Microsoft defends the Xbox One’s licensing, used game policies

Xbox marketing chief talks to Ars about the benefits of the move to a "digital world."

Read the whole story

 

[Witecat]

I loved it when he said that Microsoft did not fold under pressure from the game companies. That is total BS.

Now I can understand the Piracy thing, but really, it takes way more effort to pirate a console game these days than a PC game. For a PC game, all you need is a program that allows you to play without any verifications of ownership. For a console you litterally have to mod the system to allow you any cance of playing a pirated game and you can brick your system if you do not know what you are doing.

I love my 360, but it looks like I would get the Xbox One as a secondary console this coming generation.

 

[Paul Heenan]

Just want to go on record and say that I was initially sad I'd be leaving Master Chief behind in refusing to buy the Xbone.

Watching E3, I was then immediately hearted by seeing Bungie in bed with the PS4.

Here that Microsoft? Bungie is developing games for Sony now and 343 Industries' Halo4 sucked.

 

[Jobe1983]

realized my post was improper

 

[Belkode]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2zgdfw20]Something that's been gnawing on my mind over the last couple of days is how fundamentally incompatible the terms of usage (can't really call it "ownership") embodied by MS's and the publishers' new policies is with the idea of public libraries. If all media, from books to movies, were treated the way they're seeking to treat video games, it would be impossible for libraries to function. Books, DVDs, and CDs don't require remote authentication servers to operate. There are audio CDs in my library that are over 20 years old and still play wonderfully. The same will never be said of SimCity 2013, or (apparently) any of these XBox One games. You can't even lend them out to the public in the first place. Meanwhile, the New York Public Library is already heavily invested in making games as accessible as books to the public. You can borrow carts and discs and play them at home, or in the building.

The model that publishers and distributors of games are working towards is inherently at odds with the mission of public libraries to serve as freely accessible repositories and reference hubs for culturally important information and ideas. This means that video games released under their model are at odds with the same mission, regardless of whether the preserver is a library or a private archivist. Entire gaming franchises could be lost to time simply because there's no way to phone home anymore, not because the equipment to play it is obsolete or rare.

If the publishers and distributors are putting themselves at odds with the idea of cultural preservation and accessibility, this also stands video games in stark contrast to books, film, and other forms of art. How does that impact the push to recognize gaming as a legitimate form of expression and vehicle for ideas just like literature and cinema? The apparent attitude of publishers, that games are so distinct as to make their preservation and dissemination through libraries neither viable nor desirable, how can they argue that games are, in fact, a legit form of expression that requires first amendment protection from censorship?

The policies embodied by the Xbone are entirely short-sighted and counterproductive from the standpoint of cultural enrichment. They can only be explained in terms of pure greed and the desire to rob society of its right to enjoy a work of art in perpetuity, either for entertainment or to better understand ourselves.

This is a fair point. It depends on how society views the activity of videogaming culturally moving forward. A few (off-thread-topic) comments of my own:

An argument could be made that, compared to books, music and films, videogaming is a relatively new cultural activity, not entirely accepted by society as a whole. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone against books, music and film (from now on, "the other three"), but videogaming still has to be universally accepted.

Being, again, a relatively new medium, its dispersion and acceptance is still in the hands of its creators (i.e. corporations). They will attempt to maintain a grip for profit as much as possible.

Unlike the other three, videogames have a variety of incompatible "vectors" (platforms), which complicate massive adoption. The other three can, at the end of the day, be easily converted to a medium of choice, paper, audio or vide format. Games lack this capability for now. This gives more power to the distributors (again, corporations / copyright holders) to maintain a status quo and profit from it.

A very interesting question, though.

 

[gpsxsirus]

This whole 'you don't like it because you don't yet understand it' defense is utter nonsense. Valve has been doing digital distribution for over a decade with Steam and it is not nearly as restrictive.

I think the real reason they're defending these policies so strongly is distract from what's even worse about the Kinect 2. The ability to send information to advertisers based on things it sees in your home. The ability to restrict movie playback based on how many people you have in the room. Etc, etc, etc.

They can defend these choices all they want, while I and many other people vote with our wallets and get PS4 and/or Steambox.

 

[Darth Shango]

How does Microsoft's policy on game licensing for the XB1 benefit the consumer? More specifically how does the 24-hour check-in or disc trading restrictions benefit the consumer? Why does switching to digital download as a primary method to deliver games have to be so tightly controlled?

