XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[Deleted member 11852]

While multiple people can play on the library at once, you'll notice it doesn't actually say you can play the same GAME at the same time. Word is that the system will allow no more than two simultaneous players of the same game from the same library. So basically, you and your brother/son/sister/whatever, but no one else.

Hmm good point. It doesn't say you can't play the same game at the same time either. Like all recent Microsoft communications, it's ambiguous :smile:

Well it's E3 this week, they're going to have to answer all these questions. As will Sony

 

[dobwal]

I'm assuming pairs of people buddying up, not groups. You see the licence states:

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.​

So, you can both play at the same time. A group of six buddies buy 3 copies, a group of four buy 2 - like game clubs of old where you pool your money to buy more games and share them. But you're still halving the number of sales on what could be quite a scale. Sure, it wouldn't work in all instances but I'd wager it happen enough to decimate sales of popular games. The more popular, the greater the potential loss of sales because the appeal for sharing cost is greater.

This is why it won't work like this

You can always play your games, it doen't mean a game can be played simultaneously. It could simply mean that the gamertag which purchased the title has priority. Sharing a library doesnt mean a game can be played simultaneously either. It looks no different than a physical library in fuctionality in term of instances.

Furthermore, gaming clubs can do the opposite and promote more purchases then if everybody was acting on non shared individual libraries. Having each buddy purchase a game ever quarter means each person gets access to more titles as the shared library grows equitably. A fixed limit would also encourage having the most desirable members, where breadth and diversity would be highly desirable traits.

If six individuals were going to purchase a highly sought game at release, how is being in a group where titles can be shared make them act any differently? Any individual that would wait until it became readily in the shared library could just as easily wait for a sale or rental availability. Easier access to titles over time is a given regardless.

Outside of family and friends, gamers will seek like minded individuals who are willing to contibute on equal basis. I think growing the shared library would be more of an interest than mitigating investment. Mitigating investment is already a natural function of sharing. Family and friends based grouped would more readily engage in less profitable practices. But thats true today as its often a friend or a family member thats borrowing your physical copy so they dont have to pay to play.

 

[Averagejoe]

I always bought new; I support developers, always had for decades, and I always will.
I buy full price games constantly and when I can't buy full price I buy NEW when the price goes down, which is surely not perfect for the devs but to me is better than not giving them a cent at all. (this is a personal point of view)
I too care about how I spend my money and in-fact I also choose my games carefully; I think before buying and it worked perfectly so far.

DRM is not the end of the world for me, is not the end of my rights as customer because it only asks me to do what I have been doing for decades.
We can always choose not to buy so if you don't like/want DRM you just have to look elsewhere.

MS and Sony needs us more than we need them anyway.

Did i say there i buy used.?

I buy new to and many times me and my friends split the cost of the games with each other,or one buy one game and another buy another and we change which is perfectly legal..

Yes it is the end for your rights you just have some trouble seeing pass your choices,when EA decide that they no longer want to support some games and drop them and you can't access them any more then you will really complain.

MS just gave the right to everything to publisher who in favor of money can decide to block features,also what will happen with your games 10 years from now.?

Because i even own Nes games,and can still play them,do you think MS will keep the xbox one alive for ever.? As soon as those servers are drop you will loose to games.

Much like xbox fans lose the ability to play Halo2 online on the original xbox when they kill live for it,but this time killing the servers mean killing your console and games.

Oh that is why i will not buy and xbox one because i have the right to not do so thankfully that one MS can't take it away from me or sony.

 

[Averagejoe]

You really think people that split the price between 3 people are the average case? Seriously? Thank you for proving my point.

Well i guess we will see this holiday who was right or wrong.

 

[Averagejoe]

You aren't buying the rollercoaster, just the rights to ride it. That's all you have ever been buying with software, you do not have the right to do with it as you please, you never have.

Then why Nintendo doesn't come to my home and tell me to give them back the Nes games i own because i play them long enough.?

The physical copy is your,you can do what ever your like with it,but make copies and sell them because that is where rights of the company over the image of the game kick in.

I can trow my game over the window if i like,spray paint it,give it away,dance a Rumba over it,is mine now MS or their partners can decide how long you will play that game which is completely different to how things had been done on this industry since it started.

You are fear piracy use other methods,you want a piece of use games sales,talk to gamestop and make a deal so that they cut you in or at least developers but don't take it on people.

I bough and xbox and xbox 360 day 1,there is no way i am getting an xbox one.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Well i guess we will see this holiday who was right or wrong.

All you'll find out this holiday is their production capacity. And save the winks for your waitress.

 

[AzBat]

Would people be interested in a device similar to how the Kindle has free wireless 3G access? Say you buy a device & it has free 3G service for the lifetime of the device. But it would only be used specifically for the 24hr/1hr checks. Kindle gets like 50mb free a month. I don't think that would be enough for DRM checks, but I found some similar services with more data...

http://www.freedompop.com/

It has a 500mb/month that's completely free. Bad thing it's not available everywhere since I believe it requires 4G WiMAX.

http://www.netzero.net/

NetZero is back with something similar, but they only have 200mb/month free. I think it uses 4G WiMAX too.

Is this something that might be interesting business oppurtunity? The Xbox One Emergency Internet Kit? LOL

Tommy McClain

 

[Tap In]

^^^^
Good ideas and it might very well catch on for some... the one thing I remember Michael PAchter saying a couple months ago that it is possible that MS pushing this could actually improve infrastructure. or rather, encourage people and Governments to change it to get us more into the future

Also someone above mentioned interesting idea regarding 24 hr check if you are out of area or home Internet goes down...

if you have a smart phone and data service available there would be an Xbox app that could simply wifi with your phone to connect and authenticate. disconnect, play for another 24 hrs

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then why Nintendo doesn't come to my home and tell me to give them back the Nes games i own because i play them long enough.?

That's not what's happening. No-one is removing the games from you because you've played them long enough. What may well happen is the games are no longer supported in terms of validating your entitlement. You're analogy would only be true if your NES games required a Nintendo engineer to visit your house every month to validate your games, and then Nintendo decided it was no longer worth their time to do so and didn't validate, leaving you with useless cartridges. It's worth noting that Nintendo are happy to take your money to play the same game on a new console. If you are entitled to the game, how come you have to buy it again? That's a question about game ownership which doesn't really belong here, but I use it as an illustration. If MS go on to provide access to your games on ever future hardware device for no extra cost, they'll be far more noble than Nintendo.

The physical copy is your,you can do what ever your like with it,but make copies and sell them because that is where rights of the company over the image of the game kick in.

I can trow my game over the window if i like,spray paint it,give it away,dance a Rumba over it,

You are just as free to throw your game disc out the window, or spray paint it, or give it away, or dance a Rumba over it. The difference now in that it may not work one day is tied to your recognition that you're not allowed to copy it, and giving the disk to someone else is perceived as a style of 'experience copying' as far as the producers are concerned. But of course whether a game producer is entitled to control who plays what when is not for discussion here. If you want to complain that MS aren't entitled to do this, post in the right discussion.

 

[function]

You aren't buying the rollercoaster, just the rights to ride it. That's all you have ever been buying with software, you do not have the right to do with it as you please, you never have.

You've not got this right. Owning something doesn't mean you have the right to do with it as you please. You can't copy and manufacture a car just because you own one. You can't duplicate and distribute a sculpture just because you own a copy. What you can do is give your car or sculpture away, lend it, or sell it.

You have never had an unlimited right to do as you please. This does not mean that the concept of ownership does not exist, and it does not mean that MS are not trying to take ownership out from under games buyers.

