I don't often diary here about technology, though it is the industry in which I have made my living. As a few caveats before I go into this, I want to be open and add: I have been a registered MS Developer, I've been a beta-tester for Microsoft many times - from NT 3.5, WfW3.11, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 7 & Windows 8, as well as every server platform they've released, including a few they didn't.
I've been a test developer for IBM, back when OS/2 was the thing, receiving discs in the mail for OS/2 Warp and OS/2 Merlin. Tech is the kind of thing I have lived and breath going back decades, as far back as receiving a "developer" copy of GS/OS for the Apple IIGS from Steve Wozniak with notes, or a first copy of Slackware with a giant printed sheet that read: "If you use the wrong settings and set your monitor on fire, it is NOT our fault".
So, I've seen a lot of companies do some bold and brilliant things. I've also seen them do some stupid things, like Windows Millenium, the quagmire that became OS9, etc.
But it's not often that I see a company do something that strikes me as so bafflingly anti-consumer that I am stunned to see them get it to market. In a single day at E3, Microsoft and Sony played a game of back and forth that looked as though one side forgot how to play the game at all.
First, I will begin with a caveat: There will be people who are going to signficantly back the XBOX. And that's fine. Microsoft is working hard at that and they have a lot of brand loyalty. More than that, they pay people to rep their system online, so if you need fast money, it might be a good deal to start promoting the new XBOX for you.
http://gamingbolt.com/...
Apparently working with a marketing firm in Redmond that has a contract with Microsoft, the user visited one of the Xbox offices and got a sneak peek into what is referred to as “reputation management”.
“While we were waiting, various marketing employees said hello to us/shook our hands – it was a pretty friendly place. Just nearby were two guys chatting at one of their PCs, and they caught my attention because they were on Reddit! I thought that was pretty cool, and presumed they were having a late lunch break and were just goofing around online.
Let's face it, every tech company manages their image now adays, and I can't blame Microsoft. They are just following along.. but what I can blame them for is their aggressive anti-consumer, anti-developer stance they have taken with the XBOX One.
I'm not alone in seeing or suggesting this.
http://www.forbes.com/...
But not this year. In over a decade of watching E3 events, I’ve honestly never seen one company completely and utterly destroy a competitor like what happened last night between Sony and Microsoft MSFT. It may sound like hyperbole, but what took place over the course of the day will send shockwaves through this entire next console generation. Sony is now simply in a position to dominate Microsoft when both the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One launch side by side this year. They weren’t content to merely watch Microsoft stumble, rather this was a targeted effort to directly humiliate their competition in a way that’s seldom been seen in this market before.
For a lot of people, a tech story is just a tech story. These are, after all, just technology that exists as toys - gaming systems, etc. for these companies. People will by them and so what bout the policies or methods.
But what is really happening here is a movement that makes significant changes in the way your rights to content exist in a digital world as a consumer - and for independent developers, it challenges their right to exist (period).
The problem with being anti-consumer
Microsoft's anti-consumer stance with their XBOX One is fairly significant. Rental of games through any source other then their network in the form of trials is unlikely at this point, according to Microsoft reps quoted to IGN.
For many, one of the greatest issues will be the sale of their games after they are finished, a thing that the XBOX One makes an item of the past; you will either keep a game forever, or, if you chose to sell it, you must do so to a "friend" on your XBOX Friends list who has been a friend for 30 days, complicating matters significantly for sellers; more over, the sale can be processed by Microsoft who will get a percentage fee to go back to the original publisher.
http://www.ign.com/...
This creates havock for an end user, who now instead of simply collecting cash needs to go through a third party which can handle the license transfer, sales tax, and codes... plus, once sold (if allowed) it can never be sold again.
This is as anti-consumer a policy as it gets; we love to think otherwise, but many view gaming consoles as a one time expense that they hope they will keep their hands on; but if bills and other things get in the way, they can sell it all and come back to it later... not so with the XBOX One, once it's yours, it has to stay yours.
Sony went out of their way to mock this policy:
But what is real here isn't the matter of how it's done, but the fact in some cases it may not be possible at all, making this a one time investment for a purchasing audience that is all too often using it as a depreciating asset in case of need. If you doubt this, check Craigslist in your community and see how often people sell XBOXs or PS3s because they need to pay bills.
Time Magazine though, picks up on another problem with this situation, that the XBOX also requires a "phone home" over broadband internet daily or else it will refuse to function; while this is feasible for many, it effectively boxes out a large part of the potential audience or saddles them with a new and potentially unwanted bill.
http://techland.time.com/...
Here, the Xbox One’s need to be connected — at least once every 24 hours — seems purely anti-consumer. And these kinds of games aren’t going away.
Microsoft goes Anti-Developer
But don't all these DRM protections help an industry that is suffering from piracy and give them an incentive for lower prices AND make sure they can keep their jobs?
This sounds like a fitting counter argument. And it is one that Steam on the PC network has effectively satisfied, providing end users digital discounts, permanent usability and other functions while promoting independent game developers who struggle to find publishers. This philosophy led to great games, and lots of successes within the market. So, maybe Microsoft's strategy is designed to help the little guy studio who needs the money who the used market hurts. And if that's the case, and prices come down, well, it's a trade off, isn't it?
Except that's not what Microsoft did at all:
http://www.polygon.com/...
In a move to make the XBOX One stand out, independent development, those small houses of game makers that both self publish and do their own coding must now go through a larger, registered distributor in order to get their product into the Microsoft Network. Microsoft will also not release the development kit to independent coders for the next generation.
Microsoft will not allow independent developers to self-publish their games on Xbox One without partnering with Microsoft Studios or a third-party partner, a Microsoft exec told Shacknews at the console's reveal event.
The policy mirrors that of the Xbox Live Arcade platform on Xbox 360, which requires developers to partner with an approved publisher to get a game on the platform — the Xbox Live Indie Games service carries no such requirement, but is also a much less successful storefront for indie game sales. The future of the Indie Games platform is also in limbo, as Microsoft has confirmed that it will release no new versions of its XNA game development toolset, which all Xbox Live Indie Games are developed in.
So, what happens to Indie Developers in Microsoft's world? The game creators, the designers? Well, if all goes according to plan they sell out and merge with existing partners or get bought up. Either way they go away; merge and merge away rather then stay on the fringes.
Polygon.Com, notoriously in Microsoft's pocket in the past, came out with one of the most brutal editorials on this policy I've seen:
http://www.polygon.com/...
After a month of vague corporate comments from Microsoft executives, we now know the Xbox One's game licensing policy was written from the ground up for companies. It's aggressively anti-consumer and anti-middle class, and it outright ignores underprivileged gamers. It's gross, despicable, greedy, pathetic, cowardly and out of touch with a growing global resentment for corporations.
The technology industry is at a unique point. The guantlet has been thrown in many areas: you simply don't "own" any software or product you buy, you are simply renting it. Microsoft has went through this with people before, only to give ground here and there. And maybe they will rethink some of this strategy as they go along. Sony's E3 counter message comes from another large company that wants to make a ton of money; I admit, I also own the PS3.. and Sony isn't, as a company more noble, fantastic, or great then Microsoft. But in this case, on just this one day, Sony looked at the landscape and realized: what is going on here by dictating unfriendly terms to developers, consumers and the marketplace simply won't fly.
I will be blunt and say: I work and have "kickstart" funded a few independent gamers; I've worked with one locally and am friends with quite a few people in the development world. I have, rarely in my life, rooted for a product to fail. And with so many friends in my LinkedIn and elsewhere who work at Microsoft, it's a hard blow to say: this product should die.
But it's hard to get on the back of a $500 product sold to consumers who, come Christmas looking for a "hot toy" will only see "XBOX One" and not see "The tool that crushes independent developers, picks your pocket, and is a permanent investment asset you cannot get out of like quick sand."
Edit/Update: Regarding Pricing & The XBOX Kinect Camera
One of the caveats that gets brought up frequently about the XBOX One is that it will require having the Kinect Camera connected in order to function. The camera is a fairly unique and awesome technology, but has always been an "extra" or "add on" in the past; now it not only is a "must" but a "must be connected"
http://www.ign.com/...
After a Microsoft-hosted London event around the Xbox One reveal, Xbox's UK marketing director Harvey Eagle has said that the console will not function without Kinect connected.
"Kinect does require to be connected to Xbox One in all cases, yes," he said. Asked whether the Xbox One will accommodate people who perhaps play in their bedroom rather than their living room, Eagle replied: "Yes, absolutely. We use the living room almost as a moniker - that's where we assume the best screen is in the house. But if you like to play in any other room in the house, the Xbox One will deliver the same quality of experience whatever the environment."
Microsoft confirmed this again at E3, though they noted that the camera portion could be turned off, the microphone portion (which responds to the voice command "XBOX On" and "XBOX Off" cannot be turned off. There are some concerns for many on this from a privacy perspective. While Microsoft assures end users that it would never be used for monitoring of an individual.. and it's very unlikely they would ever embark actively on such a project (we hope) the fact that such an item "must" be constant connected to a device that requires itself to be connected to broadband internet is a bit creepy for some buyers.
The final note is price for your Christmas thoughts:
XBOX One: $499
PS4: $399
WiiU: $339
(note: XBOX One and PS4 use basically the same AMD Jaguar based CPU so should be nearly identical, though the GDDR5 memory in the PS4 should make it a 'faster' unit; the WiiU cannot really be compared as it's not a direct competitor but younger kids and those wanting a casual device may give it a look)
Then again, it's my opinion. And I'm welcome for the XBOX advocates to start thrashing me in the comments.
Game on, all. Happy E3 to all those that watched and enjoyed!