Microsoft abandons Xbox One restrictions
Company promises no online needed after initial system setup, used games and lending will work the same as they do on Xbox 360
Microsoft has been publicly pilloried for weeks over used games and online authentication restrictions it announced for Xbox One, and the blowback has convinced the company to change the controversial policies for the next-gen system. In a blog post explaining the changes today, president of Microsoft's interactive entertainment business Don Mattrick laid out the changes.
"We appreciate your passion, support and willingness to challenge the assumptions of digital licensing and connectivity," Mattrick said. "While we believe that the majority of people will play games online and access the cloud for both games and entertainment, we will give consumers the choice of both physical and digital content. We have listened and we have heard loud and clear from your feedback that you want the best of both worlds."
To that end, Microsoft is dropping the requirement that Xbox One systems check-in with Microsoft servers every 24 hours or be unable to play games. The system will still need to connect online for an initial setup, but after that, it can be used entirely offline. Additionally, rights to games will work the same as they do on the Xbox 360 today. Players will be able to lend games to friends, sell them, buy them used, or rent them without restrictions. "It will work just as it does today on Xbox 360," Mattrick said.
On top of that, the Xbox One will have no regional restrictions, allowing players to play games from any country on hardware from any other country.
However, with these changes, Microsoft is also eliminating some of the functionality it previously said would be possible with Xbox One. For example, downloaded titles will not be able to be shared with other players, and disc-based games will require the disc to be in the system's tray in order to run.
Argh... Still a no-go for those users with no access to bb at home. It's more than they think...
Now, if MS can provide a kill switch for the Kinect, to ensure the player has a CHOICE to activate it, this would be an overall better product to have
Lets hope the folks who decided this mea culpa are listening.
EDIT: I'm still 90% for the PS4 though. Region free, more powerful, less resources sucked by the OS, no Windows, no Kinect ... and its CHEAPER. Might come down to exclusives now though.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Michael Shamgar on 19th June 2013 10:22pm
I was very vocal in these forums, about how I was against many of the XboxOnes features. I still dont like or want kinect, I gotta hand it to microsoft. They have sweetened the deal. But its still not enough for me. They can always reverse their stance and I got issues with mandatory kinect and PRISM issues. Microsoft shares personal data with the US goverment..
Basically Microsoft lost my trust.
I dont think I can go back to supporting a company like that. Same for any company who pulls the shit they tried to do. Apple is hanging on a hair.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 20th June 2013 12:59pm
This U turn is quite significant, but there are still concerns
- Mandatory Kinect
- PRISM issues
- Why should we need to ever go online on day one or day 100?
- Trust (the deal is sweetened but its difficult to ever be fully trusting that MS doesnt pull some weird stunt like this in the future or abolish Xbox live or such)
People ultimately want the illusion of choice.
I think I can definitely make this a day one purchase if they lower that price alittle bit. I also wonder how Sony will feel about this announcement. They had an easy path to success in no small part to all of Microsoft's recent fumbles. Luckily for them they still have that $100 price advantage, atleast until Microsoft caves on that too.
"Microsoft is also eliminating some of the functionality it previously said would be possible with Xbox One. For example, downloaded titles will not be able to be shared with other players, and disc-based games will require the disc to be in the system's tray in order to run."
How can all of you be so narrow minded to have not seen that MS was building the digital infrastructure for the next decade? Hopefully they can put this in slowly over time.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nick Parker on 19th June 2013 11:11pm
...and that's why backtracking is not enough by itself.
Till now the games division had a noticeably different culture to the rest of Microsoft and the whole XBone affair stinks of traditional Microsoft attitudes and business practices taking over. What's needed now are clear signs that the management that lead to this failure cant try again later, that games is not becoming standard Microsoft with it's abusive relationship with customers, business partners and competitors.
They broke the perception that games is a different, friendlier Microsoft and it's going to take much more to undo that damage.
I smell a bag 'o rats here. Of course, here comes the now NEW round of questions Mattrick and co. will need to dodge (by pointing to the press release and smiling - "see, we DO listen to our consumers")...
... Look for a retraction from EA soon, then.. =^P
It's pretty good to hear gamers' rights are safe now. Xbox One should become 10x more appealing thanks to impressive exclusive content, premium services and finally also they have shown they're capable of swallowing their pride, their clients will be very happy to hear this indeed. The only big barrier we're facing now is price tag, but I'm pretty confident they'll do well.
Sony should be very worried in this moment, they need more games, attractive services, etc. the gap is closing.
They are taking away the features that make up the Xbox One and make it more like it's predecessor (Which actually isn't that bad in this case I guess).
Still, they show they have no confidence in their own plans. I think since they already announced and prepared everything like that for a console that's coming out this year they should have just gone with it.
Or perhaps even make another version of the xbox without the new capabilities and restrictions. More like an upgraded xbox360 for those who want that.
I might be a minority, but I actually lost interest in the Xbox One with this announcement. I thought it was pretty cool. And that as a European Playstation fanboy who never watches tv. I liked that they tried to push in new directions, even if perceived negatively.
People don't always know what they want.
+1 for this!
Why do I get the feeling that this new set of changes is going to change a few more times before launch or worse, some of this stuff will be pushed back in (I guess region free may go first, but hopefully not, as now Xbox owners can import just like Sony fans on the PS3 and PS4)...
I would suggest that they weren't. What they were doing was building a device that relied on a digital infrastructure that isn't there yet. When we all have 100% reliable internet always-online will be fine. But for now, to return to the car analogy we all hate so much, it'd be like forcing us all to drive electric cars without any charge points.
Maybe next console generation. You know, the one we'll be plugging directly into our brains. ^__^
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Sam Brown on 20th June 2013 12:22am
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea
( Where Xbox Ones lie, at a deep discount)
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Smith on 20th June 2013 12:42am
That said, there's something attractive about people admitting their mistake and deciding to change their course. People are often willing to forgive and forget a mistake if the apology appears sincere. In politics or in business, many are afraid to admit mistakes because they are worried that doing so will make them look weak, while it might actually be a sign of strength. In this case, it's a big company rather than a person, Microsoft just has too many faces, and nobody's using the word 'sorry'. However, this ordeal might actually give a boost in the long run if MS play their cards right.
I guess I'm the only one here who thinks a mandatory Kinect is a good idea, because it allows MS to invest more in implementing interesting features for all games (core and casual) in a subtle way. However, I agree that it should be possible to turn the Kinect completely off.
Also, I am not too impressed with the decision to make the game disc mandatory when buying a physical game, and perhaps a sharing list could be available for a small subscription fee rather than being removed completely.
Edited 4 times. Last edit by Petter Solberg on 20th June 2013 5:32pm
I will still stick with PS4 tho.. as I see it more suitable for the gaming experiences I seek... + a lot of indie titles coming to ps4 :) I might even give that ps+ nonsense a try.
I just wish that sony would make their digital pricing A LOT more reasonable, as it needs to be cheaper than physical, not more expensive!
https://help.ea.com/article/online-pass-has-been-discontinued
Given the middle classes haven't seen a pay rise in 20 years in some places but everything else continues to climb at a every increasing rate (uk for instance, pretty sure germany to, though for different reasons), console sales will be harder sell then they once were, if your comparing one console which plays games fine for a lower price vs one console that plays games fine but costs nearly 100 quid more because it has a fancy device for games allot of people don't even want (or have the room) to play, as for the other features paying the same for a mic and camera (for those who dont/cant play said games) really only matters to you if you plan on using things like skype, or doing lots of mp, which is hardly everyones no 1 priority,
Essentially it boils down to choice, forced bundling of the kinect with the console will hurt microsoft's sales, if it was offered standalone most gamers would eventually buy it as an add on anyhow so ms would still make plenty of profit form kinnect and tv services, and ms would get far higher sales of the console then it will with this bundling for the foreseeable future, as any price cuts on ms's part will never compete with sony's price cuts due to the same bundling, sure far fewer would buy kinnect from day 1, and it would be down to the games to differentiate the consoles, but this whole episode has left a bitter taste in the mouths of consumers, and keeping kinect bundling which in turn keeps microsoft console prices so far beyond the ps4, will not be any better received, theyre setting themselves up for woe, and you get only 1 console launch, and taking something players did because they wanted to with the original xbox and forcing it on everyone piecemeal is neither necessary or advisable.
