-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Engadget: Microsoft Was Right in 2013
- Thread starter Rocco
- Start date
The way you sell a product matters.
A big difference is how they are selling it. They are not saying they are getting rid of disc games or going all in on DRM and always online for all games.
But they are making it clear, if you read in between the lines of course, that this is the eventual direction even still. How rapid it will move to this will depend on a lot of market factors I think. But I actually think it might be coming sooner than we think possibly.
Would also expect that they announce a tablet and phone streaming service for their games for next-gen also.
A big difference is how they are selling it. They are not saying they are getting rid of disc games or going all in on DRM and always online for all games.
But they are making it clear, if you read in between the lines of course, that this is the eventual direction even still. How rapid it will move to this will depend on a lot of market factors I think. But I actually think it might be coming sooner than we think possibly.
Would also expect that they announce a tablet and phone streaming service for their games for next-gen also.
What MS was looking to do wasn't "objectively" anti-consumer because many of its differences benefit consumers as well. It by and large didn't benefit (and negatively affected) physical consumers, by in effect making them into digital consumers. But there are tons of digital consumers (and the ratio is constantly tipping in digital's favour) where the current mechanisms are largely less consumer friendly than what was proposed.
In regards to your first paragraph. Whilst it doesn't explicitly cite that your friend can be playing the exact same game, that game still makes up your gaming library that they do state your friend can play whilst you do. If they explicitly stated that you friend could be playing any OTHER game from your library, that'd be different. With the home license specifically it does in fact even go as far as to state "unlimited access to all of your games. The caveat of this not including the game you're currently playing is something you're seeming adding on top for yourself. Why would publishers allow this? Simple. They allow it today. My Forza Horizon 3 example with 3 consoles is something I've already done with family members. There's actually precedent for what I'm suggesting, whereas you're only going on imagining a worst case publisher behaviour for your supposed "best case scenario".
And it was never stated that the publisher can opt out of family sharing. They explicitly detail the areas that publishers could actually have an effect on, and that revolved purely around the transferal of a game license from one account, to another unrelated account. They wouldn't go out of their way to state that people would have access to all your games on one hand and then be very clear to caveat potential publisher intervention on the other, if it actually applied to both cases.
There clearly is an argument for an all-digital (which is a far more accurate label than "always-online" for what was detailed) console.. hence why we're actually having it here. It's primarily a digital versus physical argument however. What you refer to as "indefensible" is exactly what the current digital side of the equation is today. If I buy a game for $60/£50 and two weeks later realise I don't like it at all, but my best friend does, there's no way for me to give it to him or for him to buy it from me, or to head to GAME to sell it, etc. Those things are all balanced 100% towards physical and 0% towards digital currently. There are other reasons for a consumer even today to prefer a digital purchase, which is why all my purchases on all 3 consoles current consoles (XB1, PS4, Switch) along with Steam are digital... but the options surrounding game ownership are drastically worse for the post-180 Xbox One.
Cut the "paid shills" bullshit. We're discussing an implementation that DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. I don't care about your schoolyard E3 2018 brownie points nonsense that have nothing to do with this topic.
I do live my "digital console lifestyle" to the fullest extent the current system allows. Let me quickly illustrate my current gaming scenario:
- I own 284 digital titles on Steam, 340 digital titles on Xbox (including BC games), 196 digital PS4 titles and 20 digital Switch titles.
- I own 0 physical PC games, 0 physical Xbox One games, 1 physical PS4 game (Farpoint) and 1 physical Switch game (ARMS).
- One of my brothers has access to all my Xbox One games, another has access to all my PS4 games. They can both (along 4 other siblings, and my nephew) access my Steam games, but not if I'm playing anything on Steam at all. Nobody else can play anything I buy on Switch.
- Every title I own digitally on these platforms is stuck there forever. If I'm well and truly done with a game, and someone else I know is really keen to own it, I cannot in any form give it to them, let alone sell.
- Because I share my Xbox One and PS4 games with a single family member, both of these consoles are in fact truly "always-online" for me to access my games. Not check in once every 24hrs... my connection dies for 1 minute during a key cutscene in The Witcher 3? Back to the dashboard we go.
- I spend most nights (Mon-Fri each week) in a hotel or AirBnB accommodation as a result of work. I'm okay with carrying a console with me on my travels, but I certainly am not gonna be hauling my physical library around with me also.
