Xbox One: not enough detail

[Eric]

I can't believe Sony made this. I'd have expected this as a troll joke video from some enthusiastic fans, this is hysterical.

[kali o.]

I can't believe Sony made this. I'd have expected this as a troll joke video from some enthusiastic fans, this is hysterical.

Microsoft made it too easy and tempting...

gg Sony -- epic killshot on Microsoft.

[Lox]

It's really, really tempting to pre-order a PS4 right now.

[Flip]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

[Lox]

I actually have quite a nice system with a friend of mine. We go over all of the titles that are primarily singleplayer that are coming out and we split them up. He buys some and I buy some and then we swap.

[SineSwiper]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

I have an always on Internet connection. Do I think that it's bullshit to force people to be online to play games? Hells yes!

It's not about how it impacts you. It's about how it impacts the industry going forward.

[Blotus]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

For me it's not so much the purchase of used games, but the ability to sell them. This console cycle, I've never had more than 5 games in my house at any given time (currently just have XCOM, Infinite and NHL13). I'm past the point of holding onto something that dwindles in value just because I can -- I sold Skyrim because after 300+ hours because there was a high probability that I'd never play it again. What's more valuable: $20 or nothing?

Plenty of people still buy at retail. Until digital distribution becomes the norm for consoles (or when amazon.ca can get a game to me on launch day), it will remain that way.

[Eric]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

It was a historic moment for the industry I think, something we'll be talking about in the years to come. I don't buy used games, and I also love digital delivery, BUT at the same time I don't want to have to have my system check in with big brother to allow me to play something I've already bought and treat me like a criminal, or even not let me share my games with my friends. I actually do loan games to friends still(Though with a bunch of stipulations, bitches better not scratch my discs goddamnit ).

People like to bring up steam, but steam's situation is widely different, it's much friendlier then what Microsoft is trying to pull off, and it has some amazing sales, and it has competition on an open market that keeps it honest.

[Zeus]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

You really don't understand the market at all, do you?

[Flip]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

You really don't understand the market at all, do you?

I guess I dont understand OLD markets. Markets change. Brick and mortar places like Best Buy, Sears, JC Penny, Blobkbuster, and Barnes & Noble are all feeling that pain because they dont change and adapt. I love digital distribution and dont really care if physical media poops out. I cant even remember the last CD i bought, but thats probably because i havent been into consoles for a few generations now.

[kali o.]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

I don't rent games either -- I bought one USED game last gen (Culdcept Saga, which ended up being one of my favorite games). I CONSIDERED selling all my 360 games after my 2nd or 3rd RROD (I think this is a very important point/scenario). So it effects me, albeit to a small extent. But that doesn't really matter...

The issue of ownership is very important, especially with all the loopholes and sneaky shit companies are pulling with software. When peoples PHYSICAL products are being rented (without obvious transparency or understanding) simply because of the inclusion of software, in 20 years from now you will find your rights over products (most of which are starting to include software) completely obliterated. This isn't slippery slope stuff, it is playing out in front of you. You think car manufacturers, appliance companies or home builders don't want residual income, full control over the market/product cycles and full ownership?

[Julius Seeker]

I'm in agreement with Flip. While I have bought a lot of used games over the past 5 years, they have largely been PSX titles. I never sell games anymore, the last time I sold any were probably Tomb Raider, Gran Turismo, and Resident Evil 1 on PSX back when they were still fairly new. So it's been two full generations otherwise.

Although, a lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm not a teenager anymore and the prices of games are fairly trivial compared to back then; I'd rather not go through the hassle of reselling or risk selling a game I may want to play again even 10-15 years down the road. The major consideration for me now is time, if I am going to play the game I will spend the money, if I am not going to play it, then I probably won't spend the money. This isn't going to be the case with gamers that are still in that 14-22 age gap where cash spent is still a consideration.

Online DRM, this might be a problem. It means that this isn't going to be like dragging out the almost 25 year old Genesis to play an old game, 25 years from now the service might be dead and the game unplayable.


Funny thing about Microsoft though is they can royally screw stuff up and still make a major profit. Windows 8, Smart Glass, and now X-Bone. Three strikes, but they're far from out.

