Jimquisition: Xbox One and the Death of Ownership

[Expwnent]

Oh God! Those poor knives! I can hear their agony!

 

[lostlevel]

I'm now assuming consoles are doomed and I'm signing up for steam as soon as I find a decent username that isn't taken.

 

[Banzaiman]

Haven't Jim complained enough about the Xbox one now? There's many things that hit the target range of stuff he's against, I get it, but didn't het get that across well enough in the first ten videos?

Feel like I should point out that this is only his second video (for the Jimquisition at least) that discusses the Xbone, though he's done several on other topics that fall into the same vein of anti-consumerism. Still, I understand where you're coming from and it might be a bit of a tired topic, but this console is the boldest step yet towards the kind of market that Microsoft and its cohorts are dreaming of, and, if successful, will probably be the most progressive towards said market. Bold and progressive enough that it's worth bringing up these same tired complaints to spread awareness of this crappy practice.

Just because the medium has changed, that does not mean that we have any more or less "ownership" than we did before.

This quote doesn't do your post justice, but it was very long and this has enough context for me to put forward my point.

I understand and agree with your basic claim, which is that we do not own the games we buy. There is one thing I would like to point out though: if someone buys as disc with a game on it, like game retailing has been done for over the last decade, who owns that disc? Does the developer of the game own it? Does the publisher who paid to make it? Does the retailer because he boughht it from both and then sold it to the consumer? The buyer of the finished product might not own the game and all its licenses, but the buyer owns that specific license of the game and should be able to do with it as they please.

Now the software on that disc can be installed on as many hardware devices as desired, but to run the program the disc itself must be within the device. This means that license can be lent out, given, or sold without anyone being shortchanged; as the person surrenders their license they surrender their access to the content on it because they are no longer able to access it, thus that copy of the game is owned by whoever they sold their license to. So while we do not own the 'games' per say, I would say that we own copies of the games that we should do with as we please.

Of course, digital distribution throws a cinch in that. Physical license keys are replaced with digital license keys, discs with accounts, and new measures need to be put in to be sure that they're not abused. Hence no account sharing, the constant desire to want you to be online for them to make sure you're really you and not your friend borrowing your account do download a game they can then use thereafter. The Xbone is basically Microsoft's flailing attempt at figuring it out, settling on something that works well for em, but then seriously pisses off the customers because they have to jumpt through hoops to enjoy their games - of which I am one just as a side note.

Perhaps I am archaic or naive in my thinking, but then that's what this forum is for, right? I'm sure someone will tackle me with counterpoints soon enough.

 

[Pink Apocalypse]

There has never been a better time to join the glorious pc gaming master race.

An entry level system is $600 and will play games that aren't "top of the line" for 6-10 years.

A "great" system is about 1k and will blow any console out of the water.

Xbox One (500), 2nd controller (50?), Year of mandatory Live (let's not kid ourselves) (50? minimum), a single game you actually want to play (60), probably some proprietary 'optional' (let's not kid ourselves) revised batteries and charger incompatible with what you already own (40), keyboard control pad I can't live without because I'm lame (30), hole-in-your-head extended warranty, tax...

Hey magic 8-Ball, will I spend upwards of $800 for something that imposes draconian measures on my game play and ownership, while replicating things my t.v. and cable box already do, as it adds idiotic features I don't want and never asked for, and NOT feel deep resentment every time I turn it on?

*shake*

'Outlook not so good.'

Hey magic 8-Ball, will I beg tech head guys to tell me what computer to buy six months from now, as well as instructions on how to finally use all the Bethesda mods I've been wanting from afar?

*shake*

'Without A Doubt.'

 

[sadmac]

Getting real sick of Jim talking about corporations needing to put the consumer first. Why does it matter if a corporation is shitty to its consumers? How does it affect you? It's not like you're doing business with them, because surely you wouldn't actually pay someone to treat you this way, right? Right?

The problem with Jim getting upset about EA or Microsoft or whoever is the same as the problem with people who get angry because other people are gay: all of this "corporate abuse" is happening between two consenting parties in the privacy of their own homes. It doesn't involve you unless you not only consent to have it involve you, but CONTINUOUSLY PAY MONEY to be involved.

You need to Google 'False Equivalency'. Because you clearly don't understand the concept, and just made one.

He's upset because it predicates on ignorance. The amount of people that don't understand how profoundly this product will re-conceptualize the fundamental structure of 'ownership' is staggering. And in their ignorance, they will end up supporting a product that will have widespread, negative repercussions in the years to come. This isn't a 'slippery slope' fallacy; it's literary re-writing the concept of ownership.

If any clunky, ill-fitted analogy were to be drawn, it would be on par with the *opposite* of your proposal. It's an attempt by a far-reaching organization to take rights away, prevent them from being codified, or denying they existed in any form to begin with.

They didn't. Property law is arbitrary, and IP law has allowed for this sort of thing for decades. They're exercising their copyright. It doesn't set a legal precedent; the laws are already on the books.

