Let?s Get Off the Xbone Hate-Train Already
- Thread starter Zelgon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually, It doesn't have anything to do with the 24 hour check in. Forgive me if you've heard any of this before, but leading up to the release of SimCity, There was some unhappy rumblings in terms of the very same DRM always online stuff you mentioned. With the apparent problems that Diablo3 has had due to it, People weren't exactly thrilled to hear that it would be a part of the newest SimCity.TomWiley said:
In defense of the requirement, a spokesperson for the developer, Maxis' general manager Lucy Bradshaw, went on record to assure everyone that the always online connection wasn't just about DRM. Indeed, the game had to offload an enormous number of calculations to cloud servers to enhance the game, and without these calculations, the game could not function on the equivalent PC. The gist of it boiled down to 'There is no off-line mode because the game could not work without a connection to the cloud servers. Making it work offline would require loads of effort and redesign.' http://kotaku.com/5989648/it-would-take-significant-engineering-to-make-simcity-a-singleplayer-game
For all intents and purposes, this is from the horse's mouth itself. This is the company most directly involved in its development providing assurances. So clearly it must all be true, right? Well, the subsequent events, in the rough order, are as follows;
-The game is released, the utter disaster ensues, etc.
-Even once it was more or less stabilized, the AI wasn't really showing any signs of benefitting from cloud computations. In fact, the AI was all but broken. http://kotaku.com/5990362/with-simple-ai-like-this-why-does-simcity-need-cloud-computing
-An 'Anonymous SimCity Developer' claims that, contrary to official statements, The game didn't offload anything more complicated than storing saved games, certainly nothing the computer could not handle itself. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/
-A little while later, some folks noticed that the game would function for a period of time even if the Internet connection failed. What was curious was that it always seemed to stop working at around the same time, roughly 19-20 minutes after lost connection. He even received updates on neighboring cities, cities that shouldn't have existed without an Internet connection. http://kotaku.com/5990165/my-simcity-city-thrived-offline-for-19-minutes?tag=simcity
-Finally, a game modder discovered why the game would not function without an Internet connection. There were a mere two lines of code in the game that was specifically designed to shut it off if conductivity was lost for a certain period of time. When this code was removed, the game could be played offline indefinitely. Of course, initially you couldn't save games, because it was designed to upload them to the servers, but awhile later a mod was released to allow offline game saving. http://m.cinemablend.com/games/SimCity-Offline-Mode-Now-Available-General-Public-53739.html
- In a newly-published entry on the official EA blog, Maxis general manager Lucy Bradshaw attempts to offer blunt honesty on the situation. "... could we have built a subset offline mode? Yes," Bradshaw states in no uncertain terms. "But we rejected that idea because it didn't fit with our vision." http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122732-EA-Admits-That-SimCity-Could-Have-Been-Offline
And there it is. There have been similar, more minor occurrences, like the whole Colonial Marines incident, but even those left wiggle room. The SimCity incident was a disaster not just because of the launch, but because at the end of the day it turns out that disaster happened only so DRM could be enforced. That it was sugarcoated with assurances and claims on how it benefited the consumer and the game experience, claims that turned out to be exaggerated to the point of being outright fabrications, in some cases flat out wrong, only made it worse.
Which brings in my question about the Kinect. Will the console brick if the Kinect is unplugged because there is an INTEGRAL component that the console needs to function, one that couldn't have been installed in the console itself? Or is it because there's some two-line-code equivalent, a restriction deliberately built in? Because I'm getting sick of that mindset. :\
-
-
-
Anyway, the entire point of this hasn't been about assigning blame to Microsoft, At least not in the sense of trying to punish them by not buying the console. It's been pointing out that the restrictions on surveillance and privacy laws have been loosened once, it could very easily happen again. These companies folded to outside demands once, it could very easily happen again. If the company was under a gag order, as it were, not to admit complicity or reveal details about actions they were undertaking for the government, sharing data included, they will not admit complicity. And if the program indeed completely tied their hands and forced them to reveal user information in a capacity above and beyond existing, public data acquisition methods, then what on earth makes you think things would be any different with the console? Sure, emails, video calls, Facebook user data, that they'll acquire, but a game customer... That's a sacred trust?
And you're absolutely right. What they did was perfectly legal. So was Guantanamo Bay. But such things are legal because the government made it legal, or found a way to slip through loopholes. In the wake of the Patriot Act and a program that was specifically designed to make all of this easier for them. It's like trying to play a game with someone who is not only permitted to make up rules as he goes, but is under no obligation to tell you when he's done so, or what he's changed them to. Sure, if he tells you at the last second, after you've scored the most points, that the LEAST number wins, that sucks, but it's not against the rules anymore! And if the Kinect is used as a surveillance device, you can be sure it will be legal; we consumers just might not be privy to those laws, and it will have been a legality shoehorned into legislation.
Regular warrants and subpoenas have, as I've already mentioned, legal checks and balances designed for public accountability and to try and ensure some level of fair use. Public accountability because if a politician or official is shown to be abusing their power by throwing surveillance left and right, then that could reflect negatively on him during the next election, or in the case of appointed officials, be removed by an elected politician looking to maintain a positive image. This program, perhaps only because it was intended to primarily target non-US citizens, threw that concept away entirely. The courts used were purely internal, meaning it was pretty much rubberstamping itself, and accountability was nil as there was no risk of public backlash because the public was unaware of its existence. Any and all backlash and accountability was, as I've said, given to us not by the companies or corporations, but by one poor sod in Russia.
Why should I take Microsoft's denial of carrying out even more acts of this nature without a sizeable grain of salt? Why should I believe that they will 'fight attempts to invade our privacy' When they only started struggling after they had something to lose? If they are claiming they will only respond to legal requests, then shouldn't I wonder what happens when the definition of what is 'legal' changes again?
Perhaps I should specify. My dispute with you isn't 'The Xbox One is going to spy on us, admit it, submit!' The difficulty is that the only real evidence you seem to have is from the most biased and self-serving source possible, a source that has every reason to deny, deny, deny. The only moderating faction outside Microsoft who could investigate and corroborate that Microsoft isn't sharing user data without a conventional public warrant, as opposed to secretive and less regulated FISA court order, and that video chat data isn't being shared, is the same faction that would push for monitoring and sharing in the first place.
They won't even release the number of specific requests relating to the program without the government's permission. So what makes you think they're going to be up front if the government tells them they can't? What makes you think they won't share data or allow access to the Kinect if the government tells them to, even if avoiding 'direct access' by recording information themselves and passing it along?
To quote Microsoft with regards to Skype accusations; "When we upgrade or update products legal obligations may in some circumstances require that we maintain the ability to provide information in response to a law enforcement or national security request. (Considering legal obligations are created through new legislation, it means that even if there isn't already some classified directive is allowing access, one could still spring into being.) There are aspects of the debate we wish we were able to discuss more freely. (There are things we can't tell you even now.)That's why we've argued for additional transparency that would help everyone understand and debate these important issues. (We can't tell you these things because the government won't allow it.)"
Now, you have decided that your source is sufficient to not only form your own opinion, which is your right, but utterly invalidate the opinions of others, to the point of disparagingly criticizing their intelligence because they won't simply believe what they're told with no logical or factual backing. Had this been a number of months ago, I would have run up and told you that yes, the SimCity online connection is absolutely necessary! The game would need to be significantly redesigned to even make an offline mode possible! I would show you links from the developer saying as much. By that definition, I would have officially fulfilled your burden of proof, and therefore I would be right. The fact that I was actually wrong would be inconsequential, and not even my fault.
What I'm looking for is something more solid than the promises of a source that has no reason to say 'we did' and every reason to say 'we didn't,' regardless of which one is the truth. The source I'm more inclined to believe is an individual who had both the means to acquire the information, and has thus far paid heavily for revealing it. If down the road new information arises suggesting that Snowden lied, or was some Russian saboteur, then I will adjust my analysis appropriately. But so far the only criticism I have heard is from people decrying him as a traitor for sharing the information to begin with. Well, that and some government sources claiming the information was in accurate, but considering the information the government itself released was criticized as inaccurate, that's kind of up in the air.
Ideally I would like an independent commission to poke through the software and hardware to ensure that remote activation is not even possible to achieve, even if you're the parent company, but let's face it, even if that ever happens, it won't be until a fair while after launch. I would therefore settle for just being able to unplug it and use it only for Kinect-only games. But that doesn't seem likely either. So they simply haven't met their burden of proof for me, Pinky swears aside, Which brings me back to 'not buying it.'
As I said, 'won't' means zilch to me. Any device I own, or service I use, I do so under the acknowledgment that the data might not be secure. If I use a service, or a device, it's because my need for its services outweigh the worst-case considerations of privacy. I simply don't need the Kinect enough to outweigh that worst-case scenario. If you do, then fine. If you don't care about the possibility, then fair enough; the idea honestly doesn't bother some people. But 'I don't care if this happens' is a far cry from 'this will never happen.'
And I'm sorry, but evaluation of all the premises? Every refuting point you've made has to do with the fact that the company denied it. 'The Kinect won't be used as a spy device because Microsoft said it wouldn't' 'Skype won't allow monitoring because Microsoft said it wouldn't.' You insist it doesn't make any sense that it could be used as a monitoring tool, then parade a shoddy justification for its mandatory connection as ironclad truth. The three examples you gave as alternate disputed or disproven had nothing to do with this topic. You seem to be relying quite a bit on what the company is telling you, which was my entire point. A company is not above releasing misinformation, far from it.
Just as being part of the majority viewpoint does not guarantee one to be right, so too does not being part of the minority viewpoint make any similar guarantees. While you might indeed be showing shocking insight by going against the stream, bottom line is you might just be swimming the wrong way.
I refer to what Microsoft has to say because as of now, they are the only source. When the console is released and all the IT-sec enthusiasts has had their time scanning the system for weakness or root-kit vectors or back doors or what not - then we'll know a bit more. Until then we can either trust what Microsoft has to say or speculate. And that's what we've done thus far.SeventhSigil said:
I know what you're trying to say, you've been saying it for at least three posts now. Yes, companies are not above releasing misinformation. Yes, the NSA can pull data without Microsoft having the legal right to even mention it, but as I said before, you take this risk with virtually every piece of integrated hardware you buy today, from your laptop to your smartphone, your PC if it has a webcam and even smart-TVs these days. In all these cases, three's always the risk of governmental surveillance, and the bigger risk of being hacked. And all of these companies are going to add privacy settings which we can choose to trust or not. But this still only puts Microsoft and that company's privacy efforts pretty much on the same level as a dozen other companies we trust with our private information everyday.
My opinion on all this, and indeed what I said in my original post (rather harshly), is that Microsoft doesn't deserve to be subjugated to all this constant criticism. If we agree that nothing sets Microsoft apart from any other IT-giant, then I think we've proved my point, wouldn't you say?
PS: I'm still not sure about companies "lying" to their users. No tech companies lied regarding the NSA. They were very limited on what they revealed, but their official statements where technically correct, misleading but correct. Major tech companies normally perform an extensive juridical analysis before they publish official statements so to make sure that what they say can't possible be used against them.
The most legally binding aspect of your relationship to your company is the user agreement. If the user agreement for the Xbox One confirms as directly as Microsoft already has: that you can completely control what the Kinect sees and hears, that's really all I think we can require Microsoft to do for us in this situation.
Bocaj2000 said:
The XBone also had a thing for wanting to record you when ever you wanted to be with her. After her operation, she said that she would turn the camera off, but for some reason she will not put the damn thing away, so it's still standing there, making you unsure if you are actually still being watched.
(To any one not sure what that was about, that was a Kinect joke.)
I always thought Xbone was a silly term . I guess its one of those things stupid people can say to make them feel better about themselves since they felt Microsoft didnt tailer their console to them.Zelgon said:
Console requires broadband and not 56k? Get out of here!
TomWiley said:
Oh, I see your point about the lying. My apologies. The companies weren't lying to their consumers. They were just deceiving their consumers. We can agree on that correct? You did say their statement was misleading, and deliberately misleading people is a form of deception all its own. I say deliberately because since, as you also said, they went through their statement with a fine tooth comb before releasing it, any misleading qualities certainly couldn't be accidental. I am well aware that they were very clever, and very careful in finding a way to appear to answer in one direction while in fact answering in the other. Case in point, here you are, saying that they never lied, they simply misled. The intention in both remains the same, as the deception is there, but the latter just leaves the right to deny that an outright lie was told.
For someone who's read all three posts, you don't seem to understand specifically what you said that I'm disputing. That being said, my posts were admittedly absurdly long.
