# Microsoft Removes Mandatory Kinect Connection



## IBNobody (Aug 13, 2013)

In another episode of back-peddling, Microsoft is no longer requiring the Kinect to be connected. It will still be packaged with the XBox One, but now consumers can just leave the thing in the box.


> In our latest Ask Microsoft Anything, Xbox Corporate Vice President Marc Whitten revealed that Xbox One owners will be able to use all of the console's core functions regardless of whether the new Kinect sensor is connected. Naturally, many of the tentpole features of the new Kinect, such as player identification, voice commands, etc., will be disabled as a result, but players will still be able to play games and access entertainment content.


 
Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/12/xbox-one-no-longer-requires-kinect-to-function


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't respect them, first for launching loads of crappy policies then crumbling under pressure and copping out.


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 13, 2013)

That's worse then. So now we don't need the kinect but we have to pay for it regardless? so those who don't want it are getting the middle finger still but now in a more insulting way...


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Aug 13, 2013)

too late


----------



## IBNobody (Aug 13, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> That's worse then. So now we don't need the kinect but we have to pay for it regardless? so those who don't want it are getting the middle finger still but now in a more insulting way...


 

They can now come out with a SKU that doesn't have the Kinect and is priced closer to the PS4. Too bad for the launch day buyers, though.


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 13, 2013)

IBNobody said:


> They can now come out with a SKU that doesn't have the Kinect and is priced closer to the PS4. Too bad for the launch day buyers, though.


they won't though cause ultimately they want people to use the kinect and since the install base is 100% developers will integrate features that will entice users to plugging the device in. otherwise you got an inferior ps4 with a different os


----------



## calmwaters (Aug 13, 2013)

Did anyone scroll down in the comments section on there? Here's what I saw: "With all this hate on X1, people supporting it at the same time, and it dominating the news... I come to one conclusion. X1 has officially became the Justin Beiber of the gaming world." This is the greatest statement to hit the news since the invention of Smucker's creamy peanut butter.  (*Bieber* and *become* as corrected by me.)

Edit: sorry for the weird font: my reformatting attempts... failed... miserably.


----------



## IBNobody (Aug 13, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> they won't though cause ultimately they want people to use the kinect and since the install base is 100% developers will integrate features that will entice users to plugging the device in. otherwise you got an inferior ps4 with a different os


 

I don't disagree with your logic. They DO want to see a 100% install base. However, it could end up being like the X360's HDD. For the longest time, they sold the X360's without the HDD. Maybe Microsoft will back-pedal far enough to reach the point of selling a Kinectless XBox One.


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 13, 2013)

IBNobody said:


> I don't disagree with your logic. They DO want to see a 100% install base. However, it could end up being like the X360's HDD. For the longest time, they sold the X360's without the HDD. Maybe Microsoft will back-pedal far enough to reach the point of selling a Kinectless XBox One.


Personally I was going to wait till a price drop but if they back peddle any more then only the exclusives will make me want it and I'll buy it used to ensure no new money comes to them as I can't stand how submissive they are to the point their console really isn't unique to the competition.

again thats my opinion but I bought the wiiu solely for the gamepad. I wanted to get the xbox1 so I could access my library of games anywhere without having to bring them with me. PS4 was for its social network and the integration of letting others play your game from another location. Oh and I guess the vita part is nice too... But ya each  console next gen had it's place in a way I felt I could benifit from having them all. Now I gotta let exclusives alone dictate that which could takes years of waiting to make a sound decision.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 13, 2013)

Once again, it's a feature they can easily re-add again through just an update.
Not to mention that means I am going to be paying for a feature I won't be using.


----------



## Clarky (Aug 13, 2013)

without the mandatory Kinect the Xbox 180 is looking better but the fact at this point you have to buy the Kinect regardless is still a pain


----------



## GameWinner (Aug 13, 2013)

IBNobody said:


> They can now come out with a SKU that doesn't have the Kinect and is priced closer to the PS4. Too bad for the launch day buyers, though.


They won't.
It's still weird that they are not considering a SKU without the Kinect.


----------



## Chaossaturn (Aug 13, 2013)

I predict, there will be a lower cost xbox one with out a Kinect... that will be 100 cheaper.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Aug 13, 2013)

Previously on GBAtemp:
"I hate MS new DRM!"
"I hate daily check-ins!"
"I hate having big brother MS's kinect always on!"
"I hate that kinect even needs to be plugged in!"

And now:
"I hate that MS back peddled on all of the features I hated!"


For real though, at this point it'll require a day one system update to remove the Kinect requirement.  Six months down the road, no matter what they're claiming now, there will be a Kinect-less XBone sold in stores and Craigslist will be loaded with Kinect 2.0s


----------



## Chary (Aug 13, 2013)

The reason that people are upset with Microsoft changing, is that they look flaky, taking away everything people hated. And don't say that they are being a good company listening to the consumers. If they were listening to the consumers, Microsoft wouldn't have made such crappy decisions in the first place. All that Microsoft wanted to do, was to cash in on the Kinect fad while trying to be as secure and rigid as they could with their policies.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 13, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I don't respect them, first for launching loads of crappy policies then crumbling under pressure and copping out.


 

Wait, so listening to consumer feedback is "copping out" now? How is this in any way, shape, or form a bad thing? Are we really prioritizing keeping face over doing what's best for the console here?

There are really no downsides to this decision. You don't have to go about inventing your own.


----------



## Rydian (Aug 13, 2013)

I partially agree with the above.  Notice that Microsoft didn't backpedal on jack shit until preorders started and it became clear that nobody actually wanted the Xbone.  The obvious conclusion is that Microsoft is only listening when it's negatively-impacting their potential profit.

So it's quite obvious _even to people without much experience in these matters_ that Microsoft doesn't care about the consumer, but profit.  Not that they're alone or that it's not how most businesses run, but _holy crap it was obvious this time_, and that's why they're getting so much backlash over it.

... kind of like when the waitress directly asks you for a good tip (opposed to making you happy enough to give one naturally).  You just want say "no, fuck you".


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 13, 2013)

If Microsoft is doing what their fans want, Plz add Wii U and PS4 compatibility.


----------



## Dork (Aug 13, 2013)

"Th-thanks guys for showing us the error of our ways."
Everyone runs back to Microsoft. Once they have their consumers by the balls the flip the DRM right back on just like that.


----------



## loco365 (Aug 13, 2013)

Now they can't watch us in our sleep. Now drop the price and I'll get one.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Aug 13, 2013)

Is there any group of people that was not offended by the Xbox One at some point? lol 

The only thing missing is if the Kinect doesn't work with certain races like the original Kinect so we can call it racist.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 13, 2013)

This is how I see it: Whether you view it as good or not, Microsoft tried to force a ton of unnecessary features (and "features") down consumers' throats: draconian DRM policies, always online, and required Kinect. Yes, they did backpedal on these awful policies thanks to consumer backlash, which is a good thing.

However, it does still show something kind of unpleasant about Microsoft's attitude towards consumers. It basically looks like they went, "hey, let's put all these controlling, anti-consumer, risky, required features into the Xbox One, and if they whine loudly enough, we'll just change our minds and they'll forgive us."

So what now? Is this going to be a precedent? Is Microsoft going to pull this kind of crap every generation? It's kind of like kicking a dog until he bites you, just to see how long you can get away with it, and I just don't think that's right. Consumers shouldn't HAVE to collectively "rage against the system" to let Microsoft know that they dislike things that should be painfully obvious common sense, like always-online DRM and the required use of a peripheral that's secondary to the system's main use (especially when such functions could be easily accomplished through more traditional means).

