The Nexus

wanna fight jec

Jec aint shit

but a hoe and trick

The gaming industry is filled with hypocrisy



Poor M$, it's the iPad all over again.

You refrencing steam? Its not the same thing pcs have earned the credibility to implement these type of advancements, consoles havent. We didnt even get definitive info on it so it couldve been anything. I wouldn't trust ms to be very charitable either

Meh... seems like cherry picking

It isnt. Consoles trying to lead the digital age is a stupid idea when they seek the same restrictions as pcs without any of the benefits. I seriously doubt you would have seen the sales steam has for one.

Pc has so many advantages against consoles as it is already, no need to remove the few advantages consoles have

Which disadvantages exactly? Both are connected to the Internet, both are pretty much running the same OS... I see no problem with sharing in consoles. What is honestly so bad about letting your brother who's away in college or in another country play your games as well?

I don't think it's right to compare sales considering MS still isn't following a Steam-like service and Xbox Live IS a good online gaming platform, so I don't see the trust issue...

Jec wrote:Which disadvantages exactly? Both are connected to the Internet, both are pretty much running the same OS... I see no problem with sharing in consoles. What is honestly so bad about letting your brother who's away in college or in another country play your games as well?

I don't think it's right to compare sales considering MS still isn't following a Steam-like service and Xbox Live IS a good online gaming platform, so I don't see the trust issue...

Who said sharing games on consoles was a bad concept?

there is no problem with sharing a game with a friend, it already is possible on consoles at the moment and with no restrictions at all. In fact im gonna buy gta5 digitally and share it with lone next week, and play it at the same time with him as well. However to force that feature to be restricted so only people with internet can use the console? Yeah, thats bad. I dont think I need to restate how bad x1s policies were. They were bad enough to get them to reverse them completely

The disadvantage comes from consoles have traditionally been ease of use and comfort. With that comes being able to play without having to check online every few hs, have to go through special markets to sell your own gam or let a friend borrow it.

And the trust issue comes with Microsoft as a company. Consoles shouldnt have none or an inferior amount of the freedom allowed to pcs and none of the few advantages allowed to consoles

Jet wrote:
Who said sharing games on consoles was a bad concept?

there is no problem with sharing a game with a friend, it already is possible on consoles at the moment and with no restrictions at all. In fact im gonna buy gta5 digitally and share it with lone next week, and play it at the same time with him as well. However to force that feature to be restricted so only people with internet can use the console? Yeah, thats bad. I dont think I need to restate how bad x1s policies were. They were bad enough to get them to reverse them completely
The disadvantage comes from consoles have traditionally been ease of use and comfort. With that comes being able to play without having to check online every few hs, have to go through special markets to sell your own gam or let a friend borrow it.
And the trust issue comes with Microsoft as a company. Consoles shouldnt have none or an inferior amount of the freedom allowed to pcs and none of the few advantages allowed to consoles

I'm not talking about MS's other policies before the reversal. People were saying everything was bad including this feature which isn't bad at all. You said it yourself, you can share games on the PS3 and everyone's happy. MS announces the Xbone can do it and it's the worst thing in the world. Steam announces something Sony has and Xbox proposed and they are treated like Gods.

It's the internet bandwagon mentality that bugs the hell out of me. It's literally hip to hate something (MS, Pop Artists, Apple, etc) so everyone starts ripping everything about it without looking at the huge levels of hypocrisy. Its hip to love Steam so everything they do is gold and it's hip to love Pokemon so it's apparently the best games ever.

Jec wrote:

Jet wrote:
Who said sharing games on consoles was a bad concept?

there is no problem with sharing a game with a friend, it already is possible on consoles at the moment and with no restrictions at all. In fact im gonna buy gta5 digitally and share it with lone next week, and play it at the same time with him as well. However to force that feature to be restricted so only people with internet can use the console? Yeah, thats bad. I dont think I need to restate how bad x1s policies were. They were bad enough to get them to reverse them completely
The disadvantage comes from consoles have traditionally been ease of use and comfort. With that comes being able to play without having to check online every few hs, have to go through special markets to sell your own gam or let a friend borrow it.
And the trust issue comes with Microsoft as a company. Consoles shouldnt have none or an inferior amount of the freedom allowed to pcs and none of the few advantages allowed to consoles

I'm not talking about MS's other policies before the reversal. People were saying everything was bad including this feature which isn't bad at all. You said it yourself, you can share games on the PS3 and everyone's happy. MS announces the Xbone can do it and it's the worst thing in the world. Steam announces something Sony has and Xbox proposed and they are treated like Gods.

