DRM Alternatives (to Xbox One)

[Rockster]

Clearly much is being made about Xbox One's new game licensing policies, and most of the pain seems to be around the 24 hour check and lending/selling restrictions on physical media. What I haven't seen much of are viable alternatives to allow completely offline play that still meet Microsoft's goals of seamless game switching, remote play, and library sharing that don't create additional exploits or a system too complicated for average consumers to understand. My feeling is that MS has opted on the current policy so that there is consistency on how content is treated to minimize customer confusion. Though clearly even that is a challenge to communicate and it's still somewhat complex because of their attempt to apply a few digital equivalents of physical scenarios. I'll throw out the first what if scenario for additional comments / contributions.

What if....
they largely keep the currently described system but if the 24 hour check failed, fall back to a disk based check (ie. prompt to please insert game disk, or just leave it in for offline play). However this creates an exploit in which one user could play offline with the disk and another user can play an installed version using the online check. This is roughly equivalent to the online shared library, so they could adjust the policy so that your shared library can only consist of digital downloads and not physical game purchases.

However, clearly this would be a difficult consumer communication point, so provide a system to convert a physically purchased game to "digital" (ie. and hence be part of your shared library) for a small fee, say $1.99. Because while they could prevent further install and use of that game on connected console, it would still work on completely offline consoles, but due to the fact most games and apps would have some online component you'd hope to catch most of these attempts at some point and otherwise live with that breakage.

Additionally, I'd remove all trade and resell rights for digital downloads for consumer simplification, but make them cheaper day and date across the board. So for example $50 for digital and $60 for optical. That plus the fact they can be part of your "shared" library, I feel could help Microsoft and the market find the pricing and convenience balance that make it a "no brainer" for consumers to simply choose the digital version.

 

[blakjedi]

If the game is DD, why check at all? Library sharing occurs with the purchaser and one other... If the purchaser is offline then that one other can still play. Nothing changes.

The DD is local to the box is on so to disable the ability to use it because you didnt check in makes no sense... you already have it locally.

Same logic goes for physical media... still only two people at a time. One person from the library whether the original purchaser is online or not. If the game is registered to a box/account it cant be registered to another box without the purchasers account being logged in. The game should still work because you have the disc.

MS made something hard when it could be very easy, They created an unnecessary and frankly something that reeks of no common sense. This part of DRM is checkers not chess.

 

[dagamer]

If the game is DD, why check at all? Library sharing occurs with the purchaser and one other... If the purchaser is offline then that one other can still play. Nothing changes.

The DD is local to the box is on so to disable the ability to use it because you didnt check in makes no sense... you already have it locally.

Same logic goes for physical media... still only two people at a time. One person from the library whether the original purchaser is online or not. If the game is registered to a box/account it cant be registered to another box without the purchasers account being logged in. The game should still work because you have the disc.

MS made something hard when it could be very easy, They created an unnecessary and frankly something that reeks of no common sense. This part of DRM is checkers not chess.

Honestly, the only time is should do the check is if a) you're playing a game without the disc after it's been authenticated to your account (24 hours is fine) or b) you're playing a game shared with you (1 hour is fine). If you have the disc or you purchased it digitally, you shouldn't need a check as the owner of the game since you should always be able to play. Once you sell the game though, you only be able to play for an extra 24 hours before needing a check since you won't have the disc. And to someone who doesn't change a single thing about how they play now, they see zero difference, game is always playable offline. You only need to be online the first time you install the game to the hard drive.

Far more reasonable, far less draconian, and still gives the same benefits they want you to have with the next Xbox One.

 

[blakjedi]

Honestly, the only time is should do the check is if a) you're playing a game without the disc after it's been authenticated to your account (24 hours is fine) or b) you're playing a game shared with you (1 hour is fine). If you have the disc or you purchased it digitally, you shouldn't need a check as the owner of the game since you should always be able to play. Once you sell the game though, you only be able to play for an extra 24 hours before needing a check since you won't have the disc. And to someone who doesn't change a single thing about how they play now, they see zero difference, game is always playable offline. You only need to be online the first time you install the game to the hard drive.

