Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,112
- Location
- one nation under sony
**XBOX ONE** Official Thread
- Thread starter valkia
- Start date
I know nothing about it but I would think dedicated hackers would be able to do it. Security is always broken, hence the need for improved security!
But if you were Mr Sony and EA and Activision said to you, "No DRM, no games" would you risk it? Sony are struggling atm, first profit in 5 years. Could you risk not having the two biggest publishers on your console? Even if you were 90% sure they were bluffing. That or Sony was offered a fat cheque for it.
Microsoft spent time and money developing DRM with nothing at all to gain from it. Why would they do that without some sort of coercion. Be it a threat or an offer.
At least Microsoft have been honest about it, Sony have been far, far too quiet. All we know is the console wont stop 2nd hand sales. Will publishers? Will the PSN have a system to help that? All they have said is wether to use it or not is up to the publishers, which is basically the same stance as MS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
I don't think it's just a question of DRM though. It's not just piracy that's hurting the publishers, it's that and used games. Every time someone buys a used game, that's a potential full-priced new game sale that the publisher and developer miss out on. Sometimes I'm sure it gets people interested in a series, but there are plenty of people out there who would buy the game at full price if the used game market didn't exist.
The publishers have immense power, effectively either console manufacturer would be crippled if they didn't have the major ones on board. If the publishers are losing money to the two above things (which they are) then there's every chance they've said to MS and Sony 'you've got to implement some things in the next gen to attempt to kill off piracy and the used game markets'.
The publishers have immense power, effectively either console manufacturer would be crippled if they didn't have the major ones on board. If the publishers are losing money to the two above things (which they are) then there's every chance they've said to MS and Sony 'you've got to implement some things in the next gen to attempt to kill off piracy and the used game markets'.
Taking this as an example
1) how many days is my xbox not connected to the net ?
Hardly ever. Its always connected, and when i do I usually play multiplayer games. This won't affect me at all unless maybe my exchange gets bombed or something and my internet goes down for days. But even then, I wouldn't really want to play single player games
2) How many people can play my games at the same time as me ?
Theres only two of us in my family that play the xbox, so the fact that the limit is one doesnt bother me
3) How many times can a game be given to somebody else ?
I've never given anybody my games. I might get bored of the odd few and sell them, which it looks we'll still be able to do at game (on the grounds they are the only highstreet games seller left)
They've also hinted that developers will have the option to turn off sharing and second hand sales, but I generally buy new, and play a single game for a long period of time. I don't tend to flip between games.
But on the other hand i can see how hugely oppressive this is and how it affects others, and how MS is trying to squeeze every last penny out of everybody, then passing it off as a good thing, while taking away features people had in their xbox360.
Problem is I like the xbox live party chat system, I like the MS exclusives and I like the MS pad. I'm also paid up on XBL until well into next year.
Do i abstain on moral grounds or buy a XB one because the changes don't really affect me ? decisions decisions .... I guess it really hinges on what sony do now.
Why do you guys think it works one way, its easy to use the same argument and just reverse it and ponder if Sony said 'Look guys were arent going to lock gamers into such a system as adopted by MS, sorry. If you dont like that well take your games elsewhere' are they really going to stop producing games for the PS4 considering theyll be fully aware of the numbers of consoles Sony have sold with previous generations and the market share they have enjoyed aswell as things like attachment rates and this is all in addition to what publishers will already know regards their own title sales on those platforms...
I just dont think its that cut and dry and the reasoning on the hypothesis that potentially publishers will get a denser return from titles using a DRM model is about as useful as the idea that piracy directly impacts revenues. Its a complex issue with no obvious conclusion, I just cant seeing publishers using such logic to make the decision to significantly reduce their market overnight.
Makes you wonder if they did such a thing would they consider to increase the cost of the end product due to the increased cost per unit caused by this drastic loss in potential customer base. Its not like next gen games arent going to cost more to make and conversely if customers end up being far more prudent how they spend their money then publishers will still need to recoup that investment somehow.
ps3ud0
Last edited:
Think some have escaped on to this forum
Pretty sure we dont know the full story on all the details MS has given us, some things seem to be very restictive, some open for abuse or just a bit strange. Shame that MS have cancelled their pre E3 round table and many Post E3 1-1s with sites that would prob ask them the more difficult questions, all down to scheduling conflicts apparantly
All we know is with Sony they have said many times that you will not require an internet connection to play PS4 games, and they will not block used games, publishers may though much like they could do with the PS3. Now with no required net connection how will publishers enforce their DRM? I did wonder if publishers would enforce a new type of online pass but for the single player game, but how would that work without an online check? Hoipefully we will find out the answers next week, but i got a feeling all wont be clear till nearer launch.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
I still think the console manufacturers have a lot more to lose than the publishers. Development costs of new console generations are huge. If they haven't got the publisher support, they're never going to recoup that money. I agree that the publishers would lose a lot of money themselves by not supporting a particular console, but they'd still make money from the other console(s). I guess it's all speculation at this point, we have to wait and see what Sony say at E3. All I'll say right now is that I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sony announce very similar restrictions. I hope not, but I can see it happening.
edit: great comment I found on Polygon - 'They (MS) can cater all they like to the publishers and the cable companies. They might be surprised, however, to find out that publishers and cable companies don’t buy a whole lot of consoles'.
It also makes me wonder what sort of returns policy stores will offer on the XB1. Presumably employees will be required to check that customers have a reliable broadband internet connection, otherwise they're going to get people returning the console when they find out they can't activate or play anything.
edit: great comment I found on Polygon - 'They (MS) can cater all they like to the publishers and the cable companies. They might be surprised, however, to find out that publishers and cable companies don’t buy a whole lot of consoles'.
It also makes me wonder what sort of returns policy stores will offer on the XB1. Presumably employees will be required to check that customers have a reliable broadband internet connection, otherwise they're going to get people returning the console when they find out they can't activate or play anything.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,896
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
As much as most of the restrictions don't apply to me, as I:
1 - normally buy new games when they have come down in price
2 - don't borrow or lent games much
3 - internet is never disconnected from the xbox
Yet I can't help but think it is all too 1984 and I don't really like it.
1 - normally buy new games when they have come down in price
2 - don't borrow or lent games much
3 - internet is never disconnected from the xbox
Yet I can't help but think it is all too 1984 and I don't really like it.
Actually to add to my previous post, I genuinely think the latest consoles were developed with DRM in mind from the get-go, just the shape and depth of it was there to be internally debated.
Having DRM is mutually beneficial to both the publishers and platform owners, it just makes their lives easier and cuts down from their POV the major blights of gaming (used games and piracy). I dont think either MS or Sony are fighting the gamers cause at all, (honestly I think the bane of the gamers existence will always be the stigma attached to gaming as a pastime and therefore the increased ambivalence by the general populace/casual gamer to whats happening within the medium) they are just seeing how far they can push such technologies without hitting a critical mass of lost customers. I do think they think we are idiots, and to be fair looking at what sells, its hard not to come to the same conclusion for the majority.
Am I surprised we are seeing all these new DRM patents rearing their heads? Not really. Are we surprised how sheepish both MS and Sony are regards to the extent of how these mechanisms work on their respective platform? Nope...
I do foresee that while gaming embraces mainstream that established gamers themselves will be continually alienated due to the fact of the ready acceptance of such measures by the masses, the ones that lap up endless sequels, poorly executed games or the casuual market. If thats the case, why expect developers/publishers/platforms to attempt anything different?
ps3ud0
Having DRM is mutually beneficial to both the publishers and platform owners, it just makes their lives easier and cuts down from their POV the major blights of gaming (used games and piracy). I dont think either MS or Sony are fighting the gamers cause at all, (honestly I think the bane of the gamers existence will always be the stigma attached to gaming as a pastime and therefore the increased ambivalence by the general populace/casual gamer to whats happening within the medium) they are just seeing how far they can push such technologies without hitting a critical mass of lost customers. I do think they think we are idiots, and to be fair looking at what sells, its hard not to come to the same conclusion for the majority.
Am I surprised we are seeing all these new DRM patents rearing their heads? Not really. Are we surprised how sheepish both MS and Sony are regards to the extent of how these mechanisms work on their respective platform? Nope...
I do foresee that while gaming embraces mainstream that established gamers themselves will be continually alienated due to the fact of the ready acceptance of such measures by the masses, the ones that lap up endless sequels, poorly executed games or the casuual market. If thats the case, why expect developers/publishers/platforms to attempt anything different?
ps3ud0
Why do you guys think it works one way, its easy to use the same argument and just reverse it and ponder if Sony said 'Look guys were arent going to lock gamers into such a system as adopted by MS, sorry. If you dont like that well take your games elsewhere' are they really going to stop producing games for the PS4 considering theyll be fully aware of the numbers of consoles Sony have sold with previous generations and the market share they have enjoyed aswell as things like attachment rates and this is all in addition to what publishers will already know regards their own title sales on those platforms...
