Sony executive takes dig at Microsoft, highlights consistent 'fair' policies

Sony executive Andrew House has maintained his company's defensive and snide attitude towards Microsoft by criticising inconsistent Xbox One DRM policies on stage at Gamescom 2013. During their press conference earlier today in Germany, House swiped Microsoft with a relatively direct insult:

While others has shifted their message and changed their story, we were consistent in maintaining a message that is fair and in tune with consumer desires, We strove to deliver a platform that delivers both power and great value. And the response we’ve received has been nothing short of incredible.

This strongly suggested that users should trust a platform which makes the right choice from day one, rather than one led by a company that 'flip-flops'.  He was met by cheers from the audience, most of which may already have their hearts set on the PlayStation 4, which is set to be released on November 15th in the US

Microsoft originally defended their controversial used game policy which restricted the sharing of games, but quickly retracted this policy following a considerable outcry from gamers.

Sony have a reputation of insulting Microsoft's Xbox One, notably at E3 where it announced that it would allow users to share games, and even released a video demonstrating the process, where one person hands the disc to another.

Via: GeekWireSony and Microsoft beginning the console war image courtesy of Shutterstock

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony PS4 to launch on Nov. 15 in US, Nov. 29 in Europe

Next Story

Microsoft giving away 10 Halo-skinned Surface Pros this week

87 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

No one will care after the console actually come out. I will say that I like Sony better in regards to knowing how to speak to their customer base properly. However, the launch titles for both isn't really worth dropping the money yet to me. I can wait and then Sony announced a bunch of PS3 games as well so I really don't have a reason to move on just yet.

You can't trust a company who can't keep their policies straight. MS is such a mess company lately. Looks like age is taking its toll on Ballmer. He needs to retire before he brings company in to junk yard.

House doesn't even need to mention Microsoft & XBox in his comment,
yet all Microsoft fanboys knew that he jab at MSFT.

Last year Sony announce the most exclusive. This time, I am afraid Ps4 got waaay less. Right now Xbox victory dance on Sony's grave. Sony fanboy has to find something else to brag which are more powerful (the same as ps3 vs Xbox), Xbox live gold when gold have been around since the beginning and ps3 said free online but now multiplayer will be behind paywall. Wait... but Netflix is free!! Who cares, Xbox owned ps3. The point is Sony been lying to gamer all this time

he's not wrong...but at the same time, I don't see why there's so much negitivity around the fact that microsoft is willing to change their policies to reflect what their customers want. Regardless of the motivation (because in the end, the motivation is ALWAYS money).

i dont understand why take it as a ofensive stance meanwhile how microsoft its doing the scrooogle campaign its being more direct

Yeah Sony has always been fair to gamers /sarcasm:
Installed root kits via CDs
Removed features from PS3 via firmware (Linux)
Removed backwards compat from PS3 (hardware)
Lied about getting hacked
Said online gaming should be free... with PS4 has a pay wall.
Continues Online Pass with Last of Us to play online

people can bitch about the extra $100, but I think Microsoft finally cracked it,and the performance of the Kinect 2 is so outstanding, that they are so confident in bundling it,and were so confident with the whole drm thing.

you gotta remember people will pay for motion controls. there a reason the wii sold 100 million units,and the Kinect sold 24 million units,and 8 million in its first 60 days. consumers thirst for this kind of tech. Nintendo dropped the ball,and is now focusing on the tablet strategy,while their whole usebase abandoned them. the original Kinect had too much lag. But now that Microsoft developed their own tech in house,and designed their own chip,i think they have the right technology today to finally make this thing have great performance. theres a huge base out there whos just waiting for this to happen,and sony is going to be caught off guard,like they were caught off guard by the wii. they are too busy patting themselves on the back for their "consistent policies",and their indie butt kissing.

I think it's funny how the roles are reversed. When it was the 360/PS3, Sony went with the new going with the bluray. Now Sony seems dedicated to the aging disk media while MS is going for the new online model.

I love how people still believe (mainly neowin users) that Microsoft reversed their policies because of "overreactions from the internet". Its glorious.

Sony forced them to change the policy. Who do you trust? The company that has always been there on DRM since day one(let's forget about the rootkit fiasco, no really forget about that one...).

The only reason I see people arguing over why they changed is in order to stir up trouble. Sony and MS have done stupid things and then turned things around. MS made the mistake this time and then turned it around.

All of this happened before anything even launched. Its actually good news.

CygnusOrion said,
Sony forced them to change the policy. Who do you trust? The company that has always been there on DRM since day one(let's forget about the rootkit fiasco, no really forget about that one...).

If we held grudges, we wouldn't own any products.

CygnusOrion said,
Sony forced them to change the policy. Who do you trust? The company that has always been there on DRM since day one(let's forget about the rootkit fiasco, no really forget about that one...).

The company that didn't remove Linux and BC from their last console after it was already in my living room. I also bet you that Sony was going to include PS Eye with the PS4 then they dropped it to try and undercut the XBOX 1 in price.

If MS add a free game to the XB1 package, rest assure that Sony will follow. Then, they would be playing the same game they accuse MS of.

Well, Sony is on the offense right now since MS has been backtracking, and it will continue until MS has something big to take it straight up Sony's rear. However, may the best console win!

...although I've pre-ordered the XONE.

Translated...
"We didn't reveal our plans, so we were able to make DRM and policy changes based on consumer overreactions to Microsoft announcements."

If anyone believes that Sony did NOT change any of their DRM or policies in this last year, just go do a simple patent search on DRM technologies Sony acquired in the last two years that were specifically designed for the PS4.


I think the biggest insult is that this is Sony Games the parent of SOE that has 'changed message' and 'story' and completely ripped games out from under paying customers with content and policy changes that are known in the gaming world as the worst mistakes in history. (This includes IPO they have bought out and destroyed, like Matrix, Vanguard, along with their own development changes to existing IPOs like SWG.)

