I am convinced companies pay people to defend their tactics.

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by quickposter (1709 posts) -

I can get Neptunia DLC completely free. A company making a game that niche with a stupidly small budget can give DLC for free yet companies like EA "need" the money they lose on used games? You expect me to believe that? They don't NEED the money. They WANT the money. Big difference.

If these rumors are true about the next Xbox then people won't buy it. I believe people putting up with RROD all these years and paying online charges has convinced the bigwigs at Redmond that they can get away with everything they throw at people. Well I have some news for them, there are other consoles on the market. What boggles my mind is that MS is this cocky after just one successful generation. One generation does not make them a major competitor in the long run of things (as Sega proved). Nintendo are still here and Sony have one of the strongest console brands in history. Microsoft is still a new comer. And TBH these rumors just show it. It shows major inexpirience (not only in the console market but) as a hardware manufacturer.

For the record = I had to buy Neptunia used because it was virtually impossible to buy new. But because I like it I bought the sequels new. Sorry not even the blindest fanboy on earth can defend this. If you are defending it you are being paid. If you are saying "rumors" you are living in denial.

There is only one reason an official Microsoft employee would defend such a tactic in the defensive way they did. Its a feature they will use. The fact that a lot of people expected PS4 to show up much later and Sony spilled the beans February, yet Microsoft (funnily enough) remain silent, only means they are holding something in fear of a significant backlash.

A prototype exists which has this BS feature. At this point it is obvious. Well Microsoft aren't going to get away with it. The reader of this will buy a PS4 and they know it. In fact it only adds more confirmation to the rumors of it being casual focused. They would be taking advantage of consumers who don't know any better.

#2 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Oh, I'm sure there are paid shills online to promote certain gaming companies. For instance, anyone who defends the ridiculously anti-consumer, always-online DRM. 

#3 Posted by Shadowchronicle (26039 posts) -
Honestly, it is up to the game companies to what they want with DLC. DLC don't have much important content to begin with. I don't even bother buying it, I just seem accustomed to everything having to be purchased.
#4 Posted by MethodManFTW (25851 posts) -

Oh, I'm sure there are paid shills online to promote certain gaming companies. For instance, anyone who defends the ridiculously anti-consumer, always-online DRM. 

Vari3ty
Always-on would be fine for me, because all my consoles are always connected and I have a very stable connection. But I still wouldn't defend it because of how many people I know that don't have the internet connection necessary for such a thing.
#5 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

I suspect the game industry wants to bring an end to used and borrowed games.  I expect game discs will become a thing of the past in the not too distant future when all game content will have to be purchased directly online through the consoles.  The original design concept for the PS 4 called for eliminating the blu-ray drive in order to require all content to be purchased from Playstation Live, like the Vita, but Sony finally came to their senses and abandoned that idea.  Nonetheless, I am convinced that the days of physically distributed game media are numbered.

#6 Posted by wiouds (5294 posts) -

 Nonetheless, I am convinced that the days of physically distributed game media are numbered.

capaho

The would suck since they can close down you account at anytime.

#7 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]

 Nonetheless, I am convinced that the days of physically distributed game media are numbered.

wiouds

The would suck since they can close down you account at anytime.

Exactly. Your account can be banned/jacked/hacked at any time outside of your control, plus digital delivery services won't stay online forever. A game collection based on these premises is no collection at all.
#8 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
Exactly. Your account can be banned/jacked/hacked at any time outside of your control, plus digital delivery services won't stay online forever. A game collection based on these premises is no collection at all.Black_Knight_00
I suspect they will offer cloud storage of games as Microsoft now does for saved data on Xbox Live, similar to the way Apple allows access to previous purchases on iTunes. That will require everyone to have an Xbox Live or Playstation Network account where they will have complete control of your content.
#10 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Exactly. Your account can be banned/jacked/hacked at any time outside of your control, plus digital delivery services won't stay online forever. A game collection based on these premises is no collection at all.capaho
I suspect they will offer cloud storage of games as Microsoft now does for saved data on Xbox Live, similar to the way Apple allows access to previous purchases on iTunes. That will require everyone to have an Xbox Live or Playstation Network account where they will have complete control of your content.

