Xbox One's Policy Reveal, According To Microsoft's Whitten

[Something Amyss]

Seeing as how I made no mention of Mass Effect 3,

You claimed that my statement was based entirely on hypotheticals, despite the fact that I mention a very real world phenomenon in which gamers protest and boycott and buy anyway. That's a lie. Also, the fact that I didn't name a specific game is completely irrelevant. You can find such examples almost everywhere, including the last couple Halos, Mass Effect 3, Call of Duty: Anything since MW, etc., etc.

But then, it occurs to me that maybe you don't understand what a hypothetical is. Maybe you should invest in a dictionary, dude.

 

[BakaSmurf]

Seeing as how I made no mention of Mass Effect 3,

You claimed that my statement was based entirely on hypotheticals, despite the fact that I mention a very real world phenomenon in which gamers protest and boycott and buy anyway. That's a lie. Also, the fact that I didn't name a specific game is completely irrelevant. You can find such examples almost everywhere, including the last couple Halos, Mass Effect 3, Call of Duty: Anything since MW, etc., etc.

But then, it occurs to me that maybe you don't understand what a hypothetical is. Maybe you should invest in a dictionary, dude.

hy·po·thet·i·cal
Adjective
Of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
Noun
A hypothetical proposition or statement: "Flynn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Kernaghan".
Synonyms
hypothetic - conjectural - presumptive

That they listened to the consumers only begrudgingly after proof was presented that consumers wouldn't stomach their crap doesn't change the fact that they listened to the consumers.

If Sony had embraced the same kind of DRM, we would likely see pre-orders split. I doubt gamers as a whole would have the self-control to skip out on their new, shiny PRECIOUS!

If Sony had

If Sony had

Funny, that sounds an awful lot like a "what-if" scenario to me...

 

[Saltyk]

However one benefit of this is that, when you take a disc to your friend's Xbox One and play it there, should your friend want to buy the game no download will be required, as the digital heavy lifting will already have been done by the disc.

So, that means the 'every disc must download to the hard drive' thing is still going? Because I really, REALLY don't want that. I don't want to wait for the download to play. I don't want to eat up my hard drive space. I still have the disc- why can't I play off the disc?

Yeah, I feel ya. The hard drive is only like 500 Gigs, if memory serves. How big are these games going to be? I can't help but think some will be huge. How many games are we talking about getting on one hard drive? And last I checked, it couldn't be removed.

They could turn it all on, but i dont think they would. I think you buy a product based on its ability, if they change that stuff then its not the product you bought. So MS will be sued, mostly cos of the internet issues etc. Would be like buying a kettle and 2 months later they say "Nope, no more hot water, only lukewarm water". It totally destroys the reason the product was bought for.

So yeah, they could turn it all on. But people were moaning cos there is DRM. Now they are moaning cos MS may turn the DRM on maybe. Im not saying your fears are not justified, just that people are moaning whatever MS does. Hell, even Sony could add DRM in the future. But know one is on SOnys case on what they may hypothetically do in the future.

Sony touted the PS3s ability to do something or the other with Linux. They later removed it resulting in an uproar. However, they could not be sued due to the EULA stating that Sony could change the features of the device any time they wanted, regardless of what they promised when you bought it. You could agree to the new terms, or not. But you couldn't sue them for changing them. I have no doubt MS will have the same thing in place.

I also don't think the "Sony can change their stance in the future but no one's giving them grief about that possibility" argument is just. A lot of people could do a lot of things, but we don't necessarily condemn them for what they have the potential to do. MS, on the other hand, is being condemned for what they themselves proudly exclaimed they intended to do. They haven't reversed course due to a change of heart, or epiphany that their approach was a misguided one. They changed course because they finally realized how royally they had screwed up. To me it's more like someone hellbent on abusing their spouse, but not going ahead with it not because "you know what, this is wrong," but instead because "you know what? I might end up going to jail." They have every intention of doing it, and may feel it's worth doing in the future, but at the present moment they've decided not to out of fear of reprisal, not out of morality.

No idea about the Linux thing or PS3. So will agree with you their as your in the Know. I was seeing it like Sony changed their BC rules, but release a new PS3 that had no BC in it. Where as BC still worked for those that bought early. I wouldnt be surprised if MS didnt have a get out clause if things went bad. I would like to think MS are not stupid. But money is the decider, and thus why they changed their tune. But if they reversed everything, it will go against them, unless they reversed it all but had cheap DL games like with Steam. Then its not that much an issue.

I can confirm his statement. It's a rather dick move by Sony, but I guarantee that Microsoft has a similar statement in their EULA. Wouldn't put it past Nintendo either, honestly. Which means, even if they did turn in back on, you couldn't do a thing. Other than maybe return your console to a Gamestop, get a small amount of money and buy a PS4 or a Wii U.

 

[Arawn]

I'm abit confused. According to what I read/heard family sharing was essentially letting people play your games. It was they signed up or linked to your account and could play. Or something like that. The question was how exactly you get said person recognized as family as apposed to that friend list for 30 days before share/trading a game. I'm not sure if anyone fully explained it in a way that made sense or didn't seem silly. The digital trading didn't seem that useful if it was a one time deal as stated. The person that got the trade couldn't trade that same game again. So their removing the family share doesn't seem like much of a loss unless I'm saying it wrong and there was some benefit to it. Did it allow for multiple people to play at once or perhaps those 10 of your family could access it from the cloud anywhere? With the disc based system someone can play it since they have the disc, no need to link their account or be on a 30 day waiting list. But with the once a 24hr check in gone, I still can't see why they as far to say they'd brick your system if you didn't. I think people didn't like that implied threat. I have my PS3 update every night, but it doesn't lock me out if I cancel or miss the update time. If I do miss the time it updates after I'm done playing.I think MS saw that function and tried to improve on it. Failed, but tried. None the less I'm still no impressed, nor am I pleased with the reversal. They insulted the public/gamers too much for a simple "I'm sorry." to let them off the hook.

 

[Raioken18]

Seems like they chose to remove the Family Sharing thing, which... I still have no idea what that was even about. It seemed like a nice way of saying DRM.

As for the backpedal, you can tell they are really salty about it and consider consumers the fools for not accepting their invasive DRM policies.

If they really thought it was that amazing they would have kept pushing right up until release and seen what reactions they got. Still it seems like the original concept was made by executives with tons of cash not realizing that a large portion of their consumer base is quite poor and massive downloads and constant online connections are outside of some peoples physical and financial capabilities.

 

[TonyP]

The Microsoft employees who wanted a required internet connection with Xbox One should be hung upside down naked in front of Microsoft headquarters as a warning to other Microsoft employees. That way, Microsoft employees will think twice before trying to violate customer privacy in the future. I am grateful that Microsoft removed this requirement but my blood is still boiling. I do not know what kind of crap Microsoft will try to do next. I have absolutely no interest in their vision of a connected digital nightmare with buggy software updates, server crashes, internet delays, malware and games uploading God-only-knows-what so they can sell the data to Facebook, Google and anyone else who wants it. I am still an Xbox fan but I do not trust Microsoft anymore. If Xbox One constantly displays popups asking me if I want to connect to the internet, I will dump it and buy a PS4.