Jump to content
bp9801

Xbox One

Recommended Posts

 

 

still needs a one time connection to let the box function, so still a no go for most army guys lol.

It only needs to be online during its initial setup. Since most "army guys" would buy it while in the States, I don't see an issue - they activate it at home and then can bring it with them.

 

 

still bnullshit it needs to be connected in order to work, i have lived many years without internet, and i am sure i am not the same, also have you seen the new article? xD

they might reverd it back in the future:

 

http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/19/xbox-one-drm-policy-changes-waited-on-gamers-knowing-complete-story/

 

 

quote in question: ''Finally, Whitten could not give any reassurance that Microsoft will not change its policies in the future''

 

First off, it does NOT need to be connected in order to work, unless you want to play multiplayer games. If you don't have Internet, setup the system at a family member or friend's house. It's really not that difficult.

 

Secondly, your concern over that statement is ridiculous. It's not a direct quote from Whitten, it's VG interjecting its own takeaway because they've already changed based on consumer feedback. It's also not specified that VG is even talking about the "bad things," as it could be referring to the other "good things" (family sharing) that MS has now taken off the table because consumers were morons and didn't understand how that was a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as it could be referring to the other "good things" (family sharing) that MS has now taken off the table because consumers were morons and didn't understand how that was a good thing.

 

 

I don't think anyone objecting to the ludicrous DRM (that will make the console useless down the road) is a "moron".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as it could be referring to the other "good things" (family sharing) that MS has now taken off the table because consumers were morons and didn't understand how that was a good thing.

 

I don't think anyone objecting to the ludicrous DRM (that will make the console useless down the road) is a "moron".

How exactly was it ludicrous though? The original plan is somewhat close to what Steam has, and only DRM-free purists complain about what Steam uses. Sure you would have had to check-in once a day, but with Steam you can't do anything without a connection, except play games. You can neither purchase nor add games in Steam's Offline mode. With the One you would likely (not clear since it isn't out yet) have been able to check-in, disconnect, insert a new game disc and start playing right away.

 

Also, why would the DRM mean the console would be useless down the road? Sure at some point the servers may go down, but as they would be the xBox Live servers, that would mean the entire xBox franchise would be ended as well. Again, it's similar to Steam, and Newell has commented that they do have a plan so that if Valve ever were to collapse, Steam users would not lose their library. No reason Microsoft wouldn't have a plan as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

as it could be referring to the other "good things" (family sharing) that MS has now taken off the table because consumers were morons and didn't understand how that was a good thing.

 

I don't think anyone objecting to the ludicrous DRM (that will make the console useless down the road) is a "moron".

How exactly was it ludicrous though? The original plan is somewhat close to what Steam has, and only DRM-free purists complain about what Steam uses. Sure you would have had to check-in once a day, but with Steam you can't do anything without a connection, except play games. You can neither purchase nor add games in Steam's Offline mode. With the One you would likely (not clear since it isn't out yet) have been able to check-in, disconnect, insert a new game disc and start playing right away.

 

Also, why would the DRM mean the console would be useless down the road? Sure at some point the servers may go down, but as they would be the xBox Live servers, that would mean the entire xBox franchise would be ended as well. Again, it's similar to Steam, and Newell has commented that they do have a plan so that if Valve ever were to collapse, Steam users would not lose their library. No reason Microsoft wouldn't have a plan as well.

 

:withstupid:

 

Also, waco, you seem to have misinterpreted what I was referring to...I was referring to the "family sharing" (aka. The Circle), which consumers seemed to not understand and would have actually been a GOOD thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason Microsoft wouldn't have a plan as well.

 

 

 

Like they had with the original XBox? I don't expect them to fix anything about the system. I have no reason to trust them. Valve does give people reasons to trust them.

 

 

Clay - I don't think anyone objected to the ability to share - it was the restrictions that came along with it that nobody wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason Microsoft wouldn't have a plan as well.

 

 

Like they had with the original XBox? I don't expect them to fix anything about the system. I have no reason to trust them. Valve does give people reasons to trust them.

 

 

Clay - I don't think anyone objected to the ability to share - it was the restrictions that came along with it that nobody wanted.

 

Two things. One, the strategy they had was obviously a long-term one that would have been used for future consoles. Part of the reason the original xBox servers were shut down was to multiple services with different features did not have to be supported. Not the case with PC, since computers are effectively the same, generation to generation.

