Xbox One Petition to Re-Revert the DRM Scheme

[mrthuvi]

DO you think that they have the resources to watch every person who has an xbox?

Maybe the M$ doesn't have that resources but i'm sure NSA has and interested in it. NSA has captured and stored all data coming through the US's data pipe for years. Not only do i not want some shady NSA agent watching me masterbating in front of my xbox one, i don't want video of me masterbating ending up in some remote server AT ALL.

[eshbop]

Actually, they do have the resources to do this, and they have the technology to use it. Think of it this way. If the NSA for some reason think you have done something illegal, then they can monitor your house 24/7 with a camera that can even see in the dark. You can be completely innocent, but they can still monitor you 24/7 if they want to. How do you know the footage won't be used if it's in a server?

Why would having the Kinect as an option be a bad thing? If people really wanted it, then they would buy it and developers would code for it. The only reason why developers would ignore it if it was a separate item would be if barely anyone bought it, and that would mean that people don't want it, so why force everyone to get one? It doesn't make any sense.

Guess you'd need to keep and eye on your uploads. Sending out a constant video streams would eat it up. They did come out an say you can turn the Kinect completely off instead of having it in standby, which is what they first planned.

Probably trying to differentiate themselves from the PS4 or they think it will create a better experience. Maybe they've thought up some interesting ways it can be used that we haven't yet. Who knows.

Or maybe it's to charge you for each person watching Netflix, etc (pretty sure they patented tech that could do this). Though I'm sure you could fool the camera. And depending on the pricing structure it might work out cheaper for (at least) some people, or maybe not.

[LAwLz]

Guess you'd need to keep and eye on your uploads. Sending out a constant video streams would eat it up. They did come out an say you can turn the Kinect completely off instead of having it in standby, which is what they first planned.

Probably trying to differentiate themselves from the PS4 or they think it will create a better experience. Maybe they've thought up some interesting ways it can be used that we haven't yet. Who knows.

They don't need to stream it all the time, just a photo once in a while or something like that. If you don't find the idea of the NSA having access to a camera (which can even see in the dark) creepy and privacy invading then I fear for you and everyone else who thinks like you do.

Differentiation is good, as long as the thing which differentiates you is wanted by the customers and good for the market in general. Forcing customers to use something which is so privacy intrusive that it is flat out illegal in some countries, and a huge portion of the customers loathe and think is gimmicky, is not a good way to differentiate your product with.

Won't comment on the Netflix pay per person who watches thing because that's just pure speculation. Might be good, might be absolutely horrible.

[Whiskers]

Consider that they shut down the servers for the original Xbox a few years ago. They've shown they're willing to do it - if the Xbox One still had the same DRM scheme originally proposed then they could very well choose to do the same thing in 15 years or so.

Problem is it would have rendered the entire device along with all of its games and applications entirely useless.

Not to mention it isn't fair for those without an internet connection. If someone buys a physical copy of the game, why would they still need to connect to Xbox Live before being allowed to play it? Yeah a lot of us may have internet access, perhaps even most - but there are still a lot of people that don't.

That's the thing about Steam. It requires that users be connected to the internet to purchase, download and authenticate a game. But if you don't have an internet connection you can still go out and buy a physical copy of the game, and play it without needing to connect online. (Several notable exceptions aside)

[rashdanml]

Also, I don't understand how they can't have digital game sales like they wanted to without the 24 hour requirement. Steam allows you to be offline indefinitely from what I've heard, yet nearly it's 99% digital.

You still need Steam to be connected to buy/download games, which is obvious. Xbox one would definitely require that. The 24 hour check-in was unnecessary though.

 

At least the upside of it is, Game sharing may be coming to Steam. Console gamers will be crawling on their knees soon, asking for Steam on console. Valve may get the upper hand at that point with their Steambox.

[martinrox1568]

Actually, they do have the resources to do this, and they have the technology to use it. Think of it this way. If the NSA for some reason think you have done something illegal, then they can monitor your house 24/7 with a camera that can even see in the dark. You can be completely innocent, but they can still monitor you 24/7 if they want to. How do you know the footage won't be used if it's in a server?

 

Why would having the Kinect as an option be a bad thing? If people really wanted it, then they would buy it and developers would code for it. The only reason why developers would ignore it if it was a separate item would be if barely anyone bought it, and that would mean that people don't want it, so why force everyone to get one? It doesn't make any sense.

1. if you think the NSA could watch you from a KINECT, they could just as easily planted a bug.

2. The NSA does not have these records, Microsoft does. Microsoft would have no obligation to give it to the NSA.

3. What kind of criminal would plan their heist in the living room with a kinect right in front of them? Or does their safe house have a xbox one in it.

4. If people thought that the xbox one costs $300, who would pay $200 for an accessory that isn't required? Imagine that you are 13 and you are trying to convince your parents to spend an extra $200 after they just spent $300 for an xbox. And because of that, no devs would want to waste their time coding for it.

[Vitalius]

1. if you think the NSA could watch you from a KINECT, they could just as easily planted a bug.

2. The NSA does not have these records, Microsoft does. Microsoft would have no obligation to give it to the NSA.

3. What kind of criminal would plan their heist in the living room with a kinect right in front of them? Or does their safe house have a xbox one in it.

4. If people thought that the xbox one costs $300, who would pay $200 for an accessory that isn't required? Imagine that you are 13 and you are trying to convince your parents to spend an extra $200 after they just spent $300 for an xbox. And because of that, no devs would want to waste their time coding for it.

*face-fu**ing-palm*

1. The Kinect IS the bug. :|

2. The NSA is beyond well known for taking things without letting others know they took them. I point you to the Verizon fiasco.

3. You've obviously never seen Kick Ass.

4. No one. That's why it's annoying that it's being forced. BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT. :| You are just proving my point.

We don't want it whether devs code for it or not. Excuses irrelevant. 

[martinrox1568]

You do know that they did shut down the original Xbox servers quite a while ago, right? You can no longer play any original Xbox game online. You can still play them in single player, but if it had been the Xbox One with the original DRM then you wouldn't have been able to play ANY games on it at all. This isn't some paranoia thing, it is already reality. They should not have the power to render all consoles unusable with a push of a button, because they will use it sooner or later (when they want people to buy the Xbox 2). You're very naive if you think that's far fetched. It won't happen right now, but it could easily happen in 15 years or so (when they want people to change to the Xbox 2, and the Xbox One isn't that popular anymore).

Like I said before, 500 million people are not going to be happy. Not saying that they don't have the power to shut down the servers, but it will be highly unlikely in the next 20 years or so. It's one thing to shut down the online servers, its an entirely different thing to make your xbox one a brick. 

[martinrox1568]

In 10 years from now, when the Xbox One is getting close to the end of its life cycle, they can shut off the servers and then you will HAVE TO buy the next Xbox. That's the level of control they would have had if they kept the digital DRM. Sure, they probably won't do that, but I doubt they are going to keep their servers up forever, at one point they will have to shut down the Xbox Live servers for older consoles, and when that happens I want to be able to play my video games that I bought.

 

It doesn't matter if they are going to watch us or not, it's the fact that they have the ABILITY to do so. Also it doesn't help that they are giving backdoors to everyone from the Government for every single service they provide.

 

If people don't want the Kinect, forcing it on them will make it worse. If you force someone to use or do something, they will not want to do it and you will get a bad reputation for doing so.

No one is going to shut down the xbox one servers. That will not happen, atleast for another 20 years or so. And if you still WANT the xbox one in 20 years, THEN you might be out of luck. And, you don't think that MS will allow you to download your games before that

[Vitalius]

No one is going to shut down the xbox one servers. That will not happen, atleast for another 20 years or so. And if you still WANT the xbox one in 20 years, THEN you might be out of luck. And, you don't think that MS will allow you to download your games before that

I completely doubt MS would allow me to download my games before that. That's just the type of company MS is. They've shown that in the way they treat their OS's and other services.

Like I said before, 500 million people are not going to be happy. Not saying that they don't have the power to shut down the servers, but it will be highly unlikely in the next 20 years or so. It's one thing to shut down the online servers, its an entirely different thing to make your xbox one a brick. 

But under the old DRM plan, that's exactly what shutting down the online servers would do: Make your XB1 a brick. :|

Just... no. There is no excuse for the old DRM plan that can make up for it's negatives. None at all.

[martinrox1568]

*face-fu**ing-palm*

1. The Kinect IS the bug. :|

2. The NSA is beyond well known for taking things without letting others know they took them. I point you to the Verizon fiasco.

3. You've obviously never seen Kick Ass.

4. No one. That's why it's annoying that it's being forced. BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT. :| You are just proving my point.

