Was anyone else hoping Microsoft would have kept the DRM?

#31aszsithPosted 2/7/2014 9:25:38 AM
TaffmanG posted...
It would have been commercial suicide.

They were testing the water and got bitten although I have no doubt they will slowly and surely bring these features back in future updates.

I'm no business expert but Microsoft could have had this gen wrapped up if they had announced a backwards compatible machine with no Kinect, no DRM, no anti consumer features.

If they'd have concentrated on making a gaming machine that you could still play with your XBox 360 friends (word of mouth about how good the machine was would have encouraged more switching) then PS4 wouldn't have stood a chance.

Because of their stance however, I (and I suspect many others) migrated to Sony.


So basically you think Microsoft should have made a Super360? This is the mentality that holds the industry back. If you don't want innovation, pick a hobby that isn't solely based on new technology, like woodworking.
---
ALL games should have a Single Player mode. I can always guarantee I want to play when I turn on my system. I can't guarantee others will at the same time.
#32ejay8320Posted 2/7/2014 9:34:13 AM
aszsith posted...
Well, let's look at the differences.

Currently - Traditional business model established in last generation.
Buy new disc based games at retail
Buy new digital games through console
Sell disc based games any way you wish
Buy DLC through console
Buy DLC codes at retail
Access digitally bought games from any online connected console

Could have been - Modified business model
Buy new disc based games at retail
Buy new digital games through console
Sell disc based games through authorized retailers
Sell digital games through authorized retailers
Buy DLC through console
Buy DLC codes at retail
Sell DLC through authorized retailers
Access digitally purchased games from any online connected console
Access disc based games from any online connected console
Family sharing allowing access to full games with a limited number of authorized users


The items in bold are what would have been GAINED.
The item in italics is what would have CHANGED.

The only benefit to the old/current way is that gamers can sell disc based games ANY WAY YOU WANT. What was LOST was a lot more though. Fear of change, ignorance of what the change actually was, and mob mentality caused the problem.


I really don't think those bolded changes would;ve happened as that info was released near or after MS backtracked...

MS essentially said: We could;ve done this IF you listened to us, but you didnt so you dont get it.

If these were originally planned(bolded parts of your argument) why wasn't announced during the reveal? It would;ve been an amazing selling point wouldn't it? Again why reveal it only after or near the backtracking?
#33TaffmanGPosted 2/7/2014 9:47:09 AM
No, I don't think MS should have made a Super360 - please read what I said again and highlight exactly where I said that, using those words. Please.

If Microsoft thought the same as you, they wouldn't have backtracked so much on most of the things they said couldn't be changed. They knew that if they kept all the DRM in as they originally wanted, they would have been sunk. As it is, they've put a lot of people off.

And saying I should go and do woodwork if I don't agree with what they tried to do is just a daft thing to say. I like videogames, but don't have to agree with everything that companies do.
#34TrueBlue91Posted 2/7/2014 9:49:56 AM
aszsith posted...
TaffmanG posted...
It would have been commercial suicide.

They were testing the water and got bitten although I have no doubt they will slowly and surely bring these features back in future updates.

I'm no business expert but Microsoft could have had this gen wrapped up if they had announced a backwards compatible machine with no Kinect, no DRM, no anti consumer features.

If they'd have concentrated on making a gaming machine that you could still play with your XBox 360 friends (word of mouth about how good the machine was would have encouraged more switching) then PS4 wouldn't have stood a chance.

Because of their stance however, I (and I suspect many others) migrated to Sony.


So basically you think Microsoft should have made a Super360? This is the mentality that holds the industry back. If you don't want innovation, pick a hobby that isn't solely based on new technology, like woodworking.

If the ****ing abomination M$ tried to unleash on the not-so-unsuspecting masses was the alternative to a "super 360", then **** yes.
---
Pour grammer annoy's me
"This isn't even apples to oranges. More like toast to bears." - Bloodychess
#35aszsithPosted 2/7/2014 10:07:20 AM
TaffmanG posted...
No, I don't think MS should have made a Super360 - please read what I said again and highlight exactly where I said that, using those words. Please.

If Microsoft thought the same as you, they wouldn't have backtracked so much on most of the things they said couldn't be changed. They knew that if they kept all the DRM in as they originally wanted, they would have been sunk. As it is, they've put a lot of people off.

And saying I should go and do woodwork if I don't agree with what they tried to do is just a daft thing to say. I like videogames, but don't have to agree with everything that companies do.


Yes, I added the Super360 title to illustrate a point. But what you think they should have made essentially involves an upgrade in memory to the graphics card and memory and no innovation. Arguing that a technology product shouldn't innovate in favor of small incremental improvement is counter productive to the advancement of the industry. And no, you do not have to agree with everything the game companies do. Nor should they have to stop innovating because some people don't want to embrace innovation.

I stand by my point.

And Microsoft clearly thought that innovation was the right move or they wouldn't have spent the time and money to develop it. They changed due to fear based on pre-release consumer outrage. THAT move was their mistake, not the innovation. And they know it. Which is why they decided to give the naysayers a token pass by temporarily changing the system to cater to their whims.

Read the XBOne EULA. It basically says they can change the system architecture and requirements at any time, just like any EULA. They will slowly bring the initial vision back into play. Will everything make it back in? Doubtful. Will those so called "anti-consumer" practices people seem so afraid of make it back? Yup. They'll test the waters one feature at a time until they hit the sweet spot.
---
ALL games should have a Single Player mode. I can always guarantee I want to play when I turn on my system. I can't guarantee others will at the same time.
#36MRL3G3NDPosted 2/7/2014 10:58:41 AM
yeah I don't have any games I would like to share...and people are forgetting the catch to family sharing...you couldn't play the same game at the same time...

I swear some people are so na´ve and gullible...do not trust MS...their new business model is to screw you, while masking it as a favor to you...

after all the lies and the cheating the terrible service, I don't trust a thing coming out of that camp...

the thing I hate most is that I sit down to play a game, and cannot...that burns me up...I didn't know that was possible until this gen...
---
XBOX ONE BF4 CRAZY
http://youtu.be/wndCkss-AJA
#37DeadCeIIScoutPosted 2/7/2014 11:00:33 AM
Nope, I sell games on Amazon. The Kinect is already Big Brother enough, no one's going to tell me what I can do with my purchases.
---
Stay on topic. The topic is not me.
Troll elsewhere.
#38DarkReign2022Posted 2/11/2014 6:46:47 PM
The mandatory internet function was a pain in the ass, but outside of that I didn't have a qualm with the original setup they had planned. Being able to share games with fellow users would've been the ultimate demo/rental service and being able to go a certain period without needing to insert the disc would've been awesome (a feature I think should've been left optionally for those that do have the means to connect regularly, perhaps making it mandatory to insert the disc once a week to confirm it.) Against popular belief, the console DID still play used games. It simply needed some tweaking to eliminate the online requirement.
#39ImThe8thWonderPosted 2/11/2014 6:48:37 PM
No thanks, I prefer having a console that doesn't brick itself if it isn't connected to the internet for a day. What a ridiculous policy.
---
PS4~XB1~PS3~XB360~PS2~PS1~PS Vita~Wii~Wii U~DS~3DS~Super NES~N64~PC
Not everyone that has a difference of opinion or that offers criticisms is a troll.
#40HeracylostPosted 2/11/2014 7:02:09 PM
aszsith posted...
TaffmanG posted...
It would have been commercial suicide.

They were testing the water and got bitten although I have no doubt they will slowly and surely bring these features back in future updates.

I'm no business expert but Microsoft could have had this gen wrapped up if they had announced a backwards compatible machine with no Kinect, no DRM, no anti consumer features.

If they'd have concentrated on making a gaming machine that you could still play with your XBox 360 friends (word of mouth about how good the machine was would have
encouraged more switching) then PS4 wouldn't have stood a chance.

Because of their stance however, I (and I suspect many others) migrated to Sony.


So basically you think Microsoft should have made a Super360? This is the mentality that
holds the industry back. If you don't want innovation, pick a hobby that isn't solely based on new technology, like woodworking.


It's a toy to play games, that's it's basic and best function. It's not a phone, pad or suppose to be terribly complicated, or expensive.
Don't need leaps and bounds of innovation. It's purpose is to cure boredom.
Don't act like it's suppose to be complex and uber super do everything all in one so you get more time on your ass. That's just sad.