I was addressing the fact that you seemed to insist, In the very first post that I quoted when replying to you, that it would not be used as a surveillance device, that we could apparently purchase it under full faith that it wouldn't happen. This wasn't saying the risk was any greater or lesser than any other device, this was you saying that it flat-out would not happen, and consequently ridiculing anyone who said it could or would. In fact, you were so dismissive and derisive about the very idea that it might be used for surveillance, and particularly derisive of those who advocated it, it suggests that, in your mind, it wasn't even within the realm of possibility.
My bone to pick is that it isn't even a stretch. Technologically, legally, the barriers to it becoming a reality are far less restrictive than they could be.
Technologically, the fact that a device can be designed to be remotely activated if there is an existing power source and Internet connection is pretty much a given. For all intents and purposes, activating the Kinect using your Xbox One console is remote access of a sort, as the request begins in the console and is transmitted through its link to the device. And yes, this also applies to pretty much any smart phone, Smart TV, and numerous other devices. But nowadays, the fact that your smart phone could be tracked or monitored seems to be pretty much a given.
As for legally, I would be inclined to take the Xbox One user agreement as proof they can be trusted, were it not for the fact that FISA's provisions allow for legal immunity when a company shares information with the program. That immunity being of course to any sort of litigation or backlash resulting from said sharing of information, removing the company from any liability to its users. In fact, lemme quote from said provision;
"(3) Release from liability
No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1)."
If a FISA issued directive conflicts with the user agreement, then the release from liability allows the company to violate the agreement without legal consequence. Considering paragraph one of the same document specifies that the company keep the sharing of data secret, then that secrecy would also (normally) protect them from mass consumer backlash. Pretty sure I mentioned that in one of my three posts. Now it is certainly possible that there is a legal addendum I either missed or misread, so if you would like to dispute the scope of this particular provision with your own, then at least we have something to focus on. Here's the link;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a
If you personally think that nobody will be interested in using the device for surveillance, that's fine. But considering they already intercept phone calls, emails, and numerous other sources, I seriously doubt they would completely ignore a camera and microphone placed in the middle of someone's house. Still, I admit that's subjective on both our parts, trying to predict the mindset and behavior of individuals we don't know.
And As you have said, this all puts them on equal ground with any technological provider named in the program, but I never claimed that Apple, Google and so forth were any less likely to share information that violated privacy agreements. Whether the service provided by each company, be it email, telephone, Facebook friending, etc, is sufficient to warrant the risk of having the information given to that service compromised is entirely up to the consumer's own judgment. For me, it isn't even a question of whether you trust the company to keep your information private. It's whether having that information transmitted or stored in whatever service used is worth losing it, or losing its privacy.
It's also a far cry from an absolute, unequivocal denial of its feasibility. Saying that they're in no different spot than the other companies is not proving Microsoft won't do it. For it to be, you'd have to prove that the other companies wouldn't do it. The only way one could prove that Microsoft won't, without any doubt, permit the Kinect's use as a surveillance device, is to prove that they absolutely can't use it as a surveillance device.
>
>
>
So tell you what. I will be more than happy to agree that Microsoft is no more or less evil, manipulative, deceptive, whatever word you would like to use, than any other company involved. I will even agree that they really didn't have much option once they signed up with the program, Short of ending up like Snowden and having to flee from their own country en masse.
But I certainly hope you can agree that, factoring in both the technological capabilities that make remote access possible, and legal provisions that protect these corporations from their own consumers when any private information is given, there isn't really much keeping them from using the Kinect. That not only would they have the framework in place to use the device for surveillance, not only would they not have to worry about lawsuits holding up in court against them for doing so, and not only would the classified nature of such a program keep knowledge of their participation out of public awareness, but just like before, Microsoft and other corporations still might not be able to refuse should the time come.
Agreed?
P.S. And since you brought up the subject of dubious arguments, I still think your justification for the mandatory connection of the Kinect remains completely inadequate. As an accessory, the device is far less prone to sudden onset of 'amnesia' as a separate item would be; I repeat, a second Xbox One controller being an example, compared to an old GameCube console. The concept of 'out of sight, out of mind' really only applies if everything related to it is out of sight. As long as I'm still using the Xbox One, I'm going to remember that I have a Kinect as well, And would be no more or less likely to purchase software for it then I would if I just had it 'turned off.'
