> "If false, the rumor is nuts because of just how much of a stretch it is. The developer of a platform that runs a multitude of software unrelated to each other — and software that, on the whole, focuses primarily on offline play — would never create such a barrier to entry."
Does anyone else think the author is being a tad bit naive here?
So, rumors like these are pretty typical before a major platform announcement, right? Intentionally leak a negative rumor in the months leading up to a release and either let the public get used to the idea (if true) or overlook an actual marginally better new practice (if false) because "well, at least they didn't do that first thing..."
As long as it works and doesn't create a barrier to play, most people will not care. Most of the past always-on DRM has caused public outcry because it created problems for people to play the game they paid for.
But over time people will just get used to it and accept it much like they go along with almost everything else. I remember a time in the PC gaming world that if a game didn't work once installed then all hell would break out in the company's forums and in the gaming news. These days? Several games that require always-on connections such as MMOs have had outages the first week of release and most have just shrugged their shoulders. That kind of thing is almost expected these days and not many care. Sure, there's a vocal few that complain about it but once the problems are sorted out then people tend to forget they couldn't play their game for the first two or three days after paying for it.
My thought on why this is likely not true is because even today it would be quite a stretch to expect enough of the market to be able to provide an always-on connection. Take the US for instance, how many people who currently have a 360 couldn't get the next console simply because they don't the proper connection to support it?
Plus, why is always-on DRM necessary for consoles when we've heard from the industry for years that the reason they focus on consoles is because piracy is almost non-existent on those platforms?
Is it to prevent used game sales? I understand the thinking since not only do publishers not get a piece of the used game sales transaction but the console manufacturer doesn't get a piece of it either like they do from new games through licensing fees. But they might as well hold up a sign that says, "Hey customers! Please sue us!" Plus Gamestop, and others, would likely get involved since it would hit their bottom line quite severely. It's great for the publishers that somehow they've convinced enough of the courts that a EULA allows them to cancel out people's first sale doctrine rights but if they prevent used game sales on such a scale then I guarantee that people will buy less and rent more. I expect publishers to go after rental companies next.
> people will buy less and rent more. I expect publishers to go after rental companies next.
Or they'll partner with rental outlets, and we'll see digital game rentals similar to digital movie rentals. We already see pseudo-rental DLC in free-to-play games.
Well, you can at least count me as someone who didn't buy Diablo 3 for absolutely no other reason than the ruckus that followed its release - due entirely to their bullshit DRM.
And I didn't pirate it, either. I've never really got into any of the Diablo games, but there was so much hype around 3 and so many people looking forward to it that I figured I'd give it a shot. But then even two weeks after the release there were still problems with it and I just sort of lost interest.
There are so many good games on so many platforms these days that to buy something you can't play because of artificial limitations just seems colossally stupid. Yeah, so I missed out on Diablo 3. No big deal.
Has anyone ever really done a proper study into lost sales via DRM? It seems like half the industry has just accepted it as something they have to do, and they don't want to know or even care if it affects their bottom line positively or negatively.
I have a feeling I won't be playing the new Simcity either. In the past, I may have tried to pirate it. Now? I'll just ignore it.
This is inevitable. I know most won't want to hear that, but like any contention like this, it will be resolved by adding more cloud computing power. "Costs less because 90% of the OS/processing is in the cloud!" will become a selling point and a financial incentive soon. Not sure if this round of consoles will see this DRM style, but it's definitely coming.
Remember that time, way back in the 90s/00s, when you said you wouldn't want a device that could track you anywhere? Using iCloud's Find my iPhone?
Maybe this is just a terminology gap here, but it seems to me the real issue isn't that the DRM is 'always-on', rather that the DRM model would require one to be 'always-online'.
That's a rather disturbing trend. I'd be rather upset if I couldn't play any console games at my remote cabin for example, or in an RV while traveling, or to kill time while my comcast connection is down.
This how PC gaming has worked for a while now through Steam and other popular platforms, and console owners will eventually warm up to it as well.
This is just a typical "DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!@#$" reaction. In 5 years we most likely won't care, and the vocal minority will continue to talk about how gaming is ruined.
I agree that people likely won't care in a few years. But I don't understand your apparent gleeful tone. Do you actually like how this stuff is getting ever more locked down and inflexible?
wrt to the whole 'always-on' thing for DRM - is it not more likely that it would use the Spotify model - i.e. you have to go online at least once every 30-days to verify that you still hold a licence/subscription? That would be more practical than requiring a permanent Internet connection.
There are two distinct original rumors.
One is that it will require a permanent internet connection.
One is that it will not allow used games to be played.
Some of these articles have combined these two rumors to form a new rumor:
It will require a permanent internet connection to play games.
At least the original reasons given for always on were not DRM related.
The DRM/used game blocking was going to be implemented by one-time-use codes for every game that served no purpose but to activate the game.
The hardware video game rental business is already (almost) dead. I'd imagine we will soon see digital rentals much the same way we currently have digital film rentals.
Online DRM can't always be "cracked", because the "DRM" may in fact be that significant chunks of the game actually live in the cloud. For instance, if the levels can be randomized, that's easy code to put in the cloud. You can't "crack" that; you may be able to re-implement it, but that's a whole new level of effort and skill.
I never understood, why companies think that software must not follow the first sale doctrine, I am not only talking about games...
We have things like always on DRM to block used game sales, various softwares that phone home, dongles, and lets not forget of the infamous lawsuit of Autodesk against a guy that sold some copies of their software that he had legally obtained.
Of course, this is one of the main reasons behind the cloud push, making software become a service instead of a product.
But I don't trust it, I prefer a world where software, is a product, not necessarily tangible, download only is fine, but you should be allowed to truly own it, otherwise you are vulnerable to it being yanked from you, like Amazon yanked books from Kindles.
