Petition wants Microsoft to bring back Xbox One's DRM

A petition on Change.org wants Microsoft to bring back the original DRM policies for the Xbox One, saying to "give us back the Xbox One we were promised at E3". The petition cites how the original policies would have made the Xbox One's game store and library like "Steam for Xbox", but "consumers were uninformed" which eventually lead to the DRM policies being reversed.

This was to be the future of entertainment. A new wave of gaming where you could buy games digitally, then trade, share or sell those digital licenses. Essentially, it was Steam for Xbox. But consumers were uninformed, and railed against it, and it was taken away because Sony took advantage of consumers uncertainty.

We want this back. It can't be all or nothing, there must be a compromise.

This petition follows Microsoft's reversal of their original DRM policies for the Xbox One. Controversially, the Xbox One originally needed to connect to the internet every 24 hours to verify that multiple users weren't accessing the one copy of a game; games that would have been permanently linked to your account, stored on your console or in the cloud, and shareable with up to 10 other people.

Following Sony's announcement that the PS4 wouldn't have always-online or game sharing restrictions at E3, and a public outcry from "uninformed" members of the public, Microsoft reversed these policies. This means that the console essentially operates the same as the Xbox 360, where games are not linked to your account and still require the physical disc to play.

Currently the petition has around 6,000 supporters out of a needed 7,500 8,000 of a needed 10,000, after the petition starter changed the initial required signatures in the hope of gathering more users to his cause. By hitting up the source link below you can add your name to the petition in the hopes that Microsoft will respond.

Source and Image: Change

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft reveals CityNext urban improvement project

Next Story

PC shipments fall 11% in Q2 2013, tablets to blame

123 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It was microsofts' own fault for screwing up both ends of the drm spectrum. First they jumped off the bridge without looking, then they ran away before the door even opened. There was no happy medium. Microsoft should have just removed the always online requirement/limitation of physical sales. Without that, the rest of the "drm" with online sharing etc would have been accepted with open arms.

The idea is to give more, not take away. Thats is where Microsoft has failed.

Nothing new has been brought to the table with Microsoft, it will be another 5-10 without a new expierence. The only thing that will make people upgrade from there consoles is exclusivity of games. The graphics, although always with room for development, have reached a point were the avg consumer could care less. It is a game afterall.

Regardless of my above oppions, this petition is mute. There is NO WAY Microsoft would make a fool of themselves again by reversing an already reversed position. I don't forsee features like this getting added after the release. Look at Xbox 360, what ground-breaking feature has come to that after release?

the DRM issue its a mess, hopefully they dont bring it back, what they need to bring back its the family sharing for DIGITAL COPIES.... for those who prefer digital have a real advantage and "steam features"

Physical copies should leave it like before.

Provide an option for the user to choose. Problem solve.

However, the biggest problem with microsoft DRM is 24 hours online verification and people just flat out don't like it. They should have just abandon the online verification and probably won't get too much negative feedback from the consumer.

Most of the complaining was orchestrated by companies like Gamestop. They don't want to lose that lucrative business of paying you a tiny bit to sell a game back and then marking it up a few 100% as used. That's a pure profit business.

Do people still think that family sharing is going to be what they think it will be? I do not trust that family sharing feature. Okay so now what needs to be done to share a 360 game? Lend them the disc right? How many people can play your game at once? One right? They are really fighting for a feature where not one but TWO people can play at the same time? I fail to see how game companies will allow this to happen. Forget the supposed "10 member" limit, just having the ability to have two people playing at the same times does not seem right to me. I thought there were all of these horrible stories about used game sales, and MS made it EVEN EASIER to do this? If people do not have to pay to play, they will not. Even if it is a game I am DYING to play, I would rather split it with a friend and we can both play single player at the same time. If I did not have that option, yes I would have to spend the full $60.

Can anybody explain how game companies would allow this? I am not a cheapy (I just spend $150 on PSN last week), but if I could split the cost with a friend and still have the full single player game available, that is a benefit, Not to mention you can share it with 9 other people too. How would this feature be allowed without some restrictions? If they do not allow this, they would get $120 from us instead of $60. I do not buy used.

Oh you know what will happen then? No more single player. Or at least single player with 10% of the usual budget that would only take you 3 hours to beat. THANKS! I do not care about multi-player. I enjoy the single player. But if sales are divided by 10, you know where the budget will go right?

xWhiplash said,
Do people still think that family sharing is going to be what they think it will be? I do not trust that family sharing feature. Okay so now what needs to be done to share a 360 game? Lend them the disc right? How many people can play your game at once? One right? They are really fighting for a feature where not one but TWO people can play at the same time? I fail to see how game companies will allow this to happen. Forget the supposed "10 member" limit, just having the ability to have two people playing at the same times does not seem right to me. I thought there were all of these horrible stories about used game sales, and MS made it EVEN EASIER to do this? If people do not have to pay to play, they will not. Even if it is a game I am DYING to play, I would rather split it with a friend and we can both play single player at the same time. If I did not have that option, yes I would have to spend the full $60.

