Xbox One Official Requirements: Waive Your Rights

[Foxi4]

...other than those set by the publisher.

The publisher has no say in the matter - the only DRM they can introduce on the PS4 is the DRM in the software itself (Online passes, serial codes and whatnot), with the XBox One the DRM is an integral part of the system.

 

[Veho]

The publisher has no say in the matter - the only DRM they can introduce on the PS4 is the DRM in the software itself (Online passes, serial codes and whatnot)

Meaning the publisher can choose to enforce it.

with the XBox One the DRM is an integral part of the system.

But the publisher can choose to forego it.

So ultimately the publisher decides whether they will implement (or take advantage of) DRM on either console.

 

[Foxi4]

Meaning the publisher can choose to enforce it.

On the PS4, the publisher can choose to enforce Online passes or serial codes, but still cannot influence the used games market or fix prices, which was the underlying theme of this discussion.

But the publisher can choose to forego it.

False. Used XBox One games will only be available at select retailers, which is already tampering with the market. Moreover, they have to set the price for their used games because that's how the system works.

So ultimately the publisher decides whether they will implement (or take advantage of) DRM on either console.

Not true, the used games policy is imposed on the publishers as much as it is on the users.

 

[Veho]

On the PS4, the publisher can choose to enforce Online passes or serial codes, but still cannot influence the used games market or fix prices, which was the underlying theme of this discussion.

If they set the prices of the serial codes, they fix prices.

False. Used XBox One games will only be available at select retailers, which is already tampering with the game.

That's only for trade-ins.

Moreover, they have to set the price for their used games because that's how the system works.

Here's the official quote:

Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games. [...] Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers. Microsoft does not receive any compensation as part of this. In addition, third party publishers can enable you to give games to friends.

Terms of game resales (including fees) are up to the publisher.

 

[Foxi4]

If they set the prices of the serial codes, they fix prices.

They can choose to do so to their own peril, sure.

That's only for trade-ins.

You can't trade in your games in any other way - the disc itself is not resellable as long as it's registered on your Live account.

Here's the official quote:

They can opt in or out of supporting game resale, which means that they can allow their games to be sold used... or not, making them non-tradable entirely. Giving the games to friends as a gift is an alluring prospect, but unfortunately it in no way allows the sale of used games.

Terms of game resales (including fees) are up to the publisher.

Wheras they should be up to the retailers.

 

[Veho]

They can choose to do so to their own peril, sure.

Exactly. Now tell me, why would they choose to do it on the Xbone if they know it's detrimental to their profits?

You can't trade in your games in any other way - the disc itself is not resellable as long as it's registered on your Live account.

Are you sure? Does it say that in the licensing details? The same way you can give a game to a friend, where the game becomes registered to a new Live account, a game could be resold, only this time a set resale fee would go to the publisher (if the publisher decides to demand a fee).

They can opt in or out of supporting game resale, which means that they can allow their games to be sold used... or not, making them non-tradable entirely.

Exactly, they can allow them to be sold used.

Giving the games to friends as a gift is an alluring prospect, but unfortunately it in no way allows the sale of a used game.

I am going to wait until some official clarification is offered, but for now there is nothing saying resales are forbidden, so let's wait and see.

Wheras they should be up to the retailers.

Or better still, retailers should be out of the picture altogether and it should be up to the buyer/seller. Why give retailers any control over it?


The Xbone will have a DRM framework that will give publishers control over their games, but it's up to the publishers to decide how much control they will exert, if any. There is nothing forcing them to ban resales or add huge fees to used games.
With the PS4, the publisher would have to implement and maintain the DRM framework themselves, but there's nothing preventing them from doing it.
With both consoles (until they are hacked), the publishers get to decide whether to allow used game sales, and how much they will charge for each resale. It's just easier to do on the Xbone, but not obligatory.
And if the publisher decides to forego DRM on the PS4 (for the sake of publicity), why would they decide to enforce it on the Xbone?

 

[Foxi4]

Exactly. Now tell me, why would they choose to do it on the Xbone if they know it's detrimental to their profits?

If they choose to opt out of the resale program, their games won't be resellable at all.

