It always annoys me when I hear someone say "people still 'cling' to the idea of ownership". Well the companies are 'clinging' to the idea of keeping our money. They can hold it and refund it after the license on our money is up or until we decide to shut down our money use verification servers.
Xbox One Backlash Was "Unfair," Molyneux Says
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
What occurred was perfect game theory, and Microsoft were stupid to think anything else would happen. It's virtually the definition of Nash Equilibrium. Unfair shouldn't even come into it. Microsoft made not only a terrible decision for it's customers but also a terrible business decision.
Then there's the fact that it clearly wouldn't have worked just like every other always online bullshit. Especially when EA are doing the bloody servers.
Then there's the fact that it clearly wouldn't have worked just like every other always online bullshit. Especially when EA are doing the bloody servers.
This is purely ridiculous drivel he is spouting. Oh Molyneux.
1. Microsoft can still have online services. You do not have to require an internet connection to roll out ANY of these services. If I buy L4D2 and I am not online I can only play the crappy single player with bots. If I want to play the real game, as intended, I have to be online. My computer does not always have to sign into Valve's servers unless I want it to (offline mode works if you know how to use it).
2. People's backlash was very fair. Microsoft's proposal of taking away value from consumers be removing any idea of ownership or resell of games, physical and digital, while offering no services in return was unfair. The backlash and complaints were very fair.
3. Nothing Microsoft proposed was bold and interesting. There is no reason they still can't do game sharing and digital downloads, and all these others services without requiring a once a day internet check. They just need to require you to be signed into their service to access these features.
I really don't understand why people think always online and no reselling of games ties in with any of the stuff Microsoft was proposing. What did they really propose anyway? A game sharing feature with a ton of restrictions? I had read a post that said that feature was going to be limited to 1 hour of gameplay anyway, but who knows b/c Microsoft sure wasn't up front about how that would all work. The prices on the games were all the same. If Microsoft wants to do Steam style sales they can still do it, with digital titles only. Let gamers buy disc or digitally.
Microsoft's problem was they tried to force it on gamers instead of giving them the option and then making the online, digital option the better value. They could have done that and had everything they wanted. Instead they forced the issue, royally pissed off their market and got a well deserved beating in the process.
Don't condescend to us Molyneux. We are not idiots. We know when we are being sold a bill of goods.
1. Microsoft can still have online services. You do not have to require an internet connection to roll out ANY of these services. If I buy L4D2 and I am not online I can only play the crappy single player with bots. If I want to play the real game, as intended, I have to be online. My computer does not always have to sign into Valve's servers unless I want it to (offline mode works if you know how to use it).
2. People's backlash was very fair. Microsoft's proposal of taking away value from consumers be removing any idea of ownership or resell of games, physical and digital, while offering no services in return was unfair. The backlash and complaints were very fair.
3. Nothing Microsoft proposed was bold and interesting. There is no reason they still can't do game sharing and digital downloads, and all these others services without requiring a once a day internet check. They just need to require you to be signed into their service to access these features.
I really don't understand why people think always online and no reselling of games ties in with any of the stuff Microsoft was proposing. What did they really propose anyway? A game sharing feature with a ton of restrictions? I had read a post that said that feature was going to be limited to 1 hour of gameplay anyway, but who knows b/c Microsoft sure wasn't up front about how that would all work. The prices on the games were all the same. If Microsoft wants to do Steam style sales they can still do it, with digital titles only. Let gamers buy disc or digitally.
Microsoft's problem was they tried to force it on gamers instead of giving them the option and then making the online, digital option the better value. They could have done that and had everything they wanted. Instead they forced the issue, royally pissed off their market and got a well deserved beating in the process.
Don't condescend to us Molyneux. We are not idiots. We know when we are being sold a bill of goods.
Except will it be a world where we are forced to always be online or a world where we get to choose when we are online? Will we be online because Microsoft said we have to be online or will be go online because Valve (or any company) offers a compelling reason for us to switch out of offline mode?04whim said:
That is what we are deciding today. Molyneux speaks as if all games will be online driven multiplayer experiences. The numbers prove him wrong, some of our biggest hits today, i.e. Bioshock, Skyrim, etc., are either exclusively single player or primarily single player. Publishers and developers have reported time and time again that even games many would expect to be almost exclusively played online with others, like Demigod, a Moba, are played mostly offline, in single player mode:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/19/only-23-even-attempted-to-play-multiplayer/
There will always be single player games made and released. Always and forever as long as there are games. The distribution methods will definitely become digital only but WE the consumers get to decide how that works.
