• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Is the Xbone a moral argument, or simply a difference in consumer philosophy?

Sqorgar

Banned
Nov 13, 2006
2,813
0
0
www.squidi.net
m0dus said:
"This is not a moral argument, At best, it's a difference in consumer philosophy."

mod hijack:

To put this quote in the context for people, it came from the locked thread on whether not Xbox one fans should be "Shunned" in this community (which was closed because,as a impetus for discussion, it was completely unacceptable from a community standpoint).

I should state, for the record, that the policies that Microsoft has put forward are, at best, despicable. But turning it into the equivalent of a religious discussion was, in effect, taking it a bit too far. As such, the statement above actually addressed the attitude directed toward the system's potential supporters and fans, not toward the company in question. So, that thread had to be closed.

The ethics of what MS is proposing, however, in terms of limiting consumer freedom, DRM, and privacy, should absolutely be openly laid bare.

So by all means, DO debate this, as it makes for a truly compelling discussion.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled OT.

-m0dus



I think the DRM and other "features" of the Xbone represent a violation of our consumer rights and even our privacy. The systematic introduction of these elements into every single game released on a platform is dangerous, and if such a system were to be adopted by other manufacturers (like Sony), it would result in a sort of video game consumer rights apocalypse. Let's not forget that games that require services will cease to function once these services are turned off. Will the Xbone generation result in a missing hole in video game history?

I feel very strongly on this issue, to the point where people who disagree or even just present apathy toward it seem not just wrong, but immoral.

If this is a moral issue, then they are being selfish. If this is a consumer philosophy issue, then I am the one being selfish. Which is it? Is the Xbone a moral argument, or simply a difference in consumer philosophy?
 

Impeccable

Member
Feb 18, 2010
11,615
0
0
I don't know about morals but I find it astonishing that even after all of this there are people who are okay - and even defending this to trying to reason it to others.

I'm an open guy and honest with my opinions and have no problem defending things people are blind over (Ben from PA's comments yesterday, for example.) yet I find it absolutely impossible to even try to see it from Microsoft or the publisher's side. I know Penguins&Polarbears got popped for being an 'astroturfer' yesterday but my gut instinct is there are some more that are better at hiding at it.

I'm sad.
 

Yaboosh

Super Sleuth
Mar 18, 2010
24,392
0
0
Explain your privacy issues with the drm.


Edit: and just to be clear, the Xbox drm seems horrendous and I won't be buying one if it is as people are assuming right now.
 

AkuMifune

Banned
Dec 23, 2007
11,682
0
0
Austin
Microsoft trying to control the evolving narrative of gaming for their own financial benefit at our expense.

The answer to the OP is that it depends on the specifics, but it doesn't look good.
 

IHaveCandy

Banned
Sep 28, 2011
7,569
0
0
Consumer philosophy. Microsoft offers me a deal I don't like, so I choose not to partake in it. Moral arguments would only make sense of it was about goods that are essential, like food or medicine.
 

Sqorgar

Banned
Nov 13, 2006
2,813
0
0
www.squidi.net
Explain your privacy issues with the drm.
It's the Kinect that is the root of my privacy issues. Doesn't Microsoft have a patent for charging you more for rentals because the Kinect knows how many people are watching the screen? That's pretty fucking creepy, if you ask me.
 

Eusis

Member
Apr 15, 2011
36,666
1
705
Morals are relative, and I'd consider this relatively minor honestly. Some see digital as the future and will just accept it, and I don't think it's good to have it forced.

Still, at any rate this IS definitely the way to botch it, or so it seems thus far, and I will be disappointed if a lot of people, fully aware of the situation, get the system anyway. Nothing to be angry at them about, they made the call they felt was best for them, I just wouldn't want ENOUGH people OK with this to enable Microsoft and others to embrace this.

EDIT: And my stance for being against an all digital future will forever be that books are the top priority to not go all the way with. They are the ONE medium that can be enjoyed at your leisure without anything but literacy, functioning eyesight, and a source of light, in contrast plays and music would require live performances if you didn't go with music or DVD/blu-ray, and games admittedly ARE fundamentally programs to run on a machine so they lose the least relative to everything else, movies tend to be DRMed on computers and music is usually not sold at the same quality you could get off a CD or Vinyl.
 

P90

Member
Jun 15, 2004
5,353
0
0
Morality? About the features of a gaming console? There are a world of actual moral issues, not the XBones' boneheaded feature set. smh

The XBone, its features, and games don't appeal to me. I won't buy it. Kinda simple as that.
 

