12 ms·

The Internet Just Made Microsoft Kill a Car for a Faster Horse

228 points by thisisdallas 13y ago

workbench 13y ago
Oh come on now, those "features" are terrible and were just a bit of ketchup on a shit sandwich. Speaking as someone who moved house and had to wait a month for a phone company and ISP to get their internet up and running. If I'd had a XBone I would have just be sitting there with an expensive brick for a month.
tpetrina 13y ago
As I've already said a couple of times, the dependency on the cloud is troublesome for lots of reasons. I don’t want to “wait for authentication” every time I go play offline single player games, I just want to play the game! Why should I care if it authenticated. And Microsoft could have made the whole program opt-in. Then some would have their digital future, and I wouldn't. In that case everyone wins. DRM always presents a problem for a paying user. When you pirate games, you have 0 problems and excellent, if not better, experience than regular, paying users.
gcb0 13y ago
Microsoft remembered it sells (mostly) console, not (mostly) games. pleasing the pirates sells wonders. If you only lived your teenager years in the US or Japan, then you will not understand. But Sony et al sold millions of consoles to other countries where the market probably bought 1 game per 10 consoles sold (numbers vaguely remembered from a playstation1 analysis i read a long time ago)
- jerf 13y ago
  "market probably bought 1 game per 10 consoles sold" You seem to have reciprocated your fraction there: http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/Global/ http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/G... Globally, the PS1 sold about 9 games per console. I don't necessarily fully trust that site or that number, but it's probably at least within a factor of two, which still leaves it a great distance from your number.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    Never said global numbers. I meant specifically the emerging countries.
    - jerf 13y ago
      My apologies.
- teamonkey 13y ago
  Microsoft and Sony get a cut of every game sold for their platforms, while the consoles themselves are sold for a loss, at least at launch. That's how it has worked for the last two generations and I think it's the same this time around. The exception is Nintendo, who sold the Wii (and presumably the Wii-U) for a small profit.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure for MS and Sony, they were selling software. Sony was selling every PS3 for a loss 6 years into its product life cycle.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    Sony and microsoft consoles at a loss not to profit from game sales, that's just silly. They did sold consoles at a loss to be the number one console and then make money on the next one after they cornered the market and can extract real profits. Microsoft always did that with windows/office file format lock-in. Sony always did that with media formats lock-in. They would love to sell you at a loss for the chance to corner a market of betamax, minidisc, laserdisc, memorystick, blue-ray... oh wait, see the relation to PS3 there?
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  Historically speaking MS and Sony hardware is sold for a loss which is covered by the cut they get per game sold. I'm not sure how big of a loss, if any, the PS4 and XB1 are being sold for. It could be close to even.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    That's true for US and Japan. Maybe Europe nowadays.
- workbench 13y ago
  Worked out great for the PSP… oh hang on
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
UberMouse 13y ago
I don't really see how the features they removed are incompatible with not requiring online checkins every 24h and certainly not with the used game policy. I don't see why they couldn't have made the online checkins optional, but required to do any of the game sharing, and if you don't check in within 24h it just disables games that aren't yours and doesn't let other people play yours. Sure, that could be gotten around but people are going to figure out how to pirate anyway.
- kytmizuno 13y ago
  I think the problem happens when Person A buys a game disc and lends a digital copy to Person B. Person A then disconnects from the Internet and plays using the game disc and Person B plays with the 24H online check in. Now you have two people playing the same game at the same time with only one copy of the game bought.
  - scld 13y ago
    How does that not happen with their old system? You buy a disc, install it, remove the disc (doesn't need to go back in) and then give it to someone else?
    - lotso 13y ago
      You need the disc in the tray to play games installed to the hard drive (that weren't digital downloads).
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > Now you have two people playing the same game at the same time with only one copy of the game bought. And?
  - tmp3123 13y ago
    how about this: before A can lend a digital copy to B, A must turn on his internet connection and tell MS's server that he is now lending to B. B can now download A's game to play. A cannot play his physical copy until B returns the copy back to the server (some state must be kept in A's console to remember this). if B's connection goes down for more than some period (could less or more than 24hr, configurable by A), his copy is automatically relinquished. does this solve the "only single active copy" issue?
clavalle 13y ago
Don't worry. Valve will come out with a nice car (SteamBox) and will craft their message more carefully to make sure all of the horse lovers don't get spooked before they fall in love with the ride.
- jff 13y ago
  The success of the Valvemobile will be in no way affected by the hood ornament, I suppose. To un-knot the twisted metaphor, I'm saying Valve already got past the wailing 10 years ago. Their Steam model already enjoys widespread success and approval, while Microsoft is, well, Microsoft.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Valve doesn't have to do anything about messaging because Steam already works like the XBox One was going to.
  - infrec 13y ago
    Not entirely. For one Steam has offline mode which is certainly better than what MS was proposing.
    - DrStalker 13y ago
      To be fair, Steam became popular back when offline mode was really buggy and problematical; it's a lot better today, but back then is was not uncommon for it to just forget what it was doing until you could reconnect.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - thejosh 13y ago
    Apart from the massive sales, offline mode without calling home every 24 hours, the ability to download all your games then go offline without connecting. But they don't let you swap/sell games to other accounts, however there are massive sales multiple times a year where games are actually is cheap (even in terms of Australian pricing, which is crazy) enough for you to buy.
Maxious 13y ago
Gizmodo coincidently published a similar "the internet dun goofed" post http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905 http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-o...
- thornkin 13y ago
  What's the old saying? You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time?
  - dclowd9901 13y ago
    I think the saying here is, "here's money, now write a pro-Microsoft piece."
proland 13y ago
This really just looks like sour grapes from Microsoft to me. There's no reason they couldn't have both... Buy a physical disk? Trade use it like you always have, but you don't get to make use of all the fancy cloud features. Buy your game online? You'll need to phone home every once in a while (24 hours was a bit harsh, maybe more like 1 week), and you can't trade it like physical media, but you get the fancy new lending features. Decide you like the new way better? Convert your physical copies into 'cloud' copies and throw out the disks. Problem solved.
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  It would be an extremely safe bet to say that will be the case within a year of two of launch. They're scrambling too much to change what they've got for the difference to be possible in 6 months, but the differentiation will definitely happen.
- ewzimm 13y ago
  Sounds like politics. I'm sure we're not hearing the whole discussion. There's nothing stopping a Steam-like DRM option to link a game key to your account or a Steam-like offline mode once you've authenticated once. These schemes are not some fabulous new invention. They have been implemented in the real world for the last decade. If you like them, I suggest buying a Steam box. Analyses like these seem to forget how much the software of consoles has changed over the last few years. This next generation likely to evolve much faster. The hardware is already obsolete, and it hasn't been released yet. The software is what matters, and it will change. Both Microsoft and Sony have clearly stated that they intend to grow their server farms and make them integral to the experience. So whether you're connecting to Smartglass 2.0 or iPSN, the experience in seven years will not be the same as the experience today. I found physical media authentication unnecessarily cumbersome in the 90's. It's pretty funny that it's still necessary in some cases, but that's DRM. Too bad that just offering incentives for connecting to official servers isn't the standard means of encouraging legitimate sales. People are lining up for content they could easily get for free on services like Netflix, Spotify, and Steam because they provide superior experiences. I've never downloaded a legally questionable game copy, but I'm still not interested in these backward console DRM schemes, whether through fragile optical discs or constant surveillance. I can do better elsewhere. But I'm looking forward to what they come up with next.
chaostheory 13y ago
The problem is that Microsoft put a saddle on the car by offering physical discs. I really didn't see the point of it if it was always online, given that MS has their music and movie stores. Moreover it didn't really give consumers the main benefit of always on DRM: lower prices for games. This is why consumers don't care about the DRM on iOS or even Android. Another major problem is that for all the features offered for Xbox One that apologists like to keep repeating (family sharing, trade-ins, lending, selling), there was a really big caveat: publishers have to approve that feature for their respective games. Even if they did approve it, I can imagine all the restrictions they would have imposed (trade-in approved stores, minimum time & publisher set prices for trade-ins, and so on)
- mxxx 13y ago
  physical discs are useful for people with always-on-but-still-painfully-slow internet, and it also was a way for MS to compromise and not piss off all the physical disc retailers, who happen to be the same people who will retail the console itself.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    You can't have your cake and eat it too.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Yeah, but they could have sold their console with online retail only, a la Amazon. That would have been really innovative.
    - lotso 13y ago
      >That would have been really innovative. And a great way to lose out on billions of sales.
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Ask Amazon how it turned out for them with the Kindle. Sold only online. No retailers. They crushed all the other physical ebook-readers re-sellers.
gfodor 13y ago
Looking forward to the iTV or SteamBox. I live in 2013 in the U.S., and I am willing to buy a device that requires I have Internet access in my living room, and leverages that fact to let me buy and share games in an innovative way. I guess I'm a rare bird!
codesuela 13y ago
They could have had the best of both worlds: 1) keep the legacy physical media system 2) enable the new system for digital purchases would have been a huge win and truly groundbreaking
nhangen 13y ago
I think the OP here is giving MS more credit than they are due. I don't believe they were trying to build a car, and I don't believe they had a messaging problem. I think they were trying to pull a bait and switch. Pitch a car and sell a faster horse. They got caught, and the Internet won. You can easily get to that conclusion by gauging the HD storage shipping with each unit. Add to that the average speed of Internet in the US, and you have a poor situation for over the net gaming. We're just not there yet.
