- No text -

- No text -

The DRM and the two of them were pretty much hand-in-hand. Take one out of the equation and the other has to go down too.

Yeah it's a real shame about losing the F&F thing, but I think it's just too soon for that feature, at least in my country. The infrastructure is just not in place. The amount of difficulty in establishing an internet connection at my mother's new house has been an eye-opener for how outdated we really are. The sister, for another example, is going to become a poor student very soon with a 360 and unlikely to have a One80 for a few years. I don't really want to share games with many other people.

Give it a few years for faster, better connections where there's never a doubt of being offline and it would be great.

I genuinely believe that Microsoft are right about cloud gaming, I just don't think we're ready yet.

I couldn't agree more. There's a lot about the Xbox One that I predict being the standard in the years to come. However, with the Xbox One's reliance on such functionality, an ordinary or less fortunate consumer's ability to take advantage of it would be hindered greatly.

I regularly ship games to my brother who's serving overseas in Japan. I don't mind buying them for him, but I would have liked to see him have access to it faster. Sharing or gifting a digital game over such long distances would've been amazing. So I'm kinda bummed that functionality won't be included at launch or in the foreseeable future.

Yeah it's a real shame about losing the F&F thing

I don't understand. Why not just let someone opt in to the 24 check in DRM in order for all this cool stuff?

Like, you get it and it functions like an xbox 360, but if you want to play without the disc in the tray or share with your 10 family members, you can turn on the DRM and do it if you want.

Isn't that the best of both worlds?!

Yeah it's a real shame about losing the F&F thing

You realize that if you checked out a game using that feature, it was a timed demo right? You could not share full games.

Its a direction at least - man the internet bitching actually worked! That's... really stunning. It has to be a record or something.

Never underestimate the power of bad PR. Believe it or not, but in this day in age if enough people complain loudly about a bad thing, it can make a difference, and that's a good thing.

Now - about that required all seeing & hearing eye. . .

I'm just going to unplug the damn thing from the XBO whenever I shut the system off.

Bry on twitter said it best for me - now we can focus on deciding on the games we want to play, rather than the policies we want to play by.

Not to sound like a broken record, but...couldn't agree more. :P I'll be paying attention a lot more to the subtle or obvious differences in multi-platform titles and who on friends list I'll have a better time playing with.

All I'll say isthis fascinates me.

Yes! This reminds me so much of what I love in crazy platformers and brings it on a massive scale. I'll buy this as soon as it comes out.

Besides, Bungie is really pushing the Destiny on Playstation bit, so I'm thinking it's the way to go. I'll trust Bungie and their console "recommendation/blessing" over Microsoft and their bullshit.

I feel like a broken record, but as Deej has stated it is Sony that is interested in them not the other way around. At most it's Activision pushing for Playstation. I am not saying this to try and sway someone to one side or the other, just want to make sure correct information is out there.

Besides, Bungie is really pushing the Destiny on Playstation bit, so I'm thinking it's the way to go. I'll trust Bungie and their console "recommendation/blessing" over Microsoft and their bullshit.

Bungie isn't pushing Destiny on Playstation. Playstation came to them. I can only imagine why. Oh Snap.

Thankfully Sony stated during E3 that they would not allow publishers to charge an additional fee for online capability in their games. As of now, the possibility still remains that Xbox games will be open to having online passes, but it seems that Sony has put their foot down since now PS4 users will require PS+ to play online already.

When I say mandatory Kinect I mean having to have the device plugged in at all times.

I wonder how much of the weekend was spent slaving the engineers to find a way of making that patch?

Same. My current gaming plan =

1. SAVE UP a TON of money and… buy Destiny for Xbox 360
2. Make more money <BlinkHalo2TeaserStyle>In Progress</BlinkHalo2TeaserStyle>





























3. Win lottery.

HAVE money to pe-order... no. WILL have money by November? Most likely. Luckily Amazon doesn't require a payment up front.

Amazon requires a $50 reservation fee and a $15 cancellation fee should you decide to cancel.

