• FEATURED

View more

View more

View more

Image of the Day Submit

IOTD | Top Screenshots

The latest, straight to your Inbox.

Subscribe to GameDev.net Direct to receive the latest updates and exclusive content.

Microsoft and the Xbox One. Thoughts?

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

268 replies to this topic

Posted 13 June 2013 - 06:45 PM

I'll repeat myself: It's not like I sell my game to Gamestop and suddenly 5 used copies appear out of thin air. Like Hodgman said, it's one copy, one user. Only one person can use that disc and play that game at a time.

In fairness, you're right there is a difference. Used games are actually worse than piracy if we use money here.

New game sale: $50 Used game sales total:$175

Total sales: $225 Publisher profit:$25

Gamestop profit: $125 So Gamestop makes 5x as much as the publisher. Now let's imagine that instead of buying used games, the people pirate %50 of their games and buy 1/2 new. New game sale:$150

Used game sales total: $0 Total sales:$150

Publisher profit: $75 Gamestop profit:$30

Well, I see how that sucks for Gamestop, but even people pirating %50 of their content is better than having a used market. The publisher makes 3x more if people pirate half of their games than if they get them used. Bear in mind, the average used game passes through six owners over the course of its life.

It's pretty darn difficult to defend used games.

"You can't say no to waffles" - Toxic Hippo

#162cowsarenotevil  Members

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:46 PM

I'll repeat myself: It's not like I sell my game to Gamestop and suddenly 5 used copies appear out of thin air. Like Hodgman said, it's one copy, one user. Only one person can use that disc and play that game at a time.

In fairness, you're right there is a difference. Used games are actually worse than piracy if we use money here.

New game sale: $50 Used game sales total:$175

Total sales: $225 Publisher profit:$25

Gamestop profit: $125 So Gamestop makes 5x as much as the publisher. Now let's imagine that instead of buying used games, the people pirate %50 of their games and buy 1/2 new. New game sale:$150

Used game sales total: $0 Total sales:$150

Publisher profit: $75 Gamestop profit:$30

Well, I see how that sucks for Gamestop, but even people pirating %50 of their content is better than having a used market. The publisher makes 3x more if people pirate half of their games than if they get them used. Bear in mind, the average used game passes through six owners over the course of its life.

It's pretty darn difficult to defend used games.

There are so many things wrong with this comparison that I'm not even sure where to start, but on a fundamental level you're still ignoring the basic fact that, with used games, for each copy of the game, only one person can have it at a time. If we assume that games have, for instance, no replay value, then the comparison might start to make sense (but not your numbers; you've left enough variables undefined that they don't actually mean anything), but this is an incoherent assumption.

Here's another pointless comparison: games that can be played more than once are one million times worse than piracy.

I could pirate a $50 game and play it once. The publisher would (in some vague sense) be "losing"$50 dollars. But what if I bought a game only once and played it one million and one times? Then the publisher would "lose" $50 million dollars. The true criminals are those who dare to think that buying a game entitles them to play it more than once! Now, this doesn't make any sense at all, because the price of games includes the assumption of being able to play a game more than once; a game that I could only play once after buying it would be a different (and inferior) product, so it's very likely not worth the same to any given consumer. Just so with games that can be re-sold: with such games I have the option to a) keep a game and play it forever if they like it and b) give it or sell it to someone else if I don't want it anymore. This is something that I know in advance, when I'm paying for the game initially. Remove any or both of these features and it's not the same product anymore, so we can't assume that it has the same value. Any economic comparison that doesn't factor this in doesn't actually accomplish anything. Edited by cowsarenotevil, 13 June 2013 - 07:48 PM. -~-The Cow of Darkness-~- #163BladeOfWraith Members Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:59 PM only one person can have it at a time This means nothing. You still have six people paying over$200 for a game where the publisher ends up making $25. Gamestop should not make 3x as much as the developer. but not your numbers; you've left enough variables undefined that they don't actually mean anything I'm using pretty well know estimates. Publishers make about %50 of the retail sale value on average. Gamestop makes about$10 on a new game. They make about $20-25 on used games. I made that example to illustrate a point. Most people who buy used games use the "But I can't afford new games!" defense. Fine, but that's what pirates often say. I'm pointing out that it's better for the industry for you to never buy another used game, as they make as much money on used as piracy. That is a fact you cannot escape. Either buy new, or go grab a torrent. Don't like that used games are the exact same thing as piracy? That is not my problem. The people buying used games are contributing the exact same amount of money into the publishing houses as if they just downloaded it. And when they buy used, they have less money to buy new. People who say "If you can't afford to buy a game, you shouldn't play it" have a fair point. Especially when one considers the plethora of quality free games and sub$10 games on GoG and even Steam. But it applies to used just as much as piracy. Buying a used game does not one more thing for the industry. If you have $20 to buy a used game, then go hit up the year old discounted new games. Failing to do so because of a sense of "I want to play the newest stuff and screw the developers" entitlement, is a pirate mindset. Edited by BladeOfWraith, 13 June 2013 - 09:02 PM. "You can't say no to waffles" - Toxic Hippo #164Gavin Williams Members Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:41 PM cowsarenotevil ... well your name says it all, DECEIVER ! because I know damn well the true nature of cows, growing up in tipping country on the north coast of New South Wales. Oh how they stare. If we assume that games have, for instance, no replay value, That's a really bad assumption to have as a part of any argument. Many games have replay value, that's a given. So it's hard to draw any conclusions relying on an assumption that is plainly wrong and not useful. So I can't even understand why that assumption leads to giving strength to BladeOfWraith's comparison. And yes there are unknown variables in his comparison, but since when do we throw our hands up in the air and go 'oh well, there are unknown variables, so anything we do or say is pointless' Here's another pointless comparison: games that can be played more than once are one million times worse than piracy. Yes, that is a pointless comparison. I could pirate a$50 game and play it once. The publisher would (in some vague sense) be "losing" $50 dollars. The publisher would be "losing"$50 in a very real sense, and you would be committing a crime.

The license to play allows you to replay the game, I don't understand what you are going on about. I suppose you are making a hypothetical argument. It's true that I have to pay twice if I go and watch a film at the cinema twice, not that I'm personally someone who does that, though I know some people will watch a movie two or three times if they love the movie. They must pay each time.

This whole argument is somewhat arbitrary, there are probably a dozen different models to work within, each one maximizing the interests of one party or another. But the fact that games companies are constantly being shut down, makes me think that money is leaking from somewhere. Taking gamestop and the second hand market out of the equation would surely mean that there's more money going into the hands of the people making, and publishing these games. The digital economy allows us to remove the cost of distribution.

Remove any or both of these features and it's not the same product anymore, so we can't assume that it has the same value. Any economic comparison that doesn't factor this in doesn't actually accomplish anything.

Well to say the comparison doesn't actually accomplish anything is defeatist and I wonder how any of us get anything done, because nothing can be done perfectly. So many things that we do, we do inadequately.

But you're right about the changing values, if the second hand market is removed we should see a change in the value of the product. I think Steam is an example of that kind of model, why buy second hand when you can buy off Steam. I don't buy second hand games at all, I don't think I ever have.

#165cowsarenotevil  Members

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:29 PM

If we assume that games have, for instance, no replay value,

That's a really bad assumption to have as a part of any argument. Many games have replay value, that's a given. So it's hard to draw any conclusions relying on an assumption that is plainly wrong and not useful. So I can't even understand why that assumption leads to giving strength to BladeOfWraith's comparison. And yes there are unknown variables in his comparison, but since when do we throw our hands up in the air and go 'oh well, there are unknown variables, so anything we do or say is pointless'

Under that assumption (which, we both agree, is inaccurate) it is perfectly accurate to equate buying a game, playing it once, and then giving it away to buying a game, playing it once, and then giving away a copy. Without that assumption (or some other assumption), though, the two situations are no longer identical. That's all I meant by that.

I could pirate a $50 game and play it once. The publisher would (in some vague sense) be "losing"$50 dollars.

The publisher would be "losing" $50 in a very real sense, and you would be committing a crime. No, and yes. No, they wouldn't actually be losing anything except relative to the case where I would otherwise have bought the game for$50. Piracy is a big deal, and no one is disputing that it's a crime. But not every act of piracy translates to lost revenue: it's perfectly possible that someone pirates a game to try it before buying it (and otherwise wouldn't have bought it at all) or simply pirates a game that they wouldn't have played at all otherwise. That doesn't make it any less illegal, but it does render useless any direct equation of piracy to lost revenue.

The license to play allows you to replay the game, I don't understand what you are going on about. I suppose you are making a hypothetical argument. It's true that I have to pay twice if I go and watch a film at the cinema twice, not that I'm personally someone who does that, though I know some people will watch a movie two or three times if they love the movie. They must pay each time.

