Xbox One - November 22, 2013

[I OU a Beatn]

NO the moral of the story is..... CLW = RIGHT IOU = WRONG.

The console war of CLW v. IOU was won the second Sony announced it at E3 and the crowd went NUTS (just as I said). Took a week for MS to get off the mat from the knockout punch.

CLW wins debate re: DRM versus IOU end of story.

I don't see how that has anything to do with used games, which is what I was arguing about. My argument of "if a publisher blocks used games on one system, they're going to do it on the other) still very much stands. They're still more than capable of locking a game behind a serial code on both systems. As I've said a million times before, Microsoft and Sony have absolutely no say in what publishers decide to do with their games. Sony may put on a show and use it as an easy way to win E3 with no games, but if a publisher wants to block them, Sony has no power to stop them. Neither does Microsoft.

The absolutely ONLY difference now is that Microsoft doesn't have a system in place, so publishers will have to use their own. Same thing on Sony's system.

The only other thing you could have won was which console would sell better, and no one is going to win that one because thanks to Microsoft backing down like a little you know what, we'll never know.

I definitely never argued about whether or not Microsoft would completely change their policies and turn their console I was looking forward to into a 360 v2, which is all that came out of this.

[JBHuskers]

It was the original owner and one of the family members at the same time. Say Austin and G are my family members. I could play the game any time I wanted no matter what. If Austin was also playing, then G couldn't. However, as soon as Austin stopped playing that particular game, G could then start playing.

The part where you gave a game away and never got it back was the game trading they were going to do, the family sharing thing was different.

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

[Kingpin32]

I don't see how that has anything to do with used games, which is what I was arguing about. My argument of "if a publisher blocks used games on one system, they're going to do it on the other) still very much stands. They're still more than capable of locking a game behind a serial code on both systems. As I've said a million times before, Microsoft and Sony have absolutely no say in what publishers decide to do with their games. Sony may put on a show and use it as an easy way to win E3 with no games, but if a publisher wants to block them, Sony has no power to stop them. Neither does Microsoft.

The absolutely ONLY difference now is that Microsoft doesn't have a system in place, so publishers will have to use their own. Same thing on Sony's system.

The only other thing you could have won was which console would sell better, and no one is going to win that one because thanks to Microsoft backing down like a little you know what, we'll never know.

I definitely never argued about whether or not Microsoft would completely change their policies and turn their console I was looking forward to into a 360 v2, which is all that came out of this.

After seeing all the backlash that has come from the DRM debacle, do you really think a publisher would come out and say "hey we're still gonna have DRM on our games?" EA has pretty much solidified that they aren't gonna bring back online codes.

[SCClassof93]

After seeing all the backlash that has come from the DRM debacle, do you really think a publisher would come out and say "hey we're still gonna have DRM on our games?" EA has pretty much solidified that they aren't gonna bring back online codes.

"
Hopefully they will see that the market does NOT support this practice and won't go this route. However, I know some will bend over and say "I gotta play x", but if most say, "nope I will pass and support something else", you won't see much DRM. Now, drop my game to $40 and you can DRM away would be a good move

[AustinWolv]

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

No, because I'd send dog ninjas after him.

[SmoothPancakes]

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

No. OU (as the owner) can play whenever he wants. Austin (if no one else but OU is playing) can jump on at anytime and fire up the game. But if you got online an hour later and both OU and Austin were still playing the same game from OU family share deal, you'd have to wait until Austin stopped playing the game before you could fire it up off of OU's family share stuff.

The owner can (or could now) play day or night, any time he wanted. Everyone else, there could only be one playing at the same time as OU, everyone else had to wait.

[CLW]

I don't see how that has anything to do with used games, which is what I was arguing about. My argument of "if a publisher blocks used games on one system, they're going to do it on the other) still very much stands. They're still more than capable of locking a game behind a serial code on both systems. As I've said a million times before, Microsoft and Sony have absolutely no say in what publishers decide to do with their games. Sony may put on a show and use it as an easy way to win E3 with no games, but if a publisher wants to block them, Sony has no power to stop them. Neither does Microsoft.

The absolutely ONLY difference now is that Microsoft doesn't have a system in place, so publishers will have to use their own. Same thing on Sony's system.

The only other thing you could have won was which console would sell better, and no one is going to win that one because thanks to Microsoft backing down like a little you know what, we'll never know.

I definitely never argued about whether or not Microsoft would completely change their policies and turn their console I was looking forward to into a 360 v2, which is all that came out of this.

[I OU a Beatn]

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

No. The owner is always allowed to play no matter what. Say I bought a game, Austin, G, and JB are my 3 family members. I want to play Call of Duty, so I start it up. G sees me playing and starts it up. We are both able to play. Say Austin sees us playing and wants to use a shared copy. He can not until G stops playing, and then Austin can play it. Once Austin stops, then JB can play it. However, if I stop, only one of the 3 family members can still play it.

Basically, only the owner AND one of the family members can be playing at one time. It was a REALLY good idea and I'm sorely disappointed they removed it.

After seeing all the backlash that has come from the DRM debacle, do you really think a publisher would come out and say "hey we're still gonna have DRM on our games?" EA has pretty much solidified that they aren't gonna bring back online codes.

EA said they were discontinuing the online pass. That's a little bit different than locking a game behind a serial code like a PC game. Do you think it's coincidence EA announced the end of their online passes right around the time Microsoft announced their system? I don't. It may not happen right away, but it will most certainly happen eventually.

"
Hopefully they will see that the market does NOT support this practice and won't go this route. However, I know some will bend over and say "I gotta play x", but if most say, "nope I will pass and support something else", you won't see much DRM. Now, drop my game to $40 and you can DRM away would be a good move

The market does support the practice. PC games are doing just fine. Diablo 3 sold a shit ton of copies and it was behind the one use serial code. A few hundred/thousand whiny babies on the internet does not even begin to equate for the entire gaming community that would be more than willing to purchase a game that requires a serial code to be entered.

[cdj]

This is from another "anonymous" Xbox One dev.....He/she says family sharing was actually basically a time trial.

First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it.

[CLW]

No. The owner is always allowed to play no matter what. Say I bought a game, Austin, G, and JB are my 3 family members. I want to play Call of Duty, so I start it up. G sees me playing and starts it up. We are both able to play. Say Austin sees us playing and wants to use a shared copy. He can not until G stops playing, and then Austin can play it. Once Austin stops, then JB can play it. However, if I stop, only one of the 3 family members can still play it.

Basically, only the owner AND one of the family members can be playing at one time. It was a REALLY good idea and I'm sorely disappointed they removed it.



EA said they were discontinuing the online pass. That's a little bit different than locking a game behind a serial code like a PC game. Do you think it's coincidence EA announced the end of their online passes right around the time Microsoft announced their system? I don't. It may not happen right away, but it will most certainly happen eventually.



The market does support the practice. PC games are doing just fine. Diablo 3 sold a shit ton of copies and it was behind the one use serial code. A few hundred/thousand whiny babies on the internet does not even begin to equate for the entire gaming community that would be more than willing to purchase a game that requires a serial code to be entered.

If all that were true then why did MS do the 180? If it's such a great idea that consumers/gamers will love: (1) Explain it; (2) Promote it; and (3) Destroy Sony with DRM.

[CLW]

This is from another "anonymous" Xbox One dev.....He/she says family sharing was actually basically a time trial.

First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it.

So basically its the PS+ timed trial. LMAO. Yeah that is NO WHERE near as good as exchanging games with friends via the simple 1 step solution that has been around since the dawn of console gaming:



EDIT: there are a NUMBER of quotes in that article that are just HILARIOUS and either (1) the person is "spinning" for his/her company; (2) they are not shall I say the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I tend to believe its the former or they are sippin' the koolaid.

[I OU a Beatn]

If all that were true then why did MS do the 180? If it's such a great idea that consumers/gamers will love: (1) Explain it; (2) Promote it; and (3) Destroy Sony with DRM.

If what were true? That customers are willing to buy games behind a serial code? Diablo 3 sold 7 million copies the last I checked, and it was behind a code and you had to be connected 24 hours. People just like to bitch. Take for example this recent Microsoft thing. People bitched and moaned all day about the 24 hour check thing. Then, Microsoft gets rid of it, so people are happy, right? Nope, now they're bitching and moaning because Microsoft flipped flopped. Listening to people on the internet is a no win situation, because the vast majority of them are simply trolls.

They could have sold the Xbox One with a constant internet connection requirement, serial keys for unlock the game, and an armed guard at your door to confiscate used games if you purchased them and people would still buy it.

Just like the naive people I've read around the internet the past month who think just because Sony and Microsoft don't have systems in place that publishers aren't capable/willing to block used games.

Honestly, I hope they don't, however, the writing is on the wall. Just like the writing was on the wall for Sony charging for online access. It's going to happen. It might not happen with this generation of consoles (I think it will), but I guarantee you it will certainly happen with the next.

[SCClassof93]

No. The owner is always allowed to play no matter what. Say I bought a game, Austin, G, and JB are my 3 family members. I want to play Call of Duty, so I start it up. G sees me playing and starts it up. We are both able to play. Say Austin sees us playing and wants to use a shared copy. He can not until G stops playing, and then Austin can play it. Once Austin stops, then JB can play it. However, if I stop, only one of the 3 family members can still play it.

Basically, only the owner AND one of the family members can be playing at one time. It was a REALLY good idea and I'm sorely disappointed they removed it.



EA said they were discontinuing the online pass. That's a little bit different than locking a game behind a serial code like a PC game. Do you think it's coincidence EA announced the end of their online passes right around the time Microsoft announced their system? I don't. It may not happen right away, but it will most certainly happen eventually.



The market does support the practice. PC games are doing just fine. Diablo 3 sold a shit ton of copies and it was behind the one use serial code. A few hundred/thousand whiny babies on the internet does not even begin to equate for the entire gaming community that would be more than willing to purchase a game that requires a serial code to be entered.

I think the pc gaming market while there may be overlap is a different market from console gaming.

[I OU a Beatn]

It may be, but I don't think it's that much different. Besides, let me ask you this: what do you think customers are going to do when consoles inevitably get rid of physical media and rely solely upon digital distribution. It's definitely happening next gen because digital distribution is much cheaper for the publisher, and as doughty noted yesterday, it also eliminates the used game markets and ensures a copy be purchased new to be played.

Microsoft should have just stuck to their guns and gone through with it.

[CLW]

It may be, but I don't think it's that much different. Besides, let me ask you this: what do you think customers are going to do when consoles inevitably get rid of physical media and rely solely upon digital distribution. It's definitely happening next gen because digital distribution is much cheaper for the publisher, and as doughty noted yesterday, it also eliminates the used game markets and ensures a copy be purchased new to be played.

Microsoft should have just stuck to their guns and gone through with it.

There aren't going to be consoles when that happens. It will all be in the cloud and you will pay a subscription fee to use "Sony's" (or whoever's) service.

Customers won't be buying a physical product so they will have to decide which company's terms of service are best for them.

However, all gens including the next one revolve around the purchase of physical products. As such, consumers expect/demand the ability to trade the physical products they bought on the open market.

MS would have "stuck to their guns" if the writing wasn't on the wall and obvious to everyone but you that they were going to lose the console battle to Sony the only ? was by how much.

[GatorfanStovy]

Screw the digital download. I like my hard copies of games!

[Kingpin32]

There's always gonna be a retail market. Even if games are offered cheaper as a digital property, retail and physical media is still gonna be there. Everybody aren't able to download a 20-40 GB game. (I say that not knowing the size of the average game)

[SmoothPancakes]

Screw the digital download. I like my hard copies of games!

Well, you're going to be SOL after 2020. Outside of buying online, it's almost impossible to find physical copies of PC games in brick and mortar stores. It's either buy them online from Amazon, etc., or download them. The next generation of video gaming (whenever it comes around after 2020) will almost all but likely be 100% digital.

[SmoothPancakes]

There's always gonna be a retail market. Even if games are offered cheaper as a digital property, retail and physical media is still gonna be there. Everybody aren't able to download a 20-40 GB game. (I say that not knowing the size of the average game)

For me on Xbox, the standard game averages 1.5 to 4 GB. The really big games (GTA, RDR, etc) can run upwards of 7 or 8 GB.

[I OU a Beatn]

MS would have "stuck to their guns" if the writing wasn't on the wall and obvious to everyone but you that they were going to lose the console battle to Sony the only ? was by how much.

Based on what? Early order numbers? The PS4 is $100 less and the Xbox One was STILL selling out. We have absolutely no idea who would have won if Microsoft had kept their policies. I'm not going to have a hypothetical argument with you. Unfortunately, due to Microsoft's lack of a backbone, we'll never know who would have won that battle. Only someone wearing Sony or Microsoft goggles can declare "victory" before the systems have even launched. I'm not going to pretend to know how well each one would have done, but it wouldn't have been a massive difference either way. Microsoft has way too much of a stranglehold on America not to be a key player.

There will still be consoles, it'll just be based completely on digital distribution and the cloud. It wont be cloud exclusive because of the fact internet still probably wont be consistent and fast enough to stream full games, but I would be absolutely shocked if PS5 and Xbox whatever had physical drives, which means consumers better get ready for not being able to trade in games.