Xbox? Done.

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Here's a question I want answered:

When the Xbox One's time in the sun is over, and the new system is on the horizon, and Microsoft stops supporting it... what happens when this system can no longer go online to authenticate its games to grant me "permission" to play the library I've spent years and hundreds of dollars acquiring?

Because it needs that daily online check to function... so what happens when, 10 years from now, the servers to the system have been turned off and the system is effectively a non-functioning brick?

Some of us have been asking that question for yeeeeeeeears! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX].

238U

 

[Biodeamon]

I think microsoft has reached the end of it's evolutionary tree or is at least nearing it.
At this rate it will be the winner of the first darwin electronics award.

 

[SLasher797]

Well, i really don't think this will be a massive problem since most gamers won't buy the xbox one for reasons like this and other people won't buy it because they won't see a purpose in doing so. If the console doesn't sell than wouldn't Microsoft have to change their policy?

 

[darksakul]

In all the furor over the XBone, no-one has yet to comment on a similar service that already exists, one that ties your games to the console manufacturer's continued existence. Namely, Playstation Network Plus. If you subscribe to that, you get a myriad of premium features (why auto-updating firmware is a premium feature, I don't know, that should be standard), but to get back to the topic, they either discounted certain games or give them to you for free. However, those games can only be played as long as you are a paid subscriber. Should your subscription end, or the Sony server datacenter is bombed out of existence, you lose the ability to play them, just like what the XBone is threatening to do. Suddenly, subscribing to PSN+ isn't so that you, the customer, can access great features like uploading saves to the cloud and whatnot - it's so you can continue to play the games that are sitting on the hard drive.

Except that Sony been very upfront about PSN Plus, Microsoft have yet to make a statement on the matter, allowing the EULA do the actual talking for them.

What needs to happen is the American Public needs to write to there senators and congressmen to protect the FIRST SALES DOCTRINE, a vital part of copyright law that states that if you buy something it is yours to do as you please until you no longer wish to have it anymore then its up to you as the owner of said device what to do with such product.

 

[badgersprite]

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Ah, but that's the thing. You can possess a chair. The reason the law is scared and confused is because the property laws which are still the basis of our system today were developed hundreds of years ago. Back then, physical possession and direct control was considered a key aspect of property and ownership. Those kinds of definitions don't really work today. However, because the common law is based on precedent, instead of updating the ancient definition of property, the law instead has to do bizarre backflips in order to fit new forms of property into this rigid and outdated legal definition that has no place in the modern world.

So, you see, you can physically possess a disc, but the digital information on that disc has no physical presence. You don't have physical possession of the content on that disc. The law basically says that you have only purchased a license to access that content.

Seriously, they struggled even when it came to the concept of applying the law of theft to electronic money.

That's legal reasoning for you.

Actually, the data on a disc does have a physical presence. On DVDs, CDs, and Blue Ray the information is stored via pits and lands on the reflective side on the disc. The only case where things get dicey is where someone gets access to some core software through a client program they purchased, such as on MMOs. This is why businesses are pushing the cloud and always online requirements: because if they can make it work, they can simply "Lend" the playable software via a client program that we technically own. This is already somewhat the case with MMOs, though we have more data on our side of the equation than most think.

^ Right. The actual games themselves don't have a complete physical presence on the disc anymore for this reason, because other media on discs like TV shows or films you actually do have property rights over, because the content is entirely on the physical disc. That's what I meant before. I apologise that I wasn't clear. This is why you can resell Xbox 360 games just fine, because if the game is entirely on the physical disc, you are completely free to resell it. That's why they're changing their model to sever that.

This is why more and more companies have taken on a "service" model, like Bob says. It enables them to forgo property laws by basically saying that the content is online, or at least to the point where companies have enough control over the game content that it affords them those property rights. Like I said, this is pretty much why video games can be locked out on your own systems if you don't connect to the internet or whatever. Gamers don't have enough "ownership" over the content, so it's not their property, and the "service providers" can do with it as they please, and the law can deny you the right to dispose of your game as you please.

And I'm not even talking about intellectual property with respect to the games. That's a completely separate issue and shouldn't factor in at all when it comes to things like resale rights and the ability to lend games to friends. Know why? Because of books. I don't own any rights over the words and content printed within a book. I can't legally take those words and manufacture a copy of the book without infringing copyright. But can I lend a book I paid for to a friend? Can I give it away to a complete stranger for free without them having to pay the publisher or author? Yes. I absolutely can. This is pretty much the whole concept that allows things like libraries to exist. And the same is true of paintings, movies or TV shows. If I own that copy, I can do whatever I want with it up to the point of infringing copyright.

The fact that a game is any different defies common sense, but common sense and legal reasoning don't often go together.

 

[Tim Chuma]

Digital versions of a product are good if you are running out of space to store things. I have actual piles of DVDs, CDs and books that I don't have anywhere to put.

It does get my goat having to pay again for Sonic 2 the Megadrive version just because I don't want to have to get my console out again (SEGA consoles are notorious for stopping working, my Dreamcast had to have a hole drilled in it to let the demons out.)

I have not really used Steam, but have friends who use it and play a lot of games over the service.

I bought a XBox 360 as my computer is for editing photos on and not a gaming PC.

 

[TK421]

They boot up their console, browse to the game, and a big error message is plastered all over the screen. A comparison to Steam can sorta be made, but one doesn't need to pay for a subscription to Steam to still be able to play games they were given for free. I got the original Portal for free when Valve offered it for free a while back. With PSN+, I'm basically obligated to continue paying, not because it adds any value or I get something great in return, but so that my games aren't being held hostage.

But they aren't your games. If you get games free from PS+, you're renting them. They never say that you own those games, but that you get to play them as long as you have a PS+ account. You never paid for them at all, you just paid a rental subscription fee similar to Netflix.(This also includes some other services and discounts, but we're talking about the games here.)

 

[Fiairflair]

My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

Being one of the first groups try this, Valve actually has an apocalypse contingency plan, at which point they'll provide time for you to download and back-up your files, and they'll provide a universal unlock.

The real fear is if Steam got bought out by someone else, but their price is well beyond what EA offered.

238U

Interestingly, Valve isn't a public company. That is, it isn't floated: you can't buy shares of Valve. Valve would have to sell steam in one go, willingly, for another party to take it over.

 

[JudgeGame]

Leather Ryu Hayabusa is videogames' saving grace. That is all.

 

[Colt47]

The added achievements for watching TV seems more of an oddity than anything else. Are they trying to fight some sort of TV watcher exodus? The way X-Box handles achievements was notorious for spoiling games and damaging immersion. Not to mention they were incredibly disruptive in just about every game except for multiplayer sections: possibly the only place where such a system is justified.

Steam handles the achievements the best due to the neutral coloration of the pop up in the lower right hand corner and the fact the games don't seem to be flooded with them. I haven't played enough games on the PS3 to have much of an opinion on that one.

 

[PirateRose]

In my experience with digital books and music, namely through the struggling providers known as Zune Music Market Place and the Sony Reader Store, when things folded, when publishers had copy right issues with the companies, depending on the circumstances they either 1. Unlocked the digital media to use on any device I wanted. or 2. Refunded my money when the digital media was removed from my collection.

This is what I would hope video games companies would do too. Fingers crossed they unlock the digital media for customers to continue using if they fold, sell the rights off to another company to publish(in fact, Sear's photography sold the rights of their works to Walmart recently, so customers can continue to get copies of their photos) but at the very least they have to refund the customer.

This whole scenario has been something I've argued with older generations for years now. It is a major cultural change, a different way of looking at the copy right laws thanks to digital media in all of it's forms. In technicalities, it is illegal by federal law to be reselling your used games, movies, music and various arts such as posters/statues/photography. You own a physical copy of something someone else created, it is not yours to resell, remake, or claim as your own, the person who worked hard to create the item should get credit at the very least in the form of a copy right release. That is the nature of copy right laws. You can't spend several hundred on a professional photography, then expect to just go to Walgreen's and make cheap copies of their work. They have to give you written permission to do it, or you've given them the right to sue your ass and Walgreen's. It used to be you had to go directly to the photography for copies of pictures they created for you, yes, they are more expensive than going to Walgreen's, but you are paying for the quality print and work someone created. If you want Walgreen's cheaper price, take the pictures yourself, then you have full rights to do whatever you want. Cause you created it.

