PS4-400$ price tag and no DRM.

While I think it's a bit dramatic, I thought of this when I read what you said on the subject:

I don't think it'll stay $5, it'll eventually go up in the future I'm sure. I'm against it, actually. The problem is it's going to happen no matter what and we're stuck with it because Microsoft screwed up so bloody bad that no one cares and they're willing to give them this because they didn't do what Microsoft did..the problem is we're already giving them our sales because they didn't do what Microsoft did and rewarding them by letting them charge us for multiplayer as well.

I don't like it but sadly there's nothing we can do and gamers are incapable of mass boycotts.

 

Sadly that's true (ahah and highfive for the drama quote ) :/ The only thing I can be happy about is that at least the Microsoft obsessive-compulsive control galore won't pass. Or at least it will take more years to pass. I hope. Or maybe not: it might still be a success and impose us a new "feature" forever and ever. Who knows? Sigh

 

I find the entire fee thing silly. During this entire generation, the Xbox 360 dominated the Online arena. If you were a serious online player, the Xbox was where the true action was. The PS3 was a distant second.

Why was this? Because Microsoft was able to invest heavily in the network and infrastructure because it was a paid service. Sony is taking the only good thing Microsoft came up with and applying that to their business.

And if you don't have 5 bucks a month to spend... well according to Microsoft, keeping your PS3 is an option

 

This was a case where consumers need to use the rights they are given under Free Market Capitalism. If it's truly a problem, people need to not buy the console or any Microsoft products and force a change in corporate policy. But, many gamers are going to acquiesce and say "well, it really sucks, but I really like the Xbox" or "I really like Halo, so I'll buy one anyway". So a boycott would be ineffective. Doing nothing and purchasing the product implies you agree with their stance, even if you don't.

 

There are people that certainly want their Halo more than they want change, but saying that because those people exist, a boycott would be ineffective is the worse thing you can do.

Boycotts are never about expecting the entire world to join you in your mindset, its about enough people voting with their wallets. You don't need everyone. Halo fans can get their Xbox Oneses and their Haloses, but if you feel strong about it, YOU should change your mind.

Plenty did this with the PS3 during the past generation. The machine still sold alight, but they suffered because of the large number of players that boycott them for ages. I was in that group and I didn't get a PS3 until a month ago, and that was a gift (a gift I am alright with since Sony long since changed their tune precisely due to the silent boycott.)

Don't judge those that feel they want their Haloses more than they want change, just make sure YOU stick to your mindset and don't give your money to those you don't agree with.

 

Eheh +1

 

This makes no sense to me. A silent boycott? If you don't tell anyone a) that you're boycotting and b) why and c) stop boycotting when things change then a boycott has little value. I seriously doubt that you can attribute whatever it is that changed to a boycott that nobody knew was trying to change it...

 

A boycott does not have to be noisy. Noisy is meaningless with a boycott. It simply has to actually happen, no matter how silent or noisy it is.

At the end of the day a boycott is about not giving your money to an entity until they change their ways.

I think plenty of people clearly told Sony why they were not giving their money. When I said it was a "silent boycott" I simply mean it was not a lot of kids screaming they would do something they didn't do, it was actually lots of people that said they would not do business with the company and didn't.

 

Sure, but of you're going to encourage them to change their ways they need to know that they're losing money from you for a specific reason that they can change and is worth the gain from winning you as a customer. Otherwise, from their point of view, you're just more individuals who happen to have not purchased their product yet, and that doesn't encourage anyone of anything.

What exactly was this supposed boycott about, anyway?

 

Usually you'd expect that a company tries some sort of damage control. Not so Microsoft. They make it worse with each new day.

If you preorder the Xbox One, you automatically lose your right to participate in a class action lawsuit.... Link

And someone on Twitter asks how he can play with the Xbox One if he travels a lot. That is the official answer:

If someone still buys a Xbox One, just because of Halo, well... It's not the only great game IP on this planet. I'd rather play Destiny, Killzone, The Devision, or any of the exclusive Naughty Dog titles on my PS4.

 

i just read those tweets... they are treating gamers really messed up. Those snide remarks are truly gonna bite them later.

 

It really is shocking. The whole thing is a massive PR screwup. Despite many of their announcements not suiting my personal preferences, none of it is actually so bad that it should be causing the responses that it's getting, and is only turning so sour because of how it was initially presented and, astoundingly, continues to be presented.

For instance, why tell people to buy an old product when they could simply say "The Xbox One will be compatible with common mobile Internet connections." Chances are that if someone carries a console around with them the idea of also having an Internet connection isn't out of the question - they're in phones, for starters. Rather than saying "don't play our games", how about suggesting a solution?

 

Its all about social engineering getting the new generation used to the idea that this is how the way things are, and kids who grow up under this new system wont see anything wrong with it. They make more money, maybe more devs decide to do more xbox exclusives because it cuts down on piracy, they make more money. Its only if there is a hell of a lot of blowback and microsoft really feels it in the pocketbook that they might reconsider, if they think its just a small minority and they can steamroll past then will.

 

But I don't buy that for a second. Google manage to get more or less the same done with audiences without having to have them grow up in it just by wrapping things in stuff that gives us actual value and being careful about how they introduce new ideas.

I'm not saying they aren't all trying to get us to accept the world the way they want it to be. Everyone and everything does that to the limit of its potential influence. But it doesn't explain the apparent PR blunders. What would explain them is if there's something else going on and they'd rather our attention was here instead of there. But that's getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory territory.

The other explanation, of course, is that they just genuinely don't even care what Internet gamers think. As loud as they may be they're still a minority, and the average consumer won't ever know what that minority is carrying on about. Even if they do hear about it they most likely won't understand what we see as the downsides, but they'll remember that there's some shiny new toys to be had. And bad news travels further and faster than good - I don't know about you guys, but I've discussed the Xbox One more at work than I've discussed the PS4, despite the fact that personally I'll probably buy a PS4 on launch day and have little to no interest in an Xbox One (though not really due to this recent stuff... I have both prior consoles and use one a lot while barely touching the other, so it's a no brainer for me regardless of this stuff).

 

I see now! Microsoft must've bought Sony and they're working together! Or the other way around! That's the only possible explanation!

 

Telling people to go buy the xbox 360 if they want to play without internet..is this a joke?

 

Thats what I've been saying. I dont understand how they are messing everything up so badly. Microsoft are the ones who've been highlighting the bad sides to their console. When really its not much worse than Steam and in some ways better. Everyone in their demographic likely has a smart phone, they just have to say "You could tether to a smart phone for five minutes and that they hoped this would spur companies to provide internet access everywhere, and we may look at evaluating/changing these restrictions in the future."

 

Actually that game sharing Microsoft has is extremely bad for indie devs, Microsoft pretty much killed profits for indies with this.

 

Im trashing my old 360 and getting a PS4, thats for sure.

 

Long story, feels ancient history, but in short: the tone Microsoft is projecting to day is the same tone Sony was projecting at the PS3 launch.

 

How can Microsoft just repeatedly mess up all their launches?

It seems like the only clear cut positive and truly great product launch Microsoft has had in the past 10 years is Windows 7. Everything else has had some layer of F***ing themselves over.

You know the one thing about this whole thing is that the App Store and digitally distributed PC games already have the same no-sharing scheme that Microsoft was trying to do. You can't share those. Microsoft was really just trying to implement the same scheme that Apple and Steam has...

 

With packaged games though, that is were the big difference is. IMO they should have partnered with ISP's and publishers to realy push purchasing online, say if the games were cheaper that that is an option. Right now that is why I dont use the 3DS store for my games is there the same price and cant be shared, if that changed though i would be interested.

 

Steam also does it with packaged games. Or, rather, there are also Steam-only games which are available on disks.

The fundamental point is the same - the stuff that people are currently hating on Microsoft for are things which mostly are already around. Phones have always-on cameras. Steam games can't be shared/traded/lent. People aren't upset about that. But MS have done such a bad job of presenting very similar things, several at a time no less, that it's blown up in their face.

 

Well they were upset, it's just that Steam sales made everything so cheap that it's kind of irrelevant. Keep in mind though that they will have to comply with EU laws and allow the transfer of games from one account to another (at least within the EU).

 

But retail boxed products aren't in those sales.

 

To be fair they're not always on, rather always ready, they're not actually doing anything. That's like saying a car is "always on". I've also disabled the camera in my phone .

 

Not only are phone cameras not always-on, but by law they have to make a noise (that you can't mute) when you use them to take pictures.

--Eric

 

DRM in the PC is the reason I will mainly avoid the PC for gaming. There are a handful of titles I would rather play in a PC, but I play consoles to avoid such systems and complications. If you bring such restrictions to a console, I'll just dismiss it and get the other guy's. I think you underestimate how many people "aren't upset about that." Maybe you missed the backlash always-on DRM on PCs have suffered, how much heat Blizzard got for both, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, not to mention EA for Sim City and Spore.

Yea the XBox One is not always-on, but with a 24 hour checkin requirement, you may as well be always-on.

Yes, lots of it has to do with how MS delivered it's message, but it all started the minute they decided to add digital shackles to physical disks and the requirement to keep the console on at all times. And it all was a stupid move. The pock is moving away from physical. Had Microsoft done nothing, within 10 years most sales would be digital and the physical disk market would had likely died or gone down drastically. That's exactly what Sony is doing.

As for the always-on cameras on phones, others corrected it already. Its not only not true, but also would kill battery life.

 

What do retail boxed products have to do with Steam's DRM?

 

Think he was talking about games you may buy in a box but require you to have Steam to install, like Deus Ex 3.

 

That's a distinction without a difference, as the Xbox One's camera can also be disabled in software. By "always on" I was referring to the fact that in both cases the camera can't be physically disabled. (Though in the One that's because Microsoft want it that way, where in a phone it's by physical necessity.)

People trust that their phone camera is behaving when their phone tells them it isn't in use. Why do we not extend the same trust to Microsoft? (Though to me the answer is clear: if they want my trust with that camera, let me decide whether it's plugged in or not! Forcing me to plug it in even when I'm not using it immediately makes me question their motives.)

 

Exactly.

The same thing that DRM has to do with retail boxed copies being locked to an Xbox One user account, which people are complaining about.

The only difference I can see is that with Steam it's up to the developer/publisher as to whether Steam is mandatory or not. So where people are complaining en masse at Microsoft, with Steam they complain in smaller groups at the publishers of particular games, so it's not as loud.