Xbox One Live Down - What would've happened with previous DRM Restrictions?

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Didn't they say on several occasions that they weren't restricting the resale of games and that the decision to do so would have been entirely up to the developer/publisher. Microsoft even explicitly said that they would not restrict the resale of any 1st party title. Yet here we are beating another dead horse which was entirely fabricated by the gaming community.

 

Just because you can find a disc copy in stores for cheaper than they are online doesn't make them "price gougers". This is true in almost every instance. The only exception is Steam and the reason that's true is because they have the user base to support large sales. Yet no one will give any other digital service a chance. I could have gotten Dead Space 3 online for $5 several times on Origin, yet no one mentions that fact here. And it's still $19.99 New at Gamestop, and $14-$16 used.

 

And btw, currently I think Dead Space 3 on Origin without any sales is $19.99 as well.

But no, digital companies like Microsoft and EA are robbing us of used market pricing with digital services and preventing us from buying things used. Doesn't matter what the reality is, only matters what our perception is. If you want to be angry at anyone about pricing BS, point your fingers at Nintendo first party AAA titles, and Blizzard.

 

Giving power to publishers over such things is probably the worst decision you can make. They hate the second hand market and have tried for decades to kill it. Do you still believe that EA shut down their online passes for the gamer which just so happened to take place days before the X1 DRM scheme was announced? And this isn't about picking on EA or rubbishing their name. Origin is a perfectly good client and replace their name with any other it's the same story concerning DRM. At the end of the day it was them that made the moves though. Origin was created to sell their DLC within games without having to cut the share with Valve. The online pass was removed because MS freed up the decision to cut off 2nd hand.

[Emn1ty]

It was only that price to try to get people to get the game when it wasn't released on steam.

 

And it's not beating a dead horse, just because it was optional by developers doesn't mean #### if it still had the possibility of being USED AT ALL. How can something be made up, if it was available as an option?

 

Removing the OPTION to get the disk for $3 instead of $20 is the whole problem!

 

To be truthful, it's still a possibility for them to do such things if they build it into the game itself. To think that publishers/developers haven't had the option all along is naive. As far as I recall, Microsoft did not mention the ability to restrict game access. The community brought it up and they merely responded to such accusations with the truth. Developers and Publishers, as always, have the ability to do with their games what they want.

 

 

I think you might be remembering things a little incorrectly, there were multiple restrictions. You also cannot create the framework on your console to support blocking and then run away and hide behind "the decision isn't ours!" - You created the ammunition for the guns.

 

Giving games to friends:

 

 

Trading games in:

 

They didn't create the framework to do anything but digitally share games across Live. You act as if the intent was to restrict when in fact it was to enable a new kind of community game experience. This is my point, the angle from which it was viewed was all wrong. The publishers were given the decision to allow game sharing over the Live service or not. Or to allow such games using said service to be resellable through participating retailers. Participating can be interpretted as "retailers who opt in" or as you seem to want to make it sound "hand picked by Microsoft".

I think we're putting far too much emphasis on who has the control.

Microsoft was not removing any options, merely creating a system which they believed would give you more options. These quotes are all well and good out of context with the entire plan. The plan to allow digital game sharing across the Live service. When put into that context, it imo makes a lot more sense what these policies mean.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

To be truthful, it's still a possibility for them to do such things if they build it into the game itself. To think that publishers/developers haven't had the option all along is naive. As far as I recall, Microsoft did not mention the ability to restrict game access. The community brought it up and they merely responded to such accusations with the truth. Developers and Publishers, as always, have the ability to do with their games what they want.

 

 

 

They didn't create the framework to do anything but digitally share games across Live. You act as if the intent was to restrict when in fact it was to enable a new kind of community game experience. This is my point, the angle from which it was viewed was all wrong. The publishers were given the decision to allow game sharing over the Live service or not. Or to allow such games using said service to be resellable through participating retailers. Participating can be interpretted as "retailers who opt in" or as you seem to want to make it sound "hand picked by Microsoft".

I think we're putting far too much emphasis on who has the control.

Microsoft was not removing any options, merely creating a system which they believed would give you more options. These quotes are all well and good out of context with the entire plan. The plan to allow digital game sharing across the Live service. When put into that context, it imo makes a lot more sense what these policies mean.

 

So you could give a disc to your friend you made in Uni 20 days ago, he/she could complete it and then they could give it to their brother/sister? Sorry XB1 user, I cannot let you do that

 

- This person has only been a friend for 20 days

- The brother/sister are the 2nd transfer, we only allow 1

 

Sure sounds like a removed option from how I've been doing in the past 10~15 years.

[LaP]

Nothing would have happened because they planned on allowing you to continue playing for up to 24 hours without having to connect to the internet.

 

Not really true i think.

 

What if your xbox was powered off for the last 24 hours then you power it on to play and xbox live is down. Then the check can't be made and was not done for the last 24 hours so you can't play until xbox live come back live again.

 

For it to work the check must be done when the console is not powered on too and on a regular basis (let's say every 2-3 hours of so). Not sure if it was. If it was then it's kind of stupid to constantly check when the console is not powered on imo.

[shinji257]

I wonder what happened to the 360s, because they have a more restrictive 10 minute check for digital downloads.

 

The 360s digital downloads are tied to the gamertag + the console (hence why they have license transfer ability).  If you are on the console it was licensed to (original purchase or later on if it was transferred) then there was no check and you could play all you want on any gamertag.  The check came later on as you would have to sign in to live in order to play the content from another console.

[Jeston Veteran]

Not really true i think.

What if your xbox was powered off for the last 24 hours then you power it on to play and xbox live is down. Then the check can't be made and was not done for the last 24 hours so you can't play until xbox live come back live again.

For it to work the check must be done when the console is not powered on too. Not sure if it was.

As we've already mentioned a few times in this thread, the Xbox was to be "always on, always connected." There wasn't a "power off" option until they decided to change their DRM plans. Like I said, the only way it would have been a problem is if you had to console completely unplugged from the wall for those 24 hours.

[+InsaneNutter MVC]

Didn't they say on several occasions that they weren't restricting the resale of games and that the decision to do so would have been entirely up to the developer/publisher. Microsoft even explicitly said that they would not restrict the resale of any 1st party title. Yet here we are beating another dead horse which was entirely fabricated by the gaming community.

The point i was making in my original post is gamers would not have been free to sell games as they pleased, it was at "participating retailers only". Most likely meaning no Ebay / Amazon, with the places your been allowed to sell games been stores like Game in the UK, who give you very little for your game, then often sell it for twice as much.

 

As we all know many publishers disapprove of the second hand games market, so I would personally be amazed if we would have had the freedom we do now when it comes to used games if it was left up to the publishers.

 

That's why I personally feel the consumer won.

[BajiRav]

So you could give a disc to your friend you made in Uni 20 days ago, he/she could complete it and then they could give it to their brother/sister? Sorry XB1 user, I cannot let you do that

- This person has only been a friend for 20 days

- The brother/sister are the 2nd transfer, we only allow 1

Sure sounds like a removed option from how I've been doing in the past 10~15 years.

So how many digitally downloaded games were you able to share without soft pirating them? That sounded like a benefit to me (sell digital downloads) or fast switch disk based games without swapping disks?

The plan had benefits but people kept thinking of edge case made up scenarios (what if they moved or go camping or made a friend 20 days ago etc).

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

So how many digitally downloaded games were you able to share without soft pirating them? That sounded like a benefit to me (sell digital downloads) or fast switch disk based games without swapping disks?

The plan had benefits but people kept thinking of edge case made up scenarios (what if they moved or go camping or made a friend 20 days ago etc).

 

Because the scenario people want is not to affect tried and tested methods, but for new methods to be added alongside. There HAS to be a way for MS to work out digital sharing in a fair way for company and publishers/developers WITHOUT penalizing gamers who use other methods (like those sharing discs). Apart from digital costs some people just don't have big digital libraries due to broadband speed and hard drive requirements - Couple those two together and you have a scenario where wanting to take a spur of a moment trip down memory lane = 24 hours of solid redownloading vs inserting a disc.

[BajiRav]

Because the scenario people want is not to affect tried and tested methods, but for new methods to be added alongside. There HAS to be a way for MS to work out digital sharing in a fair way for company and publishers/developers WITHOUT penalizing gamers who use other methods (like those sharing discs). Apart from digital costs some people just don't have big digital libraries due to broadband speed and hard drive requirements - Couple those two together and you have a scenario where wanting to take a spur of a moment trip down memory lane = 24 hours of solid redownloading vs inserting a disc.

I guess your are right about sharing, renting parts. They should have had that working at launch instead of vague promises to soften the blow.

Broadband speeds/quotas was not even a factor because all games were treated as digital downloads, even disk based. Phil Harrison said it the best "everything is just bits, doesn't matter how you get them".

[neoadorable]

Didn't they say on several occasions that they weren't restricting the resale of games and that the decision to do so would have been entirely up to the developer/publisher. Microsoft even explicitly said that they would not restrict the resale of any 1st party title. Yet here we are beating another dead horse which was entirely fabricated by the gaming community.

 

Just because you can find a disc copy in stores for cheaper than they are online doesn't make them "price gougers". This is true in almost every instance. The only exception is Steam and the reason that's true is because they have the user base to support large sales. Yet no one will give any other digital service a chance. I could have gotten Dead Space 3 online for $5 several times on Origin, yet no one mentions that fact here. And it's still $19.99 New at Gamestop, and $14-$16 used.

 

And btw, currently I think Dead Space 3 on Origin without any sales is $19.99 as well.

But no, digital companies like Microsoft and EA are robbing us of used market pricing with digital services and preventing us from buying things used. Doesn't matter what the reality is, only matters what our perception is. If you want to be angry at anyone about pricing BS, point your fingers at Nintendo first party AAA titles, and Blizzard.

 

Am the last one to bash MS, their contributions to technology and to our hobby specifically outweigh any fumbles by a factor of a million. But some of their practices are dubious, and sure it's not just them. I believe games need to be discounted over time, that's why there's such a demand for used. I waited months for Forza 5 to go down from $60 but realized with MS at the wheel (pun intended) i'm more likely to be playing Forza 6 before that happened so gave in and paid $60.

 

Paying or not is our choice, but we are all in this together, customers, developers, publishers, platform holders. Making money is the engine, but it has to drive something - else what is the purpose? If customers are unhappy, the engine runs out of gas, no? Used games are fine, if we can buy and sell much more expensive items, then why not games? I totally understand the worries of publishers about growth, but the solution isn't draconian measures in any event. Especially in an industry that revolves around providing happiness and entertainment.

 

The irony of it all is that X1 is currently the least restrictive console...wouldn't surprise me if that gal took sheep in barter for games.

 

 

As we've already mentioned a few times in this thread, the Xbox was to be "always on, always connected." There wasn't a "power off" option until they decided to change their DRM plans. Like I said, the only way it would have been a problem is if you had to console completely unplugged from the wall for those 24 hours.

 

Always on and always connected...that doesn't even work as a marketing slogan. Why would we want a device that does anything always? What kind of machine literally can't be turned off? That was not healthy thinking, even though i'm not sure that's what they really meant. And having experienced overheating already on warm-ish days, i have serious doubts as to the claim that X1 was designed to stay on for ten years straight. Love needs to be open-eyed, i love my X1, i'd marry the console, but she has her faults :rofl:

[HawkMan]

It was only that price to try to get people to get the game when it wasn't released on steam.

 

And it's not beating a dead horse, just because it was optional by developers doesn't mean #### if it still had the possibility of being USED AT ALL. How can something be made up, if it was available as an option?

 

Removing the OPTION to get the disk for $3 instead of $20 is the whole problem!

 

Except MS was going to allow used games re-sale of some form, which got thrown out the window with the old plans since there was no longer a need. 

[Emn1ty]

Am the last one to bash MS, their contributions to technology and to our hobby specifically outweigh any fumbles by a factor of a million. But some of their practices are dubious, and sure it's not just them. I believe games need to be discounted over time, that's why there's such a demand for used. I waited months for Forza 5 to go down from $60 but realized with MS at the wheel (pun intended) i'm more likely to be playing Forza 6 before that happened so gave in and paid $60.

 

Paying or not is our choice, but we are all in this together, customers, developers, publishers, platform holders. Making money is the engine, but it has to drive something - else what is the purpose? If customers are unhappy, the engine runs out of gas, no? Used games are fine, if we can buy and sell much more expensive items, then why not games? I totally understand the worries of publishers about growth, but the solution isn't draconian measures in any event. Especially in an industry that revolves around providing happiness and entertainment.

 

The irony of it all is that X1 is currently the least restrictive console...wouldn't surprise me if that gal took sheep in barter for games.

 

If you think I'm against used games, that is not what I said. Again, this is all based on the assumption that games were to become more limited than they are now. Which is the case. You can interpret things however you want to, but since we really won't ever know how it was going to be implemented in detail it comes down to a lot of speculation.

 

I'm not saying that I want what you are saying it would be. What I'm saying is that your description was in no way my impression of their system. Nor is it based on any hard facts. Just pieces of information in which people are connecting the dots themselves, and interpreting in a way that makes it look far worse than it is.

 

This is evident in the idea that this whole feature was about DRM in the first place. I don't even know that it was, really full on DRM. Perhaps for copies distributed through their online marketplace it would be but who's to say that places like Amazon, Gamestop, etc wouldn't be able to transfer those digital licenses as well as "participating retailers" ? Who's to say that one couldn't unlock a disc's license by disassociating it with their console? This is my point, the devil's in the details. And we had none. So people fabricated their own devils.

And what makes people think that Ebay and Amazon are not legitimate retailers enough to be "participating" in the resale of games through Microsoft?

[neoadorable]

If you think I'm against used games, that is not what I said. Again, this is all based on the assumption that games were to become more limited than they are now. Which is the case. You can interpret things however you want to, but since we really won't ever know how it was going to be implemented in detail it comes down to a lot of speculation.

 

I'm not saying that I want what you are saying it would be. What I'm saying is that your description was in no way my impression of their system. Nor is it based on any hard facts. Just pieces of information in which people are connecting the dots themselves, and interpreting in a way that makes it look far worse than it is.

 

This is evident in the idea that this whole feature was about DRM in the first place. I don't even know that it was, really full on DRM. Perhaps for copies distributed through their online marketplace it would be but who's to say that places like Amazon, Gamestop, etc wouldn't be able to transfer those digital licenses as well as "participating retailers" ? Who's to say that one couldn't unlock a disc's license by disassociating it with their console? This is my point, the devil's in the details. And we had none. So people fabricated their own devils.

And what makes people think that Ebay and Amazon are not legitimate retailers enough to be "participating" in the resale of games through Microsoft?

 

Not at all, wasn't trying to make you seem anti-used games, quoted you because you made some pertinent points. However, regarding the details - well the whole thing was a series of big announcements that were soon reversed, so we didn't get a chance to understand details. But since the concepts hit so close to home for us, obviously they caused a reaction - hence the speculation. MS now won't even talk about any of it, just saying that it's no longer the case and all of that is in the past.

 

On the topic of digital licenses, hopefully they will be one day as tradeable as physical discs. You can trade items in MMO's, you can trade Steam cards, why not the games themselves? But that is not the case right now, so we need to live with what we have. It's only natural for people to speculate about things they hold dear.

[MikeChipshop Member]

how often do you move ? and how often do you move without internet being ready by the time you move in ?

 

it's amazing the lengths people went and still go to to find unlikely and rare scenarios against the old system.

 

Exactly. I moved home last weekend and i, like most people, had the forethought to move my internet connection as well. There was absolutely no down time but even if there had been, i wouldn't have had the time to sit around and play games.

[Showan]

Communication was horrid on Microsoft's part, plain and simple. Everyone still drawing up their own interpretation of what Microsoft was trying to say.

Now let me throw my 2-cents in the pot. :-)

It was about DRM and not about DRM at the same time.

MS basically thought of the worse case scenario of someone trying to exploit the system (let's face it, there always bad apples in the bunch) and based the rules around it. But it seems as time had went on, they would ease up on the restrictions if the system implemented was working and the community not abusing it.

Who knows, maybe at E3 there will be an option to somewhat go back to a version ( better planned out version) of the original plan.

Microsoft has to realize that they are a software giant and find a happy medium where they are comfortable (let's face it, this stuff isn't free) and are comforting the ones who are paying for these expensive toys

[trooper11]

I really can't believe people still want to argue about a drm scheme that was never implemented, or completely explained. 

 

Literally none of you can speak to what would have happened. All the arguments for and against it have been thoroughly laid out and repeated a thousand times. It never ends because we do not and will not ever know what the system was going to be in practice.

 

All that happens is that it devolves into an argument about drm in general.

 

 

 

 

But that wasn't my point, DRM was going to have various issues that would have affected your gameplay that is outside of your control like SImCity for example that was my point.

As you can see from the post in this thread a few people wanted and still want the DRM (It could actually come back if enough support goes behind it) but it was because just about everyone was against it that they removed it in the first place.. don't people who want the DRM restriction to return find it odd that a large majority of people were against it?

 

You can call people who wanted it gone dumb or misinformed or whatever you like till your blue in the face but Neowin is the only place I've seen were people actually wanted it and don't get ridiculed when they bring it up. Even in the petitions they had going to return DRM most petition signers were trolls 

 

examples:

 

These are some of the most upvoted comments on the largest DRM return petition I've seen with 25k vites. (I'm guessing at-least 50% were troll votes)

 

 

On Neowin, some people liked parts of MS' plans. You can post thousands of 'examples' if you want, but all your doing is trying to call people out just as your saying other people are calling out those against parts of the drm system.

