I blame nobody but myself and the other gamers who were actually interested in Microsoft's original idea for the Xbox One. Like the saying goes, the empty can rattles the most and we let the empty cans such as AzureDreams and CrypticCat rattle as loudly as they wanted while we sat and did nothing.
YOU sat by and did nothing while you let the MS-defenseforce on here do the dirty work for you. Now you hop on the bandwagon and throw some big words around. You're a motherfucking coward.
To set the record straight, none of the people who had concerns were against the facets of the Xbone that would make a step forward from the way things are currently done. Our concern was with the draconic measures MS was forcing upon us. I feel that, and I still stand by it, a gamer should not be held hostage to play a game.
Since I decided not to buy a Xbone, I stopped with commenting further on the subject. I even asked in the support-thread how to disable notifactions for thread-updates. In Doodi's thread I expressed my disappointment with the fact that MS reversed course. Not only does it proof that concerns were legit (If they weren't, why reverse course?), but the way they did it in was unelegant by ripping out features along with the system-DRM that in a way has little to do with the system-DRM.
If you have a problem with how MS does business, take it up with them. Don't join the party late to join harking on the people who have been shat upon on a daily basis just because their opinion differed from the majority on here. I have been understanding, I have tried to explain my position and I have retreated. Now I don't give a flying fuck anymore.
In other words, go suck a dick bayman. That's the only thing you're good for.
I blame nobody but myself and the other gamers who were actually interested in Microsoft's original idea for the Xbox One. Like the saying goes, the empty can rattles the most and we let the empty cans such as AzureDreams and CrypticCat rattle as loudly as they wanted while we sat and did nothing.
YOU sat by and did nothing while you let the MS-defenseforce on here do the dirty work for you. Now you hop on the bandwagon and throw some big words around. You're a motherfucking coward.
To set the record straight, none of the people who had concerns were against the facets of the Xbone that would make a step forward from the way things are currently done. Our concern was with the draconic measures MS was forcing upon us. I feel that, and I still stand by it, a gamer should not be held hostage to play a game.
Since I decided not to buy a Xbone, I stopped with commenting further on the subject. I even asked in the support-thread how to disable notifactions for thread-updates. In Doodi's thread I expressed my disappointment with the fact that MS reversed course. Not only does it proof that concerns were legit (If they weren't, why reverse course?), but the way they did it in was unelegant by ripping out features along with the system-DRM that in a way has little to do with the system-DRM.
If you have a problem with how MS does business, take it up with them. Don't join the party late to join harking on the people who have been shat upon on a daily basis just because their opinion differed from the majority on here. I have been understanding, I have tried to explain my position and I have retreated. Now I don't give a flying fuck anymore.
In other words, go suck a dick bayman. That's the only thing you're good for.
Well, it's getting a little hot in herre. How about we take a step back from the fora for a minute, please. I don't want to nuke the thread, but if we have another console Holy War, i'm going to punch a kitten.
Well, it's getting a little hot in herre. How about we take a step back from the fora for a minute, please. I don't want to nuke the thread, but if we have another console Holy War, i'm going to punch a kitten.
Well, it's getting a little hot in herre. How about we take a step back from the fora for a minute, please. I don't want to nuke the thread, but if we have another console Holy War, i'm going to punch a kitten.
Well, it's getting a little hot in herre. How about we take a step back from the fora for a minute, please. I don't want to nuke the thread, but if we have another console Holy War, i'm going to punch a kitten.
What'd zombie do now? ;)
Damn skippy I blame her.
It was me. Reading these threads every day, and injecting just the right (wrong?) amount of estrogen into them. I broke the Internet!!
For me the biggest problem I was having was the online check. To tell me that my box that I paid for has to checkin on their servers every 24hrs or it will basically only be good for watching TV was just too much. People have said its like Steam and is no big deal. Sorry but steam looks at the program when first installed and thats it. I could unplug from the net and play my game for years offline.
I think if they had approached it a little differently and explained it alot better it would have received a warmer welcome. To tell people though that if you don't like it just stick with an 360 though was kind of over the top to me.