The whole reason selling used movies and music aren't a huge thing like used games are, is because buying new is far more affordable, and you would be getting something new, unscratched and untouched by someone else. Still wrapped in a shiny plastic. Things balanced out for those industries. Movies and music are far more focused on illegal digital copies of their works. Video games on the other hand, have allowed the used game market to thrive because they have continually kept the cost of their games above what many people can afford. If they want to kill the used game market, they will need to drop the price of their new games if they expect the customers to start buying new. That will be the easiest way of doing it without inconveniencing and pissing off customers.

 

[LordMonty]

For all the outrage on Xbox One games being "services, not products", there is very little when it comes to Steam, a retailer that has been selling "services" that exist only at the whim of a single company for the past few years. Most will say that the reason Steam gets very little backlash is because games on Steam are often put on sale for a fraction of their MSRPs.

Which means that the issue really has less to do with "services vs products" but rather price. It seems that consumers don't mind buying games whose functionality are tied to a single company so long as the price is right. But who's to say that the pricing model of the next generation will follow that of the current generation (in which nearly every retail game is $60, and every digital game is $10-20)?

But steam games travel with me to my new pc... xbox '360' to 'one' ones don't. Backwards compatibility ain't for the cool kids. Steam is cool as so far never taken a game from me that i cannot twist into working on my newer pc's.

It all stinks of forgetting about this being a consumer industry and customer services, they only focus on tricks that do the best for them and spin it to make it seem ok.

 

[Nurb]

Hmm. Interesting points about the loss of Ownership. Unfortunately it seems that only the older generations (ie: Gen X and older) actually have this as a general point of view; younger generations seem to be (in general) fairly OK with the idea of not needing to physically own something to be able to use it.

Can you imagine how boned Microsoft would be if some clever, evil, hackerish-thingie-whateverthey'recallingthemselvestoday-guy got into the XBox servers and simply went "Delete - All" to all the user information that the XBox servers had? All the downloads, all the XBox Live ID's, all of that, on main and all backup servers? Didn't steal anything, just deleted it all?

It never does cease to amaze me how the younger generations were so easily changed into such conservative corporate defenders.

It's like they don't even care they don't own a library which will disappear once the generation is over.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

This, the fact that the Wii U's Amazon sales have skyrocketed, UK polls showing that the Xbone has been given a very frigid reception, and the fact that my one industry buddy is now considering jumping ship as a consumer, from consoles to a desktop PC - all of that shows me that Microsoft and Sony are probably trying to bite more than they can chew.

Well, what do you know. The Wii U isn't 'doing badly' people were just reluctant to invest in a new console because Nintendo got to the next generation a little too quickly, and they didn't know what Microsoft and Sony had to offer.
To be honest, other than that YouTube douchebaggery, Nintendo hasn't done ANYTHING anti-customer with it's products (that I can think of). Backwards compatibility, firmware updates done when YOU decide, complete lack of DRM and online passes... Hell, maybe they'll actually use those points in their future advertisements.

My biggest concern is even though Microsoft seems to be doing everything wrong, I just know once the next Halo (or insert whatever other big title here) comes out the system itself will be selling well. Most buyers don't care about "facts" and are only concerned with getting their "fix."

That's probably why they're already saying "Look! We're going to have COD on our console! And it's going to have a dog that radiates emotions!" People aren't going to care about the bullshit being crammed down their throats, they just want another yearly installment of the same freaking game.

 

[RicoADF]

Pretty much this, Izanagi. This, the fact that the Wii U's Amazon sales have skyrocketed, UK polls showing that the Xbone has been given a very frigid reception, and the fact that my one industry buddy is now considering jumping ship as a consumer, from consoles to a desktop PC - all of that shows me that Microsoft and Sony are probably trying to bite more than they can chew.

