Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Confirms Xbox One's Phone Home Requirement, Game Resale Rules
Following the confusion surrounding Microsoft's announcement of the Xbox One, the company has now clarified many of the hot-button issues in a set of posts on their official site. First, they confirmed that the console will need to phone home in order to continue playing games. On your primary console, you'd need to connect to the internet and check in once every 24 hours. They also announced that you'll be able to access and play any of your games by logging in on somebody else's console, but the internet connection will be required every hour to keep playing that way. Other media don't require the connection. Microsoft also explained how game licensing will work. On the upside, anyone using your console will be able to play your games, and you can share your games with up to 10 members of your family for free. The downside is the news about used games; Microsoft says they've "designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers." The key word there is can, which implies that you can't without the publisher's express permission. Finally, the company made a set of statements about how Kinect's audio and video sensors will collect and share your data. "When Xbox One is on and you're simply having a conversation in your living room, your conversation is not being recorded or uploaded." They also say data gathered during normal use won't leave the console without your explicit permission.
Well that just saved me the equivalent of whatever the new console would cost. Thanks microsoft for making purchasing decisions easier.
So, in other words, all of the hyperbole and hand waving from users on forums that was washed aside saying it couldn't possibly be that bad... instead it turns out it's worse.
This article on Penny Arcade Report provides some detail that the OP lacks: http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/microsoft-outlines-their-system-for-used-games-licenses-and-family-sharing
I love that part. You mean I can still watch TV without "checking in", just as I could if I hadn't bought the stupid fucking box in the first place?
Someone you trust is one of us.
Seriously, the need to phone home once/day is a deal breaker. Not being able to take a game over to a friends place without signing into my account is a deal breaker. Telling me how I can sell or giveaway my used games is a deal breaker.
There's nothing about this that I'm interested in. I don't play games online, my XBox isn't connected to a network because they started putting ads into the games, and I refuse to give them a channel for it.
So, my single purchase (or non-purchase) is insignificant, and Microsoft won't care. But of the people I know who own an XBox, pretty much all of them have said they don't want this either.
There's nothing about this new platform that sounds good for the consumer, and it certainly doesn't leave them much choice.
So whatever the first next-generation console is which can be ran entirely offline without any network connection over its lifetime stands a pretty good chance of getting bought. But Microsoft can eat shit if they think I'll pay them for the privilege of owning one of these (which I'm sure the EULA says we don't own anyway).
Either I and people like myself will pretty much be irrelevant, which is fine, or there's going to be a huge consumer backlash against this, and Microsoft is going to find themselves holding the bag on a gaming platform nobody wants.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Or a government official tapping them on the shoulder and asking for a feed. With the proviso that MS simply must NOT let their users know, but MS is protected from their customers by law for following gov rules. By having this open up, and the gov spying in, it's yet another point of entry. From what started as an ill thought out games machine has now become the XBox1984 spy machine.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
"When Xbox One is on and you're simply having a conversation in your living room, your conversation is not being recorded or uploaded." They also say data gathered during normal use won't leave the console without your explicit permission.
"Explicit permission" defined as signing any EULA associated with XBOX One.
The WiiU is already less invasive. Odds are Sony will use this as a club to beat MS with. If they have a console that offers customers the ability to own games that will be huge.
...just like I'm sure the Obama Administration would never obtain the phone and email records for every American!
What?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
the act of pedaling Redmond into the earth takes careful planning. Some very important people have to get up very early in the morning and make some very poor decisions. if the selling points are 'only every hour' connections and 'wont record your private conversations' then id hate to see the downsides of the product.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Think about what happens after this generation is over, in 10-15 years. Eventually, the XBO servers will be taken down, and none of the games will work.
It won't be like you pulling out your Dreamcast or SNES to relive fond gaming memories--this literally won't be an option. Now starts the time when gaming history eventually fades into nothing.
Don't get me wrong, any disc based game eventually will be in the same boat--as these discs will eventually decay. Whereas cartridge based game systems may work, no problem, in 100 years or more if kept in a dry place.
So you basically forgot all the crap Sony has pulled out over the years... (e.g. rootkits). At least Microsoft is being honest about it.
As someone else said, the solution is to forgo both PS and Xbox consoles.
> the used game resale options are in the hands of the game developers
Which is funny because were I live it's in the hand of the law. The law that says "I can resell my own games."
This really sucks for those who go to places with lack of communication infrastructure. e.g. military, rural areas with electricity but no internet backbone. Obviously they are not the "intended" audience.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
I just realized another thing. The only time I play on a console is when the internet is down in my area for my PC MMO games. Guess I'm not the intended audience either.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
It's been fun, Xbox, but this is where we part ways. None of these things are technically even huge issues for me- I have a stable internet connection and wouldn't want to bring the console to a cabin or anything. I never sell my games, since I like collecting them- and hell, I'm sure that in 15 years when they take the servers down they'll probably just gut the DRM or lock the games to a specific console and remove the online requirement or do SOMETHING to make sure our games don't become fancy, expensive coasters.
But it's a matter of principle. I don't want a console that treats me like I'm a thief, needing to check up on me once a day to make sure I'm not smoking pot or something. If I fall on hard times and need to sell somethings to get by, I want to know that for the 60 dollar game I bought that there's an option to do so and potentially feed myself for a week. I don't want to worry what will happen to my favorite titles in fifteen years, if I'll be able to play them- that's nothing someone SHOULD have to worry about (And honestly I still prefer Halo 2 to any of the later games anyway...)
I hope the generation that follows this learns from the mistakes being made here. Until then, I'll see you on the PC/Wii U.
Cause you take One look at it then turn around 360 degrees and walk away.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Believing that the issue no longer exists because one person cracks the first implementation is foolhardy at best, and idiotic at worst.
All it takes is for MS to bump the minimum software version required for new games, or add a critical new feature that everyone wants and suddenly you need to updated, and get into the never ending war of jailbreaking and patching. By buying a console with the expectation of it being regularly jailbroken, all you guarantee is that you end up unable to keep up with the latest software update, and hence the latest games.
Uh huh. And if I'm a Xbox non-owner who has no EULA with Microsoft, and I go visit my friend's house who has an Xbox and we have a conversation in his living room that gets recorded..?
They also have a "We may also cease to offer certain services or products for similar reasons." clause. So even if you like a feature (like sharing a game with up to 10 family members), you might find that feature suddenly removed or altered in such a way as to make it useless.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I think Nintendo will just become king of the hill again in that case. They can promote the WiiU being the only console that has this and stores will push it hard.
I think the bigger issue missed here is that rentals are simply no longer possible with Xbox One.
Microsoft has killed the game rental market in one fell swoop.
Personally, I think this is a dumb move... I've bought many games after trying them out as rentals; I doubt I am alone with that practice. That is a lot of potential marketing tossed down the toilet.
Even if the used game market survives (though I doubt it will ever be a factor again), the rental market is gone, gone,gone.
What if I get banned from Xbox Live? Does this 24-hour check-in fail? Am I no longer allowed to play my single player games?
to be fair, people are not "buying windows 8" they are buying new PCs and laptops that happen to have windows 8 on them. the avg user still does not know he has choices and they just buy the new shiney and leave it stock
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Just like publishers of e-books CAN allow you to lend out a kindle-book to someone.
They don't though.
Granted, I haven't bought many kindle books, but as far as I can see none of my books are lendable.
Harald
I guess it depends on whether you owned the game in the first place. for instance, Adobe's licensing makes it clear that you don't own the software that you bought, you just own a license to use it. If game developers use similar license agreements then the law you mention probably does not apply.
Adobes licensing matters not if it conflicts with the law of the land.
Some nations have actual consumer protection.
On the upside, anyone using your console will be able to play your games
How nice of them not to implement biometric identification. Yet.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
In some nations what you describe would be illegal. Some places have this thing called consumer protection and depriving the consumer of something he paid for would be basically the same as fraud.
I can currently give or sell a game to anyone with no requirements that the recipient is on a friends list. They use wording to give the appearance that they are enabling things, but it is really a matter of stating what they are allowing you to do and what you cannot do.
Buying and selling used games is a huge market and creates liquidity for people to buy new games. This is no different than how buying and selling stocks on the stock market creates liquidity for IPOs. But now they are killing that liquidity for game customers.
On your last point, I would argue that sharing a game among users is an irrelevant feature. In my experience, if a game is worth playing, it is worth owning. I do not want to depend upon the generosity of my friends (and vice verse) to be able to play a game. Everyone loses control in that scenario.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
What about rentals?
If MS is going to bend over backwards for the game publishers. What about rentals where you rent the game and then return it. You know to see if you actually like it or not. There are a lot of junk games out there, why should you spend $60.00 on something you will hate, and then not be able to sell back.
I prefer to rent it. If I like it then I will buy it.
With these bending over backwards for the publishers, The software better be Dirt Cheap.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So, the game developers will just make their game require the Xbone's "cloud services." Sure, you can sell the *game*, but if it won't work without access to the *service* (which is independent of the game, at least conceptually), and since the service is precisely that (a service and not a product), it cannot be resold.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Backward compatibility:
The Atari 7800 is backward compatible with almost all Atari 2600 games.
The Game Boy Color is backward compatible with all Game Boy cartridges.
The Game Boy Advance line, except for the Game Boy Micro, is backward compatible with all Game Boy and Game Boy Color games.
The Nintendo DS and the Nintendo DS Lite are backward compatible with all Game Boy Advance games.
The Nintendo 3DS and the Nintendo 3DS XL are backward compatible with most of the Nintendo DS and Nintendo DSi software. However, the 3DS and its predecessor the DSi lack the Game Boy Advance slot found on the DS and DS Lite, causing certain titles to lose functionality when played on the systems. The Guitar Hero: On Tour series is incompatible with the DSi and 3DS because of this.
Initially, the Nintendo Wii was backward compatible with all games from the Nintendo GameCube, due in large part to its PowerPC CPU and ATi graphics architectures being evolved versions of those from the GameCube. However, a "Family Edition" model released in North America and Europe in late 2011 removed GameCube support, and all Wiis manufactured thereafter also lack backward-compatibility.
The Wii U is backward compatible with all Wii games and peripherals.
The PlayStation 2 is backward compatible with most of the original PlayStation library.
Initial PlayStation 3 models are backward compatible with most PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games. This is provided by the inclusion of the original Emotion Engine chip that is built inside the PS2. However, subsequent models removed this and the "Graphics Synthesizer" GPU, thus removing support for PS2 titles, but still able to play most original PS games.
The PS Vita is backward compatible with PSP games, Minis, PlayStation and Neo Geo games downloaded from the PlayStation Store. The Xbox 360 is backward compatible with some Xbox games via software emulation.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Which is funny because were I live it's in the hand of the law. The law that says "I can resell my own games."
And you still can!
You just can't play any second-hand games. But feel free to exercise your legal right to buy and sell all the box art and shiny-but-useless DVDs you want.
/ Yet another next-gen console I won't buy. Looking more and more like I'll go pure-PC for gaming in the near future.
Actually, we understand and acknowledge that these companies want to claim "it's not a sale, it's a license" just fine. We just disagree with the legality of it.
Especially when these companies want to treat it as a license when it benefits them, but then as a sale when that is more beneficial.
Doubly so when all the advertisements say "own/buy it today!".
The problem isn't with used sales, the problem is that they're changing from a product model to a license model that requires authentication. Just because the publisher are given control over how the license works doesn't solve the problem of when the authentication servers eventually shut down giving you a nice collection of coasters.
As someone who still owns and occasionally plays many of the games bought new in the late 80s early 90s this bothers me... I have no interest in buying games with an expiration date.
Collector's Edition
They don't even have to do that. MSFT has now said that it's up to the developer if they will allow games to be resold or not. They don't need any sort of a fig leaf, they just say the game is only licensed for 1 xbox live account.
To me, the thing that sucks even more is that the console has to phone home once a day, or you can't play anything.
Look at all we've read in the press lately about the government deciding they own all phone records, and they've been compiling this data without our knowledge for some time.
Why should we believe the console which is phoning home won't be collecting information about us and reporting it to anyone who has access to use/abuse the system?
Sure, they say the Kinect isn't going to record you. But we pretty much know the government collects first and asks permission later (if ever). They don't even need suspicion to get your phone records anymore.
Maybe the Xbox One should be called the Telescreen instead?
Always on camera, every 24 hours license checks, you have to ask permission to resell your games. If you agree to this you're a chump full stop.
Specifically, the European Court of Justice ruled last year on a case involving Oracle and UsedSoft, with the latter wanting to resell used Oracle software. The court found that licences could be resold, notwithstanding a claim to the contrary in Oracle's licence agreement. Interestingly, they also ruled that if Oracle was offering free maintenance updates to the original purchaser then they must continue to offer the same to the purchaser of the used software licence.
Obviously with any legal case you have to look at the specifics and not assume too much of a precedent, but still, this seems a clear shot across the bows of Big Software that they don't get to close down the used software market through either blunt legalese in the licence agreement or trying to tie related services to the original purchaser only.
For anyone wondering, yes, this ruling is sharply at odds with the US Ninth Circuit's view in the Autodesk case.
(I'm not a lawyer, just an interested observer, so don't read any legal technicalities into the above.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Inkscape is free and already as good as Illustrator.
I like to advocate FOSS solutions too, but I like to tell the truth while I do so. Illustrator is better than Inkscape, but Inkscape is good enough.