
 Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies - coloneltcb
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/rumor-microsoft-set-to-reverse-controversial-game-licensing-policies/
======
tjdetwiler
I always thought they should have applied all the new DRM features to digital
downloads only. In that context, sharing and selling does look consumer
friendly and if they make it convenient consumers will move away from physical
media.

~~~
Cyril-Boh
I wish they coined another term for this rather then digital downloads. How
can a download not be digital?

~~~
dragonwriter
Provided you had an analog communication channel and storage medium you could
have analog downloads -- it would be similar to recording per-digital TV on a
VCR. But, yeah, "digital download" is mostly pointless noise.

~~~
Sharlin
They used to broadcast software via FM radio in the 80s :) One could record
the transmitted "noise" with their tape drive, and, apparently, more often
than not the recorded program would actually work.

------
nivla
During this whole fiasco, I was trying to put myself into their shoes on what
they were trying to achieve. On the outside, it looks like a great idea. The
ability to share games with family. No longer you need to carry discs to your
friends house. You can lend them games to strangers on the Internet without
worry about losing it. You can have an organized catalog on the cloud, and
never have to get up to pop the disc in. Sell the disc game to X over the
internet and cut out the middle man (Gamestop). etc...

However the whole, connect 24 hours to verify the ownership of the game is a
big turn off. I understand that, theoretically you could sell your game and
then keep playing it on a switched off console. So if it were you, how would
you go by achieving all the pros and none of the cons without enforcing DRM?
Not supporting DRM but genuinely curious.

~~~
magic_haze
Very simple. Keep the 24 hour restrictions as-is, but allow transition to an
offline mode after notifying the mothership. This disallows all the family
sharing features. Games installed using a physical disk would require the disk
to be present, downloaded games are unaffected (since you can't sell them
without connecting to xbox live.) This takes care of the submarine scenario.
When you're back online, check for the disk again before allowing disk-less
play. Make sure the offline transition can be done through smartglass, and you
handle the hurricane/somebody-cut-the-fiber scenario as well.

Any holes in this approach?

~~~
contextfree
Games were meant to be installable on multiple consoles, so if they wanted
reselling or giving away a game to completely disassociate the license from
the seller's/giver's account, every console with that game would need to be
kept online to verify this. So if there were an offline mode that disabled
license-transfer features, it would have to apply as long as even one console
were in this mode. This means that it would be possible for someone to put
themselves into a state where they'd be permanently prevented from reselling
or giving games because they don't have physical access to some console that's
been put in offline mode.

There are of course further workarounds/mitigations for this problem, such as
putting a (100 days?) time limit on offline mode, but they make the system
even more complicated.

~~~
shawnz
> This means that it would be possible for someone to put themselves into a
> state where they'd be permanently prevented from reselling or giving games
> because they don't have physical access to some console that's been put in
> offline mode.

This isn't really too big of a problem. Just require users to phone in and
request a license transfer if they lose a console. Limit the number of times
that a customer can "lose" their console without an investigation.

------
DomBlack
I'm actually annoyed with these changes; they have reverted back to the Xbox
360 way of doings things;

* Disk must be in the drive to play

* Share games by lending the disk.

The previous scheme, while it would not be befinical to some due to the 24
hour requirement, did allow for some exciting new ideas (which we've got used
to with Steam);

* Access my games anywhere without needing a disk

* Share the game with my family who live away from me

~~~
MichaelGG
Don't buy discs! MS said that digital purchases will have same priority as
retail discs. Why do you want a disc anyways, except for resale or slow
connection? Everything I get for the 360 is via download, and I don't have to
worry about discs. Still have to worry about license transfers, which is gonna
be the same under any system where the publisher controls the terms.

~~~
jviddy
My biggest issue with digital downloads is the cost.

My experience with Xbox live is that digital releases are launched at a price
and stay there, apart from limited time promotions, for a long.

I can go on to Amazon or into HMV and get major releases from a couple of
months ago for half the RRP, normally significantly cheaper than download.
Plus i can give the disc to one of my friends when i'm done.