Now... seeing as you want to paint me as a "paid shill", you should be able to detail why the current status quo is of more benefit to me, than what was outlined at the XB1 reveal. Everything I own digitally has zero resale worth. Each of the platforms that has any form of sharing mechanic at all (so not the Switch) has a major drawback in regards to how I can share. Either I can share with one fixed person at a time on consoles, or I can't actually be playing anything when they are on Steam.
I'm certainly not arguing that my use-case is the norm, and I'm not claiming that the pre-180 Xbox would have been better for everyone, or even the majority (but digital trends are making that increasingly likely). However, if someone is going to try and tell me that I'm in favor of it not because it would actually benefit me, but rather because I'm just looking to "defend" a corporation on a stance they no longer even have... then at the very fucking least explain how I'm supposed to be benefitting from how things are currently by comparison. No amount of "b-but once every 24hrs!" changes the fact that to share literally fucking anything today I have to be connected THE ENTIRE TIME, which funnily enough can screw me over in some situations (like travelling on a train with my gaming laptop) if I don't use that potential shared license simply to avoid getting kicked off Forza Horizon 3 for going under a tunnel.
Last edited:
User Warned: Personal attack.
Funny thing, i did not typed my earlier quote as a response to anyone specifically but apparently it struck a nerve with you as you seem to have found the time and effort to type that wall of text reply of yours - complete with personal anecdotes! - trying to defend yourself as 'NOT A PAID SHILL'.
Sad thing it has the opposite effect. Try not to be more obvious next time. Online marketing narratives is a tricky thing to implement especially something as blatantly anti-consumer as Xbox One 2013 policies.
Shockingly, you're current and future 'digital console lifestyle' DOES NOT NEED an always online with a 24 hour checkin console nor does it need to remove the ability to play physical disks or play games offline to the detriment of others.
An all-digital future DOES.NOT.NEED an always online with a 24 hour checkin console . Specifically, a digital games sharing implementation only needs your user permission and digital purchase history to work and it DOES-NOT-NEED an always online with a 24 hour checkin console.
Nailed it. The complaints were always "it's too soon" not "it should never happen"
We all knew Sony and Nintendo would go that direction in time, but Microsoft tried to force it by taking away things were used to cold turkey.
I replied to you directly, because your claim is baseless and would generically be applied to anyone that argues against it being awful or anti-consumer. You don't need to have quoted me directly for your position to inherently be including me.
"Try not to be more obvious next time"? I've been on these forums (this and GAF) since 2005. I'm not on some burner account. I challenged you to argue against my position taking into account my use case... simply screaming back how what I'm doing now "DOES NOT NEED" online auth, is stupid (especially as I actually need to be ALWAYS ONLINE today as a result). The whole reason why it isn't required for today's digital landscape is because the other restrictions I listed exist in its place. Restrictions that I'd be better off trading an online authentication once every 24hrs for.
But seeing as you are now directly accusing me of being a paid shill, I'll put it on the line that I can prove all the use cases I described are true to any member of the moderation team, whether that be my digital library purchases, right down to my weekly travel bookings and where I actually do work. In the meantime I'll just report your post for the accusation.
Last edited:
Seeing the sales difference between PS4 and XBO, and comparing that to sale from last gen, it wasn't just Sony followers.
If the PS4 sales 100 million, the XBO 50 million, that chunk of users lost from MS last gen could in theory be the difference for this gen.
I have to believe a good chunk of 360 users also didn't like the orig policies.
Online marketing people in GAF/ERA has existed since the beginning, sadly. Its probably not just you. Nor this topic is about you.
Also, you make it sound that sharing digital games with friends and relatives could only be done via fiddling with Home/Primary Console and with online game licenses that require constant online connections. Digital game licenses doesnt have to need constant online connections. Xbox licenses needing one is a design choice by Microsoft. They could just as well put a temporary license/activation code with a set expiration date if you want to share games with other people digitally. Similar to (but not exactly like) how the Free Weekend games work in Steam. You might need to go online on or near the expiration date but other-wise you won't need an always online with 24-hour checkin game console for it to work.
Also, im glad you shared your use-case, i'm so happy your living the that digital game console lifestyle. PS: dont force that lifestyle into anyone because many people and the infrastructure they live in cannot afford it and you insisting that Xbox One's 2013 anti-consumer policies that require constant online connections, limits their ability to buy/sell used-games and life-style choice to 'all digital' as 'progress' or the 'trend of the future' is tone-deaf.
