Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

arstechnica.com

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#51
post #21

I don't get the negative response to this. They made a mistake (admittedly being too greedy), and now they're correcting it. People didn't like the DRM, SO THEY TOOK IT OUT! Get over holding a grudge; the Xbox has a lot of very good exclusives and has always been a solid console. It just goes to show you that you can never make the internet happy.

I don't quite understand why you attribute the mistake to "being too greedy," especially since this decision is a response to public outrage and thus will likely make Microsoft more money/profit. One could just as easily attribute Microsoft's desire to satisfy angry customers to "greed."

I was referring to the original DRM decision as being too greedy when they made it (before the backlash). Companies institute DRM to decrease piracy, which increases their bottom line.

The effectiveness of DRM is a totally different subject, but in this situation they chose their bottom line (DRM) over the desires of their customers, taking a gamble that the losses in sales from pissed off people would be less than the gains from decreased piracy.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they looked at a problem and found an utterly despicable way of "solving" it. There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer. As long as the system has to phone home every time a game is bought or traded, that it enough to keep piracy at the same level it is now. It wasn't design by committee, it was design by greed. EDIT: Parent has deleted. Originally read: "This is too bad. Th…

>There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer Yeah, actually, there are plenty. Step 1: Buy XBONE game. Step 2: Load it on your console. Step 3: Loan it to hundreds of friends and they load it on their console. And now hundreds of people are playing one copy of the game with no way of preventing them from doing so. It would make the "piracy" scene on day one, the worst of any conso…

It doesn't work that way. You have to have the disc in the tray.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#53
post #40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually looking forward to a console that made sense in an always connected environment. No more need to deal with discs. As a steam gamer, this would've been the console of my choice. I don't think I'll be getting any of this generations consoles yet. There really aren't much differences between current-gen consoles and so-called next-gen consoles besides a spec bump and revamped controllers.

Honestly, a PC with Steam, and XBox 360 controller, and an HDMI cable is all I really need. I've moved to doing that pretty exclusively and it works wonderfully. Bonus, I don't have to re-purchase games to play them on my laptop or in my office.

Most people didn't realize that MS was pushing the envelope with their purported "Cloud processing tech", which was supposed to be based on Remote processing of a few threads (A.I., Physics, etc) and even had a new programming paradigm for it (based on prioritized threads that could be processed either locally or remotely)

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#54
post #26

[deleted]

Digital futures are fine. But I don't think a company like MS fully understands what it takes to provide a digital future that is an adequate replacement for physical media based games.

Valve has most or all of it figured out. Digital delivery. Easy downloads. Lower prices. Embracing indie games. Discounts on bulk purchases. And so forth.

Steam games have a lot of the same limitations that the xbox one would have had but you don't see nearly as many people complaining about that. And that's because of all of the things listed above.

There are tons of console games that I and many of my friends have grown to love which started off as borrowed games. And that's, I think, how it should be, the same as books. I don't think Steam is the perfect answer for all of time but the fact that you can acquire games at effectively used prices or lower (sometimes $15 or even $5 for a AAA title or even as little as one or two dollars for an indie game) significantly blunt the problems of reduced lending opportunities.

P.S. For clarity I'm saying that being allowed to lend and borrow games is a huge benefit to game makers because it is a very potent way of increasing the fan base. How many people borrowed someone else's copy of Harry Potter and then went on to buy hardback copies of subsequent books as they came out and watched the movies and so forth? The same phenomenon works just as potently with games. There are several people I know who are fans of the Mass Effect series who might not have been if they couldn't have borrowed the game that first time.

With art the best salesman is the thing itself. That's how radio works. That's how museums work. And libraries. How do you convince someone they like Manet or Picasso or The Fiery Furnaces or Gershwin or Raymond Chandler or HP Lovecraft or Katamari Damacy or The Last of Us? There is no possible way to adequately describe such works in words alone. The only possible way to determine if one likes such things is to experience it first hand. And that is why "piracy", even in its most extreme forms, is never going to be as much of a threat to makers as some people believe. "Consuming" art makes fans, and fans with money will spend their money to acquire art by artists they enjoy, whether it's games, concerts, movies, albums, and so forth.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#55
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer Yeah, actually, there are plenty. Step 1: Buy XBONE game. Step 2: Load it on your console. Step 3: Loan it to hundreds of friends and they load it on their console. And now hundreds of people are playing one copy of the game with no way of preventing them from doing so. It would make the "piracy" scene on day one, the worst of any conso…

It doesn't work that way. You have to have the disc in the tray.

No, only as of today.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#56
They should rename the Xbox One to the Xbox 180, it would be very apt.

On a more serious note, I don't like this rollback. It only goes to show how the witchhunt and echo chamber on Reddit worked. Even before the reveal, Microsoft was falsely accused of trying to game Reddit and everyone flew off the handle over someone pretty much lying to be a troll. Say the word "DRM" and you get bucketloads of Reddit karma and posts pointing out the facts(forget about posts taking the opposing view or opinion) were downvoted into oblivion by the angry mob.

And then there was the bad timing on the NSA leaks, which didn't help at all. Everyone has smartphones, laptops and tablets with cameras and mics which could be watching and listening and Apple/Google were part of the leak, but it was Microsoft that was singled out for proposing a device that could turn on itself, and had numerous safeguards to configure privacy if you wanted to.

All this doesn't excuse the fact that Microsoft utterly and totally failed in communicating their message in a proper manner in E3 and handed Sony an easy victory on a silver platter.

I guess it was easy to roll this back because it was not Microsoft but publishers and game developers that were going to reap the benefits of diskless gaming because Gamestop etc. skim off the value of older games and leave publishers with not much value. Once the public failed to see the advantages and blamed Microsoft for a power grab that was not going to really benefit them all that much, it was game over.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they looked at a problem and found an utterly despicable way of "solving" it. There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer. As long as the system has to phone home every time a game is bought or traded, that it enough to keep piracy at the same level it is now. It wasn't design by committee, it was design by greed. EDIT: Parent has deleted. Originally read: "This is too bad. Th…

>There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer Yeah, actually, there are plenty. Step 1: Buy XBONE game. Step 2: Load it on your console. Step 3: Loan it to hundreds of friends and they load it on their console. And now hundreds of people are playing one copy of the game with no way of preventing them from doing so. It would make the "piracy" scene on day one, the worst of any conso…

No, it should be that every time you load it on the console it phones home. So only 1 person can ever activate it.

Phone home on activation is infinitely better than phone home every day.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they looked at a problem and found an utterly despicable way of "solving" it. There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer. As long as the system has to phone home every time a game is bought or traded, that it enough to keep piracy at the same level it is now. It wasn't design by committee, it was design by greed. EDIT: Parent has deleted. Originally read: "This is too bad. Th…

>There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer Yeah, actually, there are plenty. Step 1: Buy XBONE game. Step 2: Load it on your console. Step 3: Loan it to hundreds of friends and they load it on their console. And now hundreds of people are playing one copy of the game with no way of preventing them from doing so. It would make the "piracy" scene on day one, the worst of any conso…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer Yeah, actually, there are plenty. Step 1: Buy XBONE game. Step 2: Load it on your console. Step 3: Loan it to hundreds of friends and they load it on their console. And now hundreds of people are playing one copy of the game with no way of preventing them from doing so. It would make the "piracy" scene on day one, the worst of any conso…

No, it should be that every time you load it on the console it phones home. So only 1 person can ever activate it. Phone home on activation is infinitely better than phone home every day.

No. That's not true. That's true as of today with the new change. Before, that's absolutely not.

This just goes to prove that most of the ignorant internet rage was from people that didn't bother understanding just how much MS was really giving us with the previous setup.

You can't "phone home" with optical media, it's not serializable.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#60
post #31

During this whole fiasco, I was trying to put myself into their shoes on what they were trying to achieve. On the outside, it looks like a great idea. The ability to share games with family. No longer you need to carry discs to your friends house. You can lend them games to strangers on the Internet without worry about losing it. You can have an organized catalog on the cloud, and never have to get up to pop the disc…

I believe it would be pretty simple. Keep the family sharing plan and the 24 hour check but only for digital purchases. If you have a disk based game than you wouldn't be able to share it but you also wouldn't be required to have the console connected every 24 hours.

Guess this is their only choice right now. Have a divide between digital and physical copies. People who buy digitally gets better rewards (subjective) than people who buy the physical disk.
Post reply on HN