Cube Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 Yes. But you do not need to download the entire game before you may start playing it. Just a small portion. Also, it might be run mostly from the cloud. I don't recall hearing anything about cloud streaming for the Xbox One. For this "cloud computing", all the game assets still need to be on the console.
Jimbob Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 It sounds like it is too late for them to remove it from launch consoles, hence the need for the day 1 patch. This DRM should never have been implemented like this, but you can have a Day 1 console and not ever download the patch. Xbox One suddenly became a lot more attractive to the average gamer, but good to see the core crowd sticking their ground. I've got a feeling that the price tag is still going to hamper the sales, which is good. They deserve to get fucked for trying to pull this crap. We the people have made our stand, we shall remain true to our word (hopefully). The thing is, Microsoft had something they could have implemented correctly. Download titles could have been put under the sharing to others with an internet connection, but disks remained as they were. What they did was wrong and not what was needed. Don't get me wrong, i like the idea of sharing games. But the way Microsoft's DRM was doing it, it put me way off the idea in general
MindFreak Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I don't recall hearing anything about cloud streaming for the Xbox One. For this "cloud computing", all the game assets still need to be on the console. True, that might have been me jumping to a conclusion. Sorry. But the first part is true.
Serebii Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 This DRM should never have been implemented like this, but you can have a Day 1 console and not ever download the patch. You can, but it'd be a brick, unable to do anything.
Happenstance Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 To be fair though the Wii U had a day one patch it add big features to the console which should have already been there as well.
Serebii Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 To be fair though the Wii U had a day one patch it add big features to the console which should have already been there as well. At least the console was useable without it
Shorty Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Why now though? It would take ages to download the game at a friend's house, you'd just take the disc. Why on Earth are you defending this? Do you not like being able to buy games preowned for £10 or less? To your first point, why would it take ages? No different to getting a digital title, which is going to be sped up on both consoles so that you can start playing before it's fully downloaded. To your last point, actually I would prefer Steam Summer Sale style bargains any day, and when you do that, some money actually goes back to the developers, not just to GAME. That means more money back on their overheads, better DLC and fewer unattractive features like online passes and day one DLC.
Nolan Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) So nobody liked the idea of diskless play, or playing all your games at a friend's house? Or registering 9 people as your family and just sharing your entire collection? That's all well and good, 24 hours was too restrictive though. And hell what if your friend doesn't have a particular system...or internet? You can't even lug the system over to play at their house directly. I know I use to do that with my 360, hell used to not have Internet myself. Phone tethering is all well and good, but some don't have Smartphones, and I know I'm not going to pay the extra $30 Verizon wants for me to be allowed to share the connection. You're all much happier now that GAME can continue to rip you off with £10 in-store credit on that £40 game you bought instead of the developers getting a bit of their money back? That wouldn't have changed....I'm not sure why you think GAME would suddenly pay more for used games? Well, maybe because the license was only transferable once, but I doubt they would. What would happen is any small chain mom and pop stores that survive on used sales likely would lose support. Everyone hated Steam when it first launched because of the DRM, but now it's all SUMMER SALE and PC Master Race and Gaben Gaben Gaben... We could've had that Summer Sale with XBLA games.... Steam had growing pains, same as MS would have, but even on 56K I could use Steam. Can't use a Xbone without 1.5Mbps, well recommended. I'm sure 768Kbps would work just have some sketchy features. I always doubt we'd see equivalent sales. We can already see equivalent sales is MS was truly serious about cheaper games. There is no reason that current XBL and XBLA titles can't enjoy the same level of discounts as Steam...or even PSN, let alone PSN+. This sums it up well, they would've actually been better officially stating something along these lines http://pastebin.com/uCmdh9jB (pastebin from frustrated employee) I'm not a moron so I don't believe that always on is anything but waiting for an "on" command or that Microsoft wants to watch me play Halo and eat pizza. That looks like the same "Engineer" stuff that was quoted in full earlier in the thread. I responded to it's silliness once. Nice to know that we in the US are Morons for thinking that MS, a company already outed as happily giving info to the NSA, a company with patents that will allow Kinect to stop playback if there are too many viewers, is only planning on using Kinect for games, and saying "Xbox on". Of note to people saying sharing has been killed oh woe is us....http://www.bluesnews.com/s/142637/steam-game-sharing-planned Steam might be implementing sharing judging by some beta code. EDIT: http://www.destructoid.com/an-industry-that-needs-xbox-one-drm-is-a-failed-industry-256643.phtml I like Jim Sterling Edited June 20, 2013 by Nolan Because I can.
Cube Posted June 20, 2013 Author Posted June 20, 2013 To your last point, actually I would prefer Steam Summer Sale style bargains any day, and when you do that, some money actually goes back to the developers, not just to GAME. That means more money back on their overheads, better DLC and fewer unattractive features like online passes and day one DLC. And what's stopping them from doing that with a normal digital store?
Sheikah Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) To your first point, why would it take ages? No different to getting a digital title, which is going to be sped up on both consoles so that you can start playing before it's fully downloaded. To your last point, actually I would prefer Steam Summer Sale style bargains any day, and when you do that, some money actually goes back to the developers, not just to GAME. That means more money back on their overheads, better DLC and fewer unattractive features like online passes and day one DLC. The play while downloading thing will be really bad. We're talking 20GB+ here to a nation where you're lucky to have 5Mb speeds. I'd be lucky to download that in a day on my current connection, I could easily see myself outplaying the game download. The difference between this and current digital software is that you don't already have the digital software when you start downloading it. If you already have the disc, you'd be mental to rely on a friend's internet connection unless it was superchanged. Carrying a disc is hardly an inconvenience and I don't really see any victory for eliminating the need with a we're-so-not-ready-for-this alternative. And what's stopping them from doing that with a normal digital store? Nothing. They could do all these plans anyway. The fact they haven't so far makes it seem unlikely they have any intention of doing so. Edited June 20, 2013 by Sheikah
Shorty Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 They can't afford such sales at the moment, the same as Steam couldn't when it launched. Right now used game sales damage the first-hand sales too much for them to be able to afford sales which produce such tiny profit margins. I'm not saying it would've happened, only that it was a possibility - and now it isn't.
Nolan Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 They can't afford such sales at the moment, the same as Steam couldn't when it launched. Right now used game sales damage the first-hand sales too much for them to be able to afford sales which produce such tiny profit margins. I'm not saying it would've happened, only that it was a possibility - and now it isn't. I find it hard to believe used games are so damaging... If a game only sells 2,000,000 at $60 a copy (and yes that many new copies do get moved) that's $120,000,000. I just don't think that budgets truly run that high on average. Maybe I'm delusional about marketing costs. Games that are raking in near to that amount shouldn't be considered failures, and the publishers shouldn't be trying to push that blame on to us. They should be reevaluating their spending. Big publishers right now remind me a lot of the US government, just keep throwing money around and complain that you're losing money. Seriously ~$480,000,000 between 3 titles splitting 8 million sales...failures RE6, 5 milllion sold ($300,000,000) Failure RE5 has sold 6 million.... Dead Space 3 needs to sell 5 million to be a series worth continuing Used games are just a scapegoat for unrealistic expectations and unchecked spending. Lets not forget that these numbers don't include sales made on steam, last I knew those didn't get released.
Sheikah Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) They can't afford such sales at the moment, the same as Steam couldn't when it launched. Right now used game sales damage the first-hand sales too much for them to be able to afford sales which produce such tiny profit margins. I'm not saying it would've happened, only that it was a possibility - and now it isn't. Digital games have been done for ages on the 360, why can't they have been sold cheap like Steam? They can't be sold on either. That argument doesn't make sense because Steam sell games cheaper than preowned games, so if the 360 did the same it would undercut preowned games (and they would therefore be no threat). The kind of money Steam sells their games for makes them so attractive that people impulse buy them online. 360 could do the same. Edited June 20, 2013 by Sheikah
Ashley Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) I did have a thought (that may not be plausible, but it was a passing thought); Microsoft has been saying for the last few weeks "the 24 hour check in is very small data", so why not offer some kind of 3G attachment that would circumvent the need for an actual internet connection (I know there will still be issues in more remote places)? If it is just a small amount of data going through, they could sell it for cheap and take the burden of any additional costs. But there may be 100s of reasons why that wouldn't work. Or perhaps some kind of 'holiday period'. You could tell Xbox (literally...) that you're going to be internetless for x period of time and download your games temporarily, circumventing the need for an Internet connection. (not sure why I'm all about "circumventing" right now) Edited June 20, 2013 by Ashley
Nolan Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Built in 3G specifically just for authentication would be great. Knowing MS it would not be cheap though, (Anyone remember the Wifi adapter....).
