XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[dagamer]

You know what? I wish it happens. And I wish it happens so much that it will have an impact. And I wish gamers in retaliation dont buy games that require always online

Call of Duty is basically an "always online" game. I mean, who seriously plays single-player? And the game sells 25 million units a year. That's why I find most of this outrage pretty laughable.

The problem isn't the actual online check, it's the principle of it. I think that's where Microsoft made the miscalculation.

 

[-tkf-]

Like I said , I will laugh when ps4 fans have to deal with ps4 drm games be it online checks or some type of nfc system

You don't find it childish at all to write such a post? Of diehards you must be die hard 1 before they went down the drain.

Sony did the right thing, they sided with the customers and if the publishers chooses to impose stupid drm it's up to them and the freedom gamerfighters to say screw you i am putting my money elsewhere.

And you can start laughing now, it's all a matter of ice cold fact on the Brosole One. The most advanced tv remote costing only 499$ implements the world first online activation of every game made for that platform. It's incredibly that so many will eat that up like it's the best tasting dessert. Since when was loosing rights something people would pay 499$ for.

 

[-tkf-]

The problem isn't the actual online check, it's the principle of it. I think that's where Microsoft made the miscalculation.

The principle being you have zero control over your purchase, all control is relinquish to a 3rd party who's primary goal is to monetize you as a customer.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Freedom gamefighters ... lol

 

[-tkf-]

Freedom gamefighters ... lol

Catchy name!

 

[Tap In]

As far as I understand it, used games dosn't work for Xbox One.
A publisher can 'opt in' to the system MS has in place for used games.

Only if the publisher 'opt in' the users can either give away their copy of that game once, or resell their games at the price Microsoft have put in place at the system for used games.

I've seen some stores are claiming that MS has a minimum price for games, while other stores claim that MS and publishers get's a high percentage of the total amount of the used sale.
And some stores said they had to sell at 10% lower than digital price, and had to give alot of the money to the publishers.

Clearly this will lead to slower price-drops of games, and games will stay longer at full price less trade-in for less profit opportunity compared to the system on PS4.
And alot of games can't even be traded probably.

The big games will make it on all systems, but without a trade-in enviroment, or some competition to drive price down, I think the medium quality games will struggle, since often people trade in 2 games to get a more reasonable price, compared to the triple A title, you're willing to pay more for.

You can't really compare it to Steam, because Valve allways have to think price-competitive since they do not have a monopoly-situation on the platform.
And most importantly - you don't connect to internet on Steam, it starts up in Offline mode, it dosn't stop you from playing if ISP/Router trouble/Service-provider prevents authentication.

that's all based on old rumors..

of course you can play used games and trade them again and Ms takes no fees and will set no pricing


as others said, this will blow over past the hardcore crowd... mom's only care that they can go to gamestop and trade their kid's games back in and their house is connected all the time anyway

 

[Tap In]

Call of Duty is basically an "always online" game. I mean, who seriously plays single-player? And the game sells 25 million units a year. That's why I find most of this outrage pretty laughable.

The problem isn't the actual online check, it's the principle of it. I think that's where Microsoft made the miscalculation.

I have been thinking the same thing for months... the whole thing is laughable for many (mass market) with a some cases of bad internet connections or unfortunate situations but by far in the minority. The majority Xbox is targeted to easily fit their plans... this whole "disc sharing" uproar is 1% of the market plus teenagers who have no money of their own anyway

 

[dobwal]

The principle being you have zero control over your purchase, all control is relinquish to a 3rd party who's primary goal is to monetize you as a customer.

Pfft. You have had zero control over your purchase since the beginning. And platform providers aren't gov't entities mandated to provide games as social services. Its always been the point of platform providers to monetize you as a customer.

If you were really concerned about control and owning your content, your entertainment center would be anchored by a VCR and a CD music player.

The online DRM 24 hour check is just an easier to implement and more effective alternative solution to the DRM system of the PS3 that cause Sony to go bananas when it was cracked.

 

[-tkf-]

that's all based on old rumors..

of course you can play used games and trade them again and Ms takes no fees and will set no pricing

Of course.. ehmm maybe.. in principle.. depending on..

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

Something tells me that someone needs a cut somewhere for doing this.. of course there is the private way, where you just hand the disc to a friend.. except..

Give your games to friends: Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.

Now here is the Sony version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA

 

[-tkf-]

Pfft. You have had zero control over your purchase since the beginning. And platform providers aren't gov't entities mandated to provide games as social services. Its also been the point of platform providers to monetize you as a customer.

