XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[mrcorbo]

Since BRiT revoked our license to post in the other thread, I'm starting this one to discuss the possible DRM mechanics that could be employed on the XBOne and PS4 and how they might restrict/enhance our ability to enjoy these machines. Vs. discussions as per usual are to be avoided and are silly right now anyway since we don't know all the details of the DRM mechanisms of either of these consoles. This is intended to start a discussion of how you think a secure DRM could be implemented that both protects the content creator and preserves the maximum freedom of use for the end user.

Jumping off from Cyan's post in the other thread:

There is a theory going around that says the 24 hours daily check in only occurs when you play a game without having it's corresponding disc placed in the disc tray.

It's all hearsay evidence for me, bkilian could confirm this, I think, but I guess he is controlled by the NDA when it comes to the Xbox One.

I think a sensible behavior would be to require the console be online to install a disk-based game to assign the license to both that machine and the active user's account. After this the user could authenticate their game either via an online check or by inserting the disc. Digital downloads would be exempt from this. With this model, the worst case scenario for the user is that they have no internet capability at all and they can't use the system. For everyone else, it means the only limitation on them is that they can't install a new game without being able to send a few packets over the internet. Any content that has actually made it onto their machine would be accessible both on or offline no matter how long the machine is offline and even past the point where there are servers to authenticate with.

What would be wrong with that?

 

[pc999]

I think that if people refused to pay and not own instead of discussing how it could be better than the worst case scenario, then people wouldn't need to to discuss it at all

Learn a bit about civil disobedience It makes wonders to the civilization

 

[mrcorbo]

I think that if people refused to pay and not own instead of discussing how it could be better than the worst case scenario, then people wouldn't need to to discuss it at all

Learn a bit about civil disobedience It makes wonders to the civilization

I prefer practicality to idealism.

 

[rockaman]

This video from OPM is interesting from the side of PS4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=opjpyF5tlRo

It acknowledges a few things which have come up about DRM on PS4.

One is that Denny essentially promised that PS4 will be able to be "played oldschool" without any internet connection whatsoever.

The other is some patents that may have the PS4 itself, without using internet, register discs to the console.

So I think this may be one possible form of DRM on PS4. I don't know how likely it is obviously, but it's an interesting take. And if it happens I wonder if players will be able to locally 'de-register' their games from the console should they wish to share them with friends or re-sell them at a local retailer.

 

[upnorthsox]

I think that if people refused to pay and not own instead of discussing how it could be better than the worst case scenario, then people wouldn't need to to discuss it at all

Learn a bit about civil disobedience It makes wonders to the civilization

But this virtually kills the rental market. There's been no talk of that though.

 

[pc999]

I prefer practicality to idealism.

Like everyone how walks conscientious in a trap thinking they can beat it...

 

[pc999]

But this virtually kills the rental market. There's been no talk of that though.

Rental as a conscientious option and adjusted price is perfectly fine, now masking it of a ownership, keep the same prices and making the only way to play (legally at least) it is beyond what we should allow.

 

[BoardBonobo]

The bit I don't get is that if such DRM was implemented then all that is happening is that MS or Sony are just pushing themselves in to replace the normal reseller of second hand games. Unless of course the publishers get the lions share of the transaction.

What does the industry actually stand to gain? Or is it a better the devil you know?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Gamestop's revenues are something like 90% used game sales. They can make $1000 selling one game 20 times, the publisher will get $10-$20 of that. It needs to change if you want games with 8 digit budgets.

Think up a system that gives publishers a fair amount of the profit that doesn't involve DRM. Go.

 

[mrcorbo]

The bit I don't get is that if such DRM was implemented then all that is happening is that MS or Sony are just pushing themselves in to replace the normal reseller of second hand games. Unless of course the publishers get the lions share of the transaction.

What does the industry actually stand to gain? Or is it a better the devil you know?

What DRM mechanism are you referring to specifically?

 

[Jedi2016]

The latter, I think. Contrary to popular opinion, the consumer isn't actually the target here, we're just collateral damage. The target is the companies like Gamestop. It does seem likely that they'll allow some sort of online trading through their respective services (PSN/XBL), that will deauthorize a game for one account and reauthorize it for another. For a small fee, of course.

At this point, though, it's still too much in the air. The backlash for this has been so big that MS can't just let it go as-is, and it's still questionable as to whether Sony will even do it at all.

 

[MrFox]

It's about how much they gain and how much they lose. We think they calculated it wrong. That mistake is bad for everybody.

What is happening here is that our voice is being heard, there's good communication and it'll be about numbers. There are certainly analysts at all studios right now crunching the numbers to determine if they'll lose more money than they'll gain. The number of people in the movement is an indicator of how the profit with shift. Having important people from sony expressing their support and saying they are hearing the message loud and clear, and are showing an immense respect for the movement, including the Publisher and Developer relation VP, is a very good sign. But they are only showing the love in words, they better act on it.

What we want is to help the console gaming industry because we love games, we do menace a boycott of the games that will implement an online DRM scheme, while promising to help the other games thrive. If the console has many games, the console makers have nothing to lose, we will buy games whatever happens. There are certainly a lot of discussions to be had with all the major publishers, and they need time to get their act together until E3. It will be best for everybody if this thing never exists.

I don't get why the xbox gaming crowd seem to either support the online DRM scheme, or try to convince others that there's nothing to be done about it. While Playstation gamers are the ones involved in the NoDRM movement and trying to change things. We're supposed to be impacted the same way but only one side does something. (hey, prove me wrong)

 

[mrcorbo]

More specifics on mechanisms, actual use cases and how they are impacted positively and negatively by those mechanisms and less vague hand-waving, moralizing and philosophizing about the evils of DRM, please. There is already a thread in a more appropriate subforum covering that topic.

 

[Squilliam]

The idea of a system where you can change games without touching the console works really well if you can also play games without touching a controller. They're making the whole system hands free in many ways and this kind of DRM is a natural way to make their vision happen. What we gain in flexibility more than makes up for what is lost in the requirement to have the system phone home every 24 hours.

How many people are honestly in a situation where they have no broadband AND no phone connection? If you've got a phone you can create an ad-hoc internet connection. If Microsoft anticipates a major outage such as a natural disaster they could easily send a code which prevents a need for re-activation for say 2 weeks to the console which would probably solve about 70% of the edge cases on long term outages.

 

[AzBat]

I don't get why the xbox gaming crowd seem to either support the online DRM scheme, or try to convince others that there's nothing to be done about it. While Playstation gamers are the ones involved in the NoDRM movement and trying to change things. We're supposed to be impacted the same way but only one side does something. (hey, prove me wrong)

I don't see the point right now. It's not something that has been officially announced. Why have a hissy fit now? When things are announced you can still make your voice heard with your Twitter campaign & by also not pre-ordering the offending system & pre-ordering the system that supports your cause. Why spend expend all that energy when you don't know what they're going to do?

One other point, who here believes that Sony & Microsoft will have totally different DRM mechanisms? I believe a lot of this was already decided & both companies will be using a similar system. IMHO It's going to take a lot more than a very vocal group making posts on Twitter to change business agreements already in place. Money talks.

Tommy McClain

 

[ninzel]

The problem with trying to estimate damage is that it's pulling mostly from people on the net that are already aware of possible DRM and are discussing it.
How about Ma and Pa that have for years been taking Jimmy and Timmy to Gamestop and assume they own games the games they have been trading for years. One day they walk in and learn the new reality. How do they react?

 

[MrFox]

As I said, it's two very different groups isn't it?

 

[BoardBonobo]

What DRM mechanism are you referring to specifically?

Not DRM as a mechanism but the rights management part which is the moral issue that is being argued. Who owns the rights to the money on games that have already been sold once and where does the control of that rests?

As far as consumers are concerned the actual process and control makes no difference to the end result. As long as the price is right, the ease of access is the same, and the consumer gives away no rights over and above those that would be normally attached to a transaction then it's play as normal.

But unless the developers stand to gain from the transition and consumers don't lose then what is the driving force? Somebody somewhere has to put extra cash into the system to power the change. Where does that come from?

 

[mrcorbo]

Not DRM as a mechanism but the rights management part which is the moral issue that is being argued. Who owns the rights to the money on games that have already been sold once and where does the control of that rests?

As far as consumers are concerned the actual process and control makes no difference to the end result. As long as the price is right, the ease of access is the same, and the consumer gives away no rights over and above those that would be normally attached to a transaction then it's play as normal.

But unless the developers stand to gain from the transition and consumers don't lose then what is the driving force? Somebody somewhere has to put extra cash into the system to power the change. Where does that come from?

Neither MS or Sony have laid out how any of that will work. How do you think it could work, how would you want it to work and where do you draw the line at what is acceptable/unacceptable?

Suppose there is a fee to "activate" a previously activated game and that fee is sent to the publisher with a royalty percentage equal to what is given for a new game sale deducted for the platform holder. An arrangement can be made with used game sellers like Gamestop to pre-process their used games so that buyers won't even have to deal with that and the fee would be included in the price that Gamestop charges for the game.

 

[ninzel]

But unless the developers stand to gain from the transition and consumers don't lose then what is the driving force? Somebody somewhere has to put extra cash into the system to power the change. Where does that come from?

Is it extra money really or just a reallocation of where the current money goes.