It's back on folks! And I'm effin' rock hard for all of the benefits I'm a gonna be a reapin' me!

Great article Alex - thanks.

@darkdragonmage99: It's not that I disagree (or agree) with you, but I have to point out your fact checking rant :P I don't quite believe that America is the richest country in the world. You fact checker-you ;)

MS still has so much to do, so I agree that saying they're suddenly "leading" is ludicrous. this of course ignores that there are five PS4 SKUs for pre-order at Amazon that are likely cannibalizing one another.

MS still has to deal with people who don't want Kinect.

MS still has to deal with being a weaker system at $100 more.

MS still has to deal with the fact that the last four years have seen very little in the way of 360 exclusives, with little evidence of that trend will reverse past launch for the Xbone.

MS still has to deal with people who are just plain vindictive toward them now, between this and the PRISM scandal.

More importantly, since positive news doesn't spread as fast as negative news, MS will have to deal with the perception that they're blocking used games. Are they willing to spend the amount of time and ad money necessary to get the message out to the mainstream that they're not?

This isn't the slam dunk for Sony that it was after E3, but unless Sony gets seriously fat and lazy (which I doubt will happen this generation, since they can ill afford another PS3 situation), MS is going to have to make up a shit-ton of ground. And make no mistake, if they want to get parity without spending billions the way Sony did to catch up this generation, they're going to have to get to work right now.

To be fair we don't really know what the restrictions of that family share option were going to be. They specifically called it 'family' share, which suggests some sort of limitation based on relationship. I can't imagine any system they could have come up with that wouldn't have been pretty easy to fake...but still, I do wonder.

As for their used games policy. It only allowed used game sales through authorized re-sellers--I imagine this really meant Gamestop and maybe a handful of other major retailers. I get that most people are lazy and go through Gamestop, but I can't be the only one who likes to be able to sell and buy games directly from their owners on places like Ebay and Craigslist. The idea that GAMESTOP benefited more from these restrictions than the actual consumer should tell you something...

The publisher getting a cut of used game sales may sound like a solution, but in reality it flies in the face of first sale doctrine and, arguably, general realities of economics. Publishers are not supposed to be able to endlessly profit off a single copy of a work. Not only is this--I think--more or less common sense, it's also backed up by a Supreme Court decision and copyright law. Copyright does not grant limitless rights to the copyright holder. In other words, just because you have a copyright on a work does not mean that you get complete control of every single copy of that work for time immemorial. There are limits and one of those limits deals with the fact that a copyright holder's right to control the sale of a copy ENDS with the first sale of that copy.

This allows Libraries to exist. It allows used book/movie/music/game stores to exist. It allows the retail chain of distribution to exist. It's critical and too often ignored in these debates. I'll say again, without this concept LIBRARIES could not exist. Book publishers could claim control of all those books and reject the libraries right to lend them out.

hey Alex, really love your writing and this Guns of Navarro its turning into my favorites, you are right, how the things are going in to the future, protecting the publishers and developers is the right thing to do, because places like Gamestop and Redbox, are gaining more money than the actual people that works and publish the games, if the price is right i dont mind having my games library digital, if that means saving the industry, because is sad that great developers are being shot down because those high selling targets being put by publishers and because for the used games that mark wasn't reached, i read last week that the people that worked on Hitman Absolution was let go by Eidos, and that game was pretty good, and a sequel to a great game is coming to mobile instead of a AAA console release, (Deus Ex The Fall), and really i dont want to play that on my phone, and this is what a lot of publishers and developers are going to turn if the used games market isn't controlled.

So people need to learn that piracy and used games are bringing this industry that we all love down, and hope that in the future they can make some restrictions to preserve the hard work those people have made to make us happier when we turn our consoles on.

@neoepoch said:

Problem with that argument is Steam's offline mode doesn't really work like it should. I was internetless for two days recently. Tried to open Steam, no luck. Turns out you have to manually go into offline mode while you are online. So that argument doesn't really hold as much water as you'd think.

(someone forgot to tell him that this is an Epenis free zone)

Offline mode only really works for Steam if you have the good sense to know ahead of time to put it on. Something happens before you do that, and yeah, you're pretty much fucked.

I was sort of looking forward to having such a disparate set of features between the PS4 and Xbox One. It would have been a breeding ground for interesting new software and policies.

simple answer here guys: at the end of the day, the publisher's don't pay microsoft's bills..... I do

and just as a side note, I don't think anyone is really against the good idea's microsoft had... it boils down to how it went about them, the customer is always right, the customer is always the most important to please, in any business!.. and microsoft didn't treat us like that.. they could of kept their good ideas without taking away our rights to sell, or lend, or go offline... seems kinda silly to me.