It's the internet bandwagon mentality that bugs the hell out of me. It's literally hip to hate something (MS, Pop Artists, Apple, etc) so everyone starts ripping everything about it without looking at the huge levels of hypocrisy.

I dont think anyone was hating on the sharing feature ms was throwing, its just we had no info on it, nothing concrete. On one end you had people saying you could share with 10 family members, then it was you couldnt play on your account while this happened. Then it was 30 day friends only, then the rumor came out they were never planning anything as grand as such a high amount of copy distribution.  Thing is we dont know what exactly ms was planning, nobody does.

If they really had faith in promoting this type of digital innovation then why they shouldnt have taken it away.and they shouldnt have tied it with the previously restrictive policies they were proposing. Since the latter is what everyone was really complaining about. If they had announced you could game share digitally without needing internet and all the other bad stuff they would not have gotten the flak they got.

I never heard anybody say sharing was a bad thing, merely skepticism of them actually implementing such a lofty promise. 10 ppl? Yeah they should have gone into detail with that, I seriously doubt it was as good as it was made out to be. If they wanted to, they could still try to implement such a consumer friendly feature like game sharing thats how you gain good will and then later, trust. Thats what sony did with ps plus, it got gamers hooked to the "free" game concept before it introduced having to pay for online with the ps4. Gamers are willing to sacrifice some freedoms if they can get something equal or greater in return. In this case a better online service and the plus game program. Its the same with steam as they make up for drm found on pcs with huge sales. Not to mention all the many other benefits available on pc.

Rumors... They actually explained how it was going to work quite well a few days before E3... it' wasn't going to be restrictive at all. The 10 people limit was to limit it only to close friends and family which is understandable since they would be losing a lot of money with it.

MS took the feature away because it was tied to the DRM but they have said they're going to bring it back. I'm sure it requires software and server modification to do it without the DRM so taking their time is logical.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-15-xbox-ones-family-sharing-feature-may-return-microsoft-says

The internet bandwagon also forgets that fraudulent marketing IS a crime...
They can't say "We're gonna let you share your games with 10 family members!" and then it turns out to be you don't share the game completely (unless they put it in the fine print... which they didn't). They could get their asses sued for those types of comments which is why the speculating on how it would be is literally meaningless.

All I'm saying is... collective consensus sucks...

Jec wrote:Rumors... They actually explained how it was going to work quite well a few days before E3... it' wasn't going to be restrictive at all. The 10 people limit was to limit it only to close friends and family which is understandable since they would be losing a lot of money with it.

MS took the feature away because it was tied to the DRM but they have said they're going to bring it back. I'm sure it requires software and server modification to do it without the DRM so taking their time is logical.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-15-xbox-ones-family-sharing-feature-may-return-microsoft-says

The internet bandwagon also forgets that fraudulent marketing IS a crime...
They can't say "We're gonna let you share your games with 10 family members!" and then it turns out to be you don't share the game completely (unless they put it in the fine print... which they didn't). They could get their asses sued for those types of comments which is why the speculating on how it would be is literally meaningless.

All I'm saying is... collective consensus sucks...

im not sure how much weight ms spokesmen have in their words. When major nelson was asked if they could just take away the drm features from x1 he responded "we cant just flip a switch and change everything." That is literally what they did though. Those type of contradictions obviously bring rightfully-deserved skepticism.

Collective consensus can suck, but it can also bring good. It did bring about the x1 reversal after all

I never saw anyone hate on ms for contemplating a sharing option, just all the other garbage they were pushing. Also saw people hating on it after it was revealed to be just 45 min trials and not full game sharing. Even if it was full game sharing, it wouldn't be worth giving up all ownership of your games and your ability to play them.

With the ps3 and the 360 once you buy a game, even digitally, it's still there even if you have no internet. With the X1 originally that wasn't an option, so of course people would be mad about anything included with the "feature" of not being free to play your own games that you bought and paid for.

