Xbox? Done.

[RA92]

My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

Won't happen. If your connection to the steam cloud fails, for whatever reason, you can still play your games online, as long as they are installed to your P.C.. Not a problem.

Gotta buy a new Hardrive to hold all 186 of my steam games. lol

Oh, no need for that. If somehow Steam goes bust, the rest of the internet flying the cross-bone flag has your back on acquiring games you already paid for, without bricking your computer. The Cloud, basically.

I mean, you bought the license, right?

 

[Frostbite3789]

For all the outrage on Xbox One games being "services, not products", there is very little when it comes to Steam, a retailer that has been selling "services" that exist only at the whim of a single company for the past few years. Most will say that the reason Steam gets very little backlash is because games on Steam are often put on sale for a fraction of their MSRPs.

Which means that the issue really has less to do with "services vs products" but rather price. It seems that consumers don't mind buying games whose functionality are tied to a single company so long as the price is right. But who's to say that the pricing model of the next generation will follow that of the current generation (in which nearly every retail game is $60, and every digital game is $10-20)?

One point; when Steam can't connect to the internet, you can still play all your games just fine. From all indications given by Microsoft thus far, with the Xbone if you can't connect to the internet once a day your console bricks itself until you can, preventing you from playing any games. This key point is the difference, at least for me.

Some of your games. Anytime you try to play some of them offline, they mystically need to update, but work the second you connect to the internet. Without updating. See: Civ V.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I agree completely. And I've been saying the same thing to whoever will listen. The idea that things you buy are no longer products but services that you pay only a license for is idiotic and I can't grasp how people can be so stupid to buy into that idea. There are actually a few of those corporate apologists on this very forum. I hate them and I would show them no mercy.

I think that another industry crash is our only hope. It must happen.

 

[seule]

all any of this really makes me think about is : this connecting to the cloud to improve your gaming experience really worked out well for Simcity, right?

 

[Sanunes]

My real concern that if this is as bad as I am going to imagine, Sony will be basically forced by the big developers to adopt this strategy (if they haven't already and just haven't said anything) if this is even remotely successful. Of course now I have to pick if I want to go for the Cloud based ideas of Microsoft which people have been using on the PC for years to some extent or another, or go with Sony who I won't trust with any personal information.

 

[The Pink Pansy]

One point; when Steam can't connect to the internet, you can still play all your games just fine. From all indications given by Microsoft thus far, with the Xbone if you can't connect to the internet once a day your console bricks itself until you can, preventing you from playing any games. This key point is the difference, at least for me.

Some of your games. Anytime you try to play some of them offline, they mystically need to update, but work the second you connect to the internet. Without updating. See: Civ V.

Umm, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I have never had a problem opening any single player game in offline mode, including Civ V.

 

[Farther than stars]

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

 

[badgersprite]

It really is ridiculous how they are undermining the whole concept of property with this "used game fee", and they're basically allowed to do it because law is a slow-moving beast largely controlled by a bunch of old dudes who don't understand electronics and are frightened and confused by the idea of updating the law to deal with digital/non-physical property. Not that it matters anyway since the companies have all the money and lobbying power and legal teams they need to persuade the lawmakers that electronic property really should be considered totally different and have a completely different set of anti-consumer laws applied to them.

I don't think the majority of people understand how big of a deal it is that they're essentially putting into law the idea that you don't actually own the things you purchase; you have no right to deal with or dispose of your property as you wish anymore.

The second something you own has a digital, non-physical element to it, you essentially cease to have any property rights over it.

 

[badgersprite]

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

 

[faefrost]

The major difference is PS+ offers a clear and fairly clean differentiation between that which you the consumer own, and that which you are selectively seeking to use as part of the optional service. MMO's are much the same. There is nothing wrong with some form of subscription or rental model. We have long supported it as a voluntary option. From PS+ to iTunes, to Netflix to Leasing cars. We make the choice based on some perceived benefit or compensation. Using PS+ as an example by moving to an optional service model PS+ offers us lowered pricing and extra games for our gaming dollars. There is a legitimate value calculation to be made.

