Averhoeven's forum posts

  • 19 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@averhoeven said:

1) You can continue getting dismal trade value for your games and can continue buying used games which are $5 cheaper than their new editions and don't support the people who worked hard to make what you enjoy.

Quick Q; How would developers benefit from a group of ten people being able to buy and play one copy of their game? I doubt that publishers were champing at the bit to sign up to that scheme and sell 90% fewer games. Used games are bad but sharing one game between ten people is super great for revenue, you guys.

I don't believe that was ever going to be a full license sharing scheme and was DEFINITELY not going to entail concurrent use. I agree that was ineffectively fleshed out/confusing and agree that the system as it was understood was unfeasible. I do believe a lending system much like the Kindle or Nook was feasible, but yes... a no-holds barred videogame orgy was unlikely to have been the result of that program.

#2 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

I'm going to be honest and say that I skimmed most of your post, and am only really responding to the specific phrasing you used near the end.

"If you don't have what it takes to have one (disposable income, internet access) why do you think you have the right to it?"

What do you mean "have the right", it's not really about rights at all. It's about what the majority of consumers want, and what Microsoft is willing to concede in order to save face with those consumers. This is the exact sort of messaging that got Sony into the situation they were in this generation with the PS3.

If nothing else, as broadband penetration and internet access around the world continue to proliferate at increasing speeds this box was built to serve for the next decade or so. That world is going to be a little different then than it is now and if it means some people are going to miss out for a while then that is the unfortunate reality.

You're right, although obviously not even Microsoft was willing to take such a risk, hoping to eventually attract a larger audience as the medium trends towards a digital future.

Finally I'll just say that I actually liked a lot of the ideas outlined in the original Xbox One unveiling, I just think (as you yourself noted) that they did a piss poor job with presenting their case. Rather than taking the time to explain some of the potential benefits of this vision to consumers, Microsoft chose to play their arrogance and seemingly hoped to change the narrative with games like TitanFall, and other exclusives. Although it is unfortunate that Microsoft is apparently canning all of their digital lending/trading features in response to their new policies, I'm just really glad that consumer voices were heard. Having flashy games is cool and all, but I'm sorry, that sugar just wasn't sweet enough to soften the blow of their restrictive DRM policies.

That final section was addressing complaints I see lobbied against debate frequently and are actually fairly unrelated to the actual post. It was an effort to eliminate that unproductive train of argument.

I 100% agree that MS failed to deliver its vision in a well understood way. That is truly a failure on their part. I see it less as an arrogant approach as one that was aloof. It's a matter of a group that had been considering something for long enough that the opposing viewpoint seemed so illogical that they couldn't argue or present it. It was that "Because that's the best way" kind of confused rambling without clarification that permeated their conversations.

#3 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

Bollocks, if you think a bunch of whining gamers made Microsoft rethink DRM you are naive.

More likely they saw that pre-orders were tanking and thought only about the money.

@aiurflux said:

Urgh.

Stop fucking blaming gamers, maybe blame Microsoft themselves. I heard recently that pre-orders on Amazon at a point were 20-1 for the PS4. I kind of think that maybe, just maybe, investors had more to do with this than the whining, fear mongering, and tantrums. If it was gamers then they would have changed it in the month between their reveal and E3. Fact is that it wasn't gamers. It was the sales data and investors. They deliberately waited until a weeks worth of sales data was recorded and they were getting their ass handed to them to pull an XBox 180.

Jesus. Shut up stupid.

You're right about it being short-term minded shareholders which forced the change. In fact, I openly said so in the original post itself. That doesn't change the fact that it was fear-mongering, myopic and change averse bandwagoning that led to those uninformed purchasing decisions in the first place.

@donpixel said:

I found your blog hillarious... Next gen its already been happening on PC with stem for a few years by now.

A lot of people choose not to support the draconian structure of a well know greedy company, way to name call them with peyorative adjectives, for having a diferent opinion.

I want to see MS do what valve does with dota 2 item store, that is actually progresive, let the comunity build the game. MS wont ever do somenthing like it.

