Microsoft wants to punish me with DRM? Challenge accepted.

[HeyCori]

OP: If you are buying both consoles then wth's with the wall of text?

To give perspective to other people that might be looking.

 

[EvilFiek]

DRM is needed to enable used games selling, as easy as that. The 24h check-in is so that your licenses can still be verified. Without a 24h check-in or if it was a longer period of time (say a week or a month) you could easily buy the newest games, return them 10 minutes later and then go home and keep playing until you have to check-in for the next time. This is because Microsoft wants to go fully digital but obviously can't abandon the second-hand market because otherwise they won't end up being stocked at stores like Gamestop etc.

Also, while I was initially negative towards the DRM, Microsoft is giving me something much more awesome in return, so I kinda stopped caring about it.Because their new family sharing plan is just super awesome. Basically, you create "gamer families" (you and up to 10 other people, who can be friends or family or whatever) and then you get access to one big shared game library, consisting of all the games. So if one of your friends buys Ryse and you don't own it, you can still play it.
There are some restrictions (out of the 10 people that are part of your gamer family, only one can use one of your games at a time. this Reddit image explains it pretty well: http://i.imgur.com/Ayguitt.png) but I think this is really worth it. it's like lending between friends 2.0 Distance doesn't matter anymore, discs don't matter, just game away.

In general I think what Microsoft is doing here is quite good and will drive the industry forward by eventually cutting out the middle-man (Gamestop makes several billions a year just by selling used games, that's several billions out of which a developer sees exactly 0$) while at the same time giving gamers new possibilities that would simply not work if Microsoft had went with the status quo.

 

[vertigoOne]

Now that makes perfect sense. You always have access to your own games, only one of your "10" can access your shared library at once, not on a game by game basis but on a library by library basis. Pretty much the maximum amount of games that one person can share at any given time is 1. This will work great as long as half of your group owns the games you play as a group most often.

 

[volcane2004]

I don't think you understand what DRM is. It's short for Digital Rights Management. Even if you don't want it, it is essential when buying digital games. It is the way Microsoft or Sony manage digital rights. DRM-free essentially means you download a game and is yours to keep, copy, share, give, pirate, etc. Now music can have DRM-free songs because the margins they make on each individual song is so low that they can afford to have DRM-free songs. But you can't have that with games if each time someone distributes games on a torrent site, they are losing millions of dollars from potential buyers.

 

[Mystictrust]

their new family sharing plan is just super awesome. Basically, you create "gamer families" (you and up to 10 other people, who can be friends or family or whatever) and then you get access to one big shared game library, consisting of all the games. So if one of your friends buys Ryse and you don't own it, you can still play it.
There are some restrictions (out of the 10 people that are part of your gamer family, only one can use one of your games at a time. this Reddit image explains it pretty well: http://i.imgur.com/Ayguitt.png) but I think this is really worth it. it's like lending between friends 2.0 Distance doesn't matter anymore, discs don't matter, just game away.

Not quite so fast. That Reddit image is not the end-all-be-all. In fact, they are likely getting the idea from the line on the Xbox game licensing page, "You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

You have to admit, that can be a little ambiguous... yay English language!

Now let's move on over to one of the official Xbox Support twitter accounts (for reference, here's the link). I'll post a few snippets:

@nowak911: @XboxSupport2 If myself and a friend are playing Battlefield, can a 3rd friend in our shared plan access Tomb Raider?
@XboxSupport2: @nowak911 Yes, anyone in your "family" group can access the games library. How Games Licensing Works on Xbox One ^ML

@nowak911: @XboxSupport2 If I have 5 games shared, can all 5 games be accessed by different "family" members at the same time?
@XboxSupport2: @nowak911 Yep! You can can have 6 different consoles, with 6 different games being played by 6 different family members! ^ML

@nowak911: @XboxSupport2 Just for further clarification, that's 6 consoles, 6 different games played, all simultaneous?
@XboxSupport2: Correct. As long as they are part of the 10 family members. ^ML

Unfortunately, that is STILL not the end-all-be-all on the matter. On the same account - and same thread actually, another employee (designated by a different two letter initials at the end of the tweet) posted more conflicting information:

