XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a pc gamer I personally don't see the problem with these drm trends or hampering the second hand sales market. It has been like this in the pc realm for quite some time and a considerable benefit from it is the cost of pc titles. Pc game sales and discounts are considerably higher and more frequent than their console counterparts (granted the royalties aren't as high), additionally a pc title will drop in price much sooner than its console counter part.

Now if it is more of an issue of consumer rights, then I am inclined to agree. Though when games went up to 60usd per title nearly every gamer cringed. Surely we have to admit that piracy and the second hand game market have at least had some affect on the increasing cost of titles. Ultimately I would like to see some middle ground to ensure consumer rights as well as benefit the gaming industry, but honestly at this point there doesn't seem to be much common ground that isn't being readily taken advantage of by one side or the other.
 
One is that Denny essentially promised that PS4 will be able to be "played oldschool" without any internet connection whatsoever.
Without a microcontroller in the disc this is vulnerable to hacks of the drive, professional counterfeits of the discs, requires disc in drive and doesn't allow you to limit installs (ie. unrestricted second hand sales).

A microcontroller in the disc could put a stop to all of that, but seems a bit fancy compared to simply requiring online activation.
 
Lets also not forget in a DD world many people will not have access to the games they want when they want them. Besides the fact that downloading a 10GB game will take a considerable amount of time, ISP's have been cracking down on the bandwidth they provide to their customers as well. Imagine hitting your ISP's cap in three days because you bought 2 games and streamed a few movies!

Caps dont seem an issue mine is 250GB (I think). I'm on net 24/7 and only use 50-80GB per month typically I think.

The people who have to worry about that are bittorrent pirates who max their connections with torrents of stuff they never watch 24/7 and nobody else.

Plus even when you go over I think you get multiple months of warnings first before they even do anything. It's really reasonable as constituted, eg to cut out the extreme pirates, not as an extra revenue source on normal users. (But I think we need to be vigilant it doesn't turn into the latter, so far so good)
 
I do not know if this has been posted, but Amir0x of neogaf claims that no internet connection will be required to play AT ALL (for the ps4):

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=572949

I guess I'm weird but I want MS to stick to their guns on all this stuff lol.

Like, I want them to be always online, restrict (really just take a cut of) used sales, etc.

Might as well try something different, it can probably be a forward thinking market advantage over Sony, and it does not affect me since I rarely buy used games.

Especially the watered down "once every 24hrs" always online thing. At that point it's really just no issue at all. If an asteroid ever hit and I actually lost internet for +24 hours, I can always just use PDA net (free tethering app for non rooted phones) to make a wi fi hotspot of my phone to check in. It's not like my 360 hasn't sat connected to the internet for the last 7 years anyway, just like everybody elses.

So when I see GAF threads like "Major Nelson says we're listening" I'm like nooo stick to your guns lol.
 
I thought the clarification was there is no extra fee directly to customers for used games, but you can sell used games at least, somehow.
 
The method I suggested in my OP seems to reasonably cover all use cases except for people who never have access to the internet from their console. So I repeat, what's wrong with it? What specific use case for you does it prevent?

This is your suggestion:

so obviously you would accept the solution below, which means that you are ok with it, which is cool but not necessarily anyone else :)
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.
I already paid the money to play the game, why do i have to be online to enjoy the purchase i paid for, why should i do anything else but just press play. No matter how you bend this, it's online activation and build in time bomb for your purchase. My son couldn't borrow this game neither could my friends, it's anything
but sensible. It's just like DD's except the Disc can be used as activation.

What would be wrong with that?
Except for the above, my basic right to my purchased good which every consumer in the world should defend.
 
If Sony is no online required at all is true, then that rules out HDD game installs. Bummer.
I imagine it would work the same way it does now. You can install the game and run it off HDD, but it will need the disc in the drive as "verification" that it's legit.

I thought the clarification was there is no extra fee directly to customers for used games, but you can sell used games at least, somehow.
I always took this as being marketing talk. At the time they said that, the idea was that the person would have to just purchase the game in its entirety, at full price. Technically, that's not a "fee", so they can get away with saying "we're not going to charge a fee".

The way I understand their system now (based on rumor and conjecture), is that they will absolutely charge a fee to transfer licenses.. no way in hell they're going to just do it for free without taking a cut of the money that's moving through their system. And to cover the new download bandwidth for the second title, etc.
 
It's on the Eurogamer.net front page. I can't post a link.

Do you mean this?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-xbox-one-game-trade-ins-will-work-apparently

You, the shopper, won't have to pay the activation fee for a used Xbox One game - the shop will. Therefore, the price you see on a second-hand Xbox One game in a shop is the price you'll pay to be able to play it.

