Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#71

Post by zokier »

DanBC wrote: post #27
ameen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used games IMHO are a menace. How many software companies give away transferable licenses? (apart from Open-source licenses) It isn't fair to the publisher/developer. I'd rather have seen a price change to facilitate more ownership rather than used games sales. EA's implementation sounded a bit practical to solve the used games market.

Why should games be different to books or DVDs or CDs? Why is it fine for me to sell a book second hand, but not to sell a game second hand?

Why should downloadable games be different from physical media games? Both are the essentially the same bits and bytes. Why does it matter whether the bits in question are delivered via sneakernet or internet?

Enabling resale of digital goods has very high risk of crashing the market, as they almost by definition do not degrade in use. Historically the second hand markets have been limited by local availability, but internet removes such barriers for digital goods and that makes the situation very different for games compared to conventional items such as books.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#72

Post by drivebyacct2 »

bornhuetter wrote: post #66
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Activation code becomes tied to the account until traded.

So, like: I should be able to just directly say "Give my Halo 5 license to bornhuetter" and then my disc stops working because my console doesn't have a license and yours can then download the digital copy or put the disc in and have it "unlocked" with the license.

I think that could work, still would require an online connection for any NEW games though, which I think MS is trying to avoid rather specifically (the blowback from overseas guys playing consoles, etc)

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#73

Post by bornhuetter »

sivam wrote: post #69
InclinedPlane wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tell…

Person A puts disc in, phones home, and installs. Person B puts disc in, phones home and finds out that the game is already registered.

Person B can't install unless Person A phones home to de-register. Person B can use a partial code to check if the game is registered.

Not rocket science.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#74

Post by MichaelGG »

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.

Uh, yeah, just require to deactivate the disc before sale. That's reasonable and doesn't have the intrusive feel. This isn't hard.

Edit: I see, if the DVDs are identical then that's not possible. But plenty of software comes with a serial anyways. Just make the serial transferable, problem solved.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#75

Post by bskap »

bornhuetter wrote: post #64
ameen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The original plan let you designate 10 accounts that could play any of your games (although only one account plus the main could play a game at once- no buying one copy of Halo and then having all 11 of you get online at once).

The check-in is required in order to remove old games from your account, not to add new games. It's to make sure you still have the license to the game that you're playing. That's far more generous than Valve's "no you can't sell used games ever"

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#76

Post by bornhuetter »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #72
bornhuetter wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Activation code becomes tied to the account until traded. So, like: I should be able to just directly say "Give my Halo 5 license to bornhuetter" and then my disc stops working because my console doesn't have a license and yours can then download the digital copy or put the disc in and have it "unlocked" with the license. I think that could work, still would require an online connection for any NEW games though, wh…

> Unless you're implying that... my disc stops working because my console doesn't have a license

That's exactly what I'm saying. The console has to phone home every time the game is installed or de-activated.

The requirement to phone home every day, or for additional payment is completely unnecessary from a technical standpoint.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#77

Post by msabalau »

SurfScore wrote: post #11

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.

Some people viewed a series of actions and statements from Microsoft as showing contempt. Simply changing a business model to one more acceptable to consumers does not remove people's emotional reactions and suspicions about motives. Time (assuming no other mis-steps in the immediate future) can cure a lot of this, but, as you may have noticed, an awful lot of people's personal identity gets caught up in their consumer electronics purchases.

Microsoft messed up so badly that many people themselves as being on the xBox side of the "holy wars" that swirl around consoles "converted" to Sony.

A brand is a powerful tool. It might not be logical, but people do build emotional connections with brands. As with any power tool, you want to be careful and avoid cutting off your arm.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#78

Post by drivebyacct2 »

mparlane wrote: post #68
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.

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

Oh, cool. That's very interesting. I curse it because it seems even more insidious and because I can't believe the next gen of consoles is even shipping with an internal optical drive... but I digress. Thanks for the link!

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#79

Post by MichaelGG »

DomBlack wrote: post #9

I'm actually annoyed with these changes; they have reverted back to the Xbox 360 way of doings things; * Disk must be in the drive to play * Share games by lending the disk. The previous scheme, while it would not be befinical to some due to the 24 hour requirement, did allow for some exciting new ideas (which we've got used to with Steam); * Access my games anywhere without needing a disk * Share the game with my fa…

Don't buy discs! MS said that digital purchases will have same priority as retail discs. Why do you want a disc anyways, except for resale or slow connection? Everything I get for the 360 is via download, and I don't have to worry about discs. Still have to worry about license transfers, which is gonna be the same under any system where the publisher controls the terms.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#80

Post by bornhuetter »

bskap wrote: post #75
bornhuetter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The original plan let you designate 10 accounts that could play any of your games (although only one account plus the main could play a game at once- no buying one copy of Halo and then having all 11 of you get online at once). The check-in is required in order to remove old games from your account, not to add new games. It's to make sure you still have the license to the game that you're playing. That's far more gen…

So what is the point of the once per day online requirement?

And what is the point of restricting used games?

There are no technical reasons for these (as I have explained in other posts), and so people are justifiably were livid.

Post reply on HN