4196 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoenix_Fyre]

Ok I looked at some PS4 trailers over youtube,.....and I squeed when I saw the official Elder Scrolls Online game for PS4

ESO.... for PS4.....massive ES fan, and I can now play it on a console

how is that possible?

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
Steam will have to comply with the Usedsoft and Oracle case, which it is currently doing via game trading and borrowing in the Steam network. While there is no indication that MS would have even considered allowing the full lending of games, especially considering all their partners have been attempting to stamp it out. There's no indication that Steam will require the off line mode to be removed, and it's likely that the trading will have to be done via steam. The unique license key being transfered online. Yet it doesn't prevent me from playing offline for any other purchase as I need the key to activate the product

Isn't than an EU case? So it's reach is relevant only insofar as the you're caught by EU jurisdiction. Of course, it would be silly for Steam not to simply offer the feature universally. 

[billy the squid]

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Steam will have to comply with the Usedsoft and Oracle case, which it is currently doing via game trading and borrowing in the Steam network. While there is no indication that MS would have even considered allowing the full lending of games, especially considering all their partners have been attempting to stamp it out. There's no indication that Steam will require the off line mode to be removed, and it's likely that the trading will have to be done via steam. The unique license key being transfered online. Yet it doesn't prevent me from playing offline for any other purchase as I need the key to activate the product

Isn't than an EU case? So it's reach is relevant only insofar as the you're caught by EU jurisdiction. Of course, it would be silly for Steam not to simply offer the feature universally. 

Yes it is. I think thats what they would do as well, if the rumours are accurate, they haven't specified any restrictions as to the region where it would be applied. Yet given the international nature of the net, I'm not even sure how it would be feesable to restrict a user based on their location, or they'd have to keep track of who is trading with who and block the trades based on legal jusrisdictions. 

Frankly the latter sounds like a lot of work. Whereas to my knowledge the EU is the only place that has articulated the concept of the Exahustion of Rights clearly extending to digital, while others have left it as a grey area, so it's going to be easier to just role it out globally.

[Homebound]

Im so glad Microsoft backed down with their bs. I think thats the important thing here.

[billy the squid]

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

Ok I looked at some PS4 trailers over youtube,.....and I squeed when I saw the official Elder Scrolls Online game for PS4

ESO.... for PS4.....massive ES fan, and I can now play it on a console

how is that possible?

I don't see why it wouldn't be? Bungie's Destiny is also an always online game, and many of the indie devs on the PS4 like warfighter and Blacklight are free to play which require online connections.

PS4's PSN and PS plus is just less scummy than Xbox live, having use Xbox live this gen, it's not a great system and tends to be fairly crummy in terms of digital product releases. 

I haven't seen a huge amount of the ESO, but it looks interesting. But considering that the PS4 has Diablo 3 coming to it, they seem to have more MMO style games coming out.

[Phoenix_Fyre]

Ah. Well I don't know much about Playstation's online network like I know Xbox Live

so I assume we pay monthly fees for ESO?

[billy the squid]

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

Ah. Well I don't know much about Playstation's online network like I know Xbox Live

so I assume we pay monthly fees for ESO?

I'm not actually sure. Maybe, but I don't think that you do with Destiny, that's covered by the PSN plus charge of £1.75 a month for online play. I haven't seen any info relating to monthly charges from the games themselves on either the X1 or PS4, but it's a good idea to keep an eye out. 

[LPPrince]

ESO subscription prices haven't been announced yet.

[Phoenix_Fyre]

Just saw more E3 trailers.

Hello PS4 is all I can say at this point.

[MerinTB]

ViSeirA wrote...
Welcome to the "I'm dismayed MSFT backed down and reversed their policies and vision" club... it's truly a loss for this next-gen generation to still be mired in previous-gen limitations such as disk-based games and disk-based rental and swapping culture.

Anyone willing to go at it with me? I can easily illustrate how MSFT's original model is superior to the one a lot of gamers are currently clinging to.

Absolutely willing.

You won't find a bigger proponent of going fully digital than me.  One of my contentions is that Xbox One, especially if it had this "vision of this digital future", should have had NO disc drive.

So go ahead - tell me how their policies were "good" for the "future."

Modifié par MerinTB, 22 juin 2013 - 05:40 .

[MerinTB]

billy the squid wrote...
They're not the bad guy because they tried to go digital, drop that fantasy right now, they're the bad guy because they tried to screw everyone over while they were doing it. Or was any of the following beneficial region locking, lack of support, 24 hour internet connection, shoving cloud down everyone's throat, vague policies on sharing, clamping down on used games, although you can bet that Gamestop would have been the beneficiary in that deal as a "participating retailer". They back tracked because they were taking a hammering at every turn, and then Sony messed things up by doing the opposite. The appearance of an alternative would have hurt their revenue badly. 

