XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[MrFox]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/19/xbox-one-drm-marc-whitten/

Despite the changes, Whitten said he still believes most Xbox One buyers will use the various online functionality, and that the company's plans are mostly unchanged.

"We think most people will be using the console in the connected state, they'll be taking advantage of all that functionality. Their games will all be up to date, they'll be switching between content, they'll be doing smart matches all the time, they'll be streaming content -- then they'll have the choice, if they're going on vacation or if they're in a place with low connectivity, to use the console in a different way. Candidly, I think we're adding functionality. I think we're adding choice into the console. I don't really see it as losing things."
​

I think he's right, but some of you guys don't seem to see it that way.
So is this another case of miscommunication, misdirection, obfuscation or omission?

There is no rational justification for the addition of offline disc play to prevent the family plan for DD. They just removed it.

 

[Colourless]

The Game OS isn't on the disc at all; it's on the console. And it'd just be a given that the console would have the most up to date version. Changes to the GameOS would be like changes to DirectX; new versions are always a superset and fully compatible with old code. Given that, there's no need to have anything but game data on that disc.

But if they're going to support full offline play they can't make that assumption any more. So now they need to make sure they have Game OS patches present if the game requires a specific version.

Microsoft changed the way DirectX updates some time ago. They install multiple revisions of the same versions of the libraries to ensure that the API always works as it did for the developers when they compiled the program. Existing libraries only get updated for security fixes.

 

[BeyondTed]

we dont have any idea how they're selling. and what they would be selling if they were 399 like ps4?

So now that the DRM "issue" has "changed" (some for worse, some for better) I wonder how many are waiting for $399 or $359 before pre-ordering. Perhaps pre-order and hope for a drop before release. I would have liked the no-disc in the drive and the lending. But even with the DRM change I can have no disc in the drive with with digital purchases (doing that a lot more the last year or so with the sales). But reluctant to do that without a good demo first such as through lending. Lending with the DRM scheme would be nice to see if the game is worth the money. This generation I bought a number of crummy games not worth $60 which encouraged me to wait for more price drops. Then I bought a few when they hit $20-30 and they were really good. (Sad, some crappy games got the $60 and some good ones got $20 to $30.) Devs and publishers might get more $ sooner if the lending was done or perhaps even better if MS required proper free digital download demos for all titles. So I see that as related to the DRM issue (through the lending aspect where I can see if I really want the game for $60 or if it is worth it).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS have also, basically, given all these ideas away for free now, and with no way of being the first to implement them come play time.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Sony are formulating a way to implement digital game sharing so they can steal the thunder from MS.

Sony already have had game sharing for download titles since PSN. They've also invested plenty of research into disc-based DRM with a number of patents. Whatever decisions Sony go with in future won't be copying MS - the evidence is clear on this. But I honestly believe everyone's looking to just ride out another disc-based format for one more generation and then switch. No discs, no second-hand resale issues, no fuss from the consumers.

 

[expletive]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/19/xbox-one-drm-marc-whitten/
There is no rational justification for the addition of offline disc play to prevent the family plan for DD. They just removed it.

Disagree. The ability for consoles to go offline indefinitely and not maintain any phone home with licensing servers makes family sharing an order of magnitude more complex. Maybe they will figure it out some day when they go through all the use cases and all the ways in which people will try to "game the system" (read: screw them) but a few months is certainly not enough to solve that problem, write the code, and test it.

Its amazing really. They try to create a progressive DRM system, people complain. They go back to what they had last gen, people complain about the loss of the progressive DRM system. It's unbelievable.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I wonder if Sony and Microsoft will allow games to be released as digital download only. We only saw that with smaller Live Arcade and PSN titles. Why not a full-fledged $50 title? Maybe not at the start, but maybe part way through the generation.

 

[BRiT]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/19/xbox-one-drm-marc-whitten/
I think he's right, but some of you guys don't seem to see it that way.
So is this another case of miscommunication, misdirection, obfuscation or omission?

There is no rational justification for the addition of offline disc play to prevent the family plan for DD. They just removed it.

Because technically there is no existing way to differentiate from a game installed from disc and one from download. That is what they are frantically working on patching in now. They are first starting with adding back in disc security checks. Perhaps next they will add back the digital download authorization as an option policy.

Of course this is just my guess at what they're likely doing.

