Is Adam Sessler really an idiot? (POLL)

Poor guy.

Your negatives are, of course, all non-existent for those that have even the most spotty, unreliable internet. It was kilobytes of data, so much so that a phone could make the check for you. So for those without an internet connection, yes, those are the downfalls with being able to trade games with anyone in the entire world almost instantaneously.

I'm not saying it isn't valid. Those without an internet connection should have never bought an Xbox One in the first place (before the policy switches).

But for those that do, all of your negatives don't exist :D

Instead, we get the very first platform that includes digital sharing. Pretty big, considering Valve started looking into it the moment Microsoft announced it. 

Edit: To further dismantle your argument, I'll quote from Adam Sessler, the very guy I don't agree with (who has similar views as you). Even he admits that the industry is heading online. He predicts that many games will require an internet connection to play in the near future, not just multiplayer games. Forza 5 is an early example. 

So the industry is heading digital, everyone who loved the digital sharing knew it, and most analysts on the other side (like Adam Sessler and Jim Sterling) understand it's coming too. 

So your negatives will apply to a lot of games in the future, anyways. Regardless of the Xbox One or PS4.

Further edit: I mean, look at the PS4. If you didn't have an internet connection, you wouldn't get to experience about half of their launch lineup of games. Most of their games are digital/indie, and thus only available only on the PSN.

experience_fade

Eh? sorry i have no clue if you're trying to respond to me or to someone else? But i will respond to what i did get from this post.

I am not saying we are not heading into a future where it´s going to be a normal requirement to have a internet connection. That wasn't what i responded to in your post. And both Jim and Adam are right that people love digital games.

What i did respond to was your claim that the 24 hour "phone home" was because of the family sharing, this is where i disagree. It doesn't make sense for that to be a reason, after all the 24hour "ET" would be a requirement on all Xbox Ones and if it was not able to do a "ET" , it would simply stop working on all games, meaning also the games you have on a physical disc.

So If we follow your reasoning, we come to a complete stand still, when we reach to the every Xbox One/All Games point, because in this day and age its not that hard to make it so that the consoles needing to call home are the ones actually using the family sharing, and not the ones that dont, same with the games. Again It just doesn't make sense for MS to go about it that way. Not even steam despite it not having sharing, does it that way..

But what other reason could MS have for the "ET" ? in my opinion and considering piracy and how easy it was to make your xbox360 able to play backup, is that the ET is a DRM. I cannot see any other reason for it than that.

So no you didn´t dismantle my arguments, but its hard to tell since you either responded to someone else or took this in a whole other direction, than what i acutally commented on.

[QUOTE="experience_fade"]

Poor guy.

Your negatives are, of course, all non-existent for those that have even the most spotty, unreliable internet. It was kilobytes of data, so much so that a phone could make the check for you. So for those without an internet connection, yes, those are the downfalls with being able to trade games with anyone in the entire world almost instantaneously.

I'm not saying it isn't valid. Those without an internet connection should have never bought an Xbox One in the first place (before the policy switches).

But for those that do, all of your negatives don't exist :D

Instead, we get the very first platform that includes digital sharing. Pretty big, considering Valve started looking into it the moment Microsoft announced it. 

Edit: To further dismantle your argument, I'll quote from Adam Sessler, the very guy I don't agree with (who has similar views as you). Even he admits that the industry is heading online. He predicts that many games will require an internet connection to play in the near future, not just multiplayer games. Forza 5 is an early example. 

So the industry is heading digital, everyone who loved the digital sharing knew it, and most analysts on the other side (like Adam Sessler and Jim Sterling) understand it's coming too. 

So your negatives will apply to a lot of games in the future, anyways. Regardless of the Xbox One or PS4.

Further edit: I mean, look at the PS4. If you didn't have an internet connection, you wouldn't get to experience about half of their launch lineup of games. Most of their games are digital/indie, and thus only available only on the PSN.

Jacanuk

Eh? sorry i have no clue if you're trying to respond to me or to someone else? But i will respond to what i did get from this post.

I am not saying we are not heading into a future where it´s going to be a normal requirement to have a internet connection. That wasn't what i responded to in your post. And both Jim and Adam are right that people love digital games.

What i did respond to was your claim that the 24 hour "phone home" was because of the family sharing, this is where i disagree. It doesn't make sense for that to be a reason, after all the 24hour "ET" would be a requirement on all Xbox Ones and if it was not able to do a "ET" , it would simply stop working on all games, meaning also the games you have on a physical disc.

So If we follow your reasoning, we come to a complete stand still, when we reach to the every Xbox One/All Games point, because in this day and age its not that hard to make it so that the consoles needing to call home are the ones actually using the family sharing, and not the ones that dont, same with the games. Again It just doesn't make sense for MS to go about it that way. Not even steam despite it not having sharing, does it that way..

But what other reason could MS have for the "ET" ? in my opinion and considering piracy and how easy it was to make your xbox360 able to play backup, is that the ET is a DRM. I cannot see any other reason for it than that.

So no you didn´t dismantle my arguments, but its hard to tell since you either responded to someone else or took this in a whole other direction, than what i acutally commented on.

You're not thinking about the resale issue. The following is 100% confirmed. With the family sharing plan, whenever someone bought a game they had two licenses. The owner's license, and a sharing license. There are no differences in these licenses, you can experience every aspect of a game (multiplayer, achievements, saves, DLC, etc) with either license.

The problem is, if I don't require an internet connection with a digital sharing system, I have no way of knowing whether any game ANY person owns is a legit copy. Think about it for a moment. The rules were, you could only lend one particular game to one person in each circle. If I had Titanfall, Forza 5 and Dead Rising 3, I could lend you Dead Rising 3, someone else Titanfall, and someone else Forza 5, all simultaneously, as long as I didn't play any of the listed titles concurrently.

Okay so, let's say I'm playing Ryse, but I never bought it. I'm borrowing it from a friend. How does Microsoft (or any company) know that the legal copy of Ryse wasn't resold? There's no way of knowing without an internet check. That's why an internet connection is required for all games. Because even if I haven't lent anything, and fully intend on only myself playing my games, when you open the door to digital sharing, there's no way of knowing whether any copy I own is legal without using the internet.

This especially becomes compounded with piracy. On PC's piracy is rampant, and while on consoles it's not too terrible, this is without digital sharing for either  platform. 

This is why, in conjuction with family sharing, every game was tied to your account. You didn't need a disc. Essentially, because people would have taken advantage of such an amazing feature, an internet check had to be implemented. 

He's not that bad, but he can get caught up in a pool of his own dreamy BS sometimes.

He's like the James Lipton of gaming

 

You're not thinking about the resale issue. The following is 100% confirmed. With the family sharing plan, whenever someone bought a game they had two licenses. The owner's license, and a sharing license. There are no differences in these licenses, you can experience every aspect of a game (multiplayer, achievements, saves, DLC, etc) with either license.

The problem is, if I don't require an internet connection with a digital sharing system, I have no way of knowing whether any game ANY person owns is a legit copy. Think about it for a moment. The rules were, you could only lend one particular game to one person in each circle. If I had Titanfall, Forza 5 and Dead Rising 3, I could lend you Dead Rising 3, someone else Titanfall, and someone else Forza 5, all simultaneously, as long as I didn't play any of the listed titles concurrently.

Okay so, let's say I'm playing Ryse, but I never bought it. I'm borrowing it from a friend. How does Microsoft (or any company) know that the legal copy of Ryse wasn't resold? There's no way of knowing without an internet check. That's why an internet connection is required for all games. Because even if I haven't lent anything, and fully intend on only myself playing my games, when you open the door to digital sharing, there's no way of knowing whether any copy I own is legal without using the internet.

This especially becomes compounded with piracy. On PC's piracy is rampant, and while on consoles it's not too terrible, this is without digital sharing for either  platform. 

This is why, in conjuction with family sharing, every game was tied to your account. You didn't need a disc. Essentially, because people would have taken advantage of such an amazing feature, an internet check had to be implemented. 

experience_fade

I am not mentioning resale specific but i am indeed thinking of every aspect, but i am going down into specfics since there is no reason for it. Also i am not disagreeing with MS needing to protect the games and that the family sharing plan can be abused if they dont take measures to prevent abuse.

What i am saying again is that there is no reason for Microsoft to implement a 24hour checkin based solely on the familiysharing plan for all consoles and all games.

If Microsofts main concern was the sharing within the family system, it would not even take a half-decent programmer 2hours to come up with something that would do exactly that without disabling all consoles and all games. If you need prove just look at Steam, Origin or Uplay. So again your reasoning is sound until we come to All games / all Consoles, this is where it stopds dead in its track and also why you didn´t see Adam Sessler or any of the panel thinking like you did. Simply because it just doesnt make sense when other options are as easy and doesnt cost more.

He's not an idiot. He's being realistic.

Nintendo has so much potential and power, and they don't do much with it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtttKuSaaIg

He loves Nintendo but, at the same time, isn't afraid to attack them. This is a real gamer.

He's addressing Nintendo's failture with WiiU. I also feel Nintendo need to get way more third party titles. What happened to the Nintendo of the SNES days. Mario, Zelda and Metroid etc are awesome but not enough, not now.