Molyneux does not differentiate between forced online connections being used as DRM and buying games online. Look at GOG.com. I buy my games there, download them whenever I want, and once I have that installer I can install that game on all my computers, never have to connect to the internet again, unless the game is multiplayer and I WANT to of course.
So the future is definitely online, but WE will decide how we and when we connect.
You're assumption is that you had ownership in the first place.mxfox408 said:
The problem here stems from the fact that for many years ownership was simply assumed to be absolute; when the reality is that you have never 'owned' the Hardware or Software.
In-fact sit down with the EULA that comes with them, they very clearly word that you have a License to use them within the Terms and Conditions you have agreed to by using them. Microsoft are not the only company to do this, and most importantly this practise goes back far longer than the Software or Video Games Market has even been around.
Dig out your old VHS Player, or the original owners manual to the first Microwave you bought.
The main issue here comes with the recent move towards a pure digital ecosystem, which honestly is still in it's infancy right now. This isn't like the shift from Tape > Diskette > CD > DVD > BluRay, but a fundamental shift in the paradigm of ownership itself; even though technically nothing is actually changing with the rights, it is a perceptual change for the consumer, which there is resistance too until they see the benefits for themselves.
The funny thing is people are acting like this is suddenly a new thing, but realistically how many digital games have you purchased via Xbox Live, PlayStation Network or Steam? How many Movies, TV Shows or Music have you bought via iTunes and Zune?
Think about it for a second, are your purchases there any less valuable than owning a physical copy?
Sure it does prevent the whole right of Sale and Resale of Goods, but ironically Microsoft looking at actually providing that functionality to people was met with even more resistance. Likely because they're not yet ready to fully let go of physical media, and it was seen as an Either / Or Choice; not that both of these things could co-exist while people transition.
-|-
We look at the Always Online and Digital Right Management aspects of the new Console next, the reaction people had was while understandable again another 'Torch and Pitchfork' moment due to change; but actually I think this is far more reliant on the fact that peoples experience with DRM in the past has been very clouded, at least in recent years.
Although I would point out that 'Digital Rights Management' is just a rebranding of Copyright Protection with the idea that once you purchase a license to something; DRM provides you with the ability to take it anywhere you want to go without being intrusive.
Problem is how Publishers in recent years have handled it honestly has been incredibly stupid, giving it a bad name.
The concept isn't bad, and actually this isn't the first time Microsoft have implemented it; Bit Locker, which was something added in Windows Vista (XP Service Pack 2) was a DRM-based System actually very similar to Xbox Live for Windows.
It was eventually shutdown simply due to lack of interest from people, but honestly most people I know never even knew it existed or that Microsoft had a Digital Software Store; that was a screw up entirely on the business side of things, which actually is typical Microsoft where they will make something absolutely awesome and amazing; but then never let anyone know it exists.
Zune is an excellent example of this, because while Xbox Music (Zune) has been around since 1997 when it was called Osmosis... it was the first service that was realistically very close to what iTunes is today. Problem was that almost no one even knew it existed. Microsoft re-branded it several times, but it wasn't until the Xbox 360 when really it was the ONLY way to get your Movies and Music on the System; that people knew about it.
This is entirely Microsoft's fault as well because they often weirdly never market their important and innovative technology; instead focusing on aspects of their business that frankly don't bloody matter such-as Bing and Internet Explorer.
So why explain this? Because as I said it isn't the first time Microsoft have done DRM, and in-fact they have been amazingly good at providing it in a way that allows you to take any Licenses you have to any platform; without many of the restrictions you normally associate with the technology. Zune for example works on ANY Mobile Device, not just Microsoft proprietary hardware ... Games for Windows Live, universally reviled by almost everyone; is hated because it isn't Stable on every platform, but the DRM it uses is one that requires a single time code input (unless you bought via GFWL) and then it works anywhere you go regardless of 'server load' (aka Error 37)
It is sadly not praised for something they did get so right most people don't even know it is there, that is how DRM is suppose to work; on the new Xbox One, the "Serial Key" is baked into the disc itself and unique to that disc. Making the process even easier and seamless for legitimate consumers.
