That Xbox One Reveal Sure Was A Disaster, Huh?

Well, I bet this isn't how Microsoft thought its big day would end.

What could/should have been a triumphant exclamation point, the day the next-gen console wars began in earnest, instead turned into a disaster I don't think any of us saw coming.

No matter where you turned today, whether it be Facebook, Twitter, forums or even people in *gasp* the real world, chances are if you wanted to talk about Xbox One, you ran into emotions that ranged from indifference right on down to hostility.

There were good things shown off today. Things I'm sure Microsoft was expecting, or at least hoping, people would focus on. A controller that looks fantastic. New Call of Duty and sports games. Easy expandable storage. Cloud integration. Expanded achievements.

Yet in the end, none of that mattered.

The lead-up to the One's unveiling had been a parade of negative press for Microsoft, as allegations of forced connectivity, mandatory Kinect usage and the blocking of used games had people fearing that their control over the consoles and games they purchased was being taken away from them. That's an important issue.

Today was Microsoft's chance to show that this wasn't true. Or, if it was, to at least massage the message and justify the extreme measures.

Turns out it was the latter. And the company failed spectacularly.

Surely they must have known these were the issues people would be most interested to hear about? Yet when the questions started coming in about used games, about forced connectivity, about word that you can't even lend games to a friend, Microsoft reps went to pieces. Twitter accounts contradicted executive statements. Answers that should have been given in full were only given in half. And when clear responses were given, well, the news still sucked.

Instead of calming people's fears, then, Microsoft served only to inflame them. Whoops.

It didn't help that many of the other key announcements fell flat. TV integration is...OK, I guess, if you're in America, but most people on this planet are not, and as of now, the US is the only place the feature is going to work.

Mandatory Kinect usage is also a little disturbing. The camera is listening out for you even when it's "off" (it's never really off), and while Microsoft has issued a statement saying it has "strong privacy protections" in place, people are still rightly concerned that a machine -connected to the internet and featuring a camera which is always listening - might be a problem.

The loss of backwards compatibility is also a stinger; we've had our Xbox 360s for a very long time now, and built up a substantial library of games to go with them. Losing the ability to play those games on a new system only lessens the desire to purchase that new system.

The result is that instead of collecting the accolades, and maybe even getting an early leg up on Sony's PlayStation 4, Microsoft is already on the back foot. It's come out early, and laid down core "features" of its console that are wildly unpopular with people who you may call vocal forum goers, but who are also the preorder customers, the early adopters and product evangelists.

If we hadn't heard that internally some at Microsoft are shocked by the negative reaction, I'd suggest maybe this was the plan all along. Show the hardware early, take the knocks now, then hope things improve at E3 (and beyond) when we start seeing what's really important: the games. If there really are eight new properties coming, that's something to get excited for, right? Those EA Sports games looked pretty damn good, no? Maybe enough so we'd figure, hey, these games are so good it's worth putting up with all this other crap.

The way things went today, though, those games had better be damn exciting, because Microsoft has an uphill battle convincing consumers that a console burdened with so many restrictions is worth all the trouble.


Comments

    i just want a new, more powerful console to play games on. all the other crap doesn't interest me in the slightest. what a disaster.

      You know it's funny what I have noticed nobody panics when things seem to go according to plan, all good for Sony to show no console at their Console announcement which was underwhelming to say the least
      But Microsoft go overly ambitious and offer a new future medium for gaming and everybody loses their minds
      Too many cynics in this world I'm getting fucking sick of reading what nerd hipster elitists have to say because it is you pricks that are killing the game industry, too many heroes out there that can scream and shout but have no idea what it takes to make something truly amazing

        Maybe you should tell Microsoft that they should have been focusing on "a new future medium for gaming" instead of a new future medium of watching TV.

          Game's will be talked about at E3 to compete with Sony's release of the PS4 look.

          Everyone needs to be patient.

        The problems is that for games consoles the PS4 is looking alot better than the Xbox One... Now If I wanted a new PVR-Skype fusion on the other hand...

        But I play games.

        The no console is about the most overblown thing about the Sony conference. Which did exactly what it was meant to do. It destroyed the Xbox event, it's not even funny.

        No console? Who cares. Are people going to say it was a success because they know what it looks like? Sure didn't work for the Xbox event, it showed the console and it was a laughable event.

          The only people calling it a laughable event are devout Kotakuans like you though...you do realise that eh? The majority of people seem quite happy with how it went.

            Have any proof or are you just talking out of your a$$?

              Bit of a hunch, but Mark did write an article outlining Kotaku and its followers being the '20%'

              http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/xbox-one-the-mainstream-media-reacts-are-we-the-20-percent/

                Again, they are the opinion of one person from different publications.

                I can do to a website and find about 20 times more people who thought it was laughable. Hell, Microsoft had fake laughter at the event.

                  That doesn't mean nobody is happy with the reveal. I jumped on Facebook and saw a big hell yeah from a friend. Granted I don't think he's had the time to actually look at anything more than the odd clip from the reveal, but there is a positive response out there.

                  I'm not saying it was a 100% success or failure. There are always going to be varying opinions.

                  It was just very...meh, especially from a gaming pov.

        We're killing the industry? They're selling us out to the people who want to reduce game ownership to a license with an expiration date.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbWgUO-Rqcw

        This is exactly what I think. Too many douche nerds totally allergic to change want things to stay complicated and separate just to keep their nerd points up. Heads up, the general public don't want to have to screw around and tweak things to make them work. Back in the day this might of been the only way to have things work well, but these companies are putting massive effort into great UI's and unified experiences today.

        Xbox one looks great, only thing I'm disappointed with is the lack of TV integration in Aus at launch. Really the majority of what a TV is used for in most households is media, why would I want to use more than one device when I can do everything on an Xbox One?

        It's funny how you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing to do with whose side anyone's on or criticism, if your points sound stupid; people won't agree with you. The true step forward for you is introspection. Have you REALLY thought about what you're saying? REALLY? Look at the issues, pretend someone else didn't just say it because they're "nerd hipster elitists" and maybe they just thought about it - let's say - one bajillion times more than you did.

        Which they did.

        "New future medium of gaming"? Next to nothing was even said about gaming. It was an overhyped press conference, merely an hour long to try & sell the largest, most ugliest DVR/cable box the world has ever seen. Honestly, I'd much rather see no console but see what it's capable of in terms of gaming, like the PS4 than see a giant plastic slab of a media player & not see shit when it comes to what's really on offer game wise. It was 1 hour of life that no one will ever get back with 1/4 of that being an advertisment for Ghosts which is cross platform anyway & even they lied in saying they were about to show in game footage when the entire thing was a damn trailer. The entire internet is filled with people that feel Microsoft has failed miserably, especially regarding online requirements & banning used games. You're in the fringe minority dude & it's not our fault you can't understand why gamers that used to be XBox faithful (including myself) are abandoning this sinking ship in droves.

        calm down Joker...

        Look, I don't know what a "Nerd Hipster Elitist". Hell, I've been on the Xbox train since the beginning, and was looking forward to the next Xbox. But these "requirements" are not reasonable. Is it unreasonable to want to be able to buy a videogame and just play it, even if Microsoft's servers are on fire that day? How did we go from owning a game to owning a license to a game as long as you report every 24 hours. Is this a game console or a parole officer?