Well, you do know what I'm going on about as evidenced in the rest of your post, and it's simply this: the license also allows you to resell the game, or at least it could/used to. In the same sense that a game that can only be played once is a different product (with different value) from a game that can be played over-and-over, a game that can be resold is a different product from one that cannot be resold, and consequently is (at least for some people) of different value.

Well to say the comparison doesn't actually accomplish anything is defeatist and I wonder how any of us get anything done, because nothing can be done perfectly. So many things that we do, we do inadequately.

The question is not and never has been whether the comparison can or should be made approximately. BladeOfWraith made a direct comparison that had all of these implicit assumptions, and then used very specific numbers. I did the same thing with my (very stupid) comparison regarding replayable games: the point is that if you assume equivalency where there is none, it's possible to derive anything (it's the principal of explosion, really).

It's only defeatist to give up at this point. The appropriate thing to do is to instead acknowledge that your comparison is approximate, come up with some reasonable (evidence-based) bounds for how the comparison actually works in practice, and carry this uncertainty through to the end of the derivation. Only then is it possible to (begin to) make sense of how much revenue would be gained or lost in different situations (sharable games, unsharable games, games with different kinds of piracy protection, replayable games, etc.)

Or, we can just assume that any arbitrary equation is always perfect, and we end up with nonsense like this:

Don't like that used games are the exact same thing as piracy?

Hint: they're not. To start with, one is generally illegal, and the other is not.

Edited by cowsarenotevil, 13 June 2013 - 10:33 PM.

-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#166Hodgman  Moderators

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:54 PM

I guess second hand books, VHS's and DVD's are just piracy as well  (read: no, they're not, and people comparing the re-sale of discs to piracy are just plain wrong)

If the good is a physical object, it can be resold. That's the law. Reselling books, DVDs or PS3 games is a right that everyone has. It's a perfectly sensible and long-accepted doctrine, and it's culturally ingrained. You cannot argue against the reselling of a physical good.

If you don't want your games to be resold, then you can bundle them with online activation and single-use keys in order to circumvent physical property rights.

Current console games have chosen not to do this, which means there's no reason you can't resell them.

The legal default in our society is that physical goods can be re-sold. Publishers have chosen so far to package up console games as physical goods, and thus they've chosen to give the consumer the right of resale.

Xbone is changing the medium so that this is no longer the case (the physical disc no longer represents the good, it's just a single-use ticket that you can redeem for the good).

That's fine, but it it's shaking up existing culture, so some negative reactions are to be expected.

n.b. you'll still be able to legitimately re-sell a physical xbone disc, it just won't have very much value compared to a 360/PS disc, seeing that it doesn't have as much utility (as it doesn't physically represent the game). Someone who wants it for the utility of being able to pay the license transfer fee and install the data from the disc, may still want to pay you a few dollars from your physical xbone disc

Edited by Hodgman, 13 June 2013 - 11:07 PM.

#167way2lazy2care  Members

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:42 AM

I guess second hand books, VHS's and DVD's are just piracy as well  (read: no, they're not, and people comparing the re-sale of discs to piracy are just plain wrong)

If the good is a physical object, it can be resold. That's the law. Reselling books, DVDs or PS3 games is a right that everyone has. It's a perfectly sensible and long-accepted doctrine, and it's culturally ingrained. You cannot argue against the reselling of a physical good.

Total Biscuit did an interesting video about this. He's got a bit of a bias toward digital distribution as he's mostly a PC gamer, but his argument boils down generally to books/movies having more alternate streams of income than games where games rely much more on initial sales. Also books/movies are moving away from physical also, so I'm not sure that comparison holds much water in the sense that they are moving away from it in similar fashion.

#168cowsarenotevil  Members

Posted 14 June 2013 - 08:03 AM

(...)his argument boils down generally to books/movies having more alternate streams of income than games where games rely much more on initial sales. Also books/movies are moving away from physical also, so I'm not sure that comparison holds much water in the sense that they are moving away from it in similar fashion.

I think many of us (certainly including me) have fallen into a trap of false equivalence. Buying a used game is like piracy, in that someone gets a copy of the game without the developer being paid. It's also unlike piracy, in that it has generally been legal, and it doesn't change the total number of people who own the game at any given moment. Piracy is like theft, in that it's illegal, and it causes someone to have something that they didn't pay for. It's also unlike theft, in that the pirated "object" itself continues to remain in the possession of the legitimate owner. Used games are like used movies, in that the important thing being shared is the data, not the physical media. They're also unlike used movies, for the reasons you're referring to.

