Support NeoGAF

[wkureservedp2]

In my limited play sessions with the XBone, it seems totally fine. In all reality, it's a product I would likely enjoy. I don't "hate" the XBone. I really "hate" everything Microsoft tried to pull last spring/summer. I "hate" the brash, ego driven manner in which they operated. And, I also really "hate" the fact that I had 3 early 360s red ring. All of these factors, paired with Sony's pro-consumer attitude of late, led to me buying a PS4. Microsoft needs to earn my trust again, and I don't think I'm alone there.

 

[commedieu]

The word "hate" these days is often used freely in exchange for any activity which is perceived to be 'excessively negative'. To illustrate, please check the amount of times a topic is made on NeoGAF, some divisive game is contained within, and defenders of the game respond "haters gonna hate" to any and all criticism.

What I am saying is that it is pretty clear that the vast majority of the "hate" the Xbox One receives is not hate but serious criticisms caused by the shitty choices Microsoft made. That bitterness has carried over in some users and they remain highly skeptical and critical of their decisions now.

Given that he contributed to the environment that created these severe critics, it's a little silly now to wish the "hate" would end - because most people do not hate an silly piece of technology, they just either wish it success or not based on what that product offers and if they think it's bad for the industry or not. Someone being passionate about their criticisms is also not the same as hate.

Now, I am sure Nelson knows the difference. He's extremely deliberate with his behavior, and always has been. What I feel is that:

1. He's being extremely disingenuous now about why he's saying this
2. One must consider the source when such a thing is said; he has contributed to an environment where this behavior exists for XBO, and he freely encouraged it during the PS3 gen, and now he wants people to pull back.
3. IF there is indeed some form of 'hate', that 'hate' could only have existed in the environment for which Nelson freely lied about various aspects of the XBO, Penello freely misled thousands of GAFers on the technical specifications of the systems, and Microsoft seriously attempted the largest subversion of consumer rights ever attempted in this industry. Little late to stop that water flowing now, no?

Personally, I think this sort of push back is good. I don't care that some people might be angry in excess and take it a little far. These are faceless corporations who do not give a shit about us, and I'd rather people be excessively angry then excessively timid.

Jeeeppppppppppp agreed.


Calling out "haters" Is bullshit. These aren't haters, these are people who are calling out your bullshit, that you, yourself, have to pull 180's on. Being pompous and arrogant while at the same time crying foul at reality checks, is what he is doing. Its funny to watch Microsoft squirm this generation, it has honestly been more entertaining than the games themselves. Yes, lets all stop bullshitting each other. I'm fine with that, but you have to admit you've been a jackass about things, as well as the other party. Sony went through a lot of shit last gen, but they stopped the bullshit.

Stop the bullshit.

 

[Gestault]

Imagine, however, if everyone thought as you did and just said 'well I'm glad I have these other ecosystems." Would people who aren't as connected to the industry have begun to catch onto what was going on? Would pre-order numbers have been impacted as severely? Would Microsoft have actually changed the policy? Would we now be stuck with the prospect of a Microsoft system that was successful whilst deconstructing rights we've had since this industry first came into existence, and face the future where other companies try to follow suit?

If that is indeed what he's talking about, then he's even more wrong: it is directly that so-called "circus atmosphere" that forced their hand. Consumers NEED to demand their rights when corporations step on them. I mean it sounds like some idealistic screed, but it's true. And we did, and we won. If the various successes we had - Microsoft 180'd on virtually every negative aspect gamer's complained about - aren't enough to convince an individual that it was necessary, then obviously I cannot convince that person. But I'd say the results are clear.

The alternative would have been to pretend it wasn't as serious as it was, and risk the prospect of our industry being infected to the point of no return. If indeed this is likely to be the future, at least we put it off for yet one more generation, and that in of itself is a victory.

In fact, I hope that's the way gamers react every time a company does stuff like this. Gamers reacted crazily to Sony's PS3 decisions as well, and it led to tons of internal soul searching that eventually gave us the near universally applauded PS4. They listened. Once again, we won.

What would you say the benefit was of behaving your way if everyone did that? That the environment would have been somewhat more gentle to navigate?

Well, let me just say I value less a few months of forum browsing "comfort" then ensuring that products and companies exist to serve us.

I guess it's my view that consumers aren't actually the uninformed drones you seem to assume they are and that in the long term, they'll buy and play games on the platforms that make the most sense to them. Those aggregate choices are what drive changes in any product line. I choose my devices based on my preferences. It wasn't a coarse, squabbling internet that made Sony get their act together this past gen. It was people not buying enough of their products.

People have every reason to ignore senseless frothing at the mouth. Ignoring a game system because it has stupid purchase limitations says more to a company than the hatred you really now sound like you're defending. Remember those early pre-order numbers for this gen? Yeah, that's a clear signal. People being pricks to one another makes me embarrassed to be a gamer, not feel empowered. If gaming hobbyists can't disagree without mistreating each other, particularly when people like you insist that it's necessary, this industry won't get a penny more of my money. Thankfully, I know you're wrong.

 

[meppi]

In my limited play sessions with the XBone, it seems totally fine. In all reality, it's a product I would likely enjoy. I don't "hate" the XBone. I really "hate" everything Microsoft tried to pull last spring/summer. I "hate" the brash, ego driven manner in which they operated. And, I also really "hate" the fact that I had 3 early 360s red ring. All of these factors, paired with Sony's pro-consumer attitude of late, led to me buying a PS4. Microsoft needs to earn my trust again, and I don't think I'm alone there.

No sir, you certainly are not.
My choice system was the 360 till all that stuff went down. From that point on I haven't given MS a cent, and I don't plan to change this.

It's also very convenient to make a call for all the online hate to go away when nearly all of it is aimed at the company he is employed by.
If everyone was hating on Sony and not MS, we wouldn't see such a thing.

 

[hawk2025]

I guess it's my view that consumers aren't actually the uninformed drones you seem to assume they are and that in the long term, they'll buy and play games on the platforms that make the most sense to them. Those aggregate choices are what drive changes in any product line. I choose my devices based on my preferences. It wasn't a coarse, squabbling internet that made Sony get their act together this past gen. It was people not buying enough of their products.

People have every reason to ignore senseless frothing at the mouth. Ignoring a game system because it has stupid purchase limitations says more to a company than the hatred you really now sound like you're defending. Remember those early pre-order numbers for this gen? Yeah, that's a clear signal. People being pricks to one another makes me embarrassed to be a gamer, not feel empowered. If gaming hobbyists can't disagree without mistreating each other, particularly when people like you insist that it's necessary, this industry won't get a penny more of my money. Thankfully, I know you're wrong.

You're misrepresenting his argument.
He's not saying that people being pricks and mistreating one another is necessary -- he's saying it's an unfortunate byproduct of something that has a larger positive effect in the industry.

 

[Gestault]

You're misrepresenting his argument.
He's not saying that people being pricks and mistreating one another is necessary -- he's saying it's an unfortunate byproduct of something that has a larger positive effect in the industry.

I said that people can criticize, inform and make product choices without being hateful to one another. He responded by saying, among other things:

"I hope that's the way gamers react every time a company does stuff like this."

"it is directly that so-called "circus atmosphere" that forced their hand."

So I have the impression that he was responding to the point of my post, unless he misunderstood me, with reponses saying the opposite of what you seem to think was said.

 

[hetchi]

Congratulation for both parties but I wouldn't buy an Xbox One. I have an Xbox 360 with a couple games that need beating. As for my decision to buy a new console, the PlayStation 4 will be my choice. My net speeds aren't too fast so having to download the rest of a particular game is not something I would like to do. If I buy a game, I want the full game on the disc. Not partially on the disc/DVD. My first choice was the Xbox One but with all the events that had occurred before it's release, I changed my mind entirely.

 

[Amir0x]

I guess it's my view that consumers aren't actually the uninformed drones you seem to assume they are and that in the long term, they'll buy and play games on the platforms that make the most sense to them. Those aggregate choices are what drive changes in any product line. I choose my devices based on my preferences. It wasn't a coarse, squabbling internet that made Sony get their act together this past gen. It was people not buying enough of their products.

Consumers are not mindless drones, but neither are they near as tuned in as we are. Every study that has ever been done on the subject shows that it is word of mouth that most contributes to something's sales or not. By definition, then, one must share words from ones mouth; and if those words are extreme and negative because of an extremely negative behavior from a company, casual consumers are more likely to pick up that noise and begin to respond to it. And that's key: it was absolutely vital that consumers responded to this behavior.

