New Smashbros Discussion Thread

715 posts in this topic

Posted

Man, and then there's this

tumblr_mog0ntFD4Q1so66eio1_500.png

AND THEN THIS

tumblr_mofwh1gMbS1rg6no0o1_500.jpg

IT WAS ALREADY UNFORGIVABLE HOW MANY TIMES DO WE STOP AND SAY "WELL AT LEAST IT CANT GET ANY WORSE" ONLY FOR IT TO GET SO SO MUCH WORSE

PrimaGaga likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I feel sorry the people who have to manage those support twitter accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So really I was mostly suspicious about all the Xbox One hate because I never really saw sources and it felt like everyone's just getting a hate-high, you could say, and I didn't think a company like Microsoft could screw up that bad; really their main fault was not being clear. The XBO actually sounds alright; good even.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/1g8t5e/lets_clear_up_the_issues_used_games_kinect/

 

So let's all read this and discuss what's up; I think the circle of friends that can play your game sounds awesome and makes sense. Like having roommates across the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The circle of friends thing sounds really cool, and in that regard, they did a pretty terrible job of explaining how that mechanic works. The thing about the new Xbox is that it wants to be a computer, and that would be fine, if it wasn't replacing a really solid console. Console gaming has its drawbacks, but I like it because its a more simple, hasslefree alternative to pc gaming and all the configuring and complications that come with it. 

 

In console gaming, you go buy a game, and then instantly play it.

 

In pc gaming, you check your machine requirements, buy the game, spend hours installing the game, go through all the drm loops, then tweak around with it until you've found the optimal settings. Then, occosiaonally you wil have to deal with bugs and hardware updates and whatever else.

 

So both have their advantages and drawbacks. But I prefer to keep them seperate, and like console gaming for its simplicity.  But the Xbox One doesnt have the hardware that a higher end pc has (not to mention memory, a terrabyte of memory on a pc these days is not very expensive), and doesnt have the advantages and freedom that traditional consoles have. So its basically this machine thats stuck in no-mans land between the two methods gaming, and Microsoft doesnt really know what it wants it to be. So  the whole "Why don't you complain about Steam too?" argument that I have seen surface fails when you consider that Steam is constrictive like the Xbox One, but it is designed for pc gaming, not for console gaming. And I don't necessarily think Steam is the best thing in the world either, for the record, although I do appreciate the deals.

 

If the Xbox One was offered as an enhancement alongside a more traditional Xbox console model, I would think it would be cool. But its a replacement, and I don't find it desirable.

 

Anyways just some random thoughts I had that might spark some further discussion.

Edited by Brodongo (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sahaqiel, stop. Don't do it. Don't start thinking this a "good" thing. Seriously???

 

The disk based game is NOT YOURS. The disk is simply a placeholder for a license. It would be the same as if you bought digitally. Now, I have no problem with buying digitally, but there is so much misinformation here. Your disk is only as good as Microsoft allows it to be. Unlike on your 360, PS3, or the PS4, which have the entire game on the disk. Which allows you to play it offline. Which means you OWN it. Big difference there.

 

You can't rent or loan games. That's a serious step back in consumer rights. Period. You can give a game to a friend, but you can NEVER GET IT BACK.

 

If games were fully on the disk, you would be able to play offline, period. They are not. This is why his solution would not be "better" than what is already happening. You still wouldn't OWN your games, which is a serious problem. The 24 hour check in is, again, a terrible step back in consumer rights. I cannot and will not be subjected to something like that.

 

That's great that you can turn the Kinect functions off. Really great. Unfortunately, you still have to have it plugged in and connected to the console. It's also a basic element in how the console functions, since motion gestures and voice commands are used to jump around the operating systems. Even if you turn all the functions off, it's still connected to the power source and the console, so they could still be watching you, if they so chose. It doesn't solve the privacy problem. It only placates consumers. 

 

The circle of friends/family feature is a really awesome thing. No complaints there, except it limits you to only 10 people. With a disk, I could physically share it an infinite number of times with an infinite number of people, so the process is still worse than what we already have. It's just more convenient, because you don't have to physically hand it off.

