Xbox One Infographic Keeps It Simple, Sir

[Floppertje]

wait... did they just advertise with the fact that you can pause your game and switch the input channel? that's some high-tech-shit right there, hasn't been possible since... the vcr?
also kinda makes it sound like they're advertising how easy it is to not have to play their games.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

DISCLAIMER: Personally not favoring any one system over another. It's just a joke.

Spoiler

[http://s250.photobucket.com/user/sirjeffofshort/media/593457-2.jpg.html]

Love it! Entertained already We could use more things like this

BTW...er, is no one noticing the double asterisk at the bottom...implying that 'home gold' account is only available from 'your' xbox one console? With, might i add...'Restrictions apply!?!'

What was wrong with using your live profile on other xbox's?

 

[Frostbyte666]

All these pro-microsoft apologists make me think of a submissive beaten housewife, yes I know it's a terrible analogy but that IS what springs to mind. Microsoft consistently and over a long period of time INSULTED their primary consumer base (gamers) and now that they have U-turned on some of their policies we are supposed to say all is forgiven? I think not, they are going to have to do a lot more grovelling and we're still waiting for those apologies about us being losers and backwards. So no staying on the hate band wagon is completely justified. Also the Xbone is still not an offline experience if you have to have an online activation before using the damn thing, for multiplayer fine, but offline single player no. Before certain people go on about steam doing the same thing, Jim has given a good video on why this works on the pc and why it won't on consoles. There is still also the Kinect thing so I still don't get to use the Xbox One my way at all (though correct me if they have removed that requirement).

OT: This simple stuff shouldn't even need mentioning the fact it does makes me question more about the details with a lot more official clarification being needed instead of trying to distract us with the simple things.

Finally to those who have made an improved poster congrat's great for a laugh.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Well it's good to see that over my short break the Escapist hasn't lost any of its over-dramatic, tin foil hat-wearing Sony fanboys. Seriously, the amount some of you people care about a product you're not going to has started to become very pathetic.

That being said, certain things on this infographic are almost patronizing if I didn't know that somewhere out there a random dingus is actually wowing at the fact that you can pause your game.

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

I actually wished I could work at MS, right now I just work for Pewdie Productions.

...Okay, explain this comment to me. That annoying git has his own production company?

Well, you'd be surprised how many customers are all sheep. Apart from that it is said the XBone will already be profitable at launch, so they must've sold a decent amount already, so there you go.

Well, what else do they tell everyone? That it's going to bomb?
It's business 101: Up play your company and their products. If they didn't, then the shareholders will think that they AREN'T going to make a profit and bail, which would be arguably worse.

So Naturally, they are going to say that it's the best thing since sliced bread, I mean, why wouldn't you?

 

[Genocidicles]

Apart from that it is said the XBone will already be profitable at launch, so they must've sold a decent amount already, so there you go.

Wrong. They said they'll make a profit or break even on each console sold. That has nothing to do with how many have been sold already. It just means they're manufacturing them cheaply enough, or charging enough for them that they aren't selling them at a loss.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Keeps it so simple that it hardly elucidates on any of the important points. I mean for fuck's sakes, suspending and resuming play? We've had pause buttons for years.

 

[mKeRix]

...Okay, explain this comment to me. That annoying git has his own production company?

Yeah, he does, not many people working for him though. He does most stuff (regarding YouTube and so on) himself, but the community thing is offloaded to other people. For example I take care of his servers and websites, including pewdiepie.net. Nothing really special, but it's actually rather relaxing.

Well, what else do they tell everyone? That it's going to bomb?
It's business 101: Up play your company and their products. If they didn't, then the shareholders will think that they AREN'T going to make a profit and bail, which would be arguably worse.

So Naturally, they are going to say that it's the best thing since sliced bread, I mean, why wouldn't you?

Haha, yeah, that's a good point. I really don't see them losing much money anyway though, since there will be a lot of casual gamers and families buying the XBone once it's out (especially around Christmas season), even if it's just for the brand. And even if it turns out to be a total flop, oh well, the XBox is just ba small part of the MS 'empire'.

Apart from that it is said the XBone will already be profitable at launch, so they must've sold a decent amount already, so there you go.

Wrong. They said they'll make a profit or break even on each console sold. That has nothing to do with how many have been sold already. It just means they're manufacturing them cheaply enough, or charging enough for them that they aren't selling them at a loss.

Doesn't necessarily mean what you said either. Of course it's a question of interpretation, but often profit comes through mass production and selling, so that would justify my statement again.

 

[theApoc]

I seriously do not get the gripes...

Digital Distribution: You can't have it both ways. The convenience of digital distribution comes with the realization that YOU DO NOT OWN CONTENT, never have, never will. A physical disc is a license key, nothing more. It allows you to play, watch, listen to someone else's content. You bought a license, not the rights to the content. In the old days, you sold your disc, you sold your license, but with the advent of digital media, well now you are kind of saying, I own the content, I can profit from it's sale, while retaining my ability to use it. It is not crazy or tyrannical to think that publishers don't exactly like this idea.

Limitations on the transfer physical media: See above. You do not OWN the content.

Always Online: This is one of the silliest gripes I have seen. PC games have gone this direction, again to protect their content, yet MS is the bad guy for thinking the convenience of a constant connection and everything it allows is somehow good for the consumer... Yeah, shame on them.

The whole digital market is finding its footing IMO. The change is inevitable, and that is not a bad thing. What we really should be upset about is the idea that digital distribution should cost the same or more than physical distribution. Amazon, MS, Sony, etc... They are making money hand over fist because of this, and they would get a lot less complaining if they charged less.

Would you be so upset about "always on-line" or "single console licenses" if new games, full games, cost half as much as a physical disc? Would you trade your ability to buy sell and trade used, if you got the content for half the price?

1) Always online doesn't work because there is MASSIVE portion of people who have online connections that barely work or work at all. Most of the world does not have the infrastructure to support that.

2) Do you really think Microsoft is going to cut the price of new games by half out of the goodness of their hearts? Want to know exactly how much GameStop and other brick-and-mortar retailers add to the cost of a game? About $10. Games are released as digital download only on PS3 and 360 already... for 50 and 60 dollars.

1. It seems to work just fine for PC game makers...

2. What I said was that the problem with the way ownership is being perceived has little to do with who actually has rights to the content, and mainly comes from the publishers telling people one thing in regards to digital media, while still charging the same as physical media. When you buy Angry birds for 99 cents, you don't feel like you should be able to sell it to a friend? Trade it in? Do you? Now if you pay $15 for a disc with AB on it, how do you perceive it then? Same thing goes for AAA games IMO.

 

[theApoc]

-snip-

Ok let me break this down for you.
Yes the concept of ownership is kinda weird in the video game world.
But that's not OUR fault.

No gamer has ever said "oh hey, I paid sixty bucks for [game name] and now I own the entire franchise to do whatever I want with it."

We are well aware that we don't own the IP of the game, however we DO own that particular copy of the game (the "license" as you called it) in the same way that if I went to a gas station and bought a Hershey bar I would own that Hershey bar, not the entire Hershey company.

Two of the major gripes about the weirdness of the ownership thing is that companies try and enforce DRM and anti-modding policies on gamers. This is a problem because they aren't enforcing it on the IP (the part they own) they are enforcing it on the "license" (the part WE own)

Lets go back to the Hershey bar metaphor.
Imagine you just bought said Hershey bar and then brought it home and dipped it in peanut butter. That tastes good right?
Well now Hershey is sueing you for modifying their product.
You know, the one you just bought?

