"Xbox One" Reveal Event

[Ant]

Whats the difference between buying and renting then if you don't own the games? I know it's semantics at the end of the day as you have a physical disk and all that but people will just rent a game for say £5, install the game to the hard drive, remove the disc and thats it.

It makes buying games pointless really doesn't it?

[EWB's Best Poster.]

Upto 10 family members. Well.. we do say ewb is like a family. Cousins! Brothers! This could be fun. >_>

COUSIN!!!! LET'S PLAY GAMES!!!! AMERICAN TITTIES!!!!

[Bobfoc]

Whats the difference between buying and renting then if you don't own the games? I know it's semantics at the end of the day as you have a physical disk and all that but people will just rent a game for say £5, install the game to the hard drive, remove the disc and thats it.

It makes buying games pointless really doesn't it?

Well, with the online-every-hour rule in play for games you don't own yourself, which will presumably be the case with rental discs, it shouldn't be possible to keep on playing a game after you've returned it. It's not far removed from the hard drive installation policy on the Xbox 360, which allowed you to store entire games on your system, but only permitted you to play them if you had the disc in the drive. I'm not sure whether or not I've misinterpreted what you've said, but there's no chance that Microsoft will have overlooked the possibility of people simply borrowing games, installing them and giving them back.

[RPS]

PC gaming has been like that for years.

I think what is more perverse about it now than ever is that it's being used actively as a means to market a console towards consumers when it is in no way beneficial for them and, is to the contrary, in every way possible bad for consumers. Licensing and restrictions on video games has largely been about piracy; what we are now seeing is taking these exact same strategies to deal with pirated copies of video games and applying them to regular, every day consumers to significantly limit and alter their property rights in the things they purchase.

Take for example this "share with ten family members" feature that seems to have people optimistic. There is very little difference between this feature and what already exists on console gaming, except now I'm limited to sharing my content with ten pre-selected people. If I purchase one copy of Uncharted, I can theoretically share with anybody in the entire world. I purchase the copy, I can lend it to my friends, I can mail it across the world to my best friend who is teaching English in Korea, or I can give it away to my nephew. It's mine. I can do whatever I want with it. This new "share with ten family members" does nothing different than what a console does now, except for significantly limit what you can do with this.

The concept of what XBox (and what PS will likely follow suit with) is beyond absurd. Compare it to any other consumer good, because that is what it has been up until this point. If I buy a carton of orange juice, there is very little restriction on what I can and can do with it. I can drink it, share it with friends, I can take it half way across the country and drink it. People would balk if Nestle were to say to me "that orange juice you just purchased? You can only let one family member drink it, you have to phone us every 24 hours to let us know it is still there and if you don't call us, we have the right to tell you can't drink that orange juice anymore". Compare the control Microsoft is trying to exert to any other consumer good and you'll see what a scary reality it is.

Admittedly, this is a problem for many mediums. Television, movies, music, PC Gaming... they are all taking steps to fundamentally alter our rights in the things we buy (or, now, license). What is particularly perverse about the XBox is a) it's being marketed as some benefit for the consumer, when it is in no way shape or form. Every single change the XBox is implementing in regards to licensing of games in no way shape or form benefits you as a consumer. It's basically a big dildo they are using to fuck you. b) That Microsoft has openly stated that these plans are all subject to XBox's ability to change your license; XBox may decide in one year that they don't like the rights they've given you in their license and may alter them as they see fit. Now you may only be able to share with 2 people. Maybe you won't be able to. Given that they are introducing such measures in the first place, it is not entirely unrealisitic to speculate that Microsoft may limit these terms in the future. c) The price points need to shift. You are selling me a license for a game at the same price you were selling me property rights in a game. Before, I owned Super Mario Bros, I could do what I want with it and I paid 60$ for it. Now, I don't own Halo, I only have a license that is subject to the decisions of Microsoft and it's publishers and the price is still 60$. There has been movement on PC gaming in regards to price adjustments and quite radical sales. That needs to be present in console gaming for consumers because a license and a digital copy just isn't worth the same price.

To end a long post, what really needs to be done is for the law to shift. There needs to be some sort of regulation or oversight of what's going on in regards to licensing of digital property. It's absurd. What's happening in regards to television, movies, and music is a fundamental reshaping of how we own and use property that has implications that could lead to some very scary realities about property and our rights in it.

[Skummy]

Yeah, "share with family members" being promoted as an exciting new feature is absolutely absurd. I've managed to share games with family members pretty effectively for the past twenty-odd years by owning a physical copy of the game.

We're seeing the same thing happen to games that's already happening to music, books and movies - a move away from the purchaser owning the product, and towards "licensing" and being given a temporary right to use the product in the way that a production company sees fit.

If you only license a game, rather than buying it, there's nothing to stop Microsoft deciding in a year or two's time that actually, fuck you, your license no longer grants you the right to play this unless you pay for a patch or update, or the next version. You paid for Fifa '13? Sorry, your license expires on the release of Fifa '14.

Digital licensing is a fucking shitheap, and I hate it. Simple as that. At least if I owned a Kindle, I'd be paying a fraction of the full price to "license" a book, but to "license" a game I'll still have to pay full price, because the console market is fucked. It would be half-way understandable if the price was reduced, as RPS said, to justify it, but no, you're paying the same extortionate amounts for a game you don't even fucking own, and I'd love to find out Microsoft's excuses for poor sales once they've all but killed off their go-to scapegoats of "piracy" and "pre-owned games".

[TCO]

I'm curious too why everyone is excited about this sharing of games thing. As it's already been noted, you can do that now and a lot more freely, just take the disc out and give it to a friend.

I'm feeling more and more uneasy about this generation of consoles with every bit of new information. I'm sure it'll only get worse once Sony reveal all.

[TKz]

I'm curious too why everyone is excited about this sharing of games thing. As it's already been noted, you can do that now and a lot more freely, just take the disc out and give it to a friend.

I'm feeling more and more uneasy about this generation of consoles with every bit of new information. I'm sure it'll only get worse once Sony reveal all.

I imagine it's interesting people because EWB could put money together for a game that everyone could try. EG. I buy a game, I beat it, then Ellis gets to beat it and so on and so forth.

...Surely this is a lot more harmful to their sales than Used Games? >_>

[TCO]

I'm curious too why everyone is excited about this sharing of games thing. As it's already been noted, you can do that now and a lot more freely, just take the disc out and give it to a friend.

I'm feeling more and more uneasy about this generation of consoles with every bit of new information. I'm sure it'll only get worse once Sony reveal all.

I imagine it's interesting people because EWB could put money together for a game that everyone could try.

You could do that now if you really wanted to. Sure it'd involve posting out a game etc but it can still be done now. Don't think for a second too that the online codes that come with new games now won't still stand too. You could trade around the communal version of FIFA or whatever but only the first person could play online without paying a fee.

[RPS]

I'm curious too why everyone is excited about this sharing of games thing. As it's already been noted, you can do that now and a lot more freely, just take the disc out and give it to a friend.

I'm feeling more and more uneasy about this generation of consoles with every bit of new information. I'm sure it'll only get worse once Sony reveal all.

I imagine it's interesting people because EWB could put money together for a game that everyone could try. EG. I buy a game, I beat it, then Ellis gets to beat it and so on and so forth.

...Surely this is a lot more harmful to their sales than Used Games? >_>

"Microsoft may change its policies, terms, products and services as Xbox One develops. They may cease to offer certain products or services for similar reasons."

[METALMAN]

Yeah, as I said before to howls of derision, Microsoft has created a smokescreen and quite a few of you have fallen for it. You are not duty bound to buy this rubbish. You don't have to take what they give you. You have the upper hand. If people actually buy this, it sets a pretty dangerous precedent as to where the companies will go next.

Not that I really care. Like fuck would I share games with friends. Try can buy their own. Cheapskates,

[Crybaby Bunting]

Lets all remember the shitstorm that happened shortly after the PS3 disabled the ability to run linux off your PS3, even though it was advertised as a feature before the console was released. The difference between then and now is that back then you could simply refuse the update and enjoy your linux on your console... whereas if Microsoft decides to push through a change you can't just reject the agreement and continue playing, if you have to be connected to the internet every 24 hours you will need to accept any change in licensing/updates etc.

[thatshortguy]

Lets all remember the shitstorm that happened shortly after the PS3 disabled the ability to run linux off your PS3, even though it was advertised as a feature before the console was released. The difference between then and now is that back then you could simply refuse the update and enjoy your linux on your console... whereas if Microsoft decides to push through a change you can't just reject the agreement and continue playing, if you have to be connected to the internet every 24 hours you will need to accept any change in licensing/updates etc.

To be fair, you wouldn't be able to access the Playstation Network without updating. Can't remember if that was instituted soon after the Linux removal or at that time, but yeah. No PSN if you refuse to update.

[Crybaby Bunting]

But if you don't have access to the PSN you still have access to your games, if you refuse an Xbox update you'll have 24 hours to change your mind or you can't play anything again.

