06-14-2013 02:37 PM
74 123
tools
  1. MDboyz's Avatar
    I think the best way for Microsoft to do is to give two options:
    1) Required check every 24 hours.
    2) Op out of it; however, the DRM policies will be in the hand of publishers.
    06-13-2013 01:25 PM
  2. NaNoo123's Avatar
    I think regardless if your view is what their doing is 100% right or not, one thing cant be denied, the overall view is not good in comparison to ps4. Mostly on net, but its already filtering into the real world.

    So doing nothing could really affect it, and not just in the short term.
    A lot of people buy their console based on what most of their friends are on.
    So considering price, early adopters are important.

    People do care about drm on disks, 24 hr check in, etc. So people just dismissing them as whiner etc isn't helpful because it really isn't just one or two people.
    I'm not sure i would even call them vocal minority either.

    I think if ms is able to show how the disk drm benefits them, maybe games that our 25% cheaper, they'll not like it but will quickly forget about it.

    24 check in, is different. Even if its only 2wks out of the year you don't have connection, you would just pick up ps4, obviously longer for people who serve.
    So when there's no connection make it so that disk has to be in machine.

    Two things are obvious.
    1. Ms has said single player games can work with out net.
    2. To get most out of games you are needing to be online more and more.

    So i think keep drm as it is, and get rid of the check in (using disk as check), as people will be going online anyway just how much would they really loose?

    And ms needs to get vocal about the positives.
    You don't want to gift your competitor a lead in console wars.
    Selling out doesn't mean much, that in itself doesn't reflect demand.
    06-13-2013 02:30 PM
  3. theeboredone's Avatar
    Another issue is the fact Sony is touting their relationship with Indie developers, where MS has been rather quiet on that. Doesn't help that MS requires a 10k to update their games. Understandable if you're a AAA developer...not so much if you're Indie.

    Dean Hall interested in bringing DayZ Standalone to PS4 • News • PC • Eurogamer.net
    06-13-2013 02:51 PM
  4. tk-093's Avatar

    So i think keep drm as it is, and get rid of the check in (using disk as check), as people will be going online anyway just how much would they really loose?

    And ms needs to get vocal about the positives.
    You don't want to gift your competitor a lead in console wars.
    Selling out doesn't mean much, that in itself doesn't reflect demand.
    See, if you require the disk in the drive, then there are really no positives to get vocal about... It's just a 360 with better graphics.

    Eliminating the disk requirement allows you to share your games with people in your "family." I can share a game with my brother 3 hours away and he can play it without the disk, likewise he can buy a game and share it with me. Not possible when the disk is the DRM.

    I'll take that option every single time.
    06-13-2013 02:52 PM
  5. Reflexx's Avatar
    Another issue is the fact Sony is touting their relationship with Indie developers, where MS has been rather quiet on that. Doesn't help that MS requires a 10k to update their games. Understandable if you're a AAA developer...not so much if you're Indie.

    Dean Hall interested in bringing DayZ Standalone to PS4 • News • PC • Eurogamer.net
    I would guess that MS is saving their Indie Developer talk for their BUILD Conference.
    06-13-2013 02:53 PM
  6. WasteSomeTime's Avatar
    FYI: The Kinect that comes with The One is not the same as the crappy Kinect that is on the 360.. Not by a mile. You can't use the previous one to point to future use.
    I am aware of that, and don't own one.
    06-13-2013 04:02 PM
  7. WasteSomeTime's Avatar
    True, that was an assumption of mines, I'll take it back.
    But again, just because its collecting dust on the 360, doesnt mean it'll collect dust on the One. It's not like theres a choice anyways ,if your getting the One, your getting the kinnect, so might as well use it to the fullest (which im sure will be more now that its require, the Kinnect has improved and does a lot more, and the Devs will be want to work with it more now that its mandatory).
    It's like saying you want to buy a WP8 but you want it $50 cheaper because you dont want office on it because you dont use it. Sorry buddy, whether you use it a lot or a little, you're stuck with it. If anything it'll make your life easier the few times you'll use it. Same for the kinnect
    actually it will collect dust. You will have to wipe the dust off everyday. Lol.
    06-13-2013 04:07 PM
  8. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Okay. I posted in another thread but I'll repost here since it's a possible solution:

    Problem:
    The internet goes out and you can't check-in for more than 24 hours. Your games get locked down whether you have the disc or not, and all you want to do is play video games, not watch TV. You like the ability to share Xbox One games with family members, play from any console, and play without the disc, but you also know your current ISP suffers from frequent long outages. You are unable to switch providers due to either cost or monopoly (or both).