Two, it was the 'restrictions' that people were told they did not want. The requirements were completely reasonable and already present in other parts of the game industry, ie. Steam. It was a relatively small group of gamers and game journalists who decided to inflate the requirements into restrictions for the sake of sensationalism that did not want them.

Now we are seeing people still complaining about the DRM that are now complaining about losing the sharing feature, because that is what some people do; complain. If anyone should have lost trust in another, it should be Microsoft losing trust in gamers because of how they have vilified a company trying to innovate to solve problems and improve services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree at all. I have as much trust in Microsoft doing the "right thing" for consumers as I do in EA doing the same.

 

I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree at all. I have as much trust in Microsoft doing the "right thing" for consumers as I do in EA doing the same.

 

I'll leave it at that.

People need to stop thinking just about the "right thing" for consumers and also think about the "right thing" for the industry. Microsoft was attempting to do that, got mercilessly attacked for it, and now the only innovation is better graphics. It isn't the xBox One, it's the xBox 360 v2 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "right thing" for the industry is to stop all of this DRM BS.

 

 

I only tolerate Steam's DRM because it provides me a useful service in exchange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "right thing" for the industry is to stop all of this DRM BS.

 

 

I only tolerate Steam's DRM because it provides me a useful service in exchange.

Do you not recognize the hypocrisy of that statement?

Also, from what I've seen, the majority of the DRM BS has been coming from gamers, not the industry. Yes the draconian measures some have adopted are BS, but it is the gamers that have been turning to hyperbole to destroy reasonable systems.

Plus why would anyone create video games if they had no ability to protect their creation from those who would steal it? Why would anyone play a game that has no ability to protect them either? Don't forget that DRM can also protect the user. Take a free-to-play game, say League of Legends. It has DRM in the form of a required, password protected account. This prevents people from access accounts that are not theirs, and thereby stealing the efforts of someone else, and it gives the developers the ability to ban people who violate the rules and who the community has deemed unwanted.

Face it, DRM is a necessity today and is, unto itself, not a bad thing. Abuses of it are bad, just like abuses of anything are bad. Stepping away from DRM is taking a step back to the days of LAN multiplayer only, or fully anonymous online multiplayer, with no score tracking, no achievements, no awards. That is not what the majority of gamers want and not what the industry wants. The industry and majority of gamers want to innovate, and to do so requires the ability to say "This is mine, not yours!" and "This is yours, not theirs!" DRM gives that ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I pretty much said in my previous post, a compromise was needed/desired between the XBone's policies and the status quo. Microsoft gave us the status quo. All your complainers aren't complaining for complaining's sake, they're doing so because MS really didn't listen and took the easy way out for PR recovery.

 

I liked the idea MS was going for, i just think they got ahead of themselves and the times (seriously, broadband infrastructure yet sucks outside of metropolitan US areas). The drawbacks of their policy outshined the fuzzily outlined benefits. Essentially, MS said "just think of what we might do" instead of "look at what you/we can do." That was the problem, I'm not going to invest in a system that inconveniences me on the idea that some unknown beneficial feature(s) might be implemented.

 

Arstechnica pretty much summed up how I feel quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus why would anyone create video games if they had no ability to protect their creation from those who would steal it? Why would anyone play a game that has no ability to protect them either? Don't forget that DRM can also protect the user. Take a free-to-play game, say League of Legends. It has DRM in the form of a required, password protected account. This prevents people from access accounts that are not theirs, and thereby stealing the efforts of someone else, and it gives the developers the ability to ban people who violate the rules and who the community has deemed unwanted.

I guess DRM-free game companies are all bankrupt, right? As for LoL - do you really think you can classify that as DRM? I don't.

Face it, DRM is a necessity today and is, unto itself, not a bad thing. Abuses of it are bad, just like abuses of anything are bad. Stepping away from DRM is taking a step back to the days of LAN multiplayer only, or fully anonymous online multiplayer, with no score tracking, no achievements, no awards. That is not what the majority of gamers want and not what the industry wants. The industry and majority of gamers want to innovate, and to do so requires the ability to say "This is mine, not yours!" and "This is yours, not theirs!" DRM gives that ability.

DRM gives the ability for the publisher to control when, where, and how you can play a game that you paid for. I would heartily welcome back the days of LAN multiplayer as well as essentially anonymous online multiplayer via private servers. The centralized model used today only guarantees that the games will be unplayable (through legal means) in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×