

Forcing Microsoft to reverse DRM will harm the games industry  - SuccintWork
http://square-go.com/forcing-microsoft-reverse-decision-bad-games-industry/

======
Zikes
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.

~~~
mynameisvlad
> Games sharing can still work, if they concede that a small amount of so-
> called abuse is acceptable.

Publishers would never allow this.

~~~
Zikes
That's where the real change in gaming needs to take place, with the
publishers.

It's been well-proven by Steam et al. that if you price correctly and use an
unobtrusive (or even nonexistent in the case of GOG) DRM scheme, people would
much rather buy and support their favorite games developers (and publishers)
than go through the effort of pirating a title.

That's why games sharing would work with only minimal abuse. Not because it
wouldn't be technically feasible for the consumer to abuse the system, but
because the barrier to actually owning the games they want to play would be so
low that it would become the new path of least resistance.

The sky's the limit if the industry can learn to treat their customers with
respect.

Edit: By the way, a version of games sharing already exists on the PS3. If you
purchase a game digitally on PSN you can install and play it simultaneously on
multiple PS3s as long as your account is on each of them, I believe up to a
limit of 5 PS3s.

~~~
angersock
_" The sky's the limit if the industry can learn to treat their customers with
respect."_

Fucking shame it is then that the customers do not extend the same courtesy.

Are you familiar with the phrase "pearls before swine"?

~~~
Zikes
If you'd like to cite any examples of gamers needlessly disrespecting the
games industry, in whole or in part, I'm all ears.

As for this particular instance, the DRM scheme proposed was clearly anti-
consumer in nature. The disrespect the gaming community showed Microsoft as a
result of it was entirely justified.

It will be some time before Microsoft regains the respect of the majority of
gamers, if at all.

~~~
angersock
Sure.

First, consider how many gamers can articulate the difference between
developers and publishers, and who they get angry at when games don't go
according to plan.

In my own home town, Timegate Studios just shuddered from the debacle of
Aliens: Colonial Marines--and was widely blamed by ignorant gamers despite a
history of solid games and expansions.

Gamers bitched to no end about Steam when it was required for CS 1.6, even
though it was the future. Look at all the complaints about CS:GO from the
hardcore players (one memorable thread involved a HUD tweak driving some clan
rabid because it screwed up their grenade-throwing technique). Others complain
about Valve doing nothing since Episode 2, ignoring Left 4 Dead and Team
Fortress 2 and DOTA and whatnot.

Look at the way gamers and reviewers panned Duke Nukem Forever, ignoring the
fact that dozens of people poured _over a decade of their lives_ into that
thing.

Look at the flooding of gamers over to free-to-play and ad-driven titles,
pushing the race-to-the-bottom of devs only to then give angry reviews on the
app store.

Look at how every online game reviewer and game poster crows and white knights
about the portrayl of women and gender roles in games, and yet look at how
they actually spend their dollar vote.

Look at how the gamers mocked Doom3 for having a pretty solid and amazing
lighting engine and pushing shadow tech to the limits of its time.

Look how gamers today complain about older titles that don't hold their hands
with navigation and lots of simple mission objectives--and then bitch about
how games today are too linear.

Gamers are the worst sort of customer after dollar web-hosting ones.

~~~
DavidBradbury
It depends on who you're talking about. There are many different types of
gamers out there. The biggest violator of this is what I'd call the `en masse`
gamers - Those that play only the most marketed titles that 'all their
friends' are playing. 95% of their library include games like CoD/Modern
Warfare, League of Legends, and Diablo III.

The second violators of this are what I'd call the `On-the-Go` gamers - People
who play games that don't take a ton of involvement or time to get going into
them. Their library typically includes games like Angry Birds, Bejeweled, Sim
City, and Nintendoland.

Coincidentally, it seems to be that the biggest names out there seem to focus
their marketing on these two archetypes the most. I partially think it is
because they're the least interested in all the crap and drama that goes on in
the games industry, and secondly, they're the most impressionable when it
comes to marketing. Make things big, gritty, and loud to attract `en masse`
gamers - Make things colorful, shiny, and quick for `On-the-Go` gamers. Easy
money.

It is quite a bit more difficult to reach the `core` gamers (of which there
are many sub-types). These people care less about games being easy to consume,
and more about the quality and depth of a title. These gamers have no problem
with voting with their dollar and will often prefer games they know and love
if the newest game doesn't look up to par. Unfortunately these types have been
slowly getting outnumbered as easy to consume games bring in new customers
that don't really care about the differences between developers or publishers.

Regular gamers can be great customers, but slowly it seems like games are
being marketed toward gamers who don't care about the games they're consuming
and who won't complain when 50kg of DRM and ads are tacked onto their game.

------
mooism2
_> 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.

------
MiguelHudnandez
I don't get why it has to be such a big, all-or-nothing deal. Offer the same
new games as downloads with the new terms and as discs.

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
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.

------
RexRollman
I call bullshit. DRM has never been good.

~~~
angersock
Which is why Steam has been such a fail...oh wait, no it hasn't. Maybe,
perhaps, DRM can be done in a way that satisfies all stakeholders.

~~~
mikelat
You can't really compare Steam's DRM to what Microsoft was proposing. Steam
doesn't have the online checks and it isn't your only option if you want to
buy PC games. A lot of the DRM Microsoft was going to implement simply didn't
make sense for a platform that was supposedly closed to begin with.

~~~
angersock
Steam phones homes given the opportunity--Microsoft saying, hey, once a day
the box phones home is completely reasonable, especially if it enables certain
other features as it seems it would.

~~~
mikelat
I had a time where I suddenly didn't have access to internet for 3 weeks, and
I didn't get the chance to put steam properly in offline mode or anything,
however it still worked completely fine during this time and didn't feel the
need to phone home.

If I had an xbox one, I wouldn't be able to play my single player games after
at most 24 hours.

------
markbernard
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?

------
overgard
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".

------
tmandarano
There's no doubt about it. Wish they had stuck to their decision.

------
tmzt
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.)

------
glomph
All these brave pro DRM articles after microsoft drops it...

