XO after E3. Did Xbox One redeem itself?

[Reflexx]

I hate to go this road but...

DRM has been on every system so far, and know what ? Almost every system has been hacked. I can in less than 5 min find a hack for a PS3 (3.55 or lower model) or find a hack for almost ANY 360 right now (firmwares depending on model). I looked it up for a giggle and found plenty of forums with people doing it. And on your local Torrent site you can find all the PS3 and 360 games you could ever want, even ones that wont be released for a month. I do not do this to any of my systems but, have been tempted at one point or another, not for games, but, the 3rd party tools.

Does anyone here ACTUALLY think adding DRM to games is going to stop the hackers ? Infact, if you add DRM hackers WANT to hack it more. The bigger the system is, the more demand for a hack and it will come, just a matter of time. DRM just makes it more of a challange for them.

Sure there are problems with Hacking a system, for example, if you hack your 360/PS3 and go online, your banned for life (from playing on line or buying content out of the store) but, you can always play your "backups" single player version.

As someone who has delt with the poor side of DRM (Windows Media Center HDCP issues) with plenty of issues, and know plenty of problems with people buying DRM music from a company that went under (all music is unplayable)

DRM just makes it hard for the consumer, it's never accepted and never will be. Some people dont have issues with it, others will. It just makes the customer hate the company who made it and gives people a bad experiance when they are trying to use something THEY PAID for.

Microsoft does a good job with security over all (I'm a systems admin and know the ins and outs of Windows security) but, when it's bad, it's bad and everyone pays for it...

The point isn't to stop people who are intent on hacking. It's to keep it from regular people deciding to hack because of the hoops they'd have to go through to make it happen and keep it happening. Most people don't have time for that stuff.

There will still be hacks.

 

[Reflexx]

Alright, well to be fair I wasn't aware of any of that so thanks for the info.

It doesn't change my stance on the second half of what I said, though.... I like DavidinCT's post above about DRM. Sums it up pretty well.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Maybe I'm biased because I worked in the game industry and the instability is horrible. It sucks seeing friends lose their jobs after every project. And it's not like they get paid a ton compared to the amount of skills and training they have.

Yes, they choose that path. But it doesn't mean it doesn't suck that consumers take them for granted. It's one reason I don't work for a studio anymore. It's not stable.

But now I teach people to be 3D artists, and it's kind of scary sending my students out there to the wolves. It's like saying, "I know you love this industry, and you got into this because you love games, but understand that other people who love games don't give a crap about you or your family."

 

[vertigoOne]

Does anyone here ACTUALLY think adding DRM to games is going to stop the hackers ? Infact, if you add DRM hackers WANT to hack it more. The bigger the system is, the more demand for a hack and it will come, just a matter of time. DRM just makes it more of a challange for them.

This is true if you only have to worry about the once in a while that system updates would block a hack...but when you are forced to actively check in with MS servers once every 24 hours for authentication? That brings a whole new level of inconvenience to hacking. Just look at how 'inconvenient' this check-in seems for non-hackers based on the reactions all over the internet right now. This level of DRM is unparalleled with any other Microsoft product with the exception of Office 365.

It is an endless battle, I agree, but apparently Microsoft is up for the challenge.

There is a software that I have used for a long time, and there was always discussion about it being hacked and shared online. Then development really picked up for it and they were releasing new versions at a fever pitch...and the hacked versions stopped for awhile. Development slowed again and it got hacked again.

Day 1 DLC is another potential avenue that could be used to curb hacking and piracy, but 'gamers' frown on that as well. So until everything becomes F2P and ad-supported, it is just a battle that we are going to be stuck in the middle of.

The upside optimistically is that if the X1 DRM is a success, hopefully software prices will not need to increase.

 

[nufan947]

Maybe it's me but, doesn't this kind of feel like Sony lied about it ?

Yes and no. Obviously it wasn't entirely full disclosure, but Sony games will still adhere to their free and open principle, and there are some damn good first-party games out there, and I'm guessing a lot more to come. So potentially crappy, but like the article says, not suuuuper different from how games are.

Still won't have the 24 hour check in... Haha

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[DavidinCT]

This is true if you only have to worry about the once in a while that system updates would block a hack...but when you are forced to actively check in with MS servers once every 24 hours for authentication? That brings a whole new level of inconvenience to hacking. Just look at how 'inconvenient' this check-in seems for non-hackers based on the reactions all over the internet right now. This level of DRM is unparalleled with any other Microsoft product with the exception of Office 365.

