Be Excellent To Each Other

Sure, we know that now. But that post was written in 2004.

Access your entire games library from any Xbox One—no discs required: After signing in and installing, you can play any of your games from any Xbox One because a digital copy of your game is stored on your console and in the cloud. So, for example, while you are logged in at your friend’s house, you can play your games.

However, if Shenmue 3 comes out on it, I'll buy 10.

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Still, my brother, Dad and I could all share a game library.

Don't be daft, Microsoft isn't going to let you do this. 'Family' will be defined as 'people who live at the same address' and there'll be some limit about the IP addresses you sign in from and how often you sign in from multiple IPs simultaneously.

Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house.

YES, Xbox One DOES need internet, DOES restrict game trading

Microsoft has finally confirmed that Xbox fans' worst fears are at least partially true: Although the new Xbox One gaming console won't need an always-on internet connection, that connection had better be on pretty often or you can forget about gaming. And don't assume you'll be able to sell or trade your old games, either.

"With Xbox One, we are planning for a connected future," the Xbox team explained in a blog post on Thursday.

What that means is that while offline gaming is technically possible with the Xbox One – as an earlier leaked memo suggested it would be – it will only actually work as long as the console is able to phone home at least once per day.

After that it's kaput, unless all you want is a media player – and customers who don't want to connect their consoles to the internet might as well forget about buying an Xbox One altogether, as the post explains:

With Xbox One you can game offline for up to 24 hours on your primary console, or one hour if you are logged on to a separate console accessing your library. Offline gaming is not possible after these prescribed times until you re-establish a connection, but you can still watch live TV and enjoy Blu-ray and DVD movies.

What's more, as Redmond notes, even though the console itself doesn't need to be online all the time, some games may not work unless it is.

While a persistent connection is not required, Xbox One is designed 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. Games that are designed to take advantage of the cloud may require a connection.

Or, as the Xboxers put it elsewhere in the same post, "Xbox One is designed to run in a low-powered, connected state" – which, in the opinion of this Reg hack, isn't quite the same thing as not needing an always-on internet connection, as Microsoft has previously suggested.
B-but ... but you get the CLOUD!

Part of the reason for these requirements is that gaming on the Xbox One is fully integrated with the cloud. When you install a game for the console, a copy of it is automatically associated with your online account, no matter whether you bought it online through Xbox Live or picked it up on physical disc at a store.

The main benefit of this is that your games can now follow you wherever you are. You can login with your account on your friend's Xbox and play all of your games there. You can even share your games with up to ten members of your family, and they'll be able to play them wherever they go, too.

The main downside, on the other hand, is that this cloud-connected system gives Microsoft and its game-publisher partners ultimate control over when, where, how, and to whom you can sell or trade your used games, even if you bought them on physical disc, as Microsoft explains in a separate blog post.

Although it will be possible to trade in, resell, or give away your disc-based games in some cases, and Redmond won't charge you any fees to do so, it's up to game publishers to decide whether it's allowed for their games – and how much it might cost.

"Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers," the post explains.

Even giving games away is subject to approval. According to Microsoft, you'll only be able to give them to people who have been on your friends list for 30 days, and each game can only be given away in this fashion once. And even then, it's up to game publishers to enable the feature for their games.

Worse still, for now all of this is hypothetical. "Loaning or renting games won't be available at launch," Microsoft writes, "but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners."

On the positive side, Microsoft says gamers will have complete control over when and how the built-in Kinect sensor in the Xbox One operates, collects, and shares data. "When Xbox One is on and you're simply having a conversation in your living room, your conversation is not being recorded or uploaded," Redmond thoughtfully explains.

On the negative side, just about everything you hoped wouldn't be true about the Xbox is essentially true, even if the rumors didn't have it exactly right. Happy now?

What happens if you don't connect to the Internet once every 24 hours

I don't think there will be IP restrictions. There would be problems with dynamic IP addresses and such as well.

just about everything you hoped wouldn't be true about the Xbox is essentially true,

Do you think any two Beexers will be able to mark each other as family members, split the cost of a new game 50/50, and both play at the same time, in different houses, without restriction? How about if it's ten Beexers?

Do you think any two Beexers will be able to mark each other as family members, split the cost of a new game 50/50, and both play at the same time, in different houses, without restriction? How about if it's ten Beexers?

the window shrinks to an hour. So now if your internet goes down for an hour, you can't play games any more.

I'm rather assuming it's only going to work for a family XBL subscription, no?

I'm rather assuming it's only going to work for a family XBL subscription, no?

A new generation of games with power from the cloud: Because every Xbox One owner has a broadband connection, developers can create massive, persistent worlds that evolve even when you’re not playing.

So what stops the Beexers clubbing together and buying a family XBL sub?

Scenario: The zombie apocalypse finally comes. I'm secure in my home with a generator, supply of beef jerky, and beer. I plug in my Xbox One, and cannot play....

I plug in my 360 or PS3, and game on.

Xbox One: Not Apocalypse Friendly.

It reads to me as if you might be able to do something like that, but with the proviso that you can only have one person playing a game at a given time.

So I could play CoD 73: Gun Shooter, while Cras plays Forza 35, but we couldn't play the same game together.

That said, I would be literally amazed if that were true.

So what stops the Beexers clubbing together and buying a family XBL sub?

Microsoft kills game ownership and expects us to smile

Almost exactly a year ago, at the end of an E3 press conference in which Microsoft heralded fitness software, Kinect, Internet Explorer, Bing and dying action games as the future of entertainment, I wrote that anyone who has paid attention to Microsoft's business over the years should not be surprised by its apparent lack of self-awareness.

"If we are entertained by what Microsoft chooses to do for its own gain," I suggested, "then that is simply a happy coincidence."

Guess what? The coincidence is over.

The fact that Microsoft's policies governing game ownership, sharing and privacy are not surprising does not make them any less devastating to consumer rights, should they be formally adopted and become a standard. They sacrifice our freedom to own and trade games for no other reason than corporate self-interest.

To save you skimming large tracts of condescending prose about how much Microsoft loves and respects you as a human wallet, here is a summary:

You do not own the games you buy. You license them.
Discs are only used to install and then license games and do not imply ownership.
People can play games installed on your console whether you're logged in or not.
10 people can be authorised to play these games on a different Xbox One via the cloud, but not at the same time, similar to iTunes authorised devices.
Publishers decide whether you can trade in your games and may charge for this.
Publishers decide whether you can give a game you own to someone for free, and this only works if they have been on your friends list for 30 days.
Your account allows you to play the games you license on any console.
Your Xbox One must connect to the internet every 24 hours to keep playing games.
When playing on another Xbox One with your account, this is reduced to one hour.
Live TV, Blu-ray and DVD movies are exempt from these internet requirements.
Loaning and renting games will not be possible at launch, but Microsoft is "exploring the possibilities".
Microsoft may change these policies or discontinue them at any point.

There is also a promise that Microsoft Studios games will all allow you to trade them in and give them away for free, bringing a whole new emphasis to the expression, "It's the least we could do!"

The only positive thing in the whole document is confirmation that you can turn off Kinect and its data will never be uploaded without your permission. Let us all applaud Microsoft's "OK, fine!" decision not to intrude on our privacy.

The suggestion that these changes to game ownership have been taken to combat piracy or limit the damage that used game sales do to the primary market do not stand up to much scrutiny - at our most charitable, we can say that the data is merely inconclusive, but analysis of other industries that have dealt with these issues for much longer is pretty clear that the overall benefits at least balance out the risks of allowing piracy and used markets to flourish.

The more likely reason for this unprecedented new attitude to console game ownership and sharing is that Microsoft wants to turn its game business into the equivalent of iTunes. The signs are already there in the merger of Xbox, Windows and Windows Phone app stores and the decision to run Xbox games off a Virtual Machine 'game OS' within Xbox One, which could easily be included in new hardware derived from the same architectural roadmap.

This is a neat business way of getting everything to line up. It is done in service to Microsoft's corporate objectives. It is not even done with any particular malice towards you and I. Nevertheless, it signals the most significant divergence to date of Microsoft's goals for the Xbox business from our own. It also puts an unspecified expiry date on every Xbox One game ever made and gives you no control over it. Yes, at a point in time where consoles are becoming less relevant, Microsoft's solution is to make them less permanent.

The addition of cloud gaming functions, the avoidance of DVD or Blu-ray disc access times, the convenience of global access - these are the rewards we are being offered for our complicity in Microsoft's decision to eradicate the concept of console game ownership. They are not good enough and very little ever will be.

Digital marketplaces like Netflix, iTunes and the present Xbox Live are a good thing, but they should be additive. They allow us to form a different kind of relationship with art - a more convenient, expansive and often cheaper one that includes better tools for exploration beyond the borders of our current interest. We should and I do celebrate these things. But a critical reason that I accept them is that I still have the option to own an untouchable physical copy of the things I find there as well.

You can say this is no worse than what Steam does, you can say that it is no worse than what a lot of 'content' companies do, and those statements are true, but they do not engage with the most important detail of this news, which is what we are being told to give up in exchange for this new arrangement: the opportunity to form tangible, lasting relationships with art that matters to us. If you never had that, then why would you miss it? But we do. And soon we won't.

Collectors will still be able to buy Xbox One games on disc, of course, and we may line them up happily on our shelves so that our friends and families can admire our dedication and taste forever more. But under Microsoft's new rules, we are no longer building a collection of games - we are building a collection of loans that may be recalled from us at any time, leaving us with nothing but distant memories. And that loss will be simple, instant and complete.

The problem with all the cloud stuff is that it's designed to solve Microsoft's "problems", but doesn't provide any real benefit to the console gamer.

When Will Gamers Say Enough Is Enough?

I've seen some very similar responses to today's Xbox One news, whether it be the mandatory 24-hour "check-in" or the restrictions on game lending. It's a defensive sort of reply, brought up by somebody who doesn't see the news as downright terrible.

"But they're still letting us trade games!"

"We can still play games if we login once a day!"

All without a hint of irony.

It makes me so sad I can barely bring myself to talk about it.

Is this what the last decade of video gaming has conditioned us to becoming? A market that simply trudges from one restriction to the next, shuffling our way along a road that ends with video game publishers getting the absolute maximum amount of money from us for the absolute minimum of effort?

It's hard looking back over the years and seeing anything but.

Sure, we've always had some form of restriction with our games systems. Region locks have been with us since almost the dawn of time. But the rate at which things have escalated in the "online" era put things like plastic tabs on an N64 in the shade.

And yes, there are benefits to gaming's modern infrastructure. Instant downloads, fire sales, convenience, connectivity. But those benefits have also come with some hefty conditions.

It would have been absurd if your SNES cartridges only worked in your SNES. Or if Street Fighter II couldn't be played at an arcade if Capcom's phone lines weren't working. Or if Metroid's "true" ending had only been available as part of a $5 expansion.
"I just want to buy a video game and play it, whenever and however I want."

Yet those are the kinds of situations we find ourselves in today. Beginning with CD keys, the launch of Steam and the first DLC for video games, and going on through online delivery services and online passes, we've gradually found ourselves gamers in a market that treats every sale as a rental, every purchase a privilege.

When did the consumer lose so much power? When did the market, the force that should be dictating how these companies behave by refusing to put up with anti-consumer measures and shaping policies with our wallets, roll over and say "have your way with me"?

The answer is we did it ten years ago. And five. And yesterday. And today. We love video games so much, this wonderful pastime, hobby and artform, that whenever a company that makes money off them places a load on our backs, we endure it, because we're willing to put up with it to get to the games we want to play.

As they drop each load, one by one, we barely protest, because each small weight on its own seems worth it. It's only when you look back, and see how much you're now carrying just to purchase and play a video game in 2013, that you realise, wow, that's kind of messed up.


I've often wondered whether we would ever actually break from the strain, and people would begin to say - en masse and with true intent - that enough was enough. I honestly never thought I would, I thought our tolerance would just continue to strengthen in order to carry the load, but the backlash surrounding the things like SimCity's launch and now Xbox One's policies has surprised me.

Maybe we are reaching a tipping point. The space where people draw the line and say, OK, I've put up with a lot of crap, but this is too much. I just want to buy a video game and play it, whenever and however I want, without you telling me how I can and can't use the expensive stuff I paid good money for. These roadblocks you keep putting in front of me aren't worth it, and no matter how good your games look, I'm not willing to put up with all these restrictions just to play them.

I hope so. We got to this point in time, with people conditioned to accept that publishers are doing us a favour by letting us buy their games, because many gamers forgot a very simple rule about being a consumer: if you don't like something, don't buy it.

It's been a tough stance to stick to in our case, though, because we're not talking about hand soap or instant coffee here. We're talking about video games, some of the best entertainment on the planet. Saying no to games is hard.
Related

Yet video game publishers and platform holders aren't politicians. They don't respond to public perception, or complaints on forums, or angry messages on Twitter. They respond, as I've said before, to sales.

As such, it'll be interesting to see whether the rising anger over Microsoft's stance with the Xbox One - and against EA's SimCity disaster - really does start to impact companies at the register. If so, it'd be a first, albeit a very important one for the market.

And if it doesn't? Well, keep lugging that load. You're getting awfully good at it.

The Xbox One Just Had A Very Bad Day

In two weeks' time, we may look on this as one of the smartest PR moves of all time. But for now? It's been a bad day for Microsoft.

Seeking perhaps to head off criticisms that it had been vague (at best) and incompetent (at worst) in its messaging of core Xbox One services at the console's reveal last month, Microsoft today unleashed a flood of news, detailing the specifics of how the machine handles things like internet connectivity and used game sales.

The news was almost all bad.

Here's a recap:

The console must connect to the internet once every 24 hours in order for you to play games. For many people, from military personnel to students, that's an inconvenience, maybe even an impossibility. Never mind what happens to everybody's console if Microsoft's servers ever come down.
The Xbox One will allow the sale of used games, at "participating retailers", but only if the publisher allows it. Publishers being the very people opposed most fiercely to used video game sales.
There are restrictions on how you can "give" and "loan" your games away. What's more, lending won't be available at launch, with Microsoft still "exploring the possibilities with our partners".

Even some of the "good" news is really just "not as bad news". Or "an avoidance of bad news".

Responding to fears over privacy issues surrounding the "always plugged-in" Kinect, Microsoft says you can turn the Kinect off.

Leaving the sole piece of "oh, OK, that's pretty cool news" to be:

You can have up to ten people in your Xbox One "family", and can share all your content among them, regardless of which console they're using.

If Microsoft can't answer now, it creates the impression it doesn't know now.

Response to the bulk of the news, which challenges a lot of long-held norms like the lending of game discs and the ability to play a games console whenever you want, has been predictably damning, the Xbox One being labelled everything from anti-consumer to dead on arrival across gaming forums and Twitter.

Making matters worse is that while some of the information provided is vague and confusing, the company is refusing to clarify, saying the news details "everything we can share today", and that "We look forward to sharing more details in the months ahead". If Microsoft can't answer now, it creates the impression it doesn't know now.

While it's hard to fathom why Microsoft would walk into the fire like this, only a few days out from the biggest video game trade show of the year (E3), the timing and nature of the info dump may actually be the very reason.

Could Microsoft be taking its lumps now, among the video gaming hardcore and away from the international spotlight of E3? Leaving their presentations next week to be about the things that might actually sell the console, like games? Let those have the last marketing laugh?

You'd have to hope so. Otherwise the Xbox One is going to have a very steep hill to climb to win over a market growing increasingly dismayed at its core services and "features".

Note: It's important to remember that, while Microsoft is catching all the heat today, Sony has likewise been vague about many of these same issues, and it remains to be seen whether the PlayStation 4 will share any similar restrictions or policies.

Are the games streamed as you play when you use another Xbox one or would people have to wait for the whole game to download?

Are the games streamed as you play when you use another Xbox one or would people have to wait for the whole game to download?

Xbox One: It's For Publishers, Not For You


If one thing was made transparently clear with the latest round of Xbox One announcements, it's that Microsoft is no longer worried about pleasing you.

It's finally happened.

Most suspected as much when Microsoft revealed Xbox One to a backdrop of TV, TV, TV, TV, sports, sports, TV, Halo! (no wait, still TV), TV, TV, Call Of Duty. Last night, when Microsoft unleashed full details of its draconian Xbox One plans, its priorities became transparently clear.

Xbox One is a console made for publishers. Not for you.

You don't matter to Microsoft anymore. Microsoft has shrugged its dedicated audience off and targetted the mass market, making a console that targets both them (NFL! Star Trek! FIFA! Skype!) and panders for the publishers (No loaning! The death of used games! Online check-ins!).

Nothing that emerged last night was good news for Xbox One.

The Death Of Games Ownership

So here's the breakdown of exactly what Microsoft announced:

You don't own the games you buy, only the license to play them
Physical discs are used to install games on your machine, at which point they will fall under the same restrictions and DRM measures as games bought digitally
Publishers decide whether games can be traded in or not and even then, it will only be possible with "participating retailers"
You can't loan or rent games at launch, though Microsoft is working on this
You have to connect online every 24 hours - fail to do so and you can't play your games at all
This is reduced to one hour if you're accessing your content from another console
You can sell games to those on your Friends List but only if you've been friends with them for 30 days
Up to 10 people in your Xbox One 'family' can use your licensed content, regardless of what console they access it from

What publisher will allow their games to be traded in? Publishers have been fiercely fighting the second-hand market for years - hence the emphasis on DLC, pre-order bonuses and especially the dreaded online pass - and there's no evidence to suggest a change of heart is due.

Instead, this seems like Microsoft pushing responsibility for restricted trade-ins towards individual publishers, rather than taking the blame. The one thing we can say with certainty is that it's a step backwards from what we have now with Xbox 360.

The 'participating retailers' bit means no more trading games with friends, lending games to friends, game rentals, indie stores, buying through eBay and so on. So there will be less choice when it comes to buying used games, which means trade-in credit will likely go down due to the lack of competition, which means an increased reliance on Microsoft (or the publisher) offering a fairer price for its games.

That's unlikely to happen. We'll explain why further down.

But It's 2013! Everyone Has Internet!

It's a fair assumption that the majority of those wanting to buy Xbox One will have an internet connection and to most, that is a reasonable defence for why having to connect your Xbox One online every 24 hours is a minor inconvenience at worst. There are are still three pertinent issues here.

First, it ignores that not everyone has internet that is reliable or consistent. Army bases won't have internet. Rural areas have unreliable internet. University dorms have unreliable internet. This also ignores those times there are internet outages or the temporary downtime when moving house.

Are these minor issues or extremely specific circumstances? Perhaps. But it's an unnecessary restriction, and in those same circumstances, you'd be able to play Xbox 360 offline. You can say it doesn't matter and maybe to you, it doesn't. It's still a clear step backwards.

(Also, how will this online check-in work? Is it constant, giving you a 24 hours countdown from the moment your console goes offline? Or is it a specific time? What if your console goes offline 15 minutes before the 24-hour time comes up?)

Secondly, this gives Xbox One a limited lifespan. It might be five years, 10 years or 20 years but at some point, Microsoft will pull the plug on its Xbox One servers. When that happens, and there's no way you can check-in online with your console, what then? Dead console?

