News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[Nesh]

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.

I dont see the EG article as one of those other emotional media articles. It actually covered all areas (both the rewards and the costs to the end user) of what you get and what you lose and backed it up with very good arguments on why MS was moving towards that direction and what everything meant in the total picture and in the long term
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-microsoft-kills-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile

 

[Cjail]

The 24 hours check was an anti piracy measure not a way to take away ownership.
Also we are not free to do whatever we want with the things we own.

 

[Nesh]

The 24 hours check was an anti piracy measure not a way to take away ownership.

That comes with implications. It is an anti-piracy measure that also has other business uses as well

Also we are not free to do whatever we want with the things we own.

You need to define "whatever" before you bring up statements like this one

 

[Cyan]

Dell have accidentally confirmed that Windows 8 Store apps are going to run on the Xbox One.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/20/...s-windows-store-apps-will-run-on-the-xbox-one

If true that's great news because I have Windows 8.1 and I consider it a neat OS.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I dont see the EG article as one of those other emotional media articles.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-microsoft-kills-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile

Title:

Microsoft kills game ownership and expects us to smile

Subtitle:

Last time they shipped a console that didn't work by accident. Here's one that doesn't work on purpose.

Those don't strike you as emotionally weighted statements? And you consider the content focussed on delivering the facts of the srevice instead of personal interpretation of said facts, with remarks like...

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:

It's typical editorial prose, like any newspaper pushing an agenda instead of trying to inform the public on the realities of the situation. The article presented the single viewpoint of an objector. It's worth noting that EG have released articles covering stories from the two opposing sides before now. They release the 'against' argument in one article, and then the 'fore' in another, and that may have been what they were doing here. I can't remember. However, it's the sort of highly charged article that swayed opinion unnecessarily. All we needed was coverage of the policies and let the users themselves decide if a disc bought game that'll last forever (until the hardware breaks and can't be replaced) is of more value to them than being able to share their library with 10 people. Telling the reader that MS was taking their god-given right to ownership was severely colouring the discussing.

 

[BRiT]

Dell have accidentally confirmed that Windows 8 Store apps are going to run on the Xbox One.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/20/...s-windows-store-apps-will-run-on-the-xbox-one

If true that's great news because I have Windows 8.1 and I consider it a neat OS.

I hope that is the case. Its what I've wanted for some time now.

 

[Nesh]

Title:


Subtitle:


Those don't strike you as emotionally weighted statements? And you consider the content focussed on delivering the facts of the srevice instead of personal interpretation of said facts, with remarks like...


It's typical editorial prose, like any newspaper pushing an agenda instead of trying to inform the public on the realities of the situation. The article presented the single viewpoint of an objector. It's worth noting that EG have released articles covering stories from the two opposing sides before now. They release the 'against' argument in one article, and then the 'fore' in another, and that may have been what they were doing here. I can't remember. However, it's the sort of highly charged article that swayed opinion unnecessarily. All we needed was coverage of the policies and let the users themselves decide if a disc bought game that'll last forever (until the hardware breaks and can't be replaced) is of more value to them than being able to share their library with 10 people. Telling the reader that MS was taking their god-given right to ownership was severely colouring the discussing.

You look at the tree and not the forest. Remove these selected comments and you still get the same idea.
There is no agenda. These comments stem naturally as a result of MS's decisions. He backs it up with valid arguments and covers MS's policies with additional info by bringing up both advantages and the disadvantages associated with them
Such us

10 people can be authorised to play these games on a different Xbox One via the cloud, but not at the same time, similar to iTunes authorised devices.

Your account allows you to play the games you license on any console.

Live TV, Blu-ray and DVD movies are exempt from these internet requirements.

Loaning and renting games will not be possible at launch, but Microsoft is "exploring the possibilities".

Microsoft may change these policies or discontinue them at any point

Instead of presenting MS as an evil company that wants to shove it up the consumer's, to the contrary, he talked about what he believes is the overall strategic purpose and vision that has led to this decision that comes with its negative byproducts:

The more likely reason for this unprecedented new attitude to console game ownership and sharing is that Microsoft wants to turn its game business into the equivalent of iTunes. The signs are already there in the merger of Xbox, Windows and Windows Phone app stores and the decision to run Xbox games off a Virtual Machine 'game OS' within Xbox One, which could easily be included in new hardware derived from the same architectural roadmap.

This is a neat business way of getting everything to line up. It is done in service to Microsoft's corporate objectives. It is not even done with any particular malice towards you and I.

