Today at the Redmond, Washington Microsoft campus, the Xbox division officially revealed it's long-rumored and often-discussed next-generation console, dubbed the Xbox One.
When I first heard the name during the broadcast I had to double-check my Twitter feed to make sure I got the right info because I was confused by the prospect of a company releasing it's third device with the name Xbox calling the latest version "One", especially when that designation was already worn on the product of a competing company from two generations and more than a decade ago (PSOne). Even at three hours after the end of their conference, when I Google image searched "Xbox One", I still received many more hits for pics of the original Xbox console than the device which was supposed to be lighting the internet on fire with discussion and trending social media. This is not the smartest move ever by Microsoft, but from what I can tell it's the least of the problems this device presents to the world.
In the early stages of the conference we got to witness a half-hour long demo of the One being used as a TV tuner with instant switching to game functions, XBL Marketplace and general internet browsing via Internet Explorer. All of this was controlled via Kinect hand gestures and talking, and while it's all very cool-looking on a controlled stage and very reminiscent of
Minority Report sequences, I couldn't help but laugh to myself as I pondered the pinch and squeeze gestures or the switching tabs on the OS motions being accidentally triggered by children in the living room playing with their toys or someone moving their arms suddenly to answer a phone, hand something to another person or grab something off a table.
All that aside, the most puzzling thing was that the vast majority of this presentation was about the Xbox One being used as a TV box, and we're living in an era when TV services are becoming threatened by independent streaming services like Netflix and Hulu that operate across many devices, including sub-$100 units sold right now in retail chains or stuff built into most modern HDTV sets by default that will never require someone to rush out and buy a new TV-tuning console that will likely retail for at least $400 this holiday season. Don't get me wrong, the Xbox One did these functions with a good deal of style and grace, but it wasn't so far advanced over the large list of connected devices and services already available and already installed in millions of homes worldwide that it would drive people to switch from what they already have. While it's obvious that games consoles need multimedia functions to be relevant, it seems Microsoft has taken this message a little too far and made this device more of a (potentially) $400+ competitor to a Roku box than a competitor to Playstation or Nintendo.
This sort of focus isn't a surprise in the era of Don Mattrick running the Xbox division of Microsoft, as we've seen for years now in E3 conferences, and what minimal percentage of the time allotted was devoted to upcoming Xbox One games was painful, to say the least. They showed a CG trailer for
Forza 5 that didn't look any better than anything seen in current high end PC racing games or the coming Playstation 4 title
Drive Club. They showcased a new game from the developers of
Alan Wake that started with a poorly acted live-action sequence (I thought FMV games died with the 3D0) of a creepy young girl talking about her mysterious powers that quickly jarred the senses by switching to CGI footage of a boat crash and cops getting shot. None of the supposed "in-game" footage looked like it couldn't be done on a 360. We then got the usual multiplatform EA Sports and Activision
Call of Duty: Ghosts crap, with the now standard promises of timed exclusivity on downloadable add-ons. The only hint of a
Halo title was not a game but more of Microsoft becoming obsessed with TV and announcing a new
Halo show directed by Steven Spielberg.
All in all this conference was boring, irrelevant to the gaming audience at large and confirmation that my choice to abandon Microsoft consoles in favor of PC gaming was the correct one. In spite of all that, what really inspired my obviously inflammatory title for this blog is the post-event news which broke out across the web that affirmed some of the fears many had about Microsoft taking their hubris and domination of a closed off platform too far and enacting DRM measures which hinder paying customers and reduce their rights while offering nothing of value in return. Specifically I'm referring to this:
"Reports are claiming that Xbox One will require all games to be installed on the console's HDD before they can be played.
According to Wired,
if owners want to use the disc with a second account they'll be asked
to pay a fee and install the game from the disc, suggesting that once
games are installed you won't need to insert the disc to play." -IGN
What's further complicating this mess is the fact that Microsoft's own people are saying these game installs are tied to accounts, not consoles, and while they claim there's no mandatory "always-on" connection, it seems impossible to register and validate an install key without one.
So what's the story Microsoft? Is it tied to an account? If so does that mean households with more than one user of a machine, who may like to track their own individual game completion and Achievements on their own profiles, now have to discuss and debate each other over who gets to install the game to their XBL account? If you are going to require this key system, are you going to drop the prices of games and offer similar sales prices that we see on PC that make the removal of user ownership rights more acceptable on that platform, or are you and your publishing partners still going to insist on $60 discs and massively overpriced download versions that never drop below $30 until many years after release, if ever?
This sort of DRM, which is intended to appease a pitiful AAA games industry that blames end users and Gamestop for their poor business practices and over-expenditures on "blockbuster" games, is shameful and yet another sign that the AAA mainstream-big-publisher games industry will go down in flames before realizing the root cause of their financial woes. Instead of facing the real problems of homogenization, bloated budgets and poor product management they will blame all of us who play and buy games and the retailers who keep interest in gaming going by catering to an audience who may like to browse through back catalogs of used games that often feature older titles that are rare or out of print.
Even if this re-installing fee on a different account or machine is small
, it still is a move that makes the Xbox One less appealing as it shortens the viable playable lifetime of every box sold. Every game will only truly be playable so long as Microsoft keeps running the activation servers and still employs people to run the services on that platform. Once that's gone all Xbox One consoles will be limited to playing only the content that was on the hard drive at the time the servers shut down, meaning we won't see the sort of secondhand market and community that pops up with all retro games and consoles and still sees functioning NES consoles from 28 years ago trading hands amongst enthusiasts looking to play games from the past. I myself still have a large collection of functioning games and consoles from 20+ years ago, but the way things are looking the max shelf life on an Xbox One game is 5-7 years. How sad that console gaming has come to this.
All in all this reveal was a mess. Microsoft wants to be a TV company with a box that will be overpriced and late to the internet TV box party, and in order to succeed it's asking gamers to be the prophets of their messaging while simultaneously shitting on them. The worst part about this is that this approach already has it's vocal defenders and I have to wonder if sociologists could make a case study for Stockholm Syndrome using Xbox fans.
