Microsoft Drops Xbox One DRM Restrictions - UPDATED

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

So Who thinks there gonna Have Fine Print in there End User Agreement that Says they can turn those Features back on any time they want?

Mr. Q:
Somebody call up Hell and find out if the temperature down there went below freezing.

I'm inclined to go with the pack and say "Too little, too late" but I'm willing to be forgiving if the following changes were also implemented:

1) Offer an Xbox One without the Kinect and with a lower price tag.

2) Make it backwards compatible with 360 games and controllers (you'll earn some major brownie points with the FGC since you're bringing Killer Instinct back).

3) Apologize for your disrespectful actions that began with the first Xbox One press conference.

4) FIRE YOUR PR STAFF!

I know its asking for a lot. But if Microsoft wants to stay alive in this console generation, it needs to get its shit together and start fixing their problems like yesterday.

I would remain VERY cautious with the Killer Instinct thing.
http://kotaku.com/killer-instinct-on-xbox-one-is-free-for-your-first-cha-512655221

YEEY free-2-play title with 1 character. also Double Helix is the developer.
They made awesome titles such as Green Lantern: Rise of the Manhunters, Battleship (2012, game from the movie) and other top-quality games.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they're going to 'kill' Killer Instinct.. Oh noes.

...Huh.

Okay, Now I'm a bit more okay with getting this if at some point it releases a must-have title for it.

After the insults, this isn't enough. I don't care what games are released on it- it's just. Not. Enough.
I've felt seriously insulted by the things MS has said, and how they've said them. From saying that I'm "backwards" because I'll still want to play current games (let alone older ones!) in a year's time, to acting like I don't matter because I fall into the "doesn't have 100% control over their internet" category, the things they've said- and they've said some pretty stupid and insulting shit- have alienated me in a way that would take something big to come back from.
And saying "hey, we're not going to stop you from being able to play games any more" isn't enough.

If they were to make it backwards compatible... I would consider it, but still probably not go for it. If they were to, say, remove the Kinect that I don't want (by making Kinect optional as both a tool and as a purchase) as well, I would probably seriously consider purchasing one once the price started dropping.
But this? This is not even coming close to "enough". Not for me. And I hope not for a lot of others. I would like to see MS have to really scramble and work to pull back any sort of good opinion- but unfortunately, now they've made this move, I think it'll be enough for enough people that MS won't bother trying to fix anything more down the line.

Mr. Q:
Somebody call up Hell and find out if the temperature down there went below freezing.

I'm inclined to go with the pack and say "Too little, too late" but I'm willing to be forgiving if the following changes were also implemented:

1) Offer an Xbox One without the Kinect and with a lower price tag.

2) Make it backwards compatible with 360 games and controllers (you'll earn some major brownie points with the FGC since you're bringing Killer Instinct back).

3) Apologize for your disrespectful actions that began with the first Xbox One press conference.

4) FIRE YOUR PR STAFF!

I know its asking for a lot. But if Microsoft wants to stay alive in this console generation, it needs to get its shit together and start fixing their problems like yesterday.

1) this may be unrealistic at this time with how they've designed the system to require the kinect be on at ALL times while the machine is on.

2) Impossible. Maybe the controllers, sure, but those are pure profit to companies (go ahead and look at how much the new first party controller prices have dropped after 6 years of the consoles existing, answer: none). As for the games being backwards compatible, they claim to have made a significant change in system architecture that would render it impossible. I'm not sure I believe them, but if they suddenly announced that they were making the systems backwards compatible we would all instantly know that they lied to us and were just trying to make us buy EVERYTHING twice. To give some credence to them, they're also x86 machines so perhaps there's truth in not being able to be backwards compatible. That being said, all future consoles will have 0 excuse as x86 is standard pc format. I wouldn't be too surprised if people learned to hack ps4/Xbone disks to be played on powerful consoles. This whole used games bit and the 24-hour check in may habe been to side-step that possibility.