Nah, I dont forsee it damaging the hackers any bit, companies have tried that before (something that calls home every once and a while) software wise and workarounds or "hacks" have been found.

It's not for everyone but, a tech person who gets ticked off because of the limits of DRM might go down that road. A good % of gamers are techy who could figure it out if good directions are posted.

How ever, but, if it ever comes down to a game that I paid for but, I can't play because of some dam DRM issue, if it was an easy hack, I would sure be tempted to do it...

DRM is not good for anyone...even in the long run, may it be 8-10 years from now when the X2 is out, the X1 servers are shut down, you can't play your games you paid for any more. Think about it, who is really paying here ? It's the consumer, not Microsoft or the devs...

The upside optimistically is that if the X1 DRM is a success, hopefully software prices will not need to increase.

If it comes down to Steam type model I think people would love it. A new game released last week, on sale $45 download only (a good game). It would do very well, never mind the companies dont have to deal with the overhead of building, shipping and selling a Disc based product. I personally would not even look at used games because the value would be so high in a download only format.

We would all win here but, in the real world, it's about greed and profits. Even though the companies are not paying to create and sell a disc based product, they still will want $59.99 for the game...

There for, gamers like myself, who like to play a lot of games, need to find a value in game products... and used games are my only method of playing a lot of games that am not willing to pay $60 for (and not from GameRipOff, AKA Gamestop).

So what does this mean for gamers like myself ? It just means less games that I will play and when it comes to a part 2 to a game, I might skip it because I never played the first one.... So who really wins on that one ? No one, and less games the dev will sell..

Yes and no. Obviously it wasn't entirely full disclosure

Yep but, Both Microsoft and Sony has been doing this, Why wont they just fess up and be honest on everything ???? Sony is trying to look like the good guy here but, they are just as bad as Microsoft here....

Still no Kinect watching every move and no 24 hour checks...Hmmm

 

[nufan947]

If it comes down to Steam type model I think people would love it. A new game released last week, on sale $45 download only (a good game). It would do very well, never mind the companies dont have to deal with the overhead of building, shipping and selling a Disc based product. I personally would not even look at used games because the value would be so high in a download only format.

This this this this x100. I agree. I think most people would agree. Valve understands what people want and does it well while respecting the Devs and publishers. There would be a lot less dissatisfaction I think and a lot more adoption of the new stuff if there were less barriers to entry.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Reflexx]

I have a feeling that we'll be able to "check-in" with SmartGlass on the phone too.

The chances of you being without internet connection AND without cell phone connection for 24+ hrs is probably pretty low.

 

[blzr409]

Sony has clarified to a few websites that they were referring specifically to the online pass model when talking about restrictions on used games.

 

[DavidinCT]

Sony has clarified to a few websites that they were referring specifically to the online pass model when talking about restrictions on used games.

Link ?

Personally, I would not have a problem with that if Microsoft went that route with all used games. If you want to play online with a used game then it's $5-10 extra. That would be acceptable to me. Most games I play the single player game becase I want a game with a good story that pulls me into the game, like a good movie.

Playing online with every game it's not always the best thing, and some games I have no interest in playing on line... so by that, I dont have to pay for features I dont use...

Edit: thanks for the link, If Microsoft would follow suit here, I think this would make most people happy but, I am sure it will be about greed and they wont admit to it...

This this this this x100. I agree. I think most people would agree. Valve understands what people want and does it well while respecting the Devs and publishers. There would be a lot less dissatisfaction I think and a lot more adoption of the new stuff if there were less barriers to entry.

Microsoft's goal here is to go to a totally online system. Doing a steam type model would be the ONLY way for them to get there. They would have to release newer games at big discounts. Not 6 month old games that a lot of people dont care about any more...

 

[blzr409]

Link is here: Sony: Third-Party DRM Refers to Playing Used Games Online Only | Game Front

Also says Sony won't be using online passes on any first party games, I guess since they're collecting money through PS Plus for all online play now anyway.

 

[onysi]

Microsoft needs to detach Kinect to even the price with Sony. They should only sell Kinect 2 as peripheral or bundle it to keep the 499.
Kinect 2 is the only thing costing the console this much. Its too heavy of a burden for college gamers.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Being honest I was sold on the Xbox One from the original launch and it could probably sell well with just Titanfall as a launch title. Whats worrying is the negative hype drummed up by the Sony fanboys and some of the games press is severely distorting the truth. Ive spent most of my morning digging up facts and linking articles to contradict things that people have been coming out with purely because of a slight spin on the negatives.

