The English Conquistador
Member
That statement literally said nothing.
Yup, spot on.
That statement literally said nothing.
So will they wait for E3? They didn't basically announce games because the reveal was just for the console and now they're playing dumb on this? lol
So will they wait for E3? They didn't basically announce games because the reveal was just for the console and now they're playing dumb on this? lol
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.
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.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/publishers-to-receive-cut-of-xbox-one-pre-owned-sales-at-retail/0116137
"Retailers will be free to charge whatever they wish for pre-owned Xbox One games, but both Microsoft and publishers will take a percentage cut of every sale."
They offer different things but for me Gears is my favourite franchise so I was always getting the Xbox One.
What i want to know is if games bought online over XBL (Games on demand) will be also resellable?is resellable even a word?
If that would be possible then I would be little less against this new policy. But just a little
He says right there in his "statement" that they're aware, so yes, keep voicing the same complaints. Drive the point home how bad an idea this is.
I'm not sure why you'd think that even would be an option since EA already announced it for PS4.
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=766330
Still pales somewhat in comparison to the backlash Instagram received when they changed their ToS. (an an example of how much focus is needed to force change or make a company see the error of their ways)
Needs to go mainstream.
Neither does xbox one. It only needs internet to check authentication because you can play games without the disc not to play games that statement is very misleading that you're making. Secondly it only needs to check once a day per the information that's out there and its not official yet at all. So as far as I am concerned it could mean the same for both. They both don't require internet to play games doesn't mean they both wont require it to authenticate games.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
A fitting reason to be cautious about investing in any closed ecosystem. The hooks really come out after you're locked in.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.
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
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.
FuckI hope it works like this:
It's hilarious that it took them this long to even say that much.
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???
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.
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.
Thats what happens when yoiu 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.
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".
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?.
Please understand.
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?
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...).
This will only be possible at retailers who have agreed to Microsofts T&Cs and more importantly integrated Microsofts cloud-based Azure pre-owned system into its own.
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.I hope it works like this:
Except when Gamestop's CEO was asked about the this...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.
Link
When asked about Xbox One's potential second-hand fee, Bartel said the information came "as a surprise" and declined to comment "on speculation."
"All that Microsoft has said so far is that they've designed the Xbox One to enable customers to trade in and resell games," Bartel said. "That's what I'm going with at this point. I think there's additional details they're going to reveal later on."
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?
Ellen watchers are are big into Call of Duty and American football?