Microsoft confirms day one update must be downloaded for Xbox One

Microsoft revealed earlier today that it's bowing to pressure from some parts of the gaming community and changing its policies regarding used games and mandatory internet connectivity on the Xbox One. While these changes will appease some, they certainly won't please everyone, with some features being dropped as a result of the revised policies.

While the requirement for the console to check in online at least once every 24 hours has been dropped, Xbox One buyers will still need to connect the web the first time they use their console. IGN spoke with Microsoft's Marc Whitten earlier today, who confirmed that users will need to download and install a required update at first launch. 

"There was always going to be a day one update on the console," said Whitten, "and that's frankly just a difference in manufacturing schedules versus software schedules. We just wanted to be clear that that hasn't changed, that you have to go online to get the software for day one, then you wouldn't have to be connected after that." 

While Whitten didn't reveal details of just what the update might include, or how large it might be, he did say that any web connection will do. In response to an enquiry about whether users will be able to download their update through smartphone tethering, he replied: "Sure. Any way that you can get connectivity to the Live service would enable that to come down to the console." 

He added that Microsoft considers that that won't be an issue for the majority of customers: "We believe that most people, frankly, are going to continue to take advantage of the connected state and all that comes with it."

Whitten also noted that Microsoft hasn't changed its stance on Kinect, and that the Xbox One will still require the sensor in order to play games. "We still believe Kinect is a really critical part of the architecture," he said. "We think it changes the way you can interact with your experiences... and we want game and interactive entertainment creators to be able to know they can take advantage of it, and we want it to be completely consistent for our users. So we still are very comitted to how Kinect transforms that experience." 

Source: IGN | Images via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Xbox One DRM roll-back kills family game share, digital disc library

Next Story

What console do you plan to buy later this year?

129 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

i think to get truer picture we shouldnt just look at MS, lets look at iOS 7 when it gets released. people moaned about iOS being stale and boring (which it is after 6 years) and see how many people think the new UI sucks and bits of it are pointless and they shouldnt have bothered. i think lots of people will, why? cus people like moaning. The panoramic lock screen looks cool but its pointless. Who the hell is going be walking around looking at there lock screen. iOS's calender looks really familiar to me like ive seen it somewhere before or at least a close style to it

So Microsoft makes plan for DRM and this always online, now backing down who is actually in charge?

Clearly it looks like the public, so lets all make Microsoft drop the price to around $100/£80, there backing down like a little biatch at the moment so worth a try

I wonder why MS are constantly shooting themselves in the foot...

They did it with win 8 and now this.

Why the hell make restrictive crappy things that will annoy the hell out of consumers in the first place?
Then to make it worse they back track, so then not only have they ****ed off the loyal userbase, the negative perception continues to linger for the average consumer...


who the hell is making all these dumb decisions at MS lately...

I don't see why people can't buy digital versions of the games? Aren't they going to be day 1 releases, like even Nintendo does on the Wii U, for example? Anyway, I thought "Digital is the future." Therefore, why buy discs?

It offers some choice, still. Buy discs and have to swap, or buy digital and not have to...

Count me in as another person upset at this - the vocal minority won out. Yippee. I was looking forward to family sharing and being able to share games with friends without swapping those hated discs.

Thanks for keeping us in the past, gaming community.

NateB1 said,
Count me in as another person upset at this - the vocal minority won out. Yippee. I was looking forward to family sharing and being able to share games with friends without swapping those hated discs.

Thanks for keeping us in the past, gaming community.


Nobody defended microsoft. I remember i was the only one defending ms act. People were accusing me being ms employee. So here we are now, down with the ship all together. I hate to say this but majority of people blindly follow each other and don't think right.

No, Microsoft didn't listen. This is not the gaming community's fault. They could have both options, but they decided to go with the one people like the most (the most money for them duh). I'm sure their pre-orders weren't going as good as they had hoped. Any smart company should've done the same. A smarter company would've done some research before forcing something their main audience doesn't like.

S3P€hR said,

Nobody defended microsoft. I remember i was the only one defending ms act. People were accusing me being ms employee. So here we are now, down with the ship all together. I hate to say this but majority of people blindly follow each other and don't think right.

Its the unnecessary 24 hour check-in that was the issue.
They could've picked an alternative solution and not tell half the world to suck it.

I still think MS will bring some things back over time and with very very careful marketing. Even the slightest HINT of "you don't own your stuff" just drives some people to the brink of insanity. I was ready for the future but seems like some weren't. Baby steps I suppose.

laserfloyd said,
I still think MS will bring some things back over time and with very very careful marketing. Even the slightest HINT of "you don't own your stuff" just drives some people to the brink of insanity. I was ready for the future but seems like some weren't. Baby steps I suppose.

+1

or at release date they'll be like... you are screwed! You pre-ordered and you can't sue us now... all the DRM is back on! lol

0sit0 said,
or at release date they'll be like... you are screwed! You pre-ordered and you can't sue us now... all the DRM is back on! lol

Hooray for European consumer protection

Can't believe this ****, Dumb-ass masses banding together to scream and yell to have one of the most beneficial features of gaming removed, yet in the end the DRM will now only be done at a publisher level rather than the console level. Yes MS was clearly at fault here, as they failed to promote the benefits of the family sharing feature and the enjoyment it could have provided and if done properly could have boosted hardware and game sales to keep the publishers happy as well. Steam will probably implement a feature similar to this and i am sure Sony would have gone the same route and offered a similar feature if MS pulled it off. Sure DRM is b.s, but in this case it had some benefits for the consumer.

I applauded Microsoft's attempt to revolutionize the gaming world, however, the lack of details killed it for them. The only concern I had was the control of the market and game values. The digital realm could never keep up with the brick and mortar exchanges right now. Why are three year old titles still $60 on live when I can grab the disc for $20 in Walmart? If only they had those answers for everyone, maybe things would be different. Either way, I'm buying both.

SteveyAyo said,
Pretty much everything, they needed to explain their vision for the console. They had something great, now they don't

They also needed to change the DRM policy. It was/is possible to have the best of both worlds. They are the idiots for messing this up, not us for defending our rights. Which is a shame

As far as I know, digital download with the ability to share and trade was their vision. I got it, perhaps you don't

SteveyAyo said,
Pretty much everything, they needed to explain their vision for the console. They had something great, now they don't

SteveyAyo said,
Yeah and yet the retards killed it off because of a bunch of dumbasses who are too stupid to understand what the Xbox one could have been

No. It's Microsoft fault for doing poor marketing on the DRM.

DARKFiB3R said,

They also needed to change the DRM policy. It was/is possible to have the best of both worlds. They are the idiots for messing this up, not us for defending our rights. Which is a shame

Family Sharing and DRM to hand and hand. Without the DRM I think there could be a chance at a lot of piracy.

How is this MS fault? During e3 conference, MS announce sharing up 10 people, I had to search the web because I couldn't believe my ear as it was too good. Poor marketing you say? Its not even released.
The next thing they did was appearing on night show, interview with bloggers, tech sites. Some people were blinded by constant internet which is not even true, check every 24 hour, and more expensive than ps4. The rest of the detail are traffic noise from the freeway. I think is the troller's fault.

Jose_49 said,

No. It's Microsoft fault for doing poor marketing on the DRM.

Because they didn't take to Facebook/twitter/instagram/reddit and whatever else and explain it in plain English... I had too many people ask me why the Xbox one couldn't play used games

I had a better idea, why don't MS advertised it on TV, Cineplexes, Radio. OH wait they got no product. Honestly, every site that I go to talk about this. Reuters, Neowin, Betanews, ArsTechnica, Kotaku. WPcentral, including xbox 360. If you own xbox, you should know what the next xbox will be. As for the casual gamer, they have no clue where xbox community is at to even voice their opinion

SteveyAyo said,
Because they didn't take to Facebook/twitter/instagram/reddit and whatever else and explain it in plain English... I had too many people ask me why the Xbox one couldn't play used games

minster11 said,
How is this MS fault? During e3 conference, MS announce sharing up 10 people, I had to search the web because I couldn't believe my ear as it was too good.

And you probably found nothing cause MS did not explain how it would work yet everyone and their friends assumed it would let you and 10 people you don't know but add to your family play all your games at will without paying. Highly unlikely if you ask me.

The Giant Bomb staff members made a great video where the guys basically talk about how MS did not clearly explain this family thing and those guys know a lot more about this industry than you and me. If those guys don't really know how it was going to works it's because MS did not explain it clearly.

Patrick Danielson said,
I applauded Microsoft's attempt to revolutionize the gaming world, however, the lack of details killed it for them. The only concern I had was the control of the market and game values. The digital realm could never keep up with the brick and mortar exchanges right now. Why are three year old titles still $60 on live when I can grab the disc for $20 in Walmart? If only they had those answers for everyone, maybe things would be different. Either way, I'm buying both.

You just answered it yourself. If i can buy something cheaper somewhere i would't pay the full price so developer make less benefit and keeps the price high. Now compare it with appstore games which they compete for low price for titles. Even free with ad revenue. So exclusives and digital content will be cheaper if there is anough buyers out there. It will be if everyone has the console and buy the game directly not from a second hand store.

LaP said,

And you probably found nothing cause MS did not explain how it would work yet everyone and their friends assumed it would let you and 10 people you don't know but add to your family play all your games at will without paying. Highly unlikely if you ask me.

The Giant Bomb staff members made a great video where the guys basically talk about how MS did not clearly explain this family thing and those guys know a lot more about this industry than you and me. If those guys don't really know how it was going to works it's because MS did not explain it clearly.

Exactly. MS never explained the details of this family plan, and most jumped on the most optimistic (and most unrealistic) interpretation of what it meant you could do with it.

minster11 said,
How is this MS fault? During e3 conference, MS announce sharing up 10 people, I had to search the web because I couldn't believe my ear as it was too good. Poor marketing you say? Its not even released.
The next thing they did was appearing on night show, interview with bloggers, tech sites. Some people were blinded by constant internet which is not even true, check every 24 hour, and more expensive than ps4. The rest of the detail are traffic noise from the freeway. I think is the troller's fault.

I was share with 10, only one can play at a time.

