Did Microsoft make a mistake in listening to fan feedback for Xbox One?

In June, Microsoft famously reversed its previously announced plans to restrict used disc game sales, along with its Internet DRM policies, for the Xbox One console. The changes followed a massive, and loud, backlash from potential Xbox One buyers, who wanted to keep the current used game policies and DRM setup that Xbox 360 owners enjoy.

But did Microsoft make the right move, both as a company and for its customers, to cave in to user demand in this case? Gamesindustry International interviewed Jesse Schell, the founder of casual game developer Schell Games, claims that Microsoft did in fact make the wrong move. In fact, he states that in terms of all large companies, "There's one mistake that they all make, and that mistake is listening to their customers."

Schell claims that ultimately, the changes that Microsoft originally wanted to put into the Xbox One were for features that their customers would have embraced in the long run. However, he adds:

The reality is that they can't do what the customers want. Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?' And we all said, 'No, we hate that. We hate you. You're an idiot to do that.' They came out and said, 'We're gonna do this new thing.' And the customers said, 'No, we don't want that, we hate that' - even though it's what they really want and what they will ultimately buy. So now Microsoft has had to say they won't do all that stuff, but someone will.


Schell's comments were somewhat echoed last week by id Software's John Carmack, who said that the "witch hunt" against Microsoft this summer was "a little bit unjustified". He also said that an all-digital future for games "... will be good for us in general."

However, Microsoft has faced this kind of backlash before--and very recently--with the launch of Windows 8. Many users complained about the lack of a Start menu on the desktop and that they could no longer boot straight to the desktop. For Windows 8.1, Microsoft has added in the option to boot directly to the desktop UI, along with a Start button, if not a full Start menu.

Neowin readers certainly have had much to say on the matter, both in our news comments and on our forums. A forum thread about the Xbox One's DRM policies and other matters was started by njbrodeur87, before Microsoft changed its mind on requiring an Internet connection every 24 hours. He stated, " ... when technology advances sometimes requirements need to be made to make things better. This I think is a good choice. It will leave people behind like Xbox Live did when it was broadband only, but in the end will provide some great experiences on Xbox."

The debates about the Xbox One, and the changes Microsoft made to the system in response to customers, will likely continue in the weeks and months leading to the launch of the console. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds and which side will be proven right.

Source: Gamesindustry.biz | Images via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung teases Galaxy Note III reveal September 4th

Next Story

Netflix's new user profiles do not work in Windows Media Center

139 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

the only downside i saw to the xbox 1 was the 24 hour check

i had no problem with drm or used games or family sharing

i am not online all the time so that would be stupid to me

the only thing they should have gotten rid of was the 24hr check in because i often travel to countries where the internet is either slow or expensive

If Microsoft wanted me to buy one, then it wasn't a mistake.
Reversing to the extent that they did was a mistake. If they'd left those features in-place for games brought digitally then that would have been fine.

This might be a little tinfoil hat of me, but I think Microsoft had it planned both ways.

They knew the PS4 and the XOne would be similar in design and hardware specs. They knew that ppl liked the idea of Steam and set up their first announced method and the host of various locked down requirements, region restrictions and publishing guidelines.

Game over! The PS4 and Sony triumph as champions of gamers and consumers everywhere! But Microsoft has one final trick up their sleeve ... change it all back. The conversation since has all been about them and the XOne.

Sony played their entire hand. They bet Microsoft couldnt or wouldnt do what they did. Now what's left for Sony to announce or gain the upper hand? Paltry attempts to flair up a debate on how the PS4 is "50%" more powerful or geek-fueled rants about how much the faster RAM in the PS4 will help you pown N00bs? None of that has much traction.

All that's left is the games and on two platforms that are pretty much identical neither will have the stunning game position. So that only leaves the exclusive titles and I think MS has a slight edge there.

Oh and did I mention that the XOne does TV stuff that the PS4 cannot? Nope, didnt need to. It's all about the games now, you will get that as a bonus.

See you at the water cooler!

Yes, a mistake, followed by another mistake. First mistake was presenting the features in ALL the wrong way. I also liked some of the features but some not so much. The all or none approach isn't going to work for MS. I hope they keep it old school for a few months and then start shifting to the digital stuff and some of the original things they had planned.

Why are these kind of articles always the same nonsense, inventing a point and attacking it instead of what actually happened.

The backlash was because Microsoft's scheme was sloppy and poorly thought out, trying to force traits of one model (Digital Distribution) onto another disparate model (Physical Media). There was nothing gained from the move that would not have come naturally with time as DD replaces discs.

Instead we get this clueless apologist "I treat the entire internet as one single person with alternating opinions" tripe.

There is absolutely nothing in this article that gives a single valid reason why they were wrong, it seems to be a case of "<insert name here> says Microsoft were wrong to do it so they were wrong".

The DRM restriction was to do nothing more than pad their own bottom line, the 24 hour online check was an arbitrary restriction that no gamer actively needed, and the restriction on indie game publishing, again, was purely to line their own pockets and the pockets of big publishers.

So are the changes going to dent Microsoft's profit margin? Maybe a bit. Are they bad for customers? no.

The 24 hours was to allow issuing a license for any request without having to do check out type arrangement that may deny access. Otherwise you'd have to lock it to a piece of hardware until that hardware released it. If that hardware failed to release it, and you didn't have access, you'd have to call into customer service to get it released. It's only arbitrary when you don't understand the algorithms. People will game licensing systems, so you have to build your algorithms just like a security system.

Spicoli said,
The 24 hours was to allow issuing a license for any request without having to do check out type arrangement that may deny access. Otherwise you'd have to lock it to a piece of hardware until that hardware released it. If that hardware failed to release it, and you didn't have access, you'd have to call into customer service to get it released. It's only arbitrary when you don't understand the algorithms. People will game licensing systems, so you have to build your algorithms just like a security system.

The licensing systems themselves are arbitrary. There were no hardware locks in the last generation of consoles, and strangely the games industry didn't seem to struggle to make bundles of profit off of those.

I always felt that, had the original Xbox One business model instead been started by some start-up with a Kickstarter campaign, it would've been treated like the second coming of Christ.

Microsoft often makes the grave mistake of...being Microsoft. In the eyes of the consumer.

startscreennope said,
Right, the Ouya should have had 24 hour online DRM checks to play your games.

It would have been a sales hit.


So, what you're saying is, you never actually read what the Xbox One was going to do. Get your info from, what, comments, then?

Joshie said,

So, what you're saying is, you never actually read what the Xbox One was going to do. Get your info from, what, comments, then?
So you're making a ridiculous ad hominem attack instead of admitting people just don't like always online DRM?

So many personal attacks here, it's really sad.

I was surprised when MS pulled back the 24 hour and family sharing. I was hoping with few month until console's release should be enough time for the idea to mature and accepted by gamers. The fact is Microsoft can't win because there's always 2 sided coin.

This article is so stupid.

A developer saying that MS did the wrong thing by taking out DRM? What would you expect them to say, "no we love used games and want to see this practice continue?"

I don't think the author or most the people commenting even understand the business reason of why this DRM was added in the first case.

Also, the reason Steam is loved is because they have tremendous sales. If MS had those, then we wouldn't complain about the DRM but sadly, that isn't going to happen. They will be $60 on the PS4 and they will be $60 on the Xbox DRM or not.

Customers are so gullible. Witht eh DRM imposed, anyone with half a brain would have figured out that the cost of owning an Xbox vs PS4 would be much much higher because the used games would be worthless. With the changes imposed, the cost of an Xbox over a PS4 is only slightly more.

Now for the reason that MS did a 180, because any logical non fanboy who does not care about the Xbox exclusives would buy a PS4 over an Xbox.

How do you know they wouldn't have sales like Steam? They just had a major sell of a lot of games a month or so back. No one gave them a chance.

They didn't "take out DRM". All games have DRM. It's either locked to hardware, locked to media, or locked to an online account. The third option is far more flexible and pretty much how everything works these days except the old consoles.

Im getting tired of everyone using the argument "It was a great idea, but we aren't there yet because of infrastructure."

To everyone claiming that argument, I ask you:

When was the last time you couldn't access the internet? Microsoft already stated that you could theoretically tether to your smartphone do to the authentication. So if something goes wrong with your ISP, you'd just have to do that once every 24 hours until it is fixed.

To make another point, last time when someone wanted to introduce a product that was revolutionary and ahead of its time, they pushed it through and MADE a market for it. I am ofcourse referring to the iPhone and iPad.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that link, and you completely bypassed my intentions with the iPhone/iPad example. I meant to illustrate that pushing forward with technology and NOT waiting until everyone is at the starting line can be very rewarding.

Also, please humor me about the other issues regarding the 24 hour DRM?

You can't play your games if your net goes out, if Xbox Live goes down temporarily, if MS permanently pulls the activation servers, and if someone hacks your account that all your games are tied to.

"Always online" means mandatory patches to play games. What if a mandatory OS update causes issues with your system? What if a mandatory game patch is released and you preferred to play the older version? You're screwed again. Used game sales would be heavily restricted to "participating select retailers". No more private right of sale.

All of those things would be avoided with a traditional disc based system. It's not worth the tradeoff for "not needing the disc in the tray" for the vast majority of consumers. That's just a few examples. People have written novels worth of negative things about always online DRM.

iOS/iPhone recieved pretty positive consumer sentiment, Apple detractors excepted. They don't have always online DRM built in, either. For MS to push ahead with its DRM plans would basically be ceding the market to PS4.

startscreennope said,
You can't play your games if your net goes out, if Xbox Live goes down temporarily, if MS permanently pulls the activation servers, and if someone hacks your account that all your games are tied to.

Yes, XBOX Live does go down sometimes, just as Google's services, Apple's, Playstation Network or any other Service provider. Is that a reasonable risk to include into your calculation? Surely this is a inherent risk with using the internet. Do you also save all your webpages in case you internet might go out and you need to go back to it? It sound like a non-problem.

Microsoft wouldn't pull the activation servers without setting up an system update for removing the need for them. Thats a no-brainer.

If someone hacks your account, you've been sloppy and you deserve all the **** you get. If someone hacks your steam account, you'd be in just as much trouble.

startscreennope said,
"Always online" means mandatory patches to play games. What if a mandatory OS update causes issues with your system?

Oh, you mean like the broken system update that Sony brought out recently and took about a week to get fixed? So people couldn't play any games on their PS3 in the meantime, and that was WITHOUT any DRM?

startscreennope said,
What if a mandatory game patch is released and you preferred to play the older version? You're screwed again.

When was the last time that you wanted to play an older version of a game? Also, the mandatory part of your sentence is pretty explanatory. If the Publisher decides that you need to have the patch, you should download it.

startscreennope said,
Used game sales would be heavily restricted to "participating select retailers". No more private right of sale.

Used game sales are (in my humble opinion) a cancer, and should die out as quick as possible. The concept of being able to transfer the license to one friend was a good idea.

startscreennope said,
All of those things would be avoided with a traditional disc based system. It's not worth the tradeoff for "not needing the disc in the tray" for the vast majority of consumers. That's just a few examples. People have written novels worth of negative things about always online DRM.

All the innovation would be killed if we stayed with the traditional disc based system. That is why I wont be buying any discs for my XBOX One.

"Yes, XBOX Live does go down sometimes"

Yes it does, and if 24 hour DRM checks were implemented, nobody could play their games during that time. Thanks for making my point for me again.

"Microsoft wouldn't pull the activation servers without setting up an system update for removing the need for them. Thats a no-brainer."

I think they would. At some point down the line, Live for 360 will be cut, just like it was cut for the original Xbox. Same for Xbox One eventually.

"If someone hacks your account, you've been sloppy and you deserve all the **** you get."

Thanks for proving my point for me again. Once again, you'd still have access to your offline games if they're not tied to your account that got hacked.

"Oh, you mean like the broken system update that Sony brought out recently and took about a week to get fixed?"

That was an optional update, but it would have been much worse if it were mandatory a-la Always Online DRM. Thanks for making my point for me again.

"When was the last time that you wanted to play an older version of a game?"

Rights are slavery! You didn't deserve to play the version of the game you wanted anyway! People don't want Always Online DRM "innovation". End of story.

I wasn't making your point again. I was responding to every concern you brought up. You just stripped away my added value and then thank me for making your point again. Thats not a discussion.

Also, bonus points for you for downplaying the PS3 OS update issue, you should work for them.

I will not waste my time on Sony fanboys anymore.

The problem with Microsoft far to often it is not listening to customers. Feedback is crucial in making a successful product. To often they concentrate on pleasing business interest or developers or other parties. Ultimately it is consumer who decides who is successful and who is not. If you please the consumer you will please other parties.

Apple is focused on appealling to high end consumers primarily then broaden their reach from there. They do make changes **** off the consumers from time to time, but not as much a microsoft.

Oh yeah, with all the analystic wisdom, it is bad strategy for any company to listen to their customers and just produce whatever garbage a company wants to produce. Never heard such an idiotic statement in my entire life. But I guess, this editorial can only be written on Neowin, which is official MS fanboy site.