This would of course be different if you bought a huge amount of Hershey bars and dipped them in peanut butter and then tried to sell them off as your own product.
Or if you stole the Hershey bar from the store.

But while those things (well the second one at least) happen in real life a lot, you had nothing to do with that.
And now Hershey is putting cameras on the wrappers and delivering electric shocks to people who chew with the wrong teeth or something, and that's not to punish the people who stole it, that's to punish EVERYONE.

And that's what Microsoft is doing, they are trying to justify treating their entire consumer base like inmates in a prison because of a few weirdos.

Not to mention the whole "repeatedly insulting their consumer base thing"

I am not going to get into your analogy. You are talking apples and oranges. A consumable, is not the same as a physical item, is not the same as a service, is not the same as a digital media file.

A better analogy would be, You buy a ticket to a concert, you OWN that ticket. If you decide you want to sell that ticket, you transfer ownership to someone else. Now, suppose you could make a perfect copy of that ticket, and you did the same thing. Now you AND the person you sold it to could view the show. The whole point of DRM and limited license use is to stop you from profiting from the content contained within, as THAT is what gave the ticket value, or in the case of discs the game.

Forget the IP, you don't own the game, you don't own the music, you don't own the movie. You own a license to play, listen or watch. You do not have the right to sell the content but you can in most cases sell off your license.

People seem to have this idea that they are somehow entitled to a cut of the game business. That they bought in by purchasing a game and now can do whatever they want with that copy. Um, no. MS was attempting to protect their content without hurting the consumer, and adding convenience. It is silly to think they purposely wanted to alienate anyone. That makes no logical sense from a business standpoint.

As I said in another post, the problem is not ownership, it is consumer cost. No one thinks they OWN Angry Birds, at least in the way they think they OWN Call of Duty. The only difference between the two is cost. Perceived value and consumer cost. If a digital ONLY version cost $30. And A Physical, you can buy sell and trade your copy version cost $60. We would not be having this debate, as most people, would want to pay less, and give up the assumption of ownership, that does not actually exist.

 

[DrOswald]

I seriously do not get the gripes...

Digital Distribution: You can't have it both ways. The convenience of digital distribution comes with the realization that YOU DO NOT OWN CONTENT, never have, never will. A physical disc is a license key, nothing more. It allows you to play, watch, listen to someone else's content. You bought a license, not the rights to the content. In the old days, you sold your disc, you sold your license, but with the advent of digital media, well now you are kind of saying, I own the content, I can profit from it's sale, while retaining my ability to use it. It is not crazy or tyrannical to think that publishers don't exactly like this idea.

Limitations on the transfer physical media: See above. You do not OWN the content.

Always Online: This is one of the silliest gripes I have seen. PC games have gone this direction, again to protect their content, yet MS is the bad guy for thinking the convenience of a constant connection and everything it allows is somehow good for the consumer... Yeah, shame on them.

The whole digital market is finding its footing IMO. The change is inevitable, and that is not a bad thing. What we really should be upset about is the idea that digital distribution should cost the same or more than physical distribution. Amazon, MS, Sony, etc... They are making money hand over fist because of this, and they would get a lot less complaining if they charged less.

Would you be so upset about "always on-line" or "single console licenses" if new games, full games, cost half as much as a physical disc? Would you trade your ability to buy sell and trade used, if you got the content for half the price?

1) Always online doesn't work because there is MASSIVE portion of people who have online connections that barely work or work at all. Most of the world does not have the infrastructure to support that.

2) Do you really think Microsoft is going to cut the price of new games by half out of the goodness of their hearts? Want to know exactly how much GameStop and other brick-and-mortar retailers add to the cost of a game? About $10. Games are released as digital download only on PS3 and 360 already... for 50 and 60 dollars.

1. It seems to work just fine for PC game makers...

Incorrect. Always online has been a constant problem for gaming whenever it has been put into place. Diablo III and SimCity are the obvious examples. Most PC gamers, like myself, just don't buy the things that have always online DRM.

2. What I said was that the problem with the way ownership is being perceived has little to do with who actually has rights to the content, and mainly comes from the publishers telling people one thing in regards to digital media, while still charging the same as physical media. When you buy Angry birds for 99 cents, you don't feel like you should be able to sell it to a friend? Trade it in? Do you? Now if you pay $15 for a disc with AB on it, how do you perceive it then? Same thing goes for AAA games IMO.

Do I think it should be able to resell angry birds? Maybe. In an ideal world, that would be nice. But the thing is that a $1 mobile app is not the same thing as a $60 AAA console title. A $1 purchase of a mobile app is a minor risk. It is entirely possible that it will be a dumb game and I wasted my money, but I only spent a dollar on it so not that big a deal. But a $60 game is an investment. If I am going to pay $60 dollars for something I want to get something of value. For example, I want to be able to resell that item if I have the desire. The physical media has nothing to do with it. And a $60 game is already a very difficult sale. I have not paid $60 for a game since Borderlands 2 and I had not paid the full $60 for at least a year before that.

Now, what Microsoft did was try to change the business model. I am not against this, strictly speaking. Mobile apps, Steam, and free to play all changed the business model and I like those things. My real gripe was that Microsoft failed to convince me that I would benefit in anyway from the change in business model while they convinced me with incredible efficiency that the new model would be to my determent.

My whole issue then is pretty much that Microsoft wanted to give me less for the same price. I am not exactly cool with that. Even now I feel absolutely no desire to have an Xbox One. Microsoft has completely failed to convince me that they are bringing anything to the table that I care about.

Beyond that, Microsoft have been acting like arrogant jerks. This info graph is a step in the right direction, but it is too little too late. Over the past year Microsoft has been disrespectful and rude to their customers. There is no other way to put it. And I would rather not deal with those kinds of people.

 

[theApoc]

Incorrect. Always online has been a constant problem for gaming whenever it has been put into place. Diablo III and SimCity are the obvious examples. Most PC gamers, like myself, just don't buy the things that have always online DRM.

Yet somehow people are still buying those games in droves. And let's not forget that there is a big difference between constant connection based DRM tied to a games servers and the inter connectivity goal that MS was aiming for. Yes, it could/would be used to stop you from pirating games. Was this an attempt to screw the consumer. No. You do not have the right to do whatever you want with content you purchase/license. As long as YOU can see, play, or listen to whatever it is you bought, there is nothing to complain about. It seems like the true issue with having to validate your ability to play is the fact that it will make it much harder for people to get one over on the system.

2. What I said was that the problem with the way ownership is being perceived has little to do with who actually has rights to the content, and mainly comes from the publishers telling people one thing in regards to digital media, while still charging the same as physical media. When you buy Angry birds for 99 cents, you don't feel like you should be able to sell it to a friend? Trade it in? Do you? Now if you pay $15 for a disc with AB on it, how do you perceive it then? Same thing goes for AAA games IMO.

Do I think it should be able to resell angry birds? Maybe. In an ideal world, that would be nice. But the thing is that a $1 mobile app is not the same thing as a $60 AAA console title. A $1 purchase of a mobile app is a minor risk. It is entirely possible that it will be a dumb game and I wasted my money, but I only spent a dollar on it so not that big a deal. But a $60 game is an investment. If I am going to pay $60 dollars for something I want to get something of value. For example, I want to be able to resell that item if I have the desire. The physical media has nothing to do with it. And a $60 game is already a very difficult sale. I have not paid $60 for a game since Borderlands 2 and I had not paid the full $60 for at least a year before that.

