Microsoft adjusts Xbox One DRM policies, online check-ins and used game complications are history

[KingVamp]

People of all "fan" followings have supported DRM. I still support DRM. There has been a large miseducation of DRM.

Yes, because pretty much unnecessarily blocking used games and always online should be supported.

 

[Qtis]

A step forwards, two steps backwards. While the online only requirement was a bad pull from Microsoft, the other features were interesting, if not revolutionary in many ways. Now that they reverted their stance on the online gaming side, they basically trashed quite a few good options. I doubt many people would complain about the online requirement if it wasn't as strict as once a day. Once a week or once a month (Spotify for the latter, anyone?) would suffice to deter possible abuse and make gaming still possible in limited locations (places without constant internet access, such as summer cottages, military sites, even some homes).

People of all "fan" followings have supported DRM. I still support DRM. There has been a large miseducation of DRM.

I support DRM entirely for the reasons that it's supposed to do. Protect the content from illegal sharing and access (mostly bootlegs). The means I don't support. I don't know how people of all fan followings have supported DRM. Many have had to deal with it, but rarely have I seen or heard someone saying "Good that we have this online check for this single player game, otherwise someone would rip me or take something away from me". Instead it's more likely to be "Oh no, not this thing again".

Except it's mostly the people who legitly buy the games that suffer from the limitations of DRM. Thus I can see no reason for DRM from the consumer point of view. Want to play single player offline? No can do (C&C4) except with a modified game install that disables required online. Forgot your account password to service X that isn't used anymore due to the company going under? No gaming, unless you manage to get a cracked game executable.

As for publisher/developer, yeah. The game will be secure with a certain DRM scheme for about a few hours, a couple of days max depending on the game type. While piracy should be condoned on from quite a few points of view, hackers and crackers make it possible to enjoy games like many people want them to. Without restrictions and offline. Serial numbers? Keygens since the time fire was invented. Online only? The new Sim City game ring a bell.

DRM was an idea that could and can be something great. As long as the main goals is to make it harder for people to use the software, only pirates will profit from this. I've got quite a few good examples of wanting to get a game to work as it's supposed to. Sometimes it's a problem with a modern OS, sometimes it's a problem with some kind of security measure on the executable, sometimes a problem with a disc. Sometimes I can't even get the game to work without getting a modified game install in the first place, even though I got the thing in physical format that was bought on launch. So yeah, there has been a large miseducation of DRM. It's got nothing to give in its current form, but it does take from the customer. Some companies make it less intrusive (Steam for example), but it was utter shit in the beginning too. Valve learned a lot from their mistakes. Also companies like GoG and Humble Bundle can sell games without DRM and make profit (+ support charity in the case of HB)?

Everyone should have a possibility of voicing out their opinions, but trying to make people support DRM due to a large miseducation is laughable. The technologically illiterate could believe you, but I doubt anyone on this site is even close to that level.

 

[Rydian]

DRM was an idea that could and can be something great.

I fail to see how the idea of people who made an object getting to tell people who use the object what they can and cannot do with it could ever be "something great".

The idea revolves around protecting incoming for the originator or publisher, nothing good for the user is involved.

 

[Qtis]

I fail to see how the idea of people who made an object getting to tell people who use the object what they can and cannot do with it could ever be "something great".

The idea revolves around protecting incoming for the originator or publisher, nothing good for the user is involved.

Indeed as I said, the idea is good, but not the means. The publisher or developer has a right to their income, but currently the way DRM is implemented, it's at the expense of the user. That is something I cannot see as good and do not want. If there was an actual benefit for the user (fantastic online elements like some MMORPGs (WoW (p2p), Guild Wars (f2p (!) servers) and many others)), the DRM could be seen as moot (for example online is the main driver compared to offline). If for example the single player portion is affected by it in the way of loosing access due to reason X, it's bull. Complete and utter bull.

 

[whinis]

Indeed as I said, the idea is good, but not the means. The publisher or developer has a right to their income, but currently the way DRM is implemented, it's at the expense of the user. That is something I cannot see as good and do not want. If there was an actual benefit for the user (fantastic online elements like some MMORPGs (WoW (p2p), Guild Wars (f2p (!) servers) and many others)), the DRM could be seen as moot (for example online is the main driver compared to offline). If for example the single player portion is affected by it in the way of loosing access due to reason X, it's bull. Complete and utter bull.

