Did Microsoft Make the Right Decisions in Changing DRM Policies?

#1aszsithPosted 12/16/2013 10:54:41 AM
Did Microsoft Make the Right Decisions in Changing DRM Policies? - Results (199 votes)
Absolutely. The DRM would have killed consumer loyalty.
49.75% (99 votes)
99
Absolutely. The DRM would have killed their 3rd Party relationships.
3.02% (6 votes)
6
Maybe. The DRM seemed to bother a lot of people, but it would be nice to not have to use the disc all the time.
19.6% (39 votes)
39
No. The DRM issue was a hot button topic and would have blown over eventually.
13.07% (26 votes)
26
No. The DRM is just going to be instituted by the publishers anyway (Like it is with NBA2k14)
8.04% (16 votes)
16
Hey troll! We told you before, your bridge is over there! <<<<<<<<
6.53% (13 votes)
13
This poll is now closed.
So, should Microsoft have changed their DRM policies?

I don't buy used games often, so I would have gladly accepted the need to register my copy to to my gamer tag/system (like is done on PC) in lieu of having to keep a disc in the tray.
---
You can put icing on a turd, but that doesn't make it a cupcake!
#2krystylaPosted 12/16/2013 10:56:29 AM
I don't buy used I don't sell used and all my devices are always on what do I care about DRM
---
FC: 4227 - 1514- 7752 IGN:Mara
PSN: JudasInHell Gamertag: Crystyn 7B
#3bessy67Posted 12/16/2013 10:58:25 AM
I liked it better as it was announced and now that I have it I really wish you could play without a disc (I might end up going all digital just for the convenience of instant switching with voice), but I think it will be better for X1 in the long run that they changed it. I think MS was a generation ahead with it's policies, and that in 8-10 years people will expect a mostly digital, always online console.
---
"Immigrants. That's all they do, you know. Just driving around, listening to raps, shooting all the jobs." - Malory Archer
GT: Bessy67
#4theshovellerPosted 12/16/2013 11:08:49 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not a fan of a console that requires you to be online at all times. A computer, that's a bit different - you can physically back up or find workarounds for things should the online requirement somehow be inaccessible (not piracy - just plain-old DRM for something you legitimately own,) but a console that requires you to be online or have some sort of verification before you play something, I don't like.

A video game console is a machine designed to play video games on it - that's it. It shouldn't require connecting to an outside source to let you play those games, unless they are MMOs or "online-only" games. Plus, our technology infrastructure, at least in the US, isn't to the point where everyone has broadband access (and a simple "Well, why don't you just move or get it?" response is not a solution.)
---
Stupid, stupid rat creatures!!!
#5nickr2d2Posted 12/16/2013 11:12:42 AM
theshoveller posted...
Plus, our technology infrastructure, at least in the US, isn't to the point where everyone has broadband access (and a simple "Well, why don't you just move or get it?" response is not a solution.)


This

It's even worse overseas, or so I've heard.
---
"You're using the wrong words to express your still incorrect thoughts" -Foxx3k
#6A-2TheKPosted 12/16/2013 11:18:31 AM
Absolutely, and this is coming from someone who practically lives on steam. You can offer your customers an all digital future without daily check ins if you allow competition in the market, give an alternative that isn't your old console or the competition, have some kind of guarantee of future proofing, and most importantly trust your customers.
---
God, did you remember to render everything?
FlameLurker666
#7theshovellerPosted 12/16/2013 11:18:44 AM
nickr2d2 posted...
theshoveller posted...
Plus, our technology infrastructure, at least in the US, isn't to the point where everyone has broadband access (and a simple "Well, why don't you just move or get it?" response is not a solution.)


This

It's even worse overseas, or so I've heard.


It depends on where you go. I think Japan has something like a 95% broadband rate, with much faster nation-wide speeds. Then again, look at the structure and population density of their country - a vast majority of the people are compacted into cities, and they have a much smaller landmass to get "hooked up."

Then again, I think other countries have a worse rate than us, but I'm going off data I remember from a site I saw years ago (which is already two strikes against it, since I don't think the site's even active anymore and I'm going off my frail, mistake-prone mind.) Still, the US was somewhere between 9th and 17th on the list for technology infrastructure.
---
Stupid, stupid rat creatures!!!
#8RagnoraokPosted 12/16/2013 11:24:20 AM
theshoveller posted...
Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not a fan of a console that requires you to be online at all times. A computer, that's a bit different - you can physically back up or find workarounds for things should the online requirement somehow be inaccessible (not piracy - just plain-old DRM for something you legitimately own,) but a console that requires you to be online or have some sort of verification before you play something, I don't like.

A video game console is a machine designed to play video games on it - that's it. It shouldn't require connecting to an outside source to let you play those games, unless they are MMOs or "online-only" games. Plus, our technology infrastructure, at least in the US, isn't to the point where everyone has broadband access (and a simple "Well, why don't you just move or get it?" response is not a solution.)


The bolded part is very valid, but by your logic, we cannot expect a worldwide suitable online infrastructure until at least half a century for now. America alone will not have reliable internet across the country anytime soon. So many factors can easily mess up online connection. Instead of being afraid of it and not acknowledging it, we should embrace it, let the bugs reveal themselves, then work to improve them. This gen just delayed the problem, that next gen will have to solve. Additionally, the benefits widely outweighs the risk, such as the previous X1 polices that many gamers would have benefited from immensely.

The rest is completely subjective, and is pretty moot since companies are making the shift to DRM anyways. Plus, video game consoles are evolving; why would you pay +$400 for the latest high tech system just for a feature that has been around since the 20th century? The AIO entertainment angle will play a major factor in the success of the X1.
---
Here at gamefaqs, you are either a troll, noob, or fanboy.....not like it matters, we are all losers anyways.
#9theshovellerPosted 12/16/2013 11:37:00 AM
Ragnoraok posted...
theshoveller posted...
Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not a fan of a console that requires you to be online at all times. A computer, that's a bit different - you can physically back up or find workarounds for things should the online requirement somehow be inaccessible (not piracy - just plain-old DRM for something you legitimately own,) but a console that requires you to be online or have some sort of verification before you play something, I don't like.

A video game console is a machine designed to play video games on it - that's it. It shouldn't require connecting to an outside source to let you play those games, unless they are MMOs or "online-only" games. Plus, our technology infrastructure, at least in the US, isn't to the point where everyone has broadband access (and a simple "Well, why don't you just move or get it?" response is not a solution.)


The bolded part is very valid, but by your logic, we cannot expect a worldwide suitable online infrastructure until at least half a century for now. America alone will not have reliable internet across the country anytime soon. So many factors can easily mess up online connection. Instead of being afraid of it and not acknowledging it, we should embrace it, let the bugs reveal themselves, then work to improve them. This gen just delayed the problem, that next gen will have to solve. Additionally, the benefits widely outweighs the risk, such as the previous X1 polices that many gamers would have benefited from immensely.

The rest is completely subjective, and is pretty moot since companies are making the shift to DRM anyways. Plus, video game consoles are evolving; why would you pay +$400 for the latest high tech system just for a feature that has been around since the 20th century? The AIO entertainment angle will play a major factor in the success of the X1.


Simple economics - if you target a fraction of a group, instead of the whole group, then you're already cutting yourself off from potential customers. Having the internet capabilities not be required will make things better for those who want to or can use them. However, requiring them for anyone to use the system is just putting up a hurdle - someone who doesn't have the ability to access the internet via broadband, despite being able to use the other features the system boasts, is already removed as a potential customer entirely.


In short, you reduce the number of people who can buy your system before you even get it to market. Considering it's not a feature that would ensure a massive boon to the number of people who would buy the system otherwise, it's not worth it. It's lopping off a limb when you're sickly to feel a little bit better - but still too sickly to get out of bed or do anything of note. If lopping off said limb ensured the person would make a recovery to the point where they could live a normal life and feel almost as good as they were before they got sick, then sure - go for it. I just don't see it happening with the Xbox One, though.
---
Stupid, stupid rat creatures!!!
#10AzaneAzerPosted 12/16/2013 11:39:19 AM
Need a "no, the fact they even thought about using it was enough to lose my loyalty"