PREDICTION: Microsoft will lose hard on this generation.

[Midwayman]

So much for Major Nelson giving Joe a hard time when Joe said it would be simple to disable the 24 hour check in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RtSGFryKwo&t=11m33s

Announced isn't the same as done you know. He was right to correct him on not knowing how easy/hard it is.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Oh come on, it doesn't take an engineer to know that was just a software option...

Again, I find it funny since just a few days ago they said there was no way in hell they were going to change their model.

 

[smackababy]

Oh come on, it doesn't take an engineer to know that was just a software option...

Again, I find it funny since just a few days ago they said there was no way in hell they were going to change their model.

Depending how deep the actual online integration went, it might require quite a bit of code change. They could have been offloading a lot of stuff or something stupid like that.

 

[Midwayman]

Oh come on, it doesn't take an engineer to know that was just a software option...

Again, I find it funny since just a few days ago they said there was no way in hell they were going to change their model.

Right, but he was talking about it like it as a one line option in the code. It could be something that may take weeks to take and and especially retest the code without the DRM option in place. I'm not much of a coder, but from what I have done, what seems like a simple change from the outside can be pretty hairy to implement. Particularly if you don't implement with the intent to be able to disable it.

 

[BoberFett]

Depending how deep the actual online integration went, it might require quite a bit of code change. They could have been offloading a lot of stuff or something stupid like that.

Bypassing checks is trivial. Hackers do it daily, and they don't even have the source.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Right, but he was talking about it like it as a one line option in the code. It could be something that may take weeks to take and and especially retest the code without the DRM option in place. I'm not much of a coder, but from what I have done, what seems like a simple change from the outside can be pretty hairy to implement. Particularly if you don't implement with the intent to be able to disable it.

While I agree with most of this, there is one key part that makes you think. It HAD to be easy to change. Why? Because MS had come out and said that if they ever shut their servers off you would still be able to play your games w/o the 24 hour check. Do we really think MS implemented some check they couldn't just change at the drop of a hat with a patch push?

Sure I think we're all intelligent enough to know it wasn't some single line of code that might take a few weeks to program (but who knows) but that's not worth arguing.

Also, someone was lying somewhere. MS says the publishers pushed for this, and the publishers are all saying they had no clue MS was doing this. How could it be deeply ingrained in the system? Publishers would have to program for this model. I personally find it hard to believe the publishers knew nothing about it, but I also find it hard to believe MS didn't have a role in saying "hey let's do this, it will be $$$"

 

[ViRGE]

This per Kotaku:

Citing multiple sources, GiantBomb says Microsoft has decided to remove a laundry list of Xbox One restrictions that customers considered negative:

• No more always online requirement
• The console no longer has to check in every 24 hours
• All game discs will work on Xbox One as they do on Xbox 360
• Authentication is no longer necessary
• An Internet connection is only required when initially setting up the console
• All downloaded games will function the same when online or offline
• No additional restrictions on trading games or loaning discs
• Region locks have been dropped

You missed the part where you now need to have the disc in to play disc based games. A mandatory full install coupled with requiring disc swapping is going to suck. That was one of the changes I was most looking forward to, to get us past this horrible model if the disc being the authentication token.

Apparently you can't give away digital games now either, which would have been another nice change.

 

[purbeast0]

You missed the part where you now need to have the disc in to play disc based games. A mandatory full install coupled with requiring disc swapping is going to suck. That was one of the changes I was most looking forward to, to get us past this horrible model if the disc being the authentication token.

Apparently you can't give away digital games now either, which would have been another nice change.

you can still do your first paragraph no problem by just downloading digital copies instead of buying the disc.

and your 2nd part, people can now give/sell their disc copies instead of the digital copies, which i'd say is what the majority of people want.

 

[Arkaign]

you can still do your first paragraph no problem by just downloading digital copies instead of buying the disc.

and your 2nd part, people can now give/sell their disc copies instead of the digital copies, which i'd say is what the majority of people want.

Yep. Win! Go Microsoft.

As for this thread, I think it was entirely accurate given the information up to this afternoon, but is no longer valid. I now predict a healthy 50/50 45/55 whatever kind of well matched battle that's great for everyone, ESPECIALLY gamers. Thank god.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Yep. Win! Go Microsoft.

As for this thread, I think it was entirely accurate given the information up to this afternoon, but is no longer valid. I now predict a healthy 50/50 45/55 whatever kind of well matched battle that's great for everyone, ESPECIALLY gamers. Thank god.

Depends... PS4 still is cheaper and has better hardware. That might make a difference in the long run. I'm still not convinced that everyone will forget MS ever tried to do what they did either. I've still seen a lot of people still mistrusting of them. *shrug*

I still think Sony has better first party studios and games too so there's that.

I don't think it'll be 50/50. Not worldwide anyway.

 

[exdeath]

Wonder what Sony is thinking. Oh fawk. Plan B.

 

[lupi]

damn, they broke pretty easy.

 

[KaOTiK]

Wonder what Sony is thinking. Oh fawk. Plan B.

Na, $100 cheaper and more powerful still.

 

[Larnz]

Yeah Xbox is still $100 more expensive but you do get the kinect as well. If the Kinect stuff somehow turns out to be worthwhile/awesome then it the $100 becomes no problems.

If they were to ditch the kinect being plugged in requirement and sell a second SKU of the XBox without the Kinect bundled in they could easily sell for $399 as well which would be good.

I'm not sure that the faster ram and GPU will make that much of a difference, 99% of games will most likley be multiplatform and have to work on both, not sure @1080p there will be much of a diff between the systems. Perhaps in 3 or 4 years as dev's get more into the limits the spec difference might start to show. *shrug*

 

[purbeast0]

Depends... PS4 still is cheaper and has better hardware. That might make a difference in the long run. I'm still not convinced that everyone will forget MS ever tried to do what they did either. I've still seen a lot of people still mistrusting of them. *shrug*

I still think Sony has better first party studios and games too so there's that.

I don't think it'll be 50/50. Not worldwide anyway.

the only people who will do this are sony fanboys and ms haters. i mean the xbox1 isn't even out ffs it isn't like they put it out for 2 years then decided to change their mind.

 

[cmdrdredd]

the only people who will do this are sony fanboys and ms haters. i mean the xbox1 isn't even out ffs it isn't like they put it out for 2 years then decided to change their mind.

LOL here we go again. Just give it up. MS fucked up and pissed people off. This helps a bit but it's not gonna erase it from everyone's mind. /end

Yeah Xbox is still $100 more expensive but you do get the kinect as well. If the Kinect stuff somehow turns out to be worthwhile/awesome then it the $100 becomes no problems.

If they were to ditch the kinect being plugged in requirement and sell a second SKU of the XBox without the Kinect bundled in they could easily sell for $399 as well which would be good.

I'm not sure that the faster ram and GPU will make that much of a difference, 99% of games will most likley be multiplatform and have to work on both, not sure @1080p there will be much of a diff between the systems. Perhaps in 3 or 4 years as dev's get more into the limits the spec difference might start to show. *shrug*

It'll make a difference when a developer decides those 50% more shaders and compute performance can be used for their game. It's like saying "there's no difference between a GTX 580 and a GTX 780". There's a whole lot of difference. They may play the same game but the things one can do over the other are large indeed.

 

[Larnz]

Yeah fair point.

 

[purbeast0]

LOL here we go again. Just give it up. MS fucked up and pissed people off. This helps a bit but it's not gonna erase it from everyone's mind. /end

well i personally think that having brand loyalty is retarded in general, unless you've had a REALLY bad experience with it in the past, and just steer clear of it in the future. but to hold a grudge because of policies that were announced, not even put into practice because the product isn't out yet, even though those policies were changed due to consumer backlash, then yeah that is just petty as shit to me.

they keep the crappy drm policies - people dont' like them and don't want an x1.

they change the crappy drm policies to meet the wants of 99.99% of the backlash/feedback they hard - people don't like them and don't want an x1.

it is lose/lose for them in some people's minds, and that is what i call a hater. no matter what they do it won't be good enough.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yep. They should have done it right the first time, fanboy.

 

[cmdrdredd]

well i personally think that having brand loyalty is retarded in general, unless you've had a REALLY bad experience with it in the past, and just steer clear of it in the future. but to hold a grudge because of policies that were announced, not even put into practice because the product isn't out yet, even though those policies were changed due to consumer backlash, then yeah that is just petty as shit to me.

they keep the crappy drm policies - people dont' like them and don't want an x1.

they change the crappy drm policies to meet the wants of 99.99% of the backlash/feedback they hard - people don't like them and don't want an x1.

it is lose/lose for them in some people's minds, and that is what i call a hater. no matter what they do it won't be good enough.

If someone cheats you, then apologizes and changes their ways he is still a cheater in the back of your mind. That's how I look at it.

 

[Mopetar]

Right, but he was talking about it like it as a one line option in the code. It could be something that may take weeks to take and and especially retest the code without the DRM option in place. I'm not much of a coder, but from what I have done, what seems like a simple change from the outside can be pretty hairy to implement. Particularly if you don't implement with the intent to be able to disable it.

Actually it wouldn't be that difficult. If you have code that does DRM checks, just always have it validate. So if you have some really complicated functions or code, just always have it return true. All of the structure remains the same, it just skips over doing anything.

It's not a one line option, but it's not exactly difficult to implement.

 

[cmdrdredd]

 

[meloz]

What worries me about Microsoft is that they can change policies later.

Right now they are saying 'no DRM' to placate the consumers. When they have sold sufficient amount of hardware they will again change their course and introduce DRM. I bet the fine print says they reserve the right to do so and so on.

 

[Ancalagon44]

What worries me about Microsoft is that they can change policies later.

Right now they are saying 'no DRM' to placate the consumers. When they have sold sufficient amount of hardware they will again change their course and introduce DRM. I bet the fine print says they reserve the right to do so and so on.

If announcing DRM was a PR disaster for them, reversing course on DRM again after release would be the PR equivalent of a 2 mile wide asteroid made of TNT crashing into New York

 

[erwos]

What worries me about Microsoft is that they can change policies later.

So could Sony. In fact, they did just that during the PS3's run. (And the PS2's, if we count DNAS.)