Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

> How is it different than Steam, other than the point than speculating that Microsoft would never aggressively discount games as much as Steam does now

They don't allow developers to self-publish, and Valve is privately owned by a benevolent dictator who won't be prone to public investor pressure for short term quarterly profits. People trust Valve to do the right thing.

Microsoft on the other hand has a history of just shutting down their DRM servers without making it right for the customers who bought into their DRM'd products.

> Microsoft on the other hand has a history of just shutting down their DRM servers without making it right for the customers who bought into their DRM'd products.

Source? Microsoft is incredibly well known for supporting products int he long term. They only shut down Xbox Live for the original Xbox in 2010. And Windows XP is still infamously supported.

MSN Music http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/04/drm-su...

"The news will likely upset a number of Microsoft's customers, who bought music from MSN Music before the company launched the Zune Marketplace and decided to ditch the old store. Microsoft's decision to turn off the MSN Music authorization servers serves as a painful reminder that DRM ultimately severely limits your rights. Companies that control various DRM schemes, as well as the content providers themselves, can yank your ability to play the content which you lawfully purchased (and now, videos) at any moment—no matter what your expectation was when you bought it. Some Major League Baseball fans learned this the hard way last fall."

I wouldn't trust anything from Microsoft where in order for it to keep working, it would have to phone home to MS DRM servers. MS will eventually shut down those DRM servers without giving their customers a solution to use their DRM'd products post-shutdown.

They turned off the MSN Music DRM Servers! People that bought there lost the ability to transfer their music away from their device.

I sometimes play games that are many decades old, and as anyone that collects games knows, consoles tend to live shorter than physical game copies.

So what am I going to do with a Xbox One in 20 years after the DRM Server were turned off?

Hope that the console never fails so I don't lose my complete collection? (If the failure rate for the last two Xbox generations is any indicator, chances are slim)

> I sometimes play games that are many decades old

Thats one thing steam is actually pretty good for, its got lots of older games (some from the early 80s!) that generally just work on pretty much any modern PC.

By Steam you mean GoG, they don't even have DRM on them, but they update the Windows installers so they work. Though I have to criticize their lack of the Linux ports of the old titles =\

Are you going to pay for the developer to do that? It's just lucky that Steam is supporting Linux at all nowadays.

I'd definitely buy another copy of Neverwinter Nights if it ever got the Linux version on GoG.

That is true, but I also pay much less for a Steam game on average, than I would pay for a Xbox One game (usually 69.99€ in Europe, which is ~90$), which also reflects that I buy a (possibly short lived) license.

Also, it's probably much easier to backup and play your Steam games on a PC, even if Steam wont be there forever, than it would be with such a locked up system like the Xbox One.

When what's being created is a timeless piece of art, 10 years is not long-lived support. People still play NES games, and I want to be able to play my current gen games 30 years from now.

And I'm sure there's some sort of long term solution that would disable the 24 hour check (which obviously doesn't need to happen anymore) when the authentication servers were to be decommissioned.

This isn't Microsoft's first rodeo.

Yeah, even if they did, how are you going to use your games once your Xbox One is defective and you can't transfer your games to another console, because the DRM servers were turned off?

Edit: I don't accept a solution where I just have to hope that they will do something that enables me to play my games once the authentication servers have been decomissioned.

If I buy something, I want to know upfront what they will do, and it has to be guaranteed, not just a PR statement.

It has to be part of the TOS and I should be able to hold them accountable if they do not deliver.

I guess you're not going to use any company then, because nobody I know has that in their TOS. Promising that upfront is just a bad business decision.

I can buy a PS3/PS4 or WiiU game that can be played without any online connection or authentication on any number of consoles. (In case one fails and I need a replacement console)

And how is it a bad business decision to ensure that a customer can use his collection even if all auth/DRM servers are decomissioned?

This is the "bad business decision" that was made for every single big mainstream console since the invention of video games, and it seems obvious to me that the customer demands this, and MS understood it.

My Kin studio and Zune say otherwise.

IIRC Zune still works, since Xbox Music is a rebranded Zune Marketplace. Even if it doesn't, it's a device, it doesn't need internet.

The Kin is partly Verizon's fault, really.

> just shutting down their DRM servers without making it right for the customers who bought into their DRM'd products

This can happen to provider, and is one of the reasons why I stay away from Steam games.

Many times within the last couple years, I've been ready to purchase a game, then walked away when I saw Steam is required.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact