XO after E3. Did Xbox One redeem itself?

[theeboredone]

That is a ridiculous comparison.

No, it's not. It's sad that we live in a age, in which a physical product we buy is not something we even fully own. It's sad that developers not only want to push this DRM stuff, but have already been pushing "incomplete" games via on disc DLC, let alone wasting development time making DLC for later releases. People didn't complain much about it, and now companies like Crapcom can get away with charging you for Super Duper Awesome Cake Street Fighter every year, when all they do is add a few characters. Oh, but you can get some extra costumes for another 5 bucks! Nevermind that content is already on the disc! Companies want you to buy "season passes" for 30 bucks, so you can get access to future DLC. So you're paying 90.00 day 1 for a video game. Ridiculous.

Last I checked, used movies, cars, paintings don't get a kick back to the developers. So why should games be the exception? Because companies can't manage their budget, and expect every game they make to sell millions upon millions? A lot of gaming companies try to nickel and dime us, and I guarantee you if no one complains, they will continue to impose more restrictions on the products we buy.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Guy, we pretty much live in an age of entitlement where people do nothing and expect everything to be handed to them. Being a (retired) working musician, I totally understand the plight of artistic professionals who toil and sacrifice in trying to make a living from their art. Your descriptive attitude of "Consumer Dave", is exactly the sort of narcissistic entitlement gamers are displaying throughout this supposed DRM controversy.

That's simply a lie. You're assuming that we want things for no cost, but that's not the case. What we are asking for is the freedom to use the goods we buy in a manner we choose, within the legality of our governments' respective copyright laws. You are saying it is the fault of the consumers for the unwillingness of GameStop to offer financial compensation for the used game market. I have no desire to circumvent giving money to the creators of a game. However, it seems that those creators DO have a desire to prevent my seeking of the best deal we can for a product.

We don't buy used games because we don't want developers and publishers to get paid, we buy them because they are cheaper. I have LONG suggested the concept that publishers get together and create their own means of offering used games. That could mean either the publishers joining forces to create their own physical store to rival GameStop or an online marketplace where they offer to buy back games from consumers, then sell them at a discount to others (though that would admittedly be a tricky thing, since they could buy a game back, repackage it, then call it a new game again, which is very dishonest).

I'm all for financially supporting the makers of content, but I will never support a content provider who first chooses to punish those who financially support that provider.

Say we're entitled all you want, but that's so far from the reality that I can't even pick a word to properly describe it.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Game Dev Steve: My team just made an awesome game! Check it out!

Consumer Dave: I played the demo. It's awesome!

Game Dev Steve: It comes out tomorrow. Will you buy it?

Consumer Dave: Nah. I'll wait a week and then buy it for $5 cheaper at Gamestop.

Game Dev Steve: I know it's cheaper, but my team needs the support of consumers. We make nothing from Gamestop.

Consumer Dave: So? Sucks to be you.

Game Dev Steve: How about if you buy it on the XBOX ONE? You'll still be able to buy a used version, but at least Gamestop will pay my team a commission.

Consumer Dave: Have fun applying for Unemployment Steve.

No, Game Dev Steve. I will not buy your game on a platform that charges me extra to do the same things I always have by forcing an undesired accessory on me. Maybe if you looked into ways to enter and compete in the used game market through your publisher, you'd make progress. To expect me to greatly inconvenience myself when I already buy enough $60 games from you is ridiculous.

 

[Keith Wallace]

That is a ridiculous comparison.

It absolutely is not. People just refuse to see the big picture with things. It's how we end up with ridiculous things like the Patriot Act, and the possibility for a scandal like this one with the NSA in the first place. I mean, heck, look at airports. We're all treated like potential terrorists the second we go through an airport. The American government thinks that the way to fix a broken, penniless economy is to tax everything in sight, then spend twice what that increase in tax revenue is.

This is a simple case of "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." All Microsoft would have to do it bury some seemingly-inane language about "improve the Kinect experience through device feedback," and then they can watch millions of people essentially agree to being spied on, under the guise of "quality control."

Standing up and saying "no," to the British via the Boston Tea Party is how America started on the path to its creation. Now, we're taxed probably 5-10 times what the British were taxing us that CAUSED the Boston Tea Party, but the laziness and complacency of the American people allows it to go on unchecked, and that's why we're in such a terrible economic state. It's a similar matter with privacy, where the government claims it needs to spy on you to keep you safe, and people are so sold on the idea of "security," that they will basically do anything Big Brother says, if it means they'll be "safe."

 

[Keith Wallace]

The reason Kinect is bundled is because it gives a base system target for game developers.

Maybe, but I can say with 100% certainty that there is going to be negative fallout from it. I've sold family and friends on several Microsoft products over the years. I've personally led to the purchase of 2 Windows 8 licenses, 4 Windows Phones, at least 10 Zune devices, at least 4 original Xbox consoles, at least 8 Xbox 360 consoles, and at least 6 Xbox LIVE Gold subscriptions. I'd say that there are at least 5 people (myself included) who will listen to me about this new console. I'll be telling them al of the things that I think are wrong, and why. I know most will agree with me, one already does.

You say that the inclusion of the Kinect means that developers will work with the Kinect more. you know what else it means? I won't be touching the Xbox One, at least for a while (and not at all, if some things don't change). They might get developers working with their accessory more, but they're also going to lose people's business because they either can't afford $500, won't willing pay $500, or simply on the principle of the console's inconveniences. It doesn't matter if developers include Kinect commands in games if the inclusion of the Kinect means people won't buy the console.

Yeah, I know Amazon just said that the thing is getting pre-ordered like crazy, but that's just more a testament to the sheep-like nature of consumers. It'd sure be nice if people overlooked brand loyalty and tried to make the gaming culture better as a whole. I guess that's the downside to the popularization of things, though--the mainstream dictate the market, and those who hold gaming near and dear are ignored.

 

[Reflexx]

No, it's not. It's sad that we live in a age, in which a physical product we buy is not something we even fully own.

You do own the physical product. The disc. But you do not own the code on it. That is intellectual property of the publisher/developer.

When they create a game, they choose to sell you the ability to play it. They do not give you ownership of the code used to make that game. That's not yours.

That code took millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to create. You don't get to own it for $60.

It's sad that developers not only want to push this DRM stuff, but have already been pushing "incomplete" games via on disc DLC, let alone wasting development time making DLC for later releases. People didn't complain much about it, and now companies like Crapcom can get away with charging you for Super Duper Awesome Cake Street Fighter every year, when all they do is add a few characters. Oh, but you can get some extra costumes for another 5 bucks! Nevermind that content is already on the disc! Companies want you to buy "season passes" for 30 bucks, so you can get access to future DLC. So you're paying 90.00 day 1 for a video game. Ridiculous.

Do you know why this happens? Because games are EXPENSIVE to make, and consumers don't appreciate or understand that.

The game should be selling for $75, but that won't happen. So devs and publishers have to find other ways to get that revenue in.

Last I checked, used movies, cars, paintings don't get a kick back to the developers. So why should games be the exception? Because companies can't manage their budget, and expect every game they make to sell millions upon millions? A lot of gaming companies try to nickel and dime us, and I guarantee you if no one complains, they will continue to impose more restrictions on the products we buy.

They nickel and dime you because they know that you won't pay what the game should cost.

Basically, you're saying "f*** you" to the people who put their blood, sweat, and tears into making the content you enjoy because many consumers don't really understand the industry.

 

[Reflexx]

That's simply a lie. You're assuming that we want things for no cost, but that's not the case. What we are asking for is the freedom to use the goods we buy in a manner we choose, within the legality of our governments' respective copyright laws. You are saying it is the fault of the consumers for the unwillingness of GameStop to offer financial compensation for the used game market. I have no desire to circumvent giving money to the creators of a game. However, it seems that those creators DO have a desire to prevent my seeking of the best deal we can for a product.

