Archive for May, 2013

Weekly News Roundup (26 May 2013)

Sunday, May 26th, 2013

You’d think that with their swarms of PR people, Nintendo and Microsoft (and previously, Sony) could have managed this week better (and Sony previously with their so called PS4 launch). Maybe it’s just me, but there seems to be an air of desperation surrounding the major players in the gaming industry. Everyone’s in a rush to launch something, anything, or they’ve become overprotective of their assets. Perhaps signs of an industry struggling with the quickly changing landscape?

As you’ve guessed, this edition of the WNR is fairly gaming oriented for obvious (and not so obvious) reasons. Let’s get started …

CopyrightDick f***in’ move. That’s how someone on Twitter described Nintendo’s copyright craziness this week, when the troubled gaming company decided it would be a great PR move to start claiming copyright on any Let’s Play gameplay videos featuring games owned by the company.

Let’s Play (LP) videos are very popular with the gaming crowd, and creators of these videos have so far received the support of gaming companies, or at the very least, no resistance. But Nintendo’s copyright move will now force ads to be displayed on any LP videos featuring footage of Nintendo games, and also gives the company the power to block videos it deems unacceptable.

ZombieU on Wii U

Nintendo’s copyright claims on Let’s Play videos seems very self-damaging

It’s unlikely that the Japanese company will do the latter, unless it wants to face the wrath of the Internet, but doing the former also disadvantages LP creators by taking away the small amount of revenue that allows new videos to be continually created. For Nintendo, the revenue earned from these videos will be of little consequence, especially if the Wii U’s losing run continues.

So while Nintendo is justified in submitting a copyright claim, doing so seems to bring no benefits, and a lot of long term pain for a company that is desperate to get the word out on its new console. LP videos are great promotional tools, and Nintendo should be doing everything they can do ensure people continue to create videos for their games, but this move does the opposite of this.

From being oversensitive about copyright to being not sensitive enough. Or at least that’s what the RIAA is accusing Google of, as it wants the search engine giant to do more to stop infringing links showing up in search results, despite 20 million links already being removed so far.

Despite Google’s best efforts in making the DMCA takedown process as streamlined as possible, often at the expense of accuracy and due process, the RIAA says that Google should do more to make the process even simpler. Apparently, for every link removed via a takedown notice, many more will spring up in its place. It’s something that the RIAA has only now realised, although they could have asked me, or any of the other millions of people who knew this was always going happen, before their costly exercise in futility.

If beating a dead horse is not bringing results, there’s only one solution: beat it harder! Which is why the RIAA plans to use the currently ongoing Congressional review of the DMCA to lobby for changes to the DMCA takedown process. Under the RIAA’s fantasy version of the DMCA, they would only need to identify the content that is being infringed (eg. Mirrors by Justin Timberlake), the site that is doing the infringing (eg. downloadmp3sfree4all.com), and then it would be up to Google to patrol and investigate all links on the site and remove links automatically. So instead of submitting a takedown request, getting the link removed, and then for the same site to put up the same link on a different URL, and the whole process repeating itself, the RIAA would make Google do most of the hard work. And taking this a step further, the RIAA may not even have to tell Google which site is doing the infringing, after all, Google knows more about individual websites than the RIAA ever will. Hell, Google probably already knows which songs are being searched for, and who owns the rights to it, so why not just have Google become the RIAA’s copyright police?

Yes, it’s time consuming for rightsholders to identify infringing content and request action, but it’s hard for a very good reason: to prevent abuses of the process and prevent false positives. Only the rightsholder can tell whether something belongs to them or not, and not taking shortcuts prevents stupid and damaging things from happening. If anything, too many shortcuts are already being taken by rightsholders.

And even if you can invent a better, automated takedown system, don’t bet against innovative webmasters finding a way to automate the process of creating new links. It will still be an exercise in futility, just with higher volume of links being involved. At some point, one has to accept that preventing infringing content from appearing on the web, and preventing people from getting to them, is futile. The best and only solution is to do something to make people less interested in wanting to get them, by providing legal alternatives that render piracy pointless.

Gaming

The big gaming news of the week was of course Microsoft’s unveil of the Xbox One console. I won’t bore you with the full details, which you can read here, but it’s probably worth taking a bit of time to talk about the less sexy, and the far more controversial aspects of the console: the “always-on” DRM and digital licenses.