Last edited:
I still fail to see how an always console with 24 hour check ins would drive this industry further than it would with a console that actually gives you the option to play offline. I don't understand that reasoning at all and I largely disagree with this video. The original plan for the Xbox One was incredibly worrisome and I'm glad they changed their mind.
I agreed with this in 2013 and I still agree with this today. The 1st impression is incredibly important and they absolutely blew it. I was a 360 owner and they made me not pick up a Xbox One for more than a year, because their policies and their mandatory Kinect-bullshit was just off-putting.
I agreed with this in 2013 and I still agree with this today. The 1st impression is incredibly important and they absolutely blew it. I was a 360 owner and they made me not pick up a Xbox One for more than a year, because their policies and their mandatory Kinect-bullshit was just off-putting.
That online marketing personnel exist on gaming forums, doesn't equate to anybody sharing their opinion being one of them. I wouldn't accuse everyone posting against an all-digital console as being paid by Sony, simply because Sony stood to benefit massively from the ensuing uproar. A minority opinion isn't automatically less valid than the majority, and shouldn't be treated as such.
A temporary license/activation is exactly what the 24hr check was. The validity period for that temporary license was 24hrs... You could argue this being too short, and that it should last a week or whatever, but the core mechanism would be the same. It's not "always-online" in the way that my XB1 and PS4 is today, where if I'm disconnected at any point ever, my entire library becomes unusable. I would imagine the primary reason for it not being substantially longer is because many games could be played through in their entirety within a couple of days, during which the original owner may have already sold the game on.
And I'm not looking to force anything on anyone. I'm saying that if it existed as described, I'd have bought it and likely been happier with the product. I could buy an Apple TV with no support for physical content of any medium, and that wouldn't be forcing someone else to accept that over a DVD or BluRay player. This was a single device with direct similar competition. You'd have just bought a PS4, right? It's funny, because the reversal actually removed my choices more than its existence affected yours. The purchase/ownership model I'd prefer exists on zero platforms, as opposed all the platforms. It's not "anti-consumer", which is a term that is ridiculous misused... it was unpopular. It had very real benefits to a segment of consumers, and it's removal has had very real negatives to those consumers.
Are there edge-cases (such as military personnel) that the console would be effectively useless for? Yup, definitely... and I'd completely understand them writing it off entirely for those reasons. This wouldn't be the first entertainment device that would apply to however, and imo neither should it be. The situations where you'd be unable to use an Xbox One with online check would be effectively identical to the situations where you'd be unable to send a tweet. That quite honestly doesn't apply to many people at all. If we were talking replacing native play with game streaming ala PS Now, then it'd be a different matter entirely.
LOL. That 24 hour checkin requirement was NOT for the game sharing services in Xbox One 2013 anti-consumer policies. Thats was for your OWN games in your home console. The games that you bought digital or physical. Game-sharing required EVERY hour checkins. If you do not think that giving gamers a temporary 24 hour license to 'own' and play the games they bought as anything but 'anti-consumer' . . . . i dont know what to say.
Dude, the Xbox One 2013 policies were unpopular precisely because it was anti-consumer. It lessens your ownership rights physical or otherwise and limits your buy and sell trade options all for the promise of a digital gaming life-style that could be replicated on a more open and accommodating gaming console. I guess if people like you want to be masochistic with their gaming hobby, you could choose the OG Xbox One. Its your choice albeit a self-damaging one. For most gamers, what they tried to pull back in 2013 will not fly then, today or the foreseeable future.
Also it was the boycott threat from 'edge-cases' like the US Armed Forces that finally forced Microsoft to walk-back from Xbox One's anti-consumer policies.
They weren't right then, and they wouldn't be right now.
Mandatory internet connection for finctionality is not something any piece of hardware should require, particularly if it has any software that *doesnt* require Internet to function.
What a silly and reductionist position to take.
Mandatory internet connection for finctionality is not something any piece of hardware should require, particularly if it has any software that *doesnt* require Internet to function.
What a silly and reductionist position to take.
I know the 24hr check was for the home console. That wasn't my point. The Xbox I have at home today WOULD be my home console with a 24hr check in, and anybody else using my library would do so online. I don't think I've seen concrete details on how frequently a non-home console would need to be auth'd so let's just assume you would need to be perpetually online.
