News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[DJ12]

When and if DD becomes standard the price disparity between buying in a shop (normally way below the rrp) and buying less product for more (the full rrp) via DD.

Personally I would lice to download all my games but not when its going to cost me at least 20% more for the 'privilege'.

I would expect to pay less as I am getting less as I'm sure most sane people would.

Case in point: GTA v 39.99 from my local Asda. 49.99 from psn store or maybe 59.99 cannot remember.

 

[Nesh]

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.

You didnt get my point. The physical copy did not serve the same purpose as it used to with the original policies. The disk was only a means of getting the game data on the HDD. Then that data relied on the internet in order to be playable. It assumed that everyone who has an XB1 has internet and is required to use its features, In other words it behaved exactly like a DD. The only difference? It wasnt downloaded from the online store. But once copied to the HDD it was a DD under a different cover. The physical copy didnt have the same value. The intangible content copied to your hard drive had value. And that as long as you were connected to the internet and the online Service was active and supported it just like the DD.

 

[-tkf-]

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 .

If you told people that they weren't buying a game, but just paying for license under unknown terms with a unknown future and a kill switch at some point in the future but they could share with 10 friends under even more unknown conditions i doubt they would buy into that. Besides, there is no way that game sharing would be like you portray it here, essentially letting 10 people share the cost for one game.

And remember to tell them about the limitations on reselling their discs.. another thing Microsoft never got around to explaining.

And then show them this awesome video of sharing technology..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA

No limitations, and when your 10 friends have played it, you can sell it or trade it in.. AWESOME

The main reason behind DD is simply profit, DD's sell for more than Discs, there is no reseller competition, it's price fixing at it's finest. And those that market it are the same that sell it, with zero competition again.

DD on the PC is different, there is competition, price fixing is much harder and there is choice since those that run the shops doesn't own the entire ecosystem.

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?

Tommy McClain

It's an area that needs laws, isn't that crystal clear? If it has a future it will need to regulated by laws so that the consumers investments are protected. As proven in the courts a license can be resold, it's just a question of time before that is made into law.

Or do you prefer Microsoft,Sony and EA to do as they please?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You dont make any sense. You are implying that any article that happens to agree with my opinion it should be wrong.

No. I wasn't complaining about the POV per se, but it's presentation. EG could have said, "These are the policies. This is how it's usually done. This is how MS is doing is differently. These are the pros. These are the cons. Personally I'm not in favour." There was no need for the emotive language.

What I'm saying regards your interpretation is, if you don't see the title and subtitle etc. as imbalanced, there must be a reason for that, and I attribute that reason to you being in favour of the content of the article. Because the article resonates with your own feelings, you don't notice the emotive language. That doesn't mean it's not there though, nor that it's not unfair reporting.

And the big point in that article which was highly emphasized (and largely ignored by proponents of MS's original policies) was...

At no point in this discussion have I been arguing whether MS's decisions were right or wrong. We've had that debate elsewhere. I stepped in firstly to argue with those defending MS's communication policy that I think MS were crap at communicating and all this madness would have been avoided with a decent 5 minute lifestyle video, and then to defend the viewpoint that MS didn't get fair representation of their policies which in part contributed to their communication woes. The EG article proves my point to those able to see. The tagline alone shows incredible prejudice.

If you told people that they weren't buying a game, but just paying for license under unknown terms with a unknown future and a kill switch at some point in the future but they could share with 10 friends under even more unknown conditions i doubt they would buy into that.

People do that all the time with mobile games and without any possibility of sharing, so consumers by and large don't appear averse (yes there's a cost issue, but mobile games are getting more expensive as they become more professional). But this conversation is really one for elsewhere (and its been done to death already). I'm going to leave it here.

 

[-tkf-]

People do that all the time with mobile games and without any possibility of sharing, so consumers by and large don't appear averse (yes there's a cost issue, but mobile games are getting more expensive as they become more professional). But this conversation is really one for elsewhere (and its been done to death already). I'm going to leave it here.

Come on, lets not drag mobile phone games that costs 99 cents into this.

On Android i am on my 7th phone and 2 tablets, i have installed my apps more than 2 times and i can have several accounts on one phone. And you can have several (no idea how many but it seems that 5+ is allowed) ipads/iphones etc with the same account and software. Game sharing is alive and well. YES you can't resell your 99 cent software, but you have no problem using it on all the smudge devices you own.

My same issues stand with Smudge games, they will die at some point, though on Android they might survive thanks to "grey" markets, APK etc.. lack of security. But it's a completely different platform, there never was a Disc based phone/tablet market to begin with, there is only one way to go.

 

[AzBat]

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.

So its OK for a vocal minority to spread FUD & create hysteria? Basically creating a lynch mob? I got it, you think it's OK to say somebody is guilty until proven innocent. I bet you watch those news programs that get their kicks for trying a case in the court of public opinion too?

It's an area that needs laws, isn't that crystal clear? If it has a future it will need to regulated by laws so that the consumers investments are protected. As proven in the courts a license can be resold, it's just a question of time before that is made into law.

Or do you prefer Microsoft,Sony and EA to do as they please?

Since neither one has a monopoly, I have no problem with it. The open market will be good enough to regulate it. I definitely don't think it needs any laws. I'd rather the lawmakers spend their time on more pressing matters.

Come on, lets not drag mobile phone games that costs 99 cents into this.

You might have a point if all games were 99 cents, but they're not. Like Shifty said they are getting more expensive. The most popular paid game right now on Android is Minecraft & it's $7. There are a lot of $5 games & I seen some Final Fantasy games that cost $11, $16 & $20.

Ready for goal posts to move again...

Tommy McClain

 

[-tkf-]

Since neither one has a monopoly, I have no problem with it. The open market will be good enough to regulate it. I definitely don't think it needs any laws. I'd rather the lawmakers spend their time on more pressing matters.



You might have a point if all games were 99 cents, but they're not. Like Shifty said they are getting more expensive. The most popular paid game right now on Android is Minecraft & it's $7. There are a lot of $5 games & I seen some Final Fantasy games that cost $11, $16 & $20.

Ready for goal posts to move again...

Tommy McClain

Yes because open markets just work by magic. You don't need monopoly to have a market without competition. And setting the rules for who owns what, and what rights a customer has is really not killing "open markets". Maybe in that special world where the teaparty lives.

I pay upto $100 dollars for a console game, so excuse me if i can't take it seriously to consider mobile games expensive.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/03/11/the-surprising-numbers-behind-apps/

 

[Gubbi]

Yes because open markets just work by magic. You don't need monopoly to have a market without competition. And setting the rules for who owns what, and what rights a customer has is really not killing "open markets". Maybe in that special world where the teaparty lives.

I pay upto $100 dollars for a console game, so excuse me if i can't take it seriously to consider mobile games expensive.

Nice deflection.

Now answer AzBar, at what price point is it alright to revoke your right to resell your software ?

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/03/11/the-surprising-numbers-behind-apps/

Did you even read that article? Average price point for sold apps on iPhones is a little over $3 and around $4.5 for iPads, with all the shovelware sold at $.99 there must be a fair amount sold a higher price points.

Cheers

 

[bkilian]

I would expect to pay less as I am getting less as I'm sure most sane people would.

And how are you getting less? Did the game you got via DD cost any less to produce than the game on disc? (Keep in mind that disc production averages out to less than a dollar per copy, and bandwidth isn't free). Does the DD game somehow have less gameplay in it? Where is this value you claim is missing in the digital version?

 

[DJ12]

If you use GTA as an example there's a map and printed manual. Neither of which you get with the DD version.

And while it may not cost much to make the discs I'm pretty sure the distribution there of is quite costly.

 

[function]

And how are you getting less? Did the game you got via DD cost any less to produce than the game on disc? (Keep in mind that disc production averages out to less than a dollar per copy, and bandwidth isn't free). Does the DD game somehow have less gameplay in it? Where is this value you claim is missing in the digital version?

Don't know if this was in his mind, but it's no longer an asset that you can sell, it won't become a collectors item, and you can't get the same value that comes from giving or lending it to friends.

If you ignore this (as Microsoft foolishly did this year) then you can say it's the same, but enough people want these other areas of value for it to be seen as a big net loss.

 

[Strange]

So its OK for a vocal minority to spread FUD & create hysteria? Basically creating a lynch mob? I got it, you think it's OK to say somebody is guilty until proven innocent. I bet you watch those news programs that get their kicks for trying a case in the court of public opinion too?

Which part of my reply suggested that anybody thought it was okay?

You might be totally fine with the policies Microsoft wanted to impose on everybody, but there were enough people that think otherwise back then that it probably was the vocal majority hating the policies.

BTW, nobody need to prove they were guilty. Microsoft saved everybody the trouble by wording it pretty clearly what they didn't want to let you do with your games.

Also, I'm (again) seeing lots of people defending individual policies but that's not the way to go. You must defend the entire policy as adding value to the customer.

As a package the only thing we as customers get as value that I can see is the ability to share with 10 friends (with limitations). Quite frankly this feature mean little to nothing for many people (just as having a physical copy means little to nothing for some), or they don't see this feature so valuable as to over come the other limitations that comes with the package.
Thus, the result was that the policy Microsoft wanted to impose on everybody can only be viewed as damaging consumers rights at best by many people.
Lets not mention how their policies were viewed as pretty damaging to other participants in the gaming industry, to the point that some of them actually took action.



Why are we debating it again? The fact that they retracted it is already a clear sign that their policies are not acceptable for consumers at in this time/environment. It may be perfectly fine 5~10 years from now but right now it's not acceptable. Even Microsoft realized the message amid the massive damage to their brand. Get over it.

 

[MrFox]

Why are we debating it again?

I've been wondering for the last 10 pages.

 

[-tkf-]

I've been wondering for the last 10 pages.

It started out with:

Or, as it was, MS were incapable of getting that message over in a way that didn't make them sound anti-gamer, anti-consumer, and pro-big brother.

They shot themselves in the foot with a carefully crafted sequence of PR blunders and contradictory messages, to the point that even the mainstream press were reporting on such an orchestrated failure!

Which was one of the subjects and then naturally for turned in to a fight about DD..

There u go

 

[-tkf-]

Nice deflection.

Now answer AzBar, at what price point is it alright to revoke your right to resell your software ?



Did you even read that article? Average price point for sold apps on iPhones is a little over $3 and around $4.5 for iPads, with all the shovelware sold at $.99 there must be a fair amount sold a higher price points.

Cheers

There is no price point where i find it ok to revoke my rights to resell my software or always being able to play it. OK?

For all the principles i fight for i have no problem with compromising, yes imagine that, something that isn't black and white, impossible on the internet where everything has to be black and white. I prefer discs, but shop in the steam shop, *faints*. And i buy smudge games for my kids, "OMG! Impossible, how can he argue that DD sucks when he uses it himself". But it will take something special to see me buy a full priced DD game on the XB1/PS4.

I have many problems with DD, but that is nothing compared to consoles requiring disc based games to be activated. Lucky for me this generation gives me a choice, and so it should since there is no real obvious reason why it shouldn't except for pure greed.

 

[Cyan]

It started out with:



Which was one of the subjects and then naturally for turned in to a fight about DD..

There u go

The pro-big brother message was entirely created by the journalists though. I read the news articles at the time, a lot of them, and they said Kinect would spy on you in your sleep.

I have a feeling that someone got it wrong here and there was a confusion with the terms.

Some smart aleck of a journalist heard that you can put the console in "Sleep mode" and he made into the news saying that Kinect would be watching you while you sleep.

Just a theory from what I gathered in those ill-fated days.

 

[Cyan]

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.

How much are you willing to be on that? I think we can pretty much confirm it. The CPU is x86 and the GPU uses AMD technology.

Besides that, this might have something to do with the news of Microsoft asking developers to use Direct3D and DirectX 11 across all platforms; Windows PCs, tablets, smartphones, and Xbox One.

It might also explain why the Xbox One can't be actually programmed to the metal, which I am glad for to be honest, because using one obscure feature which can be replicated somewhere else in the current system could break perfect backwards compatibility in the future.

http://microsoft-news.com/microsoft-urges-game-developers-to-use-direct3d-across-windows-pcs-and-tablets-windows-phone-and-xbox-one/

 

[-tkf-]

The pro-big brother message was entirely created by the journalists though. I read the news articles at the time, a lot of them, and they said Kinect would spy on you in your sleep.

I have a feeling that someone got it wrong here and there was a confusion with the terms.

Some smart aleck of a journalist heard that you can put the console in "Sleep mode" and he made into the news saying that Kinect would be watching you while you sleep.

Just a theory from what I gathered in those ill-fated days.

The Kinect thingy was just bad timing, on NSA's part. I have my kinect on when i don't play Kinect games. Not that there is anything worth seeing.. i am not even naked!

 

[Nesh]

No. I wasn't complaining about the POV per se, but it's presentation. EG could have said, "These are the policies. This is how it's usually done. This is how MS is doing is differently. These are the pros. These are the cons. Personally I'm not in favour." There was no need for the emotive language.

What I'm saying regards your interpretation is, if you don't see the title and subtitle etc. as imbalanced, there must be a reason for that, and I attribute that reason to you being in favour of the content of the article. Because the article resonates with your own feelings, you don't notice the emotive language. That doesn't mean it's not there though, nor that it's not unfair reporting.

But I am not giving attention to the emotive language. Its not what resonated with me. If you remove the emotive language the essence is still the same. The points are still the same. Its those points that I am focusing on. You are arguing about the way the author expressed his points which were expressed probably because he was also annoyed at a personal level, whereas I am looking at the points themselves.

At no point in this discussion have I been arguing whether MS's decisions were right or wrong. We've had that debate elsewhere. I stepped in firstly to argue with those defending MS's communication policy that I think MS were crap at communicating and all this madness would have been avoided with a decent 5 minute lifestyle video, and then to defend the viewpoint that MS didn't get fair representation of their policies which in part contributed to their communication woes. The EG article proves my point to those able to see. The tagline alone shows incredible prejudice.

But I wasnt talking about you.
But regarding MS's crap communication I believe it was crap because their policies no matter how you interpret them there would always be something taken away that people would care about. Any way you put it the benefits did come at a cost and MS couldnt find a proper PR communication that would hide them. This is why at any given chance they could fix the disaster they failed again and again. You cant hide the elephant in the room. Thats why the defenders of these policies try to justify that it was worth to take away some freedoms instead of debunking that they were taken away since they cant do the latter.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But I am not giving attention to the emotive language.

I know you weren't. I'm saying you should have been. When you said, "I dont see the EG article as one of those other emotional media articles," that view doesn't seem valid when it has such strong emotional content. If you accept there is strong emotional content, then you must accept that your original premise which started me yabbering was incorrect.