no comsumers did want draconian drm and thus why ms had to reverse direction on innovative dd drm
*spin-off* Always on/connected... stuff
- Thread starter Rockster
- Start date
no comsumers did want draconian drm and thus why ms had to reverse direction on innovative dd drm
MS' messaging for their new kind of DRM is badly delivered...
bringing new thing for consumer that already feel accustomed and OK with whats already available is hard. People want change but they resist change.
btw on PS3, before PSN hacking event, sony allowed 1 game to be actively played on 5 different PS3. But from what i gather, most people did not exploit this freedom in DRM. THey just use PSN game like Steam game where 1 game only active on 1 online-machine (except if you goes steam offline).
bringing new thing for consumer that already feel accustomed and OK with whats already available is hard. People want change but they resist change.
btw on PS3, before PSN hacking event, sony allowed 1 game to be actively played on 5 different PS3. But from what i gather, most people did not exploit this freedom in DRM. THey just use PSN game like Steam game where 1 game only active on 1 online-machine (except if you goes steam offline).
That's not true. Consumers wanted disc based games to be DRM free and not need to connect to the internet in order to be granted permission to play a disc based game. MS changed policy and gave them that and in the process removed the flexible DRM from their download service. MS could add that open DRM approach to downloads if they wanted.
They do under certain circumstances. I think if you don't have a XB1 marked as your home console and there are downloaded games associated with your gamertag on it, then when Live is down and you are unable to login, those games are unplayable.
a disc is draconian. My liscense is tied to a single fragile disc. Where as my gf can currently play killer instinct at her house on her xbox one even though I bought it on mine and I can play her copy of peggle and we never have to worry if our xbox one dies we can get another one and download all our games. If my disc scratches and I can't get the content off it then i'm done
shredenvain
Regular
Discs aren't draconian. Sure digital can be very convenient, but digital doesnt work for everyone everywhere. Download speeds are still a huge issue to alot of people. Not everyone can afford high speed home broadband. Infact one could see a future where having internet at home could decline drastically because of mobile data. Also since your game installs can be backed up to the cloud and all games are installed a scratched disc isnt a big issue anymore.
As far as the future of the Xbox goes. I think we will see new hardware in 5 years time. The Xbox One will still be supported for a few years afterwards like now. The next system will not be a Xbox Two. It will be a real next gen console. The Xbox One is not dead. That is just silly.
The system may not win the sales fight, but that doesnt mean it is unsuccessful. When did the console business become when or die anyway? That isnt how competition works.
Your confusing DRM with distribution. The disc has no DRM - it's the freest format out there at the moment (which MS wanted to change). Considering XB1's games have to be installed too, there's no reason for the disc to get scratched. You use it once to install, then put it away somewhere safe. Should you want to pass it on to someone else, or reinstall, it should be in as good condition as when it was made unless the owner has done something stupid with it like played with the dog.
I think MS should do to discs what they've been doing to Windows discs for years...one time online activation after you install it to your console. I don't know anyone who likes to swap discs when changing games. This is the best middle of the road solution that prevents installing a game on multiple consoles while allowing you to play straight from the HDD.
Last edited by a moderator:
Try to copy the disc and see how that goes.
Or just purchase the game digitally and be done with it and leave the disk option for the rest
Then what happen if you give your disc to someone else? He would do the same thing that you did before, so both of you (and others) can play the same game without any disc?
They need a universal method to show which user owns which license (disc/digital) at any time (or period of time) and it need to be flexible enough to make trading/loaning/selling the disc/digital games doable at any condition. User shouldn't be force to trade his/her game (disc/digital) at certain places so they can do it across the world and publishers/Microsoft need to see your console content to be sure that there is no misapplication (same license on multiple console) around their products.
That DRM (a connection to the Microsoft servers every 24hr) was supposed to do this. I can't think of any other method for doing this. People didn't like the DRM and Microsoft removed it.
Try to copy your DRM'd downloaded games onto another disc and see how that goes.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Copy protection and DRM are two different things although the goal (to prevent loss of sales) is the same. Disc copy protection doesn't prevent you selling the game or lending it to a friend, something that DRM does except in some specific implementations like Steam.
I have no beef with disc copy protection, I do have issues with any DRM that prevents me selling/swapping/lending games though. If I can't do as I please with a game, is it really mine?
Yes.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And of course, you are right - although it was a rhetorical question
What I mean it, the terms of 'ownership', that is complying the with terms of the software licence and surrendering some basic rights of ownership as consumers have enjoyed them for decades, are not agreeable to some.
Do you own any phones or tablets? If so, have you purchased anything for them? Do you use Steam? If so, have you purchased anything for it?
