That's not really accurate at all. Sony's Third Party policies regarding DRM have essentially not changed at all from the PS3. They are leaving that decision in the hands of the Publishers themselves. Really, That's no different that is has ever been regarding DRM and gaming. Unless the third party company wants to go really draconian with their software, which will cost them sales, The consumers experience with used games is not really going to change. There is no infrastructure in place to enforce DRM...so really...what it's going to come down to for the most part is "online passes"....which suck...but are better than the alternative Microsoft is forcing upon you
On the other end of the scale what Microsoft is doing is telling consumers that, regardless of who published the game, that you do not own it. All you own is a license to play that game and how you get to use that license is up to Microsoft and, to a limited extent, the Publisher. Microsoft themselves has provided that infrastructure. That's what enforces the "No Used Games" policy. That's what enforces the constant internet connectivity. Maybe that doesn't effect you personally right now. You've got a stable internet connection. You aren't interested in buying used games. You don't care that Microsoft is always able to watch what you are doing in your living room...even when you aren't using their system. But, for a lot of people, those things are real concerns.
TL; DR: There's a huge difference between Sony allowing third party developers to make their own decisions regarding DRM...and Microsoft building a DRM infrastructure directly into their console.
Yes I know, hence why I stated nearly identical in terms of allowing publishers to complete make the decision of whether or not they utilize DRM or not. Obviously, Microsoft's current policies keep it more restricted but there's not big of a difference in terms of DRM, especially when regarding those publishers who care about saving money, hence the previous use of online passes in the past i.e Ubisoft, EA.
Microsoft's policies come most into play with the first party rather than the third as it's their where the restrictions are the most visible. More strict on terms with used games, DRM constantly utilized to my knowledge. That's the clear differentiator between Sony and Microsoft at the time being but as I stated earlier, anything could change a few years from now as Phil Spencer confirmed in an interview yesterday.
Luckily, Microsoft has been a little more lenient in terms of digital games, which is where they seem to be entirely focused for this next-gen. They allow a "family sharing" sort of deal where you can add ten members to a list that will allow them to play your entire library of games on any console with no fee required whatsoever. Phil Spencer believes that two people can play any one game concurrently (the owner of the library and one additional person), but he's isn't one hundred sure regarding that fact. Nonetheless, it's no different as to how physical lending would be so it's still a massive positive and something that has been largely under-looked in regards to the Xbox One thus far.
That's still not "nearly identical". PS4 has no DRM infrastructure...that severely changes the equation when it comes to third party DRM. 3rd party publishers will all have to craft their own DRM into their games. Sony is 100% not involved in any DRM decisions made for any PS4 software. Microsoft Is 100% involved in DRM on every single game that hits the console. Their policies are completely different.
Online Passes control how people who have purchased used games access online functions of those games. It allows for the publisher to get a little bit of money from those used copies that people use to connect to the multiplayer infrastructure that they provide. It's not a perfect system but I don't believe its totally unfair. The Publishers provide those online functions at their own expense to the people that bought the game new. I don't think its too much to ask that the people who buy used copies should have to kick in a little to access those same features. However, if you don't inted to use the online functions on those games...you don't have to purchase that online pass AFAIK (I don't buy a lot of used games and I don't do a whole lot of online multiplayer).
The Family Sharing deal is pretty cool though...that I will give the Xbox One as a positive. It's been under looked though because of the other, more controversial "features" of the X-Box One. The 24 hour online check in. The Built in DRM system. No used games. The "always on" camera that can watch you in your living room when you aren't even using the xbox (This has been blown a little out of proportion by conspiracy theorists who assume that the NSA will be watching in on everything you do...but still...its a little creepy to have a camera watching you all the time).
@deranged_midget: I'm not really sure I understand. I'm always a fan of people telling things right the first time. It's always easy to go "What we actually mean is..."
I've read the whole wall of text of the "Microsoft Engineer" that was put on pastebin from text that was taken out of 4chan, to which I don't understand why simply a high ranking official didn't make an announcement like this in a more official capacity. I have some gripes with some of it, since there seems to be a lot of fallacies concerning the text. I would list them outright right now, but I have little energy left, I recently got out of a 5 hour test.
Though I have to mention that line 47 made me facepalm. I personally believe a gaming console should only be judged on it's gaming accessibility and gaming experience. I have multiple monitors and accessories that allow me to not have to centralize it all, which would make it all more tedious in all due honesty. Asides from the sporadic use of Netflix on my 360, I only played games, because that's all I turned the console on for.
