News - Microsoft backtracks: unpopular Xbox One DRM policies torn up

[crossy]

I don't see why games developers or any other software makers feel they should make money from second hand sales. If I pay for something then it should be mine to sell should I wish to (digital sales are obviously a bit trickier). Same with music, TVs, cars or anything else. The fact that it is software is irrelevant and to describe second hand sales as a 'problem' is ridiculous. If devs make games with more replay value then there is less incentive to sell them on or trade them in.

Exactly my feeling - the stated aim of EA, Activision, Ubi to either outright ban resales or impose some kind of second user "tax" was unsustainable. And yes I've heard the bleating that "oh won't someone think of the poor developers" many times and it's got less and less convincing with each repeat. Would those self-same "advocates" be happy to pay Ford directly to be able to buy a second-hand Focus from their local garage; or pay Sony to buy a CD that was in a car boot sale; or Penguin for a copy of "1984"? No, I didn't think so - in which case why the heck should a game be treated any different?

In every case the company has gained their sale, and it's only the intervening users who are suffering "depreciation".

There are certain games on my Xbox that I never traded in because I enjoyed them so much - even though I rarely played them again I didn't want to get rid of them. Devs should worry more about making products which people don't wanna trade in rather than what people will do with their games after they've bought it.

Again agree wholeheartedly - I know quite a few folks who've got copies of CoD4, but CoD:BO and later got resold. Why? Because CoD4 has/had that illusive "replay" value whereas the others don't.

End of the day, I'm also cynical enough to believe that even if - god forbid - there was a no-resell or pay-to-resell policy it'd be the publishers who'd stand to make the most from this. If anything came back to the devs at all, it'd be a pittance.

If dev's don't like the current arrangement then surely "going indy" is the answer? And yes, I think we're getting a bit off topic now.

[Biscuit]

I don't think that's off topic at all, i think that's an essential element of the topic.

[kalniel]

Exactly my feeling - the stated aim of EA, Activision, Ubi to either outright ban resales or impose some kind of second user "tax" was unsustainable. And yes I've heard the bleating that "oh won't someone think of the poor developers" many times and it's got less and less convincing with each repeat. Would those self-same "advocates" be happy to pay Ford directly to be able to buy a second-hand Focus from their local garage; or pay Sony to buy a CD that was in a car boot sale; or Penguin for a copy of "1984"? No, I didn't think so - in which case why the heck should a game be treated any different?

I agree - second hand games should give an inferior experience, whilst first hand games should be priced MUCH higher than they are today in order to recoup development costs.

[george1979]

In an ideal world all games are 10/10 mega hits.

Unfortunately, an inherent issue with such a relatively young industry is a lot of it is trial an error which results in games which do well in only one or two areas but fall short of the "perfect experience". By reducing the amount of money actually going back into the development of games your making your ideal world further and further away. Bigger picture my friend, bigger picture.

It may be a relatively young industry but its also one which now generates more cash than all the hollywood studios combined. If I go out and buy a movie in a high street store there is nothing to stop me selling that on and there is no question that I should be able to. It is exactly the same with games.

So the person who bought the game originally trades it in, they invariably lose money over their original outlay. The purchaser is the one taking the financial hit. Its also worth bearing in mind many people buy pre-owned as they may not be able to afford to pay full price. Why should the next person that buys it then have to pay the Dev or publisher for it? Also the DLC doesn't carry over so if the new owner likes it and buys DLC then the Devs making money twice from a game they sold once. Explain to me how that's problematic?

I love games and never pirate them as I want to support the Devs to produce more games that I might love to play but once I buy that game it is my property and I should be able to sell it on if I want.

I would also point out that it is a free market. If Devs make shoddy products and don't treat their customers well then they deserve to go out of business - the world doesn't owe them any favours and your assertion that it reduces income going to devs suggests you think we should subsidise them by paying them again when we sell something we own. The recent Alien: Colonial Marines or WarZ debacles are good examples of devs that deserve a good kick up the backside.

Just a thought - If my house was robbed and the insurance company pay me the market value for the games stolen should I then give the publisher a cut if I don't repurchase the game?

[kalniel]

Just a thought - If my house was robbed and the insurance company pay me the market value for the games stolen should I then give the publisher a cut if I don't repurchase the game?

Nope - you're not incurring any ongoing costs for the developer/publisher like account handling, support, servers etc.

I guess my take on this is a little sad, it just means we'll see fewer single player games and more DLC/fremium model games.

[Meowdance]

The only reason I will buy a console this generation is if Skate 4 comes out.

[george1979]

Nope - you're not incurring any ongoing costs for the developer/publisher like account handling, support, servers etc.

I guess my take on this is a little sad, it just means we'll see fewer single player games and more DLC/fremium model games.

Lol I know - wasn't being serious with that comment

[poonsies]

I love games and never pirate them as I want to support the Devs to produce more games that I might love to play but once I buy that game it is my property and I should be able to sell it on if I want.

This is probably where most people get lost - when you buy the game your buy the physical disc and the right to play the game.

More so than ever games are worked on months, sometimes years after release to make the game better, not just bug fixes but gameplay balances, tweaks etc. Thats all free to do.....right ?

Lots of people love the movie analogy so I'll use that.

You buy T2 on Blu ray - its one of the mid re-iterations so there are some messy examples of up scaling. Do Tri-star send you an updated version of the film when its improved ? Would you expect them to ? How about if public opinion was that Arnie shouldn't die in the end - would you expect them to change it ? The truth is there are lots of levels of professionalism in the games industry, some companies care and other don't. Providing support in a "bug fixing" way is part and parcel of the legal agreement between developer / publisher and console manufacturer - improving the gaming experience from feedback from gamers simply isn't, and yet some companies DO try.


**On a side note on gamer feedback - this forum appears to actually be very good with articulate, well thought out points. The vast majority of feedback resembles "SHOTGUNS ARE **** MAKE IT BETTER" - useful right ? The amount of guns in a MP game that people claim are OP when in reality its actually identical to 3 other weapons in every single respect is astounding =)

[crossy]

This is probably where most people get lost - when you buy the game your buy the physical disc and the right to play the game.

Agreed.

More so than ever games are worked on months, sometimes years after release to make the game better, not just bug fixes but gameplay balances, tweaks etc. Thats all free to do.....right ?

Whoa. You want us to pay for bug fixes? Erm, no thanks.

The truth is there are lots of levels of professionalism in the games industry, some companies care and other don't. Providing support in a "bug fixing" way is part and parcel of the legal agreement between developer / publisher and console manufacturer - improving the gaming experience from feedback from gamers simply isn't, and yet some companies DO try.

Given the relative cost of console games I'd argue that the supports costs should-be/are included in the upfront cost. Otherwise explain why a title that exists on many platforms costs £45 on Xbox/PS3 but barely £30 on the PC - especially when the PC claims to have better features like improved graphics.

Another analogy - Windows. I can buy a laptop with Windows 7 and then resell it with the license and I've certainly bought 2nd user copies of Windows. I'm not asked to pay for new features or bug fixes, so why they heck should I pay for that on a game but not on an OS?

**On a side note on gamer feedback - this forum appears to actually be very good with articulate, well thought out points.

Thanks - something with which I'll agree. As an ex-developer myself (back in the 80's) I'm glad someone like yourself is on here. I think it's too easy these days to assume that all video games are developed by faceless corporations, when it's those "stars at the keyboard" that need (more!!) credit - both kudos and £££'s.

I'll argue long and hard that software developers are "artists" - so some are good, some not so. And there's a great degree of creativity in the games developer's "product" - at least there now some official recognition (BAFTA's etc) that games are just as much a "creative" product as a film or music album.

[george1979]

This is probably where most people get lost - when you buy the game your buy the physical disc and the right to play the game.

More so than ever games are worked on months, sometimes years after release to make the game better, not just bug fixes but gameplay balances, tweaks etc. Thats all free to do.....right ?

Lots of people love the movie analogy so I'll use that.

You buy T2 on Blu ray - its one of the mid re-iterations so there are some messy examples of up scaling. Do Tri-star send you an updated version of the film when its improved ? Would you expect them to ? How about if public opinion was that Arnie shouldn't die in the end - would you expect them to change it ? The truth is there are lots of levels of professionalism in the games industry, some companies care and other don't. Providing support in a "bug fixing" way is part and parcel of the legal agreement between developer / publisher and console manufacturer - improving the gaming experience from feedback from gamers simply isn't, and yet some companies DO try.