That doesn't really relate to what I said. What I said is that if you purchase, say, 100 games from a DD service (Steam, Origin, PSN, XBL) and then for any reason lose access to your account (ban, hack, jack, server error) all your game collection is gone and can never be recovered unless miracles happen. You also lose access to any sort of cloud storage associated with your account. This can happen at any moment without warning or notice (see PS3 hack incident a couple years ago, which was fortunately contained but could have been massively worse). My point being that DD is convenient, but not reliable. Physical copies, on the other hand, are.
#11 Posted by LazySloth718 (2332 posts) -

I think the future having "collection" of anything is a joke.

All media, games, music, movies, will be available streaming-only and subject to companies closing down and taking your "purchase" with them.

The capitalist/western system has succeeded in privatizing love, life, art, soul and music.

Just like Monsanto patents a vegetable now.

And our politicians who are so vociferous in defending "rights" and "liberties" follow lockstep with the corporatist system until the human spirit is merely a commodity.

What the world needs desperately is destruction of "civilization" to let art, life and love flourish, freely without "ownership."

#12 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] That doesn't really relate to what I said. What I said is that if you purchase, say, 100 games from a DD service (Steam, Origin, PSN, XBL) and then for any reason lose access to your account (ban, hack, jack, server error) all your game collection is gone and can never be recovered unless miracles happen. You also lose access to any sort of cloud storage associated with your account. This can happen at any moment without warning or notice (see PS3 hack incident a couple years ago, which was fortunately contained but could have been massively worse). My point being that DD is convenient, but not reliable. Physical copies, on the other hand, are.

Cloud storage from the likes of Microsoft or Sony should be reliable over the long term, making it possible to have a collection of DD games. Apple already does it for their DD content between their App Store, iTunes and iCloud. It's a model that should work for console games as well.
#13 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -
[QUOTE="capaho"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] That doesn't really relate to what I said. What I said is that if you purchase, say, 100 games from a DD service (Steam, Origin, PSN, XBL) and then for any reason lose access to your account (ban, hack, jack, server error) all your game collection is gone and can never be recovered unless miracles happen. You also lose access to any sort of cloud storage associated with your account. This can happen at any moment without warning or notice (see PS3 hack incident a couple years ago, which was fortunately contained but could have been massively worse). My point being that DD is convenient, but not reliable. Physical copies, on the other hand, are.

Cloud storage from the likes of Microsoft or Sony should be reliable over the long term, making it possible to have a collection of DD games. Apple already does it for their DD content between their App Store, iTunes and iCloud. It's a model that should work for console games as well.

What happens if your account gets hacked or banned? Will cloud storage save you then?
#14 Posted by MrGeezer (56670 posts) -

I can get Neptunia DLC completely free. A company making a game that niche with a stupidly small budget can give DLC for free yet companies like EA "need" the money they lose on used games? You expect me to believe that? quickposter

Games with "stupidly small budgets" don't need to sell as much in order to turn a profit.

#15 Posted by MrGeezer (56670 posts) -
What the world needs desperately is destruction of "civilization" to let art, life and love flourish, freely without "ownership."LazySloth718
Art can't flourish freely without "ownership".
#16 Posted by LazySloth718 (2332 posts) -

[QUOTE="LazySloth718"]What the world needs desperately is destruction of "civilization" to let art, life and love flourish, freely without "ownership."MrGeezer
Art can't flourish freely without "ownership".

Art can't become big business without "ownership."

In becoming big business art loses its integrity, authenticity and meaning.

Michaelangelo is to EA what Leonardo Da Vinci is to Walmart.

The big owners have not only hijacked the human spirit, then have also convinced droves of people such as yourself that life can't exist without "ownership," and that "Greed is Good," that if we didn't have a bunch of overlords and uniformed thugs keeping us in line, everything would break down and nothing would work, there'd be blood flowing in the streets.

Yet for millenia humans didn't have "civilization," there was no cop on the corner, there was no corporation and no shareholders.

There was no "copyright law" when Michaelangelo sculpted David.

If the same scumbags were in charge 50 or 100 years ago you wouldn't even have public libraries or schools, books and information would be parceled out on Wall Street to the highest bidder.

Somehow our forefathers and ancestors had wisdom that we don't.

Somehow there WERE libraries and public schools.

Somehow there WAS a Renaissance.

And somehow all that is under threat because the pedophiles who run EA and Microsoft don't have enough money.

#17 Posted by MrGeezer (56670 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="LazySloth718"]What the world needs desperately is destruction of "civilization" to let art, life and love flourish, freely without "ownership."LazySloth718

Art can't flourish freely without "ownership".

Art can't become big business without "ownership."

