Support NeoGAF

[MikeXXIeaf]

I don't see the use in being bitter about something that no longer exists.

 

[kitch9]

Anyone hung up on policies that never saw the light of day takes this way too seriously.

They did see the light of day, they were announced, and they were reviled, so they attempted to dilute them quickly they saying you could just let 10 people play the same purchase.

They then realised how stupid that sounded and started stalling for time whilst they figured out WTF they had just done, they realised they had backed themselves in a corner and it was either let 10 people play the same game for free now that they had announced it or just STFU and go back to how it was, even though they said it was impoossible.

Punters are right to be skeptical of them it was an epic clusterfuck that eclipsed Sonys epic fuckup of a PS3 launch and they didn't get let off for years.

 

[Ishan]

It's a business same ppl in charge . And ms didn't think of this overnight . It's publishers pushing them . Also them pushing the ms os games apps ecosystem . If that's compelling enough eventually sure go for it . If not don't . It's like steam it was wrong on principles but proved it worked . If ms can do the same give them the same benefit you give valve . If not it'll die out like the zune . Markets determine if something works or not

 

[snap0212]

I feel bad for supporting so many bad companies, but when it comes to entertainment I simply say "no". There's no need for me to get the system and other companies just make me feel like my money is better invested there; they seem to care more about me and what I want.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

I guess I missed it. Did I black out again?

What year is this?

I guess you did. If you bother to use Google, you'll find that it was clarified before the switch (for instance, here), it would have been possible to share full games with 10 other people, with the only limitation being that not all of them would be able to play at the same time. Instead, it was supposed to be limited only to the owner and one more person. Which is exactly what the initial announcement claimed, the confusion only arose because people refused to believe it.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't see the use in being bitter about something that no longer exists.

But it was "the future" and they tried something too quick, before people were ready.

Its still part of the plan and while I don't expect it to happen this gen, I do expect MS to use this generation to prepare and train their customer base for it.

... the confusion only arose because people refused to believe it.

Haha, and still don't, for the record. What MS has suggested it means is a far worse end result for publishers than used games could ever be.

Its a pipe-dream.

 

[Eusis]

Except I think most of the defenders of MS's original policy don't believe it was this way. They think it was going to be some kind of paradise where everyone just gets to play everyone else's games unrestricted.

Even in a best case scenario only one could play at a time and it likely came at the cost of being able to play offline indefinitely. In which case I still wouldn't have really liked that kind of exchange, especially if I never even used the feature much afterall.

Ah I forgot about those. What about people who play on Macs. Just saying everyone's gaming PC is "a Microsoft product" is still not correct at all.

And it's also about going from a Microsoft product doing things we don't want to Microsoft products that aren't doing anything we really, really don't want to see. Kind of how the free market's supposed to work, they offer a product we don't want while also offering a product we do want, we'll pick the one we do want. This was just sort of an extreme version rather than, say, bundling a hard drive or not bundling a hard drive.

 

[Ishan]

I guess you did. If you bother to use Google, you'll find that it was clarified before the switch (for instance, here), it would have been possible to share full games with 10 other people, with the only limitation being that not all of them would be able to play at the same time. Instead, it was supposed to be limited only to the owner and one more person. Which is exactly what the initial announcement claimed, the confusion only arose because people refused to believe it.

No. It wasn't as clearly spelled out there were various contradicting responses also . Just like sony with their 5 ppl can share over psn which got reduced to two . We would have seen how it worked in practice and how it was exploited and the response to that before judging .vapourware is vapourware .

 

[Mafia Films]

As far as I know that's all we got as far as details go, after quite a few false starts and misdirections and empty regurgitated PR QAs, before they reversed course with the 180's. So we never got to see or understand the extent and breadth of their vision (that was so cool, we have been vaguely assured so often since) before they discontinued it.

They've acted like they're hiding something while all the while assuring us this thing that never saw the light of day was going to be great, because, I don't even know why.

Even the family sharing is still to this day mysterious, with people believing it was anything from one hour trials to giving 10 other people access to your games as if they were borrowing the box of your shelf.

None of this, even to this day has seemed straight-forward. Not since the reveal.

THIS.

Reminds me of a situation when something is fishy and the person beats around the bush explaining it cause they know the truth and you don't and they are trying to "coat" the information in the right manner.

