-
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.
Is the Xbone a moral argument, or simply a difference in consumer philosophy?
- Thread starter Sqorgar
- Start date
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
edit - whoops
That doesnt mean this is a moral issue.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Maybe not to you. Which is fine.
rohlfinator
Member
Well that interpretation of the law seems sketchy as fuck to me as well.
But at least in that case you could "sell" your CD key along with the disc and transfer the software that way (even if it's in violation of the EULA or whatever). Here your disc is worthless without Microsoft approving the transfer.
But you're right, our judicial system will probably let this slide because they are ridiculously pro-corporation and anti-consumer.
ibun
Member
to me its less about a moral argument, since "moral" isnt projectable on this topic. its more about philosphy, here consumer behaviour.
a lot of consumers are now like "oh ok...i cant change it anymore" talks like "vote with your wallet" are just talks, nobody does it. we the consumers have the power, but majority of people are sheeps buying stuff. its that "could be worse"-mentality.
well whatever ^-^ time to leave consol gaming if sony does the same and get a wii u as the last "next gen"
a lot of consumers are now like "oh ok...i cant change it anymore" talks like "vote with your wallet" are just talks, nobody does it. we the consumers have the power, but majority of people are sheeps buying stuff. its that "could be worse"-mentality.
well whatever ^-^ time to leave consol gaming if sony does the same and get a wii u as the last "next gen"
Can you explain why this is moral issue to you?
Offensive? How does it violate you? <insert something my parents would say about kids these days. grumble. grumble. cuss. grumble.>
ColdBlooder
Banned
I can only speak for myself but... NO thanks. DO NOT WANT
dragonbane
Member
The problem is it isn't like Steam. Steam is an OPTION. I use it too, but I CHOSE to use it. Maybe I couldn't play all the games I want anymore if I decided against Steam, but I still could play some games at least.
On a closed console, this isn't possible.
Also, Steam and the One so far are quite different in two aspects:
-Steam has a complete offline mode
-The games on Steam are mostly cheaper than retail and they have great deals
For me the ability to trade my games in is like added value when I pay $60. On Steam I pay way less, so I don't need this extra value.
I could actually live with the One if it really becomes like Steam and the prices go down. If they stay at $60 however, I won't accept it.
I'm pretty sure you can see the difference here.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
That's why you just sit back and enjoy the crazy. It's much more fun when you don't have anything at stake.
Xbox one isn't an option you choose?
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Xbox One is an option. You don't have to buy it.
I agree, Steam has a greater perceived value, but not everyone cares for PC gaming and they perceive things differently. It is what it is.
Trent Strong
Banned
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
I'm thinking PS4 will be the same.
I wouldn't consider it a moral argument because it's simply luxury spending. It's frustratingly counter-productive and unnecessarily antagonistic towards legitimate customers acting in good faith but it effects nothing of real consequence in our lives. I don't mean to belittle anyone's passion for gaming in saying that but I just can't see this as a question of legitimate harm to others regarding how each of us chooses to engage in frivolous pursuits.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
I have a suspect it will take a lot of time to build and deploy a DRM infrastructure. Therefore, if they aren't far along in development right now, I doubt we'll see it from Sony day one.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
I believe it is inherently wrong to not allow me to use what I buy as I see fit. When I buy something, it belongs to me. Period. I don't need a corporation checking in on me via the internet every 24 hours to see if I'm on the straight and narrow. Also, If I lend my movies/games/music/car to a friend they should not have to pay a fee. I bought it already, they should not be allowed to intrude on what I do with what I buy. They haven't for the last 20 years that I've been gaming on consoles and I'm not going to all of a sudden be ok with it now.
This is indeed moral to me. What they're doing here is "wrong". You may beg to differ, and as I said that's ok, but my stance on this issue is unwavering.
So you think iOS purchases, steam purchases, and basically anything with a walled garden/cd key system is immoral ?
CassidyIzABeast
Member
A moral issue? Might be time to step back from just reading gaming sites buddy
Jake Tower
Banned
NullPointer
Member
Maybe it could be viewed as harmful to the hobby or practice of gaming to support this transition to digital services purely for control and profit. Not only do customers lose out on the ability to lend or sell their games without restrictions, but they are also limited in how they can use that content in the first place (requiring an internet connection) as well as reducing the lifetime of those games, since the servers than maintain them will eventually be shut down. Companies have incentive to do just that to push the audiences towards the next annual release.