@nowak911: @XboxSupport Is access to the "shared library" concurrent? Can multiple accounts play different shared games simultaneously?
@XboxSupport2: @nowak911 The only limitation to the number of players that can access a game at the same time is how the game is designed. ^KN

And from a different thread on Twitter, we have the following:

@dawez77: @XboxSupport2 sorry but that doesn't cover it, I just dont believe that up to ten ppl can play on the same license together on seperate sys.
@XboxSupport2: @dawez77 As specified there, up to 10 family members can share your library. One other family member can play at the same time as you. ^BB

I have one theory on this. Maybe it *is* just one at a time, but the conflicting reports are from tech support that work support over in the Philippines, and may have a little trouble understanding what some people are trying to say. At the same time, maybe it can be either 1 or everyone, depending on what the publisher of the game chooses, or how it is designed? Or maybe it's all 10, but the support rep who answer "one other family member at the same time" was only going off of the FAQ and nothing more.

I'm not posting to say anything is definite, just that this has the possibility of being even better than you and one other person at a time. Your entire family may be able to share your entire game library, but maybe only you and one person can share the exact same game, while the others have to be on the other games in your library. We definitely need clarification here. Major Nelson has said the following in a tweet: "I am working on future blog posts w/ details for other #XboxOne features like family sharing etc."

 

[Keith Wallace]

I don't think you understand what DRM is. It's short for Digital Rights Management. Even if you don't want it, it is essential when buying digital games. It is the way Microsoft or Sony manage digital rights. DRM-free essentially means you download a game and is yours to keep, copy, share, give, pirate, etc. Now music can have DRM-free songs because the margins they make on each individual song is so low that they can afford to have DRM-free songs. But you can't have that with games if each time someone distributes games on a torrent site, they are losing millions of dollars from potential buyers.

Actually, I think a bigger reason DRM-free is possible on CDs is that music is such a widespread medium. DRM isn't a big deal on consoles because the discs only work on consoles. However, if you were to lock down CDs with harsh DRM, it'd be difficult to own them. If you own an MP3 player, smartphone, laptop, desktop, and tablet, you might want your music library on that all. If you were limited to console-like restrictions (meaning no ripping and burning of the content, must have the disc to use it), it would be too much of a hassle to own CDs.

In fact, that's a problem consumers face with DVDs. People complain about how difficult/illegal it is to take a DVD that you purchased (be it of a movie or a TV show), then get it onto a mobile device. It really sucks when you want to watch a movie you bought on your smartphone or tablet, but the overbearing DRM prevents you from getting the movie to it. That's part of why people will turn to torrenting, even in cases where they DID buy the movie. The media-rights owners have made movie and TV show purchases so difficult and inflexible that many don't even like to do it. They don't just torrent to save money, they do it because the legality of buying a DVD isn't worth the massive inconvenience of not getting to watch it when and where you want.

 

[Keith Wallace]

DRM is needed to enable used games selling, as easy as that. The 24h check-in is so that your licenses can still be verified. Without a 24h check-in or if it was a longer period of time (say a week or a month) you could easily buy the newest games, return them 10 minutes later and then go home and keep playing until you have to check-in for the next time. This is because Microsoft wants to go fully digital but obviously can't abandon the second-hand market because otherwise they won't end up being stocked at stores like Gamestop etc.

Actually, a disc-based check-in system would work as an alternative, but people deem it too "archaic" to accept that alternative.

As for the reason for not going all-digital, it's not just the used market. It's also because some people don't have good-enough Internet to support that system. As I was discussing earlier (I think in another thread), it would take 10 hours (maybe more) to install a, Xbox One game to a console on my 3Mbps DSL. It would be TERRIBLE for a little kid to open a new console on his birthday, then told he has to wait a whole day because his family's Internet isn't fast enough to install the game sooner.

 

[theeboredone]

-Facepalm-

https://twitter.com/XboxSupport1/status/345338828606812160

 

[stevearsenault]

-Facepalm-

https://twitter.com/XboxSupport1/status/345338828606812160

As he mentions later on, this is for digital 360 games, which is already in place. It would not surprise me if they continued with One, though.

 

[jaimeastin]

Lets not forget it running flavors of windows and it being the x86 platform...

More than used games, people may also hack the system...

 

[_Emi_]

-Facepalm-

https://twitter.com/XboxSupport1/status/345338828606812160

I love how people like you complain and cant even tell the whole story... only the "bad" side. really, did you see this link and just post it without even verify what they were talking about? (I remember saw it somewhere else, oh yeah someone in twitch chat posted a pic of it ). but wow.. you seem like those people listening behind the doors and then telling everyone what you supposedly heard/understood, like if you heard the whole story.

if you (and other ridiculous people) asked xbox support what they were talking about (before assuming crap), you would understand the talk wasn't even about xbox one, since still there isn't any ToU or anything yet (so they cant obviously talk about it) but the reply tweet says: [for example].
@retardedidiots "Sorry for the confusion, that was in regards to Xbox 360. Xbox One licensing info is here: http://xbx.lv/XBOlcns ^AC" (which obviously wont say anything about hacking, banning, locking account since it hasn't been made public yet)


but yeah of course "facepalm" /s

Edit:

I also found this: "We do not have info on that situation. Currently with Xbox 360 a permaban means you lose access to your downloaded games/DLC. ^CW" (it was all about the same thing, this time someone included "xbox one" in the tweet so that's why they said they had no info to share, also note it says PERMABAN, that means someone who is doing really stupid things.
Not everyone gets a permaban, so if you behave correctly and respect the terms you agreed to, then you wont have to worry about anything)

 

[Reflexx]

Lets not forget it running flavors of windows and it being the x86 platform...

More than used games, people may also hack the system...

It's a closed system. You can't install just anything on it. It has to be approved.

 

[Reflexx]

People are trying way too hard to hate.

 

[theeboredone]

I love how people like you complain and cant even tell the whole story... only the "bad" side. really, did you see this link and just post it without even verify what they were talking about? (I remember saw it somewhere else, oh yeah someone in twitch chat posted a pic of it ). but wow.. you seem like those people listening behind the doors and then telling everyone what you supposedly heard/understood, like if you heard the whole story.

if you (and other ridiculous people) asked xbox support what they were talking about (before assuming crap), you would understand the talk wasn't even about xbox one, since still there isn't any ToS or anything yet (so they cant obviously talk about it) but the reply tweet says: [for example].
@retardedidiots "Sorry for the confusion, that was in regards to Xbox 360. Xbox One licensing info is here: http://xbx.lv/XBOlcns ^AC" (which obviously wont say anything about hacking, banning, locking account since it hasn't been made public yet)

but yeah of course "facepalm" /s

First of all, my mistake on assuming it was for the X1. Second off, I should have posted more information, rather than just going to bed. Third, don't assume what I was thinking. My main thought of process was, "Wow, it would suck if someone got wrongfully banned and lost their games." Fourth, don't you even GROUP me with "those people". That's disrespectful on so many ways, because I've been doing my best on any "negative" articles I've posted to say things like "take it with a grain or salt" or providing some "fairness" for the other side.

Don't you dare ever group me with "you people" ever again. Don't you ever call me "ridiculous" again. How about you read my other posts and see that I've been fair on providing solutions and assessments. I'm not like some of these guys who are going "LOL PS4" or "LOL X1". Geez.

 

[Keith Wallace]

-Facepalm-

https://twitter.com/XboxSupport1/status/345338828606812160

1. Man, I wonder what it takes to get banned from LIVE. I really don't think that there is anything (except maybe using your account to attempt to hack into Microsoft's servers) that SHOULD warrant loss of game licenses. I could understand banning from online play for certain actions (cheating/hacking leaderboards), but unless you are actually using your console to maliciously harm the Xbox LIVE servers themselves, I'd be hard-pressed to think that a person has done something to warrant loss of single-player features. I don't make the policies, but I'd rather they make it so your account is banned from online multiplayer, but you can still ping servers to verify licenses and use apps. Heck, I would even say that I'd be OK with banning from communication apps (like Skype), maybe all online-based apps, but banning from single-player play because you called someone a name would be some extreme punishment.

2. I like the guy who said, "I have a tear on this blanket, it is really gonna cost me $10000 to patch it?" That they charge developers $10,000 to patch a game is rather ridiculous. I mean, that will either hurt consumers with higher prices to make up for that, or entirely drive away smaller developers who cannot guarantee to even break the $10,000 barrier on sales. They're all about the ridiculous policies.

 

[stevearsenault]

1. Heck, I would even say that I'd be OK with banning from communication apps (like Skype), maybe all online-based apps, but banning from single-player play because you called someone a name would be some extreme punishment.

The support rep is talking about permabans. You would have to do a lot more than call someone a bad name to be permabanned. As previously mentioned, that policy is for Arcade and Games On Demand for the 360, and no such policy has been disclosed for the One just yet.

2. I like the guy who said, "I have a tear on this blanket, it is really gonna cost me $10000 to patch it?" That they charge developers $10,000 to patch a game is rather ridiculous. I mean, that will either hurt consumers with higher prices to make up for that, or entirely drive away smaller developers who cannot guarantee to even break the $10,000 barrier on sales. They're all about the ridiculous policies.

It's actually more around $40,000, and it costs the same for developers to patch on Playstation as well, so it's not exclusive to MS.

 

[Mystictrust]

I was under the impression that the permabans required things like logging into Xbox live with a hacked and modified console and other such offenses...perhaps now the reason for doing that would be to try and sidestep their DRM, so the punishment is severe.

I do not think they ever permabanned anyone for in-game infractions, such as being incredibly racist and harassing excessively in a racist manner. The length of time for the bans started from 24 hour ban and ranged to much, much further based on repeated offenses, but I don't ever think that was permanent

 

[Keith Wallace]

The support rep is talking about permabans. You would have to do a lot more than call someone a bad name to be permabanned. As previously mentioned, that policy is for Arcade and Games On Demand for the 360, and no such policy has been disclosed for the One just yet.

It's actually more around $40,000, and it costs the same for developers to patch on Playstation as well, so it's not exclusive to MS.

1. I know it's related to the 360, I'm just wondering what it would take to have that happen. I'd imagine that several offenses of verbal abuse could do it, in their book.

2. That's ridiculous. I also would like to see some proof of that, if you can provide it, because I don't believe that the vast majority of indie developers could afford $40,000. That, and Microsoft also has the issue that they won't allow developers to self-publish, apparently. I don't remember where the article was (I'll have to see if I can find it), but there was an article about how the developers of Day Z and Abe's Oddysee New N' Tasty both wanted to bring those games to the Xbox One. In fact, they even got the games together, but Microsoft won't allow the m to self-publish the titles. Without getting under the wing of EA or someone like that, Microsoft won't allow them to put their already-made games onto the console, just because they want to publish the games themselves. That's pretty strange.

 

[stevearsenault]

To get permabanned requires something like hacking someone's account or exposing yourself on video chats (UNO was notorious for that).

As for patch fees: Interview: Schafer's Millions

“But the indie community is now moving elsewhere; we’re figuring out how to fund and distribute games ourselves, and we’re getting more control over them. Those systems as great as they are, they’re still closed. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game. Those are things we really want to do, but we can’t do it on these systems. I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch – we can’t afford that! Open systems like Steam, that allow us to set our own prices, that’s where it’s at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That’s where people are going.”

That is for Xbox 360 and PS3, so it is possible that Microsoft (and I'm sure Sony as well) is charging less for patches this console generation, but it certainly is nothing new to developers.

 

[Keith Wallace]

To get permabanned requires something like hacking someone's account or exposing yourself on video chats (UNO was notorious for that).

As for patch fees: Interview: Schafer's Millions



That is for Xbox 360 and PS3, so it is possible that Microsoft (and I'm sure Sony as well) is charging less for patches this console generation, but it certainly is nothing new to developers.

Are you sure that his statement came with no embellishment and was indicative of 100% of games on both platforms? Maybe it was $40,000 for a game with a certain amount of sales, maybe it's a $10,000 base (because I've seen that number reported elsewhere), but if you make it to 100,000 sales, it costs more?