xbox one111111111111111 -
xbox one111111111111111 -

Microsoft did not handle the fallout from its Xbox One announcement particularly well. By failing to explain exactly how its new online features would impact gamers, it sparked a wave of comments, anger and, let's face it, hatred, which has now resulted in the company doing a complete 180. Insert 360 joke here. The Xbox One no longer has to connect to the internet once every 24 hours; games can be traded and shared as they are now; the idea of owning 'a licence' has been forgotten about entirely.

It's fair to say that a number of these policies were a little eyebrow raising. Game ownership and the everpressing debate on how to handle trade-ins has been nibbling at the industry's feet for years, a very strict divide being constructed between gamers – who rightly believe they can do as they wish with their bought product – and publishers – who rightly believe subsequent sales of their property should make its way back into the business. In all honesty it's a travesty that the audience should even have to be involved with such an argument, and even if Microsoft hadn't reversed its stance it's unlikely this sore point would have just all-of-a-sudden vanished.

The real problem with this u-turn is what it means for the next-generation of hardware. Along with falling into the same old trap that we now have two boxes that are more or less identical to one another – exclusives notwithstanding – it delays a digital future that may've just worked out for the best.

It's easy to fly the 'Microsoft is trying to control us' flag, but given that the Xbox One hasn't even got an official release date yet means that's nothing more than hearsay. Admittedly the same is true of taking the opposite stance, but there's every chance the ideas Don Mattrick and co. were supporting could actually have benefited us in the long run. Right or wrong, I've been intrigued and interested about the console since it was revealed on 21 May, much as I was at Sony's conference earlier in the year.

In the same way as iTunes did with music, Amazon did with books and, yes, Steam did with games, Microsoft could've installed similar concepts that granted us things we've been hoping for since online become so important. Affordable, cheaper games; the ability to get a fair price on your digital sales; DLC that wasn't overly priced or often hidden on a disc; the death of tacked-on 'we must include this to stop pre-owned sales' multiplayer. There would've been a settling period, sure, and if the last few weeks are anything to go by the Xbox One would've made plenty of mistakes before, hopefully, getting it right. But that's the same story for iTunes, Amazon and, yes, the now untouchable Steam which was once, believe it or not, universally despised.

It's all well and good to believe that Microsoft is the personification of evil, determined to destroy all in its path, but surely at some point you have to take a step back and think whether or not it does, in fact, have some business sense: sense which would’ve served both the company and you, the consumer, for the better. Just take a look at Apple, for example.

xbox one ps4 -

It also raises the issue of how other publishers will respond. Despite saying otherwise, I cannot believe that EA just happened to drop its online pass mere days before the Xbox One's announcement, and nothing would surprise me less if new measures were now showcased before the new console era comes into effect. There's every chance these are even more controversial than what, before last night, were already in place.

The saddest thing about this whole debacle is that the sharing functionality has, naturally, now been removed entirely. As questionable as having your console check-in once a day was, it was a feature that could've genuinely moved things forward, if only a tad. Much like sharing a book through Amazon's Kindle service (you can lend it to another reader for 14 days), it embraces the age we're currently living in. Sure, the model we have is serviceable, but if nobody embraces what we are able to do now, then what's the point of it all? Admittedly it may've been too early for most gamers, and a big reason for this switch is largely to do with Microsoft's fear about how sales would match up against Sony's PS4, but there was still a choice for those who weren't ready to accept it. It potentially could've offered something legitimately new and different, a far cry from the stale environment we're currently experiencing.

Ultimately, the decision to merge the physical with the digital seems to be the biggest bugbear. If the company Bill Gates built had a specific, more concise and sympathetic message, more people may've warmed to the proposal, but then doing so would've created a rift as far as retailers are concerned. With a console to sell, Microsoft couldn't cut them out the loop entirely, even if that may've been in the plans a few years after launch. Now, we may never know.