The truth is that argument by analogy is not really a meaningful form of argument, in a strictly logical sense. It rests on saying that A is like B modulo membership in some set C, but if membership in set C is enough to make some claim about A, mentioning B is actually superfluous. If it isn't enough to make the claim about A, the argument is not valid. Argument by analogy is only really useful for exposing contradictions in one's thinking, e.g. believing that A has some property because it's a member of set C, while simultaneously believing that B, also a member of set C, does not have that property.

Edited by cowsarenotevil, 14 June 2013 - 08:04 AM.

-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#169Alpheus  GDNet+

Posted 14 June 2013 - 10:20 AM

I guess second hand books, VHS's and DVD's are just piracy as well  (read: no, they're not, and people comparing the re-sale of discs to piracy are just plain wrong)

If the good is a physical object, it can be resold. That's the law. Reselling books, DVDs or PS3 games is a right that everyone has. It's a perfectly sensible and long-accepted doctrine, and it's culturally ingrained. You cannot argue against the reselling of a physical good.

Total Biscuit did an interesting video about this. He's got a bit of a bias toward digital distribution as he's mostly a PC gamer, but his argument boils down generally to books/movies having more alternate streams of income than games where games rely much more on initial sales. Also books/movies are moving away from physical also, so I'm not sure that comparison holds much water in the sense that they are moving away from it in similar fashion.

I disagree with that premise only because Wii and by extension the Wii U have done an excellent job selling extraordinarily old games on their systems. Plus with Steam, GoG, and Gamefly the publishers at least are still making quite a bit of money off of older games. Plus his argument to me is not an issue with used games but an issue with revenue sharing in the industry and being slow to adapt to a changing environment.

External Articulation of Concepts Materializes Innate Knowledge of One's Craft and Science

Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley

If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts

Spoiler

#170way2lazy2care  Members

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:25 PM

stuff

stuff

That was a 2 sentence abreviation of a 10-20 minute video. He's got a few more points than just the bits I said.

#171froop  Members

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:26 PM

If you don't want your game to be resold, make a better game   I'll never sell any of my classic RPGs!

#172Hodgman  Moderators

Posted 15 June 2013 - 03:49 AM

I guess second hand books, VHS's and DVD's are just piracy as well  (read: no, they're not, and people comparing the re-sale of discs to piracy are just plain wrong)

If the good is a physical object, it can be resold. That's the law. Reselling books, DVDs or PS3 games is a right that everyone has. It's a perfectly sensible and long-accepted doctrine, and it's culturally ingrained. You cannot argue against the reselling of a physical good.

Total Biscuit did an interesting video about this. He's got a bit of a bias toward digital distribution as he's mostly a PC gamer, but his argument boils down generally to books/movies having more alternate streams of income than games where games rely much more on initial sales. Also books/movies are moving away from physical also, so I'm not sure that comparison holds much water in the sense that they are moving away from it in similar fashion.

There's nothing debatable about what I posted, I was just describing the facts. Sources of income and whether business are viable or not is irrelevant to the law.

The comparison is that books, DVDs and PS3 games are all physical goods that are completely self-contained. The person who physically possesses them has the right to enjoy their contents.

Most PC games, Xbone games, ebooks and online movie rentals are not physical goods any more. They person who physically possesses their installation media may not have the right to their contents, these rights are assigned separately to physical possession.

Any of the above physical goods can be resold, whether it's a PS3 game or a PC installer disc with an already-used-up steam key (but obviously the PC disc with the used-up steam key has close to zero value, because it is not the game).
If a publisher doesn't want their games/books/movies resold, they can choose to use the second Xbone/Steam/iTunes licensing option. If they want to allow the right of resale, they can package their games up as a physical good.

If publishers want to play hard-ball with Gamestop, they can choose not to sell their products wholesale to Gamestop, and boycott their business. This doesn't happen. EA makes more money by cooperating with Gamestop rather than trying to kill them off.

People often forget that Gamestop is part of "the industry". The developers, the publishers and the retailers all make up "the industry". If physical (Gamestop) and digital (Steam) retailers all disappeared, then a link in the chain would be broken.