I personally won't put much weight into the words of an anonymous person on the internet... on 4chan. It is however senseless that Microsoft hasn't made any form of official statement on the matter. I also wish to ask, was the whole family sharing scenario list you posted released or confirmed by Microsoft?
@partialsanity: As to why a high ranking official hasn't come forward and released this information? Could be a few different reasons. Perhaps it's part of their PR plan for the next couple of months? Perhaps it's because they have discussed this earlier with with their licensing terms but people have been blind with anger to bother reading them. I myself believe that Microsoft has made a mistake by not clearing the air and simply confirming this straight up but we have the upcoming months to see how they handle it.
All of the comments that the employee has made aren't false and does coincide with what has been stated before. It's just a matter of how a consumer or the community at large wants to look at what Microsoft is attempting to do. Let's be honest, almost everyone despises change as it's something they don't fully understand right away. The same is being done with what Microsoft is attempting with the Xbox One. It's hard to diget and no one wants to accept what the potential future may look like.
In regards to the other additional features that the Xbox One has, I don't really care about any save for Twitch and Netflix at the moment. That comment as you stated, doesn't mean much at all but I guess in the long run, it does cover all and any other bases that may eventually be required.
Yes, the family sharing feature has been confirmed by Microsoft through Phil Spencer himself and some of the Marketing officers. The only issue people seem to be mixed up on is regarding how many people can utilize that shared library at once. The focus on which the picture I posted stems from the italic point in the quote below straight from their licensing policies:
Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.
As of right now, the biggest concern does stem towards to "can two people truly play concurrently". Phil Spencer believes so.
@deranged_midget: Then that "family" sharing thing is rather cool, and is a definite upside for consumers. Though, from a seller's perspective it might be a little bonkers. Assuming 10 friends and 10 single-player games, that's a potential ~$5,400 loss with just a little coordination for any place selling games at $60.
The fallacious statements I was talking about were the actual prices of Steam games, and that GameStop is not really screwing over the consumers, at least not as much as people make them out to be, if you're quick with your games and your trade-ins, you could essentially keep buying new games for $30. They're really just screwing the developers, which is still pretty bad anyway. Anyway, it just seemed like askew statements forged to convince people that what they're proposing is superior.
The other thing is the whole cloud computing thing, which is not really a fallacy as much as it is... bold I suppose, I'm just worried about latency issues there. I'll probably buy both consoles anyway, I usually end up getting all of 'em. Wii U seems to be the only console I haven't been interested in within the past 15 years. Oh, and sadly, I missed the whole Dreamcast phase. I don't know why or how.
Another concern about cloud computing is that, since some games would only function with it, developers could opt to not renew licenses to force people to buy sequels. A friend told me this, and while I disregarded the notion at first thinking "They wouldn't do that.", it didn't occur to me until later that "...but it doesn't mean they can't." But again, that just seems like a paranoid notion.
To me right now, I hardly care about either console, at least not as much as the whole PR nightmare. I'm more interested in what Microsoft and Sony will say in the following months, the former digging themselves out of PR limbo and the latter being as opportunistic as possible. In its own way, I find it all amusing.
@deranged_midget: Then that "family" sharing thing is rather cool, and is a definite upside for consumers. Though, from a seller's perspective it might be a little bonkers. Assuming 10 friends and 10 single-player games, that's a potential ~$5,400 loss with just a little coordination for any place selling games at $60.
The fallacious statements I was talking about were the actual prices of Steam games, and that GameStop is not really screwing over the consumers, at least not as much as people make them out to be, if you're quick with your games and your trade-ins, you could essentially keep buying new games for $30. They're really just screwing the developers, which is still pretty bad anyway. Anyway, it just seemed like askew statements forged to convince people that what they're proposing is superior.
The other thing is the whole cloud computing thing, which is not really a fallacy as much as it is... bold I suppose, I'm just worried about latency issues there. I'll probably buy both consoles anyway, I usually end up getting all of 'em. Wii U seems to be the only console I haven't been interested in within the past 15 years. Oh, and sadly, I missed the whole Dreamcast phase. I don't know why or how.
Another concern about cloud computing is that, since some games would only function with it, developers could opt to not renew licenses to force people to buy sequels. A friend told me this, and while I disregarded the notion at first thinking "They wouldn't do that.", it didn't occur to me until later that "...but it doesn't mean they can't." But again, that just seems like a paranoid notion.
