JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

9/23/2013 5:40:55 PM
7
uh........that does not sound good to me at all.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • 1
    Pretty funny how many people still think the original policies were steam-like. Brand loyalty is a weird thing.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • How weren't they steam like?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by nao: 9/25/2013 3:03:56 AM
    1
    Does steam have a 24 hour check in? I believe you can play single player games offline on steam. Do you honestly think there would be steam-esque sales from Microsoft of all companies? Do I seriously have to go down the list for you on this? Its pretty common knowledge in the gaming world. If it was a console version of steam everybody would love it. Why do think EVERYONE and their kid hated the policies? Because we're afraid of the future? Please don't be that willfully ignorant.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I perfectly understand why people hated the policies and that's fine that they did. But it was Steam like the reason why Steam allows you to play offline, and why there isn't some form of check-in, is because all sales are final and you can't return/trade your games in any way shape or form, once you buy a game you're stuck with it. There have been some special circumstances, but as it stands right now, you have no real freedom with your Steam games. While you have more freedom on when/how you play your games, you don't get very much freedom in what you do with your games. The Xbox One was the opposite. The Xbox One had a 24-hour check in wasn't to piss people off, it was because they were trying to give people more freedoms with their games than Steam allowed. As a consequence they have to implement ways of making sure that people wouldn't take advantage of those systems, is there a better way to do it? Maybe, but I can't think of any off of the top of my head. It is quite possible that we would see Steam-esque sales from Microsoft. They did say that they were taking inspiration, and it's painfully obvious that a big part of Steam's success are the sales. The sales would benefit Microsoft in the long run, making them more money in the long run and Microsoft loves money. Sure they could not do sales and get more money right then, short term success isn't as important as long term, and everyone knows that the business that offers the same thing for less will succeed in the long run. Microsoft would be a fool not to implement these sales. It's completely understandable why people didn't like their original policies. Microsoft didn't communicate what they were trying to do with the Xbox One, and they were making a very complicated system in attempts to give everyone what they wanted. However, this doesn't at all mean that Microsoft is evil, or that they're anti-consumerist. If it's any interest now, the current Xbox One is looking more like a Steam-box than the last one. They said they have all the systems in place to buy games online, and to pre-order them so they'll download when said game releases (like Steam). However I doubt you'll have as many options with your game as with the original Xbox One (for some that's a good thing, for others they're bummed out). Not to mention the Xbox One is said to have modding support, if developers wish to implement it into their game.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by nao: 9/25/2013 3:10:55 AM
    1
    You tell me its steam-like then go on to explain why it was different from steam. Weird that. You've pretty much just answered your original question. As far as digital used games and the family sharing go we know nothing about those policies so using those as examples of being a better version of steam is useless. They simply said they had planned to vaguely do those things [i]eventually[/i] (which suggests they weren't thought of until the backlash started). The most in detail conversations about them came after the DRM reversal so I wouldn't frame those policies as being set in stone or even well thought out. There's been plenty of leaks as well about used game fees costing the price of a new game, but we can't verify this because Microsoft was and continues to be oddly vague when it comes to their past DRM policies. Its almost as if the policies were anti-consumer or something. I'm curious as to why you think they chose to reveal the DRM in a small blog post the night before E3. Why do you think they cancelled all those journalist's interviews when they began asking for DRM details? Why be so vague if your policies are so steam like (or better than steam)? That wasn't incompetence. That was purposeful. They knew the policies were going to be unpopular so they tried to slide them in under the radar. When that didn't work the policies were reversed. I find it odd you say there was a possibility of steam-like sales when the article above you contains a Microsoft spokesman stating the reason why digital pricing would stay the same and the savings should go to them and publishers not the consumer. Their reluctance with games for gold is evidence enough for me. The only reason they have it is because of the competition and its still not as good of a version. That doesn't suggest a positive attitude towards sales/deals. Frankly I highly doubt we'll see steam sale prices on any console any time soon. Seeing as those are closed platforms without the same type of competition Steam has in its open environment. I would also argue it was more than bad communication, though there was plenty of that, on Microsoft's part. The policies were anti-cosnumer. The fact that Mattrick was telling members of the military to buy a 360 because the X1 clearly wasn't meant for them, is proof enough of that. The fact that they were attempting to force the used game market to go through them and the publishers was proof enough of that. There was no way to communicate those policies in a good way. Yes you can say "but we'll give you sales, digital used games, lolipops, and rainbows [i]eventually[/i] we promise". But you can't sell a console on promises. Of course none of this makes Microsoft evil. I never said it did. It just makes them overly greedy and controlling. Honestly though I don't care if you think it was steam like or not. If you haven't figured it out by now its a waste of time trying to explain it to you. Which is why I haven't been arguing about it with everyone else in the thread. People are going to believe what they want. The point of the thread was simply to point out MS's mentality.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • My definition of Steam like is; offering a plethora of games to be able to install/ or download onto your PC/console/whatever...you know like Steam. The Xbox One's original policies offered something similar to this, making them Steam like, but only Steam like because it wasn't exactly like Steam. The Xbox One's current policies make it more like Steam in some ways and less like Steam in others. Both are Steam like, but neither are exactly like Steam, which was my point. Of course they tried to fly the whole DRM thing under the radar, they're a business they want to minimize the amount of people who will see anything that might hurt them. Obviously it didn't work, but it's hardly a surprise. Every business does this, so I don't see the inherit issue with it. I was trying to say that they could have Steam sales, they might they might not, who knows? I was trying to be optimistic about the situation but we'll never really know whether or not they were going to do sales due to the policy changes. Of course Microsoft is greedy and controlling, they're a business. Businesses want to money, and to get the most money they need control over whatever. Though, sure those policies may have been anti-consumer, but not in the sense that Microsoft made them to intentionally screw over their consumer base. I see the point of the thread, and honestly, it was a neat and informative article. I'm just worried you un-intentionally added fuel to the console war flame, people will use just about anything to prove their point. I'm just tired of people using any thread that has anything to do with the PS4 or Xbox One as an excuse to pointlessly argue.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by nao: 9/26/2013 12:51:30 AM
    1
    [quote]I see the point of the thread, and honestly, it was a neat and informative article. I'm just worried you un-intentionally added fuel to the console war flame, people will use just about anything to prove their point. I'm just tired of people using any thread that has anything to do with the PS4 or Xbox One as an excuse to pointlessly argue.[/quote] lol yeah I see your point there. Aw well I'm not going to avoid sharing news with the rational people just because some fanboys will get riled up. I'm used to it by now. Besides they'll find any excuse to wage console war. I made a joke post in another thread about "2DS master race" that got taken seriously by more than one person. As for the xbox drm policies and what not I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon