Mourne's forum posts

#1 Posted by Mourne (798 posts) -
@leftie68 said:

@mourne: Again what the heck does loading a game digitally without the need for discs has anything to do with a system-wide DRM policy. Sony and Microsoft have already set this up currently on the current generation of consoles and they will be even more evident on the PS4 and Xbox One. Why does Microsoft HAVE to have this DRM policy in place for ALL forms of gameplay if they believe so heavily in digital gaming? Again, if you set up your digital marketplace so that it is easy to use, very convenient for the consumer, and the consumer finds value above buying a disc copy, they WILL buy it digitally. Why force them to do it? Sony knows this....Sony is banking on digital sales too, however, they do not have to shove it down people's throats. You think if digital sales take off that Xbox has an edge over Sony? How? The PS4 has the same digital playing ability and cloud gaming service as Xbox. You don't think that Sony can't institute their marketplace to also take advantage of digital sharing too? Those restrictions/benefits can be instituted on Sony's end (that is how Steam does it).

Noone knows what the future holds. It is about being flexible to what your consumers want.

Digital is the future. Optical discs are backwards. There's no arguing the inevitable. From this post of yours, it is abundantly clear that you are completely oblivious and the exact person I was describing in my original post as being simply unable to discern information due to being swallowed by outrage. You need to understand that, for the Xbox One, it is not a question of which end (physical or digital) will sale more or less at the onset. Right now, people are conditioned to get games in physical form. What Microsoft is doing is allowing that to still happen while having those physical games become digital copies as well when you buy them.

Your strawman here is bending over backwards for itself. I explained all of this in my original post. Right now, Microsoft is creating a system that allows for a transition between physical and digital. The physical media still has a purpose for this system, but the digital side is obviously being prepared as the successor. There is no feasible way to have both digital games and all of its benefits (see other posts) as well as being able to trade in, sell, or exchange those games at a retailer like GameStop without a regular online check-in so that the service may disable content that you have elected to remove from your account in exchange for money/trade-in value/whatever. This is the simple fact of the matter. If gamers want trade-ins, they have to accept that there is going to be a checking system of some sort. The reason it is 24 hours is so that you can't trade-in a game and still play it for a week, since at that point, you would no longer own the game but would still have it for a week. Digital offers plenty of advantages over physical so long as the service stays online, and judging from Microsoft's track record, that's unlikely to be a problem. If people didn't want any sort of trade-in functionality, there would be no need for online checks. However, knowing people would demand it, they implemented it in the only way that it can really be done.

The PS4 is not nearly as well-equipped when it comes to its digital infrastructure as far as what they have shown thus far. All indications show that it will be very close to the PS3, which was not as well-equipped as the Xbox 360 at digital content (believe me, I own tons of games on both as well as DLC, and it's obvious that the 360 is far better at managing digital content of all sorts). Microsoft's digital infrastructure is better and it's better prepared. The entire next system is based around it being digital-ready as more and more people prefer to consume their content in that manner. Sony will be playing catch-up the entire next generation if your hypothetical scenario came true, which again I point out isn't even the point. Microsoft is equipping themselves so that you can trade not just physical games but digital games as well. That's an unprecedented prospect, and if the future is indeed digital, that is a huge get and headstart on what's to come.

The future is digital. When the 360 launched in 2005, how many people were buying TV shows digitally versus buying them on DVD? How many were streaming on services like Netflix? How are CD sales doing these days compared to iTunes? All the fickle and whiny gamers in the world won't be able to change the direction things are going. Ask anyone in the business. Ask any analyst. Ask anyone on Giant Bomb's staff. The optical drive days are done after this generation.

@mourne: Why'd I need to trust them? If that's all there is to it, I don't see why I wouldn't add whoever has the games I want to play.

What I'm interested in is this: can I add you as a family member? Is it easy to remove you afterwards? If yes, that's fantastic and insane (and will absolutely hurt sales), but why am I hearing this on a forum thread? If not, what are the restrictions they're not talking about? They don't go into how adding accounts works at all, so it's not specific enough.