 

Its ridiculous that we can't be sensible about this. Parts of the little bit of info MS had laid out sounded cool. Then there were parts that were not cool. Was it a good plan overall? I have no idea since it was never used or completely explained.

 

I just think its unfair to attack those that found something to like or not like.

 

 

 

One of the real issues  (Y) Taking away consumer choice is a no-no.

 

 

I agree that more choice is better, but there are ways around your point.

 

If someone created a service like Steam, they can get away with less choice. The issue is legacy expectations.

 

So Steam is popular and successful thanks to a strong digital only platform that never offered physical content in the past.  MS over bet on its plans. They underestimated the demand for standard physical content in the same way customers were use to getting it on consoles previously.

 

So if MS wants to do it the right way, look to Steam for inspiration and then do more than Steam in areas like digital rentals, trading, and resell.

[neoadorable]

I really can't believe people still want to argue about a drm scheme that was never implemented, or completely explained. 

 

Literally none of you can speak to what would have happened. All the arguments for and against it have been thoroughly laid out and repeated a thousand times. It never ends because we do not and will not ever know what the system was going to be in practice.

 

All that happens is that it devolves into an argument about drm in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's likely because there is a lingering concern that the policies were not scrapped but rather deferred. Can't lie, i share these concerns. For example the very open payment system on X1 right now (won't go into details for fear of jinxing it, no kidding) i have a feeling will end once the console goes truly global in September. Right now it's basically any card goes to support the huge importer community, but once those importers become residents of supported locations....

 

So you see why there is apprehension. Besides, logic dictates that a person or group who pulls so many reversals once will have no qualms doing it again. None of this is condemning MS, you know i like them and they need to juggle proper business practices with feeding their families, but as stakeholders we need to look out for our own interests as well. It is a relationship.

 

In all likelihood, the policies on calling home and used games are not going to change for the remainder of this generation, having said all of the above.

[BajiRav]

 

 

 

Exactly. I moved home last weekend and i, like most people, had the forethought to move my internet connection as well. There was absolutely no down time but even if there had been, i wouldn't have had the time to sit around and play games.

 

Heck I am moving to a different country (US --> India) and I already have a connection* setup even before I pack+carry my Xbox 360.

 

*Digital downloads in India is still a pipedream. My new connection has a monthly quota of 25GB (highest available is 50GB) at 50 Mbps and unlimited thereafter at 1Mbps. This sucks coming from an "Unlimited" FiOS line. :laugh:

[neoadorable]

As of this writing, XBL is down again..."social and gaming limited". This is the second time in a week. I'm not even home now so it doesn't matter personally, but something is amiss at MS. This never happened so frequently before. What is going on over there?

 

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-live-status

[trooper11]

As of this writing, XBL is down again..."social and gaming limited". This is the second time in a week. I'm not even home now so it doesn't matter personally, but something is amiss at MS. This never happened so frequently before. What is going on over there?

 

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-live-status

 

Did you not read the link you posted?

 

For one thing, its only affecting the 360. Secondly, they say very clearly that its a 3rd party issue of the Black Ops 2 guys performing maintenance.

[neoadorable]

Heh heh to be honest i only noticed the 360 after posting...saw that red alert and got annoyed, it's been in the red too often lately :angry:

[trooper11]

Heh heh to be honest i only noticed the 360 after posting...saw that red alert and got annoyed, it's been in the red too often lately :angry:

Unfortunately, that is how bad rumors get started and used as a 'true fact'

[neoadorable]

Unfortunately, that is how bad rumors get started and used as a 'true fact'

 

Come on don't be mad, maybe i'm still sore after my $50 purchase got glitched when the billing system went down just as i was finalizing payment, and therefore more aware of XBL outages. XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin...man these are like lifelines to people like me, not ashamed to say it. Gaming is my solace in a the salaryman's harsh reality :laugh:

I certainly didn't mean to start any rumors!

[trooper11]

Come on don't be mad, maybe i'm still sore after my $50 purchase got glitched when the billing system went down just as i was finalizing payment, and therefore more aware of XBL outages. XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin...man these are like lifelines to people like me, not ashamed to say it. Gaming is my solace in a the salaryman's harsh reality :laugh:

I certainly didn't mean to start any rumors!

I'm not mad, just pointing out how such things start. I'm sure you have seen it happen before.

Plus, your completely entitled to your opinion based on your experiences, which have been very poor lately.