XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[Billy Idol]

I have an issue with this idea. What makes anybody think that MS announcing how exactly the One will work means that they are the ones pushing this idea and that Sony is going to "follow suit" or "fall in line" or have to conform, or whatever else?

Sony has been completely silent in regard to all of this. If Sony comes out with a similar DRM structure as MS it isn't because they were forced to do so and had to "follow suit" it's because they agreed, like MS did, with the publishers from the very beginning. The only difference is that MS is actually being up front about it while Sony is just not talking about it at all.

Of course, the reason that MS has to be up front about it is because it ties directly into the rest of their entertainment/media options which are the focal point of the One. That's the reason for the confusion, because MS's features clearly lead down that slippery slope into the effects on gaming. While Sony isn't providing those same entertainment/media options so they can just stay quiet on the DRM.

But if Sony comes out and confirms similar DRM, it isn't because they had to "fall in line or get left behind", it's because they agreed at the onset. Stop trying to make Sony out to be the good guy just because they haven't confirmed or denied. If there comes a point where Sony doesn't have a similar DRM mechanism in place to restrict rentals and used games, THEN we can all say WOW. Sony stood up to the publishers and we can all give them a salute.

Until then, it's all very premature.

Yeah, it is imo not about MS. It is the publishers. It is the game developers. They don't want used games, somehow understandable. MS and SONY are both following their command. And yes, I am positive that SONY will have their own measures to prevent used game sales.

 

[Silenti]

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,

Well, one could always make games with campaigns that are more than just a 5 hour scripted cut scene and, hey, maybe worth more than 1 playthrough. Just a thought. Think it's been done though.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yeah, it is imo not about MS. It is the publishers. It is the game developers. They don't want used games, somehow understandable. MS and SONY are both following their command. And yes, I am positive that SONY will have their own measures to prevent used game sales.

If anything you would expect Sony, the owner of movie studios and a record label, to be more restrictive because they are not just publishers, but content creators and owners.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I don't think that these are the only options. Especially increasing the price of a game will not automatically generate more profit.

Again, I'm sure there was a lot of market research and calculations.

Are we sure that the fallen dev studios are only due to used game sales?

It's not the only reason, but it's a big reason.

Is there a possibility to make game development cost less money while providing higher quality products at the same time?

Devs already do what they can, but new tech and new tools won't be enough to solve the problems. It certainly wasn't an alternative to increasing revenue.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

As much as I love to support developers I have a limited budged for games so I can't always buy full price and thus I buy new copies but discounted.

I'm sure there will still be some discounts, just not from day one. Publishers will have to go after every buyer to get the most out of a game, but they'll now have more control and thus they will be able to get full price from those who can afford that.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Well, one could always make games with campaigns that are more than just a 5 hour scripted cut scene and, hey, maybe worth more than 1 playthrough.

These types of games (or at least the ones with no multiplayer to compensate) will suffer the drawbacks of the new system and their sales will drop. So publishers will stop making them. Natural selection, really.

 

[steveOrino]

It's a pretty logical next step and fair enough IMHO. We've seen more than enough game developers fall in recent years, the sales of used games cutting out devs from the income has played a big role so it has to stop.

Most people won't care about the issue and enjoy the extra functions, and Sony will definitely follow suit, it really is a tempest in a teapot.

I don't understand this logic. If the business model is that bad then why dump the burden on the consumer instead of changing the business model? Its fucking backwards.

This is 100% for the publisher, Period. Its what they always wanted. Hell, movie/music industry would kill for this kind of absolute control over distribution.

If you really think this is going to help developers then I would highly recommend you watch Jason Rubin's speech at 2004 D.I.C.E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhmYENdFZc8

Publishers could care less who shits out that new CoD, Madden or whatever blockbuster title.

Price hikes, piracy, used game sales, entitlement and whatever else publishers are pointing their finger at is code word for, "We are making stupid business decisions so someone has to pay and that person is YOU".

 

[Cjail]

Remove the 24hour check in and I think more gamers will likely jump back on the Xbox One bandwagon.

I'll even take this compromise, limit the 24hour check in to 1-3 months to maximize sales and then disable it.

Can you please tell me what's so problematic about that 24 hours check?
73% of Xbox 360 in 2010 were connected to the intent in 2010 in the US and most likely today the percentage is even higher which means that the majority of MS customers in the US (their prime territory/market) won't be penalized for this.
The same can probably be said for EU and Asia so what's the problem.

How can we desire technology to evolve and yet demand/expect things to stay the same?
Internet is an incredible resource and yet for gamers requiring an intent connection is bad.
Not to mention that the very people that hate to be connected to internet use intent to protest and complain, which is a pure paradox.

We all spend some time online every day whether it's to comment on a forum, check news on Google, consult Wikipedia, send/receive/check e-mails, play online, work online and so on but as soon as MS requires 1 minute of internet check every 24 hours the world ends.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I don't understand this logic. If the business model is that bad then why dump the burden on the consumer instead of changing the business model?

I really don't get what you mean here.

Because of how games are distributed and sold, you were able to enjoy the same experience irregardless of how much you have payed. You were able to buy at full price as it was morally right; but you were also able to buy a used copy for less money, none of which went to the developer, and you were also able to pirate the game.

Now they are finally able to take steps to stop it from happening. Of course they move the burden on the customers who didn't pay full price and the small business that sold them the used copy, who else could bear it? Devs and publishers had to bear it for decades!

 

[Reiko]

Can you please tell me what's so problematic about that 24 hours check?
73% of Xbox 360 in 2010 were connected to the intent in 2010 in the USA and most likely today the percentage is even higher which means that the majority of MS customers in the US (their prime territory/market) won't be penalized for this.

Because I want to play my games whenever I want to.

I don't want my playtime limited to my ISP or Microsoft's server.

XboxOne is almost like going to the arcades. You can play as long as the owner of the place allows until the building closes.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Also, a developer can make the right business decisions, do good work and get a good game, and it can still fail to break even even with good scores and all. Getting the extra revenue from used sales instead of Gamestop may help here.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I also believe that publishers were doing extensive research and calculations about this issue and they have reasons to believe that fixing the problem will be the more rewarding option to them. Or do you guys really think that this huge change is based on just a hunch?

This. This a thousand times. The internet gamer keeps repeating the meme that used games fuel new game sales. And it seems to be a logical enough argument that it is repeated again and again.

But if anybody thinks these decisions are made in a vacuum, they're out of their minds. These are very high level business decisions made not only by singular companies but by an industry as a whole. I'm sure there was dozens of powerpoint presentations full of excel spreadsheets and charts that showed that while there will be an impact to new game sales as a result of limiting/eliminating used game sales, the benefits out weighed the negatives.

All those PHB MBA types that internet nerds love to rage against actually do make their decisions based upon risk/reward ratios. Sure, everybody can offer some piece of anecdotal evidence of their PHB that is a complete retard and doesn't know how to put on his pants without help. But when you're talking about an entire industry, those individual accounts have far less weight.

Bottom line? Publishers, as an industry, have decided that used game sales are restricting their revenue and that they need to either eliminate used game sales or restrict them to the point that they get compensation for all of those sales as well. And they've decided that doing so is going to ultimately be more profitable for them, even with the loss of those people who only buy new games off the back of the old games they've sold.

If you don't think they don't have metrics to back up this conclusion, you've got another thing coming. Now, whether those metrics lead to accurate predictions and they hold true is another matter entirely. And it will be very interesting to see.

I can't give you any sort of prediction for the future with any sort of accuracy because I don't know if "authorized retailers" will be MS authorized retailers (I can't imagine that it is, but then again, MS has already done things I couldn't imagine), or publisher authorized retailers. And we don't know what the agreements with those authorized retailers are going to be.

I don't know how much weight Gamestop actually has. I don't know their market capitalization or how much influence they actually have. Does it really matter if they go completely out of business? As AzBat said earlier, they also sell peripherals. That's a huge profit center not only for them, but also the console manufacturers. So there might be an interest in actually keeping them alive, rather than completely burying them. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[dagamer]

Because I want to play my games whenever I want to.

I don't want my playtime limited to my ISP or Microsoft's server.

XboxOne is almost like going to the arcades. You can play as long as the owner of the place allows until the building closes.

Do you believe that games are going to be an offline experience forever? Do you think games 10 years from now will require Internet for functionality regardless if they are single or multiplayer (and I don't mean for conspiracy-minded nefarious DRM reasons)?

My inclination is that this transition was always going to happen whether its now, 5 years, or 10 years from now. And it only really can happen at the beginning of a generation. At some point, you need to demand better Internet (your tax dollars were already supposed to build a high speed fiber network if you live in the US).

 

[Averagejoe]

It's a pretty logical next step and fair enough IMHO. We've seen more than enough game developers fall in recent years, the sales of used games cutting out devs from the income has played a big role so it has to stop.

Most people won't care about the issue and enjoy the extra functions, and Sony will definitely follow suit, it really is a tempest in a teapot.

No is not.

That is like Toyota wanting me to buy a used car through them mandatory,and i can only loan my car to a friend that i know for more than 30 days and he can't give it back.

