Honestly, I'm a little disappointed. The things they reverted affect zero things I care about (I have always-online, and I don't play used games), and because they're walking their DRM policies back it looks like they'll no longer be implementing the ability to share your entire digital library with up to 10 people, which would have really been an awesome feature.
Now, if the changes lead to more people buying the console, and if that leads to more developers deciding they can afford to create games for the platform, and if that leads to more excellent exclusives, then that will be a plus. But, otherwise, eh. So it's a shame, but it looks like the gaming enthusiast community isn't ready to make the transition. Frankly, given the level of vitriol we saw, I'm not sure they'll ever be ready.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really understand the anger about lack of backwards compatibility. Can someone explain that for me (seriously)?
If I buy the PS4, it'll be to play PS4 games. If I want to play a PS3 game, I'll just play it on my PS3.
All of my previous consoles have in some way been destroyed by time. Even my Xbox360. I've had 3 of them, but in some manner they just die. When they are dead I can no longer use the disk, unless I find a new one, which might not be easy depending on the age. There are games I have that I can only play by going to a collector friend of mine, or using an emulator and not having the nostalgia of actually using the console.
When your console is gone, sometimes going back to play it on that console is no longer an option. The warranty on those things isn't perfect.
Honestly, I'm a little disappointed.
People own their property again. That's a bad thing? Microsoft isn't watching you as closely. Also bad? You could already share your games with as many people as you want by just handing them the disk.
"Isn't ready to make the transition" my rear. Most of it was a money making scam and paranoia more than anything. The point wasn't to help you share, it was so they could make sure more money was going straight to their pockets.
People own their property again. That's a bad thing?
Again, I don't care whether the games that I have access to are nominally "my property". Ownership, as a concept in a digital environment, is tremendously overvalued. I'm cool with a license-based setup, just like I have for Steam. Heck, if I can avoid it, I don't even buy physical copies (unless they're significantly less expensive than digital ones).
Microsoft isn't watching you as closely. Also bad?
Microsoft won't be watching me or you any less or more closely.
You could already share your games with as many people as you want by just handing them the disk.
Right, but what we were offered was many times more attractive than that. I could pick my ten closest friends, and they could play any game I own, while I play it, no matter what machine they were on. I wouldn't lose access to that game, I wouldn't have to physically meet up with them to hand it off (and then again to get it back), I wouldn't have to worry about them losing it, or forgetting about it, and I would have that exact same hassle-free access to their games as well (in all likelihood).
The current game lending paradigm is unattractive to me, for all the reasons listed above. The new paradigm they were offering was excellent, and made full use of the fact that the internet exists.
I get that some people don't like what the new paradigm was going to be, but I loved it. From my perspective, it is a shame that those people are being catered to.
"Isn't ready to make the transition" my rear. Most of it was a money making scam and paranoia more than anything. The point wasn't to help you share, it was so they could make sure more money was going straight to their pockets.
How are they making more money by letting ten of your friends enjoy the entire game experience, on-demand, in their own rooms, on their own machines, of any game you own, all for the price of a single copy of the game?
Your cynicism doesn't line up with reality, here. The sharing system they revealed was a huge bone to the gaming community. But it won't happen now, and that's a shame.
Yay edition wars!
Never underestimate the ability of the gaming community (or any internet geek community, for that matter) to get angry at something new that changes something they've grown comfortable with and accustomed to. That is a limitless capacity.
But MS had and has the option of enabling the online-sharing aspects of DOWNLOADED games while not affecting the function of physical disk copies. Choosing to continue with accepted norms of usage for game ownership re: physical discs doesn't impose any restriction on how downloads work, which now lack the positives of either approach.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay edition wars!Never underestimate the ability of the gaming community (or any internet geek community, for that matter) to get angry at something new that changes something they've grown comfortable with and accustomed to. That is a limitless capacity.
Even MS decided they were being dumb... But no Scott go ahead and defend policies that no one but you support.
Again, I don't care whether the games that I have access to are nominally "my property". Ownership, as a concept in a digital environment, is tremendously overvalued. I'm cool with a license-based setup, just like I have for Steam. Heck, if I can avoid it, I don't even buy physical copies (unless they're significantly less expensive than digital ones).
The difference being that Steam has a multitude of other advantages the XBone would not have had.
Steam is convenient, cheap, and has alternatives. The XBone would have been neither cheap or convenient, and the only alternative was the one others were latching on to ("Buy a different console or go PC").
The sharing system they revealed was a huge bone to the gaming community. But it won't happen now, and that's a shame.
Yes, it was a nice feature. It wasn't worth the rest of the bullshit.
The difference being that Steam has a multitude of other advantages the XBone would not have had.
Sure, but again, I don't care. For me, it would have been a massive improvement over the current paradigm.
Steam is convenient, cheap, and has alternatives. The XBone would have been neither cheap or convenient, and the only alternative was the one others were latching on to ("Buy a different console or go PC").
Those are alternatives, and the proposed system had convenience in spades. As for its price, the console is expensive, but not more than a solid gaming PC. The games would have been priced at release similarly to how they are priced at release on Steam. Whether they drop off in price after a few months like Steam's games do remained to be seen.
Yes, it was a nice feature. It wasn't worth the rest of the b#%!~%~&.
Again, for a number of people, it was literally no hassle at all.
I'm not sure why this conversation is even continuing. Yes, despite Scott's insistence the policies were not customer friendly and did not gain them any support in the 'gaming' world. However Microsoft wisely saw the light and has since done an about face on all the negative features (save for the kinect) that people have harped about.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57590134-75/microsoft-pulls-a-180-reverse s-xbox-one-always-on-drm-and-used-games-policy/
MS confirmed SAME price as current gen, just like Sony, BEFORE changing their policy on this. No price difference.
But MS had and has the option of enabling the online-sharing aspects of DOWNLOADED games while not affecting the function of physical disk copies. Choosing to continue with accepted norms of usage for game ownership re: physical discs doesn't impose any restriction on how downloads work, which now lack the positives of either approach.
As others have pointed out, this would have been a sticking point for physical retailers. The ability to freely share downloaded titles using the new system would have been a huge advantage for purchasing purely digital copies. Physical retailers would have been aggressively opposed to such a policy.
Again, for a number of people, it was literally no hassle at all.
That number being less than 15% of the worlds population... Many of whom were not going to get the Xbone out of principle against the DRM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... Perhaps we can now call this the 'XBox 180' console now? ;-)
MS confirmed SAME price as current gen, just like Sony, BEFORE changing their policy on this. No price difference.
Exactly. Major release titles on Steam are priced comparably to major release titles on consoles. There is little, if any, price difference. The major differences come months after release.
Hmm... Perhaps we can now call this the 'XBox 180' console now? ;-)
Xbox ONE-80
Again, for a number of people, it was literally no hassle at all.That number being less than 15% of the worlds population... Many of whom were not going to get the Xbone out of principle against the DRM.
The entire install-base for the current generation, including all 360s, PS3s, and Wiis, and assuming zero people have purchased more than one console, is about 3.4% of the world's population. Even if we assume that every console was purchased - and is used by - a household of four people, we still don't hit your figure.
Context is a b~~#$, isn't it?
MS confirmed SAME price as current gen, just like Sony, BEFORE changing their policy on this. No price difference.Exactly. Major release titles on Steam are priced comparably to major release titles on consoles. There is little, if any, price difference. The major differences come months after release.
Yes, they do.
The thing is though...those major differences don't come to consoles at all. Months later or otherwise.
Sure, the game is almost a year old now, but I just bought Borderlands 2 on Steam, with the Season Pass, plus the Psycho Pack for ~$50. On the 360 that would have cost me roughly $90 ($50 for the game, $30 for the Pass, $10 for the Psycho).
The game itself was only $13.79. The game would NEVER have reached prices that low on a console.
THAT is the advantage Steam has, which would not have been present on the XBone to make the other policies tolerable.
Yes, they do.
The thing is though...those major differences don't come to consoles at all. Months later or otherwise.
Sure, the game is almost a year old now, but I just bought Borderlands 2 on Steam, with the Season Pass, plus the Psycho Pack for ~$50. On the 360 that would have cost me roughly $90 ($50 for the game, $30 for the Pass, $10 for the Psycho).