I don't doubt that all the platforms will eventually have the same amount of evangelists and fanboys, but I wouldn't be surprised if initial sales for the new Xbox end up disappointing market researchers.

That is, assuming the community has a good long-term memory. Which it doesn't always have.

Wheres Sony coming into this? They haven't pulled the service line at all, you buy a PS4 disc and you own the hard copy that still works. Nintendo are also keeping to the proper system, it really is just Microsoft trying to bully their fans from last gen to roll over and take it since they have/had the biggest fanbase for the 360.

 

[frizzlebyte]

I'm not sure what to think about someone complaining about entertainment being turned from a product into a service. The very notion of video-entertainment being a product (something you can buy and keep forever) is only about 30 years old. Plays, movies, and television were scheduled events that you planned around and savored. Books and records have existed for a while, but those are still much cheaper to produce (especially now) than a video performance.

Those action figures he talked about were valuable precisely because kids COULDN'T purchase the entertainment on an ongoing basis. If you can buy the DVD set and watch it over and over, why would you need an action figure or doll that you have to move yourself. Professional TV writers obviously have much better imaginations than kids so we should be happy to pay for the enhanced experience .

From an archival perspective, sure, it's risky having the continued existence of a work be dependent on the solvency of its creators (even though that work will certainly be sold on as an asset in bankruptcy). But having those works be continually available to everyone cheapens them. Whether "cheapens" means "horay! more people can see this great and worthy thing" or "this will take up space on your shelf for years even though you got bored and quit in the first hour" is a question I'll let the media (social and otherwise) sort out for me.

To me though, that's exactly why this is disturbing. I still cling to the idea that, as cyclical as history is, there is a sense of progress and liberalization that has and should accompany those cyclical periods. The advent of media-as-a-product is precisely the kind of progress that engenders freedom from coercion, both actual and ideal. The fact that the power elite is attempting to reverse this process (through both capitalist and socialist channels, one in our products and the other in our worldview) is profoundly concerning to me.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

That will never happen. Even if Steam DID die, Valve has said they'll disconnect the DRM so you can still play your library.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Wheres Sony coming into this? They haven't pulled the service line at all, you buy a PS4 disc and you own the hard copy that still works. Nintendo are also keeping to the proper system, it really is just Microsoft trying to bully their fans from last gen to roll over and take it since they have/had the biggest fanbase for the 360.

Oh, I'm sorry, then. I figured that with Sony being one of the Big Three and the one that's most likely to be stuck in a toe-to-toe match against the Xbone, it'd be fair to assume them to come up with something that's equally draconian.

They haven't, but I still can't get over the "Share" button. To me, it should be renamed as the "Brag Pointlessly" button.

 

[RicoADF]

Wheres Sony coming into this? They haven't pulled the service line at all, you buy a PS4 disc and you own the hard copy that still works. Nintendo are also keeping to the proper system, it really is just Microsoft trying to bully their fans from last gen to roll over and take it since they have/had the biggest fanbase for the 360.

Oh, I'm sorry, then. I figured that with Sony being one of the Big Three and the one that's most likely to be stuck in a toe-to-toe match against the Xbone, it'd be fair to assume them to come up with something that's equally draconian.

They haven't, but I still can't get over the "Share" button. To me, it should be renamed as the "Brag Pointlessly" button.

I agree the share button will be mostly useless (unless you make a fb page to keep up with fellow gaming mates, guess theres a use there when you have funny experiences). For the most part I doubt I'll use it, but I must hand it to Sony that they've focused on gaming, on making their system do that well without tieing the customer's hands in any way and the few new features (like share) are optional extras for your games rather than unrelated media crap (aka xbox).

 

[dolgion]

I wrote a whole blog post about the things talked about in the article. It's basically that digital goods aren't the problem, it's that our economic system tries to monetize something that is abundantly available to everyone through piracy. If the clouds dies and your entire gaming library with it, it isn't the clouds fault, it's that it (and by extension you) is owned and tied to the company that made it.

http://lostinthezone.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/response-to-xbox-done-piracy-has-a-valid-point-you-know/