Microsoft’s decision to include DRM (Digital Rights Management) in their new console was met with a wave of hostility from gamers around the world, and as a result Microsoft was forced to change the original policies of the Xbox One to resemble those traditionally found in consoles. But was this the right move on gamers and Microsoft’s part? In my opinion it was at the time yes, but not in the end. If DRM is something you fear as a gamer then unfortunately you’re going to have to get over that fear, because digital gaming is the enviable future of gaming.
Personally I felt Microsoft had the right idea, but the problem with the Xbox One was that it was demanding DRM without Microsoft explaining any of the benefits or if there would be any benefits at all. With Microsoft’s explanations, or lack thereof, the Xbox One was not going to resemble Steam for the Xbox brand. However, there are benefits to DRM for both developers / publishers and consumers.
The instant benefit for developers and publishers is obviously the lack of a used games market for digital games. This means developers make a profit on every game sold, and ideally it’ll provide developers with enough revenue to produce sequels or provide continuous DLC for games even those that have a niche fan base when in the end benefits the user. Other benefits from the user include the potential for reduced cost of the $60 game. No physical disc, case, manual, shipping, and distribution means games could potentially drop back down to $50 as long as game production stays in check. No more broken disc, and significantly less loading. Access to your content around the world will be a reality as you could simply download the game file to another console or potentially any device and play whenever, which also opens the possibilities of streaming all your content from your console to any device.
Strives are being made by Microsoft with the initial creation of the Xbox One. And with that being said that’s exactly why Sony are leading the way with DRM....
You read that right. Sony is the unofficial king of console DRM, and here’s why. PlayStation Plus is the gateway to getting PlayStation fans to accept DRM. For $50 a year PlayStation gamers are able to download full free games to keep as long as you continue your subscription to the service. PlayStation Plus launched June 29, 2010, my birthday (so for the quick moment of unprofessionalism). I tried the service out then and I’ve been a member ever since. But on June 2012 PlayStation Plus became one of the best deals in gaming with the introduction of the Instant Game Collection. With over of year under it’s belt the Instant Game Collection has offered thousands of dollars in content all for a $50 a year subscription.
Now could you image ever giving up all those games by letting your $50 subscription go for good? I couldn’t and that’s the beauty of Sony’s hidden DRM. PlayStation Plus will carry over to the PlayStation 4 and it’s continuing to offer it’s Instant Game Collection Day 1 on the new console giving you access to free digital games. In less than 2 years PS+ has given PS3 consumers access to over 60 games, and with the PS4 having another 10-year life cycle that brings the potential of 300 games added to your PlayStation digital library. Sony wasn’t entirely forward thinking with the PS3’s IGC, because as of now those games cannot be transferred to your brand new PS4. However, if Sony makes the games you download on your PS4 guaranteed to run on their future platforms than you’ll be able to take your entire digital library of games with you regardless of any significant hardware changes.
This is the correct way to bring gamers over to a digital future. With access to over 300 games and knowing you’ll likely get another 300 with the introduction of the PS5, potential reduced cost on digital games, great PSN sales (spring, summer, fall, holiday, and random franchise sales), and access to your games on any device through Gaikai will ease the impact of the loss of physical media. Speaking of Gaikai it’s a completely digital service. Gaikai was basically an online-only version of Steam. You could stream demos of games to your PC or any device with an internet connection. If you liked the game you could simply buy it directly from the server and have access to the full game from any device anywhere. My guess is this is Sony’s goal with Gaikai for the PS4 as well. Sony’s wants most of it’s catalog of games ranging from PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3, PS Vita, and PS4 as well as music and movies streaming through Gaikai’s for you to have access to anytime anywhere. This may also be the reason PS+ is required for online gaming this generation, so they can pay for such an endeavor.
While I think DRM is the way of the future I don’t think it should come at the complete loss of physical media. While there are plenty advantages of going DRM only, there are still advantages to having physical media as well. A sense of ownership is established through physical media, and while going digital is great on paper it’s more expensive in reality. Sony and Microsoft need powerful dedicated servers to host all the consumers for downloading millions of games and playing online (Nintendo seems likely to be the only traditional consoles as they refuse to innovate in the realm of online). Internal hard drives will have to reach 2TB or larger in size for gamers to download their games which are already reaching 50GB in size with the close of the seventh generation consoles, and more than likely SSD’s will be needed for increased loading speeds for reading all of that data. On the consumer end a decent internet connection is required to have an enjoyable experience with a digital only console, and unfortunately the average worldwide internet speed is 3.1 Mbps. That’s an acceptable speed for most games, but when you consider that number is that low it means most of the world’s internet speeds are significantly lower and unable to reap the benefits of an online only console. Thus we’re at least one console generation away from seeing the first console without a disc drive, but expect another two or three cycles before then. But the benefits outweigh any potential roadblocks caused by pricing. Having access to a demo or beta of every game will ensure that gamers get to try everything before they buy, and overall game quality for the industry should see a pretty significant boost. I think physical media should stick around for those who just can’t let go, but if console DRM offered you all of these benefits would you be willing to make the switch?
TNS: Yakuza 0 Director's Cut is an excellent addition to the Nintendo Switch 2 lineup, with only a few narrative and technical hiccups.
After Tron: Identity, Bithell Games has shifted gears with Tron: Catalyst, but will it capture the iconic digital world?