It's all about trade-offs. Is this new systems benefits great enough to outweigh the loss of benefits from the previous system? Not at the moment. The restrictions on disc sharing certainly don't benefit us unless it leads to a reduction in the price due to stemming piracy, which it does not. Validation of credentials should occur at installation or login and should last indefinitely offline. If a pirated game is detected once the console is reconnected to the service delete game and/or ban the user.

I think a smarter approach would have been to make digital downloads more attractive through reduced pricing and early access to justify the loss of value from a tradable physical disc. A consumer could pay more to trade a disc later or pay less to get a digital copy sooner. This is an example of a trade-off with benefits that are better than the previous system.

 

[Ripcord]

Franc kaos[/url]":2wcq9js8]MS have become very customer unfriendly of late, Windows8 touch UI for the desktop, no start menu, Surface tablet more expensive than the iPad with less storage, the Xbone more a multimedia device than games player, NSA listening device installed at no extra charge.
As for games getting cheaper with the death of the second hand market I'll believe it when I see it.

Customer unfriendliness has been their MO for decades. The occasional pockets of consumer friendliness have been more the exception than the rule.

 

[netblaz]

SiberX[/url]":3a7hizxm]Mehdi on the XBone:

Within that, we've tried to optimize, and I think we've found a great balance across all of those dimensions

Obama on PRISM:

In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance

Vastly different levels of seriousness, equal levels of bullshit.

i like to think members of society are increasingly learning to subtitle this bullshit into rational english in their heads:

Mehdi on the XBone:

Within that, we've tried to optimize, and I think we've found a great balance across all of those dimensions

becomes

We're pretty sure we can get away with this, and there's nothing you can do about it, haha!

Obama on PRISM:

In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance

becomes

i'll tell you when you're older. stop bothering daddy while he's working.

 

[VideoGameTech]

If their digital distribution model is so great and has so many advantages, they should add it alongside physical discs without hobbling them. Then let consumers decide - buy old-school physical discs or go digital to get these "advantages." Be honest about it from day one!

But no, they double-talk, give confusing information, and hide the details. They cripple disc-based games to push digital distribution. Of course people are upset about it. MS is forcing a purchasing model down people's throats that they just don't want. And MS knows it - that's why they did it that way.

With PC and PS4 we have a choice how to buy games. With MS it's $500 to buy into their locked vision of game non-ownership. Quite simply, we have a choice and choose not to support your vision, MS.

 

[Drakkenmensch]

I'm sure that this whole PR kerfuffle can handily be fixed with a television ad campaign where Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld go play Xbox One at random people's homes.

Because that's how they saved Vista, right?

 

[gpsxsirus]

Darth Shango[/url]":20sxm0ud]How does Microsoft's policy on game licensing for the XB1 benefit the consumer? More specifically how does the 24-hour check-in or disc trading restrictions benefit the consumer? Why does switching to digital download as a primary method to deliver games have to be so tightly controlled?

It's all about trade-offs. Is this new systems benefits great enough to outweigh the loss of benefits from the previous system? Not at the moment. The restrictions on disc sharing certainly don't benefit us unless it leads to a reduction in the price due to stemming piracy, which it does not. Validation of credentials should occur at installation or login and should last indefinitely offline. If a pirated game is detected once the console is reconnected to the service delete game and/or ban the user.

I think a smarter approach would have been to make digital downloads more attractive through reduced pricing and early access to justify the loss of value from a tradable physical disc. A consumer could pay more to trade a disc later or pay less to get a digital copy sooner. This is an example of a trade-off with benefits that are better than the previous system.

On Steam you see a lot of amazing sales on games. I often get 10 games for $20. Or x game 75% off. So it's certainly possible. However I don't foresee Microsoft doing anything like that. They're just trying to take over the distribution channel for all games on their system to boost it's profitability, and are appeasing the publishers as much as possible to sway them to it. I'm sure they're also trying to leverage it into more exclusive games.

Questions is will there be enough exclusives to get people to break down and buy the system, or will the system sales be low enough that MS's efforts aren't enough to persuade publishers to release exclusively?

 

[Kirel]

diabulos[/url]":303899w1]No different than how I have been playing games on the PC for a while now via Steam, perfectly happy with it, is there a bit of 'but we have always done it this way!' from the community? Should the conversation be about better ways to distribute content, which Steam has proven works very well on a digital framework? I may disagree with some other aspects of the Launch, but personally do not see a problem with digital distribution and the 'perceived' limits others see. You buy the right to play a game in practical perpetuity, that's all.

What I would like to see is the kind of price levering that digital distributions afford reflected on the cost of games in the future.

I both agree and disagree with you.

