I first thought you were a huge Microsoft fanboy, but I am now convinced you are just a troll.
I'm convinced you are the sort of person not worth actually trying to hold rational discourse with on this subject, and your insipid posts and thread title changes have not done anything to change that opinion. If anybody in this thread has been a troll, he's the guy sitting at your keyboard.
I am against this "all-or-none" approach that BOTH gamers AND Microsoft have taken. Again, why can't there be an offline mode? eg: In offline mode, your library isn't shared. Once you go back into online mode, your library sharing is available.
Then we could have the people complaining about their lack of internet able to play the games they've bought on disc, and we could have the people who have access to the internet share their digital purchases with everyone else.
I'm convinced you are the sort of person not worth actually trying to hold rational discourse with on this subject, and your insipid posts and thread title changes have not done anything to change that opinion. If anybody in this thread has been a troll, he's the guy sitting at your keyboard.
I am against this "all-or-none" approach that BOTH gamers AND Microsoft have taken. Again, why can't there be an offline mode? eg: In offline mode, your library isn't shared. Once you go back into online mode, your library sharing is available.
Then we could have the people complaining about their lack of internet able to play the games they've bought on disc, and we could have the people who have access to the internet share their digital purchases with everyone else.
I agree with you. There was a compromise to be had here, but MS panicked after Sony was crushing them in pre-sales, so they decided to use the exact same model.
I think Microsoft could have won a lot of people over by offering the digital copies while simultaneously offering disc copies for those who need/want the physical copy. People hate having DRM forced upon them, so by still offering a physical copy that uses the traditional DRM (ie the disc must be in the tray), you give people the option to opt-out of the new digital-copy DRM scheme.
To further encourage the use digital copies, which both MS and publishers would benefit from financially, they could include digital-only features in the games, offer a discounted price, or come with other such incentives.
That way, no one has DRM forced upon them, but you do get rewarded if you opt into it.
I like the stuff TB does for the most part. Sometimes he does go a bit off though.
(For reference, Adam Boyes is with Sony and has specifically pointed out the twitter campaign as a reason why Sony didn't go Xbone 180 on DRM from the start.)
From that article - what features is he talking about?
The Xbox One would have been just fine despite the chorus of haters, would have been a better system for ignoring them. Microsoft losing its nerve on this isn't just disappointing for the features we lose. It's unfortunate because it shows just how heavy an anchor we can be.
What I don't understand is why Microsoft couldn't have done it both ways:
For those who refuse to leave the 20th century behind and still want physical media, sell disc-based games that behave the same as they do today: they can be lent, traded, rented, re-sold, etc., but the disc must be physically inserted in the console to play.
For those who are ready to embrace the future like we already have with music and books, have a digital games store with similar restrictions to Steam but also added benefits like the now-cancelled Family Sharing feature.
Then everyone wins, right? What prevented them from implementing a system like that?
The only thing I can think of is that it is easier for everything to support one method or the other; complexity increases when both ways are used...or pulling all of the good ideas that they had is a way of pulling a "see, we told you so" hissyfit, so that they can do a full switch back again later with less backlash.
From that article - what features is he talking about?
The Xbox One would have been just fine despite the chorus of haters, would have been a better system for ignoring them. Microsoft losing its nerve on this isn't just disappointing for the features we lose. It's unfortunate because it shows just how heavy an anchor we can be.
Try reading the article, it mentioned pretty clearly the features that get lost.
No game library sharing. No ability to go to a friend's house, log in with your XBL ID and play ANY of your game titles you own, no media required (game media is STREAMED, no massive DL required.) No ability to sell/trade downloaded titles/content.
Try reading the article, it mentioned pretty clearly the features that get lost.
No game library sharing. No ability to go to a friend's house, log in with your XBL ID and play ANY of your game titles you own, no media required (game media is STREAMED, no massive DL required.) No ability to sell/trade downloaded titles/content.
I did and I guess I don't see them as features that Microsoft were actively promoting as part of why they want to institute their 24 hour DRM check-ins or their change in business model. They seemed to be (relatively) half-formed ideas that were being tossed out there to try to change the negative tone just in the last few days (selling and trading download titles aside). Hell, their problem has been such poor messaging. Why the heck didn't they say they wanted to put in this 24 hour check - BUT look at all this stuff that we can add as a result. They listed almost no benefits at their own launch event.
In the midst of the month long beating they were getting in the news and on the internet they only started talking about the sharing possibilities late last week. Clearly, they were not things that Microsoft was going to give the consumer without the massive negative response to date.
And to be honest, what is stopping them even now? If they truly believe in that business model and those features, why remove them? Changing the DRM doesn't rule out their the game sharing, game streaming or the online trade/selling downloads to get their own Gamestop online store going at launch. Blaming the negative response and customers voting with their dollars for "losing" these potential ideas seems to be just lashing out by the author.
Just keep those "features" in and at least that would be something customers can see as a benefit of having to pay $100 more than their direct competitor.
I would imagine the point of that 24-hour check-in was for license validation/synchronization of online content. As in, "No, I'm not on a hacked console and I really do have the license to play these games."
I would imagine the point of that 24-hour check-in was for license validation/synchronization of online content. As in, "No, I'm not on a hacked console and I really do have the license to play these games."
Sure of course the 24 hour "call home and ask for permission" is for control. But the author's attempt to blame customers (voting with their dollars) for killing these half formed "potential" features is far fetched/false.
Each and every single bullet point in his article can still be easily implemented even now. Hell, if Microsoft believes in that model they should announce it right now as it would given additional value for digital purchases over physical media purchases. Publishers would see extra value along with their customers.
Microsoft's message could be: "look, if you buy a game digitally these are all the additional benefits you get with our new system." Instead, you have the author screaming for a whaaaambulance and trying to blame people for being informed and vocal in the marketplace.
What I don't understand is why Microsoft couldn't have done it both ways:
For those who refuse to leave the 20th century behind and still want physical media, sell disc-based games that behave the same as they do today: they can be lent, traded, rented, re-sold, etc., but the disc must be physically inserted in the console to play.
For those who are ready to embrace the future like we already have with music and books, have a digital games store with similar restrictions to Steam but also added benefits like the now-cancelled Family Sharing feature.
Then everyone wins, right? What prevented them from implementing a system like that?
Nothing. It seems like they got mad so they just took their ball and went home. I wouldn't be surprised to see them go this way in a future update though.
The rumor of its removal came from Jonathan Liedtke, an editor for UWindosor Lance.
"BREAKING: @Xbox media relations confirms to me via email that #kinect sensor IS NOT required for #XboxOne. #privacy #drm #prism #microsoft"
He then followed up with this bomb shell:
".@Xbox confirms NO #XboxOne price drop due to NO kinect requirement. #XboxOne is "competitively priced" & xbox is "confident with the value."
I'm working on verifying this, but if true, it is an interesting turn of events. One would assume the removal of the Kinect requirement would correlate with a reduction of price. Maybe they are still planning on shipping units with the Kinect, keeping the price but removing the function?
If true this means Microsoft has blatantly lied regarding their hardware being built around both their previous digital rights management and now the Kinect requirement.
I guess the thing is, a couple days before reversing the DRM they were saying "We absolutely won't change anything", so it's hard to know what to believe.
If anybody in this thread has been a troll, he's the guy sitting at your keyboard.
