9 ms·
Xbox 720 to use always-on DRM?
- jiggy2011 14y agoIs piracy a big issue on Xbox? I assume anybody who is running pirate games on the Xbox360 is using a modified console anyway.
- bdisraeli 14y agoI 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-internet-free-method-for-blocking-used-game-sales/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/examining-sonys-intern...
- jiggy2011 14y agoPossibly, 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.
- ghurlman 14y agoToo many people with slow (by today's standards) internet connections, or no high speed internet connection at home at all.
- jbigelow76 14y agoThe 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.
- Major_Grooves 14y agowrt 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.
- DannyBee 14y agoThere 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.
- victoknight 14y agoSo, 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..."
- pandaman 14y agoI don't recall similar rumors for any other major platform announcement.
- PJones 14y agoThere 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-used-games/ http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-wont-play-us...
- pandaman 14y agoBy "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.
- nextparadigms 14y agoIf 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.
- muyuu 14y agoNo one? Sadly I'm not so sure about that. I would definitely skip it though, but not that many people really care.
- mrhyperpenguin 14y agoWhat's wrong with the platform owner controlling what's run on the platform? Seems pretty standard these days.
- talmand 14y agoIt 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.
- mrcharles 14y agoPeople 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
- brador 14y agoOnly because of pre sale hype. Not many still playing compared to what could have been.
- chucknelson 14y agoThis 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.
- EvilTerran 14y agoSteam 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.
- kabdib 14y agoSome titles require a live connection; it's up to the publisher. Steam itself can work without a connection.
- bilalq 14y agoSteam at least offers an offline mode. You're not locked out of your games if your cable modem breaks.
- dj2stein9 14y agoThis may in fact be the case for this new Xbox. That at least would be reasonable.
- mikeash 14y agoI 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?
- chucknelson 14y agoNot 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.
- tomkin 14y agoThis 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?
- ceeK 14y agoApart from killing the used games industry, which would benefit MS, I wonder also what would happen to video game rental businesses.
- rheeseyb 14y agoThe 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.
- jiggy2011 14y agoYep, 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.
- Ralz 14y agoDownloading 16 GB games would pretty much cap out most peoples BW limit.
- jiggy2011 14y agoSo 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.
- Ralz 14y agoI think that's a great idea if MS/Sony were to get such a deal set up with ISPs.
- jiggy2011 14y agoIt 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.
- meaty 14y agoUntil someone breaks it that is. Then there will be two independent markets appearing: legitimate and cracked.
- jerf 14y agoOnline 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.
- meaty 14y agoEverything is cached on the device. It's only a matter of time.
- jerf 14y agoUh, 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.
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago> "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?
- Hansi 14y agoI think that this is generally true about a lot of the opinion articles on extremetech.com
- talmand 14y agoAs long as it works and doesn't create a barrier to play, most people will not care. Most of the past always-on DRM has caused public outcry because it created problems for people to play the game they paid for. 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.
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago> 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.
- speeder 14y agoI 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.
- jiggy2011 14y agoIt'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.
- fwr 14y agoAre we seriously calling it Xbox 720?
- fserb 14y agoSpeculation. Betteridge's law.
- px1999 14y agoCompletely 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-believe-everything-you-read.. http://x-surface.tumblr.com/post/41282771026/x-surface-dont-.... if there was any source at all.
- djrogers 14y agoMaybe 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.