It's confusing to say the least. The way I understand it is that as long as the accounts are on the same console then any game can be played by any account, it's when you loan them to friends/family it becomes a problem. I apologise if I have that wrong.
OK this is how I understand it at the moment, currently at home my brother, dad and myself all have an account on the consoles, I want to play Forza 5 first for talking sake on launch day, am I right in saying that locks it off for the other two unless they pay a fee (as much as £35 :eek:) which then prevents me from switching and playing it on mine? If thats true then its ridiculous, draconian and completely out of touch with gamers habits, we don't have a console each and can't afford to buy our own games to go with a £400 console. :mad:
Games are tied to your account as well as the system. So long as you install the game on your system any other accounts on that system will be able to access the game without additional charge. It's only when you start taking the game to a different machine and wanting to play it on a different profile to what it was registered to when you will have problems.
Your family members will be able to play Forza 5 and earn achievements using your console, and they can play it on their machine using your profile, but you will not be able to play it both at the same time in much the same way it works now.
Secondly, regarding 'greedy' high street stores, I'm not sure you quite understand how economics of it works, we trade in a game and Game (for talking sake) give us a value which we then put towards a new purchase, that means that 'new' games are affordable for us helping the games industry as a whole as we don't 'buy' from the developer, its Game etc... that do so the more confidence they have at shifting copies then the more profit the publisher/developer makes, and pre-owned games are a major factor in this. By imposing as little as a 10% cut to the retailer, trade in prices are likely to be down as there's very little profit in it for them and stores that are solely reliant on this sort of thing such as Cex will find themselves in difficulty. Its a business model that has worked for generations of console gaming and to change it now smacks of Microsoft being 'greedy.'
I much prefer the PS3s online pass system, the game still works offline, single player is great and then you can choose if you wish to play online/gain DLC to reactivate the online functions through (a vastly smaller) fee of around a tenner and if it stays like this then roll on PS4
We can still trade in our games, MS will have system in place to allow that and digitally remove the game authentication from your account direct from the store. You WILL be able to trade in and buy preowned games, just the profits from such are switching hands (from what was 100% to the game store to now Game Store, MS and the publisher), it shoudln't affect the gamers. In effect it means better regulation of pre-owned pricing and more money being driven back into the industry instead of solely into the high street bigwig's bank account.
Wait and see what Sony have planned, they have been particularly vague on the subject of pre-owned games other than stating it will be "possible". I fail to see how one company could do this and not the other.
I love my 360 but I dont think this new one will be for me. I only use it to play games thats why I bought a games console, I have it under the stairs so its not in view and I can play when the wife watches her girly flicks with the daughter so kinect is no use to me at all. I have always had play stations but after getting the 360 i cant get on with the ps joy pad, they are just to small.
It would be hilarious if the Wii U and Xbox ONE went under leaving Sony with a world monopoly on console gaming Pffft!
Actually, that would make some very happy people right here on DS, however, that isn't likely and the XBOX ONE will be a bigger success than people think.
Microsoft could gift wrap dog crap and sell it to the masses!
Can you play your friend's games on your own console and vice versa? NO, Unless you pay a fee.
You can play your friend's games on your console if your friend logs in on your console, and you can play your games on your friend's console if you log in on theirs.
But... so what? It doesn't mean that all games will be stupid dancing games or something. It just means that the UI can be controlled with voice or gestures, and that the Kinect is there for developers to make use of if they want.
OK this is how I understand it at the moment, currently at home my brother, dad and myself all have an account on the consoles, I want to play Forza 5 first for talking sake on launch day, am I right in saying that locks it off for the other two unless they pay a fee (as much as £35 :eek:) which then prevents me from switching and playing it on mine? If thats true then its ridiculous, draconian and completely out of touch with gamers habits, we don't have a console each and can't afford to buy our own games to go with a £400 console. :mad:
Games are tied to your account as well as the system. So long as you install the game on your system any other accounts on that system will be able to access the game without additional charge. It's only when you start taking the game to a different machine and wanting to play it on a different profile to what it was registered to when you will have problems.
Your family members will be able to play Forza 5 and earn achievements using your console, and they can play it on their machine using your profile, but you will not be able to play it both at the same time in much the same way it works now.
MS is apparently introducing something sort of similar to the old Family account.
You will be able to have a single account that has multiple users, each with their own Friend list and Achievements etc.