Can anybody explain how game companies would allow this? I am not a cheapy (I just spend $150 on PSN last week), but if I could split the cost with a friend and still have the full single player game available, that is a benefit, Not to mention you can share it with 9 other people too. How would this feature be allowed without some restrictions? If they do not allow this, they would get $120 from us instead of $60. I do not buy used.

Oh you know what will happen then? No more single player. Or at least single player with 10% of the usual budget that would only take you 3 hours to beat. THANKS! I do not care about multi-player. I enjoy the single player. But if sales are divided by 10, you know where the budget will go right?

I would say MS is using it's muscle to find middle ground where Steam like DRM and ability to share and for consumer to get on board with DRM. Essentially that's where MS console gaming future is suppose to be.

minster11 said,

I would say MS is using it's muscle to find middle ground where Steam like DRM and ability to share and for consumer to get on board with DRM. Essentially that's where MS console gaming future is suppose to be.

The family sharing was more like a library system, only one person would be allowed to sign out and play the said title at a time, not two. It just made it more convenient and easier to share your games amongst your circle of 10 friends whether they were close by or lived far away with out the need of having to hand them a physical disc and worry about it being scratched, lost, etc.

xWhiplash said,
No two people can play at the same time. The game's owner and one other person.

There's no way the sharing feature would have worked as most people on this site thinks. It would kill the single-player gaming industry.

It's more likely that you could try your friends game for an hour or so before being nagged about buying it. Like a time trial.

Personally I think this feature wasn't very well thought-out, so they decided to ditch it at the same time as the DRM. They're not mutually exclusive.

LOL @ consumers were "uninformed". They were misinformed and misled by microsoft's PR. Simple as that. And SOME of the limitations were stupid anyway.

If Microsoft doesn't lessen to the Gamers, it gets negative feedback; if it lessens to the Gamers it also gets negative feedback.

People don't know what they want; when there's a few months for the console to be released now people want that decision to be reversed? C'mon on!

just google "facepalm" and pick one...

Now that the dust settles, people start to realise it might have been not that bad after all...

Oh... and there will always be haters ;-)

News title is BS. Nowhere does it state that DRM is wanted. Sharing features yes, the previous implementation of DRM, NO.

For the umpteenth time, there are ways to have both, without screwing anybody.

Signed it, I understood why there were a lot of people that didn't like it but I personally found the benefits outweighed the negatives.

Anyone think 10K seems a little low?

Yup i'll give this a sign.
I've neither decided on XBox One or PS4 yet, however i can see that removing the DRM and associated features also crippled the machine in terms of forward thing and paving the way for the future of console gaming.

That doesn't surprise me. For instance, there are people on Russia today that still yearn for the times f Stalin.

pmdci said,
That doesn't surprise me. For instance, there are people on Russia today that still yearn for the times f Stalin.

So this means you don't use Hulu, Netflix or ever buy a digital book online, or play an MMO? These are all technologies that only exist and are possible because of effective DRM.

To contrast the Stalin statement...

DRM can also be seen as 'freedom', especially if you are content creator that wants to give your customers the freedom to digest your content how and wherever they want. It is freedom for users that don't want to carry the install disc with them, or a physical copy of a book, and be able to load their movie/book/music content they have purchased from any location and any device.

Instead of seeing DRM as evil, try to think of it as 'controlled' sharing and the mechanism that allows additional ways to access content.

Mobius Enigma said,

So this means you don't use Hulu, Netflix or ever buy a digital book online, or play an MMO?

That's right[*]. Now off you go...

[*] I did buy digital books in the past from Wrox. They sell their books without any sort of DRM bullcrap.

And my tolerance to 'controlled sharing' is the same I have to DRM fanboys: zero.

pmdci said,

That's right[*]. Now off you go...

[*] I did buy digital books in the past from Wrox. They sell their books without any sort of DRM bullcrap.

And my tolerance to 'controlled sharing' is the same I have to DRM fanboys: zero.

I should then ask... Do you not use any software that requires activation? I assume you would answer that you do not.

So lets take this to the next level...

Does this mean you do not use a Cell Phone, or a Digital Land line, or even have an Internet connection to an ISP? (They all use DRM mechanisms, even if it is the just your account authenticating into the Radius server.)

This also means you don't use a cable box, or satellite television, or even a service like OnStar in your vehicle.

I find it hard to believe, especially since you are posting here, that you have NO access to the internet, which is control by authentication.

