The last paragraph of that article sums up exactly how I feel.
Well the whole article does.
"Don't Panic!!"
Tapatalk 4 Beta_SCH-I545
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Microsoft Confirms New Xbox One Policies; No "Always On" & No DRM Restrictions
- Thread starter cereal killer
- Start date
The last paragraph of that article sums up exactly how I feel.
Well the whole article does.
"Don't Panic!!"
Tapatalk 4 Beta_SCH-I545
ok maybe im dense.
for both CK and CJM
I am not understanding the need to dump any of this stuff to also remove the always on and the poor execution of DRM.
for 1 i dont buy for a second this would lower game prices. BUT
sell the game only online though xbox live. and do your drm thing.
install a game give the option for drm game which allows sharing (if its not really a timed demo)(which while i dont believe the copy and paste is legit i do believe the premise to fit in what i could see microsfot doing)
Not one of these features needs to be removed to please both sides.
Again maybe im not understanding. if the old way wsa to link the game to the box than this can continue to be the case but if you choose disk rather than drm. it wont go into shared resources and wont go into a unable to resell except through digital copy mode.
I really believe they removed these other features to equally piss off the other side of the argument to further push their original idea.
This is a serious post. im not trying to start argument. I really see no reason for the removal of this stuff for those that want it.
i have a windows 7 disk depending on what code i use to authenticate it i can have it install as a differnt version of the os depending on the code i used.
meaning only basic or ultimate or pro think there are 2 others also. but all from same physical disk
for both CK and CJM
I am not understanding the need to dump any of this stuff to also remove the always on and the poor execution of DRM.
for 1 i dont buy for a second this would lower game prices. BUT
sell the game only online though xbox live. and do your drm thing.
install a game give the option for drm game which allows sharing (if its not really a timed demo)(which while i dont believe the copy and paste is legit i do believe the premise to fit in what i could see microsfot doing)
Not one of these features needs to be removed to please both sides.
Again maybe im not understanding. if the old way wsa to link the game to the box than this can continue to be the case but if you choose disk rather than drm. it wont go into shared resources and wont go into a unable to resell except through digital copy mode.
I really believe they removed these other features to equally piss off the other side of the argument to further push their original idea.
This is a serious post. im not trying to start argument. I really see no reason for the removal of this stuff for those that want it.
i have a windows 7 disk depending on what code i use to authenticate it i can have it install as a differnt version of the os depending on the code i used.
meaning only basic or ultimate or pro think there are 2 others also. but all from same physical disk
I think E3 confirmed an ultimatum for MS and consumers. I still think the One would've been successful had it stuck with its original path, but again, consumers got their way.
It really was a glimpse into the future of console gaming and to further break down that wall between PC and console gamers, obviously majority of console gamers aren't ready for that.
Regardless of which direction they went, they were going to have some unhappy customers. I think the "traditional" way means it's more open to a general public than it is the avid console gamer.
It really was a glimpse into the future of console gaming and to further break down that wall between PC and console gamers, obviously majority of console gamers aren't ready for that.
Regardless of which direction they went, they were going to have some unhappy customers. I think the "traditional" way means it's more open to a general public than it is the avid console gamer.
That's a great question and a lot of people are saying the same thing, including myself. They just castrated the product that was presented to consumers and instead of saying we have a solution for those that just want a gaming console, ala the PS4, they took everything away that made it unique and attractive to a lot of consumers.
Maybe they can pull something together before release that gives the consumer a choice to have the full experience or opt out for a simple gaming experience. This decision did nothing to help the console, it only put it on a level playing field. If that's what they wanted to achieve by doing this then it was the best decision they could have made.
Actually, this did help the console. They were getting killed in preorders/reserves and the majority of the gaming community was shunning the Xbox One. So they went from an underwhelming feature set to something more in line with what PS4 is doing.
As for why they didn't just keep the Family Share plan, here's my perspective:
If the Family Share plan really was a community driven demo/game promotion, and not what they initially described it as, they had no choice but to ditch it at the same time as the DRM policies. They need to stay face every way they can. Removing DRM, only to face the backlash of their Family Share plan, would do more harm than good imo.
Sent from my Droid DNA using Tapatalk 2!
You can execute what they wanted to without DRM, they just want to have their cake and eat it too. So instead of implementing the system without DRM and keeping these features they said it was the fault of the consumer. Much like they stated if you don't like the system, go ahead and keep your xbox 360. You are completely right about the features that should be able to stay, but i'm sure it has to do with the fact that MS was hoping on DRM and that was the way their entire system was designed. Could all these features still work perfectly fine without DRM, yes but for MS i'm sure they would have to be completely rewritten and they would have to come up with a new system for developers to put on their games. You can claim what you want about DRM, but in my eyes it is a bad thing and should be completely done away with.
Ck you make a good point. If ms truly believe this is the future then they should go with it. Let the future dictate. When google released android which was different from ios it took years before people caught on and now it is safe to say android revolutionized software from a stand point of it creating new ideas through an open source community.
Just because some of us may not have been down with their drm practices (whether it mainly be because of a lack of understanding or foresight) should not keep them from doing their thing. In the end the market will judge the idea. But like I said a few days ago they changed their stance because of money. They were concerned about the backlash hurting pre sales. So it says to me one of two things. Either they do not have the drm fully thought out or they have not earned enough trust from the consumers. Because a big concern from many is on trust ...is ms looking to screw me over even more just so they can line their pockets. Sort of the same sentiment when carriers started charging people to tether. The question was why should I pay you twice to use data I already paid for. On the plan now im on with att (share plan) I buy my data and I can use it how I want and in the end that is all I want. If customers feel they are going to be put in the situation to pay twice for data then they are going to rebel. So ms need to do a better job explaining, build up trust among their consumers, and trust that their idea will be innovative and be willing to see it through even if it takes a few years for th3 market to catch on.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I would've loved to see MS release the One with their original intent in full swing. I don't think they really tested out the waters, especially with the release a few months away. All this information was information overload and it was all delivered in basically a month. That's not enough time for talks of it to even really die down. Sony's reveal sure didn't help the issue and was the final straw, but I still think MS made a mistake in pulling the plug so early. Of course people were going to react to it negatively at first (with a small few who didn't mind), but they didn't really give time for the idea to sink in. Not to mention MS pretty much botched any further clarification of their policy and that was when they really shot themselves in the foot.
With the DRM policy they lost the trust of many consumers. Now with their flip to abandon DRM, I'm sure they've lost a few who had originally trusted in their idea (though these people will be quick to forgive once the system drops). As PC said, it comes down to money. They want to keep their strong momentum from the success of the 360 running, but it could be a double edged sword. We do know they have the capability to turn DRM on/off whenever they want, that's a scary thought for those who don't support DRM. And now that the public knows that DRM will be lifted (for now) they may wait it out for prices to drop since alot of people don't want to spend +$500 on a gaming system, I mean throw in a game (yes, one game) and a 2nd controller you're easily another $100 into it (same with ps4), so that's +$600 right there. Majority of consumers find that amount of money as a significant hit to their wallets.
Yeah the holidays are rolling around with the release of both One and PS4, but in this technology filled age, parents can keep a kid happy with a $200 tablet or a cell phone (man the age kids get cell phones these days...). Console gaming has been slow with many quality games coming to tablets nowadays. I don't ever see an end to console gaming as there will always be a market, but it's kinda hard to justify spending $500-$700 on a video game console to the general public, when a tablet has games(and some) with portability for 1/3 of the price.
With the DRM policy they lost the trust of many consumers. Now with their flip to abandon DRM, I'm sure they've lost a few who had originally trusted in their idea (though these people will be quick to forgive once the system drops). As PC said, it comes down to money. They want to keep their strong momentum from the success of the 360 running, but it could be a double edged sword. We do know they have the capability to turn DRM on/off whenever they want, that's a scary thought for those who don't support DRM. And now that the public knows that DRM will be lifted (for now) they may wait it out for prices to drop since alot of people don't want to spend +$500 on a gaming system, I mean throw in a game (yes, one game) and a 2nd controller you're easily another $100 into it (same with ps4), so that's +$600 right there. Majority of consumers find that amount of money as a significant hit to their wallets.
Yeah the holidays are rolling around with the release of both One and PS4, but in this technology filled age, parents can keep a kid happy with a $200 tablet or a cell phone (man the age kids get cell phones these days...). Console gaming has been slow with many quality games coming to tablets nowadays. I don't ever see an end to console gaming as there will always be a market, but it's kinda hard to justify spending $500-$700 on a video game console to the general public, when a tablet has games(and some) with portability for 1/3 of the price.
Your agreeing with the Gizmodo writers opinion that games would have been less expensive?
The writer indeed articulated their own take on the DRM situation very eloquently. Even making it appear we lose features and money because Microsoft reversed the decision. Why believe this article?
Microsoft and all Xbox game developers/studios are in business to make maximum profit. They are not looking out for the gamers best interest, they couldn't care less if we pay more per game, in fact the more we pay the more they stand to profit.
Why should a game publisher make more profit on a used game sale? They shouldn't.
Games that are installed from disk should be able to be played without the disk, all they need is the MAC address of the Xbox network card or some other hardware serial (motherboard/CPU perhaps | like the Raspberry Pi does for codecs). They created this limit intentionally, fubar your disk and you must repurchase it.
liftedplane
Gold Member
After digesting this for a couple of hours I've come to the conclusion that the decision was a terrible one. The One is essentially going to be just like the PS4 now (a slightly upgraded console) What advantage they had over the competition is now lost. They had a great game plan in place and caved to the vocal minority...yes you read that right minority. These are strictly my opinion(s)
I'm disappointed in the move and their decision has changed my mind on purchasing the One. The 360 will stay underneath my tv for a while. Onward and upward!
See it wasn't the DRM that bothered me, I tend to buy games and keep them anyways... not to mention being a PC gamer it's been like this for years (except I could still trade and loan some games to friends) it was the always on check crap that was absolutely ridiculous.
I own a little over 30 games on steam... I need the internet to install them BUT unless they are online I don't have to "check in" to play them... there have been plenty of times, such as going to Yakima or JRTC or NTC with my old unit that I did not have internet access and yet when I was off shift could STILL play my steam games I had previously installed before leaving home because... there's an offline mode.
the mass majority of people were upset about the policies being implemented, regardless of that there are some features they are removing as well that should have stayed for the digital only games that a lot of people will be buying. I know I buy a ton on my MS account and sometimes when I visit my sister I download them to her console and play them with my account. it's linking them to the console that was the problem IMO
If you read this article, I think you should also read the comments following it. To me, many of People commenting made much more sense and sounded much more logical.
I agree the features MS claim they had to get rid of were forward thinking. I said they seemed nice. I'm surprised no PC game makers thought to do the reselling thing.
24 hour check in was a gigantic no - no. Just for that being gone, I think its worth it to lose the features. I agree 1000% that MS can still have the features but just tie it to digital games, games uploaded to the cloud. It would be absolutely funny if Sony goes that route for digital games...and show MS how it can be done.
Think about it, how many ppl worry about selling digital games right now? I still have all the games I got on PSN+ on my console over the past year or 2. I think they will always be available to download as long as I have a subscription, or available for a few more years at least. Agree MS was on the right track, they just executed it very poorly. Sony exec said they dont feel like they should force ppl to be online for games like The Division. Let the gamers decide like they do today. Soooo many ppl are XBL Gold subscribers, why have a 24 hour check in? Game makers can still do things like Forza 5, where the A.I. is made up mostly of other players, even when they arent logged in. There was no need to force ppl to be online....many ppl are by choice. MS was making it like they want 80 million + users online for a game like Forza 5, when a few million is more than enough to have a decent game world. ( I said that number because every 360 owner isnt a Gold user)
World of War Craft....total subscriber numbers peaked at 12 million in 2004 according to one article. Compare that to XBL Gold users... Someone at MS is out of touch with reality. The online check in was not needed...at all. That was about control plain n simple.
24 hour check in was a gigantic no - no. Just for that being gone, I think its worth it to lose the features. I agree 1000% that MS can still have the features but just tie it to digital games, games uploaded to the cloud. It would be absolutely funny if Sony goes that route for digital games...and show MS how it can be done.
Think about it, how many ppl worry about selling digital games right now? I still have all the games I got on PSN+ on my console over the past year or 2. I think they will always be available to download as long as I have a subscription, or available for a few more years at least. Agree MS was on the right track, they just executed it very poorly. Sony exec said they dont feel like they should force ppl to be online for games like The Division. Let the gamers decide like they do today. Soooo many ppl are XBL Gold subscribers, why have a 24 hour check in? Game makers can still do things like Forza 5, where the A.I. is made up mostly of other players, even when they arent logged in. There was no need to force ppl to be online....many ppl are by choice. MS was making it like they want 80 million + users online for a game like Forza 5, when a few million is more than enough to have a decent game world. ( I said that number because every 360 owner isnt a Gold user)
World of War Craft....total subscriber numbers peaked at 12 million in 2004 according to one article. Compare that to XBL Gold users... Someone at MS is out of touch with reality. The online check in was not needed...at all. That was about control plain n simple.
This might not mean much, it was a Facebook poll before they reversed the policies. But just looking at it as potential sales....
PS4 Grabs 95% Of Consumer Votes After Amazon Ends Poll Early
This is a new poll....and it still favors the PS4.
Friday Poll: Now will you buy an Xbox One or a PS4? | Crave - CNET
Info about the family share thing might have some weight to it. If it is true....its a take on the PS3 and their timed trials of full games. They are only for 1 person tho, cant remember if you need PSN+ or not. (I would check but I'm playing on my 360 right now...lol) And real shady for MS not to go into details about it, that was a major feature that touted. I dont know if MS can live down the policies. True that a fan of MS, the Xbox is gonna get one regardless, but reading gaming sites more developers are talking about not being on Xbox due to publishing policies. Thats the 360 too. MS might be riding the success of the 360 for a few more years before the XBox One gets accepted again if all the news affects sales.
I said it before....I pre ordered both a few weeks ago. Yea thats before MS reversed the policies. I have always had more than 1 console due to exclusives. And some games just played better on a specific console. So I was gonna get an XBO and deal with what I call the hassles of the policies IMO. All I will say is this is the first time in many years I am thinking of only supporting 1 new console. Take that back...I want a Wii U too. But I am debating on cancelling my XBO pre order...