Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Ctrl+Alt+Del

38 posts in this topic

Posted

Didn't know where to put this because I didn't want it to be taken wrong, especially since I think PlayStation Now is a great idea.

 

 

Playstation Now looks great. A decent compromise to backwards compatibility, the service will allow people to stream older games to their devices, like an OnLive for Playstation games. If it works, it will be pretty cool.

 

I have to wonder, though, if anyone at Microsoft is scratching their heads regarding the favorable reaction to this announcement so far. Playstation Now is a strictly digital service... which means in order to benefit from it, you need a good internet connection. So it will only be available to people in certain parts of the world, and a lot of people will be left out. And you don't own these games... you can only use them as long as you have internet. Not unlike Microsoft's original digital-heavy concept for the Xbox One, which drew so much ire because it would "disable games you paid for if your internet went out" etc.

 

Well that's a risk with the Playstation Now service too, but nobody's freaking out.

 

So I imagine the argument here would be "Well, Playstation Now is totally optional." That's true... but I'd point out that the entire act of purchasing/using a console at all is optional. We don't need video games to survive, it's something we choose to do. And can choose not to do if we don't like what is being offered. Nobody would have been forced to buy an Xbox One if they didn't want to, and the Playstation 4 would have still been there as a next-gen option. Yet people got angry at the Xbox anyway.

 

Then is the level of outrage the internet expresses over having its games locked behind digital access directly related to how much they want said games? Or perhaps related to their perceived "newness?" People were angry with not truly "owning" (ie, having complete and unrestricted access to use/trade/sell) their hot new Xbox games, but they care less about outdated last-gen/retro titles so the concept is acceptable?

 

I assume price weighs in here too. People might get more upset over losing features on a $500 machine than they will in a $15/month subscription, but again, money is money and you expect to get what you pay for regardless of the denomination.

 

When Playstation Now goes down (and it will) people will complain. They will make big forum posts about how they're paying for a subscription and they aren't being provided with the service they paid for, etc etc. But I don't see them complaining about it now, months before the service even goes live. Yet people were legitimately livid about a similar idea on the Xbox nearly a year before a similar outage had a chance to even affect them.

 

Ultimately, I still think the concept is sound. We are moving towards an increasingly digital society, and Steam has proven this works, as have the digital marketplaces on the Xbox/PS, and the favorable reaction to Playstation Now shows that people aren't entirely reluctant to the idea of accessing games they don't own in a traditional sense. Which leads me to believe that Microsoft's biggest mistake (and I will certainly agree they made mistakes) was not in suggesting the idea of moving in a more digital direction, but perhaps simply that they tried to move there too far, too quickly.

 

Sony is easing people in using a subject that people are less fervent about (old games), which appears to be the smarter play. But once the infrastructure is in place, and tested and proven, I would not be surprised to see another push towards digital as a primary delivery method. If not with this generation, then with the next.

 

 

cad-20140110-eaa20.png

 

Source: Ctrl+Alt+Del

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

lol thats awesome.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

genius!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well that's a risk with the Playstation Now service too, but nobody's freaking out.

 

So I imagine the argument here would be "Well, Playstation Now is totally optional." That's true... but I'd point out that the entire act of purchasing/using a console at all is optional. We don't need video games to survive, it's something we choose to do. And can choose not to do if we don't like what is being offered. Nobody would have been forced to buy an Xbox One if they didn't want to, and the Playstation 4 would have still been there as a next-gen option. Yet people got angry at the Xbox anyway.

 

Source: Ctrl+Alt+Del

 

Completely oblivious :laugh:

 

Stick to the comics son, stick to the comics :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Completely oblivious :laugh:

 

Stick to the comics son, stick to the comics :p

 

Let's be honest here, B^Uckley isn't good at the comics either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted



Funny comic

As far as the article goes, I think the situation is rather straightforward:

1. Sony is easing everyone into a primarily digital future from the start. MS tried to jump completely in from the start.

If there is a lesson that everyone should be familiar with is that its much easier to convince customers to behave a certain way if you slowly transition them. Then years down the road when a new digital only system is completely in place, people look back and wonder how it happened :laugh:

2. MS was not able to properly message their plan to show everyone the positives that would result from the service and outweigh the possible issues say with used games. They also chose the wrong method of drm in the 24hr check in (the lack of proper messaging made this method even harder to accept)


Ultimately, I'm not sure either company could have convinced enough users that a digital only console was the way to go this generation. MS made the attempt, but failed. Sony watched very carefully and took the hybrid path. MS regrouped before launch and are now taking the hybrid path as well. Sony should be farther along in laying out the hybrid path thanks to its PlayStation Now plans. MS will have to make up for lost time as they retool their old system and work on their own streaming options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think he has some valid points though, the fact it's a digital only option but for older games is the difference here.  The fact not everyone can get it or that many will try only to get a sub-par experience are all facts, it's why OnLive never got anywhere. It's one thing to stream a HD movie and another to stream a game, though I'm sure when streaming the old PSX and PS2 games with their lite graphics that their will be less of on overhead compared to PS3 games.

 

Though, if I'm being honest I know a number of people who are using emulators which is a nice free option.  :P 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Xbox One's original DRM policies meant 'New' games would have the same restrictions as 'Old' PS1, 2, 3 games via PlayStation Now.

 

The difference here being if you didn't want to go digital and wanted to play a game offline then you could just boot up your ps2 or ps3 and play it offline. And play 'New' games on the PS4. PlayStation Now also has other features like streaming to multiple devices, allowing backward compatibility, etc. 

 

Sony are also offering a 'Streaming' service which requires the internet to actually work, Microsoft were offering an online-check to make sure you bought the game.

 

Sony gave people a choice, go digital and play games or stay offline and play the games.

Features include: Playing games on PS3, PS4, Vita, Bravia TV (And later Tablets, Smartphones, other TV's)

PlayStation Now is only for backward compatibility, not every single game (Like Xbox One's original policy).

You can still play those older games offline on the original console.

 

Xbox was going to force people to go digital/online-only to play all games.

Features included: Play a game on your console (Same as previous consoles but with extra DRM online checks/restrictions)

 

I personally am not very interested in PlayStation Now, I might buy a months subscription just to try it out but if I wanted to play PS 1, 2 or 3 games I would have kept the consoles or buy a second-hand one off eBay for cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sony gave people a choice, go digital and play games or stay offline and play the games.
Features include: Playing games on PS3, PS4, Vita, Bravia TV (And later Tablets, Smartphones, other TV's)
PlayStation Now is only for backward compatibility, not every single game (Like Xbox One's original policy).
You can still play those older games offline on the original console.
 
Xbox was going to force people to go digital/online-only to play all games.
Features included: Play a game on your console (Same as previous consoles but with extra DRM online checks/restrictions)


That's a little unfair to MS' plan considering you mentioned none of the features they were proposing. Basically, your saying MS was going to treat everything like digital and there were absolutely no positive features to that.

Unfortunately, its hard to really discuss this fairly. We can talk about statements they made about some positive features, but since the service was never really seen by anyone, we can't say for sure what it would have or would not have done.

Basically, imo, MS wanted to embrace a pc-like model, something like Steam. We can argue about the execution all day, but I think that was their ultimate goal. They messed it up and decided to pick another path for now.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Xbox One's original DRM policies meant 'New' games would have the same restrictions as 'Old' PS1, 2, 3 games via PlayStation Now.

 

The difference here being if you didn't want to go digital and wanted to play a game offline then you could just boot up your ps2 or ps3 and play it offline. And play 'New' games on the PS4. PlayStation Now also has other features like streaming to multiple devices, allowing backward compatibility, etc. 

 

Sony are also offering a 'Streaming' service which requires the internet to actually work, Microsoft were offering an online-check to make sure you bought the game.

 

Sony gave people a choice, go digital and play games or stay offline and play the games.

Features include: Playing games on PS3, PS4, Vita, Bravia TV (And later Tablets, Smartphones, other TV's)

PlayStation Now is only for backward compatibility, not every single game (Like Xbox One's original policy).

You can still play those older games offline on the original console.

 

Xbox was going to force people to go digital/online-only to play all games.

Features included: Play a game on your console (Same as previous consoles but with extra DRM online checks/restrictions)

 

I personally am not very interested in PlayStation Now, I might buy a months subscription just to try it out but if I wanted to play PS 1, 2 or 3 games I would have kept the consoles or buy a second-hand one off eBay for cheap.

It's ironic that after the intense and stupid uproar for all digital "draconian" "anti-consumer" DRM in usual places (reddit, NeoGAF and here) - I see most people enjoying all digital games on PS4 and XBO because of the benefits it brings.

On XBO today,

- You don't need to swap disks if you buy all digital

- You effectively get 2 copies per household if you buy digital games (home console trick)

 

I am sure PS4 has something similar.

 

Microsoft's digital only policy was not perfect but it was not as ant-consumer as many including above post make it sound with misunderstanding (24hr was not because they wanted to prevent privacy but it enabled used games trade-in which was not offered on any console) and some weird anti-Microsoft phobia. It was partly Microsoft's doing because of PR missteps.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's ironic that after the intense and stupid uproar for all digital "draconian" "anti-consumer" DRM in usual places (reddit, NeoGAF and here) - I see most people enjoying all digital games on PS4 and XBO because of the benefits it brings.

On XBO today,

- You don't need to swap disks if you buy all digital

- You effectively get 2 copies per household if you buy digital games (home console trick)

 

I am sure PS4 has something similar.

 

Microsoft's digital only policy was not perfect but it was not as ant-consumer as many including above post make it sound with misunderstanding (24hr was not because they wanted to prevent privacy but it enabled used games trade-in which was not offered on any console) and some weird anti-Microsoft phobia. It was partly Microsoft's doing because of PR missteps.

 

That's because it's currently the same as last gen, what most people wanted... Don't know how that is irony, irony would be people enjoying the same/similar DRM.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's ironic that after the intense and stupid uproar for all digital "draconian" "anti-consumer" DRM in usual places (reddit, NeoGAF and here) - I see most people enjoying all digital games on PS4 and XBO because of the benefits it brings.

 

Microsoft's digital only policy was not perfect but it was not as ant-consumer as many including above post make it sound with misunderstanding (24hr was not because they wanted to prevent privacy but it enabled used games trade-in which was not offered on any console) and some weird anti-Microsoft phobia. It was partly Microsoft's doing because of PR missteps.

 

If you can't see the differences I can't help you, but even you should have seen that a huge majority of people were actively against it.

It had a petition about bringing it back and majority of those who voted for it were people trolling the petition by supporting it.

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Stupid-Fanboys-Petition-Microsoft-Bring-Back-Xbox-One-DRM-57382.html

 

Basically all the benefits the Xbox One DRM was supposed to allow was already here on PS3 and Xbox 360 (And PS4 when it was to be released).

Even digital game trade-in. PS4 allows you to trade-in digital and non-digital copies of certain PS3 games to upgrade to a PS4 version, so the trade-in ability is here without DRM checks anyway but it hasn't spread to trading-in different PS4 games for a new PS4 game yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's a little unfair to MS' plan considering you mentioned none of the features they were proposing. Basically, your saying MS was going to treat everything like digital and there were absolutely no positive features to that.

 

If I recall correctly, the large reason MS failed is because they never actually detailed positive features. What they did do was chisel out all of the negatives for everyone to latch onto (to the point that they even chiseled out the negative limitations to their sharing game features and neglected to specify specific details about the family plan).That made two camps, those who saw the negatives and those who assumed that there would be tangible benefits to a digital world. Unfortunately, you can't sell people on unknowns positives and known negatives and as such they shot themselves in the foot. Not unusual given MS's track record in marketing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Still not sure why we're discussing/comparing the two when it's apples and oranges? :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you can't see the differences I can't help you, but even you should have seen that a huge majority of people were actively against it.

It had a petition about bringing it back and majority of those who voted for it were people trolling the petition by supporting it.

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Stupid-Fanboys-Petition-Microsoft-Bring-Back-Xbox-One-DRM-57382.html

 

Basically all the benefits the Xbox One DRM was supposed to allow was already here on PS3 and Xbox 360 (And PS4 when it was to be released).

Even digital game trade-in. PS4 allows you to trade-in digital and non-digital copies of certain PS3 games to upgrade to a PS4 version, so the trade-in ability is here without DRM checks anyway but it hasn't spread to trading-in different PS4 games for a new PS4 game yet.

Oh, yeah, sure.  It was completely one sided :rolleyes: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/06/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Basically all the benefits the Xbox One DRM was supposed to allow was already here on PS3 and Xbox 360 (And PS4 when it was to be released).
Even digital game trade-in. PS4 allows you to trade-in digital and non-digital copies of certain PS3 games to upgrade to a PS4 version, so the trade-in ability is here without DRM checks anyway but it hasn't spread to trading-in different PS4 games for a new PS4 game yet.


That was not all of the benefits. Its been said many times before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If I recall correctly, the large reason MS failed is because they never actually detailed positive features. What they did do was chisel out all of the negatives for everyone to latch onto (to the point that they even chiseled out the negative limitations to their sharing game features and neglected to specify specific details about the family plan).That made two camps, those who saw the negatives and those who assumed that there would be tangible benefits to a digital world. Unfortunately, you can't sell people on unknowns positives and known negatives and as such they shot themselves in the foot. Not unusual given MS's track record in marketing.


Positive features were detailed a bit, but once they moved to the defensive and got stuck on the one thing most hated (the 24hr check in), it was over.

Even during the defensive PR, bits of info on features were getting out, but lets face it, few saw that stuff. The drm simply overshadowed all of it.

Basically, MS chose poorly in regards to drm and that meant the public reaction was so strong, they didn't even get a chance to roll out detailed features before launch. I get the feeling if MS had chosen an option more acceptable, then we would have also learned more about the features as they got closer to launch since they would be focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Positive features were detailed a bit, but once they moved to the defensive and got stuck on the one thing most hated (the 24hr check in), it was over.

Even during the defensive PR, bits of info on features were getting out, but lets face it, few saw that stuff. The drm simply overshadowed all of it.

Basically, MS chose poorly in regards to drm and that meant the public reaction was so strong, they didn't even get a chance to roll out detailed features before launch. I get the feeling if MS had chosen an option more acceptable, then we would have also learned more about the features as they got closer to launch since they would be focused.

That probably would have been the case. I simply don't know why MS would go into all kinds of details about the DRM aspects and restrictions though. That just seems to me like something you'd want to play down and keep vague until the nice features are shown. But, I suppose that's why I don't work for marketing ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Still not sure why we're discussing/comparing the two when it's apples and oranges? :p

 

People like to paint apples orange and try their luck  :iiam:  :shiftyninja:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's because it's currently the same as last gen, what most people wanted... Don't know how that is irony, irony would be people enjoying the same/similar DRM.

I see UserABC complaining about Microsoft's DRM and that he won't be able to sell/buy used games, he won't be able to play on his annual vacation in a remote cabin with no internet access etc etc.
6 months later, I see UserABC raving about ease of switching games due to digital download.

If you don't see the irony, what do you see in this? I see UserABC in both camps and some complaining about high digital game prices compared to sales in BestBuy/Amazon. If nothing else, Microsoft's "evil" DRM would have enabled sales on digital games.
 

If you can't see the differences I can't help you, but even you should have seen that a huge majority of people were actively against it.
It had a petition about bringing it back and majority of those who voted for it were people trolling the petition by supporting it.
 
