XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[AzBat]

I actually thought of that in terms of a security measure to sign in to your profile, opt-in to facial recognition so your account cant be so easily hacked!

Seriously that might be how the how the whole thing works.

Theres going to be downsides of 'illegally' riding the coat-tails of a family account, i'm certain. Either that or XBL will be a flat fee of $50 a year plus $10 per family member or something akin to a cell phone family plan.

That sounds like the end of the free Xbox Live account then. I think I would have a slight problem with that. I tried the original Xbox Live Gold Family Pack & it wasn't too bad. It was a good deal for 4 users, but the $100 upfront was hard to swallow since you couldn't buy it a store. I mainly did it for my son & his friend. Wife was also included but since she hardly ever played online it wasn't really worth it. So I used it for 2 years & then went back to cheap prepaid 3-month codes. If every family member had to paid a monthly fee to be included then that probably won't stop me from letting everybody just use my account for Netflix or my other media apps. How Xbox Live gets monetize is going to be next big question. I think we're in for some surprises & the shit storm is going to be epic when we get the details.

Tommy McClain

 

[tuna]

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 rented around 50 and bought 10. I care about quality.

 

[AzBat]

What is being suggested is, in the event of a disconnection longer 24hrs, that if somebody wants to play a game installed on their XB1 and a valid game disc for the game is in the drive, then XB1 allow play of that disc. By valid game disc, I mean an original disc - I'm assuming that some form of copy protection will continue to exist next generation.

I.e, just like now where discs aren't unique. If you have a valid disc, it'll play if the authentication servers can't be reached. This is only to accommodate internet outages, which I think where most of the concern arrises.

If you have to activate & deactivate discs, then how is the system going to know that the disc in the drive is the same one you used to authenticate without a connection to the Internet? That's what I've been talking about. Without some kind of unique code on the disc you could authenticate the game online & then go offline & then give that disc to a friend or whoever & then borrow someone else's disc & still keep playing if you never went back online. So if you're going to allow discs to be substituted for an online check, then the disc needs to be unique & the exact same one you used to install to your account.

Tommy McClain

 

[Reiko]

If you have to activate & deactivate discs, then how is the system going to know that the disc in the drive is the same one you used to authenticate without a connection to the Internet? That's what I've been talking about. Without some kind of unique code on the disc you could authenticate the game online & then go offline & then give that disc to a friend or whoever & then borrow someone else's disc & still keep playing if you never went back online. So if you're going to allow discs to be substituted for an online check, then the disc needs to be unique & the exact same one you used to install to your account.

Tommy McClain

It will be a unique code that will be only found on retail discs. (In theory)

If you're running pirate discs it would not even function.


I think the unique code would be one time use only. You wouldn't be able to do it on someone else's Xbox.

Battling DRM with reasonable DRM. How depressing.

 

[Cyan]

I have one objection against the idea that the publishers know what they are doing, and that is that the publishers only have their own interest at heart. We don't know that we are actually better off with having a publisher in the first place, but you can assume that publishers are not interested in any scenario where they aren't the biggest beneficiary, one way or the other.

In Europe, when they do, most people resell their games directly to one another using E-bay like services. Retail is dying, and digital distribution is taking over. You would think promoting digital distribution was in their interest, but for whatever reason I have yet to see a digital version that is cheaper than the retail version (it is typically the reverse).

Now either they think that retail is important for them and should stick around, or not, but what we are seeing now is just really weird. I think the fact that they are looking for ways to make money off-of second hand sales probably does mean that they feel that at least in the U.S., there is a lot of money being made there, though I have seen very conflicting reports, the only somewhat independent one seemed to show hardly any impact of reselling games. But Microsoft being at the forefront of this discussion currently at least fits with their dominance in the U.S., and the most logical point of contact for (also primarily U.S.) publishers.

Personally I think that the AAA gaming model is broken. I think comments about there being increasingly little room for AA games is false. Games need to diversify their size and marketshare massively. And I am all for a more open iOS style distribution platform where developers can publish more directly, without additional publishers being involved. It is in the interest of publishers to have a small amount of big projects that they can add value to by employing all their marketing, distribution channels and what not, and in fact, digital distribution is as much a danger to them as anything else. They may be the last to want to have retail being cut out in that respect, because it makes cutting out publishers altogether much easier, and makes the role of platform holders much more important (which also has downsides, but let's not get into that now).

The pay model will either have to involve very low pricing, where the prices are so low that the end-user doesn't care about not being able to resell, or they have to be high enough where the end-user needs to be able to get some value from reselling. In that latter situation, digital reselling would need to be supported by the platform, and in this case it would be relatively easy for the developer and publisher to receive secondary royalties, or set limitations on how soon you can resell the product (similar to how prices go down over time in other situations). Irrespective of whether that should be legal, I could see of a way in which that would become an acceptable solution for all.

