**XBOX ONE** Official Thread

cu3ed said:
Seeing as crying and moaning can change a policy like this....is their a way we can get rid of Reddit?
Click to expand...

While moaning certainly helped I'd say the reversal is more down to poor pre-order numbers.

*Edit - I think the reversal is a good thing tbh. I'm still sticking with my PS4 pre order but I will now certainly pick one up down the line when the price has dropped.
 
Last edited:
Gears of War designer and former Epic Games man Cliff Bleszinski has said it was Sony - and not "the internet whining" - that pushed Microsoft to withdraw its strict Xbox One used game DRM policies.

Microsoft today announced the complete withdrawal of the Xbox One's controversial used game restrictions and internet requirement for online license checks once every 24 hours - policies which Bleszinski bullishly defended on multiple occasions.

The platform holder said the changes came "as a result of feedback from the Xbox community," handing vocal internet communities a victory of sorts in their backlash against the corporation's original plans. But Bleszinski says it was Sony's largely DRM-free PS4 - and not the voice of the community - which forced Microsoft into the policy changes.

"Sony forced Microsoft's hand, not the internet whining," said Bleszinski via Twitter.

The designer also commented, "At the end of the day many hardcore dislike what was attempted. You can't do well in that space with many of your core unhappy. Especially when users have a choice. The nature of capitalism encourages competition and Sony played into that."

The original DRM proposals would have brought with them the infrastructure for Microsoft to channel some of the money made from used game sales back to publishers. But with that prospect now seemingly gone, Bleszinski believes publishers will only accelerate their efforts to maximize profits using DLC, micro transactions and "tacked on multiplayer".

"Brace yourselves. More tacked on multiplayer and DLC are coming," he said. "You're also about to see available microtransactions skyrocket.

"You're going to see digital versions of your favorite games with added 'features' and content to lure you to digital over disc based. 'Do whatever it takes to keep that disc in that tray' is the mantra of developers in a disc based world," Bleszinski went on.

"I want *developers* who worked their asses off to see money on every copy of their game that is sold instead of Gamestop. **** me, right?" he commented.
Click to expand...

See I dont get this, what seen of entitlement do developers (ergo publishers) have that they need to ensure those revenue stream before theyll start investing in quality games?

Surely it should be more the cause, make quality games, advertise them properly and gamers will vote with their wallets. What else do they expect us to do, throw money at them in faith theyll start making good video games or reward them when they do?

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
To me DRM is the way forward. Look at PC gaming. Games bought online and no physical copy are much cheaper.

If someone said to you. You can buy a game on disc that you can trade privately but its going to cost you £50/$50.
OR
You can buy a game online (no disc) for £30/$30 but you cant sell this game.

Which would you choose?

I know I would choose the second option. This is what MS were aiming to do. Maybe not the within the first year of the console been released but the year after that.

Now this has changed and will never happen I guess. Means we all have to pay way over the top for games and complain that at the cost.
 
Its kind of disappointing the uturned so quickly I wanted to see how things would turn out, but not surprising really.

They really dont know what they are doing, they went further back than they needed to. Its probably still not enough to convince most gamers now though. There plans for the Xbox cant have been that profound then.
 
BD10NNF said:
To me DRM is the way forward. Look at PC gaming. Games bought online and no physical copy are much cheaper.

If someone said to you. You can buy a game on disc that you can trade privately but its going to cost you £50/$50.
OR
You can buy a game online (no disc) for £30/$30 but you cant sell this game.

Which would you choose?

I know I would choose the second option. This is what MS were aiming to do. Maybe not the within the first year of the console been released but the year after that.

Now this has changed and will never happen I guess. Means we all have to pay way over the top for games and complain that at the cost.
Click to expand...
Ill choose the one where I can buy the game for £30/$30 and that I can trade privately. I dont understand why I couldnt do that...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
It's the only thing they could do to prevent a complete decimation next generation, I wouldn't be surprised if these features gradually creep in once a few consoles are sold.
 
Calabi said:
Its kind of disappointing the uturned so quickly I wanted to see how things would turn out, but not surprising really.

They really dont know what they are doing, they went further back than they needed to. Its probably still not enough to convince most gamers now though. There plans for the Xbox cant have been that profound then.
Click to expand...

Yep, they messed up now and a lot of gamers will not change their mind. They still have time to pull something out of the bag yet. Though I doubt it, be lucky if they sell anywhere near as much as PS4. I can vision it now, walking into a shop with sold out PS4s everywhere and shelves and shelves full of xbox 1s.

Poor show from MS really.
 
I'm surprised Microsoft have done this because they know it's not going to solve the main consumer issues. They've partially solved issues for a minority. Maybe it was easy for them to do, maybe it's a different tac.

Fact is, the key barriers to pre-order success still stand. Price being the biggest. Then value for money is what people want, and when they discover that as a base layer the PS4 is cheaper and more powerful it's already the consumer favourite. Expect Microsoft's marketing campaign to obfuscate this discovery, most likely by justifying the price difference as Kinect's inclusion.

Will we ever actually see the difference in hardware? Multi plats, maybe. Even then I would liken it to a PC and going from High to Very High in image quality, sure you get a few more leaves blowing around on the ground and textures are marginally sharper, but for the casual user it's identical. Exclusives, probably, but all of the exclusive developers are very good at pushing their platforms. All you'll be able to say is MGS, Forza, Uncharted, GT, Halo are all going to look great on the next gen.

And if they want me to buy digital games then they will need to allow pre-loading, which from their statement doesn't sound like it's on their launch feature list.
 
ps3ud0 said:
Ill choose the one where I can buy the game for £30/$30 and that I can trade privately. I dont understand why I couldnt do that...

ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...


This wouldn't happen though as things stand. You can't do that because the devs don't make any money ion you selling it.

I give you this. If you bought a game £30/$30 and you could trade but it cost you say 25% to trade that game. Would you still do it. Most people wouldn't. As this is what MS were trying to say. I know the games cost more but the % would be less.


PC gamers don't complain about not trading their games and don't complain about the prices. Granted that they have to wait for some games but if the xbox and ps move the same way. All gamers will be happy apart from those who want to buy 2nd hand.


I'm not defending MS are their stupid logic but this is how they see it. Plus a have a few PC gamers who have explained a few things to me.
 
BD10NNF said:
To me DRM is the way forward. Look at PC gaming. Games bought online and no physical copy are much cheaper.

If someone said to you. You can buy a game on disc that you can trade privately but its going to cost you £50/$50.
OR
You can buy a game online (no disc) for £30/$30 but you cant sell this game.

Which would you choose?

I know I would choose the second option. This is what MS were aiming to do. Maybe not the within the first year of the console been released but the year after that.

Now this has changed and will never happen I guess. Means we all have to pay way over the top for games and complain that at the cost.
Click to expand...

The problem is prices will not drop if games are online only. They will stick at RRP and that's that.

Want a 5 year old game? That will be £49.99.

The reason steam is so great is because prices are so low. If all games cost £40-50 no one would use it.

Plus you don't have to use steam to game on your PC. You can buy from a plethora of different companies all who have differing prices.

Plus games on physical media prices drop 6 months after release anyway.
 
sUhenuw.jpg

This would actually make me consider a XBox 180.
 
When PC games came out 10 - 15 years ago. What were the prices? I'm pretty sure they were about £35-£40. Im pretty sure that PS2 games were about £40-£45 at the same time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom