No...it'd be Search for ...Kirk?
If they go back in time to save the whales in the next movie.....Dr. Gillian Taylor: Do you guys like Italian?
Spock: No.
Kirk: Yes.
Spock: No.
Kirk: [at Spock] No, Yes.
Spock: No.
Kirk: Yes, I love Italian...
[looks at Spock]
Kirk: And so do you.
Spock: Yes.
You know you'd watch it.
At its heart sharing is our most basic act of altruism and this is an opportunity to take that freedom back.
Ah, yes. That's why everyone is so upset. Microsoft is getting in the way of their altruism.
Of course.
Back tracking on this thread a bit but I don't think this is a point that was touched upon besides some avoidance. I use Libre Office. Is it illegal if I hand over a copy of that office suite to a friend for his own use?
I don't recall my internet service ever going out for more than 2 hours, but I suppose this must happen to some people.
Mine regularly goes out. It's part of living where I do.
No, but it will require you to connect at least once a day. And if it fails due to internet hiccups or a internet outage you can't play that day.An outage lasting longer than an entire day cannot be described as a "hiccup".
Please tell that to my internet provider who is the only one in town.
I think we're at the point where it's not unreasonable to require someone to have basic broadband internet access in order to enjoy the current generation of digital technology.
I disagree. I know a number of people that still do not have basic broadband internet access.
Scott, "It's not a problem for me" does not equate to "it's not a problem"."It's a problem," does not equate to, "It's a big problem," either.
So, hey, "I'll only be a jerk and purposefully alienate some customers." Because that makes it all better. Because they don't count.
Ah. Makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hour time-limit, thus unable to edit my last post, so... double-post time!
Also RANTY-time. Sorry.
At its heart sharing is our most basic act of altruism and this is an opportunity to take that freedom back.
Ah, yes. That's why everyone is so upset. Microsoft is getting in the way of their altruism.
Of course.
Also, no. This is not why "everyone" is upset. First, not "everyone" is upset. You aren't, for example.
"Everyone" who is upset is upset for a wide variety of reasons, which keep growing (one very solid part of which is that it interferes with altruism), but are widely being dismissed.
The attitudes that often comes with that dismissal (or at least often seems to come with that dismissal) tends to fuel an increase in frustration and thus the feeling of being more upset.
Interfering with the ability to share freely is quite a frustrating thing to do.
But, you know, that's like requiring payment for systems and, since the PnP-RPG industry is very different, it makes sense that the overheads would need to be covered by a console-producer for their expensive console. Okay. Sure.
So instead, let's look at games. In this case, it would be more like requiring everyone who played in one purchased a copy of the AP. Again... this would be a "jerk move" (not to mention unenforceable in Paizo's case). And it would still cost them customers. Why? Because people like to share with their friends. If they aren't able to do that, they'll spend their entertainment money elsewhere.
And none of this violates Paizo's laws, from what I'm aware - no one is copying or redistributing in that way. Instead, Paizo has built up a loyal fanbase and have become one of the - if not the - top gaming company in sales and revenue. Because they give stuff away for free.
But again, I get it. The distribution of video games is different from PnP RPGing. Okay. That still doesn't make the decisions made here valid.
The industry seems to be under the impression that people do not purchase something they can and have already freely acquired. I'm living proof that this is false.
Example: Princess Tutu was - before it was made available for purchase in the U.S. to the best of my knowledge - available for free online. We watched it for free online. We became such a fan that as soon as it was available for purchase in the U.S., we purchased the product, even though we'd seen the whole series. This was, it should be noted, a series I never would have purchased had it not been free online first. Thus, they received money from me that they would not have, had I lacked the ability to see it online for free first. This is not an experience unique to that series. Backyardigans is another example that immediately springs to mind: we received a DVD from a neighbor (not an illegal copy, an actual DVD) as a gift. We are now big fans and looking to own more. This is not a series we'd ever have otherwise pursued.
While I readily admit that my own story is anecdotal, I'm very aware that it's not unique. Based on my own experiences, these policies treat someone who is law abiding where possible (me) as if I'm going to be performing the largest amount of criminal activities possible (mass-distributing to everyone), and that is extremely annoying.
It's needlessly punitive to those who are obedient, and not very effective against those who are not.
Look. I know why these policies are in place. I get the theory behind them. It still feels extremely frustrating and feels like I'm being treated as a criminal, despite being as legal as possible when possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they were treating you as thieves, you'd have the police knocking on your door. So figure out another label for yourself (preferably sans incendiary rhetoric). I suggest "potential customer". You'll find it to be the most accurate.No, they aren't treating us as customers. They are treating us as thieves. If they were treating us as customers, they would show respect. These policies do not do that.Why are we letting corporations treat us like enemies or idiots?You're acting like you're being treated like their enemy, or like you're being treated like idiots. Neither of those things is true, of course - you're being treated as potential customers - but casting this relationship as adversarial probably helps to justify this outrage, doesn't it?
They are treating everyone as a potential thief. Forcing us to jump through hoops to try and protect them from theft. Except no form of DRM has ever been successful at preventing theft, the thieves circumvent the DRM, leaving only legitimate consumers dealing with the hassles.
Non-thief: Go through X steps to prove I'm not a thief.
Thief: download a crack and ignore those steps.
Their efforts are intended to affect thieves, but the only people they do affect are actual customers. So I guess in a way you're right, they aren't treating us like thieves, because the thieves have it better.
Also, have you given up on trying to argue the denial of first sale?
Here's the rub about first sale, it's also what protects companies like Microsoft, Valve, Apple and anyone else who sells something made by someone else. First sale doctrine is what immunizes them from infringement suits in business dealings with other publishers, assuming they follow all the other rules.
People were angry with Amazon over them giving books away as a loss leader to promote their e-book sales, but they couldn't go after Amazon in court, because Amazon had purchased them and was reselling them (for free).
If they want to get around first sale, they need to specify a termination date, clearly and upfront, as to when the license ends and the customer's access to the product ends. That would make it a rental or lease, and not a sale.
Mine regularly goes out. It's part of living where I do.
Please tell that to my internet provider who is the only one in town.
I disagree. I know a number of people that still do not have basic broadband internet access.
So, hey, "I'll only be a jerk and purposefully alienate some customers." Because that makes it all better. Because they don't count.
Ah. Makes sense.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel that it's absolutely reasonable for a company delivering a piece of modern digital technology to design that technology to rely on broadband internet access. We are at the point where high-speed internet access is largely ubiquitous. U.S. broadband penetration for active internet users (and I can't imagine a gaming enthusiast who doesn't qualify) is above 93%. That leaves less than 7% of people in the potential gaming market who do not have broadband internet. Of that 7%, some significant portion (the majority, I'm sure) has no interest in buying a gaming console (qualifying as active internet users but not gaming enthusiasts). In other words, we're probably looking at less than 3% of the potential U.S. market being affected by this (and that's a conservative figure; I'd wager the actual percentage of people actively interested in purchasing a next-gen gaming console who do not have access to broadband internet is 1-2%).
So for those 3%, it's probably a shame. But, at least for the next generation of gaming, they can always purchase a PS4. By the time that hardware is retired in the year 2025 or so, hopefully they will have access to the internet.
And if not, they have the next decade to plan their move to somewhere that gives a quarter of a damn about its modern infrastructure.
I wonder if they're going to make it impossible to delete some data off the Xbox One hard drive, similar to how Capcom stopped people deleting data from Mercenaries, to make selling Xbox One's second hand a dodgy business. If selling a $50 game is such a terrible, terrible thing I can't imagine they're pleased with the idea of people selling on there $400 toy.
I'm very unlikely to get an Xbox One at this point. I just don't see the point, and I don't see it succeeding. Anyone who owns both the PS4 and Xbox One is going to buy games on the PS4, so they can sell them again if they choose. Only exclusives and those people who only bought an Xbox One have a reason to buy stuff for it. I think the whole thing has pretty much handed Sony a win for this generation, unless they do something to spectacularly screw things up.
Plus, I simply can't afford to buy all my games new (or new priced) on one system when I have the choice to buy them new or used on the other. Money alone would force my hand to the PS4, and in this economy I can't believe I'm the only gamer in that situation.
I also think the online once a day thing would work better if the US had the infrastructure to support it. A quick google search suggests that only 65% of Americans have broadband - in the UK, the number who have access is around 85%. But Microsoft have just removed 35% of the us and 15% of the UK as potential customers. In Japan and Korea, where they've made a heavy effort with Boardband, they have 95% of there population wired...so maybe this console is meant to work for them?
It doesn't help that, at least here in the UK, the price of games online is far in excess of the price of a game in the shop. Apparently that might not be the same in the US, according to Mr Betts, but it IS true over here, and since I live here it's going to influence my utter lack of desire to see brick and mortar shops go, since it creates a situation where you need to pay whatever Microsoft has decided is fair.
The simple truth here is; why would you buy a Xbox One? The PS4 will have most of the same games (look at the libraries of the PS3 and 360) and will do everything the Xbox One does...except maybe the TV stuff, but you since you apparently need to either already own a cable box to make it work on the Xbox ONe (and therefore can already watch it) or buy a separate add on I'm not sure how big a draw that's going to be. In return, the PS4 (at least, as it currently stands) will allow you to buy second hand games, expand your hard drive and play without an internet connection. They've even changed the system software so it's easier for developers to make and port games to the PS4.
Can someone tell me how the Xbox One has the advantage, here, because I'm not seeing it. I honestly can't see it doing anything but tanking.
EDIT: A quick note - it appears as though 93% of Americans have access to broadband, but only 65% of them actually use it. I suppose some people might upgrade to broadband just so they can play on a Xbox One...
They are treating everyone as a potential thief. Forcing us to jump through hoops to try and protect them from theft. Except no form of DRM has ever been successful at preventing theft, the thieves circumvent the DRM, leaving only legitimate consumers dealing with the hassles.
Imagine, for a moment, that there were a widely-known (let's say Google-popular), ad-free, completely safe, totally untraceable website where you could click one button and instantly have the software of your choice installed on your computer. That software is utterly DRM free, and everyone knows it. There is exactly zero chance of you being found out if you use any of this software illegally.
Again, imagine that everyone knows this site exists, and everyone knows this site is completely safe. And easier to use than Amazon.
Do you think that the same number of people would illegally download software in this hypothetical scenario as they do in the real world?
See, I think they'd do it more. A lot more. With no attempt made to curtail this activity, and no software implementation of any kind of digital rights management, I think that the only dimension to travel along is that of convenience.
Which brings me to the crux of the issue: DRM is effective at curtailing piracy. It is not effective at stopping piracy completely, but this is not a binary issue.
By the way, the folks at Paizo know this, too.
I wonder if they're going to make it impossible to delete some data off the Xbox One hard drive, similar to how Capcom stopped people deleting data from Mercenaries, to make selling Xbox One's second hand a dodgy business. If selling a $50 game is such a terrible, terrible thing I can't imagine they're pleased with the idea of people selling on there $400 toy.
The concerns regarding the sale of used games do not apply to the sale of used consoles. It's possible the warranty won't transfer, but beyond that I very much doubt that they care.
Can you think of why that is the case?
I'm very unlikely to get an Xbox One at this point. I just don't see the point, and I don't see it succeeding. Anyone who owns both the PS4 and Xbox One is going to buy games on the PS4, so they can sell them again if they choose.
Microsoft has stated publicly that Xbox One owners will be able to resell their used games. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they won't. In fact, apparently they'll be able to sell their game licenses without even leaving the house. So if being able to sell used games is your priority, the Xbox One looks like the better option at this point.
Only exclusives and those people who only bought an Xbox One have a reason to buy stuff for it.
Or people who want Kinect. Or people who are comfortable with Microsoft tiles-based products. Or people who like the idea of an all-in-one media center. Etc.
Also, are you seriously downplaying the draw of exclusives?
I think the whole thing has pretty much handed Sony a win for this generation, unless they do something to spectacularly screw things up.
You haven't even seen any games yet.
I want to reiterate.
You are predicting a victor in the console wars, and you have not seen any of the content that one of those consoles will have.
Plus, I simply can't afford to buy all my games new (or new priced) on one system when I have the choice to buy them new or used on the other. Money alone would force my hand to the PS4, and in this economy I can't believe I'm the only gamer in that situation.
As a number of news/analysis sites have pointed out in the past couple of days, it is expected that if used game transfers are eliminated, they will be replaced with frequent discounted titles. Game publishers recognize that there are people who cannot afford to buy games full price, and they will develop a pricing structure that allows them to take money from those people, too.
I also think the online once a day thing would work better if the US had the infrastructure to support it. A quick google search suggests that only 65% of Americans have broadband - in the UK, the number who have access is around 85%. But Microsoft have just removed 35% of the us and 15% of the UK as potential customers.
Broadband penetration among active internet users is north of 93%. People who don't use the internet are not part of the core audience for an enthusiast console. Microsoft isn't cutting 35% of the country out of their market; the vast majority of those people were never part of their market to begin with.
In Japan and Korea, where they've made a heavy effort with Boardband, they have 95% of there population wired...so maybe this console is meant to work for them?
While Microsoft would certainly love to make headway in the Asian market, they have had a tough time of it. I think they're pretty focused on the domestic market.
It doesn't help that, at least here in the UK, the price of games online is far in excess of the price of a game in the shop. Apparently that might not be the same in the US, according to Mr Betts, but it IS true over here, and since I live here it's going to influence my utter lack of desire to see brick and mortar shops go, since it creates a situation where you need to pay whatever Microsoft has decided is fair.
Yeah, that's really sort of an alien concept here. Amazon and Steam and other digital distribution services are so brutally competitive here that they almost always offer the lowest price possible online. Retail locations tend to sell at higher price points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bought used games for a while, but 2 out of 3 games had frustrating defects and more than a few times I ended up buying the game NIB just so I could finish it.
I don't want to 'share' my hard-earned expensive games with other grown people: buy your own game, moocher! Curious how it plays? Download the demo. No demo? COme over and try it out at my house and you can see how you like the game. Like it? Buy it.
Now that all that's out of the way:
Xbox One: not a ridiculous name, if you paid attention, at all, to the product placement or release video--it's an all-in-one system that essentially does everything except let you write your own games and create PowerPoint shows.
Does the Xbox One finally meet the standard set by the PS3? I think it does, at least in terms of tech. How will it fare against the PS4? I haven't a clue, and am not interested enough to find out. I'm excited for the console of my choice: Xbox; I don't want a PS.
I kinda want both, but only because I'm committed to living the kind of life my 9 year-old self dreamed of one day living.
|
I bought used games for a while, but 2 out of 3 games had frustrating defects and more than a few times I ended up buying the game NIB just so I could finish it.
I don't want to 'share' my hard-earned expensive games with other grown people: buy your own game, moocher! Curious how it plays? Download the demo. No demo? Come over and try it out at my house and you can see how you like the game. Like it? Buy it.
IMHO: A game is not free information or collected public data points: why shouldn't you have to pay for it? If the license indicates that you are buying a game for personal single-purchaser use, then why would you think you should be able to resell it? And without the purchaser needing to remit some form of licensing obligation (like a percentage of the original MSPR)?
Now that all that's out of the way:
Xbox One: not a ridiculous name, if you paid attention, at all, to the product placement or release video--it's an all-in-one system that essentially does everything except let you write your own games and create PowerPoint shows.
Does the Xbox One finally meet the standard set by the PS3? I think it does, at least in terms of tech. How will it fare against the PS4? I haven't a clue, and am not interested enough to find out. I'm excited for the console of my choice: Xbox; I don't want a PS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are treating everyone as a potential thief. Forcing us to jump through hoops to try and protect them from theft. Except no form of DRM has ever been successful at preventing theft, the thieves circumvent the DRM, leaving only legitimate consumers dealing with the hassles.Imagine, for a moment, that there were a widely-known (let's say Google-popular), ad-free, completely safe, totally untraceable website where you could click one button and instantly have the software of your choice installed on your computer. That software is utterly DRM free, and everyone knows it. There is exactly zero chance of you being found out if you use any of this software illegally.
Again, imagine that everyone knows this site exists, and everyone knows this site is completely safe. And easier to use than Amazon.
Do you think that the same number of people would illegally download software in this hypothetical scenario as they do in the real world?
See, I think they'd do it more. A lot more. I think that nearly everyone would do it, in fact. With no attempt made to curtail this activity, and no software implementation of any kind of digital rights management, I think that the only dimension to travel along is that of convenience.
Which brings me to the crux of the issue: DRM is effective at curtailing piracy. It is not effective at stopping piracy completely, but this is not a binary issue.
By the way, the folks at Paizo know this, too.
This is the part of the argument I hate. The mods won't allow me to prove you wrong. Seriously, any attempt to show you proof that such a site exists will get my posts deleted. But the site does exist. Google even tries to direct traffic away from it, but you can still find it extremely easily.
Even though the site exists, Valve, Paizo and Apple all make money through their electronic sales.
I don't have to hypothetically guess that you could be wrong. I know you're wrong, because what you are describing is already possible and it has been for several years. Yet people continue to pay for electronic goods on the internet. I buy things all the time. I could download Paizo's books illegally, but I don't want to. I think they do good work and I don't just want the books, I want to encourage them to make more, so I make sure to give them money for the things I use.
I particularly go for Paizo products too. There are some AEG books I want, but they want to charge me $40 for a PDF. It also helps I don't play their games any more (a coincidence, not causation of my declining to buy), so it's just worth it. Paizo's price point is just right for me.
Every person who has ever bought a PDF from Paizo has proven you wrong. Doubly if they live in Sweden.
|
|
I kinda want both, but only because I'm committed to living the kind of life my 9 year-old self dreamed of one day living.
Ah, yes. This is why my basement looks like a used techyard. My profession after the zombie apocalypse? Used parts dealer. I'll be that guy that can recharge your iPod and repair your Garmin in exchange for a pint of pure water.
This is the part of the argument I hate. The mods won't allow me to prove you wrong. Seriously, any attempt to show you proof that such a site exists will get my posts deleted. But the site does exist.
No, it doesn't. I know what you're thinking of (did you honestly think it would slip my mind?), and it doesn't hit anywhere near the bar.
Every person who has ever bought a PDF from Paizo has proven you wrong.
You realize those PDFs are distributed with some rudimentary DRM, right?
The concerns regarding the sale of used games do not apply to the sale of used consoles. It's possible the warranty won't transfer, but beyond that I very much doubt that they care.
Can you think of why that is the case?
Because most of these consoles take a hit - they cost more to make than they sell them for, to get them out and get games being sold. I understand the theory. But if could force players to pay you to set up a second hand console, the same as the games, you could make money on those, too.
Plus it's the only way to stop people simply selling there console - complete with all those precious games licences - to other people.
Microsoft has stated publicly that Xbox One owners will be able to resell their used games. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they won't. In fact, apparently they'll be able to sell their game licenses without even leaving the house. So if being able to sell used games is your priority, the Xbox One looks like the better option at this point.
True. You sell for the price Microsoft has decided is fair (and I suspect suddenly people will stop thinking GameStop is such a con), and have no choice in what that is. And if you're buying the game, you pay full price anyway.
Since this seems to be entirely based on screwing over the second hand games market, I don't see it working all that well. We are, after all, trusting that Microsoft will be generous buying those games back. I don't see that happening, somehow.
Or people who want Kinect. Or people who are comfortable with Microsoft tiles-based products. Or people who like the idea of an all-in-one media center. Etc.
Also, are you seriously downplaying the draw of exclusives?
It's not an all in one media center any more than the PS4 is. You yourself stated that you probably already need a cable box to make it work, or you have to buy an add-on. The Kinect...is not a big selling point, given how Kinect game sales have gone. And I say that as a Kinect owner and user.
And yes, exclusives are a big draw. But, for me at least, not big enough to be the only reason to buy a console. It helps that I'm not a big action gamer - I don't like Halo, or Gears of War. And frankly can't remember any other Microsoft exclusive titles.
Most games will be available for both machines. The exclusives would be a deciding factor...if the two consoles seemed equal. They currently don't.
You haven't even seen any games yet.
I want to reiterate.
You are predicting a victor in the console wars, and you have not seen any of the content that one of those consoles will have.
Because, if this generation of games is any hint, the majority of major releases not made by either Microsoft or Sony will be available on both (and maybe the WiiU too). It's pretty much a handful of exclusive titles they make in house. There are the occasional one that doesn't go to both, but by and large the games library of the PS3 and 360 are ridiculously similar.
If I'm going to get most of the same games either way, then the console (and it's features) is going to be a deciding factor. Last generation I did get a 360 first, but that was mostly because it was dirt cheap.
Plus, I simply can't afford to buy all my games new (or new priced) on one system when...
Yes, I'm poor. Shocking, I know, but we are still allowed to speak. And, equally shockingly, some of us like to play games. And yes, the loss of second hand games (and the damage it would do to my wallet to buy them all new) is a big factor, one I've mentioned in just about every post I make. Why? Because we're in an economy that's gone to hell. There are a lot of other people who are also gamers who also don't have vast sums of disposable cash. And many of those people are going to take one look at the Xbox One, and it's option to buy it for Microsoft's Price Or Sod Off, and look at the PS4 with a more traditional view of second hand games, and jump straight for the PS4.
It doesn't matter if the One has best library of games, exclusive after exclusive from major games companies they've somehow convinced to make games for them alone if I can't afford the damned games anyway. It WILL have an impact one the One's sales. And, in this economy, I think it'll be a big one.
|
|
@Scott - Now imagine a world where you have choice of a number of products that do more or less the same thing at a similar price point.
