Microsoft backtracks on DRM and used games

[Coreldan]

If you want to see what people are saying about Xbox ONE outside this forum, look no farther than the comments on this yahoo article

Microsoft reverses position on Xbox One Internet, game sharing

I really hope Xbox One end up the same route as Win 8

Looking at adoption rate and taking a few other things into consideration, Windows 8 is doing just fine and after the usual OEM PC life cycle (about 2 years), you will see Windows 8 be adopted a lot faster too. But yes, I hope that Xbox One will be succesful too

 

[Jeff Merritt1]

The only negative I saw was the 24 hour check-in. It would **** me off not to be able to take my X1 somewhere and not be able to use it due to no check-in. All the other stuff...kind of wish it would happen. There still has to be a way to appease everyone. We shall see, I guess.

 

[Jeff Merritt1]

Way to go pansies! Now I have to continue to lug my discs around when I leave town. Was so excited about sending ALL my games into the cloud so if I choose to take my X1 with me, I wouldn't have to cary discs.

Oooh, change, please, don't make me change! I can't stand having to be connected to the internet once a day!

A few stupid idiots ruined the future of gaming, god I hate having discs taking up physical space, heaven forbid they take away the ability to show all my friends just how many games I have by getting rid of discs!

Its time to get with the future of gaming. You want to keep your discs, go back to Sega Dreamcast ya stupes!

Unless I'm incorrect you can still digitally download the games and still play them...maybe I'm wrong?

 

[martinmc78]

If you want to see what people are saying about Xbox ONE outside this forum, look no farther than the comments on this yahoo article

Microsoft reverses position on Xbox One Internet, game sharing

I really hope Xbox One end up the same route as Win 8

Theres no need to look - all those comments - and comments on every other site are all saying the same - its still the same bunch of people that complained about drm that were never going to buy an xbox one anyway - now they all want the Kinect gone and a price drop. Its still the same BS that caused the drm reversal in the first place.

Ms could come out tomorrow and say were giving the consoles away for $1 - those same trolls would still find fault with something and find a reason to comment saying they are getting a PS4 - F*ck em all.

 

[absonj]

You still have the option to purchase your games digitally. That will address your complaints.

I don't believe that would be 'all' the games available. Why would the creator or producer of the game go through the process of creating it in both formats? I understand that its digital (most likely) first, and then they stamp it onto a disc, but why? Wouldn't they get more profit if they skip the disc and only offer it digitally?

For example, Borderlands 2 I think isn't available for digital for the xbox, just the PC. So again, I gotta lug the dang disc around if I choose to want to play it away from home. IF the X1 is going to provide all thier disc based games as a digital download, then yes, I will be happy. But I don't see that happening now that the bitchers got thier way.

 

[Coreldan]

I don't believe that would be 'all' the games available. Why would the creator or producer of the game go through the process of creating it in both formats? I understand that its digital (most likely) first, and then they stamp it onto a disc, but why? Wouldn't they get more profit if they skip the disc and only offer it digitally?

For example, Borderlands 2 I think isn't available for digital for the xbox, just the PC. So again, I gotta lug the dang disc around if I choose to want to play it away from home. IF the X1 is going to provide all thier disc based games as a digital download, then yes, I will be happy. But I don't see that happening now that the bitchers got thier way.

Most new games at least on PC are available ?n both formats, so I'm pretty sure there's market and point to doing both. Personally I prefer digital download when possible, but I know many who prefer to have physical copies for various reasons.

 

[Jeff Merritt1]

Theres no need to look - all those comments - and comments on every other site are all saying the same - its still the same bunch of people that complained about drm that were never going to buy an xbox one anyway - now they all want the Kinect gone and a price drop. Its still the same BS that caused the drm reversal in the first place.

Ms could come out tomorrow and say were giving the consoles away for $1 - those same trolls would still find fault with something and find a reason to comment saying they are getting a PS4 - F*ck em all.

Yep. It's a shame really. I will pay the premium price to get a premium system. It does not bother me at all. I have read wayyyy too many posts about E3, X1 and the DRM...the bias is certainly not in favor of MS. It still is kind of funny when Gamestop has already stopped taken in-store pre-orders for X1, so I guess not too many people were that upset. It's also a shame because what should have been heralded as advancing gaming and technology got squashed by hack internet "journalists". Sites that are notoriously pro-Sony and anti MS. Ohwell, at the end of the day I will be playing my X1 on Thanksgiving!

 

[vertigoOne]

Major Nelson has been listening to feedback since this announcement. He understands some still would like the features just removed. So hopefully they'll visit that and it sounds like they will talk about it.
The only issue I see is this. People who opt for the DRM and stuff, if they could play a game without putting their disc in, they could lend it to someone who plays offline. So I don't know how they could deal with and solve that problem. Unless they had it where you only can have those features if you do digital download only. It'd be nice if there was a way you could still buy a disc and have the features but again, how could they do it?