Again with the false equivalence of Copy Protection and Online DRM. And the even more stupid argument that someone else is doing DRM. Someone's compromises about the fights that were lost, doesn't invalidate the argument about the fights that we won. Compromises are also different for each media and should be discussed individually.
Microsoft's bad business decisions about Online DRM wasn't about the message. Because if it was, all they had to do was change the message. We had clear facts about what they intended to do. The anger was about the real stuff, not about the message.
Ownership, Property, Possession and Control
Property (intellectual or physical) and Ownership are abstract constructs, it's the state that tells you what is and isn't who's property. It changes with laws, states, countries, and time, and it also changes after the occasional revolution (see: alcohol, pot, heretic books, black slaves, patents).
The gamer is in control of the disc when it's in his possession. The DRM question is about who is controlling the item after it's been purchased. The Microsoft DRM was preventing the person in possession of the item from being in control of it. Even if the consumer rights activists have won the legal issues, and even if the laws are protecting my ownership of the game, the survival and benevolence of the corporation determines how long I will continue to be allowed to play that game. Control wouldn't follow possession, and ownership is no longer granted by law in the united states.
When we talk about Ownership of our games we actually mean the Control being physically linked to Possession.
When we talk about DRM we mean Online DRM, the fact that control is maintained entirely by the corporation, regardless of laws, ownership, or possession.
Copy protection doesn't change anything about possession or control. It removes duplication capability, which is a completely different discussion. Nobody in the noDRM campaign was against Copy Protection and that was explained as an understanding of what the gaming industry requires to be healthy and stable.
The following youtube video should be explaining it even more clearly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
possession changes... control follows.
Microsoft's bad business decisions about Online DRM wasn't about the message. Because if it was, all they had to do was change the message. We had clear facts about what they intended to do. The anger was about the real stuff, not about the message.
Ownership, Property, Possession and Control
Property (intellectual or physical) and Ownership are abstract constructs, it's the state that tells you what is and isn't who's property. It changes with laws, states, countries, and time, and it also changes after the occasional revolution (see: alcohol, pot, heretic books, black slaves, patents).
The gamer is in control of the disc when it's in his possession. The DRM question is about who is controlling the item after it's been purchased. The Microsoft DRM was preventing the person in possession of the item from being in control of it. Even if the consumer rights activists have won the legal issues, and even if the laws are protecting my ownership of the game, the survival and benevolence of the corporation determines how long I will continue to be allowed to play that game. Control wouldn't follow possession, and ownership is no longer granted by law in the united states.
When we talk about Ownership of our games we actually mean the Control being physically linked to Possession.
When we talk about DRM we mean Online DRM, the fact that control is maintained entirely by the corporation, regardless of laws, ownership, or possession.
Copy protection doesn't change anything about possession or control. It removes duplication capability, which is a completely different discussion. Nobody in the noDRM campaign was against Copy Protection and that was explained as an understanding of what the gaming industry requires to be healthy and stable.
The following youtube video should be explaining it even more clearly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
possession changes... control follows.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yes. And the I feel exactly the same about those platforms as well. Mobile platforms are pretty much a write-off in terms of software ownership, leaving you with no choice but to surrender traditional ownership. Of course it stings a whole lot less when you're dropping 0.69p on something.
Consoles aren't there yet and I'd hate to see them go that way. As long as their remains a choice for those who want to buy/sell/lend, that's fine. Those who want a wholly digital existence, that's also cool - accessing your content from any linked device and not worrying about lost or damaged discs. I see the pluses.
Dude where have you been living???
1. Most people have bandwidth caps
2. I don't want to buy a digital copy because:
a I wouldn't be able to sell it later
b I wouldn't be able to get the deals from retailers that only sell discs
The 24hr thing works fine but it will only apply to people who opt to go along with the terms of the agreement. If you don't agree to connect to the internet to authenticate then you need to use the disc...it's as simple as that. If you want the benefit of not swapping discs then you need to put up with online authentication..sounds like a good tradeoff to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Then what will happen if someone who hasn't opt to go with terms of agreement take your game disc? Should the disc work on his/her console or not? How Microsoft should know that which disc is used for which specific license agreement (DRM or DRM-free) when some people prefer to play offline? Even some people may sell their digital licenses without disc and it will cause additional problems.
This is not as easy as you think.
I said in my last post that there shouldn't be any other solution, but now it seems that I found an entirely physical method to let discs have digital or physical license. If you opt to physical license you should use the disc and if you opt to digital license the disc will be unusable on any other platform. Also you can have different license for each disc.
I'm not entirely sure about my solution right now but it may work at the end.