Would you pay $75-$100 per game without complaining? Do you think enough consumers would?

We don't buy used games because we don't want developers and publishers to get paid, we buy them because they are cheaper. I have LONG suggested the concept that publishers get together and create their own means of offering used games. That could mean either the publishers joining forces to create their own physical store to rival GameStop or an online marketplace where they offer to buy back games from consumers, then sell them at a discount to others (though that would admittedly be a tricky thing, since they could buy a game back, repackage it, then call it a new game again, which is very dishonest).

What do you think this new system is? It's a way for devs to get a cut of used game sales from retailers.

I'm all for financially supporting the makers of content, but I will never support a content provider who first chooses to punish those who financially support that provider.

You're not for financially supporting the makers of content.

Punish? There is no punishment.

Is Steam punishment?

This is a new platform with new rules.

Say we're entitled all you want, but that's so far from the reality that I can't even pick a word to properly describe it.

You're entitled.

 

[Reflexx]

It absolutely is not. People just refuse to see the big picture with things. It's how we end up with ridiculous things like the Patriot Act, and the possibility for a scandal like this one with the NSA in the first place. I mean, heck, look at airports. We're all treated like potential terrorists the second we go through an airport. The American government thinks that the way to fix a broken, penniless economy is to tax everything in sight, then spend twice what that increase in tax revenue is.

This is a simple case of "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." All Microsoft would have to do it bury some seemingly-inane language about "improve the Kinect experience through device feedback," and then they can watch millions of people essentially agree to being spied on, under the guise of "quality control."

Standing up and saying "no," to the British via the Boston Tea Party is how America started on the path to its creation. Now, we're taxed probably 5-10 times what the British were taxing us that CAUSED the Boston Tea Party, but the laziness and complacency of the American people allows it to go on unchecked, and that's why we're in such a terrible economic state. It's a similar matter with privacy, where the government claims it needs to spy on you to keep you safe, and people are so sold on the idea of "security," that they will basically do anything Big Brother says, if it means they'll be "safe."

Wow. Talk about over reacting.

You're seriously comparing an oppressive all powerful government implementing actions against your will without telling you to businesses that let you know terms up front and give you an EULA to describe everything they can and can't do.

Posts like that one show when someone has lost all sense of reality.

 

[Reflexx]

Maybe, but I can say with 100% certainty that there is going to be negative fallout from it. I've sold family and friends on several Microsoft products over the years. I've personally led to the purchase of 2 Windows 8 licenses, 4 Windows Phones, at least 10 Zune devices, at least 4 original Xbox consoles, at least 8 Xbox 360 consoles, and at least 6 Xbox LIVE Gold subscriptions. I'd say that there are at least 5 people (myself included) who will listen to me about this new console. I'll be telling them al of the things that I think are wrong, and why. I know most will agree with me, one already does.

You say that the inclusion of the Kinect means that developers will work with the Kinect more. you know what else it means? I won't be touching the Xbox One, at least for a while (and not at all, if some things don't change). They might get developers working with their accessory more, but they're also going to lose people's business because they either can't afford $500, won't willing pay $500, or simply on the principle of the console's inconveniences. It doesn't matter if developers include Kinect commands in games if the inclusion of the Kinect means people won't buy the console.

Yeah, I know Amazon just said that the thing is getting pre-ordered like crazy, but that's just more a testament to the sheep-like nature of consumers. It'd sure be nice if people overlooked brand loyalty and tried to make the gaming culture better as a whole. I guess that's the downside to the popularization of things, though--the mainstream dictate the market, and those who hold gaming near and dear are ignored.

So, if consumers don't have the same opinion about an entertainment product as you, they're sheep?

But if they go along with what you say because you tell them so, then they're not sheep

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Keith Wallace]

Basically, you're saying "f*** you" to the people who put their blood, sweat, and tears into making the content you enjoy because many consumers don't really understand the industry.

I call so much bull on this statement that I can't even see beyond the mountain of crap created in that statement. Conversely, I say that those who put their money, half-assed work, and greed into making the content I enjoy are saying "f*** you" to the people who put their hard-earned money (which individually is much less than probably any meaningful employee at a developer or publisher) with this DRM garbage.

Sorry, how is letting a friend borrow a game a "f*** you" to a developer? How is playing my game offline a "f*** you" to a developer? How is not plugging in my Kinect a "f*** you" to a developer?

 

[Keith Wallace]

So, if consumers don't have the same opinion about an entertainment product as you, they're sheep?

But if they go along with what you say because you tell them so, then they're not sheep

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I won't even bother trying to explain, because you're making up things. Ehh, I guess I'll try:

People are sheep because they refuse to dictate the market. The allow corporations to run their lives, then complain that corporations run their lives. That is why they are sheep. Not a single person can provide a legitimate reason as to why I need to be Xbox LIVE friends with a person for 30 days to let that person borrow a game. I've not heard a legitimate reason as to why I cannot play the campaign of a game offline for more than a day straight. I can name negatives galore about this stuff, but all of the alleged positives are "it MIGHT help something," and even if those positives ALL come true, they don't outweigh the negatives.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Wow. Talk about over reacting.

You're seriously comparing an oppressive all powerful government implementing actions against your will without telling you to businesses that let you know terms up front and give you an EULA to describe everything they can and can't do.

Posts like that one show when someone has lost all sense of reality.

No, I am comparing the complacency that leads to a locked-down gaming experience to the complacency that leads to a locked-down government. The taxes of the British weren't hidden. They were there for all to see, and once they were seen, people reacted. People are seeing these things with the Xbox One, complaining, then handing over their money anyway.

If taking a stand against something means I've lost sense of reality, then I wish reality the most horrific death it can experience, because I don't want any part of a reality that has no initiative or ideals.

 

[Polychrome]

Oddly, the thing that has me interested is Microsoft seems to be getting ever closer to making some sort of "mobile software" licensing a reality between the console and PC. Xbox is turning into Kindle...in all the best ways.

The one thing digital media can do is allow me to easily play a game on my xbox....oh wait, gotta go to work. Well, on my lunchbreak I'll just whip out my surface and go! An account-bound software license makes me able to take my software wherever I want. Even to a friend's house by logging in. Neat idea.

They don't seem to be harping on this, but judging by what we know from previous interactions with them and their desires for the development market, it seems to be what they are trying to accomplish with the xbox one. They've laid the groundwork for years, now the hardware is cheap enough to make it reality. And digital distribution is needed for that reality. I dunno if I'll be there on launch day, but I'll be watching this develop with a bag of popcorn. If they pull it off, it'll be amazing for the consumer, and that's what a lot of people are missing.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Would you pay $75-$100 per game without complaining? Do you think enough consumers would?

What do you think this new system is? It's a way for devs to get a cut of used game sales from retailers.

You're not for financially supporting the makers of content.

Punish? There is no punishment.

Is Steam punishment?

This is a new platform with new rules.

You're entitled.

I've seen nothing but your allegations that games need to cost more as proof that they need to cost more. I don't see EA and Ubisoft and Epic and Microsoft and Sony and Take-Two posting massive losses because their games are too costly to make.

They could get a cut without treating their consumers so poorly. I mean, this IS the kind of action that helped EA earn the status of Worst Company in American for 2 straight years. Instead, they take the shortcut that does nothing to affect GameStop, but hurts consumers.

You claim I'm not in-favor of supporting content providers, but that's it. You claim it, and back it up with nothing. Case in point to how you are wrong: I actually bought a game on Windows Phone I didn't intend to play, simply because the developer was so engaged and friendly to people on these forums. I played the game twice and uninstalled it, but I still paid for it knowing I didn't care for it, just because the person showed himself to be a good person worth supporting. Please tell me how asking publishers to engage themselves in the used game market is showing a desire to NOT support content providers.

