Microsoft Drops Xbox One DRM Restrictions - UPDATED

[Fenra]

For me personally the damage is already done, the fact they were willing to do this in the first place and be so anti-consumer about it all shows what kind of company they are and as such lost my business (shame to as I was primarily a 360 gamer) and I'm not buying the whole "we listened to the customer" PR lines, its damage control for the business and shareholders not in the customers best interest

Add into that the extra 100 on the price tag, mandatory kinect and a ton of other features I will never use (TV/Sports stuff) and its just not for me.

The reason I was going with the PS4 is less on priciples but more on what they offer, a more powerful PS3 with no restrictions. If the Xbox One had just been a more powerful 360 then they would have had my business. Sony didn't try to reinvent the wheel, they just gave me what I'm looking for in a home console, a machine that plays games.

 

[Anti-Robot Man]

I guess the digital gaming is delayed for another 10 years then... Shame.
Welcome back 60$ games. It may even go higher, I heard the prices of the plastic are going up.

Except that digital versions will still be available the same day as physical copies for those who still want to waste their money (if you want to buy overpriced digital copies Games on Demand already gives you that option on XBL). Or you buy a pc and never have to sully yourself with a corporeal copy again, and actually get them for a decent discount.

That's my point. As the things work right now, dev/publishers cannot offer lower prices for digital games, because they would anger the retailers. Even Steam cannot afford to have lower prices on new games, gladly they're balancing it with amazing sales.
As long as we have the current status quo, the situation is not changing.

How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

 

[Lightknight]

As for the games being backwards compatible, they claim to have made a significant change in system architecture that would render it impossible.

I'd accept that- IF we were told exactly what and how. If it was explained to us.
We know why the PS4 won't be backwards compatible (at least, the information is out there, I don't know how well-known it is), so I want to know why the XBone won't be. It won't make me any more likely to buy one, though- the 360 plays original Xbox games (admittedly, the ones I've played have occasional visual issues, but there's absolutely nothing game breaking or even experience ruining) so unless they offer something... I'm not touching it. I'll stick with a 360 for the foreseeable future to continue enjoying the games I still enjoy, and in the future get a PC that can at least handle recent games- I've been wanting a decent machine for doing digital art on, while a machine designed specifically for one won't exactly be perfect for the other, I'll get something that can do both to a standard acceptable to me. Because, frankly, MS isn't making me feel the XBone will be "a standard acceptable to me" even with this move- and even if they did, I'm too insulted to touch them with a very long poky thing until it's more than just "acceptable".

All we really know is that the 360 was not x86 and that the Xbone is. If it would require tweaking the code even a little then we'd be talking developer time for every game and potentially a mandatory update for each and every game.

The PS3->PS4 at least makes sense. The crazy proprietary hardware of the ps3 required devs to bend over backwards with asset category allocations. The migration to x86 was pretty darn necessary to make things easier for developers and so it significantly more forgiveable for that reason.

But I don't know that the 360 is that different from an x86 machine. The ps3 would take a top of the line machine to emulate if that were even possible but I've always thought of the Xboxes as fairly close to computer environments. Maybe there's something I don't know but I'm not certain they really have that much of an excuse.

 

[Dascylus]

I guess the digital gaming is delayed for another 10 years then... Shame.
Welcome back 60$ games. It may even go higher, I heard the prices of the plastic are going up.

Except that digital versions will still be available the same day as physical copies for those who still want to waste their money (if you want to buy overpriced digital copies Games on Demand already gives you that option on XBL). Or you buy a pc and never have to sully yourself with a corporeal copy again, and actually get them for a decent discount.

That's my point. As the things work right now, dev/publishers cannot offer lower prices for digital games, because they would anger the retailers. Even Steam cannot afford to have lower prices on new games, gladly they're balancing it with amazing sales.
As long as we have the current status quo, the situation is not changing.

How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

They were gonna offer discounts on digital sales when you traded in games.
In the press release it was mentioned that that was one of the aspects that would be lost in catering to the panic.
Did you read the things the Xbox employee wrote about how part of the idea behind Xbox's system was partly similar to Steam?
They might still have been offering $60 games but can you imagine what trad-in discount they might have offered? Especially if they offered larger discounts when trade/buying the new version of an EA Sports game or that sort of idea.
But we can talk about what we might have missed till the cows come home. I'm sure they'll try and implement the better ideas piecemeal over time.

