Console Discussion/E3/Tokyo Game Show Thread

[SirFozzie]

They're still in a hole, but they stopped digging downwards and are throwing a ladder up.

Some damage has been done, but this is a game changer (in that there now will actually be a game.)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

See, here's yet another 'what?' comment from MS. Just shut up already and move on. The assertion that they had no clue what was coming has to send a shiver up the spine of investors. Sure, they didn't know Sony would make them look quite that bad, but how tone-deaf were they that they thought the DRM plan that had already received lukewarm approval at best along with a $500 price point would be received with open arms once they showed some games for the console? Anyone who didn't know that some changes to the DRM or price point were warranted before E3 happened should be fired. The entire video game world knew there was an issue, how did they not know?

Microsoft Changes DRM Policies After Hearing From Fans at E3 - Eric Johnson - News - AllThingsD

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As Bill Harris noted in his blog on the situation, they still are trying to sell the consumer on the 'value' of their console and why consumers should pay $100 more for that console. They need to change their focus on the sales pitch or they're going to end up in the same situation that Sony did seven years ago. DRM or no DRM.

This. I'd say very much this.

I believe some of the biggest damage MS may have done with the electronic version of New Coke is to open the door to Sony again, specifically turning households (like mine) that were strictly XBox back into open competition. With the reversal, they've still handed back years of advantage, created ill will and gained pretty much nothing in the process.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

SackAttack and I discuss the issues out of E3, sexism/misogny in the video games industry and amongst gamers, Independent games, and the big reversal of Xbox One.

8 bit mind in a 64 Bit World: Interview with Josh Allen of Gamenikk in Exile: Sexism, Independents, and Xbox One DRM Reversal

That's real good. You both are real knowledgeable.

The sexism stuff is interesting. I do disagree on some of it though. I don't think the LPGA stuff is good. It feels like a gimmick to gather a headline and pretend that they care about the female audience. The question is are females going to buy the game? And will they use the LPGA players? I still say no to both.

The one constant I see on this topic is male developers trying to shoehorn female characters into games that are predominately bought by men. Maybe the type of game is just different for the two audiences. Maybe the female audience is not looking for a FPS. In a weird way I find it a bit patronizing to women when games made by males for males throw a bone toward the female audience.

Getting more female developers is the answer. And having them build games in their perspective for other females is what'll help. And I don't think it's as tough as people say for a female to get in. Especially with how big indie publishing has gotten. I feel like there are a lot of feminists on the issue who want all the males to make games in their perspective instead of having females make them themselves.

Finally, I also hate how we have to make fictional characters politically correct. They are fictional characters. Duke Nukem is a character, not a real person. Just as when I watch TV I don't need Don Draper to fight misogyny. Interesting topic though.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I disagree. No damage has been done, you know why? Because no one took home a console and had to deal with it. I don't think this completely wipes away the damage just because there are people in the world that like to always be negative. If they make great games, which they will, people are going to buy the console. This topic will be long forgotten by the masses while PS fanboiys like you will still bring it up 15 years from now.

So well said.. MBBF is a Sony fanboy.. we all know that and should fart when he posts.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This. I'd say very much this.

I believe some of the biggest damage MS may have done with the electronic version of New Coke is to open the door to Sony again, specifically turning households (like mine) that were strictly XBox back into open competition. With the reversal, they've still handed back years of advantage, created ill will and gained pretty much nothing in the process.

Again.. the xb1 comes with kinect 2, while you don't care about it, many hardcore games will.

I'd gladly pay the extra $100 for it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Got a good chuckle out of this.....

Francis Is Freaking The Hell Out About Microsoft's Xbox One About-Face

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's real good. You both are real knowledgeable.

The sexism stuff is interesting. I do disagree on some of it though. I don't think the LPGA stuff is good. It feels like a gimmick to gather a headline and pretend that they care about the female audience. The question is are females going to buy the game? And will they use the LPGA players? I still say no to both.

The one constant I see on this topic is male developers trying to shoehorn female characters into games that are predominately bought by men. Maybe the type of game is just different for the two audiences. Maybe the female audience is not looking for a FPS. In a weird way I find it a bit patronizing to women when games made by males for males throw a bone toward the female audience.

Getting more female developers is the answer. And having them build games in their perspective for other females is what'll help. And I don't think it's as tough as people say for a female to get in. Especially with how big indie publishing has gotten. I feel like there are a lot of feminists on the issue who want all the males to make games in their perspective instead of having females make them themselves.

Finally, I also hate how we have to make fictional characters politically correct. They are fictional characters. Duke Nukem is a character, not a real person. Just as when I watch TV I don't need Don Draper to fight misogyny. Interesting topic though.

I'm not asking for that, but I do think we need to move beyond the abject objectification of women in all games. When you have an otherwise very interesting game being turned down because the lead character is a woman, that's a sign that there's an issue.

I think a lot of it is because online talk is so anonymous. There's no way to really call out bad behavior online. If you come across someone who's every other word is "bitch, pussy, faggot" or anything else sexist/racist/idiotic.. you can ignore him and report him, but that doesn't really have any consequence, does it? They'll go on and still drop the N-word and other such monstrosities (hell, look at Senator Franks's son!). Just to someone else.

It fixes the problem for you, but doesn't fix the problem at all.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I still don't trust them not to put the always online and DRM in later on down the line once the userbase is established.

I'm wondering if they'll do an opt in system for something like the family share with digital purchases to try to show people it's worthwhile. They could also have some games which require part of the games processing it to be offloaded to their servers, though their claims of how amazing cloud graphics rendering could be remind me of how SimCity had to be always online since EA's servers were doing an incredible load of calculations that a home PC just couldn't handle (while of course it turned out the servers were doing was pretty much nothing).

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's real good. You both are real knowledgeable.

The sexism stuff is interesting. I do disagree on some of it though. I don't think the LPGA stuff is good. It feels like a gimmick to gather a headline and pretend that they care about the female audience. The question is are females going to buy the game? And will they use the LPGA players? I still say no to both.

The thing is, even if it is a gimmick, it's such an EASY fucking gimmick that it's frankly a little embarrassing that it's taken them this long to implement it. This is a sport where both genders play their events at the majority of the same venues. It's not trying to include the WNBA in a basketball game or the Lingerie Football League (or whatever) in Madden. It's seriously a matter of creating female character models and, for the pro players, rating them appropriately. Boom, done. Will anybody play the LPGA mode, be they men or women? Who knows. But 80% of the assets necessary to include that mode are already present. Where's the harm in including the other 20% and winding up with a game where a little girl can make a golfer who looks like her and go dominate the links?

The one constant I see on this topic is male developers trying to shoehorn female characters into games that are predominately bought by men. Maybe the type of game is just different for the two audiences. Maybe the female audience is not looking for a FPS. In a weird way I find it a bit patronizing to women when games made by males for males throw a bone toward the female audience.

See, I think there's a couple ways you can look at this.

Maybe female gamers aren't looking for FPS. But maybe they are. My ex-girlfriend splits most of her time between FPS and Mario/SpongeBob games. It's a weird fucking dichotomy, but there you are. She loves both. So you can't necessarily assume that a particular 'genre' is suited to guys because guys are the ones who have historically played those games.

At the same time, when you're dealing with an industry where 90%+ of the programmers are male, you have to realize that they're going to lack an understanding of what the female market wants. They don't have that voice in the room telling them "I think this would be really great," or more importantly "That would be fucking HORRIBLE, don't you dare." So you end up with games that say "how can we work a female character in here?" and sometimes it's patronizing bullshit and sometimes it works.

But the third thing you have to realize is that females are 50% of the market. If you say "games made by males for males shouldn't include a nod to the female perspective because it's patronizing," what you're really saying is "this is my turf and no girls allowed." You're shutting out half of your potential market in order to market to people who aren't comfortable with girls intruding on "their" space. As I think I said in the conversation with SirFozzie, it starts at the bottom. It's going to be difficult to make female-friendly games that aren't stereotypical (which is just as insulting in its way as the games you consider patronizing) unless you find a way to cater to young girls that...doesn't indulge in stereotypes.

The problem right now is that the majority of games aimed at young girl gamers end up being games about boys, makeup and babies. The assumption is that they're going to grow up and be interested in boys and makeup and you'll lose them as gamers and so there's no effort to make games that might keep them in the hobby. If you look at Nintendo, 60% of their market share on Wii and DS was female gamers; additionally, Nintendo games don't have the heavy 'male' bent that Microsoft and Sony's franchises do. They're pretty universally accessible, and that's reflected in how well Nintendo's franchises sell over the years.

That's where the third parties need to go. You don't need to be heavy-handed and exaggerate your embrace of the female market. What you need to do is make games that everybody on the market can enjoy without feeling self-conscious because "I'm playing a girl and everybody knows girls are weak and this feels dirty" or "The hero is always a guy and this is sending a message that girls aren't good enough to save the world" or what-have-you.

Make good games, and it won't matter whether the protagonist is male or female. Telegraph your attempt to capture the market by making games about boys, babies and makeup and expecting those players to go "I want to grow up to make games like these!" is a great way to make sure the industry remains a boys' club where comments like "Just sit back and let it happen" are spoken in public.

Getting more female developers is the answer. And having them build games in their perspective for other females is what'll help. And I don't think it's as tough as people say for a female to get in. Especially with how big indie publishing has gotten. I feel like there are a lot of feminists on the issue who want all the males to make games in their perspective instead of having females make them themselves.

Chicken and the egg there, though, hoss. Getting more female developers is the answer. Correct. But how do you get there from where we are now? The correct answer is, you can't. If boys make games specifically for boys and exclude the female market for the sin of having a vagina, the only girls who are going to become developers are either the ones who grow up playing the boys' games, or the ones who are just attracted to the idea of making their own games. The other girls will eventually be turned off by the drumbeat of "you're not good enough" and go find other hobbies.

I'd also take exception to the idea that AAA development is men's turf and that the "feminists" should go make their own "indie" games rather than saying "Hey, we should be included in this conversation, too." I mean, I'm a dude and I find that insulting, you know?

Finally, I also hate how we have to make fictional characters politically correct. They are fictional characters. Duke Nukem is a character, not a real person. Just as when I watch TV I don't need Don Draper to fight misogyny. Interesting topic though.

I think the issue isn't when fictional characters are misogynistic or "politically incorrect." The issue is when that political correctness is endemic across the industry. Similar to the adage 'in vino veritas,' the attitudes conveyed by programmers in public spaces - like what we saw at E3 - is going to filter its way into the games they create. It's part of who they are, and the games reflect the personalities of the people that create them. Having a Duke Nukem caricature is one thing. Having an entire industry where women are either sexualized or weak characters for the male character to save is problematic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Again.. the xb1 comes with kinect 2, while you don't care about it, many hardcore games will.

I know very few "hardcore gamers" that I've ever heard give a rip about Kinect beyond novelty experimentation.

Some of that goes toward implementation that's been, well, "less than stellar" seems fair I believe. I'd wager that most simply goes to the core reality that most hardcore gamers aren't interested in flailing or jumping or whatever whilst trying to, you know, actually play a f'n game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing is, even if it is a gimmick, it's such an EASY fucking gimmick that it's frankly a little embarrassing that it's taken them this long to implement it. This is a sport where both genders play their events at the majority of the same venues. It's not trying to include the WNBA in a basketball game or the Lingerie Football League (or whatever) in Madden. It's seriously a matter of creating female character models and, for the pro players, rating them appropriately. Boom, done. Will anybody play the LPGA mode, be they men or women? Who knows. But 80% of the assets necessary to include that mode are already present. Where's the harm in including the other 20% and winding up with a game where a little girl can make a golfer who looks like her and go dominate the links?

I don't have a problem with them doing it. It is rather easy to do I'm guessing. I just don't think it is somehow a progressive accomplishment in the video game industry. The interest in the LPGA is incredibly low and I think the decision to add it has more to do with marketing than actual gameplay.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But the third thing you have to realize is that females are 50% of the market. If you say "games made by males for males shouldn't include a nod to the female perspective because it's patronizing," what you're really saying is "this is my turf and no girls allowed." You're shutting out half of your potential market in order to market to people who aren't comfortable with girls intruding on "their" space. As I think I said in the conversation with SirFozzie, it starts at the bottom. It's going to be difficult to make female-friendly games that aren't stereotypical (which is just as insulting in its way as the games you consider patronizing) unless you find a way to cater to young girls that...doesn't indulge in stereotypes.

I'm not saying that you can't give a nod to the female perspective, I'm saying that a bunch of guys is not going to do it well. And thus, it'll likely come across as patronizing and dumb. The problem isn't that guys in the industry are sexist pigs, it's that a bunch of 30 year old male programmers don't have a clue about the perspective of a teenage girl. They build what they know, and the female perspective is not it.

It's a creative industry, and I think in all creative industries people create not only what they know, but what they like. Asking them to write about things they know nothing about would be like asking Anita Sarkessian to write half her blog entries about college football. If we want games made from the female perspective, we need to get more females involved doing it.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Chicken and the egg there, though, hoss. Getting more female developers is the answer. Correct. But how do you get there from where we are now? The correct answer is, you can't. If boys make games specifically for boys and exclude the female market for the sin of having a vagina, the only girls who are going to become developers are either the ones who grow up playing the boys' games, or the ones who are just attracted to the idea of making their own games. The other girls will eventually be turned off by the drumbeat of "you're not good enough" and go find other hobbies.

I think that's ridiculous. Nothing is stopping any female from entering into a computer science program. From learning graphic design. The reason the industry is male dominated has nothing to do with it being a good ole boys club, it has everything to do with the people who acquire the skills to develop these games are predominately male. Step into any computer science program and see the make up. Ask any HR person in the developer world what their breakdown of male to female applicants are.

If people want better female perspective in games, they need to encourage more females to get into that field. And trust me as someone who works in the industry, companies are dying to hire females. But that's not what is happening by the biggest critics of the industry. Because learning how to program is hard and it's much easier to just tell other people to do it for you.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'd also take exception to the idea that AAA development is men's turf and that the "feminists" should go make their own "indie" games rather than saying "Hey, we should be included in this conversation, too." I mean, I'm a dude and I find that insulting, you know?

I didn't say it was men's turf and that women shouldn't be allowed in. There are plenty of females in the field who have been huge parts of successful titles.

My point was that there are not the huge barriers of entry that there were 10 years ago. If you feel you are talented and have a great idea for a game that people will love, almost nothing is holding you back from building it and getting it distributed to millions of people. You don't need to work for a $500 million studio to produce games people will play, you can build them from your couch by yourself if you're talented enough.

[Mota]

I think MS is still at a PR disadvantage due to having announced all the bad stuff in the first place. But the good news for them is that it's June, and by November when this thing ships, they have months to show us cool game footage and good things about the console and these memories will be pretty much gone.

[CraigSca]

I think video game consoles as a whole are at a disadvantage regarding pricing. Microsoft and Sony have to be looking at it from a, "Geez guys, you'll gladly spend $500 on a tablet, but you won't spend $500 on a console - we can do SO much MORE!?"

The problem is - we're so used to spending $249, $299, etc., for consoles - even if the markets have changed. Really, I think a video game console should be $299, and I couldn't care less if it can also be my DVR/cable box, etc. - I already have one of those.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I know very few "hardcore gamers" that I've ever heard give a rip about Kinect beyond novelty experimentation.

Some of that goes toward implementation that's been, well, "less than stellar" seems fair I believe. I'd wager that most simply goes to the core reality that most hardcore gamers aren't interested in flailing or jumping or whatever whilst trying to, you know, actually play a f'n game.

Playing FIFA 13 and being able to yell things without having to pause the game to switch tactics and make subs is actually quite fun. NCAA 14 is going to have voice commands as well and I believe more games will have them especially as the kinect advances.

[MizzouRah]

6 great features you're losing with the Xbox One's DRM changes

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-fe...s-drm-changes/

I fully agree too.. oh well.

There are, obviously, benefits to the Xbox's reversal. The system now supports game rentals, used game sales, and doesn't require an online check in. In other words, it's just like your Xbox 360, except with better graphics and a Kinect that's always staring at you. If that's what you were fighting for, then you've won this battle--otherwise, this move might be a step back for the industry, no matter how bad it seemed at first.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

6 great features you're losing with the Xbox One's DRM changes

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-fe...s-drm-changes/

I fully agree too.. oh well.

