When Sony announced and revealed the PlayStation 4 from February 2013 onwards, it worked hard to convince gamers that nothing was changing from the PS3 era. And for most part, how it approached digital rights management, used game sales and region locking were pretty much the same.

Which made Microsoft’s approach with the Xbox One – when it debuted with 24 hour online authentication and other compulsory features only to drop them later due to public backlash – all the more confusion to Sony UK’s Andrew House.

“The one thing that surprised me most is that we were required to make such a clear statement that we were going to maintain status quo in areas that we took for granted. That wasn’t something dictated by us, that was by the moves the competition was making. That remains the largest surprise for me – how visceral that reaction was from consumers. But the fact that we had to put a stake in the ground, in an area that we felt was just common sense, still has me quite literally scratching my head.”

These policy changes coincided with Don Mattrick’s departure from the company, Steve Ballmer’s retirement and many more internal shake-ups at Microsoft. Regardless, the Xbox One and PS4 are now both available and selling well according to retailers.

(Source)

“Your use of PSN and our community features may be recorded and collected by us or sent to us by other users as described in 13.1. Any information collected in this way, for example, your UGM, the content of your voice and text communications, video of your gameplay, the time and location of your activities, and your name, your PSN Online ID and IP address, may be used by us or our affiliated companies to enforce these Terms and the SEN Terms of Service, to comply with the law, to protect our rights and those of our licensors and users, and to protect the personal safety of our employees and users.

“This information may be passed to the police or other appropriate authorities. By accepting these Software Usage Terms, you expressly consent to this.”

The document also states that any software you get is “licensed, not sold, which means you acquire rights to use the Software, as described in these Terms, but you do not acquire ownership of the Software. If you do not comply with these Terms, we can terminate your Software Licence which means you will no longer have the right to use the Software.” That’s an interesting choice of words, especially considering that Sony has been touting how gamers can freely exchange used games and whatnot. We think it would apply to more illegal practices such as piracy and the like, but some clarification would be nice.

That being said, what are your thoughts on the new software usage terms and how will they affect your usage of PSN on the PS4 when it launches on November 15th in North America? Let us know below.

Is there anything to these comments, and this market research? With some groups lumping used sales in with good old-fashioned piracy are they really hurting what is clearly a booming industry, or is this just a case of smoke and mirrors? Developers and production companies alike wouldn’t be the first company to cry “foul,” when legitimate competition comes knocking so where should people stand in regards to the used games market, massive used-game retailers like Gamestop and even your little mom and pop shops?

Now, most of us remember trading games with friends as we grew up, maybe not permanently, but it was always something nice to do as a kid. You share the games you like with them and in return you’d borrow one of their games. When you’re a 12 year old mowing lawns, and shoveling snow out of driveways you don’t have a lot of extra money to throw around and play a game, especially when it sometimes could take months to save for a title. So, with this pastime of trading games and the “sharing is caring,” mentality that has so clearly existed in gaming since the days of Atari and ColecoVision, why is it met with so much hostility in relatively recent times?

"It’s not like Gamestop doesn’t get a boatload of money from used games too. What used to be just people casually trading or borrowing games from one another became a way to generate a massive amount of revenue."

We can all probably agree that developers and publishers deserve to get paid. In a fast-paced industry where it’s incredibly easy to be on top one year and scraping the bottom of the barrel the next, it is a high-stress industry that most cannot match. Companies like Activision put a lot of money into games likes Call of Duty, to not see a big return or a diminished return on a sale could seriously hamper a company’s ability to compete in the future, or so we’re told.

We’ve seen plenty of great developers go down for this, simply due to budget issues. The biggest one recently being THQ. They made some great titles that sold like gangbusters and they still ended up filing for bankruptcy towards the end of 2012. No developer or production company is immune to financial troubles. It’s understandable that these companies want to protect their assets, in the case of wildly successful production companies like Ubisoft and Activision, remain on top year after year.

It’s not like Gamestop doesn’t get a boatload of money from used games too. What used to be just people casually trading or borrowing games from one another became a way to generate a massive amount of revenue. Most of us have traded something into Gamestop at some point. We aren’t usually psyched for what we get for it, but it’s better than nothing, frankly we’ve all got games in our collections that we’re most likely never going to play again. Gamestop can take that used game and flip it for way more than they gave to us, if it sells that is.

"The greatest asset to your inventory is the gravity tether which is effectively a stretchy piece of rope which can be fired and attached to walls and any rock, blockade or enemy in your way."

Have you ever checked out the bargain bin in a Gamestop? They are almost completely stocked with used titles and not only that, but pretty damned terrible one’s too. Either that or a game that was so popular it had saturated the market. No matter how good it is, if you’ve got a million of them, so they’re cheap. At this point, even with the amount someone gets for the game, it could be entirely possible that Gamestop sees a diminished return on that used purchase, if anything at all.

Once they’ve hit the bargain bin they are losing money on it, and with the way the retail system works, stores like Gamestop don’t exactly make much money on new releases or sales of new games. While selling games is obviously their bread and butter, they bring home the bacon with used titles. You can’t really fault them for pushing the used game market so much; especially when your alternatives are big chain stores that don’t give a second thought to gaming or online retailers that you’ve got to wait for. While it’s almost universally true that you can find any game cheaper in a vast majority of cases, a retail store has instant satisfaction. You know what you want, you go and pick it up and you’re playing it within 15 minutes. It’s a beautiful thing, really.

The problem we’re seeing now is that developers and producers alike are starting to treat their own games with almost as much hostility as games that have been pirated from them. For instance a developer at Lionhead studios, Mike West said that secondhand sales on consoles like the 360 were a larger problem than piracy back in 2011. Now, I guess technically that’s true, while piracy exists on consoles, it’s nowhere near as prevalent as it is on the PC.

"The problem we’re seeing now is that developers and producers alike are starting to treat their own games with almost as much hostility as games that have been pirated from them. "

The problem that I see is that is we’ve got companies that are viewing gamers playing their titles as a problem in the industry! Now, I can almost understand where Mr. West is coming from. There is someone else out there making money on the titles you’ve helped create, but let’s not forget that at some point these developers and production companies got paid for that used copy which is now floating around out there. We should support our developers, because that’s how great games get made, but we shouldn’t change an entire purchasing system because companies and more to the point, people get greedy.

Used bookstores don’t send publishers and writers money when they sell a book. The movie and music industries don’t get kickbacks every time a used copy of Total Recall or The Princess Bride get’s sold. The truth is that these companies don’t deserve to get paid twice, they’ve been paid once already and in many cases also get paid for expansions and DLC. I am sure there are some publishers or developers that could come up with a myriad of reasons as to why they should be paid twice, at this point you’d have a hell of a time selling it to anyone, anywhere.

If the used game market is hurting companies so much, which it most likely is not then they need to give consumers incentive to purchase new games. Ubisoft has actually done pretty well in this regard as of recently. Gamers who are familiar with Far Cry 3’s achievement system may recognize a nice shift in thinking with this title. The Achievements that are earned in-game generate points, points that can actually be traded in for a few things, New menu screens, backgrounds and even game content.

"If the used game market is hurting companies so much, which it most likely is not then they need to give consumers incentive to purchase new games. Ubisoft has actually done pretty well in this regard as of recently. "

It’s not much, but it’s a step and it gives fans of the series a reason to buy a game new. The gaming market is highly competitive and you’ve got to give consumers a reason to buy your game over someone else’s or in this case a reason to buy your game new instead of used. Ubisoft’s CEO has gone as far to say that used games are actually “good” for the industry in recent months. While Mr. Guillemot the CEO is still very-much up in the air about the future of used games within the industry, he does think that it’s a positive, driving force that the entire industry benefits from.

Instead, companies like Activision limit access to DLC’s for some of their used games. The idea of blocking online play too has even come up for people who’ve purchased used titles. Being hostile and limiting your customer base is hardly an incentive that keeps customers around, in anything, especially in the gaming industry.

There is also somewhat of a prevalent mentality from people within the business that believe everyone has to pay full-price so Triple-A titles can be successful and so that we see more of them in the future. This is the opinion of designers like Cliff Bleszinski who has worked on the Gears of War franchise, which seem to think that lowering the budget from a triple-A title is insane. While most of us can at least understand this mentality and the sentiment behind not wanting your job or your company to vanish.

"Games like Minecraft, Shadowrun Returns and State of Decay prove that great games can be well planned and successful, in some cases more than these massive systems that have been built to churn out the Next Assassin’s Creed or Call of Duty title. "

However, the problems that need to be addressed are not used video games but the completely unsustainable and wasteful development process that’s cropped up in the wake of these massively budgeted games. By this time, any developer who says this sort of stuff is simply putting their foot in their mouth. We’ve seen first-hand that indie titles become amazingly successful. We’ve also seen that a well-conceptualized and executed development cycle is far more productive, sustainable and generates titles that are just as, if not more entertaining.

