XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[DJ12]

For what it's worth, Aaron Greenberg just completely denied this rumor on twitter. The family plan was NOT sharing demos and it was NOT limited to 60 minutes.

https://twitter.com/aarongreenberg/statuses/347911202057379840

Full game "trails" and 45 minutes confirmed then.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

I just noticed your sig, if you haven't already it would nice to hear your take on indie support on the new platforms as well as you analysis of viability of Android and Iphone as competitors to PS4 and XB1 especially now that joystick support is coming to Iphone this fall.

Well we made games for iOS because we could self publish. There is a lot ofease of getting your game out there in it. We were screwed by one very well known publisher when tried to get our game published on the PC via them. They basically ran away with our game. We don't know what they will do with it, but......we can see self publishing and then having an investor for marketing is the way to go.

So, yes we prefer the PS4 for that reason. We will see what happens next. I did talk to 3 different independent studios in europe and asia, they have enough funds, so they are already on the PS4 bandwagon too and have multiple PS4 dev kits in their studios. none of them ahve shown interest in XboxOne devkits till now, but things might change if it gets popular, which of course it will. this is not a one sided war anymore, now that Xbox has dropped the restrictions, it can now sell in every country. But I think, self publishing on PS4 and then if it becomes a hit, finding a publisher for the Xbone is the way I see it.

I don't think home consoles and handhelds directly compete, because the games we, or other devs, make for handhelds are made with a different goal in mind, smaller play sessions, making the player return,free to play etc. etc. There have been home-console like games on iPhones and Androids but had limited success. I think they will co-exist, cater to non-traditional gamers while providing extra apps for their games to traditional gamers. It is like comparing TV shows and movies, they are consumed differently and are targeted to different people.

But we don't know yet what the Android consoles will do. maybe they will become the indie hubs , who knows?

I will stop now. Not to derail the thread here.

Burn the DRMs ....oh wait they are already gone !

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I haven't used the sharing feature on PSN. How does it work? If I share it on 5 consoles, any user can use it without restriction? All 5 can use it simultaneously without restriction?

Games are tied to account first, console second. You can set up you PSN account on any number of PS3. On any of those PS3s you can download any game you've bought, which activates it to that PS3. Once that game is on the PS3, it available to all users of that PS3 regardless of which account they sign in with, so you can go online on one PS3 and play a friend who is using your 'copy' on their PS3 under their account - they effectively get the game free.

There are a limited number of activations, so you could 'only' put your game on 5 PS3s. This was convenient, as you could have two PS3's at home, sharing content with the kids, and a couple of friends who you visit and want to play your games with them round their house. This was clearly open to abuse as the internet showed, with people creating game-sharing networks. You'd change your password to something agreed with a stranger and they'd create your account on their PS3, download a game, and then you'd change your PW back. As a result, Sony reduced the game sharing to 2 copies, which is perhaps based on the idea of 2 consoles in the same house.

You can still game share, but only 2 copies at a time. After someone has finished with a game, they can deactivate it from their PS3 and someone else can activate it.

Taking Sony as a reference point for workable DRM seems a good idea, looking at the faults and loopholes of their system and considering solutions. However, it seems unlikely any game sharing system could be both fair and yet closed to exploitation.

 

[MfA]

Microsoft's DRM 24 hours check in was all about trying to take a the best of physical disk owning and merge it with a digital future .

Ability to sell your game.
trade your game amongst your friends .

It was about small convenience for the majority and a large inconvenience for a minority ...

Everything they achieve with the check can be achieved with online activation/deactivation and an opt-in mechanism for online checks if you want game sharing and account+library portability. The only problem is that it creates extra steps for customers (ie. support issues) and the need for Microsoft to manually "unlock" accounts from broken xbox's (ie. more support issues). Relatively minor issues in my opinion, but Microsoft instead decided to just say "screw this I'm going home".

 

[brasnial]

It was about small convenience for the majority and a large inconvenience for a minority ...

Everything they achieve with the check can be achieved with online activation/deactivation and an opt-in mechanism for online checks if you want game sharing and account+library portability. The only problem is that it creates extra steps for customers (ie. support issues) and the need for Microsoft to manually "unlock" accountis from broken xbox's (ie. more support issues). Relatively minor issues in my opinion, but Microsoft instead decided to just say "screw this I'm going home".

In the UK broadband penetration is at about 76 % so internet connection was not a problem ......on line check in is not a problem on a machine that is designed to be always connected .
My tablets always connected because without it its basically a paper weight .......the problem was catering to a disk based system hence the 24 hour checking making sure you owned the licences to the games installed .

Just do away with game disks and Microsoft proposals where forward thinking in my opinion lend a digital game from a friend after 24 hours they has to log back in to use the game still if you don't its blocked .

Basically a licence check to stop abuse if you still own the licence you and your friend can still use the game .

The same with gifting games or selling games it was all about checking digital licences so we could have a similar system we have today with game disks .but in a digital world

 

[goonergaz]

Games are tied to account first, console second. You can set up you PSN account on any number of PS3. On any of those PS3s you can download any game you've bought, which activates it to that PS3. Once that game is on the PS3, it available to all users of that PS3 regardless of which account they sign in with, so you can go online on one PS3 and play a friend who is using your 'copy' on their PS3 under their account - they effectively get the game free.

There are a limited number of activations, so you could 'only' put your game on 5 PS3s. This was convenient, as you could have two PS3's at home, sharing content with the kids, and a couple of friends who you visit and want to play your games with them round their house. This was clearly open to abuse as the internet showed, with people creating game-sharing networks. You'd change your password to something agreed with a stranger and they'd create your account on their PS3, download a game, and then you'd change your PW back. As a result, Sony reduced the game sharing to 2 copies, which is perhaps based on the idea of 2 consoles in the same house.

You can still game share, but only 2 copies at a time. After someone has finished with a game, they can deactivate it from their PS3 and someone else can activate it.

Taking Sony as a reference point for workable DRM seems a good idea, looking at the faults and loopholes of their system and considering solutions. However, it seems unlikely any game sharing system could be both fair and yet closed to exploitation.

Perfect response.

I can confirm that in my household I played online with my son both playing the same game with the same DLC at the same time (also sharing one online pass).

To me this seems a fair system, drop the price of digital media with this system and I would be more inclined to buy digital only.

 

[MrFloopy]

It was about small convenience for the majority and a large inconvenience for a minority ...

The minority had a multitude of other options. The majority don't. Do you see a problem?

Everything they achieve with the check can be achieved with online activation/deactivation and an opt-in mechanism for online checks if you want game sharing and account+library portability. The only problem is that it creates extra steps for customers (ie. support issues) and the need for Microsoft to manually "unlock" accounts from broken xbox's (ie. more support issues). Relatively minor issues in my opinion, but Microsoft instead decided to just say "screw this I'm going home".

Sounds simple. Those people at ms must be morons for not figuring that out. You should offer your services.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Perfect response.

I can confirm that in my household I played online with my son both playing the same game with the same DLC at the same time (also sharing one online pass).

A couple of times I've played DLC with a friend that he bought in Uncharted. He bought it, I shared it, we played together.

 

[MfA]

The minority had a multitude of other options.

Buying a PS4 I guess.

The majority don't. Do you see a problem?

Microsoft isn't giving any other options ... as I said, their scheme could have worked with an opt-in for semi-always online, they decided it was their way or the high way though and people picked the high way.

Sounds simple. Those people at ms must be morons for not figuring that out. You should offer your services.

It takes true genius to engineer the situation they found themselves in.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Microsoft isn't giving any other options ... as I said, their scheme could have worked with an opt-in for semi-always online...

