Dropped DRM: Why I cancelled my order and so should you.

[EchoRedux]

Whether you are for or against Microsoft's change of heart over their DRM policy, I think everyone can agree Microsoft failed on both fronts:

First, announcing the "next gen" DRM capabilities, Microsoft completely ignores a segment of users, which includes hardcore gamers with the 24 hour check in requirement. Yes, active military personnel kind of slipped their minds. Yes, people go out of town for days in places with unreliable/no internet. No, not everyone can use the data on their phone to check in. 50% of cellphones in the US are still dumbphones, and many smartphone users have data sharing features restricted because of lousy carriers (AT&T). Heck, my old roommate who owns a 360, PS3, PS2, Dreamcast, GameCube, Wii, n64 etc wasn't interested in the XBone. Why? Simple. He keeps his games in his basement which is not where his cable modem is located. In fact, his home is well-built and Wi-Fi from the first floor cannot reach his basement, despite him using a modern and powerful router. What should he do, refigure his house? Move? Microsoft took people, both civilians and military, out of the market. Simple as that. Their suggestion? Buy a 360. For a company that likes to hires geniuses, they sure do stupid things.

Second, repealing the "next gen" DRM capabilities, Microsoft does not compromise but does a complete reversal. Rather than tweaking the check in requirement by allowing people with a disc to play offline, they decide against all benefits, go back on their word, no apology, no in-depth explanations, no transparency, nothing. Just a "you spoke, we listened" approach. I think both of their decisions were half-baked. All or nothing, why is there no solution in-between?

The reality is, while the restrictions allowed benefits like family sharing (which probably had a bunch of limitations that were never addressed), they took people out of the market entirely. Now without restrictions, you have additional people in the market who want XBone, but don't care about the full capabilities online mode provides. Microsoft captures individuals who are otherwise not in the market.

I did see some comments that were downright illogical, so with regards to cloud computing being used to unload processes from games, I have the following to say:

In this scenario, DRM prevented offline gamers from buying an XBone. DRM also prevented online gamers angry at the requirement from buying an XBone. However, since every user now has internet, you believe that developers would embrace cloud computing capabilities with higher implementations. This makes little sense. I'm going to use a random number, say 50 million users in the installed base enjoying this.

Now pretend all else is equal, but with no 24 hour check in. Let's say 4 million people with internet who were angry are added to the installed base. Let's say there's 10 million offline players that now have XBones too. Why would the developers choose not to implement these capabilities who are now reaching 54 million over 50 million? Also, you now have 10 million players enjoying XBone who have it for single player and local multiplayer. The numbers are just an example, but you cannot deny that the market for the device is larger as a whole without the restrictions. How is this a bad thing?

 

[MikeSo]

"As an Aerospace Engineer working for the DOD, I saw the potential in all of your new products."
What does that even mean? Are DOD Aerospace Engineers somehow uniquely qualified to judge consumer electronics? What an odd statement.

I understand the frustration though. Some of the sharing features where innovative and would have been great in many situations. But I don't understand why MS had to go "all or nothing" here - why have the stupid 24 hour connection requirement, or the "you have to be my Xbox Friend for 30 days before I can lend you a game" restriction? There must have been a way to do both, I'd imagine.

But based on the reaction overall, I'm happy that MS went back to the old, simple DRM way. And they clearly overestimated the broadband connectivity among their user base... hell, I read that only about half of the 360s out there are connected to the Internet. That's a pretty big market.

 

[Ob Nesnej]

I am still getting one i dont mind the DRM, i dont mind that i dont get the same TV features, i dont even mind that i needed to be online my TV already have all the streaming features i just want to play Forza and enjoy some games i cant get on my pc.

 

[Downtown Taco]

I migrated from Android Central to weigh in here...

Oh, Microsoft...Microsoft......Microsoft... I think that at the end of the day, no one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to be happy with this console.

"Oh, the DRM is too protected and I can't share stuff."
"Oh, they removed my DRM, I can't play cloud games."
"Oh, Kinect creepily stalks me in a worse way than my crazy ex girlfriend."
"My XBOX doesn't bake cookies for me."

We get the idea. People are going to complain no matter what. Microsoft had the chance to innovate and try something new, but they caved in to complaints. While I fully support listening to your fan base, I more so support innovation. It's okay to try and fail... well maybe not in the corporate world. I would have liked to see something different from Microsoft, however I guess that won't be the case yet.

 

[yehuda92]

on one hand, I am sad about the lost drms capabilities (cloud library, family sharing) but on the other hand I am supper excited that they have made the xbox one region free!

 

[Coreldan]

I figure they can still implement the good things about the DRMs to digital games at this point. Most of it doesn't add in any restrictions that would make em look bad afterwards, but still give more freedom to digital games. This way you could make the choice between having the good sides of DRM with digital games or the free trading etc with physical games. I see no reason why they couldn't do this..

 

[Storl]

I figure they can still implement the good things about the DRMs to digital games at this point. Most of it doesn't add in any restrictions that would make em look bad afterwards, but still give more freedom to digital games. This way you could make the choice between having the good sides of DRM with digital games or the free trading etc with physical games. I see no reason why they couldn't do this..

For this to be truly "fair" though the Digital Version would need to be a bit cheaper, 5-15$ as you lose resale and trading, this should give people a lot more reasons to buy the digital version instead of the disc + Publishers don't lose nearly as much money thanks to the lack of resale on the digital titles

 

[Huime]

Aerospace in DOD so what?
I am also a senior AE working for one of the world's top aerospace company. Dont't need to brag about your prestige.

The market is not like government contract where lobbying is more than anything else. Customer is everything to us and no point pushing out superior tech that has no market for. And as an AE you should know this better than anything else.

 

[Coreldan]

For this to be truly "fair" though the Digital Version would need to be a bit cheaper, 5-15$ as you lose resale and trading, this should give people a lot more reasons to buy the digital version instead of the disc + Publishers don't lose nearly as much money thanks to the lack of resale on the digital titles

Yeah, this is sort of one of things I included in "good sides of DRM", but tbh I'm a bit sceptic that they would be cheaper with this current system, but at least getting the other good stuff would be nice

 

[JammyGitz]

I'm not buying a console, but even if I was, it would be a PS4.

 

[Storl]

Yeah, this is sort of one of things I included in "good sides of DRM", but tbh I'm a bit sceptic that they would be cheaper with this current system, but at least getting the other good stuff would be nice

Yes i also believe that the digital games will NOT be cheaper at all, because People are going to pay anyway, i just meant that for the digital copy to be "fair" it should be cheaper, not that it actually will

 

[Coreldan]

Yes i also believe that the digital games will NOT be cheaper at all, because People are going to pay anyway, i just meant that for the digital copy to be "fair" it should be cheaper, not that it actually will

Well, I'm no financial genious but I think it would make sense for them too when you think about it. Like.. make them pay 60usd for a disc based game cos it most likely will be traded anyways leading into loss of revenue for the company. The more people they could lure into buying a digital copy, the less tradeable copies there are around. I would think that even like.. 40 usd digital copy and 60usd disc copy would be a profitable method for them. The difference is big enough that many would probably opt out of the trading/reselling and get the digital copy, potentially leading into bigger sales..

But thats just guessing, really..

 

[paulm187]

Or maybe you can do the right thing and support the developers and the digital future vision by buying only Digital copies of the games which will be released along with retail on day one and enjoy all the benefits announced earlier except for family sharing which is not available for launch but will arrive for DD copies later on.

 

[AiR DEGETA]

Overreaction maybe, I loved the features that came with the DRM rules, though I was disappointed when they removed it I do understand it. Even they have a perception of the big bad wolf in the public eye Microsoft does take user feedback very seriously so I wasn't completely surprise when they made the changes. That is why I also have a Microsoft ecosystem Zune, Xbox, WP, & WIn8 PC. Features are great but the reason I buy consoles is for the games first & foremost. The PS4 doesn't really interest me so I'm sticking with Xbox. Not everyone is going to be happy either way but the fact that they heard the outcry and made a decision to reverse for an Company like as big as Microsoft I thought that was cool that they still do listen. I wish they an option to choose either one you prefer, I don't purchase Used Games so I had the choose I would turn on the DRM features & live blissfully.

 

[easyrun99]

While MS communication was very poor, the "reversal" is not the end. MS can now slowly roll these features out, since the equipment was built to support, as the public's willingness to adopt the new paradigm increases.

 

[travis_valkyrie]

You shouldn't persuade people to cancel their pre-order just because you cancelled yours because you didn't like what Microsoft did. In all honesty, no person should tell other people what to get and what not to get. It's about each consumer having a choice. I've had it with all the bashing (even my facebook feed and 9gag feed are full of this). So what if Xbox One has this, you think PS4 is a better option? Go for it, no one's stopping you - unless you're thinking the Xbox One is really the upperhand and you're just telling yourself "oh no's it has DRMs and less features and online always and PRISM" then you're stopping you.

Just get whatever makes you happy (preferably the one which suits your needs most, no need to rant or bash).

 

[CSJr1]

I will throw my hat into the ring as one of the people who liked the original DRM. I hope Microsoft will make 2 versions of the XB1, with DRM and without. This way those stuck in prehistoric times can keep carrying their disk around and hope it doesn't get scratched and I can cloud game with multiple people with the same game purchase.

If anyone knows a good contact/email/address to voice my request of a DRM version of the XB1, let me know.

