Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ironman273

Ctrl+Alt+Del

38 posts in this topic

That probably would have been the case. I simply don't know why MS would go into all kinds of details about the DRM aspects and restrictions though. That just seems to me like something you'd want to play down and keep vague until the nice features are shown. But, I suppose that's why I don't work for marketing ;-)

I don't know honestly. Maybe they thought it was better to get that out of the way first since that was the hardest piece to accept. They must have not thought that it would result in the backlash they got. It was a roll of the dice and it failed.

So you'd rather buy a completely redundant disc to convert to digital in a 1 time only process, meaning you never have to touch it again

 

 

vs

 

 

buying it on the XBLM/PSN and not have a worthless disc in the first place (and I won't even begin to bring up cost/enviromental reasons).

 

Again, you do not need the X1 DRM to access your library of games on your home console or at a friend's house. It also wouldn't give MS/Sony a monopoly on prices either. If you go with the Steam model of using serial keys then you can still under cut Valve's pricing.

 

I'm completely lost on your desire for the "convenience of a digital download" but first I want a disc from a retailer to achieve it :unsure:

Welcome to pc gaming. You just described pc gaming today. If you aren't buying digital, then most new retail game discs are worthless after you install your copy. Heck MS even mentioned a system where you would unlink a retail game that had been tied to your account digitally to allow for things like game trading and reselling. That's akin to taking a retail pc game, uninstalling it, and giving the code to someone else.

I'm not sure why you two are arguing over this though. There are many people out there that prefer to buy physical copies of games, even if the disc is technically worthless after you activate it. The reasons for that have been talked about over and over again. From technical reasons to paranoia reasons, it runs the spectrum.

I think the 24hr drm was there solely because retail games were in the mix. If MS had decided to go full digital with the X1, you would not have seen that check in and the drm would be more like what we see today. Since they decided not to do that, they had to figure out a way for retail games to fit into the digital system they wanted to use and push. No one knows why they chose a 24hr check in over other drm options such as using keys for each game, but they did and it was completely rejected. If they try to offer a feature for retail games that ties it to a digital account, my guess is that they will not repeat that drm choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing over it, the whole article/comic was complete nonsense. I'm just struggling to understand why BajiRav can't achieve what he's describing without the original X1 DRM, because everyone else is already doing it. If you want to be 100% digital today, you can be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing over it, the whole article/comic was complete nonsense. I'm just struggling to understand why BajiRav can't achieve what he's describing without the original X1 DRM, because everyone else is already doing it. If you want to be 100% digital today, you can be.

Yes and you can spend more money to be purely digital. And we haven't even brought up bandwidth caps....

Even if the disc was pointless, it would be cheaper (based on prices of disc vs digital right now in US), the installation would be faster and it would have allowed all users, regardless of bandwidth limitations, to enjoy the game swapping feature.

There are real positives, you just didn't think of them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a complete misrepresentation of the issue. The anger directed at Microsoft was in response to them forcibly making you connect the console to the Internet to make even it's most basic of functions work. A completely separate issue to offering your back catalogue on a streaming subscription service.

 

The cutest part about the whole thing is where acknowledges the argument he sets forth is already disproven, but springs a "BUT HEY I HAVE THIS REALLY STUPID COMPARISON" and then continues on to spew forth his misinformed opinion.

 

This -is- coming from a guy that exposed himself to a minor on the internet, so standards aren't exactly very high for B^Uckly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and you can spend more money to be purely digital. And we haven't even brought up bandwidth caps....

Even if the disc was pointless, it would be cheaper (based on prices of disc vs digital right now in US), the installation would be faster and it would have allowed all users, regardless of bandwidth limitations, to enjoy the game swapping feature.

There are real positives, you just didn't think of them.

 

That isn't what BajiRav brought up in his OP though. I'm aware of all those reasons and more why people believe the DRM was good. Fact is, it's not required to achieve it as demo'd by Valve/Steam and MS even saying they'll bring back some of the features.

 

I find it really ironic when people who are arguing for an all online console with DD but then moan about their bandwidth caps. Because MS' inital plans would have stopped that being an issue? :unsure:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing over it, the whole article/comic was complete nonsense. I'm just struggling to understand why BajiRav can't achieve what he's describing without the original X1 DRM, because everyone else is already doing it. If you want to be 100% digital today, you can be.

I think I have spent enough words explaining the benefits of original X1 DRM (misnomer because even PS4 has DRM but whatever) over purely digital. I have no idea why it is so difficult to understand the difference between buying a digital game from Target/BestBuy/Amazon vs buying it from MS/Sony stores. You are smarter than this.

No console today is doing what MS described for XB1 in May. The closest parallel is Steam but there were some differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing over it, the whole article/comic was complete nonsense. I'm just struggling to understand why BajiRav can't achieve what he's describing without the original X1 DRM, because everyone else is already doing it. If you want to be 100% digital today, you can be.

