A Question of Ownership: Was Microsoft Too Ahead of Its Time?

Netflix, iTunes, LoveFilm and Steam; all of these services have become hugely successful in the last decade and they all have something in common – they are all products of the digital age. Physical, disc based media has become increasingly unprofitable in recent years due to this revolution, with many high street experts citing the downfall of retail chains being a direct result of the rising popularity of digital media.

By now, we’ve all heard of the increasing struggles companies like HMV and GAME have had just staying afloat in an ever changing consumer society, yet, in true games industry fashion, events have unfolded very differently for the world of video games.

Without ever quite realising, the internet has recently become ablaze with heated debates and discussions on this very subject and whether you loved or loathed the now defunct policies that Microsoft had implemented with the Xbox One, the discussion value of such business practices are just too pertinent to pass up on.

In case you’ve never used a computer before, (in which case we would wonder why a games website would be your first choice of destination) Microsoft recently lifted the curtain on their successor to the Xbox 360 in full splendour at this year’s E3 conference to muted cheers.

The cold reception wasn’t due to the controversial price or because of the game line-up, but to the questionable restrictions that the multi-billion pound company had placed on its new device. DRM (digital rights management) and used game restriction policies were both met with almost universal groans across cyberspace and within a week of the potentially catastrophic announcement, Microsoft had no choice but to do a complete U-turn on their previous standpoint.

Whilst many congratulated the company for backing down on such restrictive policies, there is still an air of disappointment around the software giant for even considering such changes in the first place.

So what does this have to do with digital media you may ask? The answer is rather cryptic; but everything...sort of. The gaming public will all have their own reasons for why or why not in regards to their leanings towards either Sony or Microsoft when it comes to next-gen purchases, but one thing for sure is that people clearly aren’t ready for a completely digital console.

Whilst the Xbox One was never going to be as such, the ditched features were certainly a first step towards a non-physical world of digital entertainment, an attempt to test the water if you will.

DRM is certainly not a new concept, and companies such as Ubisoft have attempted to utilise it in the past to varied success. Most publishers attribute its inclusion to be an attempt at hindering piracy which, whilst agreeable in theory, never quite works without hurting the consumer in the process.

However, no console has ever implemented such a function, and the requirement of having to be connected to the internet almost indefinitely for a device to even function is presumptuous at best. Whilst other digital media obviously requires an internet connection to function, sites like iTunes and LoveFilm only require you to be online to download your purchases and once they are saved to your device they are yours to do with as you see fit (within the confines of the law obviously).

How this would have differed to the Xbox One is actually rather startling. The purchase of a title for the console would allow you to play it sure, but technically only under certain conditions. If you were to ever lose your internet connection for prolonged periods of time (and let’s face it, this does happen more often than once in a blue moon), you would be effectively locked out of using your own property until you had the chance to yell abuse down the phone at your internet service provider.

Just as controversial was Microsoft’s original intent to control the used game market, which proved to be just as much of a deal breaker as DRM functionality. It’s hard to believe that the company didn’t have the foresight to at least anticipate some form of backlash against the move, but one can only assume the company would ride out what they thought would be a small minority. Either way, it’s easy to see why consumers have been vocal with their discontent, as Microsoft was essentially robbing customers of consumer rights.

In theory, this would have prevented users from selling or even lending software they had paid for to anyone without the recipient first paying a discretionary fee to the publisher. Whilst commendable, no other second hand market in the world today pays the original creator. When you sell a second hand car, the manufacturer won’t see a single penny of that sale.

Microsoft’s attempt to implement the foundations of a digital console have ended in disaster, so why is Valve’s Steam service so successful? Well for starters, it isn’t a console...yet. Like the examples provided at the beginning of this article, Steam is a service that isn’t restricted by hardware.

Physical copies of games on PC are becoming increasingly scarce, as the majority of publishers flock to Steam to release their products without the cost of printing and stocking discs. Without these costs, the price of games has become considerably cheaper as a result. But the question of ownership rears its ugly head even where Steam is concerned. Whilst games purchased from the service have the ability to be played offline, the questions of what would happen if Valve were to close its doors still remain. As the majority of games purchased from the digital store need to be played through its client, you have to wonder what the difference is between Steam and Microsoft’s discarded policies.

Perhaps the most likely answer is price. Although a high-end gaming rig is likely to set you back as much as four figures, the announced price of the Xbox One could easily be put towards a more than adequate PC. On top of this, unlike Microsoft’s plans to require a mandatory online check-in, games purchased on Steam can be played in offline mode if players so wish. Even EA’s Origin service and Ubisoft’s Uplay allow its customers to purchase, then download games to play them without requiring an internet connection. Ubisoft, in the past, has come under fire for requiring DRM for specific games, but the majority are playable without such restrictions.

In light of this, you have to ask why people would buy a potential £60 game with so many restrictions when the same game could be purchased for half the price that has no internet requirement after purchase and installation.

As an early adopter of the original Xbox and its subsequent successor, the news of Microsoft’s original intentions unsurprisingly made me a dissatisfied consumer of their products. Whilst I can understand that Microsoft had good intentions with its DRM and used game policies, I simply don’t think consumers of physical games are ready for such drastic changes.

Whilst the PC community may now be fully digital, ownership is almost unquestionably in the hands of the consumer and with the success of Steam and other services affording players the freedom of choice, I can only hope Microsoft haven’t given up on the concept entirely.

There’s clearly a fine line of digital ownership and restriction these consumers are willing to accept, but where that line is drawn is still up in the air. There is one thing companies can definitely learn from this debacle in the future though. Undisputable consumer ownership is of utmost importance to gamers and if you try to restrict or control a product from the public, things will turn very sour indeed.