If your product was worth spending money on, people would buy it in order to see more good products from you.
Woah.
So this is really a sort of radical on-its-head turn for capitalism to take. You are no longer paying someone for the work they put into the product you receive. You are paying them under the expectation that, instead, they will go on to continue producing products of a similar caliber.
I'm not sure that's a particularly defensible economic policy, practically or even theoretically. Especially since most consumers don't have any real understanding of who they're giving money to, and this theory requires that they do.
It also creates something of a bystander effect problem, in that people could easily justify not purchasing the product on the basis that other people must be purchasing it, and that those people will provide the creator the incentive to keep producing, and therefore there is no need for me personally to pay for it.
That's still better than you losing 100% of your profits by me not buying it at all, especially since the 3 friends I lent it to obviously weren't interested enough in the game to spend money on it in the first place, or they would have bought it.
Why would they buy it, if they know that you're going to buy it, and will give it to them for free in a week or two?
More importantly - why would they buy it, if they know it will be put online for them to download, for free, in a couple days?
What you've done here is essentially say that my product is only worth something for the two weeks or so it takes the original purchaser to play through (or the couple of days it takes a pirate group to crack it), and that anyone who has the patience to wait two weeks doesn't have to pay me for it because at that point it has become worthless.
I don't think you really grasp what you're saying, here. I mean, this is the sort of thing we hear all the time from kids who are trying to justify pirating video games or what have you ("It's just not good enough to pay for," or "I'm giving them publicity! I'll buy the next one!" or "Hey, at least they're making some money off this.")
When did I claim this?
My bad. That was ciretose. I wrongly assumed that it was the same person picking up that thread.
It's not quite the same thread as "The Piracy Defense" but it's tangential to it.
When someone lends or gifts an item to a friend once they're done with it, it is not the same as piracy in any way. The original friend bought the disc.
He does not have the right to "Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering, transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy practice".
Lending or gifting, as far as I know, does not constitute "unauthorized transmission", any more than selling it back to Gamestop does.
Why would they buy it, if they know that you're going to buy it, and will give it to them for free in a week or two?
Because it's a good product and deserves to be purchased. Or they want to be able to play it any time they wish. Basically, the same reason people buy DVDs/Blu Ray discs even though they saw the movie in theaters.
Or it has multiplayer. Either/or really.
More importantly - why would they buy it, if they know it will be put online for them to download, for free, in a couple days?
Same as the above, as well as a moral sense that taking said copy and effectively OWNING it (not just renting or borrowing it) for free is wrong.
Entertainment is different from other products. You buy food because you NEED it. You buy a house because you NEED it, and so on. These things will be continued to be made (in some shape or form) because they are necessities.
Entertainment is not NEEDED, it is WANTED. People who WANT more of it will buy it from the publishers, expecting that publisher to publish more for them to enjoy.
If IGN's info is accurate, Microsoft has confirmed that "second installs" will be full price. So lending people games is COMPLETELY out of the question, effectively, unless you let them use your profile to play them.
They did confirm that not every game will require Kinect.
You just have to have Kinect plugged in to use the console at all.
You need Kinect to be connected ;)
It's not quite the same thread as "The Piracy Defense" but it's tangential to it.
When someone lends or gifts an item to a friend once they're done with it, it is not the same as piracy in any way. The original friend bought the disc.
The disc, but not the experience of the game (which is what the creators of that game are really selling you). Even if you do not copy the disc, allowing someone else to play it to its full extent is essentially copying the experience.
He does not have the right to "Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering, transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy practice".
Lending or gifting, as far as I know, does not constitute "unauthorized transmission", any more than selling it back to Gamestop does.
It does if you were party to a licensing agreement that prohibits the practice.
Because it's a good product and deserves to be purchased.
"It deserves to be purchased" is not how most consumers operate. If this is the crux of your argument, you need to start from scratch.
Same as the above, as well as a moral sense that taking said copy and effectively OWNING it (not just renting or borrowing it) for free is wrong.