Are you sure? Does it say that in the licensing details? The same way you can give a game to a friend, where the game becomes registered to a new Live account, a game could be resold, only this time a set resale fee would go to the publisher (if the publisher decides to demand a fee).

I suppose you could arrange a deal where someone pays you in advance and then you "gift" the game to said person, however that opens up a world of opportunities to scammers.

Exactly, they can allow them to be sold used.

...as long as they participate in Microsoft's resale machine and abide its regulations, yes.

I am going to wait until some official clarification is offered, but for now there is nothing saying resales are forbidden, so let's wait and see.

What we do have are resale terms, which are less than favourable, so it'd be great if Microsoft clarified that. I'm not sure who's head of damage control there, but they're sleeping on the job.

Or better still, retailers should be out of the picture altogether and it should be up to the buyer/seller. Why give retailers any control over it?

It's the retailers who actually sell the games, so if the game is used, they set the price point depending on supply and demand - it's always been like this... unless of course you're selling the game yourself, in which case you play the role of the "retailer".

The Xbone will have a DRM framework that will give publishers control over their games, but it's up to the publishers to decide how much control they will exert, if any. There is nothing forcing them to ban resales or add huge fees to used games.

There shouldn't be any fees for used games, period. A used piece of software was already paid for - what happens is that the license is transferred from one person to another - the publisher shouldn't get any benefits from it whatsoever because that particular copy was already sold once. If I buy a hat in a store and then choose to sell it to a hat collector, I'm not giving a percentage of my "profit" to the hat's manufacturer - that's asinine.

With the PS4, the publisher would have to implement and maintain the DRM framework themselves, but there's nothing preventing them from doing it.

I never said there is anything preventing them from including DRM in their software - what I said was that it's not imposed on them.

With both consoles (until they are hacked), the publishers get to decide whether to allow used game sales, and how much they will charge for each resale. It's just easier to do on the Xbone, but not obligatory.

DRM as such is not obligatory, however if the game is to be resellable, as it stands today, the publisher has to take part in Microsoft's resale infrastructure - otherwise the install disc does not get "unregistered" and as such, you cannot install anything using it on a system different than the first one it was used on.

And if the publisher decides to forego DRM on the PS4 (for the sake of publicity), why would they decide to enforce it on the Xbone?

...because again, the resale infrastructure is set in stone. The publisher may choose to take part in it or not, but the way the discs and the game registering work (the discs are for installing only and are registered to the console they were first used on), they cannot be resold without prior unregistering... and to unregister them, you need to go through Microsoft's loops and hoops.

 

[Chocolina]

Atleast Microsoft is committing to their douchebag policies. I was expecting them to waver much more with all the positive feedback Sony has been getting.

 

[Veho]

If they choose to opt out of the resale program, their games won't be resellable at all.

You mean if they choose to ban resales.

It's the retailers who actually sell the games, so if the game is used, they set the price point depending on supply and demand - it's always been like this.

It's the first owners who sell the games, and second owners who buy them, and the retailers are pointless leeches wedging themselves in the middle and skimming from the top and bottom (and sides, if possible), and inflating prices.

There shouldn't be any fees for used games, period. A used piece of software was already paid for - what happens is that the license is transferred from one person to another - the publisher shouldn't get any benefits from it whatsoever because that particular copy was already sold once. If I buy a hat in a store and then choose to sell it to a hat collector, I'm not giving a percentage of my "profit" to the hat's manufacturer - that's asinine.

And software licences don't work like hat sales, so that point is moot. I swear I've had this conversation before somewhere.

I never said there is anything preventing them from including DRM in their software - what I said was that it's not imposed on them.

It's imposed on the gamers. I doubt the publishers will suffer much from it, because I doubt defining the DRM parameters (on a scale from 0 to 1984) will take that much time. I imagine there's an adjustable knob. In any case, a company spending a year on making a game won't really notice the half-hour it takes to fill out the DRM settings form. There is nothing forcing them to turn the crank up to 11, it's up to them.

DRM as such is not obligatory, however if the game is to be resellable, as it stands today, the publisher has to take part in Microsoft's resale infrastructure - otherwise the install disc does not get "unregistered" and as such, you cannot install anything using it on a system different than the first one it was used on.

And if the publisher does take part in the resale infrastructure, and sets the resale fee to zero, and we know that Microsoft won't charge licence transfer fees, then the game is resellable pretty much the same way it was on previous consoles, the difference being that you have to register it once you buy it.

...because again, the resale infrastructure is set in stone. The publisher may choose to take part in it or not, but the way the discs and the game registering work (the discs are for installing only and are registered to the console they were first used on), they cannot be resold without prior unregistering... and to unregister them, you need to go through Microsoft's loops and hoops.

Which is an inconvenience only for the gamers, not the publishers, and since we haven't seen the system in action, we don't know what the loops and hoops will be like or how loopy and hoopy they will be.


DRM is "imposed" on publishers in the sense that they have to give a definitive answer (tick a few boxes on a drop down "publish game" menu), and that's about that. If the publisher decides to allow game resales, or trade-ins, I don't see what's there to prevent it. The DRM framework is there at the publisher's convenience, and they are free to lift all restrictions if they want - or enforce all of them. Again, it's up to them.

 

[Foxi4]

You mean if they choose to ban resales.

You can either participate in the resale program or ban reselling - there's no middle ground because all the games are registered on Live and the disc is not resellable until they're unregistered, and that's something Microsoft handles as it stands today.

It's the first owners who sell the games, and second owners who buy them, and the retailers are pointless leeches wedging themselves in the middle and skimming from the top and bottom (and sides, if possible), and inflating prices.

What I meant to say was that the person who should set the price for the used game is the person selling it. If it's a retail store, it's the retailer who sets the price. If it's you then you sell the game for whatever amount of money you want.

And software licences don't work like hat sales, so that point is moot. I swear I've had this conversation before somewhere.

Ownership is still ownership - licensed or not.

It's imposed on the gamers. I doubt the publishers will suffer much from it, because I doubt defining the DRM parameters (on a scale from 0 to 1984) will take that much time. I imagine there's an adjustable knob. In any case, a company spending a year on making a game won't really notice the half-hour it takes to fill out the DRM settings form. There is nothing forcing them to turn the crank up to 11, it's up to them.

You don't seem to understand my point. Regardless of whether the publisher wants to include DRM or not, it has to participate in the resale program to allow the sale of their used games - this is a hurdle they must jump over due to game registration. The games, be it digital downloads or discs, are registered to your Live account and until they are unregistered, they cannot be sold. To unregister them, you have to go through Microsoft's elaborate resale scheme. If you don't, the game remains on your Live account and your physical disc/digital download is the equivalent of a frisbie... or a TRON disc.

And if the publisher does take part in the resale infrastructure, and sets the resale fee to zero, and we know that Microsoft won't charge licence transfer fees, then the game is resellable pretty much the same way it was on previous consoles, the difference being that you have to register it once you buy it.

I do believe that setting the fee to zero is not an option, I've read about it somewhere... however it's unconfirmed information so I won't toss around links. If there is an option like this then yes, it nullifies the problem.

Which is an inconvenience only for the gamers, not the publishers, and since we haven't seen the system in action, we don't know what the loops and hoops will be like or how loopy and hoopy they will be.

It's inconvenience for both since it's just paperwork loops and hoops both the gamers and the publishers have to go through and they're completely unnecessary.

DRM is "imposed" on publishers in the sense that they have to give a definitive answer (tick a few boxes on a drop down "publish game" menu), and that's about that. If the publisher decides to allow game resales, or trade-ins, I don't see what's there to prevent it. The DRM framework is there at the publisher's convenience, and they are free to lift all restrictions if they want - or enforce all of them. Again, it's up to them.

Of course it's imposed and of course it's inconvenience because the publishers have to keep track of all their decisions within the system. Even if the publisher does want the game to be resold, doesn't want to be a d*ck and sets the fee to zero, it's still additional useless decision-making, and it's not a matter of just "ticking boxes" - the board has to discuss them for each and every game - Microsoft is wasting everyone's time.

 

[Veho]

You can either participate in the resale program or ban reselling - there's no middle ground because all the games are registered on Live and the disc is not resellable until they're unregistered, and that's something Microsoft handles as it stands today.

"Participating in the program but not enforcing resale fees" is a middle ground.

Ownership is still ownership - licensed or not.

And you do not own the game.

You don't seem to understand my point. Regardless of whether the publisher wants to include DRM or not, it has to participate in the resale program to allow the sale of their used games - this is a hurdle they must jump over due to game registration. The games, be it digital downloads or discs, are registered to your Live account and until they are unregistered, they cannot be sold. To unregister them, you have to go through Microsoft's elaborate resale scheme. If you don't, the game remains on your Live account and your physical disc/digital download is the equivalent of a frisbie... or a TRON disc.

That's a hurdle for the consumer, not the publisher. The publisher decides once and is then done with the whole process. And how much of a hurdle for the consumer it is depends on how complicated Microsoft makes it.

...yeah, "Microsoft" and "not complicated" don't really go together.

Still, it remains to be seen.

It's inconvenience for both since it's just paperwork loops and hoops both the gamers and the publishers have to go through and they're completely unnecessary.
[...]Of course it's imposed and of course it's inconvenience because the publishers have to keep track of all their decisions within the system. Even if the publisher does want the game to be resold, doesn't want to be a d*ck and sets the fee to zero, it's still additional useless decision-making, and it's not a matter of just "ticking boxes" - the board has to discuss them for each and every game - Microsoft is wasting everyone's time.

Or the publisher could assume a single and unified policy on DRM across their entire library, and pretend they have some integrity, instead of adjusting the DRM differently for every single game and appearing to the public as unprincipled whores.

And now I suggest we drop this until Microsoft gives more details about the system because we're just going around in circles at the moment.

 

[Foxi4]

And you do not own the game.

Just the license to use a given piece of software, which is the object I'm willing to part with when selling a used game.

That's a hurdle for the consumer, not the publisher. The publisher decides once and is then done with the whole process. And how much of a hurdle for the consumer it is depends on how complicated Microsoft makes it.

Let's call it additional paperwork then.

...yeah, "Microsoft" and "not complicated" don't really go together.

Yep.

Or the publisher could assume a single and unified policy on DRM across their entire library, and pretend they have some integrity, instead of adjusting the DRM differently for every single game and appearing to the public as unprincipled whores.

I suppose that can be done, however it's still more tickboxes to tick.

And now I suggest we drop this until Microsoft gives more details about the system because we're just going around in circles at the moment.

That may be a good thing to do since as it stands today, nobody seems to be 100% certain how this system works, including Microsoft's own employees.

 

[the_randomizer]

Irrespective of whether someone has a license to "own" a game or not, that never stopped people from circumventing AP/DRM in the past. Why would it do anything to curtail that now? Microsoft's conflicting statements only prove to confuse the potential customers; but like what others have said, we'd best wait it out to see how their console works.

 

[McHaggis]

I suppose you could arrange a deal where someone pays you in advance and then you "gift" the game to said person, however that opens up a world of opportunities to scammers.

Yeah, if they don't mind waiting 30 days to receive the game ;-)

"There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once."

Honestly, I can't understand why Microsoft have set up this huge DRM framework if they supposedly don't benefit from it themselves. I think it shows how little they care about their consumers in comparison to 3rd-party publishers. I do think that's a bit of a crock, though, since there's clearly going to be some behind-the-scenes "administration fees" for allowing those selected retailers to trade-in games.

Microsoft may have it backwards this generation, but I think it's the retailers who are stupid here. They're going to be selling a console and games that will take away a big portion of their market. Those retailers make more from used games than they do from new ones. If I were in charge of best buy or one of the other big retailers, I'd simply be refusing to sell the XBox One or its games until policies were changed back in my favour. Particularly GAME, here in the UK, have a lot of power since they bought up Gamestation and ran it into the ground, don't have a competitor on the same level as them. If they refused to sell the XBox One console, it would almost certainly crash and burn from the moment it's launched. I guess none of those people have backbones, though.

 

[ComeTurismO]

I just want to post my reaction to Microsoft's no game access, after being banned.
WTF MICROSOFT?