In becoming big business art loses its integrity, authenticity and meaning.

Michaelangelo is to EA what Leonardo Da Vinci is to Walmart.

The big owners have not only hijacked the human spirit, then have also convinced droves of people such as yourself that life can't exist without "ownership," and that "Greed is Good," that if we didn't have a bunch of overlords and uniformed thugs keeping us in line, everything would break down and nothing would work, there'd be blood flowing in the streets.

Yet for millenia humans didn't have "civilization," there was no cop on the corner, there was no corporation and no shareholders.

There was no "copyright law" when Michaelangelo sculpted David.

If the same scumbags were in charge 50 or 100 years ago you wouldn't even have public libraries or schools, books and information would be parceled out on Wall Street to the highest bidder.

Somehow our forefathers and ancestors had wisdom that we don't.

Somehow there WERE libraries and public schools.

Somehow there WAS a Renaissance.

And somehow all that is under threat because the pedophiles who run EA and Microsoft don't have enough money.

Excuse me, but EA and Microsoft are not STEALING anyone's art. They fund the creation of art, something that they would probably not be willingg to do if they didn't stand to benefit from it monetarily. Any artist should be free to do with their art what they want with it. If they want to give it away, big companies like EA and Microsoft aren't stopping them. The Sistine Chapel paintings were commissioned by the Catholic Church, that's about as "big business" as you can get. Michelangelo could choose to either accept the job or turn it down, but it never would have existed without someone putting up a lot of money to pay for its creation. In the case of videogames, no one is walking up to artists, putting a gun to their heads, and forcing them to create content. If you want to create art without big business getting involved, then there's nothing stopping you from making your own small independent video game.
#18 Posted by Planeforger (15845 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]

 Nonetheless, I am convinced that the days of physically distributed game media are numbered.

wiouds

The would suck since they can close down you account at anytime.

While that may legally be true, no reputable store currently does that, and it'd be a PR nightmare/commercial suicide if they ever tried it. I don't think we have much to worry about there.
#19 Posted by Planeforger (15845 posts) -

Art can't become big business without "ownership."

In becoming big business art loses its integrity, authenticity and meaning.

LazySloth718
The first part might be true - you're not going to see many expense artistic works being commissioned if concepts like 'ownership' oe 'lincensing agreements' didn't exist. The second part doesn't have to be true at all though. Look at the examples you've been bringing up: Michelangelo and Da Vinci. I don't know a lot about either, but I do know that both of them operated under the patronage of some of the wealthiest people and organisations of their time - surely they must be the very definition of 'big business' artists?

The big owners have not only hijacked the human spirit, then have also convinced droves of people such as yourself that life can't exist without "ownership," and that "Greed is Good," that if we didn't have a bunch of overlords and uniformed thugs keeping us in line, everything would break down and nothing would work, there'd be blood flowing in the streets.

Yet for millenia humans didn't have "civilization," there was no cop on the corner, there was no corporation and no shareholders.

LazySloth718
This is true...but until recently, people also burnt women at the stake for witchcraft, and would die of a hundred different diseases simply from walking down sewage-filled streets. Civilisation has immeasurably (and unquestionably) improved our quality of living time and time again, in countless ways. So...you're hilariously overreacting if you think that civilisation is some sort of problem that needs to be fixed. And you're completely naive if you think that human greed is some kind of recent development.

If the same scumbags were in charge 50 or 100 years ago you wouldn't even have public libraries or schools, books and information would be parceled out on Wall Street to the highest bidder.

Somehow our forefathers and ancestors had wisdom that we don't.

Somehow there WERE libraries and public schools.

Somehow there WAS a Renaissance.

And somehow all that is under threat because the pedophiles who run EA and Microsoft don't have enough money.

LazySloth718
Uh, public libraries and public schools still exist even with those 'scumbags' in charge. You could probably even argue that, without Microsoft's contributions to the computer industry, public libraries and schools would not be as advanced as they are today. So...? Also, calling corporate directors childish names (or worse, making serious criminal accusations against them based on absolutely nothing at all) only undermines your entire argument even further. ...Back on topic though...I think my post here illustrates how people could legitimately defend terrible companies. It's not that I worship EA and will valiantlydefend always-online DRM - I just wish people would back up their dislike of other companies with sensible and logically-consistent arguments. If I feel that somebody is very wrong about something, I'll make a point about it, even if I agree with their point. Perhaps other people do the same online, and that's why some of us look like we are defending bad practices?
#20 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
What happens if your account gets hacked or banned? Will cloud storage save you then?Black_Knight_00
Yes, because security is the responsibility of the cloud host. The problem can be resolved if it occurred through no fault of your own. Otherwise, I would expect that getting banned for bad behavior would exclude you from online play, but you would still have the right to access DD content you've paid for. Cloud storage is already out there and these problems already exist, so this is not really a hypothetical discussion. It's only a matter of time before console games depart the physical world for the cloud. The details of that transition will determine whether or not I follow along with it. If moving to the cloud means fewer choices for the gamer, I'll probably find a new hobby.
#21 Posted by Minishdriveby (10130 posts) -
Yeah it's called PR...
#22 Posted by Heirren (17758 posts) -
Physical media is important to the industry.
#23 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]What happens if your account gets hacked or banned? Will cloud storage save you then?capaho
Yes, because security is the responsibility of the cloud host. The problem can be resolved if it occurred through no fault of your own. Otherwise, I would expect that getting banned for bad behavior would exclude you from online play, but you would still have the right to access DD content you've paid for. Cloud storage is already out there and these problems already exist, so this is not really a hypothetical discussion. It's only a matter of time before console games depart the physical world for the cloud. The details of that transition will determine whether or not I follow along with it. If moving to the cloud means fewer choices for the gamer, I'll probably find a new hobby.

It's not about online play: it's about the games you purchased and are in your DD library. If your account is hacked, the chances of you getting it back are remote at best and are zero if you get banned for any reason. In either case, all you purchases are GONE, lost, and the service has no obligation to refund you. And how the hell would you even access your cloud storage if your account is gone?
#24 Posted by cdragon_88 (1218 posts) -

What??? No, I disagree. I'm convinced some people are just idiots--no need to be paid.

#25 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
It's not about online play: it's about the games you purchased and are in your DD library. If your account is hacked, the chances of you getting it back are remote at best and are zero if you get banned for any reason. In either case, all you purchases are GONE, lost, and the service has no obligation to refund you. And how the hell would you even access your cloud storage if your account is gone?Black_Knight_00
OK, so the fundamental problem here is that you don't understand how the system works. You may lose control of your account temporarily if it is hacked, but your DD will never be gone. In the case of Xbox Live, for example, the chances of a hacker completely wiping out Microsoft's massive, redundant system through a hacked user account is virtually nil. Microsoft can restore your account and access to your DD in the event of a hack. The integrity of system security isn't my main concern when it comes to cloud storage. It's how the industry might use it to control content that concerns me. It could kill off the ability to play imports and the used game market will certainly perish.
#26 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]It's not about online play: it's about the games you purchased and are in your DD library. If your account is hacked, the chances of you getting it back are remote at best and are zero if you get banned for any reason. In either case, all you purchases are GONE, lost, and the service has no obligation to refund you. And how the hell would you even access your cloud storage if your account is gone?capaho
OK, so the fundamental problem here is that you don't understand how the system works. You may lose control of your account temporarily if it is hacked, but your DD will never be gone. In the case of Xbox Live, for example, the chances of a hacker completely wiping out Microsoft's massive, redundant system through a hacked user account is virtually nil. Microsoft can restore your account and access to your DD in the event of a hack. The integrity of system security isn't my main concern when it comes to cloud storage. It's how the industry might use it to control content that concerns me. It could kill off the ability to play imports and the used game market will certainly perish.

Ok, I'll explain this to you a fifth time. If for any reason you lose access to your account you lose all your purchases
#27 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
Ok, I'll explain this to you a fifth time. If for any reason you lose access to your account you lose all your purchasesBlack_Knight_00
You keep making that statement but you haven't actually explained how that's possible. Your user account gives you access to content but it doesn't give you control over the storage of content. User accounts do not have system level access to the cloud servers, they can't do any damage there. You are confusing loss of control of your account with loss of data. Those are entirely different issues. Having a user account hacked is not an unrecoverable problem but you seem to believe it is. You don't understand how the system works.
#28 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Ok, I'll explain this to you a fifth time. If for any reason you lose access to your account you lose all your purchasescapaho
You keep making that statement but you haven't actually explained how that's possible. Your user account gives you access to content but it doesn't give you control over the storage of content. User accounts do not have system level access to the cloud servers, they can't do any damage there. You are confusing loss of control of your account with loss of data. Those are entirely different issues. Having a user account hacked is not an unrecoverable problem but you seem to believe it is. You don't understand how the system works.