There will be a move to digital as time progesses, but there's a difference in the way the likes of Steam, Sony, Desura, Amazon, GoG, Greenman Gaming have gone about doing it, and what MS and EA tried to do. So no they won't be the "bad" guy because they go digital, they'll be the "bad" guy because they try and extort consumers.

Well said.

[BouncyFrag]

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

Ok I looked at some PS4 trailers over youtube,.....and I squeed when I saw the official Elder Scrolls Online game for PS4

ESO.... for PS4.....massive ES fan, and I can now play it on a console

how is that possible?

Its on Xbox one too!

[mybudgee]

Microsoft is too busy looking at their reflection in the mirror to notice the iceberg in their path...

[LPPrince]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

Ok I looked at some PS4 trailers over youtube,.....and I squeed when I saw the official Elder Scrolls Online game for PS4

ESO.... for PS4.....massive ES fan, and I can now play it on a console

how is that possible?

Its on Xbox one too!

Aye, I can't wait.

[ViSeiRa]

billy the squid wrote...

Bing is not a loss leader, it doesn't stimulate uptake of other products, it's simply out competed on every front by the likes Of Fire Fox and Google Chrome. There's a rather large difference between stating an item is a loss leader and simply being inferior vs the competition, the same with Xbox Live, and outlook. They're not loss leaders, their online policies are rubbish and they take losses for it.

First, please don't go around Googling some business terminology and come to talk to me, since it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Second, Bing is a loss leader... it's there to support and foster other products and services (Windows 8 Integrated Search, Windows Phone 8 universal search and voice search, basically the whole of MSFT's integrated universal search across all its OSes depends on it) which is obviously an explanation for a loss leader that is lacking from the Wikipedia page.

Third, could you please elaborate how Outlook's and Bing's policies make them inferior to other products? (Firefox and Google Chrome? aren't those web browsers?). In fact Bing is usually lauded for having way better privacy policies and data retention policies than Google's own... Facebook chose Bing as its own Graph Search provider for mainly that regard.

Bing may not deliver the best results "yet" for people outside the US but it's still a valid supporting product that properly helps with the diffusion of other Microsoft products and services.

Oh, and you know I have 3 active e-mail addresses, using GMX, Gmail and Outlook... do tell me which of Outlook's policies make you cringe from it so much? is it the intrusive ads? or what exactly?

And we are way off-topic in the off-topic forum.

billy the squid wrote...

Xbox Live is a good example. It's a walled garden digital system, yet it continually takes losses, it does little to stimulate uptake of other products as it had abysmal indi policies, the cost of DD is high, the subscription is higher than the PSN, nothing it does is benefitial. But it continues to exist because it has a secure market by forcibly carving one out via the restrictions of the X 360.

The Entertainment division of Microsoft made 958 million dollars of net income on a revenue of 8+ biliion dollars in Q3 2013... go figure, Xbox Live isn't taking losses, I mean... all these ads, right?

billy the squid wrote...

Steam will have to comply with the Usedsoft and Oracle case, which it is currently doing via game trading and borrowing in the Steam network. While there is no indication that MS would have even considered allowing the full lending of games, especially considering all their partners have been attempting to stamp it out. There's no indication that Steam will require the off line mode to be removed, and it's likely that the trading will have to be done via steam. The unique license key being transfered online. Yet it doesn't prevent me from playing offline for any other purchase as I need the key to activate the product.

I'll just say a neat little statement: Why this supposed "offline" way might work for Steam and not Xbox One is because Steam doesn't have disk-based games to deal with... Microsoft does.

billy the squid wrote...

GoG has the issue that it retains no DRM policies, and as the likes of EA and their ilk have shown a level of paranoid distrust of anything without DRM, which only further illustrates their dislike of trading or borrowing anything, so why would they want MS to allow people to digitally borrow and play their games for free?

Xbox didn't provide any alternative, it was their way or nothing. The family sharing was a pipe dream, none of which had been detailed properly as to how it would work, nor did it require the online check, if one wanted to restrict it to digital only, while the digital trading itself is already being implemented via Steam.

The PS4 already does the live streaming of games, free selections to rent online, cheaper and has day 1 digital downloads, I can use netflix for free, I can use the net for free, I can download patches and updates for free. The same with the myriad of other DD systems, they're all cheaper and provide a better service than Xbox Live and Origin, it's advantageous because I'm not getting screwed by the PSN at every turn. 

What we were actually left with was. You might get a sharing plan, in sponsored countries maybe in the future, with no indication of what was being shared, not idea how the trading system would work or how much it would be in terms of cost. There's your problem right there a lot of cons, and some very vague pros which may of may not materialise. I'm not being paid to implement anything, they want money off me, so find a way to do it that doesn't involve raming a load of extortionate practices down everyone's throat , then we'll see if it's worth it. 

