their new Games for Windows Live service vs Steam's far more open one for mods etc, it won't make a difference if MS allow resales. Steam will still win in the PC space.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

If you still trust Microsoft with anything at this point you deserve whatever they're planning next.

And yet their online community still continues to shill for AI Aisha.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

A lot of people don't realize how shitty the games are on MS Store. You basically can't MOD the games in any way. You have very little customization. It would need to approach Steams level of freedom and customization before anyone ever seriously considers switching.

Control is a perfect example of a game on MS Store that uses a shitty older PC version.

 

[HRK69]

You're basically proposing a Steam 2.0 fantasy where Gabe's evil overlord reputation gets rewritten and Microsoft suddenly turns into a charity

Fascinating, but I'll pass. My Steam library isn't going anywhere and neither is reality

 

[Sintoid]

Go tell investors lol

 

[IDKFA]

• Digital Resale: You finish your £70 game and can then sell the license for £33 via a 1-click marketplace. The publisher takes 10% of that as a sweetener.

That wouldn't work.

In the physical world, a used disc might be scratched, the box might be cracked etc. It's been used, therefore second hand and no longer in brand new condition. There is a friction cost and a quality risk. However, A digital "used" license is identical to a brand new one.

That creates a problem for the publisher. If a user can buy a "used" digital copy for £33 with one click, nobody will ever buy the £70 "new" version again after the first week of launch. The primary market would cannibalise itself almost instantly.

I see you've generously given the publisher 10% of the used sale, but that 10% "sweetener" ( which is £3.30 in your ideal world) is a pittance compared to what the publisher would have made from a direct sale. They're not going to go for this.

What about supply? The used gaming market is priced due to a number of factors, including how rare a physical copy is. This isn't a factor in the digital space and with zero physical inventory limits, supply would quickly overwhelm demand. If you have hundreds of thousands of people trying to sell the same game for £33, do they then undercut each other?

Lastly, Microsoft are not going to do this. In your scenario, if you sell for £33, Microsoft has to facilitate the transaction, host the 100GB download for the new buyer, and handle the customer support etc etc. All while potentially losing a full price sale that they would normally take a 30% cut from. Microsoft are not going to financially screw themselves just to get one over Valve.

All of that and I haven't even mentioned the listening situation.

It's a nice utopian dream, but it will never happen.

 

[Ozriel]

With Microsoft pivoting from a closed console to a Hardware agnostic platform, and allowing Steam and other stores on their next "console" (or whatever it is), they have to give you a reason to choose their garbage UI over Valves ecosystem so they can get a sweet taste of that delicious 30% cut.

We all know that the library lock-in is a thing, but with Helix looming and MS basically owning half the Industry via Activision / Blizzard / Bethesda, they have a unique opportunity to shake up the rules.

If MS moved back to their 2013 vision, could they make inroads into the Steam Oligarchy?

• Digital Resale: You finish your £70 game and can then sell the license for £33 via a 1-click marketplace. The publisher takes 10% of that as a sweetener.
• Gifting / Trading: I recently finished RE: Requiem on Steam and won't be going to go back to it again. I could gift it in the GAF thread for instance. I think we would be rolling in more free games than an Epic store giveaway.
• Library Sharing: True library sharing even if you are online.

Steam can't compete with that without Valve fundamentally changing their entire business model (which they won't, because Gabe absolutely hates the idea of used digital goods as they won't pay for his superyachts).

So GAF, Could you be tempted away from Gabes ice cold death grip on your hands?

For me, personally, I don't really care where my library is - I have a huge Steam library, but if a challenger came about that allowed the above, I would support just to drive the market in that direction.

Not sure what you're on about. If you're on the Helix console, you're on their UI. Their store will be advertised front and center.

That said, selling the console at a price markup means they don't need to capture that 30% from most game sales.

I'm not sure why you're going on about 'library lock in' when the whole point of the Helix console is that you've got your Steam, EGS, GOG and other store libraries at your fingertips and integrated together.

Aside that, publishers won't want resale of digital games at cheaper prices. Why would they go for 10% of a half price resale of RE Requiem when they can get 30% from a full price sale?

And yet their online community still continues to shill for AI Aisha.

The online community that's moving weird about this particular exec is folks like you.

 

[BlackTron]

I gave this post the benefit of the doubt. Okay, he's talking about the return of cancelled plans from Xbox One. Crazier theories have happened.

But then imagine musing whether Microsoft would do something this drastic to appeal to gamers, while in the same scenario this occurs, Steam is greedy and would never.

So it became just another "how can Microsoft apply console tomfoolery to the PC space" post.

 

[Durin]

Marketplace and trade could get me to start buying certain games on their platform, but they'd still be secondary to Steam because they simply don't have a matching feature-set.

Steam has Steam Input, discussion forums, better user review system, better interface, better big picture controller UI, better social features, steam workshop for light one-click modding, built in guides, better library sorting functions like collections, better discovery tools to find games, better sale events, vastly larger game library, better overlay features, better screenshot/video recording feature, etc.

Even if Microsoft gets me to buy more games on their app, the core problem is I'll still inevitably add them to Steam as non-Steam games...because Steam is just a better app to use in general as my portal to play PC games.

 

[Kenpachii]

I dont think it will compete with steam in any way with any option they could push. Steam has the trust, microsoft does not.

 

[Thebonehead]

Family plans pretty much accomplish the same thing

It is a step in the right direction, but borrowing rather than ownership. It's akin to sharing your netflix password. Resale, and gifting is the opposite in that you tangibly own the license.

Sure, but publishers are not going to go along with a lot of that and that's where the problem is. They only real way to get the kind of change you are talking about is if governments pass laws forcing these items. And I doubt that will happen either, unfortunately.

Which is why MS owning ActiBlizz and Bethesda means they don't need EA or Ubi to agree to light the fire.

If MS makes COD, Elder Scrolls and Diablo digital resellable on their own store then the market pressure on everyone else becomes immense.

Microsoft will make money every time a license changes hands. They could protect initial sales by saying you would have to wait 30 days after launch for instance before reselling

I think people would be more willing to take a chance on something digitally if they could sell it on afterwards. If it's a stinker though...

Just as GamePass trained Xbox players not to buy anything, Steam has trained people to wait for the Sales

 

[StereoVsn]

This discussion curiously omits game publishers. What incentive do they have to go with MS plan? Microsoft has 0 leverage in a gaming market. And for game publishers and devs most of whom hate the idea of used physical market, "used" digital market would be an anathema.

That said I have 0 trust in MS not fucking this up or reversing their approach once they got a bit of market share. Anyone who is familiar with their shenanigans should know better.

 

[Thebonehead]

That wouldn't work.

In the physical world, a used disc might be scratched, the box might be cracked etc. It's been used, therefore second hand and no longer in brand new condition. There is a friction cost and a quality risk. However, A digital "used" license is identical to a brand new one.

That creates a problem for the publisher. If a user can buy a "used" digital copy for £33 with one click, nobody will ever buy the £70 "new" version again after the first week of launch. The primary market would cannibalise itself almost instantly.

I see you've generously given the publisher 10% of the used sale, but that 10% "sweetener" ( which is £3.30 in your ideal world) is a pittance compared to what the publisher would have made from a direct sale. They're not going to go for this.

What about supply? The used gaming market is priced due to a number of factors, including how rare a physical copy is. This isn't a factor in the digital space and with zero physical inventory limits, supply would quickly overwhelm demand. If you have hundreds of thousands of people trying to sell the same game for £33, do they then undercut each other?

Lastly, Microsoft are not going to do this. In your scenario, if you sell for £33, Microsoft has to facilitate the transaction, host the 100GB download for the new buyer, and handle the customer support etc etc. All while potentially losing a full price sale that they would normally take a 30% cut from. Microsoft are not going to financially screw themselves just to get one over Valve.

All of that and I haven't even mentioned the listening situation.

It's a nice utopian dream, but it will never happen.

You're thinking like it's like The Pirate bay with no rules. MS wouldn't launch a Free Market chaos-sim. It would be a controlled ecosystem

Artifical Friction: MS can simply mandate a "Holding Period." You can't resell a game until 30 days after launch. That protects the vital Day One window where publishers make 80% of their revenue.
Why assume users can undercut each other to 1p? MS can set a "Minimum Resale Value" (e.g., no lower than 50% of current RRP). This prevents the race to the bottom
You mentioned supply overwhelming demand. MS can literally limit the number of Used Licenses active in the ecosystem at once. If the used queue is full, you have to wait for someone to buy one before you can list yours.

It's not Utopian, it's just Digital Rights Management being used for the consumer for once instead of against them. It's also something they wanted to implement in 2013, but the backlash was fierce due to Physical being the fore then.

 

[StereoVsn]

It is a step in the right direction, but borrowing rather than ownership. It's akin to sharing your netflix password. Resale, and gifting is the opposite in that you tangibly own the license.



Which is why MS owning ActiBlizz and Bethesda means they don't need EA or Ubi to agree to light the fire.

If MS makes COD, Elder Scrolls and Diablo digital resellable on their own store then the market pressure on everyone else becomes immense.

Microsoft will make money every time a license changes hands. They could protect initial sales by saying you would have to wait 30 days after launch for instance before reselling

I think people would be more willing to take a chance on something digitally if they could sell it on afterwards. If it's a stinker though...

Just as GamePass trained Xbox players not to buy anything, Steam has trained people to wait for the Sales

MS owned studios have been making a valiant effort in producing mostly middling products so above is not nearly as important as it used to be.

 

[Tobimacoss]

Xbox PC already allows two users to play a game simultaneously.

Whatever they would offer, it would be a temporary measure that they would eventually take away. Look at what they did to MS Rewards and Game Pass. Used tiers to jack up the price for day one games. Forced you to buy gift cards instead of using MS Rewards points directly at a much lower cost. Nah....I'm good.

What do YOU think is a fair price for Day 1 games tier? First the complaints were Gamepass is too cheap, it "threatens traditional business models", and not "sustainable" now it's too expensive?

 

[meech]

That wouldn't work.