Wildest thing ive heard is that the xbox 24 hour check in has got a suicide switch - so if you don't log in for 24 hours its got a 12 hour security period after you've logged back in before you can play on your games!!

Im doing a pretty decent job so far on damage control and have swayed most of my friends back to the xbox. Hopefully they pass on what I have to their friends and so on and so on and the BS stops. Theres some crazy things out there that people are taking as gospel because theyve seen it on a forum message board.

You might be providing the truth, but the truth doesn't equate to a good thing. There might not be a killswitch (which I've never even heard of in this context), but the required check-in is still one of the major inconveniences I dislike about the console. It is unlikely to ever affect me, but I don't approach things simply with the mindset of "does this hurt me?" I think about "is the company hurting consumers?" In the case of the check-in, there is harm being done. Those in rural areas, or even just poor neighborhoods where reliable Internet is not available (or affordable for low-income families), are being hampered by the check-in system. While that doesn't include me, I do not like the thought of supporting a company's product that is deliberately harmful to its users. I also hate that I HAVE to pay for the Kinect, and also plug it in.

Like I said, I don't have issues with believing the truth, it's just that the truth about this console is that it is restrictive and inflexible in ways that drive many of us away from Apple.

 

[Keith Wallace]

For me it isn't nearly so much the actual hassle of checking in every 24 hours (which is a pain in the a$$ anyway) as it is the principle of it. It's an implementation that I don't agree with and don't want to support. Same thing with the DRM. Like everyone has said, we'll see if the publishers impose it on PS4 anyway, but at least for now it does seem like Sony cares more about making sure people get what they want and it's delivered fairly.

A lot of people around here constantly rag on Google for spying and collecting and selling data. For me the 'essentially always on,' and no selling of used games, and Kinect always on, are just as serious impediments to my gaming experience as people feel Google is to their web and/or mobile experience.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I completely agree. Microsoft might not be doing things to inconvenience ME here, but they are doing thing that hurt consumers as a whole. I mostly bnought EA titles new, so the Online Pass never would have caused me much grief (Madden being the only instance I might have bought used). However, I so strongly disagreed with the implementation of the Online Pass that I did not buy from EA for almost 5 years, from 2008 until I purchased NBA Jam on my Lumia 920, ust a couple of days after EA said that the Online Pass would go away. As soon as EA dumped that, I started buying from them again immediately.

In that same vein, I won't be buying the Xbox One. If Microsoft dumps this DRM fiasco, I will. Until then, I will stick to my Xbox 360.

 

[theeboredone]

You might be providing the truth, but the truth doesn't equate to a good thing. There might not be a killswitch (which I've never even heard of in this context), but the required check-in is still one of the major inconveniences I dislike about the console. It is unlikely to ever affect me, but I don't approach things simply with the mindset of "does this hurt me?" I think about "is the company hurting consumers?" In the case of the check-in, there is harm being done. Those in rural areas, or even just poor neighborhoods where reliable Internet is not available (or affordable for low-income families), are being hampered by the check-in system. While that doesn't include me, I do not like the thought of supporting a company's product that is deliberately harmful to its users. I also hate that I HAVE to pay for the Kinect, and also plug it in.

Like I said, I don't have issues with believing the truth, it's just that the truth about this console is that it is restrictive and inflexible in ways that drive many of us away from Apple.

I agree. On top of that, while it may not "hurt" me personally in anyway...neither does the NSA looking over my phone records. However, if we don't stand up and say "no", then companies (and government) will continue to strip away our rights until 100 years into the future, where it's required to do a freaking finger print match to play your game.

 

[Reflexx]

Microsoft needs to detach Kinect to even the price with Sony. They should only sell Kinect 2 as peripheral or bundle it to keep the 499.
Kinect 2 is the only thing costing the console this much. Its too heavy of a burden for college gamers.

That would be a bad business move.

The reason Kinect is bundled is because it gives a base system target for game developers.

When a developer is creating a game, they need to know the specs and abilities of their target system. If the game is expensive to make, they'll want to create things that are accessible by 100% of systems out there.

Bundling Kinect means that developers can feel confident in including advanced controls and features that are only possible with Kinect. They can include it in core gameplay without the worry that someone may not have a Kinect.

Why is this important?

If Kinect remains a peripheral, then any Kinect abilities will just be add-ons. Developers will never truly explore what they can do to with it because they know that a lot of people won't have it.

MS wants to change the game. They want to include new ways to interact with your game console. They want developers to do things on XBOX ONE that just aren't possible on other consoles. And that doesn't happen by having Kinect as a separate peripheral.

