Let?s Get Off the Xbone Hate-Train Already

[Miss G.]

Even though it was from an anonymous source, what official news from Microsoft or from publishers that so badly want to kill the 'evil' used game market has led you to believe that the post doesn't hold SOME water?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that because you read so many comments on Reddit about how the big evil Microsoft wants to kill used games, it somehow has to be true, despite the fact that the very source it's all based on proved to be completely irrelevant?

Anyway, you are confusing two very separately policies here. Family sharing is one thing, used game is something completely different.

Used games - Microsoft would allow you to resell your bought games, but they would have had it so that a small percantage of each resell goes to the devs so they can quit complaining about how used games are destroying the industry. At that, Microsoft would not be adding any fees of their own.

Family sharing - a proposed system whereby a user can share selected titles in their cloud library with third parties (could be anyone, anywhere - not only your "family"). The only thing we know about Microsoft plans for family sharing is what's written in the OP's post.

First of all, I don't go on Reddit. I don't need to be on a site like that to know that money from used sales and rentals go to the retailers and rental places, not to the publishers. These places wouldn't be making money otherwise because new sales only get them a paltry sum compared to what they make selling used products or renting to many customers. On the publisher side of things, online passes and in-store incentives to buy 'new' wouldn't exist otherwise.

Second of all, you are admitting that what I said about this vague, nebulous thing of a feature is true; we don't really know anything about it. As I said in my earlier post, IF it was so good they would've kept it as a unique selling point to their console. If you actually had an edge on your competitors, you would be all up in peoples' faces about this feature like SEGA used to do during the console war with convincing kids to get their parents to buy their system because it had 'blast processing' over Nintendo's system. That didn't happen, now did it? Yes, this was also supposed to be one of those things that were up to the publishers to opt into, you're right. As for used games and the family plan, I meant in terms of sales, they BOTH don't mean as much money as new sales from all the people who would buy these games. Since the bottom line and selling MORE units, not less, are the publishers' main concerns why would they want to opt into such a thing if its basically the same as not getting money from used sales outside of the usual DLC etc? You said it yourself, a small percentage, not the full sale price. Mind you, what Microsoft wanted to do in that case IS a little better than what they get now from used sales but not by much.

Third of all, your universal problem fixer seems to be 'ignore the expensive camera that I (and many others) don't want (and certainly don't want to pay for) and then cover it'. Tell me why would anyone want to buy a product that they honestly feel they have to hide from, one that also comes with a sensitive microphone? I don't have anything to hide, but I don't like cameras in my apartment that I can't know for sure are turned off if they're a part of something I use regularly or something I can't put away without having to worry about it like my Nikon or my cellphone since it's a cheap phone for just making calls. I have been living in the US since 2012 and this whole thing makes me uncomfortable as I value my privacy and it was never something I had to worry about back home. The point is Microsoft has a bad reputation, more now than ever, and it will be hard to convince people to trust them after so much crap for this year alone, especially since they couldn't have picked a more horrible time to introduce the new Kinect as an integral part of their console.

I can understand you trying to defend them as a company, I used to do it too when I still owned a PC and Windows was the only OS I've known in my household since I was 5. They lost me and a lot of my family and friends as customers a couple of years ago to Apple (and other companies for other things) and everything they say now comes with a bad taste, regardless if it sounds nice. Nowadays, as long as they don't hold a monopoly on things I want, I don't have to trust them with anything again. To me, every time you post in this thread, it feels like you're defending someone who used to and still does unsavory things to others (if you weren't personally affected negatively) in return for being loyal and/or paying customers and that we're in the wrong for pointing out our dislike (or hatred in some cases) and concerns as if they don't matter. Even though I personally don't have a Microsoft thing in my life anymore I don't want them to succeed with this product and I don't want other big companies to do similar things if Microsoft doesn't at least get noticeably hit in the checkbooks for this crap. I want healthy competition this gen and if they need to lose for now or for a few years to learn from the mistakes they've been making lately (like Sony did at the beginning of last gen), so be it.

 

[irok]

I disagree with a lot of the points but mostly because it was a cash grab disguised as innovation and the consumers weren't even thought about we were supposed to just buy it and keep our mouths shut and I like how Microsoft got royally burned over this and hope it keeps going for a long time, just to set an example. Didn't matter to me anyway , the exclusives don't look interesting even if I could get over all the other problems I have with it.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The only thing I would wish of the Xbox One haters is to stop calling it the "XBone". I hate stuff too, but at least I don't make immature petty insults at it because I don't like it.

Its not just "haters" that call it the Xbone, the haters now call it the Xbox 180. The Xbone is just short for X Box ONE. Its not really a petty insult.

I agree we should stop calling it the Xbone. That just sounds stupid, and does make us look fairly immature (not saying we ARE, just from an outside perspective, that's what it looks like)

I understand that it's an abbreviation of Xbox One, but why not just say XBO or XB1? That's even shorter, and doesn't constantly make us sound like schoolyard bullies.

If that's all bullies can come up with, they need to step it up.