 

 

The Xbox One is still a very bad misstep in consumer rights. There's no way around that. If you're willing to give up your rights for more convenience, then, by all means, buy the damn thing. But I'm not willing to sacrifice ownership. We already do that with digital products, and I refuse to allow physical ones to suffer the same fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

has anyone else noticed that steam does everything that the XBO is going to do, but nobody is shitting on them for it? whats up with that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Steam doesn't do *everything* that the One is going to do.

 

You can play most of your games offline (except for a lot of, guess what, Games for Windows Live) and the games are pretty much guaranteed to be backwards compatible with previous OSs, so you won't ever run the risk of losing all your digital licenses (unlike with 360, which won't transfer any games to the One). 

 

On PC, you have plenty of choices and you could go completely DRM free if you wanted. Witcher 2 is a perfect example of an amazing game that you can find DRM free. Humble Bundles are released all the time and you can get awesome Indie games (as well as some higher-quality games) for pennies.

 

Steam also has outrageous sales every single day. When you buy a license for a game for 3.47, it's hard to argue that you didn't get a good deal, especially when you can redownload it as much as you want if you change computers or lose your data.

 

That said, you're right, when you buy games on Steam, it's the same way as buying them on the One. Digitally and you buy a license. That's why I'm so adamant about physical media not going away. How will I know my 1000+ dollar investment will still be mine when the servers shut off? Looking at Microsoft's track record, all of my purchases will be dead and gone. With Steam, I feel a tiny bit more secure, but only because PC gaming isn't going anywhere for a long time, and internet isn't required for most games. Also, both Sony and Nintendo have been better than Microsoft when it comes to backwards compatibility. 

 

Anytime I buy a game on Steam it's usually a secondary copy, though. I try to have multiple copies of all my games. Generally, one physical disk that I bought at the game's launch and one digital copy that I bought for cheap on PSN or Steam. If it's a really good game I might pay full price for the PC version too, like Bioshock Infinite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Steam has a lot of things you can complain about, but this stuff isn't really it.

 

 

(I'd complain about the fact that its download servers made me download Saints Row 3, 2 times, even though it knows I have all the files and it knows they're all fine.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The disk based game is NOT YOURS. The disk is simply a placeholder for a license. It would be the same as if you bought digitally. Now, I have no problem with buying digitally, but there is so much misinformation here. Your disk is only as good as Microsoft allows it to be. Unlike on your 360, PS3, or the PS4, which have the entire game on the disk. Which allows you to play it offline. Which means you OWN it. Big difference there.

 

The XBO discs have the whole game on the disc too. That's how you install it to your hard drive: from the disc. Being able to play the disc alone offline would definitely solve a lot of problems, but I think you're being selective here. Steam and EA Origins are both licensed, if I recall correctly; they can pull your game for any reason without reimbursement.

 

A. License Terms.

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.

 

It's pretty much Steam. In fact, Steam and other software by companies don't let you run the game from just the disc. You have to install it to your hard drive. Then from there, a variety of things could happen, but more often than not, you have to get an authentication code, use it, and the disc becomes essentially useless unless you buy another authentication code. It's not much different than a computer. I bought a copy of Half Life 2 at a garage sale, but I couldn't do anything with it unless I had a code. The disc was useless and there wasn't a point in buying it. (Thankfully it was like 3 dollars) I have to buy a new copy.

 

You can't rent or loan games. That's a serious step back in consumer rights. Period. You can give a game to a friend, but you can NEVER GET IT BACK.

 

Says you can give away the game's full ownership rights exactly once. If you give the game to someone, aren't you pretty much doing that anyway, saying you don't need the game back? The only difference is that that person can't give it to another person. And you just saw that you can loan games, it just uses different methods, and they're supposedly working on rental games. Again, Steam is pretty much the same thing, though I've never heard of lending someone a Steam game.

 

If games were fully on the disk, you would be able to play offline, period. They are not. This is why his solution would not be "better" than what is already happening. You still wouldn't OWN your games, which is a serious problem. The 24 hour check in is, again, a terrible step back in consumer rights. I cannot and will not be subjected to something like that.

 

Well, the check-in wouldn't require a super crazy internet connection, just a small packet of information telling them you're there and all your games are legitimate. This is something they have to do. The problem you have here seems to stem from the fact that you have to install the game to the hard drive. Someone could theoretically lend the game across a large network of people and they would all install the game for free if there weren't countermeasures. Unless you can think of some alternative to that, then this is something that just has to happen. They're blurring the line between PC and console gaming; that's the reason so many people are angry. And honestly, console piracy is probably the least rampant of piracies, so it makes sense that they would do this to find an island of security. You know how out of control PC piracy is. Call them what you want, they're a business. Some think the Wii U's design had clever (and unobtrusive) piracy countermeasures.