Yes, after doing nothing illegal or harmful with my consoles and Xbox LIVE account for 10+ years, I am now being told that I cannot play games the way I wish, because someone else pirated a game. I am being grouped with those who pirate games without pirating games, and it's to my detriment. I consider it a punishment to tell me that I am not allowed to play a game offline when I want to, even though I've done nothing to suggest I am doing anything dishonest with the products that I purchase.

Steam isn't punishment, but Valve is a consumer-friendly company. They don't require me to buy a specific peripheral to use Steam. They offer the BEST pricing on content, no question. Steam allows you to play games offline. Valve literally offers such good deals on games that the benefit of that pricing is greater than the DRM it presents. Microsoft isn't doing that, instead continuing the $60 game model, and forcing me to play my games in a certain manner.

Yeah, and the rules suck.

Again, CLAIMING I am entitled without anything to actually back up the claim. I'm not asking for free things. I am asking for a business model that has benefitted the industry for YEARS to continue to exist. I'm providing suggestions to benefit the providers without harming the consumers. What I am doing is seeking a COMPROMISE. Is seeking compromise entitlement?

 

[Reflexx]

I won't even bother trying to explain, because you're making up things. Ehh, I guess I'll try:

People are sheep because they refuse to dictate the market. The allow corporations to run their lives, then complain that corporations run their lives. That is why they are sheep.

What if they actually aren't upset about it? Do you complain about things that don't bother you? Does that make you a "sheep"?

Not a single person can provide a legitimate reason as to why I need to be Xbox LIVE friends with a person for 30 days to let that person borrow a game.

It's likely an agreement with publishers regarding the sale of used games.

MS has told publishers that they can have the ability to earn something on used game sales. The only way that happens is if the entity taking care of the game sale has a system in place to pay the publisher.

People would likely use the "give to a friend" option as a way to bypass the used game sale process. Therefore, the publisher doesn't get paid.

Having someone as a friend for 30 days makes it more likely that it's not someone trying to sell the game, but instead, is giving it to someone they really know.

I expect that MS will eventually come up with some sort of game marketplace where consumers could directly sell to other consumers. But doing so will put stores like Gamestop in a bad position, so there is likely a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before something like that could happen.

I've not heard a legitimate reason as to why I cannot play the campaign of a game offline for more than a day straight.

24 hrs is an arbitrary time that they probably felt was fair. I wouldn't be surprised if it was extended.

But the idea is that it would be an amount of time where the average person wouldn't finish the game. They want to prevent people from getting a game disc, installing it on all their friends' XBOXes, and have all their friends finish the game before the XBOX can verify authenticity.

I can name negatives galore about this stuff, but all of the alleged positives are "it MIGHT help something," and even if those positives ALL come true, they don't outweigh the negatives.

Yes, You're really good at spouting negatives.

 

[Reflexx]

No, I am comparing the complacency that leads to a locked-down gaming experience to the complacency that leads to a locked-down government. The taxes of the British weren't hidden. They were there for all to see, and once they were seen, people reacted. People are seeing these things with the Xbox One, complaining, then handing over their money anyway.

If taking a stand against something means I've lost sense of reality, then I wish reality the most horrific death it can experience, because I don't want any part of a reality that has no initiative or ideals.

Reality may have already died that horrible death for you.

If you're going to preach about standing for something, I'd hope it would be for something like fighting oppressive government instead for fighting against game devs trying to make a living,

Were you "making a stand" when people started reading books on Kindle and couldn't trade or sell those?

 

[Keith Wallace]

Oddly, the thing that has me interested is Microsoft seems to be getting ever closer to making some sort of "mobile software" licensing a reality between the console and PC. Xbox is turning into Kindle...in all the best ways.

The one thing digital media can do is allow me to easily play a game on my xbox....oh wait, gotta go to work. Well, on my lunchbreak I'll just whip out my surface and go! An account-bound software license makes me able to take my software wherever I want. Even to a friend's house by logging in. Neat idea.