Each person could then play e.g. Forza 5 without having to each pay a fee.
Xbox Live Gold memberships on Xbox One will be flexible and streamlined, according to Microsoft, allowing console owners to use their Gold account on both the Xbox One and Xbox 360 and letting multiple users share the same account.
"If you have an Xbox Gold membership today for 360 and you buy an Xbox One, your membership applies to both systems," Microsoft's Phil Harrison told Polygon. "You don't have to get another subscription."
Multiple members of a household will be able to share a single account, Harrison said, explaining, "Anybody who has usage privilege on that machine can use it."
Microsoft's Ben Kilgore said that multiple accounts will be able to ride on the same Xbox Live Gold membership, but that individual users will have access to their own friends lists and other personalizations.
"We want to make sure that you and your son both have your own account," Kilgore said, in describing the case of a father and son sharing an Xbox Live Gold membership. "We want you log in to get your stuff, and when he logs in to get his stuff. On that console, if you have Gold, he can use Gold as well."
Kilgore said that Microsoft is still working out the specifics of how players follow and befriend each other. One-way relationships may be part of Xbox Live's friends architecture, "something that's under development right now," and that Microsoft is working to determine "who your true two-way relationship friends are."
what happens when you rent a game from the video store?
You wont be able to. Presumably game rentals will no longer be an option since i can't see Blockbuster or Lovefilm wanting to pay £35 to Microsoft to unlock the game each time a customer sends them one back.
The £35 fee rumour has already been scotched, with later rumours saying it will be £10 or £15, or it will only be paid by the retailer, or that there will be no fee at all.
The Xbox One will not require gamers to pay a fee to reactivate a used game, but it will require a regular online spot check to verify the authenticity of games being played, according to sources familiar with the system.
While an internet connection will be required for the console, the company is also experimenting with special exemption codes that could be given to select people in very particular, internet-free situations, like active-duty soldiers serving in war zones, sources tell Polygon.
The ultimate system that Xbox One will use for used games and online authentication sounds like it is still in open debate on some level internally, which may explain the company's reticence in more directly clarifying the matter this week. Microsoft executives have been discussing the reaction to the confused messaging surrounding used games and internet requirements and plan to detail the console's take on both sometime before E3, according to our sources.
(snip)
MS has screwed this up massively. It should have had all of this sorted before the reveal, and should have actually bloody well explained it properly, instead of using Harrison etc. to give out confused messages.
MS has screwed this up massively. It should have had all of this sorted before the reveal, and should have actually bloody well explained it properly, instead of using Harrison etc. to give out confused messages.
Pretty much. All this dancing around issues MS has been doing doesn't really make me want to buy the new Xbox. I'm kind of leaning towards the PS4 now, and it's up to MS to convince me otherwise.
In all honesty the XB1 is a huge disappointment IMHO. Not making it backwards compatible is bad enough but the confusion over tv control makes it worse. I have an xbox360 with Sky subs wired up to a projector and with its DVD player makes it the all in one package I want .
Why do we have to pay MS a subscription to use the internet that we're already paying for on a console we've already paid for? And trying to wriggle free of the direct debit is a right palava I can't see why some people give in a let the money go each month.
The "Launch event" was another perfect example of people in ivory towers not considering "the little people". It does seem that no one at Microsoft considered for one minute that anyone would ask questions about game swapping/renting, Kinect privacy or 24 hour authentication.
Issues that sprang instantly to mind for ordinary people.
The fact they seemed to go into a panicked information lockdown after some initially contradictory replies, just goes to show how unprepared/out of touch with their consumers they are.
I expect they'll all still get their big bonuses next year, after all they probably think its all our fault for asking all those awkward questions instead of just asking "When can I have one?".
It's confusing to say the least. The way I understand it is that as long as the accounts are on the same console then any game can be played by any account, it's when you loan them to friends/family it becomes a problem. I apologise if I have that wrong.
It sounds (to me) as though the licensing is pretty much the same as with the 360. The licence is allocated to a particular console and any accounts that were created by that console.
Thinking about the internet connectivity requirement, this seems (again, to me!) to be designed for the purpose of allowing fast switching between games (without loading a different disc each time). If an internet connection is not available, the XBox ONE will revert to 'requires disc' mode to prove that the user continues to own the game.
If an internet connection is not available, the XBox ONE will revert to 'requires disc' mode to prove that the user continues to own the game.
