Microsoft Makes Retail Versions Of Office Single Install

from the pushing-customers-away dept

Microsoft, long-standing hater of piracy, appears to have decided to step up their targeting system to place their own customers directly in their crosshairs. Your immediate reaction may be to blast the previous sentence as hyperbole, but you would be wrong to do so. Nothing else can explain what they are doing with their Microsoft Office 2013 retail software, which is to make it a single install license that is forever tied to one machine.

With the launch of Office 2013 Microsoft has seen fit to upgrade the terms of the license agreement, and it's not in favor of the end user. It seems installing a copy of the latest version of Microsoft's Office suite of apps ties it to a single machine. For life.

What does that mean in real terms? It means if your machine dies or you upgrade to a new computer you cannot take a copy of Office 2013 with you to new hardware. You will need to purchase another copy, which again will be tied to the machine it is installed upon forever.

For those of you who might not know, this is a completely new way of handling retail versions of Microsoft Office. Previous iterations still limited installs to a single user, but you had the ability to put the software on multiple machines. The reason that's necessary should be obvious, in how common it is for users within homes and offices to switch to new computers over a 3 or 4 year timespan. Most companies have a rotation process that could be murdered by this, assuming all of their users don't need the same version of Office (there are 3 different flavors), not to mention what happens when the PC you've had for two years does the system board dance of death, forcing you to replace it. In either scenario, retail buyers get to buy a whole new boxed product of Office, which costs anywhere between $100 and $400, again depending on the version. All of this, by the way, has been confirmed by Adam Turner of The Age.

Now, I realize not everyone works for a reseller like I do, so let me explain why this will universally piss everyone off and drive customers away from Microsoft Office entirely. We already mentioned the problems for the user above. In addition, while most sizeable companies traditionally have gone the Open Licensing route (which doesn't have install restrictions), small businesses often don't. Those small businesses number in the too-many-to-accurately-assess-ions, which means that instead of moving towards licensing or Office 365 (the likely goal of Microsoft) many customers may begin to explore alternatives, such as Google Docs, Open Office, and Libre Office. Not only would that cut into Microsoft's market share, but it could open a lot of eyes to those alternatives universally, which may then represent a threat to Microsoft's enterprise customers. I wouldn't suggest that most or even many larger companies would switch to one of the other suites, but market share certainly matters.

So, way to go Microsoft. You've made one of your most popular products more expensive and less useful at the same time, all because you want to push customers to Office 365. Which, were it compelling on its own merits, customers would be doing anyway.

Filed Under: microsoft office, single install
Companies: microsoft

Some Dell Shareholders Don't Know Much About This Leveraged Buyout, But They Know They Don't Like It

from the no-need-for-details,-just-be-angry dept

The Dell deal documents are out and they are short of juicy details; we'll have to wait for the proxy for details on things like just how much of a discount Michael Dell is taking on his shares or what exactly the terms of Microsoft's loan are. There is, though, the information that that loan will take the form of $2 billion of subordinated debt, and that the total cash equity investments from Silver Lake, Michael Dell and MSD will total $2.25bn. This seems pretty sensible; Microsoft is effectively writing half of the equity check, though for a fixed-but-subordinated return, plus emotional benefits or what have you. And if you're worried about how easily debt markets will swallow some $3.25bn of bonds, $5.5bn of Term B/C, and billions of assorted other secured financing,¹ which with $4bn of existing bonds brings Dell to around 4x total leverage, making $2 billion – almost half a turn – of the debt subordinated, long-term, and emotionally committed can’t hurt.

But for most of the fun stuff we’ll have to look forward to the proxy. And that isn't good enough for some people. Reuters reports that the first shareholder lawsuit over the deal has already been filed, one day after announcement, which I assume means it was in the works before the deal was announced. This sort of amazed me:

Some shareholders said they were angered by the lack of specifics about the deal, making it hard for them to determine if the price was fair. The company, which declined to comment on the lawsuit, had said the board had conducted an extensive review of its strategic options before agreeing to the buyout.