They don't seem to be harping on this, but judging by what we know from previous interactions with them and their desires for the development market, it seems to be what they are trying to accomplish with the xbox one. They've laid the groundwork for years, now the hardware is cheap enough to make it reality. And digital distribution is needed for that reality. I dunno if I'll be there on launch day, but I'll be watching this develop with a bag of popcorn. If they pull it off, it'll be amazing for the consumer, and that's what a lot of people are missing.

I can agree with some of the sentiments, but not all. Yeah, you can take a game to a friend's house, but is it an improvement of the current model of doing so? Coming to my house and having to install a 10GB game onto my HDD over 3Mbps DSL (that's the fastest DSL offered in my area, and I don't make the call on our ISP) is a VERY slow process. The alternative is to install it via the disc, but that requires bringing the disc, at which point I ask how waiting for that install and then still using the disc is a benefit. Second issue I have, what about HDD space? Games take up 6 GB or more of space on the 360's HDD as of now. It's not hard to envision the Xbox One needing 10+ GB per game, or more, in the next generation (I think 2009's DiRT 2 took up 12 GB on my PC). If we're only getting a 500GB HDD in the Xbox One, it won't take TOO long to eat up that HDD space. How much of a pain will it be to have to uninstall and reinstall games when you have a large library? How much are they going to charge me to upgrade my HDD, or are they going to stop the silly price inflation of secondary storage devices?

I like the idea of potentially continuing a game on another device, but that requires something that we simply don't have across all devices yet--comparable power. I don't know that even a Haswell-based Windows 8 tablet could handle Xbox One gaming, and we know that Windows Phone devices certainly can't handle it with their current hardware. That said, at what point would it become realistic for people to continue Xbox One games elsewhere? I know that cloud computing is an enticing alternative, but data plans are so restrictive or expensive through carriers that it might not be an option to use that method as a solution.

 

[Reflexx]

I've seen nothing but your allegations that games need to cost more as proof that they need to cost more. I don't see EA and Ubisoft and Epic and Microsoft and Sony and Take-Two posting massive losses because their games are too costly to make.

No. Instead, you just don't hear about all the developers themselves closing shop because Publishers can't afford to risk more than the bare minimum amount to fund these games.

You don't hear about programmers and artists who are out of work when a game is completed because the studios can't afford the keep them employed, and the publisher can't risk keeping the studio funded because if the game isn't a major hit it will actually lose money.

You don't understand the industry, but you're making judgments like you do.

They could get a cut without treating their consumers so poorly. I mean, this IS the kind of action that helped EA earn the status of Worst Company in American for 2 straight years. Instead, they take the shortcut that does nothing to affect GameStop, but hurts consumers.

EA is far from actually being the worst company in America. All that title really proves is that gamers are entitled and spoiled.

You claim I'm not in-favor of supporting content providers, but that's it. You claim it, and back it up with nothing. Case in point to how you are wrong: I actually bought a game on Windows Phone I didn't intend to play, simply because the developer was so engaged and friendly to people on these forums. I played the game twice and uninstalled it, but I still paid for it knowing I didn't care for it, just because the person showed himself to be a good person worth supporting. Please tell me how asking publishers to engage themselves in the used game market is showing a desire to NOT support content providers.

I'm sure that $1.99 has made you feel good enough so that you can deride devs who are losing their jobs. $1.99, cool.

Yes, after doing nothing illegal or harmful with my consoles and Xbox LIVE account for 10+ years, I am now being told that I cannot play games the way I wish, because someone else pirated a game. I am being grouped with those who pirate games without pirating games, and it's to my detriment. I consider it a punishment to tell me that I am not allowed to play a game offline when I want to, even though I've done nothing to suggest I am doing anything dishonest with the products that I purchase.

Sorry to tell you, but giving a game away is technically piracy. Loaning it to someone for a significant length of time is technically piracy.

And nobody is punishing you. You can just buy a PS4 and be done with it. But making accusations about devs and publishers trying to find a way to stay in business for the long term is not cool.