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but I'm not sure it'd need to be implemented (not that I've given it a lot of thought!). How do you manage something like resale between those on the opt-in DRM scheme and those not on it? Opt in, record your $60 disk-based purchase, and allow it to share. Then sell your disk-based purchase to someone else for $45 who's not opted-in who just plays it straight from disc. You and 9 contacts have the game for a total for $15. Or something like that.#

I can't help but wonder if the publishers actually asked MS to backtrack, at least on the game sharing. It sounds too costly, leaving MS with the options of either backtracking completely as they did, or changing their policy and going public saying, "we've still got the 24 hour check in and one resale, but we've reduced sharing to 2 consoles." Faced with those two prospects, the total backtrack seems the one that'll be greeted with enthusiasm.

 

[MfA]

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but I'm not sure it'd need to be implemented (not that I've given it a lot of thought!). How do you manage something like resale between those on the opt-in DRM scheme and those not on it?

Online activation and deactivation would have to be mandatory regardless of opt in. It's just that if you opt in the deactivation could be automatic, if you don't opt in the deactivation could only be done automatically if your console was online at the moment of resale, otherwise it would have to be done manually.

 

[Billy Idol]

Yeah, sharing for PS3 was near flawless for consumers...that is why Sony had to backpedal and decrease sharing from 5 to 2 and allow publisher to deactivate it. I think publisher weren't happy with it. At neogaf, they organized PSN sharing big style.

 

[zupallinere]

You might think the hard drives, wifi adapters and so on were over priced but honestly accessories have always been expensive. Further some thought the hard drives for example were a good deal, I remember a debate about MS's hard drive prices a couple of years ago on B3D with strong opinions on both sides.

The reality is Sony charged more upfront and included more out of the box in an attempt to market their so-called value, the 360 OTOH allowed you to build out your experience the way you saw fit. Many praised MS's approach for being more democratic at the time. Like wise others thought Sony's take was better. Its sort of ironic that now that the roles are reversed both sides are pointing out the new business plans as either short sighted or draconian depending on which side of the fence you find yourself....

But again the cost of those peripherals was pretty much par for the industry, MS didn't invent the markup biz.

I do indeed remember. I was happier with MS at that point. An "upstart" with an interesting GPU UMA system. I was never a fan of those accessory prices but I wanted the competition. The worm has turned as the say.

As expensive as PS3 was you did get lots of stuff. Full BC with the PS2 guts inside of it. A cheap BR player when the things cost twice as much, 4 usb, full complement of memory card support, and not that generous 60gb drive, I don't know if it supported DLNA but it does now. I like the standardization of it at the time as well as the amount of stuff that came with.

 

[zupallinere]

I justed posted to same interview in another thread and I read his comment differently he explicitly states "its not like your buying one copy for all ten members", also using language like "they can check it out".

After that interview a MS spokesperson said that 2 people can play the game at the same time but only in single player mode. The other 9 will not be able to play concurrently but of course you just need a simple way to synchronize play times. You still need a few games in the library before that is convenient.

 

[MrFloopy]

Buying a PS4 I guess.

or PS3 or x360 or WiiU or Wii or PS2 or PS1 or N64, hell even C64....I can go on if you like.

Microsoft isn't giving any other options

You don't need MS to give you any other options. Other companies can. Why do you see this as only a choice within MS. I have plenty of options if I want things the same way. See above. If I have a disk fetish, my desires are being met already

This whole anti consumer thing is quite bewildering. Have MS somehow deprived you of choice? Because MS offer people like us something that fulfills our needs, does that somehow stop you from buying products from other companies that fulfill yours? Is it really one companies responsibility to be all things to all people?

... as I said, their scheme could have worked with an opt-in for semi-always online

Again, I'm sure they regret not asking you for the solution. Decisions like these may not be just due to a technical issue. In fact, the longer I spent in the industry the more I learnt that technical factors are usually just the tip of the iceberg, as much as that deflated my technical ego, it's simply true.

, they decided it was their way or the high way though and people picked the high way.