I'm not going to actively boycott Xbox One, the way I intended when news first came of the draconian DRM. But that said, I still have no great desire to support a company that even tried to treat its customers that way. I probably will get an Xbox One... eventually, maybe 6 years from now, when I can find it for $100 or so used on Craig's List or in a pawn shop.


Dark S. said:


> "Th-thanks guys for showing us the error of our ways."
> Everyone runs back to Microsoft. Once they have their consumers by the balls the flip the DRM right back on just like that.


Alright, I'm quoting your post here, but I'm directing this at every post that says this: This is just flat out stupid. If you honestly think Microsoft is going to just put DRM back on the machine after tons of people buy it, it's clear that you're just purposely groping for negative things to say and aren't even TRYING to think about the billions of reasons they would never do that.


----------



## Ethevion (Aug 13, 2013)

GameWinner said:


> They won't.


Remember when they said DRM is the only way and sharing games in any way is stupid. Or at least among those lines 
Well look at them now.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 13, 2013)

Ohey people bitching for the sake of bitching.

What's new.

Nice to hear. My biggest concern with the Xbone was mandatory kinect. I may actually get one sooner than planned, but I'll wait for the xbone to bundle with a game or something. Launch game prices still make me want to slit my wrists.
But with the amazon credit card you can do a 6 / 12 month payment plan which turns the cost into something quite simple to handle. I could probably afford a PS4 too, but I'll likely just decide at that point in time which is more appealing based on current games and soon-to-be-released ones. I don't need two launch consoles, especially as a PC gamer.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Aug 13, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Alright, I'm quoting your post here, but I'm directing this at every post that says this: This is just flat out stupid. If you honestly think Microsoft is going to just put DRM back on the machine after tons of people buy it, it's clear that you're just purposely groping for negative things to say and aren't even TRYING to think about the billions of reasons they would never do that.


 

It isn't with out prior examples though. 

Not really so stupid when you realize that the PS3 didn't launch with Cinavia protection in the firmware, that cool feature was added in 3.41. 

Of course this DRM only affected your playing movies streamed or played from local storage, but games are considered a media these days as well so I would call it naive to think that DRM cannot be added in down the road to any system.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Aug 13, 2013)

PS4WiiU master race!

Price still makes a difference.


----------



## Dork (Aug 13, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Alright, I'm quoting your post here, but I'm directing this at every post that says this: This is just flat out stupid. If you honestly think Microsoft is going to just put DRM back on the machine after tons of people buy it, it's clear that you're just purposely groping for negative things to say and aren't even TRYING to think about the billions of reasons they would never do that.


 
But they would do that.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Aug 13, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Price still makes a difference.


 
Always seems to be one of the strongest selling points when the kids want a new game system for Christmas.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 13, 2013)

Awesome news! 

Of course I'll still wait for an announcement of a version without the kinect (which I don't doubt will be available before launch), but then I might actually be tempted to give a fuck.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Aug 13, 2013)

Now all that's left is

Microsoft Removes Mandatory Price Tag


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Aug 13, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Alright, I'm quoting your post here, but I'm directing this at every post that says this: This is just flat out stupid. If you honestly think Microsoft is going to just put DRM back on the machine after tons of people buy it, it's clear that you're just purposely groping for negative things to say and aren't even TRYING to think about the billions of reasons they would never do that.


 
See, the thing I don't understand, is Major Nelson and others have said, that it's too late to change the console, what we're getting, is what we're going to get. It's not something that changes at the push of a button, but that's what it seems like.

Even then, I'm not saying Microsoft would do it like 3-4 years after launch, but 5,6? There's nothing to stop them from doing it, as they already have their money.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 13, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> That's worse then. So now we don't need the kinect but we have to pay for it regardless? so those who don't want it are getting the middle finger still but now in a more insulting way...


 
As much as I enjoy hating on Microsoft, I have to agree with the strategy of packaging in the Kinect with the system.  In doing so, they're telling developers that every Xbone owner out there has a kinect, so they can add embed kinect features into their game without alienating the people who didn't buy it.  This is the only way to get it taken seriously.  Look at the Wii and it's motion controllers in the Wiimote/Nunchuk.  They made it an integral part of the console and it was successful as a result.  Then look at Sony with the Playstation Move, and it flopped.  The move was not necessary to the PS3, so people didn't adopt it.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 13, 2013)

I didn't even know that was a requirement, but now that I know I have to say that was a retarded decision in the first place. It just makes no sense. It's not like anyone benefits from it.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 13, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> It isn't with out prior examples though.
> 
> Not really so stupid when you realize that the PS3 didn't launch with Cinavia protection in the firmware, that cool feature was added in 3.41.
> 
> Of course this DRM only affected your playing movies streamed or played from local storage, but games are considered a media these days as well so I would call it naive to think that DRM cannot be added in down the road to any system.


There's a huge difference between changes that affect the use of digital media and changes that essentially make all your used games obsolete. Not to mention that steaming digital movies isn't a core feature of any game console, but playing games is.


Dark S. said:


> But they would do that.


Yes, because simply repeating yourself makes your point more valid, right? Perhaps respond with reasons?


ShadowSoldier said:


> See, the thing I don't understand, is Major Nelson and others have said, that it's too late to change the console, what we're getting, is what we're going to get. It's not something that changes at the push of a button, but that's what it seems like.
> 
> Even then, I'm not saying Microsoft would do it like 3-4 years after launch, but 5,6? There's nothing to stop them from doing it, as they already have their money.


But to do that would be completed suicide for them. Not only would it mean little difference in their profits six years down the line, but the consumers' trust in them would be shattered forever, and their next console would surely bomb.


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 13, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Wait, so listening to consumer feedback is "copping out" now? How is this in any way, shape, or form a bad thing? Are we really prioritizing keeping face over doing what's best for the console here?
> 
> There are really no downsides to this decision. You don't have to go about inventing your own.


 
Microsoft at present have showed me they have poor decision making and aren't entirely sure what they are doing with their console. 
They took a really douchebag stance, expected it to work and now are trying quietly slip back like nothing happened. 
What's to stop them re-introducing all these crap features once people actually buy it?
Listening to customer feedback is one thing, what the xbox one has been doing so far is another


----------



## kristianity77 (Aug 13, 2013)

Now they've come out and said the Kinect isn't required, all thats left to do is sell a version without it for the roughly the same price as a PS4 and I think M$ might just come out of this OK.


----------



## tbgtbg (Aug 13, 2013)

MS should really just delay the launch a year, send the already mfg'd units to visit ET carts, then redo the whole thing next year with more power (apologies to Tim Taylor) and no need to backpeddle, since it's a new system so it never had the DRM mandatory Kinect yadda yadda whatever STICKERS!


Yes, I know this is not a realistic option. But can you imagine? Would be worth it just to see people's heads asplode.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 13, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Microsoft at present have showed me they have poor decision making and aren't entirely sure what they are doing with their console.


 
It's pretty evident they know what they're doing - they're trying to make a console that people want to buy. You could say they're only doing it for profit, but at the end of the day, it's a win for consumers.



Black-Ice said:


> They took a really douchebag stance, expected it to work and now are trying quietly slip back like nothing happened.


 
They've never denied the previous policies and features, and in fact have addressed the backlash multiple times, so it's hardly like they're trying to act as if "nothing happened."

They're addressing the reality of the market rather than denying it. Whether or not you liked the original policies (I sure as hell didn't), that's great news for everyone.



Black-Ice said:


> What's to stop them re-introducing all these crap features once people actually buy it?


