Kiss Your XBLA Avatar Guns Goodbye

FamoFunk

Dad, I'm in space.
Mar 10, 2010
2,628
0
0
TestECull said:
I think they're doing this to ramp up sales of these things. They know gamers like them, so if they threaten to can them and give gamers some time to buy them, while allowing you to keep them if bought before the first, they'll rake in quite a bit of dosh.



But that's just my own conspiracy theory.
Going with this guy. Before I read the article, I though it would be to protect the children, alas, you can keep them once they're gone.

Little bit more cash over the holiday so they can afford the Christmas office party after all.
 

kasperbbs

New member
Dec 27, 2009
1,855
0
0
Why would anyone pay money for this crap in the first place? Well perhaps it wasnt selling so they thought that making these items unavailable will boost sales.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,338
8,834
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
DeanoTheGod said:
But they are not guns!! To my knowledge they do not have animations of actually firing anything, therefore they cannot be thought of as guns! Just gun shaped items! Its the equivalent of holding a stick and aiming that about!
Now you've done it. Expect a ban on sticks by the end of next year. Someone could point one of those things at you! WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!
 

mb16

make cupcakes not bombs
Sep 14, 2008
692
0
0
so my character is wearing full USMC uniform, and has a mech with guns on for a "pet" yet I can not have a gun because?....


also why ban guns but let us have those monsters from red faction?
 

Gitty101

New member
Jan 22, 2010
960
0
0
Damn it, why would they even consider this? They trying to appeal to the sorts who'd protest about this sort of thing. Well, they're never going to stop, so why bow to any pressure they impose?

Unless it's a marketing ploy of some kind... That I can believe.
 

crazyarms33

New member
Nov 24, 2011
381
0
0
TestECull said:
I think they're doing this to ramp up sales of these things. They know gamers like them, so if they threaten to can them and give gamers some time to buy them, while allowing you to keep them if bought before the first, they'll rake in quite a bit of dosh.

But that's just my own conspiracy theory.
I completely agree! This REEKS of a money grabbing move. Typical really once you think about it.

And now to prevent low content warning: Merry Christmas everybody! Hope you guys all have great ones!
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
Just a cash grab. Like what TestECull said on here, they are doing this to get as much profit from the Avatar guns before 2012. Think about it.. new year, new releases, what's a better way to end 2011? To get all the stuff that was developed sold as some sort of 'Limited time offer' deal.

If they were trying to censor or get rid of guns for good, they would of done so and not allowed Users to keep their guns. However this does irritate me. I've seen a few items I was considering to get that matches my Avatar, so if the weapons are going out.. how will I be able to show off being a Dead Space fan? I can't just have one gun.. I like variety!
That is an amazing avatar! I love flutterstare!

OT: I never really bought avatar items, but I do think that maybe they should of just put an age restriction on them instead of just taking them all away. But I really don't care either way.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
This seems rather silly.

I mean, it's completely decorative, right? Your avatar can't even run around shooting anyone with it, right?

But since I don't have an X-box, and even if I had I wouldn't bother with avatars, I don't particularly care.
 

Jamash

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,641
0
0
It's fortunate that my Avatar's Pimp-Cane Shotgun is officially just a "Flashy Cane"... a "Flashy Cane" that he wields like a gun, gestures menacingly with like it's a club (hitting the end into the palm of his hand) and makes him perform a full on Pimp-Walk.

For an innocuous "Flashy Cane", it's amazingly versatile in the ways it tests Microsoft's "no weapons and no references to pimping" rules.

All Epic need to do is rename the Lancer prop to "Extravagant Tree Felling Device" and it should all be fine.

Actually, if this story is true, then it's not surprising as it was originally Microsoft's policy that there would be no Avatar props that are weapons, at the implied violence probably breaks the 'E for Everyone' ratings for Gamertag and bio content.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0

"From my cold dead hands... you damn dirty apes!"

"Uh, Mister Heston, you get to keep your guns. It's just you can't buy any more, and just for Xbox Live Avatar!"
"oh, well I guess that's not so bad"

"wait, aren't you dead?"
"oh yeah, I guess I am...

...you still can't have my guns"
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
vansau said:
Microsoft has yet to confirm (and explain the rationale behind) this new policy. Still, let's be honest about this: Removing gun-like avatar items sounds ridiculous. They're completely decorative, so it makes absolutely no sense as to why anyone would feel it's necessary to get rid of them.
The funny thing is, Microsoft also automatically bans people from Xbox Live for changing the colors of their avatar to something not "Microsoft Approved". So this doesn't really seem so far-fetched to me.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
lacktheknack said:
If it was a censorship thing, they wouldn't let the users keep the guns post-purchase...
They don't want to be sued.

You have to gain premission from a person who bought a good if they want to be given their money back inexchange for what ever item was sold.
 

Belated

New member
Feb 2, 2011
586
0
0
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't do it myself, but in my opinion, spending money on this stuff is just stupid. There's plenty of free costume pieces to make yourself look neat and snazzy, and there's plenty of stuff you can unlock from beating some of your games. But you're only going to see the avatar for about 1% of the time you're on your Xbox, (unless you have one of those indie games where you play as your avatar) and none of the accessories you can buy actually have any functionality in-game.

So why pay for any of that stuff? Especially when you can save that money to buy more games instead. (And if you're a really rich person who's only buying these accessories because you've already bought all the good games, why aren't you spending that money on poor people?) And military hardware is the worst. Our avatars' heads are so big, helmets just look silly on them, and their muscles are too flimsy to properly fill out any uniform.

