Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzaman | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, Microsoft really sucks at storytelling. All they had to say was something in the lines of...

"If you want to buy a disc, pay $59 for a game due to all non-digital crap the disc has to go through. And then do what you want with it. HOWEVER, if you download the game, it's like $29 (50% OFF!!!11), but then it's just yours, and yours alone, you can't sell or lend it - and we'd have to check every once in a while it's really you who's playing."

I wouldn't mind that at all since they'd be giving me a choice, and I'd gladly pay less, despite the 'lockdown'.

Dear Microsoft, all you have to do is ask your target audience what they think - you might be suprised.

View on HN

The problem is that they still charge $59.99 for Games On Demand. When Black Ops 2 came out digitally, that's what it cost. Same with lots of the Games On Demand - many are $10-$15 more than I can get the disc for new. Not used, NEW. In the shrink wrap.

So you'll pardon me if I think this is full of crap. I want to see low priced games like on Steam. But until I see it from MS, I'll probably switch to full-time PC gaming again.

The games on demand pricing has to be that way though. If Games on Demand cost literally half the price Gamestop charged, the retailers would revolt, which would cause the publishers to revolt.

The only reason Valve has the power to charge what they charge is because they incrementally built that power - retailers at one point threatened to pull games from shelves for using Steam's authentication!

That's exactly the point I'm making. The prices on XboxOne won't come down because "the retailers would revolt."

There's also a difference between Valve and Microsoft (or any other "platform" owners) that they still have to deal with retailers to push distribution of the console itself...

There's zero evidence to suggest copy protection reduces prices for legal users.

We have to believe that "all this time they wanted to charge less but their hands were tied". Sure. This has happened loads of times in history, where prices were high but kind hearted vendors dropped their prices whenever possible...

By the way; anyone working for one of those companies hit by the recession that has asked their staff to take a pay cut, "but we'll restore your salary when the good times return" ? Yeah, right.

So we're going to have to pay more for multiplayer editions? o.O Gaming used to be fun.. Whatever happened to creating something for the pure joy of it? Oh.. right.. capitalism.

I'm sure they thought of that. That's how they licensed software for decades (the OEM version of Office was much cheaper than the retail box, but it could only be used on that computer).

Exactly. One has to wonder why they didn't go with this approach if it's a valid and proven business model.

>Dear Microsoft, all you have to do is ask your target audience what they think - you might be suprised.

I mean yes, don't introduce the Kin, but at the same time, if Apple'd asked what consumers want, we'd be thinking the RAZR is cool instead of the DROID RAZR.

Yeah, but they still understood the consumers- better, perhaps, than the consumers did. MS is arguably misunderstanding them, in this case.

I don't get that conclusion. Steam does it and they're applauded, even by many who "hate" DRM. Microsoft does it (and maybe doesn't detail the entire vision/value well) and gets shit on. Much like a lot of things that MS does.

Fair or not, reputation and corporate history allows different companies to get away with different things. Valve doesn't exactly have a reputation for turning off DRM servers, killing multiplayer servers for old games, and abandoning entire product lines and/or brands.

Conversely, nobody whines about Microsoft not releasing new versions of Halo, (or games in general with the number "3" in their title).

Steam is applauded for the incredible sales and cheap access to games. Also the convenience.

I have a steam library worth several grand, but I only paid a few hundred for it. Is anyone really convinced you will see Steam style sales on Xbox 1?

While I don't love that Steam has DRM, I don't hate their version of it either. What MS says they'll do (and what they'll probably end up doing) is nowhere close to what Valve has done. Valve has a history of listening to its customers about legitimate pain points with their DRM. Case in point: military personnel stationed abroad don't have the internet connection available to phone home every time they want to play a game, so Valve introduces an offline mode - authorize once before you deploy and freely play on that machine without an internet connection. Combine that with the fact that their DRM servers are pretty rock solid (I'm sure people have had problems with it but I've never encountered them in the years I've used steam) and the Gabe promise to unlock DRM if anything happens to Steam, and you get a lot of people comfortable trusting their game library to Steam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com