regarding the BC one-time connection (which seems to be the largest part of this whole 'controversy', especially at a time of cross gen titles), are you able to comment on the size of these bits? It may be out of your control, but I think people are connecting that decryption and compatibility bit download as the "DRM". Is this something that could be handled offline as part of the OS using a database of the bits and an on-device decryptor?
The "registration" step involving package header decryption and download of updated metadata is not a new step - this happens to every game on Xbox One and Series X|S; the new aspect is that for back-compat games on Series X|S, we also do a one-time connection to download various compatibility settings and also ensure that the game is patched to a min version (the back-compat team famously spent hundreds of thousands of hours validating every game, but it is not possible to also validate and ensure
every version of every game works). This connection is not an attempt at DRM as it'd be a very useless form if it were (unlimited offline play is allowed after registration), but is for technical reasons to ensure a guarantee of compatibility (that we take very seriously).
Apart from this additional step for BC games only, the licensing model on Series X|S has not changed since Xbox One (where it was also essentially the same as on PS4 and PS5).
Having said that, this thread and the video has helped underline that we could be doing a better job in a couple of aspects:
- The error messaging for a variety of licensing errors are too generic and unhelpful. The video showcases multiple different error codes (so I can tell what is actually happening), but the human-readable messages are bad and don't inform or help the user understand the issue. We had already been working on revamping these and this highlights the importance of that effort.
- What is actually a check for the right set of compatibility settings is causing users to hit scenarios where they are not able to play even though they expected otherwise; users shouldn't need to know or care about what "registration" does or when it occurs. There have been discussions internally today on how we could improve this situation without making the compatibility experience worse, and whilst this is not a promise, we have heard and understand the frustration in this feedback and are looking for what we can do to improve the scenario.
I hope a little transparency helps and we really appreciate the feedback (both positive and negative) as it helps us build a better product that better suits the needs of our users.