spiffy
1986
Good to know! … re-evaluating my ideologically-weighted opinions now… sorry, this is a long thread.
Wow, that’s refreshing, for a minute I thought this was the internet and we’d all just keep on arguing for the sake of it! ;)
Comrades. Everything has a value. That value usually declines over time. Book spines get broken, pages torn. Disks get scratched. Cars rust to pieces. The authors, developers, musicians, movie companies, and so on set an initial high price that they have calculated will give them a profit if they sell enough copies. That’s fair.
Microsoft and game developers thinking they are entitled to a cut of used game profits goes against everything consumerism and capitalism has ever stood for! It’s a trial baloon that’s about to be punctured. They should concentrate on making good games and pricing them accordingly. You think Madden 2013 is worth $99.99? Ok, set the price and let the market decide.
Gedd
1989
Wouldn’t all Microsoft need to do to fix the DRM issues at this point be to say that if you buy a disc-based game, you don’t need to authenticate (or be online at all), you just need to have the disc in the drive? If you buy online, you subject yourself to all the announced DRM policies.
That to me would sound a lot like what Sony has announced. They announced that there’s no DRM for disc-based copies, but seems they failed to mention anything about games purchased and delivered online.
Granted, there’s still the obvious issues with price and hardware comparisons, but all it seems people want are to be able to do what they wish with their discs. I don’t think anyone expects, or is complaining about, sharing/trading/etc. digital copies.
Wouldn’t all Microsoft need to do to fix the DRM issues at this point be to say that if you buy a disc-based game, you don’t need to authenticate (or be online at all), you just need to have the disc in the drive?
It would probably “fix” the PR issues, but it would break the DRM. If you could use the disc without an authentication at install, then someone could install the game and then sell the disc to someone else who could play it without installing, then sell it on again.
He’s talking about making it like it currently works on the 360. If you buy and install a disc-based game, you still need the disc in the drive to play it whether you’re offline or online. (Like a PC game before Steam.)
He’s talking about making it like it currently works on the 360. If you buy and install a disc-based game, you still need the disc in the drive to play it whether you’re offline or online. (Like a PC game before Steam.)
Sure. But if they did that, they’d have to drop the few benefits of the system, like being able to play your installed games on your own or another console without the disc. I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it - I’d love them to - but they’d basically be overhauling the entire system. It’s not a tweak, it’s abandoning the basis of the DRM.
Gedd
1993
Yep, so there would be the two avenues:
Buy a disc: No online requirement, can install, but disc must be in drive to play. Can transfer ownership at will.
Buy digital: DRM acts as previously specified (requires online, once a day authentication, can play anywhere using XBL account, can share with family).
Again, this sounds like what Sony is offering, they just haven’t specified the details on the DRM for digital purchases. It’s also very much like (in general terms) PC purchasing between a disc-based game (assuming no SteamWorks, GFWL, Origin, etc.) and Steam, although Steam has things which as more liberal (off-line mode) and more restrictive (no “family” Steam accounts, so no sharing between family members).
I think it may be too late for Microsoft to backpedal on disc purchases (5 months may be too short to implement and send to developers), but it would at least bring the two consoles back to parity on the DRM issue.
It seems pretty clear from the community’s reaction to the XBO DRM scheme for disc-based games that they’re not interested in the positives Microsoft is pitching to distract from the DRM changes. They’d have to put it out there that if those are the kinds of things you’re interested in (play anywhere on the XBL account and share with family), then you need to buy online. I suppose if they really wanted to, they could give disc buyers the option to choose one DRM method or the other, but that could be very messy as going to digital DRM would be a permanent decision.
Reemul
1994
Or how about the publishers, music companies, book publishers who are making millions and would make even more for themselves and the companies they run, all at the behest of our right to resell.
I really cannot abide this whole crap about losing our consumer rights. It seems we as people are expected to have pretty much no rights anymore, stuff we buy we dont own, stuff we buy can be eavesdropped on, people can film us follow us, abuse us, arrest us, lock us up with no trial and so on and really it’s a big fuck you to us.
It’s all about them and not you and you support this shit as if it’s ok. It’s a short slippery slope to where we do not want to go.
There still won’t be parity. The PS4 is still $100 less, you can stream media without a monthly subscription, and the hardware is just flat-out better.
I don’t think he added the “for disc based games” modifier for the lack of phoning home, so I don’t see any reason to believe that the PS4 will require it for any of its games.
But I still wonder how publishers will approach it for the PS4 now that it means physical copies won’t have the DRM. Will some of them go DD-only with their titles? Surely not, but I just can’t believe that EA would allow it for either of the systems.
XBOX One launch delayed by 1 year in Asia.
So does MS not care about Asia at all now?
Why should they? They’ll never crack that nut.
spiffy
1999
I much prefer the independent online distribution through author’s websites, or even amazon/iStore/steam distribution systems that take do take a cut but give solid royalties, over the iron fist of traditional publishing. What I’m getting at is that unlike ever before, we can get royalties to the people who deserve them, and reselling games, through Gamestop etc, in my mind prevents that. (I concede that maybe it’s a moot point, all the niche stuff that gets my interest these days rarely gets or wants a physical copy deal anyway, and I have no idea how Microsoft renumerates it’s game devs).
I guess philosophically I see games/music/books as art I plan to admire and consume, not resell, and like a piece of cake I don’t expect to need to regurgitate it to others… me appreciatively patting my belly, and a small fork-full from my plate ought to be enough to convince others to happily get their own piece.
Ps4 supports that too though, which is why you see the indies embracing the PS4 as they can self publish digital downloads.
Games, music, books, movies, all art: They are not cake. They do not disappear when you “consume” them. When you see a movie, you don’t have to “regurgitate” it for others.
The point you’re missing is that copyright is a social contract between creators and the public. We, the public, agree to give creators a time-limited and exclusive right to make copies of their works in order to incentivize the creation of new works (i.e., “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”). Creators agree that their works become a part of the larger culture and, ultimately, enter into the public domain.
What you’re suggesting is that creators should get a cut every time a single copy of a work exchanges hands, and that’s just ridiculous. It’s counter to our own property rights, too, where the first-sale doctrine states that ownership transfers upon sale. So that game disc becomes mine, and the original creator no longer has any right to the physical copy of the work.
Where this gets murky is with digital content and software. Courts in the U.S. are not in agreement here. It’s a legal grey area, but we don’t really need to go into that now. The point is that Microsoft is attempting to circumvent established property rights through technological means just because it can. Eventually, though, there’s going to need to be some clear legal language on all this. The law just hasn’t caught up to technology yet. Moves like Microsoft’s should (hopefully) hasten that eventuality.
spiffy
2003
You hear a song, see a movie, admire a painting, read a book, play a game, eat cake… in all these cases the entertainment is processed and consumed. Appreciating art is all about consumption through one or many of your senses. If you’re not consuming it, you’re just an investor. The only reason that sometimes it “does not disappear” is because sometimes the format is physical (DVD), but sometimes it isn’t (movie theatre). But if you are saying all art needs to be something that someone else can run away with and do whatever to it for some legal yaddayada reason… that sounds just as ridiculous to me. Incentivize more work? What about people/artists who only do one amazing thing in their lives? F* you, shoulda kept pumping out those once-in-a-lifetime inspirations?
“Some legal yaddayada reason” is going to be my defense if I ever get dragged into court.
You may not like it, but that’s the purpose of the law. There’s a time limit to encourage more creativity. You do one amazing thing your whole life? Good for you.