3. That would require them understanding just how insanely rude they came off. They literally told us that consumers are too dumb to care about the details. That they expected this kind of backlash but that their "data" told them that consumers just throw their money around without much thought. The kind of stupidity required to tell reporters that this is your reasoning seems to indicate that they don't understand much of anything.

4. The PR department could absolutely be restructured. This is the biggest console PR nightmare yet. Somebody didn't do their due diligence. The market research team, if there is a seperate one, may be the ones to blame. If they handed PR and the executive horribly wrong data then their misteps could have been overly reliant on that data. This is the same problem publishers are running into with their forecasters convincing them that they can make COD money off an RPG if they just throw enough money at it.

I think that they admitted a mistake and corrected it. Listen, those of you in the "I still am not going to buy it since they planned on screwing us" think about this: They didn't. They did not do the idiotic things they said and backed off. Now, granted, I am sure they backed off for financial reasons and not from the goodness in their hearts, but that is big business. They also cannot later reverse the decision after you buy it. That is a guaranteed class action lawsuit. Further, I guarantee you that Sony made M$ think they were planning something similar and were ready for the attack ads when M$ made the boneheaded move. It worked. That is big business too. Basically, people should just buy whatever system they like the most and not be swayed by PR meant to inflame emotions. From both sides. I am not sure what system I will get. Maybe neither. Maybe both. Maybe only one. But I am certainly not going to be swayed by emotion for a boneheaded decision that was never implemented.

Shadowcreed:

Mr. Q:
Somebody call up Hell and find out if the temperature down there went below freezing.

I'm inclined to go with the pack and say "Too little, too late" but I'm willing to be forgiving if the following changes were also implemented:

1) Offer an Xbox One without the Kinect and with a lower price tag.

2) Make it backwards compatible with 360 games and controllers (you'll earn some major brownie points with the FGC since you're bringing Killer Instinct back).

3) Apologize for your disrespectful actions that began with the first Xbox One press conference.

4) FIRE YOUR PR STAFF!

I know its asking for a lot. But if Microsoft wants to stay alive in this console generation, it needs to get its shit together and start fixing their problems like yesterday.

I would remain VERY cautious with the Killer Instinct thing.
http://kotaku.com/killer-instinct-on-xbox-one-is-free-for-your-first-cha-512655221

YEEY free-2-play title with 1 character. also Double Helix is the developer.
They made awesome titles such as Green Lantern: Rise of the Manhunters, Battleship (2012, game from the movie) and other top-quality games.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they're going to 'kill' Killer Instinct.. Oh noes.

Ah, so that is why they sounded familiar. Sweet mercy, why did Microsoft commission a studio who's only major releases are crappy movie games that served to do little other than waste peoples money?

I'm going to throw out a word of caution to whatever XBox fans remain out there. Just because of this big change, I'm suggesting that you might not want be one of the first to unbox this sucker on release day. Let somebody else figure out that it needs a 3 day download, and if you enter a code in the microwave for nachos it bricks itself. Because even the most jaded voice of practical experience is quietly screaming that this is going to be a rough launch now.

Please remember, up until Monday at least they were still pushing this as the greatest group of features ever that would change our lives. Then Wednesday they do a 180 and declare all of the DRM is gone, and you can share and sell disks. Well common sense says that there is no way that is true yet. By Wednesday an executive decision had been made to remove the DRM. It is highly unlikely that they have anything ready yet. The engineers are just starting to look at it today. And it probably hits a lot of subsystems. Remember games fully install on the HDD. Games may be looking for call home features or DRM call outs. The games were designed to the XBox One specs. It is doubtful that they simply had a magic switch ready to just turn it all off overnight. (Seriously did anything in any public statement leave you thinking that maybe this was an optional feature and they had a backup plan?). So this is not simply throwing a switch to turn off DRM. This is basically developing a new feature to eliminate and replace the prior one. Less than 6 months before the street date. With the consoles already starting production at the factories and the games starting to head towards gold versions. They might pull it off? But common sense and experience tells me that at best it will be a poorly tested and validated rough ride. And if I were you, I would elect to not be the first clown lined up for the rodeo.

I think they've totally gone over the top i think the biggest problem was that people didn't want the damn thing to brick if the internet is out for a few days. Fine check in periodically just don't turn my games console into a really expensive bluray player if it can't connect for more than a day

There acting like a spoilt child if they can't have their own way all the time they'll take their ball and go home.

BaronVH:
I think that they admitted a mistake and corrected it. Listen, those of you in the "I still am not going to buy it since they planned on screwing us" think about this: They didn't. They did not do the idiotic things they said and backed off. Now, granted, I am sure they backed off for financial reasons and not from the goodness in their hearts, but that is big business. They also cannot later reverse the decision after you buy it. That is a guaranteed class action lawsuit. Further, I guarantee you that Sony made M$ think they were planning something similar and were ready for the attack ads when M$ made the boneheaded move. It worked. That is big business too. Basically, people should just buy whatever system they like the most and not be swayed by PR meant to inflame emotions. From both sides. I am not sure what system I will get. Maybe neither. Maybe both. Maybe only one. But I am certainly not going to be swayed by emotion for a boneheaded decision that was never implemented.

They undid ONE thing. That 24-hour check in won't matter when cloud processing forces always on.

All the other issues still stand. All of them. This was only one and the fact that they actively attacked consumers and called us dumb consumers who don't pay attention to details IS a problem. They can't just wave that away by caving. They need to actually admit that they were being wrong. Even EA backed away from them in this. EA for goodness sake.

You should absolutely take into account how a company treats you. If a waiter is particularly rude ot me, I have no idea if they aren't also taking a piss in my drink behind closed doors. I do not buy clothes, food, games, consoles, or anything else from companies that treat customers that way and neither should anyone else. Their own PR department is treating us that way so we have no idea what other shenanigans they have up their sleeves.

Lightknight:
As for the games being backwards compatible, they claim to have made a significant change in system architecture that would render it impossible.

I'd accept that- IF we were told exactly what and how. If it was explained to us.
We know why the PS4 won't be backwards compatible (at least, the information is out there, I don't know how well-known it is), so I want to know why the XBone won't be. It won't make me any more likely to buy one, though- the 360 plays original Xbox games (admittedly, the ones I've played have occasional visual issues, but there's absolutely nothing game breaking or even experience ruining) so unless they offer something... I'm not touching it. I'll stick with a 360 for the foreseeable future to continue enjoying the games I still enjoy, and in the future get a PC that can at least handle recent games- I've been wanting a decent machine for doing digital art on, while a machine designed specifically for one won't exactly be perfect for the other, I'll get something that can do both to a standard acceptable to me. Because, frankly, MS isn't making me feel the XBone will be "a standard acceptable to me" even with this move- and even if they did, I'm too insulted to touch them with a very long poky thing until it's more than just "acceptable".

This is absolutely hilarious. They knew they were going to bomb and so hastily reversed their policy decisions.
Still not buying one though. Let's see how many people do after this entire fiasco.

When they say "region free" are they referring to the console or the games? If it's the games, colour me intrigued.

Anyway, between this announcement and the fact Sony bricked several PS3's yesterday, I have to say Xbone has moved from 'never-ever' to 'possibly'. Remove the Kinect requirement, stop shafting indie games and maybe issue a REAL apology, and they will probably have won me over (I'm an Xbox gamer at heart). Till then I'm still very much on-the-fence.

For me personally the damage is already done, the fact they were willing to do this in the first place and be so anti-consumer about it all shows what kind of company they are and as such lost my business (shame to as I was primarily a 360 gamer) and I'm not buying the whole "we listened to the customer" PR lines, its damage control for the business and shareholders not in the customers best interest

Add into that the extra 100 on the price tag, mandatory kinect and a ton of other features I will never use (TV/Sports stuff) and its just not for me.

The reason I was going with the PS4 is less on priciples but more on what they offer, a more powerful PS3 with no restrictions. If the Xbox One had just been a more powerful 360 then they would have had my business. Sony didn't try to reinvent the wheel, they just gave me what I'm looking for in a home console, a machine that plays games.

nevarran:

Anti-Robot Man:

nevarran:
I guess the digital gaming is delayed for another 10 years then... Shame.
Welcome back 60$ games. It may even go higher, I heard the prices of the plastic are going up.

Except that digital versions will still be available the same day as physical copies for those who still want to waste their money (if you want to buy overpriced digital copies Games on Demand already gives you that option on XBL). Or you buy a pc and never have to sully yourself with a corporeal copy again, and actually get them for a decent discount.

That's my point. As the things work right now, dev/publishers cannot offer lower prices for digital games, because they would anger the retailers. Even Steam cannot afford to have lower prices on new games, gladly they're balancing it with amazing sales.
As long as we have the current status quo, the situation is not changing.

How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

Ren_Li:

Lightknight:
As for the games being backwards compatible, they claim to have made a significant change in system architecture that would render it impossible.

I'd accept that- IF we were told exactly what and how. If it was explained to us.
We know why the PS4 won't be backwards compatible (at least, the information is out there, I don't know how well-known it is), so I want to know why the XBone won't be. It won't make me any more likely to buy one, though- the 360 plays original Xbox games (admittedly, the ones I've played have occasional visual issues, but there's absolutely nothing game breaking or even experience ruining) so unless they offer something... I'm not touching it. I'll stick with a 360 for the foreseeable future to continue enjoying the games I still enjoy, and in the future get a PC that can at least handle recent games- I've been wanting a decent machine for doing digital art on, while a machine designed specifically for one won't exactly be perfect for the other, I'll get something that can do both to a standard acceptable to me. Because, frankly, MS isn't making me feel the XBone will be "a standard acceptable to me" even with this move- and even if they did, I'm too insulted to touch them with a very long poky thing until it's more than just "acceptable".

All we really know is that the 360 was not x86 and that the Xbone is. If it would require tweaking the code even a little then we'd be talking developer time for every game and potentially a mandatory update for each and every game.

The PS3->PS4 at least makes sense. The crazy proprietary hardware of the ps3 required devs to bend over backwards with asset category allocations. The migration to x86 was pretty darn necessary to make things easier for developers and so it significantly more forgiveable for that reason.

But I don't know that the 360 is that different from an x86 machine. The ps3 would take a top of the line machine to emulate if that were even possible but I've always thought of the Xboxes as fairly close to computer environments. Maybe there's something I don't know but I'm not certain they really have that much of an excuse.

Anti-Robot Man:

nevarran:

Anti-Robot Man:

Except that digital versions will still be available the same day as physical copies for those who still want to waste their money (if you want to buy overpriced digital copies Games on Demand already gives you that option on XBL). Or you buy a pc and never have to sully yourself with a corporeal copy again, and actually get them for a decent discount.

That's my point. As the things work right now, dev/publishers cannot offer lower prices for digital games, because they would anger the retailers. Even Steam cannot afford to have lower prices on new games, gladly they're balancing it with amazing sales.
As long as we have the current status quo, the situation is not changing.

How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

They were gonna offer discounts on digital sales when you traded in games.
In the press release it was mentioned that that was one of the aspects that would be lost in catering to the panic.
Did you read the things the Xbox employee wrote about how part of the idea behind Xbox's system was partly similar to Steam?
They might still have been offering $60 games but can you imagine what trad-in discount they might have offered? Especially if they offered larger discounts when trade/buying the new version of an EA Sports game or that sort of idea.
But we can talk about what we might have missed till the cows come home. I'm sure they'll try and implement the better ideas piecemeal over time.