Nintendo Sixtywhore, gaystation, Gaycube, PS Number 2, Xblock, Xbomb, Fatbox, RROD Box, PS Tripples, Tricycle, Nintendo Wii, Xboner, Xboned, X-girlfriend, gaystation 4, PS4lorne, PS4gotten, Weeooo.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Snip!

http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07/facebook-apple-google-microsoft-dropbox-and-yahoo-deny-participation-in-us-government-spying-program-prism/

This is just one example of course. It isn't very hard to find individual links to articles about Facebook, Google, Apple, all denying involvement or, in Apple's case even knowledge of the program. Now, this is more than likely because the FISA amendments act forbids that they disclose having received any such orders, let alone details if those orders. So being upfront and honest with their consumer base really only extends as far as the government will allow them. And I can think of at least one good reason that they would deny Skype being used for monitoring, it's even a patriotic one!

One thing I am curious about, and this is a legitimate question, is why if the program was mandatory for everybody, it seems to phase in different companies. Microsoft was the first, and according to the documents, Apple was only brought in a year ago. There's no sign that everyone was conscripted at once.

I'm sorry for the length. The moment international politics and classified surveillance programs can be whittled down into a children's picture book, I guarantee you'll be the first to know. And for the record, this one will indeed be even longer. Sorry. X.x

There is one aspect in particular I want to focus on, so I'm just going to briefly cover the rest; one, to say that the idea that allowing someone to disconnect a peripheral will completely destroy any interest in that peripheral is insane. Not only is it not difficult to understand, it's absurdly easy to dispute. Are you saying that if I keep a second controller in my storage cupboard, I'll forget it exists? Sure, I won't think of using it until a multiplayer game comes along that snags my interest, but if no such game ever comes along, is it because the controller isn't bolted to the console? Or because I haven't found something that justifies its use for me yet? Most certainly, if I own a second controller, or for that matter the Kinect, I'll be sure to look at any titles that could take advantage of it. Cause, you know, I paid for it. As I said, I can understand that reason being used to justify bundling it with every console, but it just doesn't extend to requiring it being connected at all times. The percentage of people who would throw out something that inflated the price of their console would be infinitesimal. Most people will understand that they should hold onto it, just in case some kick ass game does come out for it.

Second, anyone who sends sensitive information in an email deserves to have it compromised. I have friends who work in government who won't post any negative status updates about their job or department on Facebook, just in case. And although I know for a fact that my smart phone could be hacked at any time, that's balanced against the considerable convenience that it provides me. Same with email, even Facebook, as they provide considerable convenience in communication and of course social networking. With most of my family across the country, it's a quick and easy way to see photos and get updates. Short of never talking to them again, I really don't have a choice. To put it frankly, the Kinect- its mandatory connection, in any case- does not provide me enough benefits to outweigh it, and I do have alternative choices; the same would apply to, say, a Samsung Smart TV, The model with the built in WebCam that was revealed to have security vulnerabilities awhile back. Turns out, whoever hacked into that could turn the camera on whenever they pleased. And so I will use neither.

As for interest? With the device being sold as a living room all in one entertainment hub, with a microphone of considerable sensitivity, to say nothing for the camera of course, you can honestly say there will never, ever be any interest in exploiting it? Is your argument that Microsoft wouldn't allow it to happen, or that the government wouldn't want it anyway? Because you seem to be insisting on both.

Microsoft never asked for any of it And could never have fought it. The poor, helpless multibillion-dollar corporation. Is your defense seriously that Microsoft is just as much a victim as anyone else? In a world where it is All but a punchline that every major company has lobbyists in government, you're saying that there is zilch they could have accomplished? And if they were indeed entirely helpless, unable to resist, why are they resisting now that the public found out? Where has this pressure to the administration been for the past five years? Not just from Microsoft, but from anyone?

----

That last part brings us to what I wanted to focus on.

Now, as for the release of user data by these companies, I never said selling. When I say financially compensated, I literally mean that the costs of the process, whatever it may be, are covered by the government. So complying with the request, and making whatever efforts are necessary to share the information or allow easier access wouldn't cost these companies a penny, and the legal protection means any case brought against them by consumers for violating privacy would not hold water. National Security FTW.

This is contrasted by the alternative, i.e. fighting the program. The legal costs alone could prove sizeable, especially if such resistance had consequences in terms of the government's treatment of that company.

So this isn't about Machiavellian plots to make more money. This is quite simply taking the path of least resistance, choosing the option that costs the company less in time and funds.

Let's face it, that concept isn't strange at all. From outsourcing labor to undercutting employees' benefits, if something is cheaper, a company will usually do it, and complying with these requirements would indeed be cheaper and easier. Microsoft wasn't strong-armed, they weren't left without options. They just didn't want the inconvenience or cost of fighting it.

At least, before the leak occurred. This ties into what you said, because indeed it wouldn't be worth losing the publics Goodwill. But the public wasn't supposed to find out about this. Keep in mind that this involved a federal employee essentially destroying his own life to reveal this information. Last I heard, Snowden's stranded in a Russian airport hoping someone will provide him with asylum. He didn't sell this for $1 million, he's not living in the Bahamas. Not only has he had little personal gain, but he's pretty much lost everything. It's not the sort of thing any company anticipates, at least not seriously. I fully admit it, I sincerely doubt I would have the balls to do what he did.

Which brings us to Microsoft's recent actions, as you have said it, pressing the administration to allow it to release information and even reverse its requirements. Before the leaks, the most cost-effective route was to just go with it and provide whatever was requested, because the program's classified nature meant there was no public backlash. At worst, there'd be the occasional accusation that personal data was shared, but these scattered occurrences can be disarmed pretty easily, especially with that legal immunity. Which might explain five years of not so much as raising a protesting peep.

But now that it's out in the open and more than a few people are rabid, particularly in the international community, suddenly it's all about Fighting For The People. Because now it's cheaper, and safer, for them to play Champion of Freedom. In fact, mark my words, it's going to become all but a competition among the companies named in the program. They are going to be downright determined to look the most noble and self-sacrificing, because that's good PR.

Just like how when nobody is looking, Microsoft would send a 25 page cease-and-desist order to a teenager named Mike Rowe for using the domain mikerowesoft.com, But when that kid goes to the media and it starts to balloon into extremely negative PR, Microsoft changes tracks and generously give the kid a whole pile of stuff in exchange for the domain name. At the end of the day, they only did it because they realized they couldn't get away with bullying him.

Now, the only real ray of sunshine is that the leak might actually KEEP them from trying anything with the camera for awhile, so in the end, it indeed might not become a spybox after all! With everything out in the open, people are going to be watching them much more closely. But from the company's past actions, I honestly don't believe that they would have hesitated to make it available as a surveillance device if Snowden hadn't leaked the program's existence. This isn't nice and noble Microsoft. This is 'Oh God, We're Being Watched' Microsoft. And it's only going to last as long as they continue to be treated with suspicion.

So come on. Let us keep the hate train going. That way you can enjoy your Xbox One while we make sure that they don't take advantage of your unconditional trust.

----

I know, no pictures. So let me provide some last points.

-There is one very basic marketing gaffe that you haven't caught onto. If this is a make or break requirement, then individuals who would actually be inclined to wrap it in tinfoil or cover it with a towel... Let's face it, they're far more likely not to buy the thing at all. Is that so strange? There is a competing game console with comparable hardware, and many of the apps and online features Not available on that console will be available on the computer. Microsoft doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly on the market, so people who don't want the camera might just go and buy something else instead. So enjoy that reduced install base.

Basically, forgot the true universal solution; not buying it. That used to be the normal response when a product was deemed unsatisfactory. I must be falling behind these newfangled times where we Deal With It. Although it does make me wonder if someone is actually so desperate to play Halo, that they would actually buy it and cover it with a towel. God only knows there are probably people who are truly fanatical about it, but frankly not sure I want to share a server with them anyway.

-I would go as far to say that basing your view of a product entirely on what its manufacturer assures you, and denying any outside considerations because said company tells you 'Sall Good is stupid beyond all mortal ken. 'Gullible' doesn't begin to cover it.
-
-
-
-
To be fair, I should give you an idea as to why I think the way I do, but this post is ballooning as it is. So if you're still with me, I can explain in another post. First I'll just ask, how familiar are you with the details of what happened with the newest SimCity game?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

But that's just the point isn't it? Whas the flak even deserved to begin with? If much of the criticism was based on straight out misinformation, such as the Kinect-spybox bullshit, then it most certainly wasn't deserved.

Much of the criticism was based on stuff Microsoft either confirmed or refused to deny (which was their initial reaction to the bad stuff they eventually confirmed, so forgive rational people for putting two and two together). People hated the 24-hour check-ins and internet requirement. People hated the licensing model. People hated Microsoft's indie publishing policies. These were restrictive controls placed upon developers and consumers for the benefit of Microsoft and their publishing partners, *and in the absence of any market forces that would have generated benefits for the consumers*. People saw through their PR bullshit, flamed them into the ground, and eventually forced them to roll back almost all of their nonsense.

So where's your confusion? It's a little early to be revising history. I mean this shit just happened, so I'm not sure how you could be so fuzzy on the details.

That's what we need to discuss here: Was the criticism based on a fair evaluation of their policies or good old Internet sensationalism and injudicious ?moral outbursts??

I gotta say, from looking over the comments of this thread, seeing half of the people replying that "well I'm still gonna fucking it because I want to" and the other half hilariously repeating the very talking-points that the OP dismantled in his original post, my guess is on the latter.

Or you could read what I just posted, confirm all of it with only modest research, and recognize that people had good reason to hate.

I also happen to think they have good reason to continue to hate even after MS has fixed most of the problem. Corporations understand exactly one language. If Microsoft pulls all that crap, gets flamed, fixes it, and enjoys zero sales repercussions, exactly what lesson have they learned? That they can do whatever they want, pushing consumers as far as they dare, and the worst possible scenario is that walk the line back just far enough to recover precisely all of their goodwill and revenue? Fuck that. They deserve a huge dent in their launch sales and a clear starting deficit in the next console race. Maybe next time they'll think twice about waltzing out a bunch of anti-consumer idiocy.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Wow, a thread asking people to stop the hate train on something ends up driving it further along?

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?
/sarcasm.

Seriously, many of the issues with MS's latest blunder were quite valid and they have still yet to pull the Kinect which has many worried due to the PRISM scandal.

Besides many people who used to hate are now just apathetic to the whole mess, which is arguably worse for Microsoft.

 

[TomWiley]

First of all, I don't go on Reddit. I don't need to be on a site like that to know that money from used sales and rentals go to the retailers and rental places, not to the publishers. These places wouldn't be making money otherwise because new sales only get them a paltry sum compared to what they make selling used products or renting to many customers. On the publisher side of things, online passes and in-store incentives to buy 'new' wouldn't exist otherwise.

Yep, online passes and developer DRM is a direct result of publisher worrying about losing money to the used game market segment. That's why I think policies that path this used games loophole would be a good thing if it can benefit the developer and consumer alike.

Second of all, you are admitting that what I said about this vague, nebulous thing of a feature is true; we don't really know anything about it. As I said in my earlier post, IF it was so good they would've kept it as a unique selling point to their console.

What you're asking is a good question - if Microsoft's family sharing is so great, why was there so precious little fuss? One thing is that Microsoft died their best defending their policies days after E3, but at that point, they were already being hammered by the press for their "DRM". They just never got the foothold to push back against the negative press fast enough to affect pubic opinion.

Take Escapist as an example. There's been many "Hey, wait a minute, why is everyone hating this console?" threads where some poster desperately trying to replace talking-points with facts, but the Escapists user base still have a gut-feeling of disgust against Microsoft.

I meant in terms of sales, they BOTH don't mean as much money as new sales from all the people who would buy these games. Since the bottom line and selling MORE units, not less, are the publishers' main concerns why would they want to opt into such a thing if its basically the same as not getting money from used sales outside of the usual DLC etc? You said it yourself, a small percentage, not the full sale price. Mind you, what Microsoft wanted to do in that case IS a little better than what they get now from used sales but not by much.

Their used games policies are definitely better than our current broken system, and it was no doubt the result of negotiation with Microsoft previous to E3.

And yeah, you're right in that it's still a small percentage but hopefully, it'll add up.

However, my problem is that people are instinctively hating Microsoft's former used game policies for whatever reason, when all I see is a system that is potentially better (if just a little bit as you said) than what we currently got.

So if anything, shouldn't Microsoft deserve praise for what they tried to accomplish, especially as they don't earn a cent on it themselves?

Third of all, your universal problem fixer seems to be 'ignore the expensive camera that I (and many others) don't want (and certainly don't want to pay for) and then cover it'. Tell me why would anyone want to buy a product that they honestly feel they have to hide from, one that also comes with a sensitive microphone?

You should of course NOT pay for something you don't want. If you think those extra $100 is too much for the Kinect to be worth it, I accept that as an argument.

But that's not what I'm hearing. I hear people calling it a spybox which puzzles me because it's been stated over and over again that it can be turned off. If it can be turned off, what's the privacy issue?

I can understand you trying to defend them as a company, I used to do it too when I still owned a PC and Windows was the only OS I've known in my household since I was 5. They lost me and a lot of my family and friends as customers a couple of years ago to Apple (and other companies for other things) and everything they say now comes with a bad taste, regardless if it sounds nice. Nowadays, as long as they don't hold a monopoly on things I want, I don't have to trust them with anything again. To me, every time you post in this thread, it feels like you're defending someone who used to and still does unsavory things to others (if you weren't personally affected negatively) in return for being loyal and/or paying customers and that we're in the wrong for pointing out our dislike (or hatred in some cases) and concerns as if they don't matter. Even though I personally don't have a Microsoft thing in my life anymore I don't want them to succeed with this product and I don't want other big companies to do similar things if Microsoft doesn't at least get noticeably hit in the checkbooks for this crap. I want healthy competition this gen and if they need to lose for now or for a few years to learn from the mistakes they've been making lately (like Sony did at the beginning of last gen), so be it.

I also want healthy competition which is why I don't want the Xbox One to fail miserably. As I said, they're original policies weren't anywhere near as restrictive as people made it seem, and yet they've been everything they can to backtrack on the issues people criticized them for.

They deserve some goodwill after all this, and that's why I feel like I have to defend them. It's funny because I've never owned an Xbox, and I'm not even planning on buying the Xbox One. But I still feel that the way Microsoft has been unfairly hammered by absolutely everyone - everywhere - is wrong.

 

[Amir Kondori]

A lot of the stuff you are saying is complete conjecture. Until the console launches we don't know how any of it is really going to work or how any of it WAS really going to work, including the Kinect 2.0 stuff.

Also, I read a post that said this family sharing thing only let you play the game for an hour then you could buy it or that was it.

It is not worth it to sit and rehash over and over again what might have been. To be honest we don't even know what will be. All we do know is that Microsoft has the hubris to think they can force whatever nonsense they want on us because they are market dominant in a market with only one real other competitor. It took a tremendous amount of push back for them to do what was arguable the right thing. There is no reason, NO REASON, they needed to do 24 hour check-ins to enable that family sharing plan. They could still do it but require people to sign in once every 24 hours to use it, otherwise they can choose not to sign in and still play their games locally.

I don't trust this company. This is a company that has shown its willingness to put itself ahead of its customers when making decisions about its products in all markets it competes in. I'm done with it and I think a significant amount of other people are too.

 

[TomWiley]

Snip!

http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07/facebook-apple-google-microsoft-dropbox-and-yahoo-deny-participation-in-us-government-spying-program-prism/

This is just one example of course. It isn't very hard to find individual links to articles about Facebook, Google, Apple, all denying involvement or, in Apple's case even knowledge of the program. Now, this is more than likely because the FISA amendments act forbids that they disclose having received any such orders, let alone details if those orders. So being upfront and honest with their consumer base really only extends as far as the government will allow them. And I can think of at least one good reason that they would deny Skype being used for monitoring, it's even a patriotic one!

