| >> |
No. 176592
So, it's pretty hilarious that Microsoft is using the removal of DRM and constant internet connection as an excuse to also remove the sharing and digital resale features and you fucking idiots (the internet in general terms, and games/tech journalists specifically, not most of you fine folks) are actually blaming the people who were fully justified in disliking the DRM decisions Microsoft made, instead of Microsoft who lumped all those features together. Stay classy, fucksticks.
>>176523
http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905
Let's address all of this guy's complaints as best we can:
*Every game you bought, physical or digital, would be tied to your account.
(Steam already does this. As does Ubisoft's Uplay and EA's Origin. There's no excuse for Microsoft removing this along with their intrusive DRM.)
*Because every single game, physical or digital, would be tied to an account, publishers could create a hub to sell and resell the games digitally.
(There's still nothing stopping ANYONE from doing this. Include a CD key, allow you to resell your KEY to the publisher or some third party company, then that company gets to sell the key again as a digital-only copy, and your disc copy goes in the trash, I guess? Or keep 'em separate, let stores deal with the discs, let the publishers deal with digital copies, and follow EA's online pass -- except do it for access to the game itself, not just multiplayer-- but nobody wants to do it, so deal with the fact that this particular hypothetical probably wasn't going to happen anyway.)
*Because reselling games would now work through a hub, publishers could make money on resold games.
(Microsoft, Sony, and Valve for that matter, would want to take their cut of the profit from this scenario anyway. If they'd follow the model described above, everyone wins but resellers. It still likely never would've flown.)
*Here is how this makes sense for YOU: New games could then be cheaper.
(More completely unlikely hypothetical, face it. The entire DRM scheme was to make more money for Microsoft, by making it more convenient to use their digital download service, a lot like EA pulling away from Steam.)
*The next two points make references to Steam, for some reason, despite the fact that you absolutely can not fucking sell games on Steam. You can give away any unplayed games (by sticking them in your inventory), but if you play it for two minutes, it's yours and you're not getting a refund.
*Sharing games would have worked either by activating your Live account on someone else's Xbox One, or by including them in your 10-person share plan, which would not have been limited to "family."
(This is a ploy to sell more Xbox Live gold accounts. And more importantly, you can already do this on the PS3. For free. Not the PS4. The fucking PS3. It violates the TOS, and you have to share your account information, but you can do it. And there's legitimately NO reason why Microsoft STILL couldn't do this. They are taking this away from you out of spite, and to me, that's fucking hilarious, especially considering the kneejerk reaction.)
*The 24-hour check-in, etc...
(This fails to address the issue that if your internet goes out, or *gasp* Xbox Live goes down, you lose access to your games entirely if you are offline for 24 hours after your last check-in. It's an anti-consumer inconvenience. There's no reason to do it. Here, let's go back to one of the author's first points. If your games are tied to your account, as described previously, what reason is there to not just follow steam's business model? If you don't like it, include a fucking CD-Key... Like Steam does. JFC, it's not Rocket Surgery, Microsoft.)
|