Top
230°

Those new Xbox One policies - in plain English

MCV - Simple guide to what MS is saying about ownership, second-hand and always-on.

The story is too old to be commented.
Dno1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

no matter how u spin it it still sucks Wii u and ps4
for me

1932d ago Replies(2)
miDnIghtEr20C_SfF1932d ago

And then just Wii U when PS4 does it.

Right?

SegaGamer1931d ago

True. I don't agree with the Xbox 1's policies either and i won't be getting it, but i don't understand why so many people are saying "I'll be getting a PS4" They don't know anything about the PS4 yet so i don't get why they are saying this.

Dno1931d ago

no because ps4 will not do it. are u a troll? Sony has already confirm no Kinect like crap in box and you can play offline. so as long as I can let my friends borrow my games which I can because theres no online check and play
offline then the software is mine. I do not have to rely on a M$ server to play my games on PS4.

So ps4 and wii u for me on consoles. I play PC also

Tiqila1932d ago

I promise I will stop playing video games the day all consoles have those drm policies.

Rusty5151932d ago

The third console curse continues

strotee1932d ago

I assure you, we're not ants.

Rusty5151932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

Haha sorry. The pic was bigger on reddit. But ..Whatever. You get the point

SpinalRemains1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

How the hell did it get so bad?

The best has got to be

"When offline, you can still enjoy live TV and Blu Ray movies."

Really! Thanks Microsoft! You let me use my cable subscription. You guys aren't so bad. May I also go the store and get milk during these offline hours?

That's some seriously obnoxious stuff right there. They're actually touting the ability to watch the tv you paid for, and the cable subscription you pay for monthly, FROM A PROVIDER THAT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THEM! They're letting you use your HBO. My god that's so obnoxious. The claiming of another's services and the permission thereof.

Pillsbury11932d ago Show
CODallday1932d ago ShowReplies(6)
muffinbutton1932d ago

We have to protect consumers rights all together.

MikeMyers1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

Those consumer rights were a fantasy to begin with:

http://www.t3.com/news/micr...

On-topic,
- Always On:

"This is also the backbone supporting the licensing and ownership policies above."

Which is why people are wondering how publishers on the PS4 will do this because Sony has said repeatedly that it is up to them if they want online DRM. Why would Microsoft care about how 3rd party titles are handled unless they requested it? You never did own the game licensing you bought, it was just never enforced before. Now the big boys will enforce it.

"But it must connect after a day to "verify if system, application or game updates are needed and to see if you have acquired new games, or resold, traded in, or given your game to a friend"."

Which is why Microsoft wanted an always on system, to have instant gaming, to allow persistent worlds, to allow up to 10 people to access your content, to have automatic updates. When you require a system to do certain functions this pushes developers to utilize those new features. Just like how every Xbox 360 game allowed custom music backgrounds. Now they know every Xbox One owners will be connected, this opens up other possibilities. MMO's work this way. We are blending single player games with online connectivity. Forza 5 will show this tomorrow and everyone will go "ahh, I get it now". Destiny will show this with their new game as well and it too will require a connection on the PS3 and Xbox 360. The PS4 will not require an online connection because that is not the direction they are taking. However Gaikai will be a key component and Playstation Plus will advance, both will require being connected. Consumers will want to be connected. I understand not everyone wants to be or wants to be forced to but each has their own vision of the direction they want to go.

- Game Ownership

This is probably the most talked about. Again this is the direction Microsoft wants to take so that it allows them to have the system function the same for everyone. It is software based so of course they could be more lenient about it. The system could potentially allow loaning games to anyone, as many times. I'm not defending their decision on this. What I will say is there are a few trade-offs.

"You can also allow up to ten friends or family log in to your library remotely from any Xbox One and play your games. You can even be playing different games from your library at the same time from different locations."

Not sure how this will work as to who you can put down and if you drop one and the ability to add a replacement. Still, now you have an inner circle all playing your games and their games without each person buying them. Chances are you won't be able to play the same game at the same time and will likely require a Gold membership.

