Microsoft loves console gamers

[RyanB]

Thank you for the clarification on buying games. I may be thinking of sales or something similar, not sure why I had that in my head.

"Second, Steam can only offer that pricing because they spent years being hated for have the MOST STRICT DRM in the market."

I'm not sure how one of these ideas leads to the other. It seems you believe that a company is somehow able to charge less because they'll get so many more sales due to lack of piracy. Let's not forget that by "MOST STRICT DRM" you mean that PC is the easiest system ever for circumventing DRM. It's pretty much impossible to prevent people pirating games that are not online. Even root kitted crap like Spore will have a cracked version available.

Valve offers good pricing because they like money. How often have you heard people talk about their huge Steam library of games that they haven't even played yet? Don't act like easily-circumvented DRM somehow enables this; Valve's pricing does. People also like to collect things and support developers when they feel the developer isn't evil and greedy.

Good will goes a long way. That's why people buy games they aren't even sure they want to play yet - because they feel good about doing so. You act like Steam's stuff is so much worse, and yet even you must admit it is night and day how they are regarded by their customers. Do you think PC gamers are just shills, or maybe Valve is doing something better than MS here?

On service - there are a few things that Live provides than Steam, but this is irrelevant as well. Why would Steam provide voice chat on a computer? Too many VOIPs available. On check-ins, how often are you made to check in when in offline mode? Never.

You seem to be under the impression that it is publisher's goals to charge as little money as possible. That is simply not true. Publishers are there to make as much money as possible, and that is what DRM is for. Only when faced with too much bad PR, like XBox just had, does one back down. Do you think Microsoft was seriously doing this to help the consumers? Come on. It's about maximizing profits, despite a policy that users would obviously hate. Only when their bottom line was threatened did they back down. And that's not really that evil, they are a business.

That's why I like competition. XBox dropped their draconian crap (other than the 1984 camera), and I'd be willing to bet we won't have near-100% failure rate again. It even comes with enhanced AI where fish swim away! And on the other side, it looks like PSN might actually be good this time around, the controller was finally updated, and all for a price less than FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS! All the while Valve is laughing all the way to the bank at $2 a pop.

 

[legitnoob]

Well here is what it is if you like Sony buy Sony, if you like Microsoft buy Microsoft, and if you like both then buy both! Calm down stop complaining about policy's that's been reversed and go on! I'm gonna buy both, and I still would have bought both if DRM was implemented! You know why I'm in it for the games, not to brown nose Sony or Microsoft!

 

[SKLURB]

Steam does provide voice chat.

 

[RyanB]

Hey I'll be the first to admit I will buy an xbox if it has enough games that interest me. I'll buy Activision too for something that interests me enough. "Enough" in both of these instances is a VERY high threshold, though, because I expect both scenarios will make the experience not quite as good. People are going to buy what they want to buy of course, but that doesn't exactly make for conversation. Conversation (like this thread) tends to revolve around what is good and bad, which may influence how and where people spend their money.

I see people praising MS for this as if they're doing something other than having their arm twisted until they relented. That doesn't make it irrelevant; company culture matters. I own 1 or 2 games on Steam so there is no reason for me to stick up for them. I just see how happy people are and know they're probably doing something right. On the other hand, I know that I typically regret any transaction I have with Gamestop or Activision.

This move has cost MS, even if they've reversed it. But it probably won't cost them nearly as much now that they have. I think that's a relevant discussion. Plus I've seen far too many news articles coming out with the same talking points that were clearly put together from MS: how the DRM is a good thing and gamers are missing out!. Wow...

 

[legitnoob]

Well here is the simple factor of it people make mistakes, company's make mistakes! Should we just start downing playstation for that update miss hap that happened this week! Nope we need to wait and hope that both company's will do what's right!

 

[Kendrik]

Steam does provide voice chat.

Yeah. I was wondering where the "no voice chat" thing came from. Pretty sure I've done cross-game multi-user voice chat in the past using the Steam client too (and a quick Google search confirms that these are possible). I don't think it's that big of a deal in the first place, but we may as well be keeping our facts straight.

