Microsoft Xbox One - "The truth about DRM"

[Yogurtmaster]

I wanted to post about the subject of DRM for the Xbox One and explain why I think it's all a misunderstanding and why I think that it was a good thing in general.

 

When Microsoft put out information about the DRM process on Xbox One, many, many people freaked out about losing their rights and that makes a lot of sense.   The problem is that people didn't really understood how it worked or what they were getting in return.

 

People have this impression about Microsoft that they are a money hungry company that is out to limit consumer rights and that they are evil, this couldn't be farther from the truth. 

 

Microsoft had a problem....

 

1) Microsoft knows that the entire video game industry is moving towards "digital downloads".  Steam is already there, but for consoles this is pretty new.  Even Nintendo is going "digital downloads".

2) Microsoft knows that it's too early for everyone to join in with "digital downloads" because of bandwidth limitations with ISPs and some people like having the comfort of owning something physical. 

3) Microsoft needs a solution to ween gamers off of physical disks.

4) Microsoft needs a way to combine the features of "digital downloads" and apply them to disks. 

 

So, Microsoft created a way to do a fully "digital" console.  Disks had all of the abilities of a physical disk, but also all of the abilities that Microsoft could do with "digital downloads". 

 

The downsides is that DRM would be needed because you can just install the disk with the hard drive and give it away, there had to be a way to solve this.

 

Microsoft had a solution.....

 

1) Microsoft allowed you to install the game to the hard drive while playing and then after that without having the disk in the drive.   This allows you to change games at will without getting up off the sofa and you don't need to try to find the disks, just use your voice and you are playing where you left off last.  You can basically switch at will.  Want to resume your single player Forza race, just tell the Xbox you want to play Forza and you are playing, want to switch to another game, just tell Xbox and you are on your way.  Easy and truly a next generation experience. 

 

2) Microsoft allowed you to have digital downloads and disk games to be digital so you can take them anywhere with you to any console you wanted and play them without physically bringing the disks with you.  It doesn't matter if you purchased the physical disks or bought the digital downloads.

 

3) Microsoft allowed you to share your library of games with up to 10 people in your group and they are not time limited and they can live anywhere.  With the only limit here being that only 2 people could be playing the same game at the same time.  This cannot be done with physical disks.  I live in Northern California, my brother lives in North Carolina.  We can share our libraries of games, thus saving us a landfall of money.

 

Bu....bu...bu... DRM!!!!!!

 

  Microsoft knew console gamers were going to be up in arms about this, but they thought with the pluses and the extreme flexibility that things would turn out fine.  Most publishers were going to opt in to these features because they would face the huge backlash if they didn't go forward. 

 

  1) Microsoft wanted you to be able to still trade in your games.  So, they talked to "GameStop" about doing this and taking the lead on this.  If other companies wanted to do what GameStop did Microsoft was willing to talk to them.

 

  2) Microsoft wanted you to have the ability to buy used games.  This was very important to them because it provides a great ecosystem of gaming.  They wanted the money to go to the publisher and it makes a lot of sense here.  Right now when you buy used games from GameStop, the publisher or developer gets none of that money and the video game industry is a lot different than other industries and so they can't make their money in the same way that say the movie industry through Netflix does. Video games are far different than other forms of media. 

 

  3) Microsoft still wanted you to have the ability to share your games with other people, this is why they came up with the "Family Sharing plan".  (+)

 

  4) Microsoft still wanted you to be able to gift the game or to sell it, but there was one limitation here in that you could not sell it beyond that.  (-)

 

  5) Microsoft was working on a way that people could still rent games like from "Gamefly", but this was being worked on until after launch.  

 

  6) Microsoft has just bought over 300 thousand servers to be used for the 4 cloud based things I talked about in the document that I posted.  They are not going to retire servers just to shut off the games.  See this video about Microsoft Azure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ44hEr5DFE

  

So, what do we have, we have one (-) Minus meaning an actual limitation and one (+) means an actual feature that isn't a limitation but huge plus.  The other features should be (+) as well because they are not limitations.  However, I wanted to be fair as possible about this.

 

In the end the limitations are not limitations at all and is probably the most flexible "DRM" system in the history of DRM.  Microsoft couldn't explain the benefits and the non limitations correctly and people freaked out.  So, it's a communications issue from Microsoft and people not being rational and freaking out about their lost rights, which as you have seen is a complete fairy tale. 

 

Bu....bu...bu...What about the Future!!!!!!

 

The future isn't lost.  You can probably forget about the digital features on disks, but that doesn't mean that the other features are not coming back.  They are definitely coming back, but it won't be after launch.  I would suspect that they will be back for 2014, but that is just a guess right now.  You will probably see this on "digital downloads" only. So, honestly I really wouldn't worry about it.  This is a big set of features that makes them different than the competition. 

