We Recommend By ZergNet


  • Unoriginal - June 22, 2013 5:17 a.m.

    Where I'm from: Price of a new game: 100-120 dollars Price of a recent used game: 50-60 dollars Price of a year old used game: 5-30 dollars. The Xbox loyalists in my country are understandably happy with the Xbox 18ö.
  • t3knoman - June 22, 2013 5:15 a.m.

    Let me just state first I am pc gamer with about 175 games on steam, Xbox 360 about 30 (first gen xbox about 25), ps3 about 15 and 5 on PSN+. What I take offense to is the condescending attitude from MS and employees in interviews. I will now go piece by piece and pick apart this none research article (who owns GamesRadar?) 1. “Your game library won't be digital” – Why not? Why does this need to change, if you want digital, BUY digital, That is MS choice to not allow you to buy digital on day one. You could even clearly state, “if digital is bought you will NEED internet” and by game radar logic it should be cheaper (later in Game radar article). Digital could have restrictions and it will be CONSUMER choice. NO MS tried to strong arm everyone. Is MS a parent or corporation? “you don’t want this you can’t have this”. The more I try to read such justifications the more I DO NOT want xbox one. 2. “You can't share your library with 10 family members” -Probably not a “feature” We may never know what this plan was because Microsoft failed to explain it. In my opinion Microsoft failed to explain it because like any good corporation they wanted to see how much they could milk customers before they would not like it. “What can the market take” An alternative is they probably were not really sure because, which is even MORE unsettling since we are talking about a system that cost 500 dollars and games at 60 bucks a pop. *update* A supposed disappointed Microsoft employee (who is anonymous) posted a “vent” about the recent changes posted some news. Unsure if the employee did this intentionally but, this confirmed our worst fears the “share plan” was basically a 45 min demo, of your game. ( SEARCH GOOGLE ) heartbroken-xbox-one-employee-lets-rip-must-read Again MS fault not the consumer. 3. “There's no gifting purchased games online” – Why not? Again see my FIRST point, why can’t this still be done with digital downloads? For MS that would be truly ground breaking and true innovation. Actually it would give consumers MORE rights. Holy Crap, imagine that? MS could have swept changes across all forms of media. Imagine a world where you can sell your online kindle book to friend or even give it away? Of course there is some issues with this but that is not the point, we could argue all day about cons and pros. 4. “The disc needs to be in the Xbox One even if you've installed game” –Why? Wow, Games Radar you guys need some better journalistic integrity. See my FIRST point again. Why can’t we do this with digital downloads? MS failed again. These seem like pretty easy fixes. 5. “It makes cloud computing less attractive for developers” –Unknown… You are making a lot of assumptions, but I will concede this point. However, when I play a MMORPG, guess what I pretty much assume that I NEED the internet. Cloud computing is relatively new, wouldn’t it be smart to begin to tap into cloud computing in something like a MMORPG (Elder Scrolls online)? But hey I am no engineer, and clearly neither is anyone over at games radar….. Also did MS ever say they are making huge server farms (basically out sourcing computer running) for the millions of gamers that will be REQUIRED for some new cool games? Additionally, why does this need to stop? If a game requires internet then guess what EXPLICITLY state such a thing. Another MS failure; No explanation. (sorry long post) Continue to PART 2...
  • t3knoman - June 22, 2013 5:18 a.m.

    6.“There's less potential for game price drops” -Half truth and probably a lie… You state Steam AND Origin. Competition and more complicated reasons why games are cheap on Steam(any business/economics professors here?). Not to mention countless others (although old games) like (DRM FREE). In addition, most games in Steam have physical version, yes I know it REQUIRES steam to activate but you can install game through the PHYSICAL CD and activate it on Steam. And yes this locks the game to your account. I own roughly 175 games on steam and most of which I can play offline (developer dependent). Steam has proven track record, and NO it is not perfect, but beats MS any day. When Steam was first started with the first Half-Life, you could install it from CD then Valve came out with Steam and they said "your choice and all but NOW you can register that game online AND always download it". I was like helllll yea seems cool sign me up, and I did all my valve games were now tied to Steam. No longer needed cd to play and there was offline play. I wasn't treated by Valve like i was trying to steal from them. Oh yea one more thing, I have brought the 175 games off of Steam over 10 years and I owned probably 5 pc gaming rigs and about 5 laptops (gaming laptops) and guess what I can play those games ON ALL OF THEM. WOW, pretty cool feature it is kind of like Apple letting you always have access to the media YOU PAID for (I am no apple fan, more of android guy). MS was asked this question by Angry Joe, and responded with veiled hostility and NO answer. Search Google angry joe interview with Armie Sony? Well I bought first Silent Hill (first one from PS One) digitally and I can play it on my PS3, PSP, and PS Vita. One of these is not like the other……. And Microsoft track record? Company was being accused in the 90s of Anti-Consumer/ Monopoly tactics by the U.S. Government? Search Google United_States_v._Microsoft_Corporation So excuse me if I doubt things would be cheaper if you had to buy games ONLY from Microsoft. I know it sounds like I am being, anti-MS, and clearly I purchase plenty of MS products, but it just needs to be said. And because I want to purchase more MS (Xbox One) products is why I even would go through process, because I am a fan of many MS products and games (love windows 7). Will I buy Xbox, long-term yes (perhaps next year?), and short term (release) unknown. And true gamer would buy PS4, Xbox and build a new pc. All of which I will do.
  • TPoppaPuff - June 22, 2013 3:57 a.m.

    Games wouldn't have gotten cheaper, they would have gotten more expensive! Actually that's not entirely true, but they would have maintained their $60 price points for far longer and likely never gotten near the price that you can buy used titles. Used games create competition for new titles meaning more competitive prices. Without used games, essentially Microsoft (or whoever) completely control the cost of all games. If you don't like their price? Too bad, there is no alternative. removing used sales doesn't mean MS or publishers will suddenly lower the price of games out of the goodness of their heart. They're business that are going to squeeze every last dollar they think they can get. That means the same price point for longer, they will just pocket far more money than they have before. And Steam sales only work because publishers are so desperate to get money off those titles because relative to consoles PC is a niche market and those used console sales means there is again an alternative. Now at some point, yes, a game will sell so few that they make practically no money off the title that they would put it on sale either way, but sales happen more frequently because they realize those used copies are taking potential sales away. At the same title PC-only titles go on sale because they have competition from multiplatform titles in the similar genre, but even then the AAA titles go on sale seemingly less often. Look at the price of StarCraft 2 for example. It has a stranglehold on the genre (esport RTS) and there is no alternative. That game rarely goes on sale and when it does the lowest price it's been is $20. On other sales where there is competition games of that same age can be grabbed at $7.50 with all DLC included. So yeah, if it wasn't for used games the entire industry would see higher price points for games.
  • FOZ - June 22, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    What's this insanity about a "digital future?" Why does the future involve giving away your ability to actually own a game? I primarily play on PC, I use Steam constantly, and I'm still uneasy about not really having my games. Absolutely none of these features required the use of the "lock down your system after 24 hours" crap, but Microsoft still sees fit to remove them? They are completely full of crap, the future should not revolve around giving complete control and ownership over to corporations, and what is even the point of this article? Why is this site, which used to be about wife arms and top 7 lists, now constantly pandering to how the publishers are right or overly-serious articles about how there is too much murder in games?
  • manila2k1 - June 21, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    Microsoft was highly insensitive to the vast majority of the world which does not have stable internet connections, or where stable internet connections aren't widely available in homes, only in public internet cafes. It betrays a very elitist mindset on their part. All those fancy features mean nothing if they cannot be used. For the record, I'm all for digital distribution, but if and only if the infrastructure necessary for its widespread acceptance is in place. Something Microsoft, and to some extent the authors of this article tend to underplay is the fact that internet access is still a privilege, not a right in most of the world. It's easy to speak of digital distribution being the future if one lives in the 1st world, but the majority of people who live in places where it's hard enough to get a telephone line beg to differ.
  • flaco-el-tercero - June 21, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    All of these features seemed like they would've been great -- If I wasn't on a 10GB a month download usage limit, with as the standard download/upload speed. And this is supposedly better than 48% of Australia. I'm not really up-to-date with the world, so I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure there'd be slower connections globally. Seriously, while it's pretty much standard issue these days to have epic internets, the previous policies don't take into account the people who, because of financial situations, would have to really bust their arse to live somewhere other than where they do, just to be able to have a powerful enough internet connection to be part of the next generation. Now, don't get me wrong, I love my video games. But, unfortunately, NOT being in a financial shit-hole takes priority over next-gen gaming. I just hope they won't cut Xbox Live for 360s too soon after One's release. Microsoft reserves the right to change their policies, and if the DRM-removal is just a day-one patch, then who's to stop them from changing their minds down the track? I'm not buying any next-gen consoles until I'm sure that it's staying as is.
  • NullG7 - June 21, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    I honestly liked the Idea of all the things they had before. Im personally a lot less excited for the next gen now.
  • Terrorrizor - June 21, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    Sounds like the xbox one was just going to be a pc.
  • zelta38 - June 21, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    The whole point of this article is saying: "Oh, you fought for your rights for a fair retail experience and that's why all these cool features are gone." That is one click-baiting approach (commonly cropping up in many sites around this issue in particular): MS screwed up, sent the wrong message and scuttled all their infrastructure and systems in a knee-jerk response to the deserved catastrophic showing of the X1 so far. Then, instead of coming up with a quiet restructuring plan, they just threw out their digital strategy all because they thought they cannot have online activations from disc-based games like Steam because like idiots they tied it to a daily online activation which nobody can force upon customers and in so doing messed up their infrastructure and APIs. Again, instead of reinstating these features quietly later on with a rebuilt backend, it's all NOOO WAIT, we had all these too... after it's been pulled and now this is out they will again have to fight like mad to bring it back. This all looks like throwing the blame around and people running around in meeting runs with arms flailing instead of a company that actually builds consoles and is in touch with basic market realities like internet connections aren't 100% reliable. Wall of text here I know, hopefully someone reads this and can find some information of use.
  • zelta38 - June 21, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Correction: Meeting rooms. An edit button would be nice.
  • matthew-banes - June 21, 2013 12:52 a.m.