That would be sensible...but as far as I can see, that is not the case.
You need an internet connection when you first purchase the game to validate it, or you can't play.
It ALSO needs to 'phone home' every 24 hours to check you haven't installed someone elses' game. Meaning if you don't have internet at least once every 24 hours, your games will stop working.
Also, once MS shut down the servers for a game or stop supporting the console, ALL of your games will become worthless. Thousands of pounds down the toilet.
There is no disc authentication any more; think of discs as merely a medium for getting you the 'bits' (as MS put it), so you don't have to download it. Once you've installed, you'll never need the disc again.
Your suggestion would make sense, but sadly MS are determined to destroy us all with their hostile, anti consumer DRM, designed only to increase their already substantial profits.
That would be sensible...but as far as I can see, that is not the case.
You need an internet connection when you first purchase the game to validate it, or you can't play.
It ALSO needs to 'phone home' every 24 hours to check you haven't installed someone elses' game. Meaning if you don't have internet at least once every 24 hours, your games will stop working.
Also, once MS shut down the servers for a game or stop supporting the console, ALL of your games will become worthless. Thousands of pounds down the toilet.
There is no disc authentication any more; think of discs as merely a medium for getting you the 'bits' (as MS put it), so you don't have to download it. Once you've installed, you'll never need the disc again.
Your suggestion would make sense, but sadly MS are determined to destroy us all with their hostile, anti consumer DRM, designed only to increase their already substantial profits.
I'll agree with the sentiments that Microplop have massively misfired with this console so far and that they appear to be riding roughshod over the needs and wants of their core audience.
An internet connection will be required to benefit from the fast-switching-between-games feature, simply because they are installed to the hard drive and it wouldn't be very fast if you have to switch discs to authenticate.
I am very certain that disc-based authentication will feature as a fallback to internet authentication where an internet connection is not available. If the purpose of authentication is to prevent users from installing titles to the hard drive and then selling the game on, this is an obvious position for MS to take: authenticate or insert disc. There is no reason for MS not to include this.
Where piracy is a concern there are other methods available to verify the license validity of the media, and lock down a console where necessary.
Although I feel that some users are flying off the rag somewhat (do you really think MS are trying to destroy their customer base?), I do agree that some of MS's decisions appear to have been made in the pursuit of more and more money. The trade-in levy is not so much a method of ensuring that publishers benefit from re-sales as it is to ensure MS gets a slice of an economy that it has no control over.
The use of Kinect to stop a movie and demand more cash to upgrade the licence when the Avon lady rests her eyes upon your tellybox is hilarious and will drive users away from services that stream on XBox.
There are lots of questions and unknowns about this XBox, and I for one am not sweating it as it is entirely up to MS to convince me that I want their device and as it currently stands I am ... underwhelmed, and will happily stick with my 360 unless or until things change...
No doubt a lot of people will rush out to buy it soon after launch because ... well ... just because. If unit sales are lacklustre (to MS that means anything less than the numbers and inertia of the 360); then we'll see an early change of direction from MS - a revised, lower cost console without Kinect ("Oh, we've developed a way fro the console to work without it!"), a traditional tray-loading optical drive, and no HDMI pass-through because MS only just realised that the whole TV obsession conflicts with their need to sell content through their own platform.
All in all, the XBox kind of reminds me of this fantastic product (clicky), [edit] another clicky, quality's a bit poor .
Secondly, regarding 'greedy' high street stores, I'm not sure you quite understand how economics of it works, we trade in a game and Game (for talking sake) give us a value which we then put towards a new purchase, that means that 'new' games are affordable for us helping the games industry as a whole as we don't 'buy' from the developer,
Look at it another way. A retailer (let's use Game as an example) order 5,000,000 units of a new game from a publisher. When a publisher pays to have those discs replicated, they pay that cash up front. In some cases, they may even have to pay the license fees up front too.
Now, Game will actively sell second hand copies of those games during the launch period. Say in total, they sell 4,500,000 copies during the initial launch period of three months. However, only 2,000,000 of those copies are actual new sales. The rest are second hand sales.
So the publisher and developer have lost out on 1,500,000 sales during the launch period, as they see no revenue from those second hand copies.
And here's the worst part. There are 3,000,000 copies sitting around in stores rooms around Europe. The retailer hasn't paid for those, and will most likely, return those 3,000,000 copies to the publisher. It on;y pays for the 2,000,000 copies that were sold, brand new.
Now the publisher has 3,000,000 copies that it's going to have difficulties getting rid of. And it's probably paid around 10 to 15 quid in reproduction fees for them, up front.
The retailer however, is laughing all the way to the bank because it's typically sold those second hand copies with a tiny reduction in price and a massive chunk of profit.
So, please tell me again, how the second hand market is GOOD for the games industry? Because you're talking out of your arse.
I am very certain that disc-based authentication will feature as a fallback to internet authentication where an internet connection is not available. If the purpose of authentication is to prevent users from installing titles to the hard drive and then selling the game on, this is an obvious position for MS to take: authenticate or insert disc. There is no reason for MS not to include this.
I am very certain it won't. In fact, I'm near enough 100% certain.
If this launch has taught us anything, it's Microsoft want complete and utter control. They want to control how you use your game, when you can use your game and how you can sell your game.
If disc authentication was to feature, then people could simply sell and borrow/share games as they do now. We already know this isn't the case.
Plus, if one person installed the game and chose to authenticate online every 24 hours, then gave the game to someone else, and they chose disc authentication, keeping their XBone offline, then that would obviously be bad for MS. No way would they allow that to happen.
It's not going to happen I'm afraid, unless MS have a huge change in policy.
The consumer has to face facts, with the XBOX One, you don't actually own anything, and the thousands of pounds you pay for your software could be rendered useless at the whim of Microsoft. It's totally unfair and outrageous.
Look at it another way. A retailer (let's use Game as an example) order 5,000,000 units of a new game from a publisher. When a publisher pays to have those discs replicated, they pay that cash up front. In some cases, they may even have to pay the license fees up front too.
Now, Game will actively sell second hand copies of those games during the launch period. Say in total, they sell 4,500,000 copies during the initial launch period of three months. However, only 2,000,000 of those copies are actual new sales. The rest are second hand sales.
So the publisher and developer have lost out on 1,500,000 sales during the launch period, as they see no revenue from those second hand copies.
And here's the worst part. There are 3,000,000 copies sitting around in stores rooms around Europe. The retailer hasn't paid for those, and will most likely, return those 3,000,000 copies to the publisher. It on;y pays for the 2,000,000 copies that were sold, brand new.
Now the publisher has 3,000,000 copies that it's going to have difficulties getting rid of. And it's probably paid around 10 to 15 quid in reproduction fees for them, up front.
The retailer however, is laughing all the way to the bank because it's typically sold those second hand copies with a tiny reduction in price and a massive chunk of profit.
So, please tell me again, how the second hand market is GOOD for the games industry? Because you're talking out of your arse.
This is a straw man argument, more often than not second hand copies of launch titles are more expensive than brand new copies. I would also encourage any business that takes an order for 5,000,000 units to make sure that the company placing the order is obliged to pay for them. £10/£15 reproduction fees??? What are these and why aren't all games £10/15+? .... nice story though!
Look at it another way. A retailer (let's use Game as an example) order 5,000,000 units of a new game from a publisher. When a publisher pays to have those discs replicated, they pay that cash up front. In some cases, they may even have to pay the license fees up front too.
Now, Game will actively sell second hand copies of those games during the launch period. Say in total, they sell 4,500,000 copies during the initial launch period of three months. However, only 2,000,000 of those copies are actual new sales. The rest are second hand sales.
So the publisher and developer have lost out on 1,500,000 sales during the launch period, as they see no revenue from those second hand copies.
And here's the worst part. There are 3,000,000 copies sitting around in stores rooms around Europe. The retailer hasn't paid for those, and will most likely, return those 3,000,000 copies to the publisher. It on;y pays for the 2,000,000 copies that were sold, brand new.
Now the publisher has 3,000,000 copies that it's going to have difficulties getting rid of. And it's probably paid around 10 to 15 quid in reproduction fees for them, up front.
The retailer however, is laughing all the way to the bank because it's typically sold those second hand copies with a tiny reduction in price and a massive chunk of profit.
So, please tell me again, how the second hand market is GOOD for the games industry? Because you're talking out of your arse.
All of those second hand copies didn't materialise out of thin air though, did they - they were all sold new initially, otherwise they couldn't be second hand.
I am very certain it won't. In fact, I'm near enough 100% certain.
If this launch has taught us anything, it's Microsoft want complete and utter control. They want to control how you use your game, when you can use your game and how you can sell your game.
