DRM Angry Rant

[Tony_Offends_U]

Xbox One Reverses DRM! Angry Rant Pt.3

I agree with the Family Sharing part 100%. It's like they took it away for no reason.
I don't see how reversing the 24-hour check in/used game policies took away the Family Share.

 

[Mystictrust]

I have no idea. While I firmly believe that the 24-hour check was for their used game scenarios, I think the family share was shoehorned in there as well and somehow required it. Maybe publishers would only agree to allowing games to be shared provided they knew with 100% certainty that games were authenticated every 24 hours? *shrug*

I've said this elsewhere, but they could always bring back family share wrapped with their current Indie games DRM system, and simply require someone to be online to play from a shared library. Period. They could put in time limits if they wanted at that point. If you have the disc, do what you want. But what do I know, maybe that's not feasible or maybe the publishers wouldn't agree to something like that.

 

[smoledman]

Xbox One Reverses DRM! Angry Rant Pt.3

I agree with the Family Sharing part 100%. It's like they took it away for no reason.
I don't see how reversing the 24-hour check in/used game policies took away the Family Share.

Don't listen to ******-bags like this guy.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Wow, that guy is SO cool. I mean, he yells and curses nonstop on a YouTube video? Man, I've never heard a 12-year-old do THAT. Seriously, that guy is a complete tool, and that he has more than 10 views is a perfect example as to why things went so poorly for Microsoft--people give attention to these loud-mouthed morons who just screams their opinions (rather than having a back-and-forth debate of any kind) until they get their way.

 

[theeboredone]

No offense to you guys, but that is his "theme" or what he's known for. It's like you can expect Samuel L Jackson to be doing his typical cursing in a movie. If you can get past the potty mouth, he does have some substance in his reviews/opinions.

He's actually one of the better video game reviewers out there, cause he can be pretty hard on games.

 

[Keith Wallace]

That his "thing" is to scream and act like an imbecile doesn't change anything, though. It's hard to go into that and think "I'm going to get a rational point made," when he speaks like an angry child with no idea what he's talking about. I guess the masses eat up that kind of demeanor, but it irritates the heck out of me.

 

[Necroscope]

how do you expect MS to verify that I still own the liscence to the game that I have shared without some sort of Cloud system.

Ex:
If I share a game and then never get online again; my brother accesses my share, and then never gets online again. How do you expect MS to verify ownership in this situation?

Maybe you don't, you just expect them to not only facilitate piracy, you expect them to do nothing to prevent it. I know that Apple and iTunes have trained a (n internet) generation to disrespect copyright laws, but piracy is not good for developers and publishers.

 

[Mystictrust]

how do you expect MS to verify that I still own the liscence to the game that I have shared without some sort of Cloud system.

Ex:
If I share a game and then never get online again; my brother accesses my share, and then never gets online again. How do you expect MS to verify ownership in this situation?

Maybe you don't, you just expect them to not only facilitate piracy, you expect them to do nothing to prevent it. I know that Apple and iTunes have trained a (n internet) generation to disrespect copyright laws, but piracy is not good for developers and publishers.

Maybe it couldn't be accessed while offline. Maybe if you got disconnected it wouldn't allow you to play anymore. That is how Indie games work currently. I imagine they would have worked things out with publishers, and allowed publishers to control the amount of freedom... otherwise, who would want to allow their game on the system if they had no assurance it couldn't be pirated? Microsoft has previously mentioned for the Xbox 360 (this was quite a while back), that publishers are pleased with the system they have set in place for XBLA games because they can feel confident that their game is safe with Microsoft (something along those lines, can't remember verbatim). Maybe they can bring this back in some other form. 24-hour checks may not be the only way to do this.

 

[TheJoester09]

I don't understand why they couldn't have just left the original Xbox One policies in place and just added "If you're offline, then you can just play off of your disc." What's with this all-or-nothing nonsense?

 

[Necroscope]

" I imagine they would have worked things out with publishers, and allowed publishers to control the amount of freedom..."

This is what Sony hid so well at E3.

Sony: We don't have DRM like that evil, consumer hating Microsoft!!!!!
Crowd: (CHEERS, CHEERS)
Sony <quietly, while crowd cheers>: We leave that up to the publishers.

