XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[dobwal]

This discussion will be mostly moot within the next generation.

You think Sony invested into Gaikai simply for BC? You think MS is pushing cloud because it simply wants to augment your XB1?

The ultimate plan for both platform provider is to offer a subscription based streaming services that will replace the current hardware model. Either it will be PC or always online no used games for console gaming.

The only thing MS has done is trade in mindshare today for a smoother transition tomorrow. The XB1 userbase will already be exposed to internet requirements. I assume that in a few years a segment of PS4 userbase will be up in arms over Sony streaming plans.

The biggest issue I have with MS is that, yes maybe most consumers will readily accept its implementation. It still doesn't it make it a great ideal to upset a very vocal segment of the market. MS is basically using force to eradicate the used market where as DD could be used to act as a natural way to lead consumers away from optical simply through choice. Every DD titles is one less title potentially ending up on the used market. All MS had to do is simply make DD more attractive. Cheaper pricing, transmedia functionality and a cloud based storage of your library, while limiting optical based titles to whats currently implemented now, could easily be used to entice people away from optical. Shutting down optical based media would have simply been a reality of lack of support by the consumer base while dealing with a much smaller crowd of dissenters.

MS does a good job for coming up with great vision while doing something unnecessary to piss people off. MS is like a basketball player that has a knack for hitting an important late game shot than committing a cheap foul on the very next play and sending its opponent to the foul line.

 

[Gubbi]

I work with people who have kids that play video games, but who can't afford the internet. These might not be high spending customers that MS care about, and they might not be people you care about either, but to pretend they don't exist and that it's "only an issue for forum warriors" is wilful ignorance.

They can't afford internet, but they can afford video games at $60 a pop ? Doubtful.

Cheers

 

[scooby_dooby]

Or maybe MS knew that the convenience features they can implement will outweigh any issues about the DRM in the long run.

If MS cared at all about convenience they would drop these ridiculously tight restrictions, that do nothing but save them a few fractions of a percentage points of sales. Extend the sign in check to 4 weeks, for example, instead of 24hrs, is that really going to affect their bottom line? The notion is laughabl: A legion, of seedy gamers, trading a games with eachother, agreeing that one of them never logs in.... except on predetermined dates. All to avoid paying $60 for a game? This is who Microsoft is worried about?

Locking out the 99% for the presumed negative actions of a few is the opposite of convenience. it's actually the definition of stupidity. To punish your honest, paying customers, to try and save money from people who were never going to pay you anyways.

 

[Strange]

Ok, so why were they chanting, "Sony! Sony! Sony!" when they said games could be sold, traded or shared? Explain it to me. Do you think it's because they thought that would be true for all games? That part of the conference was incredibly misleading and dishonest. It's plain as day.

Where was it incredibly misleading and dishonest?
There's no mechanism in the PS4 that stops you from running your game library without a internet check with any server. Your disk based games could still be sold, traded, or shared with anybody, because they would still RUN properly on any other machine. Whether they run with all the features, is (and always have been) up to the publishers and developers themselves.

Everybody on the floor or watching the stream knows perfectly well that what Sony essentially meant was that they will retain the status quo.

There are always going to be special cases that require online or whatnot but they definitely not industry standard.

However, online portions that require online passes or stuff like that have always been at the discretion of the publishers.

 

[dobwal]

Now this is just getting stupid. Try and think outside of your own comfortable existence.

I work with people who have kids that play video games, but who can't afford the internet. These might not be high spending customers that MS care about, and they might not be people you care about either, but to pretend they don't exist and that it's "only an issue for forum warriors" is wilful ignorance.

lol them eat cake etc

There are people who have consoles that don't have jobs. Is that a good enough justification to go F2P across the board?

Internet access is far more important than gaming especially for the kids, plus its not that expensive. Maybe you should educate them why internet access is important and how the cost of access is more feasible if they drop their gaming habit. Because either they are ignorant to the realities of internet access or their priorities are out of order.

 

[wco81]

So if you're offline more than 24 hours, you won't be able to play your purchased games?

They won't automatically re-authenthicate when you're back online?

 

[-tkf-]

And that really worked like a charm

Cheers

So because the 360 was hacked we should all bend over?

 

[Scott_Arm]

If MS cared at all about convenience they would drop these ridiculously tight restrictions, that do nothing but save them a few fractions of a percentage points of sales. Extend the sign in check to 4 weeks, for example, is that really going to affect their bottom line? The notion is laughable.

Locking out the 99% for the presumed negative actions of a few is the opposite of convenience. it's actually the definition of stupidity. To punish your honest, paying customers, to try and save money from people who were never going to pay you anyways.

Locking out the 99% Do you think 99% of customers will get locked out of their Xbox or do you think 99% won't be able to buy it because they don't have a stable Internet connection? In the latter case, who is being punished? In the former case, I'd argue that number is astronomically high, and that the lockout will be resolved the second their Internet is up again.

 

[-tkf-]

They can't afford internet, but they can afford video games at $60 a pop ? Doubtful.

Cheers

They are most likely buying used games..

 

[Strange]

They can't afford internet, but they can afford video games at $60 a pop ? Doubtful.

Cheers

video games aren't $60 a pop if you don't look for new titles.

 

[scooby_dooby]

They can't afford internet, but they can afford video games at $60 a pop ? Doubtful.

Cheers

There's several legit scenarios around this.

1. MS's servers go down. This is the mostly likely, almost certainly *will* happen at somepoint. Not playing your single player games, because their server goes down, is OK with you?

2. Some sort of major disruption in your ISP. A storm knocks down a phone line, there's a flood, any sort of major incident, and you could end up being locked out.

3. Travel. I'll frequently bring my xbox to a hotel, or to a vacation home. They do not always have Wifi, and even if they do, it almost always comes with a fee.

 

[Strange]

If MS cared at all about convenience they would drop these ridiculously tight restrictions, that do nothing but save them a few fractions of a percentage points of sales. Extend the sign in check to 4 weeks, for example, instead of 24hrs, is that really going to affect their bottom line? The notion is laughabl: A legion, of seedy gamers, trading a games with eachother, agreeing that one of them never logs in.... except on predetermined dates. All to avoid paying $60 for a game? This is who Microsoft is worried about?

Locking out the 99% for the presumed negative actions of a few is the opposite of convenience. it's actually the definition of stupidity. To punish your honest, paying customers, to try and save money from people who were never going to pay you anyways.

It's like expecting revenue lost from piracy would actually go in your pocket if people didn't pirate.
Many people would simply ignore your game if they didn't pirate it.




I don't get it. We're getting people here that is arguing that DRM is actually a convenience.

Really, guys? Digital Download without 24 hour checks is more inconvenient than Digital Download with 24 hour checks? Seriously?

Because this is exactly the way you're putting it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Locking out the 99% Do you think 99% of customers will get locked out of their Xbox or do you think 99% won't be able to buy it because they don't have a stable Internet connection? In the latter case, who is being punished? In the former case, I'd argue that number is astronomically high, and that the lockout will be resolved the second their Internet is up again.

Neither. Rather 99% of the people who are inevitably affected by this lockout, will be legit, paying users. Not the pirates they seem so worried about, since they'll probably already be spoofing the MS servers by that point in time.

It's just typical DRM idiocy.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Where was it incredibly misleading and dishonest?
There's no mechanism in the PS4 that stops you from running your game library without a internet check with any server. Your disk based games could still be sold, traded, or shared with anybody, because they would still RUN properly on any other machine. Whether they run with all the features, is (and always have been) up to the publishers and developers themselves.

Everybody on the floor or watching the stream knows perfectly well that what Sony essentially meant was that they will retain the status quo.

There are always going to be special cases that require online or whatnot but they definitely not industry standard.

However, online portions that require online passes or stuff like that have always been at the discretion of the publishers.

Ok, whatever. If everyone at that show was so excited about a system that will allow publishers to implement DRM, then I don't get it. Maybe it's just me, but I thought not making the distinction between first and third party titles made it seem like all titles would be free from any restriction at all. All the talk about Sony "doing the right thing" and being the consumer-rights friendly platform had me confused into thinking people thought Sony was going to protect them from them from DRM. My mistake.

 

[Jwm]

My wife who is a casual player at best (minecraft, kinectimals, kinect exercise) wants to know why people are so stuck on the 24 hr check. She thinks it is all silly for nothing, most of our stuff is online always. I tried to explain it and she watched GT a bit and decided we are all idiots. Lol

So there you have it!

Or something.

 

[function]

They can't afford internet, but they can afford video games at $60 a pop ? Doubtful.

Why on earth would they be paying "$60 a pop"?

Frequently they're borrowed games, sometimes they're gifts (2nd hand from friends or new from relatives), sometimes they're the crappy old second hand games that care getting cleared out.

Like I said, MS might not care about these people as they aren't big spenders, and you might not care about these people (and why should you), but when you claim they don't exist and that "It's only an issue for forum warriors" that's simply wrong.

 

[-tkf-]

Locking out the 99% Do you think 99% of customers will get locked out of their Xbox or do you think 99% won't be able to buy it because they don't have a stable Internet connection? In the latter case, who is being punished? In the former case, I'd argue that number is astronomically high, and that the lockout will be resolved the second their Internet is up again.

hey tell me, how many was locked out when PSN was hacked?
Tell me, how many will be locked out of their games in 5 years?
How about 10 years?
15 years, do you expect the activation servers to run in 15 years?

20 years.. in the year 2033, will the games bought on the XBONE still work, can i still trade them? can i buy classics like TITAN FALL on Ebay and play them in my old console?

25 years, tell me will my XBONE work just as good as a SNES does today..

30 years, 1983 was the year of the NES, lets play some Mario.. ehh? how about in 2043 lets play a game of HALO.. the classic reinvented, it took the world by storm.. nothing online works, cloud AI is gone, but there is still the single player game that brought Halo back into life.. we hooked up an old HDTV (hard to find working ones..) and we booted the Console (solid build from Microsoft RROD was a thing of the past)

And it didn't work.. who would cheer for such a stupid solution to "used games". The idea that every one is the center of the universe is depressing, think more, think broader think of the next generations.

 

[Arwin]

It's a nightmare system for collectors.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I should just save all the posts from some people here, and then paste the text in when the same issues will become valid on Sony's platform.

 

[Scott_Arm]

hey tell me, how many was locked out when PSN was hacked?
Tell me, how many will be locked out of their games in 5 years?
How about 10 years?
15 years, do you expect the activation servers to run in 15 years?

20 years.. in the year 2033, will the games bought on the XBONE still work, can i still trade them? can i buy classics like TITAN FALL on Ebay and play them in my old console?

25 years, tell me will my XBONE work just as good as a SNES does today..

30 years, 1983 was the year of the NES, lets play some Mario.. ehh? how about in 2043 lets play a game of HALO.. the classic reinvented, it took the world by storm.. nothing online works, cloud AI is gone, but there is still the single player game that brought Halo back into life.. we hooked up an old HDTV (hard to find working ones..) and we booted the Console (solid build from Microsoft RROD was a thing of the past)

And it didn't work.. who would cheer for such a stupid solution to "used games". The idea that every one is the center of the universe is depressing, think more, think broader think of the next generations.

This post is just all kinds of crazy. The reality of electronics manufacturing and shrinking transistors is that your console will not last forever. Eventually there won't be any consoles left to play your games on. Do future generations want to play the games I'm playing now? This is incredibly doubtful. Games that are classics will be made for new platforms and carried on. Games that are designed to be online are inherently designed to have a limited shelf life. You can complain about it, but that's the reality of the business. The medium is not a stone carving that will last for centuries.

Being locked out of my console by unexpected network hacks, weather or natural disasters is not a particular worry for me. That is just the reality of the connected world. I'm not going to avoid connected devices because of the minor inconvenience that they will only work 99.9% (or more) of the time. If the connected feature brings me benefit, then I'll use it. I'm not going to avoid MMOs or other online games because someday the server will be deactivated and my grandchildren won't be able to experience it.

Nothing about DRM will affect my ability to enjoy playing a game, which is what I'm paying for.

So, the real issue is consumer-rights and ownership. In this case, Microsoft has tried to build a system people will accept as a centralized DRM. Sony is throwing it to the wolves. The end result, for the consumer, will probably be roughly equal, though not the same in implementation. Microsoft took their lumps for months. Sony stood up one day and declared themselves better, obviously in an attempt to win good will and crown themselves the people's champion. The next day they told the real story, which is business as usual and DRM is coming. Publishers don't like used games. They want a cut. That is reality. They will do it.