So Xbox 'One' reveal

[Superbus]

The $900 figure is pulled completely out of thin air. It's bullshit. Nothing's been discussed price-wise, and the somewhat credible rumours regarding it have it as being a two-tiered plan: X for a base system (like $500) or another set price, but two years of XBox Live subscriptions necessary after that fact.

As for the XBox reveal, I already wrote what I have to say in a 1,000 word article (http://www.gamingbus.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-and-marginalizing-the-gamer/), so I won't repeat myself here. But basically, the XBox One isn't for us, the gamers. Microsoft isn't aiming at us, they're aiming at our families, who will be blinded by all the cool things the system can do, while figuring we'll put our pride in our hands once we get a few games that we can't get anywhere else. Sports gamers in particular will be the first ones to fall.

[Phoenix Wright]

Not sure what everyone's upset about. It's a gaming console. It will play games. It meets the base requirement of a gaming console. It does other stuff. That's just extra. Not sure if it's $900 worth of extra, but it's extra nonetheless. I guess I don't really understand what people want from a gaming console other than to play games on it. Anyways, people don't want to buy dedicated gaming machines any more. They want an all-in-one entertainment system. That's where consoles are heading (and have been since last gen.) If you're going to drop close to a grand on something, it better do $900 worth of stuff.

By-and-large, there is no issue. For us gamers, though, the issue is that Microsoft is clearly not invested in making a great gaming console--merely a multimedia console.

Gamers really don't give a shit about sports games except football, television, or basic shooters. We want to see what the console can do with fresh new games. E3 probably won't be much different from this reveal, either.

I can see your point, and I agree to some extent. If the next Sony console only played video games, I probably wouldn't buy it--still, gaming remains the principal reason for purchasing the console. Look at the WiiU, it's mostly collecting dust for early adopters.

The Xbox One, at its core supposed to be a gaming console, panders to those that are not gamers. That's why this reveal is disappointing.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Klokinator]

Look at the WiiU, it's mostly collecting dust for early adopters.

Yeah but Nintendo has a history of a couple good titles at first with a long period of inactivity, then huge heavy hitters in the third and fourth quarters and subsequent years. I know this because I've seen it repeated 5 or 6 gens in a row. Meanwhile, Xbox almost has no heavy hitters except Halo. PS4 probably will have great 3rd party again, as usual, and while they don't have the cool WiiU controller, I can concede that a share button might be useful, as well as playing games while they download. I don't see any innovation in the Xbone and I doubt it will ever impress me.

[Nintendan]

Yeah but Nintendo has a history of a couple good titles at first with a long period of inactivity, then huge heavy hitters in the third and fourth quarters and subsequent years. I know this because I've seen it repeated 5 or 6 gens in a row. Meanwhile, Xbox almost has no heavy hitters except Halo. PS4 probably will have great 3rd party again, as usual, and while they don't have the cool WiiU controller, I can concede that a share button might be useful, as well as playing games while they download. I don't see any innovation in the Xbone and I doubt it will ever impress me.

Agreed. Nintendo always seem to fuck up their launches by having no strong games. However, they're gonna need some third-party support as well, otherwise this'll become the Gamecube 2.

Sony has some decent exclusives. I know there's some pretty big fans of them out there. As you said they also gave very good 3rd-party support.

There really is a lack of innovation as well :l Microsoft just had Kinect do some stuff that you can do with a remote.

Sony has some cool features but nothing mind blowing.

The only one I see innovating (or at least the most innovative) is Nintendo. It's not a lot, but the tablet does change how you play some games.

They did it with the Wii. Skyward Sword had some brilliant motion controls. I'm sure they can put the tablet to use just like SS put the remote to use. And while they are at least trying to change up how you game, there's not a lot of third party support. I don't wanna see Ninty (who imo is changing gaming the most) die out because they failed to get third party support.

[Knight]

I think that we'll be hearing Nintendo vs. Playstation on the streets again, like we should. The best news out of the conference was that EA is partnering with Microsoft, so that means when the box finally does fall into the abyss it'll hopefully drag those greedy slime balls down with them. Although I like Halo, the news of the TV show wasn't too interesting, because watching a silent protagonist on screen doesn't sound too entertaining, even with the holy Spielberg at the helm. Even Halo and those 8 new exclusives aren't enough to bring me to like this.

[Superbus]

By-and-large, there is no issue. For us gamers, though, the issue is that Microsoft is clearly not invested in making a great gaming console--merely a multimedia console.

Gamers really don't give a shit about sports games except football, television, or basic shooters. We want to see what the console can do with fresh new games. E3 probably won't be much different from this reveal, either.

