Strazdas said:
I think you should go back and read what microsoft said when they announced it. Spearheading the reasons was DRM aimed against piracy and used games.
None of which are anti-consumer, it was a tit for tat argument in terms of connectivity. Features and benefits vs restrictions. None of which were hidden from the end user.
So Xbox "now downloading" One update mechanism is not intrusive? ha ha ha ha ha. yeah you should really find some better arguments. Actually, you should get better examples too. Apple update mechanism is horrendeous and their control stranglehold is appaling. The day android stopped allowing me to download the items i bought on google play marketplace and install them offline is the day i stopped using it.
Then you are sadly going to get left behind. My point was not solely in regards to how awesome this type of synchronization is, but rather how you have to factor in the good, with the bad when making any assessment. Yeah, some stuff sucks about it, but there are also some really cool benefits that take the average user out of the picture and allows for a more streamlined experience. I like control of my devices as well, and as such I sacrifice some of the upsides to this type of connectivity. But I am not an average user, nor am I blind to the control this gives to the hardware makers. The question becomes, am I willing to accept this in order to utilize the technology? In some cases yes, and in some cases no. Point being, it is what it is, and MS was not devious about this, unlike Sony, by the way, who just kept their mouth shut, claiming they would not impose restrictions on content, neglecting to mention that just like MS, that discretion was left up to the publisher. Meaning in the end, the consumer had no more power, and ultimately less protection from such practices. See MS controlling their eco system, like apple means they get to dictate how publishers interact with consumers, and that is not a bad thing.
But thats the problem right here. Its not part of the device features. its a requirement.
As soon as there is user value beyond the benefits a function has to the creator, it is a feature. Let's say that most people who want XBOX One have a 360. They have accounts, purchases, music, avatar crap, gamerscore, etc. All would require a day one update to sync with the new system, so the ONLY way to save progress as YOU, on either system, would be such an update. Now maybe you could copy to a USB or something, but in the end, maintaining history between devices is not a trivial thing and it will always require some type of synchronization. Day one patch allows for use offline, doesn't mean connecting would not have been necessary without it...
Courts would beg to differ.
No they wouldn't.
http://newleaflegal.com/no-you-dont-own-your-itunes-music/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/digital-media-licensed-not-owned
There is a lot more precedent, but you get the idea.
It was both and so is for any other company that does it.
Sadly, since you don't actually own the content, you are wrong.
So was slavery. Point: just because its part of reality does not mean its good or we should not fight agasint it.
Why? Look, I make music, I sell it on iTunes and Amazon. I like for people to hear what I do and to spread it to their friends. I don't sell enough to care about who does what with the mp3's. But I would care if I heard my song in a commercial, or a movie without my consent. See I don't care about the MP3, or the CD's. Those are to be bought sold and traded ad nausea. But my creative work? Yeah that belongs to me, not the listener, not a re-seller. Me. Consumers are under the false impression that they own this content, trust me, you don't.
That is an opinion, not rooted in fact, simply because it was intended to be used online.
Statstically onlt 1-2% people played backward compatible games on previuos consoles. 100% people played games on them.[footnote]excluding people who bought a machine that was more expensive than market counterparts exclusively to play dvds or watch tv. Those people obviously didn't care about what they were buying[/footnote]
That was not my point. My point was that the patch in and of itself is not "bad" or "good", but rather how you are choosing to perceive it.
Im so glad you are once again calling me stupid. have we gone full circle?
And I am sorry you are so insecure as to take my analysis of your points as calling you stupid. I think you are wrong because you are ignoring the facts to suite your opinions, your intelligence or lack there of has nothing to do with it.
Did you see me complaining about such technological blunders? no, in fact i did quite the opposite. but i guess you are going to write whatever fits your arguments better anyway right?
What i cimplained about are consoles not functioning due to stupid decisions by the company and not due to failure rates that are unavoidable.
Again, you missed the point. The point being, technology is always changing, sometimes to fix errors, sometimes to enhance the experience. They are allowing the console to function BEYOND it's intended and presented use. That is not broken. You may not like the fact that it was intended to be always on-line, but you can't claim that as a flaw just because you don't like it. I mean, you can do that, but it does't validate your point. People know what they are getting and why, that ultimately is all that matters.