I just don't understand why they can't keep their share features locked to digital purchases and leave the disc purchases they way they already are.

The Windows 8 numbers hurt Microsoft. They are desperately trying to mimic the success of the previous console generation because they need it. Given how out of touch the Windows 8 devs are with what people want from an OS (for a desktop computer, not a touch screen device,) I have little-to-no faith for this XBone thing. Saying that you're going to do a whole bunch of terrible stuff, and then saying, "NO, Look, we're sorry, don't leave! We really love you!" doesn't add credibility to your company's name. It reveals just how little research went into making consumers happy. They could have spent an entire hour reading online message boards and found out that "Hey, it seems like our consumers don't like terrible, restrictive DRM." But they didn't. And I'm not convinced that they care enough about the consumers to make something I'd want to buy.

Sorry Microsoft, Sony still wins.

*citation needed*

I still don't trust MS, the fact there is a day one patch (properly to remove the DRM systems) doesn't fill me with confidence. Like you said in the article, what is stopping them patching the DRM back in a couple of years from now. With the PS4 they have made it clear they are against from DRM (it was the biggest part of their E3 conference) so as a consumer I trust them more to not implement measures later down the line

The truth is, I probably wouldn't have been affected too negatively by Microsoft's planned XONE policies. My problems with the system were twofold:

1. I live in a major urban center, and my broadband connection still takes occasion to up and abandon me for hours at a time every couple of months. Considering my relatively privileged access to this "internet" thing, I'm inclined to believe that the people rushing us headfirst into an all-digital future are totally willing to abandon the RIDICULOUSLY LARGE population of people who have no reliable way of connecting to these services (and in many cases have never interacted with a computer in any meaningful sense). Without a reliable, global online infrastructure this is taking social stratification to new extremes, never mind the unfortunate implications of catering these technologies to America and Europe.
2. Microsoft's philosophy with their new console, as exhibited during the reveal and since, just does not appeal to me. I understand that Sony is just as much a profit-oriented entity, and that those awesome indies they took time to show at their E3 press conference are for the most part non-exclusives, but they did take time to show them. The XONE so far seems to be built around the corporate culture of Microsoft itself, and how it can embed its carefully curated image in as many forms of new media as possible. While neat in their own way, features like TV integration and cloud-based majyyks just strike me as too similar to Sony's all-too-recent push for 3D in their games. Meanwhile, the PS4 is inviting the developers themselves - big and small - to shape an identity for the system. An identity based around video games, no less. It's a compelling strategy, and while this generation is far from "decided," Microsoft still has a long way to go before it's on even philosophical footing.

@dark_lord_spam: very eloquently articulated and yet naive to think that Microsoft don't care about their customers, since it is their business sell software. I personally like the idea of not worrying if s game will get damage and then having to buy another or if a new gem arrives will it be comparable with my old games. I think your anger should be redirected to the company that's providing poor Internet service or speak to your congressman and tell them that at this day and age Internet access is indispensable to meet today's demands .

@dark_lord_spam: While I applaud Sony for getting dev input(big and small) on the new hardware, lets not forget so quickly who brought the indies to the console table with Arcade and XNA. Its all going digital whether we like it or not, thats just the progression right now. I think Microsoft would have been better off coming down somewhere in the middle ...somehow. Instead of taking 2 steps forward, and then 2 back.

@shingro:

At very least you can say that the traditional customer (the hardcore gamer) was not the main focus of this new console. MS made a play for the mainstream and to do so they threw their traditional consumers to the side to some extent, to try to tap another market.

I completely agree with this statement (as well as most of your other totally valid points). In my honest opinion, this is the only real problem gamers should have been angry about, more so than the DRM policies which happened to serve as the face of the hardcore gamers' anger.

I won't get too far into it again because it has been done to death, but at the end of the day, after getting a lawyer to explain the conditions because they were so convoluted and poorly explained, the DRM policies Microsoft was actually planning to enforce really, truly, were not nearly as restrictive as everyone mobbed them up to be. If you take the anger out of the argument and just look at what the benefits should have been in exchange for the requirements it's not about greed or some grand conspiracy against the gamer, it's more a case of brash self-assurance that they would be the first ones to lead and evolve the digital distribution model and that everyone would be okay with it - but they underestimated their base market entirely, and clearly the majority of that market has spoken, voting with their pre-orders.