Like you, I've been using (and loving) Steam for a long while. Perhaps unlike you, I'm a divorced dad and while I don't want to give my kid my account info, I do want to share some games with him ( he lives in another state). Steam has not given me any way to share games with my kids. Digitial Distribution has it's limitations. What I can do is purchase xbox360 games, play them and then give them to my son to play on his xbox360 ( or vice-versa: He plays first, then I do.). My son lives in a part of WA state that has very poor connectivity to the net. It's often down for hours per day. So even if the XB1's plan to allow me to share a game digitally with my kid works out, he won't be able to play it because he doesn't (and can't due to where he lives) always have a working connection to the net.

So, that is a hurdle. But for me, the absolute biggest issue is the always connected, always on, KINECT. I do not want a camera/mic that I cannot unplug (without it rendering the XB1 a brick) in my living room.

People here (whom I expect to be well versed in tech) should understand that anything can be hacked. And we should also understand that in this proto-police state that we are living in where everything is monitored ( PRISM anyone?): We can be reasonably sure that this will become just another way for our privacy to be invaded.

 

[Belkode]

Cartigan[/url]":3tm96e7g]

Belkode[/url]":3tm96e7g]

Cartigan[/url]":3tm96e7g]

Belkode[/url]":3tm96e7g]
I didn't say Steam is kept in check by a resale market, did I? I never referred to used PC games sales. I said it is kept in check by competition - new sale/games competition. Both online and physical. Trust me, if Steam was the only vector for selling games, they'd charge more.

Ok, so please explain who, exactly, is going to be the only seller of Xbox1 games? Are all the publishers going to go digital? They haven't on the PC. Are Xbox1 games not going to be sold at Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, fye, et al? I don't understand where you are going here.

Evidently.

Amazon, Target, et al are retailers. But the new model is the same as getting an online copy. The disc is pretty much useless.

Is or is not the disc being sold?

(*patiently*)... Yes, but the measures a user need to take in order to re-sell it make it borderline similar to an online sale. The disc is not required to play, and you have a cumbersome process to follow which seems to be geared to two things:
1) benefit retailers like gamestop
2) suppressing used game sales through sheer hassle.

I never said there was an "only" seller. My point is that MS (obviously) benefits from all new game sales.

BTW, this answer your question about who benefits. And the answer is MS regardless of the channel.

MS is deliberately trying to lock-out competition so they can keep prices high - used game resale competition.

COMPETITION PC SALES HAVE NOT HAD SINCE BEFORE STEAM.

Sort your argument the hell out because right now you are trying to sell me one thing while pretending my argument applies to another. Are you saying that locking the resale market out of Xbox1 gaming prevents Microsoft from having to put games on sale? Because that's a load of shit and makes it no different than Steam.
If you are saying no retailer will be selling Xbox1 games (you know, why you are saying Steam has sales - retail competition), then I damn well expect you to prove it.

(*even more patiently - with a slight gnashing of teeth thrown in for good measure given the apparent immaturity and tone of the above comment*)
If you are not able to follow my argument, that's on you. Others seems to have gotten it. Also, I don't care about you enough to sell you anything. I am just spending an amusing afternoon correcting evidently bratty inferiors (personal opinion)
(*Ok - some maybe not so patient with a slight descent to the response's level*)
1) Please forget about Steam and PC games. I have said already: MS is addressing used game sales with this strategy, while Steam addresses both new and old, but mostly new through cheaper prices. I have written as to the Steam comparison, and it is not a comment on PC games. If you did not understand, go back and read it again.
2) I didn't say no retailer will be selling Xbone games (*sigh*). Steam has sales on a larger selection of games to compete.... that's it. It's their model. economy of scale. I said they choose this model, because there are other vectors (retailers both offline and on) that are alternatives.

As a parting note: I have to apologize, I have lost track of your argument.... sorry. I have tried to address some of what I perceived it to be in relation to the "defense" this article refers to, and its relationship to Steam comments. If you like, please clearly state what your argument is, and then we can calmly discuss it.

Yes? That's nice...

 

[eltopo]

My big problem with games nowadays is that we wouldn't mind going with downloads and doing away with necessitating printing discs, making boxes, cover art, distribution, etc. if the price of games went down, but it's only going up. Of course MS likes the download option, they get more money that way (no middleman) charging us the same for less. Also whereas stores have sales when they order too much of one item, there is no such concern or indeed incentive for MS to sell their games for less than full retail, and you're never going to be able to lend those games to your friends.

I'm sure the guy is pumped about the business model. It profits only Microsoft, really.

 

[pappypappy]

This is the first thing I have seen from MS that at least attempts to give a coherent message. So that's a start! Their approach makes some sense (and their argument that digital on (e.g.) iOS already works like that) is valid too. But up until now it's just be a mash of half-facts and a failure to have any real message of their own. Whoever has been in charge of their PR has (one assumes) been fired, if not just taken out and shot.