[Don]

I don't think it's so much as the used game market being that significant (if it didn't exist people probably just wouldn't buy these games so it's not like the game makers get much out of it) but the concept of 'you don't own this stuff' is just not something you advertise and expect people to say 'great idea!' It's not surprising we're at this point looking at the SaaS trends but it's probably a good thing that it's getting to a point where we might actually get ownership back. It doesn't really impact most people, but it's just something that needs to be reined in. It's similar to EULA. I believe Apple's EULA says you agree to any future EULA they may have had even if you don't sign it as long as you continue to use their products. There's just no way that sounds right and even though nobody is thinking Apple will have a future EULA that says they own your soul and start collecting (remember, you don't have to sign it to agree to it). It's just why would give companies these ridiculous clauses?

[SineSwiper]

[Zeus]

So, with Sony and MS taking opposite sides on this topic it made me really really think, "How many used games have i bought, borrowed, and/or sold in the last few years?" and while i hate to admit it, the answer was zero. Is this REALLY that big of an issue to anyone besides the 1% weird people like Zeus who actually still go to game stores?

You really don't understand the market at all, do you?

I guess I dont understand OLD markets. Markets change. Brick and mortar places like Best Buy, Sears, JC Penny, Blobkbuster, and Barnes & Noble are all feeling that pain because they dont change and adapt. I love digital distribution and dont really care if physical media poops out. I cant even remember the last CD i bought, but thats probably because i havent been into consoles for a few generations now.

That's you, someone who represents less than 20% of the console market. It's not about what you want or what you're willing to do, that doesn't dictate the market. You have to look at what everyone who buys games wants as a whole to understand the market.

That's why I keep saying you have to have actually worked in a games store because you're thinking everyone things like you and your friends/family. They don't. The fact that Valve release Portal 2 as a physical-copy retail release should have given you enough proof on its own. $ony and Microshaft and, shockingly, Nintendo are trying to push the market to digital copies, give it a little push (or a stiff shove in Nintendo's case with the 3DS) to make them walk down that road a little faster. But it's gonna take time.

Simply put, we nerds represent a small portion of the market right now. The majority of the market still believes in things like ownership rights and mostly prefers physical copies, whether we do or not (I own around 120 downloaded games between my 5 systems so it's not like I have none myself). If $ony and Microshaft could, they would left out the optical drives from this generation. But the market simply wouldn't accept it, so they're still there. Maybe next gen but I would say gen after that before you have wide-enough acceptance to eliminate that drive. Then your dream of only digital distribution and the destruction of ownership rights will come true. But not yet, not even close

[Eric]

I like how even the Doritos pope was taken back a bit by Don Mattrick's telling people without internet to buy a 360.

This is post Sony Press-Conference mind you where Sony declared the PS4 has no online checkin, so the most popular response is and has been obviously gonna be to buy a PS4 instead, seriously wtf was he thinking. x_x

[Eric]

You know, I've gone from giggling about Microsoft's failure to being dumbfounded by it.

When Sony launched the PS3 @ $600, they had reason to be arrogant, they were coming off the Playstation 2, the best selling console of all time(If I'm not mistaken the DS is a couple million still behind), I understood why they thought they could do just about anything and it would be a success.

But Microsoft is coming off the Xbox 360, they were 2nd this generation overall, dead last in Japan, 3rd and Europe and mainly carried by the US, where Sony has been catching up in the past 2 years, and where they are 100% going to start 2nd this generation according to preorders.

I really want to know if Microsoft knows something that we don't that has lead them down this path/

[Zeus]

DS surpassed the PS2 last year

And let's not suck $ony's dick too hard. They're still requiring PS Plus for online play and building in online code requirements right into the OS rather than requiring a code to be included in the packaging. They've regressed in the value proposition to consumers too, just not nearly as much as Microshaft

[Eric]

DS surpassed the PS2 last year

And let's not suck $ony's dick too hard. They're still requiring PS Plus for online play and building in online code requirements right into the OS rather than requiring a code to be included in the packaging. They've regressed in the value proposition to consumers too, just not nearly as much as Microshaft

Are you really gonna start calling them $ony? Really? I can't wait until Nintendo starts charging for online.

[Zeus]

DS surpassed the PS2 last year

And let's not suck $ony's dick too hard. They're still requiring PS Plus for online play and building in online code requirements right into the OS rather than requiring a code to be included in the packaging. They've regressed in the value proposition to consumers too, just not nearly as much as Microshaft

Are you really gonna start calling them $ony? Really? I can't wait until Nintendo starts charging for online.

Umm, I've been calling them that for over a year, every since they said "fuck you, we don't care" after the security breach. Like I told Blotus, I know you guys never actually read my posts. But you don't have to be so blunt about it :-)

Unlike the other two, Nintendo has never given me a reason to say "fuck you, you greedy pieces of shit". When they do (and I do believe it MAY happen), I will come up with a nickname for them too. Maybe when they start only releasing digital copies instead in combination with physical copies. They got close with Fire Emblem but weren't stupid enough to cut off the retail supply completely. And no, Phoenix Wright is Capcom, it doesn't count against Nintendo.

[Eric]

This is probably an injustice of some sort, legally speaking, but I hate cheaters/hackers so I can't bring myself to care terribly much.

But, I do find it prettttty interesting, cheat in one game and lose all of your games, that can add up to hundreds/thousands of dollars over time. Granted this happens in MMOs where people who have had subscriptions for years get banned for cheating.

Kali/Don?

[kali o.]

This is probably an injustice of some sort, legally speaking, but I hate cheaters/hackers so I can't bring myself to care terribly much.

But, I do find it prettttty interesting, cheat in one game and lose all of your games, that can add up to hundreds/thousands of dollars over time. Granted this happens in MMOs where people who have had subscriptions for years get banned for cheating.

Kali/Don?

People get wrongly banned all the time. I remember I got banned from DDO simply because their system went on the fritz. If your little brother walks in and drops the F-bomb while you are playing online...oh well, who needed access to all your games anyway....right? Not something I'd sign up for, when given a choice. If I swear like a sailor or own kids hard and get called a cheater, I am failing to see why (in any rational universe) that should threaten my ability to play GTA5 or Persona in peace. But that's me.

You can also bet, should you have financial issues or a glitch, and your XBLG charge gets rejected, you can expect a temp ban until you solve it (in the ToU too).

PS - For the record, I expect this to be one of the policies that is changed. Remember the shit storm when EA had a similar policy with Origin. Microsofts problem is they are trying to do too much "advancement" at once, giving the consumer virtually zero incentive...they aren't dragging their customers kicking and screaming into the future, they are just alienating their audience.

[Julius Seeker]

DS surpassed the PS2 last year

And let's not suck $ony's dick too hard. They're still requiring PS Plus for online play and building in online code requirements right into the OS rather than requiring a code to be included in the packaging. They've regressed in the value proposition to consumers too, just not nearly as much as Microshaft

Are you really gonna start calling them $ony? Really? I can't wait until Nintendo starts charging for online.

As strange as this sounds, I like the EA philosophy of get stuff for free, then pay for what you want and screw the full fees. I think this is the correct direction for many segments of the market. I really like this method of expanding Civilization 5, as an example. I can pick and choose which content I want to buy, rather than buying all sorts of stuff I don't care about in order to get the one thing I do care about; but if I want most to all of it, I can still get the total package at a combined discounted price. I see absolutely no problem with expanding the avenues by which players have to purchase games.

I am hoping Nintendo goes the EA avenue, rather than a Sony "We still offer games for free. Now go F yourselves and pay our perpetual subscription fee or else your games will have locked down features that are traditionally offered for free! We'll give you a bunch of crap of our choosing, that you probably don't want, as a bonus!"

Killer Instinct has a good example of how I would like to see these sorts of games done. Two ways to play.
1. Purchase the full game at regular price.
2. If you don't want the full version, download the free version and then purchase the parts that you want via micro-transactions.

There's a lot of "nerd raging" about this from the self declared "hardcore gamer" confederacy. I am not sure why these people are complaining about additional ways to purchase the game,it makes them look very uninformed about the industry they claim to be all hardcore about. It reminds me of the ignorant anti-FF8 chuckleheads, who act like drawing magic is the only method to advance characters in FF8 when there are other avenues to get magic and advance characters.

This is the sort of ignorance from the "hardcore gamer" confederacy that I feel feeds bad press for good advancements in the videogaming industry. Logically, increasing the methods by which you can purchase the game can only be positive.

[kali o.]

I see absolutely no problem with expanding the avenues by which players have to purchase games.

It's clear you don't understand the issue and I will happily explain why you are "wrong".

In theory, that's an absolutely splendid idea - buying 10%, 25% or 100% of a game. But it never. NEVER. works that way in practice. The problem is companies see the piece by piece model incorrectly -- the cap on monetization isn't the whole game. They don't won't a cap. It's simple greed. What company doesn't want more money, with an endless revenue stream instead? So suddenly the whole game is redefined to include these schemes, directly effecting gameplay and quality (if you think developing with monetization in mind, rather than fun, isn't inevitable in these cases and doesn't fundamentally impact the game, you have never played these hybrid models).

So what you end up with is buying 10%, 25% or 90% of the "whole game", with boosts, cosmetics, cheats, unlocks and other temporary content for everybody to purchase. Development and expansion focus ends up on that final 10% no one can ever truly own.

Until the greed is phased out of the industry on these models, they will continue to be awful. If Killer Instinct is getting backlash, it's because gamers have been burned time and time again by these models, with entire franchises ruined.

[Don]

On the subject of cheating, I'm inclined to agree with the view that if you're going to ban someone you should also give them their money back. This whole 'we banned you and still have your money, hahaha!' just doesn't work. As long as piracy is an unsolved problem you never have to worry about anyone doing this on purpose because it'd take considerably less effort to pirate a game than buy a game and then find a way to get yourself banned. Again though the whole concept of ownership is messed up. As long as you don't 'own' anything of course a company can ban you for any or even no reason and grab your money. If I was starting a new company I can say sell a subscription based game for really cheap on the subscription and then just ban everyone immediately and technically there's nothing illegal I did here since my EULA surely says I have the right to ban whoever I want.

For the 'buy a piece of the game', all it really means is a game that used to cost $60 now gets sold to you for 10% of a game at $10 for 10 times. That said if people are stupid enough to keep on buying stuff on that model there's nothing stopping from companies from doing it. It's really up to the consumers to boycott unreasonable DLCs or similar stuff so that companies get the point that this doesn't work. As long as people don't have the willpower to do it, it's not the game company's problem. When EQ1 had its cash shop, people had the usual debate about pay 2 win, and then some random guy on the official board lied about what one of the items do so that it gave you a minor in game advantage (didn't do that, but no one was buying it before). Instead of getting the 'slippery slope' argument, all the posts on that thread was: "How come my item didn't give me this boost?" So as long as you're dealing with players like that of course there's nothing against ripping players off.

[SineSwiper]

You know, I've gone from giggling about Microsoft's failure to being dumbfounded by it.

When Sony launched the PS3 @ $600, they had reason to be arrogant, they were coming off the Playstation 2, the best selling console of all time(If I'm not mistaken the DS is a couple million still behind), I understood why they thought they could do just about anything and it would be a success.

No, I've never seen a company this brazen about fucking over their customers. At least not one that wasn't absolutely positive that they have a complete monopoly in the industry. Even with Windows, Microsoft has to be more careful than this, since Android is knocking on their door for desktops, and Linux is the primary OS for servers.

But, there is no such thing as a monopoly on consoles, at least not in the last 10-15 years. They are exerting such an assholish attitude for an empire that could so easily not be theirs.

It's like Microsoft is the Viserys Targaryen of the console war.

[Lox]

It's like Microsoft is the Viserys Targaryen of the console war.

I hope that they get a pot of gold poured right on their head, too.

[Zeus]

It's like Microsoft is the Viserys Targaryen of the console war.

I hope that they get a pot of gold poured right on their head, too.

I would prefer it be molten steel so the next batch of assholes can use it to rebuild the company :-)

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

Online DRM, this might be a problem. It means that this isn't going to be like dragging out the almost 25 year old Genesis to play an old game, 25 years from now the service might be dead and the game unplayable.

This is the thing for me. I don't often sell games or buy them used, but I do count on being able to trot my old systems out on a whim and play games on them. You can rule that out for any platform that has to talk to remote servers to operate, because at some point those servers are going to go away.

[bovine]

Microsoft changes their DRM policies.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

This makes me feel better about the system.

[Zeus]

Microsoft changes their DRM policies.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

This makes me feel better about the system.

Wow. They've spent the last 2 years working on developing their system, listening to their publishers' propaganda about how great what they were doing was and BAM! They get bitch-slapped MUCH harder by the public than they initially thought. I'm sure they were expecting a backlash but to revoke their policies one week after E3? That's getting absolutely wasted by the public response.

I feel much better that there are WAY more people than I thought who refuse to get fucked in the ass by companies :-)

[Eric]

Well done Microsoft, this is a good thing for gaming, and I won't feel as bad about maybe buying an Xbox 180(NEW NAME) for KI down the line. :p

[kali o.]

Microsoft changes their DRM policies.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

This makes me feel better about the system.

Wow. I was actually pretty sure they'd just stick to their guns and relax some of the policies (which were light on details anyway).

I'm not sure what I think...the fact that they were willing to shackle their consumers with restrictions (but no incentives) still strikes me as a huge disconnect and disrespect of their audience. I have no doubt that the system MS proposed is where we are headed, one day, but the consumer needs a benefit as well -- otherwise what's the point? I'm not "sure" I want to support the Xbox brand now, even with the reversal.

Does that make sense?

[Julius Seeker]

I see absolutely no problem with expanding the avenues by which players have to purchase games.

It's clear you don't understand the issue and I will happily explain why you are "wrong".

In theory, that's an absolutely splendid idea - buying 10%, 25% or 100% of a game. But it never. NEVER. works that way in practice. The problem is companies see the piece by piece model incorrectly -- the cap on monetization isn't the whole game. They don't won't a cap. It's simple greed. What company doesn't want more money, with an endless revenue stream instead? So suddenly the whole game is redefined to include these schemes, directly effecting gameplay and quality (if you think developing with monetization in mind, rather than fun, isn't inevitable in these cases and doesn't fundamentally impact the game, you have never played these hybrid models).

So what you end up with is buying 10%, 25% or 90% of the "whole game", with boosts, cosmetics, cheats, unlocks and other temporary content for everybody to purchase. Development and expansion focus ends up on that final 10% no one can ever truly own.

You haven't proven my statement wrong or even provided any real argument against it.

My statement was against players who were zoning in on the freemium model and attacking Killer Instinct 3 for using it.

Your argument falls into three areas:
1. Against the full game + DLC model - This has been a standard model for years. It is both not unique to KI3, and would exist whether freemium options were included or not. It's also not what I was addressing.

2. A philosophical argument against supply and demand - Again, hardly a new thing in the world, you can read about it detail in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Again, not a part of my statement.

3. That "the whole game is redefined to include these schemes, directly effecting gameplay and quality." - Which is easily dismissed by pointing out that the addition of a freemium system just simply doesn't effect gameplay design in any way for a fighter. The model fits in with exactly how KI, KI2, and all other tournament fighters have been designed since their beginnings as pay per play in the arcade. Simply put: A fighting game, as it is traditionally designed exists, can easily be broken up into components and sold at cheaper prices with no impact to the design of the full game in its traditional method of purchase.

Until the greed is phased out of the industry on these models, they will continue to be awful. If Killer Instinct is getting backlash, it's because gamers have been burned time and time again by these models, with entire franchises ruined.

Welcome to capitalism and the public market, greed is always the driving force.

[kali o.]

You haven't proven my statement wrong or even provided any real argument against it.

My statement was against players who were zoning in on the freemium model and attacking Killer Instinct 3 for using it.

Your argument falls into three areas:
1. Against the full game + DLC model - This has been a standard model for years. It is both not unique to KI3, and would exist whether freemium options were included or not. It's also not what I was addressing.

2. A philosophical argument against supply and demand - Again, hardly a new thing in the world, you can read about it detail in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Again, not a part of my statement.

3. That "the whole game is redefined to include these schemes, directly effecting gameplay and quality." - Which is easily dismissed by pointing out that the addition of a freemium system just simply doesn't effect gameplay design in any way for a fighter. The model fits in with exactly how KI, KI2, and all other tournament fighters have been designed since their beginnings as pay per play in the arcade. Simply put: A fighting game, as it is traditionally designed exists, can easily be broken up into components and sold at cheaper prices with no impact to the design of the full game in its traditional method of purchase.

The fuck are you babbling about?

1) I didn't make any statement on DLC, I made a statement on F2P games/Microtransactions.
2) I don't want to read your book if it'll make me communicate in a pompous and obscure manner too.
3) I can point out how it could -- additional fighters/locations/boosts (things that make money) get development focus instead of addressing things like balance and bugs. Do you actually read what other people write?

KI can be the FIRST F2P game that bucks all the trends that have soured millions of gamers. We can revisit this thread later. Either way, history is on the complainers side.

Welcome to capitalism and the public market, greed is always the driving force.

Thanks for the pretentious nugget of nonsensical wisdom...

[bovine]

I think (probably pretty naively) that Microsoft was trying to force a lot of change that is probably going to come eventually anyways - digitally focused consoles. You'd buy a game just to install it and not have to put the disc in, and now that won't happen anymore. I don't care about used games, DRM does sort of worry me, but it was me not being able to play my games after the authentication servers are eventually taken down. I even feel a bit betrayed that I can't play any of my 360 XBLA games on the new console (I was dumb to expect that), because that probably means that the ability to download those games is going to go away sooner rather than later, since Microsoft will switch focus to the new console and be disincentivised to maintain resources to the old platform.

The only real exclusives that was shown at E3 that peaked my interest were the new Infamous and Titanfall. I wonder which console I will purchase first...

Also! I hear that there are a couple pricing models on Killer Instinct. You can get the free Jago edition and purchase whatever additional characters and content you want, but there will be a full boxed copy as well.

[Eric]

Actually Seeker, Street Fighter x Tekken is a perfect example of a game that was riddled with DLC and Microstransactions and as a result that was ruined for the most part by them, the community didn't accept it, and it was panned across the board and had massive balance issues and constant time-outs, the neglect in the game showed and they later had to do a massive patch to try and fix those issues, but the damage was already done.

The game added pay for power gems that you could only get through spending money.
12 characters were shipped on the disc and then locked out that you had to spend money on separately later despite being playable and on the disc.

It was just terribly apparent that because the game had these additional features you had to pay for the overall experience was neglected as a result. There was over $100 worth of DLC that effected gameplay on SF x T as well as the overall package.

SF x T was also the first fighting game to go hardcore into the microtransaction/DLC route, I mean, really really hard.

Most fighting games typically will release an expansion pack, this includes new stages, new characters, and new balance attempt, and sometimes these updates are free, pure balance updates are almost always free.

I reserve judgment on KI, because I actually thought that maybe a fighting game model exists where you only pay for characters you want to use, but we'll see, I can't imagine a scenario where the only thing they make you pay for is the characters if it's a pay-2-win model.

[Julius Seeker]

The fuck are you babbling about?

It's called "calling you out on your fallacious and poorly thought out red herring arguments" as your follow up points to your statement "It's clear you don't understand the issue and I will happily explain why you are "wrong"."

If you are going to start an argument with such a bold statement, you better have at least something meaningful to back it up. You clearly did not.




Kali: 1) I didn't make any statement on DLC, I made a statement on F2P games/Microtransactions.
Response: So your exchanging one argument that doesn't target anything in my post for another argument that doesn't target anything in my post.

Kali: 2) I don't want to read your book if it'll make me communicate in a pompous and obscure manner too.
Response: The fact that you haven't even heard of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is very telling.

Kali3) I can point out how it could -- additional fighters/locations/boosts (things that make money) get development focus instead of addressing things like balance and bugs. Do you actually read what other people write?
Response: As Eric pointed out, developers ruinging fighters in this way already existed with the standard full game + DLC method; citing Street Fighter X Tekken. As I pointed out, the freemium model can easily work with every fighter since the pay per play method in the arcades; you could easily make a freemium version of Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat without ruining them, or even changing them. So yes I read your weak argument, and soundly refuted it.

