
The Internet Just Made Microsoft Kill a Car for a Faster Horse - thisisdallas
https://medium.com/adventures-in-consumer-technology/a849a9d4d530
======
rmrfrmrf
Try hard as they might, it's impossible to make those "features" sound good.

This one is especially amazing: "You could re-sell your physical disc game to
Gamestop or any participating outlet that opted into Microsoft’s revenue
sharing system." Gee, thanks, Microsoft! It's not like those outlets will pass
the cost right onto the consumer or anything (oh wait, they will). It's
incredible how the Xbox team thought, "Look at that money over there. Let's
take it!" What's next, Wal-Mart charging Ralph Lauren every time a customer
comes in wearing a Polo shirt (because why should other clothing companies get
free advertising in their store)?

The other issue? For the author to be completely honest, every "benefit"
mentioned in the article should have "for a fee" added to the end of it. It's
not very fun or innovative to get nickeled and dimed every step of the way.
The fact that the public received 3 different messages about digital sharing
costs (the three being no cost, a small fee, and the full price of the game)
didn't help matters, either.

Another issue I had with the digital system is with the games themselves. Most
critics of physical media on Xbox One mention the iOS model, but fail to note
how Xbox One is different from it. If I download an app on my iPad, it
instantly shows up on my iPhone and my iPad mini, ready for use. I don't have
to pay any extra usage fees for multiple devices. The apps themselves are in
the $0-$10 range. Most importantly, most apps run in the 5-50MB range, so
downloads are quick and my apps are ready to go in minutes. Compare that with
Xbox One, where games are likely to be in the 10-20GB range and $60.00
(formerly with fees for sharing and resale). If you consider sharing to be
going over to a friend's house, entering your password, then waiting 3.5 hours
for a download to finish to be in some way innovative or interesting, then you
are clearly not the target market for this device. Gamers want instant
gratification, not waiting around for downloads and jumping through hoops.

The last point I want to make is this: the author, Jason Chen, is a fool if he
thinks that replacing one black box in front of a TV for another is _in any
way_ comparable to upgrading from a horse and buggy to a car. The DRM-laden,
no-money-left-behind nature of Xbox One in the context of tech in 2013 (a
jungle of price fixing, nickeling/diming, credit card storing, and
"convenient" subscription modeling) is precisely the status quo that consumers
are _finally_ revolting against.

~~~
lotso
>It's incredible how the Xbox team thought, "Look at that money over there.
Let's take it!" What's next, Wal-Mart charging Ralph Lauren every time a
customer comes in wearing a Polo shirt (because why should other clothing
companies get free advertising in their store)?

Could you explain this analogy because it makes zero sense to me.

>The other issue? For the author to be completely honest, every "benefit"
mentioned in the article should have "for a fee" added to the end of it. It's
not very fun or innovative to get nickeled and dimed every step of the way.
The fact that the public received 3 different messages about digital sharing
costs (the three being no cost, a small fee, and the full price of the game)
didn't help matters, either.

Could you link to the three different sharing cost messages?

>Compare that with Xbox One, where games are likely to be in the 10-20GB range
and $60.00 (formerly with fees for sharing and resale). If you consider
sharing to be going over to a friend's house, entering your password, then
waiting 3.5 hours for a download to finish to be in some way innovative or
interesting, then you are clearly not the target market for this device.
Gamers want instant gratification, not waiting around for downloads and
jumping through hoops.

I would imagine they would allow you to play parts of the game without needing
to install the whole game, similar to Steam.

>The DRM-laden, no-money-left-behind nature of Xbox One in the context of tech
in 2013 (a jungle of price fixing, nickeling/diming, credit card storing, and
"convenient" subscription modeling) is precisely the status quo that consumers
are finally revolting against.

How is it different than Steam, other than speculating that Microsoft would
never aggressively discount games as much as Steam does now (even though it
took them several years for their store to be well-liked by gamers)?

~~~
lelandbatey
It's interesting, because in this whole thing I've noticed that there's a
reason that I am ok with Steam on my PC when I'm not ok with digital downloads
for a console.

Primarily, it's because of the kinds of games that are released and played on
them. On PC, I have games that are inherently ALL about the online experience,
games like TF2, DOTA 2, League of Legends, Starcraft 2, Counter Strike, ARMA,
and many more. These games (from what I've seen) make up the biggest
contingency of PC games, and they all "fit" within Steam and it's business
model very well.

However, on console you have an entirely different type of game: the game as a
story. These kinds of games make up the bulk of the console market, games like
Uncharted (1, 2, and 3), the Bioshock series, the Mass Effect trilogy, the Far
Cry series, the God of War games, etc. Even just the way you label them
(series, trilogy, etc) shows the difference: these are static creations.