If disc authentication was to feature, then people could simply sell and borrow/share games as they do now. We already know this isn't the case.
Plus, if one person installed the game and chose to authenticate online every 24 hours, then gave the game to someone else, and they chose disc authentication, keeping their XBone offline, then that would obviously be bad for MS. No way would they allow that to happen.
It's not going to happen I'm afraid, unless MS have a huge change in policy.
The consumer has to face facts, with the XBOX One, you don't actually own anything, and the thousands of pounds you pay for your software could be rendered useless at the whim of Microsoft. It's totally unfair and outrageous.
All it needs for offline play using disc-based authentication is for there to be an *initial* online authentication.
e.g.
Install disc, go online. The disc is now authenticated with the MS servers against your account, and you now have the right to play the game off the HDD, so long as your console checks in with MS every x hours/days.
Want to then play the game offline, without a 24-hour (or whatever) check-in? Play it with the disc, enabling the console to see that you still have authorisation to play the game.
Lend the game to a friend, and they install the disc? The game becomes authenticated against their account. They can play the game off the HDD while online every x period, or they can play it offline with the disc in the drive.
You try and play the game off your HDD while your friend still has the disc? Authentication failure - the game is now attached to your friend's account, and you cannot play it off your HDD until you get the disc back from your friend.
All it needs for offline play using disc-based authentication is for there to be an *initial* online authentication.
e.g.
Install disc, go online. The disc is now authenticated with the MS servers against your account, and you now have the right to play the game off the HDD, so long as your console checks in with MS every x hours/days.
Want to then play the game offline, without a 24-hour (or whatever) check-in? Play it with the disc, enabling the console to see that you still have authorisation to play the game.
Lend the game to a friend, and they install the disc? The game becomes authenticated against their account. They can play the game off the HDD while online every x period, or they can play it offline with the disc in the drive.
You try and play the game off your HDD while your friend still has the disc? Authentication failure - the game is now attached to your friend's account, and you cannot play it off your HDD until you get the disc back from your friend.
Unless you've got proof of these claims, don't mislead people. All the comments from MS have indicated no such thing, and If this was possible It would be perfectly easy to explain, in the dozen of interviews they've done over weekend.
It's just my assumption of how it could work... I should have been clearer in what I was saying (unclear post? maybe I should work for MS then, lol).
Yes, if it was possible it would (you'd think) be perfectly easy to explain.
However, the last week has shown that the MS PR department and some of its own "named employees" seem to be rather inept when it comes to answering simple questions or providing adequate explanations, so I'm not so sure it would be so easy for them actually.
But we do know that the purpose of the online check-in is to prove you still have the right to play the game off the HDD (otherwise people could install the game, sell the disc, and carry on playing).
And I have seen at least one article saying that if you lend/sell a disc, your right to play that game is removed as soon as it is authenticated against someone else's account... Unless/until you get the disc back and re-authenticate.
So I do not see why it would not or could not work the way I suggested... The 360 allows you to play an installed game only if the disc is present. The Xbox One could use that same method for offline play, while allowing you to play without the disc so long as the console checks in regularly to ensure you haven't sold the disc (i.e. ensure it's not been authenticated against another account).
Comments
Games are tied to your account as well as the system. So long as you install the game on your system any other accounts on that system will be able to access the game without additional charge. It's only when you start taking the game to a different machine and wanting to play it on a different profile to what it was registered to when you will have problems.
Your family members will be able to play Forza 5 and earn achievements using your console, and they can play it on their machine using your profile, but you will not be able to play it both at the same time in much the same way it works now.
We can still trade in our games, MS will have system in place to allow that and digitally remove the game authentication from your account direct from the store. You WILL be able to trade in and buy preowned games, just the profits from such are switching hands (from what was 100% to the game store to now Game Store, MS and the publisher), it shoudln't affect the gamers. In effect it means better regulation of pre-owned pricing and more money being driven back into the industry instead of solely into the high street bigwig's bank account.
Wait and see what Sony have planned, they have been particularly vague on the subject of pre-owned games other than stating it will be "possible". I fail to see how one company could do this and not the other.
Actually, that would make some very happy people right here on DS, however, that isn't likely and the XBOX ONE will be a bigger success than people think.
Microsoft could gift wrap dog crap and sell it to the masses!