The argument with a lot of ms fanboys is that without the online restrictions we can't have game sharing, which simply isn't true. We've had 5 system game sharing on the ps3 for years, and even when they changed it from 5 to 2 they still let the 3rd 4th and 5th consoles play the games that were bought before the change. On the ps3 there's no online verification required.

It's crazy how people want to praise ms for trying and failing to come up with a game sharing system, yet most people ignore the fact that the ps3 had and still has game sharing and don't want to give Sony any credit or even mention them.

Also how the hell would they determine if someone was close friends or family? That makes no sense. DNA testing and background checks? What is this shit?

Also sharing the full game for 45 minutes is still technically sharing the full game. PS Plus has hour long full game trials already too, it's a pretty easy marketing scheme that lets them say they're giving you more than you're actually getting. The full game sharing being timed would actually explain why they would need such restrictive DRM, especially DRM that doesn't let you play offline after 24 hours or 1 hour on someone else's X1.

Lol I was saying this back in june. But yeah, I dont think there was any serious argument for people hating game sharing specifically.  It was at best sony fanboys trolling which can only bring a full consensus on ps3fanboy.com

Also jec from your own article second paragraph "The technology was intended to allow up to 10 designated "family members" to share each other's digital pool of games, although the logistics of how this would actually work were never made totally clear" so even the article you posted states they werent exactly detailed

I also heard the digital laws arent exactly air tight either. I mean it depends a lot on how they defined sharing

Talking about some abstract concept in an interview isn't exactly advertising either. Also if anyone in the game industry was held accountable for false advertising then Peter molenoux wouldn't be allowed in the industry and Bioware would of been abolished after ME3.

When asked if their game sharing ability was a 45 min trial they denied it. The rumors came from a supposed employee who was bitching about the reversal. In that same article I posted it mentions engineering to be the main reason why they're bringing game sharing after launch.
If you visit any videoge website, people WERE were bitching about the game sharing option as well. GT, IGN, Memebase,9Gag and the list goes on. Some one else does it and no need to bitch about it.

Molyneux only advertised his game as a great work of art without giving much specifics, that doesn't count as fake advertising.
Hate mass effect 3 all you want but your choices do matter, mate the endings are boringly similar but they do matter. Not to mention people only judge ME3 for it's ending and forget the rest of the game were your choices clearly did make a difference.

Listing a feature on a website counts as marketing and unless there were disclaimer notes below the page, MS would have gotten in trouble if they had advertised something fake. Seeing all the legal trouble MS has had in the last, it's reasonable to assume they won't be making so many mistakes again.

Let's get rid of preconceptions and see thing for what they really are.

I cant imagine any serious arguments bitching about the sharing feature. If there were any it was because it was tied to the drm policies. Anyone complaining about sharing without drm is likely just a troll at which point I dont see the merit of discussion or need to be worked up over.

letting all the arguments aside, in all true honesty, I can't see a rational person buying the xbox one and my reasoning is based on three things

1-Mandatory Kinect that will have the mic on (they say you can turn it off, but is it true?)
2-Going back in every single one of their policies just goes to show how unstable microsoft really is
3-Price does matter, and when they say stuff like "we have to prove the value of our console" I have to facepalm because that is the most obvious thing ever to even go an say it out in the open

it's like they themselves can't even reason why they made a console that is more expensive but at the same time less capable

all in all you have to be an xbot stubborn as a rock to not see the scam coming your way

^kinect is not mandatory. They went back on that too.
I don't understand why the reversal is such a bad a thing... People got what they wanted... They removed policies people hated, why is that bad? A dynamic company isn't a bad thing.

I agree on the price thing, it would be a 100 dollars cheaper if Kinect didn't come in the box

didn't they say kinect had to be connected to the console for it to work and then you can switch the thing off from withing the console?

the main reason why I see this as something wrong is because Microsoft has started to have a trend of pushing things in to people

the best example I can give you is when I compare the old skype to the new one on win8, the older one let you do anything you wanted, this one gives you minimal options, so limited it is that for me to appear online I had to go and uninstall the thing delete the appdata folder for it and install an older version because it kept having me as offline and online at the same time but my contacts couldn't see me, but because of the lack of options the only way out of it was downgrading to an older version

reminds me of when people complained about backwards compatibility and microsoft said they could buy a 360 for that, my point being microsoft have put themselves in a business position in which they take the options away from you and if you find yourself stuck without a way out you just have to buy something else or downgrade, and I don't see it fair

and as you say Kinect is still in the box, either people are using it or not

btw, what is the general opinion of Colombian people about the xbox one and its day one mandatory connection?

specially those who might be able to afford the thing but don't have internet at home?

Jec wrote:When asked if their game sharing ability was a 45 min trial they denied it. The rumors came from a supposed employee who was bitching about the reversal. In that same article I posted it mentions engineering to be the main reason why they're bringing game sharing after launch.
If you visit any videoge website, people WERE were bitching about the game sharing option as well. GT, IGN, Memebase,9Gag and the list goes on. Some one else does it and no need to bitch about it.

Just link to a comment where someone is complaining only about game sharing and not DRM before the DRM change, if it's really as common as you say you should easily be able to find one. Especially on those websites with their shitty communities and retarded hateful comments.

Jec wrote:Molyneux only advertised his game as a great work of art without giving much specifics, that doesn't count as fake advertising.
Hate mass effect 3 all you want but your choices do matter, mate the endings are boringly similar but they do matter. Not to mention people only judge ME3 for it's ending and forget the rest of the game were your choices clearly did make a difference.

You serious right now? Peter is notorious for giving out specific details about his games that never come to fruition.

The me3 endings do matter? How so? Also Bioware specifically stated your choices would affect the ending, I've posted multiple massive lists many times with links and information detailing the promises they've made for me3.

Dude seriously "false advertising" is just a couple buzz words strung together. Unless people actually die or incur serious injuries there's hardly ever a case in court for false advertising. When was the last benine successful false advertising lawsuit involving video games or media at all?

Jec wrote:Listing a feature on a website counts as marketing and unless there were disclaimer notes below the page, MS would have gotten in trouble if they had advertised something fake. Seeing all the legal trouble MS has had in the last, it's reasonable to assume they won't be making so many mistakes again.

You sure about that? I wasn't aware of these website laws. Is there an Internet Police that enforces these laws?

Jec wrote:Let's get rid of preconceptions and see thing for what they really are.

Real talk

Link wrote:

btw, what is the general opinion of Colombian people about the xbox one and its day one mandatory connection?

specially those who might be able to afford the thing but don't have internet at home?

Dude, 80% of the Colombian population is connected to the Internet... That is a non issue.

http://www.ntn24.com/noticias/gran-porcentaje-de-los-91306

Lone wrote:
Just link to a comment where someone is complaining only about game sharing and not DRM before the DRM change, if it's really as common as you say you should easily be able to find one. Especially on those websites with their shitty communities and retarded hateful comments.

I'll try.

Lone wrote:
You serious right now? Peter is notorious for giving out specific details about his games that never come to fruition.

Such as? Peter only exaggerated the features, he didn't leave them out.

Lone wrote:The me3 endings do matter? How so? Also Bioware specifically stated your choices would affect the ending, I've posted multiple massive lists many times with links and information detailing the promises they've made for me3.

And they do... Just not in the detailed way people hoped it would.

Lone wrote:
You sure about that? I wasn't aware of these website laws. Is there an Internet Police that enforces these laws?

Yes. There is a lot of regulation regarding false advertising and it's regulated in the US by the FTC

http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus35-advertising-faqs-guide-small-business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising

"The typical sanction is to order the advertiser to stop its illegal acts, or to include disclosure of additional information that serves to avoid the chance of deception. Corrective advertising may be mandated"

And of course the mandates are different regarding each state.

I've studied this crap in my marketing courses, if Colombia regulates this, the US with it's improved institutionality will do so as well.

unless they have put the price internet super low I don't get how is that even possible in a country with so much unemployment

Link wrote:unless they have put the price internet super low I don't get how is that even possible in a country with so much unemployment

Because Internet is really, really cheap.

Not to mention the ministry of technology and comunication has been heavily investing in internet infrastructure the past couple of years. Only extremely poor people don't have internet... and they wouldn't be getting an Xbox 1 anyways.

Our unemployment isn't really that bad...