This Post Has to Have "XBox One-Eighty" in the Title

I do believe that the Earth quaked a little earlier today when Microsoft announced one of the biggest backpedals in recent memory, vowing that most of the policies described as "Toxic" about the XBone will be absent from the console at launch.  Instead of the XBone being this thing that acts as a sort of hub for your games (since it would rip them to the HDD) with all sorts of restrictions on it, it has now become....well....a game console.  A game console that has a bunch of extra stuff that we've also been whinging about from day one (TV stuff, I'm looking at you as is....you know....every not in North America) but a game console nonetheless.  Finally.  It is...something of an absurd situation, much like the celebration of Sony's PS4 announcements, when this has to be something brought up and explained.

Specifically, the list of changes looks like this:

• No more 24-Hour Check-In
• No Mandatory Internet Connection at all aside from games that require it (Obvious) and a first-time connection when you set up the console
• Disks work like today and like they will with the PS4 - Buy them, sell them, trade them, loan them, the game is on the disk and the disk is your key
• Disks will not rip to the HDD, thus you have to have them in the console to play
• Family Sharing Plan thing is dead, dead, dead
• Digital Games work just like today in that you cannot sell or trade them
• The Console is Region-Free (Which I don't think it was ever stated as it wasn't?  This is probably due mostly to, y'know, blu-rays anyway)

All in all, it's a win for consumers.  So, basically this has been met with overwhelming positivity, right?

Hahahaha.

If anything, this has simply made people angrier as a whole than anything else and it's all at once completely understandable and not.  Fans of what the XBone was going to be are now angry because "whiners" have ruined their "perfect digital console" and are further incensed by the people who are still not buying an XBone because they're still suspicious of a company that was ready to go full-steam-ahead with these ideas until they were very loudly shouted down.  They're mostly incensed because they view these people who were 'never getting an XBone anyway' as non-essential - they were not part of the 'target market' (I'm really running with the air quotes, huh) so their opinions should have never factored into it.  All of these thoughts and opinions have me feeling and thinking so many different things that I find it's far, far too difficult to really condemn or defend them, but at least try to explain the sides and facets to them.

While it's true that every product simply has some people that just won't buy it no matter what - you're never going to sell your new chicken product to a vegan, for example - and they should really be factored in, you need to keep in mind just what your target market is and be able to determine if your target market is large enough and willing to buy in.  The target market for the XBone as it was was basically:  People who had reliable, stable and fast internet, people who have no qualms about digital purchases and sharing (and also have reliable, stable and fast internet) and people who live in the countries that Microsoft can reliably support with such a plan.  That target market....is honestly smaller than many people would like to believe thanks to the poor state of global infrastructure, and even a bulk of the people -in- that market weren't willing to buy in, meaning it was an even smaller one to begin with.

Conversely, it was completely within anyone's rights, interested buyer or not, to complain about how the XBone was shaping up, because it was a terrible machine for this point in time.  As far as I'm concerned, it was a terrible machine for -any- point in time, because I don't think Infrastructure is going to get to the point that everyone pushing digital is assuming we are anytime soon (soon meaning decades here) but I'm in the minority there.  The internet is not a right.  It's not water, it's not food, it's not housing - it's not classified as something necessary for your quality of life and as long as it's in the hands of the same people that refuse to improve upon it because they're making mad bank as it is, it won't be.  So this goes for everything as far as a 'digital future' involves, not just gaming.  Online banking, purchasing, straining out physical media more and more as time goes on is silly, but I worry that we're not going to figure that out until someone's gone over a cliff, so to speak.  Microsoft curiously toed that edge with a machine that will not work without the internet and thankfully was talked back from that precipice (because of pre-order numbers, I assure, not care for the consumer personally) but it sets a dangerous precedent all the same.

