Support NeoGAF

[The One and Done™]

Each gen the industry manage to find new ingenuous ways of screwing with customers and each gens I feel like playing less and less.
I'm still not paying for online even with trinkets attached whatever happens.
If they're so hell bent on nickel & diming me at every turn I'll do something more productive with my time.
This hobby is already no longer the most fun activity anyway.

The sodium levels are high with this one lol jk. But in all seriousness, aren't you already paying for internet? Don't you have to pay for things like Netflix, iTunes etc? Subscriptions are nothing new they're just digital now. Paying to play online isn't a big deal.

 

[NullPointer]

Ten people would not have access to the same game at the same time. It's similar to physical game sharing where you can lend your game to 10 (or much more, if you wish) people, but only one at a time.

I wouldn't suppose that publishers would care about whether the access was simultaneous or not - they'd just look at all those potential sales lost.

The sodium levels are high with this one lol jk. But in all seriousness, aren't you already paying for internet? Don't you have to pay for things like Netflix, iTunes etc? Subscriptions are nothing new they're just digital now. Paying to play online isn't a big deal.

You're talking about streaming and digital rental services. Thats nothing like buying a full priced game.

 

[GHG]

But a key difference in what you are referencing is MS never released the product with those policies. They heard the backlash, saw the impact on preorders long before release and made changes. Sony heard the backlash and outrage at the cost of the PS3 and still released it as is.

As for the OP, If you were outraged by the pre-launch drm and were one of the many who asked them to change I don't see how you can still be angry given their reversal of policies for the console. They did what you asked them to do. Now, if you just don't like the console or games so be it.

Sony released the PS3 as it was despite the backlash because they truly believed in their product and believed that long term it was what was needed to push the medium forward. It was in a lot of instances - Blu-Ray disks, a HDD in EVERY console. They made the decision to go ahead with it as it was originally intended even despite all of the criticism and despite the fact that it was clear that they would lose sales in the short term. They stood by their ethos and their product. That is a very difficult thing to do considering the extreme backlash but it shows they actually had real belief in what they were doing. They actually deserve some credit for that and for following through because even through to this year, the PS3 has been a great gaming platform and will continue to give even through 2014. The great gaming platform that the PS3 has become has been built on their original product as intended.

On the other hand, Microsoft, as soon as there was backlash first of all attempted to spin everything to make it seem like they were doing us consumers a favour by implementing nonsense DRM. Then they backtracked and were like "haha we were just kidding, the world wasn't ready for our masterplan!".

This is where Microsoft's Xbox division falls flat on their face from a strategy point of view as far as I'm concerned. They clearly don't have any plan other than to extract as much money from the consumer as possible and that is by any means necessary. They don't have any belief or conviction in what they are doing and seem to be constantly srambling around, spinning things and generally tripping over themselves. And it is for this reason they dropped the original Xbox at a tip of a hat, it is for this reason they dropped 1st party support for the 360 from 2010 onwards in favour of kinnect bullshit. As soon as what they are doing doesn't seem to be (or look like it will be) making as much money as they would like they ditch the idea/product and move on to strategizing the "next big thing" that will transform them into taking over the market and becoming billionaires.

In order to sell a product or an idea you need to have conviction and belief in what you are ultimately trying to achieve. Microsoft haven't had this since they introduced the 360 IMO. Its just been constant spinning and attempts to brainwash people with their bullshit IMO. Unfortunately for them I'm not stupid enough to buy it.

The security issue wasn't a mistake from what I read. They never updated the firewalls and security.

They didn't wake up and say "lets get hacked". Failing to update firewalls/security accordingly is negligence. Negligence can lead to a mistakes happening, but it doesn't make it intentional or deliberate. Someone (or a group of people) was obviously lazy or gambled on it not going wrong but they didn't intend for it to go wrong. Does that mean that Sony is free of blame in this case? No. But in order for shit to hit the fan as it did it required a 3rd party criminal to do the damage. Now, unless somebody can prove that Sony paid said hackers to do this, then you cannot say that Sony intended for things to go as they did.

When Microsoft announced their new policies it was with intent. They are 2 separate issues/secnarios and cannot be compared.

 

[Orniletter]

Theres a big difference between making an expensive product and implementing draconian anti-consumerism measures into the OS of a gaming system.

Don't forget, don't let go. That was their vision for the future of gaming and they still have time to try and implement them again in the future.

Thats my stance too.

I don´t care if people look down on me for beeing a "petty keyboard warrior" or whatever.

Microsoft has shown what they really wanted to do (squeeze every little penny from their customers to the point of altering ingame currencys to force you to buy Microtransactions in a 60$ game that has a 50$ season pass).

There are companys that are far more deserving of my money. Nintendo and Sony both have their little cash grabs here and there (WWHD, Online Passes etc.), but those aren´t even on the same Planet as MS´ vision for the original XBone.

 

[Mistwalker]

The sodium levels are high with this one lol jk. But in all seriousness, aren't you already paying for internet?

This is really the direction you're going to go with this? Most people do pay for internet, which if anything is all the more reason they might resist yet another fee to access content.

Don't you have to pay for things like Netflix, iTunes etc?

"Only on Xbox One."

Paying to play online isn't a big deal.

Good job, Microsoft has trained you well. That's precisely where they needed you so putting everything else behind that paywall, down to the web browser, wouldn't seem like "a big deal." What won't you think is a big deal by the end of this generation, I wonder? Microtransactions? Premium per-app or per-game fees?

 

[HolyBaikal]

Someone who says that Nintendo is "selling the same games" is biased against Nintendo.

One of the most anti-consumer policies of Nintendo is their region locking.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

I wouldn't suppose that publishers would care about whether the access was simultaneous or not - they'd just look at all those potential sales lost.

Again, it's already possible, you can share both your physical copy of a game and your account details with as many people as you like, and as I just said, publishers already allow for multiple people to play the same digital game simultaneously. In fact, having more people share the same game would even be advantageous, since only one additional "family member" can play at the same time, so the more people in your family group, the bigger the chance that a game would be unavailable at any given moment. If multiple people want to access the same game at the same time, and can't, perhaps they'll eventually be convinced to just get their own copy.

It's not as far fetched as you're making it out to be, and you have no proof whatsoever that publishers would refuse such an arrangement.

 

[RionaaM]

The sodium levels are high with this one lol jk. But in all seriousness, aren't you already paying for internet? Don't you have to pay for things like Netflix, iTunes etc? Subscriptions are nothing new they're just digital now. Paying to play online isn't a big deal.

Paying for internet is standalone: you can access it with virtually any electronic device. Paying to play online requires having bought the game before, on top of the console. And it IS a big deal: if you don't pay you end up missing on the whole multiplayer component, which may be more than half the game.

Subscriptions aren't anything new, sure. That doesn't mean they are a good thing in gaming. Besides, we're not talking about iTunes or Netflix: Live Gold and PS+ don't give you unrestricted access to the whole console library for as long as you keep paying. Apples and oranges, man.

 

[Prince Vultan]

Not at all.

Tell your bot buddy that someone telling you they're gonna put a bullet in your kneecap or shooting you without warning still results in a fucked kneecap (Or similar analogy... possibly one with cars!). "At least they were upfront about it."... haha... that is some crazy shit.

Plus, they still haven't gotten past the arrogance that leads them to believe anything but a minority give two shits about Kinect, yet they expect everyone who might want an Xbox to buy it? Fuck that.

Hold on to that bitterness, son.

 

[Melchiah]

Ehh, it was bullshit and I was vehemently against buying one, but since they reversed it, I have no more qualms with getting an Xbox One.

I do want to enjoy the exclusives it'll bring, and if they do end up bringing it back, I'll just sell it and recoup my losses. I'd still get enjoyment from all the games until that happens, no skin off my back.

I wasn't 'offended' in the least, it was a business decision and a shitty one, but since it's gone, I'll trade my money for enjoyment of your product. I don't take it personal and it's no skin off my back, just a business.

They reversed it, and it's gone, for now. They showed what they're after, and I think it's given they'll try to reintroduce the plans later on, or just shove it to our throats, if they get big enough market share to force the matter. It's in their history, and for that reason I don't want to support them with my money.

 

[Frumix]

Sony released the PS3 as it was despite the backlash because they truly believed in their product and believed that long term it was what was needed to push the internet forward. It was in a lot of instances - Blu-Ray disks, a HDD in EVERY console. They made the decision to go ahead with it as it was originally intended even despite all of the criticism and despite the fact that it was clear that they would lose sales in the short term. They stood by their ethos and their product. That is a very difficult thing to do considering the extreme backlash but it shows they actually had real belief in what they were doing. They actually deserve some credit for that and for following through because even through to this year, the PS3 has been a great gaming platform and will continue to give even through 2014. The great gaming platform that the PS3 has become has been built on their original product as intended.

I get what you're trying to say but it seems to me PS3 pushed through in spite of how it was designed, not thanks to it. And it still suffers for some of the choices made back then.

 

[Mael]

The sodium levels are high with this one lol jk. But in all seriousness, aren't you already paying for internet? Don't you have to pay for things like Netflix, iTunes etc? Subscriptions are nothing new they're just digital now. Paying to play online isn't a big deal.

That's the point I'm already paying my ISP to get internet.
Netflix isn't available here (and looking at the business model, I probably wouldn't use it anyway), iTunes is useless and pointless for me (and it's subscription based now?).
Really the only subscription I'm paying right now is for the theatre and that means I can go watch a film on the big screen whenever the fuck I want for no additional price.
You can accept to pay more for a service that should be free but that's not how I use my money.
I'll keep using my money however I see fit and not pay for the privilege of playing with my friends.