Now, what Microsoft did was try to change the business model. I am not against this, strictly speaking. Mobile apps, Steam, and free to play all changed the business model and I like those things. My real gripe was that Microsoft failed to convince me that I would benefit in anyway from the change in business model while they convinced me with incredible efficiency that the new model would be to my determent.

My whole issue then is pretty much that Microsoft wanted to give me less for the same price. I am not exactly cool with that. Even now I feel absolutely no desire to have an Xbox One. Microsoft has completely failed to convince me that they are bringing anything to the table that I care about.

Beyond that, Microsoft have been acting like arrogant jerks. This info graph is a step in the right direction, but it is too little too late. Over the past year Microsoft has been disrespectful and rude to their customers. There is no other way to put it. And I would rather not deal with those kinds of people.

Whoah, wait a minute. You buy the games you want to play, THAT is your value. Attaching a perceived right to resell, well that is your perception, and has nothing to do with MS or any other company. You are not entitled to play your games AND make some money back. It is possible to do that, but there is no promise of that when you buy it.

Again, I agree, digital distribution prices should be lower to account for the inability to "pass it on". Physical media and the market for it should remain, at a premium. But I promise you, what IS going to happen is more and more content being pushed to DLC, making the value of the original physical game less and less. And THAT is something to gripe about. For $60 people should get the content they pay for, they should not be nickle and dimed to play the full game.

You may not like MS, but I assure you Sony is no different, and there is not truth in the statement that they were trying to give you less for the same price. The value added was convenience and inter connectivity, the perceived loss of something you had no right to in the first place is not their fault.

MS wanted to go all digital, yet knew the market wasn't ready, but they were eager to go in that direction and had pitiful marketing team who obviously had no idea of what they were selling. They let the media harp on a few key phrases and failed to properly present the benefits to what they were trying to accomplish. MS is guilty of having terrible PR guys, nothing more.

 

[DrOswald]

Incorrect. Always online has been a constant problem for gaming whenever it has been put into place. Diablo III and SimCity are the obvious examples. Most PC gamers, like myself, just don't buy the things that have always online DRM.

Yet somehow people are still buying those games in droves. And let's not forget that there is a big difference between constant connection based DRM tied to a games servers and the inter connectivity goal that MS was aiming for. Yes, it could/would be used to stop you from pirating games. Was this an attempt to screw the consumer. No. You do not have the right to do whatever you want with content you purchase/license. As long as YOU can see, play, or listen to whatever it is you bought, there is nothing to complain about. It seems like the true issue with having to validate your ability to play is the fact that it will make it much harder for people to get one over on the system.

2. What I said was that the problem with the way ownership is being perceived has little to do with who actually has rights to the content, and mainly comes from the publishers telling people one thing in regards to digital media, while still charging the same as physical media. When you buy Angry birds for 99 cents, you don't feel like you should be able to sell it to a friend? Trade it in? Do you? Now if you pay $15 for a disc with AB on it, how do you perceive it then? Same thing goes for AAA games IMO.

Do I think it should be able to resell angry birds? Maybe. In an ideal world, that would be nice. But the thing is that a $1 mobile app is not the same thing as a $60 AAA console title. A $1 purchase of a mobile app is a minor risk. It is entirely possible that it will be a dumb game and I wasted my money, but I only spent a dollar on it so not that big a deal. But a $60 game is an investment. If I am going to pay $60 dollars for something I want to get something of value. For example, I want to be able to resell that item if I have the desire. The physical media has nothing to do with it. And a $60 game is already a very difficult sale. I have not paid $60 for a game since Borderlands 2 and I had not paid the full $60 for at least a year before that.

Now, what Microsoft did was try to change the business model. I am not against this, strictly speaking. Mobile apps, Steam, and free to play all changed the business model and I like those things. My real gripe was that Microsoft failed to convince me that I would benefit in anyway from the change in business model while they convinced me with incredible efficiency that the new model would be to my determent.

My whole issue then is pretty much that Microsoft wanted to give me less for the same price. I am not exactly cool with that. Even now I feel absolutely no desire to have an Xbox One. Microsoft has completely failed to convince me that they are bringing anything to the table that I care about.

Beyond that, Microsoft have been acting like arrogant jerks. This info graph is a step in the right direction, but it is too little too late. Over the past year Microsoft has been disrespectful and rude to their customers. There is no other way to put it. And I would rather not deal with those kinds of people.

Whoah, wait a minute. You buy the games you want to play, THAT is your value. Attaching a perceived right to resell, well that is your perception, and has nothing to do with MS or any other company. You are not entitled to play your games AND make some money back. It is possible to do that, but there is no promise of that when you buy it.

Again, I agree, digital distribution prices should be lower to account for the inability to "pass it on". Physical media and the market for it should remain, at a premium. But I promise you, what IS going to happen is more and more content being pushed to DLC, making the value of the original physical game less and less. And THAT is something to gripe about. For $60 people should get the content they pay for, they should not be nickle and dimed to play the full game.

You may not like MS, but I assure you Sony is no different, and there is not truth in the statement that they were trying to give you less for the same price. The value added was convenience and inter connectivity, the perceived loss of something you had no right to in the first place is not their fault.

MS wanted to go all digital, yet knew the market wasn't ready, but they were eager to go in that direction and had pitiful marketing team who obviously had no idea of what they were selling. They let the media harp on a few key phrases and failed to properly present the benefits to what they were trying to accomplish. MS is guilty of having terrible PR guys, nothing more.

Actually there is a promise. In fact, there is a law. It is known as the first-sale doctrine. Look it up. It basically means that by law I can resell the physical disc of a video game. It means that game has some inherent financial value to me because of the business and distribution model. I did not purchase a license to view the work, I purchased a copy of the work. There is a significant legal difference.

What Microsoft was attempting to do was change the business and distribution model in a way that would mean the first-sale doctrine no longer applies. They wanted to change the model so we purchase a license, not a copy. This is a change that I am not inherently against. But Microsoft failed to convince me that I would benefit from them changing the model.

Microsoft was trying to give me less for the same money - they were trying to give me a license to view the work instead of a copy of the work. By law a copy of the work has inherent resale value while a license to use or view does not.

And as far as your claim that Sony is the same as Microsoft, I disagree. It is possible Sony wanted to do what Microsoft did, but they did not. They listened to their consumer base and adjusted their business plans accordingly. This shows at least some measure of respect. The gaming community at large said we will not support a console that requires online DRM for single player games. Sony listened, Microsoft did not. Sony respected us enough to believe that we meant what we said. Microsoft did not.

What is even worse is that Microsoft didn't even bother giving us good reasons to want their new model. They thought our threats were so empty that they didn't even bother coming up with a marketing campaign to justify their new model - which is why their marketing efforts have been so poor up to this point. This is why we only got bare bones and contradictory info on the "cool new features" that the DRM would allow. They were not ready because Microsoft did not expect to have to justify their decision to the mindless video game drones.

And even worse that that are the glimpses we have seen into Microsoft's company culture lately. For example, the fact that Adam Orth ever thought he could get away with mocking the concerns of Microsoft's consumer base in a public space is shocking.

Microsoft was trying to change the business model in a way that might have been awesome for everyone. Maybe they even intended to try to make it awesome for everyone (which is giving them credit they do not deserve.) But this particular change is one that only a highly trusted company, whose reputation for respecting their consumer base is very strong, could pull off. Microsoft asked for our trust. I see no reason to give it.

