Again, if you want to take Microsoft at their word regarding features that have been a) contradicted by an anonymous but apparently quite reliable (in the past) source, b) make no financial sense and fly directly in the face of everything else built into the system, and c) have now been canceled entirely despite the fact that they could easily implement something similar with optional restrictions (which would give them a huge, much needed leg-up on Sony) for nebulous, head-scratching reasons... feel free.Akalabeth said:There's a difference between INFORMATION and assumption.
Your entire argument is based on assumption. Based on your assumption on how things will work, even when your assumptions contradict what has been revealed by Microsoft themselves. I'm not interested in your theories, I'm interested in an assessment of the known facts.
Your assertion about the hour-long demo is likewise based on unconfirmed information from an alleged insider, information which contradicts everything microsoft was saying.
What we know, is that the game sharing was described as both unlimited and not optional.
And what else we know is that the DRM was optional.
This is the same company touting cloud computing as some future proofing processor booster when anyone with an ounce of sense knows it doesn't work that way (and isn't anything special). This is the same company claiming digital distribution is the future (and subsequently "trailblazing" that future) when DD has been around for almost a decade now, dominating PC sales and growing like wildfire on existing platforms. This is the same company directly named in the leaks regarding PRISM spying on basically the whole world... while trying to insert an always-on camera/microphone into every home. This is the same company repeatedly busted for anti-trust violations, screwing the little guy, and basically pissing in the open mouths of consumers every chance they get.
But take their PR releases as the god's honest, please.
Why would it not be a publisher decision? Publishers ultimately own their work and decide how it is disseminated. You think MS can put a publisher's game up on XBL without their say so? You think MS can enable games to be shared between 11 people without publisher say so? If that "say so" takes the form of the original licensing agreement between MS and the publisher, what publisher in their right mind willingly signs off on that?And not only that but I haven't seen any indication that Family sharing was in any way optional. It was a gamer decision, not a publisher decision.
Find for me the quote about "family-share" that doesn't involve intentionally vague language? The bits I've seen all take the form of "MS enables publishers to do this". Better yet, explain to me why a feature like this wasn't the very center of their messaging at E3? It's the ONE good thing, in theory, about any of their bullshit, and it practically sells itself. So why weren't they talking up the potential to share your games with 10 friends over the internet? Probably because a little digging by any halfway intelligent journalist would have forced them to reveal it was a demo system.
Let's ignore for now the fact that they could implement a similar system with optional DRM while still allowing the existing model, giving consumers a legitimate choice in how they purchase media. A "trade off" is exactly how they were positioning this feature, yet they never focused on it. They never hammered it home. They never came out and said "you can't share a disc anymore, but that doesn't matter because you can just share the game over your friends list with 10 people!". Instead of connecting the dots for everyone wary about the changing model, in a way that would have alleviated basically all fears, they left these things separate and nebulous. Is their messaging that inept? Or were they being intentionally fuzzy about the details of a feature that flew in the face of everything else they were doing? A feature that made no sense for the publishers they were trying to appease, a feature that was never finalized or set in stone, a feature that wouldn't be available at launch... c'mon, man.It's called a trade off.
Game sharing was the trade off for the new DRM. With the DRM gone, so is game sharing.
Um, if ANY software maker had their way, they'd install every program they've ever created on every piece of hardware in existence. Your irrational Steam hatred is showing. So very bizarre that it coexists with blind Microsoft apologism. I'm legitimately confused by your principles.The difference is the Xbox is a closed system, my PC is not. Any game which forces my open system to become a closed system is invasive. The xbox is not invasive because you buy into that from the get go. If you don't want to subscribe to the Xbox routine you don't buy one.
But having a multi use device like a PC and having a game require you to install an unnecessary piece of software onto your computer is complete bullshit. Not only that but if Steam had their way, they would install their shit on every device I have INCLUDING my xbox.
With PC, you can make a case-by-case decision as to whether or not you support a platform. Don't like Steam? Try to get the game on GoG or direct from the publisher. Not an option? Don't buy the game. The Xbone was exactly what Jim Sterling said it was: a closed system adopting additional restrictions/limitations of an open one without providing the same benefits. The preorders (or lack thereof) for Xbone were a referendum on Microsoft's overarching ideology. The majority said "no, you're not giving us good reasons to go down this road so we're not going to sacrifice any of our existing flexibility for your gain". It wasn't a failure to communicate because there was *nothing positive to communicate*.
So I'm the one who isn't savvy to the ways of the world, but yours was the bullshit that just got shot down with such force as to make one of the most powerful and traditionally tone-deaf corporations in the entire world pull a complete fucking 180 and redesign their entire policy/feature set very near the 11th hour of a major product release? You're going to paint me as the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about here?Disc-based games could still be sold, unlike Steam-tied games.
Distribution is there but not sharing.
You may not be savvy to the ways of the world but all-in-one devices with social media built in is the going trend. So the Xbox aiming to be all-inclusive device with the ability to share games between family members or to loan games to another friend etcetera anywhere in the world WAS going to be a step in that direction.
Maybe it is short-sighted when you stand up for your rights as a consumer. Maybe we are invariably headed for an age where everything is rewritten from the ground up to favor billion dollar corporations. In the end, you might be completely right about what's going to happen to us. I don't think that means you're on the right side, though.INSTEAD
We have a 360 with updated graphics.
Big fucking deal.
Gamers are so short-sighted.
Also, why in the world are shallow, unrelated social media features the next evolution in gaming? Why isn't AI or alternative design or even the hyper-realism of vastly improved graphics 1000x more important than twitter integration and video sharing and all the other nonsense they're trying to force on us? You think it's the fault of gamers that video games aren't moving forward? Well you're right there, but it has nothing to do with our refusal to bend over for MS and everything to do with the fact that we buy the same shitty games nonstop. Excellent job conflating the two completely separate issues, though.