I think it is definitely the case though that what option is chosen by the platform holders in the way they provide an interface that balances the interest of publishers, retailers and consumers will be an on-going balancing act, and it is certainly the case that the future of a platform (and publisher, retailer, etc.) can be made or broken by the right or wrong decisions. So I predict it will be fairly exciting to see how this pans out. In the meantime though, we'll still enjoy our games.

If this new system works, then lower prices should be a given.

There are gamers who would want a much better approach to the changes in the industry, or a much open approach as you say, just as there're people in every walk of life who try to get something for nothing rather than pay for it. It's common human behaviour. The fact that people are complaining after the Xbox reveal and the subsequent announcements shouldn't come as any surprise.

In this case I feel like it's always the innocent who pay for the sin of the sinners. Because I had to pay most of my games full price and they weren't cheap.

Personally, I don't think that the DRM policies have any great effect on the sales of games. Those people who like to buy games are still buying games. Those people who never buy games are still not buying games. The problem I see with this is that I think that more fuss has been made by those people who were morally outraged over the whole concept of someone else getting something for nothing, than by the actual effect on sales figures.

Publishers on the other hand want a bigger piece of the pie because 2nd hand sales hurt their sales. As is clear in this thread, if we read what Laa Yosh and what other people in the industry said, it has become an "Traditionalism vs. Evolve or die" argument, with a strong element of "If you are not following copyright policies very carefully, you are against the law" applied.

It is a no-win argument. Those who still think the traditional approach is valid do so for reasons that are perfectly valid to them. Then those who don't use it, ditto. The problem is occurring, IMHO, because gaming is a completely different kettle of fish due to a cultural history of game sharing, Gamestop-Game-Ebay and used game sales.

That's why those who use the arguments of "we shall accept it" are having their words dismissed; those are round-hole, square-peg arguments.

There has to be another solution, creating a console that can't be pirated, discs and digital games with an unique special code that ties the game to the owner forever so a game can never be resold without their permission, and when sold the game is bound to the new user with the publisher receiving a fee.

The most positive thing about the current DRM is that small, poor developers can actually survive now through 2nd hand sales.

Cheers

-Cose

 

[ERP]

If you have to activate & deactivate discs, then how is the system going to know that the disc in the drive is the same one you used to authenticate without a connection to the Internet? That's what I've been talking about. Without some kind of unique code on the disc you could authenticate the game online & then go offline & then give that disc to a friend or whoever & then borrow someone else's disc & still keep playing if you never went back online. So if you're going to allow discs to be substituted for an online check, then the disc needs to be unique & the exact same one you used to install to your account.

Tommy McClain

Every Blu-ray Disc has a unique serial number I believe.
If I misunderstood who ever told me that then it would be trivial to add one in manufacturing.

To me this is why the MS should have stood up to the publishers argument is flawed. The publishers could do this without platform support, but then you'd have a different policy per publisher and you'd be dependent on publisher servers. Supporting it in the platform at least leaves you with a reasonably consistent set of rules.

 

[Cyan]

It is really quite straight forward. Do you like AAA console games and want to continue playing them? If yes, then these policies are perfectly reasonable reactions to the market realities. Your last paragraph is nonsensical. This a change of business model. One that is directed entirely at gamestop, with the side benefit of potentially reducing piracy substantially. There is no anti-consumer INTENTION here.

Given that these policies are probably necessary for the industry, then MS actually has provided a lot of extra value / services to make up of what they are taking away. In particular, the gifting, the play anywhere, and family play /accounts represent a substantial gain of functionality. For me personally with two boys, the last one is extremely significant and represents massive value - one that could potentially save me a couple of thousand dollars over the generation.

I don't think that there is a clear right-wrong in this argument. I am not happy about the license thing --24h online check annoyance aside. My discs and my games are mine, not Microsoft's.

This is a new situation to us. And let me tell you, Cranky, I could respond in exasperation, "it is STEALING!" But the problem is, we can't even legally define what it is at this point because Microsoft announcement is very vague on the subject.

So, if I buy a game and I feel like the disc and the game is mine. Is it theft? Is it copyright infringement? Does the legal code Microsoft are applying even adequately address the current situation or is the current business model out-dated?

When is sharing games allowed and when isn't it? Who is authorized to make that decision - the individual or Microsoft?

Why is it somehow ok to share a game, lend it with a few people but not a few hundred (or by extension, a few thousand)?

Do we actually own what we buy and have the freedom to do what we will with our games and stuff anymore? Are publisher-imposed restrictions on games actually legal? Are they morally right?

Would any of those people who use file share services to download pirate games have actually bought a game; is the typical *lost sale* argument even valid?

