Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Jun 2013 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Games "Microsoft has sensationally abandoned its controversial plans to restrict the sharing of XBox One games, and has also removed daily online authentication requirements for its forthcoming console", reports The Guardian. They had no choice. Still a good move.
Thread beginning with comment 564997
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Hahahahahahaha
by lucas_maximus on Wed 19th Jun 2013 23:41 UTC in reply to "Hahahahahahaha"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually retail shops will still be able to dictate high prices on games now.

It isn't a victory.

I dunno about how I feel about the Xbox 1 (I own a PS3 and plan on owning a PS4 as well as my kickass PC).

It is a shallow victory at best.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Hahahahahahaha
by BushLin on Thu 20th Jun 2013 00:01 in reply to "RE: Hahahahahahaha"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

Well I come from the angle of wanting to keep playing good games regardless of their age.

Can you imagine trying to fire up Civ2 or Super Mario Bros 3 and a message came up saying it couldn't communicate with the game server so fuck you, you can't play?

Microsoft were creating a scenario where a much loved game would be impossible to play in 10-15 years time, let alone 25 years. You will find no promises from Microsoft (prior to the recent reversal) as to how long the system would be supported.

Now I can understand why someone who works in IT would wonder why you'd want to run decades old software but while Amiga OS doesn't cut it for my regular computing needs.... Lemmings is still dam good fun.

With regards to the price of games, I have no problem picking up great games for less than £5 and we're talking huge titles like Red Dead Redemption... just a few years after you perhaps.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: Hahahahahahaha
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Jun 2013 00:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Hahahahahahaha"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You never mentioned Steam which does exactly the same thing and has been around for 11 years.

I remember it quite clearly when you copy of Half Hife 2 was quite clearly tied to your steam account.

I was 20 at that time and I remember seeing in a record shop (vinyl records and cassettes) that a copy of half life 2 was being sold second hand and I knew whoever picked that up was a fool.

Edited 2013-06-20 00:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Hahahahahahaha
by WorknMan on Thu 20th Jun 2013 02:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Hahahahahahaha"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Can you imagine trying to fire up Civ2 or Super Mario Bros 3 and a message came up saying it couldn't communicate with the game server so f--k you, you can't play?


Right. As I see it, there are basically two types of people:

1. Those who actually want to own their games
2. Those who want to rent their games long-term digitally from services like Steam

I got nothing against either crowd, as long as companies continue to give us an option. That way, both sides are happy. Well, at least until the online service is shut down and the second group is screwed out of their entire catalog, but hey... at least *I* don't have to worry about that ;)

Edited 2013-06-20 02:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Hahahahahahaha
by ze_jerkface on Thu 20th Jun 2013 04:05 in reply to "RE: Hahahahahahaha"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Actually retail shops will still be able to dictate high prices on games now.


Do explain this belief especially in the context of the current situation where Xbox 360 games on demand cost more than at Amazon.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Hahahahahahaha
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Jun 2013 08:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Hahahahahahaha"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Retail shops not Amazon.

Edited 2013-06-20 08:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Hahahahahahaha
by silviucc on Thu 20th Jun 2013 08:32 in reply to "RE: Hahahahahahaha"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

You are one of those people that believe that taking out the retailers means automatically that game publishers will sell the games for smaller prices.

I do not share your p.o.v. Their (MSs) move to digital only was not going to kill the big retailers. They already had backstage deals with MS. Why do you think they had that "special" thing where people could trade in their used games at "select" places? They would have killed smaller shops that did not have the pull to be one of those "select" places that allowed game trading to happen.

I agree that prices are some times kept artificially up because of the retailers, Blizzard is one very good example of that but I do not believe that taking them out would instantly mean lower prices for gaming. it would only mean that publishers have more power than before.

I'm also hesitant to call this a victory. Yes, for now it is. Consumers got to keep the rights that they already had. A very good thing but as we saw "terms and conditions are subject to change." No one would stop MS from doing a dick move some years down the line once people are hooked on and have invested money into the thing.

Remember how Sony decided it was not ok any more to run Linux on their PS3s? Yeah, just like that. You buy something like this if you trust the company. Both Sony and MS are on the list of evil bastards but oh look, shiny game. Me wants it! Buy, buy, buy!

Reply Parent Score: 4