If you were really concerned about control and owning your content, your entertainment center would be anchored by a VCR and a CD music player.

Care to explain? Somehow all my gaming devices have this magic function where they play the disc or cartridge when i want to.. amazing tech.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Catchy name!

That's one way to describe it ...

 

[Strange]

I don't understand how some people here seem to think a corporation limiting your ownership status over something you've actually bought is actually a good thing.

(meanwhile not exchanging these loss of rights with any benefits)

Wake up people.

 

[function]

I don't understand how some people here seem to think a corporation limiting your ownership status over something you've actually bought is actually a good thing.

When you're neck deep in platform advocacy all you can do keep pushing.

It's worth noting also that some of the limitations (i.e. no lending a game to your friend) are not required by the technologies employed. These are not side effects, the are design goals.

 

[Tap In]

Wake up people.

wide awake, just have observed that this is the same licensing issue that digital content has been evolving through for years ... anyone who owns a smartphone and has DL an app should understand it.

To say this is limiting "rights" just because the technology did not exist previously to limit people to more or less "steal" the experience from the IP holders buy "sharing" it.


IF Ms really wanted to do it right they would have gone DD only/ steam type system and all these limits would not have been necessary.... the problems stem from still offering discs to consumers. but the infrastructure is not quite there yet

 

[Strange]

wide awake, just have observed that this is the same licensing issue that digital content has been evolving through for years ... anyone who owns a smartphone and has DL an app should understand it.

To say this is limiting "rights" just because the technology did not exist previously to limit people to more or less "steal" the experience from the IP holders buy "sharing" it.


IF Ms really wanted to do it right they would have gone DD only/ steam type system and all these limits would not have been necessary.... the problems stem from still offering discs to consumers. but the infrastructure is not quite there yet

No. By buying digital download through apps you consciously yield the right for convenience. You don't have the same restrictions when you buy, say a CD for your music.

Think about the record companies requiring online authentication for your CDs.

 

[wco81]

Publishers are most likely saying . MS is going to get exclusive content unless you let us put some type of check in place. Sony is say sure and we can laugh at all the fools who believe we have their best interest in heart.

Like I said , I will laugh when ps4 fans have to deal with ps4 drm games be it online checks or some type of nfc system

Publishers don't give away exclusive online content. They make the MS or Sony pay for it.

Sony is getting exclusive content. The main revenues for the publishers will be actual retail sales, not used games fees. The consoles with greater installed base usually deliver the higher games sales. Now which console will sell better is unknown but the $100 price difference will give Sony a leg up.

 

[ERP]

And there it is.
http://kotaku.com/third-party-publishers-will-have-final-say-on-used-game-512643240

 

[wco81]

You have to be real suckers to buy only digital at the same price as retail.

The costs for digital downloads are much less than for retail, so the prices should reflect that but that isn't the case.

All things being equal, you're better off as a consumer buying the physical version, which you can lend or re-sell. If they want to steer you towards digital, they should offer it at a lower price, since you give up the ability to re-sell the game and recover some of your costs.

The convenience factor of digital is nice and they're counting on that for impulse purchases, since it's so easy to click download, even if there isn't the price advantage there should be.

Meanwhile, how much of Gamestop's revenues from used games reflects credits used for more new games purchases?

 

[Scott_Arm]

And there it is.
http://kotaku.com/third-party-publishers-will-have-final-say-on-used-game-512643240

Not surprising.

Edit: Before anyone tries to tell me this is any different than Sony making a unified DRM system, explain to me how it is practically different for the consumer? Yeah, Sony is not enforcing it, but they are standing aside saying, "Go ahead if you want." This is just reality. Publishers have been very vocal. I do recognize that not all games will do this.

 

[wco81]

And there it is.
http://kotaku.com/third-party-publishers-will-have-final-say-on-used-game-512643240

Yup, the PSN Plus requirement for online is the main reason why I haven't preordered as of now.

Money isn't the issue. It's a question of what's a better value for my time and money. Right now, mobile seems to be a better value proposition. Yes there is DRM with iOS and Android games but they're dirt cheap so I don't have to worry about re-selling a $5 game as I would with a $60 game.

And no charges for playing iOS and Android games online. The devices turn on instantly and I don't have to go through some elaborate sign-on/authentication process to play what will likely be just peer-to-peer games, where Sony doesn't bring anything except some glorified friends list and questionable matchmaking.

Hell, let games connect for online play independently of these networks. If not direct IP addresses, I'm sure there will be many free services which appear to connect gamers.