Microsoft Tries to Clear Up Xbox One's New Policies

in other news, pc elitists laugh on sidelines.

@ei8htbit: I don't think my situation is that particular. Other than living in a 3rd world country, having issues with your Internet connection don't seems that weird (I lived some months in the US, at which time I even suffer an Internet blackout that lasted a few days). Besides, I can see a lot of people being affected for the restrictions to borrow or sell games, regardless of their nationality.

I have no problem with online based distribution. I do believe its the future and I think it can't arrive soon enough. In many cases, it makes buying games more simple to me, since I don't have to import games, don't need to concern myself with delays, custom, taxes or fees, or overpriced items in the local market. Although I like buying some games physically (for, lets say, collectionist reasons), I don't mind playing most games from my hard drive.

Now, in terms of digital control, I think the current model is fine as it is. Sure, XBLA and PSN need to step up their game in terms of sales and offers to compete with the likes of Steam, but that is mostly a matter of marketing. I do not believe a good system needs the kind of draconian controls Microsoft is trying to set. Lets not kid ourselves, this measures only exist because publisher would much rather like to see the games as services and not products. The idea that the game I bought is something I own is heartbreaking to them, and a virtual environment is easier to control than a physical one. In terms of experiences, the restrictions provides nothing to the gamers (your examples, like cloud saving, auto updates or persistent worlds, are already available on this generation, without the need to require constant Internet connections), the time window it imposes is far too short (I can spend a lot of days with my console off, no need to turn it on every day just for the DRM to kick in) and only serves the publishers, who at this point, are using the search for "the pirate" to impose restrictions on everyone. I am not saying piracy is not a big problem, but I do think their impact is overstated (millions of downloads does not equal millions of lost sales) and, in the end, pirates will get their games regardless, while the restrictions will still torment honest people (for example, look at the DLC for Street Fighter vs Tekken)...

I seriously believe good consumer relationship is the road to a better, more secure service, the first gaming example being Steam. When people can download from their home a game for $ 5 or $ 10, why go through the problem of pirating the game, searching for the cracks, being careful about viruses and suffering from a lesser experience due to unofficial servers? Or buying a pirated copy? Most people that sell pirated games charge you more than that. That way, Valve created a service that (almost) singlehandedly changed the PC from a dying platform to the platform of choice of many AAA titles and hundreds of indies. Once you create the environment, and evangelize people into the benefits of buying legit instead of pirating, a lot of people that only bought pirated games will turn to regular consumers (I have seen it... dozens of times). However, good consumer relations goes several ways. One of them is giving the message that they care about consumers. When Microsoft says: you can only use their (the publishers) games on our console while connected; what people listen is: we want to control you are using our console and their games the way we want you to...

If you want to consider an example outside of gaming, look at iTunes. Before iTunes, the music industry was in big trouble (spending millions in lobbying laws, chasing after P2P applications and people all over the world, etc). Did the creation of iTunes make the illegal mp3 sites disappear? No... There is always going to be people willing to browse on dubious sites, full of viruses and malware, downloading several versions of the same song in search of the one they want or the quality they want, and waste hours in the process; but when there was a service that provided quality music for $ 0.99, many people saw that the benefit of the immediacy and facility far outweighed the (reasonable) price.

@tactis: I have practically the same sentiments on this as you.

"You are in control of your personal data."

Unless Microsoft explicitly allows the physical disconnection of the Kinect sensor (which it won't), and unless Microsoft explicitly disavows that an Xbox One removed from the Internet won't immediately transmit stored packets upon reconnection (which it won't), then anyone who buys that You Are In Control is kidding him/herself.

Look up stories about webcam hackers on Ars Technica or Tested.com. Better yet, read the news from the past two weeks. Enjoy dropping a half-grand for the privilege of owning your own personal living room monitor to match the iOS microphone in your pocket.

And yet, dammit, I still kind of wonder if it'll be any good...

@hermes:

You clearly have very valid reason for concern, given your particular situation, not to even consider the Xbox one, which is a shame because it limits your choice in gaming and you have no control over it. If anything I feel very lucky to be in the position I am in to truly not be concerned in the same way as you are based on my circumstance alone. For what it's worth, I think your English is impeccable (especially as a second language) not to mention your ability to debate your opinion so never apologize for that.

I am curious to know your opinion on the future of gaming as it relates to this debate. In particular, in your honest opinion, do you think the next generation of consoles (if their is one) would still be physical media based (ie discs). If not, do you think that system of distribution and licensing could realistically be any different than what the Xbox One is currently imposing? In other words, is the current system Xbox One is imposing more relevant to a future where physical media/disc-based content no longer exists? How would it be handled any different?

I ask this because I believe this is the trend and future that gaming is headed, in a way that's why I don't fault this license/connected model because it is very realistically future-focused. Even though I do agree it is still rough around the edges and certainly not without inherent faults and consumer restrictions, I don't think it's any less fair to treat the rules around the physical disc that happens to carry the digital experience any different than they would the downloaded version of a copy of that same digital experience.

@lurkero said:

At this point, the advantage Sony has is that it didn't jump in to define many of the policies as MS has (and, t the same time, many of the policies from MS sound anything but defined). At this point, MS is a big NO, while Sony is a maybe... They have the advantage that they can jump in with less draconian policies and they won't look undecided, but customer friendly. In case Sony's policies are not significantly better, I can see a lot of people simply migrating to Steam this generation.

@ei8htbit:

I appreciate your well thought and well articulated response. First of all, I want to apologize if I sound utterly critic, frustrated or aggressive. I am frustrated on the situation, and being English a second language, I sometimes find it hard to find the proper words but, despite being this the Internet, I have no ill feelings about you or your opinion (although I don't entirely agree with it).

In order to avoid a new wall of text, I will not use quotes either...

Regarding Internet Availability

This is, to me, the biggest issue. The problem is not about Internet speed (although that would open a different can of worms), but about availability. The reason I can see videos or post on forums is because I have a decent Internet speed, but I can't put my head on the block for it to be 24/7, and I don't think Microsoft should. I have experienced blackout due to my setup, my router, my IP failing to renew automatically, my ISP, extraneous factors (moving out, a strong storm blocking Internet for a few days (by the way, that example is not from my country, but from downtown Chicago), some workers being sloppy on the street), etc... and I am not even counting Microsoft, its architecture or factors that could affect them into it. Even amazon has experienced blackout before so, while I agree MS can do everything in their power, I think supporting their entire infrastructure on something that can fail for dozens of reasons, and a single day blackout would mean a service not being provided to all their market is a serious issue.

And I need to reiterate it is an issue that affects all their market. It is reasonable that an MMORPG or Call of Duty online would not work if either MS or you are having connection issues, but Skyrim? Braid? I understand that developers could create new experiences if they assume there is a permanent connection (up to a point, since it can be offline for some hours), but there are thousands of game experiences that don't require a connection, yet they are locked beyond this wall because that control is not configurable and its build in the console.

Regarding Dependence on Servers to Authenticate

I don't think my theory is childish, to be honest. I don't think its Microsoft master plan, I just think they have not planned that far ahead. I think they want people to think on the next big thing, and not into what happens when that becomes obsolete. Maintaining this infrastructure costs a lot of money, and publishers are shutting down servers left and right. I can't play most earlier versions of FIFA or Bioshock 2 online simply because there are no server on the other side. Microsoft itself shutdown the servers of the original XBox some years ago, making it impossible to play Halo 2 with friends. Those are experiences that are simply not available now because they decided to pull the plug. How much worst is it going to be when every single game gets disabled?

Even Valve has stated that they are ready to turn the DRM off in case they go bankrupt, an earthquake swallows their servers or something... All I want is for Microsoft to say something similar or show they have put some thought into it.

Regarding DRM and "everyone is a criminal"

It is true, I don't really have an answer to it. I think Steam's window is far more generous than the Microsoft's one, but I have had troubles with it in the past too. In the end, I want to be lied. I know they are doing this because of the worst elements in our society and publishers pressure, but if I am not one of them, at least have the decency of not treating me like I am. In your example of the airport, I get that security is a big issue, I just don't need to see armed guards at every corner to be reminded that they suspect I might be a terrorist.

In the end, it all boils down to PR and customer service. I think, in that sense, PS+ and Steam has gone a long way... To fight piracy, don't fight it openly. Don't antagonize it; instead make ludicrous offers, get sales, exclusive content, free or heavily discounted games every week or month, make indie developers feel welcomed they could get into your service. Treat your customers well, so that people won't pirate, not because they can't (sooner or later, pirates always can), but because being legit has so many benefits its simply not worthy.

Look at iTunes. Before iTunes the music industry was so full of piracy it was disgusting. Does the existence of iTunes somehow stopped mp3 from being published online for free? No. However, when you used Internet, you had to spend hours looking for music, whether it was the right version, it had enough quality, it wasn't a cover or live version, it had some virus or malware in it, etc... having a convenient and reasonably priced place made a lot of people stop browsing for music on dubious pages or P2P applications, and made Apple a leader in music distribution.