Unfortunately, a small number of vocal people can be very influential on the majority even if their interests do not align. Whether it be the NIMBYs or the vocal minority that claims to be the Silent Majority (tm) unfortunately the way human psychology works, loud protestation will always drown out passive agreement in the long run. How many of the known 200+million current console owners spoke out about this? How many of them even knew about this issue? Most have little understanding of the issues we speak about, yet from the vocal few that do follow the issues, they hear nothing but negative talk. There was no attempt to provide both sides of the story as an attempt to educate the masses, it was simply a parochial rant of epic proportions. It has long been established here and elsewhere that the early adopting, core gamer has influence over their casual friends. This was going to have an impact and it wasn't because the issues were important or even affected the larger casual market.

It takes true genius to engineer the situation they found themselves in.

Microsoft's PR was awful, their product was not.

 

[NavNucST3]

[snip]


Microsoft's PR was awful, their product was not.

The rapid response team should have had a YouTube response video showing a kid or grandparent or whatever with a screen mock-up sharing his games library all over the world with a few clicks. Making the PS4 sharing look pedestrian but instead we got:

 

[expletive]

The rapid response team should have had a YouTube response video showing a kid or grandparent or whatever with a screen mock-up sharing his games library all over the world with a few clicks. Making the PS4 sharing look pedestrian but instead we got:

Agree, anything extolling the virtues of their platform design would have been better than what they did. All the executives were completely unprepared to speak in a manner that resonated with people outside the boardroom. I suspect that the change in DRM is signalling the first step in a PR re-launch of the XBO at some point soon.

 

[Silenti]

Next gen wont start for at least another 5 to 6 years. At least not for consoles we are just getting the xbox 360 part 2 and the ps3 part 2.

If you buy something digital with the terms given before purchase then yea you don't own it.


So of course thanks for that. I'm so glad you can sell your week old game that you paid $60 bucks for back to gamestop for $20. So glad you can do that. Good show.

I see at least part of what I stated went right by you. Yes, legally you are entirely correct. Practically and perceptually you are dead wrong. Otherwise the reaction would not have taken place as it did.

LOL, no joke.

And I'm sure after reading that tirade, we can all see that Silenti is somebody who was really going to purchase a MS product but is just completely offended by the transition to digital media and that's why he protested so much.

Give us all a break. You look foolish.

We get it. You're pissed that MS was able to "get away with" selling on-line features as a service, rather than offering them for free. And then you watched Sony take the exact same course with the PS4.

We get it. We get that you and all your cronies saw MS's policies and were worried that if they were successful that Sony would have to implement the same policies and restrictions just as they did with multiplayer gaming and charging for PSN.

We get it. We get that your issue, and the issue of all those hundreds of thousands of millions of people that shouted so loudly that MS backtracked, has nothing at all to do with your desire, ability, or willingness to purchase the One. Because you were never going to buy one anyway. It has to do EVERYTHING with your collective fear that if MS actually went through with their plans and were successful, that Sony would follow suit.

In the mean time, what YOU don't get, is the fact that the console paradigm is not profitable. You can see that already. Last generation, we got the 360 that was the most powerful gaming system available upon launch. Even when it launched a year later, the PS3 was still superior to the vast majority of PC gaming platforms in service (at least according to Steam's demographics). This time around? The One and PS4 are launching with hardware that is ALREADY OUTDATED.

That alone should tell you where the console market is going. They can't sell loss-leading consoles and hope to make up profits on game sales alone (especially not as long as a used game market exists), they have to up-sell additional services and products in order to make up for the loss on the console, or they have to gimp the consoles, or both.

Both of these consoles are pieces of junk hardware wise. There is no "cell majik" happening this generation, there is no "multi-core" experience while PC's are all single threaded. Go to any PC forum and the PC gamers laugh at people thinking these consoles are offering anything new or exciting. The consoles haven't even launched yet and you can build a PC that is far more powerful than either of these, for equal or less money, right now. That wasn't the case when the 360 launched.