Even the Idea isn't really that good, the Idea being that they treat everyone as criminals to attempt to prevent the few who are. I personally have yet to see a working DRM scheme for either the publishers or the customers hence why there is such a large movement of gamers that want no DRM at all.

Where it gets even worse is that the publishers often like to say that the DRM is stopping/ has stopped piracy (even when its cracked before the game is released) when in reality all it has done is costed the developers and publishers X million to implement just to be broken before the game is released with several studies showing games with DRM are not pirated less than games without DRM. So the "idea" is costing not only development time to implement but also money that could have been better focused into making better games/ better systems.

 

[WhiteMaze]

The idea revolves around protecting incoming for the originator or publisher, nothing good for the user is involved.

This man right here, knows what he says.

You can discuss it however you want. The only revolutionary idea here, is to make MORE money, while back-raping YOU the buyer.

I puked at Microsoft's Xbox One DRM implementation since it was announced and I STAND by that statement. I'm not a 5 year-old that does not know which side to defend. They can withdraw all the DRM's they want.

The harm, and the bad image for company, has been done.

EDIT:

Even the Idea isn't really that good, the Idea being that they treat everyone as criminals to attempt to prevent the few who are.

Thank you. Agreed.

Doing that was never a solution for anything.

 

[Rydian]

Indeed as I said, the idea is good, but not the means. The publisher or developer has a right to their income, but currently the way DRM is implemented, it's at the expense of the user. That is something I cannot see as good and do not want. If there was an actual benefit for the user (fantastic online elements like some MMORPGs (WoW (p2p), Guild Wars (f2p (!) servers) and many others)), the DRM could be seen as moot (for example online is the main driver compared to offline). If for example the single player portion is affected by it in the way of loosing access due to reason X, it's bull. Complete and utter bull.

But those examples aren't DRM. Always-online for an MMO is a technical/security requirement, and is not being forced onto the user when it's not needed.

 

[ggyo]

But those examples aren't DRM. Always-online for an MMO is a technical/security requirement, and is not being forced onto the user when it's not needed.

The problem with the perception of the Xbox One's DRM was that hard copies of software rights would not be resellable or shareable, but that's not entirely true.

The Xbox One technically converts hard copy software rights into digital copy software rights, which are tradable between anybody and everybody. Then you can give the hard copy away too. This prevents duplicating rights by having hard copy and digital copy working in unison. This ALSO allows exclusively digital copies to be tradable too, which is a step up from Sony, and seven hundred from Nintendo's cheap ass stuck-to-the-console digital terms.

The best part of this middle-man eliminating system is that you could go online and search to trade with anybody who has said game you're looking for. I imagine it would be like the GTS in Pokémon games. You can search up a Pokémon you want, and the person who is offering that Pokémon may have selected a selection of Pokémon they would exchange for said game. If there were options of 3-for-1, 2-for-1, 1-for-1 trading, etc., that would just make things even more flexible.

And then Family Sharing is just charity. You get to share any game within your library with up to 10 people, which can be anybody, and they can share with you their game library. The only clause is that no single game in a library can be played simultaneously, so there still has to be two permission rights within the aggregated game libraries. Imagine that. A group of 10 active gamers who Family Shared would have a colossus library.

So in reality, the only way the Xbox One's DRM is detrimental is the necessity to be connected online once a day (which is barely a problem to anybody), and used game retailers would have to adapt to the way trading games would work.

When an Xbox One user traded in games, they'd have to take their gamertags on record so that when another customer purchased the used games they traded in, they would have to contact the original owner to have the hard copy software rights to be transferred to them. The problem is there's no way to enforce the original owner to transfer hard copy software rights.

Gamer>Gamer is more efficient and cost effective for us than Gamer>Used Game Retailer>Gamer.

 

[Rydian]

The problem with the perception of the Xbox One's DRM was that hard copies of software rights would not be resellable or shareable, but that's not entirely true.

The Xbox One technically converts hard copy software rights into digital copy software rights, which are tradable between anybody and everybody. Then you can give the hard copy away too. This prevents duplicating rights by having hard copy and digital copy working in unison. This ALSO allows exclusively digital copies to be tradable too, which is a step up from Sony, and seven hundred from Nintendo's cheap ass stuck-to-the-console digital terms.

The best part of this middle-man eliminating system is that you could go online and search to trade with anybody who has said game you're looking for. I imagine it would be like the GTS in Pokémon games. You can search up a Pokémon you want, and the person who is offering that Pokémon may have selected a selection of Pokémon they would exchange for said game. If there were options of 3-for-1, 2-for-1, 1-for-1 trading, etc., that would just make things even more flexible.

And then Family Sharing is just charity. You get to share any game within your library with up to 10 people, which can be anybody, and they can share with you their game library. The only clause is that no single game in a library can be played simultaneously, so there still has to be two permission rights within the aggregated game libraries. Imagine that. A group of 10 active gamers who Family Shared would have a colossus library.

... opposed to just having the disc you can do whatever with, whenever, without having to pay fees or have Microsoft's permission.

"You can share games with your family!" - And did you know you can also play video games with THREE DEE GRAPHICS? It's true!

 

[JoostinOnline]

And did you know you can also play video games with THREE DEE GRAPHICS? It's true!

YOU LIE!!!

 

[WhiteMaze]

The problem with the perception of the Xbox One's DRM was that hard copies of software rights would not be resellable or shareable, but that's not entirely true.

The Xbox One technically converts hard copy software rights into digital copy software rights, which are tradable between anybody and everybody. Then you can give the hard copy away too. This prevents duplicating rights by having hard copy and digital copy working in unison. This ALSO allows exclusively digital copies to be tradable too, which is a step up from Sony, and seven hundred from Nintendo's cheap ass stuck-to-the-console digital terms.

The best part of this middle-man eliminating system is that you could go online and search to trade with anybody who has said game you're looking for. I imagine it would be like the GTS in Pokémon games. You can search up a Pokémon you want, and the person who is offering that Pokémon may have selected a selection of Pokémon they would exchange for said game. If there were options of 3-for-1, 2-for-1, 1-for-1 trading, etc., that would just make things even more flexible.

And then Family Sharing is just charity. You get to share any game within your library with up to 10 people, which can be anybody, and they can share with you their game library. The only clause is that no single game in a library can be played simultaneously, so there still has to be two permission rights within the aggregated game libraries. Imagine that. A group of 10 active gamers who Family Shared would have a colossus library.

I may be wrong in this, but I highly doubt that was Microsoft's goal.

I'm reading too much fairness, and too much money loss for Microsofty in your post. And Microsofty never had a "we love our costumers so much, we make them give us less money" policy..

Not even Steam is doing that, and they have a far less greedy record than Microshit.

Bottom line is, there is too much money loss. I'm not seeing them "allowing" people to trade a game for another one.

Let's look at it this way:

I want Left 4 Dead 2. I have a list of games I am willing to trade. Let's say I find a guy interested in one of my listed games. He contacts me and trades his Left 4 Dead for my Dead Space (just an example). It's all very good and awesome. The only problem here?

No one has profited from that except for the 2 people involved in the trade, you and the person you traded with. You each got what you want, and both Microsoft and the game developers lost money, because otherwise, you would have bought Left 4 Dead 2.

So in short, yes I agree that this is the future of gaming. Yet, I do not believe Microass is the one to implement that system. Nor do I see any of that happening for a long time (unfortunately).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[ggyo]

-snip-

Do you read? Anything? Ever? Your typical, uneducated internet vocabulary... get original. That was Microsoft's goal. It's what they stated, but you were too lethargic to read, so you went on the second-hand source information of internet memes and forum ramblings.

1. Microsoft is one of the most philanthropic profitable hardware/software companies in the world.
Google search...
Microsoft Charity - 31.3 million results
Sony Charity - 15.2 million results
Nintendo Charity - 4.3 million results
Apple Charity - 77.1 million results
Samsung Charity - 24.8 million results

Oh, and Valve (Steam) Charity - 2.7 million results. Steam is able to charge such a subsidized price because they can cut out the cost of retailers, packaging and booklets, disc mediums, etc. Microsoft could have created a similar ecosystem of software, and it would have worked. The Xbox One DRM was nowhere as restrictive as the already so successful ecosystems that I mentioned, including Steam.

There is no money lost. There's money saved from eliminating the paradigm of a gamer trading in three games for one at Gamestop for one game instead of directly to another gamer for one game.

The scenario you brought up is exactly what Microsoft wanted. If it was just as detrimental as used game retailers, Microsoft would not have went through the bad press that is guaranteed with DRM announcements. The proposed DRM wasn't positive for Microsoft's profit margins, but it was positive to consumers. Gamer>gamer is better than gamer>gamestop>gamer.

I think that's a revelation as to how aware they are of the consumer's wants. They just didn't realize that the consumer isn't aware of the consumer's wants, and the consumer burned them for it.

 

[Chary]

Microsoft had such a tight leash on its system. Having their version of DRM was a slap to the face of their customers. I find it funny that people say that MS changed the policies of the Xbone, because they care about the consumers. Obviously, they don't. They just saw the potential money loss, and had to change, lest they lose potential buyers the the PS4.

 

[Rydian]

Steam is able to charge such a subsidized price because they can cut out the cost of retailers, packaging and booklets, disc mediums, etc. Microsoft could have created a similar ecosystem of software, and it would have worked. The Xbox One DRM was nowhere as restrictive as the already so successful ecosystems that I mentioned, including Steam.

... seriously?

1. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from selling games online at a cut cost like Steam does. In fact they have had a system in place for years (BXLG/Marketplace) where they have BEEN selling 'indie' and cheaper games (like Minecraft, which was only available in the marketplace for a long time)... and they've been doing it on the 360 without the always-online DRM.
   http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/P...-Edition/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802584111f7
   etc.
   
   
2. -
   
   
   
   https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-agcb-2555
   And you can stay offline as long as you want.
   
   
3. BTW Steam allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines, (you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time).
   https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8963-EIKC-3767

Jeeze, no wonder you think the DRM is needed... you have no clue that what you're talking about is already working just fine without it!


EDIT: Made the post a bit prettier.

 

[air2004]

The Xbox shun

 

[WhiteMaze]

Do you read? Anything? Ever? Your typical, uneducated internet vocabulary... get original. That was Microsoft's goal. It's what they stated, but you were too lethargic to read, so you went on the second-hand source information of internet memes and forum ramblings.

1. Microsoft is one of the most philanthropic profitable hardware/software companies in the world.
Google search...
Microsoft Charity - 31.3 million results
Sony Charity - 15.2 million results
Nintendo Charity - 4.3 million results
Apple Charity - 77.1 million results
Samsung Charity - 24.8 million results

Oh, and Valve (Steam) Charity - 2.7 million results. Steam is able to charge such a subsidized price because they can cut out the cost of retailers, packaging and booklets, disc mediums, etc. Microsoft could have created a similar ecosystem of software, and it would have worked. The Xbox One DRM was nowhere as restrictive as the already so successful ecosystems that I mentioned, including Steam.

There is no money lost. There's money saved from eliminating the paradigm of a gamer trading in three games for one at Gamestop for one game instead of directly to another gamer for one game.

The scenario you brought up is exactly what Microsoft wanted. If it was just as detrimental as used game retailers, Microsoft would not have went through the bad press that is guaranteed with DRM announcements. The proposed DRM wasn't positive for Microsoft's profit margins, but it was positive to consumers. Gamer>gamer is better than gamer>gamestop>gamer.

I think that's a revelation as to how aware they are of the consumer's wants. They just didn't realize that the consumer isn't aware of the consumer's wants, and the consumer burned them for it.

First of all, no need to be this rude, as I was not with you. And people wonder why internet flaming happens..

Second of all, the amount of charity each company does is by no means, a viable way to evaluate a company, at least to my eyes.

Microsoft or Apple can do ALL the charity they want, I don't care. They sell their products at prices sometimes way beyond their competition. So with that amount of profit, why shouldn't they donate more?

I may be wrong in this, but I highly doubt that was Microsoft's goal.

And finally, third of all, you accuse me of "not reading anything"? Well good sir, had you actually READ what I wrote, this could have been avoided.