 

[BIGPADDY]

" I imagine they would have worked things out with publishers, and allowed publishers to control the amount of freedom..."

This is what Sony hid so well at E3.

Sony: We don't have DRM like that evil, consumer hating Microsoft!!!!!
Crowd: (CHEERS, CHEERS)
Sony <quietly, while crowd cheers>: We leave that up to the publishers.

You made my day sir. :smile:

 

[Keith Wallace]

how do you expect MS to verify that I still own the liscence to the game that I have shared without some sort of Cloud system.

Ex:
If I share a game and then never get online again; my brother accesses my share, and then never gets online again. How do you expect MS to verify ownership in this situation?

Maybe you don't, you just expect them to not only facilitate piracy, you expect them to do nothing to prevent it. I know that Apple and iTunes have trained a (n internet) generation to disrespect copyright laws, but piracy is not good for developers and publishers.

I've actually explained that there are multiple ways to sort this on a few occasions already.

1. Make it so ONLY the primary licensee gets access to a game offline. If you're using a shared copy, you have to be online.
2. Require the disc for ANY offline play, but allow it to any primary or secondary licensee. That means ONE person offline at a time (after that 24-hour window).
3. Make it so a person who has a shared game is able to purchase offline play functionality for $20-30, meaning Microsoft makes money off of the shared copy as well.

There are ways to do it, if you're willing to put some thought into the process.

 

[NaNoo123]

And that's the point, it takes thought, code changes, testing, etc.
That is why they probably couldn't do it now.
But they did leave it open that they may do it after launch.
Yes they probably should've come up with it originally, but fact is they never, so they have to do the easiest change they can for the launch.
Its a shame they wasn't able to outline what they plan after launch is though.

 

[Keith Wallace]

They took the time to code the replacement system, either before or after the launch. They could have coded a hybrid system as a replacement, rather than a disc-only one. They were stupid, plain and simple.

 

[NaNoo123]

Their doing the replacement now, prior to launch. Or do you think they should leave it as it is and do the hybrid after the launch? Sounds crazy to me considering how their preorders were probably going.

One may be easier to do than the other. Its like saying you built a bungalow, so why didn't you build a mansion instead in the same time frame.
I'm just explaining that both things aren't equal.
That may or may not have been the reason, we don't know.
But as a developer i can tell you that what seems simple enough isn't always the case.
So your better of pulling whole features than risk hacking something together to change an implementation. The sort of problems you can run into can be a nightmare.
Hence, get something out that isn't feature complete but works without bugs and add the features afterwards.
Lot better than having a buggy etc system.
I did explain before that just because they have time to do one may not mean they have time to do the other.

But since you know better and know it was their stupidity I'll leave you to it, as I've explained what may have been the reason a couple times.

Thanks for your insider knowledge.

 

[Keith Wallace]

They quite-clearly built 2 systems. They built the initial, digital-based checking system, and they clearly had the disc-based system started, if not completed, if you're claiming that they didn't have enough time to make the second system from here on out. Plus, if they DIDN'T have it ready, it'd be silly to promise it (if it didn't work out for some reason, people would go CRAZY). So it's pretty reasonable to deduce that if they've said that the disc system WILL be present at launch, then they had/have time to build 2 systems. I stated that making a hybrid over the disc-only as the alternative would have been a preferable method to keep all parties involved (meaning pro- and anti-DRM gamers) happy.

Put words in my mouth though, it does you SO much good.

 

[SnailUK]

I don't understand why they couldn't have just left the original Xbox One policies in place and just added "If you're offline, then you can just play off of your disc." What's with this all-or-nothing nonsense?

Because people would take the mickey.

The whole point was, there is a single digital copy, nobody needs a disk, and the online checkin is what validates who has it any individual day.

Add a disk check, you'll "family share" with someone, whilst playing offline at home with your disk.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Because people would take the mickey.

The whole point was, there is a single digital copy, nobody needs a disk, and the online checkin is what validates who has it any individual day.

Add a disk check, you'll "family share" with someone, whilst playing offline at home with your disk.

Well, it was alleged that the system would allow the primary licensee and one other person to play simultaneously. If that was to be the case, would it MATTER if you were playing offline while one other was online? That would still fill the you-plus-one criteria intended.