Contention becomes no fun real fast. At least with install activation or disc required you know its your turn when you want to play instead of fighting.

How is this any difference with disc based. The only benefit I am seeing is, if my friend has a copy of the game, I don't have to come to his house. In your scenario, your wife want to borrow your game, walk into your room and pick one up.
Even sharing and disc based only 1 can play at a time. Are you referring to with sharing 2 can play at the same time? You must be in a dreamland for that to happen.

yakumo said,

I was share with 10, only one can play at a time.

Contention becomes no fun real fast. At least with install activation or disc required you know its your turn when you want to play instead of fighting.

I don't think you understand what he wanted to say. Or maybe i did not lol it's not clear.

I think what he wanted to say is if one of your friends lend you a game on disc you know the disc will be there to play once you get back home after a day at work or at school. If you want to play this game from the family shared library of this said friend then you might not be able to play it if another one from his "family" is actually playing.

Anyway i'm still puzzled at people who think the family sharing thing would have been the holy grail of piracy. Some people see it as the tape time period where one friend bought the real deal and everyone else made a copy. MS was never specific at what the limitations were going to be but i have absolutely no doubt that some limitations were going to be put in place. EA, Activision, Square Enix would certainly not have been happy with selling 1 game for every 10 friends and it would not have been good for the XBox One software tie ratio.

MS did not call this family sharing for no reason. If it would have been everything people thought it was going to be "Family, extended family, friends and complete strangers sharing" would have been a far better name. I can already see all the web sites created to find strangers willing to share games with you so you don't have to pay.

ctrl_alt_delete said,
I was really looking forward to discless play, family/friend share, resell/trade-in digital games etc. sigh

Same here. Hopefully Valve will implement some of the better ideas in Steam. I'd really like Steam to be mulri-user friendly, too. Right now my nieces would see all my gamss - I'd love yo set up a guest account with limited games, no seeing M stuff, etc.

Chikairo said,

Same here. Hopefully Valve will implement some of the better ideas in Steam. I'd really like Steam to be mulri-user friendly, too. Right now my nieces would see all my gamss - I'd love yo set up a guest account with limited games, no seeing M stuff, etc.

Rumor mill is that the latest Steam beta client has some references to game sharing much like what the old Xbox One scheme envisioned. People in a friend list can play your games if your not. If you then try to play the game, it forces the other play to exit ASAP.

Chikairo said,

Same here. Hopefully Valve will implement some of the better ideas in Steam.

Valve may implement family sharing, but the unlimited offline mode Steam has now will likely cease to exist to make room for it.

Kaedrin said,

Valve may implement family sharing, but the unlimited offline mode Steam has now will likely cease to exist to make room for it.


Why? He could share or give his friend a game while both are online.
And when the max number of consecutive shares is reached, to remove one, he has to be online.

Doesnt mean it has to check every X hours. Just make all transactions/changes online only. A similar approach could've been done for the XBO. Instead of this daily check-in.

Shadowzz said,

Why? He could share or give his friend a game while both are online.
And when the max number of consecutive shares is reached, to remove one, he has to be online.

What if hes online with one computer, but perma-offline on 5 other computers with the same game installed as the one being shared?

Except you don't have 24 hour check ins, and that whole thing about discounted games goes from a "possibility" to a complete reality.

Ill get a ps4 if I want to do that, plus most of them are headed to pc... the division is all I care about right now. Microsoft promised me something great and delivered a box of last gen ****

I have a thing for bringing a team to a console before valve does and just annihilates Xbox, I have a thing for fixing a flawed and extortionist used game industry, I have a thing for looking past internet fud to a bigger and better picture

That's not how Valve will win the war... They'll win it by releasing a console and Gabe Newell coming out and muttering, "Half... Life.......... 3!"

That and the game sharing Microsoft decided to kill... but yeah im all in for the SteamBox now, ill wait until Microsoft offers a next gen console, should only be like 8 years.

That's true, they do have files that hint at this being an upcoming feature. However, it's worth taking into account how slow Valve can move when it comes to things we've seen hinted at. I give it 3 years or less before the feature sees the light of day.

The verge is reporting that its in their next release which comes this year, they also say its "confirmed" but we know that's never a guarantee... Ill just buy an Xbox One controller to use on PC so when Microsoft gets rid of the One80 ill have an extra controller

SteveyAyo said,
Next gen is supposed to be more than just graphics upgrades... Xbox one-80 is a last gen console

If that would be the case, then NES and SNES are in the same gen too.
Suddenly we'll be in the 4th gen now instead of going to the 8th.

Yeah? Youre SNES has access to the internet and a dashboard UI? OR no its not the same at all is it? Hell by your logic I guess a wheel and a stick is the same too huh?

calimike said,
Microsoft has 'no plans' to revisit Xbox One's $499 price http://cnet.co/144fumS

Why? The PS4 is $399 and if you get the PS version of Kinect that is I think another $70 or $80, which basically puts the two on even footing.

Since MS is still insisting that the Kinect is part of the Xbox One, then there really is no reason to change it.

dead.cell said,
$59.99 actually, if prices haven't changed.

Do you compare that piece of crap with kinect. I would encourage you to watch youtube kinect for xbox one.