Ultimately, on a platform that most people use to consume STATIC pieces of
content, why do we need to be chained to some other service? Why must I have
an internet connection to enjoy a great single-player experience?

~~~
batiudrami
That might be correct for you, but it's not really for most gamers.

Each year the annual COD release on consoles is huge on consoles (bigger than
on PC). FIFA is similarly huge in Europe. Halo, one of the biggest console
exclusives, is praised at least 50/50 for it's single/multiplayer content.
Online gaming is a big part of console games, even if it isn't for you.

At the same time, most of the games you mentioned as single player experiences
are available on PC. Plus many (I'd say most, even) PC-exclusive titles are
heavily single-player focused.

Obviously, this doesn't affect your personal reasoning, but I don't think it's
shared by many people.

------
proland
This really just looks like sour grapes from Microsoft to me.

There's no reason they couldn't have both...

Buy a physical disk? Trade use it like you always have, but you don't get to
make use of all the fancy cloud features.

Buy your game online? You'll need to phone home every once in a while (24
hours was a bit harsh, maybe more like 1 week), and you can't trade it like
physical media, but you get the fancy new lending features.

Decide you like the new way better? Convert your physical copies into 'cloud'
copies and throw out the disks.

Problem solved.

~~~
NZ_Matt
The problem with convert to cloud is that it would require every Xbox to go
online in order to check with the mothership before running the game, even
from a disk. Otherwise you'd be able to share the disk with offline users who
could continue using the physical copy.

They had two choices:

Require an internet connection before running a game. (the 24 hour check)

or

The disk must be present at all times.

~~~
hysan
You're thinking a bit closed minded. There are other ways to tackle the
problem depending on how user friendly or user unfriendly you want the console
to be. For example:

1\. Converting to cloud could require users to trade in the physical disk at a
local store for a digital CD key. A pain for users but by making this a known
requirement up front, users won't be able to complain about it and it may
convince users who are on the fence to just get the digital copy from the
start.

2\. Require all games to have a CD Key (acts as the same key for converting to
cloud) and a small footprint installable component. Tell users that you don't
need an internet connection to validate but if you do connect to the internet,
the Xbox One will periodically "phone home" and check to see if your CD keys
are legitimate. It won't stop sharing the physical copy after converting to
cloud, but it would make it much more of a hassle and prevent multiplayer
games from being shared easily. Bonus for users who are converting - the
digital version of the game can be installed via the disk so they don't have
to wait to download the game to convert it to the cloud. This would also make
reinstalling much faster so long as users keep the physical copy.

There are many other possibilities that have been mentioned already so I'll
stop here. Just note that this isn't an either or situation. There is a lot of
flexibility here.

~~~
asperous
You're still thinking inside the box a little. Gamecube used a variety of
patented format cds and encryption keys stored in a small area of the cd for
their copy protection. [1]

Or, you know, just turn off the always-online or check-in-each-24h requirement
and just lock down the hardware from sideloading games onto it. Even without
that, something tells me people would still buy games.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_optical_disc#Nintendo_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_optical_disc#Nintendo_GameCube_Game_Disc)

------
just2n
What a terrible article.

First, the analogy is completely wrong.

Second, Microsoft is realizing people are getting seriously tired of the
bullshit "always on" concept. It's hard to justify and is widely rejected as a
valid technical limitation on platforms where you expect to always have an
internet connection (and is only accepted when the gameplay itself REQUIRES a
connection, unlike the late SimCity). It's completely unacceptable in a device
that historically has been played without an internet connection, and in the
best case, that scenario becomes like the PC, in that it's only acceptable
when the user wants to play some form of internet-based multiplayer.

There is no valid technical justification for "it has to either be all
physical CDs or you have to have to connect to our servers every 24 hours".
With a properly secured console, it should be fairly trivial to support shared
digital games without requiring a ping.

I, surely less intelligent than the entirety of the xbox team, came up with
this in about 10 seconds:

Person A informs server of intent to share game G with person B.

Server sends a message to person A: "game G disabled for period X hours". This
message is signed for authenticity, with public key crypto, verifiable by a
public key stored in secured memory on the console.

Server sends a message to person B: "game G activated and enabled for period X
hours". This message signed identically to #2.

Person B starts game G, console verifies signed access card, if valid,
downloads game. Once download/install is complete, console again verifies
access card. If valid, runs it. Periodically, every 30 minutes, console checks
running processes against associated access cards. If an access card becomes
invalid, the process is terminated gracefully (save progress, notify user
why).

Person A tries to start game G. Console verifies signed access card, if valid.
Access is restricted, so console informs user G is temporarily unavailable due
to being shard with Person B.

Surely this isn't that difficult to implement? And now you don't have to be
online except to download the digital game.

I seriously HATE it when companies try to impose nonsensical, unjustifiable,
technically wrong "limitations" on me just because it suits them. Stop it.

~~~
jbri
In general, making up security schemes off the top of your head doesn't go so
well.

Case in point: You forgot to ensure that Console A actually finds out that a
particular game has been disabled.

~~~
just2n
Not really, I just didn't include obvious details for brevity. Of course you
verify cryptographically that the transferring console has received the
disable notification and has marked the game as disabled before continuing the
process. We can simplify this and call it sending the console a message that
it needs to disable the game.

------
nhangen
I think the OP here is giving MS more credit than they are due. I don't
believe they were trying to build a car, and I don't believe they had a
messaging problem. I think they were trying to pull a bait and switch. Pitch a
car and sell a faster horse. They got caught, and the Internet won.

You can easily get to that conclusion by gauging the HD storage shipping with
each unit. Add to that the average speed of Internet in the US, and you have a
poor situation for over the net gaming.

