Slashdot Mirror
MS & Game Rentals
pin_gween writes "Technology News says Microsoft has entered an agreement with Exent to provide On-Demand Video Games. So far, only 6 Microsoft games are licensed to the on-demand service (which costs from US$4.95 to $14.95 a month for access to anywhere from 50 to 300 titles). MS titles are "Age of Empire," "Age of Mythology," "Dungeon Siege," "Mechwarrior," "Rise of Nations" and "Zoo Tycoon." Exent lured MS with the "the shelf life can be prolonged and create additional revenue for the publisher not generated by the retail channel"."
This is going to be like that Quake shareware CD, free games for everyone!
Because you all know you want those 3-4 year old games for $5-15 month charge when you can buy then for $5 bucks...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Steam is only purchasing games ove rthe internet, this seems more like renting them.
How much farther can geeks beat a joke into the ground? The Microsoft Borg joke wasn't funny to begin with, yet slashdot keeps flogging it to death for some reason. Our of all the topic icons on slashdot, only Microsoft gets the crappy, derogatory icon. Why is that? There's no good reason you guys can't use the MS logo just like for all the others. It's also funny how many Microsoft ads there are on slashdot. You guys hate them so much, yet have no problem taking their advertising dollars. Nice hypocrisy there.
In the 90's there was a thing here called "SegaChannel" by the local cable company (Rogers). It was $30.00 a month, and you got access to about 50-100 games, that changed about half of them every month.
We need that back! It was probably the most value that I have ever gotten for my money to do with games. (excluding free)
Age of Empire. It's like Age of Empires, but with just one!
I'd rather download a program via my broadband in a few minutes to an hour sometimes than go to a video rental store only to find the copy they said was available over the phone is not able to be found. However, the titles MS is offering leaves much to be desired.
Oh ya, I can't wait to shell out 14.95 for a solid MONTH of Zoo Tycon. Where does the time go?
suck my ping!
I'm not very familiar with the Microsoft game line, but are not most or all of the games offered ones that there has been a follow-up sequel to? Might Microsoft not see this as a way to gain revenue while at the same time use an old version of a game to promote a newer version of the game? I noticed the obvious absence of the Microsoft "Train Simulator" here, the game that even beta testers reported in bug reports "Unable to have fun with this game" and suspect it's because there is no sequel (the game rapidly lost it's shelf space). So while other companies sometimes release an older title into the wild as a way to promote a newer version, Bill has decided to charge users a reoccuring monthly fee for people to receive such promotions of new games. Nothing new there from the way Microsoft normally views their customers.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Maybe is just a purchase in anticipation of a valve's steam like download service for the new xbox 2??
--
Dreamhost superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers.
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
I think I actually have to credit MS here with doing something fairly original. I think at the right price a game subscribtion service would be a good thing for people like me who play games for 2 weeks and shelve them.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
These games are old. How about a selection of newer games?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Why would anyone rent games online when you can just... uhh... nm :P
That said, I don't think the retailers have anything to worry about immediately, as you'd have to be an idiot to pay $14.95 a month to rent a game you can buy for $20.00.
I just bought a copy of Dungeon Siege, which included the Legends of Aranna expansion pack, for $20.00 at Fry's. Not only do I own the damn thing and not get dunned every month, but I also don't have to install some insidious piece of spyware/copy-protection enforcement sh*t which phones home reporting my usage and any other damn thing they "need" to know about. Mechwarrior 4 can also be found on the cheap rack for $20.00. And if you really want an amazing bargain, grab Loki's Descent 3 for $4.95, which includes the Mercenary expansion pack.
This is a really, really dumb idea.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
As other posters have mentioned, we gamers do have the desire to get games over the net. Not only that, a lot of games that don't have much replayability and I'm satisfied with a rental.
Why are there only old games? What about even selling games digitally (yeah, I'd accept some DRM crap for the convience)?
So what's the holdup?
"It's just another baby step toward the death of retail, that glorious day when we're not paying $20 for a box and $20 for a game. Instead, we'll probably just be paying $40 for just the game, but at least it'll go into the developers' pockets rather than a publisher."
Yeah that's what Microsoft, as a publisher, is trying to do. I do hope he is right though as a developer.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
I remember the '90's. I remember that it was actually legal for people and businesses to lend or rent, or even re-sell the software they'd purchased to other people. The only condition was that it wasn't allowed to be run in more than one place at a time. Locally, we even had rent-by-mail companies that would take out full page advertisements in magazines, and post you software to use for a limited amount of time before you were (legally) required to uninstall it and return it.
Software companies -- not even Microsoft, but especially Microsoft -- went to great lengths to inform their customers that they were allowed to install Microsoft Word from their work onto their home PC, as long as it was only being used on one PC at a time. After all, it was clear that the software was licenced for use to the person who'd paid for it, so they were allowed to use it wherever it was most convenient for them without having to pay multiple times.
Some software had basic copy protection (eg. flight simulator games that asked you to quote a random word from page 215 of the manual), but there was rarely serious DRM. Software companies were quite clearly concerned about software piracy, but they weren't trying to wipe out customer's existing rights to solve that problem. On the contrary, most software companies and consumers actually acted as if they "trusted" each other, compared with today.
Somehow, this whole attitude has been lost in recent years, at least in commercial software. A major part of it seems to have been about when the media barons leapt to digital and brought all their annoying views on draconian copy protection with them. There's no way in hell you'd be allowed to casually install a work copy of MS Word on a home PC today, unless your company had a special agreement that they'd paid extra for. Even with this, there would still be DRM loopholes to jump through. You'd probably end up in jail for 15 years as an example to other "criminals" if the Microsoft-sponsored BSA lawyers had their way.
Times change, I guess.