I also would be surprised if you do not have a wireless router in your home, which also uses DRM technologies to prevent other people from accessing your network.

DRM and 'security' are two sides of the same coin.

I'm not a DRM fanboi, but I am a security 'fanboi'.

Mobius Enigma said,
blah, blah, **burp**, blah blah.... DRM and 'security' are two sides of the same coin. **fart** blah blah...

This is by far the most absurd, simplistic and moronic attempt of equalisation I've ever read at Neowin. Way to go, son.

pmdci said,

This is by far the most absurd, simplistic and moronic attempt of equalisation I've ever read at Neowin. Way to go, son.

Thank you...

I guess this will be the final post we will see of yours, since accessing the internet does require authentication, which is the 'digital' 'rights' 'management' of your account and usage 'terms of service" to your ISP service.

Now that you have made clear your understanding and disdain for DRM, canceling your internet service will now probably be a top priority.

If you do get a chance to see this message before cancelling your ISP contract and breaking away from another restrictive form of DRM, I wish you the best.

Mobius Enigma said,

Thank you... blah blah blah...

So basically, you set a side a special time every day to embarrass yourself in public forums, is that it?

Why not just let people 'opt-in' to the features they want.

This would allow people to stay offline and never access their games from other locations or opt-in and have the full experience.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to be able to give people everything they want or don't want.

(Sony is really pulling in the media favor with all this, as they originally had more DRM restrictions than the Xbox One, but never talked about it, and then moved to an opt-in system and avoided the media scrutiny that Microsoft endured.)

Mobius Enigma said,

Sony is really pulling in the media favor with all this, as they originally had more DRM restrictions than the Xbox One, but never talked about it
Source?

ozzy76 said,
Source?

Not sure which aspect you need a source, Bing is your friend though. I do have some inside information on this. I will provide a couple of links to get you started, but I don't want to offend Neowin with time-lining the entire series of actions.


One of Sony's DRM patents, there are several on game load times and other technologies directly related to 'used games' if you go back to 2011/2012 there are several more, some of which are 'still' in place for the PS4.
http://www.techspot.com/news/5...would-block-used-games.html

Sony admits it changed their DRM strategy after Xbox One backlash from media.
http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...a-Hiroshi-Kawano,23292.html

Sony sidesteps DRM by saying the 'choice' is up to developers. (The same was true of Xbox One game publishers as well, but Sony obviously avoids mentioning this in their comparison.)
http://ps4daily.com/2013/06/so...ublishers-on-playstation-4/

Sony's marketing continues to leverage Xbox One backlash as they move to change their own rules. They didn't anticipate Microsoft would reverse decision on their policies this late in the cycle.
http://www.inquisitr.com/67768...tens-to-the-fans-about-drm/

Sony announces same functionality, and yes it is a DRM based technology as the game is 'tied' to the User's account, just like the Xbox One was going to use.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/...-games-library-will-travel/

In the end, both systems were originally very similar with regard to loading games and locking the game to the user's account, that could be 'unauthenicated' at anytime or even shared to another user.

Microsoft's system was more advanced with the ability to share titles with friends/family, which is where the 'original' 24hr check in came from, as the game owner could 'take back' the shared game if the friend refused to release it back to the owner.

Some aspects of the PS4 were and still are more DRM restrictive concerning used games that will become more known as the console is released. For example the PS4 can identify a 'used' game by the load time delays and 'scratches', which originally was to 'lock' the game from working (This specific example is a bit of inside info, but you can source the patents and talk about it online in PS4 rumors from last year.)

There are also a few other surprises with the latitude the publishers have in implementing DRM that goes outside the PSN authentication and thing get messy as each studio can have their own additional DRM on top of the PSN 'opt-in' DRM. This additional DRM is not something Microsoft allowed, requiring Xbox Live integration for the basis of all DRM management.

Sony's original goals and current plans are very much DRM based although some things did change with regard to restrictions on used games and disc sharing.

Sony is careful to not use the term DRM, or authentication, they are instead scoping their vocabulary to things like, "Sign in with PS account." and "Publisher's choice to 'protect'". However, don't be confused, as this is by definition DRM. The PS3 also has a lot of DRM as well, including how games are encoded on the disc themselves, it is DRM.

At the end of the day, neither company set out to be evil or restrictive. In fact if you look at both Sony and Microsoft's use of DRM, it was to ALLOW more options and freedom in how they played their games.

It is DRM that allows the user to access their game from multiple locations even if they didn't have the game disc with them. Microsoft also wanted users to be able to share a game with friends without having to physically hand them the disc. Etc.

Sadly Microsoft got the black eye, and Sony was able to slip through looking more like a hero.

Microsoft's problem is that they provided no middle ground. Considering the reputation Microsoft has for supporting their customers over incredible lengths of time as well as through transitions, one would think that it would have only been natural to find some better way to transition people into the future.

There was nothing wrong with the system they wanted to provide, but a whole lot wrong with their approach in how they wanted to tell their customers they were wrong if they didn't have internet access all the time. For all the jokes people here make about Steve Jobs claiming people were "holding it wrong", one can only wonder how this approach to a new product line would hold up.

As for Sony, I can't blame them in the least with the direction they've taken. Considering the backlash that was building on Microsoft alone when everything was still just a "rumor", I would have done well to steer my own ship from such a mess as well. Hell, any idiot would for that matter; even Microsoft had the sense to know when to turn around.

sanctified said,
No DRM should ever be desirable

To state that DRM is never desirable or necessary would also require a belief that copyright and protections it grants the content creator should also never exist.

DRM is just a digital way to manage copyright, it isn't as evil as the anti-DRM movement makes it sound. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence based on poorly implemented DRM in the past, that should be an example of poor implementation of DRM rather than DRM in general is bad.


Mobius Enigma said,

To state that DRM is never desirable or necessary would also require a belief that copyright and protections it grants the content creator should also never exist.

DRM is just a digital way to manage copyright, it isn't as evil as the anti-DRM movement makes it sound. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence based on poorly implemented DRM in the past, that should be an example of poor implementation of DRM rather than DRM in general is bad.


Content creator? Yeah, no. You mean the publisher who economically hog-ties the creator until they sign over the rights.

Also DRM is solely for the purpose of restricting my rights to use what I purchase as I see fit. I cannot see a situation where that helps the consumer.

Mobius Enigma said,

To state that DRM is never desirable or necessary would also require a belief that copyright and protections it grants the content creator should also never exist.

They should NEVER exist.

Dont be naive, DRM, copyright, patents, they are not there to protect the content creators, but the producers, the marketing people, the corporations. DRM and company are just tools for capitalist rethoric.

We will never have a true open culture society if we act as passively to things like these.

The only time I can see that ever happening is when people can be trusted not to steal, which we all know won't happen.

DRM is needed to protect ownership rights of the corporation in the same way door locks protect people's belongings. I'm not a fan of DRM either, but I can understand why its existence is justified.

I bet the petition against the DRM would have millions of votes... Those that sign this one have never owned console obviously.

Why! WE didn't want the DRM in the first place. Oh and only 10'000 people out of the millions, yeah why should we let only 10k people decide? Think of how many millions of people that are going to buy the Xbox One. DRM can be benefical if it doesn't become Anti-consumer which the Xbox One DRM policies were.

People saying it should be optional .... heres the problem, imagine if Microsoft rewarded people who wanted DRM but don't reward those who chose not to have it?

Family sharing can still be implemented, but it'll be implented differently. Say for example, you buy a physical disc and there's a sort of online pass that allows x number of people to download that game too. You can still trade it in, and if people want to unlock the family sharing, they can pay a small fee.

Can't it be both?

A world of physical media games and digital downloads, each with different rules governing their use.

This.

DonC said,
Can't it be both?

A world of physical media games and digital downloads, each with different rules governing their use.

Neowin always makes me laugh. Plenty of people defending the indefensible when it comes to Microsoft. Lets bring back a system that restricts my rights as a consumer because of some weird blind love for a company who I will defend no matter what. You people know who you are. Get a grip.

It will probably be back, just not all at once. Ultimately, this was too much change too quickly (for an Internet that only pretends to love radical change).

It isn't too late to still work out their policy. If they really are listening and care about their fan base, they could just tweak the drm and allow the family sharing and cloud features for just the digital downloads and leave the physical disc the way things work now. They just need to make sure that it will not create any more confusion amongst the public and clearly let them know the benefits/limitations of what the digital format will offer.

Good, it needs to be brought back. By how about getting all game developers on board guaranteeing a 25% reduction in the cost of games.

Shiranui said,
Good, it needs to be brought back. By how about getting all game developers on board guaranteeing a 25% reduction in the cost of games.

25% reduction in cost that will be swiftly pocketed by Microsoft and the Publisher, while they find a new way to tell you how you're dirty cheapass criminal scum that should be paying 10x what you are already for a tenth of the content.

Athernar said,

.fear mongering.


Without a valid argument, speculation rallies the dullards.

I for one appreciate the convenience of receiving a game within 20 mins of its release via 100Mbit fiber connection and be able to instantly transition between experiences.

I understand how the disc-bound are up in arms, but I have the luxury and convenience of an always on experience.

Edited by deadonthefloor, Jul 11 2013, 5:00am :

Yeah, that won't ever happen.
Even if you're as fortunate as you say you are Microsoft won't be able to provide the content at the speeds you're hoping. At best you'll be playing the game a few hours after release, at worst days with those poor servers having to authenticate millions of copies.

Derges said,
Yeah, that won't ever happen.
Even if you're as fortunate as you say you are Microsoft won't be able to provide the content at the speeds you're hoping.

Hmm? I normally get games between 10-15 gigs from Steam in less than 30 minutes on a good day, and less than 60 on a really bad day like Christmas. I don't see why Microsoft's methods would be any worse. Major release days don't dent Steam, holiday sales do. The same would probably be true for other game services.

Derges said,

At best you'll be playing the game a few hours after release, at worst days with those poor servers having to authenticate millions of copies.

All PC games sold physically require the same online authentication as games sold digitally. Some consoles games also require serialization with your online account before they can function. While release day problems sometimes exist (See Sim City), they are actually few and far between.

Big titles sold through Steam also allow you to basically pre-download an encrypted copy of the game hours or days before the final release, and then at release time it immediately unlocks. I don't know if Microsoft was planning to do something similar, but it should be trivial for them to implement. In recent times there are more and more cases where the game is available to digital buyers 12+ hours before physical buyers, because most games tend to unlock at midnight, but physical stores rarely do midnight release for anything but the most popular titles.

Edited by ITFiend, Jul 11 2013, 12:02pm :

Derges said,
Yeah, that won't ever happen.
Even if you're as fortunate as you say you are Microsoft won't be able to provide the content at the speeds you're hoping.


Oooh kay then.
I guess the Akamai server in my ISPs datacenter connected to 6gigabit fiber channel won't be able to handle the load.

Gotcha.

Maybe if Microsoft coughed up all the details about the purpose of the DRM and all the Xbox features, none of this would have happened. Microsoft's Xbox One marketing plan clearly is a bust! They should next time RELEASE ALL THE DETAILS, so people don't start speculating and causing fear!

The rumors about the Xbox One DRM started months before Microsoft was ready to revel the console, and possibly before Microsoft had even firmly finished the ideas around it. When Microsoft did revel everything, the only thing reporters focused on were the negative because everyone felt that fears had been realized.

It didn't help that one Microsoft employee said "deal with it" in his twitter exchange related to the DRM, or that the Xbox One representatives told people after the revel that if they don't like the 24 hour DRM that their only option was to get an Xbox 360 (which was a hugely stupid thing for them to say).

An automatic limited offline mode as the only option was the only real design mistake I can see in Microsoft's policy as they originally proposed it. The real way they could have fixed all of their problems, rather than axing the new system, was to allow for a user defined long-term checkout time period. Had they allowed for this, it likely would have made almost everyone happy.

DRM was in place to protect consumers and developers. I hope they bring it back to Xbox One or make it optional. I was disappointed to see they dropped DRM due to complains.

Why I oppose the DRM:

If you have a {b]physical disc you should use it as much as you want. What they want to do, can be done perfectly on digital downloads. Leave the discs alone, that's how Steam does it, doesn't it? AFAIK Steam doesn't have physical discs, am I wrong?

With a disc, I can install it or trade without bogging the internet with GB of download. The advantage of it is no more scratched disk because your so called friend did some damage to it.
As far as I know, best buy or game stop don't give warranty for cracked hole in the middle.
I cheated GameStop one time because my niece broke my black ops game disc, so I bought a used one and swapped it then return it to GameStop stating that it was broken.

Jose_49 said,
AFAIK Steam doesn't have physical discs, am I wrong?

There are physically sold games that use Steam as DRM. Originally, many years ago when Steam first came into existence, these games required both Steam activation and that the disk be present to play the game. I don't know if the dual-DRM requirement still exists for games sold this way. I'd expect these days that physical media containing a game with Steam DRM is just using the Steam backup restoration tool to install the title. I believe all the games I had that originally had the dual-requirement now only require Steam, but I don't think I even have the physical media from any of those games anymore to see what happens now when you install from it.

I do however buy Steam DRM digital games from Amazon, who tends to have much better sale prices on Steam DRM titles than Steam itself has had in the past year or two. I never bother downloading what I suspect is just a Steam backup from Amazon, and instead I just insert the key Amazon gives me into the Steam client.

Edited by ITFiend, Jul 11 2013, 9:06am :

Companies typically manufacture goods that often, if not always, reflect consumers' interests, or at least the potential for interest. Right or wrong, and even if it means selling a pile of poo, as long as they're willing to buy it, what's the problem with giving people what they want?

After all, isn't the whole point of doing business is to make money? Why any company would insist on telling the people what they need, rather than listening to what they want is perplexing.