I had no problem with MS original DRM except got the 24hour check in. Nevertheless, I did pre-order on day as I got over it because I understood what MS was trying to do. As far as the Kinect it should stay and people will see the usefulness in the future as developers take advantage of it.

virtorio said,
Why couldn't they those features in-place for the digital releases?

That's actually a good question. Maybe they'd have to redo things to be more nuanced/granular, so for now they're just ripping everything out? That said, I'd also imagine retail partners don't want to be selling without feature parity, or feel like MS is trying to undermine them by making the digital version more appealing.

We'll see how long Kinect stays as well before they do a 180 on that as well. Not that I don't like Kinect but I just really don't feel like I "need" it all the time being there.

I think the Kinect thing is going to stay, it's really an integral part of the "new Xbox experience," and not that many consumers have complained about it.

Matthew_Thepc said,
I think the Kinect thing is going to stay, it's really an integral part of the "new Xbox experience," and not that many consumers have complained about it.

REALLY?!?

Where I get lunch from often, there is a Gamestop right next door and I usually head in there while waiting. I'd say complaints were equal parts 24 hour check-in (with one regular I know in there who has a brother in the military planning on making bumper stickers which would say "Support our troops, but a PS4") and one equal part about the Kinect (usually related to NSA, watching you doing the nasty, etc, etc, etc on the couch rants).

Condere said,

REALLY?!?

Where I get lunch from often, there is a Gamestop right next door and I usually head in there while waiting. I'd say complaints were equal parts 24 hour check-in (with one regular I know in there who has a brother in the military planning on making bumper stickers which would say "Support our troops, but a PS4") and one equal part about the Kinect (usually related to NSA, watching you doing the nasty, etc, etc, etc on the couch rants).

You can play offline. Do you think the Kinect is beaming live images of yourself to the NSA with a radio transmitter or something?

Condere said,

REALLY?!?

Where I get lunch from often, there is a Gamestop right next door and I usually head in there while waiting. I'd say complaints were equal parts 24 hour check-in (with one regular I know in there who has a brother in the military planning on making bumper stickers which would say "Support our troops, but a PS4") and one equal part about the Kinect (usually related to NSA, watching you doing the nasty, etc, etc, etc on the couch rants).


Honestly, when talking with friends, almost all of it went towards the DRM (mostly because of Sony's show). Maybe the outrage over that was just overshadowing it or something, but honestly I don't think your average consumer considers it a problem. And once gamers see what the devs are planning with Kinect 2 I really do think they'll appreciate it as well.

If you've heard a lot of complaints about it (which I don't doubt), it's probably just because the Kinect requirement and NSA leaks were coming out around the same time.

People are so quick to jump on hate bandwagons so they can fit in it seems. I for one was excited about getting rid of all my disc and sharing libraries with friends. You were completely ignorant if you thought all that stuff was going to stay and not have a online check to make sure you didn't sell it or give the game away. Duno why they didn't just add the disc verification if you are offline though. The Kinect stuff makes me laugh all the time. And I am so glad they made it mandatory. Now developers KNOW you have one and will good use of it. No one wants to put big bucks on game development for something most people probably don't have. Don't know why people' do not get that.
On another note just look at what we have to look forward to with ps4 loll the ps3 just updated to 4.45 and bricked a crap ton of ps3s. Surprised its not on the front page.

Shiranui said,
Yes but separating it from the console would make the XBone price competitive with the PS4.

It already is. 100 bucks isn't THAT much, for most people it won't break the bank. It's like 2 games.

Graimer said,

It already is. 100 bucks isn't THAT much, for most people it won't break the bank. It's like 2 games.


100 bucks is much for some people.

Lamp Post said,

100 bucks is much for some people.

That's why I said THAT much. I know some people can't afford it, but it's like 2 games. Day one buyers can usually afford it and for them it's not that big of a deal. If they want the console cheaper, they would wait a couple of months for the price to drop and not buy at day one. :-)

Condere said,

REALLY?!?

Where I get lunch from often, there is a Gamestop right next door and I usually head in there while waiting. I'd say complaints were equal parts 24 hour check-in (with one regular I know in there who has a brother in the military planning on making bumper stickers which would say "Support our troops, but a PS4") and one equal part about the Kinect (usually related to NSA, watching you doing the nasty, etc, etc, etc on the couch rants).

Yup, they only solved half the problem...it's not the Xbox 180, it's the Xbox 90! I wont be buying one as long as they insist on me having a spycam in my living room! Oh, and for those that think that this is paranoia, let me direct you to these two patent filings:

http://www.extremetech.com/gam...ill-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405678,00.asp

So F*** NO doesn't even BEGIN to express how I feel about this "wonderful, life changing" technology! Also, let's not forget that there hasnt been a SINGLE Kinect game so far that is worth playing!

John Nemesh said,
Yup, they only solved half the problem...it's not the Xbox 180, it's the Xbox 90! I wont be buying one as long as they insist on me having a spycam in my living room! Oh, and for those that think that this is paranoia, let me direct you to these two patent filings:

http://www.extremetech.com/gam...ill-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405678,00.asp

So F*** NO doesn't even BEGIN to express how I feel about this "wonderful, life changing" technology! Also, let's not forget that there hasnt been a SINGLE Kinect game so far that is worth playing!