Aside from seriously denting what Microsoft had intended for the next-generation – good or bad it obviously had a strategy it was keen to implement – now that it has categorically changed course it'll be interesting, if not a little worrying, to see where it ends up. Undoubtedly once the dust has settled and the Xbox One has found its way into people's homes the initiatives of old may return, but on many levels flip-flopping again may not work out as well as some think. Personally, it just feels like an ardent stance against moving forward with the times, happy to stay rooted in the same place we have been for seven years, complete with the same problems none of us were happy about in the first place. That doesn't sound like too much fun...

I'm sure many of you may read this and think it's nothing more than click-baiting nonsense but I assure you it isn't. In the same way it winds up a publisher when someone at VideoGamer.com says a game is utter pap, I completely understand why you may feel the same if something you feel so strongly about is questioned. At the same time, I've got to be honest. And I have.

New stuff to check out

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments

BrySkye's Avatar

BrySkye

Quote:
Because you all had preconceptions and by that point it was hard to come back.

I'd rather not have words forced into my mouth. :)
That might be your opinion of many here, but please don't state it as a fact.

I was more than willing to listen to them throughout, I just didn't take their word for everything.
You know what though, I never took Sony for their word on everything either.
They are both trying to sell a product after all.

Once the systems are in the actual hands of independents and consumers, that's the only time we really start understanding what's what.
Posted 16:21 on 22 June 2013
Karlius's Avatar

Karlius@ CheekyLee

"Pots and kettles, mate. I know you think you're the kid who can see that that dude is naked, and you may yet turn out to be right, but I think there is a pretty good reason why everybody else is treating MS like they are Palpatine's Empire."

Probably my favourite comment ever made on the forum.

Just looked up the article it's by Forbes and you are indeed correct he has to retract his gold members statement. Am looking an actual number up now but it is difficult. Lets just take the 46M number and call them all silver. So there maybe people with multiple accounts and some not in use and I imagine of the 77M consoles a load are decommissioned by now. I still say a high percentage are or have been connected.

I would love to know how many consoles are still in use and how many have a live account attached to them but can't I can't get that data.

It is all opinion and a thought trail and the more I read into this and all your fears I am feeling like clarifying the DRM stance took too long and when they did, it should have been done in far more depth. Because you all had preconceptions and by that point it was hard to come back.
Posted 14:23 on 22 June 2013
CheekyLee's Avatar

CheekyLee@ Karlius

Quote:
46M Gold Subscriptions
Citation needed. I can find plenty of differing figures for this. The quoted 46M merely refers to Live subs, of which I am responsible for 7 myself. MS have stated in the past that only 50% of Live users pay for Gold.

Quote:
Over the last 3 years MS Windows and Office products have been substantially reduced in price. The reason for this the less these products cost the more they sell.
Open Office has definitely impacted on the cost of MS Office. The rise in people using Linux, along with Macs now being seen as a more reasonable alternative, surely has contributed as well. Besides which, you are comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about games, not OSes and Office Suites.

The only real evidence we have as to what MS does with the prices of games comes from the Games for Windows Marketplace, and the current Xbox Marketplace. In both cases, prices have not exactly moved in any direction other than up. Yesterday, I saw a brand new copy of Gears of War Judgement for £20 in my local Grainger Games. What is the Games on Demand price? See for yourself.

Suggesting that MS will ever do anything other than exert a constant upwards pressure on prices is at best optimistic. Once they have full control over the channels through which games are sold, it would become a foolhardy belief.

Quote:
No evidence of 60 min and purchase it was shown to be 30 days and purchase as outlined in Xbox Wire.
Actually, there is also no evidence that there was ever anything but a 60 minute limit. All we have been told by MS themselves explicitly is that there was a 60 minute check in requirement when we were signed in at someone else's house. This idea that we could share full games has only ever been teased by MS, with no actual concrete description of what exactly will happen. However, during the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson, we did get the closest we have had yet to an official stance on this issue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Hryb
"It's not like you're buying ONE copy for all TEN members"

Skip to 3:51 in the video. Maybe it's just my paranoia, but he also appears to stop himself saying "and then ... (something)" right after he uses the phrase "check it out", which ties in closer to this alleged 60 minute demo idea than it does to the fabled "SHARE ALL THE GAMES!" one.

