As to used games, if someone buys a game they should be able to do whatever they want with it. Sell it, loan it, or give it away.
If I buy a car...
...then you're making an incorrect analogy.
This is the problem with the used game debate, and is a BIG reason why entertainment producers are shifting towards -- and will continue to shift towards -- a streaming-based approach to content delivery. It won't happen overnight, but in the next 10-20 years or so, your content will NOT arrive on physical media like discs.
Why? Simple. When you have a disc, you own the disc. What you don't own is the contents OF the disc. People don't get this, however, and frequently resort to the car analogy. "If I buy a [car/house/dog/cheeseburger] I should be able to give it to whomever I want!" All of which would be perfectly accurate if ALL you're dealing with is a physical object. In fact, this still IS (mostly) accurate as long as you're still dealing with physical media AND they haven't gotten you to sign some license that waives that right. But what you're disposing of is actually two different things: the physical object, and the license to use it. You could NOT, for example, sell your book to someone and keep a photocopy of it.
What gaming companies want to do is make it clear that you are buying a license ONLY. That means you get, basically, temporary or conditional access to their game. You do NOT own it.
People thing this is an attempt to massively screw consumers (it is, to a degree), and that it's an attempt to take away some degree of ownership that always existed up to this point. It's the latter part of that which is the misconception: you don't own the game; you own the disc that the game sits on. It's not a car, and you can't do anything you want with the license you're give (particularly if the terms of that license are explicitly spelled out, you've agreed to them, and they say you can't do anything you want).
The guy actually brought up a good point regarding Steam, and that's the sales. I've got a LOT of content on Steam, and I bought almost all of it at ridiculously low prices during one of their sales. I would be VERY surprised to see Microsoft do something similar on XBL, in terms of having massive seasonal events with prices 75-90% off for major AAA titles. That's why people go to Steam, not because it's "DRM that works". DRM's an afterthought when you buy a game for five bucks.
Which is one of my points about the Steam model and potential future models for streamed/digital download games. It's ALL about the PERCEPTION of value. Value is DIRECTLY tied to DRM, in fact. You don't care about DRM that means you (1) can't trade, (2) can't loan, (3) can't sell the game...when the price point is low enough. What companies are going to be doing over the next few years (and what Steam already does) is figuring out the price points at which people will opt-in to a "no physical media" approach. Apple has done it with iTunes. Steam has done it with games. This will continue, and it will expand. Ubisoft and EA are both doing it with their native services now. I've gotten EA games directly from EA....because they made them dirt cheap and I figured "Hell, for $XYZ, who cares?" It's figuring out that "$XYZ" point that will make these kinds of systems work.
Speaking of which, Steam's Summer Sale should be starting here in a few weeks. Usually kicks off around July 4th. We can compare some of the sales to what those same games are selling for on Xbox Live. That would be a good comparison of the services that are "so much alike", shouldn't it?
Well, yes and no. I think XBL has sales from time to time, too, but not regular ones like Steam and usually not as deeply discounted. But comparing prices alone isn't really the point if the architecture of the DRM is identical. And it is, in many cases. You can put Steam into "offline" mode, though, and still (I think) play your single player games. THAT'S the biggest difference to me, not the price points. The fact that Steam has figured out an effective business model and price points at which product will move isn't really relevant for comparison to XboxOne or XBL other than to say "They give a better bargain, so I'm more willing to accept an almost identical DRM component." The value of Steam games is higher -- for you -- than the value of XBL games.
I have to agree with the article author. If MS were to change their policy, they wouldn't do it until closer to the launch date or after and they would never admit to Sony having any influence on it. I know MS is known for some bonehead moves but the Xbox and the rest of their gaming division makes up a significant portion of the money they bring in. It might even be bigger than Windows but i'm not sure. I can't see them purposely trying to tank the Xbox and i'm sure the execs and board members are freaking out over all this. I mean they obviously will take a hit on console sales but its the games and whatnot where they make their money but if they don't sell many consoles, they won't sell very many games. I'm thinking it's inevitable that they will change their policies regarding several things, but they don't want to change them right now because if they did, everyone would just say its because of the PS4 (which it obviously is) and appear even more weak.
Just a matter of time really.
Even the programmer guy in the other article I posted said he believe it will only be a matter of time as well.
Time and degrees, I'd bet. Plus you'll eventually see a PR pushback on how all of this really "isn't that bad." The real issue with this launch, as I see it, has been atrocious PR. The policies are controversial, but not insurmountably so. For example, the phrase "always on" was just idiotic to use at all, ever. Having "daily check-ins" would be bad enough, but "always on" implies that even if you checked in less than 24-hours ago, you won't be able to play your game AT ALL and the console is a brick if you don't have an internet connection 24/7. Likewise "always on" coupled with the "always on Kinect" evoked "Big Brother" fears at a time when we're seeing similar issues in the news.
I could see them doing something similar to what they did with the used game issue: kick it to the publishers, but make it clear that this is an option for them.
So, if Activision wants to release COD: Outer SPAAAAAAAAAACE, they can CHOOSE to require any level of connection they want. Constant connection, 24-hour check in, weekly check-in, one-time authentication, whatever. Or they could choose to do a "tiered" approach. You can play, say, the single player campaign, but there's additional content that unlocks for the online mode (beyond MP, I mean), or additional bonuses or whatever. But that's all up to Activision.
Likewise, if you want to get the most out of the XboxOne, you'll have a constant internet connection, but you can still do some of the stuff you want offline.
Or I could see them offer an "offline" model of the XboxOne at some point, which has dramatically diminished features, but still lets you play whatever "offline" games are created for the system.
At any rate, I agree that they'll likely have to walk this back, but the industry will shift to the streamed approach at some point. It's gonna happen. I think the real problem is that XboxOne mismanaged it's launch, and may have been a bit too ambitious in shifting things online too soon, before the market is fully ready for it.
