10 ms·

The real misstep here is that Microsoft is still selling physical media. Nobody (well, almost nobody) gets mad when they can't resell their iPhone games or mp3

The real misstep here is that Microsoft is still selling physical media. Nobody (well, almost nobody) gets mad when they can't resell their iPhone games or mp3s or Kindle books; compare that to the outpouring of anger when a company puts limitations on used optical media games or CDs or books. Humans are wired to see a physical item (disks, etc.) and think mine.

tedsanders 13y ago
That's a very good point, and explains why gamers care more about reselling Xbox games more than they care about reselling Steam games.
- ScottWhigham 13y ago
  I would disagree. Most people get upset if they can't resell a $60 game. Few people get upset if they can't resell a $5 game.
  - tedsanders 13y ago
    Do you think that people who pay retail on Steam are upset that they can't resell their games?
bigfrakkinghero 13y ago
I think the problem here is how important physical retailers are as partners in actually selling the console. You don't want to piss off Walmart/Best Buy/Game Stop too much or they might not stock your device.
malvim 13y ago
There's obviously that, good point. I also think we can't forget the price point. I buy my iPhone games for $5 at most. Steam usually has a lot of promotions and discounts, so I get lots of games for under, say, 15 bucks. Physical media games are usually way above these prices.
mortenjorck 13y ago
Humans are wired to see a physical item (disks, etc.) and think *mine.* Well, yes, but you oversimplify. There is a long-established doctrine of first-sale in the US, and it's not just part of case law, it's part of the culture. The non-resaleability of Kindle books or anything else digital is still new to the popular mind, and carries with it a certain implicit devaluation. Even though most people at least abstractly understand the non-resaleability of bits (whether due to the infinite duplicability of DRM-free media, or the practical inflexibility of DRM systems), a big reason they don't complain about iPhone apps or Steam games is likely the frequently low prices they pay. A $60 game demands at least a bit of fungibility for most consumers. A $0.99 one doesn't, regardless of whether it came from a disc or an app store. If, as the supposed insider claims, XBO games can actually retail for half what a resale-friendly game would, then that offsets the implicit devaluation of non-resaleable media. If Call of Duty 8 retails for $59.99 on the PS4 and $29.99 on the XBO, that suddenly makes the DRM a very appealing tradeoff. If they're both $59.99, Xbox is dead in the water.
- wtvanhest 13y ago
  >If Call of Duty 8 retails for $59.99 on the PS4 and $29.99 on the XBO, that suddenly makes the DRM a very appealing tradeoff. If they're both $59.99, Xbox is dead in the water. Exactly, if MS had been thinking this all along, they could have proved it with a low price game option announced with the DRM. That would have been really appealing to a lot of people.
  - sirclueless 13y ago
    That doesn't really work. The game is still supposed to be $60 at launch, that's when games make the most money, they really are worth that much (and more) as evidenced by the many people who pay that much for them, even on DRM-laden platforms like Steam. The point is to let the price fall faster after launch. Xbox can't exactly promise "Our games' prices will fall faster than the other guys" because the market will determine that -- in aggregate they will, but there's a reason Skyrim is still $30 on Steam. Microsoft wants a world where you have account-locked games tied to disks, because it gives them the benefits of Steam-like DRM but also the game conveniently on a disk to take to a friend's so he doesn't have to download it, and to let the poor schmuck in rural Nebraska with 25 kb/s to play the game some time in the next week. Honestly, Sony can take the same pricing strategies as Microsoft on their digital downloads -- Microsoft just wants to have more convenient digital downloads, while Sony just wants more convenient disks. My guess is that long-term Microsoft will prove to be on the right side of history (the success of Steam is evidence). Sony can probably do just fine for now, they can always transition in later generations when the downsides are no longer breaking news stories.
chaostheory 13y ago
Yeah they could have easily reversed their PR mishap as well. "Hey everyone $29.99 (or less) for release day games" No one would be complaining about always-on DRM at that price. Sadly it's very unlikely since they are selling physical discs.
- polshaw 13y ago
  I imagine we will see $29.99 (or even less.. I would say even some as far as free if they were digitally distributed) release day games, but that the proportion of the game that will be included will be significantly reduced.. like you get the demo for free and $5 per level thereafter for example. All sorts of possibilities for pricing and making money in new ways for consoles. I agree the use of discs seems a silly move, especially WRT new pricing models and the implications. IMO they should be optional; 50GB (?) is an infeasibly large download for a lot of places in the world today, but this is not the case everywhere nor forever. Digital distribution allows for more possibilities. The problem with the reduced cost argument is that I really can't see cross platform developers pricing the Xbox version lower, so long as they believe it to be the equal to the PS4 version (which might not be the case, the PS4 seems it should have a little more graphics power). And as a consequence I can't see Xbox exclusives selling for less than those-- they won't want to appear inferior. Add into that the fact that the PS4 will be cheaper too- I think who 'wins' in the upcoming generation may depend on how magic MS can make the kinect sensor-related software with media/TV control. If they can make it awesome and polished enough to make people forget about the fact they are putting an always connected '3d' camera into your home with an always-on internet connection in a device from one of the companies which has most-cooperated with the NSA (I wonder if they might justify the depth camera data as 'metadata'?), then I think MS could be on to a winner. If not, it seems advantage Sony so far.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Yeah of the traditional consoles Sony will win for the hardcore market. I just wonder if Apple, Google, or Roku have any surprises this Fall as well. In my opinion, those companies are going to cause the most disruption in the video game market. Then there's the Oculus and Omni...
SourPatch 13y ago
Online purchases would be great, now how about an ISP that sells me the bandwidth to do it at a reasonable price that isn't Comcast/Cox/Time Warner/At&t? There's a reason I buy physical media.
rtkwe 13y ago
Still selling physical discs is pretty important because broadband access in the US is still pretty dismal so if they went pure digital their market would be unnaturally limited by customer's ability to download games in reasonable times.
rjd 13y ago
OR I rarely pay more than $1 for a phone game, and get a lot more cynical when I'm forking out +$50 for something that often has less replay-ability to the $1 game... And by mine you mean 'ours' right? because a huge issue being discussed here is people sharing games, its not a individual issue, its a community issue.
redms3 13y ago
I was a dev lead at xbox when they first implemented "Games on Demand" or direct purchase and digital download of full games. My team implemented the feature on xbox.com back in 2009 I think. As I recall it, the main reason we didn't do a wholesale switch over to digital distribution was because that would have upset the retailers who sell games. We relied on these same retailers to sell our xbox consoles. We were afraid that if we took a way the game revenue they would stop selling xboxes. We thought it would be best to make the transition gradual. So we took the first step back in 2009. This appears to be another step.
- bni 13y ago
  Couldnt just have been the risk of not selling hardware, selling games at retails must have been just as important? Store shelves, lots of exposure, impulse buyers, etc.
dwild 13y ago
I'm wired to think that I'm the only one responsible of my games. I like to think that in 36 years we will still be able to play our games, like with an Atari 2600. Does I want to still be able to play iPhone games in 36 years? No. You could argue that Microsoft want that too but they have no control over that. They can go bankrupt or they could simply decide that the cost of the infrastructure is higher than the revenue (which will probably be $0 in 36 years because they will probably use a new architecture). Halo 2 is about 6 years old and they already shutdown the multiplayer servers. Like in the pastebin, you can say it's the same for Steam and you would be right. However in 36 years, I will still have backups, or some competitors will still be in business (Amazon, GOG or any competitor) so I will always be able to find a way to buy it (or even download it on a website like http://www.myabandonware.com/ http://www.myabandonware.com/ ). Also when I buy a game, I always expect to be able to get at least the resell value on it, if needed. It's not possible on a digital market so when I buy it I expect it to cost less. Which is also not the case. EDIT: Don't you love to be able to read books much older than you? Don't you would love to know that in 100 years, XboxOne game would still be playable?