We look at the 'Always Online', which was complete horse**** to begin with; because 'Always' is not a requirement, unlike Steam where if a game requires you to always be online to play; well then you have to be. Half-Life 2 for example cannot be played in Offline mode unless you have the pirated version.
On the Xbox One, sure you need to 'check-in' every so often (24hrs was going to be the default, but likely could've been scaled as required) to make sure that licenses were updated when you purchased physical games; that software was up to date; persistent data was kept up to speed; new achievements were added; plus that local DVR of games you recorded could be uploaded to SkyDrive (same with Save Games) so that not online would it free up hard disk space, but also you could have access to them from another Xbox One, Windows PC, Smart Glass Compatible Device, etc...
Would it cut off some peoples ability to always use their console offline, sure; but realistically these are actually more edge cases. We're talking maybe 5% (at most) of the market share for the Xbox 360 right now, and if people understand that this is a requirement from the outset (even though technically it isn't) this does mean they won't be upset losing functionality when you're not online.
I think on the whole the real issue here was with the messaging, which eventually because of the media coverage (which didn't help they were really fuelling the witch hunt fires) was blown completely out of proportion.
It is understandable to see where Microsoft were coming from pushing the Kinect and Always Online aspects as good things, the problem is they never really explained WHY ... what was worse was Media (e.g. IGN, GT, Escapist, etc... all of the big media outlets) all took a single statement and was like "THIS IS THE FACT AND THUS IT SHALL BE!" attitude; when Microsoft had the exact same message of "Kinect will always be on" with the Xbox 360.
Where-as we know the reality is, there is a option to turn it off in the menus or even just disconnect it.
Now that they have gone on-record to say this same functionality is in the Xbox One, problem is people are now going to complain about HAVING to buy one with the Xbox One when the PS4 doesn't have one ... Microsoft has yet to really demonstrate properly why having it is more worthwhile than not.
I guarantee the next few week will be people crying out that they remove it and have a cheaper system, which honestly I hope that Microsoft remain very firm that it will ALWAYS be part of the Boxed SKUs; because having an Always Online Connection, having Kinect Always Available, and all these other aspects available to Developers is a good thing.
This means they don't half-bake support for Kinect because maybe 15-20% of their Audience have it, or even worse focus on full Kinect Only experiences.
What is the benefit of Always Online, compared to Sometimes Online? Despite the fact that every single territory they are retailing in, Internet is AS important to a home now as TV, Phone and Utilities ... well The Dark Souls is a good example of this, where the entire game /can/ be played offline, on your own. Yet the experience is very different online, even though it doesn't have traditional "co-op" or "multiplayer"; just the fact there are people in that world, putting down notes, working as teams, even the simple thing such-as seeing them as ghosts it adds to that world making it feel more alive and active.
The team behind Dark Souls took a gamble that everyone playing would be 'always online' so made it a key component or feature of the game; which is unforgivingly brutal difficulty, but also there is a chance to help or hinder others - this to me vastly improves the atmosphere and allows for a more interesting dynamic within the world it creates.
We can see more of a focus towards this, along with more people paying for Xbox Live Gold; which again might not seem like a big deal, but Microsoft have invested ALOT in greatly expanding the Live Servers; so that Publishers no longer host servers but instead Live does. This means no more "Oh EA shut down Game 2013 so they could release support Game 2014 online", again this is greatly out-weights little inconveniences caused by only having say 24-48hrs offline before you have to 'check-in'; which again is not even close to a big deal as most already are online all the time so they can talk to friends while playing.
-|-
I firmly believe that the core gaming community as a whole, did over-react and never really thought about the implications of their complaints; or how justified these complaints really were.
The ONLY aspect that I was never entirely convinced of that Microsoft were looking to do was the new Game Trading and Used Game License system they were looking to implement; but it isn't to say I was opposed to the idea, as a concept it seemed sound enough .. but I'd like to see how it would work in practise before discussing the benefits or pitfalls, and really it would be a learning experience for Microsoft to work on implementing a full digital resale, rent and trading economy which currently just doesn't exist.
Would their plans (hopefully set to be slowly introduced later) have been the right one? I'm not sure, as I said I was entirely convinced by it; but it was definitely a step in the right direction and no doubt subject to major change over the lifespan of the Xbox One, which likely will be on the market until at least 2020 if not longer. So there is plenty of time to change, refine and revise it.