 

[Coreldan]

I will throw my hat into the ring as one of the people who liked the original DRM. I hope Microsoft will make 2 versions of the XB1, with DRM and without. This way those stuck in prehistoric times can keep carrying their disk around and hope it doesn't get scratched and I can cloud game with multiple people with the same game purchase.

If anyone knows a good contact/email/address to voice my request of a DRM version of the XB1, let me know.

I don't think that this is really something that requires two kinds of hardware. The good thing is that this could be reverted within software and parts of it can also be brought back with just new firmware.

 

[vertigoOne]

I will not be cancelling my preorder despite my disappointment in what has transpired.

Microsoft still has ownership of that decision moving forward, and if their previous policy is indeed necessary for the survival of console gaming, then we will eventually get there (and hopefully well beyond) within this generation.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Actually, MS clarified it multiple times. People didn't want to hear it. They were concerned with overly dramatic headlines. How many times have they said start screen, and people are still complaining about a start button. They can't advertise intelligence. They made a major announcement before E3,and people still didn't want to hear it.

They should have brought out the system as originally advertised, and then they could have made an offline mode. Taking away the great features was not the solution. That is my point.

Keith admitted that 99% of people have internet and for those people the DRM was better, and now MSFT is catering to the 1%. I had purchased it for those very advantages and I rightfully so canceled it.

There are a lot of rural places that people would love to have cable, but it is not offered. One day it will come around until then they can use the antenna. Doesn't mean we should go to major cities and take their cable away.

If Microsoft wants to succeed in the future innovative ideas will payoff, and backward ideas will put them further behind their real competition.

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood stuff here. Microsoft never clarified the sharing system, let alone "multiple times." They said that they would clarify it in the future. I'm not even sure what the "Start screen" thing has to do with it, but it's certainly not the same. I've been using Windows 8 for several months, and it's not the same. I can function with or without it, but the Start screen is not a respectable replacement for the Start button and menu on a desktop or laptop. It really only works for those who function off of the desktop and with Windows 8 apps a lot. If you're a person like myself who uses a lot of the legacy software, the Start screen isn't a superior alternative. It works for touch, but it's not an improvement for the rest of us.

Now to say that they should have waited is a poor decision. All that would do is make it so people wouldn't buy it even sooner. The group who couldn't buy it wouldn't. Those who simply didn't like it wouldn't. Many of those would have bought a PS4, if anything. Then, after the holidays (when people are getting and giving money to buy consoles), if Microsoft decided to change it after seeing sales lag dramatically behind the PS4, it will have likely been too late to get the kind of sales rebound as they could now. I mean, when would you have them wait until? The longer they waited, the more people would have spent their Christmas money and/or converted to the PS4.

I don't recall ever once saying that "99% of the people have Internet." We also don't know that the DRM was all-in-all better, because without knowing exactly what the sharing brought, the DRM wasn't better than being able to play offline. Someone's speculated it just allowed for something of a timed demo mode, in which case it wasn't worth it. Also, you have to understand what "catering" to those without a steady Internet connection (and their supporters) actually means. Again, where you think I said or accept "1%" I don't know. However, if they stick to their guns, they lose a lot of sales. There's a group of people who simply cannot buy the console with its check-in system in-place. There is another group that won't buy it on principle. Changing this to the disc-based system opens up more sales opportunity, between allowing those without a great Internet connection to confidently purchase the console, along with the removal of region restrictions (which I don't get why that was tied in with the check-in to begin with). By "catering" to that group, they opened up the opportunity for many more sales. The negative to the rest is that of an inconvenience. Those people are still able to play the console 100%, while others were gong to be in a position where they could not buy it whatsoever. The opened themselves to more potential sales, while those such as yourself were not put in a position were the console couldn't be played as a result. The intention of getting more users trumps giving a smaller user base another feature set, that's what it amounts to.

There's a difference with the cable comparison, though. Satellite is almost universally offered (I know some family in the country has Dish Network or something). What makes it different, though, is that satellite is an alternative that gives you almost an entirely-identical experience, You still get almost all of the same channels. The Xbox One is a different story. This is actually going to the rural locations WITH cable, and taking it away. A 360 or PS4 doesn't offer the same (or nearly the same) experience as the Xbox One, so neither is an alternative on-par with what satellite is to cable. Again, though, the 360 gave cable to rural places (in this analogy). The Xbox One is taking it away from them.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "their real competition." On this front, the competition is Sony, who is doing the same thing Microsoft is now, and Nintendo, who is completely lost. If you mean mobile gaming, it'll never be on-par with consoles. They screens are too small and cramped for most serious gamers, so consoles will always have a major user base among gamers. Tablets offer a minor alternative, but the setup is still sub-par. You can sit closer to a tablet to make up for the smaller-than-a-TV screen, but it still won't compare.