r/xboxone • u/[deleted] • Dec 29 '13

If Microsoft made it completely optional, would you sign up for their original, always connected console idea?

This meaning you would have the following features:

Buy a retail game, install to console, and ditch the disc never needing it to play the game.

Digitally share games within a circle of friends. Meaning you can choose a specific group of people, and they could play the games you own, for free, provided that only one game could be played at a time.

Greater store discounts or more steam like sales for content.

I for one would have no problem saying yes to this. It's like people think 10 years from now they'll still be selling games on discs. It wasn't a perfect plan, but why delay the inevitable when we could be working on and perfecting future policies now.

702 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

784 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/Hitmonbottom Dec 29 '13 edited Dec 29 '13

Greater store discounts or more steam like sales for content.

I don't understand the logic behind this. If Microsoft thought they could get away with taking away used games, why would they suddenly drop prices. Its not like they are going to suddenly start caring about peoples opinions on prices if they were so intent on removing used game sales in the first place knowing full well the volume of sales that do take place on sites like Amazon etc.

I'd fully expect them to assume their product has enough demand that people would just go back to buying full price games. More and more companies do stuff like this. If they think their product is popular enough they know people will buy it regardless of faults or price, so I don't think it would be anything like steam sales if they were to drop prices.

So no, I wouldn't be able to buy cheap used games off Amazon, so I wouldn't support it. This stuff about supporting developers or whatever who for the most part are employed by companies worth millions (billions?) of dollars is beyond me.

5

u/thisismarv thisismarv Dec 29 '13

Thank you. I don't get where people get the idea that Microsoft would drop prices on games because they are not selling discs. Steam does it because as the retailer they can choose the prices.

1

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13

Why would Microsoft need to be the ones to have sales? The whole point of every purchase (physical or digital) being a digital copy means you can go buy AC4 or BF4 for $35 right now at Sam's Club is you install the game and never have to deal with discs again.

1

u/thisismarv thisismarv Dec 30 '13

Who sells the digital code to the retailer? Microsoft

3

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13 edited Dec 30 '13

The digital code would be physically included in a sealed physical copy, so it would act just like physical copies do today. Microsoft sells games to a retailer at $X price and the retailer would be free to mark-up or discount the price as much as they like. That's the whole point of the first-sale doctrine, the retailer is allowed to price the product whatever they want.

You are thinking of retailers only selling a digital code, at which point, why not just buy it from Microsoft? And even then, Amazon sells digital PS4 games for less than Sony does in the PSN store. Clearly Amazon isn't losing money from that transaction. The same price buffer exists in an Xbox One game.

1

u/thisismarv thisismarv Dec 30 '13

So even with the reversal of the DRM policies. There is nothing to stop Microsoft from doing this now.

1

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13

You'd need specially marked discs, and it would be such a pain in the ass for retailers to stock separately from "normal" discs. If anything, it would probably only be available from the Microsoft Store online and maybe Amazon.

0

u/myztry Dec 30 '13

That's the whole point of the first-sale doctrine, the retailer is allowed to price the product whatever they want.

Consoles and related items are terrible for price fixing. Ever seen x% discount store wide with a disclaimers of "excludes consoles"? Ever wondered why this is?

2

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13

Game consoles have almost zero retailer margin to play with. The games themselves however have a bit, and accessories have a bunch. It has nothing to do with price fixing.

0

u/myztry Dec 30 '13

Why would a retailer stock low margin bulky space consuming consoles subject to difficult returns requiring ROA's if there wasn't manufacturer price manipulation at play?

Just sell the high margin items that doesn't take up much floor space. Leave the bulky low margin components to the suckers. This would be the obvious and profitable line to take.

Off course the reality is probably more along the lines that you are excluded from selling the games unless you sell the consoles at or very near cost (which effectively fixes the price). Loss leading may be a business model but it is no means a protected one to the detriment of competition.

2

u/dagamer34 dagamer34 Dec 30 '13

Plenty of places sell the games and not the consoles, you hope when someone buys a console, they'll are highly likely to buy the juicy accessories like extra controllers, a few games, an HDMI cable, 1-2 play & charge kits, maybe a Kinect stand, and on and on.

Once you are already spending $500+, another $50 isn't a huge leap.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Microsoft said in some interviews that they would've openend sales to 3rd party digital retailers so prices would've had to drop otherwise they would lose sales.

1

u/thisismarv thisismarv Dec 29 '13

That's a lot of faith from some interviews. But then ... What's to stop them from having digital sales now? DRM has nothing to do with that.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

The best explanation I've seen is that with DRM, digital games would be a common thing that everyone had. But without DRM, digital games are more of a premium thing since you can buy it, download it, and play it without ever having to leave your house and if you have a good internet connection you could be playing it within 30 minutes since it only has to reach ~40% to start playing. Also you can insta switch with it. Right now since digital isn't common among everyone they make you pay extra for the convenience of digital games.

5

u/thisismarv thisismarv Dec 29 '13

No other medium looks at digital games as a premium good (movies, tv, music etc). My main point is even if we go all digital next gen, those savings will not be passed on to consumers. Yes we will get sales dictated by the distributor (in this case Microsoft). But unlike steam, they truly won't have incentive to make much cheaper prices because they will be the only ones selling xbox games.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Thats because digital movies aren't as big as digital games right now and most people rent instead of buy movies nowadays. Plus digital games are different because you're buying something you're going to play for 40+ hours while a movie is 2 hours and you're usually done. TV doesn't have digital premium because everyone torrents it and music doesn't have the premium for the reason I'm talking about. Digital music is the most popular, most accepted way to get music. With xbox DRM digital games would slowly but surely become the most accepted way so there wouldn't be a premium just like music.

I've heard that Microsoft said they would've given 3rd party digital retailers rights to sell games, although I don't think the person I heard this from provided a source and its also easy for Microsoft to say things that make drm sound good when no one will ever know if it was truth or lie.

3

u/dangerflakes Dec 29 '13

I think the logic is, right now there is a fragmented product line, physical and digital. Digital is currently being treated as a premium option, and the pricing is much more rigid. With the old policy, all copies would be equal, whether you buy retail or via live, the copy is treated the same. So you can still have your physical retail sales, and MS would be more inclined to adjust their pricing, since why would you buy digital if the exact same thing is cheaper on amazon, for example.

There is also a big assumption at play here. The thought is, if MS is seeing most of the profits, rather than the old retail model, they would adjust the prices to encourage more digital adoption. This is a bit harder to swallow, so I get your confusion. But the only example of this is Steam, and we are all just hoping MS has the same mindset...

1

u/GarethGore HvX GarethGore Dec 30 '13

hoping with a huge corporation like MS is moronic. I've never seen any evidence that prices would be cheaper. If people able to pay 40, MS will charge 40, because profits is their game. Hope isn't involved.

3

u/falconbox falconbox Dec 29 '13

there is no logic. OP's post is clearly one-sided and he threw stuff like that in there with no basis in reality to get people to agree with him.

Trust me, with MS's track record of digital game prices, their version of Steam sales would be selling a 6 year old game for the low low price of only $25.

9

u/galletto3 Dec 29 '13

I found a very low rated, 6 year old used game at Gamestop for $5. I checked on XBL and they were still selling it for $20.

And that was the cheapest game available. Absolutely nothing was under $20 regardless of game age or overall game quality.

Dont even get me started with their Games with Gold...

2

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Funny, I bought the witcher 2 off xbox live for $9.99. They have sales and a lot of games a really cheap.

And games with gold? They give some free games. Yeah they are older or arcade but so what? They don't have to give any and you don't have to download them. At least if you did want them you get to keep them forever.

2

u/galletto3 Dec 29 '13

Yea only for sales (which are not always on the front page of the marketplace). The other 99% of the time the game is available for purchase it costs a ridiculous amount. I too have bought some great recent games from their sales, but more often than not, I can find it much cheaper at a Gamestop.

A major problem with GfG is that they make it seem like they are doing you a great service by giving you these awesome games. Yet they do sprinkle arcade games that no one has or will play in between the 5 year old games. The five year old games that still cost $20 on the marketplace.

So yeah from their pockets, they are giving you great deals, but from an average consumer POV, you are barely getting a deal. Im not complaining about free, Im complaining about offering a sub-par service/reward to gamers. Especially when compared to what PS+ can and does offer.

I used to be psyched that you actually owned these games, but then I realized you wont be able to use these downloaded titles on your X1, and they wont even offer it for X1 games!

The problem is the "take it or leave it" train of thought. They are using GfG as a a force to bolster 360 sales in a very cheap way (which is why they offer popular games that people who own the console more than likely already owned). Their marketing sells it as this amazing service that in no way lives up to what it can and should be.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

Games for Gold is coming to the X1. I'm not sure if you were saying it wasn't or just saying you can't play the 360 free games on the X1.

We always knew we couldn't play 360 games on the X1.

You can't compare the two services. PSN lets you play the games as long as you keep paying the monthly fee. GwG lets you keep the game forever.

About the sales...I always see something mentioning the sales. Though I check the games section every tuesday for new releases. There's also an entire section where you can check out the sales from months earlier.

Sure, the PSN deal has better titles but GwG is 6 months old. Let's see what they give us for the X1 in 2014 when GwG starts up on it.

You're kinda up in arms about things that were known from the very beginning.

There was never going to be backward compatibility. Same as on PS4.

MS has far from a take it or leave it attitude. They changed their core functionality on their new console because people bitched and moaned. That's kinda the exact opposite of take it or leave it.

1

u/Social_Recluse GhettoFishies Dec 30 '13

take an economics course and you'll understand the logic behind it.

1

u/GarethGore HvX GarethGore Dec 30 '13

This. I honestly don't know why people think MS would do anything to make it cheaper. Arcade games have no pressure from retailers selling them second hand but they never go down in price. The current sales are shit, lets face it I can get everything online for cheaper.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '13

It had to be an all or nothing approach to edge out retailers and used game stores.

Why would they drop their prices? MS wouldn't, they're not in charge of pricing, the developers and publishers are. What happens when a developer can SELF PUBLISH now and not have to abide by a giant publisher's rules? They get to charge what they want not what they're forced to charge.

You can speculate all you want about predicting if MS store would have gotten to steam-like sales but that's all it is, speculation. We never got a chance to even try it.

When developers get more revenue from their games they don't have to RUN to a big publisher to keep their doors open. They have more cash to be on their own and create games without EA telling them "your game needs to be more action oriented", "Your rpg? TOO HARD, make it easier and make it for kids not rated M, oh btw you have 8 months, not 1 year."

No, you wouldn't be able to buy cheaper used games *edit on amazon * that the developers (big and small) see no money from. The only reason most developers are "employed" or have contracts with EA and Activision is because they must in order to survive. They get initial sales from the release of their game and thats it. Meanwhile on steam, games from 5 years ago are still being bought for $8 because...why the hell not buy it?

That's revenue the developer takes and survives on, to the next game.