Xbox One Update

[Raz316]

and it strikes me as quite possible, the previous announcement wasn't actually a decided policy but a bit of marketing kite-flying designed to test reaction and gauge if they could get away with it. And they noticed that it would be vastly damaging.

I think this too because I can't imagine they wouldn't think people would have something to say about it.

While it's a good thing that MS have back tracked, I can't help but feel that they undeservedly have the opportunity to so. Their leading thoughts on DRM were so anti consumer it was atrocious. I feel they had the opportunity to balance things up but no, they went as hard as possible to label all customers as potential pirates. I bet they thought "OK, this is viscous DRM, but our research predicts that Sony are going to have measures X, Y and Z in place, so we can push things by at least 33%".

Likewise, in the lead up, I think Sony had an opportunity to think "OK, Microsoft will at the very least do A, B and C, so we can get away with..." but it seems (to me) that they didn't. It seems that they considered and placed more trust in their consumers directly, than their considerations about the Xbox One. Well done Sony, I am thankful for your approach.

The irritating thing is, Microsoft's original plan can now disappear and never be mentioned again. I don't like that their reconsideration attempted to make out like they "think about and care" about their customers. Obviously I know that Sony's plan too was naturally profit related, but it certainly doesn't seem like a "what can we get away with" plan.

[Agent]

Yes, but I presume you wouldn't be turning it off at the wall if you wanted to actually use the Xbox

Ahh, think I misread slightly. I thought you were suggesting that it had a separate power supply (which did make me wonder!) and not to just unplug the entire thing

[kalniel]

Ahh, think I misread slightly. I thought you were suggesting that it had a separate power supply (which did make me wonder!) and not to just unplug the entire thing

hehe yeah I was kind of addressing the concerns (stated elsewhere than Hexus) about consoles being used to spy on you in every day life when you weren't playing games. Worries about what they do with your data when you're actually playing a game that uses a camera are something else, but hardly unique to the Xbone. I don't see the same furore over phones with front facing cameras for example, and they've been around for ages now.

[Saracen]

hehe yeah I was kind of addressing the concerns (stated elsewhere than Hexus) about consoles being used to spy on you in every day life when you weren't playing games. Worries about what they do with your data when you're actually playing a game that uses a camera are something else, but hardly unique to the Xbone. I don't see the same furore over phones with front facing cameras for example, and they've been around for ages now.

Front-facing phone cameras aren't quite the same, though, are they?

Where does the Kinect camera face when not in use? Into your lounge, or in many cases, bedroom.

But what video will they get from a phone most of the time? ...

- the lint in your pocket, or
- a macro view of the table, when face down, or
- an excellent panorama of your ceiling, if face up.

Nonetheless, it still is a bit of a concern, but not of the same order as the Kinect.

I wonder what'll happen the first time a hacker manages to access an always-on Kinect, and activate the camera, and catch something .... erm .... that it shouldn't. It brings a whole new meaning to amateur porn, doesn't it?

[TheAnimus]

Same thing I do with webcams, a little bit of bluetack or a flap type cover.

Or in the case of the Xbox1, if I do get one, it will be switched off when not in use, we've only got one planet and all that. Would probably cost a fortune if left on. My TV/Reciever/BluRay/etc cost about £100 per year to be on standby.

[ZaO]

Is anyone actually worried about that? You can always turn it off at the wall or just put something over the camera/point it at the wall if you're paranoid.

No, no one is worried about that. Only me. I'm the only one that's concerned they want to use the Xbox to spy on people. Because really it makes perfect sense that you have to have to kinect plugged in to use the console.

[kalniel]

I wonder what'll happen the first time a hacker manages to access an always-on Kinect, and activate the camera, and catch something .... erm .... that it shouldn't. It brings a whole new meaning to amateur porn, doesn't it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967622

[Saracen]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967622

Not, as I understand it, Kinect hacking, but my guess it's it's a matter of time. But in general, re: that link, yes, exactly.

I've said before I have two networks, one net-connected, and one entirely isolated. Guess which one has all my private, sensitive data on? That data is business-related, it's finance-related, it's family-related, it's health-related, and so on. None of it is hugely valuable or terribly interesting, but nonetheless, it's private.

