Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#222 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
Microsoft thought they were doing everyone a favor by giving us cloud-based games and library sharing. They were right to do this so gamestop wouldn't profit off of used game sales, and eventually MS wouldn't have to produce physical discs (this cuts retailers out of the profits), and the price of games wouldn't have to rise. As is stands now, only very popular or very low budget games make a profit, and many publishers want to increase games to $70. Every single form of entertainment is now digital, and prices are lower in every single case (books, music, movies, steam games). The internet hate wagon ****** up a good thing. Maybe you all should have done a bit of ******* research and listened to Microsoft trying to explain their reasoning. It got to the point where you could see Xbox employees being physically upset and angry while trying to communicate what they were trying to do to ignorant people that just wanted cheap games at gamestop and to not have to worry about an always on line "spy-box" (Which, by the way, is a ******* retarded thing to worry about. No server farm in existence is powerful enough to process and store millions of 1080p video streams at once)
User avatar #332 to #222 - StaticX (06/26/2013) [-]
I will now present my side of the argument: There has been no case when music in digital format has been cheaper than the hard copy. Games, it depends, I have seen steam have games for $30 that i can pick up at my local K-mart for $10 and vice-a-versa. Books, they average out to be about the same price. Movies, not sure haven't really watched the market. Now: I don't buy games to play online, i play them for the single player. Why should i have to pay to connect to the Internet if im not going to use it? Hence-forth, another **** up. I'd rather have the hard copy of the disc. Why you may ask? Well, logically it's a safer bet. If the cloud system crashes, there goes everything unless they have one hell of a backup. Secondly, and on a more personal level, one can't really have a collection on a cloud, I personally like to search physically through my collection, and used games are the best way to expand my collection or try a new game series without getting ****** if you don't like it. Hell, the ony series' that i think are worth buying new are pokemon, ssb, fire emblem, street fighter, and KoF. Your argument is flawed, completely.
User avatar #319 to #222 - luciferiam (06/26/2013) [-]
Well put man, I've been (mostly in vain) attempting to explain the same things to many Sony Ponys to no avail. (not even a fanboy.. i own all Playstations and will eventually own PS4)
User avatar #288 to #222 - ragingbrony (06/26/2013) [-]
While I agree completely with what you said, I think the issue is that they tried to change it all at once right away.

You need to ease people into such huge changes, otherwise they won't be accepted. Even if they are for the better.
#290 to #288 - chudboy (06/26/2013) [-]
Agreed. They should ease people into these.
#287 to #222 - chudboy (06/26/2013) [-]
I totally get they're trying to go digital, it's a great idea. But for me, I'd rather have a physical copy, that I can just pop in the console and play. Rather with Steam, if I want to play something I have to wait for it to download. Not sure if this would be the case with the Xbox One. They were always going to have a backlash. Steam has been going on for 10 years, and had an incredibly slow start. People hate it. I also doubt Microsoft would do any good sales, compared to Steam. Rather than "we'll give you two OLD free games". I'm sorry but the DRM was very unnecessary. People shouldn't have to be forced to be constantly online. There is a market of people who don't have the best connection, and just want to play single player. If the xbox one stopped you from playing, because you aren't synced up, are these people willing to buy it? No. They ****** it up for themselves. Especially with the interview "Oh we already havea console for offline gaming, the Xbox 360". Guess what Microsoft, some people want to play next gen, even if they don't have the best connection. It was their fault. They didn't explain it clearly to people. It seemed like restrictions. The Kinect too, i should have a choice if I want it or not. It shouldn't be necessary for the xbox to work. It's a cool gadget, but unnecessary at times. The Xbox is also known as a gaming console. And the fact that they spent most of the time talking about TV was absolutely pointless. Sure it's nice to have all these features of these streaming services. But the amount of time they went on about it was also unnecessary. All round entertainment machine, fair enough. It's not what the gaming community wants to hear you drivel about for hours. They want games. That is also a reason why many were put off.
User avatar #303 to #287 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
You have to remember that MS is first and foremost a software company. Literally the oldest one in existence. They made the Xbox One so it would run 3 operating systems at once (one is modified Windows 8), have almost no loading times, and be able to multi-task and watch tv without any lag. For anyone into software development that's amazing, and it's clear that MS put just as much development into the new Xbox as they would have put into the next Windows or Office. But MS forgot that console gamers don't give a **** about that kind of stuff... they just wanna put in a disc and play a game. I feel like I'm one of the few that appreciate what they're trying to do, as it obviously took years of development and a ******** of money, but they may have ****** up from square one by not understanding their target market. It's become painfully obvious that gamers fundamentally don't give a **** about software innovation, and it's honestly kind of sad. Also, the kinect is required because voice and hand gestures are used to control the console, and logging in works by facial recognition. Fingers crossed it actually works properly...
#308 to #303 - chudboy (06/26/2013) [-]
Yeah I get what you're coming from. Some of the features and the new UI seemed cool. Since I love Windows 8. But the Kinect thing again, I understand that you use voice and hand gestures, but it's optional isn't it? I have a Kinect, and barley use it, since half the time it doesn't work. I fully believe the Kinect 2 will be 10 times better. But it's optional to use the UI with the controller. Which many gamers will do. I also feel like they missed their main target audience. But I guess they were trying to target a bigger audience, the families etc. Which is great. You also have that time where the games were running on High End PC's in E3. Understandable since you want to show the games and wow the audience. But not use Windows 8 to run the games? Since the Xbox will run on a modified Windows 8? Using Nvidia Cards that have twice the power of the AMD cards? That was pretty sneaky of them. If they just came out with "We're running the games on a PC, with the same specs, since the development of the actual console isn't finished" I reckon people wouldn't have been so shocked by it.