This was Microsoft's vision of the future today.  This missive from the company clearly states that it has not lost that vision of the future,

For us, the future comes in the form of Xbox One, a system designed to be the best place to play games this year and for many years to come. As is our heritage with Xbox, we designed a system that could take full advantage of advances in technology in order to deliver a breakthrough in game play and entertainment. We imagined a new set of benefits such as easier roaming, family sharing, and new ways to try and buy games. We believe in the benefits of a connected, digital future.

but rather insists that you'll be fine with that vision anyway since you'll abide by what the restrictions were regardless,

While we believe that the majority of people will play games online and access the cloud for both games and entertainment, we will give consumers the choice of both physical and digital content. We have listened and we have heard loud and clear from your feedback that you want the best of both worlds.

which simply means, to me, that we'll have to worry about Round Two of this nonsense whenever the XDeuce is announced.  That's...not particularly appetizing to me since I simply see trends continuing as they are, meaning the five, six or seven years between now and then might be the difference in a lot of people standing up for consumer rights and instead adopting the 'fuck you, got mine' manner of thinking that many XBone supporters were clinging to.  That's likely a little unnecessary at this point, granted, since it's hard to tell what'll happen next week, much less in the next half-dozen years, but I'm sure it's something that a lot of people with the distaste of the XBone as it was before today are considering as well, given the level of Microsoft-distrust that still exists.  It can't -all- be simply residual, after all.

Regardless, what this honestly means is that the XBone has been elevated from this very niche market to something that is as accessible as everything else, meaning it's much, much more attractive to quite a few people out there.  Not everything is fixed with the console as Mandatory Kinect is still something many folks have been grumbling about, rightly or no, and will continue to grumble about because that's not looking like it'll change.  Combined with a higher overall price, the fact that many, many people have been indoctrinated into the wonders that is Playstation Plus and the idea that a lot of people have simply found reasons to attach to the PS4 means that this might not do a -lot- for Microsoft in the short-term, but thankfully it might in the long-run.  I know I've personally elevated the XBone from "Never buying it ever" to "Might get on the cheap for exclusives" like Project Spark (even if I'm still grumbly about the Fable filter) and there are likely plenty of people who -wanted- to like Microsoft, but couldn't and now feel that freedom with these policies taken down.

Personally, I'm just....disappointed by it all, really.  The fact that the XBone was presented as it was as a viable machine in the first place speaks more to a dissonance between companies and consumers than anything else possibly could, aside from the abysmal PR that's gone on since then.  And the basic fact is that we got lucky.  Microsoft was very easily in a position to force the XBone as it was down all our throats to attempt to make it the standard and the resistance would've been fierce at first (obviously since it was), but, well, people end up moving on.  Nobody was going to press the issue everyday it existed, much less multiple people and eventually fatigue sets in for the people who -can- run with that model but don't particularly want to, so long as the games were there.  Microsoft clearly flashed a lot of cash to developers and probably could've continued to do so for a year or two which would've been all that was needed for the final "ugh, fine" moment.  I'm obviously glad that none of this is going to transpire, but if Microsoft of all companies, thought this was viable, who's next?  And how many 'next' companies is it going to take to 'force' this model to be viable?  If we continue to be lucky, we won't find out, so....well, let's just start banking on luck, folks.

I kinda bummed myself out with all this, to be honest, how annoying

Bonus Post - Can I Gloat for a Minute?

Because I am absolutely going to gloat.

And by gloat, I mean repost a couple points that I made in the days leading up to E3.  Because I was so very very right and it doesn't happen often and it's a sweet feeling.

The way I'm thinking of things, it seems like Microsoft might think this was their way to keep the train going from this generation. Yes, the Wii out-sold them by miles and miles, but to Microsoft, competition was Sony. For a -long- time, they completely out-paced Sony and only here towards the mid-end was Sony actually catching up. Still, things like Sports games, big multiplayer focus games all sell better on the 360 because of whatever reason you could think of - 360 was out first, People really dig XBox Live, etc. etc. But with this new round, they know they're launching around the same time, so the slate is 'clean' and they have to have something to drive it.

So they go, "Games". And how do you get games? By sucking up to Publishers/Developers.

It is entirely possible that this is Microsoft's baby because it is a fucking huge power play. If you set up this system, it's enticing to the Publishers/Developers which brings them around for big exclusives (Respawn's thing) and great partnerships to make your version of a game more enticing (EA's Special Partnership). As many, many, many, many, many companies have proven time and time again, people who have objections about a product because this and that really don't matter in the least so long as that product is shiny enough to make a larger amount of people buy it and not care.

So, really, it is very possible that Sony will come out and win our hearts by saying "Off-line always is totally viable, no DRM", because the way Microsoft figures it, they've already won our wallets if that is the case. Barring big, big backlashes (not a bunch of people being angry on internet forums) that -might actually be the case-, since if you have the publishers, you have the games, and if you have the games, you have the customers.

For all you folks going "Oh, the PS4 is going to be just as bad!", well, there is your scenario that suggests it might not be.

- Me from this post ("Get Fucked, Microsoft", June 6th, 2013)

What I'm -hoping- (and expecting) they hammer in first is what a lot of people are hoping for:
No XBone-Style Restrictions.
It's simple.  And if you'll allow me, I'll try to explain my own reasons for why I absolutely believe that the PS4 -won't- have those restrictions.  (Which means more bullet points, yay!)

• Shuhei Yoshida has already said "Oh yes, yes, you can go offline totally" when referring to the PS4's online necessity.  (At the time, the "Always-On" question was being asked)  Detractors are saying that, if you use the highest order of bullshit semantics, you can go offline totally with the XBone (just only for 24 hours), but -come on- already.
• Microsoft is planning on using the Azure cloud for just about all of this stuff, including MP and their Used Games things.  Azure is a big fucking cloud that Sony simply does not have an equivalent of.  Without requiring online, this essentially kills all opportunities -to- enforce such a system anyway, which means Shuhei Yoshida would be a dirty, dirty liar.  Which could still be the case, but -come on- already.
• One of the main arguments has been "Publishers wouldn't go forward without -both- companies doing it" which is stupid and you're stupid if you honestly believe that.  Here's why:  What happens if Microsoft goes forward with their plans, and Sony doesn't, offering an alternative without the restrictions that most gamers will (apparently) happily run with instead of the XBone (which will still see a lot of purchases)?  They get to play both sides of the fence.  They take Microsoft's buddy-money in one hand for exclusivity and such with DLC (and the 'big bucks' from the used shenanigans) and they probably sell more copies on the PS4 because of the lax restrictions, thereby making the amount of money they look to make about equal from both.  Eventually, they'll figure out which has been the better fit for them and go from there.  It's actually the perfect scenario for Publishers instead of a scenario where both consoles have such a measure since that will, ultimately lead to less sales overall.
• There have been absolutely no rumors about it yet.  No inside information.  No leaks.  Let's face it - Sony's ship isn't the tightest out there, and neither is Microsoft's.  These restrictions and such, we had heard tell of months before the announcement (The only thing we didn't know about the XBone, really, was the name) and simply refused to believe because who would be that stupid?  But you bet your ass if there was anything anywhere about this from Sony's camp, especially after Microsoft, we would already know it by now.
  
  -Me from this post ("E3 - My Sony Predictions", June 9th, 2013)

It's not often that I can point at one of my predictions/expectations and say "NAILED IT", so, especially for something this big, I did want to toot my own horn here.  It's unnecessary, of course, and self-serving, but, well, I called the PS4 not doing the XBone stuff.

Let me enjoy it.

Good Lord, This SimCity Thing is a Disaster

I am pretty sure I don't exactly have to elucidate the situation that is SimCity, as it is a thing that has been at the forefront of pretty much everywhere.  For good reason, too, since it is a case where this thing has been, as I say, wobbled so drastically that it's ripe for mockery and derision.  Not a single facet of this entire experiment has been particularly -good-, but merely yet another vessel through which we find yet another reason to collectively put our palms to our foreheads and sigh in something of a mix of disappointment and confusion.  It's hard to think that EA and Maxis, who have been doing this Sim thing in various forms for decades, could have gotten it so wrong with this installment, one that was meant to be a reboot, to bring the series back to 'glory' as they say.  And yet, they did.

