Score one for consumer rights.

by ShadowOfTheVoid , South Carolina, Friday, June 21, 2013, 12:55 (4171 days ago) @ kapowaz

Yes, yes. I know. We're all horrible Luddites for standing up for consumer rights, which as we all know stands in the way of Progress™. If only we primitive dinosaurs would abandon our archaic caveman technology — because discs and dead tree books are only a step removed from stone tools —, then we'd see a new Golden Age. In all seriousness, though, I have serious skepticism about the notion of an all-digital future. To me it's as likely as flying cars and virtual reality being the norms. I've been meaning to write a huge article about this for the last couple of years, but have never gotten around to it, but it's a subject that requires far more time and effort to discuss in a thread mainly about the XBO. Needless to say, I don't think we'll be seeing an all-digital future in our lifetimes, mainly due to, among other things, the facts that neither the infrastructure nor the demand is there. I personally don't really do the whole digital downloads thing. I do not own an MP3 player or an e-reader or even a smartphone, and I don't game on the PC (which of course entails I don't have a Steam account). I'm sure you probably enjoy some or all those things, but I refuse to adopt those technologies. Aside from the occasional Virtual Console or XBLA purchase (which are typically tiny files by today's standards that don't warrant a disc), I still buy all my media in physical form: CDs, Blu-rays, and good old paper & ink books. I know a lot of people have for the past decade-plus been gleefully trading away quaint notions like ownership and control in exchange for a bit more convenience, but I'm not one of them. If the future is "all digital," well, it's a future I want no part of.

Now, if people want digital, then go for it. They have that option. But I'd also like the option to do things the old way by buying physical, because I find it to be better and I like to actually own what I buy. When iTunes came out, CDs didn't just disappear. The advent of Netflix didn't cause Blu-rays and DVDs to just evaporate into the ether. The Kindle didn't cause the printing presses to automatically shut down. There's room for both digital and physical, and there's no reason that consoles absolutely have to become strictly "Steam boxes."

Some might say, "But MS needed draconian DRM and online requirements to usher in the Future of Gaming." Oh, if only I could be so trusting. I don't think for one minute that their main reason was to bring about new advances in gaming or anything noble like that. It was about used games more than anything else. Several people and publishers in the game industry have been making a (completely baseless) stink about used games for the last few years. It's essentially a repeat of the late 80s when Nintendo of America was swearing up and down that game rentals were going to be the death of the industry, and they fought Blockbuster tooth and nail to eliminate rentals (they failed, of course). "Big Entertainment" has rarely had our best interests in mind. From attempts to block VCRs from the market in the early 80s to the push for laws like SOPA and PIPA today, they have continually sought nothing short of copyright being an absolute and perpetual property right. They want a world where the publishers control everything now and forever, lock, stock, and barrel, where possession is no longer nine-tenths of the law because we are no longer buying "products" but rather paying for "services." They have shown time and time again that they have no use for things like Fair Use provisions, the public domain, and the First-sale Doctrine.

So yeah, I have every reason to be suspicious of "Big Entertainment," including the game industry. And I sure as hell don't think for one minute that going the "Steam box" route would suddenly lower prices. Consoles are closed platforms. When we buy digital games on an Xbox console, we can only buy from Microsoft's store, with MS's DRM rules being the standard and the console itself being a fixed piece of hardware. PC, however, is an open platform, and Steam has competition from Good Old Games, Green Man Gaming, and various other digital storefronts, all with widely varying DRM schemes (from strict to none), not to mention you have mods and you can customize your PC to your heart's content. So yeah, I'm skeptical that a digital-only console would benefit us in any way. It would just be another means of exerting greater hegemony. They gain absolute control, we get jack squat in exchange (except maybe the illusion of greater convenience).

But regardless of whether MS's intentions were pure or not, I refused to support a system that did not respect the right to lend, sell, or give away my property in accordance with the First-sale Doctrine (and don't try to hand me that "you only bought a license" bullshit). I refused to support a system that required me to ask their permission every 24 hours to be allowed to use my own property, as if I was a child with limited TV privileges an MS were the parents I had to beg to be able to watch my favorite cartoon. Not only should "permission" and "allow" never be part of the equation, but there's also the question of whether I'd still be able to play my XBO games 15 or 20 years down the road (those servers likely won't be around forever). If I spend $500 on a system and $60 a pop for a game, then I had goddamn better well be able to use those things whenever and wherever I want, internet access be damned. No other console in history imposed such arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions, and there's absolutely no reason to impose them now. To quote Half-Jaw from Halo 2, "This is unprecedented... unacceptable." I'm used to doing things a certain way, and I'm not about to change. For 30 years, from the Intellivision to the Xbox 360, I've enjoyed the benefits of the First-sale Doctrine, and I've never had to ask the console manufacturer permission to play my games. I paid for the system and the games, and that was that. Had MS's prior policies stood, the XBO would have fundamentally changed the business-customer dynamic as it relates to console gaming, and I was not going to be part of that. No fucking way, no fucking how.

There's no reason that they had to attempt to implement system-wide DRM to physical games. There's no reason they had to mandate an internet connection. The PS4 is capable of cloud computing and all sorts of other fancy next-gen stuff too, but it did so without having to fundamentally change a 35+ year status quo (and besides, "the cloud" might not be all it's cracked up to be). Hell, even the all-digital Steam has an offline mode; you don't have to connect to Valve's servers on a periodic basis for permission to play your games. There was nothing preventing them from offering a robust digital marketplace while still maintaining basic expectations people have had for nearly four decades in regards to a console (e.g., lending, trading, reselling, gifting, & renting games, being able to play offline indefinitely if one so chooses).

And what are we losing from this policy shift, really? "Family sharing" and part of the "digital library" thing. In regards to sharing, that whole thing always sounded too good to be true, and therefore it likely was. Given all the bitching about used games, you really think publishers would allow one person to share a game with up to ten others with no restrictions? If anyone thought that would have been the case, well, I also have some ocean-side property in Nebraska for sale. That story from yesterday about the family sharing being a glorified demo system may have simply been a rumor, but it's damn plausible. As for the whole digital library thing, Marc Whitten said "Now, of course, your physical games won’t show up that way. The content you bought digitally will. But you’ll have to bring your discs with you to have your games with you." So, it still applies to digital downloads, just not to discs. And really, is losing that functionality for disc-based games such a big deal? Is it really that big of an inconvenience to have to bring the actual physical copy with you when you go over to a friend's house for a Halo 5 LAN or whatever? So, we're losing a couple of minor conveniences, but in exchange we're gaining so much more. We retain our First-sale Doctrine rights, we retain the freedom to play offline indefinitely if we so choose (especially good for people with bad or no connection), which also means that there's no possibility that our XBO will one day be unable to play our games, and finally there's the fact that we're getting a region-free Xbox.

All in all, I'd say MS's policy reversal is a net gain for the vast majority of people. I for one am no longer going to boycott the XBO, and will likely get one when Halo 5 comes out (still getting a PS4 first; the lower price is important given that this will be an expensive holiday season and there's several big Wii U games coming, plus I'm more interested in Sony's exclusives). However, I will hold them to this, and I will drop them in a heartbeat if their policies ever again conflict with my interests as a consumer. There will always be a trust issue, and I'll be keeping my eye on them (another reason why I'm still going to wait a while to get an XBO). My doing business with a company is contingent on the quality of their product and their service. I rarely do "brand loyalty" (only Nintendo has that from me, but they've earned it with a rock-solid 25-year-long track record), so I have no qualms with ditching MS, even if it means missing out on series like Halo. Game companies need to remember that one antagonizes their customers at their own peril.