Consumers are the one who are going to buy product and it is their hard earned money which is on the line. If they have a choice and does not perceive value in their product which they are spending money on then it is going to be a flop product. Surface's almost billion dollar write off is a clear example of not listening to your customers.

Auditor said,
Oh yeah, with all the analystic wisdom, it is bad strategy for any company to listen to their customers and just produce whatever garbage a company wants to produce. Never heard such an idiotic statement in my entire life. But I guess, this editorial can only be written on Neowin, which is official MS fanboy site.

Consumers are the one who are going to buy product and it is their hard earned money which is on the line. If they have a choice and does not perceive value in their product which they are spending money on then it is going to be a flop product. Surface's almost billion dollar write off is a clear example of not listening to your customers.

The Surface failing had nothing to do with not listening to people. It was all bad marketing.

scaryrobots said,

The Surface failing had nothing to do with not listening to people. It was all bad marketing.

No amount of marketing whether good or bad can really save bad product.

Microsoft may of been listening to other factor's and not just what people were saying as well. We don't know the answers to this, but Microsoft knows how many people canceled there Gold auto renewal, and how did it affect pre-order sales numbers.

Also, EA/Activision/Microsoft/Sony has not demonstrated the real sales you see on steam (on console's). It came off as "trust us" and this was after Diablo III Launch, EA building in microtransactions in to all future games, and the SimCity disaster.

I'm personally glad they embraced the old business model. They could embrace the all media with digital store / purchases (no physical media) if they choose too and do both.

Edited by Jason Stillion, Aug 5 2013, 6:11pm :

There are many reasons why Steam is/was different from the original Xbox One model. The comparison is far too different.

The other issue is "consumers didn't get the message" - I think they heard the message loud and clear and decided that "not having the game in the disc tray" wasn't worth 24 hour DRM checks and restricted used game sales.

By the way, "family sharing" was never detailed before it was canned. The best insider info suggests that it was limited to a 60 minute timed demo. It was not a way to let multiple people play the full game based on your one copy.

startscreennope said,
There are many reasons why Steam is/was different from the original Xbox One model. The comparison is far too different.

The other issue is "consumers didn't get the message" - I think they heard the message loud and clear and decided that "not having the game in the disc tray" wasn't worth 24 hour DRM checks and restricted used game sales.

By the way, "family sharing" was never detailed before it was canned. The best insider info suggests that it was limited to a 60 minute timed demo. It was not a way to let multiple people play the full game based on your one copy.

Anyone who thought it was a 60 min demo was an idiot. There is no reason for DRM on 60 minute demos.

You might be confusing being able to log into xbox live with your account on another machine and play your games. You can do that on Xbox 360 right now.

Family sharing was not some kind of system where multiple people could play full games through your account just by your ownership of it and adding them as a "family member".

startscreennope said,
You might be confusing being able to log into xbox live with your account on another machine and play your games. You can do that on Xbox 360 right now.

Family sharing was not some kind of system where multiple people could play full games through your account just by your ownership of it and adding them as a "family member".

I'm not confusing it. It was posted by multiple members of the Xbox team, there's even a thread about it on this forum. The family sharing was definitely full games and no time limit.

http://www.neowin.net/news/mic...hare-was-never-time-limited

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...-demo/page-6#entry595774820 - it was never a time limit system.

nah, but why should you take ms at their word, right? lol i can't believe people thought they were going to have a "family sharing demos system". demos are free and already available.

Microsoft, or any company, should not take users' feedback literally. You take feedback and analyze it, why users feel in that certain way. Then you try to solve the problem. But not by going backwards, like Microsoft did with the Start button. They just did this whole thing wrong. Now users will expect Microsoft to always "return" things, "make it look like it was before." Just because users don't understand, don't want the change. Etc.

Exactly. At my company we constantly get requests for changes to our applications. If we took the requests at face value and did exactly what the users asked for we'd end up with a horrible mess. Instead we always try to figure out why they're asking for it, and then come up with the best solution to meet everyone's needs.

The Xbox One fiasco started with poor communication, blew up because of poor communication, and resulted in a knee-jerk reversal due to poor communication...

JonathanMarston said,
Exactly. At my company we constantly get requests for changes to our applications. If we took the requests at face value and did exactly what the users asked for we'd end up with a horrible mess. Instead we always try to figure out why they're asking for it, and then come up with the best solution to meet everyone's needs.

The Xbox One fiasco started with poor communication, blew up because of poor communication, and resulted in a knee-jerk reversal due to poor communication...

Best comment on the internet today! If i knew you i'd buy you a beer.

MikeChipshop said,

Best comment on the internet today! If i knew you i'd buy you a beer.

Count me in for second round

While I can easily say that I really prefer the original intent, Microsoft was wise to listen. There were just too many factors going against MS for this new delivery and technology.

In addition, it is not that Microsoft cannot implement any of these throughout XONE's life span. It is just a software and firmware update (or two, or three) away from bringing back some of the original features back. They've stated that they will bring it back, but they just don't know the timeline.

They should have done what they did with 8. Meet the customer complaints in the middle, not a full reversal. Keep all the online checks and such, and just let you play offline if you kept the disc in the drive. How hard would that have been?

On top of that, they should have done a better job explaining the benefits and addressing the situation at their first conference. Letting the rumors percolate until E3 was a bad move. They didn't even address everything then.

The whole situation has been handled very poorly by Microsoft.

LightEco said,
They should have done what they did with 8. Meet the customer complaints in the middle, not a full reversal. Keep all the online checks and such, and just let you play offline if you kept the disc in the drive. How hard would that have been?

On top of that, they should have done a better job explaining the benefits and addressing the situation at their first conference. Letting the rumors percolate until E3 was a bad move. They didn't even address everything then.

The whole situation has been handled very poorly by Microsoft.


+ 1 Million

I think they conceeded too much, the only thing they needed to change was to get rid of the time limit imposed when playing physical media games offline

Yes, a mistake it was, driven by panic.

Microsoft also very poorly explained and sold the whole vision they had.
And finally, their greedy nature failed to properly interest the audience by keeping game prices too high.

Properly explaining the vision and reducing the game prices would likely have given enough incentive to the consumers to adopt this innovative but disruptive vision they had.

This remains one, if not "the", largest fiasco in the recent tech history.

I would never buy any game machine that has the stupid rules that Microsoft was trying to use. Thats why they lost a ton of customers to the Sony Playstation.

Microsoft wants everything subscription based anymore, because they are a greedy company. It will be their downfall one day.

jd100 said,
I would never buy any game machine that has the stupid rules that Microsoft was trying to use. Thats why they lost a ton of customers to the Sony Playstation.

Microsoft wants everything subscription based anymore, because they are a greedy company. It will be their downfall one day.


Uh huh... Did Sony's plan include your being able to share your games with 10 family members while still being able to play the game yourself? Yeah, greed had nothing to do with it. LOL

jd100 said,
Microsoft wants everything subscription based

Well, this was announced as the business model going forward during the blackcomb days.

It's a good strategy.
If I get a deal for bundling office465 / xbox live gold / xbox music pass / etc, count me in. Hell this is the Telco model... and has yet to be their downfall.

Come on people. Do you honestly think family sharing was going to be THIS? All of these horror stories about used game sales killing the industry, and you think this feature would have made it EVEN EASIER?

How do you share a game now? Give the disc to somebody right? How many people can play at the same time now? Just one right? You really....REALLY think this feature is going to be what you guys think it was? Allowing TWO people to play the game at the same time?

You do know, if that was indeed what the feature was, then Single Player would become extinct right? Companies would only develop single player that would only last an hour or two. Because what is the point spending your budget when 10 people can play one copy?

First of all. Microsoft didn't listen to feedback at all. What part of our feedback was used to improve X1?

We all don't want to pay up to 60 euros for a game that you can't play because of protection, or can't play because MS wants you on the next box and closed down servers.

DRM can be used for good and good thinking people aren't against it. But that doesn't make it right for the way Microsoft explained it would work. It would work restrictive for the consumer and the consumer alone. Sure we want the work of hundreds of programmers protected, we aren't against that at all, but that doesn't have to mean that the product you purchase can, or cannot be played at Microsofts will.

I hope they bring back the feauteres they promised and leave the physical disc like it works now so everyone can benefit the way they like.

As if it was really fan feedback. It was clearly a viral marketing attack orchestrated by companies that make money buying and selling physical media. They want to hold onto that obsolete business model as many more years as they can.

Spicoli said,
As if it was really fan feedback. It was clearly a viral marketing attack orchestrated by companies that make money buying and selling physical media. They want to hold onto that obsolete business model as many more years as they can.

Haha awesome

startscreennope said,
That's one (completely ridiculous) theory.

You are aware many bloggers are paid for their articles? Who was running the web site and advertising campaign against the XBox One licensing? Gamestop maybe? Face it, you were expertly told what to think by clever marketing people.

The reality is that they can't do what the customers want. Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?'

What MS wanted to do is not Steam.

For one Steam is not the only store selling PC games. You can still go in a store, buy a traditional disc version of the game, play it and sell it to a friend after. Also what people like about Steam is not only the digital distribution. It's all the sales. In the summer sale i bought 7 or 8 games and did not even pay the full price of one single new game for them. I did not plan to buy Alan Wake or New Vegas but they were 3$ ...

Now i'll admit even tough i own a 360 the last time i checked the market place was many months ago. Things might have changed. But there's a reason why i don't even bother checking the store anymore. There's no sale. I mush have checked some XBLA games price once a weak for about a year without any price cut. They were always 1200 points which was too much expensive for me.

You will still be able to buy games from the market place (like Steam). You'll also still be able to buy a disc and resell it to a friend which is a good thing imo.

For now Microsoft should work at making the market place a worldwhile place to check on a regular basis for sales. Microsoft should also make the sales easier to find. I downloaded AC2 for free last week. There's was absolutely no mention of the game being free on the dashboard. On Steam it would have been promoted to death on the front page with a special background and everything so nobody could miss it.

Yes they made a mistake and i also agree with the listening to the customers bit.
If MS had listened and acted on every decision their customers had shouted about then their company would long since have gone under. You simply can't please everybody and making a change to appease one group will surely anger another group.
Customers don;t innovate, companies do.

With regards to the original XB1 plans, they absolutely should not have crippled the new console by dropping the plans they had in place, these were forward thinking features, possibly a bit to forward thinking for the majority of customers. They really needed to work on the delivery and how they got the plans out to the customers as the great features were undermined by the bad press of the DRM.

I'll not lie, a few tweaks were needed to make it more palatable for the mass market, disc licence checks etc but overall the idea was sound.
Unfortunately the 180 tuned the XB1 in to a machine i'll look at getting rather than one i'd certainly have got.

I don't see how Microsoft can't still have all these awesome features for _digital_ purchases and leave physical media as is. I think you can have both. Oh well.

PotatoJ said,
I don't see how Microsoft can't still have all these awesome features for _digital_ purchases and leave physical media as is. I think you can have both. Oh well.

You can, but it might need to be ripped out temporarily until they can rewrite it.

It was a mistake in a series of mistakes. Their presentation of everything was terrible! If they had actually come out comparing it to Pc digital distribution, and totally focused on why we'd benefit (including yet to be released features like license selling), that would've been good.

Additionally, they should e been doing digital sales since last year at least. Big, high profile, loud sales that everybody knows about and looks forward to, like Steam sales.

oh, and pricing. Lower prices would've been good. Even a $5 discount would've been a good start.

It's crazy sometimes reading these obviously fanboy inspired articles.
The most obvious mistake Microsoft has made was to NOT listen to their customers as windows 8 has clearly demonstrated.

Order_66 said,
It's crazy sometimes reading these obviously fanboy inspired articles.
The most obvious mistake Microsoft has made was to NOT listen to their customers as windows 8 has clearly demonstrated.

I'm assuming you don't work in software, because customers never know what they want. LOL That's the problem...

It's an insane idea to listen and act on everything your customers say.
For every person that wants something, there are plenty that do not. OK so maybe you can put both of those things in, but where do you draw the line?

MikeChipshop said,
It's an insane idea to listen and act on everything your customers say.
For every person that wants something, there are plenty that do not. OK so maybe you can put both of those things in, but where do you draw the line?

Exactly. You don't scrap everything, you try to improve functionality for those customers that want something different... But you don't toss your entire vision out the window!

The problem is trying to be the first-mover towards the Steam-model for a console generation WILL make you THE target of a witch-hunt. Sony cynically let Microsoft take all the hits, while they prepare to unleash their equivalent DRM model by 2015.

CygnusOrion said,
The problem is trying to be the first-mover towards the Steam-model for a console generation WILL make you THE target of a witch-hunt. Sony cynically let Microsoft take all the hits, while they prepare to unleash their equivalent DRM model by 2015.
It was not a steam model. Steam does not have 24 hour DRM checks, you can go offline indefinitely if you wish.

startscreennope said,
It was not a steam model. Steam does not have 24 hour DRM checks, you can go offline indefinitely if you wish.