Your other point about "not buying their products" is simply interconnected. Consumers don't buy a product when they hear reasons not to that they agree with. The only way for this to happen for a videogame console prior to release is for those of us who actually are tuned into the industry to relay that information to their friends, family and relatives. The rallying cries that went out to all corners of the gaming industry provided not only the motivation for gamers to do just that, but allowed many, many more media outlets to pick up on the anger and thus report it. Again, this leading to these consumers being properly informed. None of this would happen with people being timid and gullible and pretending like what was going on wasn't egregious.

People have every reason to ignore senseless frothing at the mouth. Ignoring a game system because it has stupid purchase limitations says more to a company than the hatred you really now sound like you're defending. Remember those early pre-order numbers for this gen? Yeah, that's a clear signal. People being pricks to one another makes me embarrassed to be a gamer, not feel empowered. If gaming hobbyists can't disagree without mistreating each other, particularly when people like you insist that it's necessary, this industry won't get a penny more of my money. Thankfully, I know you're wrong.

It wasn't senseless; that has been demonstrated a billion times over and we won because of it. That's a fact. it's not something actually up for dispute, Microsoft 180'd on nearly every subject gamers complained about because the criticism was so vocal that the pre-order numbers began to be severely impacted. That would not have happened without the extreme backlash. So, the only argument you have is that you simply don't like to hear it. Make no mistake, I am defending the "hate", even though I wouldn't call it that. People need to stand up for their rights. How anyone can actually defend being quiet timid in the face of corporate overreaching is beyond me but, as always, it's your right. Gladly, the community didn't agree, we got our way, and we now know we have the power to do that again. And we will.

 

[jayu26]

No I gave other reasons. You just didn't bother to read them.

I admit it's speculation on my part but the fact that two companies who supposedly had two completely different philosophies on delivery methods ended up with almost identical installations that completely install the game to the HD, is something of note. Combine with the other things I have mentioned, I believe Sony was set to go for DD if MS and 3rd parties went that route. Listing PR statements from Sony after they had already decided against it, picks apart nothing.

Okay, so I went back and read all your posts in this thread...

Good lordy that's some hyperbolic bullshit. I hate to break it to you but I think Sony was prepared to go all digital as well. But they pulled back once the shit hit the fan with MS'S announcement. One telling sign of this is the very slick PR move to rename PS4 game installs to "being cached" Yet a digital download and physical copy take the exact same disk space. They had no issue with saying install with the PS3. Now the term has very prudently been removed from all their PR.

Sony has played this gens launch very well by being patient and reading their fan base flawlessly.

I'm not saying MS didn't fuck up. But using the term "rape" for something people had a choice to buy or not is FUCKING stupid.

Yes, online activation. I'm not sure about rentals since or trade in since most of that information was never revealed.

Why require a full install for disc based games? I can see needing code on the machine for performance but video clips as well? Seems kinda wasteful for a game that requires a disc no?

It's not REQUIRED on the 360. Plus MS is not trying hide it by calling "caching"

Yeah you can do the same on the Xbox one without trying to gloss over the fact that the game is installed at the end of the process. Sony also backed off of the auto-delete feature that made it caching in the first place because it would be temporary. It was a BS PR move they failed to deliver on.

But the rumors of MS DRM had already gone public and the outrage was there. Sony's statement was in response to that.

It's more than just that, they did try to hide full installs with the caching BS. Plus they never came out an denied online activation just that their titles would not use it.

They were responding to concerns over rumors and outrage that was already building. They doubled the ram at the last minute. You don't think they could have pulled the plug on a full DD(with physical media) machine just as quickly? I think the PS4 was designed to support it. The fact that they tried to hide the install with some bullshit "caching" concept that never saw release is telling to me. Then you the add the fact that they only said THEIR software would not require an internet connection in the beginning, Hmmm. Finally, all the games install completely off the disc and are identical to their DD install, interesting... Sure it's not enough to convict Sony in a trial, but I have a hard time believing that they were set on classic disc format all along.

Really now, show me these posts of anger I have made. Or maybe it's you trying to discredit my opinion with FUD accusations? I own both systems and hope to enjoy software from them. You on the other hand have put in some major time and effort trying to defend one console and attack the other.

All of your so called contradictory evidence comes after Sony decided to go classic disc based systems for their games. The earliest quote you have is from 2/21/13 where Yoshida answers questions about used games and online, which shows that the concern over those issues already existed.

Love it, insults from a person who takes a single point of my argument. No they where only standard questions because of the rumors that the 720 was going to be online only and block used games.

BTW, yes MN is full of shit saying "can't we all get along" I agree with what he is saying but I know he'd prefer MS kicking Sony's ass.

I literally found only two points to back up your "Sony Too" argument...

1. Sony decided to call install games caching.
2. Sony were asked questions about DRM.

The first one is non-argument for me because it is neither installing nor caching, not in their traditional sense. They needed an effect way to let people know that they will not be waiting hours upon hours while the game installs. In the end they decided to not use either of those words and branded it as Playgo. Most of their PR actually uses Playgo. I think it was only Cerny who used cache when asked to describe how it works. It was not a consensus effort by Sony to call "installing games" as "caching games". They instead decided to call it Playgo.

As for why they decided to do this...Install times and load times on PS3 were horrendous and they needed to fix that for PS4 big time. That is a much better reason to implement Playgo. Their PR also wanted to repeatedly pressed on this issue. Which tells me that this is the reason why they decided to go with Playgo. (I feel like a Sony PR person at this point.)

Second point I have refuted already and so has Amir0x...

1. People having concern over an issue != Sony planning to do something. People have concern over a billion issues that were never actually planned by anybody. How you legitimately think you have a point by saying this is beyond me.

And then there is this...

To @Xenon Sony said PS4 will not require an always-online Connection in February 2013 before any MS announcement and the backlash.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/02/ps4-will-not-require-an-always-online-connection/

Love the personal attacks on a Gaffer because his opinion is contrary about a billion dollar corporations launch plans, jesus

I apologies if you find that me calling him sad was a personal attack. But if he cannot see that he has absolutely no argument here, even after many people repeatedly showing him why he does not, then I think it is kind of sad.

 

[Gestault]

It wasn't senseless; that has been demonstrated a billion times over and we won because of it. That's a fact. it's not something actually up for dispute, Microsoft 180'd on nearly every subject gamers complained about because the criticism was so vocal that the pre-order numbers began to be severely impacted. That would not have happened without the extreme backlash. So, the only argument you have is that you simply don't like to hear it. Make no mistake, I am defending the "hate", even though I wouldn't call it that. People need to stand up for their rights. How anyone can actually defend being quiet in the face of corporate overreaching is beyond me but, as always, it's your right. Gladly, the community didn't agree, we got our way, and we now know we have the power to do that again. And we will.

Ok, you seem to have gone waay off the deep end here. You completely missing my points, which I don't think I've been unclear on. Let me make an example, because I do want to you understand:

A protest against a bad thing is good.

A protest against a bad thing in which people assault one another has both good and bad things.

A protest does not require assault. Because it's bad.

That's my point. You've given the impression that the spiteful, hatred elements of internet discussion are necessary for companies to be able to respond to consumers. I disagree with that. Unless you've been responding to something other than my posts. You've constructed this idea that my reaction of saying "I won't buy a product that doesn't appeal to me" is ineffectively passive. Look back at the sentence I know you based it on:

My reaction to the original XB1 DRM announcement was basically "Well at least I'm comfortable with Sony/Nintendo/PC gaming ecosystems."

That doesn't mean I pretend it isn't happening. It meant the policy made enough of a difference that the console wasn't even worth considering for me. You just made the point that word-of-mouth is what sells these systems. That supports my viewpoint. Saying a bad thing about one thing isn't the same as saying a good thing about another.

 

[Amir0x]

Ok, you seem to have gone waay off the deep end here. You completely missing my points, which I don't think I've been unclear on. Let me make an example, because I do want to you understand:



That's my point. You've given the impression that the spiteful, hatred elements of internet discussion are necessary for companies to be able to respond to consumers. I disagree with that. Unless you've been responding to something other than my posts. You've constructed this idea that my reaction of saying "I won't buy a product that doesn't appeal to me" is ineffectively passive. Look back at the sentence I know you based it on:

My reaction to the original XB1 DRM announcement was basically "Well at least I'm comfortable with Sony/Nintendo/PC gaming ecosystems."

That doesn't mean I pretend it isn't happening. It meant the policy made enough of a difference that the console wasn't even worth considering for me. You just made the point that word-of-mouth is what sells these systems. That supports my viewpoint.

I've given the impression only that your classification of the criticism is completely bullshit. People were angry. But that anger was directed purely at

a.) People trying to defend the practices
b.) The product in question
c.) The company trying to push that agenda

Almost always, it was in the form of deconstructing the ridiculous points being made. I made countless research topics and posts during this time.

I was here every day after that controversy. I saw the explosion. I'm sure you did too. But it was absolutely necessary to not only simply say "oh that's not a very nice thing you're doing Microsoft", but to organize as we did and fiercely push back against that brazen nonsense. What I am saying is that if in this environment some people went a little far, that is WORTH what we gained for it. I do not care that a few people may go too far: I only care that the product is changed in the end.

It's not like people are being kneecapped for liking the Xbox One. They were simply being verbally deconstructed. And that is exactly what was necessary to show Microsoft how serious we are.

Again, your behavior is proof of exactly what I am saying. Casual consumers are not connected to the industry as we are. That's a fact, and the statistics support it. That doesn't mean they're mindless drones, it simply means they are not hardcore and they concern themselves with other matters. Most of them do not start tuning in until much closer to the release dates of these systems.

Your behavior was one of a hardcore gamer simply acting in isolation. It neither spread that news to anyone else, nor did it help spread that news to media outlets, nor did it help convince casual consumers as to the folly of purchasing an pre-180 XBO. It did nothing but steer your own individual self away from the system. If you actually followed what happened, you know gamers were fighting against the media itself during this whole event - media who continually insulted the gamers, continually tried to defend Microsoft's absurd practices, and continually make every excuse in the book to try to act like this wasn't a big deal. So not only were we fighting against people with bigger megaphones, but we had to ensure the media coverage began to change as well. Your behavior achieves none of that. And I am not sure how you can argue it does.

Without that stuff happening, casual consumers would not have been tuned in, and they would not have stopped pre-ordering XBOs. By the time they did tune in and found out, the system would have been close to out, Microsoft would not have changed their policies, and we would be fucked with a system that has dire potential to destroy the industry without any recourse.

As I said, it's your right to be timid. It's your right to be a lamb in the face of this behavior. Nobody is saying otherwise. But the facts are with us: if this extremely negative reaction from the community did not happen, the events that occurred with the 180s would never have happened.

 

[Gestault]

I've given the impression only that your classification of the criticism is completely bullshit. People were angry. But that anger was directed purely at

a.) People trying to defend the practices
b.) The product in question
c.) The company trying to push that agenda

Almost always, it was in the form of deconstructing the ridiculous points being made. I made countless research topics and posts during this time.

I was here every day after that controversy. I saw the explosion. I'm sure you did too. But it was absolutely necessary to not only simply say "oh that's not a very nice thing you're doing Microsoft", but to organize as we did and fiercely push back against that brazen nonsense. What I am saying is that if in this environment some people went a little far, that is WORTH what we gained for it. I do not care that a few people may go too far: I only care that the product is changed in the end.

It's not like people are being kneecapped for liking the Xbox One. They were simply being verbally deconstructed. And that is exactly what was necessary to show Microsoft how serious we are.

Again, your behavior is proof of exactly what I am saying. Casual consumers are not connected to the industry as we are. That's a fact, and the statistics support it. That doesn't mean they're mindless drones, it simply means they are not hardcore and they concern themselves with other matters. Most of them do not start tuning in until much closer to the release dates of these systems.

Your behavior was one of a hardcore gamer simply acting in isolation. It neither spread that news to anyone else, nor did it help spread that news to media outlets, nor did it help convince casual consumers as to the folly of purchasing an pre-180 XBO. It did nothing but steer your own individual self away from the system. If you actually followed what happened, you know gamers were fighting against the media itself during this whole event - media who continually insulted the gamers, continually tried to defend Microsoft's absurd practices, and continually make every excuse in the book to try to act like this wasn't a big deal. So not only were we fighting against people with bigger megaphones, but we had to ensure the media coverage began to change as well. Your behavior achieves none of that. And I am not sure how you can argue it does.

Without that stuff happening, casual consumers would not have been tuned in, and they would not have stopped pre-ordering XBOs. By the time they did tune in and found out, the system would have been close to out, Microsoft would not have changed their policies, and we would be fucked with a system that has dire potential to destroy the industry without any recourse.

As I said, it's your right to be timid. It's your right to be a lamb in the face of this behavior. Nobody is saying otherwise. But the facts are with us: if this extremely negative reaction from the community did not happen, the events that occurred with the 180s would never have happened.

If you can think back to my original point on this, I think you'll find the source of your misunderstanding. You don't seem able to distinguish between criticism and hatred, which was the whole point of that post. Frankly, my point was that I thought it was the basis of the Major Nelson post, which your series of increasingly judgmental posts seem to prove in themselves. I made clear more than once, and you regarded in-kind that I knew the vast majority of the criticism was utterly valid. We were both a part of it, and I was specifically talking about the worst extremes of it. You forgot that partway through this exchange, and have been working with a flawed premise since. You don't seem to grasp why what you call "passive" and "acting like a lamb" is precisely the activity that made a difference, but that you're attributing to success from hatred. I'd say declaring publicly that the basis of a console isn't worth a purchase and choosing other products are the signals that matter. That was my reaction. Let me make it clear, because it seems to slip from your mind a little too easily: Negative reactions and criticism aren't what I was calling out. It was specifically the hatred and mindless spite that rode along with the criticism. Remember my two examples? One was Conversation vs Shouting, the other was Protest vs Protest with Assault. If you can't figure out the implications of that, it's probably best to agree to disagree.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

No I gave other reasons. You just didn't bother to read them.

I admit it's speculation on my part but the fact that two companies who supposedly had two completely different philosophies on delivery methods ended up with almost identical installations that completely install the game to the HD, is something of note.

Sony had notoriously unwieldy install procedures on PS3, mostly to make up for deficiencies in the Blu-ray drive speed. Then they fixed the issue for PS4, and now it caches some of the data and reads some off the disc for physical copies - the fastest way to get the data off is use both HDD and Blu-ray.

Look at the differences between GTA V disc + HDD compared to straight from HDD. It's the best of both worlds for 50GB+ games and limited HDD space, you don't need a DRM conspiracy theory to reason why they came up with it.

 

[Amir0x]

If you can think back to my original point on this, I think you'll find the source of your misunderstanding. You don't seem able to distinguish between criticism and hatred, which was the whole point of that post. Frankly, my point was that I thought it was the basis of the Major Nelson post, which your series of increasingly judgmental posts seem to prove in themselves. You don't seem to grasp why what you call "passive" and "acting like a lamb" is precisely the activity that made a difference, but that you're attributing to success from hatred. I'd say declaring publicly that the basis of a console isn't worth a purchase and choosing other products are the signals that matter. That was my reaction. Let me make it clear, because it seems to slip from your mind a little too easily: Negative reactions and criticism aren't what I was calling out. It was specifically the hatred and mindless spite that rode along with the criticism.

Again, what do you call "hatred"? What do you call MINDLESS spite? What distinction are you making between the extreme negative reactions and criticisms and "hatred and spite"? You've provided no substantial examples whatsoever, only a feeling you had. And yet we have all the evidence in the world that it was exactly how we behaved that got Microsoft to 180. So, at this point what I'm going to ask for is some actual realworld example of what you personally think was the distinction during the controversy. A post of hatred vs. a post of regular negativity, and then demonstrate how you feel that the hatred got "out of hand" vs. being signal:noise.

Remember my two examples? One was Conversation vs Shouting, the other was Protest vs Protest with Assault. If you can't figure out the implications of that, it's probably best to agree to disagree.

Because none of this applies to what actually happened. You're imagining the environment was much worse than it actually was. The only thing that happened was there was a million negative posts a minute. But the vast majority of those posts were simply people being extremely negative and criticizing the policies.

I am not going to let anyone pretend that this was some pandemic environment of hate simply because they want to be act like people were so mean. Without the extreme vocal nature of the community, all the things I demonstrated would never have happened. That's simply reality.

So if you do think the extreme negativity led to those things, we don't disagree. If you don't, then you have a profound misunderstanding of what went on. And that's OK too.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Reverse psychology.

So yeah.

Bout time they relearned how to do PR again.

 

[Shin-Ra]

Look at the way people call little Twitter jabs by Nelson "hatred." Is that how you'd use that word?

What do you think he expects his followers to do with those ammo jabs?

 

[Synth]

I'm just still waiting for a good argument in defense of Microsoft's original vision.

Oh not this argument again.... I'm yet to see somebody be in favor of the oiginal poposal whilst actually undestanding it and what was and wasn't necessary:

Shared Library: should be available right now if it was real.
24 hr connection: there are other non invasive ways to do this, such as the Sony patent.
Trade ins: no need for requiring 3rd party permission, that's just a straight up crazy cashgrab.
Permanent installs: again available with the Sony Patent offline.

