|
On June 17 2013 12:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Does anyone know how PS3/PS4 handles this problem without the 24 hours check-in?
E.g. can I go to my friend's house, logon to my account on his PS3 or PS4, download every game in my library to his PS3 or PS4? Then log out and leave. So now I've allowed him to play every game I bought offline, for free, on his console.
Is this currently possible?
Obviously not. How or why would that be possible? PS3 obviously doesn't need to be connected 24hours, that's just a stupid restraint Microsoft wanted on the console. You can find 10yr old questions about the PS3 on google man.
|
On June 17 2013 12:40 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Does anyone know how PS3/PS4 handles this problem without the 24 hours check-in?
E.g. can I go to my friend's house, logon to my account on his PS3 or PS4, download every game in my library to his PS3 or PS4? Then log out and leave. So now I've allowed him to play every game I bought offline, for free, on his console.
Is this currently possible? Obviously not. How or why would that be possible? PS3 obviously doesn't need to be connected 24hours, that's just a stupid restraint Microsoft wanted on the console. You can find 10yr old questions about the PS3 on google man.
You say that it isn't possible, but what exactly does Sony do to stop that situation from being possible?
|
On June 17 2013 13:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:40 Zooper31 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Does anyone know how PS3/PS4 handles this problem without the 24 hours check-in?
E.g. can I go to my friend's house, logon to my account on his PS3 or PS4, download every game in my library to his PS3 or PS4? Then log out and leave. So now I've allowed him to play every game I bought offline, for free, on his console.
Is this currently possible? Obviously not. How or why would that be possible? PS3 obviously doesn't need to be connected 24hours, that's just a stupid restraint Microsoft wanted on the console. You can find 10yr old questions about the PS3 on google man. You say that it isn't possible, but what exactly does Sony do to stop that situation from being possible?
I am guessing what you are getting at is the fact that the PS3/PS4 uses disc based "DRM" in that you need the physical disc to play the game. This is the only way I can fathom you including PS3 in the question. PS3/PS4 dont play games directly off of the HDD like the XB1 so they don't need a check in. Should they do something like Gaikai to stream games itll probably be some system that they will work out. But for now, it is not necessary.
|
On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from.
OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article:
They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers.
So yes, I did read it, thank you very much.
Maybe you should read it. :/
The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed.
Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight.
Please actually read to article.
No, you.
Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible.
I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist.
The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything.
Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use.
I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff?
I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games?
|
On June 17 2013 13:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:40 Zooper31 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Does anyone know how PS3/PS4 handles this problem without the 24 hours check-in?
E.g. can I go to my friend's house, logon to my account on his PS3 or PS4, download every game in my library to his PS3 or PS4? Then log out and leave. So now I've allowed him to play every game I bought offline, for free, on his console.
Is this currently possible? Obviously not. How or why would that be possible? PS3 obviously doesn't need to be connected 24hours, that's just a stupid restraint Microsoft wanted on the console. You can find 10yr old questions about the PS3 on google man. You say that it isn't possible, but what exactly does Sony do to stop that situation from being possible?
what he's describing is ps3 game-sharing.
you are allowed to download games that are bought on your PSN account onto another ps3 and play them with absolutely no limit; it's as if someone on the other ps3 bought the game for himself.
However there is a limit: a particular download can only be on 3 different ps3's at any time (the limit used to be 5)
This has led to people online forming groups to share one account with a game and dividing the cost of buying the game to all people in the group (effectively reducing cost of a game by two-thirds)
When you download a game from ps network, they tie your ps3's hardware to the game. This is how they do that 3 system limit check. If you want to share the game with a 4th person, you will have to de-activate the game from your system.
Just one last note: the local user account that uses the PSN login must remain on the ps3 for the game to remain active. All other users on that same ps3 can play the game just as if they had bought it for themselves
|
On June 17 2013 12:25 paralleluniverse wrote:In fact, there's another reason why the 24 hours check-in is required, which I mentioned here: Show nested quote +I think it's related to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. So without the 24 hours check-in, it would be possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent.
I've been doing this with steam for ages but have still spent more money on steam than I have from any other retail outlet.
|
On June 17 2013 13:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:40 Zooper31 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Does anyone know how PS3/PS4 handles this problem without the 24 hours check-in?
