Support NeoGAF

[Dave Meltzer]

And renting. And lending. And borrowing. And also, always-online checks (once every 24 hours). The industry will definitely be a ruined place if all succeeded.

No, it won't. The industry will continue just fine because people will accept the limitations if they feel the benefit is worth it. Again, the PC industry isn't dead because none of those things exist. I obviously believe your viewpoint is genuine. But I think you greatly overestimate people's 1) resolve and 2) level of discontent.

 

[FStop7]

I think there is a moral argument to be made against paying $60+ for a piece of media that will inevitably disappear in a puff of smoke.

It took a long time for Valve to earn trust with Steam and even despite their great reputation still there's always that concern.

Microsoft has light years to go in order to gain that kind of trust.

And before anyone says it - same goes for Sony and Nintendo.

 

[PBY]

The usual response is that "MS is doing this on a closed system, and they won't have cheap sales, therefore it's worse"

Which does seem to imply that the DRM on a disc in and of itself isn't the issue...it's whether there are other pros to outweigh the cons of DRM. Which I can understand completely.

But that's not really a DRM issue at that point, that's an ecosystem issue.

I think he's trying to get at the fact that no one in this thread has been able to:

A. Articulate with some specificity what they mean by their "consumer rights," and further
B. Explain the legal basis for such rights.

 

[dejay]

I'm sure some people see it as a moral issue and truthfully I'm still undecided. But I believe Steam, a closed system, with DRM, has done more good for PC gaming than bad. Yes, I realise that there are some key differences between Steam and a closed console, but I don't have the same crystal ball a lot of other people seem to have to see the downfall of gaming so I remain somewhat observant. Both XBLA and PS Store are pretty much the highlights of this gen for me.

Truthfully, and I may look selfish to some here, I just don't like putting disks in machines. If I can register a game on an account and hide the disk away somewhere in the depths of my garage, I'll be ok with that. I haven't bought second hand or resold any games in years. I believe that some money should go to the game developers if I'm to buy a game, even if it's from a $5 sale on Steam. There's a significant portion of the market who never buy a game new. Ever. I believe these people have very little moral high ground to talk about consumer rights when they never consume anything.

Anyway, like I said, I'm undecided. I hope Sony does go the opposite route, if only to give choice and competition in the market and so that we can compare what happens to the industry going forward. It's going to be interesting.

I'll probably end up owning both consoles again because truthfully I think they'll both have something to offer and if one fails me, I'll just stick to the other. Or if neither satisfy me I'll stay with Steam, Steambox, Android, iOS, GMG, D2D or whatever other options there are out there.

 

[crimsonspider89]

Difference is Kindel does something unique for a while. Where Xbone is doing nothing unique. And the books on the kindle save money as well where the games on the Xbone does not. Please, don't compare them. I can buy six books on kindle for how much I can buy one at the book store.

EDIT: Steam has gifting options between friends, has annual sales and such.

 

[Jake Tower]

Difference is Kindel does something unique for a while. Where Xbone is doing nothing unique. And the books on the kindle save money as well where the games on the Xbone does not. Please, don't compare them. I can buy six books on kindle for how much I can buy one at the book store.

Wasn't there a big price fixing case with digital books recently?

 

[Amir0x]

No, it won't. The industry will continue just fine because people will accept the limitations if they feel the benefit is worth it. Again, the PC industry isn't dead because none of those things exist. I obviously believe your viewpoint is genuine. But I think you greatly overestimate people's 1) resolve and 2) level of discontent.

And this is cool, we can respectfully disagree on this point and shake e-hands.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Add online checks to physical books and make it so those digital books could only be read on a single proprietary piece of hardware and I think you would see people screaming from the rooftops about the decline of books.

Put people aren't buying physical books. They're buying digital books. Digital files they have no right to distribute, share or trade. And people are happy with it because they can get anything they want without having to leave their house.

And this is cool, we can respectfully disagree on this point and shake e-hands.

Just don't say I'm killing the industry and I won't say you're a hyperbolic maniac

 

[doniewhalberg]

Xbone is just a bore, really. Both in the reveal and the aftermath, MS have managed to talk at major lengths over tv, sports, used game policies, online connection polices etc. whilst almost nada on games. Xbone hasn't presented my ANY moral or consumer concerns bar "there is literally nothing here about the things I will judge buying this system on" and a whole lot of bad press instead.

