If you're following the current flip-flop in Microsoft's policies today for the Xbox One, you'll notice that the tone of tech sites are opposite of that of the gaming enthusiast press(those two being the extremes of the spectrum). As someone who has taken advantage of the used game stores like Gamestop aggressively, I fully understand their value to consumers. That said, I think unless you've used a platform like Steam you don't fully recognize how much of a greater value that is than the potential of used market. As my friend @rolyatkcinmai said it on twitter:

You guys do realise NBA 2k is $13 on PC and $55 on consoles a month after it comes out precisely because there are no used sales right?

Publishers & Developers are not going to in good faith be aggressive like they are on Steam unless they have the closed system. It doesn't make sense for a business to be aggressive when your system is open, frankly. Since 2003, Steam has created an completely closed system, which lead to the creation of a marketplace where I would never think of selling in my games. Steam currently controls 70% of the PC gaming market, and they did so by creating a market with reliable metrics for publishers & developers which lead to the benefit from it in aggressive sales. Microsoft was going to have exactly that and then expand upon it with their family sharing & trading hub for digital licenses(where publishers got a portion of the sale). They were expanding the idea of digital rights in a really forward thinking way, but it seems gamers got hung up on the no physical trade ins & online check.

I can't help but be bummed out, even if a lot of the benefits were potential & not yet concrete. Potentially the Xbox One was doing what Steam did great, and expanding upon it. Now it won't be and that makes me sad. I'll be looking forward to see what our old friend and compatriot Will Smith has to say about it on the Tested Podcast. Namaste, duders.

@granderojo

Steam doesn't work solely on the premise that one copy = one user, although it certainly helps in crunching numbers. It works largely in part by giving developers extreme control over their games on the service. Assuming Microsoft was gearing up for a similar scheme is totally incongruous to what they've been showing of their hand thus far, with lack of self-publishing and their general disregard for the people who make - or even like - games.

Furthermore, digital sales sting retail, and Microsoft has a vested interest in not doing that - despite some evidence to the contrary in what they tried to do to Gamestop's model. If digital downloads dominate, hard copies will dry up on shelves as soon as someone at Best Buy realizes that they're totally outmatched. They've already got their shipments down to some insane science of ordering as few copies as possible. The change would happen overnight.

Digital and discs do not co-exist well, and if Microsoft truly want their feet in both, that means neither can have an advantage lest the other die out. They can't allow one to outstrip the other for at least a few years in order to accommodate the average user's expectations and understanding of how to buy games for their video-game box. The PC platform is the Wild West - nobody has to care about these things as long as it makes money for their own damn selves. It's not even comparable.

Even beyond a possible danger in breaking that status quo, the fact remains that Microsoft has an absolute monopoly on their digital marketplace, obviously. It does not behoove them to lower prices, because then they get lower dollars.The reason above all else that Steam's and GMG's prices are so low is because they are actively attempting to undercut each other and everyone else in order to induct consumers into their own special brand of PC gaming. They don't sell you NBA 2K13 for $0.99 because they don't want to charge you more. The idea that crazy cheap sales eventually equals more money is just not true when you compare to a highly profitable precedent of $60 like the consoles enjoy. They're working on an entirely different, markedly higher price scale that would make Newell salivate. Nobody wants to jeopardize that. Not the publishers, not the developers, not Microsoft. The idea that they'll "pass the savings on to you, the consumer" is never correct.

So given all this, I don't understand the disappointment some have had over this reversal. Yes, it's a bummer that publishers won't be able to make a bit more money off each hard copy of a game, it's mildly annoying for those who want their games digital, but all this wild conjecture around price points cannot be proven, is actively counter-intuitive, and thus was not lost today.

You're basing your argument on the assumption that the X1 would have had steam-esque sales, which, while possible, I'd bet would likely not happen. Ultimately people are disappointed about their own ideal version on what they hoped the X1 could become, but rarely does the ideal happen.

Yes, you're not looking at the real differences between MS and Valve if you assume the XBO would ever offer Steam-like sales. Steam does what it does because Valve isn't a publicly traded company, and they can and will do whatever the hell they want, in addition to (I'd like to believe) actually caring about their customers. Steam is also operating on an open platform, so their incentive to offer all these sales to stay competitive is much greater. The only people they're beholden to are their customers and secondarily, publishers, who have every right to get the hell off the service if they're unhappy with Steam, à la EA/Origin, again because of the open nature of the PC platform.