Sony, you can redeem yourselves, but you are losing credibility by claiming the 'high road' when insiders know you are being less than truthful.

It doesn't really matter what they did before making any announcements. It's what happened since the reveals that matters since it's actually very annoying towards customers (who might have already placed orders).

Mobius Enigma said,
Translated...
"We didn't reveal our plans, so we were able to make DRM and policy changes based on consumer overreactions to Microsoft announcements.

You nailed it, they are playing this game with their customers almost in an arrogant enough way as to say, they are too stupid to see what we did. We wait for the public to whine about something that MS did, then we'll change it internally and announce it as if we were this way from the start.

Until now I never new PS4 would support twitch...hmmm who said that first.

I also remember a time with the PS3 had BC and other features ripped from their customers "AFTER" the console was sold and being used. So I see right through Sony's honesty BS.

Ambroos said,
It doesn't really matter what they did before making any announcements. It's what happened since the reveals that matters since it's actually very annoying towards customers (who might have already placed orders).

If the end result of the Xbox and the PS4 are essentially equivalent, it truly SHOULD NOT matter if the change happened in public view or not.

I would assert that the MS is being more honest with its customers as they are seeing the 'sausage' being made, where Sony has made many of the same changes without their customers being told. (Like I said, insiders and developers know Sony is lying out their A**.)

uxo22 said,
Until now I never new PS4 would support twitch...hmmm who said that first.

Wait, you never figured they would do this? A console with a SHARE button that supports one streaming site... adding further support for others is shocking?? No clue how that falls out of line with being consistent.

dead.cell said,

Wait, you never figured they would do this? A console with a SHARE button that supports one streaming site... adding further support for others is shocking?? No clue how that falls out of line with being consistent.

Sure, the commonly initiated corporate free pass.

Why don't you comment on the removal of BC on the PS3 or was that expected too?

uxo22 said,

Sure, the commonly initiated corporate free pass.

Why don't you comment on the removal of BC on the PS3 or was that expected too?

Because I'm not out to defend Sony. That point you made in particular though was just stupid.

^ precisely, Microsoft tried to do away with disc based authentication and as such offer a different form of DRM, but apparently overestimated the internet readiness of it's customers. Unfortunately (for me at least) they listened to the complaints and reversed the decision, which means we are back to the previous century disc based authentication, which means exactly what you describe, no real change except for newer hardware and a few tricks here and there.

Here is to hoping Microsoft tries to re-introduce some of the proposed changes at a later date, maybe when the rest of the western world can entertain a small 24 hour license check..

Kinda weird comment since Sony today announced that they would support Twitch, something XO has done from the start.

zicoz said,
Kinda weird comment since Sony today announced that they would support Twitch, something XO has done fro the start.

yeah sweet .... twitch tv... cuz ya know we all have to stream ourselves playing games..... its such an important feature.... im sure you have thousands watching teabag people in CoD/Halo............. I'd rather not have to pay $60 a year to use the netflix account im already paying for.

well its more like twitch couldnt mantain exclusive service to M$ anymore the same we could say about minecraft....

Hopefully titanfall could come too the end of exclusivity its a good thing for gamers.

zicoz said,
Kinda weird comment since Sony today announced that they would support Twitch, something XO has done from the start.

Your comment might make sense if they dumped UStream, but I fail to see how adding further support is going against the intention of a console that has a Share button on it...

0/10, try again?

While others has shifted their message and changed their story, we were consistent in maintaining a message that is fair and in tune with consumer desires, We strove to deliver a platform that delivers both power and great value. And the response we've received has been nothing short of incredible.

No all you and Microsoft ended up doing is delivering a console that was similar to the previous generation with a couple of new software things added on (and better hardware obviously).

At least Microsoft was willing to make major changes to the way console games worked even though it included DRM (which is probably down to game publishers who would refuse to make games for the xbox ones sharing system without DRM).

It's just like how Steam has it's own Steamworks DRM or uses whatever the game publisher wants. Activision, EA, Ubisoft etc aren't going to publish games without DRM...regardless of how bull**** it is.

Sony have a reputation of insulting Microsoft's Xbox One, notably at E3 where it announced that it would allow users to share games, and even released a video demonstrating the process, where one person hands the disc to another.

Except with the Xbone you could share digital games too...Too bad people couldn't see past the letters DRM and lost their ****...even though 99% of them love Steam to death even with it's DRM.

-Razorfold said,
<snip>

Nothing changed except for the fact that now, people who are content with physical media can continue on as they have been without being screwed over by DD policies ham-fistedly smeared on.

If MUH NEHKTSGEN is really so important to you, buy all your games digitally.

Athernar said,

Nothing changed except for the fact that now, people who are content with physical media can continue on as they have been without being screwed over by DD policies ham-fistedly smeared on.

If MUH NEHKTSGEN is really so important to you, buy all your games digitally.


Oh really? Then where's the outcry for games on Steam? Last I checked I cannot just loan a game that's on Steam to a friend, EVEN if the game came in a physical case with a physical disk.

So it's fine when Valve's Steam does it, nobody cares and everyone talks about how great Steam is. But then when MS does it, it's like a great sin against the world.

-Razorfold said,

Oh really? Then where's the outcry for games on Steam? Last I checked I cannot just loan a game that's on Steam to a friend, EVEN if the game came in a physical case with a physical disk.

So it's fine when Valve's Steam does it, nobody cares and everyone talks about how great Steam is. But then when MS does it, it's like a great sin against the world.

Because DD is 99% of the ecosystem for PC gaming, consoles are 99.99% Disc based.

Athernar said,

Because DD is 99% of the ecosystem for PC gaming, consoles are 99.99% Disc based.

Exactly you havent been able to trade in PC games since the late 90's and it was mainly because people were copying the discs and sharing keys. There was little to no DRM for PC's like there is for console Physical media to help stop plain copying of discs. SEE SEGA DREAMCAST.

