Microsoft was right, I was wrong. No need for media, digital only would have been fine, maybe Kinect.

[EmuZombie Veteran]

On 1/21/2016 at 10:23 AM, Skiver said:

I will never go fully digital until they sort out the pricing model, which at the moment I don't ever see happening as there is never competition on the digital front.

 

Case and point - I could pick-up the Division for £40 right now on pre-order, go onto the Xbox store and I'll pay £55 for it - for what exactly? I don't believe people are lazy enough to truly justify £15 for no other benefit then not having to get off your rear to change a disk. This massive price difference is the same for every new title I've ever come across with prices only dipping months after release when the occasional sale occurs, for some that works but I like to get titles as they release so I'll continue to buy disks where its more cost affective.

^This exactly.

 

Even brand new releases often drop in price far below their download counterparts.  In what world does it make sense to price a physical object less?  I feel like the system is backwards.  

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, EmuZombie said:

^This exactly.

 

Even brand new releases often drop in price far below their download counterparts.  In what world does it make sense to price a physical object less?  I feel like the system is backwards.  

In a market where Sony/MS/Nintendo and the publishers want maximum £££$$$ returns. Consoles are closed environments with no storefront competition, so therefore no incentive to offer competitive pricing. Retail/online have to compete which is why we enjoy reduced pricing on physical releases.

 

The PC is the only device where multiple digital storefronts will exist, therefore it is the exception to the argument, not the status-quo. This will not change, or at least has a terribly low chance of changing. Console manufacturers aren't going to allow 3rd party storefronts for games.

[HawkMan]

4 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Fixed. Unless of course MS believe the "whiners" to have a point 

Whiners with the power of the media behind them have a lot of power, as has been proven repeatedly over the last few years. had the media instead decided to focus on how the digital system worked, the benefits of it and how it was or would have been revolutionary, instead of doing their usual "attack" routine. we would have seen a very different product today. 

 

They way the media pushed the publics, they had to change it if they where to sell at all. granted, a big part of it was MS inability to properly show off and present the idea in the first place. But I doubt it would have changed anything, as the media fueled by the hate change brigade would still have pushed the image they wanted to push. 

[HawkMan]

4 hours ago, EmuZombie said:

^This exactly.

 

Even brand new releases often drop in price far below their download counterparts.  In what world does it make sense to price a physical object less?  I feel like the system is backwards.  

in a world where people are willing to pay for it, and where there aren't retail stores fighting to have the least amount of money made on products(granted MS was going to sell their DD's in retail locations so if the original plan had gone through DD's would have been cheaper), in a world where people will pay more for convenience and where packaging and discs are sold cheaper because they only add extra work and extra trash and stuff you need to store around the house. 

 

Also again, the digital downloads still allow you to play on to xbox as it is today, not quite the 10 that there was supposed to be and might still be( I wouldn't hold my breath until next gen at this point). 

[MorganX]

5 hours ago, AR556 said:

I'm a fan of owning physical media, but that was back in the day when you bought a "finished game" that wasn"t tied to the net. The purpose of physical media has been rendered useless by "day one" patches and net dependence.

 

People think that they got Microsoft to change its policy with the One, scoring some sort of victory. Truthfully, MS just threw us a bone, but still got most of what they wanted. We're just having to put a useless disc in the drive now.

 

 

 

Great point!

[MorganX]

5 hours ago, HawkMan said:

That's how it was supposed to work before the whiners killed it. 

That's the best compromise. Keep the disc for legacy titles and discs, but move forward with online drm/licensing. I couldn't resist Batman Arkham Knight at Best Buy this weekend for $14. But when I play it, I'll have to put the #@#@ disc in.

[MorganX]

7 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Ridiculously stupid to remove an option for the sake of it. Why not have both to benefit everyone? Consoles aren't a me only model, they are supposed to cater to the lower demographics in gaming - Those who cannot afford beastly PCs or those in parts of the world with poor to average Internet. 

 

What about importing games as well, we finally have region free consoles after many years of region locking. There are so many downsides to digital only, while right now you CAN do digital only yourself and leave the discs for those of us who want them. Again summed up simply as why have less options when you currently have both options?

 

If you think MS are far behind Sony now, your digital only console would be eating the dirt of its own grave. We do not all live in America with fiber/cable broadband and pay the most competitive digital prices. Exchange rates for digital in some parts of the world are shocking. So if anyone wants to argue a discless console would be slightly cheaper which is a plus, don't be a hypocrite saying the digital "convenience tax" is a benefit and not a con.

 

Saving $50 on a console without Blu Ray hardly stands up to your library of 30~50 games costing you even just  $10 a piece more each for digital convenience. If a couple of hundred extra for "digital tax" doesn't bother you then who are you kidding that a console being $50 cheaper initially is the deal clincher for yourself? 

