• 157 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by teaoverlord (297 posts) -

On Steam, things like not being able to give people games and needing to be online (although a lot less than once a day) are accepted without much complaint. Why is this different when it comes to a console?

#2 Edited by believer258 (12184 posts) -

There are some posts about this very issue here. I'll just repost what I said in that thread:

The difference is that I trust Valve, as far as I would trust any company anyway, and I don't really trust Microsoft to do things with the consumer in mind. Valve has quite a track record of doing well for the consumer, which is what has bought them a legion of loyal fans.

Also, I simply don't often use a computer without an internet connection, and these games will always work as long as Valve stays in business. I believe they have said they will make sure the games will still work if they go out of business as well. In other words, this copy of System Shock 2 that I bought from Steam works even now, more than a decade after release, and will continue to be available to me long into the future.

I don't trust MS to make sure that my games and my Xbox can still work halfway through the Xbox Two if they pull the plug on the XBone's servers. In fact, I'm pretty sure that once the XBone is no longer making any money, they'll essentially hit an off switch and all of those who haven't bought the newest one will either buy it or something else.

I'd also suggest looking at the other differences that @chibithor and @lebkin posted, all of which are notable differences between what we understand of Microsoft's Xbox One and Steam.

#3 Posted by CheapPoison (742 posts) -

I think a big thing might be steam sales.

Maybe there are some trust issues? I don't know I am not the best person to ask.
And i feel the pc has been moving in that direction for years in small steps this is one big step.

#4 Edited by MEATBALL (3473 posts) -

I don't know that it necessarily is different, it's just that it's partially a whole new audience reacting to this sort of DRM in a space where they haven't had to worry about it.

Rights Management has long been a part of PC gaming, and we've seen plenty of complaining about DRM on that platform as it is, Steam came in and, eventually, made these issues at least a bit more palpable, between all of the advantages the service offers and the regular sales.

On consoles we've traditionally been able to buy games and own them, the biggest issue in recent times being Online Passes - something that there have been plenty of complaints about. I think you'll also find that the reaction to console gaming DRM will cause many console gamers who also buy on Steam to re-evaluate where they make their digital purchases and how comfortable they are with DRM. I know that personally it has definitely given me greater pause when it comes to buying games on Steam, and I'm beginning to value DRM-free options much more.

#5 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

Microsoft is asking the console gaming audience to swallow DRM and online requirements that no console generation has been subject to before. They're effectively trying to rewrite the playbook for the benefit of getting as many "entertainment boxes" into living rooms as they can.

#6 Edited by EXTomar (4943 posts) -

If you don't like Steam or have an account problem with Valve, you can still play games on your PC. If you have a problem with the XBox One or have an account problem with Microsoft then you have a large brick. BTW, this is why Origin gets a black mark on PC where having problems with EA means all of the games are locked regardless if they were produced or made by EA.

Valve is partially open with Steam and Steamworks. Beyond that Valve only validates Steam accounts against games installed and makes no further requirements on the developer or the buyer. To put it blunt, console vendors put a lot of restrictions on the developer and buyer just to hit "start".

#7 Edited by AthleticShark (1222 posts) -

Besides steam sales, I have on multiple occasions let my best friend use my account and I have used his to play games we each have that the other doesn't. Not really a big hassle.

#8 Edited by Daveyo520 (6997 posts) -

Because people love Valve and hate MS it doesnt really matter what they do. Just like people hate Origin for no reason.

#9 Posted by Max_Cherry (1150 posts) -

Because I have a different set expectations for a console than I do a PC.

#10 Posted by Max_Cherry (1150 posts) -

Also, no one forced steam on me.

#11 Posted by teaoverlord (297 posts) -
@extomar said:

If you don't like Steam or have an account problem with Valve, you can still play games on your PC.

But there are plenty of games that require Steam activation whether you buy them on Steam or on a disc.

Maybe there are some trust issues? I don't know I am not the best person to ask.

And i feel the pc has been moving in that direction for years in small steps this is one big step.

