Go back to previous topic
Forum nameHigh-Tech
Topic subjectI don't think you read my post.
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=281531&mesg_id=281698
281698, I don't think you read my post.
Posted by wallysmith, Thu Apr-11-13 02:57 PM
>RE: dude, pretty sure X-COM sold okay via DRM heavy Steam...

I directly addressed DRM heavy Steam; people HATED it in the beginning until they offered services and a platform with features that people actually wanted. I also mentioned how DRM is likely to exist in some form for games forever, since it's a much more complex media.

Now, I never said that MS would never be able to do the same thing. But forcing it upon the **console** in an environment that doesn't fully support it (uneven) broadband penetration in the U.S. is a poor **business** decision. This is exacerbated by MS' poor handling with XBL in general; why is it that it offers next to nothing compared to PS+? Why do they still hide free apps like Netflix behind a paywall?

>also, digital distribution > brick + mortar

Yeah, of course. I've been all over this board extolling the virtues of the affordability of PC gaming, in large part due to the savvy pricing that Steam's been pushing for years now (that Gamefly, Amazon, GreenMan, Origin, etc. have all jumped on board with).

My whole point in talking about digital distribution is that it's a viable alternative to combat both piracy AND the used game market... WITHOUT requiring always on DRM.

>also, regardless of what game manufacturers say publicly, each
>and every one is interested in getting a cut of the $2B/yr in
>business Gamestop does in used sales

Absolutely. Like in the links I posted above with developers quotes, an aggressive pricing strategy is the proper way to combat both piracy AND the used game market, NOT always on DRM (which will absolutely get hacked anyways).

>also, like rjcc says this is all pointless speculation at this
>point -- I mean you're really saying an online only console
>would feature no digital sales simply because MS hasn't done
>it until recently? okay, player, never mind the mountains of
>precedence we have that digital distribution leads to the
>ability to have more dynamic price points...

You misread me; that's not what I said at all. Again, proper digital distribution is the way to combat both piracy and the used game market without requiring restrictive DRM.

Absolutely an always on console will feature digital sales... the thing is, you can feature digital sales WITHOUT an always on console (which is what Sony already confirmed with PS4).

The problem with "always on" is that not everyone is always on (which was the point of the Polygon link that rjcc dismissed without reading). Weather, outages, regional monopolies, etc. all affect consistent broadband access. By cutting out those people without consistent broadband access, that's potentially missing out on sales. Again, bad business decision.

Let me put it another way... when has "always on" DRM ever been a ***benefit*** for the consumer? I honestly can't think of a SINGLE instance where it's been warmly received.

If a game has online features, great, it'll benefit those people who can get online. If a game is single player focused, great, it'll benefit those people who cannot get online. But if there's a single player focused game with "always on DRM", you're automatically cutting out those consumers who don't have a consistent connection. Just look at the backlash from recent games like Diablo 3 and Sim City (and note that Diablo 3 for PS4 will NOT require players to be always on).

>and one of the big reasons digital distribution on XBL has not
>been dynamically priced is because they didn't want to court
>the ire of Gamestop, who wouldn't like digital distribution
>sales undercutting their price. but it appears that Microsoft
>sees a future without Gamestop at this point, so it's less of
>a concern putting Games on Demand on sale for less than what
>brick + mortar retailers are charging.

Why would they care about Gamestop specifically? This hasn't stopped Sony from giving away free games, so why would Microsoft care?

>but seriously, rjcc couldn't be more correct that having
>strong opinions on this one way or the other is just silly in
>the total vacuum of concrete details about the product.

Right, and I've acknowledged this several times in our exchange already. Just like my (positive) opinion on PS4's great online features can change if their execution or implementation is shitty, why can't my (negative) opinion on Xbox's DRM change if their execution or implementation is great?

This is a message board where people discuss future news all the time, whether or not it's substantiated. Why am I getting blasted for having an opinion on some future news on this one product but not for others?