Microsoft Officially Unveils Xbox One For Holiday 2013

[Bojay1997]

The music industry was already like from the 1950s on. Remember 45s, cassette maxi singles, and CD singles?

People still bought albums as opposed to just singles up until the rise of Napster and other file sharing services. If you look at album sales, they literally have fallen every year since 2000 even when you add in digital sales. As such, I stand by my contention that the music industry is not "surviving just fine".

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

From Major Nelson:

"should you choose to play your game at your friend’s house, there is no fee to play that game while you are signed in to your profile."

So, it's possible to play elsewhere, BUT you would need your profile and active internet connection or pay a fee, i.e., no lending games.

Even with that level of access in place, there's still a precedent here on the purchase/sale/use of used physical media on home consoles requiring some system that is yet undisclosed by Microsoft.

I'm going to avoid the term "blocked" until post-E3, where, hopefully they will detail exactly how that will work.

Presently it seems that the only option is to purchase a full-retail-priced activation code to use the data on a used physical game disc.

[Rob2600]

Presently it seems that the only option is to purchase a full-retail-priced activation code to use the data on a used physical game disc.

So if I buy a used disc at GameStop for $40, when I put it in my Xbox One, I have to pay full retail price (on top of what I already paid GameStop) to play it?

[TonyTheTiger]

Presently it seems that the only option is to purchase a full-retail-priced activation code to use the data on a used physical game disc.

Which I think would only spur piracy if this proves to be the case. This is why I think the comparison to the music industry is faulty. The RIAA being retarded aside, the music industry responded to a significant cultural and technological shift. Generation Y decided to steal music en masse and the industry responded as best it could to get people buying again. There's no social revolution happening with games. Used software is a completely engineered "problem," no more harmful or revolutionary than used cars or hand-me-down clothing. I don't think there is rampant system modding going on today to such an extent that people aren't buying the merchandise anymore. It may be happening on the PC but most consoles require jumping through a few hoops (and sacrificing online) to accomplish it, which makes me think that if they're in such dire financial straights as the industry insiders like to claim then it's their own fault and they should either fix it internally or go out of business and let capitalism function as intended. This business tactic doesn't combat pirates. It combats everyone else. In fact, it doesn't do anything to combat piracy. Pirates don't care about possessing the physical item so none of those people are going to be frustrated by this development.

Among the people who do obtain the physical disc, many will start to think "I have this game...what do I have to do in order to use it?" And anyone with the slightest libertarian leanings is going to wonder "GM and Old Navy have to tolerate used goods, so what makes you so special?" It's kind of like the whole thing about playing imports back in the day. Seems like these companies have gotten wise that if you let people play imports right out of the gate they won't seek out the workarounds that end up leading to flat out piracy in the first place.

[Bojay1997]

Which I think would only spur piracy if this proves to be the case. This is why I think the comparison to the music industry is faulty. The RIAA being retarded aside, the music industry responded to a significant cultural and technological shift. Generation Y decided to steal music en masse and the industry responded as best it could to get people buying again. There's no social revolution happening with games. Used software is a completely engineered "problem," no more harmful or revolutionary than used cars or hand-me-down clothing. I don't think there is rampant system modding going on today to such an extent that people aren't buying the merchandise anymore. It may be happening on the PC but most consoles require jumping through a few hoops (and sacrificing online) to accomplish it, which makes me think that if they're in such dire financial straights as the industry insiders like to claim then it's their own fault and they should either fix it internally or go out of business and let capitalism function as intended. This business tactic doesn't combat pirates. It combats everyone else. In fact, it doesn't do anything to combat piracy. Pirates don't care about possessing the physical item so none of those people are going to be frustrated by this development.

Among the people who do obtain the physical disc, many will start to think "I have this game...what do I have to do in order to use it?" And anyone with the slightest libertarian leanings is going to wonder "GM and Old Navy have to tolerate used goods, so what makes you so special?" It's kind of like the whole thing about playing imports back in the day. Seems like these companies have gotten wise that if you let people play imports right out of the gate they won't seek out the workarounds that end up leading to flat out piracy in the first place.