I think this is exactly what's happening. It just seems like a new generation would be when console "catch up" to the PC, both in terms of hardware and DRM. I definitely see why people who have only played on consoles would be concerned about it, but it seems like a lot of the people reacting to it are on gaming sites and are already aware of, and most likely use, similar DRM on the PC.

#12 Edited by Raven10 (1922 posts) -

It is a similar system just more restrictive and with less benefits. On Steam I can play offline as long as I want depending on the game, and I can use my account on any computer I want for as long as I want. Also I can buy games for cheap either directly from Steam or from sites like Amazon and Green Man Gaming for a fraction of the price I would pay for the console version. And like others have said I think a lot of it has to do with trust. People trust that Valve won't screw them over. They don't have the same faith with Microsoft and for good reason. But in general, yes, both systems are very similar.

Also Valve lets me trade games and Green Man Gaming lets me sell back digital games, neither of which Microsoft is letting me do.

#13 Posted by Warchief (661 posts) -

At the core its not all that different. I think people [myself included] give steam a pass because: Games are cheaper [even more so during a steam sale], no fee for online play, and the games look better.

Also at least with Steam I know that if they ever go away or close up shop that there is a dead man's switch that will allow me to backup all my content. With MSFT I have no idea what happens if they turn the servers off.

Oh right and I can upgrade my console whenever I choose.

#14 Posted by Cameron (607 posts) -

One important difference is that I will always be able to get the games I have bought from Steam in the future. Even if Valve went under and Steam shut down without unlocking all of its games it is trivially easy to download just about any PC game. While it might not technically be legal to do this, I'd still be able to get the games I've paid for. If Microsoft shuts down their download servers, then there is nowhere I can get my game anymore.

#15 Edited by EXTomar (4943 posts) -

@kp1a268 said:
@extomar said:

If you don't like Steam or have an account problem with Valve, you can still play games on your PC.

But there are plenty of games that require Steam activation whether you buy them on Steam or on a disc.

Correct but I'm answer the question of "What is the difference?" If you don't see what the difference that leads to the problem with XBox One then I'm not sure how to explain it too you.

#16 Posted by DFL017 (154 posts) -

You can play your games offline on Steam all you want. That's the only thing that I think is crazy about Microsoft is the 24 hour thing.

#17 Edited by OurSin_360 (947 posts) -

For one steam is all digital, second you can turn steam to offline mode, 3rd it's on a pc so your never really tied to anything since if they decide to steal something from you, your not locked into a closed OS where "other" options of getting game content aren't available.

And honestly, at least for me, PC gaming has traditionally been single player focused(with only online multiplayer). I don't know anybody with a pc as powerful as mine to play the games i play anyway. It's a completely different platform. Also, steam isn't the sole way to get games on a PC.

And I almost forgot, steam sales.

#18 Edited by Raineko (431 posts) -

When Steam was new everyone was crying about the same thing and now everybody loves their gigantic DRM system. It wouldn't surprise me to see the same thing happen to the Xbone.

#19 Posted by ProfessorEss (7518 posts) -

I'm willing to accept any form of DRM from a service where I'm buying the majority of my games for 50-75% off.

If Sony or Microsoft show any intentions of competing with Steam software prices they can use whatever kind of DRM they want. If they don't plan to compete with Steam's prices than I don't care if their systems are totally DRM-free I'm still gonna go where the better prices are.

It's that simple for me.

#20 Posted by Demoskinos (15139 posts) -

The difference is that valve is competing with tons of other companies and services for your dollar it forces them to be consumer friendly. With Sony and Microsoft everything goes through them they are the gate keepers of the ecosystem and I dont trust them to not fuck it up. Look at how they have handled Games on demand this generation. Its awful and clumbsy. While Sony won't be exactly altruistic I think out of the two they GET IT more than Microsoft does.

#21 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@kp1a268 said:

On Steam, things like not being able to give people games and needing to be online (although a lot less than once a day) are accepted without much complaint. Why is this different when it comes to a console?

Steam is vastly different. Also there is a trust issue. Valve has the image of an people'S company while Microsft has the image of an evil corporation.