LowEndTorque

Member
Oct 16, 2010
2,730
0
575
Canada
Don't blame the company. Blame the consumers whose apathy and willingness to be exploited make this sort of thing possible in the first place.
 

soul creator

Member
Mar 31, 2006
17,053
3
1,530
www.soulcreator.com
I see it as a consumer philosophy thing. DRM is a daily part of a lot of people's lives already, it just depends on whether other pros can outweigh the cons. And since these aren't matters of life/death, I don't see DRM schemes for video games as a moral argument. Of course, I would prefer less or no DRM, but at the same time, I put it in the context of other qualities, and then decide from there.

I guess from my perspective, I don't see Microsoft's DRM decision on its own as capable of "killing" our hobby or being some sort of grand moral argument. I see a few potential scenarios occurring:

1) the majority of people hate the DRM purely on principle, causing MS to get less sales, and people to only game on platforms that don't have these policies. MS then has to adjust their policies until they can win back those customers. Invisible hand of the free market.

2) The majority of people are indifferent to the DRM, since other aspects of the console appeal to them more. They don't necessarily "like" it, but it's simply not as high a priority when it comes to other things, like convenience and price, and whether the game itself is enjoyable enough to be worth their money. They continue to buy Xbox One games and systems and enjoy the games, DRM and all (similar to how lots of gamers tolerate the DRM on other platforms due to other benefits). Invisible hand of the free market.

3) Scenario 2 happens, which causes other companies to suddenly realize that the only possible way for them to compete is to do the exact same thing, and at this point, there are 0 games that exist without DRM. But this would mean that the vast majority of consumers have decided that DRM is a lower priority than other features anyway (something something trading liberty and security, something something).

I think a lot of people immediately jump to scenario 3), whereas I see it as really unlikely, since I feel numerous other types of platforms are going to continue to exist. And even if it did happen, it'd be because consumers actually decided they wanted this (or, that other qualities are way more important than DRM). People would still need to be employed to make games, and the majority of people would still be enjoying games, so the industry would still technically be fine. It's just...much more annoying than before because we would have to verify things with servers first, I suppose.

I guess even if the worst-case scenario happens, I find it tough to get as angry about it (as I would with, say, health insurance companies) since people would still be able to play and enjoy video games. I guess I'm more of a libertarian when it comes to entertainment, lol.

I'll never really "like" DRM, but it's just never been a dealbreaker for me in and of itself. *shrug*
 

Sqorgar

Banned
Nov 13, 2006
2,813
0
0
www.squidi.net
Consumer philosophy. Microsoft offers me a deal I don't like, so I choose not to partake in it. Moral arguments would only make sense of it was about goods that are essential, like food or medicine.
This isn't just about gaming. This is about computer software in general. Computers are moving towards closed systems with tightly controlled gardens that have but a single caretaker. The Xbone isn't the first battle in this war, and it won't be the last. But it represent a particularly striking moment that very clearly delineates the good guys from the bad. Steam straddles the line. Windows 8 straddles the line. iOS straddles the line. Xbone crosses it.

Also, Microsoft offering a bum deal isn't a problem until you see Sony offer the same deal. Make no mistake. Publishers WANT this. They lobby for it. If Microsoft is allowed to get by with it, it won't stop with them. That's why this is a moral issue. It's not about Microsoft. It's about their customers.
 

jmdajr

Member
Dec 12, 2006
58,999
1
0
I remember when DRM was on Music CDs. The Backlash on SONY for that was pretty huge. Now music is totally DRM free. (well unless it's subscription)

Today we have DRM for movies an amazon and itunes, but people seem ok with that especially since they can still buy DVDs and BLU-RAYS. Options.

PC have had this for awhile now. I'm not PC gamer for the most part but it was pretty crazy when I bought RAGE on Disc and had to install Steam just to play it.

And now we have consoles entering that realm when it's never been the case. So if they all end up doing it..what are we to do?

The consensus is that Microsoft is the one instigating it, so if Sony does it it's still Microsoft fault. People want to jump to PC which is all DRM but at least think it's "a good deal"

Anyhow I don't know about morals, but some people think it is because you are "hurting" others. If somehow everyone can protest, perhaps these measures can be eliminated.
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,330
0
0
Consumer philosophy. Microsoft offers me a deal I don't like, so I choose not to partake in it. Moral arguments would only make sense of it was about goods that are essential, like food or medicine.

yup. It's just games + tv afterall.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Feb 4, 2005
43,878
1
0
I like ownership and I don't like my consoles to be tied in time to online and accounts to the point of making said console worthless when vintage

the Xbone will be worthless as a vintage console in future generations because it will be unusable
 

Iorv3th

Member
Jan 16, 2013
6,403
2,315
775
It's not one or the other. It's part of both.

The biggest thing is we do not fully understand how their used game system will work. We also don't know how the kinect always being on and the sort of privacy that may infringe upon (remember those ToS they likely leave you with none but nobody reads them).

Most don't like the idea that they can buy a game and only use it on one console (unless signed in on another). Ever moved and been without the internet for a few weeks? Too bad no xbone games while that happens oops. It may not be something that happens often, but the chance that it can and at some point likely will is really unsettling.

I'm also a multi console owner (have 3 x360's, 2 ps3's etc) and me and my wife both game. We will now have to buy two copies of every game (even single player) unless we decide to just play on one console and one account (unless MS gives you the ability to activate a number of consoles with your account or something). Even then though it means when she goes to visit her sister or friends she can't bring the game with her unless it's signed to her account and not mine. Really leaves a lot of questions and is really off putting to me wanting to invest a lot of money/time with their system.

I currently have over 100 360 titles, 5 systems, tons of accessories, and have been a gold subscriber since day 1. From what MS has shown it looks like I will be dodging out on them next gen. I'm tired of achievements and gimmicks like kinect and the way they have treated the 360 core audience the past 2-3 years. Now it looks like they are continuing the same path with the start of next gen and I don't like it.

Makes me feel sick to my stomach. Which isn't something you should be feeling after the announcement of a new system. You should feel excited and anticipation (like the ps4 announcement).
 
Jun 7, 2004
21,700
3
0
48
NM USA
Morals? No. It's purely an issue of consumer philosophy. They explain that they are selling a box and games that have X control. I choose whether or not to follow them down the path by choosing to buy or not. Simple. The market offers choices, I do my best to educate myself and choose between them. Things would change significantly if they changed the rules of conduct after I bought the items, though.
 
Jan 6, 2010
385
0
0
40
baltimore, md
Come on now, it may be draconian and even anti-consumer and dumb but it isn't immoral. If they lied about what they were selling you that would be immoral. I think you're being a bit overdramatic
 

Calvarok

Banned
Mar 16, 2013
620
0
0
These threads are getting more ridiculous, and thus, better.

"Is this thing that hasn't been officially confirmed and we don't know really know for sure how it works because it's probably not even finalized and Sony put out a patent to do the same thing immoral?"
 

BeauRoger

Unconfirmed Member
Dec 19, 2010
1,246
0
650
Morals only come into it if they are dishonest about their product and what the consumer buying into. They are putting out a product, and even if its a shitty one, its one that every person has the choice to either buy into or not. Its entirely within the framework of the system. The corporate "greed" argument in this case i think is fairly shallow, seeing that the gaming industry isnt exactly a lucrative business for most, and even if it was, companies are about making money, so it would be hard to defend them while staying neutral to other companies such as Apple for example.. everybody wants a high profit margin, and the morals dont really touch that area. The historic argument is equally bad since it has no appeal to reason except "well this isnt how things USED to be", and doesnt take any philosophical training to see how unsound that argument is.
 

NullPointer

Member
May 4, 2006
44,302
3
0
San Francisco
These threads are getting more ridiculous, and thus, better.

"Is this thing that hasn't been officially confirmed and we don't know really know for sure how it works because it's probably not even finalized and Sony put out a patent to do the same thing immoral?"
If GAF waited until we had all the facts than all we'd have is LTTP threads.

Wheres the fun in that?
 
Sep 2, 2011
15,625
1
0
Consumer philosophy. Microsoft offers me a deal I don't like, so I choose not to partake in it. Moral arguments would only make sense of it was about goods that are essential, like food or medicine.

This. I pledge allegiance to my wallet and my consumer rights, no company or moral standard.

Im mostly outraged because Im selfish. I don't give a shit about any company outside hoping the products I like remain profitable enough to allow the company to continue making them.

However, I take a big issue with anyone trying to dip their hand further in my pocket than I will allow them, both to increase their margins and to continue to be profitable making the games and experiences I DONT like. That gets a big fuck you from me, be it Sony, Microsoft or Valve.
 

Cth

Member
Dec 9, 2008
4,172
0
875
Charlotte, NC
Anyone remember when people disagreed about Sony's removal of the OtherOS?

It seemed to boil down into similar groups. Those who felt it was an infringement on consumer rights while others felt it was ok since they weren't impacted by that aspect.