Xbox One

The Xbox One’s simplistic black rectangular box design has some jokingly comparing it to a VCR

Before we get to that, as a summary of the information so far, it appears that Sony’s console will be the more powerful console yet again, on paper. The Xbox One’s slower memory is offset by the inclusion of ESRAM, but the cost of this more complex architecture means that the Xbox One has to make do with a slower GPU. Sony gambled on the availability of cheaper GDDR5 memory, and they won, allowing more bucks to be spent on beefing up the GPU. Whether this will actually translate to better looking games on the PS4 is debatable. It will be up to how easy Sony will make it for developers to take advantage of the PS4’s hardware superiority, and whether developers will bother doing so. But based on the PS3 vs Xbox 360 examples, don’t expect night and day differences, if any (if anything, it’s probably easier to build for the slower system, which automatically ensures it will work fine on the faster system, as opposed to building for the faster system and having to downscale to the slower one – lowest common denominator).

The Xbox One’s HDMI pass-through is also interesting, even if it seems like a bit of an outdated way to do things. Apparently, you’ll be able to plug in your set top box to the Xbox One and it will overlay some kind of interface for it, with the IR blaster and HDMI-CEC working in conjunction to give you the impression that your Xbox One console is controlling your STB. An interesting concept if Kinect can be integrated to allow you to gesture/voice control non Kinect devices. It’s a transparent attempt by Microsoft to make the Xbox One the hub of your home entertainment, but those with receivers, or here in Australia where most TV viewing is done without a set top box, won’t find the function too useful. And for some reason, the whole pass-through thing reminds me of the RF modulator on the NES.

And now back to the less sexy.

First up, always-on DRM isn’t a requirement for the console, well not strictly speaking anyway. You don’t need a constant Internet connection to play offline games, or rather, the decision could be left up to the game publisher. This is because Microsoft will allow developers to tap into the power of their Azure cloud platform, and this could, for example, offload certain parts of the game’s processing to the cloud. This could then force games, even offline ones, to be only playable with an Internet connection, much like how EA/Maxis justified the “always-on” DRM for SimCity.

But the key point is that this will be completely optional, and whether this type of cloud gaming is even possible given the current state of the integration is questionable. Microsoft was keen to point out that even they don’t really have a clear idea how Azure can and will be used by game developers at this time. Let’s put this down to one to worry about in the future.

As for the actual DRM for games, there’s a whole lot of confusion about how it will work, because it will be different to what it is right now. Instead of licenses being attached to discs like currently, licenses will be digital in nature. Let me explain.

While games will come on Blu-ray discs, the disc themselves serve only as a delivery platform for the game content – the actual activation of the game will be done via your Xbox Live account, and game purchases will be tied to your Live account. So discs will no longer be used for authentication purposes, and once you install and activate your game, you can chuck the discs away (you can re-download the game any time from Microsoft). Think Steam games that come on discs, and you’re basically there.

So what happens when you want to take your game to your friend’s house? Right now, you just bring the disc and play. But with the Xbox One, you’ll have to bring the disc (to install the game, unless your friend has a super fast Internet connection that can download it really quickly), and log into your Xbox Live account to play the game (since the game is tied to your Xbox Live account). Again, think Steam and how you would play the game on a new computer – you’ll have to log into your Steam account first. If your friend wants to play the game using his or her account, then they’ll have to re-buy the game.

Offline play without online authentication, just like Steam, should also be possible. But it may be only for a limited time, with a re-connection/re-authentication required every 24 hours or something.

But what about trading and selling your old games? Steam won’t allow you to do it, but Microsoft do plan to implement some kind of system to allow digital games to be sold and traded, a system where they also take a cut of the transaction no doubt.

So Microsoft is definitely taking a different approach to game authentication. Sony has only said that they will not block used games, which is open to interpretation (since technically, the Xbox One doesn’t “block” used games either). From what we know so far, this puts a tick in the win column for the PS4 for those, like me, that hates DRM. But you know game publishers will just love Microsoft’s new system, especially if they get a cut of game sales/trades too. Whether that love translates into more exclusive content and features remains to be seen, but that’s probably Microsoft’s endgame.

Xbox One Forza 5

Gaming doesn’t seem to be Microsoft’s focus with the Xbox One launch, to the dismay of gamers

Looking at the three “next-gen” consoles and the launches, I have to say that all three have been fairly disappointing. My opinion is still that the Wii U is too little, too late (is it really that much better than the Xbox 360 or the PS3? It’s different, but that doesn’t mean better. I’m not even sure you can call it “next-gen”). Sony’s “PS4 launch without a PS4” was a joke really, and Microsoft’s Xbox One launch where they had all the answers except to the questions that people were actually most concerned about, makes both launches look amateur and rushed.