Because you can't share your games with up to 10 friends/family...

rfirth said,

Because you can't share your games with up to 10 friends/family...

According to the most reliable leaks we have, "family sharing" was a 60 minute timed demo.

startscreennope said,
According to the most reliable leaks we have, "family sharing" was a 60 minute timed demo.

And according to Microsoft itself, that was a lie. It wasn't a timed at all.

Well, first, I must ask... Can we publish a single article about Microsoft without bringing up Windows 8.1? LOL

Now, for the actual article (Which Windows 8.1 really had nothing to do with)... I have to agree (Partially).

Microsoft wanted to do some really cool things, no doubt, but they didn't EXPLAIN any of them. They weren't able to present the benefits of this system, OR answer the most basic of questions about it. THAT is where they failed...

In addition to that, they genuinely didn't THINK about some very basic problems. What about the members of the world's militaries, which can't connect to Live every 24 hours (Or at all)? What about people in college dorms that have similar restrictions? What about someone that just doesn't have high speed internet, or loses it for a period of time? This past year I moved and couldn't get internet for 4 or 5 months. I played a lot of XBox and had a lot of achievements waiting for me when I did get internet, but I wouldn't have been able to with the One...

So, I think some changes needed to be made, but what they did to quell the complaints was also wrong...

What they should have done was allowed you to turn off the 24 hour check (And have it automatically revert to these settings if unable to connect for a period of time). If it was not allowed to connect, then the game disc, being in the drive, would act as authorization to run the game. Otherwise all the other benefits and options available to users of XBox One would be available. Games shared as part of the Family Share plan would not be available to you, but no Live services would... Games you owned however would be.

That would have solved all of the concerns and would have been a heck of a lot easier than reversing the whole thing.

The comparison is because they sort of did the same thing with 8.1 as they did with the Xbox One. Listened to customer feedback and changed things.

Neobond said,
The comparison is because they sort of did the same thing with 8.1 as they did with the Xbox One. Listened to customer feedback and changed things.

Fair enough, and I'm not knocking John... But dear mother of God, it is brought up as a comparison to everything! LOL

"Microsoft announces they will be renaming SkyDrive... Just like they did with Windows 8.1..."

LOL

No... They didn't make a mistake listening to fan feedback. Personally I think the pendulum swung too far back, but I think a compromise can be made with regards to the Family/Friends Sharing, where a middle of the road policy between pure digital DRM Steam like solution and a Disk based system.

They could have it so that you could have Digital copies with Family Share capabilities, and Disk based installed games would require that the disk be inserted with the system. In regards to going offline, The owner could request that an XBox One go offline and it would disable the Family Sharing until it went back online and checked in. While offline, the Family Sharing for those games would be disabled.

This would address most if not all of the concerns regarding the Offline policies and DRM requests. You could even be able to go to any trade in game service and convert your game to a digital copy for those who would like to not have a closet full of disks and their cases.

The fact that Friend sharing was pulled indicates that the console OS was not architect ed for it work without the 24-hour check-in. Perhaps game publishers also cried foul.

I agree, and personally, I don't see a need for the 24 Hour check-in at all. If you know that the game is tied to the console and if the system goes offline, the Family Share is disabled, then there shouldn't be a need to have the check in. The thing I see, is that this will virtually eliminate making the XBox One an item worth stealing. You'd never be able to use any of the online features which is where most of the benefit of having one is.

They could propose exactly what they have planned with Downloaded-Digital media. Not Physical-digital media such as discs. That's the main problem.

Absolutely YES, they took a next gen console and crippled it back into the last gen with the PS4. They had a steambox and now they have an upgraded 360, which doesn't seem at all worthwhile.

It would have been easier to release the console as they announced it an rolled back some of the restrictions after the fact, bringing in family share and the other drm features will be almost impossible now that its a disc based (the most restrictive drm on the planet) system again.

they could always go digital only and problem solved, the main issue was the 24 hour check ins which STEAM dont have.... their half assed aspect in physical its also a factor of the backtrack...

24 hour check ins only existed because of the addition of physical media... they needed to release it without the support for physical copies

it was a mistake to not innovate in digital area where they want to push thanks to backtrack policy, but physical changes to what it was its acceptable and should be like that in the first place....

MS did the right thing for the short run. The industry and people are not entirely ready for this massive shift that was proposed; but the infrastructure is in place and when the world is ready, it will be embraced. Xbox One will facilitate the transition.

Think of the web based thin-PCs that were shown off in the late 90s and early 2000s. "No data on your PC... it's just there to get you online." Reality is meeting the fantasy of the past. Fewer people are storing data on their devices and those with smartphones and tablets should (reasonably) put everything on the cloud. We are arriving at our cloud destination 15 years after it was first proposed; but it will take another 5 years until we are there.

Xbox One is the middle ground and, like with 360, it will evolve... except it has a better gameplan for evolution.

The reason why the iOS restrictive app model works is because they invented it from the ground up. There was no previous generation user experience with mobile apps that needed respecting.

CygnusOrion said,
The reason why the iOS restrictive app model works is because they invented it from the ground up. There was no previous generation user experience with mobile apps that needed respecting.

Also most of the apps are under 5$

People don't care that much if they can't resell a game they just bought for under 10$ on Steam or an ios app they just bought for 2.99$.

People do care if they can't resell a game they just bought for 60$ to anyone they want without restriction.

There is no logic in making a special case for a $60 game(which cost the developer a lot to make) for resale and not less expensive games. It sounds like the game developers being cheated out of sales.

We love Steam, but Steam doesn't require connecting every 24h in offline mode. I think most of the backlash stemmed from this draconian rule alone; Microsoft could have, conceivably, relaxed the requirement without doing a complete 180.

Oh and please don't bring the start menu into this, for the love of Christ.

Asik said,
We love Steam, but Steam doesn't require connecting every 24h in offline mode. I think most of the backlash stemmed from this draconian rule alone; Microsoft could have, conceivably, relaxed the requirement without doing a complete 180.

Oh and please don't bring the start menu into this, for the love of Christ.

Exactly. The check honestly appeared to only be in place to allow for the trade in of games... So, I see what they were trying to do there... But there should have been the option to fall back on the disc being in the drive and just leave it at that... I mean, how hard would this be?

if(Authorized over Live)
{
Yay! Game!
}
else if(Game in drive)
{
Yay! Game!
}
else
{
Boo!
}

LOL

Offline mode on steam only works for certain games, for example Dota 2 does not work offline, you have to be connected to steam in order to play the game. Considering it is free to play, it really isn't an issue, but just wanted to say it depends on the game. Also allowing the DRM for digital downloads is better than nothing, but i wouldn't mind having just the disc as a transfer media this way i wouldn't have to really deal with the 15-25Gb download and use up my monthly bandwidth.