There are no pro's for the system for the consumer that aren't possible on an offline box.

Once again... there absolutely were positives to the previous system (some of which actually don't work with an offline box). Most of these positives do not apply if you plan to stick with physical purchases, but it's also true that most of current positives do not apply if you choose to go digital. I find it strange that you say you're waiting to a good argument in defense of the original plan, as I have posted my stance (as someone buying purely digital) in many of the threads about this subject. Many of these threads you have also been posting in, but as far as I am aware, you have never responded to any of my posts on the matter. Anyway, as a recap, here's essentially what has been lost from the digital side of the console as it stands today.

No selling used digital games - This is the first, and most obvious difference. This one should logically flag up immediately for most people, seeing as the restrictions placed on selling physical games was apparently such a big deal. Why then does the fact that we currently have absolutely no ability to resell a digital game not seem to be an issue? This is currently a FAR worse a situation, than the physical restrictions were proposed to be, and would have been significantly better in the pre-180 system.

Being able to buy at varying price points - Right now, when purchasing a digital game, there is only one price, whatever MS is charging. This point is a little flakier these days, as Amazon now have a PSN store. However, this is still only one alternative versus the many that we would have had, and doesn't offer the full range of titles yet. It also doesn't help with the next point...

Not require long downloads - People have been up in arms about the size of game downloads for the new consoles, and the lack of HDD space to store them. These wouldn't be such huge problems if you had the option to simply purchase the disc, and just install the game using that. You wouldn't be required to use the disc again unless you needed to reinstall the game again at some point. Saves both time, and bandwidth allowance.

Limited Editions / Store Exclusives - When it comes to either of these, you're basically screwed with digital games today. Limited editions could (and should) be available in digital form, but store exclusives simply aren't likely to work out without the store actually being able to sell you the game. Wouldn't be a problem pre-180.

Delisted content - Outrun Online Arcade is great right? I've seen quite a few people who would like to play it.. however they can't because it's delisted. You know what would help prevent older games from disappearing forever once their license expires? Yup, being able to buy it from someone else! It's unfortunate that there are plenty of digital games that people can't buy regardless of how much they would like to, whilst on the other hand there are also plenty of people that own these game, yet never play them anymore.

I didn't list family sharing, as the details on that weren't exactly concrete, but even without it, there were plenty of reasons why someone may prefer the old system... and those reasons aren't always simply them being stupid/uninformed/fanboy/publisher/GameStop/Microsoft.

I've given the impression only that your classification of the criticism is completely bullshit. People were angry. But that anger was directed purely at

a.) People trying to defend the practices
b.) The product in question
c.) The company trying to push that agenda

Almost always, it was in the form of deconstructing the ridiculous points being made. I made countless research topics and posts during this time.

...

It's not like people are being kneecapped for liking the Xbox One. They were simply being verbally deconstructed. And that is exactly what was necessary to show Microsoft how serious we are.

The problem I have with this though, is that after a couple of rounds of people screaming at each other, a kind of chinese whispers effect began to kick in. The last thread I ended up having this discussion in, had people trying to tell me that you simply couldn't resell any game pre-180... period. What good is being vocal, in order for the masses to become more informed, if much of the noise is being made by people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about, and are just blindly outraged.

I was speaking to a friend shortly before launch, who was firmly in "fuck MS" mode based upon everything he had heard, and had pre-ordered a PS4 instead. After going over what you actually could and couldn't do with the pre-180 X1, he decided that it actually sounded really cool. Of course, he was then like "sucks, but they don't have any of that now... so yea... PS4", but it does mean that there was a decent amount of misinformation reaching the mass market, due to some people spending so much time being angry, that they didn't have enough time left over to be informed about what they were angry about.

So yea, you guys did some people a favour getting everything reversed, but don't assume that applies to everyone, as there are plenty of people that simply had the choice made for them before they even knew what the choice was. And maybe people could be a little less hostile to others that simply didn't agree that it was all objectively worse. Maybe?

 

[Sean*O]

I guess it's my view that consumers aren't actually the uninformed drones you seem to assume they are...

Stop right there. You don't spread lies about your product and it's capabilities unless that's exactly what you are counting on. Telling lies to people that know better will only get you in trouble, look no further than this forum for evidence of that.

But if you consider the bulk of your audience to be 'uninformed drones' and you want to take advantage of that as much as possible, then you do what Microsoft has been doing.

And be honest, everyone is an 'uninformed drone' at some point. You couldn't possibly know what's truth and what's not without doing some fairly extensive research on a piece of computing gear.

Instead of being trustworthy Microsoft would rather betry trust, or use it as a means to an end. Their actions show no foresight and equate to a con and run business model. They really need to shake that tree over there and drop almost everyone involved with the Xbox and get some new people in place.

They need to pull Nelson's card too.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

So yea, you guys did some people a favour getting everything reversed, but don't assume that applies to everyone, as there are plenty of people that simply had the choice made for them before they even knew what the choice was. And maybe people could be a little less hostile to others that simply didn't agree that it was all objectively worse. Maybe?

Pretty much exactly how I feel. And you like Orchid. Will you be my new best friend?

 

[Amir0x]

The problem I have with this though, is that after a couple of rounds of people screaming at each other, a kind of chinese whispers effect began to kick in. The last thread I ended up having this discussion in, had people trying to tell me that you simply couldn't resell any game pre-180... period. What good is being vocal, in order for the masses to become more informed, if much of the noise is being made by people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about, and are just blindly outraged.

I was speaking to a friend shortly before launch, who was firmly in "fuck MS" mode based upon everything he had heard, and had pre-ordered a PS4 instead. After going over what you actually could and couldn't do with the pre-180 X1, he decided that it actually sounded really cool. Of course, he was then like "sucks, but they don't have any of that now... so yea... PS4", but it does mean that there was a decent amount of misinformation reaching the mass market, due to some people spending so much time being angry, that they didn't have enough time left over to be informed about what they were angry about.

People were misinformed on both sides, and continue to be if this thread is any indication. And again, that's not because they were trying to be. That was because Microsoft had the most confused unveiling in the history of the videogame industry. I literally had to do hours of research to try to figure out what the truth was, and even that I was unable to reach a fair conclusion. Everybody who rep'ed them had a different story, a different spin on how things would work.

Toward the end they started describing the 'benefits' you mentioned above, but only in abstract. There were an infinity related details that were absolutely necessary to understand before deciding to take the plunge on so many other abhorrent negatives. Yet, they deliberately were as vague as possible on every single benefit, sometimes even until they already 180'd. If you think that means everything would have worked exactly as magically as you wrote in your detailed explanation, that's fine. But what I saw was a pattern of intentional muddying of the waters meant to make people confused as to what was real or not, so that they were unable to conclude if it was truly positive or negative. And they did that because, in my estimation... given the evidence we have... they simply intended to fuck consumers to their own personal benefit. Every single behavior from them indicates a group that was being intentionally dishonest.

Seriously, read the link I provided. Tell me how:

1. It's gamers fault for sometimes having the wrong information on these 'benefits'
2. It's not a pattern of extremely dishonest and disingenuous behavior
3. It shouldn't immediately make every gamer skeptical as to what was going on

THEY caused the environment that occurred.

So yea, you guys did some people a favour getting everything reversed, but don't assume that applies to everyone, as there are plenty of people that simply had the choice made for them before they even knew what the choice was. And maybe people could be a little less hostile to others that simply didn't agree that it was all objectively worse. Maybe?

Here's the thing though: you guys were outvoted. Consumers decided otherwise, and in the estimation of the vast majority of the gaming community, it was the right decision. And that is actually how free markets are supposed to work. it doesn't matter if it's truly 'objectively worse' or not.

 

[Synth]

People were misinformed on both sides, and continue to be if this thread is any indication. And again, that's not because they were trying to be. That was because Microsoft had the most confused unveiling in the history of the videogame industry. I literally had to do hours of research to try to figure out what the truth was, and even that I was unable to reach a fair conclusion. Everybody who rep'ed them had a different story, a different spin on how things would work.

Toward the end they started describing the 'benefits' you mentioned above, but only in abstract. There were an infinity related details that were absolutely necessary to understand before deciding to take the plunge on so many other abhorrent negatives. Yet, they deliberately were as vague as possible on every single benefit, sometimes even until they already 180'd. If you think that means everything would have worked exactly as magically as you wrote in your detailed explanation, that's fine. But what I saw was a pattern of intentional muddying of the waters meant to make people confused as to what was real or not, so that they were unable to conclude if it was truly positive or negative. And they did that because, in my estimation... given the evidence we have... they simply intended to fuck consumers to their own personal benefit. Every single behavior from them indicates a group that was being intentionally dishonest.