Taking said copy and using it for its full intended purpose without paying for it is wrong, regardless of whether you are under the impression you "own" it or not.
Entertainment is different from other products.
Absolutely.
You buy food because you NEED it. You buy a house because you NEED it, and so on. These things will be continued to be made (in some shape or form) because they are necessities.
Entertainment will continue to be made.
Entertainment is not NEEDED, it is WANTED. People who WANT more of it will buy it from the publishers, expecting that publisher to publish more for them to enjoy.
Again, this is not capitalism - this is patronage. You are mixing two economic models and using one to justify the shortcomings of the other.
There are some publishers/developers who are cool with the patronage model and are currently making use of it (see: Kickstarter), but what you are saying is that game developers and publishers must operate under patronage. You don't get to decide that.
|
They did confirm that not every game will require Kinect.
You just have to have Kinect plugged in to use the console at all.
That is fine, as long as I don't have to be moving my body to do something in game.
How annoying will it be if you are in the middle of playing and someone walks by and says " Xbox off" turning it off in middle of game.
Wait, are you saying that YOU DO get to determine how the publishers and developers operate?
Doesn't look that great, and too many problematic decisions for my taste.
Highly likely I'll be leaning toward the PS4.
Wait, are you saying that YOU DO get to determine how the publishers and developers operate?
No, I'm saying that the publishers and developers do. More importantly, I'm saying that you don't. (By which I mean that you don't get to decry them as illegitimate for wanting to be compensated for their work.)
Wait, are you saying that YOU DO get to determine how the publishers and developers operate?No, I'm saying that the publishers and developers do. More importantly, I'm saying that you don't.
Me, as an individual? No, you're right. If you'll recall, you prompted me to explain myself, so I did.
Me, as a stand-in for the collective of consumers? Yes, I do. Ultimately, if people don't buy things, companies don't make money.
And generally if people hate a company's business practices enough, they will stop buying things. Prompting the company to "adapt or die".
So yes, they do get to determine how the publishers operate.
It's not quite the same thread as "The Piracy Defense" but it's tangential to it.
When someone lends or gifts an item to a friend once they're done with it, it is not the same as piracy in any way. The original friend bought the disc.
The disc, but not the experience of the game (which is what the creators of that game are really selling you). Even if you do not copy the disc, allowing someone else to play it to its full extent is essentially copying the experience.
No. First sale doctrine. You sold me the disk with information on it. Once you do that, I can do anything with the disk I want, barring reproduction, which is covered under copyright laws.
It does if you were party to a licensing agreement that prohibits the practice.He does not have the right to "Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering, transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy practice".
Lending or gifting, as far as I know, does not constitute "unauthorized transmission", any more than selling it back to Gamestop does.
Licenses which viloate first sale doctrine and have not stood up in court. You cannot force someone into a contract after point of sale, which the licensing agreements do.
Because it's a good product and deserves to be purchased."It deserves to be purchased" is not how most consumers operate. If this is the crux of your argument, you need to start from scratch.
I find it amusing that you disagree with this point so strongly, since every person I know who buys video games actively uses this for justifcation for buying the game when they could easily pirate it. I mean, we have all known how to do it for the past 10+ years, but we still have bought hundreds of games. And this is literally the justification every single person I know uses as to why.
Same as the above, as well as a moral sense that taking said copy and effectively OWNING it (not just renting or borrowing it) for free is wrong.Taking said copy and using it for its full intended purpose without paying for it is wrong, regardless of whether you are under the impression you "own" it or not.
Trying to limit how I can use a product after I have legally purchased it is wrong. Resale is legal, and preventing me from doing it is wrong. Sharing it is legal, and preventing me from doing so is wrong.
Entertainment is different from other products.Absolutely.
You buy food because you NEED it. You buy a house because you NEED it, and so on. These things will be continued to be made (in some shape or form) because they are necessities.Entertainment will continue to be made.
