Hacker News Reader

Comment by geddy | Hacker News Reader

This is great news, and I'm happy that the backlash worked. I was furious to find out a 20+ year old game was implemented with DRM.

So much so that I requested a refund from Nintendo who notoriously does not do refunds on eShop purchases. It actually worked, and I was refunded my $5 yesterday. Couldn't be happier to have voted with my wallet. Hopefully others did that too. I won't be re-purchasing DOOM either because I no longer want my money in Bethesda's pockets.

I _will_ however continue playing my $2 copy from GOG that I grabbed shortly after requesting the refund.

View on HN

They claim it's not DRM, but a way to participate in their Slayers Club promotion. That being said, Bethesda has pretty much spent any goodwill they may have had lately, so maybe you can't take them at their word.

Doesn't Switch provide its own DRM?

Yes, you cannot easily side-load your own code onto the Switch. It's definitely a locked-down platform.

This isn't true. The original Switch release can sideload apps. Currently, firmware restrictions exist but it's still doable.

https://nh-server.github.io/switch-guide/

And of course, DOOM was ported: https://github.com/lantus/chocolate-doom-nx

Ok, but it's not easy, just as the OP said, and it's extremely risky. If you forget to turn off your wifi, that's a perma-ban from all Nintendo online services.

It is an extremely locked down platform. Nintendo does not want you sideloading stuff onto it. Your OP didn't say it's impossible, they said it's hard, and they said it's locked down. Both things are true.

Nintendo is infamous for battling side-loading harder than anybody else. This has been a battle for ages, one I've been following since at least the DSPhat. And look through their history - a big reason they were so successful in the second resurgence of gaming (after the failure of the Atari era) is possibly because of how locked-down their platform was, how stringent their requirements were when it came to games. Game developers hated it because Nintendo would go so far as to control how many cartridges could be on a given store's shelves (stores hated it too, because money was being left on the table every time they sold out, which was almost always).

Long story short, just cause hackers keep winning the fight against Nintendo, doesn't mean their platforms aren't locked down.

Although I think Bethesda was wrong to do what they did, and they're rightfully being taken to task for it, your response is raising my eyebrow.

You seem to care so much about DRM that you'll demand a refund and use a DRM-free service instead, and yet you own a Switch which is itself a closed platform heavily laden with DRM?

Perhaps DRM isn't the issue. Perhaps the issue is DRM on a legacy game.

It is pretty easy to run homebrew on older Switches now.

Perhaps the OP has made the decision to accept Nintendo's control of the Switch in exchange for playing Switch games, but is upset about additional unexpected requirements being added to the mix by individual publishers.

This is exactly correct. Nintendo is the only company who I support with the current generation of consoles, and on the exceedingly rare occasion that I buy a digital game (indies, or a re-release like DOOM), I accept the DRM terms.

If you avoid DRM 100% of the time without exception, then video games become just about impossible to play, with the exception of GOG releases.

Of course I care about DRM, but there's not a console that exists that doesn't have a locked-down platform. I take the good with the bad - I buy very little digital games (my games are 99% physical), and when I do, they are <$10 or DRM-free on PC from GOG.

Of course the Switch has DRM, but it's also the only device I own that can play portable games and is not my phone, which I have no interest on playing games on. $5 to relive childhood memories on my bus ride to work is well worth it, but not if it's a crippled version of a re-released game that won't work in a few years.

> seem to care so much about DRM

I'm not sure "didn't want to create another account just to play a game" fits under this umbrella, but I'm more curious what exactly you're trying to prove here. If one DRM implementation is distasteful to me, then I should avoid all implementations of DRM? I don't want my PC rooted by a music CD with poor DRM on it, but I still watch DVDs and Blu-Rays and download streaming content through a closed-source plugin.

I care about the environment but haven't killed myself yet.

People have many interests that are often at direct odds with each other. You do what you can to find a balance and live according to some sort of principles even if sometimes engaging in extreme flexibility. Nothing unique about that to DRM or consoles.

Unfortunately you’re one of the very few that is willing to vote with your dollar and actually signal to Bethesda that being shitty can affect their bottom line (versus people who bought the game, become salty about it on Twitter but don’t ask for a refund because they need their Doom fix).

5 dollars? Last I looked it wa 50 dollars. I wanted it, but couldn't fathom spending 50 dollars on a game that was developed decades ago

This is about a re-release of the first Doom game from 1993, not the recent reboot from 2016 with the same name.

I know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com