XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[-tkf-]

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

But they will have to build their own activation serves to do it, at least that is how i see it. And Sonys games obviously wont be a part of it. HEY just like the PC, the prime platform for Gaming freedom fighters (GFF!)

We create the platform. We’ve certainly stated with our first party games, we’re not going to be doing that. But we welcome publishers and their business models to our platforms. There’s going to be free-to-play; there’s going to be every potential business model on there and again that’s up to their relationship with the consumer and what they think is going to put them in the best stead. So we’re not going to dictate that. We’re going to give them a platform to publish on.

 

[Scott_Arm]

So for all of those people worried about preserving gaming history, and not being able to play their games in the future when activation servers are shut down, who do you trust more? Microsoft, EA or Activision?

We’ve certainly stated with our first party games, we’re not going to be doing that.

Is that what they stated on stage? Hmmmmmm .....

Sony has put their foot down! They will absolutely not allow DRM, except for anyone that asks, and they'll even open the door for you to walk through. Bold statement.

 

[-tkf-]

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

So just because we have DD on some platforms we should accept it on all platforms.. logic right there..

Just because the technology to tag us all with a RFID chip didn't exist until now we should just do it now.

It's a question of money and nothing else, they want more money and they want to take it away from us.

 

[Xalion]

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.

The system he described is no different than the system that is currently in place on the PS3 and XBox. Basically, it is up to the publishers to establish the DRM they want. He basically said "We won't do it, and we don't encourage it, but we won't stop it either if a third party publisher really wants to do it."

It has been possible for a long time to limit games to a certain number of "activations". It is common on the PC. It is most noticeable in online titles like MMOs, but it has been around for a while. The difference is that the XBox is forcing DRM on everyone. They force an online connection to play their games, and will provide the enforcement through that. They basically came out and said "We expect everyone to live within our DRM system. If they don't like the system, tough."

It is a very different model.

 

[DrJay24]

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

There is what? Isn't this what we have now with DD content on the PS3?

 

[-tkf-]

So for all of those people worried about preserving gaming history, and not being able to play their games in the future when activation servers are shut down, who do you trust more? Microsoft, EA or Activision?

Is that what they stated on stage? Hmmmmmm .....

Sony has put their foot down! They will absolutely not allow DRM, except for anyone that asks, and they'll even open the door for you to walk through. Bold statement.

Ubisofts new "racing" game requires always on, did they drop their online pass?

EA is the interesting one, they droped the online pass. Will they activate games online and require always on on a console that doesn't support online games unless you pay for PS+

One thing is certain, the publishers that require online activation on the PS4 will look stupid and they will feel the heat when the customers understand they are the evil ones.

It's a mess.. and i am not putting money in the pockets that require online activation, unless it's a REAL online game. Screw them all.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The system he described is no different than the system that is currently in place on the PS3 and XBox. Basically, it is up to the publishers to establish the DRM they want. He basically said "We won't do it, and we don't encourage it, but we won't stop it either if a third party publisher really wants to do it."

It has been possible for a long time to limit games to a certain number of "activations". It is common on the PC. It is most noticeable in online titles like MMOs, but it has been around for a while. The difference is that the XBox is forcing DRM on everyone. They force an online connection to play their games, and will provide the enforcement through that. They basically came out and said "We expect everyone to live within our DRM system. If they don't like the system, tough."

It is a very different model.

What? It's the same. The DRM changes hands, but it's effectively the same thing. You want the game on the platform you bought, then you have to deal with the DRM. What practical difference does it make if the server is located in a Sony data center or an EA data center? You think EA is sitting around worried that Microsoft is forcing them to use DRM?

Are you going to have activation codes? Online passes? What? You have no idea. How is that better?

People had a full night to throw their hats in the air and embrace the game-trading game-renting game-selling free-for-all, but now there's a big asterix that says, "Sony published titles only." The war is won. Publishers are free to implement DRM controls as they want. That's the taste of sweet victory.

The statement, "We’ve certainly stated with our first party games, we’re not going to be doing that," is incredibly dishonest. That's not what they implied on stage. Let the rationalization begin.

 

[function]

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.

I think that's the real difference. There will be some games on PS4 - and some really good ones - that can be traded freely, or lent to friends, and that will work indefinitely so collectors can treasure them. There will be none like this on the bone though, ever. How big that difference is in practice will depend on how many games are unrestricted (or only partly restricted) and how customers differentiate from the ones that are completely locked down.

