XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[patsu]

as mentioned, i prefer discs, on 360 anyway. Unless it's say, a $20 game, under certain circumstances.

Now, if discs on the XB1 truly had no more rights than digital (I'm not sure), I guess I would have bought digital?

But, digital tends to be higher priced too...

I dunno, guess I'll be buying digital now, gonna be weird

You don't have to commit to one format or the other. Just play by ear.

I have been buying digital on Vita, and discs + digital for PS3.
For PS4, I will probably do a mix too.

 

[joker454]

Sony did digital game sharing (for downloaded games) on PS3. I would imagine that would still persist into the PS4/XBox One generation to some more limited extent even with this walk-back.

PS3's game sharing was far too limited and primitive, it's not at all what the XB1 was offering, or should I say formerly offering.

I wonder why are Microsoft insistent on one policy for both purchases types. Why not one policy for purchases on disc, so sharing works like it does now for those who want it, and a policy for digital purchases with sharing as they originally envisaged. Sony seem to be managing it

I don't see how you can offer digital sharing without some form of phoning home to prevent abuse. No phoning home means no digital sharing, simple.

This is a terrible development. Im only glad about not having games I purchased disabled because of the 24 hr check in thing.

It's up to Valve now. They already offer most of the pieces with the most games, the best looking games, all digital, you can play them on all your devices be it desktop, laptop, tablet, etc, play then remotely on a bus or plane and so on. The only piece they were missing was the ability to trade games. Maybe they will still go through with that, who knows, it would be a way to show people how primitive and limited the new consoles really are. An opportunity for Valve has definitely opened here.

Not really. If you want to go disc-less, just buy the pure digital version.

Except where yesterday you were able to trade them or share them with 10 family members, now you can't. Hooray. I feel so liberated that my digital content is all locked down once again. The good news is that it will save my router from processing an extra 5 network packets every 24 hours.

 

[jonabbey]

Totally agree. The people clamoring for this with petitions etc... were NEVER going to buy it anyway. Even with this capitulation... they still wont buy it because:

1) It MS
2) its overpriced
3) its underspecced
4) it has mandatory Kinect
5) See 1

ugh I'm aggravated now.

I believe you are underestimating the level and nature of the consumer reaction. When the Navy Times is publishing stories about how XBox One will not be usable by deployed military personnel, the problem isn't online fanboys.

 

[patsu]

If the publisher wants unpopular DRM restrictions on its titles, why shouldn't the blame go to the publisher?

Microsoft made a call that applied to their entire platform, with apparently objectionable restrictions even in the case where the publisher chooses to be maximally permissive. Why shouldn't Microsoft have the blame in that case?

Yes, publishers will get dinged too if people confirm they are behind this as well.

 

[Rangers]

not necessarily... it clearly says "OFFLINE games can be played offline... they can still have plenty of games that REQUIRE online and many will even 3rd party PS4 games like The Club is online only... that's the rub, many games will be online only anyway

thats fine but if only online games get cloud benefits, it still sucks. Because that's still a subset of all games.

The other option is too have offline modes (Eg, Forza with no cloudatar, with local kludge solution, =offline mode, Forza online=cloudatar enabled).

Then people, as I've already seen on GAF, can bitch that cloud is a backdoor online only requirement...is MS gonna cave to them now too?

The thing is though if devs cant plan for a feature (cloud) as baseline, you have to wonder how well it will truly be exploited.

It's Bagel Seed's fault

 

[Laa-Yosh]

If the publisher wants unpopular DRM restrictions on its titles, why shouldn't the blame go to the publisher?

Because if it's a standard on both platforms then there's noone to single out.

Really people, it's as clean as daylight, Sony thought there was an opportunity and made a gamble. MS however didn't want to play along and now everyone will suck.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

Don't thank the people, thank Gamespot. : P

 

[Xenus]

Why? Sony has supported game sharing, and MS's choices are their own. Your outrage should be aimed at those lambasting MS's online validation process or causing them to change their mond, not some other console manufacturer entirely.

Not even that but it should be aimed solely at the one who made the decision. Microsoft. They could of stood by their ship come hell or high water instead they bent to consumer pressure. Whether you like the change is ancillary to the fact that it was Microsoft's decision in the end.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't think it's a good thing. I want a shared digital library and that was *finally* on the way to becoming a reality thanks to Microsoft.

And a dual-policy approach is the way to do this. One policy for discs, which work just as they do now for those who want that, and another policy with game library sharing for digital purchases for those who want that. Then everybody gets exactly what they want without any compromises.

But this move just makes it look like Microsoft have just thrown their toys out of the pram in a tantrum.

 

[temesgen]

Okay, just to make it clear:

I'm convinced that all publishers were united in establishing DRM policies to stop the trading of used games without them getting a cut. They've had meetings with MS and Sony on this one and formulated some sort of agreement.

MS announced their implementation of this agreement and received a lot of flak for it from the online community.