We don't want it whether devs code for it or not. Excuses irrelevant. 

you might not want it, but the 10 year old that is going to buy it does. MS doesn't care about the hardcore gamers anymore because it is only 10% of the population. They want to take over the living room, and that wont happen if it is just a console.

[martinrox1568]

I completely doubt MS would allow me to download my games before that. That's just the type of company MS is. They've shown that in the way they treat their OS's and other services.

But under the old DRM plan, that's exactly what shutting down the online servers would do: Make your XB1 a brick. :|

Just... no. There is no excuse for the old DRM plan that can make up for it's negatives. None at all.

If you think that MS hates you, and doesn't care if 500 million people are mad, then I have a tin foil hat for you so that the government can't read your mind. . . MS doesn't want to kill the xbox one whenever the nex gen comes out, they want to free server space for the new console. Letting you download your games isn't that much trouble for them. . .

[xToFxREAPER]

maybe not exactly as it was but there are many drm policies that i think would make sense on a console as long as the used game market can still flourish because thats a very big thing on consoles, as a previous console gamer i know very well that the ability to trade and lend games is very big

[Vitalius]

you might not want it, but the 10 year old that is going to buy it does. MS doesn't care about the hardcore gamers anymore because it is only 10% of the population. They want to take over the living room, and that wont happen if it is just a console.

 

Well, the casuals are gonna stop buying their shit eventually. Simply because Casuals can't be bothered to buy a new system every generation. Hardcore gamers are the guys who come back every generation. 

They are on a one way trip to fail.

If you think that MS hates you, and doesn't care if 500 million people are mad, then I have a tin foil hat for you so that the government can't read your mind. . . MS doesn't want to kill the xbox one whenever the nex gen comes out, they want to free server space for the new console. Letting you download your games isn't that much trouble for them. . .

*aneurysm due to the stupidity of this statement*

Yeah I'm done.

[LAwLz]

1. if you think the NSA could watch you from a KINECT, they could just as easily planted a bug.

2. The NSA does not have these records, Microsoft does. Microsoft would have no obligation to give it to the NSA.

3. What kind of criminal would plan their heist in the living room with a kinect right in front of them? Or does their safe house have a xbox one in it.

4. If people thought that the xbox one costs $300, who would pay $200 for an accessory that isn't required? Imagine that you are 13 and you are trying to convince your parents to spend an extra $200 after they just spent $300 for an xbox. And because of that, no devs would want to waste their time coding for it.

1) Like Vitalius said, the Kinect IS the bug. Bugging houses of the average Joe is illegal (I think) unless you have a warrant, so they would not do that. if someone brings the bug home willingly however, now that's a completely different story. I don't *think* they could watch you through I Kinect, I KNOW they can watch you. haven't you been reading all the leaked documents about PRISM recently? This isn't just tinfoil hat speculation, it's solid facts with evidence to back it up.

 

2) And Microsoft still gives the NSA access to it. Again, go read about PRISM.

 

3) Well we have had one person be jailed for saying a joke while playing LoL. It's not that far fetched that someone would come knocking at your door and arresting you if the Kinect picked up on you saying something which the NSA could call a threat (even if it was just a joke).

 

4) Yeah, who would buy a 200 dollar accessory? Nobody, and that's why they are FORCING everyone who wants an Xbox One to buy it as well. I am honestly trying to follow your logic here, but it doesn't make any sense. What you are basically saying is that "it's good that they force you to spend 200 dollars on an accessory barely anyone wants, because if nobody was forced to buy it then people wouldn't buy it". It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Again like Vitalius said, you are just proving the point he and I have been making. The original Kinect sold great (until people realized it was pretty shitty) and that was 100 dollars. If the Kinect for the Xbox One was the same price or slightly more then they wouldn't have any issue selling it. I doubt that it costs more than 100 dollars to manufacture. The cameras (both the normal and the IR) costs maybe 35 dollars, and then you need a motor for maybe 5 dollars, and then some plastic and other parts and you might end up at something like 55 dollars, plus some shipping and you the retailer will take a bit of money... I think they could still make a tiny profit by selling the Kinect for the Xbox One at 99 dollars, if they want more profit then sure bump it up to 150 dollars. People would still be able to buy it very easily if they wanted it. Forcing everyone to buy it because you think nobody would buy it unless forced is really bad for us consumers.