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Stupid-Fanboys-Petition-Microsoft-Bring-Back-Xbox-One-DRM-57382.html
 
Basically all the benefits the Xbox One DRM was supposed to allow was already here on PS3 and Xbox 360 (And PS4 when it was to be released).
Even digital game trade-in. PS4 allows you to trade-in digital and non-digital copies of certain PS3 games to upgrade to a PS4 version, so the trade-in ability is here without DRM checks anyway but it hasn't spread to trading-in different PS4 games for a new PS4 game yet.

Oh I see the difference and I have seen the outrage. I am saying the outrage is out of unnecessary paranoia. You don't have all the benefits of the XBO "evil" DRM. You have some due to them being digital but some major ones (download times and discounts for example) are missing.
I am not aware of any digital trade-in on PS4 (mostly because I don't particularly pay attention to Sony stuff) so please enlighten me if you don't mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is a complete misrepresentation of the issue. The anger directed at Microsoft was in response to them forcibly making you connect the console to the Internet to make even it's most basic of functions work. A completely separate issue to offering your back catalogue on a streaming subscription service.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

6 months later, I see UserABC raving about ease of switching games due to digital download.

If you don't see the irony, what do you see in this? I see UserABC in both camps and some complaining about high digital game prices compared to sales in BestBuy/Amazon. If nothing else, Microsoft's "evil" DRM would have enabled sales on digital games.

 

But as AB said, you can do that on 360/PS3 and you can do it on PS4/X1. You don't need the original X1 DRM to achieve it.

 

As for sales on DD, there is no guarantee that would be the case. Just like their introduction on any platform didn't instantly lower prices or bring sales with them. Steam and the rest of the DD services didn't have to worry about their relations with retailers either because they'd all given up on PC gaming over 10 years ago. Sony and MS still have to work with them and not screw them over. Even the announcement of PS Now was enough to drop the share prices in Gamestop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But as AB said, you can do that on 360/PS3 and you can do it on PS4/X1. You don't need the original X1 DRM to achieve it.
 
As for sales on DD, there is no guarantee that would be the case. Just like their introduction on any platform didn't instantly lower prices or bring sales with them. Steam and the rest of the DD services didn't have to worry about their relations with retailers either because they'd all given up on PC gaming over 10 years ago. Sony and MS still have to work with them and not screw them over. Even the announcement of PS Now was enough to drop the share prices in Gamestop.

You can't buy a disk on PS4/XBO and convert it to a digital game. You are bound to that disk. You need the original DRM to achieve it. That leads you to discounts on games by outlets such as Amazon and BestBuy (using US examples). Theoretically you could still buy a game from BestBuy for say $40 instead of $60 but still have convenience of a digital download.
I am not referring to sales on Xbox store - that is not relevant to the original DRM scheme. It is just status quo as AB mentioned.

As I said earlier, Microsoft's plan wasn't perfect but it was a step in the right direction. They tried to address every scenario and failed.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You can't buy a disk on PS4/XBO and convert it to a digital game. You are bound to that disk. You need the original DRM to achieve it. That leads you to discounts on games by outlets such as Amazon and BestBuy (using US examples). Theoretically you could still buy a game from BestBuy for say $40 instead of $60 but still have convenience of a digital download.
I am not referring to sales on Xbox store - that is not relevant to the original DRM scheme. It is just status quo as AB mentioned.

As I said earlier, Microsoft's plan wasn't perfect but it was a step in the right direction. They tried to address every scenario and failed.

 

So you'd rather buy a completely redundant disc to convert to digital in a 1 time only process, meaning you never have to touch it again

 

 

vs

 

 

buying it on the XBLM/PSN and not have a worthless disc in the first place (and I won't even begin to bring up cost/enviromental reasons).

 

Again, you do not need the X1 DRM to access your library of games on your home console or at a friend's house. It also wouldn't give MS/Sony a monopoly on prices either. If you go with the Steam model of using serial keys then you can still under cut Valve's pricing.

 

I'm completely lost on your desire for the "convenience of a digital download" but first I want a disc from a retailer to achieve it :unsure:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.