I can see your point, and I agree to some extent. If the next Sony console only played video games, I probably wouldn't buy it--still, gaming remains the principal reason for purchasing the console. Look at the WiiU, it's mostly collecting dust for early adopters.

The Xbox One, at its core supposed to be a gaming console, panders to those that are not gamers. That's why this reveal is disappointing.

But it's not a gaming console. It's an entertainment console that can play video games. There's a huge difference there, and really, Microsoft has been setting themselves up for that with their 360 updates for some time, deemphasizing Arcade and Indie games on the dashboard in favour of more advertisements, bringing in more entertainment options (ESPN3, Netflix, MLBAB, etc.), and generally relying on a few heavy hitting AAAs and buying their way to exclusivity in regards to those (see: CoD map packs, FIFA Ultimate Team). That's why they don't let anyone self-publish; they want to make sure everything on their system is a heavy hitter with CoD or Halo like potential.

In terms of the Wii U: Don't rule this system out yet. They're becoming a lot more indie friendly because the AAAs are bailing ship, and the best Nintendo franchises are still coming. Don't listen to Michael Pachter, basically. And I guarantee they will have a price cut before autumn.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Superbus

[Constable Reggie]

You don't actually buy the game: you pay your $60 for permision to use the game. Since you don't actually own it, you don't have any right to toy with it's code. Since Nintendo is giving you permission to use something that is theirs, they have full legal control over the terms those games are used. Not all companies are hard nosed about this: Fallout 3/NV and Elder Scrolls have a very strong modding community. In the strictest letter of the law though, you are taking someone else's intellectual property (the characters, the universe, the countries, the clothes, etc) and making changes to it without their permission. If they say you can't do that with their game, you have no legal leg to stand on. They have copyrighted (paid the government for legal protection of) their intellectual property which gives them full control over who can use their works and in what capcity.

To think you actually believe this is just plain mortifying.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Constable Galeforce

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah but Nintendo has a history of a couple good titles at first with a long period of inactivity, then huge heavy hitters in the third and fourth quarters and subsequent years. I know this because I've seen it repeated 5 or 6 gens in a row. Meanwhile, Xbox almost has no heavy hitters except Halo. PS4 probably will have great 3rd party again, as usual, and while they don't have the cool WiiU controller, I can concede that a share button might be useful, as well as playing games while they download. I don't see any innovation in the Xbone and I doubt it will ever impress me.

That doesn't take away from the fact that thus far, the console is disappointing. Games sell consoles; consoles don't sell games

But it's not a gaming console. It's an entertainment console that can play video games. There's a huge difference there, and really, Microsoft has been setting themselves up for that with their 360 updates for some time, deemphasizing Arcade and Indie games on the dashboard in favour of more advertisements, bringing in more entertainment options (ESPN3, Netflix, MLBAB, etc.), and generally relying on a few heavy hitting AAAs and buying their way to exclusivity in regards to those (see: CoD map packs, FIFA Ultimate Team). That's why they don't let anyone self-publish; they want to make sure everything on their system is a heavy hitter with CoD or Halo like potential.

In terms of the Wii U: Don't rule this system out yet. They're becoming a lot more indie friendly because the AAAs are bailing ship, and the best Nintendo franchises are still coming. Don't listen to Michael Pachter, basically. And I guarantee they will have a price cut before autumn.

True, this is the reason why gamers are angry as well.

I'm not ruling it out, and I hope it doesn't seem like I am. The same thing happened with the 3DS (which I've owned since launch), and now I play it pretty regularly. I know Nintendo gets things in order eventually, but still, it's frustrating that these consoles go nearly a year without having a handful of notable games.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Superbus]

To think you actually think this is true is just plain mortifying.

Technically, it's right and wrong. It's technically wrong because the First Sale Doctrine in the United States gives resellable rights to any product that is purchased; it's why the car industry can't stop you from listing your car on Craigslist.

However, those rights are forfeited with digital games, which are really nothing more than code. When you acquiesce to their terms, you acquiesce to the license, and all of the bugbears - the lack of rights to resell, the lack of rights in some cases to litigate on a class-action level, and the right for the company in question to revoke the license at any time for any reason - that come with it.

Here's my question: Live Arcade and Indie games, basically every single 360 game out there now that is purchased digitally, won't be able to be played on the One. Here's my question: at what point does Microsoft cut off access to that store, leaving all of those customers in the lurch?

[Constable Reggie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.

The issue arises when you attempt to profit off the derivative work (see: here).

Again, I can't stress how ridiculous it is that you could possibly believe something like that, Sheik.

Digital retail is an entirely different issue that really hasn't been addressed regarding legalities, at least in the US (Europe/Korea has gotten pretty far in fighting about the issue). I'll just say that once copyright law catches up with the digital era, digital ownership rules will definitely change.

Regarding your question, are you talking about the Xbox1 or 360?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Constable Galeforce

[Superbus]

I'll raise you a law that likely overruled Galoob v. Nintendo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_and_Copyright_Act

My question is in reference to both, actually. Right now, if I want to download one of my purchased games on my XBox 360 - for the sake of argument, we'll say Minecraft 360 - I have to download it from XBox Live Arcade. That will be rendered moot on the One; 360 games aren't playable. So eventually, the 360 is going to slide into greater irrelevance just due to the passing of time. However, my other consoles have been "irrelevant" for a long time, and yet I can still play every game I want on them. Eventually, it will become inconvenient or expensive to run the servers that allow us to download 360 content from the Live Arcade/Indie Games stores. Will Microsoft shut them down, making it so that if I lose my data, I lose my games, permanently, forever?

[Sasori]

I got the feeling that Microsoft forgot that Europe existed, especially considering we will never, ever get those streaming services they where talking about.

I've been wondering if I should drop the Xbox this gen and go for playstation for some time now and this presentation really isn't helping me stay. Lets hope for Microsoft that their E3 will go better.

Btw how did the non gamer crowd react to this presentation? The internet exploded with negativity, but how did things like television and newspapers respond to this? I got the feeling many features and anouncements where meant for non-gamers, but I haven't heard their viewpoint yet.

[Constable Reggie]

I'll raise you a law that likely overruled Galoob v. Nintendo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_and_Copyright_Act

My question is in reference to both, actually. Right now, if I want to download one of my purchased games on my XBox 360 - for the sake of argument, we'll say Minecraft 360 - I have to download it from XBox Live Arcade. That will be rendered moot on the One; 360 games aren't playable. So eventually, the 360 is going to slide into greater irrelevance just due to the passing of time. However, my other consoles have been "irrelevant" for a long time, and yet I can still play every game I want on them. Eventually, it will become inconvenient or expensive to run the servers that allow us to download 360 content from the Live Arcade/Indie Games stores. Will Microsoft shut them down, making it so that if I lose my data, I lose my games, permanently, forever?

You're going to have to expain to me how you think it overrules Galoob v. Nintendo, because from what I can tell, it doesn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with modifying copyright content.

I would assume that Microsoft would eventually just kill Xbox 360 live content access, leaving you only with what you have downloaded on your hard drive. I'm willing to bet that the 360's going to stay for quite a while though, especially with no backwards compatability whatsoever.

Does anyone know what Microsoft said about the online marketplace for the Xbox1? Will it be the same as the 360's?

Edited May 23, 2013 by Constable Galeforce

[Steampunk]

Again, I can't stress how ridiculous it is that you could possibly believe something like that, Sheik.

Digital retail is an entirely different issue that really hasn't been addressed regarding legalities, at least in the US (Europe/Korea has gotten pretty far in fighting about the issue). I'll just say that once copyright law catches up with the digital era, digital ownership rules will definitely change.

I'm no barrister, but this gives me the distinct impression that people do not actually own the games (or any software) they buy nowadays: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf

We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.

For those who don't want to read the entire court document, here is the Wikipedia article for Vernor vs. Autodesk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.#The_ruling

It was a case where Autodesk, Inc took legal action against a guy trying to sell his copy of their software. The US Supreme court decided that he was a licensee, not the owner of a copy. Because of this, he didn't have any rights to resell the software. The logic being, the software (data on the disk) was what was valuable, not the disk itself. The terms of use he agreed to more closely resembled a licensing agreement rather than him buying a copy. He was essentially given permission to use the software indefinitely. This was back in 2010. The case pretty much established the idea that, so long as companies put a licensing agreement in with their products, or state that the buyer is a licensee of the software/service, they don't have any rights to the software. Since just about every software terms & conditions agreement reads like a license agreement, I'm afraid any sort of ownership of copies has gone the way of the Dodo. This really isn't a new thing, contradictory to popular belief. Here is a copy of a Nintendo 64 "Confidential License Agreement:" http://corporate.findlaw.com/contracts/operations/license-agreement-for-nintendo-64-video-game-system-nintendo-of.html

LICENSEE shall not represent that it has any ownership in the Licensed Intellectual Properties. Use of the Licensed Intellectual Properties shall not create any right, title or interest therein in LICENSEE's favor.

Just goes to show, even over a decade ago, video game companies knew the power of the word "license" and were making good use of it.

According to Sony, I do not actually own my PS3's software: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, all system software is licensed to solely for personal, non-commercial use on the PS3tm system in the country in which the PS3tm was designed by SCE to operate.