I would characterize myself as mildly saddened by the lack of specifics, but that's why I will wait until the proxy is out and then read the specifics. You know there's a whole section of the proxy explaining why the bankers thought the deal was fair, right?²

There’s nothing new here – as Reuters notes, "Almost every merger worth more $100 million prompts a shareholder lawsuit" -- but the speed continues to amaze. And it's becoming ever more a fact of life:

That’s from this depressing report, which also has a sad-comical list of 16 deals each with 15 or more lawsuits filed. (The tech industry averages 4.9 suits, so, y'know, look out for 3.9 more.)

You can sympathize a little. Management buyouts are of course all about bottom-ticking the stock price; management would be pretty dumb if they took the company private at its all-time high. Dell's various stakeholder communications -- all to the tune of "this will is the start of a whole new chapter for Dell, in which everything will remain exactly the same" -- make that pretty clear: the deal has little to do with operational changes and much to do with the fact that Michael Dell thinks that (1) Dell and (2) debt are both cheap right now.

But that's kind of the market, and the fact of life is that if shareholders think that $13.65 is too cheap for their shares, they can always vote the deal down. By all accounts this deal was pretty fully negotiated, so it seems unlikely that the lawsuit will reveal that Dell and Silver Lake would have coughed up an extra $1 a share if the board had just asked more aggressively. And it's no secret that Michael Dell thinks that his company is worth more than $13.65. Even if that hasn't been specifically disclosed yet.

Dell 8-K, Merger Agreement, Voting Agreement [EDGAR]
Dell Buyout Broken Down: Silver Lake Puts in $1.4 Billion [Deal Journal]
Dell Aims for Double-B Rating, Leverage Less Than 4x Ebitda [Deal Journal]
Dell investor sues to block founder’s leveraged buyout [Reuters]
Reasons to Be Suspicious of Buyouts Led by Management [DealBook]
Dell’s Talks Said to Break Up a Few Times Over Pricing [Bloomberg]

1. From the 8-K:

Each of Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank PLC, Credit Suisse AG and Royal Bank of Canada and, in some cases, certain of their affiliates (collectively, the “Lenders”) have committed to provide debt financing for the transaction, consisting of a $4 billion senior secured term loan B facility, a $1.5 billion senior secured term loan C facility, a $2 billion ABL facility, senior secured interim loan facilities consisting of a $2 billion first lien bridge loan facility and a $1.25 billion second lien bridge loan facility (or, alternatively, senior secured first lien and second lien fixed rate notes that would be issued in a high-yield offering pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933), a $1.9 billion term commercial receivables financing facility and a $1.1 billion revolving consumer receivables financing facility, each on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in a commitment letter dated as of February 5, 2013 (the "Debt Commitment Letter").

2. The answer is always along the lines of "because you paid us to think that," but still.

Other posts from Dealbreaker:

• BofA To Spend Mortgage Savings Telling Everyone How Not-Horrible It Is
• David Einhorn Wants Apple Shareholders To Vote On Voting On Issuing Preferred Stock
• Microsoft Will Take A Low Interest Rate On Its Dell Debt To Demonstrate Its Emotional Commitment

Filed Under: details, lawsuit, leveraged buyout, shareholders
Companies: dell, microsoft

Microsoft Sued Because It Overloaded Surface Tablet With Pre-Installed Apps

from the truth-in-advertising dept

Recently, people noticed that -- in classic Microsoft fashion -- its new 32GB Microsoft Surface tablet only had 16GB of free storage when you took it out of the box. Why? Because this is Microsoft and it loaded the damn thing down with pre-installed software that took up a ton of storage (including, of course, its own bloated tablet operating system, Windows RT). Competing tablets, including the iPad and various Android tablets, come with significantly more free space, even on models advertised as having the same storage. Microsoft has tried to play up the value of the pre-installed software, the fact that you can expand storage via a microSDXC card slot and that it offers 7GB of free "cloud" storage with the device. And, oh yes, you can also manually delete stuff and get back some space.

None of this was enough for one guy, however, as Andrew Sokolowski is now suing Microsoft claiming that Microsoft is misrepresenting the device. While he's seeking class action status, unlike many class action lawsuits that are all about money, it's actually nice to see that he's not seeking any money -- just asking Microsoft to stop misrepresenting the product.