MS is beholden to share holders, advertisers, publishers, then customers, and let's be honest here, their track record of what they sell and for how much reflects that. And they're operating on their own closed system, without competition, so their incentive to offer deep discounts is that much lower.

This

The response to today's news proves otherwise I think.

The time will come where we will live in the digital distributed world Microsoft was hoping to bring to us, but that has to happen naturally, the prices on steam came out of an entirely different set of environmental factors than what the Xbox One would have given us. There was absoloutely no incentive to provide comparable prices to Steam on a closed system, there simply isn't need, if anything the re-establishment of disc based games as a separate market will do more for digital game pricing than walling off the system ever would.

There was never a guarantee Microsoft was headed in that direction. I appreciate your tone though, so much of this stuff is written so adversarially it's hard to read, thanks for staying grounded.

MS can do no right.

You guys do realise NBA 2k is $13 on PC and $55 on consoles a month after it comes out precisely because there are no used sales right?

I keep hearing this analogy but I'm pretty sure none of you actually play NBA 2k on PC and console because you'd immediately know that the PC version is gutted of many major features and this happens every year and it'll happen next year too. Just check out how much it costs to pre-order NBA 2k14 on amazon. Fortunately, the devs are smart enough to recognize that they shouldn't charge full price on a version of their game that is lesser than.

Let's get this clear, not allowing the ability to self-publish is a problem that Microsoft has but it's not fair at all to say they have a general disregard for the people who make & play games. I'm sure Swery & Capcom games are very happy that Microsoft is funding the development of their games which wouldn't have been made otherwise. What they showed is that they were going to bring the Steam model to consoles, and then expand upon that with new features. That's what they showed and now it doesn't exist.

The prices are low not because Steam sets them that way but because publishers & developers decided to set them that low or Valve approached them to set them that low. The GMG to Steam competitor exists with these consoles already, it's called PSN.

If people are allowed to tradein games PS4 but not on Xbox One, then 2k has an incentive to price the Xbox copy of their game lower due to the assurance that it's a closed ecosystem.

At the end of the day it's not Steam setting these prices, it's the owners of the content themselves so the argument is completely fallacious. Developers WANT their games to go on sale more on Steam, if you follow enough indie developers you'd know how much it means to them to be on a sale.

Today Xbox One users lost the two most potentially cool things about their console, the ability to share games digitally and the ability to sell digital games used on a hub, and what did we gain?

We gained the ability to play my console in a log cabin with no internet access and Gamestop stays in business. Also no region locking which is hands down a good move.

As for pricing, it's no conjecture, they were clearly going towards that model that Steam has created and the internet said, "We're not ready for progress."

This exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself if I spent days crafting the response.

There would be very little to behoove MS to make sales on the scale of Steam's because they have no one to undercut but themselves.

What needs to happen this generation is Miscrosoft proving that they can support full, digital games on launch, at better value than their disc based counterparts. This coming generation, not the one prior, is crucial to establish that a digital based console is viable. They need to build that trust with people unsure as to whether they want to take the plunge by offering sales and service of that of Steam.

Jumping in headfirst may please the few who want an all digital console but the price of losing their disc based sales as a result just wouldn't pay off.

If Microsoft truly want consumers to embrace the digital side of the business they will have sales regardless, so that the trust is there when the next generation rolls around.

I'm getting really tired of this comparison. Many people have gone over why equating Steam and the possible XBONE infrastructure are an apples and oranges comparison. One is an OPEN platform, and one is a CLOSED platform. Until you can understand what that means for prices of games, we can't have this discussion. Steam prices games LOW to attract people to the service. A closed platform with no competition has no incentive to offer discounted games.

I kinda wish I could have the kind of optimism that allows me to make the kind of assumptions that you're making (no I don't). Only time will tell if I can really trust MS to bring the Steam model to consoles and that's all I really have to say on this stuff because the other users in here already said what I would have said

When people make this argument they forget that the PC is an open platform with many forms of distribution. The Xbox One would have only one form of digital distribution and if microsoft were setting prices, the likelihood of Steam like sales would be minimal at best.

Wha? When was selling digital games a part of the XOne's features?!? I may have missed something amazing, but I think that was really just a completely baseless and likely impossible assumption made by some dude in a Gizmodo article this morning.

Please tell me if I'm wrong, and selling/trading used games was ever mentioned by Microsoft, because that would have been revolutionary.

While the 360 does occasionally have sales, it's nothing compared to what Steam does, in terms of tone or price. Also the problem with Xbox 360 sales are two-fold:

1. It seems like Microsoft intentionally hides sales. Unless you go digging around the "Games" tab on the 360, you're not liable to see them. Frankly, the "XBL sales" forum thread on Cheap Ass Gamer is way more informative and quick to change, than any of the official marketing done by Microsoft.

2. The other problem is consistency and value of sales. Every day at 1pm (PST) there's a new daily sale on Steam. Every Tuesday is a mid-week sale from Tues. to Thur. with usually two games marked down. And then on Thursday begins the weekend sale for two more games. There's also weekly sales, coupons for games, and just Steam/CD key websites (if you want to go that route) that further show you can save money on Steam.

Contrast this with Microsoft, which barely announces sales on Tuesday, often times not even on the console. When I have to go to Major Nelson's website to see what is marked down on the 360, someone has screwed up.

Even besides these two points though is the inherent fallacy of NBA 2K being cheaper on PC than on the 360. "Yes" it is cheaper, but it's also a neutered version of the game. Although strangely, NBA2K12 is more expensive than 13 on Amazon right now for the 360 version.

Here's a good question for you: Why is Modern Warfare 3 $60 on Games on Demand, and $40 on Steam, or for disk-basked versions (with a DLC pack included)? If you forego the DLC pack, it's $30. That's IF you buy it new, if you grab it used it's around $23/$10, respectively.

The fallacy is that you assume Microsoft would've had sales like Steam. There's no incentive for them to have done so, though. And considering their track record for the 360, it would've been about as half-assedly done. They have a platform now they could be exploiting heavily or sales, but they don't.

No that was one of the bullet points for the console. Publishers were going to be given the chance to create a hub for you to sell and resell licenses to their games. They would not only get their cut from the initial sale, but a cut of any future resell of the license, circumventing Gamestop.

I think you're confusing this with the optional fees that Microsoft (after being utterly unclear for over a week) made the Publisher's responsibility. They could add a fee, or not, if you wanted to sell a disk you purchased at "participating retailers". Not circumventing GameStop, but adding an additional cost to selling your "license".

I've looked, and the only thing I could find about actually reselling digital games on the XOne was this random quote from Phil Harrison:

"We will have a solution—we’re not talking about it today—for you to be able to trade your previously-played games online,"

And that's it. Again, I may be wrong, but trading games online seemed like a random promise with no actual plan behind it. Far from being one of the "bullet points" of the console as you claim.

@mrfluke: That image is pretty misleading, sure a large portion of the US as a land mass may not have broadband but if you were to overlay an actual population density map I bet it would match up pretty well.

Also, the blog from the same site you linked that image states "The percentage of Americans with access to broadband with speeds of 25 Mbps or greater has grown from nearly 50 percent in 2010 to more than 78 percent in 2012." http://www.broadbandmap.gov/blog/3009/ntia-explores-broadband-availability-in-new-report-series/

• Xbox Live Arcade
• Xbox Live Indie Games
• Games on Demand
• Games for Windows Live

But somehow Steam is the best comparison.

Steam doesnt require a check-in every 24 hours for the games to work. Microsoft could have implemented the same kind of policy but they didnt.

Instead Microsoft wanted to implement a DRM policy that seems to think that the users are always "guilty" in their behaviour when giving their games to other people. Steam´s DRM policy on the other hand is build on "trust". It is still a DRM but one that I can live with.

I am not willing to give my rights as a consumer just because the technology seems cool. Neither am I willing to have a large corporation controlling every aspect of what I do with that particular device. It seems that some of these tech sites are so enamoured of the technology that they are brushing aside the issues relating to the consumer rights.

Maybe it would be better to admit that sometimes we "consumers" are right instead of trying to act like we are the uneducated and ignorant masses that just cant appriciate the advantages of the technological paradise that Microsoft offered us.

Then again there is Windows 8. Which I am sure that these same tech sites praised to high heavens when it came out. How did that system perform again sales wise?

I was agreeing with you all the way up until the Windows 8 point you made. Windows 8 is a fantastic OS and it's sales figures are pretty much exactly the same as 7 was at this point in its life.

The comparisons to Steam are false, because it would never be like that on a closed platform. The absence of competition would make it wide open to being abused -ie. the exact opposite of how the PC market operates.

You can go buy a DRM free copy of The Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition right now for $6, bypassing Steam entirely and getting it direct from the creators. None of the restrictions Microsoft were proposing have been remotely necessary in order to make that happen. Steam's sales (and overall quality) exist because they have to compete in an open market where anything can happen, not despite it.

This. Also, rigid DRM policies on PC were in place BEFORE Steam arrived. Steam actually made it easier to access your games.

@mrfluke
You know who is really excited about this in NA? AT&T, Comcrap and the likes. That is who the intranetz should be yelling at, hand over fist they make crazy profits, and when it comes to actually spending any of that money to upgrade or straight up build infrastructure or improve service they drag their feet. The real question should be why the fuck isn't "optimal internet" available everywhere in the US? Hell they have even been granted subsidized loans in states and still those states don't have full coverage (NH).

@granderojo:

More like: "Millions buy NBA 2K on the consoles and thousands buy NBA 2K on the PC. So, let's keep the price relatively the same on the consoles months after its release cause people will still buy it in anticipation over the next game coming out later this year. Those sales will still be better than anything we ever get on the PC."

Sales for NBA 2K at $55 months after its release on consoles > Sales for NBA 2K at $15 months after its release (and initially I bet) on PC

@granderojo There's absolutely no evidence to show that they were intent on culturing a Steam-like eco-system outside of the fact that they had (even more restrictive) DRM. Closing the system does not equal lower prices, unless that's explicitly stated. Saying otherwise is plainly wishful thinking.

I'm aware that publishers set the price on Steam. As I said, Steam works by giving control. It just doesn't matter who sets the prices. Whoever is doing so knows that you definitely can't sell a game well at $60 on PC, and that you can barely sell it at $50. They're competing with "free" in piracy, and the only way out is cheap cheap cheap. That's the precedent that's been set. I don't think they're necessarily happy about that, but it's still a platform that some amount of money can be made on, and that closing of the gap has accidentally fostered a great relationship between consumers and producers on the platform.

Game sharing was never properly detailed. Some seem to be assuming that you can just share your game with 10 other friends, which, if true, really brings into question why they have such strict DRM policies primarily to combat basically the exact same thing. It just doesn't make sense for them to allow that kind of service. It seems like people are blowing this way out of proportion, and Microsoft really doesn't want to correct them because it's been the only positive thing being said for a long time now. It's the same as the argument about price points: Unsubstantiated, counter-intuitive, and essentially a non-factor until actually detailed.

Why Giantbomb deleted random parts of my comment I will never know.

Hmm, no. NBA 2K is $13 on PC while still $55 on consoles because the marketplace/store is way more flexible. This pricing had little to nothing to do with "used games" where instead I bet 2K would really really really really really want to sell NBA 2K at $13 on consoles too if they were allowed.

You're right, I'm sure the share holders loved it when they renounced their former DRM policies.

This is what we call a half-truth. Sure no used games is part of the reason, but if you think it's the only one you're pretty much willfully ignoring facts. Both Sony and MS has been selling digital games for a while now, with the same exact "rules" as Steam. There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't do Steam-like sales on their digital stores, but they have chosen not to.

@you_died:

Yes, this.

Plus you don't buy a PC from Gamestop/Game etc (UK), but they are a huge stockists of consoles and hardware (including peripherals). MS want them to sell consoles, simple as that.

Yes!

The most important thing about used physical games for me is that I don't often buy games close to their release. And in a digital marketplace, the price simply doesn't fall in line with physical copies (unless you're lucky enough for the distributor to decide to put on a sale). To take a totally random example, Bioshock 1 costs £14 on steam, and £2 on amazon. That's the main reason I support used games - I don't like waiting for steam to give me a 6 hour flash sale to get the market price for a game. And as many others have said, that would get a million times worse when the distributor has a monopoly.

Also, the PSP Go did fantastically, right?

I don't know how you can in good conscience tell me I'm jumping to conclusions & being incongruous, and then make a ton of assumptions yourself. If you listen to Gabe talk about Steam, he says he doesn't think about Piracy at all, it's not a problem on PC to him & his platform is proving that. Games sell at low prices on Steam because it's the most closed platform on PC. Publishers price aggressively on closed platforms. This is the trend across every closed platform that exists. Whether it be Steam, smart phone app stores, or any such medium. That's why they price aggressively, not due to fear of piracy.