By the way, I wasn't talking about the online DRM when referring to "convoluted hops" (that hop is relatively straightforward), but to all the other news regarding their architecture: secondary accounts being more restricting than main accounts, used games only available from certain retailers (bordering monopolistic practices), you can only lend a game to ONE friend and its only possible for less than 30 days (no one knows what happens then), there might be a fee associated to it. I have lend some of my games to several friends for them to check them out, some have even bought their own copies after they return them to me... Now it seems I need a spreadsheet to know whether I have lend it before and for how long.

There is less than an hour left for the Microsoft conference. I hope they address the elephants in the room, because all the things left undefined are just as damaging to them as the ones they have confirmed. I know they are "just games", but Microsoft is a trendsetter... I just wish their ideas of products vs services don't catch on on other environments.

@bapetacular: In 8-10 years the technology will be improved and running servers will be way cheaper.

@olivaw: There was never a fee. There was the rumor of a fee. Why some people took all the rumors as fact is beyond me. Everyone jumped to conclusions before they knew anything at all.

@homes: sure is what its starting to look like, no more halo on deployment then :\

I'm not really to concerned about it :/ nobody is forcing me to buy XBO and if I hear it's busted or terrible after it comes out then I just won't buy one. I don't have the money to line up at a store day one anyway ;)

My thoughts down to the letter. Sad development, would have liked a new toy - but HELL no, not like this.

Either they "allow" to disconnect the kinect(best), they implement a real and complete "power off"(second), I find a workable and convenient way to block Xbox network traffic unless I want it to do shit (might not bother and the "or" applies) or this is not getting bought.

Shame, really was okay with everything else about the system, used games do not really bother me and my internet went down once in the last ~5 Years afaik.

If I where still 15 (income and all) and/or lived in a less well connected spot I'd be pissed as hell though, I think they are damaging their sales figures beforehand due to the internet/connectedness thing.

Not really hopefull that sony does way better I am afraid.. Mh, PC gaming works very well in my living room by now, but still.. would have liked a new toy ;)

@wiredfolf:

Good points. I think your concern is totally valid from that perspective. Clearly MS (and the other big guys) need to outline what the plan is or at least what is the insurance policy for gamers this next-gen (if any) and they would do well to take a page from Steam's playbook in that regard. I don't anticipate they will do that anytime soon though.

@endurancefun said:

OK! Now we're getting somewhere!! Great comment, with supportive argument and well articulated without taking up 3 pages like I normally do!! I see your point in ownership vs. privacy although I'm not nearly as adamant that it will lead to the conclusion you are suggesting, that's a matter of politics between us. More importantly though, I completely agree with your final statement, perhaps that should have been the focus all along.

@ei8htbit: On your "PS" edit. The fact that you can turn off what you admit is a "creepy lens" is not my problem here, the opportunity for abuse of all sorts is ripe. Call me mad, but considering the changes made this gen, it's a horrible direction for Microsoftto take the industry. It's an obvious slippery slope as we are actively losing ownership rights and eventually it is fairly obvious we'll lose more and more privacy to these cameras if we haven't already. It raises questions a video games console should not have to, I just want games.

@ei8htbit: It may not be fair, but neither of these companies (or the publishers) have done much to alleviate my concerns with where gaming is going. The best I can go forward with is what I do know and compare it to what little information that's been given.

The most current example in gaming that leaves me thinking new gen games will be unplayable after a handful of years is the latest SimCity. Here is a game that saves data via the Cloud. There is no save file on my PC, all the hours and hours I could sink into that game is left in the hands of EA. Same with just being able to play it, I'm on their schedule. It's still too early to tell but going back to my multi-player example, down the road those SimCity servers could very well be taken offline and thus all my effort, all my time spend is wiped from existence. I couldn't even start fresh again because the game required a connection to a server that is no longer functional.

That is what makes me very iffy about these new consoles. That my game library won't be playable a few years from now because of simple features like 24 hour online check-ins and Cloud saving. It may not be their outright intention to limit us as gamers, but that may be the side-effect regardless.

@endurancefun:

I feel sorry for you.

@ei8htbit: It's a valid assumption. Not going into the three images you posted in succession that are some old-school console war junk. I doubt I'm alone in thinking this.

@endurancefun: You ask a smug ad hominem question, you get smug ad hominem answer outlining your inability to support any argument you're trying to make in return - I think that's a fair trade.

Maybe it will challenge you to be more productive rather than assumptive.

PS

the camera can be turned off, it doesn't "film you" and I'm pretty sure Obama is not your Big Brother. Having a camera lens in the living room is certainly creepy, but I think you're making a bigger deal out of it than you need to.