Their tldr needs to be that you can toss/give away your disks after install, share remotely, etc. But they frankly don't seem to know what it is they want to say.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

karadoc[/url]":2aiaj4w9]

"We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better."

I wonder if this guy realises that computer games have always been 'digital'.

I guess we don't quite have a word for what he is really talking about; and in fact, what he is talking about e.

We have descriptions for this sort of thing. It's just that none of them are complementary. Microsoft is trying to strip customers of any ownership rights. That's bound to offend people that are paying attention. There's really no way to sugar coat it.

The most engaged enthusiasts will be people that value control and are likely to use a product long after the rest of the market and the manufacturer has abandoned it.

 

[the_frakker]

Mehdi noted that purely digital game marketplaces like the iOS App Store have thrived despite having absolutely no physical media. Implementing that kind of disc-free system on the Xbox One "may not [have been] the best thing for consumers, and it may not [have been] the thing they [would have] wanted," Mehdi said, which is part of why Microsoft decided to keep discs as an option. Still, he did concede that, without discs, the licensing norms for the system "would be easier to understand."

Microsoft decided that the Internet wasn't good enough for delivery of 25-50GB of game code. So instead, they are providing gamers with the illusion that there are game discs. In reality, Microsoft is delivering digital downloads via retail discs.

This is why you must install the game onto the system before you can use it. It's a digital download on a disc that must be authorized before it can be used.

It's not hard to understand how it all has been designed to work. What is hard to understand is why anybody would choose this Orwellian setup over the other options (PC, Wii U, and PS4).

How can Microsoft claim that gamers are smart and then say we don't understand at the same time? We understand. We still don't like it.

 

[Massolo]

At the end of the meeting, after all the power point presentations have bored us, the fact that Mickeysoft has alienated their customer base shall remain. It's the IBM way of thinking and that never really pays off for anybody interested in using technology, but works if you're a mutt used to being leashed and led around. It appears Sony has added to their customer base just by announcing that they aren't going to be hostile to consumers, which is a Business 101 tactic.

 

[Cartigan]

Belkode[/url]":3re4rpaw]

Cartigan[/url]":3re4rpaw]

Belkode[/url]":3re4rpaw]

Cartigan[/url]":3re4rpaw]

Belkode[/url]":3re4rpaw]
I didn't say Steam is kept in check by a resale market, did I? I never referred to used PC games sales. I said it is kept in check by competition - new sale/games competition. Both online and physical. Trust me, if Steam was the only vector for selling games, they'd charge more.

Ok, so please explain who, exactly, is going to be the only seller of Xbox1 games? Are all the publishers going to go digital? They haven't on the PC. Are Xbox1 games not going to be sold at Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, fye, et al? I don't understand where you are going here.

Evidently.

Amazon, Target, et al are retailers. But the new model is the same as getting an online copy. The disc is pretty much useless.

Is or is not the disc being sold?

(*patiently*)... Yes,

Then it's the exact same as Steam. Discussion over.

Belkode[/url]":3re4rpaw]So many things to discuss here:

First of all, I am a bit bothered to the Steam comparisons. Xbone services will NOT be like Steam - the main reason being lack of competition.

Just to remind you: This is my bone of contention. You are wrong. Your statement that other retailers will be selling games makes you wrong on its face.

 

[kimchi711]

lordcheeto[/url]":215nkfc7]

kimchi711[/url]":215nkfc7]

lordcheeto[/url]":215nkfc7]
It's clear.

Let's say you own 11 games. These games are in your library. You add 10 friends and family members to your account. What's possible? You can play one game while every one of your 10 friends plays one of your games. The only restriction is that everyone has to be playing different games at any given time.

Now, I'm assuming that the game owner (you) gets first priority. If your friend is playing your copy of Forza Motorsport 5, and you want to play it, tough luck for them. They'll have to finish their race another time (or let their drivatar finish it).

Wrong. Read between the lines.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

Notice how parts of the document say "friends and family" but the part of sharing games only says "family". They will probably add some restriction or check (perhaps based on credit card credential) to make sure you can't just share to anybody but only family members. So I doubt you'll be able to switch around "families" and share to your friends. Also the doc clearly says you and only ONE FAMILY member can be playing your shared library at the same time. Not per game.

RTFA

Well oops, I DID read the article, not the greyed out text that looked like what's often a quote from the article itself.