Plus I've seen far too many news articles coming out with the same talking points that were clearly put together from MS: how the DRM is a good thing and gamers are missing out!. Wow...

Yeaaaah. That's been the thing bothering me most. DRM is fueled by greed, the simplest and most significant evil of capitalism. That Microsoft changed directions after the outcry of fans demonstrates that the consumers still have power over corporations, the simplest and most significant good of capitalism.

To paraphrase a familiar saying, "Those who are willing to sacrifice freedoms for a chance at discounts are undeserving of either and will likely lose both."

Humble Bundles and other DRM-free digital sellers show that it is plenty possible to distribute games at low prices. Some of them even donate to charity from their profits. DRM is not, in the slightest, a necessary evil on the path to lower costs to consumers. Conversely, while Ubisoft and friends load their games with DRM, I've never personally seem them deep-discount their games for themselves. Even David DeMartini of Origin talks bad about Steam's blowout sales and says that Origin won't be doing similarly. Piracy will always be a problem for publishers, but DRM hardly stops piracy; it does far more to put restrictions on law-abiding gamers.


Now, I make no defense of Steam. I'm no fan of having games permanently tethered to your account (I could rant at length about how such practices are usually thinly veiled legal loopholes for circumventing First Sale Doctrine). That said, this ongoing comparison needs to stop (talking about the various writings I've read elsewhere at least as much as this forum conversation). Calling it a flawed comparison borders on gross understatement.

Those who do not like Steam and its form of DRM are not compelled to utilize it (a number of games do require Steam authentication, but that should count against those particular game publishers rather than Steam; just as EA tends to require Origin and Ubisoft requires Uplay). Much of the PC gaming world can be enjoyed without Steam. It's functionally an opt-in service.

In the system Microsoft had proposed for the Xbox One, there was no opt-in. Daily check-ins would be required simply to play the games you own, for example. Xbox One and its former requirements, those accurately called DRM and those that were not, were unavoidable. Thus, the parallel to Steam is just plain bad and confuses the issues (though I've little doubt some writers are perfectly aware of this and use it to promote pro-DRM stances).


All that having been said, I'm getting tired of the melodramatic comments surrounding Microsoft's change in direction. People are making it out to be a bad thing that vocal consumers have swayed a corporation's actions. I can't even figure out how to put into words how ridiculous that sounds. Worse, though, is this claim going about that Microsoft was bringing the future of gaming, and now we're going to be stuck in the dark ages because they caved to consumer demands. If Microsoft really wants to be working in the interest of the consumer rather than lining the wallets of the publishers, they can still create all the sales and offers they want within this less-restrictive system.

That said, they've offered digitally distributed games for a long time now, but their prices (with few exceptions) are, at best, matched with retail prices. Usually, even buying new, you can get those same games for notably less at Target or Amazon. So, I think you'll understand that I'm skeptical of significant price reductions realistically becoming a trend for Microsoft in the previously proposed system.

The originally proposed Xbox One setup promised the ability to take your games and play them on friends' consoles. Unless I missed something, you could still only play the game on one console at a time even if it were installed on several (and I find it exceedingly unlikely that publishers would be on board with allow multiple uses of the same copy/license to be running at the same time). That's nothing new, though; you've been able to do that with discs all along and will still do the same in the new Xbox One system. Even with digital games under the current Xbox Live system, I can log into my account on a friend's console and download the copy of Marvel vs. Capcom 2 I previously paid for and begin playing as soon as the download finishes.



Edit: @legitnoob: I don't think the point in any of this is to put Microsoft on blast at this point, but to acknowledge that they are taking consumer feedback into consideration and trying to make the best of the situation. You're right that it's still too soon to see the results of their actions, but we can see and discuss the actions they have made and are currently making.