It's good that there's a solution for multiple Xbones on a single household, I don't think anyone's disputing that, the argument is in how it works outside of that single household.

@mourne said:

With Microsoft being in control of the marketplace ala Steam, it will be feasible to have discount sales that they otherwise couldn't because the publishers had no control over the used game market before. They were creating competition for themselves with each new copy sold that re-entered the market as a used game. Like with Steam, they will now have much more control over the discounts to their games, and that will benefit everyone (apart from GameStop).

Since when does less competition equal better pricing? If Steam stops sales, people will (and many already do) instead buy from Amazon, GMG, GOG, GG, etc. Since currently you cannot trade away digital copies, shouldn't that be a big incentive to offer more competitive pricing on the XBLA? When they get rid of lower priced options, why would anyone suddenly start offering their products for less?

Adding a family member will likely be semi-permanent. You will need to trust the people you add to your family plan. I wouldn't count on being to cheat the system at large like that, as you'll not be able to. You'll need to be selective in how you (ab)"use" it.

For the latter point: Publishers are in control of those games, and directly benefit from every single sale. That isn't the case right now on consoles. On PC, the publishers get their cut of every sale. It's not about just Steam--Steam is just used as the hallmark because it's #1. All of the others are tied to the same situation. Right now, for consoles, every time the publisher lowers the price on a physical copy, they are immediately competing with themselves because the used game market that they have no hand in whatsoever is also dropped to 10% of the price they reduce to. Every new copy they sell has the potential to take away business from them in the future as a used game in GameStop's cache. This is why publishers want a piece of that pie, and they're going to get it on Xbox One. This will be good for gamers and publishers in the end, and especially for single player games that get tossed about left and right without the publishers or studios getting any of it.

#2 Edited by Mourne (798 posts) -

@chibithor said:

@mourne: Then why not point it out? Why call it a feature for families that "certain people" will circumvent, if the intent is actually to enable loaning for everyone? To me this is a selling point bigger than anything else they have.

I'm guessing they're talking about roommates, so both the feature's name (as it would be meant for families, but Microsoft can't reasonably distinguish between family member and roommate) and who these "certain people" are make sense. You're assuming "certain people" refers to absolutely everyone, that they've named the feature in a misleading manner and that they're being extremely vague for no reason while completely failing to inform the consumers that this great feature exists.

I'll be interested to know more of the feature, but I don't think they'd be hiding anything pro-consumer about the Xbone at this point.

They were very specific about this particular part of it here:

Foremost, no, this isn't about replacing loaning. Read my most recent post before this one for more information on that. What I was saying is that this system will solve a lot of the worries that people originally had about people not being able to play with their brother and sister who have another Xbox in the house while also taking it a step further and giving consumers some serious value for their money. You can now play the same game together, instead of just being able to play it separately.

The details are pretty simple on this. You have to trust the people you're adding to your family. That's the built-in, inherent security measure. You'll see that I'm right about it, promise.

#3 Posted by Mourne (798 posts) -

@leftie68 said:

@mourne: As I mentioned before, locking the DRM requirements at the SYSTEM level has no affect on being prepared for "the inevitable all digital future". Saying "the digital age is coming, whether you like it or not", is the exact approach Mircosoft took and from a business and PR perspective it is the wrong approach. Consumers decide what the future of gaming is going to be, and if Microsoft wants to help shape that future offer services and conveniences consumers love and are willing to pay for, instead of shoving it down their throats. Their System-wide policies in no way will play a roll in an all digital future. They need to offer a service via the marketplace where consumers CHOOSE to purchase digitally because it is a) easier b) cheaper and c) more convenient. How does Microsoft's policies do this? How did they make a "smart technological move"?

The fact that it is at the system level is what makes it flexible to change later and is its biggest strength in this regard. Saying that "system-wide" policies won't play a part in the "digital future" is nonsense, as that's exactly what will determine it. It will be the same for every console going forward that relies on digital media that is tied to one's account. The smart technological move here comes from the fact that you are getting a digital copy of your game in the form of a physical one. When you assign the game to your account, you can redownload that game at any time so long as you have not traded in its license at participating retailers and such. Of course, you can also just install it from the disc. From a technological perspective, Microsoft is covering both the physical and digital markets while readying for the digital future. It's a smart and ambitious move that you'll come to recognize in the future. Having your games stored digitally is easier--much easier--when it comes to accessing them, just like I said in my other post. You can store your entire game library on the Xbox One hard drive and an external, and never have to insert their discs to play them again. This is infinitely more convenient than seeking out each disc you want to play for each game, especially with expanding libraries that we have now. With Microsoft being in control of the marketplace ala Steam, it will be feasible to have discount sales that they otherwise couldn't because the publishers had no control over the used game market before. They were creating competition for themselves with each new copy sold that re-entered the market as a used game. Like with Steam, they will now have much more control over the discounts to their games, and that will benefit everyone (apart from GameStop).

All the same, if you really think pandering gamers who are always seemingly-resistant to any sort of change and anything that deviates from staying the course will really determine what these companies do, you're fooling yourself. Look how many people complained about online passes. Look how many people complain about annual Call of Duty titles. Look how many boycotts there have been over things like LAN support and private servers. These direction-deciding gamers you mention that are the face of determining the future are either completely ineffective or simply, and more likely, feeble.

Why would you be playing a Xboxone in 20 years?

I won't be, but I also won't be playing my PS2, PS3, or 360 then either. Virtually every worthwhile game that I would want to revisit is likely to be ported or be available on future systems given the current trend. As technology advances, it becomes easier and easier to emulate past systems on current ones. But, truthfully, I'll be fine without my PS3 and 360 games in 20-30 years. The reason this was mentioned in my post is the sheer amount of people that bring this argument up.

@zornack said:

@mourne: A couple of things.

1. I do not believe the family shared library system is meant to be their solution for lending, I believe it is meant to replicate situations where there are multiple Xbox in a household and one person buys a game then passes it around. I think there will be additional hurdles to jump over, some sort of verification process or something of that sort to be part of someone's "family." I say this because Microsoft stated that "loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners." This isn't supposed to replace loaning, I don't believe, it's something else.

2. You said their goal isn't to take anything away from the consumers but that's exactly what they're doing. "We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers." They are taking away my freedom to chose which games to resell and where to sell them to. Ebay, craglist, my friend down the block? Nope, and if some publishers decide (I doubt they will) then I won't be able to resell specific games at all.

3. The original Xbox live is no longer available. Why am I supposed to believe Microsoft will be running XBL: One Edition in 20 years? Without that verification ping my console is a movie-playing, tv-watching brick.

Information taken from

1. I did not mean to imply it was to replace lending; apologies if it was muddled by being surrounded by other points. However, the solution is still completely open to that lending mentality I went over at length and is not being discouraged by Microsoft. Their executive has endorsed it outright because it really isn't a real threat to sales as you still have to behave like a family to take advantage of it. The fact that Microsoft has already said they are planning renting and lending programs (which I consider utterly unnecessary in this day and age, personally) is already far more than is really, truly necessary. We are clinging to age-old conventions because it's what we know, but it really is just holding us back in other ways (as explained in earlier parts of this post and my earlier one).

2. Their goal is not to take anything away from consumers--their goal is to take something away from GameStop and restore what GameStop has taken to the publishers, which is what that quote actually means. The fact that you can't freely loan games to a friend as of this moment is a side effect, not a goal. As I said and cautioned originally, there is a big difference between those words. Right now, Sony and Nintendo have no system in place for dealing with digital purchases (which are the future) and their license transfers. I suspect Sony will keep it the same as the PS3, which will put them behind when it's time for the next generation.

