Microsoft 180: Xbox One will NOT have ANY Used Games or Online DRM.

All the more reason to insist that we get some manner of benefit for making the choice to buy digital.

I think a lower price is a worthwhile swap for being unable to sell or trade a game.

Grammaton-Cleric

Totally. The problem is ensuring a price reduction happens. I could easily see developers justifying the current price tag as a necessity due to development costs.

OH HELL YEAH!!! Thankyou Microsoft. I don't particularly care about the used game market one way or another but as a game collector the online requirement had me spooked. Now I can buy an Xbox One and games for it with peace of mind. BEST. NEWS. EVER. :DArchangel3371

Lol, who's to say Microsoft wouldn't try to ass rape their consumers at some later point down the line with another change in policy? What's next? A staged hack on Xbox Live to scare it's consumers into thinking they need to enforce these policies? It's amazing how people are so easily persuaded as a whole.

The mere fact that Microsoft even considered those Nazi policy's is crazy. Even if I thought their exclusives were better, I still wouldn't fvck with a company who experiements on it's consumers like that. Plus that Kinnect needed for X1 to function crap is still lame. Microsoft is making plays straight out of Edward Bernay's handbook on how to mind fvck the general public.

Still the price is too high considering its the weaker console. If I manage to get one, I'll get it after a few pricedrops. It will be my secondary console. Considering the PS4 price, I wouldn't be surprise if the X1 gets a $100 pricedrop within its first year. 

MS already screwed up too badly to me.  The only thing this change did was shift my opinion to "Will not buy an X1" into "I'll buy one several years down the line when I find a really good deal on one."

This is very similar to how I went about getting a PS3.  I already had an Xbox 360 by the time it was released.  In no way did I feel it was worth the price tag.  About a year and a half ago I had a ton of store credit and gift cards for Gamestop, so I decided to get a brand new PS3 for about $100.  I predict a similar situation happening with the Xbox One.

Certain games were said to require a 24/7 connection due to cloud powering, yet now all games will be playable offline? So cloud computing suddenly isn't a necessity and I'm to pay $100 more for 8GB's of DDR3 RAM versus 8GB's of DDR5? If not the ground work itself, the intentions were laid out there for everyone to see. This back pedaling makes it look even worse frankly.

Certain games were said to require a 24/7 connection due to cloud powering, yet now all games will be playable offline? So cloud computing suddenly isn't a necessity and I'm to pay $100 more for 8GB's of DDR3 RAM versus 8GB's of DDR5? If not the ground work itself, the intentions were laid out there for everyone to see. This back pedaling makes it look even worse frankly.

Yama

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Cliffy the fool hath spoketh! http://www.computerandvideogames.com/415453/sony-forced-microsofts-hand-not-the-internet-whining-says-bleszinski/?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-General-RSS He calls us a bunch of whiners. What a d*ckhead.BranKetra

One thing Cliffy said that I agree with is expect an absolute explosion of DLC and tacked on multiplayer. Now that MS has caved from their demands, the sniveling publishers and developers will try to squeeze every penny from a stone in an attempt to "over-deliver more value" or some other trite corporate-speak BS.GalvatronType_R

Does he honestly expect us to believe they wouldn't do this anyway even with Microsoft's DRM? It's never enough for these companies, they always need to find more and more ways to make money. 

One thing Cliffy said that I agree with is expect an absolute explosion of DLC and tacked on multiplayer.GalvatronType_R

Still getting a cheaper, more powerful, indie friendly playstation 4 over the forced kinect box.

Good news.

However, fvck Microsoft.  That they even tried to pull this bullshit shows me something about them that I still don't wish to support.  I don't give them any credit, because if Sony had not done what they did to allow the consumers to scream with their wallet and enabled them to throw the big finger towards MS, they'd be doing no such thing.  I still refuse to buy a One.  Maybe one day when it's cheaper and has more games I'll consider it.  I'm still angry.

Not to mention I believe MS is going to implement the same thing anyway, just now in a much more insidious way.  They realized their approach was far too forthcoming and rash, so they're initially dropping, but not abandoning, their plans.  Just to try to regain gamer's trust and favor, sell a lot of units initially, then when a solid userbase is established, they're just going to introduce them gradually over a long period of time.  I don't trust them at all.

Good news.

However, fvck Microsoft.  That they even tried to pull this bullshit shows me something about them that I still don't wish to support.  I don't give them any credit, because if Sony had not done what they did to allow the consumers to scream with their wallet and enabled them to throw the big finger towards MS, they'd be doing no such thing.  I still refuse to buy a One.  Maybe one day when it's cheaper and has more games I'll consider it.  I'm still angry.

Not to mention I believe MS is going to implement the same thing anyway, just now in a much more insidious way.  They realized their approach was far too forthcoming and rash, so they're initially dropping, but not abandoning, their plans.  Just to try to regain gamer's trust and favor, sell a lot of units initially, then when a solid userbase is established, they're just going to introduce them gradually over a long period of time.  I don't trust them at all.

MirkoS77

And rightfully so. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of games come out later down the line that need to be connected to make use of the "cloud" features. DRM in disguise, if you can call it that. 

Now if they just lose the Kinect, lower the price, support indie developers, and didn't try to screw us in the first place we will have leveled the playing field. Developers making heavy use of Cloud might still need us to be connected though.

I don't know whether or not anyone will ever read it, since I doubt the High and Mighty CLIFFYB runs his own facebook page, but this is the message I just sent to Cliffor "CliffyB" Bleszinski:

Cliff is an idiot who has done nothing for the industry.

By the way, a friend just pointed this out to me: Xbone games can be played offline? Does this mean that "the cloud makes your Xbone more powerful" was another lie?Black_Knight_00

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]By the way, a friend just pointed this out to me: Xbone games can be played offline? Does this mean that "the cloud makes your Xbone more powerful" was another lie?Legolas_Katarn

[QUOTE="Legolas_Katarn"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]By the way, a friend just pointed this out to me: Xbone games can be played offline? Does this mean that "the cloud makes your Xbone more powerful" was another lie?El_Zo1212o

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Good news.

However, fvck Microsoft.  That they even tried to pull this bullshit shows me something about them that I still don't wish to support.  I don't give them any credit, because if Sony had not done what they did to allow the consumers to scream with their wallet and enabled them to throw the big finger towards MS, they'd be doing no such thing.  I still refuse to buy a One.  Maybe one day when it's cheaper and has more games I'll consider it.  I'm still angry.

Not to mention I believe MS is going to implement the same thing anyway, just now in a much more insidious way.  They realized their approach was far too forthcoming and rash, so they're initially dropping, but not abandoning, their plans.  Just to try to regain gamer's trust and favor, sell a lot of units initially, then when a solid userbase is established, they're just going to introduce them gradually over a long period of time.  I don't trust them at all.

Vari3ty

And rightfully so. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of games come out later down the line that need to be connected to make use of the "cloud" features. DRM in disguise, if you can call it that. 

Only reason why MS is even doing all this backpedaling is because they now know, for a fact, that Sony kicked their asses on the following three categories.

-Price point ($399).
-No DRM.
-The ability to play offline at anytime.

If Microsoft is to win consumers over again, they had to re-shift their focus and get those things out of the way. People are still going to buy the XBox One, regardless of their feelings for MS or not, because it has to be owned. It has to be played right from the get-go, so people will want it. The real question is whether or not the XBox One can surpass the XBox 360 in terms of quality gaming and how long it can last as their last two systems did. If they succeed in that, it's possible that they have a winner on their hands. Simply put, Microsoft got their asses handed to them and were and possibly still are pretty desperate to get people back on their side.

I know that I've said that I'm not getting an XBone One anytime soon, but the games on there look so damn tempting to play anyway (Killer Instinct, Forza 5, Titanfall, and Ryse, to name a few, possibly Project Spark too).

Yup, you can count on it.  I doubt MS is really changing anything at all, they are simply delaying to be able to get their foot in the door in order to be able to again try to push this crap.  That's why I'm not getting the One at release, or anywhere near it.  It'll be interesting to see how it pans out over the coming years.  MS is betting on the fact that people are soon to forget.  And they will.  This is not a war won for us, it's a battle lost for them.  Which is great, but it assures nothing.

MirkoS77

Yeah, we've seen what they're really made of. Just because they've decided to put the mask back on for a bit doesn't mean that they've changed. My friend used to have a wife who acted the same way -- she'd cheat on him and break his heart, and then swear never to do it again until the next time. You know when it finally stopped? When he served her with divorce papers. Sometimes, the only thing worse than being fvcked over, is getting fvcked over when you knew in advance that it was going to happen again. 

It's clear what Microsoft is, what they think of us "whiny" gamers, and where they want to go. For me, the only solution to that type of situation is divorce, because the trust is gone. 

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Yup, you can count on it.  I doubt MS is really changing anything at all, they are simply delaying to be able to get their foot in the door in order to be able to again try to push this crap.  That's why I'm not getting the One at release, or anywhere near it.  It'll be interesting to see how it pans out over the coming years.  MS is betting on the fact that people are soon to forget.  And they will.  This is not a war won for us, it's a battle lost for them.  Which is great, but it assures nothing.

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah, we've seen what they're really made of. Just because they've decided to put the mask back on for a bit doesn't mean that they've changed. My friend used to have a wife who acted the same way -- she'd cheat on him and break his heart, and then swear never to do it again until the next time. You know when it finally stopped? When he served her with divorce papers. Sometimes, the only thing worse than being fvcked over, is getting fvcked over when you knew in advance that it was going to happen again. 

It's clear what Microsoft is, what they think of us "whiny" gamers, and where they want to go. For me, the only solution to that type of situation is divorce, because the trust is gone. 

Alex you were right all along. :( 

I haven't changed my mind about buying a next generation console. Will start buying one when Final Fantasy VX is finally released. I'll probably get the cheapest.

@shameus: it's not "whiny" gamers it's something illegal being made legal because big corporate have so much influence on supreme court and everything in the world. We can't sue them for infringing consumer rights. We can't sue them for a lot of things. Sometimes we can't just "sue" them because of the arbitrary clause but that's an entirely different topic. So MS changing their policies is walking in the right track again. I remember reading an article featured in Gamespot about green gaming. I was like, how can console manufactureres be green when they're not "ethical". You care about the planet (only to help you look good) but don't give a damn about consumer rights?

Alex you were right all along. :( 

I haven't changed my mind about buying a next generation console. Will start buying one when Final Fantasy VX is finally released. I'll probably get the cheapest.

gamingqueen

[QUOTE="GalvatronType_R"]One thing Cliffy said that I agree with is expect an absolute explosion of DLC and tacked on multiplayer.Randolph

Totally agree. What makes us think that DLC and tacked on multiplayer(or how about tacked on single player???) would have stopped with the initial DRM policy/used games one?

Too little, too late. Didn't they release a statement prior that they don't view the PS4 as a threat? Okay.

This has only changed my mindset from no way am I ever getting an X1, to I might get one 5-6 years down the road. Now Microsoft has a trust and credibility issue, why would I expect them not to 180 again on this after they've moved a set enough units? PS4 for me (maybe a Wii U when it's less than $200 with a large HDD and Wii U pad 2.0).

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

WhiteKnight77

How does the money Gamestop makes from used game sales get fed back to the industry? As it is, gamers get a pittance of what they paid for a game by Gamestop and have to sell several games back just to buy one game. Gamestop makes approximately 50% of its profit from used game sales (I guess the rest of the money goes to overhead). How does EP, Ubisoft or Valve get any of that money back? It certainly isn't because large numbers of new games are sailing off the shelves, especially when gamers talk about wanting to save what they can by buying used due to games being so expensive. 

This. Nafiyaan is one of my friends.

I LITERALLY fell out of my chair laughing!

[QUOTE="Areez"]Abusive? You do not think that it is abusive that Gamestop ripps off gamers with trade-ins?Black_Knight_00

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Just read his post again. He said trust=0.

nvm me. I am imagining things. 

Areez

I am not convinced that DRM would have killed the industry. You know what is going to kill the industry and raise the prices of games? Piracy and used game sells.  I get the sense that a lot of folks overlook the fact the developers are running a business. No one looks at DRM from a business perspective, and what it collectivley means for developers. The indusrty looses an additional billion in lost revenue to the secondary market used game sells market. Gamestop is a racket.

