Reply
Jun 07 2013
By: thegreatsquare Splicer 63 posts
Offline

DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

13 replies 187 views Edited Jun 7, 2013

If a game requires online activation, intervaled online check in, used game fee, is tied to a specific account, or other DRM method ...then there should be a sticker clearly placed on the front of each package so consumers know the exact details before they purchace a PS4 game.

Please use plain text.
Message 1 of 14 (187 Views)
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/24/2007
Offline
14994 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013

I think you meant to talk about the Xbox One.

 

No information about the PS4 exists at this time, so the only thing you're doing is speculating.

E3 is a few days away.... be patient and everything will be explained

Cognitive Dissonance - The ability to understand multiple viewpoints even if they conflict with one another - and still use critical thinking, logical thought, and common sense to come to the realization that only ONE is the correct one and the others are wrong.

Furiously Chaosing
Please use plain text.
Message 2 of 14 (180 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Splicer
Registered: 05/27/2013
Offline
63 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013

"If", it was the very first word. So try to have an open mind about it.

 

 

 

 

...and Sony said DRM will be up to publisher. IF a publisher chooses to use DRM, what that DRM is should be clearly labeled on the front of the item for sale.

Please use plain text.
Message 3 of 14 (175 Views)
Splicer
Registered: 12/23/2006
Offline
67 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013

I am very interested to see how these conditions are communicated and how consumers will be educated before they make the purchase of hardware and software. Will Microsoft and following publishers advertise these conditions in ads and on the product itself? How much responsibility will be placed on the retailers? I'm going to enjoy following how this next-generation plays out in the short and long term.

Podcast BEYOND! SDMF
Please use plain text.
Message 4 of 14 (161 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 06/05/2011
Offline
291 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013

Shrewder wrote:

I am very interested to see how these conditions are communicated and how consumers will be educated before they make the purchase of hardware and software. Will Microsoft and following publishers advertise these conditions in ads and on the product itself? How much responsibility will be placed on the retailers? I'm going to enjoy following how this next-generation plays out in the short and long term.


It will probably be along this line:

HALO X on Xbox one

requires internet fee, activaction fee, 1 year contract, manual 24 hr licsense check  and suck your soul out.

我わくう我わこう我わじん我わ人不つるぎにてすべてのつみをかりとり悪をめつする
PSNID:BalmungTaichou
Vita owner PS4 owner(hopefully)
Please use plain text.
Message 5 of 14 (154 Views)
Splicer
Registered: 12/23/2006
Offline
67 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013

balmungfury wrote:

Shrewder wrote:

I am very interested to see how these conditions are communicated and how consumers will be educated before they make the purchase of hardware and software. Will Microsoft and following publishers advertise these conditions in ads and on the product itself? How much responsibility will be placed on the retailers? I'm going to enjoy following how this next-generation plays out in the short and long term.


It will probably be along this line:

HALO X on Xbox one

requires internet fee, activaction fee, 1 year contract, manual 24 hr licsense check  and suck your soul out.


hehe

Podcast BEYOND! SDMF
Please use plain text.
Message 6 of 14 (149 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 12/22/2008
Offline
926 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013
It really is sad that we (gaming community) have come to this level of treatment by the publishers in order to use the items they create. The saddest thing is, we've kind of brought this all upon us. :smileysad:

Don't have a link for it handy, but Kotaku has a great article regarding how the gaming world has simply allowed this to happen slowly but surely by "accepting" the repeated small steps taken to get where we are without realizing what we were giving up by doing so.

The great analogy they used was that each little revocation of our "gaming freedom" that the publishers force on us is like a tiny little weight. We accept it since it's "not a big deal", so the publishers put more tiny little weights on us. We don't pay attention to the total weight we are being asked to carry, but only pay attention to each new weight we are given. If the weight isn't a great deal, we say "sure, I can deal with that". Pretty soon, however, we are overburdened with so much weight that we simply cannot move any longer.

It all started when PC games came out with the requirement that a key-code be entered in order to install the game. We (meaning the gaming community) accepted it since we felt it wasn't a big deal, and for most of us it wouldn't impact our ability to install and play the game. By not taking a stance against this by thinking it was acceptable, publishers figured we'd accept a little bit more. So some started implementing things where you needed to have the instruction manual, or the key code at certain points in the game in order to progress. An annoyance to some, and a downright evil thing to others who may have lost the information needed in order to play their game.

Publishers then went a step further and made it so that when you installed a game on your PC, it would install other software there in order to validate the CD was the original and not a copy, or that you weren't running any cracks. For most, they said "that's fine" since I only use the original. For others, they felt it was an intrustion on their system to have additional software installed on there, but since they wanted to play the game anyway they said "Okay, we'll deal with it." Again, the message the publishers got was that it was okay to do this and so it became the norm.

After the publishers realized our acceptance, they went a few steps further and decided to have us validate our games online after they had been installed. No validation, no playing. Again, this was considered a "non-issue" to some, and a "nuissance" to others. Yet we accepted it. So now, the publishers felt they would be able to take it one step further and have frequent re-validations online for us to be able to play. Yet again, we accepted this practice and it became the norm.

The step after this was having publishers decide that games needed to be run online all the time in order to play. Parts of the gamecode weren't to be installed on the users systems, and in order to actually use the software the user would need to constantly be connected to the publishers' servers. Once again, despite the problems this causes we accepted it as part of the gaming world. It is now becoming the norm.

Once the DLC era came about, publishers began thinking of new ways to take advantage of us. They are now taking things which should have been included in the main game itself and selling it separately as DLC. Once again, we seem to be accepting this and telling the publishers that it's okay to continue doing this. "It doesn't bother me because I still got enjoyment out of the game" is a common argument that doesn't do anything to tell the publishers to stop it.

Online passes are commonly used in games for multi-player. This limits our abilities to rent games, trade games with friends, etc. etc., but yet again we are sitting here accepting this by continuing to buy their products, thus telling publishers "Yeah, you can keep doing this."

With the tactics being used by MS in the X1, although you are hearing a lot of outcry about these decisions, I still believe that gamers will buy that system in mass quantities because the "issues" don't affect that particular individual and because it is named "X-Box". They will in effect be telling MS and publishers that their draconian DRM tactics are acceptable.

If all of these actions were taken from the very beginning, we NEVER would have accepted it. Going from "Buy the game and use it without having to install other software on your system, being prevented from trading the game with others, or having all parts of the game fully accessible from the start" to "You aren't actualy going to own the game and will need to constantly verify your copy online to our servers, having to pay for the full experience in the game, not being able to trade the games with anybody you want to, not being able to play the game at all without an internet connection, and not being able to play the game period once we shut down our servers", would have simply killed off the industry right then and there. But because it was done in small incremental steps and we allowed each of those steps because they didn't seem that "major" on their own, we have simply brought this all upon ourselves. :smileysad:
Please use plain text.
Message 7 of 14 (130 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 06/05/2011
Offline
291 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013

Jdurg wrote:
It really is sad that we (gaming community) have come to this level of treatment by the publishers in order to use the items they create. The saddest thing is, we've kind of brought this all upon us. :smileysad:

Don't have a link for it handy, but Kotaku has a great article regarding how the gaming world has simply allowed this to happen slowly but surely by "accepting" the repeated small steps taken to get where we are without realizing what we were giving up by doing so.

The great analogy they used was that each little revocation of our "gaming freedom" that the publishers force on us is like a tiny little weight. We accept it since it's "not a big deal", so the publishers put more tiny little weights on us. We don't pay attention to the total weight we are being asked to carry, but only pay attention to each new weight we are given. If the weight isn't a great deal, we say "sure, I can deal with that". Pretty soon, however, we are overburdened with so much weight that we simply cannot move any longer.

