New xbox drm and blocks used games

nesf

stevenmu wrote: »

That's a really interesting point. It might be a case of of them saying "it must always be connected", but it's actually only for certain services.

There were rumours about it being a complete entertainment center, and I think there were also rumours about it having TV/movie functionality. It would be very cool if it was "always on" and would download you favourite shows etc as they were released so you could watch them whenever you got in.

I remember rumours of a completely stripped down XBox, no DVD drive or anything that would basically work as off the XBox marketplace and more importantly act as a Netflix box.

Retr0gamer

What people are worried about is that being always online will prevent them from playing any games at al because for some people this is an issue especially people with crap or flaky internet connections. Being online isn't necessary for playing a game like power is necessary for a hover or a mobile signal is necessary for making a phone call. It's arbitrary and forced on the consumer and the consumer is not receiving anything in return for it.

What MS are basically doing is denying people the ability to play XBox games at all if their internet is ****, something they were perfectly capable of doing a few weeks ago.

There's also the worry of servers going down or making games unplayable. It doesn't matter how big your company is it seems that if you make something always online you are going to end up with problems. Diablo 3 and Sim City proved this and if the launches of those two games are the future then I can see why people are worried.

richymcdermott

Grumpypants wrote: »

Yip and I will be buying my PS4 before my Xbox 720, the PS4 is shaping up to be the better option but having to connect to the internet is not going to stop me buying the Xbox either.

I'm not supporting their move i'm explaining why they are making the decision (if in fact it is true, seeing as no one knows for sure yet)

I can see the Twitter guy's point although it was badly made but then again that is what happens when you use Twitter for anything you just sound like a snappy arrogant ass.

Mobile phone needs to be always connected to the mobile network to work. This is true.

His hover does need to be always connected to the electricity network to work. Unless you have some fancy robot battery powered hover. This is true.

The sky box needs an always on connection to the Sky satellite to work. This is true.

The industry is moving to an always connected model, not just to piss people off but companies want to have you connecting to their company on a more regular basis. That way they can monitor your habits and sell you more crap you don't need.

Look at the PS4 in their press conference they promised to know what you are going to want! That will be because the machine monitors everything you do and will guess what you want. Didn't he say the console will have the game downloaded before you even realize you want to buy it. Now I don't think for a second that will actually work but that is what they are going for.

this is the problem those products needs to be connected to a service or electricity to work , games should not need to be always online to play games.




we are in a bad recession for both to be a company and consumer , it does not help publishers pissing off consumers with all these rules and **** just to play a game.

there are still parts of the world that these companies should cater to like what retro said above south america , india and mostly recently china lifting the ban of ps ,nintendo and ms gaming.

Banjo

A mobile phone needs a network connection to work because it's primary function is to connect you to that network
A vacuum cleaner needs to be connected to the electricity network because electricity is required to power the motors without which it cannot perform it's primary function
Sky Box needs a connection to the satellite to work because it's primary function is to decode the signal from that satellite

A games console requires access to the electricity network for power. It requires access to a display of some kind so you can see what it's doing (unless you're fortunate enough to have chosen the glorious WiiU ). It only needs an always on network connection if the network connection is core to the primary function of the console. The console plays games. If they're not MMOs, then they don't need an always on network connection. So it's really not a fair comparison.

Personally, I feel any attempt to limit the 2nd hand market by punishing 2nd hand buyers is short sighted. It's going to affect 1st hand sales, because if you hurt the 2nd hand market you hurt the trade in market, which makes it harder to flip titles, take your trade in and buy more 1st hand titles.

History has shown that if they want a stable, expandable base they have to entice the 2nd hand market, not beat it with a stick. Making it mandatory to purchase a license to use the software or to unlock the disk hurts - and thus shrinks - the market overall. Making it optional but attractive only grazes the market a little (since the prices people will be willing to pay will factor in a chunk of the optional additional cost to Sony/MS, thus driving prices and trade-in values down) and creates a new stream of revenue that's currently closed. Since DLC has become pretty much mandatory on every major-label title that gets released, the obvious option is to have a DLC module for online play or even local multiplayer (for the Fifa and split screen FPS student crowd) if you want to be really scabby, and put a one-off license for that DLC in the retail box so you're only charging 2nd-hand players.

VinLieger

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I actually find it stupid and narrow minded of MS. Those poorer countries with not internet are the ones that MS should be looking toward to sell the next XBox at the end of it's life cycle since they will have much better economies in the next 5 years. Sony has had great success marketing the PS2 in emerging nations such as India, China, South America. Really with videogame budgets getting out of hand they really need to be broadening the market instead of reducing it, because if a publisher can't reach enough people to make their game profitable they'll go bust or look elsewhere.

This is the bizarre thing, they arent even pricing themselves out of the market they are actively choosing not to even try selling a product to A LOT of people. Are they under the impression that everyone else has the internet coverage the states has? Sure our broadband infrastructure outside major population centres is still quite patchy

Grumpypants

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Again, how does steam stop piracy? As far as I'm aware having steam works built into your game is as much protection from piracy as having a paper mache umbrella to protect you from the rain.

Think about what you are saying. Are the hackers really going to go 'oh noes! games are locked to a single account, the nextbox is totally hack proof!'. If they find a way to hack the machine and blow it wide open having games linked to ann account isn't going to do jack to prevent piracy. It hasn't worked with steam. Do you actually think that more games on PC are selling because steam is stopping people from pirating games or is it because it's a fantastic integrated system that makes sense which offers a great platform on which to play games, form communities and offers exceptional value for money during it's sales?

The only real reason for always online consoles is data gathering so they can find out what to advertise to you and sell your data as a commodity for advertising and if they block second hand games then it's a way for them to control the market even more by taking away your some of your consumer rights in exchange for more money in their pockets.



I've done it as have thousands of others to play import games since I've had a PS1, so yes.



I know all this which is why I was asking for accurate figures on revenue lost due to piracy, which you won't find. Also those are for PC based games not for console based games.



I actually find it stupid and narrow minded of MS. Those poorer countries with not internet are the ones that MS should be looking toward to sell the next XBox at the end of it's life cycle since they will have much better economies in the next 5 years. Sony has had great success marketing the PS2 in emerging nations such as India, China, South America. Really with videogame budgets getting out of hand they really need to be broadening the market instead of reducing it, because if a publisher can't reach enough people to make their game profitable they'll go bust or look elsewhere.

Fully agree the main reason is to collect data and sell you stuff. But don't under estimate the impact the consoles have had on the industry and a main reason for this is that they are closed systems with limited piracy.

Even the Xbox which is the easiest to hack still has limitations. Most people buy two, one for online & one for offline. Why ? Because when they go online and connect to the Microsoft network MS can scan the system and find the software and ban the console. They release new OS updates and link new games to that OS. These are just steps in stopping the casual pirate. They will never stop the serious pirate but if they can make it more annoying to pirate than buy then people will buy. This is why Steam works.

Microsoft are thinking hey lets move this step from when a player wants to go online to when they want to play any game. If this also stops used games then it is another bonus for them as every used game sold is about ten dollars lost in licensing revenue.

So always online helps cut down piracy, cuts down lost revenue from used games and allows them to monitor patterns and behavior. This is why they are doing it, again not defending it just explaining their thinking.

It is hard to put a real figure on sales that never happened. Would people have actually bought the game they pirated?, did they download it to demo it then buy it?, did they pick it up a year later on sale?.

MS have the option to release a Nextbox 1.2 for emerging markets in 5 years once they have sold enough that the manufacturing costs have come down. Same way Sony didn't sell the PS2 into emerging markets at launch they waited for the market to peek then went looking at other options when they could manufacture and sell it cheap in these markets.

