Support NeoGAF

[Nocturno999]

I'm far from being a Nintendo fan but it's an insult to compare them to Microsoft.

 

[famousmortimer]

It wasn't arrogance.This is the problem here, and if people would educate themselves, or at least be open to accepting facts, and not so focused on making everything about them, maybe they'd learn something, stop embarrassing themselves and actually grow. I am completely fucking fed-up with this notion that Microsoft was trying to screw gamers. The 24 hour check-in was not an attempt to "screw gamers" or any such thing. People really need to get over that, and start dealing with facts objectively, and not letting their imaginations steer them toward subjective, and false reasoning. The check-in was to ensure there was no such thing as digital piracy taking place. That's it! Really, that's all it was, nothing else. Microsoft doesn't hate you, they weren't trying to screw you (they need your money, screwing you over is NOT in their best interests) and they weren't trying to control you, or punish you. They simply tried to usher in, and pioneer the digital age of gaming on consoles, albeit they got their message across a bit sloppily. They came up with a method to prevent digital piracy that didn't go over too well with gamers. But I've asked countless people to come up with a better alternative to what Microsoft offered, and to this date NO ONE has been able to come up with a better way of implementing digital DRM. And I honestly, and openly welcome anyone to try, because maybe if people have a better idea of doing this, Microsoft can adopt it and we can get to that digital point without any sacrifices.

Give it a rest now, please.

You can't get mad at people for making negative assumptions when you, yourself, are making positive assumptions. We all get that the 24 hour check in main purpose was to make sure you weren't just installing the game to multiple systems off the disc. But you can't prove they didn't want more control in the same way you accuse us to prove that they didn't.

The problem is that the system didn't make sense. Why couldn't we opt into it? Have the "install from disc but need to check in" thing be an option. Why do people who don't want to be online with the console get left out? People in various armed forces around the world who don't have access to online? The xbox fans in the sticks/countries without great internet infrastructure?

The xbox one wasn't "all digital." It was disc based with an online check in. It didn't make any sense. It had a family plan that 6 months later still hasn't even leaked what they meant by it (and if it's like Steam's... look at the excitement for it (high) and how much it's been talked about since(low)).

There's no clear message as to why when you buy a disc you have to install it and can't sell it unless it's to a "participating retailer." So I buy something and can't sell it to anyone I want? How does even make sense?


It doesn't even make sense with digital, which Europe is starting to catch up with and the rest of the world will follow... but it makes even less sense with something we actually buy. I have the disc, I want to sell it to person X, I can't because Microsoft decided that discs are basically digital downloads?

Nope. You can't rewrite what was going to happen. It was awful for consumers. I don't hold a grudge, as I posted above (or maybe on the prior page by the time I hit submit reply) but we aren't going to pretend that shit didn't happen. Your post is awesome in that it's about 30% of what actually happened. That's some "fastest selling console in november" level of spin.

 

[Femto.]

Ehh, it was bullshit and I was vehemently against buying one, but since they reversed it, I have no more qualms with getting an Xbox One.

I do want to enjoy the exclusives it'll bring, and if they do end up bringing it back, I'll just sell it and recoup my losses. I'd still get enjoyment from all the games until that happens, no skin off my back.

I wasn't 'offended' in the least, it was a business decision and a shitty one, but since it's gone, I'll trade my money for enjoyment of your product. I don't take it personal and it's no skin off my back, just a business.

People can seriously overthink stuff... If you like the games, buy the system.

My exact thoughts.

I don't understand those who feel "offended" or "betrayed" by companies when they make stupid business decisions. As if people feel like they have a relationship with a company and they expect 100% loyalty or respect from them.

Companies just want your money, everything else is a mask to a certain extent. You just end up choosing a lesser evil in the end, depending on where you stand on certain things.

Just be a smart consumer, buy what fits to your liking, and don't buy what doesn't. If it sours you that a company turns against their previous standing on things.Vote with your wallet.

Simple.

 

[Japanmanx3]

OP. Legit question. Would you describe your friend as a Dudebro? He sounds, for lack of a better word, ignorant of Nintendo and its franchises. Unless he is pointing the debuting of VC stuff. Either way that is not ≠ Microsoft's putrid handling of pretty everything Xbox One related earlier this year. It is not wrong to remember their nonchalance of demoting you as a gamer and consumer just to get more "buddy buddy" with pubs/devs.

Never have I seen a company so arrogantly bully there customers. Sure some say they've repented and they are tired of hearing about Gaf ramble on about it and that we should move on. When it happens again they'll be the ones salty. And if not then they deserve to be treated with the disrespect the company so graciously gives them.

Giving them a pass will only make them feel that much more confident. Look at the golden wall of the "superior" Xbox Live. Look at the boxed in Kinect that must be accepted universally yet not even needed to be plugged in. Look at the ratio of how much they talk about games vs. features of the console. They've repented for RROD, they've repented for DRM, they've repented for Kinect 2 being always plugged, but only after the industry shouted for a change. The suits running the gaming division are just as out of touch as the YouTube leaders (Google I guess).

Do what you will but know you vote with your dollars...all $500 of them before tax and $60 with Live plus more tax...least you get "ftp" KI with Jago.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Their behavior since the Kinect, really, has completely soured me on the company and the Xbox brand. The 360 was my primary console from 2006 - 2009, but I won't even consider getting an Xbox One--probably ever.

Thankfully, if the 360's library is any indication, the amount of worthwhile exclusives I'll be missing out on will be minimal, considering I have a PS4 and a good PC for gaming.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

Wrong? no, people have sworn off products, stores and companies for less. The only thing that stopped them from implementing crushing policies was the fan outcry that finally found an issue that motivated them enough to say no, and sony smart enough to pick up on it and not to go along with it.

I've owned both previous consoles and was planning on pre ordering the next until their reveal. After that there's no way i could justify rewarding that company with my money. Especially when they had quotes that were essentially to the effect the hardcore would buy it anyway. No thanks.

And them saying they're essentially going to do it again, less powerful and more expensive than the competition with 95% of the same games and a less featured subscription service made the choice a lot easier.

 

[Mistwalker]

The 180 that Microsoft was forced into proves that gamers are relics of a past era. We completely accept DRM for the tens of millions of tablets, phones, and computers and would throw a fit if we had to go to the store to buy physical copies of every piece of software we wanted to install, but for some reason we have to cling to the past with consoles.

If you go look up Microsoft's 2020 vision for the future, you'd completely understand the design of xbone before it was ruined by the dinosaurs of gaming.

Please.

Do you even realize there is a massive difference between being against digital distribution, and being against Microsoft's implementation? I'm guessing not as you, like Microsoft, lay the blame on we consumers and not on the restrictive, greedy, abysmally communicated vision of their ideal future.

I haven't seen Microsoft's 2020 plan, though if you are implying it has anything to do with the Xbone then I can assume consumers and gamers had no part in its conception.

 

[oconnomiyaki]

The person who said that is no longer with Sony. The people who said we aren't ready are still with Microsoft.

Don Matyrick is at Zynga.

 

[Eusis]

It wasn't arrogance.This is the problem here, and if people would educate themselves, or at least be open to accepting facts, and not so focused on making everything about them, maybe they'd learn something, stop embarrassing themselves and actually grow. I am completely fucking fed-up with this notion that Microsoft was trying to screw gamers. The 24 hour check-in was not an attempt to "screw gamers" or any such thing. People really need to get over that, and start dealing with facts objectively, and not letting their imaginations steer them toward subjective, and false reasoning. The check-in was to ensure there was no such thing as digital piracy taking place. That's it! Really, that's all it was, nothing else. Microsoft doesn't hate you, they weren't trying to screw you (they need your money, screwing you over is NOT in their best interests) and they weren't trying to control you, or punish you. They simply tried to usher in, and pioneer the digital age of gaming on consoles, albeit they got their message across a bit sloppily. They came up with a method to prevent digital piracy that didn't go over too well with gamers. But I've asked countless people to come up with a better alternative to what Microsoft offered, and to this date NO ONE has been able to come up with a better way of implementing digital DRM. And I honestly, and openly welcome anyone to try, because maybe if people have a better idea of doing this, Microsoft can adopt it and we can get to that digital point without any sacrifices.

Give it a rest now, please.

Yeah, no.

1. The better way to secure a system is to keep it closed and to incentive going online so the system stays updated should exploits be found, which is what they are doing ANYWAY. No anti-piracy measure is fool proof, and frankly I expect the 24 hour check in would be one of the weaker ways to protect a closed console anyway, Ubisoft tried a 24/7 thing on PC for some of their games and that ended up being compromised immediately anyway making it a vain effort, and this would just be incentive to hack the system wide open sooner than later.

2. It probably wasn't actually PIRACY that they wanted that check-in for mainly, but to prevent abuse of family sharing. And I proposed an idea there before: allow you to opt in games for sharing (or opt out, whatever) and so you had to choose whether you wanted your family and friends to play in exchange for having to keep coming online to play to ensure the system isn't being abused, or to keep the game for yourself and whoever plays on your console but in exchange you can stay offline indefinitely.

3. Many of us were thinking of the future rather than just short term benefit, and combined with Microsoft's own history and their own flippant attitude to BC we had no reason to be confident they'd allow us to keep playing the system far into the future rather than let the system turn into a brick once they decided the XB1 didn't need to be supported. Understandably some games will be or ARE like that, and we have seen such games dropped over time, but we're talking about an entire platform hosting many games that don't inherently need the internet like an MMO does, and to possibly lose all of that because of short sighted protection of IP wasn't something many of us wanted to tolerate.

Incidentally, that 3rd point of mine is why this "if they delivered the message right!" was never, EVER going to work for some of us, and probably in general not as well as some of you want to think it would have. Maybe if it was clear they were valuing forward compatibility there'd have been a chance, but how they've dropped services in the past heavily implied that if ti was starting to be inconvenient they'd just trash it, likely with no compensation for customers given Zune's DRM'd music is simply unplayable now I believe.

 

[EvaUnit02]

All of these companies are terrible. Nintendo was a demon lord back when they reigned supreme. I'll never forget when Sony told Capcom that Megaman 8 couldn't be 2D. Now, we have Microsoft.

Give it time. The contest is never over. A new King of Crap will eventually, inevitably be crowned. It often goes to the company doing extremely well as it's then when they are riding so high that they no longer feel they need to actually appease their customers.

 

[CadetMahoney]

It's all bitter with MS no matter what.

 

[Slavik81]

Their fundamental attitude hasn't changed. I wouldn't to be bitter, but they certainly don't deserve the benefit of the doubt in any of their future policy changes.

 

[Karsticles]

I am more disturbed by all the people who let go of their anger toward Microsoft's early Xbone policies. Gamers are so fickle, it's no wonder this industry can get away with DRM, microtransactions, day one DLC, and buggy releases. The consumer base just doesn't have the will to keep this stuff in check. I am confident that Microsoft would have done just as well with the Xbone if they didn't do the 180s.

 

[ICPEE]

It's all bitter with MS no matter what.

Yes they are their own worst enemy.

 

[Ardenyal]

The 180 that Microsoft was forced into proves that gamers are relics of a past era. We completely accept DRM for the tens of millions of tablets, phones, and computers and would throw a fit if we had to go to the store to buy physical copies of every piece of software we wanted to install, but for some reason we have to cling to the past with consoles.

If you go look up Microsoft's 2020 vision for the future, you'd completely understand the design of xbone before it was ruined by the dinosaurs of gaming.

Do you really think we would have gotten 5 dollar Forza 5 if MS had gotten their way?

Don't fool yourself with false analogies. MS wanted to get rid of used games, keep the 60 dollar games and add macrotransactions to the mix.

 

[Metalingus5150]

Don Matyrick is at Zynga.

Albert Penello:"We just think that's the way the future's gonna go. We may have been right. What we were wrong about was that it's just too soon. People just weren't ready to make that leap right away.

Phil Harrison: "I think when you create a vision of the future, you paint the vision of the future that you are most excited about. But we got clear feedback that some of the things we were proposing were perhaps a little too far into the future."

 

[Eusis]

All of these companies are terrible. Nintendo was a demon lord back when they reigned supreme. I'll never forget when Sony told Capcom that Megaman 8 couldn't be 2D. Now, we have Microsoft.

Give it time. The contest is never over. A new King of Crap will eventually, inevitably be crowned. It often goes to the company doing extremely well as it's then when they are riding so high that they no longer feel they need to actually appease their customers.

Well, we've seen companies get haughty then humbled, but for console manufacturers we have limited examples for what they do post-rebound. Nintendo seemed to have instead gotten arrogant in the sense they could keep doing the same sort of thing and have wild success, and that clearly didn't happen, but they certainly aren't going back to being the same Nintendo they were in the 80s. I wouldn't be surprised if similar happened with Sony, they get bad in a very different way from how they were before, though perhaps not in a way that really sets people off like they did before. It's also why I advocated "wait and see" with Microsoft, they really may turn a new leaf over fully in a year or two, unless Microsoft's change in management just cans the whole thing which would be the secondary reason to play wait and see: we really don't know what Microsoft's poised to do at this point in time.

We do have EA that bounced back and forth though, it's like they're a god damn yo-yo. I'm guessing something in their nature (more dependent on investors perhaps?) keeps them from ever truly staying "good."

Albert Penello:"We just think that's the way the future's gonna go. We may have been right. What we were wrong about was that it's just too soon. People just weren't ready to make that leap right away.

Phil Harrison: "I think when you create a vision of the future, you paint the vision of the future that you are most excited about. But we got clear feedback that some of the things we were proposing were perhaps a little too far into the future."

Yeah, more reason to wait and see. Though Phil Harrison was spewing similar stuff at Sony, so I think he was always fixated on that all digital future for a long time. It just didn't strike as much of a chord back then because it really was far off and the worst we got out of PS3 were anti-used games patents that went no where. That Sony seemingly likes to file just for fun actually, along with their brain control devices and "McDonalds!" ad skipping.

 

[ZehDon]

Not wrong at all. They have already stated that the plan is only on pause.

This. I'm done with Xbox. Where they're headed, I don't care to follow.

 

[The One and Done™]

The 180 that Microsoft was forced into proves that gamers are relics of a past era. We completely accept DRM for the tens of millions of tablets, phones, and computers and would throw a fit if we had to go to the store to buy physical copies of every piece of software we wanted to install, but for some reason we have to cling to the past with consoles.

If you go look up Microsoft's 2020 vision for the future, you'd completely understand the design of xbone before it was ruined by the dinosaurs of gaming.

Precisely. The outrage was by small few who in essence, insured gaming would be held back from its potential for another 8 to 10 years. We already have accepted DRM on so many other devices and it works just fine there. What's the difference in FarmVille and GTA? Having a physical retail copy is so damned overrated anyway. I just hope the folly by Microsoft to remove DRM doesn't ultimately kill gaming in the long run.

 

[oconnomiyaki]

Albert Penello:"We just think that's the way the future's gonna go. We may have been right. What we were wrong about was that it's just too soon. People just weren't ready to make that leap right away.

Phil Harrison: "I think when you create a vision of the future, you paint the vision of the future that you are most excited about. But we got clear feedback that some of the things we were proposing were perhaps a little too far into the future."

I see absolutely nothing wrong with those two quotes and nothing near the level of "Go fuck yourself," like Sony did.

 

[UberTag]

Hmmm... in this thread I learned that consumers should never back up their opinions with their wallets. Or is it just okay now because Microsoft did a 180 after two weeks of pre-orders came in?

Makes me wonder what the hypothetical variant of this thread would be if Microsoft stood firm with all of those policy changes and released the Xbox One with the exact same lineup of games.
My bet is that it wouldn't be much different at all.
Perhaps being anti-consumer isn't such a bad thing after all. Clearly consumers are very forgiving so long as you flash a bunch of pretty images in their face.

Dear Microsoft, please ignore any and all future GAF outrages over your policies. Clearly you have been proven correct. We really have no self-control and will be pushed over into your camp over time.
Enjoy your future dominance of the North American sales market for the 2nd generation in a row. It's a shame the rest of the world won't be along for the ride but I suppose they have convictions.

 

[diggler41]

I remember hearing at their unveiling a few weeks before E3, "tv tv tv tv sports sport sports" which is fine but disappointed me. Then they were being real quiet with all the rumors about DRM and wouldn't come out and clarify anything. I told myself, "Ok well they will at least clear this up at E3 soon." Well the week before E3 they weirdly canceled all their interviews save for a couple. WTF? The one thing people wanted was clarification and they go and do this? During E3 every time a MS employee said something about the machine another employee contradicted it a few hours later. Such a clusterfuck. As the other GAFer said I will forgive but I won't forget. Now get on with AW2 so I can buy your machine.

 

[Metalingus5150]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with those two quotes and nothing near the level of "Go fuck yourself," like Sony did.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

 

[EvaUnit02]

It wasn't arrogance.This is the problem here, and if people would educate themselves, or at least be open to accepting facts, and not so focused on making everything about them, maybe they'd learn something, stop embarrassing themselves and actually grow. I am completely fucking fed-up with this notion that Microsoft was trying to screw gamers. The 24 hour check-in was not an attempt to "screw gamers" or any such thing. People really need to get over that, and start dealing with facts objectively, and not letting their imaginations steer them toward subjective, and false reasoning. The check-in was to ensure there was no such thing as digital piracy taking place. That's it! Really, that's all it was, nothing else. Microsoft doesn't hate you, they weren't trying to screw you (they need your money, screwing you over is NOT in their best interests) and they weren't trying to control you, or punish you. They simply tried to usher in, and pioneer the digital age of gaming on consoles, albeit they got their message across a bit sloppily. They came up with a method to prevent digital piracy that didn't go over too well with gamers. But I've asked countless people to come up with a better alternative to what Microsoft offered, and to this date NO ONE has been able to come up with a better way of implementing digital DRM. And I honestly, and openly welcome anyone to try, because maybe if people have a better idea of doing this, Microsoft can adopt it and we can get to that digital point without any sacrifices.

Give it a rest now, please.

Say what now? Control you is *exactly* what they were trying to do. Consumers are in control of physical copies by default. Microsoft wanted to take that control away so they could control both distribution and usage directly. No longer would the consumer be able to decide what is and is not in circulation, no longer would the consumer be able to set the price and value of games through market forces (free used trade), and no longer would the consumer decide when and how he could play his game. With a physical copy of my PSX games, I can play them on my PSX, PS2, PS3, Dreamcast, PC, Ouya, toaster, abacus, or whatever else *I* decide to play them on. Under Microsoft's system, I could play my Xbone games on my Xbone. That's it. Even then, only when they decide I can which, presumably, would have been only while I had an active account and only so long as they were willing to support the service.

I think what you'll find is not that people can't find a better way of doing DRM, it's that they simply don't want DRM without significant concessions from Microsoft. Steam works because games are often piss cheap, I can still archive the actual game data locally, Steam games are typically either DRM free or pretty easy to have cracked (either because of weak protection or by virtue of being PC games), and PC games have the benefit of community support. Those are big, big advantages. Microsoft was offering DRM at more of a headache while still having the same exorbitant $60USD price tag.

Microsoft's error wasn't with poor messaging. It was with trying to take control away from the consumer without conceding anything in return.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I am still finding it hard to believe people are still sour over a policy that never took affect.

 

[ICPEE]

24hour check-in is the most idiotic decision ever.

Here in South Africa robust broadband internet is not cheap. I bought my cousin a 360 last year. When he heard about Xbox One he asked me if I could buy him one if he sold off his 360. I said No and explained why since he doesn't have an internet connection at home.

People should stop with the BS assumption that the USA is the world. There are places that have poor internet infrastructure. Its either costly, or poorly developed, perhaps behind the curve in comparison to the rest of the first world.

Xbox One is already 500 bucks, I would pay north of that total for a good broadband service where I am from withing a year.

 

[Mafia Films]

That part is up for debate. I don't think Microsoft ever really clarified exactly how game sharing would work and there were rumors floating around that it wouldn't of been that great(60 minute time limit and so on). Sure Microsoft dismissed those rumors and said that it would of been amazing, but with the system scrapped we will never know. Personally I think many were being very overly optimistic and were setting themselves up for disappointment.

Thats what I argued about back then. In speculation, you buy one physical copy of the game, or digital, and from that (according to the rules/policies we had) could stem potentially 10 more "copies" of the game for up to 10 friends to play. Now the demo or 60 minute timer thing was speculation from leaked memos but it makes me ponder that MS had to have some sort of stipulations on this..otherwise as I described above Potentially from one $60 purchase 10 people would have access to play "your library" and a full game for free at no cost. It does not make sense that it would be that open and free. What incentive would the sharers have to buy the actual game then. Unless they figured this out on the back end and considering the no used games/re-selling of games they could recoup those costs. IDK its 100% what-if since its not actually in existence.

They painted a utopia experience for us but then never elaborated 100% on the rules. IT was a "new idea" never before implemented in their scope and people had questions. Not to mention as above with game sharing people put a non-existent half together and "Dreamed" of what it was to be.

And the thing is, and to dispel all the haters, why didnt Microsoft roll with the DRM as is? If it was soo good and the way of the future why didnt they continue to hammer that in, explain things more in depth, then let it ride out and instill the way of the future? Who knows it could have been great and played out fine and dispelled the naysayers right in their tracks. WHY? Was there more to it? Did they infact have things locked down and more so had things "in their preference" and not in the gamers preference? Or was there no such thing to be had and it was merely paranoia due to lack of knowledge?

 

[oconnomiyaki]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Sure, but it seems hypocritical to me that people are willing to overlook the transgressions of one company just because it's now the preferred child. It's like the people who have short memories come election time about their party but being up 50 years of the other parties' fuck-ups.

 

[ChiliManiac]

Ironically, people who own an Xbox One are starting to miss the features that an always online system would have brought to the table, I think it's mostly the people who were looking to go all digital this generation though. I own an Xbox One, and I'll reserve my true opinions to my self in fear of people calling me out as a console warrior. Microsoft did reverse it's policies and they have listened to us. They're listening, and to me that matters more than not listening.

 

[Surfheart]

OP. Legit question. Would you describe your friend as a Dudebro? He sounds, for lack of a better word, ignorant of Nintendo and its franchises. Unless he is pointing the debuting of VC stuff.

I wouldn't call him a dudebro, he has a Wii U and bought Mario World 3D, said he played through two worlds and hated it. His biggest issue with the Wii U is it's hardware spec...

 

[Coffee Dog]

Bitter? Like, hurt feelings? No, you shouldn't be bitter. But until that company starts showing that they are catering to your needs you shouldn't buy their console. Microsoft kept the status quo, which was better than it could have been, but unless something changes in their leadership or their policies, there is no reason to think that they will suddenly start being pro consumer.

 

[Muchi Muchi Pink]

You realize... these are companies? They aren't people that actually have any affect on your life.

Uhm....

 

[Metalingus5150]

Sure, but it seems hypocritical to me that people are willing to overlook the transgressions of one company just because it's now the preferred child. It's like the people who have short memories come election time about their party but being up 50 years of the other parties' fuck-ups.

Well I haven't bought an Xbox One or PS4. I'm the waiting. I don't overlook the transgressions of the company but it seems to me that as of RIGHT NOW. Sony is definitely the more humble of the bunch and are doing more progressive things, however I am willing to give Microsoft a chance, Sony turned around the PS3 and made the PS4 look VERY appealing in my eyes, Microsoft may or may not do the same. In a couple of years, I'll know full well of which system will be better for me. I'll stick to my 360, PS3, Gamecube and 3DS for the time being.

 

[Eusis]

I wouldn't call him a dudebro, he has a Wii U and bought Mario World 3D, said he played through two worlds and hated it. His biggest issue with the Wii U is it's hardware spec...

I have to admit, that honestly IS a frustrating point for the system. Consoles always have issues where you sort of want to imagine what could've been if they went JUST a bit further, but Nintendo ones are especially maddening there due to technical and/or control limits. And even if it couldn't have been PS4/XB1 powerful it would've been nice if the Wii U would've at least been close enough to handle most down ports and stay competitive rather than looking more like a late comer to the PS3 vs 360 match. I do appreciate the BC though, but I hate to admit that maybe it really wasn't worth it with the PowerPC line... though with the system's power they maybe could have waited the extra year, gone with somewhat dumbed down PS4-esque specs, and emulated the Wii anyway.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Bitter? Like, hurt feelings? No, you shouldn't be bitter. But until that company starts showing that they are catering to your needs you shouldn't buy their console. Microsoft kept the status quo, which was better than it could have been, but unless something changes in their leadership or their policies, there is no reason to think that they will suddenly start being pro consumer.

What do you even mean by "start being pro-consumer"? They changed their policies based on consumer response... isn't that already being pro-consumer?

How would MS "start being pro-consumer"?

 

[DocSeuss]

That part is up for debate. I don't think Microsoft ever really clarified exactly how game sharing would work and there were rumors floating around that it wouldn't of been that great(60 minute time limit and so on). Sure Microsoft dismissed those rumors and said that it would of been amazing, but with the system scrapped we will never know. Personally I think many were being very overly optimistic and were setting themselves up for disappointment.

Microsoft was pretty damn clear on it; the problem is that they dripfed the info on it, rather than going "hey, here's this feature, here's how it works, etc."

You're also mistaken.

It's not scrapped. Nobody seems to have caught it, but when MS announced their canceled DRM plans, they also said they'd try to bring back family sharing without the DRM.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

People getting offended because of business decisions from major companies...😁

 

[soul creator]

The problem is that the system didn't make sense. Why couldn't we opt into it? Have the "install from disc but need to check in" thing be an option. Why do people who don't want to be online with the console get left out? People in various armed forces around the world who don't have access to online? The xbox fans in the sticks/countries without great internet infrastructure?

The same reason retail Steamworks games don't have a way to "opt-in". Of course, one alternative could have been to print separate SKUs for "install discs associated with your account" and "100% resellable and not tied to an account" discs, but they figured more people were interested in discless gaming, instant switching, and internet services than what turned out to be true.

The xbox one wasn't "all digital."

It pretty much was. The disc was the equivalent of an internet download, except you could install it faster. That's why even now, you can install a current disc, remove it, buy the digital license, and not need to redownload it.

It was disc based with an online check in. It didn't make any sense.

It makes sense if you want to allow licenses to be transferred (which includes those discs being traded in to retailers) while also allowing for those discs to not be needed if you're playing games (and to prevent someone from copying that disc to however many other Xboxes)

If you're interested in that use case, then it made perfect sense. If you're not interested in that use case, then yes, it would be an issue.

There's no clear message as to why when you buy a disc you have to install it and can't sell it unless it's to a "participating retailer." So I buy something and can't sell it to anyone I want? How does even make sense?

Same way I can't resale retail disc-based Steamworks DRM games. If you're a customer that wants the convenience of not needing to insert discs all the time to play games, but you want to save on bandwidth costs, have a slow download, etc., then this method is a benefit for them.

It doesn't even make sense with digital, which Europe is starting to catch up with and the rest of the world will follow... but it makes even less sense with something we actually buy. I have the disc, I want to sell it to person X, I can't because Microsoft decided that discs are basically digital downloads?

Yes, like companies that use Steamworks DRM on retail discs have decided that those discs are basically Steam downloads. I have a Skyrim disc that's effectively useless, and I can't do anything with it.

The benefit to the Steam approach to DRM is that since it's only a one-time checkin, you can play offline after the initial install. And Steam has been pretty damn good about allowing other retailers to sell Steam keys, so you get some degree of retail competition. But the big drawback is that I can't ever do anything with this Skyrim disc or license. It's forever tied to my account, and the only way to resell it is to sell my entire Steam account.