3. If you read my other post, you would see that I already covered this in depth. Keep in mind that a major factor in turning off the original Xbox's service was because Xbox Live had expanded far beyond what they ever initially imagined when the Xbox's inner software was designed. Downloadable content and downloadable games were not such a prevalent part of gaming at the time, and since the original Xbox was not capable of such robust updates to bring it up to speed, they discontinued support. This is no longer the case for a system even like the 360, which has evolved substantially in the past seven years. More importantly, its Xbox Live functionality had no bearing on its status as an operational device. As such, shutting off its access to Xbox Live didn't change much for that system. For this system, doing so would disable the device *UNLESS IT WERE UPDATED* (Please read my past post, as I covered a litany of scenarios in which this can be addressed), so the situations aren't really comparable as far as I'm concerned, from an engineering and ecosystem perspective. This system, like the 360, can and will be updated plenty of times. DRM wasn't a thing with consoles back in 2001 (hell, they were hardly "online" back then compared to what we have now), but as is the case with the 360, Microsoft can and will continue to honor DRM purchases into the far distant future, and let me explain why.

Everything Microsoft does, and everything Sony does, with their digital content will continue to be tied to accounts. These accounts will have licenses associated with them, whether it's your games ("full" games or downloaded games), your DLC, your movies, your music, etc. These licenses are not going to become harder to authenticate in the future as they will still be associated with your account and will be authenticated just by you logging in. These authentication processes are being designed to be compatible with one another. Your Xbox Live Gamertag has your 360 purchases on it, and will soon have Xbox One on it. This isn't a hard thing for them to manage, and it won't be. It really is as simple as allowing you to log in to older devices with the same account that will be supported indefinitely, and since Microsoft has explicitly stated this is the case, it's really a complete non-issue. You will be able to use your same Xbox Live Gamertag on the Xbox One and the Xbox 360, just like you will on the Xbox 4 and Xbox 5 and any other offshoots of the brand Microsoft comes with. All of your content licenses will fall under this account, thus making it not an Xbox One thing but a Microsoft thing. So long as Microsoft is still around and they still have accounts that have content tied to them, you're going to be fine on the Xbox One. The worry shouldn't be what Microsoft will do with the Xbox One in 30 years, it's whether Microsoft will still be around to authenticate all of their products. Given that they are a bit of a fixture in basically every tech market, the answer is: Yes, they will be around. They will be authenticating copies of Windows, games for Xbox, and everything else they sell along those lines. For a very long time to come. For longer than you are alive.

#4 Edited by Mourne (798 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

That doesn't seem right at all. This would be a much larger threat than me loaning my physical game disc to a friend or two, or selling my game on e-bay--both of which are blocked by Microsoft--so why would they allow this? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

The reason they would "allow" this is because Microsoft's aim was never to to disable loaning your game to a friend. That was never their intention at all--the loss of this is a side effect in order to gain something else. There is a major difference between those two things. The reason this "feature" as you know it (we'll get back to this in a second) of lending games is becoming obsolete is because of one simple thing: The Xbox One is designed to be primarily a digital games console, because the digital age is coming whether you like it or not. It is highly, highly likely that the generation that follows this one will no longer rely on optical drives whatsoever. You're going to have to move to digital sometime if you plan to be involved in this industry, and right now, Microsoft is actually making the smart technological move (even if from a marketing perspective they have not). By having a system in which you can exchange and trade-in digital games, they are actually innovating in a way that none of these other major gaming platforms really have. Will Sony do the same with their digital offerings? Maybe, but I highly doubt it at this point as they really don't want to put any more emphasis on digital in order to set themselves apart from Microsoft (which, in a few years, will really hurt them, in my opinion).

Now, this is going to be a long post, but the confusion around here is pretty hilarious, and baffling.

Essentially, Microsoft is preparing for the future by attempting to find a medium between disc-based and digital solutions as we know them. They do not want to go all-digital for a number of reasons--a primary one being that they still want to be in brick and mortar stores like Wal-Mart, and downloading 30GB games isn't really something some people will want to do with bandwidth as it is. Their goal is not to take anything away from consumers, but to give them options in an increasingly digital age. Much of the outrage directed at the Xbox One is nonsensical only because Microsoft's directive and direction is completely misunderstood. There are plenty of things to disagree with, but people have gotten outraged without even understanding what it is that they're doing. They aren't trying to hurt your feelings--they're trying to create a real full-service platform akin to Steam.

