4196 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

OdanUrr wrote...

The way to do it is by encouraging people to buy games digitally. Do not remove the choice of buying a physical copy of the game, be it used or new, but make it more attractive to the consumer to go digital. The family sharing idea could've worked as an incentive, IF it had been used as we interpreted and not as that one-hour demo. They'd also need to incorporate digital sales after GOG or Steam and, perhaps most important of all, they need to go worldwide on their digital distribution market. As far as I know, both Steam and GOG are available pretty much everywhere in the world and charge always in U.S. Dollars for any title.

Once you have all these factors in play you'll get a lot of people going digital not because they have to but because they want to. And that's what Microsoft needs to understand, that it's always better to persuade people to do something rather than force them to do it.

I believe Steam doesn't charge the same prices worldwise. I usually hear Europeans talking about how they frequently get screwed by pricing.

The family sharing is a solid idea that needs some polish. The main issue is people exploiting the system to effectively gain multiple copies of a game from only a single purchase. This mostly hurts SP focused games, as MP games already require a connection due to being a MP game, and a connetion means you can enforce only one person using the game at a time.

You could run a system so that shared games must be digital purchases and require a connection to play for everybody, but you can set what is or isn't a shared game for you(so if you want to play something offline, you can set it to being a non shared game). This way you can enforce the "only one person can use it" policy and you still have the option to just turn the system into the current version of Steam if you want.

If you didn't care about effectively giving away 2 copies of the game per purchase, you could also just let the owner play offline regardless of it being a shared game or not.

Disc based games would just work as is on the current generation, since they're already restricted due to being a physical thing. This would be for digital games only.

[Bekkael]

Cyonan wrote...

Bekkael wrote...
I'm all for competition. It's good for the consumer, and as far as I care, that's the only thing that matters. If ANY company thinks they can do whatever they like without regard to the consumer, then I will boycott them and urge all friends and aquaintances to join me in putting them out of business. Another company is likely to step in with a product that actually offers what people want.

No company deserves to survive if they forget the #1 driving principle of any type of sales: the customer is always right.

Actually the whole "the customer is always right" thing was a sales pitch that was just made up a long time ago, it's not actually true.

Customers often say they want one thing, but actually want something different.

Microsoft just didn't get that what customers said in this case was in fact actually what they wanted, no restrictions in terms of online connection and used games, or maybe they just thought they could get away with it and it backfired on them.

I neither know nor care about the history or origin behind that saying. It's the philosophy behind it that I heartily agree with. I know there are many slick salespeople who are skilled at talking someone into buying something they didn't know they wanted, but the educated consumer will not be fooled by such tricks.

I worked for years in various customer service positions, and learned something that will always be true: give the customer what they want, serve them to the best of your ability, and never, ever insult or belittle them. Treat them well, treat them with respect, and you will have a customer for life.

As a consumer, I know my own mind. I know what I am willing to pay for and what I won't pay for. Try to force me to buy something I don't want while simultaneously insulting my intelligence, and I will boycott you until hell freezes over and beyond. Make your customers angry, and they will become evangelists preaching against your product and company.

Companies seem to have become more and more arrogant towards customers, but they fail to realize something very important: at the end of the day, it isn't your boss who pays your wage, it's the people who buy your product. If you ****** them off, they will take their money and business elsewhere, and then how will your business survive?

/rant

[billy the squid]

Cyonan wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

Hmm. More than they otherwise would if they did no reversal, but many former customers have lost trust over all this X1 stuff. That trust will be difficult to regain, and in the longrun it may even be impossible. Only time and sales will tell the whole story.

Honestly, with all the hostile-to-consumers stuff from Microsoft, and all the dev whimpering over Twitter about how evil used games are destroying the industry, I'm ashamed to be a gamer lately.

If open war is ever truly declared on used games and consumer rights are lost, I will happily play my old games and otherwise walk away from this hobby that has moved from simple enjoyment to stress and annoyance. Who honestly needs more stress in their lives? Not me.

The sad thing is that if the X1 does tank at this point, this will just be used as an excuse in the future to not listen to the consumers because "You still aren't going to buy it anyway". I still hope it does well for that, plus the fact that it is never a good thing for the consumer to have one company dominate the market, and the WiiU isn't exactly doing great right now.

Though we forgot about a lot of stuff Sony did, so who knows if we'll still be hating Microsoft for this 6 months from now.

As far as used games go, it will happen like the PC I would imagine. No war will be declared, they'll just die one day in the name of going fully digital like Steam, Origin, GoG, etc.

They just need to figure out how to properly implement it in a way that doesn't make it sound and act like terrible DRM.

Errrr. I doubt it. This simply screams new coke marketing disaster. They didn't go ahead and implement it anyway, or they would have got utterly massacred by the competition. I don't think it'll flop anyway, the early uptakers and brand loyalty will keep it going, but hopefully it's the slap upside the head that they needed not to be idiots next time.

Though what did Sony do? If you look at it they didn't really do anything, they just sat there while MS floundered about. 

Used Games are unlikely to go away, but I doubt they'll exist in their current form though, Steam is making the license trading system. Yet look at the differences and the way MS and EA have behaved through Xbox live and Origin compared to Steam, Greenman Gaming, GoG, Desura even the PSN. There is no indication that MS will pass on those benefits to the consumer, that's the danger that people seem to keep missing. 

Microsoft is not like Steam, it has no competition, there is no reason why it should ever lower the price of games like Steam if it chooses not to.

[OdanUrr]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

I believe Steam doesn't charge the same prices worldwise. I usually hear Europeans talking about how they frequently get screwed by pricing.

Steam also prevents some users from purchasing games by region. I know a fellow from around the Russia area (he's never clear on where he lives) who can't see some games occasionally and I have to buy them for him.

Yeah, for instance, I can't buy Dark Souls.

[Cyonan]

Bekkael wrote...

I neither know nor care about the history or origin behind that saying. It's the philosophy behind it that I heartily agree with. I know there are many slick salespeople who are skilled at talking someone into buying something they didn't know they wanted, but the educated consumer will not be fooled by such tricks.

I worked for years in various customer service positions, and learned something that will always be true: give the customer what they want, serve them to the best of your ability, and never, ever insult or belittle them. Treat them well, treat them with respect, and you will have a customer for life.

As a consumer, I know my own mind. I know what I am willing to pay for and what I won't pay for. Try to force me to buy something I don't want while simultaneously insulting my intelligence, and I will boycott you until hell freezes over and beyond. Make your customers angry, and they will become evangelists preaching against your product and company.

Companies seem to have become more and more arrogant towards customers, but they fail to realize something very important: at the end of the day, it isn't your boss who pays your wage, it's the people who buy your product. If you ****** them off, they will take their money and business elsewhere, and then how will your business survive?

/rant

Basic professionalism is to be expected by any company, which includes not insulting everybody who isn't you.

My point is that there must be a balance between what is best for your customer and what is good for your business. It's not the one way street that many of us would like to view it as and despite that keeping your customers happy is good for your business, the two don't always align perfectly.

In this case, Microsoft shifted too much towards the "what is good for your business" and it backfired.

Though gamers have also shown that we're pretty willing to accept these kinds of things as long as you know how to dress it up in decent PR. People hate on EA for forcing Origin on us and yet I don't hear too many people talking about how Valve does the same thing.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
For this thread, suffice it to say that I'm certain the world will continue just fine regardless of gaming and whether or not the Xbox One "destroys" gaming or anything of the kind.

If your measurement of whether something has any weight or importance is whether or not the world will continue on regardless of what happens with said something...
overwhelmingly few things have any weight.

[Cyonan]

billy the squid wrote...

Though what did Sony do? If you look at it they didn't really do anything, they just sat there while MS floundered about.

I'm more talking about before PS4.

You know, things like including a feature, taking it out post-launch then suing some random guy over it.

Or that time when Sony was on the bad side of one of the worst security failures in history

Apparently if you just don't do anything then people will forgot once they find somebody new to hate, and you'll become the "saviour" of console gaming =P

Modifié par Cyonan, 21 juin 2013 - 06:32 .

[LPPrince]

Speaking about Sony flubs, what was that deal I've been hearing about a PS3 update bricking consoles?

[Bekkael]

Cyonan wrote...

Basic professionalism is to be expected by any company, which includes not insulting everybody who isn't you.

My point is that there must be a balance between what is best for your customer and what is good for your business. It's not the one way street that many of us would like to view it as and despite that keeping your customers happy is good for your business, the two don't always align perfectly.

In this case, Microsoft shifted too much towards the "what is good for your business" and it backfired.

Though gamers have also shown that we're pretty willing to accept these kinds of things as long as you know how to dress it up in decent PR. People hate on EA for forcing Origin on us and yet I don't hear too many people talking about how Valve does the same thing.

But remember, people console game because they dislike PC gaming (like me) or can't afford a nice PC. I find all the Valve/Steam, Origin comparisons irrelevant. It's apples to oranges as far as I'm concerned. I console game BECAUSE I can still own a physical product like a disc, and that's what I dislike most about the PC games I own. I dislike Steam but have bought games that were very cheap because my kids like PC gaming. I detest DRM in all forms, always have and always will. It does nothing but punish the law-abiding consumer. People who steal (pirates) will always find a way around DRM.

I disliked the direction Microsoft had been moving before this whole X1 thing, but I still assumed it would be enough like the 360 that I would buy their next console. You would never be able to put enough pretty words and PR dressing on what the X1 offered so I would ever be tempted to buy it, or even accept it as a gift.

Even with their reversal, what they attempted to do was enough to show me that I'm not someone they are interested in having as a customer. Fair enough, I just take my money elsewhere. If there are people willing to pay for what they originally proposed, then okay. Different products suit different people.

For my part, I will continue to view Microsoft as hostile to consumers and treat the Xbox brand as a cautionary tale.

Modifié par Bekkael, 21 juin 2013 - 06:37 .

[AshedMan]

LPPrince wrote...

Speaking about Sony flubs, what was that deal I've been hearing about a PS3 update bricking consoles?

Not sure.  I've never experienced it on my machine.  

[billy the squid]

Cyonan wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Though what did Sony do? If you look at it they didn't really do anything, they just sat there while MS floundered about.

I'm more talking about before PS4.

You know, things like including a feature, taking it out post-launch then suing some random guy over it.

Or that time when Sony was on the bad side of one of the worst security failures in history

Apparently if you just don't do anything then people will forgot once they find somebody new to hate, and you'll become the "saviour" of console gaming =P

Is this before or after MS moved to have someone's house raided for leaking the specs of the "Durango"

Yep, Sony screwed up with the PSN getting hacked, and when they first launched the PS3, they got a bloody good kicking for it, and deserved every second and rightly bent over backwards to adress the PSN and poor release of the PS3. So I'm not sure what point your trying to make with that. 

Sony could have simply done the same as MS and said "well screw you, what are you all going to do now?" They didn't and as much as MS deserves every second of the flak it got, Sony deserved credit for not being dicks, when they could just have easily have done so. 

And there in lies the problem with the console industry, it has become so rotten, that a company NOT going out of it's way to screw everyone over is something major. And this is why it was important that MS got all the criticism or "hate" it got, the move it made is precisely the kind of behaviour that is so common it has become banal within the industry, and sitting there and clamming up hasn't changed anything in the last decade, in fact it's just got worse.

Modifié par billy the squid, 21 juin 2013 - 06:48 .

[Bekkael]

LPPrince wrote...

Speaking about Sony flubs, what was that deal I've been hearing about a PS3 update bricking consoles?

The update.

[Cyonan]

Bekkael wrote...

But remember, people console game because they dislike PC gaming (like me) or can't afford a nice PC. I find all the Valve/Steam, Origin comparisons irrelevant. It's apples to oranges as far as I'm concerned. I console game BECAUSE I can still own a physical product like a disc, and that's what I dislike most about the PC games I own. I dislike Steam but have bought games that were very cheap because my kids like PC gaming. I detest DRM in all forms, always have and always will. It does nothing but punish the law-abiding consumer. People who steal (pirates) will always find a way around DRM.

I disliked the direction Microsoft had been moving before this whole X1 thing, but I still assumed it would be enough like the 360 that I would buy their next console. You would never be able to put enough pretty words and PR dressing on what the X1 offered so I would ever be tempted to buy it, or even accept it as a gift.

Even with their reversal, what they attempted to do was enough to show me that I'm not someone they are interested in having as a customer. Fair enough, I just take my money elsewhere. If there are people willing to pay for what they originally proposed, then okay. Different products suit different people.

For my part, I will continue to view Microsoft as hostile to consumers and treat the Xbox brand as a cautionary tale.

The thing about Origin/Steam was nothing but an example. Both companies introduced a DRM system and forced it on their customers. Valve isn't hated on for it while EA is.

The point being that if you have good PR, you can get away with a lot more. Maybe you specifically would not have gone for it, but it would seem that the majority of people do given how many PC gamers love Steam right now.

Microsoft's PR primarily failed because they were so focused on being defensive about the restrictions. They focused so little on any possible benefit of the system that we didn't even know how any of it fully worked. Not a very good strategy if you want to convince your customers that the positives outweigh the restrictions.

Every company should be treated with caution. Every single one of them exist to make money, and wouldn't do something for you if they didn't think they would profit from it in the long run.

The one thing I would be curious is would your views change if Microsoft came out with a solid system with good policies in the next generation?

[LPPrince]

Bekkael wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Speaking about Sony flubs, what was that deal I've been hearing about a PS3 update bricking consoles?

The update.

Ouch.

Good thing they're fixing it soon, but ouch.

[Grumpy Cat]

http://bit.ly/1aApXLI

Modifié par Grumpy Cat, 21 juin 2013 - 07:01 .

[Cyonan]

billy the squid wrote...

Is this before or after MS moved to have someone's house raided for leaking the specs of the "Durango"

Yep, Sony screwed up with the PSN getting hacked, and when they first launched the PS3, they got a bloody good kicking for it, and deserved every second and rightly bent over backwards to adress the PSN and poor release of the PS3. So I'm not sure what point your trying to make with that. 

Sony could have simply done the same as MS and said "well screw you, what are you all going to do now?" They didn't and as much as MS deserves every second of the flak it got, Sony deserved credit for not being dicks, when they could just have easily have done so. 

And there in lies the problem with the console industry, it has become so rotten, that a company NOT going out of it's way to screw everyone over is something major. And this is why it was important that MS got all the criticism or "hate" it got, the move it made is precisely the kind of behaviour that is so common it has become banal within the industry, and sitting there and clamming up hasn't changed anything in the last decade, in fact it's just got worse.

Sony, as you said yourself, didn't actually do anything and yet people were calling them the "saviour" of gaming for not only not having done anything special but actually introducing a fee for playing games online and completely forgot about past anti-consumer things.

My point is that if Sony can fix the worst parts of the system then do nothing and get away with it, then Microsoft probably can too.

Modifié par Cyonan, 21 juin 2013 - 07:03 .

[Grumpy Cat]

Grumpy Cat wrote...

http://bit.ly/1aApXLI

 

[Bekkael]

Cyonan wrote...

The thing about Origin/Steam was nothing but an example. Both companies introduced a DRM system and forced it on their customers. Valve isn't hated on for it while EA is.

The point being that if you have good PR, you can get away with a lot more. Maybe you specifically would not have gone for it, but it would seem that the majority of people do given how many PC gamers love Steam right now.

Microsoft's PR primarily failed because they were so focused on being defensive about the restrictions. They focused so little on any possible benefit of the system that we didn't even know how any of it fully worked. Not a very good strategy if you want to convince your customers that the positives outweigh the restrictions.

Every company should be treated with caution. Every single one of them exist to make money, and wouldn't do something for you if they didn't think they would profit from it in the long run.

The one thing I would be curious is would your views change if Microsoft came out with a solid system with good policies in the next generation?

I think you are incorrect. Lots of people hated on Valve/Steam earlier on. I think their frequent low prices and huge sales mollified enough people for the outrage to die down, and they have other features that PC folks seem to really enjoy. I don't for one second believe Microsoft would follow that model of very low prices or allowing modding or whatever else would make their community happy.

PR means nothing. You can spin crap seven different ways, but it will still be crap.

Let me be clear: I was VERY devoted to Xbox before the X1 reveal. In this very thread, I have gone through the various stages of grief and felt like I was losing a decade-long friend of the family. No one could have been more disappointed by their policies than I was.

I was just as prepared (as so many others) to listen to Sony announce that they were doing the same thing. I was ready to go to Wii U for crying out loud!

I've never owned any console but Xbox (well, I own a Wii, but does that really count?)  but I now embrace Sony as my new gaming partner. As long as Sony stays on the current course of gamer friendly policies, then they can have my money. Whichever company offers me the best gaming console with the least restrictions, that's where I'll go. I have no brand loyalty. Not anymore. Microsoft made sure of it.

Modifié par Bekkael, 21 juin 2013 - 07:17 .

[billy the squid]

Cyonan wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Is this before or after MS moved to have someone's house raided for leaking the specs of the "Durango"

Yep, Sony screwed up with the PSN getting hacked, and when they first launched the PS3, they got a bloody good kicking for it, and deserved every second and rightly bent over backwards to adress the PSN and poor release of the PS3. So I'm not sure what point your trying to make with that. 

Sony could have simply done the same as MS and said "well screw you, what are you all going to do now?" They didn't and as much as MS deserves every second of the flak it got, Sony deserved credit for not being dicks, when they could just have easily have done so. 

And there in lies the problem with the console industry, it has become so rotten, that a company NOT going out of it's way to screw everyone over is something major. And this is why it was important that MS got all the criticism or "hate" it got, the move it made is precisely the kind of behaviour that is so common it has become banal within the industry, and sitting there and clamming up hasn't changed anything in the last decade, in fact it's just got worse.

Sony, as you said yourself, didn't actually do anything and yet people were calling them the "saviour" of gaming for not only not having done anything special but actually introducing a fee for playing games online and completely forgot about past anti-consumer things.

My point is that if Sony can fix the worst parts of the system then do nothing and get away with it, then Microsoft probably can too.

I think the "saviour" of gaming has been a barb thrown by the pro xbox lobby after the DRM reversal. Everyone knows Sony didn't really do anything, but that meant everything when MS, was dead set on pushing all this through. If Sony had done the same as MS, the console industry would have been well and truly screwed. 

As to their anti consumer things in the past. It wasn't particular anti consumer, more sloppy and stupid, and they rightly paid for it, it also looks like that they haven't forgotten that they spent the entire last gen playing catch up after they dominated with the PS2.

While the fee is annoying. For £1.75 a month, and I get to pick a selection of free games, like XCOM and it only applies to multiplayer, not net surfing, watching videos, netflix, patches and updates etc.  I'll take it. This is what I mean by doing something right and doing it wrong. Steam has done largely the same.

What has MS done? Nothing, their practices stayed the same, paywall, refusing to devalue products on Xbox live. But on top of that they tried to get away with even more. MS could correct it if they want to, but I wouldn't bet on it, unless they get into trouble, like this time or their recipts are collapsing they will always try to push things further. They needed to be brought back down to earth

[MerinTB]

Cyonan wrote...
The thing about Origin/Steam was nothing but an example. Both companies introduced a DRM system and forced it on their customers. Valve isn't hated on for it while EA is.

The point being that if you have good PR, you can get away with a lot more. Maybe you specifically would not have gone for it, but it would seem that the majority of people do given how many PC gamers love Steam right now.

That's not exactly true, though.

First off, Steam was initially just a way to do patching and preventing cheating for Counter-strike.  And Valve had, before they developed Steam, tried to partner with other companies (like Yahoo and Microsoft) but ended up having to do it themselves.  Then they moved on to using Steam to digitally distribute their games with ease of patching and updating... and then third party sales came afterward.  Steam wasn't built as a DRM system, it was built as patching and preventing cheating system... and then, in a largely untested space between 2002-2008 they were, more or less, the iTunes of digital games sales while adding third-party publishers very slowly until 2007 at the earliest.

EA created Origin to be a walled garden to sell their games.  Not even close to the same thing (beyond like comparing a motorcyle to a skateboard, as both as wheeled transports)

Valve earned trust by doing things right and not being intrusive with DRM.  They have Steamworks, Project Greenlight,  Steam Workshop, Steam for Schools, etc.

EA is almost universally reviled - to the point that they get voted as a worst company.  There is NO trust there.

It's all about trust.

Superman and General Zod are BOTH Kryptonians on Earth.  Why do Earthlings love one and hate the other, they are basically the same thing!

http://www.thetibcob...is-loathed-why/
http://www.redgaming...rigin-get-hate/

Microsoft is in the same boat as EA, in regards to the Xbox One.  Microsoft is the whipping boy of the tech industry, a frequent target of monopoly charges, obtrusive DRM policies (*coughWINDOWSXPcough*), overcharging for products (WINDOWS, OFFICE, etc), having horrendous customer service...
the fact that people were distrusting of Xbox getting into DRM policies, of having a walled garden digital purchase system, etc... is because Microsoft, like EA, has a horrible reputation and is not trusted.

It's like how (wrongly, IMO) liberals are so ready to accept Obama's use of drones or NSA spying, but Bush doing HALF of that was/would be lynched in public opinion and the media.  One is trusted, the other is not.  Even when doing the SAME THING.

Again - why not trust Zod with the same power as Superman.  Same power, right?