I can't find the actual lawsuit on PACER yet, though I imagine it'll be up soon. On the whole, while I find it incredible (and so typically Microsoft) that Microsoft is selling the tablet loaded down with so much software, does that really require a legal response? The story is getting out in the press, and people must know that at least some of the tablets they buy have pre-installed apps on them. It seems like a situation where an informed consumer is likely to know that this is one of the downsides of buying the Surface, and it's not clear that Microsoft needs to be legally compelled to explain how much free space is on the device out of the box.

Filed Under: apps, bloat, class action, microsoft surface, preloaded, tablets
Companies: microsoft

Copyright Maximalism: Turning Satirical Works Into Ridiculous Reality

from the the-copyright-industries-hope-to-be-'satire-free'-by-2015 dept

Last week, we discussed Microsoft's patent filing on a content distribution system that counted heads and charged license fees accordingly. Utilizing the Kinect or some other unnamed technology, Microsoft had the beginnings of the copyright industries' wildest dreams: an opportunity to treat the public's living rooms like theaters and collect "admission" from every viewer.

Rick Falkvinge has amusingly pointed out that "prior art" exists for this "Content Distribution Regulator" -- in the form of a satirical piece published at BBspot (and covered here years ago, noting that it "hit too close to home") five years before Microsoft's filing.

Six years ago, a satire site wrote a story about how the copyright industry wanted more money if you invited friends to watch a movie in your living room. This notion has now been patented in new technology: automated headcounts coming to a living room near you, to enable new forms of restrictions. Apparently, the copyright industry takes six years to catch up with the very worst satire of it.

The satirical piece Falkvinge quotes deals with the MPAA trying to push through a bill that would allow it to take control of people's living rooms and treat them like theaters.

The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.

This paragraph in particular is eerily prescient:

The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.

Sounds exactly like Microsoft's idea, doesn't it? In fact, it sounds close enough that you could argue that it should invalidate the patent in question. Either way, there's no way the MPAA isn't hoping this comes to fruition. Sure, money can be made by producing new movies but it's so much simpler to charge people over and over for the same item. Various format changes over the years have resulted in some double- and triple-dipping. Digital distribution, combined with Microsoft's consumer-unfriendly device, takes rentals into "real money" territory and very possibly will take digital purchases in that direction as well. Here's a quote from the satire that may as well be real:

"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise."

We've heard wording like this before, where industry heads claim some irrationally high license fee is a "fair compromise." It's viewed as fair by licensing agencies because if they were able, they would have charged much, much more.

Falkvinge points out that those satirizing these industries may just be unwitting futurists:

So be careful when you write satire about the madness and delusions of the copyright industry (and that certainly isn't hard – more often than not, ordinary journalism will do fine). Either tread very carefully, or start a little stopwatch the next time you publish satire about what that parasitic, shameless industry will think of next.

This is a fact. The content industries' love of licenses (and the ability to charge multiple times for the same content) has made it into an easy punchline. Beyond the satire Falkvinge quoted are other examples demonstrating that your average citizen already recognizes the colossal overreach of these industries and the absurdity of the licenses connected to each form of artistic expression they cover.

Earlier this year, sportswriter Mike Tanier used public performance licensing (namely, the violation of these licenses) as the lynchpin for his plan to rid the NFL of replacement referees.

If the crowd at an NFL game sings "Hey Jude," television networks will be stuck broadcasting "Hey Jude" without the rights-holders permission. The sound editors are pretty good at obscuring the B.S. chant, but that only takes a little bit of white noise. Try editing away one of the most recognizable melodies in the world on live television. The broadcast will sound like it is coming from Venus. But if the NFL doesn't drown out the singing, someone big and powerful is going to show up at league headquarters in a suing mood.

When you've got sportswriters using aggressive licensing issues as a punchline, you know the it's reached critical mass. Not only is a sportswriter skewering performance rights organizations, the NFL's copyright paranoia, the Beatles' fierce grasp on its catalog and the overreaction of all these entities to "unlicensed" use, he also laying it out there confidently, expecting his audience to recognize the ridiculousness of it all without needing to resort to pages of footnotes and links to relevant legal information. It's obvious to everybody but the licensing agencies how utterly preposterous this all is.