Athernar said,

Because DD is 99% of the ecosystem for PC gaming, consoles are 99.99% Disc based.


And? What exactly is so bad about DD? Oh wait nothing because the very same people bitching about DD DRM on consoles are perfectly happy with it on PCs.

If you want to complain about the DRM blame the publishers. If Steam / MS made their consoles have digital downloads / play games without any DRM / copy-protection, no game company would publish games on those systems.

And even on the current generation of consoles you do have DRM. The disks are usually copy-protected in some way, and a lot of publishers are now starting to use one-off codes. Buy a used game and want to play it online? Pay the publisher extra for it.

-Razorfold said,

And? What exactly is so bad about DD? Oh wait nothing because the very same people bitching about DD DRM on consoles are perfectly happy with it on PCs.

Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent, calm down.

The PC is a platform that has already made the transition to DD as the primary distribution model, and did so years ago thanks to Steam.

Consoles however have not yet made that transition, and Microsoft foolishly tried to force it with poorly thought out policies that resulted in backlash. At the same time however there is a fledgling DD ecosystem already growing within Live. As I said in my first post, if MUH NEXTGEN is really so important to you, buy digitally and get the bonuses that come from a digital ecosystem, both ecosystems can co-exist. One existing does not preclude the other.

The only people with a "legitimate" gripe are fanboys upset that people have slighted the glorious god and ruler of mankind, Microsoft pbuh.

The PC is a platform that has already made the transition to DD as the primary distribution model, and did so years ago thanks to Steam.

Consoles however have not yet made that transition, and Microsoft foolishly tried to force it with poorly thought out policies that resulted in backlash.


Oh please. The "foolishly" thought out policies are pretty much the exact same policies that Steam / Origins have. Well without the 24 hour check in, but if you remember it took Valve like 8 years to actually get steam offline mode to work correctly.

And as for me being a fanboy? Hmm oh wait I never owned a 360, don't plan on getting an xbox one, and never owned the original xbox. The only games on GFWL that I have are GTA 4, and I hate xbox live. Yeah I'm just so much of an MS fanboy.

dead.cell said,
Apples and oranges, coupled with blaming people for what is ultimately Microsoft's decision. Also, he mad.

Um I'm actually far from being mad. I think both consoles are ****, and I couldn't care less which one succeeds.

I just think it's pretty stupid to bitch about one company doing something while praising another company for doing the exact same thing (In this case, Microsoft and Valve).

And then when Microsoft listens to their customers and makes changes (for better or for worse) people then complain about them flip-flopping.

-Razorfold said,

Oh please. The "foolishly" thought out policies are pretty much the exact same policies that Steam / Origins have. Well without the 24 hour check in, but if you remember it took Valve like 8 years to actually get steam offline mode to work correctly.

Are you even paying attention? They're not the same policies simply because they are two totally different plaforms with totally different traits.

You negated your point in your own post, and you've completely ignored the fact that the PC is DD dominant vs the Consoles being Disc dominant which ruptures your argument.

-Razorfold said,

And as for me being a fanboy? Hmm oh wait I never owned a 360, don't plan on getting an xbox one, and never owned the original xbox. The only games on GFWL that I have are GTA 4, and I hate xbox live. Yeah I'm just so much of an MS fanboy.

If you don't plan on getting an Xbox One, then why are you getting so utterly wound up over something that isn't an issue in the first place, and doesn't effect you anyway even if it was.

-Razorfold said,

Um I'm actually far from being mad. I think both consoles are ****, and I couldn't care less which one succeeds.

I just think it's pretty stupid to bitch about one company doing something while praising another company for doing the exact same thing (In this case, Microsoft and Valve).

And then when Microsoft listens to their customers and makes changes (for better or for worse) people then complain about them flip-flopping.

I appreciate Microsoft for listening to their customers. However, the situation with Valve is a completely different story in how Steam came to be, and how it's continued to operate over the years.

Athernar said,

Are you even paying attention? They're not the same policies simply because they are two totally different plaforms with totally different traits.

You negated your point in your own post, and you've completely ignored the fact that the PC is DD dominant vs the Consoles being Disc dominant which ruptures your argument.


I haven't ignored anything. PC evolved from being disc-dominant to being DD dominant.

It was what about 6-7 years ago when PCs were mainly disc dominant? Same time as when the previous generation of consoles came out. During that time PC evolved to be primarily DD dependent.

Consoles could have evolved too, and we could have had game changers like digital sharing but people didn't like the idea. Instead we now have two consoles that are just like the previous generation but with the killer features being social networking (oh and some cloud computing) woohoo...

It's not like Microsoft said disc based games wouldn't work on the Xbox one and discs were completely useless. You could have still just used discs like you always did. Well apart from the used game thing, which I'm willing to bet you that was more because game publishers are getting fed up of companies like Gamestop. But instead of that you could share your library with upto 10 people.

There's really nothing different between consoles and PCs nowadays, and there hasn't been for quite a while. People like to claim that their console is some magical device but in reality its just a glorified gaming PC, and that's even more so with this generation of x86 consoles.

If you don't plan on getting an Xbox One, then why are you getting so utterly wound up over something that isn't an issue in the first place, and doesn't effect you anyway even if it was.

I'm not getting wound up about anything directly related to the Xbox. Hell if it was Sony that came up with this idea and then cancelled it because people were crying, I'd be saying the same thing just defending Sony. I'm getting wound up because people irrationally hate MS for doing something but defending another company for doing a similar thing.

I mean look at this flip flopping thing. If another company had made a "bad" decision and then came out and said ok we're changing it back to the way you like it, most people would be praising them right? But instead when MS did that, the very same people who were complaining then decided they needed to complain about MS flip-flopping. What? You hate them for "not listening to customers" and then you hate them for "listening to customers"

If MS had explained their ideas better (which they can never do because they're terrible at marketing, it's sad really) and people didn't lose their **** like a bunch of 5 year olds then we may have had some pretty neat ideas come out of this generation of consoles and I would have considered buying my first console since the n64, but they didn't (and well telling people to buy a 360 didn't really help either).

