The people that bought Sim City probably justified the DRM requirements just as you, yet look at that debacle. There are always server issues when something new and big launches. Usually that means you have to wait a few days for online components. But in this case, your console (or game) is rendered useless. And yea, its not the end of the world, you can spend your time doing something else, but when you buy a new toy you want to play with it.
Originally Posted by grieverr
Instead of comparing the DRM to the one developed and imposed by the company of Satan, EA, draw a connection to Valve and its Steam service. Nobody complains about it yet the concept is goddamn near identical. Not to mention we're talking about a huge number of servers up and running by comparison. If there's a temporary failure, they'd have 24 hours to fix the problem. How many times did XBL experience server issues for 24+ hours?
Also, Japan, as a whole, is not getting the X1 at launch. They obviously have money, internet, and dedicated gamers. So, it's not just a technical thing, its an accessibility concern. The Japanese game developers are crucial to the business as a whole, how much support will X1 get from developers who can't play their own games?
Hasn't Japan always been the equivalent to Fort Knox for MS? I'm pretty sure they've never been a crucial component to its success since they've historically been a market that likes to buy products from its nation. Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought this was a huge topic back when the 360 was trying to develop market share in its infancy.
I don't see how it's MS's job to protect the developers. Developers should protect themselves.
And I don't understand the diminished returns on used games argument. There is no other industry that tries to regulate the 2nd hand market. The music industry doesn't tell you what to do with your CDs. The movie industry doesn't care who borrows your blu-rays. BMW doesn't make it impossible to sell/trade-in your car.
Every used game was once sold as new.
They're enforcing DRM because if they didn't, ANYONE could take a game, install it on their HD and have a free copy. One disc amongst a group of kids could be the equivalent of five, ten or twenty plus sales. Imagine a AAA single player game came out. One person buys the copy then hands it out to his/her friends. That's multiple lost sales. That's money wasted on the developer's end. That's a risk to their survival, which can come full-circle and impact the gamer in the long run. A universally-enforced DRM means consistency of quality and use. It means that developers have a safer chance at staying in business, giving them the time to make us new content. Microsoft has also done a fairly good job of giving people shared library access because they realize the impact this has on some consumers.
The X1 does look cool and I thought they showed great games. I just think the restrictions are a bit harsh for a piece of consumer electronics.
Harsh? Maybe. I think it's a positive change that consumers don't feel ready for. I've lost 90% of my game library from my past consoles because the damn discs went missing, so this is a personal boon.