@wiredfolf:

You make valid point, but it conflates the concept of not being able to play those old games on a new console with the fallacy of not being able to play those old games on the same old console they were actually made for.

Your argument regarding online multi-player games is more relevant, however it only accounts for that specific genre of game, not the entire catalogue of games for any one system. But I do see your point in that it may not be too far removed from a model that relies on server-based gaming in the future, I just don't think it's fair to suggest that companies like Sony or Microsoft have already invoked such measures currently and then using that assumption for how the future will unfold.

@ei8htbit: Well, no, it's just strange that someone who has 20~ posts has about 90% of them in one thread vehemently defending a global corporation because "it isn't that bad." Your long and rambling ad hominem attack was totally unequal to my simple question and pretty much proves to me, though I'm sure not to you or "anyone logical" as something you may state, that you may be incredible naive, or have an extreme bias for one reason or another.

Nothing Microsoft is doing here benefits game players as much as it takes away a basic right of ownership. And yeah I don't want a billion dollar corporation filming me on a camera I can't turn off just because I bought their games console. I guess I'm just a tinfoil hat wearer, we should all trust Microsoft and the US government with unlimited 1984-like powers. Thanks Obama.

Yes you got me, I've been a paid subscriber for the past year with the sole secret mission to serve as a "viral marketer" to the highest bidder. What an intelligent, informed, albeit completely offensive and derogatory conclusion.

Much like you, I have an opinion. The difference is that I choose to form my opinion with rational thought and back it up with support and then express it with reasoning. I'll admit it seemed pretty obvious to everyone else that you must be a viral marketer when you made such well supported and intelligently executed comments such as:

Fuck Microsoft. What a load of shit.

But I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt as you could possibly just be an uneducated troll who knows she's angry but doesn't really know why or just doesn't know exactly how to articulate herself with big boy words.

It's true, I've been increasingly vocal on forums lately regarding the next generation consoles. You do have a point, with such a boring and quiet topic it is a little suspicious that I've chosen to chime in more than usual. And it is odd that I haven't decided to take the easy route, get out my pitchfork and join the mob of blind rage "Anti" everything-ers. Welp, get ready to break out your tinfoil hat for this next part because as you know, conspiracy abounds and *whispers* Kentia in nigh.

I'm just a thoughtful gamer who happens to have been around since consoles were even a "thing". I have perspective on the business of gaming and a firm grasp on the reality of retail and distribution in the digital age. I know that companies like Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Samsung (for all of whom I'm also a viral marketer btw) have massive risk they need to balance against a complex network of relationships between publishers, developers, suppliers, shareholders and at the end of the day, retail distributors and customers in order to survive or stay relevant. I think it's laughably irresponsible for anyone to assume the blame for any licensing policy regarding digital content is up to "Microsoft" alone to decide and I think what is currently being implemented with the XONE for example is not the end of videogames or nearly as dramatic as everyone is churning it out to be. I think it is as simple as one of three things happening: Sony is forced to implement a comparable DRM policy because of the same relationships they need with publishers, making the aftermarket more difficult for piracy OR Sony takes a risk with publisher 3rd party support and shucks DRM in favour of a more indie-developed and firsty party only console (which will never happen because they need publisher license income), OR (and this is the Hollywood ending complete with slow clap) Sony ignores DRM altogether, Microsoft is forced to do the same to remain competitive, and publishers go back to pushing only safe AAA sequels to the masses - everyone still kind of loses but at least we can trade our games more than once because that is the definition of videogames. People think this is a battle over DRM waged by publishers, they're totally ignoring the fact that it's also a battle over physical discs with retailers. I'm organizing a twitter petition rally at the nearest BlockBuster Video if anyone is interested.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong or if my misinformed opinion and classification of your character was unfair in any way - I'll just be over here sitting with my chin resting on folded hands, excited at the prospect of you actually articulating a coherent argument. Just be careful though because the eye of PRISM is always watching (didn't you know this thing goes beyond simple viral marketers like you or me?).

@ei8htbit:

"Concerning the theory that Microsoft's master plan is to turn off the servers and render all XONE games obsolete for the rest of time is, frankly, childish IMO. It is certainly a possibility, and given the nature of digital distribution licenses as opposed to ownership it is within those rights, but in practical application I can't see a scenario where MS would ever see it to their true advantage to pursue that. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, the real business incentive and greedy reason for them not to It would be because it would effectively destroy any trust for any future purchases and effectively eliminate their entire user base for future profit on whatever new robot they have dreamed up by then to sell to the masses."

The trouble is they're already doing that since we'd be unable to play games from the 360 on the Xbone. Sony is doing a similar thing with PS3 games not working on the PS4 (just to make it a more balanced point.)

