News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by platevoltage on Sunday May 31, 2026 @12:05AM (#48342945)
You should not be able to shut down the ability to play a game if it cost money to buy.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by ryandrake on Sunday May 31, 2026 @12:38AM (#48343062)
You should at least have to refund customers when you take away the ability to use a product they purchased.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by wilg on Sunday May 31, 2026 @03:12AM (#48343701)
This is fair for some reasonable time window after purchase. But I think it's okay for things to have a lifespan even if they cost money.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by ryandrake on Sunday May 31, 2026 @01:17PM (#48347492)
As long as the life span is clearly spelled out when you purchase, so you know that you are actually buying a 10 year subscription, and not a game.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by wilg on Monday June 01, 2026 @04:17PM (#48362070)
This would be a much preferable law to the one actually proposed.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by platevoltage on Sunday May 31, 2026 @07:14PM (#48350740)
No. It's not a physical good that is subject to wear and tear. There is no excuse for a single player game to have a lifespan because it has some pointless online verification component.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by wilg on Monday June 01, 2026 @04:14PM (#48362022)
I think it should be legal to sell something with a pointless online verification component.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by wilg on Sunday May 31, 2026 @03:04AM (#48343659)
Yes you should!
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by platevoltage on Sunday May 31, 2026 @07:12PM (#48350716)
Give me one good reason why.
Re:Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed ... by wilg on Monday June 01, 2026 @04:20PM (#48362122)
Because I think it's good for software developers and consumers for people to have the flexibility to sell something that depends on online services which may become unavailable at some point in the future. This is more valuable than requiring indefinite support, public pluggable backends, or required open sourcing or backend redistribution, which imposes onerous technical or business limitations for an extremely minor consumer benefit all things considered.