Digital Ownership: Why we lost today

[lacktheknack]

It's not really progress if you take one step forward and three backflips back.

 

[RicoADF]

I understand you. I'm pretty much like you, regarding my favorite games. But you cannot deny what a huge waste of resources that is. You're building a fancy case for this essentially digital content, that may as well be transferred perfectly with 0s and 1s.
And MS were not preventing physical copies. They were just making them less appealing. You could share games (with whatever limitations their system had), but you share the digital thing, not the disc.
Maybe digital only is not such a great thing, as I'm imagining it. But having the retailers make the rules of the game, is crap in my book.

The 24 hours check, I have no idea how exactly was it supposed to work. But it was clearly made because of the digital shading system. Without it, I could share my game with 10 people, they all go offline and we all play simultaneously. Such thing is obviously not happening. And sadly the only way to prevent it, is by checking frequently, who's playing the game. If you have a better ideas, feel free to share with us.

Why the heck couldn't Microsoft have given us this kind, level-headed and easy to understand explanation of what this always-online was exactly?

Because they're fucking morons, that's why!

The main thing is that being digital doesn't mean they have to require a net connection, as I keep saying (in other topics) some of their ideas were great, but the execution was horrible. Add in the disastrous PR, especially at the start where they we're giving contradictory info and it's clear the salesmen failed in their jobs. Microsoft failed to earn our trust, and in a system like they were suggesting where they hold all the cards, trust is far more important than ever. They need to prove that once they drop support they would turn off the online requirement so that the console doesn't get bricked, they didn't do any of that so they failed to sell the system as a viable platform to play games on. Now their paying the price.

Digital rights management can be a way of empowerment! It can be a way to ensure ownership and lost of ownership. Sharing and selling of digital content is impossible without digital rights management.

Citation needed.

I can give a citation of why DRM is NOT required for selling and sharing digital content, does that count? GoG.com has proven that DRM isn't required and if anything the lack of can sell more copies as people don't have to jump through hoops and get inconvenianced over crap.

 

[theaudioprophet]

it was a cool idea but the price was too great and the assumption that MS would've done you a solid and sold digital copies cheaper is absurd. The digital xbox360 games they sell now still cost as much as the physical copies despite undoubtedly lower production costs (packaging, transport blah etc. blah)

 

[nevarran]

With digital distribution, there is nothing to resell. I mean, technically you could resell data, but really, what you'd be doing is transferring or duplicating. You're not handing over the exact same product. You're paying for just the raw information, nothing physical to sell.

You say "The only difference..." but that's a BIG, HUGE difference, as far as I'm concerned.

"Transferring" - isn't that what re-selling is in practice. I have the disc, I'm giving it to you, you give me money and I no longer have the disc. I'm giving you the digital game from my device, you give me money and I no longer have the game.
Again, a bank analogy - if I transfer you money from my bank acc to yours, are these the same money? Are, literally, my bills flying to you?

The main thing is that being digital doesn't mean they have to require a net connection, as I keep saying (in other topics) some of their ideas were great, but the execution was horrible. Add in the disastrous PR, especially at the start where they we're giving contradictory info and it's clear the salesmen failed in their jobs. Microsoft failed to earn our trust, and in a system like they were suggesting where they hold all the cards, trust is far more important than ever. They need to prove that once they drop support they would turn off the online requirement so that the console doesn't get bricked, they didn't do any of that so they failed to sell the system as a viable platform to play games on. Now their paying the price.

They required internet connection to protect their digital sharing system. As a form of DRM. And to make sure each and every owner of their console has internet, so they can push digital games. So no one could say "hey, go back to Gamestop, I can't buy digital games on the console you sold me."
And yes, they failed miserably. But what am I to do about it? I'm "advocating" for digital games as the prevalent method of distribution. MS just made that difficult, with their failure to explain it to the gamers.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Honestly, digital media just starts to show how broken the idea of 'intellectual property' is. If it ever becomes the dominant force of the global economy, I expect one of two things to happen:

1. The world degenerates into a corporate controlled distopian hell, as corporations seek the ever greater control nessesary to keep selling something that, according to the fundamental principles of economics, doesn't really have a meaningful value in it's own right... (Due to it being an essentially unlimited resource, any value such a product might have has to be imposed artificially somehow)
Or
2. Capitalism will collapse under the weight of the absurdity of selling things which have no innate value as individual items. Past a certain point the imbalance this would cause compared to items which have actual, meaningful physical constraints on how many of a given item can exist will cause serious problems. - You can't create things out of thin air, then treat them as if this is not what you're doing and expect this to have no consequences...


But... Whatever. I fully expect someone to tell me I'm wrong here... But I can only see this ending in disaster of one kind or another.

 

[hatok]

I still think the no used games and game sharing features are bs, because they could EASILY do those things without the DRM. Heck, the 360 and PS3 could implement the features the xbox 180 cut... there's really no legitimate reason why the game sharing had to go, or why the used game policy had to exist, or that games couldn't be played without a 24 ahout checkup
So Microsoft just cut the features because they no longer have policies that can control the consumer

On another note... anyone else find it weird how Microsoft barely mentioned the game sharing features, but now that they're gone they bring them up all the time?

 

[Sectan]

On another note... anyone else find it weird how Microsoft barely mentioned the game sharing features, but now that they're gone they bring them up all the time?

Microsoft "You see what you made me do? We had a nice thing going. I have my DRM and you had games to share, but NOOO, you just had to tell us you didn't like DRM! Well fine you don't like DRM? GONE! But fuck it we'll do you one better. ALL YOUR SHARING IS GONE! LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO! YOU MADE ME HIT YOU!"

Okay maybe that was a bit much, but you get the point.

 

[st0pnsw0p]

The XBOne might have taken a step forward when it comes to digital ownership (we have no way of knowing unless Microsoft releases the full details of how that stuff would have worked), but that doesn't make up for the five steps back it took in the field of ownership over physical media.

 

[RicoADF]

They required internet connection to protect their digital sharing system. As a form of DRM. And to make sure each and every owner of their console has internet, so they can push digital games. So no one could say "hey, go back to Gamestop, I can't buy digital games on the console you sold me."
And yes, they failed miserably. But what am I to do about it? I'm "advocating" for digital games as the prevalent method of distribution. MS just made that difficult, with their failure to explain it to the gamers.

But that's the thing, a constant internet connection isn't required to offer the options. Let me explain:

You buy a game from retail and put the disc in the console, at this point you would have 2 options:
1) Just play the game like on xbox from the disc, nothing changes
2) Register the game to your console online, which binds/links that disc to your account.

Once it's linked to your account you could install the game to the hard drive and play online and offline without the disc as the disc is locked to your account, even if you went offline and lent the disc to a friend it wouldn't work as it's already 'in use'.

However you could lend the game to friends via the sharing and family system as MS already had planned, which they would have to be online to make sure you didn't have 100 people running off 1 copy, that I could understand, but the original owner can still play offline as the licence is already locked to them and their console/disc.

Then when they don't want the game anymore and want to sell/give it away they simply login online and deactivate the game on their account, at which point it goes back to the first step where people can play from that disc or register it to another account.

That system would give both parties what they want and it can be done. Their not doing it because their acting like spoilt kids taking their ball home because they couldn't win. Go off at M$ for being assholes not the consumers that wanted options and rights, which they were correct to demand for.

 

[cdemares]

I keep seeing these arguments about how MS was going to change the world and let us own digital content. They never said anything remotely like that or implied it at all. The ten-family-member-sharing is the only thing they confirmed. The Steam comparisons are a fantasy based on the most wishful thinking. The potential Steam-style super-sales? Again, that's a product of our imaginations and not based on any statement made by MS. All of these wonderful things we've thrown out with the bath water do. not. exist. They are potential futures that might have been, sure, I agree. But MS has promised nothing. They didn't give us a reason to want their DRM. If they had such grand plans to empower me as a consumer, I think they would have said so repeatedly. But they didn't. They talked about how much publishers will love this, and how the rest of us need to jump on board or get left behind. That tells me a lot about their intentions.

 

[Nieroshai]

So what you're saying is, averting a far worse crisis than the long-standing debate of digital rights (that crisis being EXCLUSIVE locking of media to a single individual AND denying product to those without EXCELLENT internet) is a LOSS??? Unless it's just rampant pessimism, you need to look at the bigger picture. Let's visualize this as a war. For years, we've been at a standstill with our archenemy, OmniData (needed a name lol). His troops have always been armed with EULAs and DRM. We the Consumers have been fighting back and holding the line by voting with our dollars, buying used games, and being vocal. Off to the side are Pirates, who OmniData often mistakes us for. Now, in secret, they've been working on a superweapon that could eliminate used games for fifty percent of our side, the XBone Bomb. Now, many of us took it on themselves to stop this devastating weapon which was designed to use our fellow Consumers against us, and rendered it inert.

