Electronic Arts says it didn't ask for Xbox One's DRM


Electronic Arts recently canceled its online pass requirement for games on current-generation consoles.

Electronic Arts recently abandoned its online pass requirement for multiplayer gaming on current-generation consoles, leading some to speculate that the company asked Microsoft for Xbox One's digital rights management technology. According to an EA executive, however, that isn't the case.

Peter Moore, chief operating officer of EA, told Polygon that the speculation is "completely false," noting that the company's decision to abandon online passes had nothing to do with the upcoming console generation.

As the guy who is the chief operating officer of Electronic Arts I can tell you that EA did not aggressively lobby for the platform holders to put some gating function in there to allow or disallow used games. I am on record as being a proponent of used games. I like the ecosystem. I like the fact that it's kept pricing at a good level for eight years. I like the fact that someone can buy a physical game and see some equity in that game. That keeps GameStop vibrant and they are a great launch and marketing partner for us.

EA has never had a conversation, and I have been present at all of them, with all of the manufacturers, saying you must put a system in place that allows us to take a piece of the action or even stop it. Absolutely incorrect.

Moore added that EA stopped using its online pass requirement because "it just wasn't resonating with the consumer" and that it "just wasn't consumer friendly." In the end, EA decided to cancel the requirement because it was unwanted by consumers and impacted user experience.

Microsoft's Xbox One console restricts the sale of used games to approved stores, though third-party publishers can opt out of the program or can set set up their own "transfer fees" with stores. Additionally, games can only be given to someone on a user's Xbox Live friends list for at least 30 days, and the transfer can only be made once per game license; how Microsoft plans to handle game rentals has yet to be addressed.

When EA canceled the online pass requirement, it retroactively made all games that previously used the feature available free of charge. The requirement was originally implemented as a way for EA to make money on the sale of used games; users who purchased a game second-hand could still play the single-player modes, but multiplayer options required them to buy online passes.

Source: Polygon | Image via Electronic Arts

Neowin's E3 2013 coverage is sponsored by Alienware

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

E3 2013: Microsoft apologizes for rape joke made during press conference

Next Story

Microsoft to launch new MSN Motor Trend website in 2014

62 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

HAHAHAHAHA EA didn't want Xbox One's DRM Policies that's a good one. They (EA) have had access to a dev version of the Xbox One since 2011, and knew full well that online passes wouldn't be needed. Think about it, why would they support the console if they didn't want these policies? By support I mean why would they release BF4 DLC on Xbox one first when with BF3 the PS3 got the DLC first....

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if EA gave Microsoft the whole DRM idea to begin with.


EA didn't ask for it? Didn't Microsoft themselves say it's entirely up to the Publisher of the game what restrictions they want to place on reselling of games?

I'm willing to bet EA charges for it, and they're going to act like it's Microsoft making them do it?

Now everyone is looking to blame anyone other than MS on this issue. I think the biggest thing that people have to understand is that this rage is not about having internet or not. It's about being able to do what you want with the game after you buy, be it lend it to a friend, sell it or trade it in without any imposed rules or logged into some database. This is about privacy. Why is that the xbox cannot function without the kinect plugged in even though they state it can be turned "off" by software, If it was really off shouldn't we be able to just unplug it. Privacy is a huge subject right now and MS was one of the first to join or give PRiSM their consent now add the fact of this camera and mic not being able to be turned off you have a pretty big privacy breach. I have nothing to hide but that's not the point. Would any of you let someone go through your wallet if they just stopped you on the street? If yes then you are lying to yourself and is probably delusional.

What if the stores asked for it ???

In the end who will profit the more from this ? Publishers or stores ? Right now stores lose lot of used sales from eBay and such. Now you'll need to resell and buy used games at participating retailers (ie EB Games, Gamestop, etc). This is eliminating the competition from eBay, Kijiji and such.

