Digital Distribution and the XBox One

[Skyblade]

Ok, I am truly at a loss here. Among the apologists for Microsoft's horribly anti-consumer policies, I keep hearing one thing repeated that I simply cannot make sense of:

"The reversal of Microsoft's policies is keeping us tied to physical distribution".

How? Seriously, what connection is there between Microsoft's policies and digital distribution?

I've been getting games distributed digitally on my PC, PSP, PS3, XBox 360, and Wii for years. Steam, the Playstation Network, the XBox Live Arcade, the Wii Virtual Console, Good Old Games, WiiWare, DSiWare. The list goes on.

How many of these systems use the XBox One's policies? None of them.

None of my systems have a constant connection to the internet (my PC would, but, y'know, Time Warner...). I download games, I play games offline. That's digital distribution, by definition.

Alright, so Steam (and Origin) will lock games that use their architecture to your account, even if you purchased a physical copy. However, it hasn't been particularly restrictive, as PC games, due to things like massive install times, have always been harder to take over to a friend's house to play anyway. And it certainly isn't a necessity for digital distribution, since digital distribution has nothing to do with physical copies anyway. It would even give a reason to increase the sale price of physical games (yeah, you're getting a copy you can easily take over to a friend's house, or loan out. It'll cost more) to compensate for the higher production value.



And, while I'm at it, what's wrong with still relying heavily on physical distribution? I want physical distribution to remain the standard, at least until the legal system can catch up with technology and we start getting rulings on our property rights when it comes to digital media. I certainly don't want the corporations to shove their model of ideal digital distribution rights down our throats and do their best to have it simply accepted as the norm.

Can someone please tell me how any of Microsoft's draconian and anti-customer policies have any relation to whether games are distributed physically or digitally?

[Polnareff]

They don't.

All one needs to do is look at Nintendo and see that. The digital downloads for the 3DS alone sometimes outweigh the physical copies' sales, but to be fair, Ninty cuts back on copies for certain games so that players will be forced to buy digital (see: Fire Emblem Awakening and Luigi's Mansion: DM).

Even this gen, digital sales have been pretty good. But there's no way any of these Orwellian, backwards policies would have worked right now. At least, not worked AND managed to knock the prices down as well. Each and every game would need millions and millions of sales, even the niche ones. It just wouldn't work.

[Bolivar]

Well the whole Microsoft fiasco is over so we don't need to dwell on that.

Although I am curious as to what narcotics these apologists took to warp their brains badly enough to whisper the name "physical distribution" as if it was a great tyrant to be feared and overthrown. Digital distribution reminds me of the other hot discussion items this generation like episodic releases, nonlinear gameplay, and the shift to mobile. Some people get so enthusiastic from all the excitement that they begin villainizing things that aren't bad to begin with and won't be going away just because something new and different emerged.

[Aulayna]

I'm typing this at work so it's probably a bit rough. As far as I understand what they mean is that having tradeable physical copies limits the digital rights management.

So say for example you buy a game from the XB Market Place - you can redownload that game from any location and play it using your account. Or in terms of the now scrapped family plan - you could share that game digitally with family members and they could play it without the need to purchase it themselves, even if they lived on the other side of the world for example.

Now that there is no DRM exchanging the only way to do this is via physical copy - and whilst in theory you could install that game and associate it with your account the disc could then be traded an infinite number of times for free which whilst it isn't necessarilly bad - the video game industry as a whole is a business that needs to sustain itself. Alternatively you could purchase a digital copy for them but it doesn't have the exchange or trad ability that it would've under the family plan.

Really what people are getting it when they're making that point is that, we, consumers would like some form of flexibility with our digital licenses similar to what we do with our physical copies. Some people were willing to sacrifice physical flexibility in favour of more digital flexibility.

[Slothy]

So say for example you buy a game from the XB Market Place - you can redownload that game from any location and play it using your account. Or in terms of the now scrapped family plan - you could share that game digitally with family members and they could play it without the need to purchase it themselves, even if they lived on the other side of the world for example.

Now that there is no DRM exchanging the only way to do this is via physical copy - and whilst in theory you could install that game and associate it with your account the disc could then be traded an infinite number of times for free which whilst it isn't necessarilly bad - the video game industry as a whole is a business that needs to sustain itself. Alternatively you could purchase a digital copy for them but it doesn't have the exchange or trad ability that it would've under the family plan.

Really what people are getting it when they're making that point is that, we, consumers would like some form of flexibility with our digital licenses similar to what we do with our physical copies. Some people were willing to sacrifice physical flexibility in favour of more digital flexibility.

I'm going to have to disagree completely with the idea that family sharing couldn't work without the bulltrout DRM. Bought a digital copy of a game? You have a limited number of installs. Used them all up? De-authorize a machine from your account and the next time that machine is online it will lose access. Simple, straightforward solution to a problem which won't even be common enough to be an actual problem quite frankly.

As far as physical copies? If you want to play from the disc you can anytime on any machine. Want to install it on your hard drive? That requires an internet connection and works the same way as digital copies except maybe you only get the one license to install it, and once you trade it in, all that needs to happen is a store scans it and it's de-authorized so next time you're online you lose the installed copy.

There, no 24 hour connection requirement and Microsoft can keep all of the features people are complaining about losing. I should really apply for a job at Microsoft because I seem to be better at solving their problems than they are.

