Digital Ownership: Why we lost today

[zumbledum]

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 shitty 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.

Now the same could happen with your friend Bob. But since Bob and Timmy are family members, Bob and Timmy can't use the copy in your library to play with eachother. But you can play with either Bob or Timmy as the owner.

The games you owned were shared with 10 friends. You essentially could let any one of 10 friends borrow a game and multiples can borrow different games at the same time.

Bob can play your version of CoD while Timmy plays Halo with you. You had a digital copy and you had a choice in being able to share that content with others. For once your digital copies could be shared!

It didn't stop there even. You could once per license transfer the license, making one of your friends an owner. Then he would share it with his family. That means that you can buy a game and 10 people would have access it, and then if you transfer it, up to 18 people would have had access to the full game in its lifespan!

Sure the licence could only be transferred once, but it has reached playability by a huge amount of people by the time it can't be transferred again.

I have to assume you posted this without knowledge of how this system was actually going to work , sure you and your mate billy could of played halo together, for an hour then his "demo" version will time out and he finds himself looking at the MS market place being asked to buy his own copy before the fun continues.

simple failure of communication from MS , lie of omission or outright bullshit as usual we will never know but this whole sharing thing wasnt as it turns out going to be any use at all.

Part two: Selling

Since you bought a digital game, you would need some way of deactivate the game to sell it. If you don't deactivate it, you would be able to sell a game and make money off of it while still being able to access the game still. Which isn't fair at all as when you sell something you are supposed to relinquish control over it.

You were going to be allowed to sell your digital license in exchange for money. You then can purchase a licence for another game, even with a used disc. This ensures that you have the right to sell games while at the same time ensuring a way for developers to get money off of every purchase due to having to generate a new license.

You won because you could sell the game and get money back from something you played.

The developers won because a new license meant they got money from it.

Everyone won. Except companies like gamestop because they don't get as huge of a cut anymore due to restrictions on pricing.

For the first time you could sell digital content. This is important because a main part of consumer rights is the ability to sell the things you have.

well you will now be able to sell the disc so you havent lost this at all , but now you can sell it privately as opposed to just at the few places MS licensed to do it. and dont fool yourself you wouldnt of got any more from them this way than gamestop give you now. <S and the publishers taking an extra slice of the pie isnt going to lead to more money for us for sure!

Part three: The DRM

Oooooh. Time to get to the scary part. The part that was so feared. RESTRICTIONS ARE EVIL!!!

Well being part of the GPCMR (glorious PC master race) we accept the issue of owning only a licence because we are paying somewhere between 50 and 10 % of the retail price

 

[dragongit]

How was loaning it to your friend once a loss in the battle for digital ownership? Or allowing 10 accounts to use the same game. How about the disc basically being unless outside of having to partition it off your console in case you wanted to sell it back to a gamestop. There were a lot more restrictions and red tape to this "ownership" then simply having the disc in hand. I dont' even know how people are trying to define the term" ownership" I have the game, I can take it where I want to, I can play it where I want to. I don't own the characters on screen or the property itself but i damn well own the disc that allows me to enjoy it. Until the day companies can come into my house and take the disc from my hand, I will consider what I have as ownership.

 

[nevarran]

But that's the thing, a constant internet connection isn't required to offer the options. Let me explain:

You buy a game from retail and put the disc in the console, at this point you would have 2 options:
1) Just play the game like on xbox from the disc, nothing changes
2) Register the game to your console online, which binds/links that disc to your account.
...

That's good and all, but if the internet requirement is something you can turn off, then it'll be easier to bypass and exploit.
And I don't see how the situation, you're proposing, moves us towards digital distribution. You're still making the disc as valuable as it is now. You're actually making it even better for disc buyers, you're giving them all the positives from owning a physical copy, plus all the extras of the digital sharing.

 

[RicoADF]

That's good and all, but if the internet requirement is something you can turn off, then it'll be easier to bypass and exploit.
And I don't see how the situation, you're proposing, moves us towards digital distribution. You're still making the disc as valuable as it is now. You're actually making it even better for disc buyers, you're giving them all the positives from owning a physical copy, plus all the extras of the digital sharing.

Yes I am, because all digital is an idiotic way of going (I'm not calling you an idiot, its all digital I have an issue with). Digital and physical is the future, just like in music, film and everywhere else. Physical may become more niche, but it shouldn't go anywhere. Some of us like buying the physical items, you have something in your hand to collect and show. And best of all servers being turned off wont rob you of your games, funny how people are so happy with the idea that whole generations of games can be wiped from existence and our history with the flick of a switch done to force people to buy the next console. There should be laws to protect the artwork that's being made from that short sighted greed by big American corporations that care only about money.

 

[nevarran]

Yes I am, because all digital is an idiotic way of going (I'm not calling you an idiot, its all digital I have an issue with). Digital and physical is the future, just like in music, film and everywhere else. Physical may become more niche, but it shouldn't go anywhere. Some of us like buying the physical items, you have something in your hand to collect and show. And best of all servers being turned off wont rob you of your games, funny how people are so happy with the idea that whole generations of games can be wiped from existence and our history with the flick of a switch done to force people to buy the next console. There should be laws to protect the artwork that's being made from that short sighted greed by big American corporations that care only about money.

The sad thing is, as long as the retail disc holds all the cards, the digital distribution will remain a niche. And people will continue to ignore the rights of digital owners.
It was in this topic, or another one in this forum, where a guy wrote to me: "If you buy digital, you don't own a shit. You own a game, only if you buy a disc."

 

[O maestre]

This is an incredibly short sighted argument, especially when it seems another company seems to be picking up digital redistribution and rights management. This victory is defined as such, because this is the first time I have seen an industry giant buckle to pressure of consumers, it proved that we as a community are not powerless, and that products should cater to us and not publishers. Hopefully that means companies will listen to us and our vision for the future, instead of merely directing and herding us like sheep. A digital rights overhaul will come, but not like this, not without a battle, we cannot let something like that be defined without our wishes being heard, the debate over digital rights and product license is too important to let one company decide on.

 

[RicoADF]

The sad thing is, as long as the retail disc holds all the cards, the digital distribution will remain a niche. And people will continue to ignore the rights of digital owners.
It was in this topic, or another one in this forum, where a guy wrote to me: "If you buy digital, you don't own a shit. You own a game, only if you buy a disc."

That won't change with the removal of discs, all that would change is the publishers/Microsoft etc would have total control over millions of gamers library and can delete them all and steal the right to play them. Theres a reason people say that the only way to have rights with a game is a physical copy, and it's not because digital is niche, it's because someone else has control over the servers and can (and will) take them away from you, which means no you don't own them your borrowing a licence. You only own a licence and a copy of a physical game, which publishers cannot walk into your home and steal from you unlike digital. Simply put, I and most people don't trust MS etc with such power, and frankly with the history of this industry it'd be foolish not to mistrust them.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Yes I am, because all digital is an idiotic way of going (I'm not calling you an idiot, its all digital I have an issue with). Digital and physical is the future, just like in music, film and everywhere else. Physical may become more niche, but it shouldn't go anywhere. Some of us like buying the physical items, you have something in your hand to collect and show. And best of all servers being turned off wont rob you of your games, funny how people are so happy with the idea that whole generations of games can be wiped from existence and our history with the flick of a switch done to force people to buy the next console. There should be laws to protect the artwork that's being made from that short sighted greed by big American corporations that care only about money.

The sad thing is, as long as the retail disc holds all the cards, the digital distribution will remain a niche. And people will continue to ignore the rights of digital owners.
It was in this topic, or another one in this forum, where a guy wrote to me: "If you buy digital, you don't own a shit. You own a game, only if you buy a disc."

And how exactly would that change by handing Microsoft a monopoly? If you abolish discs on consoles you abolish competition.

Currently Steam has to compete with a heap of other companies including *shudder* origin, but PSN and Xbox Live have no competing companies. Its only by preserving that competition that you keep prices down and have a chance to force digital ownership, not by handing them complete control and then begging some of the control back

 

[nevarran]

That won't change with the removal of discs, all that would change is the publishers/Microsoft etc would have total control over millions of gamers library and can delete them all and steal the right to play them. Theres a reason people say that the only way to have rights with a game is a physical copy, and it's not because digital is niche, it's because someone else has control over the servers and can (and will) take them away from you, which means no you don't own them your borrowing a licence. You only own a licence and a copy of a physical game, which publishers cannot walk into your home and steal from you unlike digital. Simply put, I and most people don't trust MS etc with such power, and frankly with the history of this industry it'd be foolish not to mistrust them.

And how exactly would that change by handing Microsoft a monopoly? If you abolish discs on consoles you abolish competition.