 

If it was me, I would push "Digital Downloads" like this....

 

1) Offer all of the digital features ONLY on digital downloads (Instant Switching, Family Sharing plan, Games

    available on any console without bringing your games, etc...)

 

2) Lower the price of the digital downloads on the same day as the physical media. 

  

     The same high quality game but with different pricing......

     $60 for a "day one" game on Xbox One blu-ray disk.  

     $40 for a "day one" game on Xbox One "Digital download" 

 

Here is the final link that I will give out in the OP.  If you haven't read it, then read it with the above in mind and think, are they really evil or do they want to move forward with the rest of the industry?

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/12/microsoft-shame-on-us-for-xbox-one-messaging

 

 

[Showan]

It's a good read... but the original vision was the way to go...

I know there were some disadvantages (Those in the Military who have down time, wouldn't be able to join in on the fun)...

MS too innovative for some, i guess...

[jasondefaoite]

I agree with pretty much most of what you posted there, but especially how they should go forward with this. It should have been like this from the beginning (choice of digital download + benefits, restrictions) versus disk based traditional sales. The fact this is so obvious, you have to believe MS looked at this possibility and decided not to implement it this way.

 

What I don't agree with ... Family Sharing

 

3) Microsoft allowed you to share your library of games with up to 10 people in your group and they are not time limited and they can live anywhere.  With the only limit here being that only 2 people could be playing the same game at the same time.  This cannot be done with physical disks.  I live in Northern California, my brother lives in North Carolina.  We can share our libraries of games, thus saving us a landfall of money.

 

The idea is great in concept, but short on details. Personally I just don't believe MS would allow you to share your library among 10 friends to the extent that they all could fully complete a single player game without purchasing it.

 

As for the limit being only that 2 people could play the same game at the same time, MS were asked, if two people were playing the same game, could the other 8 play different games from your library at this time, and they didn't answer the question.

 

Family sharing ... I know some feel this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and nothing I say with convince them otherwise, but I just feel the service wasn't fully detailed, and there were more limits on this than initially announced.

 

 

 2) Microsoft wanted you to have the ability to buy used games.  This was very important to them because it provides a great ecosystem of gaming.  They wanted the money to go to the publisher and it makes a lot of sense here.  Right now when you buy used games from GameStop, the publisher or developer gets none of that money and the video game industry is a lot different than other industries and so they can't make their money in the same way that say the movie industry through Netflix does. Video games are far different than other forms of media. 

 

Not sure I see the difference between the video game industry and the movie industry. And I don't agree the publisher deserves a cut of the 2nd hand sales. You purchase a DVD or bluray, then later decide to sell it. The studio deserves a cut of that sale?

 

But generally your post is spot on. The PR from MS here was terrible. They knew what they were doing wasn't going to be popular with gamers. The PR debacle was specifically due to them tying themselves in knots trying not to answer specific questions on DRM in a way which made the whole experience appear negative.

 

Repeating myself a bit, but the though of implementing both digital downloads (with its own pros/cons) and disks (as they do with the 360 now) is so obvious, there must be a clear reason they decided against it.

 

From the IGN article..

 

 

 

Whitten lamented Microsoft?s back-and-forth messaging since May, admitting that the company still has a lot to work on when it comes to communicating with consumers.

 

I think it?s pretty simple. We?ve got to just talk more, get people understanding what our system is,? Whitten told IGN.

 

You had multiple oportunities to do exactly that at the initial launch and E3, but decided against answering questions seeking clarification on the DRM.

[Yogurtmaster]

I agree with pretty much most of what you posted there, but especially how they should go forward with this. It should have been like this from the beginning (choice of digital download + benefits, restrictions) versus disk based traditional sales. The fact this is so obvious, you have to believe MS looked at this possibility and decided not to implement it this way.

 

What I don't agree with ... Family Sharing

 

 

The idea is great in concept, but short on details. Personally I just don't believe MS would allow you to share your library among 10 friends to the extent that they all could fully complete a single player game without purchasing it.

 

As for the limit being only that 2 people could play the same game at the same time, MS were asked, if two people were playing the same game, could the other 8 play different games from your library at this time, and they didn't answer the question.

 

Family sharing ... I know some feel this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and nothing I say with convince them otherwise, but I just feel the service wasn't fully detailed, and there were more limits on this than initially announced.

 

 

 

Not sure I see the difference between the video game industry and the movie industry. And I don't agree the publisher deserves a cut of the 2nd hand sales. You purchase a DVD or bluray, then later decide to sell it. The studio deserves a cut of that sale?