------
chrisrhoden
It's not clear to me what the change will be, or how it will be an actual win
for consumers. The region locking being dropped would definitely be a win for
the minority of potential customers outside of the privileged regions, but the
fact is that the DRM scheme that they proposed, while never explained very
well, was probably better than leaving how one-time-use-codes should work to
manufacturers (EA Online Passes spring to mind)

~~~
uptown
How is it not clear? You can play games without checking-in every 24 hours,
and if you want to share or sell a game, you transfer the physical media you
purchased. Downloaded games cannot be shared.

~~~
interpol_p
Yes but checking-in every 24 hours is not something you actually "do". It's
something that happens transparently in the background. The vase majority of
consumers wouldn't notice the automated check-in that was present in their
previous design.

~~~
contextfree
Right, and the new DRM scheme that's replacing the "checkins" \- having to
change discs to play a new game - _is_ something you actually have to
physically do, and it's something that's required entirely to satisfy DRM
policies at this point.

It also locks you out of playing your game in a bunch of scenarios (lost,
stolen, damaged, or just don't happen to have it with you) that I think for
many people are more common than a 24-hour internet outage would be, and
again, it's entirely the artificial DRM restrictions that are locking you out
as there's no real technical reason not to let you install the game and never
need the disc again.

------
SurfScore
I don't get the negative response to this. They made a mistake (admittedly
being too greedy), and now they're correcting it. People didn't like the DRM,
SO THEY TOOK IT OUT! Get over holding a grudge; the Xbox has a lot of very
good exclusives and has always been a solid console. It just goes to show you
that you can never make the internet happy.

~~~
baddox
I don't quite understand why you attribute the mistake to "being too greedy,"
especially since this decision is a response to public outrage and thus will
likely make Microsoft _more_ money/profit. One could just as easily attribute
Microsoft's desire to satisfy angry customers to "greed."

~~~
SurfScore
I was referring to the original DRM decision as being too greedy when they
made it (before the backlash). Companies institute DRM to decrease piracy,
which increases their bottom line.

The effectiveness of DRM is a totally different subject, but in this situation
they chose their bottom line (DRM) over the desires of their customers, taking
a gamble that the losses in sales from pissed off people would be less than
the gains from decreased piracy.

~~~
cdash
You state this, and then wonder why people think its a big deal and don't just
forgive them? So people got pissed enough and Microsoft got scared enough to
change their mind but that doesn't change the fact that they actively wanted
to screw over their customers because they wanted more money and they thought
that you would just submit to it and be hyped by all their buzzwords. They
haven't changed at all and things like this will happen in the future until
they do.

------
ameen
If this is true, there isn't going to be the announced "Family Share plan" or
the "Disc-less" operation. Also, the fact that a few consoles might not be
connected to the Internet means, MS can't really do cloud processing as it
claimed (since it would lead to variable experiences of the same game).

I see this as a step-backward than a step ahead. Sure there will always be a
vocal minority, but rather than provide them an alternative, they've just
gimped an online console.

~~~
princess3000
I'm not super technical but I've always been skeptical of "cloud processing,"
especially after the Sim City debacle. Are there any scenarios where actually
processing information on a server instead of on the user's home Xbox make
sense, aside from things like WoW and Diablo III where you need to do the
calculations on the server to make the multiplayer aspect fair?

~~~
diminoten
It makes sense for multiplayer games to not be hosted on arbitrary client
boxes, but on some kind of neutral, low-latency "cloud" device (I know you
said other than this, but I thought this was the biggest selling point for it
in the first place).

It also makes sense for "complex" calculations. It's how stuff like Google
search and Google maps works - you send the query, big machines chomp on the
query and spit out a result, and your netbook doesn't have to go into
overdrive trying to figure anything out. Basically anything that can take
100ms or so to complete could be moved off of the appliance and onto Microsoft
servers. Why? Well, why not? Make some more room for rendering, I guess.

------
jviddy
Another sad day where the indignant vocal minority have spoiled it all for the
rest of us.

I don't think there was anything in the early schema that would have impacted
the way I use the system (apart for multi day internet or server outages) but
plenty of benefits

Game sharing was a huge positive step, even though I felt that most publishers
would ignore or disable (like game sharing on the DS).