Seriously, read the link I provided. Tell me how:

1. It's gamers fault for sometimes having the wrong information on these 'benefits'
2. It's not a pattern of extremely dishonest and disingenuous behavior
3. It shouldn't immediately make every gamer skeptical as to what was going on

THEY caused the environment that occurred.

Don't get me wrong, the messaging was a mess, but we're not actually talking about that right now are we? This is about how apparently there is nothing defensible about the original policy. There were specifics that we didn't really know fully, but I don't think any of these actually affect the points I made. I omitted family share, and regardless of if MS was to take a cut of any resales, the situation would still be better than it is today with digital content. As far as I am aware, those are the only two pieces of information that were up in the air at that point. As for the online check in, yea they said you wouldn't need to be constantly connected, and they also said that you would have to check in every 24hrs. These two points don't actually contradict each other, despite not being the clearest way of putting it. Basically if you only have to sign in once every 24hrs, then you are able to play offline at all times in between. If my internet connection was down for a period of more than 24hrs, I would simply tether to my phone to auth, and then I'd be good to go for the rest of the day. Pretty much all of the points I made were valid as of the time of the reveal.

Here's the thing though: you guys were outvoted. Consumers decided otherwise, and in the estimation of the vast majority of the gaming community, it was the right decision. And that is actually how free markets are supposed to work. it doesn't matter if it's truly 'objectively worse' or not.

You think I don't realise that? I'm fine with the fact that I didn't get the console I wanted. I've been outvoted on plenty of things in the past, such as:

Are arcades worth it? Very few people thought so, so they're gone.
Is the Dreamcast worth buying? Few people thought so, so it's gone.

Right now Nintendo fans are being outvoted on whether or not the Wii U justifies a purchase. Thing is, I'm not going to go tell them all that they're stupid, or gullible, or somehow simply less knowledgeable about games than I am. They have an unpopular opinion and that's all it is. Same with the pre-180. My opinion on it is unpopular, and this was caught before it even released. However people will continuously try to tell me that it's simply a case of me being an idiot, otherwise I'd hate the very thought of it. That's what causes me to respond to these posts, because the target isn't simply a company or console, it's also me.

Pretty much exactly how I feel. And you like Orchid. Will you be my new best friend?

Depends really. Do you like Sabrewulf?

Yes = HELLL NO we can't be friends!
Man, fuck Sabrewulf = Sure, we're cool.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Depends really. Do you like Sabrewulf?

Yes = HELLL NO we can't be friends!
Man, fuck Sabrewulf = Sure, we're cool.

Left right button mash up down button mash win!

Fuck that wulf.

 

[onanie]

Left right button mash up down button mash win!

Fuck that wulf.

Keep that in PMs please.

 

[Amir0x]

Don't get me wrong, the messaging was a mess, but we're not actually talking about that right now are we? This is about how apparently there is nothing defensible about the original policy. There were specifics that we didn't really know fully, but I don't think any of these actually affect the points I made.

You were talking specifically about this ->

The last thread I ended up having this discussion in, had people trying to tell me that you simply couldn't resell any game pre-180... period. What good is being vocal, in order for the masses to become more informed, if much of the noise is being made by people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about, and are just blindly outraged.

I was speaking to a friend shortly before launch, who was firmly in "fuck MS" mode based upon everything he had heard, and had pre-ordered a PS4 instead. After going over what you actually could and couldn't do with the pre-180 X1, he decided that it actually sounded really cool. Of course, he was then like "sucks, but they don't have any of that now... so yea... PS4", but it does mean that there was a decent amount of misinformation reaching the mass market, due to some people spending so much time being angry, that they didn't have enough time left over to be informed about what they were angry about.

I was responding to your idea that they were spending so much time being angry, they didn't have enough time left over to be informed. That's an incorrect reading of the situation. It's that Microsoft was so outrageous with how they went about muddying the waters about every single facet of XBO's design that people are still so confused that it's impossible to be sure about anything.

That's why it's also beyond most people to accept that the majority of these 'benefits' would have been anything like what you or others are imagining, or wouldn't simply have brought far more negatives for the consumer overall. If they at all delivered the clear and consistent benefits you and others insist were there, there would be no confusion. They would have shared these benefits immediately, shared all the details of how they worked, and showcased precisely why there was no need to worry. Instead they didn't, they still haven't, and we're basically left with people using their imagination to fill in the blanks - their hopes and dreams, not the actual reality of anything.

We will simply never know the truth of how everything would have shaken out until someone writes a behind-the-scenes book. But what I am saying is that everyone had a right to be angry and because of Microsoft's behavior you cannot expect anyone to seriously believe what vague ways they described their 'benefits.' Such persistent dishonesty breeds skepticism. About the only guarantee benefit with no caveats was the no disc swapping thing, that's how unclear they were about everything except that.

You seem to acknowledge that this is true in some ways, that Microsoft's unveiling was a bungled mess... yet some still insist everyone needs to get over it or that they should move on or that it's overreaction or people are "angry just to be angry" or whatever it is. Companies need to regain trust. It took Sony years. Why would it take Microsoft any less time, especially as they continued to be dishonest right up until the launch of their system with their bullshit articles about the power gap and Penello coming here and intentionally misleading GAFers on the technical information?

I mean, I don't know exactly how people in your position want others to behave. By everything we know, it seems the only logical conclusion is skepticism and, yes, some anger. I accept that not everyone arrives there, but I don't know how you or others don't understand that this is what it's all about. There's no ulterior motive.

You think I don't realise that? I'm fine with the fact that I didn't get the console I wanted. I've been outvoted on plenty of things in the past, such as:

Are arcades worth it? Very few people thought so, so they're gone.
Is the Dreamcast worth buying? Few people thought so, so it's gone.

Right now Nintendo fans are being outvoted on whether or not the Wii U justifies a purchase. Thing is, I'm not going to go tell them all that they're stupid, or gullible, or somehow simply less knowledgeable about games than I am. They have an unpopular opinion and that's all it is. Same with the pre-180. My opinion on it is unpopular, and this was caught before it even released. However people will continuously try to tell me that it's simply a case of me being an idiot, otherwise I'd hate the very thought of it. That's what causes me to respond to these posts, because the target isn't simply a company or console, it's also me.

Well I'm not calling you an idiot. I do think there is some level of gullibility though at those who were buying Microsoft's so-called system 'benefits' at face level given what we learned about the system and how they behaved, but that is simply my interpretation based on the evidence we have. If you genuinely believe the benefits would have existed as you imagine them, and that was your preference, there's nothing idiotic about that.

 

[Synth]

I was responding to your idea that they were spending so much time being angry, they didn't have enough time left over to be informed. That's an incorrect reading of the situation. It's that Microsoft was so outrageous with how they went about muddying the waters about every single facet of XBO's design that people are still so confused that it's impossible to be sure about anything.

That's why it's also beyond most people to accept that the majority of these 'benefits' would have been anything like what you or others are imagining, or wouldn't simply have brought far more negatives for the consumer overall. If they at all delivered the clear and consistent benefits you and others insist were there, there would be no confusion. They would have shared these benefits immediately, shared all the details of how they worked, and showcased precisely why there was no need to worry. Instead they didn't, they still haven't, and we're basically left with people using their imagination to fill in the blanks - their hopes and dreams, not the actual reality of anything.

We will simply never know the truth of how everything would have shaken out until someone writes a behind-the-scenes book. But what I am saying is that everyone had a right to be angry and because of Microsoft's behavior you cannot expect anyone to seriously believe what vague ways they described their 'benefits.' Such persistent dishonesty breeds skepticism. About the only guarantee benefit with no caveats was the no disc swapping thing, that's how unclear they were about everything except that.

That was someone claiming something that was simply wrong though, not vague. There was no information, or lack of, that would have implied that you couldn't sell a damn thing on X1. This does not fall into the same vague area of things such as family share, or even the 24hr auth. You could resell, that was clear. I also disagree with you when you say my examples are all imagination, as most of what I listed was basically guaranteed simply because it couldn't logically happen any other way. Going over the list again:

No selling used digital games: We could get screwed on this in regards to third-parties disallowing resale. MS could only guarantee that they would allow you to resell their games. Other publishers could theoretically choose not to. Seems extremely unlikely though, seeing as this can already be done with physical discs, and yet isn't (along with all sorts of insane DRM that could be applied today). If we did get screwed here, it wouldn't be by MS.

Being able to buy at varying price points: Can't get screwed. If the disc is on sale anywhere at any given price. I can buy it at that price. MS has no control over this. Publishers have no control over this. Would work exactly as I described.

