Xbox One Details: Clarification for the Haters

[JWeinCom]

Machiavellian said:

First and foremost, I do agree that the OP using the term hater is silly.  There are legitimate issues with MS X1 and having problems with the restrictions does not make a person a hater.  I have plenty of issues with the X1 but I also take a look at everything instead of just my needs and wants.  This is the crux with most consumers.  They only factor their needs and wants, even to the detriment of the basic thing they want to acquire.

 

From MS site, Family members do not have to be on the same console.  You would not have to set a limit if they were all on the same console just like you do not have to do so on the 360.

I'll kind of have to see exactly how they do this or how they verify that people are member of your family.

You can gift a game to a friend as MS has stated.  MS games studio will do this by default.  Publishers can restrict this ability if they so choose.

First off, the fact that publishers can restrict this option is ridiculous in and of itself.  Also, this means I can't lend a game, and I can't give a game to someone who is not on my friends list for less than 30 days.  Personally, I don't add people on XBL/Miiverse/PSN unless I know there is a particular game I want to play with them.

Play in your basement, relative house with no internet, hotel with no internet use your Smartphone to check in.  With most wifi systems you can have your console setup to automatically connect to your cell phone when you set it as a wifi hotspot.

If I don't own a Smartphone?

 If you do not have confident in MS being here another 7 years, why would you purchase anything from them ever again. That goes for Sony and any other digital content provider like Apple Itunes, android market etc.  The fact of the matter is that the market is changing.  Whether consumers want it or not, you have already told content owners you are willing to give up your physical accouterments in digital content for virtual content.  The Billions of money spent on Itunes, Amazon and other content providers show that consumers are comfortable in an online connected and digital provided world where there are restrictions on the selling of that content.

Well first of all, I don't want to, which was kind of the point.  As for iTunes there are some differences.  Right now, I have my iTunes library on my iPod.  No matter what happens, those songs are on my iPod, and I could play them.  Nothing short of the destruction of my iPod will prevent me from playing them.  I am free to back up my songs on a hard drive, put them on another device, or so on, and I do not have check in with Apple to use them.  There is no question as to whether or not I will be able to play my songs in another ten, twenty, or thirty years.

And those services are all digital.  When you're dealing with digital copies, it's a different thing.  I understand that it's not feasible for every iOS game to be put on a disc.  The limitation on content in the iOS marketplace is a natural function of the environment.  It's something that really HAS to be that way (as of now at least).  In contrast, Microsoft is perfectly capable of producing a machine without such limitations, and they are CHOOSING to add more restrictions to the user.  Microsoft is taking an inherent limitation of digital distribution and forcing it upon people who are buying physical media.

So if the world is going this route and you are concerned that 10 years down the line, your digital content will always be available then you have to make a decision to go with a corporation that has the ability to be there.  Thats when you take a look at the health of a company and their future plans for this global connected world and content.  Right now I would put MS in a huge lead over Sony and Nintendo.  The money, infrastructure, design that MS has put into their cloud base technology is way beyond the other 2. 

Uhhhh, but that's not the case.  I can, and will, choose to buy content in a way that ensures me full access to it.  If I want to play New Super Mario Bros U in 50 years, or give it to a friend, or lend it to someone for the weekend, or do whatever I please with it, I can.  Hopefully, Sony will offer something similar.  The rest of the world can do what they like.

Personally I believe MS hedge their bets to early but time will tell if they did.  Making it mandatory for games to be installed on the console like they did definitely made MS have to go down this course of action but the questions is what benefit did it have on MS to make this decision.  Either that or they feel that they will get enough game support for people to go along with being dragged into the future about 3 years ahead of time.

The question is not how this will benefit Microsoft.  We know how this benefits Microsoft.  It gives them a great degree of control over the second hand market and makes them more money when people have to buy games new.  It improves their relationship with publishers who don't have to worry about secondhand sales and things like that.  The question is, what benefit does this have for the consumer?

If Microsoft introduced these policies and added an equivelent or greater amount of value for the customer, then the backlash would be less.  However, Microsoft is adding a lot of restrictions, and as far as I could tell, they're adding very little in return.