Not having to swap physical disks would have made life much easier and
increased my playing time. I'm fairly lazy when I've settled down for an
evening in front of the TV. A usual XBox session involves playing what ever
game is in the drive till i get bored (anything from 15 minutes up) switching
to something downloaded so i don;t need to get up (normally trials). Getting
bored again and flipping to TV or a movie.

The ability to choose from my whole library with leaving my seat would have
been a revelation.

Also, my two year old has lost my Forza disk, which really sold this idea.

------
smackfu
Now you can see why it is so tempting for companies to reach out to their
competitors and say "so... we want to make this change, you want to make the
same change and we both win?"

------
jleehey
I honestly don't see why they can't do it both ways. For people who buy game
discs, let them share and play offline, but for those who choose to buy the
DRM-enabled digital download version of the game, let them install it to the
hard drive and play without a disc across consoles. It's all down to user
preference anyway, why does it have to be one way or the other?

------
nthitz
Here's a statement from MS
[http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update](http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update)
(may need a refresh or two to load) looks like they are removing the feature
of being able to play a game without the disc in the tray, which pretty much
was the root of all these drm issues IMO

~~~
wmf
There's a tradeoff between discless play and used games; allowing both leads
to massive piracy (in somebody's mind). It looks like MS has gone from one
extreme to the other.

~~~
ameen
Used games IMHO are a menace. How many software companies give away
transferable licenses? (apart from Open-source licenses)

It isn't fair to the publisher/developer. I'd rather have seen a price change
to facilitate more ownership rather than used games sales. EA's implementation
sounded a bit practical to solve the used games market.

~~~
potatolicious
In the same way that used books and public libraries are a menace?

There is no intrinsic social contract that stipulate media creators
should/must be paid per-consumption.

~~~
diminoten
There is if the content provider stipulates one as part of the terms of the
consumption. That is, "If you consume this, you can't give out copies."

No one's making you agree to that.

~~~
potatolicious
Right, and this is the market rejecting these terms.

The _current_ standard terms of consumption for console games includes the
ability to give your copy to someone else. There is neither a legal nor social
contract that these games be paid for per-consumption.

What we saw is Microsoft trying to change that. The market has responded
clearly and unambiguously.

So no one (short of the pirates) has violated any terms, legal or social.

~~~
diminoten
It's the market _threatening_ to reject these terms. That's different from
actual rejection.

What we have is a vocal minority responding clearly and unambiguously. The
size of such a group, minority or otherwise, will not ever be known, since
Microsoft has not sold anything to anyone yet.

------
jiggy2011
This isn't surprising at all, Microsoft is just giving gamers what they are
asking for to head off the bad PR. In the meantime they will start pushing
game sales for the xbox in the direction of digital downloads.

------
knodi
This is a shame, I was really looking forwards to disc-less play and family
sharing.

How cool would it have been if all my friends made a family group and with
that we can all play each others games. But no people love gamestop.

~~~
LaurelCrowned
Pretty sure they would be limiting that to one IP address. There would be
restrictions.

~~~
bskap
There was no IP limitation, as I understand it. Everyone on your console could
always play all of your games. And you could designate 10 people that had
access to your library from anywhere.

~~~
knodi
Only limit to family group was 10 members, no other limits.

------
MichaelGG
Microsoft was releasing a new console, with unimpressive hardware, focused on
TV and family over games, at a higher price point.

Announcing a crazy DRM plan was a fantastic PR move. If people liked it, they
can just go ahead with it. If they didn't, they end up burning lots of press
time talking about something on their terms, instead of focusing on what Sony
wants you to think about the actual hardware

No PS4 or XB1 units have been shipped. Except now, Sony has less time to make
the real arguments against the XB, and already people can just accuse others
of "complaining about everything on the Internet". MS wins points by "making a
major change in response to consumers". More than if they had taken this
position from the beginning.

A bit risky, but it'll pay off fantastically for MS.

~~~
theseanstewart
Sony has a price advantage still, which is why the 360 "won" the last
generation's console war.

------
vinkelhake
For the people here that didn't really read the statement:

"you can also download games from Xbox Live on day of release"

If you have a decent Internet connection and don't want to use discs, you have
that choice.

------
bluehex
I had a feeling this would happen. It was either that or just let the
competition walk away with a huge percentage of their customers without a
fight. Seems like the obvious decision.

~~~
cobrausn
I was actually not expecting a complete reversal, just a loosening of
restrictions (something like 2 week check-ins, like Steam does).

Both of the new machines (Xbox One, PS4) still allow third party publisher DRM
(such as EA's 'Project Five Dollar') though, and if the console market moves
towards digital distribution the way the PC market has, the used games point
might be moot.

------
resu
Up next, Kinect...

~~~
nivla
Actually I am excited about the new Kinect for personal hacks. According to
MS, you will be able to turn off the Kinect, if not, its nothing some tape
can't fix.

~~~
camus
I want an xbox1 cheaper therefore without a a toy i will never use. If you
want to "hack" a kinect,then buy one separatly. Or at least MS should give the
choice to buy a console without one ,at a lesser price.

~~~
jameshart
Microsoft's betting on a new input device, and for it to work it has to be
ubiquitous. This is the same reason why, when Apple shipped the first
Macintoshes, they came with a mouse in the box.

I'm sure there were people posting on cix in 1984 right after the superbowl,
"I want a mac cheaper therefore without a toy I will never use. If you want to
'hack' a mouse,then buy one separately. Or at least Apple should give the
choice to buy a computer without one ,at a lesser price."

------
_pmf_
Amazing what a bunch of angry basement dwellers on the internet can achieve.

------
sivam
They should rename the Xbox One to the Xbox 180, it would be very apt.

On a more serious note, I don't like this rollback. It only goes to show how
the witchhunt and echo chamber on Reddit worked. Even before the reveal,
Microsoft was falsely accused of trying to game Reddit and everyone flew off
the handle over someone pretty much lying to be a troll. Say the word "DRM"
and you get bucketloads of Reddit karma and posts pointing out the
facts(forget about posts taking the opposing view or opinion) were downvoted
into oblivion by the angry mob.

And then there was the bad timing on the NSA leaks, which didn't help at all.
Everyone has smartphones, laptops and tablets with cameras and mics which
could be watching and listening and Apple/Google were part of the leak, but it
was Microsoft that was singled out for proposing a device that could turn on
itself, and had numerous safeguards to configure privacy if you wanted to.

All this doesn't excuse the fact that Microsoft utterly and totally failed in
communicating their message in a proper manner in E3 and handed Sony an easy
victory on a silver platter.

I guess it was easy to roll this back because it was not Microsoft but
publishers and game developers that were going to reap the benefits of
diskless gaming because Gamestop etc. skim off the value of older games and
leave publishers with not much value. Once the public failed to see the
advantages and blamed Microsoft for a power grab that was not going to really
benefit them all that much, it was game over.

~~~
drivingmenuts
A friend posited the theory that all of this was a calculated move on
Microsoft's part.

First, they throw up the idea of some draconian DRM, which they then later
retract. The first move gets them tons of publicity and tongue-wagging, the
second move starts to make that positive publicity. They're banking on gamers
being so addicted, they won't really care that they've been played for idiot
chumps.

If the market for the new XBox was 12-year old children, they wouldn't even
have bothered. But, since they're really marketing to adults 20-35 or so, they
have to look like good guys to the people they're talking out of their money.

This was calculated. Reddit and everyone else got played. Hard and dry.

~~~
clavalle
That would be a valid theory if they didn't have a very similar competing
product released at about the same time. A competitor that captured the lion's
share of positive publicity by merely maintaining the status quo.

As it stands, I will be surprised if XBox One captures 25% of the latest gen
console market when it is all said and done.

------
drivebyacct2
>On the downside, there will be no digital "family" sharing as was previously
announced, and disc-based games will require the disc to be in the tray to be
played.

Nooooooooooooooooo. Please still allow me to opt in for digital downloads so I
can finally stick the console somewhere where I don't have to see it, hear it
or suffer it's heat wrath.

~~~
bskap
I believe they are planning to have day-1 digital downloads. This backtrack
does mean that, at least for day 1, the family sharing and used-digital-game
features won't be available but you can still get all the games without discs.

