In 20 years, internet connectivity will be much like electricity, maybe even more universal.

Um...barring any invention of an internet-capable device that doesn't run on electricity, I don't think that scenario is too likely.

Heh.

I'm thinking that the earth's surface will be bathed in wireless internet. Whether or not you can access it is another question. Consider how many have access right now through data plans (i.e. smartphones) that do not have access to clean water or uninterrupted electrical service.

If I could have current and next gen games on cartridge, I would do it in a heartbeat. Say what you will about it looking more toylike, n64 carts were nigh indestructable... well more durable than a disc.

And they have no load times. And they're harder to pirate. And their data capacity has finally caught up with discs (3DS carts can hold up to 8 GB, comparable to a dual-layer DVD). The only thing standing in their way is what stood in their way back in the 90s: manufacturing costs. N64 carts cost in excess of $10 to manufacture, whereas optical disks cost maybe a buck at most. Those manufacturing costs are, unlike development costs, included in the price of the game, which is why N64 games typically retailed between $60 to $70 while PS1 games typically retailed between $40 to $50. Even though inflation-adjusted game prices are now at an all-time low, lots of gamers still think $60 is "too much," so I think the reaction to console games jumping to $70 or even $80 would be similar to the reaction to the XBO having used game DRM and online requirements. Also, there really isn't a standard for ROM carts, whereas DVDs and Blu-rays are standards, which could have unforeseen impacts on cross-platform development. Carts will likely remain the standard for portable systems, but I doubt we'll ever see them again for home consoles.

The XBO can still do a great many things that the 360 could not do, and there's even a couple of features that it has that the PS4 doesn't have. Even if the XBO doesn't fundamentally change gaming — and let's be honest: the only fundamental change was going to be to the used game/second-hand market, which is what DRM and online requirements were about — that's still not a bad thing. As I pointed out in a post I made on HBO after the PS4 announcement, that's not really anything to be disappointed about. The history of gaming has been one of stepwise evolution. Even the increases in computing power we get every generation are in and of themselves capable of bringing us newer and better things. Even ignoring all this "cloud" business that MS and Sony go on about, I've noticed that many devs are doing things other than simply making prettier graphics. They're actually doing things that affect gameplay, things that simply couldn't be done on prior generations due to hardware limitations. We're getting larger game worlds (you could make a drinking game out of how often "open world" was said at E3), we're seeing large-scale physics-driven features, and we're getting the ability to play larger MP maps with greater amounts of players. It's not simply going to be "seventh-gen gameplay with better graphics." We need not bemoan the lack of revolution, but rather be in awe of the power of evolution. Even though the fundamentals of gaming haven't changed all that much over the last several decades — even things like motion control and networked/online gaming have existed since at least the 80s if not earlier —, gaming itself has evolved substantially in that time, and I have been nothing short of impressed at all the progress that has been made since I first started playing games some 30 years ago. Dismissing each new generation as "just a power upgrade" greatly understates just what those power upgrades are and have been capable of.

Yes, yes. I know. We're all horrible Luddites for standing up for consumer rights, which as we all know stands in the way of Progress™. If only we primitive dinosaurs would abandon our archaic caveman technology — because discs and dead tree books are only a step removed from stone tools

If I could have current and next gen games on cartridge, I would do it in a heartbeat. Say what you will about it looking more toylike, n64 carts were nigh indestructable... well more durable than a disc.

Now, if people want digital, then go for it. They have that option. But I'd also like the option to do things the old way by buying physical, because I find it to be better and I like to actually own what I buy. When iTunes came out, CDs didn't just disappear. The advent of Netflix didn't cause Blu-rays and DVDs to just evaporate into the ether. The Kindle didn't cause the printing presses to automatically shut down. There's room for both digital and physical, and there's no reason that consoles absolutely have to become strictly "Steam boxes."

Some might say, "But MS needed draconian DRM and online requirements to usher in the Future of Gaming." Oh, if only I could be so trusting. I don't think for one minute that their main reason was to bring about new advances in gaming or anything noble like that. It was about used games more than anything else. Several people and publishers in the game industry have been making a (completely baseless) stink about used games for the last few years. It's essentially a repeat of the late 80s when Nintendo of America was swearing up and down that game rentals were going to be the death of the industry, and they fought Blockbuster tooth and nail to eliminate rentals (they failed, of course). "Big Entertainment" has rarely had our best interests in mind. From attempts to block VCRs from the market in the early 80s to the push for laws like SOPA and PIPA today, they have continually sought nothing short of copyright being an absolute and perpetual property right. They want a world where the publishers control everything now and forever, lock, stock, and barrel, where possession is no longer nine-tenths of the law because we are no longer buying "products" but rather paying for "services." They have shown time and time again that they have no use for things like Fair Use provisions, the public domain, and the First-sale Doctrine.

