Microsoft Is Removing Xbox One DRM

ekuest said:
there is no reason anything they claim the need for invasive DRM cant be done without it. if they want to make a game with some gigantic world that wont fit on a game disc, then print "REQUIRES INTERNET CONNECTION" on the box and be done with it. then if it's a small single player game they can play it off the disc, and if it requires internet then it requires internet. MS isnt fooling anyone with their machinations to destroy the used games market.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Personally, I see Microsoft making a transition to the model they were suggestion. Slowly, and not just BAM! Move things into the online only stuff. They just need to prime the market. Internet required on a game? Sure, if it's a good game, I don't mind at all. Multiplayer games require an internet connection and Xbox Live account, and are very successful.

Having all games and the console itself require internet? No thanks. If I lose internet on the 360, I still have a lot of things I can do. Single player, split screen, etc.. If I lost internet on the One using the old model, I'd have nothing I could do. The thing would be a brick. That was my biggest concern.

Used games... I love them. They aren't losing new sales, as 80% of them I would never have bought new. I've found some great franchises that I got interested in and bought the others new, though.
 
ITT people that do not under stand why games go on sale on Steam and why PC games cost less


HINT: BECAUSE THERE ARE NO USED PC GAME SALES TO COMPETE WITH
 
TheToE! said:
This is consoles were talking about here. From the same motherfuckers that want to charge $60.00 a year just to be able to play multiplayer. You are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Because multiplayer doesn't require server infrastructure or incure any costs beyond single player games ... oh wait, it does ;)
 
Elios said:
ITT people that do not under stand why games go on sale on Steam and why PC games cost less


HINT: BECAUSE THERE ARE NO USED PC GAME SALES TO COMPETE WITH
Click to expand...

There are a lot of factors. Most of it is due to competition and the fact that devs and publishers don't have to pay a $10 fee per game sold on a closed platform. It also has to do with the fact that they actually make more money when they sell games for less.

The used game market for PC games was always very small and had little impact on new game sales.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Aren't most of those games peer to peer?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the game ... and isn't the peer to peer connection still coordinated through the MS and Sony networks that the consoles are connected to ... but I am not an expert on this as I am exclusively a PC gamer ;) ... pretty sure that games like Battlefield and COD are not P2P though
 
CoD is sometimes. Anyway, do CoD server operators get part of the xbox live money? Is Microsoft running game servers for them?
 
Elios said:
ITT people that do not under stand why games go on sale on Steam and why PC games cost less


HINT: BECAUSE THERE ARE NO USED PC GAME SALES TO COMPETE WITH
Click to expand...

Not true one bit. I saw how expensive gtaiv was on steam so i bought a used copy off ebay for way less. So the two DO compete. BOOM SHACKA LACKA! Pwned!
 
Elios said:
ITT people that do not under stand why games go on sale on Steam and why PC games cost less

HINT: BECAUSE THERE ARE NO USED PC GAME SALES TO COMPETE WITH
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. As we all know, competition means higher prices for everyone.

You certainly don't have to be under a stand to understand that!
 
LeninGHOLA said:
CoD is sometimes. Anyway, do CoD server operators get part of the xbox live money? Is Microsoft running game servers for them?
Click to expand...

Way beyond my knowledge level ... I do not engage in MP gaming but I don't see why there shouldn't be additional fees (it is an extra feature) ... everybody always wants everything for free ... Sony has been losing money on gaming for years ... if people want them to stay in the gaming market they need to allow them to make a profit at it ... if an MP gaming fee helps them do that then so be it ... at least they do not charge for Netflix access through their network like MS does ;)
 
dr.stevil said:
You mean where games still launch at $60? ;)

The reason for cheap PC game prices is competition, not DRM. The current Xbox has DRM on digital games (it's tied to your account)... and I don't see the prices falling across Live.

MS (and Sony) control their stores and set prices accordingly. You don't have the option to download from 100 other sources.
Click to expand...

Who does steam compete with for HL2, CS, Portal?
 
Elios said:
ITT people that do not under stand why games go on sale on Steam and why PC games cost less


HINT: BECAUSE THERE ARE NO USED PC GAME SALES TO COMPETE WITH
Click to expand...

If I could buy a new game, even a download, for as much as a used game - I go new.

Put the games on sale to beat the used market, and people will buy new, even if it's digital only. Don't shut out the used game market by using DRM. Beat them on cost. Put them out of business that way. The consumer wins on price, the publishers win by getting a profit of of a cheap game instead of the used game and the used game market will eventually go down quite a bit.

Used games and Steam sales are similar. I've bought a lot of games I wouldn't have normally bought - because they were cheap. If Microsoft/Sony put a 75% off sticker on a game, and I'm paying $5 for a normally $20 game, and if it was a decent game even in a genre I normally don't care much for, I'll buy it to try it out. The worse thing is paying $40-60 on a game that ends up like Duke Nukem Forever. Buyers regret. But, on sale? Buyers regret is much less of a problem.

It'd be a good strategy to start. Microsoft would move towards their goal, publishers would embrace it, gamers would be fine (most of them), but used game stores would be against it.

Gamers like bargains. Be it used or on a good sale. Most gamers would buy new if the price was at or below the used price (or very close to). Offer digital download at $10 less than physical, and you could win over a lot. Gamestop charges $5 less for a used copy of newer games.

If the consoles had sales similar to Steam sales, I'd have a huge (more huger) library of digital games, even if I didn't play them that often. Used games? What used games?!
 
rudy said:
Who does steam compete with for HL2, CS, Portal?
Click to expand...

Gamestop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Amazon, Newegg, Onlinekeystore, etc...

There are tons of places to get those games besides directly from Valve.
 
XamediX said:
You obviously need to do more reading. Start here and thank me later, or don't:
http://www.neowin.net/news/anonymous-xbox-engineer-explains-drm-and-microsofts-xbox-one-intentions
Click to expand...

A "suppossed" Xbox180 engineer did that article. And again, the only difference between the two consoles is in reality the 24h check in and the actual lower horsepower of the 180, so yeah i will keep calling bullshit on that, because again if any game is online only, then you would really need to believe that the 180 is full of magic dust to pull tricks that the PS4 wouldn't be able to.

So, no need to thank for baseless assumptions, at all.

Also think about this, if the MS team was using such an advanced technology, why weren't they able to offer the same streaming backwards compatibility support and actually said on record that it was impossible?, doesn't that ring a bell on the bull-shit-meter that any non fanboy should have by now?
 
rudy said:
Who does steam compete with for HL2, CS, Portal?
Click to expand...

Isn't HL2 about 10 years old now ... PC games always depreciated fairly quickly, even in the physical media days ... if you could wait a month sales were going in the 20-30% range ... if you could wait a year the prices dropped to the 50% or lower range ... usually within 3-4 years the physical media was down in the 60-75% range (except for the rare Blizzard title or something that actually held its value longer)

Steam sales are less about competition in my opinion and more about digital distribution reducing costs ... the sales are still driven by the publishers or developers and not Valve though ... the App store models on Android and iOS have really institutionalized the digital model ... companies are more used to running periodic sales to spark interest in older titles or keep newer titles at the top of the sales charts ... since most big releases will make their money back in the first couple of weeks (just like a big budget movie release), anything after that is pure profit for them (which gives them more flexibility on sales)

Consoles can't be cheaper and shouldn't be ... they have physical media (which incurs costs) and they have to pay the licensing fee to the console manufacturer (which is likely to be a fixed amount and not a percentage like the digital transaction fees) ... I would prefer that digital distribution stay on the PC as long as possible as that is an advantage for the PC gamer ... I do not want the consoles to go digital too soon since that would marginalize PC gaming ;)
 
kbrickley said:
Isn't HL2 about 10 years old now ... PC games always depreciated fairly quickly, even in the physical media days ... if you could wait a month sales were going in the 20-30% range ... if you could wait a year the prices dropped to the 50% or lower range ... usually within 3-4 years the physical media was down in the 60-75% range (except for the rare Blizzard title or something that actually held its value longer)

Steam sales are less about competition in my opinion and more about digital distribution reducing costs ... the sales are still driven by the publishers or developers and not Valve though ... the App store models on Android and iOS have really institutionalized the digital model ... companies are more used to running periodic sales to spark interest in older titles or keep newer titles at the top of the sales charts ... since most big releases will make their money back in the first couple of weeks (just like a big budget movie release), anything after that is pure profit for them (which gives them more flexibility on sales)

Consoles can't be cheaper and shouldn't be ... they have physical media (which incurs costs) and they have to pay the licensing fee to the console manufacturer (which is likely to be a fixed amount and not a percentage like the digital transaction fees) ... I would prefer that digital distribution stay on the PC as long as possible as that is an advantage for the PC gamer ... I do not want the consoles to go digital too soon since that would marginalize PC gaming ;)
Click to expand...


I have bad news for you. Digital distribution, on the console, has been around for quite some time already. I own MANY games on both my 360 and PS3, that I purchased via Live and PSN.
 
kbrickley said:
Way beyond my knowledge level ... I do not engage in MP gaming but I don't see why there shouldn't be additional fees (it is an extra feature) ... everybody always wants everything for free ... Sony has been losing money on gaming for years ... if people want them to stay in the gaming market they need to allow them to make a profit at it ... if an MP gaming fee helps them do that then so be it ... at least they do not charge for Netflix access through their network like MS does ;)
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, this just points out the flaws in the console business model.
 
dr.stevil said:
I have bad news for you. Digital distribution, on the console, has been around for quite some time already. I own MANY games on both my 360 and PS3, that I purchased via Live and PSN.
Click to expand...

But it isn't at the same level as the PC ... there are no exclusively physical PC titles that I am aware of ... is every console title availabe as both a digital AND physical purchase ... personally I would like to see physical media on the PC eliminated completely so they go 100% digital distribution ... consoles cannot match that model because of the DRM and used market requirements that users impose
 
kbrickley said:
But it isn't at the same level as the PC ... there are no exclusively physical PC titles that I am aware of ... is every console title availabe as both a digital AND physical purchase ... personally I would like to see physical media on the PC eliminated completely so they go 100% digital distribution ... consoles cannot match that model because of the DRM and used market requirements that users impose
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that part. I know that I couldn't get BO2 on xbox at release (but wanted to) via Live... so I assume that most publishers have some sort of deal with stores like gamestop/walmart to give physical media a few weeks lead time before releasing it via DD.

It's sort of dumb though, IMO, since the vast majority of console gamers would want a physical disc over a downloaded game. You can't resell something you download... and with consoles rarely being backwards compatible (unlike the PC), what good is your DD after said console is 'over the hill'
 
dr.stevil said:
nd with consoles rarely being backwards compatible (unlike the PC), what good is your DD after said console is 'over the hill'
Click to expand...

That's what got me. I can still play my Atari VCS games right now by plugging them in and playing. With digital downloads, in 20 years will those games still be playable (assuming the hardware still works)? I don't expect multiplayer to work, of course. But, with DRM that requires a server to start even a single player game - there needs to be a time period that they just open it up and offer a patch or whatever to not require the activation. That's a rare case, obviously. But, it is a concern of mine.
 
What's with all the stupid news sites saying they're removing the DRM?

They are removing SOME of the DRM. Major difference.
 
dandragonrage said:
What's with all the stupid news sites saying they're removing the DRM?

They are removing SOME of the DRM. Major difference.
Click to expand...

Because now days DRM is a buzz word and it only means restrictions that are different then you are already used to on that platform. Consoles themselves are a whole freaking box of hardware that is all DRM and always has been.
 
rudy said:
Because now days DRM is a buzz word and it only means restrictions that are different then you are already used to on that platform.
Click to expand...
What it actually refers to is any kind of active system of allowing or disallowing the ability for a user to use a piece of software based on a set of or sets of conditions.

SecuROM disc copy protection isn't DRM, for example, but the software component of SecuROM that addresses install limits is. The former doesn't 'manage' anything. Most consoles don't have any kind of DRM system.
 
The way to do it is slowly. Use the Xbone as a transition. Make the digital distribution and sharing method appealing and convenient enough that people WANT to do it, but still have the option of the old fashioned way as well.

Absolutely ZERO reason to completely remove the interesting features like they cannot coexist with the old format.
 
rudy said:
Who does steam compete with for HL2, CS, Portal?
Click to expand...

Likewise for EA with Origin, and Dragon Age 2, Battlefield 3, Sim City, Mass Effect 3, yeah you can buy the games from other places, but they have to go through Origin, although STEAM does the same thing, but provide DRM for a few publishers/developers, like FEAR 2 by Sierra/WB, that had to verify through STEAM.
 
SilverSliver said:
The way to do it is slowly. Use the Xbone as a transition. Make the digital distribution and sharing method appealing and convenient enough that people WANT to do it, but still have the option of the old fashioned way as well.
Click to expand...

:D Yes! If Microsoft can show all the benefits of the digital distribution, gamers will flock to it if it is as awesome as they say. By the time next generation comes, people will be expecting and wanting it that way. They will be used to it, know it, and know how it works for them.

Right now, I hear Microsoft pushing a lot of 'it's the future', but Major Nelson and other PR folk can't really explain much else about it. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about it. Put it out there, let's see how it goes. But, I'm not going to invest $500 into that gamble.
 
Revdarian said:
A "suppossed" Xbox180 engineer did that article. And again, the only difference between the two consoles is in reality the 24h check in and the actual lower horsepower of the 180, so yeah i will keep calling bullshit on that, because again if any game is online only, then you would really need to believe that the 180 is full of magic dust to pull tricks that the PS4 wouldn't be able to.

So, no need to thank for baseless assumptions, at all.

Also think about this, if the MS team was using such an advanced technology, why weren't they able to offer the same streaming backwards compatibility support and actually said on record that it was impossible?, doesn't that ring a bell on the bull-shit-meter that any non fanboy should have by now?
Click to expand...

Of course you would. There is no changing your perception. You obviously don't believe someone who works in the field of technology that this feature represents or the explanation of (yes unproven)xbox engineer gave. Just the fact you keep referring to this functionality as magic dust shows your ignorant and defensive viewpoint. So sorry, I was just trying to help. I'll bow out now. Rage on! :)

And, I never thought much about what they said about backwards compatibility because, I don't give a fuck about BC. Gaming is not an "investment" for me. It's entertainment, like video games should be. I make enough to have the disposable income to enjoy console gaming since it's nothing compared to my PC enthusiast hobby. I do need to hurry up and sell my old games though. Or maybe wait till I get the ONE for $400 (my own fantasy) and sell my whole xbox system + games and accessories for a sweet-ass bundle deal.
 
Ur_Mom said:
That's what got me. I can still play my Atari VCS games right now by plugging them in and playing. With digital downloads, in 20 years will those games still be playable (assuming the hardware still works)? I don't expect multiplayer to work, of course. But, with DRM that requires a server to start even a single player game - there needs to be a time period that they just open it up and offer a patch or whatever to not require the activation. That's a rare case, obviously. But, it is a concern of mine.
Click to expand...

I've got a concern about this too. But most people seem to just be like "meh, I don't want to play the same games in a decade anyway".

I still play NES games and old DOS games. Played a lot of hours of Master of Orion 2 on my Android tablet this year - try that with a digitally-DRM'd/activated product in a decade.
 
I have backwards compatibility for the Xbox 360.... It's called..... Xbox 360! Keep your old machine to play your old games on. How many people sold their old Xbox to play their old library on the 360? 10%? Less? How many people played their old games for more than 6 months instead of playing the new games?

I sure wish the BC shit would stop. PS2 offered it, and it was good. Xbox 360 offered it, limited. Same with PS3 for a while. I don't know of many people that have a library of older games yet don't have the system.... If you want to play your old games, don't buy a new system. Stay with your old one.
 
Elios said:
ITT people that do not under stand why games go on sale on Steam and why PC games cost less


HINT: BECAUSE THERE ARE NO USED PC GAME SALES TO COMPETE WITH
Click to expand...

actually I would wager that most of the reason Steam can enable these sales is:

A. no cost to manufacture discs or packaging

B. no costs for shelf space or physical advertising

C. no costs to maintain multiple chain stores

D. no costs to ship discs to stores.

E. Valve is known to take less of a cut, so it's a triple win for game companies.

F. Steam essentially corners the market on digital distribution. As such, they have a large user base and it has become an extremely focused outlet for gaming. This goes a long way towards being able to guarantee high amounts of units being sold. Even though there is competition, none of them really compare. Steam is still the digital king on PC, in all aspects.


