Microsoft Believes Xbox One And Kinect Are One And The Same

[Infernal Lawyer]

Spencer does believe in listening to customer feedback, which is why Microsoft now uses what he describes as "physical DRM" - the disc - as well as digital DRM.

Buh?
Discs, physical DRM?
Just... No. I'm sorry, you don't get to turn around your crappy DRM practices by trying to relate them to discs. Being able to play something right off the disc is about as anti-DRM as you can get, aside from direct download-and-play. I mean, come ON, this isn't fucking funny anymore. Stop insulting our intelligence already.

Actually Discs have been DRM for a very long time.

Being able to play from just a disk is quite nice, but when you have the option of installing a game from disk and then still requiring the disk after the install process is nothing but pure DRM. Disks have been part of the DRM scene since their inception.

Sorry to burst your bubble man, DRM is older then most of us and it is everywhere.

CD's, yes. Console disks? Hell no. We ARE talking about a console here, right? On the other hand, MS DID try to make people install their games onto their XBO...

Unless you're claiming that DRM is simply ANY restriction that comes with digital media (and you may be right: I've always thought computers used to demand disks to circumvent previous limitations, and that keeping check on who uses the software was a secondary concern, so...), I'm pretty sure that traditional disks, like cassettes before them, originated as a means to an end that people haven't completely abandoned in this new 'just download the whole thing' era.

Even then, some CD games let you do a full installation so you don't need the disk afterwards (thought that's really an exception of course), plus it's always been possible to just copy the non-install files onto your computer and run the program off that.

Again, by all means you may be right about COMPUTER disks... But console disks?

 

[theApoc]

And you are confusing "gamers" with consumers IMO.

They are synonymous in this case. Gamers are the only people who give a damn about the XBox One. People who do not play video games are not as aware of the XBox One as we are lead to believe, or at least what some people would like to perceive.

And the whole thing about DRM is a ruse by ALL media companies. We DO NOT own any digital content. We never have and never will. We license the ability to listen to, watch, and play said content. The future of all media is a continuation of this trend, and ultimately it is consumer driven. Convenience, flexibility of use, that is why there is a such thing as an MP3, why your IPAD plays movies. Ask yourself, are you concerned about ownership or access? Because that is what this all really boils down to and seeing as you don't actually own your digital CONTENT, the point seems to be moot.

This is not actually a fact, as of right now, this is opinion. And that opinion is being turned away by people all over the world, even some governments (ie. necessity in some countries in Europe for the right to sell digital products, as in a right of ownership). You have simply bought into the idea that they want to spread. As I said, it's there opinion. Contracts can be voided (which is what those agreements you refer to are) by any court of law. They can be declared unlawful and in some places they already are. Whether you agree or not, you have to see the ridiculousness of selling something to you, taking your money, then you are hit with an EULA that in turn dictates how you are allowed and not allowed to use something. That doesn't happen in all areas that have been discussed, but it certainly happens with consoles. You don't see that until you turn it on for the first time and agree to it. Furthermore, a company that rights a contract does not hold the exclusive right to change it as they see fit, even though they think they do. This has also been thrown out in a court of law. We saw this with the whole debate about the entry in an EULA about not being allowed to file a class action lawsuit. They aren't allowed to take away consumer rights, that is a constant. And different societies have different opinions about this, but most people do not.

No, "gamers" are the only ones who give a crap about what is coming out for what system. CONSUMERS care about how much it costs and what new features it will have that allow them more ENTERTAINMENT choices.

And you do not and never will OWN your digital content and more than you owned content on a physical disc. You licensed it then, and you are licensing it now. The ONLY difference was how you were able to transfer the license. That is it. As someone who produces digital content, trust me, you don't own my work, but feel free to enjoy it.

Nothing else that you said is relevant as you don't seem to know what you are talking about. consumer rights do not supersede the protection afforded to content publishers, not matter what you may think is "fair". And taking measures to ensure THEIR property is not stolen has nothing to do with the rights of the consumer.

XBOX One is an entertainment system, which means it does more than just play movies, or games, or music, or TV, or whatever. It was designed as such. It plays the next generation of games, because that is where the overall market has gone and from a business standpoint, doesn't make sense to update the 360 again, when your competitor is rolling out a new system as well.

 

[Atmos Duality]

"Consoles today are as much a service as they are an individual purchase."

No, they're proprietary computers that specialize in running video games. Otherwise they aren't game consoles.
Saying a console is a service is like saying my toaster is a service, which is absurd.

They can PROVIDE services as all modern consoles can, but they aren't services themselves.

"What we heard from gamers is that they enjoyed the physical DRM they had with the 360 ecosystem and they wanted to add that to Xbox One. So we added physical DRM to the digital DRM plan that we had."

Translation: "We added an additional layer of DRM to an existing DRM system that worked fine on its own, because we wanted more money without having to earn it."

Summarily, they tried to shoulder the consumer with the worst parts of both DRM models specifically to eliminate the benefits of either. Well, the benefits to the consumer.