Yeah sure agreed.SeventhSigil said:
Let me just say though, there reason why I make a difference between straight out lying and intentionally misleading consumers is not because I think there's any ethical difference. It's because the entire argument "they lied when they said X so we cant trust them when they say Y" falls flat. If they say that you will be in complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears, and that you'll be able to deactivate its features, then that's a pretty direct statement. It's not really possible to interpret it any other way. The "NSA does not access our servers" is more indirect. See what I mean? They don't lie, but you have to make sure you know exactly what they say.
And I was ridiculing the people that acted like the Kinect was, at a fact, designed to literally spy on you all the time. These people probably thought there's no way of turning its features off to begin with, simply because it had to be plugged in. See, they were never criticizing the Kinect for having the same risks as any other iPhone, laptop, smart-TV, they were criticizing it for being specifically harmful, unethical, anti-consumerist, and straight out evil.
It's like them saying "I can't look the door to this bathroom - I'll never ever use it."
Whereupon I say "You idiot, there's a lock right there".
Now, I agree that a lock alone might not be enough to keep any potential intruders away from your bathroom. Might be that the lock ins't reliable, that it can be "hacked", that the police might spy on you through the lockhole should they feel the need. But there's still a damn lock there.
They, for whatever reason, thought that this door in particular is way less reliable than any other door, subsequently cursing the manufacturer for it and have now gathered with torches and pitchforks to burn it down. That's why I called ridiculous, not the notion that there's a technical possibility of any doorlock being unreliable.
I never called that ridiculous, and if I gave that impression then it wasn't representative of my opinion.
Ultimately, how far gamers would have benefited by the introduction of a new Kinect, taking whatever rational or irrational risks into account, I leave to the subjective reflection of those gamers whose interest it would have been to appreciate its value as an additional source of entertainment.
I got warned by the moderators for just saying "no." Low-content post. Fair enough, I'll elaborate:
No. Let's not get off the Xbone hate-train. Microsoft out-competed Sony this generation, and as a result they were the hardcore console to beat. Then at the end of the cycle they decided to get greedy and become a cable TV provider or something instead of being a games console. Sony reacted to this by planning the PS4 to more or less be the Xbox 360 Plus Facebook, which kinda sucks because I don't think my 360 needs an Annoy All Your Friends Button, but meanwhile Microsoft was taking the new console generation as an excuse to jack up prices, screw consumers, put a stranglehold on the entire market, destroy the very *concept* of personal property, and basically take over the world like an egomaniacal supervillian.
Were they planning some cool new features that would piggyback on this new microsoft-controlled marketplace? Probably. They're chasing the dream of the iphone's store but with $60 games. Ha ha. Yeah. That's never going to happen. They wanted it badly enough to try anyway, though, and they were willing to sacrifice all the goodwill they managed to build up with the 360 just for a chance to roll the dice that consumers will swallow it.
This. Strategy. Backfired. Colossally.
So I say, no, Internet, you don't get to tell me what to do. Microsoft burned their goodwill with me. I refuse to just magically forget about it when the news cycle moves on. I liked Microsoft, and then Microsoft did something to me that made me hate them. I am not going to like them again until they do something nice for me. THAT'S THE WAY HATRED WORKS!
*ahem.*
Low-content post now has content. Honestly, I felt like "no" sums it up pretty well and everything I said here was pretty self-explanatory. I can't imagine someone saying "no" to the sentence "let's all stop hating on poor, poor Microsoft" and NOT thinking all of these things. But then I guess we all process information differently. Maybe I had to distinguish my "no" from someone else's "no herp a derp I just like yelling at everything" and "no, I own stock in Sony so I want the hate party to continue indefinitely," or "No, I am Bill Gates, you'd think I'd be against the hatred continuing, and I am, but we're just *SO* bad at messaging Microsoft sucks forever pre-order a PS4 today!!!" Which I thought was kinda weird when it appeared on his twitter feed.
No. Let's not get off the Xbone hate-train. Microsoft out-competed Sony this generation, and as a result they were the hardcore console to beat. Then at the end of the cycle they decided to get greedy and become a cable TV provider or something instead of being a games console. Sony reacted to this by planning the PS4 to more or less be the Xbox 360 Plus Facebook, which kinda sucks because I don't think my 360 needs an Annoy All Your Friends Button, but meanwhile Microsoft was taking the new console generation as an excuse to jack up prices, screw consumers, put a stranglehold on the entire market, destroy the very *concept* of personal property, and basically take over the world like an egomaniacal supervillian.
Were they planning some cool new features that would piggyback on this new microsoft-controlled marketplace? Probably. They're chasing the dream of the iphone's store but with $60 games. Ha ha. Yeah. That's never going to happen. They wanted it badly enough to try anyway, though, and they were willing to sacrifice all the goodwill they managed to build up with the 360 just for a chance to roll the dice that consumers will swallow it.
This. Strategy. Backfired. Colossally.
So I say, no, Internet, you don't get to tell me what to do. Microsoft burned their goodwill with me. I refuse to just magically forget about it when the news cycle moves on. I liked Microsoft, and then Microsoft did something to me that made me hate them. I am not going to like them again until they do something nice for me. THAT'S THE WAY HATRED WORKS!
*ahem.*
Low-content post now has content. Honestly, I felt like "no" sums it up pretty well and everything I said here was pretty self-explanatory. I can't imagine someone saying "no" to the sentence "let's all stop hating on poor, poor Microsoft" and NOT thinking all of these things. But then I guess we all process information differently. Maybe I had to distinguish my "no" from someone else's "no herp a derp I just like yelling at everything" and "no, I own stock in Sony so I want the hate party to continue indefinitely," or "No, I am Bill Gates, you'd think I'd be against the hatred continuing, and I am, but we're just *SO* bad at messaging Microsoft sucks forever pre-order a PS4 today!!!" Which I thought was kinda weird when it appeared on his twitter feed.
Are we still talking about the XBONE and how it may/may not suck? I thought everyone went back to the "Gaming Is Sexist" argument...
I find these post where the OP goes "Guys guys guys...the [insert thing here] doesn't suck...you just don't get it. Here, let me explain it for you..." hilarious. There are just too many of them. One is enough...
When does the "I don't care about any of this" Train make its rounds again?
TomWiley said:
I do understand. There indeed have been folks running around calling it spybox and such, which is certainly sensationalist. In my case, it hasn't been that I believe the device is designed to spu on you, anymore than the phones or emails are designed to spy on you. But both of those can certainly be monitored, Which brings us back to that consumer choice thing I won't rehash again.
The reason I've pursued our debate so aggressively is that many people operate under a belief when it comes to their rights as a customer, and the options available to them if those rights have been in impugned. If a company says they will not do something, in their agreement, and they do it anyway, I have a right to seek whatever recompense is appropriate.This is one of the delightful means that companies are kept in check, i.e. 'hitting them in the wallet.' Under normal circumstances, having something in the user agreement is 100% reliable, because if they do it anyway, yay, call the lawyers. This has created a sense of trust in these companies, not because we attribute any particularly noble qualities to them, but because we have weapons to strike back if they cross the line.
My concern is that certain legislation, all in the name of national security of course, has superseded this basic covenant. That there are certain lines they could cross, and we'd have no means to strike them.
As a counter to your bathroom analogy, let me present a strange one. You are in a room with a complete stranger. This stranger is large, imposing, and armed with a sheathed knife. You know nothing of his personality; he could be relatively friendly, or he could be homicidal. But If he decides to attack, he could do a lot of damage and you would stand no chance unarmed. Despite this, you feel perfectly safe, because while he has a knife, you have a gun and could shoot him dead if he charges.
Unfortunately, someone else switched your ammunition with blanks. You are unaware of this, but the stranger knows perfectly well.
It's convoluted, in my defense I am under a lot of painkillers right now, but in essence my concern isn't for those who might trust the stranger. It's for those who think, worst-case, they could always just use the gun.
Every time I boot up Windows 7 I keep being amazed at how much better my Android phone works as an operating system (CyanogenMod to be exact)--and my phone does mostly the same stuff, browsing the internet, playing videos, email, Google Docs, looking at pictures, that sort of thing; pretty much everything except playing games.
Microsoft is yesterday's news. It would have no point if major release games could be run in Linux.
No hate, it just needs to step up its game.
Microsoft is yesterday's news. It would have no point if major release games could be run in Linux.
No hate, it just needs to step up its game.