    Possible solution:
    Microsoft could add a setting within the system that allows you to shut off the game DRM for games with the disc in the drive, but at the time you pick the setting, do a quick online check-in to ensure your disc-based games are unique. All your disc-based games are then locked to your console and that information is sent to Microsoft, so if you give someone else your disc, they won't be able to authenticate or install/play the game. If you pop in a new, previously uninstalled game, the system will require you to pop online quickly to check that in, and ensure the game is unique and not belonging to anyone else. This way, there is still only one person able to play offline. If you want to sell your game, there could even be an area where you could unlock particular titles from your console (so, you wouldn't be able to play without checking it back in, but you could sell the disc)

    If you're in an area prone to internet outages, or you're paranoid, or you don't like connecting your console online very often... perform the process to check your games in so that they are available to you when internet isn't available. I would say even with this option available you could still connect and play online and do everything else, but if the internet went out, you would still have access to your disc-based games. And if your console couldn't check-in, shared games with your "10 family members" would cease to function, and you wouldn't be able to access your games on any other console without signing in to your own gamertag. Period.

    I also say they should keep the same system they have now for purely digital (i.e. XBLA) games: Allow them to be DRM-free on the first console they are downloaded to. Then again, they could have done away with that because there were people abusing that... *sigh*... some people just ruin it for all the honest ones, don't they? Still, it would be nice to have the option of restricting a digital game to one console, so you wouldn't be able to play it on a remote console with your friend (and they couldn't access game sharing of your game either), but it would at least be available for those with frequent internet outages. I take it there are a lot of people with internet outages though, from all the outrage, which is kind of sad in 2013 :( ISPs suck.
    My concern with this idea of a verification switch is this:

    Say I have all of my games set to "offline," meaning I have to use the disc to play. Now, say I go to a friend's to play a game with him. When I get to his house, I import my profile, and set all of my games to "online," meaning I need to disc. I then give up all of the licenses to my friend, meaning he is now the "owner" of the games and their licenses. He then leaves them all "online," meaning no disc needed. I then go home, and my Xbox One has not signed in since I changed the licenses to "online" and gave them to my friend. I never connect my Xbox One to the Internet to update that action, meaning my offline Xbox One thinks that I possess the license, so long as I use the disc. I play my games offline at-will with the disc, and my friend plays them online at-will with the online-verified license. My Xbox never gets told that I don't own the license, and my friend's Xbox never asks for the disc, so we have just made it so that I can use the disc to play and he can play through the online service, without ever having bought the disc.

    Now, what if you had this occur between 5 or 10 friends, they'd give up the licenses from someone else's Xbox, then leave their Xboxes offline as long as they wanted only to play offline. You could essentially share that license amongst an indefinite number of people, by simply giving up the license from a different console than your own, and never signing yourself into Xbox LIVE with YOUR console again. You could then use this method to swap licenses as you wanted.
    06-13-2013 04:09 PM
  9. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    See, if you require the disk in the drive, then there are really no positives to get vocal about... It's just a 360 with better graphics.

    Eliminating the disk requirement allows you to share your games with people in your "family." I can share a game with my brother 3 hours away and he can play it without the disk, likewise he can buy a game and share it with me. Not possible when the disk is the DRM.

    I'll take that option every single time.
    So why not make that matter entirely optional? If you want the disc, buy the hard copy. If you do not, buy the digital copy. The point I have tried to make is that allowing me to play with the disc does not stop you from being able to go without a disc altogether, but this method DOES provide negatives for others.

    As I have said, I don't really ever take my console offline, but I prefer to think of this from a larger scale, rather than simply if it hurts ME. You're saying that since it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't matter. I'm saying that there is a perfectly-vaible alternative that doesn't hurt any consumers, yourself included.
    LeLee092 likes this.
    06-13-2013 04:12 PM
  10. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    True, that was an assumption of mines, I'll take it back.
    But again, just because its collecting dust on the 360, doesnt mean it'll collect dust on the One. It's not like theres a choice anyways ,if your getting the One, your getting the kinnect, so might as well use it to the fullest (which im sure will be more now that its require, the Kinnect has improved and does a lot more, and the Devs will be want to work with it more now that its mandatory).
    It's like saying you want to buy a WP8 but you want it $50 cheaper because you dont want office on it because you dont use it. Sorry buddy, whether you use it a lot or a little, you're stuck with it. If anything it'll make your life easier the few times you'll use it. Same for the kinnect
    The RARE instances of benefit from the Kinect are not worth $100 to me. You also assume that "using the Kinect to the fullest," means something specific, and that every Kincet function is preferable to the controller-based one. I might be able to turn on my Xbox with my Kinect, but I do not find that to be preferable to using the controller because I prefer not to talk to my Xbox. I'd rather press "A" to start my game than tell my Kinect to do it. I simply do not prefer to talk to my console. I like to sit in silence and play without speaking, most of the time.

    Also, the Office anaolgy is not the same. To ad an extra copy of Office is a neglible addition in cost for Micrsooft. Copying that piece of software is not expensive in the slightest. However, Microsoft has to pay for the parts and labor to build each Kinect, a higher cost for the company. This would be more like if Microsoft required EVERY Windows Phone device to have wireless charging, and you had to both buy a wireless charger for another $50, and you couldn't charge your phone if it wasn't on the wireless charger.
    06-13-2013 04:17 PM
  11. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Now, I am willing to conceded a point here. If developers know that every Xbox One owner has a Kinect, that is a meaningful incentive to develop Kinect controls, I agree. However, that does not explain the requirement to plug the Kinect in to use the console. What is the logic in that? Someone might say that knowing the Kinect is plugged in is incentive to code for it as well, but I disagree. Just as owning a Kinect isn't a guarantee I will use it, nor is plugging it in. I'll still use my controller, and ignore the Kinect altogether, whether it's in my console or in my closet. I mean, if we're talking about incentivizing developers through proven use (in this hypothetical that this is why plugging the Kinect in is required), then why isn't Microsoft requiring Kinect input to play everything?

    I can coneded including the Kinect, but I think that Microsoft should take out the plugging-in restriction. I mean, if my Kinect falls off of my TV or entertainment stand at 10 PM, and I typically play games until 2 or 3 AM, I dosn't want to be forced to stop playing games until the follwing afternoon because nowhere in-town is open to sell me a Kinect past 9 PM.
    06-13-2013 04:23 PM
  12. ncxcstud's Avatar
    To be fair, except for a fingerful of games, games on the Kinect have not been very good. Nor have the games that are supplemented with Kinect features been that compelling.

    Developers have been limited by 2 things:
    1) The original Kinect is not the Kinect that was shown at E3 4 or 5 years ago. I was BLOWN AWAY by the things they could do. But, to reduce the cost of the Kinect they removed some of those things that made it potentially great in that press conference. The first Kinect, apart from hearing me say "play, pause, stop" (which is great btw) hasn't been that good.
    2) The developer didn't devote a lot of time to Kinect because they couldn't count on a majority (or any) of their users actually being able to use it. So, what's the point of putting any effort into it?

    Because of those two short-comings, games made with Kinect weren't that great (because of the devices own short comings) and games (made better with Kinect) were just tacked on features.

    So, we base our views of Kinect solely on the fact that games using the Kinect haven't been that great so far (though, I dare someone NOT to have fun with "The Gunstringer" or the Kinect version of Fruit Ninja or the Raving Rabbids game - all of those are awesome). Developers haven't put much effort into incorporating it so the result hasn't been very fun.

    However now with the XBOX One we have the potential to see some really good things coming down the pipe because the device is EVEN BETTER than what was originally shown at E3 and because now that every XBOX One user will have a Kinect, it is worth the time and effort to find ways to enhance the gameplay of users.

    So, we worry about someone yelling out commands as we're playing our games (friends can be jerks right?) Doesn't matter. The Kinect knows who the user playing is and only listens to the person holding that controller. Awesome.
    The 'lag' that we witnessed during the first Kinect is pretty much gone. Seriously - watch some videos of the improvements this Kinect has.
    The sensor is so good now that it can detect the fluctuations in your face - it knows when you're engaged to a game (or looking at your phone, etc...), it can track your pulse by just looking at you.

    Now, you can have a game like say dead space or resident evil that can tell if you're a little 'tense' because of the atmosphere in the game and can make that even BETTER by triggering eerie music - or no music - to heighten the suspense.

    As you're in a driving game, it can track your eyes and see you look into the rearview mirror to see what is behind you and does that accordingly (no longer having to hold a trigger and use the right stick like you currently have to do in Forza 4 or Horizon). You're engaged in the game even more than you were before.

    Those are just two of the ways that me - a pretty uncreative person - can see improvements to make the gameplay better than what we have now and enhances the game we are playing.

    Yes, the Kinect up to now has been pretty lackluster (though the 3 games I highlighted are really great). However, the potential that we can get is amazing.
    LeLee092 likes this.
    06-13-2013 04:38 PM
  13. Reflexx's Avatar
    My concern with this idea of a verification switch is this:

    Say I have all of my games set to "offline," meaning I have to use the disc to play. Now, say I go to a friend's to play a game with him. When I get to his house, I import my profile, and set all of my games to "online," meaning I need to disc. I then give up all of the licenses to my friend, meaning he is now the "owner" of the games and their licenses. He then leaves them all "online," meaning no disc needed. I then go home, and my Xbox One has not signed in since I changed the licenses to "online" and gave them to my friend. I never connect my Xbox One to the Internet to update that action, meaning my offline Xbox One thinks that I possess the license, so long as I use the disc. I play my games offline at-will with the disc, and my friend plays them online at-will with the online-verified license. My Xbox never gets told that I don't own the license, and my friend's Xbox never asks for the disc, so we have just made it so that I can use the disc to play and he can play through the online service, without ever having bought the disc.

    Now, what if you had this occur between 5 or 10 friends, they'd give up the licenses from someone else's Xbox, then leave their Xboxes offline as long as they wanted only to play offline. You could essentially share that license amongst an indefinite number of people, by simply giving up the license from a different console than your own, and never signing yourself into Xbox LIVE with YOUR console again. You could then use this method to swap licenses as you wanted.

    I've actually submitted an idea similar to this to some people I know at Microsoft early yesterday.

    My solution would be that you have one console registered as your HOME console. If a particular game is set to "offline", then it is only playable on that HOME console.

    It also doesn't have to be disc based. Even digital games could be set to "offline". And you CANNOT set them to "online" from anywhere other than your HOME console.
    06-13-2013 04:59 PM
  14. Mystictrust's Avatar
    I've actually submitted an idea similar to this to some people I know at Microsoft early yesterday.

    My solution would be that you have one console registered as your HOME console. If a particular game is set to "offline", then it is only playable on that HOME console.

    It also doesn't have to be disc based. Even digital games could be set to "offline". And you CANNOT set them to "online" from anywhere other than your HOME console.
    That sounds like it would solve the problem! There would HAVE to be a way to reset it though if, say, the console broke/failed in some way - and that method would also need careful checks to ensure people won't just abuse it. Perhaps the games could be unlocked from a Microsoft Repair Facility once they receive your console? That way, you could play from a friend's console after that point. Problem is, what if the console broke and you can't afford to fix it AND it is out of warranty? Then what?
    06-13-2013 07:05 PM
  15. NaNoo123's Avatar
    See, if you require the disk in the drive, then there are really no positives to get vocal about... It's just a 360 with better graphics.

    Eliminating the disk requirement allows you to share your games with people in your "family." I can share a game with my brother 3 hours away and he can play it without the disk, likewise he can buy a game and share it with me. Not possible when the disk is the DRM.

    I'll take that option every single time.
    im saying disk in drive only if you want/need to play it off line.
    You still have all the other good stuff, when online including drm.

    there's been other ways mentioned that i also like the sound off.

    I think being online is going to be so compelling you will be dealing with edge cases, but ones that i don't see any reason to ignore.

    The main problem from my view is check in. People will soon learn trade ins etc isn't blindly ruled out.
    06-13-2013 07:27 PM
  16. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    That sounds like it would solve the problem! There would HAVE to be a way to reset it though if, say, the console broke/failed in some way - and that method would also need careful checks to ensure people won't just abuse it. Perhaps the games could be unlocked from a Microsoft Repair Facility once they receive your console? That way, you could play from a friend's console after that point. Problem is, what if the console broke and you can't afford to fix it AND it is out of warranty? Then what?
    That's my concern with the solution to the first problem as well. The required "HOME" matter would be a fine solution, if consoles were incapable of breaking. However, if you live in India, and have to wait 6 days for a console to arrive at the repair center, you're without any chance to game for a week until Microsoft could receive the damaged hardware and verify it as a legitimate problem?

    I guess the solution is that all sharing within your family and yourself is still possible with a game set to "offline" on your home console. HOWEVER, a game cannot be traded in while it is registered as "offline" on the home console. However, Microsoft can override the "offline" setting if it verifies damage to a console. So, if your console breaks, you either can continue playing the "offline" games with your profile on other consoles, but the license cannot be unlocked from your profile until Microsoft receives the broken console. Therefore, if you cannot afford the repair, you are not allowed to trade in games, but you are still free to play and share them among your ten "family" members.
    06-13-2013 11:15 PM
  17. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    im saying disk in drive only if you want/need to play it off line.
    You still have all the other good stuff, when online including drm.

    there's been other ways mentioned that i also like the sound off.

    I think being online is going to be so compelling you will be dealing with edge cases, but ones that i don't see any reason to ignore.

    The main problem from my view is check in. People will soon learn trade ins etc isn't blindly ruled out.
    Yeah, see, I don't get why the console can't just say "24-hour ping OR 24-hour disc," and make it an individual matter for each game on the console. If you want to play Halo offline for a few days (or if the Internet goes out), you must put the disc in within 24 hours. If you do not, you are locked out of THAT game until the disc is provided (or an Internet connection is re-established).
    06-13-2013 11:17 PM
  18. WasteSomeTime's Avatar
    Why can't they employ a serial key system? Or offer a digital download for $20 less or something like that. If you bought a game through digital download, there would not be a reason to check for verification for that game.
    06-14-2013 12:34 AM
  19. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Well, that's correct. If they'd offer digital purchases at a meaningfully-lower price than the hard copies, that would be true. The question of why they don't baffles me.

    However, I'll note that the Internet we have is crap, 3Mbps DSL. If the games are about where I would expect in size (12-15 GB), then that works out like this:

    12 GB is 12,000,000,000 bytes. That's 96,000,000,000 bits. My Internet runs at 3,000,000 bits per second. The download would take 32,000 seconds. 32,000 seconds is 533 minutes 20 seconds. That comes out to 8 hours 53 minutes 20 seconds. That's under ideal conditions, with the full bandwidth available at all times. That's never the case, so it's more like it takes 10-12 hours to download a digital copy.

    Though that is not what you are talking about, that is one issue with digital purchases--some of us have plain crappy Internet. That's not Microsoft's fault in the slightest, not complaining about them because of it, just stating that fact. It would suck if on launch day, I wanted to buy 3 games, but I had to wait a day and a half to access them all.
    06-14-2013 09:32 AM
  20. Mystictrust's Avatar
    However, I'll note that the Internet we have is crap, 3Mbps DSL. If the games are about where I would expect in size (12-15 GB), then that works out like this:

    12 GB is 12,000,000,000 bytes. That's 96,000,000,000 bits. My Internet runs at 3,000,000 bits per second. The download would take 32,000 seconds. 32,000 seconds is 533 minutes 20 seconds. That comes out to 8 hours 53 minutes 20 seconds. That's under ideal conditions, with the full bandwidth available at all times.
    Technically, you're looking at approximately 9.54 hours to download under perfect (unachievable) conditions. You used the "marketing math" for conversion of 12 GB into bytes ;)

    I'll also add that I don't expect all games to utilize the entire 12-15 GB range you're suggesting. Well, not until more developers get used to developing super large games that take advantage of Blu-Ray space. Even then, until we all get Fiber at a good price, your slow internet speeds are going to be precisely why physical media will stay alongside digital for the foreseeable future. PARTICULARLY when the games start to actually get large.
    06-14-2013 12:59 PM
  21. vertigoOne's Avatar
    I am also on a 3Mbit connection where I live. I would pay maybe $10 for physical media otherwise I would deal with the inconvenience of my 'slow' connection.

    Also, we need to remember that these games will be streamable, and therefore will not need to be completely downloaded before play can begin.
    CoopII likes this.
    06-14-2013 01:12 PM
  22. CoopII's Avatar
    Also, we need to remember that these games will be streamable, and therefore will not need to be completely downloaded before play can begin.
    Was just about to say that. Games does not need to be fully downloaded before you could start playing it. They were saying even you may even notice on digital downloads they will only DL the first two levels of a game and as you finish level one start to DL level three for example so you are always up to date but not tying up Bandwidth as your trying to play.

    CoopII
    06-14-2013 01:21 PM
  23. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    I am also on a 3Mbit connection where I live. I would pay maybe $10 for physical media otherwise I would deal with the inconvenience of my 'slow' connection.

    Also, we need to remember that these games will be streamable, and therefore will not need to be completely downloaded before play can begin.
    Yeah, but streaming eats bandwidth just the same. You'd have to have enough of a buffered amount of the game installed to where your play wouldn't catch up to the already-installed portion, causing it to run very slowly as the install and stream were running simultaneously. World of Warcraft can stream hotfixes while you play, and it will allow you to play while the rest of a patch streams, but I've done this on my DSL, and it's pretty crappy to deal with.
    06-14-2013 02:28 PM
  24. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Technically, you're looking at approximately 9.54 hours to download under perfect (unachievable) conditions. You used the "marketing math" for conversion of 12 GB into bytes ;)

    I'll also add that I don't expect all games to utilize the entire 12-15 GB range you're suggesting. Well, not until more developers get used to developing super large games that take advantage of Blu-Ray space. Even then, until we all get Fiber at a good price, your slow internet speeds are going to be precisely why physical media will stay alongside digital for the foreseeable future. PARTICULARLY when the games start to actually get large.
    I know I did that, I just tend to assume that all consumer products using those measurements use the base-10 calculations, not the binary ones.

    As for the size of the games, I disagree. RAGE and L.A. Noire are two examples of games on the 360 that took up 3 discs. Also, remember that these are dual-layer Blu-Ray discs, which total 50 GB of storage space. So even a 20GB game doesn't REALLY take advantage of "that" Blu-Ray space (since it would fit on a 20GB, single-layer disc). Skyrim took 6 GB or more to install onto my Xbox. Halo: Reach is a 6.57GB install. Halo 4 is 7.19 GB. Defiance requires a 10GB install before you can even play the game. On PC, when I got my free copy of DiRT 2 with my video card, it was something like 11-12 GB to install, and that was back in 2009. Expecting 12 GB 3 years later, on a platform that now had 50GB physical media, isn't a stretch.

    Considering the MASSIVE jump in graphical technology (7 years of GPU upgrades from the two chips in the 360 and One), I think 12 GB is the low-end of what to expect from these game installs, at least for the graphically-intensive ones like Call of Duty and Halo. I wouldn't expect any truly next-gen game to come in under 10 GB.
    06-14-2013 02:37 PM
74 123

Similar Threads

  1. The problem of low sound during calls
    By shadowflare in forum Nokia Lumia 820
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-25-2013, 12:26 PM
  2. The problem with Xbox one...
    By DavidinCT in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 05:08 PM
  3. Only complaints with the phone...Color themes one of them!!
    By Eddie Stanbrough in forum Nokia Lumia 920
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-30-2012, 11:08 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-04-2012, 02:02 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:07 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD