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

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#111

Post by interpol_p »

mikelat wrote: post #108
nivla wrote: 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…

My guess is that it started with the simple idea of "we want to move to digital so we can phase out retail and get more out of each sale like steam does" (pressure from shareholders and increases in development costs). Then they probably went through every worst case scenario possible, like a group of friends sharing a single licence of skyrim and just leaving their consoles offline, and made rules around them. It pr…

> Then they probably went through every worst case scenario possible

It's such a bad idea to develop a product like this. Developers who focus on anti-piracy measures miss the point: focusing on a frictionless way for consumers to acquire your product (and keep it up-to-date), while ignoring all those who pirate it will lead to more money in the long run.

Most anti-piracy measures introduce friction for genuine consumers who want to give you money. It's a poor trade-off.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#112

Post by contextfree »

magic_haze wrote: post #96
nivla wrote: 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…

Very simple. Keep the 24 hour restrictions as-is, but allow transition to an offline mode after notifying the mothership. This disallows all the family sharing features. Games installed using a physical disk would require the disk to be present, downloaded games are unaffected (since you can't sell them without connecting to xbox live.) This takes care of the submarine scenario. When you're back online, check for the…

Games were meant to be installable on multiple consoles, so if they wanted reselling or giving away a game to completely disassociate the license from the seller's/giver's account, every console with that game would need to be kept online to verify this. So if there were an offline mode that disabled license-transfer features, it would have to apply as long as even one console were in this mode. This means that it would be possible for someone to put themselves into a state where they'd be permanently prevented from reselling or giving games because they don't have physical access to some console that's been put in offline mode.

There are of course further workarounds/mitigations for this problem, such as putting a (100 days?) time limit on offline mode, but they make the system even more complicated.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#113

Post by interpol_p »

uptown wrote: post #13
chrisrhoden wrote: post #4

It's not clear to me what the change will be, or how it will be an actual win for consumers. The region locking being dropped would definitely be a win for the minority of potential customers outside of the privileged regions, but the fact is that the DRM scheme that they proposed, while never explained very well, was probably better than leaving how one-time-use-codes should work to manufacturers (EA Online Passes s…

How is it not clear? You can play games without checking-in every 24 hours, and if you want to share or sell a game, you transfer the physical media you purchased. Downloaded games cannot be shared.

Yes but checking-in every 24 hours is not something you actually "do". It's something that happens transparently in the background. The vase majority of consumers wouldn't notice the automated check-in that was present in their previous design.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#114

Post by contextfree »

bornhuetter wrote: post #76
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Let's say you install the game on two consoles. You put console 1 offline, then go online with console 2 and de-activate the license (by reselling, giving, etc. the game). How does console 1 know that the license has been de-activated?

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#115

Post by contextfree »

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.

They didn't really "take out the DRM", they just replaced one form of DRM (not being able to play if your internet has been disconnected for 24 hours) with another (not being able to play without the disc in the drive). It's pick your poison, and different people have different preferences.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#116

Post by contextfree »

interpol_p wrote: post #113
uptown wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it not clear? You can play games without checking-in every 24 hours, and if you want to share or sell a game, you transfer the physical media you purchased. Downloaded games cannot be shared.

Yes but checking-in every 24 hours is not something you actually "do". It's something that happens transparently in the background. The vase majority of consumers wouldn't notice the automated check-in that was present in their previous design.

Right, and the new DRM scheme that's replacing the "checkins" - having to change discs to play a new game - is something you actually have to physically do, and it's something that's required entirely to satisfy DRM policies at this point.

It also locks you out of playing your game in a bunch of scenarios (lost, stolen, damaged, or just don't happen to have it with you) that I think for many people are more common than a 24-hour internet outage would be, and again, it's entirely the artificial DRM restrictions that are locking you out as there's no real technical reason not to let you install the game and never need the disc again.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#117

Post by bskap »

bornhuetter wrote: post #80
bskap wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If your friends can play your games at any time, it means that the game is not tied to a disc, it is tied to your account. That makes it more like Steam. How does one sell a used Steam game? The answer (for all current digital services) is that you don't- there is no used market for any game that requires Steam or Origin or any other digital service.

Microsoft wanted to change that. But in order to implement something resembling used games, you have to remove access to the game when someone sells their copy. And the only way to do that is to have the console verify licenses. The easy way to implement that is with a license check every time you start the game. Microsoft tried to be nicer than that by only checking once every 24-hours so you didn't always have to be online.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#118

Post by hobs »

nivla wrote: 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…

The lend game thing was limited to once per game, ever to friends of 30 days or more.

Its like saying "you know that potential infinite thing, we are now definitely saying you can only have one." It reminds me of the difference between free refills and no free refills, the actual amount of extra drinks you get probably is not high, but some soda heads will be pissed if they dont get free refills.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#119

Post by cdash »

SurfScore wrote: post #51
baddox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You state this, and then wonder why people think its a big deal and don't just forgive them? So people got pissed enough and Microsoft got scared enough to change their mind but that doesn't change the fact that they actively wanted to screw over their customers because they wanted more money and they thought that you would just submit to it and be hyped by all their buzzwords. They haven't changed at all and things like this will happen in the future until they do.

Re: Microsoft reverses controversial game licensing policies

#120

Post by jameshart »

camus wrote: post #30
nivla wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I am excited about the new Kinect for personal hacks. According to MS, you will be able to turn off the Kinect, if not, its nothing some tape can't fix.

I want an xbox1 cheaper therefore without a a toy i will never use. If you want to "hack" a kinect,then buy one separatly. Or at least MS should give the choice to buy a console without one ,at a lesser price.

Microsoft's betting on a new input device, and for it to work it has to be ubiquitous. This is the same reason why, when Apple shipped the first Macintoshes, they came with a mouse in the box.

I'm sure there were people posting on cix in 1984 right after the superbowl, "I want a mac cheaper therefore without a toy I will never use. If you want to 'hack' a mouse,then buy one separately. Or at least Apple should give the choice to buy a computer without one ,at a lesser price."

Post reply on HN