[Aulayna]

Don't get me wrong I fully agree that some of the policies were harsh and some of the thoughts aren't exactly 100% accurate but Skyblade asked where people were coming from so I summed up what the general to and fro of it was based on what I've read from both sides of the fench.

But to touch on one point as I'm at work and don't have much time:

As far as physical copies? If you want to play from the disc you can anytime on any machine. Want to install it on your hard drive? That requires an internet connection and works the same way as digital copies except maybe you only get the one license to install it, and once you trade it in, all that needs to happen is a store scans it and it's de-authorized so next time you're online you lose the installed copy.

Which would require a substantial hardware installation at retail locations and there's no guarantee the store will even use it. Plus it further reduces revenue of fledgling independent retailers who can't afford such POS systems. The other ultimate irony is it would need an internet connection to update/revoke licenses. "Oh sorry our connection is down, you can't trade games in today."

Likewise what's to stop someone from just claiming that a store forgot to revoke a license or that a friend sold it to you and the myriad of claim of ownership issues it presents. Or heck if you're deployed somewhere and decide to give your copy to someone in a different unit who wants to use their own account. It reduces the options available to consumers which is why people were so up in arms over the DRM concept in the first place.

Believe me as someone who actively works with license bound material and ownership disputes on a daily basis these things aren't as cut and dry as they seem. If everyone played fair a lot of these things would be a non-issue but publishers aren't the only evil here - not all consumers are innocent in this equation either and sadly a lot of these systems have come in as a result of the more *quote fingers* malicious *quote fingers* side of the consumer base.

Now, apparently, some people were all for the idea of sharing plans so perhaps that is an avenue that can be explored with authenticating machines like how iTunes works (similar to your example). Though I suspect the pressure here is coming more from the IP owners and publishers than the hardware manufacturers themselves and they're probably concerned with "what if this person never connects the de-authenticated machine to the internet again." A relatively minor issue to most of us I'm sure but a potential loss of revenue in the eyes of the bean counters.

[Slothy]

Don't get me wrong I fully agree that some of the policies were harsh and some of the thoughts aren't exactly 100% accurate but Skyblade asked where people were coming from so I summed up what the general to and fro of it was based on what I've read from both sides of the fench.

I wasn't in any way intending to accuse you of agreeing with Microsoft's old policies if that's how it seemed. I realized you were playing devil's advocate, and I know some people make these arguments sincerely. I just felt it worth addressing them anyway.

But to touch on one point as I'm at work and don't have much time:

As far as physical copies? If you want to play from the disc you can anytime on any machine. Want to install it on your hard drive? That requires an internet connection and works the same way as digital copies except maybe you only get the one license to install it, and once you trade it in, all that needs to happen is a store scans it and it's de-authorized so next time you're online you lose the installed copy.

Which would require a substantial hardware installation at retail locations and there's no guarantee the store will even use it. Plus it further reduces revenue of fledgling independent retailers who can't afford such POS systems. The other ultimate irony is it would need an internet connection to update/revoke licenses. "Oh sorry our connection is down, you can't trade games in today."

Yeah, I was thinking about this after the fact, particularly since the idea of having certain retailers being able to de-license games didn't set well with me to begin with when that was Microsoft's plan and here's a simpler solution: each physical disc has a code which allows one local install (it could be more than one though really. The number isn't really important). You can still play from the disc on any machine, and you can install the game on the hard drive, and use the code included with the disc (probably even stamped on it to prevent loss) to activate the install on your machine. But make the codes reusable. If you install the game on a new machine, it the code will register it to that machine and deactivate the previous install the next time that 360 is online. Simple for the consumer, no extra steps for retailers purchasing used games, anyone can sell their game to anyone else, etc. On the consumer end it would be quite an elegant and easy to implement solution. And the risk of people trying to exploit this to pirate something is slim to nil.

And if the customer tries to install it but the code doesn't work for some reason, call up the companies support line, give them the code, they give you a new one and deactivate the old one.

Now, apparently, some people were all for the idea of sharing plans so perhaps that is an avenue that can be explored with authenticating machines like how iTunes works (similar to your example). Though I suspect the pressure here is coming more from the IP owners and publishers than the hardware manufacturers themselves and they're probably concerned with "what if this person never connects the de-authenticated machine to the internet again." A relatively minor issue to most of us I'm sure but a potential loss of revenue in the eyes of the bean counters.

Honestly, I think the question of "what if the person never connects the de-authorized machine again" is a non-issue as well, and really no different than used game sales are now. Odds are when someone finishes the game, they never go back to it. I doubt the number of people trying to actively pirate games by these means would be very high. If anything, the idea of sharing games with family represents a more credible threat to their sales in my eyes, and even then, for the majority of people it's a non-issue.

Then again, I'm fairly firmly in favour of the notion that companies are probably spending more money trying to stop piracy and used sales than it's actually costing them. But more importantly, I think we've come to a point with the fallout from E3 where even if it was the publishers pushing Microsoft for these DRM measures in the first place, they've recognized that customers won't stand for it and that it's in their best interests to back off. Which largely explains why companies like EA and Ubisoft were doing an about face on used games inside of 24 hours of the Microsoft presentation, and why we're seeing more and more companies back off of things like online multiplayer passes. Whatever they may have wanted before, they're realizing now that these are fights they aren't going to win.