While not an exact 1:1 comparison, I'd be interested if there was any overlap in the camps.
 

unbias

Member
Oct 31, 2012
3,941
0
540
Michigan
I think the DRM and other "features" of the Xbone represent a violation of our consumer rights and even our privacy. The systematic introduction of these elements into every single game released on a platform is dangerous, and if such a system were to be adopted by other manufacturers (like Sony), it would result in a sort of video game consumer rights apocalypse. Let's not forget that games that require services will cease to function once these services are turned off. Will the Xbone generation result in a missing hole in video game history?

I feel very strongly on this issue, to the point where people who disagree or even just present apathy toward it seem not just wrong, but immoral.

If this is a moral issue, then they are being selfish. If this is a consumer philosophy issue, then I am the one being selfish. Which is it? Is the Xbone a moral argument, or simply a difference in consumer philosophy?

Neither really. It is simply incompetence driving the market. There is so much malinvestment in this industry, I'm not sure it is even debatable that most of the people in charge of the gaming industry ship are incompetent when it comes to consumer awareness. They have convinced themselves used games = forgone growth and all policies from this point on will reflect this.
 

GamerJM

Banned
May 19, 2013
11,839
2
0
California
It's both. I'd say it's much more strongly a difference in consumer philosophy though. The biggest moral issue I think is just the fact that they're making us pay for a game twice if we buy used, which is something that doesn't happen in literally every other industry.

Other than that I'd say it's difference in consumer philosophy. Whereas I see always online requirements a way to prevent me from playing games ten years in the future, Microsoft sees it as a way of moving forward to the future. They're very forward-moving focused, and will continue to be that way after the Xbox One is dead. When that happens and the servers shut down and people complain about now playing their Xbox One consoles, Microsoft will likely respond by telling people to be more forward-moving. When people in certain parts of the world can't connect to the internet, Microsoft will justify that by telling them that eventually they will have more stable internet in the future, and that currently the Xbox One does not aim to market the area they live in. And whereas people see a used game fee as wrong, Microsoft sees that as.....another way to make money.
 

Neat Machine

Member
Jun 2, 2007
8,661
93
1,340
I think pulling morality into it may be a bit much. It's basically just what their ambitions are and what they think they can get away with. I think it's anti-consumer and I think it's at least plausible that at some point down the road this type of thing will be addressed legally (like, after and without regard to Xbox One). I really wouldn't go as far as saying it's immoral though.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
4
0
36
Nowhere, PA
First of all, thanks for quoting me. I'm always happy to be a stimulus for constructive discussion :) I was actually going to make a new thread for this, but you beat me to the punch.

Secondly, just put in the context for people, the quote just came from the locked thread on whether not Xbox one fans should be "Shunned" in this community (which was closed because,as a impetus for discussion, it was completely unacceptable from a community standpoint).

I should state, for the record, that the policies that Microsoft has put forward are, at best, despicable. But turning it into the equivalent of a religious discussion was taking it perhaps a bit too far.

The issue of that this was not a "moral" argument was in terms of the attitude directed toward the fans, not toward the company in question (which deserves to be openly and vigorously ... discussed).

All companies function, for the most part, on the basis of greed. Their sole purpose is to make money, and each year make more money than the previous year. Thus anthropomorphizing corporations is a road to nowhere, IMO.

Certainly, however, the ethics of Microsoft's policies need to be laid bare. So by all means, continue. :)

Since the other topic was locked and this is being brought up here, let me just amend the response I was making to you before the topic was locked.

I wasn't suggesting any 'organized' anti-fanboy resistance, but a push back against claims by them that the system is somehow benign. And I was suggesting, which you disagree with, that they are partially responsible for the industry being destroyed if they clearly support a system that is destroying the industry.

You suggest that only the company has some moral responsibility in this issue, and I was suggesting that while the company is definitely more responsible than anyone else, informed consumers who decide to buy an Xbox One anyway also have to take some moral responsibility for what their choice is going to do.

I stick by the claim that this Xbox One situation is objectively fucked up, too. I've never seen something more clearly fucked up in this industry than this whole situation, other than maybe the Sony hacking scandal
 

NullPointer

Member
May 4, 2006
44,302
3
0
San Francisco
Anyone remember when people disagreed about Sony's removal of the OtherOS?

It seemed to boil down into similar groups. Those who felt it was an infringement on consumer rights while others felt it was ok since they weren't impacted by that aspect.

While not an exact 1:1 comparison, I'd be interested if there was any overlap in the camps.
At the time I was all for Sony ditching Linux. I thought that all buyers of the console deserved recompense for its removal though. My argument was that Sony had the right to plug a gaping hole ion their security that could not only fuck with PSN as a service, but work its way into hacking multiplayer gaming too. So my perspective wasn't about protecting Sony's profits as much as protecting consumers and gamers who just wanted to use their PS3 for its main purposes, and not as some emulator box.