-Razorfold said,

blah blah blah

Stop being so damned pig-headed and actually take a second to read what has been said and think.

Digital sharing, all the other "next-gen" guff you keep ranting on about? That's all still perfectly possible on the digital side of the console. The only change is it no longer applies to physically purchased titles.

With full support from Microsoft, the advantages of DD will cause it to eventually replace discs as the dominant method of distribution on consoles. This is what's called natural evolution. Once discs are deprecated, the end result is the same.

So all those lines of nonsense you've written thus far have been the proverbial mountain from the molehill. What a waste.

Athernar said,

Stop being so damned pig-headed and actually take a second to read what has been said and think.

Digital sharing, all the other "next-gen" guff you keep ranting on about? That's all still perfectly possible on the digital side of the console. The only change is it no longer applies to physically purchased titles.

With full support from Microsoft, the advantages of DD will cause it to eventually replace discs as the dominant method of distribution on consoles. This is what's called natural evolution. Once discs are deprecated, the end result is the same.

So all those lines of nonsense you've written thus far have been the proverbial mountain from the molehill. What a waste.


Jesus christ, why don't you stop being so pig headed and calling me names and actually read what I said?

Weren't people all up in arms against the DRM part of the consoles? Yes they were. THAT was the whole point of my argument, people complain about it being on one thing but love it on another.

And no the original digital sharing plan is NOT back. Right now you can only share games with people at home who use the same console (or if you login to someone elses console). You cannot pull up your friends list and go hey bob the builder here's gta 5. You COULD do that according to the original announcement and unless I missed something, that's gone now.

-Razorfold said,
<snip>

The difference is that Steam isn't forced on PC gamers, and that PC gamers can largely opt in by choice. It's also worth noting that Steam's DRM is a lot less evil by comparison to other companies, which is what has made it so popular. Microsoft's 24-hour check-in was obviously not better to many folks out there. If the frequency was reduced, maybe then people would have been more accepting, but there was just not a feasible way to expect people to be okay with a 24 hour check in. None of us here are analysts or "experts", but yet either of us have enough damn common sense to understand that this wasn't going to work out without a backlash from the gaming community.

Furthermore, Steam isn't the only available market to choose from. There is heavy competition which allows for prices to drop considerably, whether it's Amazon, GMG, Origin, or even charity bundles through he HumbleBundle program. The point is you have choice. Trusting in Microsoft to drive discounts and sales against... well, themselves on a digital platform just doesn't sound promising. I'm not saying they wouldn't have sales or anything, but rather that I have doubts they'd drop to a level that could even be comparable to the PC side of gaming.

Lastly, Microsoft appeared to refuse to talk about what would happen later down the road at the end of the Xbox One's life cycle. This is something people don't mention enough of. What happens if/when those servers are shut down? Or does Microsoft intend on supporting those games keeping them available indefinitely from then on out? As far as I can tell, we never got a clear answer on that. If they want to sell us on their ideas, they need to answer our questions. Otherwise, how do they expect people to buy into it?

The whole sharing games bit I don't even care to acknowledge at this point, seeing as they didn't have the details finalized and couldn't answer questions to the issues people had with the idea to begin with. It all felt like a shiny object held over our heads to distract us from everything else. Game sharing could still work, but at the end of the day, Microsoft decided to stomp out on us with their shiny toy as if there was no way to compromise.

This is why, as a fan of Microsoft, I was annoyed with them to begin with. I hope this helps at least serve insight, as opposed to the rest of the people here who think anyone criticizing Microsoft is just a Sony fanboy or whatever.

-Razorfold said,

Jesus christ, why don't you stop being so pig headed and calling me names and actually read what I said?

Your points have been refuted and all you've done is repeat yourself in response, there is nothing to read.

-Razorfold said,

Weren't people all up in arms against the DRM part of the consoles? Yes they were. THAT was the whole point of my argument, people complain about it being on one thing but love it on another.

If that was your argument then it's already been destroyed. You would realise this if you had the integrity to read what has been said rather than rushing in to type up another rant.

Steam and Microsoft's offerings are incomparable. There are many different variables you have completely failed to factor in.

-Razorfold said,

And no the original digital sharing plan is NOT back. Right now you can only share games with people at home who use the same console (or if you login to someone elses console). You cannot pull up your friends list and go hey bob the builder here's gta 5. You COULD do that according to the original announcement and unless I missed something, that's gone now.

Whether it's back now or not is ultimately irrelevant, the feature is still possible, as it is on every DD platform.

Microsoft have already invested in the feature, and DD -will- become dominant. It's simply a matter of when, not if.

The difference is that Steam isn't forced on PC gamers, and that PC gamers can largely opt in by choice.

A lot of games are only available on Steam. You may be able to buy it from another retailer (just like you could physically with the Xbox one) but you still have to use Steam.

Microsoft's 24-hour check-in was obviously not better to many folks out there. If the frequency was reduced, maybe then people would have been more accepting, but there was just not a feasible way to expect people to be okay with a 24 hour check in.

Fair enough they should have made it longer, or if there was a disc then disregard the check. But I'm willing to bet you that the checks were a requirement that EA / Activision / Ubisoft etc demanded. Those companies in particular have been pretty vocal about their choices in DRM and making games as restricted as possible in an attempt to "prevent piracy." So if MS wanted to use the digital sharing idea they had, some sort of constant check had to be implemented to satisfy publishers. Stupid, I know.

Trusting in Microsoft to drive discounts and sales against... well, themselves on a digital platform just doesn't sound promising. I'm not saying they wouldn't have sales or anything, but rather that I have doubts they'd drop to a level that could even be comparable to the PC side of gaming.

But physical gaming wasn't going to disappear with the Xbox one, you could still buy games from different retailers. Digital downloads? Sure you are forced to do that through Microsoft. But if the game cost too much from MS, just go to Amazon and get it there. Another idea would have been to use serial keys that you could just register online, but MS never mentioned anything about that so there's no point in talking about it.

