Jimquisition: Xbox One and the Death of Ownership

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
This trend isn't going to change until we remind the corporations that they need us, but we don't need them. And the only way we can do that is by not buying the shit they try to push. We can live without it, but they can't live if we decide we're willing to live without it rather than put up with all this crap. We have absolute power here.

So why aren't we exercising it?

Complacency, probably.
 

frizzlebyte

New member
Oct 20, 2008
641
0
0
My first thought: is Ben Kuchera just gleefully naive, or a moron?

My second thought: Thank God for Jim Sterling. More people need to see this video.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
I have to hand it to Microsoft, I really do. This kind of f***ing up is so terrible that it loops around to becoming a work of genius. Everything they could possibly have done to alienate their fans and potential customers, to f*** up this console and it's reveal they did. It's starting to look like they WANT the Xbox One to fail as this point, like the higher ups at Microsoft all got together and brainstormed the absolute worst kind of console they possibly could. They'd have to market and sell a literal turd as the BEST CONSOLE EVER to do worse at this point.
 

TJC

New member
Aug 28, 2011
398
0
0
frizzlebyte said:
My first thought: is Ben Kuchera just gleefully naive, or a moron?

My second thought: Thank God for Jim Sterling. More people need to see this video.
Seriously, quite a few of his articles have been downright insulting to intelligence or plain boring. I'm not saying Kuchera is a corporate bootlicker... but it feels like he's a terrible columnist and not as sharp-witted as I#d expect from the PA report.

OT: You know what I find disturbing? This feels like an iceberg... in iceberg of shit. And so far, this is only the shit we actually can see but 90% of it is still hidden from sight. So I'm still waiting for microsoft's E3 press conference because I think they still have some ultimate bullshit they haven't shown so far.

On a side note: anyone else noticing that every mention of the xbone feels like an ad for the WiiU?
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
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.
 

00slash00

New member
Dec 29, 2009
2,321
0
0
i guess i should be upset or something, but over the past few years i've done most of my gaming through steam, therefore i don't really own about 90% of the games I paid for, so this is nothing new for me. after their conference, im actually more excited about the xbox one than the ps4. of course that could quickly change. but none of the policies of the xbox one really bother me that much. my only concern was that they werent going to make gaming a priority, but their lineup was fairly impressive so thats no longer a big concern of mine
 

Seracen

New member
Sep 20, 2009
645
0
0
Soooo... this may look more attractive AFTER someone has reverse engineered a jailbreak mod, sort of like what they did on the iPhone.

I really don't need companies getting any more data on me than they have, and I really don't need to pay for better internet than I do, especially in order to accommodate a service I don't care to use (or enjoy using).

I never really liked PSN, but it's better now than XBL has been; so if no DRM on PS4, Sony here I come!

I mean really, where I live, if it threatens to rain, power goes out and internet gets reset; and I'm in a major city! I really don't need to deal with persistent online requirements screwing up my single player experiences.

If the "download to HD" defense is used, why can't MS just institute a disk check? PC's used that for years as an anti-theft device. I won't argue the effectiveness of such tactics, but DRM simply penalizes the honest paying customers.

EDIT: the "anti-robot" checker is hilarious. "IE is great for Win 7?" Isn't MS pushing Win 8? Or have they acknowledged that: a) Chrome is better, and b) nobody wants Win 8...
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Antari said:
I really can't wait to start seeing some numbers on how bad this hurts them.
I'd assume it won't hurt them at all. For all of us who do have a decent understanding of how disgustingly corporate and fairly Orwellian the new console is, there's going to be folks who'll go "Oh, but the new Halo's on that thing! I don't wanna build a PC because it's too fucking complicated (it isn't) but I still wanna play the new CoD! But my sports games! I needs my sports games!"

All will be forgiven, for folks like this.

Seracen said:
Or have they acknowledged that: a) Chrome is better, and b) nobody wants Win 8...
Seeing how the Windows 8.1 update that's slated to hit this summer includes a Start button on the Desktop (basically a Classic Shell rip-off), they've decided to try and placate the masses - which is fairly stupid. Even if I had cash to spend on a new rig, I probably wouldn't invest in a touchscreen monitor.
 

lostlevel

Senior Member
Nov 6, 2008
163
0
21
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

New member
Jun 7, 2013
60
0
0
Edguy said:
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.


theApoc said:
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

New member
Oct 9, 2012
90
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
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

New member
Sep 18, 2011
18
0
0
Pink Apocalypse said:
sadmac said:
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

New member
Nov 15, 2009
1,911
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
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

New member
Mar 17, 2008
64
0
0
sadmac said:
Pink Apocalypse said:
sadmac said:
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

Gullible Dolt
Nov 20, 2007
908
0
0
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.