That said I'm not salty or anything, all these moves doesn't mean I'm lamenting the fact that "I'm missing on some 'great experiences'".
I don't value these 'experiences' if I have to jump through that many hoops anyway.
If you do and like that more power to you.

e : Also you can bet your ass that if I view that as pointless waste of money, that's how it'll goes in my household.

 

[Imperfected]

I think bitterness might be a bit much, but wariness is reasonable.

"Bitter" implies more of a personal affront. Microsoft were not the only ones to have considered these sort of measures, so if you find the very idea so deeply, personally offensive then there's no safe haven left for you in console gaming. There's no (console) platform holder that hasn't toyed with the idea at least in theory, so if the very concept of this is horribly offensive to you, you probably need to write off all of them.

The fact they reversed their decision in response to consumer outcry means bitterness should generally be unwarranted. You can still say, "The fact that they came so close to doing this, and don't actually seem to have completely written the idea off, makes me concerned they will do it in the future. I don't fully trust them." That's fair, and it's really a personal decision for you what they will need to do to win back your trust.

Bitterness, though? Nah. They had a bad idea, and they ceased pursuing it when you asked them to. Holding a grudge seems needlessly vindictive.

 

[Kinyou]

Boycotting when they already changed the reason why you're boycotting seems a bit pointless. It's hardly sending a message

 

[The One and Done™]

Paying for internet is standalone: you can access it with virtually any electronic device. Paying to play online requires having bought the game before, on top of the console. And it IS a big deal: if you don't pay you end up missing on the whole multiplayer component, which may be more than half the game.

Subscriptions aren't anything new, sure. That doesn't mean they are a good thing in gaming. Besides, we're not talking about iTunes or Netflix: Live Gold and PS+ don't give you unrestricted access to the whole console library for as long as you keep paying. Apples and oranges, man.

Many people act like you have to pay for Xbox Live for every single game when you pay for a yearly service to play all your games online. Paying 60 a year or just 5 bucks a month isn't a big deal and it isn't nickel and diming consumers. The services The One provide for that nominal fee is excellent.

 

[Mael]

Many people act like you have to pay for Xbox Live for every single game when you pay for a yearly service to play all your games online. Paying 60 a year or just 5 bucks a month isn't a big deal and it isn't nickel and diming consumers. The services The One provide for that nominal fee is excellent.

Live is 1 service.
I don't intend to pay a subscription for every services just to play some games with my friends.
That's not happening.
The rest are useless trinkets you can find for free elsewhere.
Also I'm in PAL land, that means that really the only thing Live has IS online play.

If your answer is "why would you live there?" then I guess that means you have no perspective at all.

 

[GHG]

I get what you're trying to say but it seems to me PS3 pushed through in spite of how it was designed, not thanks to it. And it still suffers for some of the choices made back then.

I assume you mean from an internal hardware perspective right (CELL, etc)? If that's the case then you only need to look at the quality of titles that has been pumped out over the last couple of years by 1st party studios. Sony obviously originally hoped that 3rd party studios would have been prepared to learn the PS3 inside out but they learnt the hard way in that sense.

They chose to go with Blu-Ray and fully support it (not via some silly add-on) and that has proven to be the correct choice. In terms of audio output, the PS3 trumped everything else out there.

Many people act like you have to pay for Xbox Live for every single game when you pay for a yearly service to play all your games online. Paying 60 a year or just 5 bucks a month isn't a big deal and it isn't nickel and diming consumers. The services The One provide for that nominal fee is excellent.

All you get in online gaming and early access to demos. On the other hand PS+ gives out a lot of freebies in terms of games. If Sony had put online behind a paywall but you didn't get any of the free games I would have told them where to shove it and would exclusively game on the PC.

 

[lighthouse777]

I was greatly offended by what I perceived to be extreme arrogance from Microsoft surrounding the Xbox One announcement with regards to the no used game sales, online check-in etc.

Firstly I was offended by the policies themselves for being what I felt were extremely anti-consumer and then further by comments from various Microsoft mouthpieces in the aftermath. The presence of Microtransactions in nearly all of the First Party launch games was further salt in the wound for me.

I buy and enjoy all platforms usually, but the Microsoft rhetoric soured me against the platform so much that I have sworn I will never buy an Xbox One.

Now this brings me to an ongoing argument that I am having with a friend. He thinks I'm stupid for not getting an Xbox because I will be missing out on all these fantastic games because of what he sees as much to do about nothing. He defends Microsoft by saying that "At least they were upfront about it" and he feels that I should feel more outraged by Nintendo for "Selling me the same games over and over again"

What say you on this GAF? Am I wrong to hold onto this hatred? Do you think Nintendo's transgressions are on the same scale as Microsofts?

then you forgave sony for its past transgressions
such as its rootkit scandal? 2005-2007

you forgave sony for this..

The Sony BMG CD copy protection rootkit scandal of 2005–2007 concerns copy protection measures implemented by Sony BMG on about 22 million CDs. When inserted into a computer, the CDs installed one of two pieces of software which provided a form of digital rights management (DRM) by modifying the operating system to interfere with CD copying. Both programs could not be easily uninstalled, and they unintentionally created vulnerabilities that were exploited by unrelated malware.

sony was under federal government investigations and class action lawsuits
Microsoft proposed but then changed their plans, in advance.. unlike sony they did not hide anything

 

[twobear]

I don't think you're wrong, in part because MS clearly has the same intentions behind the Xbone, even if their specific policies are different. The cynicism which pervades every aspect of the console's design has spread to the first-party games (and to stuff like the ID@Xbox contract), and I see no evidence that this approach is going to change any time soon.

As long as MS continue their policy of giving you less while trying to wring more money out of you in the process, there is no way I am touching the Xbone with a ten foot pole. They could open twenty new studios, all producing top-tier Xbone exclusive games, and I would not buy an Xbone or single one of their games if they all have microtransactions, excessive DLC, etc.

And unfortunately, enough people seem to be buying into these gross business practices that MS will never have to change them. I swear gamers have nobody but themselves to blame every time a company introduces new and excitingly draconian policies, because they enable them by saying it's 'all about the games' and that we shouldn't worry about things like ethical business practices.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I don't remember exactly when it was that purchasing entertainment media turned into a political statement but I actually have to wonder if people actually buy games to have fun these days or if its turning into the equivalent of just belonging to a group people want to be part of.

 

[GHG]

then you forgave sony for its past transgressions
such as its rootkit scandal? 2005-2007

you forgave sony for this..

The Sony BMG CD copy protection rootkit scandal of 2005–2007 concerns copy protection measures implemented by Sony BMG on about 22 million CDs. When inserted into a computer, the CDs installed one of two pieces of software which provided a form of digital rights management (DRM) by modifying the operating system to interfere with CD copying. Both programs could not be easily uninstalled, and they unintentionally created vulnerabilities that were exploited by unrelated malware.

sony was under federal government investigations and class action lawsuits
Microsoft proposed but then changed their plans, in advance.. unlike sony they did not hide anything

What in the world does that have to do with the PlayStation or Sony's gaming division.

Seriously... If we want to go down this direction then Microsoft as a company has a whole host of scandals and coverups that we can sit and discuss.

My god. Seriously...?

 

[Mael]

then you forgave sony for its past transgressions
such as its rootkit scandal? 2005-2007

I don't think anyone forgave Sony Music.
That have nothing to do with SCE though.
It's like blaming EAD because you find the Pokemon shows to be shit.
Or finding that xbox is shit because you hate the ribbon in Office 2007.

 

[DocSeuss]

Sony released the PS3 as it was despite the backlash because they truly believed in their product and believed that long term it was what was needed to push the internet forward.

Wow.

Just... wow.

Okay, here, how about this: Sony, as a tech company, has always been about pushing overpriced, proprietary tech. Once upon a time, they were actually justified--their hardware (we're talking TV's, Walkmans, VCRs, DVD players, etc) were the best you could buy. But... hey, one of the hallmarks of the company is its arrogance--we're talking going back to before gaming here. Sony always felt like it could create new tech and people would just fall in line and adopt it. They feel like they can overprice products just because their name's on it. Or they'll go shoving crappy things like memory stick, minidisc, etc on people.

What you're doing here is displaying some kinda insane fanboyism. You act like Sony was making some magnanimous gesture, and Microsoft's just in it for the money. That ain't the case. Sony's just in it for the money too.

Sony released the PS3 because they were arrogant--they've always been this company. If you're not aware of this, then you probably haven't been paying attention to their corporate culture and advertising choices. The PS3/TV department's subsequent failure in its first few years brought a degree of humility that encouraged them to work hard and make it an admirable console.

And "push the internet forward" wat? How were they doing that exactly? They pushed Blu-Ray because it was their proprietary format and they just wanted to make money on this.

 

[Number_6]

Microsoft have shown their true colors, and it was bad enough to make me want them out of gaming like yesterday. Their vision for the future is an apocalypse from a consumer and gamer perspective.

Hell, forget about their DRM fiasco for a second. I already wasn't going to buy an XBone due to the horrific (basically guaranteed) failure rate of the 360 and the idea that I should pay an additional subscription fee just to play my games online (and watch Netflix, WTF). That shit has been free on PC forever, and when MS tried to pull that shit on Games for Windows Live, they were laughed out of the fucking stratosphere. Hell, no PS4 for me either, thanks to those millions of fools who just took it up the ass from Xbox Live.