I skimmed through your points and saw nothing new. Not to mention, who's still going off about it in August? I've seen no one. The thing is, Microsoft tried to sell us an item, and then basically said "but it's still ours and if you wanna play with our toy, you'll do it our way". Not to mention the used game restrictions, making it near impossible for those of us with lower incomes to even consider having a collection of games, or use Gamefly. Not to mention making the simple act of playing a game with a friend tedious, and letting them borrow it or bring it to their house to play together nigh impossible. Add to this the Kinect tracking your every move being just creepy, and so many features being keyed to the Kinect that using half of its features may end up not being worth it, the online check-ins when we can't all afford a quality net service (coming from someone that can), the horrible uncomfortable looking controller, even compared the the 360, the all-digital approach that leaves us screwed when they decide to take servers down or if there's any security breach, which the last gen showed is all too likely, and most importantly, the ass exclusives. Especially when their competitor had none of that, decent (not great) looking exclusives, more freedom without a paid subscription, and a lower price tag.
Going back on all this when they saw their pre-orders plummet compared to expectations leaves an even worse taste in my mouth. The idea that they took such firm stances on so many things, only to pull just about all of it when they thought it would mean not quite as many millions comes off as nothing but pathetic. The thought that they changed it because their fans were upset and they care is asinine at best. The fact of the matter is, if we were all complaining but still decided to pre-order the system, that would have changed nothing. Yes, all these companies care more about money than us, but such a blatant display of that, accompanied with such a poor attempt to convince us that it was for any reason that didn't have to do with dollar signs, is insulting. That, my friend, is why fuck Microsoft and fuck their Xbox One.
Going back on all this when they saw their pre-orders plummet compared to expectations leaves an even worse taste in my mouth. The idea that they took such firm stances on so many things, only to pull just about all of it when they thought it would mean not quite as many millions comes off as nothing but pathetic. The thought that they changed it because their fans were upset and they care is asinine at best. The fact of the matter is, if we were all complaining but still decided to pre-order the system, that would have changed nothing. Yes, all these companies care more about money than us, but such a blatant display of that, accompanied with such a poor attempt to convince us that it was for any reason that didn't have to do with dollar signs, is insulting. That, my friend, is why fuck Microsoft and fuck their Xbox One.
Maybe you're right, maybe it's time to move past Microsoft, and move towards a future of understanding. Maybe we should see that Microsoft has learned from its past mistakes and will not try to-
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126665-Xbox-One-DVR-For-Gold-Subs-Only-PS4-Recording-Free-For-All
GET BACK ON THE TRAIN! GET BACK ON THE TRAIN!
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126665-Xbox-One-DVR-For-Gold-Subs-Only-PS4-Recording-Free-For-All
GET BACK ON THE TRAIN! GET BACK ON THE TRAIN!
The whole Xbone situation reminds me of a 90's cartoon.
Tom the Cat hits Spike over the head with a baseball bat, only to have the bat splinter when it hits Spike's head. Realizing the bat didn't work, Tom backs away slowly with the biggest, most sheepish grin on his face. Spike then strangles Tom. But then someone comes along and says Spike shouldn't strangle Tom, even though Tom tried to maim Spike with a bat.
We should all be Spike.
Tom the Cat hits Spike over the head with a baseball bat, only to have the bat splinter when it hits Spike's head. Realizing the bat didn't work, Tom backs away slowly with the biggest, most sheepish grin on his face. Spike then strangles Tom. But then someone comes along and says Spike shouldn't strangle Tom, even though Tom tried to maim Spike with a bat.
We should all be Spike.
No. We should never stop hating on that console. We all saw what they intended the XBone to be, and for that they should be punished without end. That console deserves to be the biggest commercial flop in the history of the gaming industry. They deserve to tank so hard that they have to drop out of the console market altogether!
You buy an XBone, and you're saying to Microsoft "we support you, despite the fact you don't give a fuck about us." They will try that shit again, and again, so long as people continue to support them.
You buy an XBone, and you're saying to Microsoft "we support you, despite the fact you don't give a fuck about us." They will try that shit again, and again, so long as people continue to support them.
No, people won't get off the hate train as the reason you provided were basically "It's not that bad" which implies that it's not good either. f it wasn't terrible it would be pretty obvious. If it makes you feel any better xbone's probably going to sell like hotcakes because COD.