God it sends a wave of anxiety and paranoia over me now, like the whole mentality I have when people are trying to sell something to you in such a manner, in the back of my head im thinking "Ok What are they trying to pull on me? , not "Man this is something I could go for!"

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

But it was "the future" and they tried something too quick, before people were ready.

Its still part of the plan and while I don't expect it to happen this gen, I do expect MS to use this generation to prepare and train their customer base for it.

As they should, because that's in everyone's future, not just Microsoft's.

Although I do hope they (and other platform holders, since I'm interested in their consoles as well, and would love the convenience) offer it in a better thought out implementation even this gen.

Haha, and still don't, for the record. What MS has suggested it means is a far worse end result for publishers than used games could ever be.

Its a pipe-dream.

Well, there you go, I rest my case.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

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.

I find it funny that you judge how much someone likes Nintendo without knowing them, because they don't have the same views as you.

 

[Jomjom]

Even in a best case scenario only one could play at a time and it likely came at the cost of being able to play offline indefinitely. In which case I still wouldn't have really liked that kind of exchange, especially if I never even used the feature much afterall.

Yeah and I submit that the people lamenting the loss of their family plan would argue that this is not at all how it was going to work. Yet none of them can offer any kind of reasonable explanation for how MS was going to get publishers to agree to anything more than the scenario you presented.

If it's just one person playing at a time, I'm doing this already with my PS4 (create my account on my friends console and don't tell him the password) and doing even better than this with the PS3 (2 people playing at the same time). Likewise, people with the 360 and Xbox One can also already do this.

 

[Alucard01]

I think the 24 hour check-in had a lot to do with updating the NuAds. Needs the online connection for that. Microsoft has to sell that ad space and guarantee a certain number in the audience to raise those prices of ad space. That is also why Kinect is forced. Their vision was to see what your interests are, ie.. wearing a certain sports team jersey, or drinking Mountain Dew etc... and collect data for advertising. They also data mine your TV viewing via the cable box pass thru, and use that info as well. Microsoft is counting on these Google and Facebook practices of data mining as big revenue streams. Gaming is a vehicle to get the box in your living room, not the focus. This has been said by Microsoft execs themselves. Not the gaming part, but they have talked about the data mining.

 

[soul creator]

DRM isn't a confusing topic for MS though, as they've been on the very forefront of it, across all of their technologies.

The idea that they didn't have a solid vision, much less the details of this DRM and the sharing system so close to launch is something I just honestly don't believe.

Literally ever console launch I've viewed has had missing information 5 months before launch, lol. I never understood why it was so shocking that they didn't have full info on every single implementation detail at that moment. Sure, I agree they should have, especially for a somewhat radical idea, but I wasn't surprised that they didn't. And since the console wasn't for sale for another 5 months, it's not like I had to make a purchasing decision right then and there.

'Confirmed' after the whole 180. They could have also confirmed it would have also give out blowjobs while you play. But because we the players weren't ready for it, boo hoo.

There is no way to know what the sharing plan would have been like.

10 people can view your library, only 1 person can play from it at a given time. Mentioned on June 6th, when the original page went up that discussed it. And none of this is a giant stretch, since that roughly correlates with what you can already do with digital games now and on the Xbox 360 (1 primary console can play it online or offline, and then the owner can play it anywhere they want when they're logged in to Xbox Live.).

Sure, they didn't have a splitscreen video demo released with a step by step process listed, and how the UI worked for it, but the idea seems pretty straightforward based on the available evidence at the time (namely, how digital games worked on the 360, and how it was described in the June 6th article).

I honestly think a lot of people would just overthink it, and then a lot of other folks would disparage it, and since launch was still 5 months away...everyone could debate and argue whatever version in their head they wanted, because hey, it wasn't a real product at the time. But again, based on the available evidence at the time, it wouldn't be as omg amazing as some people would think ("I can fill out a full team with 1 copy of the game!") nor was it some useless feature where the only thing you could do were timed demos filled with McDonald's pop up ads.

 

[Almighty]

Really... DirectX??? .Net???

MS has a bigger influence on your gaming than you think. Just sayin... running from the Xbox One to a PC is not running from Microsoft. It's running to a different Microsoft consumer model.

