Xbox One Requires Daily Internet Connection

[vcfan]

geez,some of you guys need to get a grip. we know you don't like xbox or Microsoft, stop posting stuff that's been debunked and not true,and for god sakes stop posting stuff from kotaku. these guys were pushing the 'always online' bs rumor so hard, they are trying to save face. look at every article. they write some crap,then have an update at the bottom with clarification from Microsoft saying the info is bogus.

[BajiRav]

On the big day of your massive prepared hardware launch, as the public relations figure delegated to do journalist interviews, that, quite frankly at a company of MS size would be a disciplinary offense. MS fired Adam Orth....

It's more like they didn't prepare to answer journalists questions in a way that didn't cause public upset prior to E3. In other words, the no comment or least damaging wording. No company enjoys presenting DRM in this day and age, always trying to candy wrap it - See Diablo 3 and Sim City.

Even your beloved Sony's head didn't know their policy about used games and had to ask PR before he answered it and even then he was ambiguous. It happens. Kotaku is hell bent on this **** for some reason and people like you who hate Xbox for some reason are enjoying every moment of it.

It may be true and it may not be. So far Microsoft has been dodging answering the question and all we can do is wait.

Everything in kotaku article is debunked right here: http://majornelson.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-and-used-games/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MajorNelson+%28Major+Nelson+%28Xbox%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[Motoko.]

Phil Harrison is not Kotaku.

Is that the bald Brit from Sony?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Even your beloved Sony's head didn't know their policy about used games and had to ask PR before he answered it and even then he was ambiguous. It happens. Kotaku is hell bent on this **** for some reason and people like you who hate Xbox for some reason are enjoying every moment of it.

It may be true and it may not be. So far Microsoft has been dodging answering the question and all we can do is wait.

Everything in kotaku article is debunked right here: http://majornelson.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-and-used-games/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MajorNelson+%28Major+Nelson+%28Xbox%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

It quite clearly states only if you are on your profile. If there wasn't a restriction it would not have to say such a specific requirement.

You do not need to be signed into your profile this generation to play a game at your friends.

[BajiRav]

It quite clearly states only if you are on your profile. If there wasn't a restriction it would not have to say such a specific requirement.

You do not need to be signed into your profile this generation to play a game at your friends.

You actually do need to sign in for XBLA and GoD (probably similar on the PS3 side). If they have said something doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You actually do need to sign in for XBLA and GoD (probably similar on the PS3 side). If they have said something doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

Nope, no games on the PS3 or PSN (includes fully retail digitally distributed games) or retail require you to be signed in. Even patched download if you aren't signed into PSN but have your ethernet cable plugged in - Why? Game patches are stored on a different server.

[BajiRav]

Nope, no games on the PS3 or PSN (includes fully retail digitally distributed games) or retail require you to be signed in. Even patched download if you aren't signed into PSN but have your ethernet cable plugged in - Why? Game patches are stored on a different server.

Clarification: I was referring to the "friends place scenario" not my own console. I don't need to log in for XBLA/GoD on my own system.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Clarification: I was referring to the "friends place scenario" not my own console. I don't need to log in for XBLA/GoD on my own system.

You don't need to on a friends PS3 either. One of the great things about hardware licensing is all you need to do on a friends PS3 is have your account ON the console (stored locally), NOT signed in, and they can actually play ALL your games from THEIR account, online or offline.

Hence why 'gamesharing' was/still is incredibly popular on the PS3.

[BajiRav]

You don't need to on a friends PS3 either. One of the great things about hardware licensing is all you need to do on a friends PS3 is have your account ON the console (stored locally), NOT signed in, and they can actually play ALL your games from THEIR account, online or offline.

Hence why 'gamesharing' was/still is incredibly popular on the PS3.

There is a term for that - it's called soft piracy. I know about that feature and still surprised how sony allowed it. (I am not complaining and would love to have something like that on Xbox side).