No, it wouldn't. You can get Borderlands 2 for the 360 for $30 on Amazon (hell, even directly from Microsoft it's $10 cheaper than what you were quoting). The season pass is $30. The Psycho is $10. $70, total. And that's not a promotional price. In fact, Borderlands 2 is $30 on Steam. The exact same price. You got it on sale, which Steam certainly runs a lot of. Amazon runs them, too, however. In fact, Borderlands 2 for the 360 was $17 on Amazon during a sale just two weeks ago. And in a heavily digital environment, Microsoft would have a lot of incentive to run similar sales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'm a little disappointed. The things they reverted affect zero things I care about
If I told you, I could care less about the kinect, because in my physical space where I play consoles, it's unusable (ceiling + fan is too low, can't get far enough from the TV, etc), what would you tell me?
I then want you to look in a mirror and repeat the general concept of that statement.
Apparently, each console will still need to be registered before playing, and this will involve downloading a day 1 patch to disable the 24hr check-in and sharing, etc. I'm not sure what that means for players outside official launch countries, if they're still blocked from playing because the registration is country specific, or what. I assume later production models won't need to do that though, which is probably good for anybody in places like Japan that might want to play it (MS doesn't plan to launch there even thru 2014).
But think what this does for game developers... Now they can't rely on always online and the power of the cloud... The power of XBox180 just reduced by 40x!!! They must be cancelling games right now!
The Kinect 180 is specifically designed to work in smaller spaces with less minimum distance, whether or not it works in any specific room is an open question, but dealing with smaller spaces is a specific design goal. I still think improved 6-axis is a better auxiliary control scheme for most games, and MS' announced Kinect launch titles have only been removing Kinect functionality so far, so there's hardly any 'killer app' for yet which would really sell it (and thus, the console).
No, it wouldn't. You can get Borderlands 2 for the 360 for $30 on Amazon (hell, even directly from Microsoft it's $10 cheaper than what you were quoting). The season pass is $30. The Psycho is $10. $70, total. And that's not a promotional price. In fact, Borderlands 2 is $30 on Steam. The exact same price. You got it on sale, which Steam certainly runs a lot of. Amazon runs them, too, however. In fact, Borderlands 2 for the 360 was $17 on Amazon during a sale just two weeks ago. And in a heavily digital environment, Microsoft would have a lot of incentive to run similar sales.
It's $30 normally NOW, yeah. I hadn't looked at the front page for Steam in a while but the "New Price!" thing is pretty prominently displayed.
Regardless, I doubt Microsoft would be motivated to put things on sale. They've had the Marketplace for a while now, and despite some very notable exceptions (I got a REALLY good deal on the DLCs for Red Dead Redemption and Dragon Age: Origins a couple of years ago) they don't run good sales like Steam does on a weekly basis.
They have had the opportunity to show they are willing to adopt such a policy, and they haven't taken it. Assuming they would do so in the future is a gamble.
Re: Backwards compatibility:
The reasons I want it are 1. Old consoles die. I've already had to crack my PS2 open quite a few times to deal with the old DRE problem, the last time I accidentally pulled one of the connectors to the power button loose in the process and had to fix that as well. If my PS3 played PS2 games I wouldn't have to bother with the hassle of the PS2 at all.
2. Old games. I never owned a Game Cube, but I was able to buy a Wii and GC controller when they came out and had a huge library of cheap games open up to me, so it can be a big selling point for a new system.
In this case, for example, I don't own a 360, so backwards compatibility would be a huge selling point for the XBone, even at the higher price point.
3. Connection space. My TV has 2 HDMI ports and 1 component/composite combo. So I currently have my DVR/cable box and PS3 connected to HDMI and my Wii on the composite/component slot. If I want to play my PS2/1, X-box, or RetroN (SNES, Genesis, NES) I have to get up and swap connections on the back of the TV. It's not a deal breaker, but it's an annoyance that backwards compatibility helps avoid.
That said, I don't get "angry" about the lack of it, but I'm disappointed by it, and it's likely to delay my purchase of a next gen console by a year or more if there's no backwards compatibility.
If I told you, I could care less about the kinect, because in my physical space where I play consoles, it's unusable (ceiling + fan is too low, can't get far enough from the TV, etc), what would you tell me?
Don't use the Kinect?
Bear in mind that the new Kinect works in much more confined spaces than the old one. It does not have the same space requirements.
I then want you to look in a mirror and repeat the general concept of that statement.