All of these things require you to by secondary resources which decline in value to you after personal use (games)
One has a secondary aftermarket for the resources you can sell to and buy from for lesser cost, at no additional fee.
One doesn't.
Which one are you buying?
XBox One seems to be conceding the "Game" market and trying move into the "Entertainment Center" market.
Which is fine, but I don't think it is a market hole they can stake out a sustainable position in. People who just watch TV don't need a console to do that. And people who want the added features of XBox can get them from the cable/satelite/netflix/etc...company without buying an XBox. With the exception of having to use a remote rather than waving your hands around in the air for a substantial upfront cost and 15 dollars a month.
The business model is the classic crack model. We give you the console relatively cheap, because we are going to get all the real money in fees for X-Box live and subscriptions.
I think this is a flawed business model unless you have something people "need".
I'm not seeing anything the X-Box does that other services don't do cheaper and/or free.
I bought used games for a while, but 2 out of 3 games had frustrating defects and more than a few times I ended up buying the game NIB just so I could finish it.I don't want to 'share' my hard-earned expensive games with other grown people: buy your own game, moocher! Curious how it plays? Download the demo. No demo? Come over and try it out at my house and you can see how you like the game. Like it? Buy it.
IMHO: A game is not free information or collected public data points: why shouldn't you have to pay for it? If the license indicates that you are buying a game for personal single-purchaser use, then why would you think you should be able to resale it? And without the purchaser needing to remit some form of licensing obligation (like a percentage of the original MSPR)?
Now that all that's out of the way:
Xbox One: not a ridiculous name, if you paid attention, at all, to the product placement or release video--it's an all-in-one system that essentially does everything except let you write your own games and create PowerPoint shows.
Does the Xbox One finally meet the standard set by the PS3? I think it does, at least in terms of tech. How will it fare against the PS4? I haven't a clue, and am not interested enough to find out. I'm excited for the console of my choice: Xbox; I don't want a PS.
I don't think anyone has argued that the games should be free.
It's a firmly established concept in our legal system called First Sale. It was first recognized in US courts in 1908 and codified into law in 1976.
When I buy something, what I do with it after that point is my business. There are limits, such as making and distributing copies, but the original that I purchased is mine to resell, gift or lend as much and often as I like.
If I own a car, I can do what I want with it.
If I rent a car, I am restricted in its use, because I have to return it in a certain condition.
When I buy a game, there is no termination date on my access to it.
When I rent a game, there is a termination date.
The lack of a termination date tells me that buying a game, even though there is a license involved, is much more akin to buying a car than renting a car. Therefore I have gained first sale rights and can sell, gift, lend the game as I see fit. The license would transfer to the new owner.
When you buy a CD you are legally allowed to make copies of it, because you own it. If you then sell the CD, your copies are now technically illegal, unless you bundle those with the original or destroy them. Selling the copies is also illegal.
I see no reason the same principle shouldn't apply to digital media.
Imagine, for a moment, that there were a widely-known (let's say Google-popular), ad-free, completely safe, totally untraceable website where you could click one button and instantly have the software of your choice installed on your computer. That software is utterly DRM free, and everyone knows it. There is exactly zero chance of you being found out if you use any of this software illegally.
While not "untraceable" there is a site that is safe to use and nobody will know you're using it unless they look for it specifically on your computer/download history. And if someone's doing that you've probably got bigger problems.
Do you think that the same number of people would illegally download software in this hypothetical scenario as they do in the real world?
Yes. Piracy is already easy as pie IRL right now. No hypothetical scenario needed. And yet, companies still make money. Lots of it in fact.
Because people don't generally steal without good reason, even if they won't get caught. For the same reason that people generally don't break other laws even if they won't get caught, they've been indoctrinated from birth to be a good citizen and follow the laws. Not because there are consequences, but because the laws should be followed.
I can see not trusting people, but the fact of the matter is that the very fact that our country still exists and hasn't devolved into anarchy kind of speaks for itself on the willingness of people to follow the law.
Now, I will admit there's a bit of an issue with piracy where people have started to justify it as "not stealing", and that needs to be stamped out. But stamping it out would mostly require it to be inextricably linked to theft again (since it's a virtual object and you're not physically touching something, there's a disconnect) but that should really sort itself out pretty quick once it fully enters the mind of the general public. It's already started to creep in the edges but it's not quite a common thing to talk about ATM.
Simply stopping referring to it as piracy and instead using the words "digital theft" might go a long way towards that but what the f%+$ do I know, eh?
The Kinect...is not a big selling point, given how Kinect game sales have gone. And I say that as a Kinect owner and user.
Kinect game sales have been poor (relatively speaking) because companies are very hesitant to develop titles with significant Kinect integration. This is because the Kinect install-base is necessarily a fraction of the overall 360 install base, and because it is first-generation technology with some serious limitations.
The Xbox One ships with a vastly more powerful Kinect sensor. It will be available to 100% of the Xbox One install base, and it now has the fidelity and versatility to do some absolutely mind-blowing things (did you see that demonstration video?).
It's also easy to dismiss the Kinect's popularity from the perspective of an enthusiast gamer when one of the primary driving forces behind its development was to make console gaming more accessible to people who have not historically played video games. I don't use Kinect for much, but I love me some Dance Central.
Yes. Piracy is already easy as pie IRL right now.
No, it isn't.
It's easy for you. You're familiar with it. You know how it's done. You know what to avoid, you know where to go, you know what to do with it once you've got it.