Here is my reasoning why Used games are GOOD for the industry (outside of the advantage for consumers)

If a company, EA, makes a game, Battlefield 1, and it costs $10 Million to make. They then sell it. As long as they make over $10 Million, then they will not have lost any money. Any more money that is gained, is profit for them (Which is the nature of business, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing)

Now, lets say they made $20 Million (Sold 400K copies at $50/each brand new) over 3 months after its release.

Now, let's say of those 400k copies, 50k are then resold to others as used games. EA makes no money off of this. This means, however, that the total number of people who have played Battlefied 1 is now 450k.

Now, EA comes out with Battlefied 2. EA now has a LARGER audience to pull from (Instead of the 400k people, they have 450k people that have played the first one, and possibly may want to buy the second one)

Of those 50k people who bought the first used, let's say that 25k of those people really liked the first one, and have decided to buy the second brand new because the first was really good.

Let's now look at a scenario where no used games exist. EA still sells 400k copies of Battlefied 1. No more copies are sold used, so the total number of people that have played it, is 400k. W/ Battlefied 2, EA only can pull from 400k people that have played the first one, instead of 450k.

This means, that w/ Used games, EA's Battlefied audience grows. Without used games, it doesn't. Now, there are some things that are wrong with this. One, being the 400k New Copies userbase stays the same. This could grow (or shrink) simply by word of mouth alone. Someone may not have bought the first, but ends up buying the second because of EA promo, or a friend says its good.
Another assumption that I have made, is that EA made a profit from the first game ($10 Million).

This may not have happened. -- Here is the main point. If, EA, didn't make a profit from the sales of the first game, then, they have to calculate all kinds of aspects when/if planning the sequel. Should the game be roughly the same, should it be different. Why didn't it sell well? Do people actually want this game? This is something EVERY company does. This is economics 101. In this case, EA (if it makes a sequel) will try to make the game the best it can, to get the most sales.

Now, concerning the audience, wouldn't EA want to have a larger audience that have played the first one to get feedback from/sell to.

greensabath said,
Here is my reasoning ......
Not every developer is EA, nor can they always afford to not have those 50k sales.

What GameStop effectively does is have New copies compete with Used ones, and they have every incentive to push the Used copy since they get 100% of the margin.

Your estimation of cost of development is also way off. AAA games can easily exceed $100 Million.

The lost margin from those 50k can very easily break a studio. Putting out a new IP is a very risky venture. Also is trying out something new. Hence why we are inundated with Call of Duty and Battlefield, because the lowest common denominator sells.

You cannot simply assume sales of new copies will increase just because used copies sold well. Those same 50k customers can just as easily buy it used a second time, resulting in another round of reduce profit back to the developer.

Gamers should be supporting the developers first, not GameStop.

First of all, I don't give a crap about Gamestop. I do not support them at all, and hope they fail as a business. In the new Xbox model, Gamestop is not affected at all, unless individual publishers choose to charge them a fee, then they will gain less money per used-game sale. The only ones that get screwed are the end-users, who can no longer buy/sell a cheaper copy (than a $55 used Gamestop copy) from ebay/craigslist.

Second, I know games can cost in the $100 Millions. My example was using lower numbers to make the math easier.

"Putting out a new IP is a very risky venture..." This is Business & Econ 101. If you don't know how to successfully make a good product/market it, then you will fail. This principle applies to EVERY industry and company.

Does Ford put out a new Car model thinking they are going to make money off the car when it is resold used? Umm...No. Now, you're probably going to come back w/ that's physical, not digital. Ok...then, do Movie studios block the used market of blu-rays/dvds. Umm..no. (Of course with them, they have enough issues dealing with piracy, let alone to try to compare a used movie market to piracy)

Also, my assumptions are noted, and I know that the base group of users can grow/shrink for other reasons and is not fixed. I am just saying that that extra 50k users would be better to have then NO extra users.

Finally, you missed the whole point, in that a company should not count on any money from a second-hand market when making a product. A company should plan to profit off the first-hand sales of a product only.

One final note is with this system, you no longer own ANY of your games. Once MS shuts down the Xbox One servers, ALL of your games are GONE. You know how now you can pull out a Sega Genesis and play the old Sonic games. Guess what, by the time Xbox One is as old as a Genesis or Nintendo, you won't be able to play any of its games. Now tell me how such a restrictive feature is GOOD for Gaming.

greensabath said,
The only ones that get screwed are the end-users, who can no longer buy/sell a cheaper copy (than a $55 used Gamestop copy) from ebay/craigslist.
Steam says hello, where game prices can fall quickly to affordable levels.

Second, I know games can cost in the $100 Millions. My example was using lower numbers to make the math easier.
Which doesn't help your argument since you're trying to simplify a complex system.

This is Business & Econ 101. If you don't know how to successfully make a good product/market it, then you will fail. This principle applies to EVERY industry and company.
You don't think good products fail regardless of how well they are made or marketed?

Does Ford put out a new Car model thinking they are going to make money off the car when it is resold used? Umm...No.
Software is not that comparable to a tangible product. Games have been heading towards a service bases market for years.

Ok...then, do Movie studios block the used market of blu-rays/dvds. Umm..no. (Of course with them, they have enough issues dealing with piracy, let alone to try to compare a used movie market to piracy)
You're ignoring one key factor. The size of the market. The consumer base for movies is far larger due to it being more generalized. They don't market to a niche who label themselves, but to a general audience. Thus DVD/Blu-ray sell more than enough new copies in conjunction with the theater run. DVD sales are gravy once that run is over with thus any second hand sales are negligible. There is NO theater level equivalent for games, thus you cannot make a good comparison between them.

Also, my assumptions are noted, and I know that the base group of users can grow/shrink for other reasons and is not fixed. I am just saying that that extra 50k users would be better to have then NO extra users.
And as I noted, those 50k sales can mean the difference between a developer staying in business or having to close up shop.

Finally, you missed the whole point, in that a company should not count on any money from a second-hand market when making a product. A company should plan to profit off the first-hand sales of a product only.
I never said they should, but you cannot deny that those additional funds would hurt any developer.

One final note is with this system, you no longer own ANY of your games.
Have you ever read the licensing agreement for any kind of software? Do you really think you ever really owned anything?

Once MS shuts down the Xbox One servers, ALL of your games are GONE.
That is a stretch and you assume that infrastructure won't change or evolve further.

You know how now you can pull out a Sega Genesis and play the old Sonic games.
But that game and its subsequent licence was based upon the game cartridge being a media that was very difficult to copy. The two were linked. That hasn't been the case for many years now.

Guess what, by the time Xbox One is as old as a Genesis or Nintendo, you won't be able to play any of its games. Now tell me how such a restrictive feature is GOOD for Gaming.
By the time it is, it will probably have gone into so many different iterations that might even become a fully virtualized system. You're comparing two very different systems. Plus, PC Games say "Hello".

Steam says hello, where game prices can fall quickly to affordable levels.

This only exists because piracy is rampant on the PC platform. (Looking at the closed console market - Game prices fall much more slowly, including the SAME games that exist on Xbox/PS vs the PC counterpart.)

Which doesn't help your argument since you're trying to simplify a complex system.

My original argument was from one aspect - More people that play your game will directly/indirectly help your business.

You don't think good products fail regardless of how well they are made or marketed?

So your saying that to protect bad businesses who mismanage how they sell products, we should double-charge the end-consumer?


Movie studios issue - This is true, movies make money from not only the theatrical release, but subsequent DVD/Bluray release as well. It is also true that the movie industry is far bigger than the gaming industry.


I never said they should, but you cannot deny that those additional funds would hurt any developer.

Your original quote I was responding to was -

Not every developer is EA, nor can they always afford to not have those 50k sales.

The statement of "afford to not have those 50k sales" means the company was planning (or needs to be successful) to make money off second-hand sales.


Quotes concerning ownership/old games - Yes, I understand you don't 'own' the game, you own the 'license' to play the game on the console you bought it for.

That is a stretch and you assume that infrastructure won't change or evolve further.

This will be true if they decide to de-active the online checks before they de-support Xbox One

But that game and its subsequent licence was based upon the game cartridge being a media that was very difficult to copy. The two were linked. That hasn't been the case for many years now.

What does this even mean? You buy Sonic 1 on Genesis, and it still works today on ANY Genesis system. It is not linked to one specific Genesis system. What do you mean by 'very difficult to copy'. Are you referring to piracy, b/c w/ each new console generation that is disc-based, it is virtually impossible to pirate UNLESS you do hardware mods/spend alot of time hacking. (Which I'm not saying it won't happen, but it applies to a very small minority of the userbase, where-as the masses won't bother doing)

By the time it is, it will probably have gone into so many different iterations that might even become a fully virtualized system. You're comparing two very different systems.

W/ the above, are you trying to say that a Genesis tied to a cartridge is different than an Xbox tied to a DVD disc?
The only difference, is w/ DRM, the Xbox One is trying to tie 1 Copy of a game to 1 Console.

Plus, PC Games say "Hello".

I will retort w/ your own comment "You're comparing two very different systems."


Software is not that comparable to a tangible product. Games have been heading towards a service bases market for years.

I saved this one for last, b/c it kind of changes what is being 'sold'. Currently, games are packaged up and sold on one disc. This is why it's easy to compare disc sales vs cartridge sales from the past. But now, you have a blur being created. On the same disc, not only do you have an offline component (single-player), but you also have an 'online' component (multi-player). [bold]And maybe, this is where a legitimate argument against used game sales comes in. It costs money to keep online servers up and running[/bold]

A small example of how to change this market, I think, would be to split the two completely (Or based on the type of game that is being sold). Think of it like this. Call of Duty comes out, Single player is sold on disc for $30-40. With Multi-player, the developer can choose to come out w/ Call of Duty Online. (I think the industry is headed this way) Now w/ CoD Online, the developer charges $5/month for the 'service'. Yes, this changes from being a license to own a static game, to a license to playing a service. This works for/against consumers for the following reasons.

1. The consumer may feel nickel-and-dimed because now they have to pay $5/month for every Multiplayer game they want to play. (Maybe there is a better solution, can't think of one off-hand at the moment)
2. But at the same time, the consumer no longer is buying a Full-priced (and from dev standpoint - no longer losing a sale from used game) game.
3. Also, it makes it easier on the developer, because with concerning multiplayer, the dev only has to worry about one set of code, and one set of servers. With each new CoD release, the dev doesn't have to worry about support 2 or more different sets of CoD servers (including previous releases)
4. They could tout this as a feature for the end consumer by saying, you will never have to pay for a new version of CoD again (Pretty much the whole concept of software as a service)
5. The end-user will have more options, in terms of buying parts of a 'traditional packaged disc based game' So someone that doesn't have $60 to spend, could end up only have to pay the $5/month for online CoD, or just buying the Single Player portion if they don't want MP.

One word: "aggressively."

That says it all. That weasel wording shows that EA did in fact lobby for the functionality, except it did not reach whatever arbitrary level qualifies to him as aggressive.

Put your money where your mouth is, EA. Let's see what restrictions you *choose* to place on your Xbox One games.

Thanks, I hope people press them on this issue and hold them to their word, and make their feelings known if they break it. EA has done a lot of posturing in the past so I'm not very hopeful... which is unfortunate because I want Mirror's Edge 2 so bad.

The fact that he went out of his way to shout-out for GameStop, I'm not sure this quote is anything but bending over for partners.