Not require long downloads: Can't get screwed. Would be exactly as installing the game today, just without the requirement to use the disc again afterwards. Would work exactly as I described.

Limited Editions / Store Exclusives: Can't get screwed. Like the price points... if it's on sale, I can buy it. Would work exactly as I described.

Delisted content: Could get screwed. If the transfer happened by selling the license back to MS, and then MS selling the license to the new owner, it's possible they actually wouldn't be allowed to. This is the only scenario where I think the reality could realistically deviate from my description.

So yea, I don't see what is so 'magical' about these cases. If anything there's a lot more theory at work in the negative scenarios people tend to bring up. To not trust them is fine, but they can't somehow create the system, and then defy all the scenarios that system then implies. The second they let a physical disc become digital, basically everything I listed is guaranteed to happen, regardless of which company does it.

You seem to acknowledge that this is true in some ways, that Microsoft's unveiling was a bungled mess... yet some still insist everyone needs to get over it or that they should move on or that it's overreaction or people are "angry just to be angry" or whatever it is. Companies need to regain trust. It took Sony years. Why would it take Microsoft any less time, especially as they continued to be dishonest right up until the launch of their system with their bullshit articles about the power gap and Penello coming here and intentionally misleading GAFers on the technical information?

I mean, I don't know exactly how people in your position want others to behave. By everything we know, it seems the only logical conclusion is skepticism and, yes, some anger. I accept that not everyone arrives there, but I don't know how you or others don't understand that this is what it's all about. There's no ulterior motive.

It's really simple. Cut this step...

But that anger was directed purely at

a.) People trying to defend the practices

...out of your crusade. You can rag on MS all you like. Go ahead and boycott the X1, convince other people to as well if you like. Just don't focus any of your ire on people that would have bought it. I see so many variations of "lol, and some people were actually going to buy it pre-180... what sad MS apologists they must be", and it's really unwarranted imo. I was going to buy it, because it would have made things better for me. It really couldn't have failed to do this in comparison to what we have now, so I don't want to hear about how it's all a fantasy I've dreamt up. The literal worst case scenario for the pre-180 X1 for someone purchasing all digital, is exactly what we have today. And that would have required some outright, very blatant lies to get there (like... 'not actually being able to install from a disc' level lies).

Well I'm not calling you an idiot. I do think there is some level of gullibility though at those who were buying Microsoft's so-called system 'benefits' at face level given what we learned about the system and how they behaved, but that is simply my interpretation based on the evidence we have. If you genuinely believe the benefits would have existed as you imagine them, and that was your preference, there's nothing idiotic about that.

I'm not saying that you in particular are calling me an idiot, but that honestly is the general sentiment that seems to be shared whenever this topic comes up. As for being gullible.. as described above, the very nature of the physical discs being equal to digital, all but guarantees most of the benefits. If you can come up with realistic scenarios where this doesn't happen, then be sure to fill me in. I don't have faith in MS as a company (or any company ever). This is simply a case of them creating a product that did what I would like it to, versus others that didn't. Now there are three consoles that don't.

 

[Amir0x]

That was someone claiming something that was simply wrong though, not vague. There was no information, or lack of, that would have implied that you couldn't sell a damn thing on X1. This does not fall into the same vague area of things such as family share, or even the 24hr auth. You could resell, that was clear. I also disagree with you when you say my examples are all imagination, as most of what I listed was basically guaranteed simply because it couldn't logically happen any other way. Going over the list again:

False. Once again, I implore you to read my link detailing exactly what happened. Of particular interest for your point here is exactly the endless different stories Microsoft pushed over the idea of reselling used games. First they were saying used games were possible, but that person who gets the used disc would have to pay a "fee" to activate it. Then they were saying you would not have to pay a fee. Then, again, Phil Harrison once again said you would indeed have to pay a fee.

THEN MCV had to uncover a story about a proprietary used game system that would allow select retailers to participate in a "Microsoft Database" that allowed it to happen; I shouldn't even need to tell you how much worse off the consumer would be for a used game system that was completely controlled by Microsoft. Selling digital games, even if that were going to be the case, would be nothing compared to how we'd be fucked in our trade-in values. Physical discs acting as digital conduits, where we lose substantial control of our trade-in options, substantial control over value, all so that you maybe sort of could trade-in used games but only if Microsoft says so and only if publishers didn't revoke a specific game's right to be traded in, since that was also reported to be their right. Sounds like a true dream!

Of course until Microsoft said those details weren't 100% accurate either, and they just said there would be reselling of some sort.

Seriously, I am not providing the link to the topic I made to advertise my points. It details precisely the amount of lies they were dealing in, with all sorts of links you can click on to see I'm not pulling it from thin air. Does that seem like the type of company who has this progressive trade-in system ready to go? Does it seem likely considering Gamestop had no clue about this system, said they had not heard about it on the record, and until the reversal, was actively informing their consumers to avoid XBO and buy a PS4? Seriously, read the reports around that time. Virtually every Gamestop was informing consumers to get a PS4 over an XBO. I was practically assaulted by this shit when I entered my Gamestop, and endless GAFers reported the same and it was reported across the web. Again, if they were in on this resell system, if that was always the plan, how did one of the most major gaming retailers not get properly informed, much less before they started actively campaigning against the system? They openly celebrated when the changes were made. If they didn't feel Microsoft was going to critically damage their core used game business, why would they be so happy? Why would RedBox make a website dedicated to taking a shot at XBO's policies prior to the changes?

Where there is smoke there is fire my friend. Things were never going to be as Microsoft pretended they were after being goaded into a corner. There may have been something to what they were doing, perhaps, but you can rest assured you would have been fucked for it.

Not require long downloads: Can't get screwed. Would be exactly as installing the game today, just without the requirement to use the disc again afterwards. Would work exactly as I described.

Except install times on XBO are fucking insane currently. It's one of the core complaints new XBO owners have. This, however, is really the only "benefit" we can be sure of: no disc swapping.

...out of your crusade. You can rag on MS all you like. Go ahead and boycott the X1, convince other people to as well if you like. Just don't focus any of your ire on people that would have bought it. I see so many variations of "lol, and some people were actually going to buy it pre-180... what sad MS apologists they must be", and it's really unwarranted imo. I was going to buy it, because it would have made things better for me. It really couldn't have failed to do this in comparison to what we have now, so I don't want to hear about how it's all a fantasy I've dreamt up. The literal worst case scenario for the pre-180 X1 for someone purchasing all digital, is exactly what we have today. And that would have required some outright, very blatant lies to get there (like... 'not actually being able to install from a disc' level lies).

Of course not. Because on an active discussion forum, you are put to task for your positions. People are supposed to have their opinions scrutinized and deconstructed. If that is something that made you guys uncomfortable, then you should not be on NeoGAF, you should be on some fanboy Xbox forum. And I don't say that to be mean - I say that as simple fact. The underlying structure of this community is the back and forth exchange between people with similar hobbies yet different perspectives on what makes things work.

By the very nature, if these 'people' were allowed to spread their positions unabated, then the misinformation, the horrific future scenarios implied by Microsoft's DRM scheme, would have been far easier to thrive and allow to survive. Of course, since you wanted that, it makes sense you'd advocate for that. I don't begrudge you that. But the reality is nobody gets free reign. If you have a position and the vast, vast majority of people consider it outrageous, as was the case with the Microsoft DRM fiasco, then you have to expect push back.

I do not know where this idea has come from that people should be allowed to speak their opinions with zero push back. That's not the nature of true discussion forums.

 

[Synth]

False. Once again, I implore you to read my link detailing exactly what happened. Of particular interest for your point here is exactly the endless different stories Microsoft pushed over the idea of reselling used games. First they were saying used games were possible, but that person who gets the used disc would have to pay a "fee" to activate it. Then they were saying you would not have to pay a fee. Then, again, Phil Harrison once again said you would indeed have to pay a fee.

THEN MCV had to uncover a story about a proprietary used game system that would allow select retailers to participate in a "Microsoft Database" that allowed it to happen; I shouldn't even need to tell you how much worse off the consumer would be for a used game system that was completely controlled by Microsoft. Selling digital games, even if that were going to be the case, would be nothing compared to how we'd be fucked in our trade-in values. Physical discs acting as digital conduits, where we lose substantial control of our trade-in options, substantial control over value, all so that you maybe sort of could trade-in used games but only if Microsoft says so and only if publishers didn't revoke a specific game's right to be traded in, since that was also reported to be their right. Sounds like a true dream!

Of course until Microsoft said those details weren't 100% accurate either, and they just said there would be reselling of some sort.

I did read your link. Nothing in there suggests that you wouldn't be able to sell your games at all. Nothing. I already stated that the 'fee' wasn't clarified, but the fact that you could sell was not in question. And once again, as a digital customer, nothing you've listed is worse than what I currently have.. no ability to sell any of my digital games, at all, ever, for any amount. I'm not sure how we're still spinning our wheels on this one. Also revoking a game's right to be traded in has been done with physical games before (Phantasy Star Online is one that comes to mind). Publishers can pretty much do what they want in these regards anyway. It is always their right to do this if they choose to. Fortunately, they rarely do (the Arkham City Catwoman uproar was probably enough to dispel these ideas).

Does it seem likely considering Gamestop had no clue about this system, said they had not heard about it on the record, and until the reversal, was actively informing their consumers to avoid XBO and buy a PS4? Seriously, read the reports around that time. Virtually every Gamestop was informing consumers to get a PS4 over an XBO. I was practically assaulted by this shit when I entered my Gamestop, and endless GAFers reported the same and it was reported across the web. Again, if they were in on this resell system, if that was always the plan, how did one of the most major gaming retailers not get properly informed, much less before they started actively campaigning against the system? They openly celebrated when the changes were made. If they didn't feel Microsoft was going to critically damage their core used game business, why would they be so happy? Why would RedBox make a website dedicated to taking a shot at XBO's policies prior to the changes?

Where there is smoke there is fire my friend. Things were never going to be as Microsoft pretended they were after being goaded into a corner. There may have been something to what they were doing, perhaps, but you can rest assured you would have been fucked for it.

Why is it surprising that GameStop would prefer a situation where digital purchases remain less desirable than physical? Sure, they may not have been as royally screwed in this scenario as they would be if the consoles all followed the PSP Go model, but anything that advances customers towards digital purchases is a huge red flag for a company that makes nearly all its money reselling used games. As for RedBox and Gamefly,, it's kinda obvious right? They would have been cut out completely. Again you're arguing from a physical media standpoint against my digital only viewpoint. None of the benefits you mention apply today to digital content. Explain how someone buying all their shit digitally, like I currently am, would get fucked by the previous system. I never, ever receive a real answer to this, and I've asked the question plenty of times to plenty of people.

Except install times on XBO are fucking insane currently. It's one of the core complaints new XBO owners have. This, however, is really the only "benefit" we can be sure of: no disc swapping.

Firstly, the install times are completely irrelevant to this discussion, as they are mandatory anyway. I don't actually know how long it takes to install from disc, because I have none. I'm pretty certain it's a lot quicker than my downloads though. Secondly, it isn't the only benefit we can be sure of. Being able to buy reduced price games when a store wants to clear stock, and being able to buy limited editions and exclusive content are also things we can be sure of. If you disagree, please state why.

Of course not. Because on an active discussion forum, you are put to task for your positions. People are supposed to have their opinions scrutinized and deconstructed. If that is something that made you guys uncomfortable, then you should not be on NeoGAF, you should be on some fanboy Xbox forum. And I don't say that to be mean - I say that as simple fact. The underlying structure of this community is the back and forth exchange between people with similar hobbies yet different perspectives on what makes things work.

By the very nature, if these 'people' were allowed to spread their positions unabated, then the misinformation, the horrific future scenarios implied by Microsoft's DRM scheme, would have been far easier to thrive and allow to survive. Of course, since you wanted that, it makes sense you'd advocate for that. I don't begrudge you that. But the reality is nobody gets free reign. If you have a position and the vast, vast majority of people consider it outrageous, as was the case with the Microsoft DRM fiasco, then you have to expect push back.

I do not know where this idea has come from that people should be allowed to speak their opinions with zero push back. That's not the nature of true discussion forums.

Sure, this place is for discussing differences of opinions. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to express their disapproval of the original policies, but there's a difference between telling me why you think I'm wrong to believe I would have been better off with the previous version of the console, and calling me a gullible fanboy because you don't agree with me. Can you not see the difference there? Can you imagine how long I would last if I cheerfully chimed in with how someone would have to be a seriously delusional Sony fanboy in order to be excited for Infamous SS every time it's name came up? It sounds absolutely ridiculous right? I can definitely explain what I don't like about Infamous, but making a judgement call on anyone who doesn't agree with me is BS. That's what generally happens with this topic. Example:

and anybody who is for it are fucking clueless.

Tell me how many topics that are discussed here, would have this as a valid response to one side's views? That's not 'having my opinion scrutinized and deconstructed'.

 

[Uno Venova]

Can't take much issue with MMaRsu's post, people that are for the old system are literally clueless to the full details of how it would work.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

So having opinions that may be bias or negative to your product needs to stop. Okay.

 

[Skeff]

Once again... there absolutely were positives to the previous system (some of which actually don't work with an offline box). Most of these positives do not apply if you plan to stick with physical purchases, but it's also true that most of current positives do not apply if you choose to go digital...

-snip-

Such as? It's put up or shut up time.

 

[Synth]

Such as? It's put up or shut up time.

Maintaining a digital collection using physical media. Without an online check in, you would be able to duplicate the game at two places indefinitely. Install on one machine, take it offline, and then play whilst online on the second machine. The 24hr check in is mostly a safeguard against this. The alternative would be that you wouldn't be able to play the game on any other machine unless you deactivated it on the original console first... which would also mean having it go online (and if you're away from that console, you're just screwed).

 

[Skeff]

Maintaining a digital collection using physical media. Without an online check in, you would be able to duplicate the game at two places indefinitely. Install one machine, take it offline, and then play whilst online on the second machine. The 24hr check in is mostly a safeguard against this. The alternative would be that you wouldn't be able to play the game on any other machine unless you deactivated it on the original console first... which would also mean having it go online (and if you're away from that console, you're just screwed).

Actually Sony have a patent available for this using RFID's, It could have been implemented without the online check up. As per my post that you quoted.

Further details available here:

http://techreport.com/news/24141/sony-patent-describes-rfid-infused-drm

It is a fully offline system.

 

[Neuromancer]

I don't really understand why anyone would want a physical copy of a game without any of the benefits of having a physical copy of a game. If you want to go all digital, there's nothing stopping you now.

 

[Synth]

Actually Sony have a patent available for this using RFID's, It could have been implemented without the online check up. As per my post that you quoted.

Further details available here:

http://techreport.com/news/24141/sony-patent-describes-rfid-infused-drm

It is a fully offline system.

This wouldn't achieve the same functionality though. The game would be locked to the first console unless you were physically there to revoke its access. So, if you have a console downstairs in the living room, and another upstairs in the bedroom, you couldn't play on one, and then on the other without deactivating the previous machine each time? Kinda removes the idea of "your games anywhere" right? You also would still be screwed if you couldn't actually use the first machine (at your friends house for example).

I don't really understand why anyone would want a physical copy of a game without any of the benefits of having a physical copy of a game. If you want to go all digital, there's nothing stopping you now.

Nothing did stop me gong all digital. It's just going to cost a lot more now... and I have to download ~40gb per game.. and I can't get any store exclusives, or limited editions... and I can't sell any games I'm done with...etc

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I don't really understand why anyone would want a physical copy of a game without any of the benefits of having a physical copy of a game. If you want to go all digital, there's nothing stopping you now.

Trade value and awesome boxes and manuals and shit.

 

[hawk2025]

This wouldn't achieve the same functionality though. The game would be locked to the first console unless you were physically there to revoke its access. So, if you have a console downstairs in the living room, and another upstairs in the bedroom, you couldn't play on one, and then on the other without deactivating the previous machine each time? Kinda removes the idea of "your games anywhere" right? You also would still be screwed if you couldn't actually use the first machine (at your friends house for example).



Nothing did stop me gong all digital. It's just going to cost a lot more now... and I have to download ~40gb per game.. and I can't get any store exclusives, or limited editions... and I can't sell any games I'm done with...etc

You don't know it's going to cost you a lot more.

In fact, competition with a larger used market and a strong retail presence is likely to decrease prices further and faster than Microsoft's initial proposition. New copies compete for your dollars with used ones, and a used market that has been cornered by Microsoft would have the very convenient effect of keeping BOTH prices controlled by the same company. It was brilliant, really -- except thankfully most people saw past it.

You want to see digital prices fall?

Maybe Microsoft should do as Sony did, and open up their online store to competition from Amazon, which is currently selling PSN download codes for the same price as the physical copies.

If even that hasn't been put in practice by Microsoft yet -- why do we believe that their restricted system would be better for us as far as pricing goes, again?