-|-
Were most of the complaints / concerns really legitimate?
If you want my honest opinion... No, they weren't.
Many who were bringing up these so-called "important issues" that at best were edge cases, often were not the people who actually had these legitimate concerns. I personally can't relate to anyone who is upset about used games, as more often than not I don't buy pre-owned; people don't take care of discs, not to mention I've noticed that I've progressively moved from physical media to Steam and On-Demand where; I can't resale, I can't Trade, once I get a Game that's it... I'm stuck with it.
Is this an idea situation? Of course it isn't, but as no one seems willing to let Microsoft try to at least come up with a solution unfortunately we're going to stuck with that being a simple fact for some time; this is quite sad and incredibly short sighted on the part of the core gamer and media demographic.
No one will say that the messaging wasn't being handled by monkeys with twitter accounts; that goes without saying, but there is a difference between complaining about the messaging and what features mean and simply blanket screaming "MICRO$OFT SUCK CAUSE OF FEATURE X" just to be part of the cool kids. What never ceases to amaze me is how often people harp on about Microsoft being all about the money and not the consumer; when really have you met Apple or Sony before?
Honestly I would suggest to anyone with that attitude, to look back at what each of these companies have done in the past... how they treat their customers. Trust me Microsoft aren't even close to being some big evil corporation who only cares about money.
A middling PC with a tablet/netbook processor that was dictated by cost alone. Then to add the piles of dung MS decided to fling at the user base with their obvious contempt for those that did not share their 'long view' of ripping off customers, forcing a freaking camera and microphone to be on where ever the Xbone was placed be it living room or bedroom and they deserved worse than they received.
At the very least they need to be investigated by the Justice Dept. to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt that the dreaded devices can actually be turned off. They might have even had that phone call or letter as they just reversed their position on it. Maybe the next feature they will announce is a Reverse switch on the front with a big red R for users to vote on whatever latest blunder the Bozos From Redmond have decided to puke out on their customers. My current Xbox 360 has its network cable disconnected as I am not adding my small amount to their ad revenue.
I will never spend that amount of money on a piece of crap, almost PC with massive restrictions that I can outperform with a simple gaming PC costing nearly the same exact amount.
They deserved worse. Much worse. They got off lucky.
At the very least they need to be investigated by the Justice Dept. to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt that the dreaded devices can actually be turned off. They might have even had that phone call or letter as they just reversed their position on it. Maybe the next feature they will announce is a Reverse switch on the front with a big red R for users to vote on whatever latest blunder the Bozos From Redmond have decided to puke out on their customers. My current Xbox 360 has its network cable disconnected as I am not adding my small amount to their ad revenue.
I will never spend that amount of money on a piece of crap, almost PC with massive restrictions that I can outperform with a simple gaming PC costing nearly the same exact amount.
They deserved worse. Much worse. They got off lucky.
Okay maybe the reaction was a little extreme but to be fair most people don't like it when you kick them in the teeth then demand to be paid and thanked for it, and I was willing to give you a break and say well yeah he usually if not always falls short of his promises but he really cares and tries, but nope that's done I'm sorry but I refuse to believe this was even slightly for the betterment of the consumer it was a blatent attempt by microsoft to create a rental service because they wanted to control everything about their new gift to the world, and shockingly everyone who saw this monstrosity said no I'll go and buy your competition because it's cheaper, better and all around less evil.
Oh and it didn't come with a camera or the need to initially buy a separate headset because you decided to change all the ports effectively giving the finger to anyone with a set of nice headphones that were hoping that they wouldn't have to buy new ones, that was nice I enjoyed that little twist of the knife.
But no your right Peter it was unfair I'm sorry for telling a multi-billion dollar corporation to shove it, after all they just want what's best for me!
Oh and it didn't come with a camera or the need to initially buy a separate headset because you decided to change all the ports effectively giving the finger to anyone with a set of nice headphones that were hoping that they wouldn't have to buy new ones, that was nice I enjoyed that little twist of the knife.
But no your right Peter it was unfair I'm sorry for telling a multi-billion dollar corporation to shove it, after all they just want what's best for me!
Here's why; Microsoft (and by extension EA, Activision and Ubisoft) have it ass backwards. We don't want to see innovation or new ideas in consoles. We just want a machine to play our games, where the innovation should be directed.