Edit II: Even the prospect of being able to sell back digital games is entirely conceivable even in the current Xbox Live DRM framework. Digital games only work when operated by the owner or on the owner's primary console. A simple revoking of access rights to a given game for the owner and the owner's primary console would guarantee the game wouldn't run after being traded in. If this functionality were intended with the release of the Xbox One, then it would be even easier to make it work. I don't see a second-hand market forming in digital games (after all, who would pay $15 for a game from the publisher when someone is selling their license for $5?), but a trade-in system could be quite conceivably implemented in the new Xbox One system. Won't hold my breath of it happening, of course, but it is theoretically plausible.

 

[legitnoob]

Oh we'll my point was that its way too early to see how eather console will be supported! And getting the idea we need to focus more on the good games that ate coming out and not focus on the downfalls of each company bc they both have had there problems! Idk it's kinda annoying about griping about a product you personally havnt even touched yet! Same goes for both sides Sony fans and Microsoft fans!

 

[Kendrik]

So focus on the supposedly good games coming out that we haven't been able to touch yet? I get your point, and agree with your desire to pursue positivity over negativity, but you've created a bit of a double standard there, mate.

That said, the issues here are far less about consoles being supported, or even griping about a product, so much as discussing the problems in the ideas behind them. It's more about cultural criticism and the interaction of perspectives and ideas than it is about spewing anti-Microsoft (or anti-Steam, etc.) commentary.

 

[ursen]

Short notes.
XBone = X Bone agree
M$ = M String (sorry programmer in me)
I have never been required to sign into Steam on a regular basis. Sometimes several months go by without sign in, makes it hard to remember my complex password. And I like the fact that my son-in-law and grandson can come in for a visit and play their Steam games when they want on my client. I also like that I have a wish list that my daughter and son-in-law can check to see if there are gift possibilities, I also check his list occasionally. I don't get in a big sweat over the DRM issue with Steam, I have bigger issues (valid) with social sites like Facebook, now those are a big invasion of privacy.

 

[legitnoob]

I'm sorry if I seem rude, I'm just really blunt and that sometimes is a good thing but also a bad thing as well lol!

 

[XionTawa]

Okay, since this discussion is not going anywhere, and no one (including myself) is getting anywhere on our points.

Here's my question, that I want a simple answer to: Why is PC DRM okay (ex Steam), and Console not?

(the reason for my Anti-Steam spew, is simply because Steam was made as nothing more than DRM software, that turned into something more, yet anti-DRM people embrace Steam, and that just seems very very odd)

 

[Odale]

A few things:

I already tried to answer your question as to why tougher DRM is ok for PCs but not ok for consoles. You cannot hack an XBone game with the XBone console itself. However, you can hack a PC game with a PC.

Also, Steam doesn't sell you physical copies of games and treat them like digital copies. Microsoft treating physical copies of games as if they were digital copies is simply money grabbing at it's most obvious level.

Granted Microsoft back-petaled... pretty significantly. But the fact remains that they were intent on treating all copies of games as if they were digital copies.

Also:

None of us "Anti-DRM people" are "embracing Steam." Both Kendrik and I have said that we aren't supporting Steam or making excuses for them. I don't like their stupid return policy, and Kendrik doesn't like how games are permanently tethered to your account. Instead I would be ok with saying that we tolerate Steam. We know that buying digital copies of games will incur concessions on our part. But these concessions reward us with things that have been mentioned in this thread previously.

 

[XionTawa]

A few things:

I already tried to answer your question as to why tougher DRM is ok for PCs but not ok for consoles. You cannot hack an XBone game with the XBone console itself. However, you can hack a PC game with a PC.

Also, Steam doesn't sell you physical copies of games and treat them like digital copies. Microsoft treating physical copies of games as if they were digital copies is simply money grabbing at it's most obvious level.

Granted Microsoft back-petaled... pretty significantly. But the fact remains that they were intent on treating all copies of games as if they were digital copies.

Also:

None of us "Anti-DRM people" are "embracing Steam." Both Kendrik and I have said that we aren't supporting Steam or making excuses for them. I don't like their stupid return policy, and Kendrik doesn't like how games are permanently tethered to your account. Instead I would be ok with saying that we tolerate Steam. We know that buying digital copies of games will incur concessions on our part. But these concessions reward us with things that have been mentioned in this thread previously.

Use small words, me no smart.

