In the past 30 or so hours after learning about Microsoft's decision to reverse the DRM policy on the Xbox One, my stance has shifted from a confident fanfare for consumers rights to one of uncertainty of where the game industry was headed. Why? After discussion with a friend over the matter, he complained about the reversal, saying that he was sold on the fact that his software library could not only be managed easier from physical counterparts (no need for physical discs each time you play), to making it convenient to allowing friends to play without the disc. Then I started to think, was Microsoft's train of thought for going in this path NOT for the purposes that we've been hearing on the gaming media this past month? What if it was Microsoft's idea for the next generation, which was purely a next step towards weaning us off the need for physical media?

I had to think of motive: WHY did Microsoft end up in a situation like this if it was only for convenience purposes? The plan was to start with an idea, and I believe now that Microsoft's idea was to consider gaming without the need for discs. Simple, but they couldn't just allow people to copy games onto hard drives without any form of control. That's where the DRM came in.

Now, I have reason to believe that Microsoft originally intended for the DRM to be optional (ie, you could optionally register a physical copy of the game against an account, and a quick confirmation to Xbox live would determine if it's allowed to be copied to the hard drive, and consequently be open to the range of conveniences that way). There was only one situation I could think of where the optional idea would come unstuck, and that was a situation where an offline console could still happily play a game that's been registered on Live by another console, provided it stays offline. This is where I think Microsoft jumped the gun and tried to overcome that issue by making Xbox One consoles have mandatory internet polling every so amount of time.

Valve does similar with physical media registration on Steam, and my guess is that Microsoft were confident of Valve entering the game console market long before we were, so their plan was to attempt to match the conveniences of Steam in order to beat Valve to the punch before they could gain a foothold in the console market. The problem? Steam is online-only, and for the Xbox One to have a similar strategy, it needed to ultimately have the same prerequisites in order to maintain DRM.

Now, I've noticed a lot of odd posts on the forums here claiming that Microsoft did this out of greed, and I disagree with that in a way. Sure, Microsoft were looking for profit as all companies do, but to intentionally screw over the consumer directly, I don't think Microsoft were thinking about it that way. Their problem was that their vision for a more convenient gaming world  was a little short-sighted towards consumer rights...

Am I sticking up for Microsoft's original idea? Of course not! I think there's still potential for some middle ground where the DRM can be optional, and as such, rewards such as convenience can be gained as an incentive. I think it's not a matter of if, but when. Each generation that passes brings us a little closer to that point that Microsoft is envisioning, but the time is not right yet...

Anyone who wanted what MS was going to do can still buy everything digital and have almost all of the same benefits.

That's entirely true...I'd say that their idea to try and muscle physical copies in on the same platform like Steam is where they came unstuck, sorta like a neverending list of fixes to problems arising from the previous fix, if that makes sense...

As a software developer now project manager... I know exactly what you are saying.

@ thread title

That's what they all say..

Lucifer supposedly said the same thing aswell

User was banned for this, and this post.

yo_john117

Of course it's not entirely malicious. It's not like they said, "Let's just fuck everyone over!"

But they did look at how much money Halo launches bring in. And they did think about how nice it would be if they got to keep all that loot and retailers got exactly $0. And they did think that was a future they should try to make a reality sooner rather than later. But they did not think for two seconds about how to make this in any way, shape, or form beneficial to the consumer. And they learned a valuable lesson, at least for now.

If you don't want discs buy digital. Why is having a choice such a bad thing?

All they had to do was to give consumers real incentives and value with going digital. That's all. Give them enough to counter-balance the subsidizing effect of trading in physical discs and they would have been set. It would have been seen as not only fair, but as a natural progression. The convoluted system designed to give GameStop and other big retailers a cut, however, isn't something that's going to appeal to customers.

As long as console manufacturers cater to big retailers by refusing to make digital the better value that it SHOULD BE, then it's hard believe that they're truly concerned about developers.

 In all honesty, I think the used game system Microsoft wanted to implement would have split the profits between GameStop and the big publishers. From there, publishers might have sent a few pennies down to the original developers, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It's thanks to moronic luddities like yourself that we have been deprived of a future of sharing demos with up to 9 of our friends. I hope you're happy, you filth.

It's the standard knee-jerk hate one finds on the internet. Observe that the loudest opponents of MS' DRM on this site are also vocal opponents of MS in general. This would hold true across the internet.