Never said pirates weren't part of the gaming community (they're a part of any digital product consuming community). Publishers are 100% to blame for DRM. Pirates are just an irrational excuse to implement it.Mypetmonkey said:
"Entitled gamers" starting to remind me of "frivolous lawsuits".
- Thread starter FieryTrainwreck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, DRM would exist without pirates. Why wouldn't publishers want that much control over their product? They would figure out another excuse for it (quelling used games). The gaming community isn't out to fuck the publishers, it's out to consume the games.Mypetmonkey said:
By essentially pulling reasons out of your hindquarters to support the hardline position you were taking.FieryTrainwreck said:
You have no credible evidence to support your continued assertions about the nature of the family-share feature. You have an unsourced pastebin post that you could have written yourself for all anyone knows, and you have your own incredible fantasies about Microsoft's business goals. That's it. You used that to construct a giant red-herring you could beat into submission. And meanwhile you ignored the only credible information we had about it--directly from Microsoft--because it didn't fit with your paranoid delusions of big bad Microsoft out to ruin everything about gaming.
That is exactly how "entitled gamers" behave.
Because it costs money to implement and maintain DRM systems. If the costs outweigh the benefits, they won't do it. If piracy didn't exist and second-hand game sales didn't exert so much downward pressure on revenues, implementing DRM wouldn't be worth it.rasputin0009 said:
DRM servers cost next to nothing. The knowledge and control that publishers get from DRM is hella valuable. Even taking the timestamps of people logging in and out to play a game is valuable enough information to make it worth it. Publishers can also stop people from playing the game at any moment. That's security for them. Piracy and second-hand game sales are just an excuse. The next excuse might be "This traditionally single player game is an MMO". Wait,that sounds familiar...UnnDunn said:
Ironically, DRM has a much higher potential to increase piracy than to decrease it. Here are some mathematical models that showcase this: http://static.arstechnica.net/2011/10/11/mksc.1110.0668-1.pdf (There are words to go along with the math, too)
I'm entitled to my opinion correct? I hear that a lot on the internet so I assume it's true.
In this case it just so happens my opinion highly criticized Microsoft's new DRM and online Policies, and interestingly enough my opinion was shared by the masses. Nothing is wrong with the reaction to Xbone's reveal, it's the free market at work people.
It's getting to the point that I get annoyed every time the word entitled comes up, it's the internet's favorite beat-stick flavor at the moment the same way fanboy was/is and it's so overused it barely has meaning anymore.
In this case it just so happens my opinion highly criticized Microsoft's new DRM and online Policies, and interestingly enough my opinion was shared by the masses. Nothing is wrong with the reaction to Xbone's reveal, it's the free market at work people.
It's getting to the point that I get annoyed every time the word entitled comes up, it's the internet's favorite beat-stick flavor at the moment the same way fanboy was/is and it's so overused it barely has meaning anymore.
I believe that entitled gamers can be a real thing.
The day that gamers start paying developers directly for their time to create a product is the day that gamers can expect them to make any and every change desired. As it is, we're paying for a product, and we have every opportunity to research that product and make a decision on whether to buy it. If the product is unsatisfactory, there's no obligation to pay for it.
I don't think I've just dismissed someone as being entitled. If I believe that to be the case, I generally make the argument as to why service/product X is reasonable and why I feel their request is unreasonable.
The day that gamers start paying developers directly for their time to create a product is the day that gamers can expect them to make any and every change desired. As it is, we're paying for a product, and we have every opportunity to research that product and make a decision on whether to buy it. If the product is unsatisfactory, there's no obligation to pay for it.
I don't think I've just dismissed someone as being entitled. If I believe that to be the case, I generally make the argument as to why service/product X is reasonable and why I feel their request is unreasonable.
There are multiple other methods to find out if you will like a game. I can watch a friend play it, i can watch youtube videos, i can play demos if avaliable, i can read reviews.Vegosiux said:
And then there are also some companies i will consider twice before buying even a good game from them
I wouldn't call either of those completely unwarranted, there were several constructive criticisms against both, even if the majority completely overreacted.FieryTrainwreck said:
I'm sorry for being a language snob here but - could we please stop confusing "entitled" (i.e. actually having a claim to something) with "acting as if they were entitled"/"feeling entitled"?
Thanks.
Thanks.
I really like the OP's post, which has caused me to re-evaluate my own opinions regarding gaming news for the last year or so. It occurs to me now that while I don't have to agree with the mass effect ending decriers, I have to recognize their right to their opinion. Generally speaking I haven't up to this point because I didn't feel their opinion was valid.
Upon further reflection, I've noticed that it has been consistently my experience that accusing someone of whining is a hollow argument used to justify bad behavior. Which leads me to wonder at the motivations of people that are making (what appears to me) to be anti-consumerist arguments, much in the way that people with similar financial standing as me have the habit of making political arguments against themselves.
Are these people, like me, so fed up with hearing contrary arguments that they are either no longer able to evaluate their own opinions?
Tangentially, my primary concern with the new console generation is durability. In retrospect the biggest issue I've had with the current generation of consoles is the huge number of hardware issues my systems have had (I'm on my second of each of the systems, which have each worn out from standard use, rather than abuse, but you'll have to take my word for it).
Ultimately, I take exception to the suggestion that being 'entitled' is a bad thing. You can argue that I don't matter to Microsoft or Sony's business model, which is a certainly valid viewpoint, but their decision making has literally nothing to do with my or any other consumer's rights.
Upon further reflection, I've noticed that it has been consistently my experience that accusing someone of whining is a hollow argument used to justify bad behavior. Which leads me to wonder at the motivations of people that are making (what appears to me) to be anti-consumerist arguments, much in the way that people with similar financial standing as me have the habit of making political arguments against themselves.
Are these people, like me, so fed up with hearing contrary arguments that they are either no longer able to evaluate their own opinions?
Tangentially, my primary concern with the new console generation is durability. In retrospect the biggest issue I've had with the current generation of consoles is the huge number of hardware issues my systems have had (I'm on my second of each of the systems, which have each worn out from standard use, rather than abuse, but you'll have to take my word for it).
Ultimately, I take exception to the suggestion that being 'entitled' is a bad thing. You can argue that I don't matter to Microsoft or Sony's business model, which is a certainly valid viewpoint, but their decision making has literally nothing to do with my or any other consumer's rights.
That had more to do with the fact Bioware specifically said that it wouldn't be a multiple choice ending...which it ended up being, and a particularly unsatisfying one at that. Im not saying everyone was reasonable about it. But the demand to 'fix' the ending is much easier to do in a game than a movie thanks to the ability to patch it, which movies cant do without tremendous cost. For the gamer, 40 hours and $60 is a significant investment, and if the payoff is terrible that is an opportunity cost to the consumer for a less than satisfactory conclusion.thebobmaster said:
Bioware saw their main demographic were REALLY not happy about the ending, and fixed it to restore the good will of their fanbase... at minimal cost compared to the potential lost profit for dissatisfied consumers. You have to realize how non-resource intensive those ending clips were, so ultimately, even if it was somewhat frivolous, the important part of that issue was showing that consumers actually have power in this industry.
but they also blame the used game industry. What the developers are doing is trying to punish consumers for trying to make economically intelligent decisions. I know there are good reasons for it, but then the publishers should be trying to lower the price of games to the point of making buying them full price reasonable, extra credits had a great episode on this but i cant find it right now. if games cost 35 or 40 dollars to buy new instead, and some features were blocked by a code like project ten dollar was, they wouln't be attacking the consumer for making smart choices... and as for pirates... im sorry, but your not going to win that battle...ever. There will always be people who want to download it for free, but that is just another competitor they need to compete against, again, extra credits did an episode on piracy that proves it can be combated without hurting the legitimate consumers in such a way that it only delays the pirates for a day or two.Mypetmonkey said:
I think Microsoft should of came prepared better. Make sure they had clear answers, and everyone allowed to talk about it on the same page. They should of gave alternatives to people that couldn't be "always connected". The problem was on all ends company and games. Instead of treating the consumer like dumb sheep that are suppose to follow, they should of prepped and been completely honest with everything. The consumers should of given the company a chance to give those proper answers.
As soon as it was announced at E3, there were those that already bashed the company. That alone spawned those with lack of knowledge or patience into the masses. I honestly believe that a lot of younger consumers were following their friends or what they heard from their favorite YouTube channel. As I've said there should of been alternatives for those that the system didn't reach out to. (It was completely wrong for Microsoft to say that was the 360). The thing is we do live in an "always connected" sosiety, and most of us that lose Internet regain it shortly after. I think if they were to concerned, they should of had disks that have a code that is scanned, and locked to the console for the offline play if they were that concerned.
When everything started coming down on the heads of Microsoft, they should of admitted envy thing there, and came up with a happy medium. Something that could still allow us to move forward, but still hit all demographic. I for one was concerned at first, but when I thought of everything, it didn't hurt me to bad. I'm nearly always connected to the net, I do not trade game in, I only let one or two friends ever borrow my games,. Now on the flip side, my Internet provider doesn't always have the best sevice and it crashes on occasion, but for only a few hours. I don't like always spending full price on games, so I buy them at GameStop for a cheaper price.
While on the point of bad things gamefly would take a big hit, unless a deal was made. What if Microsoft allowed gamefly to have an app on the One that allowed us to "rent our games digitally" over the console. At this point it could still be done like disks where they only have the ability to allow so many "digital rentals" at one time. Look at the plus side to it though, your games would come to you much quicker, never have to worry about a scratched disk, and possibly less cost since there is not as much physical storage/mailing costs.
I didn't agree that we had no access to any of our games when not connected, because we paid for them, and they are our games. Although, instead of taking away everything why not just allow us these options. We complained and the company didn't try to compromise they folded to the masses, and took away things that did appeal to people like me. There has to be a point where the consumer and the company figure out the problems together, when something like this happens. It was wrong on all sides to jump like they did. No one is entitled to anything. The company isn't entitled to tell us what we want, and we aren't entitled to expect everything we demand. We are a spoiled society, but for a reason, everything is normally made as easy as possible for us. The Internet makes it easy for us to gather and complain or get excited about things.
I know I'm not agreed with by everyone, and some people would rather discredit everything and try to slam me on many things I said. Just take a second and think of what could of happened if both the masses and the company would of worked together. The people expressing what they would of wanted with a company listening.
As soon as it was announced at E3, there were those that already bashed the company. That alone spawned those with lack of knowledge or patience into the masses. I honestly believe that a lot of younger consumers were following their friends or what they heard from their favorite YouTube channel. As I've said there should of been alternatives for those that the system didn't reach out to. (It was completely wrong for Microsoft to say that was the 360). The thing is we do live in an "always connected" sosiety, and most of us that lose Internet regain it shortly after. I think if they were to concerned, they should of had disks that have a code that is scanned, and locked to the console for the offline play if they were that concerned.
When everything started coming down on the heads of Microsoft, they should of admitted envy thing there, and came up with a happy medium. Something that could still allow us to move forward, but still hit all demographic. I for one was concerned at first, but when I thought of everything, it didn't hurt me to bad. I'm nearly always connected to the net, I do not trade game in, I only let one or two friends ever borrow my games,. Now on the flip side, my Internet provider doesn't always have the best sevice and it crashes on occasion, but for only a few hours. I don't like always spending full price on games, so I buy them at GameStop for a cheaper price.
While on the point of bad things gamefly would take a big hit, unless a deal was made. What if Microsoft allowed gamefly to have an app on the One that allowed us to "rent our games digitally" over the console. At this point it could still be done like disks where they only have the ability to allow so many "digital rentals" at one time. Look at the plus side to it though, your games would come to you much quicker, never have to worry about a scratched disk, and possibly less cost since there is not as much physical storage/mailing costs.
I didn't agree that we had no access to any of our games when not connected, because we paid for them, and they are our games. Although, instead of taking away everything why not just allow us these options. We complained and the company didn't try to compromise they folded to the masses, and took away things that did appeal to people like me. There has to be a point where the consumer and the company figure out the problems together, when something like this happens. It was wrong on all sides to jump like they did. No one is entitled to anything. The company isn't entitled to tell us what we want, and we aren't entitled to expect everything we demand. We are a spoiled society, but for a reason, everything is normally made as easy as possible for us. The Internet makes it easy for us to gather and complain or get excited about things.
I know I'm not agreed with by everyone, and some people would rather discredit everything and try to slam me on many things I said. Just take a second and think of what could of happened if both the masses and the company would of worked together. The people expressing what they would of wanted with a company listening.
Aren't you the same asshole that told everyone to pop the tit out of their mouth and stop crying? The big mature man acting like such a mature adult that he couldn't go for five seconds without flinging insults at people he disagrees with, who magically has a job that he got based on his attitude instead of, you know, actually having skills that are important. Of course I'm sure that wasn't complete and utter bullshit. So, here's my analysis of your opinion, quit whining about how unpopular your opinion is and go do something more productive with your time! See how that works? If you're so grown up, act like a freaking adult, don't stand here and play the victim after relentlessly trying to put down anyone pointing out that Microsoft is in fact a giant corporation that only makes the most token of efforts to appease its' consumer base. Of course, you might work for those sons of bitches, after all you never went into great detail about your job.saintpinhead said:
I can't stand people like you, you think things need to be complex, and that companies should be able to hold the metaphorical gun to our heads because we need to toughen up and deal with it. News flash, you wannabe Spartan survival of the fittest shitstain, we live in consumerist societies, that rely on the consumers to thrive, they rely on people giving money and getting something in return. If people stopped buying, things wouldn't get sold, and the economy would fucking crash. Consumers are within their rights to refuse to give money for a product that doesn't benefit them, of course, if it were up to people like you then you'd very much say otherwise. Don't drag out a laundry list of false equivalences, don't try to sell me shit and tell me it's chocolate, you're being an utter wanker for the sake of being a wanker or because you want people to conform to this social Darwinist view you have. Well, sweetheart, sorry we don't live in a fascist state so you can enforce your backwards views but kindly fuck off. When you learn how to treat people better, I'll start treating you better, kay? Kay.