Xbox 720 to use always-on DRM?(extremetech.com)
extremetech.com
Xbox 720 to use always-on DRM?
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/147776-xbox-720-to-use-always-on-drm-it-would-doom-the-console
60 comments
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Why would console manufacturers agree to partner with a rental outlet for such a thing? If the digital rentals come from the console's network then there's no reason to share anything with a third party.
On the same thought, if a publisher somehow gets around the console manufacturer's wall and offer rentals themselves, somehow, then why would they share with a third party?
On the same thought, if a publisher somehow gets around the console manufacturer's wall and offer rentals themselves, somehow, then why would they share with a third party?
My internet connection is extremely reliable. Maybe I am the exception, but it is more reliable than my satellite television.
That said, this pretty much rules out using the XBox at the beautiful camp in the middle of nowhere.
That said, this pretty much rules out using the XBox at the beautiful camp in the middle of nowhere.
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.
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.
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..."
I don't recall similar rumors for any other major platform announcement.
There were rumours the PS3 would use single use discs that locked themselves to a particular PS3 before it launched.
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-wont-play-us...
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-wont-play-us...
By "similar" I meant a reputable entity being confident. Edge has reputation to care about and inside sources as well so this rumor is very different from a random blogger's speculation.
If this is true no one will buy the console, no matter what bells and whistles they add on top to make it "feel right". It's not right.
No one?
Sadly I'm not so sure about that.
I would definitely skip it though, but not that many people really care.
Sadly I'm not so sure about that.
I would definitely skip it though, but not that many people really care.
People said that about Diablo 3, and it went on to be one of the best selling PC games ever made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_3#Sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_3#Sales
Only because of pre sale hype. Not many still playing compared to what could have been.
Does that really matter? The always on DRM issue was known long before the game launched. If it was going to have a serious effect on sales of the game, it would have. You can't really argue against "People won't buy it because of DRM" with "Well people aren't playing it anymore!"
I'm sure the number of people who continue to play the game is at the forefront of their thoughts at Activision-Blizzard, not the piles of money they're busy counting.
Well, one could argue that Diablo 3 did well because people played Diablo 2 for so long. Diablo 4 is going to be in a much weaker position.
Blizzard is one of the few companies who cares about that sort of thing.
Blizzard is one of the few companies who cares about that sort of thing.
What's wrong with the platform owner controlling what's run on the platform? Seems pretty standard these days.
It is pretty standard these days and that's what's sad about it. Anything that removes options, and in some cases rights, from the customer for the benefit of the company is bad for consumers in the long run.
For example, the idea that you don't own the software you paid for, but are in fact licensing it, is fairly standard these days. Once it was crazy to think that you couldn't buy software, use it for a while, and then sell it to someone else when you no longer wanted it. These days it's quite standard to think that kind of thing a quaint notion. How has that made things better for the consumer?
From that simple idea that you don't own software but are licensing its use from the company has led us to the notion that you no longer have first-sale doctrine of the product you paid for. What's the next possible step? Whatever it is, I expect it will not be of benefit to consumers.
For example, the idea that you don't own the software you paid for, but are in fact licensing it, is fairly standard these days. Once it was crazy to think that you couldn't buy software, use it for a while, and then sell it to someone else when you no longer wanted it. These days it's quite standard to think that kind of thing a quaint notion. How has that made things better for the consumer?
From that simple idea that you don't own software but are licensing its use from the company has led us to the notion that you no longer have first-sale doctrine of the product you paid for. What's the next possible step? Whatever it is, I expect it will not be of benefit to consumers.
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!@#$" reaction. In 5 years we most likely won't care, and the vocal minority will continue to talk about how gaming is ruined.
This is just a typical "DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!@#$" reaction. In 5 years we most likely won't care, and the vocal minority will continue to talk about how gaming is ruined.
Steam doesn't require an internet connection for off-line play.
Admittedly, it can be a little temperamental about it unless you've got it set up just right, but that's its intent nonetheless.
Admittedly, it can be a little temperamental about it unless you've got it set up just right, but that's its intent nonetheless.
Some titles require a live connection; it's up to the publisher.
Steam itself can work without a connection.
Steam itself can work without a connection.
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?
Not gleeful, I just don't understand why it is such a big deal to some. I think I'm jaded by all of the overreactions at Neogaf.