 

[theApoc]

Actually there is a promise. In fact, there is a law. It is known as the first-sale doctrine. Look it up. It basically means that by law I can resell the physical disc of a video game. It means that game has some inherent financial value to me because of the business and distribution model. I did not purchase a license to view the work, I purchased a copy of the work. There is a significant legal difference.

What Microsoft was attempting to do was change the business and distribution model in a way that would mean the first-sale doctrine no longer applies. They wanted to change the model so we purchase a license, not a copy. This is a change that I am not inherently against. But Microsoft failed to convince me that I would benefit from them changing the model.

Microsoft was trying to give me less for the same money - they were trying to give me a license to view the work instead of a copy of the work. By law a copy of the work has inherent resale value while a license to use or view does not.

And as far as your claim that Sony is the same as Microsoft, I disagree. It is possible Sony wanted to do what Microsoft did, but they did not. They listened to their consumer base and adjusted their business plans accordingly. This shows at least some measure of respect. The gaming community at large said we will not support a console that requires online DRM for single player games. Sony listened, Microsoft did not. Sony respected us enough to believe that we meant what we said. Microsoft did not.

What is even worse is that Microsoft didn't even bother giving us good reasons to want their new model. They thought our threats were so empty that they didn't even bother coming up with a marketing campaign to justify their new model - which is why their marketing efforts have been so poor up to this point. This is why we only got bare bones and contradictory info on the "cool new features" that the DRM would allow. They were not ready because Microsoft did not expect to have to justify their decision to the mindless video game drones.

And even worse that that are the glimpses we have seen into Microsoft's company culture lately. For example, the fact that Adam Orth ever thought he could get away with mocking the concerns of Microsoft's consumer base in a public space is shocking.

Microsoft was trying to change the business model in a way that might have been awesome for everyone. Maybe they even intended to try to make it awesome for everyone (which is giving them credit they do not deserve.) But this particular change is one that only a highly trusted company, whose reputation for respecting their consumer base is very strong, could pull off. Microsoft asked for our trust. I see no reason to give it.

And there is the problem. Because that is not ALL the first-sale doctrine says, and it is not easily or always applicable to digital media, disc or no disc. EULA's play a HUGE factor in what you can and can not do with items you buy. So the assumption that "I bought it, I can sell it" does not automatically apply. You are taking a very broad brush to something that has many facets and is not very cut and dry.

MS can sell their products under any pretense they like, and EULA's are used every day to legitimately protect both the consumer and the company. Perception of "ownership" does not negate the legality of an EULA or standard copyright law. Regardless, of what you buy, copy or license, you do not have the right under any law to reproduce and redistribute a content creator/publishers material without consent. You very well may do so, and it is unlikely that they will come after anyone for sharing MP3s, but there is no law that grants you that right. You can give it away, sell your disc, whatever, but if you should keep a copy, either you or your customer are technically breaking the law.

As for Sony, the basis of your argument against MS is sketchy at best, so saying Sony didn't do something, that MS really didn't do isn't proving anything. Sony has EULAs just like everyone else. In the end their approach is no different than MS. You are buying the ability to use content, not the right to redistribute it. Sony pandered to the vocal minority making a big deal out of something that will ultimately have no effect on console sales or the profits of either company. Neither company has a plan for competitive pricing when it comes to digital media, so for now it costs the same as physical. THAT is IMO the only problem with what MS was trying to do. Digital media does not have the overhead of physical media and should therefore cost less.

Like it or not. Physical media is going away. You WILL be beholden to servers, and storage, and constant connection. Your license will be limited to a number of "seats" and more than likely there will be an expiration date on support. Games are software, that is how all major software works and has worked for years. You don't own photoshop, you license it. You don't own iMovie, you license it with your copy of the OS. Games are no different. MS was turning your box, your account and your connection into the same xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx key used by software publishers, nothing more. That is not "disrespecting" anyone. It is moving towards a digital future with instant fullfilment, support and updates.

No, servers are not up all the time. No, patches don't always fix things, and yes it is possible to lose your connection to the internet. But being upset about a constant connection for the latest technology is like being upset that your XBOX won't run on batteries and requires a constant supply of power.

I get your gripes, but your perception of MS being evil for any of this, just doesn't make sense. Nothing they did was so "ZOMG!!" shocking. And none of it was anything more intrusive than Sony or Nintendo. It is fashionable in geek circles to hate MS, I get it, but seriously, the facts just don't support the cause.

 

[DrOswald]

Actually there is a promise. In fact, there is a law. It is known as the first-sale doctrine. Look it up. It basically means that by law I can resell the physical disc of a video game. It means that game has some inherent financial value to me because of the business and distribution model. I did not purchase a license to view the work, I purchased a copy of the work. There is a significant legal difference.

What Microsoft was attempting to do was change the business and distribution model in a way that would mean the first-sale doctrine no longer applies. They wanted to change the model so we purchase a license, not a copy. This is a change that I am not inherently against. But Microsoft failed to convince me that I would benefit from them changing the model.

Microsoft was trying to give me less for the same money - they were trying to give me a license to view the work instead of a copy of the work. By law a copy of the work has inherent resale value while a license to use or view does not.

And as far as your claim that Sony is the same as Microsoft, I disagree. It is possible Sony wanted to do what Microsoft did, but they did not. They listened to their consumer base and adjusted their business plans accordingly. This shows at least some measure of respect. The gaming community at large said we will not support a console that requires online DRM for single player games. Sony listened, Microsoft did not. Sony respected us enough to believe that we meant what we said. Microsoft did not.

What is even worse is that Microsoft didn't even bother giving us good reasons to want their new model. They thought our threats were so empty that they didn't even bother coming up with a marketing campaign to justify their new model - which is why their marketing efforts have been so poor up to this point. This is why we only got bare bones and contradictory info on the "cool new features" that the DRM would allow. They were not ready because Microsoft did not expect to have to justify their decision to the mindless video game drones.

And even worse that that are the glimpses we have seen into Microsoft's company culture lately. For example, the fact that Adam Orth ever thought he could get away with mocking the concerns of Microsoft's consumer base in a public space is shocking.

Microsoft was trying to change the business model in a way that might have been awesome for everyone. Maybe they even intended to try to make it awesome for everyone (which is giving them credit they do not deserve.) But this particular change is one that only a highly trusted company, whose reputation for respecting their consumer base is very strong, could pull off. Microsoft asked for our trust. I see no reason to give it.

And there is the problem. Because that is not ALL the first-sale doctrine says, and it is not easily or always applicable to digital media, disc or no disc. EULA's play a HUGE factor in what you can and can not do with items you buy. So the assumption that "I bought it, I can sell it" does not automatically apply. You are taking a very broad brush to something that has many facets and is not very cut and dry.

MS can sell their products under any pretense they like, and EULA's are used every day to legitimately protect both the consumer and the company. Perception of "ownership" does not negate the legality of an EULA or standard copyright law. Regardless, of what you buy, copy or license, you do not have the right under any law to reproduce and redistribute a content creator/publishers material without consent. You very well may do so, and it is unlikely that they will come after anyone for sharing MP3s, but there is no law that grants you that right. You can give it away, sell your disc, whatever, but if you should keep a copy, either you or your customer are technically breaking the law.

As for Sony, the basis of your argument against MS is sketchy at best, so saying Sony didn't do something, that MS really didn't do isn't proving anything. Sony has EULAs just like everyone else. In the end their approach is no different than MS. You are buying the ability to use content, not the right to redistribute it. Sony pandered to the vocal minority making a big deal out of something that will ultimately have no effect on console sales or the profits of either company. Neither company has a plan for competitive pricing when it comes to digital media, so for now it costs the same as physical. THAT is IMO the only problem with what MS was trying to do. Digital media does not have the overhead of physical media and should therefore cost less.