**On a side note on gamer feedback - this forum appears to actually be very good with articulate, well thought out points. The vast majority of feedback resembles "SHOTGUNS ARE **** MAKE IT BETTER" - useful right ? The amount of guns in a MP game that people claim are OP when in reality its actually identical to 3 other weapons in every single respect is astounding =)

Some of your points are valid. Devs should be resolving bug fixes though. If they release a product with defects then they damn well ought to be fixing it. If I bought T2 on Blu Ray and the sound started cutting out or Arnie started jumping all over the screen then, yes, I would expect them to fix it.

Now in terms of balances etc then yes, they could reasonably be expected to be compensated for their time and effort. But now we are in the realms of multiplayer games and here there are other considerations. Xbox live memberhips are one. But more importantly it is in Devs interest to balance and tweak multiplayer so that when they release the inevitable map packs, or other DLC, then they have a healthy player base that will buy these and make more money for them. Movies and books don't have that option.

Yes modern games are maintained for longer now but lets not pretend all Devs and publishers do it out of the goodness of their heart. In the main they do it to maintain a customer base for a particular game or franchise and make money for themselves.
There are a few that do it out of a passion for the medium and their customers and they are to be commended, Bohemia spring to mind, but the games industry should not expect special treatment.

Where does it end? Should I pay Atari for selling on an old copy of Centipede? Should Nintendo be paid for the SNES copy of Zelda I sold when I was 14? Should all Devs be paid for resold games even though the original game may have been a bug filled disaster? How do we know which ones maintain their games and deserve our never ending financial support?

I also disagree that gamers expect new features etc to be added. They expect bug fixes - and so they should. On the whole they buy the product as sold and generally expect paid for DLC with new features. Bloody cheek to then ask us to pay again if trading in the game!

Its survival of the fittest in business and if they need to make more money to help support their IPs then they should try adjusting their business model not trying to milk more money out of customers for trading in something they've paid for already.

Also IIFC this whole business about us 'paying for disc and the right to play the game' is something that is being challenged by consumer rights organisations in several countries?

[poonsies]

Whoa. You want us to pay for bug fixes? Erm, no thanks.

To be fair i did clarify bug fixing for a period of time after release is within the company contract and, therefore, classed as a cost that should have been covered by the price of the game.

There are no games with no bugs - its simply impossible to test something perfectly with 10 production QA and a publisher farm of at best 100 (often only really working fully on your project for the last 3 months) that may be played by millions. Your genuinely insane if you think you've played something that is bug-less. Both publishers and console companies have an accept amount of known bugs of varying severity's - most games are released with these criteria met and almost always the same amount of known bugs but its all about if they are noticable. Joe Bloggs is always going to notice that his gun turns blue when in ironsights - is he likely to notice it his framerate drop below 17 fps for 5 seconds rather than the certified standard of 4 seconds (6 seconds on ps3) in certain parts of the game ? Probably not but they are both class B bugs (ie sever but not game breaking).

I think the point of my rambling and rather badly worded previous post is that you do get an awful lot for the cost of a game. The fact that in the vast majority of cases only some of the money from 1 transaction in a whole chain of transactions reaches the relevant party is an odd thing.

[Saracen]

This is probably where most people get lost - when you buy the game your buy the physical disc and the right to play the game.
....

Yes, and when you buy a movie on DVD or that Bon Jovi album you've always wanted, you buy the physical media, and the right to listen/watch, just as you do with a game. In fact, you buy some rights to listen and watch, essentially, private domestic rights, not broadcast, or public performance, and certainly not the right to reuse the content on a disk of your own, and sell that.

But .... you can then sell the disc and the right to watch, and the next buyer gets both, with no kickback to the movie studio or artist, because what you've done is transfer exactly what you bought, that being the media, and the right to use the content.

What game developers are entitled to expect is that when the first buyer sells the game (disc and rights to play) he does not retain a copy, because a that point, it's a pirate copy. And nobody with a sense of fairness objects to reasonable methods to prevent that happening, provided they are not too intrusive to legitimate buyers. Personally, a disc I have to insert is a pain, but fair enough. Constant online validation, for instance, is not, because my games machines do not have a net connection.

But even piracy, to some degree, is a price of doing business .... and it's nothing new. People have been taping music since the days of vinyl and the cassette recorder.

What's not reasonable is to expect to sell something, namely the physical media and the right to view/listen to/play the "content", and to them be able to expect to get paid when someone sells what they've bought. Because I bought the right to play, I can sell on the right to play. I just lose it myself.

....

More so than ever games are worked on months, sometimes years after release to make the game better, not just bug fixes but gameplay balances, tweaks etc. Thats all free to do.....right ?

No. It's implicit in the statutory legal implications of "fitness for purpose" and "satisfactory quality". The product is supposed to damned well work right before you sell it. So, either don't release it until it is, or put it right once you discover the flaws. Even major manufacturers will be expected to replace products found to have flaws that were inherent at the time of sale, and if there is ever a fault that is absolutely and demonstrably faulty at the time of sale, it's bugged software. After all, you can't argue that the buyer caused the bug by incorrect use or installation.

Upgrades and "rebalancing" are, arguably, different. But, if you produce a product that's badly "balanced", and choose not to rebalance it, don't be annoyed when your product gets panned by reviews saying it's badly balanced. It's a bit like producing a wonderful racing car that goes like a rocket in a straight line, but rolls if you try to go round a corner. And it could also be classed as not of "satisfactory quality", depending on exactly what they poor balance is.

People have already paid to buy a product that's supposed to be up to a legal minimum standard, and should not be expected to pay for an upgrade if developers choose to release a product as a form of mass final beta test.

You buy T2 on Blu ray - its one of the mid re-iterations so there are some messy examples of up scaling. Do Tri-star send you an updated version of the film when its improved ? Would you expect them to ? How about if public opinion was that Arnie shouldn't die in the end - would you expect them to change it ? The truth is there are lots of levels of professionalism in the games industry, some companies care and other don't. Providing support in a "bug fixing" way is part and parcel of the legal agreement between developer / publisher and console manufacturer - improving the gaming experience from feedback from gamers simply isn't, and yet some companies DO try.

That's fair enough. Give such stuff away if you wish. It's good PR, builds good relations, and consumer goodwill, and builds a "community", and a brand. Sell it if you can. See if people will buy it. If they do, fair enough. If they don't, they'll have to do without.

[Saracen]

To be fair i did clarify bug fixing for a period of time after release is within the company contract and, therefore, classed as a cost that should have been covered by the price of the game.

There are no games with no bugs - its simply impossible to test something perfectly with 10 production QA and a publisher farm of at best 100 (often only really working fully on your project for the last 3 months) that may be played by millions. Your genuinely insane if you think you've played something that is bug-less. Both publishers and console companies have an accept amount of known bugs of varying severity's - most games are released with these criteria met and almost always the same amount of known bugs but its all about if they are noticable. Joe Bloggs is always going to notice that his gun turns blue when in ironsights - is he likely to notice it his framerate drop below 17 fps for 5 seconds rather than the certified standard of 4 seconds (6 seconds on ps3) in certain parts of the game ? Probably not but they are both class B bugs (ie sever but not game breaking).

I think the point of my rambling and rather badly worded previous post is that you do get an awful lot for the cost of a game. The fact that in the vast majority of cases only some of the money from 1 transaction in a whole chain of transactions reaches the relevant party is an odd thing.

And that's why people don't get too irate when devs issue a bug pix for a game, or a patch for an OS. But make no mistake, you aren't doing us a favour in providing bug-fixes, you're providing the product we paid for in the first place, all be it a bit late.

.... The fact that in the vast majority of cases only some of the money from 1 transaction in a whole chain of transactions reaches the relevant party is an odd thing.

No, it's absolutely typical.

Suppose I'm a house-builder, and you buy a house from me. I get the money, you get the house. When you sell the house, do I get paid again. Do I hell. Or I sell you a car. Do I get paid again when you sell it on? Or I make kitchen equipment, like a food processor. Do I get paid on used sales? Nope.

But what am I, actually? I'm a writer. There's a decent chance you, personally, have bought some of my work. A lot of the people on this forum will have. But do I get paid twice if you sell it on? No, I don't. You buy a book, or magazine, or newspaper, and I get paid for the original purchase, but not for the used sale, if any. Of course, if my work gets used in a second publication later on, then I get paid again. And if a game is released for the budget market, after the premium sales have died down, then you (or the publisher if the dev wrote a really lousy contract) will get paid again. But not when the first buyer resells what they bought. Expecting that is cloud-cuckoo land, and really annoys game buyers.

[poonsies]

Its a shame because its not really "cloud-cuckoo land" its the inevitable future (unless laws are changed). To take you builder analogy - the current system is yes, you build a house which is then bought once with the money going to the builder once then resold without any kickbacks. Given the option would builders change it so that a house couldnt be re-sold ? Of course - more houses needed equals more work which in turn means more money for them.

Now look at the games industry - Steam has in many many ways saved PC gaming (AAA gaming and indie to some extent) and that obviously restricts game resale. As for consoles, this generations xbox attempts to adopt the steam stance where as PS4 continues down the traditional console route. Microsoft are berated (rightly so depending on your opinion) for attempting to swap to the "steam system" ,amongst other things, but quickly change their mind - do you honestly think that's the end of that? As "builders" both Sony and Microsoft would make far far far more money if their "houses" were not re-sell-able. If both companies adopt the steam stance - do you honestly think gamers will refuse to buy consoles ?

Regardless of how much this change would benefit the devs it benefits the publishers so much more - and they are the people with the power to change the current system.

[Saracen]

Its a shame because its not really "cloud-cuckoo land" its the inevitable future (unless laws are changed). To take you builder analogy - the current system is yes, you build a house which is then bought once with the money going to the builder once then resold without any kickbacks. Given the option would builders change it so that a house couldnt be re-sold ? Of course - more houses needed equals more work which in turn means more money for them..

If builders could change the system so houses couldn't be resold, you'd find a lot of people refusing to buy houses. They would simply stay with the house currently have, and buy and sell among those without builder's restrictions. Or, those new houses with builders restrictions would have to be a LOT cheaper, because of the restrictions.

.... If both companies adopt the steam stance - do you honestly think gamers will refuse to buy consoles ?

.....

Gamers? Dunno. Some will, many won't, would be my guess.

I've been buying computer games since the 70's. I've got piles of them that go, literally, floor to ceiling, and more than once. And I haven't bought a PC game in several years. Why? Simple. Steam.

I will not, now or ever, buy a game that requires Steam. Period. So, at the very least, as a game developer, if you use Steam, you've lost ANY chance of my custom, and I was a heavy buyer. Other people I can't speak for, beyond saying, as I think I did earlier, among my friends, that view is the rule not the exception.

[Jammers231]

Just felt like putting my two pennies worth in. (:
Everyone is saying that Microsoft made the right decision removing DRM, but i'm disappointed that they have, as it was more of a step towards the future, rather than a step back; as people have been calling it. People are on about not being able to trade games back in if DRM was enforced on the console. I reckon in the future if Microsoft had carried on with what they had originally planned, than some sort of online game market could of been formed, where players could buy games digitally and then if they are not happy with them they can then remove them from their console for a small refund. I would of loved to of seen this happen as it shows that Microsoft are willing to move forward with their technology rather than wait around like the Sony is now doing. Discs are going to become more obsolete in the near future and with more and more things becoming downloadable via the internet, which is a quicker and easier way of getting your hands on films, games etc, it makes sense for them to move towards this path, seeing as games being sold this way should drop considerably in price due to game producers not having to worry about game piracy, the cutting out of any unnecessary transfers for you to receive the game. This also removes any of the other worries such as disc breakages, backwards compatibility issues or people 'flashing' their Xbox, so they are then able to focus on the entertainment factor of it rather than having to develop and release software or patches to try fix unnecessary problems such as these. Also Discs have a Limit. People are wanting newer more advanced game engines and graphics but there is a fairly small limit to how far producers are able to then take these requests and give people the 'Realistic' Graphics they want. With digitally downloaded games and Microsoft's new server system they could of really upped the ante against the PS4 on the graphical side of things, even though the PS4 is 'considered' more technologically advanced, compared to the Xbox One, when the differences really are rather minute. All in all I think this was a bit of a cowardly move from Microsoft and I think they should of stood their ground and really proved people wrong about DRM and shown them that there are more Pros than Cons when it comes to new and often 'Unpopular' technology. At the start of the gaming era people thought consoles in people's houses was a stupid idea and look where we are now. If Microsoft had taken that risk then I think they would of greatly of benefited from it. I do still intend to buy the Xbox One though if anyone was wondering, i'm no Xbox Fanboy, but I do prefer many things when it comes to gaming on Xbox, and this whole situation has made me doubt Microsoft a bit but I hope they stick to their guns more in the future.
Thanks for Reading (Unless you haven't and you skipped to this part, and if you skipped to this part... )