Avykins said:Okay so before I start I must explain. I personally hate this shit. I do think MS are just being assholes for locking out memory cards and 3rd party harddrives too.
However. The 360 is their property right? So if they want to lock out shit that others are making for their product should they not legally be able to?
Is Datel paying them a percentage for sales of their items which is clearly designed for MS's product?
Basically what I am saying is that datel is making money only because of the 360. Why should they be able to get away with that without at least having to pay something to MS?
Dirty Apple said:I'll be interested to find out how this turns out. I'm not sure what copyright and IP law says, but you'd think that since its their own proprietary system that they can decide what works with it and what doesn't. Please correct me if my asumption is way off.
MS was sued and lost over including anti-virus and web browsers in its operating system, the argument being that it meant the majority of users never even knew there were alternatives and thus stifling competition. It's been a long-standing tradition on consoles that third-party peripherals and the such like are available and accepted by the market - you don't need a license to put dashboard ornaments in your car or upgrade the tyres just as you shouldn't need a license to produce a better memory card than MS does. With all the cash they have I'm surprised MS hasn't made bigger cards already :/Aura Guardian said:Now if Nintendo did it right, then no more homebrew hackers spoiling my Online gaming.scotth266 said:I'm of two minds here. The first is that monopolies are bad (DUR), but the second is that the code might not have been made strictly for anti-competition purposes: but rather, for some anti-piracy reason.
More info is needed as to the reasons behind the inclusion of the code before I can make any judgments on the matter.
I'm on Microsoft side.
Do savegames affect online play? I doubt it, and even if a minority of gamers are cheating in their games that's no excuse to hit a rival company - I thought that's what the last wave of bans was for. There's basically not enough of a case here to ban a save game storage unit on grounds that it will prevent cheating, especially as I'm sure that it would mostly affect single-player anyway, and who cases how people play a single-player game?
Basically, if MS can loose by reducing competition through bundling its own software with its own OS, then it can loose by actively attacking a competitor's superior hardware. I don't see any valid defence here.