Microsoft Officially Unveils Xbox One For Holiday 2013

[Bojay1997]

Chew on this: Microsoft forces installs on the Xbox One, and then renders the disc copy of a video game useless. It would need to be reactivated for a fee. Otherwise, people could pass the game around to friends and they all play, right? Industry dies.

But, hold on here. On BOTH Windows PCs and the 360, you can rip a music CD to the HDD legally, and pass the disc on to anyone. Music industry survives just fine. How are games different in terms of software, and how hypocritical is MS in this scenario?

For this to work, MS is going to need to differentiate between software mediums, and I don't think they can do it to the average consumer.

I'm guessing you don't know much about the music industry. It's not "surviving just fine". It's in the worst financial situation it's ever been in since it started. iTunes has essentially killed the album business and made music into a single based business where the value of a song is now whatever pricing they can get away with on iTunes. The sad part about all of this is that people already have bought into the model with things like the iPad and PC games where it has been the norm not to be able to transfer your license for software or to own anything beyond the opportunity to use the software on a certain device or devices.

[Polygon]

I think he means physical software that is electronically married to a console/user.

This will be the first time in the history of home consoles that console games will be released at brick/mortar on physical media that only serves as a delivery medium to install data on the console's hard drive and registers it to a user/console ID.

Yep, you got it. That's exactly what I meant.

[Gamereviewgod]

The measure itself is to really stop used game sales of games, but going to your buddies place to play on their system is something every kid with friends does. Ive been telling all my friends about this, and they instantly dont want the console. Where did you get that info from though, exactly?

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.

[Gamereviewgod]

I'm guessing you don't know much about the music industry. It's not "surviving just fine". It's in the worst financial situation it's ever been in since it started. iTunes has essentially killed the album business and made music into a single based business where the value of a song is now whatever pricing they can get away with on iTunes. The sad part about all of this is that people already have bought into the model with things like the iPad and PC games where it has been the norm not to be able to transfer your license for software or to own anything beyond the opportunity to use the software on a certain device or devices.

The music industry is struggling for other reasons, not because people have ripped CDs to their HDDs legally. That's my point.

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, no do they consider that in a digital world, publishers don't need Steam, Steam needs publishers. EA set up Origin for a reason, and it's for direct sale. If people want the game, they'll go where it's available, and every AAA publisher would be stupid not to have their own digital storefronts. Cut out the middle man.

Same goes for Netflix.

[Rob2600]

I'm guessing you don't know much about the music industry. It's not "surviving just fine". It's in the worst financial situation it's ever been in since it started. iTunes has essentially killed the album business and made music into a single based business

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

[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.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

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.

I don't know man, I'm about as pro-digital on consoles as you'll find here, I barely ever buy used games and even I'm REALLY shocked and concerned as to how they're going to change the intent of physical media all in one fell swoop, effectively changing what we buy at brick/mortar and why we buy it.

If you told me that the XBOX ONE would be a digital-download-only system I'd be LESS concerned than I am about the reaction of the non-core-gamer general public once this process is really and truly explained to them.

Now, I'm not saying that the ONE doesn't have a chance of survival IN SPITE of this, but I think this will be the single biggest growing pain for consumers to get over if they ever manage to come to terms with it.

And yes, license-locked content is nothing new on PCs and tablet/touch devices but we've never ever seen this on discs on consoles.

I don't want to see any of these companies fail in this next generation because when they succeed and flourish we all win ... but this, this has me very concerned.

[The 1 2 P]

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.

On the current Kinect model facial recognition is spotty at best. Sure my Kinect recognizes me but sometimes it doesn't, even though I'm the only one that uses it 99% of the time. If they can get it(voice and gesture) to work 100% of the time I won't mind so much. I'm also hoping that it's just optional for core games, with Mass Effect 3, Halo: CE Anniversary and Forza 4 being good examples of that on the current Kinect.

