Games, Licenses, DRM

[edwest2]

From The Escapist:

"Today there seems to be a sentiment that a great evil has been slain. Alas! The evil DRM has been defeated! HURRAAAAAAAAH! Let us celebrate in triumph about how we now have the right to do whatever with a disc that we want!

"Or it seems that way on the surface. But what is lost is something that we didn’t have yet. Something that is desperately needed in an increasing digital world where discs are mattering less and less. Increasingly games are bought through non-physical means.

"Entire things like steam and origin run purely on digital content and have no physical media support. Many games are now sold only by downloading off of playstation network or xbox arcade.

"But games purchased this way have a severe flaw. You have no ownership of the game. You have a licence to play it, but you do not own it.

"Can you pass on the license of a digital game after it has been played?

"No.

"Can you trade in a digital game that has been used?

"No.

"Can your friends access your digital games?

"No.

"Can I remove my ownership in any way?

"No.

"You do not have any consumer rights over digital games at all. You only can play games that you have bought…unless your account is banned. Then you can’t play them at all.

"So here enters the Xbox One previously. Here in a market where you have no rights over digital games they wanted to do something new. Something fresh. They were going to give you a chance to actually have consumer rights over digital games for once. For the first time you were going to be able to sell a digital product and to share it with people.

"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 ****** 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.”

Ed

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There were aspects about the XBox’s new policies that were positive, such as teh family sharing, and there were aspects that were overwhelmingly negative (the inability to sell your used games should you chose to).

In addition to this, the always-on kinect and required internet connection were undue hindrances to people.

i never sell my games back, so I didn’t mind the drm that much, it was just the requirement to “phone home” and the kinect’s omni-presence (I know you can turn it off, but still…) that irked me.

 

[edwest2]

That’s how licensing works though. Electronic game sales have been down. Based on what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear that game makers have forgotten how to make good games. Part of it appears to be a boost in the hobby games market, especially for board games. People enjoy face to face gaming.

Ed

 

[minion]

Difference is, Steam is CHEAP.

 

[curlycool89]

Are we talking about the XBOX One?

The console Microsoft announced that will go down in history as one of the WORST new console announcements of all time? The one that was so bad that they nearly alienated their entire user-base? The one that was so bad even Sony was making fun of them at E3?

The one that will probably be a case study for marketing students for the next 50 years of “NEVER EVER DO THIS”? The one that treats their customers as guilty criminals first and innocent if proven? That one that capitulated to game makers (coughEAcough)? The one that made it impossible to play even single player games without an internet connection?

That one that tried to completely undermine the First-Sale Doctrine? The one where the games were still horribly overpriced and you couldn’t even sell them to other people as is your right with your own property?

That one announcement that was so bad that Microsoft was forced to backtrack essentially the entire set of “features” they announced because the market was about to wholesale move towards Sony and Nintendo?

Man, what a colossal screw-up that one was. I’m sure there was much chair-throwing to celebrate.

 

[epiclotus]

I followed this debate pretty heavily over the last few weeks.

Sadly, many developers have forgotten how to make good games. They’ve created better graphics, more interactive methods of control, and brought these games closer in-line with a film experience in some cases. These games cost as much, if not more, than many movies cost to create. The massive undertaking required to create such AAA titles is a huge gamble, and I understand the business aspect of putting heavy DRM in place. The used game market has always been seen as a problem by the gaming companies because, while the games still generate goodwill for a company, they derive no profit off of it. This heavy-handed DRM is all an effort to squeeze every penny they can from the market because development costs have gone through the roof.

What the game companies are having a hard time doing is convincing console gamers that games should be no different than other entertainment media that has gone digital. Streaming movies and ebooks all work under the “license only” model, and yet these industries are booming. Even the PC gamer market has moved beyond an ownership model with the advent of services like Steam and Origin, where you own nothing and have to have an internet connection to be able to use the games. Nobody complains about Steam (but a little about Origin, if I remember right) because the service is run in such a way as too garner a lot of goodwill. There are sales on the games with regularity, the games are tied to your account (so you can play anywhere you can log in), and there’s a whole community of people that’s developed with the service.

It’s exactly what the console market is trying to build, but I think the problem lies with the fact that Microsoft didn’t offer people a choice during a time when there’s still a lot of transition going on. If you push people into something they’re uncomfortable with (like lack of “ownership”), then they’ll resist. People like choice, and the one consumers want will dominate over time. Streaming movies has almost killed off the DVD/BD markets, and while I don’t think we’ll see books disappear in our lifetimes, ebooks have become a very large part of the publishing industry. You yank away people’s choice in the matter, and there will be backlash.

 

[curlycool89]

I followed this debate pretty heavily over the last few weeks.

Sadly, many developers have forgotten how to make good games. They’ve created better graphics, more interactive methods of control, and brought these games closer in-line with a film experience in some cases. These games cost as much, if not more, than many movies cost to create. The massive undertaking required to create such AAA titles is a huge gamble, and I understand the business aspect of putting heavy DRM in place. The used game market has always been seen as a problem by the gaming companies because, while the games still generate goodwill for a company, they derive no profit off of it. This heavy-handed DRM is all an effort to squeeze every penny they can from the market because development costs have gone through the roof.

I don’t see a problem with this. Once somebody buys the game it’s theirs, not the creator’s anymore. This is what the First Sale Doctrine is all about, that when you buy something you can sell it to other people because it’s your property.