Lets be clear here, I am not talking theoretical rights or if it first-sale doctrine is right or wrong. I am referencing law. This is how it works by law. I recognize that this is a very complex issue. That does not change the fact that I am currently allowed, by law, as a consequence of the current distribution model, to sell my purchased copy of a game. Microsoft was trying to change the distribution model so that would no longer apply. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it was always going to be controversial for the potential of screwing the customer over.

Like it or not. Physical media is going away. You WILL be beholden to servers, and storage, and constant connection. Your license will be limited to a number of "seats" and more than likely there will be an expiration date on support. Games are software, that is how all major software works and has worked for years. You don't own photoshop, you license it. You don't own iMovie, you license it with your copy of the OS. Games are no different. MS was turning your box, your account and your connection into the same xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx key used by software publishers, nothing more. That is not "disrespecting" anyone. It is moving towards a digital future with instant fullfilment, support and updates.

You are not paying attention. Moving towards a digital distribution model is not disrespecting anyone. Mocking your customers concerns about the DRM you are tacking onto the digital distribution mode over twitter by telling them to "deal with it" is disrespectful. Not even trying to justify a highly controversial decision and then expecting your customers to buy your product anyway is disrespectful.

Or I guess they could just be really, really bad at their jobs. Jerks or idiots? Sometimes it is hard to tell. Either way I don't want to buy their product.

No, servers are not up all the time. No, patches don't always fix things, and yes it is possible to lose your connection to the internet. But being upset about a constant connection for the latest technology is like being upset that your XBOX won't run on batteries and requires a constant supply of power.

Incorrect. Constant connection for things like single player games is a purely artificial limitation. Power concerns are a engineering limitation. Completely different. This is why I am not mad about the lack of reverse compatibility of the new systems. I want it, but I understand the engineering hurdles involved and I agree that the cost of overcoming those problems is not worth the reward.

That is not to say artificial limitations cannot be justified. But you have to work for that. You have to show that you are giving an inch for every inch you take or people are going to be upset. Microsoft completely failed to do this.

I get your gripes, but your perception of MS being evil for any of this, just doesn't make sense. Nothing they did was so "ZOMG!!" shocking. And none of it was anything more intrusive than Sony or Nintendo. It is fashionable in geek circles to hate MS, I get it, but seriously, the facts just don't support the cause.

Ok, so 24 hour check in DRM is no more intrusive than no DRM? That's an interesting stance.

In any case, I don't think Microsoft is evil. I think that Microsoft, as a company, has decided to try to take more or give less in an attempt to increase their profits. That does not make them evil. It just means that they make questionable business decisions and that their customers should not trust them to make decisions that will benefit the customer. The move to a digital distribution model for consoles is something that is going to require trust by the consumer. Microsoft did not earn the trust they were asking us to give them.

 

[Mirrorknight]

Here's the thing. Digital sales on consoles will never be as accepted as PC digital sales as long as the console companies refuse to give value to make up for any intrusions.

For instance, Steam. They regularly have decent sales from 10 to 50$ off for their games. Even new games are usually $10 off the normal retail price (with usually an extra 10% shaved off if I pre-order) Also, most of the times the game's cost goes down over time. Yes, Steam has DRM, but it's usually unobtrusive, and I can still play offline.

So I'm paying less (sometimes far less), they have a large library of games, I can still play the game offline, with fairly little hoop jumping, and I have to deal with a bit of DRM. I can deal with the little bit of DRM for the value of having access to many games and at (sometimes greatly) reduced cost.

Or, hell. There's GoG. Less extensive library, but they have comparable sales and are DRM free. Again, value.

Console makers, on the other hand, have yet to even come close to establish the value of digital over physical. Lots of DRM, and prices are the same as the physical copy, prices don't go down with age, I don't have a physical copy of the game, and the game price doesn't depreciate in value the longer its out. So where's the value in having a digital copy over a physical one? Until console makers provide some sort of value in getting a digital copy as opposed to a physical copy, console game sales will never go fully digital, no matter how hard they push.

 

[theApoc]

You are not paying attention. Moving towards a digital distribution model is not disrespecting anyone. Mocking your customers concerns about the DRM you are tacking onto the digital distribution mode over twitter by telling them to "deal with it" is disrespectful. Not even trying to justify a highly controversial decision and then expecting your customers to buy your product anyway is disrespectful.

Or I guess they could just be really, really bad at their jobs. Jerks or idiots? Sometimes it is hard to tell. Either way I don't want to buy their product.

You cannot apply some random tweet to an entire company or to the thought process behind their products. They are not tacking anything on to anything. Right now, today, digital games on consoles are limited in EXACTLY the same way as was presented by MS. And the only controversy from any of this wa created by overzealous bloggers.

Incorrect. Constant connection for things like single player games is a purely artificial limitation. Power concerns are a engineering limitation. Completely different. This is why I am not mad about the lack of reverse compatibility of the new systems. I want it, but I understand the engineering hurdles involved and I agree that the cost of overcoming those problems is not worth the reward.

That is not to say artificial limitations cannot be justified. But you have to work for that. You have to show that you are giving an inch for every inch you take or people are going to be upset. Microsoft completely failed to do this.

Again how? What did MS do that was so ridiculously horrible? You assume it is an "artificial limitation", that does not make it so. Cloud based assets, another thing that MS mentioned in their press conference. Allowing more complex games, better graphics, etc. Remember that? So, could it be possible that a constant connection was required to facilitate, um, I don't know, features such as this and were NOT primarily intended as a DRM measure. You assume way too much about motives while ignoring the things they actually presented. Yes, yup, right, this will limit your ability to just randomly give your game to a friend. They are attempting to keep your purchase agreement between you and them, 100% correct. But the assertion that they are trying to take something from you for no reason without attempting to give something back in the way of convenience or experience is speculation at best. Completely off base at worst.

Ok, so 24 hour check in DRM is no more intrusive than no DRM? That's an interesting stance.
In any case, I don't think Microsoft is evil. I think that Microsoft, as a company, has decided to try to take more or give less in an attempt to increase their profits. That does not make them evil. It just means that they make questionable business decisions and that their customers should not trust them to make decisions that will benefit the customer. The move to a digital distribution model for consoles is something that is going to require trust by the consumer. Microsoft did not earn the trust they were asking us to give them.

No DRM? Who has no DRM. Once again you ASSUME 24 hour check in is about DRM, ignoring any one of a number of reasons why it not only makes sense, but also enhances user experience. Letting you avoid that is a bone thrown to people who were griping about nothing, and in the end will most likely leave their system plugged in anyway. I don't often find myself crawling behind my TV to unplug the ethernet cable. It was a silly gripe about something that people ALREADY do and are used to. And for the record, we have already moved to a digital distribution model, physical media is a legacy technology kept in place by both companies to appease the vocal minority. More and more content is added on a daily basis and people are becoming more and more comfortable with downloading it. CD, DVD sales, on-line viewing. You do not have to take my word for it, the stats are out there. Most people trust digital distribution just fine.

This is a good discussion.

 

[DrOswald]

You are not paying attention. Moving towards a digital distribution model is not disrespecting anyone. Mocking your customers concerns about the DRM you are tacking onto the digital distribution mode over twitter by telling them to "deal with it" is disrespectful. Not even trying to justify a highly controversial decision and then expecting your customers to buy your product anyway is disrespectful.

Or I guess they could just be really, really bad at their jobs. Jerks or idiots? Sometimes it is hard to tell. Either way I don't want to buy their product.

You cannot apply some random tweet to an entire company or to the thought process behind their products. They are not tacking anything on to anything. Right now, today, digital games on consoles are limited in EXACTLY the same way as was presented by MS. And the only controversy from any of this wa created by overzealous bloggers.

This was not some random tweet, it was the creative director of Microsoft. What he says is indicative of the company - he was a leader there. The views and opinions of the leadership of a company determine the direction the company moves in.

And it is true that digital games on consoles are limited in the ways Microsoft described (sans 24 hour check in) but that does not mean I want my physical disc games limited in this same fashion. That is the problem.

Incorrect. Constant connection for things like single player games is a purely artificial limitation. Power concerns are a engineering limitation. Completely different. This is why I am not mad about the lack of reverse compatibility of the new systems. I want it, but I understand the engineering hurdles involved and I agree that the cost of overcoming those problems is not worth the reward.

That is not to say artificial limitations cannot be justified. But you have to work for that. You have to show that you are giving an inch for every inch you take or people are going to be upset. Microsoft completely failed to do this.

Again how? What did MS do that was so ridiculously horrible? You assume it is an "artificial limitation", that does not make it so. Cloud based assets, another thing that MS mentioned in their press conference. Allowing more complex games, better graphics, etc. Remember that? So, could it be possible that a constant connection was required to facilitate, um, I don't know, features such as this and were NOT primarily intended as a DRM measure. You assume way too much about motives while ignoring the things they actually presented. Yes, yup, right, this will limit your ability to just randomly give your game to a friend. They are attempting to keep your purchase agreement between you and them, 100% correct. But the assertion that they are trying to take something from you for no reason without attempting to give something back in the way of convenience or experience is speculation at best. Completely off base at worst.

So here we have several problems:
1. You will remember that I did not say that an artificial limitation cannot be justified - I will now extend that statement to say that an engineering limitation may at first seem to be an artificial limitation. However, it is then the burden of the seller to demonstrate that fact. And historically this has been a big problem. Because people lie. Only 6 months ago an always online game, SimCity, was released. EA swore up and down that the game must be always online, that it could not possibly work without it. This was proven false. They wanted it to be always online, for whatever reason, and that hurt the game in really significant ways.

The history of always online single player games has been one of anti consumer DRM, greed that damage the game design, and strait up lies. Always online can be justified, but you are going to have to work really, really hard to convince everyone that it is necessary.

2: Ok, I wasn't going to bring up the cloud, but here we go. This is one possible justification for the always online requirement. However, the fact that Microsoft did not make an always online requirement (only a 24 hour check in requirement) shows that their cloud capabilities were never as robust as they stated. No company would ever go to that level of expense for a secondary feature that is not core to the product. In any case, I don't believe that they had as powerful a server bank as they claimed (for every Xbox One they would have 3 times again the computing power and memory on the cloud.) That is an incredible investment - we are looking at around an extra $400 of equipment, on the very generously low side, for each and every Xbox sold plus the cost of maintaining and powering all that equipment as a monthly expense? I do not believe it. They have to be manipulating the data somehow to make it look better. And if they were not they had better be able to convince me that it is true - bring in an executive from Intel who can confirm the order of a million high powered CPU's. Give us a video tour of one of the server facilities. Do something.

And even if they did have this in place Microsoft obviously overplayed the "infinite power of the could" without ever actually showing us an example of how the new games were going to use this infinite power. The drivatar thing was cool if your into racing games, but that is essentially just tweaking AI settings - there is absolutely no reason to have anything more than more robust multiplayer servers. There is certainly no call for a constant connection in order to make use of the mighty and infinite cloud. If you really have this cool new feature then show us why it is so cool. Give us something to talk about. Show us something.

3: A constant connection could be required to facilitate these features. But that is not what they announced. They announced a once a day check in system. There are very few features that a daily check in could facilitated - it is DRM. Or I guess they could be downloading more advertisements to throw on the dashboard. Either way it is not something I like.

But even so, a daily check in could be justified. Give us something that makes this acceptable. Show us the awesome features to which this string is attached and maybe I will consider allowing it. But they didn't. The closest they got was announcing their family share plan, but the details were so scarce and Microsoft was so tight lipped that even that might have just been a glorified demo service. There was no way to know because Microsoft would not answer our questions. And when a company will not answer your questions it is either because they don't have an answer (in other words they were throwing it together at the last minute and hadn't thought it out properly yet) or they know that you will hate the answer so much that it will damage them more than your wild speculation will. I mean, if it was good news why would they withhold it when they needed a win so very much?

Ok, so 24 hour check in DRM is no more intrusive than no DRM? That's an interesting stance.
In any case, I don't think Microsoft is evil. I think that Microsoft, as a company, has decided to try to take more or give less in an attempt to increase their profits. That does not make them evil. It just means that they make questionable business decisions and that their customers should not trust them to make decisions that will benefit the customer. The move to a digital distribution model for consoles is something that is going to require trust by the consumer. Microsoft did not earn the trust they were asking us to give them.

No DRM? Who has no DRM. Once again you ASSUME 24 hour check in is about DRM, ignoring any one of a number of reasons why it not only makes sense, but also enhances user experience. Letting you avoid that is a bone thrown to people who were griping about nothing, and in the end will most likely leave their system plugged in anyway. I don't often find myself crawling behind my TV to unplug the ethernet cable. It was a silly gripe about something that people ALREADY do and are used to. And for the record, we have already moved to a digital distribution model, physical media is a legacy technology kept in place by both companies to appease the vocal minority. More and more content is added on a daily basis and people are becoming more and more comfortable with downloading it. CD, DVD sales, on-line viewing. You do not have to take my word for it, the stats are out there. Most people trust digital distribution just fine.

Another few things:

1. All consoles have DRM, this is true. But they all, pretty much, have the same DRM. The Xbox One was adding a new DRM. The difference then is, if you cancel out all the other common elements, 24 hour check in vs nothing.

2. Please tell me how a 24 hour check in so enhances the consumer experience that it is worth bricking the system if it does not happen. I am not talking about features like the family share plan - that is not facilitated by the 24 hour check in, even if it could be used as a tool to lessen the sting of such a check in. I can't think of a single significant feature that a 24 hour check in could facilitate, and certainly nothing worth bricking the console temporarily if it does not happen. The 24 hour check in was DRM.

Now, that is not a insurmountable issue. I gladly accept the once every three week check in for Steam because I get so much in return - primarily the massive discounts and sales. But you are going to have to convince me that what I am getting is worth the DRM. Announce the daily Microsoft Live sale, or announce that all downloaded titles on the Xbox one will be 10% off, or give us actual details on the family plan so we know it is better than a demo service.

3. I don't have my consoles always online. In fact I almost never have them online. My home internet is pretty unreliable and when it goes down I tend to switch from computer multiplayer to console single player. But with the Xbox One I cannot do that any more. Because of the 24 hour check in if I didn't use the console earlier that day it will not work. And I never keep my consoles powered when I am not using them - I don't have enough plugs. For me the 24 hour check in is a big deal. When I want to use my console the most I would not be able to.