 

[Reflexx]

I agree. On top of that, while it may not "hurt" me personally in anyway...neither does the NSA looking over my phone records. However, if we don't stand up and say "no", then companies (and government) will continue to strip away our rights until 100 years into the future, where it's required to do a freaking finger print match to play your game.

That is a ridiculous comparison.

 

[JamesDax]

Yes!

 

[Reflexx]

Game Dev Steve: My team just made an awesome game! Check it out!

Consumer Dave: I played the demo. It's awesome!

Game Dev Steve: It comes out tomorrow. Will you buy it?

Consumer Dave: Nah. I'll wait a week and then buy it for $5 cheaper at Gamestop.

Game Dev Steve: I know it's cheaper, but my team needs the support of consumers. We make nothing from Gamestop.

Consumer Dave: So? Sucks to be you.

Game Dev Steve: How about if you buy it on the XBOX ONE? You'll still be able to buy a used version, but at least Gamestop will pay my team a commission.

Consumer Dave: Have fun applying for Unemployment Steve.

 

[Vallos]

Guy, we pretty much live in an age of entitlement where people do nothing and expect everything to be handed to them. Being a (retired) working musician, I totally understand the plight of artistic professionals who toil and sacrifice in trying to make a living from their art. Your descriptive attitude of "Consumer Dave", is exactly the sort of narcissistic entitlement gamers are displaying throughout this supposed DRM controversy.

 

[Ridemyscooter86]

Basically, no. And this is coming from someone that completely defended the xbox one until E3 and they dropped the ball, a couple of reasons why:

1) Used games: Doesn't really bother me as I'm a PC gamer who relies mostly on steam, so being able to buy/sell used games wouldn't really affect me at all, but from a console gamer's standpoint, even though there isn't a used game fee, the mere fact that you need to "friend" somebody for 30 days until you can transfer the game is a little ridiculous especially when all you should have to do is uninstall the game immediately from your console and give/sell it to somebody. Also, this won't be that big of a deal simply because physical media is dying and people want more online content distribution. I would imagine that if you buy a game from the xbox store or the playstation store, same way for both consoles, that you probably wont be able to share them on either console.

Bad PR/Business move on MS part, hopefully they will change this, but MS can be pretty stubborn at times, so I wouldn't expect it.

2) Always connected: Another thing that I really think is a dumb point that people are making a fuss about; all of my electronic devices, my cell phone, pc, and my 360 are always connected to the internet, so I don't really see why people even have an issue with this as almost everyone has 1) a wireless router, 2) a broadband internet connection. If you don't have on or either of these, then you probably need to update to the 21st century or you probably live in a 3rd world country, either which way, this is something you probably shouldn't be buying anyways. Seriously I don't get people's gripe on this one, I mean online gaming is so popular now, that if you game online, then this is a non-issue and just a point sony fanboys want to bring up just for the sake of argument.

Still, not a good PR move on Microsoft's part, even if it is kind of a dumb point.

3)Kinect: I like the kinect, I think that the integration with xbox looks really cool and futuristic. Making it standard was a great idea since it will hopefully bring motion games out of a niche/toy market into mainstream gaming where it hasn't really ever gotten a foothold despite being out for years now.

Great idea to make it standard for games, bad idea in the fact that it brings me to my 4th and most important point and that is:

4)price: Sure the xbox may not seem competitive when you factor in the less power, and the used game and always connected restrictions. Even though in xbox's defense that its not very much less powerful (not like 50% as some people are saying, and it probably won't make a bit of difference except for 1st party games), it does include the kinect, and the OS looks way better and more powerful/featured than the ps4, the problem is really coming down to price. Because they decided to standardize the kinect and include it with every console, 100$ will make a difference to many. A lot of people will buy it because its an xbox and they already have an xbox live account and such, but for a lot of people, that 100$ difference is almost 2 games or a year subscription to PS+. Its why the wii sold well, its why the xbox 360 sold way better initially compared to the ps3 was price.

If MS can just knock 50-100$ off the price it would be good. Also, if they can let people play used games without having to friend someone for 30 days that would help too. Unfortunately the xbox one console is fine, its just a very bad PR move on MS part and somewhat bad business. I mean, I think there will be a decent amount of people that will buy the PS4 over the xbox one simply because of the used game/DRM policy, despite the fact that sony tries to act innocent at it and they just said "we'll leave it up to the developers", which means in actuality that it will be every bit as bad as the xbox or worse since its not standardized, just from a PR perspective, they did a much better job than MS.