I personally could care less about Sony. Although my 4K TV will probably be a Bravia, best picture. I'm happy with the X1, it has the games I want, the controller that fits my big American hands, OTA TV, soon DVR, and integration with my PC. Other consoles don't exist to me when I have what I want. If Sony has the things Xbox has, then I'd be talking about a PlayStation.

[HawkMan]

25 minutes ago, MorganX said:

I personally could care less about Sony. Although my 4K TV will probably be a Bravia, best picture. I'm happy with the X1, it has the games I want, the controller that fits my big American hands, OTA TV, soon DVR, and integration with my PC. Other consoles don't exist to me when I have what I want. If Sony has the things Xbox has, then I'd be talking about a PlayStation.

Well as of now, Sony Tv's are about as Sony as Philips tv's are Philips. 

[Doli]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 8:23 AM, Skiver said:

I will never go fully digital until they sort out the pricing model, which at the moment I don't ever see happening as there is never competition on the digital front.

 

Case and point - I could pick-up the Division for £40 right now on pre-order, go onto the Xbox store and I'll pay £55 for it - for what exactly? I don't believe people are lazy enough to truly justify £15 for no other benefit then not having to get off your rear to change a disk. This massive price difference is the same for every new title I've ever come across with prices only dipping months after release when the occasional sale occurs, for some that works but I like to get titles as they release so I'll continue to buy disks where its more cost affective.

Its media for me also unless its a cheap title. I can finish it and trade it in for another title when im done with the game. It even better with Best Buy's Gamers Club and Amazon Prime because they offer 20% off new games. Not bad if you buy a lot of games. Best Buy's Gamers Club is only $30 and it last two years so it pays for itself if you buy three $60 games (for $48) in that time and it even includes special editions.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Doli

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Whiners with the power of the media behind them have a lot of power, as has been proven repeatedly over the last few years. had the media instead decided to focus on how the digital system worked, the benefits of it and how it was or would have been revolutionary, instead of doing their usual "attack" routine. we would have seen a very different product today. 

 

They way the media pushed the publics, they had to change it if they where to sell at all. granted, a big part of it was MS inability to properly show off and present the idea in the first place. But I doubt it would have changed anything, as the media fueled by the hate change brigade would still have pushed the image they wanted to push. 

Then MS either has no spine, or didn't have enough belief in what they were trying to do to impress the naysayers.

 

1 hour ago, MorganX said:

I personally could care less about Sony. Although my 4K TV will probably be a Bravia, best picture. I'm happy with the X1, it has the games I want, the controller that fits my big American hands, OTA TV, soon DVR, and integration with my PC. Other consoles don't exist to me when I have what I want. If Sony has the things Xbox has, then I'd be talking about a PlayStation.

But you cannot make something like disc-less personal either then, as it's not something that only affects you. MS has to consider what their competition is doing, just like any other company does, as if you're ignorant enough not to care then you run the risk of firing off down a path that results in you making less sales/losing marketshare. Those matter, even if not much to the end user, but to the top suits at MS who want to run a profitable and lengthy business out of Xbox and compete against Sony for marketshare.

 

We're not talking controller ergonomics or game taste here, but a fundamental approach that could have ended up with people not even getting to holding a controller or playing a game on an Xbox platform in the first place.

 

The status-quo provides a disc and digital option, so I really do not know why pro-digital people get their feathers ruffled. Just go full on digital and leave discs alone. It's the same effect, never ever putting a disc in your console, to not having a disc drive. 

[HawkMan]

24 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Then MS either has no spine, or didn't have enough belief in what they were trying to do to impress the naysayers.

 

 

Spine doesn't factor in, neither does belief in your product. if the media has made sure no one will buy your product no matter how much spine you have or how much belief you have, launching it like that is stupid and suicide. 

 

It doesn't matter if a product is revolutionary and in 99 or 1 ways better than the alternative if the media has made everyone believe it's not and no one will buy it. 

[HawkMan]

26 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

The status-quo provides a disc and digital option, so I really do not know why pro-digital people get their feathers ruffled. Just go full on digital and leave discs alone. It's the same effect, never ever putting a disc in your console, to not having a disc drive. 

Because the move away form pure digital also remove a majority of the benefits of having pure digital .  Some of the benefits like game sharing has since been implemented on Steam where it's universally loved, and also digital only. 

[Noir Angel]

I've never been one to accept the "paying for convenience" argument. If you're buying a digital only game, you're buying less, not more. Paying more for less is stupid and illogical.

[MorganX]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Well as of now, Sony Tv's are about as Sony as Philips tv's are Philips. 

I'm still going to buy one, lol. The picture was simply superior to LG and Samsung. Things may change by the time I actually buy. The point I wanted to make is I'm not into the brand wars. I buy what I want/works best for me. Brand wars are for kids.

