News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[hesido]

....Sure, it doesn't have the latest games....

You've said it yourself.

There's no way companies are going to let their digital code, with the possibility to be instantly copied without any DRM, out in the wild without some form of protection. When the sales stagnate, they may as well remove any kind of DRM because the people with means and intention to pirate the game already have done so, so DRM doesn't serve any purpose.

That said, I'm OK with any non-intrusive form of DRM (be it Disc Based, or an authentication of some form at some point).. Even the restriction of downloading through the signed-in user only is a form of DRM whether they allow the game played offline or not, but it's less intrusive.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The PS3's broken game sharing / abuse friendly sharing *is* the reason why we have the drm attempts we have today. Go ask your fellow publisher friends, see what they have to say about it.

Sure, a lot of us appreciate that. The system can't be too broken though, for the publishers still release content on PSN. If the platform loses money, they would presumably just refuse to publish there and force a change by Sony (perhaps that's what happened with the device reduction, a threat to withdraw?). I dunno. We're left second guessing without figures. But obviously the balance between rights and revenues needed some better security for the content developers, which is why I think the online connection proposition was a fair one.

GOG, which has many commercial games, seems to work fine. Sure, it doesn't have the latest games, but everything is DRM-free.

GOG is effectively recycling old content. That is, if someone wants to play an old game, they can probably find it for free, but GOG gives a legitimate way to acquire the game. So it's converting a small amount of pirate games into legitimate sales. It's not a valid format for the latest titles though. If you could buy COD for $50 and then share with as many people as you like, the game would be shared with multiple friends first of all, and also torrented, and players of COD will be far, far more numerous than buyers of COD. DRM has to exist as long as people can't be trusted to buy content fairly. This is proven in the PC space, where publishers have seen masses of piracy driving them to create DRM policies. If piracy wasn't such an issue, they wouldn't waste time and effort trying to combat it.

Download content will have DRM. That's inevitable. The industry and consumers have to find a comfortable middle-ground where both interests are amicably addressed. That'll probably have to be an internet-based validation system, though that can be handled with more options than MS offered, satisfying a wide set of values.

 

[-tkf-]

Yeah their system was quite the revolution, so it's possible they didn't have all the publishers on board with it just yet and we're still negotiating there.

Why not wait then, forget about the stupid Disc thingy and just go with what they have "now". And when they have "enough" onboard go with the revolution. There is nothing stopping them from doing everything the said they would, Going with a half hearted messed up weak message of .. nothing that the public really wants is not the way to do it.

But it still seems suspicious that they weren't able to get a stronger foundation and explanation ready during the many years of development of the XBOX1.

I for one look forward to the industry embracing the customer and not just the dollars they get from DD

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Ehmm, it would allow people with shitty internet of limited data to get the game and "enjoy" all the benefits of a DD game. Microsoft FAILED to tell us why they wanted Discs to be bound to the same crazy rules as DD games are. The only logical conclusion was the killing of 2nd hand sales.

Eh? The only logical conclusion is that they wanted to use physical media as a form of distribution only and not as a form of digital rights management (the current physical media paradigm).

The physical media then could be anything. Put the game on a USB thumb drive and share it with however many people you want. You still have to pay for the content. And that's the point. One physical copy could equal multiple purchased copies. Don't want to go to the store to buy a game? Have a slow connection? Just grab your friend's disk, install it, and buy it online thus tying it to your account. Hell, an enterprising store, like say Starbucks or a bookstore or whatever, could have a basket in store for people to leave their physical media for anyone to grab to then buy the game digitally later on. Even better if the disk allowed you play the game for a limited time as a demo.

The point wasn't ever to kill used games. Used games on physical media are going to basically die this generation anyway as most people transition to buying digital. Sure there may still be some holdouts that buy physical towards the end of the generation but they will be in the minority just like on PC.

In other words, just offering day and date digital downloads for every game released means the used physical media games market is going to die. IE - both Sony and MS are killing used games by implementing day and date digital downloads.

Regards,
SB

 

[joker454]

Why not wait then, forget about the stupid Disc thingy and just go with what they have "now". And when they have "enough" onboard go with the revolution.

Why would you wait when you have a revolutionary idea? When you have a great idea you go for it, you don't wait for someone else to implement it first, that seems insane to me.

There is nothing stopping them from doing everything the said they would, Going with a half hearted messed up weak message of .. nothing that the public really wants is not the way to do it.

That's all debatable, their message was crystal clear to me, it was obvious what they were doing. But then again I don't read forums like Gaf, etc which likely explains why I was not confused as much as others apparently were. Reading this forum did confuse me a bit because I was reading things people were posting as "Fact" and scratching my head wondering where in heck did people get such silly ideas. Eventually though I realized they were just taking fud from other websites and transplanting it here to b3d which was a huge shame, because this forum is normally fairly clean. Ultimately though I was able to cull the garbage so it didn't affect me, I understood their message the entire time.

But it still seems suspicious that they weren't able to get a stronger foundation and explanation ready during the many years of development of the XBOX1.

I imagine pitching the idea to ever game developer out there that oh yeah, you're game will be playable by 10 people didn't necessarily go over super smooth. For the bigger players that have leverage, say like COD, they probably turned the screws to Microsoft simply because they could. Maybe the conversation went something like:

MS: "Yeah we're gonna let up to 10 gamers play a single game purchase of COD.
COD: "Sure that's cool, we'll just give Sony a few months exclusivity to compensate for that, no problem."
MS: "We're willing to accommodate your needs and are excited to continue to have COD on our gaming platform on day 1"
COD: "More favorable terms on licencing costs would make your game sharing idea very exciting to us."
MS: "Let's discuss the future together over dinner."

Yeah just speculative but there is no reason to not leverage the situation if you have the leverage. I really can't imagine how difficult it must have been for Microsoft to try and pull it all off, I don't envy them. Not that it matters anymore mind you.

I for one look forward to the industry embracing the customer and not just the dollars they get from DD

Well I don't really care since I'm not a console gamer anymore, and Steam lets me use my games anywhere on any device I own so I'm liberated already compared to the ridiculous restrictions the antiquated console gaming model imposes. But apparently that's what console gamers want so cool, rock on, I've moved on to more consumer friendly pastures already. But I'll check back in 8 years on next gen (if there is one) to see if consoles catch up on the dd side of things. Maybe they will, who knows anything can happen. Then again in 8 years the concept of a console may seem as logical to me as buying a Rio 500 Mp3 player in 2013.

 

[DrJay24]

How is sharing a game with 2 or 5 people in the PS3 abuse friendly and sharing on the XB1 with 10 people forward looking? What am I missing?

 

[joker454]

How is sharing a game with 2 or 5 people in the PS3 abuse friendly and sharing on the XB1 with 10 people forward looking? What am I missing?

I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

 

[-tkf-]

Eh? The only logical conclusion is that they wanted to use physical media as a form of distribution only and not as a form of digital rights management (the current physical media paradigm).

Yep, which was stupid. They could have played both horses and instead of losing with the sick horse they could still have made it to the goal with the Disc horse.

 

[-tkf-]

That's all debatable, their message was crystal clear to me, it was obvious what they were doing.

They were trying to move to a pure DD business model, i think we all got that. But they couldn't tell us exactly how it would work, except that the model we know from today about owning a disc was dead.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How is sharing a game with 2 or 5 people in the PS3 abuse friendly and sharing on the XB1 with 10 people forward looking? What am I missing?

On PS3, every player gains full access to the game. 5 people could play online with each off the one purchase. The XB1 policy meant the owner and one friend at a time could play the game. On PS3, you could (and people did) agree to share your library with absolutely anyone including strangers arrange game swaps, whereas the limitation of XB1 meant that wasn't realistic. Games would only be shared with friends and family, and people who wanted the full experience would realistically have to buy the game because they couldn't be sure the game they wanted to play would be available when they wanted to play it.

 

[baten]

DD is not a business model, it's just a different distribution metod. The business model is, and has always beed "Pay for game" : you pay for a specific game.

A new business model would be "Pay to play" : you pay a subscription to use the console, and you can play any game you want, no matter how it is distributed (DD, or torrents or disk from store - no DRM involved, no copywright etc.). Individual games would be distributed for "free" but you cannot play them unless your console has a valid account.

I think 20-25$ would be enough on average, and the money would be split by MS or Sony to developers based on whatever was played on that console. Of course, there could be different subscriptions - like 10$ for console usage with less than 20h/month of gameplay or 50$ of unlimited nr. of gameplay hours (a console used in a large family by lots of people).

In this way you eliminate both second hand and piracy, and you also cut the middleman of games distribution and the sales taxes on individual games. You could also sell the console for less money provided it has a more costly subscription (a la mobile phones).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

DD is not a business model, it's just a different distribution metod. The business model is, and has always beed "Pay for game" : you pay for a specific game.

I disagree. Netflix and Blockbusters don't operate the same business model. One has to manage hard inventory, has a limited number of stock options (if a film is out of all copies, you can't lend it to someone else), and has to operate store and/or warehouse. The other just needs some servers. If you went to bank wanting a loan for a movie rental startup, they'd treat both approaches as very different models of business, no?

