Xbox One's online DRM "could have been fine", says Xbox co-creator

@IceStorm

It's not a moot point. The EULA for every publisher doesn't specify if it's for a disc or digital just the software. The EULA says the software is licensed. Add that EULA to a disc and welcome to my "what if" world.

As I have said from the beginning and your admitting at least in part...the reason my scenario hasn't taken place yet is for fear of the backlash. You're not telling me my "what if' scenario can't happen and why it can't you just dismiss it.

The fact that PC games and other PC software uses that model it's very unwise for us to dismiss it as something that can't happen to console games in the near future.

^^^I think it goes deeper than seeing things differently which i was trying to summarize, but I'll let it go at that if you want. I tried to write this response 3 times and they were long and I wasnt happy with them so I'll step out of the way for now because
I doubt I can add anything at the moment that wouldnt cause more problems than it was worth

He's obviously very well versed in the loopholes that retailers like to hop through, "redistribution" is "redistribution" and he can argue until he's blue in the face on the differences between how this is achieved to skirt the boundaries of law which may
not have been so clearly defined to date, but it can't and won't continue. Keep on defending the "Middle Man" for the Middle Man needs people like you more than ever...

@IceStorm

You're contradicting yourself...If games on disc are content why does it not apply to the PC? Your Diablo 3 example even proves my point. I can buy D3 on disc, enter the key and it's now bound to my Battlenet account. I still have the physical content on
that disc but it's useless with the activation key.

If I'm understanding you correctly you're telling me that the always online feature of the PC version makes that version digital whether it's on disc or downloaded. I can actually agree with that, the software is the same no matter the source.

If you're telling me that console games on disc would also become "digital" if publishers required a key activation or always online then I guess we are also in agreement you're just choosing a strange way of explaining it. Or are you saying that they can't
require online or key activations and if so what are you basing that on?

My point all along is that console games are "different" not because the law is on our side but because the publishers and developers have chosen not to limit the usage whether it be for lost sales or just PR.

EU? Germany? They can chose to do whatever they want and it has no impact on our laws or courts.

The EULA, contracts....we just have a different perspective. If I accept a EULA, sign a contract...I'm well aware that they can't force me to abide by it until a court finds against me. I live in the real world...I don't need a court to tell me in my specific
case that if I don't make my car payment that the lender can't recoup their loses from me. This applies to any civil matter if there is court precedent that I will lose (EULA's included). Most people won't hire an attorney and incur legal fees to fight a losing
case but we all have that right.

[quote user="Randver"]There is case law that a EULA is legally binding[/quote]No. There is case law that states specific EULAs are considered to be legally binding contracts. It's a distinction you and others do not make when you make sweeping blanket statements
that all games are licenses and bound by EULAs.

First sale doctrine does apply to disc based video games, I agree 100 percent but

No buts. Console titles on disc are owned.

Courts have found that publishers and developers can legally lock down the license and the disc becomes useless

That's
because the disc in those instances is not what the person is buying. They're buying a license. The disc is just a bits delivery mechanism.

PC gaming has been doing this for years.

Yes, PC games have been licenses for years in exchange for a $10
reduction in the price of games compared to console games. PC gamers have never minded much because PC games at the start were never returnable/resalable to third parties like GameStop. That has been the case going back to the pre-PC era because PC and home
computer games on disc (be it 5.25", 3.5", or optical media) were trivial to copy (even when there was copy protection).

Console games have historically not been trivial to copy. That's why there's a used game market for console titles - the media contains the game and cannot be easily replicated.

The console publishers could do exactly the same thing.

But they
do not.

We don't own the software, we license it

For console games on disc, the buyer owns that specific copy of the game and the publishers/developers have no direct control over what the buyer does with that copy. That's the entire basis for
used games.

( per 9th Circuit ).

Unless you have a court case specifically about reselling console games, the finding does not apply to console games.

You're making the same mistake people made about the original EU finding that licenses could be resold. Those court cases apply to application software. Games are not considered the same thing. The German courts threw out the case brought against Valve.
The EU courts have thrown out cases against eBook publishers.

Games are not considered software in the eyes of the court at this time. They're considered content.