Yeah, used games are good for price points--a used game market where money doesn't go back to publishers means new game prices stay high, which means launch sales are huge, which makes investors happy. This all goes back to regular income vs. huge ups and depressing downs, and from a corporate culture point of view, the latter is poisonous.

Relying on a used game economy is bad for games, game studios, and ultimately the gamer, who can only seem to justify the existence of used game sales with the cost savings.

EA: SCREW THAT!!!! WE WILL NOT BE THE WORST COMPANY FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE YEARS!!!!...
slowly sneaks away while MS isn't looking.....


EA: HEY MS!!!! WE GOT YA BACK, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EA... Electronic Arts, or Enough Already? EA are a huge publisher for Microsoft, I'm sure they could have protested and opt-out of Microsoft's 'evil' plans. Yeah right, EA probably had their hands in designing the entire system, didn't ask for it because they damn well didn't have to.

EA already has their own DRM systems. Of course they didn't ask MS. Now, other dev companies that want to focus on building better games and not better DRM are probably thrilled.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
DRM equals absolute control over game reselling and tons of money for the publisher! I don't like drm in general at all, it favors the publisher and shortchanges the consumer.
I agree with your sentiment but it doesn't really shortchange the consumer if the consumer goes in with eyes open to the restriction. The consumer can always choose not to buy the DRM'd content. The real problem people have with DRM is with the people who still consume the DRM'd content. They are those who create the market that DRM thrives in. More importantly, so many people who complain about DRM still support that market themselves when viable alternatives exist.

DRM without reciprocation is the issue.

Steam is DRM, but it's widely accepted because its considered done "right". Offline, good sales, auto-updating games, cloud, etc...

The question is how will XBOne and PS4 compare? (I'm wondering where PS4 will stand on transfering Digital sales, DLC, etc)

I just wonder where all the uproar is over not being able to resell your copy of Angry Birds on iPhone/Android/etc.

I still don't know why people are so up in arms about the new Xbox drm. I have an always on Internet connection... I didn't even lose Internet during hurricane sandy. I lost power, but my generator fixed that. I refuse to lend people things because I know I'll never get it back, and I have only bought one used game... Ever. And I didn't realize it was used until I got home... I then returned it. I just don't understand what the big deal is??

giantsnyy said,
I still don't know why people are so up in arms about the new Xbox drm. I have an always on Internet connection... I didn't even lose Internet during hurricane sandy. I lost power, but my generator fixed that. I refuse to lend people things because I know I'll never get it back, and I have only bought one used game... Ever. And I didn't realize it was used until I got home... I then returned it. I just don't understand what the big deal is??

For you, it's not an issue, clearly.

Now, take all them points you've made, and turn them around on the many people it affects. Yes, people do have poor internet connections, some don't even have broadband, nor want it. I know two homes from my own family who've canceled their broadband service in favour of their mobile internet contracts. Probably not going to be using their mobiles to teather (even if that's allowed on their service) each time just to play xbox.
And used games, isn't always about buying them. I have in the past, given 20 of my xbox 360 games to my nephew. There is no way in hell I'm going to take the game back to an "approved" just so I can pay for the right to give it to another friend, let alone another member of my family. F that...

sagum said,

For you, it's not an issue, clearly.

Now, take all them points you've made, and turn them around on the many people it affects. Yes, people do have poor internet connections, some don't even have broadband, nor want it. I know two homes from my own family who've canceled their broadband service in favour of their mobile internet contracts. Probably not going to be using their mobiles to teather (even if that's allowed on their service) each time just to play xbox.
And used games, isn't always about buying them. I have in the past, given 20 of my xbox 360 games to my nephew. There is no way in hell I'm going to take the game back to an "approved" just so I can pay for the right to give it to another friend, let alone another member of my family. F that...


Xbox One is not for them. It is really that simple.

Even when you lost your connection you can open up a shared WiFi connection on your smartphone for a minute to play offline for the next 24 hours.

