News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

What's the possibility they follow the movie studios' lead & pack a code for the digital version in higher priced editions? I'd like to see them also do that for cross-platform titles that have 360/XB1 or PS3/PS4 versions, but it will never happen.

Tommy McClain

 

IEB == Interactive Entertainment Business. It is one of the Microsoft business units, and contains Xbox, Xbox Live, Microsoft Studios, and the music and movies stuff.

 

Did they confirm if the owner and one family member could be playing the same title simultaneously?

 

They don't even need that. Just have an Opt-in when you first configure your xb1. That could just be done through your user sign in creds. So if my brother opted-in and came over he'd get all his games and can use Kinect the way he wants to. When I log in it turns off whatever I opted out of.

Hell this plan would be great if they stationed Xbox ones at hotels around the world and all I do is sign in and get all my games in my room.

 

Yes, if they were both playing at the same time on the same console. Otherwise, no. At least, that's how it was explained to him.

 

Nonsense. As I've learned now, the only "truth" on forums is stuff posted by completely random people, anything referred from the company that makes the product itself must be automatically considered suspect and false, and it must be drowned out by random blather and fud from as many people and random sources as possible.

Not really, I understood it on day one because it was, uhh, posted on their website. People just got confused because they believed the mountains of garbage that have been spewed on websites. It really wasn't that hard whatsoever to understand what Microsoft was doing. Now all that's left is to lament the killing of an awesome feature.

 

Well we knew that from the utterances of people like Ballmer, Jobs, et. al.

Actually the arrogance is more to be expected from the very rich.

 

Well, what about RROD? Did Major Nelson and other execs deny they had a problem or not?

It's not always a good idea to blithely accept whatever a corporation says.

 

They'll do nothing, because they don't have to as per the ruling.

Ah, so its a matter of price? At what price point do you cease the right to resell your software? $8 (NBA 2K13), $16 (FFV), $20 (XCOM) or more?

The price argument.... again.

Not even the price arguement. You've accepted you can't resell your iOS and Steam games just, you know, because...

The vast majority of the people who went in to a fit didn't see past the "no game reselling" and never understood the implications of the DRM scheme MS put forth. For households with multiple XBs it removes at ton of hassle, it also decouples your ownership of the software from the actual devices, which is a benefit.

The fact the grandstanding is mostly done by people who spent the past seven years stating they'd never buy a 360 because they don't want to pay for multiplayer and now are completely silent about Sony paywalling multiplayer for PS4 makes it even more farcical

Cheers

 

It's not our job, or anyone's, to "see past" anything. It's a product, not a wonderful unknown change in history.

It's their job to make sure the message properly reaches people, something that they did not do. Thus, their competition, in this competitive market, pounced on their failures.

What's more, it's like anything they were saying was new. Anyone remember DIVX? How well did that go over?

What's more, both systems will already operate like steam for anyone who wants it to, just by everything online digitally.

 

I never saw the original press releases or E3 reveal. Googling revealed this, which is uncertain (it doesn't mention the time-limit on sharing, or one-at-a-time requirement, which raised the thorny question of economic viability of one game sale for each ten players). Have you a link to the crystal-clear policy document?

As above. I missed the start of this fiasco so can't comment on how obvious or confusing the reveal was, but I've yet to see an official document from MS that explains how the system worked. The 1 hour check-in, check-out was new info from bkilian. I'd like to see MS's initial clarification on this to form a valid opinion on whether MS were at fault as I said, or whether the Internets missed the mind-numbingly obvious.

 

I think that we tend to depend a little to much on others to give us our information and we don't always make an effort to understand everything that goes on around us. As bkilian and joker said the features and policies were stated pretty clearly. Yes the console had to check in every 24hrs, you installed your game disk, could share your game with up to ten friends but only one person at a time could play and if you wanted to sell or trade you had to go through MS to have them register the game to the new person who would also pay a fee for same which would go to MS/Developer.