Let's not forget the many XBLA games people have been collecting for years now. Those won't be able to be re-downloaded to the new system. I look at old online games from a decade ago. Games I loved playing and at times wish I could go back to play them... But I can't, because the servers for those games have long since been taken offline.

Now I'm not saying those servers should have been kept online for all time because that wouldn't make much sense. People move on to other games and even with a handful of diehard fans, there wouldn't be enough financial support to keep those servers running. Not to mention the companies of those games want to invest in future projects and new games, etc.

So with that in mind is it that hard to believe MS wouldn't at some point down the road, through the mere design of their system, render the game library of the Xbone obsolete? What incentive would they have to keep those servers up after the life of the new system is over? Sure, customer loyalty and trust... but given how outspoken some of their higher ups are about their opinion on gamers it doesn't seem like they care about our collection of older games. Why would they? They are a business, as you said, and those games gathering dust on our shelves aren't making them money.

You say it's childish to think they would let their product become useless. I say it's naive to think they wouldn't.

@ei8htbit: Did you just sign up to these forums to defend the Xbone? Seems like you have only one other post not about the console. Not to say you're a viral marketer, but um, are you a viral marketer?

@hermes:

First of all, thanks for engaging in a meaningful and well thought discussion about these issues, I think that is the most important process. In the interest of forum space and not having to scroll, I'll spare any more point by point quoting and attempt to succinctly reply to your thoughts. In general you have definitely got me thinking about a side I never considered, but I also think your arguments are largely one-sided without a fair assessment of real world application of these practices.

Regarding Internet Availability: Considering your situation, I found it interesting that you yourself have managed to reply to several posts and conceivably connect to the internet multiple times each day for the past few days, more times than the XONE would require if you were playing a game for instance. But I understand you may be referring to hypotheticals so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. From what I gather, your overarching argument is that The XONE does not cater to any of the world's population with limited, if any, internet access. I completely agree, even Microsoft has readily admitted this. But that is precisely the whole point, and part of what I meant by saying the future has to start sometime and yes when models evolve there will always be those that are left behind until the cycle catches up again - it's true of any industrial advance in the past 100 odd years.

An always connected world has been the trend for the past generation already and will only become more relevant in the immediate future. You posit that such a feature serves only Microsoft while it is merely a requirement for the user - this is a very short-sighted answer based more on resentment than merit. An always connected architecture certainly benefits Microsoft and Publishers alike from a security standpoint, however the possibilities and tools it offers developers to engage with gamers, and the conveniences it affords the end user in many ways (ie background updates, cloud streaming, etc.) are real and concrete services that stand to benefit the consumer and enhance their experience.

Regarding Internet Speed, etc: You offer a very humbling truism in that "if you are not the market, you don't exist". It is a statement that answers the question it is designed to provoke. In real world application though, there ARE boundaries. There ARE limits. At some point any business venture needs to define it's market and that is almost always determined by income. In this case it is also defined by Internet access (which I am sure can be closely linked to income). It is the line in the sand that Microsoft has necessarily drawn for a device that is driven by online functionality.

Regardless of nationality or borders, if you cannot afford this system or you don't have internet access you are simply not part of the market for XBOX ONE, not unlike the reason that a 15 year old boy without a driver's license earning minimum wage at a gas station in a first world country like Germany "does not exist" in the Mercedez-Benz SLK market. He is still a human being, he still exists, but until he's a customer with a desire to drive AND a means to pay for that car he really doesn't exist to Mercedez-Benz. That is business outside of communism for better or worse, don't know what else to tell you about that.

Regarding Dependence on Servers to Authenticate: There is a huge difference between a persistent connection and periodic 24hr authentication checks as it pertains to server load and stability. The two cases you referenced (Diablo 3, and SimCity) are games that relied on persistent connections based on launch servers that weren't the same scale and size of Microsoft's commitment with the XONE, meaning any disruption at all beyond a few seconds resulted in failure for those two games. A 24-hour period check-in is a much different story, and the fact is that Microsoft does have years of experience managing, securing, and running one of the most stable servers in gaming history, which should count for something, I think. It would be foolish to assume anything is infallible of course, but the reality is that a 24-hr check in is not near the apocalypse level of torment many instantly assume it will be.

Concerning the theory that Microsoft's master plan is to turn off the servers and render all XONE games obsolete for the rest of time is, frankly, childish IMO. It is certainly a possibility, and given the nature of digital distribution licenses as opposed to ownership it is within those rights, but in practical application I can't see a scenario where MS would ever see it to their true advantage to pursue that. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, the real business incentive and greedy reason for them not to It would be because it would effectively destroy any trust for any future purchases and effectively eliminate their entire user base for future profit on whatever new robot they have dreamed up by then to sell to the masses.