        "But Microsoft go overly ambitious and offer a new future medium for gaming and everybody loses their minds"

        I think overly ambitious is exactly right.

      Then my advice is to get a Beasty PC or a PS4. Trust me, I have all the consoles.

      same, do microsoft understand their key market at all? hasnt it been proven time and time again that noone wants any of this crap?

      throw out the kinect, ditch the gimmicky control BS, stop trying to replace other devices and just be the best damn game playing machine it can be.

        ^ This
        EXACTLY what they need to get through their thick damn heads.
        Throw out the crap and just give us a GAMING console.

        Last edited 05/06/13 12:42 am

    They named their 3rd console the Xbox One. Maybe people would be less negative if you didn't start with stupidity.

      Didn't seem to hurt Wii sales.

        But Wii just lead to silly juvenile jokes. This is just crazy!

        Just you wait, there will be people buying Xbox Ones on eBay and ending up with an original Xbox. The scammers have already won!

        But it sure as hell hurt the Wii U sales.

          The name? I thought it was just because the Wii U was completely unimpressive. The original Wii broke form to make an underpowered console that focused on fun and interesting control mechanisms, and people were willing to buy it on that basis. The Wii U didn't add anything to that formula, but upped the graphics to...no better than outgoing generation X360 and PS3. I think Wii U is stuck at a target audience chasm, they need to either cross over fully onto the Microsoft/Sony 'full power, serious gaming' side of things, or go back to the 'all about the fun' side.

            Here i am thinking its because the uptake from 3rd party developers is so small and because the first party games arent out yet.
            But i dont see Nintendo picking sides, they have always marched to the beat of their own drum.

              The game lineup is pretty poor at the moment too, I agree with that. But I still feel like the console is trying to pull in two different directions at once, which has never really worked out well in the past.

                Game lineup is poor, no doubt. I see it like the 3DS though - the WiiU will improve over time. The important thing will be this time next year seeing where the 3 consoles are at. Based on today, I don't think they should be last (doesn't mean they won't be)

            There are definitely multiple things which have affected the Wii U's success, but the name is certainly one of them.

            Most people think it's some kind of expansion pack.

            If you've ever played a Wii U, you'd know it's totally on the "all about fun" side. It's a little under-supported right now, but considering how dull the PS4 and Xbox One look in terms of hardware innovation (that isn't just shinier graphics), I think Nintendo might actually be in a stronger position than they've been given credit for.

          This^. I was wondering when that shoe would drop, everyone I know calls the 2001 machine Xbox1 anyway - might cause them issues similar to the WiiU

          The Wii U hurt the Wii U sales
          It didnt help releasing a ps3/360 with a ridiculous controller and slapping Wii on it and calling it next gen...

          Pretty sure the wiiU failed because of a lack of good games to this day.

      I had to laugh at that. It's like they wanted to troll consumers even more than by calling it, simply, "Xbox", as some people expected.

      I figured the reasoning to this was needing only 'one' device for all your Multimedia Entertainment needs. I mean that is what it looks like they are aiming for, TV on your Xbox, DVR, and the Snap OS which is probably the only cool feature worth mentioning.

        Yeah so call it Xbox Unified or Xbox Ultimate or Xbox Complete or something like that. Something that makes sense.

          Unified isn't bad but then it's Acronym would XBU and referred to as Xbox U and the problem with a name like Ultimate, Complete or Infinity is where do from there? seems like you've already thought of everything. I do agree that Xbox One is a stoopid though, as it's their 3rd console they should have named it Xbox3 and used XXX as there new Logo, would increase sales by at least 100% lols.

            I really thought they were gonna go with Xbox Fusion. I mean, they did trademark.

            It's not a great name, but it's a distinct name.

      If MS were going for a number I would have called it the Xbox 1000. Say it.. it feels good.. One thousand.. say it like they would in radical ad from the early 90s.. it blasts past the 360.. has a game-y vibe.. and there was nothing wrong with Arnie in The Terminator.

        Would be better with the "Xbox >9000 - That's impossible!"

        Last edited 23/05/13 9:32 am

        How about ... The Xbox 1984

          The Xbox HAL.
          "So you want to play a marathon of your limited edition copies of the Halo series? I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

      They called it that because it's an all-in-one device. It's also probably the first in their new long term plan of selling total media integration devices that also play games.

      If you look at what comes after "Xbox", you get [null], 360 (i.e. circle i.e. O i.e. 0), 1, so it's basically nothing then 0 then 1 so it...

      yeah it's fuckin' stupid.

    I would say "things are looking up for the Wii U" But they may never get the games, so instead "Things are looking up for PC Gaming".

      I could not agree more! Sony and Microsoft have both shot themselves in the foot as far as im concerned. The WiiU is looking great now! except they will have no third party games hahaha

      WHAT IS GOING ON!!

        if no one buys the Xbox one of the ps4 and people buy the wii u you will get frostbite engine for ir, and other 3rd party games, company's go were the sales are

        The ice caps are melting and gaming does not belong to us, anymore. It's beautiful chaos.

          Its sickening to say the least..
          :'(
          Let us shed a tear for Microsoft, for hiring bad staff and promoting said staff in an evolutionary process which has just killed the Xbox.

    The only thing I am intrigued by is the illumiroom. It could be fantastic, but they didn’t mention it (as far as I know). Bah.

      I'm just disappointed they didn't call it iRoomination. Although that does sound like someone telling a racist joke.

    Ok, i wasn't exactly sold on the Xbone, but I think labelling the presentation a disaster is hardly fair. Sure, it didn't show a lot to appeal to the hardcore gaming market, but that just doesn't seem to be their target anymore. To be honest, as an advanced "entertainment box", it looks really impressive, and the only reason I'm not interested in it (yet) because they haven't shown me what I'm interested in so far.

      It looks interesting from a TV controller point of view.

      Gaming? Fairly rubbish.

        I take the gaming aspect as a given to be honest. I know people wanted to see an E3 style mass-unveiling of software (it’s only a few weeks away don’t forget), but last night was about the hardware and particularly given the hardware and controllers are always going to be debating points, it was about getting out there the things that the Xbox can do that the PS4 can’t.

        I think that’s why there was a focus on media, because that’s the most quantifiable point of difference between the two. I expect that graphically and as far as software library, the two consoles will be neck and neck for a long time to come (look at the current Gen, it’s still up for debate after 8 years).

        How successful it was depends on what you were expecting. Personally I always HATE these things no matter who does them.
        The new Xbox has a standard controller, good hardware, will have games. That’s all I care about.

          I'm on your side foggy, but the more I think about always on Kinect, the more I get uncomfortable. I think they'll make sure that this doesn't scare people off though as they have touched on the privacy settings that will be around it.

            Point your Kinect 2 at the wall when you're not using it. It's what I'll be doing if I ever get this console.

        I thought they would save the majority of gaming stuff for E3... Makes sense to me for MS to get all the tech and 'amazing t.v' future jazz out of the way in a non gamer focused event.

          They will, also to compete with the publicity Sony will be getting from the release of the look of the PS4.

          The internet is paranoid cluster fuck of impatient people who like to rage. Don't worry.

      Actually, in counter point, I would call it a disaster.
      Anyone who has the slightest idea of marketing would realise that that 1st rule is to Retain your current audience while enticing new business with extra features.
      This "showcase" has proven that they can add the new features that may appeal to a new audience, but has skipped the fundamental purpose of the device (gaming) and has alienated their current consumer base while they are at it.

    Good article.

    E3 will be make or break.

    Wow dude....someone really doesn't like Xbox. How is their business model different to steam? One copy per account ?
    TV integration? I already have something for that... its called my TV
    Used games? If you really want to play a game, wouldn't you buy it at release?
    Kinect? The Wii sensor bar that wants to make it easier to use the thing.

    Just because you called it a disaster doesn't make it so just chill.

      I think you're missing the part where it has been all but universally panned. There are big issues here.

      Has anybody ever seen Mr Black and Microsoft in a room together?

        LOL they used to say the same thing about Kerry Packer and Humphrey B Bear!

      The reaction is a disaster. I don't think I can recall such hostility directed towards any other product announcement. I actually want this thing to fail so that no one has the balls to try and implement some of the more obnoxious 'features' again.

      How is their business model different to steam?

      Steam is on a platform with competition between vendors to start. If your referring to the fact you can't resell games, I'd point you to the fact that steam games are a hell of a lot cheaper.

        I'd agree the reaction is a disaster, but I'd put blame for that squarely in the laps of people using the most ridiculous hyperbole ever invented to describe how they won't be buying the console this time around. You'd think 'live and let live' would be something to aspire to, but apparently if Lil Timmy is unhappy about the new console, everyone has to be unhappy. Lil Timmy will make sure of that =)

          "if Lil Timmy is unhappy about the new console, everyone has to be unhappy"

          I'd actually agree with that. Like I said, I want this thing to fail.

      How is their business model different to steam? One copy per account ? - You can logon to that account across multiple PCs
      TV integration? I already have something for that... its called my TV - Yes, hence a "fluff" piece of kit
      Used games? Not everyone can afford to buy games at release, the used game market made these titles affordable, and boosted base product sales
      Kinect? The Wii sensor bar that wants to make it easier to use the thing. - Does not have a camera that requires a constant internet connection. Also doesnt require the user to trust the providers security and privacy measures.

        You can log on to your Xbox account on multiple machines too. The word is full game licenses will work the same way they work for XBLA licenses.

        Used games are a good thing, but the used game market certainly wasn't, and it did almost nothing to make games affordable. EB/Gamestop offered such poor buy prices and marked them up so much it was arguably more worthwhile to just buy the games outright (and from online vendors that offered decent prices) than save a few bucks doing the trade in sham. I have my doubts that it boosted base sales though, at least from the EB side of things. They were actively and consciously pushing used games instead of new with the express purpose of taking money that would have otherwise gone to the developers.

          While I agree with some of your points.....
          I wasnt referring to the Buy Price of trade ins, but the resale price making it somewhat more affordable to many ($40 instead of $99.95 for example)
          Boosting sale of base product, in this case, is the sale of the console itself. More affordable (by prices) trade in games, potentially has the side effect of allowing more consoles to be sold (the base product)

            Oh, they may have affected console sales, you're right. I was referring to game sales. The publishers actively hate Gamestop for effectively cannibalising their revenue stream.

              I completely agree
              However (there's always a however) there would be a portion of those used sales of consumers that would never buy new, hence the publisher would never see that revenue anyway

                Agreed. It's not a case of 'every second hand sale is a lost primary sale', but at the same time I can understand that because Gamestop et al commercialised the second hand game market so ruthlessly, the amount publishers were actually losing was significant enough for them to get behind changes to the way game licenses are transferred. And that's how we end up here, with account-bound licenses.

                  Completely agree!
                  I think that there should be a license transfer facility offered by the console manufacturer or publisher that is a little less draconian than what MS is proposing here, remain affordable and supports the developers/publishers

          If you were buying most of your used games from EB, then there was your problem.

      When Microsoft start selling games as cheap as Steam or have sales like Steam do then there will be less cause for complaint.

    Can you +1 articles?

      Yep, there's a little button under the Share section that does just that ;)

    The company didn't fail, people had retarded expectations. If Microsoft had had a reveal that pandered to the expectations of everyone, not only would they have to sit around playing with their dicks at E3 because they had nothing else to do, they'd have to have the thing on shelves tomorrow with four times as much RAM, ten times as much hard drive space, and a new Halo bundled in for under a hundred bucks.

    TL;DR: People are dumb.

      i love people on the internet arguing for mediocrity

        I love people on the internet who think anything that doesn't meet their unreasonable requirements is a complete failure.

          What about the ones who had reasonable requirements and they were still not met?

            Well you'd assume they'd have a reasonable level of dissapointment instead of losing their minds about how much of a "disaster" the new console is.

          "unreasonable requirements" is a great place. learn to harness it and you too will one day be president of the united states

      It was retarded to hope that we could loan our games to friends, like we have forever?

        It's going to happen eventually. Works OK for Steam.

        Did people berate Apple for bringing out the iPod because they couldn't lend an album to their friends anymore?

          EXACTLY THIS.

          Why people thought things wouldn't change, especially as we move towards digital distribution for more and more content, I can't imagine.

            See this is the bullshit Microsoft is counting on people believing. People going "Its going to happen eventually".
            People accepting things arent going to be the way they used to be because 'reasons'.
            with iTunes you no longer own the music you buy, which is one of many reasons why i would never use iTunes apart from the program being a piece of shit. Let me say that again, You no longer own the music you purchase, yet you still do if you purchase the CD.
            Games are now going in the same direction that we now need 'permission' to play the games we own or do with that piece of property whatever we choice and we are supposed to just accept it because thats the way digital distribution is going without making complaints and fighting against it?
            What a stupid thing to believe and accept.

              I respect your choice to fight against that direction, but it's not really fair to call it 'bad', but rather 'bad for you'. It's the same thing with Diablo 3 and SimCity and all the other various things core gamers have railed against over the years. The fact is, there are people out there that this will cater to. How many that is remains to be seen and won't really be known for years, but at some point you eventually have to stop blaming it on Microsoft or other people being stupid, and just settle for 'this console isn't for me'. There's nothing wrong with that. None of the new generation's consoles are for me, so I'll be sticking to PC because PC is the master race.

                Im not blaming microsoft for doing it, they are doing it for microsofts interests.
                i however am not blinding sitting by and doing the @kermitron thing to do and believe this is the only possible outcome and accept my rights and ownership of the product being removed because im too stupid to understand my basic consumer rights.

              You've never owned music or games, don't let the presence of a shiny disc in your house tell you otherwise.

              You don't like it now. In five years it'll be the norm, and when Sony gets around to doing the exact same thing (which they will) you'll get mad all over again. And things will roll on regardless.

                Bullshit. You know NOTHING about ownership. That cd you buy, you can do whatever you want with unless it breaks the law. You can take that cd, give it to your friend and allow him to play it on any device he wants.
                That cd is YOUR property. If you die that CD can be passed on IN YOUR WILL. Same things for games.
                The music you buy on iTunes, the Games you buy on steam, They are NOT your property. You simply own a many year access right and if you die, that music cannot be passed on to anybody because you dont own it.
                I guess thats why you are so WILLING to give up on these rights because you have no freaking idea they exist.
                Moron.

                  Think about it: if you "owned" the content, you'd have the right to reproduce and distribute your music at will. Obviously, you don't. In fact music publishers have tried various methods over the years to control this kind of behaviour. If they could effectively limit the capacity of people to resell old CDs the same way gaming publishers control the resale of games, they absolutely would.