Microsoft's policy was flawed, but the backlash was so rabid that they removed it completely rather than fixing it. It had a lot of advantages I still wish we had when I wanna swap games. The check-in was obviously to stop people installing a single game on many systems, but I think it could have been handled better than just cutting people off.

I also just kind of got puzzled by all the people who were ranting about internet connections and trade-ins in one breath and then would go on about PS+ and hatred of GameStop in the other.

Constant internet connection is crap because we have two very prominent examples of its failure (for single player). It also contributes to the bullshit release-it-now-fix-it-later attitude exhibited by major devs this past gen.

Never mind trade-ins and fuck Gamestop. I sell my shit on Amazon.

Fuck PS+ too. I will never pay an extra fee to play games online. Looks like it's PCWiiU for me this gen.

You also sound misinformed. Microsoft never said anything about no used game sales.

Microsoft wanted something AWESOME. Check it out:

1. You'd buy a game at retail, then register it to your account, much like a Steamworks game.

2. Ten people of your choosing could play ANY game in your account, at ANY time. Kinda like Steam's thing, but way more functional.

3. Unlike Steam, however, you'd be able to resell your games. Of course, they'd need to grant specific people access to their servers to de-authorize games you've sold from your account. Not the greatest plan, but, hey, Steam doesn't let you sell games.

In other words, Microsoft had the advantages of Steam coupled with the ability to resell games and share them. That was their plan. What they were planning would have been better/more satisfactory than what Steam was planning. The Online check-in was also designed to facilitate this.

There were only RUMORS that they would block used game sales. What we found out was that, to allow gamesharing and registering games to digital accounts (MS wants a digital future like Steam), they would limit the ways you could share used games, in order to allow you to resell games that would otherwise be locked to your account. It's not perfect, but the advantages of a digital collection are pretty awesome.

There's no way that 10 people would be allowed to play any game any time. You think they'd have let you buy Halo 5 or Dark Souls 2,and just have you and your 10 friends capturing flags and doing jolly cooperation together for the price of just one copy? Bullshit.

I wouldn't mind having a little DRM, like Steamworks, sure. And yes, you can't resell your Steam games. But I buy all my Steam games for $5 or less a piece. I'd have no expectation whatsoever of getting any sort of decent money for my resell.

MS wants a digital future like Steam: sure that makes sense if Steam had a monopoly on their platform and therefore would have no reason to ever have amazing Steam sales, but would instead charge full retail for their downloads pretty much always. And if Steam had their hands hovering over a server killswitch to shut down your games and force you into next gen and/or sequels by making your old games unplayable.

I believe you, sir, are the one who is misinformed. Why would you believe the PR speak of a company who has proved themselves so greedy and untrustworthy?

 

[Seanspeed]

I swear gamers have nobody but themselves to blame every time a company introduces new and excitingly draconian policies, because they enable them by saying it's 'all about the games' and that we shouldn't worry about things like ethical business practices.

Some of us are able to see that businesses are not 'inherently evil', but are inherently 'profit-focused'. Sometimes businesses make bad judgements in how to go about that. So long as they make the necessary changes, I'm not gonna hold a permanent grudge. I am buying their products to do 'x' and so long as it does 'x' and does it well, I'm not gonna be too concerned about what might have been.

I just don't pretend that any big huge corporation actually cares about me. They're all run by executives and beancounters. Just give me a decent product and I'm fine. I do not have any brand loyalty and will gladly switch to a competitor if I feel that's in my best interests to. I'm not a sheep. And I'll buy what I like. I don't need to justify it to anyone or resist accusations of me being part of any problem.

 

[IvorB]

Your friend is an apologist and "at least they were up front about it" is a stupid argument in their defense. So many f**ked up things are happening in the games industry because gamers shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, I just want to play dem games".

Broken games, day one patches, micro-transactions in full priced software etc etc. All this stuff is getting a clean pass because of people with your friend's attitude. To be fair to him, maybe he genuinely doesn't care. But if you do then stick to your principles and don't buy it. It's not that hard. There will be plenty of great games on other platforms.

 

[Mael]

Wow.

Just... wow.

Okay, here, how about this: Sony, as a tech company, has always been about pushing overpriced, proprietary tech. One of the hallmarks of the company is its arrogance--we're talking going back to before gaming here. Sony always felt like it could create new tech and people would just fall in line and adopt it. They feel like they can overprice products just because their name's on it.

What you're doing here is displaying some kinda insane fanboyism. You act like Sony was making some magnanimous gesture, and Microsoft's just in it for the money. That ain't the case. Sony's just in it for the money too.

Sony released the PS3 because they were arrogant--they've always been this company. If you're not aware of this, then you probably haven't been paying attention to their corporate culture and advertising choices. The PS3/TV department's subsequent failure in its first few years brought a degree of humility that encouraged them to work hard and make it an admirable console.

And "push the internet forward" wat? How were they doing that exactly? They pushed Blu-Ray because it was their proprietary format and they just wanted to make money on this.

Looking at how they act on the mobile side, that Sony is probably dead & buried.
Sony's phone line use standards and contribute heavily to Android.
Not saying your assessment of the corporate culture was wrong, just saying that's probably no longer the case.

 

[dragonelite]

Both platform holders had shitty rules or took things away.
I try to life in the present right now and just get my games could care less about the past.

 

[Orniletter]

Again why do you think MS could somehow convince publishers to allow sharing with 10 people when they wouldn't even let people on PS3 share with 4?

Before you say it was because the MS system was going to get rid of used games and that extra revenue would have appeased the publishers enough to allow this, let me remind you that the PS3 sharing issue only concerned digital games which made used copies a nonissue already.

This is the elephant in the room ! It doesn´t make sense !

Are there really people out there who seriously believe that Microsoft forced their draconian DRM down everyone´s throat, monetized used games, macrotransactioned the shit out of their first-party games.... and then just give 10 people the chance to play a single "copy" of a game?

Common sense, people !

 

[GHG]

Wow.

Just... wow.

Okay, here, how about this: Sony, as a tech company, has always been about pushing overpriced, proprietary tech. Once upon a time, they were actually justified--their hardware (we're talking TV's, Walkmans, VCRs, DVD players, etc) were the best you could buy. But... hey, one of the hallmarks of the company is its arrogance--we're talking going back to before gaming here. Sony always felt like it could create new tech and people would just fall in line and adopt it. They feel like they can overprice products just because their name's on it. Or they'll go shoving crappy things like memory stick, minidisc, etc on people.

What you're doing here is displaying some kinda insane fanboyism. You act like Sony was making some magnanimous gesture, and Microsoft's just in it for the money. That ain't the case. Sony's just in it for the money too.

Sony released the PS3 because they were arrogant--they've always been this company. If you're not aware of this, then you probably haven't been paying attention to their corporate culture and advertising choices. The PS3/TV department's subsequent failure in its first few years brought a degree of humility that encouraged them to work hard and make it an admirable console.

And "push the internet forward" wat? How were they doing that exactly? They pushed Blu-Ray because it was their proprietary format and they just wanted to make money on this.

Actually back then I bought a 360 because I wanted a gaming system and to play Oblivion (I didn't have a capable PC back then). I only bought a PS3 in 2009 once it came down in price and had games I wanted so nice try.

They may have been arrogant, but that is often an unwanted hallmark of self confidence/self belief. At the end of they day, they presented what they believed was the best product they could produce and that came at the consequence of it being pricy and alienating a lot of gamers (myself included). There is a huge difference between what they did in terms of the launch of the PS3 and what Microsoft proposed with the Xbone.

Of course Sony is in it for the money, every company out there exists my making money. Fundamentally it depends on whether you want to make money by having a brand recognized for providing great experiences to the consumer at the advertised cost, or have a brand that provides average experiences at the advertised cost and tricks you into constantly spending more money to try and reach better experience (see Forza).

Blu-Ray did actually have direct benefits to the gaming platform such as allowing for uncompressed surround audio which makes a big difference if you have a half decent home theatre system.

"internet" was also a typo, pardon me I'm on my phone, it should read "medium".

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Squeaky wheel theorem. Most gamers weren't opposed to the original idea of The One and I personally think sales have suffered because it was changed. I also think the quality of The One sufferered because of the 180 on DRM. It as like having an academy award winning film ready for release then just before releasing it you change the beginning and ending and reshoot almost everything. However The One has been a huge success despite the 180 on DRM. It's just a shame though since it would have been even more successful with DRM. Let's be honest, sharing a physical copy of something is becoming more rare by the second. Digital sharing is the future.

That´s false. If MS´s vision was getting positive feedback and pre orders, there´s no way in hell that they would have changed it. Because changing the policy required a lot of time and extra work and money for MS. Not to mention all the last revenue from all the no used games crap that MS could have obtained.

Very wrong.

The original Xbox One was the superior xbox One. The sooner the DRM comes back, the better. It's almost 2014. I'm not stuck in 2003.

Lol. Being pro consumer is 2003 now.

 

[twobear]

Some of us are able to see that businesses are not 'inherently evil', but are inherently 'profit-focused'. Sometimes businesses make bad judgements in how to go about that. So long as they make the necessary changes, I'm not gonna hold a permanent grudge. I am buying their products to do 'x' and so long as it does 'x' and does it well, I'm not gonna be too concerned about what might have been.

I just don't pretend that any big huge corporation actually cares about me. They're all run by executives and beancounters. Just give me a decent product and I'm fine. I do not have any brand loyalty and will gladly switch to a competitor if I feel that's in my best interests to. I'm not a sheep. And I'll buy what I like. I don't need to justify it to anyone or resist accusations of me being the problem.

