XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[bkilian]

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.

Nope, you can sell a disc anytime you want, section 109a makes sure of that. 109b, which I quoted, is rental, lending or leasing only. Hilariously, 109b applies if it's a PC game, but console games are exempt (Ever wonder why there are no PC game rental places? This might be why.)
Also, fair use is not what you think it is. Fair use is a reproduction exemption for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. It's only about copies, and it only applies in certain cases.

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.

Yes, I'm being quite US-centric, just like the Xbox One, apparently . It's what I'm most familiar with, so YMMV if you're elsewhere in the world. In the US, "indirect commercial advantage" is a squirrely thing and has been taken to mean lots of things in the courts. For instance, if you lend a game to your friend, that friend did not need to buy the game, and is therefore $gameprice richer. They benefitted financially. But like I said, console games are exempt anyway.

(B) This subsection does not apply to—
(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or
(ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

 

[Cyan]

Right now no publisher allows this on Apple's store, Steam's store, etc.

Talking of which, there is a very interesting article comparing Steam to Xbox One:

http://www.incgamers.com/2013/06/no-the-xbox-one-is-not-just-like-steam/

 

[Billy Idol]

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 see, that sounds good, I agree.

But to be honest, I really don't think that this is the intention of MS and the publisher at all.

What you want is a full used games system. Now, only physical discs are possible to sell. You hope that in future, all your digital content can be sold.

I am really not sure if this is the intention of MS and the publishers, as it would also contradict there moaning about lost money due to used game sales.

But I guess, we have to wait and see. Now, with all the negative press and the pressure from so many people, it could maybe happen.

 

[Squilliam]

The problem isn't the DRM or the messaging. The problem is that Microsoft are essentially calling us (hardcore gamers and those interested in the industry) irrelevant. The only question now is whether they are right or whether we are right. Unfortunately for us past history points to us being relatively irrelevant compared to the whole gaming market with hardcore gamers historically being unable to propel games into being even low multi-million sellers. Hardcore gamers hated the Wii and it was the fastest selling console of all time for a few years.

The DRM isn't too bad from what I can see.

1. I can play games without a disc/share with family.
2. I can download games day/date with retail.
3. I can take my game into a store and sell it back.

A significant reason for the backlash is because the conveniences are relatively irrelevant for the hardcore gamers who will put up with significantly more than the average person and the inconveniences are much greater for those who put significant time/effort into their game playing. The rest is simply justification after the fact, I.E. I hate the console already but (Insert reason here) is the reason for it.

The major PC alternative has worse DRM than this (Steam) and the PS4 has an unknown scheme with unknown pros/cons. Overall they have a very good scheme here and for the majority of people it will improve their experiences whilst also giving publishers/developers a little of what they want. It is a win/win.

 

[jonabbey]

Nope, you can sell a disc anytime you want, section 109a makes sure of that. 109b, which I quoted, is rental, lending or leasing only. Hilariously, 109b applies if it's a PC game, but console games are exempt (Ever wonder why there are no PC game rental places? This might be why.)

Right, my bad.

Also, fair use is not what you think it is. Fair use is a reproduction exemption for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. It's only about copies, and it only applies in certain cases.

Aha. I knew that it was not actually an affirmative right, but was instead a defense against suit or prosecution. That's one of the legal arguments that copyright holders used when they were putting all the DRM on stuff before DMCA came along.

It makes perfect sense that it only applies in the case of reproduction.

So.. I withdraw my factual assertions, but I stand by all the ranty stuff.

 

[Squilliam]

I'm going to say I actually like the DRM for the Xbox One. In my country we have 1.5M broadband connections (~80% attach rate) and 1.9 million mobile internet connections out of a population of ~4.4M. I can hardly see there being a problem with the console being unable to connect to the internet every day because if you've got a smart phone you can probably authenticate it that way as well through an app.

I honestly really cannot anticipate people who are mostly digitally dependent anyway willingly going places with no functioning internet connection.

 

[XpiderMX]

Talking of which, there is a very interesting article comparing Steam to Xbox One:

http://www.incgamers.com/2013/06/no-the-xbox-one-is-not-just-like-steam/

The article is some wrong:

Ok, now the biggies. Steam won’t stop you playing the games you own if you lose internet access for more than 24 hours.

In Steam you need to go to offline mode if you want to play without internet, but for going to offline you need an internet connection first (and update all games and software), if you lose the internet, you can't go to offline mode, it is not like "hey! my internet is gone but I can play my steam games".

(4). Unlike Xbox Live, Steam does not require an ongoing membership fee to access the full extent of its features. Xbox One is going to literally make you pay to not be allowed to do things with your games. Welcome to the glorious connected future.

Come on, I don't need Gold for buying and playing XBLA or GoD games, it is a lie, and we don't know how it will work in One.

And basically we don't know more details for XO.

 

[Billy Idol]

The problem isn't the DRM or the messaging. The problem is that Microsoft are essentially calling us (hardcore gamers and those interested in the industry) irrelevant. The only question now is whether they are right or whether we are right. Unfortunately for us past history points to us being relatively irrelevant compared to the whole gaming market with hardcore gamers historically being unable to propel games into being even low multi-million sellers. Hardcore gamers hated the Wii and it was the fastest selling console of all time for a few years.

The DRM isn't too bad from what I can see.

1. I can play games without a disc/share with family.
2. I can download games day/date with retail.
3. I can take my game into a store and sell it back.

A significant reason for the backlash is because the conveniences are relatively irrelevant for the hardcore gamers who will put up with significantly more than the average person and the inconveniences are much greater for those who put significant time/effort into their game playing. The rest is simply justification after the fact, I.E. I hate the console already but (Insert reason here) is the reason for it.

The major PC alternative has worse DRM than this (Steam) and the PS4 has an unknown scheme with unknown pros/cons. Overall they have a very good scheme here and for the majority of people it will improve their experiences whilst also giving publishers/developers a little of what they want. It is a win/win.

Hm, you are sure about that?

One example: if used games sale is only a concern for the core and average joe does not care. Furthermore, if the core is a loud minority, that is not relevant....can you explain to me, why the industry is moaning and crying about the used games market costing them trillions of euros??

Does not compute.

Either a substantial part of users care for used game sales, and publishers want to avoid it and lots of people are getting upset with it, or no one really cares about used game sales at all and only some local yesterday core gamers moan.

Thinking about the second possibility, I scratch my head why in this case it would be so important for MS to offer a used games control mechanism and why they invest so much for this.

 

[Betanumerical]

The major PC alternative has worse DRM than this (Steam) and the PS4 has an unknown scheme with unknown pros/cons. Overall they have a very good scheme here and for the majority of people it will improve their experiences whilst also giving publishers/developers a little of what they want. It is a win/win.

This is debatable, at least with steam I can set it to offline mode and play without the internet.

 

[Cjail]

can you explain to me, why the industry is moaning and crying about the used games market costing them trillions of euros??

This can answer in part your question.

 

[-tkf-]

Come on, I don't need Gold for buying and playing XBLA or GoD games, it is a lie, and we don't know how it will work in One.

And basically we don't know more details for XO.

I think they meant that with steam i don't have to pay a fee to play games online. Not that we know if that is still true for the XB1.

 

[liolio]

I still believe that the issue here is that it seems that MSFT could not really land a clear agreement with at least the biggest publishers, so pretty much they are trying to sell people a jump into the darkness/unknown.
They can only speak for them-selves on the matter and clearly that is not good enough. I think they should have been more authoritative with publishers in the face of what seems a lack of consensus.

If they want to put publishers "in their pocket" they should have fixed a reasonable fee for selling/re-activating games and tell the publishers to deal with it as it is quite a positive move for them already. Actually Pachter had a comprehensive pov on the matter, publishers invest a lot in marketing at launch, that is when second hand sales and rental hurt the most their investments. I think that during "the launch period" the fee to reactivate a game should be higher, the fee could then get to its lower once the game is somehow "old" (+6months - 1 year).

It is definitely better than saying we are doing this while we publish a 5% (or less) of the games on our system and we let publishers do whatever they want and anybody with a brain knows what EA, Activision, etc. want ie no second hand market at all.

The policies MSFT is trying to enforce are pretty soft ( I would dare to say pretty well thought out) if you compare to normal "software" or even to what was the first DRM policies in the music industry but they should have enforced those policies to the other publishers as well.

 

[Yemeth]

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

I think this should be repeated several times, not every countries permits everything quoted here (and written in those EULAs) and, in my opinion, rightfully so.

I always look it at this, I am a customer (or potential customer) and you need to fight for my money, not me for the "honour, privilege, right" to buy and use your product. I saw the same crap with the movie industry, music industry etc. Everyone of us has an finite amount of money to spend, if it gets too stupid it is really not hard to find something else to spend it on, especially in these times when video games are falling rapidly down in the list of "things to buy".

Not to mention to try to scare me or put shame on me because e.g. I buy an OEM copy of Windows because the EULA states otherwise (let ignore that it is legal to do so where I did it, EULAs are the new bibles).

In all these pages with great ideas, discussions and different opinions, in my opinion, Dobwal has the best quote (and I agree with his proposal, but that would make sense and is therefore banned from discussions on a high management level).

