XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[upnorthsox]

Unless they hack the VM admin host then they have the keys to the kingdom. Heck, if they could emulate it they could run it on pc.

 

[dobwal]

The console works, sure, but my point was that the average Mr Man might feel confused one day because for some reason the console refused to work after a storm fried his router or whatever, or when he pays grandma a visit and lugs the console with him to find out that there is no internet present and then he can't play his games.

What Microsoft are doing has the potential to affect the future of gaming, and some people are really concerned about the future of it.

It all kinds of wrong on so many levels. I hope the Virtual Machine thing works, because I can see that once the console lifespan is over the Xbox One could get the plug pulled.

Also not being able to turn offline mode on like other services makes no sense. If the disc is in the tray, then why not?

This is your typical corporation greed and control, and publishers are salivating at the thought it seems.

Its always about greed. These are public corporations where stockholders expect shares to increase in value indefinitely.

But its more to it than that.

We've come to expect console manufacturers to sell hardware for practically no profit because thats whats they've done the last couple of generations. Mostly motivated by the profit potential of the software. Yet we also expect them to ignore a market that potentially undercuts their ability to realize that profit

The used game market competes with the new game market with only one market contributing to the viability of the overall market. Yes people trade in old games to buy new games but those 3 or 4 games you traded in to buy that new title gets put on the shelf and generates more revenue than the 1 new title that was bought. Used games sales wouldn't be a profitable if that wasn't a regular reality. The used game retail market thrives because they take more from gamers than they give back regardless if whats given back is used to finance new titles.

I think MS has it backwards. Cut out GS and retailers like them and allow direct connections between gamers. I think they would be better off if they created an online exchange for used game licenses. Simply charge a fee based off percentage of the sale and split it between themselves and pubs. They have the infrastructure already in place. Plus, retailers like GS typically extract far more than whats usually seen by manufacturers in the form of licensing fees. If GS is paying $20-$30 dollars for recently released games and selling them for $5 dollars under the new retail price then MS could easily extract fees while gamers would see larger returns for selling their licenses.

You end up with an used market where the more sales you have the more manufacturers and pubs are pleased. Not like the current reality where the opposite is true.

You could even do things like having a Gold membership gives you access to a discount on fees associated with used license transfers.

You don't destroy huge markets like the used game market, you co-opt it.

 

[temesgen]

I been thinking about the used game situation for the next generation the last few days and wanted to share my thoughts.

There is a lot of money made by companies like Gamestop who buy these games for next to nothing and resell them to other people for incredible profits. Personally I prefer to see this money go to the developers and or the person selling the game.

With that said it would great if platform holders built a voluntary marketplace where consumers could choose to opt in and buy and sell their games without the draconian restrictions of DRM or if they prefer walk into a Gamestop and transact as they do now. The key being choice.

How might that work? If publishers gave consumers a printed key that they registered their game with at the point of installation, it could be transferable virtually or in person at brick and mortar stores. So consumers could trade it in or upload the key to a virtual marketplace online in exchange for cash or even possibly trade with other individuals if I have something that they want and vice versa. A true marketplace would allow the producers of content to even compete with resellers for the fee, prices could in theory at least change everyday if not hourly much like a stock market. The difference being that the supply would not be limited but producers of content might not want to see their IP sold at a low price and buy it back much like companies do today with stock to keep prices higher than they would be otherwise. Also without all the logistics of getting media from point a to b and the margins associated prices might come down quicker on new releases - I could even see publishers dropping prices to compete with other IPs that are not selling well. The key is that a true marketplace would help the money go to where it should and it could do so in a way that didn't violate my consumer rights.

MS's implementation has all sorts of qualifiers and fine print and most of all it takes the choice away from me the consumer to choose how I want to handle my license.

Edit:

You could even see discounts of some sort for preordering which could really be exciting for developers who need funding but don't want to get stuck with EA or Activision or work there now and want to go independent... lots to consider with this sort of an approach, its kickstarter/NasDAQ/gamestop hybrid....

Edit2: how about DLC that was truly limited edition; buy this Elderscroll dungeon now only 20k will sold.....

Still thinking my way thru this; imagine a community manager tied to the IP who could take feedback and suggestions and use that build unique content that was available to a limited audience? This sort of a frame work could literally change the way content producers and consumers interact.

 

[Cyan]

that's how I see it as well.

I'll add in I think they want to have the cloud used and tell devs there are 100% Live users and if connected, media sales will increase as well.

In that case I think the Xbox One is going to be a console exclusively for the well-informed people?

Because those who want to buy a console for the first time and need information will probably go to a Game, Gamestop store, or similar, and I am sure that if MS don't back them in some way, the store's owners are going to ask their employees to sponsor the Nintendo WiiU and the PlayStation 4 as much as possible.

Maybe the Xbox One will be marginalised in those stores, placed in the distant part of the store, in a barely visible place. This happened to the GC back in the day, among others.

Besides that, employees are taught to promote certain consoles when people demand information on the matter. I have known quite a few cases, things I've seen with my own eyes, anecdotes other people told me, and a friend of mine who worked in a Game store back in 2005...

When the PS2 dominated the market in the console industry many people didn't know what a PS2 was. But then Game's employees advised them to buy one... :smile: normally the PS2.

Were they indoctrinated? There is some truth to it, but it isn't the full story. It's just that it was the best console, library wise.

Xbox One is going to have amazing games, I guess, but it could be marginalised in those stores, at your local mall etc. Just guessing here... -too tired of writing today-

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I don't understand this hacking business. Hacked to what end? To enable you to play games offline?

Okay, let's say that it is hacked so that is made possible. The benefit of that to anybody is what exactly?

You'd still have to go purchase a very expensive piece of equipment. You would then lose all the functionality (on-line capability) that actually makes it worth the investment in the first place - if you even believe it offers something worth the asking price, which those opposed to everything MS is doing are basing their opinions on the fact that it isn't worth it anyway.

If you want to play games off line, why wouldn't you just spend that money on a PS4? (Working under the assumption the PS4 doesn't require broadband connections and doesn't have the same DRM restrictions), because the PS4, as we all know because the internet has told us so, will have far superior games.

So, what purpose is there to hack the console? There's no way anybody is going to be able to hack the console to the point you're going to be able to "trick" their every hour or every 24 hour validation. Now, perhaps there can be a hack that will allow the console to work for 24 hours before the authentication comes around, but that just means that every 24 hours, you'd have to wipe your console and re-install the hack.

Wouldn't it?

Can one of you Pro-Hackers, hoping the One will be hacked, thinking the One will be the most hacked console ever, explain to me the benefits of doing so, because I'm clearly not seeing them.

 

[temesgen]

I don't understand this hacking business. Hacked to what end? To enable you to play games offline?

Okay, let's say that it is hacked so that is made possible. The benefit of that to anybody is what exactly?

You'd still have to go purchase a very expensive piece of equipment. You would then lose all the functionality (on-line capability) that actually makes it worth the investment in the first place - if you even believe it offers something worth the asking price, which those opposed to everything MS is doing are basing their opinions on the fact that it isn't worth it anyway.

If you want to play games off line, why wouldn't you just spend that money on a PS4? (Working under the assumption the PS4 doesn't require broadband connections and doesn't have the same DRM restrictions), because the PS4, as we all know because the internet has told us so, will have far superior games.

So, what purpose is there to hack the console? There's no way anybody is going to be able to hack the console to the point you're going to be able to "trick" their every hour or every 24 hour validation. Now, perhaps there can be a hack that will allow the console to work for 24 hours before the authentication comes around, but that just means that every 24 hours, you'd have to wipe your console and re-install the hack.

Wouldn't it?

Can one of you Pro-Hackers, hoping the One will be hacked, thinking the One will be the most hacked console ever, explain to me the benefits of doing so, because I'm clearly not seeing them.

The use of the cloud would certainly mitigate the incentives for hacking because effectively your game experience would be incomplete... Of course the benefits of cloud computing have yet to be fully understood.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

In that case I think the Xbox One is going to be a console exclusively for the well-informed people?

