• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What if Microsoft had stuck with their original Xbox one plan.

Thewonandonly

Junior Member
So I want to know what guys would thing the Xbox ecosystem would look like if Microsoft stuck with their original vision. I will show you the points they had currency of a blog on ign by InTheHeezy

Every game that releases in physical form, has a digital counterpart available the same day.

Once you install the game, you would no longer be required to use the disc to play. The disc would be "ripped" to your Xbox One and you could store the disc and avoid the usual wear and tear(adds resell value).

You can convert your physical copy of a game to a digital version. Ex. You could rent or borrow a game, download it to your Xbox One, and then change it to a digital license. You could also purchase the physical copy, change it to a digital copy, and then sell the physical copy with the license renewal system.

Used games could be sold as either physical or digital without a fee. This was only for Microsoft published games. 3rd party publishers had the option to add a fee for the transfer of licenses. 3rd parties could allow or deny you the ability to sell, trade, or lend their games, not Microsoft.

Digital loaning or trading could be done but only to friends on XBL and you would have needed to be friends on XBL for 30 days or longer. There would have been an option for the amount of time you wanted to lend your game(people never return shit on time so this makes perfect sense, lol). You would initially be limited to loaning each game once.

The always online and 24 hour check-in requirement was to verify the license of the game you're using is in fact legit, to verify if system, game, or application updates are needed, to verify if you've acquired new games, resold, traded, or given any games to a friend.

The always online feature was required for any games that take advantage of Azure aka "the cloud".

Download a game on a friend's console from the cloud and play without the need for a physical copy.

Family Sharing would have allowed up to 10 members(household or not) to have access to the entire game library of the main account. On any designated Xbox One(any of the 10 selected), as long as the main account is logged in, up to 10 Xbox Ones could access the entire library at once. The main account holder could still access any of their games and also play online with anyone of the designated members. You could literally buy one copy of a game and share it with up to 10 people in your country. Anyone outside of your country would then be subject to the loaning policy.

So those were all the main points I think. Personally I feel like Microsoft might have sold more units if they stuck with this plan. Now they should have explained it a lot better but all the points are really good. Sure always online requirement really does suck but the other stuff has big potential. I mean selling used games online and having developers taking a cut was smart. You as a customer can take more risk, and the cooperation can see what games are getting traded in the most. The biggest potential tho, was having every game become digital. We could be looking at a new steam store. Microsoft could have some crazy big deals because now they are cutting out the middle man completely.

Honesly I'm a little sad this never panned out :(
 
When did they say you could resell digital games? Did I miss that?

I doubt they would have sold any better if they stuck to their plans. The reason it's selling poorly in comparison to the PS4 is partly related to that fallout, even after they've changed all that.
 

kraspkibble

Permabanned.
you know that actually doesn't sound so bad now but i can't help but think of all the potential money lost. maybe for microsoft's sake it was a change for the best...for gamers maybe not.
 

Occam

Member
As far as officially reported sales data from Microsoft is concerned, not much would have changed.

Except they wouldn't even report MAUs.
 

Thewonandonly

Junior Member
The system would probably be doing just as bad as the Wii U in monthly sales.
I thing if they could have explained it a lot better it could be doing good. I see it going either way tho a bomb or at 30 million units right now and closer in the race. Because right now even tho I love my Xbox it really is a weaker PS4 because it doesn't do anything different.
 

Primeau31

Member
Family Sharing would have allowed up to 10 members(household or not) to have access to the entire game library of the main account. On any designated Xbox One(any of the 10 selected), as long as the main account is logged in, up to 10 Xbox Ones could access the entire library at once. The main account holder could still access any of their games and also play online with anyone of the designated members. You could literally buy one copy of a game and share it with up to 10 people in your country. Anyone outside of your country would then be subject to the loaning policy.

I'm calling BS on this, still.

MS never in any way shape or form came out about what the family sharing actually entailed until AFTER they pulled the 180.

They were entirely shady af in any interview where questions came up about it, until after they changed the policy and then said all these things about the family share and how GREAT and AMAZING it would've been.

I'm almost certain someone had said on here back during that timeframe that it was only timed access to the games, as well.
 
I think a lot of what they wanted to do was before their time. With that you have to delicately present everything and show the value and why they are doing what they are doing it. Microsoft failed in this aspect and was vague and it was easy to take what they were doing as an evil take over of the console space.

I still believe over time and maybe in the next generation of consoles we will see some of these features brought back and presented properly and when people are ready.
 

Maledict

Member
Your list of what the system looks like is a complete fairy tale, sorry.

The "family sharing" was never detailed, and would *never* have been how you outline there.
 

Fermbiz

Gold Member
Wasn't Kinect mandatory as well? If they went with their original plans, I wouldnt be owning an Xbox One right now.
 

Occam

Member
Reality check: There is no reason why MS couldn't implement reselling and sharing digital games right now. I wonder why they don't.
Their originally planned physical Property Removal System would only have benefited them, not us.
No amount of explaining would have made it not suck.
 
