Digital Ownership: Why we lost today

[klaynexas3]

Except Steam might be doing it themselves, allowing for game trading and selling and sharing of digital copies. And so we gain that little nugget. Whether the consoles follow or not is their own choice, but the PC master race will still push forward with its own run, and I'll just sit here and enjoy the best of both worlds. All in all, we've lost nothing, gained the knowledge that we do ultimately have a say on what companies can do to us, and somewhere a company is continuing to run with that one diamond that was encased in the giant shit that was the Xbox One, and they shall bring its light to the world, and gamers will rejoice, mostly because it isn't covered in the crap anymore, and only there to alleviate something that we had lost! I'm sorry, what was I saying?

Oh yeah, no loss, plenty of ground gained, digital ownership will one day be achieved, something something Scotland.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Aw, don't cry. Publishers were never going to opt-in to the family-share feature anyways. It was 100% optional for game makers, and they had zero reason to participate in a program that only promised to reduce their profits. This was the "elephant in the room" at E3. No one wanted to talk about how the only objectively good feature on Xbone basically wasn't going to amount to anything. It was a framework with no subscribers and no incentives.

 

[machblast]

I like physical games. I like booklets, I like having a shelf full of them, I like collector's editions. I like cover art, I like being able to play games 20 years after the console has lost all support, and I like the obi that comes with imports of Saturn games. I like monolithic box sets with giant artbooks, I like metal boxes, I like posting pictures of my collection, and I like the feeling of getting a game in the mail or at the store.

I feel like it's kind of sad that people are going for digital-only in this day and age, when I far prefer owning physical copies of games.

 

[Zeh Don]

Applying digital product constraints to retail products is absurd.
Charging retail product prices for digital products is absurd.

The Xbox One was the worst of both worlds, designed that way to ensure maximum revenue potential as opposed to maximum customer satisfaction.
Having a system whereby you can elect to register your retail disc to your Xbox Live account, allowing the user to opt-in to the previous DRM policy, would have been the best of both worlds. The 24 Hour Check in would have simply applied to the games where you elected to register it. Those who didn't want to register their games didn't have to, but they miss out on all of the terrific digital features.
But, with this hypothetical hybrid system Microsoft couldn't make bank. They couldn't use it's customer base as a negotiation tool, because it couldn't guarantee they'd be online for every title. So, they stripped all of their features out and made damn sure their press release made insinuations towards "these amazing features are gone because YOU made a fuss!". They took their ball and went home, instead of working to make a better product. They were angry that the entire gaming world virtually revolted, instead of being a good consumers and buying what they were told to buy.

Microsoft, as evidenced by today, isn't interested in serving the interests of it's customers. If they were, they'd have found a way to make their "vision" work with what their customer base wanted - because there are some good ideas there. But, Microsoft want's to make money. And the fact that the PS4 pre-orders out-stripped them 3 to 1, showed them that customers aren't going to be told what to do. And if they're not going to be mindless drones, then they don't get to play ball.

The problem was Microsoft thought it could bully the market into submission. The problem was Microsoft's inability to explain any single aspect of it's console. The problem was, ultimately, Microsoft wanting control over the video game industry. And it's simply not willing to give up on that ideal.

We didn't lose. We taught the bully a lesson. And when they think they're strong enough, they'll come back.

 

[dystopiaINC]

Being able to share games and the loss of complete reliance on discs were really wonderful features of the new xbone and leagues better than what the competition was offering (without considering any of the controversial "side-effects". Since MS confirmed that gamers would not lose their library after servers were shut down (can be taken as seriously at least as Steams guarantee), and that games (purchased physically) could still be traded and gifted, the only thing that really concerned me about the xbone was 24 hour check in. When I buy a console, it is with the hope, if not the expectation that I will be able to use that console for the life span of the generation at least. The 24 hour check forces people to make assumptions about the availability of an internet connection wherever they go in the next 5-10 years, which is kind of a big deal. That's if it doesn't already rule you out from launch.