#22 Edited by Kidavenger (3628 posts) -

Steam treats their customers with respect not as an enemy, so they earn a lot of goodwill.

Not being able to trade or sell PC games is a PC games thing, it's always been like that, not just on Steam.

At this point, I think PCs, especially gaming PCs are expected to be online; that hasn't been the case for consoles up to now.

#23 Edited by VintageKrug (10 posts) -

@extomar said:

If you don't like Steam or have an account problem with Valve, you can still play games on your PC. If you have a problem with the XBox One or have an account problem with Microsoft then you have a large brick.

This! If Steam shuts down / goes out of business I still have a PC which can play games in offline mode or play games that Publishers choose not to force Steam activation on (in the case where Steam no longer exists). Also a PC has other uses besides playing games. If the XBONE doesn't connect, it's an expensive, useless box that is just a sunk cost for you (I'll watch TV through my cable box, thank you)

#24 Edited by CosmoKramer (56 posts) -

It's simple, the services offered by Microsoft in exchange of game ownership just aren't enough of a trade-off.

Take hints from steam sales and PS+, and I'll probably accept your policies. I doubt they will though.

#25 Edited by spraynardtatum (3682 posts) -

Steam isn't the only avenue on the PC to download games though. There are other avenues that the customer can choose from if they are on a PC. That's the major difference to me.

Steam is one service available among many while Microsoft's new policy is the only one to choose from.

#26 Edited by MildMolasses (3229 posts) -

@extomar said:

If you don't like Steam or have an account problem with Valve, you can still play games on your PC. If you have a problem with the XBox One or have an account problem with Microsoft then you have a large brick. BTW, this is why Origin gets a black mark on PC where having problems with EA means all of the games are locked regardless if they were produced or made by EA.

Valve is partially open with Steam and Steamworks. Beyond that Valve only validates Steam accounts against games installed and makes no further requirements on the developer or the buyer. To put it blunt, console vendors put a lot of restrictions on the developer and buyer just to hit "start".

Valve has some restrictions. If they didn't, then there wouldn't have been that issue when some EA games where removed

#27 Edited by Bumpton (456 posts) -

I bought a used copy of Tomb Raider from Gamestop for $45. 2 days later it's on Xbox On Demand for $30. True story.

#28 Posted by Superkenon (1506 posts) -

If Microsoft's DRM is truly as "good" as Valve's, then it will work itself out and people will stop complaining. Steam was almost universally reviled when it first came into being, and much of the criticism was justified, but it proved itself to be a service that provides far more benefits than obstacles. Not to mention an ass-load of monetary savings.

There's two main differences here. One is... relativity. DRM on PC is a goddamn mess, and Steam is the oasis among it all. Yeah, it restricts you, but it's downright comfortable compared to anything else on the platform. But any console-only gamer I know who tries out Steam can't fucking stand it, because they're not accustomed to jumping through hoops to play their games. Those people aren't suddenly going to be okay with it now that it's come to their platform. And it's going to give me pause too, because my main reason for owning a console is their simplicity as a device that's just supposed to PLAY A GAME, NO FUSS. But if consoles are going to start parodying the worst aspects of PC gaming... why don't I just stick with a PC?

Which is the second point, basically. What Microsoft is rolling out is pure restriction, without making a case for how it's going to improve your experience. And that's because it won't. Consoles already have the digital game library, and social hooks that Steam has. So what they're saying now is, "now we're going to give you the hassle, too!" while also upping the ante, making their restrictions actually greater than Steam's. Make no mistake, if you make a bullet list of Steam's features VS Xbone's, Steam wins hands down. Whereas you might've had an argument if you compared Steam's features to the 360's. Microsoft is moving backwards.

Also there's still Steam sales, and Valve has proven to make good on their customers, blah blah. Microsoft has both a bad track record, and a bad business case they're building here. Which is not to say they can't make this work, but they have an uphill battle here for sure.