One thing I am curious about, and this is a legitimate question, is why if the program was mandatory for everybody, it seems to phase in different companies. Microsoft was the first, and according to the documents, Apple was only brought in a year ago. There's no sign that everyone was conscripted at once.

I'm sorry for the length. The moment international politics and classified surveillance programs can be whittled down into a children's picture book, I guarantee you'll be the first to know. And for the record, this one will indeed be even longer. Sorry. X.x

There is one aspect in particular I want to focus on, so I'm just going to briefly cover the rest; one, to say that the idea that allowing someone to disconnect a peripheral will completely destroy any interest in that peripheral is insane. Not only is it not difficult to understand, it's absurdly easy to dispute. Are you saying that if I keep a second controller in my storage cupboard, I'll forget it exists? Sure, I won't think of using it until a multiplayer game comes along that snags my interest, but if no such game ever comes along, is it because the controller isn't bolted to the console? Or because I haven't found something that justifies its use for me yet? Most certainly, if I own a second controller, or for that matter the Kinect, I'll be sure to look at any titles that could take advantage of it. Cause, you know, I paid for it. As I said, I can understand that reason being used to justify bundling it with every console, but it just doesn't extend to requiring it being connected at all times. The percentage of people who would throw out something that inflated the price of their console would be infinitesimal. Most people will understand that they should hold onto it, just in case some kick ass game does come out for it.

Second, anyone who sends sensitive information in an email deserves to have it compromised. I have friends who work in government who won't post any negative status updates about their job or department on Facebook, just in case. And although I know for a fact that my smart phone could be hacked at any time, that's balanced against the considerable convenience that it provides me. Same with email, even Facebook, as they provide considerable convenience in communication and of course social networking. With most of my family across the country, it's a quick and easy way to see photos and get updates. Short of never talking to them again, I really don't have a choice. To put it frankly, the Kinect- its mandatory connection, in any case- does not provide me enough benefits to outweigh it, and I do have alternative choices; the same would apply to, say, a Samsung Smart TV, The model with the built in WebCam that was revealed to have security vulnerabilities awhile back. Turns out, whoever hacked into that could turn the camera on whenever they pleased. And so I will use neither.

As for interest? With the device being sold as a living room all in one entertainment hub, with a microphone of considerable sensitivity, to say nothing for the camera of course, you can honestly say there will never, ever be any interest in exploiting it? Is your argument that Microsoft wouldn't allow it to happen, or that the government wouldn't want it anyway? Because you seem to be insisting on both.

Microsoft never asked for any of it And could never have fought it. The poor, helpless multibillion-dollar corporation. Is your defense seriously that Microsoft is just as much a victim as anyone else? In a world where it is All but a punchline that every major company has lobbyists in government, you're saying that there is zilch they could have accomplished? And if they were indeed entirely helpless, unable to resist, why are they resisting now that the public found out? Where has this pressure to the administration been for the past five years? Not just from Microsoft, but from anyone?

----

That last part brings us to what I wanted to focus on.

Now, as for the release of user data by these companies, I never said selling. When I say financially compensated, I literally mean that the costs of the process, whatever it may be, are covered by the government. So complying with the request, and making whatever efforts are necessary to share the information or allow easier access wouldn't cost these companies a penny, and the legal protection means any case brought against them by consumers for violating privacy would not hold water. National Security FTW.

This is contrasted by the alternative, i.e. fighting the program. The legal costs alone could prove sizeable, especially if such resistance had consequences in terms of the government's treatment of that company.

So this isn't about Machiavellian plots to make more money. This is quite simply taking the path of least resistance, choosing the option that costs the company less in time and funds.

Let's face it, that concept isn't strange at all. From outsourcing labor to undercutting employees' benefits, if something is cheaper, a company will usually do it, and complying with these requirements would indeed be cheaper and easier. Microsoft wasn't strong-armed, they weren't left without options. They just didn't want the inconvenience or cost of fighting it.

At least, before the leak occurred. This ties into what you said, because indeed it wouldn't be worth losing the publics Goodwill. But the public wasn't supposed to find out about this. Keep in mind that this involved a federal employee essentially destroying his own life to reveal this information. Last I heard, Snowden's stranded in a Russian airport hoping someone will provide him with asylum. He didn't sell this for $1 million, he's not living in the Bahamas. Not only has he had little personal gain, but he's pretty much lost everything. It's not the sort of thing any company anticipates, at least not seriously. I fully admit it, I sincerely doubt I would have the balls to do what he did.

Which brings us to Microsoft's recent actions, as you have said it, pressing the administration to allow it to release information and even reverse its requirements. Before the leaks, the most cost-effective route was to just go with it and provide whatever was requested, because the program's classified nature meant there was no public backlash. At worst, there'd be the occasional accusation that personal data was shared, but these scattered occurrences can be disarmed pretty easily, especially with that legal immunity. Which might explain five years of not so much as raising a protesting peep.

But now that it's out in the open and more than a few people are rabid, particularly in the international community, suddenly it's all about Fighting For The People. Because now it's cheaper, and safer, for them to play Champion of Freedom. In fact, mark my words, it's going to become all but a competition among the companies named in the program. They are going to be downright determined to look the most noble and self-sacrificing, because that's good PR.

Just like how when nobody is looking, Microsoft would send a 25 page cease-and-desist order to a teenager named Mike Rowe for using the domain mikerowesoft.com, But when that kid goes to the media and it starts to balloon into extremely negative PR, Microsoft changes tracks and generously give the kid a whole pile of stuff in exchange for the domain name. At the end of the day, they only did it because they realized they couldn't get away with bullying him.

Now, the only real ray of sunshine is that the leak might actually KEEP them from trying anything with the camera for awhile, so in the end, it indeed might not become a spybox after all! With everything out in the open, people are going to be watching them much more closely. But from the company's past actions, I honestly don't believe that they would have hesitated to make it available as a surveillance device if Snowden hadn't leaked the program's existence. This isn't nice and noble Microsoft. This is 'Oh God, We're Being Watched' Microsoft. And it's only going to last as long as they continue to be treated with suspicion.

So come on. Let us keep the hate train going. That way you can enjoy your Xbox One while we make sure that they don't take advantage of your unconditional trust.

----

I know, no pictures. So let me provide some last points.

-There is one very basic marketing gaffe that you haven't caught onto. If this is a make or break requirement, then individuals who would actually be inclined to wrap it in tinfoil or cover it with a towel... Let's face it, they're far more likely not to buy the thing at all. Is that so strange? There is a competing game console with comparable hardware, and many of the apps and online features Not available on that console will be available on the computer. Microsoft doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly on the market, so people who don't want the camera might just go and buy something else instead. So enjoy that reduced install base.

Basically, forgot the true universal solution; not buying it. That used to be the normal response when a product was deemed unsatisfactory. I must be falling behind these newfangled times where we Deal With It. Although it does make me wonder if someone is actually so desperate to play Halo, that they would actually buy it and cover it with a towel. God only knows there are probably people who are truly fanatical about it, but frankly not sure I want to share a server with them anyway.

-I would go as far to say that basing your view of a product entirely on what its manufacturer assures you, and denying any outside considerations because said company tells you 'Sall Good is stupid beyond all mortal ken. 'Gullible' doesn't begin to cover it.
-
-
-
-
To be fair, I should give you an idea as to why I think the way I do, but this post is ballooning as it is. So if you're still with me, I can explain in another post. First I'll just ask, how familiar are you with the details of what happened with the newest SimCity game?

Do you mean the Always Online requirement, then I'e heard of it. EA's server architecture couldn't handle the load and the whole thing was a disaster when people started to get unfairly locked out. Not sure it's comparable to a 24/hour verification system, though.

As to the whole PRISM thing; as long as we agree on that there's no possible way you can blame Microsoft for this PRISM scandal, agreed. After all, they have the legal obligation to supply NSA with the information they require, and the obligation not to disclose what is shared.

As to tech companies lying about their involvement with PRISM - they didn't. The very link you got proves it. The companies said that NSA can't access their servers directly - that was true than and is still the case. This does not mean however that they don't answer requirements.

You can call it a technicality if you want to, but they never at any point lied.

And we've agreed that the Kinect can be turned off, right? You think it might be hacked? You think Microsoft is lying? I mean we've already established that this PRISM thing says nothing about Microsoft's trustworthiness. I still don't get what your problem with the Kinect is, rather than some general orwellian gut-feeling.

Am I gullible for trusting the official statements on this manufacturer? I've been told they lied about PRISM, they didn't. I've been told the Kinect can't be turned off - it wasn't true. I've been told family sharing was a glorified demo - it was purely fantasy. I've been told their supposed DRM was too restrictive, but nobody seems to have any idea of how this DRM worked.

If going against the stream and making a conclusion based on a personal evaluation of all the premises makes me gullible, then I guess I am.

 

[TomWiley]

Or you could read what I just posted, confirm all of it with only modest research, and recognize that people had good reason to hate.

I kind of did, and I came to the conclusion that virtually every single point of criticism is based on - at best: a very skewed understanding of their policies, at worst, complete bullshit.

Firstly, the Kinect can be turned off. Simple as that. There's already one of the biggest "arguments" people have against this machine completely dismantled.

Secondly, used games. Do you know anything about Microsoft's used game policies? You know the ones that totally existed and allowed for used games - the very thing people critisized Microsoft for restricting? Sales would go digitally via official retailers, such as Gamestop, and devs would get a small percantage of each sale.

With other words - they effectively fixed the loophole that is broken gaming, they are giving consumers the right to trade in their games as always while at the same time, benefiting the developers. So no longer does the developers have to whine and pack their games full of online-passes, DRM and DLC. You know the best part? Microsoft wouldn't even add any fees of their own.

Now tell me how that is a, in your words; "restrictive control placed upon developers and consumers for the benefit of Microsoft"? I'd love to see what kind of mental gymnastics you'll perform to make that quote of yours fit to the description I just gave.

And we also have family sharing - yet another point of criticism against the Xbox One completely unfounded. Most people claim that the system would really only allow you to share a "glorified demo" of the full game. This revelation made news across the internet. Interestingly enough, it was based on an anonymous Internet comment written by someone who claimed to be a Microsoft engineer, without him, nor Microsoft nor any other company or person providing evidence that he is.

With other words - the source was completely unfounded.

What more do we have? Yeah how about the fact that you'd actually be able to give away game, send your full game to a guy on your friend list with Microsoft's oh so restrictive system?