We are seeing, in my opinion, a determined effort from MS spin Doctors, astroturfers, and fanboys to push an idea that simply did not exist into the general gaming consciousness. The real problem for MS is not that they have made the turnaround, but that they have been forced to make it. Had they been crystal clear from day 1 about what they were doing, then maybe the idea could have grown wings and flown of its own accord. Instead, we have the current situation where nobody is prepared to give MS the benefit of the doubt because THEY HAVE LIED TO US.

One last thing, Karl:

Quote:
a superiority complex that has been visible accross the forum

Pots and kettles, mate. I know you think you're the kid who can see that that dude is naked, and you may yet turn out to be right, but I think there is a pretty good reason why everybody else is treating MS like they are Palpatine's Empire.
Posted 13:31 on 22 June 2013
Karlius's Avatar

Karlius

I've read the response then I read the responses to that response.

I swear I must be missing something as all I see is someones opinion being challenged by another opinion and that opinion seemingly more weight as it's the popular thought.

Quote:
There are so many holes in the article I will tackle them one by one.

No facts are used to fill the so called holes just a one sided opinion.

Your Responses are as follows:

1. Comment based on "which will alienate people and create unnecessary barriers to entry?"

There are no facts in your opinion to support this statement.

(Fact)
46M Gold Subscriptions / 77M Consoles Sold.

How many of those 77M consoles have been binned and how many consoles have numerous Gold accounts I can't tell you but those are the only figures.

My opinion online not a problem accessibilty would be just fine.

Everything else in the statement is conjecture.

2.Comment based on "How can you describe gamers having a range of consoles to choose from as a 'trap'?"

Totally missed the point. The article is saying that the 360 and PS3 are so similar in the way things work what is the point in having two consoles. While there maybe subtle differences we are spoon feed the same on both. By changing up the why this works it may of moved the industry on and given more us more of a choice.

In my opinion it could have moved on the industry on and we have fallen back into the same old same old. In yours it doesn't matter who is right we'll never know now.

3. "I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong on this one - a digital future controlled by Microsoft would be entirely negative for gamers, it would put a complete end to true game ownership and consumer trust."

Absoloute conjecture you have no basis for this.

My opinion and in defence I'll use MS current business practice on software to challenge.
Over the last 3 years MS Windows and Office products have been substantially reduced in price. The reason for this the less these products cost the more they sell. If you price yourself out of the market the market will collapse.

4. "Again, please learn your Microsoft history before telling us they are willing to serve us and strive to make gaming better for gamers."

Pure Conjecture. You say this yet give no actual facts or details of this so called history?

People think MS started gaming with the xbox. I remember the sidewinder joysticks and the dreamcast. I know the facts that they wanted to enter into a relationship with Sony and the reasoning why the built their own consoles and why they continue to make consoles even though they are not the biggest money spinner. But none of that supports your argument so please enlighten with facts!!

5. Again opinion but I half agree with you however I also think that all this will do is drive companies underground with sneakier practices. If tomorrow all publishers decide to ratify a DRM soloution there will be naff all anyone could do about it. So you either don't play games or suck it up. The most will suck it up just like they did with Steam, Linux being removed from PS3 and recently even Sim City.

6."Apart from meeting them to give them the game or posting the game to them it's exactly the same as lending games as we do now, so what great lost feature are you lamenting over exactly?"

Opinion again no facts.

Made me laugh out loud. No instantly sharing isn't any different to this no.
No evidence of 60 min and purchase it was shown to be 30 days and purchase as outlined in Xbox Wire.

Your point about groups is fair though but only one friend could play when you aren't playing so it would be like swapping discs.

7. Why does technology ever move on?

All entertainment markets are moving toward a digital future i'm sure you can look around you for the evidence. In the last 10 years or so music has moved from CD to MP3 to Streaming servces like spotify. In the last 8 years we've gone from W800i to a HTC One and all we are getting with gaming is a slight improvement with little differnce in fact the PS3 is starting this generation almost identically to last with a few social networking features and improved spec. WOW.