 

[Suikoguy]

Put people aren't buying physical books. They're buying digital books. Digital files they have no right to distribute, share or trade. And people are happy with it because they can get anything they want without having to leave their house.



Just don't say I'm killing the industry and I won't say you're a hyperbolic maniac

Yes, but there is still a physical option.

 

[HokieJoe]

Well, MS could've taken this issue a different direction and still supported their master of the living room ambitions.

Thats a bunch of bullshit. Everyone knew what microsoft was doing. They said as much. Trying to paint yourself as ignorant of what they were doing is comical.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Xbone is just a bore, really. Both in the reveal and the aftermath, MS have managed to talk at major lengths over tv, sports, used game policies, online connection polices etc. whilst almost nada on games. Xbone hasn't presented my ANY moral or consumer concerns bar "there is literally nothing here about the things I will judge buying this system on" and a whole lot of bad press instead.

This is the real issue in terms of the short term success of the system. Xbox One, as it is, is a device with no games and, depending on your perspective, majorly unappealing features. Just because I'm cool with that aspect of it doesn't mean I don't find the system as of today to be a barely appealing bore.

Yes, but there is still a physical option.

Sure. My point is increasingly people are picking the digital opinion over the physical option because they don't care about the things they lose in the trade off. That's the point of comparison.

 

[P90]

Yes, but there is still a physical option.

And the market will determine success or failure. That can change console generation to generation.

 

[PBY]

Yes, but there is still a physical option.

I really think this misses the point. Either way, you still have a physical option with the WiiU and the PS4 (potentially).

 

[crimsonspider89]

Yeah but you still can download ebooks cheaper than buying the books and sales occur as well which we know MS won't do sales like Steam, Google, Apple does, which is why there platforms are successful. On top of that, indie developers have stated they are moving to Sony and WiiU more so due to how annoying it is to work with MS to get there games published.

 

[PBY]

Yeah but you still can download ebooks cheaper than buying the books and sales occur as well which we know MS won't do sales like Steam, Google, Apple does, which is why there platforms are successful. On top of that, indie developers have stated they are moving to Sony and WiiU more so due to how annoying it is to work with MS to get there games published.

And your point is? I don't disagree, but I also don't see a moral issue there, nor do I see rights violated.

You note that the sales and low prices are the direct reason for those above noted platforms' successes- well then, if MS doesn't do that, by your logic, they will fail.

Simple as that. Where is the moral argument?

 

[jkanownik]

If it was forced it would be a moral philosophy issue. Consumers will have a choice. People choose everyday to sacrifice freedoms in return for other benefits. Who are you to stop them from getting something they value because of your moral beliefs?

Legality is a separate issue.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Yeah but you still can download ebooks cheaper than buying the books and sales occur as well which we know MS won't do sales like Steam, Google, Apple does, which is why there platforms are successful. On top of that, indie developers have stated they are moving to Sony and WiiU more so due to how annoying it is to work with MS to get there games published.

But what does this have to do with morality and anti consumer? Is it not anti consumer to sell a digital game you can't trade in as long as it costs a little less?

 

[Sean*O]

It's not a moral argument, though the developers/publishers are trying to make it one. They feel they should have rights that no other business has, in being able to own something in perpetuity or receive a large portion of the profits every single time their product is resold from owner to owner. The reason they give is piracy, sharing, is costing them billions and its a total strawman argument because as has been pointed out 1000x there is zero guarantee that every one of those torrents they like to keep track of would represent an actual paying customer.

In reality, everything is subject to a level of theft, but no other business is afforded the kind of protection and rights that MS and their dev/pub partners are looking for. How many board games are sold and resold or traded or given away? They arent able to track those products once they are sold into the market and I dont think software publishers should have any more rights than a business that deals in tangible goods.

Companies in this day and age could put tracking devices with kill switches on just about anything they make and yet they do not. MS is taking a step in the wrong direction that could have far reaching effects on the entire retail landscape if it is tolerated. It is anti consumer rights. Its funny they call it digital ights management because its not protecting rights of the customer, its just extending the rights of greedy software publishing houses to give them powers that no other business has.

I actually think it will lead to a flood of lawsuits not just from customers but from various governments for anti competitive behavior and violating consumer rights, and I hope it does.