The backlash isn't unfair, while I do agree that eventually we are going to end up with always online consoles, we're not ready for it, we don't have the infrastructure for it and many counrties don't have fast enough or stable enough internet to support an always on console. That's not the only problem, consumers also had multiple problems with some of the choices Microsoft made for the XBone, including me. I don't like that many multiplayer games so forcing me to play with other people is not going to make me happy.
Oi, Peter! I found your loony pills!! Now, remember, it's one pill three times a day with food.
Oi, Peter! I found your loony pills!! Now, remember, it's one pill three times a day with food.
The way I envisage it working is that the console itself will be more or less always online. Hopefully within the next couple of years we'll be able to get reasonable internet signal to rural areas and have very little experience with internet drop outs, although I'm aware it's impossible to completely be rid of them. So the console will always be on the internet, connected to leaderboards or performing background downloads, but the games themselves can still be single player experiences.Amir Kondori said:
Of course the console should still have an offline mode though. One that doesn't turn your console into an expensive DVD player after 24 hours. After all, not everyone has unlimited internet and so being able to completely disconnect from the internet manually is a must have. And if it would just break Microsoft's heart to not have their precious little check ups, make it monthly or even yearly. Don't turn the console into an expensive drinks coaster after a day. You'll still catch your pirates that way without pissing on your entire fan base.
Some people just need to shut up. Peter Molyneux is one of them. I honestly have nothing more to say on that matter.
Er, not quite true.Leyvin said:
Legally, the customer definitely owns the hardware, but the software is all licensed.
Apart from launching missiles, I can do whatever I damn well please with my PS2 circuitry, no matter what their EULA says (the law trumps any EULA terms where they conflict).
There is no new benefit, apart from continued participation in gaming on that system.
Compared to the status quo, in practical terms, this is a strict downgrade for the consumer.
Yes, but the problem with Always Online is that no matter how much you upsell it, you're ALWAYS going to have the problem of the service potentially failing.
This isn't a problem for games that are designed to function both Online and Offline, i.e., those that give the player choice. The real problem: These companies are trying to get the consumer to DOWNGRADE from a hybrid model to an Only-Online model.
I can understand them wanting to phase out physical brick and mortar media; PC has been doing that ever-increasingly for nearly a decade now. But I don't understand how any of these media giants want me to not only waive offline access to the game after it has been delivered, but waive it with a smile.
I am very tired of seeing this sort of argumentation, because no matter how it is worded, it always boils down to dodging and marginalizing the issue rather than addressing it.
Also, I'm assuming that EA is paying Microsoft for their service in some manner.
I won't claim to know the particulars of MS's Azure network contracting, but I'm guessing based on how other services work, that if EA doesn't pay their bills, the game gets pulled.
Why am I assuming EA pays some fee for hosting? Because I know MS isn't so stupid as to risk "server freeloaders" on their brand new, and quite expensive Azure network.
That said, I doubt EA will ever need to force the matter of planned obsolescence on the market barring complete desperation as the market seems quite willing to do that on their own.
(show of hands; who here is still playing Madden 09'? Nobody? Yeah, that's what I thought.)
This made me giggle, because I remember United States vs Microsoft.
Y'know, that big antitrust suit brought on by Microsoft acting like a big evil corporation who only cared about money?
They've come a long way since then, but let's not pretend for a minute that Microsoft didn't earn that stigma of being the prototypical Big Evil Corporation.
Is he bloody joking?
It deserved the blacklash at release.
DRM, no used games, Kinect required, and fees everywhere?
It deserved the initial backlash.
Right now?
Not so much.
It deserved the blacklash at release.
DRM, no used games, Kinect required, and fees everywhere?
It deserved the initial backlash.
Right now?
Not so much.
The backlash against Microsoft had nothing to do with the "restrictions" of the Xbox One. It was a gut-feeling reaction gamers had to the idea of digitizing games. They want something they can touch, a hard copy they feel they own.
The problem with that reason of course is that physical copies guarantee no ownership or consumer rights whatsoever. Developers can still put whatever DRM or online-passes they want on that disk, and as long as we refuse to fix the loophole that is used games, they are going to. In fact, we've already started to see this development and it's going to get progressively worse during this new generation.