Anti-Robot Man:
How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

You're saying it, retailers make money mostly from used games. Cut that and they'll become less strong and less relevant.
Ensure every console has internet.
Show the people that the digital games can function in a similar fashion as the retail games. And in some cases even better - 10 family member having quick access to you library, no mater where they are. One of them being able to play simultaneously the same game with you, without having to own another disc.
Make the disc pretty much useless. If you cannot re-sell it, nor lend it to a friend, the only reason to have it, is so that it can adorn your shelve.
Since you no longer have to pay for disc printing, retail shops and middle men, you can offer some discounts or even lower prices.
And who knows, people may jump on it.

One thing is sure, keep the current status quo and nothing will change.

And MS will have all the competition from Sony, Nintendo and the PC.
Just like Amazon has. There are tons of digital books shops, a dozen of other e-book readers, and all the tablets and smart-phones in the world. Even if none of these are on their closed market (you have apps to read on other devices, because they're allowing it), and despite all the exclusive books they have. That's real competition, competing with content and features.

Now, have they fixed the other problems? Did they stop that nonsense mandatory Kinect crap, the way it's always watching? Are they fixing the 21 countries exclusion problem? Have they figured out that as a gaming platform, more people want to play games on it? Beyond that, I don't see how this helps. Wasn't the whole point of this tedious nonsense to build a customer-specific library, a la Steam, but one that allowed the resale of digital goods (albeit at the expense of physical ones, with no bridging gap between)?

Also, wait, wasn't this a critical operating feature? Like, if you didn't have this, the Xbone would become the Xbrick? And now they're saying you could turn it off at will?

Hey, give M$ some credit. They tried to do something new with the whole "playing a game without the disc" thing. I was thinking about that, and I couldn't think of a way that would've worked without DRM.

I didn't care too much about the online check considering I just got a new job (which meant new none crappy internet, woo!) but I still don't want to spend 100 more for a webcam which I will never use...Not to mention how much RAM the thing uses on it's OS, wait sorry 3 OS's.

Oh and then there all those features which aren't available out of the US on launch, not that I care about sports.

Adam Jensen:
But they were praising their DRM as something good for the consumers.

That tells us 2 things:
1. It was never supposed to be good for the consumers
2. Cloud processing was always a lie if all the games can work offline

And the fact still remains that they were praising those features as something that's going to be beneficial to us. And now they're removing the things that they advertized as attractive features that were supposed to give it the edge over the PS4. Which means that now we have two pretty similar consoles. Except that one is 50% more powerful and $100 cheaper. If they get rid of the mandatory Kinect and lower the price, then we can talk about competition. Because right now Sony is still in the lead. And most people have pretty much renounced Microsoft as the devil himself.

Not really, all it shows is Microsoft removed features that would negatively impact it's bottom line.

The removal of these features in no way shows them as consumer unfriendly, only that consumers did not want them. Though they are still consumer unfriendly, common sense tells us that already.

With this revelation I may just be picking one up. 100 extra bucks is a small price to pay for preserving 7 years of achievments >.>

ShakerSilver:
If it was so easy to turn these "features" off, then how easy do you reckon it will be to turn them back on at their pleasure? Nuh-uh, no sell, Microsoft.

You told us these features were necessary and that we needed them, but since you're so willing to remove them, they're obviously not so important and you just lied to us. And how the heck do you even expect to justify being $100 more expensive than the PS4 when you've removed almost all of your "features" and have worse specs than the PS4?

Obviously M$ doesn't care about gamers as much as Sony or Nintendo do, which is probably why the Xbox was a complete failure and the 360 barely managed to sell until later this gen.

Alright so there are a few things wrong with your reasoning here

1. Microsoft planned their DRM systems for months, maybe years, and are only removing them now because of the backlash they've been receiving for consumers, so criticizing them for actually doing what we hated them for not doing - listening to their customers - is just stupid.