Nor does making a false equavalency out of digital or physical disks work, not even Steam does that and it's predominately digital.

I just looked at your profile, you own a 360... can you please do try and make a case for your opinion instead of using overly embellished words with no meaning that only makes you out to be a spoiled brat, you're bull****ting policies because of the way you think they "might" work, or the way you think they won't work... when in fact it has been explained and expanded upon many times...

Also: "Does Steam Trading mean I can sell my used games?

No, only games that have been bought as a gift, and thus have never been played, can be traded. Once the Steam Gift is opened and added to your game library, you won’t be able to trade it again."

Care to say anything else for me to pick up on and hand it back to you?

[ViSeiRa]

MerinTB wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...
Welcome to the "I'm dismayed MSFT backed down and reversed their policies and vision" club... it's truly a loss for this next-gen generation to still be mired in previous-gen limitations such as disk-based games and disk-based rental and swapping culture.

Anyone willing to go at it with me? I can easily illustrate how MSFT's original model is superior to the one a lot of gamers are currently clinging to.

Absolutely willing.

You won't find a bigger proponent of going fully digital than me.  One of my contentions is that Xbox One, especially if it had this "vision of this digital future", should have had NO disc drive.

So go ahead - tell me how their policies were "good" for the "future."

It must have a disc drive... change comes gradually, and they wanted to do this by making discs just a medium for carrying the data, and my conversation with billy has all what I think about what's good in it, read them if you will and get back to me, try to avoid using his arguments though... they're kinda sorta definitely burned.

[ViSeiRa]

Filament wrote...

I still say the X1 should do both. It should have retail games for the physical drive that are tradeable and all that (in the conventional sense, by giving the disk; no family sharing, etc), and a digital market with the same games that have all the restrictions, and benefits, that Microsoft wanted to implement.

The two markets would be completely segregated so the physical disks would not be able to be "tied" to the digital account.

They could have, but then it would be too hard to maintain... I imagine down the line it's gonna blur though, they certainly are looking in that direction.

[billy the squid]

ViSeirA wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Bing is not a loss leader, it doesn't stimulate uptake of other products, it's simply out competed on every front by the likes Of Fire Fox and Google Chrome. There's a rather large difference between stating an item is a loss leader and simply being inferior vs the competition, the same with Xbox Live, and outlook. They're not loss leaders, their online policies are rubbish and they take losses for it.

First, please don't go around Googling some business terminology and come to talk to me, since it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Second, Bing is a loss leader... it's there to support and foster other products and services (Windows 8 Integrated Search, Windows Phone 8 universal search and voice search, basically the whole of MSFT's integrated universal search across all its OSes depends on it) which is obviously an explanation for a loss leader that is lacking from the Wikipedia page.

Third, could you please elaborate how Outlook's and Bing's policies make them inferior to other products? (Firefox and Google Chrome? aren't those web browsers?). In fact Bing is usually lauded for having way better privacy policies and data retention policies than Google's own... Facebook chose Bing as its own Graph Search provider for mainly that regard.

Bing may not deliver the best results "yet" for people outside the US but it's still a valid supporting product that properly helps with the diffusion of other Microsoft products and services.

Oh, and you know I have 3 active e-mail addresses, using GMX, Gmail and Outlook... do tell me which of Outlook's policies make you cringe from it so much? is it the intrusive ads? or what exactly?

And we are way off-topic in the off-topic forum.

billy the squid wrote...

Xbox Live is a good example. It's a walled garden digital system, yet it continually takes losses, it does little to stimulate uptake of other products as it had abysmal indi policies, the cost of DD is high, the subscription is higher than the PSN, nothing it does is benefitial. But it continues to exist because it has a secure market by forcibly carving one out via the restrictions of the X 360.

The Entertainment division of Microsoft made 958 million dollars of net income on a revenue of 8+ biliion dollars in Q3 2013... go figure, Xbox Live isn't taking losses, I mean... all these ads, right?

billy the squid wrote...

Steam will have to comply with the Usedsoft and Oracle case, which it is currently doing via game trading and borrowing in the Steam network. While there is no indication that MS would have even considered allowing the full lending of games, especially considering all their partners have been attempting to stamp it out. There's no indication that Steam will require the off line mode to be removed, and it's likely that the trading will have to be done via steam. The unique license key being transfered online. Yet it doesn't prevent me from playing offline for any other purchase as I need the key to activate the product.

I'll just say a neat little statement: Why this supposed "offline" way might work for Steam and not Xbox One is because Steam doesn't have disk-based games to deal with... Microsoft does.

billy the squid wrote...

GoG has the issue that it retains no DRM policies, and as the likes of EA and their ilk have shown a level of paranoid distrust of anything without DRM, which only further illustrates their dislike of trading or borrowing anything, so why would they want MS to allow people to digitally borrow and play their games for free?

