Microsoft abandons Xbox One restrictions

Follow the leader

This is a great first step however the publisher thing with Indies and the expensive price are still there. If the price drops to the £300 ballpark and they revive the indie games scheme but actually have some better testing and quality control and showcase awesome indie games and put the rubbish ones at the back then yeah they are on for a win

I was talking with my peers at E3, and while it may be embarrassing for MS, really I felt that backtracking like this was the only viable option for them. They need to reverse the tidal wave of negativity. This is the first step. It had gotten out of control. When Jimmy Fallon brings it up on Late Night while he has Mark Cerny on the show, you know MS has a massive problem on its hands. And anecdotally, on my trip to the airport in LA, I ran into a young Australian guy who barely plays games except occasionally. I mentioned E3 to him, and the first words out of his mouth were, "Yeah I heard the new Xbox is crap." He didn't even know what the problem was fully, just that the new system isn't good. Again, that's a big problem. So, now that MS has taken the appropriate first step, there's lots of work to do in getting people excited, spreading a positive message again.

Wow, I can't believe they caved in. Common sense though really. Now once sales don't live up to expectations - all they have to do is drop the price. Given the amount of cash they have, thats a easy option.

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

There are 6 months. More than enough time to get into serious fighting form. Bing bing! Onwards to Round Two!

Woo my prediction was right! Let us thank the gods there is still sanity in microsoft.

If there was ever an important u-turn, its this one.

Yeah I bet they were feeling the scorn from gamers all over. If companies were to listen to what there consumers actually want It would bold well for them. I really hate these statements that say consoles are dead, the future is mobile or the digital space is the best place. There are different people with different needs. A company can do well to cater to as many needs as possible, rather then try to enforce things that people dont want. now if they only got rid of mandatory use of Kinect, I have privacy concerns. I also find that the need for an initial online setup is unecessary.

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

now all we need is self-publishing for indie's and it might become appealing...

Thats the thing.

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.

how long now until EA reverses their "benevolent" Online Pass statements?

You only get one chance to make a first impression. Microsoft blew it there, but honestly it and Sony have a good six to seven more years to hash out this whole next-gen winner thing.

@Michael--The XB1 is now region free. That was the other big news on top of it no longer requiring an internet connection and making used games work the same way they do now. This is a huge positive for Microsoft but James was right, this was only the first step. They now need to get those PR wheels in motion to start shifting all that negativity they had over the past 3 months.

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.

MS marketing was horrible about this, but you in the games press and industry can celebrate the step backwards that this entails.

"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.

I guess they also realized the folly of region-locking the console and basically selling ZERO to people who happen to travel between regions with them as well. I think they're going to un-cave once they see sales up and there's distance from this months-long series of debacles where the short attention spanners are ready to get bent once more...

@John: They didn't have a backup plan, that's why they threw the baby out with the bath water. If they had a Plan B worth talking about, they could have gone with that.

This is something I have been consistent with since last Monday that a U turn, technology permitting, would be likely before launch. It's come earlier than I thought and raises questions over how much consideration Microsoft put into the two strategies in the first place.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nick Parker on 19th June 2013 11:11pm

Ok, they have dropped the stuff that steered some of the audience toward Sony. Now they have a similar offering, but the audience have already been steered, so now they need to think of something they can offer that Sony arn't (games related, not just TV extras). And Kinect won't count, it may be amazing, but it's really failed to prove itself for core games on the 360.

@James Brightman:"backtracking like this was the only viable option for them"

...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.

You know, having read all the extra information about sharing I was opening up to the prospect of sharing games with my mate and my brother in different parts of the country without the need for disc swapping. I think MS were too scared to publicise this feature and risk the ire of publishers (why would they want 1 sale to be played by 10 people) but it's a shame it's already gone.

This is really positive for Microsoft, they need to make the changes now and establish new goals. Personally I feel removing kinect and replacing that with a decent headset would be a start, also porting XBLA titles along with Gold accounts. That would also give the opportunity to drop the price and introduce additional DRM measures over time giving consumers a choice.

way to win hearts and minds m$!!! you'll still need to drop the price by £100 before you see my money

Soooo.... wait. What happened to the whole "developers controlling used prices" thing? Did MS make THEM cave as well or was this some sort of ruse to get people to get irate at any developer looking for rent money on used software and not Microsoft? Or were there even and concrete plans about how THAT would work?

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")...

how long now until EA reverses their "benevolent" Online Pass statements?

maybe when they release a pig flying game

Isn't that what Madden ALWAYS was and IS (pigskin. flying through the aiiiiir...)?