In a way it kind of is though. You are running from a platform where Microsoft has complete control from top to bottom to one where they have much much less. Which is what I assume people mean when they say "Screw Microsoft and what they have done with the Xbox. I am going to the PC."

 

[Jomjom]

10 people can view your library, only 1 person can play from it at a given time. Mentioned on June 6th, when the original page went up that discussed it. And none of this is a giant stretch, since that roughly correlates with what you can already do with digital games now and on the Xbox 360 (1 primary console can play it online or offline, and then the owner can play it anywhere they want when they're logged in to Xbox Live.).

Sure, they didn't have a splitscreen video demo released with a step by step process listed, and how the UI worked for it, but the idea seems pretty straightforward based on the available evidence at the time (namely, how digital games worked on the 360, and how it was described in the June 6th article).

I honestly think a lot of people would just overthink it, and then a lot of other folks would disparage it, and since launch was still 5 months away...everyone could debate and argue whatever version in their head they wanted, because hey, it wasn't a real product at the time. But again, based on the available evidence at the time, it wouldn't as omg amazing as some people would think ("I can fill out a full team with 1 copy of the game!") nor was it some useless feature where the only thing you could do were timed demos filled with McDonald's pop up ads.

Again like you said earlier, just a slightly more convenient way of what we can already do. It's not even more secure either because if I create my account on my friend's console and don't tell them my password and set purchases to require entering the password, it's all secure. To make changes to any settings on my account he would need to enter the password.

Also not a feature that I think many people would be willing to give away the benefits of used games and offline gaming for.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

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.

So few that forced MS to backtrack huh? Ridiculous! They backtracked because the majority of gamers refused to buy their console.

 

[Ultryx]

You're not alone. I'm still bitter as hell over that whole thing.

 

[Jomjom]

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.

Yup accepted DRM on so many other devices that I have my digital music playing on an infinite number of devices (at the same time even!) and play my iOS and Android games on my phones, my wife's phones, and our many tablets (at the same time even! Offline even!). Your facts are so factual!

 

[Eusis]

As they should, because that's in everyone's future, not just Microsoft's.

Although I do hope they (and other platform holders, since I'm interested in their consoles as well, and would love the convenience) offer it in a better thought out implementation even this gen.

Frankly I can't help but be skeptical if people are so sure something is THE FUTURE. Maybe it is, but there's been a lot of things that looked that way only to go no where or be more like a fad, nevermind how some things come BACK. Plenty of people value a physical package, and the PS4 and even XB1 show how that can be compromised with the needs a game dependent on the internet and too massive to be read from a disc all the time needs like constant updates and full installs. Plus with the way bandwidth increases have been going I don't think we'll be able to handle full blu-ray sized games (or larger!) for quite awhile.

 

[Jomjom]

Frankly I can't help but be skeptical if people are so sure something is THE FUTURE. Maybe it is, but there's been a lot of things that looked that way only to go no where or be more like a fad, nevermind how some things come BACK. Plenty of people value a physical package, and the PS4 and even XB1 show how that can be compromised with the needs a game dependent on the internet and too massive to be read from a disc all the time needs like constant updates and full installs. Plus with the way bandwidth increases have been going I don't think we'll be able to handle full blu-ray sized games (or larger!) for quite awhile.

I think we may never really "catch up" due to the fact that harddrive sizes haven't just increased exponentially and neither has internet speeds, whereas on the other hand physical media storage in the form of discs have been increasing and if devs wanted to they could just include a couple more discs in the package. Human nature will always drive people to improve on what they previously created and that will just make for games that get larger and larger data-wise.

The point we are at now, I can only put a few games on my harddrive at the same time and I constantly have to delete games to make room for more, which results in me having to sit there waiting for downloads to finish. Doesn't sound like we're very close to the future right now.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Frankly I can't help but be skeptical if people are so sure something is THE FUTURE. Maybe it is, but there's been a lot of things that looked that way only to go no where or be more like a fad, nevermind how some things come BACK. Plenty of people value a physical package, and the PS4 and even XB1 show how that can be compromised with the needs a game dependent on the internet and too massive to be read from a disc all the time needs like constant updates and full installs. Plus with the way bandwidth increases have been going I don't think we'll be able to handle full blu-ray sized games (or larger!) for quite awhile.

Which is why the proposed hybrid solution (internet AND physical media, complimenting each other) makes so much sense now and for the foreseeable future. Periodical check-ins are the price to pay, but I'm hoping for a practical solution on consoles where those wouldn't be mandatory. I'd give up family sharing for it, although it's worth noting that I'm speaking from the perspective of a guy who doesn't give a shit about used games or any kind of game sharing, so I guess I'm a minority.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Your friend's principles come cheap, or he doesn't have any regarding consumer rights

 

[The One and Done™]

So few that forced MS to backtrack huh? Ridiculous! They backtracked because the majority of gamers refused to buy their console.

Squeaky wheel theorem. Most gamers weren't opposed to the original idea of The One and I personally think sales have suffered because it was changed. I also think the quality of The One sufferered because of the 180 on DRM. It as like having an academy award winning film ready for release then just before releasing it you change the beginning and ending and reshoot almost everything. However The One has been a huge success despite the 180 on DRM. It's just a shame though since it would have been even more successful with DRM. Let's be honest, sharing a physical copy of something is becoming more rare by the second. Digital sharing is the future.

 

[Bundy]

I was greatly offended by what I perceived to be extreme arrogance from Microsoft surrounding the Xbox One announcement with regards to the no used game sales, online check-in etc.

Firstly I was offended by the policies themselves for being what I felt were extremely anti-consumer and then further by comments from various Microsoft mouthpieces in the aftermath. The presence of Microtransactions in nearly all of the First Party launch games was further salt in the wound for me.

I buy and enjoy all platforms usually, but the Microsoft rhetoric soured me against the platform so much that I have sworn I will never buy an Xbox One.

Now this brings me to an ongoing argument that I am having with a friend. He thinks I'm stupid for not getting an Xbox because I will be missing out on all these fantastic games because of what he sees as much to do about nothing. He defends Microsoft by saying that "At least they were upfront about it" and he feels that I should feel more outraged by Nintendo for "Selling me the same games over and over again"

What say you on this GAF? Am I wrong to hold onto this hatred? Do you think Nintendo's transgressions are on the same scale as Microsofts?

Bingo!
Have a WiiU, have PS4, will never buy an Xbox again.

 

[soul creator]

Again like you said earlier, just a slightly more convenient way of what we can already do. It's not even more secure either because if I create my account on my friend's console and don't tell them my password and set purchases to require entering the password, it's all secure. To make changes to any settings on my account he would need to enter the password.

Also not a feature that I think many people would be willing to give away the benefits of used games and offline gaming for.

For me, it would have been a step up, since I would have been getting more "digital rights" and more conveniences than I do now. I already have bought plenty of digital games the past 8 years on my 360/PC/PS3/Xbox One, and can't resale them, so even a limited "trade in at participating retailers/transfer to someone on friends list" is a huge step forward from my perspective. And since I'm connected to the internet 99% of the time anyway (and when I'm not, it's never for more than 24 hours) the benefits definitely outweighed the drawbacks in my case.

But of course, as you implied, it's obvious most people are not me, since the policies were changed, lol. And that's fine! The market has spoken and all that. But my only reason for getting involved in these discussions is to show that it wasn't this universally terrible thing that it always seems to be painted as.

I think we may never really "catch up" due to the fact that harddrive sizes haven't just increased exponentially and neither has internet speeds, whereas on the other hand physical media storage in the form of discs have been increasing and if devs wanted to they could just include a couple more discs in the package. Human nature will always drive people to improve on what they previously created and that will just make for games that get larger and larger data-wise.

The point we are at now, I can only put a few games on my harddrive at the same time and I constantly have to delete games to make room for more, which results in me having to sit there waiting for downloads to finish. Doesn't sound like we're very close to the future right now.

Sounds like someone should make a hybrid digital future that allows for discs to still be used as a way to have quicker installs, and also save on bandwidth costs, but still allows users to have their jukebox of games. Oh wait, that probably won't work...

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

I'll buy the system when the price, and game selection, is what I want. Nothing bad about not liking the system now. The pad feels like a cheap 3rd party pad to me and it's too small. The system is too expensive for what it offers. It is a silent system and I like the rumble triggers, while not liking anything else about the pad lol. Once the price drops to what I think is in line with what you get I will be there.

Plus the operating system seems so undercooked right now. I tried to play one yesterday and Ghosts was stuck on 0 percent for ages. It took what felt like eons to get into a game if it was installing.

The competition is just doing it all better right now for cheaper.

I also feel the same as you with the drm. It's more that I don't have confidence with the company at the minute. They need to prove they know what's going on.

I feel Nintendo are more in touch with gamers right now than Microsoft, and that's saying something

 

[The One and Done™]

Yup accepted DRM on so many other devices that I have my digital music playing on an infinite number of devices (at the same time even!) and play my iOS and Android games on my phones, my wife's phones, and our many tablets (at the same time even! Offline even!). Your facts are so factual!

It wouldn't even be possible to play Xbox One games on multiple different devices. The original promise of The One was to share games with friends and family digitally and you'd be able to play your games on your account on any ONE. If you think about it, having a physical copy is actually more limiting as far as sharing is concerned. Too bad we had to miss out on that .

 

[Jomjom]

It wouldn't even be possible to play Xbox One games on multiple different devices. The original promise of The One was to share games with friends and family digitally and you'd be able to play your games on your account on any ONE. If you think about it, having a physical copy is actually more limiting as far as sharing is concerned. Too bad we had to miss out on that .

My only point is we haven't really accepted the sort of DRM that MS was proposing on any device. I hope we never do.

If my only option is to buy something digitally with no resale value (meaning no option to buy a physical copy of that game), the game better be so cheap that even if I had the ability to resell it, it wouldn't be worth much, or else I'm allowed to play it and share it with other people how I want, not some ridiculous sharing plan where I have to make sure I'm not also playing it when a friend/family/stranger is playing it.

 

[soul creator]

My only point is we haven't really accepted the sort of DRM that MS was proposing on any device. I hope we never do.

One could argue that technically we haven't accepted "checkin every 24 hour" DRM, but practically speaking we have in a lot of ways (which is probably the mindset a lot of folks at MS had). <devils advocate>DLC, multiplayer games, leaderboards, and streaming video services are a huge part of the "Xbox experience". Hell, they're a huge part of pretty much any tech experience nowadays. All of those things require an internet connection. If people are already buying the system for that stuff, what's the issue with a 24hr checkin that allows digital licenses to be transferred? Sure, you can technically play iOS games or Steam games if your internet is down for more than 24 hours, but surely there's not a ton of people doing that on purpose, right? And hey, at least now they have a way to get rid of the shitty digital game they bought, instead of it being permanently locked to their account</devil's advocate>

Sure, they were incredibly and hilariously wrong, lol, but I could easily see the line of thinking that led them down that road

 

[The One and Done™]

People talk about the 24 hour checkin but most people use the internet 24/7.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

It's not wrong to be bitter but I think some are taking it a little far now.

 

[NullPointer]

People talk about the 24 hour checkin but most people use the internet 24/7.

Losing access to your single player games when your connection goes on the fritz or live goes down for maintenance was never going to fly.

 

[Japanmanx3]

I find it funny that you judge how much someone likes Nintendo without knowing them, because they don't have the same views as you.

Judging? The impression is based on the facts OP gave in the OP and that facts he responded later in the thread with. I asked specifically if the friend was a Dudebro just to clear the air and see if his friend was a "gamer" (ugh hate that term) in the first place. I would think that if friend was willing to compare the the Nintendo ID Account stuff and VC stuff to the Xbox One reveal, then he likely doesn't think to highly of Nintendo atm. OP stated his friend has a WiiU and played 2 levels of SMB3DW and was done. And the friend dislikes the hardware of WiiU. All that plus his friend suggesting that he should be more outraged at Nintendo over the VC stuff just reaffirmed to me that he isn't the biggest current fan of Nintendo atm.

 

[SegaShack]

Let it go.

Sony was once the company that said to go get two jobs so you can get a PS3. People let it go.

This.

They were also the company that released the digital only (you can only buy off PSN store) PSP Go, and made those Online Passes mandatory for their own games, when faced with complaints they did nothing and both of these were actually released and out a few years. Those were both arrogant and now people love Sony. Holding grudges is silly, always has been. I got a PS3 in 08 despite the hate for it and had a blast. I'm also loving my Xbox 1.

Don't miss out on something you would want because of political reasons OP. Especially when we all know that where the system materials come from, and how they are manufactured are both much bigger issues (this is for all electronics manufacturing). They make "anti-consumer practices" (that never even happened) seem like absolutely nothing.