Entertainment is not NEEDED, it is WANTED. People who WANT more of it will buy it from the publishers, expecting that publisher to publish more for them to enjoy.Again, this is not capitalism - this is patronage. You are mixing...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's deal with Microsoft, since I'd prefer not to have this devolve into another anti-WotC sweaty moshpit. Microsoft maintains a 90+% operating system market share - one that has declined less than 3% over the past five years.
Only if you count personal computers (including Macs) alone. If you count tablets as PCs (because effectively they are, and for many people have replaced them for PC-centric tasks such as browing and watching media), then it's a much more dramatic drop.
Their most recent video game console entry (the 360) is the best selling console of the generation, beating out the PS3.
The 360 and the PS3 appear to be close to parity, with both having sold about 77 million. However, the PS3 is apparently selling better now due to the launch of the PS3 Slim before Christmas in the UK and Europe, which boosted its sales dramatically (it encouraged us to get one). Those sales haven't been fully factored in yet. It also lost a lot of money before it became profitable (though apparently not quite as much as the PS3).
However, the Wii has sold 99.8 million. Sales should pass 100 million imminently. The Wii was also profitable on Day One of release. The Wii has won this generation pretty significantly.
Indeed, this is a dramatic change from the previous generation, in which the PS2 dominated. If anything, generation-over-generation, Sony is the only one that can be said to be rapidly losing market share in a field they unquestionably dominated. Microsoft's console division is only two generations old, and they are now dominant (or, at the very least, leading).
PS2 was the biggest-selling console of all time in no little part due to a lack of competition: Sega was in too much trouble to really push the Dreamcast as hard as they should have and Original X-Box (as I suppose we have to call it now) launched too late to make much impact. Sure, it was a cool, well-marketed product and it had the DVD player pushing early sales, but it was also the only game in town. There was really nowhere else to go but down.
However, as noted above, Microsoft either has or is just about to fall into third and last place in this console generation. It came last. They are neither dominant nor leading.
In other words, there is precious little evidence that Microsoft is doing anything but great, and quite a bit of evidence that Sony is the company that needs a solid win this generation in order to continue to compete.
Despite the issues above, you are still right in this. Sony are in serious trouble, probably more than is generally accepted. Their overwhelming market dominance is gone, their electronics business is in trouble, their TV business is in SERIOUS trouble and in general home electronics terms they have been utterly trounced by Samsung. Despite selling only half what the PS2 did in a similar timespan, the console division this generation has actually done better business as a percentage of the whole company, which is rather worrying.
It's not impossible that by the time PS5 rolls around (if it does), we'll be talking about it as a Samsung product if Sony's fortunes don't seriously reverse in the next few years.
"It deserves to be purchased" is not how most consumers operate. If this is the crux of your argument, you need to start from scratch.
I think it does play a part. Most people know - from hearing about it endlessly on the news - that you can download films, games and music absolutely for free, no problems, from the Internet in minutes if you choose to do so. The overwhelming majority of people choose not do so. Some because they are law-abiding citizens, some because they are well-off and don't need to, some because they can't be bothered to look up how you do it. But they still choose not to do it. The 'it deserves to be purchased' argument is also present and increasingly strongly argued: Kickstarter may be partially a reflection of this, people actually saying, "This deserves to be funded," rather than "I'll wait until it comes out and then rip it off".
Scott posts like a viral marketer, and I've seen plenty in my time. Oh so many. Considering he's a goblin squad member I suspect that he knows some people who work on this failure of a console. Makes the most sense to me. Otherwise why defend something that is right now being widely mocked and derided on the internet. Heck, even the corrupt journalists don't like it. FYI did anyone else notice that when there was cheering during the stream that no one was cheering or clapping in the audience. Even Adam Sessler pointed this out!
Its a great big pile of crap and everyone including Microsoft knows it. The few people defending it are working double time to respond to everyone with a counter argument.
Now Scott, you're a alright guy but this is not a winnable argument at this time. Best you can do wait until the opportune time to jump back in the fray and shout, "I TOLD YOU SO!"