Need another example of this common knowledge? Just recently, a piece at famous humor site McSweeney's recasted Gil Scott-Heron's famous phrase, explaining exactly why "the revolution will not be televised." Here's a few choice quotes from a much longer piece (all of it worth reading):

The revolution will not be televised due to our blackout policy. Because the revolution is taking place in your market, you will be unable to watch the revolution. Instead of the revolution, the classic Billy Bob Thornton/John Cusack film, Pushing Tin, will be televised.

The revolution will not be televised, but it will be available for streaming on Hulu.com seven days after the revolution takes place.

The revolution will not be televised because of a dispute between the revolution and DIRECTV. If you'd like to see the revolution, please call DIRECTV and demand that they put the revolution back on the air.

The revolution will not be televised, but if you have a cable subscription, you can log in to WatchRevolutions.com and use their authenticator to watch the revolution. Just provide your username and password, and you will have access to the revolution live, plus alternate angles, commentary, and the ability to share your login with up two more IP addresses.

With digital distribution, each iteration is subject to its own limitations and restrictions, just the way the content industries prefer it. As the shift continues in this direction, I would expect the major players to continue their march into brave new licensing schemes far surpassing satirists' most fevered dreams. They control the licenses they've "sold" their customers and have shown they have absolutely no qualms about abusing consumers in order to squeeze a few more dollars out of the content. Microsoft's filing turns what was originally a series of punchlines into a very plausible glimpse of the future.

Filed Under: copyright, drm, patents, satire
Companies: microsoft

Microsoft Patents TV That Watches Back, Counts Heads, Charges Admission

from the the-kinect-as-box-office/toll-booth dept

Here's a scenario for you: at some point in the the near future, you sit down in front of your Xbox 720/960/1080 and queue up a little video-on-demand from the Live Arcade selection of movies. You select a film from the menu and, before you can press the "Play" button, you are greeted with another menu giving you several price points, depending on how many people will be watching.

It sounds ridiculous, but Microsoft has applied for a patent covering a method that could make this a reality. Geekwire (via Slashdot) has the details on a patent application utilizing the Kinect (or its successor) to count noses for content providers.

The patent application, filed under the heading “Content Distribution Regulation by Viewing User,” proposes to use cameras and sensors like those in the Xbox 360 Kinect controller to monitor, count and in some cases identify the people in a room watching television, movies and other content. The filing refers to the technology as a “consumer detector.”

In one scenario, the system would then charge for the television show or movie based on the number of viewers in the room. Or, if the number of viewers exceeds the limits laid out by a particular content license, the system would halt playback unless additional viewing rights were purchased.

While it's a little early in the process to decide whether this is actually a pursuit Microsoft deems worthy of implementing or just some brainstorming put on paper, there's no denying that media companies and content providers would certainly not mind at all if an enterprising group could create something that would allow them to monetize every eyeball in the house.
 

While Kinect hackers have managed to crank out some very interesting uses of the body-tracking technology, it looks as though the in-house team has something a bit more devious up its collective sleeve. With this in place, PPV events could move to the Xbox to get the most bang for their buck during prize fights and MMA bouts. Movies rented through XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade) could rake in even more money by charging for each additional set of eyeballs, leading to Xbox owners treating their own living rooms like drive-ins and sneaking in additional viewers through piles of coats lying strategically on the floor.

Every use may not be as mercenary as the above scenario, however. The Kinect "Consumer Detector" could also prevent younger (or at least, shorter) eyeballs from being sullied by R-rated movies or, god forbid, porn.

The system could also take into account the age of viewers, limiting playback of mature content to adults, for example. This patent application doesn’t explain how that would work, but a separate Microsoft patent application last year described a system for using sensors to estimate age based on the proportions of their body.

Unfortunately, this will prevent pornstar midgets from viewing porn, but please, let's think of the children, each of whom represents a potential income stream.