Actually, used cars are a significant problem for the auto industry and they always have been. The auto industry tried to reclaim the used market by encouraging dealers to get involved in certified used car programs, manufacturer backed extended warranties and by making cars more difficult to service by creating more custom parts and proprietary systems so that consumers would be forced to either go to the dealer or buy genuine parts. Each of those things had differing levels of success but it's something that the manufacturers struggle with on a daily basis, especially in this economy with people holding onto vehicles longer.

The sad reality is that consumers have already accepted the license model for software as the iPad and PC markets have been long established. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain that they can't resell their iTunes music or iPad games and frankly, it's been a while since I've heard anyone complain about the fact that PC games can't be freely transferred even if you buy them on physical media. Heck, SimCity was a textbook case of a botched launch and draconian DRM with an always-on requirement and that still sold 1.6 million copies with 800K of those digital.

While I am personally disturbed by Microsoft's news to the point where I won't be buying the Xbox One at launch and perhaps not ever, I am skeptical that the general gaming public is going to care all that much particularly in a world where millions of people regularly buy used games at Gamestop for $5-$10 below the new MSRP and accept half of what they paid when they trade them back in. Those same people probably won't care very much if they are paying that money to Gamestop or Microsoft or anyone else.

[Rickstilwell1]

From Major Nelson:

"should you choose to play your game at your friend’s house, there is no fee to play that game while you are signed in to your profile."

So, it's possible to play elsewhere, BUT you would need your profile and active internet connection or pay a fee, i.e., no lending games.

So basically that won't stop people from sharing accounts and passwords with their friends like people already do with Netflix who loses money because of it. It was in the news that people just go and do that. "Hey friend, want to borrow this game? Here's my xbox live login, have fun. I'll let you use my account for a week if you let me borrow your game and use yours" Very easy.

[Rob2600]

The sad reality is that consumers have already accepted the license model for software as the iPad and PC markets have been long established. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain that they can't resell their iTunes music or iPad games

Consumers have different expectations when it comes to a $1 iPad game or song vs. a $60 Xbox One game.

[Bojay1997]

Consumers have different expectations when it comes to a $1 iPad game or song vs. a $60 Xbox One game.

Not really. Consumers are all about the service/license model today which is why premium digital cable and streaming pay services like Netflix are super successful. Like I said, if Microsoft can simply duplicate the Gamestop model and give people used games for $5-$10 below new and allow them to trade them in, the complaints will disappear from all but the few of us old-time collectors and gamers.

[TonyTheTiger]

There's a difference between proprietary design and a license fee, though. GM or Ford using various physical design tricks is the equivalent of the proprietary model that keeps a PlayStation game solely playable on a PlayStation. That's been a gaming staple since forever. There's a meaningful difference between a Ford-specific fan belt they hold the patent on and Ford requiring some kind of second-hand authentication before the car physically starts because there's a different person in the driver seat. At minimum people would perceive a difference, that is. A physical product that works one way for Person A and a different way for Person B. Does Microsoft get to do what car and clothing manufacturers can't, just because? I don't know. This is where the DMCA seems like a rush job in the face of panic rather than an actual solution to anything. And I wouldn't be surprised if it gets tested harder and harder in the courts. If I modify my car so that it bypasses whatever Ford put in to keep me from using some other fan belt, they can't stop me. But if I modify my physical Xbox One to use discs Microsoft doesn't want me using, they can? Something is fishy there. At least it's fishy right now. 3D printing may throw a complete curveball once that really takes off. Who knows what happens both in the open market and in the law when you can duplicate a car from raw materials.