So...you want me to tell myself not to use what, exactly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our kinect doesn't work porperly in my study due to space restrictions, and we have to move the coffee table downstairs to get enough distance from the bar.
My PS Move setup works four feet from the TV, so I can save the world from the Helgast anywhere in the house.
Yeah, the room with my TV has a 7'6" ceiling and a ceiling fan directly in the middle, which would be directly overhead in the optimal spot to stand for the kinect, regardless of which wall you put the TV at.
At 6' tall, the light from the fan is about 1 inch above my head.
If I told you, I could care less about the kinect, because in my physical space where I play consoles, it's unusable (ceiling + fan is too low, can't get far enough from the TV, etc), what would you tell me?Don't use the Kinect?
Bear in mind that the new Kinect works in much more confined spaces than the old one. It does not have the same space requirements.
I then want you to look in a mirror and repeat the general concept of that statement.So...you want me to tell myself not to use what, exactly?
How does the new kinects space requirements solve me hitting my head/ hands on a ceiling fan?
I'm saying that for me, the kinect is a nigh worthless piece of junk. Should I therefore ignore how other people value it?
So. Are we all prepared to whine about Sony now? :D I said earlier that 5 months is a long time and that MS might back off some of their more absurd ideas. It's down to price difference ($100), the relative value of Kinect 2, and game line up. At least there isn't a $200 difference as their was in the initial 360 - PS3 debut. And who knows, prices are subject to change for both corporations. And they are coming out at about the same time. Should be interesting. But PCs rule :)
How does the new kinects space requirements solve me hitting my head/ hands on a ceiling fan?
It doesn't. You also cited distance from the TV, however (as did Andrew) and I wanted to make it clear that the Kinect no longer has the restrictive space requirements of the first iteration. It also can track individuals at a wider angle, so you may be able to work around your fan.
I'm saying that for me, the kinect is a nigh worthless piece of junk. Should I therefore ignore how other people value it?
You can still use its voice features, including while sitting down.
That said, this thread is chock full of people ignoring (or even deriding) the Kinect's value to others, especially as far as the value of it being built into the Xbox One's install base goes.
I get that you're trying to draw a parallel between acknowledging that the Kinect has value and acknowledging that being able to own/trade physical game copies has value (at least, I hope that's what you're trying to do) but it's clear that the setup of the industry prevents both groups (those who want physical sharing, and those who want digital sharing) from getting their way. It is, in my eyes, a shame that the former group is being catered to instead of the latter.
Of course, in everyone else's eyes, it was (before today) a shame that they were catering to the digital-sharing crowd.
So. Are we all prepared to whine about Sony now? :D I said earlier that 5 months is a long time and that MS might back off some of their more absurd ideas. It's down to price difference ($100), the relative value of Kinect 2, and game line up. At least there isn't a $200 difference as their was in the initial 360 - PS3 debut. And who knows, prices are subject to change for both corporations. And they are coming out at about the same time. Should be interesting. But PCs rule :)
I'm actually heartened that the gaming community isn't losing its collective mind over Sony's recent bricking of upgraded PS3s. Unfortunately, I have a hard time chalking that up to anything other than the gaming community's currently favorable attitude towards Sony, rather than a genuine levelheadedness (if Microsoft had done exactly the same thing, the internet would have gone bananas).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, this thread is chock full of people ignoring (or even deriding) the Kinect's value to others, especially as far as the value of it being built into the Xbox One's install base goes.
I hear if you make things optional they're harder to complain about. I have much more of a problem with it not being optional, than with it existing at all. I didn't want it when it came out, I still don't. I don't want to pay for it or have it. Sadly, I'm forced to both have it and pay for it even though I will probably never use it.
I hear if you make things optional they're harder to complain about. I have much more of a problem with it not being optional, than with it existing at all. I didn't want it when it came out, I still don't. I don't want to pay for it or have it.