I like their original plan. I dont see if anyone is using their console without network. 10 people game share is definitely awesome. To me, I mostly buy digital games rather than disks, It's so sad the plan wasnt carrying out due to pressure from Retailers and players. :(
 
It'd be a dumpster fire of a console release. And if anyone truly believes that family sharing plan was really going to happen like that is fooling themselves.

There's nothing about the 180 decision that would prevent them from doing it and yet it doesn't exist. There's a reason for that.
 

pezzie

Member
24 hour check in is the worst.

If my internet goes down, or I want to bring my console and a small TV to some cabin in the woods, or whatever, I shouldn't lose access to my single player games.

Like, I could seriously get behind just about anything else besides that one. But in the end I prefer the status quo.
 
I'm calling BS on this, still.

MS never in any way shape or form came out about what the family sharing actually entailed until AFTER they pulled the 180.

They were entirely shady af in any interview where questions came up about it, until after they changed the policy and then said all these things about the family share and how GREAT and AMAZING it would've been.

I'm almost certain someone had said on here back during that timeframe that it was only timed access to the games, as well.

I believe that plan was mentioned in a leaked document.
 

Thewonandonly

Junior Member
24 hour check in is the worst.

If my internet goes down, or I want to bring my console and a small TV to some cabin in the woods, or whatever, I shouldn't lose access to my single player games.

Like, I could seriously get behind just about anything else besides that one. But in the end I prefer the status quo.
Ya they could have done something a lot better with that. I don't use steam a lot but can't you just launch it offline. Microsoft should have implemented that.
 
I'm calling BS on this, still.

MS never in any way shape or form came out about what the family sharing actually entailed until AFTER they pulled the 180.

They were entirely shady af in any interview where questions came up about it, until after they changed the policy and then said all these things about the family share and how GREAT and AMAZING it would've been.

I'm almost certain someone had said on here back during that timeframe that it was only timed access to the games, as well.

Of course it's bullshit.

Such a gamechanging feature would be the main selling point of a digital only console.
 

Pizza

Member
Halo 5 would've been less of a mess since they wouldn't have had to change a bunch of shit prior to launch. You may have actually USED those hub areas and maybe the background enemies could have moved at 60 fps.

Lol maybe even split screen.
 

Bgamer90

Banned
I thing if they could have explained it a lot better it could be doing good. I see it going either way tho a bomb or at 30 million units right now and closer in the race.

I'm all digital this gen so I was somewhat interested in the plan; I was still going to get the PS4 first during the time and only use the Xbox One for exclusives since fewer restrictions is better than more restrictions. Then the heads at Microsoft couldn't even come up with good explanations or just a clear message for how everything would work. Huge mess which help cause MS to completely drop it and helped me (and others) get the system first before getting a PS4.

I don't think a good explanation would have helped sales though. There's still too many people who don't have reliable internet connections and again, fewer restrictions is better than more restrictions so the PS4 would be the go-to system for far more people if the DRM plans went through.

Because right now even tho I love my Xbox it really is a weaker PS4 because it doesn't do anything different

I disagree. Its exclusive games (especially in the racing genre) were the main reason why I got it before getting a PS4. It also has a lot of media functions/integration that I find very unique in comparison to the PS4.
 

FelipeMGM

Member
They would've been calling for

image.php
 

Thewonandonly

Junior Member
I disagree. Its exclusive games (especially in the racing genre) were the main reason why I got it before getting a PS4. It also has a lot of media functions/integration that I find very unique in comparison to the PS4.
no I love my Xbox and that's where I get all my games for the most part. But their is no denying hardware wise it's the weaker console. But it has gears and halo so it is objectively the better one ;)
 
no, we dont need that anti consumer bs

they're still suffering the repercussions of those hostile policies

has the op been hanging around ben kuchera lately?
 
My Xbox One has yet to be disconnected from the internet for a period longer than 24 hours, much less a period longer than an hour.

It would have been nice for every game to be digital. It would have been easy for Microsoft to put a system in place where people, even the regular guy, can check to see if anybody is currently using the digital rights from a specific disc. How hard is it really to make discs unique, with their very own digital license, using some kind of code based system?

Basically, once someone relinquishes the license for a game, as in completely removes it from their ownership (meaning no longer attached to their xbox live gamertag), the only way to then reapply that digital license is by using the unique and coded physical disc. That's how reselling/lending becomes possible. The moment a disc is placed into the system a check is performed to see whether or not the code is currently in active use anywhere. And even if it turns out to be in use somewhere, at least the disc is still a viable option for installing the game onto your system until you actually get your own license. Microsoft's original Xbox One vision could have easily worked.
 

Bgamer90

Banned
Reality check: There is no reason why MS couldn't implement reselling and sharing digital games right now.

You can already share digital games between two systems via home profiles. Reselling is a slippery slope since it's pretty impossible to present digital games as "used". It would have to be a simple buy-back ("we give you money to block your profile from playing this game ever again").
 

Occam

Member
I'm calling BS on this, still.

MS never in any way shape or form came out about what the family sharing actually entailed until AFTER they pulled the 180.

They were entirely shady af in any interview where questions came up about it, until after they changed the policy and then said all these things about the family share and how GREAT and AMAZING it would've been.

I'm almost certain someone had said on here back during that timeframe that it was only timed access to the games, as well.

Precisely.

It's funny how these revisionist topics keep popping up in a regular fashion. Just like the sun rises in the east, PR departments know they can always rely on goldfish memory in general and the reality absorption bubbles of certain fans in specific.
 

Tealmann

Member
None of that really sounds bad except for the always online DRM.
The physical license stuff is a little sketchy though.
 
When did they say you could resell digital games? Did I miss that?

Yes, a lot of people did though so you're not alone.

You can't miss something that was never part of the plan:


The whole "digital game" can be traded thing was never a thing till August of 2013, where CBOAT started the rumor on GAF, which led to other medias such as IGN reporting on it:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=663273

This was way after MS backtracked on their original policy on June 19 2013.
If you actually read that thread, most Gaffers were okay with it.

MS can implement "resell of digital games" at anytime.
They're the only one stopping themselves.

Freaking revisionist history.
 
I don't know how it would have worked out in general but for myself I'm basically using/enjoying their original vision for the system. I have an all digital library of games and I game-share with my son which makes being connected a requirement at all times in order to play. It's been great.
 

pezzie

Member
My Xbox One has yet to be disconnected from the internet for a period longer than 24 hours, much less a period longer than an hour.

Of course, that's all well and good for you, but not everyone that would be a potential XBox One owner has the same kind of stable access to internet you do.

I didn't buy an XBox One, but I have been through two periods of time without internet since 2013. First was when I moved and the tech couldn't make it out to my residence for 3 days after I moved in. Second was when my cable modem died and I had to order another one. I ended up playing Steam games in offline mode, but it would have driven me crazy if I had an XBox One suddenly say to me "welp, guess you can't play any of these games you bought" and would have pissed me off to no end.

And that's just times for myself. There are people out there that live in rural areas that are still connected through dial up, there are people living in countries where internet is a bit harder to come across, there are military folks out god knows where that enjoy playing games in their down time. There are too many reasons to not shut your console down just because of lack of internet that it was crazy they wanted to implement that in the first place.
 

Z3M0G

Member
OP is strange... it reads as if only physical games exist and the XBL store does not... they could be doing all these fancy features with digital games, and left physical copies out of the picture. And the cloud lol, the 180 didnt stop that at all... the cloud as promised is simply not a reality. They are still trying to make a game that supposedly uses it, Crackdown.

And the 10 member sharing thing...LOL come on... no way in hell anyone, MS or 3rd party, wants 10 people to be able to play one copy of a game freely... especially ONLINE together.
 

Asd202

Member
I thing if they could have explained it a lot better it could be doing good. I see it going either way tho a bomb or at 30 million units right now and closer in the race. Because right now even tho I love my Xbox it really is a weaker PS4 because it doesn't do anything different.

Your Xbox would still be weaker.
 

Ponn

Banned
I would've loved for them to go through with their plans and stick with them. They pulled a guilt trip with half of the good shit they said would've been part of the console AFTER changing course and all of it was extremely vague, had loopholes and some not even confirmed by the people they supposedly had deals with (Gamestop). I also really wanted to see how the market would have reacted to an all digital, no physical ownership, console. You know damn well every game company wants that future, it eliminates all their sore spots of used game sales and trading and gives them total control. MS just tried it way too early and it hurt them big time. We are a couple years in and they already have people warming up to an all digital console much more than they had before by easing people into it with sales and building a digital library.
 
I don't remember XB1 original plan be what described in OP at all.

If it had happened, XB1 would have died a horrible death. The "always online" stigma has been haunting XB1 till these days. There are still misinformed casual customers out there who still think it is still the case.
 
i woulnt be surprised if ms tried this stuff again when they unveil their next console

people are too gullible and easily manipulated into thinking a certain way, as seen by some posts in this thread
 

iMax

Member
You can't miss something that was never part of the plan:

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/06/license/

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.
 

Thewonandonly

Junior Member
OP is strange... it reads as if only physical games exist and the XBL store does not... they could be doing all these fancy features with digital games, and left physical copies out of the picture. And the cloud lol, the 180 didnt stop that at all... the cloud as promised is simply not a reality. They are still trying to make a game that supposedly uses it, Crackdown.

And the 10 member sharing thing...LOL come on... no way in hell anyone, MS or 3rd party, wants 10 people to be able to play one copy of a game freely... especially ONLINE together.
Like I said just copied the list that I saw online. But I do remember the 10 member thing and that sounded preety doable and it would have been awsome.
 

farisr

Member
Personally I feel like Microsoft might have sold more units if they stuck with this plan.
There was an outrage and a 180 for a reason.

It would probably be doing wii u numbers or worse and would in no way shape or form would it be doing better in sales if they had stuck to the original plans.
 

tmtyf

Member
Reality check: There is no reason why MS couldn't implement reselling and sharing digital games right now. I wonder why they don't.
Their originally planned physical Property Removal System would only have benefited them, not us.
No amount of explaining would have made it not suck.

If i remember correctly, it would currently require the always online check for security reasons.
 
Top Bottom