Currently Steam has to compete with a heap of other companies including *shudder* origin, but PSN and Xbox Live have no competing companies. Its only by preserving that competition that you keep prices down and have a chance to force digital ownership, not by handing them complete control and then begging some of the control back

Steam pretty much had a monopoly on the digital distribution, before Origin came out. Did they abused it? No! Even now, my retail games are locked to my Steam account, when I install them. No one's deleting them. I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. The disc is pretty much dead on PC, does anyone delete my content? I don't think so.
You think MS or any other corporation could and would delete my games from my hard drive, I disagree. I don't see why would they do that.
You say there's no competition for them. I say there is, Sony's their competition, Nintendo is, the PC is.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

That won't change with the removal of discs, all that would change is the publishers/Microsoft etc would have total control over millions of gamers library and can delete them all and steal the right to play them. Theres a reason people say that the only way to have rights with a game is a physical copy, and it's not because digital is niche, it's because someone else has control over the servers and can (and will) take them away from you, which means no you don't own them your borrowing a licence. You only own a licence and a copy of a physical game, which publishers cannot walk into your home and steal from you unlike digital. Simply put, I and most people don't trust MS etc with such power, and frankly with the history of this industry it'd be foolish not to mistrust them.

And how exactly would that change by handing Microsoft a monopoly? If you abolish discs on consoles you abolish competition.

Currently Steam has to compete with a heap of other companies including *shudder* origin, but PSN and Xbox Live have no competing companies. Its only by preserving that competition that you keep prices down and have a chance to force digital ownership, not by handing them complete control and then begging some of the control back

Steam pretty much had a monopoly on the digital distribution, before Origin came out. Did they abused it? No! Even now, my retail games are locked to my Steam account, when I install them. No one's deleting them. I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. The disc is pretty much dead on PC, does anyone delete my content? I don't think so.
You think MS or any other corporation could and would delete my games from my hard drive, I disagree. I don't see why would they do that.
You say there's no competition for them. I say there is, Sony's their competition, Nintendo is, the PC is.

Wrong actually, there is still a hole wall of PC games for sale at EB and JB, Even more so at Gametraders and there is GOG and companies which still sell digital licences online

Steam has never been a one horse race

Edit to add: I bought the orange box a couple of months ago at EB for $15, a PC game

 

[likalaruku]

That's why I won't buy a digital-only game unless it's under $10, even though I know perfectly well that pirates have been torrenting cracked digital games for years. But you know, if a game costs less than $10 & you torrent it, that's exquisite douchebaggery.

I buy physical discs. If I get any DLC, like the premium mods for Neverwinter Nights, I burn it to disc. Good thing I did that too, because those mods aren't available anymore.

 

[nevarran]

Wrong actually, there is still a hole wall of PC games for sale at EB and JB, Even more so at Gametraders and there is GOG and companies which still sell digital licences online

Steam has never been a one horse race

Edit to add: I bought the orange box a couple of months ago at EB for $15, a PC game

But they go through Steam, didn't they? I'm sorry, but I haven't used any of these and I don't know how they function. Did they give you just an .exe file that you can install whenever you like? No protection and stuff?
GoG doesn't, of course, but that's mostly for old games.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

No they don't all run through steam, the orange box does because its actually a valve game but that's beside the point. Who the dev is is irreverent the issue is that valve has never had an enforced monopoly on games, they have NEVER been the ONLY way you can buy a game if you want to play it on PC. I can still walk into a physical store and buy a game and run it on PC just like I can go into a store and buy a game and run it on the Xbox

What Microcrap wanted to do was eliminate the competitors so the ONLY place you could buy the game is Xbox live and that's a completely different concept from steam.

Oh and BTW, Microcrap has such a good track record with monopolies, how many times have they been in court for anti-competitive behavior with regard to Windows and IE. In fact the courts were ready to split microsoft up to stop there behavior at one stage. Not the best company to hand a monopoly to

 

[RicoADF]

Steam pretty much had a monopoly on the digital distribution, before Origin came out. Did they abused it? No! Even now, my retail games are locked to my Steam account, when I install them. No one's deleting them. I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. The disc is pretty much dead on PC, does anyone delete my content? I don't think so.
You think MS or any other corporation could and would delete my games from my hard drive, I disagree. I don't see why would they do that.
You say there's no competition for them. I say there is, Sony's their competition, Nintendo is, the PC is.

