Xbox? Done.

[Fiairflair]

But I know what too far looks like, in terms of tying my fate to that of a corporation simply because I at one point wished to use their product. And turning videogames into "services" because of a false choice between quality and freedom of use is the beginning of too far.

Too true. I wonder, if the gaming market does crash during or immediately after this coming console generation, which publisher will succeed simply by offering gamers ownership of the games they purchase.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

The fears of Valve or Origin closing, and people losing their game collections actually holds some water. So what if you back up everything. If you ever want to install them, or move them to a different machine, you will need to authenticate them online. If Steam closes down, you WILL lose those games. Same goes for if your account gets banned as well.

The cloud does scare a lot of people, and so it should. The only digital distributed games that truly give you ownership of what you pay for is GOG. You have the library online, but if you wish to download all of those games onto a HDD, you will be able to play them till the end of time no matter what.

Microsoft aren't that stupid, guys. They are happy to make a system that appeals to their biggest revenue generating demographic. All of those who are saying "I'm happy to be/become a PC gamer", they've taken that into account. Probably also because Windows 8 sales haven't exactly been what they should be. Anything they don't force onto you in this console generation, you can bet your ass they will start to in the next PC "generation".

 

[weirdee]

In all the furor over the XBone, no-one has yet to comment on a similar service that already exists, one that ties your games to the console manufacturer's continued existence. Namely, Playstation Network Plus. If you subscribe to that, you get a myriad of premium features (why auto-updating firmware is a premium feature, I don't know, that should be standard), but to get back to the topic, they either discounted certain games or give them to you for free. However, those games can only be played as long as you are a paid subscriber. Should your subscription end, or the Sony server datacenter is bombed out of existence, you lose the ability to play them, just like what the XBone is threatening to do. Suddenly, subscribing to PSN+ isn't so that you, the customer, can access great features like uploading saves to the cloud and whatnot - it's so you can continue to play the games that are sitting on the hard drive.

yes

but PNP isn't MANDATORY FOR EVERY GAME

 

[Amir Kondori]

My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

While there are no guarantees Gabe has said that it would probably not be too hard to release a patch that allowed all your Steam games to function without phoning into Valve's servers.

In any case I buy from GOG.com whenever I can, as you get to download a completely DRM free installer that will always work on as many machines, as many years down the road, as you would care to install it. If the game's market gets REALLY competitive I think we'll see less restrictive DRM, not more, as in the end service and convenience win out. Up until very recently the big guys have not had any competition, it has been a 2 company game with others on the periphery. Now mobile is a big deal, there are streaming services, Steam, Humble Bundles, GOG.com, indies, etc., and the big three are going to have to adapt. I don't see them adapting.

 

[disappointed]

Opposite an article referencing Idiocracy was (for me) an advert declaring "Twix: join the debate!"

 

[Colt47]

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Ah, but that's the thing. You can possess a chair. The reason the law is scared and confused is because the property laws which are still the basis of our system today were developed hundreds of years ago. Back then, physical possession and direct control was considered a key aspect of property and ownership. Those kinds of definitions don't really work today. However, because the common law is based on precedent, instead of updating the ancient definition of property, the law instead has to do bizarre backflips in order to fit new forms of property into this rigid and outdated legal definition that has no place in the modern world.

So, you see, you can physically possess a disc, but the digital information on that disc has no physical presence. You don't have physical possession of the content on that disc. The law basically says that you have only purchased a license to access that content.

Seriously, they struggled even when it came to the concept of applying the law of theft to electronic money.

That's legal reasoning for you.

Actually, the data on a disc does have a physical presence. On DVDs, CDs, and Blue Ray the information is stored via pits and lands on the reflective side on the disc. The only case where things get dicey is where someone gets access to some core software through a client program they purchased, such as on MMOs. This is why businesses are pushing the cloud and always online requirements: because if they can make it work, they can simply "Lend" the playable software via a client program that we technically own. This is already somewhat the case with MMOs, though we have more data on our side of the equation than most think.

 

[carpathic]

You know, Mr Chipman, I have generally avoided EVERYTHING you have written since you turned on your fans in the whole Mass Effect fiasco, but I am glad I read this article.

You brought up some salient points - and while I do not agree with all your statements, I think you raise an interesting idea. The notion that businesses are trying to change the paradigm of reliance.

Fascinating really!

 

[mogamer]

My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

Being one of the first groups try this, Valve actually has an apocalypse contingency plan, at which point they'll provide time for you to download and back-up your files, and they'll provide a universal unlock.

The real fear is if Steam got bought out by someone else, but their price is well beyond what EA offered.

238U

Honestly, Steam won't disappear. The likely scenario is that it will be bought up by some company that won't be as mellow as Valve. And when that happens, this rumored contingency plan will be shit-canned.

 

[elilupe]

I don't always agree with you MovieBob, but this article hit the nail right on the head. Microsoft has finally gone too far with this console, and I think this will be the first thing I actively decide not to buy no matter what games come out on it.

 

[rayen020]

here is where all complaints about steam fall apart. If you are on a computer and have steam, close this window and disconnect from the internet. scary i know but i only ask your indulgence for a few moments. once it is disconnected from the World wide web and supposedly a tube to the steam servers, open steam. A error message will pop-up lamenting your egregious lack of internet connection. however on that error message there will be a button to access in offline mode. from there steam will act as it normally does opening and allowing you access to your entire library. you can play all the games in your library with no problems except you know the games that are played online, the WoWs and planetsides and counter-strikes and such.

In theory this is what would happen if Valve filed for bankruptcy and closed it's doors.

Now this terribly off topic tangent rebuke to arguments that Xbox One DRM is the same as steam is over.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

One point; when Steam can't connect to the internet, you can still play all your games just fine. From all indications given by Microsoft thus far, with the Xbone if you can't connect to the internet once a day your console bricks itself until you can, preventing you from playing any games. This key point is the difference, at least for me.

Some of your games. Anytime you try to play some of them offline, they mystically need to update, but work the second you connect to the internet. Without updating. See: Civ V.

Umm, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I have never had a problem opening any single player game in offline mode, including Civ V.

There's at least one scenario I can think of: if you happen to switch to offline mode when Steam is attempting to force an update (whether it's a client update or a game update), Steam will deny you access to content because the update couldn't be finished. That's one of the worst drawbacks to Steam's auto-update feature, and it's one of my biggest complaints about the service.

 

[Marowit]

This kind of thinking is what drove me away from Apple - you must use our product our way and we'll make for damn sure it won't work your way...even though you purchased a physical piece of machinery...

I get that it becomes more convenient/cool to pick up games via PSN/xbox live and just download it in the background. But, that Hasbro analogy you made just really got to me, because it's so true.

Ultimately though, I think what'll end up happening is kids will still get the xbox, because their parents will pick it up for them at xmas, but our generation will take a pass on it. I'm sure it'll still sell gangbusters, and as a result will help normalize the cost/no-used-games to a new generation of gamers.

It'll leave us as a more marginalized, 'i remember the good ol' days,' group of people. Microsoft doesn't care able creating good games for gamers, they care about increasing their marketshare and selling more xboxes & services to people, hence something like the NFL-partnership. Everybody wants to figure out how to make their next console sell like the Wii.

I'd love to think that there will be a niche of developers that will cater to us, but with production costs being so astronomically high I'm sure it'll end up being a few small-independent developers at best. PC's and Indie games will still be our bastion, but yeah

 

[Flunk]

I for one, choose to speak with my wallet. I'm getting a PS4.

 

[talideon]

Screw this, I'm not going to stand for Microsoft's business practices! I'm going to get a gaming PC! *buys a Windows PC* This was their plan all along.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Valve are trying to pivot Steam and its library away from being Windows-specific. Even the biggest purveyors of DRM on the planet (nice, friendly DRM, but DRM nonetheless) don't like the idea of MS sharecroppers.

And that's what MS want us to be: sharecroppers.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Here's a question I want answered:

When the Xbox One's time in the sun is over, and the new system is on the horizon, and Microsoft stops supporting it... what happens when this system can no longer go online to authenticate its games to grant me "permission" to play the library I've spent years and hundreds of dollars acquiring?

Because it needs that daily online check to function... so what happens when, 10 years from now, the servers to the system have been turned off and the system is effectively a non-functioning brick?

Some of us have been asking that question for yeeeeeeeears! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX].

238U

 

[Biodeamon]

I think microsoft has reached the end of it's evolutionary tree or is at least nearing it.
At this rate it will be the winner of the first darwin electronics award.

 

[SLasher797]

Well, i really don't think this will be a massive problem since most gamers won't buy the xbox one for reasons like this and other people won't buy it because they won't see a purpose in doing so. If the console doesn't sell than wouldn't Microsoft have to change their policy?

