Jacob8hockey

rainboom

Squads It's true, the main people that complained about DRM were cheapskates who were scared to branch into the future, followed by the masses who jumped onto the bandwagon without knowing any of the pros of DRM, only the cons. DRM is the future, it was planned for years, MS released it and only took it back because it would have cost them millions in revenue from clueless angry 12 year olds worried about spending their parents hard-earned money on sharing games that most people ever did anyway.

you can sell used games so IDK what you are talking about


If they weren't clueless angry 12 year olds, the other people unhappy were probably people un-sure about the sharing policies. I myself never shared my games, when I was done with them I threw them out, gave them away or sold them. DRM wouldn't affect many, and the ones it did affect it wouldn't be severe.

I'm sure otehr will post the benefits in detail, but I assure you there are many and DRM provides more benefits than drawbacks. I'm finding this petition and joining it. Although it's unlikely MS would change their policies AGAIN.

I think a sensible solution would to possibly offer the DRM and non-DRM version, with seperate firmware to ensure they keep the casual single-player gamers without internet and therefore have absolutely no chance to have DRM and also avid multi-player gamers who want DRM happy.

This is a post I posted before. Perhaps you would find it interesting:

I get really frustrated when people try to defend DRM. DRM defies the laws of marketing and economics. I'm going to explain why with an easy example.

Say I buy a used car from my neighbor. Does the manufacturer get a cut of that money? No. Thinking about this logically, why should they? My neighbor paid full price for that car and he legally owns it.

If I buy this car from him, he can no longer use it. It makes sense then that in return for his loss, I would give him money. In return for the loss of my money, I get the car. The manufacturer is not experiencing a loss in this transaction. There is only one car and they already experienced their loss when they sold it. They in return were given my neighbor's money. The transaction has already taken place and all losses in this example have been reimbursed.

Now, knowing this, many people will make the argument that the manufacturer is experiencing a secondary loss because they are not able to compete with the prices of the used cars. This argues that there is an opportunity loss on their part.

However, the laws of supply and demand justify this opportunity loss. As the manufacturer floods the market with more of my neighbor's car, the demand/value for that car will go down. Because a car is also a deteriorating good, the demand/value for my neighbors car will go down with time. People are less willing to buy a car as it gets older (whether new or used) and they are also less willing to buy a car after it has been owned by someone who drove it on a daily basis.

Thus, it is justifiable that my neighbor sells his car to me for a cheaper price and the manufacturer takes an opportunity loss. Opportunity losses occur with any item that is not 100% consumable. I as a customer am taking the chance that my neighbor's car may not work properly. It may be scratched, broken, and not come with a lot of the things it would otherwise come with brand new, like a warranty or a discount for a gas station.

To successfully overcome the competition of used cars, a manufacturer should expect to lower the price of its car over time. All customers prefer having a new product over an old one because old products always have some form of the previously described problems. To ensure continued sales, the manufacturer must determine what the market price of these problems are. If a customer is willing to pay 10% more to NOT have the problems associated with the used product, the manufacturer logically should charge whatever the price of the used product is, plus 10%.

Games are still tangible objects that only one person can use at a time. They can get scratched, broken, and become outdated over time. DRM attempts to allow manufacturers to keep their prices of products high despite the falling demand for them. What should have happened, according to economics when they attempted this, did happen. Microsoft saw a massive drop in potential sales because they tried to place the supply and demand intersect at a place it did not actually lie.

See but its not the sharing of games with friends that they are trying to get rid of. It is the used car dealer that they want gone. You know, the ones that buy back used games for dirt cheap and then resell them for $5 cheaper than the original price, giving only revenue to the store and not to the producers. That was the problem, that is what should not be existing.

LuckyOtter A little update to this article is that the petition has 11,000 signatures as of right now.

RATF

pyroboy926

HoytVolker ps4 will takeover xbox if this happens lol

Maybe not. When Microsoft announced the DRM, they didn't explain any positives to the policy. If they re-announce it and say it is like Steam coming to the new Xbox,
then people will understand. The sale on xbox just last week would be much more


Xbox sales just went past ps4 just this week so...
frequent than once in years.

i don't think it will

Tyler-the-Creator So glad there's a petittion! DRM was the future and idiots that knew nothing about it and don't want anything to change from the old consoles to the new ruined it. None of the cons affect me cause I never sell my games cause its not worth getting $9 for 22 games at GameStop and I never gave my games away cause every time I did, I regretted it and wanted to play the game again. Also the 24 hour check up wont affect me at all and probably won't for anybody else that's a TTG member cause the only place I play my Xbox is my room and if someone can afford a $500 console but still doesn't have an Internet connection, then idk what world you're living in.

rainboom

Squads It's true, the main people that complained about DRM were cheapskates who were scared to branch into the future, followed by the masses who jumped onto the bandwagon without knowing any of the pros of DRM, only the cons. DRM is the future, it was planned for years, MS released it and only took it back because it would have cost them millions in revenue from clueless angry 12 year olds worried about spending their parents hard-earned money on sharing games that most people ever did anyway.

If they weren't clueless angry 12 year olds, the other people unhappy were probably people un-sure about the sharing policies. I myself never shared my games, when I was done with them I threw them out, gave them away or sold them. DRM wouldn't affect many, and the ones it did affect it wouldn't be severe.

I'm sure otehr will post the benefits in detail, but I assure you there are many and DRM provides more benefits than drawbacks. I'm finding this petition and joining it. Although it's unlikely MS would change their policies AGAIN.

I think a sensible solution would to possibly offer the DRM and non-DRM version, with seperate firmware to ensure they keep the casual single-player gamers without internet and therefore have absolutely no chance to have DRM and also avid multi-player gamers who want DRM happy.

This is a post I posted before. Perhaps you would find it interesting:

I get really frustrated when people try to defend DRM. DRM defies the laws of marketing and economics. I'm going to explain why with an easy example.

Say I buy a used car from my neighbor. Does the manufacturer get a cut of that money? No. Thinking about this logically, why should they? My neighbor paid full price for that car and he legally owns it.

If I buy this car from him, he can no longer use it. It makes sense then that in return for his loss, I would give him money. In return for the loss of my money, I get the car. The manufacturer is not experiencing a loss in this transaction. There is only one car and they already experienced their loss when they sold it. They in return were given my neighbor's money. The transaction has already taken place and all losses in this example have been reimbursed.

Now, knowing this, many people will make the argument that the manufacturer is experiencing a secondary loss because they are not able to compete with the prices of the used cars. This argues that there is an opportunity loss on their part.

However, the laws of supply and demand justify this opportunity loss. As the manufacturer floods the market with more of my neighbor's car, the demand/value for that car will go down. Because a car is also a deteriorating good, the demand/value for my neighbors car will go down with time. People are less willing to buy a car as it gets older (whether new or used) and they are also less willing to buy a car after it has been owned by someone who drove it on a daily basis.

Thus, it is justifiable that my neighbor sells his car to me for a cheaper price and the manufacturer takes an opportunity loss. Opportunity losses occur with any item that is not 100% consumable. I as a customer am taking the chance that my neighbor's car may not work properly. It may be scratched, broken, and not come with a lot of the things it would otherwise come with brand new, like a warranty or a discount for a gas station.

To successfully overcome the competition of used cars, a manufacturer should expect to lower the price of its car over time. All customers prefer having a new product over an old one because old products always have some form of the previously described problems. To ensure continued sales, the manufacturer must determine what the market price of these problems are. If a customer is willing to pay 10% more to NOT have the problems associated with the used product, the manufacturer logically should charge whatever the price of the used product is, plus 10%.

Games are still tangible objects that only one person can use at a time. They can get scratched, broken, and become outdated over time. DRM attempts to allow manufacturers to keep their prices of products high despite the falling demand for them. What should have happened, according to economics when they attempted this, did happen. Microsoft saw a massive drop in potential sales because they tried to place the supply and demand intersect at a place it did not actually lie.

rainboom

Squads It's true, the main people that complained about DRM were cheapskates who were scared to branch into the future, followed by the masses who jumped onto the bandwagon without knowing any of the pros of DRM, only the cons. DRM is the future, it was planned for years, MS released it and only took it back because it would have cost them millions in revenue from clueless angry 12 year olds worried about spending their parents hard-earned money on sharing games that most people ever did anyway.

If they weren't clueless angry 12 year olds, the other people unhappy were probably people un-sure about the sharing policies. I myself never shared my games, when I was done with them I threw them out, gave them away or sold them. DRM wouldn't affect many, and the ones it did affect it wouldn't be severe.

I'm sure otehr will post the benefits in detail, but I assure you there are many and DRM provides more benefits than drawbacks. I'm finding this petition and joining it. Although it's unlikely MS would change their policies AGAIN.

I think a sensible solution would to possibly offer the DRM and non-DRM version, with seperate firmware to ensure they keep the casual single-player gamers without internet and therefore have absolutely no chance to have DRM and also avid multi-player gamers who want DRM happy.

This is a post I posted before. Perhaps you would find it interesting:

I get really frustrated when people try to defend DRM. DRM defies the laws of marketing and economics. I'm going to explain why with an easy example.

Say I buy a used car from my neighbor. Does the manufacturer get a cut of that money? No. Thinking about this logically, why should they? My neighbor paid full price for that car and he legally owns it.

If I buy this car from him, he can no longer use it. It makes sense then that in return for his loss, I would give him money. In return for the loss of my money, I get the car. The manufacturer is not experiencing a loss in this transaction. There is only one car and they already experienced their loss when they sold it. They in return were given my neighbor's money. The transaction has already taken place and all losses in this example have been reimbursed.

Now, knowing this, many people will make the argument that the manufacturer is experiencing a secondary loss because they are not able to compete with the prices of the used cars. This argues that there is an opportunity loss on their part.

However, the laws of supply and demand justify this opportunity loss. As the manufacturer floods the market with more of my neighbor's car, the demand/value for that car will go down. Because a car is also a deteriorating good, the demand/value for my neighbors car will go down with time. People are less willing to buy a car as it gets older (whether new or used) and they are also less willing to buy a car after it has been owned by someone who drove it on a daily basis.

Thus, it is justifiable that my neighbor sells his car to me for a cheaper price and the manufacturer takes an opportunity loss. Opportunity losses occur with any item that is not 100% consumable. I as a customer am taking the chance that my neighbor's car may not work properly. It may be scratched, broken, and not come with a lot of the things it would otherwise come with brand new, like a warranty or a discount for a gas station.

To successfully overcome the competition of used cars, a manufacturer should expect to lower the price of its car over time. All customers prefer having a new product over an old one because old products always have some form of the previously described problems. To ensure continued sales, the manufacturer must determine what the market price of these problems are. If a customer is willing to pay 10% more to NOT have the problems associated with the used product, the manufacturer logically should charge whatever the price of the used product is, plus 10%.

Games are still tangible objects that only one person can use at a time. They can get scratched, broken, and become outdated over time. DRM attempts to allow manufacturers to keep their prices of products high despite the falling demand for them. What should have happened, according to economics when they attempted this, did happen. Microsoft saw a massive drop in potential sales because they tried to place the supply and demand intersect at a place it did not actually lie.