Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 360 Update Will Lock Out Unauthorized Storage
itwbennett writes "The other shoe has dropped on the upcoming preview program for the next Xbox 360 update and it's going to cost you. In a post on the Major Nelson blog, Xbox's Larry Hryb reveals that this next update will lock-out unauthorized storage devices. As blogger Peter Smith reminds us, 'the Xbox 360 comes in two (currently) SKUs, one with a hard drive, and one without. The drive-less Xbox 360 Arcade unit is cheap ($199) but to realistically use it, you'll need to buy a "Memory Unit" (basically a proprietary USB stick) or an Xbox hard drive.... A 512 MB Microsoft branded Memory Unit goes for $29.99 at BestBuy.com. A 2 GB third party Memory Unit from Datel goes for $39.99, and the Datel unit is expandable using microSD cards....If you bought the Datel and it's full of data, between now and the launch of the new update you're going to have to run out and buy 4 of the Microsoft units at $29.99 each, or more likely, pick up the $99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360.'"
... or more likely, pick up the $99.99 60GB Live Starter Pack for Xbox 360.
Or (in an even more likely scenario if you're reading Slashdot) you will opt to do it yourself to get twice that storage for a little over half the cost. This is, of course, assuming that locking out "unauthorized storage" does not also target in some crazy way locking out hard drives.
My work here is dung.
just when the hackers were getting ready to focus their efforts on the iPhone and Apple, there you go again, throwing down the gauntlet. Are you that much of an attention hog?
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
My four year old X360 died two months ago. Not a Red Ring Of Death, it went completely inert. No light at all. Swapping the power brick with a couple borrowed ones confirmed the unit failure. I had upgraded it to a 120G official MS hard drive a year ago.
I bought the arcade unit because [1] I could just plug the old hard drive into it and [2] as far as I could determine it was the model with the latest, greatest chip set that had all known issues solved. Works great.
I find Microsoft's willingness to squeeze for storage interesting in two respects: One, it suggests a very high level of optimism about their position in the market. Two, it suggests that they don't much care about, or aren't making much money from, downloadable offerings for the Xbox(or that they view those offerings as being extremely compelling and likely to drive consumer behavior).
If they weren't confident of their position, and were actively trying to drive down the perceived cost of their product, storage would be a natural target. Just let people use bog-standard flash drives for game storage, and the market will continually release cheaper ones faster than any one company could even do design revisions. Same basic idea with basic HDDs. The fact that Microsoft isn't doing that suggests that they are very confident in their price point.
As for downloads, if Microsoft were making good money on those, they would want users to have huge hard drives, rather than limping along on a nasty little 512meg card. Again, they don't seem to be thus motivated.
Locking out the competitor's product should be illegal. If you can't compete because your product is overpriced, you shouldn't be propped up. Yes that may mean that people have to pay the true cost of a console or printer or other device, as it isn't subsidised by content/ink etc. It's called honesty. Manufacturers should try it some time.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You can buy 60GB for $99 or "stick it to the man" by paying $29 for a 2GB third party device?
I'm so sick of this proprietary crap.
So you go for the game with no LAN play that you have to connect to proprietary Blizzard Servers? At least consoles give you little to no expectation of openness.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
What monopoly? I walk into the living room and see a Wii. Are you sure Microsoft has a monopoly on video games?
I recently bought a PS3 and despite what I've come to expect from Sony, it is probably more open than any other game console I've bought. Use any bluetooth headset for voice chat, use any USB hard drive for storage, replace the internal hard drive with any one that fits, I think that's pretty cool. I bought the older model and installed OpenSUSE 11.1 without much of a hitch, although 256MB of memory makes it pretty useless for most tasks. The PS3 was happy to backup the hard drive contents to my iPod before I repartitioned it for the "Other OS" and I restored the contents just as easily. You're right though, it's still nowhere near as open or as useful as a PC, but so many games come with system-bogging, glitch-prone DRM these days I tend to prefer the plug-n-play nature of a console.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Pfft... slippery slope. In this case, the company (Datel) already CREATED a working solution. It's not about about hand-holding or anything like that, right now. It's about MS locking out Datel's product because it's 4x the storage (expandable to like.. 64x with a micro SDHC card) and only $10 more. Microsoft is doing it because they love money.
Not monopoly, anti-competitive. I see a lawsuit here. Typically stepping on your competition like this gets you in some trouble.
This will kill them in the battle against the PS3. Sony make it so easy, for a start every PS3 comes with a hard drive, so games developers can assume that there is bulk persistent storage there and take advantage of it. You can also use USB mass storage devices. You can also upgrade the internal hard drive with undoing just a couple of screws, and it's all supported.
Sony have an easy way for you to back up your PS3 to an external USB hard drive, you then insert any laptop hard drive (I went with a 7.2k one and some things are noticeably faster) and you then restore your system onto the new hard drive. All without paying Sony an extra cent.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
This is something I've been wondering about for a while with devices that receive software updates. People base their purchasing decisions on the list of features announced for the devices, the payoff of what features you get against the price. Then, as part of an upgrade, the manufacturer deliberately cripples part of the device and removes some functionality. This removal of support for third-party storage is a good example, or Amazon pushing an "update" to remove the text-to-speech feature for many (all?) books.
There are all sorts of arguments made about software because we're typically sold licences, not an actual copy of the software. But in cases like this, we've actually bought a physical object. It's now ours, not the manufacturer's. So do they really still have the legal right to reach out an remove features? They advertised a function, which it now doesn't have. It feels like a sort of retroactive false advertising. A lot of Xbox owners will now need to spend extra money simply to restore the original functions; if they'd known this was necessary before purchase they might only have been willing to buy the XBox at a correspondingly lower price, if at all. So as MS have changed their end of this bargain, surely their customers should have the right to change theirs? A partial refund (to represent a lower original price) or the option of a full refund both seem fair to me,
I know people can, in principle, unplug their XBox to avoid accepting this update but then, again, they're losing the functionality that was originally advertised and that they originally paid for. Does this seem fair to anyone? Does it seem legal?
This is the wave of the future with all devices.
You don't need to upgrade it yourself, let Microsoft give you storage, for a "small monthly fee".
Next will be, you don't need to "own" a PC, or software, rent it, for a couple of "small monthly fees"
Let someone else manage your data, for a small monthly fee.
Let someone else update your programs, for a small monthly fee.
Let someone else manage the hardware, for a small monthly fee.
You will pay your "small monthly fees" and you will get NO WARRANTY, NO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NO RECOURSE, NO REFUNDS, and NO SECURITY.
Most of the caps text is taken from the license agreement from most 'online only' software.
Think it won't work? It already does.
You don't "own" your cellphone, SIM card, or it's data. You simply rent it, for a "small monthly fee".
Good luck selling any of it, getting a decent warranty, or being able to cancel your contract.
Small Monthly Fees, get used to paying them , for everything.
You all did it to yourselves. I tried to warn caution when Microsoft entered the console market, but all you people would do was hug them for Halo. They're like Wal-Mart, they move in, offer you low prices, then when the competition is smeared, they take you for everything you have. Maybe next time MegaCorp shows up and goes "I'll give you a good deal if your forsake the competition" you'll stop and go: "Hmmm...did this work out for me last time?"
"Monopoly" or "Market Share", the DMCA doesn't make distinctions about either before branding circumvention a criminal act.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Apple didn't block the Pre from anything. The Pre was using the iPod/iPhone USB identifier.
Not at first. They switched to using the iPod/iPhone USB identifier only because Apple blocked the Pre from using iTunes...
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
I can't create a car that artificially locks out 3rd party replacement parts and upgrades... why should Microsoft be able to create a gaming box that does the same thing?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Apple isn't blocking the Pre from working with iTunes. Apple is blocking the Pre from working with iTunes by pretending it's an iPod. If Palm had used supported APIs (say, by letting you create a "Palm Pre" playlist and then reading the songs from that playlist to sync to the Pre) there wouldn't be a problem. Palm cheaped out to avoid having to write their own sync application (which is crazy, because they made the best handheld sync I've ever used) and used a hack instead.
People expect publishers to lock out hacks. They don't expect them to lock out stuff using standard APIs.
They switched to using the iPod/iPhone USB identifier only because Apple blocked the Pre from using iTunes...
They were using the iPod/iPhone USB identifier from the start. That's how their sync hack worked.
With the huge failure rate (I read one time it was close to %54 red ring of death for the xbox), and the constant vendor lock-in feature removal I am glad I have stayed with the PC. I know quite a few others that have given up on consoles and gone back to the PC (although some of them were because the gaming on a PC was better)
Next thing you know, you'd have to hold your competitor's hand, work together on some product, watch your own share evaporate....
I call B.S. We're talking about commodity storage hardware; there's no excuse. MS is going out of their way to shut off access to otherwise compatible and standards compliant storage options. Moreover, there's a long history of third party storage for various platforms, e.g. the various "multi-memory" cartridges for the PS1, etc. In this case, these are bog-standard memory cards and drives, not even the proprietary exotica that third-party PS1 memory makers had to contend with.
As to the comments that "it's a locked down console platform", the digital camera market (esp. pro- and semi-pro dSLRs) is probably more mission-critical in terms of stability expectations than the console market. Yet the major digicam makers haven't done anything so daft as to lock themselves down to a few SKUs of memory cards.
I can't create a car that artificially locks out 3rd party replacement parts and upgrades... why should Microsoft be able to create a gaming box that does the same thing?
Actually the auto makers have been trying to essentially do that by denying training and key software to independent garages. story here
Just because a company can make a product that works with another companies device, the device manufacturer is under no obligation to support it.
Not supporting it is fine and dandy, but using artificial means to restrict perfectly legal devices that have always worked before to make more money is abusive and consumers should be nothing less than insulted.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
It's not random, it's very calculated. Microsoft is getting tired of people coming out with products cheaper than they are, and so they're going to lock them out, and file it under 'For Your Protection' after saying that using unauthorized memory cards rapes your children and kills your pets. I can't stand how entitled the game companies think they are to push an update to remove features.
What if World of Warcraft released a patch that removed all support for non-Blizzard-sanctioned input hardware?
What if Ford decided that your warranty was void because you used non-Ford wipers? (Oh, wait, the law protects us against that..)
What if printers didn't let you use unauthorized print cartridges? (Oh, wait, they don't..)
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
And what of the remainder of the XBOX Live Gold subscription? As this gets sprung upon unanticipating subscribers, can they then opt out of their Live contract and thus regain access to their unauthorized storage, or is upgrading giving Microsoft a permanent foothold in your hardware free to exert any terms they want, including bricking the hardware if you don't take it on-line for remote auditing often enough?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
We're still evil!