Basically now though they are in a trough where no matter what they do people are going to be mad. As on this forum people are upset they caved in, others are happy they listened.
If (again I stress IF) this post is accurate, Family Sharing was pretty much a demo mode that would allow the person you're sharing with the option to buy at the end of a predetermined time limit.
EDIT: Later in the link I noticed that you could fully save progress, so that's a plus, but it appears that this wasn't going to allow families with multiple XB1 consoles to purchase one copy for them and their kids - which is too bad, but not surprising.
Quote:
First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it. One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting. There weren’t many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony’s horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go. Developers complained about the lost sales and gamers complained about overbearing DRM that punished those who didn’t share that implemented by publishers to quell gamers from taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. We wanted our family sharing plan to be something that was talked about and genuinely enjoyed by the masses as a way of inciting gamers to try new games.
Why couldn't they just do both... disc based games work like xbox 360 did. Digital downloaded games use the whole drm/sharing thing... that way we have a choice when we go to buy the game.
I was excited about the family share (assuming it wasn't some kind of timed demo), we have multiple xboxes in the house but wind up playing split screen when I play online with my son since I'm not going to buy multiple copies of the same game.
If (again I stress IF) this post is accurate, Family Sharing was pretty much a demo mode that would allow the person you're sharing with the option to buy at the end of a predetermined time limit.
EDIT: Later in the link I noticed that you could fully save progress, so that's a plus, but it appears that this wasn't going to allow families with multiple XB1 consoles to purchase one copy for them and their kids - which is too bad, but not surprising.
Quote:
First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it. One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting. There weren’t many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony’s horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go. Developers complained about the lost sales and gamers complained about overbearing DRM that punished those who didn’t share that implemented by publishers to quell gamers from taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. We wanted our family sharing plan to be something that was talked about and genuinely enjoyed by the masses as a way of inciting gamers to try new games.
Don't worry guys, you kept all your freedom, and your rights, and your liberties!
Its a great day for the free world or something I really have no idea
I never felt like a choice to buy an electronics product was taking my freedoms or unconstitutional or anything, but obviously not all think this way.
Anyways, I'm still going to get the Xbox 360 version 2. Hope some of the complainers do now as well, so that the loss of nice features wasn't for nothing
Not very good actually. Like you, I got called names on forums just for saying the new MS model fitted my situation. Then, whether planned or not, MS does this about face. So it's been a trying few weeks getting called names and attempting to stay out of trouble only for this to happen. In spite of my disappointment, I still think MS is worth supporting even when they fuck up. Eh, my SURFACE was a gamble and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. People are loving their Windows Phones and I'm still planning on getting one this fall. My XB1 plans are to still get one but I may hold on to my money until the package fits better.
what the publishers weren't in favor of letting MS give out 10 copies of there games for every one gold account. Heck people wouldn't even have needed to hand the game from one person to another - they could just stay in their house and download those free games! I'm shocked! those greedy game companies!
what the publishers weren't in favor of letting MS give out 10 copies of there games for every one gold account. Heck people wouldn't even have needed to hand the game from one person to another - they could just stay in their house and download those free games! I'm shocked! those greedy game companies!
There's no reason to correct this misinformed notion anymore, but suffice to say it wasn't publishers that caused this to change.
So, we were supposed to just believe that everything was supposed to be great on blind faith? I've seen anyone who didn't agree with the DRM and 24 hour check garbage called backwards, idiots, and so on (where is LB anyhow?). Why in the hell is the problem with those who didn't get the message when MS COULDN'T EVEN CONVEY THE MESSAGE CONSISTENTLY THEMSELVES???
So, we were supposed to just believe that everything was supposed to be great on blind faith? I've seen anyone who didn't agree with the DRM and 24 hour check garbage called backwards, idiots, and so on (where is LB anyhow?). Why in the hell is the problem with those who didn't get the message when MS COULDN'T EVEN CONVEY THE MESSAGE CONSISTENTLY THEMSELVES???