Again, ownership does not mean you can do as you please, and not all restrictions are equal i.e. it's not right to suggest that just because you haven't previously been able to do whatever you want, and because you now won't be able to do whatever you want, that nothing has changed.

A whole lot is changing in Microsoft's brave new world. That at least should be accepted IMO, even if you think things are changing for the better.

 

[MrFox]

I bought a car, but I'm not allowed to do as I please with it, the police officer said I can't run over people with it.
Why? It's MY car! I don't own the car and I never have?

 

[BoardBonobo]

I bought a car, but I'm not allowed to do as I please with it, the police officer said I can't run over people with it.
Why? It's MY car! I don't own the car and I never have?

Ah! But you haven't bought the people. You don't have any rights over them...

 

[Cranky]

Well CBOT says no paywall for Sony for online play.

If that is true, then Sony's board needs to fire every single person who had a hand if make such an idiotic decision.

 

[temesgen]

That's not what's happening. No-one is removing the games from you because you've played them long enough. What may well happen is the games are no longer supported in terms of validating your entitlement. You're analogy would only be true if your NES games required a Nintendo engineer to visit your house every month to validate your games, and then Nintendo decided it was no longer worth their time to do so and didn't validate, leaving you with useless cartridges. It's worth noting that Nintendo are happy to take your money to play the same game on a new console. If you are entitled to the game, how come you have to buy it again? That's a question about game ownership which doesn't really belong here, but I use it as an illustration. If MS go on to provide access to your games on ever future hardware device for no extra cost, they'll be far more noble than Nintendo.

You are just as free to throw your game disc out the window, or spray paint it, or give it away, or dance a Rumba over it. The difference now in that it may not work one day is tied to your recognition that you're not allowed to copy it, and giving the disk to someone else is perceived as a style of 'experience copying' as far as the producers are concerned. But of course whether a game producer is entitled to control who plays what when is not for discussion here. If you want to complain that MS aren't entitled to do this, post in the right discussion.

What happens when the platform holder and the developer decide that too many users are only buying one MP shooter and limit you to 80 hours of online for your initial pass?

In previous generations there were more than a few who played Halo or Gears online almost exclusively.... I can see MS emboldened to attempt to monetize that further at some point....

 

[eastmen]

Well CBOT says no paywall for Sony for online play.

If that is true, then Sony's board needs to fire every single person who had a hand if make such an idiotic decision.

I figured as much. I bet all the good features will be behind a pay wall like the game recording / cross game chat /invites and the like.

 

[friendo]

It should work like this
If you have the game disc in the system you don't need a drm check if you dont have disc in the system then it does drm online check every hour. This allows the system to be disc less and if in the future these drm networks are obsolete the system will still play the games we paid good money for.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You can always play your games, it doen't mean a game can be played simultaneously. It could simply mean that the gamertag which purchased the title has priority. Sharing a library doesnt mean a game can be played simultaneously either. It looks no different than a physical library in fuctionality in term of instances.

Fair point. I'd assumed it could, Microsoft will need to clarify this. I would OK with the policy if they say this isn't the case. After all if a [genuine] family buy a game today, only one person - the person with the disc - could play the game.

Furthermore, gaming clubs can do the opposite and promote more purchases then if everybody was acting on non shared individual libraries. Having each buddy purchase a game ever quarter means each person gets access to more titles as the shared library grows equitably. A fixed limit would also encourage having the most desirable members, where breadth and diversity would be highly desirable traits.

Myself and two friends, John and Sean, operated a gamer club for Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 games back in the 1980s. It didn't meant we spent more (we were in our early teens), it mean we spent wisely and shared. You can't spend more than you have and using gamer club you can sate your desire to play game

If six individuals were going to purchase a highly sought game at release, how is being in a group where titles can be shared make them act any differently? Any individual that would wait until it became readily in the shared library could just as easily wait for a sale or rental availability.

Right, but when a games comes out, many gamers want to play it sooner rather than later which is why sales peak at release. Games don't often go on sale for at least a month and sometimes longer.