Now have a good day.

 

[ggyo]

... seriously?

1. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from selling games online at a cut cost like Steam does. In fact they have had a system in place for years (BXLG/Marketplace) where they have BEEN selling 'indie' and cheaper games (like Minecraft, which was only available in the marketplace for a long time)... and they've been doing it on the 360 without the always-online DRM.
   http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/P...-Edition/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802584111f7
   etc.
   
2. -
   
   
   
   https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-agcb-2555
   And you can stay offline as long as you want.
   
3. BTW Steam allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines, (you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time).
   https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8963-EIKC-3767

Jeeze, no wonder you think the DRM is needed... you have no clue that what you're talking about is already working just fine without it!


EDIT: Made the post a bit prettier.

How do you write that last sentence and not feel embarrassed?

1. Game retailer dependency, like Gamestop, is stopping them.

2. Just like Steam, you could go offline on the Xbox One. Just like Steam, you need to sometimes be online to verify things.

3. BTW the Xbox One's DRM allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines (up to 10 with Family Sharing), you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time.

Haha, like umm ok yeah hohohehehe alright. Go read a fucking book.

 

[WhiteMaze]

How do you write that last sentence and not feel embarrassed?

1. Game retailer dependency, like Gamestop, is stopping them.

2. Just like Steam, you could go offline on the Xbox One. Just like Steam, you need to sometimes be online to verify things.

3. BTW the Xbox One's DRM allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines (up to 10 with Family Sharing), you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time.

Haha, like umm ok yeah hohohehehe alright. Go read a fucking book.

GBAtemp members are quite polite, I see..

 

[ggyo]

First of all, no need to be this rude, as I was not with you. And people wonder why internet flaming happens..

Second of all, the amount of charity each company does is by no means, a viable way to evaluate a company, at least to my eyes.

Microsoft or Apple can do ALL the charity they want, I don't care. They sell their products at prices sometimes way beyond their competition. So with that amount of profit, why shouldn't they donate more?



And finally, third of all, you accuse me of "not reading anything"? Well good sir, had you actually READ what I wrote, this could have been avoided.

Now have a good day.

Seeing as how much Microsoft and Bill Gates has done for the world, from innovating and influencing software and the video game industry, to charitable efforts internationally (mostly this), it's pretty ignorant to call them greedy, and offensive to make poor -play-on-words of their name.

The amount of charity a company does is a reflection of their morality. And Microsoft's continuation of philanthropy, DESPITE being majorly viewed as a sinister corporation of avarice, and not shooting their charitable acts into the limelight to gain favor is part of what makes me respect them so much.

Microsoft -
Windows computers are cheaper (while being more powerful) than the competition.
The Xbox 360, for its value, is cheaper than the competition.
Windows software is cheaper (and more developed and powerful) than the competition.
Windows Phones are cheaper (and as powerful) than the competition.
Windows tablets are cheaper (and more powerful and run full Windows, a full OS) than the competition.

But you're judging Microsoft because the Xbox One is more expensive than the PS4.

I actually read what you wrote. And I'm certain it gave me a learning disability.

GBAtemp members are quite polite, I see..

It's mostly me. I'm a very reactional prick.

 

[Rydian]

1. Game retailer dependency, like Gamestop, is stopping them.

It's not stopping Steam or PSN.

2. Just like Steam, you could go offline on the Xbox One. Just like Steam, you need to sometimes be online to verify things.

False and false.

1 - The One had no offline mode, it would demand to check once every 24 hours whether the user would have liked it or not. If it could not attempt to check, it would stop you from playing the existing games. This behavior was outlined on Microsoft's site and in their press releases.

2 - Steam's offline mode will run indefinitely. When in offline mode no game updates are done, nothing is checked for, and it will not demand to reconnect after a set period. You can play the installed games as much as you want. If you want to install a new game, update a game, or buy something new you need to connect to the internet, but that's obviously an actual requirement.

3. BTW the Xbox One's DRM allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines (up to 10 with Family Sharing), you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time.

I mentioned that as a note that the 24-hours check and additional DRM was not required, like you seemed to think it was.

Haha, like umm ok yeah hohohehehe alright. Go read a fucking book.

Uncalled for. Watch it.