Far more reasonable, far less draconian, and still gives the same benefits they want you to have with the next Xbox One.

Agreed. Once you purchase a game 24hrs checks should unnecessary. I don't mind cloud benefit but there is absolutely no reason why the cloud benefits come with these ridiculous restrictions.

 

[MfA]

IMO the best would be just to allow you to tag a game as offline playable on a single console, while the console is online, which I will call the home console. When the game is tagged as such it can only be shared, played on different consoles or traded in "at participating retailers" if that console is online or has been recently.

As long as the home console is online nothing changes at all from normal operation ... everything is 100% identical. Immediately after it goes offline the tagged games can't be traded any more (that requires bidirectional communication) and 24 hours after it goes offline those games can't be shared or played on different consoles any more (this is assuming that the xbox one allows sharing with only a single 24 hour check and not some more invasive check to make sure you're not playing the game at the same time on different consoles).

Obviously the offline playable games can always be played on the home console.

 

[Rockster]

If the game is DD, why check at all? Library sharing occurs with the purchaser and one other... If the purchaser is offline then that one other can still play. Nothing changes.

The DD is local to the box is on so to disable the ability to use it because you didnt check in makes no sense... you already have it locally.

This has nothing to do with sharing and everything to do with the fact that DD lets you download the title on as many systems as you like. Without the check you would be able to play it on all/any of them in that case. The check lets you always have access to it anywhere.

The idea of allowing a single "home" console to have unfettered offline access, creates the exact same scenario I mentioned above with optical media. You can have an offline user and online user in addition to the provisioned shared family member which is beyond the number of playable instances they're looking to provide from a single purchase.

So unfortunately the idea you are suggesting doesn't really work.

 

[XpiderMX]

Is there a DRM-based service that allow to sell/trade and share the buyed sofware?

 

[blakjedi]

This has nothing to do with sharing and everything to do with the fact that DD lets you download the title on as many systems as you like. Without the check you would be able to play it on all/any of them in that case. The check lets you always have access to it anywhere.

The idea of allowing a single "home" console to have unfettered offline access, creates the exact same scenario I mentioned above with optical media. You can have an offline user and online user in addition to the provisioned shared family member which is beyond the number of playable instances they're looking to provide from a single purchase.

So unfortunately the idea you are suggesting doesn't really work.

Whether or not the game is purchased through DD or on disc, there is a cloud based digital copy that can be accessed by anyone you have shared libraries with or wherever your account logs on. So the question is, is the drm tied to your account? Or is it tied to your box?

If I own two Xbox ones, one in New York and one in London. I travel from New York to London. I turn off my console in New York... off off but my London one is on all the time are my games disabled?

If I have two in my house and one is always off when I'm not using it... which is considered my home console?

If I go to my friends house and my console is off because I'm moving, and he's a shared library friend, do I not get access to my games until I log back onto my console? Until I log into his console?

If I move into my new condo, but don't have internet setup yet, I can't use my console to play the games I either have on hand by disc or already installed to hdd?

All of these seem like stupid scenarios only brought into focus by MS' dumb policy.

 

[MfA]

The idea of allowing a single "home" console to have unfettered offline access, creates the exact same scenario I mentioned above with optical media. You can have an offline user and online user in addition to the provisioned shared family member which is beyond the number of playable instances they're looking to provide from a single purchase.

Microsoft knows the home console is offline ... so whether the online users can still use the games is entirely up to Microsoft.

 

[Rockster]

Whether or not the game is purchased through DD or on disc, there is a cloud based digital copy that can be accessed by anyone you have shared libraries with or wherever your account logs on. So the question is, is the drm tied to your account? Or is it tied to your box?

It's tied to both. The license on your home console allows any account to play that game whether or not the purchasing account is logged in or even present on that box. The license associated with your account enables play on other console so long as you are logged in there.

If I own two Xbox ones, one in New York and one in London. I travel from New York to London. I turn off my console in New York... off off but my London one is on all the time are my games disabled?