#29 Edited by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

It's simple: On Steam I am going in with the expectation that I am not going to get a physical, tangible thing that I own and my ability to download the game will be at the whims of the service being available. That comes with the trade-off that Valve will continue to support that service with cool new things that are very pro-consumer and pro-letting people play their games how they want in ways that no other digital service does (see for example: actively supporting insane sales, building mod and community support right into the interface, using a DRM scheme that is fair and far less invasive than any other and has never denied me access to my games). And moreover, I know that any Steam game I own will move over with me anywhere I can install the Steam client and that I will always be able to play these games so long as I have an operating system that can run them. Oh and also, in spite of the fact that I more often than not don't like using other services, the fact that I can at any time say "yo fuck off Valve" and go buy said games on GOG, Amazon, Green Man, Impulse, Desura, Origin, a god damned real life store or a million other places is nice too.

With the Xbox One, they are telling me that my physical console games that I own (because I will not buy them digitally because it's a fucking console for god's sake) have no value except for what they say it is, the only promised trade-off in my favor is that maybe they'll be nice enough to let me sell or lend a game to someone but even that is no guarantee. I generally don't play on my Xbox 360 because mine is in my room and I usually use my roommate's (which is connected to my big TV in the living room) with my harddrive, so if there's no Internet I literally cannot use it for more than an hour before I'd have to move over to mine and get precious little more time. And as I have learned over the years from Live, of both the Xbox and Games for Windows varieties, Microsoft is horrible about pricing games and putting things on sale and providing support and even making sure their damn service is running properly, as the tons of problems I had with Fallout 3 that were directly related to GFW Live issues, or every time that i have been unable to play a Live Arcade game because my internet connection dropped during the game and the DRM decided to kick into high gear would demonstrate. There's a reason why most companies dropped GFWL support for Steamworks.

But other than that, no difference whatsoever amirite?

#30 Posted by PHenry1991 (137 posts) -

Sales, and steam allows for Thirty days of offline play. The 24 hour, mandatory check-in is dumb. I can live with an online check-in, but I'd rather they fully embrace the ideas they're aping from Steam, instead of treating consumers as if we did something wrong, and/or treating us like property.

#31 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@iamjohn said:

It's simple: On Steam I am going in with the expectation that I am not going to get a physical, tangible thing that I own and my ability to download the game will be at the whims of the service being available. That comes with the trade-off that Valve will continue to support that service with cool new things that are very pro-consumer and pro-letting people play their games how they want in ways that no other digital service does (see for example: actively supporting insane sales, building mod and community support right into the interface, using a DRM scheme that is fair and far less invasive than any other and has never denied me access to my games). And moreover, I know that any Steam game I own will move over with me anywhere I can install the Steam client and that I will always be able to play these games so long as I have an operating system that can run them. Oh and also, in spite of the fact that I more often than not don't like using other services, the fact that I can at any time say "yo fuck off Valve" and go buy said games on GOG, Amazon, Green Man, Impulse, Desura, Origin, a god damned real life store or a million other places is nice too.

With the Xbox One, they are telling me that my physical console games that I own (because I will not buy them digitally because it's a fucking console for god's sake) have no value except for what they say it is, the only promised trade-off in my favor is that maybe they'll be nice enough to let me sell or lend a game to someone but even that is no guarantee. I generally don't play on my Xbox 360 because mine is in my room and I usually use my roommate's (which is connected to my big TV in the living room) with my harddrive, so if there's no Internet I literally cannot use it for more than an hour before I'd have to move over to mine and get precious little more time. And as I have learned over the years from Live, of both the Xbox and Games for Windows varieties, Microsoft is horrible about pricing games and putting things on sale and providing support and even making sure their damn service is running properly, as the tons of problems I had with Fallout 3 that were directly related to GFW Live having issues would demonstrate. There's a reason why most companies dropped GFWL support for Steamworks.

But other than that, no difference whatsoever amirite?

Well if it makes you feel any better GFWL got scrapped like a year ago.

#32 Edited by neoepoch (1295 posts) -

Steam offline mode doesn't STOP you from playing the games YOU BOUGHT. Unless it is a game that is online only (in which case why are you trying to play an online only game offline?).