To me right now, I hardly care about either console, at least not as much as the whole PR nightmare. I'm more interested in what Microsoft and Sony will say in the following months, the former digging themselves out of PR limbo and the latter being as opportunistic as possible. In its own way, I find it all amusing.
The family sharing is cool indeed and from a worst case scenario, I could see your assumption being true, but I don't think most gamers would want exactly ten people in that family list. I personally, would stick with maybe two or three and it allows for two people to play concurrently at a time, not all ten. Regardless, I don't see this getting in the way of more popular or AAA- titles as everyone would want to play at the same time. I see this directed more towards games that people are on the fence about purchasing and hence, digital sharing.
In a sense, GameStop doesn't REALLY screw over gamers but they are still ridiculous with how they handle trade-ins and re-selling. You purchase a game brand new for $60, get bored of it in a couple days and since it's been used, the most you get back is roughly $35. A few days later, they clean it up and re-sell for $5 cheaper. That's kind of rip-off.
But yes, I believe this is all directed towards the developers themselves and has been mentioned plenty of times. I believe that is why both EA and Ubisoft are so strongly supporting DRM at the moment and most likely why they eliminated Online passes in their entirety.
Yeah, I mean you can look at anything from a worst case scenario. But on the other hand, I find it a little unlikely for them to do that as some people are completionists, collector, etc and it wouldn't really affect them as if someone enjoyed a sequel and the game stemmed into a franchise, a consumer may want to go back and play from the beginning.
I cannot agree more though, Microsoft has some air to clear and their marketing has been disastrous thus far. Whatever this may be, some PR plan to slowly unfold over the coming months or just really bad marketing in general, it'll be interesting to see what happens as the launch date closes in.
That's still not "nearly identical". PS4 has no DRM infrastructure...that severely changes the equation when it comes to third party DRM. 3rd party publishers will all have to craft their own DRM into their games. Sony is 100% not involved in any DRM decisions made for any PS4 software. Microsoft Is 100% involved in DRM on every single game that hits the console. Their policies are completely different.
Online Passes control how people who have purchased used games access online functions of those games. It allows for the publisher to get a little bit of money from those used copies that people use to connect to the multiplayer infrastructure that they provide. It's not a perfect system but I don't believe its totally unfair. The Publishers provide those online functions at their own expense to the people that bought the game new. I don't think its too much to ask that the people who buy used copies should have to kick in a little to access those same features. However, if you don't inted to use the online functions on those games...you don't have to purchase that online pass AFAIK (I don't buy a lot of used games and I don't do a whole lot of online multiplayer).
The Family Sharing deal is pretty cool though...that I will give the Xbox One as a positive. It's been under looked though because of the other, more controversial "features" of the X-Box One. The 24 hour online check in. The Built in DRM system. No used games. The "always on" camera that can watch you in your living room when you aren't even using the xbox (This has been blown a little out of proportion by conspiracy theorists who assume that the NSA will be watching in on everything you do...but still...its a little creepy to have a camera watching you all the time).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but DRM is only initialized strictly within Microsoft's first party games with the fact they won't allow you trade in games or play used games. It is DRM and you can only lend the game once to a friend. Third-party, they have been a little more lenient and given entire control to third-party. If I'm missing something, please correct me!
To my knowledge, I remember Online passes being discontinued as a whole and the only publishers that really ever utilized them were EA and Ubisoft, who now strongly support DRM. Regardless, I thought that Sony confirmed Online passes will not be used and third-party would choose DRM instead. Online passes are different as you stated, they are only really necessary if someone is interested in playing any form of multiplayer content (co-op, competitive multiplayer). This was no different to how it was in this current gen on either console but as I said earlier, they have been discontinued completely.
I understand that completely but I feel that family sharing completely negates the concerns of used games as it's essentially digital sharing. My problem with Kinect 2.0 is that there hasn't been enough information detailing how you can handle the Kinect. According to Microsoft and the engineer from the link I posted, you can control how Kinect operates through settings. Basically turning it off almost completely, similar to how Airplane mode works on mobile devices.
Which leaves the 24 hour check in. I completely understand how that may affect those with unsuitable internet, barely being able to access any form or DSL or Broadband for that matter, or especially armed forces. The other end of the spectrum? Not so much. There are definitely the worst case scenario's going around, talking about the internet going down and what-not and that's incredibly unfortunate. Hopefully, Microsoft can go into further detail if that may be worked around later on or closer to launch. Although, interestingly enough, you can connect your Xbox One to your phone via tethering. It takes something like, 1.5 mb to do so?
@deranged_midget: You're not completely wrong. To my understanding though, Third Party Titles on the Xbone will have DRM enabled by default. If the Publisher so chooses they can decide which features, if any, they want to use. This includes the "Family Sharing". In contrast Sony is saying "If Third-Party Publishers want DRM on their games...they need to do that themselves". Now, If the publisher for either system decides NOT to use any DRM at all...then, yes...both Sony and Microsoft are operating on the same level. However, If the publisher for an X-Bone game chooses to use DRM...they don't have to do anything at all...On the PS4 however....they have to develop their own DRM. Sony will not be involved in that decision.
The 24 hour Check in probably isn't a problem for most people in terms of their internet connection....there are of course the cases you mention about armed forces and what not. There's an article about that here. And the possibility of your internet going down for a couple of days...effectively locking you out of your own system. Then there's if you are accessing your account on another system...that requires hourly check ins. That's more annoying if you just wanna hang out and play games with your buddies....but I wouldn't see it as necessarily a deal breaker as long as there was a constant connection where you are. There's also the rare cases where you hook up your system into your car or boat...but maybe you can use your phone like you say and tether it...if your phone can do such a thing and your cell provider allows for you to do so...and you are in a place with cell coverage....but again...this is a small percentage of people. I think what bothers a lot of people though is just that Microsoft feels they have the right to enforce such a policy on you and what kind of information they gather when you connect and what they do with it.
Another thing that concerns me is what happens at the end of this gaming cycle. Will there still be something on the other side of the internet to connect to every day and say "You are authorized to play your own games?". How will you be able to get games for your system at all when retailers are no longer selling them. The X-Bone doesn't allow used games...so how are you going to continue to build your library after Microsoft has moved on to their next system...when the only avenue available is to buy used games.
Will there still be something on the other side of the internet to connect to every day and say "You are authorized to play your own games?".
That, in all due honesty, is something that has been irking me since they announced that. I dislike the fact that I would need permission to play my games on my console. The Xbox One comes with a parole officer that if missing for 24 hours will put you under lockdown. The check-in troubles me in the overall tone of that excerpt - I can right now go into my closet, dust off my Nintendo hook it up to a TV and play some Nintendo games, despite the fact that the console is 28 years old. When buying an Xbox One, is there something that guarantees me that if I handle it with proper care I will be able to play it in 28 years?
The family sharing is cool indeed and from a worst case scenario, I could see your assumption being true, but I don't think most gamers would want exactly ten people in that family list. I personally, would stick with maybe two or three and it allows for two people to play concurrently at a time, not all ten. Regardless, I don't see this getting in the way of more popular or AAA- titles as everyone would want to play at the same time. I see this directed more towards games that people are on the fence about purchasing and hence, digital sharing.
Oh, for sure. That's why I put in that specific scenario with 10 separate single-player titles. I'm not suggesting it would happen, given that people hardly ever have that sort of coordination and patience to pull it off. I was simply trying to make a point that it could make sellers a bit nervous, since they're most likely aware that the possibility exists and given the current state of affairs, people are more than likely to devise plans to screw over Microsoft.
You're not completely wrong. To my understanding though, Third Party Titles on the Xbone will have DRM enabled by default. If the Publisher so chooses they can decide which features, if any, they want to use. This includes the "Family Sharing". In contrast Sony is saying "If Third-Party Publishers want DRM on their games...they need to do that themselves". Now, If the publisher for either system decides NOT to use any DRM at all...then, yes...both Sony and Microsoft are operating on the same level. However, If the publisher for an X-Bone game chooses to use DRM...they don't have to do anything at all...On the PS4 however....they have to develop their own DRM. Sony will not be involved in that decision.
Family sharing as you know is strictly digital. It's limited to having ten friends whom you can share your digital library with at any time, on any console. Only limitation is that only two people can access the same library at any given time. So, DRM is a little less present in that regard. Good point though, DRM is integrated in Xbox One right off the bat, so it is up to the third party publisher/developer if they so wish to utilize it or not. As you said, if a developer wants to utilize it, then it's all on them for the Sony front. I can't see THAT many developers utilizing it right off the bat, but you can almost instantly place your bets on EA and Ubisoft utilizing it as they're all for DRM/ Online passes(thing of the past though).