As for me not being a authority about games, well your right. But I've been playing video games since I was 2 and I'm fast approaching 30. I have boxes of games I don't play anymore, I've got 8 ft by 4ft bookcase filled with videogames, I've played over 600 hours of Dark Souls, heck I'm involved in a Indy project to put out a free jrpg on pc(man its hard to get people working together on this). I'm not a authority on video games but I know what I'm talking about. Xbox 3 is a uninteresting piece of garbage and a lot has to change to get gamers interested in it.
Scott posts like a viral marketer, and I've seen plenty in my time. Oh so many. Considering he's a goblin squad member I suspect that he knows some people who work on this failure of a console. Makes the most sense to me. Otherwise why defend something that is right now being widely mocked and derided on the internet. Heck, even the corrupt journalists don't like it. FYI did anyone else notice that when there was cheering during the stream that no one was cheering or clapping in the audience. Even Adam Sessler pointed this out!
Its a great big pile of crap and everyone including Microsoft knows it. The few people defending it are working double time to respond to everyone with a counter argument.
Now Scott, you're a alright guy but this is not a winnable argument at this time. Best you can do wait until the opportune time to jump back in the fray and shout, "I TOLD YOU SO!"
As for me not being a authority about games, well your right. But I've been playing video games since I was 2 and I'm fast approaching 30. I have boxes of games I don't play anymore, I've got 8 ft by 4ft bookcase filled with videogames, I've played over 600 hours of Dark Souls, heck I'm involved in a Indy project to put out a free jrpg on pc(man its hard to get people working together on this). I'm not a authority on video games but I know what I'm talking about. Xbox 3 is a uninteresting piece of garbage and a lot has to change to get gamers interested in it.
Avtually, Scott's arguments are consistent with what he has posted in the past.
|
|
I am under the impression that Microsoft and WoTC are rapidly loosing market share in a field they once unquestionably dominated because they don't seem capable of adjusting to the time and are holding on to preconceptions of old markets.Let's deal with Microsoft, since I'd prefer not to have this devolve into another anti-WotC sweaty moshpit. Microsoft maintains a 90+% operating system market share - one that has declined less than 3% over the past five years. Their most recent video game console entry (the 360) is the best selling console of the generation, beating out the PS3. Indeed, this is a dramatic change from the previous generation, in which the PS2 dominated. If anything, generation-over-generation, Sony is the only one that can be said to be rapidly losing market share in a field they unquestionably dominated. Microsoft's console division is only two generations old, and they are now dominant (or, at the very least, leading).
In other words, there is precious little evidence that Microsoft is doing anything but great, and quite a bit of evidence that Sony is the company that needs a solid win this generation in order to continue to compete.
Except the PC OS market is in decline as the market shifts to Tablets, where Microsoft is woefully behind. Windows 8 has been widely panned so far, and most of the major players are integrating Crome OS at this point.
Because the PC is in decline, Tablets are the (current) future.
Forbes, nailed it.
EDIT: Sony isn't the competition. The market is the competition. They need to make a product people want to purchase more than the other options available.
I don't even want this more than my current X-Box.
That is a problem.
|
|
PC will however never die off, it's too good and multipractic.
Tell that to VHS.
The PC doesn't need to die off for them to have problems. Tablets being able to do what PC's can do is the problem. Laptops already replaced the office box.
Tablets will replace the laptops until something else comes along.
And Microsoft just announced a "next generation" product that is less interesting that the current generation product.
That ain't good...
I should add another reason for a no-buy from me.
After finishing some of my favorites, I frequently give my stepdaughter the game to try/play. It would suck if I had to pay for it again just to let her play through it. Yes, she could play on my system but we both have similar hours and we both play for many hours at a clip.
Even if Microsoft allowed me to deactivate it before giving it to her, I might want to pick it up for another playthrough or just mess around for a bit with a newly released DLC that just came out. Multiple deactivations/installs would suck, it would be even worse if they wiped out my saved games with each deactivation (assuming they even allowed multiple deactivations without limits).
