So... moving on from the doom and gloom bullshit, does anyone know how many consoles MS intend to sell by March? I'm thinking they'll be at 5m+ personally.
Demand is going off a cliff during January for any gaming console compared to the November and December months. Not a chance in hell these sales keep steady.
For nearly all of the XB1 launch countries that drop in demand has already started to happen, seeing the piles of them on store shelves in literally any store that carries 'em.
For nearly all of the XB1 launch countries that drop in demand has already started to happen, seeing the piles of them on store shelves in literally any store that carries 'em.
That's one hell of a market analysis there. I'll gauge demand based on my browsing of local shops as well.
I'll report my findings later.
At any rate, there's going to be an expected drop as folks roll back spending as per usual following holiday spending. Titanfall in March will usher in the next big boom. Same with Second Son/Driveclub.
Demand is going off a cliff during January for any gaming console compared to the November and December months. Not a chance in hell these sales keep steady.
For nearly all of the XB1 launch countries that drop in demand has already started to happen, seeing the piles of them on store shelves in literally any store that carries 'em.
Unless, of course, you have a console that is in hot demand and struggling to fulfill a backlog of orders and properly supply the countries that you "soft-launched" in.
PS4 can probably keep up, or at least close to, this rate through the next couple of quarters - especially with Japanese launch to come. XB1 probably needs to launch in those Tier 2 countries to halt the tail off in sales.
Looks like even you were confused. The kinect not required position was reached well after the initial reveal. Additionally, Phil Harrison contradicted nearly every point that you stated regarding the family share plan. Games could not be played by two people at the same time and it was questionable as to whether friends that werent playing on the hub console could even access the full game if they werent logged into your profile.
That statement was in no way referring to Family Sharing and this article was actually written before it was revealed. I don't see where I was confused. The system he described is the same system on the Xbox 360, just digitalized.
Like I said, the Xbox One was still bout close to release, and Microsoft changed a policy and let everyone known. Nothing wrong with that Kinect being able to be disconnected wouldn't have confused anyone as a fact if they just followed Microsoft and no one else, since Microsoft made clear they changed their policies.
Unless, of course, you have a console that is in hot demand and struggling to fulfill a backlog of orders and properly supply the countries that you "soft-launched" in.
PS4 can probably keep up, or at least close to, this rate through the next couple of quarters - especially with Japanese launch to come. XB1 probably needs to launch in those Tier 2 countries to halt the tail off in sales.
Hasn't Xbox always been a better seller in the holiday season and hit a drop off in January?
Playstation seems to be more of a constant seller.
It seems like that was the trend "last gen" where xbox would sell millions in the holiday season, and playstation would close the gap in spring/summer.
Correct me if wrong SalesGAF
Hasn't Xbox always been a better seller in the holiday season and hit a drop off in January?
Playstation seems to be more of a constant seller.
It seems like that was the trend "last gen" where xbox would sell millions in the holiday season, and playstation would close the gap in spring/summer.
Correct me if wrong SalesGAF
That's one hell of a market analysis there. I'll gauge demand based on my browsing of local shops as well.
I'll report my findings later.
At any rate, there's going to be an expected drop as folks roll back spending as per usual following holiday spending. Titanfall in March will usher in the next big boom. Same with Second Son/Driveclub.
MS are havin no issues refilling stock so we should see consistent sales. Normally I'd say March would be a drop off for any new console, but Titanfall releasing then should see a boost. If they can hit 5m for March, then that's awesome.
Demand is going off a cliff during January for any gaming console compared to the November and December months. Not a chance in hell these sales keep steady.
For nearly all of the XB1 launch countries that drop in demand has already started to happen, seeing the piles of them on store shelves in literally any store that carries 'em.
It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness eagerness, even to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries.
Go back and re-watch the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson. Joe starts the interview telling Hyrb what a huge XBox fan he his, but the DRM thing is killing him. Hyrb cuts him off with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Enough said. Conversation over." That's not the sound of a company saying, "We put the needs and concerns of our customers first." That's the sound of a company saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant." Of course, exploiting monopolies is Microsoft's bread and butter; it's just what they do. Or as Joe put it, "Because FUCK YOU GIVE ME MONEY!"
Consoles are "activated" to play content from a given account. An active Internet connection at the time of (de)activation. An active connection is also required at the time of game installation. Apart from that, a connection is never required. Once a game is installed on a given console, it may be played freely by any user on that console, online or offline, even if it's actively being played on another console.
Initially, Sony let you activate five consoles simultaneously, so even if you were a baller with multiple consoles, not only could you instal all of your games on all of your consoles and play them offline anytime you want you'd probably have an activation or two to spare so you could also install your games on your buddy's console. In fact, Tretton publicly encouraged users to do this, saying Sony didn't feel like they needed to generate money with every single consumer interaction. It was a fairly generous policy and granted you a lot of freedom and flexibility in dealing with otherwise-restricted digital content and sharing it among your family and friends. That is, until word got out.
Once the PS3 hit critical mass and a decent online community built up, someone realized it was fairly easy to game Sony's policy and share games not just with family and friends, but total strangers on the Internet. People started creating game-sharing circles where five people would chip in on a single copy of a game, one guy would create a new PSN account and buy it, and all five guys would activate their consoles for that throwaway account. When a new game came out, they'd just create another account to own it.
Sharing a purchased game with your family and letting your destitute friend "borrow" all of your old games is pretty much how we've always done things with discs, so originally the policy didn't have any noticeable effect on sales and everyone was happy. However, once people figured out how to effectively turn the policy in to a Buy-1-Get-4-Free deal, the publishers made Sony nerf the system, and now you're only allowed to activate two consoles.
So, to believe in XBone Family Sharing as-wished-for is to believe the same publishers who made Sony kill their Buy-1-Get-4 program have signed off on a Buy-1-Get-10 program with MS. To believe that, you'd need to also believe they were going to raise the MSRP on games to $500-$600.
Ironically, one of the clearest descriptions of Family Sharing we got was from Hyrb in the AJ interview.
Which is to say, not very clear at all.
Hyrb tells us to think of it as a library. Now, is a library a place which passes out books for free? No, a library is a place that lets you borrow books; books to which you lose claim on the due date. If you want your own copy to use as you please, then you need to go to the store and buy a copy. The library analogy would seem to fit better with the pastebin post than a B1G10 policy.
Hyrb then went on to describe a situation where he buys Halo and his son is off at college. He says that he can tell his son about the game, and then his son is "able to download it and check it out." Note he didn't say that his son would be able to play it whenever he wants, or anything like that. He said his son could check it out. That sounds a lot more like, "He can give it a try" than, "Now he's got a copy too."
Yes, but if you buy the game on disc, the licensing is transferred with the disc itself. That's what First Sale is all about. The copyright holder is only entitled to the proceeds from the initial sale of a given copy of their work. So if you buy a book, the money goes to the author, but what you do with the book after that is up to you; the author has no say in the matter.
Microsoft were attempting to circumvent the rights granted you under First Sale.
Of the 25M who were willing to spend $100 on Kinect, how many do you think are willing to do so again? Whatever number you come up with will be similar to the ceiling for XBone sales, unless MS literally start giving it away for free. That means hitting the same price point as Sony at minimum, and likely cheaper still, since apart from Kinect it's still underpowered compared to the PS4; why pay the same for less?
Agreed in full and if this is people's true feelings they should hold to them nothing wrong with being weary. Also remembering of course that all the console companies have been, in the past, a horrid offender of freakish offenses and back alley backstabbery and fucked-upness. Some of the most inane babble known to man has come from all these companies in past years both rude and pleasantly delivered but still fucked up. All of them. Every single one of them.
Agreed in full and if this is people's true feelings they should hold to them nothing wrong with being weary. Also remembering of course that all the console companies have been, in the past, a horrid offender of freakish offenses and back alley backstabbery and fucked-upness. Some of the most inane babble known to man has come from all these companies in past years both rude and pleasantly delivered but still fucked up. All of them. Every single one of them.