tedsanders 13y ago

That's a very good point, and explains why gamers care more about reselling Xbox games more than they care about reselling Steam games.

ScottWhigham 13y ago
I would disagree. Most people get upset if they can't resell a $60 game. Few people get upset if they can't resell a $5 game.
- tedsanders 13y ago
  Do you think that people who pay retail on Steam are upset that they can't resell their games?

bigfrakkinghero 13y ago

I think the problem here is how important physical retailers are as partners in actually selling the console. You don't want to piss off Walmart/Best Buy/Game Stop too much or they might not stock your device.

malvim 13y ago

There's obviously that, good point. I also think we can't forget the price point. I buy my iPhone games for $5 at most. Steam usually has a lot of promotions and discounts, so I get lots of games for under, say, 15 bucks. Physical media games are usually way above these prices.

mortenjorck 13y ago

Humans are wired to see a physical item (disks, etc.) and think *mine.* Well, yes, but you oversimplify. There is a long-established doctrine of first-sale in the US, and it's not just part of case law, it's part of the culture. The non-resaleability of Kindle books or anything else digital is still new to the popular mind, and carries with it a certain implicit devaluation. Even though most people at least abstractly understand the non-resaleability of bits (whether due to the infinite duplicability of DRM-free media, or the practical inflexibility of DRM systems), a big reason they don't complain about iPhone apps or Steam games is likely the frequently low prices they pay. A $60 game demands at least a bit of fungibility for most consumers. A $0.99 one doesn't, regardless of whether it came from a disc or an app store. If, as the supposed insider claims, XBO games can actually retail for half what a resale-friendly game would, then that offsets the implicit devaluation of non-resaleable media. If Call of Duty 8 retails for $59.99 on the PS4 and $29.99 on the XBO, that suddenly makes the DRM a very appealing tradeoff. If they're both $59.99, Xbox is dead in the water.