I signed it. I like the features the DRM brings with it like online game sharing AMD diskless gaming of physical copies you bought. Hope they will listen to this because that rollback killed lot of excitement for me.

mikemc2k said,
I WANT IT ALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

If DRM returns, the decision to buy PS4 would be so much easier. Not trolling but serious. (Before some random fanboy attack)

I'd like to preface this by saying I have owned every console, handheld included, since Playstation came out (besides a Dreamcast), so if I'm a fanboy, it's of games in general. But who in their right mind wants to pay more money for restrictive DRM and the 24 hour restriction? Someone in the comments mentioned that Microsoft sucks at explaining things, so if they bring it back, I want proof of the sharing in writing, explaining the limitations, before I'd choose this over the PS4. Family sharing sounds great, but I find it hard to believe that they would let others enjoy my game for free indefinitely, as long as you aren't currently playing it. I try to take the first wave of information with a grain of salt. Full on fanboys for Sony forget they said 3rd party devs can decide their own DRM, so I don't expect it to be truly free. But it is cheaper, and as a married man, that means less time spent sleeping on the couch (as if sleeping next to the tv and games is a punishment...) Plus, while most people disagree with me, PS3 had better graphics, better entertainment experiences (I know 360 technically has more options, but PS3 streams things better), and over all better game play experience, so I'd prolly go with the PS4 at launch even if the Xbox One was the same price. I will eventually get an Xbox One, but not anytime close to launch.
Also, let's start doing quick grammar checks before posting (here's hoping I don't have any typos or grammar mistakes...)

BTW out of curiosity I just watched Don's statement about those who want an offline console should get a 360.

Man, I really don't hate him or Xbox One (I consider myself a fan), but sincerely, I can't help but he looks and acts like an imbecile.

I was hoping he'd be fired for botching the release of the Xbox One, they had such an amazing product but he was the worst at explaining it on the planet.

There was an article like that on neowin awhile back and I came to the same conclusion. Microsoft has some great products but their communication with Joe public to make them aware is less than ideal. They have made some pretty good commercials though.

The biggest problem's not even the words he's saying, it's the way he says those words, his mimics, his gestures, etc. I honestly think he has some ... problems of sorts. Just look at the picture in this article, seriously.

OTOH yes, he badly failed at explaining all the advantages and disadvantages, the full story. Maybe he just didn't care anymore, really. Even the in-a-rush, p*ssed-off Major Nelson explained it better to Angry Joe.

bviktor said,
BTW out of curiosity I just watched Don's statement about those who want an offline console should get a 360.

Man, I really don't hate him or Xbox One (I consider myself a fan), but sincerely, I can't help but he looks and acts like an imbecile.


Agreed. Good luck Zynga!

King Joffrey said,
It must be PS4 fans they want DRM on xbox one
You might have been kidding, but hit the link and look at some of the comments by the "petitioners".

Azies said,
Oh you've got to be ****ing kidding me.

Why? Have you ever used steam? Xbox One was supposed to be a better version of that. Yes it needed to completely do away with physical copies to solve the 24hour dilemma, but it would be quicker to fix things down the line than it will be to bring the amazing features back.

Funny thing is, the 360 currently has a 10 minute check for digital game copies, the Xbox One was actually relaxing the restriction to once every 24 hours.

SteveyAyo said,

Why? Have you ever used steam?

Yes. Steam doesn't require me to check-in every 24 hours. Or days. Or years.

Raa said,

Yes. Steam doesn't require me to check-in every 24 hours. Or days. Or years.

It doesn't also let you share/trade/resell games. People like you, who do not know what they are talking about, are responsible for this mess.

Crimson Rain said,

It doesn't also let you share/trade/resell games. People like you, who do not know what they are talking about, are responsible for this mess.

Actually it does.* People like you, who make assumptions on other people's behalves, are more responsible for the so called mess you mention.

For the record, I do not own, nor intend to purchase any form of console.

So when did steam ever let you trade games? They let you trade gift items and some Valve stuff. Think that's about it. Most of my titles say not available for trade. I am sorry, with the current Live store prices, I would rather pay less for a physical disc.

Patrick Danielson said,
So when did steam ever let you trade games? They let you trade gift items and some Valve stuff. Think that's about it. Most of my titles say not available for trade. I am sorry, with the current Live store prices, I would rather pay less for a physical disc.

It was introduced a few months ago if I remembered rightly. Agreed not all games can be traded but that doesn't invalidate my comment - it's possible.

Also agreed that (depending on the game) I don't mind purchasing digitally if it comes at a reduced price.

Raa said,

It was introduced a few months ago if I remembered rightly. Agreed not all games can be traded but that doesn't invalidate my comment - it's possible.

Also agreed that (depending on the game) I don't mind purchasing digitally if it comes at a reduced price.

