ZEQ2 Lite

Saturday, June 15, 2013

PlayStation 4 got 840k pre ordered the xboxone got already 2 million how it comes I don't know probably because xbox one allows to play more games at the same time + chat or any other process while PlayStation 4 only allows 1 application

and also every third guy in the world got internet microsoft is just align that

and also you don't need to be connected whole time in the internet ,you can turn off the functions with kinect with speak command which was said in the E3
it just need to be once connected a day because of the daily updates and streaming stuffs for tv skype and gaming even

in my opinion: I think I try out the xbox one it got my full attention after all I want to be entertained

I'm not a fan boy or something I own currently PlayStation 3

Saturday, June 15, 2013

This thread has so much information and so few valid sources.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

I'm displeased with what I've heard about the XBOX One, since I already have "media devices"

This is a perfectly valid view presented in a qualified way that expresses your desires/needs compared to what's offered by a product. This may seem obvious to some, but I'm mentioning this because it shows how someone can still have a perspective about a matter that has weight because of how they specify it based on actual comparative/focused objectivity.

In your statements you aren't being negatively broad by saying the system is bad or faulty. You are simply saying that it doesn't fit your personal goals or interests as a consumer (based on presentation qualities).

and also every third guy in the world got internet microsoft is just align that

What about users in third-world countries, those with metered/scheduled internet, or even those that have just moved or experience outages? Additionally, I know plenty of people here that have console systems and refuse to get home internet because they have ample services from their mobile providers for their needs. Sure, they could tether and meet the daily quota, but not everyone will immediately have knowledge on doing this -- granted I'm sure proxying software for XBox One daily checkins will crop up on IOS/Android in no time flat.

This thread has so much information and so few valid sources.

Yes, and you totally just helped identify and resolve whatever misconceptions you think exist with your post.

Monday, June 17, 2013

PlayStation 4 has won not only due to it's reduced price compared to the Xbox one but also in terms of the fewer restrictions it has compared to the PlayStation 4.

@Zeth, I used my phone so there were a few typos also yes it's true I haven't read your post, I only posted due to the thread.... by the way relax and stop over-reacting

Monday, June 17, 2013

Laguna|DaGGeR wrote : PlayStation 4 got 840k pre ordered the xboxone got already 2 million how it comes I don't know probably because xbox one allows to play more games at the same time + chat or any other process while PlayStation 4 only allows 1 application

and also every third guy in the world got internet microsoft is just align that

and also you don't need to be connected whole time in the internet ,you can turn off the functions with kinect with speak command which was said in the E3
it just need to be once connected a day because of the daily updates and streaming stuffs for tv skype and gaming even

in my opinion: I think I try out the xbox one it got my full attention after all I want to be entertained

I'm not a fan boy or something I own currently PlayStation 3

Where are you getting these numbers from last time I read it's outselling the Xbox One. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHNNhL1v9sY I'm pretty sure the PlayStation 4 can be modified to run more than 1 application at a time. Seeing as though the PlayStation 4 is better hardware wise. I have talked to some friends and they still will take the Xbox One over the PlayStation 4 because it's more of their style. To be honest it does do more and has a better launch for games, for now. However, PlayStation 4 is providing quantity later on. While the Xbox One has a good start up release, I hope it remains consistent. End of the day still getting a PlayStation 4 it's overall cheaper, I get more for my money(free games every week) and I have always loved Sony's style.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

dokumas gamestop had confirmed xbox one to be currently most pre ordered console this year

and if you have xbox gold you get more then 1 game every month for download *laughing out loud* every knows that so Postscript plus and gold kind of same

by the way don mattrick also confirmed no permanent internet connection anymore and games can be shared when ever they want!