4. While people do generally trust digital download, we have been hurt before when it fails us. Specifically by Microsoft. Microsoft once ran a digital download service for music. It was called MSN Music. It sold several million songs and then shutdown forever in 2008. Any songs you purchased from the service can not be retrieved and Microsoft has made zero effort to reimburse their customers for the money they spent on the failed service. They have made no effort to allow users to access their purchased content. Any money you may have invested in the service disappeared forever on August 31, 2008.

I trust digital download from Valve, I trust digital download from Apple. Both of them have always done right by me. I do not trust digital download from Microsoft because they have shown that when a service is no longer profitable we cannot count on them to think of their customers. They will take the money and run.

Even now this sort of thing is still a potential problem. On August 19th it was accidentally announced that Games for Windows Live would shut down on July 1 2014. I am not talking about shutting down the market place, I mean shutting down the service - making all the games tied to GFWL useless, single player and multiplayer. The notice was quickly removed but it was there. When asked for a comment Microsoft dodged the issue, neither confirming or denying the potential shutdown. We still have not got an answer. And, as I have said before, if they are not answering a question then they either do not have an answer or they know that we will hate the answer.

This is a good discussion.

I am glad you think so. I have been trying to be civil, but it is sometimes hard to do so. Sometimes something I think is non offensive comes off as offensive when it is just text. I am sorry if anything I have said or will say is mean, I really don't mean it that way. I enjoy discussing this sort of thing and even though our views are pretty much opposite it is good to see the other perspective.

 

[theApoc]

This was not some random tweet, it was the creative director of Microsoft. What he says is indicative of the company - he was a leader there. The views and opinions of the leadership of a company determine the direction the company moves in.

And it is true that digital games on consoles are limited in the ways Microsoft described (sans 24 hour check in) but that does not mean I want my physical disc games limited in this same fashion. That is the problem.

XBONE? "MS is Evil, trying steal all our freedomz!!!" "MS doesn't care about us gamerz"

It WAS a random tweet by a human being in response to disrespectful children, who think their comments on some random forum constitute the end all and be all of consumer feedback. Respect is earned, not just given, and in this day and age the customer is RARELY right, companies are realizing this, and doing what the HAVE to do to keep the masses in line. Gamers and the game community are toxic, opinionated, whiny children. Read ANY forum, review, etc. In general they have no concept of constructive criticism or actual feedback. Sony, Nintendo, MS, Steam. They all want ONE thing, to make money. Providing a good consumer experience is key to that, which is why they work very hard to keep people happy. PEOPLE however are generally stupid, and have no idea of what is good for them or what they want. Which is why there are 20 different gritty shooters every year, and most companies stick with franchises they KNOW will sell. MS was working towards innovation, not stifling the customer. Rather that hedging their bets like the rest of the pack. People are not ready, so they changed. Again your assumption of disrespect and malice on their part is way off base. Nothing they did indicates any animosity towards the customer.

1. You will remember that I did not say that an artificial limitation cannot be justified - I will now extend that statement to say that an engineering limitation may at first seem to be an artificial limitation. However, it is then the burden of the seller to demonstrate that fact. And historically this has been a big problem. Because people lie. Only 6 months ago an always online game, SimCity, was released. EA swore up and down that the game must be always online, that it could not possibly work without it. This was proven false. They wanted it to be always online, for whatever reason, and that hurt the game in really significant ways.

The history of always online single player games has been one of anti consumer DRM, greed that damage the game design, and strait up lies. Always online can be justified, but you are going to have to work really, really hard to convince everyone that it is necessary.

2: Ok, I wasn't going to bring up the cloud, but here we go. This is one possible justification for the always online requirement. However, the fact that Microsoft did not make an always online requirement (only a 24 hour check in requirement) shows that their cloud capabilities were never as robust as they stated. No company would ever go to that level of expense for a secondary feature that is not core to the product. In any case, I don't believe that they had as powerful a server bank as they claimed (for every Xbox One they would have 3 times again the computing power and memory on the cloud.) That is an incredible investment - we are looking at around an extra $400 of equipment, on the very generously low side, for each and every Xbox sold plus the cost of maintaining and powering all that equipment as a monthly expense? I do not believe it. They have to be manipulating the data somehow to make it look better. And if they were not they had better be able to convince me that it is true - bring in an executive from Intel who can confirm the order of a million high powered CPU's. Give us a video tour of one of the server facilities. Do something.

And even if they did have this in place Microsoft obviously overplayed the "infinite power of the could" without ever actually showing us an example of how the new games were going to use this infinite power. The drivatar thing was cool if your into racing games, but that is essentially just tweaking AI settings - there is absolutely no reason to have anything more than more robust multiplayer servers. There is certainly no call for a constant connection in order to make use of the mighty and infinite cloud. If you really have this cool new feature then show us why it is so cool. Give us something to talk about. Show us something.

You are assuming always online is about DRM in this case, it is not. They listed many features, and XBOX live has many features that benefit, just like a PC from a constant connection. Just because they can use it as a means of DRM, that does not mean it was their primary intention. Updates. background updates, just like PC, one HUGE reason to always be online and to check in daily. Or weekly or whatever. Again you ASSUME malice when there are legitimate and quite helpful features enabled by a constant connection and a "check in" system.

Yes PUBLISHERS have been known to drop the ball when it comes to always connected games. They have also been known to do some pretty awesome things. WoW, PlanetSide, Everquest, City of Heroes... Dynamic environments and encounters. A VERY good reason for always being connected. Shared world(as presented in Destiny and seemingly Titanfall). You question the technical ability to deliver this service. Fair enough, but your doubts do not constitute proof that there is/was an ulterior motive aimed at taking something away from the consumer. They want control of THEIR content. Game publishers want control of THEIR content. Digital distribution is a means to do this that just so happens to be good for the consumer as well.

Most if not all of your complaints are based on assumption, not on what was stated. 6 months from now, if they fail to deliver, we can talk about the hypothetical of why the 3x computing power claim was BS. Until then. Your bias should only be based on what they put in front of you.

And they did show us how this could work, by showing us some pretty impressive games that had ridiculous potential for user interaction and inter connectivity. THAT is the potential. The potential of being able to do a persistent world game on a console. Are you kidding me? How awesome would it be if Borderlands, Halo, COD, Battlefield, or GTA was a true open world interconnected experience. PC games have been doing this for years, the potential of the consoles to bring that type of thing to the masses... Have you ever played Planetside? 10 years ago they were pushing the limits with 100s of people in an open world fight. Imagine if 100a were 1000s and had the exposure of the console market. You ignored the potential and in some cases the reality and focused on one POTENTIAL negative that ultimately would have little effect on user experience.

3: A constant connection could be required to facilitate these features. But that is not what they announced. They announced a once a day check in system. There are very few features that a daily check in could facilitated - it is DRM. Or I guess they could be downloading more advertisements to throw on the dashboard. Either way it is not something I like.

But even so, a daily check in could be justified. Give us something that makes this acceptable. Show us the awesome features to which this string is attached and maybe I will consider allowing it. But they didn't. The closest they got was announcing their family share plan, but the details were so scarce and Microsoft was so tight lipped that even that might have just been a glorified demo service. There was no way to know because Microsoft would not answer our questions. And when a company will not answer your questions it is either because they don't have an answer (in other words they were throwing it together at the last minute and hadn't thought it out properly yet) or they know that you will hate the answer so much that it will damage them more than your wild speculation will. I mean, if it was good news why would they withhold it when they needed a win so very much?

Really? Very few? System updates, patches, game updates, mobile/PC synchronization, social media features, content downloads. Yup DRM as well, which could also be part of your connection for DLC, to send a message, watch a movie... Point being, constant or not. Daily or not. Your system does and will check in with them whenever you connect. That is kind of the point of a internet connected system. You think your Ps4 doesn't do this when you go on-line? Can the Wii even go online? Anyway, the point is, there are lots of reasons for all 3 companies to keep doing WHAT THEY ALREADY DO, for both content protection and to enhance the customer experience. Nothing MS suggested was all that shocking until, people started whining and turning this into a stupid "Sony vs MS debate" where Sony was claimed the winner just because they kept their mouth shut. The consoles are virtually identical and will have almost the same online capabilities, and the PS4 will definitely check for updates and patches via a connection.

MS wanted always online, and I can see why. Do I think it was all for the good of the consumer? Nope. Definitely grabbing metrics and data from you. Definitely checking you are legit. Definitely doing a little spying. All I can say is, at least they told you about it cause anything your do online from ANY company, does the exact same thing. We trade these things willingly for convenience, and we do it every day. Saying MS is bad because of this makes very little sense.

1. All consoles have DRM, this is true. But they all, pretty much, have the same DRM. The Xbox One was adding a new DRM. The difference then is, if you cancel out all the other common elements, 24 hour check in vs nothing.

Which I have detailed above as having just as much potential benefit(if not more) than the off chance your system locks you out for some odd reason.

2. Please tell me how a 24 hour check in so enhances the consumer experience that it is worth bricking the system if it does not happen. I am not talking about features like the family share plan - that is not facilitated by the 24 hour check in, even if it could be used as a tool to lessen the sting of such a check in. I can't think of a single significant feature that a 24 hour check in could facilitate, and certainly nothing worth bricking the console temporarily if it does not happen. The 24 hour check in was DRM.

Now, that is not a insurmountable issue. I gladly accept the once every three week check in for Steam because I get so much in return - primarily the massive discounts and sales. But you are going to have to convince me that what I am getting is worth the DRM. Announce the daily Microsoft Live sale, or announce that all downloaded titles on the Xbox one will be 10% off, or give us actual details on the family plan so we know it is better than a demo service.

Good point, which I am pretty sure was a primary factor in them removing that from the system. Check in and connection make sense, and will most likely still limit what you can do offline, but the onus here is not solely on MS. Some digital games REQUIRE this ability to keep the playing field level. Some digital games require a connection to keep you up to date with hot fixes(small patches that are not actually on your machine). Some games simply would not work without being connected. And some games companies don't want you copying their games and giving them to your friends. All legitimate reasons for your console checking in and staying legit. The average consumer, would rarely see a negative effect from this connectivity requirement. Besides you assume the connection is required for play. I content that it is more likely used as verification and unless online was part of the game experience would not have any effect on regular single player games. This is how it is now. The disc is required to run the game that is on the console, but the game does not run off of the disc. It checks against the disc at start then plays from your machine. The check in could and probably will work the same way. Your perception of value or lack thereof does not define the motive behind these features. What they are offering is on par with if not better than every other service, and the requirements for access are nearly identical as well.

3. I don't have my consoles always online. In fact I almost never have them online. My home internet is pretty unreliable and when it goes down I tend to switch from computer multiplayer to console single player. But with the Xbox One I cannot do that any more. Because of the 24 hour check in if I didn't use the console earlier that day it will not work. And I never keep my consoles powered when I am not using them - I don't have enough plugs. For me the 24 hour check in is a big deal. When I want to use my console the most I would not be able to.

Then you should not buy one of the new consoles because your experience is going to be severely limited no matter who you choose. The features and reasons why this is a good thing have been presented. The hypothetical, I couldn't connect today ZOMG my machine stopped working is meh. Most likely, not sure, so I will call this a guess. Once you reconnected, it would kind of make sense your console would be fine again. And the idea that you would have the power/money for the latest console but not the ability to check in online when you wanted to play, well, yeah, that is just silly.

4. While people do generally trust digital download, we have been hurt before when it fails us. Specifically by Microsoft. Microsoft once ran a digital download service for music. It was called MSN Music. It sold several million songs and then shutdown forever in 2008. Any songs you purchased from the service can not be retrieved and Microsoft has made zero effort to reimburse their customers for the money they spent on the failed service. They have made no effort to allow users to access their purchased content. Any money you may have invested in the service disappeared forever on August 31, 2008.

I trust digital download from Valve, I trust digital download from Apple. Both of them have always done right by me. I do not trust digital download from Microsoft because they have shown that when a service is no longer profitable we cannot count on them to think of their customers. They will take the money and run.

Apple? LOL. Their music was exactly the same way back then. If the user base had not been enough to keep itunes open, guess, what, the exact same thing would have happened. ALL companies had stupid DRM back then, and ALL companies switched to MP3 when they realized that legacy support was going to be an issue. You are talking apples and oranges. They are not locking out specific content. They are verifying your machine and the content you purchased. You know the flip side to that? Your machine is lost in a fire, stolen, dies of natural causes. Your purchases and content are preserved, JUST LIKE THEY ARE NOW. You don't trust MS? Ok, whatever. Valve and Apple? LOL, they are exactly the same, go back to your old Mp4's and try a straight copy to another device/machine. Please.

Even now this sort of thing is still a potential problem. On August 19th it was accidentally announced that Games for Windows Live would shut down on July 1 2014. I am not talking about shutting down the market place, I mean shutting down the service - making all the games tied to GFWL useless, single player and multiplayer. The notice was quickly removed but it was there. When asked for a comment Microsoft dodged the issue, neither confirming or denying the potential shutdown. We still have not got an answer. And, as I have said before, if they are not answering a question then they either do not have an answer or they know that we will hate the answer.

This happens all of the time, and it will continue to happen as a user base becomes unsustainable. Do you think the original WoW will be supported forever? How many apps by companies that went belly up are no longer supported by apple. This is what happens, and MS is no different than anyone else. And frankly, you support the products that work/sell, you shelve the ones that don't.

There are some games that I loved for XBOX, that were super awesome. No DLC, no support, nothing. They died out because there weren't enough people like me. It sucks, I paid good money for that experience, but it just wasn't meant to be.

There are problems with digital, they are being worked on by all companies. There is no point or reason to single out MS.

 

[BFEL]

One of my personal concerns with the next console generation (XBone, PS4 and whatever gimmick Nintendo has thrown out there now) is something that Apoc mentioned offhandedly: Cessation of Support.

This is a very big issue with me because despite what Apoc said, games are not just software. They have been legally recognized as ART. And while I respect the hurdles involved in keeping older software available and usable, in my eyes that doesn't change the fact that we as a species have a duty to keep art available to be experienced.

Is this idea a bit romantic and perhaps even outdated in a world where most art is now regulated by large companies? Possibly.
But I can't help but remember my history. Specifically, in the Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance, art was mass produced much like it is today, by Guilds. In effect, art was merely a business, even masterpieces by famed artists like Michelangelo and Da Vinci were pretty much a dime a dozen. Ever wonder where the phrase "starving artist" came from? Now you know.

The execs at Microsoft have made the...bold...claim that "If you want backwards compatibility, you really are backwards."
Sounds to me they are the ones who have regressed...right back to the Dark Ages.

In my opinion the concept of letting games become unplayable due to their age is akin to setting the Mona Lisa on fire because the paint is out of date and no one is being paid to display her.
Which is not merely a business decision, but a crime against future generations who would never see her smile.

What the next console generation offers is not progress, but control. Control of your thoughts, control of the very culture of humanity.
Because where do we obtain our thoughts and our culture from?

Art.