The Xbox One - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]455655[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]369067[/split]

 

[Dugath]

I like how people are equating loaning something to a friend with torrenting. Classy. Every company has their loyalists, I guess.

Not to be argumentative (and this will be my last say on it), but how is it not?

1-Someone gets a game from a "friend" plays it (for free) with no additional payments going towards the company who created it (and those in between)..

2-Download the same Game..(torrent) to play for free.. with no additional payments going towards the company who created it (and those in between)..

Either way, people get to play the game without paying for it.

Oh and if you are going to say.. the original person paid for it so they can lend it out..

Same goes for Torrents.. someone, someplace bought the game, and put it up for download to "share" it.

Its just in the first way, your friend does not have to wast bandwidth.

it comes down to in MS's view (and the views of the companies who makes these games), not mine.

 

[terry78]

So you're saying The Sun is not an accurate news outlet.

 

[craigdbfan]

CNN, Fox and the rest of those mentioned on there have absolutely no clue about the gaming community or even gaming in general. These are the same people that will not hesitate to label all of these consoles as horrific tools that are poisoning the minds of children.

Clueless.

 

[Grievous]

Somehow I see the Xbox One and PS4 getting brought up in the violence debate this year. The issue for taxing violent games will prob get brought up again with video games having a huge spotlight on them this year with the new consoles.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I know it's not the same, because realistically the broader audience that Microsoft is reaching for is wider and far ranging...but still, I think of Nintendo.

I totally understand the desire to place bets on the general audience. I get that. Sony tried it as well. But, I just feel like as long as they know that the surer bet will always be the hardcore audience, then they'll be fine.

I feel like Nintendo doubled down on the general audience, taking the hardcore market for granted. And that they've been paying the price for that ever since the Wii stopped being the mass market juggernaut it was.

 

[Iceman]

So you're saying The Sun is not an accurate news outlet.

Haha, it's clueless but has massive coverage.

 

[darthcoolness3]

so 15 exclusives for the Xbox One
The 15 exclusives:
-4 of them are Sports Games from EA Sports
- Forza Motorsport 5
-COD: Ghosts
- The weird game made by the Alan Wake developers

7 of those exclusives are what they shown yesterday, we will get 8 more exclusives shown at E3 2013

 

[Soapy]

RE: The mainstream media being head over heels for Xbox One: Yeah, no ****. First of all it's aimed primarily at them and their audience, and second, ever heard the term "fluff piece"?

 

[Soapy]

so 15 exclusives for the Xbox One
The 15 exclusives:
-4 of them are Sports Games from EA Sports
- Forza Motorsport 5
-COD: Ghosts
- The weird game made by the Alan Wake developers

7 of those exclusives are what they shown yesterday, we will get 8 more exclusives shown at E3 2013

No way EA or Activision make thier games exclusive.

 

[Doc Ock]

No way EA or Activision make thier games exclusive.

Yup.

 

[Iceman]

I know it's not the same, because realistically the broader audience that Microsoft is reaching for is wider and far ranging...but still, I think of Nintendo.

I totally understand the desire to place bets on the general audience. I get that. Sony tried it as well. But, I just feel like as long as they know that the surer bet will always be the hardcore audience, then they'll be fine.

I feel like Nintendo doubled down on the general audience, taking the hardcore market for granted. And that they've been paying the price for that ever since the Wii stopped being the mass market juggernaut it was.

The problem with Nintendo's approach was that their super weapon, the motion control, is something that for casuals doesn't need to be upgraded once purchased. It's seen as a one off purchase that still works satisfactorily for parties & when they have people come over (& therefore no need to upgrade to wii U) unlike smartphones and their extra features which deal with stuff they will always be interested in and willing to upgrade.

XBox could easily fail at its multimedia & TV push with all the upcoming competition out there..but if it succeeds and capture smarket share in this area, it will have a more enduring casual audience rather than a flash in the pan.

 

[Havok83]

No way EA or Activision make thier games exclusive.

Exactly. There's too much money to be made on other platforms to stick with just this one. MS would have to pay them an absurd amount of money to make up for that, money which wouldn't be wisely spent as they are already about to be in the hole when they launch this new console. It wouldn't be a smart decision for any of the companies

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Either way, people get to play the game without paying for it.

Oh and if you are going to say.. the original person paid for it so they can lend it out..

Same goes for Torrents.. someone, someplace bought the game, and put it up for download to "share" it.

Its just in the first way, your friend does not have to wast bandwidth.

it comes down to in MS's view (and the views of the companies who makes these games), not mine.

And here's where your argument falls apart. If someone purchases a legal copy of the game, they have privileges via first-sale doctrine which allow them to give away or sell the game because they are a legal owner of a copy. However, making and distributing copies (via torrents) requires you to extract the information from the disc which is illegal since you circumvent the manufacturer's protection of it.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Indeed.

The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner's reproduction right. The rationale of the doctrine is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining the free alienability of goods. Without the doctrine, a possessor of a copy of a copyrighted work would have to negotiate with the copyright owner every time he wished to dispose of his copy. After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright holder's right to control how ownership of that copy can be disposed of.