Why couldn’t Sony have shown us what the PS4 looked like at their launch? Why couldn’t Microsoft have waited until they’ve got all their DRM/used game trading/resell ducks lined up in a row before their launch, as opposed to the more and more cryptic answers to these fairly simple question? What couldn’t Nintendo produce a console that isn’t using a GPU based on a 4-year old design?

It’s a good thing though that E3 is only a couple of weeks away, but if Sony can’t reveal what a PS4 looks like by then, or if Microsoft can’t show us how game trading and resale actually works, then it’s just stupid and counterproductive.

But before then, tell us what you think of the three “next-gen” consoles in this poll, based on the information available so far.

An update to a story we covered here a couple of weeks ago. Despite heavy piracy and its unique DRM, the game Game Dev Tycoon has been successful enough for its developers for them to turn professional. Looks like their DRM stunt paid off, and to me, this actually proves that piracy can be leveraged to take advantage of its promotional qualities.

That’s pretty much it for this week’s gaming dominated issue. I will now log onto Netflix and impatiently wait until the (Pacific Time) clock strikes midnight to get my Arrested Development fix. See you next week.

Weekly News Roundup (19 May 2013)

Sunday, May 19th, 2013

Welcome to another edition of the WNR. I think I’m getting a little bit too excited about the new season of Arrested Development, coming exclusively to Netflix this time next week. I’ve got my unauthorised Netflix subscription up and running ready for the final countdown, preparing myself with a pre-launch binge watching of the previous season that I hope won’t turn out to be a huge mistake, and when May 26 rolls around, I’ll be ready to say “annyong” to all 15 glorious episodes of the new season.

Before I can do that, I’ll have to get through this week’s WNR.

CopyrightSo it’s “Hollyweb” here we come. The W3C this week formally approved the use of the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) to the HTML5 standard, which opens the door for DRM to be officially infected into HTML5 videos. EME won’t actually handle the DRM itself, but it’s a standardized framework that allows third-party DRM support.

The W3C says this is actually good for the open web because since DRM isn’t going away, the alternative would be an increasingly closed off web reliant upon proprietary systems to DRM’d video delivery (so basically what’s happening now). Even without EMEs, someone will find someway to squeeze DRM into HTML5, but the framework won’t be standardized or open or managed by the W3C. Or worse, DRM’d videos like Netflix would simply move off the open web, and be confined to the “walled gardens” of apps.

Hollywood: Stop DRM in HTML5

It’s Hollyweb, here we come, as HTML5 given the DRM go-ahead

Opponents of the move would point out that Flash and Silverlight, the two main proprietary systems used for DRM’d video delivery right now, are dying a slow death and a DRM-free HTML5 video standard would have forced a rethink on the whole DRM thing, for better or worse. But perhaps the W3C does have a point, in that the current climate would never allow DRM-free copyrighted videos to be distributed by Netflix, Hulu and others. If Flash and Silverlight officially dies or no longer works, and if DRM isn’t a viable option in HTML5, then just like the W3C predicts, we will lose the ability to use Netflix and Hulu and others via the web.

As expected, a lot of anger is being directed at the W3C, and the proponents of EME, Netflix, Google, Microsoft among others. But it’s important to remember that given a choice, none of these groups actually want DRM. Only Big Content is obsessed with DRM, and as long as they’re in the powerful position of being gatekeepers for the content we want, we will always have DRM. Let’s not forget who the enemy is.

And the enemy this week has been busy promoting its vision for Hollyweb, and how if you ignore the problems of DRM, unskippable ads, the arbitrary and fleeting nature of what is and isn’t available, and the sometimes high cost of it all, then there’s no way anyone should ever want to pirate. The MPAA this week launched a new website WheretoWatch.org to promote all the legal alternatives to piracy, providing a summary for most of the online based video services available today. It’s a slight change in tactics for the MPAA in their CRusade Against Piracy (CRAP™), designed to counter the argument that legal alternatives aren’t present.

Except that’s not the argument at all. The argument is that the legal alternatives, while definitely present, aren’t nearly good enough.

