Xbox One Catch-all

Interesting stuff in that wall of text. Haven't seen it before either.

Still I stumbled over

just simpleminded people not seeing the bigger picture

Insulting us, yeah, that will surely help your message. Wonder if people are also simpleminded for not seeing how awesome Kinect is.

>Honestly, if you care about anything other then pure games AT ALL. Xbox 1 > PS4. If all you do is play games, and nothing else, PS4.

That is not exactly helping their message either. It seems a lot of people surprisingly enough really do only care about gaming on their gaming console.
It appears Microsoft have plenty of things they could focus on if they want to convince people of their gaming qualities. "Free" dedicated servers etc. got quite the potential. Plenty of points in his very own posts they could focus much more on than they do.
It sounds more and more like they really screwed up their messaging, rather than screwing up both their messaging and the decisions.

'Getting games for the true cost on steam' is quite the joke though, considering their release prices. If it weren't for steams (relatively small) competitors, I cant imagine what Steams prices would be.
Everyone remembers Steams sales because they are indeed awesome. But Steam surely isn't a good example when it comes to new games. In that regard, they are the digital Gamestop

If we say "Hey publishers, you limit game to 39.99, we ensure every license transfer you get 10$, gamestop gets 20$" that is a decent model... Microsoft gets a license fee on first and subsequent game purchases, compared to just first now? That's a revenue increase.

Oh, well if prices will be lower on Xbox One then that's a competitive advantage!

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/Zg6tcLm.jpg)

Ah.

I'll agree that calling everyone that revolted simple-minded was insulting and unnecessary.

But there was a mass of folks aggressively not getting it, and willing to drink the Sony anti-innovation Koolaid.

I mean, how many times did that smug video of Sony VPs demonstrating sharing get posted. As Microsoft's message on sharing gets out, how absolutely Luddite looking is that?

You want cheaper prices? What about sharing games with friends across the country. If you each agree to buy a different game, you are looking st $30 a game. And you can still trade the game in.

Everybody claims that DRM isn't for the customer, but I'll take Microsoft's scheme over clinging to discs.

ColdForged wrote:
If we say "Hey publishers, you limit game to 39.99, we ensure every license transfer you get 10$, gamestop gets 20$" that is a decent model... Microsoft gets a license fee on first and subsequent game purchases, compared to just first now? That's a revenue increase.

Oh, well if prices will be lower on Xbox One then that's a competitive advantage!

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/Zg6tcLm.jpg)

Ah.

In fairness, I think it will take a while for the prices to drop and i think 60$ day one prices are the standard for all platforms. I am interested in how those prices change after launch.

SallyNasty wrote:

In fairness, I think it will take a while for the prices to drop and i think 60$ day one prices are the standard for all platforms. I am interested in how those prices change after launch.

My problem with this is we've long heard that it's piracy that keeps game prices high. "If only we had better DRM we could lower prices!" They've implemented "better" DRM (in their eyes, anyway) incrementally to where now even single-player games need to be always online -- and I'm mostly looking at SimCity here -- but the prices are still at that $60 point. Now a console manufacturer has "manned-up" and provided the DRM panacea of all titles will be protected under an umbrella of essentially always online... but we have to wait for the supposed benefits to the consumer of lower prices. Saying eventually we'll see that benefit and you should trust us on that, just get in early and it'll come. I have a hard time with that.

ColdForged wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

In fairness, I think it will take a while for the prices to drop and i think 60$ day one prices are the standard for all platforms. I am interested in how those prices change after launch.

My problem with this is we've long heard that it's piracy that keeps game prices high. "If only we had better DRM we could lower prices!" They've implemented "better" DRM (in their eyes, anyway) incrementally to where now even single-player games need to be always online -- and I'm mostly looking at SimCity here -- but the prices are still at that $60 point. Now a console manufacturer has "manned-up" and provided the DRM panacea of all titles will be protected under an umbrella of essentially always online... but we have to wait for the supposed benefits to the consumer of lower prices. Saying eventually we'll see that benefit and you should trust us on that, just get in early and it'll come. I have a hard time with that.

I think the AAA model is having a very hard time making money with the production costs right now. We're not going to see day one price drops on AAA stuff. Games are still pretty historically cheap after all.

Where you'll hopefully start seeing price pressure is that if we go digital, and don't put stuff into buckets like XBLA vs full retail, maybe that middle space will start filling with good $30-$50 titles. And like it or not, a lot of MP only stuff is moving F2P.

Then if things are digital, it also leads to easier to implement sales pricing.

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

Change is hard, but the cycle will continue. Some things succeed, but they can't succeed unless tried.
Steam is a good example, it was hated when it was young, now it's the default PC platform with insane sales and otherwise good prices.
This is just another innovation that will work or it won't, Microsoft has a lot of staying power and I'm betting in the end at least some of these seemingly lofty goals will come to fruition.