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

I was PlayStation fan but I was kind of boored for the less opportunitys we had I think I might try the xbox one out because I want to try out playing 2 games at same time *intense laughter*

Thursday, June 20, 2013

wowowow xbox changed their policies. mustve learned their lesson I was going to get xbox regardless though

Saturday, June 22, 2013

@ Laguna I'm talking overall not just Gamestop, that's a small scope. You get FREE GAMES for the XBOX 360 until 31 DECEMBER 2013, on the 1st and the 16th of each month. I believe next month we will get Halo 3 and Assassins Creed II or maybe 3. On the Xbox One you won't get free games like this. Another thing the games are only kept free on the month of the release. Afterwards, you have to pay. PlayStation is sticking to free to play games. Also, if something is labeled free on PlayStation it doesn't revert to paid again. We pay for a Xbox Live Gold Subscription, which is the price of a game and we are JUST NOW getting this feature.

Similarity between Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus. You get more for your money, $49.99 PlayStation Plus. Xbox Gold $60.00, $40.00 one time year and that's around February. Discounts off games/Game bundles(they can be even new games), free games, free themes/wallpapers/avatars. On Xbox Live you get to play online, have access to party chats, get free games for now, every once awhile a free movie, minor discount off games, Xbox Live Rewards which takes forever to accumulate points to buy anything except addons. Playing 2 games at once what's the point? After awhile you probably won't even use half of the systems features. The only thing that brought me to Xbox Live was the Party Chat that's it.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

ssj6vegeta wrote : wowowow xbox changed their policies. mustve learned their lesson :*laughing out loud*: :*laughing out loud*: I was going to get xbox regardless though

Silly person. That victory is hollow. Do people REALLY not get that they are essentially worse off?

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Dokumas wrote : @ Laguna I'm talking overall not just Gamestop, that's a small scope. You get FREE GAMES for the XBOX 360 until 31 DECEMBER 2013, on the 1st and the 16th of each month. I believe next month we will get Halo 3 and Assassins Creed II or maybe 3. On the Xbox One you won't get free games like this. Another thing the games are only kept free on the month of the release. Afterwards, you have to pay. PlayStation is sticking to free to play games. Also, if something is labeled free on PlayStation it doesn't revert to paid again. We pay for a Xbox Live Gold Subscription, which is the price of a game and we are JUST NOW getting this feature.

Similarity between Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus. You get more for your money, $49.99 PlayStation Plus. Xbox Gold $60.00, $40.00 one time year and that's around February. Discounts off games/Game bundles(they can be even new games), free games, free themes/wallpapers/avatars. On Xbox Live you get to play online, have access to party chats, get free games for now, every once awhile a free movie, minor discount off games, Xbox Live Rewards which takes forever to accumulate points to buy anything except addons. Playing 2 games at once what's the point? After awhile you probably won't even use half of the systems features. The only thing that brought me to Xbox Live was the Party Chat that's it.

actually xbox live costs 39€ for 12+2 months *laughing out loud*

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Alright, just checked price at Gamestop $59.99 other places $40-$50. Still you don't get as much as PSN regardless.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Dokumas wrote : Alright, just checked price at Gamestop $59.99 other places $40-$50. Still you don't get as much as PSN regardless.

psn for the win , no doubt , I got $100s of worth of games this year including big titles like arkham city

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Grega wrote :

ssj6vegeta wrote : wowowow xbox changed their policies. mustve learned their lesson :*laughing out loud*: :*laughing out loud*: I was going to get xbox regardless though

Silly person. That victory is hollow. Do people REALLY not get that they are essentially worse off?

Agreed. While it is a temporary victory(until they try and push the idea of "always on" and "no used games" again... This isn't the first time they tried to do this, if I remember correctly...), it's very much a hollow one, because we know that Microsoft's end goal is to eventually convert over to those very same policies that they just dropped at some later date anyways, they just aren't doing it "now" because fans are complaining. They'll probably try it again with a future "slim/Pro" version of the console at a later date, or most definitely will force it down our throats come XBOX Two(Assuming they decide to actually count now if they're going to start using numbers in their names... Most likely, not. The next console is probably going to be XBOX-2600 or some such random bull...).

Besides, the conceded and inappropriately high level of snark involved in the way in which they handled this whole issue already damaged the company's image immensely, plus the fact that they had to back track away from those policies in the first place shows that they know how badly they messed up with having those policies to begin with.

Suffice to say, Microsoft essentially put the proverbial foot in their mouth over this whole issue. Sony is eating it up, and loving this, and the entire gaming industry seems to be ignoring Nintendo at the moment which has me perturbed...

Not only is Nintendo's next-gen system already out, it's got all of the strengths everyone is demanding of a next-gen system(HD graphics, free online capable play, quality games, no "membership fee" to watch streaming video services that you're already paying for, exc.), and very few weaknesses aside from low quantity of games right now, but that's not that strange with a new console. It takes years to build a sizable game catalog after all.

In fact, the WiiU has quite a few awesome features that the other systems lack, such as Miiverse(A Nintendo "Twitter" like service, where you can chat with people, post responses, draw pretty pictures, follow people{Useful for when you spot a really awesome artist}), backwards compatibility with Wii games(Neither the PlayStation 4 or XBOX One are backwards compatible from what I've heard), and my personal favorite: the ability to play your game on the Tablet screen freeing up the TV for uncooperative siblings or parents to watch TV while you can continue playing your game, or better yet, allowing you to watch Saturday Morning Cartoons(Or Your Anime/Show/Movie of Choice...) and play video games AT THE SAME TIME!!! I only WISH I could have done that as a kid!

Granted, yes, I already have a WiiU, and I've been a fan of Nintendo since I played Dr. Mario on the original Nintendo back in the 80s, so my opinion might be somewhat biased from nostalgia and company loyalty, but it is an awesome system dagnabbit!

Sunday, June 23, 2013

that's not what I meant.

I mean the following.

What they removed is the notion that their system would become almost identical to STEAM with the added option of selling your games, leting 10 people out of your friends list be able to play the games with no drawbacks, having access to your games from everywhere just by logging in to your account, future steam like discount possibilities due to the slow abolishment of the used games market, letting your family members unrestricted access to your games, and even having the option of playing the same game as one of your friends most probably even multiplayer at the same time.

What you are stuck with is this.

A 100 bucks worth of hardware (kinect) with the potential to break (as in one extra thing that can break in the console), that can not be fully turned off and is only put in sleeping mode with an explanation that it will not be observing you in this state if you believe microsoft.

A DRM system that requires an always online connection in the form of cloud processing. And as time goes on more and more games will be using it, if not for the DRM (like Sim City), then to compensate for the aging hardware of the console. No online games list, leaving a possibility of disc failure as an extra thing to break. Be forced to take your disc collection with you everywhere in order to play games, and not being able to play the same game with one of your friends unless you both bought it.

So congrats this victory resulted in nothing, but the fact that you'll have to carry more stuff round with you if you want to play your games, but at least you can resell your games for 10 bucks so game companies can sell them to someone else for 40 or so, and you don't need your console to dial home once every 24 hours.

A shining victory with exactly nothing gained, except the ego boost that microsoft was forced to back down.

So tell me does it really sound like a victory to you?

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Wow, I didn't know that Grega. Definitely not getting a One now. Also, for the Xbox One you have to do an update to remove the old policy for the Xbox One. Like Shenku said they could bring it back. Microsoft is probably trying to make some quick sells and then revert it's policies. By the way this is something that's touched on very little what hardware/software issues will the next gen systems have. Xbox 360 had a bad record.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Dokumas wrote : Wow, I didn't know that Grega. Definitely not getting a One now. Also, for the Xbox One you have to do an update to remove the old policy for the Xbox One. Like Skatter said they could bring it back. Microsoft is probably trying to make some quick sells and then revert it's policies. By the way this is something that's touched on very little what hardware/software issues will the next gen systems have. Xbox 360 had a bad record.

There is nothing wrong with their model. They essentially made STEAM on console. Yet for some reason the console player base went all up in arms about it instead of the real issues the slam thing presents.

Their online account DRM system as it was called is pretty much an exact replica of STEAM with the added bonus of selling games and letting your friends/family play your games without you needing to give them your account credentials.

And that's all that got removed. Quite honestly this has got to be one of the stupidest things gamers could jump at.

"Wow no more used games what the heck" So what. PC doesn't have used games since ages. that's the sole reason why we have so many discounts from digital retailers. Since there is no more business loss from the used games market, they can afford to be sold cheaper VIA discounts. And that's what microsoft was moving towards.

It was like STEAM back in 2003. A system everyone hated, but then as time went by everyone was proven just how wrong they were.

So this got jumped instead of the always connected kinect, or the fact that cloud processing is not an optional thing and can act as an always on DRM.

Quite honestly I don't know why people are so blind.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Grega wrote :

Dokumas wrote : Wow, I didn't know that Grega. Definitely not getting a One now. Also, for the Xbox One you have to do an update to remove the old policy for the Xbox One. Like Skatter said they could bring it back. Microsoft is probably trying to make some quick sells and then revert it's policies. By the way this is something that's touched on very little what hardware/software issues will the next gen systems have. Xbox 360 had a bad record.

There is nothing wrong with their model. They essentially made STEAM on console. Yet for some reason the console player base went all up in arms about it instead of the real issues the slam thing presents.

Their online account DRM system as it was called is pretty much an exact replica of STEAM with the added bonus of selling games and letting your friends/family play your games without you needing to give them your account credentials.

And that's all that got removed. Quite honestly this has got to be one of the stupidest things gamers could jump at.

"Wow no more used games what the heck" So what. PC doesn't have used games since ages. that's the sole reason why we have so many discounts from digital retailers. Since there is no more business loss from the used games market, they can afford to be sold cheaper VIA discounts. And that's what microsoft was moving towards.

It was like STEAM back in 2003. A system everyone hated, but then as time went by everyone was proven just how wrong they were.

So this got jumped instead of the always connected kinect, or the fact that cloud processing is not an optional thing and can act as an always on DRM.

Quite honestly I don't know why people are so blind.

I can see your point, but there's one key difference between STEAM and the XBOX One's former proposed online content system. You can use STEAM offline. The XBOX One however was suppose to have forced you to always be online. For some people, especially people with spotty or unreliable internet(I have Comcast in the Chicago area, and even my internet can be a little unreliable at times... And that's an area that "should" have reliable connections to internet services, one would think.), this makes a HUGE difference.

Besides that, there's the fact that the idea of not being able to resell games doesn't appeal to a lot of people who are "console gamers", simply because a lot of those people have short attention spans when it comes to video games. I've known people who regularly buy a game, play it for a few days, maybe beat it, then bring it back and exchange it for a new game. Then there's game rental services, such as Gamefly or some Redbox locations, which wouldn't be able to support the XBOX One under its "No sharing" system, because anyone renting the game would have to pay the full cost of the game just to play it anyways, so why bother renting it at all? Those companies then drop the XBOX from their supported services, and only support WiiU and PlayStation 4 titles, which helps encourage sales of games for those two systems, while XBOX gets squat from it.

When it comes right down to it, Microsoft was only considering the Pros when it came to their new-old policy; it seems like they hadn't considered any of the possible Cons that would come from it, and they were too smugly dismissive of anyone who complained.

Is it a victory? Not really. But it's not really a total loss either. It's kind of in that grey area in between where we're not really sure who's getting more benefits from this... Granted, regardless of what ground Microsoft gives up, they still hold all the cards, so even if they lose they win...

Sunday, June 23, 2013

I find it humorous that I made majority of these points about Steam and the used game concept in my first post in this thread yet no one says a word until Grega makes almost identical points.

Used games (as they stand now) are bad for the consumer, bad for the developers, and bad for the marketplace overall. Gamestop is the only one really profiting and yet ill-informed, superficial fanatics still fight towards an archaic system with detrimental resolutions.