The problems? Content, for one. Netflix is probably the best, and certainly the most popular of the legal alternatives, but can you really honestly say that it has all the content that a typical web pirate would be looking for? I would actually say it’s the opposite, in that what Netflix has is all the stuff that pirates aren’t looking for. This isn’t a bad thing though, because due to the way BitTorrent transfers work, the “nobody wants to download” stuff are usually the ones that are quite hard to pirate as there just aren’t enough seeders normally. And sure, Hulu Plus has a lot of recent content, but that brings us to the second issue: ads.

WheretoWatch.org

Plenty of options, but none that will satisfy people like piracy will, even if you don’t consider the pricing discrepancy

Now, advertising is needed, that’s not a question. But when you have to sit through four 30-second unskippable commercial breaks for every 20 odd minutes of content, and when the ads are pretty much just the same set, then it gets boring rather quickly. And this is despite having paid a monthly subscription fee for content you could have recorded on TiVo for free.

And that’s only when the service you want allows you to pay for it in a standalone manner. Try and get HBO Go without a cable HBO subscription, and see how far you get.

For the content that you really want, cost then becomes the biggest obstacle. For example, the HD version of Life of Pi on the Australian iTunes costs $29.99, but you could have purchased the limited edition Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy edition last week for less than $27. Where is the sense in this, and is it Apple’s fault, or the fault of 20th Century Fox, the distributor of the film? The regional price gouging is not new, and even government sponsored investigations into this issue seems to have had no effect on this greedy practice.

But the biggest problem with WheretoWatch.org is the fact that it is almost completely useless for someone, like me, who isn’t in the United States. Almost all of the services listed are US only, and only a couple out of the rest are actually available in Australia (and usually with reduced content). The fact that the MPAA went to all this trouble and still managed to forget anyone who isn’t in the US is precisely the reason why piracy rates outside of the US are much much higher. The MPAA being a US based organisation can be used to excuse the US-centric nature of WheretoWatch.org, but this misses the point that the MPAA are also representatives of the owners and gatekeepers of the content that those of us outside of the US want to watch. I’m sure we would all pirate less in Australia is we had HBO, or Hulu, or Netflix, without having to go down the geo-unblocking route.

The problem with legal access will be a key point in a new proposed reform of France’s copyright laws. With HADOPI three-strikes proving to be entirely ineffective in stopping piracy and hugely unpopular, a new report titled Culture-Acte 2 aims to re-balance copyright law to address the shortcomings of HADOPI. While “three-strikes” will be kept under the recommendations, the report also calls for making films and TV shows to be available on on-demand services far quicker than the current 36-month average. There’s also suggestion of a smartphone/tablet tax of 1%, to help fund the reforms.

In my mind, the current piracy problems are almost entirely due a supply and demand issue. Demand is high, but supply is limited and restricted, all of it intentionally in order to squeeze more out of a particular market. This would normally work to keep prices and revenue high, but once piracy becomes an alternative supplier, one that’s super cheap as well, then the artificial supply limitations and restrictions only end up driving more “customers” to piracy. And due to DRM, lack of interoperability and other issues, the legal product is often inferior to the illegal version, compounding the issue further. There’s also a deep lack of understanding into the preferred method of consumption, with the “all-you-can-eat” nature of the web naturally encouraging consumers to want the same with their video consumption needs, but with the option usually unavailable for the content that people actually want, the new release content.

I’m not sure if the government can or should legislate how the demand should be met by supply, but punishing consumers for wanting something better doesn’t seem like the solution to me.

——

A new study has found that the game industry’s own reported piracy figures may be magnitudes higher than the real piracy rate. Shocking! What a total surprise!! [INSERT SARCASM SMILEY].

The new study by professors at the Aalborg University and the Copenhagen Business School found that while piracy rates were still quite high, 12.6 unique downloaders in a 3 month period, it wasn’t nearly as high as the 10 million downloads per month that the industry has been touting.

The discrepancy is easy to understand though. The industry figures are often released by groups, like the ESA, whose main mission is to publicize the severity of the piracy problem. This kind of self-interest promotes biased conclusions, intentionally or otherwise. This new study aims present the most objective figures so far independent of any industry interests.

It was also interesting to note that the top piracy countries were the likes of Romania, Croatia, Greece, Portugal and Hungary – looking at the availability and price of legal alternatives in these countries may yield further clues as to why so many people choose to pirate games in these countries. Hey, maybe all these countries need is their own version of WheretoPlay.org [ANOTHER SARCASM SMILEY]

Gaming

The April NDP report is out, reporting on US video game sales for the month. As has been the trend recently, the report doesn’t make good reading.