Because those who want to buy a console for the first time and need information will probably go to a Game, Gamestop store, or similar, and I am sure that if MS don't back them in some way, the store's owners are going to ask their employees to sponsor the Nintendo WiiU and the PlayStation 4 as much as possible.

Only for those stores that also sell used games, and only providing that the PS4 doesn't also have similar used game DRM.

But yes, it's a question I asked earlier about pre-orders. What's the point of a pre-order if there are Day 1 digital downloads? Are the pre-orders only going to be available on physical copies? If not, where is the benefit to the store to actually even stock the games? Why would anybody go the store to buy the physical disc when there are Day 1 digital downloads and the content is identical?

So sure, there's no question, there's a paradigm shift here. How much money do those stores make on selling the hardware? Are they still going to sell the hardware if there is virtually no follow-up software sales?

These are interesting and valid questions.

As far as the consumers "not knowing what to buy", that's what advertising and marketing is for. And the One is going to be marketed towards Joe Average with an emphasis on all the wonderful networked capabilities and TV integration that gamers hate. I'm not saying that the games won't also be marketed, but that's clearly a secondary market to MS.

MS has always wanted their customer base to be connected, be online, have Live, so they get a revenue stream from Live subscription fees and also then feed them advertising they get extra revenue from and the ability to up-sell services that go beyond gaming. With the One, MS isn't wanting anything. They're telling you. This is what is required of YOU in order to be OUR customer. If you don't fit into their customer profile, then either you need to change or you won't be their customer.

I completely understand how that is a slap in the face to those people who don't already fit their customer profile.

 

[bkilian]

This condescending argument with fake vision of the future has become legendary. I had the EXACT same discussion in 2006. Fast forward to 2013 and every single one of you have been completely wrong about bluray. Yeah, but you watch! In a few years it's all gone! This time for sure!

You know how many blu-rays I have bought or rented in the last year? 0. How many shows have I watched from netflix, itunes and hulu? hundreds. Or, to put it in a less anecdotal way: How is your local Hollywood Video or Blockbuster store doing?

I "own" my cellphone. It's illegal for me to build identical copies of it, I don't own it's design, nor any patents used to make it. I don't own the logo of it's company. That doesn't change the fact that I own the cellphone to the full extent of consumer protection laws. The company selling it cannot require me to ask permission to use my phone every 24 hours, and they can't stop me from reselling it, because I own it. The company cannot claim I only own a "license" to use my cellphone and deactivate it remotely. Reselling my cellphone is protected because of the ownership status.

I "own" my blurays and games and I also own the content. What I don't own is the copyright applicable to it's content. I don't own the studio's logo in it, I can't claim I'm the author of the film. It's illegal for me to make copies of it and resell them, because copyright laws protects the author. I can't make public representations because copyright laws protect the author. But the law also protects the ownership status, and I can resell the disc with it's content however I choose. I can also insure it. My insurance company will reimburse me the the disc with it's content, not just a blank disc.

Not so with a license. Owning a license isn't worth shit.

Nope. You own your phone, sure, but you do not own the software running on it. Your phone company can, and does require things of you in order for you to make calls. You can't unlock your phone without their permission, for instance (now that the DMCA exemption has lapsed again). You can sell your phone to someone else, but they can't use it without a, let's call it a license, to use that phone to access their network.

You own your physical game disc, you do not own the content on it. You are granted a limited license to view that content in your home. Read the copyright notice on the back of the disc case. You can happily sell that game, and the license to view it should transfer with it, but that's the limit of your rights, and only because it is specifically called out in section 109a of the US copyright law (Most countries have a similar section) and only if the disc does not have DRM (then the DMCA applies). Section 109b, however, is this:

Unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such §108 Subject Matter and Scope of CopyrightCopyright Law of the United States 23 program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.

You lending a game to your friend is, in fact, illegal. Bizarre, eh?

Don't make a straw man, no one claimed when I buy a game in the store that I own the IP and can sell it via copies. But I do "own" the disc I"m holding. I can resell it, gift it and lend it. Maybe you want that to change, but lots of people don't.

Yep, that's exactly what I said. You can do anything you want with the physical disc.

There ya go... What confuses me though is how GameStop has been pocketing billions by doing this?

Bkillian??

Because of the first sale doctrine. If there had been "technological means" (DRM) to stop resale, then the DMCA could apply and they would be SOL. Without that, first sale applies, and the publisher cannot control what happens to physical media once they have disposed of it. Even with DRM, you can _still_ resell the disc or do anything you want with it, it's essentially just worthless.

 

[AzBat]

I see Gamestop being relegated to just pre-orders that come with retailer specific content/merchandise/discounts/value adds. Retailers make their money when gamers come in & buy other stuff along with their game. Some people are still going to want to go to midnight openings. You can't buy new controllers, headsets, battery packs or even consoles digital. As for the retailer specific content, I can see little statues, or other physical items being included for collector's editions. And who here thinks they won't continue making retailer specific game content free with pre-order? You buy your game digitally you'll probably have to give up on all that. That's the cost of the convenience of buying it day 1.

BTW, I think this was interesting idea...

“We think it is possible that either gamers will be allowed to purchase digital content key codes from GameStop’s DLC kiosks, or that Microsoft will somehow allow the company to integrate its PowerUp Rewards program directly through Xbox Live,” wrote Pachter. “In the first scenario, GameStop’s DLC kiosks could be used by Microsoft and the publishers to garner significant interest in upcoming and already available titles, maximizing pre-orders and in-store sales. In the second scenario, the amount of currency available to make purchases on Xbox Live would increase dramatically, and all parties would benefit from increased online spending.”

GameStop President Tony Bartel Promises 'Seamless Transition' Of Xbox One Used Game Sales

So maybe you won't have to give up on extra content for digital pre-orders. Could it be that Microsoft has negotiated special programs for retailers like GameStop that can be accessed directly from the dashboard as well? They could tie something into GameStop's PowerUp Rewards programs. That could be an interesting way to bring retailers to the digital frontier.

Tommy McClain

 

[kots]

MS has always wanted their customer base to be connected, be online, have Live, so they get a revenue stream from Live subscription fees and also then feed them advertising they get extra revenue from and the ability to up-sell services that go beyond gaming.

Let's not forget the data mining that Kinect will upload to the mothership every 24h .....that's another revenue stream (and maybe not only for profit reasons).

 

[ninzel]

So whats the quid pro quo with this new plan? I must be missing it.

 

[expletive]

Yep, that's exactly what I said. You can do anything you want with the physical disc.
Because of the first sale doctrine. If there had been "technological means" (DRM) to stop resale, then the DMCA could apply and they would be SOL. Without that, first sale applies, and the publisher cannot control what happens to physical media once they have disposed of it. Even with DRM, you can _still_ resell the disc or do anything you want with it, it's essentially just worthless.

So GameStop is getting away with it under the pretense/loophole that they are just selling discs and not the content on it? Even while the advertise "TRADE IN YOIR USED GAMES" ?

 

[joker454]

But did I read it wrong? Only if a publisher alows it, you are able to sell your game...which publisher will allows this? Publisher decide if they want a fee or not, if they allow used games...please don't say that this sounds exactly what you want?!?

Right now no publisher allows this on Apple's store, Steam's store, etc. Microsoft as far as I know is the first to even allow this option, the ability to trade digital content. That's a good thing no? As for what I want, I want a fully dd system shareable across all the devices I own with the ability to trade. Simple No one has done this yet, but Microsoft looks to be on that path. So yeah that's exactly what I want.

I would not be surprised if buying a game on XBO also allows access via the MS Store (or Marketplace or whatever its called) on Windows 8 as well. That would also be a nice perk. Personally, the flexibility these new policies provide suit me fine as well. I'm really looking forward to having a console full of games i can switch around between so easily, and in other parts of the house too.

I'm looking forward to that although I think we may have to wait a bit more for that. But who knows, I'd love to be surprised and have them reveal at e3 how xb1 games could also be played on Windows 8 devices. Realistically though they need to get the xb1 platform established first before going to that next step.