 

[nevarran]

How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

You're saying it, retailers make money mostly from used games. Cut that and they'll become less strong and less relevant.
Ensure every console has internet.
Show the people that the digital games can function in a similar fashion as the retail games. And in some cases even better - 10 family member having quick access to you library, no mater where they are. One of them being able to play simultaneously the same game with you, without having to own another disc.
Make the disc pretty much useless. If you cannot re-sell it, nor lend it to a friend, the only reason to have it, is so that it can adorn your shelve.
Since you no longer have to pay for disc printing, retail shops and middle men, you can offer some discounts or even lower prices.
And who knows, people may jump on it.

One thing is sure, keep the current status quo and nothing will change.

And MS will have all the competition from Sony, Nintendo and the PC.
Just like Amazon has. There are tons of digital books shops, a dozen of other e-book readers, and all the tablets and smart-phones in the world. Even if none of these are on their closed market (you have apps to read on other devices, because they're allowing it), and despite all the exclusive books they have. That's real competition, competing with content and features.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Now, have they fixed the other problems? Did they stop that nonsense mandatory Kinect crap, the way it's always watching? Are they fixing the 21 countries exclusion problem? Have they figured out that as a gaming platform, more people want to play games on it? Beyond that, I don't see how this helps. Wasn't the whole point of this tedious nonsense to build a customer-specific library, a la Steam, but one that allowed the resale of digital goods (albeit at the expense of physical ones, with no bridging gap between)?

Also, wait, wasn't this a critical operating feature? Like, if you didn't have this, the Xbone would become the Xbrick? And now they're saying you could turn it off at will?

 

[Flamb3Nobunaga]

Hey, give M$ some credit. They tried to do something new with the whole "playing a game without the disc" thing. I was thinking about that, and I couldn't think of a way that would've worked without DRM.

 

[devotedsniper]

I didn't care too much about the online check considering I just got a new job (which meant new none crappy internet, woo!) but I still don't want to spend £100 more for a webcam which I will never use...Not to mention how much RAM the thing uses on it's OS, wait sorry 3 OS's.

Oh and then there all those features which aren't available out of the US on launch, not that I care about sports.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

With this revelation I may just be picking one up. 100 extra bucks is a small price to pay for preserving 7 years of achievments >.>

 

[TomWiley]

If it was so easy to turn these "features" off, then how easy do you reckon it will be to turn them back on at their pleasure? Nuh-uh, no sell, Microsoft.

You told us these features were necessary and that we needed them, but since you're so willing to remove them, they're obviously not so important and you just lied to us. And how the heck do you even expect to justify being $100 more expensive than the PS4 when you've removed almost all of your "features" and have worse specs than the PS4?

Obviously M$ doesn't care about gamers as much as Sony or Nintendo do, which is probably why the Xbox was a complete failure and the 360 barely managed to sell until later this gen.

Alright so there are a few things wrong with your reasoning here

1. Microsoft planned their DRM systems for months, maybe years, and are only removing them now because of the backlash they've been receiving for consumers, so criticizing them for actually doing what we hated them for not doing - listening to their customers - is just stupid.

2. Microsoft never told you these "features" (digital registering of games, etc) were necessary for the console to run. They were however necessary (more or less) for Microsoft to follow their vision of an always-connected console and be able to have developers take advantage of off-site server processing to enhance their games and system performance - ideas that Microsoft has been forced to more or less give up as consumers are not ready accept a 24-hour verification system for these benefits.

3. Are you saying that the 360 was in any way a failure for Microsoft? I hope you're joking. As to whichever company cares the most about "games", well the obvious answer is that none of them do; it's a business and their looking to make money and assuming anything else is naive. Oh and you can be pretty certain that Sony's R&D had their own DRM systems planned, or at least prototyped, but opted out of it seeing as Microsoft received so much criticism.

 

[TomWiley]

Now, have they fixed the other problems? Did they stop that nonsense mandatory Kinect crap, the way it's always watching? Are they fixing the 21 countries exclusion problem? Have they figured out that as a gaming platform, more people want to play games on it? Beyond that, I don't see how this helps. Wasn't the whole point of this tedious nonsense to build a customer-specific library, a la Steam, but one that allowed the resale of digital goods (albeit at the expense of physical ones, with no bridging gap between)?

Also, wait, wasn't this a critical operating feature? Like, if you didn't have this, the Xbone would become the Xbrick? And now they're saying you could turn it off at will?