... Look for a retraction from EA soon, then.. =^P

They did the right thing. They have admitted defeat, but have saved Xbox One, however, it's time to think about compensating their loyal fans. It's very clear many of them felt insulted after all this time they have supported Xbox brand. Microsoft needs to take very seriously all the damage they've done.

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.

I actually don't like this turn of events.
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.

You have my complete understanding.

+1 for this!

Getting there, but still not enough. Please continue, Microsoft.

Keep in mind that a lot of Xbox One games will still require an internet connection due to cloud processing, which the platform depends on for many games to make up for its (relatively) weak processor.

@Nicholas: Yeah, someone noted that to me a few minutes back elsewhere, but I was already thinking that.

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)...

@John Morales:

How can all of you be so narrow minded to have not seen that MS was building the digital infrastructure for the next decade?

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

Well, if they didn't change, some MORE rewriting of history would have been necessary. To wit:

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)

Now they just have to remove the mandatory kinect to lower the price.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Smith on 20th June 2013 12:42am

I guess the initial strategy wasn't worth it as it has already turned a lot of customers away from Xbox One.

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

This is the first truly positive thing about XBOX ONE since the announcement... quite logical, but still unexpected as I would say from everything I heard they were staying strongly behind what they said. Well, they still need to make self-publishing for indies happen and make kinect FULLY optional and they might just have their next gen future.

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!

You're running a little behind the times. It's already been done.
https://help.ea.com/article/online-pass-has-been-discontinued

Well, I'm glad at least there's some sense in Microsoft somewhere, if somewhat late in coming, but both the win8 and the xbox situation were caused by the same thing, microsoft forgetting its customers are the consumers and its products should cater to what they want to see, not what Microsoft thinks they won't mind in order to further some internal goals, nor for that matter are publishers its customers, who also have a tendency to forget the same thing about their customers, and will, if not already, pay for such hubris, should they to not be prepared to change tack, however the price hike, caused by forced bundling of kinect will still hurt sales of xbox one for the foreseeable future, with games prices going up, the amount people are willing to pay a for a console is tied to the number of games they will be playing on it.

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

Wasnt it just a few days ago that Microsoft were defending their new policies and now they give in, sounds pretty pathetic. They failed to measure the reception they would recieve or if they expected this they made a poor prediction on Sony's plans. Note theyv announced this after Sony came out and said were not doing any crazy shit they are so it was either abandon their plans or prepare to suffer massive losses when they wouldv failed to sell their consoles. Im sure this news will bring back many previous Xbox players who initially were going to get the PS4.

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.

@robert @tom @michael and others, perhaps I was too quick to call everybody narrow minded. It seemed to me that the industry press and members had totally drunk the Sony koolaid without giving MS the courtesy of some decent analysis. I was quite surprised at the lack of analysis from this site in particular. Of course, MS haven't done themselves any favors with their flat footed marketing efforts.

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.

Like somebody said further up the thread: this is good. However, I will not be supporting Xbox One with my wallet until Kinect is optional and the default setting is 'off'.

But, Daaaaaaan! How will you shave in the morning if you don't get that assuring "You look quite handsome today, Dave." (the Kinect 2.0 calls EVERYBODY "Dave", by the way) . Oh, and wait a minute... wait a minute... The AE-35 unit is going to malfunction and you need to go up on the roof and replace it, Dave...

I thought any major product like this was subject to focus testing whilst in development, so unless the groups that were tested bared no relation to the traditional Xbox audience (you would hope at least some core gamers would be included), how did MS not see these reactions on the horizon? This move indicates they were caught by surprise, even after the #dealwithit fiasco. If MS had fully seen the reaction, they would have planned for it, and would not be backtracking, if they decided to process.

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?

Haha Greg. I'm reminded of a scene from Black Books where the big corporate book chain has a biometric cash till that's just "Checking that you're still you."

@John: It might have been usable in 97% of US households, but why would these households want to use it? Why would you pay so much money to be treated like a prisoner on parole, when there are other options? And if there were no other options, that analogy would be even more accurate. It wasn't "no change" that you were hearing. What we were asking for was the beat of a different drum. One that was available in more than 21 countries, for example, and played a rhythm the majority of these households could dance to.

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.

I agree with Robert. I welcome the change, but I don't hear the words 'sorry' or 'mistake' anywhere. I do wish Microsoft understood these finicky human being things a little better.

Opportunity missed for another generation. We could have moved effectively to a purely digital distribution channel where publishers have complete control of their pricing policy. The billions of dollars from used games sales have been lost to developers. We could have moved to a Steam style pricing system with huge one off sales, bundles and mega discounts which would have benefited everyone. Now we'll have to keep those high console game prices to recover our dev costs. If you think very conservatively each game on average gets traded just once, we could have reduced our games prices by 50% and got the same revenue in.