Let's take a closer look at those features.....

1. Your game library won't be digital

You can still have a digital library that avoids any issues with physical media. You'll have to buy it at the price the MS overlord puts it at, but it's still possible as the author describes the issue.

2. You can't share your library with 10 family members

This is still a feature that MS could implement if they wanted to do so. They can put a 'digital only' restriction on it, which wouldn't hinder anything as you can now loan out your physical copy. So you'd still be able to share with all your friends if they implemented it in this way.

3. There's no gifting purchased games online

You can still gift a copy in person or buy it online on release and gift it via online stores. It's not a huge difference and most won't miss it at all. But I guess a slight change if you want to really nitpick.

4. The disc needs to be in the Xbox One even if you've installed game

See #1. You can still do digital if you really want it that bad. Putting in a disk requires a minimal time commitment. It's more of a complaint for the sake of complaining rather than any real issue.

5. It makes cloud computing less attractive for developers

I could see this at some level, but no one forced them to switch paths either. If this was so important to the system architecture, why go away from it at such a critical point? Given how quickly they made the switch despite this, I'd say that 'cloud computing' was more of a buzz word than a real game changer. Somewhat like EA announcing new engines in their games while seeing no real changes in the core gameplay that really would make a difference in the game.

6. There's less potential for game price drops

This was a non-starter from the beginning. As with before, people continue to make the faulty comparisons to services like Steam which aren't even remotely similar and draw the assumption that MS would have implemented similar price drops. No way. Steam has competitors left and right who sell the same games they do. Also, Steam and other online services don't have to worry about totally switching their architecture every 5-7 years like a console. You can keep games forever in Steam without any worries, something that MS never fully explained how that would work in the end game (and is probably glad right now that they didn't have to do so). PS+ users get heavily discounted or free games on a regular basis. I'm sure MS will have something similar in order to match that service. That's the only thing you're going to see that remotely resembles Steam on a console.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think it's a valid point. I still have a bunch of my old consoles. My kids have been having a great time playing Super Mario Sunshine on my GameCube over the last few months, and Diddy Kong Racing on my N64. I don't think parents will be able to say the same for their XBOne's in 15 years, which is a shame.

Liar! No one enjoyed Super Mario Sunshine!

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I can see the scene in Redmond. "If we've lost Mizzou B-ball fan, we've lost Middle America."

SI

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

2. You can't share your library with 10 family members

This is still a feature that MS could implement if they wanted to do so. They can put a 'digital only' restriction on it, which wouldn't hinder anything as you can now loan out your physical copy. So you'd still be able to share with all your friends if they implemented it in this way.

Agreed, but more specifically, the whole point behind trying to 'kill' used games was that publishers felt like they were only getting a fraction of the sold copies they felt 'entitled' to. They'd sell a million new copies, say, but that same game might get resold 3-4x as a 'used' copy, so they felt like they were only getting 20% of actual sales. If the '10 family members' thing had happened, think about the potential impact on single-player games. Titles like Call of Duty, which have a primarily multiplayer draw, would still sell however many copies, because you wouldn't be able to have 11 people use it at the same time.

A single-player game, though? Mass Effect 4: The Next Generation comes out, you can share that game with 10 'family members,' and suddenly there's a game that 11 people don't feel as if they have to buy. One person buys it, or maybe they all chip in, and then they just kind of take turns playing it. If it's not a crucial I HAVE TO PLAY THIS NOW game, you have this feature that sounds really cool for consumers but ends up being a colossal pain in the ass for publishers; how long does it continue to get supported? Surely, if used games restrictions were going to be 'up to the publisher,' the same would be true of library sharing.

I think if Microsoft really feels strongly about that feature, they can still implement it for digital libraries. I mean, look - you already have a setup on Xbox 360 where if the digital game is being played on the original console, you can play it online, offline, whatever. If you're playing it on a console other than the one you bought it on, you have to be signed in to Live to play it. What's so hard about carrying that setup forward to digital libraries? Okay, you have sharing, but if you're not the 'owner' of the game, you have to be logged in to access that shared library. That way whoever's playing Mass Effect 4, that license is spoken for and the other 9 people with shared access have to wait for that individual to stop playing.

If Microsoft really feels that it's critical to have the game owner be connected in order to enable the shared library, then what you do is create a scenario where the owner can opt-in to sharing his or her titles. If you choose to share Halo 5, by opting in you've flipped a switch whereby you have to be online in order to play that game. If you choose not to share your games, you can play online, offline, whatever. This didn't have to be an either/or situation where either solo/offline gamers fuck off or online gamers don't get the cool features they're looking forward to.

3. There's no gifting purchased games online

You can still gift a copy in person or buy it online on release and gift it via online stores.

Kinda where I'm at. Yeah, the idea of being able to give a game away digitally was kind of cool, but not at the cost of the objections I raised before this about-face. Probably the main issue here is that in terms of digital gifting, where you're at now isn't giving away the copy you don't want anymore; it's buying a whole new copy for the person you want to gift to.

I wonder how much the digital gifting as envisioned by Microsoft would even have been used. In the current generation, when you finish playing a game, how many of you say 'here, I don't want this anymore' and give it away rather than try to trade it for something you haven't played or otherwise recoup value?