A spy cam? It's not sending pictures of you to HQ or anything. It senses things, sure.. but so does your thermostat. Do you accuse your thermostat of "spying" on your room temperature?

John Nemesh said,

Yup, they only solved half the problem...it's not the Xbox 180, it's the Xbox 90! I wont be buying one as long as they insist on me having a spycam in my living room! Oh, and for those that think that this is paranoia, let me direct you to these two patent filings:

http://www.extremetech.com/gam...ill-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405678,00.asp

So F*** NO doesn't even BEGIN to express how I feel about this "wonderful, life changing" technology! Also, let's not forget that there hasnt been a SINGLE Kinect game so far that is worth playing!


Just because a company patents something doesn't mean they have any intention of doing it - all the complaining about patent trolls should have made that pretty clear. Those articles don't really talk about spying at all - they don't anywhere mention anything close to sending anything at all to the NSA, just watching (presumably with your opt-in consent) to see how many people are in the room and whether you're watching an ad.

As for


Also, let's not forget that there hasnt been a SINGLE Kinect game so far that is worth playing!

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE!!! There hasn't been a Kinect game worth playing because they're all specifically tailored to Kinect owners, not to every 360 owner who plays Halo (even if 70% of halo players have Kinect, the game can't require it because it wouldn't work for the 30%). Knowing that a Kinect is plugged into a system lets them design around it, and then integrate it seamlessly into "regular" games. The idea is there won't be any "Kinect games," there'll just be "games" and all games would be expected to make use of Kinect.

You can't have those without DRM.

One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft should have tried to have the best of both worlds. To be fair, their DRM was too restrictive for most users, but too many people saw problems where there were none. In the end, they gave up and went with the Sony model, which brings nothing new to the industry.

Seketh said,
You can't have those without DRM.

One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft should have tried to have the best of both worlds. To be fair, their DRM was too restrictive for most users, but too many people saw problems where there were none. In the end, they gave up and went with the Sony model, which brings nothing new to the industry.


Yes you can. DRM is not a requirement for anything. There is no advantage to any kind of DRM, well except for the content maker and even then its debateable.

The ps4 or Xbox game you bought at the store is your DRM. Without it you can't play any game online or offline

SharpGreen said,

Yes you can. DRM is not a requirement for anything. There is no advantage to any kind of DRM, well except for the content maker and even then its debateable.

SharpGreen said,

Yes you can. DRM is not a requirement for anything. There is no advantage to any kind of DRM, well except for the content maker and even then its debateable.

Have to agree as well since the game having any DRM according to MS under the old scheme was entirely up to the game publisher.

It has nothing to do with DRM, but how they were "working" their system. Making the disc system go disc-less in my mind is theorectically as simple as putting in a system that allows installations to the hard drive occur only when the system is connected to the MS servers. Otherwise no installation is possible.

This way the system can check to see if this game has been previously installed. To sell/trade/lend the game, put in a license system where the user disables/uninstalls the game (license) which then allows the game to be installed somewhere else.

You know, just like most enterprise software suites.... Not rocket science.

A game share system like the one they killed today absolutely requires drm, people need to get over drm... its in every game you buy. A disc is a form of drum, but its an inefficient drm that allows for used game markets and extortionist companies like gamestop drive new game prices up. You will NEVER see game sharing like what was going to be here without drm... this is why only Steam will have it now, because of their drm

Seketh said,
You can't have those without DRM.

One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft should have tried to have the best of both worlds. To be fair, their DRM was too restrictive for most users, but too many people saw problems where there were none. In the end, they gave up and went with the Sony model, which brings nothing new to the industry.


Exactly. If you have time, see my suggestion:
http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...loads-post-drm/?p=595770280

Crimson Rain said,
Give back the family share and discless play ffs.

CAN SOMEON CREATE A TWITTER HASH TAG FOR XBOX ONE OPT IN....
HAVING THE XB1 BE THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO BE..L

Crimson Rain said,
Give back the family share and discless play ffs.

Just give the controller to your dad, there you have "family share". It's not like the Xbox would make a fingerprint check or something.

Just buy the digital version of the game, not the disc version, there you have "discless play".

FFS.

Oh yeah so what about my friends on the other side of the country... sort of hard to pass them the controller, what solution do you have for me?

bviktor said,

Just give the controller to your dad, there you have "family share". It's not like the Xbox would make a fingerprint check or something.

Just buy the digital version of the game, not the disc version, there you have "discless play".

FFS.


My dad doesn't play games.

My brothers do who live other side of the world. Disc sharing is so gonna work out...

SteveyAyo said,
Oh yeah so what about my friends on the other side of the country... sort of hard to pass them the controller, what solution do you have for me?

I thought DRM people where all for compensating the developer so in that case let you friends on the other side of the country buy the game so they can support the developer.

No the drm was to allow things like game share and access to all of your games on any console... but because people are too stupid to see a good thing staring them in the eyes were missing out.

Seketh said,
You can't have those without DRM.