But that's your perspective. It is not the perspective of someone who does not have the internet savvy or technical know-how to figure out how it works on their own.
The Kinect...is not a big selling point, given how Kinect game sales have gone. And I say that as a Kinect owner and user.Kinect game sales have been poor (relatively speaking) because companies are very hesitant to develop titles with significant Kinect integration. This is because the Kinect install-base is necessarily a fraction of the overall 360 install base, and because it is first-generation technology with some serious limitations.
The Xbox One ships with a vastly more powerful Kinect sensor. It will be available to 100% of the Xbox One install base, and it now has the fidelity and versatility to do some absolutely mind-blowing things (did you see that demonstration video?).
It's also easy to dismiss the Kinect's popularity from the perspective of an enthusiast gamer when one of the primary driving forces behind its development was to make console gaming more accessible to people who have not historically played video games. I don't use Kinect for much, but I love me some Dance Central.
Personally, I'd say the WiiU is cheaper to buy and the Nunchucks are equally accessible to the Kinect. Plus, the damned thing has never worked right. The number of times I've been talking while playing Dead Space 3 or Mass Effect 3 and it's randomly gone off. And playing Fable Heroes has been...frustrating. I like the Kinect, but it's not enough to make me buy a console. If anything, the idea that all games will require the thing makes me shudder a little.
No, it isn't.It's easy for you. You're familiar with it. You know how it's done. You know what to avoid, you know where to go, you know what to do with it once you've got it.
But that's your perspective. It is not the perspective of someone who does not have the internet savvy or technical know-how to figure out how it works on their own.
Someone who doesn't have the internet savvy and technical know-how to search up a website and follow the step-by-step instructions laid out there probably isn't buying games in the first place.
On the Kinect, I like the device.
I do not like the fact that it needs to be plugged in and working for the console to even function. Nothing should rely on an outside thing to function, especially when it's not actually critical to the functioning of the console itself.
Like, my computer. A mouse is very helpful, and it's convenient (just like Kinect voice commands) but if my computer shut down every time my mouse ran out of batteries, or we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, just BROKE, I'd be kinda peeved. Wouldn't you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Piracy is already easy as pie IRL right now.No, it isn't.
It's easy for you. You're familiar with it. You know how it's done. You know what to avoid, you know where to go, you know what to do with it once you've got it.
But that's your perspective. It is not the perspective of someone who does not have the internet savvy or technical know-how to figure out how it works on their own.
I like how when it comes to this you're suddenly an expert on perspective, but when it comes to internet access you refuse to acknowledge anyone else's.
Again, your theory doesn't hold up. I am fully aware and capable of internet piracy (and sea piracy as well!). Why then do I CHOOSE to pay Paizo for their products that I could get for free? Do you have an explanation for why I am such an anomaly to the human condition?
Actual real world data says your theory is wrong. The majority of people prefer to pay for goods and services, rather than steal them. The people who don't tend to engage in criminal behavior in multiple facets of their life.
A foundation that distributes malaria nets in Africa has found greater success when they charge $1 for a net than when they give them away for free. Why would more people want something that costs a dollar, than when it was free? It turns out there is some moderately complex and very predictable psychology going on.
1) people value things with a cost more than things that are free.
2) people are more likely to feel a sense of ownership when something has a cost
3) people like to think of themselves as moral, buying something maintains that, while thievery would need to be rationalized (very possible, but buying something is even easier to rationalize as being moral).
Did you know, you only need to add "?ref=fb" to the base of any NYT article and you completely circumvent their pay wall?
Yet people are still paying for the NYT online service. The NYT has higher rates of payment than online news services with much more secure pay walls.
People donate money to public radio all the time, even though the service is free to everyone who doesn't.
Yes, there are thieves, but right now there is NO DRM available that is 100% secure. It doesn't exist and it will never exist. The moment you allow other people to view your data, it is vulnerable to being copied.
Thieves get around DRM.
Which means the people most likely to be inconvenienced by DRM are legitimate customers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question is why am I going to pay between 400 and 600 dollars for an XBox One if I can pay the same or less for another system that won't try to milk me with fees and subscription costs?
I have a Wii and an Xbox currently. I didn't get a Playstation because those two things take care of all my gaming and entertainment needs.
I am not an XBox live subscriber, because I can get Netflix for no additional charge on my Wii, so why pay 15 dollars a month?
If I were an online gamer, sure. But if I were a gamer, I would be tech savvy enough to be pissed about the DRM and the fact only 14 Games are announced and wonder why pay for the console when Steambox is right around the corner and will meet my needs without the additional costs.
You need to produce a reason I'm dropping that kind of money on something with an additional subscription cost.
So far...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel that it's absolutely reasonable for a company delivering a piece of modern digital technology to design that technology to rely on broadband internet access. We are at the point where high-speed internet access is largely ubiquitous. U.S. broadband penetration for active internet users (and I can't imagine a gaming enthusiast who doesn't qualify) is above 93%. That leaves less than 7% of people in the potential gaming market who do not have broadband internet. Of that 7%, some significant portion (the majority, I'm sure) has no interest in buying a gaming console (qualifying as active internet users but not gaming enthusiasts). In other words, we're probably looking at less than 3% of the potential U.S. market being affected by this (and that's a conservative figure; I'd wager the actual percentage of people actively interested in purchasing a next-gen gaming console who do not have access to broadband internet is 1-2%).
So for those 3%, it's probably a shame. But, at least for the next generation of gaming, they can always purchase a PS4. By the time that hardware is retired in the year 2025 or so, hopefully they will have access to the internet.