 

 

Like I said before, 500 million people are not going to be happy. Not saying that they don't have the power to shut down the servers, but it will be highly unlikely in the next 20 years or so. It's one thing to shut down the online servers, its an entirely different thing to make your xbox one a brick. 

With their old DRM policy, your console would become absolutely useless if they decided to turn the servers off. You could use it as a paperweight and that was pretty much it (I don't even think you could use it as a blu-ray player without Microsoft's servers with their old policy).

I don't get where you are getting "500 million people". A total amount of 77.2 million Xbox 360s have been sold, and that includes sales to the same person over and over (lots of people have bought more than 1 Xbox 360 because they tend to break). You won't even get half of your outrageous number if you combined all Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 consoles sold worldwide (which would end up being slightly below 250 million).

 

The Xbox (original) was released in 2001 and the servers were shut down in 2010, that's 9 years after it was originally released. The Xbox One is expected to last longer than the Xbox (original) but you have to be extremely naive to think that Microsoft would not shut down the servers if they thought it would benefit them (driving more people to the Xbox Two or whatever they will call it). Maybe this is just me, but I don't like the idea that Microsoft could make my console completely useless if they felt like I should upgrade. No, I want to be in control of the things that I have bought and paid for.

[LAwLz]

No one is going to shut down the xbox one servers. That will not happen, atleast for another 20 years or so. And if you still WANT the xbox one in 20 years, THEN you might be out of luck. And, you don't think that MS will allow you to download your games before that

I still play games on my NES, which is 27 years old, and as you probably have seen on the Live Stream Linus still plays his SNES, which is 21 years old. It's a very good thing Nintendo wasn't as anti-consumers as Microsoft was during E3, because if they were then we wouldn't have been able to play those games anymore (for no good reason other than Microsoft saying "oh you paid to be able to play the games? Well too bad for you, because we will brick your console now mohahaha"). They could do it sooner than 20 years if they wanted to as well. They could very well do it in 15 if they thought that it would benefit them. Running all those servers is a very cost thing to do so they want them shut down and/or reallocated as soon as possible.

By the way, it wouldn't matter if you had the games downloaded with the old DRM. Even games on the hard drive would become unplayable when their servers were shut down.

 

 

 

you might not want it, but the 10 year old that is going to buy it does. MS doesn't care about the hardcore gamers anymore because it is only 10% of the population. They want to take over the living room, and that wont happen if it is just a console.

Where did you get that "hardcore gamers are only 10% of the population" statistics from and I would like to see their definition of "hardcore gamer". Also, that's a really bad argument if you are trying to defend Microsoft. Just saying "they don't care about gamers" is not a valid argument why a gaming console should suck at being a gaming console.

 

 

 

If you think that MS hates you, and doesn't care if 500 million people are mad, then I have a tin foil hat for you so that the government can't read your mind. . . MS doesn't want to kill the xbox one whenever the nex gen comes out, they want to free server space for the new console. Letting you download your games isn't that much trouble for them. . .

Again, your whole "500 million" number is completely off. It's more like 50 million. Secondly, I don't think Microsoft hates me, and I doubt that Vitalius thinks they hate him either. It's just that they have done a lot of very anti-consumer moves in order to make more money. To me, there are two ways of making money.

1) Make the customers happy by providing a good service so that they are likely to be loyal and spend more money. I like to call this the Steam approach, or the Amazon approach.

2) Try to milk as much money from the consumers as possible, and preferably create a monopoly so that they are forced to give you more money. I like to call this the Apple approach (for example you can only buy apps from the App Store) and this is the approach Microsoft are currently going for, and failed quite hard (but still not completely) at it as of recently.

 

Oh and again, just because you have the game on your hard drive does not mean you could play it (with the old DRM). Even if you had Halo 9 on your hard drive after their servers were shut down, you would still be unable to play it since your Xbox would just say "sorry but you haven't logged in for the last 24 hours, so I can't let you play the game". If your name is Dave then it might just stare at you with its IR camera and say "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".

[martinrox1568]

I still play games on my NES, which is 27 years old, and as you probably have seen on the Live Stream Linus still plays his SNES, which is 21 years old. It's a very good thing Nintendo wasn't as anti-consumers as Microsoft was during E3, because if they were then we wouldn't have been able to play those games anymore (for no good reason other than Microsoft saying "oh you paid to be able to play the games? Well too bad for you, because we will brick your console now mohahaha"). They could do it sooner than 20 years if they wanted to as well. They could very well do it in 15 if they thought that it would benefit them. Running all those servers is a very cost thing to do so they want them shut down and/or reallocated as soon as possible.