 

And like, I think that that kind of consumer mentality is really wrought with entitlement. Game studios spend years and millions (literally millions) of dollars putting out a finished product, and call it what you want it, but that's their software. You don't own their software. They own it. They made it, they worked to the bone for it, it belongs to them, or at least, their company. And their livelihoods are at stake, so they can put as many countermeasures as they want on it. You can own a copy of their software, but nothing says that you paying 60 dollars entitles you to their multimillion dollar product. You never owned the games, no. Just a copy. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just like music or movies. And because businesses big and small can react any way they well please with their software, they can change it. The difference now is that their changes to the software affects your copy, and they can take the copy away from you. It sucks, but again, they have to stay afloat, and it's not any different from Steam. Slightly inconveniencing you and keeping track of something they own doesn't make them evil.

 

That's great that you can turn the Kinect functions off. Really great. Unfortunately, you still have to have it plugged in and connected to the console. It's also a basic element in how the console functions, since motion gestures and voice commands are used to jump around the operating systems. Even if you turn all the functions off, it's still connected to the power source and the console, so they could still be watching you, if they so chose. It doesn't solve the privacy problem. It only placates consumers. 

 

You can turn all those things off, though. And I'm pretty sure you can unplug it right? Correct me if I'm wrong. You can use the controller to navigate the OS just like the 360. With how finicky voice recognition is in general, there's no way they would make it the exclusive navigation option.

 

The circle of friends/family feature is a really awesome thing. No complaints there, except it limits you to only 10 people. With a disk, I could physically share it an infinite number of times with an infinite number of people, so the process is still worse than what we already have. It's just more convenient, because you don't have to physically hand it off.

 

And they can be really far away; you don't have to mail the actual disc and have drama over whether or not it's mailed back. And I think sharing it with infinitely many people is more evil than you're making them out to be. If you did that you would practically be choking the life out of the industry. You could still theoretically do that anyway, just by adding more people to the circle. It's not like each one has a disc; it's a shared copy, and you can share it from anywhere, and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to take the disc back anyway even if someone is playing at the time, since you're the one who owns the license. I'd say that's superior to what we have now.

 

The Xbox One is still a very bad misstep in consumer rights. There's no way around that. If you're willing to give up your rights for more convenience, then, by all means, buy the damn thing. But I'm not willing to sacrifice ownership. We already do that with digital products, and I refuse to allow physical ones to suffer the same fate

 

Ah, see, I should have read this before typing everything. There's a big disjoint in mentalities, and you're not even a fan of digital products. But really, they're not as ball-crushingly horrible as you're making them out to be. Though I would prefer the physical copies anyway, this is still a more convenient action for the company that they've started to take. Maybe then we won't have so many people pirating good games, so that their company is stronger for it and puts out more good games. Their power might be misused at some point, but that'll be by a per-company basis; Microsoft's just allowing them to make those decisions with more tangible results. You're not entitled to their software. That's pretty much all I have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh, neat. I noticed the round edges on Wii U discs and appreciated touching them. I think people "hack" their consoles with a USB stick, though. And the only disc that you could use to change the Wii was Twilight Princess, I believe. So idk if it prevent piracy. It may prevent a certain type of piracy.

Sahaqiel and SilverAlchemic like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Haha oh god we're back to entitled gamers discussion yeah that's my cue to leave before it just turns into shit-flinging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Please read the whole post before replying, Saha.

 

 

It's pretty much Steam. In fact, Steam and other software by companies don't let you run the game from just the disc. You have to install it to your hard drive. Then from there, a variety of things could happen, but more often than not, you have to get an authentication code, use it, and the disc becomes essentially useless unless you buy another authentication code. It's not much different than a computer. I bought a copy of Half Life 2 at a garage sale, but I couldn't do anything with it unless I had a code. The disc was useless and there wasn't a point in buying it. (Thankfully it was like 3 dollars) I have to buy a new copy.

