I’m having trouble keeping track of all the Xbox One u-turns. First the DRM, used-game restrictions and always-online requirement disappeared, then it turned out it’ll come with a headset after all, and now new Kinect – that last unpopular stipulation to Xbox One ownership – has apparently been demoted to an optional accessory that doesn’t need to be plugged in at all times after all. The Xbox One at this moment pretty much a totally different console to the one Microsoft announced in May. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if they changed the name next.
These reversals range from relatively minor to totally game-changing. Here's what all of them are, along with their implications.
THEN: YES. Originally, though Microsoft executives were saying directly contradictory things straight after the announcement, the Xbox One was going to have to connect to the Internet at least once every 24 hours.
NOW: NO. The required Internet connection was done away with after E3.
Why did it change? Always-online was hugely, hugely unpopular with just about everybody, but especially people without reliable Internet connections and servicemen and women. After E3, where former Xbox boss Dom Mattrick infamously said that people who don’t want to deal with an always-online connection could just buy and Xbox 360, this was completely reversed - ostensibly as a direct reaction to the huge popular backlash against the Xbox One's policies that reverberated through E3.
What does it mean? The official line was that the Xbox One needed a constant/near-constant Internet connection to enable games to use the cloud, whatever that actually means. Now that the Internet connection requirement is gone, though, it begs the question: were most Xbox One games really designed around using the cloud, or was the required Internet connection actually there to enforce the console's DRM? Some games will still require a connection, like Titanfall, but we're still not clear on how it will affect other game features like Forza with its Driveatar, if at all.
THEN: YES, through a special friends-and-family sharing scheme that was going to let you share everything with up to ten people.
NOW: YES, in the same way as always, by swapping or lending discs, or by a friend playing digital games on your console.
Why did it change? Xbox One's game-sharing policies were, to say the least, extremely confusing. You could play your games on a friend's console, but not your friend's games on your console; Phil Harrison implied that if you wanted to play a friend's game, you'd have to pay a full-price licensing fee for the privilege. The whole thing was set up around licenses rather than ownership of a disc, and it seems Microsoft eventually decided that the market wasn't ready for that.
What does it mean? This particular u-turn has divided gamers: where many are much happier now that they'll be able to do what they want with games they've purchased, others are petitioning Microsoft to bring back digital sharing. It should be remembered, though, that anyone can play your digital games on your console.
THEN: Who honestly knows. Yes, said Microsoft, but with all sorts of complicated caveats that restricted how and where and for how much. These caveats were never fully explained.
NOW: YES, just like you always could.
Why did it change? Along with Microsoft's decision to lift the always-online requirement, this could only have been a direct reaction to Sony's E3 press conference, where Tretton really went for the competition's throat, throwing a series of slow-motion groin-punches beginning with the revelation that the PS4 would not restrict used games in any way.
What does it mean? This change is unambiguously positive for gamers, if you ask me - no longer will being at the cutting edge of gaming come at the price of consumer rights. It does leave developers and publishers, however, with the same growing problem they've had for the past decade: if the same game is sold ten times, that profit is only seen once, which can have disastrous results.
THEN: NO. But hey, you can always buy a converter for your Xbox 360 one! Or use the Kinect!
NOW: YES, okay, fine, now it comes in the box.
Why did it change? This was an easy and popular change to make.
What does it mean? Not having to rely on your Kinect for in-game chat. Which leads us to...
THEN: NO. Kinect originally had to be plugged in at all times in order for the console to work.
NOW: YES. Now, as of yesterday, Marc Whitten has said that it's not necessary after all - though it still comes in the box.
Why did it change? This was the last unpopular feature of the Xbox One for core gamers, but I don't think that's why Microsoft took the decision to change the Kinect requirement. I think it's so that it could offer a lower-price Xbox One bundle at launch that doesn't include it, which would make it competitive price-wise with the PS4. Another very strong possibility is that privacy concerns over the concept of a camera that's always watching you in your living room spooked so many people that Microsoft decided to let people unplug it completely - previously, you could pause it or tell it not to upload data, but it was still a requirement for the console.
What does it mean? This is truly a massive deal. Microsoft has made such a song and dance about the new Kinect: how much better it is, how crucial voice and gesture controls are to the new TV functionality, how games will be able to use it in exciting new ways. It must have cost a fortune to develop. If it can be unplugged, that makes it optional - which will severely restrict how developers choose to take advantage of it. The crucial question here is whether Kinect will still automatically come in the box. If so, people won't like spending money on something they won't use, but developers will still be able to make games with the knowledge that every Xbox One owner has one. If not, though, that makes all that investment in the new Kinect a massive waste of time and money.
THEN: NO. It's fundamentally built differently, says Microsoft.
NOW: NO. But who knows what's going to change next? It would be great to be able to at least port over your digital library to Xbox One.
The end result of all these changes is that the Xbox One is now functionally almost identical to the PS4 in most crucial ways. Both have optional cameras, both support sharing, trading and lending, both take advantage of the Internet but don't require it. Not everybody has been won over by Microsoft's compromises, and the company's evident willingness to completely reverse course on things that were originally slated as vital and unchangeable features of the Xbox One really does raise a lot of these questions, but it's difficult to argue with the fact that all of these changes - except, potentially, the Kinect requirement - are better for customers.
After six months of flux since we got our first glimpse of the PS4, kicking off this latest round of console wars, we find ourselves in a familiar position: it's going to come down to the games, not the features of the hardware.
After eight years Keza MacDonald is still not bored of writing about video games, which is just as well, as her skills as demon-slaying and pretend guitar are pretty much non-transferable. You can follow her on IGN and Twitter.
Source : ign[dot]com
No comments:
Post a Comment