I think we all take too much of the implications of a lot of technology without really even giving it a thought .... like the lady that noticed someone had remote-activated her webcam while she was laptop-websurfing in the bath. Ditto phones, tablets, etc. And even smartphones are a potential privacy disaster, because they gather information most people don't think about.

If people think, and decide the risk is worth taking, or the intrusion worth putting up with, then fair enough. But I doubt most people ever really think about it, or are aware of some of the risks, like the lady in her bath, again.

I no doubt go further than most people would to protect my privacy. But that's merely my choice, by my criteria and values. I am at least aware of (most of) the risks, and take my decisions accordingly, rather than just blithely accepting all tech changes without even thinking about it.

[shaithis]

I think this too because I can't imagine they wouldn't think people would have something to say about it.

While it's a good thing that MS have back tracked, I can't help but feel that they undeservedly have the opportunity to so. Their leading thoughts on DRM were so anti consumer it was atrocious.

Yeah, they were going to put a model in place that meant games would be cheaper and you would effectively get 2 licenses per purchase. How anti-consumer of them.

The problem is/was that they never really communicated the rules properly and then the keyboard warriors went mental.

And of course, consoles attract fanboys.......the amount of FUD floating around since the reveals is quite astounding.

[Raz316]

Yeah, they were going to put a model in place that meant games would be cheaper and you would effectively get 2 licenses per purchase. How anti-consumer of them.

"would be cheaper"
COULD be cheaper

"2 licenses per purchase"
I'm fuzzy on the details of this. I knew you could share you game license with "family" but still, it's a license to play something, you don't own anything other than a right to play that will almost certainly not last forever. You lose your internet connection for a day or two, no you can't play. Wanna take your console somewhere without an internet connection, no. Our systems for verification are down, sorry you can't play until it's fixed. It's anti consumer. Anything that creates a barrier for the way a consumer wants to consume their purchases is anti consumer.

For what it's worth, I do love the idea of being able to share a game with my brother who is a 2 and a half hour drive away. But everything else that goes (well, went) with it was horrible. It's like putting a minefield round a supermarket to stop shop lifters.

[shaithis]

"would be cheaper"
COULD be cheaper

"2 licenses per purchase"
I'm fuzzy on the details of this. I knew you could share you game license with "family" but still, it's a license to play something, you don't own anything other than a right to play that will almost certainly not last forever. You lose your internet connection for a day or two, no you can't play. Wanna take your console somewhere without an internet connection, no. Our systems for verification are down, sorry you can't play until it's fixed. It's anti consumer. Anything that creates a barrier for the way a consumer wants to consume their purchases is anti consumer.

For what it's worth, I do love the idea of being able to share a game with my brother who is a 2 and a half hour drive away. But everything else that goes (well, went) with it was horrible. It's like putting a minefield round a supermarket to stop shop lifters.

You lose your electricity for a day, you still can't play. Break your console, you can't play. You DVD drive breaks, you cant play.....hell YOUR GAME DISK breaks....you cannot play! There are no guarantees you can play....on any platform, including PC. An internet connection is just another service with equipment that gaming increasingly relies upon.

The original model meant any 2 of the 10 people on your family list could be playing any game at any time, anywhere. I.e. effectively 2 license per game.

That is now gone, as is the entire steam online model. So, the option of having cheaper games that cannot be resold is gone. Choice is gone. In the original plan, it was up to content publishers to decide if they wanted to allow resales, they could even have chosen to sell the same game at 2 different prices....one with resale, the other without.

Until today, the original plan meant you could have shared your entire games library with your brother, with both of you playing simultaneously on one set of licenses. Now you will each have to purchase a copy each and they will almost certainly be more expensive then it would have been under the previous plan.

IMO, Microsoft should have done a lot more to communicate this, instead they put it on a webpage and went quiet as thousands of keyboard warriors took to the internet....then the (clueless) media picked up on it, add in the fanboys posting FUD and microsoft has felt the need to make a knee-jerk reaction......to which they must be thinking "People are stupid"

[Saracen]

You lose your electricity for a day, you still can't play. Break your console, you can't play. You DVD drive breaks, you cant play.....hell YOUR GAME DISK breaks....you cannot play! There are no guarantees you can play....on any platform, including PC. An internet connection is just another service with equipment that gaming increasingly relies upon.

