XBOX One Disc For Code

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

The problem is that doesn't work for disc based games. MS was trying to create a system where disc based games could be handled just like digital games or the way retail pc games are handled. The disc is basically worthless and you tie the install to your account.

Unfortunately, they were only able to come up with the 24hr check in as a way to combat those that would try to resell their disc even though they were still playing the game digitally. Maybe that was down to pressure from game publishers or something else, but that is what happened.

So they scrubbed the plans in the face of backlash against the check in and the loss of a used game market for discs.

I think what we will see in the future is that MS will roll out the features they had planned to offer just on digitally purchased titles, leaving the disc based purchases as they are. No need to mess with that side at all unless they figure out a way to do it that does not seem so controlling.

As far as the digital side goes, your exactly right, there are systems already in use for those. However, I do believe that digital games will check in with the server from time to time on all consoles. Correct me if I'm wrong though, I just thought that was still happening.

 

Then they missed the crucial difference.

 

PC games sold at retail only use the discs as a delivery method. The serial keys are what tie it to the account, not the disc or a DRM scheme. Even Steam allows indefinite offline play once you have downloaded something to the hard drive (right now it's broken but Valve are fixing it). That is why PC gamers can still sell their physical copies once they've redeemed codes.

 

Even when I buy some retail PC games (which isn't very often these days), I never touch the disc and simply redeem the serial so I can start downloading the latest version of the game from the start.

 

And as for why Steam and other DD services can get away with no second hand market, it has been said over and over. When you can buy games for 75+% off then who cares? It may change in the coming years now the EU has pushed a law through to enable it though.

[Showan]

I would like to see boxes that contains codes in them instead of a disc. That way I can get collectors editions of my favorite games (and some box art) but at the same time, I don't have to get up and switch disc.

Microsoft should have a digital license that's local to the machine and to the cloud (sorta like the original plan). When online, Microsoft's licensing server will authenticate against the Game license, when offline, the One will handle the license key locally. And when you go from offline to online, there's a sync process for add-ons and such that may be purchased. And if you are at a friends house, YOU HAVE TO KEEP that Xbox One online (and signed in with you pr gamertag of course. There has to be some compromise of course.) as all licensing will have to be handled by Microsoft's servers when not on your home console.

And if you got more than one Xbox One at your own house, maybe Microsoft can find a way to make a linking system so that the licensing process can be handled easier in your own household...

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Then they missed the crucial difference.

 

PC games sold at retail only use the discs as a delivery method. The serial keys are what tie it to the account, not the disc or a DRM scheme. Even Steam allows indefinite offline play once you have downloaded something to the hard drive (right now it's broken but Valve are fixing it). That is why PC gamers can still sell their physical copies once they've redeemed codes.

 

Even when I buy some retail PC games (which isn't very often these days), I never touch the disc and simply redeem the serial so I can start downloading the latest version of the game from the start.

 

And as for why Steam and other DD services can get away with no second hand market, it has been said over and over. When you can buy games for 75+% off then who cares? It may change in the coming years now the EU has pushed a law through to enable it though.

 

Installing WoW from it's vanilla disc (yes CD, not DVD) release must be a hoot these days. Maybe around 2% of the assets from the discs are still valid?  :rofl:

[Unrealistic]

This is slightly off topic, but one thing I absolutely hate about the Xbox One's DRM is their Xbox One Fitness App. If you purchase the exercises, it only gives you access to those particular videos. The videos do not download to the console, but are streamed. There have been times when I am using the majority of the internet traffic and my fiance cannot play her fitness program because it has to re-buffer from HD to SD, then back again.

 

It definitely destroys any real momentum and it has me regretting purchasing them. The DRM was anti-consumer and in many ways it still is.

[dead.cell]

I used to harp on about how Microsoft failed to compromise, but I take that statement back given what I've seen through launch.

 

The problem Microsoft had wasn't that they had a bad plan, but that they lacked time. If they had the time to properly gauge public opinion, listen to feedback, and adjust accordingly, consoles could be living in more of a true digital age to which PC gaming has been enjoying for roughly a decade or better now. However, one cannot expect the behemoth that is Microsoft to move so quickly, in fact, it's surprising that they were even able to pull the big red lever to reverse their stance entirely.

 

Time management plays a big factor in everything we do, and Microsoft is no exception. While working there would still be a dream job, I can only imagine with all the work that needs to be done between fixing bugs, oversights, improving their UI, adding or completing features, voice recognition, not to mention adding support for other languages and getting their consoles out into more territories... I can only imagine the hustle that would (or at least, should) be going on over there.

 

Blame the gamers if you want, but they're not the ones running the company. Microsoft opted for a quick fix, something they wouldn't have had to do if they only had time.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I used to harp on about how Microsoft failed to compromise, but I take that statement back given what I've seen through launch.

 

The problem Microsoft had wasn't that they had a bad plan, but that they lacked time. If they had the time to properly gauge public opinion, listen to feedback, and adjust accordingly, consoles could be living in more of a true digital age to which PC gaming has been enjoying for roughly a decade or better now. However, one cannot expect the behemoth that is Microsoft to move so quickly, in fact, it's surprising that they were even able to pull the big red lever to reverse their stance entirely.

 

Time management plays a big factor in everything we do, and Microsoft is no exception. While working there would still be a dream job, I can only imagine with all the work that needs to be done between fixing bugs, oversights, improving their UI, adding or completing features, voice recognition, not to mention adding support for other languages and getting their consoles out into more territories... I can only imagine the hustle that would (or at least, should) be going on over there.

 

Blame the gamers if you want, but they're not the ones running the company. Microsoft opted for a quick fix, something they wouldn't have had to do if they only had time.

 

I agree with some of that, but time to engage feedback? Two points, first, how badly online DRM has been blowing up when implemented across individual games (Spore was years ago, Diablo 3 was 2012), and two, the rumours for the One started in 2012 for public discussion - http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/02/xbox-720-detailed-blu-ray-inside-always-on-netcon-required/ Well over a year before release.

 

Back then they probably thought Sony would do the same, but one thing they sure as heck were getting was feedback from gamers about the proposed always online checks. Most likely then it was ignore the negative feedback, Sony will do it, all gamers will have to live with it... then they ended up the only one doing it and couldn't keep taking all the flak coming their way only.

[trooper11]

Personally when the proof is already there that DRM doesn't have to be kicking you up the ass every day/week it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth when a company tries furiously to proclaim their online DRM is the only way. Look at how bad things blew up for EA when they and the journalists that got in bed with them (Polygon) tried to say Sim City needed to be online to work and do calculations. Then along comes hacker #1 and makes the game completely playable offline...

 

You can't pull wool over the eyes of those who have been gaming since the 80s/90s, so while my comment earlier about thinking might of rustled some feathers and I guess was bluntly harsh (sorry), I'm not necessarily wrong asking you to think a bit harder. Go do some rearch online, single player games have never needed to be attached so rigidly to an online component that they completely cease to function unless you check in/stay online. Its the suits, greed and publishers obsession with control that are the reasons, not the actual games.

 

I don't know who your asking to think harder, but I think most people agree that stuff like constant check ins is not a good thing.

I don't need to do any research, I've been gaming for oh, a few decades :laugh: Steam was the pioneer in this area on the pc. They started off with a rather harsh check in features, but eventually they came to their senses and removed that. For some reason MS settled on that DRM option and it was a mistake in my opinion.

This really doesn't need to be an argument you know. The check in was a bad idea and MS got rid of it. They are saying that they are currently working to bring the features that people liked the sound of back without the pieces they hated.

Then they missed the crucial difference.

 

PC games sold at retail only use the discs as a delivery method. The serial keys are what tie it to the account, not the disc or a DRM scheme. Even Steam allows indefinite offline play once you have downloaded something to the hard drive (right now it's broken but Valve are fixing it). That is why PC gamers can still sell their physical copies once they've redeemed codes.

 

Even when I buy some retail PC games (which isn't very often these days), I never touch the disc and simply redeem the serial so I can start downloading the latest version of the game from the start.

The act of using a code is in fact a drm scheme.

The key is how in your face the drm scheme is. If it seems benevolent, then we are willing to accept it. If it gives us something we see as value, we accept it.

I completely agree that MS could have just turned X1 games into pc games. Simply supply every game with a code. Once you activated the code, your game was tied tot eh digital system, to your account. You could then play online or offline, without he disc in the tray. The disc is meaningless at that point since anyone buying it would also need a new code.

So why didn't they do that? I have no idea, but something happened during the process that pushed them in a certain direction.

Now that method still screws over the users that hold on tight to the used console game market. So I'm not sure if MS could have gotten away even with the pc method.

 

And as for why Steam and other DD services can get away with no second hand market, it has been said over and over. When you can buy games for 75+% off then who cares? It may change in the coming years now the EU has pushed a law through to enable it though.

That's a good point. If the EU forces Steam to offer a resell system that does everything like physical resell, could that result in a price hike? Could we see a lot of publishers/developers suddenly get apprehensive about offering their games for dirt cheap.

Also, this isn't just about Steam or DD not having a used market. Before there was Steam, there was still a very small pc gaming used market. PC games often employed some type of 'drm' that was tied to typing in a key or some other type of activation.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

 

I don't know who your asking to think harder, but I think most people agree that stuff like constant check ins is not a good thing.

I don't need to do any research, I've been gaming for oh, a few decades :laugh: Steam was the pioneer in this area on the pc. They started off with a rather harsh check in features, but eventually they came to their senses and removed that. For some reason MS settled on that DRM option and it was a mistake in my opinion.

This really doesn't need to be an argument you know. The check in was a bad idea and MS got rid of it. They are saying that they are currently working to bring the features that people liked the sound of back without the pieces they hated.

The act of using a code is in fact a drm scheme.

The key is how in your face the drm scheme is. If it seems benevolent, then we are willing to accept it. If it gives us something we see as value, we accept it.

I completely agree that MS could have just turned X1 games into pc games. Simply supply every game with a code. Once you activated the code, your game was tied tot eh digital system, to your account. You could then play online or offline, without he disc in the tray. The disc is meaningless at that point since anyone buying it would also need a new code.

So why didn't they do that? I have no idea, but something happened during the process that pushed them in a certain direction.

Now that method still screws over the users that hold on tight to the used console game market. So I'm not sure if MS could have gotten away even with the pc method.

 

That's a good point. If the EU forces Steam to offer a resell system that does everything like physical resell, could that result in a price hike? Could we see a lot of publishers/developers suddenly get apprehensive about offering their games for dirt cheap.

Also, this isn't just about Steam or DD not having a used market. Before there was Steam, there was still a very small pc gaming used market. PC games often employed some type of 'drm' that was tied to typing in a key or some other type of activation.

 

 

Well not everyone thinks, or at least thought the check in was a bad idea. Quite a few faces can be heard around Neowin cursing the general gaming population for "encouraging" MS to change their ways. More so though there are those who do not like it, but seem to think it's the only way digital sharing can work. That is where I feel the real argument is, as digital sharing of licenses isn't a new thing and certainly does not require frequent check ins.

[spenser.d]

I agree with some of that, but time to engage feedback? Two points, first, how badly online DRM has been blowing up when implemented across individual games (Spore was years ago, Diablo 3 was 2012), and two, the rumours for the One started in 2012 for public discussion - http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/02/xbox-720-detailed-blu-ray-inside-always-on-netcon-required/ Well over a year before release.

 

Back then they probably thought Sony would do the same, but one thing they sure as heck were getting was feedback from gamers about the proposed always online checks. Most likely then it was ignore the negative feedback, Sony will do it, all gamers will have to live with it... then they ended up the only one doing it and couldn't keep taking all the flak coming their way only.

The difference from the past games that have tried it is that the games were implementing DRM to implement DRM. Microsoft was doing it to allow for other features like library sharing, etc that we now don't have but everyone just heard it as being the same old DRM for the sake of DRM. The industry is headed this direction whether you like it or not - its clearly just too early for it right now. If you don't see it, then you're just blind.

[trooper11]

I used to harp on about how Microsoft failed to compromise, but I take that statement back given what I've seen through launch.

 

The problem Microsoft had wasn't that they had a bad plan, but that they lacked time. If they had the time to properly gauge public opinion, listen to feedback, and adjust accordingly, consoles could be living in more of a true digital age to which PC gaming has been enjoying for roughly a decade or better now. However, one cannot expect the behemoth that is Microsoft to move so quickly, in fact, it's surprising that they were even able to pull the big red lever to reverse their stance entirely.

After hearing the story that MS was considering going disc-less for the X1 as late as mid way through 2013, it tells me that their plans were in a constant state of flux as they tried to hit the perfect spot for the console.

I think they were heavily focused on trying to anticipate what the gaming market might be like during the next gen and it just didn't go smoothly for them in the end.

 

 

Back then they probably thought Sony would do the same, but one thing they sure as heck were getting was feedback from gamers about the proposed always online checks. Most likely then it was ignore the negative feedback, Sony will do it, all gamers will have to live with it... then they ended up the only one doing it and couldn't keep taking all the flak coming their way only.

That's definitely possible. I don't think they were ignoring the feedback though, maybe they thought they could make it a non issue once it was officially announced.

As I said above, with MS still deciding whether to even include a bluray drive as late as mid 2013, its clear that their console plans were fluid. That probably included the drm plans.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

The act of using a code is in fact a drm scheme.

The key is how in your face the drm scheme is. If it seems benevolent, then we are willing to accept it. If it gives us something we see as value, we accept it.

I completely agree that MS could have just turned X1 games into pc games. Simply supply every game with a code. Once you activated the code, your game was tied tot eh digital system, to your account. You could then play online or offline, without he disc in the tray. The disc is meaningless at that point since anyone buying it would also need a new code.

So why didn't they do that? I have no idea, but something happened during the process that pushed them in a certain direction.

Now that method still screws over the users that hold on tight to the used console game market. So I'm not sure if MS could have gotten away even with the pc method.

 

That's a good point. If the EU forces Steam to offer a resell system that does everything like physical resell, could that result in a price hike? Could we see a lot of publishers/developers suddenly get apprehensive about offering their games for dirt cheap.

Also, this isn't just about Steam or DD not having a used market. Before there was Steam, there was still a very small pc gaming used market. PC games often employed some type of 'drm' that was tied to typing in a key or some other type of activation.

 

While serial keys are DRM, they are one of the oldest forms and we all know they aren't effective either, especially when it comes to PC software. The Steam software itself is the true DRM for Valve. However, consoles would not need to worry about serial cracks because god knows the amount of effort it would take to break individual syntax for each console never mind if they were unique to developers too. Then you still have to break the console security to somehow redeem them or fool it into accepting fake keys. All of that is much harder on a closed console enviroment compared to PC.

 

As to the whys. Dead.Cell and AB said it best, time was the reason. But why they didn't listen to the premlinary feedback when leaks occured in 2011 and 2012 is another question.

 

As for pre-Steam 2nd market, it was very possible to sell PC games. We percieve it as a small group simply because the internet was still an infant. Only the client software would authenticate if the serial key was legit or not. By the time online activation became popular, you were already seeing the rise of Steam. I still have boxes of PC games like UT, Far Cry, Splinter Cell etc that I need the serial key for to install. But if I wanted to, I could give them to anyone I like and they wouldn't be locked out of installing it.

 

 

The difference from the past games that have tried it is that the games were implementing DRM to implement DRM. Microsoft was doing it to allow for other features like library sharing, etc that we now don't have but everyone just heard it as being the same old DRM for the sake of DRM. The industry is headed this direction whether you like it or not - its clearly just too early for it right now. If you don't see it, then you're just blind.

 

Well Steam have managed to implement sharing and they don't require online check-ins every x hours/days/weeks. Microsoft's way wasn't right even if it worked.

 

But yes, this topic has been gone over and over, so I'm bowing out and I hope you guys keep it civil ;)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The difference from the past games that have tried it is that the games were implementing DRM to implement DRM. Microsoft was doing it to allow for other features like library sharing, etc that we now don't have but everyone just heard it as being the same old DRM for the sake of DRM. The industry is headed this direction whether you like it or not - its clearly just too early for it right now. If you don't see it, then you're just blind.

 

But EA told us Sim City was "designed to be online from the ground up", "Glassbox does online calculations blah blah blah" "CLOUD!" - http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/The-Benefits-of-Live-Service Then someone cracks the game and plays on the PC offline.

 

Do you always believe what the corporate overlords say? The evidence shows parts of this industry frequently trying to head in this direction, then veering off a cliff, the internet exploding, CEOs/staff stepping down and rinse repeat. It never works (in the ridiculously restrictive and consumer hurting ways they keep trying), so hey, they can keep trying but good luck. Thankfully the majority of gamers don't buy into PR, think for the best of the industry and seriously use the heck out of social media to leave liars, BSers and factually incorrect statements hanging out to dry.

 

If you want to walk away calling me blind, rub your hands and think I'm going to be gloriously proven wrong/butthurt in 5 years, good luck. I'm but a drop in the ocean behind the wave that continually decimates any developer/publisher trying to bend gamers over.

 

Sony's frequent use of calling gamers "passionate" is an understatement, they're vicious dogs with no mercy for BS. I need about 1000 sets of hands to count the amount of statements out there released by developers or publishers to say sorry, we were wrong/we've re-evaluated our approach to DLC/online passes/DRM and the list goes on.

[trooper11]

Well not everyone thinks, or at least thought the check in was a bad idea. Quite a few faces can be heard around Neowin cursing the general gaming population for "encouraging" MS to change their ways. More so though there are those who do not like it, but seem to think it's the only way digital sharing can work. That is where I feel the real argument is, as digital sharing of licenses isn't a new thing and certainly does not require frequent check ins.

But remember, the real reason the check in even existed was because this included retail copies, not just digital purchases. So arguing about digital license sharing is not really the point.

I don't agree that this was the only way to get that done, but perhaps it was the easiest/quickest way for MS to allow retail games to act as digital purchases at the time.

As has been said I think the best way to do this for disc based games would be to make use of the pc style of keys for every game. The problem is that hurts the used market and so that may still not be acceptable.

Now MS hinted at a reselling system, so maybe if they offer that along with the pc method, most would like that system for their disc based games.

[dead.cell]

I agree with some of that, but time to engage feedback? Two points, first, how badly online DRM has been blowing up when implemented across individual games (Spore was years ago, Diablo 3 was 2012), and two, the rumours for the One started in 2012 for public discussion - http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/02/xbox-720-detailed-blu-ray-inside-always-on-netcon-required/

 

Back then they probably thought Sony would do the same, but one thing they sure as heck were getting was feedback from gamers about the proposed always online checks. Most likely then it was ignore the negative feedback, Sony will do it, all gamers will have to live with it...

Well, I'm going on time between an official announcements to the time they hit production. Had they engaged the audience sooner, they could've had a real plan worked out in time for their May announcement and could have been the heroes of E3. I do agree that ignoring the negatives likely happened as well though; however, they likely passed it off since they were going off rumor anyway figuring "once they see what we're doing, they're going to want to always be connected."

 

Of course, that's about as realistic as telling Texans out here you're going to reduce to unreasonable gun restrictions, if they accept to the government checking with them frequently to ensure they've still possess the guns they paid for. :P It's just not going to fly lol.

[trooper11]

While serial keys are DRM, they are one of the oldest forms and we all know they aren't effective either, especially when it comes to PC software. The Steam software itself is the true DRM for Valve. However, consoles would not need to worry about serial cracks because god knows the amount of effort it would take to break individual syntax for each console never mind if they were unique to developers too. Then you still have to break the console security to somehow redeem them or fool it into accepting fake keys. All of that is much harder on a closed console enviroment compared to PC.

 

As to the whys. Dead.Cell and AB said it best, time was the reason. But why they didn't listen to the premlinary feedback when leaks occured in 2011 and 2012 is another question.

 

As for pre-Steam 2nd market, it was very possible to sell PC games. We percieve it as a small group simply because the internet was still an infant. Only the client software would authenticate if the serial key was legit or not. By the time online activation became popular, you were already seeing the rise of Steam. I still have boxes of PC games like UT, Far Cry, Splinter Cell etc that I need the serial key for to install. But if I wanted to, I could give them to anyone I like and they wouldn't be locked out of installing it.

I completely agree that using serial keys with consoles games would work. I'm all for that method if it means I no longer need to use my disc after installing it. If MS did that and then implemented the reselling system they hinted at, it could be a worthwhile program.

As far as the pc used market goes.

Your right that that your not locked out of using the game, unless you lose the serial number. The disc by itself will not be enough to play the game, unless your going to crack it or find a key online. So the used pc gaming market did exist, but it was still more restrictive than console gaming.

I'll give you a very old example. Before there were serial numbers used with pc games, I remember playing a King's Quest game that required you to type in the answer to something that was in the manual for the game in order to play. If you lost the manual, you were out of luck. Yeah, today that means nothing thanks to the internet, but that was 'DRM' back in the day.

So PC games have been more locked down than console games, which limits the scope of a used game market. Now, that market is squeezed even more thanks to the rise of services like Steam.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Well, I'm going on time between an official announcements to the time they hit production. Had they engaged the audience sooner, they could've had a real plan worked out in time for their May announcement and could have been the heroes of E3. I do agree that ignoring the negatives likely happened as well though; however, they likely passed it off since they were going off rumor anyway figuring "once they see what we're doing, they're going to want to always be connected."

 

Of course, that's about as realistic as telling Texans out here you're going to reduce to unreasonable gun restrictions, if they accept to the government checking with them frequently to ensure they've still possess the guns they paid for. :p It's just not going to fly lol.

 

Fair points, Don Mattrick certainly went all in with the "once they see...." sentiment anyway, and then lost his job :pinch:  Happy birthday by the way!  :present:

[trooper11]

Happy birthday by the way!  :present:

I was wondering why some posts had that confetti affect to them :laugh:

+1

[BajiRav]

Well Steam have managed to implement sharing and they don't require online check-ins every x hours/days/weeks. Microsoft's way wasn't right even if it worked.

 

But yes, this topic has been gone over and over, so I'm bowing out and I hope you guys keep it civil ;)

Online check was(is?) needed for used games sales and trade-in. Steam doesn't do that and hence doesn't need the check-in.

It was a typical Microsoft move - tried to please everyone and failed miserably. They will never learn. :p