The intro paragraph of the application lends itself to use for many different royalty collecting entities. In addition to the mentioned Pay Per View/Video-on-Demand possibilities, there's also performance rights organizations to be considered, because once you start talking licenses, they're never far behind.

A method of distributing content to a user, comprising: providing a selection of content available to the user; for each content, presenting a licensing option comprising associating a performance of the content with an individual user's consumption of the content at a display device; receiving a selection of one of the content and a license display option for said content; presenting the content to the display device if a number of user performances allowed for the content is equal to or less than the license option for which the selection is received; and monitoring the presentation of the content at the device to determine the number of users consuming the content during the performance.

This description, along with the methods listed below it in the filing, seem to indicate that your fully-paid and relatively peaceful viewing of a movie or prize fight could come to an instant halt and ask you to feed the meter any time someone new walks into the room. Or better yet, the new system could push already-strained friendships to the limit. "Oh, hey. I'd invite you in but I'm only got enough money for five people. Sorry, man. Maybe next time." AWKWARD.

But beyond the fact that this patent, if granted and implemented, will create a whole new level of rent-seeking across a wide swath of the "creative industries," there's also privacy issues that need to be addressed. Does any company, whether it's Microsoft or any of the upstream content providers, have the right to basically scan your living room for signs of life simply because they're the one licensing the content? For that matter, is it any of their business how many people you have watching a movie or listening to music in your private residence? It certainly never has been before, but with the advent of digital distribution (and its accompanying "licenses"), the attempts to wring every last dollar out of every bit of content will continue.

Will "buying for five but watching for ten" become the new "piracy?" Pursuing this angle isn't going to make Microsoft any friends, at least not in terms of customers. Consumers' first reaction would probably be to toss the "Consumer Detector," in which case it's not difficult to imagine it becoming a mandatory piece of equipment for certain applications. After that, for consumers concerned about this, their only option would be to toss the Xbox. I don't think Microsoft has enough confidence in the future of its console line to take that chance.

Or maybe it's got nothing to do with the console. Maybe it's some groundwork for the new "Cloud TV" service Microsoft inadvertently announced via a job posting.

 Microsoft is known for revealing additional product details in job postings, but a new round of listings has unveiled a brand new TV service. Described as a "Cloud-based TV platform," Microsoft is looking to hire engineers to build client applications for the service. LiveSide spotted several job postings related to Cloud TV recently that tempt job candidates to "get in on the ground floor of an ambitious new project."

Combining this with the above patent opens up the possibility that Microsoft could be crafting the content delivery system that watches you back, delivering headcounts to media companies and cutting off customers who violate the license terms by exceeding the limits declared by the copyright holder. At this point, the whole setup is full of easily exploitable holes. The odds of this coming to market are extremely low, if for no other reason than the potential backlash against any company involved. But it's not impossible, either. There are many rent-seekers in the content market and many of them have never shied away from a new source of income just because it might be unpopular. (At least, not at first. Many have walked back ideas due to public outcry, but they rarely seem to discard bad ideas before trying to implement them first.) Microsoft doesn't seem to share the same enthusiasm for angering the public to make incremental gains, but its design team has crafted a handy backdoor for a whole new level of IP enforcement—one that will only widen the gap between what consumers feel are acceptable limitations and what the content industries believe they should be.

Filed Under: charging, drm, patents, scanning
Companies: microsoft

Skype Accused Of Handing Out Private Info To Private Company

from the massive-fail dept

Over the last year or so, there's been concern about Skype's commitment to privacy following its acquisition by Microsoft. Now a situation in the Netherlands is serving to renew those fears. As highlighted by Slashdot, it appears that Skype handed over information on a 16-year-old user to a private information technology firm that was investigating some denial of service attacks against PayPal.

The security firm, iSIGHT, was hired by PayPal to investigate the attacks, and an employee of the company reached out to Skype seeking information about one user who he thought might be involved. And Skype coughed up the info -- including username, real name, email address and home address -- no questions asked. As the article notes, there was no court order or anything like that. Just a guy from a private company asking and Skype said, "sure, here's all the info."

