Give me back my DRM. No, for real

GameZone writes, "A week ago I, like many of you, was part of the torch mob that stormed Microsoft’s castle when the story of always-on/DRM/Kinect/TV/blegh was all confirmed; and I fully regret it. I (like many of you) took Sony’s news of “We will maintain the status quo,” put my little fist in the air, and declared that gamers had won. And you know what?"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Neoninja1879d ago

Good little read, nice to see a different take on things.

Now to sit back and look at the comment section blow up.

MariaHelFutura1879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )

Microsoft took their ball and went home, like a loud mouth kid on a playground. The things they took away from you has NOTHING to do w/ DRM. Game sharing was/is on the PS3 and cloud computing in any relevant way is a dream, not a reality, neither require DRM. Restricting games, restricting countries and restricting gamers is not innovation, no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

JokesOnYou1879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )

ps3 and X1 game sharing were much different....but you already knew that.

Moving on it seems the new talking points is micro could have allowed game sharing WITHOUT drm yet none ever explain how, seriously I like to think I'm pretty well informed about the subject but of course I'm really just a gamer who reads gaming news, I've never made a game, ya know. Seriously educate me I've asked this before so explain to me how exactly could micro implement the SAME game sharing in the SAME manner (Steam doesn't let you share, ps3 sharing isn't even close to what X1 was going to do) as originally announced WITHOUT any sort of drm while also preventing mass abuse of the family sharing plan?....Wonder if Ill get a legit response...if so they shove the drm where the sun dont shine, if not yeah give me back drm!

MariaHelFutura1879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )

The difference is the PS3 could share w/ 5 instead of 10, you could play multiplayer together, you didn't have to be friends for 30 days and the PS3's 5 was reduced to 2, while the Xbox One's 10 was reduced to 0.

JokesOnYou1879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )

Right so you admit ps3 sharing is far more limiting than what micro offered for X1. Also by your inability to explain how it would be possible basically confirms that even if there is a extremely unlikely off chance of it being possible you of course dont know how it would be done which means you are just repeating rhetoric statements that you cant backup like a politician. Furthermore the proofs in the pudding, by your own ps3 example of sony gimping their original plan because it was abused without proper drm.

DragonKnight1879d ago

@JokesOnYou: The point is that the system for game sharing literally has nothing to do with used games restrictions. The PS3 allowed for game sharing by making it so your friend could log onto your account and download the game. The X1 probably had a similar process, or it was something like what cellphones do with your Top 10 friends whereby you input the Live account of those friends and they have access to the server that hosts your games.

In either case, blocking used games has nothing to do with allowing that system to function. What happened is Microsoft switched it back to sharing discs. MariaHelFutura is right, they took their ball and went home. They decided if people didn't want Microsoft restricting games, stripping away rights, taking absolute control away from the consumers, then they'd remove a benefit.

How can you think that blocking used games has any functional programming connection to sharing games on a server? It doesn't at all. The two are completely different.

4Sh0w1879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )

Dragon no you both are wrong Jokes is right you even admit on ps3 your friend would have to long on your account thats already 1 huge difference especially from the same people so worried about their privacy. Lets be be realistic did you really expect microsoft to let people download the game, never need the disc again, play anywhere, share with 10 friends and not control it with some form of drm. They also did this as a concession, because of the limiting of used games, but thats the whole point for many people this is A BETTER TRADE OFF than being able to have the traditional used game scenario, especially since you only sold a game once anyway, plus you could still sell your X1 game too but just sharing a purchase with a few friends would sve you far more money than buying used from gamestop unless you wait forever. Like Jokes said nobodys explains how it could really be done without drm, just "yeah it can be done".

yewles11879d ago

"Right so you admit ps3 sharing is far more limiting than what micro offered for X1."

Incorrect. All 3 PS3's can play any game from the main user's library at anytime, simultaneously. XBOX ONE shared users had to wait their turn for access to the main user's entire library, one at a time. It wasn't just a single game, it was the whole thing. Only one account can play with the main user. If all ten accounts wanted to to play a single game simultaneously, 5 of the 10 accounts had to buy the game and share with the next person for a daisy chain effect.

dennett3161879d ago

Jokesonyou, from the sounds of it....the MS system was very restricted as well. Rumours of one hour time limits on the games being shared, only access to the single player portion of the game, not being able to play the same game at the same time as your single friend that they'd allow on at a time.

Their sharing idea was a poor substitute for giving up so much control in how you utilise the games that you pay for.