And while we're at it, let's just mention that the Xbox One's supposed weakness compared to the PS4's hardware is firstly; greatly exaggerated, secondly; it is not likely to have any affect or outcome on game performance whatsoever.

There you go; that's like the six of the most common points of criticism against the Xbox One that you probably believed in and turned out to be, as I said before; at best skewed. At worst, complete BS.

There you go. The result of my modest research.

 

[Genocidicles]

Firstly, the Kinect can be turned off. Simple as that. There's already one of the biggest "arguments" people have against this machine completely dismantled.

Well answer this then: If the Kinect can be fully switched off, why does it have to be plugged in for the console to function?

Secondly, used games. Do you know anything about Microsoft's used game policies? You know the ones that totally existed and allowed for used games - the very thing people critisized Microsoft for restricting? Sales would go digitally via official retailers, such as Gamestop, and devs would get a small percantage of each sale.

With other words - they effectively fixed the loophole that is broken gaming, they are giving consumers the right to trade in their games as always while at the same time, benefiting the developers. So no longer does the developers have to whine and pack their games full of online-passes, DRM and DLC. You know the best part? Microsoft wouldn't even add any fees of their own.

Well first of all, people would've only been able to trade games in at 'participating retailers', meaning that Microsoft would likely only allow big retail chains to be 'participating retailers', whilst the little Mom & Pop game stores who make all of their money from used game sales would be told to fuck off.

Secondly, to the bolded part: Whilst Microsoft would add no fees, you can bet that every retailer would to make up for the slice of profit that Microsoft is taking from them.

It doesn't matter who is raising the prices, the fact is that Microsoft's actions would lead to a rise in prices.

And we also have family sharing - yet another point of criticism against the Xbox One completely unfounded. Most people claim that the system would really only allow you to share a "glorified demo" of the full game. This revelation made news across the internet. Interestingly enough, it was based on an anonymous Internet comment written by someone who claimed to be a Microsoft engineer, without him, nor Microsoft nor any other company or person providing evidence that he is.

With other words - the source was completely unfounded.

Yes, it was unfounded. But it does make sense.

Why did Microsoft hardly mention the family sharing? If it was good as it people thought it would be, why weren't Microsoft screaming about it at the top of their lungs, especially when the majority of the gaming community was after their blood?

Plus, why would publishers support a system that would lose them more money than used games would?

What more do we have? Yeah how about the fact that you'd actually be able to give away game, send your full game to a guy on your friend list with Microsoft's oh so restrictive system?

Yeah, but he had to be on your friends list for at least 30 days. Whereas with the system we have now, even if they lived on the other side of the world you could probably send it to them in less than 30 days via post.

And while we're at it, let's just mention that the Xbox One's supposed weakness compared to the PS4's hardware is firstly; greatly exaggerated, secondly; it is not likely to have any affect or outcome on game performance whatsoever.

Yes, the difference in power is only marginal. However the PS4 is still slightly better, and a lot cheaper. So with the xbone you are paying more for less.

 

[Chemical123]

Even though Xbox One no longer has 24 hour check in, it still has a one time check and region locking. My country was not supported by Xbox live in the past and considering that the number of supported countries has shrunk for Xbox One it doesnt fill me with confidence. For me Xbox One would be nothing more than an expensive paperweight since I wouldnt be able to activate the dam thing and even if I did then I would be forced to buy game for it from a specific region.

Everything else is secondary to the above issue but here is my list of grievances:
-Price: 100 USD above the closest competitor
-Kinect: I could care less about spying but I do care about an extra device that can easily break and would make my console nonfuctional and I would need to find space for something that I have absolutely no use for.
-Xbox Live Gold: there are only a handful of games that I want to play online but if I really want to play them then I need to shell out 60 USD a year, and the deals they added to compete with PS+ make me sad. This is the time for them to get as much good PR as they can and they give paltry offerings NOW, what will happen once they have no need to WOW us.
-Paranoia: it didnt take them long to remove DRM, I doubt it would be hard for them to bring it back. We have precedents with major features being added/removed long into console cycle (Linux on PS3) so no thanks.

 

[TomWiley]

Wait, what? Why are you answering? Not that I ever opt out arguing with strangers over the net.

Well answer this then: If the Kinect can be fully switched off, why does it have to be plugged in for the console to function?

Because selling it as an optional addon, or something you can just rip off the system and hide in your dusty closet, would make it practically irrelevant for developers. Microsoft wants it to be an integrated package, but they're still giving you the tools to control what the Kinect sees and hears. From a market and business perspective it makes complete sense - it's more likely that consumers will give it a chance if it's always there, and it's easier to pitch to devs.

Well first of all, people would've only been able to trade games in at 'participating retailers', meaning that Microsoft would likely only allow big retail chains

Which is a conclusion you draw based on what, you're extensive knowledge as a market analyzer? I got some news for ya, the dystopia future you just described; that's right here and right now. With most of the market being dominated by either UK Game or Gamestop.

The list of official resellers would no doubt grow and potentially give room for more newcomers.
Actually, by your logic of factless speculation, you could just as easily say that smaller retailers will have a bigger chance of earning retail revenue on a digital platform, much like Steam has enabled smaller publishers by providing a integrated SaaS solution to consumers everywhere. Convenience enable business.

And PS4, PC, WiiU and other game consoles will of course still be open to traditional reselling that doesn't benefit the developer. So it's not like smaller retailers would just die out even if you assume that Microsoft's proposed used games system would hurt their sales.

