Online Petition Demands Return Of Xbox One DRM

Video game petitions have a very long and mostly pointless history. As I've said several times, an internet petition is worth the paper it is printed on. But I'll give a little publicity to this thing, because it's the most ridiculous one I've seen yet (that includes this).

Whether the work of PS4 fanboy trolls or an ardent Xbox One advocate, someone has opened a petition to "Give us back the Xbox One we were promised at E3." That means restoring all of the DRM, the online checks, all of the stuff that made Xbox One the most execrable abomination to all of mankind until it reversed course a week later.

A strange counterpoint advocacy for Xbox One's more restrictive controls sprouted up after they were taken away. (Yes, in my sports column, I even pointed out how the system could have benefitted sports video gamers in the long run. I still stand by those thoughts.) Some of those talking points are echoed in the very, very brief statement of purpose:

This was to be the future of entertainment. A new wave of gaming where you could buy games digitally, then trade, share or sell those digital licenses. Essentially, it was Steam for Xbox. But consumers were uninformed, and railed against it, and it was taken away because Sony took advantage of consumers' uncertainty.

But pardon me if I doubt the sincerity of this particular effort — and I certainly doubt the intent of most of its signers, based on the comments underneath. They're littered with PlayStation partisans, who want Xbox One to be as consumer-unfriendly and unattractive as possible.

Anyway, this is a thing. Sign it, for whatever reason you have, if you like. It'll be ignored like all the rest.

Microsoft: Give us back the Xbox One we were promised at E3 [Change.org via Destructoid]


Comments

    If he is being sincere then goodluck to him. I personally was excited when it in its original form at E3. The current state it is now does not affect myself. I think the industry as a whole needs to make the move to a complete digital state and I was fine with how MSFT were going to do it.

      By alienating more than half the world?

      Last edited 11/07/13 9:21 am

        Unfortunately for Microsoft half the world wasn’t going to buy a Xbone regardless of what restrictions they put on it.I’m sure if they were going to alienate hundreds of millions of customers they would have changed their policy sooner.

        Microsoft would have done extensive research (hint: more than the nerds complaining, ironically enough- using the internet) on their own market before they made a multi-million dollar decision that would have alienated a (very small) element of their actual customer base.
        They know who their customers are, who has previously bought Xbox’s and who’s likely to in the future.

        The vast majority of those people (like me), have the internet in their homes.

          If Microsoft were confident in their research they wouldn't have backtracked. It is very unlikely they did much market research.

            They backtracked because hysterical nerds and the gaming media (that’s the same thing) were killing the product before it had a chance to hit the shelves. I guarantee you they did plenty of market research to determine the broadband penetration rates for their target and potential markets before they announced their intentions.

            They didn’t check their twitter account and suddenly realise “Holy shit! The internet is telling us that heaps of people don’t have the internet! Better bail on that plan!”.

            Microsoft would have had a pretty good idea how many people were going to be locked out by their policy and decided that the loss of sales to people who don’t have the internet wasn’t worth the benefits to themselves, publishers and the gaming community (maybe?).

            What they probably underestimated was the less quantifiable reaction from much of the gaming community who have a ideological issue with the idea of any sort of restriction. People went feral and drowned out anything good about it. “What if I join the army and I get sent to Antarctica! I won’t be able to play call of duty!”, “I want to own my own discs! You already took my cassette tapes away!”……

              Pretty sure it wasn't twitter that caused the backtrack but getting brutally slaughtered by the PS4 on preorders.

              Now, you can argue that this is a result of twitter influencing early adopters, but I'd say that's not the full story either. The coworkers know I'm into following the gaming scene. I had a few of the guys come and ask me if what they'd heard on the news was true, that the console needed a constant internet connection to play, and that they couldn't share games with mates or do trade-ins... Now, as enthusiasts, we know that's not the complete picture. But that's the word that got out there, and when I tried to explain, "Well... 'sort of'," that wasn't much help.

              'Sort of' isn't good enough. It reeked of bullshit and restrictions to them, without any real compelling benefits. So they opted out and mentally bookmarked PS4s. One actually gave the go-ahead to a family member who was looking to book something in anticipation of christmas presents.

      Well, people like you were noticeably silent while the rest of the gaming population were complaining about it. As Owen said, you and others with the same viewpoint only poked your head up once it was gone.