It's an idiotic move that will turn off a lot of folks. I understand the fight vs. Piracy but penalizing us law abiding buyers isn't the way to go about it.
PC will however never die off, it's too good and multipractic.
Adding to this...
Gamer laptops (like my Asus G74SX) are terribly expensive, tablets and most laptops just don't have the muscle for cutting edge graphics.If PC games die, it'll likely be because developers jump ship for the latest "trendy" gadgets like Tablets and design exclusively for that which I don't see that happening anytime soon OR Tablets and other new gadgets pack some serious horsepower at a mediocre price with the right peripherals (like Mice/keyboards/gamepads).
Till then, I'll keep building my crazy gaming rigs every year and a half or so.
Late edit... Consoles are headed in the right direction with horsepower but until they can build 'em like my current rig and remain sub-500 dollar-wise, the PC will survive.
Simple yes/no will suffice: are they going after the used game market to increase profits?Probably.
Follow up question: which do you think eats into their profits more, the used game market or the 400% increase in development costs every 5 years?If I had to guess, it would be the latter.
Are you saying that they cannot focus on both? Obviously they believe that the used game market is a significant untapped source of revenue, or they wouldn't be pursuing it. Why are you insistent on them focusing only on a single cost factor?
For one, most articles I read about the used game market seem to think it actually adds to the industries value, not detracts from it. So I'd actually argue that they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to cut into it and eliminate it.
For example, Gamestop makes 41% of their profits from used games, but they account for only 28% of their sales. Their mark up on used games is much higher. A significant amount from the sell-back to Gamestop goes into new games, helping to boost sales. Microsoft and Sony want to position themselves as middle-men in those sales, but not actually add anything to the transaction.
Compare what they're doing to the movie industry. If I wait 12-15 months for a movie, I can basically watch it as part of my subscription fee to Netflix, or pay a couple dollars to rent it on itunes and share it with others. That's a very small fraction of the profit they would have made on opening day. And there were other price drops along the way, like letting me have the movie permanently on DVD. Games, at best drop to $20 new, but only after 2-3 years, sometimes even longer.
Used games aren't eating into sales nearly as much as they think they are. Trying to solve their shrinking profit margins by focusing on used games is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a 5 gallon bucket. Yes, you will technically make a difference.
Smart people make bad decisions all the time. They even make them in large groups.
I've cancelled my Xbox live subscription. Their multiplayer games have been dying off too fast, and all of the other services I use there I can get access to without their fee.
|
|
I should add another reason for a no-buy from me.
After finishing some of my favorites, I frequently give my stepdaughter the game to try/play. It would suck if I had to pay for it again just to let her play through it. Yes, she could play on my system but we both have similar hours and we both play for many hours at a clip.
Even if Microsoft allowed me to deactivate it before giving it to her, I might want to pick it up for another playthrough or just mess around for a bit with a newly released DLC that just came out. Multiple deactivations/installs would suck, it would be even worse if they wiped out my saved games with each deactivation (assuming they even allowed multiple deactivations without limits).
It's an idiotic move that will turn off a lot of folks. I understand the fight vs. Piracy but penalizing us law abiding buyers isn't the way to go about it.
While I do expect Microsoft to cave on deactivation / activation costing anything, I definitely see your point on DLC. I had loaned Mass Effect 2 before Shadow Broker came out. Having to replay the game would have made me pretty bitter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My console/PC/whatever purchasing decisions tend to be delayed by a while after release, and largely determined not by the fine details of the specs but by what games I really want.
I don't care all that much about graphics.
Scott posts like a viral marketer, and I've seen plenty in my time. Oh so many. Considering he's a goblin squad member I suspect that he knows some people who work on this failure of a console. Makes the most sense to me. Otherwise why defend something that is right now being widely mocked and derided on the internet. Heck, even the corrupt journalists don't like it. FYI did anyone else notice that when there was cheering during the stream that no one was cheering or clapping in the audience. Even Adam Sessler pointed this out!