What you've done, by your "victory" is actually contribute to the death of consoles.

Congratulations.

Was never going to buy an Xbox is so patently untrue that I'm not even sure what to say. I stated I always expected to purchase whatever came next from MS. Until the straws added up. If you either did not pick that up from my posts here I'm not even sure how to convince you otherwise. The statement that I look foolish, as if I am just pretending to be an Xbox owner and that I am really some PS fanboi is ludicrous to anyone who knows me. As to contributing to the death of the console industry, yeah. That wouldn't have anything to do with endless budget increases in attempts to have the next blockbuster would it? 100million to create the game and then that much again on marketing. It wouldn't have anything to do with a publishers approach, its all the consumers fault.

I agree with the bolded parts -and one of them is something Microsoft got right to some extent, as focusing only on the core isn't the best option-.

In my honest opinion, the biggest piece of advice -I am no one to give advice but you get the idea- I can give you is that it's better to settle this and move on, Silenti.

We can safely assume that the people who didn't want the DRM were right, because they are a majority, and when so many people think that way, perhaps, just perhaps, they are right. Some of them didn't do that for a true benefit or cause, and wanted to complain, and probably never were interested in the console in the first place.

Most of the people that complained were posting about that every now and then, or every day. They were complaining more about the internet issue than they were actually affected by it. Those were fine in some cases, it was their actual opinion, but the entitled gamers that mocked and insulted others I can't empathize with.

Lastly, in regards to you, as I said there are many people and many journalists who are happy and think it is very good Microsoft listened and changed their drm policies, so you are basically in the right side of the coin now. It is definitely what MOST people wanted. Thus I would like to share an article with you, if it makes you feel better.

Time magazine wrote this:

http://techland.time.com/2013/06/20...ies-is-precisely-the-right-move-by-microsoft/

I am in the other side, I wanted a console like the one Microsoft planned, with a few touches here and there. I blame the decision to a last minute change on investors.

I am certain that some people who complained were not going to buy the console and just wanted to take potshots at MS. The numbers involved would pretty much exclude the opposite. I do have a problem with being lumped in as one of them or that these people were somehow the driving force in the change. I have zero problem with people stating they wanted something new, different, innovative, all digital. That they are disappointed that MS reversed themselves or "caved" to the pressure. That the Xbox One represented something they were looking forward to. It's the blame and the characterization of people using discs as Luddites, morons and contributors to the downfall of the console industry that I have problems with. In any case, I had already decided to drop this, but being accused of being a liar and a luddite does not sit well.

 

[Silenti]

I've decided to be a bit more conciliatory in spite my anger at being called a liar. As I just told Cyan, I am sorry that those who wanted the benefits of the new environment will have lost them. To exactly what extent and applied to which version of the content (download vs. disc) seems a bit unclear. The instant switching is apparently still in for non-disc games. The Family sharing plan may be out entirely or may come back for download versions, I'm still a little unclear from reading conflicting reports. I still believe they could have a system which allows the disc purchaser to opt-in to the all digital plan and thus gain its benefits. Even on a per title basis and with the 24-hour check-in restriction applied to those titles. It would seem to require a check when installing to make sure it is not a used copy, thus requiring all titles to have a check-in at install.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Yep, sure helped yourself with that reply, Silenti.

What a crock of cow balls.

Anyway, I now have a PS3 and a PSN+ account so I'm really looking forward to anybody that can share their games with me because the only games I have is Epic Mickey2 (physical disc) and Last of Us (DD).

I haven't even started to play Last of Us yet, (maybe it's available after downloading all night.. not a knock on PS3/4 btw), but maybe somebody has another PS3 game I'd like to play and they can play Last of Us?

Why don't we share our games so you can play Last of Us and I can play Ratchet at the same time?

My PSN account is the same: Rancidlunchmeat.

Awesome. Cool. Thanks!