Microsoft appeared to be aiming for a more PC-like structure on consoles. PC does enter the generational discussion of consoles because it is a fluid machine. It represents true evolution whereas the console market operates more on a system of punctuated equilibrium. It's difficult to equate them as a result of that.

Nothing makes me want to read a giant-ass blog post like sensationalist titles!

Fighting over-wrought sensationalism and hyperbole with the like; one title at a time. It appears to be all gamers respond to.

#4 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

Thanks..... I decided not to get it. My inner impulse buyer was feeding that desire and I need to learn to control him better (he wins WAY too often).

I, too, prefer to buy a system new unless there is a crazy deal and that's actually the reason I was asking. I'll just wait unti the price of a new one inevitably drops to a reasonable amount for what is offered on the system. I expect there to be a price cut and perhaps a new bundle post-E3 anyway.

#5 Edited by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

There's a guy on my local Craigslist selling a 32gb Wii U for $200 (originally said $250, but said if I grab it today or tomorrow he'd let it go for $200). He says it works perfectly (I would of course try to make sure it read a disk though I only have Wii disks and he stated he's already traded in all his Wii U games, turned on, etc). He states that there are no manuals (no biggie), no registration stuff (bummer to lose the eShop 10% bonus and Club coins, but not huge) and no Nintendo Land (traded it in). Oddly he said it never came with any stands, but perhaps he doesn't know what I mean. Then there's always the risk of it being a Craigslist deal....

Lastly, I'm wishy-washy on picking up the console in general as there really isn't anything I want on it at the moment, but I figured I could always stack some VC stuff on it and there will eventually be stuff I'm interested in and I doubt I'll be able to pick up an equivalent to the deluxe bundle for anywhere near that cheap any time soon.

So ultimately, $150 off retail for no Nintendo Land (honestly, probably wouldn't have gotten much play time anyway), no packaging or new purchase Club Nintendo bonus, a used console and the potential that comes with buying from a non-returnable source (though I would make an effort to minimize that risk and, as a whole, Nintendo consoles tend to be fairly reliable) and a thrown in copy of House of the Dead 2&3 (I assume the Wii version?). I guess there is always the potential he has bought some VC stuff that could be lingering on it too, I didn't ask, but it doesn't seem that way.

#6 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

@Willin said:

If we're going by the Medal of Honor/Battlefield 3 example then I disagree. I shouldn't have to buy the DLC that comes with first copies of the game because I bought it 6 months later. If you're going to put that stuff in put it in all copies.

That's the entire point though,.... it's an incentive to get you to purchase at launch. It should make it even easier for you to justify buying at launch too. If your choices are $60 at launch or $40 +$15 6 months later, why not let your inner instant gratification demon have his desserts?!

#7 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Averhoeven said:

Oh, and for the people who click no... I really would like to hear why you think it's a bad idea.

It makes those stupid cardboard sleeves more common?

There are some big movie dorks that collect those for their DVDs and Blus. I've sold a stack of the lenticulars from 3D blus for a few easy bucks before, but I agree... they usually end up in my recycle bin. Not inherent to the 1st edition concept though.

#8 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

Oh, and for the people who click no... I really would like to hear why you think it's a bad idea. HBKDX summed up my overall thoughts on it pretty well.

#9 Edited by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

I know some of you came in here expecting me to talk about Online Passes. Put the pitchforks down and hand me your torch.... my cigar needs a light.

I was watching the Medal of Honor: Warfighters trailer and noticed the "Limited Edition" boxes at the end. I'm assuming EA is doing the same for this game that they did for Battlefield 3 and a few other high profile releases where the first DLC will be included for early adopters buying new. I think these 1st edition type prints are the perfect way to encourage consumers to buy new and buy at release. Perhaps it's preaching to the choir since I'm a new game buyer exclusively (I like to reward the people who actually make the products I want so they make more), but I think that this should really be the strategy publishers should take.

**Oops, title was originally gonna be EA is taking the right path to discourage used purchases.

  • 19 results
  • 1
  • 2