 
Logistics and the fact that they want people to continue to buy their consoles. Microsoft is not a cartoon villain luring the heroes into a trap; they'd gain nothing from such a move (well, nothing but a drop in sales, angry customers, and even more shitty press).



Black-Ice said:


> Listening to customer feedback is one thing, what the xbox one has been doing so far is another


 
I agree. Microsoft has done more than just listen to customer feedback - they've acted on it.


----------



## fafaffy (Aug 13, 2013)

What if (JUST speculation):
What if Microsoft never changed anything? What if they said at first that all this shit is mandatory and you'll need to do daily check ins. This left a VERY strong bad impression of the Xbone, but because they "listened" to feedback, they "took" everything we hated away. That way, we get the impression that Microsoft is listening to their customers, and because the customers feel like they're actually being heard, leaves an everlasting GOOD impression of the Xbone.

If this is what they plan, than my god their marketing team is absolutely retarded, or absolute geniuses.


----------



## emigre (Aug 13, 2013)

fafaffy said:


> What if (JUST speculation):
> What if Microsoft never changed anything? What if they said at first that all this shit is mandatory and you'll need to do daily check ins. This left a VERY strong bad impression of the Xbone, but because they "listened" to feedback, they "took" everything we hated away. That way, we get the impression that Microsoft is listening to their customers, and because the customers feel like they're actually being heard, leaves an everlasting GOOD impression of the Xbone.
> 
> If this is what they plan, than my god their marketing team is absolutely retarded, or absolute geniuses.


 
Do you perchance have a hat made out of tin foil?


----------



## mon0 (Aug 13, 2013)

hah. f&$ck microsoft is becoming more and more lame.

I mean it is good that they got rid of that...
but they are not gaining in credibility if you ask me.

I´ll boycott them. That´s for sure. Reasons enough already.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 13, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Logistics and the fact that they want people to continue to buy their consoles. Microsoft is not a cartoon villain luring the heroes into a trap; they'd gain nothing from such a move (well, nothing but a drop in sales, angry customers, and even more shitty press).


Precisely what I was saying. Microsoft isn't an evil mastermind that's trying to get away with things they know they can't get away with. The fact that they're changing their policies proves that.


----------



## Dork (Aug 13, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Yes, because simply repeating yourself makes your point more valid, right? Perhaps respond with reasons?


 
Because the DRM is already on the Xbox One. In order to disable it, you need to download a patch, thus connecting to the internet. Also with games like Forza 5, the game you bought from the store is incomplete, and requires that you connect to the internet.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 13, 2013)

Dark S. said:


> Because the DRM is already on the Xbox One. In order to disable it, you need to download a patch, thus connecting to the internet. Also with games like Forza 5, the game you bought from the store is incomplete, and requires that you connect to the internet.


As much as they suck, day one patches =/= always online DRM.
To make a comparison, The Wii U required a day-one patch to add tons of features. Does that mean the Wii U has the same DRM?


----------



## emigre (Aug 13, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> As much as they suck, day one patches =/= always online DRM.


 

You could say Microsoft are worse than the Nazis


----------



## stae1234 (Aug 13, 2013)

Kinect is good for everything BUT gaming...
sell them to Robotics people. They want more and more every day lol (I know cuz I needed 3)


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Aug 13, 2013)

stae1234 said:


> Kinect is good for everything BUT gaming...
> sell them to Robotics people. They want more and more every day lol (I know cuz I needed 3)


 



I know why they need them!!! lol


----------



## Originality (Aug 13, 2013)

I can't decide what to call the Xbox One. Xbone, or Xbox 180?
Either way I won't get one until maybe a year after release, if they have good games and no RRoD scenarios.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Aug 13, 2013)

Originality said:


> I can't decide what to call the Xbox One. Xbone, or Xbox 180?
> Either way I won't get one until maybe a year after release, if they have good games and no RRoD scenarios.


Is your username _intentionally_ ironic?


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 13, 2013)

mon0 said:


> hah. f&$ck microsoft is becoming more and more lame.
> 
> I mean it is good that they got rid of that...
> but they are not gaining in credibility if you ask me.
> ...


Look...of course you're entitled to your opinion. But are you sure you've given yours enough thought?

You agree it's a good decision to get rid of a feature that isn't enhancing gameplay that much. So how is it at the same time a lame decision?

I think that what they'll lose in credibility, they'll make up with "actually listening to the community".



No, I'm not going to talk you out of it. Rather the contrary. I'd like to see you try boycotting microsoft. You do know they make this OS called "windows" that is insanely popular in companies, right? Or that "office" program? Because...it won't be an easy task landing a job while at the same time boycotting them.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Aug 13, 2013)

Chaossaturn said:


> I predict, there will be a lower cost xbox one with out a Kinect... that will be 100 cheaper.


 
More like $50. Drops usually occur in multiples of $50, but if the price were to be lowered by $100, then they will be cutting their profit margin to a very small amount.

$50 is enough to convince most people to buy a product/bundle without the undesired feature, but later on, the companies will be able to force the consumers' hands by making something that they want & requires the missing feature (Kinect), thus getting them to buy the feature (Kinect), but for a substantial amount more than price difference (Ex: $100 to $150), thus generating more revenue for the same set of products.


----------



## Deleted member 473940 (Aug 13, 2013)

IBNobody said:


> They can now come out with a SKU that doesn't have the Kinect and is priced closer to the PS4. Too bad for the launch day buyers, though.


 
my thoughts exactly.. probably a "core" version with less HDD and no kinect. Perhaps priced lower than PS4.


----------



## fafaffy (Aug 13, 2013)

emigre said:


> Do you perchance have a hat made out of tin foil?


 
Pfft, tin? We all know steel is all the rage...


----------



## chavosaur (Aug 13, 2013)

fafaffy said:


> Pfft, tin? We all know steel is all the rage...


Good, now bash your head in with it ;O;


----------



## fafaffy (Aug 13, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> Good, now bash your head in with it ;O;


 
I did, and now my hat is red, and I don't know why, but my head seemed to get bigger? Either I'm getting smarter, or I'm getting taller I just don't know.


----------



## mkdms14 (Aug 14, 2013)

In other news Microsoft is just copying the same policy as Sony. Boring, let's move on to something else now.


----------



## macmanhigh (Aug 14, 2013)

Seems M$ should have just released the Specs of the Xbox Dumb and Games coming to the system and said nothing else.......


Its Almost as if we were all trapped in the Twilight Zone


----------



## tronic307 (Aug 14, 2013)

Microsoft's blatant game of catch-up with the PS4 is hilariously "me-too".


----------



## Aqua1234 (Aug 14, 2013)

I appreciate what Microsoft is doing now, to hopefully increase their sales, and make their supporters happy. But what they did at first, is like taking a shit on our faces. Realizing what they did, and trying to clean it up. They hope that we'll forget about what they did, and let bygones be bygones. Some are just resilient to forgive them, and I understand that. I appreciate what Microsoft is doing, but I didn't like them from what they did from the start. And on top of that, I'm a Sony Fanboy . I wouldn't mind picking a X1, in a year or two. But for now, I'm sticking with my PS4.


----------



## nando (Aug 14, 2013)

I don't know what I respect less, their initial asinine policies, or their cowardly retractions.


