Someone at gizmodo got a truck of money to write that rubish. I bet even he doesnt belive what he wrote, but money can change your believs 180 degrees instantly.

Yeah I read this earlier and I agree with the above posters - that essay paints a picture so rosy of the Xbox One's previous policies that it beggars belief. At first I thought the #dealwithit Adam Orth was fired because his PR sensibilities didn't align with how MS wanted to paint their msg, but it turns out that level of arrogance was, until the recent mea culpa, exactly what they decided to go with. And this guy is claiming those policies were all really for the gamer's benefit? I mean if some of what he said had in fact come to pass with cheap digital games + user reselling of digital/physical content that actually was better for the consumer then of course that would be wonderful. But frankly that wasn't the most likely end result, it wasn't necessary to have many of those restrictions to achieve it, and given MS' attitude, the region locking, etc ... his statements asserting such a future skate the line of delusion.

Judging by the urls alone I can tell I don't need to add to his views. Apparently we're all jealous and it's all our fault. Well, he can #DealWithIt.

I'd go even further than that:

Digital copies of AAA games are often more expensive at their standard prices than physical copies of the same games at their standard prices, sometimes quite a lot more.

Steam apologists will often quote the Steam sales as if the prices were at that level perpetually. They're not. Retail stores also do limited-time offers on individual games. What matters are the prices of the games the majority of the time.

But it's often like talking to a brick wall. They'll always compare Steam sale prices to full-price release day retail prices in a vain attempt to prove a point.

Don Mattrick:

"Since unveiling our plans for Xbox One, my team and I have heard directly from many of you, read your comments and listened to your feedback," he wrote. "I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your assistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One. You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have today with games delivered on disc. The ability to lend, share, and resell these games at your discretion is of incredible importance to you. Also important to you is the freedom to play offline, for any length of time, anywhere in the world."

So, what, they were unaware of this? Kinda seems like that should be included in the "basic gaming rights", no?

You're the brick wall here.

Today's model of sales is that there is constant sale. Every time of every day games are on sale. There is no simple reason to buy full prices.

When you compare sales on physical games and digital games, physical always loose. You could've bouht Hitman Absolution for few bucks more than few times digitally. How many times in retail? Probably none.

Who cares?

No, and no.

Valve said many times before, during the sales their profits elevate 3000% (three thousand) percent.
Just from the fact games are on discounts at pre-orders, a week after release, month after release, shows they cater to people who buy on sales.

After switching to digital, I never paid more than 10 EUR for an AAA game That wasn't possible in retail. Not that fast, not that often.

But boy, do they drop in price pretty fast.

Day one price may be steep, but the general price on games have gone down. So digital distribution have lowered the price on games.

The industry does, which was rather the point. But you are obviously not interested in discussing these issues, so don't let me keep you.

I'd do a drive-by argument, but I'm more intelligent than that. A better comparison for X1 would be Steam. X1 was attempting to tie games to accounts, much like Steam does. Of course you can still trade in games on the console, but in Microsoft's case you had to pay for a new license (If anyone an link me an article explaining X1's DRM so I can read further, much appreciated).
Now while moving towards a Steam-like system is great and all (or is it?), it took Steam the better part of a decade to reach its position, both in the market & with fans (need I say more about Steam/ Valve fanboys?). Furthermore, console gamers are very much used to being able to trade games in & stuff. Such a radical market shift isn't going to happen overnight.

Full price exists only because there are people impatient enough to buy them. And even then they usually get 10% off.

It's like bargaining. They show you something vastly overpriced, and only if you really don't care at all, you buy at that price.

Games sell on full price only immediately after release. They don't sell AT ALL between sales. It's the price for stupid people, yes.

Problem is, I don't think that the market shift is going to happen in the way that anyone is aiming towards.

The goal of publishers is to have games distributed solely digitally at a perpetual €60. They 'tolerate' these temporary sales to encourage a full shift towards digital. If ever this shift were realised, you can wave goodbye to those Steam sales.

PC gamers on the other hand are for the most part only interested in Steam for its sales. If ever these sales disappeared, Steam's revenue would rapidly nosedive.

Basically, it's a model that's digging its own grave.

I'll raise you the people buying the games even before they come out, without having a clue how the actual game will feel.

I can do one better: players pre-purchasing DLC "Season Passes" prior to the game's release. :)

Season Passes are a publisher's dream; players are not only buying a game they haven't played yet but they're also paying in advance for DLC that doesn't exist yet based on the vaguest of descriptions of what it might contain, all in the hope that the thing they're throwing money at to "save" 10% of its final price is actually going to be something they would have knowingly spend the other 90% of that money on.

If you have a rock solid internet connection and don't care about game preservation then you probably didn't care or outright desired the added digital features. I don't think the article is "wrong," it's just an alternate perspective. One that I VEHEMENTLY disagree with, because I think preserving art is important, but I don't think he's "wrong" really.

It's always good to see where others are coming from when you disagree with them.