8. Everything else is opinion and conjecture with a superiority complex that has been visible accross the forum. You are forming an opinion it doesn't mean you are right because you are in the majority.

I will also say that everything you said while not discrediting anything in the article and not doing what you said it would by closing the holes in the argument was a very interesting read. But you have done nothing to change my opinion that the industry needed this shake up.
Posted 12:52 on 22 June 2013
CheekyLee's Avatar

CheekyLee@ TheLastProphet

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastProphet
The post that I should have written!

Bravo, Sir!
Posted 09:14 on 22 June 2013
alphafour's Avatar

alphafour@ TheLastProphet

I think YOU should make your own gaming website! You explained and justified your views much more clearly than Mr Miller did, and said something that I forgot to say which is -

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT MODEL?!

The only thing wrong with the current model is that the online prices are often exactly the same as retail prices, despite us not having the ability to resell and trade our games if we buy them digital (which should make them lose some value), but we all know that as long as consoles are sold and promoted at places like Gamestop, we are not going to be seeing many huge day one discounts on digital downloads outside of Steam gaming.

APART FROM THAT, there aren't really any problems.
Posted 06:55 on 22 June 2013
TheLastProphet's Avatar

TheLastProphet

This article does absolutely nothing to justify the opinion that Microsoft's change in policy is bad for gamers and the games industry as a whole.

There are so many holes in the article I will tackle them one by one.

1. "In all honesty it's a travesty that the audience should even have to be involved with such an argument".

Why? Why is it a 'travesty' that gamers should have a voice which we can use to shape the industry - especially when we can use that voice to stop major players in the industry from taking gaming in directions which will alienate people and create unnecessary barriers to entry?
Why do you feel that the average gamer doesn't have the right to engage in debates regarding matters such as DRM and used game sales, but you do? Are we all required to have our own gaming websites before our views and opinions are deemed valid?
One of the very best things about the games industry is the close connection between the creators of content and the consumers of content, which almost always results in the creation of better games from fan feedback.
Yes, sometimes this relationship is abused - the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle being a good example, but the vast majority of the time gamers having a voice and developers/hardware manufacturers listening to our voice is positive for all concerned.

The movie, music, or any other electronic entertainment industries do not share this unique relationship gamers have with the makers of the content we interact with - so far from being a 'travesty' - it is one of the best things about being a 'hardcore' gamer, and someone who is passionate enough about the games industry to take the time to voice their concerns.

2. "The real problem with this u-turn is what it means for the next-generation of hardware. Along with falling into the same old trap that we now have two boxes that are more or less identical to one another - exclusives notwithstanding".

How can you describe gamers having a range of consoles to choose from as a 'trap'?
In any industry and any market the number one thing which empowers the consumer is choice. The more options the consumer has will enable them to make it easier for them to purchase exactly what they want, and the competition between similar products is the main driving force behind innovation and lower prices for the consumer.
A monopoly in any industry is ALWAYS a bad thing, and I'd challenge you to name any monopoly from any industry, from anywhere in the World, from anytime in history which has been beneficial for the consumer.
Gamers having a range of consoles to choose from could not be further from being a 'trap' - it is the force which pushes console manufacturers to innovate, lower prices, and create compelling pieces of first party software titles to tempt us into choosing their hardware over others.
Even if you do genuinely believe having more than one console on the market is a bad thing it is hardly a 'trap' - if you only want one console in your home then just buy one. Nothing is forcing you to buy more than one console, and if you feel compelled to buy a second console to play exclusive games then that is your choice, you are hardly coerced or manipulated into doing so.

3. "it delays a digital future that may've just worked out for the best."

You list cheaper games, fair digitial trade ins, and cheaper DLC, as the main benefits we have now lost due to our incessant whining.
Do you seriously think that if Microsoft stuck to their policies, took control of game ownership, sales, and trade-ins - they would use all that power and control for any other purpose than to make increase their own profit margins?
Do you know anything about Microsoft? This is the company with one of the darkest histories of any corporation EVER, found guilty by courts around the World of illegal hacking, data collection, usage monitoring, bribery, blackmail, hostile takeovers, and the list goes on and on and on.
They charge SCHOOLS an obscene amount of money to use their broken operating systems, and demand these ridiculous fees from them every year (I know as a I am a school teacher). So on the one hand Microsoft have been ripping off schools for decades but on the other you expect them to treat gamers fairly?

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong on this one - a digital future controlled by Microsoft would be entirely negative for gamers, it would put a complete end to true game ownership and consumer trust. It would drive the price of games UP and it would take a LOT longer for older games to fall in price. Just look at how Microsoft handles digital sales now - compare Steam and PSN sales to sales on Xbox Live, the reductions are pathetic. Compare the digital services we already have and already pay for - compare PS Plus to Xbox Live Gold - get the picture?
Most importantly, as stated earlier - the most important thing is choice. The consumer should be able to choose whether they want to buy physical or digital goods, what to do with them once they have them, and what to do with them when they no longer want them - without a rulebook dictated by one of the worst and most greedy companies in history.

4. "(Microsoft) does, in fact, have some business sense: sense which would’ve served both the company and you, the consumer, for the better. Just take a look at Apple, for example.

Again, please learn your Microsoft history before telling us they are willing to serve us and strive to make gaming better for gamers.
And what about Apple? You want Microsoft to follow their model of making underpowered devices which lack innovation which cost obscene amounts of money and are replaced every 12 months with microscopic improvements they simply steal from their competitors?
No thanks - one of the best things about the console industry is that Apple haven't entered it and started charging us £40 for a new version of Angry Birds every month, and the last thing console gaming needs is Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo trying to be like Apple.

5. "There's every chance these are even more controversial than what, before last night, were already in place".

So what if they are? Haven't we as gamers proved that we are not willing to be screwed over, that we have a voice, and that we have the ability to take collective action against companies like Microsoft and EA who will try to screw us at every opportunity?
Microsoft changing their policies on the Xbox One will send companies Like EA a big warning not to try anything shifty like that for a long time - so we don't need to worry about what will replace online passes, EA need to worry about what we want and what is fair and reasonable for gamers.

6. "The saddest thing about this whole debacle is that the sharing functionality has, naturally now been removed entirely".

Ok, so lets look at what we have actually lost. The 'family sharing' option would have allowed up to 10 people to play your personal games collection, with any 1 of them playing a game from your library at a time.
First of all, how is this any different from simply lending a physical copy of a game to your mates? Apart from meeting them to give them the game or posting the game to them it's exactly the same as lending games as we do now, so what great lost feature are you lamenting over exactly?
Also, details are now emerging that games played via family share would have been limited to 60 minutes before being asked to purchase the full game - so before grieving too much about the lost future of digital goodness Microsoft were hoping to serve up, you might want to read up on that.
Also, isn't it hypocritical to complain about developers losing money from used game sales whilst simultaneously wishing for a way to share games with up to 10 PEOPLE which also makes developers no money whatsoever? In today's World wouldn't such a feature be open to rampant abuse, with people forming groups online so they spend as little on games as possible?

7. "Personally, it just feels like an ardent stance against moving forward with the times, happy to stay rooted in the same place we have been for seven years, complete with the same problems none of us were happy about in the first place. That doesn't sound like too much fun..."

What exactly is wrong with the model we have now? This console generation has been the best ever, with both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 having an incredible library of excellent games - many of which can be picked up for less than a fiver now. Even at the twilight of this generation we have games like The Last of Us (which you gave 10/10) so what exactly are you whining about?
Why change things when the model we have has given us excellent consoles and superb games, all at great prices - prices which have allowed anyone to become a gamer and gaming to become mass market.
You make console gaming and the next generation sound so depressing and terrible, but I find no justification for it whatsoever.

8. "I'm sure many of you may read this and think it's nothing more than click-baiting nonsense but I assure you it isn't".

Although you included this disclaimer to prevent anyone from accusing the article of being nothing more than click bait - I don't see what else it can be.
If you genuinely think the current generation of console gaming has been so terrible, and the thought of things remaining largely the same with the next generation depresses you so much I can only recommend you get a different job and wait for an Apple console to be released. Then you will be free to buy digital games only at inflated prices without the ability to lend them to your friends or trade them in for a decent price - Paradise lost.

Just remember, all is not lost - with the Xbox One and Kinect you do still have the bright future of being constantly watched and listened to to look forward to. Let's just hope the incessant whining of gamers doesn't manage to reverse Microsoft's stance on that one eh? Just think of how the NSA, CIA, and FBI could improve the lives of gamers everywhere.

I think you are completely, totally, and utterly wrong is stating that 'Microsoft's U-Turn Is Not Good For The Industry' and I think you completely failed to justify your stance as well as failing to look at all the factors involved, such as Microsoft's practises in it's other divisions where it has a monopoly/complete control.

I think I have presented a compelling case as to why, and in terms of being honest, I think I have been.
Posted 12:54 on 21 June 2013
Grammartron's Avatar

Grammartron

As I've said elsewhere in other threads, I do agree with Simon/Karlius here, though I do think Microsoft's initial stance was very draconian, and explained their policies incredibly badly.

But I totally understand why some people would have had no truck with the DRM situation whatsoever - I started off as one myself, before reading around the subject and coming round to the benefits.

I for one am pretty sad about the turnaround, as this gen is starting to feel like it'll be very similar to the current, which I think we'd all agree has some fairly big problems. I feel ready to embrace something genuinely and radically 'new', and it doesn't feel like either console is really offering that now.

But there you go - one thing you can be sure of: Microsoft invested heavily in this approach, so whether it's eventually opt-in or mandatory, I'm positive we'll see it implemented eventually. It's a long generation these days after all...
Posted 11:29 on 21 June 2013
BrySkye's Avatar

BrySkye@ Karlius

There's nothing wrong with having a different opinion, Karl.

But it can be bloody frustrating seeing you repeat again and again that the reason people don't share your opinion is because they are "afraid of change", etc.
Posted 11:14 on 21 June 2013
alphafour's Avatar

alphafour

"I'm sure many of you may read this and think it's nothing more than click-baiting nonsense but I assure you it isn't."

Sorry, but after all the articles on here and elsewhere condemning MS's decision to go with DRM-meltdown, it does just feel like click-baiting.

Sure, there are a few benefits but they were totally outweighed by the drawbacks and almost everybody agreed on that.

The biggest problem with Microsoft's U-turn is that they did it so easily. If they can disable it so quickly and easily (about a 1 month turn-around let's say?), that means they can probably re-enable it just as easily.
Posted 10:18 on 21 June 2013
Karlius's Avatar

Karlius

All I can say is glad I'm not alone. It's hard being one man with a view that is against the view of the forum majority.

@Pb love the rice pudding angle but don't think we will see it. :(

I can't believe hardly anyone can remember Jason Chen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...e-search-apple
Posted 00:35 on 21 June 2013
Llamazoid's Avatar

Llamazoid

Hey Simon. The article was a good read, great food for thought.

"The real problem with the U-turn is what it means for the next- generation of hardware. Along with falling into the same old trap that we now have two boxes that are more or less identical to one another – exclusives notwithstanding – it delays a digital future that may've just worked out for the best."

I would argue the problem hasn't been with consoles being similar in terms of hardware. It's what the console's are ignoring with their digital services and customer service. Both consoles could easily breathe new life into this console generation by provide great services.

This could be achieved by looking into releasing their digital games at the same time as their physical counterparts at the same price. They could also look at renting games for a few days for a certain price, then take it off the total price and offer it for cheaper the more times you rent. Oh a killer step forward would be able to return your digital games if you didn't actually like the game within the first 10% of the game or exchange it for another item.

"It also raises the issue of how other publishers will respond."

If digital retail and service continue's to be neglected, I would predict that their will be the return of the online passes in some form and a higher threshold of micro-transactions in games. DLC prices would also likely inflate.

"The saddest thing about this whole debacle is that the sharing functionality has, naturally, now been removed entirely."

