Microsoft: "We're always listening to our customers"
Microsoft has finally confirmed that Xbox fans' worst fears are at least partially true: Although the new Xbox One gaming console won't need an always-on internet connection, that connection had better be on pretty often or you can forget about gaming. And don't assume you'll be able to sell or trade your old games, either. " …
But Microsoft said that our privacy was important... Whilst giving NSA access to their servers.
Hold on, if Microsoft lied about that why does anyone trust that their products like Windows do not have deliberate backdoors in also ?
Stallman wasn't paranoid, he was right.
Linux is the only major OS I can trust.
Given the need for being onllne and the restriction on reselling your old games I'd say they're listening more to the developers who have been bitching like little girls over the 2nd hand games stores, than they have to the people who are actually buying the games at full price in the first place.
I've seen some posts on slashdot from people claiming to be games developers and they're really pissed that they're not getting a cut of the sale of 2nd hand games, they somehow think they're more special than any other industry that generates products for the general public, who can then sell on those products if they feel they no longer want them (like cars etc.) without having to pay the original manufacturer a cut of that sale.
Funny, they Game Publishers must think that people that sells their old videogames spend the money on booze and sluts.
No, Sirs! Most of the money obtained through this method is used to purchase new games. It also help to keep games addiction at a high level, even if the seller or the buyer are temporarily short on cash.
Now, the degree to which these companies are willing to harm/insult/mug their customers in exchange for a very small -probably under 1%- rise in profits is just mindboggling, and mindbogglingly stupid, to boot.
But it fits well with MS's policy, which in the last years gave us marvels like Windows Millennium, Windows Vista and Windows 8.0, all of them with the same design philosophy: 'We don't give a crap about the users'.
It's about time that MS stockholders begin dragging Ballmer and his toadies through the courtrooms. Their level of incompetence is fscking unbelievable.
No, no, you got it wrong, it's not "customers", it's "sheep". They need a thorough shaving, lest they overheat in summer!
And that's also why they need to keep you online on a console that has a camera and microphone and sits in your living room - to protect you.
I wouldn't trust pre order records especially as that news comes from blockbuster UK who I really thought were closing down, not the best people to pre order from.
The WiiU had record breaking online pre orders reported by people offering pre orders but some of them were counting website hits as interest in pre ordering, so when sales figures came out either everyone cancelled or it was mainly bollocks to begin with.
The US government has been secretly compiling and collecting data from computers and mobile phones without the knowledge of the user. Just to make a point, they've been doing this to everyone, the world and his dog.
All this to keep us safe they say, preventing terrorist attacks, but they can't tell us about it.
Do you think Microsoft is in on this?
"Do you think Microsoft is in on this?"
"Nine companies are currently part of PRISM. Microsoft was the first firm to sign up on Sept 11, 2007"
".....the PRISM project, a system described as being the largest single source of information for NSA analytic reports. PRISM apparently gives the NSA access to email, chat logs, any stored data, VoIP traffic, files transfers, social networking data, and the ominously named "Special Projects"
Could this be one of those "Special Projects?
NSA: "Yeah, we read about this in our trade publication "1984". A Television device but where the state can watch its "citizens" at all hours..... Why do you think the Kinect can swivel around? Our trade publication pointed out a drawback where the subject was able to find a corner of his living room to hide in. This eliminates that oversight"
So they give us a few concessions, bit like trying to bribe a child with a lolly, the difference is we are adults...
They will listen eventually, look at the Start button coming soon.
Well, not quite, they won't listen to us, until they find their profits tumbling then get ready for another statement,
'Microsoft listens to its customers so we will.....'
Not possible to agree more. Not a single customer has said "please require a call home every 24 hours" or "please charge me a fee for a used game". Not one.
Therefore, by very definition, they are not listening to their customers. Or they are, but they ignoring them so much to the point of that statement being meaningless.
You're making the usual mistake of assuming "customers" means the people who go out and buy boxes, rather than the publishers and developers MS receive licence fees from.
This type of locked down "games ecosystem" has been predicted for at least a decade; its only now that the bandwidth is there to support it. And all you people saying "I'll buy a PS4 instead"; why do you think Sony, the acknowledged masters of botched DRM and consumer-unfriendly lockdowns, will be any different? Maybe at launch they'll sucker you in, but it won't last. This is the future.
"This is the future."
Not necessarily. Both Sony and Microsoft have invested considerable money into the two new consoles and neither can afford heavy losses if their product does not sell well.
If the PS4 does not contain similar restrictions and sells moderately well at launch, while the XBone stumbles out the gate, then I think it is possible that Mr. Ballmer will sacrifice a few scapegoats (Inevitable anyways actually) and change their policy to something rather less restrictive.
If both consoles have these restrictions, I suspect their sales will falter soon after launch, and one company or the other will have to change their policies.
Time will tell and, as always, it largely depends on people's willingness to hand over the money. Assuming we have any money to hand over going forward.