Get off your high horse once and for all. You keep missing the point. Who cares how you lose control over your account: in case you do, you lose all the games you purchased. I don't know how to make this sound any simpler. You keep talking about storage as if that was in any way relevant, the game data itself is irrelevant here: when you buy a game through DD you buy a license to access and download that game from a remote server through your account. If you lose your account you lose access rights to the game you paid for. Can you store the license on a cloud storage? No! So stop bringing up cloud storage, it has no relevance whatsoever to what we are discussing.

Say a user has a particularly offensive exchange of insults with some guy over private messages, he gets reported and the service provider decides to ban him for violation of the terms of use. That user loses all his purchases the moment his account is terminated, as detailed in any EULA for any DD service.

This is why a DD collection is unreliable: you can lose it any moment at the provider's discretion. Not to mention third party illegal activities.

#29 Posted by LazySloth718 (2332 posts) -

Excuse me, but EA and Microsoft are not STEALING anyone's art. They fund the creation of art, something that they would probably not be willingg to do if they didn't stand to benefit from it monetarily. Any artist should be free to do with their art what they want with it. If they want to give it away, big companies like EA and Microsoft aren't stopping them. The Sistine Chapel paintings were commissioned by the Catholic Church, that's about as "big business" as you can get. Michelangelo could choose to either accept the job or turn it down, but it never would have existed without someone putting up a lot of money to pay for its creation. In the case of videogames, no one is walking up to artists, putting a gun to their heads, and forcing them to create content. If you want to create art without big business getting involved, then there's nothing stopping you from making your own small independent video game.MrGeezer

They privatize CONCEPTS and IDEAS, most of which derive from global culture.

I've got no bone to pick with people trying to earn a living.

What I have a problem with is the idea that "ABC company has an absolute right to XYZ concept, idea, art, tune, etc" and therefor have no responsibility to parcel out that concept/idea/art/tune in a reasonable way for the benefit and enjoyment of the PUBLIC.

For example.

A company might fund the development of a really cool game. It makes them $50 mil profit.

^^^^ this is fine

The same company decides to draw the storyline out and make it less good, for the purpose of putting out 12 DLC. It makes them $100 mil profit.

^^^^ this sucks

Nobody is saying "Do good work for nothing."

Do good work and make good money.

But also have a shred of concern for the public, who would rather play a GREAT game ($50 mil profit) vs an OK game with 12 DLC ($100 mil profit.)

And if you say "Screw the public" well screw the corporations too then.

#30 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Get off your high horse once and for all. You keep missing the point. Who cares how you lose control over your account: in case you do, you lose all the games you purchased. I don't know how to make this sound any simpler. You keep talking about storage as if that was in any way relevant, the game data itself is irrelevant here: when you buy a game through DD you buy a license to access and download that game from a remote server through your account. If you lose your account you lose access rights to the game you paid for. Can you store the license on a cloud storage? No! So stop bringing up cloud storage, it has no relevance whatsoever to what we are discussing.

Say a user has a particularly offensive exchange of insults with some guy over private messages, he gets reported and the service provider decides to ban him for violation of the terms of use. That user loses all his purchases the moment his account is terminated, as detailed in any EULA for any DD service.

This is why a DD collection is unreliable: you can lose it any moment at the provider's discretion. Not to mention third party illegal activities.

Black_Knight_00

I'm not on a high horse but I do seem to be enganged in a fruitless effort to educate a donkey.  You simply don't make any sense on this issue, although it's easy to understand why you might be overly concerned about having your user account banned.

#31 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

Get off your high horse once and for all. You keep missing the point. Who cares how you lose control over your account: in case you do, you lose all the games you purchased. I don't know how to make this sound any simpler. You keep talking about storage as if that was in any way relevant, the game data itself is irrelevant here: when you buy a game through DD you buy a license to access and download that game from a remote server through your account. If you lose your account you lose access rights to the game you paid for. Can you store the license on a cloud storage? No! So stop bringing up cloud storage, it has no relevance whatsoever to what we are discussing.

Say a user has a particularly offensive exchange of insults with some guy over private messages, he gets reported and the service provider decides to ban him for violation of the terms of use. That user loses all his purchases the moment his account is terminated, as detailed in any EULA for any DD service.

