That doesnt mean this is a moral issue.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.
Maybe not to you. Which is fine.That doesnt mean this is a moral issue.
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.
Can you explain why this is moral issue to you?Maybe not to you. Which is fine.
I find the entire premise of this thread offensive. Yes I am extremely disappointed and feel betrayed by the conference but to turn this into a conversation of morality is absurd.
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).
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.It isn't anti consumer unless the overall experience is negative for the consumer. For me, Steam is very much pro consumer, because the experience I have had over the last 6 years or so of being able to access all my games on numerous PCs and redownload games I've bought a retail is a massive pro. Nobody says Steam is anti consumer anymore because everybody likes the service. It's very difficult for me not to see benefits of this.
lol at "going to destroy the industry forever". I'm sorry, but if you don't think every single game sale is going to go digital as soon as possible and without killing the industry, I don't even know what to say. This is, easily, the last generation of consoles with physical discs. I guarantee it.
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.
Xbox one isn't an option you choose?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 it stays at $60 however, I won't accept it.
I'm pretty sure you can see the difference here.
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.
is Steam morally reprehensible? is the Kindle a morally reprehensible walled garden? iOS?
don't like it, don't buy it. but morally reprehensible? not when you consent to it.
I'm thinking PS4 will be the same.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.
I'm thinking PS4 will be the same.
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.Can you explain why this is moral issue to you?
So you think iOS purchases, steam purchases, and basically anything with a walled garden/cd key system is immoral ?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.
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.
Offensive? How does it violate you? <insert something my parents would say about kids these days. grumble. grumble. cuss. grumble.>
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.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.
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.So you think iOS purchases, steam purchases, and basically anything with a walled garden/cd key system is immoral ?
I see this as a key pro-consumer benefit.
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.
I knew when I purchased an Xbox or Xbox 360 that it was going to lead to the death of lending, renting and borrowing? To once every 24 hours internet checks? I'm sorry I'm not a psychic, but I had no fucking clue they were going to do this. I didn't even IMAGINE such a scenario until a few months ago when the rumours started breaking out.
Nailed it.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.
Mandatory spy cam is pro-consumer?
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.
This reads like a tea party manifesto. Seriously- just don't buy it of you dont like it.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?
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?
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?
This reads like a tea party manifesto. Seriously- just don't buy it of you dont like it.
Not one bit.The death of lending, renting and borrowing? Isn't that the DD future? Don't we all agree that's coming whether we like it or not?
Your post doesn't make a lot of sense though....I'm sorry I'm trying to discuss the OP.
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.
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.
Did you pay for the Operating System you're currently using?
What does western society say about your right of ownership of it?
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 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, 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.
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.
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.
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...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?