 

Computers can do a lot more than a console. Like I said before, you can go all DRM-free if you choose to. You can't do that on Xbox One. And, for that matter, what's the point in paying for a console if the entire premise is less convenient than a PC? Might as well just buy/build a 500 dollar PC (or spend around 800 and have better looking games than the Xbox One) and have more freedom and choice. The graphics would be about the same or better for a PC, too, if you were to build your own.

 

 

 

Says you can give away the game's full ownership rights exactly once. If you give the game to someone, aren't you pretty much doing that anyway, saying you don't need the game back? The only difference is that that person can't give it to another person. And you just saw that you can loan games, it just uses different methods, and they're supposedly working on rental games. Again, Steam is pretty much the same thing, though I've never heard of lending someone a Steam game.

 

 

Why are you comparing this to Steam so much? Yes, they have very similar policies. I even said I don't agree with Steam's policies either, or our rights for digital products. I simply said that Steam makes it hard to be upset since they have such crazy sales all the time. Is a game worth $3.95? Is the license worth that? I think the latter is more in line with what they believe. Of course, with Steam, it doesn't matter if you pay $3.95 or $65 dollars. It's a license all the same, which should be differentiated.

 

A good policy, I think, would be to sell the full game DRM free for a high price (say, 65-100 dollars) and sell a license of the game for a very cheap price (say, 5-30 dollars). That way, consumers at least have a choice in whether they want to own the game or not. As it is right now, the laws and rights are very confusing and undetermined. 

 

 

 

 

Well, the check-in wouldn't require a super crazy internet connection, just a small packet of information telling them you're there and all your games are legitimate. This is something they have to do. The problem you have here seems to stem from the fact that you have to install the game to the hard drive. Someone could theoretically lend the game across a large network of people and they would all install the game for free if there weren't countermeasures. Unless you can think of some alternative to that, then this is something that just has to happen. They're blurring the line between PC and console gaming; that's the reason so many people are angry. And honestly, console piracy is probably the least rampant of piracies, so it makes sense that they would do this to find an island of security. You know how out of control PC piracy is. Call them what you want, they're a business. Some think the Wii U's design had clever (and unobtrusive) piracy countermeasures.

 

 

It's the fact that it requires a connection at all that's the problem, Saha. Small or not. It sets a horrible precedent. We're willing to give up access to our games so that they can feel more secure. Their security is not my problem. I pay for my games legitimately. I've always been a legitimate customer. I've never even torrented music. Their bullshit DRM policies to stop pirates should NEVER impact me. This is a business transaction and they're being really scummy. So why should I give a damn about their security? That's their responsibility, and they need to find a way to combat piracy AND not impact their paying customers. CD Project Red is the perfect example of a developer that knows how to treat their customers right. I've bought The Witcher 2 like 5 different times just to support them more. On the flip side, I really wanted to play Sim City...but you might have heard how well that went down? Yeah, puppy that. If I pay 65 or, really, any amount of money for a product, I expect the product to at least work.

 

 

 

 

And like, I think that that kind of consumer mentality is really wrought with entitlement. Game studios spend years and millions (literally millions) of dollars putting out a finished product, and call it what you want it, but that's their software. You don't own their software. They own it. They made it, they worked to the bone for it, it belongs to them, or at least, their company. And their livelihoods are at stake, so they can put as many countermeasures as they want on it. You can own a copy of their software, but nothing says that you paying 60 dollars entitles you to their multimillion dollar product. You never owned the games, no. Just a copy. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just like music or movies. And because businesses big and small can react any way they well please with their software, they can change it. The difference now is that their changes to the software affects your copy, and they can take the copy away from you. It sucks, but again, they have to stay afloat, and it's not any different from Steam. Slightly inconveniencing you and keeping track of something they own doesn't make them evil.

 

 

That's their software, fine. But they choose to make it. They choose to risk millions on a product that is completely subjective. One person may think Pokemon rocks, another may think it sucks. Both are right, because it's entirely based on opinion. They also choose to sell that product. Now, that's fine. But it's only as valuable as I determine it to be. I'm the consumer. What I say, and what my wallet says, goes. If I don't like the product, I don't HAVE to buy it. So puppy off with your entitlement. They aren't entitled to my money any more than I'm entitled to their game. Fair enough? Now, if they're going to blame piracy and, more recently, used games, I'm gonna call bullshit. It's my rights they're stepping on, so the balls in their court to produce proof that used games negatively affect their sales. The entire premise of a "used" product means that someone bought the product at one time. So, if you ship 5 million games, and 2.5 million people buy that game new, then 1.4 people buy the game used, you did not lose 1.4 million sales. Those games had already been sold and bought for full new game price. Here's an idea: Maybe you shouldn't ship 5 milliion copies? Instead, ship as demand increases. And why are big name games like Tomb Raider considered failures? I'm sorry, but if your game sells 3.4 million copies in the first WEEK and that's considered a failure, your entire business model is puppyed up. Maybe don't spend as much making the game, or spend as much marketing it? There are plenty of modest Indie developers that have sold much less (say, 200,000 copies) and have come out with a shit ton of money, despite BOTH used games and piracy. So maybe take a hint from their model?

