Xbox One Details: Clarification for the Haters

[JWeinCom]

Machiavellian said:

JWeinCom said:

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.

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

You the game owner select 10 people on your Friends list.  On your Family or Friend console, it will add an encrypted code within the cloud that you are a family member.  Each time you play a game that is owned by a family member it verfiy your account in the cloud and give you access to play.  To get around everyone being a family member chain type of abuse.  The person you select will also have to select you as a family member and each family member you have selected.

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.

Well that is an issue but then it plays 2 ways.  Probably by default, the majority of publishers will go by what MS game studios do.  There probably will be special cases where they sell you a game for a huge discount like Steam did with Batman Origins.  Something of that sort they probably want to restrict because you are getting something for basically nothing.  On Steam, you can only play that game from your account and you cannot distribute, loan, Gift or allow another family member to play the game unless they use your account.  Giving publishers control should allow for better control of prices and publishers deals where they are assured that the people that do bad stuff will not take advantage of them.

If I don't own a Smartphone?

Interesting enough, neither did I until about 2 weeks ago.  Even at my job they are giving out smartphones because thats where the industry is going.  For someone like you who do not own a smartphone, I would be interested to see how long you hold out.  Anyway, without a smartphone then your choices are limited.

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.

I agree that since Itunes has moved away from DRM on music its a much better options.  If you purchase movies, TV shows or Audiobooks well thats a totally different situation.

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.

If games are installed on the HDD and backed up on the cloud, how else do you think they could do this without someone installing the game, giving it to their friends and pretty much continue to do this forever.  In such a scenerio, a group of people would just pool their money together and purchase a game.  This would be great for consumers but sure would be giving it to the developers/publishers who spent millions.  Lets not act like there are not people in the world who would abuse such a system

You the game owner select 10 people on your Friends list.  On your Family or Friend console, it will add an encrypted code within the cloud that you are a family member.  Each time you play a game that is owned by a family member it verfiy your account in the cloud and give you access to play.  To get around everyone being a family member chain type of abuse.  The person you select will also have to select you as a family member and each family member you have selected.

Do you have a link to that?  From what I read, Microsoft did not detail that aspect.  What they said was "Xbox One will also allow you to give up to 10 family members access to "log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One." I would be surprised if it works as you said because I would abuse the **** out of that and Microsoft probably knows that I would.  

Well that is an issue but then it plays 2 ways.  Probably by default, the majority of publishers will go by what MS game studios do.  There probably will be special cases where they sell you a game for a huge discount like Steam did with Batman Origins.  Something of that sort they probably want to restrict because you are getting something for basically nothing.  On Steam, you can only play that game from your account and you cannot distribute, loan, Gift or allow another family member to play the game unless they use your account.  Giving publishers control should allow for better control of prices and publishers deals where they are assured that the people that do bad stuff will not take advantage of them.

And, publishers will also use that to prevent people who are doing legitimate stuff from doing what they wish with their games.

Interesting enough, neither did I until about 2 weeks ago.  Even at my job they are giving out smartphones because thats where the industry is going.  For someone like you who do not own a smartphone, I would be interested to see how long you hold out.  Anyway, without a smartphone then your choices are limited.

Which is kind of BS.  I actually do own a smartphone.  I never used the mobile hotspot feature, but I checked it out after Kilter's post.  It's not included in my data plan and I'd have to pay extra for that feature.  So, kind of a no go for me.

If games are installed on the HDD and backed up on the cloud, how else do you think they could do this without someone installing the game, giving it to their friends and pretty much continue to do this forever.  In such a scenerio, a group of people would just pool their money together and purchase a game.  This would be great for consumers but sure would be giving it to the developers/publishers who spent millions.  Lets not act like there are not people in the world who would abuse such a system

Can't I already install games on my 360?  And if I install them, I need the disc to play them.  Seems simple enough.  If I want to access a copy stored on the Cloud, then I would need to check in with Microsoft to make sure I have proper rights to access the content.  Obviously, if I'm playing it on the Cloud or while I'm online in general, I don't have a problem with having to be online... since I'm online... And if I want to play offline, they could require the disc.  Seems simple enough.

Oh and btw, nobody asked for mandatory installs.  I could see the advantage of OPTIONAL installs or cloud storage, but I don't see how forcing installs benefits anyone.