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

Oh and BTW I really think Sony will, more or less, do the same thing here. Even if they don't do it, they did not do it because the PR backlash and the people that are opposed to it, not because it would not suit them.

Cheers...

 

[dumbo11]

It is definitely better than saying we are doing this while we publish a 5% (or less) of the games on our system and we let publishers do whatever they want and anybody with a brain knows what EA, Activision, etc. want ie no second hand market at all.

"we let publishers do whatever they want"
In what way does these policies stop publishers doing whatever they want?

 

[-tkf-]

The more time passes the more I feel we are losing rights and conveniences for the sake of corporate interests and mass control
Someone may say "but hey look we gained other conveniences" but thats because that someone is not aware that the conveniences we are losing are bigger and related to our rights and freedoms as citizens and consumers. Those other conveniences we gain are just carrot on a stick
The non-monetary cost for us is much bigger than the monetary gains these corporations get. They still profit with or without the existence of the used game market. But they take up from us just to save opportunity cost. OPPORTUNITY COST!
Down the line we forgot the real purpose of our society and now its all about the interests of institutions at the cost of the masses. And its getting disgusting because we find excuses as to why things are going that direction. As if its how things are supposed to be.
The God damn purpose why our society allowed for the existence of companies was to improve our well being and quality of life but they are getting more power than they should at our expense when they can
This DRM thing really pisses me off and I hope Sony doesnt do the same crap. I hope they continue to promote our freedom to do what we want with our purchases as we we see fit as consumers

Just wanted to say.. thank you for that post

 

[Squilliam]

Hm, you are sure about that?

One example: if used games sale is only a concern for the core and average joe does not care. Furthermore, if the core is a loud minority, that is not relevant....can you explain to me, why the industry is moaning and crying about the used games market costing them trillions of euros??

Does not compute.

They want a window where you can't sell used games which competes directly with their new product. The core gamer is more likely to buy/sell through convenient channels like Gamestop whereas the hardcore would prefer flexibility in selling privately which is disallowed. Essentially in order to keep both the retailers and publishers happy they had to essentally piss off the hardcore gamers.

Either a substantial part of users care for used game sales, and publishers want to avoid it and lots of people are getting upset with it, or no one really cares about used game sales at all and only some local yesterday core gamers moan.

Thinking about the second possibility, I scratch my head why in this case it would be so important for MS to offer a used games control mechanism and why they invest so much for this.

The reason why they don't like used games is because it affects the shorter single player type games the most because people can buy them, play them, flick them in a pretty short space of time. You can get a few people going through a lot of titles this way without much money going directly to the publisher. The average guy on the street might trade 1-2 titles a year max whereas some people can flick through over 20 titles. The other reason is that it turns an otherwise paying customer into a less profitable one,

This is debatable, at least with steam I can set it to offline mode and play without the internet.

What if your internet just goes down, you have to restart in offline mode I think? In any case in 10 years I think my internet has been down about 10 days total including the times when I switched houses/providers. I can't believe people are mentioning this 'problem' when the whole situation is purely hypothetical and chances are most people will never run into it. The benefits such as sharing games etc more than outweigh the cost of this. How many people are completely without internet, cell service included, for longer than a day often enough to worry?

 

[-tkf-]

link?

and lol, i thought people hated gamestop? now suddenly i guess they're a white knight. funny.

This discussion has brought things out in the light, if the alternative to having someone like ebay, amazon and gamestop earning money on used games is what Microsoft presents, then i suddenly feel that Gamestop is a great alternative :-/

 

[-tkf-]

The problem isn't the DRM or the messaging. The problem is that Microsoft are essentially calling us (hardcore gamers and those interested in the industry) irrelevant. The only question now is whether they are right or whether we are right. Unfortunately for us past history points to us being relatively irrelevant compared to the whole gaming market with hardcore gamers historically being unable to propel games into being even low multi-million sellers.

They will feel the love this time around, families like to own stuff to. And besides, they had a possibility of introducing 2 tier pricing. Discs = +20% can be resold. DD = One purchase only. They went full nuke on owners rights instead. And the press is on them now.

I expect them to backtrack or point the finger at the publishers.

 

[liolio]

"we let publishers do whatever they want"
In what way does these policies stop publishers doing whatever they want?

Hum, I guess my post is less clear than I though, that is my point those policies don't prevent anything at all, whereas enforcing a modular (as I described) fee would have been a clearer decision to present to the costumers.

 

[MfA]

In Steam you need to go to offline mode if you want to play without internet, but for going to offline you need an internet connection first (and update all games and software), if you lose the internet, you can't go to offline mode, it is not like "hey! my internet is gone but I can play my steam games".

Could you name a game for which this is currently true?