When the "vocal minority" begins to actually hurt us consumers.

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
People who had the Mako removed from the Space Wizards franchise.
I despise them so.
I miss my space-tank.
 

Ticklefist

New member
Jul 19, 2010
487
0
0
theuprising said:
ticklefist said:
This argument has been shut down all day all over the internet. You just made this thread to tell people they weren't in the majority. They were.
Just shut down all of yall's nonsense. You are in the clear minority, an "echo chamber" according to the article. Goodbye.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/xbox-one-the-mainstream-media-reacts-are-we-the-20-percent/
If you want to shut us down with facts then actually use some. These are just more unpopular opinions which you assume carry more weight since they come from the mainstream media. Well they don't. They're outside opinions.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
theuprising said:
Just shut down all of yall's nonsense. You are in the clear minority, an "echo chamber" according to the article. Goodbye.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/xbox-one-the-mainstream-media-reacts-are-we-the-20-percent/
Ah yes, a short article based entirely on supposition with no hard evidence or sources.
Completely conclusive of nothing but your inability to produce a valid refutation.

"Goodbye" indeed.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
The Xbone thing wasn't a minority thing, as others have said - big corporations, particularly in games, don't listen to any kind of minority. They do what they what, hence the creatively stagnant industry it's become. Proof consumerism and "sales" can't solely drive industry, something the free market fools try to peddle to us.
 

theuprising

New member
Jun 19, 2013
85
0
0
Verlander said:
The Xbone thing wasn't a minority thing, as others have said - big corporations, particularly in games, don't listen to any kind of minority. They do what they what, hence the creatively stagnant industry it's become. Proof consumerism and "sales" can't solely drive industry, something the free market fools try to peddle to us.
The only ppl who cared about always online and family sharing were the hardcore gamers, these are the main ppl it would benefit from it. The general public already likes it regardless, so they were gaining nothing from having the digital features other than future proofing themselves. So they saw no reason to lose out on sales to hardcore gamers.

Something that hardcore gamers hate, and the general public loves, is the Kinect, and thus you don't see it ever coming off regardless of the mass QQ.
 

theuprising

New member
Jun 19, 2013
85
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
theuprising said:
Just shut down all of yall's nonsense. You are in the clear minority, an "echo chamber" according to the article. Goodbye.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/xbox-one-the-mainstream-media-reacts-are-we-the-20-percent/
Ah yes, a short article based entirely on supposition with no hard evidence or sources.
Completely conclusive of nothing but your inability to produce a valid refutation.

"Goodbye" indeed.
So your opinion backed up by literally nothing is valid?
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
theuprising said:
So your opinion backed up by literally nothing is valid?
You can go back and read what my opinion is backed up by, rather than trying to put words into my mouth.

But if you want further evidence, just check out the pre-order numbers following E3...

http://www.ign.com/blogs/koojopanda/2013/08/29/ps4-decimating-the-xbox-one-in-the-us-nearly-double-the-preorder-numbers

...or hell, a few weeks ago.

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/251266/ps4-vs-xbox-one-pre-order-totals-to-august-24th-2013/

Xbone is still lagging pretty far behind, even after a LOT of damage control and Microsoft trying as hard as they can to exaggerate demand to get some momentum rolling.

If it's really just a vocal minority, "echo chamber", it isn't reflected in those numbers.
Like at all.
So please. Do go on with your empty claims and jabs, because so far, you have nothing.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
If it's really just a vocal minority, "echo chamber", it isn't reflected in those numbers.
Like at all.
Nor, it should be pointed out, do those numbers actually support your argument. Cost, for example, could play a key factor for much of the difference. Unless someone goes out and performs a decent poll of those who pre-ordered during that period and then performs a rigorous assessment, all you're doing is engaging in fallacy by assigning meaning. Data, in this case, is just that. As it stands it is simply insufficient to be used to any useful rhetorical effect.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Eclectic Dreck said:
Atmos Duality said:
If it's really just a vocal minority, "echo chamber", it isn't reflected in those numbers.
Like at all.
Nor, it should be pointed out, do those numbers actually support your argument. Cost, for example, could play a key factor for much of the difference. Unless someone goes out and performs a decent poll of those who pre-ordered during that period and then performs a rigorous assessment, all you're doing is engaging in fallacy by assigning meaning. Data, in this case, is just that. As it stands it is simply insufficient to be used to any useful rhetorical effect.
Pre orders for the PS4 outnumbered those of the XBONE,that to me says it was'nt a vocal minority.
I'll spell it out more plainly.

Your argument, in a nutshell, is that the Xbox has sold fewer units than the Playstation - a position backed by data. It should also be noted that the information literally begins and ends with that fact - no poll has been conducted and no statistical analysis of that poll data has been performed that would indicate why there is a difference. Possible factors would include things like:

1) Grievances over the initial policies put forth by Microsoft
2) Preference for the exclusive titles on one platform over the other
3) Cost
4) A broad socio-economic trend (e.g. Xbox owners are less likely to upgrade because they are currently satisfied with their console or Xbox owners are more likely to have transitioned to the PC for gaming)

That list is non-inclusive - that's just off the top of my head.

What you're doing is taking that data - the one that says the playstation 4 is selling better, and assigning a cause (which there is no data to support) - that it is the result of consumer grievances regarding the initial policies put forth by Microsoft. Presumably, your own position is that Microsoft has committed a terrible sin. If that is the case then you are engaging in Confirmation Bias, a rhetorical fallacy (that is, a form of argument that is invalid) wherein you assign meaning to some result based upon your preconceived notion rather than upon the actual information present.

If you are not of the opinion that Microsoft has done wrong then you are still engaging in rhetorical fallacy. In this case there are actually two fallacies you would have run afoul of - the hasty generalization (making a claim for which you do not have any data to support) and the non sequitur (making a claim linking two points without establishing why those two points are linked). Though, in fairness, usually you go with the most specific fallacy and thus this argument is rendered moot by hasty generalization.

Likewise, it should be pointed out, that there does not exist data to make a counter claim to your point. I likewise lack data upon which I can offer coherent argument about whether the reaction to the Xbox-One was the result of a vocal minority or not.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
Games For Windows is their black eye in this. People hate that service. Microsoft wasn't going into this with a clean slate in terms of digital services. They have one and no one likes it. So why should people be excited about a new platform where they hold all the dice? This was compounded my their horrible PR covering the Xbox One. No one knew anything concrete and sources would contradict each other. That just added fuel to the fire. They are the company that charged a 50$ fee for full use of their digital platform on their console when their competitors offered theirs for free. Why should people have trusted Microsoft not to take advantage of the situation? It is supposition to say that they would have copied their mistakes for Games For Windows. It is also supposition to say that they would have turned out a service to rival Steam. The used games angle was largely secondary to the always-online requirement. That burned the bridge before they even started to try to cross it. The always-online requirement, their horrendous PR, and their spotty track record all combined to create a situation where they couldn't win with their current product.
 

TrevHead

New member
Apr 10, 2011
1,458
0
0
GFWL is on it's way out and depending on how many games still work will be the biggest test so far for account based DRM. I have alot of GFWL and fully expect many of them to not work, especially any I have from now defunct developers.
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
When one of my friends heard of Valve's "family sharing" feature, he commented "Great! Why can't EA and Microsoft ever come up with great consumer-friendly features like this!"

And I felt like crying, because I knew inside that this wasn't an isolated case of stupidity, but rather a microcosms for the entire gaming community.
 

porous_shield

New member
Jan 25, 2012
421
0
0
TomWiley said:
When one of my friends heard of Valve's "family sharing" feature, he commented "Great! Why can't EA and Microsoft ever come up with great consumer-friendly features like this!"

And I felt like crying, because I knew inside that this wasn't an isolated case of stupidity, but rather a microcosms for the entire gaming community.
Because Microsoft's sharing plan was tainted with so much other stuff that it was hard to get excited about it. If Valve decided they were going to make users check in once a day and announced that alongside that sharing plan not to many people would be happy about that either, so much so, that they'd probably not even notice they had a spiffy sharing plan to go alongside it.
 

UnnDunn

New member
Aug 15, 2006
237
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
The Xbox One wanted an all-online present and declared war on the traditional sense of ownership of console games. It deserved what it got.
There are a great many problems with this logic...
Amazing post. Hat tip to you sir, one of the precious few posts that actually brings some intelligent analysis to the discussion.

It's too bad few people will even read, much less comprehend your arguments.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
3 mistakes with your logic....

1. You assume we hurt the consumers and that we were the minority, even though I am one of those loyal consumers. This may be true but is purely speculation on your part as the "what if" scenario can never play out.

2. You and all of the Xbox One's defenders (including Microsoft themselves) keep making the same basic mistake: comparing a $500 physical console to a free 1.2MB download on my computer.