We're just not there yet.

~~~
skeletonjelly
> Add to that the average speed of Internet in the US, and you have a poor
> situation for over the net gaming.

Now maybe. The article mentions that it's a device designed for the next 7 or
8 years.

~~~
nhangen
I don't think this generation of consoles will survive without a refresh in
the next 7 or 8 years. Tech is moving too fast.

~~~
Fargren
It hasn't for the last seven years? Other than the arrival of SSDs, the
consoles were running on a half-decade old tech and still doing fine. If
anything, tech seems to be moving slower lately, with less increase of
processor powers and less notable increases in graphics capability.

~~~
nhangen
The last 7 were far different IMO. Coming out of the bubble, and very little
progress in software, not much needed to change. But now, I think the fact
that software, not hardware, is changing rapidly, a 7-8 year cycle isn't going
to work.

Sure, they can bolt-on new firmware updates and operating systems, but I think
the way we use consoles will change quite a bit in the next 3-4 years alone.

------
jongraehl
Some internet pundits don't understand the value of a game machine that works
_without ever connecting to the internet_.

MS wants to sell _precisely one_ license but support both never-connected
machines and cloud lending, but this was too hard for them to figure out and
they're dropping the cloud part.

The cloud lending facility required expiring leases (think DHCP) to guard
against the possibility of a purchaser intentionally stranding their license
at a friend's house (or on a dead xbox, or one that loses internet
connectivity), where that friend would play happily for weeks without
connecting to the network.

If you believe in the effectiveness of copy-proof-disc DRM, then a single
token permitting ongoing play can certainly just reside on the disc.

How about this:

1\. disc alone doesn't suffice to play a game on an unconnected xbox (so
never-connected users are out of luck)

2\. net connected xbox alone can acquire the right-to-play token as long as
the previous holder of the token is online. (physical disc from store would
need insertion only on first use to create the initial on-net token).

3\. an unconnected xbox that was the last one to use the net token may
continue to play indefinitely without net access, provided the disc can be
validated. this does allow simultaneous play of at most one online and one
disc, but only as long as the xbox stays intentionally unconnected (this
limits the number of extra licenses to at most 1, unlike a more lenient cloud-
lending policy that allows continued play without check-ins).

I believe the renew-lease-every-24hr model already allowed simultaneous play
in case of the last token holder being offline (if the game didn't require a
connection to play, that is).

If absolutely prohibiting simultaneous play from a single purchase is a must
(and I don't see why it should be; an average concurrency of strictly less
than 2 sounds fine), then you just need to require explicit lease releases
(and the disc becomes irrelevant again), which has an obvious customer service
overhead when people can't release for whatever reason.

Alternatively they could implement a physical 'disc destroyer' that can move a
game (one-way) to the cloud phone-home mode. Or just require an xbox to phone
home before permitting a new disc (giving up on never-connected xboxes), in
which case no physical destruction is necessary.

~~~
TechNewb
Agreed. Also, in the ever increasing world of globalization, I don't believe
in region locking.

Currently I own a Korean Xbox 360, as I bought it in Seoul while living there
years ago. Since moving back to the US I have not bothered buying any new
games mainly b/c I don't want to deal with having to worry about region
locking.

It will be interesting to see how ownership and digital files interact in the
future. Do I even own any of my digital files?

~~~
MartinCron
_I don 't believe in region locking_

It looks like Microsoft doesn't anymore, either. The "no region locking"
announcement today was an unexpected surprise.

------
brudgers
The gaming industry as a whole has gone backward.

The idea that a game would ship which allowed users to set up their own
networks and play their buds seems alien. Instead, many franchises shut down
their subscription service after a couple of years - e.g. to force the upgrade
from FIFA 12 to FIFA 14.

I remember Quake - the free demo, and fragging my coworkers over the Novell
after hours to the point that my wife would call the office...this was before
cell phones...just to make sure I wasn't _really_ out drinking and perhaps
chasing skirts.

~~~
anonymous
Quake wasn't made by a marketing team. Also, here on the PC side, things still
seem fine as ever, maybe even better when you consider the fact that we have
fully drm-free options these days.

------
B0Z
This is frustrating and it's a false choice. "The Internet" is otherwise known
as the people who were most likely to purchase an XBox 1 before hearing about
the draconian DRM policies. If the XBox 360 were a horrible product, MS would
have heard very very little from "The Internet".

Who they heard from was a fan base who very much still enjoy their XBox 360s
and were truly looking forward to an improved product with some sick
innovations that only companies like Microsoft can deliver. They heard from
this collection of people because in addition to the excellent innovations,
they tacked on completely unreasonable restrictions that make the product all
but completely useless if you CHOSE not to connect it to the network or have
the spying eye watching your every move, and then twisted themselves into a
pretzel trying to either make these sound like a feature instead of handcuffs
or failing to explain that you could turn off the advanced features of the
Kinect.

In response to hearing from "The Internet", instead of actually listening to
what was being said and making some reasonable changes to the restrictions,
they stopped dead in their tracks, turned 180 degrees, then killed many of the
innovations that could have been modified while still providing consumers with
an actual choice.

I'm sooooo tired of being told I'm too stupid to understand something. By my
government, and by big companies who once commanded my respect.

------
rurounijones
> "Most people aren’t Richard Branson and most people have enough of a
> connection, however intermittent, to authenticate once a day."

Military Personnel nonwithstanding...

> "Who knows, maybe Microsoft will change the policy again and have people opt
> in to the online check so that they can share their libraries with their
> friends. Maybe they will have another tier where people opt in to these
> benefits. I hope so."

And that was the crux of the matter. WE WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE, I am all in
favour of letting people choose which is more important to them but MS
initially shafted a load of people with their "This is how it is going to be"
without any options spiel.

[EDIT] I suppose I should put as a disclaimer that I have never owned any of
the x-boxes nor plan to. I am merely commenting from the point of view of a
consumer in general.