Although short-sighted in some areas of tact and pre-emptive on the strike, what XBox One was doing was actually a PROGRESSIVE MOVE.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Shenku wrote : I can see your point, but there's one key difference between STEAM and the XBOX One's former proposed online content system. You can use STEAM offline. The XBOX One however was suppose to have forced you to always be online. For some people, especially people with spotty or unreliable internet(I have Comcast in the Chicago area, and even my internet can be a little unreliable at times... And that's an area that "should" have reliable connections to internet services, one would think.), this makes a HUGE difference.

No. They were going to call home once every 24 hours. Meaning you needed a couple of seconds connection per day, not full time. And how is that different from STEAM? When the bloody thing first came out, you first had to go online, to even be able to switch to offline mode. Change comes with time, but it never comes for as long as you are sitting on your buttocks. Besides you are still stuck with a full time always on DRM in the form of cloud processing. I mean the idea is great. Have servers calculate data and stream it to you, so that you can boost up the quality without a higher hardware setup. The down side is that unless your connection is on, you can't play the bloody game. Remember how Sim City is. People randomly being thrown out, the servers overstressed causing people to be unable to play. And if you don't have a connection you can not play your single player game because of an interesting feature that can and will be abused as DRM.

Shenku wrote : Besides that, there's the fact that the idea of not being able to resell games doesn't appeal to a lot of people who are "console gamers", simply because a lot of those people have short attention spans when it comes to video games. I've known people who regularly buy a game, play it for a few days, maybe beat it, then bring it back and exchange it for a new game. Then there's game rental services, such as Gamefly or some Redbox locations, which wouldn't be able to support the XBOX One under its "No sharing" system, because anyone renting the game would have to pay the full cost of the game just to play it anyways, so why bother renting it at all? Those companies then drop the XBOX from their supported services, and only support WiiU and PlayStation 4 titles, which helps encourage sales of games for those two systems, while XBOX gets squat from it.

You are talking out of your buttocks. The idea was that you would be able to resell the game you buy. But only if you bought it first hand. Its something you can not do with STEAM, yet you don't see people complaining about it. What it also means is that devs and publishers would get a piece of that money. Gamestop would not be able to hog it all. As for rental services. That one is an easy fix. It would require a bit of time, but you can easily adapt to renting games by essentially having 1 game per login, and then renting the logins while changing the passwords for each buyer. Its called adapting your business to suit the market. So that point is invalid. Not only that, but because you would be able to play the same game on 2 accounts, those companies would be able to rent the same game twice without any repercussions to either of the 2 customers. Or having problems with scratched discs.

Shenku wrote : When it comes right down to it, Microsoft was only considering the Pros when it came to their new-old policy; it seems like they hadn't considered any of the possible Cons that would come from it, and they were too smugly dismissive of anyone who complained.

Were they? Have you heard that ever since the announcement Valve has been working on a system to "lend" games from your steam list to your friends. There were multiple reports of code being found in STEAMs beta updates that contain warnings of the owner of the game starting it and you being kicked out shortly and similar messages.
So if they were only seeing the pros, then why the heck do you think Valve got so spooked and started developing such a system.

Shenku wrote : Is it a victory? Not really. But it's not really a total loss either. It's kind of in that grey area in between where we're not really sure who's getting more benefits from this... Granted, regardless of what ground Microsoft gives up, they still hold all the cards, so even if they lose they win...

No its a total loss. The market for xbox was moving to digital. Which means steam like discount possibilities on NEW titles, not to mention the big bad DRM everyone was afraid of, is a harmless baby compared to the DRM possibility of cloud processing. And an always on kinect not only posses an extra possibility of breaking your console, but it also represents a security risk.


Its a total loss as soon as you take in to account all the facts. People were fighting against the wrong side of the policies.