The Kinect is not always watching you. You can control what the Kinect is allowed to see and hear in a privacy menu.
This isn't news, it's been written on their official website for quite some time.

I don't know why it's taking people so long to understand this. Everything I've read on this thread so far have only reinforced my suspicion that much, if not most, of the criticism the Xbox One has received is based on misinformation, the consumer not even knowing the truth, basing their criticism on rumors.

 

[Anti-Robot Man]

How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

You're saying it, retailers make money mostly from used games. Cut that and they'll become less strong and less relevant.
Ensure every console has internet.
Show the people that the digital games can function in a similar fashion as the retail games. And in some cases even better - 10 family member having quick access to you library, no mater where they are. One of them being able to play simultaneously the same game with you, without having to own another disc.
Make the disc pretty much useless. If you cannot re-sell it, nor lend it to a friend, the only reason to have it, is so that it can adorn your shelve.
Since you no longer have to pay for disc printing, retail shops and middle men, you can offer some discounts or even lower prices.
And who knows, people may jump on it.

One thing is sure, keep the current status quo and nothing will change.

And MS will have all the competition from Sony, Nintendo and the PC.
Just like Amazon has. There are tons of digital books shops, a dozen of other e-book readers, and all the tablets and smart-phones in the world. Even if none of these are on their closed market (you have apps to read on other devices, because they're allowing it), and despite all the exclusive books they have. That's real competition, competing with content and features.

1. Cutting out retailers is all well and good for MS - if they could push hardware without them, they weren't in a position to do that, otherwise they wouldn't have included discs at all and would've simply gone all digital (which would then have been an easier argument for their DRM policies). The middlemen still serve a function, and this wasn't going to get rid of them in any case, just reduce the middlemen to MS's chosen few, which included Gamestop. There would've been less competition in the market as a result of this.

2. The sharing feature was never discussed in sufficient detail, but they did say the following about it: no simultaneous play of titles (stated by Major Nelson in the Angry Joe interview with him and elsewhere). It also would've be far less convenient in actually cases of people going round a friends house to play a game, because (a) it required a much more frequent check-in, so internet instability would've been a greater problem, and (b) it wasn't going to stream the game On-Live style, it would have to be redownloaded on that console before it was ready to play, which could result in a wait of several hours.

3. Microsoft already distribute titles fully digitally in a way that completely by-passes retailers - XBLA games. The pricing of these games has actually steadily risen during this generation, rather than falling as you would suggest would've happened if a similar model was applied across the board.

4. Competition on the PC market is very different to that between the consoles, because any number of vendors with any number of business models can utilize the platform. Digitally the consoles each offer a closed market, so there is no competition for a consumer once they invest in one of the platforms.


If companies want to lure people into digital, they have to give them a compelling reason to make that decision, trying to force it on them is why people reacted so strongly to what MS tried to do.

 

[Ayay]

Love the , we listen to the community. More like they saw some future sales figures and wet their pants. And it leaves the kinect where it is and the price. Still think the damage is done thou ,and they can reactivate the online thing anytime the see fit .they ones that own it then will have no options.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Too little, too late. I don't care if they add tits and a bazooka in on the deal, I'm not getting it because I don't want to fuel the company that tried to screw us, and nearly got away with it too. Sony can have my money because they have been better from the very start, even though I generally don't like picking the lesser of two evils (or the shinier of two shits, rather).

 

[theaudioprophet]

I'd wager that most games never see 10 owners (maybe 2 or 3 would be my guess) so if the shared library worked the way it was implied, it would've done more harm than good

 

[theaudioprophet]

Now, have they fixed the other problems? Did they stop that nonsense mandatory Kinect crap, the way it's always watching? Are they fixing the 21 countries exclusion problem? Have they figured out that as a gaming platform, more people want to play games on it? Beyond that, I don't see how this helps. Wasn't the whole point of this tedious nonsense to build a customer-specific library, a la Steam, but one that allowed the resale of digital goods (albeit at the expense of physical ones, with no bridging gap between)?

Also, wait, wasn't this a critical operating feature? Like, if you didn't have this, the Xbone would become the Xbrick? And now they're saying you could turn it off at will?

The Kinect is not always watching you. You can control what the Kinect is allowed to see and hear in a privacy menu.
This isn't news, it's been written on their official website for quite some time.