 

You don't have to spend millions making a game. And the companies that don't realize this (like THQ) are going to crash and burn. Hard. I say good riddance. Change with the times. Don't force your customers into stupid DRM that hurts them. Instead, change your business to allow you to make money again. Their livelihood is not my problem. I will pay what I want to pay for their product, because I can live without their product. They can't live without my money. 

 

 

 

You can turn all those things off, though. And I'm pretty sure you can unplug it right? Correct me if I'm wrong. You can use the controller to navigate the OS just like the 360. With how finicky voice recognition is in general, there's no way they would make it the exclusive navigation option.

 

You're wrong. It has to stay connected and plugged in. So it will be "off" technically speaking, but they could still peer through it if they were evil enough to do so. And I don't trust any company to not be evil enough to do so, especially a company that's in bed with the NSA.

 

 

 

And they can be really far away; you don't have to mail the actual disc and have drama over whether or not it's mailed back. And I think sharing it with infinitely many people is more evil than you're making them out to be. If you did that you would practically be choking the life out of the industry. You could still theoretically do that anyway, just by adding more people to the circle. It's not like each one has a disc; it's a shared copy, and you can share it from anywhere, and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to take the disc back anyway even if someone is playing at the time, since you're the one who owns the license. I'd say that's superior to what we have now.

 

 

I don't own the license. They can revoke it at any time without warning and without cause according to the EULA. Same for Steam or Origin or any download service of similar ilk. That's just sick and wrong. Luckily, we CAN fight it in court, though that would cost ridiculous amounts of time and money.

 

 

 

Ah, see, I should have read this before typing everything. There's a big disjoint in mentalities, and you're not even a fan of digital products. But really, they're not as ball-crushingly horrible as you're making them out to be. Though I would prefer the physical copies anyway, this is still a more convenient action for the company that they've started to take. Maybe then we won't have so many people pirating good games, so that their company is stronger for it and puts out more good games. Their power might be misused at some point, but that'll be by a per-company basis; Microsoft's just allowing them to make those decisions with more tangible results. You're not entitled to their software. That's pretty much all I have to say.

It's convenient for who? 

 

I want you to check out a couple articles by Jim Sterling, because his views almost completely coincide with mine on the subject:

http://www.destructoid.com/on-cliffy-b-microtransactions-and-electronic-arts-247379.phtml

 

http://www.destructoid.com/used-games-and-aaa-games-are-incompatible-good--256227.phtml

 

I'm entitled to software I pay for. They should not have the right to revoke access if I pay money for it. That's scummy business. And they NEVER are entitled to my money. That's why I can refuse to buy an Xbox One and tell Microsoft to go puppy themselves. 

 

 

 

Keep in mind, I don't necessarily hate Xbox, Microsoft, or any exclusive games. If they were to come out and admit that they were wrong, apologize, then change everything for the better, you can bet I'd get an Xbox One. But, until that day, I will continue to fight against bullshit like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

@Alex: Yeah, I really like the rounded edges. They just feel nice in general.

 

Why are you comparing this to Steam so much? Yes, they have very similar policies. I even said I don't agree with Steam's policies either, or our rights for digital products. I simply said that Steam makes it hard to be upset since they have such crazy sales all the time. Is a game worth $3.95? Is the license worth that? I think the latter is more in line with what they believe. Of course, with Steam, it doesn't matter if you pay $3.95 or $65 dollars. It's a license all the same, which should be differentiated.

 

You just asked me why I'm comparing it to Steam, then conceded that they're similar. What was the point of that question then? Yeah, the XBO is not likely to give away their licenses for just $3.95.

 

A good policy, I think, would be to sell the full game DRM free for a high price (say, 65-100 dollars) and sell a license of the game for a very cheap price (say, 5-30 dollars). That way, consumers at least have a choice in whether they want to own the game or not. As it is right now, the laws and rights are very confusing and undetermined.

 

Sounds like a good idea. 65-100 dollars seems pushing it, but having copy ownership and license ownership separate would be good, though it still might be hardballing the people without internet. But yeah, copyright laws are a tangled and blurry mess.

 

It's the fact that it requires a connection at all that's the problem, Saha. Small or not. It sets a horrible precedent. We're willing to give up access to our games so that they can feel more secure. Their security is not my problem. I pay for my games legitimately. I've always been a legitimate customer. I've never even torrented music. Their bullshit DRM policies to stop pirates should NEVER impact me. This is a business transaction and they're being really scummy. So why should I give a damn about their security? That's their responsibility, and they need to find a way to combat piracy AND not impact their paying customers. CD Project Red is the perfect example of a developer that knows how to treat their customers right. I've bought The Witcher 2 like 5 different times just to support them more. On the flip side, I really wanted to play Sim City...but you might have heard how well that went down? Yeah, puppy that. If I pay 65 or, really, any amount of money for a product, I expect the product to at least work.

 

I admit the precedence is horrible, for the consumer. And alright, you don't pirate things, but you don't represent the entirety of the consumers. And you're right, it's unfair that a group of people unrelated to you has messed it up for you, but that's how it goes. Unfortunately, it's not just one person or a small group of people, it's a lot of people. If GameDev Tycoon is any indication; 3104 out of 3318 of the copies were pirated on the first day, and the game is only eight dollars. That's only 214 copies actually sold, bringing them to $1,712 out of a possible $26,544 in sales. Mind you, they don't get profit until their game is actually sold; it's all spending until then. An ESRB rating is $2500 dollars for a game with a development cost >$250,000 and $800 under. Then there are publishing fees and possible employee pay.

 

When absolutely no repercussions happen from a large group of people stealing your product-- and then worse, complaining about it on the internet, because yes, people who pirate things can be really entitled ("I wouldn't pay money for this!" is the worst; like ripping something out of its packaging in the store, calling it stupid, and then pocketing it anyway)-- then you have to do something. It's a survival instinct. You react or you die. And it does suck. Nintendo supposedly spent a ton of time trying to stop 3DS piracy before it started, and someone still hacked it within a day of its launch. So expect BS countermeasures.

 

As for Sim City, the problem wasn't even their DRM policies, but that the game really just isn't up to scratch. Its gameplay is less deep than previous Sim Citys and it has tons of bugs-- I have many stories. I bet they're going to release an "expansion" for some stupid feature they could have released with the original. Not counting its horrible release, it's still just sub par what you would expect from such a reputable series.

 

That's their software, fine. But they choose to make it. They choose to risk millions on a product that is completely subjective. One person may think Pokemon rocks, another may think it sucks. Both are right, because it's entirely based on opinion. They also choose to sell that product. Now, that's fine. But it's only as valuable as I determine it to be. I'm the consumer. What I say, and what my wallet says, goes. If I don't like the product, I don't HAVE to buy it. So puppy off with your entitlement. They aren't entitled to my money any more than I'm entitled to their game. Fair enough?

 

No, actually. This is the kind of entitlement I'm talking about. They risk that money, yeah, but on the premise that people actually buy their products. Whether or not you like it, you should have to buy it (or at least have some kind of free trial) in order to find out so you don't get a full game and services in exchange for nothing. You don't expect to get something for nothing, even if you think it's worth nothing. You don't determine what's right based on your subjectivity, the company decides what's best for it and people react accordingly. To say that a company can go under if they don't suit your specific needs-- that's an irrational feeling of entitlement. They aren't entitled to your money, of course. No one's saying that. But you're not entitled to being pampered, and if you want the product, you should have to shell out. It should be as simple as that. And if you don't want the product, why are you complaining about DRM restricting it?

 

Now, if they're going to blame piracy and, more recently, used games, I'm gonna call bullshit. It's my rights they're stepping on, so the balls in their court to produce proof that used games negatively affect their sales. The entire premise of a "used" product means that someone bought the product at one time. So, if you ship 5 million games, and 2.5 million people buy that game new, then 1.4 people buy the game used, you did not lose 1.4 million sales. Those games had already been sold and bought for full new game price. Here's an idea: Maybe you shouldn't ship 5 milliion copies? Instead, ship as demand increases.