Games like Minecraft, Shadowrun Returns and State of Decay prove that great games can be well planned and successful, in some cases more than these massive systems that have been built to churn out the Next Assassin’s Creed or Call of Duty title. Games can be made without having a massive budget, let alone making everyone shell out a full price for used titles or pay the consequences of less features. Frankly, this backwards mentality shows that these people lack a connection to the industry they work for as well as the community they exist to develop for. If a game costs 250 million dollars to produce the customers aren’t what needs to change, the development process does. In a lot of ways we are seeing this happen as crowd-sourcing catches on more.

The sentiment that used games are a staple in the gaming industry as well was also felt pretty heavily at E3 this year, which Microsoft eating some of that proverbial crow, as their strict used game policy was effectively destroyed by the community at large. In fact, it was so bad it didn’t take Microsoft too long to completely reverse their policy for the up and coming console. It’s good that Microsoft did this, but it’s bad that they are so disconnected from their customers that they thought it was acceptable to limit their users in such a fashion, especially when the policy is so clearly geared towards these large corporate developers and production companies.

"To hate the used game market is like saying you hate libraries, or sharing a movie with a close friend and is ultimately placing the blame of an unsustainable business model on the shoulders of your consumers; shoulders that refuse to bear the weight."

Chasing out the used game market will do a lot more harm than good in the long run. As it is the brick and mortar shops are closing down, Gamestop is one of the last few big stores people know to look for. If they go, then so do the little guys, the mom and pop shops that sell used games all the way back to when gaming started, the folks that’ve got arcade cabinets in the garages. The real fans, who want to see these hobbies thrive and continually grow will be the people that get hurt from this. Sure, a few massive companies like Activision, Ubisoft and Capcom would make out like bandits, but at what cost? It’s as if some of these companies treat their very own titles as freeloaders.

To hate the used game market is like saying you hate libraries, or sharing a movie with a close friend and is ultimately placing the blame of an unsustainable business model on the shoulders of your consumers; shoulders that refuse to bear the weight. When we’re talking about franchises that are now generating up into the billions of dollars of revenue at times, the consumers have already done their part. They paid for a title that they were interested in. If producers and developers cannot take that kind of money and roll it over into other successful titles without killing the used game market then they’ve failed their community and fans.

“That’s something that I’ve always believed in — getting the players very involved not just after the game ships, but even before and try to listen to them. The kind of games I’m interested in, and actually the way games are going, is they’re becoming far more baseline communities of people playing the game and doing a lot of cool stuff peer-to-peer, whether it’s content sharing or competition or forming social connections.

“I tend to think of the fan base, especially the hardcore fan base, as co-developers. These people with a passion for your project are going to go out and sell your game to other people and pull other people in. The more they feel like they have some ownership over the process and they’re not just kind of customers, the better.”

Of course, Wright is full of praise for Microsoft for actually bothering to listen to fans. “To see a company like Microsoft actually sit back, listen, and understand the fans and respond to them is impressive. For a company that size to be that responsive is great. These companies are the ones that obviously keep us in business and allow us to make games.”

But what if the people complaining online doesn’t really account for the millions and millions of people who don’t browse internet forums or take part in Twitter campaigns for no DRM? As Wright points out, “On the other side there’s the Internet thing where 5 percent of the people are making all the noise. Sometimes they represent the other 95 percent, sometimes they don’t.

“A lot of times the 5 percent are asking for ridiculously elaborate features, and as a game designer you know that’s going to make the game inaccessible to everybody else.

“There are these people that want you to push a franchise in a super hardcore direction, and therefore we’re going to close it off to 95 percent of the players, so you have to understand what kind of feedback that they’re giving you. But when it’s something that’s 5 percent representing the other 95 percent that will probably feel the same way, then I think it’s really valuable.”

Stop Screwing Over Europe

I’d be foolish to argue that Europe is a more important market than America because, in terms of sheer numbers at least, it just isn’t as big. That said, anyone who has bought games in Europe knows that we always get the raw deal. Games come out over here slightly later, at a slightly higher price and currency conversion always means we over-pay for hardware and peripherals by about £40 a pop. That said, the discrepancy between the price of the Xbox One in the US and UK is a complete joke. Priced at $499 in the States, the UK price of £429 converts to roughly $672.50 by current market prices. Why the hell are we paying over $150 extra for the console in England? I can stomach and extra $50 or $60, but anything over a hundred is taking the piss. Jog on Microsoft. You’d better sort your conversion rates out if you want solid customer satisfaction in Europe.

Unveil Some Convincing Online Features

It turns out all those rumours of a hated always-on DRM policy are true for the most part, and I can’t imagine anyone is happy about it. The main issue is how unnecessary it feels from a consumer angle. Sure, it will crack down on piracy but, without an online feature that screams “always connected” it just feels like Microsoft aren’t putting their fans first. There are certainly a lot of online features built into the Xbox One, but plenty of other consoles can give us online features and an offline experience simultaneously. If Microsoft can justify their online policy with an essential online only feature, they’ll be sure to win back the sceptics. And by essential, I don’t mean Skype.

Sort Out the Price

The price is a joke, but it’s here to stay and unlikely to change any time soon. That said, the least Microsoft can do to justify a price tag some $100 higher than its competitors is throw in some extras or alternative options. Subscriptions may be a good way to start, offering cheaper consoles to those who sign on for a minimum subscription to Xbox Live. Considering Microsoft are apparently in talks with Sky about offering its console with Sky TV packages in the UK, it seems like this could be the best way to go about mitigating the price issue.

]]> https://gamingbolt.com/10-ways-that-microsoft-can-win-back-fans/feed 0 160786 https://gamingbolt.com/major-nelson-addresses-drm-concerns-silencing-don-mattrick-and-how-ps4-isnt-a-threat https://gamingbolt.com/major-nelson-addresses-drm-concerns-silencing-don-mattrick-and-how-ps4-isnt-a-threat#comments Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:53:38 +0000 http://gamingbolt.com/?p=161057
A Reddit user recently got in touch with Larry “Major Nelson” Hyrb, the community manager for Xbox, and obtained a wealth of information regarding the Xbox One. Despite the official Redditor’s E3 interview, which confirms a few of the details, there’s a ton of other stuff here to take into account. Take it all with a grain of salt as usual, but considering the user’s credibility (most likely a journalist, since he went to E3 and by judging by his profile here), it’s hard to discredit.

Regarding the current opinion of the Xbox One, don’t count on Microsoft changing their DRM strategy any time soon. In fact, they’ll be working to “educate” gamers about the benefits of their policies

It’s also revealed that the 24 hour check-in is a means to update your library, for when you lend games to friends. Which is funny because the with game trades limited, why would it need updating every 24 hours? No good answers there and no clear understanding as to why it inconveniences consumers.

And say goodbye to leaks, since Microsoft is also working on a system where games can only be activated on release, no matter when you buy them.

It also looks at the PS4 as “Xbox 360 version 2” due to the lack of social and multi-tasking features. The company doesn’t even see Sony as a threat. Even better, it believes that the PS4’s graphics RAM will run hotter, besides not being as optimized as the Xbox One. Thus leading to both being evenly matched or, believe it or not, the Xbox One performing ahead.

The good news is that the company sees Don Mattrick as some one who is making them look worse, and is working to muffle him.

As for military personnel playing consoles: the defense given is that PS3/PS4 won’t be allowed on DoD networks. So the whole issue of military members switching to the PlayStation while on deployment is a non-issue. Scroll down in the comments on that thread, and you’ll find military personnel who agree – but state that they can still play offline. Also, how would that inspired a switch to the Xbox One, since it needs to be online?

Nelson also talked about changing the messaging and marketing campaigns to support those whose friends would be jumping to PSN. He said they understood that and were going to be working to actively change the messaging and marketing campaigns. Hilariously, they don’t feel that pre-orders will determine the console war until both consoles are released.

He also pointed out that unlike the free games you get on PSN, the two free games per month on XBL are yours forever. Whereas if you cancel your PS Plus subscription, you would lose those games.

As for whether the check-in period would be removed if the user had the physical disc, Nelson stated he’d get back to us on that. Thoughts?

But when the Xbox One was announced, it marked a major step forward for digital rights management – and arguably the biggest PR nightmare Microsoft has ever faced. However, recent revelations see the Xbox One as trying to emulate Steam.

Today, we look at the differences between Microsoft’s Xbox One, Sony’s PlayStation 4 and Valve’s Steam in terms of digital rights management, game sharing, rentals and the requirement of discs. Keep in mind that new information is coming in regarding the same. Helpful image follows below.

PlayStation 4

-The PlayStation 4, as is already known, features no DRM, restrictions or any internet connectivity to be able to play.

-It also allows consumers to sell, trade and share games with whomsoever they wish since ownership is applied to the disc rather than to the license.

-Games can be purchased both online and from retail stores.

-You only require internet connectivity to update the system and play multiplayer.

-Games don’t require updates to work, and you can play offline in single-player.

Xbox One

-The Xbox One and Steam are pretty much similar in terms of operating off of digital licenses and prohibiting rental of games. However, the Xbox One has a bit more of a relaxed policy when it comes to sharing games.

-Up to 10 individuals can access a single game library on an Xbox One.

-It has also been indicated that you can access your library on a different Xbox One, though whether two people can concurrently use the same library is in doubt.

-It’s the periodic check-ins where Steam and the Xbox One diverge. The Xbox One needs to be authenticated online every 24 hours. This is done to get around a specific loophole for Steam (see below) and to ensure that you always possess the digital license for the games on your system.

-It’s already been stated that the connection requirements won’t be very high. One can even connect via mobile internet through tethering to validate their system.

-Just like the PlayStation 4, games can purchased online and at retail stores.

-Microsoft has promised that both the digital and disc versions of games will be available on the same day of release.

Steam

-Steam is a digital download service, which means you can only download games online. You can, however, purchase games offline and have them validated using a license key through Steam.

-In terms of digital downloads and licenses, Steam doesn’t allow you to resell games or trade them to friends.

-You can’t share games on Steam (you can buy games and gift them, but not play and then gift games you own) unless you expose a loophole which allows you to access Steam on some one else’s system, download games and then the other person plays them offline.

-You’ll be able to access the same games at home. This is where the “one-time” connectivity required for playing gets exploited. That violates Terms of Service but so far, Valve hasn’t punished anyone for it.

-Steam is only required to update games – on buying the game (or authenticating a license key you receive), you only need Steam at that moment while downloading. Afterwards you’re anyway free to play the game offline without needing to be signed in to your account.

As of now, it’ll take time to really see if the Xbox One can be just like Steam. The periodic check-ins will need to be used in practice and there’s still a ton of stuff Microsoft needs to clear up. If the future is indeed digital, even for consoles, then Sony shows no signs in letting go of the used games and rentals market with the PlayStation 4. One thing is for sure though: This generation’s console war will be like none before it.

As Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi puts it though, “This is a big change, consumers don’t always love change, and there’s a lot of education we have to provide to make sure that people understand.

“We’re trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better.”

As for the Xbox One’s approach to content like TV and sports, along with partnerships with the NFL, Skype and other non-gaming entities, Mehdi stated that, “We want to have our offering be differentiated relative to all others,” he said. “It has value that is in so many areas that is not in competing systems… That is a thing that each consumer will choose… and ultimately consumers will decide which is better. It’s a big market.”

But in light of the PS4’s benefits – with none of the detriments – will the market respond in kind?

Source: ArsTechnica

Electronic Arts chief operating officer Peter Moore, for his part, revealed to Polygon that the company was undecided on their stance. “Sony have announced what they are going to do which is, y’know, business as usual, and then Microsoft are looking at allowing a publisher to opt-in, should they choose to do so.

“But if we opt in, do [Microsoft] charge a fee, and if so, how much? We have not internally even begun to sit down and answer those questions.”

He also denied that EA was pushing for any kind of system to stop the sale of used games and that they need to work out what to do in light of Sony’s announcement. “EA has never had a conversation, and I have been present at all of them, with all of the manufacturers, saying you must put a system in place that allows us to take a piece of the action or even stop it. Absolutely incorrect.

“We will figure out what we need to do. I’m not trying to back-pedal but this thing just happened and we need to reconvene and hear what people think and talk to our retail partners and our first party partners. We had no idea what Sony was going to announce. We’ll reconvene next week and figure it all out.”

Moore also admitted that the online pass system, which has recently been removed by EA, was a mistake and “more trouble to the consumer than it was worth.”

Of course, it’s all at the discretion of publishers. “We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.”

So while Microsoft won’t charge a fee for used games, game publishers just very well might.

Of course, this publisher-oriented discretion extends to lending games as well. “Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.”

Is it really lendning if you can’t get it back?

You’ll also be able to allow up to ten people to log into their respective Xbox Live accounts and access your game library on the Xbox One.