And the currently secret Activision deal that was important enough to announce on stage at E3… but not important enough to actually tell us what the deal was…

Some days I really hate the gaming industry…

P.S. I really enjoyed your post and it's included link to the info. Good job on going the extra (virtual) mile. :)

For real. You and me both dude. That'd put an end to all of this, especially if there was somehow a way to play from PC with people on the Xbox or Playstation. If Bungie could somehow pull that off, damn, easiest choice on the planet. Might not even need to buy a new console at all (though the PS4 still has me intrigued with some of its games).

I'll be the Trotsky to your Lenin! PC forever! :P

Cross platform play would be really cool, but that's probably just my inner-Legion talking.

Really what this whole story shows me most is that a (relatively) small number of very entitled people can make a lot of noise about something really not that significant/important in the grand scheme of things, and actually get results. Shame we can't change anything that actually matters.

I disagree. Yes, The Internet was short sighted, yes the future was pushed back by a few years, but I don't think The Internet is to blame here. I think the responsibility lies almost totally with Microsoft.

Microsoft had the chance, maybe even a good chance, to usher in this new era of the "fully internet enabled console" but fumbled so badly that they were on their way to losing this generation of the console wars before it even began. If Microsoft hadn't been so damn incompetent they might have actually gotten it done. They were actually offering a good number of benefits far above and beyond what we have today with the 360, but they completely failed to sell it. Instead of an energetic, optimistic view of the Xbone's ability to make gaming easier and better we got months of rumors before the Xbone was even unveiled, followed by a stupidly secretive console reveal (that also focused oddly on TV….), followed by a couple weeks of executives and media guys seeing who could better contradict each other, followed by project leaders saying ridiculous things at E3 like "…buy a 360 if you need to play offline…", followed by what seemed to be a complete lack of empathy or planning for people who needed a non-internet connected console like people in the military, all of which lead to The Internet's fury, Sony's smart E3 announcement, and the Xbone becoming the Xbone 180.

I think maybe Microsoft was afraid of the response to the "radical" new system they had come up with. They thought it was a good idea. They were sure it was the way forward. But They weren't sure enough to commit to it fully. So instead of sending a strong message they tried to hide their message for as long as possible. It's like they thought if they delayed in telling us how the Xbone would work for long enough it would be on store shelves getting purchased and people would love it and everything would be ok. Funnily enough that may have actually worked better than what they did. If they'd just pulled an Apple and kept their mouths shut and launched and sold the console on the same day I bet it would have been a success. There would have been some grumbling and confusion about selling games and so on, but people would also have had a bunch of new features they never had before.

In the end Microsoft blew it by having one of the weakest PR messages in recent memory. The Internet was not to blame for Microsoft's 180, it was just doing its normal thing of mocking and tearing down a failure.

This attitude is infuriating. It's shallow, shortsighted and inaccurate. I think Jason Chen hit the nail on the head here: The Internet Just Made Microsoft Kill a Car for a Faster Horse.

How exactly is a disc-based system that behaves exactly like a digital distribution system but with weirdly added physical media a "car", and how does eliminating this system destroy the future of digital distribution?

Was the weird disc system meant as a means of easing more people toward digital distribution, in the hopes of turning it over entirely in the future to institute a Steam-like model and cut out the retailers?

Microsoft was very close to doing something that made sense, but the ways in which they were off were pretty meh. Plenty of what they wanted to do with it doesn't even have any reason to require an always-online system.

First-sale Doctrine respected! Don't have to ask "permission" on a regular basis to be "allowed" to use your own property!

This attitude is infuriating. It's shallow, shortsighted and inaccurate. I think Jason Chen hit the nail on the head here: The Internet Just Made Microsoft Kill a Car for a Faster Horse.

.... but, but, but horses are way cooler than cars...

Also, all we've done here is kicked the can further down the road. Eventually the concept of buying games on physical media is going to seem terribly archaic; with Steam and the App Store, the future of buying games is through account-bound licenses. The physical media they might come on are irrelevant. One day, consoles won't use physical media, and we'll have to deal with (i.e. accept) the realities of a future, but take that hand in hand with the benefits (no disc swapping! day one releases without pre-orders or having to wait for a home delivery! play any game you own anywhere!)

... Heh, as long as you have internet, a Live subscription, and the permission of Microsoft, who hopefully still has their servers running for the device, at least in this particular situation. :)

With a disc I can play the game anywhere too, and to me, MORE anywhere, as I can do it without internet restrictions or account subscriptions, as long as I bring a little disc with me. And without discs, you also don't get a neat manual you can read in the bathroom. You also lose artwork and packaging that you can put up on the shelf and build a pretty library with. With a disc, I don't have to worry about internet going down, company's servers going offline, or anything. I can just plop a disc in to any system I can and play it, alone or at a friends. And if I want to lend it to my friend, I can just leave it there. That sounds more convenient, flexible, and moral to me than tying my property directly to a corporation and their permission with digital downloads and DRM.

(Also, waiting for Halo 2 to be delivered is still a lovely memory - I was so excited! So home deliveries or going to a store is an exciting, fun experience - not something I'm interested in streamlining.)

Just because it's newer or 'higher tech' doesn't mean it's more convenient for everyone, and just because we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. And even if it IS more convenient - it was already ridiculously convenient in the first place, hah. We're making lazy things lazier and eliminating the need for actual in-person human interaction. I think the future of gaming should focus on making the actual games better instead.

They should just offer both models for different prices or something. Higher Live fee with cheaper, instantly-downloadable games with all those benefits you want; and a cheaper Live (or no Live), with more expensive physical copies with all the benefits I want.

Yes, yes. I know. We're all horrible Luddites for standing up for consumer rights, which as we all know stands in the way of Progress™. If only we primitive dinosaurs would abandon our archaic caveman technology — because discs and dead tree books are only a step removed from stone tools —, then we'd see a new Golden Age. In all seriousness, though, I have serious skepticism about the notion of an all-digital future. To me it's as likely as flying cars and virtual reality being the norms. I've been meaning to write a huge article about this for the last couple of years, but have never gotten around to it, but it's a subject that requires far more time and effort to discuss in a thread mainly about the XBO. Needless to say, I don't think we'll be seeing an all-digital future in our lifetimes, mainly due to, among other things, the facts that neither the infrastructure nor the demand is there. I personally don't really do the whole digital downloads thing. I do not own an MP3 player or an e-reader or even a smartphone, and I don't game on the PC (which of course entails I don't have a Steam account). I'm sure you probably enjoy some or all those things, but I refuse to adopt those technologies. Aside from the occasional Virtual Console or XBLA purchase (which are typically tiny files by today's standards that don't warrant a disc), I still buy all my media in physical form: CDs, Blu-rays, and good old paper & ink books. I know a lot of people have for the past decade-plus been gleefully trading away quaint notions like ownership and control in exchange for a bit more convenience, but I'm not one of them. If the future is "all digital," well, it's a future I want no part of.

Now, if people want digital, then go for it. They have that option. But I'd also like the option to do things the old way by buying physical, because I find it to be better and I like to actually own what I buy. When iTunes came out, CDs didn't just disappear. The advent of Netflix didn't cause Blu-rays and DVDs to just evaporate into the ether. The Kindle didn't cause the printing presses to automatically shut down. There's room for both digital and physical, and there's no reason that consoles absolutely have to become strictly "Steam boxes."

Some might say, "But MS needed draconian DRM and online requirements to usher in the Future of Gaming." Oh, if only I could be so trusting. I don't think for one minute that their main reason was to bring about new advances in gaming or anything noble like that. It was about used games more than anything else. Several people and publishers in the game industry have been making a (completely baseless) stink about used games for the last few years. It's essentially a repeat of the late 80s when Nintendo of America was swearing up and down that game rentals were going to be the death of the industry, and they fought Blockbuster tooth and nail to eliminate rentals (they failed, of course). "Big Entertainment" has rarely had our best interests in mind. From attempts to block VCRs from the market in the early 80s to the push for laws like SOPA and PIPA today, they have continually sought nothing short of copyright being an absolute and perpetual property right. They want a world where the publishers control everything now and forever, lock, stock, and barrel, where possession is no longer nine-tenths of the law because we are no longer buying "products" but rather paying for "services." They have shown time and time again that they have no use for things like Fair Use provisions, the public domain, and the First-sale Doctrine.