----------



## chavosaur (Aug 14, 2013)

"HEY MICROSOFT, I WON'T BUY YOUR CONSOLE UNLESS YOU FIX THIS, THIS AND THIS"
>Microsoft fixes
"HEY MICROSOFT! I WONT BUY YOUR CONSOLE BECAUSE YOU'RE A LITTLE BITCH FOR RETRACTING THE THINGS I WANTED YOU TOO"

Fucking people are more indecisive and greedy then a 600 lb woman at an all you can eat buffet.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 14, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> "HEY MICROSOFT, I WON'T BUY YOUR CONSOLE UNLESS YOU FIX THIS, THIS AND THIS"
> >Microsoft fixes
> "HEY MICROSOFT! I WONT BUY YOUR CONSOLE BECAUSE YOU'RE A LITTLE BITCH FOR RETRACTING THE THINGS I WANTED YOU TOO"
> 
> Fucking people are more indecisive and greedy then a 600 lb woman at an all you can eat buffet.


In their defense, Microsoft was the fat 600 lb woman first.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 14, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> "HEY MICROSOFT, I WON'T BUY YOUR CONSOLE UNLESS YOU FIX THIS, THIS AND THIS"
> >Microsoft fixes
> "HEY MICROSOFT! I WONT BUY YOUR CONSOLE BECAUSE YOU'RE A LITTLE BITCH FOR RETRACTING THE THINGS I WANTED YOU TOO"
> 
> Fucking people are more indecisive and greedy then a 600 lb woman at an all you can eat buffet.


 
More like:
Consumers: "Hey Microsoft, I don't like what you're doing with your console"
Microsoft: "Shut up and give me your money you stupid piece of shit"
>Preorder numbers come in and it's not selling
Microsoft: "Umm... we've listened to what our customers had to say and think we should change things"
Consumers: "Too late, asshole, you've already revealed your true colors"


----------



## Aqua1234 (Aug 14, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> More like:
> Consumers: "Hey Microsoft, I don't like what you're doing with your console"
> Microsoft: "Shut up and give me your money you stupid piece of shit"
> >Preorder numbers come in and it's not selling
> ...


 

Bingo, exactly this, I've lost all respect to Microsoft, for all the shit they did. Oh, well, maybe they'll gain it back eventually.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Aug 14, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> More like:
> Consumers: "Hey Microsoft, I don't like what you're doing with your console"
> Microsoft: "Shut up and give me your money you stupid piece of shit"
> >Preorder numbers come in and it's not selling
> ...


Right, because their preorder numbers are pretty weak.  They're so bad that I can't even preorder it from GameStop anymore...

You have any figures to share or did you pull the "preorders not selling" bit out your ass?


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 14, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Right, because their preorder numbers are pretty weak. They're so bad that I can't even preorder it from GameStop anymore...
> 
> You have any figures to share or did you pull the "preorders not selling" bit out your ass?


 
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/14/e3-2013-ps4-outpacing-xbox-one-pre-orders


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 14, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Right, because their preorder numbers are pretty weak.  They're so bad that I can't even preorder it from GameStop anymore...
> 
> You have any figures to share or did you pull the "preorders not selling" bit out your ass?


The preorders are doing great now, but before reversing the DRM policies, the PS4 preorder numbers were pummeling the Xbox One preorder numbers.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Aug 14, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/14/e3-2013-ps4-outpacing-xbox-one-pre-orders


Thank you, however, there is no data there.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 14, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> In their defense, Microsoft was the fat 600 lb woman first.


(hopefully I'm calculating from kg correctly) And now that "she" has lost 450 pounds, isn't it time to cut back on the proverbial fatty jokes? 


I'm really wondering...if nintendo had done this controversial "listening to the customer"-thing...would these same people be booing them for changing the wiiu name?


----------



## Lestworth (Aug 14, 2013)

Hmmmmmmm


----------



## Sefi (Aug 14, 2013)

Always good news for a company to recognize their past mistakes, listen to consumers, and make changes for the better.  

However, many people are angrier about Microsoft trying to implement these features in the first place rather than what is current.  They thought they could "get away with it" for lack of a better term, and only reversed on many things after it was clear their sales would be effected enough to warrant changes.


----------



## chavosaur (Aug 14, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> Snippy


You seem to forget how the game community reacts to anything. About anything. Let me fix it for you. 

Consumers: "Hey Microsoft, You're a fucking piece of shit company that deserves to have your family slaughtered in their sleep and I hope you all get lit on fire."
Microsoft: "Sorry you feel that way, but we won't be changing our policies, we believe this is the best direction for our consumers. 

>continued fan feedback and hate

Microsoft: "We have decided due to fan reaction and much feedback, to reverse our policies and listen to the fans we turned our backs on. 
Consumers: "Hey Microsoft, You're a fucking piece of shit company that deserves to have your family slaughtered in their sleep and I hope you all get lit on fire."

The gaming community is full of some of the most ridiculous and hateful people. It'd be nicer if people fucking grew up for a second and realized that Microsoft made mistakes (we can all see and admit that, even they admit it) and they're trying to fix it for their fans. 
It's not a freaking cop out. It's them doing what a company SHOULD DO, instead of doing whatnot company's do. Hold up their middle fingers and not listen to a thing you say.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Aug 14, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Right, because their preorder numbers are pretty weak. They're so bad that I can't even preorder it from GameStop anymore...
> 
> You have any figures to share or did you pull the "preorders not selling" bit out your ass?


 
The Pre-orders weren't selling at first before the changes. PS4 was just absolutely shitting on the Xbox One's Preorder. Hell, in some countries, such as Canada, the fucking Ouya was ahead of the Xbox One. It's only recently that pre-orders have evened out, but still.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 14, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> (hopefully I'm calculating from kg correctly) And now that "she" has lost 450 pounds, isn't it time to cut back on the proverbial fatty jokes?
> 
> 
> I'm really wondering...if nintendo had done this controversial "listening to the customer"-thing...would these same people be booing them for changing the wiiu name?


I never said it was a bad thing that Microsoft made these changes. Take a look at my previous posts here. (I know you're not talking about me specifically, I'm just saying.)

And there's a huge difference between "we're changing the name to something cooler" and "we're finally reversing a bunch of stupid, unnecessary, sometimes anti-consumer policies that we shouldn't have even considered in the first place."

It's certainly a good thing that Microsoft is reversing these policies. But you can't blame people for still being suspicious or angry after all that's went down.


----------



## tj_cool (Aug 14, 2013)

They're slowly removing everything the Xbox One stood for in the first place. 

Removing the Kinect from the box would be a bad move in my opinion.
If the Kinect isn't guaranteed to be at least present, most developers would probably ignore it.
Perhaps it'll be ignored regardless, but at least it has some potential now.
The Xbox One really needs at least some advantages over the PS4 if it wants to sell :/


----------



## Jamstruth (Aug 14, 2013)

This is kind of stupid. They want to push the Kinect as a viable system for gaming (it's not but it would be fun to find out) and without requiring it a lot of the features of the XBone become moot. I actually like the idea of ordering my electronics around without an interface device in my hands.

This is one backtrack where I have to say that people are stupid. People were acting ridiculously paranoid about it "watching their every move" and sending that info the NSA. Newsflash kiddies! Nearly all of you have a laptop. When you turn that laptop on power goes to it's webcam. If you're this paranoid about the fuckin' Kinect then put some tape over your webcam stat!


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 14, 2013)

Devs ignoring the Kinect is a good thing.
I dunno how it could ever be seen as a bad thing. Kinect is retarded, I'm sure there'll still be plenty of devs using it to add horrendous controls to their terrible games, as per the usual.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 14, 2013)

macmanhigh said:


> Seems M$ should have just released the Specs of the Xbox Dumb and Games coming to the system and said nothing else.......
> 
> 
> Its Almost as if we were all trapped in the Twilight Zone


 

And winner for the most hamfisted nickname goes to...

420yolosmokeweedeveryday!