And this is not even taking into account the absolutely artificial geographical restrictions on games sales, now that we know the Xbox One is going to be region locked.

Not to mention that we each have our own moral and ethical code, and that just because, for instance, yours might differ from mine and viceversa, this doesn't make either of us morally superior in comparison to the other, I mean... within the context of our lives.

 

[MfA]

If you have to activate & deactivate discs, then how is the system going to know that the disc in the drive is the same one you used to authenticate without a connection to the Internet? That's what I've been talking about. Without some kind of unique code on the disc you could authenticate the game online & then go offline & then give that disc to a friend or whoever & then borrow someone else's disc & still keep playing if you never went back online. So if you're going to allow discs to be substituted for an online check, then the disc needs to be unique & the exact same one you used to install to your account.

Tommy McClain

It's reasonable to assume this code is already there, otherwise you would have to put an ID inside of the case and people would have to enter it during install ... easier to just use barcodes on the disc which the drive can read.

 

[Cyan]

Disc in tray is a good solution.

Going without discs, the 24hour and 1 hour restriction makes more sense. IMO

I believe the argument being set forth is that disc-in-the-tray should be an alternative to once-a-day-authentication.

I.e, you lose connection for more than 24 hours, you're only recourse to play games is put the disc in. Then you're no worse off than you are now and for those with immutable connections, they never have to big through the pile of game boxes again - I'm with you on this, btw.

Yes, it also sounds like a great solution. That and the use of "Grace Codes" for rightful owners to play offline at leisure.

The problem is that it can generate a black market of lent games -but since ALL the games have to be bought there shouldn't be much of a problem-, a place where offline Xbox Ones can be used to play physical games as some kind of shaddy dealing and schemes.

Binding the registered owner to games would be a great feature though.

You buy a game with an unique code -ERP says Blu-rays have an unique code, so....-, the console registers your game, ties it to your account and your authorized list of people, and you can play it offline forever if you wanted to. -during trips, natural disasters, vacations, etc-

If your game is stolen, then demo mode applies. Microsoft let the robber gathers confidence and he plays at will in DEMO mode.

Then Microsoft send you a message that someone is playing your game somewhere, and then the police do their job.

If the critter tries to play the game offline then a message appears that authentication is required and he is not allowed to play.

But a truly reliable, un-hackable console should be in place for that to work.

Well, it seems like a good idea to me.

 

[expletive]

Every Blu-ray Disc has a unique serial number I believe.
If I misunderstood who ever told me that then it would be trivial to add one in manufacturing.

To me this is why the MS should have stood up to the publishers argument is flawed. The publishers could do this without platform support, but then you'd have a different policy per publisher and you'd be dependent on publisher servers. Supporting it in the platform at least leaves you with a reasonably consistent set of rules.

Probably very difficult to enable trade ins, resales, gifts without support at the platform level so ms participating is enabling the more fan-friendly aspects of this.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If you have to activate & deactivate discs, then how is the system going to know that the disc in the drive is the same one you used to authenticate without a connection to the Internet? That's what I've been talking about. Without some kind of unique code on the disc you could authenticate the game online & then go offline & then give that disc to a friend or whoever & then borrow someone else's disc & still keep playing if you never went back online. So if you're going to allow discs to be substituted for an online check, then the disc needs to be unique & the exact same one you used to install to your account.

Okay, let's back up a step. We know that before you can play an Xbox One game you need to:

• Buy the game disc from a retailer (or approved trade-in partner).
• Install the game to the Xbox One hard drive.
• Login and register the game via Xbox Live.
• ..and to continue to play, connect at least once every 24hrs.

So my first question is, if your internet connection goes out and is out for more than 24hrs and you put a game disc in, does it matter if it's the same disc? I've installed a bunch of games on my PS3 (no choice, ha!) and if I want to play any the PS3 doesn't care if it's the same disc or not. This approach works now. However, if Microsoft are using Blu-ray Unique Volume Keys then the install could lock to that specific disc.

But even assuming there are no unique discs (which would be easier for piracy), for the second person to play the game they would then need to go through the above steps only they can't unless person 1 have "gifted" the game to them using Xbox Live, at which point person 1's game is rendered invalid immediately.

The disc-in-the-tray option would be there only for playing pre-installed games, that the system believes - based on its last connection to Xbox Live - you own, when it can't reach the authentication servers and for which you can insert an original game disc.

 

[Reiko]

Yes, it also sounds like a great solution. That and the use of "Grace Codes" for rightful owners to play offline at leisure.

The problem is that it can generate a black market of lent games -but since ALL the games have to be bought there shouldn't be much of a problem-, a place where offline Xbox Ones can be used to play physical games as some kind of shaddy dealing and schemes.