Personally I don't "accept" your explanation, because I simply don't agree with it. To me gaming is gaming, and a gaming platform is a gaming platform. Whether is PC or Xbox, I don't think that distinction should matter. But maybe this is simply a matter of opinion here.

Microsoft was trying to rid physical copies with the Xbox One, they weren't trying to petal Physical copies and call them Digital. At first they were debating even not having physical discs anymore.

And lastly, while you and Kenny may not "embrace Steam" many many many do. Day after day I hear people that speak out against DRM praise Steam.

 

[RyanB]

Here's my question, that I want a simple answer to: Why is PC DRM okay (ex Steam), and Console not?

I'll take a stab at this.

Simple answer: because we don't live in bubbles and DRM is not the only thing in existence. There's other factors involved, and that is why we don't mind it. You're question is also flawed (strawman) because it attacks something that is not even there.

Long answer: Have you EVER heard a PC fan say something so illogical as, "Steam DRM is great! Through DRM they are bringing the future of gaming! Customers would really miss out if Valve stopped taking their rights away!" (Sound familiar?) The only time I've ever heard that has been in the past few days, as people are repeating XBox talking points they heard online.

In reality, no one LIKES having their rights taken away, on any platform. It's just that...Steam is so great that people simply don't care. That's called good will, rapport, and it's important in business. Valve offers deep discounts, listens to gamers, and MOST importantly their DRM is non-obtrusive. MS on the other hand gouges customers like crazy, does not offer nearly the same discounts, and then slam ads in your face on the services you pay for...so they have a very short rope. The system was already in question when they decided to force everyone to buy Kinect. 24 hour check in? Give me a break. Can't trade physical discs...after 20 years of gaming? Wow. And that price is a big difference, too. People are much more apt to want to trade in a terrible game they just paid $60 for than something they paid $2 for on a Steam sale.

TL;DR: 1) You're question is a strawman because no one says "yay I love losing my rights!". Then you act as if they are hypocrites. After saying that MS's DRM was "the future of gaming"... 2) No, Steam's DRM is not even comparable to what MS was proposing (and others have offered even more reasons why). There is PLENTY of DRM people have violently opposed in the past. 3) The way they treat their customers is vastly different. People like Valve and Gaben. 4) Price makes a huge difference.

I'll give you even one more example: PSN+ now required for online play. And guess now many people care? Pretty much no one. Because they're hypocrites? No. It's because Sony isn't downright rude by charging you to play Netflix (what the heck?), get updates, etc. And PSN+ is so freaking awesome of a value. Sony has good will with their customers.

Changing topic slightly, switching back to the point of games and software. Question for those who feel MS has a good software line-up: if you were to make a karting or SSB Brawl-style game, who would you put on the roster? Could you fill anywhere near a full roster on what a fighting game would expect?

 

[XionTawa]

I'll take a stab at this.

Simple answer: because we don't live in bubbles and DRM is not the only thing in existence. There's other factors involved, and that is why we don't mind it. You're question is also flawed (strawman) because it attacks something that is not even there.

Long answer: Have you EVER heard a PC fan say something so illogical as, "Steam DRM is great! Through DRM they are bringing the future of gaming! Customers would really miss out if Valve stopped taking their rights away!" (Sound familiar?) The only time I've ever heard that has been in the past few days, as people are repeating XBox talking points they heard online.

In reality, no one LIKES having their rights taken away, on any platform. It's just that...Steam is so great that people simply don't care. That's called good will, rapport, and it's important in business. Valve offers deep discounts, listens to gamers, and MOST importantly their DRM is non-obtrusive. MS on the other hand gouges customers like crazy, does not offer nearly the same discounts, and then slam ads in your face on the services you pay for...so they have a very short rope. The system was already in question when they decided to force everyone to buy Kinect. 24 hour check in? Give me a break. Can't trade physical discs...after 20 years of gaming? Wow. And that price is a big difference, too. People are much more apt to want to trade in a terrible game they just paid $60 for than something they paid $2 for on a Steam sale.