@Zeth you know how the community works. They don't respond when you are presenting facts. They only respond when you call them out directly on those facts and show them the errors of their thinking.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Grega wrote :

Shenku wrote : Besides that, there's the fact that the idea of not being able to resell games doesn't appeal to a lot of people who are "console gamers", simply because a lot of those people have short attention spans when it comes to video games. I've known people who regularly buy a game, play it for a few days, maybe beat it, then bring it back and exchange it for a new game. Then there's game rental services, such as Gamefly or some Redbox locations, which wouldn't be able to support the XBOX One under its "No sharing" system, because anyone renting the game would have to pay the full cost of the game just to play it anyways, so why bother renting it at all? Those companies then drop the XBOX from their supported services, and only support WiiU and PlayStation 4 titles, which helps encourage sales of games for those two systems, while XBOX gets squat from it.

You are talking out of your buttocks. The idea was that you would be able to resell the game you buy. But only if you bought it first hand. Its something you can not do with STEAM, yet you don't see people complaining about it. What it also means is that devs and publishers would get a piece of that money. Gamestop would not be able to hog it all. As for rental services. That one is an easy fix. It would require a bit of time, but you can easily adapt to renting games by essentially having 1 game per login, and then renting the logins while changing the passwords for each buyer. Its called adapting your business to suit the market. So that point is invalid. Not only that, but because you would be able to play the same game on 2 accounts, those companies would be able to rent the same game twice without any repercussions to either of the 2 customers. Or having problems with scratched discs.

How exactly am I "talking out of my buttocks" when I'm trying to point out to you that PC Gamers(And by extension, Steam users) are different from Console Gamers... This is an important distinction as Console Gamers are use to a very different style of consumer market from what PC Gamers are, and often is the case most Console Gamers don't even own gaming PCs to know the difference between their market and the PC Game market. You can't just jam a new market style down their throats and expect them to like it, it doesn't work like that as the backlash against Microsoft shows very clearly.

PC Gamers have been eased into their current digital age over the course of two plus decades, Console Gamers have been spoiled and catered to for more than three decades. You can't just change the market over night and expect everyone to be happy about it, then turn around and insult the ones who aren't happy.

The fact is, Console Games and PC Games have always been marketed differently, and if anyone is going to change it, they have to do it slowly. They can't just ram it all through at once, or it's going to tinkle off too many people. That, in entirety, is my point.

I'm not defending the ideology that Console Gamers have(Personally, I could care less about reselling games, since even the worst of Console games that I've purchased I still own and will probably never get rid of... Case and point, Iron Man for the 360 was a terrible game, and yet it's still sitting on my shelf collecting dust), but I know enough Console Gamers that I understand their mentality very well. You can't force them to accept change, you have to offer it in a way that they will willingly accept. Microsoft didn't do that though; they tried to force it on people with the XBOX One, and people don't like being forced, hence the adverse reaction from XBOX fans... If anything, I'm playing devil's advocate, and am trying to explain things from the Console Gamer's point of view. You however seem to be looking at everything from only your perspective of being a PC Gamer. The two types of Gamers are in fact very different, and always have been. You can't treat them the same, because fundamentally they aren't. And that's the point I'm really trying to get across to you.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Console games are at the same state as PC games were in the 90s.

As for the digitization of PC games, that started in 2003 with STEAM. And oh was it a zippy system at the time. But STEAM and Valve are the only reason why we have a different market on the PC.

Even before that buying online meant simply getting the disc in the mail. it's the exact same as console games. And where did you get 2 decades. The digitization of PC gaming went from round 2004 when WON was closed up to about 2006/07 when STEAM started featuring other major publisher titles.

With the talking out of your buttocks I was referring to this part

Besides that, there's the fact that the idea of not being able to resell games doesn't appeal to a lot of people who are "console gamers", simply because a lot of those people have short attention spans when it comes to video games.

Since Microsoft clearly stated that you would be able to resell the games as long as you bought them first hand.

Also PC and console games have been marketed exactly the same, and still are marketed the same. it's the system that runs the games that's marketed differently.

I agree that microsoft botched up the presentation and all their controversial statements didn't help much. They focused on the wrong things, but I am not looking at it from a PC gamers stand point. If I was I'd say "who cares the PC is superior anyhow" since PC gamer mentality is pretty elitist. I'm looking at it from a logical unbaised viewpoint. I'm saying what makes the most sense and what has the most potential, and that the celebrated victory is nothing but a farce, because console players didn't gain anything, but only lost a lot of possibilities. This move effectively shoved the foot up peoples mouths since not one of them was talking about the real issues with the console, but the rest were just on the band wagon for the sake of pointing fingers.

Monday, June 24, 2013

this is off topic but does anyone know a free-to-play mmo that doesn't require a strong computer?

Monday, June 24, 2013

mu online also availible for PlayStation 4 and xbone!! nah just kidding

Monday, June 24, 2013

Grega wrote :
Also PC and console games have been marketed exactly the same, and still are marketed the same. it's the system that runs the games that's marketed differently.

Again, no, they are not. If they were marketed the same, than there would be just as many PC games when I walk into a Gamestop as there are XBOX or PlayStation games, but there aren't. PC Games are marketed predominantly through the internet, not through game stores. That right there is a crucial difference, because you can't resell a digital download.

And I said two decades, not because of Steam, but because of the slow evolution of PC games since the '90s that eventually lead up to software like Steam, and eventually to the current state we have now. While you couldn't download the games then like you can now, you had a better chance of finding and buying physical copies of some games through the internet than you did with big-box stores, such as KMart since Gamestop and EB Games weren't really major players then, and KMart rarely had a decent up-to-date selection of games. Compound that with the massive amounts of websites with download links to Abandonware and Freeware games that had been floating around on the internet for years, plus emulated roms, plus pirated games, exc., and you have PC Gamers who have had years and years of downloading their games digitally through the internet, legitimate or not. Steam just made a legal way to do so, and made Valve and the developers of those games a ton of profit from it since people were actually paying for those downloads now. So yes, I say "two decades" because while "legitimate and legal" downloads have only been around for about ten years, "illegitimate" downloads have been around far longer.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The reason why there were less games on stores, is because PCs were never seen the same way Consoles were from the stores perspective. They treet games and consoles like toys, while the PCs are treated differently due to all the other things you can do in it besides play games. Also all you needed to run a PC game store was a website. There was no need for big centers with games, when you could simply have a storehouse and ship the things on demand. There was more competition and that's why big companies saw it was not as profitable to sell anything but the latest and greatest.

But the thing is console games are primarily marketed though the internet. All trailers and what not is all done though the internet. Its just the delivery system that's different. And that delivery system was the same in the 90s. The thing that killed off stores selling a lot of PC games was in fact STEAM. The moment you no longer needed a CD in your drive to run the game, game stores started to fade away. And that's what microsoft was trying to do. Be the new STEAM on consoles. They only failed because they didn't correctly advertise their ideas. Heck even STEAM was totally hated for about 3 years before people started accepting it.

plundering booty is also not the slow evolution from stores to online. heck console games have been pirated ever since they switched the cardrige format to disc format. They were pirated as all heck, and still are. Just that now you need a cracked console to do it.

Also abandonware didn't really pick up till after the turn of the millennium. I believe one of the first abandonware games was total anihilation. At the same time we had a boom of flash made remakes of the old games on websites. Freeware is pretty much demos, and consoles have that to. But still flash games and freeware didn't really lead to STEAM. What lead to STEAM was the following. Ease of use. Its why DRM is so hated. Because it still gets cracked within a few weeks, and it only serves as punishment for paying customers. STEAM offered a different solution. "If you buy your games this way, you won't need to worry about scratched CDs, and you will be able to access your games from anywhere in the world as long as there is an internet connection" That is what totally killed off any hold game stores had on the PC.

If anything microsoft botched up by not allowing for both systems to coexist. STEAM allows you to use CD-keys to register games with it. If microsoft used the new system, but at the same time allowed the old one, then the story would be different.