But forcing a a lease or service model on the entirety of your customer base because it is in your business interests at the expense of theirs is an extremely horrid business model. And one that will badly burn MS this generation. Between the hellish little gotcha's in Windows 8 to the XBone. It isn't simply that MS has stripped away ownership. It's that they have stripped away the choice of ownership for any of their products. And they have given us nothing of value in return.

Personally I think we the consumers would be insane to buy into this as it is not in our best interests. The option of a service based relationship is fine. The requirement of one is detrimental to us with no obvious, apparent or even possible upside. The problem is not just that the XBone has no options to it's model. It's that it offers us nothing in return for surrendering our ownership.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

In all the furor over the XBone, no-one has yet to comment on a similar service that already exists, one that ties your games to the console manufacturer's continued existence. Namely, Playstation Network Plus. If you subscribe to that, you get a myriad of premium features (why auto-updating firmware is a premium feature, I don't know, that should be standard), but to get back to the topic, they either discounted certain games or give them to you for free. However, those games can only be played as long as you are a paid subscriber. Should your subscription end, or the Sony server datacenter is bombed out of existence, you lose the ability to play them, just like what the XBone is threatening to do. Suddenly, subscribing to PSN+ isn't so that you, the customer, can access great features like uploading saves to the cloud and whatnot - it's so you can continue to play the games that are sitting on the hard drive.

The difference that many will point out is that Xbox Live is used to access things that PSN provides for free, namely access to multiplayer servers. PSN Plus, in addition to not holding multiplayer behind a paywall, also gives free games instead of restricting access to the shop and whatnot. After the subscription expires, your example and explanation applies but people are more likely to keep using it because of the feeling of not being walled off

(note, if i'm wrong, feel free to correct)

 

[Farther than stars]

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Screw this, I'm not going to stand for Microsoft's business practices! I'm going to get a gaming PC! *buys a Windows PC* This was their plan all along.

Yeah, kind of ironic how the only way they "lose" is if someone buys a wii or a ps4. On the other hand Windows 8 is doing about as poorly as this new console is going to do: the last pole I've seen shows that 25% of PC users still use windows XP and close to 70% are using windows 7. The rest are using a mix of linux, OSX, and Windows 8. So less than 5% of users are making use of Windows 8.

Yeah, Windows 8 does not seem good for people who use desktops. For mobile users, the tile system works well but with the mouse and keyboard that desktops and laptops use, the system is just a giant roadblock. Windows should have tried to make two different operating systems for mobile and laptop/desktop instead of a hybrid

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

I'm not going to buy XBOX One because of how you cannot own YOUR purchases.

"This would effectively turn digital entertainment into the equivalent of a pet hamster that's been genetically engineered to only survive on food available from one specific store (and don't you dare think that PetSmart aren't dumping money into research for exactly that right now) ."

Did you know most corn or maize or whatever you call it in the US comes from seeds that have been mutated to NOT produce viable seeds? Farmers NEED to buy new seeds EACH year now, from ONE company. YES: A few years ago *CORN* was turned into a SERVICE, Bob!!! One that you need basically subscribe to if you want to make DAMNED food!!!

Google "Monsanto Terminator Seeds" for more...
(Great name though, as they are just as evil and uncaring about humanity as any T-1000)

That in and of itself is a bit of a moral issue to me because it makes an activity even more corporate. Because of pollination, the traits that make these seeds valuable can spread, leading to legal battles that farmers are not equipped to fight which forces more under Monsanto's control. That doesn't sound good in my perspective and many probably share my opinion

 

[LazyAza]

Everything Bob has talked about here is the exact reason I have never bought a big budget game or an indi game I sought to play more than once on a console and fuels my disinterest in both One and Ps4 atm. 99% of my digital purchases are steam only because I trust Valve and basically no one else to maintain my right to access that content. As they regularly remind us, should Steam "break" tomorrow they'd flip a switch and all those games I own I would still have access to, minus the steam requirements.