So yeah, I have every reason to be suspicious of "Big Entertainment," including the game industry. And I sure as hell don't think for one minute that going the "Steam box" route would suddenly lower prices. Consoles are closed platforms. When we buy digital games on an Xbox console, we can only buy from Microsoft's store, with MS's DRM rules being the standard and the console itself being a fixed piece of hardware. PC, however, is an open platform, and Steam has competition from Good Old Games, Green Man Gaming, and various other digital storefronts, all with widely varying DRM schemes (from strict to none), not to mention you have mods and you can customize your PC to your heart's content. So yeah, I'm skeptical that a digital-only console would benefit us in any way. It would just be another means of exerting greater hegemony. They gain absolute control, we get jack squat in exchange (except maybe the illusion of greater convenience).

But regardless of whether MS's intentions were pure or not, I refused to support a system that did not respect the right to lend, sell, or give away my property in accordance with the First-sale Doctrine (and don't try to hand me that "you only bought a license" bullshit). I refused to support a system that required me to ask their permission every 24 hours to be allowed to use my own property, as if I was a child with limited TV privileges an MS were the parents I had to beg to be able to watch my favorite cartoon. Not only should "permission" and "allow" never be part of the equation, but there's also the question of whether I'd still be able to play my XBO games 15 or 20 years down the road (those servers likely won't be around forever). If I spend $500 on a system and $60 a pop for a game, then I had goddamn better well be able to use those things whenever and wherever I want, internet access be damned. No other console in history imposed such arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions, and there's absolutely no reason to impose them now. To quote Half-Jaw from Halo 2, "This is unprecedented... unacceptable." I'm used to doing things a certain way, and I'm not about to change. For 30 years, from the Intellivision to the Xbox 360, I've enjoyed the benefits of the First-sale Doctrine, and I've never had to ask the console manufacturer permission to play my games. I paid for the system and the games, and that was that. Had MS's prior policies stood, the XBO would have fundamentally changed the business-customer dynamic as it relates to console gaming, and I was not going to be part of that. No fucking way, no fucking how.

There's no reason that they had to attempt to implement system-wide DRM to physical games. There's no reason they had to mandate an internet connection. The PS4 is capable of cloud computing and all sorts of other fancy next-gen stuff too, but it did so without having to fundamentally change a 35+ year status quo (and besides, "the cloud" might not be all it's cracked up to be). Hell, even the all-digital Steam has an offline mode; you don't have to connect to Valve's servers on a periodic basis for permission to play your games. There was nothing preventing them from offering a robust digital marketplace while still maintaining basic expectations people have had for nearly four decades in regards to a console (e.g., lending, trading, reselling, gifting, & renting games, being able to play offline indefinitely if one so chooses).

And what are we losing from this policy shift, really? "Family sharing" and part of the "digital library" thing. In regards to sharing, that whole thing always sounded too good to be true, and therefore it likely was. Given all the bitching about used games, you really think publishers would allow one person to share a game with up to ten others with no restrictions? If anyone thought that would have been the case, well, I also have some ocean-side property in Nebraska for sale. That story from yesterday about the family sharing being a glorified demo system may have simply been a rumor, but it's damn plausible. As for the whole digital library thing, Marc Whitten said "Now, of course, your physical games won’t show up that way. The content you bought digitally will. But you’ll have to bring your discs with you to have your games with you." So, it still applies to digital downloads, just not to discs. And really, is losing that functionality for disc-based games such a big deal? Is it really that big of an inconvenience to have to bring the actual physical copy with you when you go over to a friend's house for a Halo 5 LAN or whatever? So, we're losing a couple of minor conveniences, but in exchange we're gaining so much more. We retain our First-sale Doctrine rights, we retain the freedom to play offline indefinitely if we so choose (especially good for people with bad or no connection), which also means that there's no possibility that our XBO will one day be unable to play our games, and finally there's the fact that we're getting a region-free Xbox.

All in all, I'd say MS's policy reversal is a net gain for the vast majority of people. I for one am no longer going to boycott the XBO, and will likely get one when Halo 5 comes out (still getting a PS4 first; the lower price is important given that this will be an expensive holiday season and there's several big Wii U games coming, plus I'm more interested in Sony's exclusives). However, I will hold them to this, and I will drop them in a heartbeat if their policies ever again conflict with my interests as a consumer. There will always be a trust issue, and I'll be keeping my eye on them (another reason why I'm still going to wait a while to get an XBO). My doing business with a company is contingent on the quality of their product and their service. I rarely do "brand loyalty" (only Nintendo has that from me, but they've earned it with a rock-solid 25-year-long track record), so I have no qualms with ditching MS, even if it means missing out on series like Halo. Game companies need to remember that one antagonizes their customers at their own peril.

This shouldn't really change anything except that consumers now have options. Maybe the industry should put pressure on retailers and THEIR resale policies.

How, exactly? They've already tried things like moving game content to DLC or using ‘online passes’ (both of which gamers have been vociferous in their objections towards). Tying licenses to individual gamer accounts was designed to do precisely this, and this reversal ensures that game retailers will have exactly the same power to push used games over new as they did in the last generation. I feel like a lot of gamers have chosen short-termism over the bigger picture of ensuring that the game industry stays healthy.

- No text -

- No text -

I think this sums up the thoughts of those who were saddened by this change rather will. I posted it here since Dorklys site might not be the best place to view from where ever "work" is.

I really like the idea of more money going to the developers, but not at the cost of the freedoms of ownership. Instead, I just boycott GameStop and their crappy practices and support my local, friendly game store (if I could still - GameStop ran them all out of business) or buy and sell directly to others on eBay. Money is either going to the developer (and I buy new for smaller studios, especially), a local store, or to a previous owner - not corporate middlemen.

I always refer to that postscript for any neckbeards or people worried about Microsoft spying on them. They're like stuck up bitches who relish the thought that every guy spends night and day ogling her. I can understand that they want to be the prettiest girl at the ball, but there's not a single person at Microsoft who would seek payment for such an immoral and disgusting job.

I know that was a (IMO poor) attempt at hyperbolic humor, but still, people lamenting the loss of a couple of minor conveniences and saying "Now all we're getting is another Better Graphics Box" need to get some perspective.

The XBO can still do a great many things that the 360 could not do, and there's even a couple of features that it has that the PS4 doesn't have. Even if the XBO doesn't fundamentally change gaming — and let's be honest: the only fundamental change was going to be to the used game/second-hand market, which is what DRM and online requirements were about — that's still not a bad thing. As I pointed out in a post I made on HBO after the PS4 announcement, that's not really anything to be disappointed about. The history of gaming has been one of stepwise evolution. Even the increases in computing power we get every generation are in and of themselves capable of bringing us newer and better things. Even ignoring all this "cloud" business that MS and Sony go on about, I've noticed that many devs are doing things other than simply making prettier graphics. They're actually doing things that affect gameplay, things that simply couldn't be done on prior generations due to hardware limitations. We're getting larger game worlds (you could make a drinking game out of how often "open world" was said at E3), we're seeing large-scale physics-driven features, and we're getting the ability to play larger MP maps with greater amounts of players. It's not simply going to be "seventh-gen gameplay with better graphics." We need not bemoan the lack of revolution, but rather be in awe of the power of evolution. Even though the fundamentals of gaming haven't changed all that much over the last several decades — even things like motion control and networked/online gaming have existed since at least the 80s if not earlier —, gaming itself has evolved substantially in that time, and I have been nothing short of impressed at all the progress that has been made since I first started playing games some 30 years ago. Dismissing each new generation as "just a power upgrade" greatly understates just what those power upgrades are and have been capable of.

The benefits of the DRM scheme were attractive to me, actually. The Kinect requirement bothered/bothers me more.