Developers -> Publishers -> Distributors/Wholesalers -> Retailers -> Gamers

Physical retailers are going out of business everywhere, and the only ones that are surviving are either big department stores that use games as a loss leader (many department stores sell below the wholesale price!), or specialist games stores that survive off of trade-ins. It won't be long before we don't have the option of buying games from a dedicated game retailer any more.

You can choose whether that's good, bad or meh.

If publishers want to penalise people who buy second hand, then they can choose to make the physical disc no longer represent a license, which has partially happened in console land already -- many current games use a mix of both sales options, where the possession of physical disc represents a license to access the majority of the game, but then some expansions or features are granted via a second license that isn't represented by a physical backing.

There's nothing stopping publishers from selling games PC/iTunes style on consoles if they really wanted to kill off 2nd hand sales, but none have dared face the backlash alone (besides PSN/XBLA games).

Yes you can argue about whether the right of resale of physical goods is a good thing or a bad thing, but that's a completely different discussion to what I was saying.
You can emotively say that the impacts of 2nd-hand sales are alike the impacts of piracy, that's fine if you've got the hubris to back up your asserted feelings.
But you cannot say that 2nd-hand sales are the same as piracy, because that's just factually bullshit.

Edited by Hodgman, 15 June 2013 - 04:17 AM.

#173Ravyne  Members

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:25 PM

There are interesting points on both sides if we resist the urge to knee-jerk. As I said earlier,I tend to agree with the property-rights/first-sale doctrine view of things. On the other hand, setting aside Blades' assertion that buying a used game is equal to piracy (which I think stands, if qualified by For everyone up the sales chain: Developer, Publisher, Wholesaler, and retailers not in the used games business, if we set aside additional sales of downloadable content) he makes a compelling argument that a personal policy of buying only new games, even if it means pirating some games, is better for developers and publishers. Of course, we have to simplify even that, because it may not account for the tangential benefits that developers and publishers receive by the existence of physical retail, and a larger install base that normally buys used but occasionally buys the hot new game new.

I tend to think that many developers will eventually settle in one of two main camps -- one will produce smaller games that are less-costly to develop (think Summer-blockbuster vs. wide-release, not Blockbuster vs. art-house film), and the other will supplement blockbuster games with additional income through subscriptions, DLC, and micro-transactions. Of course, even today we see games in a variety of sizes succeeding on the latter model, so its really a matter of pricing scale.

Ultimately though, its something of a personal moral judgement about how you want to best support the developers and artists you love. For example, I listen to a lot of music on Spotify because its a great service, but I also try to see my favorite bands when they come through town (which is thankfully frequent in Seattle), buy some merchandise from their booths, and always buy their albums there. Why? Because its the best way to put money directly in their hands, and for them to continue doing what they do. Technically I've already paid for the streaming rights by subscribing to Spotify's service, but I'm still concerned that the artists themselves can't sustain themselves on their cut of streaming revenue, especially the kind of bands I listen to who don't have a mainstream audience.

throw table_exception("(ノ ゜Д゜)ノ ︵ ┻━┻");

#174Alpheus  GDNet+

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:38 PM

stuff

stuff

That was a 2 sentence abreviation of a 10-20 minute video. He's got a few more points than just the bits I said.

How ironic, that you condense both our posts into one word. And the same word at that.

And I watched the video. I was responding to your post and his video.

External Articulation of Concepts Materializes Innate Knowledge of One's Craft and Science

Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley

If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts

Spoiler

#175marcClintDion  Members

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:24 PM

Funny, Xbox One sounds suspiciously like Xbox Won.  A play on words perhaps?  I suspect that the reason they are pushing all the features except for games is because they assume that everyone already knows that the platform can run games.  They are trying to attract a wider market by appealing to people that are not very interested in games, like the parents of all the gamers who need justification for buying this thing. They want non-gamers to take it seriously as well.  Also, by the time fall rolls around, people's TV's are going to be flooded with game ads just in time for Christmas.  They are building up anticipation by holding back for now.

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

#176tstrimple  Prime Members

Posted 18 June 2013 - 04:00 PM

Funny, Xbox One sounds suspiciously like Xbox Won.  A play on words perhaps?  I suspect that the reason they are pushing all the features except for games is because they assume that everyone already knows that the platform can run games.  They are trying to attract a wider market by appealing to people that are not very interested in games, like the parents of all the gamers who need justification for buying this thing. They want non-gamers to take it seriously as well.  Also, by the time fall rolls around, people's TV's are going to be flooded with game ads just in time for Christmas.  They are building up anticipation by holding back for now.