Star Overdrive is a third person adventure game heavily inspired by The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.
"Other benefits from the user include the potential for reduced cost of the $60 game."
I keep hearing this get thrown around but there's really no proof that publishers would reduced their game's prices even if the big 3 were to put DRM on their console.
" No physical disc, case, manual, shipping, and distribution means games could potentially drop back down to $50 as long as game production stays in check. No more broken disc, and significantly less loading. "
This sounds like you're talking more about the console going digital rather DRM. Even if DRM is enable doesn't necessarily means the death of physical disc format. Some of my games on Steam still have long loading time. Putting DRM on console and or going digital doesn't mean the loading time will decrease.
Free games with PS+ is more like renting rather a DRM imho. You can keep playing those games as much as you want so long as you're willing to pay the fee. Just like you can keep streaming movies on Netflix as much as you want so long as you willing to pay $8.99/month.
DRM ≠ digital game downloads. PS+ might be a good value service, but it isn't DRM. It might have a good hook to keep you subscribing, but that isn't DRM. DRM is any means of controlling digital content once it has been paid for/received by the purchaser.
What Sony have done with PS+ is to show gamers that digital content might not be something they'd hate as much as they thought they would. I was personally all for physical copies of games and it wasn't until PS+ that I ever considered anything beyond this for console gaming. Now I'll take a physical copy or a download, as long as I can play I'm up for it. That's how they've buttered people up to seeing the real value of digital content. But again, that's not DRM. DRM is the management of that digital content once you get hold of it.
As for a drop in game prices, that's not likely. Physical game production costs are absolutely trivial, not $10 a copy. I make small indie games in batches of 1000, it costs me less than $1 a copy delivered to my office for a game on printed and glass mastered disc with printed insert and shrinkwrapped case. At 10,000 copies the costs are less than half that. Now imagine what they are in the 100,000 bracket and into the millions. Now consider that these games production companies own their own pressing plants and you can see how the impact on final retail price is insignificant.
Platform holders make more per copy sold digitally than physical retail copies, they could already charge less yet they charge an equivalent of full retail price (ie taking the retailer/wholesaler/etc costs as well as their usual). Do not expect this to change any time soon - if people keep buying, prices will not decrease. Also, many people prefer to have that physical copy, some prefer the special editions etc, you can't offer that digitally.
You do make some good points in your blog, but DRM is not what you are discussing, it's simply migrating from physical copies to digital and not the content management systems that support such a move.
It's funny you mention Nintendo in reference to physical vs digital. They are the ones that hold back supply of their physical copies of games to push the digital versions. They did this with Fire Emblem, and then bragged about how well it did digitally. Otherwise, Nintendo will eventually have to get with the times if they want to remain relevant in the home console market. They can't keep releasing consoles hoping to hit it big with one of them. They need a clear direction on their home console line, and then follow through with it in a meaningful manner.
Anyhow, more in line with your post, I think digital will see it's day. I just don't think it's going to end physical copies as many seem to assert. It's just not practical for many reasons to many people. Everyone that disregards physical being in the future seems to assume that the internet is going to drastically change in 10 years time. Quite frankly, the internet is about the same as it's been for 10 years now. And the cable/phone companies haven't even finished updating their infrastructure nationwide. They probably aren't too keen on updating again so soon. We really are at their mercy, and while technology may move fast, the phone/cable companies have no real incentive to since they are the only providers of these services. Google fiber may kick them into action, but I believe Google is still at the mercy of the phone companies.
As far as advantages, yeah, there are some. However, the companies pushing this stuff mostly ignore the downsides. GFWL recently stopped all new purchases on their network. Any game released on there is no longer available for purchase. It's safe to assume one day they may not be available for download either. I think if anything, the disadvantages of DRM came under heavy scrutiny because of what MS tried to do, and it will cause people to step back and evaluate the meaning of an all digital future until those issues are resolved.
Steam(and other similar services) provide value to the customer. Providing value is what consumers are looking for. As it stands, the home console market has a long way to go in proving that it has value for DD. Sony is making strides, and while PS+ is a great service with a ton of value, the fact remains that most of those big games they offer for free are still overpriced sans subscription. Truth is, at least for me, if those games weren't free, I wouldn't have brought them digitally. Besides my personal feeling on lack of ownership, they are still just overpriced. I doubt games will get cheaper. EA already wants to charge $70 for next gen games. I doubt lack of manufacturing $5 worth of physical material is going to bring down the cost $10.
I agree though, physical will remain. This is true until all parties selling these products force the issue with no recourse for the consumer to choose. Even then, it's likely physical will remain, because the reality is it doesn't matter if all technology involved is up to the task, there will just always be a significant number of people that want physical products. This is evidenced in the DVD/Blu-Ray and CD Music sectors of media. One is not a replacement for the other. They can both co-exist happily, and I never really understood why people feel it has to be one or the other. People with a preference for physical aren't going around telling people that only want digital they're wrong for liking digital. Many people with a digital preference though seem to take great joy in belittling the other side's choices.
Why can digital and physical copies coexist? Look at Itunes and CDs. Itś pretty clear to me that physical copies are hear to stay, since I can name anyone I know who doesn like physical copies. There are just so many products that have pretty well advertised digital distribution, but still buy the physical. DVD and CDs are evidence. This is a reasonable blog though and you have some good points.