Welcome to capitalism and the public market, greed is always the driving force.

Thanks for the pretentious nugget of nonsensical wisdom...

With a statement from you beginning with "Until the greed is phased out of the industry on these models," were you really expecting something else as a reply?

I'm sorry common wisdom sounds pretentious to you

[bovine]

Sorry, my post must have been invisible

http://ca.ign.com/wikis/killer-instinct-nextgen

"Killer Instinct will launch digitally with one character (Jago) for free, and further new character can be purchased at an unkown price. Killer Instinct will also be offered as a retail version with all the characters at flat rate (presumably $59.99)"

[kali o.]

So yes I read your weak argument, and soundly refuted it.

I only quoted this because it clear you have no idea what an "argument" is or how to make a coherent point. I save time by simply removing all your pretentious babbling that just amounts to you talking in circles.

I am not sure how I can make my sentences more simple to help you...

- Seeker suggests people are silly for being worried KI will be ruined with F2P and microtransactions
- Seeker thinks the model makes sense in theory
- Kali points out the theory NEVER works because not one single game has stuck to the theory.
- Kali points out when pubs/devs get greedy (with no monetization cap), development focus suffers
- Eric adds an example for fighters (though there are hundreds of others, especially other genres)
- Seeker ignores everything, misses the point every gamer agrees with him in theory, and yammers on some more

But looking back on it, I realize you are just doing typical Seeker bullshit...ie: picking the stupidest standpoint and running with it for lulz. What did you say again? "I like the EA philosophy"? I should have caught it there I guess. Shame on me.

[Julius Seeker]

I only quoted this because it clear you have no idea what an "argument" is or how to make a coherent point. I save time by simply removing all your pretentious babbling that just amounts to you talking in circles.

Your taste in obscure early 90's European electronic music, that's pretentious.

- Kali points out the theory NEVER works because not one single game has stuck to the theory.
- Kali points out when pubs/devs get greedy (with no monetization cap), development focus suffers

Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat "Additional DLC is not unique to the freemium model" before you can grasp the point.

"- Eric adds an example for fighters (though there are hundreds of others, especially other genres)"
Eric wrote about Tekken X Street Fighter, not a freemium game. This game suffered just the way you feared fine WITHOUT using the freemium model.


My argument was about how freemium is a good additional option to add for the content of KI3.
You asserted that I was wrong, but rather than attacking my argument, you built a presumptuous straw man "points out when pubs/devs get greedy (with no monetization cap), development focus suffers" and attacked that instead of actually coming up with a real argument against why having the additional option for freemium purchase in KI3 is a good thing.

[Zeus]

Microsoft changes their DRM policies.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

This makes me feel better about the system.

Wow. I was actually pretty sure they'd just stick to their guns and relax some of the policies (which were light on details anyway).

I'm not sure what I think...the fact that they were willing to shackle their consumers with restrictions (but no incentives) still strikes me as a huge disconnect and disrespect of their audience. I have no doubt that the system MS proposed is where we are headed, one day, but the consumer needs a benefit as well -- otherwise what's the point? I'm not "sure" I want to support the Xbox brand now, even with the reversal.

Does that make sense?

I'm personally gonna purposely wait as long as humanly possible to get an Xbox One just because of the way they tried to fuck the consumers hard then changed their mind after they got kicked in the nuts. Halo and Gears may eventually force me to get one, but I'll wait as long as I can in protest

[Eric]

[SineSwiper]

Shitty image article joke...

Fuck him. No, not the guy he's mocking. Fuck the guy who wrote that shit. If he likes getting fucked in the ass, that's his own business, but nobody else wants to listen to him rant about how good it is to get fucked in the ass.

[Oracle]

I'm not sure what I think...the fact that they were willing to shackle their consumers with restrictions (but no incentives) still strikes me as a huge disconnect and disrespect of their audience. I have no doubt that the system MS proposed is where we are headed, one day, but the consumer needs a benefit as well -- otherwise what's the point? I'm not "sure" I want to support the Xbox brand now, even with the reversal.

Does that make sense?

This is exactly the way I see it.

We know what they WANTED to do to consumers. They were pressured and they broke, and changed direction... for now. Only a firmware update away...