Require anyone wanting to play from your shared library to be connected to Live in order to play a shared game. There are ways it could work, but the problem with this is that there is no longer any incentive for the publishers to allow sharing to happen at all.

Why? Piracy and used games are now open season for pirates, used game shops and rental services to leech off or the developers/publishers invested time and money on the Xbox One now. Cliffy B hit the nail on the head...if you thought the DLC situation was bad in this current generation, just wait. I see publishers going completely free-to-play and/or ad supported in reaction to this, and you will have to buy content for every game just to play it in any form other than as a demo.

 

[Musicman247]

The only negative I saw was the 24 hour check-in. It would **** me off not to be able to take my X1 somewhere and not be able to use it due to no check-in. All the other stuff...kind of wish it would happen. There still has to be a way to appease everyone. We shall see, I guess.

Sorry, but that's stupid. You won't buy a console because of a week of vacation you take? That's like not buying a phone because it won't have service when you're in the deep woods. Come on, man. Get real.

I don't believe that would be 'all' the games available. Why would the creator or producer of the game go through the process of creating it in both formats? I understand that its digital (most likely) first, and then they stamp it onto a disc, but why? Wouldn't they get more profit if they skip the disc and only offer it digitally?

The only thing MS has backtracked on is the DRM requirements and the features that directly corresponded to that check-in. Day and date digital downloads were already promised with every game, and I see no reason why that should go away.

 

[theeboredone]

Why do some of you guys keep saying it's the end of Cloud? It's almost like you didn't read the statement...similar to those who didn't understand the DRM issues?

In regards to that Don Mattrick picture/letter, why does everyone assume they trade their games to GS? I bought Last of Us for 60, but will probably be selling it back on Craig's List for 30-40 if I don't plan on keeping it.

I do understand his frustration. After all, other industries have ways to increase revenue after the initial product is released.

Films and television shows have DVD sales, syndication royalties, and broadcast rights.

Record labels have concerts, royalties, licensing and radio.

In comparison, video games basically have jack squat.

I'm no fan of DRM but there is a problem when a game can sell almost four million copies and the publisher still has to lay off half the staff. I'm not saying that Microsoft had the perfect solution but something's gotta give.

No offense, but maybe they shouldn't be making such big budgeted games in the first place if their sales forecast is that high? And I agree with that dude in the comments. If you conservatively make 20 dollars off per new game sold...and Hitman sold 3.6 million, that's a lot of money.

 

[Musicman247]

No offense, but maybe they shouldn't be making such big budgeted games in the first place if their sales forecast is that high?

Right, because everyone is just waiting for the next low-res silent, text-based next-gen game....

 

[HeyCori]

Microsoft's cloud computing 'vision' for Xbox One remains unchanged | Joystiq

Though Microsoft has changed its stance on the digital rights management-based requirements for the Xbox One, the company remains committed to cloud computing.

"Our vision around Xbox One and what you can do because of the power of both the architecture of the console, and also the cloud and the Xbox Live service, remains unchanged," Xbox Chief Product Officer Marc Whitten told Joystiq.

When asked why Microsoft would not simply offer an offline mode akin to the one featured on Steam, Whitten said "that's absolutely" what Microsoft is doing.

Whitten listed a host of examples of how cloud computing still exists as part of the Xbox One plan, noting players will "see great games like Titanfall take advantage of the cloud processing power" as well as have the ability to get games from the online marketplace and use them on any console.

"We're going to continue to really invest in how those experiences work," Whitten added.

During E3 2013, Fairfax "Mackey" McCandlish, lead designer on the always-online Titanfall, told Joystiq that cloud computing on the Xbox One allows Respawn to "spin off dedicated servers" whenever it wants. "Instead of having everything prepared ahead of time, or misallocate different areas, or have some places be too slow or too much, we can just say 'cloud, find us the right number of computers,'" he added.

 

[theeboredone]

Right, because everyone is just waiting for the next low-res silent, text-based next-gen game....

That's not my point. You think Indie studios are spending Triple A budgets on making their games? It's not always about explosions and getting graphics down to the grain. One only has to look at games like Walking Dead or Journey to see how successful studios can be. Both games were candidates for GOTY, and Journey actually broke the PSN sales record as well.

And I like how you ignored the rest of my post. Let's have you read this again. Instead of 20, let's say each new game profits 10 dollars. 3.6 million sold x 10 = 36 million revenue. If Uncharted 2 took 20 million to make, we can assume Hitman had a similar budget. Let's say 10 million is put into marketing/publisher you are left with 6 million to split between developers, which is more than enough.

Square Enix had stupid sales goals for Tomb Raider as well, even though IMO it sold really well. EA thought Dead Space 3 would sell 5 million. Resident Evil 6 sold 5 million instead of 7 million. Maybe these companies need to reconsider what is to be expected. Not every game is Halo, Call of Duty, or Madden.

Dark Souls was a very big and possibly "expensive" game to make. Yet it only sold 2.5 million. No one is deeming that a failure? In fact, they are already making a sequel for it. There you go.

 

[Robert Carpenter]

That's not my point. You think Indie studios are spending Triple A budgets on making their games? It's not always about explosions and getting graphics down to the grain. One only has to look at games like Walking Dead or Journey to see how successful studios can be. Both games were candidates for GOTY, and Journey actually broke the PSN sales record as well.

And I like how you ignored the rest of my post. Let's have you read this again. Instead of 20, let's say each new game profits 10 dollars. 3.6 million sold x 10 = 36 million revenue. If Uncharted 2 took 20 million to make, we can assume Hitman had a similar budget. Let's say 10 million is put into marketing/publisher you are left with 6 million to split between developers, which is more than enough.

Square Enix had stupid sales goals for Tomb Raider as well, even though IMO it sold really well. EA thought Dead Space 3 would sell 5 million. Resident Evil 6 sold 5 million instead of 7 million. Maybe these companies need to reconsider what is to be expected. Not every game is Halo, Call of Duty, or Madden.

Dark Souls was a very big and possibly "expensive" game to make. Yet it only sold 2.5 million. No one is deeming that a failure? In fact, they are already making a sequel for it. There you go.

6 million to split between developers?

You do realize that most of these high-end AAA games have up to 500-1,000 developers right? These games also take 1-2 years to make. Most of these developers are getting paid around 100,000 a year. That means it can cost up to $100,000,000 for a AAA title just for development costs alone....

 

[Pepe D Vegas]

If it cost 100 million per game im sure we would have 3 games for the life cycle of a console.

 

[Coreldan]

6 million to split between developers?

You do realize that most of these high-end AAA games have up to 500-1,000 developers right? These games also take 1-2 years to make. Most of these developers are getting paid around 100,000 a year. That means it can cost up to $100,000,000 for a AAA title just for development costs alone....

I would say you exaggerate the amount of the devs on a triple-A game. I know that APB had a budget of 100 million, which is like top 5 in the history of gaming and they had about 200 people working on the game. While one can say that the game failed miserably, that was definitely not cos of not enough staff (but bad management for one). In fact, the studio was considered pretty big as far as I can tell for just one game.

 

[Robert Carpenter]

I would say you exaggerate the amount of the devs on a triple-A game. I know that APB had a budget of 100 million, which is like top 5 in the history of gaming and they had about 200 people working on the game. While one can say that the game failed miserably, that was definitely not cos of not enough staff (but bad management for one). In fact, the studio was considered pretty big as far as I can tell for just one game.

Like I said, in most cases. Call of Duty definitely has numbers towards 1,000.

Also, that statistic for the number of developers was straight from the mouth of Cliffy B. While I have never worked on a AAA title myself, I think Cliffy B has enough credibility to make his statement true.

 

[Coreldan]

But I do feel that it's not exactly a fair comparison to compare CoD to "other triple-A games". At least to say CoD would be anywhere near "most cases". It's like comparing WoW to other MMORPGs in a way. These are exceptions, not the rules. There's only really a handful of those titles that can boast anywhere near the kind of numbers that fe. CoD does, but it doesnt mean that IPs out of that handful bunch wouldn't be triple-A games (it's a terrible term anyways).

I'd still think that the average triple-A game still has a staff much closer to 200 than 1000. But like you, I havnt worked on such titles and it's mostly just assumptions.

 

[Musicman247]

If it cost 100 million per game im sure we would have 3 games for the life cycle of a console.

That sounds about right, actually. Bethesda made Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim for the 360.

 

[theeboredone]

6 million to split between developers?

You do realize that most of these high-end AAA games have up to 500-1,000 developers right? These games also take 1-2 years to make. Most of these developers are getting paid around 100,000 a year. That means it can cost up to $100,000,000 for a AAA title just for development costs alone....

Uncharted 2 had 85 people working, while also using independent contractors for who knows what. Same time, Ubisoft had 500 people work on AC2. So it does depend on the business model and you're approach so to speak. Also, mind you, I did use some extreme conservative numbers. We all know GameStop doesn't make much of anything off of new games, and their main revenue comes from used games. Best Buy's cost per game is 50 dollars, and then make a profit by selling it for 60 dollars. So once again, assuming a game company makes 10 dollars per game sold is some really conservative numbers.

It all comes down to your business model, and like I said...some of these companies expect stupidly high expectations. Sometimes because they put a lot of money in development, marketing, or something else entirely. You don't need a AAA game to sell millions. There are plenty of indie or "B" games that can attest to that.