Binding the registered owner to games would be a great feature though.

You buy a game with an unique code -ERP says Blu-rays have an unique code, so....-, the console registers your game, ties it to your account and your authorized list of people, and you can play it offline forever if you wanted to. -during trips, natural disasters, vacations, etc-

If your game is stolen, then demo mode applies. Microsoft let the robber gathers confidence and he plays at will in DEMO mode.

Then Microsoft send you a message that someone is playing your game somewhere, and then the police do their job.

If the critter tries to play the game offline then a message appears that authentication is required and he is not allowed to play.

But a truly reliable, un-hackable console should be in place for that to work.

Well, it seems like a good idea to me.

Now that is reasonable.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Okay, let's back up a step. We know that before you can play an Xbox One game you need to:

• Buy the game disc from a retailer (or approved trade-in partner).
• Install the game to the Xbox One hard drive.
• Login and register the game via Xbox Live.
• ..and to continue to play, connect at least once every 24hrs.

So my first question is, if your internet connection goes out and is out for more than 24hrs and you put a game disc in, does it matter if it's the same disc? I've installed a bunch of games on my PS3 (no choice, ha!) and if I want to play any the PS3 doesn't care if it's the same disc or not. This approach works now. However, if Microsoft are using Blu-ray Unique Volume Keys then the install could lock to that specific disc.

But even assuming there are no unique discs (which would be easier for piracy), for the second person to play the game they would then need to go through the above steps only they can't unless person 1 have "gifted" the game to them using Xbox Live, at which point person 1's game is rendered invalid immediately.

The disc-in-the-tray option would be there only for playing pre-installed games, that the system believes - based on its last connection to Xbox Live - you own, when it can't reach the authentication servers and for which you can insert an original game disc.

Actually step one is false. Day and date direct downloads.

 

[Averagejoe]

Little bit worried that my long post will never be read, being the last post on previous page ... *snif*

Anyway, was this posted here yet?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngau...of-xbox-one-used-game-sales/?partner=yahootix

That should make Gamestop very happy since MS cut people from selling games to who ever they want,and now they have to go through gamestop or other authorized buyer.

 

[Averagejoe]

Piracy is still a crime and cancer to this industry.
If you had caner would you allow it to grow or would you do everything you can kill it?

I welcome anything that can kill piracy or at least reduce it especially if it something as minimal as a online check every 24 hours.

There is less Piracy on PS3 than on 360 yet 360 games sell more.. Explain please how is this possible..

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Actually step one is false. Day and date direct downloads.

The goal here is those who buy Xbox One physical discs to have the same usability on as exists on the Xbox 360. If you went for a digital download then you lost that flexibility right out the gate. Complain to Microsoft , not me

 

[Cyan]

You should stop talking about americans, you don't have a clue.

Mod edit: Talking about nationalist attitudes is heading into awkward territory not for this forum. I think I'll end this line of discussion here.

But I also think there has to be a more elegant manner to handle this. It is a hassle for Mr Average to comply to some of the requirements.

I mean, Microsoft are basically telling you: "I have this very nice console for you, fine games and amazing sound. You will love it. But in order to turn it on you have to make a handstand".

You can either accept everything this mega corporation tells you and think everything is positive -some even will say, in order to save Microsoft from criticism; "the handstand thing is good in order to make exercise"-, or either complain and tell them that the handstand feature is not a very elegant solution at all.

 

[MfA]

For what it's worth, a little appeal to authority ... from Tycho at Penny Arcade :

I think that if it were my job to do so, I could make a case for most of it - except, except the every-24-hours-it-calls-home-or-your-usage-is-severely-curtailed-if-not-revoked part. I don’t think I could ever fix that one.

 

[AzBat]

It will be a unique code that will be only found on retail discs. (In theory)

If you're running pirate discs it would not even function.


I think the unique code would be one time use only. You wouldn't be able to do it on someone else's Xbox.

Battling DRM with reasonable DRM. How depressing.

Every Blu-ray Disc has a unique serial number I believe.
If I misunderstood who ever told me that then it would be trivial to add one in manufacturing

It's reasonable to assume this code is already there, otherwise you would have to put an ID inside of the case and people would have to enter it during install ... easier to just use barcodes on the disc which the drive can read.

Thanks for the replies guys. Tried doing a search & all I found was a unique Volume Key. It's only unique per title(movie, etc), not per disc. ERP & MfA are most likely right: it's already there. Just nobody has tapped into it yet. There was a rumor that Sony was going to use a unique key per disc to stamp out piracy on the PS3.

Tommy McClain

 

[MfA]

Sony had a patent on a secure nfc microcontroller on the disc, this would allow you to tie the game to the console without any online authentication at all.