The problem with that reason of course is that physical copies guarantee no ownership or consumer rights whatsoever. Developers can still put whatever DRM or online-passes they want on that disk, and as long as we refuse to fix the loophole that is used games, they are going to. In fact, we've already started to see this development and it's going to get progressively worse during this new generation.
Oh Molyneux,I stopped taking your words seriously a long time ago
I'm so sick and tired of hearing this shit. "It's the future" never was and never will be a valid argument for making any sort of change. Unless you can actually explain to me why your changes are a net positive for me the consumer, stop telling me you were just trying to be ahead of the curve. There is no curve, online is not a new idea, you're just taking something that exists and making it shittier. If the future really is the present only shittier then okay, but don't expect me to not fight it.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing this shit. "It's the future" never was and never will be a valid argument for making any sort of change. Unless you can actually explain to me why your changes are a net positive for me the consumer, stop telling me you were just trying to be ahead of the curve. There is no curve, online is not a new idea, you're just taking something that exists and making it shittier. If the future really is the present only shittier then okay, but don't expect me to not fight it.
BUT why does it have to be mandatory for the so-called 'future' to work. We have optional online stuff now, so forcing everyone and everything to have to be online to work is a downgrade in what we have now.Andy Chalk said:
To be honest, yes, Microsoft was awful at selling their vision, but frankly, the vision wasn't an upgrade to being with. Peter, I normally enjoy you and the things you do, even when they don't work out as well as they do (alas, the days of Bullfrog's greatness are far behind us) but this annoys me coming from you of all people.
A future of reduced customer, developer, and seller freedom is something you should be ashamed of supporting.
I will never ever understand these people. You'd think with all the commotion the Xbone brought to the vocal world net, that they would actually take the time to look at the comments to see what the hell is going on. But no. They come out with a weak ass defense like they have been on some other planet for the last year.
For someone who wants to entertain, they really think little of us.
For someone who wants to entertain, they really think little of us.
Oh yes, so unfair. I mean, they were thinking of the future! And ofcourse, because we're thinking of a lovely utopia in a time still quite far from now, suddenly everyone in the present has an internet connection. And a stable one at that. And suddenly it's become impossible for servers to fail.
Of all the many dumb ideas for the xbone, the always online was the only thing that really pissed me off. The only thing that has the right to demand that is true MMOs, and we all know how goddamn infuriating it is when THOSE don't work for some reason.
Of all the many dumb ideas for the xbone, the always online was the only thing that really pissed me off. The only thing that has the right to demand that is true MMOs, and we all know how goddamn infuriating it is when THOSE don't work for some reason.
It sounds like you're deliberately trying to confuse owning physical copy of products with owning intellectual property. Just because I don't have the rights to the content stored on a VHS tape, that doesn't mean I don't still have full control over what I do with that particular copy I've paid for. I may not be able to legally reproduce the tape or show it publicly, but there's no law saying I can't give it to a friend, or watch it with a bunch of people within my own private residence, or use it any way I see fit otherwise.Leyvin said:
That particular copy is mine, obviously I don't actually own the rights to Star Wars itself, nobody is that naive, but in terms of personal and private use I fully own the movie. The people I bought it from can't dictate what I choose to do with it, which is what Microsoft was trying to change with the XBone
So no, it's not a perceptual change, it's a very real change, because Microsoft was trying to control your ability to use your copy of a product after you've bought it. Not simply to prohibit making illegal copies, but to even share it or use it how you want.
Yes, and those all give you significantly more freedom than the Xbone. To be fair iTunes used to put horrible DRM restrictions on their MP4 downloads so that you couldn't sync the music with any other devices, but they eventually grew a brain and began removing it. You are legally allowed to burn music to a disk and even backup Steam games so I don't see what the issue is.Leyvin said:
You're trying to make it seem like what Microsoft was doing is somehow synonymous with digital content, when there are actually different ways of handling it. Admittedly, physical limitations will always make purely digital content more restrictive than physical copies, but that's why you give people options to choose between the two.
Very arguably so, digital game apps and steam games are often priced so much lower than their physical counterparts. I usually buy games digitally if I can find them for under $15 but get physical copies of games I really like.Leyvin said:
Lol, that's not true. And since I conveniently have HL2 installed right now I figured I'd take a screenshot of me running it with Steam in Offline mode just to demonstrate.Leyvin said:
http://s22.postimg.org/t6gddzq2n/screenshot.png
I haven't tried it with all my games, but I doubt many, if any, would prohibit me from playing them while offline. As far as I'm aware, Steam allows you to stay offline somewhere between 2 weeks and a month depending on the game. This is obviously not perfect either, but it definitely beats a daily connection, and does seem considerably more reasonable considering the games need to be downloaded to begin with and there is no disk they could be run off of.
First of all, representatives of Microsoft themselves said the 24 hour "check-ins" couldn't simply be altered for technical reasons, though they were obviously talking out of their ass since they removed the feature entirely later. But stop pretending like this was all designed just so that our games could be kept up to date and stuff. Nothing you mentioned above has any reason to be MANDATORY; it's all nice window dressing that makes a few things more convenient for the user, nothing more. There's no reason games should cease to function just because you haven't been online for a day, there is no justification for that. I would rather have to play my games without the most recent updates, achievements, etc than have them be COMPLETELY UNPLAYABLE.Leyvin said:
Microsoft wanted users to stay tethered to them at all times, so that there's no risk of people running multiple copies of a games, or using homebrew, or whatever. That's the reason for the daily check-ins, any other justification was just a smokescreen, and Microsoft was willing to throw a percentage of their user base under the bus to ensure that tether wasn't broken.
Microsoft REALLY wanted to blame this on their "messaging" because then it's not an issue that would require them to actually change the product. They didn't want to admit that people took issue with the system for what it truly was because they didn't want to change it, so they blamed it all on their wording and presentation. It's just a ploy that makes them look even more pathetic.Leyvin said:
Microsoft explicitly stated that the Xbox One would require the Kinect to function, you can't blame this on the media. It's only now that Microsoft is actually presenting the ability to turn it off, so stop pretending like this was clearly the case all along when Microsoft themselves explicitly stated otherwise and even defended it.Leyvin said:
I see no reason to force additional hardware onto people, not when the games can function without it as they apparently can now that Microsoft has stated the Kinect is now completely optional. If the Kinect really is a great feature people will buy it, if it isn't then they won't. I see no reason to remove flexibility for the consumer.Leyvin said:
That's not a benefit of always online, it's just a reason always online wouldn't be AS detrimental as it otherwise would be.Leyvin said:
It sounds like Dark Souls is evidence that always online ISN'T necessary, since it made do without it.Leyvin said:
You do realize that your two arguments for always online directly contradict each other right? On one hand you're saying it isn't a big deal because almost everyone is online all the time anyway; but then your saying that it's important that we REQUIRE online connections or else people might not use it. If so many people have internet connections anyway then there's no real need to make them mandatory, vice versa if it's dangerous to give people the option to play offline it means not everyone is using their internet connection.
You can't argue both of these points at the same time.
There's no reason they couldn't have experimented on doing this with just digital downloads while leaving regular physical media alone for people who prefer it that way. Instead they tried to make these enourmous changes the new norm instead of an option.Leyvin said:
If you never buy pre-owned games, well you're probably lying, but if you really don't buy pre-owned games when they're available then you're a fool. I'm sorry but there's really no reason to buy a new copy of a game when used ones are essentially identical and cheaper. Gamestop checks to make sure used games work before reselling them, and if the used copy of the game doesn't work you can take it back to the store to get it replaced or refunded. There shouldn't be any risk to buying used.Leyvin said:
Solution to what? There was nothing to solve.Leyvin said:
Give me a link to the Escapist forum where people said shit like that, please. The people complaining about the Xbox One had legitimate issues with it, pretending like they didn't just shows how ignorant you're being.Leyvin said:
Now you're trying to make this about Microsoft as a whole instead of the Xbox One, and trying to hold up worse examples as if that somehow excuses Microsoft of anything; it doesn't.Leyvin said:
I think people like you who defend anti-consumer ideas are harmful to the industry, really I do. Not speaking up against new policies and ideas that you disagree with frees corporations from feeling like they have any responsibility to the consumer and gives them permission to walk all over us, like they tried to here. Was the reaction to the Xbox One a little overzealous? Maybe. But less of a reaction and Microsoft wouldn't have listened and we'd still be stuck with the same bullshit policies they were originally trying to get away with. Sometimes you need to be loud to be heard.