Yes, people have a choice, but its not a bad thing to look down the road and examine where those choices in aggregate might lead us. Individual selfish action doesn't always end up improve things on the whole.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Ive literally never used any of that stuff in my life. The only thing I bought that had a disc key was Windows office and I regret it greatly.
I let my friends borrow my shit all the time though. Movies/music/games/car. All that shit. Living in a world where they would have to pay a fee for any of those things is ridiculous to me. And I wont tolerate it.
And again, I don't like the idea of corporations checking in on me to see if I'm being a good boy with what I purchased with my hard earned money every 24 hours. That's simply fucked and nothing I own currently does that. Nothing.
Jake Tower
Banned
Mandatory spy cam is pro-consumer?
Dave Meltzer
Banned
Xbox One is an option. If you don't like it, buy another console.
You don't get to say "Steam is OK because I got the games cheaper, it's no longer a moral issue because I'm happy". That's not morality.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
The death of lending, renting and borrowing? Isn't that the DD future? Don't we all agree thats coming whether we like it or not? This is MS's clumsy 2nd act into that future imo. They want to be the one that sets the standards so I guess they see this as a acceptable risk to be the first. Or maybe they just don't give a fuck now that they think they're in a position to "dominate" the living room and are going to grab as much cash as they can along the way. Who knows? I do agree that what the consumer says this coming gen will dictate how that future will be the next time we do this at the beginning of the next decade, when all we have is digital. What rights will we have then? Can we establish value for a digital good that we can trade in? Can we relax some of the restrictions on lending? There are a lot of questions that gamers need to help define before they're defined for us.
As for the once every 24 hour check to make sure I'm not a thief, yeah that shit stings, just like it stings every time your leave a store and walk through the "I'm not a thief" sensor or notice a camera watching you. Unfortunately that just comes with the times we live in. We get all kinds of cool benefits from tech like amazing games, phones, ect., sometimes that shit also bites us in the ass and we lose a little bit of what we had. This 24 hour check is important to a lot of people, just not me. I'm used to it.
Nailed it.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
The illuminati watching me masturbate is a pro-consumer benefit I think everyone can agree upon.
Alebrije
Member
Its free will , if XBOX ONE has value for you no matter if Kintenic could scan your room , or you have to pay fees to play used games , you will get it. The problem with some people is that they are "yelling to a cloud" and still will wait that it rains over them.
Nightstick11
Banned
I'm having a hard time seeing how it is not a moral issue.
Via the Xbone as a Trojan horse, Microsoft is rescinding our inalienable right to use and enjoy our property. In western law and morality, free people have the fundamental liberty interest to do as they please with their property, under a certain set of laws [the courts have interpreted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to include property rights as inalienable.]
Microsoft proposes to immorally restrict our right-- not as consumers, but as human beings and citizens of the United States-- to enjoy our property to its fullest extent. To mischaracterize the argument as "well if you don't want one, don't buy one" misses the whole point. This isn't about consumer choice; this is about property rights.
If I want to donate a book to a library, Should that be banned because someone can xerox the books? No! Should I or anyone else have to pay a "fee" or full-price to the publisher/author, because I want to gift my own book that I paid full price for? No!The important question is why not? Because it's my goddamned book, and there is common law dating back hundreds of years, that lays the foundation for my fundamental right as a human being to give the book to someone or burn it or use the pages to wipe my ass.
Similarly, if I want lend my friend a DVD, should I have to "register" it? Do I have to pay the film studio and DVD distributor a cut? No! Again, why? Because we have the goddamn right to do whatever the hell we want with our property, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another!
We have an inalienable right to own property, and all the intrinsic rights that owning property confers under western law, just as we have an inalienable right to vote, to not be slaves, to not be thrown into prison without knowing what we're charged for.
How is this not a moral argument?
Via the Xbone as a Trojan horse, Microsoft is rescinding our inalienable right to use and enjoy our property. In western law and morality, free people have the fundamental liberty interest to do as they please with their property, under a certain set of laws [the courts have interpreted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to include property rights as inalienable.]
