I think that's only for the console.

in the EU following a recent case digital purchases can be re-sold

I thought so too, but maybe it was referring to the XBox unit itself, maybe for firmware updates and whatever.

And by the way, nowadays Steam requires you to authenticate online every two weeks. The offline mode is not permanent (anymore, at least). I understand Valve wants to remain hush-hush about it so that they can change it at will in the future too.

At least MS had courage to give the full picture when they reported about the original DRM system.

Because of the processes involved - DRM-free media involves a step where the ownership of the product is duplicated then necessitated a step of deletion of the ownership of the first party. From a practical level there is no way to guarantee proper deletion of the seller's ownership and from a philosophical/legal level the initial duplication of ownership is not covered by first-sale doctrine (the basis which the US court decided against re-selling DRM-free iTunes mp3s in the US).

Account-based DRM systems solve both of those problems trivially. Ownership of the game is transferred, not duplicated because the moment one account is authorized to play the game, the other account is de-authorized. Thus even having the game files on the computer does nothing for the seller because that computer cannot play the game (if there is a temporary offline mode a la Steam that computer might be able to play for some time, but typically not long). Now they could chose to crack before selling, but that is no different than ripping a CD/DVD before selling. Thus an account-based DRM-system solves the practical and theoretical issues of transferring ownership of a digital product like a physical product in a way that a DRM-free system cannot duplicate.

yes I know - that what I wrote in the linked post :)

Needless to say this is a win for consumers. I am happy that Xbox fans can now enjoy their pastime without all the DRM restrictions.

I imagine the reversal was because of the Military panning the console, and Jimmy Fallon getting a roaring applause about the PS4 having no DRM.

And how would you resell DRM-free digital media? :) If you have a way that does not involve the duplication of ownership step then you would be my hero - but I see no way around it sadly.

Well with the Xbox so far having better exclusives this is good news
Now we just need price drop and better specs for it to console wise match PS4

You misunderstood me. What I meant was that Gamestop has a lot of power over publishers, they sell a stunningly high percentage of all new game sales. They used this power to prevent a real Steam-like system from taking place on consoles, and the middleground "sell your license" thing is what caused the 24 hour check and all that jazz.

Whether people would have accepted a flat-out Steam-like method is anyone's guess, but they certainly did on our platform.

Well my issue with DRM is game preservation, and I dislike used sales, so I can't agree here.

Well its not my job to make such a system, just like its not my job to develop a distribution network. Its just that companies are greedy and would not develop a system that causes money loss for them, just like xbone had before this recent announcement. They only wanted to give the customers digital content thats its not tradable so they could sell more copies. If you have media on a physical disc than you can share it with your friends and MS doesnt make more $$ cause the other 3-5 or more friends can use the disc you gave them.

I think we both tried the same thing and talked cross-wise. :) I understand and agree.

I think DRM does not necessarily have to mean a loss of game preservation (though it certainly means that now I grant you). But changes on that front would have to involve digital consumer protection laws that don't yet exist. :)

Used games I feel are like any used item - an important consumer right that even if I don't take advantage of I would be very leery of losing entirely (especially not if the only option still has DRM). Again, I believe in DRM-free stores like GOG, but I don't think also having a DRM-store which gives the consumer the right-to-resell would be bad for the market, quite the opposite in fact.
Well that's the thing though a DRM-free digital store that also allows used games is difficult to construct. I can't think of a way of doing it that is actually legal (and I mean actually follows the first-sale doctrine as written which gives us our right to resell games). A DRM-account based system that allows resale is however easy to construct (theoretically) - GMG does a limited form of it. Something's only a problem if there is a solution. The only solutions I can come up with are: 1) physical media which can be resold, 2) DRM'ed media which can be resold, and 3) DRM-free media which can't (unless someone smarter than I of which there are plenty can figure out how to do it). (I use resold to cover all manner transaction including trading, loaning, etc ...)

I disagree on principle. The reason steam can do it's sales is because the publishers treat the PC market as second class. How many years ago was it that all the developers and publisher cried piracy, and dwindling profits. And now of course because of their abandonment indies come in and pick up the slack, and run with it. It's the same reason GOG exists.

Even though most big multi-platform games were running on PC at E3, if the market was important to them they would be praising the platform as the second coming. No instead it was the Xbox One and PS4 that are going to lead us into the next generation of gaming. Because only they can handle titles like EA's new sport's franchises that can also be played on the 360 and PS3...

Steam sales exist on only one console, and its behind a paygate called Playstation Plus. And even then it can rare. But this idea that in an all digital console world, games will cost less than $60 is a pipe dream.

DRM wouldn't harm game preservation if it was patched out eventually all the time, but companies have shown very little interest in doing so. The rare examples of it being officially removed (Alpha Protocol, Far Cry 2, etc.) pale in comparison to the overwhelming number of titles that still require it.

It's frankly painful to install a 6 year old game like Mass Effect and still have to manage my 5 SecuROM installations. Not to mention of course that patches to keep games running well on modern systems basically do not exist. GOG's business model is about paying for such a thing, after all, and can only be done when licenses and rights are all set up nicely and modern, which isn't anywhere near always the case.

Basically if companies showed more interest in preserving their games I would show less concern about DRM ruining it. On PC it isn't as big a deal because open platform means the community can take care of it, and this is why I go ahead and buy Steam games, but I would never support DRM on a closed system.

I have to agree with C17. When Steam first released and digital sales were first gaining traction, we as a collective gaming community said "We'll buy digital goods as long as the price is less and/or we get more for our money."

That didn't happen. Many, many people, myself included, gave into digital sales and used to pay full price for games. It wasn't until a few years later in the digital distribution world that VALVe flexed its muscle and started regular, hugely discounted sales, promising what we'd asked for in the beginning.

This wasn't VALVe's fault, they had to wait until they had the political and financial authority in the pc gaming industry to start these sales. And it wasn't until they did so, that other digital distributors started to have regular sales as well.

A full-priced digital game is 99.9% of the time the same price as its physical equivalent, is my point. It's only through huge sales in the digital circle that we get the prices we were sort of promised when it was started.