From another angle, you're going to end up not owning your games due to the other end of the phenomena I've cited: just as you don't have to buy games, Microsoft doesn't have to sell them either. They can also rent them, under whatever contract they see fit.

 

[AWAR]

Xbox One and the Death of Ownership

Well, Microsoft went and did it. It took the step publishers have fantasized over for years, and destroyed the concept of videogame ownership.

Watch Video

It just boils down to this Jim: Are you going to buy the Xbone on release date and review its games, effectively promoting the bussiness practices you seem to despise so much or not?

If you really are, then should we call you a hypocrite, a liar or simply naive?

 

[ShadowHamster]

Getting real sick of Jim talking about corporations needing to put the consumer first. Why does it matter if a corporation is shitty to its consumers? How does it affect you? It's not like you're doing business with them, because surely you wouldn't actually pay someone to treat you this way, right? Right?

The problem with Jim getting upset about EA or Microsoft or whoever is the same as the problem with people who get angry because other people are gay: all of this "corporate abuse" is happening between two consenting parties in the privacy of their own homes. It doesn't involve you unless you not only consent to have it involve you, but CONTINUOUSLY PAY MONEY to be involved.

You need to Google 'False Equivalency'. Because you clearly don't understand the concept, and just made one.

He's upset because it predicates on ignorance. The amount of people that don't understand how profoundly this product will re-conceptualize the fundamental structure of 'ownership' is staggering. And in their ignorance, they will end up supporting a product that will have widespread, negative repercussions in the years to come. This isn't a 'slippery slope' fallacy; it's literary re-writing the concept of ownership.

If any clunky, ill-fitted analogy were to be drawn, it would be on par with the *opposite* of your proposal. It's an attempt by a far-reaching organization to take rights away, prevent them from being codified, or denying they existed in any form to begin with.

They didn't. Property law is arbitrary, and IP law has allowed for this sort of thing for decades. They're exercising their copyright. It doesn't set a legal precedent; the laws are already on the books.

From another angle, you're going to end up not owning your games due to the other end of the phenomena I've cited: just as you don't have to buy games, Microsoft doesn't have to sell them either. They can also rent them, under whatever contract they see fit.

If I wanted to, I couldn't possibly find 15 articles on why that law is considered both draconic and archaic. I couldn't discuss how such laws add ridiculous costs on everything from art to education, and I couldn't possibly discuss the very real profit these companies are seeing, or the amount they put in to build things that "entertain" us. I would never bring up how much money is stuck...literally STUCK, not coming back out, just in there...in the hands of people who brutally misuse such laws with loopholes and ever growing extensions on what a copyright means.

I couldn't give you a chart showing how much more reach copyright laws have now, than say...oh...the 90s. Couldn't do any of it, and I don't want to, so there is that.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Thank God for you Jim Sterling, are you a carpenter ? because you're hitting all the nails on the head.
You could say you're nailing it.

 

[Dragonbums]

Nice use of the Sarif Industries promotion when you talked about ownership and control.

I liked that too.

OT: 12 minutes until the hour of reckoning. I have a feeling Jim's next E3 episode will be 90% Microsoft.

Not if Sony takes that opportunity to horrify us. Then Microsoft's blunders can become old news. I find it strange that Sony wouldn't jump on the same bandwagon because their competition, the XBOne, is giving gaming companies what they have been dreaming about for about a decade.

Jim's dismissal of the Wii U is strange to me. It seems to be precisely what he's been wanting for consoles for a long time. Less focused on graphics that make the games expensive, the games you buy are still yours and it included a system of input that can be used to good and that he praised the restraint it was being used with by the early titles. There are few games for it because game developers are pricks who don't want to make games for it.

Honestly, outside of Nintendo centric websites it seems the entire internet is dismissive of the WiiU.
I get it, there aren't many games to go on it, but what you say is correct. Nintendo never treated us like we were potential thieves. They never implemented DRM in games like Pokemon- which is notorious for having a bazillion websites that have ROM hacks of the games before they even release here, they still have a "buy our stuff, get points, get rewards" system.
And yeah, I agree third party devs are being assholes. At this point Nintendo just got a big fuck you from them. Probably because they won't let them implement DRM and online passes on their consoles. Especially EA.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Xbox One and the Death of Ownership

Well, Microsoft went and did it. It took the step publishers have fantasized over for years, and destroyed the concept of videogame ownership.

Watch Video

It just boils down to this Jim: Are you going to buy the Xbone on release date and review its games, effectively promoting the bussiness practices you seem to despise so much or not?

If you really are, then should we call you a hypocrite, a liar or simply naive?

You could call me a game reviewer, since that's my job.

And you, uh, realize reviewing a system isn't the same as promoting it, right? It's not hypocritical to review a product, especially if I go on to criticize the very practices I'm attacking. The ONLY way this would be hypocrisy would be if, when reviewing the system, I praise the very policies I find so disturbing. I don't intend to do that at all, should I end up reviewing the Xbox One.

I realize you're very gleefully looking forward to busting out the "hypocrite" word that so many online people love using, yet so few grasp the meaning of, but you're gonna have to wait patiently like a good little boy until the system's out and I do whatever it is I do.

 

[sadmac]

If I wanted to, I couldn't possibly find 15 articles on why that law is considered both draconic and archaic. I couldn't discuss how such laws add ridiculous costs on everything from art to education, and I couldn't possibly discuss the very real profit these companies are seeing, or the amount they put in to build things that "entertain" us. I would never bring up how much money is stuck...literally STUCK, not coming back out, just in there...in the hands of people who brutally misuse such laws with loopholes and ever growing extensions on what a copyright means.

I couldn't give you a chart showing how much more reach copyright laws have now, than say...oh...the 90s. Couldn't do any of it, and I don't want to, so there is that.

Copyright reform? Sure, where do I sign up? Doesn't make Microsoft wrong, here, though. The law is more or less instructions on how to do business in this space. As I said before, property rights are arbitrary, and we define the practice of business by defining them.

 

[irishda]

I think they could've named this video: Xbox One (props on not using the stupid Xbone moniker at least) and Hyperbole.

Or Billy and the Cloneasaurus. Either way.

 

[Cheeseman Muncher]

Xbox One and the Death of Ownership

Well, Microsoft went and did it. It took the step publishers have fantasized over for years, and destroyed the concept of videogame ownership.

Watch Video

Hey Jim you ever heard of Valve?

Valve is but one choice out of many. If you want an Xbox One, there's only Microsoft's way. No alternative.

Also, Steam offline mode only needs a monthly check-up and they seem to get the fact that digital games should be cheaper than a disc based copy. Good luck hoping for MS to realise that.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or not notice until they buy the XBox and realise all too late their mistake.

Wonder how many of them will willingly slap the cuff on themselves like an episode of Get Smart.

 

[iniudan]

Xbox One and the Death of Ownership

Well, Microsoft went and did it. It took the step publishers have fantasized over for years, and destroyed the concept of videogame ownership.

Watch Video

Hey Jim you ever heard of Valve?

The different is that Valve doesn't have the monopole of the platform they are on, they actually got competition, even if they by far the top dog, so they actually have to offer a good service to keep ahead of the competition.

 

[Chris Slime]

The sad irony is until they come out with a model that includes a screen it will never really do everything. The Wii U is more "one" then the Xbox One is.

Also i don't see why people keep bring up Valve and Steam in this, if nothing else at least Steam itself is completely free and not a $500 investment to get jerked around.

 

[franciscois]

Microsoft delivered some good looking games, avoided the hate topics and by what I've read in many places, turned some former haters to their favor... But fuck Microsoft anyways, not gonna compromise my privacy and personal data, for a shitty system that embodies some of the worst practices in the industry... I already have Facebook and Zuckerberg spying and selling my personal info. [Fuck DRM and used games policy too]

 

[Colt47]

Xbox One and the Death of Ownership

Well, Microsoft went and did it. It took the step publishers have fantasized over for years, and destroyed the concept of videogame ownership.

Watch Video

It just boils down to this Jim: Are you going to buy the Xbone on release date and review its games, effectively promoting the bussiness practices you seem to despise so much or not?

If you really are, then should we call you a hypocrite, a liar or simply naive?

We are calling people who review games hypocritical for having to buy or be supplied the consoles needed to do their job now?

 

[Olas]

I'm starting to think they should have named it the Xbox 9000.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

I remember when I was a kid, me and my friends were constantly going over to each other's houses and bringing our games along with us to play and show off, frequently borrowing and trading games with one another, and sometimes if a friend really liked a game of mine, he'd go out and buy his own copy so he could play it whenever he wanted. Still, the disks were ours to use, trade, sell to each other as we pleased, and in the end we probably ended up buying MORE games because of it. It'll be sad if future generations of kids never get to experience that kind of openness with the hobby due to all these restrictions telling you how you're allowed to play and share your games. As an adult this won't affect me too much, but there are kids out there right now with nothing but meager allowance money to buy with who are really getting screwed over by this.

I kinda hope for the sake of the medium that the Xbox One is a failure.

 

[AWAR]

-snip

First of all, any kind of exposure from your part can be considered promotion. I don't follow you outside of the escapist, but you do seem to have quite a sizable audience that watches your reviews.
The reason I called you a hypocrite, and yes I'm aware of its meaning, is because for the past few weeks all you rave about is how bad Microsoft, EA, Sony et al are screwing us gamers. The way I see it, since you are a game reviewer after all and not a consumer advocate, is that you seem to bite the same hand that feeds you, making a show out of it and being proud of it. In my opinion the best kind of defense against these terrible business practices is ignoring them and moving on to different, less terrible things. Provided of course you want them to stop.
But maybe you are right, I should wait until it's out and you have your way with it before criticizing you. Some negative exposure might do the trick. Maybe. I really doubt it though.