E.g. can I go to my friend's house, logon to my account on his PS3 or PS4, download every game in my library to his PS3 or PS4? Then log out and leave. So now I've allowed him to play every game I bought offline, for free, on his console.
Is this currently possible? Obviously not. How or why would that be possible? PS3 obviously doesn't need to be connected 24hours, that's just a stupid restraint Microsoft wanted on the console. You can find 10yr old questions about the PS3 on google man. You say that it isn't possible, but what exactly does Sony do to stop that situation from being possible?
PSN games tie themselves to the hardware when you download them.
Basically you can only download the game on certain amount of PS3s, so if your PS3 craps out, you can redownload your games. However people use it to game share. blabber described it very well.
Sony didn't like it so they reduced the limit. I believe the limit on Vita games is only 2 now.
Fanboys can spin it all they want, next gen innovation or the power of the clouds (lol) and what not, fact is, the X1 is designed purely for Microsoft's corporate agenda, and their choice of policies simply make it too obvious for most people to take it in.
|
hehe well, 7 pages later but whatever...
Have you ever tried to emulate a N64 in a PC with exactly the same specs of a N64 ? I'm sure that you can't even pass the 5 FPS... You need a PC that is at least 2 to 3 times stronger than the N64 Hardware to actually play any N64 game with the same FPS that you would see on the console.
So yeah, when microsoft used a 780GTX to show X1 games, they were absolutely right, because consoles are much more efficient than PC's to process games.
|
On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do.
They can't do that without alienating everyone with bad , mediocre or capped internet ( Thats alot of people ) . Most users can't download 10-50 gigs for every game . You cannnot eliminate discs completely at this day and age especially with the size of games thats only going to get bigger. Thats not even the case on PC. You can still get the discs if you like and the prices are basically the same as Steam alot of time even cheaper besides the Sales .
|
On June 17 2013 13:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:40 Zooper31 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Does anyone know how PS3/PS4 handles this problem without the 24 hours check-in?
E.g. can I go to my friend's house, logon to my account on his PS3 or PS4, download every game in my library to his PS3 or PS4? Then log out and leave. So now I've allowed him to play every game I bought offline, for free, on his console.
Is this currently possible? Obviously not. How or why would that be possible? PS3 obviously doesn't need to be connected 24hours, that's just a stupid restraint Microsoft wanted on the console. You can find 10yr old questions about the PS3 on google man. You say that it isn't possible, but what exactly does Sony do to stop that situation from being possible?
On Playstation there's a limited amount of consoles you can download games your to . It's 5 on PS3 i think . I would assume the PS Store can read the hardware ID's and your account Data.
|
On June 17 2013 17:25 DrakanSilva wrote:
hehe well, 7 pages later but whatever...
Have you ever tried to emulate a N64 in a PC with exactly the same specs of a N64 ? I'm sure that you can't even pass the 5 FPS... You need a PC that is at least 2 to 3 times stronger than the N64 Hardware to actually play any N64 game with the same FPS that you would see on the console.
So yeah, when microsoft used a 780GTX to show X1 games, they were absolutely right, because consoles are much more efficient than PC's to process games.
Emulation is ridiculously inefficient, so that's not a fair comparison. Unless you wrote an N64 emulator in pure assembly, you would never get enough speed for a comparable PC to run the games (and even then, it would be significantly slower).
|
|
|
On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: Show nested quote +They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much.
lol pwnd
|
On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: Show nested quote +They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much. Maybe you should read it. :/ Show nested quote +The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed. Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight. No, you. Show nested quote +Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist. The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything. Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use. I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff? I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games?
I admit that I didn't recall reading that line, which amounted to a minor footnote at the end. But the point that you seem to have missed the main point of the article stands. You say, in bold, that digital distribution isn't new, and you're puzzled by why Xbox One requires a 24 hour check-in. But if you had paid more attention to the primary argument of that article you would understand why this is: because Xbox One allows you to resell games which you have attached digitally to your account.
I do not think this feature is available on Xbox 360 or PS3, where I believe you can't resell games that you have digitally attached to your account. If you could, then it would currently be possible to do the following:
Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. .
Moreover, I gave a further reason: the 24 hour "DRM" is needed due to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. This would make it possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent. What DRM does Sony employ to prevent this? They limit digital downloads to 3 different PS3s. This has led to account sharing on PSN in which 1 person buys the game, shares it with 3 people and splits the costs, which increases the probability of account compromises and reduces revenues for developers. The cost of these freeloaders is borne by everyone, just like how the cost of freeloaders on public transport is borne by higher ticket prices for everyone.
These "DRM" restrictions are not much different from Steam. In some ways they are more stringent, but in other ways they are less stringent (e.g. allowing you to resell games digitally attached to your account).
You say that you don't like this new system where games are digitally attached to your account and you would rather "rely simply on ... hardware to play our games". That's one point of view. But other people, such as myself, would rather not have to rely on hardware. Discs are a pain in the ass. With the internet, taking discs out and putting discs in is as obsolete and unnecessary as playing music from a CD. Internet is quite ubiquitous, I would rather have access to a digital library of games everywhere, an always-connected game platform, without discs. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not killed the disc. Xbox One should not have included a disc drive. I can see why people with bad internet would not like this, but people with good internet should overwhelmingly prefer the convenience of a Steam-like, Battle.net-like, Xbox-like account system.
In closing, get a PS4.
|
On June 18 2013 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much. Maybe you should read it. :/ The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed. Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight. Please actually read to article. No, you. Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist. The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything. Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use. I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff? I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games? I admit that I didn't recall reading that line, which amounted to a minor footnote at the end. But the point that you seem to have missed the main point of the article stands. You say, in bold, that digital distribution isn't new, and you're puzzled by why Xbox One requires a 24 hour check-in. But if you had paid more attention to the primary argument of that article you would understand why this is: because Xbox One allows you to resell games which you have attached digitally to your account. I do not think this feature is avalaible on Xbox 360 or PS3, where I believe you can't resell games that you have digitally attached to your account. If you could then, then it would be currently be possible to do this following: Show nested quote +Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. . Moreover, I gave a further reason. The 24 hour "DRM" is needed due to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. This would make it possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent. What DRM does Sony employ to prevent this? They limit digital downloads to 3 different PS3s. This has led to account sharing on PSN in which 1 person buys the game, shares it with 3 people and splits the costs, which increases the probability of account compromises and reduces revenues for developers. The cost of these freeloaders is borne by everyone, just like how the cost of freeloaders on public transport is borne by higher ticket prices for everyone. These restrictions "DRM" restrictions are not much different from Steam. In some way they are more stringent, but in other way they are less stringent (e.g. allowing you to resell games digitally attached to your account).
And what exactly is so bad when friends share their games or buy them together ? Do you really think those 3 people would've bought 3 individual copies of games if that feature wasn't possible ? Even the new Xbox gets that feature it's just a bit more complicated . The shared games in most cases are SP games and their replay value is let's say questionable at best Great games will allways make enough money .
|
On June 17 2013 19:08 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. They can't do that without alienating everyone with bad , mediocre or capped internet ( Thats alot of people ) . Most users can't download 10-50 gigs for every game . You cannnot eliminate discs completely at this day and age especially with the size of games thats only going to get bigger. Thats not even the case on PC. You can still get the discs if you like and the prices are basically the same as Steam alot of time even cheaper besides the Sales .
One would assume that supporters of Steam have good internet. Otherwise, how do they download games from Steam?
|
On June 18 2013 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 19:08 s3rp wrote:On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. They can't do that without alienating everyone with bad , mediocre or capped internet ( Thats alot of people ) . Most users can't download 10-50 gigs for every game . You cannnot eliminate discs completely at this day and age especially with the size of games thats only going to get bigger. Thats not even the case on PC. You can still get the discs if you like and the prices are basically the same as Steam alot of time even cheaper besides the Sales . One would assume that supporters of Steam have good internet. Otherwise, how do they download games from Steam?
You can still buy a disc even for PC games for bigger ones ? It's not like those don't exist anymore magically because Steam now offers digital products as well.
Like it or not disc based products will not disappear all that soon . Too many people still have too unreliable internet and unless someone magically starts expending the infrastructure in areas that internet companies don't see as super profitable this won't change anytime soon.
I mean it's nice to not have to rely on disc all the time but it's still a viable option .
I mean i still buy records and CD's even with MP3's existing hell i even prefer those , especially records.
|
On June 18 2013 00:25 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 13:19 Leporello wrote:On June 17 2013 12:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:35 Leporello wrote:His premise seems to be that we should be glad that MS is making it's platform a DRM digital-distribution machine, because this will give Steam competition, which is really good for us consumers. But no it won't, and it isn't. This is not going to drive Steam's prices down any further, and Steam's sales are already some of the absolute best deals in gaming. Meanwhile, it's been confirmed that all the major titles on the console are going to be the standard $60 fare. But beyond that, there is nothing preventing MS (or Sony) from digitally-distributing their games without demanding it from consumers. The 360 lets players buy major-title games On-Demand -- but it doesn't demand players buy them that way. You can have both worlds. Even in the Steam comparison -- there are many games sold on Steam that don't even require Steam to run. Some games require Steam running, or even add their own layer of DRM -- it's really entire up to the games' producers. Steam Offline mode is a lot less restrictive that the Xbone check-in system. It's just not as great a comparison as MS wants it to be, and isn't going to be providing this theorized competition for consumers' benefit. They're still two different markets for two very different platforms. Again, it's like MS wants to sell people a 2nd, redundant PC, erasing all the benefits consoles have over PCs. Did you even read the article? He did not even mention giving Steam competition, so I have no idea where you pulled that one from. OHHHHHHH-kay. Here is right from the article: They are attempting to move digital distribution in a direction most people aren’t thinking about and a viable competitor to steam in the digital space would do wonders for us as consumers. So yes, I did read it, thank you very much. Maybe you should read it. :/ The difference with Sony and why Sony doesn't have this requirement is that you can't resell digital games on PS4. On Xbox One you can resell digital games. That's why the 24 hours check-in is needed. Uh-huh. It's just to benefit consumers, that's all. Riiiiiiiiight. Please actually read to article. No, you. Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. I'm glad you've found a scenario in which all this is somehow just a benefit to you. But in all logic, this is a DRM distribution-machine meant to put a strangle on all second-hand video-game sales -- and that is the only reason for that DRM to exist. The 360 sells games OnDemand. Digitally distributing games to consoles is not anywhere close to being a new feature. The 360 was able to sell games digitally, without requiring constant DRM. I don't know why you can't understand that the DRM isn't actually providing us anything. Yes, you can share digital games now, whereas before it would be problematic. But so what? Who was asking for this? I and many others would rather have the simplicity of being able to rely simply on our hardware to play our games. For many it's a necessity. For myself, it's just what I want from a console. My house isn't the most wireless friendly, my ISP isn't the most reliable. I play my 360 sometimes because of that. I have no use for the Xbox One, at all. But it can share digital games? Whoopdedoo. That's not something I remotely care about. This featuret comes at the expense of one of the consoles' most appealing features in the modern age -- it's mobility and ease-of-use. I dislike that MS just shrugs off all the US servicemen who won't be able to use this console. Those are hundreds of thousands of young American adults, many with limited or no internet access. How is that smart business? One thing I've been asked for from someone in the Army I know was a game -- something you can just put in a console, get a TV, and you're fine. This is just one extremely obvious demographic that WANTS consoles, but isn't going to get a console from MS this generation. They'll all be buying PS4s because they have to. Why is this a good trade-off to being able to "digitally share" stuff? I just dislike the entire direction they took with it. It's too "visionary", like they envision where the console will be in my room, what my internet connection is like, that I'm someone who will leave the thing on all day while I watch TV from my couch and doesn't like to use a remote, and that I want to share my games with people without actually meeting them in real life... Why not just make a box that can play games? I admit that I didn't recall reading that line, which amounted to a minor footnote at the end. But the point that you seem to have missed the main point of the article stands. You say, in bold, that digital distribution isn't new, and you're puzzled by why Xbox One requires a 24 hour check-in. But if you had paid more attention to the primary argument of that article you would understand why this is: because Xbox One allows you to resell games which you have attached digitally to your account. I do not think this feature is avalaible on Xbox 360 or PS3, where I believe you can't resell games that you have digitally attached to your account. If you could then, then it would be currently be possible to do this following: Imagine I go to my local store, purchase FIFA 14. I install it on my Xbox One and thus no longer need the game disc. If the system doesn’t require an online check after that point, I can take my copy of FIFA 14, return it to my game store and trade it in. I add a few more dollars and buy Titan Fall. I head home, install that. My Xbox now thinks I own both FIFA 14 and Titan Fall. Repeat and rinse till I own every game available for the platform. If the console isn’t checking online to make sure I haven’t given up my license to play the game, trade ins on a digital distribution platform would be impossible. . Moreover, I gave a further reason. The 24 hour "DRM" is needed due to the ability to have another person logon to your Xbox One to play their games. Without it, they could logon, download their games to your Xbox One, then you can play those games offline forever, without having bought the games. This would make it possible for you to get every single Xbox One game for free, without paying a cent. What DRM does Sony employ to prevent this? They limit digital downloads to 3 different PS3s. This has led to account sharing on PSN in which 1 person buys the game, shares it with 3 people and splits the costs, which increases the probability of account compromises and reduces revenues for developers. The cost of these freeloaders is borne by everyone, just like how the cost of freeloaders on public transport is borne by higher ticket prices for everyone. These restrictions "DRM" restrictions are not much different from Steam. In some way they are more stringent, but in other way they are less stringent (e.g. allowing you to resell games digitally attached to your account). And what exactly is so bad when friends share their games or buy them together ? Do you really think those 3 people would've bought 3 individual copies of games if that feature wasn't possible ? Even the new Xbox gets that feature it's just a bit more complicated . The shared games in most cases are SP games and their replay value is let's say questionable at best Great games will allways make enough money .
No, I don't think those 3 people would have all bought the game. But some proportion of those account sharers would have. On the margin, it reduces revenues for developers, promotes password sharing, and creates a free rider problem.
|
On June 18 2013 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 19:08 s3rp wrote:On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. They can't do that without alienating everyone with bad , mediocre or capped internet ( Thats alot of people ) . Most users can't download 10-50 gigs for every game . You cannnot eliminate discs completely at this day and age especially with the size of games thats only going to get bigger. Thats not even the case on PC. You can still get the discs if you like and the prices are basically the same as Steam alot of time even cheaper besides the Sales . One would assume that supporters of Steam have good internet. Otherwise, how do they download games from Steam?
Dumbest thing said in a few pages, way to try to sound snarky but completely miss the point. I can easily buy ANY AAA game from a retailer and use an offline installer.
|
On June 18 2013 00:29 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 19:08 s3rp wrote:On June 17 2013 12:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 17 2013 08:38 sc4k wrote:The instant I picked up 'internship at Microsoft' in my cursory scan of the text I knew what to expect. Funnily enough, this piece perfectly explains why Microsoft have managed to simultaneously alienate users of services like Steam and users of physical discs. Just a horrible, poorly thought out and hollow attempt at changing the lanscape of gaming to their economic advantage under the guise of a badly constructed excuse of taking gaming forwards. An attempted ruse which looks set to fail drastically. How has Microsoft alienated Steam users? As a Steam user, I'm glad that Microsoft is moving towards a more Steam-like system? In fact, my main problem is that they haven't gone far enough by killing resale completely and killing the disc. I would think that supporters of Steam (I have many gripes about Steam, although not with their game library system) would be supportive of what Microsoft is trying to do. They can't do that without alienating everyone with bad , mediocre or capped internet ( Thats alot of people ) . Most users can't download 10-50 gigs for every game . You cannnot eliminate discs completely at this day and age especially with the size of games thats only going to get bigger. Thats not even the case on PC. You can still get the discs if you like and the prices are basically the same as Steam alot of time even cheaper besides the Sales . One would assume that supporters of Steam have good internet. Otherwise, how do they download games from Steam? You can still buy a disc even for PC games for bigger ones ? It's not like those don't exist anymore magically because Steam now offers digital products as well.
I'm just saying that people who have no problem with Steam, which doesn't sell any discs, should have no problem with Xbox One. So if you're buying PC games on disc because you can't download them on Steam, then my argument that you should have no problem with Xbox One, doesn't apply to you.
It applies to people who have no problem with Steam--people like Athene. I almost always agree with what he says. But his video criticizing Xbox One (linked above) and praising Steam and Steambox is baffling to me. Steambox doesn't even have a disc drive. You can't resell games on Steambox. So it's quite hypocritical of him to criticize Xbox One.
I mean i still buy records and CD's even with MP3's existing hell i even prefer those , especially records.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