I actually like the name now that it's been explained. It was either that or "Xbox AIO", the way HP names their printers. However, what really would have been an awesome name is if they titled it: "The Xbox One....2 P". Of course that would have only worked if they promised me royalties.

And then we have the system itself. I don't mind an all-in-one media player/box/console thingie. Thats how my 360 is used now. What I don't care about is plugging my cable into my console. Or anything to do with the NFL. Or....wtf are they actually doing with used games and the online requirements? Everyday another executive says something different than the last one. Theres obviously going to be some kind of fee for playing used games and you will have to connect online at the very least once a day(acccording to some execs) but I really wish they would reveal those details. Perhaps they'll hold them for E3 but they've been promising to use that for all their XB1 game reveals.

Right now I'm not sure when I'll be picking up this system, despite already being on three early info/preorder list. I need several more questions answered before I can commit at launch. But eventually I'll be getting a XB1. The fact that it plays blurays means that it might even take my PS3's spot of my entertainment center. It might even make me start buying blurays over dvds.....maybe.

Now we just need to wait and see how much they price this thing. Hopefully the $99 360 test proved well enough for them to do a subsidized $199 model of XB1. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they just did a $350 and $450 model. That would be disappointing but not surprising.

[RARusk]

I'll leave this here:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/21/4353010/kinect-trouble-xbox-one-reveal

[kupomogli]

I saw this. Pretty shady, Microsoft. IGN reported that they're pretty sure when he was saying for the Kinect to do something, since he had his hand in his pocket, he was switching stuff with that. Who knows if someone behind the scenes didn't manipulate the minimize/maximize effect as well.

[Zthun]

The problem with a digital-download-only system, like many others have said, is the price of the games.

Steam is successful. Very successful, and in fact, I'm one of the people that love Steam. But when I look at my library, I've noticed one major truth: my entire library is either a mix and match of the humble bundles, extreme steam discounts, or gifts from friends and family. I don't think anything on my Steam library ranges over $15. The price of games is everything. If I'm going to spend $40-$60 on a game, I go for a disc. This is simply because I want to keep the game and play it even after the generation is over. If the game can be had for only $2-$10, then it's a good Steam purchase. Of course, Amazon helps with finding cheap new games, but sometimes, you just can't beat the used prices at Gamestop. If Microsoft is solely allowed to control the used game market, then that cuts out Gamestop, eBay, and many other stores that sell them. Competition will be light. The fact that Microsoft can shut down the service whenever they want also makes it so your purchases won't last forever.

The only way I can see this work (for me and many other people that don't agree with this kind of policy) is a huge compromise on Microsoft's part. If they can offer 75% off sales like steam does, then I can see this working for people. However, I rarely see non-arcade titles go on sale for a major discount on xbl. Often, their digital downloads are more expensive than brand new copies on amazon; that includes the tax.

Overall, their used game policy is going to be the major deal breaker for many people.

[Ed Oscuro]

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.
I think that's a very insightful and useful way to put it.

As far as the gaming historian is concerned, it's a crying shame because this means that someday the only remnants of many currently-beloved games will be pirated versions, if they exist, and YouTube gameplay videos. Not quite the same thing, is it? Few enough people are thinking about keeping the history going. Of course, someday some of the developers or at least the rights holders will wake up, as they periodically do, and compile some artbook or "anniversary" content, which we will be expected to pay more for, again. However, the actual preservation of games will be as far off as ever.

Perhaps they had the right idea from the start with the Disney model - Snow White wasn't intended to make all its money in the first run, but you have to say they were thinking more along the lines of future redistribution of the title, and television (before the home videotape recorder) was quite close to that. The possibility of "owning" a durable copy of a program is somewhat newer. However, it's easy to see the good of certainty in knowing that you will be able to use a program or view media in the future, at any time, and even without paying the copyright holder repeatedly. And that's more like how books have been, for a longer time than movies. Music arguably started out with a model more like books, too - there wasn't any prospect of giving people significant "value add" with high-def versions of the first music recordings, because the old Victrola was about as good as the recordings get - and the recordings were out before radio play was a possibility.