Not a big deal.

incendy said,

Xbox One is not for them. It is really that simple.

Wow! MS must have used the super lube on you. You didn't even feel it go in, did you?

incendy said,

Xbox One is not for them. It is really that simple.

You don't see these kind of people are a big part of the gaming market?
That the restrictions alone are scaring off millions of potential customers?

This will affect you fanboys too, if XBO won't get a market similar to this generation, the same as the previous generation will happen.
Playstation will completely dominate the markets (except for the US market).

Stupid idiotic focus on US market, you people are aware not all the good games (just CoD, Battlefield etc) are made in the US right?

EU/Asia market isnt as shallow and eagerly asstaking compared to US citizens.
XBO will have decent marketshare in the US, rest of the world however... doubtfull.

And an Xbox with little marketshare, will not receive the same amount of games as an Xbox with more marketshare.
This means PS4 will hold more exclusives, have the better games, and have the developers focussing on their machine.

This is the Playstation 2 generation all over again.
Besides Halo, what did the original Xbox had better then the PS2? hahaha

GTA was still Sony exclusive, so was Tekken, DoA and many more games.

I live in Pittsburgh. I wasn't effected by Hurricane Sandy either. We got 1" of rain. I was working at Toys R Us, and they were effected terribly. Had Toys R Us' corporate servers been the check-in service for Xbone, I would have been without a console for a few days.

The reasons EA wanted DRM have not changed. The reason's it didn't work was because they implemented it poorly.

Developers, including EA have been asking for a fix to piracy since I can remember. And yes, to developers used and rentals are the same as piracy, they are getting robbed.

Did they aggressively lobby, probably. Will they publically admit it after the Sim City fiasco? Probably not.

incendy said,

Developers, including EA have been asking for a fix to piracy since I can remember. And yes, to developers used and rentals are the same as piracy, they are getting robbed.

Bullsh**. I don't care how much they try to redefine second hand sales or rentals, they are NOT piracy. No other product gets extra money from resale, so why should games be an exception?

They made their money on the product when it was initially sold; that's the ONLY money they are entitled to. Any attempt on their part to get more, is THEM stealing, not the reseller.

incendy said,
The reasons EA wanted DRM have not changed. The reason's it didn't work was because they implemented it poorly.

Developers, including EA have been asking for a fix to piracy since I can remember. And yes, to developers used and rentals are the same as piracy, they are getting robbed.

Did they aggressively lobby, probably. Will they publically admit it after the Sim City fiasco? Probably not.


I should build a closet, and if it gets resolled by the current owner, i should get a cut? Cause I made it.

Can throw the 'development costs' and overhead whatever argument in the room.
But this is pointless, these costs should (and ARE) included in the original price.

EA games for example isnt dying because of piracy, they arent bleeding money because of this.

They are bleeding money because they ruined the best game franchises in the world and continously produce games not worth a single USD.

However smaller companies have gone bankrupt, partially due to piracy. But its bull that developers should receive ANY money from resale.

Shadowzz said,

However smaller companies have gone bankrupt, partially due to piracy. But its bull that developers should receive ANY money from resale.

Do you cut Ford a cheque when you sell your car? Do you send Budweiser a buck when you give your friend a beer? Do you call up Apple and transfer your life savings to them when you sell your iPhone on Craigslist?

No, of course you don't. So why are you wanting to give publishers more money when you sell a game?

FloatingFatMan said,

Do you cut Ford a cheque when you sell your car? Do you send Budweiser a buck when you give your friend a beer? Do you call up Apple and transfer your life savings to them when you sell your iPhone on Craigslist?

No, of course you don't. So why are you wanting to give publishers more money when you sell a game?

Pointless irrelevancy. Games are not cars or beer. You never own the game, you purchased a license to play it. A license to consume a piece of content.

It's like a movie. Why shouldn't a movie studio expect that everybody who "sees" that content pay for the privilege?