Sony saw an opportunity here to make a grab for early adopters, by announcing no such DRM policy on their end - shifting all the blame for it on 3rd party publishers and breaking any behind the scenes agreements. Basically they made a gamble to gather a larger install base in the early years and use it as a leverage for strong 3rd party support.

But now that MS has backed off, the sales match is once again back to roughly 1:1, with the added X1 features and stronger brand in the US compensating for the higher price. And there's still room on the price anyway.

So now with their DRM advantage gone, Sony has no leverage on 3rd party publishers and they've also ruined their plans with DRM. For which they may easily get punished, by publishers denying them any exclusive content.

The reality is that consumers didn't like the policy based off its merits and perhaps more importantly the extremely poor way MS communicated it. There is a vocal group here hand clapping every decision MS makes but that has little to do with life outside the bubble.

For the rest of us this is a step in the right direction and I can say for me personally at least it puts the XB1 back in play as a option for my next system. I don't like paying for online but now that both platforms are mandating it I will be taking a wait and see approach.

 

[patsu]

Except where yesterday you were able to trade them or share them with 10 family members, now you can't. Hooray.

Welp, you can share with 11 or more people with the disc version. Hooray. Their old DRM scheme was too limited compared to the disc version. That's why your fellow Xboxers complained.

The digital version can be shared too if you just buy the thing with a shared account. ^_^

 

[N_B]

Because if it's a standard on both platforms then there's noone to single out.

Really people, it's as clean as daylight, Sony thought there was an opportunity and made a gamble. MS however didn't want to play along and now everyone will suck.

It was clear before E3 Sony's policies were more relaxed. Before the X1 was even annouced they said the console would work offline and not block used games.

 

[3dilettante]

I don't see how you can offer digital sharing without some form of phoning home to prevent abuse. No phoning home means no digital sharing, simple.

Why not phone home for shared titles? The servers would know the difference, because they'd be the intermediaries. A consumer would understand that if they're getting a shared game without fronting the purchase price that there could be strings attached.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's Sony that'll have to explain themselves to the publishers. I'm 100% certain it was a guerilla move behind their backs...

Unless you've evidence to back that up, that's FUD. Few of us are privy to Sony's backroom negotiations, and without that, it's pure guesswork based on personal bias. To be 100% certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, without any point of reference, is not logical or rational, unless you're psychic.

 

[Jwm]

So everyone on here that was buying it... are you still going to now?

Yes..but I can still be upset at the loss of features. Ha

Overall it was the right move, wish DD could keep some of the benefits though depending on how easy it is to move from X1 to X1 I will probably go DD only. The 360 setup just sucked for my DD daily use.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't see how you can offer digital sharing without some form of phoning home to prevent abuse. No phoning home means no digital sharing, simple.

Right, so you only make the phone-in a requirement for validating digital purchases and not disc-only games.

Again. Two polices, one for each purchase type. Everybody still gets what they want.

 

[Cranky]

Are all the tears due to looking sycophants for a bad DRM policy that MS has decided to correct? This is good news, they are listening and changed course.... Hats off to them for having enough courage to fix this.

Dammit. One of the worst decisions for consumers of all time. Bunch of whining little bitches robbing the XB1 of significant value. I am pissed off that MS caved on this topic. Unless the family plan comes back, I will buy 1 box instead of the 4 that I was planning.

Make no mistake this is a horrible decision for consumers. you are giving up a lot by losing the digital access controls for things of no value in the future state - i.e. used sales and disc-based sharing.

Sigh, I really wished that they had just manned up and gone all digital. Obviously, short term this is will help with their PR problems, but it is a terrible strategic decision. One way to possible save this is to have the ability to opt-in for the old system and get the benefits from it.

 

[Billy Idol]

Except where yesterday you were able to trade them or share them with 10 family members, now you can't. Hooray. I feel so liberated that my digital content is all locked down once again. The good news is that it will save my router from processing an extra 5 network packets every 24 hours.

That is not true, right?!? Only for games, where publisher would explicitely allow it. Why would they fight used games such that you can sell used games digitally?

 

[jonabbey]

Because if it's a standard on both platforms then there's noone to single out.

Really people, it's as clean as daylight, Sony thought there was an opportunity and made a gamble. MS however didn't want to play along and now everyone will suck.

Yes, if Sony had implemented the same policies as Microsoft, consumers would have had nowhere to turn to avoid the restrictions, and so the publishers wouldn't have had customers bitching like they will when the customer knows that the publishers are behind the restrictions.

...

And you think that would be better? For whom?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Microsoft. They could of stood by their ship come hell or high water instead they bent to consumer pressure.

The past week made it more than obvious that Sony was gaining significant public mindshare and MS was losing a lot of the market, particularly in the EU, even before selling a single console.

I personally thought they were believing that they'd still get customers who'd spend more and be willing to sacrifice some market share for it, but apparently the price was getting too high.

Actually I was seriously considering getting a PS4 first as no MS exclusive apart from Halo 5 was looking interesting to me, but now I've decided not to support Sony at all. They've become a stumbling block and I can not support that attitude.