You know you're arguing with a bunch of intellectual powerhouses when they start accusing you of secretly working for the people they're doing their best to crap on.
Groups I have literally been accused of being a paid shill for, on the Paizo forums:
- Blizzard
- Wizards of the Coast
- The Democratic Party
- EA
- Microsoft
If there was any more proof needed about how mindlessly reactionary these forums get, the fact that I apparently work for five different companies (and counting! I expect that tomorrow I'll be identified as Pepsi's newest operative!) as a viral marketer using my real name on a forum where I have more than 5,000 posts is it.
That's the best part, too. Some of the people dumping on the Xbox One are so deep in internet-rage mode that the theory that they're arguing with a professional viral marketer seems reasonable to them. I will repeat: In their heads, this makes sense.
Oh, and Painful Bugger? You have no excuse. If you know I'm a Goblin Squad member, you went through the trouble of clicking on my profile link, which means you also know how prolifically I post here. By the way, some of those "oh so many" viral marketers you've seen? Most of them weren't. They were just people who disagreed with your inflamed opinions, but calling them "viral marketers" meant you didn't have to do the oh-so-difficult work of figuring out why they disagreed with you.
I swear, these forums, sometimes.
|
Look I liken the experience of a video game to a movie.
If I buy a movie that I think is great, and want to talk about it with my friends/share the experience I can lend them the DVD and they can watch it. Free of charge. Because I bought the DVD, it's mine because I paid for it. So if I want to give it away, or resell it then that's fantastic I can do that. I paid for the DVD, it's mine.
Now take a look at an Xbone game. I buy Mass Effect XBone Edition. It installs on my XBone. I play the game, I think it's fantastic and I can't wait for the sequels. I decide to lend my copy to a friend. Suddenly my friend has to pay full retail to play the game?
Uh what? I already paid for that game. Just like I already paid for a DVD. If you can't see how not owning the things you pay for is a problem then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
Look I liken the experience of a video game to a movie.
If I buy a movie that I think is great, and want to talk about it with my friends/share the experience I can lend them the DVD and they can watch it. Free of charge. Because I bought the DVD, it's mine because I paid for it. So if I want to give it away, or resell it then that's fantastic I can do that. I paid for the DVD, it's mine.
Now take a look at an Xbone game. I buy Mass Effect XBone Edition. It installs on my XBone. I play the game, I think it's fantastic and I can't wait for the sequels. I decide to lend my copy to a friend. Suddenly my friend has to pay full retail to play the game?
Uh what? I already paid for that game. Just like I already paid for a DVD. If you can't see how not owning the things you pay for is a problem then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
Scott's argument is that because the producers of games get to decide the relationship between you and the product. This is the transaction they want to have, so we either have to accept it or leave.
In a way, he's right. We as consumers have a choice if we don't like XBone (which I love now as a name). Don't buy it.
I don't like the always-online requirement either. In 5 years, if Microsoft decides to turn off their online component, because they just launched a new system and want you to buy that one, your XBone and all the games you have for it are now pieces of plastic that no longer work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Scott - EA? Really?
If it helps, I don't think you are a shill. With your track record, who would hire you :)
That's what I keep telling people!
If you can't see how not owning the things you pay for is a problem then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
There are plenty of things you pay for but don't own. I'm sure you can think of some of them. If you can't, you're right; there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
|
If you can't see how not owning the things you pay for is a problem then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.There are plenty of things you pay for but don't own. I'm sure you can think of some of them. If you can't, you're right; there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
Really, name some please.
Yeah, as long as i respect the laws regarding copyrights (no multiplication, presenting the work in it's entirety or parts thereof as my own), it's mine. If they sell me a license, I'm not going to buy. As simple as that.
I assume you don't use Windows, then.
Really, name some please.If you can't see how not owning the things you pay for is a problem then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.There are plenty of things you pay for but don't own. I'm sure you can think of some of them. If you can't, you're right; there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
If you rent an apartment/home, for one.