Actually Steam moving to another direction, before I can play only while I connected to Internet, now I can play steam games even I offline for 1 month. Also they plan to introduce friend sharing feature. Before I have on steam only Valve games and have a lot CD/DVD disks, now I have more than 100 games in steam.

The algorithm is not correct :-). With it you basically sell two copies of the game: one copy for an online xbox where you install the game and one copy for an offline xbox where you play from the disk.

I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft announced that titles downloaded from the store (that would also be available on disk in retail stores) will have some of the initial features (play everywhere/family plan) they described.

Asik said,
We love Steam, but Steam doesn't require connecting every 24h in offline mode. I think most of the backlash stemmed from this draconian rule alone; Microsoft could have, conceivably, relaxed the requirement without doing a complete 180.

Oh and please don't bring the start menu into this, for the love of Christ.


Steam also doesn't allow you to share your game with 10 friends or trade your (used) game or sell your (used) game.

I don't think that is the current Model.
From what I understand....

The announced model would have been:
If (Game Authenticated over Live within last 24 hrs), GAME ON
Else CANNOT PLAY

Then they changed it to the Xbox 360 model, which is:
If (Purchased Digitally or Game in drive) GAME ON
Else CANNOT PLAY

What they should have done (in my opinion) is:
If (Game is authenticated)
{
If (Connected) Reauthenticate
If (Authenticated at least once, no matter how long ago) GAME ON
Else CANNOT PLAY
}
Else If (Game in drive) GAME ON
ELSE CANNOT PLAY
... with support to transfer digital purchases via de-authorization of an online console/gamertag, so it can accept/process/confirm de-authorization.

Perhaps one day we will have that model. But the current model requires the disc in the drive, even if that disc has been registered to the console/gamertag.

Regards,
Jacob

That's still two licenses. If you keep your xbox offline you could always play through the disk. The offline xbox would never be able to tell other xboxes that it is using the license for that game. You'd simply install the game on the online one (and add it to your account) and play offline with the disk on the other.

I'd much prefer the old system with a small change: The ability to pin a game to a specific game console so the game can be played offline (but would prohibit the game being played on any other console). It would require some license management and planning by the gamer, but at least the 24 hour check wouldn't be an issue then.

S3P€hR said,

this is basically current Model.

Unfortunately it's not.

They got rid of all of the benefits of the digital model and now the disc is required to be in the drive. The option to authorize over Live is gone (The first If).

PUC_Snakeman said,
I don't think that is the current Model.
From what I understand....

The announced model would have been:
If (Game Authenticated over Live within last 24 hrs), GAME ON
Else CANNOT PLAY

Then they changed it to the Xbox 360 model, which is:
If (Purchased Digitally or Game in drive) GAME ON
Else CANNOT PLAY

What they should have done (in my opinion) is:
If (Game is authenticated)
{
If (Connected) Reauthenticate
If (Authenticated at least once, no matter how long ago) GAME ON
Else CANNOT PLAY
}
Else If (Game in drive) GAME ON
ELSE CANNOT PLAY
... with support to transfer digital purchases via de-authorization of an online console/gamertag, so it can accept/process/confirm de-authorization.

Perhaps one day we will have that model. But the current model requires the disc in the drive, even if that disc has been registered to the console/gamertag.

Regards,
Jacob


EXACTLY.

And for everyone criticizing my code, believe it or not, it wasn't written to actually run or anything... It was written as an example. LOL

PUC_Snakeman said,
Please explain.

I auth my game on my xbox, keep on playing.
Give the disc to you and you play it on your "offline" xbox.

To prevent it, games need to be verified EVERYTIME you start it. MS went for a flat one check per 24h instead.

Actually the system consisted of two checks:
- 24 hour check in for your primary console.
- 1 hour check in for other consoles.

The whole DRM mechanism could still be used for digital downloads, but didn't they revert that as well to the old xbox 360 way? or is that still speculation at this point?

Crimson Rain said,

I auth my game on my xbox, keep on playing.
Give the disc to you and you play it on your "offline" xbox.

To prevent it, games need to be verified EVERYTIME you start it. MS went for a flat one check per 24h instead.

You do bring up a good point, I suppose.

No, they do not need to be verified every time. But they should be verified once, and then can only be authorized for an additional console if it has been deauthorized by the first console. Don't you agree?

Once it's authorized, there's no need to be internet-connected, unless you are going to deauthorize it.

PUC_Snakeman said,

You do bring up a good point, I suppose.

No, they do not need to be verified every time. But they should be verified once, and then can only be authorized for an additional console if it has been deauthorized by the first console. Don't you agree?

Once it's authorized, there's no need to be internet-connected, unless you are going to deauthorize it.


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

How do you (de)authorize without internet?
How does the console in your basement without internet know which game is (de)authorized to which console?

It is downright funny how people come up with "better plans than MS" everyday while having blunt loopholes in their plan.

Given physical media (dvd, bluray) can not be modified and all copies of these must be 100% identical, here is what MS can do:

Original XBO license management system
+ primarily digital distribution
- physical media acts like "delivery method" for digital goods; there is NO disc based games
+ no disc required to play
+ instant switching
+ trade, resell, share used games
+ family share
- a small (dial-up friendly) online check once 24h to make sure everything is in order
+ huge sales like Steam

Current XBO licensing model
> digital distribution allowed
> physical media based games allowed
+ no online connection required
- disc required to play Disc-based Games
- instant switching only between digital games
- no trade, resell, share used digital games
> trade, resell, share disc-based games (good luck sharing your game with your friend in another city/country)
- family share (thanks, raging morons on Internet)
+ no online check
- no huge sales

Future XBO licensing model (hopefully)
+ original XBO licensing model for digital games
+ current XBO licensing model for physical games

If you are thinking anything else, it is not possible.

Hopefully, when this future model is implemented, they will increase disc based game price to prevent retarded 2nd hand market.


A common moronic argument by raging kids on Internet about previous XBO sharing model: "How will I play a shared game on my friend's place if I need to wait 10 hours for it to finish download?"
Guess what, use the disc!

Edited by Crimson Rain, Aug 6 2013, 9:11pm :

Crimson Rain said,

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

How do you (de)authorize without internet?
How does the console in your basement without internet know which game is (de)authorized to which console?

...

If you are thinking anything else, it is not possible.