By the way, it wouldn't matter if you had the games downloaded with the old DRM. Even games on the hard drive would become unplayable when their servers were shut down.

 

 

 

Where did you get that "hardcore gamers are only 10% of the population" statistics from and I would like to see their definition of "hardcore gamer". Also, that's a really bad argument if you are trying to defend Microsoft. Just saying "they don't care about gamers" is not a valid argument why a gaming console should suck at being a gaming console.

 

 

 

Again, your whole "500 million" number is completely off. It's more like 50 million. Secondly, I don't think Microsoft hates me, and I doubt that Vitalius thinks they hate him either. It's just that they have done a lot of very anti-consumer moves in order to make more money. To me, there are two ways of making money.

1) Make the customers happy by providing a good service so that they are likely to be loyal and spend more money. I like to call this the Steam approach, or the Amazon approach.

2) Try to milk as much money from the consumers as possible, and preferably create a monopoly so that they are forced to give you more money. I like to call this the Apple approach (for example you can only buy apps from the App Store) and this is the approach Microsoft are currently going for, and failed quite hard (but still not completely) at it as of recently.

 

Oh and again, just because you have the game on your hard drive does not mean you could play it (with the old DRM). Even if you had Halo 9 on your hard drive after their servers were shut down, you would still be unable to play it since your Xbox would just say "sorry but you haven't logged in for the last 24 hours, so I can't let you play the game". If your name is Dave then it might just stare at you with its IR camera and say "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".

1.You realize that microsoft is smart enough to disable the 24 hour log in when they EVENTUALLY turn off the servers, right. Just a small update patch and you'd be good to go. Sure you can't play multiplexer games, but could u do that with SNES games today?

2.Linus doesn't actually have a SNES

3. 77 million people have bought an Xbox 360. You think that people that don't have a 360 will sit here silently? No, they will also want to jump on the bandwagon. To me, that is the biggest problem of the internet. Someone reads a YouTube comment and suddenly have really strong opinions about something.

4. But the apple ecosystem MAKES sense. The app store is there so that Apple can make sure that every app is up to it's standard. If is wasn't this way, then ios would have a bunch of horrible apps that no one uses. Google should learn from this. If you have seen some (not all, but some) of android's apps, they are abysmal. 

5. I kinda already went over this

[martinrox1568]

1) Like Vitalius said, the Kinect IS the bug. Bugging houses of the average Joe is illegal (I think) unless you have a warrant, so they would not do that. if someone brings the bug home willingly however, now that's a completely different story. I don't *think* they could watch you through I Kinect, I KNOW they can watch you. haven't you been reading all the leaked documents about PRISM recently? This isn't just tinfoil hat speculation, it's solid facts with evidence to back it up.

 

2) And Microsoft still gives the NSA access to it. Again, go read about PRISM.

 

3) Well we have had one person be jailed for saying a joke while playing LoL. It's not that far fetched that someone would come knocking at your door and arresting you if the Kinect picked up on you saying something which the NSA could call a threat (even if it was just a joke).

 

4) Yeah, who would buy a 200 dollar accessory? Nobody, and that's why they are FORCING everyone who wants an Xbox One to buy it as well. I am honestly trying to follow your logic here, but it doesn't make any sense. What you are basically saying is that "it's good that they force you to spend 200 dollars on an accessory barely anyone wants, because if nobody was forced to buy it then people wouldn't buy it". It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Again like Vitalius said, you are just proving the point he and I have been making. The original Kinect sold great (until people realized it was pretty shitty) and that was 100 dollars. If the Kinect for the Xbox One was the same price or slightly more then they wouldn't have any issue selling it. I doubt that it costs more than 100 dollars to manufacture. The cameras (both the normal and the IR) costs maybe 35 dollars, and then you need a motor for maybe 5 dollars, and then some plastic and other parts and you might end up at something like 55 dollars, plus some shipping and you the retailer will take a bit of money... I think they could still make a tiny profit by selling the Kinect for the Xbox One at 99 dollars, if they want more profit then sure bump it up to 150 dollars. People would still be able to buy it very easily if they wanted it. Forcing everyone to buy it because you think nobody would buy it unless forced is really bad for us consumers.