No. See above. The console on which the content was originally purchased contains a license to allow any account to play it. The console not containing that license needs you to be logged in for the game to work. You can transfer console licenses between consoles once every 30 days.

If I have two in my house and one is always off when I'm not using it... which is considered my home console?

Normally the one originally used to purchased the content, but you can choose which ever console you want to apply the console license to.

If I go to my friends house and my console is off because I'm moving, and he's a shared library friend, do I not get access to my games until I log back onto my console? Until I log into his console?

Once again, home console status is irrelevant nor does it matter if your friend has access to your shared library. You can play all your games anywhere you log in. If you've shared your library to a friend, he can play using his own account and doesn't need you to login to his machine to do so.

If I move into my new condo, but don't have internet setup yet, I can't use my console to play the games I either have on hand by disc or already installed to hdd?

Correct, under the currently described policy. Without internet access to confirm identity of user and or console, access rights would not be granted.

All of these seem like stupid scenarios only brought into focus by MS' dumb policy.

Not sure I agree that all the scenarios are stupid because personally I'm interested in the new ones MS' policy enables (ie. the ability to switch games without disks and access anything anywhere and share my library instantly and seamlessly to friends and family), but sure, I understand your point.

 

[Rockster]

Microsoft knows the home console is offline ... so whether the online users can still use the games is entirely up to Microsoft.

True, but the whole point of being digital is to enable the new scenarios they have outlined, which includes accessing your content on any machine, anywhere, at anytime. If they disabled that, then they would be disabling a core tenet. People would throw them on the flames for that too. My console broke and now I can't download a game I've already paid for and play on a working one.

 

[eastmen]

The ability to not spin the optical disk at a trillion rotations per minute whenever the console is turned on, even though the game is already fully installed in the hard drive.

I can only guess this is mighty hard to achieve and they'll need billions to develop such a technology. Because it's been a complaint for 12 years now and it's still a thing.

People freaked when MS introduced a plan that would stop that. The only way to do it is to tie the liscence to a code you type in and the disc is just there to install the game. If you let people just install the game and never need a disc people will just resell the disc

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People freaked when MS introduced a plan that would stop that...

Only because of how MS introduced it and failed to explain it at all well. I doubt many people would like the sound of, "I'm going to cut you open with this knife and remove bits of your insides," but phrased as, "you'll be operated on under anaesthetic and a few tiny incisions made so we can remove that infected gall bladder and you'll be fully recovered and better than ever in a few days," you'll find people far more accepting.

 

[goonergaz]

Only because of how MS introduced it and failed to explain it at all well. I doubt many people would like the sound of, "I'm going to cut you open with this knife and remove bits of your insides," but phrased as, "you'll be operated on under anaesthetic and a few tiny incisions made so we can remove that infected gall bladder and you'll be fully recovered and better than ever in a few days," you'll find people far more accepting.

Possibly because the truth wasn't much better than the delivery. It's funny how once the whole thing exploded and MS u-turned and then reversed all the policies (etc) to go back to square one that they then decided to elaborate on the system and it sounded utopian.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

People freaked when MS introduced a plan that would stop that. The only way to do it is to tie the liscence to a code you type in and the disc is just there to install the game. If you let people just install the game and never need a disc people will just resell the disc

Well I did say it should be super hard to achieve and they'd have to spend billions to solve it.
/s

Like programming the OS to not operate the optical drive beyond a threshold of rotations per minute (100?) if the console is playing a game that is already installed.

Or switching the optical discs for cheap solid storage that makes no noise and lasts forever.

Both options would still guarantee ownership to the consumer and not be annoying.

 

[BRiT]

Uhm, to be pedantic going off memory, Microsoft did not introduce it. Others leaked alleged details about it and the Internet broke from rage.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Possibly because the truth wasn't much better than the delivery. It's funny how once the whole thing exploded and MS u-turned and then reversed all the policies (etc) to go back to square one that they then decided to elaborate on the system and it sounded utopian.

It's a whole case of convenient post-truths for Microsoft.

