Jimquisition (July 21) - The Xbox One: A Lying Failure Machine
- Thread starter L~A
- Start date
Xenon
Member
This always cracks me up. People have the right to chose to buy or not buy the console. That is the only valid use of the word in the conversation. Being able to trade in games is not a right. It was something you were able to do due to the fact that it was distributed as a physical product and did not require activation like PC games and applications. MS was not taking your rights away. They were offering you a more constrained product.
It's not about being "morally superior". It's about introducing never-heard-of-before restrictions to physical copies of software, in favour of some "improvements", which are:
- A nebulous "family sharing" plan, that worked in 5 different ways depending on whom at MS you asked, and was most likely a last-minute, undefined idea from MS to try to sell their BS always-online and restrictions on physical copies when the backlash became bigger and bigger by the minute.
- People in your house can totally play on your console. Why, thank you based MS. Very generous of you to not have kinect scan our face to make sure we're the one who bought the games, and otherwise lock them out from anyone else.
- You can login at a friend's place and play your games. Because we all know it's physically impossible to bring your games with you.
- Lend or give the game, but only ONCE IN A LIFETIME. Brilliant.
- Trade-in is still in, but hey, with new restrictions!
No, the vast majority would find it a massive downgrade. Again, what's the massive new improvement you're speaking of? The list above lists none. The only one I can think of is not having to get your ass up and change a disc. Big deal. Buy DD then.
And thus we're going to my last point that you somehow left out. You just want the best of both worlds, buy cheap second hand games and be done with the disc because you don't care and don't want to get up to change games, even if that means that thousands others are getting screwed big time. The irony is, with MS's new restrictions on how easily games can recirculate, you surely must realize that the 2nd hand market would have been completely transformed, don't you?
And just lol @ the classic "but Steam" line of thought.
I'm also utterly confused that you're saying this now after making this type of argument:
So which one is it? You don't care about "those traditional disc-based aspects" yet want to be able to buy your games from multiple retailers, have a case and booklet and so on? Sounds like "traditional disc-based" stuff that you shouldn't be caring about.
Oh yeah, it's not a right, which is exactly why there's a law about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
BabyFaceKillah
Member
Damn this thread certainly got "Sony too" 'd to hell and back since I last posted in it
WTF is Sony Too??
crazygambit
Member
Because the PS2 gen was just the worst right?
It's much better to have developers stretch themselves thin supporting 5 consoles (because why not go cross gen), instead of maximizing one.
Quite a few people here and elsewhere responded to MS always-online and new DRM madness with "well keep complaining, Sony's gonna do exactly the same anyway. Just you wait."
And thus, Sony Too was born.
false equivalence
Version 3.0
Member
You can repeat this ad nauseum, but it doesn't make it true.
The truth is, Microsoft showed us very clearly that serving the customer was the last thing they were thinking of when they designed the Xbox One. It was designed to expoit customers, not serve them. The design made that clear, and their PR drove home the point quite forcefully.
If they were truly concerned with servicing "different customers with different needs", then every supposed advantage of digital download sales would not have been removed along with the physical disc DRM restrictions. It's been pointed out time and again that there is nothing preventing them from having most of the benefits they claimed their old system would have had right now.
Version 3.0
Member
Well, that's your interpretation of the law - and obviously Microsoft's, too, since they thought they could get away with that. Admittedly, it's a grey area, but First Sale Doctrine has been upheld for software on physical media before, particularly games.
There was widespread belief amongst certain people that if Microsoft was trying to do all these DRM, anti used game and always online features that it automatically meant Sony would do them too. This was to damage control the bad MS news in that "Sony Too!" would also be doing it. The idea was that if both of them were doing these things then neither were "bad" since its not industry standard.
And its not just a forum thing, it was so widespread that even professionals in the industry like Giant Bomb made a video of them saying the same, amongst many others.
Even I was on the Sony Too bandwagon before E3 2013, but that was mostly because I did not think Microsoft would be stupid enough to try to do it without it being an ultimatum forced on both Microsoft and Sony from publishers, but no, Microsoft did it all by themselves with only EA really being on board with it.
Thanks for explaining as I now know just what the hell this bloody stupid user name is that some mod slapped me with for making an off hand observation.
Xenon
Member
But the models MS was copying are not subject to that law. Do you hold the same level of ire to Google play or the iTunes store?
The whole point was they were moving to a digital format. PC games have been using physical media with activation for years now. I get that people did not like it. But "that's how it's always been" is not a legal argument. Especially considering how many similar business models currently exist.
They didn't do it for security of consumers, they did it because they thought it might open the door to pirating games. Which according to a number of sources, it wouldn't have. I enjoyed using Linux on my Playstation, part of the reason I got it was for that functionality. The fact that you are not personally affected by it makes it no less of an issue.
Concede what point? Which one affects consumers more removing functionality from a product they own or changing a policy on a product nobody has ever owned?
I said earlier if Microsoft went ahead with their DRM plans I would be Manning the fuck you gun, but they didn't... Am I missing something?
If a company tell you that your shit doesn't work for security and you repeatedly ignore them then that's pretty malicious to me. If no one had said anything and they were caught out that's negligent.
RyanPierre
Member
No, that is pretty much the textbook definition of negligence. Malice is the desire to cause harm.
gioGAF
Member
They are not listening to gamers, they are just trying to win back market share. That is the whole point. If they were the unequivocal market leader, they would shove whatever they could down your throat, just like they do in every other market they have cornered.
I know the definition of both, but was using some artistic licence to emphasise my point!
What's the difference? Seriously?
They're trying to win back market share by listening to gamers. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Thank you. They want your money, they don't give 2 fucks about whats right for gamers. Sony, MS and Nintendo will do anything to pleases gamers so you will buy their product.
soul creator
Member
How is it "never heard of" when there's plenty of computer software and games, for 10+ years, are unable to be resold, even when buying them on a disc?
Again, if you have some insight into where I can resell my Skyrim disc on PC, I would love to hear about it!
Yes, the plan was not fully detailed. That's why the product wasn't in stores yet. That's generally how product development works.
But for some people, it would be more convenient to login and have all their games available (whether they bought it on a disc, or as a download), as opposed to having to bring a bunch of games in a carrying case.
Some gamers prefer to carry a bunch of discs, some people don't. One is not inherently better than the other.
As opposed to (I'll match the caps) ZERO IN A LIFETIME, which is how my digital games are currently treated. Like all my XBLA games. Or PSN games. Or Wiiware games. Or iOS games. Or Steam games. Or this damn Skyrim disc on PC (which doubles as a Steam game).
Restricted in comparison to previous console games, and expanded in comparison to my PC Skyrim disc, or other computer software (which is still often on a disc that can't be easily resold).
I'm gonna mention PC Skyrim a lot, better get used to it!
So being able to buy a digital game from Xbox Live/Amazon/Best Buy/Gamestop/Wal-mart/Target/etc., and being able to still have a digital game when those stores have a Black Friday sale or whatever, as opposed to only being able to buy from Xbox Live is not an improvement?
Being able to reinstall a digital game from a disc to save on bandwidth costs, but still having the ability to not insert the disc every time you want to play the game is not an improvement?
Of course, as I keep saying, it's fine if you don't think those improvements are worth the drawbacks. I get that. But it shouldn't be some huge surprise that some people may value those improvements more than the traditional disc stuff.
Again, plenty of gamers already do these things on other platforms, so this is not some unheard of, brand new thing. I guess it's only unheard of if the only software someone has ever used are console games...
I think this is the core of my disagreement with how this topic is discussed. If this alternate Xbox One came out, and had flaws that other people didn't agree with so they didn't buy it, no one is getting "screwed". The existence of a product that is flawed doesn't mean you were "screwed" out of it. An Xbox One was not some legally required thing that we were forced to spend $500 on, nor was it the single source of gaming for people who like video games, so there was no monopoly.. It was a new product being introduced with different pros/cons in comparison to other products.
The fact that a product may suck doesn't mean that the product was "screwing" you. It just means the product sucks, it's not a personal insult. And someone else thinking the product doesn't suck because they value other things it offers instead is also not a personal insult.
There have been numerous products throughout history that were incredibly unappealing to me. I didn't feel "screwed" by their mere existence, I just simply said they weren't worth my money, and spent money elsewhere.
Yes, it would've been transformed for Xbox One games (it's already transformed for PC games, of course). Xbox One games are not the only games that exist, and gamers have plenty of other platforms and games that exist, so I struggle to see where the "screwing" is occurring.
And if other companies happened to follow along, they would've likely followed along because consumers overall decided they were fine with it, not because of some evil trickery (again, assuming that whatever policies being implemented are known up front before the product is available)
Contrary to popular belief, the mere mention of Steam doesn't automatically invalidate an argument, as long as you understand the specific reason why Steam was mentioned in a given context.
To go back to my favorite example, I have Skyrim on PC. It was bought as a retail disc. It uses Steamworks DRM. Once that disc is activated, it gets associated with my Steam account, and no other account can play it. The disc is now essentially useless. I could technically sell the disc, but no one else could ever play the game, unless they buy a new license. At most, they can use it as a way to install data much more quickly, but they couldn't actually play the game. Sound familiar?
So by everyone's logic, Valve and Bethesda "took away and violated the consumer rights of everyone who bought it".
Except no one actually says that. The reason why no one says that is because consumers have collectively decided that there are other benefits of the PC and Steam platform that outweigh the big drawback of not being able to resale the disc.
Which supports my point that I think "rights", in some abstract sense, is the wrong way to phrase things, when the discussion is actually about value. So to keep harping on "MS violating rights", when there are numerous other forms of computer software that also "violates rights", but no one hardly complains about. seems strange. Again, I'm not saying the product is above criticism, I'm just saying that I'm skeptical that consumers are actually concerned about "rights" the same way people keep saying.
Then let me rephrase then: it's a matter of priorities. If a consumer cares more about digital aspects, and value that more, but then there's also a way to get some of the perks of physical discs, then for them, that's a plus. for them, the hybrid model may be better than the strictly separated model where they have to spend $120 for two separate versions of the game to get the benefits.
Even this link shows that it's not super cut and dry with computer software. And you can technically still sell the disc, but there's no legal requirement saying the disc has to necessarily work for the new person you sell it to. That's why my PC Skyrim disc isn't outlawed. That's why plenty of other computer software isn't outlawed.
Though if a new law passed that forced all digitally distributed software to support license transfers, I would be totally cool with that!
Define "exploit"? I find it tough to feel "exploited" when I knew all about the pros/cons of an optional product before purchase, and could make an informed decision on whether to buy it.
There's a difference between serving different customers with different needs, and serving all customers with all needs. Literally every product in existence is gonna have some customer that it doesn't appeal to. But as long as those things are known before you put money down on it, I struggle to find it "anti-consumer" or particularly offensive. The product may suck, and a lot of people may find it highly flawed, and that's fine. But something being highly flawed is not the same thing as "anti-consumer".
And of course, they routinely talk about bringing back those benefits for digital downloads. It was likely probably easier to do those benefits if it's all "under one roof" as opposed to being segregated.
Sure, they could have built things in different ways to accomplish whatever benefits they claimed. Again, that means the system was flawed for a lot of people, not that it was anti-consumer.
Now I'm curious, how come my Steamworks games that come on a disc aren't outlawed? As you said, it's a grey area.
To clarify, I'd be right there with you guys if laws were updated to force companies to expand digital software capabilities. The more the better. All I'm saying is that in the meantime, I don't find the mere existence of restricted capabilities on computer software as "anti-consumer", unless we're simply defining that phrase as "anything that a consumer would find flawed".
Anti-consumer would be implementing the DRM plans, and then not telling people about it until they after they purchased the product.
Anti-consumer is selling a product that doesn't work (which is why I've said that the actual anti-consumer thing MS has done was the red-ring related stuff, since that unknowingly affected people after they bought the system)
Selling a game system that requires an internet connection to be used, and then telling me about it 5 months before it launches doesn't qualify as "anti-consumer" to me. It may mean the product sucks to a lot of people, but I don't see that as the same thing.
Agree 100%, corporations aren't our friends, 99/100 if a corp goes the pro consumer route isn't only because it makes them the most money.
Edit, I do wish more game companies would place more value in their fanbase/ existing customers even if they are viewed only as a commodity.
Exactly. These companies are businesses and are entirely focused on taking your money. If Sony or Nintendo thought they could earn more money by implementing DRM policies you could be sure as hell they'd implement them. Obviously everyone now sees that's a terrible idea as you get a fucking huge uproar and so would actually earn less money by implementing them.
Excellently worded post that I could never be bothered to write because I'm lazy. I agree completely.
I could never understand the claims that MS were trying to force these "draconian, anti consumer policies" on the industry when it was completely optional to buy the console.
staticneuron
Member
They did it for the security of the system and the interest of all third party company's who were working with Sony. Let us sidestep the fact that it should be perfectly understandable for them to make this move to protect IP and to shed the cost of maintaining OtherOS (something they were planning on since the release of the Slim PS3) but let us move on to its exploit.
Do you honestly think that leaving it in unfettered would have no effect on everyone else? If Sony had shrugged their shoulders how do you think the third parties would react. do you think they would be ok with releasing their titles on a console that is hacked and the manufacturer does nothing about it? Bypassing the security gives them access to try to copy/modify/run all sorts of protected content from games,movies and music.
Everyone else gets effected if Sony didn't do this because third party companies weren't going to throw cash in a hole. I think the argument that the exploits existence wouldn't harm other owners is deluded.
Actually, that's bullshit. Sony could have just as easily implemented the same exact system (and thought about it, hence the concern before the reveal) and *still* would have sold more because it was kinectless and cost 100 dollars less. They could have gotten in bed with publishers but didn't. Don't presume to know what they're going to do when they gave no indication they were going to do it.
And I agree with the above poster- we know what they wanted to do and would do if they were the industry leader. No fucking way I'm going to support that.
It takes more work and time to rebuild trust then it takes to destroy it. A lot more. Common sense, really.
There's a false belief that these third party publishers have all kinds of power over the platform holders. Without the platform holders, they can't sell games. What's EA going to say, sorry Sony, we don't want your half-of-the-core-gamer userbase of consumers anymore?
It's not entirely a false belief. EA shit all over Sega and forced MS to shut down it's first party sports division, for example.
I'd say it's more of a symbiotic relationship, but the big publishers do have some shove in them when need be.
travisbickle
Member
It's a "lying failure" because everything they said was integral to the system wasn't.
A company can either make something integral to the system working in one cohesive form or you can lie about it and just say it is integral.
MS decided on the latter, which was good because it meant they could back out of the options consumers didn't like, but it also meant Jim could make this video as they failed at lying.
A company can either make something integral to the system working in one cohesive form or you can lie about it and just say it is integral.
MS decided on the latter, which was good because it meant they could back out of the options consumers didn't like, but it also meant Jim could make this video as they failed at lying.
Oh my! lol
And when we openly say that we don't want to buy said console due to those reasons, we are painted as fanboys, am I right?
That was then, this is now. Dreamcast never was close to being a leader in sales. Neither was MS at the time. Sony sold over 80 million PS3's and the brand has what, 18 years of high sales in the industry? It would have been suicide for EA to pull any of that shit on MS or Sony after each sold 80 million consoles.
RyanPierre
Member
But their goal isn't just to sell more than the competition, it's to sell as many units as possible and maximize the potential for profit like any business.
I think Microsoft originally bet that the pros of the DRM system outweighed any lost sales, while Sony was watching things like the Twitter campaign and bet that DRM would cost them more sales than it was worth. I believe Sony ultimately made their decision based on what they felt would be the most profitable path for them. In this case, doing what was right for consumers coincided with getting your money and delivering them a PR pipe dream.
I agree with you on the main point. The publishers weren't applying pressure on the DRM angle. I think they were in cahoots with Microsoft, at least EA was, but applying pressure to Sony? No way.
Can they still apply pressure when they need to? I think so. Those 80 million consoles are old news and every one starts over at zero. That's why Nintendo has no leverage whatsoever.
R_thanatos
Member
Soory but i have to ask :
What are your sources ?
Because there was a linux exploit that lead the way in a number of devellopements , including the creation of numerous tools that allowed cheating in various multiplayer games.
That exploit lead to the creation of numerous tools that allowed backup and loading of isos from the PS3 harddrive.
Sony closed it as fast as they can ( in 3 sucessives updates ) . Just like everyone else would. Just like every corporation would.
You don't leave a giant security hole open when there is a very obvious risk that it would ruin the rest of your structure.
JUST LOOK AT WHAT BECAME OF THE PSP
The people who didn't upgrade , no only they have linux , but the can do whatever they want , cheat in Mp games , isos loaders and a bunch of stuff that is quite illegal depending on the country you are.
Saying " it wouldn't have done anything" is ridiculous.
None of those things absolutely required their old plan to be in effect to be done. Microsoft threw the baby out with the bathwater to an extent. It's a shame too, even though I greatly prefer the physical format I know not everyone has the same needs/preferences as me and more freedom of choice is always a good thing.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Yea, there's this notion that Sony/MS/Nintendo is "our friend" that's quite prevalent in many threads in GAF, which is just flat out bizarre.
The problem is if you bought the thing for that stuff you got ripped off.
Granted I think most people will agree they're better off with the change in direction, but those that aren't are justify in their anger/dissapointment.
If you think every business on the planet is so hell bent on profit over every single other facet, then you might be either overly cynical, or overly corporate apologist. (Or just naive)
If a company puts profits over customer satisfaction, how will they continue to earn profits? There absolutely has to be a balancing act between making money and satisfying your customers. When you start to take your customers for granted and start treating them like you have the monopoly on console gaming when you don't, all for the sake of "profits at all costs" motive, you end up in this exact situation MS find itself in. Reputation so damaged it may never recover and sales to match.
There is also a fundamental respect level that each of these three corporations have towards their customers, and Microsoft continues to prove that they don't think very highly of us.
Just because every company wants to make a profit, that doesn't mean every one of them sees us all as faceless wallets whose only purpose for existing is for them to squeeze money out of.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Why would you blindly buy a system for its TV-focus or Kinect-focus? Even if you like a TV-focus or a Kinect-focus, since there was nothing of that there on XB1 before the decisions were changed (not even on the horizon), you could just not know, if you would like the tv content to be released or the kinect games to be released. Someone buying a for console having a high price or having draconian drm must be a psychopath anyway, so no sympathy here.
Because those things were marketed as part of the console experience. Realistically if these things are promised they should do be delivered.
Even if you want to say that for the tv stuff as it was still unreleased the kinect was stated as being a code, unremovable part of the Xbox One which is now likely to die unsupported. Considering that there were games made for it prior and they repeatedly insisted that they weren't going to reneg on that I don't see how you can blame the customer.
soul creator
Member
(I'll use your post as a general jumping off point for my final words on this topic)
Well, sure. They could have potentially designed things in numerous different ways, and they happened to pick a bad one. That means for a lot of consumers, they made a highly flawed initial product. Which can happen with hundreds of other things that we choose to spend money on or not.
I don't think that qualifies as "anti-consumer" though, unless there is some kind of fraud or misrepresentation of the product. That's really my only disagreement with how the issue is talked about, as I think it's more productive to discuss it as "I think this product sucks, here's why" (which plenty of people did, of course), as opposed to "you tried to fuck us, arrrgh apologize to me now you liars". Or when they address the parts that suck to fit what people seem to want, turning around and then treating the company and product as if it's an individual human being who committed the sin of being a flip-flopper seems weird. "They only did it for money! They're not following their vision they said was so awesome before! What do they really believe in??" seems like an odd criticism to make of a corporation, as if it were an individual human being. I know the Supreme Court says corporations are people now, but I never thought that would get taken so literally by a hardcore gaming message board, lol.
MS having a PR message of "our shit is awesome guys, you should preorder it" and then changing it when people say it sucks and don't preorder it is pretty standard marketplace behavior. Pretty much every company that's fixed a product in Version 2 does the same thing. They act like Version 1 is the hottest shit, then the market sees that it isn't really hot shit, and then the company is suddenly "humbled" and appreciative of the feedback in Version 2. It's the standard script, so I've always been perplexed that any one company is singled out for it. "Don't trust them, they're just doing it to get your money!" Er, ok?
If the mere proposal of not being able to sell one platform's discs on eBay because it's now a digital game with a license counts as "anti-consumer" or is supposed to be personally offensive to me, as opposed to just a drawback of the product, then I'm sitting here wondering what the fuck I'm doing with all these equally non-eBay-sellable discs I've had sitting on my shelf for the past 10+ years, discs that millions of other consumers have been buying and enjoying, and wondering why no one seems to care about first sale doctrine and consumer rights in those cases (though I recognize some do, though it's a minority).
I dunno. Anyways, fun discussion, but I think I'll bow out now. Haha. Thanks for all the replies everyone.
LiquidSolid
Member
I'm still shocked that so many people bought into that bullshit. Unlike Microsoft, who rely almost entirely on their US audience, Sony have a far more global strategy and user base. Implementing that kind of DRM would've been fucking suicide for them.
Plus, there's the fact that Sony doesn't have the online setup to support that kind of infrastructure.
Yeah, I realized that Sony Too is a rather stupid idea after E3 2013, but my reasoning at the time was that Microsoft's then-current strategy was a stupid idea that would've basically made their console DOA if Sony wasn't also in on it... And as we all saw, that strategy was a stupid idea that basically made their console DOA until the 180s since Sony wasn't in on it. In any case, that global strategy is the reason why Sony is successful in the console market, so of course, they'd try to continue it.
The internet try google search, but your timelines are faulty, the major exploits all came about after otherOS removal. Most of that came as a reaction to the restrictive practices that Sony put in place.
And the fate of the PSP, or for that matter any companies platforms are not my concern, (actually I was a bit annoyed that the Dreamcast died) If you are a consumer look out for yourself. If they Change a product before you pay for it, then all well and good. If they take something from a product that you have already paid for, call the cops.
Similar threads
- Poll