Up until recently I had moved house pretty much once a year, each time we were without an internet connection for a month+ (the combined effect of somehow none of these places having a connected phone line and moving just before the holidays). Both times Steam's offline mode screwed up (the first time, about two days in, it decided that it needed to be logged in again, the second time every game decided it needed an update and kept prompting me to log into online mode). I was pretty annoyed with Steam, and would prefer a service/device that wouldn't suffer the same problems.

I'm really sad to see the shared libraries go, though I'm more comfortable without the check-ins. It would have been nice to see some sort of compromise where registering games and check-ins were optional in order to receive the online benefits, but the disk could still be used to play offline, regardless of whether the game was registered or not. If the clever kids over at MS work out a way to do this at some point in this console's lifespan, I'd be delighted.

Now this I can get behind. i would love to see this feature in the future because it's really the best new innovation I've seen in this upcoming generation and Im absolutely miffed by it's loss.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Applying digital product constraints to retail products is absurd.
Charging retail product prices for digital products is absurd.

The Xbox One was the worst of both worlds, designed that way to ensure maximum revenue potential as opposed to maximum customer satisfaction.
Having a system whereby you can elect to register your retail disc to your Xbox Live account, allowing the user to opt-in to the previous DRM policy, would have been the best of both worlds. The 24 Hour Check in would have simply applied to the games where you elected to register it. Those who didn't want to register their games didn't have to, but they miss out on all of the terrific digital features.
But, with this hypothetical hybrid system Microsoft couldn't make bank. They couldn't use it's customer base as a negotiation tool, because it couldn't guarantee they'd be online for every title. So, they stripped all of their features out and made damn sure their press release made insinuations towards "these amazing features are gone because YOU made a fuss!". They took their ball and went home, instead of working to make a better product. They were angry that the entire gaming world virtually revolted, instead of being a good consumers and buying what they were told to buy.

Microsoft, as evidenced by today, isn't interested in serving the interests of it's customers. If they were, they'd have found a way to make their "vision" work with what their customer base wanted - because there are some good ideas there. But, Microsoft want's to make money. And the fact that the PS4 pre-orders out-stripped them 3 to 1, showed them that customers aren't going to be told what to do. And if they're not going to be mindless drones, then they don't get to play ball.

The problem was Microsoft thought it could bully the market into submission. The problem was Microsoft's inability to explain any single aspect of it's console. The problem was, ultimately, Microsoft wanting control over the video game industry. And it's simply not willing to give up on that ideal.

We didn't lose. We taught the bully a lesson. And when they think they're strong enough, they'll come back.

Well said and I agree entirely with you. What we may have lost is more than made up for by what we have not, Microsoft were out of touch with reality and they have been put firmly back in their place.

No-one was interested in their confused PR bullshit and now they have had to back down humiliated that they couldnt bully everyone into submission because they put everyone against them.

As another poster pointed out there is no reason they couldnt do the family share stuff for digital titles but they wont because they are sulking now.

There is no doubt in my mind they will try something again maybe even in the Xbox Ones lifetime as after all they reserve the right to change their policies at any time which is a still a worry although if they did this I believe it would end them (in the console market) as that would be a serious breach of trust.

Now Microsoft just get rid of the online authentication on start up and the Kinnect then it will be even better and if you want some good PR points drop Xbox Live gold membership and make it free then you would have something over the PS4.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

We didn't lose. We want ownership of digital content and resale ability afterwards, and with the EU having played it's hand eventually we're going to get it through law. But it doesn't mean we have to submit to Microsoft's business model, where Microsoft is still the main benefactor and publishers can opt in or out. Microsoft thought it could jump the gun and have the digital market submit to its rules before it's properly established, but it failed.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Digital rights management can be a way of empowerment!

For the copyright holder, and only the copyright holder.
Licensing is not the same as copyright; a license is a limited, exclusive privilege to use a piece of information.