#33 Edited by mcain99 (23 posts) -

Since the beginning PC gaming was for the people who liked challenges. When that new SimCity game came out and I heard all the problems it was having, I didn't buy it but decided to play SimCity 4 again...so I dug out the CDs...installed all 3 discs...searched the web for the official patches, which luckily EA/Maxis still have on a super old website. For older games this was much worse (setting sound card settings, IRQs, DMAs).

Because of the advances in operating systems, drivers and even Steam; PC gaming has been made much easier (but there are still issues...hey have you updated to the latest video driver...try that and see if it fixes your problems). That is one of the reasons I put up with Steam; it made PC gaming easier and I never pay full price for a game.

#34 Posted by Devise22 (232 posts) -

Because people love Valve and hate MS it doesnt really matter what they do. Just like people hate Origin for no reason.

Ha how untrue is this.

As others have said several times, Valve has proven to be a consumer friendly company. They have done so with great Steam sales, commitment to a more open source product for developers, allowing the mod community on PC's to stick around and add their stuff to steam games. The list goes on. They also have come out and said they will try to ensure that all the games you own on steam will stay with you even if steam were to die. They see the issues of their DRM service but they effectively fight those issues and offer the consumer extra value and support for the issues. You can also play steam games offline after you have installed them, I don't know the restrictions I think it is on a per game basis but it is certainly more than 24 hours.

Microsoft isn't completely hated. People supported Xbox Live despite issues as it grew into a solid service. But Microsoft is also the company that refused to allow hard drives other than the ones they made specifically for the 360 to be used and then completely overpriced their storage in comparison to the actual market. They did that with all their accessories. They also completely put way too many things behind Gold membership that shouldn't of been put behind it, such as Netflix. Then they changed their dashboard x number of times and forced you to watch advertising so they could make more money. Not to mention pushing out the indie developers as time went on, and limiting the amount of consumer options.

Consumers don't "hate" companies just because of some name. They hate companies for stripping them of their rights and just assuming that it is okay. Go look at any other business market in the world. It DOES NOT work that way. Consumers get more rights every day as employee's actually lose rights and benefits and salary. Happens all the time in big corporations. The consumer is actually valued most in most type of things. If people want features added to the next IPhone in a large enough number? They get added. Period. But there is a big difference between what happens in the gaming world and other business worlds. In the gaming world companies like Microsoft own their products. Nobody makes Halo but them. So you want to enjoy Halo? Fuck you consumer, you go through the hoops we want to put you through. It's a pseudo monopoly system we have and it prevents the consumers from having any real choice or control. Which is why all we the consumer can do is hate and complain and voice our opinions for people who don't treat us with respect just because they can. It's also why you see things piracy, and hacking, and other things that get labeled as super evil. Last I checked you don't see people illegally obtaining groceries, or other products of that nature. Why? Because the consumers don't get pushed around and hassled into fixed and forced pricing and lose their consumer rights. So there is no need for it. It happens in the digital medium due to ease of access as well sure but a lot of it has to do with how overpriced and terribly managed shit is.

#35 Edited by lebkin (331 posts) -

@kp1a268 said:

On Steam, things like not being able to give people games and needing to be online (although a lot less than once a day) are accepted without much complaint. Why is this different when it comes to a console?

The biggest difference is backwards compatibility. If I buy a game from Steam, it will work both now and into the future. I own games from when Steam launched in 2003 that still work. This is the rule, with only a few exceptions. Yes, I am licensing a digital game, but it is a game that I will be able to play on whatever my PC hardware becomes.

The opposite is true on the Xbox One. It won't even play games from 2012, let alone 2003. Based on current history, my expectation is that when the Xbox Two is launched, it won't any games before its launch either. So all my games are locked to a specific piece of hardware.

You may argue that console games have always been locked to hardware. This is true, but those games always worked on the old hardware despite lack of support. An Atari 2600 will still play Atari 2600 games even though that Atari no longer exists. The Xbox One games require online activation, so they will disappear when Microsoft disappears.

The Xbox One gives you the worst of consoles (tied to a single hardware) and the worst of PC gaming (reliance on digital platforms for authentication). It is a bad deal all around.