TL;DR: 1) You're question is a strawman because no one says "yay I love losing my rights!". Then you act as if they are hypocrites. After saying that MS's DRM was "the future of gaming"... 2) No, Steam's DRM is not even comparable to what MS was proposing (and others have offered even more reasons why). There is PLENTY of DRM people have violently opposed in the past. 3) The way they treat their customers is vastly different. People like Valve and Gaben. 4) Price makes a huge difference.

I'll give you even one more example: PSN+ now required for online play. And guess now many people care? Pretty much no one. Because they're hypocrites? No. It's because Sony isn't downright rude by charging you to play Netflix (what the heck?), get updates, etc. And PSN+ is so freaking awesome of a value. Sony has good will with their customers.

Changing topic slightly, switching back to the point of games and software. Question for those who feel MS has a good software line-up: if you were to make a karting or SSB Brawl-style game, who would you put on the roster? Could you fill anywhere near a full roster on what a fighting game would expect?

What the heck is strawman? You confused me.

And my question is flawed? Because of something that doesn't exist? Wait wut? DRM exists, and Steam is a form of it. You say Steams DRM is unobtrusive, that's opinionated. Steam locks up my machine and causes me MANY issues for just wanting to play a game. Google it, I'm hardly the only one...

Steam was violently opposed for years. And it took years for them to get to the price point they are at.

Valves customer service record is not clean, and only recently has their rapport been good, but that's also a matter of opinion.

PSN+ is "freaking awesome value". This is nothing but pure opinion. I've used PSN+ and think is pales in comparison to XBL. 2 of my favorite XBL features are Avatars and Smart Glass. PSN+ has neither.

You seem to have a grudge against Microsoft, since much of your hate against them is strongly opinionated and out of proportion. You also seem to be misinformed about XBL: There are only 2 things that require an XBL Gold Account, Multiplayer Gaming and Premium Apps. Updates, Game Sales, and pretty much every other feature is free. Plus I've never had a single ad "in my face". They are always out of the way and very small that I rarely notice them.

 

[legitnoob]

Well here is what you always have to remember you get what you pay for! Why do you think Sony started the ps+ system, bc they saw how well it worked for Microsoft. Getting content early, exclusive xbla titles such as minecraft. Brought Netflix and other apps earlier, like Sony felt so accomplished with bringing some apps to the PS4. And I was like I've had that on my Xbox for the past 3 years. Really I saw nothing revolutionary with the ps4 but I did with Microsoft, but for the most part I'm a gamer and I want a Xbox one, ps4, and a PC that will play the games I'm interested in on PC, mostly Gary's mod and gta 4 mods.

 

[Kahiel]

What the heck is strawman? You confused me.

"And that is why you fail..."

But seriously, you need to familiarize yourself with the rules of logic and logical fallacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Short answer is that you misrepresented the argument in favor of Steam by creating a false premise then attacked that premise to support your belief that Steam is the same as M$. I personally am not pleased that I have to be logged in and on line to play some of my Steam library. However, for the discount I got on those games I don't mind so much. What M$ is doing is typical of their MO and in all likelihood I won't be getting an XBone and I will have to (gulp) get a PS at some point. However, I never adopt new consoles until they've been out a while and have a good library built up. Wii U and PS for me thank you...

And my question is flawed? Because of something that doesn't exist? Wait wut? DRM exists, and Steam is a form of it. You say Steams DRM is unobtrusive, that's opinionated. Steam locks up my machine and causes me MANY issues for just wanting to play a game. Google it, I'm hardly the only one...

There you go again. Perhaps you need to read RyanB's post a little more closely.

