You know, I'm not worried about used games on the xbox one. Not at all. As it will affect no one. As no one is going to buy an xbox one at this rate.
Jimquisition: Xbox One and the Death of Ownership
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There we go, a conflict of interest. The practice is abhorrent decries the gaming press, yet they have to talk about the games that are on that very system.Urh said:And what would happen to said gaming press if publishers were to pull all their advertising in a show of solidarity to the Xbone?DTWolfwood said:Would be nice to see the gaming press to show a bit of solidarity to the consumer by not covering the system and its exclusives upon release.
Having it die a pitiful death from lack of coverage is the best way to say fuck you to Microsoft and their new xbox.
I'll do my part in not buying the system, but alas me and my kind only make a small percentage of xbox customers.
I can only wish the public catches on and straight up not buy this system!
I wish this was my "fucking ass" (´∀｀~♡ ...I demand more (homo-)erotic content in the Jimquisition!
While I think that your humour and use of foul language is sometimes over the top, I still very much like these openings and ending parts with you most of the time. Just cut a little bit back on the use of the f word? ^^
And keep spreading the good word Jim! Maybe it will enlighten a few stray sheep.
~♡ ...I demand more (homo-)erotic content in the Jimquisition!While I think that your humour and use of foul language is sometimes over the top, I still very much like these openings and ending parts with you most of the time. Just cut a little bit back on the use of the f word? ^^
And keep spreading the good word Jim! Maybe it will enlighten a few stray sheep.
by people thinking "oh it's not that bad". And they go down all the line until they wait in turn to be made to Soylent Green and still thinking "at least the food will be pure with no fucking *insert racist expression here* residuals in it".Justin Smith said:
It's really unsettling how many people silently and willingly accepting things getting worse and so few care about making things better.
and then microsoft launches a 3 part half life episode 3 mega trilogy and crossover with a reboot of poral with collectable capes and flags because in desperation they bought valve.Delcast said:
then where do your loyalties lay?
muhahahahahahaha.
ok, yeah they'd just screw it up and fail but still.
So when is the Miniature Fantasy Willem Dafoe - Belladonna's ***** Fist wedding?
Remember the Nokia Ngage? Well, few do. It was a cell phone gaming device that, unlike the recently flopped Xperia Play (sadness) used little game cards like the DS. Except you had to OPEN UP THE BACK OF THE PHONE AND REMOVE THE BATTERY TO CHANGE THE GAME CARD. When told this was a stupid thing to do, Nokia replied that people don't mind that their SIM card is under the battery.
It's that kind of missing the point. This kind of having focus on other technology and consumer goods that they just don't understand what makes for a good game experience and how to bring it to people.
I can't explain the WiiU, though. Other than Nintendo is Japanese and Japan is, to put it charitably,.... different. I assume they were trying to make a Nintendo smartphone/tablet thing there. But, game systems are rarely as good as their launch titles. And with the early release of the WiiU, well before the other two even announced they had a new game system coming soon, third party developers may have been skittish on making anything for it. And Nintendo has been late with the flagship titles lately. Probably trying to make sure they're good, one would hope.
let's make one thing perfectly clear, Sony and Microsoft are not gaming companies. They are large multimedia conglomerates with relatively small gaming divisions. Never, ever forget that because that is what has informed every boneheaded decision on every console they've ever made.
Remember the Nokia Ngage? Well, few do. It was a cell phone gaming device that, unlike the recently flopped Xperia Play (sadness) used little game cards like the DS. Except you had to OPEN UP THE BACK OF THE PHONE AND REMOVE THE BATTERY TO CHANGE THE GAME CARD. When told this was a stupid thing to do, Nokia replied that people don't mind that their SIM card is under the battery.
It's that kind of missing the point. This kind of having focus on other technology and consumer goods that they just don't understand what makes for a good game experience and how to bring it to people.
I can't explain the WiiU, though. Other than Nintendo is Japanese and Japan is, to put it charitably,.... different. I assume they were trying to make a Nintendo smartphone/tablet thing there. But, game systems are rarely as good as their launch titles. And with the early release of the WiiU, well before the other two even announced they had a new game system coming soon, third party developers may have been skittish on making anything for it. And Nintendo has been late with the flagship titles lately. Probably trying to make sure they're good, one would hope.
So, anybody taking bets on how badly people will react to Microsoft's E3 press conference? Is anyone taking money on the "chasing the business casual spokesmen out of town with pitchforks and shotguns" scenario?
At this point, I highly doubt their console exclusives will save the Xbone. Even if they were planning to offer a new Killer Instinct, I can't picture myself ponying up money for a game system that has more issues than my comic book collection.
At this point, I highly doubt their console exclusives will save the Xbone. Even if they were planning to offer a new Killer Instinct, I can't picture myself ponying up money for a game system that has more issues than my comic book collection.
I think the answer to that question is "Steam to your livingroom TV." I get the feeling that the Steam box is not going to be a groundbreaking new thing. Hardcore Steam users who take advantage of their Big Picture feature no doubt already have a setup that does this from their massive gaming rig. What the Steambox is, then, is just another way for users to use Steam. I get a feeling like it's more of a sideline than a product Valve is focused upon.The Lugz said:
That said, I would be shocked if the launch of the Steam Box did not coincide with the release of Half-Life Episode 3, finally. I doubt if it'll be the pack-in title, though.
I generally like your videos Jim, but you are way off base on this one.
People need to understand one thing. Digital media has no inherent value. Let me repeat that. DIGITAL MEDIA HAS NO INHERENT VALUE. Anything that can be duplicated an infinite amount of times at no additional cost for production can not by its very nature have any true monetary value.