Retail games man, that's why. This isn't about just games sold digitally. MS wanted a way for those that sill prefer to buy physical copies of games to have a way to tap into the positive features that usually were restricted to digital only titles. PC gaming offers a similar option, but there is currently no options that allow for digitally trading or reselling a game that was bought physically.

Plus, there are other drm schemes that could achieve what MS wanted, the 24 hr check in was not the only option, so who knows why it was chosen. They chose badly that's all.

 

 

That isn't what BajiRav brought up in his OP though. I'm aware of all those reasons and more why people believe the DRM was good. Fact is, it's not required to achieve it as demo'd by Valve/Steam and MS even saying they'll bring back some of the features.

 

I find it really ironic when people who are arguing for an all online console with DD but then moan about their bandwidth caps. Because MS' inital plans would have stopped that being an issue? :unsure:

As I said before, the reason the drm existed in the first place had to be because people still want to buy games physically. MS considered going digital only, but then reality hit them in the face and so they tried to create a hybrid system that would still allow those physical purchases but tie it all under one digital management umbrella.

MS is clearly going to bring back features they had planned, just focusing on digital purchases and leaving retail purchases as they are. That means they don't need to worry about managing retail purchases in that system.

Also, I don't think the point being made is that the 24 hr check itself was great, just that the features related to tying physical games to a digital system could be good. I know there have been people that defend the 24hr check itself, but I don't get that at all. There were other drm options that would have worked and most people would have accepted them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have spent enough words explaining the benefits of original X1 DRM (misnomer because even PS4 has DRM but whatever) over purely digital. I have no idea why it is so difficult to understand the difference between buying a digital game from Target/BestBuy/Amazon vs buying it from MS/Sony stores. You are smarter than this.

No console today is doing what MS described for XB1 in May. The closest parallel is Steam but there were some differences.

 

There isn't one?

 

In one post you'd have me believe that Microsoft were going to rival Steam on their sales with their own and we'd all fall in love with it.

 

The next I think you're implying that Microsoft would price it so highly, you'd still get a bargain from 3rd party stores so nobody would buy from them directly anyway.

 

Which is it? :s

 

Your initial post & reply to AB was pointing out the irony in people enjoying the ability of playing games without swapping discs. AB & I replied saying that is possible (and has been since 2008 for XBLM). So what's the problem? How has this turned into transferring from disc to digital and prices/bandwidth/sharing.

 

If you can't answer that directly with a straight answer, then you're doing an even worse job of it than Microsoft and their PR.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retail games man, that's why. This isn't about just games sold digitally. MS wanted a way for those that sill prefer to buy physical copies of games to have a way to tap into the positive features that usually were restricted to digital only titles. PC gaming offers a similar option, but there is currently no options that allow for digitally trading or reselling a game that was bought physically.

Plus, there are other drm schemes that could achieve what MS wanted, the 24 hr check in was not the only option, so who knows why it was chosen. They chose badly that's all.

 

If you want the positive features of a digital system, buy digitally. It's really as simple as that, you cannot mix the two without making a huge mess and screwing someone over.

 

"Well, I still like discs..." is nothing but useless sentimentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't one?

 

In one post you'd have me believe that Microsoft were going to rival Steam on their sales with their own and we'd all fall in love with it.

 

The next I think you're implying that Microsoft would price it so highly, you'd still get a bargain from 3rd party stores so nobody would buy from them directly anyway.

 

Which is it? :s

 

Your initial post & reply to AB was pointing out the irony in people enjoying the ability of playing games without swapping discs. AB & I replied saying that is possible (and has been since 2008 for XBLM). So what's the problem? How has this turned into transferring from disc to digital and prices/bandwidth/sharing.

 

If you can't answer that directly with a straight answer, then you're doing an even worse job of it than Microsoft and their PR.

Never did I claim in this thread that MS would discount digital games like steam. The irony is already explained in a previous post.

The difference in buying digital games on a disk from Target and downloading from MS/Sony should be obvious. You are intention being obtuse for some unknown reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not intentionally being obtuse, I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you. Doesn't look like I'm getting one so I'm done with this topic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want the positive features of a digital system, buy digitally. It's really as simple as that, you cannot mix the two without making a huge mess and screwing someone over.

 

"Well, I still like discs..." is nothing but useless sentimentality.

That's all well and good, but unfortunately you don't speak for many, many people that simply want a physical copy of what they own. If they could get some kind of physical backup of what they buy digitally, they would do that.

If everyone was cool with buying digital, then we wouldn't see the resistance we see today from many people when the topic of a DD only console for instance.

But as you said, the answer is clear: keep them separate

Bring out all the digital features you want and keep them restricted to digitally purchased content. Everyone wins, discussion over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not intentionally being obtuse, I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you. Doesn't look like I'm getting one so I'm done with this topic.

You two need to just hug it out and move on :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.