BASICALLY you're saying that keeping our enemy from developing nukes is a LOSS, just because we're still at war. No, this is a small victory. This is a battle won for us. There are more to fight, and we are still fighting them. But don't deny us this victory by calling it something it isn't.

LOL I must be a bot, because I couldn't read the last 40 captchas... I'll just use the audio read.

 

[bluegate]

No reason why they still can't allow selling and trading of digital content... ?

Oh and for as far as sharing games goes:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=598291
They were only allowing people to play 60 minutes of the game you shared with them, so basically it should be called demo sharing. Or Playstation+ Full Game Trial.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Alright, let's tackle your arguments point-by-point.

Point #1: Sharing Games

This would actually be pretty cool for digital games. However, the problem is that Microsoft never mentioned digital games when talking about the sharing features. They only talked about retail games. And because retail games will be tied to accounts, the feature would only circumvent the complete restriction of sharing games that would have been in place if Microsoft stuck to their guns. The feature only complimented users once those users agreed to asinine policies.


Point #2: Selling

See my response to point #1. There was no mention of digital games having this feature.


Point #3: That DRM

If Microsoft was smart, they would have NEVER needed to implement the DRM in its current state in order to achieve the benefits that you are proposing. Assuming that MS would funnel all of the Xbox One data through Xbox Live (barring rare occasions), MS could easily host game-sharing information server-side while sending out a small data package that limited the sharing party's access to the shared game. This would eliminate any need for daily check-ups. Also, eliminating disc-based game checking in favor of daily DRM is, once again, a benefit that comes after submitting to asinine policies.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Umm they never intended to give digital ownership, they never intended to actually allow people to digitally share games, they only intended effectively a DEMO mode. If I want a demo I can already get them for free, I don't need to get my family to share it

 

[Jadak]

You do not have any consumer rights over digital games at all. You only can play games that you have bought...

And that's where I lost interest and started skimming. Fortunately, 'only playing' is actually all I want to do with my games.

 

[J Tyran]

First sale doctrine doesn't apply [http://www.siia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=339&Itemid=352] to software, games are software. Gamers have no "rights" or legal recourse over used games, if publishers start to block them first sale doctrine cannot stop it.

The only thing first sale doctrine applies to in this case is the physical media itself and any boxes it came in, you own that but the software itself is only licensed.

That depends on what country you live in, the EU has declared that yes first sale doctrine (or whatever they call it) does include gaming (digital or otherwise). Most nations have similar laws. The US may not, I'm not certain.

Its proven much more difficult than that though, although the license is transferable the developer, service provider or publisher is under no obligation to provide any ancillary or digital services. They do not have to authenticate software or provide access to any related online services.

So the game or software can still be useless, this is why its gone nowhere with Steam/PSN/XBL yet. They have no obligation to provide their services to people owning a used licence, you can indeed sell a license but Steam/PSN/XBL do not have to facilitate the second users access to the software or any related services. There are several ways around it for the industry,

-Install limits in the original EULA
-Refusing to authenticate software
-Not building a trading system into digital distribution services
-Having a Sim Shitty/Diablo 3 style always online system
-Ubisoft style always online authentication
-Not allowing users with second hand licences to download the software
-Online passes for both multiplayer and as a pay wall for access to downloads or services

These are just the immediate ones, knowing how complicated these things can get there are probably more.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

No reason why they still can't allow selling and trading of digital content... ?

Oh and for as far as sharing games goes:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=598291
They were only allowing people to play 60 minutes of the game you shared with them, so basically it should be called demo sharing. Or Playstation+ Full Game Trial.

Ah, I knew there was going to be some restriction of that kind. So yes, no that big of a loss.

 

[zumbledum]

Part one: Sharing

Enter the family plan. When you bought an xbox one game, you recived a digital version of it. Essentially you did not buy a physical copy, but a digital copy with a data on a disc to install it if you had a shitty internet connection. This digital version was added to a library which is accessible to you AND ten people who you mark as family. As soon as you activated that digital version, any one of those people could access it. Any one of them could download it and play it. These people could be made up of anyone around the world. As long as you have known them for 30 days, your library would be accessible if they were tagged as your xbox family.