 

[MfA]

They've also invested plenty of research into disc-based DRM with a number of patents.

The next console generation would have been better if they had simply standardized the basic idea rather than trying to make it proprietary.

PS. I don't think the NFC controller and disc combo should be patentable at all, it's patently obvious (I suggested it in a throw away post before the original patent was filed, I'm sure I'm not the only one).

 

[brasnial]

Sony already have had game sharing for download titles since PSN. They've also invested plenty of research into disc-based DRM with a number of patents. Whatever decisions Sony go with in future won't be copying MS - the evidence is clear on this. But I honestly believe everyone's looking to just ride out another disc-based format for one more generation and then switch. No discs, no second-hand resale issues, no fuss from the consumers.

Yep you hit the nail on the head although I wouldn't be surprised if Sony or Microsoft or both release a smaller version that's does away with a disk drive and is digital only half way though this generations life time .

 

[mrcorbo]

Disagree. The ability for consoles to go offline indefinitely and not maintain any phone home with licensing servers makes family sharing an order of magnitude more complex. Maybe they will figure it out some day when they go through all the use cases and all the ways in which people will try to "game the system" (read: screw them) but a few months is certainly not enough to solve that problem, write the code, and test it.

Its amazing really. They try to create a progressive DRM system, people complain. They go back to what they had last gen, people complain about the loss of the progressive DRM system. It's unbelievable.

They put themselves in a no-win situation. Whichever way they went they wouldn't be meeting someone's expectations whether is was expectations created by how things have been or expectations created by the changes they were promising. They just have to hope that this choice of direction satisfies more people overall.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The next console generation would have been better if they had simply standardized the basic idea rather than trying to make it proprietary.

If the industry wants to force a change like MS was trying, it needs to establish a standard and adopt it industry-wide, with a unified front. Leaving it to consumer forces to regulate means it'd (probably) never get established. Makes me wonder why there wasn't an open discussion between the console companies and industry representatives to come up with a standard. I can only guess no-one was really pushing for it, and MS tried it for their own reasons.

PS. I don't think the NFC controller and disc combo should be patentable at all, it's patently obvious (I suggested it in a throw away post before the original patent was filed, I'm sure I'm not the only one).

That's patents for you.

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

This is basically how I feel, slightly exagerated but still:

 

[MfA]

Steam allows offline play.

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

Steam allows offline play.

I know. Still funny. And sad.

 

[expletive]

They put themselves in a no-win situation. Whichever way they went they wouldn't be meeting someone's expectations whether is was expectations created by how things have been or expectations created by the changes they were promising. They just have to hope that this choice of direction satisfies more people overall.

They're at parity with Sony now, and everybody loves what Sony did (nothing), yet when MS goes back to doing nothing, its a problem. Just because they exposed ideas on how a new DRM system *could* work, it doesn't mean the public is right for holding everyone to different standards.

 

[Billy Idol]

Steam allows offline play.

And Steam allows you to have your accounts on several different PCs...

 

[Davros]

Because technically there is no existing way to differentiate from a game installed from disc and one from download.

Downloaded game installs an additional file labeled downloaded.txt,
how long did it take for me to devise that solution for a technically near impossible problem all of 5 seconds.

it doesn't mean the public is right for holding everyone to different standards.

The public never rallied against what you wanted unless you wanted a mandatory 24 hour authorisation and you wanted to not be allowed to sell your games freely

 

[Silenti]

Pastebin link - truckload of salt and all that
http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

The important part.

When your family member accesses any of your games, they're placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour.

IF true, that's even worse than we had all been speculating.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Are we really so sure that it's real? It has quite a few spelling errors and other mistakes that I wouldn't expect an MS high up guy to make...

For example video game development as a loss leader? Huhh?

 

[MrFox]

Because technically there is no existing way to differentiate from a game installed from disc and one from download. That is what they are frantically working on patching in now. They are first starting with adding back in disc security checks. Perhaps next they will add back the digital download authorization as an option policy.

Of course this is just my guess at what they're likely doing.

I suppose they can always add a more permissive DD system later on, so they can still achieve the best-of-both-worlds solution. The reverse wasn't true though.

I wonder if the family plan and advanced sharing was a way to convince gamers they're not losing too much, while the anti used games and aggressive DRM was a way to convince publishers. I.e if they remove one and leave the other (either way) one group gets short changed. So they could only scrap the whole thing for now.