User avatar #314 to #308 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
I agree on the kinect, I said fingers crossed it works properly because the current one is glitchy as **** . They claim it can read your heart rate by looking at you though, so it much be much more accurate. I do hope the kinect **** is optional for navigating the console, as I really hate talking when I'm the only person in a room, but I don't think anyone knows yet.

Yeah, the one red flag for me was when it turned out they were running their demos off PCs with nvidia GPUs... I wanna think they had their reasons, but that was really very strange.
#282 to #222 - chudboy (06/26/2013) [-]
Problem was, how Microsoft explained these features. They totally ****** it up. They seemed like restrictions to me at the beginning. I definitely understood these features after. But still, I think they were wrong to introduce such features so early on for a console. They should have definitely eased these features in,rather than forcing them. For example, used games. I completely understand the restriction. But for some, people feel they should be able to do anything with their copies that they bought. You can do this with every other product in the world. Once bought, its yours. At the beginning it seemed like Microsoft were just lending you these games, rather than you buying them.
User avatar #291 to #282 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
I agree completely that they ****** up properly communicating what they were doing. MS is relatively new to console gaming, and I don't think they saw anything wrong with what they were doing, they thought people would see it like a glorified itunes sort of service. They didn't realize that gamers have a culture that revolves around physicla media. To myself, you, and many others the new policy made perfect sense, but not until after hours of research on the topic, trying to understand the details. I don't understand why they still couldn't ease users into these new features (optionally of course). My hope is that they just wanted to put a stop to all the hate, and flat out said they were dumping the policy, and that things would be back to normal just so there would be no confusion or worry. They'd be stupid not to let people opt-in to the new policy because plenty of people support it, and such complex DRM takes ********** of time and money to develop. I predict everyone will be arguing about this again within a few months of the X1 release.
#293 to #291 - chudboy (06/26/2013) [-]
I mean with some of the features, they could have easily implemented into the console, but at least make it optional. Such as a 24 hour check in, to sync all your games. It shouldn't be a necessity. They just needed to ease the people into the changes. They did too much in a small amount of time. While Sony, basically stuck to their roots. With some changes here and there, they still stuck with Gaming, and it's roots. I'm a bit Xbox fan boy. But even after this, and Microsoft removing these features, the PS4 is still the winner in my book. The overall design of the console etc, more interesting exclusive (I mean I'm expecting the last of us 2 for it). We'll see how it pans out though.
User avatar #259 to #222 - schneidend (06/26/2013) [-]
The only thing retarded here is this idea that the cloud feature would have been anything but an inconvenience. None of these benefits were promised, and that is not how the DRM was presented.
User avatar #269 to #259 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
Except it definitely was presented that way. Not only was it presented at the original Xbox press conference, but the Xbox team has a blog, and they laid out in bullet points how they wanted to set up the game licensing. It wasn't official of course, since the console is still months away from release, but they laid out what they were trying to do... Anytime I would reference or link to that, people would say "you can't guarantee it will always work that way, MS is gonna screw us over blah blah blah" because people are afraid of change.
User avatar #273 to #269 - schneidend (06/26/2013) [-]
I watched the initial conference. No promises of cheaper games or infinite licenses was made that I recall.
#279 to #273 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
It might have been at the E3 conference, but here's a picture of the guy who was talking about it. Not that it matters anyways, the feature is dead now.
User avatar #257 to #222 - morbidbreath (06/26/2013) [-]
you just described a monopoly. as soon as they gained control over pricing they can do whatever they pleased.
User avatar #264 to #257 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
Just like itunes, steam, and amazon have a monopoly on their content delivery. It still lowered prices and gave more profit to publishers by cutting retailers out of the supply chain.
User avatar #266 to #264 - morbidbreath (06/26/2013) [-]
Oh my god. You're right!!
User avatar #253 to #222 - doodogger (06/26/2013) [-]
So it's good for humanity to put gamestop and used game dealers out of business?
User avatar #258 to #253 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
good for game developers and publishers, yes. As consoles have gotten more complex, development costs have increased. MS was trying not to raise game prices but still make more profit on games. It makes perfect business sense to anyone with a brain. Gamestop is not your friend, and they don't pass any of their profits onto publishers, who still have to patch and support games, as well as pay for the multi-player servers long after the game is published
User avatar #296 to #258 - doodogger (06/26/2013) [-]
This is America, if you want a business selling used games, do it. There's nothing wrong with that, it's not copyright. Is it morally wrong in your opinion to sell used games? It is a small thorn in the side of the big game companies and is a way of making a living. Are pawn shops bad?
#233 to #222 - kaoknight **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #240 to #233 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
The idea was that you would be required to install games to the HDD, and wouldn't be able to play them off of discs. This would regulate the licenses. Then you could play the games on any xbox you signed into. You could visit your cousin and play your entire game library. You could also share a game with one friend at a time while still having access to it. There were a select few, myself included, that were very excited for the Xbox One, and all of these features got ruined by a bunch of shortsighted idiots. Are you upset about not being able to play CDs anymore? What about watching tv? Somehow you don't own physical copies of every tv show you watch and manage to keep a dedicated cable connection. Somehow everyone even had enough internet frequently enough to bitch about the Xbox One on line requirement ON THE ******* INTERNET.
#250 to #240 - kaoknight **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #276 to #250 - drunkasaurus (06/26/2013) [-]
The source saying that game sharing would be limited to an hour was a pastebin article that was proven to be ******** . An MS exec came out and said that was NOT how game sharing was going to work, and that while publishers would have the ability to limit game sharing to single or multi-player only, that was the extent of the restrictions.
#230 to #222 - anonymous (06/26/2013) [-]
 Friends (0)