4196 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

There's a main difference between this industry and other industries that have second hand markets. Take music for example. Money can be made from CD sales, Tours and places like iTunes. So a guy giving his friend a CD or random stores selling the CDs dirt cheap do not affect people that much. Movies have first-time theater sales, second-time theater sales, random 3D remakes theater sales, Redbox, Cable providers, PPV, DVD and Blu-ray sales. Gaming is one of the few entertainment industries where the provider only has an opportunity to make money off of one sale. Other practices where they try to make money are greatly frowned upon, such as online passes, DLC and microtransactions. Since it is a unique industry it at least deserves unique considerations. I wish I could quote the YouTube guy who pretty much said all of this, but I can't remember his channel's name.

Pretty sure TB said that at some point.

He also mentions that not only do they have that one point of sale, but in many cases they continue to pay for the game after it's been sold for things that other industries don't have.

Music and movies don't need to release patches or pay for MP servers for you after you've boughten it.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Cyonan wrote...
The sharing system causes a lot of problems if you don't have the DRM there.

I still don't understand why a DRM is needed for this.

Let's forget the 10 people for a second, and limit it to one just for sake of arguement. Say I download a game over XBL, it's now in my library, I can delete it off my hard drive and download again if I want to. I don't need to connect every 24 hours because that information is already logged into my account. Say a system was implemented which allowed a selected person off my friends list to download and try out a game I have listed under my account (just for and hour or two) once. So he downloards this game and plays it because being my select person gives his account a sort of product key like they have for DLCs which enable downloads of content.

He needs to log in once to download the trial game and than can play it when he has time. Why is a 24 hour DRM needed for this? What am I missing here?

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 juin 2013 - 11:07 .

[BouncyFrag]

Cyonan wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

Taking out the family share plan seems like a petty move from MS, much like you taking your ball and going home like a petulant child. It would have worked perfectly fine with digital downloads by offering an innovative feature that the ps4 doesn't have. The ps4 is $100 cheaper, doesn't force motion control devices, and, on paper, seems a bit more powerful. Family share would have been a good bullet point to keep around in light of the PR nightmare they had brought upon themselves. It is not the gamers who removed family share. We didn't want the BS that the X1 was representing and said 'NO' to these horribad policies.MS reached into the big box that is the X1 and ripped it out family share themselves. I really like xbox and had resigned myself to switching to ps4 or pc in a few years once the 360 had run its course. I don't have to do that now, but I'm going to wait a year or so just to see how the X1 shakes out since I actually really like the games they have lined up for launch.

The sharing system causes a lot of problems if you don't have the DRM there.

Being able to give out your game to 10 other people for free would be more harmful to the industry than used games or piracy ever was.

I don't see how MS can't remove drm for game discs only and keep it in for digital downloads since this is how they are currently operating with the Xbox 360 with the game disc as the key to let you play it. If I want to play a game I downloaded onto a thumbdrive and then plugged it into a friends Xbox, I can only play it with my gamertaag account logged in which is how dd's work. They don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 20 juin 2013 - 11:11 .

[Ravensword]

J. Reezy wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Meh, I don't really feel strongly about this one way or another. It just doesn't feel right that consumers are playing the victim the when developers have been getting screwed over for over 10 years try to put systems into place when they protect themselves. It's more of a matter of principle to me rather than how I feel about an individual company's quality. At the end of the day, the consumers won.

As it should be.

And as for who is playing victim, well it's pretty much the devs. This whol "BAAAAAAWWW! Used games are hurting our sales of Battlefield Medal of Duty!"

Lol yeah when you keeping rehashing the same formula in a different skin with a bloated marketing budget you shouldn't complain when it doesn't sell as much as you predicted.

That one article that Greyl posted about that spoiled Microsoft dev, who didn't get his way, say "It is impossible to continue to deliver movie like experiences at the current costs without giving up something in return." Video games are like movies in the sense that they rely too much on cutscenes and are very linear. The last Battlefield game and CoD games I've played felt increasingly more like a film than an actual video game.

If "it is impossible to continue to deliver movie like experiences at the current costs w/o giving up something in return" then may be devs should stop delivering movie like experiences and focus more on gameplay than being a bunch of Michael Bay wannabes. It would be a lot less cheaper and we would see more innovation in terms of gameplay.

[OdanUrr]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Cyonan wrote...
The sharing system causes a lot of problems if you don't have the DRM there.

I still don't understand why a DRM is needed for this.

Let's forget the 10 people for a second, and limit it to one just for sake of arguement. Say I download a game over XBL, it's now in my library, I can delete it off my hard drive and download again if I want to. I don't need to connect every 24 hours because that information is already logged into my account. Say a system was implemented which allowed a selected person off my friends list to download and try out a game I have listed under my account (just for and hour or two) once. So he downloards this game and plays it because being my select person gives his account a sort of product key like they have for DLCs which enable downloads of content.

He needs to log in once to download the trial game and than can play it when he has time. Why is a 24 hour DRM needed for this? What am I missing here?

Probably in case someone tampered with the console to circumvent the time-limit for the "demo."

[frustratemyself]

OdanUrr wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

If I'm reading this right, then the Family Sharing idea was basically demos for the family for up to an hour, after which they'd have to buy the game? I'm sorry but if that's the case, it's one of the most useless features I've ever seen.

They didn't explain the sharing thing very well previously. Can't say that it bothers me that it won't be happening.

I guess as the article said, MS didn't spend enough time explaining their awesomesauce new features. The spokesperson was too busy telling people 'too bad no next gen for you' to anyone that had genuine technical concerns.

[Dave of Canada]

OdanUrr wrote...

Probably in case someone tampered with the console to circumvent the time-limit for the "demo."

That'd be pretty easy to trace, though.

[OdanUrr]

frustratemyself wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

If I'm reading this right, then the Family Sharing idea was basically demos for the family for up to an hour, after which they'd have to buy the game? I'm sorry but if that's the case, it's one of the most useless features I've ever seen.

They didn't explain the sharing thing very well previously. Can't say that it bothers me that it won't be happening.

I guess as the article said, MS didn't spend enough time explaining their awesomesauce new features. The spokesperson was too busy telling people 'too bad no next gen for you' to anyone that had genuine technical concerns.

I thought when they meant sharing they actually meant sharing like, you know, the full game, not a demo of it in order to encourage your "family member" to buy yet another copy.<_<

[OdanUrr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Probably in case someone tampered with the console to circumvent the time-limit for the "demo."

That'd be pretty easy to trace, though.

Not if the console remains offline.

[frustratemyself]

OdanUrr wrote...

frustratemyself wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

If I'm reading this right, then the Family Sharing idea was basically demos for the family for up to an hour, after which they'd have to buy the game? I'm sorry but if that's the case, it's one of the most useless features I've ever seen.

They didn't explain the sharing thing very well previously. Can't say that it bothers me that it won't be happening.

I guess as the article said, MS didn't spend enough time explaining their awesomesauce new features. The spokesperson was too busy telling people 'too bad no next gen for you' to anyone that had genuine technical concerns.

I thought when they meant sharing they actually meant sharing like, you know, the full game, not a demo of it in order to encourage your "family member" to buy yet another copy.<_<

Yeah I thought the same thing.

[billy the squid]

OdanUrr wrote...

frustratemyself wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

If I'm reading this right, then the Family Sharing idea was basically demos for the family for up to an hour, after which they'd have to buy the game? I'm sorry but if that's the case, it's one of the most useless features I've ever seen.

They didn't explain the sharing thing very well previously. Can't say that it bothers me that it won't be happening.

I guess as the article said, MS didn't spend enough time explaining their awesomesauce new features. The spokesperson was too busy telling people 'too bad no next gen for you' to anyone that had genuine technical concerns.

I thought when they meant sharing they actually meant sharing like, you know, the full game, not a demo of it in order to encourage your "family member" to buy yet another copy.<_<

Yeah, this is what I meant about being deliberately vague and evasive in their marketing on the share policy, either they knew and didn't want to give details, because they realised it was not enough. Or they hadn't really planned anything out so couldn't commit to it. Either way it wasn't a good sign.

[Cyonan]

Greylycantrope wrote...

I still don't understand why a DRM is needed for this.

Let's forget the 10 people for a second, and limit it to one just for sake of arguement. Say I download a game over XBL, it's now in my library, I can delete it off my hard drive and download again if I want to. I don't need to connect every 24 hours because that information is already logged into my account. Say a system was implemented which allowed a selected person off my friends list to download and try out a game I have listed under my account (just for and hour or two) once. So he downloards this game and plays it because being my select person gives his account a sort of product key like they have for DLCs which enable downloads of content.

He needs to log in once to download the trial game and than can play it when he has time. Why is a 24 hour DRM needed for this? What am I missing here?

It's not needed there.

but the system you described is not the system that the X1 was going to use. It was a sharing system, not a 2 hour trial of the game.

[billy the squid]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

There's a main difference between this industry and other industries that have second hand markets. Take music for example. Money can be made from CD sales, Tours and places like iTunes. So a guy giving his friend a CD or random stores selling the CDs dirt cheap do not affect people that much. Movies have first-time theater sales, second-time theater sales, random 3D remakes theater sales, Redbox, Cable providers, PPV, DVD and Blu-ray sales. Gaming is one of the few entertainment industries where the provider only has an opportunity to make money off of one sale. Other practices where they try to make money are greatly frowned upon, such as online passes, DLC and microtransactions. Since it is a unique industry it at least deserves unique considerations. I wish I could quote the YouTube guy who pretty much said all of this, but I can't remember his channel's name.

Irrelevant, and no it's not unique. The special snow flake mentality has got this industry into trouble and now it expects to get away with it. 

If you're talking about Totalbiscuit. He's an utter prat, and completely wrong. 

Please explain how those points are wrong (though I'm starting to worry that I'm derailing this topic)

The sale of the phisical copy of a book, music, game or any other item is the sale of an IP license, IP's are licensed for the user to enjoy their use so they do not fall foul of the Copyright legislation in default. That license can be transferred to a second user, who can then transfer it again and again if they so choose.

The ECJ Usedsoft vs Oracle case, confirmed that Software is and IP and is transfered via license, we all knew that before but that's beside the point. The main point was that, whether it is sold digitally or physically is irrelevant. It is an IP, it is bound by the Copyright Law's Exhaustion of Rights principles.

The rest is irrelevant and a matter of how the business conducts it's affairs, if it can't survive and adapt then it dies. That has no impact on me and nor should it.

TotalBiscuit is also from the UK and is affcted by the same EU directives and cases by the ECJ, I've pointed this out to him, but he has his head so far up his own cavernous arse, I don't think he grasped the implication. 

If AAA game development can't survive, then Why can the Witcher 2 sell 2million units and be successful, and Dark Souls were very happy selling 2 million, Bethesda can take 6 years to release Skyrim. Yet other Publishers are imploding and can't survive without a year on year franchise? That is the business practices of a company, and no concern of mine if they are collapsing under their own innertia, nor does it need to affect my statutory rights, simply because they're too feckless to get their act together.

Modifié par billy the squid, 20 juin 2013 - 11:31 .

[Dave of Canada]

OdanUrr wrote...
Not if the console remains offline.

Then they'd get away with one game, would have no way of playing multiplayer and cannot download DLC. Going online would also have them be perma-banned.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Cyonan wrote...
It's not needed there.

but the system you described is not the system that the X1 was going to use. It was a sharing system, not a 2 hour trial of the game.

The info we have suggests 1 hour trials actually. Seriously I want to know why DRMs are needed in this idea for a system they had. In this proposed sytem I'm honestly unsure of how this works and would just like it explained of how the DRM contributes to it's functionality.

Odan's suggestion is the most likely that they wanted to prevent tampering with the system, but you'd need to connect online anyway to acccess your friends library and download the game. If irregularity could be spotted through the online connection it would happen at the moment someone tired to acces my library. But again this doesn't account for the DRM being require for functionality.

I mean I could be missing something, but at the moment I see no conflict with the lack of a DRM and the proposed share system being implamented.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 juin 2013 - 11:34 .

[MerinTB]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

Woah, I would gladly be force-fed their DRM and have entire regions of the world have no access to the console simply to have the ability to give ten other people a gameplay demo! With Xbox TV™, all my friends and family could know all the vile pornography which I watch in private!

God dammit, gamers. Why did you have to ruin something which no-one really asked for?

Just this once... and only this once... I appreciate your sarcasm.:happy:

[GreyLycanTrope]

Dave of Canada wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...
Not if the console remains offline.

Then they'd get away with one game, would have no way of playing multiplayer and cannot download DLC. Going online would also have them be perma-banned.

Yeah, what Adachi said

[ObserverStatus]

Greylycantrope wrote...
Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

Awwwww... 

[Ravensword]

bobobo878 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

Awwwww... 

There, there. *drapes blanket over your back*

[MerinTB]

Saying the game industry ONLY has the game sales for profit is ridiculous.

Movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, other merchandise all licensing the rights to the game property...

Successful games, especially franchises, develop MANY ancillary products. Licensing those products generates revenue.

[ShepnTali]

Do people want to own the games they buy, or not? Do people want the ability to play that owned game 30 years from now? If not, then Xbox One version 1 is fine I guess, spycam excluded.