Customers have rights too, not only the corporations.

I insist -from another post- there should be no need for the Xbone to keep checking that you are online, licensed to use the game etc. It adds anything of real value for the user.

Sure, people have the right to not buy it. I would consider it because I like the idea, the convenience and the convergence, it works for me whereas what their competitor has in mind to me seems dated and of no interest. To each their own as they say, we'll see what people go with. Personally I don't see how this is possible without drm checks though. Without it the system would be badly abused.

It's pretty common in the USA to remain silent when it comes to those things and accept things as they are.

Here in Europe we are fortunately light years ahead when it comes to that and people have choices.

Europe is small but it is so diverse in languages and cultures that respect is very valued.

This is OT, but I can tell you first hand not being an American and having believed the same stereotypes as many had about the USA, that oh my I realized how wrong I was when I moved here. Each state is basically like it's own country, there really is no way to generalize the USA. Or that's a fancy way to me to say that your stereotype is wrong What makes it a bit funny to me is that having lived in and visited many places, LA has been the most multi cultural place I've ever been in, more so than even Europe or cities like Montreal. It's not unusual to walk the street and hear over a dozen different languages. But I get it, like I said I thought the same thing you did before I lived here.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Ahhh, interesting ideas. I hadn't read that before, and I had also forgotten about all the peripherals which are not only huge profit centers for the manufacturers, but also for the stores.

I will say one thing I think I'm at odds with though, and that's that somehow these things are going to go through MS. I haven't seen anything to indicate that yet, and from what MS has said so far it seems like they are wiping their hands clean of the whole situation and leaving it up to publishers. For the very reason that certain people keep screaming "THE EU SHOULD SUE MS! YEAH SCREW THEM! SUE THEM OUT OF BUSINESS".

Okay, I might be exaggerating slightly. This is all on the publisher's back. I doubt that when MS says "authorized retailers" they are referring to MS authorized retailers because at that point, MS has no skin in the game. They've got no reason to authorize or refuse to authorize certain retailers because they won't profit and it's just an added expense.

I think it's going to be up to stores like Gamestop to negotiate the terms and conditions with the publishers themselves. So right now, Gamestop needs to be talking to EA and Activision, et al in order to figure out how they are going to split the used game revenue. I think that's where this is going, and I'm fairly certain that all parties will work out an agreement that is in everybody's best interest.

It will probably result in Gamestop having a significantly lower profit margin on used games than they currently enjoy, but the alternative will be to go the way of Blockbuster Music and Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video, etc.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Let's not forget the data mining that Kinect will upload to the mothership every 24h .....that's another revenue stream (and maybe not only for profit reasons).

I mentioned the advertising revenue, I'm not sure what other data mining by Kinect that you mean?

 

[jonabbey]

You lending a game to your friend is, in fact, illegal. Bizarre, eh?

Yep, that's a pretty bizarre interpretation, all right. The first sale doctrine is pretty well established in the US, even when applied to physical artifacts containing copyright data. It may be that the copyright code calls selling a disc a prima facie violation without the copyright holder's permission, but fair use is a defense against prosecution, and there's a great, great deal of commerce that depends on that.

IANAL, of course.

Yep, that's exactly what I said. You can do anything you want with the physical disc.
Because of the first sale doctrine. If there had been "technological means" (DRM) to stop resale, then the DMCA could apply and they would be SOL. Without that, first sale applies, and the publisher cannot control what happens to physical media once they have disposed of it. Even with DRM, you can _still_ resell the disc or do anything you want with it, it's essentially just worthless.

I think the argument isn't that the publishers and Microsoft are attempting to do something illegal (in the U.S., anyway), but that changing the deal with regards to discs is unacceptable to many of us, especially in this odd and capricious way.

I wouldn't mind having the choice of buying games online and foregoing my transfer rights (privileges?), and I have bought a while heck of a lot of games that way, but I do not expect or accept the same deal when I deliberately go out and buy a physical disk. Is that a strange hangup on my part? Fine, then, I am strange and inconsistent.

But if I buy a download right now, I am knowingly trading certain rights in exchange for convenience and possibly for price. Microsoft et al are taking my choice, in exchange for nothing I care about. Do not want.

I especially don't like the requirement that I give money to a participating fucking retailer for the privilege of treating the game disc like the physical object it is.

Don't want piracy? I completely understand, and don't mind having the disc be required to be in the drive to play the game. Want to require an online pass for optional back end services? Knock yourself out.

Hell, if a publisher absolutely insists on getting a taste of used game sales, you could do that at install time, requiring an internet connection at that single moment, after which time the physical disk key is all that is needed to play. At last that way I wouldn't be forced to give money to a licensed retailer at his competition-controlled prices.

Microsoft's plans are just insulting.

 

[jonabbey]

Right now no publisher allows this on Apple's store, Steam's store, etc. Microsoft as far as I know is the first to even allow this option, the ability to trade digital content. That's a good thing no? As for what I want, I want a fully dd system shareable across all the devices I own with the ability to trade. Simple No one has done this yet, but Microsoft looks to be on that path. So yeah that's exactly what I want.

Microsoft has said nothing at all about trading digital content. They've just said that they've built XBox One to 'enable' that for physical discs. Not XBLA stuff. Don't get your hopes up.

 

[MrFox]

bkilian, I'm not American. None of this DMCA stuff applies to me. I think you read it wrong.

"for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage", "by rental, lease, or lending"

I agree with that. Renting should be allowed only by the copyright holder, most countries have such a law. I shouldn't be allowed to operate a rental business without approval from them. Reselling my game isn't in that list. I can also legally lend my games to anyone I want as long as it's not for business. Your argument still doesn't change a thing about my ownership status. I still have this right, and I still own the game, film, music, despite the restrictions from copyright laws which I must comply with.

I own the fully functional phone, I own everything required for it to work "for its intended purpose". I own the logic gates that make it work. I can also unlock it at will because my country sucks a little less than yours.

The service from my phone company is a separate purchase, it isn't tied to my phone. This service contract require me to have a phone that respects the GSM standard. Just like an online game service requires me to behave a certain way to connect online, too, prohibit using a modified client, cheating, etc... I must accept that service agreement.

They can write anything they want on the EULA, but it will always be "void where prohibited by law".

 

[pc999]

Right now no publisher allows this on Apple's store, Steam's store, etc. Microsoft as far as I know is the first to even allow this option, the ability to trade digital content. That's a good thing no? As for what I want, I want a fully dd system shareable across all the devices I own with the ability to trade. Simple No one has done this yet, but Microsoft looks to be on that path. So yeah that's exactly what I want.

Trading software and digital content is very very usual, just not in games!

Take a example in the music/audio software (the one I know best)

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=43&sid=fa16d55fb6cc29a52c494b95aebdea27

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Steam is a digital distributionplatform. And it is a multiplayer and communications platform too.

At the end, it is a platform, you have an ID, you can link your games, and you have some game services liked to your ID.

Please, let's not discuss semantics. You can call lots of things as a platform. but it's obvious the subject at hand was gaming platform and not digital distribution platform.

I'm still failing to see the difference from business, consumer or ethical standpoints.

Business: Steam has competition within the PC platform.
Consumer & ethical: May choose to buy game X through Steam, or he may choose retail, GOG, etc. All alternatives will work with the PC platform.

Choosing to buy a PC and Steam games is no different from buying a PS4 and PS4 games.

No, it's not.
You can have a gaming PC, purchase hundreds of games for it and never even install Steam.
You do not get such alternative in xbone games.

There are more choices for distribution on pc but it's fundamentally the same.

They're fundamentally different.
Retail: more expensive, can resell.
Steam: cheaper on sales, cannot resell.

If you don't like PS4 buy something else. If you don't like PC buy something else. I don't understand why anyone is more upset about Xbox One than Steam. No one is forcing you to buy from either. Why does Steam get a free pass because it isn't operating in the same form factor?

Steam does not get a free pass.
If Steam starts sucking, PC gamers will go buy their games at retail, GOG, D2D, etc.
Steam manages to get a positive aure because they offer spectacular prices during sales.