Physical DRM allows for first sale and implicit game sharing.
With the addition of digital DRM, that right was to be withheld at the mercy of the publisher and their "participating partners".

One can make any sort of argument about "Legality" or "Fairness"; fact is, that change is a strict downgrade from the previous business model for the consumer. Don't expect me to take accept the new offer blindly, and don't treat me like an idiot when I question the offer.

"You'll be able to buy games as physical and digital goods, you'll be able to share games with everybody in your house, and other features that we talked about will definitely be coming down the line."

So one moment they're services, and now they're goods.
Oh, wait, no. Sorry, somehow, the CONSOLES were services, while the GAMES were goods.

Either Phil doesn't understand what he's saying, he thinks the readerbase is stupid, or we've entered the Twilight Zone.

"In many service-based games today, the gamers are creating as much of the content as the developers ? I think that is extremely compelling."

Right. That's why your company, along with every other console maker specifically restricts users to creating their own content with game-integral tools (which are extremely limited on consoles and few in number), and forbids mods and tools for actual user created content out of fear of copyright violation (with good reason, admittedly).

If he meant that users are creating content in terms of "experience", we've been doing that for decades.

Also, "Seamless" online/offline (refer to the interview for context) doesn't have to mandate an offline killswitch in its design. If the net goes down for reasons, well, online content obviously won't work, but that's no reason to kill the entire game.

Yet, that killswitch is exactly what companies like Microsoft and AAA publishers wanted with the Xbone, and no number of strawman arguments or buzzwords can change that.

 

[Baresark]

snip

I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who cannot even understand the difference between fact and opinion. I have no use for zealots who cannot even consider things outside their own opinion on things. I get into debates with people all the time on this site and others and in my experience, as soon as the "mud slinging" begins, that is the point at which it's not worth continuing. Thank you and good day, sir and/or madam.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Many people don't want to pay a subscription fee for a console, they don't want it turned into a "service" that they don't own. They simply want to play their videogames on their console, and unfortunately the Xbox One has not been designed for that.

At the end of the day the console was supposed to be designed for the consumers. When you look at the disconnect between what the Xbox One delivers and what gamers wanted, that hasn't happened.

The success and growth of XBOX live would tend to disprove that assumption. And you are confusing "gamers" with consumers IMO. XBOX was a game console. XBOX 360 was an entertainment console. XBOX One is the next logical step. And there is nothing in the specs that suggest Kinect "gimps" the system in any way. The original Kinect had no impact beyond how the consumer decided to use it.

And the whole thing about DRM is a ruse by ALL media companies. We DO NOT own any digital content. We never have and never will. We license the ability to listen to, watch, and play said content. The future of all media is a continuation of this trend, and ultimately it is consumer driven. Convenience, flexibility of use, that is why there is a such thing as an MP3, why your IPAD plays movies. Ask yourself, are you concerned about ownership or access? Because that is what this all really boils down to and seeing as you don't actually own your digital CONTENT, the point seems to be moot.

The irony, and this really is quite funny, is that as much as you disparage the contributions of, as you stated, the nerds and fanboys, The entire success of Live that you use as your counterpoint is due to those same individuals. You don't seriously think that there are people in any appreciable number out there who are paying a subscription just for Skype? Or the Internet browser? Or even Netflix? Aside from the multiplayer gaming aspect, all the services that the subscription allows you to access on the Xbox console are services that can be accessed on numerous other devices for no additional charge. Unlike the argument about how people bought a PS3 for the Blu-ray player, (Which would actually make sense when you consider that, initially, the console was actually the cheapest Blu-ray player on the market,) There was very little reason for people to buy an Xbox 360 if they had no intention of, you know, playing games on it. It would be like buying a juicy, highly expensive steak dinner just so you can mostly nibble on the potatoes.

It makes your insistence on focusing on the Xbox One's prospects as an entertainment device all the more confusing, because in the larger scope of the market, its chances of competing purely as an entertainment device, and by extension appealing to a wider market then just gamers, are far slimmer than competing on the gaming market, Because the competition in the broader consumer market is so much more fierce. You yourself explain why.

Price and entertainment functionality. When it comes to the number of features, I fully admit, the console has a robust and varied offering. But many of its unique aspects seem to focus on shaving a second here, a few seconds there, streamlining the experience as opposed to adding very much particularly new to it.

But when it comes to price, the Xbox One basically gets destroyed. 500$ For a game console might be par for the course, and even quite reasonable compared to a computer, but in today's market, that price is just laughable for a non-portable entertainment device. Sony's NSZ-GS7 with Google Tv? 99$. Apple TV's gadget? 109$. Chromecast? 35$. Many of these, by the way, don't require any additional subscription fee to access Netflix and such goodies.

While the Xbox One would edge these devices out, in terms of the number of non-gaming features, (More the voice commands and multi-tasking than anything else when it comes to, say, Apple TV, though Apple has its own advantage in AirPlay,) the fact that it is literally multiple times more expensive than the competition is going to severely hurt its chances. Because a large reason for that high price is that it isn't just an entertainment device either, it is a game console. Price of research, development, infrastructure and materials is going to reflect that.