The rights to profit from the sale of software should be limited to the initial sale like everything else in a free market, unless they are prepared to just stop selling completely into retail and switchnto their own rental based model that is 100% delivered via internet from their own servers. They cant have it both ways. They cant be allowed to sell something to a customer through a brick and morter retail channel and then still claim ownership rights.

I will not support MS or any dev/pub that adopts this model and will fully support competition that does not adopt it.

The fact that they are even pushing this had sealed mybdecision to not buy an xbone, and I may stop buying from MS completely as well as their publishing partners who are involved in this scheme.

Fuck the customer? Nope, MS and their partners will be the ones who get fucked.

 

[Klocker]

What the hell?

No. Just no.

Its called a difference of OPINION gezzus

 

[sublimit]

I agree 100% OP but i'm afraid people will throw their morals to their bin the moment their favourite exclusive franchises comes out for the systems that support these policies.

I hope i'll be proved wrong but i don't have much trust to the modern consumer.

 

[BluePigGanon]

I don't think features/aspects that have been fully disclosed about a product you don't have to buy could possibly be a violation of your rights as a consumer. Buyer beware.

I go with the latter.

 

[PBY]

It's not a moral argument, though the developers/publishers are trying to make it one. They feel they should have rights that no other business has, in being able to own something in perpetuity or receive a large portion of the profits every single time their product is resold from owner to owner. The reason they give is piracy, sharing, is costing them billions and its a total strawman argument because as has been pointed out 1000x there is zero guarantee that every one of those torrents they like to keep track of would represent an actual paying customer.

In reality, everything is subject to a level of theft, but no other business is afforded the kind of protection and rights that MS and their dev/pub partners are looking for. How many board games are sold and resold or traded or given away? They arent able to track those products once they are sold into the market and I dont think software publishers should have any more rights than a business that deals in tangible goods.

Companies in this day and age could put tracking devices with kill switches on just about anything they make and yet they do not. MS is taking a step in the wrong direction that could have far reaching effects on the entire retail landscape if it is tolerated. It is anti consumer rights. Its funny they call it digital ights management because its not protecting rights of the customer, its just extending the rights of greedy software publishing houses to give them powers that no other business has.

I actually think it will lead to a flood of lawsuits not just from customers but from various governments for anti competitive behavior and violating consumer rights, and I hope it does.

The rights to profit from the sale of software should be limited to the initial sale like everything else in a free market, unless they are prepared to just stop selling completely into retail and switchnto their own rental based model that is 100% delivered via internet from their own servers. They cant have it both ways. They cant be allowed to sell something to a customer through a brick and morter retail channel and then still claim ownership rights.

I will not support MS or any dev/pub that adopts this model and will fully support competition that does not adopt it.

The fact that they are even pushing this had sealed mybdecision to not buy an xbone, and I may stop buying from MS completely as well as their publishing partners who are involved in this scheme.

Fuck the customer? Nope, MS and their partners will be the ones who get fucked.

Jesus christ. No? Based on what exactly?

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

In the end, it's the consumers choice.


Personally, I won't buy it because it's anti-consumer, but others might find value in it and buy it.

 

[P90]

Jesus christ. No? Based on what exactly?

There are always people and trial lawyers looking for an unearned buck.

 

[PBY]

There are always people and trial lawyers looking for an unearned buck.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the case will be heard. A judge would throw out a case so fast based on the arguments in this thread.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't think features/aspects that have been fully disclosed about a product you don't have to buy could possibly be a violation of your rights as a consumer. Buyer beware.

We don't live in a libertarian utopia and that is not how it works.

Sony dropped clearly advertised features from the PS3 long after release (OtherOS). Steam changes their TOS and if you do not agree you lose access to everything you bought or activated via Steam. EA bans you from their forums and this also locks you out of all of your game purchases.

See where I'm going here? Is that at all straightforward? Is it ethical?

I don't think so anyway.

I see a future where the first sale doctrine holds, to all goods, and where consumers are free to transfer their digital licenses, temporarily or permanently. I see this as inevitable, but we'll have a fight to get there, and some transaction fees may need top be involved, depending.

 

[sublimit]

Sean*O well said man.
And i couldn't care less if there is anyone that tries a lawsuit against them.This is totally irrelevant.Even if everybody on earth accepts these decisions my stance as a consumer will never change.