The 24 hour Check in probably isn't a problem for most people in terms of their internet connection....there are of course the cases you mention about armed forces and what not. There's an article about that here. And the possibility of your internet going down for a couple of days...effectively locking you out of your own system. Then there's if you are accessing your account on another system...that requires hourly check ins. That's more annoying if you just wanna hang out and play games with your buddies....but I wouldn't see it as necessarily a deal breaker as long as there was a constant connection where you are. There's also the rare cases where you hook up your system into your car or boat...but maybe you can use your phone like you say and tether it...if your phone can do such a thing and your cell provider allows for you to do so...and you are in a place with cell coverage....but again...this is a small percentage of people. I think what bothers a lot of people though is just that Microsoft feels they have the right to enforce such a policy on you and what kind of information they gather when you connect and what they do with it.
Yes thanks for the article and I acknowledge that the biggest problem regarding the 24 hour check in is directed mainly at armed services who have very limited internet access to none at most times of their tour of duty. I think the family sharing tends to negate the accessing of your account on another system, especially since the majority of people only ever game with their closest of friends, whom of which will most likely be part of their "family list". Otherwise yes, it would be a minor nuisance.
As for the tethering of your phone, I think that's the easiest solution as most people who will own a gaming system or any other piece of technology or even just in general, will most likely have a cell phone/smart phone. I'm pretty sure all modern smart phones have the ability to tether your phone and if you're in an area with cell reception, it only takes a few minutes at best and you're good to go.
Another thing that concerns me is what happens at the end of this gaming cycle. Will there still be something on the other side of the internet to connect to every day and say "You are authorized to play your own games?". How will you be able to get games for your system at all when retailers are no longer selling them. The X-Bone doesn't allow used games...so how are you going to continue to build your library after Microsoft has moved on to their next system...when the only avenue available is to buy used games.
Now here is where I'm not sure how to exactly view this situation. First off, we're still roughly five months away from launch and while Microsoft have stated that they expect to be rather concrete about their policies, there is almost a definite confirmation that in the long run, the console will evolve and if needed, policies will change. It's far too early to look that far ahead, especially considering we don't know how long this next-gen will last, what may change, and how things will progress. Anything can happen in the upcoming months.
It's my belief that the true competition isn't at launch, but from a few years from now as both consoles evaluate the situation of the market and who knows what the mindset of consumers will be like in a few years from now. Games might completely become digital, developers may favour DRM as it saves them a lot of money, etc.
Oh, for sure. That's why I put in that specific scenario with 10 separate single-player titles. I'm not suggesting it would happen, given that people hardly ever have that sort of coordination and patience to pull it off. I was simply trying to make a point that it could make sellers a bit nervous, since they're most likely aware that the possibility exists and given the current state of affairs, people are more than likely to devise plans to screw over Microsoft.
You mean sellers in terms of Wal-Mart, GameStop, Best Buy, etc? I think that's what Microsoft is aiming at, the complete elimination of physical copies and the transfer over to digital. Essentially, it would save the gaming market a lot of money as nearly half the price of a full priced game comes from the manufacturing of the discs themselves. Hence why Steam has probably grown so lenient and accustomed to their fantastic sales and general cheaper prices for titles. It benefits both the consumer and the developer.
@deranged_midget: Well, it doesn't exactly matter who would sell it and for what price. 10 friends can coordinate to buy games that would result in losses at a rate of ($x)(90), x being an adjustable variable depending on the price of games. The example I gave was using the prices they use at most places for new games which is $60. As was said, this is something that would require coordination and patience in part of players, and is unlikely to happen.
@deranged_midget: Well, it doesn't exactly matter who would sell it and for what price. 10 friends can coordinate to buy games that would result in losses at a rate of ($x)(90), x being an adjustable variable depending on the price of games. The example I gave was using the prices they use at most places for new games which is $60. As was said, this is something that would require coordination and patience in part of players, and is unlikely to happen.
Perhaps that's what Microsoft expects? I mean, I don't really see most gamers being patient enough as you stated to take turns sharing a game that they could theoretically access at the same time. And if the game was popular enough or a big multiplayer shooter - i.e Titanfall, Call of Duty, Battlefield -, most gamers are going to be purchasing separate copies to game with each other.
Log in to comment