Bull is it a license, you're buying a copy of a game, and it's your property, to do with as you will, as clearly stated by the law itself.

But even then, it's STILL no different to buying and selling DVD's. So tell me, when you sell on a DVD or BluRay, do you send a cut to the movie studio? Of course you don't, despite it being, in your own words, the same as a game.

NO manufacturer of ANY product ANYWHERE has a right to profit from their product AFTER its initial sale. Why should games be treated differently, just because those same publishers are crying into their $1000 glasses of wine?

TCLN Ryster said,

Pointless irrelevancy. Games are not cars or beer. You never own the game, you purchased a license to play it. A license to consume a piece of content.

It's like a movie. Why shouldn't a movie studio expect that everybody who "sees" that content pay for the privilege?

Same deal with DVD's, but they don't charge you for a re-sale.

I really don't believe a word of anything that comes from EA. This company has been bending folks over for a while and without lube.

JHBrown said,
I really don't believe a word of anything that comes from EA. This company has been bending folks over for a while and without lube.

True, plus trying to implement your own DRM policies is a pretty loud lobbying if you ask me.. They spent millions trying to make it work and failed.

EA want to be less hated http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22801311 so they use this XBone fiasco as an opportunity to do that. Except it doesn't quite ring true..

EA did not aggressively lobby for the platform holders to put some gating function in there to allow or disallow used games.
But I read this as they did lobby.
EA has never had a conversation, and I have been present at all of them, with all of the manufacturers, saying you must put a system in place that allows us to take a piece of the action or even stop it.
EA wouldn't have had to have such a conversation if their lobbyists were doing so on their behalf.

I have a feeling the trading games with friends DRM restriction will collapse hard and fast, there is just no way Microsoft can protect the publisher more than consumers as this will be challenged very quickly. It's just not feasible to expect that all ebay sellers will only sell/transfer a game that has never been sold/transferred before and it will cause a huge cluster *@&*! of consumer complaints and potential lawsuits of games being purchased that are already DRM expired and whatnot.

The easiest fix to all this bull crap is to treat everyone the same. Allow license transfer regardless and without limits. This would allow DRM to protect digital content but also respect the rights of content owners to protect their content and consumers to buy/sell/trade as they see fit.

Hell. call home all you want, as long as you allow me to transfer licenses I've purchased as I see fit, i'd be game for DRM as long as it protects the intrinsic value of the game and not a stupid DVD/BD

Xbox One doesn't have any restrictions of transferring licenses. I don't know what all people make up. They don't understand that both platforms aren't as different as they thought. PS4 checks the disk while the Xbox One checks online once per day.

BUT: you can share your games to your friends without the disc and you can play without inserting any disc anymore on the new Xbox. And furthermore the "advantage" for the PS4 only relates to disc based games (look closely to their announcements). More and more publishers will move to digital distributions on the next generation. And there the Xbox has more advantages when it comes to share your games with your friends/family.

Good point, but they can't until everybody has a great internet connection, which isn't going to happen for a while. PLUS again it has more advantages in entertainment..this was a gaming console. I would get the PS4 for my gaming needs, and the Xbox One as a replacement for my current PVR

What I think should be done is to put an activation code on every disc (and not on a separate box-insert like EA did). The game can be installed onto the hard drive, and when complete, eject the disc and type in the activation code.

Activation codes could be tied to a particular license. 3-day rental, 7-day rental, retail purchase, etc. If installed on a new device, the activation code would be sent to the MS servers to check status. If it's a retail-purchase game that has already been activated, it would ask the user to input how they acquired the game (new in store, used in store, borrowed, etc.) and determine usage accordingly. They could then check to see if the code is still in use elsewhere or how long ago it was last used. If it starts being used on multiple machines, it would prompt the user for information about who owns that license and then require inserting the disc to verify ownership of the media.

tiadimundo said,
Xbox One doesn't have any restrictions of transferring licenses. I don't know what all people make up. They don't understand that both platforms aren't as different as they thought. PS4 checks the disk while the Xbox One checks online once per day.