~~~
mynameisvlad
> WE WERE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE

As consumers, we are rarely given a choice.

~~~
lelandbatey
Well, we're always given a choice in the end: buy it or don't buy it.

It's what I've done in the past, and it's what I'll do now. I'll just not buy
it. Because if you complain, but buy it anyway, you're really saying that it's
still worth while to you.

~~~
gngeal
_Well, we 're always given a choice in the end: buy it or don't buy it._

That works with grocery, baked goods, music, perhaps even computers (if you
opt not to look at the CPU inside), but game consoles? You can hardly say
"fuck Sony, I'm going to buy Final Fantasy for Wii". This only works on a free
market, which is a rare sight these days.

~~~
jbri
You still have a choice! "Can play Game X" is a feature of the platform just
as much as as its hard-drive space or lack of DRM or whatever. Luxuries always
have an element of consumer choice involved.

It's only, in fact when you start talking about essentials such as food,
housing and basic services where you can claim you're forced to buy something.
And I'm not even sure where you were trying to go with that music comparison
(It's not like I can buy an album but choose to give the money to a different
record company).

~~~
gngeal
Why not apply it to the life itself? I mean, people who can't afford food are
free to die, aren't they? It's not like anyone is forcing them to live or
something. Using this kind of logic, anything can be turned into a choice.

~~~
lelandbatey
Except choosing to consume a commodity piece of art is very much a _choice_
not a need like food or sleep.

------
bobsy
The main issue is how badly Microsoft marketed the XBOX One. They completely
failed to get their message across. As a result they were getting shit on by
Sony.

Facebook and reddit have seen a huge number of anti-XBOX posts.. I don't know
what pre-orders were looking like but I would imagine they aren't great
because of all the bad publicity.

I wonder how things would have looked if Microsoft had a decent marketing
team.

"We are going to revolutionize how you enjoy games. When you buy a game you
can share it with up to 10 friends. When you sign in to any console anywhere
your games library will be available. Here's a first. You can transfer digital
games to another person!"

They could then talk about the caveats.

"To make these features possible and promote the development of awesome games
we have introduced a developer revenue sharing plan for used games. This means
you can only trade in games with registered partners. We have already signed
up Gamestop, blah, blah and blah. We are adding more every day. On average an
American will only be x miles from a vendor."

"The XBOX One allows you to play games online and offline. Just like any other
console. However, to make use of game sharing and portable games library both
XBOX's will need to be connected to the Internet so they can regularly check
in."

"We believe the XBOX One will allow you to experience more games. We are the
first vendor to let you share digital games. You will never need to walk
around with your disc's again. The games will be right with you. This is the
XBOX One"

OK.. I added in offline play. I think it is ridiculous that they didn't allow
this. I would have got behind this. The problem is that Microsoft hadn't
worked out what they were doing before their launch event. Everyone was
confused. Then there was the death trickle of hit and miss information from MS
and XBOX support. Meanwhile deafening rumors drowned out everything else.

The Internet didn't make Microsoft kill anything. They did all this themselves
with some of the worst information delivery and brand management I have ever
seen.

"The Internet" made it clear offline gaming and the ability to freely trade
and share games were important to them. I am happy that a lot of people sent a
strong message in an attempt to defend this right. It is a shame that
Microsoft couldn't get across that what they were providing was in fact not at
odds with this.

~~~
mtgx
You can only spin the "DRM is good for you" message so much. Most people are
smarter than to fall for it.

~~~
Kylekramer
Gamers seem to love Steam.

~~~
eddieroger
Steam's DRM stays out of my way, in the same way iTunes' used to. Microsoft's
DRM forced me to play in a way they saw fit.

~~~
Kylekramer
Which is the point. DRM isn't the boogeyman. It is how DRM is presented.

~~~
proofofconcept
No, the relevant issue is how the DRM is designed and executed. The
substantive differences between MS's scheme and how Steam does things are too
big to simply gloss over. The marketing could have been as slick as you please
but they would still have been trying to sell a shit sandwich. It's no
surprise that gamers sniffed them out.

------
drawkbox
On the flipside, their no self-publish policy and required publisher
agreements (which need to be able to publish 4 titles a year on the device) is
pushing a horse (old market) over going to a car (new market).

They would have been better off just applying discounts to titles that can't
be resold or shared (who wouldn't buy the same game for 20% off that way?).
Change people with the market and benefits, don't try to change them with bad
PR decisions. Apple's customers always liked the virtual keyboard due to the
benefits of more screen.