There are questions about whether this move violated some European privacy directives. At the very least it seems clear that it violated Skype's own policies, which include not providing customer data unless required by law, or if official law enforcement is involved. In this case, neither thing is true. One hopes that this is just a one-off mistake by Skype, but it's worrying nonetheless.

Filed Under: ddos, investigation, netherlands, private info
Companies: microsoft, paypal, skype

Windows 8's Arbitrary App Certification Rules Could Block Skyrim And Other Huge Games

from the arbitrary-guidelines-are-the-best dept

We have already mentioned that some game developers were having a hard time accepting Windows 8 as a viable gaming platform. The primary concern is with Microsoft's insistence on walling off its Metro UI and accompanying Windows Store. When a distribution system is walled off, new restrictions come along that limit the type of content that can be made available. As application and game developers learn more about the restrictions Microsoft plans to implement, their concern is growing.

Take for instance the recent discovery that Microsoft plans to limit the games made available through its Windows Store and Metro UI. In a broader piece on what a closed Windows 8 platform means for developers, Casey Muratori highlights one of the strict and ultimately contradictory restrictions on game content. Using the 2011 Game of the Year, Skyrim, as a hypothetical Windows 8 candidate, Casey asks the question, would it be allowed on the Windows store and Metro UI.

Because no software can ship on this future platform without it going through the Windows Store, the team that built Skyrim would have to send it to Microsoft for certification. Then Microsoft would tell them if they could ship it.

Do you know what Microsoft's answer would be?

I do. It would be "no".

This is not speculative; it is certain. Skyrim is a game for adults. It has a PEGI rating of 18. If you read the Windows 8 app certification requirements you will find, in section 5.1:

"Your app must not contain adult content, and metadata must be appropriate for everyone. Apps with a rating over PEGI 16, ESRB MATURE, or that contain content that would warrant such a rating, are not allowed."

And that's the end of it. No Skyrim for the Windows Store, unless of course the developers go back and remove all the PEGI 18-rated content.

Unfortunately, Casey does not highlight the contradictory nature of this arbitrary rule -- what if a game has both an M rating by the ESRB and an 18 rating by PEGI, as Skyrim does. What will Microsoft do? Will it block the game entirely, region-restrict it to only ESRB regions or make an exception to its own rule and allow it for all the world? These are the kinds of questions that frustrate developers. Apple has had its fair share of arbitrary enforcement of content restrictions and you would think that Microsoft would at least attempt to learn from that example.

To further highlight the problem with this restriction, Casey lists four games that are in competition to be 2012's Game of the Year. Of those four games, none would be allowed on Windows 8 for the same reason, they got an ESRB M rating and a PEGI 18 rating. Microsoft has set itself up to exclude some of the best selling games of the future. Hardly a way to attract the support of developers.

Filed Under: certification, closed platforms, games, restrictions, windows
Companies: microsoft

Xbox DRM Punishes More Paying Customers And Actually Restricts Purchasing Options

from the fighting-bad-ideas-with-worse-software dept

Publishers are still hanging on to DRM despite example after example of how it does little more than annoy or harm paying customers. Why would you purposely annoy those throwing money your direction? To fight off a few pirates? Is it worth it? Most DRM is cracked and discarded within hours of a game's debut and yet, companies hold onto the crippling code, assuming that a small dent in piracy is worth the fallout from hundreds of pissed off customers venting their rage all over the internet.

Some of the most pernicious forms of DRM take the form of "online services" which require a unique login and account before anything can be done gamewise. Under the auspices of "convenience," software companies have managed to lock down access to purchased games, reserving the right to do whatever they want with the software, thanks to broadly written Terms of Service and, for console manufacturers, binding arbitration "agreements."

Over at Medium Difficulty, another gamer is dealing with DRM, as implemented by Xbox Live.

The particular set up for us to play three player horde mode, with system link, in the same house led to our first transgressive living room. Two TVs was wrong, but it felt so right. Gears of War 3 came out and we continued to enjoy our set up, especially since friends could also join over Xbox Live. For our non-nuclear unit, it was the golden age of multiplayer. Then the Mass Effect demo dropped with included MP. While I know we might be in the minority, we found it, and still do, a pretty enjoyable experience. But we hit a hiccup: we couldn’t split screen the multiplayer. There is no couch multiplayer for Mass Effect 3.