Finally, it's continued erosion of consumer rights. Why does there need to be an online check-in at all? What benefit does it provide? It could be argued that it's a pre-emptive strike against piracy, which is the commonly heard rally cry from publishers for DRM measures that have some form of always online requirements, but for the law-abiding customer that's still a restriction. There are no benefits.

It's a move that alienates consumers and shows distrust. PS4 isn't doing it. Why is Xbox One?

It's also worth noting that Microsoft has been extremely evasive and deceptive with how it has handled the issue up until this point. Phil Harrison - a Microsoft executive, no less - initially confirmed the 24-hour window to Kotaku back in May 21st and then flat out denied it the next day to Wired.

That's no slight against the Xbox One and what it's capable of, because high-level execs can dribble on about whatever they want and that won't change what the actual machine can do. But the inconsistency and the evasive nature of the PR campaign thus far adds to the general atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion of Microsoft's motives.

But Steam Does The Same! And You Can't Trade iOS Games!

These two ridiculous counter-arguments have popped up in defence of Xbox One not allowing you to trade in or gift games, etc etc. It's not a 1-to-1 example, so it doesn't work as a counter-argument.

The main factor is price. Steam sales are more frequent and more flexible than anything we've seen on console and that feels like a fair compromise for not being able to trade used games (as an example).

It's not that gamers will sell-out their ethics for the right price. It's a value proposition. It's the same reason no-one asks to trade iOS games - they're so cheap to begin with, there isn't a huge outlay you want to make back via trading in.

So what can we expect from Microsoft on the pricefront? Let's have a look at five random Games On Demand prices:

SoulCalibur IV - £19.99 (£4.19 used from Amazon)
Mini Ninjas - £14.99 (£10.95 used from Amazon)
Dead Space - £14.99 (£4.37 used from Amazon)
Sonic Free Riders - £14.99 (£4.35 used from Amazon)
The Outfit - £11.99 (£1.97 used from Amazon)

Now those prices are for Xbox 360 and with Xbox One taking a huge chunk out of the used games market, Microsoft could argue that this will be reflected in flexible and reasonable prices for Xbox One titles.

But why should we believe that? There's been zero evidence so far to suggest this will happen and history points to inflated prices versus competitors. All we have is Microsoft is saying something might happen (prices go down) at the expense of something that will happen (you lose game ownership rights). That's about as flimsy as it gets.

Furthermore, Steam has mods. Steam has offline play. Steam has alternatives.

This is the problem with Xbox One. Microsoft will use EA's partnership to bully its way towards mass market success - if Respawn's TitanFall becomes the new Call Of Duty (doubtful but certainly possible) then Microsoft will have EA support for that alongside FIFA and Madden. Throw in the heavy push for TV and dream to conquer the living room and where does that leave us?

There is no alternative in Microsoft's walled garden - only outside of it.

Xbox One - The End Of The Beginning Or The Beginning Of The End?

As with anything that has a comments section, there's a chance we'll be called Sony fanboys, told that we're stupid, that Xbox One isn't as bad as we're making out and so on. That's entirely fine - that's why we have comment sections and it's only fair that if I have my opinion, you have yours too.

But if you're going to defend Xbox One, think about exactly what it is that you're defending.

You're defending the right of publishers to kill games ownership.

You're defending the right for publishers to dictate to you how and when you play your games.

You're defending the right for publishers to dictate prices rather than the market.

You're defending the right for next-gen to be more restrictive and prohibitive than this gen.

Microsoft wants to chip away at our power with Xbox One but the one thing it can't touch is our power to vote with our wallets. Unless Microsoft pulls off the biggest U-turn we've ever seen at E3 - and Microsoft needs exactly that given the position it's in and the reaction Xbox One has had since its reveal - then I sincerely hope it's a power we all have the strength to exercise.

You can't execute 'bits' of code you need all of it for anything to work so you'd need to download the whole thing to each Xbox.

The vast majority of the data is not code though.

You can't execute 'bits' of code you need all of it for anything to work so you'd need to download the whole thing to each Xbox.