There's the scope for customers to shift their purchases towards games that they can keep forever, and they may only be prepared to pay less for games that they can't resell or share with their friends. This would be the long term benefit of Sony's strategy from a customer POV - if a significant number of customers could differentiate with their wallets and influence publisher strategy.

Once people had the choice, DRM crippled music download sales vanished almost entirely. It's not necessarily the case that this will happen with games though. Could be that few people really care, and that ownership and sharing aren't valued by the majority of gamers.

 

[-tkf-]

What? It's the same. The DRM changes hands, but it's effectively the same thing. You want the game on the platform you bought, then you have to deal with the DRM. What practical difference does it make if the server is located in a Sony data center or an EA data center? You think EA is sitting around worried that Microsoft is forcing them to use DRM?

Are you going to have activation codes? Online passes? What? You have no idea. How is that better?

People had a full night to throw their hats in the air and embrace the game-trading game-renting game-selling free-for-all, but now there's a big asterix that says, "Sony published titles only." The war is won. Publishers are free to implement DRM controls as they want. That's the taste of sweet victory.

The statement, "We’ve certainly stated with our first party games, we’re not going to be doing that," is incredibly dishonest. That's not what they implied on stage. Let the rationalization begin.

So can we throw our hats in the air again when it turns out that the publishers wont be using Activation Servers for DISC based games on a console that is KNOWN to work offline and doesn't check games on 24 hour base?

Lets bring on the foolish publisher that does it.

 

[Tap In]

SONY:
"The DRM decision is going to have to be in the hands of the third parties. That’s not something that we’re going to dictate or mandate or control or implement."

Boom

 

[ERP]

There is what? Isn't this what we have now with DD content on the PS3?

Sony is stating that they will not stop publishers implementing their own DRM to stop used game sales, at least as I read the article.

Now you could argue that because they aren't helping it's different, but my guess would be that if a company is going to enable it on XB1 they will likely do the same on PS4.

If MS isn't taking a cut from used game sales as they state then they implemented it because there was demand for it. If the publishers are going to do it, on PS4 then we will be dependent on servers run by EA/Ubi etc and your game will likely check in with those servers every-time you run it. Which is worse?

Of course I think the whole think is getting blown out of proportion, I really don't see a lot of publishers using any mechanism on either platform to limit used sales.

 

[Xalion]

What? It's the same. The DRM changes hands, but it's effectively the same thing. You want the game on the platform you bought, then you have to deal with the DRM. What practical difference does it make if the server is located in a Sony data center or an EA data center? You think EA is sitting around worried that Microsoft is forcing them to use DRM?

Are you going to have activation codes? Online passes? What? You have no idea. How is that better?

People had a full night to throw their hats in the air and embrace the game-trading game-renting game-selling free-for-all, but now there's a big asterix that says, "Sony published titles only." The war is won. Publishers are free to implement DRM controls as they want. That's the taste of sweet victory.

The statement, "We’ve certainly stated with our first party games, we’re not going to be doing that," is incredibly dishonest. That's not what they implied on stage. Let the rationalization begin.

It isn't the same.

Microsoft has said:

"If you want to play our games, you must log into your system every 24 hours. Each game will be registered and installed to your own account. Those games will not be playable on other consoles - except that up to 10 'family members' can play games one at a time with some special restrictions. You cannot sell your game to a reseller that we don't approve of. While we won't take a cut of resale prices, publishers can charge you for selling used games. You are allowed to give your games only to people who have met certain criteria."

Sony has said:

"If you want to play our games, you must stick the disk in the disk drive. If you want to sell your games, go ahead. If you want to lend your games to a friend, be my guest. We don't plan anything else.

We won't specifically stop publishers from trying to attach DRM, but it isn't coming from us."

Now tell me again you can't see the difference in those two policies.

 

[Mianca]

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.

The difference is that XBOX one will require you to check in at least every 24 hours to make sure you don't play any game that isn't formally tied to your account. So third party publishers actually have the power to keep you from playing a game-copy the re-sale of which they didn't "officially" authenticate.

PS4 doesn't need to "phone home" in order to work/play games. So what can publishers do on that platform to keep you from playing used, disc-based singleplayer games offline? Nothing.

If that case of offline single player games is going to be really relevant is a completely different question, though. As soon as you want to play a game online / use online functionality (which should be the regular case), there probably won't be any major difference between XBOX One and PS4, I agree.

When all is said and done, what remains is a difference in mentality: Whereas Microsoft embraces online functionality with all its consequences (good as well as bad), SONY keeps open a small back door for offline-only games. All-in-progress vs. a glimpse of nostalgia. Matters more than it probably should.

