Support NeoGAF

[mr teaspoon]

There is a lot of unthinkable things from a PR standpoint Microsoft has done lately.

That's the problem.

OK, we're just going to have to disagree. Being tone-deaf to community feedback and poor policies are one thing, but the Microsoft's 180 is a huge precedent not just for the Xbone but for the industry as a whole. You'd have to believe they're cartoonishly stupid to ignore that and lock paying customers in in 2 or 3 years.

Once MS develops a userbase it will be far easier for them to introduce a DRM system and have people accept it. If it, let's say 3 years from now and only effects new games, what are users going to do? Stop using their Xbox? No, they'll swallow whatever new policies are introduced because they're already invested in the console.

Again, it's as if you're approaching this from the standpoint that they're cartoon evil businessmen. Look at how proud and stubborn they were a month ago and look at them now. All that public outrage and the corporate backdown came from the idea that Microsoft would have the gall to even put that system on the market. So take that and now add in 'I have it here in writing that this system wouldn't restrict me in this way so I paid for your product, and now you've tricked me and changed things'. Forget it, it will just never happen.

 

[Toki767]

OK, we're just going to have to disagree. Being tone-deaf to community feedback and poor policies are one thing, but the Microsoft's 180 is a huge precedent not just for the Xbone but for the industry as a whole. You'd have to believe they're cartoonishly stupid to ignore that and lock paying customers in in 2 or 3 years.

It's a huge precedent for Microsoft and only Microsoft. Everyone else stuck to the status quo.

 

[GoofsterStud]

OK, we're just going to have to disagree. Being tone-deaf to community feedback and poor policies are one thing, but the Microsoft's 180 is a huge precedent not just for the Xbone but for the industry as a whole. You'd have to believe they're cartoonishly stupid to ignore that and lock paying customers in in 2 or 3 years.

Japan is a Tier 2 Country
They can buy a Xbox 360
Sony isn't competition
Cloud this...cloud that...

Ok...

 

[Nafai1123]

OK, we're just going to have to disagree. Being tone-deaf to community feedback and poor policies are one thing, but the Microsoft's 180 is a huge precedent not just for the Xbone but for the industry as a whole. You'd have to believe they're cartoonishly stupid to ignore that and lock paying customers in in 2 or 3 years.

It seemed cartoonishly stupid to implement those policies in the first place. MS execs even achnowledged that they expected some blowback because of it, but went balls to the wall anyways until they ran balls first into said wall.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Is it confirmed that the day one update is to remove the DRM or is it more misinformation that's being spread around? That isn't the official line from Microsoft via Marc Whitten:

“There was always going to be a day one update on the console, and that’s frankly just a difference in manufacturing schedules versus software schedules,” Whitten told IGN. “We just wanted to be clear that that hasn't changed, that you have to go online to get the software update for day one, then you wouldn't have to be connected after that.”

Xbox One Will Require Day One Update

 

[Steroyd]

OK, we're just going to have to disagree. Being tone-deaf to community feedback and poor policies are one thing, but the Microsoft's 180 is a huge precedent not just for the Xbone but for the industry as a whole. You'd have to believe they're cartoonishly stupid to ignore that and lock paying customers in in 2 or 3 years.

*Looks at past month and a half*

...

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Once MS develops a userbase it will be far easier for them to introduce a DRM system and have people accept it. If it, let's say 3 years from now and only effects new games, what are users going to do? Stop using their Xbox? No, they'll swallow whatever new policies are introduced because they're already invested in the console. Make no mistake, I don't think MS is going to go, "Guess what guys? DRM IS BAAAAAAAAACK!" They'll couch it in a "family plan" and the necessity of "cloud" support or some other marketing-speak. As digital becomes more popular, it will become easier to shift the rights toward MS's control. MS simply tried to force it too early when people still had a strong position from which to defend themselves.

I see Sony using this plan as well, honestly. I'm all for the digital switch, though. It is already starting with PS+ and Xbox Live sales now (which are pretty awesome).

 

[Socky]

EDGE are just calling it as they see it. Not only do they recognise that Microsoft have done almost everything wrong so far, they are also recognising that Sony have done almost everything right -as of now, which they clearly state on the cover.

Microsoft promised to bring it with a massive line up of games at E3, and to a point they did, but Sony swept them aside with less ammunition and less effort and that arguably resulted in Microsoft abandoning their entire online strategy for the Xbone. Recognising that isn't bias, its clarity.