Dcubed Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I find it hard to believe used games are so damaging... If a game only sells 2,000,000 at $60 a copy (and yes that many new copies do get moved) that's $120,000,000. I just don't think that budgets truly run that high on average. Maybe I'm delusional about marketing costs. Games that are raking in near to that amount shouldn't be considered failures, and the publishers shouldn't be trying to push that blame on to us. They should be reevaluating their spending. Big publishers right now remind me a lot of the US government, just keep throwing money around and complain that you're losing money. Seriously ~$480,000,000 between 3 titles splitting 8 million sales...failures RE6, 5 milllion sold ($300,000,000) Failure RE5 has sold 6 million.... Dead Space 3 needs to sell 5 million to be a series worth continuing Used games are just a scapegoat for unrealistic expectations and unchecked spending. Lets not forget that these numbers don't include sales made on steam, last I knew those didn't get released. The publisher only earns about $37 per copy for a $60 retail game, so you can chop down that revenue figure by about half. But yes, it is a pure scapegoat that is being used to justify these ludicrous game & marketing budgets. Used game sales are a huge force that actually subsidises the cost of new games for a large chunk of the industry's audience. Who the hell would buy Fifa 13, without knowing that they can trade it in for Fifa 14 when it comes about?
Nolan Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 The publisher only earns about $37 per copy for a $60 retail game, so you can chop down that revenue figure by about half. But yes, it is a pure scapegoat that is being used to justify these ludicrous game & marketing budgets. Used game sales are a huge force that actually subsidises the cost of new games for a large chunk of the industry's audience. Who the hell would buy Fifa 13, without knowing that they can trade it in for Fifa 14 when it comes about? So closer to 2/3rds. I'm curious where you get the $37 figure. I've never seen anything concrete and have been led to believe it was a higher figure (though still obviously not the full 60). Honestly that's another reason stores like having Used games, the stores don't make much profit off of initial sales.
Debug Mode Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 So it would seem that after yesterday's announcement, the Xbox One has soared to the top of Amazon US's video game sellers chart and second place on the UK site after The Last of Us. Shit. Gamers are such a fickle bunch of clowns.
Nolan Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Gamers aren't terribly bright is what I'd go with...but at least they did speak with their wallets successfully for once.
Dcubed Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Gamers aren't terribly bright is what I'd go with...but at least they did speak with their wallets successfully for once. Sadly so. It's disgusting just how many of them are only too happy to jump right back in bed with the company that tried to rape them just a scant week ago. The core "gamer" audience are largely pretty stupid, so it isn't that surprising to see. I still reckon that PS4 will win the generation by a good margin, but it seems that Xbone will not be the typical failure that a 3rd console usually turns out to be any more now (and in a few years time, when everyone has forgotten what they did last week... that DRM will be back and there will be nothing that they can do about it...)
Shorty Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 If a game only sells 2,000,000 at $60 a copy (and yes that many new copies do get moved) that's $120,000,000. I just don't think that budgets truly run that high on average. Maybe I'm delusional about marketing costs. Publishers are not going to get all that back... what about sales and distribution And I think you underestimate how much it costs to pay all your team, CEOs, overheads and contractors not only bonuses and contracts for the game they just launched but also wages for the next title for however many years that takes. Credits at the end of games these days are hundreds of names long, and they're not minimum wage positions. So it would seem that after yesterday's announcement, the Xbox One has soared to the top of Amazon US's video game sellers chart and second place on the UK site after The Last of Us. Shit. Gamers are such a fickle bunch of clowns. This is so confusing to me... surely what has happened is exactly what should have happened? People didn't like the DRM, so they didn't pre-order. Microsoft gets the message and reverses their policy, now gamers do pre-order. How is this fickle? What would you have expected/how would it have worked out better?
Sheikah Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Microsoft can re-implement the DRM measures though. We know what MS want to do now, I think it'd be pretty unwise to invest in a more expensive console where they consider these policies to be acceptable, only backing down if the public has a backlash. It shouldn't be like that; they should listen to the public in the first place.
S.C.G Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I'm still not buying one at launch on principle... In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that I won't need one once I have a PS4 as Microsoft will have to pull some pretty damn good exclusives out of the bag for me to even consider it and that would only be when the stupidly high price of the console drops to match that of the PS4. 'Kinect two-point-oh!' should not justify an extra £100 not when they are practically giving away the current model.
Serebii Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 I'm still not buying one at launch on principle... In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that I won't need one once I have a PS4 as Microsoft will have to pull some pretty damn good exclusives out of the bag for me to even consider it and that would only be when the stupidly high price of the console drops to match that of the PS4. 'Kinect two-point-oh!' should not justify an extra £100 not when they are practically giving away the current model. I'm pretty much the same. While I'll miss the Halo series, even though it has got worse since 343 took over, it'll take a lot to convince me to get the Xbox One. It's more expensive, less powerful, and almost all the games I'd likely get for it will be on the PS4 anyway. That and the fact Microsoft wants to screw people who buy it, and that their last console had a 60% failure rate for a long time before they even accepted there was a fault, makes me hesitant to buy one.
Recommended Posts