[RPS]

I think without question Sony is going to follow suit with Microsoft, but it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation". Say Sony doesn't follow through with the same changes, that are partly driven by the publishers. What than? My guess is that they won't get the same games that XBox One gets. I'm not talking about a complete, flat-out blacklist. But no question that publishers are going to see bigger dollar signs in XBox and make business decisions accordingly. Without question there is more than just Microsoft pushing these changes, and if Sony doesn't follow suit, they'll likely feel the repercussions. I think it remains to be seen how well received the changes will be. There is grumbling here and there about how anti-consumer the approach is, but will it have notable impacts on the sales.

And what really is the alternative, if you don't want to buy into the new system? From my understanding, Nintendo hasn't taken the same approach with the WiiU, but I haven't really heard anything about the system/haven't really cared so I don't really know. PC Gaming has the same approach with much lower price points for aging games. Handheld and mobile games come with the same strings attached, but you are talking about paying 2-3 dollars for most games. You can always resort to playing old consoles too. But ultimately, consumers who want to game are in a pretty shitty situation going forward. This is the exact kind of shitty situation that spawns the exact same reaction that created the whole mess - pirating and illegal means of obtaining games. I'd say most people on here are ready and willingly to pay to play a video game, whether they own or it's a license. The key is how forthcoming the companies are willingly to be, what's the price point and what the terms and conditions of the license? In the case of Microsoft, they haven't been forthcoming and it's worrying for a lot of people, especially when they've pretty much stated up and front that any license or services associated with their console can be changed for whatever reason they want.

[thatshortguy]

But if you don't have access to the PSN you still have access to your games

To an extent. A faulty hard drive would then render all digital downloads unattainable unless you upgraded the firmware, which would then remove your ability to use Linux. This was a driving force behind people creating and storing custom firmwares.

[King Ellis]

I'm curious too why everyone is excited about this sharing of games thing. As it's already been noted, you can do that now and a lot more freely, just take the disc out and give it to a friend.

I'm feeling more and more uneasy about this generation of consoles with every bit of new information. I'm sure it'll only get worse once Sony reveal all.

I imagine it's interesting people because EWB could put money together for a game that everyone could try. EG. I buy a game, I beat it, then Ellis gets to beat it and so on and so forth.

...Surely this is a lot more harmful to their sales than Used Games? >_>

You'd think so but you could make arguments for this setup. Up to 9 additional sources of revenue for things like DLC and Online Passes. Plus, it might work out similar to things like mobile games or free to play on PC like LoL and what have you, you got to play the game for free so maybe you don't mind throwing down some money on story expansions, skins, weapons etc etc.

Maybe some of those 9 people see it as something of an enhanced demo and think 'Hey, this turned out to be a great game, I don't want to be restricted by only playing it when my friend isn't. I'll go buy my own copy!' To a similar extent, up to 9 people to tell others of it's quality via word of mouth.

I guess they'd have a much better idea of how it'll possibly workout since they have existing numbers and research etc. MS has already branched out into this sort of thing with F2P games on 360, and to a lesser extent stuff on Windows 8. You could question if console players are quite conditioned to think that way like their mobile gaming brethren, but I'm sure the maps and bacon gun skins on Black Ops II sell tons.

But if you don't have access to the PSN you still have access to your games

Not neccessarily in my experience. I find a stunning amount of my games to be unplayable out the box without a patch. Skyrim, Fallout, Dead Island: Riptide and PES 2013 being the immediate examples I can think of.

Well, those first two are more down to 'lol, Bethesda can't make PS3 games' than Sony.

[ZJ Penn]

But if you don't have access to the PSN you still have access to your games

Not neccessarily in my experience. I find a stunning amount of my games to be unplayable out the box without a patch. Skyrim, Fallout, Dead Island: Riptide and PES 2013 being the immediate examples I can think of.

[Gabriel]

What bothers me the most about this, is that I have bandwidth caps. Lots of people do. Having a console constantly connected to the internet, constantly updating things, downloading and streaming shit is going to wreak havoc on those of us with bandwidth caps.

Also, what about people who can't afford the internet, or just don't have it available to them? Don't say mobile devices, because most of those people won't have those either, or at least, won't have a data plan that can handle that kind of use. Personally, I thought about dropping the internet and cable strictly because it's overpriced and we're pinching pennies as it is without having to pay for that too.

There's a whole lot going on here that is counter-productive, and if Sony follows suit on a lot of this, I just won't be buying a next-gen console until I can pay all of my bills without having to sit down and do the math for ten minutes first.

[Dan]

People still have bandwidth caps? Wow.

[Summers]

Also, what about people who can't afford the internet, or just don't have it available to them?

They won't buy the X1 and Microsoft won't care.