This is just another reason why i dont like digital only gaming consoles, this reason adds up to the internet downloading capacity, storage capacity of the digital console per user,the possibility of any kind of hackers activity on the accounts, and what happens when the supplier shoutdown the older servers?, like it did happen with the first XBOX multiplayer games.
Another Reason(20 posts)
That can be true with disc based games too Manu. Like you mentioned XBOX one shutdown. And personialy, I lost the ability to play Mech Assult online, a game that I still consider one of teh finest online MP shooting experiences I have ever played(right behind Alines Online - Kesmi, PC).
Hell EA has a plan to shutdown sport games online once they reach, I think its 18months old. Meaning that if you want to play in online leagues with friends(like I do), you need to buy the new game pretty much each season in order to do it.
I am VERY interested in knowing what will happen to our currently purchased games and content from Nintendo, Sony, and MS once they all move on to new systems. If we lose it all, it will likly impact not only what system I purchase but also if I will buy digital content from them in the future.
It all goes back to the notion, and defenition by law(in most areas), that when we buy a game, we don't own the game, only the liscince to use the game. And a liscince can expire. I am sure that is burried in all of the fine print that we all have been taught to mindlesly click thro and accept.
I love some of these liscincing agreements, Click Yes to play/use service, or Click No. But then again clicking No means that I lose my ability to use PSN, XBL, whatever - and the games and content that I have already invested in are suddenly unusable. There fore, no matter the crap burried in the fine print, how many people actualy click No?
Yes i understand you OG and i agree, but i think with the Physical games at least you could play your singleplayer games on it, till the disc or the physical media last and/or the console you play said game last,i mean till this day iam still playing from time to time on my NES, SNES, Genesis and dreamcast, ps2,xbox,and gamecube, if those consoles were digital only consoles theres a big chance that all my game library cannot be played anymore, therefore IMHO, this is just another reason why i dont like this notion at all, altogheter with the other reasons i did mentioned in the above comment, and to tell you the truth i did had not thought of this possibility before, so i think maybe they are other things we are not taking into consideration neither about this issue,i mean digital only consoles, that can also have big repercusions on us the users/consumers; Call me old fashioned but iam really concern about a digital only console future, at least if some pretty important things are not solve in the mean time, or other important things dont arise, like this one.
I agree with ya manu. For a lot of reasons, i hate this current gen of consoles. And the ideas coming down the pipe for next gen are scary too.
And yea, I still use my old retro stuff too. Everytime a company rereleases an old game on PSN, XBL, or Wii VC, I just go grab the origional one if I have it, and enjoy that for awhile.
I think the problem is that as long as the gamers own the physical copies of games, the game pubs can't resell them to us. I think digital only is a great tool for game pubs to control what we can play. I can't imagine rebuying all of the same game titles, every time a new system launches, but I bet the game industry can imagine that.
You don't own the games when you buy them in a box either Manu, and they have no problem shutting down multiplayer for those either. Just look at EA or 2K's sportsgames.
That piece is a ridiculous bit of paranoia, and it's certainly anything but good journalism. John Walker gets more and more unhinged by the day apparently.
What you do own, as has been the case for decades, is the license for the game. You own the right to play it within the terms of the licensing agreement, which usually places all the power with the publisher and/or retailer, and that's true whether it's on a disc or not.
There are two things that are apparently too common sense to reach John Walker:
1. Nobody has an interest in keeping your games from you. No one. They want you to buy them, enjoy them, and motivate you to buy even more.
2. There's little difference between ownership online and offline. The key difference is that to deny you your boxed games, a publisher would have to either sue you for them, or arrange for local police to pick it up. It won't ever happen, but that's their right according to the license agreement.
Ultimately it's the same sort of deranged reasoning that extremists use as a reason for arming themselves, training military tactics and living in bunkers - This paranoid realization that "The government has all the power!!!"
Yes it does, and it has absolutely no reason what so ever to use it against you, as long as you're just minding your own business.
The fact that Barack Obama can order a drone to kill you within 24 hours doesn't mean that he ever will.
It's lousy journalism, devoid of any balancing arguments or nuance, and I reckon that's because it's only meant to support one thing - John Walkers own paranoia.
I think it warrents descusion DSB. If you look at OnLive, they will run games for a certian set of time. Then the game will be gone. Even if you "bought" it. I can easily see the same type of thing happening on other emerging services.
Such and such a service will "no longer support" this or that game.
In Segas eyes, for example, PSO ep 1 and 2 for gamecube/xboxone is no longer in circulation. Yet I play the game on a reg basses. I can do that because I have the physical copy sitting in my physical system right now.