Like I said though, maybe I just don't understand it because I don't participate in it. But I do know that my lack of participation is exactly why this news doesn't bother me in the slightest. (Though apparently I do care enough to write a post about why it shouldn't bother you either.)
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
lacktheknack said:
If it was a censorship thing, they wouldn't let the users keep the guns post-purchase...
They don't want to be sued.

You have to gain premission from a person who bought a good if they want to be given their money back inexchange for what ever item was sold.
They can't be sued, though. The latest terms and conditions has a clause where you have to explicitly agree that you will not sue Microsoft or any subsidiaries/partners about Xbox live, nor will you join a class-action lawsuit against the above for an issue with Xbox live. Any disagreements must be settled, if not through mail between you and Microsoft/others, through an arbitrator chosen by the Arbitrator Association of America (for American customers).

It's kinda bullshit, if you ask me, but meh.
 

loch belthadd

New member
Aug 20, 2010
48
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Not G. Ivingname said:
lacktheknack said:
If it was a censorship thing, they wouldn't let the users keep the guns post-purchase...
They don't want to be sued.

You have to gain premission from a person who bought a good if they want to be given their money back inexchange for what ever item was sold.
They can't be sued, though. The latest terms and conditions has a clause where you have to explicitly agree that you will not sue Microsoft or any subsidiaries/partners about Xbox live, nor will you join a class-action lawsuit against the above for an issue with Xbox live. Any disagreements must be settled, if not through mail between you and Microsoft/others, through an arbitrator chosen by the Arbitrator Association of America (for American customers).

It's kinda bullshit, if you ask me, but meh.
But national law guarantees the right to court arbitration. Any agreement that causes you to forfeit a right is null. It's just there to make people think they can't sue. Although I bet they would ban anyone who did sue for it.

Edit- ugh. Never-mind. Apparently it is perfectly legal for them to do that. I think we should all call our *insert highest level representative here* and tell them to make actual laws hold higher priority over agreements.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
So... I'm allowed to dress my avatar up in full military armour, emblazoned with stylised skulls, and have a "pet" which is a parasitic life-form which kills people and crawls into their chest cavity to control their mutated corpses... but I'm not allowed a cartoony pistol?

If this is a "think of the children" issue, just make certain avatar items invisible to players with parental controls turned on. Simple.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
i swear i remember seeing recently that not only was playstation adding guns to their Home thingy (which is your avatar in action) but you'll actually be able to shoot them! and kill stuff!

who are you trying to appeal to microsoft? cause i'm getting real sick of your shit. i was playstation last generation, and i'm damn sure willing to be playstation next generation if you keep fucking things up.

first of all, putting the donkey kong country people in charge of your avatars was retarded. of course they're going to end up stupidly childish... Have you seen their games?!

i offer this alternative:

2 types of avatars. child accounts can only use their Rare avatars and don't get weapons and stuff. adult accounts can CHOOSE to use the Rare avatars WITH guns, or they can choose to create a more realistic (PS Home-like) avatar.

but seriously... who are you trying to impress?

(captcha: rtaitsu Plann- you're right captcha this IS a rtaitsu Plann. and by the way rtaitsu is now a synonym for something pointlessly retarded and Politically Correct at the behest of nobody. seriously, have you even seen people complaining about them? i haven't...)
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
Kitsuna10060 said:
so? its not like the gun dose anything.

the console best known for shooters is banning guns after the 1st, irony XD
sorry for the double post, but this dumb needed smartening.

how is xbox "best known for shooters" more than ANY OTHER CONSOLE? because Halo made the original Xbox? yeah, things have grown since then. and even then, it wasn't known for it's shooters, it was known for its superior graphics, abilities, and online play.

i'd venture to say that playstation and xbox probably have the same amount of shooters. and if you look at the previous generation, i can almost GUARANTEE that playstation has more shooters.

and steam i KNOW has way more.

OMG STEAM IS KNOWN FOR SHOOTERS!

i'm not gonna insult, i'm just gonna say what i say to all people are braining not good: "Shhhhh."
 

twistedheat15

New member
Sep 29, 2010
740
0
0
dogstile said:
I-Protest-I said:
I spent money on my gold GoW gun, what the hell man?
And if you read it, you realise you get to keep it.
Don't you come in here with logic, and common sense! This thread is about ranting, and irony, and subtile system bashing, and blaming the casuals with their damned family gaming!
 

BeerTent

Resident Furry Pimp
May 8, 2011
1,167
0
0
The_Emperor said:
Actually, I can answer this as to why. When we had Microsoft come to our school to essentially market XNA and the XBLA, someone inquired about using avatars in games, and the rules to them.

Please allow me to paraphrase, as it's been a long while. Even though many Xbox games are marketed to "grown-ups." There are still people below the age of 16 that play, and have gold accounts. Microsoft can attempt to control this, but your never going to be able to tell if someone's 23, or 13. (How old am I?)

There is to be no violence, and no aggression from, or against Avatars. Maybe something funny like getting dizzy or falling over would be acceptable, as well, there's no real harm. But anyone who is, or acts below the age of 16 might not overly like their virtual self vomiting, or getting chain-sawed in half, or gibbed to bits. I sort of agree. The Avatars are supposed to be fun, not slaughtered for shits. Because you just know, someone who's 25 is going to take personally, or some parent's going to shit a brick when Virtual Timmy is shot and killed.

TL;DR, Avatars are supposed to be friendly representations of yourself. Not part of any bloodshed, because you know someone's going to take it personally. Guns are just plain associated with bloodshed.