As things were blowing up after their E3, they kept quiet for a full week, outright refusing to deny all the worries that gamers had, such as inability to sell or trade physical copies, the always-on requirement for people living with poor or non-existent internet infrastructures and Kinect 2 being forcibly connected or the console wouldn't even work.


One week later they come up saying:
- "Hey guys we refused to tell you how it was going to be and it was going to be AWESOME but we're not doing it after all. We're going to do exactly like our competitor."
Yeah sure, pinky promise dudes.


It's like arriving home late at night with your wife and catching a guy in black spandex, black mask, black cap and a huge empty bag in his back trying to lockpick your door.
You surprise him in the act yelling to stop, and when trying to run away the guy trips in the bag, falls and loses his mask revealing to be Ted (that sneaky little bastard who lives down the street and is known for a couple of minor crimes).
And then Ted tells you he was trying to enter your house to leave lots of Christmas presents, including a pearl necklace for your wife. But since you yelled at him he's not going to leave any present after all.
Now, your wife that was with you the whole time is mad at you for yelling at Ted, because she wanted that pearl necklace.

 

[Picao84]

It's a whole case of convenient post-truths for Microsoft.

As things were blowing up after their E3, they kept quiet for a full week, outright refusing to deny all the worries that gamers had, such as inability to sell or trade physical copies, the always-on requirement for people living with poor or non-existent internet infrastructures and Kinect 2 being forcibly connected or the console wouldn't even work.


One week later they come up saying:
- "Hey guys we refused to tell you how it was going to be and it was going to be AWESOME but we're not doing it after all. We're going to do exactly like our competitor."
Yeah sure, pinky promise dudes.


It's like arriving home late at night with your wife and catching a guy in black spandex, black mask, black cap and a huge empty bag in his back trying to lockpick your door.
You surprise him in the act yelling to stop, and when trying to run away the guy trips in the bag, falls and loses his mask revealing to be Ted (that sneaky little bastard who lives down the street and is known for a couple of minor crimes).
And then Ted tells you he was trying to enter your house to leave lots of Christmas presents, including a pearl necklace for your wife. But since you yelled at him he's not going to leave any present after all.
Now, your wife that was with you the whole time is mad at you for yelling at Ted, because she wanted that pearl necklace.

You must be feeling very creative today.. It was so entertaining I completely forgot what you were discussing for a moment

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Only because of how MS introduced it and failed to explain it at all well. I doubt many people would like the sound of, "I'm going to cut you open with this knife and remove bits of your insides," but phrased as, "you'll be operated on under anaesthetic and a few tiny incisions made so we can remove that infected gall bladder and you'll be fully recovered and better than ever in a few days," you'll find people far more accepting.

Except that in this case, MS revealed to people at an event a general idea of what they were planning.

Then those people went out and said MS are planning to cut you open, take out your insides, oh and murder your family while they're at it. Well not all of them, a small group of people said to wait and let MS give more details, but the majority just went with the MS are evil and only have evil intentions.

Then when MS finally started to reveal more of the actual details behind their general outline, many people didn't believe them (if they were even paying attention anymore which most weren't) because of what they had heard 2nd hand from others.

I suppose you can't blame people for automatically assuming the worst case scenarios and ignoring anything positive MS had to say at the reveal. /shrug.

Regards,
SB

 

[milk]

It's like arriving home late at night with your wife and catching a guy in black spandex, black mask, black cap and a huge empty bag in his back trying to lockpick your door.
You surprise him in the act yelling to stop, and when trying to run away the guy trips in the bag, falls and loses his mask revealing to be Ted (that sneaky little bastard who lives down the street and is known for a couple of minor crimes).
And then Ted tells you he was trying to enter your house to leave lots of Christmas presents, including a pearl necklace for your wife. But since you yelled at him he's not going to leave any present after all.
Now, your wife that was with you the whole time is mad at you for yelling at Ted, because she wanted that pearl necklace.

Wait a minute, are you serious? Did MS really originally plan to have the Xbox ONE come with a pearl necklace? Damn, those vocal fans really ruined it for everybody.