        To be fair to the apologists, they might've only poked their heads up once they were relatively confident they wouldn't get bitten off by rabid detractors. :)

        Actually, we were just drowned out by the whining of the nerds. I made several posts stating I liked the ideas behind it and the DRM didn't affect me.

        Also, who goes on the internet to tell everyone they are happy with the current iteration of XBOX.

          Question mark, instead if full stop.

    future of entertaining sure, I just don't see why the technology of the future needs to stop doing it's primary function without the internet.

      Or why the technology of the future necessarily needed to stomp all over the technology of the past. We could have had both.

        You guys wanted digital sharing, digital renting and symmetry of digital and physical media without a form of DRM? I'd also like to sleep with Gwen Stefani but it's not going to happen.

          I'm not sure I understand 'digital symmetry', but why couldn't it happen? All the shiny newness for digital games, including the always online retirements, status quo for discs.

            Digital symmetry was treating every physical game as if it were a digital game, being the ability to digital share a physically purchased game, the ability to play games that you purchased physically without needing a disc, and the ability to trade physically purchased games digitally.

            And people want this without any method of anti-stealing measure? Why? What makes gaming media so different to music, movies and tv shows? All these media's have forms of DRM for their respective digital outlets (Amazon, iTunes, Xbox Music, Netflix etc...).

            Remember that physical media doesn't need rights management because the physical media itself is the rights management. It's a whole new ballpark for digital media, the same rules don't apply, that's where DRM comes into play. But I think the majority of the gaming community just scoffs at any form of DRM even though it's necessary.

            Last edited 11/07/13 8:53 am

              I'm not sure anyone has ever really wanted digital symmetry. I think you have a fundamentally different mindset when you're buying a physical product rather than a digital one, and different expectations with regards to ownership.

              I agree with all of your other points, though. Some form of rights management was required if they were going to allow users to trade or share their downloaded games. It just didn't necessarily have to be all or nothing.

                I'm not sure anyone has ever really wanted digital symmetry. I think you have a fundamentally different mindset when you're buying a physical product rather than a digital one, and different expectations with regards to ownership.

                Perhaps this is my main disagreement, I loved the benefits of digital gaming, but I can't buy and download games digitally with my ADSL1 connection, I'd be waiting several days after purchase to play it. What I could do is go into my local game store, buy the game, and reap all the benefits of digital gaming (sharing, trading and no disc hot switching).

          Who on earth ever wanted symmetry between physical and digital? Especially when "symmetry" meant the worst of both instead of the best? That's what everybody was complaining about. MS could have done (and still can do) all that DRM and game sharing shit with digital distribution and kept physical distribution the same and nobody would have minded. But, of course, they know that nobody actually wanted that in the first place, which would have meant the digital side would have withered on the vine. So they tried to force it onto physical distribution where it was completely unnecessary, and they copped a richly-deserved bollocking as a result.

            I answered this above but I'll repeat.

            I'm not sure anyone has ever really wanted digital symmetry. I think you have a fundamentally different mindset when you're buying a physical product rather than a digital one, and different expectations with regards to ownership.

            Perhaps this is my main disagreement, I loved the benefits of digital gaming, but I can't buy and download games digitally with my ADSL1 connection, I'd be waiting several days after purchase to play it. What I could do is go into my local game store, buy the game, and reap all the benefits of digital gaming (sharing, trading and no disc hot switching).

          Microsoft already do this with their business software. They have the systems & processes in place, so it's not unreasonable to expect this on the consumer side of the business as well.

            Its a common misconception that the Xbox department can mooch off of the other Microsoft departments. No Microsoft department can "share" any of their assets or technology, the way that the company is set up, each department has to purchase any technology that they need from the other departments.

            The best example is the difference between Xbox Kinect and Kinect for Windows, for all intents and purposes, they are two completely separate companies. If the Kinect for Windows team wants to get any of the Xbox Kinect technology or code, they literally have to BUY that tech with hard currency. Or if the Office team needs 1000 copies of Windows 7 for their team, they have to buy every single one of those windows licenses from the Windows team (at little, or no discount I might add).

            Just because Microsoft is doing something in one area of their business, in no way means that they will do the same thing in another area. Unless Steve Ballmer wills it, of course.