2. Microsoft never told you these "features" (digital registering of games, etc) were necessary for the console to run. They were however necessary (more or less) for Microsoft to follow their vision of an always-connected console and be able to have developers take advantage of off-site server processing to enhance their games and system performance - ideas that Microsoft has been forced to more or less give up as consumers are not ready accept a 24-hour verification system for these benefits.

3. Are you saying that the 360 was in any way a failure for Microsoft? I hope you're joking. As to whichever company cares the most about "games", well the obvious answer is that none of them do; it's a business and their looking to make money and assuming anything else is naive. Oh and you can be pretty certain that Sony's R&D had their own DRM systems planned, or at least prototyped, but opted out of it seeing as Microsoft received so much criticism.

BehattedWanderer:
Now, have they fixed the other problems? Did they stop that nonsense mandatory Kinect crap, the way it's always watching? Are they fixing the 21 countries exclusion problem? Have they figured out that as a gaming platform, more people want to play games on it? Beyond that, I don't see how this helps. Wasn't the whole point of this tedious nonsense to build a customer-specific library, a la Steam, but one that allowed the resale of digital goods (albeit at the expense of physical ones, with no bridging gap between)?

Also, wait, wasn't this a critical operating feature? Like, if you didn't have this, the Xbone would become the Xbrick? And now they're saying you could turn it off at will?

The Kinect is not always watching you. You can control what the Kinect is allowed to see and hear in a privacy menu.
This isn't news, it's been written on their official website for quite some time.

I don't know why it's taking people so long to understand this. Everything I've read on this thread so far have only reinforced my suspicion that much, if not most, of the criticism the Xbox One has received is based on misinformation, the consumer not even knowing the truth, basing their criticism on rumors.

nevarran:

Anti-Robot Man:
How would the previous system Microsoft proposed have changed that? They were still going to sell physical copies through retail channels as a delivery system - it wasn't all digital. There's a good reason for that too, even with an always-online console they've got to sell the thing - which requires retailers. Retailers make virtually no profit on console sales (which are incidentally bulky and take up a lot of floor space that could be filled with more high profit items), the reason they stock them is to build the market so that customers return and buy games from them (where they can make a profit). If MS tried to cut them out of selling games, they wouldn't sell their consoles for them.

Competition is what drives down prices, not the good will of publishers.

You're saying it, retailers make money mostly from used games. Cut that and they'll become less strong and less relevant.
Ensure every console has internet.
Show the people that the digital games can function in a similar fashion as the retail games. And in some cases even better - 10 family member having quick access to you library, no mater where they are. One of them being able to play simultaneously the same game with you, without having to own another disc.
Make the disc pretty much useless. If you cannot re-sell it, nor lend it to a friend, the only reason to have it, is so that it can adorn your shelve.
Since you no longer have to pay for disc printing, retail shops and middle men, you can offer some discounts or even lower prices.
And who knows, people may jump on it.

One thing is sure, keep the current status quo and nothing will change.

And MS will have all the competition from Sony, Nintendo and the PC.
Just like Amazon has. There are tons of digital books shops, a dozen of other e-book readers, and all the tablets and smart-phones in the world. Even if none of these are on their closed market (you have apps to read on other devices, because they're allowing it), and despite all the exclusive books they have. That's real competition, competing with content and features.

1. Cutting out retailers is all well and good for MS - if they could push hardware without them, they weren't in a position to do that, otherwise they wouldn't have included discs at all and would've simply gone all digital (which would then have been an easier argument for their DRM policies). The middlemen still serve a function, and this wasn't going to get rid of them in any case, just reduce the middlemen to MS's chosen few, which included Gamestop. There would've been less competition in the market as a result of this.