100 percent of the profit of used game sells goes back to Gamestop. Used games are also a rip-off for gamers too. Sure, the idea of receiving trade-in credit to use towards a new game sounds very appealing. However, the depreciation of a brand new game's value drops fast, as soon as you tear off the plastic, instant depreciation. The $60 you paid for your game, is now worth $25-35 dollars (depending on how old the title is, the reviews for the game) and Gamestop will turn around and sell your game for $45-55 dollars used. The best part for Gamestop, is that it can re-sell the same used game, over and over again. Can we say...more money, more money and more money. And none of that goes back to the developers. 

Consumers would be wise to just sell their games on their own and at least maximize their own used game value. I think what MS was trying to do with console DRM was to create Steam like service for consoles and allow the developers to get a piece of the action from used game sells, by placing more controls on used software sells. Piracy, lost revenue from used game sells...these are the things that will hurt the gaming industry.

You do know that used games does NOT just equal trading them in at Gamestop right? Most of the anger over DRM is the question of ownership. If I am going to pay 60 damn dollars for a game I better damn well be able to do whatever the hell I want with it, I should be able to sell it to someone on Craigslist, loan it to a friend or flush it down my toilet if I want to. DRM means that you don't actually own the stuff you pay for, even if the disc is in your house. That is the issue. If you want to spend hundreds of dollars renting games until they decide to shut down their servers more power to you but I care about my investments.

Did anyone believe that MS or Sony are in this business for anything other than to make a profit? It's not because the manufacturers care about the gamers beyond the ability for them to maximize profit off of us. Sony's decision to go DRM free, no region lock, or constant Internet connection are wonderful announcements, but I firmly believe that Sony took note of the backlash against Microsoft's plans and reacted accordingly. Don't get me wrong, it's exactly what Sony should have done and I applaud them for the shrewdness of the move, but I definitely don't see them as the paragon of gamers.

Now that MS has reversed their decision, and yet people are still holding that decision against them. I'm not one to try and argue against opinion, because what someone truly believes is almost impossible to change; I just don't understand the continued opposition based on those Microsoft decisions. The DRM restrictions are gone the way of the constant Internet connection. If the pricepoint is what individuals are basing their decision on, I believe that to be more important than, "MS did that, and even though they've reversed their decision, I'm still not giving them a chance" argument.

Did anyone believe that MS or Sony are in this business for anything other than to make a profit? It's not because the manufacturers care about the gamers beyond the ability for them to maximize profit off of us. Sony's decision to go DRM free, no region lock, or constant Internet connection are wonderful announcements, but I firmly believe that Sony took note of the backlash against Microsoft's plans and reacted accordingly. Don't get me wrong, it's exactly what Sony should have done and I applaud them for the shrewdness of the move, but I definitely don't see them as the paragon of gamers.

Now that MS has reversed their decision, and yet people are still holding that decision against them. I'm not one to try and argue against opinion, because what someone truly believes is almost impossible to change; I just don't understand the continued opposition based on those Microsoft decisions. The DRM restrictions are gone the way of the constant Internet connection. If the pricepoint is what individuals are basing their decision on, I believe that to be more important than, "MS did that, and even though they've reversed their decision, I'm still not giving them a chance" argument.

Ghost_Face

 I think it's still important to send them a message. That being: "We will not forget this." What Microsoft just tried to pull was a magic trick- watch as they make your consumer rights disappear. Had Sony gone along, all the outcry in the community likely would have been for nothing. Anyone remember the Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror where Bill Clinton and Bob Dole were body snatched by Kang and Kodos? "I'm gonna vote for a third party candidate!" "Go ahead! Throw your vote away!" El_Zo1212o

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

70% of the used games sales fund new game sales. So out of that billion dollars, $700 million are fed back to the industry. 

MrGeezer

How does the money Gamestop makes from used game sales get fed back to the industry? As it is, gamers get a pittance of what they paid for a game by Gamestop and have to sell several games back just to buy one game. Gamestop makes approximately 50% of its profit from used game sales (I guess the rest of the money goes to overhead). How does EP, Ubisoft or Valve get any of that money back? It certainly isn't because large numbers of new games are sailing off the shelves, especially when gamers talk about wanting to save what they can by buying used due to games being so expensive. 

I am not saying that the developers and publishers should get any money from used game sales. First Sale Doctrine says that once it is sold, they lose all rights to any other funds related to said product. That also means that a consumer can sell said item to another party. It does not give another party the right to make a profit from reselling a product that they previously sold either. It's one thing to sell the game via Craigslist or eBay, but entirely another when a company is making ~ 50% of its profits from said sales. 

I agree, publishers can do more to restrict those sales and in a way, MS was almost on the right track. Sony and MS can do more to help both gamers and publishers while restricting Gamestop. Tying the games to a persons account with a CD key that can be removed from the account or transferred to a different person is one way to go. Until they do, they do not have much room to complain about it.

Did anyone believe that MS or Sony are in this business for anything other than to make a profit? It's not because the manufacturers care about the gamers beyond the ability for them to maximize profit off of us. Sony's decision to go DRM free, no region lock, or constant Internet connection are wonderful announcements, but I firmly believe that Sony took note of the backlash against Microsoft's plans and reacted accordingly. Don't get me wrong, it's exactly what Sony should have done and I applaud them for the shrewdness of the move, but I definitely don't see them as the paragon of gamers.

Now that MS has reversed their decision, and yet people are still holding that decision against them. I'm not one to try and argue against opinion, because what someone truly believes is almost impossible to change; I just don't understand the continued opposition based on those Microsoft decisions. The DRM restrictions are gone the way of the constant Internet connection. If the pricepoint is what individuals are basing their decision on, I believe that to be more important than, "MS did that, and even though they've reversed their decision, I'm still not giving them a chance" argument.

Ghost_Face

Of course all companies just want our money. But some methods of obtaining it are objectionable and some are not. MS sought an infringement upon the rights of owners of physical goods that is without precedent in the console industry (PC has all sorts of crazy DRM which doesn't seem to do much but be a headache for the law abiding).

[I am not saying that the developers and publishers should get any money from used game sales. First Sale Doctrine says that once it is sold, they lose all rights to any other funds related to said product. That also means that a consumer can sell said item to another party. It does not give another party the right to make a profit from reselling a product that they previously sold either. It's one thing to sell the game via Craigslist or eBay, but entirely another when a company is making ~ 50% of its profits from said sales.

I agree, publishers can do more to restrict those sales and in a way, MS was almost on the right track. Sony and MS can do more to help both gamers and publishers while restricting Gamestop. Tying the games to a persons account with a CD key that can be removed from the account or transferred to a different person is one way to go. Until they do, they do not have much room to complain about it.

WhiteKnight77

Actually, that is precisely what it does.

The GameStop model is hardly new; back when music stores flourished, used CD's and even DVD's were the norm and they too represented a significant revenue stream for retailers who embraced the model.

Your personal distain for the GameStop model is entirely irrelevant; the law protects that model as viable. First-Sale Doctrine doesn't distinguish between a person selling their own used copy of a game versus a company selling thousands of used copies. First-Sale doctrine is largely predicated on the freedom to transfer ownership of physical property and once a customer relinquishes that ownership to GS the company has every legal right to resell it for a profit.

That is precisely why publishers and developers are pushing digital distribution; it effectively circumvents First-Sale Doctrine by making it impossible to transfer ownership to someone else.

MS was trying to take that model one step further by forcing physical copies to be tied to a specific machine/account while also forcing online verification every 24 hours.

I have no problem with digital distribution assuming that I as the consumer enjoy some benefits for going digital, namely a significant price drop to offset the fact that I cannot resell the software should I not want to keep it.

Did anyone believe that MS or Sony are in this business for anything other than to make a profit? It's not because the manufacturers care about the gamers beyond the ability for them to maximize profit off of us. Sony's decision to go DRM free, no region lock, or constant Internet connection are wonderful announcements, but I firmly believe that Sony took note of the backlash against Microsoft's plans and reacted accordingly. Don't get me wrong, it's exactly what Sony should have done and I applaud them for the shrewdness of the move, but I definitely don't see them as the paragon of gamers.

Now that MS has reversed their decision, and yet people are still holding that decision against them. I'm not one to try and argue against opinion, because what someone truly believes is almost impossible to change; I just don't understand the continued opposition based on those Microsoft decisions. The DRM restrictions are gone the way of the constant Internet connection. If the pricepoint is what individuals are basing their decision on, I believe that to be more important than, "MS did that, and even though they've reversed their decision, I'm still not giving them a chance" argument.

Ghost_Face

This is good news,they showed alot of good games at E3 and to the people scared they could bring this back later...this has been a nightmare for MS and bringing this back later would destroy their brand.They wont do that.