Early Kinect Games Kill Buyers' Access To Xbox Live

Stoobalou writes "Microsoft's Kinect motion controller isn't due to ship until November 4th, but one retailer has jumped the gun, leaving a number of gamers with a bit of a quandary. The un-named distributor has sent what Microsoft describes as 'a very small number' of Kinect systems to lucky buyers who might not consider themselves quite so lucky if they try to use the device and its bundled games. Installing the games will require a firmware upgrade, which is nothing out of the ordinary, but in this case the upgrade hasn't yet been released. Attempting to install the non-existent update seems to fool the console into thinking you are trying to play a pirated game and locks the user out of Microsoft's Xbox Live on-line service."

Comments

Just another reason

[0123456]

Not to buy locked down hardware or software, particularly if it requires the permission of a remote server in order to be allowed to function.

Re:Just another reason

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If the alternative is to miss out on cool features like network multiplay, maybe that's a tradeoff that some people are willing to make.

I understand the concept of philosophical purity, but pragmatism has always led to a more comfortable existence. Extremist positions like the one you are espousing may be perfectly fine, but it denies the clear fact that there are definite benefits to the non-pure approach that come with whatever liabilities are inherent in such a system.

Re:Just another reason

[Aldanga]

I play a ton of Xbox LIVE and can tell you that pings were upwards of 250-300ms for most every MW2 game I ever got matched in. (The latency is a big reason why I quit playing MW2 on Xbox LIVE.) My home latency is around 50ms, so that's an additional 100ms latency to and from the game's host after reaching the Internet's backbone. I get 80ms latency to West Coast TF2 servers (I'm in Kansas) if that tells you anything about the quality of P2P gaming.

Re:Just another reason

[billsayswow]

I dunno, I run into the same amount of cheaters in games with countermeasures against such things as I do in games without. Besides, votekick/voteban is a lovely tool, as well as servers with admins. Or, you could always... you know... go to a different server, or tough it out. Sometimes it's fun to try and take them down, too.

Re:Just another reason

[Lord Kano]

If the alternative is to miss out on cool features like network multiplay, maybe that's a tradeoff that some people are willing to make.

I play network games on my PC, about 5 nights a week.

Fuck every one of those locked down crap box consoles.

LK

Re:Just another reason

[Solandri]

It doesn't sound like it's locking down the hardware or software. It's locking you out of an online service (Xbox Live). Generally, I don't have problems with services which operate this way. A product, you buy and take home, and it's yours to do with as you wish (or should be). In contrast, a service is an ongoing thing. You agree to abide by certain terms (and usually pay a recurring fee), they agree to let you use the service. Violate those terms or fail to provide satisfactory service and either side can break the deal.

The problem here actually stems from the fact that the hardware is needlessly tied to a single service. That's what's turning what should be a service problem into a hardware problem. If the hardware wasn't locked to Xbox Live and you could hop onto whatever other Internet Xbox gaming service was out there, this would be a non-issue. All that would happen is that Microsoft's attempt at control would hurt themselves by cutting people off from their own Xbox Live service, thus driving these people to other services. But because the hardware is locked, the fallout from the error becomes the Xbox owner's problem instead of Microsoft's.

For the obligatory car analogy, imagine if car manufacturers could make it so your car could only run on roads owned by the manufacturer. So Ford cars would only run on Ford roads, GM cars would only run on GM roads, etc., each owner paying a monthly fee to their respective auto manufacturer to use the roads which are being provided as a service. Once the owner is locked in that way, you effectively have a monopoly and free market forces cease to work. There's very little incentive for Ford or GM to improve their respective roads so long as their cars are distinctive enough that most of the purchasing decision is based on the features of the car, not the roads they drive on. If suddenly Ford roads develop potholes, it's a problem for the Ford car owners, not a problem for Ford. They can take as long as they like to fix the potholes because the Ford owners are forced to continue using Ford roads.

OTOH, if cars aren't locked to their manufacturer's roads, and owners are allowed to buy the service to operate on another manufacturer's roads, then Ford owners would simply stop subscribing to Ford roads. They'd switch their subscription to GM roads until the pothole problem was fixed (and probably many of them wouldn't switch back). Now the negatives caused by the problem are correctly directed at the entity which is responsible for dealing with it, and market forces create a huge incentive for Ford to fix those potholes mighty quick to staunch the loss of drivers paying to use their roads. So the real problem here is that the hardware is needlessly tied to a single service provider, causing incidents like this to become a problem for the customer rather than for the manufacturer.

Re:Just another reason

[LBt1st]

You guys fail to realize that xbox live is a matchmaking service. The games are not hosted on MS's servers. Your xbox is connected to someone elses xbox. Just like a PC is connected to another PC. Live simply points the xboxes at each other. Your lag is a direct result of the connection between you and the xbox which is hosting.

Re:Just another reason

[kdemetter]

I don't know who told that DRM is needed to prevent cheating , but i must admit , it is a clever way of getting people to support DRM : If you don't support it , you are branded a cheater.

Re:Just another reason

[Bert64]

That's effectively blackmail, since there is no reason why network multiplayer would actually require a drm system like that. We were playing quake online for years before anyone even considered schemes like that.

Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

The more honest buyers get hurt by any form of DRM, including these forms of draconian measures, the better.

Re:Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically (from Microsoft's point of view) they're not honest - they're breaking the release date and are being punished for it.

If you read most gaming sites that have reported this, the general sheeple consensus is that it serves them right for trying to play early.

Sigh.

Re:Great news!

[nitehawk214]

I disagree completely. These customers had no idea the game was not supposed to be played. The shop that released early might be liable, but it is still crap design by Microsoft.

Re:Great news!

[yotto]

That's the point. Innocent people whose only "crime" is thinking DRM isn't a bad idea need to get hurt by DRM, or they'll never know why we think it's such a bad idea.

Oh Noes...

[Nethemas the Great]

How terrible, XBox live has a system built in to prevent unauthorized firmware that may well be used for things like hacked games, game trainers and other things that would ruin the experience for other players who have not similarly modified their systems. I know people want to spin this as another "DRM is evil" type story but to use this would be over-reaching. Open platform or not it would be in the best interest of gamers to not have some people with the ability to cheat while other do not. Sure the unauthorized firmware bit can be used to hamper piracy but it's not the only reason to have such a system in place.

The retailers were told not to release the games until a specific date so that shipments could be assured to all stores at the same time for reasons I'm sure include preventing the usual mayhem involved in too few for too many. Microsoft was under no obligation to push the prerequisites to the servers until the date they told everyone the games could be sold. Yes, Microsoft may do a lot of things that aren't appreciated by the open/free software community but this really isn't ammunition for that cause.

Re:Oh Noes...

[Hatta]

So why should customers suffer for the retailers mistake?

Re:Oh Noes...

[tlhIngan]

What do you mean why should they? Who says they should? The retailer and Microsoft made a mistake. This is not much different than if Microsoft had pushed empty boxes through retail outlets and customers got screwed over. Go return the thing to the retailer, ask for money back, and complain to Microsoft support. The particulars of DRM are insignificant here, and the only thing that matters is how the retailer and Microsoft responds, and if they do it again. Same as if they'd done anything else to inconvenience you.

I can tell you that Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and publishers get VERY interested in a retailer that breaks street date. Microsoft can't really be blamed for providing an incomplete update as no one other than beta testers are supposed to have it (and they are warned to NOT move their hard drive around because the update will mess up Xbox360s not in the beta)

Retailers are deathly afraid of breaking street date. Individual stores get fined for breaking it (lots of money - 10s of thousands of dollars easily), and even worse, entire chains can get put on industry blacklists that basically mean they never, ever receive product ahead of time - the product they ordered would be shipped on the release date which means their customers only get the product a few days afterwards (plus the lowered margins since they have to pay for overnight shipping back and forth, and the obvious loss of business when customers leave them because they can't get product on time).

That's why stores breaking street date tend to be rare - I think the last case involved some Atari game that a publisher bought retail from another retailer who broke street date for the publisher only. And the publisher refused to identify who sold it to them which is why Atari blamed them for pirating a game - no one should have a copy. I think the last time it happened resulted in people having to wait for the activation servers to come alive - they had the game, but were locked out from playing it. And gamers often find themselves banned for piracy if playing unreleased games online.

Microsoft's mistake is having a beta update available - but that's a given, since they have people with beta Kinect hardware. The only people who should be getting that update are those in the beta program. To demand that the consoles have the latest firmware available isn't an unusual request - you'll find Sony does the same thing, as does Nintendo, as does Steam should you want to play online to prevent cheating.

This is a rare circumstance - beta testers are warned about moving their hard drives around would screw with Xbox Live connectivity, and this retailer seriously messed up. At the very least, Microsoft would be very interested in talking to those people and would probably pay not only to have those Xboxes and Kinects returned back to Microsoft (and exchanged with new ones), but the retailer is going to pay Microsoft for it all.

It's also interesting that most big-name titles have "DO NOT SELL BEFORE xx/xx/xxxx" printed on the stickers on the game itself too - I would presume Kinect hardware and games have similar markings so it's not as if the retailer didn't know.

My guess is, that retailer or chain is now in some very hot water. Usually these things are handled very quietly, but once it starts hitting the news big-time, heads will roll...

Fixed

[Anonymous Coward]

So why should Microsoft suffer for the retailers mistake?

Fuck Em'

[BigSes]

Want to circumvent the release date? You get what you pay for.