It is not the same thing as full ownership of copyright and thus does not grant the same rights the holder is entitled to.
(Take notes Internet: This is a CORRECT use of "entitled".)

Congratuations gaming community. Congratulation in killing the first progress in changing digital content ownership. Feel good now?

I'll be mourning the loss of change over here.

Oh spare me the melodrama.

That game sharing you spent the better part of a page pining over: it doesn't quite work the way you think it does.

At best, it's a legal facade giving the consumer the illusion of "rights".
At worst it's a bait-and-switch program.

Those digital games you could resell and share on the Xbone; realize that in a purely-digital environment, that is only LEGALLY possible with the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

(Why would Microsoft have to back-build a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL PROGRAM into the Xbone to address the loss of Used Games? Oh right. Because with games as a service instead of a product, those Contracts of Adhesion are suddenly fully enforceable no matter the circumstance. The legal grey area that enables Used Game sales to exist disappears.)

So why is that important? Because the right of resale in that environment LEGALLY AND PRACTICALLY doesn't belong to the consumer; it belongs to the copyright holder (the Publisher in this case). It is possible for the consumer to benefit from that program, but only if the Publisher says you can.

It isn't a "right" if you need someone's permission; that's a privilege.

So what price were they asking for such limited privilege? Why, only giving up the practical liberties of physical media; which is one of the ONLY remaining practical strengths of game consoles for the consumer.

Still feel like mourning? Save your tears: You lost nothing save maybe an opportunity for abuse.

If you want true progress for digital ownership, at least among most of the AAA, you're going to have to convince the United States and (IIRC) Japan to modify their copyright laws.
The European Union is pushing ahead for such progress already.

 

[exobook]

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/159166-game-sharing-discovered-in-steam-beta-update-valve-takes-cue-from-xbox-one

Here's something interesting for this thread

 

[Seanfall]

I'll be mourning the loss of change over here.

Not all change is for the better.

I, for one, will be feeling good, because the day consoles move to an entirely digital system is the day I stop playing games on them. Oh, sure, I tolerate it on my PC because there's little alternative anymore outside of really high-profile titles like Blizzard games, Bioshock, Dishonored, etc.

But one of the perks of a console to me is getting to hold that case, getting to feel the disk and flip through the manual (which have tragically become little promotional sheets instead of actual instruction manuals in the past seven years), slipping it into the system and watching it light up as it loads up to the main menu. Downloading something and booting it from a data file doesn't give me nearly the same satisfaction.

If I have to 'give up rights' for digital ownership, so be it. In fact, fuck it, because I never trade in my games to retailers and have practically nobody to share them with in the first place, so all of those supposed perks of digital ownership wouldn't actually be perks to me. The only way I would count it a loss is if Microsoft were actually giving the consumer complete control over their digital goods with the system they had previously had implemented--Which they weren't doing. Microsoft was still at complete liberty to tell each and every customer to fuck off and rip access to their entire library away from them. That's not digital ownership. That's digital renting. The ability to share or sell the digital copies back wouldn't change that.

Yes, yes a million times yes. I rarely if ever turn in used games at a retailer. I sell them myself and at least get a decent percentage back. Not to mention this system would have still made renting a game, Physical disc and all, almost impossible how do you rent a game with this system? Change is subjective, it can be good, or it can be bad. And also even if they are trying new things it doesn't matter as we still have the right to go. "No that's a stupid fucking idea, and you should feel fucking stupid for having thought of it."

 

[LeenaV]

"I don't think owning a physical copy of a game automatically means that you own the actual game... unless it states so on the end-user license agreement."

I understand that this site has a lot of worldwide users, so what I say may not be applicable for everyone, but in the United States at least, for the last century the law has said that when you buy something, you now own it, and the person or company that sold it to you can't tell you that you can't sell it, lend it, or give it away to someone else. And since until recently all games came on physical media, you did indeed own that copy of the game.

It's called the First Sale Doctrine, and it's stuck in the craw of media companies for a long time. They've been trying to get around it by muddying the waters with purely digital copies, but evidently a lot of people decided that they weren't going to stand for it.

 

[HannesPascal]

Can your friends access your digital games?

Yes, just give them your steam account and password. And if you don't trust them with your password you're obviously not very close friends.

Also (I guess this is about the xbone) nobody complained about the xbones game sharing, what people wanted to remove was always online and no used game. If Microsoft removes the game sharing that is microsofts fault not gamers.

 

[generals3]

I'm really disappointed about this too. Digital Rights Management would've meant something besides archaic restrictions.

Looks like Steam is going to pick up the torch, though. PC Gaming Master-race, lighting the way yet again.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=595606

So Valve basically thinking "Hmm, it seems microsoft is doing something better than us let us imitate their system" is the PC Gamin Master-race lighting the way? All these digital libraries on PC are 100 times worse than the Xbone's ex system and all Steam is doing is getting on par with what the xbone had planned.

 

[Amaror]

snip

read the news again.
They didn't said they were doing away with any of that. The only thing they said is that they will remove the restrictions of having to be online and not being able to share physical goods. They didn't said they weren't doing the digital resale and stuff.

 

[Sonicron]

We wouldn't have owned shit. I remember a Twitter screengrab from a few days ago, wherein M$ said that you'd immediately lose access to all your games if your account was banned for any reason. I will not mourn the lost potential of the Xbone, since there wasn't any on the table to begin with.

 

[Sarge034]

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.

Congratz, this is pretty much how all media has been since the late 80's, digital or not. No one ever has, or ever will, "own" media they bought.

DRM wouldn't have changed anything at all. Valve/Sony/EA wouldn't had to re-think anything. the only difference is that we would have had more DRM then needed,

But you would have been able to sell digital games for once! Isn't that something? You could have lent and sold digital content!

Now we have nothing. No progress at all

No, it is not something. First I want my hard copies and my physical (on site) hard drive. If I want to share or sale my games I can do so. Problem solved.

So question. How cool a feature would it have been if you suddenly had your internet go down and you got locked out of all those digital games that you "own"? The idea of making a second hand market for digital content was cool, no doubt, but the negative implications are too great to live with.

Today was a victory, but we only won the battle because MS decided it would loose too many troops in this engagement. The war still looms.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

Congratz, this is pretty much how all media has been since the late 80's, digital or not. No one ever has, or ever will, "own" media they bought.

DRM wouldn't have changed anything at all. Valve/Sony/EA wouldn't had to re-think anything. the only difference is that we would have had more DRM then needed,

But you would have been able to sell digital games for once! Isn't that something? You could have lent and sold digital content!

Now we have nothing. No progress at all

Digital is still getting the system so you get your precious digital games that can be taken off you at any time while those of us that like to own the licence and can play weather the servers are turned off or not can do that too. Both sides win, what the heck is there to complain about? Or do you want people who don't want to buy and play games the way you do to be told to 'deal with it'? Yeah we saw where that got them didn't we.

 

[nevarran]

I'm 100% with you on this one. We're back in the 90s, because of bunch of whiners, who wanted to share discs with friends.

I'm afraid the possibility, that Valve would implement a sharing system, is completely gone now.

 

[Nakts]

Anyone claiming this is a step back must work for EA or something, there's no justification for that level of DRM. They weren't making any steps forward, we still have the fact that digital copies sell for the same price as physical with less overhead cost, the same crappy DLC and nickle and dime policies that are killing AAA gaming and bringing Indy games and lower budget titles to the forefront.

 

[RicoADF]

I'm 100% with you on this one. We're back in the 90s, because of bunch of whiners, who wanted to share discs with friends.

I'm afraid the possibility, that Valve would implement a sharing system, is completely gone now.

Your level of ignorance is laughable. People have the right to owning the games they buy, just because your happy to throw away your rights doesn't mean others are. It's not the digital that was the issue, it's how they were trying to execute the idea. Great ideas, bad execution.