They are still consoles. Choosing to compare them to PC rules because their internals are closer than they were last generation is just silly. As such, being consoles, they should still be judged by console rules.

As long as we're pulling in wildly different platforms with different rules and expectations we might as well consider more modern PC software usage rules. UT99 and Starcraft were nearly a decade and a half ago after all. The PC space isn't all roses and unicorns these days.

Exactly. WHY ARE WE MOVING BACKWARD?

Also Starcraft let you install 7 other multiplayer copies.

As for consoles, modern consoles are basically PCs now. You didn't install a game on your Genesis did you?

Eh. What you're suggesting is, to me, something close to piracy. Not in the evil you stole the product sense. But in the you bought one copy of a game but somehow expect to play it in multiple places simultaneously.

Because that's how it worked back in the day. You either installed your game on all your computers, or the game let you install multiplayer only copies on other computers. One copy of the game meant you and tons of friends could play UT 99 or Starcraft. Starcraft's spawn copies even worked on battle.net.

On a console, you used splitscreen. One copy, multiple players.

WHY ARE WE GOING BACKWARDS?

And why are you providing examples from computers when we're talking consoles? This is after I explicitly said:

That you can [play a copy of an XBL downloaded game in more than one location at once] with the current implementation of XBL is likely more an unintended loophole that worked around the one game, one disc / cartridge, one location at a time restriction that has always been present on consoles.

As long as we're pulling in wildly different platforms with different rules and expectations we might as well consider more modern PC software usage rules. UT99 and Starcraft were nearly a decade and a half ago after all. The PC space isn't all roses and unicorns these days. Can I play a steam game purchased on one account in multiple locations at the same time? What about my 100% fairly purchased copy of Microsoft Office for Mac that actively looks over the network and refuses to run any of the suite's applications if another computer is running any of the applications with the same license code? What about Diablo and the newest Simcity who's launches were spectacular failures because of idiotic DRM and sever capacity issues. Heck even Starcraft's spawn system, if I recall correctly, was limited to three installations that could only play multiplayer and only when playing with the full install that had the correct license key.

As for consoles, where has it been suggested that the Xbone won't support single console splitscreen? Admittedly Microsoft representatives have said a lot of contrary things, but as far as I know nobody has mentioned the console's inability to do splitscreen multiplayer. Did you just make that up?

In all seriousness, your post was so flawed that I'm left scratching my head, wondering if you're even debating in good faith here…

Eh. What you're suggesting is, to me, something close to piracy. Not in the evil you stole the product sense. But in the you bought one copy of a game but somehow expect to play it in multiple places simultaneously.

Because that's how it worked back in the day. You either installed your game on all your computers, or the game let you install multiplayer only copies on other computers. One copy of the game meant you and tons of friends could play UT 99 or Starcraft. Starcraft's spawn copies even worked on battle.net.

On a console, you used splitscreen. One copy, multiple players.

WHY ARE WE GOING BACKWARDS?

For instance, if I have two consoles (and I do, and have experienced this exact situation) and I want two players to play the game simultaneously on the two consoles,I need to make sure that I've correctly distributed my profiles and license or else I won't be able to achieve what I want without buying a second license.

Yes, and?

If I understand you correctly you want to play two copies of the game while only buying one.

This basically means the system wants the opposite of what you suggest. Far from being logged into or last logged into the console on which content was purchased, the purchaser's profile should be anywhere else, and your guests or family members should be on the console used to buy the content.

Eh. What you're suggesting is, to me, something close to piracy. Not in the evil you stole the product sense. But in the you bought one copy of a game but somehow expect to play it in multiple places simultaneously. Because your two consoles are in the same room means you should only need to buy one copy of the game? What about me where my two Xboxes are 40 miles apart? Should be me and my brother be able to play one purchase of Bioshock Infinite at the same time? We certainly didn't think so which is why he bought it first, liked it, then bought me a copy as a gift. Same reason we have two copies of Reach, Mass Effect 3, Halo 3, and others.

Having all games be downloadable will be a nice step forward, but unless I misunderstand you, you want it to also mean you can play any one game purchase in two places at once. That you can do it with the current implementation of XBL is likely more an unintended loophole that worked around the one game, one disc / cartridge, one location at a time restriction that has always been present on consoles.

It would be nice, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Any lending time sufficient to play through your average SP campaign (say, ten hours) could easily cut into used purchases significantly, perhaps making the whole revenue stream not worth going after. And if that lending can be done with downloadable titles instead of just physical media, then MS has just set up a huge electronic lending library for the same games they're trying to sell, so that definitely won't happen.

Developers (supposedly) hate used game sales because they make no cut. If, when I lend you a game, it marks it so only your profile can play it until I unlend it, then the status quo is maintained. It would be the digital version of me handing you the disc without the difficulty of getting you to search around for it in your piles of stuff when I want it back. If it help kill off one person buying a game then giving it to another, a process where the developer makes no money, then so much the better… from their point of view I'd think.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is also just as much about eliminating what piracy these platforms have. Essentially, X hours from the last time each Xbone connected to the Internet, it will start treating your legally bought media as if it might have been a pirate copy because it can't positively verify that your license rights haven't been revoked.

I'm sure piracy is part of it. But I'm fine with it as long as my Xbox trust my offline profile enough to let me play my games without connecting to the internet. I would even be understanding if it locked out lent copies of games if I hadn't been online in a certain period of time. A small step backward from handing someone a physical disc to be sure, but I would accept the easier ability to lend and unlend in exchange for a bit more oversight to make sure piracy isn't going on.

As for selling games and the developers getting a cut of each sell, thus necessitating some sort of in store tracking system… yeah that doesn't sound fun. It means Microsoft gets to pick and chose who can resell a game. It would also mean you can't hand me a 20 and me hand you a copy of a game I'm done with. Unless there is some way to do it from in front of my Xbox, profile based or something. I might accept that, even with a small fee to be payed by the game's new owner. Say 10% of the game's original retail price. If they were to do that then Microsoft and the game developers who currently see 0% of the money from a game's sell would always see some money from any sell. That's a small win for them.

Now admittedly, everything I've said here is from my usual optimistic point of view. But I don't see the point in being negative about things until we have enough info to do so. I am however very unhappy with the way Microsoft is handling all this. I'd far prefer they have one set, unified message, even if it is just "we don't know yet." That would be far better than all these mixed, conflicting messages we've been getting over the last few days.

Still, I agree with you. It certainly looks to me like what they're going to do is require installation, link installs to profiles, and use the Internet connection to invalidate previous installs following a sanctioned sale.

How does it look this way to you? As far as I can tell, the SUM TOTAL of our knowledge on this subject so far is an interview with a Microsoft representative in which it was stated that you'll be able to play at your friend's house if you bring the disk over and sign in, and a clarification by another Microsoft representative that this information isn't nailed down yet.

How do you get 'certainly' from this?

Yeah. Something like that.

The only thing I thnk will be different is that any profile will be able to play a game as long as the owner profile is currently downloaded onto / last signed in on that Xbox.This would let a family all play a game with their own saves and what not.

That'd be nice, but that's not how it works now.

Removing the disc requirement and adding an installation requirement is useful because it levels the playing field between downloaded and boxed retail product: they both get treated the same way.

Currently on XBL, downloaded games don't work exactly this way. An XBL download can be played by any profile on the console it was originally downloaded onto, or by the profile it was purchased by on any console. That's a bit more restrictive than your example, but only applies to a few users.

For instance, if I have two consoles (and I do, and have experienced this exact situation) and I want two players to play the game simultaneously on the two consoles,I need to make sure that I've correctly distributed my profiles and license or else I won't be able to achieve what I want without buying a second license.

If I buy one copy of Title A on Console 1 using profile Narc. then I can do the following:

Any profile can play Title A on Console 1. Console 2 can only play title A when Profile Narc is logged in. So my guest player has to be on Console 1, so I can login to my profile on Console 2 and play the game against them (LAN play).

This basically means the system wants the opposite of what you suggest. Far from being logged into or last logged into the console on which content was purchased, the purchaser's profile should be anywhere else, and your guests or family members should be on the console used to buy the content.

If they throw in a lend system where I can authorize one person with my disk to play my game that would be swell...

It would be nice, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Any lending time sufficient to play through your average SP campaign (say, ten hours) could easily cut into used purchases significantly, perhaps making the whole revenue stream not worth going after. And if that lending can be done with downloadable titles instead of just physical media, then MS has just set up a huge electronic lending library for the same games they're trying to sell, so that definitely won't happen.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is also just as much about eliminating what piracy these platforms have. Essentially, X hours from the last time each Xbone connected to the Internet, it will start treating your legally bought media as if it might have been a pirate copy because it can't positively verify that your license rights haven't been revoked.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/publishers-to-receive-cut-of-xbox-one-pre-owned-sales-at-retail/0116137

Unless there turns out to be really substantive differences between what this rumor describes and what the reality turns out to be, I think Major Nelson will have lost a great deal of respect, which is regrettable. This is the problem with talking about your product before the details are determined. Sure, you get to gauge the reaction, but there are some genies that can't be put back into the bottle. Even if the system turns out to be not as bad as some people think, there will be those who firmly believe that MS truly wanted to do this to their customers, but simply couldn't quite get away with it.

But then books have radio and tv ads which don't let you read the book. Movies have actor interviews and interactive websites that show other things than what's in the movie. Why shouldn't games also use alternate forms of promotion as long as they have a demo to give the true feel of the game?

The only thing I thnk will be different is that any profile will be able to play a game as long as the owner profile is currently downloaded onto / last signed in on that Xbox.This would let a family all play a game with their own saves and what not.

If they throw in a lend system where I can authorize one person with my disk to play my game that would be swell...

How could I rule it out before I even know much about it? How could I even decide at this point when they haven't even pinned down what type of game it is?

You've said this a couple of times and I'm not sure where it comes from, as we have a pretty good idea at this point.

It's an action RPG from the first person perspective (ala borderlands), with a matchmaking based system to dynamically share your world with other players (similar to Dark Souls) and containing large scale shared player hubs (ala PSO).

I mean, that leaves out a ton of details, and doesn't say anything of it's quality, but we have a pretty good idea of the genres the game encompasses and a high level view of how content is structured.

That's pretty speculative. I think it's speculation on fairly solid ground, but it's still speculative.

In another thread, I saw someone ask how crafting would work. They're apparently inferring that from "action RPG" but nothing has been said about it, and I'd actually be pretty surprised if any was included. Clearly some people like that and are looking forward to it, and may be disappointed if it is not included, because to them, that's what "shared world action RPG" means.

So I do think it's too early for anyone to decide if they haven't taken the position that they're going to buy it because it's Bungie's next game. (Which is basically my position.)

To be fair to Cody, the fact that it's up for pre-order was advertised quite prominently on B.net pretty much immediately after the announcement way back in February. If I were one to get my panties in a bunch over the marketing of video games I could see some sort of argument there. Honestly, who cares? Sit tight and gameplay footage will be forthcoming. Release is a long way off and there's no imperative to pre-order.

All other marketing for creative products usually has to do with what you're getting.

Movie Trailer - This is what you'll see and hear in the movie. People go to the movies to see and hear them. So, it gives me an idea of what that is like.

Music Single / Video - This is what a song off the album sounds like. People buy records to hear them. So, it gives me an idea of what it's like.

Books - This is how a sample chapter reads, or what the book is about. People buy books to read them. So, it gives me an idea of what it's like.

Video games - People buy games to play them right? So why isn't the marketing about what it's like to play the game? Oh right, because the games industry wishes it was hollywood.

You're going to have to cut this out, because I keep agreeing with you.

I didn't like it when Bungie first moved away from using in-engine (if not in-game) footage for trailers, and I still don't like it. Your argument is sound; of all major audiovisual entertainment media, games are currently the most divorced from the content of their primary promotional materials.

Well now that would be a strong conclusion with an incorrect premise. That's... not really better.

(Well, the rain one is incorrect. The premise of the game one isn't necessarily incorrect, but it isn't necessarily correct either, so...)

An argument can be perfectly valid without being sound.

If Santa Clause doesn't exist, then I'm a reindeer.
Santa Clause doesn't exist.
Therefore I'm a reindeer.

That's a logically valid argument. So is the argument I made regarding rain.

Yes, but one of your premises was false. Rain is NOT the only way for a sidewalk to get wet. That's the entire point of that example. rain means the sidewalk MUST be wet because there's no reasonable scenario that prevents that consequence, whereas a number of scenarios can create a wet sidewalk: open fireplugs, people washing cars, etc. That's not the same as your argument being unsound, but it does invalidate your conclusion.

At any rate...

Still, I agree with you. It certainly looks to me like what they're going to do is require installation, link installs to profiles, and use the Internet connection to invalidate previous installs following a sanctioned sale.

That means the Xbone has to connect often enough to make sure that you can't install a game and continue using that install after you've sold it.

It means that sales can only go through sanctioned channels. Presumably MS is partnering with GameStop on this because they don't want war with retailers. Fine, so MS has no cojones. No surprise there. (If Apple had done the same thing with the iTunes Music Store, there would be no downloads, and you'd be going to a bricks and mortar record shop to fill an iPod up with DRM protected AAC tracks.)

When a 2nd person pops in a previously sold Xbone game disc, the system has to have some way of knowing that this isn't a friend's console you're just logging into, but the new owner of that disc. They can't trust the old owner to voluntarily give up their rights to the game if the sale is made directly between the two parties. Somebody might take the cash, hand over the disc, and fail to give up the rights. The new buyer gets screwed, the seller gets to keep the game and the money.

Likewise, you can't just trust the new person with the disc to pay the fee and install the game. What if the disc was stolen? What if an unaware Xbone owner lent a game disc to a friend, not knowing how the system works? If you just invalidate all old installs when a disc is installed on a new console, then MS is essentially supporting theft.

The only way to do this is with a trusted third party. MS could do this by providing their own online market as part of XBL; allowing someone to invalidate their install in exchange for store credit, and accepting payment from the buyer and permitting a download, or providing a prepaid mailer to the original owner to forward the game disc. (That could get wonky.) MS would be becoming the Ebay of used Xbox discs. MS gets to control the system, take their cut, and give developers a share of used game sales that they currently don't have.

That's a lot to take on, though, and it's fraught with possibilities for abuse and incompetence. So I think it's likely they'll anoint the current market leader in used sales (GameStop) and let them handle it the way they always have; there will just be extra steps. When they buy a used Xbone disc, they'll have to have some way of invalidating the old installs. Probably you'll have to either login to a terminal at GameStop to authorize that. They'll do the same when they sell a used title, linking that title to the gamertag of the new owner.

Of course, if they don't add the component necessary to let sellers and buyers login to their profiles on-site, then it means that every extant copy of every installed Xbone game in the wild is open to the vagaries of abuse by GameStop employees. That doesn't sound good to me.

Well now that would be a strong conclusion with an incorrect premise. That's... not really better.

(Well, the rain one is incorrect. The premise of the game one isn't necessarily incorrect, but it isn't necessarily correct either, so...)

An argument can be perfectly valid without being sound.

If Santa Clause doesn't exist, then I'm a reindeer.
Santa Clause doesn't exist.
Therefore I'm a reindeer.

That's a logically valid argument. So is the argument I made regarding rain.

(Well, the rain one is incorrect. The premise of the game one isn't necessarily incorrect, but it isn't necessarily correct either, so...)

Well, to be fair, that isn't really sound logic. You need to reverse the conclusion and use that as your premise, thereby constructing a contrapositive, to make a statement with a reversed conclusion. As such, "if you don't take the game over to their house it wouldn't be free to play" is what you'd wind up with, and even that could be incorrect (So even our premise isn't airtight). If we allowed such callous abuses of the system, this would be a valid conclusion: "If it is raining, the sidewalk is wet. Therefore, if it isn't raining, the sidewalk isn't wet." This is untrue, because other things can make the sidewalk wet. The contrapositive to be found is "If the sidewalk isn't wet, then it isn't raining." Alright, I admit, I just wanted to talk about logic for a bit; you got me.

That's true, unless you say IF AND ONLY IF it's raining is the sidewalk wet. In which case, the logic works out just fine, since rain is the only way for the sidewalk to be wet, so if it's wet it means it rained, and if it's dry, it didn't rain. So long as you say IF AND ONLY IF.

So, you can play your game on a friend's box for free IF AND ONLY IF you use your own profile.

Valid now. K thx bye.

In the (idiotic) sea of misinformation over the last few days one Microsoft person also said something about anyone on any profile being able to play it if they had the disc. Or maybe it was anybody on that Xbox. Or maybe both… Did I mention the idiotic sea of disinformation?? Anyway it sounded like your made up scenario of it only, no ifs ands of buts, being tied to a single account will turn out to be wrong.*

I don't know. I've seen the scenario Cody mentioned described on several sites, where games have to be activated and linked to a profile and can only be played by that profile, regardless of the disc or the console.

I have not seen anything mentioned about play from the disc. All I have seen is a mention that installation to the hard drive is required. And with regard to games that are installed to the hard drive, they behave as Cody described.

In fact, if you install a game from disc on a 360 while logged into a profile, there are some things you can't do on that console unless you're logged into that profile. For several games I've seen the workaround suggested that you log out of all profiles before installing the game in order to avoid the problem.

For games that download to the HD, Cody's scenario is the case: you must be either on the console for which the content was bought, or logged into the profile that bought it, in order to play. Cody's scenario just extends that to games installed from the disc, and this is the only scenario that gives MS control over lending or used copies.

If you can play from the disc without the profile, and can play from the HD while logged in, then every disc copy of a game could theoretically be played in two places at once: from the installed copy while logged into the profile that activated it, and from any other machine with the disc in the drive. (Xbox One games do NOT require the disc in the drive to play games that are installed, and all games must be installed. This much I'm pretty sure I've read everywhere.)

I read the info the same way Cody did-- you won't be able to independently sell used games for a mutually agreed-upon price, because the buyer will have to pay MS something, possibly as much as full retail price, which kills the used market almost entirely. You also can't lend anyone a disc without accompanying it, because you need a profile.

If MS were smart and not greedy, the fee for secondary copies would be lower than full price, they'd have an online market for the exchange of used games with low commissions and floating prices, and they'd treat game lending with some kind of library feature, either allowing a few days of free play on a borrowed copy, or some kind of really small daily rate, something so small nobody would bother with it. This would allow people to borrow copies of a friend's game to audition it and see if it's worth owning, while giving MS some revenue out of situations that currently bring them nothing.