Everybody that complained about the Xbone shot themselves in the foot and all...

[QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

[QUOTE="menes777"]

 

Ok so if half the people don't want the kinect why should they be forced to use it? or online?  If that is what more of the people wanted where is the problem?

menes777

My point is without something being mandatory then you can't develop the cool features for it.  What is the difference now between the two consoles? It's a couple of exclusives a year which aren't even gaurenteed to be good.

Lets say I don't want to use kinect, what hardship is it for me? I just won't use it.  If it really really bothers me then i'll get a PS4 and play that instead.  The whole thing is that now I don't really care which one I buy, they are basically the same.

So what's stopping developers from making more use of the kinect and making it optional to use it?  If it is really a good feature then it will catch on and developers will make more use of it.  New features aren't always popular at first before someone takes a chance with them.  Also this isn't the Kinect's first rodeo.  If they did't like it on the 360 why would they like it now?

It is the difference between designing a game from scratch to use something and just tacking on a feature.  Lets say that a game will only work by being connected to other players machines all the time, this game wouldn't be the same if they had to make the game also work offline with no connection to other people.  The principles are completely different, its a design philosophy thing.

A good example would be emotional responses in an RPG.  Lets say the character you are talking to in say, the witcher 4, changes how they react based on how they read your facial expression (kinect).  Maybe you can lie better or pretend to be happy or threaten them with an angry tone of voice.  The AI could also use some of the computing power of the cloud to generate on the fly response to you (in an RPG dialogue latency and input lag don't matter as much).  You can't make a game that does this and also has a mode that doesn't use any of those things...they wouldn't be the same game.

100% agree, good OP.

Now we just have two consoles doing exactly what consoles were doing last gen, only with greater fidelity.

I can be pretty critical of Nintendo and how they go about their business, but at least they bring new ways to play to the table and actually try to elevate the experience beyond what you already know.

balfe1990

Thank you! I knew some people would get it :).

. 3. What are you even talking about here.DerekLoffin

Err yeah my bad sorry, got the names I was replying to mixed up.  That comment was directed at an earlier post.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

That's an absolutely absurd assumption from your part.

You're over-simplify the biggest consumer backlash in gaming by blaming fanboys for it ("xbots", "PSFans"), and giving them a hive-mind objective, which still can't reasonably be enough to justify a 4 to 1 difference in pre-orders (and these numbers are after the backtracking).

Not only that, but you still gave no answer to the main point I made:

1. If MS is a visionary and wants gaming to go in a new direction, why not implement the good sides of their policies, without the part that's draconian?

Are you implying that they can't implement family share while still having a healthy used games market?

Or is that kind of practice only good if you take a numbers of rights from people?

2. Also, if the masses don't always know what is good for them (which is a known Stalinist argument), why didn't they face the pressure and insist with the product? They wouldn't be the first to do so.

3. Given these answers to what you said, don't avoid my arguments in your next response.

1080pOnly

1. OK I will but first define which policies were 'draconian'.  If you mean always online then that is not a 'draconian' policy but rather an essential part of moving the whole way we game and interact with our console forward (yes this meant they could also stop much piracy AND block used games).  If you mean the used games policy then something needs to be done, it does lose developers a huge chunk of their revenue and many are struggling. If you mean kinect then again, it's about it always being there and always available for the game you are playing.  If it is an option then developers won't use it, this has been proven so many times before.

2. They didn't because they understood that making the public realise the benefits at this point is impossible.  They decided that the public would just never buy it because of percieved draconian measures that in reality aren't.  So they decided just to try and compete in the current market that people understand.  It does show a lack of backbone and a health dose of risk aversion.

3. Don't try and act like the big I AM.  It doesn't suit you and doesn't wash.  I'm just putting my ppoints across, it's not even trying to inflame anyone so get those jimmies unrustled.

About 1: It's draconian. Here's why:

It's not you, me or MS who says what is and what's not draconian. It's the consensus.

The majority felt hurt even by the proposition of that being implemented. It is draconian, whether you think it would be implemented for the good of all or not.

The mere possibility of only the positive sides of that same policy being able to "return" (http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/15/4524714/microsoft-admits-shame-for-flawed-xbox-one-messaging) shows that the restrictive aspects of it were not necessary at all.

About 2: if the problem was just about those policies being perceiveddifferently than what they really were, than there still were solutions they could try, even after putting the console in the market. That was not the case. They made the case pretty clear, it's only that they continually twisted it to avoid brand damage. They were the ones who created the situation they are in, not consumers. It was like this:

a. At the X1's unveilling: mandatory installs, mandatory Kinect, mandatory internet checks, restrictive used games policies.

b. First compromise at E3 (a month after the unveilling): less restrictive used games policy (which could be sold at partnered retailers) and there's a family share (up to 10 accounts). There's still mandatory internet checks and everything else.

c. At July, they admit they've made a mistake with their "messaging", backtrack on a lot of the announced policies, and hint that family share could return.

d. Since there, they've been backtraking many other things, even Kinect does not seem to be mandatory anymore.

These were each clear messages of their business plans for the X1. It's just that the first one was SO draconian that people hated it like the devil. Their offering was ever changing to try to save a product that was severely damaged by a bad business plan.

There was no misunderstanding. People didn't perceive the product differently than what it was meant to be. People just didn't want what was offered, and MS continually tried to change the offering, always making it sound like what they initially told us never was real.

Like family share. At E3, they made it seem like there was always a family share plan. But actually, there wasn't. They had a huge event at Redmond, that lasted for more than an hour to tell us about that. They didn't, because obviously that wasn't part of what they intended. This is just a PR strategy to avoid brand damage.

If there's a mistake in anyones perception, it's not the consumers fault. It's solely MS'.

About 3: I really didn't intend to put on a "I AM" attitude, and sorry if it sounded like I did.

Now, about the new subject you introduced: the conception of used games as something pernicious to gaming.

That is a fallacy made by the industry itself, especially the biggest publishers.

Used games are not piracy. They are just one part of a perfectly working capitalist society. It's one of the aspects of property. You buy something, that's not just a license of use, you can sell that. It's yours. That's even protected by law (but it should be taken for granted even if it wasn't): the First Sale Doctrine.

Used games benefit gaming and helped make it what it is today. In almost every market, people who sells their product tends to buy a newer one of the same kind. You sell a car to buy a new one, you sell your games to buy new games, and so on. Of course there are some cases where the guy just needs the money (to pay a debt or buy something else, whatever), but that's not the majority of the used products dynamic.

If you sell your used game to buy a new one, you're putting that money again back into the gaming industry. There's only a "marginal loss", which is not a loss, because that market is not theirs to begin with. It's yours. They already got paid for their work, like everyone does when they sell their product. In fact, this would be effortless profit, since all the marketing and developing costs calculations where already made having in mind the number of "first sales" they'll make (or have to make).

What the big publishers want is that every ounce of money is put into the market, be it due or not.

That weights only on the consumer and takes away a basic right from you as a proprietor. Not only that, it creates a dangerous precedent in the physical market that could be followed by other industries. Even if you license a right, if you have the right of selling your license, but that's another matter altogether, and would generate a new discussion about what's wrong with services like iTunes and Steam.

Anyway, companies shouldn't blame consumers for their bad businesses. The companies that blame used games for losses are in the same market as those that are profiting a lot, despite of them. It's like GM or Chrysler putting the blame on used cars for their almost bankruptcy, while Hyundai, Renault-Nissan, etc. where getting bigger on the market and profiting a lot.

Don't buy into that "used games" are prejudicial BS propaganda.

About 3: I really didn't intend to put on a "I AM" attitude, and sorry if it sounded like I did.

 

Now, about the new subject you introduced: the conception of used games as something pernicious to gaming.

That is a fallacy made by the industry itself, especially the biggest publishers.

Used games are not piracy. They are just one part of a perfectly working capitalist society. It's one of the aspects of property. 1. You buy something, that's not just a license of use, you can sell that. It's yours. That's even protected by law (but it should be taken for granted even if it wasn't): the First Sale Doctrine.

Used games benefit gaming and helped make it what it is today. In almost every market, people who sells their product tends to buy a newer one of the same kind. You sell a car to buy a new one, you sell your games to buy new games, and so on. Of course there are some cases where the guy just needs the money (to pay a debt or buy something else, whatever), but that's not the majority of the used products dynamic.

If you sell your used game to buy a new one, you're putting that money again back into the gaming industry. There's only a "marginal loss", which is not a loss, because that market is theirs to begin with. They already got paid for their work, like everyone does when they sell their product. In fact, this would be effortless profit, since all the marketing and developing costs calculations where already made having in mind the number of "first sales" they'll make (or have to make).

What the big publishers want is that every ounce of money is put into the market, be it due or not.

That weights only on the consumer and takes away a basic right from you as a proprietor. Not only that, it creates a dangerous precedent in the physical market that could be followed by other industries. Even if you license a right, if you have the right of selling your license, but that's another matter altogether, and would generate a new discussion about what's wrong with services like iTunes and Steam.

Anyway, companies shouldn't blame consumers for their bad businesses. The companies that blame used games for losses are in the same market as those that are profiting a lot, despite of them. It's like GM or Chrysler putting the blame on used cars for their almost bankruptcy, while Hyundai, Renault-Nissan, etc. where getting bigger on the market and profiting a lot.

Don't buy into that "used games" are prejudicial BS propaganda.

SambaLele

This is a long post, going to have to agree to disagree on those policies (although some were silly, its the aways online and kinect back tracks that are the big loss).

Let me just address these for now:

3. That's cool, thanks, just wanted to keep things decent for once :).

Used games are a funny thing.  In one way you're right, they have helped the games industry get here.  In another, people are going to need to accept a certain change in how they perceive ownership. 

The problem MS is, in part, trying to address is that ownership of digital material is fundamentaly different to that of physical material.  We currently see games as a physical thing, it's that disc in the box right? Well no, the disk is a disk, it contains data that you buy a license to use.  Now because it is still actually a physical thing it is governed by our current laws.  When a game is sold to you as just a chunk of data, that can be copied and redistributed an infinite number of times at virtually no cost whatsoever to the distributor (I know this can be done with disks but not in the same way, they have to be physically copied and distributed.  This opens up many ways to catch people doing it and it has quite a bit of cost associated with it, yet it is still quite profligate) then a different set of rules needs to apply.

Who would create a game that once sold, was just able to be sold again and again, infinitely, by the purchaser with no benefit to the creator? Like it or not, games on disks are dying.  They are going to go away, be it next year, 5 years, 10 years or more. So what are our rights to sell digital content we never physically owned? Should I be able to take a copy of my digital games to keep and sell a copy of them on to recoup the money I spent? Is it fair to open up a market like that where the creator who spends vast amounts of money to create something gets virtually nothing in return?

The answer will be that we can sell our digital content but only under a very strict set of circumstances.  These will be 'draconian' DRM policies, by your definition, because most people will disagree with them, most people will say that validating content they have bought is a breach of their rights! (That validation will require many things, some of which will be always online drm or types of snooping software).

I don't necessarily agree with how Microsoft approached it or what they were proposing but I do understand that something has to be done. 

[QUOTE="menes777"]

 

Ok so if half the people don't want the kinect why should they be forced to use it? or online?  If that is what more of the people wanted where is the problem?

1080pOnly

My point is without something being mandatory then you can't develop the cool features for it.  What is the difference now between the two consoles? It's a couple of exclusives a year which aren't even gaurenteed to be good.

Lets say I don't want to use kinect, what hardship is it for me? I just won't use it.  If it really really bothers me then i'll get a PS4 and play that instead.  The whole thing is that now I don't really care which one I buy, they are basically the same.

You fail to interpret the facts in their context.

The backlash was that harsh because people were afraid that those policies would be the norm in the new generation.

Sony didn't announce the PS4 yet and everyone was afraid that those draconian policies wouldn't have an alternative (unless you believe the Wii U alone could hold those policies from becoming standard).

After the PS4 was announced, the majority that wouldn't buy a console with those new policies turned to the new option they had. MS only began backtracking when they saw that Sony would benefit of it all.

Sony could go along and increase profitability (profits per user) with the new draconian policies proposed by MS, then people wouldn't have a "villain" company to focus their uproar against, it would be a new "system standard", and both companies could profit with a new restrictive used games policy market.

Sony didn't do that, of course, not because they're good, but because they had an even better option: they prefered to capitalize on the chance they had to increase market share and profit more with the current business model, while gaining even more brand strenght. It was a great chance to get momentum close to a system launch. It's all down to business plans and decisions, and MS' didn't pay off.

No one but MS shot themselves in the foot. I really can't understand people blaming consumers for voicing their opinions.

If they're product was that good that it would make a new standard, they could still go on and bet on it. Apple did that, sometimes it didn't pay off, but in the end they managed to make new market standards in spite of consumer expectation. Like making touchscreen being almost mandatory, while, before, almost no one wanted that (see Palm Inc.'s fate). They're a perfect example of innovation being offered without you having to rennounce consumer rights.

In fact, MS claiming that their plan was visionary, ambitious, etc., is just a twist so that they look good when they tried to implement anti-consumer practices.

Microsoft should have waited 6 months.

Had they waited until mid-2014, they could have added up to 12GB of DDR4 Ram, a 3ghz Octo-Core CPU and a 1TB HDD.

They would have seen what Sony was coming out with and trumped the hardware across the board. And they could have left out the Kinect to keep the price down to $499.

In fact, many people wouldn't even care about used games fee, the online only, the 24-hour authentication, etc... because the hardware itself would be a full generation ahead of the PS4.

They could have had an insane lineup for E3 2014, plenty of consoles ready for a worldwide release...

But no. They had to rush things for fear of looking bad to Sony. And now, they look HORRIBLE to Sony.

Such a shame.

Oh well.

Sony wins before either console even ships out of a factory.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

My point is without something being mandatory then you can't develop the cool features for it.  What is the difference now between the two consoles? It's a couple of exclusives a year which aren't even gaurenteed to be good.

Lets say I don't want to use kinect, what hardship is it for me? I just won't use it.  If it really really bothers me then i'll get a PS4 and play that instead.  The whole thing is that now I don't really care which one I buy, they are basically the same.

1080pOnly

So what's stopping developers from making more use of the kinect and making it optional to use it?  If it is really a good feature then it will catch on and developers will make more use of it.  New features aren't always popular at first before someone takes a chance with them.  Also this isn't the Kinect's first rodeo.  If they did't like it on the 360 why would they like it now?

It is the difference between designing a game from scratch to use something and just tacking on a feature.  Lets say that a game will only work by being connected to other players machines all the time, this game wouldn't be the same if they had to make the game also work offline with no connection to other people.  The principles are completely different, its a design philosophy thing.

A good example would be emotional responses in an RPG.  Lets say the character you are talking to in say, the witcher 4, changes how they react based on how they read your facial expression (kinect).  Maybe you can lie better or pretend to be happy or threaten them with an angry tone of voice.  The AI could also use some of the computing power of the cloud to generate on the fly response to you (in an RPG dialogue latency and input lag don't matter as much).  You can't make a game that does this and also has a mode that doesn't use any of those things...they wouldn't be the same game.

There is no doubt that there could be some really great things accomplished with the Kinect.  However that was not my point.  My point is that innovation doesn't happen because it's popular.  It happens because someone takes a risk and then it becomes popular.  The Kinect isn't something completely or hasn't been tried before.  Unfortunately it's potential has been wasted so far on gimmicky dance games.  To have what you speak would require a large risk that could or could not pay off.  If it does then it could really revolutionize things, but like most things it takes time and sometimes just fails.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

About 3: I really didn't intend to put on a "I AM" attitude, and sorry if it sounded like I did.

 

Now, about the new subject you introduced: the conception of used games as something pernicious to gaming.

That is a fallacy made by the industry itself, especially the biggest publishers.

Used games are not piracy. They are just one part of a perfectly working capitalist society. It's one of the aspects of property. 1. You buy something, that's not just a license of use, you can sell that. It's yours. That's even protected by law (but it should be taken for granted even if it wasn't): the First Sale Doctrine.

Used games benefit gaming and helped make it what it is today. In almost every market, people who sells their product tends to buy a newer one of the same kind. You sell a car to buy a new one, you sell your games to buy new games, and so on. Of course there are some cases where the guy just needs the money (to pay a debt or buy something else, whatever), but that's not the majority of the used products dynamic.

If you sell your used game to buy a new one, you're putting that money again back into the gaming industry. There's only a "marginal loss", which is not a loss, because that market is theirs to begin with. They already got paid for their work, like everyone does when they sell their product. In fact, this would be effortless profit, since all the marketing and developing costs calculations where already made having in mind the number of "first sales" they'll make (or have to make).

What the big publishers want is that every ounce of money is put into the market, be it due or not.

That weights only on the consumer and takes away a basic right from you as a proprietor. Not only that, it creates a dangerous precedent in the physical market that could be followed by other industries. Even if you license a right, if you have the right of selling your license, but that's another matter altogether, and would generate a new discussion about what's wrong with services like iTunes and Steam.

Anyway, companies shouldn't blame consumers for their bad businesses. The companies that blame used games for losses are in the same market as those that are profiting a lot, despite of them. It's like GM or Chrysler putting the blame on used cars for their almost bankruptcy, while Hyundai, Renault-Nissan, etc. where getting bigger on the market and profiting a lot.

Don't buy into that "used games" are prejudicial BS propaganda.

1080pOnly

This is a long post, going to have to agree to disagree on those policies (although some were silly, its the aways online and kinect back tracks that are the big loss).

Let me just address these for now:

3. That's cool, thanks, just wanted to keep things decent for once :).

Used games are a funny thing.  In one way you're right, they have helped the games industry get here.  In another, people are going to need to accept a certain change in how they perceive ownership. 

The problem MS is, in part, trying to address is that ownership of digital material is fundamentaly different to that of physical material.  We currently see games as a physical thing, it's that disc in the box right? Well no, the disk is a disk, it contains data that you buy a license to use.  Now because it is still actually a physical thing it is governed by our current laws.  When a game is sold to you as just a chunk of data, that can be copied and redistributed an infinite number of times at virtually no cost whatsoever to the distributor (I know this can be done with disks but not in the same way, they have to be physically copied and distributed.  This opens up many ways to catch people doing it and it has quite a bit of cost associated with it, yet it is still quite profligate) then a different set of rules needs to apply.

Who would create a game that once sold, was just able to be sold again and again, infinitely, by the purchaser with no benefit to the creator? (1)Like it or not, games on disks are dying.  They are going to go away, be it next year, 5 years, 10 years or more. So what are our rights to sell digital content we never physically owned? Should I be able to take a copy of my digital games to keep and sell a copy of them on to recoup the money I spent? (2) Is it fair to open up a market like that where the creator who spends vast amounts of money to create something gets virtually nothing in return?

The answer will be that we can sell our digital content but only under a very strict set of circumstances.  These will be 'draconian' DRM policies, by your definition, because most people will disagree with them, most people will say that validating content they have bought is a breach of their rights! (That validation will require many things, some of which will be always online drm or types of snooping software). (3)

I don't necessarily agree with how Microsoft approached it or what they were proposing but I do understand that something has to be done. 

1. What you said only applies to DD. Passing a physical copy game on and on, selling and reselling it inumerous times is as theorethical as selling your car the same amount of times. The whole market is made to work with that dynamics in mind, and it's already many times bigger than Hollywood, because of that or in spite of it.

2. You just described piracy. Used games are not piracy. You can't buy one copy and profit infinitely with it, nor can the devs. You can, and should already be able to, sell the one copy you bought.

If what you bought is a license of use, that license of use also has economic value. And that's economic value added to your property (patrimony), and you should be able to sell it, unless you signed a contract that says otherwise.

It's like iTunes having a lobby system, where you can sell the song you bought, for a cheaper price than what's available on the store (or else nobody would buy it), then you wouldn't be able to download the file anymore, and it could be erased from your iPhone or iPod when you sync it (this is just a rapidly invented example), and the guy who bought it would get the right you once had, and can download it now.

That's at least, how it should be (again, unless you signed a contract that takes that right from you). This is not just feasible, but Apple is already thinking of this: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/resell-apple-itunes-songs-and-books-2013-3

There are countries that are forcing them to implement that, exactly because their consumer laws do not allow you to be able to only buy something. Be it a physical product, a license, or only a right of use, it has economical value you should be able to at least retain, even if with some loss.

3. That is not draconian in my definition. But that's not what MS intended in the first place (what caused the backlash).

Their original plan was to FEE used products. And it was almost the price of a new game. Even if it was a cheap fee, no one can fee your right of selling your property (only the government, and that's with some legal base, and for social or national interest matters). It's obviously a practice meant to kill the secondhand market. They rapidly changed that on E3, and brought along the "family share" plan. But everyone who followed all the news and MS' statements know that it was just a compromise to control the damage done.

consumer restriction plus kinect always on was a good thing? 

 

No one but MS shot themselves in the foot. 1. I really can't understand people blaming consumers for voicing their opinions.

2. In fact, MS claiming that their plan was visionary, ambitious, etc., is just a twist so that they look good when they tried to implement anti-consumer practices.

SambaLele

1. The thing is I would understand if it was just complaining about DRM policies but it's not. 

Take kinect for example. People fear that it will be used as a spy in their living room, that MS and the NSA will be watching them commit crimes in their home.  The reality is you can take the plug out.  If you're worried about a camera watching you while you game then you're just paranoid or doing some extremely embarrasing stuff while gaming that for some reason you think the world will be interested in and somehow able to see.  Even if it is just too much to bear, then simply buy the PS4.  Let MS make the 'mistake', don't homogonise the console by demaning they remove it or you won't buy it.

It is exactly the voice of the consumer, a consumer that hasn't even tried what is on offer, that has ruined what the console could have been.  Sure, go all out to change the used games policy or the stuff they put behind a pay wall but not always-online because you haven't got a net connection.  So what? Buy a PS4 then.  I understand that the 24hr check in seemed crazy, I agree, it should have been every month (those who can't connect to the internet once a month and can afford to buy an Xbone are in the minority, yet i do understand they exist and constitute a large number of people, just a small fraction of the whole). 

That was the one negative aspect of having an always online console and yet that is all that was focused on.  Where was the discussion from people about some of the benefits to gaming it could bring? People like to be connected to people, I think the popularity of Facebook proves that.  It would have been great to have a console that was always-online, with features designed from the ground up for that functionality.  No, it's too draconian though, best just be like the rest.

2. You are seeing things in black and white when they are actually shades of grey.  MS was being ambitious, it was being visionary and it was trying to get away with some anti-consumer stuff.  These things are not mutually exclusive.  The consumer got wind of a few of the bad things and went on a witchhunt, one that hasn't stopped yet.  However, now they have a console just like it's competitor with nothing new to offer beyond a UI and graphics bump from the previous gen.  You can count me out.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

 

No one but MS shot themselves in the foot. 1. I really can't understand people blaming consumers for voicing their opinions.

2. In fact, MS claiming that their plan was visionary, ambitious, etc., is just a twist so that they look good when they tried to implement anti-consumer practices.

1080pOnly

1. The thing is I would understand if it was just complaining about DRM policies but it's not. 

Take kinect for example. People fear that it will be used as a spy in their living room, that MS and the NSA will be watching them commit crimes in their home.  The reality is you can take the plug out.  If you're worried about a camera watching you while you game then you're just paranoid or doing some extremely embarrasing stuff while gaming that for some reason you think the world will be interested in and somehow able to see.  Even if it is just too much to bear, then simply buy the PS4.  Let MS make the 'mistake', don't homogonise the console by demaning they remove it or you won't buy it.

It is exactly the voice of the consumer, a consumer that hasn't even tried what is on offer, that has ruined what the console could have been.  Sure, go all out to change the used games policy or the stuff they put behind a pay wall but not always-online because you haven't got a net connection.  So what? Buy a PS4 then.  I understand that the 24hr check in seemed crazy, I agree, it should have been every month (those who can't connect to the internet once a month and can afford to buy an Xbone are in the minority, yet i do understand they exist and constitute a large number of people, just a small fraction of the whole). 

That was the one negative aspect of having an always online console and yet that is all that was focused on.  Where was the discussion from people about some of the benefits to gaming it could bring? People like to be connected to people, I think the popularity of Facebook proves that.  It would have been great to have a console that was always-online, with features designed from the ground up for that functionality.  No, it's too draconian though, best just be like the rest.

2. You are seeing things in black and white when they are actually shades of grey.  MS was being ambitious, it was being visionary and it was trying to get away with some anti-consumer stuff.  These things are not mutually exclusive.  The consumer got wind of a few of the bad things and went on a witchhunt, one that hasn't stopped yet.  However, now they have a console just like it's competitor with nothing new to offer beyond a UI and graphics bump from the previous gen.  You can count me out.

I believe that NSA spying crap is 100% trolling.  Being always connected and requiring to be always connected are two different things.  If you turn off your internet of course FB isn't going to work, but it doesn't stop you from using your PC for offline tasks.  

To be honest I think you are giving MS too much of the benefit of the doubt.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

 

No one but MS shot themselves in the foot. 1. I really can't understand people blaming consumers for voicing their opinions.

2. In fact, MS claiming that their plan was visionary, ambitious, etc., is just a twist so that they look good when they tried to implement anti-consumer practices.

1080pOnly

1. The thing is I would understand if it was just complaining about DRM policies but it's not. 

Take kinect for example. People fear that it will be used as a spy in their living room, that MS and the NSA will be watching them commit crimes in their home.  The reality is you can take the plug out.  If you're worried about a camera watching you while you game then you're just paranoid or doing some extremely embarrasing stuff while gaming that for some reason you think the world will be interested in and somehow able to see.  Even if it is just too much to bear, then simply buy the PS4.  Let MS make the 'mistake', don't homogonise the console by demaning they remove it or you won't buy it.

It is exactly the voice of the consumer, a consumer that hasn't even tried what is on offer, that has ruined what the console could have been.  Sure, go all out to change the used games policy or the stuff they put behind a pay wall but not always-online because you haven't got a net connection.  So what? Buy a PS4 then.  I understand that the 24hr check in seemed crazy, I agree, it should have been every month (those who can't connect to the internet once a month and can afford to buy an Xbone are in the minority, yet i do understand they exist and constitute a large number of people, just a small fraction of the whole). 

That was the one negative aspect of having an always online console and yet that is all that was focused on.  Where was the discussion from people about some of the benefits to gaming it could bring? People like to be connected to people, I think the popularity of Facebook proves that.  It would have been great to have a console that was always-online, with features designed from the ground up for that functionality.  No, it's too draconian though, best just be like the rest.

2. You are seeing things in black and white when they are actually shades of grey.  MS was being ambitious, it was being visionary and it was trying to get away with some anti-consumer stuff.  These things are not mutually exclusive.  The consumer got wind of a few of the bad things and went on a witchhunt, one that hasn't stopped yet.  However, now they have a console just like it's competitor with nothing new to offer beyond a UI and graphics bump from the previous gen.  You can count me out.

1. That's why I said you weren't analysing things on their context. People were begging Sony to announce a PSEye-less PS4, because they didn't want that as a standard for next-gen. That's why the harsh backlash in that aspect.

After Sony announced that they wouldn't force the camera, MS could still insist with Kinect (they still are, since there's officially one bundled with the system).

That goes to all other objectives they had. They could insist with the "always online" thing. Mattrick even told a Gamespot journalist that if he wants an offline device after the One is out, he can buy a 360.

Notice that MS only went back on the always online thing when they also nulified family share and the restrictions on used games.

That's one very strong evidence that the online component was mainly intended as DRM. Not any kind of DRM, but one that would make their used games policy very much alike EA's and Blizzard's now extinc online pass.

Which leads to number 2.

2. What I said before, along with your quoted argument shows that, in fact, you're the one seeing things in black or white. It's like MS wanted to implement those things out of good will.

I even explained a very plausible scenario of why Sony didn't go along with them, and it's basically down to profits.

What you call "few bad things" that people got wind were paradigm changing policies that would restrict more than they would give.

Especially the fee on used games. It wasn't meant for DD, but for the physical market.

It would be a precedent that could be replicated in other markets if consumers allowed.

Family share, on the other hand, is something that can still be implemented, if they wanted to give the X1 some policy advantage over the PS4. They hinted on that.

But they're not bringing that back. Not because they are bad. Not because I'm seeing things in a manicheist manner. But because that was a policy meant to replace the previous one based on feeing used games.

The other argument is also applicable here: if they belived that this would be something so good that people would change their minds on it, they could still insist on it, like they are with the Kinect and take their risk like many companies did and still do. Why don't they do that? For a number of reasons I already talked about many times, and am a bit fatigued now to repeat it all again.

I'm suprised, this is actually a good thread with some valid points, for once, I don't regret reading the OP! :P

It's true, currently, I'd say MS are setting themselves up for slaugher, they completely scrapped their original vision for X1, and turned it into an inferior, yet more expensive copy of a PS4. They have no plan, they're just playing along to the Internet crowd complaints, while Sony is sticking to their plan, well recieved by public.

While I definitely didn't like most of the original X1 policies, they could've been refined with time if MS did a more careful job at listening to fan feedback, but instead, we got a total mess of backpedaling, so their console has a good chance of becoming a commercial failure, and if we see such a large investment flop on the market, it definitely won't be a good thing for the gaming industry.

1. What you said only applies to DD. Passing a physical copy game on and on, selling and reselling it inumerous times is as theorethical as selling your car the same amount of times. The whole market is made to work with that dynamics in mind, and it's already many times bigger than Hollywood, because of that or in spite of it.

2. You just described piracy. Used games are not piracy. You can't buy one copy and profit infinitely with it, nor can the devs. You can, and should already be able to, sell the one copy you bought.

If what you bought is a license of use, that license of use also has economic value. And that's economic value added to your property (patrimony), and you should be able to sell it, unless you signed a contract that says otherwise.

It's like iTunes having a lobby system, where you can sell the song you bought, for a cheaper price than what's available on the store (or else nobody would buy it), then you wouldn't be able to download the file anymore, and it could be erased from your iPhone or iPod when you sync it (this is just a rapidly invented example), and the guy who bought it would get the right you once had, and can download it now.

That's at least, how it should be (again, unless you signed a contract that takes that right from you). This is not just feasible, but Apple is already thinking of this: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/resell-apple-itunes-songs-and-books-2013-3

 

There are countries that are forcing them to implement that, exactly because their consumer laws do not allow you to be able to only buy something. Be it a physical product, a license, or only a right of use, it has economical value you should be able to at least retain, even if with some loss.

 

3. That is not draconian in my definition. But that's not what MS intended in the first place (what caused the backlash).

Their original plan was to FEE used products. And it was almost the price of a new game. Even if it was a cheap fee, no one can fee your right of selling your property (only the government, and that's with some legal base, and for social or national interest matters). It's obviously a practice meant to kill the secondhand market. They rapidly changed that on E3, and brought along the "family share" plan. But everyone who followed all the news and MS' statements know that it was just a compromise to control the damage done.

SambaLele

1. I agree, wasn't really arguing against that.

2. Used games aren't piracy but only because of DRM implimented on the disc to stop it from being copied over and over.  My point was always about people screaming DRM!!! when actually DRM is an enabler that gives us the ability to have a used games market in the first place (beyond buying off that dodgey guy at the market).  If a disc could just be copied and be indistinguishable from the original (this actually used to be the case a long time back) then high street stores wouldn't buy them (they didn't), originals would have no resale value (again, they were only worth as much as a copy, nothing) and everyone would basically just own copies (I lived through this exact thing happening).

I'm just saying that not all DRM policies are bad.  What people initially see as stopping them from selling games could actually, in the end, bring the cost of games down.  Steam is a great example.  Many say it is nothing but DRM and a scam.  I say that since Steam I have paid a fraction of the cost I would have for games when I had to purchase through retail alone.  I can't sell my games but I saved more than the resale value in purchase price AND i still have my games.  I don't see that at a loss, many others do.

3. Again, I never argued that all of their policies were good, well intended or would have positive consequences.  I argued that people complained about everything, even stuff that could well have been of benefit.

I'm suprised, this is actually a good thread with some valid points, for once, I don't regret reading the OP! :P

It's true, currently, I'd say MS are setting themselves up for slaugher, they completely scrapped their original vision for X1, and turned it into an inferior, yet more expensive copy of a PS4. They have no plan, they're just playing along to the Internet crowd complaints, while Sony is sticking to their plan, well recieved by public.

While I definitely didn't like most of the original X1 policies, they could've been refined with time if MS did a more careful job at listening to fan feedback, but instead, we got a total mess of backpedaling, so their console has a good chance of becoming a commercial failure, and if we see such a large investment flop on the market, it definitely won't be a good thing for the gaming industry.

Rocker6

This is an opinion I strongly agree with.

The situation MS is now they put themselves in.

There's no such thing as blaming consumers for voicing their discontent with a product that's not what they expected.

If the company, on the other hand, has a business plan that is innovative and can stand on it's own feet against the initial bad reception, why not insist on it?

We have plenty of examples of that, even in the gaming industry, the Wii being the more recent one. Gamers in general said it would be gimmicky and that Nintendo lost their mind... but they really did set a new paradigm in gaming.

Like I was saying the other conversation, this is so, because there was no draconian policy associated with it. What happened to MS is that some of the things they offered were, in fact, ultimately and strictly meant to back the restrictions on used games (like the daily online checks), and that's why they couldn't sustain them against the consumer reception.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

Which is inherently faulty then. If a dev has already restricted themselves down to exclusive status, they are again not aiming at the widest audience (the purpose of aiming low). No, they are aiming instead at the particular functionality, access to which, and potential user base of such has at worst remained the same or increased.  If they were going to dev before, they still will now.

1080pOnly

First party games are made to show off the abilities of the console.  You can't make a first party game using the cloud and kinect if most of your userbase isn't able or willing to use those things.

Tell that to Nintendo... or hell MS.  Both have produced 1st party games to show off functionality of devices that a good chunk of the user base is downright hostile to.  Didn't stop them before, won't stop them now, because really that some of your user base won't use it doesn't ultimately matter.  It is a matter of the size of the potential user base.

I can't believe you don't understand the difference between something being a fundamental part of the console and something that isn't. 

Imagine this scenario - The PS3 only came with a BR player if you opted to buy the SKU that contains it for more money.  Half of the people that bought the PS3 decided not to have one.  Now a dev has to think about the media they store their games on.  They COULD make it BR only, store more textures, extra music and so on or they could go for the one that will sell the most even though it has less features.

It is the same for always online and kinect.  If it is not there for everyone it will not get used in the same way as it would if it was.

Actually that is quite different.  You see, all X1 have internet capability.  All X1 have kinect.  Your scenerio is only some PS3 have BR.  Not that only some of the users are willing to use it, but that only some have it.  That is quite different. 

Remember, even when we started, a dev could not guarantee that an X1 had a good connection, only that it had a once per 24 hour verification connection.  They also couldn't guarantee the Kinect was even able to see the user.  Someone could have put tape on it, or turned it at a wall.  The could only guarantee the presence of such.  That really has only changed in that you can't guarantee a connection even exist, but the users who don't connections you couldn't possibly have sold to them anyway, so why would you worry about them?  If you were already targetting X1's fanbase before, you already wrote those guys off, so nothing has changed for you.

I'm suprised, this is actually a good thread with some valid points, for once, I don't regret reading the OP! :P

It's true, currently, I'd say MS are setting themselves up for slaugher, they completely scrapped their original vision for X1, and turned it into an inferior, yet more expensive copy of a PS4. They have no plan, they're just playing along to the Internet crowd complaints, while Sony is sticking to their plan, well recieved by public.

While I definitely didn't like most of the original X1 policies, they could've been refined with time if MS did a more careful job at listening to fan feedback, but instead, we got a total mess of backpedaling, so their console has a good chance of becoming a commercial failure, and if we see such a large investment flop on the market, it definitely won't be a good thing for the gaming industry.

Rocker6

That is a good summation of what I was trying to say.  Stuff needed changing but the vision didn't need to be ruined.  It wasn't a bad vision, just one wrapped up in corporate bullshit that seems to ruin everything these days.  The big mistake for MS was to listen to all of the online public and media backlash and completely reverse direction instead of tweaking what they had and explaining the vision better.

 

Actually that is quite different. 1.You see, all X1 have internet capability.  All X1 have kinect.  Your scenerio is only some PS3 have BR.  Not that only some of the users are willing to use it, but that only some have it.  That is quite different. 

Remember, even when we started, a dev could not guarantee that an X1 had a good connection, only that it had a once per 24 hour verification connection.  They also couldn't guarantee the Kinect was even able to see the user.  Someone could have put tape on it, or turned it at a wall.  The could only guarantee the presence of such.  That really has only changed in that you can't guarantee a connection even exist, but the users who don't connections you couldn't possibly have sold to them anyway, so why would you worry about them?  If you were already targetting X1's fanbase before, you already wrote those guys off, so nothing has changed for you.

DerekLoffin

All Xbones having internet capability is not the same as all Xbones being connected to the internet.  All Xbones having kinect is not the same as all Xbones having kinect as a requirement.  This is a massive and fundamental difference.

That they could guarantee the presence of such and explain why it is a requirement is exactly the point though.  You can't sell a product to someone and tell them it works fully without an internet connection and then add a fundamental feature that does require one.  There would be a huge public backlash and many legal battles.  You can however sell someone a product and insist that they understand an internet connection is required to use it and that fundamental features will be unavailable without it.  This allows you to design a new kind of console eco-system, one that could not work in an off-line world.

To sum up, there is a world of difference between selling something with a requirement attached and selling something without.  It completely changes where you can take that product.  This is so crucial to products that develop over time especially in the technology market.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

1. What you said only applies to DD. Passing a physical copy game on and on, selling and reselling it inumerous times is as theorethical as selling your car the same amount of times. The whole market is made to work with that dynamics in mind, and it's already many times bigger than Hollywood, because of that or in spite of it.

2. You just described piracy. Used games are not piracy. You can't buy one copy and profit infinitely with it, nor can the devs. You can, and should already be able to, sell the one copy you bought.

If what you bought is a license of use, that license of use also has economic value. And that's economic value added to your property (patrimony), and you should be able to sell it, unless you signed a contract that says otherwise.

It's like iTunes having a lobby system, where you can sell the song you bought, for a cheaper price than what's available on the store (or else nobody would buy it), then you wouldn't be able to download the file anymore, and it could be erased from your iPhone or iPod when you sync it (this is just a rapidly invented example), and the guy who bought it would get the right you once had, and can download it now.

That's at least, how it should be (again, unless you signed a contract that takes that right from you). This is not just feasible, but Apple is already thinking of this: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/resell-apple-itunes-songs-and-books-2013-3

 

There are countries that are forcing them to implement that, exactly because their consumer laws do not allow you to be able to only buy something. Be it a physical product, a license, or only a right of use, it has economical value you should be able to at least retain, even if with some loss.

 

3. That is not draconian in my definition. But that's not what MS intended in the first place (what caused the backlash).

Their original plan was to FEE used products. And it was almost the price of a new game. Even if it was a cheap fee, no one can fee your right of selling your property (only the government, and that's with some legal base, and for social or national interest matters). It's obviously a practice meant to kill the secondhand market. They rapidly changed that on E3, and brought along the "family share" plan. But everyone who followed all the news and MS' statements know that it was just a compromise to control the damage done.

1080pOnly

1. I agree, wasn't really arguing against that.

2. Used games aren't piracy but only because of DRM implimented on the disc to stop it from being copied over and over.  My point was always about people screaming DRM!!! when actually DRM is an enabler that gives us the ability to have a used games market in the first place (beyond buying off that dodgey guy at the market).  If a disc could just be copied and be indistinguishable from the original (this actually used to be the case a long time back) then high street stores wouldn't buy them (they didn't), originals would have no resale value (again, they were only worth as much as a copy, nothing) and everyone would basically just own copies (I lived through this exact thing happening).

I'm just saying that not all DRM policies are bad.  What people initially see as stopping them from selling games could actually, in the end, bring the cost of games down.  Steam is a great example.  Many say it is nothing but DRM and a scam.  I say that since Steam I have paid a fraction of the cost I would have for games when I had to purchase through retail alone.  I can't sell my games but I saved more than the resale value in purchase price AND i still have my games.  I don't see that at a loss, many others do.

3. Again, I never argued that all of their policies were good, well intended or would have positive consequences.  I argued that people complained about everything, even stuff that could well have been of benefit.

Ok.

So I'll try to resume our conversation up to this point:

We agree that citizens have their right of selling their used products, even if they are digital. What must be avoided is piracy, and the way to do that is through DRM.

We agree that not every DRM policy is draconian.

We agree that DD is a completely different environment than the physical one, and needs different DRM because of that.

We agree that not all of MS' policies were good.

So, to finished the discussion, let's try to be specific, and this is completely related to your original post:

1. If DD is different from the physical market, then MS trying to implement the original DD-like DRM policies for used physical copies of games was draconian or not?

2. The substitute system, that involved "family share", "selected retailers" and "registering your physical game to your online account" was or not still a draconian DRM system?

3. If the U turn on daily online checks was simultaneous to their scrapping off family share (when they even admitted that family share could still be implemented), is that or not a sign that the daily online checks was not a gameplay intended policy, but a mechanism of a draconian online DRM policy?

4. If those policies, even if draconian, were more benefitial to consumers than prejudicial, and could end up making the console a different choice from the PS4, and would be a more justifiable purchase than the new, backtracked version of it, why didn't they risk it?

My take is that they actually couldn't sustain the positive aspects because they were not the objective they had in mind. They were just instruments for a DRM policy that would make their system more profitable than the previous generations consoles. By limiting the secondhand market, profitability per user would be higher, and they wouldn't even need to agressively chase a bigger market share (which is costly) to secure bigger profits.

Maintaining things like "family share", without the draconian DRM it was associated to, would actually take a hit on the sales of games, without giving them any benefit. Always online, which also was just one aspect of the whole DRM, couldn't be kept alone, because it would alienate a portion of the market, also without the benefits of the used-games DRM scheme. The same can go on about the other things.

The only aspect that can justify itself, not only to consumers, but also for MS themselves, is Kinect. After all, it is a selling point, and a feature that, although wasn't really well received, didn't at least get nearly the same backlash as the used games DRM fiasco.

I agree, I don't 100% blame MS. It's easy to attack them for the u-turns, but all these people attacking now, were attacking before. You have a GS video on the front page with that guy making fun of them for the 180s and it's like, they wouldn't have done it if you bastards didn't rip them a new arseh*le.

If MS stopped at the DRM, i'd be happy, but the more they are pushed and revert to the X360 model, the more I lose confedence in the next gen as a whole, to the point where 'skipping it' is still on the table.

They aren't that much different than the current gen with more RAM. They have a CPU that could probably be spanked by a low level i5, hardly blown away by the graphics output of either. Rams fine I guess.

It's genuinly sad they're givng in to these people who don't like change. I guess I just don't understand the popular opinion. It's like the people who complain about Windows 8. The way they went on, I expected the worst, but it's awesome and freaking fast on the PC I built around it. It takes a couple of hours to get used to, but I find it much better than Windows 7. Like OSX took me a couple of hours to get used to, but I find that better than Windows 7 as well.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

 

Actually that is quite different. 1.You see, all X1 have internet capability.  All X1 have kinect.  Your scenerio is only some PS3 have BR.  Not that only some of the users are willing to use it, but that only some have it.  That is quite different. 

Remember, even when we started, a dev could not guarantee that an X1 had a good connection, only that it had a once per 24 hour verification connection.  They also couldn't guarantee the Kinect was even able to see the user.  Someone could have put tape on it, or turned it at a wall.  The could only guarantee the presence of such.  That really has only changed in that you can't guarantee a connection even exist, but the users who don't connections you couldn't possibly have sold to them anyway, so why would you worry about them?  If you were already targetting X1's fanbase before, you already wrote those guys off, so nothing has changed for you.

1080pOnly

All Xbones having internet capability is not the same as all Xbones being connected to the internet.  All Xbones having kinect is not the same as all Xbones having kinect as a requirement.  This is a massive and fundamental difference.

That they could guarantee the presence of such and explain why it is a requirement is exactly the point though.  You can't sell a product to someone and tell them it works fully without an internet connection and then add a fundamental feature that does require one.  There would be a huge public backlash and many legal battles.

Yes, but we're not talking any fundamental feature.  We're talking games here, or maybe apps, none of those are fundamental.  I can still make all the online only, kinect requiring apps and games I want on X1, that hasn't changed in the least.  In fact, they already do this.  Dance Central don't work too well without Kinect.  Wonderbook doesn't work too well without move and the actual book.  DC Universe doesn't work at all without a constant internet connection. Netflix, it don't work either without internet.  Twitter, youtube, internet browsing... all require internet.  The important thing is that all of these do not require a console that demands it always be connected, that must have Kinect connected and on.  And also very importantly, all of these exist despite those requirements not being there.  You know why, because that requirement doesn't do anything other than restrict your options.  It didn't make options, it took them away.  Kinect existing, and the network plug existing created those options and those options are still there.

  You can however sell someone a product and insist that they understand an internet connection is required to use it and that fundamental features will be unavailable without it.  This allows you to design a new kind of console eco-system, one that could not work in an off-line world.

Problem is, no such thing exists.  Sure you can make games and apps that require internet, but their are always optional as they should be.  There has yet to be shown any... ANY good reason to demand the console be always online, or that Kinect must always be on.  In every situation you can see that they could get the same benefit in the optional case.  Even family sharing could have been done with digital titles.  If you were connected, you can get the digital title and get all the family share benefits, but if you're not, you're stuck with the physical which has to be physically shared.  In every case you can easily see how they could make these simply options, not requirements.

To sum up, there is a world of difference between selling something with a requirement attached and selling something without.  It completely changes where you can take that product.  This is so crucial to products that develop over time especially in the technology market.

You're not really making a good case for it, at least to me.

Ok.

So I'll try to resume our conversation up to this point:

We agree that citizens have their right of selling their used products, even if they are digital. What must be avoided is piracy, and the way to do that is through DRM.

We agree that not every DRM policy is draconian.

We agree that DD is a completely different environment than the physical one, and needs different DRM because of that.

We agree that not all of MS' policies were good.

So, to finished the discussion, let's try to be specific, and this is completely related to your original post:

1. If DD is different from the physical market, then MS trying to implement the original DD-like DRM policies for used physical copies of games was draconian or not?

2. The substitute system, that involved "family share", "selected retailers" and "registering your physical game to your online account" was or not still a draconian DRM system?

3. If the U turn on daily online checks was simultaneous to their scrapping off family share (when they even admitted that family share could still be implemented), is that or not a sign that the daily online checks was not a gameplay intended policy, but a mechanism of a draconian online DRM policy?

4. If those policies, even if draconian, were more benefitial to consumers than prejudicial, and could end up making the console a different choice from the PS4, and would be a more justifiable purchase than the new, backtracked version of it, why didn't they risk it?

My take is that they actually couldn't sustain the positive aspects because they were not the objective they had in mind. They were just instruments for a DRM policy that would make their system more profitable than the previous generations consoles. By limiting the secondhand market, profitability per user would be higher, and they wouldn't even need to agressively chase a bigger market share (which is costly) to secure bigger profits.

Maintaining things like "family share", without the draconian DRM it was associated to, would actually take a hit on the sales of games, without giving them any benefit. Always online, which also was just one aspect of the whole DRM, couldn't be kept alone, because it would alienate a portion of the market, also without the benefits of the used-games DRM scheme. The same can go on about the other things.

The only aspect that can justify itself, not only to consumers, but also for MS themselves, is Kinect. After all, it is a selling point, and a feature that, although wasn't really well received, didn't at least get nearly the same backlash as the used games DRM fiasco.

SambaLele

1. I just think draconian is a strong word that carries with it a lot of connotation, the policy wasn't well thought out and certainly wasn't framed well but many people associate draconian with evil.  The policy certainly wasn't evil.  I guess no one really knows what would happen if you introduce a kickback to publishers from used game sales.  The cynical part of me says they will keep the extra money, my humanitarian side says that we'll see cheaper games or improvements in game budgets. If we see cheaper games, considering the resale value you get from games is pitiful at times, then the consumer could actually benefit from a DD-like policy on physical disks (i really have benefited from Steam, I own more games than ever now and payed far less for them than I used to).

2. Again, i'm unsure if publishers would really gain, how much they would gain and how would this be put to use.  On the surface it's not hugely appealing to me but then they haven't ever presented a case for exactly what benefits there will be.  This is something though that could be changed or tweaked without scrapping always on kinect or always online.

3. It is hard to say exactly what their intent there was.  I make no mistake, the on-line check in was to help stop piracy by forcing a type of DRM people usually hate. 

If you have an internet connection it will rarely be unavailable for more than 24hours at a time (that was there thinking).  The check in is actually a constant thing, in the event of the internet disconnecting it will be 24 hours starting then, not something that occurs at midnight i.e. if your internet goes down at 11:30pm it won't kick you at midnight.  I think a month would be fine, Steam does require an occasional phone home and it's no inconvenience if you EVER connect to the internet.

So always online brings a new form of DRM.  It also can then be used as a tool to improve games and services.  I would want to see both in practice before making my final judgement and I guess that is my point.

4. Well you said it, risk.  It is a massive gamble.  They hoped they could do the announce and see how the public received it.  If it went badly all was not lost, they could revert some things and still launch.  What happened though was that they botched the launch, they tried in their typical sickly smooth corporate way to sell us a line and hope no one would say anything.  What they should have done is cut through the bullshit and clearly tried to explain their vision.  Explain how this is a policy we might not like but have we considered how it will also help.  This didn't happen, they panic and we all see what happens when a major corporation has to start thinking on it's feet.

I'll admit to a little bit of err shall we say forum play with the thread title.  I don't really think it's just the fans blind brand loyalty that's caused this but on these boards you need some kind of hook to get people to read a wall of text like the OP :P.

To sum up; I don't think that their policies were only designed to be anti-consumer and I do believe the console will be weaker for losing some of the requirements it had. I do think they f*cked up massively and I do think they tried to sneak things in that were just too strict but they didn't need to backpeddle like they did and what they percieve as now being the safe route to take may actually end up being their downfall.

Clicked on the thread, saw so much text, skimmed it, rolled eyes, stopped reading.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

Ok.

So I'll try to resume our conversation up to this point:

We agree that citizens have their right of selling their used products, even if they are digital. What must be avoided is piracy, and the way to do that is through DRM.

We agree that not every DRM policy is draconian.

We agree that DD is a completely different environment than the physical one, and needs different DRM because of that.

We agree that not all of MS' policies were good.

So, to finished the discussion, let's try to be specific, and this is completely related to your original post:

1. If DD is different from the physical market, then MS trying to implement the original DD-like DRM policies for used physical copies of games was draconian or not?

2. The substitute system, that involved "family share", "selected retailers" and "registering your physical game to your online account" was or not still a draconian DRM system?

3. If the U turn on daily online checks was simultaneous to their scrapping off family share (when they even admitted that family share could still be implemented), is that or not a sign that the daily online checks was not a gameplay intended policy, but a mechanism of a draconian online DRM policy?

4. If those policies, even if draconian, were more benefitial to consumers than prejudicial, and could end up making the console a different choice from the PS4, and would be a more justifiable purchase than the new, backtracked version of it, why didn't they risk it?

My take is that they actually couldn't sustain the positive aspects because they were not the objective they had in mind. They were just instruments for a DRM policy that would make their system more profitable than the previous generations consoles. By limiting the secondhand market, profitability per user would be higher, and they wouldn't even need to agressively chase a bigger market share (which is costly) to secure bigger profits.

Maintaining things like "family share", without the draconian DRM it was associated to, would actually take a hit on the sales of games, without giving them any benefit. Always online, which also was just one aspect of the whole DRM, couldn't be kept alone, because it would alienate a portion of the market, also without the benefits of the used-games DRM scheme. The same can go on about the other things.

The only aspect that can justify itself, not only to consumers, but also for MS themselves, is Kinect. After all, it is a selling point, and a feature that, although wasn't really well received, didn't at least get nearly the same backlash as the used games DRM fiasco.

1080pOnly

1. I just think draconian is a strong word that carries with it a lot of connotation, the policy wasn't well thought out and certainly wasn't framed well but many people associate draconian with evil.  The policy certainly wasn't evil.  I guess no one really knows what would happen if you introduce a kickback to publishers from used game sales.  The cynical part of me says they will keep the extra money, my humanitarian side says that we'll see cheaper games or improvements in game budgets. If we see cheaper games, considering the resale value you get from games is pitiful at times, then the consumer could actually benefit from a DD-like policy on physical disks (i really have benefited from Steam, I own more games than ever now and payed far less for them than I used to).

2. Again, i'm unsure if publishers would really gain, how much they would gain and how would this be put to use.  On the surface it's not hugely appealing to me but then they haven't ever presented a case for exactly what benefits there will be.  This is something though that could be changed or tweaked without scrapping always on kinect or always online.

3. It is hard to say exactly what their intent there was.  I make no mistake, the on-line check in was to help stop piracy by forcing a type of DRM people usually hate. 

If you have an internet connection it will rarely be unavailable for more than 24hours at a time (that was there thinking).  The check in is actually a constant thing, in the event of the internet disconnecting it will be 24 hours starting then, not something that occurs at midnight i.e. if your internet goes down at 11:30pm it won't kick you at midnight.  I think a month would be fine, Steam does require an occasional phone home and it's no inconvenience if you EVER connect to the internet.

So always online brings a new form of DRM.  It also can then be used as a tool to improve games and services.  I would want to see both in practice before making my final judgement and I guess that is my point.

4. Well you said it, risk.  It is a massive gamble.  They hoped they could do the announce and see how the public received it.  If it went badly all was not lost, they could revert some things and still launch.  What happened though was that they botched the launch, they tried in their typical sickly smooth corporate way to sell us a line and hope no one would say anything.  What they should have done is cut through the bullshit and clearly tried to explain their vision.  Explain how this is a policy we might not like but have we considered how it will also help.  This didn't happen, they panic and we all see what happens when a major corporation has to start thinking on it's feet.

I'll admit to a little bit of err shall we say forum play with the thread title.  I don't really think it's just the fans blind brand loyalty that's caused this but on these boards you need some kind of hook to get people to read a wall of text like the OP :P.

To sum up; I don't think that their policies were only designed to be anti-consumer and I do believe the console will be weaker for losing some of the requirements it had. I do think they f*cked up massively and I do think they tried to sneak things in that were just too strict but they didn't need to backpeddle like they did and what they percieve as now being the safe route to take may actually end up being their downfall.

Draconian means strict or restrictive. But yes, I don't think calling it evil would be far-fetched in this case. This is not a manicheist argument, because MS is not the only company to do so nor to intend to do this, and surely there will be others in the future. Companies leave people without their jobs if it means improving profits, and we don't think that they're bad for more than a few weeks after that. That's a fact of life and has always been.

This kind of DRM policy is the same thing, MS doesn't care who's going to pay de bill, as long as you won't be able to sell your used game. They're not doing this to harm you, but to profit. No, they're not evil for doing it.

One thing thought, is that you avoided my arguments again.

1 and 2: Please, answer me, not in the undetermined possibilities of "if it was this way, or if it was that way". The actual way they presented it to us, was it, or not, restrictive and anti-consumer DRM?

3. You agreed this is a DRM feature. The way it would work we don't really care, if it was more or less invasive. The result is what matters, and it's that you have to check in every 24 hours, and the game is tied to your account (this was the policy at the time), so it effectively avoids piracy. Not just that, but with the used-games FEE they proposed initially, or even with the second policy, registering the game to your account to validate it online, it would kill secondhand market. It would treat used games like some sort of piracy.

It wouldn't avoid the replication of that copy, but in fact the very use of that exact same copy by another person.

4. You described perfectly what happened, and how MS put themselves in such a situation.

They were the ones who invented the product. If they can't describe it to us, no one can.

We can't describe death or the universe perfectly, because we didn't make them. But MS knew their policies and the product, from beginning to end, how it would work, how they would profit with every aspect of it. They calculated the risks. If they couldn't enlighten us on the subject, it's either because they didn't want us to know all the details (because the situation could worsen) or because they actually failed to do so, repeatedly.

So, the purporse of all this discussion is to prove right the first thing I said in all our conversation:

Your first argument, on the original post, is not valid:

Consumers didn't backlash because of brand loyalty or fanboyism. They only voiced their rights. The only one at fault, in the whole situation, is MS themselves. They made the situation, and they couldn't get out of it by themselves.

This happened, because their policies offended consumers, and they couldn't make it seem otherwise without changing it over and over.

I get it now that you said that so your other points were read by SW users. But I think this has an impact on every other argument. Exactly because this kills the notion that MS tried those things because they're "visionary". No, they tried those things so they would put new, more restrictive then ever DRM policies, to profit more on our cost. The result was the same with EA's and Blizzard's online passes.

This goes along with all the other arguments I showed that proves, at least logically, that all the other features were also scrapped because their real purpose was to sustain the DRM mechanism.

And that's why the anti-used-games policy wasn't the only thing MS backpedalled.

...because of their stupid loyalty to an intangible brand.

Let me explain why: 

The Xbone was trying to move the console market in a new direction.  The focus wasn't going to be all about games but TV, multimedia and kinect in equal measure.  They were going to push people to an always online system with much more DD, cloud integration and new ways to store/share/buy digital content as well as new ways to control the interface.