Record companies I’m sure made the same crying sounds over used-record stores, but nobody in their right mind (apart from the RIAA and allies) would ever say there’s something wrong about buying a used record or CD.

What the game companies are having a hard time doing is convincing console gamers that games should be no different than other entertainment media that has gone digital. Streaming movies and ebooks all work under the “license only” model, and yet these industries are booming. Even the PC gamer market has moved beyond an ownership model with the advent of services like Steam and Origin, where you own nothing and have to have an internet connection to be able to use the games. Nobody complains about Steam (but a little about Origin, if I remember right) because the service is run in such a way as too garner a lot of goodwill. There are sales on the games with regularity, the games are tied to your account (so you can play anywhere you can log in), and there’s a whole community of people that’s developed with the service.

It’s exactly what the console market is trying to build, but I think the problem lies with the fact that Microsoft didn’t offer people a choice during a time when there’s still a lot of transition going on. If you push people into something they’re uncomfortable with (like lack of “ownership”), then they’ll resist.

It wasn’t actually so much the “lack of ownership” as the image that Microsoft was giving, which was “we want to screw you over every which way”.

People don’t mind Steam because it has older games which are hard to find, and because it’s not arm-and-leg expensive. One place I read about the new xbox one was that they were planning on having this “no trade-ins/used-games/etc” and at the same time still charging like $90 for a new game (I can’t confirm the price rumour).

Now, a new console game for the Wii or Xbox 360 or PS3 (so far as I understand) usually runs in the $50-$60 range I believe. With that game, you can buy it, trade it in, lend it to a friend, sell it on eBay, or whatever. What Microsoft wanted to do was charge the same amount and give you less service for it. That was really the point the people were flipping out over.

If they want to go with this “new model”, they’re going to have to give customers something for it. The ability to “share” is new but useless for many people. If they really wanted to sell this idea, what they needed to do was tell people “Yes, there’re restrictions on selling and trading but the price will be 1/3 to 1/2 for new games” ($20-$30 at most). $20 is a sweet spot, because we’re getting closer to being an impulse buy (for people who have some money), whereas with $60 you start to think twice.

Like I said, this is just an example of total marketing failure. They could have got everything they wanted so long as they made a concession (like game price cuts), but they (or the publishers, because I’m sure at least some of them coughEAcough are to blame too) wanted everything and the high prices.

Instead, they got nothing. Actually, they got worse then nothing. They had to admit to an embarrassing public faux pas and essentially admit that they completely misread the market (although, they also just released Windows 8. But I digress). They’ve made gamer very suspicious, there’s still a large number that have sworn off Xbox completely, they gave Sony a chance to play the good guy, and they’ve given indicators to their shareholders and investors that they are flying by the seat of their pants when it comes to policy and management. I would be surprised if no one gets fired for this.

 

[curlycool89]

People like choice, and the one consumers want will dominate over time. Streaming movies has almost killed off the DVD/BD markets, and while I don’t think we’ll see books disappear in our lifetimes, ebooks have become a very large part of the publishing industry. You yank away people’s choice in the matter, and there will be backlash.

See, the thing that eBooks did right was price.

I like eBooks because of the convenience (I can read them on my iPad, and I don’t end up with a bookshelf full of books I might never pick up again). If the price were close to or comparable with the full book price (say Amazon price), then there would be no point buying the eBook when you could have the real book. eBooks are often a lot cheaper though.

For example, I needed a textbook for philosophy which I’ll use for the class and then never use again. So, the choice was really between buying a paper book for the full price and re-selling it later, but even taking into account the buy-back price it was still a little cheaper to get the eBook (which I then didn’t need to sell back to get the better price). The eBook also had the ability to search (which is useful for finding quotes and stuff).

You’ve got a give a little, get a little. No reselling is offset by a (sometimes significantly) cheaper upfront price.

 

[epiclotus]

I didn’t mean to suggest that the there was anything wrong with the second-hand market. This is why I shouldn’t post when I’m tired .

What I failed to imply was that there is a massive market for used video games, and it’s likely out of proportion with other industries. Used books, music, and movies are big business, too, but I’d be surprised if they were at the massive, corporate level that is Gamestop.

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I feel like this is actually a failure of innovation. Most of the new leased media that’s out there (ebooks, Netflix streaming, iTunes, Steam, etc.) came about by offering the consumer a new and more convenient way to enjoy their content (and at the discount that you mention). This was usually accompanied by a some sort of gadget to accompany the tech (Kindle, Roku, iPod, etc.). The Xbox One isn’t actually offering anything all that new in terms of convenience. Some of their ideas about sharing content were interesting, but certainly not innovative. I can share just as easily by taking a disc over to a buddy’s house to play.

I can’t speak to other’s concerns, but personally, Microsoft has never come off as a “good” company. They’ve always been cold and corporate (and most of their responses regarding the new Xbox only reinforce that). They come up with a machine that has a built-in camera and requires an always-on internet connection, and it just brings out the conspiracy theorist in me. Companies can talk all they want about protecting privacy, but we’re learning more and more everyday how little we can trust them with our information. Now, one of them wants to essentially put a spying device in our homes that has to be always on the internet? Umm, no thank you.

Microsoft really screwed up because they tried to force the market into what they wanted, rather than letting the market migrate there over time and at its own pace. Funny thing is, not only did they put me off buying an Xbox One at any point, but I had previously been planning to pick up a 360 now that the system has come down in price. All that money is now going straight toward a day-1 pre-order on a PS4.