And if not, they have the next decade to plan their move to somewhere that gives a quarter of a damn about its modern infrastructure.
It's still a jerk move. This is literally them going, "Hey, we don't want or care about your business." because of elitism.
That's... a jerk move.
I mean, also, blaming people because of where they live? That's also really harsh. It also kind of sounds like I'm "at fault" for living in a place that I can afford and otherwise really enjoy because of the other nice aspects such as good people and pleasant views. :/
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are absolutely free to claim that it is a reasonable business decision for a company to disregard such people. But the last couple lines of your post come across as very dismissive of such people, and putting the blame on them for not having access to the internet. And that is very not cool.
It's also what an a%~!#%! MS employee did on Twitter, and got his ignorant ass fired for it.
Rightfully so.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the "costs money to transfer a game" issue goes, I think it's rather simple. Paying money to move around a game you already payed for *feels* bad. It's not a technicality question of what exactly did you buy, the softwere or a lisence. It's not a question of the legality or motivation, legitimate as it might be, of that descision. It just feels like your'e being cheated.
No other product in the universe requires that you pay money to transfar it to someone else - or at least, not in the entertainment industry. I might have missed something, but Iv'e really never heard of anything like it before. And that also means something - that means that video game companies did well financialy before they came up with this new fee. So why can any single other industry manage without it, but the Xbox one industry cannot?
I buy a book (digital or paper), I can lend it to a fried. I buy a PDF, or a movie, or a miniature, or whatever - I can lend it to a friend. I used to be able to do that with video games.
Now, the people behind this new fee can stand around all say explaining that it makes sense, that it's both needed and justifyed. Wouldn't matter squat, people are NOT going to like this. Are going to feel cheated. Are going to possibly reconsider buying the console, and not even because the issue of lending games is all that relevent for them, just because the concept upsets them and maybe gives them a feeling more bad stuff will follow.
So my argument? this is a bad descision. I don't play consoles, only PC, so I don't have a stake in this discussion, but I know a bad descision when I see one. It's really not a matter of fair or unfair, this new fee is just a horrible buisness descision.
Or, like Yazhee put it, in his own vulgar words( seriously, if vulgarity bothers you don't follow the link), this. (move to 3:08)
|
|
Eventually, and maybe quite soon, physical discs will be a thing of the past: the games you play will either be online or download-only. Certainly then you'll be purchasing a single-use nontransferable license. Employing limited-use measures with current physical transactions of digital content is a correct step in the direction of electron-only purchases.
As to internet connections and connection speeds and bandwidth: if you can't utilize a machine that relies on an internet connection, don't buy one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In these debates, I always find it funny that people hold up certain companies as paragons (ala Steam).
Under Steam's DRM, "Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software" thus you have absolutely no right to transfer or loan the title. You must also connect to the Internet to both check in the title as well as periodically confirm account even in offline mode.
Microsoft is basically applying these same restrictions to a console. Note, I do think these restrictions sux regardless of who does it. I do not see a Steanbox changing Valve's DRM policies one bit. I really like GOG.com because of their stance on this, but they do not have every game I want to play.
If Sony, does not do this on a system wide basis they will have my vote for my primary console even if I can and will most likely buy all three. Console companies normally make money off the software titles not the hardware. Nintendo is an exception on this for the Wii.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm...
If I were to say bad things happen in the ghetto because of socio-economic factors, and was told, "well, don't live in the ghetto" Scott would rip that insensitive person a new pie hole.
This is very interesting.
EDIT: This isn't a gotcha post. I'm not calling Scott a hypocrite or anything. Obviously we're talking about video games, not life basics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing new here. Just another example of so-called acceptable targets. Until someone gets called on it, anyway.
Oddly enough, the reason I may switch to PS4 this generation is the requirement for an active connected Kinect. I spent quite a bit of money on my home entertainment system which includes recessed speakers, a TV mounted above my fireplace, and wiring that allows all my component pieces to be hidden in a closet down the hallway. This works great with the current xbox 360, but I don't like motion sensor games enough to pay to have the wiring added to make the Kinect work. Not to mention that the placement on the mantel might be problematic, and the furniture arrangement for the area isn't conducive to use of motion capture technology. I prefer X Box over Playstation and had it been an optional accessory shipped with the product, I probably would have gone X Box this gen again. Oh well, I have missed Hot Shots Golf since the PS2.
Steam also has a history of strong customer service, and entire business model that depends on the customers believing that not only will they always have access to the games they purchase, but that they will be playable.
And European law and court cases (mentioned earlier in this thread) are forcing Valve to make Steam (and its terms of use) better for everyone.
|
Kinect stuff has some cool possibilities. Scott's right about the hardware; really close to the PS4 from what we know so far. Not too much a fan of how to share games though. yes you can argue that license terms are dictated by the producer of the title, and that's the reason why if it's too restricted I simply won't go for it. For what it's worth, i tend not to buy much in the way of pc games unless it's the only option to get that title.
As it stands now, I'll wait and see. Plenty of backlog on my PS3 so I'll be waiting a year or two at least to see which one I want more =)
|
|
In these debates, I always find it funny that people hold up certain companies as paragons (ala Steam).
Under Steam's DRM, "Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software" thus you have absolutely no right to transfer or loan the title. You must also connect to the Internet to both check in the title as well as periodically confirm account even in offline mode.
Microsoft is basically applying these same restrictions to a console. Note, I do think these restrictions sux regardless of who does it. I do not see a Steanbox changing Valve's DRM policies one bit. I really like GOG.com because of their stance on this, but they do not have every game I want to play.
If Sony, does not do this on a system wide basis they will have my vote for my primary console even if I can and will most likely buy all three. Console companies normally make money off the software titles not the hardware. Nintendo is an exception on this for the Wii.
Steam regularly has sales on some pretty kick ass titles for a fraction of the console game cost. If Microsoft wants to sell me AC 3 for $10 bucks I'll b~&&* less.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring the rest of your post because we've been over that already in the rest of the thread.
As to internet connections and connection speeds and bandwidth: if you can't utilize a machine that relies on an internet connection, don't buy one.
It's always a solid business maneuver to tell people "Don't buy my stuff". That's how you rake in the dough, eh? Whatever small fraction it might be (and I'm not convinced it's a small fraction that has spotty internet service) that's still potential business you've lost if all of said consumers are smart enough to not buy your product. All for a fairly minimal gain, I might add.
|
|
Steam also has a history of strong customer service, and entire business model that depends on the customers believing that not only will they always have access to the games they purchase, but that they will be playable.
Microsoft...not so much.
Okay, so basically because you like Valve, I get to see forced Internet connection and required check in becoming a industry standard practice. Thanks.
In regards, to the European court cases, you do realize Valve is fighting those tooth & nail using some of the most expensive legal experts on Earth?
I... I...
Microsoft gives a 'soft' prediction of over a billion next-gen one consoles sold, including both the PS4 and XB1.
I don't...
O.o
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somebody try to defend this potential addition. I dare you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to internet connections and connection speeds and bandwidth: if you can't utilize a machine that relies on an internet connection, don't buy one.
Others have pointed out how it's a bad idea to purposefully exclude some of your potential buyer-base because, you know, you guarantee that you won't get money from them.
However you're also going to lose other customers because they don't like how you're treating their friends. Or family. Or their fellow gamers. Or <insert any group that they might empathize with here>.
Perhaps some folks like those "other people" that don't have those kinds of speed.
One interesting thing about this is that said empathy doesn't necessarily need be a conscious decision. There's a lot of derision of the XB1 for its design choices by people who have no real worries about covering those aspects. But why? For some, at least, it's because they recognize on some level that treating people with less as if those people were somehow less is, in fact, a bad thing.
Angry Joe's rant about this very thing highlights that idea. ()
In it, he specifically calls out one of the reasons that he's angry is that he no longer has the option of being kind to a friend who doesn't have money.
This goes back to DM_aka_Dudemeister's post linking to the article "losing the freedom to share" and Lord Snow's post about this kind of thing "feeling bad". Many people aren't going to be able to articulate it, aren't going to be able to put a finger on "why" they "feel bad" about this. There are probably multiple reasons why, but this is one of them.
And, yeah, it's a legitimate grievance.
It would be akin to someone telling me that because I've licensed Windows (and pretty much everything on this computer), that allowing a friend (who is substantially less financially stable than us*) to access my computer (because only I've payed all the fees) to get on their email when their computer is down is wrong, and they should also pay the fee that I've already paid. Of course it doesn't work that way, thankfully. But it's similar.
See, here's the thing with charging extra for licensing: it (seems to be) abusing the purpose of licensing.
Licensing, from the myriads of contracts I read about it**, often boils down into two purposes: to make sure that others don't get credit/money for the hard work of the creators, and to protect the creators from stupid actions of the licensee. And, you know, that's pretty cool, really. If I make a nice <insert something here> and someone does something dumb with it, it's nice that they can't sue me for their stupid mistakes. It's a method of lawsuit reduction.
Charging people money for lending their stuff is definitely not a cool use of licensing. It feels like taking a system meant to protect and using it to prey upon.
Like taking steel toed boots and then using them as a method to kick someone harder. Or more closely, demanding that everyone that wears those boots kick others.
Well, okay, yeah, that's really effective, and it does technically work that way, but it's also usually mean and unnecessary.
Thus it "feels" bad... because, on some level, it kind of is.
But anyway, Andrew, rest assured, you're entirely correct: I can't utilize the machine, and thus I won't buy one.
** I'm weird. I read every agreement, contract, licensing, or warranty set in front of me. Thoroughly. Often I'm tired, cranky, and irritable at the end of it because of dumb legal jargon, double talk, and constant referencing of different areas of the document that I've started to forget because of how long they are and my rather advanced state of Attention Deficit Disorder. But I read them fully every time, because, you know, when I sign on something, I've just given my solemn oath that I've done so. Amazingly irritating, really. I hate giving my solemn pledge on those things because it means I actually have to do it. And the "read and understand" ones are even worse. I've unfortunately had to delay a few important things because I've read through a contract and couldn't understand it on one read-through. It's like homework all over again, only more boring and less rewarding when you do a good job, because no one cares, because you're the only one. At least it feels that way. But, you know, I understand why they do it. There are some really persuasive idiots out there. High charisma, low wisdom. Using high intelligence to thwart them is a fairly good ploy, I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somebody try to defend this potential addition. I dare you.
...wow...so If I'm playing a game and a few buddies drop by to hang out as soon as arbitrary person number x enters the view of the sensor my game turns off? Now logically this should be a large number of persons, high enough to fall under the US copyright acts definition of a "Public" performance, but the why do I have a inkling that the actual number would be something like 2-4
Admittedly Microsoft denies actually creating such software for their system. But still the fact that they patented it...that means someone thought to be able to use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somebody try to defend this potential addition. I dare you.
I... I... I don't have an emoticon. How do I do an agape mouth at this?!