XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[Scott_Arm]

I suspect the general sentiment at MS is that this may be the last time they ship physical hardware, or at least there will be a LONG gap before the next time they do.
It would be extremely hard to try and implement or change a licensing model say 5 or more years from now, so they wanted to be forwards looking to a time when downloads are the primary way people get games.

But I'm guessing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an Xbox Two three years from now with full backwards compatibility and no BluRay drive.

 

[brasnial]

..

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an Xbox Two three years from now with full backwards compatibility and no BluRay drive.

Totally agree ....smaller bigger hard drive ....cheaper ...maybe even more powerful as well.

 

[ERP]

I wouldn't be surprised if there's an Xbox Two three years from now with full backwards compatibility and no BluRay drive.

The reason I don't think this is likely, is that there would need to be a significant enough difference for people to see visually, the price of the original box would have to have dropped significantly and you have to justify the R&D expense with a return on the investment.
And I just don't see it, updates for cost reduction sure, possibly a disc less SKU sure if it makes sense, but I don't think you'll see newer faster hardware in that timeframe.

But obviously I could be wrong.

 

[blakjedi]

The reason I don't think this is likely, is that there would need to be a significant enough difference for people to see visually, the price of the original box would have to have dropped significantly and you have to justify the R&D expense with a return on the investment.
And I just don't see it, updates for cost reduction sure, possibly a disc less SKU sure if it makes sense, but I don't think you'll see newer faster hardware in that timeframe.

But obviously I could be wrong.

Sony's more straightforward hardware design would make it a lot easier on PS4 to do than xb.

However, xb VM software architecture might make hw architecture a moot point.

 

[Strange]

Back onto DRM issues.

I didn't see if this was discussed, but apparently if you get banned on XB live, you also lose all of the games it was tied to. So in effect on Xbox One you lose your entire library instead of just the digital ones.

 

[BRiT]

That's not true according to a recent interview with Xbox's Major Nelson.

Let me dig up the link.

Here we go: http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/15/major-nelson-takes-xbox-one-questions-says-banned-users-will-a/

One question that seems to have a clear answer is whether banned users will lose access to any games they've activated, as he stated "Absolutely not, you will always have access to the games you purchased." That goes against a previous response from the Xbox Support twitter account, although that may have been the result of confusion between the Xbox One and Xbox 360 policies.

A question with no satisfying response yet however, is what gamers can expect years down the road if Xbox One's authentication servers are shut down. Major Nelson followed up with a response in the comment thread that "I'll get the real answer, I just don't know it yet."

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1geknm/major_nelson_responds_to_some_tough_drm_and_xbone/

 

[Strange]

So adding on to all the confusion again.

 

[MrFox]

Maybe if people would stop asking the xbox 360 tech support about XBone DRM, there wouldn't be so much confusion.
And Microsoft should tell all the tech support staff to stop answering questions about xbone. They don't seem to be informed much about it anyway. These are PR questions, not tech questions.

 

[patsu]

At this rate, perhaps MS should backpaddle.

 

[astrograd]

So adding on to all the confusion again.

Major Nelson is the person who handles stuff like bans on XBL. He isn't adding to the confusion. He is stating the policy. Period. Now, on other areas like DRM or specs or whatnot he may not be in a position to have the latest corporate thinking and may not be up to date...but on issues like XBL rules he is THE go to guy.

What seems to be adding to the confusion most is the fact that ppl come out of the woodworks to assume the black and white policies just have to mean something different as they are too good to be true...then those ppl continuously repeat their confusion as if their confusion was legitimate. In many cases it isn't.

Someone either here or on GAF made a good point. Once MS figures out what their finalized policies are, they need to make some visual presentations to convey it. The family sharing things sounds amazing but it seems awkward to convey to ppl with just words. Maybe a diagram would help.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Maybe a diagram would help.

I think they're going to need more than a diagram to clear this up. They could start by making sure their spokespeople put their brains into gear before engaging their mouths!

 

[Silenti]

Returning to the possibility of easily, and quickly, releasing the XBone successor, since it is based on VM's, doesn't that mean that backwards compatibility is basically guaranteed? Further, if the new version (hereafter referred to as Boned) does not have physical media and full backwards compatibility. There would be no consumer confusion since they would only ever be presented with games that will play on the system and the XBone would never see DD titles it couldn't play, you can sidestep that problem. Developers could still go after the install base they desire without a lot of the usual repercussions.

 

[3dilettante]

I've inquired about what content was exempt from the validation requirement at other times because I wanted to determine if this was copy protection or a kill switch.

edit:
Separating bans from the validation function is a good clarification to get out there.
(didn't see there was a new page with the interview link when posting)

 

[dagamer]

Returning to the possibility of easily, and quickly, releasing the XBone successor, since it is based on VM's, doesn't that mean that backwards compatibility is basically guaranteed? Further, if the new version (hereafter referred to as Boned) does not have physical media and full backwards compatibility. There would be no consumer confusion since they would only ever be presented with games that will play on the system and the XBone would never see DD titles it couldn't play, you can sidestep that problem. Developers could still go after the install base they desire without a lot of the usual repercussions.

Well, I wonder if games can't be made forward compatible as well. If you are using a dynamic resolution now but have enough power to flip a switch and guarantee 1080p60 in a future revision , that would be pretty cool. The VM idea means that the hardware and software that it runs on are no longer as tightly linked as we once thought.

