Opinion: Microsoft kills game ownership and expects us to smile
Options
Last time they shipped a console that didn't work by accident. Here's one that doesn't work on purpose.
By Tom Bramwell Published Friday, 7 June 2013
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.
Comments
-
undoubtedly a broke ? who doesnt realize its 2013 wrote this.
#focusisacoon
#focusisabeachneegha -
Sony gonna do some form of this. I just cant see MS doing this for no reason.
-
they might have to under the pressure of publsihers/developers
-
they might have to under the pressure of publsihers/developers
this. Publishers realize how much revenue they'll lose from used drm games. To think they won't pressure Sony to do the same thing is just being a little naive. So that I understand. What I don't like however is MS requiring u to have an always online connection. Lets say I was going cross country and wanted to take my console with me and I decided to stay in a motel somewhere in bumfuck, Kansas where there's no internet. How am I suppose to play anything? MS really ? themselves with that -
the used game thing isnt what bothers me. Sony and MS can do whatever they want on that front. its the not always online but chick in ? that MS is doing, and that Sony says they wont do, thats the key here. internet goes down, no matter where you live. I lost my internet for a week during Sandy, but not power. So that week I wouldve had no games whatsoever if I had a one?
as far as the used game thing, why not just continue the $10 online pass that went on last generation? that still seems like a fair balance so publishers earn something from used games. -
sony is leaving it up to the publishers whether or not they want to charge a used game fee/online pass.
if you think most 3rd party publishers won't charge think again. -
so, does that mean games published by Sony won't have one?
-
earth two superman wrote: »the used game thing isnt what bothers me. Sony and MS can do whatever they want on that front. its the not always online but chick in ? that MS is doing, and that Sony says they wont do, thats the key here. internet goes down, no matter where you live. I lost my internet for a week during Sandy, but not power. So that week I wouldve had no games whatsoever if I had a one?
as far as the used game thing, why not just continue the $10 online pass that went on last generation? that still seems like a fair balance so publishers earn something from used games.
Because online passes only applied to, wait for it....ONLINE games, ? .
You really should finish up that Associates degree. LOL. -
earth two superman wrote: »the used game thing isnt what bothers me. Sony and MS can do whatever they want on that front. its the not always online but chick in ? that MS is doing, and that Sony says they wont do, thats the key here. internet goes down, no matter where you live. I lost my internet for a week during Sandy, but not power. So that week I wouldve had no games whatsoever if I had a one?
as far as the used game thing, why not just continue the $10 online pass that went on last generation? that still seems like a fair balance so publishers earn something from used games.
This right here is exactly what I'm thinking about. I'm in a hurricane zone. If even a small storm passes thru it might knock out power and phones lines for a while. That means no internet until that is sorted out. So even if I crank up my generator or we have power back right away, I still can't game until the internet is sorted. So, I'm going to have to turn my phone into a hotspot to check in and ............. oh wait, the cell company is the same one that provides my internet service ............
The used game stuff doesn't affect me one bit. Actually, I like it. Keeps people from borrowing my ? . -
grumpy_new_yorker wrote: »sony is leaving it up to the publishers whether or not they want to charge a used game fee/online pass.
if you think most 3rd party publishers won't charge think again.
The fuckery is gonna be with Ubisoft in the publisher realm. They're outright totalitarian with their games on PC to the point the pirated games often play better than the legitimately purchased ones due to the constant ? ups with their "security checks" not acknowledging you're playing a legit game from time to time.
On Microsoft's end, a lot of this stuff doesn't apply to me since I don't lend games or borrow anymore. However, anyone can see people who buy this console are not buying it for blu-ray, live tv, or any secondary functionality, so announcing, "Hey, it does all this auxiliary ? that you probably won't even use without an internet connection! Awesome, right?" is like saying, "Hey, your emergency lights blink on your car when it won't crank up! That's totally awesome, right?"
? outta here.
If it needed internet for playing blu-ray and watching tv, I'd be cool. To handicap the main reason for owning the damn thing? Only the most jaded disconnected business people surrounded by sycophants could think that is a good idea. If I held major stock in Microsoft, I'd be calling for the top decision maker's head behind this. The word of mouth on this console is worse than the original Xbox because it was all speculation then. The fuckery is confirmed from the company itself this time, so there's no counterpoint to make besides "Don't buy it, and see if they reverse some of this with firmware updates as a response."
Hope to ? someone makes a controller adapter for PS4 that lets me use a 360/One controller. Ain't ? with this thing at all until I see if the fails make them undo some of this stupid ? . -
-
I already decided to get a PS4 even before the One was announced, still hasn't changed and this stupid 24 hour check up certainly didn't help things.
-
Still funny that EA says Online Pass is a thing of the past .............. MS says its up to the publishers
-
focus if youre gonna try to join the conversation, turn off the arcade ? and speak like the big nosed woman we all know you are.
-
-
with the xbone going the way it is, microsoft must really have...
:puts on shades:
... a death wish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o -
Microsoft Paying Third-Party Publishers to Not Show PS4 Games at E3 2013 – Report
Microsoft is reportedly using unfair tactics at E3 2013 Enlarge picture - Microsoft is reportedly using unfair tactics at E3 2013
Microsoft is allegedly paying many third-party publishers so that they won't show off their PlayStation 4 games at E3 2013, according to a new report.
E3 2013, the most important games convention out there, is set to begin next week, and both Microsoft and Sony are expected to focus heavily on their next-gen consoles, the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, respectively.
In order to gain the upper hand on Sony, Microsoft is apparently resorting to some unorthodox practices, like paying a lot of money to third-party publishers so that they won't show their PlayStation 4 games either on stage or at their actual booths.
The report arrives from a source on NeoGAF, which posted a lot of true rumors in the past, so it's possible that Microsoft really is resorting to such tactics ahead of E3 2013.
The company emphasized that at the event it's going to focus only on games for the Xbox One, so it could try to create a false sense that more games are coming to Xbox One than PS4.
taken from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Paying-Third-Party-Publishers-to-Not-Show-PS4-Games-at-E3-2013-Report-359264.shtml -
If true then that is really desperate.
-
I currently keep my Xbox 360 at my work accommodation where I spend half of my time. I have no Internet there so I only use it for single player games.
Looks like I won't be able to do that if I cop an Xbox One. -
I already decided that I wouldn't buy another Microsoft console after what their ? 360 hardware put me through. That door was closed and after reading this, its locked.
-
Maaaaaaaaaan, Bill Gates gonna have to come out of retirement before his company's legacy is skullfucked back into the stone age. Fought that hard to throw the monopoly chants out the window, and now it's back to square one with this fuckery.
-
So owning a Xbox One has more rules than having a pet Gremlin