- skeletonjelly 13y ago
  > Add to that the average speed of Internet in the US, and you have a poor situation for over the net gaming. Now maybe. The article mentions that it's a device designed for the next 7 or 8 years.
  - nhangen 13y ago
    I don't think this generation of consoles will survive without a refresh in the next 7 or 8 years. Tech is moving too fast.
    - Fargren 13y ago
      It hasn't for the last seven years? Other than the arrival of SSDs, the consoles were running on a half-decade old tech and still doing fine. If anything, tech seems to be moving slower lately, with less increase of processor powers and less notable increases in graphics capability.
      - nhangen 13y ago
        The last 7 were far different IMO. Coming out of the bubble, and very little progress in software, not much needed to change. But now, I think the fact that software, not hardware, is changing rapidly, a 7-8 year cycle isn't going to work. Sure, they can bolt-on new firmware updates and operating systems, but I think the way we use consoles will change quite a bit in the next 3-4 years alone.
- 13y ago
B0Z 13y ago
This is frustrating and it's a false choice. "The Internet" is otherwise known as the people who were most likely to purchase an XBox 1 before hearing about the draconian DRM policies. If the XBox 360 were a horrible product, MS would have heard very very little from "The Internet". Who they heard from was a fan base who very much still enjoy their XBox 360s and were truly looking forward to an improved product with some sick innovations that only companies like Microsoft can deliver. They heard from this collection of people because in addition to the excellent innovations, they tacked on completely unreasonable restrictions that make the product all but completely useless if you CHOSE not to connect it to the network or have the spying eye watching your every move, and then twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to either make these sound like a feature instead of handcuffs or failing to explain that you could turn off the advanced features of the Kinect. In response to hearing from "The Internet", instead of actually listening to what was being said and making some reasonable changes to the restrictions, they stopped dead in their tracks, turned 180 degrees, then killed many of the innovations that could have been modified while still providing consumers with an actual choice. I'm sooooo tired of being told I'm too stupid to understand something. By my government, and by big companies who once commanded my respect.
jongraehl 13y ago
Some internet pundits don't understand the value of a game machine that works without ever connecting to the internet. MS wants to sell precisely one license but support both never-connected machines and cloud lending, but this was too hard for them to figure out and they're dropping the cloud part. The cloud lending facility required expiring leases (think DHCP) to guard against the possibility of a purchaser intentionally stranding their license at a friend's house (or on a dead xbox, or one that loses internet connectivity), where that friend would play happily for weeks without connecting to the network. If you believe in the effectiveness of copy-proof-disc DRM, then a single token permitting ongoing play can certainly just reside on the disc. How about this: 1. disc alone doesn't suffice to play a game on an unconnected xbox (so never-connected users are out of luck) 2. net connected xbox alone can acquire the right-to-play token as long as the previous holder of the token is online. (physical disc from store would need insertion only on first use to create the initial on-net token). 3. an unconnected xbox that was the last one to use the net token may continue to play indefinitely without net access, provided the disc can be validated. this does allow simultaneous play of at most one online and one disc, but only as long as the xbox stays intentionally unconnected (this limits the number of extra licenses to at most 1, unlike a more lenient cloud-lending policy that allows continued play without check-ins). I believe the renew-lease-every-24hr model already allowed simultaneous play in case of the last token holder being offline (if the game didn't require a connection to play, that is). If absolutely prohibiting simultaneous play from a single purchase is a must (and I don't see why it should be; an average concurrency of strictly less than 2 sounds fine), then you just need to require explicit lease releases (and the disc becomes irrelevant again), which has an obvious customer service overhead when people can't release for whatever reason. Alternatively they could implement a physical 'disc destroyer' that can move a game (one-way) to the cloud phone-home mode. Or just require an xbox to phone home before permitting a new disc (giving up on never-connected xboxes), in which case no physical destruction is necessary.
- TechNewb 13y ago
  Agreed. Also, in the ever increasing world of globalization, I don't believe in region locking. Currently I own a Korean Xbox 360, as I bought it in Seoul while living there years ago. Since moving back to the US I have not bothered buying any new games mainly b/c I don't want to deal with having to worry about region locking. It will be interesting to see how ownership and digital files interact in the future. Do I even own any of my digital files?
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
It's because people don't trust Microsoft, and they don't necessarily subscribe to this guy's generous assessment of Microsoft's intent.
juniorplenty 13y ago
Honest question: who gives a fuck?
coderguy123 13y ago
Someone told me that is a mis-quote, Henry ford never said that. But it is a perfect mis-quote.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Try hard as they might, it's impossible to make those "features" sound good. This one is especially amazing: "You could re-sell your physical disc game to Gamestop or any participating outlet that opted into Microsoft’s revenue sharing system." Gee, thanks, Microsoft! It's not like those outlets will pass the cost right onto the consumer or anything (oh wait, they will). It's incredible how the Xbox team thought, "Look at that money over there. Let's take it!" What's next, Wal-Mart charging Ralph Lauren every time a customer comes in wearing a Polo shirt (because why should other clothing companies get free advertising in their store)? The other issue? For the author to be completely honest, every "benefit" mentioned in the article should have "for a fee" added to the end of it. It's not very fun or innovative to get nickeled and dimed every step of the way. The fact that the public received 3 different messages about digital sharing costs (the three being no cost, a small fee, and the full price of the game) didn't help matters, either. Another issue I had with the digital system is with the games themselves. Most critics of physical media on Xbox One mention the iOS model, but fail to note how Xbox One is different from it. If I download an app on my iPad, it instantly shows up on my iPhone and my iPad mini, ready for use. I don't have to pay any extra usage fees for multiple devices. The apps themselves are in the $0-$10 range. Most importantly, most apps run in the 5-50MB range, so downloads are quick and my apps are ready to go in minutes. Compare that with Xbox One, where games are likely to be in the 10-20GB range and $60.00 (formerly with fees for sharing and resale). If you consider sharing to be going over to a friend's house, entering your password, then waiting 3.5 hours for a download to finish to be in some way innovative or interesting, then you are clearly not the target market for this device. Gamers want instant gratification, not waiting around for downloads and jumping through hoops. The last point I want to make is this: the author, Jason Chen, is a fool if he thinks that replacing one black box in front of a TV for another is in any way comparable to upgrading from a horse and buggy to a car. The DRM-laden, no-money-left-behind nature of Xbox One in the context of tech in 2013 (a jungle of price fixing, nickeling/diming, credit card storing, and "convenient" subscription modeling) is precisely the status quo that consumers are finally revolting against.
- lotso 13y ago
  >It's incredible how the Xbox team thought, "Look at that money over there. Let's take it!" What's next, Wal-Mart charging Ralph Lauren every time a customer comes in wearing a Polo shirt (because why should other clothing companies get free advertising in their store)? Could you explain this analogy because it makes zero sense to me. >The other issue? For the author to be completely honest, every "benefit" mentioned in the article should have "for a fee" added to the end of it. It's not very fun or innovative to get nickeled and dimed every step of the way. The fact that the public received 3 different messages about digital sharing costs (the three being no cost, a small fee, and the full price of the game) didn't help matters, either. Could you link to the three different sharing cost messages? >Compare that with Xbox One, where games are likely to be in the 10-20GB range and $60.00 (formerly with fees for sharing and resale). If you consider sharing to be going over to a friend's house, entering your password, then waiting 3.5 hours for a download to finish to be in some way innovative or interesting, then you are clearly not the target market for this device. Gamers want instant gratification, not waiting around for downloads and jumping through hoops. I would imagine they would allow you to play parts of the game without needing to install the whole game, similar to Steam. >The DRM-laden, no-money-left-behind nature of Xbox One in the context of tech in 2013 (a jungle of price fixing, nickeling/diming, credit card storing, and "convenient" subscription modeling) is precisely the status quo that consumers are finally revolting against. How is it different than Steam, other than speculating that Microsoft would never aggressively discount games as much as Steam does now (even though it took them several years for their store to be well-liked by gamers)?
brudgers 13y ago
The gaming industry as a whole has gone backward. The idea that a game would ship which allowed users to set up their own networks and play their buds seems alien. Instead, many franchises shut down their subscription service after a couple of years - e.g. to force the upgrade from FIFA 12 to FIFA 14. I remember Quake - the free demo, and fragging my coworkers over the Novell after hours to the point that my wife would call the office...this was before cell phones...just to make sure I wasn't really out drinking and perhaps chasing skirts.
- anonymous 13y ago
  Quake wasn't made by a marketing team. Also, here on the PC side, things still seem fine as ever, maybe even better when you consider the fact that we have fully drm-free options these days.
nhebb 13y ago
> You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up all the time to swap discs Holy crap, that's lazy. Who wrote this, Eric Cartman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjjVtvxRMs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjjVtvxRMs
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- skeletonjelly 13y ago
  You could say the same thing about having your entire music library at your fingertips digitally and having to get up to swap a CD.
  - nhebb 13y ago
    You can play music while doing other things. With video games, it is the thing that you are doing. If getting out of a chair to swap a disc is a big issue for someone, that's really not a healthy sign.
    - skeletonjelly 13y ago
      Good point. Still, it's (and I loath to use this phrase) the future. Movies then. Makes more sense on a HTPC than having to swap out discs.
- marshray 13y ago
  If you have small kids in the house, it also saves you from the inevitability of these expensive discs getting scratched.
  - nhebb 13y ago
    That actually is a great reason for going all digital. The other reason (I don't think it was mentioned in the article) is that over the years (PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360) disc drive failures have been one of the biggest hardware problems I've faced with consoles.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
> I’ll most likely only buy 2 or 3 used games in the entire 7 year console life, and my internet very rarely goes out. Well, that makes one of us. I'm relieved that Microsoft backed down on this, despite the cost in new features. Personally, I'm less interested in buying used games as I am passing them along to friends or selling them, but I would be pissed if they unilaterally removed this option for me.
rurounijones 13y ago
> "Most people aren’t Richard Branson and most people have enough of a connection, however intermittent, to authenticate once a day." Military Personnel nonwithstanding... > "Who knows, maybe Microsoft will change the policy again and have people opt in to the online check so that they can share their libraries with their friends. Maybe they will have another tier where people opt in to these benefits. I hope so." And that was the crux of the matter. WE WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE, I am all in favour of letting people choose which is more important to them but MS initially shafted a load of people with their "This is how it is going to be" without any options spiel. [EDIT] I suppose I should put as a disclaimer that I have never owned any of the x-boxes nor plan to. I am merely commenting from the point of view of a consumer in general.
- mynameisvlad 13y ago
  > WE WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE As consumers, we are rarely given a choice.
  - lelandbatey 13y ago
    Well, we're always given a choice in the end: buy it or don't buy it. It's what I've done in the past, and it's what I'll do now. I'll just not buy it. Because if you complain, but buy it anyway, you're really saying that it's still worth while to you.
    - mynameisvlad 13y ago
      Sure, but then you were also given a choice with the Xbox One all along. It sounded like you were saying that people should get a choice between the old system and new. But that's silly, and never happens in the real world anyway.
      - chc 13y ago
        That is really not the case. Even on the Xbox 360 today, you can either buy a disc or download a game from the marketplace. Physical and digital distribution models have coexisted since the '90s.
kuahyeow 13y ago
Good news, but remember there is nothing stopping a 'patch update' to turn it back on at a later time when the heat dissipates.
drawkbox 13y ago
On the flipside, their no self-publish policy and required publisher agreements (which need to be able to publish 4 titles a year on the device) is pushing a horse (old market) over going to a car (new market). They would have been better off just applying discounts to titles that can't be resold or shared (who wouldn't buy the same game for 20% off that way?). Change people with the market and benefits, don't try to change them with bad PR decisions. Apple's customers always liked the virtual keyboard due to the benefits of more screen. A big fail on the always on 'feature' was for many soliders overseas, they wouldn't be able to play in many cases: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JayJohnson/20130611/194155/The_Xbox_One_from_a_service_members_perspective_Conversations_Ive_had_and_heard_on_my_last_deployment.php http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JayJohnson/20130611/194155/The_Xb...
- chaostheory 13y ago
  > They would have been better off just applying discounts to titles that can't be resold or shared (who wouldn't buy the same game for 20% off that way?). Yes. I feel that MS's Xbox division has forgotten, when they chose to focus on the publishers instead of the consumer and developer, that price is what makes DRM stores like Audible ($15 or less for audiobooks that normally cost $25-$50) or iOS (most games are 0.99 or FREE compared to 19.99-29.99 for mobile games on other platforms) successful. Price is also what keeps people coming back to Steam. > On the flipside, their no self-publish policy and required publisher agreements This is something else I don't understand. It's easy to see that self-publishing is what made Apple, Google, and Valve app stores so successful. MS even has a Win 8 app store. I don't understand how they couldn't see that this should apply to Xbox as well when both Sony and Nintendo already realize this. Why cater to large video game publishers when their days are numbered due to the app stores?
billwilliams 13y ago
Every time i see a post from medium.com on hacker news it always has some dramatic headline. But then the content tends to be poorly thought out, and more contrarian than insightful. Dear hacker news gods, please don't feed into tabloid techno-journalism.
wpietri 13y ago
One of the things that I learned from studying Lean Manufacturing was to see a company's primary goal as generating customer value. Extracting enough cash to be sustainable is important, but value comes first. In this case, I look at the 24-hour thing, and MS's apparent horror of somebody playing for a few days on a friend's license. And I say: that is value being created. Somebody had fun. That's the whole fucking point of the enterprise. They should be happy. Now they do want to capture reasonable amounts of revenue, so I get why they don't want to sell exactly one copy of a game that gets shared around an entire city. But if some rule creates only a modest increase in revenue while destroying a lot of value (or creating a lot of customer headache), then it strikes me as dumb. And when they do something that may get them no extra revenue at all, or might even drive away paying customers, then it's shockingly dumb. It's being willing to make a pie smaller, as long as you get a bigger fraction of what's left. There's a financial saying that I think applies: bulls make money and bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.
frozenport 13y ago
> For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard. For example, if Apple had gone with their initial plans we wouldn't have Apps.
sgift 13y ago
Not really - Microsoft did this to themselves, the Internet is not responsible. Microsoft could have done something else here: Think. Yes, all these people could have used their brains to add all these "new" (or rather: old) mechanisms without killing of the scenarios defined as forward looking by Microsoft. They could have been forward looking AND caring for the status quo. But in typical sore looser fashion it is far easier to go back to only the old way and whine around "And our new ideas are out now! You did not want them! And now you do not get them! You evil people!" But at least it is better than the first iteration.
spiritplumber 13y ago
" For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard." Wow, then it would be usable!
moskie 13y ago
I think the reality is they will slowly reintroduce the features they've now taken away. Or perhaps none of those features have been taken away, and they're just adding new ones that allow for play w/o an internet connection. In any case, I think when the dust settles, most everyone will be content with the options given. This was just a PR disaster, not a poorly engineered game console.
rco8786 13y ago
> You could buy a digital copy and sell it or gift it to a friend (a previously unheard-of policy in digital games) Steam??
- pezh0re 13y ago
  That was my first thought... But remember, this is in the console arena where everything seems to lag behind PCs.
Karunamon 13y ago
Uh, the internet did no such thing. The internet revolted because Microsoft is incapable of making a "sharing" system for the 1 that isn't ridiculously anti-customer garbage.
bobsy 13y ago
The main issue is how badly Microsoft marketed the XBOX One. They completely failed to get their message across. As a result they were getting shit on by Sony. Facebook and reddit have seen a huge number of anti-XBOX posts.. I don't know what pre-orders were looking like but I would imagine they aren't great because of all the bad publicity. I wonder how things would have looked if Microsoft had a decent marketing team. "We are going to revolutionize how you enjoy games. When you buy a game you can share it with up to 10 friends. When you sign in to any console anywhere your games library will be available. Here's a first. You can transfer digital games to another person!" They could then talk about the caveats. "To make these features possible and promote the development of awesome games we have introduced a developer revenue sharing plan for used games. This means you can only trade in games with registered partners. We have already signed up Gamestop, blah, blah and blah. We are adding more every day. On average an American will only be x miles from a vendor." "The XBOX One allows you to play games online and offline. Just like any other console. However, to make use of game sharing and portable games library both XBOX's will need to be connected to the Internet so they can regularly check in." "We believe the XBOX One will allow you to experience more games. We are the first vendor to let you share digital games. You will never need to walk around with your disc's again. The games will be right with you. This is the XBOX One" OK.. I added in offline play. I think it is ridiculous that they didn't allow this. I would have got behind this. The problem is that Microsoft hadn't worked out what they were doing before their launch event. Everyone was confused. Then there was the death trickle of hit and miss information from MS and XBOX support. Meanwhile deafening rumors drowned out everything else. The Internet didn't make Microsoft kill anything. They did all this themselves with some of the worst information delivery and brand management I have ever seen. "The Internet" made it clear offline gaming and the ability to freely trade and share games were important to them. I am happy that a lot of people sent a strong message in an attempt to defend this right. It is a shame that Microsoft couldn't get across that what they were providing was in fact not at odds with this.
- joshuaheard 13y ago
  I'm sure Microsoft did all the good things you said they should have done. However, on most tech sites there is a huge anti-Microsoft bias. So instead of the tech sites talking up all the good things Microsoft is doing, all they focus on is the negative things. Then, surprise, everyone is up in arms about all the bad things Microsoft is doing.
jimparkins 13y ago
Not the real issue. If Microsoft would have come out and said piracy and the 2nd hand market costs us 11 bajillion dollars in lost revenue. Which is why you the consumer have to pay 59.99 for a game. Then if the xbox one close to the same price as the ps4 with games being significantly cheaper. MS would win.. even with an unpopular strategy because people would think with there pockets. But I wager anything they actually wanted their cake and eat it. There must be some upside. And however you spin it with their initial offering there was none.
jviddy 13y ago
The article makes an interesting point. If Microsoft had said that this is a completely digital system where you can download the games, or if preferred pick-up on physical media would the response have been any different. Or are there too many people who fear change
IanCal 13y ago
"Most people aren’t Richard Branson and most people have enough of a connection, however intermittent, to authenticate once a day." Oh for... It's not about having an internet connection, it's about only being able to play the games as long as Microsoft has the servers turned on and working. Maintenance can stop you playing, which is annoying. More importantly, they're probably not going to keep them on for 20-30 years, so everything you buy has a limited lifespan.
Tuxlar 13y ago
They didn't kill a car for a better horse. They killed a bus for a better car.
dewiz 13y ago
disagree on this: • You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up all the time to swap discs just allow the user to do it if the user agrees to have the 24h online check.
dodyg 13y ago
Blame EA for this. The Sim City debacle soured a lot of people on the requirement for Internet connectivity for games that they have purchased. Also that fast Internet speed is still widely available to many people in India, China, Indonesia and Vietnam. That's a big chunk of game console market.
dools 13y ago
For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard. If. Fucking. Only.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
vacri 13y ago