A big fail on the always on 'feature' was for many soliders overseas, they
wouldn't be able to play in many cases:
[http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JayJohnson/20130611/194155/The_Xb...](http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JayJohnson/20130611/194155/The_Xbox_One_from_a_service_members_perspective_Conversations_Ive_had_and_heard_on_my_last_deployment.php)

~~~
chaostheory
> They would have been better off just applying discounts to titles that can't
> be resold or shared (who wouldn't buy the same game for 20% off that way?).

Yes. I feel that MS's Xbox division has forgotten, when they chose to focus on
the publishers instead of the consumer and developer, that price is what makes
DRM stores like Audible ($15 or less for audiobooks that normally cost
$25-$50) or iOS (most games are 0.99 or FREE compared to 19.99-29.99 for
mobile games on other platforms) successful. Price is also what keeps people
coming back to Steam.

> On the flipside, their no self-publish policy and required publisher
> agreements

This is something else I don't understand. It's easy to see that self-
publishing is what made Apple, Google, and Valve app stores so successful. MS
even has a Win 8 app store. I don't understand how they couldn't see that this
should apply to Xbox as well when both Sony and Nintendo already realize this.
Why cater to large video game publishers when their days are numbered due to
the app stores?

------
clavalle
Don't worry. Valve will come out with a nice car (SteamBox) and will craft
their message more carefully to make sure all of the horse lovers don't get
spooked before they fall in love with the ride.

~~~
kevingadd
Valve doesn't have to do anything about messaging because _Steam already works
like the XBox One was going to_.

~~~
skeletonjelly
Really? Did you read the article? Can you sell the games you own on Steam?
Lend them to your friends?

~~~
marshray
The point is that many of us who were relatively happy users of Steam were
annoyed at the changes in the Xbone. However, Steam took a decade before I let
it on my computer. I literally didn't realize I'd be buying into it when I
bought a retail copy of Bioshock Ultimate.

Whereas Microsoft went to the biggest built-up launch event in all of gaming
and told all the gamers waiting on the edge of their seat and gave the
impression that they cared more about the set-top box market instead and the
Xbone was going to lock you out of even disc games that you buy unless you
give it a 24/7 phone-home kill switch. Oh and if the cloud thought that your
IP address looked like it came from the wrong region you were DoA too.

To be out-consumer-friendlied by Sony of all companies, ouch that stings.

Disclosure: MS employee, not in Xbox, my own opinion only

------
ctdonath
_Maybe sharing their libraries with their friends wasn’t something they were
looking forward to. Maybe they liked having to bring all their physical discs
along wherever they went. Maybe they didn’t care about having the ability to
sell their digital games after they’re done playing. I don’t know._

I really despise conversations that take this turn, to wit: "maybe the people
I'm treating like idiots really are massochistic morons out to hurt themselves
any way possible and don't want anything to improve." It shows no interest in
the possibility that there is a very real valid concern they're having trouble
expressing to someone who doesn't want to hear it.

~~~
pharrington
Along with this, everyone praising the supposed benefits of digital lending
forget that they had no actual idea of how it would work. There are no
details. Microsoft never defined what "family" meant, and nobody has any idea
of how the system would be implemented. People were praising a feature that
literally didn't exist.

 _[Phil] Spencer: We don 't have a lending solution today.

Kotaku: You might have one?

Spencer: We don't have a path... I don't want to make a commitment to somebody
without a plan of record on how that lands. I could over-promise, under-
deliver on the features. I don't want to do that. I want to make sure. I
understand how gifting is going to work. I understand how the secondary market
is going to work._

------
chaostheory
The problem is that Microsoft put a saddle on the car by offering physical
discs. I really didn't see the point of it if it was always online, given that
MS has their music and movie stores.

Moreover it didn't really give consumers the main benefit of always on DRM:
lower prices for games. This is why consumers don't care about the DRM on iOS
or even Android.

Another major problem is that for all the features offered for Xbox One that
apologists like to keep repeating (family sharing, trade-ins, lending,
selling), there was a really big caveat: publishers have to approve that
feature for their respective games. Even if they did approve it, I can imagine
all the restrictions they would have imposed (trade-in approved stores,
minimum time & publisher set prices for trade-ins, and so on)

~~~
mxxx
physical discs are useful for people with always-on-but-still-painfully-slow
internet, and it also was a way for MS to compromise and not piss off all the
physical disc retailers, who happen to be the same people who will retail the
console itself.

~~~
ekianjo
Yeah, but they could have sold their console with online retail only, a la
Amazon. That would have been really innovative.

~~~
lotso
>That would have been really innovative.

And a great way to lose out on billions of sales.

~~~
ekianjo
Ask Amazon how it turned out for them with the Kindle. Sold only online. No
retailers. They crushed all the other physical ebook-readers re-sellers.

~~~
Spytap
Ask Australia if they'd like to download one game a month and max out the
allowed data on their internet connection. Data caps are still common, and for
every marketplace that has them, a digital-only marketplace is DOA.

------
scott_w
This article has about one good paragraph (the first one), then descends into
mindless internet-hating drivel. The internet didn't make Microsoft do
anything - Microsoft, for better or worse, capitulated to popular demand.

Maybe Microsoft's problem was a marketing problem. It's not the fault of the
general public that a multi-billion dollar organisation can't communicate its
vision. As the article states, Apple managed to push its vision of the iPhone
and iPad through in spite of the vocal opposition.