[MorganX]

3 minutes ago, Javik said:

I've never been one to accept the "paying for convenience" argument. If you're buying a digital only game, you're buying less, not more. Paying more for less is stupid and illogical.

I'll pay for convenience, but I agree with you. The manufacturing and distribution savings should trickle down to consumers by way of lower prices. I think for the most part that does happen with PCs.

[Mr. Gibs]

On 1/22/2016 at 3:50 PM, Javik said:

Charging people more for less is truly stupid, removing the disc, the packaging, and distribution costs should drop the price of a game, not raise it. That said, Microsoft and Sony are laughably good at ripping console junkies off while making them think they're getting a good deal.

Digital only games are something I am a big fan of, but I'd never pay 25% extra to buy one. Thankfully, PC gamers don't get ripped off in that manner. That said, as long as capped broadband is a thing, so will digital media be a thing.

Um. Where do you see PC gamers not getting ripped off in the same manner? The vast majority of new games on steam cost exactly the same as a physical copy does. 

 

The only exception being if you have Prime and pre-order the physical copy off of Amazon, then you save 20% which is what Skiver was talking about. And that's not a fair comparison because its two separate stores.

[MorganX]

1 hour ago, Doli said:

Its media for me also unless its a cheap title. I can finish it and trade it in for another title when im done with the game. It even better with Best Buy's Gamers Club and Amazon Prime because they offer 20% off new games. Not bad if you buy a lot of games. Best Buy's Gamers Club is only $30 and it last two years so it pays for itself if you buy three $60 games (for $48) in that time and it even includes special editions.

I was a fan of this, but for me now, because I want more diverse games on Xbox One and I want the games I play on Xbox AND PC, I've decided to buy everything I want new and give the devs their due. It's not easy making a great game and I want to support publishers. The more they make, the more willing they are to take risks on games other than F .. P .. S'.

 

But I do understand and accept the point you made. It's probably a reason many won't go digital only. I suppose, streaming basically destroying DVD/Blu-ray has as much to do with having to every use physical media seem like an unnecessary nuisance as anything else.

[HawkMan]

39 minutes ago, Javik said:

I've never been one to accept the "paying for convenience" argument. If you're buying a digital only game, you're buying less, not more. Paying more for less is stupid and illogical.

That assumes a logical fallacy that a physical object is seen as "more". when for many having to have the physical object is in fact "less" as it takes room and is unecessary and subject to breakage, and also ignores other bonuses of the digital version. like the dual licenses that's been mentioned before in the thread. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Spine doesn't factor in, neither does belief in your product. if the media has made sure no one will buy your product no matter how much spine you have or how much belief you have, launching it like that is stupid and suicide. 

 

It doesn't matter if a product is revolutionary and in 99 or 1 ways better than the alternative if the media has made everyone believe it's not and no one will buy it. 

 

That's MS' problem to change opinion. If they actually went onto detail how everything would work rather than leaving everything so uncertain maybe reception wouldn't have been so negative. Even you have admitted digital sharing was not explained well enough, or even in enough detail. How can you blame public opinion for being confused/negative if MS offer no credible counter arguments or answer the tough questions aimed at them?

 

All we have is people on forums who do not even work for MS saying it would have been great/this is how it would work. Sorry, but unless it's from MS' mouth and actually demonstrable, you cannot give much confidence to people guessing on forums.

 

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Because the move away form pure digital also remove a majority of the benefits of having pure digital .  Some of the benefits like game sharing has since been implemented on Steam where it's universally loved, and also digital only. 

Game sharing can be done with discs still available? PC games can still be bought on disc you know.

 

MS, and Sony and Nintendo for that matter can do game sharing if they want. MS and Sony already do in basic terms of titles purchased via other accounts on the console being available to everyone who logs in - Your son/daughter could play games you bought on their own accounts without having to rebuy. Many of the features of steam could easily be copied. Gifting purchases and more elaborate sharing can be implemented any time, issue is Sony and MS are equally as greedy and when you have a closed system you do not need to compete in the same way competition exists on the PC. See Sony reducing account activations on the PS3 from 5 to 2 after years of game sharing had 5 people regularly splitting the cost of 1 title. This forum alone even had game sharing begging spam on a regular basis for PS3. They understandably want 5 individual purchases of a game, rather than the equivalent of one person buying and 4 freeloading.

 

Sony introduced shareplay on PS4 that lets anyone play a game you own, but it requires an online connection and streams a game, rather than it being played locally. They prefer to have that kind of control over you, and DRM protection, rather than 5 people on the PS3 splitting costs of a game that can be played offline with no DRM check-ins.

 

The point is everything can still be done today, so arguments about keeping a disc drive on the XB1 somehow prevents MS from introducing more elaborate game sharing plans are unconvincing and rather laughable.

 

edit: As a bonus question, a fairly new but well received update added 360 BC to the One and everyone was happy their 360 discs would work. Digital only would have had you forced to re-buy the old games you own digitally, kind of like Sony have done with PS2 games on PS4, so would have removing the disc drive have been good for this?... Not really.

[Noir Angel]

5 hours ago, -Razorfold said:

Um. Where do you see PC gamers not getting ripped off in the same manner? The vast majority of new games on steam cost exactly the same as a physical copy does. 

 

The only exception being if you have Prime and pre-order the physical copy off of Amazon, then you save 20% which is what Skiver was talking about. And that's not a fair comparison because its two separate stores.

I pre ordered Mass Effect 3, collector's edition for £60. A lot of console releases cost that just for the plain vanilla games. I paid £26.99 to pre order Portal 2 and Bioshock 2 both of which were over £40 on console. I paid £40 for Assassin's Creed 4, digital deluxe, the console version was £50 for the plain version of the game. Apart from ME3 all ordered through steam.

 

In the 15 years I've been gaming, every PC game I've ordered has been either equal to or cheaper than it's console equals, and on the PC digital only products do actually reflect the reduced distribution, packing, shipping, and raw material cost.

[Noir Angel]

4 hours ago, HawkMan said:

That assumes a logical fallacy that a physical object is seen as "more". when for many having to have the physical object is in fact "less" as it takes room and is unecessary and subject to breakage, and also ignores other bonuses of the digital version. like the dual licenses that's been mentioned before in the thread. 

Pretty obvious that I meant more in terms of manufacturing and production cost. Dual licenses would be of no use to me unless I could sell them on.

[Charisma Veteran]

I preferred physical media for a long time, but one big thing made me change my mind:

 

Region locking.

 

I have a whole plethora of games I can no longer play since I don't live in the country where they were purchased. If I'd bought them digitally, this wouldn't be an issue. Until the stupid, stupid practice of region-locking is gone, digital is the way to go for me. I don't even want to think about how many hundreds, thousands of dollars worth of games are there that I can't use anymore.

[spaceelf]

I've got...one disc for my Xbox One.  My friend bought me a game.  Heh.

 

[Mr. Gibs]

53 minutes ago, Javik said:

I pre ordered Mass Effect 3, collector's edition for £60. A lot of console releases cost that just for the plain vanilla games. I paid £26.99 to pre order Portal 2 and Bioshock 2 both of which were over £40 on console. I paid £40 for Assassin's Creed 4, digital deluxe, the console version was £50 for the plain version of the game. Apart from ME3 all ordered through steam.

 

In the 15 years I've been gaming, every PC game I've ordered has been either equal to or cheaper than it's console equals, and on the PC digital only products do actually reflect the reduced distribution, packing, shipping, and raw material cost.

Why are you comparing PC and console game costs now? Your argument was that physical media and digital media shouldn't cost the same and that it's only consoles that rip you off in that matter.

 

The vast majority of PC games cost exactly the same whether or not you buy them digitally or get a physical copy. There are very few games that I've bought on Steam / Origin that actually ended up being cheaper than the physical media on release day / pre-order. 

[Skiver Veteran]

On 22/01/2016 at 7:53 PM, Emn1ty said:

Honestly, I'd have been fine going fully digital this gen because if that was the only way to buy on the X1 we'd likely be seeing similar deals and cuts as we do on Steam already. Going digital subsidizes a lot of these sales since you don't have to take the hit on distribution and manufacturing. What prevents me from buy games on my X1 is not prices, but storage space. The initial console released with too little, and I've been too lazy to go out and buy an external drive. Instead I just don't buy games to install because it takes too long to do so and eventually I have to delete them for more space.

Storage is absolutely a problem, I've just now had to get a 1TB USB drive stuck on the side as it was getting silly juggling games and with the amount of patches on some, uninstalling for a new meant I'd never be going back to it. 

 

 

On 22/01/2016 at 9:18 PM, HawkMan said:

Not having to juggle disk is worth 15 dollars alone I'd say. I don't really buy physical, then I'll rather wait for a sale on digital. but the ability to just play on another xbox with o fuzz, also great. and when they finally get around to add back the 1 console family/"friend" plan they had going it'l be even better. 

I guess some people will never see eye to eye on that first point, £15 is a silly amount of money to waste imo, if it means getting up and spending 30 seconds to switch a disk. I don't have money to burn so if I can save money I will - just on my "Division" example - I picked up disk copy of the Gold edition at the weekend from Amazon for £50 - so my £15 just became a £30 saving over what Xbox.com is offering. When those sorts of deals are out there for pre-orders on disks I just couldn't justify it.

I get the whole family sharing benefits, digital will work amazingly well for some people but I don't have any family that I can share that benefit with, I only own the one console so it doesn't work for me personally on that level.