Now like I said, gamers might find the price of admission worth getting to access these features, on top of the gaming exclusives they already want. But these other consumers you speak of, those who don't care about the games? They'll look at the console's features. They'll murmur appreciatively. They'll even think it's quite the cool thing, that camera.

But then they'll just go buy something much cheaper, that isn't packed with gaming features they don't want.

So I'd sit back and pray that the gamers buy this thing. Because I don't think you can rely on the wider consumer market very much.

 

[theApoc]

snip

I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who cannot even understand the difference between fact and opinion. I have no use for zealots who cannot even consider things outside their own opinion on things. I get into debates with people all the time on this site and others and in my experience, as soon as the "mud slinging" begins, that is the point at which it's not worth continuing. Thank you and good day, sir and/or madam.

Look, we do not "own" digital content. That is not my opinion, it is a fact of copyright law. Ownership implies the ability to do what we please with the product or service we have purchased and in the case of digital media, there are a lot of things we are simply not allowed to do. You can claim that to be my opinion, but the reality is that you have no authorization to sell or transfer licenses to your digital content(unless you have a specific resale agreement), and the logic behind DRM has ALWAYS been about limiting a users ability to profit from content at not additional cost or without paying a royalty to the contents creator/publisher.

So you can get all huffy about what my "opinions" happen to be, but that has no bearing on the FACT that we license these games regardless of the storage medium being digital or physical.

 

[theApoc]

Many people don't want to pay a subscription fee for a console, they don't want it turned into a "service" that they don't own. They simply want to play their videogames on their console, and unfortunately the Xbox One has not been designed for that.

At the end of the day the console was supposed to be designed for the consumers. When you look at the disconnect between what the Xbox One delivers and what gamers wanted, that hasn't happened.

The success and growth of XBOX live would tend to disprove that assumption. And you are confusing "gamers" with consumers IMO. XBOX was a game console. XBOX 360 was an entertainment console. XBOX One is the next logical step. And there is nothing in the specs that suggest Kinect "gimps" the system in any way. The original Kinect had no impact beyond how the consumer decided to use it.

And the whole thing about DRM is a ruse by ALL media companies. We DO NOT own any digital content. We never have and never will. We license the ability to listen to, watch, and play said content. The future of all media is a continuation of this trend, and ultimately it is consumer driven. Convenience, flexibility of use, that is why there is a such thing as an MP3, why your IPAD plays movies. Ask yourself, are you concerned about ownership or access? Because that is what this all really boils down to and seeing as you don't actually own your digital CONTENT, the point seems to be moot.

The irony, and this really is quite funny, is that as much as you disparage the contributions of, as you stated, the nerds and fanboys, The entire success of Live that you use as your counterpoint is due to those same individuals. You don't seriously think that there are people in any appreciable number out there who are paying a subscription just for Skype? Or the Internet browser? Or even Netflix? Aside from the multiplayer gaming aspect, all the services that the subscription allows you to access on the Xbox console are services that can be accessed on numerous other devices for no additional charge. Unlike the argument about how people bought a PS3 for the Blu-ray player, (Which would actually make sense when you consider that, initially, the console was actually the cheapest Blu-ray player on the market,) There was very little reason for people to buy an Xbox 360 if they had no intention of, you know, playing games on it. It would be like buying a juicy, highly expensive steak dinner just so you can mostly nibble on the potatoes.

It makes your insistence on focusing on the Xbox One's prospects as an entertainment device all the more confusing, because in the larger scope of the market, its chances of competing purely as an entertainment device, and by extension appealing to a wider market then just gamers, are far slimmer than competing on the gaming market, Because the competition in the broader consumer market is so much more fierce. You yourself explain why.

Price and entertainment functionality. When it comes to the number of features, I fully admit, the console has a robust and varied offering. But many of its unique aspects seem to focus on shaving a second here, a few seconds there, streamlining the experience as opposed to adding very much particularly new to it.

But when it comes to price, the Xbox One basically gets destroyed. 500$ For a game console might be par for the course, and even quite reasonable compared to a computer, but in today's market, that price is just laughable for a non-portable entertainment device. Sony's NSZ-GS7 with Google Tv? 99$. Apple TV's gadget? 109$. Chromecast? 35$. Many of these, by the way, don't require any additional subscription fee to access Netflix and such goodies.

While the Xbox One would edge these devices out, in terms of the number of non-gaming features, (More the voice commands and multi-tasking than anything else when it comes to, say, Apple TV, though Apple has its own advantage in AirPlay,) the fact that it is literally multiple times more expensive than the competition is going to severely hurt its chances. Because a large reason for that high price is that it isn't just an entertainment device either, it is a game console. Price of research, development, infrastructure and materials is going to reflect that.

Now like I said, gamers might find the price of admission worth getting to access these features, on top of the gaming exclusives they already want. But these other consumers you speak of, those who don't care about the games? They'll look at the console's features. They'll murmur appreciatively. They'll even think it's quite the cool thing, that camera.

But then they'll just go buy something much cheaper, that isn't packed with gaming features they don't want.

So I'd sit back and pray that the gamers buy this thing. Because I don't think you can rely on the wider consumer market very much.

I am not sure what you are basing this analysis on? Last gen consoles made money ultimately for all of the major harware providers. Next gen consoles are an extension of that market and the case can easily be made that a big part of MS success in the last generation was due to the no gaming features of the device. How does adding more general consumer friendly features while delivering the same level of gaming abilities as the competition hurt/ignore the consumer?

The idea that MS is alienating any segment of their market makes no sense, and has no basis in reality when we look at what the Xbox One is going to provide. MUCH of the outcry against MS has been from the "gamer" market who still thinks they own their copy of Skyrim. Just like they think they own that mp3 of Biebs latest single. They do not.

When I release an MP3, and when someone buys it, they pay for the right to listen to and store MY content on their devices. They do not buy the right to sell or trade that content. They surely can do so, but they do not OWN anything.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

Look, we do not "own" digital content. That is not my opinion, it is a fact of copyright law. Ownership implies the ability to do what we please with the product or service we have purchased....

Without taking any particular sides in the argument here, I'm just going to chime in and say that your definition of "own" is slightly different than mine. You seem to think that own means the ability to do whatever you want with something, while I claim that it means that no one can (legally) take it away from you (along with, I should add, the other rights we associate with ownership, e.g., the right to sell a thing). You can own something without being able to do whatever you please with it, however.

For instance, say I own my house. No one can take it away from me (well, technically the government can, but only for particular uses, only via due process, and only with fair compensation), so it fits my definition of ownership pretty well. On the other hand, I can't do whatever I please with my house. I can't run a business out of it, for instance; my neighborhood is zoned residential. Heck, I can't even remove a wall, cut a skylight, or add a room to the house without going through an involved permit process that may or may not approve my request to do so. So I certainly can't do whatever I want with it, even though I (hypothetically) own it free and clear.

Traditionally, when I bought a game, I "owned" it, according to my definition, at least as much as I own my house. Sure, there were always some things that couldn't be done without permission (reverse engineering, modding, etc.), but I had all the rights we associate with owning a home -- the right to sell it, to rent it, to give it away, to use it for its intended purpose without limitation. Now, companies are trying to restrict those rights, with varying degrees of success. So I don't think it's at all unfair to say that we used to own games that we bought, and now no longer do so.

 

[theApoc]

Look, we do not "own" digital content. That is not my opinion, it is a fact of copyright law. Ownership implies the ability to do what we please with the product or service we have purchased....

Without taking any particular sides in the argument here, I'm just going to chime in and say that your definition of "own" is slightly different than mine. You seem to think that own means the ability to do whatever you want with something, while I claim that it means that no one can (legally) take it away from you (along with, I should add, the other rights we associate with ownership, e.g., the right to sell a thing). You can own something without being able to do whatever you please with it, however.

For instance, say I own my house. No one can take it away from me (well, technically the government can, but only for particular uses, only via due process, and only with fair compensation), so it fits my definition of ownership pretty well. On the other hand, I can't do whatever I please with my house. I can't run a business out of it, for instance; my neighborhood is zoned residential. Heck, I can't even remove a wall, cut a skylight, or add a room to the house without going through an involved permit process that may or may not approve my request to do so. So I certainly can't do whatever I want with it, even though I (hypothetically) own it free and clear.

Traditionally, when I bought a game, I "owned" it, according to my definition, at least as much as I own my house. Sure, there were always some things that couldn't be done without permission (reverse engineering, modding, etc.), but I had all the rights we associate with owning a home -- the right to sell it, to rent it, to give it away, to use it for its intended purpose without limitation. Now, companies are trying to restrict those rights, with varying degrees of success. So I don't think it's at all unfair to say that we used to own games that we bought, and now no longer do so.

But you can sell it. You can set your price and the things you can't do with your house are more a result of legalities not directly connected to your home. Correct? With the correct paperwork and money, you can in truth do anything that is deemed legal to your house.

Now when you purchase media, the same can not be said as you were never allowed to profit from the actual content. You could sell the disc, or the tape, and in essence transfer the license, but you could not sell a copy, or sell performances of the content. In order to rent or sell it as a retail outlet, you have to have made a specific agreement with the content providers, normal consumers do not generally have this ability. And again, you are still just selling the license with no claim to the content.

The problem is the association of physical media with the content it contains. You buy a CD, that is the license key that allows you to play the content. You sell that "key" and your ability to use that content is transferred to someone else. A one to one transaction.

Now consider a digital media file. The pros of such files are in the ease at which they are stored and transferred. They allow for broad distribution with less overhead. And they allow for restoration should the file become corrupted or lost. This is what people have come to expect from music, movies, games, etc. Ease of use.

So what is the problem? Ease of duplication and the ability to circumvent traditional usage rights unfettered by the restrictions of physical media. So the problem, which is what MS, Sony etc are trying to figure out is how to secure their content, while allowing the users to benefit from the accessibility of digital content. Are they wrong in wanting to secure their content? Does this make them anti-consumer.

No. I am sorry but it doesn't. Content does not just make itself and the costs while sometimes excessive, are not wholly unjustified. The idea that we as the consumer are somehow entitled to both the benefits of access afforded us by digital media, while not having any responsibility in it's protection/distribution is what I feel to be ridiculous.

You did not make CoD. You did not market it, you did not distribute it. You paid for the ability to play it. And so long as YOU have that ability, the onus of accessibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the content providers. The moment you take it upon yourself to redistribute that content and attempting to retain your ability to use it, you have broken your agreement with them and negated any rights you may have had.

And for most people, this is not an issue. And if it weren't for the ease of duplication and redistribution, I doubt the companies would make so much of a fuss. But it is a fine line to protect content without inconveniencing users. And that is what they are trying to do IMO. Screwing a consumer base makes no sense from a business standpoint. So to assume that is the goal of a big company, makes no sense as well. A better assumption would be that they are attempting to accommodate both sides of the equation and are working towards something that will make them money AND please the consumer base. No one is going to win that battle every time.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Silly Microsoft. They're not One and the same, they're One and Kinnect...
You should know. You where the people who gave them such stupid names, the least you could do is remember them.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

But you can sell it. You can set your price and the things you can't do with your house are more a result of legalities not directly connected to your home. Correct? With the correct paperwork and money, you can in truth do anything that is deemed legal to your house.

That was kind of my point, though. Before, you used to have the right to sell your games; now, that's a right that companies are trying to take away. You also used to own the game in perpetuity. Now, some companies only want you to have access until their authentication servers go dark.

Now when you purchase media, the same can not be said as you were never allowed to profit from the actual content. You could sell the disc, or the tape, and in essence transfer the license, but you could not sell a copy, or sell performances of the content. In order to rent or sell it as a retail outlet, you have to have made a specific agreement with the content providers, normal consumers do not generally have this ability. And again, you are still just selling the license with no claim to the content.

I could sell/lend/use my copy that I bought, which was enough for me. I also question your claim that a retail outlet needed a specific agreement with the content providers. Does Gamestop need an agreement with every single publisher to be able to resell their games? Does Blockbuster and/or Netflix need an agreement with every single studio in order to rent their movies? I'm pretty certain the answer is no.

...Content does not just make itself and the costs while sometimes excessive, are not wholly unjustified. The idea that we as the consumer are somehow entitled to both the benefits of access afforded us by digital media, while not having any responsibility in it's protection/distribution is what I feel to be ridiculous.

I...what? I admit you've lost me here. Why should I have any responsibility to protect or distribute someone else's intellectual property?

...And if it weren't for the ease of duplication and redistribution, I doubt the companies would make so much of a fuss. But it is a fine line to protect content without inconveniencing users. And that is what they are trying to do IMO. Screwing a consumer base makes no sense from a business standpoint. So to assume that is the goal of a big company, makes no sense as well. A better assumption would be that they are attempting to accommodate both sides of the equation and are working towards something that will make them money AND please the consumer base. No one is going to win that battle every time.

No doubt. I'm pretty certain that they're working on at least half of that "something that will make them money AND please the consumer base" bit. And I agree that they're not screwing the customer base just for fun; they're doing it to make money. Do the advantages of digital make up for the loss of ownership? To some people, sure. Even to me, if the price is cheap enough. But I've never bought a digital-only product for anywhere near what companies want to charge for it, and I don't expect I will in the near future, either.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Many people don't want to pay a subscription fee for a console, they don't want it turned into a "service" that they don't own. They simply want to play their videogames on their console, and unfortunately the Xbox One has not been designed for that.

At the end of the day the console was supposed to be designed for the consumers. When you look at the disconnect between what the Xbox One delivers and what gamers wanted, that hasn't happened.

The success and growth of XBOX live would tend to disprove that assumption. And you are confusing "gamers" with consumers IMO. XBOX was a game console. XBOX 360 was an entertainment console. XBOX One is the next logical step. And there is nothing in the specs that suggest Kinect "gimps" the system in any way. The original Kinect had no impact beyond how the consumer decided to use it.

And the whole thing about DRM is a ruse by ALL media companies. We DO NOT own any digital content. We never have and never will. We license the ability to listen to, watch, and play said content. The future of all media is a continuation of this trend, and ultimately it is consumer driven. Convenience, flexibility of use, that is why there is a such thing as an MP3, why your IPAD plays movies. Ask yourself, are you concerned about ownership or access? Because that is what this all really boils down to and seeing as you don't actually own your digital CONTENT, the point seems to be moot.

The irony, and this really is quite funny, is that as much as you disparage the contributions of, as you stated, the nerds and fanboys, The entire success of Live that you use as your counterpoint is due to those same individuals. You don't seriously think that there are people in any appreciable number out there who are paying a subscription just for Skype? Or the Internet browser? Or even Netflix? Aside from the multiplayer gaming aspect, all the services that the subscription allows you to access on the Xbox console are services that can be accessed on numerous other devices for no additional charge. Unlike the argument about how people bought a PS3 for the Blu-ray player, (Which would actually make sense when you consider that, initially, the console was actually the cheapest Blu-ray player on the market,) There was very little reason for people to buy an Xbox 360 if they had no intention of, you know, playing games on it. It would be like buying a juicy, highly expensive steak dinner just so you can mostly nibble on the potatoes.