Like might as well call it the "Xbox Poopassbutts" while we're at it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 14, 2013)

So erm...are there actually one launch games that DO utilise the kinect in some way, then? Because if so...I sure as hell missed it from the presentations. All I remember it being was a buttonless remote control. 





xwatchmanx: I know it wasn't you who said it, but I'd rather not have to search and quote about a dozen guys who just keeps blaming microsoft no matter what (heck...I just quoted one just last post).


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 14, 2013)

Hells Malice said:


> Devs ignoring the Kinect is a good thing.
> I dunno how it could ever be seen as a bad thing. Kinect is retarded, I'm sure there'll still be plenty of devs using it to add horrendous controls to their terrible games, as per the usual.


Given this is kinect V2 (supposedly more accurate and lower in latency among things) might that have changed?
Given it represents less of a financial risk for the would be game developer might that change things?
As you are no longer selling "a kinect game" and having to justify the label might the option to focus on conventional controls but maybe have secondary kinect commands (voice, movement, controller recognition....) work?

This could go on for a while but for the time being I shall have to level accusations of your having an ill considered opinion.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Aug 14, 2013)

Jamstruth said:


> This is kind of stupid. They want to push the Kinect as a viable system for gaming (it's not but it would be fun to find out) and without requiring it a lot of the features of the XBone become moot. I actually like the idea of ordering my electronics around without an interface device in my hands.
> 
> This is one backtrack where I have to say that people are stupid. People were acting ridiculously paranoid about it "watching their every move" and sending that info the NSA. Newsflash kiddies! Nearly all of you have a laptop. When you turn that laptop on power goes to it's webcam. If you're this paranoid about the fuckin' Kinect then put some tape over your webcam stat!


 

Upon first glance, I thought you ended that post with "If you're this paranoid about the fuckin' Kinect then put some tape over your webcam *slut*!"...


----------



## Qtis (Aug 14, 2013)

With the Kinect you don't have to get a headset to call someone's mom something inappropriate. As the console can be used Offline, the mandatory Kinect shouldn't be (and IMO in a way, isn't) as bad as people seem to think. 

Somehow I feel kinda mixed with the idea of referring Microsoft as the Devil and all his relatives as some seem to think. Just as well considering the Kinect as a gimmick and something that can't add value is just like a flashback from the Wii launch with "Motion control is a gimmick and Nintendo should feel bad for themselves". Microsoft's gaming division is almost as a hobby for the corporation, almost like AppleTV division is for Apple. Adds revenue, but may not be anywhere near profitable, possibly a zero profit. Just a nice service or something that could add value to people (and drive them to other MS services).


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 14, 2013)

Just for the record, I think Kinect being bundled with every Xbox is a good thing, despite driving up the price. It lends itself to some cool games that are (mostly) traditional in control, but still operate under the pretense that everyone has a Kinect, adding required little Kinect goodies to the experience. Not to mention this means that more AAA games will make use of the Kinect, instead of just casual party games (Kinect sports) or extra optional gimmicks (Dead Space 3).

The problem I have is simply with the required use of Kinect for the OS. It wouldn't bother me personally, but there's no reason to force it on people who don't want it when traditional input methods are just fine. Heck, even the Wii and Wii U, which are entirely built around the concept of motion and second/touch screen controls, have options for navigating the OS through traditional input (sure, some of those options require an additional purchase, but that's beside the point).


----------



## bowser (Aug 14, 2013)

So the Kinect can be disconnected....maybe it should be called the Diskinect?


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 15, 2013)

bowser said:


> So the Kinect can be disconnected....maybe it should be called the Diskinect?


Inb4 Gahars?


----------



## Lestworth (Aug 15, 2013)

Qtis said:


> Somehow I feel kinda mixed with the idea of referring Microsoft as the Devil and all his relatives as some seem to think. Just as well considering the Kinect as a gimmick and something that can't add value is just like a flashback from the Wii launch with "Motion control is a gimmick and Nintendo should feel bad for themselves".


 

Wii's Motion Control was a gimmick ... They didn't even get it correct until the end of its lifecycle, and very little games actually had it nailed down besides First Party. Wii was able to get away with it, because they marketed it so heavy towards the casual market. Id point you towards the wii sales, but thats been abused so dam much. You can find a handfull of games that the "hardcore" market considered good. and another 1200 games that were garbage, or a cash-in.

Microsofts market is a 180 (pun intended) of that market. Their are way more hardcore gamers who support Microsoft, and when the kinetic came out as an attempt to cash in on that market Nintendo death gripped almost everyone groaned. Now we are being forced feed it. Look at the Kinetic games for the 360. As well as the games for PS3. Now remove the remakes of games that were given those functionalists (Example: Heavy rain ( &%$* YOU, SHOULD OF MADE THE 3 REMAINING DLCS!!!!!!) *cough* ) That library SUCKS! So you can understand the skepticism over it.


----------



## Jamstruth (Aug 15, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Upon first glance, I thought you ended that post with "If you're this paranoid about the fuckin' Kinect then put some tape over your webcam *slut*!"...


Hey, I've seen what you do on the weekends. Your makeup needs some serious work before I start calling you that.


----------



## The Milkman (Aug 15, 2013)

Wait. Why are we all mad again? The Kinect thing wasn't even that bad...


----------



## Aqua1234 (Aug 15, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Wait. Why are we all mad again? The Kinect thing wasn't even that bad...


 

It isn't about the Kinect thing, they tried shoving it down our throats. And we reacted, they decided to ignore us then. But now, they realize their mistakes, and try fixing them up..


----------



## The Milkman (Aug 15, 2013)

Aqua1234 said:


> It isn't about the Kinect thing, they tried shoving it down our throats. And we reacted, they decided to ignore us then. But now, they realize their mistakes, and try fixing them up..


 
Which is bad..?


----------



## Aqua1234 (Aug 15, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Which is bad..?


 

Eh, they knew in the first place, how the customers didn't want Kinect. Since it wasn't doing that so well during the Xbox 360 days. Yet, they ignored this and continued. It was obvious that doing this, they would get negative feedback.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Aug 15, 2013)

Aqua1234 said:


> It isn't about the Kinect thing, they tried shoving it down our throats. And we reacted, they decided to ignore us then. But now, they realize their mistakes, and try fixing them up..


 
I know, in fact: My throat is still choking.


----------



## The Milkman (Aug 15, 2013)

Aqua1234 said:


> Eh, they knew in the first place, how the customers didn't want Kinect. Since it wasn't doing that so well during the Xbox 360 days. Yet, they ignored this and continued. It was obvious that doing this, they would get negative feedback.


 
So... doing what people ask... is bad? 

Standing behind your product is bad? 

I'm legit confused.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 15, 2013)

Aqua1234 said:


> Eh, they knew in the first place, how the customers didn't want Kinect. Since it wasn't doing that so well during the Xbox 360 days. Yet, they ignored this and continued. It was obvious that doing this, they would get negative feedback.


 
"Not doing so well," you say? Yeah, no. Approximately one third of all 360 owners have a Kinect. 

You don't have to like the Kinect (for what it's worth, the Kinect is cool technology that's just horribly misapplied as a game peripheral) to recognize that the thing sold pretty damn well. It's easy to see why Microsoft would want to keep pushing it.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 15, 2013)

Gahars said:


> (for what it's worth, the Kinect is cool technology that's just horribly misapplied as a game peripheral)


 
Sounds about right.