Ideally we will get a situation where rights-holders will be able to continue to sell their product to make profits in multiple arenas, even many years after it is produced, but to a point - there is a point beyond which the argument for continued copyright protections is very weak. And it should also be the case that once somebody has licensed media, at great cost to themselves, there should be some kind of mechanism to allow them at least to attempt self-servicing the platform it requires so they can keep using it in the future.

[JakeM]

I saw this. Pretty shady, Microsoft. IGN reported that they're pretty sure when he was saying for the Kinect to do something, since he had his hand in his pocket, he was switching stuff with that. Who knows if someone behind the scenes didn't manipulate the minimize/maximize effect as well.

Huh, well thats false advertising.

This is like a weird dream, how can Microsoft think theyll be able to sell more than a few hundred thousand of these things before the unknowing people catch on to the evilness of this console?

If Im in a store and I see a dad looking at one for his son then Ill tell him all about the negatives. Infact I wish I could get something like a PTA meeting about this at schools everywhere to tell the parents about all the negatives of the console.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY

[kupomogli]

It's not like we don't know why they did it. There's a lot of people in the conference and they wanted to make sure it actually accepted commands and didn't accept commands that it may have heard people in the audience give it. They could have atleast let people know what was going on during the event rather than pull this crap. But when we were told that the applause came from the employees in the back, I guess we shouldn't have expected any sort of legitimacy from the event.

Maybe something good will come from Microsoft's E3 event.

[Gameguy]

Overall, their used game policy is going to be the major deal breaker for many people.
I found their policy for how used games work, for anyone curious.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57586048-75/microsoft-reportedly-to-take-cut-on-used-xbox-one-game-sales/


It's not like we don't know why they did it. There's a lot of people in the conference and they wanted to make sure it actually accepted commands and didn't accept commands that it may have heard people in the audience give it. They could have atleast let people know what was going on during the event rather than pull this crap. But when we were told that the applause came from the employees in the back, I guess we shouldn't have expected any sort of legitimacy from the event.

Maybe something good will come from Microsoft's E3 event.
The whole gimmick with voice commands could have easily been faked, I watched part of it and all I could think of was someone in the control booth operating the console while the speaker gave voice commands. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

[TonyTheTiger]

"To deal in used games, retailers will reportedly have to agree to Microsoft's terms and use Microsoft's online Azure-based pre-owned system."

Yeah, this has trouble written all over it.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

"To deal in used games, retailers will reportedly have to agree to Microsoft's terms and use Microsoft's online Azure-based pre-owned system."

Yeah, this has trouble written all over it.

"Physical Media" in this next generation is going to be all but an illusion.

You're buying games on a disc that NEED to be installed and don't place the desired power of choice in the hands of the end-user that the core of this community desires/expects from "physical media".

Even your ability to "sell" the games is going to require doing it at a specific retailer that can handle Microsoft's game-key-monitoring system.

This isn't going to be pretty.

[RCM]

We should reserve judgement on Microsoft's used game policy until all the facts are clear. Change can be a bitch, but at least our discs will more than likely be pristine. If there's one gigantic positive I've heard it's that publishers/developers will get a piece of Microsoft's used game sales. GameStop has done nothing wrong in aggressively making billions from used games, but it has an effect not only on a publisher's bottom line, but potentially kills titles or franchises with mediocre new game sales. I don't fault M$ for trying to get in on the second hand market while combating piracy at the same time, but it shouldn't be an impediment to honest, paying customers either.

[Rev. Link]

As someone who works for an independent games retailer, I find the whole used game issue pretty troubling. In fact, between that and the required internet connection our store may decide not to carry the Xbox One at all.

But personally I find the whole Kinect thing to be a much bigger deal. Microsoft is trying to tell me that I have to have a camera and microphone active in my house at all times? Fuck. That. I don't mean to go all tinfoil here, but there's no way in hell I'm hooking that thing up. I don't have the links handy, but have you guys seen the articles floating around about how the new Kinect may possibly be able to tell if you have too many people over to watch a movie? As in, if it detects too many faces that it knows haven't paid for the movie, it won't play it!

I usually buy all the systems, but I will not buy this thing. Maybe if one day someone finds a way to hack it so that Kinect isn't necessary and used games will work, but not until then. If Sony stays cool and doesn't institute the same kind of practices I'll probably get a PS4, but for now I'm perfectly happy with my Wii U.

[WCP]

So, nobody will be able to sell a game on Ebay or Craigslist ?

If you can't sell it to anybody, then there is no ownership whatsoever. it's a FARCE

[RCM]

As someone who works for an independent games retailer, I find the whole used game issue pretty troubling. In fact, between that and the required internet connection our store may decide not to carry the Xbox One at all.

But personally I find the whole Kinect thing to be a much bigger deal. Microsoft is trying to tell me that I have to have a camera and microphone active in my house at all times? Fuck. That. I don't mean to go all tinfoil here, but there's no way in hell I'm hooking that thing up. I don't have the links handy, but have you guys seen the articles floating around about how the new Kinect may possibly be able to tell if you have too many people over to watch a movie? As in, if it detects too many faces that it knows haven't paid for the movie, it won't play it!

I usually buy all the systems, but I will not buy this thing. Maybe if one day someone finds a way to hack it so that Kinect isn't necessary and used games will work, but not until then. If Sony stays cool and doesn't institute the same kind of practices I'll probably get a PS4, but for now I'm perfectly happy with my Wii U.

That Kinect film rumor won't materialize. Kinect does have privacy settings, I believe, so you'll be pretty safe. What do you have to hide?!?!?! Heh.

[Rev. Link]

So, nobody will be able to sell a game on Ebay or Craigslist ?

If you can't sell it to anybody, then there is no ownership whatsoever. it's a FARCE

That's the whole point. You no longer own the games you buy. You own the right to play them.


That Kinect film rumor won't materialize. Kinect does have privacy settings, I believe, so you'll be pretty safe. What do you have to hide?!?!?! Heh.

Even if it doesn't, I still don't want an active camera in my home at all times. Why would anyone? Why would you be okay with letting a large corporation look and listen in on you whenever they want, collecting marketing data on you and selling it? It's one thing for cookies to collect internet data, quite another to have a camera in my living room or bedroom.

[WCP]

Even if it doesn't, I still don't want an active camera in my home at all times. Why would anyone? Why would you be okay with letting a large corporation look and listen in on you whenever they want, collecting marketing data on you and selling it? It's one thing for cookies to collect internet data, quite another to have a camera in my living room or bedroom.


Here's the thing...

When I first heard about being able to turn the unit on by voice, and then realizing that it will always be "listening", I did take a step back and think.... "Man, this is some real Big Brother type shit right here. For real... I mean, if the NSA could get control of Microsoft's servers and what not, they could pretty much spy on America like never before. I mean, talk about Conspiracy Theories."

Of course, thinking about it more, you gotta imagine there are going to be LOTS of people that aren't going to want this, so I have to imagine that you can turn this feature off. You will be able to go into the settings, and turn off voice recognition for boot up. This way, Kinect won't actually be listening at ALL TIMES. I also imagine that you could have a small black cloth that you can use to block the cameras when not in use.

This is a weird thing though... I mean really... Kinect when turned on, and facing you, and with the voice and facial recognition and everything, it could learn an amazing number of things about the average American family. Especially with all the TV stuff. Think about the Nielsen ratings. Microsoft's "secret" ratings will be much more accurate. It will know exactly when people get up and leave, and how many people are watching various shows, etc, etc. That data will be invaluable to advertisers. They will be able to sell that info for tons of money.

[RP2A03]

This is a weird thing though... I mean really... Kinect when turned on, and facing you, and with the voice and facial recognition and everything, it could learn an amazing number of things about the average American family. Especially with all the TV stuff. Think about the Nielsen ratings. Microsoft's "secret" ratings will be much more accurate. It will know exactly when people get up and leave, and how many people are watching various shows, etc, etc. That data will be invaluable to advertisers. They will be able to sell that info for tons of money.


And let's not forget about this useful patent application: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220120143693%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120143693&RS=DN/20120143693



1. A computer-implemented method to determine emotional states of users that receive advertisements on client devices, the method comprising: monitoring a user's online activity during a time period; processing the online activity to identify a tone associated with content that the user interacted with during the time period; receiving an indication of the user's reaction to the content; and assigning an emotional state to the user based on the tone of the content and the indication of the user's reaction to the content.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the online activity is stored in a log.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the online activity comprises browsing history, webpage content, search queries, emails, instant messages, and online games.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the user's reaction is identified from facial expressions of the user captured by an image capture device during the time period.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the user's reaction is identified from user speech patterns captured by an audio capture device during the time period.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the user's reaction is identified from gestures and body movements of the user captured by an image capture device during the time period.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising storing the emotional state of the user in a database.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the emotional state is one of: positive, happy, confused, neutral, negative, angry, or sad.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the emotional state is assigned a duration.

10. A computer system, the computer system comprising: an emotional state database configured to store the emotional states assigned to users; an advertisement database configured to store advertisements and targeting information; and an advertisement engine configured to receive the targeting information, wherein the targeting information includes the desired emotional states of users that advertisers intend to target, and the advertisement engine: processes a request for an advertisement, wherein the request includes an identifier for a user, checks the emotional state database having user identifiers and assigned emotional states to determine the assigned emotional state of the user associated with the identifier included in the request, if the user identifier is in the emotional state database, the advertisement engine retrieves the assigned emotional state of the user and selects from the advertisement database advertisements based on the desired emotional state and the other targeting criteria, wherein the other targeting criteria is related to the user or content, if the user identifier is not in the emotional state database, the advertisement engine selects an advertisement based on the other targeting criteria, and transmits the selected advertisement based on monetization value.

11. The computer system of claim 10, wherein if the user identifier is not in the emotional state database, determining the emotional state of the user.

12. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the other targeting criteria include zip code, keywords, age, location, or language.

13. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the monetization value is based on advertiser bids.

14. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the advertisement database associates an advertisement and an emotional state of the advertisement as specified by the advertiser for the advertisement.

15. The computer system of claim 14, wherein the advertisement database includes a length of time of users the advertisers intend to target is associated the desired emotional state.

16. One or more computer readable media storing computer-useable instructions to determine an emotional state, the method comprising: monitoring a user's online activity during a time period; processing the online activity to identify a tone associated with content that the user interacted with during the time period; receiving an indication of the user's reaction to the content; and assigning an emotional state to the user based on the tone of the content and the indication of the user's reaction to the content.

17. The media of claim 16, wherein the assigned emotional state is normalized based on the statistical average of emotional states assigned to users having processed online activity during the time period.

18. The media of claim 16, wherein the online activity comprises browsing history, webpage content, search queries, emails, instant messages, and online games.

19. The media of claim 16, wherein the indication of the user's reaction is identified from facial expressions of the user captured by an image capture device during the time period.

20. The media of claim 16, wherein the indication of the user's reaction is identified from user speech patterns captured by an audio capture device during the time period.

[TonyTheTiger]

GameStop has done nothing wrong in aggressively making billions from used games, but it has an effect not only on a publisher's bottom line, but potentially kills titles or franchises with mediocre new game sales.

Tough.

And I say that with as much love for the industry as I possibly can. Tough. Because it's not our job as consumers to understand their financial burden and accommodate them by changing how we do things. It's their job to manage their business in such a way that it's financially sustainable given the realities of the world around them. I'm sick of listening to sob stories about used games when Square Enix pumps $100 million into Tomb Raider and needs it to sell 10 million copies to be a success. It's dishonest.

[Tupin]

Tough.

And I say that with as much love for the industry as I possibly can. Tough. Because it's not our job as consumers to understand their financial burden and accommodate them by changing how we do things. It's their job to manage their business in such a way that it's financially sustainable given the realities of the world around them. I'm sick of listening to sob stories about used games when Square Enix pumps $100 million into Tomb Raider and needs it to sell 10 million copies to be a success. It's dishonest.
This. Maybe losing a bunch of money will teach them to conduct their business better next time.

[kupomogli]

This doesn't change the fact that the system is still tied down with DRM, but this seems like used games sales might not be as bad as has first been announced. From this entire article, it really seems that no one at Microsoft knows what the hell they're talking about, honestly.


During this week's Xbox One unveiling, Microsoft officials gave conflicting answers to questions about used games and online requirements. According to an official Q&A from Microsoft, the Xbox One does not "have to be always connected, but does require a connection to the Internet." Speaking with Kotaku, Microsoft's Phil Harrison said that the console would require an internet check every 24 hours.

Microsoft officials later said that was one potential scenario.

Either it requires to connect to the console every 24 hours or it doesn't. Give us one fucking answer. It's like if you were to ask someone from Microsoft one thing, then ask them the same thing 30 minutes later, the answer is completely different. Or maybe their answer keeps changing because of the backlash. They'll keep changing the answer until it's something that works for them but the fanbase isn't too pissed about. The system already requires games to be installed, so it's not like they can go back on that. It's just they were completely unprepared and honestly should have just waited until E3 to release anything.

So anyways, here's what I wanted to post though.


According to Polygon's sources, Microsoft officials haven't yet settled on the specific amount of time that can pass between checks, but that some form of regular check will be required to play games.

The Xbox One will automatically authenticate a game using an encryption code built into a game's disc, when it is installed on the machine. That authentication on the console's hard drive tied to the game is then verified regularly through an internet connection.

This is what we've already heard, but read on.


When a person sells the game or it is installed and played on another system, the game is deauthenticated on the original machine until the disc is brought back and used to re-authenticate the installation.

Our sources also said that there are no plans to charge gamers a fee to sell or reactivate a used game. Earlier today, Microsoft's Larry Hryb touched on the topic of used games on his blog, but didn't say whether fees will be required.

"The ability to trade in and resell games is important to gamers and to Xbox," according to the official statement he included in his post. "Xbox One is designed to support the trade in and resale of games. Reports about our policies for trade in and resale are inaccurate and incomplete. We will disclose more information in the near future."

From the sound of it. It sounds like that you can lend the game to someone else, but when it's activated on their system using the disc. It will, at the same time, deactivate from your system. While this is still bad, as what happens when Xbox One can't authenticate games anymore, it's better than what we've previously heard.

So it seems Ebay sales and lending games are still available. Since they wanted to remove wear and tear from drives though and use complete installs, authenticating the game on a different console is required though so people can't just steal the games. This may be inaccurate as well and the one model that we've all been hearing about might be the official word on it, but we don't know what to believe Microsoft has told us so many different answers to the same questions.

Even if it's this way which isn't as bad as it was the other way, being so unprepared and giving all these different answers is hurting the console more than just shutting up about it. Cheapy D brought up a good point about it on the CAGcast. Microsoft should have said we don't comment on rumors and speculations until they were finally ready to release full details to the press at E3.

*edit*

Eurogamer updated their initial report on the used games issue four times. A different answer? Let's go back and update it again. Who knows. Tomorrow might be another answer and there's no DRM on the Xbox One at all.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-21-xbox-one-second-hand-games-will-charge-a-fee-to-play

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

We should reserve judgement on Microsoft's used game policy until all the facts are clear. Change can be a bitch, but at least our discs will more than likely be pristine. If there's one gigantic positive I've heard it's that publishers/developers will get a piece of Microsoft's used game sales. GameStop has done nothing wrong in aggressively making billions from used games, but it has an effect not only on a publisher's bottom line, but potentially kills titles or franchises with mediocre new game sales. I don't fault M$ for trying to get in on the second hand market while combating piracy at the same time, but it shouldn't be an impediment to honest, paying customers either.

If it turns out that they have an easy to use, foolproof, ultra secure, completely reliable system in place that even the smallest of used-game retailer can utilize (mom/pop stores, eBay sellers, etc.) and allows the consumer to continue to buy used at the prices that they're accustomed to - I'll be absolutely fine with it.

Though, I'm also not holding my breath for any of the above to come to fruition.

[RCM]

Tough.

And I say that with as much love for the industry as I possibly can. Tough. Because it's not our job as consumers to understand their financial burden and accommodate them by changing how we do things. It's their job to manage their business in such a way that it's financially sustainable given the realities of the world around them. I'm sick of listening to sob stories about used games when Square Enix pumps $100 million into Tomb Raider and needs it to sell 10 million copies to be a success. It's dishonest.

And some successful businesses do that, and consumers adapt to change along the way. I'm not worried about the big boys crying, but I am concerned about the smaller publishers and developers who take risks and aren't rewarded due to used sales and/or piracy. It does happen, and I weep.

[TonyTheTiger]

And some successful businesses do that, and consumers adapt to change along the way. I'm not worried about the big boys crying, but I am concerned about the smaller publishers and developers who take risks and aren't rewarded due to used sales and/or piracy. It does happen, and I weep.

Used sales and piracy are as much a reality as anything else and should be factored into the metrics as any other statistic would be when financing a project. These aren't surprises that jump out at unsuspecting publishers to wreck their shit. Publishers and developers are on notice and should plan accordingly. If GameStop's business is really enough to drive you bankrupt that's not because it's an unfair world. It's because you did a bad job. Too many game companies seem to be barely solvent where they're always one flop away from total collapse. This is not a healthy way for the industry to operate, regardless of whether we're talking small studios or publishing giants. I'm of the opinion that, outside of a handful of particularly huge franchises, if a game sells "only" a million units it should be a clear success. I'm convinced investing more money than a million sales can recoup is foolish unless you have a really good reason, such as if you're game is Madden or Call of Duty. There is absolutely no reason, however, for a brand new IP like Kingdoms of Almur to need to move over three million units to get out of the red. But it did. And it failed.

[Bojay1997]

Used sales and piracy are as much a reality as anything else and should be factored into the metrics as any other statistic would be when financing a project. These aren't surprises that jump out at unsuspecting publishers to wreck their shit. Publishers and developers are on notice and should plan accordingly. If GameStop's business is really enough to drive you bankrupt that's not because it's an unfair world. It's because you did a bad job. Too many game companies seem to be barely solvent where they're always one flop away from total collapse. This is not a healthy way for the industry to operate, regardless of whether we're talking small studios or publishing giants. I'm of the opinion that, outside of a handful of particularly huge franchises, if a game sells "only" a million units it should be a clear success. I'm convinced investing more money than a million sales can recoup is foolish unless you have a really good reason, such as if you're game is Madden or Call of Duty. There is absolutely no reason, however, for a brand new IP like Kingdoms of Almur to need to move over three million units to get out of the red. But it did. And it failed.

While I agree that they're a reality, just like any other factor that can negatively impact a business, it doesn't mean that the business owner should just throw up their hands and say "well, it's gonna happen so I guess I'll just live with a less profitable and less successful business". This idea that large multinational corporations like EA and Activision can somehow go back to a world where only a handful of games are released every year with much more modest budgets is just not realistic. Shareholders won't tolerate it. The movie business has struggled with this same problem for decades and while there are certainly studios that make smaller movies, the most profitable studios still make most of their money from big buget films. I personally hate what Microsoft is doing, but in fairness, they see a problem in their business model and they are responding to it. It's now up to consumers to decide if they want to follow Microsoft down this path or hold out for some other reality.