Of course, there were restrictions. The maximum people playing a copy would be limited to the owner and one family member. Two family members couldn't play the same copy. You as an owner would be able to at any time play your game and would never be restricted from playing because someone else was playing. I again repeat that one family member could access the game the owner was playing.

That means you could buy one copy of halo and then message your good friend Timmy. You would access your game and then Timmy can access your copy at the same time and PLAY WITH YOU. That meant that when you bought a game, other people you know can hop into multiplayer with you without having to buy a copy.

Now the same could happen with your friend Bob. But since Bob and Timmy are family members, Bob and Timmy can't use the copy in your library to play with eachother. But you can play with either Bob or Timmy as the owner.

The games you owned were shared with 10 friends. You essentially could let any one of 10 friends borrow a game and multiples can borrow different games at the same time.

Bob can play your version of CoD while Timmy plays Halo with you. You had a digital copy and you had a choice in being able to share that content with others. For once your digital copies could be shared!

It didn't stop there even. You could once per license transfer the license, making one of your friends an owner. Then he would share it with his family. That means that you can buy a game and 10 people would have access it, and then if you transfer it, up to 18 people would have had access to the full game in its lifespan!

Sure the licence could only be transferred once, but it has reached playability by a huge amount of people by the time it can't be transferred again.

I have to assume you posted this without knowledge of how this system was actually going to work , sure you and your mate billy could of played halo together, for an hour then his "demo" version will time out and he finds himself looking at the MS market place being asked to buy his own copy before the fun continues.

simple failure of communication from MS , lie of omission or outright bullshit as usual we will never know but this whole sharing thing wasnt as it turns out going to be any use at all.

Part two: Selling

Since you bought a digital game, you would need some way of deactivate the game to sell it. If you don't deactivate it, you would be able to sell a game and make money off of it while still being able to access the game still. Which isn't fair at all as when you sell something you are supposed to relinquish control over it.

You were going to be allowed to sell your digital license in exchange for money. You then can purchase a licence for another game, even with a used disc. This ensures that you have the right to sell games while at the same time ensuring a way for developers to get money off of every purchase due to having to generate a new license.

You won because you could sell the game and get money back from something you played.

The developers won because a new license meant they got money from it.

Everyone won. Except companies like gamestop because they don't get as huge of a cut anymore due to restrictions on pricing.

For the first time you could sell digital content. This is important because a main part of consumer rights is the ability to sell the things you have.

well you will now be able to sell the disc so you havent lost this at all , but now you can sell it privately as opposed to just at the few places MS licensed to do it. and dont fool yourself you wouldnt of got any more from them this way than gamestop give you now. <S and the publishers taking an extra slice of the pie isnt going to lead to more money for us for sure!

Part three: The DRM

Oooooh. Time to get to the scary part. The part that was so feared. RESTRICTIONS ARE EVIL!!!

Well being part of the GPCMR (glorious PC master race) we accept the issue of owning only a licence because we are paying somewhere between 50 and 10 % of the retail price

 

[dragongit]

How was loaning it to your friend once a loss in the battle for digital ownership? Or allowing 10 accounts to use the same game. How about the disc basically being unless outside of having to partition it off your console in case you wanted to sell it back to a gamestop. There were a lot more restrictions and red tape to this "ownership" then simply having the disc in hand. I dont' even know how people are trying to define the term" ownership" I have the game, I can take it where I want to, I can play it where I want to. I don't own the characters on screen or the property itself but i damn well own the disc that allows me to enjoy it. Until the day companies can come into my house and take the disc from my hand, I will consider what I have as ownership.

 

[nevarran]

But that's the thing, a constant internet connection isn't required to offer the options. Let me explain:

You buy a game from retail and put the disc in the console, at this point you would have 2 options:
1) Just play the game like on xbox from the disc, nothing changes
2) Register the game to your console online, which binds/links that disc to your account.
...

That's good and all, but if the internet requirement is something you can turn off, then it'll be easier to bypass and exploit.
And I don't see how the situation, you're proposing, moves us towards digital distribution. You're still making the disc as valuable as it is now. You're actually making it even better for disc buyers, you're giving them all the positives from owning a physical copy, plus all the extras of the digital sharing.