Microsoft proposes to immorally restrict our right-- not as consumers, but as human beings and citizens of the United States-- to enjoy our property to its fullest extent. To mischaracterize the argument as "well if you don't want one, don't buy one" misses the whole point. This isn't about consumer choice; this is about property rights.
If I want to donate a book to a library, Should that be banned because someone can xerox the books? No! Should I or anyone else have to pay a "fee" or full-price to the publisher/author, because I want to gift my own book that I paid full price for? No!The important question is why not? Because it's my goddamned book, and there is common law dating back hundreds of years, that lays the foundation for my fundamental right as a human being to give the book to someone or burn it or use the pages to wipe my ass.
Similarly, if I want lend my friend a DVD, should I have to "register" it? Do I have to pay the film studio and DVD distributor a cut? No! Again, why? Because we have the goddamn right to do whatever the hell we want with our property, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another!
We have an inalienable right to own property, and all the intrinsic rights that owning property confers under western law, just as we have an inalienable right to vote, to not be slaves, to not be thrown into prison without knowing what we're charged for.
How is this not a moral argument?
This reads like a tea party manifesto. Seriously- just don't buy it of you dont like it.
BluePigGanon
Member
I don't understand the "moral" argument at all, it sounds more like entitlement.
MS can sell you whatever they want, as long as they're fully disclosing what they're selling. They could see you an arsenic porcupine if they wanted, as long as they tell you what it is. Nobody's being violated.
MS can sell you whatever they want, as long as they're fully disclosing what they're selling. They could see you an arsenic porcupine if they wanted, as long as they tell you what it is. Nobody's being violated.
because you CONSENT to these things when you buy it. If Microsoft lied and restricted all this shit without telling you up front, that would be anti-consumer. If you buy it anyways, knowing all this shit, then it can't be right or wrongit's just the consumer being an idiot (assuming they really do care about all these things).
capitalism is anti-consumer. they are not beholden to the consumer and never will be.
Dave Meltzer
Banned
Did you pay for the Operating System you're currently using?
What does western society say about your right of ownership of it?
Nightstick11
Banned
...I'm sorry I'm trying to discuss the OP.
NullPointer
Member
Not one bit.
Just because something is digital doesn't mean you can't transfer ownership. In fact, in some ways it should be easier than ever.
I agree that companies will try and make digital goods and services exempt, and they'll fight tooth and nail on it, but I don't think they have a case to make - but they'll have plenty of money and leverage to throw around.
Your post doesn't make a lot of sense though.
rohlfinator
Member
Some people view Steam DRM (or any digital DRM) as a kind of extended rental. Most of us are willing to give up rights for rentals because they're fundamentally different from a purchase. At a significantly reduced cost, of course, and Steam provides that.
The difference here (IMO) is that Microsoft still sells you a physical disc (like a sale), but still maintains full control over who can use it and when (like a rental). That's what's rubbing people the wrong way.
I don't know if I'd personally call it a moral issue, but it's disingenuous to say that it's exactly like Steam.
Nightstick11
Banned
This isn't anti-consumer--- it's anti-property rights, as was my original point.
Can the people "consent" to a poll tax? A literacy requirement to vote? Can you consent to be my eternal slave? Can the consumer consent to purchasing property while relinquishing full property rights?
No, I did not.
It says the purchaser of the OS can do with it as he/she pleases, including installing it on this computer that I am using.
Point?
This!
Green Yoshi
Member
Anyone remembering this?
http://de.swoopshare.com/file/02339...26f/XBox-720-9-24-Checkpoint-Draft-1.pdf.html
It was leaked last year and nobody knew if it was fake or not. Since Tuesday this question is irrelevant.
http://de.swoopshare.com/file/02339...26f/XBox-720-9-24-Checkpoint-Draft-1.pdf.html
It was leaked last year and nobody knew if it was fake or not. Since Tuesday this question is irrelevant.
It's not anti-property rights because you consented to the rules of the property when you bought it.
No/No/No/This is a very poorly worded question, but people willingly sign shitty contracts all the time. That's not my problem, that's not anti-property rights, that's just stupidity.
edit: and it doesn't say that at all (re: your OS). read the ToS nice and closely.
