| d21lewis said:
|
I think if there had been more time. Let's say a 2014 launch instead of a 2013 launch, then Microsoft could have made a solid case for digital distribution.
There still would have been a loophole for an off-line system to work, however I would have to question how many Xbox Ones are used offline to date? But an online system could be limited to checking-in only once per event. So, if the software was installed or a change, such as DLC added, it could verify that ownership was legitimate and that particular piece of software was untouched and untainted. If not, it could then, easily, disable the software or the entire system (as per a Microsoft patent). However, considering the number of consoles sold that are connected online, I don't think it unreasonable that when the console connects, when the user logs on, that a handshake exists where the legitimacy of ownership is checked. It would be unobtrusive and behind the scenes.
DRM is simply a database of software licenses that a particular user has purchased. There's a bit more to it than that, but a system can exist that allows a user to dictate whether they still want to own that content or not. It could easily be done. The challenge is, if a user's account gets hacked, then how do you deal with such transgressions? Microsoft could roll-back any transactions through the support center, or make some changes perminant versus others being temporary. For instance, if you walk into a GameStop, handing over a disc with a game on it, that license is read, and pulled from your account and freed up to be assigned once again. A tool could be designed to allow a retailer, such as GameStop to even verify the claim of ownership. For instance, if John Doe walks in with Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Black Ops MLXXXIV, the system could pull-up who currently has that licensed to them (Jane Decker), and the retailer could then determine if John had the right to relinquish that license, or if Jane and John had to complete their business transaction in a different way. For instance, Jane gifting the game license to John or permitting John to request a license transfer from Jane and Jane authorizing it.
In this way, ownership can be preserved, regardless of whether or not the ownership was derived from a physical disc or downloaded purchase. This prevents someone from stealing a physical disc and exacting ownership. It also allows both Microsoft and the authorities to track theft as well as piracy.
It also wouldn't inhibit renting, but infact expand options for rentals. Since each game would have a unique license embedded on it, whether a game is disc based or downloaded, the lending provider could, with a tool, assign a license to a particular user ID for set period of time. Once that time expires, the game could become nonfunctional, demo only, limited demo, and or available for purchase or rerental for that user. Even if it's any amount of time after the rental. So if I want to buy the game, I just indiciate it and a new license is transferred to me. If I want to rerent the game, then my license is renewed for the set period of time. If after the period of rental, I elect to rerent it and the game license I used has already been licensed to someone else, the retailer could offer a new license from its catalog of licenses or if none are available put me on a wait list.
Such a system would facilitate library lending of games, where a library system could permit game lending via digital media. So through an app, I go to my library, select a movie, music album, or game to check-out. I can elect to check the materials back in, or I can elect to renew my copies. If the license expires and someone's on a wait list for those materials, they can immediately have access to them if I haven't renewed them. They could have been downloaded in the background while they waited for the items to become available.
Again, a well thought out system that addressed the needs and possibilities that presently exist could have made a system as tennible as the one that presently exists without any major intrusion. There certainly would be some changes to any system people utilized. Trading in a game would be different and it would definitely negatively impact GameStops business or any other business engaged in second-hand sales. But considering GameStop was just found out to be reselling improperly repaired Xbox 360's as functioning units, I'm not sure I care if it harms their business or not.
Nevertheless, workable. This was how I imagined the system could work, from the time they announced it until the time they decided against it. The problem is building such a system, it would take time. Not only is there software, but defining policy and procedures for retailers to follow. Getting retailers to accept the business model and assure them that the impact to their business model will be limited and short-lived before it rebounds.
The biggest problem for third-parties is that they aren't necessary in the ecosystem if Microsoft built these systems. Microsoft could duplicate the system to fit entirely within its eco-system if they wanted. However, they'd offer those eco-system features as a goodwill service to both the retailers and consumers. One challenge with that is that by working with GameStop on a trade-in program, they would be legitimizing and supporting GameStop's business model. If GameStop found a way to exploit the system for profit, Microsoft might have to accept that. Or if a library lending service became more popular than rentals or purchases through Microsoft or other services, then they would likewise have to accept this fact of life. Things may not bare out the same profitability of if they elected to do it all themselves. They'd spread out some profit to other retailers, and in some cases lose profit completely.