    As I've been saying for a while....
    There is NOTHING stopping MS from doing both at the same time.
    Implement the new features (including 24hour check-in) for downloadable games, and leave disk based games as standalone. Use the generation to drive people towords the world as MS want it, that way they can have converts ready to go for the next generation, where they can implement their DRM for disk based games... or just drop the disk based games entirely and go download for everything (by that point more people will have an internet connection good enough for this not to be bothersome) if they mix this with some smarts to allow the game to download while you play it,all the better (download the assets needed for the start of the game and then continue downloading while you play it).

    MS wants to change the industry, but they have been trying too much at once, running both at the same time is the best way to onboard people, whilst not alienating others.

      This would most likely take time and I wouldn't be surprised if this happened a few months after release. Chances are MSFT planned the ability to turn off and on their DRM system, but not the ability for both to work in harmony.

      All MS had to do was drop the 24hr lockout...

        Steam system. Want to install a new game for the first time, or change ownership? Be online to check in, like entering a CD key. That makes sense. People get that. We've been doing that for years.

        Check in daily, once you're already locked and loaded and haven't done anything to change ownership? That's just bullshit.

        The fact that apologists can't see the difference is baffling to me.

      I agree. Microsoft could have been constructive and found a middle ground. But instead they felt hurt and behaved like a little child in the playground. 'We can't play my game? Well then you can't use my toys!' squealed baby-Ballimer. Its pathetic.

      They petulantly took away the digital sharing features and blamed it on the old-fashioned consumer when everyone knows there's nothing stopping the Xbox from allowing sharing with digital downloads.

      In addition, there could also have been an opt-in system for physical media where you have the option of locking the product key to your account. That way you get your 'digital symmetry' if you must have it. This would alleviate the download quota issue.

      Did we get any of that? Nup. Microsoft reverted back to the old-style system.

      Ultimately this situation was NOT the fault of any 'uninformed consumers'. Rather the blame rests with Microsoft who refused to compromise.

      Last edited 11/07/13 12:26 pm

    "A new wave of gaming where you could buy games digitally, then trade, share or sell those digital licenses."

    It is about locking the licenses to users rather than about trading, sharing or selling then. Currently, Steam does not offer any trading or selling (I know it is being considered).

    I dont particularly like the DRM but I personally much preferred the advantages that the DRM restrictions opened up for the Xbox One which have now been removed.

    The DRM and policies were basically safeguards against people abusing their Digital System.

    If you want things to be fully digital, you need DRM, or else the companies releasing the digital material will be 100% gauranteed to be ripped off in 1 way or another.

    I dont agree with the DRM they had and I think there were definately possible workarounds to make people happy, unfortunately Sony did play a brilliant game, fed the negativity and M$ were forced to back out.

    Perhaps one day we'll see things change bit by bit with the X1. we'll have to wait and see.

    I keep saying people, if you can think of it, it will exist somewhere on the Internet.

      Like this? http://youtu.be/9QYeYPYGNdc Mwahahaha :P

        :O Now I've seen it all! That can never be unwatched...

          See, when I saw the title, I was ready to click the 'close tab' button, and when I saw it was a real thing which is real, and not some goofy cartoon send-up? Abort. Abort abort ABORT!

            Like the train wreck that it was, I was compelled to watch it to its conclusion. Bad choice... bad choice...

    in b4 undercover sony rep trying to make the xbox worse so everyone buys playstation 4.

    if Some one wants this crap give it too them, just let people who don't want it opt out

      EXACTLY. Don't force it on people, it should be a choice and I don't understand why they can't just have it as a choice?

    I didnt mind the miniscule drm (at worst I could use my phone to tether for the check ins) as every device in my household that can connect to the net is permanently connected anyway.

    I saw the benefits of shared libraries with 10 friends and I was sold. Not that I wouldn't buy a ps4 to sit next to it for some exclusives, but for multiplayer gaming on consoles xbl hasnt ever let me down. (Dont get me wrong I love ps+ & its free games, but everytime I jump into a multiplayer lobby on my ps3 they are empty, you can figuratively see the tumbleweeds rolling, in stark contrast to my experience with xbl).

    Of course its entirely selfish of me to want the sharing with 10 friends, 99% of my irl gamer friends didn't mind the miniscule drm. I know im gonna get hate for this but it worked for me, so frack the rest of ya!