 

But generally your post is spot on. The PR from MS here was terrible. They knew what they were doing wasn't going to be popular with gamers. The PR debacle was specifically due to them tying themselves in knots trying not to answer specific questions on DRM in a way which made the whole experience appear negative.

 

Repeating myself a bit, but the though of implementing both digital downloads (with its own pros/cons) and disks (as they do with the 360 now) is so obvious, there must be a clear reason they decided against it.

 

From the IGN article..

 

 

 

 

You had multiple oportunities to do exactly that at the initial launch and E3, but decided against answering questions seeking clarification on the DRM.

 

  This video has a great explanation about the movie industry and why it's different on second hand sales..

   Listen starting at 07:52 for the difference between DVD movies and games.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_f8YBy39M

 

  As for family sharing I would think if there was some kind of limitations they would have made them known.  That is usually the legal small print and I didn't see any small print on this.  

[xWhiplash]

Do people really think that family sharing is going to be unrestricted?

 

Do you guys know what would happen if this feature is what you want it to be?  No more single player.  Or single player that only takes one hour to beat.  Or single player that get 5% of the usual budget.  Thanks.  I do not care one bit about multi-player gaming.  So if companies lose out of more sales because of this family sharing feature, you bet they will not focus on single player.

 

I am not a cheapo, but hell yes if I can go 50/50 with a friend (or divide it with several friends) and play single player at the same time (or scheduling if multiple friends participated).  Well they would lose out of $60 because I would have purchased it myself if that feature did not exist.

[spacer]

Until broadband internet is as ubiquitous and reliable as electricity, any system that requires a persistent or regular connection to function is unacceptable. Regardless of the perceived benefits.

[trag3dy]

It's a good read... but the original vision was the way to go...

I know there were some disadvantages (Those in the Military who have down time, wouldn't be able to join in on the fun)...

MS too innovative for some, i guess...

 

You MS telling entire countries that they're not worth their time was cool, too.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I wanted to post about the subject of DRM for the Xbox One and explain why I think it's all a misunderstanding and why I think that it was a good thing in general.

 

When Microsoft put out information about the DRM process on Xbox One, many, many people freaked out about losing their rights and that makes a lot of sense.   The problem is that people didn't really understood how it worked or what they were getting in return.

 

People have this impression about Microsoft that they are a money hungry company that is out to limit consumer rights and that they are evil, this couldn't be farther from the truth. 

 

Microsoft had a problem....

 

1) Microsoft knows that the entire video game industry is moving towards "digital downloads".  Steam is already there, but for consoles this is pretty new.  Even Nintendo is going "digital downloads".

2) Microsoft knows that it's too early for everyone to join in with "digital downloads" because of bandwidth limitations with ISPs and some people like having the comfort of owning something physical. 

3) Microsoft needs a solution to ween gamers off of physical disks.

4) Microsoft needs a way to combine the features of "digital downloads" and apply them to disks. 

 

So, Microsoft created a way to do a fully "digital" console.  Disks had all of the abilities of a physical disk, but also all of the abilities that Microsoft could do with "digital downloads". 

 

The downsides is that DRM would be needed because you can just install the disk with the hard drive and give it away, there had to be a way to solve this.

 

Microsoft had a solution.....

 

1) Microsoft allowed you to install the game to the hard drive while playing and then after that without having the disk in the drive.   This allows you to change games at will without getting up off the sofa and you don't need to try to find the disks, just use your voice and you are playing where you left off last.  You can basically switch at will.  Want to resume your single player Forza race, just tell the Xbox you want to play Forza and you are playing, want to switch to another game, just tell Xbox and you are on your way.  Easy and truly a next generation experience. 

 

2) Microsoft allowed you to have digital downloads and disk games to be digital so you can take them anywhere with you to any console you wanted and play them without physically bringing the disks with you.  It doesn't matter if you purchased the physical disks or bought the digital downloads.

 

3) Microsoft allowed you to share your library of games with up to 10 people in your group and they are not time limited and they can live anywhere.  With the only limit here being that only 2 people could be playing the same game at the same time.  This cannot be done with physical disks.  I live in Northern California, my brother lives in North Carolina.  We can share our libraries of games, thus saving us a landfall of money.

 

Bu....bu...bu... DRM!!!!!!

 

  Microsoft knew console gamers were going to be up in arms about this, but they thought with the pluses and the extreme flexibility that things would turn out fine.  Most publishers were going to opt in to these features because they would face the huge backlash if they didn't go forward. 

 

  1) Microsoft wanted you to be able to still trade in your games.  So, they talked to "GameStop" about doing this and taking the lead on this.  If other companies wanted to do what GameStop did Microsoft was willing to talk to them.