I don't know why it's taking people so long to understand this. Everything I've read on this thread so far have only reinforced my suspicion that much, if not most, of the criticism the Xbox One has received is based on misinformation, the consumer not even knowing the truth, basing their criticism on rumors.

I will not have sex in a room with a functioning camera/microphone that has access to the internet... at least not for free...

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I just don't understand why people care more about the principle of the thing than actual results. Would you still have he same opinion if the Xbox One does a complete turnaround and becomes the best console ever? I mean, in the end you would just miss out on an awesome product because you are having a tantrum over an apology.

On topic however, this is great news. Depending on if I like the games and possibly if they make the kinect non-compulsory I may yet get one. In the end it will come down to how much I want the games on it though, and how much I like the controller.

If your morals and principles are so poor that you can purchase a product that originally fringed upon your rights and represented everything wrong with the consumer side of the gaming industry, maybe you should buy yourself an Xbox One. It's not about "awesome" for people who have even the slightest respect for themselves. No "turnaround" has happened. Microsoft isn't all of a sudden the good guy because they say so. They want to make money. They want to make it so badly that they'd bold face lie to you. If you pick up an Xbox One because of these "new" changes, you directly represent how gullible and weak a consumer base can be, especially when a company has done something wrong and then comes back with "lol just kidding guys, you don't gotta do all that shit we said you would have to originally".

I seem to have missed the part where making a product some people don't like infringes on our consumer rights. Care to elaborate?
Anyway I never said a turnaround has happened, I was saying if it did, only an idiot would hinder themselves to get back at a multi-billion dollar company by robbing them of one sale.
If you really think not holding a petty grudge means a lack of self respect and poor morals then you have problems.
Also I would appreciate it if you wouldn't base your arguments on what Microsoft might, but probably won't do. Its a little hard to argue with you when you have no real evidence for me to counter.

 

[nevarran]

1. Cutting out retailers is all well and good for MS - if they could push hardware without them, they weren't in a position to do that, otherwise they wouldn't have included discs at all and would've simply gone all digital (which would then have been an easier argument for their DRM policies). The middlemen still serve a function, and this wasn't going to get rid of them in any case, just reduce the middlemen to MS's chosen few, which included Gamestop. There would've been less competition in the market as a result of this.

Any electronics store can sell hardware, they don't need Gamestop and the likes of it.
Not including the discs would have been even worse than what we had. I'm talking about slowly killing the physical copies, not remove them as an option from the get-go.
And I don't know if Gamestop would've been included as a partner, but it still removes the power from them. Because the console manufacturer can at any given moment remove them from their "chosen few" list.

2. The sharing feature was never discussed in sufficient detail, but they did say the following about it: no simultaneous play of titles (stated by Major Nelson in the Angry Joe interview with him and elsewhere). It also would've be far less convenient in actually cases of people going round a friends house to play a game, because (a) it required a much more frequent check-in, so internet instability would've been a greater problem, and (b) it wasn't going to stream the game On-Live style, it would have to be redownloaded on that console before it was ready to play, which could result in a wait of several hours.

The simultaneous play sounded like a neat feature, shame it wasn't real then. But it's all gone now anyway.
Every hour a ping between you and the servers, come on... It would've been a problem only in some extreme cases.
And you can always have your friend dl the game before going to his house. And did they say you cannot use the disc to install the game?

3. Microsoft already distribute titles fully digitally in a way that completely by-passes retailers - XBLA games. The pricing of these games has actually steadily risen during this generation, rather than falling as you would suggest would've happened if a similar model was applied across the board.

I'm looking at Steam and Kindle and it seems to work the way I say it.

4. Competition on the PC market is very different to that between the consoles, because any number of vendors with any number of business models can utilize the platform. Digitally the consoles each offer a closed market, so there is no competition for a consumer once they invest in one of the platforms.

That's the thing, having the better features and functionality would be the reason for people to invest in your platform. That's the competition I'm talking about.

If companies want to lure people into digital, they have to give them a compelling reason to make that decision, trying to force it on them is why people reacted so strongly to what MS tried to do.

Steam was forced on the PC gamers, and it seems to work just fine.

 

[thenoblitt]

you can share your games with ten friends (its only a 40 minute demo)

 

[SSJBlastoise]

you can share your games with ten friends (its only a 40 minute demo)

Did you read the article? It said they've dropped that idea and are going back to what the 360 currently has.