3.
Sargonas42 said:
It was ground breaking and a huge step forward for moving towards an all digital model.
This is completely untrue because you can't be all digital and sell me a physical system. To be truly revolutionary and all digital they should have gone forward with GFWL model and worked towards running on other operating systems as well.

Sargonas42 said:
Thoughts?
You also complain about me being vocal. Why weren't you more vocal with your support? Why wasn't Microsoft more vocal with their vision?

You are also looking at one feature (which was its only selling point) and focusing on that. There was a whole slew of other things that were people had legitimate concerns with.

Finally, I will tell you what my issue was with the Xbox One. It had all the shortcomings of both Steam and the 360 and neither of their biggest benefits.
 

Alorxico

New member
Jan 5, 2011
193
0
0
Sargonas42 said:
Thoughts?
You buy a computer. You can connect that computer to the internet to do a number of entertaining and educational things, like read newspaper articles or download funny cat pictures, but you can also use it when it is NOT connect to the internet to write documents, play games and look at funny cat pictures a friend gave you.

Now, a game company that has been making games for the computer suddenly announces that all their games from this point in the future will require a constant internet connection to be played and they will no longer be selling physical copies of the video games, everything must be downloaded from their website. There will be those gamers who have no problem with this, because their computer is ALL READY connected to the internet 24/7 and they have a horrible habit of losing the installation disks of their games.

BUT there will be people who can't connect to the internet all the time or don't like what the game company is doing and so they will choose not to continue buying their games. In this instance, the computer user STILL has a computer that functions, all that they are being denied is the ability to play games from that particular developer. And, for them, there are other companies out there that make games that don't require always-on internet connect and are sold via disk. They can continue to be entertained.

You buy a console and the story changes. A console's main purpose, despite Microsoft and Sony's attempts to make them do other things, is to play games. Consoles leveled the game-playing field with standardized hardware and universal operating systems to limit the bugs and glitches that were caused by thousands of different hardware/software/operating system configurations. Now, anyone who got a console had access to the same games and had the same chance at a quality experience. Consoles made gaming accessible to EVERYONE! But a console that requires always-on internet service actually DENYS gamers that accessibility. It is also denying people who PAID +$400 for the system a chance to USE that system.

According to Microsoft's own press releases, those who did not have a reliable internet connection would not be able to play their games after 24 hours of the last check in, regardless of whether or not they were on their own Xbox One. On an unplugged computer you still have ways to entertain yourself, on an unplugged XBox One you do not. If you don't want people on the internet spying on you while you use your computer, you unplug the Ethernet cable and after 24 hours the computer still works. You don't want people spying on you while you play a video game on the XBox One, you unplug it and after 24 hours you have a glorified paper-weight.

Valve also does not OWN the computer gaming network. It has a nice little corner stall in it, but it is not the only seller of games. And there will be gamers who don't like the new updates, who don't like the family sharing thing and they will leave, they will take their money and go else where; some legal, some questionably legal, some not. There are also a slew of older games that can be played, even without the use of a mod that makes your hard-drive think it is 1989. Computers are backwards compatible, it just may take a little more tweaking on the player's part to get the game going. Consoles, however, are not; not anymore at least.

The reason people got annoyed with Microsoft's "innovation" was that no one wanted them. No one wanted to buy console games digitally. No one wanted a digital sharing system for console games. No one wanted the ability to access their console games at a friend's house on the friend's console. Why? Because consoles are PORTABLE! They are easily taken from one location to another, a feature at the very HEART of console gaming! Until the invention of laptops, it was difficult to take a computer to a friend's house. The innovations Microsoft introduced were not things CONSOLE GAMERS wanted....

...they were the things COMPUTER GAMERS wanted!
 

neppakyo

New member
Apr 3, 2011
238
0
0
Eh, I see some people are still bitching about losing their family sixty minute demo sharing, and the ass reaming DRM.

Some even shouting "FUTURE! DIGITAL! INNOVATION!"

Guess some people like to be roughly screwed from behind with a spiked phallic object.
 

zinho73

New member
Feb 3, 2011
554
0
0
Steam is also reacting to that "vocal minority" too. Digital rights is a issue and Steam has problems with it in Europe (I think it is Germany). Valve is only applying a solution before people start complaining about them too.

They were actually working on something like on those lines for a long time now and my guess is that one of the legal issues with ownership of games may have tipped their hand to a more flexible option.

And note that the word option is paramount here.