Regarding DRM and "everyone is a criminal": My joke about air travel was in direct response to your concern with the fact that DRM by it's very existence assumes everyone is a criminal even though statistically the overwhelming majority of them are innocent, contributing members of society. If you've ever travelled by airplane recently, I'm sure you would have found that "DRM" in different forums is a fact of life in modern society. My problem with your argument here is that you don't offer any suggestion for how it might be addressed. Implying that the problem of piracy does not really exist is ignorant. Allowing it to exist unhindered is even more destructive and is damaging to the industry no matter how many different ways people try to justify it as harmless. If all I have to do is connect to the internet once a day to maintain that level of security and it is done automatically in the background without me ever knowing I think that is a very small price to pay. It's not some convoluted series of hoops you suggest it to be. Again if you look at it from real world application, considering my internet connection is always on by default, my experience with authenticating a game on XBOX One would effectively be this:

Step One: turn on the console. done.

Closing Thought: I will agree with you that Adam Orth was a complete tool making the comments he did so publicly especially as a representative for his company. I can appreciate your frustration with a lot of these implications marginalizing your ability to experience a next generation video game console. While I would never outright think or say you just need to "deal with it" because of your circumstance, I don't know the answer to solve your concern that is actually feasible given the pace of technology, demand for innovation, and the requirement for any business to make a profit in direct relation to both of those facets. Until they are willing to produce free consoles and free games to the world there will always be restrictions, and unfortunately many are left behind as a result.

On the bright side: it's just a videogame console. Stuff that actually matters to make us human is freely available to all who want to participate. I sincerely hope you are not left behind no matter which route you take.

Other than paranoia and internet connection being a necessity(And that XBOX Live wasn't made free...though that was never gonna happen) it seems fine. The whole netflix "Up to ten people can use this account but only two at a time is cool too. Though I'm wary of Cloud specific gaming or the downloading times of ones that aren't...OnLive never quite sold me.

Microsoft's game division has just killed themselves.

Depending on the answer to that and how exactly you signify if someone was a member of your family and thus should have access to your games (for instance could I just identify my 10 closest friends on XBL as my "family" and then they have access to my games and me to theirs?) are huge questions that need answers before I would consider an XBOne right now. At this point though, I think we are best off assuming the worst.

I'm pretty shocked at particularly the 24 hour window for offline and that sustained offline gaming, renting, and lending are completely gone.The rest of it to me actually sounds like a somewhat fair trade, especially if that "selling your license to a friend" thing extends to digital copies of games. I have to imagine at this point that Sony will have the same/similar hooks, but if they don't, Microsoft might as well just pack up and go home because they'd have lost the war before either console hits the market.

Wow i wonder if you can trade your xbone if your fucked off with it, noone has mentioned about that i dont think

Yeah funny that. All these big corporations like to talk out of both sides of their mouths on these privacy issues. Of course, what is even more scary to me is that the governmental officials they are giving our information to can't even put together a decent powerpoint presentation.

It seems like the Xbox One reveal was a disaster compared to the PS4. Microsoft has a lot of damage control to do and so far everything they put out seems to make the situation worst. E3 is their last chance to deliver a strong and believable message that will satisfy the bases. Otherwise, the PS4 is going to get off to a huge start in sales and the Wii U might have a chance and not die after all. Right now it's Microsoft that's on the ropes, hoping the ref doesn't stop the fight.

Does anyone know if the family 10 thing is symmetrical?

What I mean is, it talks about how I can give access of my shared games to my family. However, Im their family as much as they are mine, so does that mean I have access to THEIR shared games?

Or artificially, does one owner in a big family have to proclaim themselves Queen Xbone, and everyone else leaches off that?

Another thought about the Xbone's Kinect system:

This all seems so complicated, more complexity will either confuse and deter customers. Or they wont understand and not give a shit, ending up encouraging these companies to accelerate us down the rabbit hole.

PS Fuck EA, I knew there was a shoe about to drop with that no more season pass bullshit. Yeah Fuck EA

Cunts

@ei8htbit:

"The actual demographic of anyone seriously interested enough in games to pay upwards of $500 for a new console in order to play games, who also does not have access to internet for days at a time because of a limited monthly plan cannot possibly be a substantial number. The future of core games is not offline. The future needs to start sometime. Remember when 360/PS3 launched and there was no XBLA or PS Store - now you can buy digital day one on both of those consoles, it's how the industry evolves over cycles and their consoles need to remain relevant and capable within those cycles."

Truth, the future has to start somewhere, but that assumes the future is something people is anticipating. Virtual stores where a reality long before there was a 360/PS3. Always online architecture is not something people anticipate, its not something that serves Microsoft and the publishers and they require from customers. XBLA is a feature, Stable Broadband Internet is a requirement.

"I'm sure there are some, but the fact is that the GLOBAL AVERAGE internet connection speed is 2.9Mbps and the XONE only requires a connection that is HALF that speed (1.5Mbps). Where Ethernet is not available you can still connect using mobile broadband. Again, the future needs to start sometime and I don't think the trend of Internet usage or connection speeds is getting any lower or dwindling anytime soon."

I would seriously want to know how did they reach that number. Is it an average over all the households in the world? Over the amount of households that has an Internet connection? Over the amount of households that have Ethernet Internet connection? Because those numbers would differ greatly and be endemic of a current trend: If you are not the market, you don't exist...

"Also where are you moving that it takes the cable provider weeks before they install something so you can start paying them cash money? Anytime I've moved I've had gas/electric/water/cable and internet within the first day or two at most, they can't wait to make you start paying them - plus it's really not hard to plan ahead for utilities. Do you really think console design should take "moving day gaming session" specifically into account? Is it an epidemic?!"

At this point of my reply, it should be increasingly obvious that, yes, I live in a third world country. I can't talk about moving on US or Europe, but here I have met friends that moved to a different neighborhood (not even different city or state) and had to wait until the bureaucracy sorted out their request, at which point they got Internet in a matter of weeks. Those same friends have a 360 and a library of games (both downloaded and on discs). As far as I understand it, there are about a third of the population of USA that don't have 24 hours Internet access, so I would say the population is still not negligible.

"In the latter scenario you mentioned, is it not feasible to consider that the authentication could simply happen during typical "off hours" based on your play patterns, like between 4am-5am given the "always on" nature of the system and thus eliminating your contact with the authentication at all?"

That would assume the "always on" does a lot more than a stand-by. On principle, I have no problem with that, but I think its something they should disclose.

"Given that Microsoft has beefed up it's server structure by 20x the current volume I'd say they are taking both functionality and security pretty seriously. They are putting the onus of a 24-hour recovery period on themselves for any failure on their part. But consider the proven stability of the current XBOX Live servers - over the past 8 years I don't think they've gone done for more than 24 hours more than once within that span. Is it as huge a deal as everyone is making it out to be? Regarding it's "sunsetting" at the end of it's life cycle, who is to say that server authentication can't be removed entirely?"

There are two points on that argument. One is if Microsoft is capable of handling the load of millions of consoles asking about tens of games every day, all day. At this point, I would say "I don't know". I am not passing judgement on the skills of Microsoft employees, I am sure they are all quite capable, but so are Blizzard employees and Diablo's error 37 still happened, so are EA employees and the SimCity debacle still happened, so are Valve employees and Steam was a wasteland the first few months. Microsoft is willing to take a huge risk on their shinny new console for something that, again, does not serve their consumers. The DRM architecture is a hardware requirement, not a feature. And they have to pull it off perfectly, from the beginning... If you think the backlash here is big, wait until you see the backlash of families that didn't do their research, don't know or care about any of this and expect their newly bought gift to their son work as it should on the morning after Christmas.

The other point is if Microsoft is willing to remove a hardware restriction when they are done with the console life cycle, which I seriously doubt. The reasons are: a) they have to have the foresight of making it possible to turn it off on the hardware, which leaves a huge door open for hackers to use the process to root the console early on; and b) the idea of Microsoft and the publishers saying, at some point, "you know, we had our fair share of your money, and its not like we expect to do some more... now we are going to let you just have all your games" is a bit unlikely.

"Have you traveled by airplane lately? I get this argument, I do. The major fault with it is that it panders both sides and is unrealistic simply because it implies the answer is no answer at all, which ignores a very real issue that many insist on downplaying in suggesting that piracy is not a big deal."

I am not sure what my traveling habits had to do with anything, but never mind. The point is a recurrent point of DRM, and security in general. The idea of security measures is to create enough obstacles to prevent people that want to use your system or your data in illegitimate ways. You make it so mindbogglingly hard for hackers to access your system that it stop being rewarding for them, while at the same time its perceived as simple and transparent by those that don't abuse it. The goal of a security system is not to create layers of complexity and bureaucracy to all people to make sure they only use it on legitimate ways. Unless you work on the CIA, its ridiculous to expect to have to go through biometrics, punching cards and a full body search to use the bathroom. That is the main problem with DRM in general and this architecture in particular: it may make the system "a little" more secure against uncertain threads, but in the process it also makes it a lot more demanding for everyone, to the point a significant part of the loyal and legitimate population of the past generations will simply not be able to use their new product. At some point, pirates will figure out a way to crack the system and the always online DRM will only affect those that stayed legit. The message seems to be "we can't be sure you are trying to rob us, so we will assume you are", which may sound like a sound security policy but is a terrible PR message.

