Yes, because pretty much unnecessarily blocking used games and always online should be supported.People of all "fan" followings have supported DRM. I still support DRM. There has been a large miseducation of DRM.
Yes, because pretty much unnecessarily blocking used games and always online should be supported.People of all "fan" followings have supported DRM. I still support DRM. There has been a large miseducation of DRM.
I support DRM entirely for the reasons that it's supposed to do. Protect the content from illegal sharing and access (mostly bootlegs). The means I don't support. I don't know how people of all fan followings have supported DRM. Many have had to deal with it, but rarely have I seen or heard someone saying "Good that we have this online check for this single player game, otherwise someone would rip me or take something away from me". Instead it's more likely to be "Oh no, not this thing again".People of all "fan" followings have supported DRM. I still support DRM. There has been a large miseducation of DRM.
I fail to see how the idea of people who made an object getting to tell people who use the object what they can and cannot do with it could ever be "something great".DRM was an idea that could and can be something great.
Indeed as I said, the idea is good, but not the means. The publisher or developer has a right to their income, but currently the way DRM is implemented, it's at the expense of the user. That is something I cannot see as good and do not want. If there was an actual benefit for the user (fantastic online elements like some MMORPGs (WoW (p2p), Guild Wars (f2p (!) servers) and many others)), the DRM could be seen as moot (for example online is the main driver compared to offline). If for example the single player portion is affected by it in the way of loosing access due to reason X, it's bull. Complete and utter bull.I fail to see how the idea of people who made an object getting to tell people who use the object what they can and cannot do with it could ever be "something great".
The idea revolves around protecting incoming for the originator or publisher, nothing good for the user is involved.
Even the Idea isn't really that good, the Idea being that they treat everyone as criminals to attempt to prevent the few who are. I personally have yet to see a working DRM scheme for either the publishers or the customers hence why there is such a large movement of gamers that want no DRM at all.Indeed as I said, the idea is good, but not the means. The publisher or developer has a right to their income, but currently the way DRM is implemented, it's at the expense of the user. That is something I cannot see as good and do not want. If there was an actual benefit for the user (fantastic online elements like some MMORPGs (WoW (p2p), Guild Wars (f2p (!) servers) and many others)), the DRM could be seen as moot (for example online is the main driver compared to offline). If for example the single player portion is affected by it in the way of loosing access due to reason X, it's bull. Complete and utter bull.
The idea revolves around protecting incoming for the originator or publisher, nothing good for the user is involved.
Even the Idea isn't really that good, the Idea being that they treat everyone as criminals to attempt to prevent the few who are.
But those examples aren't DRM. Always-online for an MMO is a technical/security requirement, and is not being forced onto the user when it's not needed.Indeed as I said, the idea is good, but not the means. The publisher or developer has a right to their income, but currently the way DRM is implemented, it's at the expense of the user. That is something I cannot see as good and do not want. If there was an actual benefit for the user (fantastic online elements like some MMORPGs (WoW (p2p), Guild Wars (f2p (!) servers) and many others)), the DRM could be seen as moot (for example online is the main driver compared to offline). If for example the single player portion is affected by it in the way of loosing access due to reason X, it's bull. Complete and utter bull.
The problem with the perception of the Xbox One's DRM was that hard copies of software rights would not be resellable or shareable, but that's not entirely true.But those examples aren't DRM. Always-online for an MMO is a technical/security requirement, and is not being forced onto the user when it's not needed.
... opposed to just having the disc you can do whatever with, whenever, without having to pay fees or have Microsoft's permission.The problem with the perception of the Xbox One's DRM was that hard copies of software rights would not be resellable or shareable, but that's not entirely true.
The Xbox One technically converts hard copy software rights into digital copy software rights, which are tradable between anybody and everybody. Then you can give the hard copy away too. This prevents duplicating rights by having hard copy and digital copy working in unison. This ALSO allows exclusively digital copies to be tradable too, which is a step up from Sony, and seven hundred from Nintendo's cheap ass stuck-to-the-console digital terms.
The best part of this middle-man eliminating system is that you could go online and search to trade with anybody who has said game you're looking for. I imagine it would be like the GTS in Pokémon games. You can search up a Pokémon you want, and the person who is offering that Pokémon may have selected a selection of Pokémon they would exchange for said game. If there were options of 3-for-1, 2-for-1, 1-for-1 trading, etc., that would just make things even more flexible.
And then Family Sharing is just charity. You get to share any game within your library with up to 10 people, which can be anybody, and they can share with you their game library. The only clause is that no single game in a library can be played simultaneously, so there still has to be two permission rights within the aggregated game libraries. Imagine that. A group of 10 active gamers who Family Shared would have a colossus library.
YOU LIE!!!And did you know you can also play video games with THREE DEE GRAPHICS? It's true!
The problem with the perception of the Xbox One's DRM was that hard copies of software rights would not be resellable or shareable, but that's not entirely true.
The Xbox One technically converts hard copy software rights into digital copy software rights, which are tradable between anybody and everybody. Then you can give the hard copy away too. This prevents duplicating rights by having hard copy and digital copy working in unison. This ALSO allows exclusively digital copies to be tradable too, which is a step up from Sony, and seven hundred from Nintendo's cheap ass stuck-to-the-console digital terms.