Secondly, to the bolded part: Whilst Microsoft would add no fees, you can bet that every retailer would to make up for the slice of profit that Microsoft is taking from them. It doesn't matter who is raising the prices, the fact is that Microsoft's actions would lead to a rise in prices.

We're talking about a small percentage which, even if it does result in a marginal increase in price for the consumer, is likely to benefit the developer rather than the retailer. At worst, it's no better or worse than we already have. It's more expensive but the mid-tier devs will get some well-needed cash, so see it as charty if you must.

At best, it might fix an inherently broken industry.

Either way, it's far better than the "Ohmygawd, DRM, restrictions, killing-used-games" hysteria that this system has been described with. To me, it would even be better than what we currently got.

[/quote]

Yes, it was unfounded. But it does make sense.
Why did Microsoft hardly mention the family sharing? If it was good as it people thought it would be, why weren't Microsoft screaming about it at the top of their lungs, especially when the majority of the gaming community was after their blood?

They kinda were. At least from what I remember from the E3 coverage, they spoke extensively about family sharing, marketing the Xbox and "cloud powered" but everything they said was clouded by the big dark cloud of bad press coverage, mob-like hatred from gamers everywhere and they just never even got the foothold to even defend themselves before the PR disaster broke out.

Anyway, I don't really accept the argument of "it kind of makes sense so let's assume it's true". Not saying that's what you're claiming, but my problem is that everyone already assumes that it was all just about "glorified demos" rather than looking into how it would actually work.

Did Escapist even run an article saying "we were wrong about family sharing"? Of course they didn't. The majority of Escapist users still believe in this unfounded myth, even when it's been publicly denied by Microsoft.

Plus, why would publishers support a system that would lose them more money than used games would?

Yeah, we kind of get into some real strange space when we start to criticize the Xbox One for not being restrictive enough.

My guess would be promotion. I can't believe that these policies were created in a vacuum. Microsoft probably had extensive communication with publishers.

Yeah, but he had to be on your friends list for at least 30 days. Whereas with the system we have now, even if they lived on the other side of the world you could probably send it to them in less than 30 days via post.

I thought that was changed so that the user doesn't have to be on your friendlist for 30 days - but he has to have an account that is more than 30 days old. And even if it was, it's still a pretty minor restriction, isn't it?

I mean, how many gamers mail games to friends? Can't say I know anyone. You share games with friends in the neighborhood with the same console and interests as you, and hope that some day your friend will give it back.

Microsoft's system would have allowed you to give a game to anyone, anywhere on the globe. Even with the 30-day limit, I'd say that this system is still technically less restrictive than however happened to live close to you.

Add the fact that all your games would be available in the cloud á la Steam, enabling you to actually log in on your friends' Xbox One and reach all your games from there, and you got a system which is not only less restrictive than physical media but infinitely more convenient.

Just my personal subjective opinion here, but I think that sounds way fucking better than having to deal with hard copies.

Yes, the difference in power is only marginal. However the PS4 is still slightly better, and a lot cheaper. So with the xbone you are paying more for less.

More for less is entirely subjective. All of families out there might look at the Kinect and say "it can recognize when I smile - that's fucking cool" and buy it because of the Kinect which makes all the price difference. It's entirely subjective.

But I still accept it. If that was the only argument I read in this thread; "the PS4 is cheaper so I'll buy that" I'd be fine. That's a perfectly reasonable argument to make as a consumer.

But that's not what I'm reading. I'm reading that they're evil, trying to oppress users with "DRM!" and "The kinect spybox". It just makes it look like everyone got their opinion of the Xbox One by reading Reddit comments rather than doing any personal research on the subject.

 

[baconmaster]

There's a hate train? I thought most people have simply been apathetic towards the Xbone since they removed DRM.

I still won't be buying one anyway since it's $100 more and I couldn't care less about kinect. Maybe if they can actually support it with games I'll get one eventually. Apart from Halo, the last 360 exclusive that might have convinced me to buy a system was the first Mass Effect, and even that only took a few months to come to PC. I have a lot more faith that the Ps4 can get exclusives in the long run, and that they'll actually stay exclusive (ten bucks says Dead Rising 3 goes multiplatform within a year)

 

[hermes]

I will just make this short. I don't hate Microsoft... to do so, it would imply I think of them as a person. I am, however, tremendously uninterested in what they have to offer.
Maybe its the ramifications of the original announcement and the 180 that followed, but I am not interested in the XB1 as my console of choice in the future. Why? Mainly because I don't believe it the 180. I think they invested too much time and money into those restrictions to think they will remove them entirely in the span of a few months. Somewhere, sometime... the remaining of the "innovations" will show its ugly face. Right now, I only have their word to believe in terms of what will and won't do and, given the state of their PR messaging, I don't trust them.
So, what does Microsoft has to do to prove me wrong? To release the damn thing. Until they do, and we have all the cards over the table, I will not consider them as a viable choice. So far, Sony has position its console as "more of the same, but better", while Microsoft is "lot of new stuff, that will make it better" (based on trust)... I just don't buy that.

 

[hooblabla6262]

Someone who wouldn't be negatively affected by these features doesn't understand what the big deal is?
SHOCKER!

That's why I never give to charity cause, well, the system works for me, right?
Fuck everybody else!