It has been proven several times that people are going to buy games or they aren't. Yes, the used market allows a certain amount of people to not buy games. But really, its more about allowing people a lower price of entry, that otherwise couldn't at all. and the used market is not as much of a revenue hog as points A through E that I outlined up there. gamestop even said that most of the money they make on used sales goes into buying new games. This means they are selling a lot of new games. So much, that gamestop doesn't really profit on the used stuff. It just allows them to subsidize costs for points A through E.
 
I also forgot to specify that costs for manufacturing, packaging, and shipping discs is usually covered by a publisher. Whom then takes a cut from those sales. Valve takes a cut, but not as much as a physical publisher.
 
chameleoneel said:
actually I would wager that most of the reason Steam can enable these sales is:

A. no cost to manufacture discs or packaging

B. no costs for shelf space or physical advertising

C. no costs to maintain multiple chain stores

D. no costs to ship discs to stores.

E. Valve is known to take less of a cut, so it's a triple win for game companies.

F. Steam essentially corners the market on digital distribution. As such, they have a large user base and it has become an extremely focused outlet for gaming. This goes a long way towards being able to guarantee high amounts of units being sold. Even though there is competition, none of them really compare. Steam is still the digital king on PC, in all aspects.
Click to expand...
You kind of dismiss the competition Steam faces, but that is the sole reason we have cheap games. Without competition, Valve can fix prices at whatever they want. Instead you have places like Amazon, GOG, GMG, Gamefly, etc. that can all sell Steam activated games, and that helps drive the prices south since there are none of the costs that you list in A-D.
 
SilverSliver said:
The way to do it is slowly. Use the Xbone as a transition. Make the digital distribution and sharing method appealing and convenient enough that people WANT to do it, but still have the option of the old fashioned way as well.

Absolutely ZERO reason to completely remove the interesting features like they cannot coexist with the old format.
Click to expand...

I think it could work but then again it might not. Eventually many things need to be forced. No one would even know what origin is if EA didn't force it with BF3. Sony would not be able to easily screw you guys over with PS+ if MS had not forced XBL with the 360, and steam would not be that big if it was not forced with CS and HL2.
 
Valve can only fix prices on the games they publish themselves. Publishers set their own pricing on Steam-distributed games.
 
chameleoneel said:
actually I would wager that most of the reason Steam can enable these sales is:

A. no cost to manufacture discs or packaging

B. no costs for shelf space or physical advertising

C. no costs to maintain multiple chain stores

D. no costs to ship discs to stores.

E. Valve is known to take less of a cut, so it's a triple win for game companies.

F. Steam essentially corners the market on digital distribution. As such, they have a large user base and it has become an extremely focused outlet for gaming. This goes a long way towards being able to guarantee high amounts of units being sold. Even though there is competition, none of them really compare. Steam is still the digital king on PC, in all aspects.


It has been proven several times that people are going to buy games or they aren't. Yes, the used market allows a certain amount of people to not buy games. But really, its more about allowing people a lower price of entry, that otherwise couldn't at all. and the used market is not as much of a revenue hog as points A through E that I outlined up there. gamestop even said that most of the money they make on used sales goes into buying new games. This means they are selling a lot of new games. So much, that gamestop doesn't really profit on the used stuff. It just allows them to subsidize costs for points A through E.
Click to expand...

Oh, it has been proven has it?

Since you clearly dont understand how pricing works in the modern economies its much less about cost to produce and far more about set industry standard pricing, amount of competition and demand since supply is pretty much infinite in the modern world.

The other mistake you make is the ignorant assumption that bandwidth is free. In the long term hosting digital media has the potential to cost MORE than the physical media. How many times do you download a game from steam?

The claim that because it costs less for them to create the media that it will go down in price for the consumer is incredibly naive and ignorant. The one thing that has been proven is that claim is complete bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top