 

[Iceman]

As for the exclusives...one of the existing will be Forza, 2 of the new ones will be Ryse & Quantum Break (assuming both are intended to be franchises). Maybe they're including that Respawn Titan game too. Most of the other existing ones will likely be Kinext & XBLA. I hope at least 2 or 3 of the other new ones are full retail and not Kinect or XBLA.

 

[Nathan]

And here's where your argument falls apart. If someone purchases a legal copy of the game, they have privileges via first-sale doctrine which allow them to give away or sell the game because they are a legal owner of a copy. However, making and distributing copies (via torrents) requires you to extract the information from the disc which is illegal since you circumvent the manufacturer's protection of it.

Also, unlike torrents, there will always only be one person able to use the game at any given time. If I bought a game, and then lend it to a friend, guess what, I won't be able to play the game. And once the game is back in my possession, guess what, my friend won't be able to play it.

This torrent argument is truly stupid.

 

[Nathan]

A Microsoft executive has suggested Rare is making an Xbox One game based on its "historic IP".

I wonder if they'll finally revive Killer Instinct. I personally don't care for it, but fans have been asking for another Killer Instinct for ages.

 

[Doc Ock]

I wonder if they'll finally revive Killer Instinct. I personally don't care for it, but fans have been asking for another Killer Instinct for ages.

I used to love Rare but could care less what they are working on now, they aren't Rare anymore...

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The problem with Nintendo's approach was that their super weapon, the motion control, is something that for casuals doesn't need to be upgraded once purchased. It's seen as a one off purchase that still works satisfactorily for parties & when they have people come over (& therefore no need to upgrade to wii U) unlike smartphones and their extra features which deal with stuff they will always be interested in and willing to upgrade.

XBox could easily fail at its multimedia & TV push with all the upcoming competition out there..but if it succeeds and capture smarket share in this area, it will have a more enduring casual audience rather than a flash in the pan.

Yeah, I agree.

And really, Microsoft has room to fail and then pick themselves up. If the bet doesn't pay off, they can still win people back. The hardcore audience doesn't really vanish all that easily. I think Nintendo actually did have a chance to win back people too, when they launched the Wii U. But, well...we saw what happened there.

It makes sense, going for it like Microsoft is. I've even heard that conceptually, the X1 is meant to always be on. Or on for vastly longer periods of time than we'd think for a gaming console. Which makes sense, if it's going to be this mass media hub for movies, music, internet and tv.

 

[DirtyHarry]

So this is most people's reaction to the reveal:

[YT]lE0lzI4NoU0[/YT]

 

[Iceman]

Yeah, I agree.

And really, Microsoft has room to fail and then pick themselves up. If the bet doesn't pay off, they can still win people back. The hardcore audience doesn't really vanish all that easily. I think Nintendo actually did have a chance to win back people too, when they launched the Wii U. But, well...we saw what happened there.

It makes sense, going for it like Microsoft is. I've even heard that conceptually, the X1 is meant to always be on. Or on for vastly longer periods of time than we'd think for a gaming console. Which makes sense, if it's going to be this mass media hub for movies, music, internet and tv.

Yeah I think Microsoft can fail here and be ok for future attempts after the foundations of the 360. Same for Nintendo though for at least one more generation. They've been profitable for so long and the 3DS success will give them the back up for another shot. As unlikely as it sounds, if they gave up on wii U in a few years and released a superior (superior to PS4 & XB1) mid gen newly branded Nintendo console I think they'd be right back in there, especially if it was compatible with 3DS & embraced online gaming & multiplatform. Would take a huge change in managerial thinking though but maybe a wii U shock could provoke that change.

 

[Fading]

I don't want to quote all of the comments on this, as there was a whole conversation on it. I just wanted to say, that NO, letting a friend borrow a game is NOTHING like downloading a torrent.


When you buy a physical copy of a game, YOU own that physical copy. You can burn it, take a dump on it, sell it, let a friend borrow and play it, ect. That particular copy is yours to do whatever you want with it. Now if you rip the data off of it, and create copies of it, then that is illegal. This is why what Gamestop does is legal, they legally buy a used copy, now that copy is legally theirs, and they can now legally sell it to whoever.


The reason I argue against these points so strongly is that we need to quit trying to defend these greedy practices, that in and of themselves skirt being illegal. After the intial purchase, a company is no longer owned any additional sales from the product. This is law, and EA and whoever else can argue it all they want, but they're wrong, and we the consumers don't need to defend them.

Movie studios tried this as well before, and it didn't fly. Video game companies are currently trying to find a way to get further money out of a sold product that doesn't land them in trouble with the law. Some of their practices are down right shady, and borederline illegal.

If you want to support a company by buying new to reward good work, awesome. I've done it several times before by being a first day buyer. However giving the OK to shady buisness practices isn't supporting a company. It's supporting greedy CEO's who want to do something that the law affords to no other industries, and in many cases has let them know they can't do in court.

To put it another way, you don't see Ford asking for a percentage of the sales you get from selling your truck via craigslist. You don't see 20th Century Fox charging you an additional fee for each person watching the movie with you in your living room. You don't see Steven King charging full price fees to friends you loan books you've bought, that he wrote too. As long as we continue to defend video game developers who continue to do what no one entertainment medium does, the further they push these shady practices. They assume we're ok with fees because a vocal minority defends them so ferociously online, then seem shocked when there's a public outcry against it, because they assumed we support it.

 

[Whiskey Tango]