This is why a DD collection is unreliable: you can lose it any moment at the provider's discretion. Not to mention third party illegal activities.

capaho

I'm not on a high horse but I do seem to be enganged in a fruitless effort to educate a donkey.  You simply don't make any sense on this issue, although it's easy to understand why you might be overly concerned about having your user account banned.

And as in every discussion you've ever had on this forum, you fail to explain your points. This is probably why no one ever agreed with you on anything. I guess we are all donkeys here aside from you :roll:
#32 Posted by Big_Red_Button (5479 posts) -

[QUOTE="capaho"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

Get off your high horse once and for all. You keep missing the point. Who cares how you lose control over your account: in case you do, you lose all the games you purchased. I don't know how to make this sound any simpler. You keep talking about storage as if that was in any way relevant, the game data itself is irrelevant here: when you buy a game through DD you buy a license to access and download that game from a remote server through your account. If you lose your account you lose access rights to the game you paid for. Can you store the license on a cloud storage? No! So stop bringing up cloud storage, it has no relevance whatsoever to what we are discussing.

Say a user has a particularly offensive exchange of insults with some guy over private messages, he gets reported and the service provider decides to ban him for violation of the terms of use. That user loses all his purchases the moment his account is terminated, as detailed in any EULA for any DD service.

This is why a DD collection is unreliable: you can lose it any moment at the provider's discretion. Not to mention third party illegal activities.

Black_Knight_00

I'm not on a high horse but I do seem to be enganged in a fruitless effort to educate a donkey.  You simply don't make any sense on this issue, although it's easy to understand why you might be overly concerned about having your user account banned.

And as in every discussion you've ever had on this forum, you fail to explain your points. This is probably why no one ever agreed with you on anything. I guess we are all donkeys here aside from you :roll:

Don't bother with him dude, he clearly doesn't get it.

Or maybe he's deliberately spreading misinformation.

"I am convinced companies pay people to defend their tactics"

Well, spreading misinformation would be a pretty good way to obfuscate the truth.

#33 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
And as in every discussion you've ever had on this forum, you fail to explain your points. This is probably why no one ever agreed with you on anything. I guess we are all donkeys here aside from you :roll:Black_Knight_00
What exactly are you trying to sustain an argument about? My point simply is that your belief in the fragility of cloud storage and DD is unfounded. Apple has a well established track record on this with iTunes that stands as a model for the entire industry. So does Amazon with its system for Kindle content. It's coming to gaming whether you like it or not. You should be more concerned with the real implications of that transition rather than imaginary ones.
#34 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]And as in every discussion you've ever had on this forum, you fail to explain your points. This is probably why no one ever agreed with you on anything. I guess we are all donkeys here aside from you :roll:capaho
What exactly are you trying to sustain an argument about? My point simply is that your belief in the fragility of cloud storage and DD is unfounded. Apple has a well established track record on this with iTunes that stands as a model for the entire industry. So does Amazon with its system for Kindle content. It's coming to gaming whether you like it or not. You should be more concerned with the real implications of that transition rather than imaginary ones.

You brough cloud storage up, not I................... and explain this kindle and itunes thing. That's your problem dude: you vaguely mention something and when asked to explain it further you start calling people names and telling them they are too stupid to understand your supposed rocket science. If you want people to agree with you you have to clearly state your points.
#35 Posted by wiouds (5294 posts) -

Some thinks about the problem in differently ways.

For example, I think that DLC are the best option for both gamers and publishers. The publisher can make more money to offset the increase in devolvement cost. The price of the games stay lower for the gamer while letting the gamer pick what he or she wants.

#36 Posted by LazySloth718 (2332 posts) -

Some thinks about the problem in differently ways.

For example, I think that DLC are the best option for both gamers and publishers. The publisher can make more money to offset the increase in devolvement cost. The price of the games stay lower for the gamer while letting the gamer pick what he or she wants.

wiouds

The basic problem is this.

The better a DLC is, the more it should be part of the core game.

Otherwise you miss "must play" experience of the game.

#37 Posted by Archangel3371 (15835 posts) -
Yeah because people having different opinions must mean they are getting paid for them. :roll:
#38 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
word of mouth by fellow 'consumers' has a huge influence over others. no surprise that companies would pay people to do such a thing
#39 Posted by Megavideogamer (5467 posts) -

That is the important aspect to me. A digital game collection is not a collection at all. Even if you had a 2TB HDD with all of the Xbox and Xbox 360 games ever released. All of the XBox live arcade games ever released. 2000 Plus games.