You don't like me saying you're entitled. You don't like me saying you don't support devs.

But you freely make negative comments about the people who make these games just because they don't have a solution that you agree with.

Steam isn't punishment, but Valve is a consumer-friendly company. They don't require me to buy a specific peripheral to use Steam. They offer the BEST pricing on content, no question. Steam allows you to play games offline. Valve literally offers such good deals on games that the benefit of that pricing is greater than the DRM it presents. Microsoft isn't doing that, instead continuing the $60 game model, and forcing me to play my games in a certain manner.

Selective outrage based on what rules you like and don't like. And everyone must agree with you or they're sheep.

Yeah, and the rules suck.

Again, CLAIMING I am entitled without anything to actually back up the claim. I'm not asking for free things. I am asking for a business model that has benefitted the industry for YEARS to continue to exist. I'm providing suggestions to benefit the providers without harming the consumers. What I am doing is seeking a COMPROMISE. Is seeking compromise entitlement?

I'm using your posts.

You're not asking for a business model that benefits the industry. You're asking for more of the same, which has been killing the industry.

If you're looking for compromise, then the way to obtain it normally isn't to vilify those you want to compromise with.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Reality may have already died that horrible death for you.

If you're going to preach about standing for something, I'd hope it would be for something like fighting oppressive government instead for fighting against game devs trying to make a living,

Were you "making a stand" when people started reading books on Kindle and couldn't trade or sell those?

Amazon didn't force you to buy a $100 camera with your Kindle. Amazon doesn't make you connect your Kindle every 24 hours to keep reading a book. Amazon doesn't charge $500 for the Kindle. Amazon doesn't charge $60/year to access the Kindle store. Amazon doesn't charge $60 per book.

You're confusing my displeasure with this form of DRM with an unwillingness to accept reasonable DRM. I wouldn't have an issue with the 24-hour check-in if Internet was globally reliable enough to handle it, but it simply isn't, especially in rural areas. I wouldn't have an issue with sharing restrictions if they weren't so stringent (again, why do I need to be Xbox LIVE friends with a person for 30 days to share a game)? I wouldn't have an issue with including the Kinect if the price wasn't $500, which is simply not a price I care to pay after getting a $350 console (Halo 4 Xbox 360) last year. I wouldn't even mind the $500 price tag if I didn't HAVE to keep the Kinect running at all times. I wouldn't be opposed to the required HDD install if Microsoft wasn't so ridiculous with its HDD prices.

As I keep saying, I don't have a problem with Microsoft's concepts, so much as with their methods. That's why I keep saying I'm attempting to find COMPROMISE, not ask Microsoft to one-sidedly give in on everything.

 

[Keith Wallace]

You're not asking for a business model that benefits the industry. You're asking for more of the same, which has been killing the industry.

If you're looking for compromise, then the way to obtain it normally isn't to vilify those you want to compromise with.

The industry is dying SO BADLY that companies continue to push out games annually and produce more consoles. If anything is killing the industry, it's the unwillingness of content providers to stop rehashing content. I'd buy more games if every game didn't seem to be AT LEAST the fifth in its franchise. I mean, Halo 4? It was, what, the 6th or 7th release in the franchise? Guitar Hero 5? I'm pretty sure that was more like the 9th release. Forza 5? It's actually the 6th game. Assassin's Creed IV? You don't care to count Revelations or Brotherhood, which make IV become a VI, even if you DO ignore the two handheld releases?

I can suggest things that benefit the industry without much effort. If I want compromise, the way certainly isn't to hand over my money quietly to financially support the status quo or worse. I'm not vilifying Microsoft simply because of its actions. I'm voicing my dissention because they are more concerned with keep content providers happy than consumers. They heard MONTHS ago that people didn't like the ideas of always-online, check-ins, or many of these other locked-down features. They're not showing any willingness to consider alternatives, and that's where my distaste comes from--stubbornness on the part of Microsoft.