XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You

[bkilian]

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.

You are correct, the Game VM contains everything to allow the game to run. What it doesn't contain are the system level features like, say, companion app support. Let's say it relies on a System OS (the thing that's running the Kinect and the final audio mixer and a ton of other stuff) feature that only got shipped in a later build, or a new driver feature added to the Core OS VM. Before, MS could guarantee that every console would have the latest version of the OS stack. Now they cannot. So you cannot even send your game to be pressed until you have a final version of the new system image, which puts the developer on a schedule dictated by Microsoft. If MS ships the console update on November 20th, your game will not make Black Friday. In the online version, it would be decoupled, and as long as you shipped even a day after the update, you're fine.

It's one of the things the publishers hated about the 360, having to ship a Dashboard image with their game. MS was trying to remove that issue entirely.

 

[bkilian]

Which ones require a net connection? Do we have info on this? As far as I know, it was only BF3 which required net to play sp uptill now.

Forza 5, and quite a few others mentioned at the E3 event.

I'm sorry, but what if we want a console more like its predecessor the Xbox 360? That's basically what the PS4 is, just on steroids and at a reasonable price.

Aah, you want a faster horse. Gotcha.

 

[3dilettante]

This does beg the question that Xbox One is a Model T and not one of the other forgotten cars before and during its life.

 

[Eolirin]

The discs would be numerically different, and the server would know the serial numbers. That is, unless my recollection of Blu-ray having that option is wrong.

A fraudulent buyer could make a go at guessing it, but there are probably better scams to run.

In the other case, where the seller hasn't deactivated their license, the paywall income can provide a cushion to just write the problem off, assuming that the console didn't wander onto Live at any time after the sale.


Better to find out there's a fundamental problem with the identification methods used by Xbox Live from an eBay auction than from reports of random accounts being downed by the check-in servers.

No, the server cannot know anything about the serial on the disc, because that would require online authentication, which no longer exists. People did not want the system to phone home for any reason when playing single player games. They were just as against the requirement that the system need a connection when you install a game as they were against the 24 hour check. And honestly, if you've got a stable enough connection where you're not concerned about the install check, you've got one stable enough to be concerned about the daily one.

 

[Xalion]

This does beg the question that Xbox One is a Model T and not one of the other forgotten cars before and during its life.

Or just a different version of a faster horse. Pushing this analogy far further than it was ever intended to go, I think the Wii is probably the closest thing to a "Model T" that we've seen in gaming recently.

I guess if it were easy to come up with the next big thing, someone would have done it already.

 

[AlphaWolf]

This does beg the question that Xbox One is a Model T and not one of the other forgotten cars before and during its life.

I guess we'll never know because they caved to the whiners. Hopefully there's someone else out there willing to put out the effort to push forward because I already have a much faster horse than Sony or MS are releasing.

 

[MfA]

They were just as against the requirement that the system need a connection when you install a game as they were against the 24 hour check.

Dunno who they are, but it's not me.

And honestly, if you've got a stable enough connection where you're not concerned about the install check, you've got one stable enough to be concerned about the daily one.

That's just an outright silly statement.

 

[MfA]

I guess we'll never know because they caved to the whiners.

I still kinda doubt it ... I wonder to what extent the publishers were completely informed before Microsoft publicized it and how willing they were to sign off on it, in the end Microsoft's scheme could never work without all the big publishers buying in.

 

[Strange]

When your family member accesses any of your games, they're placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it. One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting.

There weren't many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony's horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go.

I don't get it, how is this better than Sony?
Didn't Sony have 1 hour free trials on PS+?
I don't see how the current Sony sharing system is horrendous when you get to do the same thing without requiring somebody to add you as a family member and sharing with you.

 

[blakjedi]

I don't get it, how is this better than Sony?
Didn't Sony have 1 hour free trials on PS+?
I don't see how the current Sony sharing system is horrendous when you get to do the same thing without requiring somebody to add you as a family member and sharing with you.

The question is whether or not that bullshit pastebin is true. I doubt it.

 

[3dilettante]

No, the server cannot know anything about the serial on the disc, because that would require online authentication, which no longer exists.
People did not want the system to phone home for any reason when playing single player games.

I am only discussing this in the context of upconverting a physical disc to a digital download version to enjoy some of the perks.
This would require the server's involvement, and people would be able to understand that doing something extra online involves something online.

The fallback is the choice to not do so and still have a functional game.

 

[Davros]

I wonder if this is a reference to console ecosystems only making profit over time or perhaps that apparently only 20-30% of games make a profit.

If you bought a game in the run-up to Christmas and it cost £39.99 to buy, approximately £7 (17.5 per cent) went on VAT (that figure increased to 20 per cent as of 4th January), while £10.50 (27 per cent) went to the shop and £12 (30 per cent) to the publisher.

The rest goes on what's called cost of goods: the nuts and bolts of videogame publishing. 65 pence (two per cent) goes on distribution, £1.75 (four to five per cent) on marketing, and an £8 (20 per cent) licence fee goes to the platform holder (Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony). All these costs are paid for by the game's publisher. If a third-party is behind the game, approximately £3 goes to the developer, or 25 per cent of the publisher's revenue after deductibles,

So the developer gets less than 10% or £3
In the sell games to approved retailers only model when the shop sells a copy secondhand did microsoft expect another 20% and the publisher another 30% ?

 

[Eolirin]

I am only discussing this in the context of upconverting a physical disc to a digital download version to enjoy some of the perks.
This would require the server's involvement, and people would be able to understand that doing something extra online involves something online.