AFAIK, it was a rumor based on part of the latest steam source code. It was a assumption that Steam could enable game trade in the future, and it was discovered after Xbox One annoucement so it could well be steam reacting to MS new features.

PC gamers have so many games due to the pricing, we have threads on 4chan, SomethingAwful, Reddit, and various other gaming communities just to trade or give to each other. Share games? Why bother when it's cheap as dirt?

Funny thing is, PC gamers talk about locking their wallet up to keep themselves from BUYING games.

SteveyAyo said,

Why? Have you ever used steam? Xbox One was supposed to be a better version of that. Yes it needed to completely do away with physical copies to solve the 24hour dilemma, but it would be quicker to fix things down the line than it will be to bring the amazing features back.


You are alone here. The petition is a joke. Looks the comments of the "signers"...

Raa said,

Actually it does.

No, it does not. You are comparing Xbox One "used" games to Steam “unused” inventory. Steam inventory only contains items that have never been “used” before. These are not the same thing at all.

Microsoft's plan as I've heard so far was to allow digital resale, loaning, and gifting of used titles. Physical goods under Microsoft's plan originally would be added to your digital library just like all physical games that use Steam for DRM, which is why Microsoft had to require resellers be authorized in order to reclaim digital/physical licenses while removing them from your account. This is why the 24 hour check in existed, to prevent a console from permanently being “offline” and using games forever after an account no longer owns them.

In all cases, Steam does not allow any of this at this time if the game is used. No one knows for sure if Steam is planning to do so either, as it is only third party speculation of a few lines of code found in the most recent beta Steam clients. If Steam does introduce something like this, you can be sure that it will be the end of permanent offline mode as it currently exists.

The real problem with Microsoft's original solution for the Xbox One, is that it didn't allow for a long-term offline checkout with a way to reclaim licenses from broken consoles. This is something Microsoft should actually do in my opinion, but allow users to specify their own checkout period for a game where it is locked to a specific console from anywhere from 7 days to 5 years, in which your online account can no longer sell or loan the game, nor use it on additional consoles unless you own multiple licenses or release the game from the console it's been checked out to.

Edited by ITFiend, Jul 11 2013, 9:31am :

Raa said,

Actually it does.* People like you, who make assumptions on other people's behalves, are more responsible for the so called mess you mention.

For the record, I do not own, nor intend to purchase any form of console.


You and two other people who liked your post probably believe sun rises from the west.

#fail

Why? Have you ever used steam? Xbox One was supposed to be a better version of that. Yes it needed to completely do away with physical copies to solve the 24hour dilemma, but it would be quicker to fix things down the line than it will be to bring the amazing features back.

Except its going to be nothing like Steam. I'm sorry but not everyone has terabytes of bandwidth to download and upload each month. NextGen games are going to be massive, and most people are already paying through the nose for a simple internet connection.

Raa said,

Yes. Steam doesn't require me to check-in every 24 hours. Or days. Or years.

It also doesn't allow you to trade your games... It was necessitated by that. I don't understand why people don't get this...

Raa said,

Yes. Steam doesn't require me to check-in every 24 hours. Or days. Or years.

It also doesn't allow you to trade your games... It was necessitated by that. I don't understand why people don't get this...

M_Lyons10 said,

It also doesn't allow you to trade your games... It was necessitated by that. I don't understand why people don't get this...

Irrelevant; games are cheap as dirt, thus people do things like chip in for a 4-pack version of a game for roughly $20 (as we did with Torchlight 2), essentially making the price $5 a copy for a brand new game. There isn't a need to share, though it looks like Valve may have something in the works for such a feature down the road.

Either way, we're ahead of the curve.

You're right, it doesn't, but if you install a game from Steam and try and play it for the first time offline (as I found out when my internet went down a few months ago), you cannot. The first time you play a game (even if you've installed it many a time before) you must be online to access the key server - if you haven't/can't do that with an active connection, you're out of luck if you want to play it.

Coagulated said,
You're right, it doesn't, but if you install a game from Steam and try and play it for the first time offline (as I found out when my internet went down a few months ago), you cannot.

Actually this issue is per-game title. I have a *lot* of Steam games, around 800, and I'd estimate that only around 20-30% of them required any form of pre-launch or serialization before first use.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think my estimate is high and that probably less than 10% of the games on Steam do this. The worst games though are the ones that do double or triple DRM where Steam is DRM #1, <insert random third party DRM here>, and then <insert one if not two online service logins here>. See GTA4, Bulletstorm, Tropico 4, Sins of a Solar Empire, everything made in the last few years by Ubisoft (looking at you Anno), and any EA titles that require an EA sign in such as Burnout, Kingdoms of Amular: Reckoning, or Mass Effect 2. They don't all have triple DRM, but you're pretty much fubard if you haven't pre-launched them before leaving the internet behind.