If the system has games you like on it that are worth the price for entry for you, than buy it. If not, wait for a price drop until the value becomes right for you. No need to live in the past.

 

[GHG]

People talk about the 24 hour checkin but most people use the internet 24/7.

Actually that is very untrue.

 

[Eusis]

Which is why the proposed hybrid solution (internet AND physical media, complimenting each other) makes so much sense now and for the foreseeable future. Periodical check-ins are the price to pay, but I'm hoping for a practical solution on consoles where those wouldn't be mandatory. I'd give up family sharing for it, although it's worth noting that I'm speaking from the perspective of a guy who doesn't give a shit about used games or any kind of game sharing, so I guess I'm a minority.

I think what we have now works fairly well, every game not dependent on physical goods (read: Skylanders) is available digitally, and as games fully install the only pain is needing to disc swap for authentication. But then on PSN sales can be crazy good, and I'm thinking more of long term for when games are out of print and licensing get them pulled from the store, like the case was with Marvel vs Capcom 3. Something like each disc having a code and paying to get a digital copy ONLY for that one copy might be a nice feature and compromise to avoid the check-in without actually taking out physical freedoms though.

People talk about the 24 hour checkin but most people use the internet 24/7.

The internet can be unreliable, some places are actively antagonistic to it growing past a certain point, and if I don't need it for my game then I shouldn't have to depend on it. MMOs are fine, Ubisoft's PC games for awhile were bullshit. Plus sometimes parts of your hardware fail and you can't immediately replace them, my modem was flaking out and needed to be replaced, and I've had a few routers that were an absolute pain in the ass, the 24 hour thing could've worked out but the rumored 3 minute thing would've been an outright deal stopper and indicated some people at Microsoft were really mother fucking ignorant.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Losing access to your single player games when your connection goes on the fritz or live goes down for maintenance was never going to fly.

It would be great if they could offer the solution which would let you play with periodical check-ins under normal circumstances, but also allow for playing offline with the disc in the drive. I think that would solve most problems that people had with the earlier solution.

 

[Jomjom]

One could argue that technically we haven't accepted "checkin every 24 hour" DRM, but practically speaking we have in a lot of ways (which is probably the mindset a lot of folks at MS had). <devils advocate>DLC, multiplayer games, leaderboards, and streaming video services are a huge part of the "Xbox experience". Hell, they're a huge part of pretty much any tech experience nowadays. All of those things require an internet connection. If people are already buying the system for that stuff, what's the issue with a 24hr checkin that allows digital licenses to be transferred? Sure, you can technically play iOS games or Steam games if your internet is down for more than 24 hours, but surely there's not a ton of people doing that on purpose, right? And hey, at least now they have a way to get rid of the shitty digital game they bought, instead of it being permanently locked to their account</devil's advocate>

Sure, they were incredibly and hilariously wrong, lol, but I could easily see the line of thinking that led them down that road

I know you said devils advocate, but I would say there are a ton of people doing exactly that on purpose. When kids with their iPads go on trips to Vegas, grandma's house, whatever they are without internet for way more than 24 hours. They would throw a fit and in turn, their parents would throw a fit if little Billy's Angry Birds suddenly popped up a "please connect to the internet." Same goes with any of the handhelds.

I understand the Xbox One is not a portable device so that exact situation wouldn't apply, but if someone was not thinking that the moment someone who either couldn't pay the internet bill for the month, or someone had their internet go down for over 24 hours, or someone brought their console to an internet-less home for an extended stay would immediately make a stink about seeing a "Sorry you can't access any of your games, connect to the internet immediately", that person was extremely short-sighted and deserved to lose their job on the spot.

 

[Satchel]

Very wrong.

The original Xbox One was the superior xbox One. The sooner the DRM comes back, the better. It's almost 2014. I'm not stuck in 2003.

 

[NullPointer]

It would be great if they could offer the solution which would let you play with periodical check-ins under normal circumstances, but also allow for playing offline with the disc in the drive. I think that would solve most problems that people had with the earlier solution.

A point that was brought up countless times with the usual response (on forums anyway) being incredulity at the idea that a game publisher would allow one purchase of a game to be played by two people: ie. one with the physical disk offline and one with the digital install from the disk, online.

But somehow it becomes reasonable again once its ten people having access to a game from a single purchase.