The best part of this middle-man eliminating system is that you could go online and search to trade with anybody who has said game you're looking for. I imagine it would be like the GTS in Pokémon games. You can search up a Pokémon you want, and the person who is offering that Pokémon may have selected a selection of Pokémon they would exchange for said game. If there were options of 3-for-1, 2-for-1, 1-for-1 trading, etc., that would just make things even more flexible.
And then Family Sharing is just charity. You get to share any game within your library with up to 10 people, which can be anybody, and they can share with you their game library. The only clause is that no single game in a library can be played simultaneously, so there still has to be two permission rights within the aggregated game libraries. Imagine that. A group of 10 active gamers who Family Shared would have a colossus library.
Do you read? Anything? Ever? Your typical, uneducated internet vocabulary... get original. That was Microsoft's goal. It's what they stated, but you were too lethargic to read, so you went on the second-hand source information of internet memes and forum ramblings.-snip-
... seriously?Steam is able to charge such a subsidized price because they can cut out the cost of retailers, packaging and booklets, disc mediums, etc. Microsoft could have created a similar ecosystem of software, and it would have worked. The Xbox One DRM was nowhere as restrictive as the already so successful ecosystems that I mentioned, including Steam.
Do you read? Anything? Ever? Your typical, uneducated internet vocabulary... get original. That was Microsoft's goal. It's what they stated, but you were too lethargic to read, so you went on the second-hand source information of internet memes and forum ramblings.
1. Microsoft is one of the most philanthropic profitable hardware/software companies in the world.
Google search...
Microsoft Charity - 31.3 million results
Sony Charity - 15.2 million results
Nintendo Charity - 4.3 million results
Apple Charity - 77.1 million results
Samsung Charity - 24.8 million results
Oh, and Valve (Steam) Charity - 2.7 million results. Steam is able to charge such a subsidized price because they can cut out the cost of retailers, packaging and booklets, disc mediums, etc. Microsoft could have created a similar ecosystem of software, and it would have worked. The Xbox One DRM was nowhere as restrictive as the already so successful ecosystems that I mentioned, including Steam.
There is no money lost. There's money saved from eliminating the paradigm of a gamer trading in three games for one at Gamestop for one game instead of directly to another gamer for one game.
The scenario you brought up is exactly what Microsoft wanted. If it was just as detrimental as used game retailers, Microsoft would not have went through the bad press that is guaranteed with DRM announcements. The proposed DRM wasn't positive for Microsoft's profit margins, but it was positive to consumers. Gamer>gamer is better than gamer>gamestop>gamer.
I think that's a revelation as to how aware they are of the consumer's wants. They just didn't realize that the consumer isn't aware of the consumer's wants, and the consumer burned them for it.
I may be wrong in this, but I highly doubt that was Microsoft's goal.
How do you write that last sentence and not feel embarrassed?... seriously?
- There's nothing stopping Microsoft from selling games online at a cut cost like Steam does. In fact they have had a system in place for years (BXLG/Marketplace) where they have BEEN selling 'indie' and cheaper games (like Minecraft, which was only available in the marketplace for a long time)... and they've been doing it on the 360 without the always-online DRM.
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/P...-Edition/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802584111f7
etc.
- -
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-agcb-2555
And you can stay offline as long as you want.
- BTW Steam allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines, (you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time).
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8963-EIKC-3767
Jeeze, no wonder you think the DRM is needed... you have no clue that what you're talking about is already working just fine without it!
EDIT: Made the post a bit prettier.
How do you write that last sentence and not feel embarrassed?
1. Game retailer dependency, like Gamestop, is stopping them.
2. Just like Steam, you could go offline on the Xbox One. Just like Steam, you need to sometimes be online to verify things.
3. BTW the Xbox One's DRM allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines (up to 10 with Family Sharing), you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time.
Haha, like umm ok yeah hohohehehe alright. Go read a fucking book.
Seeing as how much Microsoft and Bill Gates has done for the world, from innovating and influencing software and the video game industry, to charitable efforts internationally (mostly this), it's pretty ignorant to call them greedy, and offensive to make poor -play-on-words of their name.First of all, no need to be this rude, as I was not with you. And people wonder why internet flaming happens..
Second of all, the amount of charity each company does is by no means, a viable way to evaluate a company, at least to my eyes.
Microsoft or Apple can do ALL the charity they want, I don't care. They sell their products at prices sometimes way beyond their competition. So with that amount of profit, why shouldn't they donate more?
And finally, third of all, you accuse me of "not reading anything"? Well good sir, had you actually READ what I wrote, this could have been avoided.
Now have a good day.
It's mostly me. I'm a very reactional prick.GBAtemp members are quite polite, I see..
It's not stopping Steam or PSN.1. Game retailer dependency, like Gamestop, is stopping them.
False and false.2. Just like Steam, you could go offline on the Xbox One. Just like Steam, you need to sometimes be online to verify things.
I mentioned that as a note that the 24-hours check and additional DRM was not required, like you seemed to think it was.3. BTW the Xbox One's DRM allows you to have your games installed on multiple machines (up to 10 with Family Sharing), you just can't be logged-in/playing on more than one at a time.
Uncalled for. Watch it.Haha, like umm ok yeah hohohehehe alright. Go read a fucking book.