 

 

With their old DRM policy, your console would become absolutely useless if they decided to turn the servers off. You could use it as a paperweight and that was pretty much it (I don't even think you could use it as a blu-ray player without Microsoft's servers with their old policy).

I don't get where you are getting "500 million people". A total amount of 77.2 million Xbox 360s have been sold, and that includes sales to the same person over and over (lots of people have bought more than 1 Xbox 360 because they tend to break). You won't even get half of your outrageous number if you combined all Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 consoles sold worldwide (which would end up being slightly below 250 million).

 

The Xbox (original) was released in 2001 and the servers were shut down in 2010, that's 9 years after it was originally released. The Xbox One is expected to last longer than the Xbox (original) but you have to be extremely naive to think that Microsoft would not shut down the servers if they thought it would benefit them (driving more people to the Xbox Two or whatever they will call it). Maybe this is just me, but I don't like the idea that Microsoft could make my console completely useless if they felt like I should upgrade. No, I want to be in control of the things that I have bought and paid for.

1. If planting a bug is illegal, then it would be the same thing to access the kinect's servers. And the only reason Kinect is always on is because of motion gestures. And I have not even come across an article where it mentions storing kinect data. 

 

2. You might be right, but we don't even know if they even have any data to give

 

3. Yeah well. . .

 

4. Like I said, Kinect is part of the console. MS doesn't want to just be a console, which is the smart thing to do. If they can become your set top box also, that would be SOO amazing. Consistent UI, and no input switching. I don't understand what you don't get. Microsoft wants you to want the kinect. It's like parents telling you to do something when you don't want to. They do it because they know that it is better, and one day you might understand what they meant. You probably want motion tracking, but you don't want to spend $200. And if you want it so bad that you spend $200, you'd be dissapointed when there is nothing to do with it because no one developed for it. 

 

And lastly, if you don't want an xbox, then don't buy one. I won't even though I like the idea more than the PS4. I will be sticking to my PC for now. But mostly, don't spend your time arguing with a person who won't change his mind.

[martinrox1568]

Well, the casuals are gonna stop buying their shit eventually. Simply because Casuals can't be bothered to buy a new system every generation. Hardcore gamers are the guys who come back every generation. 

They are on a one way trip to fail.

*aneurysm due to the stupidity of this statement*

Yeah I'm done.

which is why MS needs to create new must have features for the casual gamers

[Whiskers]

-Snip-

 

Ayayay..

 

Microsoft won't secure 'casual gamers' through confusing and unnecessary features such as always-online requirements, TV features and Kinect. Especially not when the console comes in at $100 more than its competitor, looks like a 90's VCR and has featuresets and limitations which are massively confusing to the user. (When Microsoft's PR team themselves get confused over things it's a safe bet consumers would too - common sense, no?) Normal consumers would go and buy the PS4.

 

Casual gamers are not idiots. The entire idea of the Xbox One (the service, the games, the price, the hardware, the policies, the marketing) is the antithesis of casual gaming.

[EChondo]

Ayayay..

 

Microsoft won't secure 'casual gamers' through confusing and unnecessary features such as always-online requirements, TV features and Kinect. Especially not when the console comes in at $100 more than its competitor, looks like a 90's VCR and has featuresets and limitations which are massively confusing to the user. (When Microsoft's PR team themselves get confused over things it's a safe bet consumers would too - common sense, no?) Normal consumers would go and buy the PS4.

 

Casual gamers are not idiots. The entire idea of the Xbox One (the service, the games, the price, the hardware, the policies, the marketing) is the antithesis of casual gaming.

To be fair, both consoles look beyond minimalistic(which I like), but they are both ugly. And the glossy section doesn't help.

 

Casual gamers also have brand loyalty. The Xbox One might be $100 more, but if someone is familiar with the platform, they won't want to switch.

[Vitalius]

To be fair, both consoles look beyond minimalistic(which I like), but they are both ugly. And the glossy section doesn't help.

 

Casual gamers also have brand loyalty. The Xbox One might be $100 more, but if someone is familiar with the platform, they won't want to switch.

I like the look of the PS4 personally. 

True. That's one of the reasons I don't like the idea of "casuals" in general. Not to say I don't like casuals, I just don't like what they imply.

[LAwLz]

1.You realize that microsoft is smart enough to disable the 24 hour log in when they EVENTUALLY turn off the servers, right. Just a small update patch and you'd be good to go. Sure you can't play multiplexer games, but could u do that with SNES games today?

Oh, I must have missed the announcement they made when they said that they would disable it before turning their servers off. If they made that announcement then you have a point. However, it seems like I can't find any announcement like that so you are just making things up. Please don't make things up when trying to make an argument. I can't even argue against it with facts since there is absolutely nothing about it anywhere (since you made it up).

By the way, since they said that they needed always online in order to use cloud computing for certain things in games, it would be impossible to just patch it away. I assume that was a lie too though, since they did remove that requirement.

 

 

2.Linus doesn't actually have a SNES

Ehh, yes he does. Slick does as well. It's just that they use an emulator for the live stream, but they still have the console.

 

 

 

3. 77 million people have bought an Xbox 360. You think that people that don't have a 360 will sit here silently? No, they will also want to jump on the bandwagon. To me, that is the biggest problem of the internet. Someone reads a YouTube comment and suddenly have really strong opinions about something.

No, 77 people don't have an Xbox 360. That's the amount of consoles which have been sold. If no Xbox 360 whatsoever had broken, then it would be 77.2 million people. However, the Xbox 360 had a huge failure rate and lots of people have bought several Xboxes so the real number is probably closer to 40 or 50 million people. I am not sure which part of my comment you are referring to though but it seems like this part of your post isn't even an argument, just random rambling. I think it's very hypocritical of you to whine about people having strong opinions by the way.

 

 

4. But the apple ecosystem MAKES sense. The app store is there so that Apple can make sure that every app is up to it's standard. If is wasn't this way, then ios would have a bunch of horrible apps that no one uses. Google should learn from this. If you have seen some (not all, but some) of android's apps, they are abysmal. 

Yes it makes sense if you want a monopoly (a bad thing for us consumers) and make lots of money, but it's bad for us consumers. I think it's funny that you said "If is wasn't this way, then ios would have a bunch of horrible apps that no one uses". Did you know that back in July last year (2012) a report showed that 2/3 of the apps in the appstore (400,000 out of 650,000) have never been downloaded, not even once. There are almost 2 thousand flashlight apps in the app store. There are a bunch of horrible apps that no one uses in the app store. I have several Android devices and yes, a lot of apps are bad but a lot of them are very good. I personally think that the best apps for Android are far superior to the best apps on iOS but we are getting off track. Bottom line, you're not well read so please don't talk about things you don't understand or know.

 

 

5. I kinda already went over this

Went over what? You didn't make any kind of indication in your quote which shows me which part of it you are talking about. If it's about Microsoft being able to brick your Xbone then please look at the first part of my post. You just made that up and didn't base it on any facts whatsoever.

[LAwLz]

1. If planting a bug is illegal, then it would be the same thing to access the kinect's servers. And the only reason Kinect is always on is because of motion gestures. And I have not even come across an article where it mentions storing kinect data.

I am not a lawyers so correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it is illegal. They are not accessing it directly, and you have already given Microsoft permission to use it. Microsoft (which you have agreed are allowed to monitor you) saves the data, and then gives it to the NSA. If the NSA directly took the data without going through Microsoft, then it might be illegal. OK so if the only reason why the Kinect is there is so that you can use motion gestures, then why can't I unplug it I don't want to use motion gestures? Why did they make it so that the Xbone won't work without it plugged in?

 

 

2. You might be right, but we don't even know if they even have any data to give

I am not following you here. Are you saying that we do not know if Microsoft can upload images taken with the Kinect to their servers? The Kinect already does that, it takes images of you and uploads them to Microsoft's server. The difference between the old Kinect and the new Kinect is that the old one isn't required to use the Xbox. Don't want it taking pictures of you? Then unplug it. With this Xbone it's "don't like it taking pictures of you? Then throw it out the window and get a PS4".

 

 

4. Like I said, Kinect is part of the console. MS doesn't want to just be a console, which is the smart thing to do. If they can become your set top box also, that would be SOO amazing. Consistent UI, and no input switching. I don't understand what you don't get. Microsoft wants you to want the kinect. It's like parents telling you to do something when you don't want to. They do it because they know that it is better, and one day you might understand what they meant. You probably want motion tracking, but you don't want to spend $200. And if you want it so bad that you spend $200, you'd be dissapointed when there is nothing to do with it because no one developed for it. 

