XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[Tchock]

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.

There is already incentive to digital (discless, permanent license).

License sharing = losing extra revenue on digital on top of losing revenue on used physical.
No way, come hell high water, would publishers agree to that in an age of rising game costs and risks.

 

[Dave Baumann]

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.

They allowed the narrative to stupidly focus on the negatives, and didn't build a story that focused on the benefits and the overall direction effectively.

Still, I don't see why this can't be re-reversed at some point by allowing users the original policies they outlined by virtue of an opt-in scheme.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

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.

Yep.

These changes will impact some of the scenarios we previously announced for Xbox One. The sharing of games will work as it does today, you will simply share the disc. Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray.

In other words, the benefits that differentiated our console from our competitors that allowed us features that tied completely into the basic design of the console and explained the value proposition behind the $100 price premium are now gone.

If MS is going to follow Sony on the DRM, the lack of digital sharing and gifting, the necessity of having to have disc based games in the drive, etc, I don't see how they can't NOT also follow Sony to a $399 launch price.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The real question is how much of their strategy relied on being always connected and now needs totally retooled. The decision seems like a simple one but could have very far reaching consequences for their overall vision.

It didn't need to be always connected, just once every 24hrs to authenticate ownership of your content. That didn't even make complete sense. If the games were disc installed (and therefore transferable) yes, but digital purchases!?! Disabling online authentication should not be difficult, yay just gets replaced with a disc check for disc-installed games at launch.

 

[Kb-Smoker]

They allowed the narrative to stupidly focus on the negatives, and didn't build a story that focused on the benefits and the overall direction effectively.

Still, I don't see why this can't be re-reversed at some point by allowing users the original policies they outlined by virtue of an opt-in scheme.

The reason it wont work is because it all or nothing. Just think how upset you are if you brought a used game on ebay and because someone install it you cannot play it.

Or you rented a game and install it. Just no way for it to be a good consumer experience.

You can "opt-in" by buying the digital version. You just cannot share games.

 

[Tchock]

They allowed the narrative to stupidly focus on the negatives, and didn't build a story that focused on the benefits and the overall direction effectively.

Still, I don't see why this can't be re-reversed at some point by allowing users the original policies they outlined by virtue of an opt-in scheme.

True. They utterly sucked at telling the story, and it didn't help that Medhi had a punchable face (je ne sais quoi, you know )

I don't see how the 2 models can co-exist in same titles. It all has to do with the physical used market, so you can't just opt-in for checks and versatility. MS has to play a vastly different game in digital from here onwards.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

The reason it wont work is because it all or nothing. Just think how upset you are if you brought a used game on ebay and because someone install it you cannot play it.

Or you rented a game and install it. Just no way for it to be a good consumer experience.

You can "opt-in" by buying the digital version. You just cannot share games.

I like how suddenly the Sony fans, who were up in arms over the MS DRM and didn't seem to understand why it was necessary, now fully understand why it was necessary and are taking the stage to explain how those features can't ever be added back in.

 

[Nesh]

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.

The problem is not a hybrid system. One doesnt get in the way of another. People were resistant to the DRM policy as it was and that didnt involve a hybrid. If Joe Sixpack has a problem understanding the digital he would have had before as well. Now Joe Sixpack will be part of the disk sharing, and Dexter Foureyes will be part of any of the two since he can understand both.

As for used games, it was said that MS would give authorized retail outlets (big shots) a cut. No big hurt there.

It was only said without making clear how. This adds complications to retailers as they would have less control of the rentals/used games. In addition only some retail outlets would get a cut. These outlets AFAIK were going to get a cut on the games bought on disk (which of course would have been under DRM policies) not on the digitally downloaded from XBOX store so if there was going to be a resistance to the scenario I provided there would have been a resistance before too. You do realize digital versions were going to be sold through XBOX Live's store regardless? That would have allowed digital resell?

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.

The publisher if he has the ability to motivate more and more people to buy the digital versions and benefit from it he would do it

 

[mrcorbo]

Aka the "steam/Sony can do whatever they want to us and we like it" loophole?

People hated Steam when it first came out and resented that Half Life 2 was unavailable to anyone who didn't want to use it. Valve has earned the goodwill of its customers through years of service providing demonstrable value to them. They don't get a free pass, they've earned one.

And WRT to Sony, what exactly are they "doing"?

 

[Nesh]

People hated Steam when it first came out and resented that Half Life 2 was unavailable to anyone who didn't want to use it. Valve has earned the goodwill of its customers through years of service providing demonstrable value to them. They don't get a free pass, they've earned one.

And WRT to Sony, what exactly are they "doing"?

Steam isnt the only medium under which PC gamers can purchase their games. Its just an option AFAIK. There are still PC games sold on retail

 

[3dilettante]

I like how suddenly the Sony fans, who were up in arms over the MS DRM and didn't seem to understand why it was necessary, now fully understand why it was necessary and are taking the stage to explain how those features can't ever be added back in.

Begging the question as to necessity.

There's plenty of reason to believe they wouldn't design a scheme were modifications to a subset of the functionality can bring the whole thing down. There should be some non-technical reasons for why so much was pared away.

 

[Kb-Smoker]

I like how suddenly the Sony fans, who were up in arms over the MS DRM and didn't seem to understand why it was necessary, now fully understand why it was necessary and are taking the stage to explain how those features can't ever be added back in.

Since you quoted me... Where did i say i never understood any of the DRM?

I understand it completely... I do not agree with having it just to lock down a system and so did most people...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is already incentive to digital (discless, permanent license).

License sharing = losing extra revenue on digital on top of losing revenue on used physical. No way, come hell high water, would publishers agree to that in an age of rising game costs and risks.

Discless is less an incentive than a consequence. When I Buy music from iTunes, it's not the lack of a disc that is the incentive. But this is also a downside for sharing - like I said, pros and cons. But are you saying that digital library sharing would result in lost sales? Because I thought the point of the original DRM plan was to reduce lost sales, not promote it in the most convenient way possible!?! Microsoft strategy-wise, I'm getting mixed messages here.

 

[jonabbey]

You do realize digital versions were going to be sold through XBOX Live's store regardless? That would have allowed digital resell?

Again, Microsoft never stated that they would support resell of digital downloads. They expressly limited their support for the selling / gifting of used games to purchased discs.

 

[Nesh]

Again, Microsoft never stated that they would support resell of digital downloads. They expressly limited their support for the selling / gifting of used games to purchased discs.

Then what is this guy talking about?
http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-jus..._source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

You would also, as it happens, have been able to share and resell your digitally purchased games. That's a REALLY BIG DEAL

 

[jonabbey]

Then what is this guy talking about?
http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-jus..._source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

He is misinformed, as I commented on that site. I read Microsoft's policies directly from their site, they always qualified their give away / sale policies with 'for disc games'.

 

[mrcorbo]

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.

At what point have content providers *ever* preferred the carrot to the stick when it comes to chnaging consumer behavior? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example.

It's not what makes sense to you, it's what makes sense to them and the spreadsheets their looking at showing the money that supporting disc-based distribution costs them.

 

[Tchock]

It was only said without making clear how. This adds complications to retailers as they would have less control of the rentals/used games. In addition only some retail outlets would get a cut. These outlets AFAIK were going to get a cut on the games bought on disk (which of course would have been under DRM policies) not on the digitally downloaded from XBOX store so if there was going to be a resistance to the scenario I provided there would have been a resistance before too. You do realize digital versions were going to be sold through XBOX Live's store regardless? That would have allowed digital resell?

Um, that's why the wording was always "gifting" to a friend (30-day and whatnot) for both digital and physical. Only physical copies were able to be re-sold through certified partners. They wouldn't have crossed anyone this way.

The publisher if he has the ability to motivate more and more people to buy the digital versions and benefit from it he would do it

The cost savings through DD is much lesser than you think. The digital storefront takes a cut equal if not larger (I suspect larger) than the physical stores (who are low-margin on new items), printing and distribution is ultimately a matter of a few bucks.

Publishers are much more willing to clamp down on losing sales to used copies than they are trying to optimize a few bucks- which might not even exist...

 

[BoardBonobo]

I like how suddenly the Sony fans, who were up in arms over the MS DRM and didn't seem to understand why it was necessary, now fully understand why it was necessary and are taking the stage to explain how those features can't ever be added back in.

I think that it's more the fact that MS has just gone on record and backed up everything those "Sony fans" were saying to start with. And it wasn't the "Sony fans" who has caused the about face at the end of the day.

It's the fact that MS were incapable of creating a dialogue that shone a positive light on what they were doing, and the "MS fans" were so reactionary to the online debate\debacle they actually did more harm than good.

Oh well c'est la vie and all that...

 

[Nesh]

He is misinformed, as I commented on that site. I read Microsoft's policies directly from their site, they always qualified their give away / sale policies with 'for disc games'.

You mean I was wasting my time discussing about a convenience coming out of someone's misinformation?
Damn it! My bad.

Um, that's why the wording was always "gifting" to a friend (30-day and whatnot) for both digital and physical. Only physical copies were able to be re-sold through certified partners. They wouldn't have crossed anyone this way.

Look above quote.

The cost savings through DD is much lesser than you think. The digital storefront takes a cut equal if not larger (I suspect larger) than the physical stores (who are low-margin on new items), printing and distribution is ultimately a matter of a few bucks.

Publishers are much more willing to clamp down on losing sales to used copies than they are trying to optimize a few bucks- which might not even exist...

I wasnt talking about cost savings. Benefits include increasing the share of people that make digital purchases which in effect reduces the amount of people relying on used games (either sell or buy)