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There is a term for that - it's called soft piracy. I know about that feature and still surprised how sony allowed it. (I am not complaining and would love to have something like that on Xbox side).

We (we being gamers) share game discs with everyone all the time though (as well as books/magazines/comics/clothes/etc). The digital market overlords have just sheeped us all into believing draconian DRM is okay if it's to do with digital content.

I'm sure there's some CEOs out there who would say playing your legally bought MP3 collection when a friend is round is "soft piracy"....

[TheLegendOfMart]

There is a term for that - it's called soft piracy. I know about that feature and still surprised how sony allowed it. (I am not complaining and would love to have something like that on Xbox side).

How the hell is it piracy to share games with your friends?!?!?!?!

[BajiRav]

We (we being gamers) share game discs with everyone all the time though (as well as books/magazines/comics/clothes/etc). The digital market overlords have just sheeped us all into believing draconian DRM is okay if it's to do with digital content.

I'm sure there's some CEOs out there who would say playing your legally bought MP3 collection when a friend is round is "soft piracy"....

There is a difference though. When you share a book with your friend, you don't suddenly have two books. I am not pro DRM but as someone who gets paid for software development, I can see the other side too.

How the hell is it piracy to share games with your friends?!?!?!?!

We are talking about sharing PSN games not game discs. Try to follow the conversation...

[TheLegendOfMart]

We are talking about sharing PSN games not game discs. Try to follow the conversation...

Which is something Sony allows by letting you "activate" the game on a different PS3 entirely as well as your own???

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There is a difference though. When you share a book with your friend, you don't suddenly have two books. I am not pro DRM but as someone who gets paid for software development, I can see the other side too.

I can see a fair point there BUT, that person doesn't own the game, it is still tied to your account. You are the owner of it. Your account can only be licensed on 2 PS3s at a time, so if you delete your account off your friends PS3 he/she cannot play your games.

It's a very fairly balanced DRM system, that yes when it was at 5 activations it was getting abused, but at 2, you're either spreading your account over two PS3s you may own, or one at your friends/GF's/BF's.

It really is in no way unfair to the software developer, you've paid him/her for their work and only YOU own it.

[BajiRav]

Which is something Sony allows by letting you "activate" the game on a different PS3 entirely as well as your own???

Last time, if you are not going to bother reading what I post - I am not going to bother replying saying the same thing again.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Last time, if you are not going to bother reading what I post - I am not going to bother replying saying the same thing again.

Maybe if you comprehended the fact that Sony lets you use content on two different consoles at the same time you'd understand. No one is gaming or bypassing DRM, Sony ALLOWS it.

[Torolol]

'One' is strange naming choice especialy its not the first gen iteration.

So, if Phil Harrison is correct, Xbox One name could be extended into Xbox-One-Day.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Maybe if you comprehended the fact that Sony lets you use content on two different consoles at the same time you'd understand. No one is gaming or bypassing DRM, Sony ALLOWS it.

Just because one company allows it does not mean that another company should. For instance, Microsoft may have implemented the restrictions at the behest of publishers and we may see them favour the X1 over the PS4 as a result. Personally I don't have a problem with it, as I buy my games nearly exclusively on Steam and there are similar restrictions in place.

How the hell is it piracy to share games with your friends?!?!?!?!

Because it goes against the licensing agreement and deprives the developer of income they would have otherwise received.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Because it goes against the licensing agreement and deprives the developer of income they would have otherwise received.

Do you think it's okay for your friend to sit in the same room as you and watch you complete a game from start to finish?

[theyarecomingforyou]

Do you think it's okay for your friend to sit in the same room as you and watch you complete a game from start to finish?

I didn't say it was wrong, just that it could be legitimately classed as piracy / copyright infringement. From the perspective of the consumer there is nothing wrong with it, as if they truly wanted to buy it they would have. My point is that it's understandable for Microsoft and Valve to restrict ownership of games in order to benefit themselves and developers. It is also understandable that people are critical of it, especially when it will prevent them from being able to do things they can do currently. But I believe that the developers of games should be rewarded - if renting or borrowing games doesn't reward the producer of the content then it's little different to simply pirating those games.