Wait if i want to sell it i have to sell it through Toyota or their partners mandatory.

It is a disaster,they taking my rights away to sell something i legally bough to who ever i want when ever i want.

This kind of horrible DRM is not the next big thing,i don't have to give up my rights just so a company can make a few more dollars.

Selling of use games is not illegal it is your right,there is no excuse on this earth that can justify that right been taken.

In the end this will hit publisher even more,because most people who give game on trade in are those who can't afford new games all the time,so this will hurt them.

The one that bough a game monthly will now probably buy 1 every 2 or 3 months.

The fact that is has cause such a huge backlash already show that this will be big,and will impact xbox one sales,and until sony confirm this i don't see this on PS4 specially after sony has told the media that used games will work like they use to and that the unit will not require online to work.

But if they do.

I will go PC and forget about consoles,on PC is more or less the same,but games are cheaper,and you have benefits of mods and free online play.

 

[dagamer]

I'll be surprised if Sony doesn't have restrictions as well.

If Valve comes out with a Steam console, I hope these same people get their pitchforks out. Same for Sony.

I don't like anything that restricts my ability to sell the things I buy. So on these platforms, the value of games, for me, will be lowered. It just means I wait for sales or buy less games. That's all there is to it. No outrage.

So you don't buy smartphone apps? Just checking.

 

[(((interference)))]

Remove the 24hour check in and I think more gamers will likely jump back on the Xbox One bandwagon.

Ironically, doing an online check once every 24 hours is vastly better than doing a check every 3 minutes, which was the case before.

So in some sense, gamers should be happy that MS relaxed the requirement quite a bit.

 

[Reiko]

Do you believe that games are going to be an offline experience forever? Do you think games 10 years from now will require Internet for functionality regardless if they are single or multiplayer (and I don't mean for conspiracy-minded nefarious DRM reasons)?

My inclination is that this transition was always going to happen whether its now, 5 years, or 10 years from now. And it only really can happen at the beginning of a generation. At some point, you need to demand better Internet (your tax dollars were already supposed to build a high speed fiber network if you live in the US).

I have high speed Internet. I just want complete control of my playtime.

From what I see, Xbox One is turning games into a disposable service. Do you honestly believe MS will be able to let us play XBox One games 30 years from now offline? What happened to game preservation?

For MMO games it understandable... But for games with single player? That's a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Averagejoe]

Can you please tell me what's so problematic about that 24 hours check?
73% of Xbox 360 in 2010 were connected to the intent in 2010 in the US and most likely today the percentage is even higher which means that the majority of MS customers in the US (their prime territory/market) won't be penalized for this.
The same can probably be said for EU and Asia so what's the problem.

How can we desire technology to evolve and yet expect things to stay the same?
Internet is an incredible resource and yet for gamers requiring an intent connection is bad.
Also the very people that hate to be connected to internet use intent to protest, which is a pure paradox.

No that 73% number is so made up is not even funny,let me guess you are using xbox live 46 million users right.?

MS join xbox live gold with silver and group them together to make seem like more people use xbox live gold than they really have,the cat was let out of the bag a few years ago,MS has never ever been clear about live numbers.

But even taking those numbers as right,more than 30 million console never went online,those are 30 million sales that can be loss.

Oh and see Diablo and Simcity for reasons of why online mandatory is bad,services fail,internet fails,hell what about Tornado.? Snow storms and even Hurricanes that hit US each year,what will that people do if the connection gos down,all the times dis disasters happen what get fix first is power and not internet.

 

[dagamer]

I have high speed Internet. I just want complete control of my playtime.

From what I see, Xbox One is turning games into a disposable service. Do you honestly believe MS will be able to let us play XBox One games 30 years from now offline? What happened to game preservation?

They haven't given me a concrete reason to believe they won't. An authentication server isn't that demanding in the first place.

 

[Reiko]

No that 73% number is so made up is not even funny,let me guess you are using xbox live 46 million users right.?

MS join xbox live gold with silver and group them together to make seem like more people use xbox live gold than they really dude,the cat was let out of the bag a few years ago,MS has never ever been clear about live numbers.

But even taking those numbers as right,more than 30 million console never went online,those are 30 million sales that can be loss.

Oh and see Diablo and Simcity for reasons of why online mandatory is bad,services fail,internet fails,hell what about Tornado.? Snow storms and even Hurricanes that hit US each year,what will that people do if the connection gos down,all the times dis disasters happen what get fix first is power and not internet.

Yep. When Hurricane Issac was in my backyard, Internet dropped first. Power was restored while Internet was still dead for 2 weeks.