What's funny, though, is that, depending on how things play out, "old time collectors" arguably have reason to celebrate. If the physical product is useless without a license then it would be conceivable for a collector to hack the console with the inevitable exploit and then proceed to collect an Xbox One fullset for practically nothing since the used copies wouldn't be worth shit to most people, especially if every single game is also available via XBL download, which under this model they really should be.

[Rob2600]

Not really. Consumers are all about the service/license model today which is why premium digital cable and streaming pay services like Netflix are super successful.

Netflix is successful because it only costs $8 a month. For that price, people don't mind the fact that they don't own a copy of the content, just like for $1, people don't mind if they don't own a copy of an iPad game or song. People would have much higher expectations of ownership at $60 a pop.

People's expectations are directly related to price.

[Bojay1997]

Netflix is successful because it only costs $8 a month. For that price, people don't mind the fact that they don't own a copy of the content, just like for $1, people don't mind if they don't own a copy of an iPad game or song. People would have much higher expectations of ownership at $60 a pop.

People's expectations are directly related to price.

Disagree with regard to licensing models. As long as the content is great, the majority of consumers today could care less about owning physical goods or having transfer rights. People happily spend $200 every two years on the new iPhone and happily pay $100+ a month for data and voice plans. They also spend $40+ a month for high speed Internet and $60+ for digital cable in some cases. Many consumers also have Netflix or satellite radio or Direct TV with various sports premium packages that can cost hundreds of dollars a season. The days of people sitting down and really thinking about what personal entertainment costs them are long past. Like I said, if Microsoft simply does what Gamestop does themselves in a digital manner, the vast majority of consumers won't think twice about it. I'm not saying it's right or that's what I want, but it's pretty clear that that's what's going to happen regardless of what a few collectors might want.

[Cornelius]

I think I saw someone post at some point that with some used games from Gamestop they got a DLC code printed on the receipt. Any reason this system won't be extended to used sale of Xbox One games? Sure, gamestop is going to have to work out an arrangement to get re-activation codes, but seems like a possible way to keep their current business model going for this upcoming generation. Has anyone brought up this possibility? Is it just too obvious, or am I missing some critical flaw? I know it will cut into margins/cost buyers more, but gamestop customers don't really seem to care how little they get/save, so long as it is something. And MS has an incentive in this, too, w/ GS selling more games than anyone else (for the time being).

[TonyTheTiger]

Disagree with regard to licensing models. As long as the content is great, the majority of consumers today could care less about owning physical goods or having transfer rights.

It's less about whether they care to own physical goods and more about what they feel they're entitled to do once they do own physical goods. Nobody is saying that people aren't OK with buying digital content and everything that entails. The issue is what people want when they buy a physical item and everything that entails. If the Xbox One were digital only ala PSP Go or Ouya people wouldn't have the same problems. They might hate it for other reasons but it wouldn't be based on the same principles as their hate for the "locked disc" concept.

[Greg2600]

Microsoft should take the used games out of its own hands. Set a re-license price to a game, which drops after X time on market. Let Gamestop worry about collecting trade-ins and re-selling them. Let Gamestop re-license them on the spot, for the new buyer.

[Bojay1997]

It's less about whether they care to own physical goods and more about what they feel they're entitled to do once they do own physical goods. Nobody is saying that people aren't OK with buying digital content and everything that entails. The issue is what people want when they buy a physical item and everything that entails. If the Xbox One were digital only ala PSP Go or Ouya people wouldn't have the same problems. They might hate it for other reasons but it wouldn't be based on the same principles as their hate for the "locked disc" concept.

As I said above, all Microsoft has to do is provide retailers with the ability to buy back games and spit out reuse codes thus allowing both trade-ins and used sales to happen just like they do now and most consumers won't care at all. Sure, collectors will, but we are a very small percentage of the overall gaming population and frankly, not all that profitable for publishers.