GAF opened my eyes and changed my mind on that one though. As it has many times over.
 

GitarooMan

Member
Jul 12, 2005
15,250
0
0
When people talk about something nebulous like "consumer rights" they are talking morality, right? Because I've seen no suggestion that what Microsoft is alleged to maybe be doing is actually illegal.
 

Goldenroad

Member
Jun 14, 2012
8,421
0
0
Canada
Can't it be both? Can your morals not be tied to your "consumer philisophy" in some way or the other?

I can't place the quote though...were you just replying to another post in another thread by starting a new thread? Are we supposed to do that?
 

PBY

Banned
Dec 12, 2007
33,436
0
0
Man... at some point its just video games. Buy it or don't. I dont know, this frenzy just looks silly from a distance.
 

LuchaShaq

Banned
Jun 10, 2011
11,735
0
0
Their handling of used games is morally detestable to me. Matters much more than the actual dollars to me.
 

NullPointer

Member
May 4, 2006
44,302
3
0
San Francisco
Man... at some point its just video games. Buy it or don't. I dont know, this frenzy just looks silly from a distance.
Its far more than that though. Each digital marketplace establishes precedent for and informs the others.

Whats going on with games isn't so different than whats already happened in the world of music and books and movies (and more). The internet itself is undermining many a classic business model, and there are lots of perspectives on how best to move forward.

I don't work in games, but all this drama and the repercussions from various industries helps inform me in my own work.

Consumer sense of entitlement.
To the goods purchased by that consumer? Yes, the consumer is entitled to those.
 

Dave Meltzer

Banned
Sep 1, 2012
3,815
0
0
Good
I find it very annoying when people imply that if you like the idea of this system you're some brainwashed moron who's objectively wrong. I'm a man and I have feelings and I want to be able to buy retail games, tie them to an account and disregard the packaging, much more so than I want to trade in games. Is this so wrong? Can't you let me live?
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
4
0
36
Nowhere, PA
I find it very annoying when people imply that if you like the idea of this system you're some brainwashed moron who's objectively wrong. I'm a man and I have feelings and I want to be able to buy retail games, tie them to an account and disregard the packaging, much more so than I want to trade in games. Is this so wrong? Can't you let me live?

People are generally "let live in peace" when their actions AREN'T hurting anyone else. Buying the Xbox One actively fucks every other poster on neoGAF. It contributes toward pushing a philosophy that is going to destroy the industry forever. You may disagree with the notion that this is what it is doing, but almost everyone in the community disagrees as you can see by the extreme backlash (not that this means we're right and you're wrong, only that most people would vehemently suggest you are wrong). And I think anyone who calls themselves a "consumer" would generally be against such severe anti-consumer practices, unless they just hate themselves.
 

Jake Tower

Banned
Jan 2, 2012
5,904
1
0
You suggest that only the company has some moral responsibility in this issue, and I was suggesting that while the company is definitely more responsible than anyone else, informed consumers who decide to buy an Xbox One anyway also have to take some moral responsibility for what their choice is going to do.
I sincerely feel moral responsibility for ever buying a Microsoft gaming product.
 

PsychoRaven

Member
Feb 24, 2005
21,529
0
0
41
the psych ward
www.twitch.tv
People are generally "let live in peace" when their actions AREN'T hurting anyone else. Buying the Xbox One actively fucks every other poster on neoGAF. It contributes toward pushing a philosophy that is going to destroy the industry forever. You may disagree with the notion that this is what it is doing, but almost everyone in the community disagrees as you can see by the extreme backlash. And I think anyone who calls themselves a "consumer" would generally be against such severe anti-consumer practices, unless they just hate themselves.

Exactly. This is one of those moments I've talked about for years now. We're at a crossroads. We either let these companies take away our rights or we stand up to them and say no I will not let you take away my rights.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
4
0
36
Nowhere, PA
I sincerely feel moral responsibility for ever buying a Microsoft gaming product.

Yup, me too. I said as much in my rant in another topic yesterday. I seriously am fucking punching myself in the face for ever buying an Xbox and Xbox 360. I partially contributed to this situation.

The only difference is that I had no way of knowing it would lead to this. People who buy Xbox One know exactly what it's leading to.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Jun 6, 2004
20,904
1
0
I find it very annoying when people imply that if you like the idea of this system you're some brainwashed moron who's objectively wrong. I'm a man and I have feelings and I want to be able to buy retail games, tie them to an account and disregard the packaging, much more so than I want to trade in games. Is this so wrong? Can't you let me live?

This coming from one of the biggest defenders of MS.