I see it the way that Jason guy sees it in the comments. There is no proof it would have been better. Microsoft never confirmed that the prices would get lower. It's just something people were expecting with it. It's better to deal with the devil you do know than the devil you don't know. The current system seems to be working pretty fine. Why change it just because some people just hope it's better? I'd rather just go with the system that I know works. I'm not saying I never want change, but small changes over time is good.

Yin wrote I see it the way that Jason guy sees it in the comments. There is no proof it would have been better. Microsoft never confirmed that the prices would get lower. It's just something people were expecting with it. It's better to deal with the devil you do know than the devil you don't know. The current system seems to be working pretty fine. Why change it just because some people just hope it's better? I'd rather just go with the system that I know works. I'm not saying I never want change, but small changes over time is good.

Couldn't have put it any better, I totally agree with you!

I didn't read it all but I got the idea. To be honest I do agree that because a few loud people didn't like the idea or weren't open to possible changes it basically cost us the biggest thing to happen in console gaming, for a decade.

It's not about having no/great internet, or arguing about a forced check in. The point was we were on the edge of a console gaming mega change and blew it because everyone got cold feet.

I'm not saying Microsoft's idea was simple or easy to grasp but surely something that big should have been presented to the community before now so that people had time to adjust and make changes where necessary.

Sorry for the long read.

Oasis wrote I didn't read it all but I got the idea. To be honest I do agree that because a few loud people didn't like the idea or weren't open to possible changes it basically cost us the biggest thing to happen in console gaming, for a decade.

It's not about having no/great internet, or arguing about a forced check in. The point was we were on the edge of a console gaming mega change and blew it because everyone got cold feet.

I'm not saying Microsoft's idea was simple or easy to grasp but surely something that big should have been presented to the community before now so that people had time to adjust and make changes where necessary.


Sorry for the long read.

You have a great point, but the way people approached theses as restrictions really threw them the wrong way, I wouldn't have mind the DRM an other policies because it wouldn't have affected me..

MATTCHIEF wrote

Oasis wrote I didn't read it all but I got the idea. To be honest I do agree that because a few loud people didn't like the idea or weren't open to possible changes it basically cost us the biggest thing to happen in console gaming, for a decade.

It's not about having no/great internet, or arguing about a forced check in. The point was we were on the edge of a console gaming mega change and blew it because everyone got cold feet.

I'm not saying Microsoft's idea was simple or easy to grasp but surely something that big should have been presented to the community before now so that people had time to adjust and make changes where necessary.


Sorry for the long read.

You have a great point, but the way people approached theses as restrictions really threw them the wrong way, I wouldn't have mind the DRM an other policies because it wouldn't have affected me..

I'm not picking on anyone specific just responding to things I see on here, but when people say "there's no proof of this model working" or "things are fine the way they are" that really confuses me.

Do people not want a new gen of anything these days? If it means shaking it up or trying something new? What was stopping us from giving it a chance and if it worked then great, if not then sure we can say something. I mean we can see how easy it is to change the policy, what's to say we couldn't have tried it then if it was bad asked for a change and update to what we have currently.

I like to think of peoples attitudes as Apple syndrome. It better look the same, feel the same and do practically the same as what I've already got or else I don't want it.

Oasis wrote

MATTCHIEF wrote

Oasis wrote I didn't read it all but I got the idea. To be honest I do agree that because a few loud people didn't like the idea or weren't open to possible changes it basically cost us the biggest thing to happen in console gaming, for a decade.

It's not about having no/great internet, or arguing about a forced check in. The point was we were on the edge of a console gaming mega change and blew it because everyone got cold feet.

I'm not saying Microsoft's idea was simple or easy to grasp but surely something that big should have been presented to the community before now so that people had time to adjust and make changes where necessary.


Sorry for the long read.

You have a great point, but the way people approached theses as restrictions really threw them the wrong way, I wouldn't have mind the DRM an other policies because it wouldn't have affected me..

I'm not picking on anyone specific just responding to things I see on here, but when people say "there's no proof of this model working" or "things are fine the way they are" that really confuses me.

Do people not want a new gen of anything these days? If it means shaking it up or trying something new? What was stopping us from giving it a chance and if it worked then great, if not then sure we can say something. I mean we can see how easy it is to change the policy, what's to say we couldn't have tried it then if it was bad asked for a change and update to what we have currently.

I like to think of peoples attitudes as Apple syndrome. It better look the same, feel the same and do practically the same as what I've already got or else I don't want it.

Yeah sometimes it's great to take chances, Microsoft will never know the outcome now... They've changed their policies pretty easily, it's unlikely that they'll change them back, but we know its not difficult to do so...

I agree with him.
The digital system is SIMILAR to Steam. A disc is simply like a one time flash drive and activation if you wouldn't want to purchase things online.

By reselling through publishers, they make money. This WOULD lower prices.

Look at this logically.

-More sales.
-More profit
-Less discs made (shipping and manufacturing)

The publishers would be making more money, while spending less in the distribution process. They could afford to charge 50$ or even 40$ for a game. Why do you think Steam is so cheap? It's all digital, only bandwidth is an additional cost.

Microsoft should have explained it better, while I'm not pissed at the move they made, I'm disappointed.

This system could have been amazing.

Yin wrote I see it the way that Jason guy sees it in the comments. There is no proof it would have been better. Microsoft never confirmed that the prices would get lower. It's just something people were expecting with it. It's better to deal with the devil you do know than the devil you don't know. The current system seems to be working pretty fine. Why change it just because some people just hope it's better? I'd rather just go with the system that I know works. I'm not saying I never want change, but small changes over time is good.

Amen sir! You know how to put so many emotions into words!

im glad they took of that stupid drm policy