The Xbox 360 was the most popular console yet again, but having only sold 130,000 units (45% down compared to a year ago), it was hard for Microsoft to celebrate this fact. Even with only 130,000 units sold, it still represented 42% of current generation home based console sales, meaning the Wii, Wii U and the PS3 added up to maybe less than 180,000 units. No matter how you split this (I’d say 35,000, 45,000 and 100,000 respectively), it doesn’t look good for any involved.

Wii U

The Wii U is dying a slow death. Will new Zelda and Mario games help?

The Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 figures are forgivable, but the Wii U’s slow decline into obscurity is disheartening. EA, the biggest game publisher in the world, said this week that they did not have a single Wii U game in development, and one EA engineers even called the console “crap” and said that it was less powerful than the Xbox 360. It’s definitely not looking good for Nintendo at the moment.

Anyway, we’ll find out more about the Xbox 720/Durango/Infinity this week. Being the last of the “next-gen” consoles to launch, all eyes are on Microsoft to see if they can up the ante on what’s on offer from Nintendo (shouldn’t be too hard) and Sony (much harder).

On that note, we come to the end of this WNR. Hope you’ve enjoyed reading it. See you next week.

Weekly News Roundup (12 May 2013)

Sunday, May 12th, 2013

Happy Mother’s Day! Not sure how I can segue the holiday into a WNR mostly about BitTorrent and streaming, but this and this may help.

[SEGUE COMPLETED]

Let’s start …

Copyright

BitTorrent Inc this week chose to launch a strange attack on Netflix’s claims last week that BitTorrent traffic drops whenever Netflix enters a new market.

It was strange to me because it was clear that Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos was referring to piracy related BitTorrent traffic (responding to a question about piracy in an interview with Stuff magazine). That BitTorrent Inc chose to counter these claims seemed at first to me like they were inadvertently accepting the association between BitTorrent, the company, and piracy.

Sarandos said last week that “When we launch in a territory the Bittorrent traffic drops as the Netflix traffic grows”. BitTorrent’s VP of marketing Matt Mason this week criticized Sarandos’s statement for linking BitTorrent with piracy. Mason also disputed the relationship between BitTorrent and Netflix traffic, saying the latter was most likely due to a BitTorrent algorithm that reduces traffic flows during peak usage times, including during peak Netflix usage hours.

The first part of the criticism I can understand, although one would have to take Sarandos comments out of context for that confusion to arise, but the second part is a bit curious to say the least. Mason’s explanation seem to be talking about a BitTorrent traffic drop during peak usage hours, but surely whatever traffic pattern changes exists whether Netflix exists in the area or not, and even then, the algorithm will only manage to push traffic to non peak times. There would not be an overall traffic drop over a period of time, which seems to be what Netflix’s Sarandos is suggesting. To me, Sarandos is saying that less stuff gets transferred via BitTorrent once Netflix moves into a new area, and I fail to see how traffic management can lead to less stuff being downloaded. And since Sarandos was talking mainly about piracy related traffic, why is BitTorrent Inc injecting themselves right into the middle of this particular hornet’s nest?

Mason does agree with Sarandos’s suggestion that the best way to fight piracy is by giving people what they want. And if this were true, then piracy related BitTorrent traffic should drop. For Mason to suggest that it hasn’t would require you to completely disassociate piracy with the BitTorrent technology, and that isn’t reality no matter how you may want to spin it.

BitTorrent Logo

What’s in a name? BitTorrent the company, the protocol, or the acts of piracy?

Perhaps Sarandos’s statement was a bit clumsy, in that he chose to condense the phrase “piracy related BitTorrent traffic” to just “BitTorrent traffic”, and also offered nothing to back up his claimed relationship between Netflix and BitTorrent traffic. But it seemed like an off the cuffs kind of comment, that taken into context, shouldn’t really concern the likes of BitTorrent Inc.

It just seemed to me like BitTorrent Inc was budding into a conversation that wasn’t even about them, by loudly proclaiming that the conversation shouldn’t be about them. Mission un-accomplished?

While I understand the frustration of BitTorrent Inc in regards to the far too liberal use of the term BitTorrent (something I’m guilty of too here), which I talked about in the last issue of the WNR, I fear it may be too late at this stage to disassociate BitTorrent with piracy. It’s become a shorthand, rightly or wrongly.

But instead of taking on Netflix over a somewhat lazy use of words, and seemingly agreeing and disagreeing with Netflix’s anti-piracy credentials at the same time, BitTorrent Inc should just keep on pushing the “legal content via BitTorrent” agenda, and continue to support companies like Netflix in their attempt to fight piracy the right way. It’s too late in the game to be this oversensitive about wording.

Along with Netflix, Spotify has probably done the most to stop piracy. But a flaw in the Spotify web player was exploited last week to full effect when a Chrome browser add-on called Downloadify allowed every song in Spotify’s 20 million strong catalog to be downloaded without DRM.

The add-on was promptly removed by Google, and Spotify soon fixed the flaw, but not before more than 16,000 songs were downloaded.

The flaw, which apparently had cached songs being unencrypted, had been there for at least five or six months. I do wonder what it means when it took so long for the flaw to be exploited, and that the Spotify web player was essentially DRM free all this time with not a worry in the world.

Also note that for the hardcore pirates out there, it’s still possible to record what’s being played by Spotify and “rip” it that way. Only those most serious about pirating would probably attempt it though, because, I mean, why bother?

Gaming

As we get closer to the official May 21 launch event for the Xbox 720, codenamed ‘Durango’, and possibly actually named Xbox Infinity, more concrete information about the console is being leaked week by week. This week, we have the story of an internal Microsoft email sent to all employees working on the console that seem to allay fears that the console would feature a much hated ‘always-on’ DRM system.

The leaked email specifically addresses the issue and says that the console will be “tolerant” of today’s Internet connectivity issues, which means that activities such as “playing a Blu-ray disc, watching live TV, and yes playing a single player game” will not be subject to any Internet connection requirements.

Phew.

Microsoft Blu-ray Drive

After years of a rumored Blu-ray drive add-on for the Xbox 360, the next Xbox may finally get Blu-ray movie playback

To be honest, I never believed that ‘always-on’ DRM was on the cards. Sure, other leaked documents and rumors talk of an ‘always on, always-connected’ console, but it always sounded more like the description of a quick stand-by mode that also featured support for things like background updates. The truth of the matter is that console piracy isn’t so serious yet that ‘always-on’ DRM will be required at the expense of making gamers angry, certainly not for a new console whose actual copy protection system may take a while to be broken.

As a bonus, the leaked email also seem to confirm not just the use of Blu-ray discs for the Xbox 720, but the inclusion of Blu-ray movie playback, which would be a great upgrade to the Xbox 360’s media playback credentials. Unfortunately, another rumor suggests that this very inclusion is the reason the Xbox 720 will fail to meet its previously predicted 2013 launch date, instead being delayed until 2014 due to Blu-ray licensing troubles. Apparently, Sony has an exclusivity agreement in place for console based Blu-ray playback at the moment.

This could spell trouble for Microsoft, since timing is everything. Microsoft knows, that despite the Red Rings of Death problems with the early Xbox 360, the Xbox platform wouldn’t be anywhere near what it is now if Microsoft hadn’t released the console a year earlier than its competitors.

The same doesn’t look to be true for the Wii U unfortunately. Despite also releasing a year earlier compared to the PS4 and Xbox Infinity, I fear that when the three consoles are compared, the Wii U will look a lot more dated than just a year. I know graphics shouldn’t be that important, but it’s the easiest way to compare multi-platform titles, and the minor improvement that the Wii U has over existing consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360 means its early release has no positive effect. At its time of release, the Xbox 360 was head and shoulders above the likes of the GameCube and the PS2, and Nintendo needed to do something similar if they really wanted to get back part of the hardcore gaming market.

And the sad part is that poor early sales will destroy any slim chance the Wii U has in going against the PS4 and Xbox Infinity. A low user-base will be enough to convince some developers to skip the Wii U entirely when it comes to developing multi-platform titles, which means a lack of new titles, which means even lower sales. This vicious circle is extremely dangerous, even with Nintendo’s good track record in terms of first-party titles, and the company needs to do everything it can to ensure developers continue to make stuff for the Wii U (even if it means big financial payoffs, a strategy that Sony and Microsoft are no strangers to).

That or dramatically cut prices.

And I think that’s it for the week. See you in seven.

Weekly News Roundup (5 May 2013)

Sunday, May 5th, 2013

A week after the start of my combined Netflix and Hulu Plus experience, it has already changed the way I consume media. So much so that I actually rang up my cable provider this week and reduced my subscription to a cheaper package, since it turns out that apart from live sports, I’ve not watched a single thing on cable since I started my week’s trial. I also realised that there were tons of DVDs and Blu-rays that I probably would have never bought if I had Netflix all this time. Not to say that Netflix has all of the movies I want, far from it, but there were definitely discs that were impulse buys for me, including ones I purchased more than two years ago and have yet to watch, that could have been better enjoyed via Netflix.