                  Whether or not you can physically pass the disc from one person to another is irrelevant. Your actual rights with respect to the content remain unchanged.

                  I can understand why you'd feel upset if you're just discovering this now.

                  You're half right. The disc itself is your property. The content isn't, but the disc (and bill of sale, if disputed) effectively carries with it the right to use its contents for personal use. It's one of the unique things about physical media, you can't loan it to a friend and still be able to listen to it because you don't physically have it any more. That's true of last generation console games too.

                  The spanner in the works is when games have an online component or are distributed online through digital download. In those cases, the license is bound to your account as the buyer, and not easily passed around by disc. There's a transition phase between physical media and digital downloads where both systems have to work at the same time, and Steam is going through a similar thing. Do you treat the two completely separate? Do you treat disc copies as licenses to access the digital copy? Or the digital copy as something you can only access if you have the disc copy?

                  If you strip the dependence on the disc from the system as a whole, even if discs are still an option, you can't rely on discs to be the binding point for license transfers any more. That's why you end up with licenses bound to the account even in a system that still supports discs.

                  Is there a better way to do it? Maybe. But it at least makes the reasoning behind it more understandable.

                No. Once again you fail to understand what it means to own something. You own the product that you have purchased and unless it breaks the law, you can do what you want with it.
                From the last comment which i cant actively comment on that one, proves to everyone that you cant understand the concept of ownership whatsover. But ill try one more time to get it in to you.
                When you purchase a product, you as a consumer have entered into an agreement that you now on that product. The item in your hands, YOU OWN IT. You can thusly do ANYTHING YOU CHOOSE to that product unless it breaks laws associated with that product. Music for example, You can not reproduce that item either by burning it, or ripping it to your computer, you CAN destroy it, You can allow an associate to take that product and play that product on any device that can play that product as long it once again doesnt break any laws associated to the product. You dont own the actual music on the cd. You own the product.
                So you claiming Publishers have tried to control the various methods of stopping burning/ripping, thats because they are both illegal activities breaking the terms and conditions of ownership.
                You claiming that you can physically pass the product from one person to another IS ACTUALLY IRRELVANT because you have not understood the basic rights of ownership that you have agreed to when buying said product,
                You have chosen the ignorance option, picking the easist option for your feeble brain to get access to the quickest, rather than the best value or any other choice, you have chosen poorly and decided to push that ITS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.
                Its the way of YOUR future because you have decided all rights you once had as a consumer are in your words irrelevant.
                Dont make claims when you dont understand basic consumer rights.

                  What you have the physical capacity to do and what you're technically allowed to do are rather different things. Having a physical copy of the media gives you a little bit more flexibility simply because there's areas that, historically, music and game publishers have been unable to enforce. @zombiejesus covered most of the relevant points.

                  You're free to believe what you like and write in capitals all day. Call me an idiot some more if it makes you feel better, I'm remarkably thick-skinned. I really have nothing more to add.

                  That's not how it works, m2d2. Music has always been licensed, the license is restricted to the medium, and the license transfers with the disc. DVDs are similar, but have even more restrictive licensing. You can't do what you like with them, and you don't own the contents. Laws had to be put in place to allow you to make personal copies of music because the default was that you couldn't. You can't format shift DVDs or Blurays in Australia at all. The law is not on your side when it comes to media.

                  Yea Australian copyright laws are all kinds of stupid, you can get a fine for playing a CD in your car loud enough for people outside the car to hear it. Counts as noise pollution for one and also they count it as you publicly playing something you only have the right to use for your own personal use

                  Anything digital you buy, you're actually only buying the license to use it. It makes no difference whether it is on a physical medium or not. Sure, you'll on the medium (i.e. disc), but not the content on it and must abide by the license( for example, it's illegal to redistribute it, etc). You could lend the disc to someone, but that is against the license as it is not transferable and usually for personal use only. Since it is very difficult for the publishers to enforce this and insure that no one lends the product, you have been lulled into thinking you have the right to so, when in fact you never did. You can't view ownership of digital content the same way you would view ownership of a physical object, say a chair. This whole topic is bit of a grey area.

                  On a slightly different note. I don't get the whole fuss about the used/digital copy of games. People have been using Steam for years, and last I checked, you couldn't exactly lend or resell games that you had bought, so what is all the fuss about MS doing it with the Xbox? You might say, "but I bought the disc", but to tie in with the previous paragraph,consider this; you have a HDD in your PC. You buy a digital game from Steam and install to your HDD. You own the medium the game is on (the HDD), but not the content itself, just the license to use it(you agreed to it terms during purchase or prior to install. Personal use only, do not redistribute without permission, etc). Now look at it with the Xbox One. Instead having and owning a HDD, you buy an optical disc (which you own, just like the HDD). And, instead of downloading the game onto the medium, it just so happens to come installed on it. If you think about it, there is no difference. The license between the two copies would be pretty much the same, if not identical.

                  @matttaylor
                  Yes. But now you own NOTHING. You are now paying a license fee for said music, movie, game if you do it digitally. You still own the product if you buy the CD. You can resell that Cd, Movie, Game because it is your consumer right.
                  You no longer have that right with iTunes or any digital service. You pay to have access for that item on a limited account.
                  Major Difference. *salutes*

                If calling you an idiot made me feel better, i would scream it from the rooftops. However im just calling you an idiot because you are one. Because once again youve claimed the difference between what you can psychically do and what you can technically do, when if you knew your rights, the rights im claiming you have are the rights you ACTUALLY HAVE but are giving up. You may have a thick skin, but it doesnt come close to the thick head you must have because of the lack of understanding of said rights.
                Maybe you simply dont care about your rights, but i sure do.
                @zombiejesus Incorrect. Goddamnit do people have NO IDEA on this. You CAN do what you want with them as long as they dont break any laws, Im not advocating burning, replocating or making personal copies of said Media. But the media you own, the cd you purchase is YOURS. Licensing only comes into play when it comes outside personal use, which lending your game or cd comes with.
                I feel like im talking to walls here who dont understand basic consumer rights, have mistaken them for licensing (which is an honest mistake because now with digitial this is essentially what people have chosen to do) or simply dont care.

                Last edited 22/05/13 3:24 pm

                  Dude, calm down. They're just trying to get you to understand that while yes, you own the physical CD, you don't own the contents. Same deal with DVDs and games and whatever else.

                  Here is a link to the full text of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, or what is the basis for "consumer law" in Australia, including the rights of consumers.

                  I've unfortunately had to become fairly familiar with it as a requirement of my job. Not massively familiar, I'm not a lawyer or anything, and I don't refer to it on a daily basis. Maybe you're involved in consumer law on a day to day basis? If so, I'm sure you can point to the section of the Act that specifies that a consumer can do "anything you choose" with a product you've purchased, or maybe to do with digital licensing of creative content. That would clear up this whole unfortunate understanding, tout de suite, wouldn't you agree?

                  @kermitron
                  Well instead of going into the fundamentals of the argument which i see you conveniently left out the part of the argument "that doesnt break the law" as in the evidence that you provided which is the C&C Act.
                  It all comes down to resale. Part of the agreement when you purchase something is the resale of said item. Something that has been removed with your advocation of Digital media. Because you are no longer purchasing a product, but a purchasing a license. Two totally different laws.
                  So really all your doing is providing the laws that must be adhered to with ownership. I.E. The laws that you must not break.
                  You have not however discussed the fact that the two different. Instead you decide to pick at half of the sentence in an effort to try allude to the fact you have some semblance of understanding which by saying you have had to become familiar with it with your job, obviously you cant be to familiar because you seem to have not understood the basics of ownership of a product versus the ownership of a license.
                  The ownership of media, being a CD, A Game, or a Movie is much different to say the license of media, which is more in line of licensing of a product say microsoft office or the adobe creative suite.
                  If you cant understand that when you buy said product you can resell it, pass it along to somebody else or simply throw it away because that is your desire between where the current digital licensing agreement is.
                  I might as be well be explaining physics to a 12 year old in japanese.

                  But please sir, if you the knowledge you have gained from your employment to dispute what i said rather than challenge me to go through a multiple thousand document for the mythological words that say "after you purchase something you have carte blanche to do anything to it bypassing any other laws and restrictions". Feel Free too.

                  Last edited 22/05/13 4:23 pm

                  You are trying to argue the presence of a consumer right which does not in fact exist, and I am demonstrating that point. A sale of a CD, movie, or game on a disc is a contract between yourself and the publisher, and this contract is a limited license to use the content on the disc in an unmodified state. I only stated that you never owned this content.

                  Physically you are capable of transferring the disc to a new owner, and I never stated otherwise. That does not mean that the person who holds the disc is now party to a contract with the publisher or that the publisher is beholden to them insofar as the inferred purchase of the license. All you have done is dispose of the disc and relinquish your right to the media. Since you cannot legally grant ownership of the media to another party (as you don't own it), you have sold your friend nothing.

                  The fact that he can still play the CD in a regular CD player without license is a happy pecularity of the fact that music publishers have little to no control over it. If they could enforce the license, they would. Technically Sony Music or BMG or whoever could sue your friend to produce evidence of a contract, and once they failed to do so, revoke their right to listen to the music. This never happens, because it's too difficult and expensive and just not worth it.

                  Microsoft, Sony, Steam, and other services exercise a far greater level of control over the published media, and are now choosing to enforce it.

                  @kermitron
                  Incorrect. the assumption that i have no legal standpoint to pass on the ownership of a product to another owner is false.
                  The assumption that i have sold nothing back to EB, or to a friend, or to somebody on ebay or at a garage sale in also false.
                  It is ownership, not a license.
                  Would you like to try again?

                  Last edited 22/05/13 5:41 pm

                  Since you've not actually made a point other than citing more examples where you have done something I have already agreed it's possible to do, there's nothing to refute.

                  What I am stating is that when a publisher sells a music disc, or movie DVD, or game disc, they are granting a limited license to use the content on the disc. Trading the game in at EB does not transfer the license to EB, and EB selling the game to a new person does not extend the license to them.

                  I invite you to refer to the warranty information in the back of any game booklet you may have in your possession as an example. You'll note that the warranty is between the publisher and the original purchaser.

                  They have not granted you a license to resell the product, and they do not grant the new owner license to use the product.

                  What you can or cannot do with actual physical media is not material to the point I am trying to express to you.

                  @kermitron
                  And ive expressed to you over and over again. Ownership is ownership. Not a license.
                  Owning a CD is not having a license. Its ownership. You cannot transfer licenses. You can however transfer ownership.
                  perhaps you should read up a little.
                  http://theconversation.com/selling-mp3s-you-should-have-stuck-with-cds-13219

                  m2d2, you say licenses only affect non-personal use, but that's wrong. Copyright law is well-defined and gives five main rights of control: derivative work, distribution, public display, public performance and reproduction. When you buy a CD, you can't make a mix tape without permission because right of reproduction is with the copyright holder. You can't put on a concert or include a song in your Youtube videos because that requires the right of public performance. And you can't sell, rent, lease or lend the CD because those actions all come under the right of distribution.

                  If you want to do any of the things covered by copyright, you need one of two things: a law granting a limited exception to the copyright protection, or a license from the copyright holder. In Australia, we have some laws of exception relating to the right to make personal backups or to format-shift between analog and digital formats, both of which are normally restricted by the reproduction right. In the United States, they have the first sale doctrine that protects your right to fully transfer a product you purchased to someone else, an action normally restricted by the distribution right. (As an aside, the first sale doctrine has been extensively challenged in the US as it relates to digital products, and it's in something of a grey area right now.) But in Australia, there is no first sale doctrine. Here, there is no implicit and automatic right of resale.

                  From an article published on The Conversation, Australian Professor of Law Anne Fitzgerald states the situation clearly:

                  When purchasing a CD, the consumer gains ownership of the physical item but not the copyright work. Rather, the consumer obtains a licence, or permission, to use the copyright work – by playing it on a CD player. But, since the consumer owns the CD upon which the copyright work is stored, they can legally dispose of the physical item by way of gift or sale. In that case, it is implied that permission to use the copyright work is transferred along with the physical item.

                  Where a copyright work exists only in the form of computer-readable code, the consumer does not obtain any rights of ownership but merely permission to use the copyright work for specified purposes – usually, to store and play it in a device. The standard terms of the licence expressly prohibit the copying of the work without the permission of the copyright owner.

                  This is what I've been trying to tell you this whole time: you don't own anything but the physical disc. The right to use its contents is controlled by a license, not just when you want to do something non-public but at all times, and licenses can control all aspects of use. There's a reason many licenses (eg. for Microsoft software) have explicit clauses that detail how you're allowed to resell the product, because if it's not in the license, you don't have that permission.

                  Angrily insisting we're all wrong and don't understand consumer law is becoming grating: since you insist you know the law better, quote the part of Australian consumer law that protects your right of resale.

                  I have no problem having a rational conversation with you, but the last few posts you've been angry, self-important and insulting to both @kermitron and me. You insist repeatedly I know nothing about the law, so I'll give you some backstory. I produce multimedia content as a side project. I both create copyrighted content and I include content copyrighted by others in my work. To accomplish that, I've dealt directly with the master rights holders for both video games and music, mostly in Australia, the United States and Japan. Last month I was negotiating with the Victor Company of Japan (aka JVC in western markets) for the right to include a 30 second excerpt of an obscure song from an album they produced 15 years ago. I've had to do a lot of reading on local and international law as it relates to copyright and licensing, particularly as it relates to what viewers are able to do with my content, and how the implicit rights of viewers might be affected by the inclusion of external copyrighted material. On the other side of the coin, I'm close friends with members of three different Australian bands, some of which are reasonably successful. I've been with them as they've dealt with the issues of rights and privileges surrounding the production of live music, albums and singles.

                  I wouldn't call myself an expert by any stretch, and I prefer to leave serious legal matters to the lawyers, but I'm not inclined to sit idly by and let you insult me over something I know a good deal about.

                  Last edited 22/05/13 8:32 pm

                  @zombiejesus. It appears in your last post you just proved his point and disproved kermitrons. He keeps saying the physical product provides something tangible and usable and transferable. It's kermitron who is so focused on the licence part that he ignores the rights the physical medium confers (as you point out thy are use licence right fixed to the physical medium)

                  So all I see is m2d2 being correct in saying you own something that you can lend, sell, gift, crush into little pieces of confetti if you like etc...not this pie in the sky belief that you have sold EBs 'nothing'.

                  Last edited 22/05/13 11:32 pm

                  @cheshirecat, the quote pretty clearly says CDs involve a license, something m2d2 has been arguing against the whole time. The license only transfers with the physical product if it's not written to prohibit that: you can just as easily write a license that prohibits transfer, and a lot of products already do this (many types of software, screen test or reviewer DVDs, etc). My point, from the start, has been exactly this (there is no consumer right of resale in Australia), and m2d2 has been insisting I don't know what I'm talking about, independent of what kermitron might also be saying.

                  The physical medium confers no rights. The license is typically associated with the medium, but not intrinsically or always, and the medium itself grants nothing. This is what I've been trying to say from the start, and what m2d2 appears to be trying to argue against.

                  Last edited 23/05/13 7:38 am

                  @zombiejesus the fact you said i(we) have no right of resell in this country is false and then use software programs as an example just shows you BOTH dont understand the difference between a license and ownership.
                  You then used an example of you have to deal with copyrighted work for the right to use that in another published work, that has nothing to do with the right of resell. using copyrighted work is completely different and you know it is, its part of the "you cant break the law" aspect ive been saying multiple times.
                  as far as getting personal with you, i have no, ii have claimed you dont know the difference between ownership and licensing which you have proved to me once again by trying to make the two one, which they are not. getting personal with @kermitron i have done, because hes a fool.
                  I have already provided the article on the right of resale See “first sale doctrine”.
                  If we had no right to do such, there would be no used game market at eb. old record stores would not be able to sell old media and pawn stores/cash convertors would not exist.

                  You know your licensing law, i have not claimed otherwise. Both of you do. However the lack of understanding between licensing law(which i too have done work on getting to use copyrighted material from the master holders) and consumer law is apparent to all to see.

                  I don't know what else to say to you, mate. There is no right of resale in Australia, no matter how much you protest otherwise. First sale doctrine is an American law, it does not exist here. Call consumer affairs and ask them yourself. Second hand markets are fine if the license doesn't prohibit transfer. When it does, it's illegal. Not going to spend any more time going in circles here. I assume you're employed, talk to your company's legal department, talk to a friend or professor doing law at university, call the consumer affairs hotline. They'll all tell you the same thing: there is no first sale doctrine in Australia, and there is no legal right of resale. You can resell if you're not otherwise prohibited from doing so, but it is not a right.

                  I'm not arguing whether it's "illegal", I am talking about licensing. Despite your beliefs, purchasing and holding a music CD or game disc is a license to access the content on the disc. You own the physical media and can do whatever you like with it, within the law.

                  However, when you purchase a copy of a game or album, you as the original purchaser have a license to enjoy that content. You do not own the content. If you onsell the physical media (which no one can really stop you doing) the license does not automatically transfer. It is implied that the new owner of the physical media can continue to enjoy the music because for reasons I have already gone into, it is largely unenforceable. This is not a criminal issue as far as I'm concerned, it is a civil issue. The publishers have over the years tried various means to prevent this - not only by preventing computers accessing content on music disc, but at one point they proposed music CDs that would only play in a limited number of playback devices, or have a limited lifespan. These ideas never panned out, but the ideas were based in the principle of enforcing license agreements.

                  Digital distrubution of the same content limits your capacity to transfer your purchased digital content to a new owner. This is NOT a change in your rights as a consumer, this is simply the publishers having the capacity to enforce their rights.

                  Do what you like with the CD, that's your right as a consumer. Is it technically illegal to onsell the physical media? No, I never claimed it was. Is it illegal for the new owner to listen to the music? Probably not, and I never claimed it was. However, the license from the publisher? Completely seperate issue. I am not arguing right of resale and never was, I am talking about ownership of content. You have decided to argue something else, which was not material to the point I have been trying to make.

                  At the end of the day you prefer physical media because it gives you as a consumer a lot more flexibility. The XBox One has proposed means to control the spread of used physical media (or otherwise charge a fee for the license transfer). They are doing this because they now have the technological capacity to do so, just like they have the capacity (for example) to ban you from using the Xbox Live service if you mod your console - modding a console for instance is not illegal, but it is in breach of the terms of the service.

                  Last edited 23/05/13 10:30 am

                  @zombiejesus
                  So youre telling me that i can resell the item in question(lets just use the main three, books, dvd's cds), when there is no law or practice prohibiting said sale. Due to their being no law in this country that can prohibit said items being resold or ownership being passed from one person to another. Can you explain the difference between what ive said (even tho i found first sale doctrine being used in this country, albeit for software licenses) without it sounding like semantics?
                  Because it sounds like while there is no law like the first sale doctrine in america to preserve onsell rights, the law still states with property you can do whatever you choose to it without breaking other laws, which i dont know about you, is exactly what ive been claiming from the start.

                  @kermitron
                  You basically just repeated what ive been saying over and over again.
                  Digital distribution = buying a license to access media but having little to no legal right to pass along ownership of product for various reasons.
                  Physical product = ownership of said product which has the legal right to pass ownership from one person to another either through sale or gift.

                  I think thats all i really have to say on the subject because i agree, we are going in circles with the license vs ownership debate.

                @cheshirecat my point was that there is no license agreement between the publisher and the new end user if a CD is resold, and that the holder of the CD does not own or control the work. The fact that holding the CD "implies" a license transfer is, again, happenstance of the publisher having no means to enforce their control of the work. In this day and age, videogame publisher have a greater degree of control and are updating their tech to better exploit it.

            I do have to admit, I'm one of those people who've not really liked Steam because of the always-online thing. I started with Orange Box (TF2) and bought the 2K Pack (for Civ and Bioshock, among others), but I've been happier with the service GOG provides.

            I was content when I didn't know better, but since GOG has made a business model that works better for me, it's hard to go back. I'm missing out on a lot of AAA PC games because of that :(

            Last edited 22/05/13 2:30 pm

          Apple significantly cut the cost of buying an album (to like a third of what it was), much like Amazon did for ebooks and Steam did for PC games. Will MS be doing the same?

            This is the big one...I have no problem it's the licence model (so long as there some contingency if you shut down servers or go broke) as long as the price gets substantially reduced. Music is almost worthless these days...it's free everywhere so why pay unless you love them...the value is in live music...the experience... And merchandise....a physical product.

            I'm loving playstation plus...Xbox should be trying to copy that...it's a great model in that consumers get lots of cheap product and producers get some funds where once they would have gotten none (and often seem to get to promote their soon to be released sequel etc)

          How is that the same thing? If I buy an album on CD I can still lend it to my friends.

            ... And if you buy your music on iTunes, you can still share it with your friends...

          Lending doesn't bother me much.... But the possibility of using facial recognition for DRM and not being backwards compatible is quite annoying. I don't lose my whole steam library because I move to a new computer. Hell, I don't even lose my saved games.

          And, I don't even own an xbox

      ^^^ This. This is all just standard Internet rhetoric. The same happened when Sony launched the PS4 and the same happens every time a big company launches a new product.

      You can’t satisfy everyone. It's just that the few malcontents seem to voice their opinion at maximum decibel level.

      I'm unsure which console I'll buy, but I will buy one.

      It's retarded to expect the ability to play without an internet connection? Hell even with a great internet connection just look at Diablo III, Simcity, almost any MMO launch - I'm willing to bet any amount of money there will be large amounts of downtime on the Xbox servers.
      Required internet connection (even if it is only once a day) is the worst idea for any console as many people only use consoles for offline/Singleplayer games.

        The fact that D3 and Sim City and nearly every Ubisoft game lately have required internet connections, yeah, it was foolish not to expect some form of online requirement, even if only for periodic checks.

          Those are all PC games and have all been very badly recieved by fans. Most people expect a console to be designed around offline play with online as an added bonus (people all over the world own and play consoles without an internet connection).

          Many people like myself most likely half-expected it to happen but didn't seriously think Microsoft would be so blatently stupid to actually go through with it.

      Can we steer clear of the extremes? Yes, it’s impossible for them to pander to everybody’s expectations. But is anybody particularly happy with the announcements? The best I’ve seen is a few lukewarm responses saying they haven’t written the system off yet. IMHO this is the only reasonable response, but I can’t blame people for getting annoyed that most of the rumours people were worried about were true or close to it. Having a system with the same specs + a couple of the gimmicks like tv integration would have calmed things down a bit. But the daily online, no backwards compatibility, no used games (or however that’s going to work), always-on Kinect are all things that will put people offside.
      The PS4 announcement seemed to get a far better response and that was without them showing many games and no physical console to show.

        Moderation would be great, but you have to remember that this is basically just the latest salvo in a Holy War between the console fanboys. Hyberbole feeds hyperbole and the next thing you know one side is getting death threats and the other side is being called every insult under the sun and by the gods, if you aren't on my side then you're the stupidest, scummiest filth the world has ever seen and you don't deserve courtesy.

        So basically, it's like the English with football. I hate the phrase, but it's first world problems to a tee.

        PS: PC master race or die.

          Whats sad to me about this, between the two, Sony & Microsoft, i was a microsoft fanboy. So im not sitting here advocating "Buy the PS4" because i really wouldnt be surprised if sony follow suit.
          But the idea that this is just console fanboys arguing with each other is a misnomer.
          I however welcome my new PC overlords.

            True, it's not just fanboys, but the fanboys tend to set the tone. Once fists and controllers are flying, bystanders tend to get caught up in the energy and it all just turns into a free-for-all. I just think it's too early to really judge either console, and neither of them seem like devices that cater for gamers like myself.

            And you're right, we have no idea what Sony is going to be doing with respect to some of these issues, and the suspicion in the back of my head is that for at least some of the things people are railing against Microsoft for, Sony will also be doing, or even doing worse.

              I dont know if they personally set the tone in THIS situation, i know they have been more than guilty in the past. But this time i think its more "hey they are changing to things we dont like, boo!" vs "this is the way things are"
              I think it really does come down to an outlook on change and the perception of said changes.

          I don't understand the negative aspect of fanboys. Sure spruik the product you love by why attack the other? It's not like they are your enemy..they are just another option to enjoy you supposed hobby. Over time I'm sure lots of gamers end up with both consoles, or at the very least have friends with the other console. I have had at least two in every generation since ps1, some purchased later when they were cheaper but I didnt attack the other because I hadn't bought it yet...often a mate would have one and I could appreciate their unique titles as well as my console of choice.

    I’m not too worried although I can understand why some people are. I think Microsoft were focusing on the things they think will make the Xbox a better choice than the PS4 on day 1, and in doing so decided to focus on the multimedia capabilities instead of games.

    I’m not too concerned because I think the controller and the hardware and functionally similar enough to the PS4 that they are both going to get most of the same games anyway. If people tuned in to see exclusives, then they were announced (kinda) but will probably (hopefully) be shown in more detail than at E3. I take the games on Xbox as a given since they’ve delivered the last 2 generations and the new controller looks pretty standard.

    My question is this: Having seen both announcements, what do you think the PS4 will offer at launch that the Xbox won’t? I can’t think of much, although the Xbox seems to have more bells and whistles (Kinect and the media crap) but also some element of risk around the online requirement.

    These two consoles will go neck and neck for the first few months and it won’t be until about halfway through next year that we will be able to tell if the hysteria (good and bad) around the both consoles in justified.

      Developers, gaming focus, free online, no ads, ability to play offline, ability to play second hand games, ability to share games, etc etc?

        Most of that list is also in the Xbox, you realise.

          Now that B/C is out of the picture (I own a 360) some of these other features will inform whatever I purchase next year I wonder whether you'll still need XBL gold for multiplayer games or whether it'll just be for all this cable BS.

          Really? Today pretty clearly shows a TV focus not gaming, Xbox live hasn't been mentioned as going free which more then likely means it isn't, advertising has and always will be on Xbox, Offline isn't available (online is required once per day). Second-hand games are (more-or-less) blocked along with game sharing.
          As for developers the only ones we know of so far are EA/EA Sports, Infinity Ward (or Treyarch, I can't remember and don't really care), The Forza guys (can't remember their name atm) and a few other rumoured ones.

          where is the most?

            The presentation today was about showing what was different to the PS4. The fact that both devices are focused around gaming is a given. Live probably isn't free, no opinion on advertising. Offline is available, connecting once a day (assuming that is true) doesn't mean you can't play offline. They already said you can trade games through a service they haven't announced yet so second hand games are there, just in a different form to the EB nonsense from the last generation. And developers make games for all consoles unless they're bought for an exclusive contract. 90% of games last generation came out on both consoles, this generation will be no different.

            That's four out of seven, thus 'most'.

              sorry but i dont see the Xbox as a gaming device anymore. Microsoft have said themselves that they are not focusing on gaming in particular but on an 'entertainment' device. I buy my consoles for gaming not to be bombarded with advertising

              That being said im not exactly excited about the PS4 either, both are as bad as each other ATM. PC gaming always has been and always will be the only place for proper gaming. Requires internet connection for most of the great games now but who games on a PC without the internet these days?

        None of those things are quantifiable certainties though.

        Microsoft will have its own exclusives and developers although neither is likely to blow the other one out of the water, the PS4 “free” online is only for some functions while the new pricing model for XBL is still a complete unknown (actually it’s unknown for both consoles), “gaming focus” is being based on an hour each of press conferences, “no ads” is a complete unknown too….

        The online requirements will be a concern to some people, but I’m not ready to draw a line through the Xbox until I’ve seen how it all works in detail. I don’t see a lot of people whinging about the death of video tapes or CDs anymore, I actually downloaded a bunch of 360 games over the years and while I wasn’t a fan at first I now like having them all sitting on my very non-transferable hard-drive.

        Honestly I think Microsoft’s approach is the way of the future regardless of if people are ready for it now or not. Doesn’t mean this console will be a success but the writing is on the wall for non-connected devices and physical media.

      That "media crap" won't be there at launch on XBox unless you live in the USA.

    hahahah you cant share games, play them on another persons console or resell them hahahah

    Are they kidding? what a joke. I have loved both xbox consoles so far but this alone will make me NEVER buy one.

      You can play your games on another person's console (just log into your own account, easy) and you can trade them. You just can't loan them easily.

        Yeah me and my brother swapped a fair few games this gen, guess that's out of the picture

      I totally don't disagree with what you are getting at, but everybody loves steam and it has the same issues. It's only when you see all of the market, with the pricing and competition, how it all hangs together that we can make this call. YOu can't do any of that stuff on Steam but Steam is great because there is good games and sales and it's an easy to use system. The fact that they still use discs means that there will still be competition. The fact that it's blu ray means we can now buy from US as well as UK and others... so this to me is more competition so cheaper games..

      Sure I like trading games but I just want to remind people that these limitations are not a make or break concept.. Steam is doing bloody well and I can't (easily) take my steam games to a mates place either.

      Oh and I believe that if you log into your XBL account at a mates place, you will then be able to play your games and it will even bring your save file over for you. not all bad.

        It is a make or break concept on consoles with $100+ games. If you think games are coming down in price, you are sadly mistaken.

        Last edited 22/05/13 1:42 pm

          There's a chance they might, depending on how the two consoles support digital download games. Steam has had a slow but positive effect on bringing regional pricing down and their policy of using the US price everywhere unless a publisher explicitly insists on a change lets a lot of stuff through. If Sony or Microsoft ever introduce worldwide pricing (unlikely) or set their own direct regional pricing for online purchases (more likely) there's a reasonable chance that they'll actually be somewhat cheaper than retail.

          Of course, I realise the cynic inside is saying 'haha no, never going to happen' but the business conditions are the most conducive they've ever been to making this interesting for the console makers.

            Its interesting for console makers because removing the used game market allows them to dictate prices. With all the other developments they have brought in to screw the consumer to remove your ownership of the product, they wont then lower the prices.
            They want your money, all your money.

              I meant the prospect of unifying prices or lowering prices in certain regions is actually at a point where it's interesting, not just the idea of selling games through an online store.

                The Australian Tax isnt going anywhere either. haha.

              Agreed, sounds like apple all over again to me....

    Lets have a look at a few issues here...

    'Always Connected'
    Always online is not always a bad thing. Yes it would make it harder when you have no Internet, or off site with no Internet connection. But did you know that the IPTV service FetchTV requires an always online Internet connection? If you boot that thing up with no net you cant even watch Free to Air channels! So MS is not the only company who is doing this.

    Now with used games. I personally think this is a really good thing!
    With the current state of used games, you would go down to your local EB games, Game Traders etc.. Pickup a used copy of the game, hand over your hard earned cash and where dose it go? The store, the game company who slayed over a computer for years making the game dose not see a single cent on that sale! You might as well pirate the game!

    But lets not forget this one important thing..
    This was only the announcement! it was not a full Q&A nor was it suppose to be.
    We will find out more information at E3 so I suggest for you to keep your panties not free and wait for more information.

    /end rant.

    It was just a "hey, we're still here" type of reveal. Nothing juicy, just a reminder that Xbox still exists.

    E3 will be the kicker for them. Or it'll break them. Either way the PS4 will likely be my choice because of the really good exclusives.

    Even though this was pretty much how I expected it to go - ie. MS presenting their new console as a "HTPC with games" rather than a gaming console - it was even worse than I expected. They're going down the "console with a bunch of extra features that I'd never use but still have to pay extra for" route...
    And I'm disappointed in the internet - the new console has an HDMI in, and no memes regarding connecting a 360 so you can "xbox while you xbox"? For shame, internet. For shame...

    I really don't get all this 'disaster' talk.

    They said they were revealing the next xbox, they told you what it will do. They did that for an hour, sure not all of it interested me, but it told me what my next console will do, which is what i wanted.

    E3 will be all about the games comming, thats what i want e3 to be about.

    This reveal ensured that all the time at e3 won't be taken up by media asking too many questions about the console, but report more on the up-comming games.

    The Kinect is an absolute deal breaker for me, the rest doesn't matter at all.

      Same. An always on camera? No thanks. Not in my house.

    The biggest stinger for me is the always on camera. There is no way, NO way that will not be used for statistic gathering purposes. To think it won't is just plain naiive. I won't allow it into my house now because of that factor. If it wasn't, there would be no need to have it on all the time.

      Yeah that concerns me too. I just don't like the possibilities that it could be turned on remotely by MS or anyone else.
      I know this is outlandish but I wonder if we would ever get to the point where police start issuing warrants for Kinnect Taps rather than phone taps.

    I think this is going to be a "I dont see the issue of blocking used/borrowed games, my xbox needing a internet connection to work, kinect spying on me" people who dont see this as a disaster and those of the people who DO believe its an issue think that Microsoft just removed any chance of them buying the product.
    All the talk of "E3 will be about games" like its a saving grace is hilarious to me, because not even the best games possible (whatever they may be to you) can override the fact that Microsoft just announced a console that has removed alot of basic rights because they want more money and because 'they can'.
    I cant say i wont purchase the thing for sure, But its sure doing its best to ensure it.

      Its privacy issue for me. Who knows what use that camera can be put to by MS and other companies? While not on the today tonight style bandwagon I can say I do not like the possibilities.

    Yes, i think they forgot that since 2005 the Internet has become infested with cynical trolls that just cannot be made happy by ANYTHING.

    I wasn't impressed at all. The reason I eventually sided with the PS3 over the 360 was that the 360 felt like it stopped being about the games. And THAT'S WHAT I WANT WHEN I BUY A GAMING SYSTEM. MS will have to reveal a mind boggling line up of games at E3 to win me over, but even then, it seems unlikely.

      Do you realise that with Microsoft's Azure technology allowing developers to harness massive processing power for games, the Xbox One is actually far more capable than the PS4 in creating processer/graphical intensive games?

        How....how does that relate to my comment at all?
        And even if it did relate, how do you know this for fact?

    Have a look here www.inthemix.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=314551

    i've written up about all the features of the Xbox One.

    Honestly, the things that excited me the most of the PS4 are on the Xbox One, and the things that excited me most about the Xbox One are different, better features!

    The only bad news i personally saw was you cant lend a game to a friend, but really, i never do anyway. it wont effect me.

    there is so much good about the console that was just drowned amongst the bad of a few things people have just completely skimmed over.

    Do yourself a favour, have a read through all of the features and rethink your hate.

      cant believe i wasted my time reading that B.S.

        Do you have an inconsistent internet connection and mostly play games borrowed from friends?

        if yes, then i understand why you think the xbox is shit, if no, stop whinging for the sake of whinging.

          Im with Telstra in SYDNEY(cable too) and i STILL dont have what you could call a consistant internet connection.
          I wouldnt call it "mostly" borrowed games. ive had maybe 5-6 this Gen. However i now no longer have that right AT ALL without paying a FULL RRP. So really, it means there is no borrowed game access without paying for the whole thing.

            if youre willing to lend your account with the game to a friend then it should be fine.

            Perhaps Microsoft will have their own rental game service over xbox live?

            so you're complaining about 5-6 games from an 8 year cycle?

            you dont need a "consistant" internet connection, you need one that has at least once a day connection and thats probably only when you use the console.

            People jump all over the small features they dont like even if it doesnt effect them.

              I dont know about you, but $500-600 is something that i would complain about Especially when one of those games were Dark Void. If i paid $100 for that i would have broken something.

                If Microsoft implement this "trading online" thing properly, itll be something along the lines of swapping games with friends at no cost, along with the activiation codes, deregistering them from your accounts. so you can in effect "borrow" games from your friends but you'll have to give them something in return. which works fine and cleverly/easily implemented.

                  Are you making the assumption that microsoft will not only implement something properly....but for free when they have come out and said that if you play a game on a second console that you will be charged a full RRP fee if you want to play the game?
                  where are you getting your information for this from?

                  Last edited 22/05/13 4:25 pm

    So we are getting a new COD game ... wow ... exciting ... yay ... zzzzzzz