Xbox One: If you had your chance, how would you do DRM on the X1 ?

[DavidinCT]

Now that DRM is gone on the X1, people can do what they want with their Physical discs, if you had a chance to change the DRM mess on the Xbox One, how would you do it ?

This is not to start a battle on what is better or why the PS4 is better than the X1 on DRM, this is about after seeing the PR nightmare MS caused by giving only tidbits of info here, how it could be done wile still moving forward going to a "steam" type model.

As most of us agree that going to a DRM model would be nice (Not needing a disc to play, family share, etc) a lot of us think of the DRM nightmare sides of it (No internet cant use system, cant give a game to someone not on my friends list, etc). After reading the front page on this annoucement, and people calling "Non-DRM supporters " aholes, Friggin crying morons, f##king cry babies, idiots, jerks (copied right from the main page and there was some worse ones). If your so smart, how would you do it ?

Rules: You must do it in a way to try to keep everyone happy, all the flaws with the past DRM should be resolved in a way so moving forward with a digital age could happen. Going back to the "old" way does not work for everyone so you cant use that. You have to make it easy too, using discs with some DRM and others not would not work here, it would confuse the consumer. And yes, the Kinect is part of the package and that will not change.

My thoughts...
1. Physical discs would stay like they are now like 360 discs treated like Phsyical discs, totaly different than digital downloads.
2. Digital downloads would have the same feature set as the "old" DRM model, Share games, no disk needed, etc. Allow sales via a MS marketplace.

The key thing is to treat digital and phsical as 2 different things, even if it's the same game.

No 24 hour call backs on the primary X1 that the games where installed from on digital or phsical (You need to be logged into the system under your Live account to play the games unless online). Shared sites(even in the same home, family share, etc) would need a call back once the game is attempted to be played (just for shared games) to confirm they are still on your account or a 24 hour check on this, unless you are logged in. If there is no internet connection, you cant play the shared games, simple. Physical discs would work just like now.

This model will show, if you want the flexablity of Physical disc, buy them and you can do what you want BUT, if you buy the digital version for the same price, you can get all these EXTRA features that you cant get with the disc. This will make people WANT to go to a digital model if they want to do the extra things to help move forward to a "digital age".

Microsoft to offer a buyback type of program, for a fee (say $10-15) you can take your phsical disc and convert it into a digital licence (90 day old or newer games). So you have a option if you change your mind (install it to your hard drive then mail in your disc, you dont have to re-download the game). These used games would be refurbed and sold to used game stores to make more money for Microsoft and the publishers of the game at a reasonable discount over the cost of a new game.

This sounds like a good work-around for the past digital "DRM" while keeping people happy to keep with moving forward to a digital world. Even the Devs and MS could make more money off this model.

Do you have a better plan ? Lets see what you have ?

As we know the louder you are, MS seems to listen, maybe there could be a 1/2 way point that MS could possably do.

Thoughts ?

 

[Coreldan]

My thoughts are similar..

Have discs work as they've worked in the pasts, but allow digital downloads work under the old, now discarded DRM rules (at least so that you could opt for "always online" and get many of the old features). Even if digital games wouldnt be resellable on even a digital marketplace, this could be offset by a bit lower prices caused by not being able to freely trade the game. I think everyone wins.

 

[martinmc78]

Already posted this in the other thread but its the same principle that the two of you are talking about. Its the only real way they can please everyone.

Go digital get the digital bonuses only

Go physical get the physical bonuses only

That way you choose how you want to play the game when you purchase it

Prime example - Titanfall - I would want that digital as its an online multiplayer game that needs to be always online

Witcher 3 - I would want that physical - no multiplayer element likely to put in long sessions on my own wont need to be online. Likely to trade in once complete or give to a friend.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I have actually thought of a few options that would have worked and kept everyone happy.

1. Keep the DRM in-place, but use the disc as a fallback check-in. Basically, this means that if the Internet goes out (or you want to be offline), you provide the disc. The disc must stay in the tray to run the game, so you can't pop it in to satisfy the check-in, then give it to someone else. Basically, it keeps the rampant sharing offline from happening, while allowing the online sharing to stay in-place. The WORST-CASE scenario would be one person more than the online sharing limit is able to play at the same time, but he is offline and restricted to the campaign, which is a legitimate scenario in which you can ask if that even matters.

2. Only make SECONDARY licensees need to sign in every 24 hours. If you are the primary licensee, you are free to play a game without restrictions, but you must sign in and STAY signed in for anyone on the console with you to play. The belief was that the sharing would allow the primary licensee and one other to play simultaneously. This would still be the only possible scenario, but the primary licensee benefits from the offline play because he invested in the game. Basically, the check-in is for those who are using a mirror of the game, while the game's purchaser plays without any restrictions.

3. Allow for what I'll call "sharing purchases." The primary licensee buys a game, and gets full online and offline play capabilities. Then, anyone within that person's family can receive the game is able to share for free, but still must sign in every 24 hours, like in scenario #2. The difference here is that those secondary licensees can be allowed to pay a fee, maybe $10-20, to get the right to synchronous and offline play. This means that for $90-180, the other 9 people in the family can get all of the benefits of the primary licensee. You could even make this up to $40, if you wanted. The idea here is to take the second scenario and expand it. It would lead to increased revenue from shared games, meaning more money for Microsoft and developers/publishers. It would also mean cheaper games for secondary licensees, so it's a win-win. I think that this is the BEST option of the group for all parties (those who want the sharing, those who want offline play, and the companies).

 

[Jetface]

I always thought that the best way to handle it would be to keep the old policy but if you couldn't do the 24-hour check in require the disk in the tray. That way they still verify that you have the physical copy of the game and haven't resold it (thus they don't need the check in). But if you don't want to have the disk in you still have the option. This would also allow them to keep the cloud copy of the game which was really a great feature (basically if you bought a physical copy you were getting the digital copy for free, to do this now you would have to buy the game twice). I think this setup would strike a nice middle ground, it gives people the option to not need the disk but if your internet is bad or goes down you can still play your games after 24 hours.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Already posted this in the other thread but its the same principle that the two of you are talking about. Its the only real way they can please everyone.

Go digital get the digital bonuses only

Go physical get the physical bonuses only

That way you choose how you want to play the game when you purchase it

Prime example - Titanfall - I would want that digital as its an online multiplayer game that needs to be always online

Witcher 3 - I would want that physical - no multiplayer element likely to put in long sessions on my own wont need to be online. Likely to trade in once complete or give to a friend.

I'm not a huge fan of that option because it restricts you in your long-term choices. If I get a game and want to access it offline, I MUST buy the physical copy. Then, if I move or get better Internet, something that allows me to be able to access the check-in frequently (meaning I'm not at a military base or in a rural area with unreliable Internet anymore), I would have to repurchase a game.

I don't see why a digital purchase (which cannot be passed around like a disc) would even need a check-in. All you do it purchase the digital copy, pick your sharing partners, and it's set. If you want to change the group you are sharing with, you put some restrictions on THAT. For example, maybe the person you want to take the license from must sign in before you can give the license out.

 

[martinmc78]

I have actually thought of a few options that would have worked and kept everyone happy.

3. Allow for what I'll call "sharing purchases." The primary licensee buys a game, and gets full online and offline play capabilities. Then, anyone within that person's family can receive the game is able to share for free, but still must sign in every 24 hours, like in scenario #2. The difference here is that those secondary licensees can be allowed to pay a fee, maybe $10-20, to get the right to synchronous and offline play. This means that for $90-180, the other 9 people in the family can get all of the benefits of the primary licensee. You could even make this up to $40, if you wanted. The idea here is to take the second scenario and expand it. It would lead to increased revenue from shared games, meaning more money for Microsoft and developers/publishers. It would also mean cheaper games for secondary licensees, so it's a win-win. I think that this is the BEST option of the group for all parties (those who want the sharing, those who want offline play, and the companies).

Keith - I don't agree with a lot of what you come out with and recently you have been the negative to everyones positive - (which in no way is a bad thing on a forum its needed to have someone that's got a different view otherwise theres no debate to be had) - that 3rd point right there is probably the best idea ive seen anyone come up with.

 

[martinmc78]

I'm not a huge fan of that option because it restricts you in your long-term choices. If I get a game and want to access it offline, I MUST buy the physical copy. Then, if I move or get better Internet, something that allows me to be able to access the check-in frequently (meaning I'm not at a military base or in a rural area with unreliable Internet anymore), I would have to repurchase a game.

I don't see why a digital purchase (which cannot be passed around like a disc) would even need a check-in. All you do it purchase the digital copy, pick your sharing partners, and it's set. If you want to change the group you are sharing with, you put some restrictions on THAT. For example, maybe the person you want to take the license from must sign in before you can give the license out.

Im not saying buying a disc stops you playing online all im saying is buying the disc gives you the options you have now. Which would make more sense for games where an online multiplayer element isn't the primary focus of the game. Your more likely to play on that type of game when your internet is down. Whereas something like Titanfall or BF4 your not going to be buying to play offline your buying it for the multiplayer online element so the requirement for offline doesn't really matter

 

[sinime]

IDK, there has to be a way to meld the old school disc play and disc-less methods of controlling the games... Maybe use smartglass to authenticate the apps, so your not having to have an internet sharing connection between the One and your phone.... Then make the disc being inserted in a new console trump someones rights to play the game discless.