This is the classic, "Sure, there's no question Microsoft are evil, but all companies are equally evil, so there's no reason to disfavor Microsoft's products in particular" defense, a subtle, but surprisingly potent form of FUD.
I disagree with the basic premise that all companies are equally evil, just as I would disagree that all people are equally evil. Apart from the rootkit fiasco which I readily agree was a dick move
though as a pro-content Apple-user, I can't be overly sympathetic
I'd say that Sony's track record is relatively clear of incidents of "dirty pool," and when it comes to gaming in particular, I'd argue their overall contribution has been overwhelmingly positive. So no, I don't think it's fair to equate the two companies in terms of shady business practices. Sony have their missteps, yes, but nothing on the order of the systematic abuse of power we've seen regularly from MS, and casting them as similar is disingenuous.
Sony has definitely had it's fair share of fuck ups, but I think Microsoft might be the King in terms of FUD, just look at their chromebook commercials for example.
Wrong sports analogy. This is more like F1, and at the start of the race, one guy is gaining 10s/lap on the other guy. That doesn't bode well for the other guy; basically, he needs to hope the one guy puts it in to the wall.
It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness eagerness, even to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries.
Go back and re-watch the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson. Joe starts the interview telling Hyrb what a huge XBox fan he his, but the DRM thing is killing him. Hyrb cuts him off with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Enough said. Conversation over." That's not the sound of a company saying, "We put the needs and concerns of our customers first." That's the sound of a company saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant." Of course, exploiting monopolies is Microsoft's bread and butter; it's just what they do. Or as Joe put it, "Because FUCK YOU GIVE ME MONEY!"
Glad to. The DRM scheme on the PS3.
Consoles are "activated" to play content from a given account. An active Internet connection at the time of (de)activation. An active connection is also required at the time of game installation. Apart from that, a connection is never required. Once a game is installed on a given console, it may be played freely by any user on that console, online or offline, even if it's actively being played on another console.
Initially, Sony let you activate five consoles simultaneously, so even if you were a baller with multiple consoles, not only could you instal all of your games on all of your consoles and play them offline anytime you want you'd probably have an activation or two to spare so you could also install your games on your buddy's console. In fact, Tretton publicly encouraged users to do this, saying Sony didn't feel like they needed to generate money with every single consumer interaction. It was a fairly generous policy and granted you a lot of freedom and flexibility in dealing with otherwise-restricted digital content and sharing it among your family and friends. That is, until word got out.
Once the PS3 hit critical mass and a decent online community built up, someone realized it was fairly easy to game Sony's policy and share games not just with family and friends, but total strangers on the Internet. People started creating game-sharing circles where five people would chip in on a single copy of a game, one guy would create a new PSN account and buy it, and all five guys would activate their consoles for that throwaway account. When a new game came out, they'd just create another account to own it.
Sharing a purchased game with your family and letting your destitute friend "borrow" all of your old games is pretty much how we've always done things with discs, so originally the policy didn't have any noticeable effect on sales and everyone was happy. However, once people figured out how to effectively turn the policy in to a Buy-1-Get-4-Free deal, the publishers made Sony nerf the system, and now you're only allowed to activate two consoles.
So, to believe in XBone Family Sharing as-wished-for is to believe the same publishers who made Sony kill their Buy-1-Get-4 program have signed off on a Buy-1-Get-10 program with MS. To believe that, you'd need to also believe they were going to raise the MSRP on games to $500-$600.
Ironically, one of the clearest descriptions of Family Sharing we got was from Hyrb in the AJ interview.
Which is to say, not very clear at all.
Hyrb tells us to think of it as a library. Now, is a library a place which passes out books for free? No, a library is a place that lets you borrow books; books to which you lose claim on the due date. If you want your own copy to use as you please, then you need to go to the store and buy a copy. The library analogy would seem to fit better with the pastebin post than a B1G10 policy.
Hyrb then went on to describe a situation where he buys Halo and his son is off at college. He says that he can tell his son about the game, and then his son is "able to download it and check it out." Note he didn't say that his son would be able to play it whenever he wants, or anything like that. He said his son could check it out. That sounds a lot more like, "He can give it a try" than, "Now he's got a copy too."
Yes, but if you buy the game on disc, the licensing is transferred with the disc itself. That's what First Sale is all about. The copyright holder is only entitled to the proceeds from the initial sale of a given copy of their work. So if you buy a book, the money goes to the author, but what you do with the book after that is up to you; the author has no say in the matter.
Microsoft were attempting to circumvent the rights granted you under First Sale.
Of the 25M who were willing to spend $100 on Kinect, how many do you think are willing to do so again? Whatever number you come up with will be similar to the ceiling for XBone sales, unless MS literally start giving it away for free. That means hitting the same price point as Sony at minimum, and likely cheaper still, since apart from Kinect it's still underpowered compared to the PS4; why pay the same for less?
Sure, they're a completely different company now. *looks at paywalls and DRM* Oh, wait
most recently? mass reset of PSN passwords without giving very much information about why, even as users complained about credit card fraud seems pretty slimy. There are blog posts about snapchat not apologizing for leaking phone numbers
-Launching later in NA
-Launching in less countries (though the countries they didn't launch in won't really dramatically increase their total sales as they are solid Sony territory)
-$100 more (this is the big one, we'll see if outside the holidays this starts to really matter)
-DRM/180 debacle (this is also really big, gamer preferences have solidly been in the PS4 camp all year)
most recently? mass reset of PSN passwords without giving very much information about why, even as users complained about credit card fraud seems pretty slimy. There are blog posts about snapchat not apologizing for leaking phone numbers
He specifically said "It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness — eagerness, even — to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries." Seems like it's fair game in the current discussion.
You can also mention stuff like Sony removing OtherOS functionality or the PSN hacking scandal.
That means hitting the same price point as Sony at minimum, and likely cheaper still, since apart from Kinect it's still underpowered compared to the PS4; why pay the same for less?
I really don't understand when people refer to the Xbox One as being "less" just because it's not as powerful as the PS4. Did people refer to the PS2 as being "less" compared to the more powerful OG Xbox?
It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness eagerness, even to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries.
Go back and re-watch the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson. Joe starts the interview telling Hyrb what a huge XBox fan he his, but the DRM thing is killing him. Hyrb cuts him off with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Enough said. Conversation over." That's not the sound of a company saying, "We put the needs and concerns of our customers first." That's the sound of a company saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant." Of course, exploiting monopolies is Microsoft's bread and butter; it's just what they do. Or as Joe put it, "Because FUCK YOU GIVE ME MONEY!"
Glad to. The DRM scheme on the PS3.
Consoles are "activated" to play content from a given account. An active Internet connection at the time of (de)activation. An active connection is also required at the time of game installation. Apart from that, a connection is never required. Once a game is installed on a given console, it may be played freely by any user on that console, online or offline, even if it's actively being played on another console.
Initially, Sony let you activate five consoles simultaneously, so even if you were a baller with multiple consoles, not only could you instal all of your games on all of your consoles and play them offline anytime you want you'd probably have an activation or two to spare so you could also install your games on your buddy's console. In fact, Tretton publicly encouraged users to do this, saying Sony didn't feel like they needed to generate money with every single consumer interaction. It was a fairly generous policy and granted you a lot of freedom and flexibility in dealing with otherwise-restricted digital content and sharing it among your family and friends. That is, until word got out.
Once the PS3 hit critical mass and a decent online community built up, someone realized it was fairly easy to game Sony's policy and share games not just with family and friends, but total strangers on the Internet. People started creating game-sharing circles where five people would chip in on a single copy of a game, one guy would create a new PSN account and buy it, and all five guys would activate their consoles for that throwaway account. When a new game came out, they'd just create another account to own it.
Sharing a purchased game with your family and letting your destitute friend "borrow" all of your old games is pretty much how we've always done things with discs, so originally the policy didn't have any noticeable effect on sales and everyone was happy. However, once people figured out how to effectively turn the policy in to a Buy-1-Get-4-Free deal, the publishers made Sony nerf the system, and now you're only allowed to activate two consoles.
So, to believe in XBone Family Sharing as-wished-for is to believe the same publishers who made Sony kill their Buy-1-Get-4 program have signed off on a Buy-1-Get-10 program with MS. To believe that, you'd need to also believe they were going to raise the MSRP on games to $500-$600.
Ironically, one of the clearest descriptions of Family Sharing we got was from Hyrb in the AJ interview.
Which is to say, not very clear at all.
Hyrb tells us to think of it as a library. Now, is a library a place which passes out books for free? No, a library is a place that lets you borrow books; books to which you lose claim on the due date. If you want your own copy to use as you please, then you need to go to the store and buy a copy. The library analogy would seem to fit better with the pastebin post than a B1G10 policy.
Hyrb then went on to describe a situation where he buys Halo and his son is off at college. He says that he can tell his son about the game, and then his son is "able to download it and check it out." Note he didn't say that his son would be able to play it whenever he wants, or anything like that. He said his son could check it out. That sounds a lot more like, "He can give it a try" than, "Now he's got a copy too."
Yes, but if you buy the game on disc, the licensing is transferred with the disc itself. That's what First Sale is all about. The copyright holder is only entitled to the proceeds from the initial sale of a given copy of their work. So if you buy a book, the money goes to the author, but what you do with the book after that is up to you; the author has no say in the matter.
Microsoft were attempting to circumvent the rights granted you under First Sale.
Of the 25M who were willing to spend $100 on Kinect, how many do you think are willing to do so again? Whatever number you come up with will be similar to the ceiling for XBone sales, unless MS literally start giving it away for free. That means hitting the same price point as Sony at minimum, and likely cheaper still, since apart from Kinect it's still underpowered compared to the PS4; why pay the same for less?
Sure, they're a completely different company now. *looks at paywalls and DRM* Oh, wait
I really don't understand when people refer to the Xbox One as being "less" just because it's not as powerful as the PS4. Did people refer to the PS2 as being "less" compared to the more powerful OG Xbox?
He specifically said "It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness — eagerness, even — to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries." Seems like it's fair game in the current discussion.
You can also mention stuff like Sony removing OtherOS functionality or the PSN hacking scandal.
most recently? mass reset of PSN passwords without giving very much information about why, even as users complained about credit card fraud seems pretty slimy. There are blog posts about snapchat not apologizing for leaking phone numbers
So I did some research. PSN password reset was a precautionary measure to some irregular network activity, which is by no means a bad thing, and it's more like the best act to do that time. And I don't know what snapchat has to do with Sony.
He specifically said "It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness eagerness, even to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries." Seems like it's fair game in the current discussion.
You can also mention stuff like Sony removing OtherOS functionality or the PSN hacking scandal.
It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness — eagerness, even — to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries.
Go back and re-watch the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson. Joe starts the interview telling Hyrb what a huge XBox fan he his, but the DRM thing is killing him. Hyrb cuts him off with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Enough said. Conversation over." That's not the sound of a company saying, "We put the needs and concerns of our customers first." That's the sound of a company saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant." Of course, exploiting monopolies is Microsoft's bread and butter; it's just what they do. Or as Joe put it, "Because FUCK YOU GIVE ME MONEY!"
Glad to. The DRM scheme on the PS3.
Consoles are "activated" to play content from a given account. An active Internet connection at the time of (de)activation. An active connection is also required at the time of game installation. Apart from that, a connection is never required. Once a game is installed on a given console, it may be played freely by any user on that console, online or offline, even if it's actively being played on another console.
Initially, Sony let you activate five consoles simultaneously, so even if you were a baller with multiple consoles, not only could you instal all of your games on all of your consoles — and play them offline anytime you want — you'd probably have an activation or two to spare so you could also install your games on your buddy's console. In fact, Tretton publicly encouraged users to do this, saying Sony didn't feel like they needed to generate money with every single consumer interaction. It was a fairly generous policy and granted you a lot of freedom and flexibility in dealing with otherwise-restricted digital content and sharing it among your family and friends. That is, until word got out.
Once the PS3 hit critical mass and a decent online community built up, someone realized it was fairly easy to game Sony's policy and share games not just with family and friends, but total strangers on the Internet. People started creating game-sharing circles where five people would chip in on a single copy of a game, one guy would create a new PSN account and buy it, and all five guys would activate their consoles for that throwaway account. When a new game came out, they'd just create another account to own it.
Sharing a purchased game with your family and letting your destitute friend "borrow" all of your old games is pretty much how we've always done things with discs, so originally the policy didn't have any noticeable effect on sales and everyone was happy. However, once people figured out how to effectively turn the policy in to a Buy-1-Get-4-Free deal, the publishers made Sony nerf the system, and now you're only allowed to activate two consoles.
So, to believe in XBone Family Sharing as-wished-for is to believe the same publishers who made Sony kill their Buy-1-Get-4 program have signed off on a Buy-1-Get-10 program with MS. To believe that, you'd need to also believe they were going to raise the MSRP on games to $500-$600.
Ironically, one of the clearest descriptions of Family Sharing we got was from Hyrb in the AJ interview.
Which is to say, not very clear at all.
Hyrb tells us to think of it as a library. Now, is a library a place which passes out books for free? No, a library is a place that lets you borrow books; books to which you lose claim on the due date. If you want your own copy to use as you please, then you need to go to the store and buy a copy. The library analogy would seem to fit better with the pastebin post than a B1G10 policy.
Hyrb then went on to describe a situation where he buys Halo and his son is off at college. He says that he can tell his son about the game, and then his son is "able to download it and check it out." Note he didn't say that his son would be able to play it whenever he wants, or anything like that. He said his son could check it out. That sounds a lot more like, "He can give it a try" than, "Now he's got a copy too."
Yes, but if you buy the game on disc, the licensing is transferred with the disc itself. That's what First Sale is all about. The copyright holder is only entitled to the proceeds from the initial sale of a given copy of their work. So if you buy a book, the money goes to the author, but what you do with the book after that is up to you; the author has no say in the matter.
Microsoft were attempting to circumvent the rights granted you under First Sale.
Of the 25M who were willing to spend $100 on Kinect, how many do you think are willing to do so again? Whatever number you come up with will be similar to the ceiling for XBone sales, unless MS literally start giving it away for free. That means hitting the same price point as Sony at minimum, and likely cheaper still, since apart from Kinect it's still underpowered compared to the PS4; why pay the same for less?
Sure, they're a completely different company now. *looks at paywalls and DRM* Oh, wait…
You don't hold a grudge? You sure about that. I mean, I'm not you and don't know what you're definition of a grudge is, but looking at the generally accepted definition for grudges and being wary...
Definition of wary (adj)
Bing Dictionary
war·y
[ wérree ]
cautious: cautious and alert for problems
showing suspicion: showing watchfulness or suspicion
resentment: a feeling of resentment or ill will, especially one lasting for a long time
give something reluctantly: to allow, give, or do something reluctantly
envy something: to be envious or resentful of somebody for something
Err, WTF? Why would I plug a Roku in to an XBone so I can watch Netflix? Just to avoid the paywall? I already have a better way to avoid the paywall. It's called PS4. Not only is it significantly more powerful, it's $100 cheaper, so I can use the money I saved to buy a Roku. Oh, wait, I don't need a Roku because I already have a PS4!A winnar is me!! \o/
Just look at the DRM bullshit MS tried to foist on us after their stellar almost-not-last-place finish. And people are rooting for them to actually win or tie a generation?? Shame on them.
Hell, it's a shameful thing to even want Microsoft to compare to Sony? Heh... okay then. Shame on me I guess.
How do you keep referring to Microsoft's past plans, anyways?
MS made their case. It was very specific about all of the bullshit they intended to impose, and included a couple of vague, handy-wavy "benefits" which were apparently better imagined than explained.
Yeah, I wouldn't call it being wary. You're going on a forum and being pretty outspoken and negative, and definitely show anger and resentment towards Microsoft from their plan.
Now, your other points?
Go back and re-watch the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson. Joe starts the interview telling Hyrb what a huge XBox fan he his, but the DRM thing is killing him. Hyrb cuts him off with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Enough said. Conversation over." That's not the sound of a company saying, "We put the needs and concerns of our customers first." That's the sound of a company saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant." Of course, exploiting monopolies is Microsoft's bread and butter; it's just what they do. Or as Joe put it, "Because FUCK YOU GIVE ME MONEY!"
First off, Joe did NOT start the interview like that. Why do you feel the need to lie and stretch the truth in order to make your point appear stronger? The Interview starts off by Joe being friendly, and trying to small talk, and then goes to talk to Major Nelson about the friends list. Major actually talks to him and gives him respectful responses. Then, THE FIRST TIME he mentions the DRM, Major Nelson just accepts it and goes to clarify Family Sharing. Major Nelson tries to answer questions and be respectful, he isn't being as rude as you're trying to make it out as you're making it.
Hyrb then went on to describe a situation where he buys Halo and his son is off at college. He says that he can tell his son about the game, and then his son is "able to download it and check it out." Note he didn't say that his son would be able to play it whenever he wants, or anything like that. He said his son could check it out. That sounds a lot more like, "He can give it a try" than, "Now he's got a copy too."
You're being very netpicky with this, by the way. We have COUNTLESS other interviews and clarifications where they clearly state it gave others the full game, but only one can play it at once. By the way, the one at once ALREADY DISTINGUISHES THIS FROM PS3'S, XBOX 360S, AND OTHER SYSTEMS BECAUSE THOSE DIDN'T LIMIT THE PLAYERS ABLE TO PLAY AT ONCE. So it wasn't as bad as you described. Microsoft ran this plan through Publishers, and they liked and were okay with it. Why wouldn't they be? People who PLANNED on buying Call of Duty that year are going to buy it anyways. People aren't going to want to wait their turn to play the game. People will buy their own copies to play, because no one wants to wait.
Anyways... in that interview you quoted, Major Nelson even said "If you and I are a family, your dad, I'm the son, I can check it out and play it, or you can play it. Think of it as whoever... One person can play it at a time."
It's pretty clear how that's supposed to be taken, in your library analogy, Check Out refers to Major "borrowing" Joe's copy to fully play it, but if Major is playing it (The full game), Joe can't play it. Just like it works today, but digitally. Hence why he also put an emphasize on "one at a time". Why would they even put a limit on trials? Check Out refers to Major not owning it, but borrowing Joe's copy, aka checking out like a library. You can fully read and enjoy the book, but it isn't yours.
The PS3's and Xbox One's systems aren't even comparable, they're so different and the time period and everything else is different, why even do it?
It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness eagerness, even to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries.
Go back and re-watch the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson. Joe starts the interview telling Hyrb what a huge XBox fan he his, but the DRM thing is killing him. Hyrb cuts him off with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Enough said. Conversation over." That's not the sound of a company saying, "We put the needs and concerns of our customers first." That's the sound of a company saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant." Of course, exploiting monopolies is Microsoft's bread and butter; it's just what they do. Or as Joe put it, "Because FUCK YOU GIVE ME MONEY!"
This is a company that didn't give a shit about people until the incredibly low preorder numbers. "Why would I live there?" "We have a console for those people, 360", all of their first party launch games stuffed with microtransactions. Even to this day they say we just didn't understand their "vision" for always online drm.
This is a company that didn't give a shit about people until the incredibly low preorder numbers. "Why would I live there?" "We have a console for those people, 360", all of their first party launch games stuffed with microtransactions. Even to this day they say we just didn't understand their "vision" for always online drm.
Albert Penello ran into hiding ever since launch and hasn't explained or apologized for his lies; Larry hasn't commented on the missing "truth" that we were supposed to see when the consoles launched too.