Your actual game collection is Zero. Your Xbox account can be cancelled by Microsoft or you end up banned. Once your account is deleted. Your downloaded games that you have paid for are gone forever. So an always connected to the internet Xbox 3 (Xbox 720) is not that great.

At least you can still play your videogames via Xbox and Xbox 360. When not connected to the internet. Plus you actually own the game discs that you have purchased. Until you sell them or give them away.

A digital only future is not a consumer friendly future. Why anyone would want that is insane. So yes Microsoft would have to pay people to say. That an Always connected Xbox 720 is a good thing. That you Xbox 720 won't even work without being connected to the internet 24/7. That your Xbox 720 will not play used games. Not being able to lend your games to a friend. Not being able to sell your games when are have completed them. If that is what you wish to do. These anti- customer tactics are good.

The only way to is to pay people to convince that this is a great idea. So yes Micosoft and other very large companies like Apple or EA. Do pay people to defend their tactics. Such is the way of Capitalism. These large corps have to make money. And money is the only thing that they care about. not the consumer/customer.

That Adam Orth guy from Microsoft is a perfect example when he told everyone to "Deal with it" regarding the Xbox 720. So that is a good indication that the upcoming Xbox 720 is just as awful as it sounds. With an always on-line componet, No used games, mandatory kinect 2. And aggressive digtial rights disc management.

So yes Microsoft does pay people to defend their tactics. It is just something they keep secret.

#40 Posted by wiouds (5294 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

Some thinks about the problem in differently ways.

For example, I think that DLC are the best option for both gamers and publishers. The publisher can make more money to offset the increase in devolvement cost. The price of the games stay lower for the gamer while letting the gamer pick what he or she wants.

LazySloth718

The basic problem is this.

The better a DLC is, the more it should be part of the core game.

Otherwise you miss "must play" experience of the game.

Why should it be part of the core game? It is because you want it to be?

#41 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

I am positive there are paid shills out there. I would even wager that there are people on this very forum who, if they aren't getting paid, should be. Not a big deal; they're easy to spot and ignore usually.

:)

#42 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -

I am positive there are paid shills out there. I would even wager that there are people on this very forum who, if they aren't getting paid, should be. Not a big deal; they're easy to spot and ignore usually.

:)

Shame-usBlackley

Remember that guy that was telling everyone to buy a kinect last week? I hope he was being paid :lol:

#43 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I am positive there are paid shills out there. I would even wager that there are people on this very forum who, if they aren't getting paid, should be. Not a big deal; they're easy to spot and ignore usually.

:)

Black_Knight_00

Remember that guy that was telling everyone to buy a kinect last week? I hope I was being paid :lol:

You mean you hope he was? 

I do too. That way he can go get himself a shrink.

#44 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I am positive there are paid shills out there. I would even wager that there are people on this very forum who, if they aren't getting paid, should be. Not a big deal; they're easy to spot and ignore usually.

:)

Shame-usBlackley

Remember that guy that was telling everyone to buy a kinect last week? I hope I was being paid :lol:

You mean you hope he was? 

I do too. That way he can go get himself a shrink.

Yes, I meant *he* (damn my lack of proofreading :lol: )

lol I mean, if someone has to do something completely stupid they better be getting money for it. Save *some* dignity, you know.

#45 Posted by c_rakestraw (14759 posts) -

The basic problem is this.

The better a DLC is, the more it should be part of the core game.

Otherwise you miss "must play" experience of the game.

LazySloth718

You're kidding, right?

#46 Posted by MrGeezer (56670 posts) -

They privatize CONCEPTS and IDEAS, most of which derive from global culture.

I've got no bone to pick with people trying to earn a living.

What I have a problem with is the idea that "ABC company has an absolute right to XYZ concept, idea, art, tune, etc" and therefor have no responsibility to parcel out that concept/idea/art/tune in a reasonable way for the benefit and enjoyment of the PUBLIC.

For example.

A company might fund the development of a really cool game. It makes them $50 mil profit.

^^^^ this is fine

The same company decides to draw the storyline out and make it less good, for the purpose of putting out 12 DLC. It makes them $100 mil profit.

^^^^ this sucks

Nobody is saying "Do good work for nothing."

Do good work and make good money.

But also have a shred of concern for the public, who would rather play a GREAT game ($50 mil profit) vs an OK game with 12 DLC ($100 mil profit.)

