Nextbox 1080: The Reckoning

[I Saw Dasein]

But whether or not people care, especially in anecdote, is a poor rubric for how right or fair a given action is. Ethics and justice aren't determined by market forces. If a company or government manages to take away implied or explicit rights from its customers or citizens, that does not mean that they ought to have been taken away, let alone that the rights never really existed.

I don't see how any right is being taken away. You don't have a right to purchase any particular product. EA (for example) is under no ethical, moral, or legal obligation to sell you a game. If EA does want to offer you a game, it is under no moral, ethical, or legal duty to sell you that game in any particular form.

It's like this: say McDonalds sold Big Mac Meals for 10 years. Included in that Big Mac Meal was a drink, a hamburger, and french fries. Now, it wants to change what it offers in a Big Mac Meal: it will offer a hamburger and french fries, but not a drink. Is McDonald's acting unethically by not including a drink in a Big Mac Meal? Should McDonald's be required to include a drink in the meal? In my view, there isn't any ethical dimension to this kind of business decision: either consumers are willing to purchase a drink-free Big Mac Meal, or they aren't. It's not a question of justice, but just a question of whether the individual consumer thinks the product is worth purchasing at the offered price.

 

Honestly, I'm really baffled by the level of "put up or shut up" attitude in this thread. If companies are free to make whatever decisions they see fit, I am just as free to critique or even ridicule them for it, in addition to not giving them my money.

Of course you are free to dislike that practice, or organize a boycott, or whatever you want. I'm trying to explain why I don't object to current industry practices, and why I don't think you should object either.

[Gormongous]

I don't see how any right is being taken away. You don't have a right to purchase any particular product. EA (for example) is under no ethical, moral, or legal obligation to sell you a game. If EA does want to offer you a game, it is under no moral, ethical, or legal duty to sell you that game in any particular form.

It's like this: say McDonalds sold Big Mac Meals for 10 years. Included in that Big Mac Meal was a drink, a hamburger, and french fries. Now, it wants to change what it offers in a Big Mac Meal: it will offer a hamburger and french fries, but not a drink. Is McDonald's acting unethically by not including a drink in a Big Mac Meal? Should McDonald's be required to include a drink in the meal? In my view, there isn't any ethical dimension to this kind of business decision: either consumers are willing to purchase a drink-free Big Mac Meal, or they aren't. It's not a question of justice, but just a question of whether the individual consumer thinks the product is worth purchasing at the offered cost.

 

Maybe "ethical" is not the right term, but I think it's pretty disingenuous to provide a product a certain way for thirty years, then alter that product in a way that only devalues it, and portray the customer as unreasonable for objecting to said alteration. To make your analogy actually applicable to the terms being discussed, how about Big Mac Meals only being edible within the McDonald's premises? You're not allowed to buy a Big Mac in the drive-thru or walk out with your Big Mac order. This is unprecedented, but for your own benefit, because outside of McDonald's there are factors they cannot control that could damage your Big Mac experience. Furthermore, you could eat half the Big Mac and then share the rest with someone else, depriving McDonald's of the latter's business. What, are you going to stop eating Big Macs?

 

I understand your reasons and you're free to think them, but I personally don't see how any industry benefits from a disempowered and disenfranchised consumer. If the market can adapt to anti-consumer gangsterism, surely it can adapt the other way as well.

[I Saw Dasein]

I guess I don't see how the consumer is disempowered or disenfranchised. I buy non-transferable games on Steam quite happily all of the time, because (1) I know the games are non-transferable prior to purchase; (2) Steam offers non-transferable games at a price I'm happy to pay; (3) I can always puchase an extra license if I want to share that game with someone (which I have done many times, especially in terms of 4-packs; and (4) the right to retransfer a game is of limited value to me anyways. I much prefer the Steam model of lower-cost, non-transferable licenses, and I'm happy to see consoles moving in the same direction. Of course, time will tell whether XBONE will offer cheaper licenses; if it does not, I just won't spend my money on that console.

With respect to the hypothetical of a no-takeout-McDonald's, I think that might be a bad business decision, and I might not eat at McDonald's, but I wouldn't see that decision as unethical or unjust.

[Gormongous]

I guess we'll have to disagree, then. I just think changing a longstanding product in a way that only serves to better exploit the consumer is unethical. If I thought the XBOne was going to become the Steam Box come early, I would be much more on board, but somehow I know that the sixty-dollar price point will remain set in stone, with fifteen-percent "sales" only coming after the tail has grown quite long. Call it a vision from the future-past.

[osmosisch]

I'm supposed to do what, explain why all of Europe is in economic woes now? I could, if you really wanted me too.

Yes, I want you, too.

[Frenetic Pony]

I don't know why you pretend that the lack of a used-game market would make people more sensitive to price, as if Gamestop's interest in buying used games wouldn't depend on their own ability to resell it, which in turn depends on players' interest. You're ignoring the very real evidence that the game market doesn't work that way, because more unique games tend to be that way because they're targeting an audience other than generic AAA shooter fans, who constitute the largest market and biggest piece of the pie.

Also, you shouldn't talk about Europe without knowing about the effects of the shared currency and dysfunctions of the Eurozone, let alone try to apply your Microeconomics 101 aka Babby's First Supply and Demand Curve principles and simplify the situation into a bunch of ahistorical equations. And in any case, that exercise has nothing to do with the Xbox One.

 

Since you put it that way...

 

The situation in Europe has multiple causes stemming from large taxation revenues growing along with an expectant rise in the economy being taken for granted combined with fiscal irresponsibility in regards to both the size of the governments direct contribution to individual nation's GPDs and a disregard for any future debt incurred in order to satisfy voters with high paying jobs in the short term. Since the crash of two thousand and eight with a heap of bad debt being incurred by the banking industry much of Europe has tried to ignore the problem of having their banking industry write down their losses on said debt, creating a series of growing possible bank failures that no longer have the liquidity to make loans, helping to slow down the already stifled economy which was propping up the already false credit ratings of countries with unsustainable debt. Which has caused a scenario in which those same countries appear to be in danger of default, causing a rise in the price of any bonds they've issued creating a feedback loop between them and creditors making default ever more inevitable. Unfortunately thanks to the Euro default in loans by a country is not viable option without leaving said currency, as to run at all said countries would still need to have a supply of money, which they can not issue themselves as the Euro is controlled by a central bank. Which leaves the option of default on loans also tantamount to abandoning the Euro as a currency and switching to their own newly issued currency which would be greatly devalued versus the Euro. However this would simultaneously devalue the Euro and break treaties governing the Euro area and the European Union, putting the survival of the Euro at all into serious question and possibly causing a run on the already weakened banks of the area, possibly collapsing them as well as the single Euro market and the currency altogether. All of which combined would create a new global depression, which is why the central bank and fiscally responsible northern countries are funding bailouts for Greece and others.

 

That you offer no factual counterarguments whatsoever and even fail to divine the intended purpose of my posts as written, and instead offer up attacks on character as some sort of evidence of your superiority suggests that you've no interest in holding a logical argument but merely wish to see yourself as victorious in some sort of imagined personal battle. Considering it was never my intention to engage in such a thing in the first place, I'm happy to consider the now non existent argument closed so far as responses to you are concerned.

[osmosisch]

Good god man, you must be a hoot and a half at parties.

[JonCole]

How about that XBONE guys?

 

Microsoft's E3 presser starts in about 5 hours, very excited to see them shit all over our rights and make us wave our economic dicks around in a shouting match.

[KitGonzo]

Am I the only person who thinks this whole thing is already a massive gift to Sony? If the PS4 keeps the used game option un-tampered, and Microsoft screw the pooch the way we all know they want to, the Xbone will get buried, right? I'm really astonished by the difference in approaches so far to the next gen launches.

[toblix]

It's much more likely they're just happy Microsoft went ahead and did it first, so they don't get that much shit when they announce practically the same thing tonight. These deals were probably made long ago – if they're having second thoughts, there's nothing they can do at this point. That's my guess, anyway.

[chummer]

Am I the only person who thinks this whole thing is already a massive gift to Sony? If the PS4 keeps the used game option un-tampered, and Microsoft screw the pooch the way we all know they want to, the Xbone will get buried, right? I'm really astonished by the difference in approaches so far to the next gen launches.

From what I remember, Sony already made a similar statement of 'it will be decided by the publishers.' Was watching a Giant Bomb video when the news hit, and they all seemed to agree that this was something being pushed by the publishers more than the console makers.

[Hermie]

Presented without comment:

 

http://www.dewanddoritos.com/

[Geremy Tibbles]

[screams Internally] 

[Twig]

ha ha ha

[sclpls]

I hope that many of the people that are unhappy with the new anti-consumer policies of the next-gen consoles get deeper into tabletop gaming. I think they'll find the environment a lot more friendly and interesting!

[Dewar]

How can they say they're teaming up with Xbox but then have this disclaimer at the bottom

 

Microsoft is neither a sponsor of this promotion nor has any responsibilities regarding its conduct or administration

 

Sound less like teaming and more tagging along with and annoying.

[Twig]

I hope that many of the people that are unhappy with the new anti-consumer policies of the next-gen consoles get deeper into tabletop gaming. I think they'll find the environment a lot more friendly and interesting!

Hah, that's a very strange thing to bring up. Not that I necessarily disagree, but they're very different experiences, obviously. U:

[TheLastBaron]

All my friends who play Xbox don't even really know that this is even a thing.  I was visiting a bunch of friends in Santa Barbra a few weeks back and I said something about how the new Kinect can see your pulse and my friend said "They're coming out with a new Kinect?".  They weren't even aware of the PS4.  I'm pretty sure that them an all their friends aren't going to pay any attention to either of the new consoles and are just going to see commercials on tv once they're released and just go to the store and buy them and probably FIFA and CoD without really thinking about it.

[sclpls]

Hah, that's a very strange thing to bring up. Not that I necessarily disagree, but they're very different experiences, obviously. U:

 

That's true, but board game designs are really amazing these days so I was simply expressing some wishful thinking that more people will discover that if there is genuine outrage about the new console systems. I suspect it's simply gamer kvetching, but it would be cool if more people got into the hobby.

[feelthedarkness]

If I can take a moment of willful ignorance, you know your "announcing the fun new video game machine" thing isn't going well when the only result is protracted debates over the concept of ownership. 

[Dewar]

I expect it will end up just like that Modern Warfare 2 boycot steam group picture that everyone likes to pass around.

[JonCole]

$500

 

HAHAHAHA

[tegan]

I feel like I should almost count the sound cutting out in the Battlefield trailer (for the second time during the conference) should count for row 1 column 2, but I'll wait.

 

 

 

[melmer]

Should rename the console the Titanfall box, everything else was meh. I'm sure quantum dream will be interesting but never worth buying the console for

And holy shit, "QTE the game" set in modern warfare Ancient Rome, seriously fuck those guys.

[feelthedarkness]

$500 sounds like a decent price for the hardware you're getting, (and will have, unchanged, for 5-7 years) no? People spent that and more on tablets, and the games stink!