I just dont think its that cut and dry and the reasoning on the hypothesis that potentially publishers will get a denser return from titles using a DRM model is about as useful as the idea that piracy directly impacts revenues. Its a complex issue with no obvious conclusion, I just cant seeing publishers using such logic to make the decision to significantly reduce their market overnight.
Makes you wonder if they did such a thing would they consider to increase the cost of the end product due to the increased cost per unit caused by this drastic loss in potential customer base. Its not like next gen games arent going to cost more to make and conversely if customers end up being far more prudent how they spend their money then publishers will still need to recoup that investment somehow.
ps3ud0
The console makers have a lot more to lose though. Especially Sony with its financial troubles. EA/Activision could afford to take an initial hit knowing full well Sony will either cave in or die out. How many PS4s would sell if it lost activision? 4 of the top 5 best selling games on the PS3 are CoD. Piracy will be the excuse, but publisher threats will be the real reason.
Think some have escaped on to this forum
Pretty sure we dont know the full story on all the details MS has given us, some things seem to be very restictive, some open for abuse or just a bit strange. Shame that MS have cancelled their pre E3 round table and many Post E3 1-1s with sites that would prob ask them the more difficult questions, all down to scheduling conflicts apparantly
All we know is with Sony they have said many times that you will not require an internet connection to play PS4 games, and they will not block used games, publishers may though much like they could do with the PS3. Now with no required net connection how will publishers enforce their DRM? I did wonder if publishers would enforce a new type of online pass but for the single player game, but how would that work without an online check? Hoipefully we will find out the answers next week, but i got a feeling all wont be clear till nearer launch.
That one is easy. "Internet connection required" on all the games.
I've seen this mentioned a few times and wonder what this means?
Are we talking about online codes etc that appeared last few years on PS3/360? I don't see that as blocking 2nd hand sales tbh, must making them less profitable/viable.
]
See this mentioned a lot as well. Surely most of the launch games are near completion very soon. Many man hours and many resources have already been put into the games. Publishers/Devs can't afford to lose that Revenue at the last minute by saying they won't support a platform can they?
Personally, I think Sony and MS have probably given their plans to Devs well before they even started committing resources/money to making launch games. Sony's plan is already set in stone, we just haven't heard it yet. And as a few others have said, I can't see devs giving too different an approach to the 2 main consoles. more than anything it will be EVEN MORE confusing to consumers than the XboxOne stuff announced today!
rp2000
Last edited:
Some of the Capcom DD games had online only DRM, when PSN went down you could not play the games. Pretty sure after a while they patched it out so you could play without it connected.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,896
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Actually I don't mind the always on connection part, but the inability to freely buy and sell second hand games (more than once), that doesn't sit well with me.
Tbh, the restrictive nature of the XBOX ONE wouldn't really hinder me in any way but why buy into it? What further restrictions will they place on the next console after XBOX ONE? Why should I face restrictions on the use of my games that I've paid for?
The whole thing reeks of pure greed... Of course, everyone will still buy it although they complained, kinda like with COD every year.
I'm starting to think the future of consoles are open source Android based systems. We just need the big devs to get behind them.
The whole thing reeks of pure greed... Of course, everyone will still buy it although they complained, kinda like with COD every year.
I'm starting to think the future of consoles are open source Android based systems. We just need the big devs to get behind them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
What happens to the games that have already been transferred once if you decide to sell your console? For example get 3 games off a mate, now these are permanently tied to my account (as you can only transfer once) I'm now fed up with console and decide to sell, am I going to be stuck with these games?
My guess if they will still work with the console they are tied to, even without your account but if you sold the games to somebody else they would have to pay an activation fee.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
There not tied to the console but the live account, from my understanding. Hence you can log in on other consoles and play you games.
Perhaps I havent made my point that clear, I accept that the console makers have more to lose, but that doesnt mean publishers dont have either.
Lets take the absurd example that Sony do go through with DRM-less games and EA et al boycott the platform and so Sony and PS4 goes down in flames. Do we really think that the investments these publishers have put in (no doubt you are talking a few years of development for most games) would allow themselves to absorb such a loss of potential revenue? I cant see their investors being particularly pleased about such actions especially considering the knock on effect it would have for many years to come.
All Im saying is those ultimatums youve mentioned just appear to be pretty simplistic considering whats at stake. The relationship between platform owner and publisher seems far more mutualistic rather than parasitic in nature. No doubt my argument is overly simplistic itself and I concede reductio ad absurdum.
ps3ud0
But aren't they also tied to the console? Can't up to 10 people play the same game on the same console or something along those lines.