 

  2) Microsoft wanted you to have the ability to buy used games.  This was very important to them because it provides a great ecosystem of gaming.  They wanted the money to go to the publisher and it makes a lot of sense here.  Right now when you buy used games from GameStop, the publisher or developer gets none of that money and the video game industry is a lot different than other industries and so they can't make their money in the same way that say the movie industry through Netflix does. Video games are far different than other forms of media. 

 

  3) Microsoft still wanted you to have the ability to share your games with other people, this is why they came up with the "Family Sharing plan".  (+)

 

  4) Microsoft still wanted you to be able to gift the game or to sell it, but there was one limitation here in that you could not sell it beyond that.  (-)

 

  5) Microsoft was working on a way that people could still rent games like from "Gamefly", but this was being worked on until after launch.  

 

  6) Microsoft has just bought over 300 thousand servers to be used for the 4 cloud based things I talked about in the document that I posted.  They are not going to retire servers just to shut off the games.  See this video about Microsoft Azure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ44hEr5DFE

  

So, what do we have, we have one (-) Minus meaning an actual limitation and one (+) means an actual feature that isn't a limitation but huge plus.  The other features should be (+) as well because they are not limitations.  However, I wanted to be fair as possible about this.

 

In the end the limitations are not limitations at all and is probably the most flexible "DRM" system in the history of DRM.  Microsoft couldn't explain the benefits and the non limitations correctly and people freaked out.  So, it's a communications issue from Microsoft and people not being rational and freaking out about their lost rights, which as you have seen is a complete fairy tale. 

 

Bu....bu...bu...What about the Future!!!!!!

 

The future isn't lost.  You can probably forget about the digital features on disks, but that doesn't mean that the other features are not coming back.  They are definitely coming back, but it won't be after launch.  I would suspect that they will be back for 2014, but that is just a guess right now.  You will probably see this on "digital downloads" only. So, honestly I really wouldn't worry about it.  This is a big set of features that makes them different than the competition. 

 

If it was me, I would push "Digital Downloads" like this....

 

1) Offer all of the digital features ONLY on digital downloads (Instant Switching, Family Sharing plan, Games

    available on any console without bringing your games, etc...)

 

2) Lower the price of the digital downloads on the same day as the physical media. 

  

     The same high quality game but with different pricing......

     $60 for a "day one" game on Xbox One blu-ray disk.  

     $40 for a "day one" game on Xbox One "Digital download" 

 

Here is the final link that I will give out in the OP.  If you haven't read it, then read it with the above in mind and think, are they really evil or do they want to move forward with the rest of the industry?

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/12/microsoft-shame-on-us-for-xbox-one-messaging

 

I think part of the main problem was that the uneducated see the acronym 'DRM' and jump on it like it's the digital plague, which it is not. 

It's a perfectly legitimate way to secure digital content and without it we wouldn't be where we are today in terms of digital distribution. The stupid need to remember this.

[Ultravires]

Well since they never really clearly explained how family sharing really worked, it was never really clear whether two people could play the same game or not at the same time. If it was only one person per title, what would happen if the original owner wanted to play the game that was being accessed by a shared user? Would it auto save and boot the shared user off the game? If it really did support two people could play the game at the same time, which seems a bit unrealistic, it would most likely **** off publishers unless their were some other restrictions which would create incentive for people to purchase the shared version of the game, Furthermore, they did allow up to ten people to access the library and play at the same time, as long as it was a different title. I still don't get how some people are so skeptical of the family sharing feature thinking it was only timed demo's. Think of it this way, the family sharing feature is a marketing tool. Do you really thing Microsoft would limit themselves by restricting the amount of people being able to access a shared demo? Do you think they would only allow one person at the same time to try a demo and only allow a max of 10 people to access your shared demo's when they already have a market place for demo's already? I am sure their were some restrictions in place, but timed demo's was not it that's for sure.

 

Though, you mentioned some of the positive stuff about why they implemented the DRM, you should have discussed some of the negative aspects of it as well. I know a  lot of people including myself have a stable internet connection and i am pretty much online 24/7 other than the few times my power or isp goes down, so it isn't really a major issue for some people, but what happens if the internet was too go out, depending on the situation, the console might not be able to play games. Also the DRM would also have a negative impact for the people who have trouble getting internet access. Furthermore what would happen to  my digital/physical library if i was to get banned if the live service was to be cancelled, all these unknown's should have had a clear and simple answer.

 

Don't get me wrong i did like some of the features the X1 had and hopefully they can still implement them in some way where they can satisfy the majority of the consumers, but the way they went about it with the DRM was a bit to restrictive. I am sure they are working on some way of bringing back some of the pulled features like the family sharing. Heck, i would like to see Sony offer something similar with the PS4, so it would get both companies competing against each other in this sector and hopefully we could see better prices (though unlikely), or at least more steam like promotions.

 

I mentioned some of this stuff earlier in other post, the family sharing feature was a marketing tool, with some restrictions in place to create incentive for the players to fully purchase and own the title rather than accessing a shared version. So to begin with, shared copies would not have access to achievements, challenges, no custom matches, no form of score, points, ladder, ranking tracking, etc. Unable to access DLC purchased by original owner. No access to the cloud processing benefits, unable to compete in tournaments for rewards, prizes, etc. Cannot record, save or upload game play footage. Also they could have had some tiered family sharing feature in place for example, just say i only owned one game, i would only be able to join one share and only add one person to my share, if i purchased another title, i would be able to add and join another share, etc up to a max of ten friends, so hopefully with some of these limitations in place combined with the tier like system and friends trying to constantly access the same new shared title at the same time, it would give players the incentive to just purchase a shared title they know they will enjoy.

 

You also mentioned MS purchased 300,000 more servers, however, they only stated they have only increased their servers, so now they have about 300,000 servers backing up Xbox live. You also mentioned that day one physical sales should be more expensive than digital downloads, etc, however if they do that, it will just **** off the shop owners, so that they will just choose not to have that said title in the inventory available for sale, also people on limited bandwidth caps would get screwed because they might not be able to go over their cap, so this could hold back sales.

[Yogurtmaster]

Until broadband internet is as ubiquitous and reliable as electricity, any system that requires a persistent or regular connection to function is unacceptable. Regardless of the perceived benefits.

 

   I live in rural Northern California and even I can get 25 Megabit connection with Comcast.  

I honestly feel that this is not a big deal.  With the exception of the Military, most games are going to be

moving online and this includes single play.  This isn't 1999 anymore.

 

  Also, you are going to be skipping a lot of games next generation....

 

   The games that require online....

 

    1) Destiny by Bungie

    2) The Division by Ubisoft

    3) The Crew by Ubisoft

    4) TitanFall by Respawn Entertainment

    5) Elder Scrolls Online by Bethesda Softworks

 

   The games that have been enhanced by online that we know of..

 

    1) Sunset Overdrive by Insomniac Games

    2) Halo 5 by 343 Industries

    3) Forza 5 by Turn 10 Studios

    

   I am sure there will be a lot more over time, this is just the beginning of a new generation.

Welcome to the 21st century.

 

Most people posting about this stuff are already online, that is why I think it's so ironic.  If you can't use your tablet online it's pretty useless.  A PC can be offline for Microsoft Office or some older games, but then again you couldn't even use steam.   Phones/Tablets/Laptops are all very limited at best to useless at worse.  So, I really don't understand this at all.

 

   If you want to game offline but travel, buy a 3DS or use your phone to play games. 

[Yogurtmaster]

Well since they never really clearly explained how family sharing really worked, it was never really clear whether two people could play the same game or not at the same time. If it was only one person per title, what would happen if the original owner wanted to play the game that was being accessed by a shared user? Would it auto save and boot the shared user off the game? If it really did support two people could play the game at the same time, which seems a bit unrealistic, it would most likely **** off publishers unless their were some other restrictions which would create incentive for people to purchase the shared version of the game, Furthermore, they did allow up to ten people to access the library and play at the same time, as long as it was a different title. I still don't get how some people are so skeptical of the family sharing feature thinking it was only timed demo's. Think of it this way, the family sharing feature is a marketing tool. Do you really thing Microsoft would limit themselves by restricting the amount of people being able to access a shared demo? Do you think they would only allow one person at the same time to try a demo and only allow a max of 10 people to access your shared demo's when they already have a market place for demo's already? I am sure their were some restrictions in place, but timed demo's was not it that's for sure.

 

Though, you mentioned some of the positive stuff about why they implemented the DRM, you should have discussed some of the negative aspects of it as well. I know a  lot of people including myself have a stable internet connection and i am pretty much online 24/7 other than the few times my power or isp goes down, so it isn't really a major issue for some people, but what happens if the internet was too go out, depending on the situation, the console might not be able to play games. Also the DRM would also have a negative impact for the people who have trouble getting internet access. Furthermore what would happen to  my digital/physical library if i was to get banned if the live service was to be cancelled, all these unknown's should have had a clear and simple answer.