Thing is, today the Xbox in front of me ISN'T set up as my home console. My "home" console is set as my brother's console in a different city, because that's what's required for me to share my library with him. As a result the console I have at home now actually needs to be connected constantly, as it only has my account sign-in to authenticate my purchases. Previously there was the home console, my personal account sign-in, and the shared accounts sign-in.. so I wouldn't have to require an always online connection for myself, simply to share my library with others (and it would have been shareable with more than one other console).
No. Things are popular or unpopular simply by way of being pro or anti consumer. The world isn't that black and white. As of 2013 few people were purchasing their titles digitally, and so benefits to digital meant little to many people, and the significant restrictions on digital purchases meant less, because the largest purchase most had likely made digitally was probably something like Braid. We're approaching a physical/digital split of 50:50 in some cases these days, within the same generation that at launch was probably closer to 10% digital at the time. Steam is extremely popular despite it effectively killing the PC physical market in its entirety (and starting out incredibly unpopular).
People such as yourself (and more prominently Jim Sterling) often lean on strong-sounding terms like "anti-consumer" because you feel it give your argument objective weight, despite it being something very subjective you're arguing. Not everyone benefits from a reliance on physical media, not everyone benefits from a reliance on digital media. There are people that were vehemently against the pre-180 Xbox that are for it now. In some cases this would be because previously they bought nothing digitally, and now they buy nothing physically. Don't confuse a something being anti-<what you personally prefer> with being anti-consumer. There are real anti-consumer practices out there (like sticking a hidden rootkit on music CDs) that benefit no consumers at all that the term actually applies to.
If you don't think the 24-hour DRM check is anti-consumer, you're crazy. There is no valid reason to have that check for everyone. We've been over that in the thread multiple times. It was simply designed to give more control to Microsoft and the software publishers.
How is a 24h check-in pro-consumer? What benefit does it give the consumer?
I'm reading this thread and seeing posts stanning for that policy and I'm in shock...like, it was not a good idea in 2013 and it's not a good idea now.
There is nothing stopping MS from allowing you to sell your digital games. There is nothing stopping them from allowing you to lend those digital games. Tethering those features to anti-consumer nonsense does not make the anti-consumer nonsense less anti-consumer or less nonsensical. A lot of people keep coming back to the features they "lost", but they have NOTHING to do with twenty-four hour online checks or prohibiting the resale of used, physical games. Considering how little they had to say about these features when they were pitching their deeply cynical plans, it remains questionable if they were ever going to be implemented in the first place, or if they were making one last desperate play to save face as they were getting destroyed for trying to pry consumer rights out of the hands of the gamers who they had clearly underestimated.
Most gamers saw through their Machiavellian schemes. They were punished appropriately.
I mean I think its more of a valid system seller in those years vs The Order 1886 which is why I included it.
In isolation it isn't. As an alternative to being unable to sell/gift software then it can be depending on whether you place more weight on being able to transfer a license vs being able to be permanently offline. To make the Steam comparison again, another implementation MS could have gone with would be the you put the disc in, install it, and that's it. That game is bound to your account forever. You wouldn't need to sign-on to access it ever again, but you'd also never be able to sell it.
The traditional physical model has plenty of drawbacks also, even if we're very used to them. Today you install a game in its entirety to the HDD, at that point the disc itself is simply acting as authentication that you have the right to play it. you're not actually even playing it off that disc anymore. If at any point you're unable to produce that disc, the game won't let you play it, even though it's right there on your console in its entirety. They're both DRM, they both demand you prove your continued ownership of the product, what differs is how that proof is obtained. A 24hr check-in in this case is basically equivalent to you having had the disc ejected for the last 24hrs. To play 10 physical games one after another, you must have all 10 discs on hand to prove you own each of them. To play 50 digital games one after another you'd need to connect to XBL for 5 seconds to prove you owned them all.
Yes there is something stopping them. It;s a publishing model, in which all the content published must be licensed though. The reason Steam requires you to not be playing any game in your library for anyone else to play any other game, is because there's a single useable online license. All the games on Xbox One today are now licensed (contractually) via the publishing model established with the 360 (quicker to revert than create a new one).
Now... this is the part that where corporation greed definitely does play a part. Publishers would likely have gone along happily with the family sharing, and digital gifting/selling plans in exchange for a less rampant used games market. This sucks, for sure. But they're now very unlikely to allow the same privileges to be given to consumers when they don't benefit at all from it. They're not giving us family shares and digital gifting, alongside GameStop reselling all their physical titles in week 2.