Lots of people saying "I would never buy the system if they support that", but in all likely hood any gamer would probably give in for the latest shiny consoles regardless of the used game restrictions. Maybe it wouldn't be a day-one purchase, but Sony and Microsoft don't care about that in the long term.
Lots of people saying "I would never buy the system if they support that", but in all likely hood any gamer would probably give in for the latest shiny consoles regardless of the used game restrictions. Maybe it wouldn't be a day-one purchase, but Sony and Microsoft don't care about that in the long term.
I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the implications this sort of thing creates for the balance of power between the buyer and seller, and the potential problems for lost history.
For the former, always-on DRM is already being used to severely curtail the avenues for redress available to purchasers. For example, one of the major consumer protections available today is to dispute fraudulent charges on your credit card if the merchant is uncooperative. However, try this with Steam, and you may find your entire account locked out, including completely unrelated, legitimate purchases. You essentially lose your right to third-party arbitration of disputes.
The latter is more vague, but it seems likely that emulating bygone titles from today is going to be a lot harder than emulating bygone titles of the 80s is.
For the former, always-on DRM is already being used to severely curtail the avenues for redress available to purchasers. For example, one of the major consumer protections available today is to dispute fraudulent charges on your credit card if the merchant is uncooperative. However, try this with Steam, and you may find your entire account locked out, including completely unrelated, legitimate purchases. You essentially lose your right to third-party arbitration of disputes.
The latter is more vague, but it seems likely that emulating bygone titles from today is going to be a lot harder than emulating bygone titles of the 80s is.
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?
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?
Apart from killing the used games industry, which would benefit MS, I wonder also what would happen to video game rental businesses.
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.
Yep, but instead of having a free market of rental stores you have to rent from one company per platform and accept whatever their terms are.
Downloading 16 GB games would pretty much cap out most peoples BW limit.
So Microsoft makes a deal with broadband providers so that game downloads don't count towards your download limit in exchange for some % of the sale price going to the carrier.
The big games companies will then all make these contracts but include clauses that prevent them from making similar deals with smaller distributors.
The big games companies will then all make these contracts but include clauses that prevent them from making similar deals with smaller distributors.
I think that's a great idea if MS/Sony were to get such a deal set up with ISPs.
It would be a great deal for Sony/MS , not such a great deal for other distributors like Steam, Ouya etc.
Probably not great for the consumer in the long run either if it leads to an effective monopoly in online games.
Probably not great for the consumer in the long run either if it leads to an effective monopoly in online games.
At the moment, it seems the cost of bandwidth is sinking faster than new games are growing in size. And making the games yet bigger again is hitting some economic limits on the game maker's side. If you've got broadband, you've probably got enough bandwidth even without special deals. (And yes, I know that's not 100% true, which is why I said probably, but we've got at least another year and maybe two or three before this is even remotely a big deal for the XBox720, during which the bandwidth situation should continue to improve.)
I don't know , I haven't noticed bandwidth caps getting much better.
Making games bigger does not have to be that much more expensive , especially if you start adding stuff like 1080p video.
Making games bigger does not have to be that much more expensive , especially if you start adding stuff like 1080p video.
"I don't know , I haven't noticed bandwidth caps getting much better."
Yes, a lot of people have gotten so cynical they haven't noticed, no sarcasm, but many consumer internet connections over the past few years have simply gotten better, without much fanfare. I believe right now my mid-grade Comcast connection is now primarily speed limited by my wireless router, rather than the Internet connection itself. This was not true when I signed up for it four years ago. I still have a 250GB/month cap (which I still only come about 33% of the way to using) but I wouldn't be surprised that grows sometime before the XBox720 gets out there.
It seems like games have been shipping less video as the in-game engines become more and more capable. Game companies were already straining to fill the disk in this generation, I think in the next generation it is very likely to be game company resources that are the limiting factor rather than bandwidth concerns.
Yes, a lot of people have gotten so cynical they haven't noticed, no sarcasm, but many consumer internet connections over the past few years have simply gotten better, without much fanfare. I believe right now my mid-grade Comcast connection is now primarily speed limited by my wireless router, rather than the Internet connection itself. This was not true when I signed up for it four years ago. I still have a 250GB/month cap (which I still only come about 33% of the way to using) but I wouldn't be surprised that grows sometime before the XBox720 gets out there.
It seems like games have been shipping less video as the in-game engines become more and more capable. Game companies were already straining to fill the disk in this generation, I think in the next generation it is very likely to be game company resources that are the limiting factor rather than bandwidth concerns.
Steam users are used to this. You buy a game and then wait a day while it downloads. No big deal. Steam even pre-loads some games before they're released so that you can play them immediately when they're available.
On average I'd guess that people only buy 3-4 big name games a year which are over 1-2 GB so they probably won't bust their download cap. Also lot of steam games are Indie games which are usually 300mb-1Gb. When I was younger and couldn't afford games I would rent one or two every week, if everything were to go digital that download cap would be reached in a week or two.
Is piracy a big issue on Xbox?
I assume anybody who is running pirate games on the Xbox360 is using a modified console anyway.
I don't think piracy is the reason for including always-on DRM. Console makers are trying to kill the used game market in this generation.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/examining-sonys-intern...
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/examining-sonys-intern...
The decreasing reliance on the need for physical media will probably torpedo the used game market before always on DRM will.
This all seems like linkbaity rumor to me, Microsoft doesn't really have a business case to go to always on DRM and risk turning off a segment of their customers (some customers won't care and would buy regardless). I don't think Blizzard or Ubisoft would consider not building for the XBox platform if Microsoft refused to support always on DRM so Microsoft isn't beholden to the game studios.
This all seems like linkbaity rumor to me, Microsoft doesn't really have a business case to go to always on DRM and risk turning off a segment of their customers (some customers won't care and would buy regardless). I don't think Blizzard or Ubisoft would consider not building for the XBox platform if Microsoft refused to support always on DRM so Microsoft isn't beholden to the game studios.
Possibly, though I assumed they were just going to get around that by removing the optical drive from the next generation consoles and selling all of the games via xbox live.
Too many people with slow (by today's standards) internet connections, or no high speed internet connection at home at all.
Until someone breaks it that is. Then there will be two independent markets appearing: legitimate and cracked.
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.
Everything is cached on the device. It's only a matter of time.
Uh, no it's not. Code that lives in the cloud, lives in the cloud. Can you "crack" an MMORPG to work without a server? No. You might be able to reimplement a server, and people have for various MMORPGs, but it's not a "crack", it's a full, real software project, with all that implies.
I suspect you're just chanting the Standard DRM Cant. It does not apply here. The Standard DRM Cant has a prerequisite, which is that all the content is local. DRM on movies doesn't work, because the act of consuming a movie requires that it be in front of you, in its totality. That is not true of a program; arbitrary amounts of it may live in the cloud. It is true that they can't stop you from recording your playthrough of the game, or recording the results of whatever algorithms they left in the cloud, but they darned well can stop you from having a full, real copy of the code in the cloud, and by the nature of it being in the cloud, they will control access to it. You may briefly fool their auth systems, but the balance of power is actually on their side, not yours. Just as DRM doesn't work on movies because the content in question must somehow be in your hands, your "crack" isn't going to work because the content is still in their hands.
I suspect you're just chanting the Standard DRM Cant. It does not apply here. The Standard DRM Cant has a prerequisite, which is that all the content is local. DRM on movies doesn't work, because the act of consuming a movie requires that it be in front of you, in its totality. That is not true of a program; arbitrary amounts of it may live in the cloud. It is true that they can't stop you from recording your playthrough of the game, or recording the results of whatever algorithms they left in the cloud, but they darned well can stop you from having a full, real copy of the code in the cloud, and by the nature of it being in the cloud, they will control access to it. You may briefly fool their auth systems, but the balance of power is actually on their side, not yours. Just as DRM doesn't work on movies because the content in question must somehow be in your hands, your "crack" isn't going to work because the content is still in their hands.
> "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?
Does anyone else think the author is being a tad bit naive here?
I think that this is generally true about a lot of the opinion articles on extremetech.com
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.
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.
It's because of the fundamental physics involved.
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.
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.
Are we seriously calling it Xbox 720?
Speculation. Betteridge's law.
Completely unsourced FUD, and probably the result of some guy just fucking around and sending some "journalist" an anonymous email ala http://x-surface.tumblr.com/post/41282771026/x-surface-dont-.... if there was any source at all.
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.
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.
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.