 

[Macho Madness]

I see Sony using this plan as well, honestly. I'm all for the digital switch, though. It is already starting with PS+ and Xbox Live sales now (which are pretty awesome).

I'm not. I'm not ready for my games to all be "services" that can be shut down whenever the publisher feels like it. That sucks. I don't think I'll ever be ready, either.

 

[mr teaspoon]

It's a huge precedent for Microsoft and only Microsoft. Everyone else stuck to the status quo.

No, it's a precedent for the industry. I can't think of any other time where a company had to so radically change their roadmap over near-universal community backlash. This isn't 'Linux was there, then it wasn't', this has its own special place in the history of the industry.

Japan is a Tier 2 Country
They can buy a Xbox 360
Sony isn't competition
Cloud this...cloud that...

Ok...

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Comparing any of those things to a theoretical 'gotcha! DRM is back!' is like comparing a bee sting to being burned alive in that they're both painful things.

 

[Dunlop]

I'm not. I'm not ready for my games to all be "services" that can be shut down whenever the publisher feels like it. That sucks.

I'm not a collector so I totally am, if the make it worth it like Steam

I don't mean $5 deals to add to games that you will never play, but a digital copy of a game should never cost the same as retail even on day 1

$60 retail/$40 digital and I am on board

 

[BRocknRolla]

Again, it's as if you're approaching this from the standpoint that they're cartoon evil businessmen. Look at how proud and stubborn they were a month ago and look at them now. All that public outrage and the corporate backdown came from the idea that Microsoft would have the gall to even put that system on the market. So take that and now add in 'I have it here in writing that this system wouldn't restrict me in this way so I paid for your product, and now you've tricked me and changed things'. Forget it, it will just never happen.

As I said, they'll present it with a new face. I don't believe they're stupid enough to do another 180 even 3 years from now, but they'll figure out a way to bring enough of it back that they get to have some of the control they desired. (Also on new titles, not on your old stuff unless they figure out a way to make you opt into controlling them too.) As for the "I have it in writing" part, we most definitely do not have anything in writing. PR can say whatever it wants right now, and 3 years from now MS can simply point to the EULA you agreed to on the first day you plugged in your Xbox that stated they could alter policy as they chose.

Through careful PR and a vociferous defense force in the form of an existing userbase, negative backlash could be much more easily managed. I don't think MS is stupid or cartoonish, I think they're a large corporation interested in controlling consumers and making as much money as possible. If they think they can get away with it, I think they'll try.

I see Sony using this plan as well, honestly. I'm all for the digital switch, though. It is already starting with PS+ and Xbox Live sales now (which are pretty awesome).

That may well be. If things go very well for Sony and they end up with a huge market share, they might get audacious and develop some sort of system like this. My only hope is that since they didn't start the console with a system like this already in place (Unlike MS), they would be less likely to spend the time and money to develop one. They certainly are encouraging digital purchases with PS+. I hope we end up getting more rights to that content too going forward. (I think Sony, MS, Valve, and every other digital distributor owes us more rights when it comes to our content.)

 

[CouldBeWorse]

The same way they are making Xbone users download a "patch" to remove the DRM feature?

What about offline consoles? How can you force them to be online or force the to download a patch?

How do you suddenly determine game ownership in this scenario? Would it revert to whoever holds the physical copy?

Would a flip switch that made every online user suddenly install their games and tie them to their accounts the next time they attempted to play them? What about rental copies that users had from Gamefly/Redbox/wherever? How will games suddenly know they are on their primary account? Will they still carry some kind of unique code like they were going to?

There are so many questions and no one has given any reasonable answers. All companies have a clause that says "we can change our policies at any time."

 

[Neo Ankh]

People seem to forget that these are companies that only want to make money. Does anyone think Microsoft pulled their DRM plans for any other reason than because it was hurting their ability to make money? They are not fools and they are not oblivious to the importance of customer satisfaction.

 

[abadguy]

EDGE are just calling it as they see it. Not only do they recognise that Microsoft have done almost everything wrong so far, they are also recognising that Sony have done almost everything right -as of now, which they clearly state on the cover.

Microsoft promised to bring it with a massive line up of games at E3, and to a point they did, but Sony swept them aside with less ammunition and less effort and that arguably resulted in Microsoft abandoning their entire online strategy for the Xbone. Recognising that isn't bias, its clarity.

Calling it as you see it and advertising a console are two different things.

 

[MogCakes]

Is it confirmed that the day one update is to remove the DRM or is it more misinformation that's being spread around? That isn't the official line from Microsoft via Marc Whitten:



Xbox One Will Require Day One Update

Before the 180 the Xbox One was already an always-online console, so it's possible. However, that doesn't discount the fact that it still requires an internet connection at least once before it's useable.

 

[helipilot22]

It will be in the T's and C's that none of us fucking ever read, they know this and fuck us accordingly. MS are for sure switching that DRM on about year 3, get a pc.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Comparing any of those things to a theoretical 'gotcha! DRM is back!' is like comparing a bee sting to being burned alive in that they're both painful things.

But I was comparing your...."you'd have to believe they're cartoonishly stupid" to reality.

 

[mr teaspoon]

It seemed cartoonishly stupid to implement those policies in the first place.

Yes, but it wasn't. It's understandable on the face of things that it seems as if Microsoft is a monolith that just made one really bad decision. But as I said earlier, it was a perfect storm. The policy to begin with was unpopular. And then nobody anticipated gamers would be so entrenched over what they'd be losing. And then PR didn't focus at all on the positives of the system. And then guys like Mattrick just went out there totally tonedeaf to the reality of the situation and as a result didn't think twice about saying shit like 'buy a 360 for offline'.

So it's not that I have any sort of confidence in Microsoft's decision making, but if they've learned a single thing from this experience it's to stay the fuck away from mandatory DRM for a long time.

 

[Uno Venova]

Calling it as you see it and advertising a console are two different things.

Yes they're doing the former.

People seem to forget that these are companies that only want to make money. Does anyone think Microsoft pulled their DRM plans for any other reason than because it was hurting their ability to make money? They are not fools and they are not oblivious to the importance of customer satisfaction.

Why do you think people forget that?

 

[BlastProcessing]

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 hope you don't mind if I think this subject is worth at least a single post and a response.

Being impartial for impartialities sake helps no one. To take a view from nowhere, means that your content isn't relavent to anyone. Edge's primary reason for existing is to connect to it's readers. You simply can't do that if you speak in a purely impartial manner. People aren't impartial. Just because someone takes a side or makes a recommendation doesn't mean that they are unduly biased. Hell bias can equally cause someone to refuse to take a side and refrain from making a recommendation.

If you think it's aceptable for a magazine to "criticize the errors and missteps of one platform while complimenting the successes of another", then why isn't it acceptable for them to draw conclusions from that criticism?

 

[Zephyrus]

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.

Make them follow Sega. Drop the hardware and focus on software.

 

[Macho Madness]

Yes they're doing the former.

Then the cover story should have been "Why the Xbox One isn't the console for you."

 

[helipilot22]

I think mattricks "well stick with xbox 360 then" comment was a parting shot.

 

[Natureboy99]

Finally a journalist saying it like it is. I'm tired of the "all platforms are equally wonderful" mentality. Sometimes in life, actually most times, between two comparable objects one is better than the other. Very rarely are they equal.

In any event, I bet this issue sells a lot of copies.

 

[MogCakes]

I see Sony using this plan as well, honestly. I'm all for the digital switch, though. It is already starting with PS+ and Xbox Live sales now (which are pretty awesome).

Sony has plans for a digital future, yes. The difference between their plan and MS's is they've made a point of introducing digital as an option and not a requirement. Disc-based games will not be restricted in any form ever, in their words.

 

[Uno Venova]

Then the cover story should have been "Why the Xbox One isn't the console for you."

They'll probably go over that in the article.

 

[abadguy]

Make them follow Sega. Drop the hardware and focus on software.

Yeah i remember Sony fans being quite happy when that one happened. You people have never been much for any sort of competition to the corporation you worship.

 

[PSGames]

I don't mind them picking a side but to say your 'only' option is the PS4? Kinect is meaningless? Xbox exclusives are meaningless? Xbox Live is meaningless? All the exclusive media apps are meaningless? Smartglass is meaningless?

Just seems like hyperbole to get attention.

 

[mr teaspoon]

But I was comparing your..."You'd have to believe they're cartoonishly stupid."

To reality.

Our disagreement is about reality, though.

As I said, they'll present it with a new face. I don't believe they're stupid enough to do another 180 even 3 years from now, but they'll figure out a way to bring enough of it back that they get to have some of the control they desired. (Also on new titles, not on your old stuff unless they figure out a way to make you opt into controlling them too.) As for the "I have it in writing" part, we most definitely do not have anything in writing. PR can say whatever it wants right now, and 3 years from now MS can simply point to the EULA you agreed to on the first day you plugged in your Xbox that stated they could alter policy as they chose.

Through careful PR and a vociferous defense force in the form of an existing userbase, negative backlash could be much more easily managed. I don't think MS is stupid or cartoonish, I think they're a large corporation interested in controlling consumers and making as much money as possible. If they think they can get away with it, I think they'll try.

Well, I don't disagree that DRM will return except that it'll be totally optional. I think that with what happened over the past month or so, it's safe to assume that used games and playing offline will be just as they were on the 360 for the entire life of the One.

As far as having it in writing, what I mean is that we have a blog post from Microsoft saying 'OK, we hear you - you want to trade in used games and you don't want to check in to the internet'. Of course that's not legally binding, but it may as well be in terms of the court of public opinion.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Sony has plans for a digital future, yes. The difference between their plan and MS's is they've made a point of introducing digital as an option and not a requirement. Disc-based games will not be restricted in any form ever, in their words.

I agree with their stance, and think MS should have done the same. People should have options and now they do. Disc-based games are restricted in a sense for always online games, though. I see more games going this route to eventually convert people to the digital (Destiny, The Division etc...).

 

[Lynn616]

Sony has plans for a digital future, yes. The difference between their plan and MS's is they've made a point of introducing digital as an option and not a requirement. Disc-based games will not be restricted in any form ever, in their words.

Did Sony say that?

 

[CouldBeWorse]

As I said, they'll present it with a new face. I don't believe they're stupid enough to do another 180 even 3 years from now, but they'll figure out a way to bring enough of it back that they get to have some of the control they desired. (Also on new titles, not on your old stuff unless they figure out a way to make you opt into controlling them too.) As for the "I have it in writing" part, we most definitely do not have anything in writing. PR can say whatever it wants right now, and 3 years from now MS can simply point to the EULA you agreed to on the first day you plugged in your Xbox that stated they could alter policy as they chose.

Through careful PR and a vociferous defense force in the form of an existing userbase, negative backlash could be much more easily managed. I don't think MS is stupid or cartoonish, I think they're a large corporation interested in controlling consumers and making as much money as possible. If they think they can get away with it, I think they'll try.

All EULAs have similar wording.

What portions can they bring back? There are only really three things that can be changed back:

1. Always-on requirement (it's either on or off, and the time period is adjustable)
2. Used games (can be disabled by giving each game a unique one-time access code to play it)
3. Game borrowing (can be disabled by giving each game a unique one-time access code to play it)

Do you think they would actually go with any of these options at a system level? I can see giving publishers the option to do #2 or #3 and then I can see gamers immediately giving publishers a huge middle finger.

---------------

What's more likely is that they slowly incentivize gamers to move to an all-digital world by giving discounts, exclusive content, preorder bonuses, or other perks to people who buy digital. This way gamers are making a "choice" to move all digital and by extension, are buying a product that can't be sold back and can't be lended out.

I think all three companies and many publishers will head down this route to slowly wean gamers off of physical media to ultimately get to where they desire to be without alienating gamers like Microsoft did.

Before the 180 the Xbox One was already an always-online console, so it's possible. However, that doesn't discount the fact that it still requires an internet connection at least once before it's useable.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked whether there was any proof that the day one update is to remove the DRM functionality.

 

[Hatchetforce]

Famousmortimer said that Sony had and was thinking of using a DRM scheme.

Thinking of it and making the long term decision are two vastly different things.

I think they had multiple scenarios to follow and when MS released the details of their plans and the public opinion went south they enacted plan 2.

MS is also a multibillion dollar company, I would love to know why they wanted to implement this system at all if they did not have assurances. The money they made from it does not seem anywhere near worth it. They must have known people would have been against it (although I doubt they expected how much)

Concerning the OP, I have to agree that showing such a "bias" on a neutral publication is bizarre. I guess they are hedging their bets of how next gen will go.

There is little doubt Sony thoroughly researched all possibilities. We will never honestly know what happened with the publishers. However Peter Moore was quick to toss MS under the bus.

But what we can deduce without error is that Sony has been very methodical and calculating this go round. A behavior that runs counter to snap decisions.

Sometimes the hardest thing for people to accept is the face value. People are jaded and they want to believe in the conspiracy. But quite often the simplest explanation happens to be true.

It is very possible that Sony made the decision to keep all first part titles DRM free and it was the 3rd parties that were pushing up until the time Microsoft flayed themselves at E3. I personally doubt this as I do not believe Sony changed such a major part of their presentation at the last minute. I think it much more likely that Sony held with their no DRM decision and simply agreed to provide 3rd parties a larger split in order to go the DRM free route whereas MS was went with DRM to keep a larger share. And we know how all of that worked out. The truth is we may never know.

Earlier I posted a pic of the now infamous EGM cover. That pic is why I do not have an issue with the Edge cover. That cover was chosen in February a mere 3 months after the PS3 launch. Dan Hsu wrote he laughed when he showed it to Sony Execs and saw the look on their face. This from an Editor that is supposed to show impartiality and act as the guiding hand.

Never mind that the PS3 had yet to launch in the EU or that it had actually outsold the 360 during the same time frame. And never mind that the biggest hardware fiasco in the history of gaming, RROD, never made the cover. I don't recall anyone on the green side of the fence having a fit over that issue of EGM.

So I see the Edge cover as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Some will say two wrongs do not make a right and I say here, use my calculator.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Our disagreement is about reality, though.

You lost me. Apparently all facts are irrelevant if they don't agree with your mindset is all I got.

 

[helipilot22]

Call me conspiracy theorist bob if you like but don't you think all this is well planned behind closed doors with MS and sony round a table, ever wondered why since the snes every cycle its a different winner the pendulum always swings each gen.

 

[JJD]

This poor fellow seems to have an exposed nerve whenever anything negative about MS gets brought up. It's usually dressed up in some psudo intellectual clothing, but the jist is always the same.

I thought he was ousted and banned with the rest of the PR folks infiltrating forums and sites to spread good word about MS (and probably Sony, EA, Acti, etc, too...)??? There was even a thread about it right? Bish made some comments about suspect e-mails being used to register to GAF.

Seems like he is just a huge MS fan if he is still here.

Anyway, if this keeps going there won't be many Xbox fans around when the console finally launches. People are getting (most deserved it) banned left and right...this thread already claimed some.

 

[jaypah]

It will be in the T's and C's that none of us fucking ever read, they know this and fuck us accordingly. MS are for sure switching that DRM on about year 3, get a pc.

Already have a PC. Getting a PS4 for launch. Will eventually get a 180 also. If they somehow decide to put the DRM back in mid-Gen I'll just sell it.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Yeah i remember Sony fans being quite happy when that one happened. You people have never been much for any sort of competition to the corporation you worship.

WTH?

We all have preferences. I will openly admit that I prefer PlayStation to MS and Nintendo offerings. Do I want Sony to do well? Yes. Do I want Sony to have competition? Yes. I want Sony pushed. I want the market as a whole to be innovative and grow. i do not want the policies that MS was pushing to become the norm. Will all things go digital in the future? I'm quite sure of it. Does it have to happen now? No. I look forward to seeing how this generation shapes up. There will be unique offerings across all 3 platforms and gamers as a whole will benefit.

 

[bishoptl]

As far as having it in writing, what I mean is that we have a blog post from Microsoft saying 'OK, we hear you - you want to trade in used games and you don't want to check in to the internet'. Of course that's not legally binding, but it may as well be in terms of the court of public opinion.

I recall a previous blog post that stated "we're listening" during the DRM sturm und drang. Then MS doubled-down on their DRM strategy during E3. It wasn't until afterwards when preorder numbers started flowing in that things changed.

Blog postings do not carry the weight that you seem to believe they do.

 

[MogCakes]

Did Sony say that?

Aha! I knew someone would call me out

http://kotaku.com/sony-still-a-little-vague-about-third-party-used-games-513032471
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/412976/sony-clarifies-no-crackdown-on-disc-trading-but-online-drm-is-possible/
http://www.destructoid.com/did-tretton-confirm-drm-on-ps4-after-all-not-quite--256052.phtml

 

[Zephyrus]

Yeah i remember Sony fans being quite happy when that one happened. You people have never been much for any sort of competition to the corporation you worship.

So sad to see you go.

We people will be here. Hope you weren't a junior though.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Sony has plans for a digital future, yes. The difference between their plan and MS's is they've made a point of introducing digital as an option and not a requirement. Disc-based games will not be restricted in any form ever, in their words.

For first party games. Third parties can still attempt restrictions. And then suffer the wrath of gamers. This will be true on both systems.

 

[mr teaspoon]

You lost me. Apparently all facts are irrelevant if they don't agree with your mindset is all I got.

We agree that everything you listed is an example of corporate boneheadedness. The difference is that you seem to be concluding 'this company a) seems to love DRM and b) keeps making bad decisions. Introducing forced-DRM a few years from now would be dumb, and it matches their MO, so they'll probably do that'.

Whereas I'm concluding 'wow, this company has been completely tonedeaf to what the community thinks about their decisions and had their asses handed to them on a historic level over the DRM issue - no matter what they do moving forward, this'll be a stain on their history.'

 

[Zutroy]

None of their reasoning is on the cover of the magazine, though. t's just an empty, opinionated statement to get people to open the magazine. Most people won't even read the magazine, but instead remember the cover.

Have you never seen the printed medium before in your life? That's pretty much the entire point of the front cover.

 

[mr teaspoon]

I recall a previous blog post that stated "we're listening" during the DRM sturm und drang. Then MS doubled-down on their DRM strategy during E3. It wasn't until afterwards when preorder numbers started flowing in that things changed.

Blog postings do not carry the weight that you seem to believe they do.

You're misunderstanding me, I never suggested that blog posts are legally binding and I clarified that point.

Just because somebody said it one time on a blog doesn't make it ironclad, of course. But as I said earlier, I think most of us can agree that what happened here with the 180 is pretty huge and unheard of. Microsoft introduced a policy and it was utterly destroyed, and the company had to publicly renounce all of these plans. I hold the 180 blog post up simply because it's the 'treaty that ended the war'. Consumers have it in writing that Microsoft acknowledges these policies are unpopular and you can safely go buy their product knowing you won't have to deal with those features. Maybe it doesn't stand up in court, but I think that it makes a surprise switcheroo that much more unthinkable.

 

[MogCakes]

For first party games. Third parties can still attempt restrictions. And then suffer the wrath of gamers. This will be true on both systems.

For online yes, I was thinking of single player games when I wrote that. That policy is no different from what we have now, though, on PS3 and 360. Also, EA has dropped online passes for good and Sony is dropping them as well now that PS+ is required for online MP (which I am sad about - the online MP paywall, not the dropping online passes). I was speaking of MS's previous DRM plans pre-180, not now, in response to another poster.

 

[Toki767]

For first party games. Third parties can still attempt restrictions. And then suffer the wrath of gamers. This will be true on both systems.

The hilarious thing about third parties is that the top executives in EA, Activision, and Ubisoft all pretty much threw Microsoft under the bus during E3 when discussing DRM.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I recall a previous blog post that stated "we're listening" during the DRM sturm und drang. Then MS doubled-down on their DRM strategy during E3. It wasn't until afterwards when preorder numbers started flowing in that things changed.

Blog postings do not carry the weight that you seem to believe they do.

I was never a fan, but the interviews with Hyrb at E3 really made him seem like a disgusting individual.

Aha! I knew someone would call me out

http://kotaku.com/sony-still-a-little-vague-about-third-party-used-games-513032471
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/412976/sony-clarifies-no-crackdown-on-disc-trading-but-online-drm-is-possible/
http://www.destructoid.com/did-tretton-confirm-drm-on-ps4-after-all-not-quite--256052.phtml

So tired of that FUD about Sony's DRM post-E3 from so-called journalists. It's exactly the same as it is on the PS3. If a publisher wants to make an always online game, they can. They're going to have to run the servers and authentication system, though.

 

[Bornstellar]

You mean the one that says the policy can change at any minute and you agree to such changes.

The DRM infrastructure is already built...sitting there...waiting.

Just wanted to clear this misconception up since this was a question that Phil Spencer recently answered at an intern event. Since they are retooling the system to use discs just like it did on the 360, this fundamentally changes how they handle verification of ownership. It also means that no policy change would ever affect your rights to play games from physical discs. So if you are worried about any of that stuff, buy physical (the same is true of any platform).

There is way too much FUD being spread around right now.