Poll: Buying XB1 revisited post DRM change

I was going to buy one anyway. A choice isn't in that poll for me

 

After a week of angry posts calling people shortsighted and idiots for not wanting drm it's too soon for them to give the 'thank god they dropped it' posts.

They will still get it, as that's what fanboys do.

 

I will just wait and see what it actually is.. to be honest, it's a very little issue for me, since i made the post i got very close to pre-ordering the damn thing

I think the XBOX 1-80-ONE will provide me with lots of great experiences in the years to come, i am very happy that Microsoft drop the full retard mode and listened to it's fans. I am pretty sure they can seperate SonyBois from XBOX owners and supporters. Even if it got a bit noisy

 

So, its more like the devs don't have to worry about putting servers allover the globe. They don't mention anything except dedicated servers. So, the PC version will not have dedicated servers for all games, thats the only difference. Same for the inevitable PS4 version. You will get a good ping in some places, not in some. And if there isn't a MS server near you, then theres no differewnce in ur game or the PC player's game.Not a game changer for Titanfall, I guess.

 

I guess so, cos I can't understand anyone feeling sad or angry at getting his freedom back ! THey dropped DRMs and people are angry about it? We have seen weird things on the internet but this tops all for me.

 

I guess it is a rather huge feat, no one talks about. The cloud is widespread, making it much more likely to get low ping connections, which is so important for gameplay and online fun.

Furthermore, devs can dynamically use the cloud...no need to estimate server farm sizes and risk investing to much money before releasing the game...more server needed, just allocate them in the cloud.

Imo this is extremely cool for devs, but especially for us gamers! But no one seems to care...because of 'teh digital'.

 

Yeah sure, MP games will definitely benefit. Lesser costs on dev side is obviously a plus. The gamer inside me was just looking for more than just dedicated servers. I mean show me something cool not happening before ! I guess we will see those stuff in a year or so, not before that.

 

I guess that is something never happened before. MS cloud is supposed to be spread all over the world, such that the chance to get a good ping should be substantially improved.

My favorite MP game is BF3 and COD...how often did I gave up a play session because lag killed the entertainment...X1 cloud offers here a big potential imo, which is atm unmatched by PS4 and PC.

 

I find it weird the Respawn guys seem not to know that Amazon AWS is the largest 3rd party cloud provider of them all. And it's not that Sony couldn't do similar cloud stuff as Microsoft, but would they provide it for free? My guess, especially in Sony's financial position, is no.

 

Naughty Dog already use the cloud for their multiplayer.

I wouldn't take anything they said seriously, they are being paid to make their game a timed exclusive and are making comments accordingly.

As for the poll, make it run Windows 8 and let me plug in a mouse and a keyboard and I'll buy it. As a console I just don't feel it fits the bill.

 

But X1 offers this like an integral part of the device.

Like like chat provided by the 360 as an integral part...of course it was possible for PS3 to do similar stuff, but it needed substantial effort by the devs and even ate resources.

 

+1 there are other factors, I would say that the market place reaction to the announcement accounted for something too, then there was the whole NSA clusterfuck and the raising concerns about privacy. MSFT may not have wanted to push always online in the mass market at that moment in time.

 

I thought about it for a while, then that executive came out and gave no assurances that the wouldn't just bring it all back so I'm done with Xbox.

PS4/PC/Wii U for me this generation. Can't see myself missing Xbox too much.

 

You are right - I am among those who has criticised their business approach and unlikely would have ever got one. But if my poll and reports were any indication, it's that there are a lot of current Xbox users who may not turn out to be the loyalist they have been. This may be down to some degree due to the DRM policies (despite what potential it offers), or down to hardware trade-offs. One way or the other, these things add up.

BTW: When I was critical of Microsofts approach, then only because this is a technical forum where people like ourselves find enjoyment in speculating and discussing various business approaches. Most of the discussion is based around what will happen, how intelligent is the strategy, what are the pros and cons - and then discuss how these things influence the market with what out come. Besides, if Microsofts approach is any indication, it's that they are not betting on the loyalist to support them, but are indirectly looking for every potential sale outthere - and that includes me, as a PS3 owner, as well.

To turn things around - if PS4 and Xbox One roles had been reversed, I can pretty much guarantee you that I would not be getting the PS4 either - and that's coming from a pretty exclusive PS gamer since the last 3 generations. And if I would, I would me as vocal as I am about what they are doing than I was now in regards to what is obviously Microsofts business approach. This has nothing to do with bias, but with an objective view backed up by constructive arguments.

What people may not realize is that Xbox One is not catered to an exclusive crowd that may want all this potential that "online always" offered. Xbox One's business approach only makes sense, if they can reach critical global success. If the DRM concerns severely compromised their impact on the market as a whole, who is to say that they did the wrong thing by backtracking?

And as to get back to Jokers post (which TBH would be more relevant in the other business approach topic):

...what makes you think 3rd parties would have actively supported the cloud if the better selling PS4 (with a bigger marketplace) doesn't offer such a feature? The lowest-common-denominator thingy you know. That is assuming, the DRM (and/or other reasons) had a bigger impact (if through bad/unfair press, who knows) on sales resulting in PS4 outselling Xbox One? At this point, I'm not sure that potential was really there to beginn with.



As this question is more relevant to the other topic, I'm just wondering if we should keep the discussion there and the poll results (simply with reasons) in here?

 

The cloud things is marketing gimmick pure and simple.

It won't make any difference to games that player will ever be able to percieve in a meaningful way. It's hot air spouted by MS' PR people because they needed a USP for the XB1, after realised they were underpowered compared to the competition and further knowing that the majority of core gamers wouldn't give three sh!ts about Kinect, TV and DVR stuff.

If someone can tell me how MS' cloud magic will somehow revolutionise gaming in a meaningful way then I'll buy him a beer. Seriously, I'm seeing all the same people spouting all the same stuff about how "interesing" and how much "potential" XB1 DRM and cloud tech will have if devs can code games with it in mind, and yet not actually giving any reasonable examples of this so-called potential that isn't just faster matchmaking in online MP games. Seriously, it's line the whole kinect debacle all over again, that history demonstrated was simply undercooked, underdeveloped, ostensibly fundamentally flawed technology that won't benefit gamers meaningfully in any real way.

Also, has MS actually come out and confirmed that Azure will be available to devs for FREE? As far as I can tell the only developers using it so far are those who are owned by MS, or those making games published by them, which of course one would expect them to not have to pay for the use of the server time.

I certainly can't see 3rd party developed and published games getting access to Azure for free from MS for the XB1 version of games. Reality check guys... this is MS we're talking about. Why would they foot the bill for cloud compute time for every 3rd party game developed on their platform? I find it incredibly naive that anyone would think that they would.

MS will charge publishers for the use of their Azure servers just as any third party network back-end would. It's a bit silly to assume otherwise imho, especially for a company that charges indie developers tens of thousands of dollars just to patch their own games.

 

I for one am slightly less likely to buy an Xbox One now that the DRM has changed. I was actually looking forward to the 10 family member library sharing, being able to potentially play 2 instances of 1 copy of a game simultaneously with someone in that 10 family member group, playing any game at anytime on any Xbox no matter how I purchased the game.

Bleh, I love how a very small vocal minority can keep us in the dark ages of gaming.

Ah well, it only delays inevitable progress. At some point those people will be dragged kicking and screaming into the future, just as has happened throughout the history of gaming.

This has pretty much guaranteed that if I do end up getting an Xbox One it will be almost entirely for the living room experience and likely not for the games.

After all, why buy a game on Xbox One when it'll actually be more restrictive than what Steam will be offering. At least with the previous way they were doing it, they were offering a lot of additional features and freedom that is unavailable on Steam (which is where I buy ALL of my PC games).

What a tired and meaningless argument. The charge is there to make sure that a developer doesn't do crap like Stardock does on PC. Where they released half-assed patch after half-assed patch. So the money is not only to discourage crappy patches and buggy unfinished games, but also to allow Microsoft to test those patches extensively to make sure they aren't crappy patches.

Get serious about releasing a patch that actually fixes stuff without breaking other stuff or don't bother. I'd bet Stardock wouldn't release such crappy patches if they actually had to pay to have someone verify that their patches were actually working correctly, fixes stuff, and doesn't break a ton of other stuff in the process.

Regards,
SB

 

In the end though it can still result in a system which ends up hurting the consumer, because as you are well aware even with the most extensive prerelease testing, there will always be bugs that make it through the cracks.

When you have a game breaking bug that exposes itself as a major issue post release, and a dev that cannot afford to or cannot justify the high cost of patching in a fix, you end with a bunch of irate consumers who have paid for a broken product they can't use and cannot be fixed because MS is charging too much to the dev to patch out the issue. It's certainly happened this gen.

Neither option is ideal, but at least by making patching more accessible to devs, bugs can be patched out in due course, and the choice whether to buy a game that is a buggy mess on release will be left up to the consumers, who often will get the word out on such issues themselves (see Skyrim PS3).

As a platform holder sure they can charge for patches, but do it on a case by case basis, as the ability for smaller devs to do extremely extensive testing =/= as that for much larger developers and publishers.

Regardless, it was a sideline issue that detracts from my main point. MS will charge developers for Azure. They may discount it over other 3rd party providers, but I don't see why they would.

 

MS has made exceptions in the past with regards to the payment required for a game patch. I'd imagine it was for something that was potentially critically affecting their customer base.

Anyway, as to the cloud thing. I can think of one reason why MS would potentially waive cloud hosting fees. Make your game exclusive and use the cloud for free for the life of the game. As a bonus we'll even allow you to use it for free for your PC version. If they go for a timed exclusive then it's free during the exclusivity period, discounted on MS platforms after that, and full price if used with a competitor's platform.

Regards,
SB

 

I have played in the DRM field alot, yet I do not understand these guys.

You have a closed console. Until it gets exploited, you 'own' it.

Just allow people to do online activation once, and request online deactivation after 3 installations.

It's so simple. Like i.e. online activated PC games.
And offer a 2nd hand market inside your console network for digital contents. So you take your shares from sales, users can sell their stuff much more efficiently as they have a huge market.
mah.

 

The problem is that pretty much all consoles (and definitely all modern consoles) have thus far been compromised at some point.

Either way, as more and more games move to requiring an online connection for gameplay (even for single player) then DRM becomes moot. There's no need for it when the game is impossible to play unless you have a legitimate license for the game.

Regards,
SB