XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[function]

And providing a DRM scheme significantly more consumer friendly than Steam is not caring about consumer needs and demands?

Steam is a store, and games sold from Steam can use various DRM methods (including Valve's own). The balance of pro's and cons detailing what Steam offers over the Xbone's closed platform linked to a single storefront linked to a single DRM system linked to a Paywall is not straight forward.

This comparison is not clear cut, and it is by no means certain that MS would come out as the winner against "Steam".

I think consumers can care about their needs and demands just fine. The company is putting forward a product, and the consumers can decide if it provides enough value to them that they want to buy it.

I don't know the entirety of what MS is offering, and neither does anyone else here AFAIK, so how is "average joe" supposed to know what kind of potential den of snakes they're climbing into? How is a customer supposed to make these informed decisions in the face of wilful obfuscation from the likes of that Nelson chap? There seem to be a lot of people asking MS questions and only getting a response of something like !?!~TITANFAL~xxx?? from Microsoft.

 

[babybumb]

Giantbomb saying MS backtracking to Sony policies. http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/microsoft-to-pull-complete-reversal-on-xbox-one-dr/1100-4673/

WHAT IS GOING ON

 

[Silenti]

Giant Bomb not the only one. A tech site broke it first and a twitter account comment. It's on neogaf for anyone interested.

Since the giantbomb website is choking on the traffic, here is the cut:

What does this mean?
•No more always online requirement
•The console no longer has to check in every 24 hours
•All game discs will work on Xbox One as they do on Xbox 360
•An Internet connection is only required when initially setting up the console
•All downloaded games will function the same when online or offline
•No additional restrictions on trading games or loaning discs
•Region locks have been dropped

 

[dragonelite]

At least let me opt in for library sharing..

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Giantbomb saying MS backtracking to Sony policies. http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/microsoft-to-pull-complete-reversal-on-xbox-one-dr/1100-4673/

WHAT IS GOING ON

I can't open the link but, if true, this would definitely help mitigate some consumer concerns, although the price is now a second one. According to The Verge, Microsoft's DRM policies were again inaccurately portrayed on Jimmy Fallon's show. In PR, truth is rarely the victor, and this stuff isn't helping. Any clarification are likely to be ignored, but a reversal of policy, however, might just do it.

 

[RacVic]

Function, people are against anything that takes them out of their comfort zone.

Arguing that we have been doing this along time can't be a valid reason to continue a system that is flawed. If you sell on your game the creator of that game should receive part proceeds from that sale.

I keep reading about the right's of the consumer. That's all well and fine but what about our responsibilities? Or do we have none? Are we being responsible when we lend ours games? What about when I sell my used game? What about if I hacked my system? Where is the line drawn? Or should our line of thought be that these companies make millions and billions so what does it matter because I'm just one person?

I'm of the opinion that we are all going to have to be inconvenienced to make the system work correctly but once we find the right solution things should be fine until the next big technology shift.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Interesting if true. I wonder if that kills the sharing features they talked about. Do all of those "log in anywhere and play your entire library" features now become strictly for downloaded titles?

 

[Silenti]

Function, people are against anything that takes them out of their comfort zone.

Arguing that we have been doing this along time can't be a valid reason to continue a system that is flawed. If you sell on your game the creator of that game should receive part proceeds from that sale.

I keep reading about the right's of the consumer. That's all well and fine but what about our responsibilities? Or do we have none? Are we being responsible when we lend ours games? What about when I sell my used game? What about if I hacked my system? Where is the line drawn? Or should our line of thought be that these companies make millions and billions so what does it matter because I'm just one person?

I'm of the opinion that we are all going to have to be inconvenienced to make the system work correctly but once we find the right solution things should be fine until the next big technology shift.

As opposed to any other form of used media...

 

[Nesh]

Do tell how are Microsoft dictating and ruling our lives you have a choice .......there called the wii u or PS 4 ....no one is forcing you to buy a Xbox one Microsoft do not have a monopoly.
You whole argument only works if Microsoft have a monopoly on power like a dictator which they clear don't

That argument is a form of escapism and an effort to ignore the thruth that the problem exists. If I dont buy an XBone (which I wont), it doesnt mean that the issue is not there and doesnt mean that it doesnt pose a danger that will escalate further to become the norm in the market as other people are accepting such corporate tactics by their own consent. The last part is what makes the issue more serious

 

[function]

At least let me opt in for library sharing..

It should never have been an either or choice, and it has been an exercise in assininity to present it as such. (1)No [digital] lending, (2) specific user-to-user one time log out <-> one time log in lending, and (3) an 'opt-in' compulsory 24 hour check-in shared collection, could all have been supported on the same platform with the user selecting what they wanted to sign up for [and having the freedom to change]. But the problem is that MS didn't want this, they wanted to kill private sales and free lending and giving of games. This has never been about piracy it's been about controlling and squeezing customers and having publishers love them for it.

The lack of choice and the dishonest way in which this whole bumbling, misleading and incompetent mess has been handled by a frankly fuck-witted Microsoft need never have happened. They could have turned their DRM system to their advantage with easily supportable choices and offline and legacy fallbacks.

Absolute morons.

 

[Rangers]

It should never have been an either or choice, and it has been an exercise in assininity to present it as such. No lending, specific user-to-user log out <-> log in lending, and an 'opt-in' 24 hour check-in shared collection could all have been supported on the same platform with the user selecting what they wanted to sign up for. But the problem is that MS didn't want this, they wanted to kill private sales and free lending and giving of games. This has never been about piracy it's been about controlling and squeezing customers and having publishers love them for it.

The lack of choice and the dishonest way in which this whole bumbling, misleading and incompetent mess has been handled by a frankly fuck-witted Microsoft need never have happened. They could have turned their DRM system to their advantage with easily supportable choices and offline and legacy fallbacks.

Absolute morons.

yeah, and it's almost all the same drm as steam, that everybody like you absolutely loves.

actually it's way better than steam...

if this means no library sharing and no disc-less gameplay, i'm against MS doing a backpedal.

 

[joker454]

At least let me opt in for library sharing..

Maybe it was enough to put pressure on Steam at least to also support library sharing, just came across this:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/19/4445844/valve-steam-game-sharing

I guess though if Microsoft is forced to back out of library sharing them Steam would presumably follow suit, which would really suck. Dammit, just when I thought digital sharing was moving forward, now it looks like it may still be all locked to existing restrictions. I really hope Microsoft sticks to their guns and doesn't cave in, I mean jeeze it's not 2005 anymore. Sigh, this is seriously irritating.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I imagine it went kinda like this:

Publishers to MS and Sony:
"We're fed up with the used games ruining our profits, do something!"

Microsoft to everyone:
"Okay here's a mutually beneficial compromise we came up with:..."

Sony to audience:
"So we are not going to require any DRM!"
(winks at publishers)

Publishers to everyone:
"Er... we have absolutely no problem with used games, honestly!"

Microsoft to everyone:
"Reeeeeeeally? Well in that case, we have neither!"
(winks at Sony)

Sony:
...

 

[babybumb]

I thought MS was building a digital ecosystem and it had not much to do with publishers? This PR looks pretty hollow now and they werent that confident

 

[Rangers]

if microsoft wants their console to sell better, i think knocking a hundred off the price would have been far more effective than doing a drm 180.

but that would have actually cost them money...

I though MS was building a digital ecosystem? This looks pretty hollow now

it just occurred to me software is day and date digital now, right? i can get the disc-less advantages i wanted simply by buying digital.

which will hurt a little, i currently buy all my main titles on disc. i just prefer to have something physical. it's nice to see 25 dvd boxes and feel like that's my collection.

also, you get LESS price reduction sales on digital than you do on physical.

 

[function]

Function, people are against anything that takes them out of their comfort zone.

Arguing that we have been doing this along time can't be a valid reason to continue a system that is flawed. If you sell on your game the creator of that game should receive part proceeds from that sale.

No, they shouldn't. They shouldn't any more than I should pay the people who made the house I live just because I enjoy the experience of living here.

I keep reading about the right's of the consumer. That's all well and fine but what about our responsibilities? Or do we have none?

Pay for it and don't copy it. Like with anything else.

Are we being responsible when we lend ours games?

Are we being responsible when we let a friend use our car? What if they enjoy the experience of driving it? Should a MS server detect this and deactivate the car?

What about when I sell my used game?

Cool. How much of a cut do you think the people who built your house should get when you sell it?

What about if I hacked my system?

Cool.

Where is the line drawn?

Preferably before I'm stripped of owning the things I've paid for.

Or should our line of thought be that these companies make millions and billions so what does it matter because I'm just one person?

That's a preferable thought to "I'm just one person so this huge company should be able to do whatever they can get me to put a thumb print to" and then extending that thought to " so if they can do it to one person they should be able to do it to everyone else". Companies aren't our home country that is about to be invaded and purged by hellspawn; we shouldn't have to sacrifice ourselves and the rights of our parents to serve the greater good of "some company". That's insane.

I'm of the opinion that we are all going to have to be inconvenienced to make the system work correctly but once we find the right solution things should be fine until the next big technology shift.

And in what way were publishers and MS supposed to be inconvenienced MS's proposed DRM system? I lose right of ownership, freedom to sell freely, freedom to lend freely, and the guarantee of life long (and probably longer) access. What do MS and their publisher chums give up? (I'd really appreciate an answer on this point).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sony:
...

Sony obviously don't have to say anything. If they're inclined they could pile on Microsoft with them clearly not understanding consumer desire, and if they've got it wrong with something so fundamental like concepts of ownership, how wrong have they got it elsewhere.

This is a good thing, if true - regardless of the views of the view folks here who think this is the inevitable future. Digital maybe, those polices, were definitely not.

 

[DrJay24]

Giantbomb saying MS backtracking to Sony policies. http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/microsoft-to-pull-complete-reversal-on-xbox-one-dr/1100-4673/

WHAT IS GOING ON

They felt a backlash from the one group that buys $500 consoles and spreads sales via word of mouth?

Not shocking at all.

 

[Rangers]

Sony obviously don't have to say anything. If they're inclined they could pile on Microsoft with them clearly not understanding consumer desire, and if they've got it wrong with something so fundamental like concepts of ownership, how wrong have they got it elsewhere.

This is a good thing, if true - regardless of the views of the view folks here who think this is the inevitable future. Digital maybe, those polices, were definitely not.

your right, if stream (which is super popular and beloved) is any indication those policies were far too lenient.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

Future proof policies they said.

Surely pre-order numbers had an effect on them.