------
wpietri
One of the things that I learned from studying Lean Manufacturing was to see a
company's primary goal as generating customer value. Extracting enough cash to
be sustainable is important, but value comes first.

In this case, I look at the 24-hour thing, and MS's apparent horror of
somebody playing for a few days on a friend's license. And I say: _that is
value being created_. Somebody had fun. That's the whole fucking point of the
enterprise. They should be happy.

Now they do want to capture reasonable amounts of revenue, so I get why they
don't want to sell exactly one copy of a game that gets shared around an
entire city. But if some rule creates only a modest increase in revenue while
destroying a lot of value (or creating a lot of customer headache), then it
strikes me as dumb. And when they do something that may get them no extra
revenue at all, or might even drive away paying customers, then it's
shockingly dumb. It's being willing to make a pie smaller, as long as you get
a bigger fraction of what's left.

There's a financial saying that I think applies: bulls make money and bears
make money, but pigs get slaughtered.

------
frozenport
> For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone
> would have had a physical keyboard.

For example, if Apple had gone with their initial plans we wouldn't have Apps.

------
Maxious
Gizmodo coincidently published a similar "the internet dun goofed" post
[http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-
its-o...](http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-
fault-514411905)

~~~
thornkin
What's the old saying? You can please some of the people all of the time and
all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time?

~~~
dclowd9901
I think the saying here is, "here's money, now write a pro-Microsoft piece."

------
JOnAgain
Shitty article. They weren't trying to build a car, they were trying to get
the horse to pull a car. They were still selling physical media, just
hamstringing it so it would be less useful than it is today. Want to build a
"Steam for XBox", go right ahead. Want to make buying from "Steam for XBox"
the only way to get games, go right ahead. But that's not what they did. They
Said, buy games like today, oh, and here are a bunch of extra value-reducing
"features" that go with it.

------
gcb0
Microsoft remembered it sells (mostly) console, not (mostly) games.

pleasing the pirates sells wonders.

If you only lived your teenager years in the US or Japan, then you will not
understand. But Sony et al sold millions of consoles to other countries where
the market probably bought 1 game per 10 consoles sold (numbers vaguely
remembered from a playstation1 analysis i read a long time ago)

~~~
jerf
"market probably bought 1 game per 10 consoles sold"

You seem to have reciprocated your fraction there:
[http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-
Ratio/G...](http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/Tie-
Ratio/Global/)

Globally, the PS1 sold about 9 games per console. I don't necessarily fully
trust that site or that number, but it's probably at least within a factor of
two, which still leaves it a great distance from your number.

~~~
gcb0
Never said global numbers. I meant specifically the emerging countries.

~~~
jerf
My apologies.

------
gfodor
Looking forward to the iTV or SteamBox. I live in 2013 in the U.S., and I am
willing to buy a device that requires I have Internet access in my living
room, and leverages that fact to let me buy and share games in an innovative
way. I guess I'm a rare bird!

------
billwilliams
Every time i see a post from medium.com on hacker news it always has some
dramatic headline. But then the content tends to be poorly thought out, and
more contrarian than insightful. Dear hacker news gods, please don't feed into
tabloid techno-journalism.

------
aaronbrethorst
> I’ll most likely only buy 2 or 3 used games in the entire 7 year console
> life, and my internet very rarely goes out.

Well, that makes one of us. I'm relieved that Microsoft backed down on this,
despite the cost in new features. Personally, I'm less interested in buying
used games as I am passing them along to friends or selling them, but I would
be pissed if they unilaterally removed this option for me.

------
Karunamon
Uh, the internet did no such thing. The internet revolted because Microsoft is
incapable of making a "sharing" system for the 1 that isn't ridiculously anti-
customer garbage.

------
dools
_For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone
would have had a physical keyboard._

If. Fucking. Only.

------
nhebb
> _You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get
> up all the time to swap discs_

Holy crap, that's lazy. Who wrote this, Eric Cartman?
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjjVtvxRMs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjjVtvxRMs)

~~~
skeletonjelly
You could say the same thing about having your entire music library at your
fingertips digitally and having to get up to swap a CD.

~~~
nhebb
You can play music while doing other things. With video games, it is the thing
that you are doing. If getting out of a chair to swap a disc is a big issue
for someone, that's really not a healthy sign.

~~~
skeletonjelly
Good point. Still, it's (and I loath to use this phrase) the future. Movies
then. Makes more sense on a HTPC than having to swap out discs.

------
sgift
Not really - Microsoft did this to themselves, the Internet is not
responsible. Microsoft could have done something else here: Think. Yes, all
these people could have used their brains to _add_ all these "new" (or rather:
old) mechanisms without killing of the scenarios defined as forward looking by
Microsoft. They could have been forward looking AND caring for the status quo.
But in typical sore looser fashion it is far easier to go back to only the old
way and whine around "And our new ideas are out now! You did not want them!
And now you do not get them! You evil people!"

But at least it is better than the first iteration.

------
UberMouse
I don't really see how the features they removed are incompatible with not
requiring online checkins every 24h and certainly not with the used game
policy. I don't see why they couldn't have made the online checkins optional,
but required to do any of the game sharing, and if you don't check in within
24h it just disables games that aren't yours and doesn't let other people play
yours.