We've seen with the BC program, that MS isn't free to simply produce new licenses and forms of distribution for games published on their platforms. That's just not how it works.
Also, you don't have an official page on your website detailing what features you will allow on your console, whilst taking money for pre-orders, if you don't have any intention on delivering those features for the product.
Last edited:
The work-around game sharing that works in today's Xbox One (and PS4) which requires you to fiddle your home console with constant internet connection is NOT the official game-sharing policy that was included in OG Xbox One, anti-consumer edition 2013. That one required constant internet connection too but requires one hour checkins. The fact that Steam's Free-Weekend games that runs off licenses with longer expiration dates and doesn't require constant internet connection for offline games offers more leeway for the consumer compared to OG Xbox One's game-sharing(1hr-online) AND actual ownership license policy (24-hr online) should be enough to trigger your bullsh1t warning as a gamer.
Digital game purchase was not a new thing in 2013 that gamers are afraid to try. We've been doing that with Steam many, many times before by that time and gamers certain don't have ill-will towards expanding and developing it on consoles. Its just that value proposition of the OG Xbox with its always online requirement, 24 hour checkins on games that you own regardless whether its digital or physical . . . . is just sh1t.
I mean, you already made it clear that you dont' mind living in OG Xbox's One's highly restricted, digital-only future but do you really NOT see why your fellow gamers think its anti-consumer? Why buy an OG Xbox One, anti-consumer edition, when you could just buy a PS4 which satisfies both physical media and digital approach to gaming and without compromising our ownership of our games?
Last edited:
Hell no they aren't "right".
Having options are one thing, mandatory nonsense is another.
I hope it never comes to that.
People actually arguing for less options for the consumer?
Limiting consumers to remain always online and forcing them to check in every 24 hours so their console doesn't brick? And they were right in 2013? Wot?
All of these.
It's a fact that that 24-hour check-in DRM for the Xbox One was a terrible idea. It was such a bad idea that Microsoft floated it, got pilloried for it, and then withdrew it before launch.
I'm in disbelief that anyone in this thread would go out of their way to defend it five years later, but I guess it doesn't matter: we're never going to see that particular version of DRM on a Microsoft console.
Yes.
The way Microsoft and Sony handled this generation is basically to ease the pain, ease the process.
The original vision for Xbox One is pretty much the goal both Microsoft and Sony still want to achieve (always-on, cloud gaming,...), it was just too soon and too much to digest all at once and terribly presented.
The funny thing is that most of console enthusiasts still don't want to admit it.
(I disagree tho that an always-on system is only better)
The way Microsoft and Sony handled this generation is basically to ease the pain, ease the process.
The original vision for Xbox One is pretty much the goal both Microsoft and Sony still want to achieve (always-on, cloud gaming,...), it was just too soon and too much to digest all at once and terribly presented.
The funny thing is that most of console enthusiasts still don't want to admit it.
(I disagree tho that an always-on system is only better)
Microsoft wanted to prevent consumers from freely being able to loan or sell their games. That is objectively anti-consumer. I'm sorry, any other idea they wanted to implement does not make this untrue. Please stop defending this.
At this point I'm starting to question if you're even reading the text that you're quoting. I know full well the differences between the work around "home console" sharing I use today and what would be entailed with the pre-180 Xbox. My point is that those differences mean that instead of me using my "hone console", someone else does... which leaves me with a license I need to literally be always online to play using. Not once every 24hrs, not once every hour... literally all the time, always.
Bringing up "free weekends" makes as much sense as bringing up a f2p game. You can't utilise a free weekend on your own timescale (I can't play Ghost Recon Wildlands for free this weekend because I have more free time), you can't choose what game is part of a free weekend, and you can't renew a free weekend to get another. It's a nonsense comparison. One is the publisher giving a one-off license for promotional purposes, the other is a constantly renewable license the player receives on demand.
Digital game purchases weren't new on PC, but was new for consoles, and by proxy many console users. That's not really the case today where nearly half of all games purchases are made digitally. Oh, and when those purchases are made digitally today, on any platform, automatically give up "ownership" of your games because they're now tied to your account forever, without exception.
Your physical disc is DRM. Fact, not opinion. Otherwise you'd be able to burn backups of all your physical games and play them on your console.
Why can't you do this, and is it anti-consumer?
Ok, give this a quick thought. If you simply want to kill resale of software, why implement a periodic authentication system? I mean... what purpose would such a system have, except to check for continued ownership of a product? And then... why would you check for continued ownership of a product, if not to facilitate that the user can transfer ownership of that product?
Basically, the only reason such a system would be required, is so that you can provide the one thing digital systems without it lack... transfer of ownership. You can avoid it easily, and kill all resales dead simply by opting for the Steam model instead where even if you buy a game on physical disc, the second it ties to your account, it's stuck associated with it forever. Steam doesn't need to check if you still own a game, because there's simply no way for you not to after paying for it.
Last edited:
What do discs have to do with anything if the Xbox One was going to be without a disc drive and you'd be buying games directly from the MS store?
The 24 mandatory checkin is invasive DRM. Wow you're not able to connect online? You can't play your games bud! Disc based DRM which you can resell to others is not invasive.
One is less anti consumer than another
People stanning for an always online Xbox and mandatory DRM checkin are just above and beyond ridiculous in my eyes.
The 24 mandatory checkin is invasive DRM. Wow you're not able to connect online? You can't play your games bud! Disc based DRM which you can resell to others is not invasive.
One is less anti consumer than another
People stanning for an always online Xbox and mandatory DRM checkin are just above and beyond ridiculous in my eyes.
Give this a quick thought, if I have a digital game that in a hypothetical digital marketplace I sell, the person purchasing and subsequently downloading said game needs an internet connect to do it. A connection is needed to facilitate the transaction, therefore it is the perfect time and place for a DRM/license check to take place, why would I then still need to maintain an internet connection to continuously confirm my license when it's already been confirmed? The answer is, I don't.
And in the meantime, Microsoft aids in a more rapid decline of used game sales, and for their console severely so to the point where the second hand market almost doesn't exist. All those games that they lost sales on, suddenly they've created a system that they profit more from while reducing the return on investment from consumers having much worse options than before to resell games.
And they do so not because it's necessary to implement the positives, but because they want to make a system better for them and try to offer some incentives proclaiming they can only do an all or nothing deal when that is just factually wrong.
No, you're describing the current digital landscape, where one person owns a digital game permanently (and in your example could only buy it from an online digital store). This is exactly what currently happens. You buy a game whilst you're online and it downloads your license for it and places it on your console. Because you now can never sell it, it doesn't get anymore complicated than that. There's no "Step 2".
If this were however a Steamworks physical disc you installed from, and then you sold that disc to someone else... what happens? When they stick the disc in their machine, it's not going to just happily download another license for them, effectively duplicating the product. No, the store is going to need to confirm that the ability to play that software has been revoked from the first user. You could create a system where the first user does this manually (much like deactivating a home console), but that has various complication of its own that I can get into if they're not already popping up in your head. What is guaranteed to consistently work however, is if 24hrs later, without any further action from buyer, seller or anyone else, the person that sold the game loses access to it. That's the 24hr check-in summarised. Without offering the ability to transfer the game to someone else, it immediately ceases to exist (and vice-versa, as we find ourselves today with digital content).
Should be called, "They could've gotten away with it". Because they could have down the road.
If the Xbox One had simply been discless, then Microsoft wouldn't have needed the 24-hour check in. The entire policy existed because they wanted to support physical discs, and they wanted to prevent the a scenario where someone lends a disc to a friend and installs a second copy of the game without a license.
A discless, digital-only Xbox One would not require that policy. Such a system would have simply used the Microsoft Store as it exists today. Resale and trading of digital games would have been impossible, but that restriction is understood implicitly with digital products.
We may still see a version of the Xbox Two that doesn't have a disc drive.
A discless, digital-only Xbox One would not require that policy. Such a system would have simply used the Microsoft Store as it exists today. Resale and trading of digital games would have been impossible, but that restriction is understood implicitly with digital products.
We may still see a version of the Xbox Two that doesn't have a disc drive.
Missed this before. What are you even referring to? There was never a version of the Xbox One without a disc drive? What?
Despite disagreeing on the general stance, cakely's post above is pretty much accurate.
This has been a really fun thread. Apparently there are people out there who exist that think that MS didn't change their policies due to absolutely abysmal preorders because they were wrong in 2013. That shit is still killing them to this day.
The best part of all of this is that they could still implement all of the supposed great features that they made up on the fly at various events to stem the bleeding from their awful PR. There is virtually no reason they couldn't have a family share plan and all the rest if you opt into 24 hour check ins. The reason they don't exist now is because they never did beyond a desperate attempt to boost their image as their competitor meme'd on them.
