I believe it was done with a physical copy of Portal 2 on PS3. It gave access to steam by tying the two accounts together
Sent from my SM-J320F using Tapatalk
More DRM Discussions *spinoff*
- Thread starter Nesh
- Start date
Sent from my SM-J320F using Tapatalk
But no way to have the XB1 physical copy and the W10 version.
Also notice "non tranfserable online activation". Because the point isnt about the benefits of digital but of having control over the product sold.
It is not far from MS original idea which backfired from the console gamer
Its not a physical copy in its true sense either
Last edited:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
NVM
So THQ is just doing as a third party what MS wanted all to do. What happens if you buy a physical version of the XB1 title? Nothing? Or can you install it on your XB1 and then digitally download a copy to your W10 machine?
I would imagine you could, right? Any reason why the process would work in only one direction?
So THQ is just doing as a third party what MS wanted all to do. What happens if you buy a physical version of the XB1 title? Nothing? Or can you install it on your XB1 and then digitally download a copy to your W10 machine?
I would imagine you could, right? Any reason why the process would work in only one direction?
We don't have disc DRM on PC for any title, those days are fairly over. Not sure what you would expect here. You expect the physical media to hold two licenses? Or the physical media to hold 2 versions of the game?
Physical version of XB1 does not support XPA. Only the physical version of the PC one does, as it comes with a Key, the disc is Just an installer. Once that key is bound to your account it enables XPA.
Then mrcorbo's argument was pointless anyways. There is no difference.
Anyone can clone a disc. If all it took to break the DRM was a disc check on PC like Xbox One could then you may as well allow mass piracy.
There are other factors here at play other than just straight manipulation of control over the product the consumer purchases, there are rights being protected first and foremost, stopping piracy has often been the reason for DRM to even exist.
Some developers may not care for it, but some others do.
What I am saying is that his counter argument that you can get Play Anywhere and a physical copy was not a counter argument since this has no difference from buying digital on XBOX One to get digital on PC for whatever reasons.
The subject isnt about PCs though, it is about consoles where countering piracy has immensely improved to the point that it is almost impossible now.
right. My apologies, honestly it had been difficult to follow this particular thread I guess I lost sight of the original point of what we were debating, I honestly thought it was about DRM.
DRM is still relevant to the discussion. It's a significant part of the system where the company has control over the product. The fact that consoles dont suffer from piracy as much as PCs is one reason less why DRM is a necessity on consoles. So the additional encouragement to go digital for consoles shows a clearer picture of the companies' business goals since the excuse of piracy (that exists on PCs) is not there. Going fully digital on PCs can be partly excused as a necessity to counter piracy.
I cannot answer yes or no when I am not sure what other "terms or conditions" or limitations may co-exist or what content may have to face the test of time to reveal its true cost in relation to something which I simply purchase and do whatever I want with it (except pirate) without having to deal with any kind of system (or agree to terms and conditions) from the provider.
DRM exists on physical media, too. It's just that your right to access the content is unlocked by the presence of the disc in the drive instead of data on a server.
PC piracy is a bigger problem because the system is open. The price console owners pay to maintain more control over the software they buy is that they have less control over the hardware they buy.
The encouragement to go digital is because producing physical media in volume is expensive, leads to money spent on producing a product that then might not (and often does not) sell, adds a third party to whom some of the profits need to be diverted in the form of the retailer selling the physical disc and creates a situation where some sales of the content yield zero profit for either the publisher or the platform holder (used game sales).
The push for digital media to take over from physical is so that publishers and platform holders get to profit more from sales of their content and incur less financial risk (the potential for warehouses full of of unsold disks). The changes to the rights model that are necessary when you move to digital distribution are to achieve that end, and are not the end itself.
Edit: Never mind. I'll amend my previous conclusion. You are against any initiative that promotes a change from the status quo.
Last edited:
Its my understanding that the 3ds , wii u and vita are all already hacked and quite easy to exploit with no hardware needed. I believe the ps4 is in some part hacked but I haven't been following it much.
So consoles clearly suffer from piracy it just seems that is more towards the end of their life spans.
It is still minimal and especially for consoles it is almost non existent. PS4 included. On PC even with DRM, piracy is still stronger compared to consoles although it has been reduced compared to the past
Sent from my SM-J320F using Tapatalk
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Digital has a lot of obvious advantages but it's not been a thing for long enough to the most significant risk to have impacted many people. At some point a large digital library operator will go under and people lose access to content they own. I think that's the only thing that will really shake people's faith. Otherwise the pros and cons of physical vs. digital seem fairly clear. Of course physical media isn't likely to evolve much whereas digital has plenty of ways to get even better. It would be great if content was transferrable from one library operator to the other. I recall a brief period where GOG and Steam ran something but it was very limited in scope.
The economic impact on B&M shops is also difficult to estimate, trading second hand games is supposedly quite lucrative.
Not to dismiss the point, which I do think is valid, but how long is long enough? iTunes is 16 years old now.
My hope is that the industry see this danger as well and put systems in place to protect against it before it happens. Failing this, I hope that if it does happen, they are forced by consumer pressure to act. Failing *that* I expect that, due to public pressure, government bodies will step in and force them to act.
I'm not sure that's ever going to happen. I would like for the industry to start to allow (for a small fee) rights transfers between consumers.
As a consumer, that shouldn't be my concern once they are no longer a necessary part of the process of me gaining access to content.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The longer it is for the inevitable to happen the worse it will be for the people so heavily invested. iTunes and Apple look sound for a good 10 more years. Steam looks pretty sound for a few more years but fortunes can change quickly though, it's a market which is ripe for disruption and Valve heavily rely on their retail cut from Steam.
If Valve went out of business in two years there is literally nothing anybody could do. What are consumers going to do, harass Gabe Newell on twitter? Government will do noting, they are long beyond being the underwriter for failed industry except where CNI is involved.
Generally speaking, limiting yourself to fewer procurement channels is never good for consumers. Anything that reduces scope for competition is bad in the long term.
This doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem. I would think it would just require a little bit of software engineering and a (relatively) small financial investment to set up a third-party as a fail-safe. The major players could even collaborate on it.
I'd rather promote the creation of new businesses that take advantage of the opportunities created by the new market conditions than worry about keeping around obsolete ones.