So we did what any reasonable modern family with disposable income would do: we bought a second Xbox. And honestly? There’s no going back. Couch co-op is not a guarantee anymore. Xbox Live has done wonders for online console gaming, but it has made a local co-op a second priority in some instances. There are enough games that do not support local co-op, and even more that do not support both local and online at the same time.

So far, the outlay for Microsoft products, at the very minimum, includes two Xboxes. Then there's the fact that two avid gamers share the same living space, meaning that the outlay for software is much larger than your typical "complaining basement dweller." (The preceding is the sort of dismissive wording often deployed by DRM defenders in an effort to make a very real problem sound like some loser's overwrought drama. No one falls for it anymore, but it still makes frequent appearances in comment threads and forums.)

First, the co-op problem. Not really a DRM issue, but the next one definitely is:

Our second Xbox came with Fable 3, which is yay! but it also introduced us to the problems of owning two Xboxes. DRM is a real pain in the ass... We would go to play our Fable 3 campaign on one machine and be told that we couldn’t use the DLC, even though, you know, the code was in the box sitting on top of the machine. Without that DLC, you cannot load a saved game.

Because DLC (downloadable content -- ranging from small add-ons to standalone games) gets assigned to the Xbox it was purchased on and the player's Gamertag (which makes sense), but is a problem when attempting to make sure your DLC shows up on both consoles. Microsoft's rationale is simple: prevent users from going from Xbox to Xbox with their Gamertag and downloading DLC (and standalone games) onto the drives of non-paying gamers.

But this rationale doesn't do much for households with multiple consoles who most likely aren't going to buy a unique copy of DLC (much less full games) for each Xbox in the house. Since the games can't be played at the same time (with one disc and say, two or more Xboxes), it would make sense (from the consumer's perspective) to be able to transfer the DLC (especially if you can't even load a saved game without it) from console to console.

Also bear in mind that purchasing full games via XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade) ties that game to that particular Xbox if the "wrong" Gamertag is used.

For example: I purchased TellTale’s Walking Dead Episode 1. I enjoyed it a great deal. When episode 2 came out, Meg thought she would be a kind and thoughtful spouse and purchase it for me. This was apparently not the Microsoft-endorsed thing to do. Months later, I still haven’t been able to actually play the second episode. I have to either buy it again, or play it on another system. Which is dumb.

Thinking that these limitations could be worked around by using a Family Account (you know, to make sure all of your family members can access the same DLC/games), the author set one up only to find that Microsoft's definition of "family" is rather bizarre.

We set the account up under Meg, then gave me all the permissions that any adult would want on his game console, and went about our gaming business. That was until one day when I went to purchase something from Live and realized that, from Xbox LIVE’s perspective, I was not an adult at all. I could not add points to my account. This wasn’t a setting in our family account. Nope, only one member of the family can add points to their account. If I want points to buy something, Meg has to give me an allowance. I’m not joking, that is the word in the interface. An allowance.

Nice. A system that treats grownups like children and everyone like thieves and at no time approaches the reality of today's gaming market. Instead, it sets up a series of intricate hoops that must be navigated before DLC can move from machine to machine.

Context: Meg’s Xbox is the new version, so black, and mine is the old white one.

Prerequisite: Have both gamertags saved on a USB stick. This allows you to log in to any Xbox without transferring your gamertag or recovering it from Live.

1. Log in to black Xbox with Meg’s gamertag.
2. Go into Family Settings.
3. SELECT GRANT ALLOWANCE.
4. Instead of using the default payment options, because I don’t want to charge her credit card, I select my credit card from the list of her payment methods.
5. Purchase a number of points.

Info: You can add 500 points or in 1000 point increments.

Let's just break in here for a moment and roll our eyes at the "point" system which handily turns actual money into useless Xbox Fun Buxx. Further eye rolling will ensue after step 6.

6. After the points have been added to Meg’s account, I grant them to my account.

Additional info: You can only grant points in increments of 400. Thanks for the convenience.
Remember: Most DLC on Xbox Live is in neither 500 or 400 point increments. I know what’s happening here, Microsoft.