When you give somebody is a paperback book it is fundamentally a "move" operation. When you give somebody a software program it is fundamentally a "copy" operation so the original owner still has it.
The only way to simulate a move operation is to follow the copy operation very shortly with a delete operation on the original media. Of course if you are copying data from a device that you own then the manufacturer or media owner has no way of knowing if that delete operation really happened.
So they try and work around this with increasingly sophisticated methods to force a delete operation. However these are usually not effective against a determined attacker, so the easiest thing to do is simply to disallow the move operation altogether.
[+] [-] knowaveragejoe|13 years ago|reply
Does anyone else think the author is being a tad bit naive here?
[+] [-] Hansi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] victoknight|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pandaman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|13 years ago|reply
But over time people will just get used to it and accept it much like they go along with almost everything else. I remember a time in the PC gaming world that if a game didn't work once installed then all hell would break out in the company's forums and in the gaming news. These days? Several games that require always-on connections such as MMOs have had outages the first week of release and most have just shrugged their shoulders. That kind of thing is almost expected these days and not many care. Sure, there's a vocal few that complain about it but once the problems are sorted out then people tend to forget they couldn't play their game for the first two or three days after paying for it.
My thought on why this is likely not true is because even today it would be quite a stretch to expect enough of the market to be able to provide an always-on connection. Take the US for instance, how many people who currently have a 360 couldn't get the next console simply because they don't the proper connection to support it?
Plus, why is always-on DRM necessary for consoles when we've heard from the industry for years that the reason they focus on consoles is because piracy is almost non-existent on those platforms?
Is it to prevent used game sales? I understand the thinking since not only do publishers not get a piece of the used game sales transaction but the console manufacturer doesn't get a piece of it either like they do from new games through licensing fees. But they might as well hold up a sign that says, "Hey customers! Please sue us!" Plus Gamestop, and others, would likely get involved since it would hit their bottom line quite severely. It's great for the publishers that somehow they've convinced enough of the courts that a EULA allows them to cancel out people's first sale doctrine rights but if they prevent used game sales on such a scale then I guarantee that people will buy less and rent more. I expect publishers to go after rental companies next.
[+] [-] knowaveragejoe|13 years ago|reply
Or they'll partner with rental outlets, and we'll see digital game rentals similar to digital movie rentals. We already see pseudo-rental DLC in free-to-play games.
[+] [-] sixothree|13 years ago|reply
That said, this pretty much rules out using the XBox at the beautiful camp in the middle of nowhere.
[+] [-] bluedanieru|13 years ago|reply
And I didn't pirate it, either. I've never really got into any of the Diablo games, but there was so much hype around 3 and so many people looking forward to it that I figured I'd give it a shot. But then even two weeks after the release there were still problems with it and I just sort of lost interest.
There are so many good games on so many platforms these days that to buy something you can't play because of artificial limitations just seems colossally stupid. Yeah, so I missed out on Diablo 3. No big deal.
Has anyone ever really done a proper study into lost sales via DRM? It seems like half the industry has just accepted it as something they have to do, and they don't want to know or even care if it affects their bottom line positively or negatively.
I have a feeling I won't be playing the new Simcity either. In the past, I may have tried to pirate it. Now? I'll just ignore it.
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdisraeli|13 years ago|reply
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/examining-sonys-intern...
[+] [-] tomkin|13 years ago|reply
Remember that time, way back in the 90s/00s, when you said you wouldn't want a device that could track you anywhere? Using iCloud's Find my iPhone?
[+] [-] djrogers|13 years ago|reply
That's a rather disturbing trend. I'd be rather upset if I couldn't play any console games at my remote cabin for example, or in an RV while traveling, or to kill time while my comcast connection is down.
[+] [-] px1999|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chucknelson|13 years ago|reply
This is just a typical "DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!@#$" reaction. In 5 years we most likely won't care, and the vocal minority will continue to talk about how gaming is ruined.
[+] [-] bilalq|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EvilTerran|13 years ago|reply
Admittedly, it can be a little temperamental about it unless you've got it set up just right, but that's its intent nonetheless.
[+] [-] mikeash|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Major_Grooves|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DannyBee|13 years ago|reply
Some of these articles have combined these two rumors to form a new rumor:
It will require a permanent internet connection to play games.
At least the original reasons given for always on were not DRM related.
The DRM/used game blocking was going to be implemented by one-time-use codes for every game that served no purpose but to activate the game.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muyuu|13 years ago|reply
Sadly I'm not so sure about that.
I would definitely skip it though, but not that many people really care.
[+] [-] mrcharles|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_3#Sales
[+] [-] prawks|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrhyperpenguin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceeK|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rheeseyb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meaty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fwr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fserb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] speeder|13 years ago|reply
We have things like always on DRM to block used game sales, various softwares that phone home, dongles, and lets not forget of the infamous lawsuit of Autodesk against a guy that sold some copies of their software that he had legally obtained.
Of course, this is one of the main reasons behind the cloud push, making software become a service instead of a product.
But I don't trust it, I prefer a world where software, is a product, not necessarily tangible, download only is fine, but you should be allowed to truly own it, otherwise you are vulnerable to it being yanked from you, like Amazon yanked books from Kindles.
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
When you give somebody is a paperback book it is fundamentally a "move" operation. When you give somebody a software program it is fundamentally a "copy" operation so the original owner still has it.
The only way to simulate a move operation is to follow the copy operation very shortly with a delete operation on the original media. Of course if you are copying data from a device that you own then the manufacturer or media owner has no way of knowing if that delete operation really happened.
So they try and work around this with increasingly sophisticated methods to force a delete operation. However these are usually not effective against a determined attacker, so the easiest thing to do is simply to disallow the move operation altogether.