To take it any further than that and say "too little too late" when policies are now at parity or wish 1000 deaths on Microsoft even now after they reacted to the market's demands, especially considering these consoles aren't even being released for another 4-5 months is a little immature. Everyone is entitled to be angry over ideas and plans they're not used to or comfortable with, but what is the point of refusing to let go of that anger when those plans or ideas are cancelled, I mean they never actually came into existence.

I just don't think a company changing it's not-yet existent policy regarding used video games to match a competitor should be capable of hurting any rational human being's feelings on an emotional level, let alone any sense of validated anger.

I continue to love these articles written by Alex. Easily one of my favorite features on the site.

Why should I get an Xbone when I have a good PC and a PS4 on pre-order? Exclusives? Then you better have something Halo-Worthy.

Very eye opening. I think one thing we should all remember is that the reversal is being implemented by a day-one patch. This means that they have the ability to introduce these systems again, slowly, over the course of the next few years. I think that's what the general public needs. It's kind of a shame that people are so opposed to change, but then again, it was a huge change and all at the same time.

I find it ironic that you call me stupid while somehow managing to squeeze in like three technical inaccuracies in a five sentence post.

Firstly, are you saying that most people can't reach speeds up to 1.5 megabit? That's simply not true; the majority of all Americans have broadband connection

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Ch3e3d.png

Secondly, there is a difference between always-online verification (like SimCity) which requires a constant connection with a server, and a 24-hour verification system a la Xbox One where the console just needs to verify a hash with a server once every day. The latter is more reliable because it doesn’t require a constant connection with the server to work. Comparisons between always-online verification and Xbox One’s verification are just stupid and technically immaterial.

Thirdly, even if Microsoft's Xbox One was an always online system, Microsoft's server architecture is several times the size of EA's, biggest one in the world after Google. Much more reliable.

And lastly, how big of a percentage of Microsoft's market segment do you think military bases are? I think Microsoft could survive without them.

Thanks for your reply. It touched upon some issues I haven’t thought of, so I’ll reply with my opinion on some of the questions you raised. Alright, that came off more political-ish than I had wanted too… but anyway here goes:

To be fair we don't really know what the restrictions of that family share option were going to be. They specifically called it 'family' share, which suggests some sort of limitation based on relationship. I can't imagine any system they could have come up with that wouldn't have been pretty easy to fake...but still, I do wonder.

Actually, I’m pretty sure their chief in marketing said that your Xbox One family can include pretty much anyone, in any city anywhere. It seems like it would have been fully possible for you and a ”family members” to play the same game concurrently, which to me sounds awesome.

Of course there are some limitations; you can only share one game up to ten times (but I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve wanted to share one game with more than ten people!)

As for their used games policy. It only allowed used game sales through authorized re-sellers--I imagine this really meant Gamestop and maybe a handful of other major retailers. I get that most people are lazy and go through Gamestop, but I can't be the only one who likes to be able to sell and buy games directly from their owners on places like Ebay and Craigslist. The idea that GAMESTOP benefited more from these restrictions than the actual consumer should tell you something..

Nobody likes Gamestop less than me, but I do see why there’s a need to only allow used-games through authorized re-sellers only. Unless you channel the used games through official, established platforms, it’d be difficult to allow developers to get a percentage of each sale. Besides, I’m sure the list of official re-sellers will grow and you’ll have plenty of options.

And buying and selling games with friends should still be supported by Microsoft’s system; you can give away games from your library to friends, although I’m pretty sure you can only give one game once.

I don’t know if the used game deals would be as good as it now without this system in place, but I’d personally be willing to pay a little extra if I knew that money went to the developers.

The publisher getting a cut of used game sales may sound like a solution, but in reality it flies in the face of first sale doctrine and, arguably, general realities of economics. Publishers are not supposed to be able to endlessly profit off a single copy of a work. Not only is this--I think--more or less common sense.

Well, the alternative would be just having the money going to Gamestop, allowing them to parasite on the industry without really contributing to the cycle. Keep in mind that Microsoft isn’t even adding any fees here; everything goes to the devs, customers and the reseller.

If Cliff Bleszinski is to be believed, and whether you agree with his opinion on this or not, he is arguably an authority on all this; developers and publishers alike are having difficulties even making back the money it took to produce their million dollar titles.

It’s not necessarily as easy as just telling the developers to adapt and make cheaper games; gamers are used to a certain standard and DLC, microtransactions – all those nasty tricks are just desperate attempts from publishers to try to make some of their money back. Microsoft’s used games policy could, if it worked, mean less of that and all the other money-grapping tactics gamers hate.