So yeah, I have every reason to be suspicious of "Big Entertainment," including the game industry. And I sure as hell don't think for one minute that going the "Steam box" route would suddenly lower prices. Consoles are closed platforms. When we buy digital games on an Xbox console, we can only buy from Microsoft's store, with MS's DRM rules being the standard and the console itself being a fixed piece of hardware. PC, however, is an open platform, and Steam has competition from Good Old Games, Green Man Gaming, and various other digital storefronts, all with widely varying DRM schemes (from strict to none), not to mention you have mods and you can customize your PC to your heart's content. So yeah, I'm skeptical that a digital-only console would benefit us in any way. It would just be another means of exerting greater hegemony. They gain absolute control, we get jack squat in exchange (except maybe the illusion of greater convenience).

But regardless of whether MS's intentions were pure or not, I refused to support a system that did not respect the right to lend, sell, or give away my property in accordance with the First-sale Doctrine (and don't try to hand me that "you only bought a license" bullshit). I refused to support a system that required me to ask their permission every 24 hours to be allowed to use my own property, as if I was a child with limited TV privileges an MS were the parents I had to beg to be able to watch my favorite cartoon. Not only should "permission" and "allow" never be part of the equation, but there's also the question of whether I'd still be able to play my XBO games 15 or 20 years down the road (those servers likely won't be around forever). If I spend $500 on a system and $60 a pop for a game, then I had goddamn better well be able to use those things whenever and wherever I want, internet access be damned. No other console in history imposed such arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions, and there's absolutely no reason to impose them now. To quote Half-Jaw from Halo 2, "This is unprecedented... unacceptable." I'm used to doing things a certain way, and I'm not about to change. For 30 years, from the Intellivision to the Xbox 360, I've enjoyed the benefits of the First-sale Doctrine, and I've never had to ask the console manufacturer permission to play my games. I paid for the system and the games, and that was that. Had MS's prior policies stood, the XBO would have fundamentally changed the business-customer dynamic as it relates to console gaming, and I was not going to be part of that. No fucking way, no fucking how.

There's no reason that they had to attempt to implement system-wide DRM to physical games. There's no reason they had to mandate an internet connection. The PS4 is capable of cloud computing and all sorts of other fancy next-gen stuff too, but it did so without having to fundamentally change a 35+ year status quo (and besides, "the cloud" might not be all it's cracked up to be). Hell, even the all-digital Steam has an offline mode; you don't have to connect to Valve's servers on a periodic basis for permission to play your games. There was nothing preventing them from offering a robust digital marketplace while still maintaining basic expectations people have had for nearly four decades in regards to a console (e.g., lending, trading, reselling, gifting, & renting games, being able to play offline indefinitely if one so chooses).

And what are we losing from this policy shift, really? "Family sharing" and part of the "digital library" thing. In regards to sharing, that whole thing always sounded too good to be true, and therefore it likely was. Given all the bitching about used games, you really think publishers would allow one person to share a game with up to ten others with no restrictions? If anyone thought that would have been the case, well, I also have some ocean-side property in Nebraska for sale. That story from yesterday about the family sharing being a glorified demo system may have simply been a rumor, but it's damn plausible. As for the whole digital library thing, Marc Whitten said "Now, of course, your physical games won’t show up that way. The content you bought digitally will. But you’ll have to bring your discs with you to have your games with you." So, it still applies to digital downloads, just not to discs. And really, is losing that functionality for disc-based games such a big deal? Is it really that big of an inconvenience to have to bring the actual physical copy with you when you go over to a friend's house for a Halo 5 LAN or whatever? So, we're losing a couple of minor conveniences, but in exchange we're gaining so much more. We retain our First-sale Doctrine rights, we retain the freedom to play offline indefinitely if we so choose (especially good for people with bad or no connection), which also means that there's no possibility that our XBO will one day be unable to play our games, and finally there's the fact that we're getting a region-free Xbox.

All in all, I'd say MS's policy reversal is a net gain for the vast majority of people. I for one am no longer going to boycott the XBO, and will likely get one when Halo 5 comes out (still getting a PS4 first; the lower price is important given that this will be an expensive holiday season and there's several big Wii U games coming, plus I'm more interested in Sony's exclusives). However, I will hold them to this, and I will drop them in a heartbeat if their policies ever again conflict with my interests as a consumer. There will always be a trust issue, and I'll be keeping my eye on them (another reason why I'm still going to wait a while to get an XBO). My doing business with a company is contingent on the quality of their product and their service. I rarely do "brand loyalty" (only Nintendo has that from me, but they've earned it with a rock-solid 25-year-long track record), so I have no qualms with ditching MS, even if it means missing out on series like Halo. Game companies need to remember that one antagonizes their customers at their own peril.

I did a test once with Halo: Reach. My tethering app kept track of data usage, and 1 hour of "Invasion" only used up 20-something megabytes.

Yeah it's a real shame about losing the F&F thing

I don't understand. Why not just let someone opt in to the 24 check in DRM in order for all this cool stuff?

Like, you get it and it functions like an xbox 360, but if you want to play without the disc in the tray or share with your 10 family members, you can turn on the DRM and do it if you want.

Isn't that the best of both worlds?!

That's largely what I was thinking. Make the default mode like the 360, like they've set it up now. Since I haven't authorized any digital sharing, my console shouldn't need to check in for game authorization status, so there's no chance I'll ever be locked out of a title because my console can't verify that I still own it.

Better still, why not do that on a per-title basis? The checkin requirement seems to exist because after 24 hours, XBL assumes you may have loaned, sold, or traded in some or all of your installed games, instead of assuming you haven't. Why not let someone login to XBL and tell the system "hey, I'm loaning or trading in this game today" before allowing the transaction? Then require either your friend to login to XBL to play the borrowed game (which is reasonable) or require GameStop to checkin with XBL to check that a title being traded in is authorized for tradein. (Also means nobody can steal games from you and then sell them without your permission.)

If the system worked that way, users would only need to checkin when they want to use one of these features, and nobody not using the features would ever be locked out of something they own because of a requirement to make every console checkin every 24 hours.

Better still, allow tradeins of digital purchases. Since there's no other market for doing this except within the system, there's no need for additional checkins-- you're online when you trade your title, the buyer is online when they purchase it, MS and the publisher get their cuts, and GameStop gets nothing.

As it stands, though, I'm sure all of this is in the TOS subject to change without notice. Knowing the way MS wants things to work, and their unwillingness to extend the same rights to digital copies that apply to physical copies (or, indeed, to any copies, given the Xbone's original system) I wouldn't trust them not to partially implement this system later.

The system also needs to work without Kinect plugged in. That's a deal breaker for me as well. No mention of that changing.

Yeah it's a real shame about losing the F&F thing

You realize that if you checked out a game using that feature, it was a timed demo right? You could not share full games.

In 20 years, internet connectivity will be much like electricity, maybe even more universal.

Um...barring any invention of an internet-capable device that doesn't run on electricity, I don't think that scenario is too likely.

I think a much smarter strategy would have been for MS to slowly introduce downloadable games during XBone's lifespan rather than shove DRM down everyone's throats with the console release. I expect to see direct downloadable games for both consoles sooner or later. As far as pricing is concerned, I would be surprised if they price as well as Steam does.

Something else that doesn't surprise me is that MS probably intentionally mislead everyone during E3 regarding this feature. Free games sounds so much better than free trials, so why wouldn't they mislead everyone. This console war is clearly no-holds barred.

I have a feeling this isn't the end of the MS Xbone drama, at least I hope not, because I find it extremely entertaining.

First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs).

Just because it's newer or 'higher tech' doesn't mean it's more convenient for everyone, and just because we can do it doesn't mean we should do it.

I think the Aperture Science model is the best. They do what they must because they can. :)

I do like the idea that has been floated around that Microsoft can slowly reimplement these features over time. There was a time the 360 couldn't install games or do roaming internet profiles or any of that stuff. Maybe there's still hope for the 180 more advanced features.

First-sale Doctrine respected! Don't have to ask "permission" on a regular basis to be "allowed" to use your own property!

This attitude is infuriating. It's shallow, shortsighted and inaccurate. I think Jason Chen hit the nail on the head here: The Internet Just Made Microsoft Kill a Car for a Faster Horse.

.... but, but, but horses are way cooler than cars...

Other than now (Heh). . . Can I quote you on that?

Dead on, man. Cars suck, metaphorically speaking.

If only downloadable games were cheaper. … Why can't MS and Sony do it with games?

Maybe that was the plan, and this change of plans with the Xbox One has just killed off any chance of finding out?

Then why not tell us that in the first place?

I think this sums up the thoughts of those who were saddened by this change rather will. I posted it here since Dorklys site might not be the best place to view from where ever "work" is.

I really like the idea of more money going to the developers, but not at the cost of the freedoms of ownership. Instead, I just boycott GameStop and their crappy practices and support my local, friendly game store (if I could still - GameStop ran them all out of business) or buy and sell directly to others on eBay. Money is either going to the developer (and I buy new for smaller studios, especially), a local store, or to a previous owner - not corporate middlemen.