And can you imagine if buying the same game on Xbox One means it could be run on Windows 8 as well? That would be a huge reason why every game should be a digital copy, so you all you literally need to do is sign into an account to play your games on any machine. And if they are doing that, then they can no longer subsidize the box with game purchases.

That would literally be the shit right there and actually take on the juggernaut that is Steam (plus drive Windows 8 adoption as well). And then the purpose of the Xbox One is a way for gamers to play games without needing to drop $600 on a new gaming desktop.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Returning to the possibility of easily, and quickly, releasing the XBone successor, since it is based on VM's, doesn't that mean that backwards compatibility is basically guaranteed?

Virtualization doesn't make backwards compatibility more likely. Although there hasn't been much focus on this technical aspect of the console, traditional virtualization is generally used for allocating hardware resources (CPU/GPU/RAM etc) across multiple operating systems. My guess is that Microsoft have done this so they can offer a traditional console game OS as well as a Windows-derived OS for applications - which they can support and update independently. Netflix and others won't want to write their app using a gaming SDK.

For backwards compatibility to be viable, Microsoft would need to insert the type of hardware abstraction, traditionally undertaken by hardware drivers, back into the gaming OS architecture. Now you could make this abstraction part of the virtualization process but generally a console will be looking to lose layers between the game and hardware because each layer is an overhead that results in lost performance.

If Microsoft move to a different CPU architecture, virtualization won't help. The changes need to be emulated. If Microsoft drop in a different GPU without 32mb ESRAM, virtualization won't help. The changes need to be emulated -- That is unless the actual hardware isn't even visible to the developer, like the Android OS. But I don't believe this is the case, we would have heard about such a radical paradigm shift.

If the use of virtualization supports any argument for a different hardware configuration in future, it will be hardware geared towards the Windows OS side of the console. As ERP noted, having spent a lot of time and money on the current design, Microsoft aren't going to want to change it other than for cost reduction.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If Microsoft move to a different CPU architecture, virtualization won't help.

I can't see any reason for anyone to switch from x86 now, between now and when games become streamed from the net.

If Microsoft drop in a different GPU without 32mb ESRAM, virtualization won't help. The changes need to be emulated -- That is unless the actual hardware isn't even visible to the developer, like the Android OS. But I don't believe this is the case, we would have heard about such a radical paradigm shift.

We've heard rumours that XB1 hardware is behind a thicker API layer in contrast to PS4.

 

[-tkf-]

Major Nelson is the person who handles stuff like bans on XBL. He isn't adding to the confusion. He is stating the policy.Period.

So my most pressing questions isn't answered.. because well.. he has no idea what they are gonna do "this generation hasn't even started yet". Period.
24 hour check.. a long PR speak about family sharing. Period.
And contradiction on the banned players thingy is adding confusion. Period.

I am looking forward to the XBOX ONE DRM Wiki page.. it's going to be huge...!

 

[Nesh]

Major Nelson is the person who handles stuff like bans on XBL. He isn't adding to the confusion. He is stating the policy. Period. Now, on other areas like DRM or specs or whatnot he may not be in a position to have the latest corporate thinking and may not be up to date...but on issues like XBL rules he is THE go to guy.

What seems to be adding to the confusion most is the fact that ppl come out of the woodworks to assume the black and white policies just have to mean something different as they are too good to be true...then those ppl continuously repeat their confusion as if their confusion was legitimate. In many cases it isn't.

Someone either here or on GAF made a good point. Once MS figures out what their finalized policies are, they need to make some visual presentations to convey it. The family sharing things sounds amazing but it seems awkward to convey to ppl with just words. Maybe a diagram would help.

I still find it unclear. If you download something and you get banned, you can still play it. But if you delete it from your HDD will you be able to connect to live and download it again?

 

[-tkf-]

I still find it unclear. If you download something and you get banned, you can still play it. But if you delete it from your HDD will you be able to connect to live and download it again?

Can other accounts still borrow my game, that is, if other accounts actually can borrow my game..

 

[zupallinere]

If Microsoft move to a different CPU architecture, virtualization won't help. The changes need to be emulated. If Microsoft drop in a different GPU without 32mb ESRAM, virtualization won't help. The changes need to be emulated -- That is unless the actual hardware isn't even visible to the developer, like the Android OS. But I don't believe this is the case, we would have heard about such a radical paradigm shift.

Well running console games in a VM could be considered a bit of a paradigm shift. IIRC the MS engineers were talking in terms of guaranteed resources available to the dev and such. If the ESRAM + Move engines are actually hidden then you could then have nearly anybody who provides a bunch of x86 modules and CU modules on an SoC make the guts of the next Xbox. The only issue is bandwidth and latency memory guarantees and that is something that could be a DDR4 generational thing away. I mean as long as a future DDRx system gives you a statistically similar ( maybe a touch faster ) performance envelope as the ESRAM+Move combo then why would the game complain. I offer his knowing that in some other thread my suggestion has already been shot down in flames.

As ERP noted, having spent a lot of time and money on the current design, Microsoft aren't going to want to change it other than for cost reduction.

Also what deal was made with AMD. Do they get the next cost reduced chip or will it be open to others.

Damn slipping off topic.