wtvanhest 13y ago
>If Call of Duty 8 retails for $59.99 on the PS4 and $29.99 on the XBO, that suddenly makes the DRM a very appealing tradeoff. If they're both $59.99, Xbox is dead in the water. Exactly, if MS had been thinking this all along, they could have proved it with a low price game option announced with the DRM. That would have been really appealing to a lot of people.
- sirclueless 13y ago
  That doesn't really work. The game is still supposed to be $60 at launch, that's when games make the most money, they really are worth that much (and more) as evidenced by the many people who pay that much for them, even on DRM-laden platforms like Steam. The point is to let the price fall faster after launch. Xbox can't exactly promise "Our games' prices will fall faster than the other guys" because the market will determine that -- in aggregate they will, but there's a reason Skyrim is still $30 on Steam. Microsoft wants a world where you have account-locked games tied to disks, because it gives them the benefits of Steam-like DRM but also the game conveniently on a disk to take to a friend's so he doesn't have to download it, and to let the poor schmuck in rural Nebraska with 25 kb/s to play the game some time in the next week. Honestly, Sony can take the same pricing strategies as Microsoft on their digital downloads -- Microsoft just wants to have more convenient digital downloads, while Sony just wants more convenient disks. My guess is that long-term Microsoft will prove to be on the right side of history (the success of Steam is evidence). Sony can probably do just fine for now, they can always transition in later generations when the downsides are no longer breaking news stories.

chaostheory 13y ago

Yeah they could have easily reversed their PR mishap as well. "Hey everyone $29.99 (or less) for release day games" No one would be complaining about always-on DRM at that price. Sadly it's very unlikely since they are selling physical discs.

polshaw 13y ago
I imagine we will see $29.99 (or even less.. I would say even some as far as free if they were digitally distributed) release day games, but that the proportion of the game that will be included will be significantly reduced.. like you get the demo for free and $5 per level thereafter for example. All sorts of possibilities for pricing and making money in new ways for consoles. I agree the use of discs seems a silly move, especially WRT new pricing models and the implications. IMO they should be optional; 50GB (?) is an infeasibly large download for a lot of places in the world today, but this is not the case everywhere nor forever. Digital distribution allows for more possibilities. The problem with the reduced cost argument is that I really can't see cross platform developers pricing the Xbox version lower, so long as they believe it to be the equal to the PS4 version (which might not be the case, the PS4 seems it should have a little more graphics power). And as a consequence I can't see Xbox exclusives selling for less than those-- they won't want to appear inferior. Add into that the fact that the PS4 will be cheaper too- I think who 'wins' in the upcoming generation may depend on how magic MS can make the kinect sensor-related software with media/TV control. If they can make it awesome and polished enough to make people forget about the fact they are putting an always connected '3d' camera into your home with an always-on internet connection in a device from one of the companies which has most-cooperated with the NSA (I wonder if they might justify the depth camera data as 'metadata'?), then I think MS could be on to a winner. If not, it seems advantage Sony so far.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  Yeah of the traditional consoles Sony will win for the hardcore market. I just wonder if Apple, Google, or Roku have any surprises this Fall as well. In my opinion, those companies are going to cause the most disruption in the video game market. Then there's the Oculus and Omni...

SourPatch 13y ago

Online purchases would be great, now how about an ISP that sells me the bandwidth to do it at a reasonable price that isn't Comcast/Cox/Time Warner/At&t? There's a reason I buy physical media.

rtkwe 13y ago

Still selling physical discs is pretty important because broadband access in the US is still pretty dismal so if they went pure digital their market would be unnaturally limited by customer's ability to download games in reasonable times.

rjd 13y ago

OR I rarely pay more than $1 for a phone game, and get a lot more cynical when I'm forking out +$50 for something that often has less replay-ability to the $1 game... And by mine you mean 'ours' right? because a huge issue being discussed here is people sharing games, its not a individual issue, its a community issue.

redms3 13y ago

I was a dev lead at xbox when they first implemented "Games on Demand" or direct purchase and digital download of full games. My team implemented the feature on xbox.com back in 2009 I think. As I recall it, the main reason we didn't do a wholesale switch over to digital distribution was because that would have upset the retailers who sell games. We relied on these same retailers to sell our xbox consoles. We were afraid that if we took a way the game revenue they would stop selling xboxes. We thought it would be best to make the transition gradual. So we took the first step back in 2009. This appears to be another step.

bni 13y ago
Couldnt just have been the risk of not selling hardware, selling games at retails must have been just as important? Store shelves, lots of exposure, impulse buyers, etc.

dwild 13y ago

I'm wired to think that I'm the only one responsible of my games. I like to think that in 36 years we will still be able to play our games, like with an Atari 2600. Does I want to still be able to play iPhone games in 36 years? No. You could argue that Microsoft want that too but they have no control over that. They can go bankrupt or they could simply decide that the cost of the infrastructure is higher than the revenue (which will probably be $0 in 36 years because they will probably use a new architecture). Halo 2 is about 6 years old and they already shutdown the multiplayer servers. Like in the pastebin, you can say it's the same for Steam and you would be right. However in 36 years, I will still have backups, or some competitors will still be in business (Amazon, GOG or any competitor) so I will always be able to find a way to buy it (or even download it on a website like http://www.myabandonware.com/ http://www.myabandonware.com/ ). Also when I buy a game, I always expect to be able to get at least the resell value on it, if needed. It's not possible on a digital market so when I buy it I expect it to cost less. Which is also not the case. EDIT: Don't you love to be able to read books much older than you? Don't you would love to know that in 100 years, XboxOne game would still be playable?