Of course, there's an effectively 0% chance of you "pirating" a home for any significant period or giving it away to other people, so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* While I do like the idea of a hands-free remote, I need to be able to control and reprogram the device as I see fit.
I've known for awhile Scott that you're a member of Goblin Squad and as a long time lurker I can't but help but stumble over one of your posts. I know you're not a viral marketer, I just think you post like one. Other than that I think you're a alright guy and we share similar views.
But I HAVE seen plenty of examples of viral marketing on the video game board on 4chan(yeah I know but bear with me here). I've spoken with former viral marketers who use to post there. My sister plays pool with one that use to and still does drive me up the wall about Mass Effect 3 endings, she no longer works on their behalf but she still defends ending, ugh. Shoot, here's a link about one of the more aggressive viral marketers: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=468091
It was a bit of a vindication for the guy to finally admit to what he was even after I and others accused of him this for a very long time.
I can post so much more but archive.foolz.us. is not hosting /v/ or /vg/ boards anymore and the new host for these boards have mysteriously 404'd. But I can point out three games though that were particularly bad were Dragon's Dogma, Borderlands 2, and DmC: Devil May Cry. The boards were just absolutely flooded with people that hyped and argued on behalf of all three games. (I didn't think it was necessary for Dragon's Dogma as it was a pretty good game and they just spoiled any type of discussion of it.) DmC: Devil May Cry in particular was a predicated(and was) flop and there was a lot of damage control in full force before the game even came out and much of the XboxOne damage control mimics the DmC damage control. This does not sit well with me and nor does it inspire confidence in the Xbox Brand.
A lot of rage and disgust in the system is in large part due to the push for all these non-gamer focus peripherals and features. What with pre-order DLC, expensive shallow DLC, brown and grey rehases and their many copy-cats, AAA multi-million dollar games that fail to impress, force multiplayer, corrupt gaming journalists(Dewritogate), and so on and so on. People just see this as a ugly dystopic end of good gaming. They're frustrated and they feel like they are being preyed upon and taken advantage of. We're tired and sick of it and Xbox One's presentation and information feels like too good example of what's wrong with the video game industry.
All this mocking is a sad clown act. There was a xbox one presentation bingo image floating around before the presentation aired. It was mostly in jest but when you cross out all but 7 on the bingo image you can't but help but feel empty inside.
I'm exasperated with the industry and the way it's been heading. Me and others have complaints and concerns being ignored and unsatisfactorily addressed. The arguments being made now in this thread are not new and has been debated many, many times elsewhere. There's enough material to write a book or two! I'm sorry Scott if I seem like an ass and I know I'm arguing against a unstoppable trend. Sony and Microsoft are going to get customers and they're going to serve them well but I'm a hardcore gamer and I'm being left out in the cold.
We are talking about video games.Yeah, as long as i respect the laws regarding copyrights (no multiplication, presenting the work in it's entirety or parts thereof as my own), it's mine. If they sell me a license, I'm not going to buy. As simple as that.I assume you don't use Windows, then.
Because there's an significant and relevant difference between video game software and OS or productivity software, right?
Come on, Hama.
Really, name some please.If you can't see how not owning the things you pay for is a problem then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.There are plenty of things you pay for but don't own. I'm sure you can think of some of them. If you can't, you're right; there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.
Renting a house, renting a car, staying in a hotel, paying for your internet access, etc.
You could have come up with these on your own.
What you're basically doing is telling me, "There's no such thing as a paid license for anything!" which is a ridiculous thing to say.
Scott posts like a viral marketer, and I've seen plenty in my time. Oh so many. Considering he's a goblin squad member I suspect that he knows some people who work on this failure of a console. Makes the most sense to me. Otherwise why defend something that is right now being widely mocked and derided on the internet. Heck, even the corrupt journalists don't like it. FYI did anyone else notice that when there was cheering during the stream that no one was cheering or clapping in the audience. Even Adam Sessler pointed this out!