 

[PBY]

Sean*O well said man.
And i couldn't care less if there is anyone that tries a lawsuit against them.This is totally irrelevant.Even if everybody on earth accepts these decisions my stance as a consumer will never change.

Smh at you agreeing with that post.

Listen- I don't want to be a MS apologist- but its tough not to try and push back the hyperbole and vague accusations that aren't really backed up by much.

 

[Iksenpets]

I don't like what they're doing, but calling it a moral issue cheapens morality. They make a product that comes with software to operate other software. They've changed the rules for how those two pieces of software are allowed to interface. That's all. If you don't like it, don't buy it. As it stands now, I have no desire to buy what they're offering, but if good games come out for it that i cant get elsewhere, then I have no qualms admitting that the benefits of owning their system outweigh the costs and handing over my money.

So long as they're manufacturing the games, they can make any rules on their use that they're able to enforce. And we're all free not to buy it.

 

[REV 09]

I would be absolutely okay with that being an OPTION. That problem is that it is not.

Is a monopoly a moral issue or a consumer philosophy issue?

you have an OPTION not to buy the console, so no, it isn't a moral argument at all.

Moreover, all of this hatred is mostly based on rumors at this point.

 

[seattle6418]

This just shows the failure of us, as gamers, to draw the line between what's acceptable and what isn't.

People bitched about on disc DLC, about horse armor, online passes, and about xbox live, but in the end, we (as a group) tolerated all of that.

No wonder Microsoft is testing the waters, they want to see how much more they can get and get away with it.

A considerable percentage of gamers will suck it up and jump in once again. That's what sucks. Every time we depend on others to make a stand against huge corporations, it usually means prepare to get butt raped because people can't take a stand on anything.

It's a free market blah blah blah speeches, which makes some people think anything goes in the industry.

 

[P90]

Yes, but that doesn't mean the case will be heard. A judge would throw out a case so fast based on the arguments in this thread.

True, but there will be some that get through and go up the judicial hierarchy... *cough* algore *cough*

 

[Corsick]

you have an OPTION not to buy the console, so no, it isn't a moral argument at all.

Moreover, all of this hatred is mostly based on rumors at this point.

Microsoft has had ample opportunity to answer for itself, and its own representatives speaking officially about their own products have sparked these debates. None of this discussion is unfair to them. They have the ability to make it all go away.

 

[rohlfinator]

I think he's trying to get at the fact that no one in this thread has been able to:

A. Articulate with some specificity what they mean by their "consumer rights," and further
B. Explain the legal basis for such rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

 

[PBY]

True, but there will be some that get through and go up the judicial hierarchy... *cough* algore *cough*

Nah I really doubt that.

 

[JB1981]

I'm apathetic about it because the Xbox is not the only game in town. There are alternatives and I'm powerless to stop whatever they do anyway. So why waste the energy over it?

 

[Montresor]

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.

I'll gladly fuck every Neogaf member if it means this November I'll be able to play Forza 5 and Quantum Break at launch, record and edit game play video, record my team's NHL hockey games with the PVR features, and have fun with the fast multi-tasking features of the OS (skype, Netflix, IE, etc...), and so on.

Really. Microsoft is pushing a couple of objectively terrible philosophies with their new console, but in my eyes that does not take away from the awesome features of the console. The multi-tasking (both convenient and blazing fast) in the presentation got me really excited. And the system will have games that I love to play. So I'll _probably_ get it at launch (pending some more details from E3).

 

[theDeeDubs]

If anyone sees this as a moral issue, I hope they also see Steam in a similar light. If you want to take a moral highground, you can't pick and choose which one to denounce regardless of how good a deal you get on games from Steam. You can't be half ass taking a moral stance.

I wish I cared more about such things to seem as passionate about this as a lot of you seem, but at the end of the day I just want to play some fun games.

 

[PBY]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

I don't think that this speaks directly to the issue at hand, but I could be incorrect, I'm not an IP or trademark lawyer.

But I did go through law school, and I will say that just throwing out "first sale doctrine" doesn't strengthen any of the arguments in this thread.

 

[dejay]

Its funny they call it digital ights management because its not protecting rights of the customer, its just extending the rights of greedy software publishing houses to give them powers that no other business has.