 

[lugaidster]

Cartigan[/url]":2bnrvr6a]

lugaidster[/url]":2bnrvr6a] Steam doesn't have a monopoly on distribution since you can get the keys to activate games elsewhere. If that were not the case, sales wouldn't exist.

Laughably and provably false. A sales purpose is not solely for the undercutting of competition. I'm no economist but you don't have to be to see that sales serve far more than the most blindingly obvious purpose you people are claiming they serve.

Tell me then, you that seem so knowledgeable, what would be the incentive to have so frequent and deep sales if you have a monopoly on distribution? As commendable as it is to create a successful digital store like Steam is for Valve, I don't hold them any higher than the average business, and I doubt that they'd act substantially different.

 

[bittermann]

So to Microsoft fan boys..."if" as you say Sony is doing the same thing as XB1 then all I have to say is why spend $499 when I can get the same thing for $399, all things being equal.

/thread

 

[Cartigan]

lugaidster[/url]":n5wi006s]

Cartigan[/url]":n5wi006s]

lugaidster[/url]":n5wi006s] Steam doesn't have a monopoly on distribution since you can get the keys to activate games elsewhere. If that were not the case, sales wouldn't exist.

Laughably and provably false. A sales purpose is not solely for the undercutting of competition. I'm no economist but you don't have to be to see that sales serve far more than the most blindingly obvious purpose you people are claiming they serve.

Tell me then, you that seem so knowledgeable, what would be the incentive to have so frequent and deep sales if you have a monopoly on distribution? As commendable as it is to create a successful digital store like Steam is for Valve, I don't hold them any higher than the average business, and I doubt that they'd act substantially different.

What "monopoly on distribution" does Microsoft have that Steam does not?

 

[Cartigan]

bittermann[/url]":3qum9woc]So to Microsoft fan boys..."if" as you say Sony is doing the same thing as XB1 then all I have to say is why spend $499 when I can get the same thing for $399 if all things are equal.

/thread

Scratch it.
That's at least a fair point.

Assuming Sony isn't additionally snowing people and doesn't end up creating multiple PS4 versions with different price points.

 

[lugaidster]

gpsxsirus[/url]":3g9xyvg8]This whole 'you don't like it because you don't yet understand it' defense is utter nonsense. Valve has been doing digital distribution for over a decade with Steam and it is not nearly as restrictive.

I understand what you mean, but that's not accurate. About the only thing from Steam that is less restrictive is the always-online requirement. But in every other department, Steam is more restrictive. Am I missing something? (Strictly speaking about DRM here).

 

[ardent]

SiberX[/url]":3htmsduk]Mehdi on the XBone:

Within that, we've tried to optimize, and I think we've found a great balance across all of those dimensions

Obama on PRISM:

In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance

Vastly different levels of seriousness, equal levels of bullshit.

Keep your politics out of my politics.

 

[Deleted member 1]

sqlrob[/url]":2qy4smry]

Its Dead Jim[/url]":2qy4smry]
How are you being inconvenienced exactly? You have the internet. Even if you werent connected to the internet you can activate the 24 hour lockout through any surface enabled 3G/4G/Wifi/Edge tablet/phone. Im guessing you do have one of these yes?

If you dont have the tablet/phone and/or an internet connection you most likely wont be caring about the next generation of gaming harware.

There's one thing you proponents of the checkin never ever seem to get.

I'm not worried (much) about my connection. I'm worried about THEIRS. MS brought all of Azure down because of a bad cert. Too bad you wouldn't have been able to play then. Your XBox (original) dies, you got another from the local retro store. How do you get the DLC you previously bought?

Most digital content will be connected to your Microsoft Account which cannot "die" so you would simply download all of your eligible content on your new machine.

Since you can replace the hdd on the Xbox 360 it requires you to transfer digital content yourself using a special transfer cable, might not even be required anymore I have not checked.

 

[erwos]

batduck8[/url]":1hzrz0ky]A lot of people compare the Xbox One to Steam and while I think that's legitimate, the prevalence of Steam sales matters a lot, at least in my mind.

As others have pointed out, Microsoft has recently started doing rather deeply-discounted sales. They're not the bargain-basement ($5-$10) deals you see on Steam, but I've seen pretty good games at $10-$15. Hell, I picked up Sleeping Dogs for $15 lately, even got almost all the DLC for a total of about what I'd pay for a GOTY edition on sale at Amazon. In other words, pricing may have shifted when you weren't looking.