At no point did I suggest that some corporations care about me and some don't, or that some decisions are 'profit focused' and some are 'inherently evil'. What I said is that the decisions MS has made with the Xbone reflect an enormously cynical design process, even by the standards of profiteering megacorporations.

Microsoft have clearly decided to tilt the give-and-take of consumerism towards the take, in a way that no other console manufacturers have decided to, and I have no idea how anyone can deny this. And enabling them will only give them license to maintain that balance, or shift it even further towards 'take'.

For instance, they've already sold you a game with half the content of the previous game in the series, and now they have plans to sell you most of that missing content for close to the price of another game. And because Xbone owners rushed out to buy it, and then some of them rush out every time it's criticised in order to support MS's shitty decisions, the exact same thing will happen with Forza 6. There's absolutely no reason why T10 and MS need to make $110+ off a single copy of Forza. It's borderline profiteering, and it's enabled by every person who says it's 'only about the games' and that gamers shouldn't care because every company hates you.

Their original DRM plans were born out of that same ultra-cynicism: MS wanted to give you as little as they possibly could, while charging you as much as they could get away with for it (and no, before you interject that this is what every company does, it is not; which is why Sony, for a single example, are giving you more for less). It's a repugnant distortion of consumerism and I refuse to support it, and I don't think anybody else should either, until MS are forced to change their business practices.

 

[Ulumsk]

I'll still probably buy the system when I think it's worth it, but the xbox brand is now something I no longer want to support. DRM-gate was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[wildfire]

Just tell him how a company makes games is a very small concern compared to another company fundamentally attacking how we can buy games to the point they want the customer subservient to them.


MS may have backed down on the idea but they already made it clear how much they care less about us than other companies in this business. Being honest doesn't make them care more about you.

 

[Ryuuga]

Not only did they poorly communicate their message, but they showed the door to anyone unwilling to meet their requirements. So yes OP, hold onto it, it will save you money in the end as well.

 

[icy_eagle]

The 180 that Microsoft was forced into proves that gamers are relics of a past era. We completely accept DRM for the tens of millions of tablets, phones, and computers and would throw a fit if we had to go to the store to buy physical copies of every piece of software we wanted to install, but for some reason we have to cling to the past with consoles.

If you go look up Microsoft's 2020 vision for the future, you'd completely understand the design of xbone before it was ruined by the dinosaurs of gaming.

This might blow your mind, but you can buy games digitally, amazing right? So a) that's not comparable at all, b) consider that file sizes for modern games tend to be way bigger than the majority of apps you'd be buying for tablets and phones and limited bandwidth per month people have to deal with

To be fair, Microsoft's ideas were more awesome than Steam's take on it, and people rejected it because of FUD, Microsoft's AWFUL miscommunication, and Sony-powered astroturfing.

I mean, Steam is like "you can ONLY play games when the sharer isn't playing," and won't let you resell your games. Microsoft let you do both.

Pretty great ideas.

I can't wait for the day when Steam allows people to resell their games. I want to get Wolfenstein 2009...

As far as I know, MS never gave us as detailed info about sharing as you are doing in this thread. Do you have any sources you could link for me? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Besides, reselling digital games is NOT contingent on having a drm function constantly checking if you're online, it'd only require the transfer of the license during the transaction.

 

[Jabba]

A point that was brought up countless times with the usual response (on forums anyway) being incredulity at the idea that a game publisher would allow one purchase of a game to be played by two people: ie. one with the physical disk offline and one with the digital install from the disk, online.

But somehow it becomes reasonable again once its ten people having access to a game from a single purchase.

Don't ask me how that works.

The people believing the free games bs is truly marvelling. Again, ignoring the fact Sony had to cut theirs from ten to five machines.

 

[shem935]

It's up to you. However I will give it a couple years to see how they will continue to support their system and how they will update their policies. Trust once lost is hard to earn back. See sony from 06-09.

 

[Raonak]

I already thought MS were slimy fucks before.
The DRM debacle just cemented my opinion of them.

 

[Ozzykamikaze]

Anyone hung up on policies that never saw the light of day takes this way too seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zh0EiPLCqU

If they could have gotten away with it, they would have. Lets all forget that they tried, very hard, to do so in the first place.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Anyone hung up on policies that never saw the light of day takes this way too seriously.

Exactly this.

 

[IvorB]

This thread reminds me that no matter how screwed up something is you will always find a selection of people to support it. Seems to be human nature. Now we have the pro-DRM faction. Kind reminds me of the Unitologists in Dead Space universe he he!

 

[BuggeryBugz]

You obviously don't want a xbox one if these old policies are the only thing that is stopping you from getting one. And that is absolutely fine.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Exactly this.

Not really tbh. Because a lot of their marketing was saying that people did not understand their futuristic vision even after the Xbone launch. People are concerned that these policies will be reintroduced via a software patch. they breach public trust and should not be forgiven this soon imo.