One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft should have tried to have the best of both worlds. To be fair, their DRM was too restrictive for most users, but too many people saw problems where there were none. In the end, they gave up and went with the Sony model, which brings nothing new to the industry.


Who said I have any issues with their DRM? The sharing benefit is far greater than a mere online check.

Crimson Rain said,
Give back the family share and discless play ffs.

Precisely why I cancelled my preorder today.

I can't afford the bandwidth to download all titles, yet if I use physical media I must always use physical media. This is a knee-jerk reaction to a vocal minority. Classic Microsoft. They stood your ground with Windows 8, and now lackluster sales on that front have Them balking at every turn. Ballmer, the Executive and The Board need to grow a pair.

Condere said,

Have to agree as well since the game having any DRM according to MS under the old scheme was entirely up to the game publisher.

It has nothing to do with DRM, but how they were "working" their system. Making the disc system go disc-less in my mind is theorectically as simple as putting in a system that allows installations to the hard drive occur only when the system is connected to the MS servers. Otherwise no installation is possible.

This way the system can check to see if this game has been previously installed. To sell/trade/lend the game, put in a license system where the user disables/uninstalls the game (license) which then allows the game to be installed somewhere else.

You know, just like most enterprise software suites.... Not rocket science.

not rocket science, and yet, your logic is flawed.

if Microsoft implemented that, this would allow installation of the game on the hard disk of 1 Xbox One, and allow playing from the disc drive on another Xbox One (not connected to internet).

to prevent that, Microsoft would have to do force online checks at each launch of the game (or every 24h hours), to verify the game was not installed elsewhere. Including when you're running it directly from disc drive. Does that remind you something?

SharpGreen said,

Yes you can. DRM is not a requirement for anything. There is no advantage to any kind of DRM, well except for the content maker and even then its debateable.

so, you think that a DRM-less system that lets the user install games and run them from hard disk would be a good thing?

then what would prevent 1 copy of a game to be bought and installed on hundreds of consoles? (thanks to game renting services that would rent games for only 1 or 2 hours, just to let the users install it and return it to the store)

do you think it would be a good thing for players if game developers had their budget cut by 80%+ because of easy, riskless, mass piracy?

the solution is to have some kind of DRM, including a physical DRM, which consists of keeping the disc in the disc drive, even when the game in installed on the HDD.
Exactly like on the 360, and exactly like what is now planned for the Xbox One.

Clearly you fail to see that you are in the minority on this one. Sales mean everything Microsoft isn't a charity and poor sales when people say "wtf is this crap" are exactly why companies don't "grow a pair"

link8506 said,

not rocket science, and yet, your logic is flawed.

if Microsoft implemented that, this would allow installation of the game on the hard disk of 1 Xbox One, and allow playing from the disc drive on another Xbox One (not connected to internet).

to prevent that, Microsoft would have to do force online checks at each launch of the game (or every 24h hours), to verify the game was not installed elsewhere. Including when you're running it directly from disc drive. Does that remind you something?

Your logic is flawed, the second person can't install/play at all until the first deactivates their copy rendering the first unusable.

Seketh said,
You can't have those without DRM.

One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft should have tried to have the best of both worlds. To be fair, their DRM was too restrictive for most users, but too many people saw problems where there were none. In the end, they gave up and went with the Sony model, which brings nothing new to the industry.

But you could combine the old and new policies. Downloaded games could require internet check-in and support family sharing. You could also tie up the game lisence to the account just like they planned(using a id/serial that was stored on the disc), and let us play disc-less. Just simply ignore the online check-in IF the disc was in. Worst case scenario is 2 people playing the same game (one playing offline with disc, and one online), but that was already possibly for 1 hour if the friend just disconnected after check-in.

yakumo said,

Your logic is flawed, the second person can't install/play at all until the first deactivates their copy rendering the first unusable.


I think his logic assumes you should also be able to lend the disc to a friend without the need to deactivate/uninstall (which was also one of the things people complained they would be unable to do with the old Xbox One system). So his logic isn't flawed, he is just making other assumptions than you.

Graimer said,

But you could combine the old and new policies. Downloaded games could require internet check-in and support family sharing. You could also tie up the game lisence to the account just like they planned(using a id/serial that was stored on the disc), and let us play disc-less. Just simply ignore the online check-in IF the disc was in. Worst case scenario is 2 people playing the same game (one playing offline with disc, and one online), but that was already possibly for 1 hour if the friend just disconnected after check-in.


The problem is that the publishers won't accept that two people play from the same disc at two different consoles at the same time. Or else it would have worked out perfectly.

Have they said that downloaded games won't have the benefits of the "discless" system now?

Seketh said,
You can't have those without DRM.

One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft should have tried to have the best of both worlds. To be fair, their DRM was too restrictive for most users, but too many people saw problems where there were none. In the end, they gave up and went with the Sony model, which brings nothing new to the industry.

Agreed. What they should have done though was treat it like a Privacy Setting, where you enable or disable the 24 hour check. If disabled (Or unable to connect for a period), the disc would be a fallback for authentication... That would have been a simple way to give everyone the best of both worlds...