Lastly, Microsoft appeared to refuse to talk about what would happen later down the road at the end of the Xbox One's life cycle. The whole sharing games bit I don't even care to acknowledge at this point, seeing as they didn't have the details finalized and couldn't answer questions to the issues people had with the idea to begin with.

Like I said, MS' biggest problem by a massive mile is that their marketing sucks. They usually have great ideas / products but they absolutely fail at marketing it.

On a similar note, people have the same question with Steam but Valve has never really given a definite answer. I know Gabe made a random forum post about "them having plans" but it's never been anything official. Part of the reason, I think, is because Microsoft / Valve / Sony have to answer to game publishers too. MS may want that 10 years from now everything be de-activated and anyone can use it but the publishers themselves may not want that to be the case. So if MS / Valve / Sony say one thing and then 5 years later go "you know what...we can't do that" they'd be in a lot of trouble. So it's probably just easier for them to not say anything. Is it right? No definitely not, it's a valid question that deserves a valid answer, but it's probably an answer we're never really going to get.

Your points have been refuted and all you've done is repeat yourself in response, there is nothing to read.

Not really. You still don't seem to understand the game sharing example that I've used like 5 times now. Instead your only example is Steam and Xbox are different, when they really aren't. It's the same stupid argument people tried using about how the Windows store and Steam were different.

Whether it's back now or not is ultimately irrelevant, the feature is still possible, as it is on every DD platform.

Microsoft have already invested in the feature, and DD -will- become dominant. It's simply a matter of when, not if.


Really? I can share my steam games with my steam friends? How about Origin games? How about Live?

Oh wait no I cannot. There's physically no way right now on any console, or system to share DD games / apps you've purchased with friends. You can login to it on their computer / console sure but you can't simply open your friends list and allow a person who's 5000 miles away to play a game you've bought.

Is it technically possible? Sure, anything is possible. But it hadn't been done till MS announced it, and now that feature is gone.

-Razorfold said,

Not really. You still don't seem to understand the game sharing example that I've used like 5 times now. Instead your only example is Steam and Xbox are different, when they really aren't. It's the same stupid argument people tried using about how the Windows store and Steam were different.

The stupid argument is the one that doesn't give any reasoning other than "cus I sed so". (Which is what your post is, pathetic)

The reality of the situation is the two are completely different, one is a ecosystem within a platform - the other is the very platform itself. Pray tell, where can I get Origin or Steam on an 360/One? Oh right, you can't - durr.

There are too many variables at play to make an intelligent comparison in this context. The point alone that the PC is already DD dominant blows your argument out of the water.

-Razorfold said,

Really? I can share my steam games with my steam friends? How about Origin games? How about Live?

Oh wait no I cannot. There's physically no way right now on any console, or system to share DD games / apps you've purchased with friends. You can login to it on their computer / console sure but you can't simply open your friends list and allow a person who's 5000 miles away to play a game you've bought.

Is it technically possible? Sure, anything is possible. But it hadn't been done till MS announced it, and now that feature is gone.

Nope, it's not gone. Are you really so delusional that you think the feature suddenly evaporated the moment Microsoft decided screwing their physical media customers wasn't worth it for a transition that is inevitable anyway?

Microsoft -will- implement the sharing, the worst case scenario here is that it's been delayed. Considering localisation strings indicate Valve are working to implement similar features on Steam, it is foolish to act otherwise.

Stop making a mountain out of a goddamned molehill, calm down and get over yourself.

Microsoft -will- implement the sharing, the worst case scenario here is that it's been delayed. Considering localisation strings indicate Valve are working to implement similar features on Steam, it is foolish to act otherwise.

And you have the foresight to see into the future? Oh wait of course you do.

The feature was already there. People complained about the DRM that the feature brought (pretty much the ONLY reason for the DRM), and MS axed it temporarily / permanently (that's for the future to decide). But similar DRM already exists on other ecosystems and for the most part people don't have a problem with it.

That was my entire argument from the very first post to this one. People complain when MS does something, and don't complain when other companies do the same thing. It's the same with anything that has fanboys.

The only reason I even brought up Steam and other game publishers was to explain how everything has DRM. And then since you seemed to turn it into "oh nothing has changed, steam and xbox are totally different" I pointed out that you could originally share your games on xbox, and you can't on Steam (yet anyways according to you).

So talking about mountain out of a goddamned molehill? Read my first post again and read the specific quotes my comments were about. Hint, it was nothing about Xbox vs. Steam...it was about how DRM exists in every system.

And then you wanted to rant on about how digital sharing still exists. Well no it doesn't, it's nothing like the original plan at all. But according to you it may come back in the future so hence it exists. Do you know for sure it'll come back? No you don't. Major game publishers are pretty ****y when it comes to sharing and used games, I don't see that changing anytime soon. And if it does come back it'll probably be with the same DRM that everyone hated a month ago, it's delusional to think otherwise.

Anyways I'm done arguing with you, so feel free to rant on with your childish insults.

-Razorfold said,

And you have the foresight to see into the future? Oh wait of course you do.

No, it's just the rational conclusion given the facts.

-Razorfold said,

The feature was already there. People complained about the DRM that the feature brought (pretty much the ONLY reason for the DRM), and MS axed it temporarily / permanently (that's for the future to decide). But similar DRM already exists on other ecosystems and for the most part people don't have a problem with it.

People didn't complain about the DRM, they complained about a DRM designed around a DD model being applied to physical media.

-Razorfold said,

That was my entire argument from the very first post to this one. People complain when MS does something, and don't complain when other companies do the same thing. It's the same with anything that has fanboys.

Boo hoo for the big megacorporation / convicted monopolist.