You might be OK with Microsoft baby sitting you, but I am not. I know what's best for me, and what I want.

I don't give a damn about TV and a lot of people don't care either. To me and a lot of other people, it is completely useless. That's completely irrelevant to the Kinect though, not sure why you brought it up.

Yes, Microsoft wants me to want the Kinect, so what? I don't want it so why force me? A lot of people don't want the Kinect, so why force them? Why not give people the choice? If they think the Kinect is good, then people would buy it, but they don't think it's good. They think it's bad and that people wouldn't get it, which is why they are mandating it. Again, it's just like the start screen in Windows 8. Customers don't want it, but it is most beneficial to Microsoft so they force it. No, I don't want motion tracking. I simply don't. I used to have a Wii, my friend has a Kinect, I got a Galaxy S 4, and the motion tracking is garbage on all of them. It's not that it's unresponsive or anything like that, it's just that it's useless. I don't want it because it is pointless and just ruins the gaming experience in a lot of cases. Who in their right mind wants to flair around with your arms, jump around and so on when you could with much greater accuracy just move a joystick and press a button? I have already gone over the whole "it would be too expensive" argument in my previous post and you are not only wrong, but completely illogical with your inane claims.

[martinrox1568]

LAwLz, on 21 Jul 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

Oh, I must have missed the announcement they made when they said that they would disable it before turning their servers off. If they made that announcement then you have a point. However, it seems like I can't find any announcement like that so you are just making things up. Please don't make things up when trying to make an argument. I can't even argue against it with facts since there is absolutely nothing about it anywhere (since you made it up).

By the way, since they said that they needed always online in order to use cloud computing for certain things in games, it would be impossible to just patch it away. I assume that was a lie too though, since they did remove that requirement.

Ehh, yes he does. Slick does as well. It's just that they use an emulator for the live stream, but they still have the console.

No, 77 people don't have an Xbox 360. That's the amount of consoles which have been sold. If no Xbox 360 whatsoever had broken, then it would be 77.2 million people. However, the Xbox 360 had a huge failure rate and lots of people have bought several Xboxes so the real number is probably closer to 40 or 50 million people. I am not sure which part of my comment you are referring to though but it seems like this part of your post isn't even an argument, just random rambling. I think it's very hypocritical of you to whine about people having strong opinions by the way.

Yes it makes sense if you want a monopoly (a bad thing for us consumers) and make lots of money, but it's bad for us consumers. I think it's funny that you said "If is wasn't this way, then ios would have a bunch of horrible apps that no one uses". Did you know that back in July last year (2012) a report showed that 2/3 of the apps in the appstore (400,000 out of 650,000) have never been downloaded, not even once. There are almost 2 thousand flashlight apps in the app store. There are a bunch of horrible apps that no one uses in the app store. I have several Android devices and yes, a lot of apps are bad but a lot of them are very good. I personally think that the best apps for Android are far superior to the best apps on iOS but we are getting off track. Bottom line, you're not well read so please don't talk about things you don't understand or know.

Went over what? You didn't make any kind of indication in your quote which shows me which part of it you are talking about. If it's about Microsoft being able to brick your Xbone then please look at the first part of my post. You just made that up and didn't base it on any facts whatsoever.

You don't believe that Microsoft will disable the 24 hour check in? You think that they just want to screw you over and don't give a damn about you? I can bet on my life that they will do something similar, Do you have any idea how many lawsuits will be filed if they did not do this? It is not only the nice thing to do, but the best way to avoid losing money over a bunch of lawsuits.

And yeah ok they do own a SNES

Even if we stick to your 50 million number, which is horribly false and would mean that every 3rd xbox has failed, there will probably be at least 150 million people that are going to complain. Look at how many people hated the xbox one when not one of them even had one.

 

Monopoly over what? Go to android if you don't like Apple. And what would be so bad for google to have a quality control over Apple. Hell even the google apps seem better on the iPhone. Look at youtube, sure its good an Android, but better on ios. Google NEEDS to start doing quality control, and maybe have a dedicated "UI" for apps to have.

 

And again, Microsoft won't do it because it is the right thing to do, but because of the gamers who are going to lose $600 on games each(maybe more if games get more expensive than they already are). If the Xbox one sells only 50 million, that is 30 billion dollars in game revenue. If they don't let you play the games, don't you think the law might step in?????