[TonyTheTiger]

I wonder what would happen if GameStop refuses to play ball under those circumstances. It would cost MS the generation, I think, if GameStop openly treated the One as a second class citizen to the PS4 and Wii U. They already do it to PC gaming so there's some precedent there. I doubt GameStop is particularly thrilled with the idea of having to micromanage reuse codes. Any problem on Microsoft's end and suddenly they're stuck in the middle dealing with complaints and eating a good bit of the bad PR that comes with it. Not to mention it's basically a stop gap meant to trigger the collapse of their most lucrative business. I just can't see the long term value to GameStop here. This is the type of thing a retail giant would want to put a stop to before it becomes second nature to its customers.

[Bojay1997]

I wonder what would happen if GameStop refuses to play ball under those circumstances. It would cost MS the generation, I think, if GameStop openly treated the One as a second class citizen to the PS4 and Wii U. I doubt GameStop is particularly thrilled with the idea of having to micromanage reuse codes. Especially if it's basically a stop gap meant to trigger the collapse of their most lucrative business. I just can't see the long term value to GameStop here.

I'm pretty sure Gamestop is already on board and an agreement is already in place. Xbox One is plastered all over the Gamestop website. You're right though, they are giving up a huge amount of control of their business as they are now beholden to Microsoft to provide reuse codes and that could very easily go away if Microsoft decides to handle everything itself or secures so many other retail partners that Gamestop becomes just another one of many places that consumers can use to buy and sell used Xbox One games.

[TonyTheTiger]

They're going to be "on board" in that they want to remain relevant to their potential consumers. It's certainly too early to do anything that could be construed as deliberately antagonistic. But "we'll have this new product" is different from "we support all products equally." Compare the used PS2 section to the Gamecube one. There are subtle and not so subtle ways to "push" something. People complain that GameStop employees bug them about preorders? Imagine if the preorder offer specifically name drops the PS4 version of a game. Microsoft and GameStop are in a chess match. They need to work together but also want to undermine each other at the same time. It's actually kind of exciting to see how this dysfunctional relationship plays out. Point is, they can't both get their way. And GameStop has more to lose if Microsoft wins than the other way around.

[WCP]

Steam, despite being showered with love, was a precursor for where we're headed. People envision a future where everything is like Steam, and only consider the sales side of it. They don't consider the restrictions

Since I started PC gaming again (2010), I've considered their restrictions right off the bat. I treat all my digital download purchases as if they were long term rentals. It's why I normally only pay $4.99 and $7.50 for the vast majority of the games I get. Anything more than that, and I feel like I'm paying too much for a RENTAL. Sure, it's an extended rental, that could last a pretty long time, but the actual ownership behind it is pretty lax. You're rights to play the game are pretty restricted.

Every once in awhile, I'll pay $9.99 for something, but it's just so hard to go above that. Take Skyrim for example. I'd really love to try that game, but it hasn't come anywhere near my desired price point. Lowest I've ever seen it is $19.99 and that was only temporarily. As great as that game might be, I'm not going to pay 20 bucks for a long term rental.

It really makes me wonder if I'm going to get either of these new consoles. If they both offer up these bullshit restrictions, then I might just upgrade the PC and forget about console gaming. Still, I'm not going to lie, that would be really, really hard for me. Especially if something like Fallout 4 gets announced, or one of those sports games is just absolutely amazing. However... If I do end up buying one of these consoles, I'm going to try to be as cheap as I can possibly be. I would only buy one or two games per 6 month period of time. It would cause each purchase decision to be significantly magnified. I'd be worried to death about making a bad choice, and seeing $66 vanish into thin air.

[WCP]

So basically that won't stop people from sharing accounts and passwords with their friends like people already do with Netflix who loses money because of it. It was in the news that people just go and do that. "Hey friend, want to borrow this game? Here's my xbox live login, have fun. I'll let you use my account for a week if you let me borrow your game and use yours" Very easy.

This is where facial recognition comes into play and the Kinect being on and operational requirement. Kinect will know that you aren't at your friends house. People are going to have to make paper photo's of their friends faces, and try to make a mask to fool the kinect, lol.