If you -have- somehow missed out on the whole deal with SimCity, I would like to know what sites you frequent to ensure that.  More to the point, I can give a little bit of a run-down here so you're definitely caught up and just so we can all rub it in just a tad more.  When the game launched on March 5th, same day as Tomb Raider, the initial flood of players did just what it does with every game that requires online and crashed the ever-loving hell out of the servers, completely putting them out of commission.  Which, since the game has that pesky always-online DRM, requiring an internet connection to constantly affirm that you are totally playing a legit copy of the game, means that nobody got to play it.  Or, at least, very, very few people got to play it.

The problems only expanded as two days ticked by and the game was officially released everywhere aside from North America which caused an even bigger server strain which meant even more people 'owned' SimCity and could not play it.  EA issued a statement saying they would be adding more servers to address the issue over the next couple of days, yet here it is, the 10th, and not a whole lot has -actually- changed.  Presumably more people have, indeed, been able to play, but 10,000 people over 1,000 people is also still -more- so 'more' is honestly not indicative of a clear percentage of people who own the game and can actually play it with a degree of reliability.  Which is, of course, a Bad Thing™.  You know you have a problem on your hands when the company actually asks people to stop promoting the game until it works right and disabling parts of the game to expedite that process.

On the eighth, there was an official update about the situation as well as a little bit of a peace offering.  On top of dedicating 120% more server space, everyone who bought SimCity will be eligible for a 'free PC download game from the EA portfolio' which is a sort of nebulous statement.  Common sense would dictate that it's a pre-determined title, but the wording leaves it open to interpret that perhaps you get to -choose- a title (up to a certain dollar amount, likely, which will preclude 'new' releases).  We'll find that out on the 18th, when players will get an email with details on just how to redeem their game, but either way, free stuff is free and that always goes a long way to placate folks.  It's certainly not something you'll ever find me complaining about unless the situation is far more drastic.  "Oh, I'm sorry, I broke your leg in three places, here have a free PSN game" or the like.  I will assault you with my crutches, sir.

Now, we're being assured that 'the worst is behind us' which sounds very nice, of course, but it's not, really.  I never really understood people openly rebelling against this game, against this concept until this whole thing.  Until all of it made me realize just what the critical flaw of SimCity is:  Whether or not you get to play the game is wholly dependent on EA.  We talk about digital licenses and 'loaning' games to you, not actually 'selling' them and by and large, there's some truth in that, but this is just blatant.  Look up how many games EA turns the servers off of ever year and see just how new -some- of those games just happen to be.  Not, like, year old new, of course, but similarly not decade old either.  So for your $60 investment (or more), you only get to play this new SimCity for as long as EA is willing to hold servers aloft for it which is certainly not going to be more than....six years, I'll say.

There is no way to play SimCity Offline and an idea to do an Offline Mode has already been nixed as a possibility, which of course wouldn't normally preclude it from being possible eventually, but I highly doubt it.  The reason provided, you see, is that the actual simming part of SimCity is apparently done server-side (to incorporate other players into it and the like, all those lovely 'social' features that require it being online) so your game is less a game and more a conduit for input.  And, of course, it's pretty much persistent.  I've heard stories already from people who were locked out of playing the game for a while, only to come back to disaster and unrest because, well, the city went on even though you couldn't continue to play it and guide it.  That, to me, is the most damning thing about the whole situation, and is one good reason why I would never personally look into procuring the game for myself - but also because, as stated, that's a technical impossibility.  It's just absolutely baffling how they took SimCity as a concept, a single-player thing, and turned it into this.  Absolutely miserable.