Now you're being ridiculous, people weren't being whiney, they were being honest, realistically it wouldn't work in the long run and if you fanboys looked at the bigger picture you'd understand that, there are some negatives to the changes that have been made but overall it's a great move.

A large percentage of people didn't like the DRM, you're just one of the few who did like it. Don't blame the interwebz for something that was bound to happen.

MS had to change because of the negative feedback towards the new console. Also, as another note, the DRM thing wasn't innovative, nor was disk-less gaming, or cloud gaming. Most of those can be found currently on PC games.

Sorcery wrote Now you're being ridiculous, people weren't being whiney, they were being honest, realistically it wouldn't work in the long run and if you fanboys looked at the bigger picture you'd understand that, there are some negatives to the changes that have been made but overall it's a great move.

I'm not a fanboy at all. Used games? Never bought any. So that really didnt apply to me. Not being able to trade games? Look at PC (steam). They cant trade. They can gift, which MSFT was trying to do.

And admit it. Infinite Cloud gaming wouldve been great.

ODST wrote A large percentage of people didn't like the DRM, you're just one of the few who did like it. Don't blame the interwebz for something that was bound to happen.

MS had to change because of the negative feedback towards the new console. Also, as another note, the DRM thing wasn't innovative, nor was disk-less gaming, or cloud gaming. Most of those can be found currently on PC games.

DRM was going to limit piracy, which is great. And for a console, disc-less gaming wouldve been great. the X1 was trying to be like a PC, but people didn't like it apparently.

X42 wrote

ODST wrote A large percentage of people didn't like the DRM, you're just one of the few who did like it. Don't blame the interwebz for something that was bound to happen.

MS had to change because of the negative feedback towards the new console. Also, as another note, the DRM thing wasn't innovative, nor was disk-less gaming, or cloud gaming. Most of those can be found currently on PC games.

DRM was going to limit piracy, which is great. And for a console, disc-less gaming wouldve been great. the X1 was trying to be like a PC, but people didn't like it apparently.

MS was doing this weird "soft transfer" thing in which game disks were still used, but only once or a few times as a mode to put in a license key. PC gaming has generally always had license keys to show who actually bought games. I personally didn't mind the licensing stuff, but this soft transfer was too in the middle for it to be one or the other. If you go digital gaming, go all digital gaming. If you want physical gaming, then you have disks and such. Microsoft was trying to do both at the same time and caused confusion on whether it was technically digital or physical gaming. That's why people never liked the Xbone.

ODST wrote

X42 wrote

ODST wrote A large percentage of people didn't like the DRM, you're just one of the few who did like it. Don't blame the interwebz for something that was bound to happen.

MS had to change because of the negative feedback towards the new console. Also, as another note, the DRM thing wasn't innovative, nor was disk-less gaming, or cloud gaming. Most of those can be found currently on PC games.

DRM was going to limit piracy, which is great. And for a console, disc-less gaming wouldve been great. the X1 was trying to be like a PC, but people didn't like it apparently.

MS was doing this weird "soft transfer" thing in which game disks were still used, but only once or a few times as a mode to put in a license key. PC gaming has generally always had license keys to show who actually bought games. I personally didn't mind the licensing stuff, but this soft transfer was too in the middle for it to be one or the other. If you go digital gaming, go all digital gaming. If you want physical gaming, then you have disks and such. Microsoft was trying to do both at the same time and caused confusion on whether it was technically digital or physical gaming. That's why people never liked the Xbone.

Hmm, I never heard that you had to use the disc more than once for verify it was yours. But yes, I suppose MSFT was caught inbetween the decision of digital and physical gaming.

im liking the blue ray there adding i hope its a good console

The disk needs to be used every-time like a key. A key to say that the game is now yours or someone else's. It only has to be used the first time but then reused if the game was "sold".

I get really frustrated when people try to defend DRM. DRM defies the laws of marketing and economics. I'm going to explain why with an easy example.

Say I buy a used car from my neighbor. Does the manufacturer get a cut of that money? No. Thinking about this logically, why should they? My neighbor paid full price for that car and he legally owns it.

If I buy this car from him, he can no longer use it. It makes sense then that in return for his loss, I would give him money. In return for the loss of my money, I get the car. The manufacturer is not experiencing a loss in this transaction. There is only one car and they already experienced their loss when they sold it. They in return were given my neighbor's money. The transaction has already taken place and all losses in this example have been reimbursed.

Now, knowing this, many people will make the argument that the manufacturer is experiencing a secondary loss because they are not able to compete with the prices of the used cars. This argues that there is an opportunity loss on their part.

However, the laws of supply and demand justify this opportunity loss. As the manufacturer floods the market with more of my neighbor's car, the demand/value for that car will go down. Because a car is also a deteriorating good, the demand/value for my neighbors car will go down with time. People are less willing to buy a car as it gets older (whether new or used) and they are also less willing to buy a car after it has been owned by someone who drove it on a daily basis.

Thus, it is justifiable that my neighbor sells his car to me for a cheaper price and the manufacturer takes an opportunity loss. Opportunity losses occur with any item that is not 100% consumable. I as a customer am taking the chance that my neighbor's car may not work properly. It may be scratched, broken, and not come with a lot of the things it would otherwise come with brand new, like a warranty or a discount for a gas station.

To successfully overcome the competition of used cars, a manufacturer should expect to lower the price of its car over time. All customers prefer having a new product over an old one because old products always have some form of the previously described problems. To ensure continued sales, the manufacturer must determine what the market price of these problems are. If a customer is willing to pay 10% more to NOT have the problems associated with the used product, the manufacturer logically should charge whatever the price of the used product is, plus 10%.

Games are still tangible objects that only one person can use at a time. They can get scratched, broken, and become outdated over time. DRM attempts to allow manufacturers to keep their prices of products high despite the falling demand for them. What should have happened, according to economics when they attempted this, did happen. Microsoft saw a massive drop in potential sales because they tried to place the supply and demand intersect at a place it did not actually lie.

Rainboom handed me his laptop to write this. I'm the economics major brother so I just thought I could add some input!