In the end, I am part of a fairly ignored part of the population. I live in a 3rd world country, import most of my games and, based on income and global average, would be considered barely medium class, outside of the range to access such luxury item. If anything, I should feel relief of welcoming millions of other to the ranks of people Microsoft and Sony simply don't consider (its getting crowded in here); but most of the defense of this just sounds like Adam "deal with it" Orth. Here is the thing: Not everyone has the requirements for the new system, and we don't like to be said "if you can't handle it, we don't care about you"

Future generations won't. I guess BttF got it right after all.

@phoenix87: Thank you! I hate microshaft with a passion and their monopolizing evil deeds -.-

I can't understand people who don't understand why this is a problem. Its a fundamental shift in console gaming changing the way things have operated since the very beginning. If the only tangible benefit is I don't need to put the disc in that does not outweigh all the headaches of having limitations put on the way I use my games and having my rights as a consumer either taken away or heavily restricted.

None of that DRM stuff sounds too horrible, and some of it is pretty much exactly what they've been doing all along, like everything being tied to a console and Gamertag. We already knew we were gonna get fucked on used games. This is a lot better than what a lot of us expected. I like how they leave some of it up to the publishers, so we can all hate on EA for brand new things.

Just fucking "haha" at anyone who was afraid of their privacy and Kinect.

Remember when you could play any game you bought on any console?

I wonder if that's part of the reason they took the trouble to point out very early on that games are installed to, and played directly from, the hard drive? Maybe they're confident in the ability to present a court case where the disc is argued to be only the method of transmission, and not where the IP gets stored?

Instead of game copies you will be lending your whole console now or your account. This all doesn't solve the issue, it's way to strict, and something you buy - you should own and do with it whatever the hell you want (in terms of re-selling, lending).

It's like buying a movie on blu-ray and no-one but you can watch it, because it's you who paid for it - aka retarded.

That said, the PC market is pretty much the same, tho we get sales and shit on Steam and other services, I still can not lend or re-sell my games.

Microsoft's mistake was communicating this back during their reveal. This sounds just like what Sony will likely end up doing too (e.g. create the box with the tools to block used games and let publishers decide whether they want to implement DRM or not).

That policy doesn't bother me since I don't buy used games, but a lot of people do and it's going to piss them off. However, they'll adjust by waiting for game prices to go down instead of buying immediately. This does effect me as a seller of used games, but honestly ... I'll just be even more cautious with my purchases going forward. I already have been since rental services aren't available in Canada (and haven't been for a long time).

That being said I hate the 24 online check policy because it's too short. It's not ideal and needs to be longer.

--

These issues though are the least of my worries about the new Xbox and PS4. Neither Microsoft or Sony have done enough to give me a reason to buy their console over a PC, where almost all the games I play are always available. Sony's first party offerings are good but not amazing to make me jump there. Save for Naughty Dog, they don't have a really top tier developer. Microsoft doesn't have any IPs that interest me, so going forward I'll be interested to see what they have to offer but I'm not holding my breath.

The most interesting part about this whole thing, which was brought up in this video, is that all of this is done to support the big third party producers.

So MS isn't fully at fault here, most of the anger should be pointed at EA (Activision, etc.), as EA especially has proven to show little to no regard for its customer base.

Also, while PS4 hasn't said anything, I think it is fair to assume that they will fall in-line with similar restrictions.

As for the cabin in the woods, you'll just have to go old-school. Nothing wrong with a little SNES/N64 etc. every now and again...

I actually think the used game stuff is illegal...it seems like a clear breach of first sale doctrine to me. FSD was first established by the supreme court and has been codified as a part of US copyright law. It states, basically, that a copyright holders rights to control the sale of a copy oftheir IP ends with the first sale of the medium that the copy of the IP is stored on. It's the reason used books, libraries, and video rental stores can even exist. While there is legal confusion about how it applies to digital goods (except in Europe where it has been held by the courts to apply), it should clearly apply to disc based games.

I'm not sure how this interacts with EULAs though...I'm guess Microsoft is banking on those as a way to strip the disc owner of their rights...but am not sure that is legal...

@yadilie: As opposed to no money every going to the publisher/developer?