As I recall, if you fail to launch those before disconnecting from the internet, well you're not playing those titles until you can be online again. Mind you, of the titles I mentioned, the only one I recall for sure will fail because Steam is in offline mode is Sins of a Solar Empire. A lot of these titles fail to launch not because Steam is in offline mode, but because of the additional DRM and online activation requirements.

Edited by ITFiend, Jul 11 2013, 1:36pm :

Crimson Rain said,

You and two other people who liked your post probably believe sun rises from the west.

#fail


Actually it doesn't do that either. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html
"#"Nice try. Stay on topic next time.

And on topic, Steam does allow trading games, even if it's only limited at this point, they've clearly said they'll roll it out more. How far, who knows though.

Either way my points stand, especially about reactivation.

Raa said,

Yes. Steam doesn't require me to check-in every 24 hours. Or days. Or years.
Steam games check in every time you play them. Xbox One will not make you manually check in every 24 hours. Obviously, it'll be done automatically. Kind of like how WiiConnect24 used to check in periodically when the console was on standby to download new content automatically. Xbox One will simply ping the servers automatically. Well, with the DRM in place.

Maybe I'm unlucky, but I found it with every single game I had installed, but had not played 'online' for the first run since installation couldn't access the Steam 'key server'. The games were perfectly fine to play offline once they had connected to the key server, but not beforehand.

Raa said,

And on topic, Steam does allow trading games, even if it's only limited at this point, they've clearly said they'll roll it out more. How far, who knows though.

Either way my points stand, especially about reactivation.


haha...nice trolling.

Let me know when I can share/trade/resell a game from my library.

Coagulated said,
Maybe I'm unlucky, but I found it with every single game I had installed, but had not played 'online' for the first run since installation couldn't access the Steam 'key server'. The games were perfectly fine to play offline once they had connected to the key server, but not beforehand.

No, you are correct.

Crimson Rain said,

No, you are correct.

Yes that's correct - but not what i'm referring to. I'm referring to the requirement to "check-in" or "reactivate" which is not required on Steam.

And considering i've just been able to share/trade/resell something I purchased only today... Well yeah. I think that wraps it all up.

No it's not "those who want it back", it's those who already knew how beneficial it was. My gosh, lay off the uppercasing.

People who didn't knew properly about the news system complained. Biggest reason for them was not to be able to games. Well it was digital in the DRM plan AMD not digital anymore.

Clownsun said,
People Just Don't Know What They Want They Complain About DRM and now They Want It Back Jeez
I didn't know about PJDKWTWTCADTWIBJ, thanks for enlightening me.

Mr.XXIV said,
No it's not "those who want it back", it's those who already knew how beneficial it was. My gosh, lay off the uppercasing.

Can you explain to me what's so important about DRM? I thought it had to do with copyright material?

Well, it's not so much the DRM as it was the features they planned that required such a DRM. They would've allowed you to have your entire game library online, and play it on any Xbox One console, and you could share your entire library with 10 people you so choose. Things like that.

JaykeBird said,
Well, it's not so much the DRM as it was the features they planned that required such a DRM. They would've allowed you to have your entire game library online, and play it on any Xbox One console, and you could share your entire library with 10 people you so choose. Things like that.

Agreed, and they were nice features.

The problem is that they never properly explained it, didn't have answers for VERY basic questions, and inadvertently cut them off from large parts of the market...

In short, it wasn't fully thought through, it wasn't ready, and they had no idea.

I liked some of those features, but when you had a device that now could not be used my deployed military or college students on campus, two large markets for the first two XBoxes, they were now cutting loose their own customers. This would have significantly hurt the sales of the product, which would, in turn, hurt our chances of getting as many higher end games. So we would have felt it too... And that doesn't even address all the people that just didn't get it because Microsoft didn't explain it.

Clownsun said,
People Just Don't Know What They Want They Complain About DRM and now They Want It Back Jeez

People knew what they wanted. It was Microsoft's decision makers who were idiots. Why? Because, technically, Xbox One can support BOTH DRM methods:
a) Online activated content - sold on NON protected disks or downloaded. Game tries to activate online when launched.
b) Offline activated content - sold on protected disks. Game tries to check for genuine disk when launched.
...and make both sides happy. PC users use BOTH DRM methods for years. Microsoft, for some reason, decided that they will allow only one system on Xbox One and turned this DRM choice into war between consumers. Now we see two dumb kids fight each other, because parent gave only one candy to them while holding second one in his hand. Sometimes I think that "Dr. Evil" himself runs Microsoft : http://youtu.be/7edeOEuXdMU

Edited by EJocys, Jul 11 2013, 3:36pm :