 

[dobwal]

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.

The license is tied to the disc. Practically the disc owns the license and possession of the disc grants you access. The limitations of that model easily shows the lack of ownership or control you have over the data. The data can't be backed up legally. And that license can be lost the moment the disc is lost, destroyed or stolen.

DD actual provides you with an actual license not the married to the disc but married to your gamertag. Which means even if your house burns down and your console and library are lost, your rights to your licenses remain intact. You don't have to file an insurance claim in an attempt to buy new licenses to recover your library. And a gamertag is much harder to be usurped than a disc.

Saying that an internet requirement is a limit of your control is no different than saying an electricity requirement is a limit of your control. For most people internet access is a far more important service than console gaming. Internet access is more akin to a utility like electricity, gas or water than a luxury service. A console marrying functionality to internet access is not going to be an impediment to those owners as marrying a TV functionality to their electricity service is not an impediment.

 

[DrJay24]

He is saying it is no different than the current PS3 DRM. You buy a DD game, 3rd party publisher can use online verification (very few do). That is what Sony is saying. They are not talking about single player disc based games, there is no need for online checks, the disc is needed like it is now.

I assume online passes are a thing of the past because Sony is generating income from online play and they can pass some on to 3rd party publishers. Does MS do this now with XBL gold?

 

[ERP]

TPS4 doesn't need to "phone home" in order to work/play games. So what can publishers do on that platform to keep you from playing used, disc-based singleplayer games offline? Nothing.

No they can implement DRM that requires that you authenticate with their servers before they let you start the game.

 

[Scott_Arm]

So can we throw our hats in the air again when it turns out that the publishers wont be using Activation Servers for DISC based games on a console that is KNOWN to work offline and doesn't check games on 24 hour base?

Lets bring on the foolish publisher that does it.

I'm not saying they will, but what prevents Blizzard from using exactly the same online requirement that they have on PC? Do you think it would affect their sales, when it clearly didn't on PC?

Our saviour Sony has saved us from DRM (unified only. decentralized is fine)

 

[wco81]

What? It's the same. The DRM changes hands, but it's effectively the same thing. You want the game on the platform you bought, then you have to deal with the DRM. What practical difference does it make if the server is located in a Sony data center or an EA data center? You think EA is sitting around worried that Microsoft is forcing them to use DRM?

Are you going to have activation codes? Online passes? What? You have no idea. How is that better?

People had a full night to throw their hats in the air and embrace the game-trading game-renting game-selling free-for-all, but now there's a big asterix that says, "Sony published titles only." The war is won. Publishers are free to implement DRM controls as they want. That's the taste of sweet victory.

The statement, "We’ve certainly stated with our first party games, we’re not going to be doing that," is incredibly dishonest. That's not what they implied on stage. Let the rationalization begin.

We'll just have to see how the used games markets develop.

Will it be as easy to put your game on eBay or Craigslist like it is now?

Or will you find that you can't easily sell games because they either won't work for the person who buys it from you or they have to pay an additional fee to play the games?

If that is the case, then you'll have a hard time selling games or selling games for as high a price as you're used to getting from the current generation.

And then a lot of people will balk at buying new games, especially on impulse, because they know they won't be able to sell the games like they used to.


Right now, it appears PS4 is more likely to preserve the situation with current gen consoles for those who want to sell or trade in games they've finished. That's more consumer-friendly.

 

[Scott_Arm]

He is saying it is no different than the current PS3 DRM. You buy a DD game, 3rd party publisher can use online verification (very few do). That is what Sony is saying. They are not talking about single player disc based games, there is no need for online checks, the disc is needed like it is now.

I assume online passes are a thing of the past because Sony is generating income from online play and they can pass some on to 3rd party publishers. Does MS do this now with XBL gold?

They can do whatever they want with disc-based games. They are free to implement any DRM scheme they see fit. You can thank Sony. They've saved you from the horrors of a unified DRM system.

 

[DrJay24]

No they can implement DRM that requires that you authenticate with their servers before they let you start the game.

Why would they do that? It is not like you can play the same disc on two different machines, so what are they going to gain?

They can do whatever they want with disc-based games. They are free to implement any DRM scheme they see fit. You can thank Sony. They've saved you from the horrors of a unified DRM system.

You are simply projecting MS failings onto another system. This is not rationale and you have no historic or current evidence for it. Simply saying "they could..." means nothing.