You can of course replace a subscription model like Netflix with any pay-per-view service like Sony's, Sky's, Wuaki, BlinkBox, etc. These are a different business models to renting discs to people from a store.

 

[Nesh]

except MS already explained that you could still sell a game once and that there were companies that could take back trades of the games. They would just be deactivated from your account.

So there was no killing of 2nd hand games. MS didn't fail , ms wasn't given time to get everything done.



and I don't care about keeping a format from the 70s , I rather move on to at least 2003

So do you understand the problem now? Binding Physical discs to the same rules as DD. There was no need except they maybe felt it was getting to easy being them?


Yes the problem is you didn't inform yourself of what was announced. Claiming no second hand sales is false.

They tried but no one cared to listen as you've shown above . If you bothered to listen you would know that you could still sell your games.


You'd also be able to share with 10 friends instantly and dynamic the limit for giving a disc to your friend was to prevent abuse with the share feature.



The only real problem is they weren't given any time. They had a series of reveals they wanted to do but it became a convenient rallying cry for forum users. Some sites would ban anyone that liked the set up instantly.

When an angry mob with pitch forks and torches come after you , you don't sit and have tea and discuss things , you run.

MS couldn't reveal all the systems and how they worked because they were still in negotiations and waiting until they were done would have just given the mob months to get bigger and make more problems.



The xbox one DD system would have been a great thing for gamers but we are now stuck for another 8 years with the current flawed set up

I find it quite annoying that some of you are trying to throw the blame on the consumer instead of MS.
Its not just forum warriors that were pissed. Its not that people didnt try to get informed. The communication was all MS's fault. And it wasnt just a communication fault.
They were screwing up with their policies, and threw out some benefits like a carrot on a stick so that many would jump in (and they did)

They later begun a damage control effort to make people think they meant thinks differently and it was all a poor misunderstanding.

There are many reasons why we were getting articles like this (which we read in an effort to understand what was going on, what everything meant, when MS was coming up with smart wording that raised questions than answered)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-microsoft-kills-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile


And there is a reason why we still got articles like this after their 180 turn around
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-21-the-most-popular-arguments-in-favour-of-xbox-one-drm
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...stores-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile

Apparently if MS was clear and/or honest with their communication and DRM policies this wouldnt have happened nor continued

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Apparently if MS was clear and/or honest with their communication and DRM policies this wouldnt have happened nor continued

Actually, you highlight precisely the problem. The media put spin on MS's communication.

The fact that Microsoft's policies governing game ownership, sharing and privacy are not surprising does not make them any less devastating to consumer rights, should they be formally adopted and become a standard. They sacrifice our freedom to own and trade games for no other reason than corporate self-interest. To save you skimming large tracts of condescending prose about how much Microsoft loves and respects you as a human wallet, here is a summary:

That's so remarkably prejudiced, any positives are lost, We even read that here...

The only positive thing in the whole document is confirmation that you can turn off Kinect and its data will never be uploaded without your permission.

The actual list of policies (http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license) is a lot more positive than that. It talks about sharing your games with 10 people. This is only enabled by having DRM control, part of which means the gain in DD flexibility had to come with a cost in existing freedoms. You couldn't just give/sell a disc without breaking the DD policy, because MS chose for discs to be handled like DD. Now there's an argument that MS should have had separate DD disc policies, but that's different the anti-consumer tirades that MS endured when the complaints focussed entirely on the negatives and none of the positives (because MS failed to really extol them; that policy document came a week or two after the actual reveal). But articles like that you linked to show the basis for the MS defenders' view that it's the media's fault. The media certainly went with a particularly biased take on MS's policies. Had MS communicated effectively direct to the consumer though, the media would have had no traction as people would have got all the info they wanted from the horses mouth instead of having to go to a 3rd party news outlet.

As is so often the case, both sides have a valid take, but both sides only see their POV. the reality is the middle ground, which ultimate rests with how MS broke the information in the first place. That people made an escalating mess of it after reveal was only an issue because there were so many question marks and conflicting comments.

 

[Nesh]

Actually, you highlight precisely the problem. The media put spin on MS's communication.


That's so remarkably prejudiced, any positives are lost, We even read that here...