I worked for Microsoft, including in game marketing/community-related roles. We didn't use forum shills. In fact, company regulations require employees to identify themselves as such when using social media to talk about Microsoft products even when they aren't doing so in an official capacity. E.g. if I were still working for Microsoft, and posted in this thread on Paizo in my off-hours, even if I didn't work in a division related to Xbox, I would still be required to disclose that I was a Microsoft employee.
Its a great big pile of crap and everyone including Microsoft knows it. The few people defending it are working double time to respond to everyone with a counter argument.
Quite to the contrary, many people I know in the industry, including my friends and former colleagues still at Microsoft, don't "know it's a big pile of crap." Probably because we have seen enough market data to know that there's a lot of nuance and ambiguity in what makes many decisions about console hardware good or bad.
We are talking about video games.Yeah, as long as i respect the laws regarding copyrights (no multiplication, presenting the work in it's entirety or parts thereof as my own), it's mine. If they sell me a license, I'm not going to buy. As simple as that.I assume you don't use Windows, then.
Why are video games different from any other type of software? Or any digital content, period?
A matter of scale.
There's quite a large amount of difference between a distinct game or other form of entertainment and an operating system.
That's like asking what the difference is between a car radio and the vehicle itself.
A matter of scale.
There's quite a large amount of difference between a distinct game or other form of entertainment and an operating system.
That's like asking what the difference is between a car radio and the vehicle itself.
Why does the scale matter?
A matter of scale.
There's quite a large amount of difference between a distinct game or other form of entertainment and an operating system.
No, there isn't, but that's fine. We'll go narrower.
Is there a large amount of difference between a piece of game software and a piece of word processing software?
If so, please describe that difference and explain how it is relevant to this discussion.
|
|
The difference between renting a home and paying for a licence to use a video game is that if I wanted to I could buy a home instead (assuming I had the money, or the ability to get a mortgage).
I could rent a car, but I could also BUY a car.
Paying for internet access is paying for a service, which means that if my internet breaks there's someone in India who I can yell at until I feel better.
Paying for a hotel stay means that there is a service involved - someone will clean the room for you before you get there and after you leave, there might be room service, and if you invite a friend up for companionship they won't ask any awkward questions.
Also none of these are analogous to buying a video game. We already have a way of RENTING video games, they are in video stores across the world.
See that's the thing, paying for a product licence to have PERMISSION to play a game would make you think there is a service involved. I have yet to see what services developers are offering for cutting out the brick-and-mortar's ability to compete for my dollar.
In the US, there have been more court cases that invalidated the EULA than upheld them. Quite a few provision in EULA's have been struck down in the courts on grounds that they violate the UCC.
Just because Microsoft puts a license on it, does not mean that license is going to be legally binding, or that every clause will be upheld.
The European Court of Justice also ruled last summer that the first sale doctrine does apply to digital software, unless the original purchase included an expiration date (making it a rental or lease). The license transferred with the software, but it couldn't prohibit the sale.
The majority of actions by companies to limit the movement of data have been to reject the realities of digital media and try to place controls and prohibitions that have routinely failed.
I'm not spending my money to encourage more steps backwards.
See that's the thing, paying for a product licence to have PERMISSION to play a game would make you think there is a service involved. I have yet to see what services developers are offering for cutting out the brick-and-mortar's ability to compete for my dollar.
Microsoft isn't going to provide anything. They just want their cut.
Why does the scale matter?
Scale always matters.
It's the same reason there's a difference between simple theft and grand theft.
Is there a large amount of difference between a piece of game software and a piece of word processing software?
Nope.
I lend those to people too, and also see nothing wrong with that.
The difference between renting a home and paying for a licence to use a video game is that if I wanted to I could buy a home instead (assuming I had the money, or the ability to get a mortgage).
Oh, you could totally buy a video game. You'd just have to convince the developer/publisher to give it up, and pay (probably) a ton of money for it. But you'd own it! It would be yours! You could do anything you wanted with it!