From the above people got that MS were trying to destroy consumer rights and spy on you. To me they were really trying to get more people to buy their games in a manner that would allow the creators of their favorite games to get a bigger slice of all sales while attempting to let you continue trading or selling your games only in a digital form. Correct me if I'm wrong but at present no one else offers you the option of trading and selling used games digitally. The system seemed to acknowledged your rite of ownership and asked that you take these extra steps to enjoy them.

From MS side I agree that they completely screwed up with their message delivery. They missed one key step. In between the box unveil and E3 I would have had an open meeting with the gaming press and made it available to stream and download where I would have explained in detail what I was attempting to do with the DRM policies. It should have been something along the lines of "Guys we know you love your games and you often sell them on to purchase more games. But we need your help. Because when you sell your games on second hand within the present system your favorite developer receives nothing for all their hard work. And without everyone contributing to his overall sales he won't be able to bring you the content that you want and desire so much." Show them what the projected additional revenue would have potentially allowed them to enjoy etc. People always want more for what they see as less. And if the proposed system allowed for more content be had for the minor cost selling you game via MS new system gamers would jump at it.

I'm not sure as a gamer how I would look at the gaming press and the things they report to be honest. Because from the time when the whole DRM policies began to leak out to MSs DRM reversal there seemed to be a general message of doom. I will admit that I don't read every site, blog or mag nor do I watch every gaming show there is but by and large the whole policy was reported on very poorly. If there was a site (s) that laid out the pros and cons in a very clear manner and encouraged people to properly consider the ramifications then feel free to point me to it. Journos are supposed to present the arguments of both sides in an unbiased manner no matter what they may be reporting on. It's just strange that as the gaming press has so many links and access to devs they must know what the effects of the used game markets are on their bottom line and it makes me wonder why they aren't in favor of any system that would allow them to receive a split from used game sales. There shouldn't have been stories after the DRM policy reversal about taking a step backwards, there should have been stories about how the policy could potentially be a step in the right direction for everyone and the merits of any system that supported same.

As gamers all of us should be willing to properly support those that make the games we love. They give us hours of enjoyment and great memories. So I surely understand people wanting to play their games from now until... you payed for it and you want to enjoy it forever. Or you've played and wish to sell on your game so you can have a new experience. This is your right. But surely it's also the right of the developer to receive money on every game sold. Because if you support your rights then you must be supportive of others as well. Under MS proposed system there was the potential for a better distribution of revenues from games between the people that make the games and those that play them. That is the link that matters most to me not all the middle men. I don't think the present system does that very well and as gamers we should be concerned regardless of the system we support.

 

I don't really care what other people got. I'm more interested in what MS actually said and how I interpret it. Now you're intro paragraph is what I understood from web gleanings, and that's matched by what's in the official webpage I linked to. In that information, there is vital info missing that describe the game sharing as like a library, with a one hour check-out, check-in.

If MS did not say there was a one hour check-out, check-in period, then the uncertainty of what game sharing was comes from their miscommunication, because effectively giving away a game to ten people makes no sense. If MS did clearly say that, then it'll be present in the release info, and those who understood how clear those documents were (but never explained there was a library-like check-in, check-out from what I can see) should be able to point to them.

There's a lesson to be learnt here, but I don't know which one it is. Either it's that people are utter morons and communicating policies needs a magic touch, or it's that people need a good overview and companies can't be sloppy with their communication. There are a lot of opinions on which lesson it is, but I'd like to see for myself the source material.

 

Or maybe the lesson is to simply offer something that most people actually want.
Or are people just too dumb to get it which seems to be the accepted "wisdom" now?

 

Shifty, I tend to think that it's the latter. Everyone should know what's happening. That way companies, agencies and governments won't be able to get away with a lot of the nonsense that happens now. But we often prefer to let things happen as they may and only open our eyes when it affects us or perceive it to.