Steam is a private company run by a man who has the brains to understand customer satisfaction is worth it's weight in gold. Microsoft is a corporation run by suits that want to squeeze every cent out of you and would turn off the servers thus bricking your system. To think otherwise is foolish and I hope we never get the chance for me to be proven right. Just look at the history of EA, Microsoft and others. How quickly was support for XBOX dropped once the 360 came out? The 360 was only getting longer support because XBone's online requirement forced them into it to keep customers, and even then it'd be a few years at best. They don't have to keep the servers running because it's an expense, which they can stop supporting, once that happens your always digital library dies. Steam is different, it's not locked into a single system, steam is more like a retail store (except online) where you buy the game and that's it. They don't own the OS or system your on and don't need to push you onto the new system they spent millions developing, they are there to provide the sale service and that's it. Digital sales on consoles is a different matter, especially for Microsoft.

Wrong actually, there is still a hole wall of PC games for sale at EB and JB, Even more so at Gametraders and there is GOG and companies which still sell digital licences online

Steam has never been a one horse race

Edit to add: I bought the orange box a couple of months ago at EB for $15, a PC game

But they go through Steam, didn't they? I'm sorry, but I haven't used any of these and I don't know how they function. Did they give you just an .exe file that you can install whenever you like? No protection and stuff?
GoG doesn't, of course, but that's mostly for old games.

No they don't. Gog sells an exe with no DRM or any protection, I can download, put it on a thumb drive and install it on my internet lacking PC and it wont notice. Even steam has offline mode and can run without the net for an extended period of time (a few months idk, never needed to use it beyond a week). Both of them though are a different category to games bought on live or PSN where they want to push their next system when it comes out (especially Microsoft, Sony has a better history of supporting their older systems. Cultural difference between Japan and USA).

 

[Requia]

There's a really simple solution here: Don't buy digital games.

 

[roushutsu]

I'm all for digital ownership and all, but Microsoft didn't exactly impress me with their attempts. The fact that they couldn't just come forward and explain their decisions at press events and such was a major turnoff for me. I got the impression that they just didn't know what they were doing.

A company like Valve I feel would have better success, especially since they strictly work in digital. I'm sure that once we see a successful model in action, everyone will soon follow. Microsoft's model was doomed from the start.

 

[kamay]

Angry Joe did a good Video talking about people saying what has happened is making things worse.
The way digital copyright works has been like this for decades, you don't even own your physical copy.
I have at home a legit copy of Windows 7 and Office 2010 I get through my school. I don't own these, I can't make copies and hand them out to people.

What Microsoft was trying to do with the Xbox One was completely control your video game life. They'd peek into you "room" every 24 hours to make sure you aren't doing anything they don't like. Forcing people who don't have a good internet connection or unlimited bandwidth to either deal with it or don't buy it. Forcing people to use their cloud service which no one knows if it's any good or not (I highly doubt they have 300,000 physical servers but more likely 300,000 virtual servers). Restricting people who sell their old games to get credit or money to buy new games. Only allowing "authorized" retailers to sell used games for a fee which would probably mean used game prices would go up significantly.

Comparing home consoles to Steam is a motto argument because Steam is a digital downloading service and you know what you are getting into in the first place. I don't own home consoles to have them be a copy of my pc..that's what I have my computer for.

 

[N3squ1ck]

What everybody forgets is that Microsoft also dropped the region lock now, which is really a big deal to me, since I live in Germany, where games are still seen as children's toys and are heavily restricted, banned and forced to self-censor. Also Microsoft prohibited the official selling of games with no USK-seal (it is like the PEGI/MPAA-thingies, but a game can be deemed "too hard" for 18+ and not get it, so it is endangered of getting banned from open sale altogether)

On steam publishers can stop foreign codes from being activated, which they recently started to really do (for example with Saints Row 2/3, Sniper Elite V2 and some CoDs afaik), so the only way to enjoy the games in their uncut glory or at all is often with consoles without region lock, like the PS3, the PS4, or now the xboxone.

This is in my opinion a huge win for the consumer, although it really only kicks it in certain countries like my own and I am more than happy to trade any possible plus side for that.

All that in mind, I will still most likely get the PS4 over the Xbox One, but that mainly for inFamous, Killzone and the fact that it is cheaper (I'm going to university, so a hundret bucks are huge for me)