----------



## chavosaur (Aug 15, 2013)

The Kinect Reminds me a lot of the wii u game pad in terms of how it's poorly utilized. A lot of Devs probably just don't want to try to implement some kind of Kinect function into their games, as much as most Devs don't want to try and come up with some kind of function for the gamepad. 
Nowadays, the Kinect is usually used for Voice control stuff whenever it's not being used for a fitness game, and the wii u tablet is mostly used for maps and crap instead of finding a lot of functions for it.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Aug 15, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> The Kinect Reminds me a lot of the wii u game pad in terms of how it's poorly utilized. A lot of Devs probably just don't want to try to implement some kind of Kinect function into their games, as much as most Devs don't want to try and come up with some kind of function for the gamepad.
> Nowadays, the Kinect is usually used for Voice control stuff whenever it's not being used for a fitness game, and the wii u tablet is mostly used for maps and crap instead of finding a lot of functions for it.


 
And the Kinect 2.0 will handle quite a bit for us without any effort on our part. Knowing who is holding the controller and signing them into their profile, loading specific user settings, the potential for the player's physical state (heart rate, etc) to be recognized by the game they're playing, removing the need for a headset to communicate online (though one is still packaged). The original Kinect, as Gahars said, is pretty interesting tech but not nearly accurate enough to be utilized in any meaningful way.

I bought the original Kinect once I found a refurb on sale for like $70 a while back. It was neat and all, but noisy and a little inaccurate. It also didn't help that my previous living room was fairly small so I was positioned too damn close to the thing...

Of course, it's still up to the devs to make it useful for gaming.


----------



## takieda (Aug 17, 2013)

Just read the five pages of this, and frankly, I'm kind of appalled. I've seen a lot of MS haters, and MS supporters on both sides of the fence, and the only arguments have been, "MS made a mistake, and they fixed it" with the basic, "YAY, or BOO" response.

Why was it a mistake? Why was the DRM and the "draconian" online every twenty four hours thing such a massive problem? The problem was never MS's policies, and despite popular opinion, they didn't try to FORCE any horrible thing upon us.

What noone here seems to have realized is that they were trying to get ahead of the curve and do things that noone else was doing, and not only do it first, but do it the best way that was reasonably feasible, given the current state of the market.

I think the biggest problem is that MS' marketing wasn't able to (or really wasn't given the ability to) properly explain the benefits of why they were adding these seemingly horrible policies. Believe it or not, there are a large group of people (I count myself amongst them) that have petitioned to have MS reinstate these original policies, to give us back the original features that the Xboxone originally had.

1) Once installed, no game disc ever had to be swapped out. You could simply switch to the next game you wanted to play (kind of like how XBLA already is). While still giving you the sense of owning a real product, they were giving you the ability to use it like a digital download. Face it people, digital distribution is the way of the future, and MS was spearheading this one. in 10 years time we'll all be doing this. And really, on that note, anyone here HATE apple or google for FORCING us to not have a physical copy of the apps/software we bought for their mobile products, or not forcing us to do some dirty physical work to switch between apps and games, etc.?

2) Owner of game unlimited able to play the game from anywhere, regardless of physical location of copy. You could sign onto your own account and begin to start playing the game on someone else's console without having to worry about the original disc, or bringing it anywhere for that matter.

3) Free lending of games in a virtual space. Yes, it required you be a friend to someone for at least 30 days, but it would still allow you to lend someone a game, and that person would be able to play it without you ever having to physically go to them. As simple as sending a text message, your friend could be playing your game while you're not (and there was talk of limited multiplayer capability to go along with this, which would have allowed the owner, plus the receiver of a lent game to play the same game together - think online split screen).

It's late and my brain is starting to hurt from seeing the sheer uninformed vitriol (and frankly unwarranted) cast about here. Some people are being at least honest about things, others are just being plain hipocritical, praising Sony for changing their policies and system between the problems of the PS3 and making the PS4 better, and now MS is doing it in one generation (i.e. seeing what people perceive as problems on the Xbox one and bending to their wishes to make consumers happy), and somehow MS is horrible but Sony is not?

But I will say this... Kinect. I LOVE the kinect - yes, even the first one. The problem isn't so much the device, it's the unfortunate lack of real support for it. For people saying the first one is a failure, someone else mentioned it, but I'll state it again to help to reinforce this fact - the Kinect garnered roughly 30% of the ENTIRE Xbox 360 market. That's one of the largest percentages of a non required peripheral of any console ever (may be the highest, but I'll have to check).

But I bought a Kinect day one, and I've played a few games for it, and frankly, doing some research, finding the games that actually got GOOD reviews and only getting those - I've never had a bad experience with the game, and Yoostar 2 is, perhaps, the most fun party game I've ever played - not properly doable without Kinect.

Now let's take that idea into the next generation. Any of the hardware problems with the first gen have all but been eliminated, and now we're left with a system that requires it to be bought with every system. It is now going to be in 100% of the hands of Xbox one owners. Devs will take this seriously. Devs will give us better games for it. Imagine a real time strategy game that plays like the control system in Minority Report.

Let me say that again. Command and Conquer, or Xcom, or Sid Meier's Civilization, or bloody Total War being controlled with just hand motions (and done well)... This will get me to throw my hard earned cash, en masse, in the general direction of any developer that pulls this off with even half a decent level of accuracy.

How about a boxing game like Ready 2 Rumble, or hell Punch Out, in a pseudo first person perspective? Remember playing Punch Out on NES (or Ready 2 Rumble on Dreamcast or Gamecube), and flinching to one side or the other, and, well, looking completely silly doing it (because it had no real effect). What if you could play a boxing game that is enhanced with Kinect, and you dodging to one side or the other allows a real time dodge. People's reactions can be faster in the physical world, than translating it to the button mashes that we do while playing these games. Or full bore boxing, using the Kinect 2 entirely. I know I'd play it. It just takes triple A devs to take the peripheral seriously to finally push the quality of games using it in the right direction.

And for those of you who have a Kinect and AREN'T enjoying it right now. Play Yoostar 2, Gunstringer, or Child of Eden, for pure Kinect goodness. Or just hook it up to play Skyrim and finally be able to do the real shouts without having to swap between them, etc.).


----------



## Rydian (Aug 17, 2013)

If you buy an object and it has a feature _and you cannot turn that feature off_, then it's a feature that's always-on and forced.


----------



## takieda (Aug 17, 2013)

Rydian said:


> If you buy an object and it has a feature _and you cannot turn that feature off_, then it's a feature that's always-on and forced.


 
Then I suppose the Playstation 1's CD drive was always on and forced. Prior to that, two other consoles had CD drives (TG-16 and Sega CD) but never gained mass market adoption. Playstation came out with it by default, and Nintendo's response was that cartridge's load faster, noone will want to wait on CD's... hence part of the reason Sony's and Nintendo's relationship floundered in the first place. Someone had to MAKE it mandatory for it to be the defacto standard that it is today.

Digital Distribution is the way it's going to be, no matter how much we may whine or cry about it, 10 years from now (maybe less, maybe a little more) there really won't be a need for discs for consoles. Look at the Ouya. As an Android platform all games for it are downloads, no discs at all. Look at the popularity of Steam - all the benefits of the system Microsoft was trying to spearhead in the Xbox One, with about the same downsides - draconian DRMs and all. It's the method ALL phones and tablets use. This is not a "feature" we can just stop. Enough people cried about it so that it's been slowed, but it will happen.


----------



## Rydian (Aug 18, 2013)

takieda said:


> Then I suppose the Playstation 1's CD drive was always on and forced.


Correct.  For official use of the PS1, you loaded games off of discs.  Didn't like discs?  Oh well.



takieda said:


> Digital Distribution is the way it's going to be, no matter how much we may whine or cry about it, 10 years from now (maybe less, maybe a little more) there really won't be a need for discs for consoles.