[Griking]

That is the worst console name in video game history.

The Nintendo Wii disagrees.

[Rev. Link]

If it turns out that they have an easy to use, foolproof, ultra secure, completely reliable system in place that even the smallest of used-game retailer can utilize (mom/pop stores, eBay sellers, etc.) and allows the consumer to continue to buy used at the prices that they're accustomed to - I'll be absolutely fine with it.

Though, I'm also not holding my breath for any of the above to come to fruition.

Even if that winds up being the case, there's still the fact that Kinect has to be plugged in for it to function. I just don't see how anyone can justify that. How can any consumer say "Yeah, to play these games I need to have an active camera and microphone recording everything I do in my home at all times, but I'm totally fine with that!"?

[JakeM]

Its just weird how this information is trickling out, first its just a fee, then a whole network for used game sales to be counted and money to be distributed from stores like Game Stop. The direct fee the user pays on XBL to activate their used game is probably way more easier to control and manage than a whole system they have to set up with the middleman (stores) from money people could just pay on XBL. So whats the point of this? If they dont like Game Stop, just dont let them be a middle man for the used game fees.

[WCP]

So whats the point of this? If they dont like Game Stop, just dont let them be a middle man for the used game fees.

It's baby steps.


Microsoft knows that their next console, after Xbox One, will be digital download only, and for them, it's just a matter of getting there from where we are now. They know that they still need brick and mortar retailers in 2013, 2014 and 2015. By the time we get to 2016, I can see them getting much more aggressive with basically telling the retailers to kiss their ass. What I mean is, I think you'll see Steam-like sales on the platform by around 2016 that will really affect the retail market, but by that time, MS won't really care. They know it's only a matter of time before they get their wish.

So, in the meantime, they are going to try to slowly erode and chip away at the end users rights, and slowly chip away at the part that retail plays in the whole thing.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Even if that winds up being the case, there's still the fact that Kinect has to be plugged in for it to function. I just don't see how anyone can justify that. How can any consumer say "Yeah, to play these games I need to have an active camera and microphone recording everything I do in my home at all times, but I'm totally fine with that!"?

While I can appreciate anybody who values their privacy and is offended by the notion of being watched, I'm not one of those people.

Let Microsoft watch/listen to me via Kinect all day, they're probably not ever going to hear/see anything particularly interesting.

[BHvrd]

I wonder if you have to sign a two year agreement when you purchase the Xbox One. I mean surely they have to find a way to lock in the rates so you can get your games for $39.99 a month, cable for $99.99 a month w/tivo record service at an extra $10/month and also $10.00 per GB over on streaming service.

They better lock these suckers down with that two year agreement and fantastic discounts or nobody is going to buy one.

[TonyTheTiger]

It's baby steps.


Microsoft knows that their next console, after Xbox One, will be digital download only, and for them, it's just a matter of getting there from where we are now. They know that they still need brick and mortar retailers in 2013, 2014 and 2015. By the time we get to 2016, I can see them getting much more aggressive with basically telling the retailers to kiss their ass. What I mean is, I think you'll see Steam-like sales on the platform by around 2016 that will really affect the retail market, but by that time, MS won't really care. They know it's only a matter of time before they get their wish.

So, in the meantime, they are going to try to slowly erode and chip away at the end users rights, and slowly chip away at the part that retail plays in the whole thing.

What baffles me is why major retail chains would be Microsoft's accomplice. Even Best Buy is getting into used games now. And considering that store in particular is known as the Amazon Showroom, it's looking to make a buck on whatever it can. It would be one thing for Microsoft to present the One as an "ordinary" disc-based console that just happens to have every single game also available via download and then after retail makes it a success and once they feel comfortable doing so, going exclusively digital. That would at least make some sense. But this particular method essentially requires retail cooperation from the get go. Microsoft tipped its hand. And retailers now have a legitimate interest to see that the model fails. Digital or not, the delivery method doesn't mean shit to publishers if the console itself doesn't succeed.