jim1398 said:
How is the offline mode arse? You download the game, you play it once to activate it, you set steam to offline, you play the game offline. I have never had a problem with it on any occasion I've had to use it. Regardless, whether it's good or bad is largely irrelevant, the point is, the option is there to play your games offline, something Microsoft don't offer.
Well clearly you have far more faith in Microsoft than I do. They aren't going to match the level of sales you can get with PC games, they just aren't. When Microsoft are offering virtually every new game with a 10% discount, offering games every single day of the week (with extra ones midweek and weekends) at 50%-75% and multiweek long sales 2 or 3 times a year where you can get a publisher's entire catalog of games for up to 80% off, I'll remove this point from the list. Until then, it's staying. (BTW, this is just a comparison to Steams sales, we'll ignore the fact I can often go to other online stores and buy a brand new PC game on the day of release for up to 50% off. How often could you say the same for console games?)
And? Just because Microsoft have always charged doesn't alter the fact that Steam doesn't. The point is that multiplayer being free through Steam goes some way to getting people to put up with the extra DRM.
Not on the same platform they don't. Microsoft have complete control over the Xbox. Steam doesn't have control over the PC. I could uninstall steam right now and still have access to plenty of games.
And you're missing the point. People put up with Steam DRM (they embrace the ease of it, not the DRM) because of the benefits it has and the benefits of PC gaming in general. The Xbox One doesn't provide those same benefits. So even if the DRM was the same (it's not), it's not a fair comparison to make because there are other reasons why people put up with it on Steam.
Just a disclaimer first against you highly immature folks who think everyone is "biased", I honestly couldn't give a toss about the PS4 or Xbox One or Wii U, because I have far too many PS2 games to finish first. The last generation honestly bored me and the only thing that has my interest so far next generation is KH3, which probably won't be released for a good few years still since it's in development. I'm personally looking forward to innovation on the PC, especially with stuff like the Oculus Rift coming out. I'm pro gamer, and I'm merely looking at the positive aspects of what companies are offering me here.
I'm not going to comment on offline mode on Steam, but personally I have no issue with the Xbox One having to verify content every 24 hours, because unlike Steam, it actually offers a way of selling games you own to other players. Seems like a good trade-off considering I'm on the internet every single day (honestly can't survive without it). It really doesn't bother me in the least, and I'm honestly not sure why it's a deal breaker for gamers. I don't bring my console with me on holidays, and the last time I was without internet, it was a power cut so I wouldn't have been able to play my consoles anyway. Sure, it's annoying being aware that I have to be online every now and then, but the added benefits of having my games on the hard drive without requiring disc swapping, and being able to bring my entire library of games over to someone else's place easily, etc etc, it's not really a deal breaker for me. As long as it enhances my experiences and doesn't interfere with my ability to jump into a game, then it's a great thing.
A business is not going to price themselves out of competition. If a company does that, they will lose. Microsoft are not idiots and have been playing the business game for a very long time. They're smarter than both you and myself. Let's talk about very basic economic concepts here. As demand goes up, the price comes down. Basic economic rule right? The demand of new games is going to increase significantly on the Xbox One, therefore the price will drop significantly. Games are a luxury good, so the demand of games is fairly elastic, meaning that Microsoft cannot maintain high prices for games if they want to make money. It just can't happen. That's why Steam constantly has all of their Steam sales, and their able to get away with those sales because there's no such thing as used games on PC. Microsoft are most likely going to adopt the same business strategy, because it's common sense. Let's also bare in mind that iOS/Android don't have used games either, and they have ridiculously cheap prices.
Remember, used games are killing the games industry. I'd strongly advise watching TotalBiscuit's video, as he pretty much explains used games very well, and it's honestly one of the best videos I have ever watched on the internet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M It's a very important issue for indie developers in particular. As a software developer myself, I would not want to release my application on a platform where one copy can go around several machines. It's a big reason why publishers may eventually start publishing exclusively to the Xbox One, because it gives them protection, rather than them having to set up their own protection. Do we want games like Diablo 3 or SimCity where the publisher's servers are highly unreliable? I would not be surprised if we reached a point where, just like the Wii U, people started complaining about the PS4 not having any games.
Also, I don't think you understand what competition is. Microsoft are competing against Sony and Nintendo. If you want to play games that are available on Xbox One only, then Microsoft are going to get your money. However, if Sony tempt you more, then you're money is going to go to Sony. That's competition. You're argument is the equivalent of saying that The Escapist has a monopoly on The Escapist news articles, or that Apple has a monopoly on iPhone products and that Android is not their competitor. Microsoft want your money, and they don't want Sony or Nintendo to get it. That's competition.
But anyways, to summarise, people need to realise that there are huge benefits to blocking used games. I'm very disappointed in a lot of gaming websites in not being objective or speculative on the topic. They just to want to grab as many clicks as possible I guess. It's a disgrace to journalism really. We have plenty of evidence to suggest that blocking used games means cheaper new games, which of course is highly pro-consumer, and not anti-consumer in the least. Not giving developers any protection is very anti-developer, and personally I want to support game developers so that they can continue to make more titles and begin to make innovative risks. Although remember, before any immature reader starts ranting about being "biased", I have no intentions of buying any console this generation, because I honestly couldn't care less.