 

[Terenigma]

After reading about the "ban" topic on xbox one meaning you don't have access to the games you bought on disc I have to wonder. Do Sony have the right to publish an advert simply explaining all the negative (but true) things about their rival's console?

Let's say both consoles come out and the Xbox one DOES have bans that stop you playing games you buy. Can sony then make an advert highlighting this issue and explaining that no such thing will be present in their console? Or does that cross a line of legality?

 

[Kalker3]

After reading about the "ban" topic on xbox one meaning you don't have access to the games you bought on disc I have to wonder. Do Sony have the right to publish an advert simply explaining all the negative (but true) things about their rival's console?

Let's say both consoles come out and the Xbox one DOES have bans that stop you playing games you buy. Can sony then make an advert highlighting this issue and explaining that no such thing will be present in their console? Or does that cross a line of legality?

When advertising, you can't just say "Our product has something that this one doesn't" (or the opposite) because you're degrading the rival's company image, which is (I think) forbidden.

 

[emigre]

After reading about the "ban" topic on xbox one meaning you dont have access to the games you bought on disc i have to wonder. Do sony have the right to publish an advert simply explaining all the negative (but true) things about their rivals console?

Lets say both consoles come out and the Xbox one DOES have bans that stop you playing games you buy. Can sony then make an advert highlighting this issue and explaining that no such thing will be present in their console? Or does that cross a line of legality?

If it's true than Sony have done nothing wrong legally, it isn't libel if it is correct. However Sony don't and will not do anything like that because they have much better things to promote about the PS4. Even than it would highly unprofessional for Sony to that cuz it does seem the Playstation leadership are actually competent.

 

[Terenigma]

If it's true than Sony have done nothing wrong legally, it isn't libel if it is correct. However Sony don't and will not do anything like that because they have much better things to promote about the PS4. Even than it would highly unprofessional for Sony to that cuz it does seem the Playstation leadership are actually competent.

This is what I assumed, although it would be very unprofessional as you say. I still think all this info needs to be available to the public though, my friend loves his 360 and was all fanboyish and had no clue to any of these "issues" because he doesn't follow it like I do and I had to clue him in and when I did, boy did he change his tune about what next gen console he wants.

I just feel the public needs to know what they are getting themselves into before they buy it, companies need to realise when it's too much. Capcom are one company who consistently do stuff just to "test the waters" and see what people are willing to put up with. Now it feels like Microsoft are doing it with games consoles. What if they can turn the cameras and microphones on and off when they want? They are effectively spying on minors and since you have to be online to play the console then all they have to do is wait a minimum of 24hours before they WILL come online and there ya go. Privacy = gone.

The general public needs to know this, if sony dont make an advert highlighting this stuff then someone on youtube better and spread it like wildfire.

 

[McHaggis]

After reading about the "ban" topic on xbox one meaning you don't have access to the games you bought on disc I have to wonder. Do Sony have the right to publish an advert simply explaining all the negative (but true) things about their rival's console?

Let's say both consoles come out and the Xbox one DOES have bans that stop you playing games you buy. Can sony then make an advert highlighting this issue and explaining that no such thing will be present in their console? Or does that cross a line of legality?

If it's true than Sony have done nothing wrong legally, it isn't libel if it is correct. However Sony don't and will not do anything like that because they have much better things to promote about the PS4. Even than it would highly unprofessional for Sony to that cuz it does seem the Playstation leadership are actually competent.

Known as comparative marketing, the law can vary between territories and depends entirely on the use of the trademark. IIRC, it's now regulated by the EU for most European countries, including the United Kingdom, which is one of the reasons for the recent increase in supermarkets like Tesco and Asda using each others logos in television advertisements. As emigre said, they'd probably be OK as long as they remain completely clear and honest. For example, they wouldn't be able to say something like "Unlike with the XBox One, you can easily trade in your Playstation 4 games", because it could be construed as them implying XBox One games cannot be traded at all. On the other hand, it may be fine to say something like "Microsoft impose certain restrictions on trading used games for XBox One, but Sony imposes no such restrictions for Playstation 4". While this tactic might work for supermarkets, Sony know that people would rather see the goods than listen to a brief presentation on why people shouldn't buy a rival console.

TL;DR what emigre said .