What's the point of the 24 hour Xbox One connect?

[MfA]

The "it's necessary for resale" argument really doesn't hold water ... given that only resale to retailers and giving it away to friends on your list is allowed. Deactivation is inconvenient, but for these types of transactions it won't ever go wrong. The retailer can just scan the CD and see online if it's deactivated and the transfer to the friend can simply be required to be done online period.

So what's left ...

They are too scared their security will fail without this? I'm just not seeing it, this isn't an always offline console ... making the installation of new games always require activation (during which software can be updated) really should be doable with high confidence in it's security. Paranoia makes for good security perhaps, but it also makes for annoyed customers ... I don't think this is worth it.

Data mining? Depends on what the default privacy settings are ... for the TV viewing the Kinect certainly could accumulate information advertisers would be interested in knowing (hence the Microsoft patent).

Bit of both? Or something I missed?

 

[ERP]

I'm pretty sure it's for resale purposes.
It's not really a question if deactivation is sufficient, or if it's what you would prefer, it's a question of how whoever at MS is making the decisions sees the whole picture.
Depending on whether they think they could communicate licensing and deactivation to 99.999% of their user base and what volume of support calls that would generate.
The dial in every X hours thing is attractive when discussing solutions because in normal use it's completely transparent to the end user.
I've been in the unfortunate position to sit in on meetings discussing things like this, and what it always comes down to is how the people in the room perceive what the end user wants, and much of that is of course biased by the personal preferences of the people in the room.
MS in particular believe it or not is very heavilly driven by reacting to customers, probably more than any other company I've worked for and often to their detriment.

 

[MfA]

In that case why not simply allow offline play for DD games?

 

[tcrews]

In that case why not simply allow offline play for DD games?

Probably from the ability to play any of your games anywhere, anytime. Visit a friend, sign in your gamertag and download one of your DD games to play. You sign out and go home, the DD is still sitting on that console.

24 check prevents it from being used on your friends gamertag.

My best guess.....

 

[MfA]

You'd need the user to set an offline tag on the home console, this would disable play on different consoles if the home console stops checking in.

 

[valioso]

You cannot play the game from the disc. Must be installed to the drive. It prevents you from passing the disc around a zillion times and everyone playing the same copy

 

[MfA]

You cannot play the game from the disc. Must be installed to the drive. It prevents you from passing the disc around a zillion times and everyone playing the same copy

Nah, online activation takes care of that.

 

[dobwal]

The "it's necessary for resale" argument really doesn't hold water ... given that only resale to retailers and giving it away to friends on your list is allowed. Deactivation is inconvenient, but for these types of transactions it won't ever go wrong. The retailer can just scan the CD and see online if it's deactivated and the transfer to the friend can simply be required to be done online period.

So what's left ...

They are too scared their security will fail without this? I'm just not seeing it, this isn't an always offline console ... making the installation of new games always require activation (during which software can be updated) really should be doable with high confidence in it's security. Paranoia makes for good security perhaps, but it also makes for annoyed customers ... I don't think this is worth it.

Data mining? Depends on what the default privacy settings are ... for the TV viewing the Kinect certainly could accumulate information advertisers would be interested in knowing (hence the Microsoft patent).

Bit of both? Or something I missed?

Its probably an anti-hacking measure. You won't be able to hack your console and keep it offline indefinitely while you make use of pirated goods. Unless you hack your console and turn off the 24 check but I guess MS figures they can produce more robust security with such a measure.

 

[XpiderMX]

Yusuf Mehdi on Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/

 

[ERP]

Yusuf Mehdi on Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/

Interesting, my boss is constantly pushing the all you can play model subscription or Ad supported model. Back of the envelope calculations show it has dramatically higher potential revenue with even a modest monthly charge. Plus you have the option to tier services like cable TV.
IMO the barrier to entry is predominantly a business issue, in how you distribute revenue with the content creators.

The business models interest me a great deal going forwards, F2P, subscription and direct sale probably all have a place.

 

[MfA]

Yusuf Mehdi on Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/

Doesn't really say anything about the issue (other than that it is an issue).

 

[XpiderMX]

Until now, they (MS) are failing to show the benefits of their changes. They need to promote the benefits (not only the game library sharing).

I need (for example) lower prices. I can't believe I will pay the same price than PS4 games.

Doesn't really say anything about the issue (other than that it is an issue).

No, but I think it is related, they want all digital.

 

[MfA]

All digital doesn't preclude offline play, even subscription based gaming doesn't (subscriptions generally run for more than 24 hours).

 

[mrcorbo]

As I've said before, I think there is an element of system security at work there as well. When the system checks in to confirm licenses it will also be checking for firmware updates. If a vulnerability is found it can be patched quickly and there is a limited window where it can be exploited.

 

[expletive]

I posted this in another thread as well but I think what MS is doing, in parallel to implementing a license model, is essentially making every purchase a digital purchase. The whole trade-in, give to a friend, re-sell features are just to make people *feel* like they aren't buying a digital download, but on XBO a disc purchase and digital purchase are much more similar than they are different.

What does this buy them? This allows them to ditch the optical drive in a future revision of this console and future consoles since none of their customers would be pissed off because they have a "trunk full of disc based games."

EDIT: I think until we know if theres a code you need to show to your kinect or something unique burned onto the disc it will be tough to understand how the 24 hour check-in impacts the various use cases.

 

[Rangers]

As I've said before, I think there is an element of system security at work there as well. When the system checks in to confirm licenses it will also be checking for firmware updates. If a vulnerability is found it can be patched quickly and there is a limited window where it can be exploited.

This sounds the most logical so far to me.

Except that if pirates hack it, wont they hack the online check and make it unnecessary too? Kind of the point of hacking. A hacked Xbox One would be an all-offline Xbox One.

 

[mrcorbo]

This sounds the most logical so far to me.

Except that if pirates hack it, wont they hack the online check and make it unnecessary too? Kind of the point of hacking. A hacked Xbox One would be an all-offline Xbox One.

If it's hacked wide open enough to allow offline play any kind of check becomes irrelevant. I'm talking about more minor exploits and loopholes that are exposed both in the system software and installed apps.

 

[Nisaaru]

Nah, online activation takes care of that.

1) To avoid resellers the extra costly effort to check if a disc was freed by the customer on every used/rental transactions. If only the current license holder had the right to remove his license we wouldn't need this remote check to take away licenses. Used transactions would still be possible but GS's used business would probably get unprofitable.
2) To make their Kinect ad system work.
3) NSA needs to download the daily audio streams.
4) It's about control. Who cares if it makes sense.

Take your poison.

 

[MfA]

1) To avoid resellers the extra costly effort to check if a disc was freed by the customer on every used/rental transactions.

Scan a barcode and recognize a colour (or a word for the colour blind employees).

 

[Nisaaru]

Scan a barcode and recognize a colour (or a word for the colour blind employees).

You missed the point of the current owner first giving away the rights. That would mean login in and kill his license if he didn't before when he returns the rented disc/resells it.
If they take away the control from the current owner to avoid such a hassle they need this 24h check to kill licenses remotely.