And that's a valid reason to choose another console. It is not a reason to consider the console dumb, or deride it, because there are a lot of people who think the Kinect is all kinds of cool, and enjoy games that feature it, and know that the fact that developers can rely on a Kinect install base that is equal to the Xbox One install base means that developers will have no qualms about creating games with novel gameplay that make full use of the Kinect.
is there any 'console selling' kinect games that you can recommend, or are interested in, at this point?
i thought it was disappointing that crimson dragon and ryse dropped their kinect centric design.
maybe the best decision for those games though.
one cool/fun auxiliary control method: on ps4, you can blow into the microphone on the controller to blow out candles in game (Thief). not sure how that will be implemented on the XBone version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear if you make things optional they're harder to complain about. I have much more of a problem with it not being optional, than with it existing at all. I didn't want it when it came out, I still don't. I don't want to pay for it or have it.And that's a valid reason to choose another console. It is not a reason to consider the console dumb, or deride it, because there are a lot of people who think the Kinect is all kinds of cool, and enjoy games that feature it, and know that the fact that developers can rely on a Kinect install base that is equal to the Xbox One install base means that developers will have no qualms about creating games with novel gameplay that make full use of the Kinect.
Erm, its actually a very good reason not to like a console. The feature and the console are not two different things. The fact other people thing something is cool has nothing to do with me not liking it and thinking its a bad design. If they had made it optional I could dislike the feature and not the console, but atm its sort of forced on me through the console.
I should note this is all personal opinion. Your perfectly allowed to like it, just don't force it on me or anything. You've been talking like that's a fine way to do things.
is there any 'console selling' kinect games that you can recommend, or are interested in, at this point?
i thought it was disappointing that crimson dragon and ryse dropped their kinect centric design.
maybe the best decision for those games though.one cool/fun auxiliary control method: on ps4, you can blow into the microphone on the controller to blow out candles in game (Thief). not sure how that will be implemented on the XBone version.
And thus why few people are willing to shell out the extra $100 for an Xbone.
How does the new kinects space requirements solve me hitting my head/ hands on a ceiling fan?It doesn't. You also cited distance from the TV, however (as did Andrew) and I wanted to make it clear that the Kinect no longer has the restrictive space requirements of the first iteration. It also can track individuals at a wider angle, so you may be able to work around your fan.
I'm saying that for me, the kinect is a nigh worthless piece of junk. Should I therefore ignore how other people value it?You can still use its voice features, including while sitting down.
That said, this thread is chock full of people ignoring (or even deriding) the Kinect's value to others, especially as far as the value of it being built into the Xbox One's install base goes.
I get that you're trying to draw a parallel between acknowledging that the Kinect has value and acknowledging that being able to own/trade physical game copies has value (at least, I hope that's what you're trying to do) but it's clear that the setup of the industry prevents both groups (those who want physical sharing, and those who want digital sharing) from getting their way. It is, in my eyes, a shame that the former group is being catered to instead of the latter.
Of course, in everyone else's eyes, it was (before today) a shame that they were catering to the digital-sharing crowd.
Two things:
1) Microsoft didn't say they were taking away the digital sharing with 10 'family members'.
2) We still don't know what 'family members' means.
Edit: also, you're "that doesn't affect me" reminded me of senator Lindsey Graham talking about NSA wiretapping.
Well done, Microsoft. The Xbox One is now firmly in third place, rather than not being in the race. At all. It's still an inferior console with a sensor that a lot of people don't want, and charging a $100 extra for stuff people don't especially want is a bad plan, but it means people will pick up an Xbox once it gets nice and cheap, for the exclusives.
Now they're going to have to start making up for the ungodly PR disaster this has been. Having all those people announce 'buy a 360' was incredibly bad for them. The PS4 pre-order sales flew up due to it. They basically managed to sell hundreds of thousands of there competitors consoles. It would have been interesting to see how the Wii would have fared if it had a better range of games coming.
There's still no real advantage to the One - the higher price for an inferior console whose predecessor had a spectacular rate of hardware failure and has an incredibly limited release in 21 countries is pretty bad - but at least it makes something remotely resembling a sane system now.
Two things:
1) Microsoft didn't say they were taking away the digital sharing with 10 'family members'.
Yes, they did.
The sharing of games will work as it does today, you will simply share the disc. Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold.
2) We still don't know what 'family members' means.
Reports over the last week indicated that it's basically anyone you want to add.
Edit: also, you're "that doesn't affect me" reminded me of senator Lindsey Graham talking about NSA wiretapping.
Two entirely different issues. One is a government issue you cannot opt out of. One is a corporation with a product you can buy voluntarily, and for which they have provided you with full disclosure.
