Gaming Microsoft Completely Changed Its Xbox One Strategy

[Dan]

But it was like that before they reverse it.

Read what I say and follow the link before speaking. You have added nothing to this conversation.

 

[FireCat]

Whatever..
In order to play your games you have to have an internet connection. The Xbox one has to check your license keys every 24 hours! And what about the "fees" for letting a friend "borrow a game and the fees for playing a used game.". eh?

In the beginning, there was the Plan!

Btw: I'll never buy the Xbox One or any for the matter. They Just screw you over!

 

[Dan]

Right... because checking in every 24 hours is super inconvenient?

The company added that “Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.”

After signing in and installing, you can play any of your games from any Xbox One because a digital copy of your game is stored on your console and in the cloud. So, for example, while you are logged in at your friend’s house, you can play your games.

This is reasonable stuff folks. If a console was to be marketed today without online connectivity as an option, it wouldn't sell a single unit. Long gone are the days of N64 and the like.

I'm completely fine with the market dictating how Microsoft can run their affairs, and competition pushing them to rethink their live service; however, I still believe that people get very up-in-arms about things that aren't really that bad. People tend to be extremists. There are pros and cons to everything! Don't forget that. With the shift they are making, there are now things that won't be possible. Something to ponder!!!

 

[Dave312]

Right... because checking in every 24 hours is super inconvenient?

It is if you don't have an internet connection or are currently having issues with your internet.
I have a PS3 and don't bother to connect it to the internet. I don't have the time to play video games on any sort of serious basis (I only play casually and can easily go months without playing any games) and my internet connection is too crap to play online anyway. The connection requirement probably won't be an issue for hardcore gamers, but for casual gamers it can be very inconvenient.

 

[camelCase]

Which is Dan's main point. It's only an issue because many people have crap internet. Okay, one of his points =P

This was just introduced at the wrong time. Like with MS and its tablet.. Too early. And they also marketed it wrong. They weren't clear enough.

 

[Accname]

Nothing is inconvenient with that. That is not the problem i have with it.
Its about the principles.

 

[Dan]

Nothing is inconvenient with that. That is not the problem i have with it.
Its about the principles.

I'll never understand the "principles" debate when it comes to companies... Everything they do is for money. If you want it to be a certain way you simply need to show them that what they plan on doing is not going to work for them monetarily... like say, buying PS4 instead... which is why they decided to change their practices.

Nothing here is based on principles, my friend. Companies EXIST for the reason to earn money. xbox one will do what it can to meet us on that front and that front alone.

 

[Accname]

I'll never understand the "principles" debate when it comes to companies... Everything they do is for money. If you want it to be a certain way you simply need to show them that what they plan on doing is not going to work for them monetarily... like say, buying PS4 instead... which is why they decided to change their practices.

Nothing here is based on principles, my friend. Companies EXIST for the reason to earn money. xbox one will do what it can to meet us on that front and that front alone.

Thats not correct. If that was the case, sony would just have been doing the same as microsoft had planned.
There are enough examples of companies not doing certain things although they might provide a greater monetary gain to them. Some things are just immoral.

 

[Dan]

Thats not correct. If that was the case, sony would just have been doing the same as microsoft had planned.
There are enough examples of companies not doing certain things although they might provide a greater monetary gain to them. Some things are just immoral.

Sony has no leverage. They got hacked and had to take their online service down for several months last year, they never sold their projected units, and have been having a rough time ever since the disaster in Japan. They made a smart decision as a company to go simple and not get in over their heads. This is the year that Sony has to prove that it can be the "gamers' console" and if they can't then they drop out of the race forever.

Had Sony been in a different state, and had a good online service already, they might have gone a similar route as Microsoft did. You have to remember also that Microsoft already is a company that offers services. Sony hardly has any services. Sony is a company that banks on product sales.

Also, there is nothing IMMORAL about making an online connection mandatory once every 24 hours. It may be inconvenient, which has been the case. They decided that they didn't want to continue with that inconvenience because Sony seems to be beating them in product polls and the such. It's not a matter of principle. It's just sales.

 

[Accname]

It is immoral in my opinion if you consider what it is for.

And sony wasnt in that bad of a spot as you make it sound. If both went for equal terms of service i would still predict a 50/50 share between the xbox and the ps4.

 

[Varine]

I can't remember where I heard this but it seems accurate: Microsoft took a gamble with this, hoping that the PS4 would also have a draconian used games policy, but when it turns out that the PS4 doesn't view its customers with complete contempt, Microsoft was out of luck. They gambled and failed, and now they're paying for it.

You mean Sony, the company that installed a rootkit to stop you from making copies of your music files?

 

[Sim]

I can hardly imagine what would have happened if both companies went with the no-used games policy. A lot of outcry, maybe, and millions of additional Wii U sold.

 

[Varine]

They would take losses for the generation, then it would become more or less standard.