    Last edited 11/07/13 8:34 am

      you do know that there are stong rumors that the shared library was nothing more then a 1 hour timed demo of the full game, and after the 1 hour you would be booted to the market place to buy said game.

      Of course this is only rumor, and it is likely that we will never know the truth of the matter, but it is easy to believe, seeing as most of the other rumors were true.

      And then there was the whole 'if you lend your game to a friend they have to pay full price, and that game cannot be lent anymore ever'.

      its not to far a stretch that if they locked down physical copies like this, then the digital copies would have it the same.

        "And then there was the whole 'if you lend your game to a friend they have to pay full price, and that game cannot be lent anymore ever'."

        This is from the official statement:
        Give your games to friends: Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.

        I expected them to change the "can only be traded once" to something else, maybe "there needs to be at least 30 days before the game can be traded again"

        And "strong rumors"? a post/file on pastebin from an "anonymous Microsoft employee". I'm more inclined to think it was the work of someone from the Playstation camp than an actual Microsoft employee (or this was an old post on Microsoft's stance before changing their mind and going for what they announced). Also what other rumors? most of the rumors I heard of were whether things Microsoft said them-self, or things blown out of proportion/over exaggerated (the xbox 1 being always online instead of 24 hour check in for instance)

    Would love to see the original product released. They provably could have gotten away with releasing both to be honest. If tablets can go WiFi or 3G/4G why couldn't a console do something similar?

    I have already purchased my PS4 outright, butnot because of any microsoft decision making, but because I love my PS3. a few years from now the original product could have won consumers over completely, who knows....

    I was happy with how it was before. Did needing to check in once every 24 hours phase me? No, I have dsl at home (and tethering for worse case scenario) for that 10kb, 5 second check in. Could I understand why people are frustrated? Yes, definitely.

    But people need to realize that you couldn't have a complete symmetry between digital and physical with digital sharing and digital renting without a DRM system in place. I also thought it was clear that the family sharing feature was a compromise to gamers due to the death of used games.

    But it's a bit hard to convince people it was going to be okay when half of them were under the command of Angry Joe.

      Damn straight! I find it laughable that in theory in 10 years time (given the expected life cycle of the X1 & PS4) that we'll still need to insert a disc to play a game. In 2020 we will need to insert a disc to play a game. Wow! That's progress...

      I had no issue with DRM, check ins, no trading. Games are intellectual property and like it or not people need to get paid. To borrow a line from Angry Joe; Microsoft you done fucked it up when you blinked and caved in to the whiners.

      We had a real chance to push consoles forward with digital delivery and Steam like pricing potentially. But all we've ended up with is a shinier version of now.

      There's definitely this weird 'cult of celebrity' thing going on with a section of the gaming community. That's nothing new in and of itself, but what's scary is how many people defer the entirety of their critical thought to someone else. Angry Joe and TotalBiscuit are the two I've seen that have the biggest populations of these kinds of people - Yogscast would be on the list too but they have the sense to stay away from making comments that rile up their viewers.

      So if either AJ or TB says 'games without FOV sliders are terrible' or 'loading screens in this game are half a second too long' or even something patently ridiculous like 'games should allow players to shoot their enemies with pink splatter paint', there are actually people - and in no small numbers - that will make that statement their new religion, turn it into The Most Important Thing Ever and flip the fuck out over it, and make death threats or threaten boycotts or get into vicious fights with people who disagree, all over something that really isn't that important in the first place.

      I watch some of Angry Joe, and I watch a reasonable amount of TotalBiscuit's stuff, but I never, ever read the comments on their Youtube videos or interact with their other fans. I find it truly frightening how many people out there, in a supposedly intelligent community no less, are little more than blank slate mind control subjects ready to accept the very next thing they hear as Fact and Bible.

      But people need to realize that you couldn't have a complete symmetry between digital and physical with digital sharing and digital renting without a DRM system in place.

      DRM has its place but Microsoft took it too far. It did not have to be that invasive.

      So when they rolled it back, they took the childish path and rolled back the features as well.

      Don't get me wrong, I also use Steam and hate the DRM in it, but I would rather work with that than have something watch me like Orwell's political figure.