You can play your friend's games on your console if your friend logs in on your console, and you can play your games on your friend's console if you log in on theirs.
But... so what? It doesn't mean that all games will be stupid dancing games or something. It just means that the UI can be controlled with voice or gestures, and that the Kinect is there for developers to make use of if they want.
Nor is the PS4.
MS is apparently introducing something sort of similar to the old Family account.
You will be able to have a single account that has multiple users, each with their own Friend list and Achievements etc.
Each person could then play e.g. Forza 5 without having to each pay a fee.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/22/4354646/xbox-live-gold-memberships-apply-to-both-xbox-one-and-360
You wont be able to. Presumably game rentals will no longer be an option since i can't see Blockbuster or Lovefilm wanting to pay £35 to Microsoft to unlock the game each time a customer sends them one back.
The latest on the rumours from Polygon:
Polygon - Xbox One games will require regular authentication checks, used games won't have a fee
MS has screwed this up massively. It should have had all of this sorted before the reveal, and should have actually bloody well explained it properly, instead of using Harrison etc. to give out confused messages.
Pretty much. All this dancing around issues MS has been doing doesn't really make me want to buy the new Xbox. I'm kind of leaning towards the PS4 now, and it's up to MS to convince me otherwise.
Issues that sprang instantly to mind for ordinary people.
The fact they seemed to go into a panicked information lockdown after some initially contradictory replies, just goes to show how unprepared/out of touch with their consumers they are.
I expect they'll all still get their big bonuses next year, after all they probably think its all our fault for asking all those awkward questions instead of just asking "When can I have one?".
Everybody has a price, and everybody is going to pay....whahaha.
It sounds (to me) as though the licensing is pretty much the same as with the 360. The licence is allocated to a particular console and any accounts that were created by that console.
Thinking about the internet connectivity requirement, this seems (again, to me!) to be designed for the purpose of allowing fast switching between games (without loading a different disc each time). If an internet connection is not available, the XBox ONE will revert to 'requires disc' mode to prove that the user continues to own the game.
That would be sensible...but as far as I can see, that is not the case.
You need an internet connection when you first purchase the game to validate it, or you can't play.
It ALSO needs to 'phone home' every 24 hours to check you haven't installed someone elses' game. Meaning if you don't have internet at least once every 24 hours, your games will stop working.
Also, once MS shut down the servers for a game or stop supporting the console, ALL of your games will become worthless. Thousands of pounds down the toilet.
There is no disc authentication any more; think of discs as merely a medium for getting you the 'bits' (as MS put it), so you don't have to download it. Once you've installed, you'll never need the disc again.
Your suggestion would make sense, but sadly MS are determined to destroy us all with their hostile, anti consumer DRM, designed only to increase their already substantial profits.
I'll agree with the sentiments that Microplop have massively misfired with this console so far and that they appear to be riding roughshod over the needs and wants of their core audience.
An internet connection will be required to benefit from the fast-switching-between-games feature, simply because they are installed to the hard drive and it wouldn't be very fast if you have to switch discs to authenticate.
I am very certain that disc-based authentication will feature as a fallback to internet authentication where an internet connection is not available. If the purpose of authentication is to prevent users from installing titles to the hard drive and then selling the game on, this is an obvious position for MS to take: authenticate or insert disc. There is no reason for MS not to include this.
Where piracy is a concern there are other methods available to verify the license validity of the media, and lock down a console where necessary.
Although I feel that some users are flying off the rag somewhat (do you really think MS are trying to destroy their customer base?), I do agree that some of MS's decisions appear to have been made in the pursuit of more and more money. The trade-in levy is not so much a method of ensuring that publishers benefit from re-sales as it is to ensure MS gets a slice of an economy that it has no control over.
The use of Kinect to stop a movie and demand more cash to upgrade the licence when the Avon lady rests her eyes upon your tellybox is hilarious and will drive users away from services that stream on XBox.
There are lots of questions and unknowns about this XBox, and I for one am not sweating it as it is entirely up to MS to convince me that I want their device and as it currently stands I am ... underwhelmed, and will happily stick with my 360 unless or until things change...
No doubt a lot of people will rush out to buy it soon after launch because ... well ... just because. If unit sales are lacklustre (to MS that means anything less than the numbers and inertia of the 360); then we'll see an early change of direction from MS - a revised, lower cost console without Kinect ("Oh, we've developed a way fro the console to work without it!"), a traditional tray-loading optical drive, and no HDMI pass-through because MS only just realised that the whole TV obsession conflicts with their need to sell content through their own platform.
All in all, the XBox kind of reminds me of this fantastic product (clicky), [edit] another clicky, quality's a bit poor
Look at it another way. A retailer (let's use Game as an example) order 5,000,000 units of a new game from a publisher. When a publisher pays to have those discs replicated, they pay that cash up front. In some cases, they may even have to pay the license fees up front too.
Now, Game will actively sell second hand copies of those games during the launch period. Say in total, they sell 4,500,000 copies during the initial launch period of three months. However, only 2,000,000 of those copies are actual new sales. The rest are second hand sales.
So the publisher and developer have lost out on 1,500,000 sales during the launch period, as they see no revenue from those second hand copies.
And here's the worst part. There are 3,000,000 copies sitting around in stores rooms around Europe. The retailer hasn't paid for those, and will most likely, return those 3,000,000 copies to the publisher. It on;y pays for the 2,000,000 copies that were sold, brand new.
Now the publisher has 3,000,000 copies that it's going to have difficulties getting rid of. And it's probably paid around 10 to 15 quid in reproduction fees for them, up front.
The retailer however, is laughing all the way to the bank because it's typically sold those second hand copies with a tiny reduction in price and a massive chunk of profit.
So, please tell me again, how the second hand market is GOOD for the games industry? Because you're talking out of your arse.
I am very certain it won't. In fact, I'm near enough 100% certain.
If this launch has taught us anything, it's Microsoft want complete and utter control. They want to control how you use your game, when you can use your game and how you can sell your game.
If disc authentication was to feature, then people could simply sell and borrow/share games as they do now. We already know this isn't the case.
Plus, if one person installed the game and chose to authenticate online every 24 hours, then gave the game to someone else, and they chose disc authentication, keeping their XBone offline, then that would obviously be bad for MS. No way would they allow that to happen.
It's not going to happen I'm afraid, unless MS have a huge change in policy.
The consumer has to face facts, with the XBOX One, you don't actually own anything, and the thousands of pounds you pay for your software could be rendered useless at the whim of Microsoft. It's totally unfair and outrageous.
This is a straw man argument, more often than not second hand copies of launch titles are more expensive than brand new copies. I would also encourage any business that takes an order for 5,000,000 units to make sure that the company placing the order is obliged to pay for them. £10/£15 reproduction fees??? What are these and why aren't all games £10/15+? .... nice story though!
All of those second hand copies didn't materialise out of thin air though, did they - they were all sold new initially, otherwise they couldn't be second hand.
All it needs for offline play using disc-based authentication is for there to be an *initial* online authentication.
e.g.
Install disc, go online. The disc is now authenticated with the MS servers against your account, and you now have the right to play the game off the HDD, so long as your console checks in with MS every x hours/days.
Want to then play the game offline, without a 24-hour (or whatever) check-in? Play it with the disc, enabling the console to see that you still have authorisation to play the game.
Lend the game to a friend, and they install the disc? The game becomes authenticated against their account. They can play the game off the HDD while online every x period, or they can play it offline with the disc in the drive.
You try and play the game off your HDD while your friend still has the disc? Authentication failure - the game is now attached to your friend's account, and you cannot play it off your HDD until you get the disc back from your friend.
Unless you've got proof of these claims, don't mislead people. All the comments from MS have indicated no such thing, and If this was possible It would be perfectly easy to explain, in the dozen of interviews they've done over weekend.
Yes, if it was possible it would (you'd think) be perfectly easy to explain.
However, the last week has shown that the MS PR department and some of its own "named employees" seem to be rather inept when it comes to answering simple questions or providing adequate explanations, so I'm not so sure it would be so easy for them actually.
But we do know that the purpose of the online check-in is to prove you still have the right to play the game off the HDD (otherwise people could install the game, sell the disc, and carry on playing).
And I have seen at least one article saying that if you lend/sell a disc, your right to play that game is removed as soon as it is authenticated against someone else's account... Unless/until you get the disc back and re-authenticate.
So I do not see why it would not or could not work the way I suggested... The 360 allows you to play an installed game only if the disc is present. The Xbox One could use that same method for offline play, while allowing you to play without the disc so long as the console checks in regularly to ensure you haven't sold the disc (i.e. ensure it's not been authenticated against another account).