2. The sharing feature was never discussed in sufficient detail, but they did say the following about it: no simultaneous play of titles (stated by Major Nelson in the Angry Joe interview with him and elsewhere). It also would've be far less convenient in actually cases of people going round a friends house to play a game, because (a) it required a much more frequent check-in, so internet instability would've been a greater problem, and (b) it wasn't going to stream the game On-Live style, it would have to be redownloaded on that console before it was ready to play, which could result in a wait of several hours.

3. Microsoft already distribute titles fully digitally in a way that completely by-passes retailers - XBLA games. The pricing of these games has actually steadily risen during this generation, rather than falling as you would suggest would've happened if a similar model was applied across the board.

4. Competition on the PC market is very different to that between the consoles, because any number of vendors with any number of business models can utilize the platform. Digitally the consoles each offer a closed market, so there is no competition for a consumer once they invest in one of the platforms.

If companies want to lure people into digital, they have to give them a compelling reason to make that decision, trying to force it on them is why people reacted so strongly to what MS tried to do.

Love the , we listen to the community. More like they saw some future sales figures and wet their pants. And it leaves the kinect where it is and the price. Still think the damage is done thou ,and they can reactivate the online thing anytime the see fit .they ones that own it then will have no options.

Too little, too late. I don't care if they add tits and a bazooka in on the deal, I'm not getting it because I don't want to fuel the company that tried to screw us, and nearly got away with it too. Sony can have my money because they have been better from the very start, even though I generally don't like picking the lesser of two evils (or the shinier of two shits, rather).

I'd wager that most games never see 10 owners (maybe 2 or 3 would be my guess) so if the shared library worked the way it was implied, it would've done more harm than good

TomWiley:

BehattedWanderer:
Now, have they fixed the other problems? Did they stop that nonsense mandatory Kinect crap, the way it's always watching? Are they fixing the 21 countries exclusion problem? Have they figured out that as a gaming platform, more people want to play games on it? Beyond that, I don't see how this helps. Wasn't the whole point of this tedious nonsense to build a customer-specific library, a la Steam, but one that allowed the resale of digital goods (albeit at the expense of physical ones, with no bridging gap between)?

Also, wait, wasn't this a critical operating feature? Like, if you didn't have this, the Xbone would become the Xbrick? And now they're saying you could turn it off at will?

The Kinect is not always watching you. You can control what the Kinect is allowed to see and hear in a privacy menu.
This isn't news, it's been written on their official website for quite some time.

I don't know why it's taking people so long to understand this. Everything I've read on this thread so far have only reinforced my suspicion that much, if not most, of the criticism the Xbox One has received is based on misinformation, the consumer not even knowing the truth, basing their criticism on rumors.

I will not have sex in a room with a functioning camera/microphone that has access to the internet... at least not for free...

The damage has been done. At this point, the casual consumer will probably be wary of the Xbone because all the information about features Microsoft were going to implement is out there and, let's face it, people are stupid. As for fans and hardcore gamers, Microsoft has already alienated them by saying 'Fuck you, we don't care about you'. Not to mention the fact that, as people have already said, it wouldn't be hard for Microsoft to re-implement these features once people have already bought the Xbone (because once Microsoft have their money they no longer have to care about the consumer base).

I was never going to buy one and this whole fiasco hasn't swayed me.

Grape_Bullion:

Trippy Turtle:

I just don't understand why people care more about the principle of the thing than actual results. Would you still have he same opinion if the Xbox One does a complete turnaround and becomes the best console ever? I mean, in the end you would just miss out on an awesome product because you are having a tantrum over an apology.

On topic however, this is great news. Depending on if I like the games and possibly if they make the kinect non-compulsory I may yet get one. In the end it will come down to how much I want the games on it though, and how much I like the controller.

