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.TestECull said:
Little bit more cash over the holiday so they can afford the Christmas office party after all.
Kiss Your XBLA Avatar Guns Goodbye
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Little bit more cash over the holiday so they can afford the Christmas office party after all.
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?!DeanoTheGod said:
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.
Unless it's a marketing ploy of some kind... That I can believe.
I completely agree! This REEKS of a money grabbing move. Typical really once you think about it.TestECull said:
And now to prevent low content warning: Merry Christmas everybody! Hope you guys all have great ones!
That is an amazing avatar! I love flutterstare!Caramel Frappe said:
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.
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.
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.
"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"
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.vansau said:
They don't want to be sued.lacktheknack said:
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.
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.)
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.)
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).Not G. Ivingname said:
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.chadachada123 said:
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.
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.
If this is a "think of the children" issue, just make certain avatar items invisible to players with parental controls turned on. Simple.
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...)
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...)
sorry for the double post, but this dumb needed smartening.Kitsuna10060 said:
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."
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!dogstile 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.The_Emperor said:
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.