 

Don't get me wrong i did like some of the features the X1 had and hopefully they can still implement them in some way where they can satisfy the majority of the consumers, but the way they went about it with the DRM was a bit to restrictive. I am sure they are working on some way of bringing back some of the pulled features like the family sharing. Heck, i would like to see Sony offer something similar with the PS4, so it would get both companies competing against each other in this sector and hopefully we could see better prices (though unlikely), or at least more steam like promotions.

 

I mentioned some of this stuff earlier in other post, the family sharing feature was a marketing tool, with some restrictions in place to create incentive for the players to fully purchase and own the title rather than accessing a shared version. So to begin with, shared copies would not have access to achievements, challenges, no custom matches, no form of score, points, ladder, ranking tracking, etc. Unable to access DLC purchased by original owner. No access to the cloud processing benefits, unable to compete in tournaments for rewards, prizes, etc. Cannot record, save or upload game play footage. Also they could have had some tiered family sharing feature in place for example, just say i only owned one game, i would only be able to join one share and only add one person to my share, if i purchased another title, i would be able to add and join another share, etc up to a max of ten friends, so hopefully with some of these limitations in place combined with the tier like system and friends trying to constantly access the same new shared title at the same time, it would give players the incentive to just purchase a shared title they know they will enjoy.

 

You also mentioned MS purchased 300,000 more servers, however, they only stated they have only increased their servers, so now they have about 300,000 servers backing up Xbox live. You also mentioned that day one physical sales should be more expensive than digital downloads, etc, however if they do that, it will just **** off the shop owners, so that they will just choose not to have that said title in the inventory available for sale, also people on limited bandwidth caps would get screwed because they might not be able to go over their cap, so this could hold back sales.

 

    As I posted before, I have had Internet from NYC to LA, to a remote rural area in Northern California and I have been here for 7 years and my Internet hasn't been down for years and if it was down it was a problem at Comcast and that was at 2 in the morning.  Not exactly a big deal and while I currently have 6 megabits, I can have up to 25 megabits if I wanted to.

 

    You had 24 hours to get an Internet connection, even if you had a satellite connection you still would be able to play those games, you just would not be able to play games online because of the latency.  So, that covers about 99 percent of the people in the USA at least.  

 

     I have had two high speed options, DSL and Cable.  Most people should be able to get one of those.  Then there are the terrestrial wireless options (Line of sight or 3G/WiMax/4G) and the Satellite options.  There are plenty of ways to get the Internet.  Again this isn't 1999.    

 

     The Best options would be....

 

   1) Gigabit Wired (Ethernet or Fiber Optics)

   2) FIOS

   3) Cable (Preferred DOCSIS 3.0, but 2.0 will work fine too)

   4) DSL 2+ (Can go up to 20 megabits, but in small distances)

   5) DSL 1.5 megabit to 6 megabit (or AT&T Uverse)

   6) 4G LTE (You can also check to see if you phone can be a modem)

   7) WiMax like "ClearWire"

   8) Other forms of terrestrial wireless such as 3G or Line of Sight wireless

   9) Satellite (1.5 megabits to 6 megabits, but huge latency)

 

   There are plenty of options to choose from....  Satellite is the worst and has the worst latency of them all. 

 

 As for the shop owners, they won't care because at least they are getting money right now.  In the future GameStop might be out of business or have to sell something else like used iPads to keep the doors open.  Life is changing. 

 

 They have a lot of backups for servers, they are pros at it.  Didn't you see the video that I posted about the servers?

 

Watch this entire video and it will give you an idea about the servers Microsoft is creating....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ44hEr5DFE

I think part of the main problem was that the uneducated see the acronym 'DRM' and jump on it like it's the digital plague, which it is not. 

It's a perfectly legitimate way to secure digital content and without it we wouldn't be where we are today in terms of digital distribution. The stupid need to remember this.

 

I agree... The very word DRM sounds scary to a lot of people.  They didn't really read what this was all about.  Thus so many people complained and got angry that Microsoft had to go back to the drawing board.

[Yogurtmaster]

You MS telling entire countries that they're not worth their time was cool, too.

 

   That isn't true at all.  Another misconception.  Microsoft needs server data centers specific for different countries.

Again, they are basing a lot of the features of the new console that they can deliver using servers in close proximity with the games in that said country.

 

   If they don't have a server data center in that country it takes time to build out and thus the Xbox one would be useless without Servers, you can't even set one up without them. 

 

   Here is something for you, don't ever assume you know something when you don't.  It's a far better thing to have an open mind and think things through instead of making a judgement where you rush through and you haven't either considered or don't have all of the facts. 

[GotBored]

I agree... The very word DRM sounds scary to a lot of people.  They didn't really read what this was all about.  Thus so many people complained and got angry that Microsoft had to go back to the drawing board.