Xbox didn't provide any alternative, it was their way or nothing. The family sharing was a pipe dream, none of which had been detailed properly as to how it would work, nor did it require the online check, if one wanted to restrict it to digital only, while the digital trading itself is already being implemented via Steam.

The PS4 already does the live streaming of games, free selections to rent online, cheaper and has day 1 digital downloads, I can use netflix for free, I can use the net for free, I can download patches and updates for free. The same with the myriad of other DD systems, they're all cheaper and provide a better service than Xbox Live and Origin, it's advantageous because I'm not getting screwed by the PSN at every turn. 

What we were actually left with was. You might get a sharing plan, in sponsored countries maybe in the future, with no indication of what was being shared, not idea how the trading system would work or how much it would be in terms of cost. There's your problem right there a lot of cons, and some very vague pros which may of may not materialise. I'm not being paid to implement anything, they want money off me, so find a way to do it that doesn't involve raming a load of extortionate practices down everyone's throat , then we'll see if it's worth it. 

Nor does making a false equavalency out of digital or physical disks work, not even Steam does that and it's predominately digital.

I just looked at your profile, you own a 360... can you please do try and make a case for your opinion instead of using overly embellished words with no meaning that only makes you out to be a spoiled brat, you're bull****ting policies because of the way you think they "might" work, or the way you think they won't work... when in fact it has been explained and expanded upon many times...

Also: "Does Steam Trading mean I can sell my used games?

No, only games that have been bought as a gift, and thus have never been played, can be traded. Once the Steam Gift is opened and added to your game library, you won’t be able to trade it again."

Care to say anything else for me to pick up on and hand it back to you?

You're going to pick a fight with someone with a legal education about Copyright infringment based on the Usedsoft V Oracle case from the ECJ? You're going to lose, badly. The Steam trading isn't completed yet you dullard. That's not the trading system. The verdict was only reached in November 2012.

Bing is placed there because MSFT doesn't have a monopoly on Google or Firefox, they already got fined 651 million Euros for purposefully putting Internet search software directly into their Windows operating systems, and trying to kill competing search engines, Bing is the simple extension of that, released to compete with Google. If bing clearly is that good it wouldn't only have a 15% of the market in comparison to Google. Bing and Google aren't a loss leaders because they promote Google Chrome netbook or other MS products they add subsidiary services to that product, which are produced by MS or Google, just as iPhones use Yahoo as their default search engine, so Yahoo is now a loss leader, rather than a subsidiary service, yet clearly doesn't encourages the uptake of Apple's IPhones? Pffffft. . While Hotmail being updated was because it was clearly seen as inferior to Gmail in comparison.

I thought you said Bing is Loss leader? Which is is, suppoerting product or loss leader. They are not the same, even if the supporting product incurs a loss.

And Steam does have a disk based system. It's why I can walk into a store and buy a PC game, then activate it on Steam. Please, if you want to make a point make correctly. 

And so we come to the name calling, well If you're willing to wh0re yourself and walk in blind to a deal with MSFT with no explaination of what each policy actually involved beyond the vague promises that were made, I draw from that you're being deliberately obtuse. Nothing was said about MS's policies, there was no detail and half of the interviews were contradictory in nature. You've been given your explainations of the policies and it's issues and examples of the competitors which act differently. If this is all you've got, then I'm glad MSFT back tracked and even happier now that I know the fools abound in the gaming community are crying bitter tears because we refused to be taken for a ride by MSFT.

Modifié par billy the squid, 22 juin 2013 - 11:14 .

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
Frankly the latter sounds like a lot of work. Whereas to my knowledge the EU is the only place that has articulated the concept of the Exahustion of Rights clearly extending to digital, while others have left it as a grey area, so it's going to be easier to just role it out globally.

That was my thinking too. I do think they'd be able to get friendlier rulings in both the US and Canada, but I'd wager it'd just be more expensive to maintain the system than it's worth, and given the climate around the Xbox one, they'd also be able to score goodwill points. 

[Salamander Soup]

Microsoft could announce Xbox urinates in your cereal and their fanboys would bow down and worship it.

[RepHope]

^ITS THE FUTURE MAN DON'T YOU WANT TO GO TO THE FUTURE WITH ME?!?!?! HUH?!?!?
I jest but I've been an Xbox fanboy for years but I'm sick of Microsofts crap and I'm not just talking about their DRM plans

[Ravensword]

How dare you angry nerdz on teh interwebz reuin mai fyoochah!

Modifié par Ravensword, 23 juin 2013 - 01:42 .

[Splinter Cell 108]

Salamander Soup wrote...

Microsoft could announce Xbox urinates in your cereal and their fanboys would bow down and worship it.

But why? Why are there people who will bow down to whatever piece of **** they are given? I don't get it, is it because they can't admit that they are wrong, are they stupid or is there some mysterious reason as to why anyone would accept any of this?