The PS4 meanwhile was focusing much more on being a traditional games machine with secondary multimedia features.  No always online, cloud as an afterthought and more disk based media than DD. A safe bet with broad appeal (not a bad thing just a safe thing).

Considering that, approximately, 98% + of all games released this generation on console will be multi-platform, purchasers of either an Xbone or a PS4 are going to be playing almost identical games in an almost identical way almost all of the time.

Now before MS made their 180 you would have had a choice of two quite different consoles to buy.  Both would have basically the same games but one would have a very different set of non-game features to the other.  You can also do some quite interesting things with the few exclusive games you do get if the developers know beforehand that everyone playing will, for certain, be connected to the internet and have full voice and gesture recognition.

There may have been a point to owning both of them.

Now you have the SameBoxOne and the PlaySametion 4 (bad names but you get the point).  They literally are the same damn console.  You buy one, you play basically the same games, in the same way with similar controllers in a similar fashion.  You get no new features from being always online and you get no new features from an always on kinect.

People want exclusives for consoles, this was the point in owning one vs the other.  Microsoft tried to bring in features that devs could have used to show people the benefits of always online or gesture control etc.  Sony went for more graphical grunt with less restriction on who will be able to use it, at the cost of being able to add a raft of new features to games.

Now you just have the choice of a logo and a name.  If no one would have complained then Sony would have their style of console and Microsoft would have theirs, people would either have adapted and loved the Xbone features or hated and reviled them but they would have been different and you still would have had the choice to buy the one that suited you the best.

I'm mostly a PC gamer so I suppose it doesn't matter much to me in the end.  It just seems a shame that instead of an interesting gen, the crossover between always online and not (which WILL happen), with two consoles fighting over a common and yet somewhat different ground, we will have two sameboxes with the odd exclusive with limited new features. Homogenisation is not a good thing in the games industry.

 1080pOnly

They took a complete conference to talk about Tv dude,TV TV TV,sport sports sports and call of duty call of duty call of duty,in fact Matrix face when he name Call of Duty was like wow we have a new call of Duty can you believe that......

It this gen Ridge Racer...Hahahaha...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbWgUO-Rqcw

Is epic that video has more than 7 million views..:lol:

While I applaud MS for attempting a new path for console gaming, two things always stand out...

1. if their vision was so wonderful why couldnt they communicate it in such a way that made me feel like it was going to augment my gaming experience as opposed to diminish it.  They had two opportunities served up on a silver platter to explain WHY giving up used games and always online drm etc would benefit me... in the long run, they didn't just fail to do this, they almost destroyed the entire brand they've built over the past 12 years.  That will always lead me to believe that they themselves are monday morning quarterbacking their own failed attempt.  critiquing what "couldve been" even though they themselves couldnt get their act together when it mattered.

2.  I've been preaching this for weeks but I'll say it again... two nearly identical consoles (sorry cows, the games will look the same whether you like it or not) will force the companies to differentiate themselves through what they offer... and for gamers that is an insta win.  Let sony and mS beat eachother up with games, sales, services, features and the kitchen sink... 2 identical consoles will ensure that they have no choice but to seperate what they offer through entertainment.... the fight for my wallet is on.  

This thread doesnt work without a TL;DR version.campzor

I REALLY WISH that things had gone your way TC. Then Xbone would have been a complete failure instead of hanging on by a thread like it is now.

Videodogg

This is really well made. This is exactly what I thought when the console was being changed to satisfy people. There was plenty of options to get an offline console and the Xbox One was just offering something different for people who wanted something else. Valid points in this thread really. Not that these new changes are bad but this thread does point out some things I noticed. shadowchronicle

This is why you buy a Wii U.charizard1605

No everyone who complained about the Xbox One was smart because now Microsoft had to change the damn thing.

Don't worry, TC! I TRUST M$ to do another 180 and reinstate DRM, Always Online, SpyCam 24/7, etc. :cool:

I'm honestly not excited for the next gen of consoles.  Each generation it gets more watered down and the games keep getting more bland anyways.  First gen in a while i'm fine just playing my older consoles and waiting it out.  Nothing these consoles do is that exciting.  Last gen imo there really was no reason to own a pc.  Now there is really no reason to own either.  consoles do nothing that differentiate themselves from a pc and pc's have gotten worse as far as gaming is concerned.

Developers are just as bad shovely out the same crap year after year.

3 strikes and you are out.

Don't worry, TC! I TRUST M$ to do another 180 and reinstate DRM, Always Online, SpyCam 24/7, etc. :cool:

dr_jashugan

i actually agree.. overall sales would have suffered but those of us that went with the Xbox One would have potentially had a much richer expereince over the next 5-7 years..

and let's face it, as hardcore gamers, all of us typically have stable, highspeed internet connections 100% of the time or we totally freak out.. in terms of hardcore gamers, "always online" was a non-issue.. many of the complaints came from Microsoft's extremely bad messaging and rabid Sony fanboy's that smelled blood and spread some of the dumbest rumors and misinformation imaginable..

i hate that Micorsoft caved under the pressure and didnt convey their message properly.. Console gaming as a whole just got held back an entire generation in my opinion.. and we have no one to blame but ourselves..

i actually agree.. overall sales would have suffered but those of us that went with the Xbox One would have potentially had a much richer expereince over the next 5-7 years..

and let's face it, as hardcore gamers, all of us typically have stable, highspeed internet connections 100% of the time or we totally freak out.. in terms of hardcore gamers, "always online" was a non-issue.. many of the complaints came from Microsoft's extremely bad messaging and rabid Sony fanboy's that smelled blood and spread some of the dumbest rumors and misinformation imaginable..

i hate that Micorsoft caved under the pressure and didnt convey their message properly.. Console gaming as a whole just got held back an entire generation in my opinion.. and we have no one to blame but ourselves..

Antwan3K

:lol:

Is this a joke?

No hardcore gamer would favor the xbox ONE. Inferior controller. No AAA exclusive. Halo and Forza after the first year.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i actually agree.. overall sales would have suffered but those of us that went with the Xbox One would have potentially had a much richer expereince over the next 5-7 years..

and let's face it, as hardcore gamers, all of us typically have stable, highspeed internet connections 100% of the time or we totally freak out.. in terms of hardcore gamers, "always online" was a non-issue.. many of the complaints came from Microsoft's extremely bad messaging and rabid Sony fanboy's that smelled blood and spread some of the dumbest rumors and misinformation imaginable..

i hate that Micorsoft caved under the pressure and didnt convey their message properly.. Console gaming as a whole just got held back an entire generation in my opinion.. and we have no one to blame but ourselves..

CallOfDutyRulez

:lol:

Is this a joke?

No hardcore gamer would favor the xbox ONE. Inferior controller. No AAA exclusive. Halo and Forza after the first year.

i'm legitimately confused by this nonsense post.. good work sir

[QUOTE="CallOfDutyRulez"]

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i actually agree.. overall sales would have suffered but those of us that went with the Xbox One would have potentially had a much richer expereince over the next 5-7 years..

and let's face it, as hardcore gamers, all of us typically have stable, highspeed internet connections 100% of the time or we totally freak out.. in terms of hardcore gamers, "always online" was a non-issue.. many of the complaints came from Microsoft's extremely bad messaging and rabid Sony fanboy's that smelled blood and spread some of the dumbest rumors and misinformation imaginable..

i hate that Micorsoft caved under the pressure and didnt convey their message properly.. Console gaming as a whole just got held back an entire generation in my opinion.. and we have no one to blame but ourselves..

Antwan3K

:lol:

Is this a joke?

No hardcore gamer would favor the xbox ONE. Inferior controller. No AAA exclusive. Halo and Forza after the first year.

i'm legitimately confused by this nonsense post.. good work sir

There is nothing on the xbox ONE that would attract core gamers.

All you're gonna get are Halo, gears and forza after the first year (None of them will get above a 90 on meta).

The controller is inferior to the DS4 as stated by BF4 dev and journalists.

Inferior multiplats.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

[QUOTE="CallOfDutyRulez"]

:lol:

Is this a joke?

No hardcore gamer would favor the xbox ONE. Inferior controller. No AAA exclusive. Halo and Forza after the first year.

CallOfDutyRulez

i'm legitimately confused by this nonsense post.. good work sir

There is nothing on the xbox ONE that would attract core gamers.

All you're gonna get are Halo, gears and forza after the first year (None of them will get above a 90 on meta).

The controller is inferior to the DS4 as stated by BF4 dev and journalists.

Inferior multiplats.