BUT: you can share your games to your friends without the disc and you can play without inserting any disc anymore on the new Xbox. And furthermore the "advantage" for the PS4 only relates to disc based games (look closely to their announcements). More and more publishers will move to digital distributions on the next generation. And there the Xbox has more advantages when it comes to share your games with your friends/family.


Funny how you are defending it by comparing "Need Disk to play" VS "need daily checkin to keep Console in working order".
Seriously man, take off those fanboy glasses.
Many people take their console with them quite regulary. To friends, to parties, on holidays, you name it. At least in my area, it's common to take consoles with u. Not daily, but every now and then.
Remove this option, what Microsoft has done. It gives a lot of people the "WTF Microsoft" response, which is normal.

A console is a CONSOLE, for many people it is not used in a 24/7 online.

What if people start DDOSing Microsoft's servers, they can throw Azure behind it all they want, enough botnets will take down these loginservers, and BWAM. you're whole console is degraded to a tv setup box.

Your internet goes down for unknown reason for a couple of days, this is a reality for 100s of millions of people in the WESTERN world (yes, US, EU etc).
Or go on a holiday and bring the console with you, also done by millions of people.

Microsoft has lost millions and millions of customers. If they won't change things, Microsoft will already have lost the European and Asian markets, it's known americans will stay Microsoft, since its an American product vs a Japanese one.

Microsoft without European and Asian market, means a LOT of games wont be released on the XBO (See Tekken Revolution Which isnt going to be released on the 360 cause of Microsoft's stubborn ness).
This will hit the Xbox fans in the end too, I absolutely cant see why even Microsoft's fans are defending Microsoft. They are screwing it up big time. Their ALL IN ONE device is nice in the US, but not outside there.

But anywho, enjoy whatever.

If you lose your internet connection for more than 24h here is the solution:

Turn on WiFi sharing on your phone for 1 minute. Turn it off. Play another 24h offline.

Big deal?

tiadimundo said,
If you lose your internet connection for more than 24h here is the solution:

Turn on WiFi sharing on your phone for 1 minute. Turn it off. Play another 24h offline.

Big deal?


yes, that would cost me $30 a month.

tiadimundo said,
If you lose your internet connection for more than 24h here is the solution:

Turn on WiFi sharing on your phone for 1 minute. Turn it off. Play another 24h offline.

Big deal?

Better solution, buy a console that doesnt have "SimCity" DRM baked in!

tiadimundo said,
Xbox One doesn't have any restrictions of transferring licenses. I don't know what all people make up. They don't understand that both platforms aren't as different as they thought. PS4 checks the disk while the Xbox One checks online once per day.

BUT: you can share your games to your friends without the disc and you can play without inserting any disc anymore on the new Xbox. And furthermore the "advantage" for the PS4 only relates to disc based games (look closely to their announcements). More and more publishers will move to digital distributions on the next generation. And there the Xbox has more advantages when it comes to share your games with your friends/family.

I don't think sharing will cause much of a problem.

The thing that worries me is when Microsoft will pull the plug on the Xbox One authentication servers. Will I be able to play my Xbox One games (or use my Xbox One at all) in ten years, like I do with my older consoles like the SNES, etc?

m-p{3} said,

I don't think sharing will cause much of a problem.

The thing that worries me is when Microsoft will pull the plug on the Xbox One authentication servers. Will I be able to play my Xbox One games (or use my Xbox One at all) in ten years, like I do with my older consoles like the SNES, etc?

Hadn't even thought of that, but it's an excellent point!

tiadimundo said,
[...] Turn on WiFi sharing on your phone for 1 minute. Turn it off. Play another 24h offline [...]

And while you do that, should you bend over as well?