They had such a strict DRM policy because of the sharing functionality to begin with. They need to check to assure you weren't circumventing the system. If you had read about the policy before making an opinion about it you would know that, so please quit making assumptions.

I could type out a long argument on why you are wrong, but Jim Sterling made a video for this, so enjoy. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7370-When-The-Starscreams-Kill-Used-Games

@slider9:

@slider9 said:

@mrfluke: That image is pretty misleading, sure a large portion of the US as a land mass may not have broadband but if you were to overlay an actual population density map I bet it would match up pretty well.

Also, the blog from the same site you linked that image states "The percentage of Americans with access to broadband with speeds of 25 Mbps or greater has grown from nearly 50 percent in 2010 to more than 78 percent in 2012." http://www.broadbandmap.gov/blog/3009/ntia-explores-broadband-availability-in-new-report-series/

"Access to broadband" does not mean 'connected to it' or 'actively paying for it' or having unlimited bandwidth limit to keep downloading 40 gig games every few weeks.

Despite what Gabe says, Piracy is a very real issue he has to deal with. Just because he doesn't give a damn (or says he doesn't) doesn't mean it isn't a threat. It very really is.

Then you're making the mistake of thinking that Steam is a platform and not a service. In the comparison between a PC and an Xbox One, the PC is a very open ended system with multiple store fronts all combating the central issue of rampant piracy whereas the One is a closed system with one store. There's really very little similarity.

Everyone is forgetting one thing and that is that things change extremely fast in this industry, maybe not overnight but in a few years or so all this DRM flip flopping could happen again. None of these policies are set in stone, its just what is being said now so Microsoft can be at a level fighting ground with Sony. This conversation is just going to get more viable and widespread as the years go on. I'm fairly certain we'll see a start to this all digital future on this coming generation its just a matter of when and who pulls the trigger first.

With that said maybe Microsoft's decision to retract its DRM policies isn't a complete reversal but a step back so they can ease their way into it instead of just forcing it on us cold turkey which could be a good thing for all of us if done in a good way. Hell I could be completely wrong but that's the (potential) silver lining as I see it.

That's why you see Apple & Android app publishers gauging people on their completely closed platforms. The monopoly exists, why don't they take advantage of it?

Because that's a terrible idea and they would make no money.

Steam is 70% of the market and it's extremely closed. You might as well not bring up the rest of the market, most developers don't bother porting their games to PC if they can't get on Steam first.

As for what Gabe said, he's smarter than you or I, so I wouldn't make presumptions about something he's said numerous times and clearly believes.

As many have said, here or elsewhere, an all-digital future with no used games is inevitable. It's just the way technology is moving, physical media will die out one day. The problem is that Microsoft pushed a little too hard to make that future happen a little too soon. Trying to enforce digital media DRM on physical media is just a terrible way to go, and I'm glad they realized that. This generation should be about encouraging people to shift to the digital future while maintaining the physical media foundation that has been there the whole time to allow people to fall back on it when connectivity becomes an issue.

As far as people mourning the loss of game-sharing features on the Xbox, I think if Microsoft had really talked about the limitations of those features people wouldn't have been nearly as excited for them. It was never going to be as simple as "add 10 friends to your sharing list and they can play your games!" If you read the licensing terms and the sharing plan ToS, it was more like "add 10 friends as secondary accounts under your control and allow two of them at a time to play the single-player portion of some of your games for a limited time." The game loan thing was restricted to "lend your game for up to 24 hours to someone who's been on your friends list for over 30 days." Used games were limited to one, and only one, license transfer. The person who bought the used game had no option to lend, give away, or sell it.

Given those restrictions, I'm glad they rolled back their plans for now. The idea of sharing digital game libraries is fantastic, but it's an idea that needs to be handled properly, and Microsoft wasn't going to handle it properly. Meanwhile, Steam beta users have actually found evidence through datamining that they might be setting up a shared game library system. Maybe they'll find a better way to implement the concept?

The last thing I'll say is that piracy and used game sales combined do not create as big of a financial black hole as people make them out to be. Just because Cliffy B and TotalBiscuit whine on twitter about used games doesn't mean their arguments have any basis in reality. First sale doctrine applies to all physical media, including games, and so long as games are distributed on disc there's no reason they should get a special exception to the law.

This is silly. The vast majority of game apps aren't worth the same price as games on other platforms. The more expensive ones are priced the same as indie or older games on other platforms. And even when that happens, people get upset that an iOS version of Final Fantasy Tactics or another quality title is overpriced.

Also, you're using monopoly wrong. The publishers don't have a monopoly. They're competing against one another on that platform. They see competitors pricing at $1-3 usually. They knock down their price to get more visibility in the iTunes rankings. And some of them barely break even, if at all.

It doesn't matter what Gabe says, piracy is an issue on the PC whether he believes it or not. There's a lot of very smart people out there that believe a lot of crazy things and if Gabe truly believes piracy isn't a problem on the PC, then more power to him, it doesn't make him right.

70% of the market is not 100%, which is exactly what MS have over their console. It's a massive difference where the 30% help keep Steam's prices down. To ignore that 30% is beyond shortsighted in a way that makes the rest of your argument lose all validity.

He doesn't care about it anymore, but make no mistake, Steam was founded on the concept of piracy. That's the reason it exists. He doesn't care because he beat it.

I really don't see how I'm jumping to conclusions.

It's kind of a foolish thing to argue about this sharing thing at all, since almost nothing is known about it and so it doesn't actually mean anything. But regardless, a lot of what people continue to speculate that this "10 family members" game sharing was supposed to be is circumventing the system, but built right in. You mean to tell me that I can allow 10 of my friends to play my games? Great! But wait, you have this extremely restrictive system in place that makes sure I can't go to a singular friends house, hand them the disc, and let them "share" my game? What.

It makes zero sense. It's a massive leap in logic in so many ways, especially when they're being so incredibly coy of what game sharing actually is. If it really was the case that 10 friends can share games, they'd be touting it front and center. But instead, they don't, because that system simply will not work for them. Looking at it from the most important point of view, how does me sharing a single copy of a game with 10 of my friends sound to a publisher? Dire. Very dire. Like, twice as bad as used games dire. So that will not happen. It cannot.

You also can't wish that Publishers should get some money from used games and then turn around and support this supposed scheme. It's so much worse, because it's a feature and not a work-around.

If I'm misunderstanding what they've actually stated of their policies in some key way, please enlighten me.

@dr_perscitus: This certainly may be true, but that wasnt the point of the map that was posted by @mrfluke which is what i was referring to with my post

Here's the facts we have needed all this time!

Thanks @crunchypickles, I didn't know this was known.

Sharing plan - Limited time demos.

Game loan - 24 hours, so when the system feasibly checks. I take this to mean that you can keep playing until your friend tries to play that game, or until the end of the day - whichever comes first.

Used games - ONE seller. ONE buyer.

Disregarding the fact that all those have been played insanely disingenuously by Microsoft, those are neat features (ignoring the used games bit).

That said, that sharing plan does not need always online to work in the slightest. Timed demos have been a thing for a very long time. The fact that you'd have to find someone to share it to you is actually an added inconvenience. So really the only added bonus here is that the disc can leave your home, and you can still play online for a good while.

If we're being perfectly fair, the NBA 2K series is quickly price-dropped on PC because those versions are shockingly poor ports that aren't worth $60. So, not a great example, but your overall point is a solid one.

I think a lot of people realized this before, but simply didn't come forward and present their argument until after Microsoft's turnaround, which is unfortunate. Now it seems like there are a ton of threads expressing this opinion now that it's too late. I find that to be interesting.

It really is unfortunate that they had to bog down some legitimately great ideas with such asinine limitations. The idea of sharing your digital game library with friends, even for a limited time and/or with a checkout limit, was great. That seems to be Microsoft's style though in general. Come up with interesting ideas, but fall flat on their face in the execution.

Ultimately though, no matter what kind of used game restrictions anyone comes up with, Reggie's words remain absolutely true. If they're so worried about used games, then they should make better games. Good games are bought and kept for longer periods of time, and bad games end up in the used bargain bins.

Piracy on PC is as much an issue as "the cold" is an issue in Antarctica.

Here is away to think about: People buy good games and ignore bad games. Pirates will play any game regardless of quality. Focus on making good games and more people buy it along with more pirates grabbing it. Focus on pirates has never shown to improve game quality let alone increase sales.

Well no, that remains competitive because it's a piece of piss for anybody to publish an app on those systems and every app has a hundred very similar alternatives competing with it. There are exponentially more entities creating apps than creating console games.

For closed platforms they're still basically a free for all. Presumably because Apple are more interested in using that market to sell hardware, which isn't the case with Valve and is opposite to how the console market works.