The benefit of the previous MS approach to DRM is that I would have at least some ability to lend/sell it, whether it's through "participating retailers" or a friend on Xbox Live. And I could buy my "digital download" from any retailer that sells Xbox One games, as opposed to just the Xbox Live Marketplace, so there would be some degree of retail competition. Of course, the big obvious drawback is that to make this all work relatively easily, an internet connection would have been required at least once every 24hrs to keep all the license stuff in order.

Pros and cons of both approaches.

Nope. You can't rewrite what was going to happen. It was awful for consumers.

It was awful for some customers (people who resell a lot of games, people with spotty internet, people who want peace of mind that their game would work 20 years from now), and a positive for some customers (if you're a customer that does want to "go digital" and being able to have a "jukebox" of games, but likes being able to buy digital games from multiple retailers, and likes the faster installs from a disc vs. a download and saving bandwidth)

Some pros, some cons, and in the end, customers felt the cons outweighed the pros, so they protested against it, which is totally 100% fine. But that doesn't change the fact that for some customers, there would have been benefits.

 

[Japanmanx3]

I wouldn't call him a dudebro, he has a Wii U and bought Mario World 3D, said he played through two worlds and hated it. His biggest issue with the Wii U is it's hardware spec...

A WiiU bought based on hardware? Smh...maybe he's not as big a fan of Nintendo as he suspects himself to be. Granted there are some who don't like 3D World because of its foundation being 3D. His initial impression is striking me as opposed to Nintendo to a very high regard if he compares the way they handle their account system (which has viable workarounds, though still a task) vs. Microsoft's agenda.

 

[Dragonborn]

I don't care too much since they reversed it. What I do care about is that they want us to pay more for inferior hardware, and force Kinect on everyone. I also dislike and am very wary of MS' exclusive support after seeing very little of anything on the 360 since 2009. And let's not forget, XBLG is still a rip off.

The DRM was a big issue but far from the only thing MS had going against them. They've been garnering ill will for years now.

Does that mean I won't ever but an X1? No, as long as MS fixes the above issues, I'll get one. $399 with Kinect packed in or $350 without it (why would I pay the same as a PS4 for inferior hardware?), add real value to Gold akin to PS+ (in fact I wish they'd just copy it), and show a commitment to new exclusive IPs beyond the first two or three years of life.

 

[Speedy Blue Dude]

You can't get mad at people for making negative assumptions when you, yourself, are making positive assumptions. We all get that the 24 hour check in main purpose was to make sure you weren't just installing the game to multiple systems off the disc. But you can't prove they didn't want more control in the same way you accuse us to prove that they didn't.

The problem is that the system didn't make sense. Why couldn't we opt into it? Have the "install from disc but need to check in" thing be an option. Why do people who don't want to be online with the console get left out? People in various armed forces around the world who don't have access to online? The xbox fans in the sticks/countries without great internet infrastructure?

The xbox one wasn't "all digital." It was disc based with an online check in. It didn't make any sense. It had a family plan that 6 months later still hasn't even leaked what they meant by it (and if it's like Steam's... look at the excitement for it (high) and how much it's been talked about since(low)).

There's no clear message as to why when you buy a disc you have to install it and can't sell it unless it's to a "participating retailer." So I buy something and can't sell it to anyone I want? How does even make sense?


It doesn't even make sense with digital, which Europe is starting to catch up with and the rest of the world will follow... but it makes even less sense with something we actually buy. I have the disc, I want to sell it to person X, I can't because Microsoft decided that discs are basically digital downloads?

Nope. You can't rewrite what was going to happen. It was awful for consumers. I don't hold a grudge, as I posted above (or maybe on the prior page by the time I hit submit reply) but we aren't going to pretend that shit didn't happen. Your post is awesome in that it's about 30% of what actually happened. That's some "fastest selling console in november" level of spin.

"It doesn't even make sense with digital, which Europe is starting to catch up with and the rest of the world will follow... but it makes even less sense with something we actually buy. I have the disc, I want to sell it to person X, I can't because Microsoft decided that discs are basically digital downloads?"

Oh hey bro, here's the disc so you don't have to wait 20 hours for the 40 GB download, now give me $30 and I'll remove Call of Duty Ghosts off my Xbox Live account and transfer it to yours. Thanks man!

What was the issue with this?

 

[ChiliManiac]

People getting offended because of business decisions from major companies...😁

When it affects your lively hood, yes. It's perfectly acceptable.

 

[Glorified G]

No. That's in the past. I'm more worried about the present and the future. They already have taken one my favorite franchises and borked it by reducing content and designing it around microtransactions. And there is the system itself, forcing kinect and making the UI terrible to use without it. Overpriced. Almost void of indie titles which is confusing considering smaller titles like xbla was a huge part of the xbox 360 ecosystem. Inferior console multiplats for its lifetime.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

I chose not to buy a ps3 until late in the gen due to their arrogance and I am doing the same this gen with MS. The only difference being is I may never buy an Xbox One.