TheBlackSmoke1879d ago

@jokes, you do realise that retail games are also sold digitally aswell, there is literally nothing stopping microsoft from allowing you a family sharing plan on digital versions of the game. It would actually make perfect sense seeing as though the digital versions usually cost more than retail. Just face it, MS implementing drm has nothing to do with services they could offer.

tiffac0081879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )

You can actually share your account on your PS3 to more than 2 consoles. You just simply deactivate the account on one PS3 and activate it on the next. Remember all downloaded games and content will be playable off any account on the PS3 even if the account where you downloaded them from is deactivated.

Its a hassle but this is how you do it. If you doubt what I say go to and check their account sharing thread for the PS3.

i believe you can do the same thing with the 360 on Live accounts.

JokesOnYou1879d ago

TheBlackSmoke I agree they can do it with digital downloads and I'm hoping they will, I'm sure they will eventually but again retail disc copies as first announced would NEED drm and now I think only thing slowing this from happening with DD games is of course going back and rewriting code for both approaches. ...much harder than a 1 tier design.

DragonKnight1879d ago

@4Sh0w: Sorry, but you're the one that's wrong. The X1 had a similar process in place for their game sharing. Rather than logging into the main account, you logged into the library of games, but either way login details would be required, as well as Live accounts.

Controlling it with DRM is not the same as NEEDING DRM for it to work. Microsoft removed it because they were being petty. It was you let them tell you what to do with your games just so you can share some with 10 friends, or nothing at all. Explain how restricting used games has anything to do with preventing the abuse of a online game sharing. It has nothing to do with it at all. Any DRM for online game sharing should be strictly to control that one aspect and they already had that in place by enforcing a time limit of 30 days on your friendlist before you can share.

There is literally no reason why used game restrictions was necessary to allow online game sharing with 10 friends. The two are completely separate.

Dee_911879d ago

Sharing a digital game was just an excuse to have the DRMs on Xbox One.Before it was the sharing, it was because Developers are losing profits due to used games, then devs came out and said this isnt the case, then they "further clarified" what the DRM was for, which wasnt very much clarifying.Now they removed DRM and took the sharing plan with it because if they left it people would know the sharing plan wasnt dependent on DRM, and as the PS3 proved Sharing Digital games dont require and form of DRM.
Bottom line it was originally there so that MSFT could charge an additional fee to sell or trade games

Theres a reason their explanations were always so crappy.

TheBlackSmoke1879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )


The family sharing plan was a digital dropbox, even if you bought the original disc at retail, the second you installed and activated it any sharing from then on would be through digital means only. So again what really is the reason MS cant just offer you family sharing with digital releases now?

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1879d ago
allformats1879d ago

Oh you can have your DRM, and play by yourself. Believe me,the best decision Microsoft made was to abandon DRM, or else Xbox One would have become the greatest console flop of all time. If MS isn't careful, there is still a chance that the console might fail in epic fashion.

dennett3161879d ago

Thing is, they won't be abandoning it entirely. When games start requiring cloud access to function, that effectively acts as always online DRM....kind of like Sim City and Diablo 3 utilise.

It's all fine and dandy for a multiplayer game like Titanfall, that needs to be online in order to play it. Wait until single player games start utilising the cloud, and will have major problems if your connection drops out while playing...or you can't even play the game at all due to server problems or too high a demand.

They've given up the obvious DRM in order to sneak another DRM into the system via the cloud.

loulou1879d ago

ubisoft are already doing this on ps4 and xb1 with the division and another game.

its already here

humbleopinion1879d ago

Yeah, just like Steam became the greatest flop on the PC....
Nobody wants to buy those DRM games forcing you to play games tied to your account without the ability to trade them in (oh wait, the Xbox One did give you some ability to do that).

This is obviously is why Half Life 2, which was the first game to include such DRM, sold better than any Xbox 360 or PS3 exclusive to date. What a flop.

Flavor1879d ago

MS should have stuck to their guns. Physical discs are going to be phased out in the near future; everyone switched from netflix discs to streaming, should that not tell you something?

PC gamers have enjoyed discless gaming for years, since 2004. It is cheaper and more convenient.

dennett3161879d ago

Streaming a compressed movie file is a little different to downloading 40gigs of data onto your console if your connection sucks.
Besides, what has being discless got to do with DRM, every Xbox One will still be available digitally what exactly have you lost?

The 10 person sharing plan? I have news for you, that wasn't going to be the trip to Happy Land that you thought it would be. It would be very restrictive in it's own right. You really think that publishers were going to allow 11 people to play a single purchased copy of their game unrestricted? Even with limiting it to one other person and the account holder at a time? Of course not, that'd have killed their sales.

And again, this is a feature that didn't need to be dropped with the removal of their idiotic 24 hour check in. It could have been done with an opt-in for people who wanted to take advantage of the feature. Anyone wanting access to the library would have to be online to do so....a simple solution that doesn't require constant check ins.

The reason Microsoft haven't gone through with it is because there was no way publishers were going to agree to their plans. No way they were going to risk only potentially selling a tenth of the copies of games that they used to.

No_Limit1879d ago

The possibility is still there for both MS and Sony to migrate to a more digital ecosystem in 3-4 years when D/l games exceed physical game sales. I think when high speed internet become the norm, the incentive is for publishers to give digital games more value to the customers like adding a share game incentive and lowering the price of D/L games because of the benefit of cutting out the middle man, ie..Gamestop, and used game sales.

admiralvic1879d ago

"everyone switched from netflix discs to streaming, should that not tell you something? "

Ignoring the fact that everyone did not switch (or they wouldn't offer discs anymore), that is a completely different situation.

Streaming is a service of instant gratification and required no work or effect on the consumers part. I doubt you would find ANYONE in the world that would choose to wait several days for a disc and then return it, wait for them to verify they have the disc and then send you the next one you want over unlimited content instantly over the course of your membership.

Anyway, even if discs were phased out, it would instantly resolve their DRM problems without having to do anything at all.

GrownUpGamer1879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )

Thank PS for doing nothing.

Krew_921879d ago (Edited 1879d ago )


I don't think the feature was ever meant to be sharing with friends. Although it is possible. Back then it was fine to share with 5 friends, although now it can be tricky since we only get two. The feature was always meant to be used if you had multiple PlayStation systems.

Now it's kind of risky to lend to a friend since if your PlayStation 3 breaks you'll have no extra slot, since there are only 2 now unlike 5 back then.

Although you can reset your activations, I think yearly. However that's still better than having NO option like the Xbox One.

Also I'm sure you can share an account with PlayStation +, so if your friend is too cheap you can give them your account and they get freebies as well. If this functions the same on PlayStation 4, then they will get free online as well because of one good friend.

greenlantern28141879d ago

Xbox fans ms was not going to let you share your games unlimited, how could they sell devs on that. you guys believe if you bought one game and 10 of your friends could play through your shared games library, the entire game and multiplayer and all of you at the same time. Highly unlikely but they took it away so why even argue how good and or bad it was going to be. Fact is even ms was not clear about what Xbox1 could do ask 2 people from ms the same question get 2 different answers.
Maybe if they did a better job of explaining their advantages they wouldn't of had to remove it in the first place

jmc88881879d ago

Not a good read.

They guy basically sold his soul because he THOUGHT and ASSUMED, wrongly I might add, that Microsoft would become Steam.

They weren't going to discount the games radically different from the lame discounts of this generation.

There was no grand sharing feature everyone was duped on.

It was the restrictions and no promise of anything on the backend.

They never were going to sell those games for $45, and no you wouldn't of pushed them there.

Still Kinect is controlled by guys like these who you can't trust.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1879d ago
Majin-vegeta1879d ago

<que the gif where the office guy jumps out the window>

palaeomerus1879d ago

That's either from 'the Hudsucker Proxy' or 'the IT Crowd'.

yewles11879d ago

Nope, MS's DRM is NOT like Steam, and digital games would NOT be cheaper going all digital. Someone's not learning from the PSPGo train wreck...

killbillvolume121879d ago

Exactly that and lets not forget not all games go digital so you will be screwed either way....

cyguration1879d ago

I'm not going to waste my time reading an article that supports the death of consumer rights or a corporate monopoly over a hobby that's supposed to be about fun.

But your comment alone sums up why the author is probably an idiot who doesn't know anything about video games.

iceman061879d ago

I was thinking the same thing. They have even stated that IF and company WERE to reduce the price of their digital sales by $5, it would cut revenues by at least 10%. What business would be willing to slash revenue without being able to recoup it in another way. That's not business. That's charity! This was simply an attempt at a cash grab; using used games as a means of trying to garner extra revenue. There would have been tight control (read monopoly) on the Xbox One used games structure. That would have lead to 2 groups making the money (pubs and MS) and 2 groups left in the cold (consumers and devs).

V0LT1879d ago

I won't buy one still because who know's if they will flip flop after millions become sold.

meganick1879d ago

Nowhere in the article does the author explain why he wants the drm back.

Show all comments (63)
The story is too old to be commented.