The Xbox One Thread - One X & One SXBOne 

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robin
  • 5,072 comments
  • 319,790 views
So, even though the Xbox One can play video games, it's not a video game console?

With the added benefit of the ability to watch movies and TV on it, obviously.

That depends entirely on how Microsoft proceeds from here with the positioning of the device, because so far it does look like the gaming portion isn't the main focus. "Microsoft is abandoning games" is an extreme reaction, but it certainly wouldn't be the first console where the "plays games" part was a secondary concern to carving a spot in the high-end A/V market. There was a glut of them in the mid-90s when CD players got cheap enough to justify their existence.
 
You're missing my point, dice1998. The question isn't whether the XBone was made for games (of course it was), but whether the XBone is a game console like all of the others before it. The way the it approaches games has more in common with Steam (not a console), smart phones (not consoles), or tablets (not consoles).

Even the name "One" is a potential clue -- Microsoft seem to be making a fresh start on something new (and different).
 
You're missing my point, dice1998. The question isn't whether the XBone was made for games (of course it was), but whether the XBone is a game console like all of the others before it. The way the it approaches games has more in common with Steam (not a console), smart phones (not consoles), or tablets (not consoles).

Even the name "One" is a potential clue -- Microsoft seem to be making a fresh start on something new (and different).

Does it matter? It does what it does.

Some people's cars seem to be merely a mobile sound system given their apparent priorities. Are they no longer cars in that case?
 
if you had to bring that car into the dealership everyday for a checkup, then it's more of a rental/service than something you truly own.
 
Does it matter?
I gave a reason for asking:
Is the XBone still a videogame console? Or is it a DVR and DVD/BluRay player that can also function as a client for an online gaming network?

I think the only way to consider these policies "reasonable" is to go with the second choice. But that's obviously not what anyone expected of the next Xbox.
I still don't approve of the XBone myself, but if we look at it for what it really is -- a portal to an online gaming service -- it's easier to see where Microsoft is coming from.
 
Wolfe
You're missing my point, dice1998. The question isn't whether the XBone was made for games (of course it was), but whether the XBone is a game console like all of the others before it. The way the it approaches games has more in common with Steam (not a console), smart phones (not consoles), or tablets (not consoles).

Even the name "One" is a potential clue -- Microsoft seem to be making a fresh start on something new (and different).

One of the more sensible posts I have read in this thread, thinking outside the box.
Maybe, just maybe MS is leading the innovation movement to the future of home gaming. I will now dodge the stones!
Take iRacing, it doesn't take a very powerful PC as their servers handle much of the heavy lifting.
Maybe, just maybe they have a good plan in place. I won't count them out just yet.
 
Take iRacing, it doesn't take a very powerful PC as their servers handle much of the heavy lifting.
Maybe, just maybe they have a good plan in place. I won't count them out just yet.
And I thought it's because it looks bad.


Well, it doesn't look that bad actually, but yeah...
 
"Damn, my internet is acting up and I can't check my email or do my work. Oh well, guess I'll have time to complete *generic video game name* campaign now. Aw, yiss!"

Oh I forgot, I can't. Might as well go out for some sun then...

This generation's console war is getting more and more interesting, E3 can't come soon enough!
 
I agree with pretty much most of what Eurogamer have to say in regard to all of this.

Almost exactly a year ago, at the end of an E3 press conference in which Microsoft heralded fitness software, Kinect, Internet Explorer, Bing and dying action games as the future of entertainment, I wrote that anyone who has paid attention to Microsoft's business over the years should not be surprised by its apparent lack of self-awareness.

"If we are entertained by what Microsoft chooses to do for its own gain," I suggested, "then that is simply a happy coincidence."

Guess what? The coincidence is over.


The fact that Microsoft's policies governing game ownership, sharing and privacy are not surprising does not make them any less devastating to consumer rights, should they be formally adopted and become a standard. They sacrifice our freedom to own and trade games for no other reason than corporate self-interest.