-Razorfold said,

The only reason I even brought up Steam and other game publishers was to explain how everything has DRM. And then since you seemed to turn it into "oh nothing has changed, steam and xbox are totally different" I pointed out that you could originally share your games on xbox, and you can't on Steam (yet anyways according to you).

So talking about mountain out of a goddamned molehill? Read my first post again and read the specific quotes my comments were about. Hint, it was nothing about Xbox vs. Steam...it was about how DRM exists in every system.

Considering the 360 has DRM in various forms, it was obviously not the existence of DRM that was the problem, rather the implementation and application of.

-Razorfold said,

And then you wanted to rant on about how digital sharing still exists. Well no it doesn't, it's nothing like the original plan at all. But according to you it may come back in the future so hence it exists. Do you know for sure it'll come back? No you don't. Major game publishers are pretty ****y when it comes to sharing and used games, I don't see that changing anytime soon. And if it does come back it'll probably be with the same DRM that everyone hated a month ago, it's delusional to think otherwise.

Of course it will come back, how naïve are you? Microsoft made the mistake of making a direct power grab in an overt manner. With the natural transition to DD they will be able to ease in the same restrictions. (Restrictions that make far more sense in a digital ecosystem I might add)

You're basically saying "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT MICROSOFT WILL WANT TO MAKE PROFIT AND TAKE MORE CONTROL OF THEIR ECOSYSTEM!!!!111".

-Razorfold said,

Anyways I'm done arguing with you, so feel free to rant on with your childish insults.

Running away as you've realised your points have no substance to them no doubt.

Of course it will come back, how naïve are you? Microsoft made the mistake of making a direct power grab in an overt manner. With the transition to DD they will be able to ease in the same restrictions.

You're basically saying "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT MICROSOFT WILL WANT TO MAKE PROFIT AND TAKE MORE CONTROL OF THEIR ECOSYSTEM!!!!111".


Except that's not what I'm saying at all, nice try. I'm saying that the GAME SHARING like MS originally demonstrated WILL LIKELY NOT COME BACK. Try and keep up.

THIS is what I'm talking about:

The Family Sharing feature was a popular idea which would allow up to ten family members share in a pool of video games, and the savvy jumped on the opportunity to ask if anyone could be in you family. Microsoft replied with a surprising “yes.”

Any ten people could join in your Xbox One family and share your video games.
Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi spoke to Ars Technica, reconfirming that the ten "family" members could be anyone, even someone who is in another city. Users will be able to grant access to other XBL accounts to their shared games library, but Ars Technica notes "only one person can be playing the shared copy of a single game at any given time."

It sounds like it's too good to be true, but if the Xbox One does indeed allow people to share games under these rules, it could be a killer feature to trade off with its DRM system. It doesn't completely make sense though when it sounds like publishers would lose more revenue with this model than the conventional used game system. Allowing up to ten members for what is essentially game sharing is a very high limit, and people could potentially save a lot of money if groups are formed for the purpose of loaning games to one another. There must be a catch that Microsoft isn't revealing. Taking the policy above and the comments at face value, I don't see how games sales would not go down when people can just leech off a friend's shared game library instead of buying a new copy of a game.

With the backlash against the DRM, MS pulled that feature and the DRM associated with it. They did partially bring the feature back but you can only share games with people on your own console now, before you could share it with any xbox one, anywhere in the world.

Edited by -Razorfold, Aug 21 2013, 3:41am :

-Razorfold said,

Except that's not what I'm saying at all, nice try. I'm saying that the GAME SHARING like MS originally demonstrated WILL LIKELY NOT COME BACK. Try and keep up.

THIS is what I'm talking about:

With the backlash against the DRM, MS pulled that feature and the DRM associated with it. They did partially bring the feature back but you can only share games with people on your own console now, before you could share it with any xbox one, anywhere in the world.

Can you even read? Have you even understood a single word that has been said at all?

The backlash was centred on the application of such forms of DRM on the physical media ecosystem, the response made Microsoft decide the lost sales were not worth the gain. Such forms of DRM however make far more sense on titles acquired digitally. (IIRC there are already similar sorts of restrictions in place on digital 360 titles).

So physical stays the same and eventually dies out, digital moves forward. People get to decide if they want to stick with the old method and lose out, or go with the new method and take on additional restrictions. Is that really so hard to understand?

Microsoft aren't going to let an investment just sit around and rot, and a cursory Google search indicates they're already moving towards such action. So again, calm down and stop making a mountain out of molehill.

dead.cell said,

The difference is that Steam isn't forced on PC gamers, and that PC gamers can largely opt in by choice. It's also worth noting that Steam's DRM is a lot less evil by comparison to other companies, which is what has made it so popular. Microsoft's 24-hour check-in was obviously not better to many folks out there.
...

1) Steam is forced on users of various titles.

2) Steam DRM is just as bad/good as any DRM. Just because people don't understand one DRM concept and tries to label either as 'better' or 'more evil' doesn't change the fact it is still just another form of the same DRM concept.

3) PC Gamers - Stop there. This is not a PC, this is a tightly controlled console. ALL consoles have had DRM in various forms going back to Pong. Even the Intellivision modified the 'console' to prevent non-licensed titles from playing properly. A console cannot by it specific nature offer a multitude of choices and DRM options/services. Sony had to pull the OS boot from the PS3 because of licensing conflicts with game titles and DRM workarounds. This is outside the hands of Microsoft or Sony and is directly in the hands of publishers that have to deal with regions, licensing, royalties, etc.

Can you even read? Have you even understood a single word that has been said at all?

I could say the same about you since you can only seem to reply with insults and sarcastic comments.

Microsoft aren't going to let an investment just sit around and rot, and a cursory Google search indicates they're already moving towards such action. So again, calm down and stop making a mountain out of molehill.

Not really. It's pretty much the 360 version of sharing with a little bit extra added on (your games available everywhere instead of just your console).