I don't think you understand the complaints.  People are not complaining about digital distribution.  People were complaining about the DRM.



takieda said:


> Look at the popularity of Steam - all the benefits of the system Microsoft was trying to spearhead in the Xbox One, with about the same downsides - draconian DRMs and all.


You might want to try using Steam before repeating the crap that other people have been telling you.






Offline mode disconnects Steam from the network indefinitely.

Steam (and other existing methods of digital game distribution) function just fine, including features like installing the same games to multiple machines... without always-online and mandatory check-ins.

*When Microsoft said it was "required", they really meant "We don't trust the user to have these features without invasive and restrictive DRM".*


----------



## takieda (Aug 18, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Correct. For official use of the PS1, you loaded games off of discs. Didn't like discs? Oh well.


 
And that's the whole point - MS is trying to create a new system for consoles. This methodology, this entire ecosystem does not exist yet, so SOMEONE had to start here. It's sad that noone can see the benefits. It's also sad that we live in a world where those benefits have to come at the cost of some things that, in the end, almost noone would really ever even notice. Yes, there are exceptions, and MS had already stated they'd work with anybody that could not have an always on connection, or any other limitation. MS is NOT about to stab its userbase in the back. Everyone keeps saying MS is greedy, MS just wants money. Guess what, so does Sony. They're both out to make money. And you know how that happens? Keeping the userbase happy, aka, listening to their audience. Now it seems enough of the core audience HATED the basic policies that were coming along with the benefits they were trying to introduce, so they listened and adjusted accordingly.



> I don't think you understand the complaints. People are not complaining about digital distribution. People were complaining about the DRM.


 
Because they didn't WANT to see the benefits through the perceived threat of the DRM. I can't tell you the number of arguments I've gotten over the FUD that Snowden has spread, and all the useless statements people keep quoting as if they have some great source of perfect knowledge about how the government is spying on us and Google just wants to sell all our information for huge profits, etc. The implications on all these points are STAGGERING, and the fact that DRM is needed should have come as NO surprise, esp. to those of us on forums like these.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like DRM, in fact my GoG account is getting larger than my Steam account, but I cannot discount the benefits of a system like Steam, and what MS would have had in the Xbox One had a bunch of misinformed consumers not got their panties in a twist about it.



> You might want to try using Steam before repeating the crap that other people have been telling you.


 


> Offline mode disconnects Steam from the network indefinitely.


I've already stated my point on this. You still need to be online to install, and yes, I know that's still better than the DRM structure that the Xbox One was to release on. I am, however, sorrowfully underinformed here, but what were the DRM policies that Steam had when it first started, and how have they changed as their own market changed? I could be wrong, but it makes sense that it probably had a stronger enforcement of the DRM policies when it was first released.

Let's also understand something. MS did NOT just say, "you know what? We need DRM. Let's just make it as Big Brother as possible." No, instead, the publishers of all the third party games that were going to have to have anything to do with the Xbox One all had to come to a concensus of what they would agree to before they'd allow MS to have their games. I'd be willing to bet the DRM structure was a lot more simplified BEFORE the developers started making their demands.

Oh, and remember something else. MS has stated that their first party games will not have the DRM system's that they've mentioned in place, ever, on the Xbox One, but that publishers had the right to require and implement any system they effectively chose. Sony's little E3 Press conference, where they showed how to share games, you know the one that got everyone suddenly wanting a PS4? Did anyone even NOTICE the very next day at E3, that Sony made the statement that publishers had the same rights to adding DRM that the Xbox One third party publishers had? at the end of all this, the basic system is almost identical.



> Steam (and other existing methods of digital game distribution) function just fine, including features like installing the same games to multiple machines... without always-online and mandatory check-ins.


 
Except you still need to be online to install the first time. Steam has been in this game a long time, and it has worked well for them. They've learned what does and does not work on a PC environment. Which is to say, in the realm of consoles, we're still not tested at all here. MS was NOT trying to alienate it's customers here. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that they hurt themselves big time over their statements, but it was NEVER their intent to do so. The whole point was to implement a system that would provide enough benefits to outweigh, if not far outweigh, the downsides of that system. Just like implementing CDs, DVDs, and eventually Blu-Ray into the whole system, while providing enormous amounts of space, each itteration has introduced longer load times, scratched discs, dirty read heads, failed read lasers, and a number of other problems that previous models weren't plagued with (okay the dirty read head could be similar enough to dirty pins, but you get my point here).

I'm willing to bet that if they had stuck to their guns, and the backlash hadn't been as bad as it was, that, while there WOULD be those that would be negatively impacted by the newly implemented features, and thus, restrictions, that MS would have changed things to work out in ways that would have HELPED their customer base be more loyal customers. MS and Sony both know this. They're both HUGE players in the industry. As much as I've seen people talk about companies wanting to get the quick buck, Sony and MS are NOT stupid enough to stab themselves in the foot to implement features that would pay off big in the beginning but would end up hurting them in the long run.



> *When Microsoft said it was "required", they really meant "We don't trust the user to have these features without invasive and restrictive DRM".*


 
See above statement about what Microsoft was NOT doing. We live in a capitalistic world. The system works best with money lubricating all the gears and cogs. If the system came out as originally planned, and made money, then we'd all be better for it. If the system did not make money, MS would have changed whatever issues necessary to make it a profitable one, once again. This is how the system works. It's not big brother trying to keep us under their almighty heel.


----------



## takieda (Aug 18, 2013)

I just sat and reread what I've stated... I don't really want to edit it, as the statements hold true, at least from what I understand, but I do feel an apology is warranted. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as crass or rude here. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and if you don't like the DRM then that is your choice. Enough people spoke up against my own opinion that the market changed to reflect that, so I stand in the minority here. I just hope that some can see, at least the points of what I've tried to say.

Once again, I'm sorry Rydian for anything I've said in anger, and to anyone else I may have offended.


----------



## Rydian (Aug 18, 2013)

The problem with half of your opinion is that _it's based on lies you've been told_.  The DRM is not in any way a technical requirement to use said fetures (as shown by other services that have these features without the DRM).  If you need to be online to download something, that's not DRM.  _That's_ a technical requirement.

Microsoft did not remove the extra features because they wouldn't work without the DRM.  Microsoft removed the extra features _of their own free will_.


----------



## Xotadi (Aug 18, 2013)

Prevention is better than cure - Seems to fit perfectly with the situation, huh? I understand why DRM exists and I am not totally against it, however I have yet to find a case where pirates have not bypassed the DRM so it just ends up hurting the legit user.


----------



## takieda (Aug 18, 2013)

Rydian said:


> The problem with half of your opinion is that _it's based on lies you've been told_. The DRM is not in any way a technical requirement to use said fetures (as shown by other services that have these features without the DRM). If you need to be online to download something, that's not DRM. _That's_ a technical requirement.


 
I'm not sure I made my previous statement about Steam clear on this. If you install a game that requires Steam, such as Skyrim, it still requires you to be online to install it. While this is not as severe as the 24 hour requirement that MS had stated, it is still part of the DRM that has been implemented to allow such a feature. Bethesda would not have worked with Steam if there was no copy protection schema, hence the reason Steam has its own form of DRM.

Also, to clarify, I know that DRM is not required to allow a program to function at all, it's just that the developers (MS as well as third party) will not allow their IPs to be put onto a device without DRM. Sony has its own DRM structure, as does Nintendo, and now that MS has changed their stance, it falls much more in line with the other major players. Just as a personal opinion though, I'd have preferred the heavier DRM and no real extra restrictions on me, for the benefits that they would have had implemented as a result of said DRM.