It all started when PC games came out with the requirement that a key-code be entered in order to install the game. We (meaning the gaming community) accepted it since we felt it wasn't a big deal, and for most of us it wouldn't impact our ability to install and play the game. By not taking a stance against this by thinking it was acceptable, publishers figured we'd accept a little bit more. So some started implementing things where you needed to have the instruction manual, or the key code at certain points in the game in order to progress. An annoyance to some, and a downright evil thing to others who may have lost the information needed in order to play their game.

Publishers then went a step further and made it so that when you installed a game on your PC, it would install other software there in order to validate the CD was the original and not a copy, or that you weren't running any cracks. For most, they said "that's fine" since I only use the original. For others, they felt it was an intrustion on their system to have additional software installed on there, but since they wanted to play the game anyway they said "Okay, we'll deal with it." Again, the message the publishers got was that it was okay to do this and so it became the norm.

After the publishers realized our acceptance, they went a few steps further and decided to have us validate our games online after they had been installed. No validation, no playing. Again, this was considered a "non-issue" to some, and a "nuissance" to others. Yet we accepted it. So now, the publishers felt they would be able to take it one step further and have frequent re-validations online for us to be able to play. Yet again, we accepted this practice and it became the norm.

The step after this was having publishers decide that games needed to be run online all the time in order to play. Parts of the gamecode weren't to be installed on the users systems, and in order to actually use the software the user would need to constantly be connected to the publishers' servers. Once again, despite the problems this causes we accepted it as part of the gaming world. It is now becoming the norm.

Once the DLC era came about, publishers began thinking of new ways to take advantage of us. They are now taking things which should have been included in the main game itself and selling it separately as DLC. Once again, we seem to be accepting this and telling the publishers that it's okay to continue doing this. "It doesn't bother me because I still got enjoyment out of the game" is a common argument that doesn't do anything to tell the publishers to stop it.

Online passes are commonly used in games for multi-player. This limits our abilities to rent games, trade games with friends, etc. etc., but yet again we are sitting here accepting this by continuing to buy their products, thus telling publishers "Yeah, you can keep doing this."

With the tactics being used by MS in the X1, although you are hearing a lot of outcry about these decisions, I still believe that gamers will buy that system in mass quantities because the "issues" don't affect that particular individual and because it is named "X-Box". They will in effect be telling MS and publishers that their draconian DRM tactics are acceptable.

If all of these actions were taken from the very beginning, we NEVER would have accepted it. Going from "Buy the game and use it without having to install other software on your system, being prevented from trading the game with others, or having all parts of the game fully accessible from the start" to "You aren't actualy going to own the game and will need to constantly verify your copy online to our servers, having to pay for the full experience in the game, not being able to trade the games with anybody you want to, not being able to play the game at all without an internet connection, and not being able to play the game period once we shut down our servers", would have simply killed off the industry right then and there. But because it was done in small incremental steps and we allowed each of those steps because they didn't seem that "major" on their own, we have simply brought this all upon ourselves. :smileysad:

I know several groups which will attack on day one any company that think this is how you provide a gaming console service.

我わくう我わこう我わじん我わ人不つるぎにてすべてのつみをかりとり悪をめつする
PSNID:BalmungTaichou
Vita owner PS4 owner(hopefully)
Please use plain text.
Message 8 of 14 (121 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 02/03/2008
Online
14039 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013

Can someone provide a legitimate reason for why DRM is the fifth horseman?


To teach is a moment's superiority; not to, everlasting.

Fabulous!
Please use plain text.
Message 9 of 14 (115 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Splicer
Registered: 06/05/2013
Offline
71 posts
 

Re: DRM level should be clearly labeled on front of each game.

Jun 7, 2013
i can see EA using this DRM , they didnt get rid of this online pass crap for nothing
Please use plain text.
Message 10 of 14 (108 Views)
Reply
0 Likes