That's not even remotely comparable.
Jimquisition (July 21) - The Xbox One: A Lying Failure Machine
- Thread starter L~A
- Start date
That's not even remotely comparable.
George Claw M.D.
Member
edit: Nevermind. Misread
Yes. Yes it would... A lot.
Of course, if both major consoles were planning to do this, this conversation would be moot- There would be no more used games and always online would be a requirement. I don't care about what company did it, I choose to stay loyal to the one that wasn't going to trounce on what I believe to be the most basic of consumer rights.
I don't agree that the two situations are congruent at all, but I see your point. A company trying to render the used game market (and lending games, which when I was younger was the only realistic way to experience what was out there) useless just doesn't fly with me. At all. What did Sony stand to lose, financially, from removing OtherOS support? I know that I would have stood to lose a lot by not allowing me to buy used games, or sell them. Or borrow one from a friend.
I also like to cuddle with animals, long walks at the beach, and of course maintain a stable of ponies and horses
Deputy Moonman
Member
Only MS never trounced on anything. They literally reversed their decision before release, but people are acting as if they should have strong loyalties to Sony, who is really just another corporate entity wanting to make moolah. Sony can play up the "we care about our fans more than Microsoft" angle all they want, but in reality, I fail to see any significant differences between the two.
Quadraphonic
Member
You're walking on VERY shaky ground right now. Pretending that MS didn't try to remove our rights is crazy talk.
Microsoft has maintained their original plans were better for us, lied about all the aspects of it, and then said it was a messaging problem. That's the point of this entire thread. The entire point. They pretend it's a messaging problem rather than a consumers rights issue. If you can't see that, then I am sorry.
Apart from the resolution fiasco, the console is better in many ways then the PS4. Internet gaming journalist(If you seriously, seriously can call them that in this day in age) are looking more and more like 24/7 bias news network anchors that spew shit over and over again to hit their demo and get those clicks/views......Oh, never mind, I guess that is the point.
What he's saying is it was a concept Microsoft were planning to implement for various reasons, but they decided not to do it within a months time of announcing it. People don't seem to want to acknowledge that it is in the past and likely not to occur the same reasons for why they decided against it in the first place. People can hate Microsoft for it all they want for having that idea. What I don't understand is the need to belittle everything they do from here on out for a decision they never carried out.
Quadraphonic
Member
What I don't understand is the need to praise them for doing what they should have done in the first place.
So was it bias last generation when you agreed with them?
So was it bias last generation when you agreed with them?
Metal Gear?!
Member
Let's pay people to dig holes and fill them up, it will be just as useful to the economy as the manufacturing and sale of the XBONE, and would be better for the environment to boot.
Agreed with who?
ValeYard
Member
I found Jim's timing for this video a bit curious since - as many have noted - MS is investing a lot of effort in winning gamers back. Also, MS and not only the xbox division has changed quite a bit since the Balmer/ Mattrick days, and hopefully for the better.
I used to have massive misgivings regarding MS: windows 98 was an insult, the way they burn out their employees (at least they make a lot of money though through shares, I guess), and, in one documentary, it was reported that Balmer and Gates weren't particularly nice to an ill long term employee.
That said, they won me over with the 360, and after much thought I went for the xbox one first this gen. I don't think the box itself is a failure, in fact, you can tell that many talented people put a lot of work into it, whom I feel Jim short changes. I would've preferred if Jim had focused in on the corporate structure that made the 180 kerfuffle and RRoD possible. As for the hardware differences of the consoles now, Sony simply outdid MS, but that doesn't mean MS failed. Many people didn't see 8gb GDDR RAM coming. I know that Albert Penello was very adamant that it wasn't that big of a deal but they must have been kicking themselves at MS somewhere, right?
Anyway, I just got home from a few weeks away for work and my wife surprised me with a ps4! So maybe I'll get some more insight into why Jim made the video.
I used to have massive misgivings regarding MS: windows 98 was an insult, the way they burn out their employees (at least they make a lot of money though through shares, I guess), and, in one documentary, it was reported that Balmer and Gates weren't particularly nice to an ill long term employee.
That said, they won me over with the 360, and after much thought I went for the xbox one first this gen. I don't think the box itself is a failure, in fact, you can tell that many talented people put a lot of work into it, whom I feel Jim short changes. I would've preferred if Jim had focused in on the corporate structure that made the 180 kerfuffle and RRoD possible. As for the hardware differences of the consoles now, Sony simply outdid MS, but that doesn't mean MS failed. Many people didn't see 8gb GDDR RAM coming. I know that Albert Penello was very adamant that it wasn't that big of a deal but they must have been kicking themselves at MS somewhere, right?
Anyway, I just got home from a few weeks away for work and my wife surprised me with a ps4! So maybe I'll get some more insight into why Jim made the video.
ricardokenshin
Member
ITT a lot of people who didn't watch the video.
OT: Of the original vision that the xbox one had only the part about playing games remains. That's good and all, but they priced their console for those features and now the only thing that remains is an underpowered console trying to compete with a cheaper and better console.
Had they put their plans of "introduce a trojan horse in every home" after the "put a kickass console in every home" things would have been different. Maybe introduce the extra features after your main market put the good word for you they wouldn't be in this position.
Now it's only a matter of seeing how large the gap gets.
OT: Of the original vision that the xbox one had only the part about playing games remains. That's good and all, but they priced their console for those features and now the only thing that remains is an underpowered console trying to compete with a cheaper and better console.
Had they put their plans of "introduce a trojan horse in every home" after the "put a kickass console in every home" things would have been different. Maybe introduce the extra features after your main market put the good word for you they wouldn't be in this position.
Now it's only a matter of seeing how large the gap gets.
Sony could have easily chose to follow suit... Microsoft's plan was public well before E3. They instead decided to go in a different direction. I don't really care what the reason was. Did they believe they were going to win over more consumers that fateful E3 night? Probably.
But they just have easily could have kept the same draconian measures that MS was touting and still won the early parts of this generation due to price difference alone. But they didn't, and for that they get my money.
The difference here is that the PS4 is still the same console that was unveiled last June, whereas the Xbox One isn't and continues to change on a regular basis.
For existing owners, there must be a fear that eventually something you bought the console for will end up on the scrapheap. As a prospective owner, how can you trust that what you're thinking of buying isn't going to be a completely different proposition again in another 12 months?
It's why I just can't ever see myself buying one. I'm just not sure exactly what it is that Microsoft are trying to sell me and, unfortunately, I don't think they do either. A console where features are added and improved is fine, but one where apparently integral, unmoveable ideals and functionality are repeatedly stripped out or modified because the execs running the show are panicking... It just doesn't fill me with confidence that it's money well spent.
soul creator
Member
If it was an actual "consumer rights" issue (and not just a "I don't like this product" issue), why wasn't there a similar mass outrage by gamers for all DRM on all games, and not just one specific version of it on one specific console. What I usually see is that people (and the market in general) are perfectly fine with DRM, as long as it's not "too" inconvenient, and if there are other benefits (such as cheaper games, extra platform features, etc.). Which is perfectly fine, but that means that all this DRM stuff is actually a value issue, not a consumer rights issue. And that's a totally different discussion and framing. As I always mention, I'm fine with people thinking the 24hr check-in is a shitty policy. People had valid complaints in Xbox One threads, Diablo 3 threads, and SimCity threads. I just never understood why the mere existence of it is somehow "taking away my rights", unless the consumer was somehow not informed of those drawbacks up front (or if those restrictions were added to products that people already spent money on). And 5 months before the launch of a product (a product that has numerous competitors in the same space if consumers don't like that particular product) certainly seems like enough "up front" time for a consumer to evaluate if they like a product or not, and to have enough free choice in the marketplace, but apparently it's not?
If it was actually a "rights" issue, or a "don't treat me like a criminal" issue, then we'd be protesting DRM in all formats, downloaded, or physical (why do I have to insert the disc to prove I own a game when all the data is already on the hard drive? Stop treating me like a criminal!) and we would only buy games from GoG. I don't see too many people worried about the "consumer rights" of someone who buys a game from Xbox Live, PSN, Steam (even Steam physical disc games that can't be traded or sold!), iOS, Google Play and being unable to trade it, return it, etc. And simply saying "but the games are cheaper!" or "it's not on a shiny piece of plastic, so it doesn't count!" doesn't excuse things, if someone is actually concerned about "consumer rights" and/or principles.
Note: I recognize some people do only buy games from places like GoG, and also speak out against even "nice" DRM, so for those people, they're actually being somewhat consistent, haha. Those people are a minority though.
And I want to repeat again, I'm fine with people finding the 24hr check-in a dumb policy that they don't want to deal with, and deciding to spend their money elsewhere. That makes 100% complete sense, and I'm definitely not trying to look down on people who do that. What I don't get is this idea that the mere proposal of that idea as part of a larger system with other pros and cons is inherently "anti-consumer" (at least, no more than any other policy by a corporation trying to get money on a luxury product is "anti-consumer"). Or that thinking the potential pros of the system (playing games you buy from any retailer and not needing the disc after installation, transferring licenses even when it's tied to a disc, buying digital games from more than one retailer, etc.) outweigh the drawbacks (24hr check-in) is something that needs to be "apologized" for. They believed in that idea initially. Some customers agreed. A lot more consumers didn't, so they changed it because they want more people to buy their system. Still thinking the idea had some cool aspects, or someone preferring those ideas, but recognizing that others wanted the status quo, doesn't seem like something that needs to be apologized for.
Another note: MS couldn't "remove my rights" because the Xbox One was a brand new product and ecosystem being introduced, with its own set of pros and cons, and no one's money was taken from them under false pretenses. It wasn't retroactively taking away my rights from stuff I previously spent money on.
John_RiticelloEA
Banned
Sorry to say, but Jim is a clickbaiting holier than thou ass who should never be viewed.
I ask myself "dude, do you want to play these games? Shit, you do?! Is it worth $500? No? Ok, maybe later". That's pretty much the long and short of me buying a console. I bought a PS4 at launch because I wanted to play Killzone and (hilariously) Knack. With the exception of the Jaguar I've never regretted getting any of my consoles. But I'm a different breed, perhaps even a flawed one because to this day I think my Dreamcast was a solid purchase and that was after the Sega CD, 32X and knowing about their intentions for Neptune. I just buy shit that has games that I want to play, which is why I have inevitably ended up with every console released since the 16-bit days.
soul creator
Member
There certainly seems to be a much stronger sense of "making a statement" with one's gaming choices nowadays, as opposed to just buying/not buying something you like/dislike. In some sense, I can sympathize (I'd probably be considered an evil anti-corporate socialist when it comes to my personal politics), but I do think that sometimes the well-meaning rhetoric goes a bit over the top.
Like, the sentiment behind a lot of stuff is likely "I think if more people bought into this, it would be harmful to the industry as a whole, not just to me personally". Simply saying "I don't think this product is worth it" isn't a strong enough argument, because evaluating a product in that fashion is something we do every day, and is uncontroversial. So it instead gets elevated to "XYZ is anti-consumer!", which is a much stronger statement, and is more likely to get people on your side.
So the thinking is that for example, the old Xbox One becoming successful would mean that customers are fine with more limited resale capabilities and 24hr check-ins (and happen to prefer discless play and otherwise more flexible digital licenses). And in theory, other companies would follow suit, therefore leading to an across the board restriction on reselling games and online check-ins. Sort of similar to PS4 now charging for online play because MS was successful with it, and now all customers are worse off.
So that's why more people are likely to become more...forceful with their language justifying their position, as opposed to simply saying "I don't like thing". Of course, where I disagree is that things like Xbox Live being successful, or the hypothetical Xbox One being successful, and the PS4 being successful even while charging for online play...means that customers must've supported that message. And would have meant that customers don't find those supposed "anti-consumer" issues that big of a deal (or at least, those drawbacks are outweighed by the positives). So if the industry moves in that direction, it's because consumers actually preferred that alternative, as opposed to all powerful corporations inflicting their will on a powerless consumer base. After all, it's not like these are required products, and we of course have numerous other outlets for our gaming choices, so it's not like we're at the mercy of MS and Sony for gaming (unless someone thinks MS/Sony console gaming is the only possible type of gaming that exists or can ever exist)
AgentOtaku
Member
Finally got around to watching this... my first Sterling vid none the less
...uh yeah, that was pretty spot on
...uh yeah, that was pretty spot on
All of the functionality that the Xbox had when it was announced (sans DRM and sharing stuff) it still has, as far as I am aware, and Sony were the only ones last gen to actively remove functionality from the product that they sold to consumers and had advertised as having such capability, so shouldn't users be more concerned by functionality being removed from PS4, as Sony historically have removed the capabilities of their machines to suit their corporate purpose?
Bluemercury
Member
Wow equals right in this case.
Brad Grenz
Member
Forget apologies about Xbox One, I'm still waiting for an apology about the FIFA hacks that were rampant on Xbox Live for 18 months. MS blamed victims for being phished the whole time, and it wasn't until one victim found a flaw in the Windows Live login system that allowed passwords to be brute forced that the problem was quietly fixed, stemming the tide of fraud.
It doesn't matter where he works, what his title is or what his duties officially involve. He was here for the express purpose of "public relations" and during that time he spread lies and misinformation. He doesn't get to dodge that fact through some kind of loophole or technicality.
The difference between OtherOS and Always Online DRM is that the former policy impacted approximately nobody while the latter applied to everyone.
Errrr it impacted me, so....Also the DRM shit was changed before the console launched, had they went through with it I would be manning the Fuck you cannon myself, but as is, it's not there.
Tell me how easy is it for you to trade in an Xbox one game? How easy is it for me to boot up Linux on my PS3? Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't make it ok for Corporations to fuck people over and apologists that say "well it only affects a small amount of people" are idiots.
Again, tethering games to one console and removing OtherOS are not even in the same conversation. Whether or not it affected you, it's hard to have a genuine argument with someone if they aren't willing to concede on this point.
Well one thing is for certain. This is still a hot button issue that isn't going away any time soon.
Except it is still there, just turned off. At any moment they choose they can flip that switch again.
Except it is still there, just turned off. At any moment they choose they can flip that switch again.
It really is hilarious.
And it's especially funny, because the majority of the media agrees, that between Sony and MS, Sony won the "E3 conference duel".
Fear mongering? Really?
Nintendojitsu
Banned
One clusterfuck after another. I'm surprised it took Sterling this long to address them all. I'm guessing the layoffs and film studio closure was the tipping point. Great rant as usual.
soul creator
Member
"When we announced these plans publicly 5 months before the launch of the system, most people hated it, so we changed it to address their feedback.
Therefore, the best course of action is for us to introduce the exact same plans with zero changes, after everyone has already spent their money on the system. That won't cause any controversy at all!"
Seems legit
Your consumer rights give you the freedom to resell the physical products you buy as you see fit.
Microsoft wanted to limit those consumer rights by limiting who you could sell to.
Therefore what they wanted to do was anti-consumer (yes I said that earlier in the thread).
Those approved shops essentially being a cartel would also have been anti-consumer.
You also want to remove the 24 hour check-in from the equation but that's a large part of the issue, needing Microsoft's permission to play your game and every title having an expiration date isn't exactly consumer friendly.
That said you have a point about it being a value issue.
However at least in UK law a large part of consumer rights hinge around what is considered reasonable.
It's reasonable to expect something that cost £1000 would last a long length of time but that same expectation wouldn't apply to something that cost £1.
Therefore it may be seen as reasonable for a "free" or 0.69p download to be a long-term rental but can the same be said for a £60 physical game?
The trouble is the law hasn't caught up with technological changes, digital products have fewer consumer rights so I won't go into that part of your argument any further (although there have been at least some new laws passed to improve the situation).
Finally your consumer rights have nothing to do with it being a new system, you have them no matter what, at least in Europe they can't make you sign them away in T&Cs or EULAs.
However Microsoft had a lot of policies that fell under grey areas of the law (particularly the way the law separates goods and services) which even would have eroded certain rights that usually come with the ownership of anything.
It's not like they were forcing you to buy the product though. If they had gone through with the original plans it's not like the industry would instantly become massively anti consumer. Those who didn't like the policies wouldn't have bought and those who didn't mind would have done.
They weren't removing your rights, they were making a product that you (and many others) didn't want. And so they removed the source of the problem.
A lot of this makes sense, thanks for taking the time to type it out. I can certainly understand why some people choose to be more vocal about their displeasure with MS and they have every right to voice their opinion. I try not to go down rabbit holes but I can see where they're coming from. I'm probably "part of the problem" but as a consumer I just buy what I feel has value to me. My actions will probably doom us all eventually but...games!
staticneuron
Member
Sony made a choice because people were abusing the security of the system using OtherOS. So as one of the majority who would like to use their console without worrying about security concerns I am glad they removed it. What they did is protect their customers. Just because it irritated a few doesn't mean it was not justified.
You were given a choice. You could have still used the older OS with OtherOS inside of it but you would have most likely have needed to get another PS3. What really blows my mind about this is that..... was it really that big of a deal? Please explain tome, with the hardware limitations of the PS3, what was so amazing that you MUST need OtherOs why was it it such a travesty that you consider yourself to be "fucked over"?
Hold on a second. I think alot of PSplus members bought into the sub because of the game that are given to the subscribers. I still oppose paying for online but I was already a plus member so it wasn't really something I would abstain from just to make a message. Because I own multiple Playstation products and the fact that there are many games I actually want to play when they update the selection, the value grows for me. I think of it as a digital rental service that cost $5 a month. And it saves me MUCH more money through out the year by offering games I would have purchased at full price anyways.
As far as the MS policies going forward. I still would have purchased an Xbox One. The only thing I saw the policy hurting was those without strong or constant internet connections. The damage would probably have been worse because people simply would not have purchased the console because they could not use it or it was to difficult to use. I couldn't imagine why MS would do that unless they really only cared about dominating a few specific markets. That probably also explains the launch roll out schedule.
LukasTaves
Member
A feature removed from a console that sold millions feature impacted no one, while a policy that never saw the light of day and would impacted everyone? C'mon now XD
Not to mention they were outlining their plans well before launch, so if anyone were to not agree with their policies could just not buy the console, an option you don't have when a feature is removed from a console after you purchased it.
soul creator
Member
You technically could still sell the physical product. It would just be pointless, since the game itself (the data on the physical disc) wouldn't have worked without an account, lol. Which is also funny, because discs on both PS4/Xbox One are also pointless after installation, since all the data gets copied to the hard drive anyway. Yet you still have to insert a disc to play the game, and one could say that it's because publishers are treating us like criminals
But that's an issue with all DRM, not the Xbox One specifically. After all, I haven't been able to easily resell PC software (games and otherwise) for like 10-15 years now. I have numerous PC games on disc (and yes, some of them were $50-$60 games) and they are unable to be resold. I knew that going in though, so I didn't see it as "anti-consumer". I just added that info to the list of things to take into account before purchasing. And of course, very few PC downloads are capable of being "resold".
The ironic thing is that Microsoft's proposals did have some method for resale (however limited). Which is still a step up over stuff like my PC Skyrim disc that I can't do anything with. And it would be a step up over pretty much any recent PC software that involves a product key that's already been used.
So if you look at it from the standpoint of traditional console disc behavior, then yes, it was definitely a step down. But if you look at it from the standpoint of traditional digital software/DRM approaches, for other customers, it would be a step up.
Different customers with different needs.
Again, I guess this goes back to wondering why was this seen as a specific Microsoft/Xbox One problem, and not as a "digital software" problem in general. I mean I do get it on some level, because console gamers are specifically used to a certain thing. But if we're evaluating software overall, it seems weird to protest this like it's some unheard of thing, yet in pretty much the rest of our lives, we buy software that depends on at the very least an initial internet connection and account authorization and is unable to be resold.
Yes, even with discs sometimes (operating systems, certain games, productivity software, etc.)
That's also what's ironic about the whole situation. The entire reason for the 24 hour check-in was to support some form digital game license transfer and resale. If MS and publishers actually did want to completely get rid of game resale and trade-ins, they wouldn't have needed the 24hr check-in in the first place. That's why when I buy any other type of digital software, or PC software that comes on a disc and has a product key, it can still work offline, because the expectation is that the product key is also tied to the hardware as well. Once the first account gets it, it's invalidated everywhere else, and stuck to that account forever. No periodic online check is needed in that case (just an initial one).
I'm actually curious if that would have actually gone over better. Within the context of digital games, do people prefer being able to trade their discs back to Gamestop (maintaining some semblance of status quo for consumers, even if it's more limited than before, but getting the conveniences of not needing to insert a disc to play games) and having a 24hr check-in, or not being able to trade in their discs, but having a permanent offline license (like how other digital games already work on consoles, and how digital software works almost everywhere else)
I personally prefer the former (inserting discs to play games is more "annoying" to me than needing my computing device to stay connected to the internet once a day, and the better digital transfer options would be more useful to me), but based on all the people who hated the Xbox One's original ideas, but are fine with DRM on everything else, maybe the latter would have been more preferable.
Or maybe that would've been hated as well because console gamers don't want any change to how discs work at all, I dunno
There have already been expensive physical disc games that require an internet connection to activate. Most of them use Steamworks DRM (I love the irony of Valve effectively saying DRM makes DRM obsolete, haha)
Granted, the usual response to this is that "meh, I wait for the Steam sale!" or "meh, Valve makes other awesome features on Steam so it's ok" or "meh, it's better since it's on an open platform", but that doesn't change the fact that even in 2014, $50-$60 retail disc games are being released with DRM that requires an internet activation. We just accept it because that's what we're used to, and there are other benefits of the PC platform that outweigh the cons.
Which is fine, but again, that shows that the real problem isn't actually a "rights" issue (which implies some sort of moral stand). As consumers, we seem to be fine with "losing rights" as long as other features compensate for it. Which seems to show that the "rights" in and of themselves aren't actually that important.
So that's why I think while it's valid to find a particular product offering with regards to DRM undesirable, I'm often skeptical of it actually being because of a grand concern over "rights".
(as noted before, some people are actually critical of DRM in all formats, so for those folks, my statements don't apply)
Do those laws in Europe apply to other PC software as well? For example, I remember hearing about some legal changes that would eventually apply to Steam as well, but I don't know what came of that. Is there a used PC disc software market over there? I'm not as familiar with Europe, but I know in the US, "used software" is sort of non-existent, with the exception of console games.
I do agree with you that laws should definitely be updated to account for digital software. For example, I personally think that every digital software license should be capable of being transferred to another account. If I want to give you a game I bought digitally, I should be able to do that, similar to if I bought a traditional disc (but more convenient, since I should just be able to click on your name and hit "transfer", as opposed to shipping out a disc or whatever)
Again, the irony is that Microsoft's original plans would have supported something like that. Yes, it was limited, and yes, it would be better if that was an enforced legal standard for all digital software, and not just dependent on the whims of a particular publisher...but in comparison to what I can do with all my current digital games on every other platform, it would have been an improvement. The drawback would've been the 24hr check, and the limits for people that are used to "tradition", but if you're a customer who does have reliable internet, and prefers expanded digital features over "tradition", that would've been a plus.
Different customers with different needs.
Version 3.0
Member
How is that an improvement? Their model was designed to add DRM / restrict resale on physical discs - a significant drawback over every console ever made. It didn't allow resale or transfer of downloaded games, at least, not that we ever saw detailed. The only information we got about downloaded games was "sharing", not gifting or selling, and that information was over-the-top, too good to be true nonsense with a hidden asterisk noting restrictions that we never got to see detailed.
Metallix87
Member
Um, I'm pretty sure what I compared to the DRM fiasco was the PSN hack scandal. The shitty E3 conference was brought up by someone, and I agreed that it was pretty awful. Great job misrepresenting my argument, though.
soul creator
Member
If you care about traditional physical discs, then sure, it was a significant drawback. If you care about playing games with your console not being connected to the internet for more than a day, it was a significant drawback. If you care more about selling games on ebay, or passing discs around from person to person, it was a significant drawback.
If you care more about not needing discs to play a game, or if you care more about being able to buy digital games from multiple retailers besides just Xbox Live, or if you care more about being able to buy digital games on a disc to save on bandwidth costs, or if you care more about being able to transfer your license to another person, or deauthorizing that digital license so that you can trade it in, then for those people, it can easily be seen as an improvement.
Different customers with different needs.
http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license
Yes, this is limited in comparison to traditional console disc model. And obviously, giving publishers a choice to enable/disable this is a drawback (similar to how online passes were a drawback). But in comparison to tradition digital game download models, where we all currently have zero capability of trade-ins or resale, then even in its early stages, the proposal was a step up. As I always like to do, I like to bring up my Skyrim disc on PC.
You're comparing things to other console games on a disc. I'm comparing things to other digital game hybrid disc/download ecosystems. In some cases it's a step down, in other cases it's a step up.
Different customers with different needs.
It was also 5 months before launch. Of course, every single detail wasn't fully released (when does any product have full details on every single thing 5 months before the product exists?), but the basics were outlined for anyone to read. I didn't see anything "over the top, too good to be true" listed on the page, because I knew that the thing that would keep it from being abused and "too good to be true" was the 24hr check-in.
Some people may feel that the proposed ideas outweigh the drawback of the 24hr check-in. Other people may feel that the drawback of the 24hr check-in outweighs everything else.
Different customers with different needs.
Neuromancer
Member
Yeah well I suspect most of those customers with the needs for normal systems that play games normally flocked to the PS4, much to Microsoft's chagrin.
soul creator
Member
Agreed, that's exactly how it should work!
What the fuck.
soul creator
Member
What's so shocking about that? Being able to transfer a digital license to someone on my friend's list, or being able to resell a disc-as-digital game is a step up in comparison to what I can do now with digital games on most platforms. (hopefully you didn't skip over the first part of what you quoted)
If you happen to know how I can sell or trade in my PC Skyrim disc, or my PC Dead Island disc, so that it's removed from my account and someone else can install and play it, I'd love to know where!
I'd also love to know where I can give some of my old XBLA/PSN/Steam/iOS purchases to someone else's account. I'm sure my nephew might like some of my digital games that I'm no longer playing.
edit: either way, the main thrust of my argument isn't to necessarily convince others that everything would've been awesome for every person. It's simply to show that there are pros and cons, and it's everyone's choice to evaluate those pros and cons of what's being offered. That doesn't necessarily make what's being offered "anti-consumer", unless we're now ready to apply "anti-consumer" to a lot more things than usual (things that we apparently seem to accept just fine in plenty of other cases)
The problem (even ignoring nonsense like friend sharing which no one knows - I'd wager not even MS - how it was gonna work) is that you're qualifying it as a "step up from current DD stuff" when what it really is a gigantic step back from current disc stuff.
We're talking about what would happen to disc-based games, which would be from "you can do whatever you want with it" to "you can only lend it once, or only resell it to select partners". We're not talking about current DD stuff having improved options like license transfer etc. The way you put it is ridiculously dishonest.
soul creator
Member
I literally mentioned all the drawbacks at the top of my original post that you snipped, so I'm well aware of the drawbacks for disc-based games. Not sure how you missed that, or think I'm trying to hide those drawbacks. Here it is again:
I also bolded it for you as well. Of course it was a step back for people who are concerned about those things. All I'm saying is that there are other customers that don't see those things as important as you do. And that's perfectly fine (and it also doesn't make them shills or fanboys). The Xbox One wasn't the only game system that existed, so for people who didn't like those drawbacks, they have other choices (which is what most people did by expressing their lack of interest in the system, not preordering the Xbox One, and putting their money towards other gaming platforms instead).
All I was saying is that one's subjective priorities as a consumer doesn't inherently make them "pro-consumer" and people who prefer the other ideas as "anti-consumer", especially if that consumer doesn't care about those traditional disc-based aspects in the first place. Just like the millions of people who are perfectly fine with DRM in other formats, based on their subjective evaluation of other things. For most people, DRM is a drawback, but they are willing to tolerate it if other factors compensate for it. And whether or not other factors compensate for it is a value discussion not a "I must defend my rights!" discussion.
If "DRM" in general was a genuine moral/rights concern, then that is an issue with almost all computer software dating back 15+ years, not an Xbox One specific issue, and is a much larger discussion. And that's a valid discussion to have too, but to single out the Xbox One's ideas as something uniquely abhorrent or morally offensive (which is how it was often phrased) would seem odd.
Your preference for lending game discs to your friends is a subjective evaluation based on your needs as a customer. There are other users that have decided lending game discs or reselling game discs on ebay is not as important to them as other factors. Obviously, there seems to be much more of the former in the case of console games, which is why MS changed everything. And that's fine. But I find it to be a bit over the top to say one side is "more pro-consumer" or "anti-consumer" than the other. It seems to set up this grand moral crusade of "us vs. them" when in actuality, it's (once again!) different consumers with different needs.
You have to see the whole picture. The amount of people NOT ok with MS's "future" proposition far outweighs the amount of people who are.
You're talking about a tiny improvement (most of it being unknown because it was never clarified by MS despite the million questions they got about it) to one distribution method, to a massive downgrade of the long established alternative that the overwhelming majority of people were happy with to begin with.
If you don't care about "traditional disc-based aspects" then you've had the opportunity to buy digital for ages. Not to mention that MS can have improved the DD situation in just about exactly the same way without changing anything to the way disc-based games operate. What people like you want is the best of both worlds, even if that means fucking up the physical distribution in the process.
soul creator
Member
I agree! Which is why it was changed. But the difference is that I don't see the people who were not ok with it as somehow having the obviously morally superior position, which is how the discussion is often framed whenever we start talking about those subjective consumer preferences in terms of "rights", and when the anger starts flowing.
I've already linked to the old licensing page which clearly explained the basics to me. Obviously, not every single implementation detail was laid out (since things 5 months before launch usually don't have every single implementation detail laid out), but it was enough to get a general idea of what was being offered.
And yes, some consumers would find it a massive downgrade (and that's fine), some would find it a tiny improvement (and that's fine), and some would find it a big improvement (and that's fine). It depends on the individual consumer and that they prefer.
One type of consumer may be more numerous than the other, but I don't think that makes them objectively superior to the other or whatever.
-Consumers who prefer digital games are still locked into one store (Xbox Live marketplace), as opposed to being able to easily buy them from multiple retailers. PSN has somewhat addressed this by selling its games on Amazon, but it's still nowhere near as good as the flexibility of multiple retailers beyond just Amazon.
-Consumers who prefer digital games still have to deal with large downloads if they happen to have slower internet or bandwidth caps. Someone's internet may be good enough for a daily check-in and some patches, but not good enough for a full 40-50GB download. So discs as digital games would be a plus for them.
-Consumers who still like having cases/manuals/pre-order goodies/etc., but prefer the other conveniences of digital games are also still out of luck.
So not everyone would benefit from "just do the same thing with digital only games!"
Now sure, it's perfectly valid to say "I think Microsoft's approach was the wrong way to go about this, and though the hybrid disc/digital approach works with Steamworks games, I don't think it makes sense for a console platform". That's perfectly fine. But again, I don't think that makes that person more "pro-consumer" than someone else or somehow more "for the gamers" than someone else.
Similar threads
- Poll