    It's your fault. If you wanted these features you should have reported on them to consumers proportionally to the terrible mistakes.
  • KnowYourPokemon - June 20, 2013 9:12 p.m.

    If you want your entire game library to be digital, buy bloody digital. It's not a feature they're removing...
  • kyle-diakos - June 21, 2013 12:38 a.m.

    My point exactly. It's as Microsoft specifically mentioned in their article addressing the changes. They understand that gamers want ******THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS******
  • Jet - June 20, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    10 family game "sharing" the Xbox alternative to used games and supposed offset of drm and other bad policies was just a glorified demo feature
  • codystovall - June 20, 2013 6:31 p.m.

    Yknow how they have book burnings, well we need that, but for xbox ones.
  • jake-boone - June 20, 2013 6:29 p.m.

    It really doesn't matter. Everyone hated the idea or DRM and that pesky 1 time internet check that was probably going to happen when you were playing way into the night. People were still going to buy it because the console is going to rock balls anyway. I don't get why people want to continually compare consoles to PC . I get it you can do more. You can upgrade parts to improve performance etc. I get it. The main reason I never got into PC gaming was because the shit is so restrictive. If I buy diablo III I should be able to give it to my brother to play without him having to pay for it again, that shit is stupid. I'm starting to think PC gamers want to compare the two because they realize more people console game. It's not a statement of better hardware more like a statement of whats better for gamers. PC games are fun but I'm not investing money into something I don't have rights too. I am also not going to throw a shit ton of money into a PC that I don't use to game on anyway. Xbox will sell a shit load, PS4 will sell a shit load but in the end I believe Microsoft will come out on top once again. This was a good move for Microsoft.
  • Jet - June 20, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    The x1 policies prior to Microsoft was not a good move, That's why they changed it.
  • XboxOne_Insider - June 21, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    I agree, i believe as you say the Xbox One will prevail, one year from now i think Microsoft will see a surge in sales when gamers and developers really start to test the limits of the console and we will all have a better understanding of the features we were shown at the reveal. But to give Playstation credit they could very well be in front in a years time in terms of sales, regardless of all the controversy around the Xbox One's DRM issue's, both consoles offer a different experience. Every gamer wants different things from there consoles, this article is a clear example of that, there will be people who understand the long term rewards of DRM and im sure this most probably will feel like a step back for them and it is. The majority if not all the people who read this article will most likley be gamers and as gamers we fully aware of the consequences in RPG games, a decision made without fully understanding the benefits instead of focusing on the consequences can prove a fatal error in the long term.

Showing 21-40 of 314 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.