also, let's look at this from another point of view. what's the point of buying single player games, if all i have to do is wait for one of my xbox live buddies to get bored of it? I'd think this would hurt the industry more than used sales. it'd also force devs to always shoe-horn in some type of multiplayer component, even for campaigns.

All they would do is put a limit on how long you can borrow it just like Blockbuster did so many years ago. They can DRM the DRM all they like once they fully implement this system.

If Microsoft were smart they would have left physical disc licensing as it is
and announced all the good news related to strong DRM-style licensing for download only games

"We will allow you to share downloaded games with up to 10 friends" would have been an PR coup!

You wouldn't mean something like....

So obviously, I don't understand how all of this works exactly. If you have a game from disc, then you shouldn't be able to lend digitally. If you've downloaded a game from the cloud, then you should be able to. So if you digitally lend the game to your friend, then you should be effectively locked out from the game, until your friend gives it back. Why can't this work without (the check-in once a day) DRM?

And replace lock-out with "let 10 friends play".

Once again, Microsoft PR and marketing is completely incompetent. Pretty much every time they said something, things got worse. I don't think there was any way to recover. They allowed the competition to deliver the message about what the Xbox was more than they did.

The only problem I have with the scenario above is it avoids one of the important goals (in my opinion) of the Xbox one which is the unification of downloaded games and retail purchases. Steam has done this somewhat on the PC. Some of the games you buy off the shelf at a retail store require Steam. After you tie the license to your Steam account, the discs just become a means of installation. You can download and install the game if you prefer from another computer or you can use the discs to install the game on as many machines as you want. The primary difference between the Xbox One and Steam is that you would have had more freedom over what you can do with your games. You could share them with friends without losing access to them which Steam may be adopting some form of (Good when Steam does it, bad when Microsoft does!), and you could even trade them in for credit towards other games.

The only problem I have with the scenario above is it avoids one of the important goals (in my opinion) of the Xbox one which is the unification of downloaded games and retail purchases. Steam has done this somewhat on the PC. Some of the games you buy off the shelf at a retail store require Steam. After you tie the license to your Steam account, the discs just become a means of installation. You can download and install the game if you prefer from another computer or you can use the discs to install the game on as many machines as you want. The primary difference between the Xbox One and Steam is that you would have had more freedom over what you can do with your games. You could share them with friends without losing access to them which Steam may be adopting some form of (Good when Steam does it, bad when Microsoft does!), and you could even trade them in for credit towards other games.

However, when changing the landscape you have to do it in phases. If Microsoft did my way first, then by the middle or (definitely) end of this console generation, the way it was originally envision would have been able to be implemented without much complaint. People would have already been used to doing borrowing and trading-in games digitally that doing it otherwise would seem silly.

But like you said, their PR department sucks. But also, their measure of how much influence they have over the gaming and PC markets is obviously off by a wide margin.

Some people, and some parts of the world, are ready for a technological gaming revolution, the kind that the Xbox One was aiming for (with its Internet requirements and all). But the reality is that a lot of the word isn't ready for that. They're still catching up.

I fully recognize that, but so what? Why should the gaming technology of first world countries be held back by countries where the vast majority of it's citizens wouldn't be able to afford the console in the first place? The average per-capita income in Africa is $315. I highly doubt there is a huge market there just waiting to pickup a PS4 or Xbox One.

I'm no economist, but I'm think it's in Microsoft's best (financial) interests to target the widest audience possible. Also, some of these countries are on the verge of becoming much more economically stable, and if Microsoft can get a foot in the door early on, it can help future profits as a (financially) growing nation, who is already at least partially familiar with Microsoft because they got their foot in the door, embraces more products from a brand they already know (at least to some degree).

I'd love for the world to be waaay more technologically advanced than it currently is, and I think one reason that it's not is that we keep trying to be backwards compatible and target the largest common denominator. But from a financial, profits perspective, it's hard to argue that this move isn't in Microsoft's own best interest.

Hopefully for the next console after this the world will be technologically ready for some ground breaking, radical changes. But the global market for that just isn't big enough right now, IMO. And since Sony decided to play it safe and milk today's cow instead of tomorrow's future, Microsoft doesn't have to worry about Sony stealing the future. Instead, Microsoft has to worry about Sony stealing the present.

also, let's look at this from another point of view. what's the point of buying single player games, if all i have to do is wait for one of my xbox live buddies to get bored of it? I'd think this would hurt the industry more than used sales. it'd also force devs to always shoe-horn in some type of multiplayer component, even for campaigns.

All they would do is put a limit on how long you can borrow it just like Blockbuster did so many years ago. They can DRM the DRM all they like once they fully implement this system.

but what prevents me from re-borrowing the game? and continuing, it's just a minor annoyance at worse.

but what prevents me from re-borrowing the game? and continuing, it's just a minor annoyance at worse.

Well first, your friend has to let you borrow it. Second, they could just throw some more DRM to limit not only the length of the borrowing but the number of times you borrow in a certain period. Like I said, DRMing the DRM gives infinite possibilities.

but what prevents me from re-borrowing the game? and continuing, it's just a minor annoyance at worse.

Well first, your friend has to let you borrow it. Second, they could just throw some more DRM to limit not only the length of the borrowing but the number of times you borrow in a certain period. Like I said, DRMing the DRM gives infinite possibilities.

all i hear from this is absolutely terrible practices being imposed by microsoft, Alpha, i'm not sure if you were pro, or anti these restrictions. but if this were the case of what they would do to restrict trading, i for one am quite happy they've backpeddled on thses changes.

I was against the once a day online check-in. And I was against the always-on Kinect.

However, I'm not against the features that tstrimple mentioned. I think they're pretty cool.

However, what I have been mentioning to you isn't anything Microsoft has said it would do. I've only been giving scenarios of what they could do with their online DRMs.

but what prevents me from re-borrowing the game? and continuing, it's just a minor annoyance at worse.

Well first, your friend has to let you borrow it. Second, they could just throw some more DRM to limit not only the length of the borrowing but the number of times you borrow in a certain period. Like I said, DRMing the DRM gives infinite possibilities.

all i hear from this is absolutely terrible practices being imposed by microsoft, Alpha, i'm not sure if you were pro, or anti these restrictions. but if this were the case of what they would do to restrict trading, i for one am quite happy they've backpeddled on thses changes.

The proposed system was for you to have a circle of friends, and any of your friends could play games from your shared library. There was no mention of limited use apart from hourly checkins to make sure multiple friends weren't all playing at the same time. You didn't have to lend games to friends, they automatically had access to your full shared library. On top of that, your friends playing your games didn't prevent you from playing your games which opens up the possibility of playing multiplayer with a friend who doesn't own the game. Much like you can do now with a physical copy if you play split screen, except this would have been full screen and you didn't have to be in the same place.

And this is why FUD is bad people. Alpha is talking about what he thinks possible outcomes could have been, and slicer4ever believe that's what Microsoft was actually proposing, so he's off to spread the same FUD in other locations based on hearsay.

Edit: THANK YOU Alpha! Hopefully slice gets that last message.

I was against the once a day online check-in. And I was against the always-on Kinect.

However, I'm not against the features that tstrimple mentioned. I think they're pretty cool.

However, what I have been mentioning to you isn't anything Microsoft has said it would do. I've only been giving scenarios of what they could do with their online DRMs.

Out of curiosity, why are you against the once a day checkin? Is it principle or are you regularly in an environment that doesn't have internet for more than 24 hours?

As far as the Kinect goes, it will never be a viable tool for game developers to use unless they can rely on gamers having access to it. You can disable the sensor in the settings to turn off features like the Kinect listening for "Xbox On" when the console is turned off.