4. The disc needs to be in the Xbox One even if you've installed game

See #1. You can still do digital if you really want it that bad. Putting in a disk requires a minimal time commitment. It's more of a complaint for the sake of complaining rather than any real issue.

I think that's unfairly dismissive. That's a feature that would have been useful for young families. No more worries about the kids destroying dad's games (or their own), necessitating re-purchases. Yes, you can go digital, if you're part of the 70% of the country with reliable, quality broadband access. This is a feature I'm kind of mixed on. I don't think Xbox One was set up in such a way as to make this REALLY useful - a 500 GB hard drive that users couldn't upgrade would seem like it'd hit a bottleneck eventually, and saying 'well you can just go buy external storage if you run out of space' is just goofy. On the other hand, if they could have implemented this without the 24 hour check-in requirements, that would have been really neat.

5. It makes cloud computing less attractive for developers

I could see this at some level, but no one forced them to switch paths either. If this was so important to the system architecture, why go away from it at such a critical point? Given how quickly they made the switch despite this, I'd say that 'cloud computing' was more of a buzz word than a real game changer. Somewhat like EA announcing new engines in their games while seeing no real changes in the core gameplay that really would make a difference in the game.

I think this one is harder to gauge because we have yet to see how 'cloud computing' would significantly impact games. The only example we have up to now has been SimCity, and everything that's come out about that has suggested that 'cloud computing' was a fancy way of saying 'DRM,' that there was nothing being done by the 'cloud' that the end user's machine couldn't have done itself.

What this reminded me of was Sony's talk about how the Cell processor in PS3 would interface with Cell processors in your dishwasher, blender, microwave, etc and your PS3 would get progressively more powerful the more Cell-powered devices you owned.

It's a way to talk big and get people excited and in the end it's so much sturm und drang.

6. There's less potential for game price drops

This was a non-starter from the beginning. As with before, people continue to make the faulty comparisons to services like Steam which aren't even remotely similar and draw the assumption that MS would have implemented similar price drops. No way. Steam has competitors left and right who sell the same games they do. Also, Steam and other online services don't have to worry about totally switching their architecture every 5-7 years like a console. You can keep games forever in Steam without any worries, something that MS never fully explained how that would work in the end game (and is probably glad right now that they didn't have to do so). PS+ users get heavily discounted or free games on a regular basis. I'm sure MS will have something similar in order to match that service. That's the only thing you're going to see that remotely resembles Steam on a console.

I bolded the two things that stood out to me. First, yeah, Steam has competition in the delivery marketplace (although a lot of that competition are selling...Steam keys) and that incentivizes the sales. However, there's a part you're missing. Namely, it isn't that sales follow DRM. It's that the lower pricing encourages adoption of digital. That's the part of the puzzle the hardware manufacturers have missed up to now. How many first-time Steam users buy a game at full price because, ooh, Steam? They don't. They get sucked in during the sales with the cheap games and get converted to the Steam Way of Life.

Same situation here. The people who enjoy the convenience of digital buy that way anyway. The people who object, 8 times out of 10 they object because there's no tangible difference on price. The retail price is as it is because of the presence of middlemen; the argument is that a digital price could be significantly less without affecting the margins of the publishers. Continuing to sell at $59.99 digitally is a great boon for the publishers, who get that $10-20 back that otherwise went to the retailer, but doesn't do anything for the consumer. Microsoft don't need a daily-check-in policy in order to deliver lower prices on digital content. That's absurd. If they're serious about encouraging the adoption on digital, lower digital prices and sales is how they'll make it happen. The lower prices will be what encourages the adoption of DRM, not vice versa.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Xbox One will not release in Asia until end of 2014.

Killer Instinct, is a free to play fighter with one playable fighter, the rest you have to buy...


They're going to be writing business school treatises on Microsoft's mistakes.. *shakes head*

And we thought the beginning of this current gen was a giant cluster eff from all parties. This one looks... well, I'm not sure if this really is worse or better.

SI

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Agreed, but more specifically, the whole point behind trying to 'kill' used games was that publishers felt like they were only getting a fraction of the sold copies they felt 'entitled' to. They'd sell a million new copies, say, but that same game might get resold 3-4x as a 'used' copy, so they felt like they were only getting 20% of actual sales. If the '10 family members' thing had happened, think about the potential impact on single-player games. Titles like Call of Duty, which have a primarily multiplayer draw, would still sell however many copies, because you wouldn't be able to have 11 people use it at the same time.

A single-player game, though? Mass Effect 4: The Next Generation comes out, you can share that game with 10 'family members,' and suddenly there's a game that 11 people don't feel as if they have to buy. One person buys it, or maybe they all chip in, and then they just kind of take turns playing it. If it's not a crucial I HAVE TO PLAY THIS NOW game, you have this feature that sounds really cool for consumers but ends up being a colossal pain in the ass for publishers; how long does it continue to get supported? Surely, if used games restrictions were going to be 'up to the publisher,' the same would be true of library sharing.

I think if Microsoft really feels strongly about that feature, they can still implement it for digital libraries. I mean, look - you already have a setup on Xbox 360 where if the digital game is being played on the original console, you can play it online, offline, whatever. If you're playing it on a console other than the one you bought it on, you have to be signed in to Live to play it. What's so hard about carrying that setup forward to digital libraries? Okay, you have sharing, but if you're not the 'owner' of the game, you have to be logged in to access that shared library. That way whoever's playing Mass Effect 4, that license is spoken for and the other 9 people with shared access have to wait for that individual to stop playing.