ColdForged wrote:

Now a console manufacturer has "manned-up" and provided the DRM panacea of all titles will be protected under an umbrella of essentially always online... but we have to wait for the supposed benefits to the consumer of lower prices. Saying eventually we'll see that benefit and you should trust us on that, just get in early and it'll come. I have a hard time with that.

I was about to just post "I'll believe it when I see it", but really this control gives them opportunity to show what they're really made of.

MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

Tested guys look at controller and Kinect:

*Kinect while wearing Google Glass...

MannishBoy wrote:

Tested guys look at controller and Kinect:

I like that controller and the resolution/FOV on that Kinect is delightful.

Jayhawker wrote:

You want cheaper prices? What about sharing games with friends across the country. If you each agree to buy a different game, you are looking st $30 a game. And you can still trade the game in.

The thing about the whole "10 family members share your library" deal is do we really think that MS is going to be ok with people making dummy "share" accounts you ferry around to other people and let them play your games?

I mean, provided that the whole point of this DRM is to restrict the sharing of discs and to get some profit from the used market, allowing users to do that would kind of completely destroy the whole purpose of having it in the first place.

ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

Not launching at $70 or $80.

If I could consistently buy new releases digitally, for $40-45, console companies and publishers could implement pretty much whatever DRM schemes they want for all I care.
I just can't see that happening.

ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

That and what's the incentive to drop the price below $60? Sure the profit margins are better on digital games at $60, but it's not like new game prices are magically going to drop to $40 because Gamestop's hypothetical $20 cut magically disappears once the digital conversion is complete. Especially when development costs are still going up. The smart corporations are going to take that extra $20 and stash it away (and it will appease the shareholders for the publicly traded publishers).

Maybe MS is right and giving publishers a cut of the used game sales pie will help subsidize new game prices so the launch price can come down on titles, but that seems like a big maybe right now.

ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

I assumed that was talking about that mid-tier product level possibly being viable.

Again, this is one guy, probably not in management, that we don't even know that is legit. So I wouldn't put too much weight in his opinions on why they're doing stuff.

Not that it isn't a piece of data to think about, as there are some points in there that make sense and might be even more interesting if this is the thought process within MS for sure. But I hope the internet doesn't go crazy on this stuff because it might or might not be legit.

Shadout wrote:

If I could consistently buy new releases digitally, for $40-45, console companies and publishers could implement pretty much whatever DRM schemes they want for all I care.
I just can't see that happening.

Why can't you see that happening? It happens right now on Steam. Like, all the time.

Conformist: Jayhawker was talking about paying $30/game by sharing within your "family", not about new game prices actually being $30.

This seems interesting: GameStop handing out flyers to tell customers about Xbox One’s restrictions
A note from the report:

This is rumored to be happening at select GameStop stores throughout the country but not at all yet. It could just be a local thing that a particular manager decided to do on his/her own.

Whatever the truth of it is, it seems like something significant when one of the major companies that sell a product go out of their way to do more than just sell boxes. That doesn't seem like advertising to me.

edit: Should I put some emphasis on the "rumoured" bit?

Bitching about $60 prices is a waste of time. Gamers have already proven time and time and time again that they absolutely will pay $60 for a digital release, heck, they'll pre-order it three months prior. There are some modern games that probably don't really deserve that price tag, but if you're talking about some well-anticipated release, selling for less than $60 would be stupid.

So yes, people are perfectly okay spending a lot of money. This is not a "what will people do?" question, is a "what are people already doing?" question. Well, they're already spending $60 on digital copies.

We of course are basing this off the fact that the prices would indeed lower. I think that if Microsoft could have came right out of the gate with all this information, and even perhaps a lower price point on games, the outcome would have been a different story. Everything we have now is completely speculative. IF prices do indeed hit a lower number and retained the ability to share and trade then I'm all for it, but the steam model is just so different from the counsel market, and so are the consumers to a point. I also don't see developers/publishers really wanting to make less total money with how successful DLC/Micro has been the past few years. But I will eat crow if counsels end up just like steam in a few years and buy any system that supports it.

On a separate yet related note, I never understood the fuss about dealing with disks. They're what? 4 1/2 inches in diameter, 1.2-1.5 mm thick? AND they have holders that can conveniently stack one on top of another. You can throw the case and booklet away and just keep the disks in some corner. Not a big issue if you ask me. So ya have to get in your vehicle of choice and head to the store to pick it up. If there's one thing this country needs (US) is people getting off of there butts and getting out and about. It's a win/win!

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Conformist: Jayhawker was talking about paying $30/game by sharing within your "family", not about new game prices actually being $30.

My mistake. Quote removed. Thanks man.

ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

Prices come down due to supply and demand. You won't see anything different until a new system is established and that supply and demand ratio is altered.

shoptroll wrote:
ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

That and what's the incentive to drop the price below $60?

I can easily see Microsoft and EA agreeing to drop game prices on the XB1 to $50 in order to undercut Sony. That would put pressure on other publishers, to drop prices, too.

The idea is that they could afford to go cheaper on the XB1 and still generate more revenue than than selling $60 on the PS4.

Jayhawker wrote:
ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

Prices come down due to supply and demand. You won't see anything different until a new system is established and that supply and demand ratio is altered.

I'm not well versed in economics, but with infinite supply I don't feel a supply & demand model really holds up. If there's enough demand for something, consumers will pay for it.

EDIT:

Jayhawker wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

That and what's the incentive to drop the price below $60?

I can easily see Microsoft and EA agreeing to drop game prices on the XB1 to $50 in order to undercut Sony.

That doesn't make any sense because unless EA renegotiates a different licensing deal they're going to make less money per title sold on the PS4. And if they were to try and pit one against the other, Sony could probably kill their licensing deal and block them from developing on the PS4.

Jayhawker wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

That and what's the incentive to drop the price below $60?

I can easily see Microsoft and EA agreeing to drop game prices on the XB1 to $50 in order to undercut Sony. That would put pressure on other publishers, to drop prices, too.

The idea is that they could afford to go cheaper on the XB1 and still generate more revenue than than selling $60 on the PS4.

To bring up the steam comparison again, on steam it's not Valve who set prices, it's the publishers. I'm sure MS would love to sell a boatload of games at $30/40 to get their royalties, but the publishers wouldn't be happy about that. I really don't expect prices to be different between the platforms unless MS is going to make up the difference to them. Even then, say MS subsidised a few million copies of COD, it then 'devalues' games and people start expecting lower prices, and you've got another price pressure on games bringing in less to the publishers.

MannishBoy wrote:

Tested guys look at controller and Kinect:

*Kinect while wearing Google Glass...

Evil government spy tool or not - that is some seriously amazing tech. Really looking forward to seeing how well the NUI gestures work in practice.

I also have seen some comments where the Kinect can detect the positioning of your controller and the dev cited an example of tilting your controller towards you for a "block" type move. That could be interesting, but not sure how it would work when you're "getting into" a game and you're unintentionally moving the controller to "help" you make that tricky jump.

Valmorian wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

You want cheaper prices? What about sharing games with friends across the country. If you each agree to buy a different game, you are looking st $30 a game. And you can still trade the game in.

The thing about the whole "10 family members share your library" deal is do we really think that MS is going to be ok with people making dummy "share" accounts you ferry around to other people and let them play your games?

I mean, provided that the whole point of this DRM is to restrict the sharing of discs and to get some profit from the used market, allowing users to do that would kind of completely destroy the whole purpose of having it in the first place.

http://penny-arcade.com/report/artic...

“I think the policy makes sense,” Spencer said. “It’s not ten different people all playing the game concurrently, but when you think about a real usage scenario, and we thought about it around a family, and I know certain people will create a family group of people that aren’t all part of the same family, and I do think that’s an advantage, and people will use that. I saw it on NeoGAF instantly, the Xbox Family creation threads, where people said 'Hey be a part of my family.'”

“No birth certificates will need to be sent in!” Spencer said when I asked if the service required a blood test. “I do think that’s an advantage of the ecosystem that we have.”

I don't think there will be as massive amount of family accounts. I want my account tied to my own Xbox. Sure, I can use an other login to play someone else's copy of the game, but I won't get achievements, and my real family won't have access. I am also not inclined to have just anyone tied to my account.

TexasRay wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

Tested guys look at controller and Kinect:

*Kinect while wearing Google Glass...

Evil government spy tool or not - that is some seriously amazing tech. Really looking forward to seeing how well the NUI gestures work in practice.

I also have seen some comments where the Kinect can detect the positioning of your controller and the dev cited an example of tilting your controller towards you for a "block" type move. That could be interesting, but not sure how it would work when you're "getting into" a game and you're unintentionally moving the controller to "help" you make that tricky jump.

Giant Bomb mentioned this in a podcast. One of the reporters there was able to test this out and he said I believe it was a little "jonky" and laggy like the original Kinect. Believe it was on their "Day One" podcast. This of course will hopefully improve in time.

Jayhawker wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ColdForged wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

I think assuming a blockbuster title like Watch_Dogs would ever be a budget price title day one is kind of dreaming. That game probably has hundreds of people working on it.

And I'm okay with that. But when a faceless developer is defending the platform's DRM choices by saying "because of this practice we're going to lower prices on games" when the prices on "blockbuster titles" will stay the same on your DRM-laden platform as well as the less restrictive platform, what's my win for choosing the DRM-laden route?

That and what's the incentive to drop the price below $60?

I can easily see Microsoft and EA agreeing to drop game prices on the XB1 to $50 in order to undercut Sony.

That doesn't make any sense because unless EA renegotiates a different licensing deal they're going to make less money per title sold on the PS4. And if they were to try and pit one against the other, Sony could probably kill their licensing deal and block them from developing on the PS4.[/quote]

I chose EA because they have already made clear they are in a partnership with Microsoft to make the XB1 work. Sony wont shut them out because they already saw what that did to the Dreamcast.