 

[IvorB]

Anyone hung up on policies that never saw the light of day takes this way too seriously.

They very much did see the light of day.

 

[Seanspeed]

For instance, they've already sold you a game with half the content of the previous game in the series, and now they have plans to sell you most of that missing content for close to the price of another game. And because Xbone owners rushed out to buy it, and then some of them rush out every time it's criticised in order to support MS's shitty decisions, the exact same thing will happen with Forza 6. There's absolutely no reason why T10 and MS need to make $110+ off a single copy of Forza.

Well that's not really what's happened, though.

For one, Forza was not released with less content than previous titles in order to sell back the rest of the content later. You calling it 'missing content' is a complete misnomer, intended to make it seem like something else is happening. There's less content for reasons obvious to people who know the series. It was the inevitability of releasing this game when they did. You know there's going to be an 'Ultimate version' later on, so if you'd rather have all the content for $60, you can buy it then and pretend its the 'real' release date if you want. Up to you.

As for making $110 off of a single game, where did that arbitrary limit come from? The real point here is that people should be free to spend their money how they wish and they shouldn't have to defend their purchases from people like you just because you feel differently about things. I wouldn't spend $50 for 6 car packs, but I did buy the previous Season Pass in FM4($30) and I then bought the Porsche Expansion for $10. So I spent $100 altogether. And you know what? No regrets. I enjoyed what I got. I also bought BF4 + Premium(at a discount, but still). I'm pretty satisfied that I'll get my money's worth out of that as well.

I have my limits on what I'll give into, though. Yours might be different. Doesn't mean your arbitrary line is somehow better than mine or that people with different limits than you are wrong.

Most businesses try and balance what they give with what they take. Its how profits work. If you feel that Microsoft isn't giving YOU enough, then don't buy their products. That is cool. Personally, I haven't either and I think this will hurt them in the end. But I'm not going to hold a grudge. I'll let the market dictate how it goes and if I don't get what I want, I'm not gonna act entitled and selfish and get all upset just because the world isn't revolving around the way *I* want things to be.

 

[Surfheart]

Judging? The impression is based on the facts OP gave in the OP and that facts he responded later in the thread with. I asked specifically if the friend was a Dudebro just to clear the air and see if his friend was a "gamer" (ugh hate that term) in the first place. I would think that if friend was willing to compare the the Nintendo ID Account stuff and VC stuff to the Xbox One reveal, then he likely doesn't think to highly of Nintendo atm. OP stated his friend has a WiiU and played 2 levels of SMB3DW and was done. And the friend dislikes the hardware of WiiU. All that plus his friend suggesting that he should be more outraged at Nintendo over the VC stuff just reaffirmed to me that he isn't the biggest current fan of Nintendo atm.

You are absolutely right about my friend and his opinion of nintendo. He feels they are creatively bankrupt, are ripping gamers off by selling and reselling the same games on different platforms and "holding back the industry" because of low spec hardware and the popularisation of motion controls.

These things, he feels, are far worse than what Microsoft attempted to do with the Xbox One.

 

[meppi]

Well for me it's the main reason why I switched back from MS to Sony yet again.
Even though Sony did some really shitty things in the past, this whole DRM thing and everything surrounding it was a lot more serious for me personally.
And like others have said, it seems that the Sony that annoyed me in the past is gone, at least for now.
The way MS has shown what their end game for their all in one box is has made me realise that it's very different from what I'm looking for in a videogame system.
And even though micro transactions and DLC are in just about everything these days, they seem to be the ones pushing it to extremes and looking just how far they can go with it.
Not happy about that crap at all either.

Not gonna say that I'll never own an Xbone, but if I do somewhere in the future, I'll be sure to make a point of buying every single game 2nd hand on it.

About the Nintendo thing. He just sounds like a bitter fanboy for some reason.
They are just giving the people what they want. As long as the classics keep selling, and the games remain good, there's no reason to stop iterating on them.

 

[Eusis]

These things, he feels, are far worse than what Microsoft attempted to do with the Xbox One.

If publishers gave a shit about continued Wii U support he may have a point about holding back the industry. As is the XB1 is closer to doing that, and that hopefully just means more 1080p games on PS4.

 

[Nibiru]

There was so much wrong with the Xbone. Not only was there terrible DRM policies but there was MS co-operation with PRISM spy program and making a highly advanced camera always on that must be connected all the time for the console to work.

Then there was the obnoxious way they sold all of these features by obfuscating the details and creating a web of confusion. This was done of course because they knew the policies did not benefit us so it made it extremely difficult for them to communicate them as good but boy did they try. Some say it was just bad PR but the reality is that it was deception and that's that.

It's not a fanboy issue as much as it's MS's bad consumer relations and ideology. It's all so unpleasant and left a bad taste in the mouth. $500 is tough enough to spend let alone if have had to fight so hard to fix a bad product.