And that's the whole point - MS is trying to create a new system for consoles. This methodology, this entire ecosystem does not exist yet, so SOMEONE had to start here. It's sad that noone can see the benefits. It's also sad that we live in a world where those benefits have to come at the cost of some things that, in the end, almost noone would really ever even notice. Yes, there are exceptions, and MS had already stated they'd work with anybody that could not have an always on connection, or any other limitation. MS is NOT about to stab its userbase in the back. Everyone keeps saying MS is greedy, MS just wants money. Guess what, so does Sony. They're both out to make money. And you know how that happens? Keeping the userbase happy, aka, listening to their audience. Now it seems enough of the core audience HATED the basic policies that were coming along with the benefits they were trying to introduce, so they listened and adjusted accordingly.
Because they didn't WANT to see the benefits through the perceived threat of the DRM. I can't tell you the number of arguments I've gotten over the FUD that Snowden has spread, and all the useless statements people keep quoting as if they have some great source of perfect knowledge about how the government is spying on us and Google just wants to sell all our information for huge profits, etc. The implications on all these points are STAGGERING, and the fact that DRM is needed should have come as NO surprise, esp. to those of us on forums like these.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like DRM, in fact my GoG account is getting larger than my Steam account, but I cannot discount the benefits of a system like Steam, and what MS would have had in the Xbox One had a bunch of misinformed consumers not got their panties in a twist about it.
I've already stated my point on this. You still need to be online to install, and yes, I know that's still better than the DRM structure that the Xbox One was to release on. I am, however, sorrowfully underinformed here, but what were the DRM policies that Steam had when it first started, and how have they changed as their own market changed? I could be wrong, but it makes sense that it probably had a stronger enforcement of the DRM policies when it was first released.
Let's also understand something. MS did NOT just say, "you know what? We need DRM. Let's just make it as Big Brother as possible." No, instead, the publishers of all the third party games that were going to have to have anything to do with the Xbox One all had to come to a concensus of what they would agree to before they'd allow MS to have their games. I'd be willing to bet the DRM structure was a lot more simplified BEFORE the developers started making their demands.
Oh, and remember something else. MS has stated that their first party games will not have the DRM system's that they've mentioned in place, ever, on the Xbox One, but that publishers had the right to require and implement any system they effectively chose. Sony's little E3 Press conference, where they showed how to share games, you know the one that got everyone suddenly wanting a PS4? Did anyone even NOTICE the very next day at E3, that Sony made the statement that publishers had the same rights to adding DRM that the Xbox One third party publishers had? at the end of all this, the basic system is almost identical.
Except you still need to be online to install the first time. Steam has been in this game a long time, and it has worked well for them. They've learned what does and does not work on a PC environment. Which is to say, in the realm of consoles, we're still not tested at all here. MS was NOT trying to alienate it's customers here. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that they hurt themselves big time over their statements, but it was NEVER their intent to do so. The whole point was to implement a system that would provide enough benefits to outweigh, if not far outweigh, the downsides of that system. Just like implementing CDs, DVDs, and eventually Blu-Ray into the whole system, while providing enormous amounts of space, each itteration has introduced longer load times, scratched discs, dirty read heads, failed read lasers, and a number of other problems that previous models weren't plagued with (okay the dirty read head could be similar enough to dirty pins, but you get my point here).
I'm willing to bet that if they had stuck to their guns, and the backlash hadn't been as bad as it was, that, while there WOULD be those that would be negatively impacted by the newly implemented features, and thus, restrictions, that MS would have changed things to work out in ways that would have HELPED their customer base be more loyal customers. MS and Sony both know this. They're both HUGE players in the industry. As much as I've seen people talk about companies wanting to get the quick buck, Sony and MS are NOT stupid enough to stab themselves in the foot to implement features that would pay off big in the beginning but would end up hurting them in the long run.
See above statement about what Microsoft was NOT doing. We live in a capitalistic world. The system works best with money lubricating all the gears and cogs. If the system came out as originally planned, and made money, then we'd all be better for it. If the system did not make money, MS would have changed whatever issues necessary to make it a profitable one, once again. This is how the system works. It's not big brother trying to keep us under their almighty heel.
hmmm I'm a terrible pirate lol