If Microsoft really feels that it's critical to have the game owner be connected in order to enable the shared library, then what you do is create a scenario where the owner can opt-in to sharing his or her titles. If you choose to share Halo 5, by opting in you've flipped a switch whereby you have to be online in order to play that game. If you choose not to share your games, you can play online, offline, whatever. This didn't have to be an either/or situation where either solo/offline gamers fuck off or online gamers don't get the cool features they're looking forward to.

I was a bit skeptical about this feature being they never went into much detail about how this would work. I doubt this was an unlimited sharing system for 10 people as I really can't see publishers getting on board with allowing that sort of thing for easily sharing digital copies.

EDIT: Info from NeoGAF says that the sharing would have a 60 minute time limit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

5. It makes cloud computing less attractive for developers

That tidbit alone virtually makes the rest of the points moot.

That's something I'm so anti- that's it's almost been worth all the hoopla if indeed it becoming less attractive to devs in an actual side effect.

I have zero desire to ever deal with anything cloud based, don't trust it for reliability whatsoever, don't trust it for security (on items where that matters), a pox upon it afaic.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And we thought the beginning of this current gen was a giant cluster eff from all parties. This one looks... well, I'm not sure if this really is worse or better.

SI

Eh. I think that's piling on. Microsoft made some serious mistakes in the run-up to and aftermath of E3. I'm not sure a 'freemium' fighting game can realistically be classed in the same category. Especially since we have no information yet as to what pricing is going to look like on the other fighters. Let's say they're $1.99 each and there are 30 fighters in the game. That's...not that different from releasing a $60 retail game, except people can cherry-pick their fighters and pay less.

If they're $4.99 each and there are 30 fighters in the game? mckaylamaroney.jpg.

$9.99 each and 30 fighters in the game? Fuck off.

The things Microsoft have gotten shit for in this thread (which they largely backed off of yesterday) are legitimate, but giving them crap for releasing a "freemium" fighting game is digging a little too deep for the schadenfreude, IMO.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Eh. I think that's piling on. Microsoft made some serious mistakes in the run-up to and aftermath of E3. I'm not sure a 'freemium' fighting game can realistically be classed in the same category. Especially since we have no information yet as to what pricing is going to look like on the other fighters. Let's say they're $1.99 each and there are 30 fighters in the game. That's...not that different from releasing a $60 retail game, except people can cherry-pick their fighters and pay less.

If they're $4.99 each and there are 30 fighters in the game? mckaylamaroney.jpg.

$9.99 each and 30 fighters in the game? Fuck off.

The things Microsoft have gotten shit for in this thread (which they largely backed off of yesterday) are legitimate, but giving them crap for releasing a "freemium" fighting game is digging a little too deep for the schadenfreude, IMO.

I didn't even realize the line about Killer Instinct was in what I quoted above. Of the number of sins they have committed this launch, that's, what, number 426?

I was speaking towards the general console launch this gen, again from Xbox doing their thing to Sony not really having to do anything because Microsoft shot them in the foot so bad to the Wii U's start and non-E3.

SI

[kcchief19]

I haven't read the full coverage of Xbox One's 180, but if in fact the rundown above is accurate, it seems like they are making changes unrelated to the complaints everyone has.

Consumers were complaining about the always-on connection and daily check-ins. Those are unrelated to having a Steam-like service for licensing games and prohibiting using a digital license for retail games.

Yes, in order for a used-game service to exist with a digital Steam-like service, you would have to have a one-time Internet connection to license a game. You wouldn't be able to install a used game unless your Xbox can verify that license isn't already in use. Microsoft was already willing to live without consumers who don't have an Internet connection. So can't they still require an Internet connection, just not one that's always on?

Were consumers complaining about having to do that, or were they complaining that they would have to be connected to the Internet 100% of the time to play their games? I'm not sure they were truly listening to complaints.

A lot of the other rollbacks also sounds like excuses. I really can't see Microsoft allowing me to have a game and have 10 other people share the same copy. I'm guessing that was going to be a limited developer option, and the only games that would have it were community-based games where there would be no value in sharing the game if none of your friends sharing the copy could play at the same time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by mckerney

EDIT: Info from NeoGAF says that the sharing would have a 60 minute time limit.

That was too obvious from the start. That's a timed demo, not a share option. It was another thing that MS didn't talk about hoping they didn't have to give the full story just yet. As this stuff keeps leaking out, it's pretty clear why they made the change. They were in a huge shit storm and realized that they hadn't even released all the details that would further piss people off. They realized that it was only going to get worse as their other poor ideas were announced.

[SirFozzie]

Harsh words for the Gears of War creator Cliffy B's crocodile tears about Xbox One DRM reversal:

8 bit mind in a 64 Bit World: (XB ONE DRM) Gears of War creator blames Sony, not "Internet Whining" for reversal.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Lorne Lanning ‏@lorne_lanning 4h
Rumour: Microsoft to announce Xbox One self-publishing at Build | VG247 Rumour: Microsoft to announce Xbox One self-publishing at Build | VG247 …

This would be a great move by Microsoft.

But at some point, they seem to be just giving Sony more fuel. So they're going to take another step towards making their system identical to the PS4 after Sony took that stance from the start and this is a good thing? They seem to be setting themselves up to create a simplified motto of "We're everything the PS4 is except we have a camera and a $100 higher price point!". They need to find a way to distinguish themselves from the PS4 rather than create the exact same console.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Between the PS3 launch debacle and the X1 launch debacle, you could make a semester class at a business school of how not to introduce a product to the mass market.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But at some point, they seem to be just giving Sony more fuel. So they're going to take another step towards making their system identical to the PS4 after Sony took that stance from the start and this is a good thing? They seem to be setting themselves up to create a simplified motto of "We're everything the PS4 is except we have a camera and a $100 higher price point!". They need to find a way to distinguish themselves from the PS4 rather than create the exact same console.

Slipping back into blind fanboyism there, MBBF. Here's the thing: self-publication isn't new for the Xbox division. They've gotten away from what they used to be, and it's allowed Sony to carve out a niche space there, but "Xbox Indie Games" used to be a more open space for indie developers. Microsoft getting back to that origin, if they do, isn't "copying Sony" so much as "learning from their own mistakes."

Secondly, differentiation isn't, for the mass market, that big a deal. Look at Xbox 360/PS3. If Microsoft weren't so completely persona non grata in Japan, they'd still be ahead of Sony in terms of worldwide sales. Look at Sony's positive differentiators on PS3: free multiplayer, higher-resolution graphics because of the capacity of the Blu-ray disc, the ability to watch Blu-ray movies, easy hard drive upgrades without having to purchase an overpriced proprietary format so the hardware manufacturer gets their cut, a non-proprietary Bluetooth standard that allowed third-party manufacturers to offer wireless controller options, and that's off the top of my head.

And it took, practically speaking, a no-show by Microsoft in Japan for Sony to trump their competitor. The high price at launch and relative dearth of quality software did more damage to the brand than the positive differentiators could overcome.

Basically, it's not going to matter to consumers whether Xbox One is a PS4 in green clothing (or a PS4 with a mandatory camera). The price is going to matter, and the relative libraries are going to matter.

Nobody's going to walk into Best Buy to buy one or the other and go "Well, Xbox One was going to do all these crazy things, but now it's going to be more like a PS4, so I'll just get a PS4." If they're invested in the Xbox brand, either because of their Gamerscore, or because the franchises they want to play are on the platform, because that's what the kids are asking for, or whatever, they're going to look at the price. And if the price doesn't meet with significant objections, they're going to look at the software available.

Finally, there are exactly zero obstacles preventing Microsoft from doing everything they just 180'd on, but doing it for digital purchases and leaving physical purchases alone. If they're really concerned about differentiation, that's their nuclear option.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Secondly, differentiation isn't, for the mass market, that big a deal. Look at Xbox 360/PS3. If Microsoft weren't so completely persona non grata in Japan, they'd still be ahead of Sony in terms of worldwide sales. Look at Sony's positive differentiators on PS3: free multiplayer, higher-resolution graphics because of the capacity of the Blu-ray disc, the ability to watch Blu-ray movies, easy hard drive upgrades without having to purchase an overpriced proprietary format so the hardware manufacturer gets their cut, a non-proprietary Bluetooth standard that allowed third-party manufacturers to offer wireless controller options, and that's off the top of my head.

And it took, practically speaking, a no-show by Microsoft in Japan for Sony to trump their competitor. The high price at launch and relative dearth of quality software did more damage to the brand than the positive differentiators could overcome.

Basically, it's not going to matter to consumers whether Xbox One is a PS4 in green clothing (or a PS4 with a mandatory camera). The price is going to matter, and the relative libraries are going to matter.

Absolutely. Agree with all of this.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But at some point, they seem to be just giving Sony more fuel. So they're going to take another step towards making their system identical to the PS4 after Sony took that stance from the start and this is a good thing? They seem to be setting themselves up to create a simplified motto of "We're everything the PS4 is except we have a camera and a $100 higher price point!". They need to find a way to distinguish themselves from the PS4 rather than create the exact same console.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Between the PS3 launch debacle and the X1 launch debacle, you could make a semester class at a business school of how not to introduce a product to the mass market.

It's not something that will give Sony more fuel, it's something that will cause more small developers to put games out on the XBox One.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Absolutely. Agree with all of this.

That being so, the idea of them "giving Sony more fuel" with this move is just so much horseshit then, correct?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That being so, the idea of them "giving Sony more fuel" with this move is just so much horseshit then, correct?

But I'm not sure that we can dismiss that yet. Remember how quiet Sony was before E3 and everyone kept wondering why they weren't saying anything? It seems like they have gone dead quiet again, which makes one wonder if they aren't preparing another round of bashing on their home turf. While some are applauding MS for coming back off their 1984-ish stance, they still are basically equal with Sony at best with a higher price point.

Color me silly, but I think Sony's preparing another round of carpet bombing at TGS while letting MS think that the worst is over.

[SackAttack]

Doubt it. If anything, the silence is related to "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a fatal mistake." Microsoft haven't so far shown much of an ability to properly message around the Xbox One at this point.

Why confuse the issue by stepping in? Let Microsoft blunder around for a while and hope they step on a landmine, and then you have another piece of ammunition gifted to you. When you start flinging mud at everything you can find, eventually you're the boy who cried wolf and people stop taking you seriously.

Microsoft gave Sony a gift by shooting themselves in the dick at E3. What Sony needs to be concentrating on now is not returning the favor. Microsoft are in the position of needing to climb out of the hole they've dug. Sony have the luxury of focusing on the benefits of their own product going forward instead of needing to "carpet bomb" the opposition.