I hope that if I start a company that I have such dedicated fans that are willing to stan for me years after I abandon my wholly rejected anti consumer business model.
The best part of all of this is that they could still implement all of the supposed great features that they made up on the fly at various events to stem the bleeding from their awful PR. There is virtually no reason they couldn't have a family share plan and all the rest if you opt into 24 hour check ins. The reason they don't exist now is because they never did beyond a desperate attempt to boost their image as their competitor meme'd on them.
I hope that if I start a company that I have such dedicated fans that are willing to stan for me years after I abandon my wholly rejected anti consumer business model.
I heard the game console businesses is the place to be for such companies.
I work in the oil and gas industry. We could use some fanboys right about now.
"Why BP was right to dump shitloads of oil into the Gulf in 2010
People pollute tons nowadays, anyway.
Fish fucking suck, too.
Florida went red in the national election in 2016.
Turns out they were right all along!"
See, go BP!
For me they were right but others do have life or geographic situations that would make it difficult. I prefer the status quo since I never buy games at retail on disc but others who prefer discs and lack stable internet access shouldn't have DRM forced upon them and they should have that option even though I don't have a need for it myself.
Lol i just wanted to reply that spinning the Deepwater disaster into something positive for sure would be interesting to see then i saw your edit ...
Nice one.
This quite obviously wouldn't work... You couldn't retroactively make it "opt in". Posts like yours display a lack of logical thought.
The licensing stuff is contractual with publishers. You can't simply alter the distribution models after the fact. This why MS needs the publisher's cooperation for every BC title they offer, because it requires distribution beyond the original agreements. In many cases, the publishers themselves cannot oblige even if they wanted to (the products are made up of countless sub-licensing issues).
If they were to opt to provide similar options, with or without the ties to physical media, it would pretty much need to occur at the start of a new generation, where new publishing rules are defined. And I'd imagine you'd struggle to have that conversation with publishers whilst keeping the physical market unchanged. Unfortunately... as more and more people transition to digital purchases anyway, the physical bargaining chip actually begins to fade away, and publishers wouldn't even need to make any concessions on digital licensing to see the used market fall away entirely. We'll end up with an digital dominated market eventually even without gifting or anything like that being added.
I like to read on phone... when I go to places without internet (once a week) I just download the books instead to read online.
So yes... phones works just fine without internet... you can even do calls where the signal is bad for internet but not for calls.
lmaoooo exactly i don't even know why this is still being discussed. The market chose what they chose, regardless if Microsoft changed their plans, people still went with Sony and now we see the aftermath of what has happened. Microsoft is still suffering from their original xbox one plans.
Ok then, let's strip away all of the unnecessary complications then.
Microsoft wanted the ability for consumers to buy a physical version of a game, install it on their hard drive and not need to put the disc in afterwards to play it. In order for that to be possible, consumers have to give up the ability to freely loan or sell their game and instead have to go through retail distributors who would surely offer a pittance for the ability to resell a game. Let alone the inconvenience of that process. Consumers would also have to buy a console that requires an online connection or else they will get locked out of the ability to play games.
To me, that seems like a really poor trade off. You can have the family plan for digital purchases and not require the console to be online and not restrict resell of physical versions of games.
And if you had read my previous posts, you would have realized that i brought up Steam Free Weekend game license as an example as to how licenses can be better improved. You should not need an always online connection to implement a game share service for digital games. Your subsequent posts explaining how the 24 hr limit to game ownership works and how it works similarly to Free Weekend games only serves to highlight just how anti-consumer the OG Xbox One's policies even for all-digital advocates like yourself.
How come a glorified demo license like a Steam Free Weekend game license works offline for at least two days while the games you bought digital or physical for the OG Xbox One anti-consumer edition 2013 only works offline for just 24 hours? They should not even be comparable but here we are.
Also this is something going to shock you . . . . console gamers have been buying and downloading map packs and dlc's since at least 2006. Paying for digital purchases online was not a new thing in the console space in 2013! The value proposition of the OG Xbox One with its always online, 24hr checkins is simply terrible even by digital game licensing/distribution standards then or now. And whats worst, OG Xbox One's crappy vision of the digital future is not limited to digital game buyers but also to physical disc buyers. F*ck Microsoft for thinking they could get away with it.
Who in their right mind would want the OG Xbox One policies to return?