So you cannot play the game without installing and having broadband on at all times? You've just alienated a big portion of your userbase.
First console to let me install all games to HDD will win me over
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
So you cannot play the game without installing and having broadband on at all times? You've just alienated a big portion of your userbase.
Its normally part of the EULA. If the EULA allowed you are fine, if not you void the license, and you are basically running your software without one. I am sure you have law about running software without a proper license.
If recall correctly there was a Sony patent posted on this forum sometime ago for this kind of things. Though I think it was to stop second hand sales, but I guess it can be used for this purpose too.
deathkiller
Newcomer
One system would be that you can play it directly from your original disc or install it using a CDKEY included with the game that is registered online/by phone so only one console at time can have a functional game install per CDKEY.
I don't see the whole "but you can lend your game after the install" being a problem, you can lend game disks after you finish them to friends and your friends are playing a game without paying anything. The people that I know don't like to buy used PC games because CDKEY have been used so you may not be able to play the game online in some cases.
The best would be if you could buy all the games online (and on disks), the Arcade/PSN/VC systems have been proved to be resistant to piracy and they make difficult to lend/resell games.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998, the granddaddy to them all AFAIK. It was from discussion about consoles as media hubs and ripping DVDs that I ended up finding all these laws I had been prior to been oblivious, particular in the EU (I knew about the US laws).
The problem is you can theoretically have you and a friend playing every game on day one simultaneously. This would turn two sales into one sale. Why would any console maker let this happen?
The difference between this and simply lending your game out is that only one person can play it at any point in time - something I would never do with my favourite games on launch day ! But if my best friend is buying, say, Uncharted, why not just get him to install it on my PS3 on the way home? Then I'll say to him, "hey, I'll spot you R+C when it comes out!" And suddenly four game sales are turned into two game sales.
Is it worth the cost to implement against the loss of revenue simply for the convenience of a few? No.
No, I'm fairly confident I just said the complete opposite of that nearly. Simply that it's a one time registration, either by net access or by phone...
Sounds ok, until it doesn't work right. Then its a tech support nightmare.
You'd also have to either have additional hardware on consoles to support the phone line option or you'd have to have some way of verifying via operator (and then you'd have to have a lot of operators who are going to be sitting around except for big launch days).
Ultimately the only thing this accomplishes for the console manufacturer is increased cost with the benefit of potentially increased convenience for some consumers.
THe DMCA prohibits distribution of cracks, but it doesn't outlaw the cereation or usage of them.
Well, I'm no expert, but either way scope of the DMCA is not really the topic. Suffice to say the PC allows games you have bought to be installed to HDD if via roundabout means.
I'd be happy with "DRM" where I have to be signed onto Live to play it. That's fine by me. I have an Elite with a 120GB so I can put atleast 4-5 games on there I'd like to toggle between frequently. Add another in the drive and I get 6.
The reason they would want me to keep playing it DLC. The best way to milk something in the long run is to have players active on the game.
The reason they would want me to keep playing it DLC. The best way to milk something in the long run is to have players active on the game.
No that kind of DRM sucks, cause if Live is down you can't play your stuff (current issue with replacing console and now having to be signed in to play stuff you have paid for).
Your first sentence makes me laugh pretty damn hard. That applies to every damn thing, what makes this so special and so super horrible? Nothing. Make the system standard, test it throughly, you'd rarely run into major issues.
Hardware that would cost very little to be honest, or the operator system would be entirely computer. Microsoft has certainly already got that fixed, as to many major companies. Hell, I had to have my password recent by phone for my AT&T DSL and the process was done entirely through a computer controlled "operator." Process was extremely smooth as well, best tech support ever! A number of software vendors already have such setups anyway, ever register Photoshop, there is a call option.
Sure, however you're not addressing the main issue of what I'm trying to get at - preventing multiple people from sharing the same game at the same time. Under the system you've suggested, what's stopping you from giving the disk to a friend who simply doesn't sign in to Live/PSN? Should the publisher "trust" you not to do that?
The way I see it, the options are
- No install, only one person can play the game at one time via the disc - the same way it works today
- Install via registration online, a once-off registration. No need to go online every time you play. Disc owners can play the game without needing to be online. Allows for sharing of purchased games simultaneously for two users.
- Install via registration, and require disc-based gamers to be online whenever they play the game. Limits target audience to online gamers only.
Me personally, I wouldn't mind an install to speed load times and whatnot and a requirement to be online, since I'm always online anyway. However... I am not naive enough to think that any game publisher would voluntarily limit their audience to online users only - that's basically chopping out, what, half of your sales? Not to mention the risk of phone-activation keygens being released or hacked and whatnot.
Cheers
You would need to have a "unregister" process as well, which would help. Also when someone goes online it would check the code. So we're talking about that half with no net access somehow going back to the days of disc swapping, doubtful that'll become really popular again, of course unless these people voluntarily keep the console offline (which is possibly the case in a fair number), but in the end we're down to about 25% of the market potentially doing it, then we have to consider how many would actually do it and you're not talking the massive loses you're pointing to.
It's not the perfect solution right now but the next generation will have an even greater online focus making the solution even more viable. It's really not that far fetched once you consider the entire circle.
It's not the perfect solution right now but the next generation will have an even greater online focus making the solution even more viable. It's really not that far fetched once you consider the entire circle.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Well they could use that sort of DRM only when the game is played off the HDD and when Xbox Live is down, you just pop the disc in and play it "old school" style.
Agree now's not the right time.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I mentioned a "massive" loss - just that you're basically asking these companies to wear any loss at all just for your convenience. Even if only 0.01% of users actually gameshare/"pirate", it'll be a loss, and it's not something that I can see companies wanting to put effort into with no possible way of making a return on it.
Anyway I think we partly agree, partly disagree... I think it's honestly hard (near impossible) to measure the non-online gamers out there. There are even a few on this board, actually, who complained that they couldn't get the Spring update via the website. It's certainly something that carries a risk however, and in business you simply cannot justify a risk without an appropriate return.
All true, I just sometimes hold hope that a company somewhere still cares about making the consumer happy. Though a lot of the time you simply have to blame it on the consumer for not demanding more. The loss really would be small I think and to some people it would really help the product. It could be an image for the product. Severals very popular products (iPod comes to mind quickest) have sold millions simply on image alone and the "We're the good guys" message about being honest and fair might actually help sells. Hard to say though, real hard.