Frankly these decisions have to be coming from somewhere, and whoevers been responsible is letting the whole company down, MS built up great momentum and good will from Xbox 360, which they've managed to mostly wizz away before the Xbox one has even been released, from its non-game orientated release statement, its bundling and the used drama, they really messed up the impressions consumers have of microsoft and xbox, just when Sony were working out where they get their money from, and deciding to get their act together to try to provide them with what they think they want, Microsoft instead tried to provide them with what Microsoft wants, and wondered where all the good will disappeared to in the process, it should have been obvious.
If MS didnt try to mess people over with used, and didnt bundle the kinnect with the console, got rid of the always online requirement from day 1 and made games the major focus of its release annoucement, which lets face it only gamers were watching anyhow, its not like the non-gamers who might like those things were even watching, then xbox one and ps4 would be neck and neck right now, however whilst this goes some way into helping the situation, the fact it took this long for MS to change their mind, and that they still have not made up for the lack of game focus, still require at least one day internet signup and still bundle the kinnect, coupled with all the badwill all of those things generated and generate, means xbox one is still going to suffer, microsoft needs put allot more effort then this into winning back loss ground, this is a start but its insufficient.
Also there should be someway for indies to self-publish, even if its just a small section of the xbox live store, it should be possible, there no good reason not to, preventing it will literally ensure microsoft makes less money then it could and provide no good reason for it, specially at a time with consoles like ouya and shield appearing to cater to indie games, not providing similar capabilities as a matter of course with a major console, will neither save publishers, help microsoft, or prevent customers buying indie games, worse for ms it will encourage gamers to own one major console and one "minor" one as one might dub ouya or shield, which just provides more options for consumers not to send money in microsofts direction, there simply is no benefit to the decision, sure self-publishing means allot of titles of questionable quality will arise, but customers buying such things will know what they're getting into, well certainly after a few buys at least, if they failed to do they're research :D, and it will prevent the real gems from appearing on xbox, microsoft should be reaching out to, not barring from entry, again its choice, Microsoft will be providing less choice to its customers, then purchasers of Sonys new console will be afforded, with 0 tangible benefits to come from this from MS's prospective, its just plainly a stupid move on MS's part.
Its perfectly fine to change thing in a console, if a publishers wants to try an online only title, which offloads workload into the cloud they providing the capability is great, but again it comes down to weather the consumer wants to buy the title, given these restrictions, forcing it on everyone regardless is not a positive change for the industry or customers.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Alexander McConnell on 20th June 2013 1:41am
Oh yeah Sony will have to recalculate their predicted sales cause I have a feeling it wont be as high as they thought a day ago.
It's good to finally see some contrary opinions amongst the posters here.
The daily phone home is fully usable for more than 97% of US households (see broadband penetration reports). A constant connection was not necessary for gaming, only required for games that needed it. The drumbeat of "no change!" Is not the way to move consoles forward and stay current with mobile competition. And, hint, hint, your mobile games won't fully function without your Internet connection, too.
Speaking of #dealwithit, does anyone think it was going to be full always online before that? That perhaps the 24 hour check in was itself a scaled down version of the plans?
Besides, don't think it was the media and/or a bunch of fanboys that swayed MS. They're not a schoolboy trying to impress the little red haired girl. While the vocal backlash was going on, MS didn't give one single sh*t. Not one. They know, like you know, like we all know, that people will hate you and still give you money. Especially when it comes to games and the internet.
If they've changed their minds, it's because the bottom line just dropped out from under them. They were confident in the first place because they figured they had numbers to back them up. Hence, the flat footed marketing you pointed out. These numbers must have changed, so now they're adjusting policy.
It wasn't public outcry that changed anything. They didn't get scolded and shame facedly changed their minds. They're a company. They just followed the profits.
It was MS's only option to backtrack when Sony decided not to pursue this and its been a terrible PR exercise for them. Will be interesting to see where we are in 5 years though, if publishers really start to discount downloaded versions of their full price titles we could see everyone moving to digital distribution anyway.
The Steam analogy doesn't work. Xbox Live is a closed system with no competition. Competition drives these megasales, and they only exist on Steam because other similar systems coexist in the PC ecosystem. Conscientious publishers will use it as an opportunity to drop prices, less conscientious publishers (naming no names) will use it to hold consumers to ransom over their favourite game/sports franchises.
Until 'big' publishing can be trusted to behave responsibly, this is better for everyone.
Up until a hundred years ago, music was a transient thing. Then vinyl and later tape were invented and people started to buy music and listen to it repeatedly. Even now music is downloadable you can still buy non-DRM physical versions of it, and the downloadable versions typically have no DRM.
Up until the 1970s, film and television was a transient thing. Then videotape and later DVD and Blu-Ray were invented and people started to buy them and watch them repeatedly. They still do this, even though we now have video-on-demand.
Videogames used to be permanent, but now they're downloadable they have become transient. This isn't just a problem with Xbone, the issue of what happens to games after the auth servers have been turned off has to be addressed soon. Until there's some method of my great-great-grandkids playing my old DRMed games alongside the old non-DRMed games, to be able to play Crazy Taxi on Dreamcast and Half-Life 2 on PC after Steam has gone, I can't consider DRM a good thing.
Microsoft "solved" their progressive DRM approach.
But now require some disc based copy protection they probably did not have before.
There is still a lot of hate for the Kinect gimmick in games.
Does the console really refuse to turn on if the Kinect is gone?
Will Chinese hacker watch me play games and give advice?
What is the TV and services strategy outside the U.S.? Who are the partners?
The console costs $100 more.
$80 price tags for games are making gaming PCs look cheap as a platform.
It remains to be seen what this stunt did to consumer trust and the brand itself.
The suicide feature is off the table, but the weight of problems is still crushing. Reality refuses to be dragged towards Utopia by Microsoft's original vision for the hardware.
This. I like a lot, I admit it.
But, I believe Microsoft were trying to bring the steam model to consoles with added flexibility, this U-turn sets a bad precedent and could prevent any meaningful innovation on console platforms for some time. It's a bad day for consoles and a bad day for the industry.
I don't.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 20th June 2013 9:43am
I'm actually really really annoyed that Microsoft have bottled it; the changes they were proposing would of changed the way we can play games with friends, family and how it integrates with your TV and other entertainment. Now it's just Xbox 360.5. *yawn*.
1- Online activation of the game, allowing the game to be installed from the disc and played without the game.
OR
2- If you do not wish to activate online, or be online whilst playing, then allow installation of the game but require the disc to still be in the machine.
Wouldn't this give everyone the best of both worlds? If you don't want to be online, you'll miss out on the new features (discless play, family share, and whatever else), but you'll still be able to play your games!
If you don't mind being connected to the net, then you can take advantage of all the new features!
As for trade-ins, there system would need to be tweaked.
1- Keep the system in place, and with retailers.
2- Don't have a silly limit on how often a game can be traded.
3- Allow users to "remove" games from their own catalogue.
4- Allow users to sell their games privately (eBay/ whatever).
5- Create a website which allows users to check if a game they're buying is currently linked to any account.
I'm sure there are things I don't know about the (now) old system, and there will be holes/ problems in this, but you'll never get a perfect system which everyone is happy with.
I really want discless play, after 10+ years of not needing the disc in my PC to play any more .. it would be awesome to have that on consoles too. But without the online check, it's not possible.
And the wording of the 24 hour connection was all wrong !
You didn't have to connect EVERY 24 hours. You had to connect once in the PAST 24 hours. This seemed to confuse practically everyone I saw commenting on it.
Steam does not have a monopoly. They are the biggest boys on PC, but not the only ones. They have competition. If they want to keep ahead, they have to offer incentive. In fact, they have to watch against their legal competitors as well as the black market (which, let's not beat around the bush, is an appropriate term for software piracy). In that environment, they can't afford to give you less than a good deal.
Once you've bought your XBOX ONE, the only way to play games on it is to follow Microsoft's rules. You can decide not to, and then you get to enjoy your £400 paperweight. That's a monopoly. Maybe they'll be nice and offer discounts and deals just like Steam. Or maybe they won't. Would you really invest so much for so little guarantee?
Shops with PC sections as large as console sections put together.
Publishers buying up rights of older games, then dumping them for 5-10€
Amazon
Amazon Imports from UK and India
Steam
Impulse
Origin
Plenty of other Onlineshops
Keyshops operating out of the Caribbean
Piracy
It is utter anarchy where you get your game from EVEN IF it ends up being a "Steam Game". Steam might be the dominant front end to organize all your games and licenses, but it is far from being a monopolistic point of sale. But it is nothing new that the PC is probably the one platform publishers underestimate the most and understand the least.
https://twitter.com/notch/statuses/347616784309960704
Aggressive sales prevent from customer outrage about missing re-sale opportunities. This is also the best way to maximise sales potential.
One has to wonder what else will be thrown onto the XBone cutting room floor in the next six months?
An investor in Microsoft would be concerned that if this new console is so well planned out, and the promises to create a "all you will need" entertainment system for the living room - how this miss-judgement of the customer base could be made, and what other "surprises" wait in the wings! The Price? The Online strategy? The management team?
Market leader and monopoly are two entirely different concepts. It doesn't matter if it's 90% market share or 99.9% market share. A competitor in the room, no matter how small, keeps them honest. There is no such thing as a monopoly in all but name; that's an oxymoron. Either it is, or it isn't.
It's why we have a monopolies commission here in the UK. Although, I concede, there is only one of them.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Dan Howdle on 20th June 2013 2:00pm
Remember the sales pitch about digital before the industry began to implement it? "Most of the savings earned from eliminating disks, packaging, printed manuals, distribution, etc... will be passed along to consumers." And what actually happened? Publishers, developers and or service providers pocketed the savings while also crying crocodile tears about the theoretical revenue lost as a result of used game market.
So no, I don't trust large corporations to drop prices or to do the right things in general.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by David Serrano on 20th June 2013 1:59pm
Yarp. Precisely. About as far as I could comfortably spit a house, personally. Just trying to imagine that at the 'megapublisher' investor call: "We could charge this, but let's do the right thing here."
Nah.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Dan Howdle on 20th June 2013 2:01pm
have just completed a piece on this laughing at the guys pointing their fingers at MS whilst in the background the publishers sit with pinkies to their lips muttering Dr Evil like 'muah ha haa'
have just completed a piece on this laughing at the guys pointing their fingers at MS whilst in the background the publishers sit with pinkies to their lips muttering Dr Evil like 'muah ha haa'
have just completed a piece on this laughing at the guys pointing their fingers at MS whilst in the background the publishers sit with pinkies to their lips muttering Dr Evil like 'muah ha haa'
as a 'journalist' you must know then that Sony's own policies ( even their ridiculous video sharing games was a load of tosh ) was pretty much the same? Get a grip people!
we need more competition here in the UK with additional monopolies commissions :)
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 20th June 2013 2:48pm
The machine is not just a gaming multimedia device, but is build with all the sensors needed to record and gather information on sound, living room layouts, peoples behaviors, movments, location.
