BlastProcessing
Member
If those consoles stayed offline, how can MS patch and "brick" them?
I am not saying they will do this, but they could push out the necessary OS updates on game disks.
If those consoles stayed offline, how can MS patch and "brick" them?
DRM can also be introduced by Sony at a later point. They were the first to introduce online passes. I find the black and white views by many on this board about those two companies perplexing to say the least
I have no doubt in my mind Sony was going to implement DRM and brilliantly took advantage of the antiDRM campaigns to score a major PR victory
It is up to the market to keep it in check, like what is happening at the moment.
The more I think about it the less this day one patch makes sense.Day 1 patch required to play offline.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=596751
Day 1 patch required to play offline.
"not a result of today's DRM policy change. Rather, it was always planned and will be simply be required for playing off-line"
But the ability to play offline IS a result of the policy change.
This is how it is done.
I have no idea. I guess they could theoretically put a mandatory patch on every game disc. Or if you ask the conspiracy theorists I'm sure there is just a hardcoded 2 year clock and in November 2015 all Xbox Ones will break.
You mean just like RROD?
Oh wait - this wasn't a hardcoded clock - It was simply Microsoft being ok with releasing a faulty product of which they knew a larger percentage would break down...
The PR "capital" expended on the reversal was huge. While anything is possible I think the likelihood of Microsoft actually introducing this with disc-based games this generation is about the same as Sony. That is to say, as negligible as can be ignored.
What if, just what if someone isn't interested in Forza 5, Killer Instinct or Dead Rising 3?
Next you guys will be saying Xbone isn't funny...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=596751
Day 1 patch required to play offline.
"not a result of today's DRM policy change. Rather, it was always planned and will be simply be required for playing off-line"
But the ability to play offline IS a result of the policy change.
Do you understand yet? Do you see their manipulation?
Spend your money wherever, man. Just don't defend MS's shit tactics. Pretty fuckin' thin.
This is how it is done.
It was in an interview, they refused (yes refused) to confirm that the policies wouldn't change back.
But their first decisions are still biting them in the ass, and I have a feeling that this negative stigma surrounding the X1 won't fade away anytime soon. The worst thing is that even when the drm plans were laid out, there were still apologist defending those idea's lol.
In that case there was an obvious financial reason for them to do it and then be quiet about it till it couldn't be ignored. It was shitty, but from a business standpoint it made sense. A DRM reversal would be the exact opposite of that.
Changing it after the console launches would open them up to an infinitely larger PR shitstorm. And I'd imagine selling something with the promise it doesn't need to be online and then suddenly bricking everyone's systems who isn't online would open them up to some significant legal issues.
I have no doubt in my mind Sony was going to implement DRM and brilliantly took advantage of the antiDRM campaigns to score a major PR victory
It is up to the market to keep it in check, like what is happening at the moment.
Who knows how far into production the console was when this change was made, though? Applying a Day One patch seems logical in this case.
DRM can also be introduced by Sony at a later point. They were the first to introduce online passes. I find the black and white views by many on this board about those two companies perplexing to say the least
I have no doubt in my mind Sony was going to implement DRM and brilliantly took advantage of the antiDRM campaigns to score a major PR victory
It is up to the market to keep it in check, like what is happening at the moment.
Just because different circumstances would have made the point stronger doesn't make it invalid.
Microsoft spent an entire E3 with their heads down and tried to railroad this through. To the outside observer, it seems that they changed course when they saw their preorder numbers. If sales fear was the primary reason that they changed course, it is reasonable to question what they will do once they secure a userbase.
Some are even mad that the DRM is gone because we robbed them of the "family sharing" and the new digital future
No, I don't think it is. Look at the backlash Microsoft got just a month after announcing the thing. To suddenly change restrictions mid-gen would be a PR nuclear apocalypse. The most we should realistically expect is that Microsoft will introduce an opt-in DRM system in a few years.
the fact that there is a day one patch to change the DRM & Offline system functions in xbone means nothing? c'mon sonExcept this was a change before the launch of the console. If MS changed things AFTER people had already purchased the console, you would have a stronger point.
Game journalists taking sides in fucking console wars. Gotta love it.
...don't act like if some Company that brought us a 600 dollar console actually cares about their fans.
Vestal
Banned
(Today, 04:05 PM)
Truth and wisdom right here.Pretending that both sides of every argument is equal is in itself a form of bias.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that proper journalism can incorporate judgement? Pretending that both sides of every argument is equal is in itself a form of bias.
The gold standard of product review publications, Consumer Reports, entire raison d'etre is to recommend one product over similar ones. Are they somehow always biased?
No, I don't think it is. Look at the backlash Microsoft got just a month after announcing the thing. To suddenly change restrictions mid-gen would be a PR nuclear apocalypse. The most we should realistically expect is that Microsoft will introduce an opt-in DRM system in a few years.
Do you really think a billion dollar company that is traded on stockmarkets around the world made a decision like DRM, a policy choice that would have worldwide impact on a major product, in a snap fashion?
Sony isn't totally innocent, though. Instead of adding a feature, they totally removed one.
I remember people getting pissed after Linux was removed.
Corporations, man
Yeah it's called a "neccessary" firmware update to play new games.
Just like Sony removed Linux.
It's perfectly legal.
Sony isn't totally innocent, though. Instead of adding a feature, they totally removed one.
I remember people getting pissed after Linux was removed.
Corporations, man
Hopefully in the future someone offers up something other than their gut feeling on this subject.DRM fear-mongering? Oh boy, the amount of blind-defense is getting out of hand ..
lol pretty shameful, if you ask me. It's completely counter to what their job is suppose to be as a supposed magazine for gamers. It's one thing to criticize the errors and missteps of one platform while complimenting the successes of another, but to delve into the territory of open promotion and "seeming" all out assault on one or the other is a joke, and makes them no better than your average forum troll. What is that saying to people who see and want games that only exist on the Xbox One? What is this saying to people who enjoy Xbox Live or the services Microsoft offers? It's saying that you can't take edge seriously, and there is no clearer sign that they don't speak in an impartial manner for all gamers.
Either way, this subject isn't worthy anymore time than I've already given it, which is just a single post.
I have to disagree.
Do you really think a billion dollar company that is traded on stockmarkets around the world made a decision like DRM, a policy choice that would have worldwide impact on a major product, in a snap fashion? Do you really think they did not dedicate months or a year or more estimating the likely outcomes in detail? Kaz Hirai strikes me as a very methodical person and I highly doubt the DRM equation was dealt with on the fly.
If you happen to be saying that is not the case and you are only observing that having decided months earlier to go without DRM Sony merely availed themselves of the opportunity of the moment to capitalize upon a public outcry then I do not see the issue. A company would have to be foolish not to do so.
Comedian George Wallace is fond of remarking,
"They say never kick a man when he is down. I say, can you think of a better time?"
PR nightmare for MS has not been lost on Sony and they, in fact, do have a used game 'solution' working and have been going back and forth for months on whether to use it
I'm not arguing that it's illegal, I'm arguing that it'd be unthinkable from a PR standpoint.
Sony isn't totally innocent, though. Instead of adding a feature, they totally removed one.
I remember people getting pissed after Linux was removed from the Ps3.
Corporations, man
I'm not arguing that it's illegal, I'm arguing that it'd be unthinkable from a PR standpoint. With the DRM-backlash precedent, there is no way in hell Microsoft would ever consider suddenly switching mid-gen from a 'just like 360' system to anything resembling their original DRM restrictions. It just will not happen. The perfect storm of incompetence that led to the botched Xbone reveal doesn't begin to approach the kind of idiocy that it'd take to actually propose that.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that proper journalism can incorporate judgement? Pretending that both sides of every argument is equal is in itself a form of bias.
The gold standard of product review publications, Consumer Reports, entire raison d'etre is to recommend one product over similar ones. Are they somehow always biased?
No, I don't think it is. Look at the backlash Microsoft got just a month after announcing the thing. To suddenly change restrictions mid-gen would be a PR nuclear apocalypse. The most we should realistically expect is that Microsoft will introduce an opt-in DRM system in a few years.