The English Conquistador
Member
Yup, spot on.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Major Nelson/MS issues an official statement regarding Used Games on XBox One
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
Yup, spot on.
Everyone is saying they should have just said nothing. (some)Gamers have a short memory (Modern Warfare 2 Boycott Group) so I'm guessing their strategy was that the uncomfortable questions will be overshadowed by exclusive announcements and gameplay footage at E3 and the bad press will be go away.
Maximilian Kolbe
Member
Actually,they maybe gonna talk about that before E3
Before E3
http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/24/43...uire-regular-authentication-checks-used-games
Microsoft executives have been discussing the reaction to the confused messaging surrounding used games and internet requirements and plan to detail the console's take on both sometime before E3, according to our sources.
Hulkamania78
Banned
Your right but all my friends are really excited for the Xbox One . I have told some info about how it restricts players. who where swaying to Sony but alot more are proper excited. To be fair to MS if they reacted to every negative comment on forum boards they d be sending info out every week . They must know people aren't happy paying for Live but they keep it there. I pay for the family pass so we get 4 memberships for £69.99 so I'm happy .
But I think once the flaming has died down we will know more . If you don't want the console don't buy it that's it. I've saved for both . Got both on pre order . They offer different things but for me Gears is my favourite franchise so I was always getting the Xbox One. But the PS4 reveal blew me away.
I pay for PS+ but hardly play my PS3. But when the PS4. Arrives I'm looking forward to dusting my Vita off for remote play wheat he misses is watching TV.
I hated the reveal but the calmer I've become since the reveal I'm optimistic for the future,
Mithos
Member
I hope every business follow suit, and then I don't want to hear anyone that support this for games complain when they do.
Forza is one of my favourite franchises but since MS changed the wireless scheme my $1000 Fanatec wheel setup will not work on the XBONE (they use a proprietary accessories protocol XID instead of HID like on PC/PS3).
I can understand no backwards compatibility for software since it's a different CPU infrastructure but no BC for controllers is pure greed. It would cost them a miniscule amount per unit to include the wireless chip for the old controller scheme.
Add to that all the other fleecing mechanisms built right into the model there is really zero incentive for me no matter how amazing new Forza will be on that thing.
soul creator
Member
I'd be curious about this as well. If everything is ultimately just a "license" that gets shuffled around, in theory that would mean that I could go on Xbox Live, click on my friend, say transfer license, and then loan/sell them a game, whether I bought it on a disc or as a download. It automatically deactivates me, and then activates on the new account.
"Gifting" and/or selling games like this would actually be a fairly innovative way of making DRM relatively worthwhile, and would make trading games more convenient in some ways. It would effectively be the equivalent to taking one disc/cartridge on any previous system, and passing it around, except it's all done online. But of course, that would be convenient and pro-consumer, so I doubt it'll happen to that extent
"Aware" isn't the same thing as saying yes or no. They need to just get it out of the way and go ahead and say it.
Petrae
Member
A timed exclusive-- such as XBO getting a 2-4 week head start on the PS4 version-- could be interesting. It's not a cancellation but it does have the power to sway early adopters who don't yet have a horse in the race.
When trying to build an install base from the ground up, when your number & your opponent's number are both zero, the allure of any kind of exclusive is another way to try and get consumers to buy your platform first over the competition. Call of Duty DLC timed exclusive potentially carries more weight now than it did a generation ago. FIFA Ultimate Team timed exclusivity, which was announced at the XBO reveal, might carry some weight, too.
I think it's more likely that Madden Ultimate Team or some kind of DLC will be the timed exclusive for XBO, but I wouldn't be totally shocked to hear that Madden might hit XBO first and stay exclusive for a short time.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I think it will. I think MS is/was trying to frame this as a sort of "side effect" for installing and playing disc-free and hoped the majority of consumers wouldn't really notice they couldn't borrow or rent until well after launch when the console had already gained a serious foothold. (Similar to the RROD problem, really.) At that point people might say "welll how much do I really borrow or rent, I guess" etc.
But the enthusiast backlash has been really harsh, and if "you can't lend or rent games" gains mainstream traction before launch it could torpedo their entire plan. To say nothing of whatever their actual used-game policy is.
michaelpachter
He speaks, and we freak
The rumor mill on used games boils down to this:
Microsoft is requiring gamers to copy the files on the DVD to their Xbox One hard drives, so that access to games is instant. This is pretty routine for PC games, makes a lot of sense if they want the system to be truly "instant". However, it creates a problem if more than one game is installed, because, obviously, the user can't have the DVD in the disc drive. That creates the potential for the same game to be installed on more than one machine. The gaming press speculated initially (see MCV article over a month ago) that this meant sales of used games would be blocked altogether (rumor #1), and that was initially reinforced by Phil Harrison's interview with Kotaku. I think that the copy to the hard drive requires Microsoft to periodically validate that the same file doesn't work in two places at once; however, the "solution" to this "problem" could be as innocent as deactivating the first install when the disc is copied to the second hard drive. The conclusion that copying to the hard drive the first time will preclude a second copy isn't necessarily the only outcome, and deactivating the first install would serve the same purpose, allowing the resale and second install of the original disc.
At the Xbox One reveal, Microsoft said more than once that used games wouldn't be blocked. The rumor than morphed into a discussion of a transfer fee (rumor #2) imposed on the consumer. Microsoft equivocated, and sort of denied, then confirmed, then denied this. At the end, I think someone (maybe Major Nelson) used terms like "enabled" when talking about used games and "no present intention" when talking about transfer fees imposed on consumers.
Then the rumor mill got ridiculous.
Rumor #3 morphed the transfer fee from being imposed on the consumer to being imposed on the retailer, citing "retail sources" and a "retail employee", both apparently in the UK who each claimed that "key retailers" had been "briefed" by Microsoft about its plans to impose a transfer fee on them instead of consumers. I understand that the UK is an important market for Microsoft, but it is dwarfed by the U.S. The largest games retailer in the U.S. is GameStop; that company had an earnings conference call with analysts the day before rumor #3 surfaced in the UK. During its conference call, GameStop management repeatedly praised Microsoft as a valued partner, and said that any announcements about used game policy were Microsoft's to make, not GameStop's. My personal impression was that GameStop management was upbeat, and not downcast, about the potential for the Xbox One launch, so that is inconsistent with the view that rumor #3 is true.
I would now like to offer both a business lesson and a history lesson: Facebook decided to charge a 30% fee on currency purchased for Facebook games only after Zynga had grown games to over a $1 billion annual business. Assuming that Facebook behaved rationally, they allowed Zynga to create a giant business without impediment, then, once it was large, they imposed the "Facebook tax". Zynga was powerless to object, as it depended on Facebook for the vast majority of its revenue.
I know pose this question: IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee on retailers for sales of used Xbox One games, why would they brief key retailers on their intentions six months before the console launch, and 18 months before the Xbox One used games business became meaningful???
In my view, IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee of any kind, it would wait until the installed base for Xbox One was large, until gamers and retail were "addicted" to the console and its software. They could pull a Facebook, and spring the new "tax" on retailers in 2015, and they would not have foregone much revenue at all. While I don't personally believe that Microsoft is Machiavellian at all, I think that from a business perspective, this makes much more sense than briefing retailers six months before launch so that retailers could decide to boycott the device or could attempt to influence consumers to buy the PS4 instead.
Just my two cents, but in my view, Rumor #3 is so idiotic as to deserve ridicule.
Microsoft is requiring gamers to copy the files on the DVD to their Xbox One hard drives, so that access to games is instant. This is pretty routine for PC games, makes a lot of sense if they want the system to be truly "instant". However, it creates a problem if more than one game is installed, because, obviously, the user can't have the DVD in the disc drive. That creates the potential for the same game to be installed on more than one machine. The gaming press speculated initially (see MCV article over a month ago) that this meant sales of used games would be blocked altogether (rumor #1), and that was initially reinforced by Phil Harrison's interview with Kotaku. I think that the copy to the hard drive requires Microsoft to periodically validate that the same file doesn't work in two places at once; however, the "solution" to this "problem" could be as innocent as deactivating the first install when the disc is copied to the second hard drive. The conclusion that copying to the hard drive the first time will preclude a second copy isn't necessarily the only outcome, and deactivating the first install would serve the same purpose, allowing the resale and second install of the original disc.
At the Xbox One reveal, Microsoft said more than once that used games wouldn't be blocked. The rumor than morphed into a discussion of a transfer fee (rumor #2) imposed on the consumer. Microsoft equivocated, and sort of denied, then confirmed, then denied this. At the end, I think someone (maybe Major Nelson) used terms like "enabled" when talking about used games and "no present intention" when talking about transfer fees imposed on consumers.
Then the rumor mill got ridiculous.
Rumor #3 morphed the transfer fee from being imposed on the consumer to being imposed on the retailer, citing "retail sources" and a "retail employee", both apparently in the UK who each claimed that "key retailers" had been "briefed" by Microsoft about its plans to impose a transfer fee on them instead of consumers. I understand that the UK is an important market for Microsoft, but it is dwarfed by the U.S. The largest games retailer in the U.S. is GameStop; that company had an earnings conference call with analysts the day before rumor #3 surfaced in the UK. During its conference call, GameStop management repeatedly praised Microsoft as a valued partner, and said that any announcements about used game policy were Microsoft's to make, not GameStop's. My personal impression was that GameStop management was upbeat, and not downcast, about the potential for the Xbox One launch, so that is inconsistent with the view that rumor #3 is true.
I would now like to offer both a business lesson and a history lesson: Facebook decided to charge a 30% fee on currency purchased for Facebook games only after Zynga had grown games to over a $1 billion annual business. Assuming that Facebook behaved rationally, they allowed Zynga to create a giant business without impediment, then, once it was large, they imposed the "Facebook tax". Zynga was powerless to object, as it depended on Facebook for the vast majority of its revenue.
I know pose this question: IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee on retailers for sales of used Xbox One games, why would they brief key retailers on their intentions six months before the console launch, and 18 months before the Xbox One used games business became meaningful???
In my view, IF Microsoft intended to impose a transfer fee of any kind, it would wait until the installed base for Xbox One was large, until gamers and retail were "addicted" to the console and its software. They could pull a Facebook, and spring the new "tax" on retailers in 2015, and they would not have foregone much revenue at all. While I don't personally believe that Microsoft is Machiavellian at all, I think that from a business perspective, this makes much more sense than briefing retailers six months before launch so that retailers could decide to boycott the device or could attempt to influence consumers to buy the PS4 instead.
Just my two cents, but in my view, Rumor #3 is so idiotic as to deserve ridicule.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Very good point about rumour #3.
Knux-Future
Banned
They said that it can be played old school without EVER having to connect to the internet.
The used games stuff was vauge but I think Denny was quite clear on the always on stuff.
People aren't being fanboys they are just simply using the evidence that says Sony wont do this...
there was ton of evidence that Microsoft was going to do this...not so much for Sony. Not saying they can't but the tons of evidence says that it is less likely. Wasn't the case for Microsoft.
I feel as if we are starting to repeat ourselves. This has been stated multiple times...
but it always comes back to the fanboy namecalling.
stop
wow nice. i think everyone should read this
Petrae
Member
The furor over used really doesn't make sense at this stage given that games have to be sold in order the be used. I agree, Mr. Pachter, that the timing of such related announcements seems premature-- and I was quite frankly surprised that MS brass decided to touch the subject at all. There are bigger issues in the room, like lack of backwards compatibility (which arguably pressures the launch slate to be fairly plentiful and compelling) and concerns about Kinect 2.0 and privacy concerns. Let used become a problem later, and for goodness' sake, don't touch the issue at all with press until there's consistency and understanding across all channels.
I'm glad you chimed in.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
LOL wth. Should have just said nothing if you are going to say nothing with typos
I honestly think that from MS point of view they already feel like consumers are "addicted" to the Xbox brand and will accept the new changes as they jump into the next gen.
I mean, if they did spring the new tax thingy they could have done so already with the 360, since it's been the #1 console in America for months now. I really think they're using this transitional gap to muddle the waters with this new used game incentive.
One thing I don't get Michael is how you can be so bearish on Vita and 3DS because of Apple, Google and Samsung, yet so bullish on Xbone despite Apple, Google and Samsung.
The interactive TV market looks like a niche, a hobby for Apple, a modest success for Google. Do you foresee a sudden big demand there?
The interactive TV market looks like a niche, a hobby for Apple, a modest success for Google. Do you foresee a sudden big demand there?
maquiladora
Member
But would it not be advantageous to Gamestop and a handful of other "key retailers" even with a "tax" of some kind since they would be the only places where customers could go to buy used games? As long as the "tax" wasn't too severe I guess...
10101
Gold Member
So how do you see it working then Michael? Do you think any of the rumours you listed are true? I don't see why if any of this fee nonsense isn't true they don't just come right out and say it now and save themselves the negative publicity.
Aquamarine
Member
People have a hard time separating rationality from fantasy in these types of situations. YES, the XBONE will require installs for all games. YES, the XBONE will have to be required to access the internet within a certain period. YES, every person will need to register his game to XBL to play it. YES, games are tied to an account. But that's where it ends.
You're absolutely right--it is ludicrous of Microsoft to announce, six months before the console releases, that it has a plan for used game sales / transfers, yet is somehow secretly plotting to undermine retailers "with a transfer fee."
Just as an always-on (internet connection required 24 hours a day) connection is silly, so is the claim that Microsoft would jeopardize its relationship with key retail partners like Gamestop. Used game sales can be a hindrance to profitability, but having a retailer as influential as Gamestop potentially boycott your system because of absurd policies...that would make a significant dent in crucial product exposure and profit margins.
NullPointer
Member
A fitting reason to be cautious about investing in any closed ecosystem. The hooks really come out after you're locked in.
So much of this talk going around about pre-launch details - it worth taking a moment to consider what's coming down the pipe years from now as well. The hardware and service design provides far more than just hints on how these systems will evolve over time.
So, for example: The Xbone is obviously a wonderful platform for advertisement, and as we've all seen, these ads start small and tucked away, but over time they become more prominent, more active, more intrusive. The Gold fee for subscribers - maybe it's cheap to start but what's to keep MS from significantly raising those fees years out? In terms of DRM, what's to keep MS from enabling stricter DRM down the line once we've made it our primary go to device for all living room entertainment?
I don't just say this about the bone. Its the way all of these locked down ecosystems should be examined before getting too attached.
Isn't that what every company aspires to do?
Hook you in so your engrossed with there ecosystem to the point they can drag you around? I'm no a CEO but isn't the key however to take baby steps so they won't realize how much has changed until it's too late?
In this case MS kind of blew their load early
Hook you in so your engrossed with there ecosystem to the point they can drag you around? I'm no a CEO but isn't the key however to take baby steps so they won't realize how much has changed until it's too late?
In this case MS kind of blew their load early
we.are.the.armada
Member
That PR statement doesn't clarify anything. It also doesn't refute anything. It's basically, "please understand and wait".
You are supposed to be prepared for this shit, before your reveal.
You are supposed to be prepared for this shit, before your reveal.
Graphics Horse
Member
If we assume everyone feels they have to upgrade because gamerscore then they've already got it in the bag. But the reality is more complicated.
maquiladora
Member
Gamestop would never resort to boycotting Xbox. It would be suicidal, think about it. They may not be happy if Microsoft decide they want to take a cut from used game sales, but on the other hand if Microsoft is restricting the sales to only Gamestop and some other retailers, then they'll be making a lot more sales. A lot depends how on much MS would be wanting to take, of course.
dream431ca
Banned
This is one of the worst damage controlling stunts in history. Big mistake that Phil Harrison opened his mouth about the used game thing. Bigger mistake: Major Nelson says the reports are inaccurate and incomplete......He's blaming the media. What a joke. Why not just come out with it? Microsoft is making it worse by avoiding the issue. At least they could have pulled a Sony in the first place and say "Were not ready to talk about it", instead of Phil stirring the rumor mill on fire. Huge Mistake.