The Crimson Kid
what are you waiting for
I wouldn't consider a customer buying an Xbox One to be morally corrupt. They are able to research what it does and what they give up versus going with alternatives.
I will say that Microsoft is abusing their position in a morally corrupt way by introducing system-wide DRM for every single game (Steam doesn't do this btw), attempting to create a monopoly on the used games market by restricting the legally protected right of first sale that has been brought up in this thread, and the unclarified fact that Kinect is collecting data about the users of the console at all times, possibly to send data to advertisers, to tailor advertising content to you, or to determine how many people are watching a movie and charge accordingly.
Very little of this is necessary to prevent piracy on a closed system, and none of it gives the consumer any extra value (whether through added features or lower prices). It does make Microsoft a ton of money though, but that isn't a good enough reason to justify all of this.
The huge problem with your argument is that such a choice between physical and digital is available now on PS3 and Wii U, and based on the data we have, consumers are overwhelmingly choosing to purchase physical copies of games when given the choice. Check out the monthly eShop sales figures thread on here for proof of this.
Currently, console owners can buy a physical or digital copy of the same game for the same price at launch pretty often, especially on PS3 and Wii U. If you have looked at any of the data available, you would see that customers NEARLY UNIVERSALLY prefer buying physical copies despite being less convenient to do so, because the ability to lend and resell their game outweighs the convenience of not having to leave the house to play a new game.
And as for the PC, that platform was in serious trouble for games before Steam and other places started selling games with an account-linked form of DRM. Publishers were forgoing the PC entirely more and more because piracy was so rampant and simple on an open platform. Steam and these kinds of services gave publishers a method that was necessary for them to make any money on PC, and the PC is in a much healthier spot than where it was 4 years ago. Not only is everything getting ported over from console, many of those ports have extra work done to them, and several Japanese publishers (Sega, Konami, Namco) are starting to invest big in the PC space.
Those "key differences" between Steam and a closed console completely invalidate your argument.
Steam is a closed ecosystem on an open platform, where PC gamers are free to obtain non-Steamworks or Origin games any way they desire. Steam does not have a monopoly on selling their games, which leads to price competition. Not all games sold on Steam have DRM because those choices are left up to the publisher. A game on Steam can have several layers of DRM or none. Many do choose to use some form of DRM due to how easy it has been to pirate games on an open platform like the PC.
Consoles are totally closed platforms where it is already impossible to pirate games without modifying the hardware of the console itself. This fact alone negates the need for such a restrictive DRM scheme on a console, let alone that Microsoft is being more restrictive and offering less choice in their scheme than Steam does!
The advent of Steam and other similar services was necessary on an open platform where the piracy rate was well over 90% and publishers were finding it to be not worth the time and money to support the platform. Even on consoles where piracy was the most common (Dreamcast and PSP), the piracy rate never got close to how high it has been on PC.
Also, your implications that people more critical of the Xbox One aren't remaining "somewhat observant" of facts and that people who buy used games don't have equal right to talk about consumer rights. These perspectives are nonsensical and completely baseless in addition to being unsupported by any evidence or examples.
Kindle owners have the ability to lend books to anyone else for 14 days, even to people who don't own a Kindle.
Purchasers of DRM-free music have the ability to copy, lend, and distribute those files any way that they please. With digital music, it is worth keeping in mind that most digital music distributors had DRM on their products, but over a few years, consumer demand made every single one move AWAY from that model to a DRM-free model. It turned out that consumers were unhappy that the albums and tracks they purchased weren't playable on every device and that they couldn't lend those to friends or family!
And while there are several successful media services that restrict the ability to share and distribute that content (most of which are subscription services), those services are much cheaper than buying everything a la carte, which is not something that the Xbox One will do at all.
Not only is it dishonest to claim that people are all okay with trading their rights away for convenience (when history shows otherwise), it is incredibly intellectually dishonest to suggest that, based on your false premise, people will have no issue trading away worthwhile rights and values for no benefit on their end.
I will say that Microsoft is abusing their position in a morally corrupt way by introducing system-wide DRM for every single game (Steam doesn't do this btw), attempting to create a monopoly on the used games market by restricting the legally protected right of first sale that has been brought up in this thread, and the unclarified fact that Kinect is collecting data about the users of the console at all times, possibly to send data to advertisers, to tailor advertising content to you, or to determine how many people are watching a movie and charge accordingly.
Very little of this is necessary to prevent piracy on a closed system, and none of it gives the consumer any extra value (whether through added features or lower prices). It does make Microsoft a ton of money though, but that isn't a good enough reason to justify all of this.
The huge problem with your argument is that such a choice between physical and digital is available now on PS3 and Wii U, and based on the data we have, consumers are overwhelmingly choosing to purchase physical copies of games when given the choice. Check out the monthly eShop sales figures thread on here for proof of this.
Currently, console owners can buy a physical or digital copy of the same game for the same price at launch pretty often, especially on PS3 and Wii U. If you have looked at any of the data available, you would see that customers NEARLY UNIVERSALLY prefer buying physical copies despite being less convenient to do so, because the ability to lend and resell their game outweighs the convenience of not having to leave the house to play a new game.
And as for the PC, that platform was in serious trouble for games before Steam and other places started selling games with an account-linked form of DRM. Publishers were forgoing the PC entirely more and more because piracy was so rampant and simple on an open platform. Steam and these kinds of services gave publishers a method that was necessary for them to make any money on PC, and the PC is in a much healthier spot than where it was 4 years ago. Not only is everything getting ported over from console, many of those ports have extra work done to them, and several Japanese publishers (Sega, Konami, Namco) are starting to invest big in the PC space.
Those "key differences" between Steam and a closed console completely invalidate your argument.
Steam is a closed ecosystem on an open platform, where PC gamers are free to obtain non-Steamworks or Origin games any way they desire. Steam does not have a monopoly on selling their games, which leads to price competition. Not all games sold on Steam have DRM because those choices are left up to the publisher. A game on Steam can have several layers of DRM or none. Many do choose to use some form of DRM due to how easy it has been to pirate games on an open platform like the PC.
Consoles are totally closed platforms where it is already impossible to pirate games without modifying the hardware of the console itself. This fact alone negates the need for such a restrictive DRM scheme on a console, let alone that Microsoft is being more restrictive and offering less choice in their scheme than Steam does!
The advent of Steam and other similar services was necessary on an open platform where the piracy rate was well over 90% and publishers were finding it to be not worth the time and money to support the platform. Even on consoles where piracy was the most common (Dreamcast and PSP), the piracy rate never got close to how high it has been on PC.
Also, your implications that people more critical of the Xbox One aren't remaining "somewhat observant" of facts and that people who buy used games don't have equal right to talk about consumer rights. These perspectives are nonsensical and completely baseless in addition to being unsupported by any evidence or examples.
Kindle owners have the ability to lend books to anyone else for 14 days, even to people who don't own a Kindle.
Purchasers of DRM-free music have the ability to copy, lend, and distribute those files any way that they please. With digital music, it is worth keeping in mind that most digital music distributors had DRM on their products, but over a few years, consumer demand made every single one move AWAY from that model to a DRM-free model. It turned out that consumers were unhappy that the albums and tracks they purchased weren't playable on every device and that they couldn't lend those to friends or family!
And while there are several successful media services that restrict the ability to share and distribute that content (most of which are subscription services), those services are much cheaper than buying everything a la carte, which is not something that the Xbox One will do at all.
Not only is it dishonest to claim that people are all okay with trading their rights away for convenience (when history shows otherwise), it is incredibly intellectually dishonest to suggest that, based on your false premise, people will have no issue trading away worthwhile rights and values for no benefit on their end.
BluePigGanon
Member
Doesn't a business have the right to decide what they are selling?
Don't I have a choice between selling you a car, or selling you specifically use of a car? Isn't that up to you to decide if that's something you want to buy?
Don't I have a choice between selling you a car, or selling you specifically use of a car? Isn't that up to you to decide if that's something you want to buy?
The purchaser of an OS can do as he pleases? Some reference to "property rights" that isn't based in any legal principle applicable here...
C'mon.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
Is capitalism a moral dilemma or an economic philosophy? There's your answer.
Similar threads
- Locked