Results 1 to 30 of 46

Thread: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

    Quote Originally Posted by drone View Post
    You have never owned the game code in the copyright sense, but you were free to do with your licence what you wished after purchase. First-sale doctrine.
    True, but that's impossible with digital copies. PC gamers (me included) kvetched about this for a while after the switch to digital distribution started many years ago, but we long ago not only stopped complaining but actively embraced the system. If you asked PC gamers whether they'd prefer to keep the current system or return to the old disc-based economy, with its freedom to trade games, I would guess that the vast majority of gamers would prefer to stay where we are now. For most of us, the convenience (and lower prices) outweigh the loss of that ability. I think console gamers will follow the exact same trend in sentiment regarding this issue.

    There's also a reality that these kinds of restrictions are designed to help the developers and publishers themselves and to fight piracy. I know plenty of game developers. They get paid peanuts and their jobs are constantly at risk due to being in a heavily volatile industry. If the consumer has to take a few knocks here and there to give a less-brutal existence to the very people who create the games we love to play, I think that's a fair trade-off.


  2. #2
    Needs more flowers Moderator drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moral High Grounds
    Posts
    9,286

    Default Re: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    True, but that's impossible with digital copies. PC gamers (me included) kvetched about this for a while after the switch to digital distribution started many years ago, but we long ago not only stopped complaining but actively embraced the system. If you asked PC gamers whether they'd prefer to keep the current system or return to the old disc-based economy, with its freedom to trade games, I would guess that the vast majority of gamers would prefer to stay where we are now. For most of us, the convenience (and lower prices) outweigh the loss of that ability. I think console gamers will follow the exact same trend in sentiment regarding this issue.
    You like Steam, and I will admit that it is the best of the bunch. But Valve is a privately owned company that is currently run by a benevolent dictator, it is an anomoly which fortuantely controls a large share of the market. However, the day will come when Valve is subject to the whims of shareholders, and we will be stuck with crap like Origin which will get worse without the benevolent Steam alternative to counter the anti-consumer policies these companies engage in.

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    There's also a reality that these kinds of restrictions are designed to help the developers and publishers themselves and to fight piracy. I know plenty of game developers. They get paid peanuts and their jobs are constantly at risk due to being in a heavily volatile industry. If the consumer has to take a few knocks here and there to give a less-brutal existence to the very people who create the games we love to play, I think that's a fair trade-off.
    Nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give a positive user experience.
    The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions

    If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
    Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat

    "Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur

  3. #3
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

    Quote Originally Posted by drone View Post
    You like Steam, and I will admit that it is the best of the bunch. But Valve is a privately owned company that is currently run by a benevolent dictator, it is an anomoly which fortuantely controls a large share of the market. However, the day will come when Valve is subject to the whims of shareholders, and we will be stuck with crap like Origin which will get worse without the benevolent Steam alternative to counter the anti-consumer policies these companies engage in.
    Absolutely true, but I really don't see the alternative. Physical media is obsolete, period. It's unnecessary, expensive, and will vanish completely in the near future. That's reality and, whether you like it or not, there's nothing you can do about it. We need to adapt to a digital world because that's the world we're going to be living in until the zombie/robot/alien/nuclear apocalypse makes us go back to steam technology (and maybe not even then). The best we can do is support those companies which do things well (like Valve) and shun those that do things poorly (like EA). If a day comes when you feel like there is no company that gives you good service, you can also choose to simply stop buying the product. These companies need to make money to survive and if they alienate enough people to impact their revenue stream, then they will change or fail. If people continue to pay for their products despite the restrictions, that's essentially proof that the restrictions themselves are considered an acceptable cost for the services they provide.

    Quote Originally Posted by drone View Post
    Nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give a positive user experience.
    That's a bit of an overstatement. Certainly nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give the user as positive an experience as they had without those measures. However that doesn't mean that the experience has to be negative overall. There is a middle ground where piracy is effectively fought while the consumer is still happy, even if they're not as happy as they could be.
    Last edited by TinCow; 06-07-2013 at 16:27.


  4. #4
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    That's a bit of an overstatement. Certainly nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give the user as positive an experience as they had without those measures. However that doesn't mean that the experience has to be negative overall. There is a middle ground where piracy is effectively fought while the consumer is still happy, even if they're not as happy as they could be.
    I completely reject the "think of the poor developers" argument. Can anyone think of a game that hasn't been pirated? Usually what happens is honest purchasers get saddled with obtrusive DRM and days later, the pirated version comes out without any DRM. The result is that often times, paying customers get an inferior product than the pirates do...