Actually I'm comforted with the locked content I have with iOS, Android, PS Store, Steam and XBLive. Why? Because they're tied to my account and if I lose a phone, get my disks stolen, have a hard drive crash or whatever, I can retrieve my content.

To me that's protecting the rights of the software I bought. I've had all my CDs stolen in the past and it sucked. I know there's a probability that certain servers will shut down and I'll lose them anyway, but in ten years I won't give a fuck about Oblivion or GTA IV or whatever.

This is why I don't think it's a moral issue - just a matter of preference.

 

[Forceatowulf]

It's a moral argument as far as I'm concerned. We, as consumers, are getting the shit end of this stick. Period.

The people who are ok with this stuff are a god damn problem. It doesn't really "surprise" me though. I've seen people defend flopping in sports, support even lower taxes for the rich, and defend bankers during the financial crisis. Nothing really "surprises" me anymore. People will defend and apologize for anything.

On another note, gamer "rage" and "out-cry" over anti-consumer practices are horseshit. The majority of them will fold the moment they see Halo or the new Gears. They wont give a fuck that MS is fucking them in the ass with no lube because "HEY LOOK IT'S MOTHERFUCKING HALO 26!!!11! I GOTZ TO HAVE HALO 26!!11 Or is this Halo 25...? OH WHO GIVES A FUCK! GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE!!!"

I hate my gaming brothers and sisters. We suck. And that is exactly why companies like MS are trying to fuck us. Because, in the end, they know we will bow our heads like the simps that we are. The purchasing of Live, MS points, and various DLC over the years proves this.

 

[Rommel]

The hyperbole is strong with this thread.

Moral issue? Talk about your first world problems. Don't like it? Don't buy it. You have options, buy a PS4 or WiiU.

 

[Koren]

And the books on the kindle save money as well

They want to pass a law here that prevent digital books to be sold cheaper than physical ones, to help physical books resellers.

An older law saying that a same book should be sold at the same price everywhere was quite successful, and we managed to keep a lot of book stores. I could live with this one.

But I disagree with the new one because ebooks differ from regular books in terms of rights.


That put aside, I think something cheap like a book is different from a console game, and the system is far less intrusive. And even with that, I nearly only buy DRM-free ebooks.

(and yes, I don't like Steam either, and don't use it, even if I think XBox One is worse)

 

[Alebrije]

Do not know how a lot of people complains about Xbox one like if they were forced to get it no matter what MS does. If you do not like what MS plan to do simple do not get the system. If next generation consoles threat your rights as a consumer just skip

 

[P90]

Nah I really doubt that.

You have more faith in the USA judicial/legislative system than I do.

(aside) Why the hell was Apple pulled before the Senate when they did not violate the letter or spirit of the law?

 

[rohlfinator]

I don't think that this speaks directly to the issue at hand, but I could be incorrect, I'm not an IP or trademark lawyer.

How does it not? Microsoft is infringing on the right for people to resell their physical copies of games without giving MS a cut.

At the very least, this dramatically blurs the line between "physical" and "digital" copies, and may be grounds for revisiting the issue in the judicial system.

 

[PBY]

How does it not? Microsoft is infringing on the right for people to resell their physical copies of games without giving MS a cut.

At the very least, this dramatically blurs the line between "physical" and "digital" copies, and may be grounds for revisiting the issue in the judicial system.

How does this differ from people going into a store, buying a boxed copy of productivity software- say ableton, word, photoshop etc. the buyer can't resell their copy at all.

 

[Zeth]

Is Sony's policy any different, or are they just taking the fallout for being the most topical at the moment? Do we really think Xbox will have some terrible used game scheme, and the PS4 will operate exactly like previous generations? I don't think that's very likely. It seems to me like a lot of prexisting brand allegiances are probably fueling the fire as well.

 

[Forceatowulf]

Do not know how a lot of people complains about Xbox one like if they were forced to get it no matter what MS does. If you do not like what MS plan to do simple do not get the system. If next generation consoles threat your rights as a consumer just skip

A lot of people do plan to do this *raises hand*. It doesn't mean we can't express our grievances with the leading game platform in the business doing stupid shit that we believe is morally wrong...

A lot of us complaining wanted to buy this console not 4 days ago by the way, don't forget that.