By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:


Actually he is not arguing semantics he is stating exactly what the document says.  The document says nothing about any DRM tied to always on and always online.  The document explicity state what those two services mean.  This is not a consumer document.  It's a document for developers and if MS is to use these two services for DRM they would just state it.  DRM. Is something that developers and publishers want and if MS will provide it for them then it would be stated.

The key people keep forgetting is that MS is a for profit company.  If MS will institute a DRM system to not play used games it would demand something in return from publishers.  The reason it's very doubtful that MS would require the console to be on in order to play games is that it would limit their install base.

Are you stating what the document directly says, or making assumptions?

In tabletop games, we have two acronyms. One called RAW, and RAI.

Many times Rules As Worded end up being completely incorrect, and fixed by the developer.
Rules as Interpreted is almost wrong just the same.

So who is to say whose interpretation is better?