The original model meant any 2 of the 10 people on your family list could be playing any game at any time, anywhere. I.e. effectively 2 license per game.

That is now gone, as is the entire steam online model. So, the option of having cheaper games that cannot be resold is gone. Choice is gone. In the original plan, it was up to content publishers to decide if they wanted to allow resales, they could even have chosen to sell the same game at 2 different prices....one with resale, the other without.

Until today, the original plan meant you could have shared your entire games library with your brother, with both of you playing simultaneously on one set of licenses. Now you will each have to purchase a copy each and they will almost certainly be more expensive then it would have been under the previous plan.

IMO, Microsoft should have done a lot more to communicate this, instead they put it on a webpage and went quiet as thousands of keyboard warriors took to the internet....then the (clueless) media picked up on it, add in the fanboys posting FUD and microsoft has felt the need to make a knee-jerk reaction......to which they must be thinking "People are stupid"

What it amounts to is that they offered some benefits, and took away some aspects people are used to.

So it's a value judgement, isn't it. Personally, I don't give a flying fig whether my brother can play the game I bought. He wants it, he'll buy it. I DO give a flying fig when I can't play the game I bought because MS won't let me. They want me to buy (an expensive) console, then buy games, and THEN I can only play them at their discretion? No way in hell.

If few people took that perspective, there would be no consumer backlash, and it is disingenuous to dismiss everyone objecting to this as merely a keyboard warrior because the fact is, you aren't them, and don't know what they value and what they don't. A lot of people object to Steam, but it's a small proportion and Steam is still there .... and some of us are not buying games that require it. MS had that option, but they read the anger and took a different course. Fact remains, with the old scheme, I was not, under any circumstances, buying an XB One, now or ever. If MS felt enough people felt that. and there's certainly a lot saying it, then they had to make up their mind what their customers valued, and what they didn't. And personally, I don't value the benefits anything like enough to be prepared to buy a console that lost me what I used to have.

[shaithis]

What it amounts to is that they offered some benefits, and took away some aspects people are used to.

And so many of them are too dumb to realise the benefits and just concentrated on the negatives, in many cases due to FUD spread on the net and in media.

So it's a value judgement, isn't it. Personally, I don't give a flying fig whether my brother can play the game I bought. He wants it, he'll buy it. I DO give a flying fig when I can't play the game I bought because MS won't let me. They want me to buy (an expensive) console, then buy games, and THEN I can only play them at their discretion? No way in hell.

You are an anomaly though. Your the person who goes overboard on privacy and online requirements. That's cool though, each to his own, but the vast majority of potential owners do not share your requirements. And if you want proof of that, check out how many games per day are sold on steam.

If few people took that perspective, there would be no consumer backlash, and it is disingenuous to dismiss everyone objecting to this as merely a keyboard warrior because the fact is, you aren't them, and don't know what they value and what they don't. A lot of people object to Steam, but it's a small proportion and Steam is still there .... and some of us are not buying games that require it. MS had that option, but they read the anger and took a different course. Fact remains, with the old scheme, I was not, under any circumstances, buying an XB One, now or ever. If MS felt enough people felt that. and there's certainly a lot saying it, then they had to make up their mind what their customers valued, and what they didn't. And personally, I don't value the benefits anything like enough to be prepared to buy a console that lost me what I used to have.

Microsoft made a knee-jerk reaction due to media...it was pretty obvious. I heard the story on the radio at least 3 times yesterday for crying out loud....and then again today based on the changes. Even many of our forum members have been spouting off about the limits....not many of them had read the licensing rules and knew about shared libraries.....tells me all I need to know.

Oh and did not say everyone objecting was a keyboard warrior, I said the keyboard warrior took to the net and that caused the media to pick it up. Very different.

[jim]

You are an anomaly though. Your the person who goes overboard on privacy and online requirements. That's cool though, each to his own, but the vast majority of potential owners do not share your requirements. And if you want proof of that, check out how many games per day are sold on steam.

I don't disagree, but it's not just Saracen. I love Steam, on exactly the same basis that he dislikes it - for me, no disks, cheaper games and automatic patching are a massive bonus.

On my console though, not so much. That's more of a toy, that I boot up every so often. I buy games, get rid, try not to lose too much money on each because I expect to not enjoy them all that much. I borrow them, swap them, try other people's games.

I don't have a problem with the concept in theory, but it's just not going to work on a console the same way it does on my PC.

And I also don't trust the console manufacturers to follow through with the cost benefit that comes with Steam. You seem very confident that they will pass on the savings, but I'm not convinced. Right now you can fairly easily pick up a relatively new game on Steam for under £10, yet on the PS Store the downloadable games cost an absolutely ridiculous amount of money. It's exactly the same kind of deal, games tied to a single account and so on, yet I don't see any saving whatsoever - let alone one in line with Steam.

[Saracen]

And so many of them are too dumb to realise the benefits and just concentrated on the negatives, in many cases due to FUD spread on the net and in media.....

Maybe ... but it's really impossible to know, at least in regard to a lot. Even those expressing themselves very inelegantly may hold the same view as me, but be inelegant in expressing it.

....

You are an anomaly though. Your the person who goes overboard on privacy and online requirements. That's cool though, each to his own, but the vast majority of potential owners do not share your requirements. And if you want proof of that, check out how many games per day are sold on steam. ....

Agreed on the anomaly. Nice way of putting it, by the way.

What we don't know, though, is how many people won't use Steam. Or do, but only because they have to to get the games they want. Some people use Steam because they like the benefits. Some because they have no choice if they want the game.

And .... consoles aren't Steam, because it doesn't cost you several hundred pounds to but the gear you need to use Steam.

....

Microsoft made a knee-jerk reaction due to media...it was pretty obvious. I heard the story on the radio at least 3 times yesterday for crying out loud....and then again today based on the changes. Even many of our forum members have been spouting off about the limits....not many of them had read the licensing rules and knew about shared libraries.....tells me all I need to know.

Oh and did not say everyone objecting was a keyboard warrior, I said the keyboard warrior took to the net and that caused the media to pick it up. Very different.

But we don't know it was knee-jerk. As I said before, it could have been MS kite-flying when they proposed it in the first place.

Personally, I don't even need to read the licensing rules on this one. If I had to connect every 24 hours, that fact and that alone was enough to mean I wasn't buying. Why? Because I regularly use the X360 when I go away, and then, I do not have access to the net connection. There is not one in the house, because most of the time, I'm not there to use it even if I paid for it. No net connection, no point in the XBox. Simplez.

And because someone, anyone, vocally expresses opposition on the net doesn't automatically make them a keyboard warrior. It may simply be that many, most of even all of them knew what they saw and knew they didn't like it. We don't know why people say what they say, do we?

[Saracen]

.... Your the person who goes overboard on privacy and online requirements. That's cool though, each to his own, ....

But is it overboard?

It might be to you. But all it really is is that I've thought about privacy, and I highly value mine. And I will go out of my way to protect that which I value.

Perhaps you are underboard? The difference in stance suggests that either you haven't thought about it (and I doubt that), or you don't value it as highly as I do.

But ..... who's to say that in 5 years, or 25 years, you won't be wishing you'd been a bit more guarded about privacy?

My stance is simple. I know I cannot keep absolute privacy, so I don't worry about that. But I also know that I can do some things to keep information off the net, and more especially, out of corporate hands, and that if I relax that, if I let them get ANYTHING, once they've got it, they've got it for good. I can always change my mind and ease up, but you can't .... if you're lax about privacy now, it's gone forever, even if you come to regret it. Not that you necessarily will, just that you might.

So perhaps it's not me being "overboard", but you being "reckless" with privacy.

I would also point out, just for clarity, that my stance of the XBox and my stance on privacy aren't the same thing. There might be an overlap, but it's a small one. They're really different issues, and one is principle, one pragmatism.