This is a terrible article, and most of the features the author is bemoaning the loss of are perfectly possible to have while allowing resale. The internet didn't 'make' MS do this, this is a panicked decision made by people without a clear vision.
sp332 13y ago
I have no idea how MS backpedaled so fast. Suddenly no region restrictions? Can't sell downloaded games? All the licensing deals with publishers & GameStop reneged? How the heck did they pivot to a completely different business model in just a few days?
- iddqd 13y ago
  I'd guess that it's from the, allegedly, very low amount of preorders compared to the PS4. Seems like the people complaining actually backed it up with voting with their wallets, which is pretty rare in the gaming community.
scott_w 13y ago
This article has about one good paragraph (the first one), then descends into mindless internet-hating drivel. The internet didn't make Microsoft do anything - Microsoft, for better or worse, capitulated to popular demand. Maybe Microsoft's problem was a marketing problem. It's not the fault of the general public that a multi-billion dollar organisation can't communicate its vision. As the article states, Apple managed to push its vision of the iPhone and iPad through in spite of the vocal opposition.
just2n 13y ago
What a terrible article. First, the analogy is completely wrong. Second, Microsoft is realizing people are getting seriously tired of the bullshit "always on" concept. It's hard to justify and is widely rejected as a valid technical limitation on platforms where you expect to always have an internet connection (and is only accepted when the gameplay itself REQUIRES a connection, unlike the late SimCity). It's completely unacceptable in a device that historically has been played without an internet connection, and in the best case, that scenario becomes like the PC, in that it's only acceptable when the user wants to play some form of internet-based multiplayer. There is no valid technical justification for "it has to either be all physical CDs or you have to have to connect to our servers every 24 hours". With a properly secured console, it should be fairly trivial to support shared digital games without requiring a ping. I, surely less intelligent than the entirety of the xbox team, came up with this in about 10 seconds: Person A informs server of intent to share game G with person B. Server sends a message to person A: "game G disabled for period X hours". This message is signed for authenticity, with public key crypto, verifiable by a public key stored in secured memory on the console. Server sends a message to person B: "game G activated and enabled for period X hours". This message signed identically to #2. Person B starts game G, console verifies signed access card, if valid, downloads game. Once download/install is complete, console again verifies access card. If valid, runs it. Periodically, every 30 minutes, console checks running processes against associated access cards. If an access card becomes invalid, the process is terminated gracefully (save progress, notify user why). Person A tries to start game G. Console verifies signed access card, if valid. Access is restricted, so console informs user G is temporarily unavailable due to being shard with Person B. Surely this isn't that difficult to implement? And now you don't have to be online except to download the digital game. I seriously HATE it when companies try to impose nonsensical, unjustifiable, technically wrong "limitations" on me just because it suits them. Stop it.
- jbri 13y ago
  In general, making up security schemes off the top of your head doesn't go so well. Case in point: You forgot to ensure that Console A actually finds out that a particular game has been disabled.
aclevernickname 13y ago
Wow. the Pro-Microsoft astroturfers are are full force, spinning a win for privacy into a loss for gaming's future. Very slick angle to take, guys. now, fill up HN with your sockpuppets, like expected.
- antiterra 13y ago
  Please don't poison the well by arguing that anyone who might disagree with you on any particular point is an astroturfing sockpuppet. If you have evidence or a hunch about a specific trend of postings, that's one thing. Assuming universal bad faith is another entirely, and something HN is better off without. Unless we're talking about SEO hucksters[1]. [1](a joke. mostly.)
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    Very nice. accusing me of a logical fallacy, while playing the strawman fallacy. I notice you didn't say my previous statement was in any way incorrect. to reiterate, I am accusing Microsoft of creating sockpuppets (now and in the past) on HN. If you would like some evidence, look at the posting histories of some of the loudest voices during the larger Windows 8 threads on HN; you'll find some awfully short (and focused) comment histories.
    - antiterra 13y ago
      If it wasn't your intent to make a general accusation, you could have made a more specific one. Even so, rabid tribalism does not require a particular job title or direct corporate sponsorship. Whatever grassroots effort they may have had going on in the first place wasn't successful in turning the tide of public opinion. It would be rather strange of them to undermine their own subsequent reversal.
ctdonath 13y ago
Maybe sharing their libraries with their friends wasn’t something they were looking forward to. Maybe they liked having to bring all their physical discs along wherever they went. Maybe they didn’t care about having the ability to sell their digital games after they’re done playing. I don’t know. I really despise conversations that take this turn, to wit: "maybe the people I'm treating like idiots really are massochistic morons out to hurt themselves any way possible and don't want anything to improve." It shows no interest in the possibility that there is a very real valid concern they're having trouble expressing to someone who doesn't want to hear it.
- pharrington 13y ago
  Along with this, everyone praising the supposed benefits of digital lending forget that they had no actual idea of how it would work. There are no details. Microsoft never defined what "family" meant, and nobody has any idea of how the system would be implemented. People were praising a feature that literally didn't exist. [Phil] Spencer: We don't have a lending solution today. Kotaku: You might have one? Spencer: We don't have a path... I don't want to make a commitment to somebody without a plan of record on how that lands. I could over-promise, under-deliver on the features. I don't want to do that. I want to make sure. I understand how gifting is going to work. I understand how the secondary market is going to work.
aspensmonster 13y ago
Those weren't features. They were bugs.
DannoHung 13y ago
Bullshit. If Microsoft had any guts, they woulda done this but only for non-physical copies. Then the consumer would have a choice on whether they liked the direction things were going or not and there would have actually been some benefit from the status quo for the consumer. You know what the difference between the console based DRM schemes and Steam is? A worse situation was already emerging on PC. Publishers were starting to employ draconian DRM policies that eliminated any chance of resale or sharing, but also didn't work properly and made pirated games a significantly better choice than buying a game from a store. Steam gave you a better experience with the same limitations as the sell-side of the market was starting to demand and enforce. If you think Microsoft made a bad move, you are plainly ignoring the history of PC gaming and trying to imagine that the status quo was how it always existed. Oh, hey, you know what else MS could have done if they had guts? They could have made it an option to add a disc game to your permanent library, allowing a consumer to voluntarily give up their right of resale for permanent digital access. Of course they're cowards, smart cowards, but cowards.
Millennium 13y ago
How naive can this guy possibly be?
JOnAgain 13y ago
Shitty article. They weren't trying to build a car, they were trying to get the horse to pull a car. They were still selling physical media, just hamstringing it so it would be less useful than it is today. Want to build a "Steam for XBox", go right ahead. Want to make buying from "Steam for XBox" the only way to get games, go right ahead. But that's not what they did. They Said, buy games like today, oh, and here are a bunch of extra value-reducing "features" that go with it.
bmoresbest55 13y ago
I believe some or all of these features that were removed will be included eventually. People have a hard time changing so quickly. Processes can become confusing and people may have a hard time transitioning to all digital at first. PSN and Xbox Live allow for downloaded versions of almost all games now. A persistent push away from physical discs to digital games is something that can clearly still be implemented. So I do not believe they have abandoned their new features but instead put them on hold and saved them for a later date. Eventually, we will all be on digital media and it will be for the better.
theltrj 13y ago
Why does this have to be framed as people being ignorant? Could it be they don't want to have to give up the limited rights they still have left? Microsoft wasn't forced to do anything here. They overestimated the value of their product, plain and simple.
russelluresti 13y ago
The problem was that the "car" they launched with wasn't going to work. It's like they pushed a car with no doors or seat belts. I like the MS vision for a future of pure digital content that's associated with an account so that you can log in from anywhere and get access to it. The problem with their vision and the Xbox One is that they didn't fully commit. They made a half-step that didn't take us all the way to their vision but still put some, frankly, poorly thought out requirements on the user. A half-step is fine if you have the ability to iterate quickly and get the rest of the way there in a week or a month. But consoles do not iterate quickly. It would be YEARS before they could take us the rest of the way to their digital wonderland. That's just too long when you're stuck with some awkward intermediate step. Their vision is still a good one, and it's still one they can build. They just need to be sure that when they launch the next Xbox (after the One), that they take the full step and commit to their vision completely.
6d0debc071 13y ago
Comparing marginal utility gains for small numbers of people with the difference between mechanised transport and horses is just such ... well, the horses used to leave it behind them: ------------------------ • If you purchased a physical disc game, your game was tied to your account and you could go to any other Xbox One and be able to have access to your entire library without carrying physical discs around Who cares? The device would sit in front of the TV. • You could re-sell your physical disc game to Gamestop or any participating outlet that opted into Microsoft’s revenue sharing system Second hand console games. A never before heard of thing. • You could buy a used physical disc game from a participating retailer and play it like a new game Yeah, a never heard of before thing... • You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up all the time to swap discs Oh, the hardship! • You could buy a digital copy and sell it or gift it to a friend (a previously unheard-of policy in digital games) This is just an outright lie. You can do that on Steam today. • You could potentially share your entire library with 10 friends/family members, with the only limitation being that you couldn’t play the same game at once So, just like with the disks. ------------------------
downrightmike 13y ago
Yeah, try to download a dvd over a standard broadband and you and your friend will be playing maybe tomorrow.
lucb1e 13y ago
"If Apple had listened to customer feedback, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard. " If the iPhone got a physical keyboard, I'd totally swap my Android phone for it. I absolutely love Android, but my Nokia E75's physical keyboard just beats any touchscreen by a long way. Also I really miss physical buttons for music control beyond volume. I say this after owning a Galaxy Note 2 for half a year and absolutely loving it. It's just the touchscreen that every modern phone has that is so sucky.

228 points by thisisdallas 13y ago

Oh come on now, those "features" are terrible and were just a bit of ketchup on a shit sandwich. Speaking as someone who moved house and had to wait a month for a phone company and ISP to get their internet up and running. If I'd had a XBone I would have just be sitting there with an expensive brick for a month.

tpetrina 13y ago

As I've already said a couple of times, the dependency on the cloud is troublesome for lots of reasons. I don’t want to “wait for authentication” every time I go play offline single player games, I just want to play the game! Why should I care if it authenticated. And Microsoft could have made the whole program opt-in. Then some would have their digital future, and I wouldn't. In that case everyone wins. DRM always presents a problem for a paying user. When you pirate games, you have 0 problems and excellent, if not better, experience than regular, paying users.

gcb0 13y ago

Microsoft remembered it sells (mostly) console, not (mostly) games. pleasing the pirates sells wonders. If you only lived your teenager years in the US or Japan, then you will not understand. But Sony et al sold millions of consoles to other countries where the market probably bought 1 game per 10 consoles sold (numbers vaguely remembered from a playstation1 analysis i read a long time ago)

jerf 13y ago
"market probably bought 1 game per 10 consoles sold" You seem to have reciprocated your fraction there: http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/Global/ http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-Ratio/G... Globally, the PS1 sold about 9 games per console. I don't necessarily fully trust that site or that number, but it's probably at least within a factor of two, which still leaves it a great distance from your number.
- gcb0 13y ago
  Never said global numbers. I meant specifically the emerging countries.
  - jerf 13y ago
    My apologies.
teamonkey 13y ago
Microsoft and Sony get a cut of every game sold for their platforms, while the consoles themselves are sold for a loss, at least at launch. That's how it has worked for the last two generations and I think it's the same this time around. The exception is Nintendo, who sold the Wii (and presumably the Wii-U) for a small profit.
nemothekid 13y ago
I'm pretty sure for MS and Sony, they were selling software. Sony was selling every PS3 for a loss 6 years into its product life cycle.
- gcb0 13y ago
  Sony and microsoft consoles at a loss not to profit from game sales, that's just silly. They did sold consoles at a loss to be the number one console and then make money on the next one after they cornered the market and can extract real profits. Microsoft always did that with windows/office file format lock-in. Sony always did that with media formats lock-in. They would love to sell you at a loss for the chance to corner a market of betamax, minidisc, laserdisc, memorystick, blue-ray... oh wait, see the relation to PS3 there?
forrestthewoods 13y ago
Historically speaking MS and Sony hardware is sold for a loss which is covered by the cut they get per game sold. I'm not sure how big of a loss, if any, the PS4 and XB1 are being sold for. It could be close to even.
- gcb0 13y ago
  That's true for US and Japan. Maybe Europe nowadays.
workbench 13y ago
Worked out great for the PSP… oh hang on

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

UberMouse 13y ago

I don't really see how the features they removed are incompatible with not requiring online checkins every 24h and certainly not with the used game policy. I don't see why they couldn't have made the online checkins optional, but required to do any of the game sharing, and if you don't check in within 24h it just disables games that aren't yours and doesn't let other people play yours. Sure, that could be gotten around but people are going to figure out how to pirate anyway.

kytmizuno 13y ago
I think the problem happens when Person A buys a game disc and lends a digital copy to Person B. Person A then disconnects from the Internet and plays using the game disc and Person B plays with the 24H online check in. Now you have two people playing the same game at the same time with only one copy of the game bought.
- scld 13y ago
  How does that not happen with their old system? You buy a disc, install it, remove the disc (doesn't need to go back in) and then give it to someone else?
  - lotso 13y ago
    You need the disc in the tray to play games installed to the hard drive (that weren't digital downloads).
- mercurial 13y ago
  > Now you have two people playing the same game at the same time with only one copy of the game bought. And?
- tmp3123 13y ago
  how about this: before A can lend a digital copy to B, A must turn on his internet connection and tell MS's server that he is now lending to B. B can now download A's game to play. A cannot play his physical copy until B returns the copy back to the server (some state must be kept in A's console to remember this). if B's connection goes down for more than some period (could less or more than 24hr, configurable by A), his copy is automatically relinquished. does this solve the "only single active copy" issue?

clavalle 13y ago

Don't worry. Valve will come out with a nice car (SteamBox) and will craft their message more carefully to make sure all of the horse lovers don't get spooked before they fall in love with the ride.

jff 13y ago
The success of the Valvemobile will be in no way affected by the hood ornament, I suppose. To un-knot the twisted metaphor, I'm saying Valve already got past the wailing 10 years ago. Their Steam model already enjoys widespread success and approval, while Microsoft is, well, Microsoft.
kevingadd 13y ago
Valve doesn't have to do anything about messaging because Steam already works like the XBox One was going to.
- infrec 13y ago
  Not entirely. For one Steam has offline mode which is certainly better than what MS was proposing.
  - DrStalker 13y ago
    To be fair, Steam became popular back when offline mode was really buggy and problematical; it's a lot better today, but back then is was not uncommon for it to just forget what it was doing until you could reconnect.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- thejosh 13y ago
  Apart from the massive sales, offline mode without calling home every 24 hours, the ability to download all your games then go offline without connecting. But they don't let you swap/sell games to other accounts, however there are massive sales multiple times a year where games are actually is cheap (even in terms of Australian pricing, which is crazy) enough for you to buy.

Maxious 13y ago

Gizmodo coincidently published a similar "the internet dun goofed" post http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905 http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-o...

thornkin 13y ago
What's the old saying? You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time?
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  I think the saying here is, "here's money, now write a pro-Microsoft piece."

proland 13y ago

This really just looks like sour grapes from Microsoft to me. There's no reason they couldn't have both... Buy a physical disk? Trade use it like you always have, but you don't get to make use of all the fancy cloud features. Buy your game online? You'll need to phone home every once in a while (24 hours was a bit harsh, maybe more like 1 week), and you can't trade it like physical media, but you get the fancy new lending features. Decide you like the new way better? Convert your physical copies into 'cloud' copies and throw out the disks. Problem solved.

forrestthewoods 13y ago
It would be an extremely safe bet to say that will be the case within a year of two of launch. They're scrambling too much to change what they've got for the difference to be possible in 6 months, but the differentiation will definitely happen.
ewzimm 13y ago
Sounds like politics. I'm sure we're not hearing the whole discussion. There's nothing stopping a Steam-like DRM option to link a game key to your account or a Steam-like offline mode once you've authenticated once. These schemes are not some fabulous new invention. They have been implemented in the real world for the last decade. If you like them, I suggest buying a Steam box. Analyses like these seem to forget how much the software of consoles has changed over the last few years. This next generation likely to evolve much faster. The hardware is already obsolete, and it hasn't been released yet. The software is what matters, and it will change. Both Microsoft and Sony have clearly stated that they intend to grow their server farms and make them integral to the experience. So whether you're connecting to Smartglass 2.0 or iPSN, the experience in seven years will not be the same as the experience today. I found physical media authentication unnecessarily cumbersome in the 90's. It's pretty funny that it's still necessary in some cases, but that's DRM. Too bad that just offering incentives for connecting to official servers isn't the standard means of encouraging legitimate sales. People are lining up for content they could easily get for free on services like Netflix, Spotify, and Steam because they provide superior experiences. I've never downloaded a legally questionable game copy, but I'm still not interested in these backward console DRM schemes, whether through fragile optical discs or constant surveillance. I can do better elsewhere. But I'm looking forward to what they come up with next.

chaostheory 13y ago

The problem is that Microsoft put a saddle on the car by offering physical discs. I really didn't see the point of it if it was always online, given that MS has their music and movie stores. Moreover it didn't really give consumers the main benefit of always on DRM: lower prices for games. This is why consumers don't care about the DRM on iOS or even Android. Another major problem is that for all the features offered for Xbox One that apologists like to keep repeating (family sharing, trade-ins, lending, selling), there was a really big caveat: publishers have to approve that feature for their respective games. Even if they did approve it, I can imagine all the restrictions they would have imposed (trade-in approved stores, minimum time & publisher set prices for trade-ins, and so on)

mxxx 13y ago
physical discs are useful for people with always-on-but-still-painfully-slow internet, and it also was a way for MS to compromise and not piss off all the physical disc retailers, who happen to be the same people who will retail the console itself.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  You can't have your cake and eat it too.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Yeah, but they could have sold their console with online retail only, a la Amazon. That would have been really innovative.
  - lotso 13y ago
    >That would have been really innovative. And a great way to lose out on billions of sales.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Ask Amazon how it turned out for them with the Kindle. Sold only online. No retailers. They crushed all the other physical ebook-readers re-sellers.

gfodor 13y ago

Looking forward to the iTV or SteamBox. I live in 2013 in the U.S., and I am willing to buy a device that requires I have Internet access in my living room, and leverages that fact to let me buy and share games in an innovative way. I guess I'm a rare bird!

codesuela 13y ago

They could have had the best of both worlds: 1) keep the legacy physical media system 2) enable the new system for digital purchases would have been a huge win and truly groundbreaking

nhangen 13y ago

I think the OP here is giving MS more credit than they are due. I don't believe they were trying to build a car, and I don't believe they had a messaging problem. I think they were trying to pull a bait and switch. Pitch a car and sell a faster horse. They got caught, and the Internet won. You can easily get to that conclusion by gauging the HD storage shipping with each unit. Add to that the average speed of Internet in the US, and you have a poor situation for over the net gaming. We're just not there yet.

skeletonjelly 13y ago
> Add to that the average speed of Internet in the US, and you have a poor situation for over the net gaming. Now maybe. The article mentions that it's a device designed for the next 7 or 8 years.
- nhangen 13y ago
  I don't think this generation of consoles will survive without a refresh in the next 7 or 8 years. Tech is moving too fast.
  - Fargren 13y ago
    It hasn't for the last seven years? Other than the arrival of SSDs, the consoles were running on a half-decade old tech and still doing fine. If anything, tech seems to be moving slower lately, with less increase of processor powers and less notable increases in graphics capability.
    - nhangen 13y ago
      The last 7 were far different IMO. Coming out of the bubble, and very little progress in software, not much needed to change. But now, I think the fact that software, not hardware, is changing rapidly, a 7-8 year cycle isn't going to work. Sure, they can bolt-on new firmware updates and operating systems, but I think the way we use consoles will change quite a bit in the next 3-4 years alone.
13y ago

B0Z 13y ago

This is frustrating and it's a false choice. "The Internet" is otherwise known as the people who were most likely to purchase an XBox 1 before hearing about the draconian DRM policies. If the XBox 360 were a horrible product, MS would have heard very very little from "The Internet". Who they heard from was a fan base who very much still enjoy their XBox 360s and were truly looking forward to an improved product with some sick innovations that only companies like Microsoft can deliver. They heard from this collection of people because in addition to the excellent innovations, they tacked on completely unreasonable restrictions that make the product all but completely useless if you CHOSE not to connect it to the network or have the spying eye watching your every move, and then twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to either make these sound like a feature instead of handcuffs or failing to explain that you could turn off the advanced features of the Kinect. In response to hearing from "The Internet", instead of actually listening to what was being said and making some reasonable changes to the restrictions, they stopped dead in their tracks, turned 180 degrees, then killed many of the innovations that could have been modified while still providing consumers with an actual choice. I'm sooooo tired of being told I'm too stupid to understand something. By my government, and by big companies who once commanded my respect.

jongraehl 13y ago

Some internet pundits don't understand the value of a game machine that works without ever connecting to the internet. MS wants to sell precisely one license but support both never-connected machines and cloud lending, but this was too hard for them to figure out and they're dropping the cloud part. The cloud lending facility required expiring leases (think DHCP) to guard against the possibility of a purchaser intentionally stranding their license at a friend's house (or on a dead xbox, or one that loses internet connectivity), where that friend would play happily for weeks without connecting to the network. If you believe in the effectiveness of copy-proof-disc DRM, then a single token permitting ongoing play can certainly just reside on the disc. How about this: 1. disc alone doesn't suffice to play a game on an unconnected xbox (so never-connected users are out of luck) 2. net connected xbox alone can acquire the right-to-play token as long as the previous holder of the token is online. (physical disc from store would need insertion only on first use to create the initial on-net token). 3. an unconnected xbox that was the last one to use the net token may continue to play indefinitely without net access, provided the disc can be validated. this does allow simultaneous play of at most one online and one disc, but only as long as the xbox stays intentionally unconnected (this limits the number of extra licenses to at most 1, unlike a more lenient cloud-lending policy that allows continued play without check-ins). I believe the renew-lease-every-24hr model already allowed simultaneous play in case of the last token holder being offline (if the game didn't require a connection to play, that is). If absolutely prohibiting simultaneous play from a single purchase is a must (and I don't see why it should be; an average concurrency of strictly less than 2 sounds fine), then you just need to require explicit lease releases (and the disc becomes irrelevant again), which has an obvious customer service overhead when people can't release for whatever reason. Alternatively they could implement a physical 'disc destroyer' that can move a game (one-way) to the cloud phone-home mode. Or just require an xbox to phone home before permitting a new disc (giving up on never-connected xboxes), in which case no physical destruction is necessary.

TechNewb 13y ago
Agreed. Also, in the ever increasing world of globalization, I don't believe in region locking. Currently I own a Korean Xbox 360, as I bought it in Seoul while living there years ago. Since moving back to the US I have not bothered buying any new games mainly b/c I don't want to deal with having to worry about region locking. It will be interesting to see how ownership and digital files interact in the future. Do I even own any of my digital files?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

It's because people don't trust Microsoft, and they don't necessarily subscribe to this guy's generous assessment of Microsoft's intent.

juniorplenty 13y ago

Honest question: who gives a fuck?

coderguy123 13y ago

Someone told me that is a mis-quote, Henry ford never said that. But it is a perfect mis-quote.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Try hard as they might, it's impossible to make those "features" sound good. This one is especially amazing: "You could re-sell your physical disc game to Gamestop or any participating outlet that opted into Microsoft’s revenue sharing system." Gee, thanks, Microsoft! It's not like those outlets will pass the cost right onto the consumer or anything (oh wait, they will). It's incredible how the Xbox team thought, "Look at that money over there. Let's take it!" What's next, Wal-Mart charging Ralph Lauren every time a customer comes in wearing a Polo shirt (because why should other clothing companies get free advertising in their store)? The other issue? For the author to be completely honest, every "benefit" mentioned in the article should have "for a fee" added to the end of it. It's not very fun or innovative to get nickeled and dimed every step of the way. The fact that the public received 3 different messages about digital sharing costs (the three being no cost, a small fee, and the full price of the game) didn't help matters, either. Another issue I had with the digital system is with the games themselves. Most critics of physical media on Xbox One mention the iOS model, but fail to note how Xbox One is different from it. If I download an app on my iPad, it instantly shows up on my iPhone and my iPad mini, ready for use. I don't have to pay any extra usage fees for multiple devices. The apps themselves are in the $0-$10 range. Most importantly, most apps run in the 5-50MB range, so downloads are quick and my apps are ready to go in minutes. Compare that with Xbox One, where games are likely to be in the 10-20GB range and $60.00 (formerly with fees for sharing and resale). If you consider sharing to be going over to a friend's house, entering your password, then waiting 3.5 hours for a download to finish to be in some way innovative or interesting, then you are clearly not the target market for this device. Gamers want instant gratification, not waiting around for downloads and jumping through hoops. The last point I want to make is this: the author, Jason Chen, is a fool if he thinks that replacing one black box in front of a TV for another is in any way comparable to upgrading from a horse and buggy to a car. The DRM-laden, no-money-left-behind nature of Xbox One in the context of tech in 2013 (a jungle of price fixing, nickeling/diming, credit card storing, and "convenient" subscription modeling) is precisely the status quo that consumers are finally revolting against.

lotso 13y ago
>It's incredible how the Xbox team thought, "Look at that money over there. Let's take it!" What's next, Wal-Mart charging Ralph Lauren every time a customer comes in wearing a Polo shirt (because why should other clothing companies get free advertising in their store)? Could you explain this analogy because it makes zero sense to me. >The other issue? For the author to be completely honest, every "benefit" mentioned in the article should have "for a fee" added to the end of it. It's not very fun or innovative to get nickeled and dimed every step of the way. The fact that the public received 3 different messages about digital sharing costs (the three being no cost, a small fee, and the full price of the game) didn't help matters, either. Could you link to the three different sharing cost messages? >Compare that with Xbox One, where games are likely to be in the 10-20GB range and $60.00 (formerly with fees for sharing and resale). If you consider sharing to be going over to a friend's house, entering your password, then waiting 3.5 hours for a download to finish to be in some way innovative or interesting, then you are clearly not the target market for this device. Gamers want instant gratification, not waiting around for downloads and jumping through hoops. I would imagine they would allow you to play parts of the game without needing to install the whole game, similar to Steam. >The DRM-laden, no-money-left-behind nature of Xbox One in the context of tech in 2013 (a jungle of price fixing, nickeling/diming, credit card storing, and "convenient" subscription modeling) is precisely the status quo that consumers are finally revolting against. How is it different than Steam, other than speculating that Microsoft would never aggressively discount games as much as Steam does now (even though it took them several years for their store to be well-liked by gamers)?

brudgers 13y ago

The gaming industry as a whole has gone backward. The idea that a game would ship which allowed users to set up their own networks and play their buds seems alien. Instead, many franchises shut down their subscription service after a couple of years - e.g. to force the upgrade from FIFA 12 to FIFA 14. I remember Quake - the free demo, and fragging my coworkers over the Novell after hours to the point that my wife would call the office...this was before cell phones...just to make sure I wasn't really out drinking and perhaps chasing skirts.

anonymous 13y ago
Quake wasn't made by a marketing team. Also, here on the PC side, things still seem fine as ever, maybe even better when you consider the fact that we have fully drm-free options these days.

nhebb 13y ago

> You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up all the time to swap discs Holy crap, that's lazy. Who wrote this, Eric Cartman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjjVtvxRMs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjjVtvxRMs

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
skeletonjelly 13y ago
You could say the same thing about having your entire music library at your fingertips digitally and having to get up to swap a CD.
- nhebb 13y ago
  You can play music while doing other things. With video games, it is the thing that you are doing. If getting out of a chair to swap a disc is a big issue for someone, that's really not a healthy sign.
  - skeletonjelly 13y ago
    Good point. Still, it's (and I loath to use this phrase) the future. Movies then. Makes more sense on a HTPC than having to swap out discs.
marshray 13y ago
If you have small kids in the house, it also saves you from the inevitability of these expensive discs getting scratched.
- nhebb 13y ago
  That actually is a great reason for going all digital. The other reason (I don't think it was mentioned in the article) is that over the years (PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360) disc drive failures have been one of the biggest hardware problems I've faced with consoles.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

> I’ll most likely only buy 2 or 3 used games in the entire 7 year console life, and my internet very rarely goes out. Well, that makes one of us. I'm relieved that Microsoft backed down on this, despite the cost in new features. Personally, I'm less interested in buying used games as I am passing them along to friends or selling them, but I would be pissed if they unilaterally removed this option for me.

rurounijones 13y ago

> "Most people aren’t Richard Branson and most people have enough of a connection, however intermittent, to authenticate once a day." Military Personnel nonwithstanding... > "Who knows, maybe Microsoft will change the policy again and have people opt in to the online check so that they can share their libraries with their friends. Maybe they will have another tier where people opt in to these benefits. I hope so." And that was the crux of the matter. WE WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE, I am all in favour of letting people choose which is more important to them but MS initially shafted a load of people with their "This is how it is going to be" without any options spiel. [EDIT] I suppose I should put as a disclaimer that I have never owned any of the x-boxes nor plan to. I am merely commenting from the point of view of a consumer in general.

mynameisvlad 13y ago
> WE WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE As consumers, we are rarely given a choice.
- lelandbatey 13y ago
  Well, we're always given a choice in the end: buy it or don't buy it. It's what I've done in the past, and it's what I'll do now. I'll just not buy it. Because if you complain, but buy it anyway, you're really saying that it's still worth while to you.
  - mynameisvlad 13y ago
    Sure, but then you were also given a choice with the Xbox One all along. It sounded like you were saying that people should get a choice between the old system and new. But that's silly, and never happens in the real world anyway.
    - chc 13y ago
      That is really not the case. Even on the Xbox 360 today, you can either buy a disc or download a game from the marketplace. Physical and digital distribution models have coexisted since the '90s.

kuahyeow 13y ago

Good news, but remember there is nothing stopping a 'patch update' to turn it back on at a later time when the heat dissipates.

drawkbox 13y ago

On the flipside, their no self-publish policy and required publisher agreements (which need to be able to publish 4 titles a year on the device) is pushing a horse (old market) over going to a car (new market). They would have been better off just applying discounts to titles that can't be resold or shared (who wouldn't buy the same game for 20% off that way?). Change people with the market and benefits, don't try to change them with bad PR decisions. Apple's customers always liked the virtual keyboard due to the benefits of more screen. A big fail on the always on 'feature' was for many soliders overseas, they wouldn't be able to play in many cases: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JayJohnson/20130611/194155/The_Xbox_One_from_a_service_members_perspective_Conversations_Ive_had_and_heard_on_my_last_deployment.php http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JayJohnson/20130611/194155/The_Xb...

chaostheory 13y ago
> They would have been better off just applying discounts to titles that can't be resold or shared (who wouldn't buy the same game for 20% off that way?). Yes. I feel that MS's Xbox division has forgotten, when they chose to focus on the publishers instead of the consumer and developer, that price is what makes DRM stores like Audible ($15 or less for audiobooks that normally cost $25-$50) or iOS (most games are 0.99 or FREE compared to 19.99-29.99 for mobile games on other platforms) successful. Price is also what keeps people coming back to Steam. > On the flipside, their no self-publish policy and required publisher agreements This is something else I don't understand. It's easy to see that self-publishing is what made Apple, Google, and Valve app stores so successful. MS even has a Win 8 app store. I don't understand how they couldn't see that this should apply to Xbox as well when both Sony and Nintendo already realize this. Why cater to large video game publishers when their days are numbered due to the app stores?

billwilliams 13y ago

Every time i see a post from medium.com on hacker news it always has some dramatic headline. But then the content tends to be poorly thought out, and more contrarian than insightful. Dear hacker news gods, please don't feed into tabloid techno-journalism.

wpietri 13y ago

One of the things that I learned from studying Lean Manufacturing was to see a company's primary goal as generating customer value. Extracting enough cash to be sustainable is important, but value comes first. In this case, I look at the 24-hour thing, and MS's apparent horror of somebody playing for a few days on a friend's license. And I say: that is value being created. Somebody had fun. That's the whole fucking point of the enterprise. They should be happy. Now they do want to capture reasonable amounts of revenue, so I get why they don't want to sell exactly one copy of a game that gets shared around an entire city. But if some rule creates only a modest increase in revenue while destroying a lot of value (or creating a lot of customer headache), then it strikes me as dumb. And when they do something that may get them no extra revenue at all, or might even drive away paying customers, then it's shockingly dumb. It's being willing to make a pie smaller, as long as you get a bigger fraction of what's left. There's a financial saying that I think applies: bulls make money and bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.

frozenport 13y ago

> For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard. For example, if Apple had gone with their initial plans we wouldn't have Apps.

sgift 13y ago

Not really - Microsoft did this to themselves, the Internet is not responsible. Microsoft could have done something else here: Think. Yes, all these people could have used their brains to add all these "new" (or rather: old) mechanisms without killing of the scenarios defined as forward looking by Microsoft. They could have been forward looking AND caring for the status quo. But in typical sore looser fashion it is far easier to go back to only the old way and whine around "And our new ideas are out now! You did not want them! And now you do not get them! You evil people!" But at least it is better than the first iteration.

spiritplumber 13y ago

" For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard." Wow, then it would be usable!

moskie 13y ago

I think the reality is they will slowly reintroduce the features they've now taken away. Or perhaps none of those features have been taken away, and they're just adding new ones that allow for play w/o an internet connection. In any case, I think when the dust settles, most everyone will be content with the options given. This was just a PR disaster, not a poorly engineered game console.

rco8786 13y ago

> You could buy a digital copy and sell it or gift it to a friend (a previously unheard-of policy in digital games) Steam??

pezh0re 13y ago
That was my first thought... But remember, this is in the console arena where everything seems to lag behind PCs.

Karunamon 13y ago

Uh, the internet did no such thing. The internet revolted because Microsoft is incapable of making a "sharing" system for the 1 that isn't ridiculously anti-customer garbage.

bobsy 13y ago

The main issue is how badly Microsoft marketed the XBOX One. They completely failed to get their message across. As a result they were getting shit on by Sony. Facebook and reddit have seen a huge number of anti-XBOX posts.. I don't know what pre-orders were looking like but I would imagine they aren't great because of all the bad publicity. I wonder how things would have looked if Microsoft had a decent marketing team. "We are going to revolutionize how you enjoy games. When you buy a game you can share it with up to 10 friends. When you sign in to any console anywhere your games library will be available. Here's a first. You can transfer digital games to another person!" They could then talk about the caveats. "To make these features possible and promote the development of awesome games we have introduced a developer revenue sharing plan for used games. This means you can only trade in games with registered partners. We have already signed up Gamestop, blah, blah and blah. We are adding more every day. On average an American will only be x miles from a vendor." "The XBOX One allows you to play games online and offline. Just like any other console. However, to make use of game sharing and portable games library both XBOX's will need to be connected to the Internet so they can regularly check in." "We believe the XBOX One will allow you to experience more games. We are the first vendor to let you share digital games. You will never need to walk around with your disc's again. The games will be right with you. This is the XBOX One" OK.. I added in offline play. I think it is ridiculous that they didn't allow this. I would have got behind this. The problem is that Microsoft hadn't worked out what they were doing before their launch event. Everyone was confused. Then there was the death trickle of hit and miss information from MS and XBOX support. Meanwhile deafening rumors drowned out everything else. The Internet didn't make Microsoft kill anything. They did all this themselves with some of the worst information delivery and brand management I have ever seen. "The Internet" made it clear offline gaming and the ability to freely trade and share games were important to them. I am happy that a lot of people sent a strong message in an attempt to defend this right. It is a shame that Microsoft couldn't get across that what they were providing was in fact not at odds with this.

joshuaheard 13y ago
I'm sure Microsoft did all the good things you said they should have done. However, on most tech sites there is a huge anti-Microsoft bias. So instead of the tech sites talking up all the good things Microsoft is doing, all they focus on is the negative things. Then, surprise, everyone is up in arms about all the bad things Microsoft is doing.

jimparkins 13y ago

Not the real issue. If Microsoft would have come out and said piracy and the 2nd hand market costs us 11 bajillion dollars in lost revenue. Which is why you the consumer have to pay 59.99 for a game. Then if the xbox one close to the same price as the ps4 with games being significantly cheaper. MS would win.. even with an unpopular strategy because people would think with there pockets. But I wager anything they actually wanted their cake and eat it. There must be some upside. And however you spin it with their initial offering there was none.

jviddy 13y ago

The article makes an interesting point. If Microsoft had said that this is a completely digital system where you can download the games, or if preferred pick-up on physical media would the response have been any different. Or are there too many people who fear change

IanCal 13y ago

"Most people aren’t Richard Branson and most people have enough of a connection, however intermittent, to authenticate once a day." Oh for... It's not about having an internet connection, it's about only being able to play the games as long as Microsoft has the servers turned on and working. Maintenance can stop you playing, which is annoying. More importantly, they're probably not going to keep them on for 20-30 years, so everything you buy has a limited lifespan.

Tuxlar 13y ago

They didn't kill a car for a better horse. They killed a bus for a better car.

dewiz 13y ago

disagree on this: • You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up all the time to swap discs just allow the user to do it if the user agrees to have the 24h online check.

dodyg 13y ago

Blame EA for this. The Sim City debacle soured a lot of people on the requirement for Internet connectivity for games that they have purchased. Also that fast Internet speed is still widely available to many people in India, China, Indonesia and Vietnam. That's a big chunk of game console market.

dools 13y ago

For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard. If. Fucking. Only.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vacri 13y ago

This is a terrible article, and most of the features the author is bemoaning the loss of are perfectly possible to have while allowing resale. The internet didn't 'make' MS do this, this is a panicked decision made by people without a clear vision.

sp332 13y ago

I have no idea how MS backpedaled so fast. Suddenly no region restrictions? Can't sell downloaded games? All the licensing deals with publishers & GameStop reneged? How the heck did they pivot to a completely different business model in just a few days?

iddqd 13y ago
I'd guess that it's from the, allegedly, very low amount of preorders compared to the PS4. Seems like the people complaining actually backed it up with voting with their wallets, which is pretty rare in the gaming community.

scott_w 13y ago

This article has about one good paragraph (the first one), then descends into mindless internet-hating drivel. The internet didn't make Microsoft do anything - Microsoft, for better or worse, capitulated to popular demand. Maybe Microsoft's problem was a marketing problem. It's not the fault of the general public that a multi-billion dollar organisation can't communicate its vision. As the article states, Apple managed to push its vision of the iPhone and iPad through in spite of the vocal opposition.

just2n 13y ago

What a terrible article. First, the analogy is completely wrong. Second, Microsoft is realizing people are getting seriously tired of the bullshit "always on" concept. It's hard to justify and is widely rejected as a valid technical limitation on platforms where you expect to always have an internet connection (and is only accepted when the gameplay itself REQUIRES a connection, unlike the late SimCity). It's completely unacceptable in a device that historically has been played without an internet connection, and in the best case, that scenario becomes like the PC, in that it's only acceptable when the user wants to play some form of internet-based multiplayer. There is no valid technical justification for "it has to either be all physical CDs or you have to have to connect to our servers every 24 hours". With a properly secured console, it should be fairly trivial to support shared digital games without requiring a ping. I, surely less intelligent than the entirety of the xbox team, came up with this in about 10 seconds: Person A informs server of intent to share game G with person B. Server sends a message to person A: "game G disabled for period X hours". This message is signed for authenticity, with public key crypto, verifiable by a public key stored in secured memory on the console. Server sends a message to person B: "game G activated and enabled for period X hours". This message signed identically to #2. Person B starts game G, console verifies signed access card, if valid, downloads game. Once download/install is complete, console again verifies access card. If valid, runs it. Periodically, every 30 minutes, console checks running processes against associated access cards. If an access card becomes invalid, the process is terminated gracefully (save progress, notify user why). Person A tries to start game G. Console verifies signed access card, if valid. Access is restricted, so console informs user G is temporarily unavailable due to being shard with Person B. Surely this isn't that difficult to implement? And now you don't have to be online except to download the digital game. I seriously HATE it when companies try to impose nonsensical, unjustifiable, technically wrong "limitations" on me just because it suits them. Stop it.

jbri 13y ago
In general, making up security schemes off the top of your head doesn't go so well. Case in point: You forgot to ensure that Console A actually finds out that a particular game has been disabled.

aclevernickname 13y ago

Wow. the Pro-Microsoft astroturfers are are full force, spinning a win for privacy into a loss for gaming's future. Very slick angle to take, guys. now, fill up HN with your sockpuppets, like expected.

antiterra 13y ago
Please don't poison the well by arguing that anyone who might disagree with you on any particular point is an astroturfing sockpuppet. If you have evidence or a hunch about a specific trend of postings, that's one thing. Assuming universal bad faith is another entirely, and something HN is better off without. Unless we're talking about SEO hucksters[1]. [1](a joke. mostly.)
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  Very nice. accusing me of a logical fallacy, while playing the strawman fallacy. I notice you didn't say my previous statement was in any way incorrect. to reiterate, I am accusing Microsoft of creating sockpuppets (now and in the past) on HN. If you would like some evidence, look at the posting histories of some of the loudest voices during the larger Windows 8 threads on HN; you'll find some awfully short (and focused) comment histories.
  - antiterra 13y ago
    If it wasn't your intent to make a general accusation, you could have made a more specific one. Even so, rabid tribalism does not require a particular job title or direct corporate sponsorship. Whatever grassroots effort they may have had going on in the first place wasn't successful in turning the tide of public opinion. It would be rather strange of them to undermine their own subsequent reversal.

ctdonath 13y ago

Maybe sharing their libraries with their friends wasn’t something they were looking forward to. Maybe they liked having to bring all their physical discs along wherever they went. Maybe they didn’t care about having the ability to sell their digital games after they’re done playing. I don’t know. I really despise conversations that take this turn, to wit: "maybe the people I'm treating like idiots really are massochistic morons out to hurt themselves any way possible and don't want anything to improve." It shows no interest in the possibility that there is a very real valid concern they're having trouble expressing to someone who doesn't want to hear it.

pharrington 13y ago
Along with this, everyone praising the supposed benefits of digital lending forget that they had no actual idea of how it would work. There are no details. Microsoft never defined what "family" meant, and nobody has any idea of how the system would be implemented. People were praising a feature that literally didn't exist. [Phil] Spencer: We don't have a lending solution today. Kotaku: You might have one? Spencer: We don't have a path... I don't want to make a commitment to somebody without a plan of record on how that lands. I could over-promise, under-deliver on the features. I don't want to do that. I want to make sure. I understand how gifting is going to work. I understand how the secondary market is going to work.

aspensmonster 13y ago

Those weren't features. They were bugs.

DannoHung 13y ago

Bullshit. If Microsoft had any guts, they woulda done this but only for non-physical copies. Then the consumer would have a choice on whether they liked the direction things were going or not and there would have actually been some benefit from the status quo for the consumer. You know what the difference between the console based DRM schemes and Steam is? A worse situation was already emerging on PC. Publishers were starting to employ draconian DRM policies that eliminated any chance of resale or sharing, but also didn't work properly and made pirated games a significantly better choice than buying a game from a store. Steam gave you a better experience with the same limitations as the sell-side of the market was starting to demand and enforce. If you think Microsoft made a bad move, you are plainly ignoring the history of PC gaming and trying to imagine that the status quo was how it always existed. Oh, hey, you know what else MS could have done if they had guts? They could have made it an option to add a disc game to your permanent library, allowing a consumer to voluntarily give up their right of resale for permanent digital access. Of course they're cowards, smart cowards, but cowards.

Millennium 13y ago

How naive can this guy possibly be?

JOnAgain 13y ago

Shitty article. They weren't trying to build a car, they were trying to get the horse to pull a car. They were still selling physical media, just hamstringing it so it would be less useful than it is today. Want to build a "Steam for XBox", go right ahead. Want to make buying from "Steam for XBox" the only way to get games, go right ahead. But that's not what they did. They Said, buy games like today, oh, and here are a bunch of extra value-reducing "features" that go with it.

bmoresbest55 13y ago

I believe some or all of these features that were removed will be included eventually. People have a hard time changing so quickly. Processes can become confusing and people may have a hard time transitioning to all digital at first. PSN and Xbox Live allow for downloaded versions of almost all games now. A persistent push away from physical discs to digital games is something that can clearly still be implemented. So I do not believe they have abandoned their new features but instead put them on hold and saved them for a later date. Eventually, we will all be on digital media and it will be for the better.

theltrj 13y ago

Why does this have to be framed as people being ignorant? Could it be they don't want to have to give up the limited rights they still have left? Microsoft wasn't forced to do anything here. They overestimated the value of their product, plain and simple.

russelluresti 13y ago

The problem was that the "car" they launched with wasn't going to work. It's like they pushed a car with no doors or seat belts. I like the MS vision for a future of pure digital content that's associated with an account so that you can log in from anywhere and get access to it. The problem with their vision and the Xbox One is that they didn't fully commit. They made a half-step that didn't take us all the way to their vision but still put some, frankly, poorly thought out requirements on the user. A half-step is fine if you have the ability to iterate quickly and get the rest of the way there in a week or a month. But consoles do not iterate quickly. It would be YEARS before they could take us the rest of the way to their digital wonderland. That's just too long when you're stuck with some awkward intermediate step. Their vision is still a good one, and it's still one they can build. They just need to be sure that when they launch the next Xbox (after the One), that they take the full step and commit to their vision completely.

6d0debc071 13y ago

Comparing marginal utility gains for small numbers of people with the difference between mechanised transport and horses is just such ... well, the horses used to leave it behind them: ------------------------ • If you purchased a physical disc game, your game was tied to your account and you could go to any other Xbox One and be able to have access to your entire library without carrying physical discs around Who cares? The device would sit in front of the TV. • You could re-sell your physical disc game to Gamestop or any participating outlet that opted into Microsoft’s revenue sharing system Second hand console games. A never before heard of thing. • You could buy a used physical disc game from a participating retailer and play it like a new game Yeah, a never heard of before thing... • You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up all the time to swap discs Oh, the hardship! • You could buy a digital copy and sell it or gift it to a friend (a previously unheard-of policy in digital games) This is just an outright lie. You can do that on Steam today. • You could potentially share your entire library with 10 friends/family members, with the only limitation being that you couldn’t play the same game at once So, just like with the disks. ------------------------

downrightmike 13y ago

Yeah, try to download a dvd over a standard broadband and you and your friend will be playing maybe tomorrow.

lucb1e 13y ago

"If Apple had listened to customer feedback, the iPhone would have had a physical keyboard. " If the iPhone got a physical keyboard, I'd totally swap my Android phone for it. I absolutely love Android, but my Nokia E75's physical keyboard just beats any touchscreen by a long way. Also I really miss physical buttons for music control beyond volume. I say this after owning a Galaxy Note 2 for half a year and absolutely loving it. It's just the touchscreen that every modern phone has that is so sucky.