 

[Belkode]

Cartigan[/url]":xn5yqfbr]

Belkode[/url]":xn5yqfbr]

Cartigan[/url]":xn5yqfbr]

Belkode[/url]":xn5yqfbr]

Cartigan[/url]":xn5yqfbr]

Belkode[/url]":xn5yqfbr]
I didn't say Steam is kept in check by a resale market, did I? I never referred to used PC games sales. I said it is kept in check by competition - new sale/games competition. Both online and physical. Trust me, if Steam was the only vector for selling games, they'd charge more.

Ok, so please explain who, exactly, is going to be the only seller of Xbox1 games? Are all the publishers going to go digital? They haven't on the PC. Are Xbox1 games not going to be sold at Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Gamestop, fye, et al? I don't understand where you are going here.

Evidently.

Amazon, Target, et al are retailers. But the new model is the same as getting an online copy. The disc is pretty much useless.

Is or is not the disc being sold?

(*patiently*)... Yes,

Then it's the exact same as Steam. Discussion over.

Belkode[/url]":xn5yqfbr]So many things to discuss here:

First of all, I am a bit bothered to the Steam comparisons. Xbone services will NOT be like Steam - the main reason being lack of competition.

Just to remind you: This is my bone of contention. You are wrong. Your statement that other retailers will be selling games makes you wrong on its face.

1) As I said before: I lost track.... my argument is that MS wants to be like Steam.... yours is?
2) based on my comment that MS wants to be like Steam, but it won't be... what am I wrong about?

 

[erwos]

lugaidster[/url]":y2j200oi]

Cartigan[/url]":y2j200oi]

lugaidster[/url]":y2j200oi] Steam doesn't have a monopoly on distribution since you can get the keys to activate games elsewhere. If that were not the case, sales wouldn't exist.

Laughably and provably false. A sales purpose is not solely for the undercutting of competition. I'm no economist but you don't have to be to see that sales serve far more than the most blindingly obvious purpose you people are claiming they serve.

Tell me then, you that seem so knowledgeable, what would be the incentive to have so frequent and deep sales if you have a monopoly on distribution? As commendable as it is to create a successful digital store like Steam is for Valve, I don't hold them any higher than the average business, and I doubt that they'd act substantially different.

They don't have a monopoly. That's what all those discs are for. Hell, GameStop and the other used game sellers are still competition, assuming publishers don't turn off resale (in which case, it's not MS I'd be angry at.)

 

[Deleted member 1]

I have both a 360 and a PS3 and enjoy games on both consoles. I do not like Microsoft repeating it's 90's strategy of transitioning all software ownership to software licensing. However, there is one way that Microsoft could potentially turn ALL of this negativity around with one simple announcement. To sell me, all they would have to do is announce a Netflix streaming style service but for games. Users pay some monthly fee and can play on demand any game in the catalog. If you look at the capabilities that MS has announced, it would appear that they have the infrastructure required to launch such a service. Also, it would make economic sense for consumers. If I buy one game per month, I have blown $720 a year. I would much rather pay that $60 a month for an all you can eat buffet of next gen gaming goodness.

As for game ownership, I would say that I feel strongly enough about 10% of the games that I have bought over the years to actually own the disk and replay them at some point. In fact, there are many games that I have regret purchasing but that I am stuck with. Yes, I could sell them back for $5 but it really isn't worth it.

 

[lugaidster]

Cartigan[/url]":3idv3mpa]

lugaidster[/url]":3idv3mpa]

Cartigan[/url]":3idv3mpa]

lugaidster[/url]":3idv3mpa] Steam doesn't have a monopoly on distribution since you can get the keys to activate games elsewhere. If that were not the case, sales wouldn't exist.

Laughably and provably false. A sales purpose is not solely for the undercutting of competition. I'm no economist but you don't have to be to see that sales serve far more than the most blindingly obvious purpose you people are claiming they serve.

Tell me then, you that seem so knowledgeable, what would be the incentive to have so frequent and deep sales if you have a monopoly on distribution? As commendable as it is to create a successful digital store like Steam is for Valve, I don't hold them any higher than the average business, and I doubt that they'd act substantially different.

What "monopoly on distribution" does Microsoft have that Steam does not?

MS get's a cut from every software sale for the console and there's no other (legal) way to get a game to the system than through MS. You can get games for PC outside of Steam without using Steam at all. That involves either storefronts, or retail discs directly. In other words, MS owns the Xbox as a platform, Valve shares the PC as a platform. For-profit companies are for-profit companies. Some are a bit nicer than other, but they are companies first. About the only reason I can see Valve's position being different would it have the same monopoly on a very popular platform is because they don't have to care about shareholders.

 

[lugaidster]

erwos[/url]":ttdxbily]
They don't have a monopoly. That's what all those discs are for. Hell, GameStop and the other used game sellers are still competition, assuming publishers don't turn off resale (in which case, it's not MS I'd be angry at.)