 

[vertigoOne]

If vertigoOne ruled the Xbox One:

I would keep the 24 hour check in, but make it so that physical discs in the tray can always be played, even in the event of an internet outage, but the DRM of the discs would still be primarily tied to the individual that purchased the game.

If you cannot connect to the internet and you have purchased a new physical disc game, that game can be installed and played, but the disc would be required to play it until an internet connection is made at which point the game would tie itself to that person.

If you lend the physical disc to a friend, they could install and play the game as long as the disc is in the tray whether they have an internet connection or not, but you would only be able to play it as the owner of the game if you were able to check in.

If you are playing online with a friend who is in your family share, and another friend has your physical disc, you could all play the game at once, but if the player with the physical disc connects to the internet, it boots your family share friend off of the game.

The way the used game market operates currently IS unfair to the developers and publishers, and if it continues due to consumer stubbornness, then we will be forced to live with value added features such as DLC and such. I feel that what we are seeing with Killer Instinct will be the norm and only option for the home console gamer in a years time, especially because of the unification of the next gen consoles on this DRM stance as of yesterday.

 

[Jaskys]

Copy steam drm add 10 ppl family plan = success

 

[DavidinCT]

Ok, good ideas but, one of the big issues was used games. People want to be able to sell their games on ebay or other places. That is part of this big issue why MS went back on it. This was the largest complaint over 24 hour checks.

By using a disc just to install the game and attach it to your account, it does not solve the problem. It also will confuse people. The Phsycal disc needs to be with no DRM to keep everyone (who deals with used games buying or selling) happy.

We are just trying to brainstorm what will be the best way to do this. The 24 hour checks for primary content owners would have to go away and a rule of physical disc rules in any case. If you have the disc you can play the game with no limits meaning you can sell or buy a used game with out worry of any type of DRM.

There is no in between here, a physical disk needs to have no DRM on it in anyway to make people who buy/sell used games happy. That is why I went with treating them as completly different unless you want to lose your disk, pay a small fee to convert it to digial to get the extra features of DRM based media.

Other ideas ?

Im not saying buying a disc stops you playing online all im saying is buying the disc gives you the options you have now. Which would make more sense for games where an online multiplayer element isn't the primary focus of the game. Your more likely to play on that type of game when your internet is down. Whereas something like Titanfall or BF4 your not going to be buying to play offline your buying it for the multiplayer online element so the requirement for offline doesn't really matter

Not true for me, I play the single player game on all games before going online with it. Yea, I picked up blackops 2, played through the entire game before going online, same with BF3... Most gamers that I know play like this too. The Devs created the single player game to say a story and it makes most of the point of the game. That is the main reason I play.

Everyone plays games differently here.

 

[theeboredone]

I think this sums up what most of you guys are saying, which I can agree with as well.

 

[martinmc78]

OK been thinking on my idea and taking others into account - please tear it apart as you all see fit - im just spitballing here.

Split the games up into DLC and physical per game type.

As per my previous example - Witcher 3 - no online multiplayer no need to be constantly online. Physical disc and digital download available. Both identical and playable offline - physical disk is needed to play the game but can be sold, traded, made into an ashtray, etc... download is available offline, can be digitally resold.


Battlefield 4 - Physical disk - contains single player campaign only at reduced cost $30 = multiplayer requires download of multiplayer portion at additional cost of $30 that is tied to your account. Internet goes down you've still got the disk to play campaign mode from - You sell the disk - you lose single player campaign but keep online multiplayer - Next buyer gets single player disc pays $20 for used then has to buy multiplayer access at $30.
Digital download - Option to buy full game at $60 or Multiplayer only at $40

Basically games that would require you to be online to play anyway you add online portions as DLC giving you access to play any game online whenever you like even if you sell the physical disk. The disk itself contains no drm. The drm only applies to the multiplayer portion of the game that's tied to your account.
Games that have no multiplayer component are treated identically no drm on either physical or digital and can be resold and shuffled around as many times as you like

Game sharing between "family 10" - Bearing in mind that its recently come to light that the sharing would have possibly been only be a timed exclusive I don't think that's a relevant topic anymore.

But - going with Keith's idea If you have the copy of the game stored on your hard drive either from download or copied from disk then its available to view from you family 10. Games like witcher 3 where asynchronous multiplayer isn't an option games are limited to timed exclusive plays at no charge. Games where multiplayer is an option have timed exclusives but also have the option to purchase a license share at say $1 per play to play asynchronously with the original buyer

Why $1? Well I believe its small enough that you can justify paying it for a play on a game - and still make money from it.

If you were to consider BF4 for instance a timed exclusive might be 10 mins of online play but $1 would let me play asynchronously with the original purchaser for hours. You may not like the game enough to pay the full price but $1 to play on a Friday night is ok. Its also Ok to pay $1 Saturday night and Sunday night and maybe a night or two during the week. Eventually you realise you may as well pay the $40 for a multiplayer license yourself at which point you've already maybe spent $10. If you multiplied that round the family 10 then around the supposed 48million xbox live accounts not everyone will buy the full game of course and may only play and spend $3 on a game. Money still gets generated from the games being shared and now you've technically introduced renting.

 

[DavidinCT]

I think this sums up what most of you guys are saying, which I can agree with as well.

View attachment 36057

Prettty much the short of what I said in the first post but, yea, that would be perfect. Discs and digital treated as different items.

Battlefield 4 - Physical disk - contains single player campaign only at reduced cost $30 = multiplayer requires download of multiplayer portion at additional cost of $30 that is tied to your account. Internet goes down you've still got the disk to play campaign mode from - You sell the disk - you lose single player campaign but keep online multiplayer - Next buyer gets single player disc pays $20 for used then has to buy multiplayer access at $30.
Digital download - Option to buy full game at $60 or Multiplayer only at $40

.

I see where your going but, it's been done before and I didn't think it went very well.

Same thing EA tried to do, using codes(in game boxes) but, was $9.99 for a multi player code if it was already used (they do this currently on the Sony Vita). I might be ok with that but, $30 for a muti player option would not work for a lot of people. Sell the game as normal first player of the disc uses the code (or serial numbered disc) after next use, $10 for mutliplayer option *IF* the online option was used.

$30 would be too much. You might do ok for something like black ops but, other games would not sell at all, so it's a losing battle on that aspect.

Then you have the other side of it, so you get someone who only uses the Mutiplayer, he pays only $40 and keeps the game, that is a net loss of $20. Right now if he/she buys the game, they get both and pay $60. The devs I dont think will go for this, as they spend more time on the story than the Mutiplayer and they would lose a lot of money on this aspect.

 

[MerlotC]

The way they have it now I think is fine, two different policies for disk and digital. I'm sure they will find perks to entice people to go digital (like a discount maybe?). Per a MS employee post, the family share was only a timed trial anyway so not a big loss there.

 

[DavidinCT]

The way they have it now I think is fine, two different policies for disk and digital. I'm sure they will find perks to entice people to go digital (like a discount maybe?). Per a MS employee post, the family share was only a timed trial anyway so not a big loss there.

Agreed, that would work best here... One would think with the loss of the costs of making the disc, case, manual, shipping and possable returns, a lower price would be nice on games when they are 2-4 weeks old but, due to agreements to big stores (gamestop, walmart, etc), that would never happen. A $5 discount per month for Xbox live people for buying a game online would be a nice feature and would get people to buy games over a digital method and not mess up the contract with the retail outlets.

A lot of people are upset about the loss of features with the change, so there might be a way to do it both ways and a step towards a all digital world that Microsoft wants to go to.

 

[joeynox]

Disc based games need the disc in the drive at all times and are $60. Digital games get authorized when connect online and cost $45-50. Block used games or their multiplayer like what has been done in the past.

 

[Storl]

Let consumers choose the amount of DRM they can live with in exchange for more/less convenience.

Because you need at least a Internet connection for the initial installation it makes room for a new DRM solution.
If you buy the Physical Disc, let users opt-in to link the Disc to their Account, which will re-introduce the hour check but probably down to 12hours, which will make it possible to play without the Disc.
If the user decides to sell hes disc, he can do this because the person who buys the Disc will have to need internet as well, the Server will see the disc has already been used and will remove the access to the game from the seller and give the buyer access (completly silent), the seller has now no longer access to the game. To make sure sellers don't keep their game for too long, require shops like GameStop to use the disc on a X1 inside the store so the seller loses access instantly instead of whenever the copy gets sold.
With this they could bring back the old DRM and mix it with the new DRM, giving people the choice of convenience or full offline use.

Really there are so many DRM solutions to please everyone, but if you don't give the consumers the choice there will never be a good DRM, is it really so hard to let them choose between less DRM and more convenience on their own?

 

[Coreldan]

If the user decides to sell hes disc, he can do this because the person who buys the Disc will have to need internet as well, the Server will see the disc has already been used and will remove the access to the game from the seller and give the buyer access (completly silent), the seller has now no longer access to the game

I don't think this is the case. Yes, every Xbox One will need that one-time-internet connection with the initial setup, but to install a new game you don't need one as far as I understood. So when you buy it and first start it up, you need internet for that time, but not after that. Thus, when buying a used game disc, you would not be required to be connected to internet with what we know at the moment.