Interestingly enough, there are a couple of Netflix related news this week as well. Let’s get started.

Copyright

If there’s one thing that really confuses Hollywood, it’s the distinction between BitTorrent, the transfer protocol, BitTorrent, the company, and the BitTorrent that people refer to when they’re downloading tons of pirated movies and TV shows. To Hollywood, the three are synonymous.

Which is why by following the same reasoning, Hollywood should also declare HTTP to be illegal and “evil”. Because equating the three separate entities/acts above would be like equating HTTP, the transfer protocol, with Mozilla, the company that makes a popular software for the protocol, and the act of downloading pirated movies using HTTP from the web.

Mr Burns

Release the hounds: Hollywood attacks indie studio for making a deal with the “devil”, BitTorrent Inc

So no surprise then when that the Hollywood attack hounds were released the instant indie film studio Cinedigm struck up a marketing deal with BitTorrent Inc to promote its new movie Arthur Newman. Calling the deal “a deal with the devil” and accusing Cinedigm of selling out for a bit of attention for its new Emily Blunt, Colin Firth flick, a studio exec who spoke to The Wrap anonymously also accused BitTorrent Inc for being “in it for themselves” as “they’re not in it for the health of the industry”.

So if a tech company doesn’t do everything for the health of the film industry, then they’re the bad guys? Well, that does explain why Hollywood has declared war on tech companies and the Internet in general.

Hollywood can either continue their war against a file transfer protocol, as silly as that sounds, or they can wake up and realise that, um, they’re IN A WAR WITH A FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL!!

If people weren’t using BitTorrent to share files quickly and efficiently, they’d be using some other protocol to do it. And if legal content was available via this or other transfer methods, and at a price and package that’s reasonable, people will use it too.

Just like how it’s far easier to find something classic or obscure to watch on Netflix than to scour BitTorrent indexes for hardly seeded torrents. And that’s exactly why Netflix is doing more every second to stop illegal BitTorrent downloads than anonymous Hollywood execs bitching about a bloody transfer protocol.

According to Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos, whenever Netflix moves into a new territory and its popularity increases, BitTorrent traffic in the same region goes down too. It just goes to show that “good value and legal” can indeed compete with the “free and illegal”, especially if you can improve upon convenience. Whatever you say about the decreasing quality and quantify of Netflix content, for $8 a month, it still represents terrific value, and from a convenience point of view, it is hard to beat (compared to finding an active torrent, waiting for the download, maybe further processing to get it to work on the playback device, and then needing the storage capacity to permanently keep a library of downloads, most of which you’ll probably only ever watch once).

Greg's Movie Collection

You can reduce the size of your disc collection by replacing ‘meh’ movies in your collection with a Netflix subscription

As for the argument between “ownership” and the rental/subscription model of Netflix, as we’ve found out recently, we don’t really own the digital stuff we buy anyway. For most content you will consume, you do it once and then never again. The only reason we “buy” is to ensure that if we want to access it in the future, we have that option. And these needs can be much better served by subscription streaming, especially if your library starts to get awfully big.

The stumbling blocks to the success of streaming at the moment are things like expiring content, content being removed, and the “Balkanisation” of streamable content. The latter means that with increasing competition in the sector, and Hollywood studios starting to see the dollar signs and getting pissed off that Netflix is benefiting too much, starts to pull content from Netflix; or offer different content exclusively to different services to maximize income; or add more time delays and geographical licensing restrictions to content, or even launch their own streaming services. Instead of one place where you can get almost everything, you may then need to have several subscriptions to achieve the same. That’s the unfortunate and greed driven direction we seemed to be headed towards.

On one of these issues at least, Sarandos is working hard to change the status quo. What he wants is “ubiquitous global licencing”, where a single license allows Netflix the right to distribute all around the world. It is what Netflix is doing with its own original content, making it available everywhere, and it’s their attempt to start a new trend that they hope Hollywood will warm to, even if it may take years. I won’t be holding my breath.

In further Netflix news, a new NPD study has revealed that within a year, there will be more streaming player in the US than Blu-ray players. Of all the streaming services, Netflix remains the leader, with 40% of all connected TV users using Netflix, compared to only 17% that use YouTube and 11% that use Hulu Plus.