As opposed to believing everything was supposed to be awful on 'blind faith'? Which is more likely? They would do something they said they were going to do, that was documented in an internet world - or that they would take the death of their console by not doing what they said?
So, we were supposed to just believe that everything was supposed to be great on blind faith? I've seen anyone who didn't agree with the DRM and 24 hour check garbage called backwards, idiots, and so on (where is LB anyhow?). Why in the hell is the problem with those who didn't get the message when MS COULDN'T EVEN CONVEY THE MESSAGE CONSISTENTLY THEMSELVES???
As opposed to believing everything was supposed to be awful on 'blind faith'? Which is more likely? They would do something they said they were going to do, that was documented in an internet world - or that they would take the death of their console by not doing what they said?
Well, having been through the SimCity and Diablo 3 debacles, I'd say that it leans more toward the awful if you just take it at face value. However, please show me where I assumed everything would be awful, rather than casting a necessarily critical eye toward some of the not so consumer friendly features.
So, we were supposed to just believe that everything was supposed to be great on blind faith? I've seen anyone who didn't agree with the DRM and 24 hour check garbage called backwards, idiots, and so on (where is LB anyhow?). Why in the hell is the problem with those who didn't get the message when MS COULDN'T EVEN CONVEY THE MESSAGE CONSISTENTLY THEMSELVES???
As opposed to believing everything was supposed to be awful on 'blind faith'? Which is more likely? They would do something they said they were going to do, that was documented in an internet world - or that they would take the death of their console by not doing what they said?
Well, having been through the SimCity and Diablo 3 debacles, I'd say that it leans more toward the awful if you just take it at face value. However, please show me where I assumed everything would be awful, rather than casting a necessarily critical eye toward some of the not so consumer friendly features.
No less consumer friendly than the current system. Just shifted. If you could lend for free digitally, that's like lending a disc. Also like renting, for free, to try out. How is that not friendly? Using the internet - oh heaven forbid! Not like everyone on this board doesn't have enough internet to check into a token server once every time they boot into their system which they would be using Live for anyway.
Diablo III I bought, and played, and had issues with as well. Because it was a fully ALWAYS ONLINE game without any single player. The One was not going to be always online. It was going to be in essence a "login" like you'd login to your email, when you booted up. It wasn't going to be dependent upon a system serving up all your entire game experience.
So, we were supposed to just believe that everything was supposed to be great on blind faith? I've seen anyone who didn't agree with the DRM and 24 hour check garbage called backwards, idiots, and so on (where is LB anyhow?). Why in the hell is the problem with those who didn't get the message when MS COULDN'T EVEN CONVEY THE MESSAGE CONSISTENTLY THEMSELVES???
As opposed to believing everything was supposed to be awful on 'blind faith'? Which is more likely? They would do something they said they were going to do, that was documented in an internet world - or that they would take the death of their console by not doing what they said?
Well, having been through the SimCity and Diablo 3 debacles, I'd say that it leans more toward the awful if you just take it at face value. However, please show me where I assumed everything would be awful, rather than casting a necessarily critical eye toward some of the not so consumer friendly features.
No less consumer friendly than the current system. Just shifted. If you could lend for free digitally, that's like lending a disc. Also like renting, for free, to try out. How is that not friendly? Using the internet - oh heaven forbid! Not like everyone on this board doesn't have enough internet to check into a token server once every time they boot into their system which they would be using Live for anyway.
Diablo III I bought, and played, and had issues with as well. Because it was a fully ALWAYS ONLINE game without any single player. The One was not going to be always online. It was going to be in essence a "login" like you'd login to your email, when you booted up. It wasn't going to be dependent upon a system serving up all your entire game experience.
No, but it was going to require a 24 hour check, and if you couldn't authenticate it would shut down all gaming functions. I understand shutting down purely online functions without internet (duh), but single player? My ISP works great...I think I've had one outage of 8 hours that wasn't caused by power issues (which brings a slew of bigger problems than not being able to game). However, I've also been a customer of ISPs that go down for more than a day without any major issues in environment - like a disaster that has taken down power or the ISPs building. Satellite and cellular are HORRIBLE about this, but are also all that some people have. Those people should not be locked out of single player gaming due to an overreaching and unnecessary check. Steam works if your internet goes down - why couldn't XB1?