If your morals and principles are so poor that you can purchase a product that originally fringed upon your rights and represented everything wrong with the consumer side of the gaming industry, maybe you should buy yourself an Xbox One. It's not about "awesome" for people who have even the slightest respect for themselves. No "turnaround" has happened. Microsoft isn't all of a sudden the good guy because they say so. They want to make money. They want to make it so badly that they'd bold face lie to you. If you pick up an Xbox One because of these "new" changes, you directly represent how gullible and weak a consumer base can be, especially when a company has done something wrong and then comes back with "lol just kidding guys, you don't gotta do all that shit we said you would have to originally".

I seem to have missed the part where making a product some people don't like infringes on our consumer rights. Care to elaborate?
Anyway I never said a turnaround has happened, I was saying if it did, only an idiot would hinder themselves to get back at a multi-billion dollar company by robbing them of one sale.
If you really think not holding a petty grudge means a lack of self respect and poor morals then you have problems.
Also I would appreciate it if you wouldn't base your arguments on what Microsoft might, but probably won't do. Its a little hard to argue with you when you have no real evidence for me to counter.

Anti-Robot Man:
1. Cutting out retailers is all well and good for MS - if they could push hardware without them, they weren't in a position to do that, otherwise they wouldn't have included discs at all and would've simply gone all digital (which would then have been an easier argument for their DRM policies). The middlemen still serve a function, and this wasn't going to get rid of them in any case, just reduce the middlemen to MS's chosen few, which included Gamestop. There would've been less competition in the market as a result of this.

Any electronics store can sell hardware, they don't need Gamestop and the likes of it.
Not including the discs would have been even worse than what we had. I'm talking about slowly killing the physical copies, not remove them as an option from the get-go.
And I don't know if Gamestop would've been included as a partner, but it still removes the power from them. Because the console manufacturer can at any given moment remove them from their "chosen few" list.

Anti-Robot Man:
2. The sharing feature was never discussed in sufficient detail, but they did say the following about it: no simultaneous play of titles (stated by Major Nelson in the Angry Joe interview with him and elsewhere). It also would've be far less convenient in actually cases of people going round a friends house to play a game, because (a) it required a much more frequent check-in, so internet instability would've been a greater problem, and (b) it wasn't going to stream the game On-Live style, it would have to be redownloaded on that console before it was ready to play, which could result in a wait of several hours.

The simultaneous play sounded like a neat feature, shame it wasn't real then. But it's all gone now anyway.
Every hour a ping between you and the servers, come on... It would've been a problem only in some extreme cases.
And you can always have your friend dl the game before going to his house. And did they say you cannot use the disc to install the game?

Anti-Robot Man:
3. Microsoft already distribute titles fully digitally in a way that completely by-passes retailers - XBLA games. The pricing of these games has actually steadily risen during this generation, rather than falling as you would suggest would've happened if a similar model was applied across the board.

I'm looking at Steam and Kindle and it seems to work the way I say it.

Anti-Robot Man:
4. Competition on the PC market is very different to that between the consoles, because any number of vendors with any number of business models can utilize the platform. Digitally the consoles each offer a closed market, so there is no competition for a consumer once they invest in one of the platforms.

That's the thing, having the better features and functionality would be the reason for people to invest in your platform. That's the competition I'm talking about.

Anti-Robot Man:
If companies want to lure people into digital, they have to give them a compelling reason to make that decision, trying to force it on them is why people reacted so strongly to what MS tried to do.

Steam was forced on the PC gamers, and it seems to work just fine.

If you don't buy the Xbox One because you want to "prove a point" now, you're a fucking idiot.

All they would think is that they should have stuck with their initial decision. By purchasing the Xbox One NOW, you show ALL console developers that their decision to rid the console of DRM was fiscally correct.

And regardless of what some you naive idiots think, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are CORPORATIONS and are all in it for the MONEY.

I know some of you are easily misled and believe that Nintendo's PR department has anything to do with their financial department, but that's just what they want you to think.

If you weren't planning on buying the Xbone anyway, then do whatever you want, but if you think you're still 'sending a message' by not getting it now... you're VERY wrong.

you can share your games with ten friends (its only a 40 minute demo)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here