Sure, that could be gotten around but people are going to figure out how to
pirate anyway.

~~~
kytmizuno
I think the problem happens when Person A buys a game disc and lends a digital
copy to Person B. Person A then disconnects from the Internet and plays using
the game disc and Person B plays with the 24H online check in. Now you have
two people playing the same game at the same time with only one copy of the
game bought.

~~~
scld
How does that not happen with their old system? You buy a disc, install it,
remove the disc (doesn't need to go back in) and then give it to someone else?

~~~
lotso
You need the disc in the tray to play games installed to the hard drive (that
weren't digital downloads).

------
DannoHung
Bullshit. If Microsoft had any guts, they woulda done this but only for non-
physical copies. Then the consumer would have a choice on whether they liked
the direction things were going or not and there would have actually been some
benefit from the status quo for the consumer.

You know what the difference between the console based DRM schemes and Steam
is? A worse situation was already emerging on PC. Publishers were starting to
employ draconian DRM policies that eliminated any chance of resale or sharing,
but also didn't work properly and made pirated games a significantly better
choice than buying a game from a store.

Steam gave you a better experience with the same limitations as the sell-side
of the market was starting to demand and enforce.

If you think Microsoft made a bad move, you are plainly ignoring the history
of PC gaming and trying to imagine that the status quo was how it always
existed.

Oh, hey, you know what else MS could have done if they had guts? They could
have made it an option to add a disc game to your permanent library, allowing
a consumer to voluntarily give up their right of resale for permanent digital
access.

Of course they're cowards, smart cowards, but cowards.

------
6d0debc071
Comparing marginal utility gains for small numbers of people with the
difference between mechanised transport and horses is just such ... well, the
horses used to leave it behind them:

\------------------------

 _• If you purchased a physical disc game, your game was tied to your account
and you could go to any other Xbox One and be able to have access to your
entire library without carrying physical discs around_

Who cares? The device would sit in front of the TV.

 _• You could re-sell your physical disc game to Gamestop or any participating
outlet that opted into Microsoft’s revenue sharing system_

Second hand console games. A never before heard of thing.

 _• You could buy a used physical disc game from a participating retailer and
play it like a new game_

Yeah, a never heard of before thing...

 _• You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get
up all the time to swap discs_

Oh, the hardship!

 _• You could buy a digital copy and sell it or gift it to a friend (a
previously unheard-of policy in digital games)_

This is just an outright lie. You can do that on Steam today.

 _• You could potentially share your entire library with 10 friends /family
members, with the only limitation being that you couldn’t play the same game
at once_

So, just like with the disks.

\------------------------

------
russelluresti
The problem was that the "car" they launched with wasn't going to work. It's
like they pushed a car with no doors or seat belts.

I like the MS vision for a future of pure digital content that's associated
with an account so that you can log in from anywhere and get access to it.

The problem with their vision and the Xbox One is that they didn't fully
commit. They made a half-step that didn't take us all the way to their vision
but still put some, frankly, poorly thought out requirements on the user.

A half-step is fine if you have the ability to iterate quickly and get the
rest of the way there in a week or a month. But consoles do not iterate
quickly. It would be YEARS before they could take us the rest of the way to
their digital wonderland. That's just too long when you're stuck with some
awkward intermediate step.

Their vision is still a good one, and it's still one they can build. They just
need to be sure that when they launch the next Xbox (after the One), that they
take the full step and commit to their vision completely.

------
spiritplumber
" For example, if Apple had listened to prevailing wisdom in 2007, the iPhone
would have had a physical keyboard."

Wow, then it would be usable!

------
bmoresbest55
I believe some or all of these features that were removed will be included
eventually. People have a hard time changing so quickly. Processes can become
confusing and people may have a hard time transitioning to all digital at
first. PSN and Xbox Live allow for downloaded versions of almost all games
now. A persistent push away from physical discs to digital games is something
that can clearly still be implemented.

So I do not believe they have abandoned their new features but instead put
them on hold and saved them for a later date. Eventually, we will all be on
digital media and it will be for the better.

------
aclevernickname
Wow. the Pro-Microsoft astroturfers are are full force, spinning a win for
privacy into a loss for gaming's future. Very slick angle to take, guys. now,
fill up HN with your sockpuppets, like expected.

~~~
antiterra
Please don't poison the well by arguing that anyone who might disagree with
you on any particular point is an astroturfing sockpuppet. If you have
evidence or a hunch about a specific trend of postings, that's one thing.
Assuming universal bad faith is another entirely, and something HN is better
off without. Unless we're talking about SEO hucksters[1].

[1](a joke. mostly.)

~~~
aclevernickname
Very nice. accusing me of a logical fallacy, while playing the strawman
fallacy.

I notice you didn't say my previous statement was in any way incorrect. to
reiterate, I am accusing Microsoft of creating sockpuppets (now and in the
past) on HN. If you would like some evidence, look at the posting histories of
some of the loudest voices during the larger Windows 8 threads on HN; you'll
find some awfully short (and focused) comment histories.

~~~
antiterra
If it wasn't your intent to make a general accusation, you could have made a
more specific one. Even so, rabid tribalism does not require a particular job
title or direct corporate sponsorship.