If you are looking at emerging markets where the average annual wage is 3 grand there is limited sales potential releasing a 500 euro console. Imagine what would happen if they released a 4,000 euro console here? Only a hand full would buy it and it would be just pointless.

Icyseanfitz

"big francis video"

lol

damn late again

tuxy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

R

If the console gets hacked the first thing they will get rid of is games being locked to a single account. This is purely aimed at the second hand market.

Yes this was my point. It's really just a measure to stop people selling games second hand. There has been uproar over this. But many of the people that are pissed think steam is the best thing ever.

ShadowHearth

XBOX goes that way and good old CD Project Red goes this way:

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/witcher-3-drm-free-6406393

Can anyone show me where their offices are, because I want to throw my money at them.

MS should learn a thing or two...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

steam doesn't require you to be always online to play your games...

Grumpypants

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

steam doesn't require you to be always online to play your games...

Nobody said it did.....

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i clearly misread everything

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

Fully agree the main reason is to collect data and sell you stuff. But don't under estimate the impact the consoles have had on the industry and a main reason for this is that they are closed systems with limited piracy.

Even the Xbox which is the easiest to hack still has limitations. Most people buy two, one for online & one for offline. Why ? Because when they go online and connect to the Microsoft network MS can scan the system and find the software and ban the console. They release new OS updates and link new games to that OS. These are just steps in stopping the casual pirate. They will never stop the serious pirate but if they can make it more annoying to pirate than buy then people will buy. This is why Steam works.

Microsoft are thinking hey lets move this step from when a player wants to go online to when they want to play any game. If this also stops used games then it is another bonus for them as every used game sold is about ten dollars lost in licensing revenue.

So always online helps cut down piracy, cuts down lost revenue from used games and allows them to monitor patterns and behavior. This is why they are doing it, again not defending it just explaining their thinking.

You aren't really getting it are you. When the purpose of hacking a console is to run unsigned code and bypass security features, how does having it always online going to help when it's by far the easiest thing to get rid of once you actually get into the system. Having an always online system has absolutely nothing to do with stopping piracy and historically has been totally ineffective at it as well.

nesf

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

steam doesn't require you to be always online to play your games...

Some individual games sold under Steam do though. Offline mode works for most games not all games, it's up to the publisher/developer. The always online option is there with Steam, but most companies don't avail of it.

Grumpypants

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You aren't really getting it are you. When the purpose of hacking a console is to run unsigned code and bypass security features, how does having it always online going to help when it's by far the easiest thing to get rid of once you actually get into the system. Having an always online system has absolutely nothing to do with stopping piracy and historically has been totally ineffective at it as well.

The current xbox has been hacked but they can stop you getting into online games by banning it from connecting to Xbox Live.

If the new machine needs you to be connected to Xbox live all the time then they can ban that console/Gamertag from Xbox live meaning you can't play game online or offline. How they plan to do this I have no idea but this is their plan.

Now I am sure someone will figure away around making the games work offline on a hacked xbox eventually but in the mean time this is what they think will help maximize revenue.

Again not defending it or promoting it just explaining what they are thinking by making this choice.

Always on is happening, more and more companies are going for it. It is getting slammed by the internet now. Just like when Steam came on the scene and everyone thought it was the devil, fast forward 8 years later it is the norm and everyone thinks it is amazing.

Say in 8 years we have a set up where you like JRPG's the publisher thinks there is not a big market here for them so they don't make many.

Microsoft go "hey from all our monitoring we can see we have 10 million people that like JRPG's we can advertise your JRPG directly to this market, we can deliver your game directly to this market, we can do this safely and cost effectively as to maximize your revenue". So publishers go "ok lets make a JRPG's instead of brown/grey shooter sequel 5".

People are caught up in a wave of negativity, they don't like change yet moan about the industry never changing.

Always on might be a flop, it might change the industry. It will not put me off for one single second.

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

If the new machine needs you to be connected to Xbox live all the time then they can ban that console/Gamertag from Xbox live meaning you can't play game online or offline. How they plan to do this I have no idea but this is their plan.

They can do that already. I was banned for a while because I paid for a XBL subscription with a prepaid credit card and couldn't play any of my XBLA games. If I hacked my Xbox I would have been able to play them. It didn't stop piracy.

I highly doubt as well they'll be targeting me with JRPGs. I'll be prepared for more dudebro shooters and doritos adverts.

Grumpypants

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They can do that already. I was banned for a while because I paid for a XBL subscription with a prepaid credit card and couldn't play any of my XBLA games. If I hacked my Xbox I would have been able to play them. It didn't stop piracy.

I highly doubt as well they'll be targeting me with JRPGs. I'll be prepared for more dudebro shooters and doritos adverts.

Again it is not about stopping piracy it is about throwing up enough barriers to slow it down or limit the casual pirate.

If you put a shelf full off games outside a shop with no camera's or security you can be dam sure that people will swipe them, even people who would never dream of shop lifting.

Now putting that shelf inside the store will not stop shoplifting totally but it will limit it to those determined to shoplift. The majority will buy the games.

In terms of always online Xbox, I don't care I am willing to see how it works before writing it off. We can't all sit around moaning about an industry that never changes and churns out dudebro shooters if we are going to rally against any decision to change from the norm. Sure it might fall flat on its face and I am sure they will make many mistakes too just like any big change. But ten years from now we might be saying wow that always online thing really changed the way we play games, or we might be saying wow remember that time Microsoft tried introducing always online that was dumb.

Who knows what will happen I just know I won't be getting upset about it.

mayordenis

It still just hammers plenty of average consumers, so I couldn't really care what their justification is.

As someone who has lived in about 4/5 properties over the last 7 years, I always have a little bit of internet downtime when I move, this generally coincides with say TV downtime, as getting TV and internet setup somewhere takes a few weeks. It is absolute nonsense that I would not be able to play a game on a console that is 100% completely unhacked, just because I don't at that moment in time have an internet connection.

So grand, bury your head in the sand if it doesn't affect you, but it's a crappy move.

ShadowHearth

Grumpypants wrote: »

Again it is not about stopping piracy it is about throwing up enough barriers to slow it down or limit the casual pirate.

If you put a shelf full off games outside a shop with no camera's or security you can be dam sure that people will swipe them, even people who would never dream of shop lifting.

Now putting that shelf inside the store will not stop shoplifting totally but it will limit it to those determined to shoplift. The majority will buy the games.

In terms of always online Xbox, I don't care I am willing to see how it works before writing it off. We can't all sit around moaning about an industry that never changes and churns out dudebro shooters if we are going to rally against any decision to change from the norm. Sure it might fall flat on its face and I am sure they will make many mistakes too just like any big change. But ten years from now we might be saying wow that always online thing really changed the way we play games, or we might be saying wow remember that time Microsoft tried introducing always online that was dumb.

Who knows what will happen I just know I won't be getting upset about it.

Right, when it comes to pirating, there is no such thing as "casual pirate". Pirating on Xbox is not as easy as on PC. You can be some what casual pirate on PC, but even then you need to know wtf you doing and how not to get 5 Trojans in your PC and get all your bank details scanned every single time you buy something on amazon.
Piracy on console is not as easy or wide spread. You need quite a bit of info and knowledge to be able to pirate 360 games. So , so called casual pirate, would not do that I the first place. With always online it is same DRM bull****, which again, so called casual pirate wount go agains anywaut, but the pirate, who pirated on 360 wil pirate on the new yoke too.
So all in all this new "always on" system only will damage the paying customer.

Now just for a very basic view:
If MS will just do it as a simple "online check", then it will be piss easy for pirate to emulate it with modded software. If MS still want the simple guy to be able to play new Xbox with his ****y 2mbit connection, then they can't go any further then "online check" method.
If MS will do a full on Blizzard style, where actual loot rolls and orher values are being taken from server. Starcraft, which makes you download maps of server every single time, then all of the simple folk are fecked!

What MS is doing is making it more annoying experience to legitimate customer, where pirate won't give a flying feck m8.

Grumpypants

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Right, when it comes to pirating, there is no such thing as "casual pirate". Pirating on Xbox is not as easy as on PC. You can be some what casual pirate on PC, but even then you need to know wtf you doing and how not to get 5 Trojans in your PC and get all your bank details scanned every single time you buy something on amazon.
Piracy on console is not as easy or wide spread. You need quite a bit of info and knowledge to be able to pirate 360 games. So , so called casual pirate, would not do that I the first place. With always online it is same DRM bull****, which again, so called casual pirate wount go agains anywaut, but the pirate, who pirated on 360 wil pirate on the new yoke too.
So all in all this new "always on" system only will damage the paying customer.

Now just for a very basic view:
If MS will just do it as a simple "online check", then it will be piss easy for pirate to emulate it with modded software. If MS still want the simple guy to be able to play new Xbox with his ****y 2mbit connection, then they can't go any further then "online check" method.
If MS will do a full on Blizzard style, where actual loot rolls and orher values are being taken from server. Starcraft, which makes you download maps of server every single time, then all of the simple folk are fecked!

What MS is doing is making it more annoying experience to legitimate customer, where pirate won't give a flying feck m8.

As I have said before nothing will stop piracy all it will do is slow it down or limit it to the pros.

The majority of people I encountered with a chipped console are casual and have no idea how to do it themselves but they know and guy who knows a guy who does it for a few euro. They then buy a game for a tenner from him on a DVR. They are casual pirates.

If you make it so they have to go back to the guy every two weeks for an update that takes him an hour to do, then after a few weeks it starts to become a real pain in the ass for all involved. This is how you limit it.

Same as on PC if a casual pirate downloads a trojan and has to clean his PC and looses a load of data this will put him off doing it again but the pro will not get caught like this.

You will never stop the pro but you can put off the casual guys that don't know what they are doing. If they can do this enough to tip the balance so the games make them more money they will do it.

Grumpypants

mayordenis wrote: »

It still just hammers plenty of average consumers, so I couldn't really care what their justification is.

As someone who has lived in about 4/5 properties over the last 7 years, I always have a little bit of internet downtime when I move, this generally coincides with say TV downtime, as getting TV and internet setup somewhere takes a few weeks. It is absolute nonsense that I would not be able to play a game on a console that is 100% completely unhacked, just because I don't at that moment in time have an internet connection.

So grand, bury your head in the sand if it doesn't affect you, but it's a crappy move.

Again not defending the move or promoting it just explaining it and saying I will not be bothered by it. If I can't get online on my Xbox 720 ill play my PS4 or if that doesn't work i might go out and ride a bike.

It is not a serious issue that will impact my life in any major way.

ShadowHearth

Grumpypants wrote: »

As I have said before nothing will stop piracy all it will do is slow it down or limit it to the pros.

The majority of people I encountered with a chipped console are casual and have no idea how to do it themselves but they know and guy who knows a guy who does it for a few euro. They then buy a game for a tenner from him on a DVR. They are casual pirates.

If you make it so they have to go back to the guy every two weeks for an update that takes him an hour to do, then after a few weeks it starts to become a real pain in the ass for all involved. This is how you limit it.

Same as on PC if a casual pirate downloads a trojan and has to clean his PC and looses a load of data this will put him off doing it again but the pro will not get caught like this.

You will never stop the pro but you can put off the casual guys that don't know what they are doing. If they can do this enough to tip the balance so the games make them more money they will do it.

So same as you said yourself m8. They went to fella and he chipped their Xbox. They will do The same bloody thing with new Xbox and continue with their piracy where's all paying customers will have this stupid DRM. It won't lower the number of pirates. At all. It wil actually increase it, as paying customers will have to chip their xboxes just to be able to play they beloved PAYED for exclusive game on Xbox!

Varik

A penny arcade comic from diablo 3 on its DRM

Kinski

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I actually find it stupid and narrow minded of MS. Those poorer countries with not internet are the ones that MS should be looking toward to sell the next XBox at the end of it's life cycle since they will have much better economies in the next 5 years. Sony has had great success marketing the PS2 in emerging nations such as India, China, South America. Really with videogame budgets getting out of hand they really need to be broadening the market instead of reducing it, because if a publisher can't reach enough people to make their game profitable they'll go bust or look elsewhere.

Aside/ The burgeoning middle-classes in those countries will probably all have reliable internet by then; hell, many probably have it now (and cheaper and better than the service many in Ireland are getting.) /aside

I'm sure, if this be true, it is far more about "taking control" of your living room, so people access multimedia content and browse the web through Xbox, and Microsoft can get all the marketing data, advertising revenue etc. This was always the endgame with the Xbox brand.

I went 360 this gen, but if this is confirmed will certainly go PS4 next. And with Valve's Steambox in the works, this would actually be a quite good time for MS to f*** things up.

Atomicjuicer

Most people are missing the main problem here.

If you want to play a game from the 90s right now you can.

Do you really think this online validation will constantly cover all games for more than a few years after the publisher winds down?

And what about when Microsoft doesn't make that console any more? Will they keep their servers running nonstop for all these old games? Will their servers be fast enough and never be hacked or need maintenance?

It's a broken system from the start and I won't be buying it if they try it.

mcgovern

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Most people are missing the main problem here.

If you want to play a game from the 90s right now you can.

Do you really think this online validation will constantly cover all games for more than a few years after the publisher winds down?

And what about when Microsoft doesn't make that console any more? Will they keep their servers running nonstop for all these old games? Will their servers be fast enough and never be hacked or need maintenance?

It's a broken system from the start and I won't be buying it if they try it.

Why would you need servers for old games? Or any game? The game itself is not going to be running on the server unless I've misunderstood what they are planning on doing.
You have to be online to play, but it doesn't take much more processing than currently to run this, and it would surely be controlled by the Live servers and run at a console level, not a game level?

degrassinoel

Varik wrote: »

A penny arcade comic from diablo 3 on its DRM

bit offtopic, but worthy to note that diablo 3 will be an offline title on consoles. Serious masterrace rage about that one on blizzards forums a few weeks back

Retr0gamer

mcgovern wrote: »

Why would you need servers for old games? Or any game? The game itself is not going to be running on the server unless I've misunderstood what they are planning on doing.
You have to be online to play, but it doesn't take much more processing than currently to run this, and it would surely be controlled by the Live servers and run at a console level, not a game level?

You still need to run authenitification servers. You can be sure that when whoever runs them thinks they are unprofitable (i.e. when their games aren't being sold anymore or go bust) they'll be switched right off.

gizmo

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Most people are missing the main problem here.

If you want to play a game from the 90s right now you can.

Do you really think this online validation will constantly cover all games for more than a few years after the publisher winds down?

And what about when Microsoft doesn't make that console any more? Will they keep their servers running nonstop for all these old games? Will their servers be fast enough and never be hacked or need maintenance?

It's a broken system from the start and I won't be buying it if they try it.

The always online connection is seemingly maintained at a system level, not a game level, so publishers will have nothing to do with it. When MS doesn't make the console anymore they'll do one of two things a) release a firmware patch which will remove the necessity to connect or, more likely, b) just allow the old consoles to authenticate against the newer version of the system since it'll just be built upon the existing Live backend.

As for the debate itself, people honestly think MS would risk their entire console and XBox brand on such a move when Sony isn't doing something like it just to combat piracy? Really? Please...

Entertainment as a service.

Get used to it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

gizmo wrote: »

Entertainment as a service.

Get used to it.

or buy a PC