And all this stuff surrounding PRISM and Microsoft handing personal data to the US goverment.... put it all together and privacy is a huge concern.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 20th June 2013 3:14pm
All in all, Kristian Segestrale is right - outdated business model of platform holders will lock the biggest players in place and allow digital companies to quietly take reins.
http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2
First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn't have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they're placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game.
So, the whole "family sharing" was possibly just an outright lie...
I always thought it sounded too good to be true - and it was!
Edited 1 times. Last edit by James Prendergast on 20th June 2013 4:02pm
Microsoft: Please the publishers with game restrictions for the consumers, high margin and low competition from the indie scene -> Publishers will chose to prioritise Xbox instead of Playstation due to better business environment -> Consumer will buy Xbox over Playstation due to the gaming advantage -> Xbox wins console wars!
Sony: Please the costumers with fewer game restrictions, cheaper price, and a big selection of indie games -> consumers will favour the Playstation over Xbox due to lesser restrictions and more powerful system for less money which they know will get good games -> Publishers will chose to develop for Playstation over Xbox due to more potential sales -> Playstation wins console wars!
Sony and Microsoft must please both publishers and consumers and both groups are very vocal in their own way.
I think you're right. But I think the flaws in this 'publishers first' strategy were legion:
- thinking that Sony would blink and follow suit.
- thinking that publishers would strong-arm Sony into following suit.
- thinking that the publishers would put their necks on the line and back the DRM horse.
The failure of all three of these assumptions have left Microsoft looking distinctly anti-consumer. The publishers might well favour DRM privately, but they clearly are not willing to take the heat publicly.
Yes, I should have expanded on my arguments a little, but you pretty much nailed it for me.
I'm being serious, what part of the Steam model they so obviously lust after cannot be done in parallel, on an opt-in basis? That's what they should have done anyway, then let the market decide if they want to trade freedom for convenience or price, sale by sale. That they chose to steamroller the scheme through instead tells me they knew the consumer benefit is far from compelling, not able to drive voluntary adoption. Frankly it raises questions about how much of the Steam models advantages they intended sharing with users at all.
I don't like Steam in principle but I'll put up with it where I feel I'm sharing the benefits - primarily massive cost reduction for me. But Steam is just an option, a choice made on each game. My PC carries on working if I don't use Steam or any of it's games and I expect no less from any other gaming device.
MS has just stomped on the back pedal. Yes. But, as a consumer, do I lose anything? No. I don't see how can those 'always online benefits' will be affected by this decision. Xbox One still has XBL service, right? It's not like they pulled off the internet connection all together. They can still put that always online restriction on the services that NEEDED and I'm cool with it. What they did is not backward move by any mean. They just gave consumers more CHOICES and I cannot see that as a bad thing.
Both Sony and Microsoft have had the opportunity this generation to encourage users to make the 'logical' and 'progressive' switch to digital delivery, BUT when the price on demand is greater than the price in the shops by a considerable margin we can't help but feel we are being ripped off. The solution? More competitive digital delivery pricing. The world and his dog constantly cite Steam as being a haven for digital content with flash sales etc (even with DRM and no pre owned) but no one complains as the [monetery & convienience] incentives are there over physical. As PC gamers know all too well, freedom is choice.
The XBone can still distribute digital copies of their games and physical copies at the same time. I don't see the 3DS having a problem with that and I don't see it damaging the sales of games like Animal Crossing AT ALL. It doesn't need intrusive DRM for this to be the case.
I don't see what's changed. The system was always going to have some physical media anyway.
"What we will now have with XBone is a more fancy 360 with fancier graphics and a build in DVR for 4x the price. Marvelous."
They could have made life much easier on themselves if they'd simply made this the goal from the start (minus the inflated retail price).