      Last edited 11/07/13 9:53 am

      You guys are naive if you think it's the masses being "converted" by Angry Joe, Totalbiscuit, Francis and AOSin. The best empirical data I know of was the Amazon Survey with 95% of ppl voting for the PS4 over Xbone. The "celebrities" have just struck a chord of what everyone else thought.

      It was not "clear" that games would be 100% shared, and they probably wouldn't have been anyway because it would have been a loss of money.

      By the same token, I keep saying the same tired (blatantly incorrect, unimaginative) argument that we needed that DRM in its hyper-restrictive incarnation in order to facilitate the having of nice things.

      It's wrong. It's SO wrong. We've seen this, proven by actual products in use right now. Compromise was possible, it didn't need to be as onerous as it was.

    I signed it. I want the original Xbox One back as well. It was a far better console than the one we're getting now.

    This reminds me so much of the recent political situation in Egypt...

      When I first read about the Egypt stuff, I had a similar thought. I was like, "Uhm, yo Egypt bros. Democracy? You're doing it wrong. The thing about democracy is that the elected guy stays elected, and if you don't like what he's doing, then you elect someone else at the next election."

      Then I found out he [Edit: 'he' being the deposed President] was trying to change the constitution to establish Egypt as an Islamic state, without holding a referendum. So... yeah. Some things need a closer look.

      Last edited 12/07/13 12:21 am

        Democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. The majority of Egyptians wanted a leader who would turns Egypt into an Islamic state. What if America suddenly elected only republicans who wanted hated gay people? Just because something's democratic, doesn't mean it's good

          Well, the thing is, he didn't run on a platform of turning Egypt into an islamic state. Now sure, you could say, "Well, duh, what did you think he was going to do, that's what Islam dictates - that religion and state are one." But the point is, that's not what people voted for, and yeah, that's why he was desposed.

          Constitutional changes are a pretty big deal.

    I still find this whole situation funny. There were some neat aspects to the Xbox One that was announced initially, only thing is they bungled the message and came off as control freaks who care little about the individual with bad internet. This was amplified by the conflicting messages they sent out every interview with each piece of information not lining up. So they changed the Xbox One to remove these aspects and the confusion, but in the process took away the neat features.

    It's akin to someone chucking a wobbly: "So you don't want it they way we want it? Fine! You can have it the way you want it, but we are taking our shiny things home"

    Why couldn't they find the middle ground?

      And the middle ground being, all those digital capabilities without a DRM system?

      I think that was the middle ground, they initially wanted hourly check ins and changed it to 24 hours. That means they said, okay, this means people have the capability play games they shouldn't be able to for 23 hours before the check in kicks in. But, still wasn't good enough for the community.

      So I'll say it again, any form of digital content delivery system for music, tv shows, movies (Amazon, iTunes, Xbox Music, Spotify, Netflix, Hulu) has DRM systems in place for their digital content, why should a digital content delivery system for games be any different?

        Nobody was complaining about their digital content delivery system. People were complaining about having the restrictions of digital content delivery forced onto physical content delivery.

          Thats a fair enough point @Braaains. Does that mean you wouldn't be opposed to the drm on your digital content then, while leaving you physical copies of games alone (without a check in)?

            That'd be fine by me because then people would have a choice - want digital game-sharing? Then buy the digital copy. Want to just own your game and play it offline and sell/give/trade/share it as you wish? Then buy physical. With all due respect to @mattm, I think the portion of the market that liked the digital stuff they were pushing but don't have the internet connections to support downloading their games is probably quite small. And the number who want to buy physical but own digital (if that makes sense - haven't had coffee yet so can't think of a better way to put it) would be much smaller than the number who just want to buy and own their games they way they already do.

              Does make sense. I need caffeine too!

              Edit: I was one of those weird people that wanted to basically throw away my discs after install, or just give them straight to friends to install (and then use with the shared license) so they wouldn't have to waste bandwidth on what will be progressively larger games (our dsl 2 plan is only 200gb/month which the 3 (in the house) of us almost use it all with only the odd xbl GoD or ps+ free games thrown in for good measure (steam doesn't count towards our total with our provider).

              Basically I was totally for the sharing and willing to put up with what I see as an extremely minor DRM. I can understand that people love having a disc collection, but with around 200 x360 games alone on my bookshelf its kind of getting ridiculous. I also understand that poeple dont want to be restricted in any way to do with who they can give discs to and im not actually against that...

              Part of my understanding of games from the last decade or so of adulthood was that I never owned the games on the disc. I owned a license to play the game, but the only way to distribute that game on a large scale was discs... But not any more. In the end, I can see both sides of the argument, I just wish M$oft understood how to market better.

              Last edited 11/07/13 10:16 am

                It's pretty simple - they want to go to an all-digital model, so make that model attractive enough that consumers will switch to it voluntarily even when they have the choice of both. Note I said make the digital option attractive, as opposed to trying to f*ck up the physical option to the point where it becomes unattractive.

                Look at something like iTunes - people can still buy their music on CD, but more and more of them are switching over to digital distribution because it's cheaper and more convenient. When I can go into EB today and buy a game for less (in some cases as much as 50% less) than it'd cost me to buy it off PSN or XBL, where's the benefit to me of switching to digital distribution?

                The simple fact is that I have seen nothing in the online offerings of any of the 3 platform holders that makes me willing to trust them with complete control of the marketplace without any competition from physical retail.

          That was one of my favorite things about it!

          I'm on an ADSL1 shitty connection, buying games digitally and downloading them is not a viable option, but being able to physically buy a game and reap the benefits of a digital game? (digital sharing, digital trading, no disc hot switching) was the best feature in my opinion.

          Last edited 11/07/13 9:20 am

            Microsoft could have offered it but they also shackled it with invasive DRM.

            They only needed simple DRM that just tied the game to your account. They didn't need to require a daily mandatory watch.

            But no, Microsoft have gone childish and decided to take the features away with the DRM.

              But what about all the other features? What about if I wanted to digitally share or digitally trade that game?

              The digital capabilities of Xbox was offering more than that of steam, particularly sharing and trading, thus the reason for a 24 hour check in. Without it, it means I could buy a game, trade it to a friend, and still play the game. Which I could within the 24 hour check in period, because it was initially an hourly check in but MSFT dialed back well aware it meant people could do that. Remember with DRM it's impossible to fully stamp out those sort of actions, it's about making them difficult.

                They didn't need a check every 24 hours. They could have kept the feature without the check.

                In fact there is no justification for it. Period.

                  So how would they know you're not playing a game you just traded away? With physical media, it was just the physical disc that was needed, that was the rights management, but for digital media? How would they know.

                  @mattm: That is none of their business. That is for the Australia Federal Police (infringement is a national law here, or international if you go via the DMCA).

        So I'll say it again, any form of digital content delivery system for music, tv shows, movies (Amazon, iTunes, Xbox Music, Spotify, Netflix, Hulu) has DRM systems in place for their digital content, why should a digital content delivery system for games be any different?

        Just because its there does not mean it is accepted. DRM on music and videos is just as unwanted there as it is with games.

        I bought the product and have accepted the EULA. I should not have to tolerate DRM that treats me like I got the product from The Pirate Bay.

          Copyright laws > EULA acceptance.

            Would you kindly make a complete sentence instead of hiding one in a logic expression?

            Last edited 11/07/13 9:36 am

            I'm sorry but what? You do know an EULA is a contract and owners can freely put in copyright conditions in it. They're not exclusive of each other.

        Funny you should use iTunes as an example, as the program still works as a music platform for PCs and iPod while it is offline, essentially keeping it's primary function even in the absence of internet. You just can't update it, connect to the iTunes online store or use some of the net features (as one should expect).

        The proposed Xbox One online requirement however, turns the gaming aspects of the console off whenever it fails to check in at the required times and turns it into a TV box and DVD/Blu-ray player. I understand the check-in would only take a minuscule kilobyte range connection for a short time, but turning the primary function of the console off if this somehow fails sounds a bit draconian.

        What is an acceptable middle ground? I really can't say in this case. As everyone has a different idea of a compromise and each person has a different lifestyle to accommodate. I understand that DRM has a place in the digital age, but to what extent is it to be pushed in order to get all these new digital capabilities? (Which to be honest I was interested in as well, despite the bad rap it was getting).

        Last edited 11/07/13 9:36 am

          Just my opinion, but the middle ground COULD be those that don't mind it agree to it and take the 24 hour drm with all the sharing benefits OR just have it for your digital content and not for any physical media.

          So if your against it just don't accept those terms and then don't get the sharing benefits. Of course that's over simplifying it, but how do you feel about that as an acceptable middle ground?

            Would've been a damn sight better than taking their ball and going home.

            I don't think they're done. They need to make the digital future happen one way or another, but they've got to do a LOT of thinking about all those sorts of compromises, how to present them as attractive opt-ins, rather than punitive restrictions.

            We'll see 'online features' being added over the next couple years, no doubt, which will go hand-in-hand with certain online requirements. It'll be slow and gentle and won't fuck over folks on the old paradigm as much as leave them behind... exactly the way it should've been.

    I'm disappointed MS caved to the bawing masses.

    I thought the console, as it was originally touted, was revolutionary and game-changing (boomtish). Now it's just... more of the same, with better hardware, essentially.

    Seriously, who, in this day and age, does not have a permanent internet connection? And if you don't, wtf are you doing buying this sort of technology, for which the internet is integral?

    Are that many people, in first world nations, still making do with libraries and free wifi from maccas for their daily internet shenanigans? Unless you live in woop woop nowhere dial up city, I can't see how you can justify your position.

    $5 says this petition is driven by publishers those who back DRM without doing actual research.

    While I perfectly understand that publishers and developers have to right to protect their work to some extent, what most do not realise is the role of the developer and the publisher ends at the point of first sale.

    From there, if there is copyright infringement (piracy) it becomes a matter for the local authorities. The DRM originally shown on the XBone sought to allow publishers (and mostly publishers) to surpass the first sale barrier.

    There is no harm in second hand sales: sure the developer or publisher see no funds but then again neither does any other industry such as publication, record labels, movies or the automotive industry.

    The problem lies in what some retailers do with second hand sales (such as GAME and EB). Those who still say that second hand sales cause harm, you're looking at the wrong target: focus on the retailers taking the idea for a ride, not the act itself.

      $5 says this petition is driven by publishers those who back DRM without doing actual research.

      Or you could read all the comments above you and see that there are people who actually agreed with the original Xbox One's policy's.

        I know I can't believe how many people there are now wanting this 1984 future.

      I agree that its on local authorities to enforce the laws of the region, but (some) publishers still provide services to consumers that never paid for them (online multiplayer servers, which costs them) and they clearly cant rely on the local authorities to enforce the laws. Just playing the devils avocado here.

        No problem with devils advocate, I actually encourage it as it ensures others look at the big picture.

        In terms of multiplayer servers, I seriously have no answer to that. But then again, even if I pay for my copy of the game, how does it help the multiplayer servers? Over time, sales for a game wains even if (for discussions sake) everyone only buys a new copy.

        Thus, when the sales wain, the income wains. Where is the income coming then to maintain the servers? One cannot rely on first hand game sales to ensure the upkeep of the servers as it will dry up eventually even in an ideal world.

      I would agree that typically the role of publisher/developers ends at the point of first sale (and the equivalent in other industries).
      But I FEEL that if you are buying a second-hand MULTIPLAYER game and using the publishers/developers infrastructure for online play, then I think it's fair enough if they want/ask for some form of payment, (I actually think EA was onto something with the online passes, except the current implementation was annoying. That could have changed given the Kinect can read the code, so you'd just have to hold the code up in front of the camera.)

    this idiot is kidding himself if he thought it was going to be good... its microsoft... don't be fooled people

    can't believe 5000+ other idiots have signed this thing...

    final bosman said it best in one of his latest vids... link for the lazy http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/bo01b6/the-final-bosman-fighting-the-future

    i'd like to add that for microsoft's original plan to work... they would have been best going 100% digital in my opinion... let retailers sell codes so they aren't completely cut out... but yeah... don't give useless physical media to us and expect us to pay out the arse for it

    Last edited 11/07/13 9:45 am

      Microsoft was unprepared and too immature to be an acceptable platform for taking more hold over gaming / consumer rights by attempting to gain a DRM stranglehold on future digital solutions. This company isn't steam, they will always charge a premium for games, there would be no comparable sales like steam on this platform.