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.

Honestly, I would prefer the features they were offering last week to the ones being offered today. It'd be cool if this whole thing came around full circle, and they also offered a $399 version of the console with full "Xbone" DRM left in place. I'd buy that. I'd buy the hell out of that.

@Gareth

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.

I really wished the uproar had been over the steady increase in invasive dashboard advertising with the paid Xbox Gold account - particularly of the non-game-or-media variety - instead of fighting the future. Seems like this is just setting MS up for the inevitable price drop with a disc-less Slim version in late 2016. Anyway - I would love to hear about a Xbox Platinum service with no ads and beta access (or something) in my alternate version of this story.

@John Morales:

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.

Wow! I'm impressed! I did not think they would be capable of such a U-turn, however, it's the right thing to do. I just didn't see how they were going to recover from this shitstorm.

There is still a laundry list of problems:

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 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.

Fully agree. Relatedly, it would be nice if publishers released full details of what happens (and can happen) to your digital accounts when you die. Considering digital accounts on Steam are running into the thousands of pounds, and XBL/PSN accounts aren't that far off that figure already.

" 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."

This, I don't care. I buy a console to play games, for a multy-purpose machine I already have a quite powerful PC

"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."

This. I like a lot, I admit it.

Will Chinese hacker watch me play games and give advice?

Oh yes indeed, Klaus. And it's cheap, too! it will ONLY cost you one bank account and personal ID per minute (optional charges and fees may apply)...

I'm guessing that region locking is a big deal to you? Are you not aware that Xbox 360 games can be imported from other regions and used on consoles? if the publishers haven't region locked the game?, I've got plenty of NTSC games that work fine on my PAL X360's. Check out http://www.play-asia.com/ for just one site with info.. :-)

For the consumer who doesn't like change this is great news.

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'll say again what I said further up the thread. The Steam model does not apply because steam does not exist as a monopoly; that is why its pricing and sales structure is so aggressive. If Xbox Live is the only store in town, do you really trust big publishing enough to knock down prices?

I don't.

I do wonder if there would there have been any problem with doing both. Basically, having a system setting the user could change (that required an internet connection and security questions) that enabled you to change whether you checked-in every 24 hours and shared games, or just used discs like you would normally (deactivating all your shared groups in the process). It would require more infrastructure, yes, but surely not impossible? As long as the switch was behind the MS servers, and required authenticating/deauthenticating accounts, I imagine it would be fine from a security point-of-view.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 20th June 2013 9:43am

We are still waiting for a honest "I'm sorry" from Mattrick...its not too much to ask?

Xbox Live is a closed system with no competition.

Surely there is internal competition (i.e. with other games).

If Xbox Live is the only store in town, do you really trust big publishing enough to knock down prices?

I do, if a hundred games are released a quarter and the publisher wants to sell the game it released last quarter.

Steam have a massive monopoly on PC digital downloads to the point where there may as well not be any competitors.

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*.

I can't help but think if they had just had the option of:

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.

I never thought the "10 family" sharing idea was workable in practice, sounded like a rushed policy created to appease those that were annoyed by the ending of simple lending

@Kyle
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?

PC situation Germany:

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.

btw Notch might know something about indies support and xbox one that we dont... maybe there will be another announcement soon:
https://twitter.com/notch/statuses/347616784309960704

@Dan, Steam is monopoly in all but name. They control north of 90% of all PC sales once self-published, client based MMO like WoW or Eve are excluded.

Aggressive sales prevent from customer outrage about missing re-sale opportunities. This is also the best way to maximise sales potential.

A long thought-out development and production plan - detailed market research and focus testing... and after a train wreck of a E3 - all that planning is reversed and scrapped!

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?

An investor in Microsoft would be concerned that if this new console is so well planned out,[...]

Seeing this, any investor still left after the Windows 8 "Start Button" debacle will probably look into the decision making process over at Microsoft and evaluate his options. Microsoft is antagonizing its customers on all levels of its business, not just the Xbox. Office 2013 installation anyone?

Office 2013 installation anyone

Can't say it was difficult

@Mariusz

Steam is monopoly in all but name.

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

@Dan Howdle

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

@David

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

the one guy I see who see's the wood through the tree's.

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'

the one guy I see who see's the wood through the tree's.

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'

the one guy I see who see's the wood through the tree's.

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'

fanboy much?

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!

On PC, Steam is the only gig in town. Any other digital distribution platform is minuscule in comparison. So I guess the amount of deals and discounts on Steam with so little competition suggests you'd get the same on Xbox.

:D lmao cracking stuff


we need more competition here in the UK with additional monopolies commissions :)

So I guess the amount of deals and discounts on Steam with so little competition suggests you'd get the same on Xbox.

Different companies, different funding, different philosophies. One (Valve) entirely private, and a pioneer in digital distribution. The other (Microsoft), a PLC that has to answer to shareholders, and has a confused vision regarding all its products. I think if you look at MS's past products - everything from Surface to G4WL - you would find the likelihood of their future self becoming "Steam-like" with sales and deals fairly remote. MS don't seem to think in the same way as Valve.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 20th June 2013 2:48pm

Nothing prevents XboxOne from collecting data storing it offline on the console and sending it again once you go online. Its an information collecting machine, and who knows what sort of data its collecting and sending in the backround. I mean everygame disc will have a registration number. The console is made to collect all sorts of data, from a personas voice, movements, people in the house, living room layout. It will know where you live, how many people are in the house what they do... and honestly alot can go on, in the backround without the consumer knowing.

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

@Gareth - it will be way harder for MSFT to follow e number logic when their discounts will have to compete and take into account trade-ins. They should implement license transfer option with obligatory cut during every sale going to publisher/developer. Ideally, license owner could set cut percentage too. It would free market and generate huge volume of transactions (and money) as opposed to barren idea of trade ins or that forced half-way solution they tried to smuggle before.

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.

Ho boy! Whist this is rumour:

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

This fiasco still raises a question about the core game industry that I've been asking for years. How is it possible when high level concepts and plans are clearly and obviously flawed, nobody involved in the process has enough common sense to point it out? So how is it possible nobody at Microsoft raised the warning flags or insisted before they publicly reveal the plan, they covertly test the waters to gauge how consumers and the media would respond?

My personal view is easy: Microsoft backpedals on their DRM and online scheme after a huge fallout they lost control over. Frankly that doesn't change anything for me. They have tried to hamfist their customers and impose a customer unfriendly scheme and take a away customer rights. A company who did it like this cannot be trusted. I won't buy it. Maybe years later down I'll get one once I saw it all and take it away for cheap. I just hope gamers don't forget too fast. They will probably try it again one day via the backdoor.

My personal view is easy: Microsoft backpedals on their DRM and online scheme after a huge fallout they lost control over. Frankly that doesn't change anything for me. They have tried to hamfist their customers and impose a customer unfriendly scheme and take a away customer rights. A company who did it like this cannot be trusted. I won't buy it. Maybe years later down I'll get one once I saw it all and take it away for cheap. I just hope gamers don't forget too fast. They will probably try it again one day via the backdoor.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel - MS has lost gamers' trust and support, many of them who would've previously been pro-Xbox. While this may limit the damage slightly, most of it has already been done.

What I saw from Sony and Microsoft where two different approaches to the same goal.

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.

@Anders

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.

@Nick
Yes, I should have expanded on my arguments a little, but you pretty much nailed it for me.

I'm surprised that there isn't more analysis of the negative impact of this decision. Unless I'm misunderstanding things, it means the loss of some really cool features that the system was going to support that would have made it a lot more like Steam. I wish that there was some sort of option that would allow people who DO have an always-on broadband connection and who do NOT care about trading/renting/selling their games to enjoy those benefits. If I want to have a game, I buy it, because I want the developers to get paid and I want to have it forever. I love that I can do that on Steam and then download/play my games on any PC. This feels like a move that is preventing consoles from keeping up with technology, all so that a vocal minority of people who don't have internet connections and/or simply want to be able to play games that they haven't purchased, can have what they want. From my perspective, it's a shame.

@Benjamin Hoyt: what negative impact?

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.

I have skimmed through the discussions and surprised by where they are heading. I don't even understand why we are having these discussions at all.

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.

Yeah I kinda understand that xD since it may be possible to hack the xbox one, since it is a variation of Win8, then film and upload people with kinect doing something they think they should share xD or Microsoft has made it hacking proof.

I think this article may need a slight re-title to "Microsoft postponing Xbox One restrictions" as I'll lay three cents on the line that some of those creep back in within a year or so... something just says it'll happen and I KNOW they're not going to give up on their plans for that "future-proof" thing they so dearly want to see fall into place...

Indeed greg. as mentioned elsewhere in the threads, this is just a trojan horse plan to get us to buy their set up boxes and then any day, they can flick a switch. no thanks.

@Greg Wilcox... Agreed

What we will now have with XBone is a more fancy 360 with fancier graphics and a build in DVR for 4x the price. Marvellous.

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.

I don't understand why everyone is getting so upset about this somehow effecting the move to digital. At this point the entire games sector (consumers, retailers, publishers and devs) would probably all fair better if this move was gradual rather than akin to ripping off a plaster (bandade to our US friends).

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.

@Kevin Clark-Patterson

"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).