Don't ask me how that works.

 

[Eusis]

I know you said devils advocate, but I would say there are a ton of people doing exactly that on purpose. When kids with their iPads go on trips to Vegas, grandma's house, whatever they are without internet for way more than 24 hours. They would throw a fit and in turn, their parents would throw a fit if little Billy's Angry Birds suddenly popped up a "please connect to the internet." Same goes with any of the handhelds.

Is Angry Birds really set on constantly doing that? I had that happen with a paid version of Seasons and it was around then I stopped caring about the series, a portable game's one of the last ones that should be constantly demanding the internet be there when it's single player anyway.

 

[Nags]

I was greatly offended by what I perceived to be extreme arrogance from Microsoft surrounding the Xbox One announcement with regards to the no used game sales, online check-in etc.

Firstly I was offended by the policies themselves for being what I felt were extremely anti-consumer and then further by comments from various Microsoft mouthpieces in the aftermath. The presence of Microtransactions in nearly all of the First Party launch games was further salt in the wound for me.

I buy and enjoy all platforms usually, but the Microsoft rhetoric soured me against the platform so much that I have sworn I will never buy an Xbox One.

Now this brings me to an ongoing argument that I am having with a friend. He thinks I'm stupid for not getting an Xbox because I will be missing out on all these fantastic games because of what he sees as much to do about nothing. He defends Microsoft by saying that "At least they were upfront about it" and he feels that I should feel more outraged by Nintendo for "Selling me the same games over and over again"

What say you on this GAF? Am I wrong to hold onto this hatred? Do you think Nintendo's transgressions are on the same scale as Microsofts?

You are not wrong. I will never buy an Xbox One for the same reasons you won't. As far as missing out on great games, well there are none for it at the moment, plus all third party titles are going to look and perform better on PS4.

 

[Bundy]

I don't see the use in being bitter about something that no longer exists.

Just because someone didn't succeed in screwing me over, doesn't mean that I forgot that it ever happened.
But maybe that's just my way of thinking.

 

[GorillaJu]

Nothing to do with bitterness, just the fact that I won't support a company that removes features I like with no benefit in its stead and then brazenly tells me this is how I always wanted it.

I won't buy an Xbone more because I'm afraid they'll do it again

 

[IndigoStyle]

I dont understand the fuss about DRM. I never trade in games anymore as i used to cause the games lose 80% of their value in a month! Its not worth trading in and they just take up space at home. I prefer buying it digitally and always having it there.

After using the Xbox One i do understand what Microsoft were going for and I'm not opposed to the idea as i was. I would have loved to be able to share my library with my brother once he moves out next year, or share it with my friends without worrying about getting a scratched disc back.
But i do not like the 24 hour check-in, i would have preferred a check-in every 72 hours.
The outrage was over exaggerated and was blown out of proportion even more by people who were not even interested in getting it in the first place.

 

[The One and Done™]

Very wrong.

The original Xbox One was the superior xbox One. The sooner the DRM comes back, the better. It's almost 2014. I'm not stuck in 2003.

Good for you. You're very right. Let's just hope that Microsoft will gradually brings back DRM over time.

 

[Mael]

Each gen the industry manage to find new ingenuous ways of screwing with customers and each gens I feel like playing less and less.
I'm still not paying for online even with trinkets attached whatever happens.
If they're so hell bent on nickel & diming me at every turn I'll do something more productive with my time.
This hobby is already no longer the most fun activity anyway.

 

[NullPointer]

Good for you. You're very right. Let's just hope that Microsoft will gradually brings back DRM over time.

There's a very small black humor part of me that wants to see them try.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

A point that was brought up countless times with the usual response (on forums anyway) being incredulity at the idea that a game publisher would allow one purchase of a game to be played by two people: ie. one with the physical disk offline and one with the digital install from the disk, online.

But somehow it becomes reasonable again once its ten people having access to a game from a single purchase.

Don't ask me how that works.

Game publishers already allow that in a way, since you can play the same game simultaneously from multiple consoles. For instance, on Xbox One you (or anyone in your household) can play the same digital game on your home console, but also simultaneously on another console that you're currently logged in from.

Ten people would not have access to the same game at the same time. It's similar to physical game sharing where you can lend your game to 10 (or much more, if you wish) people, but only one at a time.