 

I'd say it was less the word DRM and more the fact that you needed to pay an additional fee to publishers to sell your game or buy a second hand game, or the fact you couldn't lend out a game to a friend (Most people don't have online friends only), or the need for the constant internet connection (its not just Military) or the fact that some of the features which they said relied on the DRM but Sony was doing the same thing without it..

 

If you wanted the DRM you should have pre-ordered the Xbox One when it still had it. The reason why it was removed was because of terrible pre-order numbers. As soon as they announced the removal of the DRM, pre-order numbers bounced back up.

 

You can argue your point till your blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that majority of people didn't want it.

[trag3dy]

   That isn't true at all.  Another misconception.  Microsoft needs server data centers specific for different countries.

Again, they are basing a lot of the features of the new console that they can deliver using servers in close proximity with the games in that said country.

 

   If they don't have a server data center in that country it takes time to build out and thus the Xbox one would be useless without Servers, you can't even set one up without them. 

 

   Here is something for you, don't ever assume you know something when you don't.  It's a far better thing to have an open mind and think things through instead of making a judgement where you rush through and you haven't either considered or don't have all of the facts. 

 

And? You basically said what I said only you took several sentences to do it. Online requirements meant that people in a lot of countries around the world were out of luck if they wanted a new xbox. Remove those requires and guess what? People can now buy one. Pretty simple stuff if you think about it.

 

There are 0 reasons why the DRM that MS had planned can ever be viewed as good. The entire thing was designed so that they can control what you do on your console that you paid $500 for, when, where, and how you did. That's all and you're kidding yourself if you believed Microsoft's claims that it was all about the consumers. They were doing what was good for them and them only.

[GotBored]

Just an update on the DRM restrictions, Sony have recently announced that the PS4 will be able to play your games without disc on any console.

 

 

 

One of the major complaints about the DRM backflip was you have to now change out discs to play different games if you wanted a physical copy in your bookshelf, PS4 has managed to fix this without restrictive DRM policies.

 

Another was sharing games with a family member who is overseas or interstate.. They can now login to your account on their PS4's and play your games.

 

I think this is very smart business wise cause now hotels, motels, holiday destinations will possibly purchase PS4's for their hotel patrons who can play their games from anywhere in the world.

I have seen many posts about people saying when your on a work trip your not going to play a console, these people obviously have never worked for a company which requires them to travel.

 

You dont always go to great holiday destinations with awesome weather where you want to be outside 24/7, You can't always spends hundreds or even thousands of dollars to visit local places of interest and enjoy the destination.

Sometimes you just want to relax and play a game.. There are many reasons, its why hotels have cable tv.

 

But if you travel a lot your not likely to pack a console into your baggage, but with this option it made the PS4 much more customer friendly for those who travel and have access to internet at the locations they travel.

 

All the huffing and puffing from people about the DRM and PS4 already had something just as good without the DRM restrictions.. Feel free to try explain how awesome it was going to be now, :)

[George P Global Moderator]

 

Just an update on the DRM restrictions, Sony have recently announced that the PS4 will be able to play your games without disc on any console.

 

 

 

One of the major complaints about the DRM backflip was you have to now change out discs to play different games if you wanted a physical copy in your bookshelf, PS4 has managed to fix this without restrictive DRM policies.

 

Another was sharing games with a family member who is overseas or interstate.. They can now login to your account on their PS4's and play your games.

 

I think this is very smart business wise cause now hotels, motels, holiday destinations will possibly purchase PS4's for their hotel patrons who can play their games from anywhere in the world.

I have seen many posts about people saying when your on a work trip your not going to play a console, these people obviously have never worked for a company which requires them to travel.

 

You dont always go to great holiday destinations with awesome weather where you want to be outside 24/7, You can't always spends hundreds or even thousands of dollars to visit local places of interest and enjoy the destination.

Sometimes you just want to relax and play a game.. There are many reasons, its why hotels have cable tv.

 

But if you travel a lot your not likely to pack a console into your baggage, but with this option it made the PS4 much more customer friendly for those who travel and have access to internet at the locations they travel.

 

All the huffing and puffing from people about the DRM and PS4 already had something just as good without the DRM restrictions.. Feel free to try explain how awesome it was going to be now, :)

 

 

They're limited to digital copies only, the Xbox One was going to allow you to share everything regardless of how you got it.  They're not close really.  Now with the disc changes the Xbox One will also limit it to digital versions only as well from all the reports people have been posting.