> Microsoft did not remove the extra features because they wouldn't work without the DRM. Microsoft removed the extra features _of their own free will_.


 
And Microsoft had to remove those features, or third party developers would have jumped ship. Remember that the developers have a large part to do with why the DRM was set as seemingly restrictive as it was. As a developer, they would not allow their games to be put onto a console that allowed free reign of unlimited offline installs. Yes, MS removed those features of their own free will, because, ultimately, they can do what they want with their hardware and software, but if they'd not removed the features, but just removed the DRM instead, they'd have lost a LOT of developers (if not all). And before it gets said, I know that Microsoft has a lot of weight at these table discussions, but at the end of the day the third party developer has the ultimate ability to walk away from the table. Look at the developers that jumped ship from the DS when they saw piracy skyrocketing. Developers like Ubisoft (if I remember correctly) flatly stated they would produce no more games for a console so riddled with pirates.

On a somewhat related note, look at what Nintendo's having to deal with with the loss of several developers for the WiiU (due to dismal sales of the hardware, admittedly, but it still fits in this desciption). They're pushing to get a bunch of great first party titles out the door. Only time will tell if that ultimately saves the WiiU.


----------



## takieda (Aug 18, 2013)

Xotadi said:


> Prevention is better than cure - Seems to fit perfectly with the situation, huh? I understand why DRM exists and I am not totally against it, however I have yet to find a case where pirates have not bypassed the DRM so it just ends up hurting the legit user.


Honestly, I've not heard of any statements about GoG.com's success compared to the current climate of DRM riddled games. I'd love to hear about it, as that would, ultimately, give developer's a better sense of how an educated consumer market feels about DRM in general.

I have little hope that this will turn any tides, though, as the whole DRM free music strategy that iTunes took ultimately didn't receive the reaction that a lot of people were expecting. There's been no paradigm shift towards a DRM free music system, and instead, iTunes remains the only marketplace to have DRM free music (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have apple devices, but would still love to purchase my music DRM free).


----------



## qaz00 (Aug 18, 2013)

takieda said:


> I have little hope that this will turn any tides, though, as the whole DRM free music strategy that iTunes took ultimately didn't receive the reaction that a lot of people were expecting. There's been no paradigm shift towards a DRM free music system, and instead, iTunes remains the only marketplace to have DRM free music (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have apple devices, but would still love to purchase my music DRM free).


 
Apart from Amazon MP3 (DRM Free MP3), Google Play (DRM Free MP3), Xbox Music/Zune Market (DRM Free MP3, Some DRMed WMA), and many smaller stores (infact, the only stores still using DRM are Napster and Rhapsody AFAIK, and they use PlaysForSure WMA).

So no, iTunes is not the only marketplace to provide DRM free music, far from it infact.



takieda said:


> I'm not sure I made my previous statement about Steam clear on this. If you install a game that requires Steam, such as Skyrim, it still requires you to be online to install it.


 
That is a lie, Steam quite happily installs games from manual file copies or a manually migrated steamapps folder whilst offline (it may also do steambackups, I have never tried), so you may wish to check your facts  
(Yes, I know that the initial add to account requires you to be online, as does updating your client's local games list & authorisation data.)


----------



## takieda (Aug 18, 2013)

qaz00 said:


> Apart from Amazon MP3 (DRM Free MP3), Google Play (DRM Free MP3), Xbox Music/Zune Market (DRM Free MP3, Some DRMed WMA), and many smaller stores (infact, the only stores still using DRM are Napster and Rhapsody AFAIK, and they use PlaysForSure WMA).
> 
> So no, iTunes is not the only marketplace to provide DRM free music, far from it infact.


 
Thank you very much for this. I was quite unawares.



> That is a lie, Steam quite happily installs games from manual file copies or a manually migrated steamapps folder whilst offline (it may also do steambackups, I have never tried), so you may wish to check your facts


 
I will grant, I don't have a large array of Steam based hard copy games at my disposal, but attempting to install Skyrim, at the least, without an internet connection, fails, as you need to use the CD Key to activate the software. It will not finalize install without this, thus requiring an internet connection, thus DRM.

Also, my copy of Left 4 Dead 2 requires an internet connection for installation from physical media, for the same reason.

Steam's own support document specifically states that games need to be updated online to be able to play in offline mode. Perhaps there are some games without this requirement, but Steam specifically states that they need to be online, at least once, to be able to play offline.


----------



## qaz00 (Aug 18, 2013)

takieda said:


> I will grant, I don't have a large array of Steam based hard copy games at my disposal, but attempting to install Skyrim, at the least, without an internet connection, fails, as you need to use the CD Key to activate the software. It will not finalize install without this, thus requiring an internet connection, thus DRM.
> 
> Also, my copy of Left 4 Dead 2 requires an internet connection for installation from physical media, for the same reason.
> 
> Steam's own support document specifically states that games need to be updated online to be able to play in offline mode. Perhaps there are some games without this requirement, but Steam specifically states that they need to be online, at least once, to be able to play offline.


 
I have never tried to install a Steam enabled game from physical media (I have a couple, but my gaming laptop has no DVD drive - 2nd HDD instead, and I have 60mbps internet) so cannot comment, however I have manually copied Skyrim between a pair of Steam installs (both my account, both offline, both knew I owned Skyrim) and it worked fine.


----------



## takieda (Aug 18, 2013)

qaz00 said:


> I have never tried to install a Steam enabled game from physical media (I have a couple, but my gaming laptop has no DVD drive - 2nd HDD instead, and I have 60mbps internet) so cannot comment, however I have manually copied Skyrim between a pair of Steam installs (both my account, both offline, both knew I owned Skyrim) and it worked fine.


Then the basic principle of the DRM has already been enacted, which is to say, you installed the game, at one point, from an online download, through Steam, which has been verified, online, using their DRM system. The fact that you can copy the game from one computer to another on the same Steam account (or rather two Steam accounts with legal copies of Skyrim - which is, in this case, almost the same thing), while offline, does not affect that statement.


----------



## qaz00 (Aug 18, 2013)

takieda said:


> Then the basic principle of the DRM has already been enacted, which is to say, you installed the game, at one point, from an online download, through Steam, which has been verified, online, using their DRM system. The fact that you can copy the game from one computer to another on the same Steam account (or rather two Steam accounts with legal copies of Skyrim - which is, in this case, almost the same thing), while offline, does not affect that statement.


I argue that "installing" (writing the software to a local piece of storage and creating the required configuration and registry entries) is different from "purchasing"/"activating" (obtaining the software in your account in the first place, either via Steam store or physical copy with a steamkey). I can still install (or copy - as far as I'm concerned, they are two words for the same thing, and they have the same end result) Skyrim to a system with a Steam install that has been logged into by me without an internet connection.

I agree that all DRM is a pain in the arse, and even Steam has restrictive DRM (it's just not that annoying, it's just enough to keep the honest people honest - it stops me copying Skyrim and giving it to a friend who does not own it.)


----------



## Rydian (Aug 18, 2013)

takieda said:


> I will grant, I don't have a large array of Steam based hard copy games at my disposal, but attempting to install Skyrim, at the least, without an internet connection, fails, as you need to use the CD Key to activate the software. It will not finalize install without this, thus requiring an internet connection, thus DRM.


Steam itself doesn't use CD keys, if you had to enter a key that was Bethesda's DRM (and Steam just uses it's own interface to confirm it with the data Bethesda gave them).

That said, one-time activation is normal and to be expected, and people can easily work with that.
Not so for always-on.  That's not normal (outside of MMOs), and gets in the way.


----------