I tried in my post to show where I think each party fell short. MS shared their message poorly. That is a fact. Now if they'd made a serious effort to clearly spread their plans and engage gamers who then said no then by all means don't go with it. But that is not what happened. And now we are here. But I think to put the all of this on MS is wrong.

In any case, one day soon instead of buying a game what we'll find ourselves doing is creating a character with a free tool and paying for time to play in whatever world the developer has for the game. What will we own then?

 

This is true. The problem is, most only apply their skepticism to things they want to be false and suspend it for things they want to be true. Given known psychological tendencies, people would be well served to force themselves to be more skeptical of things they find easy to believe and less skeptical of things they are inclined to dismiss (within reason, of course).

 

Sure, there is also some level of responsibility in learning about the world around you.

But, to be frank, it's a video game console. People have priorities on the information they seek. I'll learn the local layout of an area I move to and any dangers. I'll get directions and traffic to a place. I'll go learn the detailed ins and outs of my profession.

There's an overabundance of information out there, people have to pick and choose what they focus on. For most people, that won't be video games so the first glaring impression followed by mass media front pages will be the primary way they know about it. For all that people say the public doesn't pay attention to the gaming media, there's a lot of stuff from the gaming media that leaks out into the public.

If you can't send a message well enough to satisfy that, you can't blame anyone else. Especially if you're a billion dollar company that should be able to hire the kind of people who should know better.

 

This horse is dead but if you actually read the statement by MS you may see enough room for interpretation if the EULA didn't match what many folks "thought" it said.

This is behind the same IP address I think everyone agrees here.

This all depends on what a "shared game" means. Does a "shared games" mean the exact same game as the one the owner of the game ( i.e not nag screened or such ). This of course doesn't preclude the OS display plane overlaying a nag screen either. The Verge source said that one possibility was a one hour timed demo mode that you could just play through ( nag screened ). One of many possibilities ?

Why not just say "game" instead of "shared game" that would have helped. The "any one of your family members can be playing " was also a point of contention for a while. I heard from different MS representatives that it was, only one person at a time, you and one other at the same time but only single player mode but everyone else is one at a time, I think there was one other MS rep interpretation but I don't remember it.

 

So MS came up with a 'free games for 9 people' concept and then (at the largest press event ahead of launch) forget to sell the idea?
- whilst MS's PR for XB1 has been 'poor', that is simply not believable.

A solution which seems more likely to me?
- MS did intend exactly what they said for MS published titles*.
- some 3rd parties decided they would only commit to '1 hour timed demos'.
- * titles with online accounts wouldn't really work with this policy.
- MS pulled interviews and cancelled the round table to prevent discussion of the exact details.

IMHO that would appear to fit the rumours/claims.

 

Here is the actual language from MS posted in their policy statement just prior to E3. Notice that there is no asterisk for fine print. This was never limited. In a publically posted document like this, legal would have guaranteed that any restrictions MUST be disclosed. Otherwise they open themselves to legal action. edit: here is the linky http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.


Family is user defined. The statement is quite clear and easily parsed. You can always play and any ONE of your family can access the library at a given time. There is no time limit. I could see hourly online checks similar to what BKillian mention. That limitation is what made the family plan a win-win for everyone. Plenty of access to try games and incentive for viral growth, but limited enough in scope that Pubs should be happy. Of course, I am sure that MS would have provided ample and easy opportunity to purchase the games digitally. For example, let's say you play a couple hours of Fable nextgen and really like it. The next day you login and try to play it again but Joe is currently playing. Guess what, a 1-click purchase opportunity appears on the screen. You purchase and begin to play immediately. For games outside the launch window, this could be refined further to incorporate loyalty bonuses, discounts, and reward for "referrals" Everyone stating that there is no way pubs were behind this were thinking way too small and too inside the box. This policy actually represented tremendous upside for Pubs.

Personally this was killer app for me as it was great way to manage access from my boys. I had planned on buying 4 XBones. Now, it is probably just 1 for the family room.