 

[legitnoob]

Well what I think xion is trying to convey is this, since the reveal of the Xbox one most people even a few on this site has said screw Microsoft and say PC is better. But PC has also had aggressive DRM policy's too! Now what you guys are failing to see is that we had no clue on what Microsoft was gonna do with the DRM policy. We're they gonna adopt a steam style system or were they gonna just use th style the currently use just with DRM? We have no clue, so how can you be aggressively against something you don't know the outcome of. Should I be aggressively against Sony bc of the hacking issue, and now the update issue! Should we stop buying wii's and wii u's bc they are stealing money from people on YouTube who play there games and do let's plays? I'm sure that's forgivable but not DRM not a 24 hr connection, come on people! And @ Ryanb, your comparing a time in gaming where exclusives were what drove the industry, rarely were there cross platform games! Now we live in a time where that's the norm, and having more then one console to play what little exclusives there are now! I mean look at the destiny being multi-plat which used to be a Microsoft company and the new kingdom hearts game which used to be a Sony exclusive being on both systems!

 

[Dimederwin]

I have seen a couple of comments about the price difference between steam and consoles. The reason steam has low prices really is not due to the DRM it has. As mentioned by others, PC games are pretty easy to hack; even MMO games have been, the difficulty there is that the server code is not available on the PC. The reason steam prices are low is their market is digital. It is simple to create an installer and mass distribute it. It is much more difficult and costly to create physical copies. Microsoft, to my knowledge, was not getting rid of their physical copy market, it actually seemed they were doubling down on it. They were making it difficult for the indie market, which is the place where purely digital markets live.

Notice on steam, what are the games the by Tek rules you can buy(meaning they are under $20). They are all games that are older or indie. Sometimes they do have sales bring a new game under $20, but those are still a few months after the game has been released. All the AAA titles are still released at the $50-$60 dollar range, why? The reasoning is they are not allowed to sell the title for less then you could get it in a store even though the cost to create the store copy is greater.

Personally I will probably not buy a new console for a while, if I ever do. I do not play on them enough; however, if I were going to buy a new console, the reason I would probably not choose the xbox is due to the requirement of the kinect to be always connected.

 

[RyanB]

What the heck is strawman? You confused me.

A "strawman" is the name of a logical fallacy where you make up a position of someone else and then argue with it. In this case your posts and questions indicate you feel people like DRM on PC, but suddenly turn hypocrite on the XBox. This is not the case, and hence your question/reasoning is flawed because you are attempting to paint a double standard that does not exist.

And as I pointed out...you do that while praising XBox's more-intrusive DRM as "the future of gaming". Can't you see how utterly biased that sounds?

Steam was violently opposed for years. And it took years for them to get to the price point they are at.

Very few games force Steam on people to play, especially in the beginning. We're talking only Valve games here. Yet somehow it has become the de facto platform for PC games, even though the PC is an open platform where developers can publish how they wish. And gamers love it.

Valves customer service record is not clean, and only recently has their rapport been good, but that's also a matter of opinion.

Huh? What company has a "perfect record". And Valve having good rapport with their customers is about as much of an "opinion" as stating that people are unhappy with congress. You're really reaching here.

PSN+ is "freaking awesome value". This is nothing but pure opinion. I've used PSN+ and think is pales in comparison to XBL. 2 of my favorite XBL features are Avatars and Smart Glass. PSN+ has neither.

I'm not sure you understand what PSN+ is. You are referring to PSN, not PSN+. PSN, I agree, was lacking. As a (mostly) un-biased person, I'd like to point out that I've already pointed this out.

PSN+ was the service where players could opt-in for $50 a year, and boy did we get our money's worth and then some. It has seriously been the best value in gaming I've ever seen in my life. The amount of AAA PS3 and PSN titles is ridiculously good. This changes a bit with the PS4 now that you need it for online play, but I'm hoping (we'll wait and see) that the online features get better with it.

You seem to have a grudge against Microsoft, since much of your hate against them is strongly opinionated and out of proportion. You also seem to be misinformed about XBL: There are only 2 things that require an XBL Gold Account, Multiplayer Gaming and Premium Apps. Updates, Game Sales, and pretty much every other feature is free. Plus I've never had a single ad "in my face". They are always out of the way and very small that I rarely notice them.

Is that so? What have I said that seens opinionated or out of proportion?

So you can download demos on Silver membership? Use Party chat? Get in on the "deal of the week"? Also, you act like the "only 2 things" you mention are so small. Online play, I can understand - servers cost money. But charging someone for using Netflix or any other online service? That's just a money-grab.