In a digital setting that won't be the case.
So once Sega made the shift to PSU(universe over online), they easily could rational that it is time to move forward and remove the older PSO game.
And of course your right, as I pointed out too, EA is another example. They shut off the online MP portion of older sports games. That effectivly forces gamers to buy new versions in order to play em with friends. Hell in the case of NCAA Football, the new games don't even have same room MP support for Dynasty...and they used to. Now they want gamers buying their own copy and online pass code to use it. Till of course they shut that one off and force the cycle to repeat itself.
I call bullshit.
I know its nothing new, but I don't like it. And I have that right not to like it. And so do other gamers, journalists or not.
Going forward DRM is going to be a huge issue.
You don't own the games when you buy them in a box either
Nobody has an interest in keeping your games from you.
These are two excellent and succinct points.
The combination of gamer-entitlement and victim complex are so pervasive in this culture that many can't seem to think straight without resorting to pantomime drama.
Understand what your money buys you.
Understand your rights and the rights of others.
Stop being drama queens and victims.
DRM isn't going to a be huge issue. It is ONLY a huge issue when self entitled gamer victims choose to make it one. DRM isn't there to swindle you out of something, it's a response to piracy. If you choose to respond to DRM by pirating a game then you are making the situation worse.
One thing I rarely see a gamer is is accept that they will do without.
"I don't like the game's DRM so I'll pirate it"
"I don't like the game's price so I'll pirate it"
Actually, reasonable human beings learn from a very young age that not agreeing with something or not being able to afford something does not grant you licence to obtain it illegitimately. Regular human beings learn to do without the thing they can't afford. Gamers just decide they'll have it ANYWAY and STILL bitch and complain about the situation that THEY are helping to worsen.
Principles are fine. You have a right to protest. But wanting your cake, eating it, complaining the cherries on top weren't to your liking and that the next damn cake better sort it out or else and then saying how evil bakers are - that's not fine. That's just idiotic and greedy.
That is a scary POV JM.
And incase your aiming your thoughts at me:
I wrote "it all goes back to the notion, and defenition by law(in most areas), that when we buy a game, we don't own the game, only the liscince to use the game. And a liscince can expire. I am sure that is burried in all of the fine print that we all have been taught to mindlesly click thro and accept."
I am fully aware of how it works. Most of us here are. However when it leaves you with a choice to play by their rules or not to play, there is nothing wrong with being upset by their rules and not liking it.
That isn't entiltement. Thats not enjoying being stepped on.
In todays world your game purchases can be taken away from you. No one from the games industy barged into my home during the Atari, NES, SNES, PS1, or PS2 days and took my games away. This sense of entiltlement you speak of is missunderstood. Gamers have long becomes accustomed to buying and owning games. Including the ability to use that game long after the game has been released.
But in the future, because the media is controled digitaly, taht expectation that gamers have gotten used to will be gone. That is the crux of it.
And what you did was side with a multi billion dollor industry that is readying itself to feed even more off of the backs of the very gamers that support it. Call me what you want, but I want more rights to access my games.
"You don't own the games when you buy them in a box either", i understand that i only been allowed to do what the license do stablish, like play the game under certain very especific conditions, but that doesnt mean i can sell the game, give it away as a present, destroy etc,anything i want to do with it, is my call, becuase in the end nobody is looking and or controlling what i do with my physical copy, because it will be impossible to control such thing with so many consumers, but with digital only consoles, yes they can control and dictate such actions so in reality i dont even own the license that came with the game, because they can took it away for any reason they see fancy, thats a big difference, and in my eyes right now i have the control to plug the console insert the discs i have (physical), and then play with them simple, and if it is a digital console well, they can cancel or block my account and then i cannot play them anymore until they approve it, therefore is not my control is theirs, they call the shots there, and keep in mind also what happens when they stop the support to older version of games, then all my old shelf of tittles will be erase or drop,and i am not talking about money implications, they are of course, but others as well, Therefore for me the digital only console situation will need a really well thought implementation, technology, legally, security and long lasting support wise, so the user/consumer can see that they have some kind of control under his/her purchases under the device, so in my eyes for this kind of future console to have my support it needs to improve a lot of things before, at least ease most of my concerns first.
P.S and is not a thing about entitlement, is a thing of benefits, i have some benefits with the physical games that i will not have with the digital only ones, therefore concerns arise when you loose benefits, and this i very different that they own me something mentality, and also those benefits should be a two way street, not a one way street like in digital only consoles becuase then the entitlement is done by the manufacturer not the consumer
@OG Again I think you're missing a very important thing.