And Microsoft have let plenty of investments rot out, go look at their history. A lot of the billions they spend on research and product ideas never fully make it to market. What I'm saying, AGAIN, is Microsoft already had the system in place...they announced it but they failed to explain it properly. What ended up happening was people saw the DRM and went ape ****. Instead if MS had explained it better and people could have kept their cool maybe MS would have taken a middle ground and gone "if you using digital, this is your restrictions. If you're using physical, these are the different restrictions." And they would have a major major gain over Sony. All the benefits of physical media PLUS all the benefits of digital sharing.

Instead people went ape ****, MS backtracked completely and now instead we have a sort of half baked system that may never change because MS may not want to invite the fury again.

So let me make that into a TL:DR. If MS explained their plan better, people didn't only read 1 line and go ape**** we would have had a great sharing system NOW. Not 5 years into the future / never. And I say never because game publishers hate sharing / used games and you can bet your ass they'll find the most restrictive DRM possible and block people from using it. Maybe 10 years from now they'll be different but going off their past history I'd say that's unlikely.

Mobius Enigma said,

1) Steam is forced on users of various titles.

2) Steam DRM is just as bad/good as any DRM. Just because people don't understand one DRM concept and tries to label either as 'better' or 'more evil' doesn't change the fact it is still just another form of the same DRM concept.

3) PC Gamers - Stop there. This is not a PC, this is a tightly controlled console. ALL consoles have had DRM in various forms going back to Pong. Even the Intellivision modified the 'console' to prevent non-licensed titles from playing properly. A console cannot by it specific nature offer a multitude of choices and DRM options/services. Sony had to pull the OS boot from the PS3 because of licensing conflicts with game titles and DRM workarounds. This is outside the hands of Microsoft or Sony and is directly in the hands of publishers that have to deal with regions, licensing, royalties, etc.

1) Then don't buy the game. You still have a choice, compared to buying a system to which there is no choice. (at least, under the old Xbox One model)

2) There's nothing wrong with DRM. There's something wrong with restrictive DRM. If you want it to be a service, make it as such. The day you tell your customer that if they don't have internet, to buy another console, you have absolutely failed.

3) I know it's a console. That's my entire damn point. You have no choice. This isn't PC gaming, and because of that, trusting Microsoft to follow through with their game sharing or to speculate we'd get "cheaper prices" out of the deal seems like a bit of a stretch.

People want to talk about how ideas can look good on paper, but Microsoft didn't even finish writing their thoughts down... There's just not enough to go on.

-Razorfold said,

Instead if MS had explained it better and people could have kept their cool maybe MS would have taken a middle ground and gone "if you using digital, this is your restrictions. If you're using physical, these are the different restrictions." And they would have a major major gain over Sony. All the benefits of physical media PLUS all the benefits of digital sharing.

This is exactly what has happened. The two disparate ecosystems have been rightfully separated and the newer can adopt restrictions in trade for added features, the older can keep their discs. Everyone wins.

-Razorfold said,

Instead people went ape ****, MS backtracked completely and now instead we have a sort of half baked system that may never change because MS may not want to invite the fury again.

This quote proves without a doubt you have yet to read/comprehend a single word that has been said thus far. Leveraging such restrictions on the digital ecosystem will not cause a similar outcry simply because a user capable of downloading large amounts of data will not have any issues when it comes to online checkins.

To repeat myself, they are restrictions that make far more sense on a digital ecosystem.

-Razorfold said,

So let me make that into a TL:DR. If MS explained their plan better, people didn't only read 1 line and go ape**** we would have had a great sharing system NOW. Not 5 years into the future / never. And I say never because game publishers hate sharing / used games and you can bet your ass they'll find the most restrictive DRM possible and block people from using it. Maybe 10 years from now they'll be different but going off their past history I'd say that's unlikely.

Microsoft explaining themselves better would not of changed the fact that the system was poorly thought out. It's ironic too that you yourself are guilty of "only reading one line", as you have proven a number of times in this comment thread.

Not only that, but as you yourself say - game publishers hate used games. Do you honestly expect me to believe they (and Microsoft) are not going to pursue this route on the digital ecosystem? You've just argued against yourself.

-Razorfold said,

It's just like how Steam has it's own Steamworks DRM or uses whatever the game publisher wants. Activision, EA, Ubisoft etc aren't going to publish games without DRM...regardless of how bull**** it is.

Actually, Ubisoft did release Rayman Origins without DRM on Steam.

dead.cell said,

1) Then don't buy the game. You still have a choice, compared to buying a system to which there is no choice. (at least, under the old Xbox One model)

2) There's nothing wrong with DRM. There's something wrong with restrictive DRM. If you want it to be a service, make it as such. The day you tell your customer that if they don't have internet, to buy another console, you have absolutely failed.

3) I know it's a console. That's my entire damn point. You have no choice. This isn't PC gaming, and because of that, trusting Microsoft to follow through with their game sharing or to speculate we'd get "cheaper prices" out of the deal seems like a bit of a stretch.

People want to talk about how ideas can look good on paper, but Microsoft didn't even finish writing their thoughts down... There's just not enough to go on.

1) The choice of not consuming a product is by definition the absence of 'choice'. Even the 'old' Xbox One model had the choice of NOT using the sharing features, but people would not 'listen' to Microsoft and went apecrap nuts. Titles could be used from the Discs without any Internet call in required.

2) All DRM has 'rules' and is 'restrictive' even if you don't encounter it directly or it doesn't bother 'you', it is still there and still 'affects' other people. Just because a person is ignorant about the DRM does not make it better.

3) Microsoft put a lot of thought into the idea of 'cloud' sharing and the mechanisms needed to make this happen and adhere to the 'requirements' of the console publishers restrictions. Microsoft could NOT HAVE designed the system to keep the entirety of features and uphold the licensing needs/restrictions that the publishers DEMAND.

Console publishers have a lot of requirements for non-physical media consumption. This is where the original MS solution was very well designed to keep track and control of the 'ownership/possession' of the title that was 'new' to the console and even new to the PC industry as well. However, instead of seeing an 'evolution' of the technology and what consumers could do with titles, people that did not understand the necessity of the DRM requirements to pull this off ruined this for everyone.