I

It absolutly can, if the publisher can choose a time window in which only new game sales are allowed. For example six months to a year.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

You basically can't MOD the games in any way.

This is only true for the older UWP based games, because they are sandboxed, but UWP has been discontinued for years and games are using winGDK now which are far more compatible with mods; the only ones that still have some issues are ones that directly need to edit the exe, since in some cases that can still be in a weird folder somewhere hidden.

 

[Edgelord79]

What if a great white shark and a lion fought? Who would win?

 

[Thebonehead]

What if a great white shark and a lion fought? Who would win?

In the sea or on the land?

 

[Edgelord79]

In the sea or on the land?

In the sky

 

[dragonyeuw]

The ability to resell digital keys from your account would result in a 'used' code marketplace that would completely sabotage the publishers. At BEST you may eventually be allowed some form of gifting/trading, but there is no scenario in which you will be able to sell an already redeemed code on your account for $$$. Absolutely no reason the companies would go for that, it fundamentally undercuts the control they've fought very hard to acquire.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

There certainly are a couple things they could do to put pressure on the leader, this being one of them. Another thing would be the unsolved inconvenience of "launchers" within Steam that spit in our comfy couch soup. If I had a Helix and I was to decide between a Steam version that requires some stupid mouse and keyboard to launch the actual game, and a MS store version that properly boots like a console would, I'd go with the latter if the price was lower (as I can't use the license, say, on Linux).

 

[Topher]

What do YOU think is a fair price for Day 1 games tier?

I was fine with $20 ultimate.

What do you think is too much for day 1 games tier for what is offered right now?

First the complaints were Gamepass is too cheap, it "threatens traditional business models", and not "sustainable" now it's too expensive?

Don't know who you are supposed to be quoting here. I never complained about game pass being too cheap. I was championing using Rewards to get game pass long before you were a member here. That all went to shit though, which is exactly my point.

And as I recall, the arguments about Game Pass that were made in the past by others was that at its price point it was unsustainable. That has been proven correct.

 

[RoboFu]

Used digital would be nice but it would never work currently as it would be hacked in a day.

 

[Guilty_AI]

You're thinking like it's like The Pirate bay with no rules. MS wouldn't launch a Free Market chaos-sim. It would be a controlled ecosystem

Artifical Friction: MS can simply mandate a "Holding Period." You can't resell a game until 30 days after launch. That protects the vital Day One window where publishers make 80% of their revenue.
Why assume users can undercut each other to 1p? MS can set a "Minimum Resale Value" (e.g., no lower than 50% of current RRP). This prevents the race to the bottom
You mentioned supply overwhelming demand. MS can literally limit the number of Used Licenses active in the ecosystem at once. If the used queue is full, you have to wait for someone to buy one before you can list yours.

It's not Utopian, it's just Digital Rights Management being used for the consumer for once instead of against them. It's also something they wanted to implement in 2013, but the backlash was fierce due to Physical being the fore then.

A controlled second-hand market is the same as nothing. In the end you're still playing by some big tech rules, you still don't own shit, you're basically being "graciously allowed" to recoup some money from a purchase - which i'm sure they'd try their best to keep it on the store's wallet so you'll just spend it there.

What the digital world needs on this front is the right to sell or transfer accounts. You can technically do that as theres no real way for them to know the transfer happened, but some guarantees would be nice.

As for MS, only thing that'd ever make me use their store is if they went full GOG with their DRM policies.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

I don't think they can do better than steam, is easier for me to migrate to Linux than to go Microsoft store. Especially when is so awful to use.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The only outcome is MS saying bye-bye to gaming. The market has rejected them. I don't know why they are so insistent on being around.

 

[Miles708]

If you care about what you own, the only sensible choices are either piracy or GOG.

 

[Sakura]

One of the main points of digital is to prevent users from doing stuff like that. They don't want a resale market for their games.
Why would publishers want users reselling their games for £33, when they themselves could just put it on sale for £33? And how does MS make money off that?
Any resale market that would be implemented would be so restricted, and you'd get so little, it wouldn't be worth it. You'd probably be better off just getting points for your purchases you can cash in for other purchases.

 

[Laptop1991]

This is only true for the older UWP based games, because they are sandboxed, but UWP has been discontinued for years and games are using winGDK now which are far more compatible with mods; the only ones that still have some issues are ones that directly need to edit the exe, since in some cases that can still be in a weird folder somewhere hidden.

Which is the Script Extender, that directly modifies the exe, the most important mod of all, that most of the best mods use, so it's still true.

 

[KungFucius]

I just bought a second PS5 because of how well their sharing works. I have kids and wanted something that is easy and customer friendly and I am not paying for 2 copies of the same game when we do not get 2x the value. ( I would pay for a cheap share pass) Sony sharing is better than the other options. Nintendo is too greedy and MS does allow some sharing but the kid account setup is awful and Steam requires the second to be offline for single player but does allow sharing for coop.

If MS let you share with more than one other PC on the same IP address that would be great. Sony should improve theirs. Like why can my kids only play as not me upstairs? How is that really pro consumer? I give zero fucks how some people could manipulate the system to their advantage.