Outside of family and friends, gamers will seek like minded individuals who are willing to contibute on equal basis. I think growing the shared library would be more of an interest than mitigating investment. Mitigating investment is already a natural function of sharing. Family and friends based grouped would more readily engage in less profitable practices. But thats true today as its often a friend or a family member thats borrowing your physical copy so they dont have to pay to play.

That paragraph from the licensing only refers to family, not friends. Other paragraphs talk about friends, or friends and family. I have no doubt some design restriction will prohibit sharing to non-family members and I'm still going with my theory that they'll introduce a multi-profile family account for up to 10 people.

 

[dobwal]

Fair point. I'd assumed it could, Microsoft will need to clarify this. I would OK with the policy if they say this isn't the case. After all if a [genuine] family buy a game today, only one person - the person with the disc - could play the game.


Myself and two friends, John and Sean, operated a gamer club for Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 games back in the 1980s. It didn't meant we spent more (we were in our early teens), it mean we spent wisely and shared. You can't spend more than you have and using gamer club you can sate your desire to play game


Right, but when a games comes out, many gamers want to play it sooner rather than later which is why sales peak at release. Games don't often go on sale for at least a month and sometimes longer.


That paragraph from the licensing only refers to family, not friends. Other paragraphs talk about friends, or friends and family. I have no doubt some design restriction will prohibit sharing to non-family members and I'm still going with my theory that they'll introduce a multi-profile family account for up to 10 people.

Did you spend less? And you facillitated this sharing with physical media? The act of sharing didnt compel you to invest less but spent in a way that benefited the group as a whole. When u share under a share plan like One's potential system with very liberal sharing policies each dollar invested is potentially 10X more effective in providing content depending on your buddies, each is making equal contribution and the size of your club. It encourages spending because it potentially reward spending far more than the current circumstance of just playing wares you purchased. You are not spending $60 or $70 for a new game, you could be potentially spending $60 or $70 for 10 new games.

However you are probably right and MS will probably restrict sharing to just family and friends. Plus Im not arguing if it will be implemented or not but whether if its a less profitable model.

 

[KongRudi]

However you are probably right and MS will probably restrict sharing to just family and friends. Plus Im not arguing if it will be implemented or not but whether if its a less profitable model.

How the family membership on XBlive worked before.
It were one master-account, and some sub-accounts, the sub-accounts could not spend money online, or access material wich the master-account didn't allow.
It's probably also IP check and console ID-check, family membeers must log in within X amount of time.
The note also said that any one of your family-members could access shared games, with a space. That means one family member can play the game in your shared library.
Giantbomb-crew also said there were 1 hour waiting period if a different family-member would want to play the game again, I assume this means that master-account is excepted from this 1 hour rule, he'll allways be able to play it.
Two subaccounts however, can probably not play the shared game.

As for lending, you could give the game away, but you can't get it back, because you need to give away the license. And they can't give it to anyone else.
And you can't give it to someone who's not been on your friendslist for 30 days.
So if you want to sell your system, and games on ebay, it won't be much value, compared to a new system.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What happens when the platform holder and the developer decide that too many users are only buying one MP shooter and limit you to 80 hours of online for your initial pass?

That's too hypothetical a question to be of merit in understanding the core policies. We can shoot out what-ifs from our golden rears all day but it'll get us no closer to the truth. Panicking about 'what ifs' is just as silly as getting excited about 'what ifs'.

In previous generations there were more than a few who played Halo or Gears online almost exclusively.... I can see MS emboldened to attempt to monetize that further at some point....

Firstly, MS made money from those Gears and Halo players through Live, so they're probably nor weeping great buckets. Second, monetising online like that happens with DLC and something like DUST514 shows devs are willing to go further and have pay-2-win principles in place. A complex online DRM system isn't at all necessary to implement a game where there's a constant pay requirement to play.