Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#61

Post by InclinedPlane » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:31 PM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44

bornhuetter wrote: post #35

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…

Just put a code into the game case that allows for discless play, and require an online connection to install the game to the hd and unlock it for discless play. Not rocket science.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#62

Post by drivebyacct2 » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #61

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44

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…

Just put a code into the game case that allows for discless play, and require an online connection to install the game to the hd and unlock it for discless play. Not rocket science.

Okay, so now it's just two-for-one.

Now I get to buy and play Halo5 and then give the disc to my brother.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#63

Post by Retric » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44

bornhuetter wrote: post #35

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…

With about 30 seconds of thought.

You can still play the game without uploading so each game represents 2 copy's. Require an activation code to "load" the game which you can get automatically online or with a phone call. Require someone to unload the game which spits about a 6 digit code before you can upload it again. Make a fast online check to see if anyone registered the game via a partial code on the outside of the box for the used game market.

Don't let the disk play online content while "loaded" on a separate XBOX. Allow someone to declare an Xbox as broken, lost, or stolen.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#64

Post by bornhuetter » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

ameen wrote: post #45

bornhuetter wrote: post #35

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…

Anti-consumer? The fact that you could share a game (either on a disc or a digital download) with your family members or the fact that you didn't need to deal with optical media? This could've been a brilliant console had MS addressed the media a bit more cautiously. Pity that major players still aren't ready for an Online console, while upstarts like Ouya and others will be defining newer experiences that are more s…

As far as I understand it, other people can log into your console to play the game, or you can log into someone elses console. You cannot lend games to anyone to use on another console without giving them access to your account.

They also places very clear restrictions on selling used games.

There is no reason why these require additional payments or phone home every day. Phone home on activation or trade would have sufficed, and I would have cheered it all the way.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#65

Post by Karunamon » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

nivla wrote: post #50

superuser2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deactivate on the first console before allowing sale?

But how does that work when you are trading in the physical disc at Gamestop and you still have the game stored on your console that is disconnected from the internet? Or if you were to sell it virtully, pop in the physical disc onto your first or second console that has been disconnected from the internet before the sale.

Having serial numbers on CD is not above current technology, and I'd wager that the number of people willing to never connect their system to the internet due to the fact they're pirating a bunch of games is statistically insignificant.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#66

Post by bornhuetter » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:33 PM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #59

bornhuetter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm saying that's the way it should work. Give the user a disc and an activation code. Activation code becomes tied to the account until traded. Problem solved.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#67

Post by MichaelGG » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:33 PM UTC

ameen wrote: post #37

[deleted] wrote: post #26

[deleted]

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.

There's no reason that you can't avoid discs. Xbox One will still have the on-demand downloads, just like today, although it seems it'll be for every game.

The rage was over adding "cloud DRM" to purchased discs.

MS most likely had this planned out from the beginning. It's a great way to do PR. Announce something silly, get people talking about your product and not the competition. And when they do, it's on the thing you've decided.

Then, flip it back, destroying the one thing people were praising the competition for. Get bonus points for "listening to the community" and being "flexible".

Now, MS has dominated the press for a while, and removed the "one" big problem with Xbox.

Where is the discussion of how terrible it is that your Xbox that you paid for, running software you buy, on a monthly subscription, is shoving ads all over the UI?

The fact that they change the location of ads so you don't get accustomed to ignoring one part of the screen.

If someone brings that up now, people can respond "it's always something! MS made a big change and went against publishers, but you just want to complain".

Just like when VS 2012 launched with the shitty 1-bit icons and arbitrary casing everywhere. People complaining about "THE MENU YELLS" focused the conversation on that one thing. Then for RTM? "OK we listened and all caps are optional, can we stop complaining now?"

It's a possibly risky, but great way to control the conversation.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#68

Post by mparlane » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

bornhuetter wrote: post #57

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44

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.

drivebyacct....

http://www.techspot.com/news/51227-sony-applies-for-rfid-drm...

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#69

Post by sivam » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #61

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44

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…

Just put a code into the game case that allows for discless play, and require an online connection to install the game to the hd and unlock it for discless play. Not rocket science.

>Just put a code into the game case that allows for discless play, and require an online connection to install the game to the hd and unlock it for discless play. Not rocket science

It is rocket science apparently

Person A does what you said and goes on a cruise ship playing the game before giving the disc to Person B.

Person B takes his disc, installs the game with an online connection. The server has no way of telling that Person A is still playing the game on his cruise.

Person B finishes installing, goes to a camping trip before giving the disc to Person C....

Person C installs the game, unplugs the network from the Xbox and gives the disc to Person D...

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#70

Post by drivebyacct2 » Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #63

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #44

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…

With about 30 seconds of thought. You can still play the game without uploading so each game represents 2 copy's. Require an activation code to "load" the game which you can get automatically online or with a phone call. Require someone to unload the game which spits about a 6 digit code before you can upload it again. Make a fast online check to see if anyone registered the game via a partial code on the outside of…

Or register the game to your account and then be able to share it immediately, wirelessly across the country with 10 "family" members and being able to resell the digital copy.

But noooooo, codes and short codes and registration verification sounds way better. >_I guess this is so frustrating for me because I worked on a licensing system and had to deal with the hundreds of little places it could be attacked in ways that aren't obvious if you haven't worked in the problem space before.