To save you skimming large tracts of condescending prose about how much Microsoft loves and respects you as a human wallet, here is a summary:

  • You do not own the games you buy. You license them.
  • Discs are only used to install and then license games and do not imply ownership.
  • People can play games installed on your console whether you're logged in or not.
  • 10 people can be authorised to play these games on a different Xbox One via the cloud, but not at the same time, similar to iTunes authorised devices.
  • Publishers decide whether you can trade in your games and may charge for this.
  • Publishers decide whether you can give a game you own to someone for free, and this only works if they have been on your friends list for 30 days.
  • Your account allows you to play the games you license on any console.
  • Your Xbox One must connect to the internet every 24 hours to keep playing games.
  • When playing on another Xbox One with your account, this is reduced to one hour.
  • Live TV, Blu-ray and DVD movies are exempt from these internet requirements.
  • Loaning and renting games will not be possible at launch, but Microsoft is "exploring the possibilities".
  • Microsoft may change these policies or discontinue them at any point.

There is also a promise that Microsoft Studios games will all allow you to trade them in and give them away for free, bringing a whole new emphasis to the expression, "It's the least we could do!"

The only positive thing in the whole document is confirmation that you can turn off Kinect and its data will never be uploaded without your permission. Let us all applaud Microsoft's "OK, fine!" decision not to intrude on our privacy.

The suggestion that these changes to game ownership have been taken to combat piracy or limit the damage that used game sales do to the primary market do not stand up to much scrutiny - at our most charitable, we can say that the data is merely inconclusive, but analysis of other industries that have dealt with these issues for much longer is pretty clear that the overall benefits at least balance out the risks of allowing piracy and used markets to flourish.

The more likely reason for this unprecedented new attitude to console game ownership and sharing is that Microsoft wants to turn its game business into the equivalent of iTunes. The signs are already there in the merger of Xbox, Windows and Windows Phone app stores and the decision to run Xbox games off a Virtual Machine 'game OS' within Xbox One, which could easily be included in new hardware derived from the same architectural roadmap.

This is a neat business way of getting everything to line up. It is done in service to Microsoft's corporate objectives. It is not even done with any particular malice towards you and I. Nevertheless, it signals the most significant divergence to date of Microsoft's goals for the Xbox business from our own. It also puts an unspecified expiry date on every Xbox One game ever made and gives you no control over it. Yes, at a point in time where consoles are becoming less relevant, Microsoft's solution is to make them less permanent.

The addition of cloud gaming functions, the avoidance of DVD or Blu-ray disc access times, the convenience of global access - these are the rewards we are being offered for our complicity in Microsoft's decision to eradicate the concept of console game ownership. They are not good enough and very little ever will be.

Digital marketplaces like Netflix, iTunes and the present Xbox Live are a good thing, but they should be additive. They allow us to form a different kind of relationship with art - a more convenient, expansive and often cheaper one that includes better tools for exploration beyond the borders of our current interest. We should and I do celebrate these things. But a critical reason that I accept them is that I still have the option to own an untouchable physical copy of the things I find there as well.

You can say this is no worse than what Steam does, you can say that it is no worse than what a lot of 'content' companies do, and those statements are true, but they do not engage with the most important detail of this news, which is what we are being told to give up in exchange for this new arrangement: the opportunity to form tangible, lasting relationships with art that matters to us. If you never had that, then why would you miss it? But we do. And soon we won't.

Collectors will still be able to buy Xbox One games on disc, of course, and we may line them up happily on our shelves so that our friends and families can admire our dedication and taste forever more. But under Microsoft's new rules, we are no longer building a collection of games - we are building a collection of loans that may be recalled from us at any time, leaving us with nothing but distant memories. And that loss will be simple, instant and complete.
Source - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-microsoft-kills-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile
 

anYemxo_460sa.gif
 
Sounds like an old style rant, like vinyl and record sleeves.

Many music tracks are download only

Sadly for some, gaming is finally getting up to speed. I understand some won't like it but its inevitable. project your mind 5-10 years from now, you can't hold hold this off much longer anyway. I doubt Sony is the saviour but if they offer something, it will be patched over soon enough or not in the next one in 5 years.

No one cares about my Vinyl and dj mixing skills, you wouldn't believe the fight against software dj's, and holding on to rare records. At the time it was unthinkable, then heart renching for years, now even the most ardent dj's and collectors have come round to mxing on a computer. We look back and think we were a bit silly about it, 10 years now into digital music and its just pretty much liked and adopted now. The soul is gone but most just care about the music, most just care about the games and moving on to the next one. No one cares that I can't get £100-1000 for a record, its on the web for everyone now.

I've stopped buying disc pc games now, used to make a point of doing so
 
Last edited:
Hope people vote with their wallets when developers start charging money for used games,the reason all my friends got into FIFA is that we borrowed it from each other and tried it at Playstation Cafes,which I predict if the PS4 follows suit these Cafes won't exist for long.

Really really really hope Sony don't follow suit.
 
  • You do not own the games you buy. You license them.
  • Discs are only used to install and then license games and do not imply ownership.

What's wrong with this? it has existed like this with PC applications for years. Technically speaking, it's exactly the same as it is now on the PS3/X360, it's just a bit more obvious than it has been before. Take a look at the EULA on any game; to quote from the license in the back of the WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2010 manual:

1. OWNERSHIP. The Software is and shall remain a proprietary product of THQ and its suppliers... Except as provided in Section 2, you shall have no right, title or interest in or to the Software... you will only own the media on which the software has been provided and not the Software itself.

2. GRANT OF LICENSE. THQ grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use one copy of the Software in the country in which you acquired the Software for your own personal use... You may not (a) install the Software on multiple computers, timeshare the Software, or make it available to multiple persons,... (c) export the Software. You may make one copy of the Software solely for the purposes of having a backup copy.. THQ... may update the Software at any time... no obligation to furnish such updates to you pursuant to this Agreement.


  • People can play games installed on your console whether you're logged in or not.
  • 10 people can be authorised to play these games on a different Xbox One via the cloud, but not at the same time, similar to iTunes authorised devices.

What's wrong with this? I wouldn't be able to play the same disc on three different consoles at the same time, why should it apply with a soft copy of the game?

  • Publishers decide whether you can trade in your games and may charge for this.

No they don't, you decide whether you can trade in your games, subject to an agreement you made when you purchased the game. Is this any different to PC/Mac/Linux software? No, I don't think so.

  • Publishers decide whether you can give a game you own to someone for free, and this only works if they have been on your friends list for 30 days.
  • Your account allows you to play the games you license on any console.

What's wrong with this? Would you give your game to someone you don't know? Also, it prevents against theft of physical copies of games as you need the console, or to uninstall the license, to sell the copy of the game.

  • Your Xbox One must connect to the internet every 24 hours to keep playing games.
  • When playing on another Xbox One with your account, this is reduced to one hour.
  • Live TV, Blu-ray and DVD movies are exempt from these internet requirements.

In these days of near-constant online access, is this really that much of a hardship? Again, this is just Microsoft protecting it's interests. Also, you shouldn't need to connect to the internet to use non-gaming, so why make a song and dance out of it.

  • Loaning and renting games will not be possible at launch, but Microsoft is "exploring the possibilities".
  • Microsoft may change these policies or discontinue them at any point.

This is just sour grapes, and Microsoft are doing their best to counter-act the initial complaints. The best thing we can do is wait until next week and see what MS have to announce at E3.
 
Sounds like an old style rant, like vinyl and record sleeves.

Many music tracks are download only

Sadly for some, gaming is finally getting up to speed. I understand some won't like it but its inevitable. project your mind 5-10 years from now, you can't hold hold this off much longer anyway. I doubt Sony is the saviour but if they offer something, it will be patched over soon enough or not in the next one in 5 years.

No one cares about my Vinyl and dj mixing skills, you wouldn't believe the fight against software dj's, and holding on to rare records. At the time it was unthinkable, then heart renching for years, now even the most ardent dj's and collectors have come round to mxing on a computer. We look back and think we were a bit silly about it, 10 years now into digital music and its just pretty much liked and adopted now. The soul is gone but most just care about the music, most just care about the games and moving on to the next one. No one cares that I can't get £100-1000 for a record, its on the web for everyone now.

I've stopped buying disc pc games now, used to make a point of doing so

These situations are quite different from each other. For one, digital music has taken over because it's cheaper and more convenient will still offering the same ability to listen to it wherever there is a player.

With vinyl, no one can ever take them away from you and even in 30, 40 years when your hard drives with your digital or cloud stored music is gone, they will still be there. Hell, even with backups and the like, you'll still be able to listen to locally stored music in the middle of nowhere for as long as you want. With the Xbone, when they shut down the servers in 15 years (at best IMO), you're stuck with a large paperweight. It's not as if there's no other way they can do this - the fact that they've stated the policies are subject to change mean that they're doing this because they can.

Why is throwing away your rights as a consumer "getting up to speed"? There is simply no reason Microsoft have for doing this that is beneficial to the end consumer.
 
What's wrong with this? it has existed like this with PC applications for years. Technically speaking, it's exactly the same as it is now on the PS3/X360, it's just a bit more obvious than it has been before. Take a look at the EULA on any game; to quote from the license in the back of the WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2010 manual:
What's wrong with this? I wouldn't be able to play the same disc on three different consoles at the same time, why should it apply with a soft copy of the game?
No they don't, you decide whether you can trade in your games, subject to an agreement you made when you purchased the game. Is this any different to PC/Mac/Linux software? No, I don't think so.
What's wrong with this? Would you give your game to someone you don't know? Also, it prevents against theft of physical copies of games as you need the console, or to uninstall the license, to sell the copy of the game.
In these days of near-constant online access, is this really that much of a hardship? Again, this is just Microsoft protecting it's interests. Also, you shouldn't need to connect to the internet to use non-gaming, so why make a song and dance out of it.
This is just sour grapes, and Microsoft are doing their best to counter-act the initial complaints. The best thing we can do is wait until next week and see what MS have to announce at E3.

Tell me more about how the complete and intentional destruction of all consumer rights on the system (and no, trying to prop up the EULA as proof that it was already this way doesn't cut the mustard as a rebuttal) is something people shouldn't have a problem with. The (invalid) comparison to PC games and outright telling people that things that are an issue for them aren't actually an issue for them never gets old no matter how many times people repeat it, nor does the act of taking something that is very clearly black and white:
Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers.
And twisting it into an unrecognizeable form:
No they don't, you decide whether you can trade in your games, subject to an agreement you made when you purchased the game. Is this any different to PC/Mac/Linux software? No, I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like an old style rant, like vinyl and record sleeves.

Many music tracks are download only

And then you own them. We don't need comparisons to understand what Microsoft has in mind is ugly. And especially not lacking comparisons.
 
What's wrong with this? it has existed like this with PC applications for years. Technically speaking, it's exactly the same as it is now on the PS3/X360, it's just a bit more obvious than it has been before. Take a look at the EULA on any game; to quote from the license in the back of the WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2010 manual:
The quite clear difference is that as long as you still have the physical copy of he game and a working device to run it then you can play it. Does a non-functioning internet connection for a day/week/month/year stop you playing WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2010?




What's wrong with this? I wouldn't be able to play the same disc on three different consoles at the same time, why should it apply with a soft copy of the game?
Don't disagree.

No they don't, you decide whether you can trade in your games, subject to an agreement you made when you purchased the game. Is this any different to PC/Mac/Linux software? No, I don't think so.
No, you only get to make that choice if the publisher has provided that option, which means the ultimate decision rests with the publisher, if they say no trade-ins then nothing you do can change that at all.


What's wrong with this? Would you give your game to someone you don't know? Also, it prevents against theft of physical copies of games as you need the console, or to uninstall the license, to sell the copy of the game.
Your brother/sister/cat has just bought a Xbone and never had a Live account before, you can't lend them a game for the first month!

This has nothing to do with protecting you against theft and everything to do with control and profit retention of the second-hand game market and the revenues from it. It provides no benefit to the consumer at all.


In these days of near-constant online access, is this really that much of a hardship? Again, this is just Microsoft protecting it's interests. Also, you shouldn't need to connect to the internet to use non-gaming, so why make a song and dance out of it.
Why? Because something that has no relevance on a single player game (a network connection) can stop you playing it, despite you having a copy of the physical media and a working device.


This is just sour grapes, and Microsoft are doing their best to counter-act the initial complaints. The best thing we can do is wait until next week and see what MS have to announce at E3.
No its not sour grapes, its legitimate consumer concerns. In my case from someone who was quite ready to buy and Xbone for FM5 alone and now has no intention at all of purchasing one (and the same goes for the PS4 if Sony head down the same line).
 
Your brother/sister/cat has just bought a Xbone and never had a Live account before, you can't lend them a game for the first month!

This has nothing to do with protecting you against theft and everything to do with control and profit retention of the second-hand game market and the revenues from it. It provides no benefit to the consumer at all.

It also makes one on one sales (ie. Craigslist, eBay, etc.) virtually impossible.
 
This is just sour grapes, and Microsoft are doing their best to counter-act the initial complaints. The best thing we can do is wait until next week and see what MS have to announce at E3.
E3 will change absolutely nothing. No ''killer app'' will adress the issue and the fact that the console will remain being a corporate golden shower to its (potential) consumers.
 
I can fully understand the arguments against certain aspects of the Xbox One reveal like the 24 hour rule, I get it. On the surface it doesn't seem like a good business decision.

What I don't, from the general comments thoughout this thread, is the "Microsoft is an evil money hungry tyrant" comments. They aren't any different that any other for-profit business in the world. They make decision's based on supply and demand, competitive advantage, etc.. MS, Sony, Verizon, United Airlines, Apple, BMW, Samsung, ........... If you would sit in any executive boardroom at these companies the dicussions would be very similar, how can we maximize profits for ourselves and shareholders. That's business, it "must" be or they will not be successful long-term. I do the same thing myself, how can I make the most money with the education and experience I hold.
I don't like all of the decisions that come out of these companies but I don't consider a change as evil, I support with my wallet and move on. Today I may own a BMW, but next year it could be Ford, today I have a Samsung TV and phone, next year maybe Apple.
None of these companies got where they are today because they are evil and unfair - what's unfair in the world of business. IF EVERYTHING that has been rumored or has been revealed by MS regarding the next generation Xbox comes to fruition, time will tell if the MS board members made the right decisions. These companies realize that if other companies offer a better product they will loose market share - simple as that. They know their competition and will not stray too far from the evolution of their market.

The current generation consoles are too old and underpowered for me, I have switched my gaming to the PC. I could care less of the name, Microsoft or Sony, and at some point if the software is compelling enough I may pick up a next generation console, a decision I will make at that point of time on the facts, not hearsay or rumors, or evil vs good.
 
Last edited:
I can fully understand the arguments against certain aspects of the Xbox One reveal like the 24 hour rule, it get it. On the surface it doesn't seem like a good business decision.

What I don't, from the general comments thoughout this thread, is the "Microsoft is an evil money hungry tyrant" comments. They aren't any different that any other for-profit business in the world. They make decision's based on supply and demand, competitive advantage, etc.. MS, Sony, Verizon, United Airlines, Apple, BMW, Samsung, ........... If you would sit in any executive boardroom at these companies the dicussions would be very similar, how can we maximize profits for ourselves and shareholders. That's business, it "must" be or they will not be successful long-term. I do the same thing myself, how can I make the most money with the education and experience I hold.
I don't like all of the decisions that come out of these companies but I don't consider a change as evil, I support with my wallet and move on. Today I may own a BMW, but next year it could be Ford, today I have a Samsung TV and phone, next year maybe Apple.
None of these companies got where they are today because they are evil and unfair - what's unfair in the world of business. IF EVERYTHING that has been rumored or has been revealed by MS regarding the next generation Xbox comes to fruition, time will tell if the MS board members made the right decisions. These companies realize that if other companies offer a better product they will loose market share - simple as that. They know their competition and will not stray too far from the evolution of their market.

The current generation consoles are too old and underpowered for me, I have switched my gaming to the PC. I could care less of the name, Microsoft or Sony, and at some point if the software is compelling enough I may pick up a next generation console, a decision I will make at that point of time on the facts, not hearsay or rumors, or evil vs good.

I don't disagree with most of what you have said at all, however it does seem to imply that companies always get it right. They don't and in this case I don't believe that MS have come even close to getting it right (and I may well be repeating this next week with the name Sony in place of MS) and as such it is only right that potential consumers discuss that and based on the information decide if they wish to support the company.

I've put a lot of money MS's was with the last two consoles they brought out, and now that ends. If enough people make that same choice how does that benefit the shareholders?
 
At the current time in my life the online check and used game restrictions won't really affect me at all but it still puts me off immensely on principal. Of course we still don't know exactly the situation with the PS4, as others have said it could end up very similar.
 
At the current time in my life the online check and used game restrictions won't really affect me at all but it still puts me off immensely on principal. Of course we still don't know exactly the situation with the PS4, as others have said it could end up very similar.
It might affect you if servers went down or Internet might go down for whatever reason. I think 24 hour window is a bit too short. It makes chances of not being able to play games a lot higher as only a short outage can affect you. I wonder also if Kinect breaks, if you can use the game console or not.

Sony have already said PS4 can be used totally offline.
 
Samus
At the current time in my life the online check and used game restrictions won't really affect me at all but it still puts me off immensely on principal. Of course we still don't know exactly the situation with the PS4, as others have said it could end up very similar.

I feel that was Microsoft were playing at,Most people who buy the Xbone in the big developed countries have no.problem signing in everyday,and they can afford a small used game fee,so not a big deal would be made about it (they thought wrong) but kudos to everyone that still refuses the actual principle if only the console makers and developers shared the same view.
 
It might affect you if servers went down or Internet might go down for whatever reason. I think 24 hour window is a bit too short. It makes chances of not being able to play games a lot higher as only a short outage can affect you. I wonder also if Kinect breaks, if you can use the game console or not.

Sony have already said PS4 can be used totally offline.

It could, sure, but in the last say 5 years I think my internet has been off for at the most a few hours. Likewise XBL has been down very rarely. It'd still be an issue though, absolutely. The problem is I can't see where a u-turn could occur if MS thought they needed one simply because of the installing games to the HDD and not needing a disc issue. If they remove the online check that's going to open the obvious issue of one person buying a game for an unlimited number of friends to use.

If they wanted to do a u-turn they would seemingly have to get rid of the install and no disc design it seems to me.

As for the PS4 i was referring to the pre-owned/game DRM side of things that isn't clear yet.
 
At the current time in my life the online check and used game restrictions won't really affect me at all but it still puts me off immensely on principal. Of course we still don't know exactly the situation with the PS4, as others have said it could end up very similar.

That's it. Many can live with it, the changes change nothing providing they work to how most consumers with money go about it. MS are targeting these people. Others a bit upset will see this eventually.

Bottom line is you see a game, buy it and play it. We consume much more now, we're mostly connected. Companies now can force the license thats been there but not enforcable. For most of us all these issues don't stop you buying said game and then moving on to the next.
 
It could, sure, but in the last say 5 years I think my internet has been off for at the most a few hours. Likewise XBL has been down very rarely. It'd still be an issue though, absolutely. The problem is I can't see where a u-turn could occur if MS thought they needed one simply because of the installing games to the HDD and not needing a disc issue. If they remove the online check that's going to open the obvious issue of one person buying a game for an unlimited number of friends to use.

If they wanted to do a u-turn they would seemingly have to get rid of the install and no disc design it seems to me.

As for the PS4 i was referring to the pre-owned/game DRM side of things that isn't clear yet.
More external factors can affect gaming capabilities which is main worry. I think it is more of a concern for countries who have worse infrastructure for Internet Access than say UK. Given that Microsoft think they are going to reach out to a bigger audience this time around, I think they are going to be in for a shock personally as they seem to be going in opposite direction than they need to promote a games console.

Sony have it quite easy regarding DRM, PC and Xbox One is quite controlled. It will be hard for them to do it worse and the negativity will be probably with the publisher if they do allow blocking of used games.
 
Back