An interesting new trend also appears to be developing, with dedicated streaming media players like Apple TV or Roku becoming more popular. NPD puts it down to these devices being optimized for streaming content delivery, as opposed to the streaming functions of connected devices like Blu-ray players and TVs, whose implementations are often best described as an “afterthought”.

In a different study, it was found that gamers in the US are spending a quarter of the time streaming videos on their consoles. Devices like game consoles, Blu-ray players and connected TVs are the gateway devices for streaming, and their prevalence in people’s home can explain why streaming is going from strength to strength.

——

The meta moment of the week goes to the developers of business simulation game ‘Game Dev Tycoon’, for adding a novel anti-piracy feature into their game: pirate the game, and you get piracy inside the game!

Game Dev Tycoon

Pirate the game Game Dev Tycoon, and you get piracy inside the game!

The game tasks the player to create and run their own game development company. Trying to highlight the problem of piracy, one of the makers of the game, Patrick Klug, posted a special “cracked” version of the game on a popular BitTorrent website. Within a day, nearly 94% of all those playing the game were using the pirated version.

But gamers of the pirated version soon started noticing that they would be getting an unfair amount of piracy for the virtual games produced by their virtual game companies, to the point where their companies would go bankrupt. It appears they have just been punked by Klug. Klug says his deliberate release of a crippled “pirated” version of  his game was an attempt to educated pirates, to hold “a mirror in front of them and showing them what piracy can do to game developers”.

A novel approach to anti-piracy, but perhaps an even more novel approach to promoting the game. Had Klug not uploaded the “sabotaged” pirated version, it’s unlikely Game Dev Tycoon would be making the news headlines as it did this week, and even more unlikely for the game to have so many players (even if 94% didn’t pay for it). This is actually more akin to a demo disguised as a pirated version, and there may be something to this approach if Game Dev Tycoon’s sales increase because of this little stunt.

Most funny was the way some pirates reported the problem. One even asked if there was a way to research “DRM” in the game so that the piracy plague could be stopped, while another lamented the fact that far too many people were pirating his virtual creations, not aware of the delicious irony contained within the statement.

I don’t know if Game Dev Tycoon features an option to research DRM in the game or not, but if it does, I hope the game doesn’t actually reward the player for doing it. Doing so would perpetuate the myth that DRM actually stops or reduces piracy, as in most cases, it does not.

What is does is to punish paying customers, while doing very little to hinder the efforts of hardcore pirates and crackers. It may also help publishers and device makers to lock up market share, which just piles on more pain for the paying customer.

So when sci-fi publisher Tor decided to make all of its ebooks DRM free about a year ago, it was a breath of fresh air that the ebook industry needed. Here was an imprint that belongs to publishing behemoth Macmillan ditching the accepted notion that you have to have DRM. The move itself was bold and risky, but made more palatable by the fact that authors and readers, not to mention bloggers and commentators such as myself, were all in full support of the move.

The only doubt left was whether the move would lead to an avalanche of piracy for Tor ebooks, now that they’ve become so easily to share and copy online.

DRM Doesn't Work T-Shirt

DRM doesn’t work, and ebook publisher Tor has the stats to prove it

The resulting piracy wave? Nothing. Nada. Or in Tor’s own words, “no discernible increase in piracy”. The only response have been hugely positive ones from readers and authors, praising Tor for having the guts to do the right thing.

But is anybody really surprised though at the results of this DRM-free experiment? You take something that doesn’t work, and everybody hates, and you just sort of, ah, chuck it away. Chop it off. Smash it to bits. And guess what? You end up with a better product!

People who pirate will still pirate, and the source may now be a DRM-free Tor ebook, but all that’s changed from before was perhaps the trivial step of somebody removing the DRM before sharing. It has perhaps made the life of one pirate distributor easier by a tiny bit, but it would have made no difference to people downloading. Hence “no discernible increase in piracy”.

The only other argument that people could have made against Tor’s move was one of moral hazard. That even if DRM was ineffective, it was a message to people out there that piracy is not being tolerated. The problem with this argument is that people don’t care, and by the time somebody downloads a pirated copy, the DRM would have been long gone and they may never have been aware of its existence in the first place. It’s like those “don’t pirate this movie” messages you only see at the start of legally purchased DVDs, but never on pirated ones (which made the pirated ones a better product for not making you sit through the un-skippable nonsense).

That’s it for the week. Hope you enjoyed this issue of the WNR. I’ll go back to finishing watching Hotel Rwanda and then a couple of episodes of The Shield – all with no discs loading involved. See you next week.