Microsoft shutting down Games for Windows Live Marketplace Aug 22nd

[crashtestdummy]

I don't get it. What's the point of not making Microsoft games available anywhere? I get the idea of shutting down the marketplace (I'd never heard of it, so I wouldn't expect that it's made them a lot of money), but why not just throw the games on steam?

I feel like I'm missing some big chunk of info here.

 

[Anteaus]

I wouldn't call MS and Sony equals. MS hasn't included root kits on their DVDs yet.

The premise is equal. He commented that "XBoners" aka MS console gamers shouldn't trust "MS Cloud services and products" aka XBL, as if to trust MS with XBL is somehow riskier than trusting Sony with PSN. My point is that it is fallacy to trust one over the other, because ultimately they are both guided by the same market forces and thus will act similarly.

It is part of the overarching idea that game availability is dependent on the whims of the provider. In this case we are talkinga about GFWL, but it can just as easily be applied with XBL or, as my example showed, with PSN where Sony told everyone that games they purchased through PSN for the PS3 would not work on the PS4 (as of now).

Whether we are talking about GFWL, Steam, Origin, PSN, XBL, or Impulse, any games purchased today will at someone be discontinued in the future...its inevitable since eventually the original supported platform will be gone and hosting games costs money...the question is, will it be 1, 5, 10, 15, or X years from now?

 

[Nintendesert]

Sure, because Sony and Nintendo never did anything to prevent games from working on later platforms. Sony and Microsoft are about equal in that sense. I'm so glad I can carry all my PSN software over to PS4...oh wait....

The bottom line is that gaming has changed and access isn't guaranteed in perpetuity. That goes for all companies. Anyone who thinks one company is safer than another in that regard is misguided.

PC isn't a changing platform that requires new hardware that in cases is completely incompatible with previous iterations of their hardware. This isn't going from PowerPC to an Intel box and games not functioning. This is MS simply cutting support for their games on a platform because their business whims dictated they could. This is PC, these games could have kept running and being sold as long as MS makes an OS and people buy PCs.

This is simply proof positive that MS will absolutely screw over customers and why the always online BS from them earlier was fought against. This is a demonstration by them that they'd have screwed over XBoners had MS been allowed to require always online DRM. It's simply an I told you so moment to the tools that swallow anything MS states and defend it on every message board they can regardless of the stink coming from MS.

Stop defending them. Nobody should be defending Sony either nor should people be defending Steam for breaking the law in the EU and not allowing us to resell our games. It's about customer rights.

 

[NickelPlate]

So I wonder if this means I'll be able to finally play the Mortal Kombat Collection I bought on Steam only later to find out I also needed a GFWL account (DRM on top of DRM) which I refuse to create. It would suit me fine if they shutdown GFWL for good.

 

[Anteaus]

Stop defending them. Nobody should be defending Sony either nor should people be defending Steam for breaking the law in the EU and not allowing us to resell our games. It's about customer rights.

I wasn't defending them. I was simply stating that way they are doing is becoming the industry norm, and that they shouldn't be singled out for doing exactly what everyone else is doing. I'm not saying I agree with MS for doing it. At the same time, I'm not going to act all hot and bothered as if there isn't already a precedent for it.

You and I are actually on the same side in this. Personally I believe that the DMCA needs to get abolished and replaced with a new version that specifically deals with consumer rights in the digital marketplace. Right now the only rights we have are the ones developers choose to give us and the elaborate EULAs only support it. We need straight forward legal language that takes all the ambiguity out.

Stuff like,

1. All components available to the user at the time of sale must be maintained and fully supported for not less than five years from when the last license is sold.

I.e. If I buy a game in March 2014 and the last copy allowed to be sold by the developer is in November of 2016, then it should be etched in stone that I can access the game and play it with all capabilities including multiplayer up to and including November 2021 at minimum. This way gamers can at least have the peace of mind knowing that they have a reasonable amount of time to enjoy a product after purchase, even if they buy it later in the product life.

2. Eula's are legally dismissed and the developer can't summarily remove player rights piecemeal.

I.e. Digital consumer's rights should be implicity based on the intent of the product. If multiplayer is a advertised feature, then multiplayer can never be dismissed by the developer/provider for economic reasons. If a player violates established decency rules, then it's the developer/providers option to restrict them servers with like minded players but in no circumstance can game access to retracted. Also, this applies to hardware where software is integral, such as an OS. If you buy a console with X capabilities, then the maker does not have the power to make any software change that restricts capabilities available at the time of sale. This would effectively keep companies like MS and Sony from removing features just because it potentially affects their bottom line, such as Sony removing "Other OS" because some people used it to bypass DRM.

Those are just ideas but you get the idea.

 

[Anarchist420]

The bottom line is that gaming has changed and access isn't guaranteed in perpetuity. That goes for all companies. Anyone who thinks one company is safer than another in that regard is misguided.

Nothing has changed that prevents them from doing it.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally Posted by Anteaus View Post

The bottom line is that gaming has changed and access isn't guaranteed in perpetuity. That goes for all companies. Anyone who thinks one company is safer than another in that regard is misguided.

Nothing has changed that prevents them from doing it.

This is why I don't buy DRM locked games.

If you can't have a physical copy, or a digital copy that doesn't require DRM authentication, then you aren't buying anything - they can turn it off whenever they want.


.

 

[Golgatha]

Most purchased DLC requires an Online GFWL account to use correct? I'm gonna be a bit furious if my Fallout 3 DLC is not accessible down the road.

Edit: In reading the XBox website, it looks like they will continue to host already purchased DLC though the GFWL client.

 

[gothamhunter]

Just an FYI - the entire service will be discontinued July 2014.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2337699

 

[Maximilian]

I don't get it. What's the point of not making Microsoft games available anywhere? I get the idea of shutting down the marketplace (I'd never heard of it, so I wouldn't expect that it's made them a lot of money), but why not just throw the games on steam?

I feel like I'm missing some big chunk of info here.

Taking advantage of the "snap it up before its all gone!" mentality.

I am 99% sure all those games worth having will end up on steam or some other DD service at some point.