It makes your insistence on focusing on the Xbox One's prospects as an entertainment device all the more confusing, because in the larger scope of the market, its chances of competing purely as an entertainment device, and by extension appealing to a wider market then just gamers, are far slimmer than competing on the gaming market, Because the competition in the broader consumer market is so much more fierce. You yourself explain why.

Price and entertainment functionality. When it comes to the number of features, I fully admit, the console has a robust and varied offering. But many of its unique aspects seem to focus on shaving a second here, a few seconds there, streamlining the experience as opposed to adding very much particularly new to it.

But when it comes to price, the Xbox One basically gets destroyed. 500$ For a game console might be par for the course, and even quite reasonable compared to a computer, but in today's market, that price is just laughable for a non-portable entertainment device. Sony's NSZ-GS7 with Google Tv? 99$. Apple TV's gadget? 109$. Chromecast? 35$. Many of these, by the way, don't require any additional subscription fee to access Netflix and such goodies.

While the Xbox One would edge these devices out, in terms of the number of non-gaming features, (More the voice commands and multi-tasking than anything else when it comes to, say, Apple TV, though Apple has its own advantage in AirPlay,) the fact that it is literally multiple times more expensive than the competition is going to severely hurt its chances. Because a large reason for that high price is that it isn't just an entertainment device either, it is a game console. Price of research, development, infrastructure and materials is going to reflect that.

Now like I said, gamers might find the price of admission worth getting to access these features, on top of the gaming exclusives they already want. But these other consumers you speak of, those who don't care about the games? They'll look at the console's features. They'll murmur appreciatively. They'll even think it's quite the cool thing, that camera.

But then they'll just go buy something much cheaper, that isn't packed with gaming features they don't want.

So I'd sit back and pray that the gamers buy this thing. Because I don't think you can rely on the wider consumer market very much.

I am not sure what you are basing this analysis on? Last gen consoles made money ultimately for all of the major harware providers. Next gen consoles are an extension of that market and the case can easily be made that a big part of MS success in the last generation was due to the no gaming features of the device. How does adding more general consumer friendly features while delivering the same level of gaming abilities as the competition hurt/ignore the consumer?

The idea that MS is alienating any segment of their market makes no sense, and has no basis in reality when we look at what the Xbox One is going to provide. MUCH of the outcry against MS has been from the "gamer" market who still thinks they own their copy of Skyrim. Just like they think they own that mp3 of Biebs latest single. They do not.

When I release an MP3, and when someone buys it, they pay for the right to listen to and store MY content on their devices. They do not buy the right to sell or trade that content. They surely can do so, but they do not OWN anything.

I'm not even going to engage you when it comes to the idea of ownership, because that isn't what I was bringing up with you, and I didn't even mention ownership in my post. My post, from start to finish, was on the Xbox One's prospects as an entertainment device in the non-gaming market. I'm not sure why you're changing the subject so completely. Let's finish this debate before we start up another, okie dokie?

I could point out that if prior generations were any guarantee of the success of subsequent generations, Sony's PS3 would have dominated again for no other reason than the PS2 did. But I'll take a different tact.

You say that the case can easily be made that the entertainment features were a large part of the console's success? Very well. Make it. If you wish to know the basis for my analysis, then I encourage you to similarly share the methodology you undertook to reach your own conclusions, because you're offering little more than subjective opinions and grand, sweeping statements with no logical foundation.

As for how I don't expect that the 360 sold as a multimedia device instead of a gaming device, (By definition, you should know that this means that consumers bought it, from the very beginning, with no real intentions to play games on it. Not 'Oh, I usually just use it to watch movies now.') this is my analysis. The console's multimedia features are available on numerous other devices, more notably the computer. You don't even need a terribly powerful or advanced computer to use these features, like you would to play more recent games, as Netflix and its ilk are more bandwidth intensive than anything. Heck, even the Wii has video streaming services, meaning the 360 wasn't even the most affordable game-with-streaming option. As I said before, the idea of the PS3 being bought as a Blu-ray player really only applied when it was the most inexpensive player on the market, But after the price drop, even the PS3 could be considered the less expensive console in the long run, since you don't have to pay a subscription to access ancillary features.

I know, I know, $60 a year really isn't that much in the long run, but if you have to pick between a device that charges you even a small fee per year, and another device that charges no fee for similar services, it's not even a competition. PC, tablet, Wii, PS3, all had that long term pricing advantage.

Today, if anything, competition on the multimedia device front is even more fierce than it was during the 360s early lifespan. As a multimedia device alone, the console simply cannot compete in the market against more streamlined, and vastly less expensive options; even Sony's Google TV gadget was sluggish in the market, and it was only 200$ when first released.

And since you already established only gamers care about the games, regular consumers will not find the price point appealing just because it can play games.

But okay. If you are so convinced that this will be a big hit amongst the wider consumer entertainment market, then please, explain. Why will the Xbox One make headway against its competition in multimedia TV-attached devices, when it is, for the most part, three to four TIMES more expensive than that competition? Do you believe that voice control, or television pass-through interfaces, Will justify that extreme gap?

 

[theApoc]

That was kind of my point, though. Before, you used to have the right to sell your games; now, that's a right that companies are trying to take away. You also used to own the game in perpetuity. Now, some companies only want you to have access until their authentication servers go dark.

They are trying to limit the redistribution of the content, or at the very least keep track of it. Nothing about that has any negative impact on a legitimate consumer who bought a product for personal use. My ONLY issue with how game companies and console makers are doing business is the price point. They are still charging the same price as physical media while benefiting from digital distribution which significantly lowers their production costs. $60 for a digital license to a game is absurd in this day and age, especially when a lot of free or close to free mobile games are just as good if not better than some major studio/company releases.

I could sell/lend/use my copy that I bought, which was enough for me. I also question your claim that a retail outlet needed a specific agreement with the content providers. Does Gamestop need an agreement with every single publisher to be able to resell their games? Does Blockbuster and/or Netflix need an agreement with every single studio in order to rent their movies? I'm pretty certain the answer is no.

They have retail licenses, and I would imagine some sort of re-seller agreement. You can not legally just buy and sell any copyrighted material you like. As a content creator I retain control over distribution, not the consumer and certainly not the retailer. You have to understand that MS is not the only publisher of games on Xbox. EA, Capcom, Epic, GearBox. They do not think you own the content they provide any more than I do. As I said, you have been allowed to transfer your license(by selling the physical copy) and give up your right/ability to your game. You have never been able to legally copy your game and give/sell it to someone else. Lending games? They have already said they are working on that. Nothing about what MS, Sony and Nintendo will do, and make no mistake, they ALL will do it, nothing about that will directly harm the legitimate consumer, and I doubt they will change anything about how people who buy physical media transfer ownership. That is kind of why MS was pushing digital. Do people expect to be able to give their copy of Angry Birds to a friend? Nope. THAT is why they want to go digital, and I don't hear the billion people playing AB complaining about getting screwed.

I...what? I admit you've lost me here. Why should I have any responsibility to protect or distribute someone else's intellectual property?

Because you are licensing it. Because you do not own it and never will. It is essentially your job to NOT pirate someone else's work. Again, from a business standpoint I can see what they are after. But I am not pleased with the whole "let's charge a premium for content that has gotten significantly cheaper for us to distribute). They want it both ways in terms of money and convenience.

No doubt. I'm pretty certain that they're working on at least half of that "something that will make them money AND please the consumer base" bit. And I agree that they're not screwing the customer base just for fun; they're doing it to make money. Do the advantages of digital make up for the loss of ownership? To some people, sure. Even to me, if the price is cheap enough. But I've never bought a digital-only product for anywhere near what companies want to charge for it, and I don't expect I will in the near future, either.

Screwing customers rarely makes a company money. They are trying to cope with the digital age. And all content makers are having growing pains. They were way too eager to get in on the distribution aspect and totally ignored the ability of users to re-distribute. Now people are used to doing anything they want, and in order to move forward, that needs to end, tough position to be in for the companies. But they will figure something out.

 

[theApoc]

There was very little reason for people to buy an Xbox 360 if they had no intention of, you know, playing games on it.

You talk about subjective analysis and say something like that? What planet do you live on? Xbox One and the Ps4 are going to deliver EXACTLY the same level of gaming, EXACTLY THE SAME. They have some different bells and whistles but from a pure gaming standpoint they are virtually identical. Don't give me any crap about processor, ram or any of that nonsense. The Ps3 was supposedly better, yet time and time again was shown to not be any different. Some games rendered better on Xbox, some were better on Ps3, it ALL depended on how good a job the developer did.

I'm not even going to engage you when it comes to the idea of ownership, because that isn't what I was bringing up with you, and I didn't even mention ownership in my post. My post, from start to finish, was on the Xbox One's prospects as an entertainment device in the non-gaming market. I'm not sure why you're changing the subject so completely. Let's finish this debate before we start up another, okie dokie?

And if you had been paying attention to what I posted you would realize than in context of debating that content ownership is a central point to both discussions. Xbox is already and has been an entertainment device, for many, many years. Continued investment in expanding that selection, enhancing those features and targeting a broader market is all the proof I need.

You say that the case can easily be made that the entertainment features were a large part of the console's success? Very well. Make it. If you wish to know the basis for my analysis, then I encourage you to similarly share the methodology you undertook to reach your own conclusions, because you're offering little more than subjective opinions and grand, sweeping statements with no logical foundation.

What? We are debating the Xbox as an entertainment device as opposed to a pure gaming device(which BTW the Ps4 is not). There are just as many social/entertainment features in BOTH next gen consoles to prove without a doubt that the success and EXPANSION of the market in the last gen was due, not to games, not to gamers, but rather to the inclusion of a broader consumer base.

As for how I don't expect that the 360 sold as a multimedia device instead of a gaming device, (By definition, you should know that this means that consumers bought it, from the very beginning, with no real intentions to play games on it. Not 'Oh, I usually just use it to watch movies now.') this is my analysis. The console's multimedia features are available on numerous other devices, more notably the computer. You don't even need a terribly powerful or advanced computer to use these features, like you would to play more recent games, as Netflix and its ilk are more bandwidth intensive than anything. Heck, even the Wii has video streaming services, meaning the 360 wasn't even the most affordable game-with-streaming option. As I said before, the idea of the PS3 being bought as a Blu-ray player really only applied when it was the most inexpensive player on the market, But after the price drop, even the PS3 could be considered the less expensive console in the long run, since you don't have to pay a subscription to access ancillary features.

I know, I know, $60 a year really isn't that much in the long run, but if you have to pick between a device that charges you even a small fee per year, and another device that charges no fee for similar services, it's not even a competition. PC, tablet, Wii, PS3, all had that long term pricing advantage.

Today, if anything, competition on the multimedia device front is even more fierce than it was during the 360s early lifespan. As a multimedia device alone, the console simply cannot compete in the market against more streamlined, and vastly less expensive options; even Sony's Google TV gadget was sluggish in the market, and it was only 200$ when first released.

Wrong. The fact that it became a multimedia device over time proves my point. It was initially just another console. And the UI was not designed for anything more than playing games, finding games, and connecting with gamers. Where is it now? Multi-media content is the primary focus of the entire experience. It evolved. And people responded, so with the new console, they responded as well. Opinion? Yeah, you have no basis for yours while the consoles, their UI, their marketing, everything about them is being pushed towards a broader entertainment range. As for the why? Why should I spend hundreds more on a smart TV? Can it play my games? Blu-Ray? Why should I by a blu-ray? Can it play games? What about my PC? Can I get all of the latest games and connect to my friends? Sometimes, sure. My tablet, can it do any of these things well?

In a year it will be $300, just like the Ps4 will be. In two you will see it even cheaper. Early adoption price points on these things are not a gauge of anything. And the appeal of having one device replace many, you are definitely underestimating that market.

And since you already established only gamers care about the games, regular consumers will not find the price point appealing just because it can play games.

Not one thing you have said has been based on anything but opinion. Not one thing. EVERYTHING I have said is based on:

1. All consoles have added multi-media features based on consumer trends
2. All consoles have adapted their UI to accommodate these features over the life of the last gen
3. All consoled offer peripherals that allow for a broader use of the device
4. A large part of the next gen consoles is expanding on these trends
5. Games are still a huge part of both and will remain at the core of each device, but they are certainly not the main focus of any console.

This is the market. You saying Xbox will be a failure because it added more features is like saying a BLT is going to be a worse sandwich when you add more bacon...

 

[viranimus]

For the...

Can we make it a law to require anyone who wants to say "video games are a service" it requires them to be dropped in the nearest vat of boiling oil?

Video games nor the consoles they are used on are in any way a service. Repeatedly saying so, because you want to get around laws of ownership and consumer protections will NEVER make it so.

 

[Living Contradiction]

*yawn* And a corporation reminds us, in case we forgot, that it can screw with us whenever it chooses to as long as we purchase their product or service. Thanks, Microsoft!

Since we're repeating things, I'll repeat something: if you really want an Xbox One, wait a few months after the launch date and then go to a pawn shop. You should find dozens of 'em on the shelves, put there by disappointed and disillusioned people who discovered that their purchase was crap and who tried to get a little of their money back.

You'll spend less money, you'll fox MS out of a sale, and you'll be able to share in the Xbox One experience so that you too can say, "Yep, this certainly is original. It's so original, I'm going to tell everyone I know about it and warn them not to try it themselves."

 

[Atmos Duality]

For the...

Can we make it a law to require anyone who wants to say "video games are a service" it requires them to be dropped in the nearest vat of boiling oil?

Video games nor the consoles they are used on are in any way a service. Repeatedly saying so, because you want to get around laws of ownership and consumer protections will NEVER make it so.

Perhaps there are better consumer protection laws outside of my market (the US), but in the gaming market, "consumer protection" is a total joke. And because it's a total joke, they (Game Publishers and their business partners mostly) have very real incentive to try and capitalize on that.

Until we establish some more practical middle ground, something more than Caveat Emptor, I'm not especially sympathetic to the multi-billion dollar industry's chase for the elimination of the consumer's "practical ownership".

(And before someone jumps down my throat, I did not say legal ownership, I said practical. I've read and studied a bit of Copyright Law and Licensing Contract Law, and I know the difference.)

 

[Olas]

You know you have your perspective ass-backwards when you start calling game-discs "physical DRM". Not that I don't understand what he means, they do have a similar end result... in theory, but the choice of terminology speaks volumes about the company in my opinion.