I do know what I'm talking about.
When you purchase content online, let's say from iTunes, and it allows the content "to be put on up to 5 devices, and burned up to 2 times", then those "actions" need to be authorized/registered as "having happened", online. Also, actions such as "hey, I don't want this content to be authorized for this iPod anymore, since I'm giving the iPod away" are indeed possible, if the device is connected to the internet and can deauthorize the software/service. That's also how many companies do license transfers, including Adobe I believe; you deauthorize the license from one computer, to authorize onto another.

That same deauthorization/authorization is what Microsoft could implement. And, if you're worried about not allowing a neighbor to immediately play with the disc offline after you have already authorized it for your own console, then that's why I said "must be authorized at least once" is mandatory even for disc games. When that neighbor goes to do that action, they will be denied (unless the license allows for such actions).

Lighten up Crimson, and please try not to be shortsighted.
The goal is to have content that can move (or even be shared), without requiring the disc to be in the drive, and without requiring the disc to be moved. And I think it is doable.

I'm no expert, but I bet Microsoft will solve this problem. We should not need the disc to be in the drive after the content is registered to the console. Even if the content is deleted (not deauthorized), I'd envision it could be redownloaded without the disc. And, better yet, if it's tied to your gamertag (which does not allow simultaneous logins), then when you go to your neighbor's house, you can login to their console, and download any games you need, without requiring discs (since those discs have been previously authorized to your gamertag).

This is the future. Surely you see the vision too, don't you? If Microsoft works out the "holes" to be acceptable to them, then we can move forward and embrace this idea.

PUC_Snakeman said,
if the device is connected to the internet and can deauthorize the software/service

...and that either enables unauthorized simultaneous play or requires internet.

What is preventing me from authorizing my latest $59.99 Halo game disc on my computer and then selling the disc at game stop for $30? Then someone can buy that game disc and play in his "offline" console without any issues?
Or I take my console "offline" and he plays online?

If you are saying, even a disc based game requires "internet activation" at least once, then you are back to the same boat: requirement of internet for disc based games.

The whole xbo drm ****storm is caused by requirement of internet. Raging kids want a fully offline console cause their Internet breaks down always (while the check could have been done with just a tether with mobile internet). They will again start raging with pitch fork and say dumb things like "I bought my effing disc and why the hell I need internet to play it?"

Based on your authorization plan, what is preventing someone to authorize his game on as many xbox as allowed and then reselling a disc that doesn't work cause it has been authorized max times already?
How are you going to authorize games to "offline" consoles?
How are you going to deauthorize games from an online console that is offline?

You keep forgetting that:
- discs can not be modified
- offline consoles have no idea about anything in the world except the disc itself


And please, do not call me shortsighted. Shortsighted are the ones who jumped on the XBO-hate bandwagon without thinking what they are killing off (at least until MS reintroduces these).

My "plan", if you will, would require the disc-based software to be authorized (online, via Internet), once, and registered to either the gamertag or the console or both (depending on Microsoft's choice of implementation).

I would presume that Microsoft would choose to only allow 1 entity (gamertag? gamertag + 10 friends? gamertag + family?) to be fully-authorized for offline play. So, you ask "what is preventing me from authorizing then selling the disc" my answer would be "nothing, but whoever gets the disc should be in-the-know about the authorization technology, knowing that the disc may be useless if it had been previously authorized but not deauthorized."

I AM saying that a disc-based game would need "internet activation/authorization" at least once.

After that, the internet is not required, in order to play. There is no need for a "24-hour license renewal or reauthentication" as Microsoft had proposed. Once the game is authorized, it could stay offline forever. And furthermore, it could be played without the disc.

Deauthorization would of course require internet (in order to modify the account). I believe Microsoft wanted this to be coordinated with GameStop or eBay or whomever, but in order to "download the deauthorization", then they built the requirement for the 24-hour check. And that's the problem. Nobody wanted the always-on requirement, which I understand. So, I don't see an easy way to deauthorize at the store; YOU need to deauthorize on the console/gamertag beforehand. Then, the STORE could VERIFY the deauthorization before purchasing your used game.

I do understand discs cannot be modified. In fact, when you "sell the game to GameStop", it could be setup such that you give them the "install code" that you had used to authorize and deauthorize, they validate your deauthorization, they authorize it as belonging it to them, and then you're done. They wouldn't even NEED the disc -- they may have several extras on-hand already; just a thought. In a sense, the whole thing could be completed with nothing physical being transferred!

Does that help you to see how it could work?

Also, in order to allow "family" to play with you, without them owning the game, Microsoft could support this scenario by allowing that secondary gamertag to be an "online-1-hr-check- authorization". Once they go offline, the game would only work for an hour before it would fail authorization.

It is all still doable. Getting rid of the "internet always required" check, getting rid of the "disc must be in drive" problem, and getting rid of the "we sell the disc at GameStop" issue.

That (current system) needs to be replaced with "we require activation once for disc based games", "after that, no internet is required", "you may share your games using our DRM rules with internet verification", and "we require deauthorization in order for you to sell your games". For consoles that are always-offline (think military), Microsoft had already stated they had some rule provisions to help that scenario to work (in my mind I envisioned special discs/codes that do not require authorization).

It can all still be done.

Edited by PUC_Snakeman, Aug 7 2013, 3:21am :

> online check required for disc games.

wont go well with these raging kids.
Also, people without internet (for whatever reason), can not play the shiny new game they just bought.

> nothing, but whoever gets the disc should be in-the-know about the authorization technology, knowing that the disc may be useless if it had been previously authorized but not deauthorized

So you are either introducing massive scamming or blocking the whole resell thing.

> the STORE could VERIFY the deauthorization before purchasing your used game

So only selected stores can do that. Again, something that has been rallied against already.

PUC_Snakeman said,
You stated it was not possible to strike the middle-ground-balance.
I am simply saying it is possible.

Online check for disc based game is not a middle ground; not to mention the hassles and scamming this plan introduces in resell/trading games.

"Article"
There's one mistake that they all make, and that mistake is listening to their customers."

So aliens are the ones who buy the products...

They are bought by the customers that don't give their advise. They probably outnumber them by 1:100000. Good advice is sold, bad advise is thrown around for free.

LegendaryRamzi said,
They are bought by the customers that don't give their advise. They probably outnumber them by 1:100000. Good advice is sold, bad advise is thrown around for free.
Insulting and meaningless personal attacks/flamebaiting/ad hominem.

In this case, the people buying the products of MS's competitors outnumber the people who buy MS products by about 1:1000000.

I dunno, I can't be the only one for whom the always-online requirement was a dealbreaker and the change meant that I now will purchase one, whereas I was not planning to before.