But in reality, Microsoft did a HORRIBLE job explaining their model and why it (If it was) was better... In fact, this suffered greatly from their not knowing why it was better to be honest. They didn't have a lot of answers, and as a result they allowed the consumer to shape those answers... It certainly had (Or could have had) some major benefits, but they never articulated many of those, and many probably would not have been realized... Not to mention, a move away from discs when the competition didn't would have placed them in a tough spot with retailers that they needed for prime retail space (Which they wouldn't have gotten)...

All in all, this console suffered from many problems on many different fronts. Not least of which was that Microsoft itself was not ready, and I think the current XBox team is REALLY poor.

yakumo said,

Your logic is flawed, the second person can't install/play at all until the first deactivates their copy rendering the first unusable.

wrong!

now that Microsoft said you can play games offline without having to connect online before playing a new game (and every 24 hours), the Xbox one has no way to know if the disc was installed on another console (and if it has been uninstalled since then).

if you believe this information is "written" on the disc, you're wrong. The console can't write to the disc to mark a flag saying it has been installed.
the only way is to use an unique identifier (either on the disc, or a serial number written on paper) that will be checked online to deactivate any previously installed copy. But that requires online checks for everybody, like the previous policy.

Seketh said,
You can't have those without DRM.
One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft just made another dumb decision (judging from official statement from a Microsoft spokesperson). They just threw out the baby with the bath water. All they had to do is to disable family game sharing for games with disk DRM (off-line authorization) only. During transition they can make paid service available which could be used to exchange genuine disks to on-line serials: You send your original disk to Microsoft and they activate same game on your account. And the other way round.

SteveyAyo said,
Oh yeah so what about my friends on the other side of the country... sort of hard to pass them the controller, what solution do you have for me?

For you the solution is prolly to stop being a cheapskate. Like "evil MS, doesn't allow me to rip them off!!" how clever. Yep, companies adore non-paying users!

A cheapskate ? I preorder 2 Xbox ones, and will buy two as soon as they ditch the Xbox One-80 and bring back the One...

Microsofts issue is that they listened to a bunch of Sony and pc master race trolls over loyal consumers who flocked to preorder their console after e3... they obviously didn't care about their customers.

SteveyAyo said,
A cheapskate ? I preorder 2 Xbox ones, and will buy two as soon as they ditch the Xbox One-80 and bring back the One...

Microsofts issue is that they listened to a bunch of Sony and pc master race trolls over loyal consumers who flocked to preorder their console after e3... they obviously didn't care about their customers.

Then you're simply mental if you buy 2 xone's right away but you cry about not being able to afford to buy retail games.

Lamp Post said,

The problem is that the publishers won't accept that two people play from the same disc at two different consoles at the same time. Or else it would have worked out perfectly.

Have they said that downloaded games won't have the benefits of the "discless" system now?

Yes, you will not be able to share downloaded games (family share = gone :-( ). Because some people crying like a baby, they removed digital sharing in favour of physical sharing(the old fashion way that came in the year... 1802? /s)

When did I complain about not being able to afford retail games? I'm complaining that they took everything innovative and next gen about the Xbox one and destroyed it... I'm mad that we were on track towards a future in gaming and now were stuck in the past again

SteveyAyo said,
When did I complain about not being able to afford retail games? I'm complaining that they took everything innovative and next gen about the Xbox one and destroyed it... I'm mad that we were on track towards a future in gaming and now were stuck in the past again

Cool, so you're not affected, you simply complain because... because.

Um I AM affected, the consoles I pre ordered no longer exist, Microsoft says they listen... good let them listen to someone who actually bought the xb1 FOR the new features

SteveyAyo said,
Um I AM affected, the consoles I pre ordered no longer exist, Microsoft says they listen... good let them listen to someone who actually bought the xb1 FOR the new features

The awful thing about customers is that every customer has slightly different needs, you know.

bviktor said,

The awful thing about customers is that every customer has slightly different needs, you know.


Another awful thing is a lot of customers are idiots and loves to jump on to the hate-bandwagon.

Crimson Rain said,

Another awful thing is a lot of customers are idiots and loves to jump on to the hate-bandwagon.

That is 100% correct, too. Been there, done that. Users are NEVER satisfied. It's blue, but then why is it blue? You make it green, then why isn't it blue? That's just the way it is.

link8506 said,

so, you think that a DRM-less system that lets the user install games and run them from hard disk would be a good thing?

then what would prevent 1 copy of a game to be bought and installed on hundreds of consoles? (thanks to game renting services that would rent games for only 1 or 2 hours, just to let the users install it and return it to the store)

do you think it would be a good thing for players if game developers had their budget cut by 80%+ because of easy, riskless, mass piracy?

the solution is to have some kind of DRM, including a physical DRM, which consists of keeping the disc in the disc drive, even when the game in installed on the HDD.
Exactly like on the 360, and exactly like what is now planned for the Xbox One.


If you honestly think DRM prevents piracy..then I have a real estate deal in Iraq you might be interested in.

SharpGreen said,

If you honestly think DRM prevents piracy..then I have a real estate deal in Iraq you might be interested in.

of course DRMs help reduce piracy!
especially on game consoles where there is no easy way to reliably use pirated software without relying to risky hardware modifications.

thus piracy on consoles is lower, and that's why some publishers don't bother developing some of their AAA titles on PC. They prefer to drive users to the console ecosystem where piracy is less easy.

Stupid debate. DRM or not, the XBO would've lost a large part of its market, due to people that can't stand the idea of spying (does not matter if they actually do or not) thanks to the US scandal that is hitting EU people hard.
Then add the people that are without an internet connection for _whatever_ reason.
And then these people's friends that want to play with their friends and will get a matching consoles, an exclusive here and there doesnt matter too much.
Then with the people that just seem to hate the DRM at all.

This means hell of a lot customers not going for the XBO.
This in return means, the development focus and exclusive games will lean heavily towards PS4. XBO game servers will be less populated and you get the same issue you get on the VITA, not enough people playing.
This will hurt all you XBO fanboys who are constantly arguing about "BUT I COULD SHARE A GAME" ... WITH WHO? the 3 people you ended up knowing that got a XBO?

No matter if you supported this DRM or not, Microsoft made a good choice with removing some of the DRMs.

Seketh said,
You can't have those without DRM.

One of those advantages in DRM that no one could see beyond the restrictions.

Microsoft should have tried to have the best of both worlds. To be fair, their DRM was too restrictive for most users, but too many people saw problems where there were none. In the end, they gave up and went with the Sony model, which brings nothing new to the industry.

I don't get why they could not let people have a choice for what they want to do. When people first sign in to the xbox it should ask "Do you want to access family share features, this requires your xbox to check in with microsoft every 24 hours." or "Would you like to keep the same settings as xbox 360"

SteveyAyo said,
A game share system like the one they killed today absolutely requires drm, people need to get over drm... its in every game you buy. A disc is a form of drum, but its an inefficient drm that allows for used game markets and extortionist companies like gamestop drive new game prices up. You will NEVER see game sharing like what was going to be here without drm... this is why only Steam will have it now, because of their drm

How exactly does Gamestop drive new game prices up? New 360 games have been priced at $59.99 since day 1 and nearly 8 years later how much are they now? $59.99.

Extortion? Really? If you were forced to hand over money when you walked in Gamestop you should call the police, because extortion is illegal. You should be thankful for Gamestop. They provide competition in the market.

SteveyAyo said,
Piracy isn't the issue, its the was the current used game market exists, bad for consumers and especially bad for developers

How is a used game market bad for consumers? That is insane. I don't know about you, but I prefer to save money and not pay MSRP. And boo-hoo for developers. They need to understand that used games, rentals, and disk-sharing is good for the business and creates more sales, not less. Negotiate better deals with publishers.

Actually its not that insane or complicated to understand. The used game market does absolutely nothing for developers and publishers, its not like when you buy a game secondhand and play it money somehow magically gets to the creator, it only subsidizes the cost of the game for the initial buyer.

So lets say someone buys the game for $60 and sells it to you for $30... 1 game was just purchased by two people for $30 a piece, now you turn around and sell it to gamestop for 50 cents and they turn around and sell it again for $40... This one title which has exchanged hands up to 4 times and netted over $100 in value has STILL only brought in $60 to the initial creator of the game, the people who need money to make more.

Now lets explain how steam works... just like the Xbox One was supposed to work. Basically you have a somewhat curated marketplace where you buy games digitally. So if youre an early adopter like me and don't mind paying $60 for a new game all the time then go ahead and buy at launch, if youre a frugal gamer you can simply wait a few months for the price to decrease, often anywhere from 40-50%... Why can they do this? Because initial game sales are no longer their only means of monetizing their games. Now as time progresses and companies like Gamestop go under and we make a complete shift to digital you will see the initial cost of a game drop, the reason you pay $60 now is because of that second hand market that developers get nothing from.

Would you have gotten $30 launch titles from Microsoft's new system? no, not in the short term, because PS4 wasn't embracing a digital future at all, they allowed Gamestop to keep a stranglehold on the industry for another generation at the very least. But with the system they HAD you would have seen AAA titles going for dirt cheap during sales similar to Steam Summer Sales, but that is dead now.

link8506 said,

wrong!

now that Microsoft said you can play games offline without having to connect online before playing a new game (and every 24 hours), the Xbox one has no way to know if the disc was installed on another console (and if it has been uninstalled since then).

if you believe this information is "written" on the disc, you're wrong. The console can't write to the disc to mark a flag saying it has been installed.
the only way is to use an unique identifier (either on the disc, or a serial number written on paper) that will be checked online to deactivate any previously installed copy. But that requires online checks for everybody, like the previous policy.

I said "Your logic is flawed, the second person can't install/play at all until the first deactivates their copy rendering the first unusable."

ie. as this was spawned in the context of an online activation system similar to enterprise software today, you would not be able to install it in the first place unless that one-time on install online check said it was currently not installed elsewhere.

You wouldn't get it onto the system 2 at all in the first place to play without it being deactivated on system 1. Similarly if you transferred to system 1 again (or another system) by deactivating system 2, system 2 would no longer be able to use it.

It checking once every 24 hours isn't necessary. you could never activate a system while another system held that activation locked (this is with the exception of a cracked system, but then even with disc based auth that is a risk)