DRM is the killer feature

[vcfan]

I've been reading a lot of this opinion on the DRM issue,and what I find kind of odd is why nobody mentions why its there in the first place. Its like its embedded in their bran that DRM automaticalliy equals bad. When they open their eyes and smell the coffee, this is actually a killer feature.

 

Can nobody honestly picture how this is going to play out? This is marketing material on a silver platter to Microsoft. The game sharing feature is going to be marketed like hell. I can buy 2 games at $60 a pop,and if 4 of my buddies do the same, with only a $120 investment, we can each have access to a games library worth $600. I always meet people on xbox live. Imagine how many games i'll have access to without much investment. The more people you know,the bigger selection of games you'll have,granted theres a 10 family/friends list limit. For the price of only a few games,I can have access to dozens of games. With the price of games, I don't think anyone will care one bit that they'll have to have their console sync licenses every 24 hours. Imagine if this proves to be massively successful. Can the other guys even face going ahead and doing the same thing? How ridiculous would that be?

 

Some people may ask,wouldn't this kill game sales? No. The whole point of having xbox always needing an internet connection is for you to always use that internet connection,and use the online functions such as multiplayer.  They may lose sales for single player games,but they will make it up with multiplayer. People who wouldn't normally play multiplayer games can start sampling some of it with shared games,and they may become addicted.

[Luc2k]

[Yogurtmaster]

Yeah, this is the point of the DRM that a lot of people are missing (besides having instant switching to all games via voice). 

[jasondefaoite]

MS haven't detailed how this will work though. What we know is only one person can access a single game at the same time. But what has not been answered is can all 10 friends play different games from your library at the same time? Or once one is accessing a game, no one else can?

[compl3x]

So this is all to benefit the consumer? It has nothing to do with MS making it easier for publishers to restrict content and restrict used game sales?

 

I don't think you're just going to be able to pool all of your content together with friends have help yourself to content whenever and where ever you like. How would that not negatively affect sales if large groups would only buy 1 copy and share it around? It would be worse than sharing a physical copy around.

[Torolol]

Bible should've DRM'ed too

[+virtorio MVC]

All they had to do is bypass the check when the disc is in the drive, or at least implement a decent "working offline" mode, and nobody would give a giant F about the consoles DRM features.

 

I'll be interested to see if people start abusing the game sharing features on a mass level, because if they do, publishers aren't going to want to put their games out on it.

[vcfan]

So this is all to benefit the consumer? It has nothing to do with MS making it easier for publishers to restrict content and restrict used game sales?

 

I don't think you're just going to be able to pool all of your content together with friends have help yourself to content whenever and where ever you like. How would that not negatively affect sales if large groups would only buy 1 copy and share it around? It would be worse than sharing a physical copy around.

 

 

you're able to share physical copies today,are you not? only one person can play it at any given time. how is this any different? its just digital,instead of a physical copy. that's the whole benefit of digital,and that's the benefit of this drm.

 

and for people saying people can abuse it,again it isn't different than sharing games today.

[chrisj1968]

DRM is restrictive. My thinking would be, this is to force more people to buy games first hand. This will kill gamestop unless they go to straight first-hand sales.

 

DRM is NEVER pro consumer.

[George P Global Moderator]

The newest batch of info is that you and one other friend can be playing the same game together.   Now if the other 9 can play a different game each or if it's just one friend at a time depends because they haven't said officially yet.   If it's just you and one other friend and the other 9 have to wait their turn then it's no different than it is today with a disc except without the disc needing to change hands.   If it's more open and the other friends can play other games just not the same game together then that's a great bonus in the end.

 

Would it be abused?  Depends on how it works, if it's really open and you plus 10 friends are all playing 10 different games at the same time then sure, it could be that way.  If it's you and one other and the other 9 have to wait then it's not abusive tbh.

 

Either way it's a great option to have IMO.   Digitally lending games is something no one has done yet iirc,

[0nyX]

I would say its the killing feature.

[George P Global Moderator]

DRM is restrictive. My thinking would be, this is to force more people to buy games first hand. This will kill gamestop unless they go to straight first-hand sales.

 

DRM is NEVER pro consumer.

 

That depends on what it offers as the trade-off,  Netflix is DRMd but I'd say the benefit outweighs the restriction.   Lots of music streaming services are DRMd, again, tradeoffs are made.   Smartphones?  DRMd.   PC games, oh yes, unless you've found some way to legally lend and resell your PC games then please do share with us how, I'd really like to know.

 

We've been living with DRM for so long yet now people take note?   Honestly it's kind of funny.

[compl3x]

you're able to share physical copies today,are you not? only one person can play it at any given time. how is this any different? its just digital,instead of a physical copy. that's the whole benefit of digital,and that's the benefit of this drm.

 

and for people saying people can abuse it,again it isn't different than sharing games today.

 

 

There is a degree of limitation on physical media because I can only share it with someone I can physically hand the game to and only one of us can use it.

 

In your scenario, a group of Neowinians could buy 1 game each, have each other on the friends list for the 30+ days and then enjoy a huge library for the measly sum of $60. What publisher in their right mind would want to jump on board with such a system? 

 

I don't think this game sharing system is going to be anywhere near as generous as your OP suggested. There are going to be restrictions. You might be only able to share certain games from certain publishers (ex. you can share Ubisoft titles for other titles). You might have to have a minimum amount of games on your system from that publisher to be able to share games from that publisher (ex. you have to own 3 Ubisoft titles to be able to share new Ubisoft titles). Geoblocking, not being able to share with international friends, is something that will almost certainly exist. Or 100 other restrictions I can't even think of. DRM gives them the power to implement any system they want and make it as restrictive as they see fit.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

There is a degree of limitation on physical media because I can only share it with someone I can physically hand the game to and only one of us can use it.

 

In your scenario, a group of Neowinians could buy 1 game each, have each other on the friends list for the 30+ days and then enjoy a huge library for the measly sum of $60. What publisher in their right mind would want to jump on board with such a system? 

 

I don't think this game sharing system is going to be anywhere near as generous as your OP suggested. There are going to be restrictions. You might be only able to share certain games from certain publishers (ex. you can share Ubisoft titles for other titles). You might have to have a minimum amount of games on your system from that publisher to be able to share games from that publisher (ex. you have to own 3 Ubisoft titles to be able to share new Ubisoft titles). Geoblocking, not being able to share with international friends, is something that will almost certainly exist. Or 100 other restrictions I can't even think of. DRM gives them the power to implement any system they want and make it as restrictive as they see fit.

Agreed. And this is why I don't agree with it.

 

Take a look at this for example:

 

 

Give your games to friends: Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. 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.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

 

Publishers will have the power to restrict you from giving your disc-based game to a friend. Wouldn't you be frustrated if you can't lend a game that you don't play anymore to a good friend? "Sorry man, you can't play it on your Xbox One because Activision won't allow it."

[Torolol]

Digitally lending games is something no one has done yet iirc,

Its not digital lending 'games', its digitaly lending the "License"

[vcfan]

There is a degree of limitation on physical media because I can only share it with someone I can physically hand the game to and only one of us can use it.

 

that's the whole point of going digital. you no longer have that physical limitation.

 

In your scenario, a group of Neowinians could buy 1 game each, have each other on the friends list for the 30+ days and then enjoy a huge library for the measly sum of $60. What publisher in their right mind would want to jump on board with such a system? 

 

the same publisher that's going to benefit from not having their used games sold dozens of times without seeing a dime,thats who.

 

I don't think this game sharing system is going to be anywhere near as generous as your OP suggested. There are going to be restrictions. You might be only able to share certain games from certain publishers (ex. you can share Ubisoft titles for other titles). You might have to have a minimum amount of games on your system from that publisher to be able to share games from that publisher (ex. you have to own 3 Ubisoft titles to be able to share new Ubisoft titles). Geoblocking, not being able to share with international friends, is something that will almost certainly exist. Or 100 other restrictions I can't even think of. DRM gives them the power to implement any system they want and make it as restrictive as they see fit.

 

Microsoft says your entire games library is shared.

[George P Global Moderator]

Its not digital lending 'games', its digitaly lending the "License"

 

And the end result is the same, the person you're lending to gets to play the game.  

Agreed. And this is why I don't agree with it.

 

Take a look at this for example:

 

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

 

Publishers will have the power to restrict you from giving your disc-based game to a friend. Wouldn't you be frustrated if you can't lend a game that you don't play anymore to a good friend? "Sorry man, you can't play it on your Xbox One because Activision won't allow it."

 

 

That's a if, and will they?  If they're not going to do it on one system they're not going to block it on the other even if it has DRM.  It's not in their interest to hurt their sales.   Besides, why are we mixing two different aspects of the system together again?   Sharing your library and "gifting" a disc copy to a friend are two different things.   

[compl3x]

that's the whole point of going digital. you no longer have that physical limitation.

 

 

 

the same publisher that's going to benefit from not having their used games sold dozens of times without seeing a dime,thats who.

 

 

 

Microsoft says your entire games library is shared.

 

 

1. Publishers have always wanted to limited how their games are used. Digital is about control. The only reason why publishers haven't pushed hard with digital is because as much as they love to call the like of GameStop the devil of this industry, they know pissing off retailers isn't in their best interest. Publishers talk smack about GameStop but then give them exclusive editions and day-one exclusive DLC. Not really something you would think publishers would be doing with a group they argue is a scourge in the industry. It's also the same reason digital and physical pricing is essentially the ######ing same. Hell, here in Australia sometimes digital copies on the PSN and XBL are more expensive than retail versions.

 

2.  How are they benefiting? They aren't making any money in the system you described. Arguably, they'd make less because trade-ins people make to buy new titles wouldn't exist any more. Plus, if I can share a new title with you I just bought there is nothing to compel you to go out and buy those brand new titles. And those release days is where publishers want to see gamers going out and picking up those new copies.

 

3. Microsoft have 2 rules: the 30 day deal and the game can only be gifted once. We know nothing about what restrictions publishers can put on their titles. I can assure you they will not be kind.

[Torolol]

And the end result is the same, the person you're lending to gets to play the game.    

To end user the end result is the same,

but for publisher view it differently, they insist that "License(s)" must not be transferable nor lend able.

 

Surely you forgot how MS said Office 2013 license is not transferable?

only the backlash made it change decision to allow transfering license once every 90 days?

 

and XBox One DRM said, the game license can only transfered ONCE,

so if you recieves license of a game from someone else, you can't transfer that licence to another,

MS DRM getting worse, don't you think?

 

MS need to change their decision about the XBox One DRM.

[+InsaneNutter MVC]

It's also the same reason digital and physical pricing is essentially the ****ing same. Hell, here in Australia sometimes digital copies on the PSN and XBL are more expensive than retail versions.

That's always the case here in the UK, i remember Halo Reach been ?50 on games on demand about a year after it was released... yet you could walk in a shop and buy it for less than ?20 new.

Even the games on the dashboard recently with 50% off the normal digital download price were still more expensive than you could purchase the game for new on Amazon.

I expect some very tight restrictions on this DRM, such as only one person can be playing a borrowed game at any one time... making people be selective about who they lend to. However we will see, i would love it to be as open as the OP mentioned.

[chrisj1968]

MS REALLY needs to address this issue. The only way for MS to commit Seppuku is for themselves (MS) to not address the issues and thereby let people come to the conclusions that the bad PR is true.

[Emn1ty]

1. Publishers have always wanted to limited how their games are used. Digital is about control. The only reason why publishers haven't pushed hard with digital is because as much as they love to call the like of GameStop the devil of this industry, they know ****ing off retailers isn't in their best interest. Publishers talk smack about GameStop but then give them exclusive editions and day-one exclusive DLC. Not really something you would think publishers would be doing with a group they argue is a scourge in the industry. It's also the same reason digital and physical pricing is essentially the ****ing same. Hell, here in Australia sometimes digital copies on the PSN and XBL are more expensive than retail versions.

 

2.  How are they benefiting? They aren't making any money in the system you described. Arguably, they'd make less because trade-ins people make to buy new titles wouldn't exist any more. Plus, if I can share a new title with you I just bought there is nothing to compel you to go out and buy those brand new titles. And those release days is where publishers want to see gamers going out and picking up those new copies.

 

3. Microsoft have 2 rules: the 30 day deal and the game can only be gifted once. We know nothing about what restrictions publishers can put on their titles. I can assure you they will not be kind.

1. And so have developers. Even Steam/Valve do it already yet you don't see people complaining about the "control" because, "Oh well they sell me cheap games so I don't care if they can delete my library whenever they please." If you think developers aren't pushing hard with already you're blind. EA made their own client because of it, and Steam sales are continuing to grow, and it's cheaper for the developer to distribute digitally. They are pushing digital as hard as possible, and yet here you are blaming Microsoft for giving the developers (the secondary customer of their console) a feature they want. Microsoft needs to sell their console to the Dev's and Publishers as much as they do to the end user. Don't assume you're just being shafted because they can.

 

2. How are they benefiting? EXPOSURE. You get 5 people on your friends list to play game X, and perhaps they want to keep playing the game instead of waiting for it? Well now they have the incentive to purchase their own copy. Or perhaps you play a friend's game and you flat out love the game and when the sequel is released you decide you want your own copy. They've now netted a sale. Getting your foot in the door is the #1 priority of any sale. Sharing games does that by itself. Free advertising, free sales generation.

 

3. How can you be so certain? What evidence or even a suggestion that publishers and devs will lock the console down to the point of being unusable? How does that play to the consumer? Companies like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc have made these mistakes before with DRM, I doubt they'll do it again because the "can". In fact, i'm fairly sure they'll avoid it. If I recall, recently EA has even been toning down it's DRM level. The trends show a lightening of DRM from publishers, not an increase. Even Ubisoft, the god of DRM has stopped doing it. Don't assume the apocalypse when there is not but a single dark cloud in the sky.

 

[compl3x]

Absolutely clueless.

[George P Global Moderator]

To end user the end result is the same,

but for publisher view it differently, they insist that "License(s)" must not be transferable nor lend able.

 

Surely you forgot how MS said Office 2013 license is not transferable?

only the backlash made it change decision to allow transfering license once every 90 days?

 

and XBox One DRM said, the game license can only transfered ONCE,

so if you recieves license of a game from someone else, you can't transfer that licence to another,

MS DRM getting worse, don't you think?

 

MS need to change their decision about the XBox One DRM.

I get that, but you're talking about "giving" your game to a friend for free (though on the side you could get some money from the friend in the process).  It's like gifting a digital copy to someone on say, steam or some other service.    It's then tied to them and they can't give it away again.   I think it's limited to once because they'll probably let us give 100% digital content away to friends as well, like that new XBL Arcade game, and not just full XB1 games that also come on disc.   If that's the case then I can understand the one time only limit.  

 

That part is different from the sharing part though.  I don't know why people want to keep mixing all these different features/services together into one big lump.   You can "lend" through sharing your library now, but that's got nothing to do with "giving" away your game to them for good.   In the end these are two different things, and from the publishers point of view they're also different.  

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Its been the best thing out of E3, watching people defend the hell out of DRM. Never thought we would see the day after the backlash similar DRM on the PC got.