It comes down to this: Unlike the ps3, the One is not just weaker than its counterpart, but also MS gives me less incentive to purchase the One since many MS exclusives are available on windows. Maybe, hopefully, in the last example things will change, and if they do my current stance on the One can also change.

 

[Jabba]

Thats what I argued about back then. In speculation, you buy one physical copy of the game, or digital, and from that (according to the rules/policies we had) could stem potentially 10 more "copies" of the game for up to 10 friends to play. Now the demo or 60 minute timer thing was speculation from leaked memos but it makes me ponder that MS had to have some sort of stipulations on this..otherwise as I described above Potentially from one $60 purchase 10 people would have access to play "your library" and a full game for free at no cost. It does not make sense that it would be that open and free. What incentive would the sharers have to buy the actual game then. Unless they figured this out on the back end and considering the no used games/re-selling of games they could recoup those costs. IDK its 100% what-if since its not actually in existence.

They painted a utopia experience for us but then never elaborated 100% on the rules. IT was a "new idea" never before implemented in their scope and people had questions. Not to mention as above with game sharing people put a non-existent half together and "Dreamed" of what it was to be.

Also forgetting Sony cut their digital sharing from 10 to 5 machines. There was a limit, pubs would have never let sharing happen the dream way.

 

[fredrancour]

They really sound like they plan to re-instate it if at all possible. So at the very very least you should feel entitled to continue basing your purchasing decisions around that possibility.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Charging for online was a precursor to the policies they tried to introduced with the Xbox One. It's why I never paid for XBL, and was always a bit concerned about what would happen if they had gained a strong hold on the market.
The confidence that lead to the XB1 policies was unsubstantiated. Its not as though the 360 was the best selling console of all time. Heck, it wasn't even the best selling console of its generation. The Xbox brand just doesn't have the same power as Nintendo or Playstation in the market.

 

[soul creator]

But they weren't upfront about it at all...

Those MS sneak fucks, explaining the basics of how game licensing would work on Xbox One, 5 months before the launch of the system, and still leaving the page up even after the policies were reversed

 

[famousmortimer]

But that doesn't change the fact that for some customers, there would have been benefits.

I never said there wasn't. It certainly worked for some people. Just not enough. The post which I quoted was saying it would have worked for everyone we just didn't understand it. Kinda like microsoft has been saying...

 

[GillianSeed79]

The 24 hour check-in was not an attempt to "screw gamers" or any such thing. People really need to get over that, and start dealing with facts objectively, and not letting their imaginations steer them toward subjective, and false reasoning. The check-in was to ensure there was no such thing as digital piracy taking place. That's it! Really, that's all it was, nothing else.

Because fucking anti-piracy measures and DRM have worked so well in the past to prevent pirates from being pirates and pirating shit. All it has done is making the experience of playing games more shitty and that goes for both platforms. Kenway's Fleet in ACIV, which is essentially the assassain contracts that build up your assassins now requires you to be connected to the internet. It fucking sucks when you can't a play a game you purchased because you can't sign into X publisher's server. Fuck off with that. Pirates are going to find a way no matter what. The rest of us are being punished for a few bad apples. How about making people actually want to buy your game day one like the Witcher 2?

Microsoft doesn't hate you, they weren't trying to screw you (they need your money, screwing you over is NOT in their best interests) and they weren't trying to control you, or punish you. They simply tried to usher in, and pioneer the digital age of gaming on consoles, albeit they got their message across a bit sloppily. They came up with a method to prevent digital piracy that didn't go over too well with gamers. But I've asked countless people to come up with a better alternative to what Microsoft offered, and to this date NO ONE has been able to come up with a better way of implementing digital DRM.

No, fuck off. (Sorry, I apologize for that) There's already a digital age. I don't have any sympathy for the fact that consoles are lagging behind. You know what the alternative is? Steam. GoG. Green Man Gaming. Microsoft wasn't inventing shit with the Xbox One. Steam has fucking DRM out the ass. But people like Steam, because it actually has to compete with other storefronts. Give me one fucking example of an Xbox On Demand game or even a fucking PS4 digital download game being cheaper than a retail game. Please.

And I honestly, and openly welcome anyone to try, because maybe if people have a better idea of doing this, Microsoft can adopt it and we can get to that digital point without any sacrifices.

Give it a rest now, please.

It's called Steam, GoG or GMG or whatever. I love the fucking digital future. It doesn't work when you are a closed platform, don't have competition and prevent the consumer from doing as they please with their physical media. No one fucking complains about DRM on, say, Steam. Because that's not the only place you can buy a PC game. I'm sure MS and Sony would fucking love if the only place you could buy games would be on their marketplace because you would never, ever see games depreciate in value.