Microsoft is free to put whatever features they want in their products. And I'm free to not buy them.
On my current XBox, I'm free to ignore the on-line features. It sounds like in the next version, I won't be. In which case I will just ignore the entire platform.
You can buy anything you want to and use it how you like, and I won't give a shit either. But I'm not providing Microsoft with a channel for ads and marketing data.
I agree with you, but who the hell are you, statistically? And who the hell am I? We're just two people out of the masses of asses.
Statistically, you're right -- Microsoft has no reason whatsoever to care that I won't buy this, because I'm clearly not their target market. I'm a blip on the radar, and I'm well aware of that fact.
But that's the thing, most people are happy to suck down sports games with new rosters year by year, most people do want to watch TV. And Microsoft has seen how integration on cellphones drives use, and wants to bring the same concept to the console; I think it has a fair chance of being a good idea.
I agree it's a marketing force, but as someone who isn't obsessed with mobile phones and integrating them with every aspect of my life, I can tell you not everyone feels the same way. This is kind of like when marketing starts slapping "2.0" (and now "3.0" ) on everything and decides that everybody wants that thing in everything and we end up with the social media toilet or underpants which tweet you just before they start riding up. Some people want that, but not everyone, and foisting it on everyone just pisses people off.
For all of us who are casual gamers, who play exclusively single player games, and don't use any of these online features (and that's anywhere from a tiny fraction of user to a significant chunk, and I'm not sure anyone knows)... what Microsoft is selling is something we don't want. But they better be awful certain before they decide people like me are an audience whose business they don't want -- though, from the sounds of it, it's a fait accompli.
But they're certainly free to decide that a segment of the gamer market is something they'll just ignore.
If you're serious about this, you need to take some steps now, like backing up and so on. Also, you should buy replacement optical drives for both your primary and backup console. That's what's most likely to go on a used machine which has demonstrated resistance to the RROD through simple longevity.
Well, I was thinking of just buying a new in-the-box retail unit and putting it on a shelf until this one dies. The actual save games, well, if I had to start over in Tiger Woods or my wife's dancing games for the Kinect, such is life. I don't have countless hours invested in save games (well, Skyrim) that I can't live without. I sure as hell haven't invested real money for in-game crap (something else I hate about modern games), so it's not like I'm out any additional investment.
If in the grand scheme of things I eventually find myself without a video game console... well, it won't be the first time. But I definitely won't be finding myself with a game console which requires the ability to phone home when it pleases. Because there is no benefit to me in that scenario.
First, one of the prized features of the Xbox platform is the Xbox Live services.
To many people, to many it isn't something we use.
Second, pick up ANY smartphone or tablet and realize these devices are constantly online.
Neither my tablet nor my smart phone have data plans. They get wifi turned on and used as needed. So your assertion that ANY of these devices is always connected is bullshit and anecdotal. I don't use Twitter, and I sure as hell wouldn't let Facebook onto my phone.
So, its about people being naive and rebelling against a feature that, guess what, you have been supporting for the lat 8 years anyways everytime you turn on the Xbox360 and its signs you into the Live cloud.
My current Xbox 360 doesn't connect to the network now, and a replacement one definitely won't be connecting to the internet.
There's not a single on-line feature about the Xbox I have any interest in. I don't play on-line games, and I never have. My XBox doesn't even know any information about my wifi and has no network cable running to it.
You may use these features, and you may actually believe that 99% of all people use them as well, but of the people I know who own Xboxes, about 80% of them don't use the networking feature, and aren't connected to XBox Live. So, for me and my friends, this is a major enough change that most of us probably aren't interested.
I'm more likely to buy a spare XBox 360 than this. What you consider rare and improbable is what I consider the normal use case for it. I'm sure Microsoft won't have their feelings hurt if I don't buy this, because I'm just one guy.
But that doesn't change the fact that I won't be buying this. Because contrary to what you believe, not everyone currently does connect to XBox Live or use the network features.
So the system is built to work even if your Internet connection goes down, but you still have to be connected at least once a day to use it, according to Harrison. We're not sure exactly what would happen if you don't connect once per day - and that timeframe could change - but this doesn't sound good for anyone who was hoping to use Xbox One without an Internet connection.
No, not happening. The last update I took on my current Xbox changed the screen the awful thing it is now, and introduced ads -- both in games and in the home screen. That's why my current Xbox isn't connected to the network and never will be again.
I will connect it to the network when and if I choose, but if it requires the ability to call home once/day, it's simply not happening.
Microsoft may have visions of this being my entertainment center of the future, but it won't be. And if it is going to require this ability to connect to the internet at will (and from the sounds of it when I even have it turned off due to this low power napping), then this is a non-starter for me.
Microsoft needs to clarify some of this, because the chances of me replacing my current Xbox 360 with something which demands it be able to access the internet when it chooses is pretty much zero.
I don't care about the TV integration, I don't care about the skype integration, I don't care about the web integration, I don't care about enhanced sports watching... I care about one thing, single player games with no internet requirement. This isn't it.
Now I'm more likely to buy another XBox360 as a spare so I can keep playing the games I have now, but I won't be buying this.
Red Herring in exactly what way? I as a consumer am saying that my purchase of a newer Xbox is contingent on still being able to play single-player games offline, and not see ads in my games console because I won't connect it to the network.
You know what kills me is that this is exactly the kind of mindless thrash that hated on AT&T + Apple when they got the idea that they *wouldn't* have always on internet.
OK, I see you've chosen to inject your own red-herring into the discussion so you could vent some hate for AT&T + Apple.
Tell you what, you make product choices based on your criteria, and I'll make them based on mine.
The ability to run an Xbox without connecting it at all to the network is a requirement for me. Because the rest of the 'entertainment console' features Microsoft is offering aren't anything I'm interested in. It's a video game console, and that's all I'll ever use it for. Everything else is just stuff I don't care about.
I play them for enjoyment too, but that doesn't include the ability for game companies to put ads into my games and track everything I do with them.
An always-on internet wouldn't enhance my enjoyment, just the amount of crap I need to put up with.
I like my Xbox, and my wife plays several games with the Kinect -- but as soon as they put ads into the home page and the games, my Xbox was summarily disconnected from the network, and will remain that way.
Having said that Google seem to have got English recognition more or less perfect now, even if you are Scottish.
But probably not if you're Welsh... that's one bear of an accent to try to follow when you hear it the first time.:-P
I met some Welshmen on vacation one year, and while they all seemed nice, only one could I even begin to follow. The others were something of a mystery without an interpreter.;-)
Well, then if game saves will go to the cloud and require an internet connection, I most definitely will NOT be buying a new XBox.
I might buy another Xbox 360 as a spare for my current one and to keep playing the games I do. But if I can't run this thing purely as a game console with no internet connection, then I have no interest in it.
A requirement for an internet connection doesn't benefit me personally, just Microsoft, the publishers, and the advertisers. And that's not my problem.
the TV part is going to sell it to the wife and the ESPN features are the knife in sony's back
That's the theory, but since I already have a PVR, and have no desire to involve Microsoft in my television watching experience... it's certainly not a feature I care about.
I'm firmly in the single-player, offline-only game-play camp, and pretty much all of the features they seem most excited about are things I already have covered with other technology.
So either it's a decent console video game which can be played without requiring an internet connection, or it's something I don't want.
So far I've not seen anything about the always-on requirement for the internet connection.
That feature is make or break for me, because if it *needs* an internet connection to be always enabled, I can tell you now I won't buy this -- they had their chance, and they put ads into both my home screen and my games.
Did anyone who actually watched the event see anything about this? I've checked several articles so far, and none of them have mentioned that part.
It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.
Because all you have to do is claim incompetence and get off without penalty... even if they did it on purpose, you'd probably never be able to prove that.
Which is why there needs to be penalties for simply being wrong, otherwise it's free and they can do it all they like and later claim it was in error. They're certainly willing to destroy people's lives with their claims, they should have a lot more accountability for it.
If it is a $500 fine per false claim that's on the order of 2 million dollars lost a day
Way too low. If they can have statutory damages of $250K/title for infringement, they should pay at least the same for false claims.
Otherwise, there's nothing to keep them from cranking out false claims endlessly, and it's such an imbalanced system as to be pathetic -- which it currently is.
There's supposed to be a penalty of perjury, but to date they mostly file anything they like and nobody has held them to account.
The problem is the whole thing is skewed in their favor, and everyone else can either blindly comply even when it's bullshit, or spend a lot of their own money fighting it.
Someone needs to start applying meaningful, and significant penalties when they do this falsely. Otherwise they can just keep taking down anything they want to with no consequences.
The article does not clarify how the DMCA is being used and what "Hollywood" is claiming as a violation.
Really?
Fox, with help from six-strikes monitoring company Dtecnet, asked Google to remove a link to TPB-AFK on Mechodownload. Paramount did the same with a link on the Warez.ag forums.
Viacom sent at least two takedown requests targeting links to the Pirate Bay documentary on Mrworldpremiere and Rapidmoviez. Finally, Lionsgate jumped in by asking Google to remove a copy of TPB-AFK from a popular Pirate Bay proxy.
Each of Fox, Viacom, and Lionsgate issued take down notices. They're essentially using false claims to issue DMCA take downs.
Since they don't have to support or justify their claims, and there is no penalty for making false claims, they can suppress this by just telling people it's violating their copyright.
Since the DMCA allows these guys to basically do anything and later claim it was a mistake, I'm not surprised to see these guys abusing it.
I'd really like to see some harsh penalties applied against false DMCA claims -- like paying the falsely accused the same statutory fines they got put into law.
When they trot out the DMCA against stuff they don't own, it should be treated as perjury. Right now, it's "oh, silly us, did we do that?"
Which, oddly enough, was my entire point... the Irish judge can make judgements about what they have to do on the servers located in Ireland. And all of those servers not in Ireland are, unsurprisingly, not under the jurisdiction of an Irish court.
Why do you seem to believe that I believe all Google servers are in Ireland? Because I sure as hell never suggested that.
I think you should read more than the subject before commenting and claiming someone else is ignorant
I did read it. And while he can legally put pressure on Google et al to remove it in Ireland, if someone has put it on any server outside of Ireland (which by now I'm sure they have out of sheer spite), then there is nothing at all this judge will be able to do about that.
Trying to take stuff down from the internet tends to be a losing battle, because people then immediately start sharing copies of it.
Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.
Except Google uses Ireland as a tax haven, so first they'd need to find another jurisdiction in which it would be beneficial for them. And I'm not sure they'll easily find one.
Methinks the judge may have little understanding of both how the internet works, and what his jurisdiction actually is.
If a judge in Ireland believes he somehow has the authority (let alone the technical ability) to order this, he's grossly mis-informed.
He can make rulings on what happens in Ireland, but for the rest of the world... well, Iran can make all of the demands they want about taking stuff off the internet too, but nobody will care either.
This basically demonstrates he doesn't understand either the internet, or the application of law as it pertains to the rest of the world.
If it wasn't for the graft and greed or incompetence of the employees of the patent office, they never would have.
And since the US has set themselves up to be an economy highly dependent on patents and copyright, I seriously doubt you'll see these patents repealed.
The people lobbying for expanded IP rights don't want patents lessened, and they're not going to allow the politicians to take away their meal ticket.
When Microsoft makes more revenue from Android licenses (for patents I'm not convinced they've ever disclosed) than they do on their own OS, nobody is going to allow patents to stop being so widespread.
At this point, all of the "too big to fail" companies are so dependent on this as to make it inseparable from their core business.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we could always start firing back with our own artillery -- I'm sure someone has 3D printer plans coming soon.
Microsoft is free to put whatever features they want in their products. And I'm free to not buy them.
On my current XBox, I'm free to ignore the on-line features. It sounds like in the next version, I won't be. In which case I will just ignore the entire platform.
You can buy anything you want to and use it how you like, and I won't give a shit either. But I'm not providing Microsoft with a channel for ads and marketing data.
Statistically, you're right -- Microsoft has no reason whatsoever to care that I won't buy this, because I'm clearly not their target market. I'm a blip on the radar, and I'm well aware of that fact.
I agree it's a marketing force, but as someone who isn't obsessed with mobile phones and integrating them with every aspect of my life, I can tell you not everyone feels the same way. This is kind of like when marketing starts slapping "2.0" (and now "3.0" ) on everything and decides that everybody wants that thing in everything and we end up with the social media toilet or underpants which tweet you just before they start riding up. Some people want that, but not everyone, and foisting it on everyone just pisses people off.
For all of us who are casual gamers, who play exclusively single player games, and don't use any of these online features (and that's anywhere from a tiny fraction of user to a significant chunk, and I'm not sure anyone knows) ... what Microsoft is selling is something we don't want. But they better be awful certain before they decide people like me are an audience whose business they don't want -- though, from the sounds of it, it's a fait accompli.
But they're certainly free to decide that a segment of the gamer market is something they'll just ignore.
Well, I was thinking of just buying a new in-the-box retail unit and putting it on a shelf until this one dies. The actual save games, well, if I had to start over in Tiger Woods or my wife's dancing games for the Kinect, such is life. I don't have countless hours invested in save games (well, Skyrim) that I can't live without. I sure as hell haven't invested real money for in-game crap (something else I hate about modern games), so it's not like I'm out any additional investment.
If in the grand scheme of things I eventually find myself without a video game console ... well, it won't be the first time. But I definitely won't be finding myself with a game console which requires the ability to phone home when it pleases. Because there is no benefit to me in that scenario.
To many people, to many it isn't something we use.
Neither my tablet nor my smart phone have data plans. They get wifi turned on and used as needed. So your assertion that ANY of these devices is always connected is bullshit and anecdotal. I don't use Twitter, and I sure as hell wouldn't let Facebook onto my phone.
My current Xbox 360 doesn't connect to the network now, and a replacement one definitely won't be connecting to the internet.
There's not a single on-line feature about the Xbox I have any interest in. I don't play on-line games, and I never have. My XBox doesn't even know any information about my wifi and has no network cable running to it.
You may use these features, and you may actually believe that 99% of all people use them as well, but of the people I know who own Xboxes, about 80% of them don't use the networking feature, and aren't connected to XBox Live. So, for me and my friends, this is a major enough change that most of us probably aren't interested.
I'm more likely to buy a spare XBox 360 than this. What you consider rare and improbable is what I consider the normal use case for it. I'm sure Microsoft won't have their feelings hurt if I don't buy this, because I'm just one guy.
But that doesn't change the fact that I won't be buying this. Because contrary to what you believe, not everyone currently does connect to XBox Live or use the network features.
No, not happening. The last update I took on my current Xbox changed the screen the awful thing it is now, and introduced ads -- both in games and in the home screen. That's why my current Xbox isn't connected to the network and never will be again.
I will connect it to the network when and if I choose, but if it requires the ability to call home once/day, it's simply not happening.
Microsoft may have visions of this being my entertainment center of the future, but it won't be. And if it is going to require this ability to connect to the internet at will (and from the sounds of it when I even have it turned off due to this low power napping), then this is a non-starter for me.
Microsoft needs to clarify some of this, because the chances of me replacing my current Xbox 360 with something which demands it be able to access the internet when it chooses is pretty much zero.
I don't care about the TV integration, I don't care about the skype integration, I don't care about the web integration, I don't care about enhanced sports watching ... I care about one thing, single player games with no internet requirement. This isn't it.
Now I'm more likely to buy another XBox360 as a spare so I can keep playing the games I have now, but I won't be buying this.
Red Herring in exactly what way? I as a consumer am saying that my purchase of a newer Xbox is contingent on still being able to play single-player games offline, and not see ads in my games console because I won't connect it to the network.
OK, I see you've chosen to inject your own red-herring into the discussion so you could vent some hate for AT&T + Apple.
Tell you what, you make product choices based on your criteria, and I'll make them based on mine.
The ability to run an Xbox without connecting it at all to the network is a requirement for me. Because the rest of the 'entertainment console' features Microsoft is offering aren't anything I'm interested in. It's a video game console, and that's all I'll ever use it for. Everything else is just stuff I don't care about.
I play them for enjoyment too, but that doesn't include the ability for game companies to put ads into my games and track everything I do with them.
An always-on internet wouldn't enhance my enjoyment, just the amount of crap I need to put up with.
I like my Xbox, and my wife plays several games with the Kinect -- but as soon as they put ads into the home page and the games, my Xbox was summarily disconnected from the network, and will remain that way.
But probably not if you're Welsh ... that's one bear of an accent to try to follow when you hear it the first time. :-P
I met some Welshmen on vacation one year, and while they all seemed nice, only one could I even begin to follow. The others were something of a mystery without an interpreter. ;-)
Did you miss the spectacular failure of their competing standard? You know, the format nobody has made a movie for in a several years?
I don't see how they could do anything but support BluRay.
Well, then if game saves will go to the cloud and require an internet connection, I most definitely will NOT be buying a new XBox.
I might buy another Xbox 360 as a spare for my current one and to keep playing the games I do. But if I can't run this thing purely as a game console with no internet connection, then I have no interest in it.
A requirement for an internet connection doesn't benefit me personally, just Microsoft, the publishers, and the advertisers. And that's not my problem.
That's the theory, but since I already have a PVR, and have no desire to involve Microsoft in my television watching experience ... it's certainly not a feature I care about.
I'm firmly in the single-player, offline-only game-play camp, and pretty much all of the features they seem most excited about are things I already have covered with other technology.
So either it's a decent console video game which can be played without requiring an internet connection, or it's something I don't want.
So far I've not seen anything about the always-on requirement for the internet connection.
That feature is make or break for me, because if it *needs* an internet connection to be always enabled, I can tell you now I won't buy this -- they had their chance, and they put ads into both my home screen and my games.
Did anyone who actually watched the event see anything about this? I've checked several articles so far, and none of them have mentioned that part.
Because all you have to do is claim incompetence and get off without penalty ... even if they did it on purpose, you'd probably never be able to prove that.
Which is why there needs to be penalties for simply being wrong, otherwise it's free and they can do it all they like and later claim it was in error. They're certainly willing to destroy people's lives with their claims, they should have a lot more accountability for it.
I don't disagree, but it's all the more depressing because of that.
The companies get to do anything they want, and the rest of us gets screwed in the process.
Way too low. If they can have statutory damages of $250K/title for infringement, they should pay at least the same for false claims.
Otherwise, there's nothing to keep them from cranking out false claims endlessly, and it's such an imbalanced system as to be pathetic -- which it currently is.
There's supposed to be a penalty of perjury, but to date they mostly file anything they like and nobody has held them to account.
The problem is the whole thing is skewed in their favor, and everyone else can either blindly comply even when it's bullshit, or spend a lot of their own money fighting it.
Someone needs to start applying meaningful, and significant penalties when they do this falsely. Otherwise they can just keep taking down anything they want to with no consequences.
Really?
Each of Fox, Viacom, and Lionsgate issued take down notices. They're essentially using false claims to issue DMCA take downs.
Since they don't have to support or justify their claims, and there is no penalty for making false claims, they can suppress this by just telling people it's violating their copyright.
Since the DMCA allows these guys to basically do anything and later claim it was a mistake, I'm not surprised to see these guys abusing it.
I'd really like to see some harsh penalties applied against false DMCA claims -- like paying the falsely accused the same statutory fines they got put into law.
When they trot out the DMCA against stuff they don't own, it should be treated as perjury. Right now, it's "oh, silly us, did we do that?"
Which, oddly enough, was my entire point ... the Irish judge can make judgements about what they have to do on the servers located in Ireland. And all of those servers not in Ireland are, unsurprisingly, not under the jurisdiction of an Irish court.
Why do you seem to believe that I believe all Google servers are in Ireland? Because I sure as hell never suggested that.
I did read it. And while he can legally put pressure on Google et al to remove it in Ireland, if someone has put it on any server outside of Ireland (which by now I'm sure they have out of sheer spite), then there is nothing at all this judge will be able to do about that.
Trying to take stuff down from the internet tends to be a losing battle, because people then immediately start sharing copies of it.
Except Google uses Ireland as a tax haven, so first they'd need to find another jurisdiction in which it would be beneficial for them. And I'm not sure they'll easily find one.
Methinks the judge may have little understanding of both how the internet works, and what his jurisdiction actually is.
If a judge in Ireland believes he somehow has the authority (let alone the technical ability) to order this, he's grossly mis-informed.
He can make rulings on what happens in Ireland, but for the rest of the world ... well, Iran can make all of the demands they want about taking stuff off the internet too, but nobody will care either.
This basically demonstrates he doesn't understand either the internet, or the application of law as it pertains to the rest of the world.
And since the US has set themselves up to be an economy highly dependent on patents and copyright, I seriously doubt you'll see these patents repealed.
The people lobbying for expanded IP rights don't want patents lessened, and they're not going to allow the politicians to take away their meal ticket.
When Microsoft makes more revenue from Android licenses (for patents I'm not convinced they've ever disclosed) than they do on their own OS, nobody is going to allow patents to stop being so widespread.
At this point, all of the "too big to fail" companies are so dependent on this as to make it inseparable from their core business.
It's always nice to have someone follow and translate the legalese for the rest of us.
Here's to another 10 years!
Lay on, Macduff, And damned be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!"