Fun stuff. This sort of plan always leaves a gamer's "wallet" either short a few hundred points or with no way to bring the account down to 0. Microsoft loves this, just like many companies love gift cards. More often than not, the card is discarded with some spare change on it. Not enough for one person to keep, but thousands of leftover virtual coins soon adds up to real money. It's not completely Machiavellian but it still works out pretty well for the companies issuing the cards.

7. I then sign in to my account on the black Xbox, purchase what I wanted and download it.
Result: Now, the DLC is available on Meg’s Xbox so that she can play it if she wants.

8. Turn off the black Xbox, and then log in to the white Xbox with my account and download/transfer whatever I bought.
Result: I can play the DLC on my Xbox, and Meg can play it on her Xbox.

Please note: She cannot play the DLC on my Xbox.

That's a whole lot of steps for a paying customer to jump through just to make sure someone doesn't run off with some free DLC. If you and your family members are taking turns playing something that requires DLC in order to load a save, it would make more sense (in Microsoft's eyes) to skip buying a console(s) from it and just schedule some time in front of the only Xbox. That scenario is whole lot likelier than hoping its DRM scheme will be obtuse enough to force multiple gamers with multiple consoles under one roof to purchase individual copies for every Xbox. Microsoft may consider that to be the "right" or "moral" choice, but I can guarantee you the consumer doesn't.

Last word to "CPG," the author of this piece:

I shouldn’t have to set up charts to figure out what DLC is on what machine, especially when we are on a family account that actually restricts my ability to purchase DLC.

We’re a modern family, geared towards gaming. We’re publishers’ target market – and if we’re not, we will be soon. They need to start thinking ahead.

 

Filed Under: customers, drm, punishing customers, xbox
Companies: microsoft

Microsoft Sends Google A DMCA Notice... To Block Microsoft's Bing Search Engine

from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept

Ah, bogus DMCA notices that you just can't make up. TorrentFreak has a good article highlighting a completely bogus DMCA notice from Microsoft (sent by one of its partners on its behalf) that tries to take a bunch of legitimate news sites out of Google's index, on the mistaken claim that they violated Windows 8 copyrights. But, even more ridiculous is an aside mentioned in the article, that some other DMCA notices appear to target Bing, Microsoft's own search engine. Indeed, they're not that hard to find. If you look up DMCA notices asking Google to remove links to Bing, Microsoft shows up quite a bit: If you dig down, you can find out the specifics, such as this DMCA notice sent on May 23 of this year, sent by Marketly on behalf of Microsoft, supposedly to stop the infringement of Office 2010. It lists out 997 URLs that it wants Google to take out of its search results, including a link to a Bing search. Given that Microsoft owns Bing... you'd think it would remove that search first. What's even more amusing is that if you go to the link in question on Bing... it's still there.

Yes, this is yet another silly move by an automated system, but it once again highlights some of the ridiculousness involved in DMCA takedowns for search results.

Filed Under: automated, bing, copyright, dmca, takedowns
Companies: google, microsoft

Two Years Later, Lobbying By Microsoft & IBM Creates Loophole In New Zealand To Allow Software Patents

from the tried-to-wait-it-out? dept

You may remember a few years ago there was some controversy down in New Zealand over software patents. There was a plan to explicitly outlaw software patents, but then someone accidentally leaked the fact that big tech companies (mainly US ones, like Microsoft and IBM) had lobbied hard against outlawing software patents, leading to a change in plans. After that leak resulted in more public outcry it was claimed that the proposal would go back to outlawing most, but not all software patents. Well, it seems that the supporters of the big US software firms were just biding their time. As various reports are noting, more than two years after all of this, proposed amendments have finally been made to the bill, and they appear to create a massive loophole for software patents, which certainly seems to reflect the desires of Microsoft and IBM's lobbying efforts in the country. One hopes that further public outcry will finally make Kiwi politicians realize that they don't have to do what American companies demand...

Filed Under: lobbying, new zealand, patents, software patents
Companies: ibm, microsoft