Bottom line: this "giving Sony more fuel" thing is a fart in a hot tropical breeze compared to the other things Microsoft have to deal with right now. Nobody's going to say "Well, I was going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt after their 180, but now that they're 'copying Sony' on indie developers, fuck it; I'm just going to buy a PS4 instead."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Bottom line: this "giving Sony more fuel" thing is a fart in a hot tropical breeze compared to the other things Microsoft have to deal with right now. Nobody's going to say "Well, I was going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt after their 180, but now that they're 'copying Sony' on indie developers, fuck it; I'm just going to buy a PS4 instead."

Of course not. I never implied that.

[SackAttack]

You absolutely did.

But at some point, they seem to be just giving Sony more fuel. So they're going to take another step towards making their system identical to the PS4 after Sony took that stance from the start and this is a good thing?

The changes Microsoft is making with Xbox One can only be one of three things: good, bad or neutral. We've seen enough of the reaction to where they began to know that the changes aren't neutral. That means the changes being made are either a good thing, or a bad thing.

Your implication, in the bit I just quoted there, is that Xbox One becoming more like PlayStation 4 in any way cannot be a good thing for Microsoft. Logically, that means it must be a bad thing. Further, the implication then is that "copying Sony" is going to drive the market to say "Fuck it, I'll buy a PS4 instead."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You absolutely did.

The changes Microsoft is making with Xbox One can only be one of three things: good, bad or neutral. We've seen enough of the reaction to where they began to know that the changes aren't neutral. That means the changes being made are either a good thing, or a bad thing.

Your implication, in the bit I just quoted there, is that Xbox One becoming more like PlayStation 4 in any way cannot be a good thing for Microsoft. Logically, that means it must be a bad thing. Further, the implication then is that "copying Sony" is going to drive the market to say "Fuck it, I'll buy a PS4 instead."

I'd disagree that it can't be neutral. They're now in line with their competitor. Most will shrug at that (i.e. neutral). But Sony can play the card that they didn't have to be forced to make those decisions by their competitor. They can argue they're obviously the leadership team that's actually leading at this point rather than following. That's definitely more fuel for Sony.

And I didn't imply your sarcastic example at the end. Didn't even come close to that.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd disagree that it can't be neutral. They're now in line with their competitor. Most will shrug at that (i.e. neutral). But Sony can play the card that they didn't have to be forced to make those decisions by their competitor. They can argue they're obviously the leadership team that's actually leading at this point rather than following. That's definitely more fuel for Sony.

And I didn't imply your sarcastic example at the end. Didn't even come close to that.

Dude, for the changes to be neutral, they would have to have a negligible effect. That means the people who were angry would have to still be angry and the people who were excited would have to still be excited. A neutral change cannot, by definition, change the mindset of the market.

Secondly, if the change IS 'neutral,' then it is neither good nor bad - in which case there is exactly zero reason to question whether it's a "good thing." If it's neutral, it doesn't hurt them, so who gives a fuck?

Sony can argue that they're leading the market. Sure. And that will matter to exactly nobody outside of fanboys for either side.

If you're arguing that the moves are neutral, there's no reason for you to be commenting on what it does to their contrast with Sony. If you're arguing that the moves are bad, then you're implying exactly what you say you aren't. You're certainly not arguing that the moves are good.

So which is it? Are you talking out of your ass, or are you lying?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So which is it? Are you talking out of your ass, or are you lying?

Typical MBBF rhetoric.

[Neon_Chaos]

A release towards the end of 2014 in Asia kills off whatever interest I had in buying an Xbone.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Typical MBBF rhetoric.

Ya think?

[MizzouRah]

Watching some E3 game videos.. I'm really excited about The Division.

[Neon_Chaos]

Winter 2014.

Let's see if it remains a PS4 exclusive by release date.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

A release towards the end of 2014 in Asia kills off whatever interest I had in buying an Xbone.

I think this is where Sony could create some momentum if they bump up the release a bit in Asia. Get some region-free consoles out there and give the developers an installed base to work with going forward. That's how you get developers to make the jump.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Dude, for the changes to be neutral, they would have to have a negligible effect. That means the people who were angry would have to still be angry and the people who were excited would have to still be excited. A neutral change cannot, by definition, change the mindset of the market.

Secondly, if the change IS 'neutral,' then it is neither good nor bad - in which case there is exactly zero reason to question whether it's a "good thing." If it's neutral, it doesn't hurt them, so who gives a fuck?

Sony can argue that they're leading the market. Sure. And that will matter to exactly nobody outside of fanboys for either side.

If you're arguing that the moves are neutral, there's no reason for you to be commenting on what it does to their contrast with Sony. If you're arguing that the moves are bad, then you're implying exactly what you say you aren't. You're certainly not arguing that the moves are good.

We're splitting hairs here. I'm arguing the net effect. Tthere's a positive on both sides. MS doesn't look nearly as bad on the indie front. Sony can argue a market leader position and that they weren't followers when making decisions on their console. Net result as you mention is that neither gained much in the exchange.

There's some perception on your part that I'm arguing that these small changes will flip the market on it's head. That's not the case. I'm a business and investment guy who finds these kinds of things fascinating and I love to talk about the minutia of it all. This is fantastic business analysis stuff, much like the last launch. People should enjoy discussing it.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Winter 2014.

Let's see if it remains a PS4 exclusive by release date.

Comes out on both systems.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Comes out on both systems.

I think he means if it will be exclusively available on the PS4 in the Philippines or if the XBox One will be available there by then.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I think he means if it will be exclusively available on the PS4 in the Philippines or if the XBox One will be available there by then.

Ahhh... thanks, makes sense.

[Neon_Chaos]

Yeah. Just wondering how many cross platforms are going to be PS4 exclusives for 2014 in Asia.