Nintendo 3DS EULA: http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/info/en_na/docs.jsp?menu=wiiu&submenu=wup-eula-agree

Article I covers the grant of a revocable user license to the 3DS "services, software, and content." Bear in mind that, while the cartridge for the 3DS is hardware, the actual data (the game itself) is considered software. So, unfortunately, we can't even say that hard-copy game disks or carts are exempt from software licensing agreements because the game itself is still considered software despite being sold on a cartridge. While I don't know for sure, I'm willing to bet that Ninty could successfully claim in court that their games were software (and thus, covered in their system EULAs).

The Xbox 360 EULA also states you are a licensee (licensed to use the software) of their console, not an actual owner. In fact, that's what EULA means: End User Licensing Agreement. they are licensing you (giving you permission) to use the software of their consoles. I don't want to spend all day reading EULAs, but I've also found some developers posting their own EULAs for their game software downloads. So far, the gamer doesn't so much own their game as they are allowed to play it unless I misunderstood something. Again, I am no attorney at law. If you know something I don't, I'd be very happy for you to share it.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Sheik

[Constable Reggie]

Forgot about Vernor, and yeah, it epitomizes everything that's wrong with current copyright law. It's pretty laughable that you can get away with destroying first sales by claiming it's a "license".

That said, I doubt they'd be able to apply it to Fire Emblem 7, and I'm absolutely sure that the whole "licensing" bullshit will be fixed when copyright law is eventually reformed, if not even challenged before that.

[Esau of Isaac]

That said, I doubt they'd be able to apply it to Fire Emblem 7, and I'm absolutely sure that the whole "licensing" bullshit will be fixed when copyright law is eventually reformed, if not even challenged before that.

Unfortunately big corporations have a vested interest in retaining broken copyright laws so I can't see that happening any time soon.

Not really sure how it would be adapted, in any event. Our concept of copyright just doesn't seem like it jives very well with a world where you can infinitely reproduce anything with the push of a button.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

The issue's definitely going to become common knowledge if Microsoft goes ahead with their disc licensing. Even the mighty power of corporation money can't completely quell a widely reported issue.

I don't see how going digital suddenly means it's impossible to ensure that we own what we buy. It's perfectly possible to forbid obviously abusive "licenses", and still punish copyright infringement when the software is copied and distributed.

[Steampunk]

Am I still mortifying and ridiculous? Because I rather like the sound of that.

[Constable Reggie]

I apologize, I didn't realize current copyright law is as fucked up as it is. I'm still not sure it applies to Ge7, though.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Constable Galeforce

[Steampunk]

I apologize, I didn't realize current copyright law is as fucked up as it is. I'm still not sure it applies to Ge7, though.

Hahaha, no need to apologize. I'm not bothered. I was picturing myself as the deadliest nerd alive.

[Superbus]

You're going to have to expain to me how you think it overrules Galoob v. Nintendo, because from what I can tell, it doesn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with modifying copyright content.

I would assume that Microsoft would eventually just kill Xbox 360 live content access, leaving you only with what you have downloaded on your hard drive. I'm willing to bet that the 360's going to stay for quite a while though, especially with no backwards compatability whatsoever.

Does anyone know what Microsoft said about the online marketplace for the Xbox1? Will it be the same as the 360's?

The logic is that by altering the recording automatically like that, it's violating the company's copyright, which can state that the program must be complete. If a company can mandate that, they can mandate that you can't, for example, change the bits of a program, which is what Galoob v. Nintendo addressed. However, Shiek linked the example I was trying to use, I just couldn't remember the exact court case.

[Constable Reggie]

Galoob isn't just limited to slight alterations of code, it's any modifications that don't impede on Nintendo's possible market (which they definitely couldn't prove that a romhack of a game no longer in circulation would) or is covered by fair use in general. Vernor v Autodesk (and subsequently, every company who sells software ever) sneaks around the fair use doctrine entirely by simply claiming that they're "licensing" stuff to you, not selling, but this didn't apply to Fe7 in 2003.

I'm still going to maintain that if Microsoft makes this issue abundantly known via the Xbox disc license system, it's going to be challenged.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Ulster]

I'm not too worried about it, since I was never a huge xbox fan. But I really hope their method of handling used games doesn't catch on. If the xbox one does end up doing well, its competitors might want to do the same thing. It'll suck not being able to rent games or let people borrow them. :/

[Fruity Insanity]

Anyway, apparently you have to "check-in" every day.

Which is - in my opinion - hardly better than having to be online all the time.

What idiots.

What was - no, is - Microsoft thinking...?

[BlueFire]

Anyway, apparently you have to "check-in" every day.

Which is - in my opinion - hardly better than having to be online all the time.

What idiots.

What was - no, is - Microsoft thinking...?

It's way better in comparison to always online, but is still bad for consumers. Especially if the require it in countries where Internet isn't as common.