I don't see how that can honestly be claimed as activation fee free for consumers and I don't even see that scheme holding up by the retailers who will move as fast as humanly possible to disguising that activation tax until you get to the register.

My source confirmed that part of that activation fee will go to a publisher and part to Microsoft.

Except that publishers are not aware of this. I'm sure they'll take the money if MS offers it but the lack of collaboration on this indicates that the only publisher who can expect to see a cut is MS.
 
This is your suggestion:

so obviously you would accept the solution below, which means that you are ok with it, which is cool but not necessarily anyone else :)

As I've said multiple times it's about how such a system effects the ways I actually interact with the media. Last gen's DRM enforced restrictions on how you used your purchased goods, too. Yet you seem willing to tolerate those restrictions going forward. Those restrictions bother me, though, as they prevent me from being able to access my media in the way I would prefer. The new model works better for me because the things it allows for are things I want and the things it restricts are things I don't care about.

That's why I've been pushing people in this thread to point out specific use cases. There are multiple threads on this board already discussing principles and consumer rights WRT DRM. I am hoping that this discussion can actually be an objective discussion of how different use cases are prevented/allowed by different DRM schemes and arrive at a system that maybe not everyone loves, but at least most people can live with.

You may remember I was no fan of BluRay's DRM as it did (for a time anyway) prevent me from consuming the media I purchased in the manner I preferred. And yet those restrictions didn't bother you and you preferred BluRay because accepting its more restrictive DRM allowed you to have access to your preferred experience.

I already paid the money to play the game, why do i have to be online to enjoy the purchase i paid for, why should i do anything else but just press play. No matter how you bend this, it's online activation and build in time bomb for your purchase. My son couldn't borrow this game neither could my friends, it's anything
but sensible. It's just like DD's except the Disc can be used as activation.


Except for the above, my basic right to my purchased good which every consumer in the world should defend.

You're 0 for 2.

In the system I suggested, the only times the console would have to be online is when you install a disk-based game, when you try to play a disk-based game without the game disk in the drive and if you want to allow someone else to install the game.

Why wouldn't you be able to lend the game to anyone you wanted? They install the game it gets deactivated for your console and account and activated for theirs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except that publishers are not aware of this. I'm sure they'll take the money if MS offers it but the lack of collaboration on this indicates that the only publisher who can expect to see a cut is MS.

You mean _publisher_, singular, right? Because I've only seen one comment from one publisher chairman that that said that if Microsoft found a way to tax used games, then they should get a cut too.

Tommy McClain
 
You mean _publisher_, singular, right? Because I've only seen one comment from one publisher chairman that that said that if Microsoft found a way to tax used games, then they should get a cut too.

Tommy McClain
And nothing he said is really clear as to what he knows. He merely said publishers deserve a cut, he could be under NDA.

These forums have become awesome for vague quotes being taken to existential levels of meaning.
 
I already paid the money to play the game, why do i have to be online to enjoy the purchase i paid for, why should i do anything else but just press play. No matter how you bend this, it's online activation and build in time bomb for your purchase. My son couldn't borrow this game neither could my friends, it's anything
but sensible. It's just like DD's except the Disc can be used as activation.


.

I know right , why should I have to be online to play candy crush. I should be able to play without a connection to the web.

If your son is on your family account he can play the game as much as he wants as long as your not playing it at the same time. Its no different than it is now with a disc.

As for friends , I've been gaming on pc for a long time and since the late 90s when they started tying games to a cd key , I haven't felt the loss of lending to a friend.
 
Do you mean this?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-xbox-one-game-trade-ins-will-work-apparently



I don't see how that can honestly be claimed as activation fee free for consumers and I don't even see that scheme holding up by the retailers who will move as fast as humanly possible to disguising that activation tax until you get to the register.



Except that publishers are not aware of this. I'm sure they'll take the money if MS offers it but the lack of collaboration on this indicates that the only publisher who can expect to see a cut is MS.

I'd expect an activation fee would affect trade-in values more than anything and I think the lack of communication with 3rd parties and the conflicting infromation being presented to the media indicates MS are still unsure of what they are going to do.
 
And nothing he said is really clear as to what he knows. He merely said publishers deserve a cut, he could be under NDA.

These forums have become awesome for vague quotes being taken to existential levels of meaning.

You mean like a billion dollars in game development and over 200GB of bandwidth, yea alot of that going around.
 
I don't see how I am being condescending. I'm just extrapolating from current trends.

Music
Movies

A quick Google search found these and there's more examples if you need them. Feel free to find your own data to contradict mine.



It's not about saving a few bucks. It's about convenience for most and for me and others it's also about having less clutter.



Game installs to hard drive are happening (on both XBOne and PS4) for performance reasons. Given this necessity, the only way you can prevent multiple people from having simultaneous access to a game with a single disk purchase (something that isn't allowed on current systems either) is to have some form of online validation. The method I suggested in my OP seems to reasonably cover all use cases except for people who never have access to the internet from their console. So I repeat, what's wrong with it? What specific use case for you does it prevent?
Sorry it's just that I think "you'll have to learn to live with DD" is condescending. It's just YOUR preference, and a large part of the population doesn't have the same preference as you do. Both will continue to coexist, like all other media, as long as there's a market for it.

The flaw in your method is that it still doesn't provide ownership, they are dependent on a remote server, the ongoing maintenance and security of these servers, and the good will of the company which WILL pull the plug eventually (if you doubt any of these points are impactful, look up Microsoft music DRM servers, or the mess they did with Danger Hiptop in 2009, or Sony being hacked and had extreme downtime). It can only be considered long term renting, but legally they don't have to keep your games working beyond the warranty period. It has a remote kill switch. It's a "planned obsolescence" implementation. It also becomes the biggest hacking and DDoS target in the history of gaming (imo), making at least some downtime a real possibility. I won't have any of this.

Music:
In the early days, Apple, Sony and Microsoft were selling DRM music in encrypted AAC, ATRAC and WMA. It needed a server connection to move you files around (which is what you're proposing for games). We started a campaign against that, I fought for this and I'm very proud of what we accomplished. We killed it, and now we enjoy non-DRM music everywhere.

Even then, after all this time, people like me can still buy CDs. Download version are becoming much more popular, but that wouldn't have happened with a DRM'd format. Still every single one of my albums are available on CD.

Movies:

In the early days of DVD, there was an attempt at creating a DRM format called DIVX, which needed a phone line to give you permission to do what you want with your purchase. Once again, we fought it, and we won.

Renting physical films basically died, it's obsolete because we have streaming services like netflix. Physical media ownership didn't die. Bluray sales are still rising 2011 to 2012, new releases are $30 and they still sell like crazy. The "ownership" sales are collectors, and they aren't going anywhere in the DD realm. Who the heck would buy films on the playstation store? We only rent them, because online DRM means no ownership, it's a short term consumption which works extremely great for renting, but not buying.

Ultraviolet is about to become the best of both worlds. Collectors buy a bluray at a high price, and it comes with an Ultraviolet code. People like you who prefer DD exclusively, will only buy the Ultraviolet version, no clutter. We all get what we want, and I strongly support this because it's studio agnostic and hardware agnostic, just like the bluray forum.

eBooks:

Tor Books released their eBooks in non-DRM format, and their sales went UP. I'm glad we have a good guy in this field, and we favor their books. This is an ongoing battle but we're about to win.
I will still be able to buy all my books in hard cover for a long long time (which I do). eBooks are not killing books, they will continue to be a preference.

Games:

We fought them all, and this games DRM is just another one of those.
You prefer DD, you buy DD.
I prefer media, I buy media.

That is what Sony did with the Vita, and that's what they clearly said they'll do with PS4. Giving these choices, we're all happy!
I want them to do the same thing as Ultraviolet. Give a code for the DD version with the physical media, and sell it at a higher price. We'll buy it. Then, we all get what we want.

Sony is doing this with the latest Sly Cooper game. You buy the PS3 version, and it comes with the DD version for Vita, which only works for the first time owner. They can do the same scheme but instead of the Vita version it could give you the DD version of the same game.
Like when you buy a bluray and it comes with a DVD too.
Or a 3D bluray and it also has the 2D version.
Or a bluray and it comes with an Ultraviolet code.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not following you

Music - Yes DRM free music exists but the masses are moving towards streaming music ala iheartradio , spoitify , Pandora . Infact some song just beat a record by using the amount of times it was streamed as purchases.

Movies - Bluray is still a fraction of what dvd was back in the day. DRM schemes like xbox or amazon prime or movies on google play / psn and the likes are all a step back to drm. So you didn't win anything there as even ultra violet has drm on the downloaded copies

ebooks - amazon and nook are getting a bigger and bigger piece of the pie squeezing out things like tor . Both feature DRM

Games - The biggest ways to get pc games are all filled with DRM . Consoles have had DRM games since the last generation.


You need to send me a pair of the rose color glasses you've been using cause I see us moving more towards a constant subscription based world and DD only world .
 
I'm not following you
I can't explain it better if you can't take more than 5 minutes to read my posts, and read up on the history which I'm talking about.

Think about the difference between renting and buying, and how they always existed in parallel throughout the history of all these media. And that online DRM for ownership didn't work. It only works for renting or live streaming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top