XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[3dilettante]

None are. However features like the cloud being available to every game are far more likely to be viable when you can ensure a network connection is present which the likelihood of it existing goes up vastly once you start requiring daily or shorter check ins. Aka people less likely to go places where it can't connected.

The PR problem with that is that Microsoft already went ahead and said the check-in could be done by tethering to a mobile network and downloading kilobytes of data.
Rather than scaring people on the fringes to beef up connectivity, they were told they had a half-measure that allows for something good enough to get permission, but poor for actual sustained use.

 

[bkilian]

None are. However features like the cloud being available to every game are far more likely to be viable when you can ensure a network connection is present which the likelihood of it existing goes up vastly once you start requiring daily or shorter check ins. Aka people less likely to go places where it can't connected.

That is not correct. Playing without the disc in the drive requires the check, to avoid two copies of the game being played with one purchase. Being able to resell or trade in the game requires the check to avoid installing, selling, and then playing the game you sold. Basically anything that used to require a disc in the drive would require the check to enable a discless version of it.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It is a majority vs a vocal minority, it's not only the users but also the journalists. I just hope they add an option to have the old system -it's still built in, remember- for those who opt-in for it as an added value. How? It's not my job to figure it out... but the solid foundations are there.

But it wasn't a vocal minority; the majority of the press were reporting on it negatively. Bear in mind Microsoft are used to negative response to things, they've been making products for decades.

This is nothing but a failure for Microsoft. They failed to explain how their policies would affect consumers and the days following their May 22 event were sheer communication mayhem. They failed to sell any of the pluses like digital library sharing. They just fucked it up and nobody else is to blame.

But here's the thing. Not a single person or magazine I read had any concerns with the policies regarding digital purchases. They were great policies. It was only traditional disc ownership. That's all they had to revert.

What Sony need to do now, is get some agreement with publishers about library sharing for digital purchases on PS4. If nothing else, they can do it for first party games. If they had done this before it would look like aping Microsoft but now Microsoft have thrown this away, Sony should try and make it work.

 

[-tkf-]

Not confused at all... i mean.. what? I guess it wasn't so hard to change that policy after all..

Someone that can point me to an official statement that makes it clear that disc based games DOES NOT require activation/internet connection?

Would be sweet to have 2! new consoles at launch

 

[N_B]

I really doubt the promised features and preservation of consumer rights were mutually exclusive.

 

[Eolirin]

Which features were also dependant on the 24hr/check in?

Well, this at least

One thing that is a side effect of this change is no longer being able to rely on the console always having the latest OS version. This means that discs will now have to ship with the console OS on board if they rely on non-shipped-at-launch features. It also increases the test cost on the developer. This was a huge pillar of the system design, and there are a ton of people scrambling now changing TCRs and redesigning the disc format.

But also, disc free play and disc parity with digital, including fast game swapping and a better experience with asynchronous matchmaking. Price competition between retail and Live Marketplace is also a feature, even if it's not a gameplay one. That's also gone.

Disc free also potentially could've opened up other doors down the road, knowing that you can do fast game swapping at any point does give you more options. So having disc free as a given was very forward looking.

But it's resale, disc-free, no check in/resale drm, pick two. And no resale isn't an option because retailers will revolt.

 

[ERP]

Originally Posted by bkilian<br />
One thing that is a side effect of this change is no longer being able to rely on the console always having the latest OS version. This means that discs will now have to ship with the console OS on board if they rely on non-shipped-at-launch features. It also increases the test cost on the developer. This was a huge pillar of the system design, and there are a ton of people scrambling now changing TCRs and redesigning the disc format.

Interesting I would have thought one of the advantages of the rather convoluted VM system was that the game would always run with the same version of the OS it shipped with, minimizing the testing requirements for subsequent Game OD releases.
System features would be decoupled as a part of the system OS.

 

[Eolirin]

Don't feel too bad. Microsoft seems to be saying that a bunch of those digital features everyone keeps insisting can only happen with a kill switch may eventually make their way back for digital games.
That might be good, right?

No, they aren't saying that. What they're saying is that maybe they'll be able to put the sharing feature back in, but only for your digital purchases. Disc based purchases are permanently locked out of the features that require or are enabled by the digital download functionally. Originally, all games were essentially digital downloads, with discs merely being a delivery mechanism. The kill switch enabled, and was required for, exactly one thing; letting you sell your games back to a participating retailer. Although since cutting out the resale market just simply was not going to happen, you could also view it as being necessary for enabling disc-free play.

Now digital and physical copies are incompatible with each other. And will remain so. CEs are out if you want disc free. If you have poor internet, you don't get fast game switching. It is impossible for them to change this meaningfully. None of the solutions would be anywhere near as transparent as the original set of compromises. They'd all be generally awful logistically, actually.

 

[3dilettante]

Interesting I would have thought one of the advantages of the rather convoluted VM system was that the game would always run with the same version of the OS it shipped with, minimizing the testing requirements for subsequent Game OD releases.
System features would be decoupled as a part of the system OS.

Is that really a 24 hour restriction, or the generalized net connection requirement that compromised the OS assumption?

It would seem to be a poor fit to rely on the check-in, because it would variably bloat what Microsoft promised was a tiny operation to an OS download of tens of megabytes at least. Already installed games are probably not the going to benefit on the wait.

I suppose in the old system, if the OS update is done automatically, the system could pause an installation if the Xbox had been off the net for some time and wasn't online long enough to download the full update.

Without an OS install on the disc, that time window would be open to user confusion. In the case of some kind of security install, there might be a window for some kind of exploit.

 

[Eolirin]

Interesting I would have thought one of the advantages of the rather convoluted VM system was that the game would always run with the same version of the OS it shipped with, minimizing the testing requirements for subsequent Game OD releases.
System features would be decoupled as a part of the system OS.

That assumes that there are never any changes or fixes to the Game OS, doesn't it? That the System OS is decoupled will reduce the frequency of that happening, sure, they can iterate on that end very rapidly without impact, but no OS is perfect. Things will always need to be fixed. APIs will get updated.

Edit: sorry I think I misread you; from what I understand, the VM is to enable the Game OS and the System OS to be running at the same time, for snap and fast app swapping, and functions like that. They can be updated out of sync with each other, but those OSes only have one active version. So there won't be multiple Game OSs swapping in and out depending on what version the game was built on.

 

[Archgamer]

While I am totally against DRM's and their used game policies, if I was in MS shoes I would of stuck with the policies they had instead of backpedalling off of the consumer backlash. No one would really know how it would translate into real world numbers. Had they failed, they would have a legit reason to change like poor sales. Instead people may take this change as seeing MS unclear with their ideals and beliefs. Sometimes its good to be stubborn and see if you can be prove wrong.

MS went through that period with the RROD with 360. People were still buying them after the backlash. My bet, people would of eventually gotten use to the policies. And MS would of made some hard earn dollars.

Console wars are not won by a sprint race. Its always is a marathon. You can make mistakes and recover from it.

 

[Fafalada]

What Sony need to do now, is get some agreement with publishers about library sharing for digital purchases on PS4. If nothing else, they can do it for first party games.

PS3 always had game-sharing for digital purchases, I doubt they'll remove the option on PS4 (although it would be nice if they relaxed the restriction to more than 2 shares again).

 

[ERP]

That assumes that there are never any changes or fixes to the Game OS, doesn't it? That the System OS is decoupled will reduce the frequency of that happening, sure, they can iterate on that end very rapidly without impact, but no OS is perfect. Things will always need to be fixed. APIs will get updated.

You know at least minimally all of the intended game features are present on whatever version of Game OS shipped on the game disk.
If it were me in charge (which it clearly isn't ) then I'd roll Game OS patches out with game patches.

I would assume that all social features for example are part of the System OS. I guess if the System OS includes things like the save game flow then you start to have cases where the way the Game OS interacts with the System OS changes, but again if it were me I'd try very hard to make those sort of changes a nono.

 

[Eolirin]

You know at least minimally all of the intended game features are present on whatever version of Game OS shipped on the game disk.
If it were me in charge (which it clearly isn't ) then I'd roll Game OS patches out with game patches.

I would assume that all social features for example are part of the System OS. I guess if the System OS includes things like the save game flow then you start to have cases where the way the Game OS interacts with the System OS changes, but again if it were me I'd try very hard to make those sort of changes a nono.

The Game OS isn't on the disc at all; it's on the console. And it'd just be a given that the console would have the most up to date version. Changes to the GameOS would be like changes to DirectX; new versions are always a superset and fully compatible with old code. Given that, there's no need to have anything but game data on that disc.

But if they're going to support full offline play they can't make that assumption any more. So now they need to make sure they have Game OS patches present if the game requires a specific version.

 

[Eolirin]

Is that really a 24 hour restriction, or the generalized net connection requirement that compromised the OS assumption?

It would seem to be a poor fit to rely on the check-in, because it would variably bloat what Microsoft promised was a tiny operation to an OS download of tens of megabytes at least. Already installed games are probably not the going to benefit on the wait.

I suppose in the old system, if the OS update is done automatically, the system could pause an installation if the Xbox had been off the net for some time and wasn't online long enough to download the full update.

Without an OS install on the disc, that time window would be open to user confusion. In the case of some kind of security install, there might be a window for some kind of exploit.

Remember that there was also an activation on install that required a live connection; if the OS version was out of date, it could grab it then. This is no longer the case.

 

[3dilettante]

No, they aren't saying that. What they're saying is that maybe they'll be able to put the sharing feature back in, but only for your digital purchases.

That seems like a pretty straightforward way to tout the benefits of the Format of Tomorrow.

Disc based purchases are permanently locked out of the features that require or are enabled by the digital download functionally. Originally, all games were essentially digital downloads, with discs merely being a delivery mechanism.

This is only true if you absolutely and positively will not accept the possibility of a physical disc being used more than the digital sharing rules provide, and are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

A user could opt-in their disc game to the server, and supplant it in their account as a digital game, potentially replacing it over time or patching in console-specific data to render it just as unique as any other digital download.
Live would keep count, so it's only going to happen within the system as much as the rules permit.
Either this means that one game is subject to server checks, or maybe if the consumer has an ongoing subscription to Live, they can accumulate enough goodie two-shoes points by being a paying customer, or Microsoft could quietly set aside a chunk of the income in its accounting for share abuse.

The best-case scenario is that this brings a huge chunk of the casual sharing activity into the system, potentially with some additional monthly subscriptions as a result of the increased participation.
Worst-case is the system Microsoft has reverted to, where the disc is going to be shared as usual.

The kill switch enabled, and was required for, exactly one thing; letting you sell your games back to a participating retailer.

For it targeting just the one thing, it seemed to hit a bunch of other targets.
Why did it apply to games that never existed in physical form to sell back to a retailer?

Kill switches are a many-splendored thing. You can use them as leverage for lots of stuff all at the same time.

None of the solutions would be anywhere near as transparent as the original set of compromises. They'd all be generally awful logistically, actually.

It transparently hobbled the digital format with checks that really should only apply to discs.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Interesting I would have thought one of the advantages of the rather convoluted VM system was that the game would always run with the same version of the OS it shipped with, minimizing the testing requirements for subsequent Game OD releases.

There ought be less game OS updates but I'm sure Microsoft will continue to work on the thin operating system and may add APIs during the consoles life cycle.

The solution for games being reliant upon the latest game OS to function is to include it on the disc, which is how firmware updates work on PlayStation 3 today. Of course, we don't know how locked security is for Xbox One's game OS so they may need to do some work to enable this, if it doesn't already.

 

[Eolirin]

That seems like a pretty straightforward way to tout the benefits of the Format of Tomorrow.

It also creates a silo that prevents price competition for Live, and leads to two completely different sets of functionality depending on format. CEs are now a choice between the physical goods in the box and system functionality.

This is only true if you absolutely and positively will not accept the possibility of a physical disc being used more than the digital sharing rules provide, and are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

From the perspective of the Xbox's OS, there'd be no difference between digital or disc purchases. If you bought a game on a disc, it would unlock it to you account in exactly the same way that buying it digitally would. This is why you needed to go to a participating retailer to get the license revocation; they had to interface with the Live servers. So regardless of use cases or the provision of extra functionality to discs (resale), that was how it was under the old system. Under the new system, this does not happen; you cannot get any of the benefits of disc free or cloud storage with a disc game. The disc being in the drive is the replacement for the internet drm checks.

A user could opt-in their disc game to the server, and supplant it in their account as a digital game, potentially replacing it over time or patching in console-specific data to render it just as unique as any other digital download.
Live would keep count, so it's only going to happen within the system as much as the rules permit.
Either this means that one game is subject to server checks, or maybe if the consumer has an ongoing subscription to Live, they can accumulate enough goodie two-shoes points by being a paying customer, or Microsoft could quietly set aside a chunk of the income in its accounting for share abuse.

The best-case scenario is that this brings a huge chunk of the casual sharing activity into the system, potentially with some additional monthly subscriptions as a result of the increased participation.
Worst-case is the system Microsoft has reverted to, where the disc is going to be shared as usual.

This scenario does not work if you can sell the game on EBay, and it definitely doesn't work if you don't need to be online to play the disc. If you do this, you recreate the original system where you can only sell to authorized retailers, have to activate every purchase, and then, to simplify the trade-in process, the console needs to check to make sure none of your licenses have been revoked. Because otherwise you have nasty edge cases all over the place.

For it targeting just the one thing, it seemed to hit a bunch of other targets.
Why did it apply to games that never existed in physical form to sell back to a retailer?

Kill switches are a many-splendored thing. You can use them as leverage for lots of stuff all at the same time.


It transparently hobbled the digital format with checks that really should only apply to discs.

Assuming there isn't some hidden technical difficulty to telling the difference at the console end, you are right in that there should have been no need to apply the system to digitally downloaded titles.

However that would not have made a bit of difference to the general response the systems for discs caused. The outrage would have been at best the same, and at worst even more extreme. So we'd still end up where we are, with two separate systems.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

Then you get your money back off eBay and that user gets dowbvoted for misrepresenting the things they were selling. But you are right - a mix of services that can either consume a disk or leave it free for redistribution would be harder to manage.

 

[3dilettante]

This scenario does not work if you can sell the game on EBay. If you do this, you recreate the original system where you can only sell to authorized retailers, and then, to simplify the trade-in process, the console needs to check to make sure none of your licenses have been revoked. Because otherwise you have nasty edge cases all over the place.

There's duff merchandise on eBay all the time. Games aren't an exception and there are forms of risk management.
Microsoft will see that the disc's serial number has appeared somewhere else, and can raise the issue with the originally registered owner.

Beyond that, the idea of accumulating karma as you pay into Live means that it can take the cost out of the share jar or assess a fee to smooth over rare snafus.

If there's some kind of widespread compromise of the license identification scheme, it'd have other serious effects if the kill switch were still in effect.