Edit: also, you're "that doesn't affect me" reminded me of senator Lindsey Graham talking about NSA wiretapping.Two entirely different issues. One is a government issue you cannot opt out of. One is a corporation with a product you can buy voluntarily, and for which they have provided you with full disclosure.
I didn't say the ISSUES were similar. I said your STATEMENTS were similar.
If you want to backtrack your statement, with it's lack of empathy and regard for the situations of others, feel free.
Edit: the only aspect of the kinect that would be useful for me would be the voice commands. So I could turn the Xbox on using my voice instead of the controller. Except then I still need to pick up the controller to play a game, so it hasn't really saved me anything. Voice recognition software for games tends to be pretty spotty as well. A friend who enjoys the most recent Madden game had to unplug his kinect while playing because it would pick up in game commentary which would trigger audibles.
I am seriously stoked to see how Planetside 2 will look/work on the PS4.
If you want to backtrack your statement, with it's lack of empathy and regard for the situations of others, feel free.
I don't see my "lack of empathy" as any more ostentatious than yours for arguing against my ideal sharing or licensing paradigm. I want what I want and you want what you want, and neither of us is going to be fully satisfied if the other gets his way. The only real difference is that you're arguing in favor of continuing a policy that is already in effect, and I'd like to see a new policy.
You, however, are getting your way. If you want to be a jerk about it, to boot, go ahead.
First draft of the XB1 announcement (NSFW).
Frankly, given the level of vitriol we saw, I'm not sure they'll ever be ready.
Cloud gaming is clearly the future. OnLive, for all of its faults, did show that the concept will work fine and the benefits - extraordinarily cheap hardware, cheap games, no technical limitations - are huge. The worldwide internet infrastructure needed to support it is just not there yet, and may not be for many years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You, however, are getting your way. If you want to be a jerk about it, to boot, go ahead.
Irony much?
Anyways, people haven't been complaining about the idea of sharing with 10 people at once. Sharing with 10 people could be cool. It could also be highly limited or be a charge on your subscription fees everyone has. Have to wait and see the final draft right? People however do complain about some of the ideas that get tossed around, like pinging home once a day vs. Total connection vs. not needing one at all. Also Kinect being required and part of the fee, or how costly the subscription fees are, and etc.
|
@Scott - They took away a feature they could have left with the downloaded games. All they had to do to keep the feature was require the 24 hour check in order to play those games, rather than to play all game.
That would have been reasonable, and not particularly difficult to implement.
Why they keep making a choice to provide less is a mystery.
|
Oh please, the magical 'share games with ten family members' rubbish was a PR concoction that dazzled people into thinking that Microsoft were offering some kind of free games magicland where you got to play AAA titles as soon as they were released for free.
Not only was it never fully explained or defined, the publishers would never in a million years have stood for it.. and even more damning, it could still have existed as an optional opt-in program. Want to use this awesome feature, then you'll have to be always online.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is entertaining seeing people sobbing mournfully over them magical wonderland of gaming that's been destroyed.
- People complaining that the online check function could have allowed for so much more than what was on the disc. I'm sure no one is going to put a 'Must Have Internet Connection to Play' sticker on a box and sell that kinda game anyway. The online check was DRM. Not a magical pass to new gaming highs.
- That more money to the producers means more money for games to be made. Maybe. It's possible that EA wouldn't just build an even larger money fort and demand Call of Modern Battlefield 86. But I somehow doubt it. And, of course, you'd need to sell just as many games as before for it to make money, something that doesn't look like it was going to happen.
- That Microsoft might have done Steam-like sales. Yeah...I don't see that happening. Ever. At all. For any reason. Games off Microsoft are still, with the rare exception, more expensive than buying the disc new in the UK. I was astounded when I saw Sony offering the Last of Us for £40 (while Remember Me is still £47.99). So they're both pretty awful for it.
- The Single Game for ten people sharing method. Well, they can still do it if they want. But honestly, I always figured it was a load of crock. They're upset about loosing the money off a game being resold maybe two or three, or even four or five times - you're honestly telling me they'll be OK with ten people playing the same copy? It would loose them far, far more cash than second hand sales would. Especially games like Halo or Call of Duty.
All told, I don't see anything has been lost - most of what they want to do can still be done, simply as an optional feature. If you wanted to have all these online features, then make the game only work online - you're not missing anyone who wouldn't have bought a One at all before, are you? Seems simple enough.