I was quoting Laa-Yosh, not you. Jumping to conclusions much?
XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You
- Thread starter mrcorbo
- Start date
- Status
I was quoting Laa-Yosh, not you. Jumping to conclusions much?
that doesn't mean the server will never go wrong even if the system required always online.
To the whole "DRM was killing XBO sales" thing...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=596551
Sounds like they did not have too many to sell, right?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=596551
Sounds like they did not have too many to sell, right?
There is no extra complication for the consumer. If someone wants to share/rent/resell a disk based game he already knows how to which is extremely simple. If he wants to do the equivalent with a digital purchase he will be informed about that in the same way that he would have been if everything was only digital or the ex DRM policy applied
As for retail cannibalization retail was already concerned with the XB1 DRM measures
As for publishers they still have an incentive as more and more people would buy digital reducing the money loss generated from rentals.
)But presumably such a case would be transient and essentially irrelevant to baseline planning.
I think that's the real issue here, the baseline. Formerly (with 24 hr check in=basically online tethered) it could be cloud enabled (maybe), now, no?
Also 24 hs check would have negated any possible "rage" over "online required" titles...
Honestly, if you're unhappy with this change you have to blame Microsoft.
They should have anticipated all of the issues that would be brought up been prepared with complete and transparent answers for them explaining what they were doing, why they were doing it and how it benefited consumers enough to offset any sacrifices they would be making. And if it wasn't possible for them to formulate a winning argument on that last point then the plan was doomed from the start.
It's questionable whether a company that demonstrates the utter incompetence MS has shown in their handling of the messaging around their DRM policies is the right one to introduce a new paradigm anyway. Better to leave it to a company that at least has the appearance that they know what they're doing.
They should have anticipated all of the issues that would be brought up been prepared with complete and transparent answers for them explaining what they were doing, why they were doing it and how it benefited consumers enough to offset any sacrifices they would be making. And if it wasn't possible for them to formulate a winning argument on that last point then the plan was doomed from the start.
It's questionable whether a company that demonstrates the utter incompetence MS has shown in their handling of the messaging around their DRM policies is the right one to introduce a new paradigm anyway. Better to leave it to a company that at least has the appearance that they know what they're doing.
Aka the "steam/Sony can do whatever they want to us and we like it" loophole?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Yeah, thanks a lot MS.
None of the DRM stuff bothered me in the slightest, I understood that was the price to pay for sharing my library with up to ten other people, being able to gift my digital purchases when I was through with them, handling all media as digital so it would allow immediate switching and multitasking.
So how many of those features are no longer available because a certain group of people who are your lowest valued customers - those without internet access to purchase additional services and content, and those who want to purchase used games, of which you don't get a cut, complained?
Seems to me like the benefits of the One, which went hand in hand with the disadvantages of the One, have now been eliminated.
Seems to me MS now has a $100 more expensive console, which is less capable and less forward looking and quite simply... less.
I can't believe people are somehow trying to blame Sony as opportunist.
Jack Tretton said as far back as May 2012 that anti-used games DRM was anti-consumers and his opinion was that Sony shouldn't do that. Everything Sony have said publicly afterwards hinted that they wouldn't have this kind of online DRM. It can't be seen as a "last minute" decision, or some kind or opportunist decision against MS at E3. What MS did, they did themselves and stubbornly, while the public was continuously reacting to it. There were arrogant answers from MS "Deal with it", "buy a 360 if you don't have internet". There's a whole list of public coments that show the direction each company was taking. MS was stubborn and dismissive of public backlash, and now they gave up. The exact reason they gave up is left as an exercise in speculation.
Jack Tretton said as far back as May 2012 that anti-used games DRM was anti-consumers and his opinion was that Sony shouldn't do that. Everything Sony have said publicly afterwards hinted that they wouldn't have this kind of online DRM. It can't be seen as a "last minute" decision, or some kind or opportunist decision against MS at E3. What MS did, they did themselves and stubbornly, while the public was continuously reacting to it. There were arrogant answers from MS "Deal with it", "buy a 360 if you don't have internet". There's a whole list of public coments that show the direction each company was taking. MS was stubborn and dismissive of public backlash, and now they gave up. The exact reason they gave up is left as an exercise in speculation.
If the current DRM system can be blown up to such hysteria by a bunch of people-i-shan't-bother-calling-names, I have little faith in Joe Sixpack wanting to be a part of a hybrid system.
As for used games, it was said that MS would give authorized retail outlets (big shots) a cut. No big hurt there.
You're not seeing this in the publisher's perspective- they'd just ask: why wouldn't you get the consumer to buy all those games themselves if they want it? (aka Steam as of now). No publisher would agree to these conditions of flexibility in digital unless physical was brought in as a concession.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Buying digital content isn't unique. Having a choice of buying content physically or digitally isn't unique. Having different policies dictating the usage and disposal rights of that content for physical and digital content isn't unique.
Digital library sharing was new. Does it need to go away? For games bought on disc, sure. For digital purchases, no. Not if they remain subject to the exact same authentucation policies as originally intended. Are you telling me that it's complicated for the console to authenticate one type of content online and another by checking a valid disc is in the drive?
Ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't understand. Publishers have reason to want to devalue physical media in favor of digital distribution. Thus allowing game sharing could have been a quid-pro-quo for implementing policies that mitigated the advantages disc-based media has over digital downloads. No disc-unfriendly policies, no game sharing.
if you watch the giant bomb roundtable that included Adam Boyes (night of last day of E3), you can see and hear when he describes the change in plan as the #nodrm campaign trickled in and as Ms was getting the hate... he did not outright say, yea Sony caved but man the lines in which to read between are pretty clear, even though he made it seem like they really were not close, (company line) but certainly it was on the table
I wonder what line they will take now? Having backed down on the DRM issue, which would have been a none issue had they not so arrogantly tried to force upon gamers, they are left with a less powerful box, that is more expensive, and provides features for direct TV when the entire market and industry is moving to digital streaming. Which will be a feature that even the WiiU has.
Now they will be seen to be chasing Sony's tails as we head into the launch window. They would have been better off keeping some integrity and stayed with the plot. Just work harder on actually figuring out how to explain the whole thing properly.
But my guess is that they have had some real hard data back on pre-orders and that's hit them right in the money bags. Some store may have sold out of their set of launch day Xbones but I have heard that most allocations have only been, at max, 20 units, whilst the PS4 has been in the order of 60+ units and they have all gone too...
Whatever the result, this is entirely on MS and the Xbox team for promoting, handling, and responding to the entire issue with so much confusion and aggression.
Now they will be seen to be chasing Sony's tails as we head into the launch window. They would have been better off keeping some integrity and stayed with the plot. Just work harder on actually figuring out how to explain the whole thing properly.
But my guess is that they have had some real hard data back on pre-orders and that's hit them right in the money bags. Some store may have sold out of their set of launch day Xbones but I have heard that most allocations have only been, at max, 20 units, whilst the PS4 has been in the order of 60+ units and they have all gone too...
Whatever the result, this is entirely on MS and the Xbox team for promoting, handling, and responding to the entire issue with so much confusion and aggression.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Oh no I do understand. If publishers want to devalue physicals disks, or what I rather prefer as pros and cons of physical vs digital content ownership, then library sharing is a hell of an incentive. But rather than use that incentive there is now nothing? How is that better than same digital sales and some saved/lost used game sales?
Sorry, as a logical argument, it doesn't stand up.
- Status
