Adinnieken said:
I think the reaility is the policies were as they were because of the time frame Microsoft had to development them. It would appear, based on the info recently released from the SDK leak, that the Xbox One development started in earnest in August of 2012. My guess is, Microsoft had objectives for their next console, but they didn't develope those objectives into clear and coherent processes. In the end, the policies were the result of rushed planning and development.
Microsoft, at the time, had the capability to offer a better option for DRM, but it seems clear to me that what they did was opted for what they could implement the quickest. They already had a DRM implementation in Games for Windows similar to what they had proposed with the Xbox One originally. So likely they were shoe-horning it in.
The reason Kinect was mandatory was simple, because it adds value to the system. The fact that it is used to identify and log-in users automatically as they present themselves and to identify the current player or the player tied to a specific constroller. The Xbox One controller was designed in conjunction with Kinect and the player identification. Hence the problem that has since arisen with having to implement a Kinectless means of identifying the current player with a specific constroller. In addition to player identification, Kinect is a key component of the voice navigation system, and single input implementation. All things Xbox One were designed around.
As for Gifting, you don't understand the intent of gifting. One of the desires on the Xbox 360 was the ability to buy a game for someone. For example, say I have a friend and I want to gift him a game I already own so we can play the game together. With the Xbox 360 there was no way to do this. With the Xbox One, Microsoft intended to offer a means of doing it. Gifting shouldn't be confused with the Family Share plan that Microsoft was intending on implementing.
The Family Share plan was actually a pretty decent policy. A user could set-up multiple groups up to 10 users each, that they were able to share games with. In theory, if every user possible was in a unique group, you could have 100 different groups sharing the same group of games or a mix of games. Right now it's essentially the same as it was with the Xbox 360.
It wouldn't necessarily have cut down on game rental services. It would have negatively impacted disc-based game rental services, but it would have opened the doors up for an online game rental service.
The evidence, to me, seems clear that Microsoft was rushed to decisions by Sony's announcements. I think they expected more time to develop their ideas both on paper and in code. As even the permutations of the UI over the past year have demonstrated.
Could Microsoft, as Sony did, release a console that didn't offer any significant differences in feature set from the previous generation as they did with the PS4? Sure. The desire behind the Xbox One was to fundementally revolutionize the gaming console and the industry. The problem is that Microsoft saw their vision, and not the realities of that vision. In otherwords, they looked down the road to where they wanted to be, and not where they were starting out as. The realities of that is, what they had developed wasn't ready for public consumption.
I don't see it as nepharious as others, even you, seem to want to present it. The industry, and some consumers, recognize that there are two negative issues that impact the industry. Second-hand sales, and piracy. Second-hand sales are possible with digital or physical media games, Microsoft would have to be able to develop a system to allow it. That is, the ability for a user to remove a licensed product and transfer the ownership of it to a third-party and they had the ability to resell it. It's possible to do, just not possible in less than 12 months to develop a fully operational system.
|