So then, what are we paying for?
Simply put, usage rights. We are paying for the right to use/view a given piece of media content. We do not gain ownership of that content when we buy a piece of media, we are simply given access to it for our entertainment. Can you charge someone to watch a football game? Can you charge someone to listen to someone else's music? Can you charge someone to watch a movie? The answer is no. Theaters, venues, stadiums... They PAY to show movies, play music, hold sporting events, you PAY for the ability to experience the content, you do not gain ownership of that viewing experience just because you were there.
Games are no different. Just because the medium has changed, that does not mean that we have any more or less "ownership" than we did before. Could you have opened an arcade and charged people to play XBOX? Specifically set prices for certain games, consoles, etc? No. You may open an internet cafe and allow people access to machines, but in the end you are selling bandwidth and time, NOT the game in an of itself.
The problem with the upcoming generation is not always being connected(try watching PPV on your DVR without an internet connection and then tell me how ridiculous MS is). The problem is not the limiting of who has the right to resale/redistribution. No.
The real problem with the games industry, the thing that is truly screwing consumers, something you touched on briefly, is the fact that there is no distinction being made between the cost of "ownership" and the cost of obtaining usage rights. Publishers are charging people the same regardless of who ACTUALLY owns that copy of Halo.
However, consider mobile gaming. Games are priced to sell, with a clear understanding of the limitations. Clearly no one expects Angry birds to transfer from their iPhone to a Galaxy? No one worries about buying another copy for their iPad. Why is that? Because it costs $.99, that's why. People do not see it as a purchase, they see it as access. Sure maybe they think the "own" it on their phone. But no one balks at the idea of it being linked to their phone and ONLY their phone.
Why make that assumption about games on a console? The answer is simple. Because we see $60 as a significant investment, thus we perceive that to denote ownership. Unfortunately, we are mistaken, and you know what, if we could get the prices of games more in line with their actual "value", that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Online connection allows for updates, DLC, co-operative gaming, patches, etc. You cannot in good conscience decry the negatives of this type of system without also mentioning the good. Less reliance on hardware, more flexibility in terms of bug fixes.
No, the system is not perfect. Far from it. But the reality is that our expectations of what purchase actually means needs to change, as does our willingness to pay full price for something we are only "renting". The responsibility falls as much on the consume as it does on the game companies.
Consider another point of view...
People need to understand one thing. Digital media has no inherent value. Let me repeat that. DIGITAL MEDIA HAS NO INHERENT VALUE. Anything that can be duplicated an infinite amount of times at no additional cost for production can not by its very nature have any true monetary value.
So then, what are we paying for?
Simply put, usage rights. We are paying for the right to use/view a given piece of media content. We do not gain ownership of that content when we buy a piece of media, we are simply given access to it for our entertainment. Can you charge someone to watch a football game? Can you charge someone to listen to someone else's music? Can you charge someone to watch a movie? The answer is no. Theaters, venues, stadiums... They PAY to show movies, play music, hold sporting events, you PAY for the ability to experience the content, you do not gain ownership of that viewing experience just because you were there.
Games are no different. Just because the medium has changed, that does not mean that we have any more or less "ownership" than we did before. Could you have opened an arcade and charged people to play XBOX? Specifically set prices for certain games, consoles, etc? No. You may open an internet cafe and allow people access to machines, but in the end you are selling bandwidth and time, NOT the game in an of itself.
The problem with the upcoming generation is not always being connected(try watching PPV on your DVR without an internet connection and then tell me how ridiculous MS is). The problem is not the limiting of who has the right to resale/redistribution. No.
The real problem with the games industry, the thing that is truly screwing consumers, something you touched on briefly, is the fact that there is no distinction being made between the cost of "ownership" and the cost of obtaining usage rights. Publishers are charging people the same regardless of who ACTUALLY owns that copy of Halo.
However, consider mobile gaming. Games are priced to sell, with a clear understanding of the limitations. Clearly no one expects Angry birds to transfer from their iPhone to a Galaxy? No one worries about buying another copy for their iPad. Why is that? Because it costs $.99, that's why. People do not see it as a purchase, they see it as access. Sure maybe they think the "own" it on their phone. But no one balks at the idea of it being linked to their phone and ONLY their phone.
Why make that assumption about games on a console? The answer is simple. Because we see $60 as a significant investment, thus we perceive that to denote ownership. Unfortunately, we are mistaken, and you know what, if we could get the prices of games more in line with their actual "value", that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Online connection allows for updates, DLC, co-operative gaming, patches, etc. You cannot in good conscience decry the negatives of this type of system without also mentioning the good. Less reliance on hardware, more flexibility in terms of bug fixes.
No, the system is not perfect. Far from it. But the reality is that our expectations of what purchase actually means needs to change, as does our willingness to pay full price for something we are only "renting". The responsibility falls as much on the consume as it does on the game companies.
Consider another point of view...
So then, anyone who plays a game that they enjoy and you don't must be an idiot? Man, I wish I had that world view, it'd make disagreements with people so much simpler. "*gasp* you prefer chocolate to vanilla? You must be an idiot!", "*gasp*, you prefer historical fiction to bibliographies?! You must be an idiot!" If only I could get planetary bodies to also revolve around me then I'd be all set.canadamus_prime said:
To anyone who enjoys COD, and there are a lot of those people, more than the ones that enjoy pretty much any other game (as far as gamers' wallets indicate), please note that it's also sold on the ps4 which is looking to be a promising system.
On the other hand, people who only play COD have to connect to the internet anyways. So this wouldn't be such a problem for them.
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.
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.