Microsoft Officially Unveils Xbox One For Holiday 2013

[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/20...-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.