 

[darksakul]

In all the furor over the XBone, no-one has yet to comment on a similar service that already exists, one that ties your games to the console manufacturer's continued existence. Namely, Playstation Network Plus. If you subscribe to that, you get a myriad of premium features (why auto-updating firmware is a premium feature, I don't know, that should be standard), but to get back to the topic, they either discounted certain games or give them to you for free. However, those games can only be played as long as you are a paid subscriber. Should your subscription end, or the Sony server datacenter is bombed out of existence, you lose the ability to play them, just like what the XBone is threatening to do. Suddenly, subscribing to PSN+ isn't so that you, the customer, can access great features like uploading saves to the cloud and whatnot - it's so you can continue to play the games that are sitting on the hard drive.

Except that Sony been very upfront about PSN Plus, Microsoft have yet to make a statement on the matter, allowing the EULA do the actual talking for them.

What needs to happen is the American Public needs to write to there senators and congressmen to protect the FIRST SALES DOCTRINE, a vital part of copyright law that states that if you buy something it is yours to do as you please until you no longer wish to have it anymore then its up to you as the owner of said device what to do with such product.

 

[badgersprite]

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Ah, but that's the thing. You can possess a chair. The reason the law is scared and confused is because the property laws which are still the basis of our system today were developed hundreds of years ago. Back then, physical possession and direct control was considered a key aspect of property and ownership. Those kinds of definitions don't really work today. However, because the common law is based on precedent, instead of updating the ancient definition of property, the law instead has to do bizarre backflips in order to fit new forms of property into this rigid and outdated legal definition that has no place in the modern world.

So, you see, you can physically possess a disc, but the digital information on that disc has no physical presence. You don't have physical possession of the content on that disc. The law basically says that you have only purchased a license to access that content.

Seriously, they struggled even when it came to the concept of applying the law of theft to electronic money.

That's legal reasoning for you.

Actually, the data on a disc does have a physical presence. On DVDs, CDs, and Blue Ray the information is stored via pits and lands on the reflective side on the disc. The only case where things get dicey is where someone gets access to some core software through a client program they purchased, such as on MMOs. This is why businesses are pushing the cloud and always online requirements: because if they can make it work, they can simply "Lend" the playable software via a client program that we technically own. This is already somewhat the case with MMOs, though we have more data on our side of the equation than most think.

^ Right. The actual games themselves don't have a complete physical presence on the disc anymore for this reason, because other media on discs like TV shows or films you actually do have property rights over, because the content is entirely on the physical disc. That's what I meant before. I apologise that I wasn't clear. This is why you can resell Xbox 360 games just fine, because if the game is entirely on the physical disc, you are completely free to resell it. That's why they're changing their model to sever that.

This is why more and more companies have taken on a "service" model, like Bob says. It enables them to forgo property laws by basically saying that the content is online, or at least to the point where companies have enough control over the game content that it affords them those property rights. Like I said, this is pretty much why video games can be locked out on your own systems if you don't connect to the internet or whatever. Gamers don't have enough "ownership" over the content, so it's not their property, and the "service providers" can do with it as they please, and the law can deny you the right to dispose of your game as you please.

And I'm not even talking about intellectual property with respect to the games. That's a completely separate issue and shouldn't factor in at all when it comes to things like resale rights and the ability to lend games to friends. Know why? Because of books. I don't own any rights over the words and content printed within a book. I can't legally take those words and manufacture a copy of the book without infringing copyright. But can I lend a book I paid for to a friend? Can I give it away to a complete stranger for free without them having to pay the publisher or author? Yes. I absolutely can. This is pretty much the whole concept that allows things like libraries to exist. And the same is true of paintings, movies or TV shows. If I own that copy, I can do whatever I want with it up to the point of infringing copyright.

The fact that a game is any different defies common sense, but common sense and legal reasoning don't often go together.

 

[Tim Chuma]

Digital versions of a product are good if you are running out of space to store things. I have actual piles of DVDs, CDs and books that I don't have anywhere to put.

It does get my goat having to pay again for Sonic 2 the Megadrive version just because I don't want to have to get my console out again (SEGA consoles are notorious for stopping working, my Dreamcast had to have a hole drilled in it to let the demons out.)

I have not really used Steam, but have friends who use it and play a lot of games over the service.

I bought a XBox 360 as my computer is for editing photos on and not a gaming PC.