The idea of "timing" streamed content has already been tried with online movie services. Between 2000 and today, there have been several services offering "timed content" like that - essentially online rentals - And you know what they have in commmon? Most of them, if not all, are gone now.
The same is going to happen with games. Unless you can match the benefits of owning a game, there's no way you're going to compete with it.
As such, Netflix model of buying access to a greater catalogue, is the only possible option going forward, and services like OnLive or Gaikai may have to learn that the hard way, just like the "timed content" movie services did.
@Joe I largely agree, but I don't think you can apply it to DRM.
I believe that the standard of what people can claim as a right, is based on a standard of what constitutes dignity.
In terms of DRM, I think it violates the dignity of the paying customer, to suffer less functionality in their games, also because it carries the underlying accusation that they aren't to be trusted.
That's wrong for two reasons:
1. If you've paid for a game, you've done all you can to prove that you can be trusted. Making paying customers suffer DRM after the fact, is actually a violation of trust on behalf of the publisher.
2. I can't do anything about the people who don't pay for content, so punishing me for something that I have no power over, has no merit.
Punishing or even defining a group by the actions of individuals would never be acceptable in government, and it shouldn't be in business either.
It's not even an argument against DRM itself, it's an argument against punishing actual customers for the transgressions of an entirely different group. DRM is perfectly acceptable, as long as it has the form of things like Steam, where Steam trades us greater control, for a suite of expanded services, effectively making us equal partners.
That's a dignified solution for all of us, in my opinion. And I think it constitutes a minimum of decency.
This is of course completely discounting arguments about the profitability of DRM, which seems to be less than zero, and the effect of it, which seems to be very limited.
That isn't entiltement. Thats not enjoying being stepped on.
You're not being stepped on. You are, however, showing EXACTLY what I said about being entitled and presenting yourself as the victim. Nobody is stepping on anyone.
And this is why things never change. Because gamers talk, but rarely walk.
Change takes EFFORT. But that's too high a price for most people to pay.
Joe is not a thing about entitlement here, is a thing of benefits, i have some benefits with the physical games that i will not have with the digital only ones, therefore concerns arise when you loose benefits, and this i very different that they own me something mentality, and also those benefits should be a two way street, not a one way street like in digital only consoles because then the entitlement mentality is done by the manufacturer not the consumer
It's a question of targeting the guy copying your IP, not the paying customer.
I am being inconvenienced because I'm an honest customer, I am faced with the underlying suspicion of piracy, and that's never going to be acceptable.
Like I wrote in my above post, if these principles were applied by government, people would be screaming bloody murder.
Companies just get off too cheap. And I agree that gamers are largely a mix of gullible fools who are picking all the wrong causes to back, and almost never follow through on any of them, but that doesn't make the conduct of the publishers when it comes to DRM any less disproportionate or misguided.
@Manu Nobody is controlling your games online. There's no one looking at your account unless there's suspicious activity. It's exactly the same as a boxed copy.
In the case mentioned in RPS, the guy was actually a scam artist, actively violating the terms of service. That makes their argument void to begin with.
If you were identified for suspicious behaviour relating to a boxed game you own, ie cracking and uploading it, the cops would absolutely bust down your door, take your game, and your harddrive, and any other means of storing media that you have in your home, as has happened to crackers in the past.
Have you seen anti-piracy actions in Asia? Things get very violent.
It's still the same thing, even if it's harder to detect foul play offline.
JM, answer this one question: How is a sesnse of entitlement bad?
As what DSB said about a gamer paying his/her cash and therefore feeling entiteled to the game. Thats the crux of the anti drm arguement.
Meaning that DRMs main function is to stop piracy. To keep gamers from playing a game they didn't pay for. But a paying customer already proved they don't need DRM in the first place.
That JM, is just one example of someone clearly steping on someone else. There are many examples i can think of, but I get the feeling your not going to agree, so we should just agree to disagree.
DSB your right on temperary rights via movies. I didn't think of that. Games may well follow that route. I wouldn't mind that so much as long as there is value. In Onlives case I won't buy games from them because the price of the games is still full retail, in most cases, and yet unlike a game I buy on steam, I feel that I will lose my Onlive purchase in 18months. I know steam could technecly do the same type of thing, but so far as I know they haven't. I have been a steam user for years and never had that happen.
I just think the price has a lot to do with it. A movie is much cheaper and often thought of as a one and done medium. You could rent a movie for 24hrs, but to rent skyrim for 24hrs wouldn't hold the same kind of appeal. Plus, skyrim retails for 60usd, most movies around 15usd. And then of course is the question of DLC. DLC will prolly go the way of the dodo bird if full on cloud gaming arrives.
Lots of questions still need answering, imo, but it seems that very few are even asking the questions ot begin with.
And yes, i do feel like I am being walked all over from time to time. But other then not play, what options do we have?
You're not wrong OG, but I think you're either jumping the gun in terms of how soon the cloud is going to reach potential, or underestimating how fast technology moves to close its own gaps.
Just look at the last decade. In the late 90's we were looking at 56k modems. Today you can actually get a terabit connection.
The future is coming, man!
It won't be overnight, and it won't be this week. It's not going to kill consoles and monster PCs within the next generation, and likely there will be co-existence for several decades, even if cloud becomes the standard.
Getting there is going to require billions of work hours, billions of dollars, spanning at least a decade. But if we've proven anything in the last 50 years, it has to be that we don't stop for anything.
We always find a way for this stuff.
Your rights of ownership are far less than you think. If you've actually read a licence agreement in full, you'd see this.
The medium - whether physical or digital isn't making much ACTUALY difference to the rights you (didn't) have. The difference is mainly one of perception - which is now being brought home more clearly to the end user.
For example there's the "I bought it. It's mine." argument. This has never actually been true in the sense that quote implies. But most people have got used to their assumed right to lend and resell as they see fit. This (lack of) right has not been enforced with phyisical copies. It is becoming enforced with digital copies.
The rights have not changed. Your perception of your rights has changed - because you are no longer being given the benefit of the doubt by the digital publisher.
If you want things to change, then ACT. If you don't then I suggest you write more things on internet messageboards that will not be read or noticed by a living soul that could make any difference to the situation. That way gamers can continue to play the victim and complain that the industry never listens to them.
How is a sesnse of entitlement bad
Because, in 99% of the case, it's assumed and not applicable. Yet those with the assumed sense of entitlement act as though they are owed something that they are not and when they are justifiably denied it, they act as though they are victims instead of seeing things for how they truly are.
In short: it's selfish and it encourages layers upon layers of misunderstanding.
As what DSB said about a gamer paying his/her cash and therefore feeling entiteled to the game. Thats the crux of the anti drm arguement.
No, that's still assumed entitlement and the mistake of the gamer. They ASSUME they are ENTITLED to the game. They are not. They have NOT bought the game. They have bought the LICENCE.
The sense of entitlements is misplaced and expectations based on that are the fault of the gamer and nobody else.
But a paying customer already proved they don't need DRM in the first place.
This is what happens when one bad apple spoils the crop.
The root cause of the issue is PIRACY. DRM is a response to PIRACY. Companies that strip DRM from their games have been proven to be pirated MORE. Legitimate users suffer the DRM because of the actions of PIRACY. You're a legitimate owner of a game and don't like DRM? Complain to the Pirate. That's why the DRM is in the first place.
Oh, hang on. You can't find the pirate because he didn't put his name and address in your copy. So you'll go after the EASY target instead, the people that made the game.
Gamers that respond to DRM by pirating? You are making it worse for everyone. But your sense of entitlement and greed are preventing you from seeing the consequences of your actions.
DRM is a shame. But when you stop thinking ONLY of yourself and start to view the WHOLE picture then DRM is actually a very minor inconvenience in the scale of things. It's just whiney, selfish gamers thinking of themselves and nobody else that blow it all out of proportion.
"@Manu Nobody is controlling your games online. There's no one looking at your account unless there's suspicious activity. It's exactly the same as a boxed copy
In the case mentioned in RPS, the guy was actually a scam artist, actively violating the terms of service. That makes their argument void to begin with"
but who indicates what is suspocious activity?, going to the example gave by the journalist, they didnt tell the exact reason why they did block it, they did block the account without given any reason at all, and then all the sudden they open his account again, i dont know but i dont want to have a console that iam under the control of someone criteria especially when is not 100% concreate on their reasonings, and especially if it was a scam artist, then why they did reopen his acccount?, thats more troublesome if you ask me, to me they were not that certain or they didnt sure bout it, either way is sacry especially for consumers, and keep in mind maybe this things will happen on only digital console.
Concerned about facebook privacy? Fine - get off facebook.
Concerned about some online service? Fine - don't use it.
You always have the choice. But you are always using these services UNDER SPECIFIC TERMS. Don't like those terms? DON'T USE IT.
It's very VERY simple.
"How is a sesnse of entitlement bad"
"Because, in 99% of the case, it's assumed and not applicable. Yet those with the assumed sense of entitlement act as though they are owed something that they are not and when they are justifiably denied it, they act as though they are victims instead of seeing things for how they truly are."
How does anyone respond to this? Your basicly saying that gamers are smugg, greedy and stupid.
"In short: it's selfish and it encourages layers upon layers of misunderstanding."
Like I said. You seem to take the same kind of disdan that one might find with royalty looking down upon subjects. Also it is not gamers that create misunderstanding, its the industry with its layers upon layers of fine print layden tos. Look at something like PSN or XBL, they change their fine print, and you do not click ok you can no longer use the service. Thats legal sure, but what about the thousands of cash the end user invested into said products that depend on said service? When PSN updates there is no option to use the old one preupdated service. Your screwed. But I degress, I am sure you think that is justified.
"As what DSB said about a gamer paying his/her cash and therefore feeling entiteled to the game. Thats the crux of the anti drm arguement."
"No, that's still assumed entitlement and the mistake of the gamer. They ASSUME they are ENTITLED to the game. They are not. They have NOT bought the game. They have bought the LICENCE."
I agree with this truth of this statement, sans the making the end user/customer/gamer look like a fool. to the letter of the law it is true that we do not own the game, just the liscence, but we do "Buy" the product.
Here is where you start lose more points.
"The root cause of the issue is PIRACY. DRM is a response to PIRACY. Companies that strip DRM from their games have been proven to be pirated MORE. Legitimate users suffer the DRM because of the actions of PIRACY. You're a legitimate owner of a game(edit: OG - you only own the liscince tho, not the game itself. Therefore we own nothing, legitimate or otherwise.) and don't like DRM? Complain to the Pirate. That's why the DRM is in the first place."
You can also point to countless games were pirating was rampant and the game made millions. You can not assume that every pirated game equals a lost sale.
"Oh, hang on. You can't find the pirate because he didn't put his name and address in your copy. So you'll go after the EASY target instead, the people that made the game."
Right because "going after" say EA would be easy. They would keep it in the courts so long you would never see the end of the trial. And honestly, I doubt your average gamer wants to "go after" anyone. They just want to own what they paid for. or in your terms, excersise their purchased liscence when and where they feel like it.
More from JM:
"Gamers that respond to DRM by pirating? You are making it worse for everyone. But your sense of entitlement and greed are preventing you from seeing the consequences of your actions."
Again torrents are not lost sales. You make it seem like everyone is pirating. Sure people pirate. Have been for a long long time. But it does NOT cost the industry bllions. The majority os pirating is done in nations/regions were the average person could not afford to buy retail priced games. The bulk of pirates are NOT some kid in moms basement tapping into a torrent. I am not some greedy bastard gamer trying to screw EA or ACTI by pirating copies of games. i am not distrubiting them to my place of work. I don't send my kids to school to distribute pirated copies of MW3. But you make that level of inference JM. Your smart enough to know that pirating is a much larger scence in emerging markets where vendors will set up a street shop and peddle games. The over whelming majority of gamers from established markets(EU, NA, and JP) buy legitimate copies at their local stores.
In many other places in the world the idea of buying a 60usd priced video game is unthinkable. If you want to prusue and go after those folks because you feel they are ruining the games industry, good luck.
"DRM is a shame. But when you stop thinking ONLY of yourself.."
Right, I keep forgeting about the poor abused MULTI Billion doller games industry. My bad.
"... and start to view the WHOLE picture then DRM is actually a very minor inconvenience in the scale of things. It's just whiney, selfish gamers thinking of themselves and nobody else that blow it all out of proportion. "
Right, who do you work for mate? MS? Sony, maybe? EA? I mean that is a company bunch of bs if I ever heard it.
The fact that it's a response to piracy isn't an actual argument Joe. Two wrongs still don't make a right, and the fact that there are murderers in our society still doesn't allow you to put chips in everyone, so you can shock them in the event that they try to murder someone.
It's broken logic, and it's a principle that isn't accepted anywhere but in the relationship between publishers and their customers.
Why gamers aren't more critical of things like that, I really don't know, but if you take Ubisofts example, they've squandered 60% of their business on the PC since introducing their extremely misguided DRM, while publishers like Activision and EA have been raking in huge profits on the platform.
I don't see any moral or factual basis for your argument. The fact that piracy "exists" simply isn't good enough. You have to prove the negative effects of piracy, you have to prove the positive effect of DRM, and then you have to explain why it's fair to apply that DRM to everyone, honest customer or otherwise.
It's simply not good enough to hide behind the fact that piracy happens. That's not saying anything in terms of justifying the response.
You must log in to post.