In fact I am pretty sure I read about Sony patenting an ability to incorporate a chip into a disc for ID and DRM purposes. Why else would they want to ID a disc if not to prevent you sharing or selling it second hand?
Quick google brings up lots of threads, so everyone saying they will just buy a PS4 will face the exact same problem there too.
Customer: "I don't want to have to have an Internet connection..."
Microsoft (writing): "have... to... have... Internet...connection."
Customer: "I don't want anything to prevent me from buying or selling used games..."
Microsoft (writing): "prevent... buying... or... selling... used... games."
Customer: "I don't want my console spying on me..."
Microsoft (writing): "console... spying... on... me..."
Microsoft (looking up at Customer): "Yes, go on, we're listening."
If the games studios are the customers, which I suspect they are in MS's eyes then they have been listening to them .EA etc want to lock you into their systems permanently, no off line gaming... no trying to recover any money when you find the game you spend $50 on turns out to be a turd.....
Not a single customer has said "please require a call home every 24 hours" or "please charge me a fee for a used game". Not one.
But they probably have said - "Let me use my games anywhere without the disk", and "let me lend lots of my friends my games without giving them the disk"
Microsoft have specifically stated that they won't charge for transferring used games...
Stupid to predict One won't sell. XBox is an established big player with only one competitor.
Remember, most people plug their console into their router anyway. I predict the used-games thing will be a minor annoyance, not a deal-breaker. Speaking generally of course, of course there will be loads of people who are incensed.
However when you also factor in that serious used-game buyers who would not buy One based on this issue, are not buying many new games, and that games rather than consoles are where the money is made, it could be even less significant. Perhaps MS lose 20% of their customers, but new games sales fall only 5%, as an example.
Personally - I don't buy used games, I just wait for the cheap Platinum editions to come out.
Someone has to trade in every used game before it can be resold and many of those users factor that into the price of new games. By raising doubt about resale Microsoft are discouraging a large group of new game purchasers.
Unless this translates to much cheaper new sales there's no upside to this for anyone. Since figures of £35 have been suggested for minimum 2nd user prices that seems unlikely.
Sony already won this round by having a more game focussed and powerful console, if they react appropriately to the public response Microsoft are getting they could annihilate xbone.
Do we really know anything about the PS4 though? Details seem to be extremely scarce. The reason the Xbox360 won the last round was because it was first to market.
I have also heard rumours that Sony was going to do something similar to this with their used games policy so this could just be how it goes!!
Personally this does not affect me in the least, I only play a handful of games, my internet connection is always turned on to my ps3 currently and thats about all she wrote. I am going to reserve judgment until we have all the facts in front of us.
But do you SELL your used games? What of the people who buy new games knowing they can get about half the money back when they've finished with it. Those used games have to come from somewhere... Perhaps the developers should concentrate on making games that you actually want to keep to play again some day, you know, ones with re-play value.
The problem is not so much the playability and life, but the initial cost. People have to trade in to reduce the cost of gaming. £40-50 is a lot compared to other media types and while a music album can last your lifetime in terms of enjoyment a game gets boring.
Games cost a lot because they have transformed from something people used to play for a couple of hours to something that they live and breathe. So to make games that are immersive and with so much depth takes a very long time and a lot of work, hence expensive.
Tell that to Nethack/Angband. I _still_ play those after more than 20 years. They didn't cost much at all..
Actually, there are a shed load of older games that I still pull out and have a merry wander around because they were just so fun (even if quite simple).. And the running theme was that they all had good gameplay, even if the graphics were like trying to look at art through the medium of paintball gun.
"Games cost a lot because they have transformed from something people used to play for a couple of hours to something that they live and breathe. So to make games that are immersive and with so much depth takes a very long time and a lot of work, hence expensive."
I've spent literally hundreds of hours playing games like Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri or Dwarf Fortress. Even the original Half Life was a 10+ hour game. Current AAA FPS titles rarely have 6 hours of single player gameplay. If being lead between two walls 4 meters apart can be considered gameplay...
"£40-50 is a lot compared to other media types and while a music album can last your lifetime in terms of enjoyment a game gets boring"
I get bored of music too. Let's compare it to films. A film might last around two hours. A Blu-ray of it will cost, let's say £15 (we are comparing new and big name films if you're pitching £40-50 for games). So a film is £7.50 per hour. Do these £40-50 games come in under seven hours of total play? Because if not, they are a good buy compared to film media. Note that I was especially generous in comparing them to purchased discs which multiple people can watch (just like multiple people can play a game) rather than to cinema tickets which are per person (rather than per household like the Xbox games) and which would *really* make games look cheap.
Some here are ignoring the flip side of the criticism that if games companies are against trade-in because it hits how much revenue they get from games, then limiting trade-in should result in cheaper games, unless there is price-fixing going on in which case you have a different problem.
Also, has anyone compared the financial impact of trade-in games with the impact of piracy? It seems to me that the latter is quite probably a far greater cause of this DRM than trade-in.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019