@michael pachter:
the rumour mill got ridiculous because MS has not explained anything except for the Phil Harrison comments, which do not sound benign. Further, you might expect corporations to behave rationally, but that is not always the case.
It is interesting you bring up the idea of waiting until there is an xbone addiction before taking full control of the used game market. That could be what they are changing their plans for now. I.e. have a benign DRM heavy used game system in place for the first year or so, then facebook credit that shit.
the rumour mill got ridiculous because MS has not explained anything except for the Phil Harrison comments, which do not sound benign. Further, you might expect corporations to behave rationally, but that is not always the case.
It is interesting you bring up the idea of waiting until there is an xbone addiction before taking full control of the used game market. That could be what they are changing their plans for now. I.e. have a benign DRM heavy used game system in place for the first year or so, then facebook credit that shit.
Knux-Future
Banned
Mr. Pachter,
have you heard any rumblings from Sony about their plans?
People are worried the silence is a bad sign.
have you heard any rumblings from Sony about their plans?
People are worried the silence is a bad sign.
Fuck
No
What the fuck is so hard to understand about the CONSUMER needing the right to sell/trade the game as they please?
You actually want to give your 60-70 dollar game to GameStop where they will give you 10 bucks for it instead of selling it yourself for 45?
The fuck is wrong with people? You should not need a middle man to sell a fucking game disk, people. You are getting rammed up the ass and you fucking hope it works like that?
What in the fuck?
they had to wait and see how things were trending on bing first
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Didn't such a system needs to be tested and prepared in advance?. Is pretty big in terms of resources, is not something you can force one month before the console release or in the mid cycle of the gen. Otherwise a whole new myriad of problem would arise (invalid codes/activations,etc...).
And if they plan to not sake the used market, why not say so?.
Delusibeta
Banned
Actually, used games start become relevant week 2, and if the rumours that Microsoft requires Authorised Retailers to a) hook up their trade-in systems with Microsoft's global registry and b) train the staff to use aforementioned unfamiliar systems, then it would make sense for Microsoft to give retailers a heads up, since they want to be prepared for the initial trade ins of the launch titles, which will be about Week 2, lest people get told they can't trade them in and the First Sale Doctrine lawsuits start flying (not that it particularly matters when they get told by ebay that they can't sell their XbOne games due to this DRM). I don't see the reasoning on dismissing that rumour based on it being too early.
They won't upgrade because GS...hopefully not lol but when it hits the media circuit like Ellen. Get this shit on Ellen and people will eat it up. Not everyone fact checks what they are buying. Especially if they view it as "just another video game console".
Thats what happens when you fluff your message and have key figures giving different responses to press. You leave yourself open to all this and its no ones fault other than microsofts, i dont see why its on us the consumer to police ourselves with these rumours when the damn company cant get their own message straight.
Yup, I dont think anyone could have predicted how badly MS would fuck this up.
Ellen watchers are are big into Call of Duty and American football?
Maybe Microsoft are in no such rush to get the trade in system up and running.
Or maybe they expect that any large retailers currently raking it in from used games sales can afford the IT resources to implement it quickly, or face the wrath of their customers going to somewhere else that has the facility?
May i know the name of the girl in your avatar sir?
Graphics Horse
Member
Indeed, and I thought the rumour was that they'd have to have specific registering software/(hardware?) in place, which would absolutely mean they would need to be infrormed in advance.
Thing is whilst that is probably the best we could hope for. DRM of games that require a server just sucks. What if Halo 5 becomes your best game of all time and you want to keep it and play in 5, 10 or 20 years from now like many do with SNES etc now? Will MS still have it in their system or even be in the games biz? You basically hand control if your game to someone else. I do not like this.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Except when Gamestop's CEO was asked about the this...
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Why wouldn't they? Such a complex system won't work 100% on release. A few hundred people with problems on the few weeks is something you can deal and control. Do it when millions of XBones are out there and you can a PR nightmare in the making. Imagine that Azure servers goes down and all Gamestops in the world can't sell/buy used game? or that several thousands of people can play they recently used games?.
Seeing how everyone that tries to show of tech does some sort of promo on her show yes. All you have to do is put this shit on day time tv and people will fall for it. It's been like this for decades.