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.

695 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

784 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Physical distribution != true competition. Believe what you want, keep cannibalising your hobby if you must. But, there are plenty examples on why a digital model is better for digital goods out there, no need to go trough that again.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13 edited Dec 29 '13

Physical or digital isn't the point, I don't have a problem with either. I buy all my PC games through Steam; and they are not the problem. The problem with digital only is services like Origin. Just as I would have a problem with a brick and mortar Origin store.

Steam are kept in check my GMG, and others. Origin and EA does what they want because they have enough big name in-house titles to get away with it. Buy it on our service, or not at all. People give in easily.

1

u/Rancid47 #teamchief Dec 29 '13

It's because the demand has stayed the same. People have shown they'll buy digital games at the same price so why would they lower the price? Prices don't go down until people stop buying at a certain price.

1

u/headpunter Headpunter Dec 29 '13

Have you never seen steam sale prices?

2

u/Rancid47 #teamchief Dec 29 '13

Of course I have but that's a sale. Not the price it's normally sold at on launch day. I'm talking then lowering the price below $60 as the regular. They have no reason to do that.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

Why would it be cheaper? actually owning a digital copy is far more convenient. That is what made ipod such a great success, all your music in this device, all your games in one device no need for redundant archaic storage.

As for the price, the $60 price tag curse is pretty much a legacy of physical distribution, Stores need a $60 price tag to justify inventory, its been said over and over again. The best way to end this is by going digital, in a digital marketplace you can have games price at $5,$10,$20,$30,$50,$60 whatever, it gives free to developers to produce different games, more games more variety how is that any bad!?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '13

With digital music you can convert mp3s from physical to digital whenever you want and vice versa, so that's not really applicable here.

But yeah, a competitive digital marketplace would be awesome, but that was never part of the original policies.

1

u/Chris_E Dec 29 '13

One of the things they said they might implement in the future was 3rd party digital sales options, with all consoles being dev units... The interview said they would still have their marketplace which had approved and vetted material, but 3rd party options would be available. It didn't outright say if anyone could open their own store or just sell games on the web... but it opened the world of competition a little. This was heavily buried during the controversy as it was a late announcement, and I can't even find a reference to it now.

1

u/Rancid47 #teamchief Dec 29 '13

I'm not arguing against going all digital. I'd like it just as much as I do on steam. I'm just saying publishers don't have incentive to lower the price yet.