It's not about holding a grudge. It's about being wary of someone who has demonstrated a willingness eagerness, even to fuck people over, which Microsoft has done repeatedly, across multiple industries.
Go back and re-watch the Angry Joe interview with Major Nelson. Joe starts the interview telling Hyrb what a huge XBox fan he his, but the DRM thing is killing him. Hyrb cuts him off with, "Have you seen Titanfall? Enough said. Conversation over." That's not the sound of a company saying, "We put the needs and concerns of our customers first." That's the sound of a company saying, "We control a monopoly position, so it doesn't matter what you think, you little pissant." Of course, exploiting monopolies is Microsoft's bread and butter; it's just what they do. Or as Joe put it, "Because FUCK YOU GIVE ME MONEY!"
Dat Microsoft grudge? Seriously, every company's first and most important duty is to enrich its shareholders (income/tax optimisation, etc.). Every company would try to exploit a monopoly if it could. Microsoft and Intel did; Apple and Google are trying to do so at the moment. Don't kid yourself if you think Sony wouldn't try to take advantage of such situation.
I am assuming you are pulling those quotes from his post history. It would help wonders if you actually linked the posts so people could read it in context.
I am assuming you are pulling those quotes from his post history. It would help wonders if you actually linked the posts so people could read it in context.
Albert Penello ran into hiding ever since launch and hasn't explained or apologized for his lies; Larry hasn't commented on the missing "truth" that we were supposed to see when the consoles launched too.
He's been pretty inactive on his Twitter account as well, and he's said he's been kind of busy. Don't be too bothered by him not being able to come here that often. He hasn't used Reddit much either.
Sony in the late 90s and early 2000s was a very arrogant, anti-consumer company. They made a lot of shitty decisions that pissed people off, a lot of them simply forcing people into using shitty proprietary stuff to please their other divisions. Got a Cybershot? You've gotta shell out for a Memory Stick rather than just a standard SD Card that costs half the price. Then there's a Sony digital Walkman. Notice how I didn't say MP3 player? That's because you couldn't play them. You had to use the God-awful SonicStage to convert them into ATRAC, a file that only Sony's stuff used. Then on top of that you had things like the rootkit scandal and their attitudes then. Some people might have been too young to remember what a big deal it was, but it was a big deal.
It's only since they got their asses handed to them by Apple and Samsung/LG an had their stock price plummet that they've had any sort of attitude adjustment. That's because they have been humbled as a company.
I still contend that a lot of the pro-Sony stuff doesn't come so much for what Sony has done right so much as what Microsoft is perceived to have done wrong. But it gets twisted and suffers from hyperbole. There's this idea that Microsoft are lying about their sales but Sony couldn't be. Or that Microsoft will move the goal posts even though it has been Sony historically who have done that, removing features whether software or physical. This whole Return of the King stuff just makes me shake my head. They are corporations. Both of them would dick you over in a moment if they think they could get away with it. It's just that Sony is still recovering from nearly a decade of not getting away with it.
Dat Microsoft grudge? Seriously, every company's first and most important duty is to enrich its shareholders (income/tax optimisation, etc.). Every company would try to exploit a monopoly if it could. Microsoft and Intel did; Apple and Google are trying to do so at the moment. Don't kid yourself if you think Sony wouldn't try to take advantage of such situation.
Sony in the late 90s and early 2000s was a very arrogant, anti-consumer company. They made a lot of shitty decisions that pissed people off, a lot of them simply forcing people into using shitty proprietary stuff to please their other divisions. Got a Cybershot? You've gotta shell out for a Memory Stick rather than just a standard SD Card that costs half the price. Then there's a Sony digital Walkman. Notice how I didn't say MP3 player? That's because you couldn't play them. You had to use the God-awful SonicStage to convert them into ATRAC, a file that only Sony's stuff used. Then on top of that you had things like the rootkit scandal and their attitudes then. Some people might have been too young to remember what a big deal it was, but it was a big deal.