-Razorfold said,

blablabla....

Go to http://www.gog.com and go wonder why GOG is popular and gaining more and more traction. And I can check my mates games just by logging in to his steam account, or origin, or live.
Same on XBO or PS4. Don't see the major fuss about sharing anyways. I use my mates PSN accounts too to try games they have purchased. (and they use mine)
Its the 24hour check in that most people had issues with and the mandatory Kinect which suddenly 'never was mandatory'.... It's what politicians do to and what we hate the most about politicians, say one thing but when things backfire, say something else to fix that and claim you never said anything else before.

Mobius Enigma said,
However, instead of seeing an 'evolution' of the technology and what consumers could do with titles, people that did not understand the necessity of the DRM requirements to pull this off ruined this for everyone.

And who's responsibility is it to ensure the public understands their design goals properly?

Even Razorfold has acknowledged that Microsoft really screwed up here. They had an opportunity and failed to seize it, plain and simple. I'm sick of this bickering between gamers as if we're all to blame for poor policies, unclear information, and so on. Microsoft ultimately holds the position of power, they are the deciders, and if they felt it was easier to do a 180 than explain themselves properly, then that's on them. Blame THEM for taking the coward's way out.

Don't understand how Sony have a reputation for insulting Microsoft? Last I checked there isn't a press statement from Sony suggesting lucrative actions on a bag of phallic objects by Microsoft, because that would be an insult.
Opinionated without source for that claim.

you know i find it more offensive the way that microsoft managed the scroogle campaign or how apple hit their competitors

in the end its all PR talk, microsoft got what it deserved

NathanLiu said,
Their reputation came from their snarky video and E3 presentation, as well as this new statement. I did back up that claim.

That really isn't an insult though.

EvilAstroboy said,
Well MS did/are looking after its customers
Sony boss just Pi553D because he has nothing on MS to pick on ...shut you goob

no MS is looking after its wallet. they saw the huge PS4 preorder numbers vs xbone and realized they dun f'd up. MS should either stand strong on its policies or be seen as weak. if they were looking out for the customer they wouldnt have enacted those practices to begin with.

zeroomegazx said,

no MS is looking after its wallet. they saw the huge PS4 preorder numbers vs xbone and realized they dun f'd up. MS should either stand strong on its policies or be seen as weak. if they were looking out for the customer they wouldnt have enacted those practices to begin with.


Then people would complain that Microsoft doesn't care about its' user base. They can't win either way.

Grinch said,

Then people would complain that Microsoft doesn't care about its' user base. They can't win either way.

Wrong, they could have offered it both ways. Had Physical Discs with no locked down DRM and offer those who buy games digital sharing rights, something they have already announced will return. If they had offered both from the outright i am sure everyone would have been happy. However they didnt because MS and everyone else seems to want to lock out used games. I buy all my games new and hate gamestop but the mom and pop game stores need used games to stay alive. I also like the idea of playing my games 10 years from now when servers are turned off and I cant get backwards compat on the next new console.

zeroomegazx said,

Wrong, they could have offered it both ways. Had Physical Discs with no locked down DRM and offer those who buy games digital sharing rights, something they have already announced will return. If they had offered both from the outright i am sure everyone would have been happy. However they didnt because MS and everyone else seems to want to lock out used games. I buy all my games new and hate gamestop but the mom and pop game stores need used games to stay alive. I also like the idea of playing my games 10 years from now when servers are turned off and I cant get backwards compat on the next new console.

They have not announced sharing will return, and that was about 24-hour license expiration and not physical disc based DRM. Without that 24 hour license limit, the sharing is simply not possible without it being abused. The only sharing they announced was just clarifying you can play your games on any system by signing into it and also play it at the same time on your "home" system. This is exactly how the 360 works now as you get two license. One bound to the hardware and one to your account.

zeroomegazx said,

no MS is looking after its wallet. they saw the huge PS4 preorder numbers vs xbone and realized they dun f'd up. MS should either stand strong on its policies or be seen as weak. if they were looking out for the customer they wouldnt have enacted those practices to begin with.

Why do people shorten Playstation Four to PS4, yet "shorten" Xbox One to "Xbone" and not "XB1" or "X1". Is it so they can giggle at a word with "bone" in it?

With the older Xbox it was just the "360". Nobody spelt the numbers out.

Edited by McKay, Aug 21 2013, 12:25am :

Spicoli said,

They have not announced sharing will return, and that was about 24-hour license expiration and not physical disc based DRM. Without that 24 hour license limit, the sharing is simply not possible without it being abused. The only sharing they announced was just clarifying you can play your games on any system by signing into it and also play it at the same time on your "home" system. This is exactly how the 360 works now as you get two license. One bound to the hardware and one to your account.

Pretty sure they did. http://www.neowin.net/news/mic...games-and-apps-for-xbox-one

Spicoli said,

No, they didn't. Read the details in that article and you'll see it's exactly what I said. This is the same as the how the 360 works and not the same as the original sharing feature.

They did, MS stated that family sharing WILL return in some form. They would like it how it was:

http://www.theguardian.com/tec...ne-family-sharing-microsoft

from last week:

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/0...-xbox-live-gold-membership/

Whitten said the Family Sharing option, which was announced and then scrapped by Microsoft when it dropped its online requirements, may return in the future - something Microsoft said previously.

zeroomegazx said,

They did, MS stated that family sharing WILL return in some form. They would like it how it was:

http://www.theguardian.com/tec...ne-family-sharing-microsoft

from last week:

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/0...-xbox-live-gold-membership/

Whitten said the Family Sharing option, which was announced and then scrapped by Microsoft when it dropped its online requirements, may return in the future - something Microsoft said previously.

Did you go back and read that article? Read the "Update" section. Unfortunately in the world of Internet hype, false headlines are often repeated over and over.