I agree that their ideas are indeed the way forward, and one day gaming will almost certainly be the way they imagined. I just think they were a bit too hasty with it. The world's infrastructure isn't ready to handle this. No way anybody wants to invest hundreds of dollars into a console and games that they would have no access to if their internet went down for a couple of days. This is the reality in many places, and even in the most developed countries, things still happen--accidents, bad weather, natural disasters, a mistake in the ISP's billing department... We aren't quite there yet.

I haven't owned a console, but can't they do both? Offer a Steam like service and allow the traditional disc method? If the same game is cheaper in the cloud, then people might start moving away from discs.

Yes, but that was exactly what MS was going for with their model. Now you'll have feature segregation between retail and digital. Retail discs were reduced to basic data carriers with a license key to avoid lengthy downloads, just like the PC retail is now. Publishers can still use this method though for the Xbox One though, but I wonder how many still will after the negative backlash.

Neobond said,
I haven't owned a console, but can't they do both? Offer a Steam like service and allow the traditional disc method?

This is exactly what they are going to do

Neobond said,
I haven't owned a console, but can't they do both? Offer a Steam like service and allow the traditional disc method? If the same game is cheaper in the cloud, then people might start moving away from discs.

The X360 can do both. Only games offered through the download services usually are more expensive then their disced counterpart. So Microsoft has been doing a poor job at making digital downloads an attractive option to console gamers.

I think Microsoft did the right thing by listening to the outcry. Perhaps these visionaries are right and downloadable games are the future. However not everyone is quiet there right, especially worldwide.

Steam is popular because its consumers chose the ease of digital download over its downsides. However steam doesn't have 100% marketshare in the PC space. Plenty of PC gamers stil prefer disc-based games. If all publishers suddenly decided to only offer their games through steam there would be a lot of disgruntled PC gamers as well.

For Microsoft it gets even worse because disgruntled Xbox gamers have the option to choose PS4 instead. So console gamers don't have to shut up and embrace the 'future'. Xbox would be a dead brand if they had continued down that road.

Ronnet said,

The X360 can do both. Only games offered through the download services usually are more expensive then their disced counterpart. So Microsoft has been doing a poor job at making digital downloads an attractive option to console gamers.

I think Microsoft did the right thing by listening to the outcry. Perhaps these visionaries are right and downloadable games are the future. However not everyone is quiet there right, especially worldwide.

Steam is popular because its consumers chose the ease of digital download over its downsides. However steam doesn't have 100% marketshare in the PC space. Plenty of PC gamers stil prefer disc-based games. If all publishers suddenly decided to only offer their games through steam there would be a lot of disgruntled PC gamers as well.

For Microsoft it gets even worse because disgruntled Xbox gamers have the option to choose PS4 instead. So console gamers don't have to shut up and embrace the 'future'. Xbox would be a dead brand if they had continued down that road.


I think that's a bit extreme...

Neobond said,
.....

The disc was only meant to be a shortcut to the bits where bandwidth limits/speeds prevent an all digital solution.

What they have done in backtracking is exactly what you suggested. I however will be using my XBOX ONE as a purely digital console, never purchasing retail discs.

where were all the developers when Microsoft, needed some backing on this?
Now they want to come out and say something on this matter.

No, I don't think it was a mistake. Ultimately, what you need is for the thing to sell. There's nothing to talk about if it doesn't sell.

I agree with you from the standpoint of a better future gaming industry for all including the consumers, but from the consumer perspective I can disagree with you as well. MS should have been a lot more clear to their faithful customers about their online features and why the online checks were needed.
Only a few industry people know the truth about all of it, that they were there so you could share and be able to disconnect your digital licenses (and still leave the gaming retail with resale intact but without their 100% profit on resales) and those few are just not enough to convey a positive message when the negative rumor mill is running wild around the net and everybody is propagating it as fact without basis.

What is going to happen now is going to be less great for some parties in the gaming industry. I think there will definitely be more nickle and diming towards the consumer and the gaming retail is going to suffer and now accelerated their demise because digital purchases will receive benefits that the retail versions will not offer (where they did with the previous DRM model because your retail purchase was also a digital one tied to your account).
Game sharing will also be a bit more cumbersome than the once in 24 hours check as it will require an online verification and likely permanent connection while you play.

Edited by Thief000, Aug 5 2013, 4:44pm :

Thief000 said,
I agree with you from the standpoint of a better future industry for all, but from the consumer perspective I can disagree with you as well. MS should have been a lot more clear to their faithful customers about their online features and why the online checks were needed.
Only a few industry people know the truth about all of it, that they were there so you could share and be able to disconnect your licenses and those few are just not enough to convey a positive message when the negative rumor mill if running wild around the net and everybody is propagating it as fact without basis.

Yep. They did a HORRIBLE job explaining any of this (Probably because the head was leaving and no longer cared). lol

i don't think it was a mistake to revers their decision, but for a more specific reason than "I don't want DRM blah blah".

I think it's just a generation too early to make that kind of move, not everyone's internet is quite up to it just yet. the next generation of consoles will be great for the ideas MS wanted to do with the One though.

you may say "Oh but Steam already does these DRM things". yes but with that i have to wait anywhere from 30 min to 3 hours or so before i can play the game. the main benefit of consoles has always been the drop and play. no waiting for things to install or download. we need even faster internet connections before an all digital console can become a reality, and i think we will probably be there by the time we're ready for the next gen consoles after the One and PS4.

Umm... I don't know how you have to wait that long. Games usually start up right away for me on Steam...

*on topic*
I really wish they had not reversed the change or at least implemented a dual policy scenario... eg -- Install to hard drive? Ok. We need to check this content every 24 hours. Boot from media? Ok. You just need the disc in the drive to play.

Even digital media is checked to ensure it is licensed to the console already. If it isn't then it requires that you sign into your profile in order to play said content. Make it like that.

shinji257 said,
Umm... I don't know how you have to wait that long. Games usually start up right away for me on Steam...
i was talking about the time to wait for a game to download & install

pirajoc said,
Yeah it was a mistake.

It was a mistake and the bigger mistake was unable to explain the whole thing PROPERLY.

MS has/had a few morons for marketing.

Brando212 said,
i was talking about the time to wait for a game to download & install

Which was the only thing they explained adequately. You are able to begin playing as it downloads...

M_Lyons10 said,

Which was the only thing they explained adequately. You are able to begin playing as it downloads...
which was the only saving grace of the system they wanted to do. and i can still foresee there being issues if someone doesn't have the greatest connection.

which is why i say we aren't quite ready for that kind of thing yet. with the rate things are improving we should definitely ready for that system by the time we're ready for the next generation of consoles