The actual list of policies (http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license) is a lot more positive than that. It talks about sharing your games with 10 people. This is only enabled by having DRM control, part of which means the gain in DD flexibility had to come with a cost in existing freedoms. You couldn't just give/sell a disc without breaking the DD policy, because MS chose for discs to be handled like DD. Now there's an argument that MS should have had separate DD disc policies, but that's different the anti-consumer tirades that MS endured when the complaints focussed entirely on the negatives and none of the positives (because MS failed to really extol them; that policy document came a week or two after the actual reveal). But articles like that you linked to show the basis for the MS defenders' view that it's the media's fault. The media certainly went with a particularly biased take on MS's policies. Had MS communicated effectively direct to the consumer though, the media would have had no traction as people would have got all the info they wanted from the horses mouth instead of having to go to a 3rd party news outlet.

As is so often the case, both sides have a valid take, but both sides only see their POV. the reality is the middle ground, which ultimate rests with how MS broke the information in the first place. That people made an escalating mess of it after reveal was only an issue because there were so many question marks and conflicting comments.

I am a little confused by your argument. The EG part you quote is from an old article before MS changed its policies as a result from the uproar. And naturally the original policy page in the EG comment you quoted and which started it all, is gone now. There was no media spin. No prejudice.

The link of the policy page you posted now is more positive because it is not the same EG was commenting on at the time.
[update: oh Sorry I just saw that some of the original policies are in the link you posted.
Its natural they will look more positive at their page. its MS's job to support and present their product and decisions under a positive light. Its what PR does. Its not their job to tell you what they are taking away. They will tell you only what they will give you to attract you to buy the product. Thats why their policy page left unanswered questions. What the media like EG did has nothing to do with spin or prejudice. They did what was not MS's job to do and looked behind that PR curtain and pointed out what MS carefully did not explain through careful wording and omissions]

It is those older policies that many appear to defend to this day and throw the blame at the consumer and the media for the "misunderstanding" that forced MS to change them

This is EG's take after the change in policy which I also had in my previous post
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-21-the-most-popular-arguments-in-favour-of-xbox-one-drm

 

[Cjail]

EG distorted the facts or ignored them.
MS didn't take anyway ownership from anyone.
MS DRM just prevented people that didn't check in every 24 hours to play games but they didn't take away ownership.
MS original polices also had several positive aspects but EG ignored them and portrayed MS as a thief of rights.

 

[poobik the hare]

just popped in and see if there was any news about Xbox ONE. turns out STEAM and PC's are the hot topic.

oh well....

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Its natural they will look more positive at their page. its MS's job to support and present their product and decisions under a positive light. Its what PR does. Its not their job to tell you what they are taking away. They will tell you only what they will give you to attract you to buy the product. Thats why their policy page left unanswered questions. What the media like EG did has nothing to do with spin or prejudice. They did what was not MS's job to do and looked behind that PR curtain and pointed out what MS carefully did not explain through careful wording and omissions

MS has a job to spin their policies in the best possible light, obviously. The media ought to have a responsibility to unspin and lay out the facts, but in truth they have a job to spin content that generates hits. Thus the reality of MS's policies was a little less rosy-glow than their policy document (which didn't leave anything out, when they finally got around to telling everyone what it was, only moved the drawbacks to sidelines rather than headlines), and a lot more than the media's coverage of 'MS steals ownership, takes away all consumer rights, violate the sovereignty of individualism and free market capitalism yada yada.' EG's article was very far from impartial; it has a lot of emotional content rather than just a clear breakdown of the policies. And that editorial (being ubiquitous across the media) helped influence consumer response, with consumers responding the policies as presented by the media instead of to the policies as what they really offered.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

just popped in and see if there was any news about Xbox ONE. turns out STEAM and PC's are the hot topic.

oh well....

This thread has kinda run its course as there's not really much room for rumours given the console launches in a month. Probably not much news either until boxes hit shelves and doormats.

 

[Nesh]

EG distorted the facts or ignored them.
MS didn't take anyway ownership from anyone.
MS DRM just prevented people that didn't check in every 24 hours to play games and really that's what DRM is all about but they didn't take away ownership.
MS original polices also had several positive aspects but EG ignored them because "there's no new like bad news" and portrayed MS as a thief of rights.

In whatever way you put it, the true meaning of ownership changed with the original policies. It just isnt apparent since it was done in a non-transparent way. This is due to the fact that you cant have immediate experience in the short term of the limitations imposed or the fact that you dont care about owning indefinitely but more about playing the game "now".
That fact that you dont completely own the game is not felt unless specific scenarios occur or you continue to use the titles in the very long term.
Certain groups of people will experience the lack of ownership more immediately or will not jump in at all.
But to most the lack of ownership will not be apparent and they wont care. But thats besides the point.