That was like that before. With the XB1 it's no longer true. The platform has the tools to deal with those pesky used sales now. It's not 100% tight control, but it's pretty close.

 

[putamare]

I had been an Xbox owner since its release. I wanted to play games online, and was willing to pay to do so consistently and reliably. I also preferred the controller. In time, I upgraded to the 360, and after a 2nd out of warranty RROD, bought a second.

One day, about three months prior to the end of my subscription, I was browsing through the offers available in the Microsoft store on XBox Live. I saw an offer to resubscribe to Gold for two years for $80 instead of $50 for one year. This was not an unrealistic deal. This was also on the Microsoft ecosystem so I went ahead and clicked "buy".

The morning of my "renewal", I logged on to discover $80 worth of downloadable children's games bought by my account. I called the XBox support, and they said they'd look into it and needed to put a "temporary block" on the account to do so.. After a couple of days of trying to get some sort of response, they finally told me that they needed to close my account for an investigation, which could take up to 3 weeks. Then, I go the following email:

We have reviewed your account and determined that it was closed due to a terms of use violation. We are not able to discuss the specific details on your account closure.

That's it. No explanation, no possibility for review.

Furthermore, they didn't just shut down my XBox Live account, they shut down my entire Windows Live ID.

At least I could continue to play the games I had physical copies of, but I lost all saves. I did loose access to all digital purchases, what they want you to move over to entirely with the Bone.

Hardware breaks down, and many people consider a consistent reliable online worth paying for.

But, when you put the very ownership and access to your content entirely in the hands of a company that treats its customers the way Microsoft does, at some point you most definitely will not be getting what you paid for.

 

[Cartigan]

lugaidster[/url]":xamdt357]

Cartigan[/url]":xamdt357]

lugaidster[/url]":xamdt357]

Cartigan[/url]":xamdt357]

lugaidster[/url]":xamdt357] Steam doesn't have a monopoly on distribution since you can get the keys to activate games elsewhere. If that were not the case, sales wouldn't exist.

Laughably and provably false. A sales purpose is not solely for the undercutting of competition. I'm no economist but you don't have to be to see that sales serve far more than the most blindingly obvious purpose you people are claiming they serve.

Tell me then, you that seem so knowledgeable, what would be the incentive to have so frequent and deep sales if you have a monopoly on distribution? As commendable as it is to create a successful digital store like Steam is for Valve, I don't hold them any higher than the average business, and I doubt that they'd act substantially different.

What "monopoly on distribution" does Microsoft have that Steam does not?

MS get's a cut from every software sale for the console and there's no other (legal) way to get a game to the system than through MS.

So your argument is there will be no retail sales of Xbox1 games? I was unaware of that.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

putamare[/url]":8yn83d2y]Furthermore, they didn't just shut down my XBox Live account, they shut down my entire Windows Live ID.

That's an unthinkable situation for me. How the Hell did you get that cleared up?

 

[Belkode]

Hmmmmmmmmm[/url]":3jn6k6ux]I have both a 360 and a PS3 and enjoy games on both consoles. I do not like Microsoft repeating it's 90's strategy of transitioning all software ownership to software licensing. However, there is one way that Microsoft could potentially turn ALL of this negativity around with one simple announcement. To sell me, all they would have to do is announce a Netflix streaming style service but for games. Users pay some monthly fee and can play on demand any game in the catalog. If you look at the capabilities that MS has announced, it would appear that they have the infrastructure required to launch such a service. Also, it would make economic sense for consumers. If I buy one game per month, I have blown $720 a year. I would much rather pay that $60 a month for an all you can eat buffet of next gen gaming goodness.

As for game ownership, I would say that I feel strongly enough about 10% of the games that I have bought over the years to actually own the disk and replay them at some point. In fact, there are many games that I have regret purchasing but that I am stuck with. Yes, I could sell them back for $5 but it really isn't worth it.

Interesting and valid, it may be viable but the market is not ready yet.

Regarding ownership, I think this is the attitude that MS is trying to encourage by adding barriers (i.e. the added hassle of selling a game I bought new).

My issue is that it also inhibits those who want to buy used games by reducing supply and having an additional operational cost (a retailer having to register with MS to transfer a game is not going to be costless, even if MS does not charge). Supply may be less for used games

 

[ctthoqqua]

thejynxed[/url]":3i4relgv]

Its Dead Jim[/url]":3i4relgv]

jimbo49[/url]":3i4relgv]there isn't a single excuse that Microsuck can use to justify what they are going to do with the new XBox.

1) when people buy something, they want to know that it is theirs. they paid good, hard earned money out and they should therefore, own what they have paid for. they should be able to do what they want, within reason, with what they have bought. if that means selling it or giving it away at a later date, they should be able to do that. there is no 'you can give it away once only, then the game is useless. you can sell it once, then the game has to be reactivated, after which it is useless. that game is mine! i paid for it! you dont own it any more, Microsuck! if you want to maintain ownership, then just rent the games out! you will have to drop the prices a hell of a lot though!

2) considering the way you have played the 'anti-piracy' game til now, there is no way that i would trust what you are doing when i buy a new XBox. anyone think for one minute why they want touch screens, always on mics and video via the internet? anyone think that every person in the house, not just those using the console, is going to end up on another giant database? you would be right, i bet! Microsuck have been doing whatever law enforcement want them to do. microsuck have been dreaming up their own new ways of tracking 'customers', then feeding that info to law enforcement. and it sure as hell aint to keep a track on who is using what of windows, office or gaming products either! think about it! after that, TRUST NO ONE!!

1. You can trade in your disc based games if the publisher allows it, this is the same as Sony (as revealed sneakily after their pre-E3 event).

2. If you seriously think the kinect is constantly recording your conversations and Microsoft is using this data without your permission you have more issues than what next-gen console to buy.

If you seriously think the NSA is constantly recording your online conversations and they are using this data without your permission, you have more issues than what next-gen console to buy. Oh wait....

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I had to just leave this here and walk away whistling.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/13970 ... r-the-mpaa
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/27/43706 ... ements-ads

To me this is the most egregious problem with the XBox One. It is just unbelievable arrogance on their part. If this is the future, we have a unique opportunity to say "no" right here, right now. Otherwise, welcome to the New World Order, you deserve it.

 

[bittermann]

ctthoqqua[/url]":t6yvotfd]

thejynxed[/url]":t6yvotfd]

Its Dead Jim[/url]":t6yvotfd]

jimbo49[/url]":t6yvotfd]there isn't a single excuse that Microsuck can use to justify what they are going to do with the new XBox.

1) when people buy something, they want to know that it is theirs. they paid good, hard earned money out and they should therefore, own what they have paid for. they should be able to do what they want, within reason, with what they have bought. if that means selling it or giving it away at a later date, they should be able to do that. there is no 'you can give it away once only, then the game is useless. you can sell it once, then the game has to be reactivated, after which it is useless. that game is mine! i paid for it! you dont own it any more, Microsuck! if you want to maintain ownership, then just rent the games out! you will have to drop the prices a hell of a lot though!

2) considering the way you have played the 'anti-piracy' game til now, there is no way that i would trust what you are doing when i buy a new XBox. anyone think for one minute why they want touch screens, always on mics and video via the internet? anyone think that every person in the house, not just those using the console, is going to end up on another giant database? you would be right, i bet! Microsuck have been doing whatever law enforcement want them to do. microsuck have been dreaming up their own new ways of tracking 'customers', then feeding that info to law enforcement. and it sure as hell aint to keep a track on who is using what of windows, office or gaming products either! think about it! after that, TRUST NO ONE!!

1. You can trade in your disc based games if the publisher allows it, this is the same as Sony (as revealed sneakily after their pre-E3 event).

2. If you seriously think the kinect is constantly recording your conversations and Microsoft is using this data without your permission you have more issues than what next-gen console to buy.

If you seriously think the NSA is constantly recording your online conversations and they are using this data without your permission, you have more issues than what next-gen console to buy. Oh wait....

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I had to just leave this here and walk away whistling.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/13970 ... r-the-mpaa
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/27/43706 ... ements-ads

To me this is the most egregious problem with the XBox One. It is just unbelievable arrogance on their part. If this is the future, we have a unique opportunity to say "no" right here, right now. Otherwise, welcome to the New World Order, you deserve it.

Man that first link...that is just wrong on so many levels.

 

[xCeeD99]

What most of you are missing is that digital game distribution IS the way games will be distributed exclusively in the future. As was pointed out recently, Steam is the preeminent method of games distribution on the PC and (strangely, to some) PC gamers like it.

You need to read between the lines of Sony's press event to get the real picture: The PS4 will "support" disc based sharing -> Support does not mean that the publishers will use this "support", nor that they will have to. Also, with the knowledge that most developers are moving to digital distribution the whole point becomes moot as sharing is only enabled via "discs".

So in the end we have the same capabilities on both consoles, except the MS guys are talking about how sharing in the digital realm might work.

I don't care how it all shakes out, but stop being so incredibly naive.