I'd been quoting Henry Ford for a while before this happened with regards to the console.
It just sucks that people who had no intention to buy any console spread conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, said Microsoft was taking away freedom from people or burning flags or whatever, and now they still wont' buy a console but contributed to a worse offering for those who did want it.
The hive mind mentality and groupthink the internet often brings allows such bad apples to spoil a much larger bunch these days. People lose individuality as they decide against making their own informed decisions, and turn to others thoughts to make decisions for them. The loudest become the standard point of reference for decisions, and thought and reason are what is lost.
I'd been quoting Henry Ford for a while before this happened with regards to the console.
It just sucks that people who had no intention to buy any console spread conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, said Microsoft was taking away freedom from people or burning flags or whatever, and now they still wont' buy a console but contributed to a worse offering for those who did want it.
The hive mind mentality and groupthink the internet often brings allows such bad apples to spoil a much larger bunch these days. People lose individuality as they decide against making their own informed decisions, and turn to others thoughts to make decisions for them. The loudest become the standard point of reference for decisions, and thought and reason are what is lost.
Oh for Fuck's sake...let's get a little more dramatic about it, shall we?
Yes, I'm just bending to the hive mind mentality by not liking the inconsistent (at best) message that MS was giving. I'm a bad apple (or backwards, or an idiot...so much for "don't be a dick"). Never mind that I work with software daily, which include licensing, and that I'm a professional when it comes to technology. But, I guess I can't make an informed decision since I thought (knew!) the DRM requirements were draconian.
Nope...not informed at all...not like I don't work with this shit on a daily basis.
I'd been quoting Henry Ford for a while before this happened with regards to the console.
It just sucks that people who had no intention to buy any console spread conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, said Microsoft was taking away freedom from people or burning flags or whatever, and now they still wont' buy a console but contributed to a worse offering for those who did want it.
The hive mind mentality and groupthink the internet often brings allows such bad apples to spoil a much larger bunch these days. People lose individuality as they decide against making their own informed decisions, and turn to others thoughts to make decisions for them. The loudest become the standard point of reference for decisions, and thought and reason are what is lost.
Oh for Fuck's sake...let's get a little more dramatic about it, shall we?
Yes, I'm just bending to the hive mind mentality by not liking the inconsistent (at best) message that MS was giving. I'm a bad apple (or backwards, or an idiot...so much for "don't be a dick"). Never mind that I work with software daily, which include licensing, and that I'm a professional when it comes to technology. But, I guess I can't make an informed decision since I thought (knew!) the DRM requirements were draconian.
Nope...not informed at all...not like I don't work with this shit on a daily basis.
I'd been quoting Henry Ford for a while before this happened with regards to the console.
It just sucks that people who had no intention to buy any console spread conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, said Microsoft was taking away freedom from people or burning flags or whatever, and now they still wont' buy a console but contributed to a worse offering for those who did want it.
The hive mind mentality and groupthink the internet often brings allows such bad apples to spoil a much larger bunch these days. People lose individuality as they decide against making their own informed decisions, and turn to others thoughts to make decisions for them. The loudest become the standard point of reference for decisions, and thought and reason are what is lost.
Oh for Fuck's sake...let's get a little more dramatic about it, shall we?
Yes, I'm just bending to the hive mind mentality by not liking the inconsistent (at best) message that MS was giving. I'm a bad apple (or backwards, or an idiot...so much for "don't be a dick"). Never mind that I work with software daily, which include licensing, and that I'm a professional when it comes to technology. But, I guess I can't make an informed decision since I thought (knew!) the DRM requirements were draconian.
Nope...not informed at all...not like I don't work with this shit on a daily basis.
did you read the article?
Yes, and while there are good points in there, the main theme I see in most of this is how it's the consumers fault for not seeing the forest beyond the trees, and that consumers don't really know what they want. That kind of mentality is exactly what makes my job tougher because I have to clean up after every marketing wonk who is convinced they know more than the customer, to make stuff fit into their "vision" that conflicts directly with what the customers really want in the first place.
It's not just this article, but it's every article written since yesterday that casts a condescending eye on the consumer because the majority spoke out for what they wanted.
Unfortunately, we'll never know if it was the majority who spoke, or if people were informed enough about the new features to know they didn't want them.
Unfortunately, we'll never know if it was the majority who spoke, or if people were informed enough about the new features to know they didn't want them.
The people are only as informed as MS makes them, since they're the ones giving out the information. Based on the information, there wasn't a lot of good. Was that MS's fault? Probably. However, when making an informed purchase, you go with what information you have at hand - not guessing that it's all a lot better than what the manufacturer is telling everyone. To make a purchase based on "Oh, I think it's going to be better than what they're telling everyone" is less informed than deciding not to purchase because MS themselves can't even get their information straight.
Unfortunately, we'll never know if it was the majority who spoke, or if people were informed enough about the new features to know they didn't want them.
The people are only as informed as MS makes them, since they're the ones giving out the information. Based on the information, there wasn't a lot of good. Was that MS's fault? Probably. However, when making an informed purchase, you go with what information you have at hand - not guessing that it's all a lot better than what the manufacturer is telling everyone. To make a purchase based on "Oh, I think it's going to be better than what they're telling everyone" is less informed than deciding not to purchase because MS themselves can't even get their information straight.
Do you consider conspiracy theories, and information that is the opposite of information present on the xbox website to be part of making informed decisions here?
I think its a bit unreasonable to expect people to know everything that was officially said as well - many more heard of the 24 hour checks than the family sharing for example.
Also, making a decision to not buy a console based on information is different than never having the intent to buy a console for a while, and launching a tirade against Microsoft for any negative thing that can be found on the internet, whether true, alarmist, or worse.
Unfortunately, we'll never know if it was the majority who spoke, or if people were informed enough about the new features to know they didn't want them.
The people are only as informed as MS makes them, since they're the ones giving out the information. Based on the information, there wasn't a lot of good. Was that MS's fault? Probably. However, when making an informed purchase, you go with what information you have at hand - not guessing that it's all a lot better than what the manufacturer is telling everyone. To make a purchase based on "Oh, I think it's going to be better than what they're telling everyone" is less informed than deciding not to purchase because MS themselves can't even get their information straight.
Do you consider conspiracy theories, and information that is the opposite of information present on the xbox website to be part of making informed decisions here?
I think its a bit unreasonable to expect people to know everything that was officially said as well - many more heard of the 24 hour checks than the family sharing for example.
Also, making a decision to not buy a console based on information is different than never having the intent to buy a console for a while, and launching a tirade against Microsoft for any negative thing that can be found on the internet, whether true, alarmist, or worse.
True, and you have your group who will bitch about MS no matter what they do - like NeoGAF. Now they won't buy an XB1 because they backed off, when before they wouldn't buy because of the 24 hour checks or the always on Kinect. And whose fault is it that more have heard of the 24 hour check? It's MS's fault - because that's what they focused on at E3? Why was the first place anyone heard about sharing via NeoGAF and a blog? MS dropped the ball, pure and simple.
YOU sat by and did nothing while you let the MS-defenseforce on here do the dirty work for you. Now you hop on the bandwagon and throw some big words around. You're a motherfucking coward.
To set the record straight, none of the people who had concerns were against the facets of the Xbone that would make a step forward from the way things are currently done. Our concern was with the draconic measures MS was forcing upon us. I feel that, and I still stand by it, a gamer should not be held hostage to play a game.
Since I decided not to buy a Xbone, I stopped with commenting further on the subject. I even asked in the support-thread how to disable notifactions for thread-updates. In Doodi's thread I expressed my disappointment with the fact that MS reversed course. Not only does it proof that concerns were legit (If they weren't, why reverse course?), but the way they did it in was unelegant by ripping out features along with the system-DRM that in a way has little to do with the system-DRM.
If you have a problem with how MS does business, take it up with them. Don't join the party late to join harking on the people who have been shat upon on a daily basis just because their opinion differed from the majority on here. I have been understanding, I have tried to explain my position and I have retreated. Now I don't give a flying fuck anymore.
In other words, go suck a dick bayman. That's the only thing you're good for.
Well, it's getting a little hot in herre. How about we take a step back from the fora for a minute, please. I don't want to nuke the thread, but if we have another console Holy War, i'm going to punch a kitten.
What'd zombie do now? ;)
Damn skippy I blame her.
For me the biggest problem I was having was the online check. To tell me that my box that I paid for has to checkin on their servers every 24hrs or it will basically only be good for watching TV was just too much. People have said its like Steam and is no big deal. Sorry but steam looks at the program when first installed and thats it. I could unplug from the net and play my game for years offline.
I think if they had approached it a little differently and explained it alot better it would have received a warmer welcome. To tell people though that if you don't like it just stick with an 360 though was kind of over the top to me.
Basically now though they are in a trough where no matter what they do people are going to be mad. As on this forum people are upset they caved in, others are happy they listened.
If (again I stress IF) this post is accurate, Family Sharing was pretty much a demo mode that would allow the person you're sharing with the option to buy at the end of a predetermined time limit.
EDIT: Later in the link I noticed that you could fully save progress, so that's a plus, but it appears that this wasn't going to allow families with multiple XB1 consoles to purchase one copy for them and their kids - which is too bad, but not surprising.
http://www.heyuguysgaming.com/news/12507/heartbroken-xbox-one-employee-lets-rip-must-read
Why couldn't they just do both... disc based games work like xbox 360 did. Digital downloaded games use the whole drm/sharing thing... that way we have a choice when we go to buy the game.
I was excited about the family share (assuming it wasn't some kind of timed demo), we have multiple xboxes in the house but wind up playing split screen when I play online with my son since I'm not going to buy multiple copies of the same game.
Don't worry guys, you kept all your freedom, and your rights, and your liberties!
Its a great day for the free world or something I really have no idea
I never felt like a choice to buy an electronics product was taking my freedoms or unconstitutional or anything, but obviously not all think this way.
Anyways, I'm still going to get the Xbox 360 version 2. Hope some of the complainers do now as well, so that the loss of nice features wasn't for nothing
How's everyone's day so far? :)
what the publishers weren't in favor of letting MS give out 10 copies of there games for every one gold account. Heck people wouldn't even have needed to hand the game from one person to another - they could just stay in their house and download those free games! I'm shocked! those greedy game companies!
There's no reason to correct this misinformed notion anymore, but suffice to say it wasn't publishers that caused this to change.
Yes it did Shadow.
I don't understand why. Now I get to buy a $60 gold sub for any extra tag. Way to save money.
The Internet Just Made Microsoft Kill a Car for a Faster Horse
https://medium.com/adventures-in-consumer-technology/a849a9d4d530
So, we were supposed to just believe that everything was supposed to be great on blind faith? I've seen anyone who didn't agree with the DRM and 24 hour check garbage called backwards, idiots, and so on (where is LB anyhow?). Why in the hell is the problem with those who didn't get the message when MS COULDN'T EVEN CONVEY THE MESSAGE CONSISTENTLY THEMSELVES???
As opposed to believing everything was supposed to be awful on 'blind faith'? Which is more likely? They would do something they said they were going to do, that was documented in an internet world - or that they would take the death of their console by not doing what they said?
Well, having been through the SimCity and Diablo 3 debacles, I'd say that it leans more toward the awful if you just take it at face value. However, please show me where I assumed everything would be awful, rather than casting a necessarily critical eye toward some of the not so consumer friendly features.
No less consumer friendly than the current system. Just shifted. If you could lend for free digitally, that's like lending a disc. Also like renting, for free, to try out. How is that not friendly? Using the internet - oh heaven forbid! Not like everyone on this board doesn't have enough internet to check into a token server once every time they boot into their system which they would be using Live for anyway.