      The advantages of this product were always a mixed message, from my personal understanding of events Microsoft would implement restrictions on friending games on multiple machines. For example, did it dawn on people that they would need their own copy to play multiplayer anyways as one copy can only be active at a time. The fact that the parent xbox1 would have control over the ability to use another game (possible cause of conflicts) as it is a design for family machines (not a friending system people) would have no option to remove them from their 10 chosen machines.

      There were so many catches and limitations they could put in, being the pioneers of a new digital only console system. Xbox1 is a corporate console, designed first as a multimedia device, what everyone understood was that the gamer comes second, and did not want any part of it. When they can't say things clearly why do people place so much trust in them (make a purchase)? They pretty much alienated a chunk of the gaming demographic (those that require an offline console).

    "it was taken away because Sony took advantage of consumers’ uncertainty."

    I really don't understand putting the blame on Sony here. It's something I've noticed when the Xbox/DRM issue has been raised. If MS were really serious about their platform, it shouldn't have mattered what Sony did with theirs. If this was truly going to be the future of console gaming, over time the Xbone would have proven vastly superior. I just don't think they were ready to take an initial beating in sales.

      Agreed, M$ofts reversal was because they realised they were doing something that was hugely unpopular, not because of anything that sony did or did not do.

      Of course it's Sony's fault! How dare Sony release a product that's better than the Xbox One? How dare they stand for consumers and give them what they want? Sony should have just done what the Xbox did so that consumers wouldn't have a choice[/sarcasm]

    I couldn't really care one way or another. The PS4 is the superior piece of kit and has imo the better exclusives so that's what I'll be buying. Not much could really convince me to buy a Xbone

      I'm still waiting for some JRPGs for the PS4 and have given up on the XBone and Wii U.

      At the risk of being laughed out of here, I'm spending this current generation with a Dreamcast and Ouya.

      On a side note, hopefully some Dreamcast veterans can answer this for me: is the optical drive in the console suppose to be noisy? It's almost a early version of the 360's drive.

    I'm an XBOX fanboy, but in saying this, I was not too impressed with the original concept that one had to be logged on the internet all the time. I have the internet so for me, it's no issue, however what in the event there is an issue with the ISP and its been known to happen, what then, you can't play a game?? I just moved house and it took 3 weeks for my ISP to get my naked DSL connected, so that would mean, I couldn't play my XBOX ONE all that time? Pretty stupid if you ask me and that in effect would have made me turn the PS4. Microsoft are lucky to have turned tail on this one.
    Also, not being able to buy or trade second hand games is another problem, mostly for retail. We all want to save cash here, if we stop allowing second hand games from being used or sold, believe me, retailers like EB games will be out of business then we the consumer will have to deal with one or two sources who sell games BUT in effect, those companies can literally dictate prices and we would have to put up with it.

      I was in the exact same situation, during the whole drm debacle I was moving house and it took me weeks to get Internet installed. In the meantime I played PS3 every day...

    Why can't there be a middle ground? I was dead against DRM when the news first came out but as the benefits (shared libraries, cheaper games, no disc swapping ect) started to become clearer I am more in favour of it now.

    The problem with the Xbox situation was the messaging was bungled from day 1. Granted I didn't watch the full E3 presentation and have been following this through articles, but to my knowledge, they never mentioned the 24hr check in during the presentation. This information had to be teased out of one of the executives by a journalist in a follow up interview, answers and details were very hard to get in that period. This made them seem shifty in comparison to Sony's very clear messaging. If they had come out with a clearly defined system and explained the benefits and exactly how it would work then the reaction would have been very different.

    Another issue it that the 24 hour number is so arbitrary and not justified by any reasoning. Surely the same (or very similar) benefits could be gotten from a single check in on first install. Again no information or justification.

    I'm sure that there is a middle ground where game sharing and the second hand sales market are not killed off while supporting developers and the industry through a reasonable level of DRM. Microsoft just need to remember that as consumers we buy a console because we want to switch it on and just play, not to receive a message that because our internet was down we couldn't check in and need to connect or be locked out of a game that we've paid full price for.

    After all that bullshit... 'Internet 180'

    Leave the Xbox One as it is... with this logic, MS would have to reinstate the DRM, then go back to Disc, then back to DRM, then take it off again :/

    Like Cliffy B - does anybody actually play videogames anymore, or just bitch over vague press releases and emotional dramas over which corporation they are aligned to in an imaginary war?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now