 

[Skeff]

This wouldn't achieve the same functionality though. The game would be locked to the first console unless you were physically there to revoke its access. So, if you have a console downstairs in the living room, and another upstairs in the bedroom, you couldn't play on one, and then on the other without deactivating the previous machine each time? Kinda removes the idea of "your games anywhere" right? You also would still be screwed if you couldn't actually use the first machine (at your friends house for example).



Nothing did stop me gong all digital. It's just going to cost a lot more now... and I have to download ~40gb per game.. and I can't get any store exclusives, or limited editions... and I can't sell any games I'm done with...etc

No after the initial install and authorization the Disc would be marked as authorized on a console, it would still allow installation on many more consoles and could only be played on a second console as long as the second console was connected to the internet with the owners ID logged in. Essentially the Disc would simply be an install disc and the License would belong to your Account. It is exactly the same as today's digital games, however it has a physical installation disc.

The game could be traded by connecting the console online and either re-authorizing the disc, or allowing a direct sale of the digital license, allowing for Digital game reselling.

The disc could of course be re-authorized at any time by connecting the home console online If somebody wanted to lend it to a friend.

 

[Synth]

You don't know it's going to cost you a lot more.

In fact, competition with a larger used market and a strong retail presence is likely to decrease prices further.

You want to see digital prices fall?

Maybe Microsoft should do as Sony did, and open up their online store to competition from Amazon, which is currently selling PSN download codes for the same price as the physical copies.

If even that hasn't been put in practice by Microsoft yet -- why do we believe that their restricted system would be better for us as far as pricing goes, again?

Ok, I don't actually know it will cost me a lot more. That's an assumption I'm making, and I'm making that assumption precisely because I do not trust MS or other publishers to offer competitive digital pricing.

The Amazon PSN store is definitely a step in the right direction, and I'll be paying attention to it when it comes to buying PS4 games. It isn't however a good replacement for what was being proposed for the X1 imo. In that system MS would have no control at all on what price I could acquire my digital games at. If the next Deus Ex came out, fell on it's face after the first week of sales, and then was being sold off at £20 again, I would be able to have my digital copy at that price. The chances of this happening digitally at the moment are barely worth considering.

And of course that's not including the other advantages of having a physical/digital product that I've listed above.

No after the initial install and authorization the Disc would be marked as authorized on a console, it would still allow installation on many more consoles and could only be played on a second console as long as the second console was connected to the internet with the owners ID logged in. Essentially the Disc would simply be an install disc and the License would belong to your Account. It is exactly the same as today's digital games, however it has a physical installation disc.

The game could be traded by connecting the console online and either re-authorizing the disc, or allowing a direct sale of the digital license, allowing for Digital game reselling.

The disc could of course be re-authorized at any time by connecting the home console online If somebody wanted to lend it to a friend.

So as mentioned in my previous post. You're saying everyone (Sony and publishers) would be okay with this?

Without an online check in, you would be able to duplicate the game at two places indefinitely. Install on one machine, take it offline, and then play whilst online on the second machine.

If you allow the game to be used on multiple consoles, and one of them is allowed to remain offline, then you're going to have people authorising their friend's machine, whilst the owner plays it at home whilst being connected.

 

[Skeff]

Ok, I don't actually know it will cost me a lot more. That's an assumption I'm making, and I'm making that assumption precisely because I do not trust MS or other publishers to offer competitive digital pricing.

The Amazon PSN store is definitely a step in the right direction, and I'll be paying attention to it when it comes to buying PS4 games. It isn't however a good replacement for what was being proposed for the X1 imo. In that system MS would have no control at all on what price I could acquire my digital games at. If the next Deus Ex came out, fell on it's face after the first week of sales, and then was being sold off at £20 again, I would be able to have my digital copy at that price. The chances of this happening digitally at the moment are barely worth considering.

And of course that's not including the other advantages of having a physical/digital product that I've listed above.



So as mentioned in my previous post. You're saying everyone (Sony and publishers) would be okay with this?



If you allow the game to be used on multiple consoles, and one of them is allowed to remain offline, then you're going to have people authorising their friend's machine, whilst the owner plays it at home whilst being connected.

They currently are ok with this, because that's how digital games work currently on PS4/XB1.

This solution would literally be a digital game license with an installation disc.

 

[Vire]

Trade value and awesome boxes and manuals and shit.

That was his entire point. You would have 0 trade value.

 

[Synth]

They currently are ok with this, because that's how digital games work currently on PS4/XB1.

This solution would literally be a digital game license with an installation disc.

It's not really like this with PS4/XB1 though. If I tie a game I buy to a friends X1, it's stuck there. I will always need to be signed in to play it at home, until I reactivate all my content on my current console. I can't pick and choose to move only one item over, and as frequently as I please.. My friend can't also then give it to friend number 2 once he's done (with me still playing able to play it the whole time). Friend 2 then can give it to friend 3, and so on.

The situation wouldn't be very similar at all.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

That was his entire point. You would have 0 trade value.

I can trade my shit into Gamestop.

 

[Skeff]

It's not really like this with PS4/XB1 though. If I tie a game I buy to a friends X1, it's stuck there. I will always need to be signed in to play it at home, until I reactivate all my content on my current console. I can't pick and choose to move only one item over, and as frequently as I please.. My friend can't also then give it to friend number 2 once he's done (with me still playing able to play it the whole time). Friend 2 then can give it to friend 3, and so on.

The situation wouldn't be very similar at all.

This is doable right now on Digital games...

If you wanted to you could just make a new PSN/XBL ID and tie it to the Game, you would have 1 account per game, and just pass the details on.

Out of curiosity, as you are so concerned about publishers suddenly, how do you think they felt about the XB1 games Library? If 10 people can already play the game on your shared library, what harm is an installation disc? it's laughable.

 

[Blarix]

"Hate" is a too strong of a word. I don't "hate" Microsoft or the Xbox, but it will take a good while before I look at them with the same eyes I did when I bought my 360. They lost a lot of good will this past year and that doesn't change overnight. It's easier to destroy a brand and the consumer's good will than the opposite.

The Xbox one is essentially the same as PS4 at this moment. You shouldn't hold onto old news like a little angry girl. They listened and changed their ways, and provided a great console.

People like you are fanboys in denial.

 

[Shin-Ra]

The Xbox one is essentially the same as PS4 at this moment.

...

People like you are fanboys in denial.

Hoooo boy.

 

[Finalizer]

I can trade my shit into Gamestop.

Tell me how much trade value Steam-based PC games on disc have.

It's such a strange little niche of folks who for some reason want digital games, but have a useless disc collection at the same time. Just download the damn games and enjoy your digital-only future without ruining the advantages of disc-based software for everyone else.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Tell me how much trade value Steam-based PC games on disc have.

It's such a strange little niche of folks who for some reason want digital games, but have a useless disc collection at the same time. Just download the damn games and enjoy your digital-only future without ruining the advantages of disc-based software for everyone else.

Huh? With Xbox One DRM pre-180 you could trade in games that function like a digital copy. Is this hard to understand? I'm not saying the complaints before the 180 were invalid... just that the idea of trading in what are essentially digital copies is a nice thing. I'm sorry this bothers you.

 

[boredandlazy]

Hoooo boy.

Considering the amount of irony in that final sentence, I can't work out whether it's serious or not...

 

[boredandlazy]

Huh? With Xbox One DRM pre-180 you could trade in games that function like a digital copy. Is this hard to understand? I'm not saying the complaints before the 180 were invalid... just that the idea of trading in what are essentially digital copies is a nice thing. I'm sorry this bothers you.

You could only trade them in at registered retailers at a price set by Microsoft. Correct me if I'm wrong but you also couldn't sell them on EBay etc.?

 

[Synth]

This is doable right now on Digital games...

If you wanted to you could just make a new PSN/XBL ID and tie it to the Game, you would have 1 account per game, and just pass the details on.

Out of curiosity, as you are so concerned about publishers suddenly, how do you think they felt about the XB1 games Library? If 10 people can already play the game on your shared library, what harm is an installation disc? it's laughable.

I guess one account per game would work, lol. I'm not sure how comparable that is to every game bought by every person having that same functionality though. That would be an awful lot of dummy accounts.

You may have noticed that I've been omitting family share from my list of positives. That's primarily because it wasn't very clear what the limits for this would be. Even then, I think that when you combine the fact that publishers were looking likely to get kick-backs from every game being resold with the 24hr check in, they may have been slightly more accommodating. Either way, it's the reason I haven't listed it, because it may have been heavily restricted. The problem with ignoring the disc completely is that the unless you had what was described in the Sony patent, you wouldn't have one main user, and one of ten other users being able to play at once. You'd be able to run a whole damn LAN party using a single copy of the game.