Right now, there aren't really mainstream examples of how to do digital lending when it comes to high-ticket items like full gaming titles. Microsoft is trying their hand at it, and they are being pretty generous with what they're allowing. The family plan idea is a great one, in which you and a close friend could pair up and share a joint game library. You could both play Battlefield or Titanfall or Forza with only you having registered the game on your account. This is exciting and unprecedented territory that could bring about a new era of multiplayer gaming. Lending your friend a game for a weekend will be completely obsolete with such a situation, because you two could be doing something better: playing the game together. This goes for singleplayer games, too. You can go in on a game with $30 each, and so long as you strategically do so, can share games left and right.

So, for me, I believe the Xbox One to be an example of the future of console gaming with some very exciting prospects. There are still some things to work out and some things I'm not entirely sold on yet, but I like to think for myself and weigh things objectively. There will be collectors who want to display their gaming cases on their shelves to their friends (which they can still do, pointless as it is), but for me, having my entire digital library available without ever having to swap another disc to change games is far more of a selling point. The fact that I can take my Xbox One and a controller to a friend's and have all of my games loaded in it is another thing I find brilliant--no more forgetting games, no more carrying cases around everywhere. Personally speaking, the only thing I'm worried about is whether I can also store my games on an external HDD. Indications are that we can, and if so, that will make the Xbox One my go-to console without any doubt.

I own basically every console and game device from the past two decades (including an N-Gage), and that includes a PS3 and will include a PS4. The Xbox One is getting a poor rap right now, but that's going to change once people realize what the console actually does offer. Part of the confusion is on Microsoft's part, and part of it is on sensational articles such as those published daily by sites like Kotaku. Not taking a measured approach to questions you do not yet have the answers to is what creates confusion and hysteria. Once you think about it logically and objectively, the merits of the Xbox One and what it's trying to do become very easy to understand and to see for what they are.

On one last related note: People worried about the servers being shut down in "20 or 30 years" are really worried about a completely moot point. Microsoft is, was, and has been one of the most powerful corporations in the world that does and will continue to dominate a large portion of the tech market. This authentication database is a very meager thing to handle. You should be far more worried about Steam shutting down than Microsoft. If the day did come that Microsoft (one of the largest corporations in the world) was no longer able to support the console's authentication system (which involves downloading what I estimate would be at most a 100kb file, which would take 15 seconds on dial-up speeds, by the way, and could easily be downloaded with a cell phone tether when away), I believe it incredibly likely they would implement an update solution that simply disabled the online check-in because the online check-in is basically only there because of trading in games and the exchange of licenses therein. Since trading in Xbox One games isn't going to be too likely 30 years from now, it will serve no purpose, and thus your only actual issue would be adding new games. It's possible, also, that Microsoft would simply create an update to the console that simply flipped the switch: from that point, new games wouldn't need authentication keys, but would instead just be required to be in the drive at all times while playing. There are plenty of solutions to this far-future problem that really don't matter, because there's really not going to be much profit for Microsoft to make 30 years from now on the Xbox One generation. There are a million solutions to this problem that's coming in three decades.

#5 Posted by Mourne (798 posts) -

This is an absurd notion.

#6 Posted by Mourne (798 posts) -

The long development cycle didn't result in a great game, which is unfortunate. They tried to make both a game and a simulator and did neither well. There's so much imprecision in the design of the game and the feature set but I'm not sure what we all expected after all these years.
Maybe next time.

#7 Edited by Mourne (798 posts) -

It sounds like your Xbox is dying regardless, chief. I played through the game and the only time I ever had framerate problems was during cut-scenes near the end of the game.

#8 Posted by Mourne (798 posts) -

The spoilers that the announcement give way to are the biggest problem here. You can extrapolate so much about the ending just from the announcement of this one add-on... announced prior to the release of the game. I have not beat Dead Rising 2, but I certainly hope the ending isn't lacking or is a cliffhanger that requires you to play this add-on to get what would be equivalent to a "full experience".

#9 Posted by Mourne (798 posts) -

This is the circle of life. Somehow.

#10 Posted by Mourne (798 posts) -
@Mrnitropb:  I will reply in PM.