The fallback is the choice to not do so and still have a functional game.

You can't upconvert a disc that you can then put into another console and have function without forcing the user to rebuy the game digitally, anything else would immediately lead to easily abused scenarios.

 

[3dilettante]

You can't upconvert a disc that you can then put into another console and have function without forcing the user to rebuy the game digitally, anything else would immediately lead to easily abused scenarios.

It's not a question of can, but of will.

If the second console is able to connect to Live, all best are off since the console is opening itself to the service.
If the second console is off the net, it would be entirely up to Microsoft as to whether it would throw a hissy fit and throw its toys out of the pram at the possibility of this happening.

Microsoft's new default is to accept unlimited sharing of said disc, contingent on it being physically impossible to share the disc at the superhuman rate an non-customized electronic copy could do.

Given that the original share scheme allowed one additional console to share the disc, where is problem?

 

[brasnial]

As someone who collects Retro and rare games as a hobby as well as playing modern games .I am regularly reminded of how complicated and impressive game has become . bigger more intricate content filled games worlds .
We have gone from worlds with very little content to expansive worlds full of interesting locations and content .

I have no doult that it must take hard work and incredible talent to create the type of worlds we see today .

No longer can one man in his bedroom craft a game that's up there technology wise like they could at the dawn of gaming .

If Hollywood makes a bug budget film they have four revenue streams to make money on .
Cinema
DVD or blue ray
Rentals digital or physical .
Then there's he TV rights for showing said film .

Now that means that they have three chances of hitting a pay day plus one other pay day with TV picks up the rights to show said film .

A game has only two pay days that's when you buy it new or rent it.
Now i don't no if a rental service pays a one off fee for the rights to rent a game or by per rental .
A game may go on to reach three more customers for money through second hand game sellers and the developers will not see a penny from these sales .

Now when games didn't cost millions to make this wasn't such a problem but now the cost more money to make than most of us see in our life time .
Well things need to change because of the costs involved

we will have to except some form of the developer getting a return on all users of there game not just the first buyer but all them who buy there game even those who buy second hand .

If as gamers we choose to not except this then we are just going to have to lower our expectation on what we can expect from our games .
I'E less bells and whistles ......less advanced AI ....smaller game size .
More micro transaction which most of us hate as we view it as pay to win .

Why will we have to except this well because developers will have to work within stricter budgets so less money to craft a game with this will reduce or stagnate quality .

Games will stagnate under those rules as it cost money to improve and build better more interesting world with more content .

If you love gaming I truly believe you would not begrudge a small fee of you selling on a game you n longer wish to play going back to the developer so he can create a bigger better world for you to enjoy next time .

Its about keeping the thing with love alive by just giving back a small royalty for selling on a game we no longer wish to enjoy .

Peace people support those who craft that which you love don't by second hand.....,wait for a price drop buy it new support the people behind the games .

Don't let platform loyalty cloud your judgement on this its a real problem for the industry we all love .DRM was and is a way of maximizing profits if you don't want DRM then only buy new and there will be no DRM .

 

[function]

The right to buy and sell is far more important than us seeing more and more expensive games.

Everything you said amounts to "aww just give them more money ... give them more money ... they need more money ... just give them more money". The games industry has to live within its means.

I really don't see why the games industry is more entitled to strip us of our rights than any other industry. But this is moving OT, and turning into a generic "licence vs ownership" conversation that belongs elsewhere on B3D.

 

[Eolirin]

It's not a question of can, but of will.

If the second console is able to connect to Live, all best are off since the console is opening itself to the service.
If the second console is off the net, it would be entirely up to Microsoft as to whether it would throw a hissy fit and throw its toys out of the pram at the possibility of this happening.

Microsoft's new default is to accept unlimited sharing of said disc, contingent on it being physically impossible to share the disc at the superhuman rate an non-customized electronic copy could do.

Given that the original share scheme allowed one additional console to share the disc, where is problem?

The problem is that it seriously screws up resale to allow it.

Your all bets are off in the first scenario means that you now can be buying discs that don't work under certain circumstances; this is a serious support issue, not just for consumers but also for retail. It requires that retail have all the infrastructure support that the previous model required, but none of the upside benefit of exclusivity or guarantees of service; license revocation always works, and simply at the retailer's end, these other systems have failure points that need to be worked around. Why would retail be okay with that?

And it makes rental services like GameFly break horribly. I rent a game, upconvert it, and then return it. Free game, and it'll break for the next person to use it.

 

[3dilettante]

Your all bets are off in the first scenario means that you now can be buying discs that don't work under certain circumstances; this is a serious support issue, not just for consumers but also for retail.

There are multiple ways of handling this, since the server knows of both consoles having the game.
The least desireable is to block uprating the second buyer's copy without a fee. It can happen, but would be similar to the online pass requirement. The game would be just fine offline.

Another is to flag the originating account, and demand authentication of the disc there or revoke the license of the digital copy.
I suppose the original buyer could just stay off forever from Live, which means they can afford to abuse the share once unless they buy a new console for every game they fraudulently share. I think Microsoft could live with that outcome.

Another is to price it into a paywall so that Microsoft can add enough cushion to just write it off in all cases that aren't repeated fraud.

 

[Nisaaru]

Pastebin link - truckload of salt and all that
http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

"include the POS (point of sale) mechanisms"

When I see POS I always have a different meaning for S in mind

 

[zupallinere]

"include the POS (point of sale) mechanisms"

When I see POS I always have a different meaning for S in mind

I liked the digs that the guy threw at Sony:

One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting. There weren't many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony's horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go.

Sounds legit to me