All my games that use windows live though, I suspect many of those will be unplayable some day. So its a good thing I feel I got my value from them and will have to simply pretend they were "stolen" when the day comes that they potentially are unplayable. Maybe I'm just lazy but in general I would not find myself getting overtly mad at the prospect of losing access to some of my digitally bought media as I feel that is the world we've lived in for some time now. Doesn't stop it from sucking but I feel its a bit unrealistic to expect companies to have our best interests in mind at all times now in an age of relentless greed and arrogance and just good old fashioned asshole-ism.

Besides when worst comes to worst I'll just "download" replacements of any games I no longer can legally access, no one is to blame for us having to go to such extents besides the companies responsible for that content no longer being easily available.

 

[badgersprite]

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Ah, but that's the thing. You can possess a chair. The reason the law is scared and confused is because the property laws which are still the basis of our system today were developed hundreds of years ago. Back then, physical possession and direct control was considered a key aspect of property and ownership. Those kinds of definitions don't really work today. However, because the common law is based on precedent, instead of updating the ancient definition of property, the law instead has to do bizarre backflips in order to fit new forms of property into this rigid and outdated legal definition that has no place in the modern world.

So, you see, you can physically possess a disc, but the digital information on that disc has no physical presence. You don't have physical possession of the content on that disc. The law basically says that you have only purchased a license to access that content.

Seriously, they struggled even when it came to the concept of applying the law of theft to electronic money.

That's legal reasoning for you.

 

[acsoundwave]

Well done Bob.

The resident movie expert has given us the most level headed analysis of the video game console reveal debacle. Well done indeed sir.

He's also the GAME OVERTHINKER, so it's not much of a stretch.

 

[Vigormortis]

My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

I hear this a lot, but really it's a non-issue.

All speculation aside on future events, "unlock codes", and other such things, just know this: Steam has an in-built "backup" system. You can create backup copies of all of your games to any drive or media you desire.

So should, at any point in the future, Steam "disappear", as long as you have your game backups (in this instance, the equivalent of having the discs) you'll be just fine.

Most will say that the reason Steam gets very little backlash is because games on Steam are often put on sale for a fraction of their MSRPs.

Not true.

See my post above.

The only way you could lose your library of games from Steam is if you are very irresponsible.

As I said: the client has an in-built backup feature. The only reason to NOT use it is laziness.

 

[Vigormortis]

The real fear is if Steam got bought out by someone else, but their price is well beyond what EA offered.

238U

It's rumored EA offered Newell and company at least three billion dollars for ownership of the Valve brand, even before Steam's prevalence.

Valve turned it down. Not because it wasn't enough but because of what it would mean for the company. The change in direction. The strict corporate structure. The adherence to the whims of the stock holders instead of to the customers, the artists, and engineers.

Newell himself said, and I paraphrase, "Should it come down to that; having to sell the company; we would rather just close our doors for good than give up what makes us us."

This is not to say they can't or won't change their minds, should the right off come in. Even so, you have to admire the conviction to some degree.

 

[Sanunes]

The real fear is if Steam got bought out by someone else, but their price is well beyond what EA offered.

238U

It's rumored EA offered Newell and company at least three billion dollars for ownership of the Valve brand, even before Steam's prevalence.

Valve turned it down. Not because it wasn't enough but because of what it would mean for the company. The change in direction. The strict corporate structure. The adherence to the whims of the stock holders instead of to the customers, the artists, and engineers.

Newell himself said, and I paraphrase, "Should it come down to that; having to sell the company; we would rather just close our doors for good than give up what makes us us."

This is not to say they can't or won't change their minds, should the right off come in. Even so, you have to admire the conviction to some degree.

I don't know how true the war is between EA and Valve, but if Valve really has gone to developers and said that "you must sell your DLC a specific way" I consider them no better then what Microsoft is rumored to be doing here. I have been going back to try and find a few articles, but the statements from Microsoft change so much depending on what article you are reading I am not even sure how much of it is true and just guessing from people that aren't completely up to speed on what the current implementation is.

I really need to see what Microsoft is exactly offering, for otherwise its a lot of people reading into comments that might be out of date and from a few of the comments that have the community in an uproar if true will hopefully change.