There is nothing in this article to convince me of Microsoft's DRM model as leading us into any sort of growth in the games industry.
If anything, it was entirely a step in the opposite direction. We would have had to relinquish control of our physical purchases to Microsoft's 24-hour scrutiny. They would have unfairly taken a cut of used game sales, in direct violation of First Sale Doctrine.
They would like to try to convince you that all of the great features related to their DRM were completely dependent upon the DRM scheme, but there are still alternatives. Games sharing can still work, if they concede that a small amount of so-called abuse is acceptable.
I've also seen absolutely nothing from Microsoft that would lead me to believe that any of their plans would reduce the costs of games. Every time they mention DRM it's in the context of preventing piracy, which they say drives game prices up. If they had unleashed a DRM scheme and had enough confidence in its efficacy, they could also have announced new pricing schemes as a result, which would have placated the majority of gamers.
> The online and DRM policies were designed to drive the industry forward toward a digital future.
If the article attempted to justify this statement, and then attempted to demonstrate that those policies would have the effects they were designed to have, and then finally shown how these effects would benefit the games industry, it would have fulfilled the promise of its title.
you dont need 24 hour drm to go all digital, steam does it without that, why cant microsoft?
Also I dont think that "the future of video games" is a future anyone would want where consumers have to ask Microsoft's permission to play our games, or where developers must go by Microsofts rules (such as indies can't self publish, or microsoft taking a cut of used game sales).
Giving Microsoft that much power and control over peoples digital libraries is foolish, and I dont see in any way possible that the game sharing feature (which is the only standout one) would be allowed at all by publishers, or that it would work as they led people to believe. Do you really think publishers or microsoft themselves would allow friend networks to share games with everyone? That would harm profits for them and publishers much more than piracy ever would.
This is such bullshit. People have been buying and selling used games for the last thirty years. If it is such a detriment to the game industry how come the combined annual gross sales have exceeded Hollywood movies over the last few years?
In summary: "the current state of our industry sucks so we should do everything we can to alienate our most passionate customers because, well, ITS TIME TO PANIC and casual gamers are a bunch of sheep anyway".
What I can't understand is why publishers didn't speak up before the reversal, if this is so import to them and such as good deal to customers (lower initial purchase cost.)
[+] [-] Zikes|12 years ago|reply
If anything, it was entirely a step in the opposite direction. We would have had to relinquish control of our physical purchases to Microsoft's 24-hour scrutiny. They would have unfairly taken a cut of used game sales, in direct violation of First Sale Doctrine.
They would like to try to convince you that all of the great features related to their DRM were completely dependent upon the DRM scheme, but there are still alternatives. Games sharing can still work, if they concede that a small amount of so-called abuse is acceptable.
I've also seen absolutely nothing from Microsoft that would lead me to believe that any of their plans would reduce the costs of games. Every time they mention DRM it's in the context of preventing piracy, which they say drives game prices up. If they had unleashed a DRM scheme and had enough confidence in its efficacy, they could also have announced new pricing schemes as a result, which would have placated the majority of gamers.
[+] [-] mynameisvlad|12 years ago|reply
Publishers would never allow this.
[+] [-] mooism2|12 years ago|reply
If the article attempted to justify this statement, and then attempted to demonstrate that those policies would have the effects they were designed to have, and then finally shown how these effects would benefit the games industry, it would have fulfilled the promise of its title.
[+] [-] MiguelHudnandez|12 years ago|reply
If you want the more modern terms with their conveniences and downsides, buy it online through the console and have it tied to your account.
If you want to buy a disc, you follow the old rules. You must have the disc to play, but you can also loan it to friends or play it offline.
It has worked that way with the existing Xbox 360, except you can't find the newest games online.
[+] [-] mikeyG23|12 years ago|reply
Also I dont think that "the future of video games" is a future anyone would want where consumers have to ask Microsoft's permission to play our games, or where developers must go by Microsofts rules (such as indies can't self publish, or microsoft taking a cut of used game sales).
Giving Microsoft that much power and control over peoples digital libraries is foolish, and I dont see in any way possible that the game sharing feature (which is the only standout one) would be allowed at all by publishers, or that it would work as they led people to believe. Do you really think publishers or microsoft themselves would allow friend networks to share games with everyone? That would harm profits for them and publishers much more than piracy ever would.
[+] [-] RexRollman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yamalight|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angersock|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markbernard|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] overgard|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmandarano|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmzt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glomph|12 years ago|reply