Diablo III I bought, and played, and had issues with as well. Because it was a fully ALWAYS ONLINE game without any single player. The One was not going to be always online. It was going to be in essence a "login" like you'd login to your email, when you booted up. It wasn't going to be dependent upon a system serving up all your entire game experience.
No, but it was going to require a 24 hour check, and if you couldn't authenticate it would shut down all gaming functions. I understand shutting down purely online functions without internet (duh), but single player? My ISP works great...I think I've had one outage of 8 hours that wasn't caused by power issues (which brings a slew of bigger problems than not being able to game). However, I've also been a customer of ISPs that go down for more than a day without any major issues in environment - like a disaster that has taken down power or the ISPs building. Satellite and cellular are HORRIBLE about this, but are also all that some people have. Those people should not be locked out of single player gaming due to an overreaching and unnecessary check. Steam works if your internet goes down - why couldn't XB1?
This. So much this.
I'd been quoting Henry Ford for a while before this happened with regards to the console.
It just sucks that people who had no intention to buy any console spread conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, said Microsoft was taking away freedom from people or burning flags or whatever, and now they still wont' buy a console but contributed to a worse offering for those who did want it.
The hive mind mentality and groupthink the internet often brings allows such bad apples to spoil a much larger bunch these days. People lose individuality as they decide against making their own informed decisions, and turn to others thoughts to make decisions for them. The loudest become the standard point of reference for decisions, and thought and reason are what is lost.
Oh for Fuck's sake...let's get a little more dramatic about it, shall we?
Yes, I'm just bending to the hive mind mentality by not liking the inconsistent (at best) message that MS was giving. I'm a bad apple (or backwards, or an idiot...so much for "don't be a dick"). Never mind that I work with software daily, which include licensing, and that I'm a professional when it comes to technology. But, I guess I can't make an informed decision since I thought (knew!) the DRM requirements were draconian.
Nope...not informed at all...not like I don't work with this shit on a daily basis.
did you read the article?
Yes, and while there are good points in there, the main theme I see in most of this is how it's the consumers fault for not seeing the forest beyond the trees, and that consumers don't really know what they want. That kind of mentality is exactly what makes my job tougher because I have to clean up after every marketing wonk who is convinced they know more than the customer, to make stuff fit into their "vision" that conflicts directly with what the customers really want in the first place.
It's not just this article, but it's every article written since yesterday that casts a condescending eye on the consumer because the majority spoke out for what they wanted.
Let's hope the end of the article comes true and we do get an opt in ability, or at least digital support for some of the forward thinking features.
Unfortunately, we'll never know if it was the majority who spoke, or if people were informed enough about the new features to know they didn't want them.
The people are only as informed as MS makes them, since they're the ones giving out the information. Based on the information, there wasn't a lot of good. Was that MS's fault? Probably. However, when making an informed purchase, you go with what information you have at hand - not guessing that it's all a lot better than what the manufacturer is telling everyone. To make a purchase based on "Oh, I think it's going to be better than what they're telling everyone" is less informed than deciding not to purchase because MS themselves can't even get their information straight.
Do you consider conspiracy theories, and information that is the opposite of information present on the xbox website to be part of making informed decisions here?
I think its a bit unreasonable to expect people to know everything that was officially said as well - many more heard of the 24 hour checks than the family sharing for example.
Also, making a decision to not buy a console based on information is different than never having the intent to buy a console for a while, and launching a tirade against Microsoft for any negative thing that can be found on the internet, whether true, alarmist, or worse.
True, and you have your group who will bitch about MS no matter what they do - like NeoGAF. Now they won't buy an XB1 because they backed off, when before they wouldn't buy because of the 24 hour checks or the always on Kinect. And whose fault is it that more have heard of the 24 hour check? It's MS's fault - because that's what they focused on at E3? Why was the first place anyone heard about sharing via NeoGAF and a blog? MS dropped the ball, pure and simple.