So here we are... we've had the inevitable backlash, we've had the (almost) inevitable u-turn and now we're in the middle of the inevitable backlash against the u-turn. Exciting times.

Obviously this reversal has upset a few people -and perhaps they are right to be upset- but I think it had become crystal clear that Microsoft couldn't go ahead with their original policies and had no choice but to drop them and revert to a more traditional model. It would have been suicidal to carry on as planned.

However, they have clearly put a lot of thought and work into features such as game sharing and doing away with disc-swapping, and these features have evidently resonated with some people. The question is: do they need to drop these features along with the mandatory restrictions they've been forced to drop? Or can they instead salvage them from the flaming wreckage of the last few weeks and come away with a system which pleases both parties without infuriating either? Maybe even giving them an edge over Sony? I believe they can, though some compromise is unavoidable.

Take Your Mandatory Features And Make Them Optional

This is Microsoft's problem through and through. They made cool features that a lot of people would like and then ruined it by dictating that everybody (at least everybody who chooses to by the system) must like them. No disc-swapping? Great! Sharing your games digitally? Well... nobody was really clamouring for it but that's great too! Oh, but these can't work now because there's nothing to stop you giving/selling the disc to somebody after installing to HDD :'( ...

The Solution

The solution is an 'Assigned' / 'Unassigned' game model. I'll explain what I mean. When you install the game from, you choose whether to 'assign' the game (using the unique code on the disc) to your Live account or not.

If you choose not to assign it to your account, it effectively remains a traditional disc-based game. You need the disc in the drive to play it, but you can take it to a friends and install it there, or you can sell it if you wish.

If you choose to assign it to your account, this registers the unique code as 'assigned' (with Microsoft), effectively converting your disc copy into a digital copy and rendering the disc temporarily useless. You can then play without the disc in the drive and make use of the family sharing feature etc, but to do so you will need to be connected to the internet. The disc remains useless (as far as installing it on another console goes) until you 'unassign' the game from your account: doing so would remove your 'assigned' privileges, reset the game back to 'unassigned' (with Microsoft) and allow you to sell it or take the disc to a friend's house.

Putting the disc into any connected X1 will check with Microsoft whether that unique disc is currently 'assigned' to any account or not, making it easy for any stores or buyers to check when buying a used disc.

This system would offer people the flexibility to choose from the best of both worlds -traditional functionality and modern conveniences- depending on their personal circumstances and how they play games.

The Compromise

Unfortunately there's an unavoidable compromise, and that is a one-time authentication whenever you install the game from disc. I don't see any way around it. Without it, it would be possible to install, assign the game to your account and then sell / give the game to somebody else to use on a disconnected console. ie. Two people could be playing the same copy at once indefinitely (as long as the second installation remained disconnected), which wouldn't be acceptable.

One check during installation (so Microsoft can see if that unique disc code is currently 'assigned' or 'unassigned') is still a hell of a lot less troublesome than once every 24 hours though, and a much smaller price to pay for facilitating all of the proposed new features. It would even be possible to have an offline alternative for authentication, for extreme cases.

What do you guys think? Is a one-time check during installation still an unacceptably restrictive price to pay? Is there some feature which wouldn't work under this system which I haven't considered?

@jimbo: Considering how busy the site's been lately I'm surprised nobody else has replied back yet. I was thinking the same thing this morning, wondering why this feature wasn't made optional, considering that I'm pretty sure they were originally assuming/demanding that the system be able to connect at install already. I wasn't planning to get an Xone anyhow for a few other reasons (money and lack of interest in some of the exclusive franchises) but having an option like you're describing seemed like a really good idea at first.

I think the problem (from the businessman's angle) is this doesn't give a direct financial benefit to Microsoft, or the publishers. Sure it's good for players to be able to loan a disc to a friend, or use the family share plan, but unless I missed it, there's no reason in the scenario you described why anyone would need to ever give money to the publisher past the first sale. I think that's a big part of what they were after (aside from an all digital future), was that if you wanted to sell the game, you would have to go to GameStop, or Amazon, or someone; you wouldn't be able to just sell it or give it to a buddy.

For what you outlined, I think it wouldn't add enough value for MS to want to put in the effort to make it work, without eventually ending up back where they were a few days ago.

To be honest, I didn't think the 'activation fee' that got thrown in and out of the equation on used games was such a terrible idea. I don't really hate the idea of online passes either.

My position from the start of this thing has always been the preservation angle. As it stands at the moment, video games go out of print far too quickly for my liking and if Games On Demand is any example, digital purchase of older games isn't always viable. Should I abstain from playing older games just because the relevant parties can't figure out a decent way to make money off it?

To me, it's never been about shaving a few pounds off something that was expensive to begin with. I couldn't care less about the specialist retailers in my country when I get better service buying from my local supermarket. I'm interested in games almost as far back as they go, and I don't think that's an experience that should be denied to us just because the industry only cares what happens next.

@sarahsdad: Yeah I think you're probably right, but then I think the supposed benefits to the consumer were only ever flimsy justification for their ulterior motives anyway.

My point really with this thread was to illustrate to the people claiming that Microsoft has been forced to abandon these features, that this idea of traditional functionality and modern conveniences being technically incompatible is false. Microsoft are choosing to present it as either/or, but the truth is they could still offer both with pretty painless restrictions if they really wanted to.

That said however, if a significant number of people do genuinely believe that these features would add value, then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for Microsoft to offer them and try to please both groups of people. The no disc-swapping option would be something to shout about I think, even if the 'digital sharing' turns out to be a non-starter (which I was kind of expecting it to be anyway, but if they can still get publishers on board with it then great). I have to imagine a lot of this work is well advanced already, and at this point they need any edge they can get over Sony. I think they might have been a bit hasty just immediately writing all of this stuff off.

They definitely add value with the family sharing and reselling downloaded games, the problem was that nobody fully articulated the value without going defensive and lashing out at people for not thinking it was great.

I originally thought it was crap, but reading more and more I realized the benifits. the issue was them conveying the positives.

That said I wasn't going to get a One because of the price, always on kinect, not interesting games, etc. But, I definitely can understand why someone would want the family sharing/reselling features.

It would benefit everyone if there was an opt in/out feature and offline mode like steam where you could only play downloaded games on your HDD. Then they would have my possible interest in the future.

I think that's the big question. Some middle of the road change would have probably been best. The black and white way they handled this makes me think that the day after E3 ended, the whole department went under the microscope to see how adjustable everything was, given they felt like they only had X days to decide. What they came up with after a day or two was that within whatever time frame they were comfortable with, the options were either a) Leave everything alone, and try to ride out the storm, or b) Shut it all off.

Or just enable all that stuff for people that buy the games digitally. That way it's authenticated by logging in. If you're playing on another console keep that hour check in. Simple. Gives people a reason to buy digitally other than not wanting to disc swap or limited space in their residence.

@masternater27 said:

I hate to say I don't remember where I read it today, but I saw where the reason they didn't do that was that the way the whole system was set up, it didn't distinguish between something on the drive coming from a digital store vs. coming from a disc. On the one hand, you wouldn't think they would overlook adding a switch to differentiate something like that. On the other, it would be a simple explanation for why the whole drm system went away; they may have only had it built out to the point where it had an on/off switch.

If that's the case, then I suppose that would reassure all the people nervous about the inevitable day when the next thing after the Xone comes out; MS certainly can turn off the drm systems quickly if they want to.