You have more faith in Microsoft marketing than I do. I believe most of the trouble here is how poor of a job they have done explaining the console and the benefits. For example, how many people here know you and a friend can play a single copy of a game at the same time? You can buy one copy of Gears of War 13 and play coop with a friend in another state even though he doesn't have a copy of the game. That's a feature I will be using a lot.

#177Prinz Eugn  Members

Posted 19 June 2013 - 10:36 AM

One copy co-op on different machines? That's pretty sweet.

I would lean towards Microsoft thinking existing Xbox 360 goodwill would carry them over while they tried to get mom and dad in the living room. I think it's beyond stupid that the launch, which was watched 90% by people who care more about games than anything else, had such a huge emphasis on not-games. And then, maybe worse, E3's message was so poorly managed that Sony came out looking significantly better.

I think they would've been better placating gamers while they're all watching and then do the market broadening stuff later, since those people don't give half a crap about reveals anyway.

-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal

#178tstrimple  Prime Members

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:43 AM

One copy co-op on different machines? That's pretty sweet.

I would lean towards Microsoft thinking existing Xbox 360 goodwill would carry them over while they tried to get mom and dad in the living room. I think it's beyond stupid that the launch, which was watched 90% by people who care more about games than anything else, had such a huge emphasis on not-games. And then, maybe worse, E3's message was so poorly managed that Sony came out looking significantly better.

I think they would've been better placating gamers while they're all watching and then do the market broadening stuff later, since those people don't give half a crap about reveals anyway.

I think a great compromise would be to have everything the way they have it now, except if you want to play offline more than 24 hours, you need the original media in the console.

#179way2lazy2care  Members

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:05 PM

So new stuff. Microsoft took some key points back:

Last week at E3, the excitement, creativity and future of our industry was on display for a global audience.

For us, the future comes in the form of Xbox One, a system designed to be the best place to play games this year and for many years to come. As is our heritage with Xbox, we designed a system that could take full advantage of advances in technology in order to deliver a breakthrough in game play and entertainment. We imagined a new set of benefits such as easier roaming, family sharing, and new ways to try and buy games. We believe in the benefits of a connected, digital future.

Since unveiling our plans for Xbox One, my team and I have heard directly from many of you, read your comments and listened to your feedback. I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your assistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One.

You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have today with games delivered on disc. The ability to lend, share, and resell these games at your discretion is of incredible importance to you. Also important to you is the freedom to play offline, for any length of time, anywhere in the world.

So, today I am announcing the following changes to Xbox One and how you can play, share, lend, and resell your games exactly as you do today on Xbox 360. Here is what that means:

• An internet connection will not be required to play offline Xbox One games – After a one-time system set-up with a new Xbox One, you can play any disc based game without ever connecting online again. There is no 24 hour connection requirement and you can take your Xbox One anywhere you want and play your games, just like on Xbox 360.

• Trade-in, lend, resell, gift, and rent disc based games just like you do today – There will be no limitations to using and sharing games, it will work just as it does today on Xbox 360.

In addition to buying a disc from a retailer, you can also download games from Xbox Live on day of release. If you choose to download your games, you will be able to play them offline just like you do today. Xbox One games will be playable on any Xbox One console -- there will be no regional restrictions.

These changes will impact some of the scenarios we previously announced for Xbox One. The sharing of games will work as it does today, you will simply share the disc. Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray.

We appreciate your passion, support and willingness to challenge the assumptions of digital licensing and connectivity. While we believe that the majority of people will play games online and access the cloud for both games and entertainment, we will give consumers the choice of both physical and digital content. We have listened and we have heard loud and clear from your feedback that you want the best of both worlds.

Thank you again for your candid feedback. Our team remains committed to listening, taking feedback and delivering a great product for you later this year.

I think the two big things they changed are the way it should have been from the start. Essentially what they're saying is that the disc authenticates the game. I can't tell if I missed anything else.

edit: oh region free too. rad.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 19 June 2013 - 03:12 PM.

#180siri  Members

Posted 19 June 2013 - 03:14 PM

They've just reversed most of the policies people were complaining about.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-19-microsoft-will-reverse-position-on-xbox-one-drm-today-report

Edit:

Should have read before I posted.

Edited by siri, 19 June 2013 - 03:15 PM.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.