    Speaking personally, many times I've almost bought games on an impulse, only to put it back on the shelf and walk away after seeing the DRM used. There's no quantifiable cost that can be pointed to for people pirating a game. Some pirates might have bought the game, some might not have ever bought it. What is a quantifiable cost is developing and licensing DRM schemes. Publishers waste time and money adding DRM to games that only serve to annoy paying customers. In what world does that make sense?

    EDIT: I'll just link a post from the developer of Super Meat Boy. He makes the point better than I do. (quoted below for those too lazy to click the link)
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I think I can safely say that Super Meat Boy has been pirated at least 200,000 times. We are closing in on 2 million sales and assuming a 10% piracy to sales ratio does not seem unreasonable. As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer.

    For the sake of argument, some of those people that did pirate Super Meat Boy could have bought the game if piracy didn’t exist but there is no actual way to calculate that lost revenue. It is impossible to know with certainty the intentions of people. With the SimCity fiasco and several companies trying to find new ways to combat piracy and stating piracy has negatively affected their bottom line I wonder if they’ve taken the time to accurately try to determine what their losses are due to piracy.

    My first job outside my parents cabinet shop was at KMart. KMart, like countless other retailers, calculates loss by counting purchased inventory and matching it to sales. Loss is always built into the budget because it is inevitable. Loss could come from items breaking, being stolen, or being defective. If someone broke a light bulb, that was a calculable loss. If someone returned a blender for being defective, it wasn’t a loss to KMart, but a calculable loss to the manufacturer. If someone steals a copy of BattleToads, it’s a loss to KMart. All loss in a retail setting is calculable because items to be sold are physical objects that come from manufacturers that have to be placed on shelves by employees. You have a chain of inventory numbers, money spent and labor spent that goes from the consumer all the way to the manufacturer. A stolen, broken, or lost item is an item that you cannot sell. In the retail world your stock is worth money.

    In the digital world, you don’t have a set inventory. Your game is infinitely replicable at a negligible or zero cost (the cost bandwidth off your own site or nothing if you're on a portal like Steam, eShop, etc). Digital inventory has no value. Your company isn’t worth an infinite amount because you have infinite copies of your game. As such, calculating worth and loss based on infinite inventory is impossible. If you have infinite stock, and someone steals one unit from that stock, you still have infinite stock. If you have infinite stock and someone steals 1 trillion units from that stock , you still have infinite stock. There is no loss of stock when you have an infinite amount.

    Because of this, in the digital world, there is no loss when someone steals a game because it isn't one less copy you can sell, it is potentially one less sale but that is irrelevant. Everyone in the world with an internet connection and a form of online payment is a potential buyer for your game but that doesn’t mean everyone in the world will buy your game.

    Loss due to piracy is an implied loss because it is not a calculable loss. You cannot, with any accuracy, state that because your game was pirated 300 times you lost 300 sales. You cannot prove even one lost sale because there is no evidence to state that any one person who pirated your game would have bought your game if piracy did not exist. From an accounting perspective it’s speculative and a company cannot accurately determine loss or gain based on speculative accounting. You can’t rely on revenue due to speculation, you can’t build a company off of what will “probably” happen. Watch “The Smartest Guys in the Room” and see how that worked out for Enron.

    Companies try to combat piracy of their software with DRM but if loss due to pirated software is not calculable to an accurate amount does the implementation of DRM provide a return on investment? It is impossible to say yes to this statement. Look at it as numbers spent in a set budget. You spend $X on research for your new DRM method that will prevent people from stealing your game. That $X is a line item in accounting that can be quantified. Can you then say “This $X we put into research for our DRM gained us back $Y in sales”? There is no way to calculate this because it is not possible to quantify the intentions of a person. Also, there’s no way of accurately determining which customers would have stolen the game had there not been DRM.

    To add to that, the reality of our current software age is the internet is more efficient at breaking things than companies are at creating them. A company will spend massive amounts of money on DRM and the internet will break it in a matter of days in most cases. When the DRM is broken is it worth the money spent to implement it? Did the week of unbroken DRM for your game gain you any sales from potential pirates due to the inability to pirate at launch? Again, there is no way of telling and as such cannot be used as an accurate justification for spending money.