 

Actually, yes, you did lose 1.4 million sales. 1.4 million people out of 3.9 million people got the full ownership of a copy of your game (minus maybe a pristine package) and you didn't get any money for it. I like used games, don't get me wrong, but there's a kind of void where their profits should have gone; in this case, an 84 million dollar void. I'd like to give developers a cut from the used games; that'd be fantastic. But as used games stores also survive on selling secondhand, they'd need to ramp up prices, and that might corrupt the ecosystem we have now; who knows if for the better?

 

And why are big name games like Tomb Raider considered failures? I'm sorry, but if your game sells 3.4 million copies in the first WEEK and that's considered a failure, your entire business model is puppyed up. Maybe don't spend as much making the game, or spend as much marketing it? There are plenty of modest Indie developers that have sold much less (say, 200,000 copies) and have come out with a shit ton of money, despite BOTH used games and piracy. So maybe take a hint from their model?

 

Well first off, indie developers have much smaller teams. (SPOILERS AT ANY POINT BEFORE THE TIMESTAMP IN THE VIDEO) This is the list of credits for the Tomb Raider 2013 development cast. That's a pretty big list, and again, they were spending money throughout the entire development process. And then there's Braid, which made 3 million dollars. For like one guy. There's a difference in the sheer manpower here. A "new model" in this comparison is "making different games altogether". Ones that require much less spending, marketing, and employment. You'd be surprised at how efficient businesses are at only keeping who they need on board. So if one person leaves the team, there could be major setbacks. You would have a different game not up to the standards you set when you bought the thing. So they, as a business catering to the extremely fickle needs of millions, need a lot of money to fund that manpower to suit your expectations.

 

The creator of Braid spent all that money on just that fact. You can't just tell them they need to get a new model. Do you even know what that means?

 

You're wrong. It has to stay connected and plugged in. So it will be "off" technically speaking, but they could still peer through it if they were evil enough to do so. And I don't trust any company to not be evil enough to do so, especially a company that's in bed with the NSA.

 

Sucks. Really a bad idea, then. Webcams and microphones on computers are courteous enough to ask you before they even activate, and even better, some webcams have lights that notify you when they're active. There should be some kind of countermeasure like that for privacy issues.

 

 

I want you to check out a couple articles by Jim Sterling, because his views almost completely coincide with mine on the subject:

http://www.destructoid.com/on-cliffy-b-microtransactions-and-electronic-arts-247379.phtml

 

http://www.destructoid.com/used-games-and-aaa-games-are-incompatible-good--256227.phtml

 

 

You two do sound fairly similar. I do think EA deserves its hatred for its awful microtransactions. The DLC business model is horrible imo. Selling your complete products in parts is just a dumb way to eke out more sales. For superfluous things like texture packs or whatever, sure, but not for actually important game content. Unless it's a true expansion that actually adds a lot of depth, a product should be sold in full. Then there's Capcom with something as trivial as Marvel Versus Capcom 3 Ultimate being a standalone game rather than an expansion or just the original game. I'm not even a fan of the series, but it was just such a dumb cashgrab.

 

I'm entitled to software I pay for. They should not have the right to revoke access if I pay money for it. That's scummy business. And they NEVER are entitled to my money. That's why I can refuse to buy an Xbox One and tell Microsoft to go puppy themselves. 

 

You are owed the software you pay for, yes. And in this case, it comes with a catch. You pay for that catch, too. Rather than buying the software, it's more like they're just allowing you to use it for now, kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you start packing all the food into your bags, you're going to get kicked out and your food will get taken from you. You don't get all the restaurant's food, just as much as you want unless you break the rules or they change their policies. But you're the one who decides whether or not you buy it, and if you buy it, it's all on you. You should know what you're in for. It's not necessarily good. I don't think it's better than copy ownership. I do think it can be abused. But it's what's happening. I don't think the services are inherently evil, but I don't like them much either.

 

So pretty much in my opinion, I think you're a little over-the-top, and you don't have nearly as much respect for the developer as you should, but at the very least, I respect your decision and resolution not to buy the console, rather than being like the hundreds of thousands likely to complain about how dumb it is and pick up the thing anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.