How the Xbox One draws more processing power from cloud computing

Ars also talks to Microsoft about the integration of Kinect and RAM allocation.

Read the whole story

 

[Seraphiel]

Booty also dodged the important question of how used games and game installs will actually work on the system. "Stay tuned for the details, but we do want to support secondary use of games," is all he would say on the issue.

Since he did not simply say "it'll be just like it is now, just like it's always been," I don't feel bad in concluding that it's not going to be like that.

So allow me to translate this from the original Bullshit Lawyerese:

"The current system is one in which you may lend friends a physical object to share the experiences you enjoyed. It's a simple system, a system which has served customers well through the entire history of video games.

That system is over, because money. We want more of it. Publishers want more of it. So we've found a way to make your friend pay, again, for something you already bought, for no reason other than naked, unalloyed greed. We have introduced a tremendous hassle where none needed to exist. What do customers get out of it? You get shit on, and you'll love it. Have you seen that new FIFA game? It's gonna be awesome. Why should we only get to charge you for it once?"

If I'm wrong, and they are for some strange reason being ridiculously evasive about their system working just like the old one did, then I will offer my sincerest apologies. But I will also be terribly confused why they'd dodge the question if it had such a simple, direct, non-controversial answer.

 

[Seraphiel]

lordcheeto[/url]":i3izbxsg]

Seraphiel[/url]":i3izbxsg]
So we've found a way to make your friend pay, again, for something you already bought.

Oh, egads! While you're clutching your pearls in horror, why don't you get your moral compass checked? Your friend has no right to play your game unless that's what the developer intended (e.g. splitscreen multiplayer).

Umm... Maybe in whatever backwater you're living in, but over here we have a fairly well-established first sale doctrine. Publishers have been trying for decades to destroy it (and MS may have found a way here) but for now it still stands.

If I buy an object (a book, a movie, a game, a blender) it is mine to give or sell to anyone I choose. The publisher/manufacturer doesn't get any input into the decision. They got their money from me and that object is no longer any concern of theirs.

 

[Seraphiel]

Lonyo[/url]":6jur226b]

BajaPaul[/url]":6jur226b]Read elsewhere that the game purchase will be tied to one Live account. Have to purchase a separate copy for another Live account. Rumors still I think!!!!

Hope not so. What if you have multiple kids or if dad wants to play too? If this is truly the case then I don't see the Xbox One going very far except in single player households. Now if it is all linked to one credit card that the household is using for various Live accounts it might work.

Rumors! MS really needs to clear this item up before we all get excited about anything regarding the Xbox One.

Besides, the name is really stupid. It makes you wonder about the current crop of Marketing and MBA people. More so the people making decisions on the issues. If they can't come up with a decent name then how the hell you expect a competent system? What are our colleges teaching our kids nowadays?

Millions of Steam users are perfectly happy with this.
And no used games/reselling.

Suddenly on a console it might be bad?

Have you considered that some people who have Steam also have a console precisely because the history of consoles up to this point has not been like this? It still has much of the simplicity of reselling/renting/lending that was largely cut out of PC gaming.

Why would I need to buy a console that's going to give me all the downsides of something like Steam without any of the benefits?

 

[Seraphiel]

msm8bball[/url]":1r105lcu]

dct1700d[/url]":1r105lcu]
I will never understand attitudes like yours…all I can think is that you must not be much over 25 years old.
Tell me the “necessary” reasoning behind forcing someone to pay twice for a game?
I used to swap games with people, specifically to try it out for a week…sometimes I’d even…GASP…rent games to try before I invested the money in buying them.
I guess in your mind that makes me a pirate.
YOU many not mind publishers getting more money in an unethical way, but I sure as hell do.
The only reason for instituting this is for money, like others have said. The entire history of video gaming has been the old way until recently. Hell I used to lend out my PC games back in the late 90s and early into the 2000s.
Attitudes like this are what will cause even you, eventually to object to some new restraint, but at that point it will be much too late. Just don’t come back here whining when it happens…you will have earned it.

So you're saying you occasionally want to try games out before playing them? There's a word for that. I believe the word started with an S. Nope, nope, I'm remembering correctly now. It was a T. Trail. Nope.....trial! You want to play trials of games before you buy them! Xbox 360 games sometimes had trials you could download, I see no reason to think why that would be discontinued for this generation.

My problem with freely exchanging games, is that you can play through the game once and be done with it, and then give it to a friend permanently (or long enough to beat the entire thing). That's lost money for the publishers/developers that they are fairly entitled to. You're saying it's unethical for them to make money when someone plays their games.

That isn't a problem, it's a feature that we, as a civilized society, have chosen to protect.

The madness you describe would eliminate libraries entirely, because the notion of lending a book to someone is lost money for publishers.

Nobody said it's unethical for them to make money. We're saying they aren't entitled to a cut of every single transaction after they've sold the object to a customer. They get one, and one should be enough for anybody, Veruca.

 

[Seraphiel]

msm8bball[/url]":1jocncug]

Seraphiel[/url]":1jocncug]

lordcheeto[/url]":1jocncug]

Seraphiel[/url]":1jocncug]
So we've found a way to make your friend pay, again, for something you already bought.

Oh, egads! While you're clutching your pearls in horror, why don't you get your moral compass checked? Your friend has no right to play your game unless that's what the developer intended (e.g. splitscreen multiplayer).

Umm... Maybe in whatever backwater you're living in, but over here we have a fairly well-established first sale doctrine. Publishers have been trying for decades to destroy it (and MS may have found a way here) but for now it still stands.

If I buy an object (a book, a movie, a game, a blender) it is mine to give or sell to anyone I choose. The publisher/manufacturer doesn't get any input into the decision. They got their money from me and that object is no longer any concern of theirs.

That works fine in the non-digital age where the value of things diminish simply by being owned, so if you want the full experience you have a reason to buy new. But digital things don't have their value diminish by being owned.

I'm not aware of anything in statue, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that first-sale doctrine is negated by non-depreciation of the object in question. A rare Superman comic was discovered recently and last I saw the auction was over $100,000. Are you proposing that the publisher is entitled to a portion of that sale, because its value wasn't diminished from the few cents that was originally paid for it?

Aside from that, it's not really true. Used games (with the exception of some rare/import titles) tend to cost less than new ones.

This is insane. There's no legitimate reason to carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital.

 

[Seraphiel]

msm8bball[/url]":z185xjnc]

Seraphiel[/url]":z185xjnc]
That isn't a problem, it's a feature that we, as a civilized society, have chosen to protect.

The madness you describe would eliminate libraries entirely, because the notion of lending a book to someone is lost money for publishers.

Nobody said it's unethical for them to make money. We're saying they aren't entitled to a cut of every single transaction after they've sold the object to a customer. They get one, and one should be enough for anybody, Veruca.

According to this thread I found (and the posters in there are providing sources) there are exceptions for books that don't apply to other media.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=303382

Those exceptions described are to protect libraries (many of which also have catalogs of audio recordings and films), not the books specifically, and not the publishers.

 

[Seraphiel]

lordcheeto[/url]":3vslgxo0]

Seraphiel[/url]":3vslgxo0]

lordcheeto[/url]":3vslgxo0]

Seraphiel[/url]":3vslgxo0]
So we've found a way to make your friend pay, again, for something you already bought.

Oh, egads! While you're clutching your pearls in horror, why don't you get your moral compass checked? Your friend has no right to play your game unless that's what the developer intended (e.g. splitscreen multiplayer).

Umm... Maybe in whatever backwater you're living in, but over here we have a fairly well-established first sale doctrine. Publishers have been trying for decades to destroy it (and MS may have found a way here) but for now it still stands.

If I buy an object (a book, a movie, a game, a blender) it is mine to give or sell to anyone I choose. The publisher/manufacturer doesn't get any input into the decision. They got their money from me and that object is no longer any concern of theirs.

The first sale doctrine is an entirely different issue. This is more of an issue of public performance.

Where's the limit? If you lend your game to a friend, fully expecting to receive it back when they're done with it, then you're crossing a line. The difficulty in establishing a litmus test for that line doesn't invalidate it. The difficulty in enforcing that line in traditional mediums doesn't invalidate it.

Yes, this is the way that it's been done; with books, movies, games, etc., but an honest society should strive to enforce that line in the mediums that allow it. It's going to be difficult to nail down a compromise, but the current free-for-all goes too far, no matter how much we like it. Steam goes too far in the other direction (there should be the ability to transfer licenses to competing distribution platforms).

The limit is where it's already defined: the publisher gets a cut when I buy the thing at retail (or, more precisely, shortly before that).

Period.

Done.

After that, I can lend it, resell it, wear it as a hat, or set it on fire. Short of making copies for distribution, I can do anything with it that I want. It belongs to me now, and their stake in it ended the moment money changed hands at the store. They have no further right to get any money from any subsequent transactions involving that item.

Things like Steam and the various app stores don't tend to provoke much outrage because the stuff in question is so cheap. Users of those services are effectively selling their ability to easily "possess" something in exchange for a (sometimes hefty) discount on the goods in question.

 

[Seraphiel]

heinousjay[/url]":3chqi31m]

Seraphiel[/url]":3chqi31m]
I'm not aware of anything in statue, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that first-sale doctrine is negated by non-depreciation of the object in question. A rare Superman comic was discovered recently and last I saw the auction was over $100,000. Are you proposing that the publisher is entitled to a portion of that sale, because its value wasn't diminished from the few cents that was originally paid for it?

Aside from that, it's not really true. Used games (with the exception of some rare/import titles) tend to cost less than new ones.

This is insane. There's no legitimate reason to carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital.

There's a perfectly legitimate reason - it's their device and their ecosystem. They can do whatever they want with it. There is no statute, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that they need to do things the way you want them to do it just because that's how things used to work.

Your relief is to not participate if you decide the value does not match the price. It's not like you have some special right to be entertained on your own terms, even if you feel like it's "ethical" or whatever the word of the week is for the moralists.

Sigh. Straw man down. Well done.

But let me make it clear, since this is obviously confusing a lot of people:

Nobody (literally: nobody) who is complaining about this development has claimed or even acted like they're being forced to buy a new Xbox at the point of a gun.

Obviously we aren't required to buy one or be involved in it at all. However, since this is a civilized society, we are also allowed to express discontent at a general pattern of anti-consumer behavior, and the negative outcomes this will cause for a hobby we enjoy.

 

[Seraphiel]

I had no idea there were so many servile people around, so submissive to the whims of corporate authority that they'd happily give away their rights as consumers (and everyone else's as well).

I suppose I shouldn't be too shocked, considering how much people let the game publishers get away with.