Jump to content



Photo

Xbox One Requires Daily Internet Connection


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#46 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 22 May 2013 - 15:42

'One' is strange naming choice especialy its not the first gen iteration.

So, if Phil Harrison is correct, Xbox One name could be extended into Xbox-One-Day.

Xbox-you-can-only-play-games-on-One-console. :p


#47 Zidane

Zidane

    Spoutcraft Lead

  • Joined: 17-May 02
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 925

Posted 22 May 2013 - 20:37

I didn't say it was wrong, just that it could be legitimately classed as piracy / copyright infringement. From the perspective of the consumer there is nothing wrong with it, as if they truly wanted to buy it they would have. My point is that it's understandable for Microsoft and Valve to restrict ownership of games in order to benefit themselves and developers. It is also understandable that people are critical of it, especially when it will prevent them from being able to do things they can do currently. But I believe that the developers of games should be rewarded - if renting or borrowing games doesn't reward the producer of the content then it's little different to simply pirating those games.


You avoided his question with a long winded explanation of (summarized) "I understand both sides of the fence".

I understand why you avoided his question because, like it or not, Audioboxer brought up a perfectly valid point: Why does your friend not have to buy the game that he watched from start to finish? When you purchase a game, you purchase the entertainment factor so don't try the argument "He didn't play it so he doesn't have to" (nice try though :) ).

See the funny thing about Software Developers (and I speak from experience, I can show my portfolio) is people argue that you are stealing money right out of their pockets. That is a big fat no for studios (indie developers can be a different story) where the game would have to be pirated well above 50% before the little guys would be affected.

It all comes down to money hungry publishers and DRM enforcers. It won't stop until they squeeze every -single- dollar out of the consumer and blockade any opportunity for another party to get out scott free.

#48 Orange

Orange

    Oh Yes!

  • Joined: 31-July 04
  • Location: Farnborough, Hampshire, UK
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S3

Posted 22 May 2013 - 20:46

So if it is always online (if they decide to do it) what if you not got net? wouldn't that destroy sales?

#49 +jamesyfx

jamesyfx

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-February 06
  • Location: Manchester, UK
  • OS: OS X 10.9 / Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 22 May 2013 - 20:49

To be honest my Xbox 360 is online 99% of the time it's on and I don't use Xbox Live, I don't talk to people through it and I don't buy anything except DLC. So again, like many other things.. this is not a major issue for me, personally.

#50 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 22 May 2013 - 21:39

You avoided his question with a long winded explanation of (summarized) "I understand both sides of the fence".


I thought my response precluded the need to answer it explicitly but, for the sake of clarity, I don't see any problem with somebody else watching you play a game - afterall, the person playing the game has the licence to do so and if anything it is entirely like to make that person want to buy the game. Gaming is an interactive medium, so the experience of simply watching a game is very different to actually playing it.

I understand why you avoided his question because, like it or not, Audioboxer brought up a perfectly valid point: Why does your friend not have to buy the game that he watched from start to finish? When you purchase a game, you purchase the entertainment factor so don't try the argument "He didn't play it so he doesn't have to" (nice try though :) ).


You're not purchasing the "entertainment factor", you're purchasing a licence from the copyright holder to play the game and that doesn't preclude other people from watching you. That they amount to the same thing is irrelevant.

See the funny thing about Software Developers (and I speak from experience, I can show my portfolio) is people argue that you are stealing money right out of their pockets. That is a big fat no for studios (indie developers can be a different story) where the game would have to be pirated well above 50% before the little guys would be affected.


It's not that I disagree with you but I don't really want to get into a discussion about piracy as that's a very different issue.

It all comes down to money hungry publishers and DRM enforcers. It won't stop until they squeeze every -single- dollar out of the consumer and blockade any opportunity for another party to get out scott free.


I don't think that's a fair characterisation. It's perfectly reasonable for publishers to want to restrict second-hand sales as they undermine primary sales and prevent money from going to the developers. But in order to restrict second-hand sales you have to add value to the experience, which is why the X1 won't require you to use the game disc and will allow you to download games on other consoles when you login to your account. Microsoft has also said it will allow customers to trade-in and resell games, so that will make it a much more flexible system than Steam.

Potentially the X1's trading system will make reselling games even more common than it is now if it can all be achieved over the internet, while at the same time compensating the developers. That to me is an ideal outcome.

#51 shakey

shakey

    It's soooooo Educational

  • Joined: 31-March 04
  • Location: Austin, Tx

Posted 22 May 2013 - 21:43

I thought my response precluded the need to answer it explicitly but, for the sake of clarity, I don't see any problem with somebody else watching you play a game - afterall, the person playing the game has the licence to do so and if anything it is entirely like to make that person want to buy the game. Gaming is an interactive medium, so the experience of simply watching a game is very different to actually playing it.



You're not purchasing the "entertainment factor", you're purchasing a licence from the copyright holder to play the game and that doesn't preclude other people from watching you. That they amount to the same thing is irrelevant.



It's not that I disagree with you but I don't really want to get into a discussion about piracy as that's a very different issue.



I don't think that's a fair characterisation. It's perfectly reasonable for publishers to want to restrict second-hand sales as they undermine primary sales and prevent money from going to the developers. But in order to restrict second-hand sales you have to add value to the experience, which is why the X1 won't require you to use the game disc and will allow you to download games on other consoles when you login to your account. Microsoft has also said it will allow customers to trade-in and resell games, so that will make it a much more flexible system than Steam.

Potentially the X1's trading system will make reselling games even more common than it is now if it can all be achieved over the internet, while at the same time compensating the developers. That to me is an ideal outcome.


Second hand sales have never hurt any other industry, and the gaming industry is still making huge profits. don't buy into the lies told by those who just want even more money.