And if you say "Screw the public" well screw the corporations too then.

LazySloth718
Oh, so it turns out that this just boils down to "I don't like it." We were talking about art, weren't we? One person's "crappy" is another person's "good". Now think about how watered down and $***y things would get if the concept of ownership didn't apply. If EVERYONE could just make and sell their own Mario and Zelda games, how is that better? Every time a new intellectual property is a hit, you'd have imitators coming along trying to cash off of name recognition. In the process, ruining good will, watering down the franchise until it's $***.
#47 Posted by MrGeezer (56670 posts) -

The basic problem is this.

The better a DLC is, the more it should be part of the core game.

Otherwise you miss "must play" experience of the game.

LazySloth718
Or...you could buy it if you think you're gonna like it, then you don't miss anything. In other news, I "missed" seeing The Evil Dead remake because I didn't pay for a movie ticket. Damn those movie companies for making me pay to enjoy content that they spent a $***load of money making!
#48 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

You brough cloud storage up, not I................... and explain this kindle and itunes thing. That's your problem dude: you vaguely mention something and when asked to explain it further you start calling people names and telling them they are too stupid to understand your supposed rocket science. If you want people to agree with you you have to clearly state your points.Black_Knight_00

I'm merely contributing to this thread by providing my perspective on issues that concern me regarding tactics that companies might pay people to defend regarding the changes that the next gen consoles may bring to the basic format of console gaming.  I am not seeking agreement nor was I intending to provoke the argument that ensued when you started disputing my comments.  I'm merely providing a relevant viewpoint in relation to the topic of this thread.

I brought up cloud storage because I believe that's where game content is headed, as I've explained several times already.  I believe the physical distribution of game media on discs is nearing the end of its time, with obvious implications for current gamers, as I've mentioned previously.  I brought up iTunes and Kindle because they are good examples of cloud storage at work for DD, they serve as models for the cloud storage of DD game media.  That's where all of this is headed, IMHO.  If my previous comments seemed vague perhaps they were obscured by other clouds.

#49 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18631 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]You brough cloud storage up, not I................... and explain this kindle and itunes thing. That's your problem dude: you vaguely mention something and when asked to explain it further you start calling people names and telling them they are too stupid to understand your supposed rocket science. If you want people to agree with you you have to clearly state your points.capaho

I'm merely contributing to this thread by providing my perspective on issues that concern me regarding tactics that companies might pay people to defend regarding the changes that the next gen consoles may bring to the basic format of console gaming.  I am not seeking agreement nor was I intending to provoke the argument that ensued when you started disputing my comments.  I'm merely providing a relevant viewpoint in relation to the topic of this thread.

I brought up cloud storage because I believe that's where game content is headed, as I've explained several times already.  I believe the physical distribution of game media on discs is nearing the end of its time, with obvious implications for current gamers, as I've mentioned previously.  I brought up iTunes and Kindle because they are good examples of cloud storage at work for DD, they serve as models for the cloud storage of DD game media.  That's where all of this is headed, IMHO.  If my previous comments seemed vague perhaps they were obscured by other clouds.

1) I didn't comment on your posts. You commented on mine

2) You replied to my post by going completely off topic

3) You just did it again: instead of explaining how kindle, itunes and cloud storage relate to account banning, you dodged the argument and tossed yet another offensive stab at me. Actually at everyone on these board, since no one agrees with your statements and you seem to assume everyone's minds are clouded by stupidity for not agrying with your BS

#50 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
1) I didn't comment on your posts. You commented on mine

2) You replied to my post by going completely off topic

3) You just did it again: instead of explaining how kindle, itunes and cloud storage relate to account banning, you dodged the argument and tossed yet another offensive stab at me. Actually at everyone on these board, since no one agrees with your statements and you seem to assume everyone's minds are clouded by stupidity for not agrying with your BS

Black_Knight_00
It is not my intention to antagonize you but it might be helpful to review the progression of this discussion: 1). My initial reply to this thread was in response to the OP's opening comment. It had nothing to do with anything you posted up to that point. 2). You replied directly to my initial comment and that started this tangent. 3). I have repeatedly explained myself on the issue of cloud hosting and its implications for the future of console gaming. I am at a loss to understand why you still don't understand what I've said. As to your assertions as to what everyone else thinks, you're the only one who has taken issue with what I've said and you seem to be invested in merely arguing rather than engaging in a meaningful discussion. It seems rather pointless.