I'm quite upset. I'm upset because MS reversed its policies and most of the advantages of what it was proposing were just sent down the drain.

MS had to bend in to the barking dogs who didn't even look into the plus sides of the solution, so they just said fuck it and threw the baby with the bath water.

Most of the shit we read on here as news are lame excuses for articles that don't supply us with the information we need to make proper consumer decisions and take proper consumer actions. I don't doubt that a major reason for this is fanboyism but that's beyond the point.

Can we be less lazy when posting, especially when posting news articles? Can we make efforts to inform the community with good articles rather than feed them with shit?

Thanks

didn't we have a thread like that before?

Make the effort, provide a link.

We did but it was the similar opinion of another member. This thread should be ok.

I agree. I'm disappointed by the news but I'm happy for the people like Nsanity who would have otherwise missed out. I have a feeling though, more people will see the positives only because it's been snatched away by their own stupidity. An option will arise hopefully and people can just have the benefits they want. Some genuinely do prefer it this way, some want it the other way and most just pretend. We're on the internet already so, why the fuck not?!?

So you want DRM on your Xbox One?

Microsoft could scarcely even begin to articulate the advantages of its approach, so I seriously doubt most of them would have materialized.

Now we live in a world where if platform holders want consumers to go digital, they will have to entice them to do so rather than shove it down their throats. Everyone should be happy about that.

That's assuming that the benefits are still possible. I asked about this in the other thread but I'm not sure how misled I am about it.

I know that with Nintendo, for example, they locked the price of their retail games to the price of their digital games so as to make sure not to negatively impact retailers. Is that also true with other suppliers? (PSN, XBL) I noticed that many of the digital games offered on PSN and XBL are expensive unlike STEAM (which has regular sales).

So we're assuming that we now get the best of both worlds when in reality it seems like we really don't, we're getting the shaft. It looked like MS was hoping to lower the price of their games by controlling the used games sales cycle. Didn't they say that they wanted to have a resale system in place for their all-digital solution?

I say the cons outweighed the pros by far. It's not about ignoring the pros, it's about the cons outweighing them.

Problem is we barely got to hear the pros because the cons were constantly drowning them out.

What about DRM would've been better for the consumer?

1- The retail game is always in your library, even if you lose the disc.

2- Less pirating means more money for the publishers, means more games.

3- Mergining retail and digital business into 1 for a more manageable process.

4- Possibly better tracking of digital software sales (good for vgchartzians).

5- Digital perks due to more money with publishers:

• being able to share games with 10 friends.
• Steam-like sales.

I don't know about that. Yeah, Steam sometimes has cheaper prices and is better known for its crazy sales, but (a) it is a service on an open platform and so faces direct competition in a way that closed platform holders don't, and (b) games on Steam generally cost the same as elsewhere when they're not on sale, which is most of the time.

So I don't think we're going to get the best of both worlds now, nor would we have had Microsoft not done its reversal. I do think consumers now have the power to dictate the adoption rate of digital that they find beneficial rather than having to adopt at the rate that some corporation decides they will, and those corporations will have to find ways to convince rather than to force. That is only a good thing to me.