These comments come directly from a different but valid point of view that has nothing to do with an agenda to get hits on the page or hit against MS on purpose. If there is an agenda is that of a gane collector and long lasting gamer that appreciates them as an art form. A point of view that I totally share and I was also totally expressing after I read MS's policies in their official page and before I read EG article

Digital marketplaces like Netflix, iTunes and the present Xbox Live are a good thing, but they should be additive. They allow us to form a different kind of relationship with art - a more convenient, expansive and often cheaper one that includes better tools for exploration beyond the borders of our current interest. We should and I do celebrate these things. But a critical reason that I accept them is that I still have the option to own an untouchable physical copy of the things I find there as well.

.

You can say this is no worse than what Steam does, you can say that it is no worse than what a lot of 'content' companies do, and those statements are true, but they do not engage with the most important detail of this news, which is what we are being told to give up in exchange for this new arrangement: the opportunity to form tangible, lasting relationships with art that matters to us. If you never had that, then why would you miss it? But we do. And soon we won't.

 

[AzBat]

<big snip>

Telling the reader that MS was taking their god-given right to ownership was severely colouring the discussing.

Thanks Shifty for that. Made me smile. EG is usually better than that, but then again I don't know of any outlet that didn't get emotional over the original XB1 policies.

IMHO, I believe if most people had just read Microsoft's posts on the matter without commentary from the press or forums you got a pretty decent view of their plans. Yes, it wasn't fully complete at their initial reveal & it might have taken a few more posts on the matter, but I had faith they would get more into the particulars as time went on. I mean there was still 6 months until launch. Unfortunately most gamers were impatient & so the confusion & FUD spread like wildfire. Really unfortunate as I was looking forward to it. I know some weren't, but personally I think MS decided to go after a different demographic & it didn't sit well with alot of those that were being left behind.

I hope that is the case. Its what I've wanted for some time now.

Same here. Sounds great. Will be interesting to see what kind of apps devs come up specifically for XB1.

BTW, I also did read on Reddit that 3rd-party apps can choose if they are "Snap"-able...

Snapping can be done in two ways. One is via the controller by selecting the "Snap an app" button on the Home screen. This will show a list of apps that are snap capable. The other is via voice commands. "Xbox, snap X."
The majority of the apps that come at launch can be snapped, though not all. Some apps are by design only to run in snapped mode. As more apps will be developed in the future by third parties, they can choose whether an app can be snapped based on what kind of experience the app will provide. Game titles do not have the option be to snap enabled (shrunken to 1/4 size) even if the developer wants to.
What MajorNelson confirmed is that once you have an app snapped, it will by default have focus. You can then press the center button twice to switch focus back to your original app/game.
E.g You are playing a game. You say "Xbox snap Internet Explorer." Your controller is now controlling the browser and not the game. Tap the center button twice to switch back to the game.

http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1or174/questions_about_snap_feature/ccurh6n

Tommy McClain

 

[BRiT]

Same here. Sounds great. Will be interesting to see what kind of apps devs come up specifically for XB1.

BTW, I also did read on Reddit that 3rd-party apps can choose if they are "Snap"-able...

http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1or174/questions_about_snap_feature/ccurh6n

That makes sense to me, to allow apps to be snapable or not but not let games opt-out of that user interaction feature. Some apps likely wont be able to fit any meaningful control in the snap panel such as a Paint program.

 

[joker454]

Dell have accidentally confirmed that Windows 8 Store apps are going to run on the Xbox One.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/20/...s-windows-store-apps-will-run-on-the-xbox-one

If true that's great news because I have Windows 8.1 and I consider it a neat OS.

Yeah still waiting for conformation on that one. If the xb1 can run Windows 8 apps then I'll get one to port my apps to it, since I presume one has to add either voice or gamepad support for them to be couch controllable.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You look at the tree and not the forest. Remove these selected comments...

That's like looking at a forest full of dead trees and saying, "if you ignore the dead trees, it's a healthy forest." The article is all of it, every word typed (words are carfeully chosen in professional publications like this, unlike tweets ans blog posts, so you can be sure the author intended every mark they made, including title and subtitle), not just a select few parts of it, and it's an article that took the policies and wrapped them in hostility.

There were three options for coverage:
1) Say MS is wonderful for pioneering the future of game sharing
2) Say MS is evil for robbing consumers of their rights
3) Explain what the policies were without any personal interpretation and leave it for the reader to make up their own mind

Pretty much everyone went option two, to some degree. EG certainly did that in that article you linked to. If you read that article as balanced and honest, it shows that it resonates with your opinions and so doesn't come across as wrong, which is much of what the media tends to do, even if on a subconscious level.

 

[upnorthsox]

Title:


Subtitle:


Those don't strike you as emotionally weighted statements? And you consider the content focussed on delivering the facts of the srevice instead of personal interpretation of said facts, with remarks like...


It's typical editorial prose, like any newspaper pushing an agenda instead of trying to inform the public on the realities of the situation. The article presented the single viewpoint of an objector. It's worth noting that EG have released articles covering stories from the two opposing sides before now. They release the 'against' argument in one article, and then the 'fore' in another, and that may have been what they were doing here. I can't remember. However, it's the sort of highly charged article that swayed opinion unnecessarily. All we needed was coverage of the policies and let the users themselves decide if a disc bought game that'll last forever (until the hardware breaks and can't be replaced) is of more value to them than being able to share their library with 10 people. Telling the reader that MS was taking their god-given right to ownership was severely colouring the discussing.

So I take it by your statements that Beyond3d's official stance is that MS got robbed.

Nice.

 

[AlphaWolf]

So I take it by your statements that Beyond3d's official stance is that MS got robbed.

Nice.

That's quite the leap.

How about he feels that MS weren't the beneficiaries of balanced news coverage?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So I take it by your statements that Beyond3d's official stance is that MS got robbed.

I'm posting my own personal opinions, which have nothing to do with Beyond3D, for which I am not any sort of spokesperson (except regards forum rules and policy). Your remark also encourages that ridiculous habit of employees putting disclaimers in their signatures to guard against those who can't separate an individual from their employer or other affiliates. It's bloody stupid to assume the words coming out of anyone's mouth represent anyone's opinion but their own unless they are explicitly speaking on behalf of some other body, such as at a corporate event or political rally.

Getting past that ridiculous correlation of yours, let's review my opinion on the matter in total instead of as pieces scattered across threads. My view is not that MS got robbed. Nor is it that the consumer got robbed. God forbid, I actually believe the reality is nothing like as polarised as the masses tend towards (on virtually all matters, and not just consoles). Consumers failed to understand MS's policies, in considerable part because MS failed to explain them very well. Consumers also risked losing some...options/benefits (some people call them rights, but that's a hugely philosophical debate) which up until now had been standard practice, which some consumers were very averse to, either because they would have been materially affected in relation to their usual experiences, or because human beings have a natural aversion to change. However, in addition to what was lost, some things were gained that people may well have come to value more than those benefits lost. I also believe we're headed in that direction anyway and MS just jumped in with two feet when they should have stepped more cautiously, providing their change as an option. I'll add to this that MS were sissy's and should have backed their vision regardless of the internet noise. Although that is somewhat predicated on communicating effectively in the first place. Fairly to win people over with the reveal left MS with a firefight they didn't know how to tackle, ending with the 180s.

So, to recap, I disagree with everyone. There are those who say MS was nigh blameless and the consumer was just too stupid to understand their vision. I disagree. MS screwed up in having a strong vision and presenting it. There are those who say MS's policies were evil and they were money-grubbing fiends. I disagree. I believe they are trying to adapt the business to a new distribution model and made some mistakes. There are some who think MS were champions of the publisher's rights and it was Sony who backstabbed the industry with no decent DRM to win PR points with the public. I think they're just making stuff up. I think, over all, we see an assortment of mistakes and misbehaviours from everyone, followed by a lot of pointing fingers and blaming everyone else with arguments completely blind to the opposite POV. Like the rest of life, really.

 

[Sonic]

Digital Distribution is fine and dandy as long as consumers are allowed to back up the game onto physical media. My fear is that if games require an internet connection it would be rather easy for developers to drop support for a game thus destroying my right to play a game that I purchased. I'm not leasing a game, I"m buying it. Have legislation in place that forces MS or devs/pubs to support the game for 10 years and we can go DD only, but until that happens then I'm against it.

 

[Nesh]

That's like looking at a forest full of dead trees and saying, "if you ignore the dead trees, it's a healthy forest." The article is all of it, every word typed (words are carfeully chosen in professional publications like this, unlike tweets ans blog posts, so you can be sure the author intended every mark they made, including title and subtitle), not just a select few parts of it, and it's an article that took the policies and wrapped them in hostility.

There were three options for coverage:
1) Say MS is wonderful for pioneering the future of game sharing
2) Say MS is evil for robbing consumers of their rights
3) Explain what the policies were without any personal interpretation and leave it for the reader to make up their own mind

Pretty much everyone went option two, to some degree. EG certainly did that in that article you linked to. If you read that article as balanced and honest, it shows that it resonates with your opinions and so doesn't come across as wrong, which is much of what the media tends to do, even if on a subconscious level.

You dont make any sense. You are implying that any article that happens to agree with my opinion it should be wrong.
EG was not option 2) and neither was 3) because the subject was about what MS didnt want to talk about because its not their job to do so and that side of the story wasnt rosy.
All of MS policies and touted benefits were pointed in bulletpoint form in the article (along with a link with MS official policies for those interested). The benefits were clear to anyone albeit not analyzed farther. What was unclear were the cost which someone had to talk about.

The point of view of the author was that of a consumer who saw the ownership and independence as something of high importance. Under that perspective all his points were valid and understandable. It wasnt balanced per se but it wasnt due to an agenda to pull more hits. Sure he could have written more about the benefits and named the article "negatives and positives of MS policies, what it all means to the consumer". Sure I can accept that it could have been more balanced (it would have been a different article at that point). But the same negatives which many defenders of the original policies try to present as non-existent, would have still and should have still been there present in the article because they did exist and they were a reality.

And the big point in that article which was highly emphasized (and largely ignored by proponents of MS's original policies) was choice. If you want all the benefits of the original policies you should have the option to choose if you want them or not. You want those "revolutionary" benefits associated to the original policies? Buy the digital version where those can apply (MS said that the digital version of games will be available day one).You want to have the original benefits of independence and indefinite ownership of the game but at the cost of not having those "revolutionary" benefits? Buy the disk. Apparently that choice didnt exist and is what pissed the consumer. The disk was just a mean to install the game. Its purpose was almost non-existent if not completely. It worked exactly like a digital download. Why not abandon the disk completely since the XBOX One was dependent so much on internet connectivity for the disk game to be playable just like the digital download anyways? I mean....everyone who would own an XBOX One would have internet connection. It was required in order for those benefits to work.

Edit: Sony took the approach of offering that choice. I dont know how well it will work but why not?
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/games/1300990/ps4-game-sharing-play-as-you-download-features-detailed

With Play As You Download, Sony is clearly targeting rival Microsoft. Although the company has backed down from plans to allow disc-based games to be played on multiple consoles through a download service, the company's Xbox One will allow digitally distributed titles to be played on any console as long as the original buyer is signed in.

 

[AzBat]

I think, over all, we see an assortment of mistakes and misbehaviours from everyone, followed by a lot of pointing fingers and blaming everyone else with arguments completely blind to the opposite POV. Like the rest of life, really.

Great post. I can get behind this. MS definitely made mistakes in communicating, but everybody else had their own share too.

Digital Distribution is fine and dandy as long as consumers are allowed to back up the game onto physical media. My fear is that if games require an internet connection it would be rather easy for developers to drop support for a game thus destroying my right to play a game that I purchased. I'm not leasing a game, I"m buying it. Have legislation in place that forces MS or devs/pubs to support the game for 10 years and we can go DD only, but until that happens then I'm against it.

LOL seriously? You want legislation for digital distribution? Good luck with that. So I guess Apple & Google are all doing digital games wrong too since they don't provide a way to backup your games to physical media?

Man, I sure hope we get more news soon. This beating a dead horse is getting stale. Hopefully we hear more details on DNLA support & other OS/UI details.

Tommy McClain

 

[Strange]

Great post. I can get behind this. MS definitely made mistakes in communicating, but everybody else had their own share too.

I don't see how/why the general public is at fault. Not wanting such a DRM is a choice and I don't see anything "at fault" with that. Consumers surely aren't at fault for not wanting a product due to certain undesirable features.

 

[eastmen]

I don't see how/why the general public is at fault. Not wanting such a DRM is a choice and I don't see anything "at fault" with that. Consumers surely aren't at fault for not wanting a product due to certain undesirable features.

people don't want a lot of things and then suddenly they want it badly.

I doubt much of the general public even knew what was going on. But if you told the general public you could buy a game at the store , load it to the console and then have one of 10 friends borrow it without having to lift a finger , they would love it .

 

[Cjail]

Why not abandon the disk completely since the XBOX One was dependent so much on internet connectivity for the disk game to be playable just like the digital download anyways? I mean....everyone who would own an XBOX One would have internet connection. It was required in order for those benefits to work.

MS didn't abandon discs completely because the conditions for a DD console are not in place even if the future is clearly in DD.
Xbox One was though the closest thing to a DD only console AND at the same time it was friendlier because you could still buy physical copies.
Easing customers into DD is one of the goals of the next-gen consoles and MS was ready to do it.

MS approach in my opinion was too direct and probably too aggressive, but it was not stupid at all.