[BajiRav]

'One' is strange naming choice especialy its not the first gen iteration.

So, if Phil Harrison is correct, Xbox One name could be extended into Xbox-One-Day.

Xbox-you-can-only-play-games-on-One-console. :p

[Zidane]

I didn't say it was wrong, just that it could be legitimately classed as piracy / copyright infringement. From the perspective of the consumer there is nothing wrong with it, as if they truly wanted to buy it they would have. My point is that it's understandable for Microsoft and Valve to restrict ownership of games in order to benefit themselves and developers. It is also understandable that people are critical of it, especially when it will prevent them from being able to do things they can do currently. But I believe that the developers of games should be rewarded - if renting or borrowing games doesn't reward the producer of the content then it's little different to simply pirating those games.

You avoided his question with a long winded explanation of (summarized) "I understand both sides of the fence".

I understand why you avoided his question because, like it or not, Audioboxer brought up a perfectly valid point: Why does your friend not have to buy the game that he watched from start to finish? When you purchase a game, you purchase the entertainment factor so don't try the argument "He didn't play it so he doesn't have to" (nice try though :) ).

See the funny thing about Software Developers (and I speak from experience, I can show my portfolio) is people argue that you are stealing money right out of their pockets. That is a big fat no for studios (indie developers can be a different story) where the game would have to be pirated well above 50% before the little guys would be affected.

It all comes down to money hungry publishers and DRM enforcers. It won't stop until they squeeze every -single- dollar out of the consumer and blockade any opportunity for another party to get out scott free.

[Orange]

So if it is always online (if they decide to do it) what if you not got net? wouldn't that destroy sales?

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

To be honest my Xbox 360 is online 99% of the time it's on and I don't use Xbox Live, I don't talk to people through it and I don't buy anything except DLC. So again, like many other things.. this is not a major issue for me, personally.

[theyarecomingforyou]

You avoided his question with a long winded explanation of (summarized) "I understand both sides of the fence".

I thought my response precluded the need to answer it explicitly but, for the sake of clarity, I don't see any problem with somebody else watching you play a game - afterall, the person playing the game has the licence to do so and if anything it is entirely like to make that person want to buy the game. Gaming is an interactive medium, so the experience of simply watching a game is very different to actually playing it.

I understand why you avoided his question because, like it or not, Audioboxer brought up a perfectly valid point: Why does your friend not have to buy the game that he watched from start to finish? When you purchase a game, you purchase the entertainment factor so don't try the argument "He didn't play it so he doesn't have to" (nice try though :) ).

You're not purchasing the "entertainment factor", you're purchasing a licence from the copyright holder to play the game and that doesn't preclude other people from watching you. That they amount to the same thing is irrelevant.

See the funny thing about Software Developers (and I speak from experience, I can show my portfolio) is people argue that you are stealing money right out of their pockets. That is a big fat no for studios (indie developers can be a different story) where the game would have to be pirated well above 50% before the little guys would be affected.

It's not that I disagree with you but I don't really want to get into a discussion about piracy as that's a very different issue.

It all comes down to money hungry publishers and DRM enforcers. It won't stop until they squeeze every -single- dollar out of the consumer and blockade any opportunity for another party to get out scott free.

I don't think that's a fair characterisation. It's perfectly reasonable for publishers to want to restrict second-hand sales as they undermine primary sales and prevent money from going to the developers. But in order to restrict second-hand sales you have to add value to the experience, which is why the X1 won't require you to use the game disc and will allow you to download games on other consoles when you login to your account. Microsoft has also said it will allow customers to trade-in and resell games, so that will make it a much more flexible system than Steam.

Potentially the X1's trading system will make reselling games even more common than it is now if it can all be achieved over the internet, while at the same time compensating the developers. That to me is an ideal outcome.