Whatever grassroots effort they may have had going on in the first place
wasn't successful in turning the tide of public opinion. It would be rather
strange of them to undermine their own subsequent reversal.

------
jimparkins
Not the real issue. If Microsoft would have come out and said piracy and the
2nd hand market costs us 11 bajillion dollars in lost revenue. Which is why
you the consumer have to pay 59.99 for a game. Then if the xbox one close to
the same price as the ps4 with games being significantly cheaper. MS would
win.. even with an unpopular strategy because people would think with there
pockets. But I wager anything they actually wanted their cake and eat it.
There must be some upside. And however you spin it with their initial offering
there was none.

------
tpetrina
As I've already said a couple of times, the dependency on the cloud is
troublesome for lots of reasons. I don’t want to “wait for authentication”
every time I go play offline single player games, I just want to play the
game! Why should I care if it authenticated.

And Microsoft could have made the whole program opt-in. Then some would have
their digital future, and I wouldn't. In that case everyone wins.

DRM always presents a problem for a paying user. When you pirate games, you
have 0 problems and excellent, if not better, experience than regular, paying
users.

------
lucb1e
"If Apple had listened to customer feedback, the iPhone would have had a
physical keyboard. "

If the iPhone got a physical keyboard, I'd totally swap my Android phone for
it. I absolutely love Android, but my Nokia E75's physical keyboard just beats
any touchscreen by a long way. Also I really miss physical buttons for music
control beyond volume. I say this after owning a Galaxy Note 2 for half a year
and absolutely loving it. It's just the touchscreen that every modern phone
has that is so sucky.

------
IanCal
"Most people aren’t Richard Branson and most people have enough of a
connection, however intermittent, to authenticate once a day."

Oh for...

It's not about having an internet connection, it's about only being able to
play the games as long as Microsoft has the servers turned on and working.
Maintenance can stop you playing, which is annoying. More importantly, they're
probably not going to keep them on for 20-30 years, so everything you buy has
a limited lifespan.

------
fnordfnordfnord
It's because people don't trust Microsoft, and they don't necessarily
subscribe to this guy's generous assessment of Microsoft's intent.

------
moskie
I think the reality is they will slowly reintroduce the features they've now
taken away. Or perhaps none of those features have been taken away, and
they're just adding new ones that allow for play w/o an internet connection.

In any case, I think when the dust settles, most everyone will be content with
the options given. This was just a PR disaster, not a poorly engineered game
console.

------
kuahyeow
Good news, but remember there is nothing stopping a 'patch update' to turn it
back on at a later time when the heat dissipates.

------
codesuela
They could have had the best of both worlds:

1) keep the legacy physical media system

2) enable the new system for digital purchases

would have been a huge win and truly groundbreaking

------
dodyg
Blame EA for this. The Sim City debacle soured a lot of people on the
requirement for Internet connectivity for games that they have purchased.

Also that fast Internet speed is still widely available to many people in
India, China, Indonesia and Vietnam. That's a big chunk of game console
market.

------
sp332
I have no idea how MS backpedaled so fast. Suddenly no region restrictions?
Can't sell downloaded games? All the licensing deals with publishers &
GameStop reneged? How the heck did they pivot to a _completely different
business model_ in just a few days?

~~~
iddqd
I'd guess that it's from the, allegedly, very low amount of preorders compared
to the PS4. Seems like the people complaining actually backed it up with
voting with their wallets, which is pretty rare in the gaming community.

------
vacri
This is a terrible article, and most of the features the author is bemoaning
the loss of are perfectly possible to have while allowing resale. The internet
didn't 'make' MS do this, this is a panicked decision made by people without a
clear vision.

------
theltrj
Why does this have to be framed as people being ignorant? Could it be they
don't want to have to give up the limited rights they still have left?

Microsoft wasn't forced to do anything here. They overestimated the value of
their product, plain and simple.

------
jviddy
The article makes an interesting point.

If Microsoft had said that this is a completely digital system where you can
download the games, or if preferred pick-up on physical media would the
response have been any different.

Or are there too many people who fear change

------
dewiz
disagree on this:

• You could install all your games onto your hard drive and not have to get up
all the time to swap discs

just allow the user to do it if the user agrees to have the 24h online check.

------
aspensmonster
Those weren't features. They were bugs.

------
downrightmike
Yeah, try to download a dvd over a standard broadband and you and your friend
will be playing maybe tomorrow.

------
rco8786
> You could buy a digital copy and sell it or gift it to a friend (a
> previously unheard-of policy in digital games)

Steam??

~~~
pezh0re
That was my first thought... But remember, this is in the console arena where
everything seems to lag behind PCs.

------
coderguy123
Someone told me that is a mis-quote, Henry ford never said that. But it is a
perfect mis-quote.

------
Tuxlar
They didn't kill a car for a better horse. They killed a bus for a better car.

------
Millennium
How naive can this guy possibly be?

------
workbench
Oh come on now, those "features" are terrible and were just a bit of ketchup
on a shit sandwich. Speaking as someone who moved house and had to wait a
month for a phone company and ISP to get their internet up and running. If I'd
had a XBone I would have just be sitting there with an expensive brick for a
month.

------
juniorplenty
Honest question: who gives a fuck?