 

I like how the video tries to make it sound like it's the same level of sharing when it's not since you're not sharing any of the games you got via a physical disc, you also have to login to their console with your own account.  That's not how it was going to be on the Xbox One, they could use their own account and access your games. No sharing of account info, and why would I share my account info with someone, even my friend?  Specially when at the end of the video they say it's only one system at a time so your friend can just login and kick you out if they wanted to be a dick.    That's another thing the Xbox One was going to do different, since each friend was using their own account while it was going to be limited on how many friends played your games at one time you were never limited and could never be "locked out" of playing a game you were also sharing.

 

But hey, for those who still don't seem to know the details of what the XB1 was going to do then the video does try to make it sound like what the PS4 will allow is the same thing, when it's not at all. 

[GotBored]

They're limited to digital copies only, the Xbox One was going to allow you to share everything regardless of how you got it.  They're not close really.  Now with the disc changes the Xbox One will also limit it to digital versions only as well from all the reports people have been posting.

 

I like how the video tries to make it sound like it's the same level of sharing when it's not since you're not sharing any of the games you got via a physical disc.  Nice try though, I guess.

 

They never said it was digital copies only, post sources if you have any.

[George P Global Moderator]

They never said it was digital copies only, post sources if you have any.

 

The video you posted yourself?  Or did you not watch it?  THey said, in the video, that you yourself posted.  That the way it works is that you can login to your account on a friends system and have access to the games you previously downloaded.   Feel free to watch the video, you posted, over again.  They also have other limits in place to that the XB1 had taken account of.

[GotBored]

The video you posted yourself?  Or did you not watch it?  THey said, in the video, that you yourself posted.  That the way it works is that you can login to your account on a friends system and have access to the games you previously downloaded.   Feel free to watch the video, you posted, over again.  They also have other limits in place to that the XB1 had taken account of.

 

He does say share downloaded games but never says it limited to digital downloads only.

 

Like I said, post any sources you have to suggest otherwise.

[George P Global Moderator]

He does say share downloaded games but never says it limited to digital downloads only.

 

Like I said, post any sources you have to suggest otherwise.

 

There's a whole post about this in the Sony section that you still want to deny?

 

http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2013/07/10/ps4s-digital-library-lets-you-play-your-games-anywhere-on-anyones-console/

 

It says your "digital library"  that means games you've digitally bought/downloaded.   It's got nothing to do with disc games, any game you have gotten as a disc you can't access, you'll have to have the disc with you.  That's not how the XB1 was going to do it, with the XB1 each game, either downloaded or install from a disc would have been treated the same and you could access them in your library the same way.   You also didn't have to login to your account for a friend to play the game.   This isn't "sharing" it's just allowing you to access the content you already own digitally on a different device.  You have to use your account, my friend can't use his own account or get credit for playing the game.  It's hardly sharing at all, it's something else.

 

I don't know what more proof you need, the wording is clear.

[GotBored]

You also didn't have to login to your account for a friend to play the game.   This isn't "sharing" it's just allowing you to access the content you already own digitally on a different device.  You have to use your account, my friend can't use his own account or get credit for playing the game.  It's hardly sharing at all, it's something else.

 

You could give you friend your login details and he can play the games in your game library, it allows you to share games with a family or friend in another place in the world that was one of the main arguments against the DRM backflip. Sure they're achievements wont show up on their account and would be credited to yours but I think people would rather just play the game then earn achievements.

[vcfan]

that ps4 feature is last gen and is not even close to family sharing.

[TheLegendOfMart]

It really isn't it's an evolution of the PS3 way of sharing, on PS3 as long as the account exists on the console it is authorised to play content from that account.

 

With PS4 you can set a "home" PS4 and you can authorise other machines to play the content.

[George P Global Moderator]

You could give you friend your login details and he can play the games in your game library, it allows you to share games with a family or friend in another place in the world that was one of the main arguments against the DRM backflip. Sure they're achievements wont show up on their account and would be credited to yours but I think people would rather just play the game then earn achievements.

 

It says that it's limited to one console at the time, so as I pointed out, if you're logged into your account on a friends system then you can't login to that account on another one.   Sure if you trust your friends enough and want to give them your PSN login info then go ahead, but that's hardly ideal and not really sharing. 

[Ultravires]

With Sony's approach sharing the profiles is possible, thought it could create security issues and i believe sharing profile's is something Sony, MS or any other of these type of services are frowned upon and violate their TOS, which could be bannable. Also, what would happen if you got into an argument/fight with your friend/family and they changed the password on you? You would really need to trust this friend/family member to share this info, a lot of people usually use the same email, that is tied to other services, whether it be banking, facebook, google+, same acct on smart phone, etc (Which isn't really the smart thing to do). Also from a marketing perspective, it wouldn't be as effective, since the data mined would be from multiple sources, where as with the X1, players would more likely have their own personal profile, since they could just still share their titles without having to share a profile.