#36 Posted by Jimbo (9986 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:

Steam is one service available among many while Microsoft's new policy is the only one to choose from.

This is it for me. Steam has to exist in an open market, which means competition places restraints on how anti-consumer it can behave. Once you've bought into X1's ecosystem (or PS4's, assuming it's similar) however, you're totally at their mercy. At that point they can dictate every aspect of the market and -short of bricking your $500 console- you'll just have to accept whatever they decide.

The console operators are systematically getting rid of everything which keeps them in check. Used games first (I'm sure they really fought the publishers hard on it), then give retail enough rope to hang themselves, then they can do whatever they want.

It isn't a million miles away from Steam, it's just that an open system has checks and balances which won't exist on console.

#37 Edited by Abendlaender (2888 posts) -

Steam is probably as open as a closed plattform can be. Valve has not disappointed me once, they keep Steam running, they offer crazy sales, great features, a (to be honest) functional but not great offline mode, for most games you at least have the choice if you want to buy them on Steam or not, and even if you want to play Skyrim you can just download a crack for your DVD and be set forever. Steam is also a dedicated games plattform, so if Valve collects my data (which I have no doubt they do in some way, shape or form) they at least can only collect my game usage, while Microsoft is trying to get ALL.

There is other stuff too: I can expect that each game I buy on Steam it will still be there in 10 years, Xbox One doesn't even play 360 games, not even the XBLA stuff.

Also: There are no fucking adds clustered all over Steam. And it's free (has MS said anything about Gold? They can't possibly charge for it again, right?)

Steam is not perfect (GoG is perfect), but as far as DRM goes it's one of, if not the best out there.

#38 Posted by stryker1121 (1583 posts) -

Some people are saying this is no biggie because it's been this way forever on PC, but I don't want my console to be a PC. MS is making complications and hurdles to the having of fun, and people are getting tetchy over it.

Online
#39 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4488 posts) -

I thought Steam's offline mode was weak and all but the xbox one's form of "offline mode" sounds godawful and being able to trust Valve goes a long way versus trusting MS with anything.

#40 Edited by GreggD (4515 posts) -

Not being able to trade or sell PC games is a PC games thing, it's always been like that, not just on Steam.

Before Steam, the DRM of CD keys was limited to punching it in and playing the game. You could absolutely trade your games with your friends, as it was never tied to an account. After Steam, every game that uses the service is tied to an account.

#41 Edited by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

@raineko said:

When Steam was new everyone was crying about the same thing and now everybody loves their gigantic DRM system. It wouldn't surprise me to see the same thing happen to the Xbone.

People love it because of the sales. It's easier to forgive DRM when you can buy games for pennies and Microsoft are unlikely to ever have the same kind of sales as we see on there.

The DRM is still nowhere near as restrictive on Steam as the Xbox's either. Games have to be activated online, but you can play them offline as much as you'd like after that.

#42 Edited by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -
@greggd said:

@kidavenger said:

Not being able to trade or sell PC games is a PC games thing, it's always been like that, not just on Steam.

Before Steam, the DRM of CD keys was limited to punching it in and playing the game. You could absolutely trade your games with your friends, as it was never tied to an account. After Steam, every game that uses the service is tied to an account.

Whenever people say that this is how PC gaming has always been, I always become suspect. That's sure not how I remember PC gaming being when three of my friends and I used to play Counter-Strike together in middle school, all of us using the copy of the big Half-Life box that came with it, CS and all the Half-Life expansions that only one friend bought. I mean fuck, I've been on Steam since version .7 when it was literally just a launcher for those five Valve games and a chat client, and pretty much the way I got started in that service was by pirating shit.

#43 Edited by Ares42 (2796 posts) -

The difference is physical media. If you buy a physical copy of a PC game (that doesn't require Steam, which is another issue on it's own) you can install that as many times you want on as many PCs you want, and even have the option to resell it with your key. Yes, you can punch the CD key into Steam locking it to your Steam account, but in general the CD key system is only an unlock mechanism not a binding mechanism.

So yes, buying digital copies on Steam and Xbox One will be pretty much the same thing, but buying physical copies (which still is very prevalent for consoles) are not the same at all.

#44 Edited by AlisterCat (5722 posts) -

I pay less than half on steam for most of my games, sometimes even less. I will take the more aggressive DRM.

#45 Edited by TheDuke (231 posts) -

The sales are a major factor in that used games are pretty much unimportant with how prices occur in PC games. PC is an open platform, there are like half a dozen different stores I can buy digital games. That won't be the case on Xbox. Any problem with DRM on PC can be done away with easily with a crack. Also Valve has a great track record for being consumer friendly. I tried to support Microsoft. I had a Xbox, then Xbox 360 and I even have a Windows Phone; but it is apparent that they live in their own world. It doesn't seem to matter what situation they are in, they will try to push as many unpopular policies as they can. I remember when I bought a Zune HD, they were hyping it to have support like the Ipod Touch and Iphone in terms of app development. They kept talking about how it would be their phone counterpart like it. It got like 20 apps and when Windows Phone 7 came out, it got scrapped and pretty much ignored. I like this phone but I swear they are trying to push internet streaming of media rather than syncing it. They made syncing music such a hassle and so prone to errors and are so incredibly slow to fix anything. If not for Nokia support in terms of software and hardware, Windows Phone would already be dead. Microsoft doesn't even know how to play from behind. Zune, Zune Software, Windows Phone, advertisement for practically every consumer product not Xbox, and kin.

This is why I worry when Microsoft gets a strong foothold. They already shown that they would ignore consumer complaints. They had already shown they would hype things way beyond what they were capable of. The Kin, Zune HD, and even Windows Phone 7 were all hyped up real hard and then abandoned with them now seeming more just stop gap beta test for Windows Phone 8. With Windows 8, through all of the preview releases, somehow in all the noise people were making about the start menu, they seriously ignored all of it. I don't mind the tile interface but even just removing the start button was a clearly bad move in that unless you follow tech news regularly, you wouldn't know how to use Windows 8. This was clear before release with videos of people having random people trying to go from desktop back to menu. People were always confused and somehow Microsoft ignores this for more than half a year. Now that they are in a position of popularity with their Xbox I'm sure they're going to try and strong arm publisher agenda and be more aggressive in trying to gut any kind of sharing.

The Xbox One is like steam but without any of the benefits of Steam or being on a PC. If Steam were to cease being a company they said they would do something to make all our games still playable. Steam has sales everyday with huge ones fairly common. We have Amazon, Impulse/Gamestop, GOG, Green Man Gaming, now Gamefly, Humble Bundles, Desura, Gamersgate, Origin, and Steam. There are probably others but what is clear is that on PC we have options. If DRM is atrocious, it is easy to crack them. DRM is becoming less of a problem with how easy it is to open a browser and complain/petition. What will happen to Xbox One games in 10-15 years when Microsoft stops supporting them? Are they now rendered unplayable? In particular the discs that have already been transferred ownership once? When I want to play old games I can go to a yard sale, or the swap meet and find old games that are still perfectly playable. These are the benefits of console games. The games are portable. The console is relatively portable. Now it seems they are trying to lock the games to one household and one system. You can transfer ownership of a game once now, but it's not even a large jump to make that restriction tighter. Leaving all this up to publishers is not reassuring. DRM affects the purchaser the most. It didn't and it won't kill off piracy. It will only kill off the used game market in the present and will most likely significantly hamper nostalgia gaming in the future. It will only give the console manufacturers and publishers more power to turn their games obsolete swifter to push new sales easier. I'm expecting Gamestop and Best Buy be the main partners for used games. No more Craigslist, no more Ebay.

edit: Also in the 30 days friend thing to transfer its one time transfer of ownership. You can't just sell it to some random person on Craigslist or a friends friend. I'd be surprised if someone was willing to wait 30 days to buy the game and hopefully still want it.

#46 Posted by Slag (4864 posts) -

@kp1a268: lots of reasons. Steam ain't perfect but it's invariably better in many facets of the user experience.

Steam:

  1. is A closed service on an open hardware platform with lots competition. Xbox is a closed platform with no competition on their hardware.
  2. is Digital downloads only. Xbox has physical media and their DRM affects physical media.
  3. has numerous very steep sales and is often consistently lower priced lower than physical. Xbox is not talking about lowering game prices.
  4. offers free online play. Xbox charges for Xbox Live
  5. does not make you repurchase your content every 5 years. Yes games do go bad due to age, but so far they've generally had a longer playable life on Steam than on consoles.
  6. has a monthly login check. X1 is daily.
  7. I can play games more easily in Steam Offline mode if my internet goes out unlike, XBrick One.
  8. is not forcing always on mandatory hardware privacy concern peripherals I don't want on me.
  9. interface is not jammed full of ads
  10. Steam/Valve make a visible concerted effort to be consumer friendly. Microsoft of recent years has been squeezing the consumer for more and more concessions.
#47 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (741 posts) -

I don't pay for steam I refuse to give anyone 400 + to be treated like i'm stealing from them .

Even more so I get stuff out of using steam valve gives their consumers a benefit for putting up with their crap and don't kid your self the draconian drm is just as much bullshit as anyone elses. What is microsoft giving me that I don't already have for giving them every last scrap of freedom I have ?

#48 Edited by CommanderGermanShepard (303 posts) -
@slag said:

@kp1a268: lots of reasons. Steam ain't perfect but it's invariably better in many facets of the user experience.

Steam:

  1. is A closed service on an open hardware platform with lots competition. Xbox is a closed platform with no competition on their hardware.
  2. is Digital downloads only. Xbox has physical media and their DRM affects physical media.
  3. has numerous very steep sales and is often consistently lower priced lower than physical. Xbox is not talking about lowering game prices.
  4. offers free online play. Xbox charges for Xbox Live
  5. does not make you repurchase your content every 5 years. Yes games do go bad due to age, but so far they've generally had a longer playable life on Steam than on consoles.
  6. has a monthly login check. X1 is daily.
  7. I can play games more easily in Steam Offline mode if my internet goes out unlike, XBrick One.
  8. is not forcing always on mandatory hardware privacy concern peripherals I don't want on me.
  9. interface is not jammed full of ads
  10. Steam/Valve make a visible concerted effort to be consumer friendly. Microsoft of recent years has been squeezing the consumer for more and more concessions.

Not actually true my boxed copies of Skyrim and Deus Ex required Steam and a internet connection. But the whole online required thing for a game console really sucks, console gaming to me is all about sharing around game's with my friends like I do with my blu rays.

#49 Edited by CommanderGermanShepard (303 posts) -

@ares42 said:

The difference is physical media. If you buy a physical copy of a PC game (that doesn't require Steam, which is another issue on it's own) you can install that as many times you want on as many PCs you want, and even have the option to resell it with your key. Yes, you can punch the CD key into Steam locking it to your Steam account, but in general the CD key system is only an unlock mechanism not a binding mechanism.

So yes, buying digital copies on Steam and Xbox One will be pretty much the same thing, but buying physical copies (which still is very prevalent for consoles) are not the same at all.

Never heard of that, give me one modern game example that does this?

#50 Posted by GreggD (4515 posts) -

@iamjohn said:
@greggd said:

@kidavenger said:

Not being able to trade or sell PC games is a PC games thing, it's always been like that, not just on Steam.

Before Steam, the DRM of CD keys was limited to punching it in and playing the game. You could absolutely trade your games with your friends, as it was never tied to an account. After Steam, every game that uses the service is tied to an account.

Whenever people say that this is how PC gaming has always been, I always become suspect. That's sure not how I remember PC gaming being when three of my friends and I used to play Counter-Strike together in middle school, all of us using the copy of the big Half-Life box that came with it, CS and all the Half-Life expansions that only one friend bought. I mean fuck, I've been on Steam since version .7 when it was literally just a launcher for those five Valve games and a chat client, and pretty much the way I got started in that service was by pirating shit.

It sometimes makes me wonder how old the people stating it are.