Game development is expensive, it’s always going to be expensive, but if developers can profit on used games; they want have to push DLC and microtransactions into everything they make, and they’ll dare to take more risks and fund more unique projects. It would lead to an all-around healthier industry.

it's also backed up by a Supreme Court decision and copyright law. Copyright does not grant limitless rights to the copyright holder. In other words, just because you have a copyright on a work does not mean that you get complete control of every single copy of that work for time immemorial. There are limits and one of those limits deals with the fact that a copyright holder's right to control the sale of a copy ENDS with the first sale of that copy.

This allows Libraries to exist. It allows used book/movie/music/game stores to exist. It allows the retail chain of distribution to exist. It's critical and too often ignored in these debates. I'll say again, without this concept LIBRARIES could not exist. Book publishers could claim control of all those books and reject the libraries right to lend them out.

It’s true that it’s backed up by copyright law, but keep in mind that that copyright law was never meant to include digital goods.

Used cars and books is a different matter entirely – they wear down and lose value. Digital content can’t be worn down like that. As to movie and music; there you have more revenue streams for the publishers. When it comes to movies, you got cinema box office, you got DVD sales, bluray-sales, TV-channels, a dozen of streaming services, etc. etc.

The video game industry is a different matter. You only got one revenue stream; the actual sales. If you’re lucky, you can perhaps release a collector’s edition or a HD-release in the future, but very few titles get that treatment. A poorly received game can completely bankrupt a dev house which is why more and more developers turn to big publishers like EA, and the mid-tier of gaming is more or less fading away; leaving only AAA-franchise á la CoD and, on the other side of the spectrum, independent titles where the developers aren’t even expecting to make any money.

Couple that with the fact that video games today, more often than not, are actually more expensive, as a medium, to develop than music, books and even movies. They also have a longer turnaround time. The industry is young and absolutely unique, and it needs a used game policy where as much money as possible goes to the hundreds of programmers, concept artists and game devs that actually make the game.

So yeah, you make many valid comparisons between the video game industry and other mediums, but I argue that this industry is so unique that also the distribution system should be unique. It can’t allow any loopholes which damage the industry.

The English is questionable, but you get the idea.

@korva: As someone in construction, which shares many things with the gaming industry, (project costs in the millions, a long and complicated design phase, tight deadlines to meet) I can say that much of the issues are quite simply, failure to schedule.

The gaming industry is inundated with tons of visionaries. Many wonderfully creative people with great ideas, but many who also don't quite understand project management and/or estimating. A good manager will be able to put together a schedule designed to save time without having to stifle anyone's creativity. If your best programmer is spending half his or her day doing paperwork, this is a waste of their valuable time. Middle managers inundate the business world, and don't appear to directly influence the final product, but like the oil in your engine, they keep all of the other parts of the team doing what they do best.

Each game is different, yes. So is each building. But games are still made up of common tasks. Track how long it takes your dev team to create something, based on size and complexity. Track this information, find an average over time. Use this to forecast the cost of future projects. Budgets wouldn't spiral out of control, if the game industry had a document detailing out how long a task takes on average - because the budget would reflect the actual cost of development.

The construction industry estimates budgets by amassing an immense quantity of data about previous work, so that even though no two jobs are the same, an accurate estimate can be established for both time and money, eliminating "crunch time" at the end of a project, without having to go back to a customer or publisher to ask for more money.

The "bloat" is also a problem. This is a case of building a three car garage to park one car in. Time and time again this generation, we've seen millions of dollars spent on a game, only to see it perform moderately well. I am not saying that they should spend less on games, I just think they should spend smarter. Don't spend 90% of your money on 10% of your game. Knowing when to spend and when to save is again, where great management is needed.

The whole point of this analogy is essentially that you can create an estimate of time and cost at the beginning of a project - so you can at least ballpark the cost and time needed for a game of a specific genre or platform. This allows your publisher to extrapolate just how many sales they need, how much money to spend on marketing. The ridiculous sales forecasts you often hear are generally smoke and mirrors being thrown at shareholders. (pretty sure shareholders are smarter than that, guys)

Far as used games go, all I have to say is that we (as contractors) don't blame the fact that people are buying and selling existing buildings when we run out of work.

I don't think people would have a problem with the all digital Steam like thing if MS showed us they had real sales of high end titles for the same price as steam. If games where the same price as on steam. But that is not the case. Games are about 20$ more expensive on console and older games go often for the same price as they went for when they came on the site. Any game store has these games for a much, much lower price. When we have to trust MS they first need to earn that trust. After the whole digital cut after the first Xbox and the high prices for new and old games on the 360 you can't expect people to trust you when you don't promise them new games are going to cost the same as PC games and you will have yearly sales rivalling Steam.

Woow what a great device