Every editorial I see (along with forum posts) talks about how you "don't own your games" and that 10 years from now if the servers go down, your Xbone is a paperweight that can't play the games. My question is what if MS could roll out a system update removing the 24hr check in at that time? Would that make you change your mind?

They've already said that system level features like code registrations and the check in are malleable, and Valve has a system in Steam where a "kill switch" they can hit would strip your games of DRM if Valve ever goes out of business. So do you think MS would be wise to come out and say "Okay, here's the deal. When the day comes that Xbox One servers go offline, a dashboard update will be issued that allows the system to play games without checking in EVER AGAIN. Full stop."

If they were to make a clear and definitive statement like this, would it alleviate people's concerns about the games not really belonging to them?

No not at all. I pre purchased a PS4.

What if they said check ins were only required if the disc isn't in the tray?

I pre ordered a ps4

"Okay, here's the deal. When the day comes that Xbox One servers go offline, a dashboard update will be issued that allows the system to play games without checking in EVER AGAIN. Full stop."

I don't believe it. The game market is chocked full of games, so if they just let the console die with its game it will be in their best interest, as people will either turn retro, or buy the next Xbox afterwards to play console games.

@jimmyfenix:

Well alrighty then. I'm a PC gamer so I'm not buying either, just curious about all the hulaballoo around the Xbox. There has to be more than they're telling people, or a way to keep features like playing away from home or without the disc and still keep people happy. Just wondering out loud.

Not really, because I still don't believe anything Microsoft says. Valve has earned my trust through years of great service and consumer-friendly practices. Microsoft has yet to do a goddamn thing to make me trust them, and every time they do something it seems to be farther and farther away from what's best for me as a consumer. That's the key difference between Microsoft and Valve, and that's why the Xbone:Steam analogy doesn't hold water at all.

Well, it's a start.

Honestly this is the thing that is making me not get an Xbox One. I never buy used games, I am always online. I just don't want there to be a black hole in gaming and have a console that isn't worth shit once the servers are off. And check-ins too are terrible. So that's why I already pre-ordered a PS4.

It would help, but I would need to trust them more. If the Xbox/entertainment division of MS was a separate, spun off company, I would actually trust them more. As part of such a huge company though, I worry that the business concerns of the larger company could easily outweigh other concerns. I realize it's unlikely, but if MS suddenly decided next year that they'd had enough, and were getting out of the video games and console market, then what incentive would they have to "flip the switch" and turn off all the drm stuff they've put in place? You could say goodwill, but again, if they completely divest themselves of a market, then why would they bother to put in the work?

I realize Valve could bone us as well. Since they're currently a private company that has to make decisions based on what they think will keep the majority of their customers happy, I trust them more than a larger, publicly trade, much more diverse company.

I'll also say part of my trouble with the check-ins and such is the reason I don't buy movies through my cable provider's on demand service. I don't know if I'm going to be a customer of theirs for long enough to take the chance that they will do the right thing. If we were at the one console future already then I might be more willing to take the chance. Since I would have to stick with MS, and hope that the hardware doesn't break, and hope that they "do the right thing", there's too many variables for me to take that chance.

Same is true for Steam, you just own licenses for games. It's the way it is, it's not a big deal.

@ajamafalous:

Before I switched to PC I was a 360 guy, and they've always done right in my book. Replaced my 3 year old red ringed Xbox for free because they knew the early ones were shit, plus free Live time, plus a bunch of free games over the years for being Gold (Wreckateer, Haunt, Halo Reach, and others).

I haven't turned on my 360 in ages thanks to the magic of Steam sales, but 7 years in the Xbox camp and I never witnessed this cruel and heartless MS everyone constantly mentions.

I don't know whether you watched last night livestream with Cliffy and Johnathan Blow, but Johnathan summed it up pretty nicely. He said, "People do not like it when you are taking a freedom away from them. No matter how small it is. There needs to be a giveaway at some point to make it worthwhile." These systems that Microsoft put in place (bear in mind, it could all be subject to change) are not explained to us (the consumers) about why would it benefit us. What's the benefit of a 24 hour check up? What's the benefit of having Gold Membership over PSN+? What's the benefit of having a more expensive console? What's the benefit of not being able to lend games to my friends?

These are questions that many smart consumers would ask and Microsoft has yet to provide them with answers. However, when you say stuff like this; it doesn't help your message.

The sad part is I totally see where they're going with this, but Blow is right- they aren't discussing te benefits. Hey MS, here's my job application to be your new head of Xbone PR:

What's the benefit of a 24 hour check up?

-This allows you to play your games without swapping discs in the tray or running the risk of a damaged disc blocking you from playing. The current Xbox and PS3 systems require a physical disc in the tray, and if that disc ever gets dropped or scratched you can no longer play, even if it's installed.

What's the benefit of having a more expensive console?

-Kinect included for motion gaming, voice and gesture controls, voice searching of content on the marketplace (it's really nice to just say "Xbox Bing Jurassic Park" versus navigating 20 menus deep with a controller). If you add the cost of a PSeye and year of PSN+, the PS4 is actually more expensive than the Xbox One an has fewer exclusive games at launch.

See Microsoft? How hard was that?

@thetenthdoctor: You are the tenth doctor, so I kinda expect you to save anything from the point of disaster.

Anyways, it just baffles me that they will not focus on those said benefits. I mean, they always say, it benefits you too! But they never explain why or how....

I am actually kinda happy that more games are heading to PC. Now if only KH3 were to be ported over...

If they're were to completely abandon the 24 hr check in if the servers go down once, then why even implement it in the first place?

Why deal with it at all when the PS4 has none of the problems? I was terrified I would have to make a tough choice if Sony did the same. Luckily they didn't and I don't have to worry about what Microsoft is doing now. I wish Giantbomb still had the Achievement tracking so you could see I am not a fanboy I have much preferred my 360 to my PS3 this gen.

I have always said people value software too highly. Most software has a shelf life of a few years and is mostly useless so "protecting it" with serious and draconian methods is wasteful.

I have a closet full of games and software that are junk. It doesn't matter who "owns" it physically or legally it is junk and not worth protecting. Steam has been a boon where I can buy it at the price I want and dispose of it cheaply where again "who owns it?" isn't even remotely a concern.

This would be nice to mention now, just come out and say the exact same thing Steam does.

I have no issue with the Xbox one DRM policies, I'm going to love having my entire library on the go disc free and sharing games with friends.

For me its not as much of a policy issue as it is the strong arming MS is doing and the complete lack of explaining how I benefit. Adding the Don Mattack stuff to the picture and now we have a sense that they don't care, just stick with 360 if you don't like it.

Why would they do that? They want to sell you the nostalgia later, on the new console. Removing the DRM on the old console would cut into that revenue stream. Building obsolescence into the Xbox One is probably half the plan.

@thetenthdoctor: Nope

it would be too late by then and im not giving money to a company that only thinks about the profit they can make they seem way too ignorant , the system was not made for gamers period.

And I really cant see them making an update in 10-20 years time that allows you use the console even though the servers are off.

This is definitely my major concern, and reason I'm not buying, the XBONE. I would consider it though, if they did state that I didn't have to authenticate with their servers if the disc was in the system. I enjoy collecting games and have a library consisting of NES/SNES/N64/PS1/PS2/XB/360/PS3. Even with the 360 and PS3, I am worried about the purchases I've made on XBLA and PSN, if in a few years they shut down the servers for those and say one of my units were to die on me, I could possibly lose out on all that content I purchased.

Hopefully, there will one day be a system that will be able to quell my worries about digital rights/purchases.

I think for someone who the 24-hour thing is a problem, an "open the floodgates" type thing at the end of the consoles life wouldn't change their mind about buying it at the start.

Legal or not, emulation is why I don't really care. I can hold the entire catalogue of games before the PS1/N64 era on a single usb stick along with emulators that allow me to play those games on any computer, and those consoles are only around 15 years old. I bring this up because by the time the online service is disconnected I will probably be able to do the same thing with those games.

Plus, no one has a problem not actually owning their games on Steam, and I would consider Microsoft to be just as (if not more) solid and unlikely to go out of business as Valve. All this complaining and bitching is just a bunch of childish posturing by immature internet morons. Whether you want to admit it or not, what's going to make the difference is which console has the games you want to play, and basically nothing else.

Microsoft is not to be trusted because they have shut servers down before.. Does anyone remember XBL for the OLD XBOX? Yeah, it would not be in Microsoft's best interest to keep a server up for good when moving on to another generation. They want to make you have to buy into their next big thing.

xbox live isnt free, they are about even once you add that the newcomer might potentially have to buy a year of xbox live also because to even use the apps on the xbox you need gold,

(but with tax the ps4 would be like 10 dollars more if you include the camera and ps plus, but with ps4 the apps like netflix are not locked behind ps plus, and i believe its launching with 3 free to play games (DCU, Warframe, and Planetside 2) while xbox one will only have killer instinct as a free game)

correct me if im wrong on that last bit.

@mikewarrior: Do you mean 9 years ago when the technology was new? I own both the PS3 and the 360. I think the 360 server has been down twice in 5-6 years. It seems the PSN Store is down for "update" once a month.

Have to agree with Xbox Live reliability at least. Last big Live outage was... when we all got free copies of Undertow? Years ago, right?

It would help--quite a bit, actually--but it's only one piece of the puzzle. This would solve the issue of property rights as far as continued ownership goes, but not the issue of Microsoft invalidating first sale rights. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason on earth why I shouldn't be able to sell my games to whoever I want, whenever I want, as long as I purchase them as physical property.

Jonathan Blow was absolutely correct when he talked about a good deal of this being a matter of loss aversion--I very rarely purchase used games, and have only sold back one game in my lifetime--but that doesn't change the fact that every single gain being offered by Microsoft could absolutely still be given to customers without requiring a 24 hour verification, or ANY server verification for that matter.

If anyone can think of an example why this isn't correct, I'd still love to hear about it.

So, as far as I see it, we're being asked to allow Microsoft to invalidate our property rights, and we get nothing in return that would require those rights to be invalidated.

As I've said before, if you want to get rid of property rights, then get rid of property. I would be fine with that. I am not fine with this.

What I am saying is that servers do not stay up forever. Eventually Microsoft will take them down for the 360, and everything you bought digital will die out. With physical games, I still have a value in my games, and I can play them on multiple systems that don't rely on a server to work.