"The games you buy are tied to your account."

Much like how Steam works but you need to be signed in much like how Playstation Plus works.

"That way, you can sign into any Xbox One device and play all your games."

It also takes the need of downloading and installing games to be bypass on those systems since a copy of your games are in the cloud.

So as we can see it's different and will take time getting used to. It can be tweaked at any time and hopefully renting and loaning will come.

VonBraunschweigg1932d ago

You gotta be kidding. It doesn't make any sense, if we can't update your games and system everyday we take away all your gamingprivileges. That's what they're saying. And it's bullshit, because games and systems don't need updates everyday.

You can give a game to a friend...but that friend can't give it back.

You can sell a game to everybody...after 30 days of being friends.

Trade a game? Go overthere. Play online? Pay. No online. Go watch TV.

MikeMyers1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

"It doesn't make any sense, if we can't update your games and system everyday we take away all your gamingprivileges."

Consoles require you to have the latest system updates, otherwise some functions will not even work. Sure you can download it off of the PC and transfer it but you still need to connect it.

"You can give a game to a friend...but that friend can't give it back."

According to the article they can. You just can't lend it out again. Which yes, it is restricting access.

"You can sell a game to everybody...after 30 days of being friends."

'Licensed' retailers don't care if they are your friend, they are not part of that 30 day restriction.

DigitalRaptor1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

I don't care if you think MS's direction is a good or bad one. That's your outlook.

What shocks me is that you are actually defending mandatory online checks and used games blocking.

There is ZERO reason why you should HAVE to connect to the Internet to use your games that are self-contained physical discs. If a game is purely single player, why in hell on Earth should anyone require to connect to the Internet to play it? CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, you can use these offline. Clothes, jewelery - basically any other physical good - you don't need the Internet to have permission to use. The gaming industry thinks it's special and that it's entitled to block your ownership of physical goods.

Publisher blaming consumers for used games. I mean do they really expect gamers to be able to buy their games for $60 each all the time? Do the really think that keeping a used game at $60 for as long as they see fit will really solve their problems? No the problems are brought on by their own corporate greed. It won't make gamers able to afford their games any more than before.

Basically the choices MS made when designing their console was to screw the consumer to try and make money off a physical product that should BELONG to a person once sold, again and again and again. If you think there is nothing wrong with abusing a person's first-sale rights you are so blindly loyal and deluded that you might want to seek help.

Either that or you're just a fanboy apologiser who's willing actions will shape the industry into something undesirable for both gamers and consumers.

MikeMyers1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

DigitalRaptor,

You have the right to be behind a walled garden when you buy an IPhone or you can have an Android phone that has many more issues. Apple fans like IOS devices because it's symmetrical with everything they use. What else does Microsoft do? Oh that's right, computer operating software that's probably on 80% or more computers out there. That's is where the money is. It's not by selling the most smartphones, it by selling software. Who makes money on computers anymore? Apple rakes in billions on software each year. How much is Sony making off of the PS3 now? How long did it take them to make money on it? How about Vita or the Wii U? The market has changed and Sony seems content this hardcore crowd is all they need. Not so, watch E3 as they now market well beyond games. They will do the opposite approach Microsoft did.

You're looking at this from the inside, not from a distance. Microsoft's vision goes well beyond the Xbox, you know that with how they are going after the TV market too. They too are going the route of Apple. They want to be behind a walled garden, where it's much easier to control. Where everyone gets the same updates and where everyone has the same experience. They also take a **** kicking with piracy. Every new game has been leaked on torrent sites. We also see time after time retailers breaking street dates. Microsoft is partnered with these big game publishers and cable providers, they don't want to have a system that infringes on their intellectual property. They need to have the highest standards of cloud technology. Sorry to say but Sony can't pull this off. They can't invest in 300,000 servers and get these sort of deals done right now. They are broke in comparison.

Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company. The Xbox brand goes well beyond gaming. It is still at its heart a gaming console but there is much more to it. They started by pushing online way back in 2002. Sony on the other hand had to push bluray, they had TV's to sell. They got away with having a $600 game console. Nintendo could never get away with that. Nintendo is the only one of the 3 who's main roots still remain to this day is about gaming. They don't even allow the ability to watch TV's. They cannot afford to have the Wii U not sell. Microsoft however can spend billions of dollars making sure the Xbox One is a success and watch, it will be.

This underground movement if you will are from those who despise government, those who hate control. Those who hate the idea of executives making billions of dollars. They are the ones who hide behind the mask while crying out they are invading our privacy. Protesting on the street hiding their faces as they break windows. Watch how they conduct themselves. They are the most aggressive, the most vocal, the ones who try and fear-monger to everyone else. Emotionally unstable and socially inept loners reaching out to anyone who will listen.

rainslacker1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

Since you copy and pasted from a comment you made in a blog I shall respond with my response to you from that blog since you apparently don't want to do any real research.

In order to address what you say on the legality of EULA, the truth is, is that it's entirely dependent on the court hearing the case.

There are many cases that deal with EULA law, and in all those cases the judgements are passed down in such a way to not give any precedence. This is notably why there is no true discerning factor on the legality, ethnicity, or morality of the EULA. In some cases the court decided not to judge anything, only to pass the buck onto the supreme court, who themselves won't take a side on the issue.

We could each take prior cases to make our points on whether or not it is legal, both of us would be right within the context of the cases we cite, and the issue would remain, that there is no clear or definitive ruling by any court in the US.

It's entirely possible with me living in NC, that the courts would side with me on the matter of whether I have the right to sell a game disc, and you, living in your own little world, don't have the right to sell it due to EULA wording. As such, the only place that truly matters is the place where you originally purchased the game, or possibly first used it, as that is the point at which you would have accepted an EULA(for retail discs, DD is trickier).

Once again you speak in an absolute without doing any research into the matter. There are numerous documents through an easy Google search that can help you understand the intricacies of EULA law and how it pertains to consumer rights and more importantly the first sale doctrine. However you decided that what you believe is the true law, and disregard any other information that may contradict what you say.

What you say is true completely only in the sense that it is what companies making these products want you to adhere to. That in itself makes sense.

But here's the truth of it. EULA law is a gray area, both for the consumers and the liscensor. It's probably not something that software companies really want to get close scrutiny on in a court of law due to the nature of EULA not being a mutually agreed upon contract, and in practice just states, either accept, or don't use. The EULA in itself is restrictive in nature and mostly benefits only the original maker. The courts in general take a dim view on that sort of thing.

EULA disagreements are generally brought up by consumers, not the people who write them. In fact, every EULA requires binding arbitration, which in itself isn't enforceable, so it's pretty obvious companies that have them, never want to see these come to light in a big case in a court of law where precedence may be demanded to be set.

Edit: I also find it ammusing that you are actually OK with all that. Keep drinking the kool-aid kid.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1932d ago
MikeMyers1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

con't.

- Kinect and privacy:

"Data will not leave your Xbox One without your explicit permission" it has also added, to those concerned that heart rate monitors (possible with Kinect), or tracking of what photos/videos you look at can be monitored."

Controlled by 'YOU'

"When the Xbox is in standby mode, it is only listening for one command - Xbox On - to reactivate it, and isn't 'listening' for anything else.
You can even turn that off, too."

Controlled by 'YOU'

EDIT,

What I will say is if Microsoft only allows you to transfer your game to a friend (who has been on your friends list for at least 30 days) and that means you can't get it back that is a huge mistake. That I will not defend. It does sound to me that you can still have the game on your hard drive. At least that is how it should work. Otherwise what would be the point of just giving it away for nothing? That so far will only apply to Microsoft Studio games and 3rd party publishers have the right to support it or not.

TheEvilWithin1932d ago

Whatever helps you sleep at night mike...

from the beach1932d ago

According to this article you can get the game back, but you can only do this process once.

You should write a blog on your above comment. :)

Show all comments (71)
The story is too old to be commented.