Currently, I don't understand the reason why it should be removed at all. The reason the feature was attacked was because of the rejection of trading games with your friends physically without it being approved. With that pretty much gone, the feature is actually a great selling point for digital games and arcade games. Lending the game digitally for a certain amount of days and then offered to either rent the game or purchase it.

I fully believe it's in Microsoft's power to do so. Though I doubt they will re-introduce it as a means to shift the blame onto gamers who protested about their original policies.

"Ultimately, the decision to merge the physical with the digital seems to be the biggest bugbear."

Personally, I think it will encourage both physical and digital games to work in parallel with each other. At the end of the day gaming retailers need a variation of new products to have impressive shelving presentation. Most second hand stores are filled with the same games and make most of their money reselling old movies as well as games and consoles.

"Personally, it just feels like an ardent stance against moving forward with the times, happy to stay rooted in the same place we have been for seven years, complete with the same problems none of us were happy about in the first place."

I agree that while we have an ardent stance, it's not to prevent moving with the times but instead to protect the consumer. I don't think the Xbox One policies benefited us in any way, if their was it wasn't made clear and on that front Microsoft are solely responsible. Consoles are different from PC's in many respect's because when you buy a console it's to be used primarily as a gaming platform. A PC on the other hand isn't used just for gaming or listening to music but as word processor.

You can still buy a PC and use it's basic features, being on the Internet isn't essential. While the Xbox One had to be online once every 24 hours to use it's basic functions which in my eyes is just wrong. I don't know of any "Product" that had these restrictions.

I'm still interested in the new entertainment features the Xbox One has brought forward. Both with TV and Kinect. In order to justify their price they need to show consumers how much the Kinect has improved in a gaming demo with several titles.

I wont be getting an Xbox One despite the changes, purely out of principle. Microsoft treated it's consumers poorly and I want an apology, even if they cant do this they could at least the new Kinect optional with the console rather than mandatory. That being said I'm interested to see how it will perform and that a degree of competition has been restored.
Posted 00:07 on 21 June 2013
Jexiah8bit's Avatar

Jexiah8bit

Nothing was delayed. The next gen after this upcoming one will just be software apps for your smart TV anyways so nothing was lost.

And as you said, there is PC's and Steam which has been doing alot of what the Xbox wouldve done for years now but without the online requirement after install. Granted, no family sharing (yet) but if that happens it will happen on PC first now.

My biggest gripe with Microsoft is their requirement for indie devs to pay thousands to update their own game, and that they must have a publisher as well.
Posted 21:06 on 20 June 2013
ShadowmanX5's Avatar

ShadowmanX5

Simon, everything you are saying is very valid and a good look at how this could be seen as a bad decision from Microsoft. However, I believe that the initial idea of forcing this kind of change upon the consumer was not a good one. My reasoning for this is because generally people don't like change AT FIRST, but, people will warm to the idea as it evolves and becomes more convenient and easy.

As mentioned they have gotten rid of the 10 family sharing policy (as my understanding), but why can this idea not still be used? Yes ok so it won't be possible for retail games but what is stopping them from implementing this on the already existing system of Digital Downloads? Sony does something similar with the PS3, I can buy a game and share it with one other friend who has my account active on their console (it used to be 5 friends but that changed a while back for a good reason to be honest). If the digital library is better and easier to use than going out and buying a game then many people will take to it.

I personally prefer how Sony are taking this, they are allowing the move towards a complete digtal gaming experience to happen naturally. You can't force people to change something that has been pretty much the standard since the beginning of gaming, you can only make it more appealing and more convenient so that everyone will think "Hold on, why do X when Y is easier/better?". I feel that this will eventually happen and companies need to get that if you simply give the customer a better OPTION of Digital Download rather than pushing it so heavily. People will come around to the idea but they need time :) great article, a really good read.
Posted 16:44 on 20 June 2013
Syme's Avatar

Syme

This article is more reasonable than most, but every article coming out in defense of the DRM is reminding me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZzDgU2-X4k
Posted 16:38 on 20 June 2013
View Full Site