    So what should developers do to make sure people don’t steal games? Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do to actively stop their game from being pirated. I do believe people are less likely to pirate your software if the software is easy to buy, easy to run, and does what is advertised. You can’t force a person to buy your software no more than you can prevent a person from stealing it. People have to WANT to buy your software, people have to WANT to support you. People need to care about your employees and your company’s well being. There is no better way to achieve that than making sure what you put out there is the best you can do and you treat your customers with respect.

    Lets loop back to what’s going on with SimCity. I bought SimCity day one, I played it and experienced the same frustrations that countless others are experiencing. For total fairness, I know the always on DRM isn’t the main issue, but I can’t help but think that the server side calculations are a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” version of DRM. I won’t claim to know the inner workings of SimCity and this isn’t a Captain Hindsight article because that is irrelevant. EA and Maxis are currently facing a bigger problem than piracy: A growing number of their customers no longer trust them and this has and will cost them money.

    After the frustrations with SimCity I asked Origin for a refund and received one. This was money they had and then lost a few days later. Applying our earlier conversation about calculable loss, there is a loss that is quantifiable, that will show up in accounting spreadsheets and does take away from profit. That loss is the return, and it is much more dangerous than someone stealing your game.

    In the retail world, you could potentially put a return back on the shelf, you could find another customer that wants it, sell it to them and there would be virtually no loss. In the digital world, because there is no set amount of goods, you gain nothing back (one plus infinity is still infinity). It’s only a negative experience. A negative frustrating experience for a customer should be considered more damaging than a torrent of your game.

    Speaking from my experience with SMB, I know for a fact we have lost a lot of trust from Mac users due to the Mac port of SMB being poor quality. I could go into the circumstances of why it is the way it is but that is irrelevant...it’s a broken product that is out in the public. We disappointed a good portion of our Mac customers with SMB and as a result several former customers have requested and received refunds. I’d take any amount of pirates over one return due to disappointment any day.

    Disappointment leads to apathy which is the swan song for any developer. If people don’t care about your game, why would people ever buy it? When MewGenics comes out, I doubt many Mac users are going to be excited about our launch. When EA/Maxis create their next new game how many people are going to be excited about it and talking positively about it? I imagine that the poison of their current SimCity launch is going to seep into potential customers thoughts and be a point of speculation as to “Is it going to be another SimCity launch?”.

    This is not a quantifiable loss of course, but people are more likely to buy from distributors they trust rather than ones they’ve felt slighted by before. Consumer confidence plays a very important role in how customers spend money. I think its safe to say that EA and Maxis do not have a lot of consumer confidence at this point. I think its also safe to say that the next EA/Maxis game is going to be a tough sell to people who experienced or were turned away by talk of frustration regarding SimCity.

    As a result of piracy developers feel their hand is forced to implement measures to stop piracy. Often, these efforts to combat piracy only result in frustration for paying customers. I challenge a developer to show evidence that accurately shows implementation of DRM is a return on investment and that losses due to piracy can be calculated. I do not believe this is possible.

    The reality is the fight against piracy equates to spending time and money combating a loss that cannot be quantified. Everyone needs to accept that piracy cannot be stopped and loss prevention is not a concept that can be applied to the digital world. Developers should focus on their paying customers and stop wasting time and money on non-paying customers. Respect your customers and they may in turn respect your efforts enough to purchase your game instead of pirating it.
    Last edited by Xiahou; 06-07-2013 at 16:44.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  5. #5
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    I completely reject the "think of the poor developers" argument. Can anyone think of a game that hasn't been pirated? Usually what happens is honest purchasers get saddled with obtrusive DRM and days later, the pirated version comes out without any DRM. The result is that often times, paying customers get an inferior product than the pirates do...
    Well, that's you. I personally know developers, so I do think of it. Game devs are just as heavily abused by their industry as musicians. These people are devoting their lives, often upwards of 60-80 hours a week, to creating our entertainment, but they get paid crap and have horrible job security. Certainly the publishers themselves are partially responsible for this, just as in the music industry, but piracy sure doesn't help the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    Publishers waste time and money adding DRM to games that only serve to annoy paying customers. In what world does that make sense?
    In a world where they make more money by adding it than by not adding it. I don't understand why gamers have this mental block on the idea that a capitalist economic system doesn't apply to the games industry. It's just one of many options in the entertainment sector. The time you spend playing games is time you cannot spend in other areas of the entertainment sector, such as television, cinema, sporting events, etc. Industry profits depending on being competitive internally amongst other game companies, and also externally against other forms of entertainment. If their profits are rising, then the consumers are saying that they are providing a competitive service. If their profits are falling, then the consumers are saying that they are not providing a competitive service. Why do you expect the games industry to be altruistic in a manner that no other industry is?

    In any case, the idea that the DRM "only serve[s] to annoy paying customers" is fundamentally false. There are many great things about a good DRM system that actively add things to the gaming experience. Look at all the extra stuff you get by using Steam as an example. I personally stopped pirating ALL games about 5-6 years ago because I felt that the benefits I got out of using digital distribution outweighed the costs. I actively prefer to pay for a game on Steam than to pirate one, even when you take my game-dev friends out of the picture. I am not the only person who feels this way, so clearly not all of us are annoyed by all DRM. There are plenty of DRM methods that truly DO annoy me. I've actively avoided EA, Ubisoft, and Microsoft products because of their DRM systems before, but the fact that some companies have created crappy DRM systems doesn't prove that all DRM is annoying everyone.


  6. #6
    Needs more flowers Moderator drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moral High Grounds
    Posts
    9,286

    Default Re: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

    What Super Meat Boy dude said.

    Valve has done the rare thing and added value to their DRM system, this is why it's the best one out there. Again this is because Valve is an anomoly. Most large companies use their DRM to extract value, through egregious activation limits, planned obsolecense, forced ads, etc. If/when Valve gets bought out/goes public/Gabe dies, digital distribution is going to become a nightmare.
    The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions

    If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
    Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat

    "Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur

  7. #7
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

    Quote Originally Posted by drone View Post
    What Super Meat Boy dude said.

    Valve has done the rare thing and added value to their DRM system, this is why it's the best one out there. Again this is because Valve is an anomoly. Most large companies use their DRM to extract value, through egregious activation limits, planned obsolecense, forced ads, etc. If/when Valve gets bought out/goes public/Gabe dies, digital distribution is going to become a nightmare.
    His statement is very good and I agree with what he says as well, particularly this bit:

    I do believe people are less likely to pirate your software if the software is easy to buy, easy to run, and does what is advertised. You can’t force a person to buy your software no more than you can prevent a person from stealing it. People have to WANT to buy your software, people have to WANT to support you. People need to care about your employees and your company’s well being. There is no better way to achieve that than making sure what you put out there is the best you can do and you treat your customers with respect.
    Valve provides a service at a level where I actively want to support them, and the developers whose games they distribute. If in some future day Valve turns to the dark side and becomes crap, then perhaps I shall no longer feel that way and perhaps I shall return to pirating games. However, that's kind of beyond the point. This is not like with a government where once power has been gained, it becomes very difficult to take it away. You're talking about a business that relies on income. If the business model becomes poor and the services they provide are poor, then the business model will change or the company will collapse. SimCity itself demonstrates what happens to a company when they provide a poor quality product. You really don't need to fear the amorphous Evil Valve future because if that time comes, there will be other options, legal or illegal, to get what the consumer wants in a way that is pleasing to them.

    At the end of the day, Valve has proven that DRM can be done in a positive and constructive way. The problem isn't DRM itself, it's bad DRM. Bad DRM does exactly what Mr. Refenes says. Valve's DRM works because the actual DRM aspect of it is incidental to the service. Valve created a system that added massive amount of customer convenience in many areas. The fact that it also operates as DRM is a side-benefit for them. That wasn't its intention when it was created, it was only designed to address inconsistent patching issues for Valve's own games to improve multiplayer connectivity and to resolve bugs. Over time that turned into a general digital distribution system. That's why we love Steam: DRM wasn't the purpose, even if it's part of the result. This discussion is about the XBone and whether their connectivity system is rage-quit worthy or not. For some reason people are getting a bit hysterical because it has DRM features, and they're largely skipping over the conversation about whether the online connectivity system that Microsoft has added is good as a whole. I'm not saying that MS has done it right; quite the opposite, I think that the 24 hour check-in thing is extreme and likely a very poor decision. However, I feel like I'm one of the few people actually analyzing the system as a whole instead of just going OMG DRM ALT F4.
    Last edited by TinCow; 06-07-2013 at 17:57.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO