I'm also pretty sure they are going to have more internet services on the Xbox One. They are aware that consoles are one of the largest install bases for streaming media.
Let me blow your mind further, I'm willing to bet money that it will be able to play Bluray movies as well.
I don't need a console for that and I don't care about Blu-ray. Blu-ray is already obsolete when compared to streaming services.
I don't need a console for that and I don't care about Blu-ray. Blu-ray is already obsolete when compared to streaming services.
The all digital crowd isn't big enough to be a core market - the tv features are to draw the people who still subscribe to cable, roughly 50 million people in the US. You tend to forget that kids are a big market as well and parents are the gatekeepers, you can't be a successful console only focusing on the 20-30 crowd. Now if you're just coming here to convince everyone how much you don't like it personally, that takes one post, doesn't it?
As far as price - the rumored $500-$600 range is about the cost of a no contract smart phone. If we don't see contract subsidized consoles in the next generation I will eat a hat!
It also stands to reason that they would announce vanilla TV features to capture the mainstream crowds attention and then use E3 to talk specifically to gamers. The problem with that of course is all of the gamer outrage over being ignored raises the bar for them to be impressed at E3.
The all digital crowd isn't big enough to be a core market - the tv features are to draw the people who still subscribe to cable, roughly 50 million people in the US. You tend to forget that kids are a big market as well and parents are the gatekeepers, you can't be a successful console only focusing on the 20-30 crowd. Now if you're just coming here to convince everyone how much you don't like it personally, that takes one post, doesn't it?
As far as price - the rumored $500-$600 range is about the cost of a no contract smart phone. If we don't see contract subsidized consoles in the next generation I will eat a hat!
No, that's not true at all. It isn't the "features" TV offers, it's the lack of convenient alternatives. They make token efforts to provide digital services, but they burden it with restrictions and hold back on the content so that TV looks better by comparison. If they wanted to provide the service, they could. But they make a load of money on those excessive subscription fees and market segmentation. Why charge people once for access when you can divide it into "packages" and charge a separate price for each? So, it's not that the digital crowd isn't big enough, it's them holding it back so they don't get to be a majority.
The all digital crowd isn't big enough to be a core market - the tv features are to draw the people who still subscribe to cable, roughly 50 million people in the US. You tend to forget that kids are a big market as well and parents are the gatekeepers, you can't be a successful console only focusing on the 20-30 crowd. Now if you're just coming here to convince everyone how much you don't like it personally, that takes one post, doesn't it?
As far as price - the rumored $500-$600 range is about the cost of a no contract smart phone. If we don't see contract subsidized consoles in the next generation I will eat a hat!
there are already contract subsidised tablets and laptops in the UK, and i'm almost certain there are places that do consoles on them as well (or at the very least as "gifts" when you buy a shitty phone), so i don't doubt for a second that there will be contract consoles.
I'm not sure which internet provider you're using but I can't stream anything near Blu-ray levels of clarity. Where do you live?
Both Vudu and Netflix have been streaming 1080p content. Vudu calls it HDX and Netflix calls it Ultra HD (or something along those lines). It's not exactly as good as blu ray because the bitrate is not as good, but I think it's close enough considering I don't have to get my lazy ass off the couch to put in a disc anymore.
No, that's not true at all. It isn't the "features" TV offers, it's the lack of convenient alternatives. They make token efforts to provide digital services, but they burden it with restrictions and hold back on the content so that TV looks better by comparison. If they wanted to provide the service, they could. But they make a load of money on those excessive subscription fees and market segmentation. Why charge people once for access when you can divide it into "packages" and charge a separate price for each? So, it's not that the digital crowd isn't big enough, it's them holding it back so they don't get to be a majority.
I wasn't talking about the features being offered by a cable subscription rather the integration features on the Xbox One. Like I mentioned, there's 50 million cable subscribers in the US, the Xbox One also handles streaming media and they'll probably continue their own Movie rental/purchase system as well so it's really a bridge system.
My bluray comment was just making fun of internet idiocy - yes it can play bluray movies much like it can play pretty much every 3rd party next gen game that's been announced so far :P
I'm not sure which internet provider you're using but I can't stream anything near Blu-ray levels of clarity. Where do you live?
I have Charter 30 Mbps, I can stream 1080p easily. There is no such thing as BR quality, BR is a storage medium and my point was that physical disc as a distribution channel is pointless when I can download an HD movie or stream it. Why bother buying a bunch of discs to clutter up your home when it can just sit on a hard drive on a server and you can just stream it? TV, BR, phone, and radio are relics of the past. They're just video and audio data to a computer. Any internet connected device can serve the function of all of those services at the same time. So why should I pay for cable? Why should I buy a console? Why do I need to buy minutes for my phone? I can do this all over the internet. The only thing I need is the internet and my PC.
Well, it's hard to make phone calls on your PC when you're not in the house but I generally agree with you. My disagreement is not about the technical aspects, it's more about what's available. If EVERYTHING I can watch on cable was available online (legally) I would go back to 100% internet (we were at one time). But until then, there are shows we like to watch that just aren't available on streaming.
so what's you're issue with the Xbox One? You never were going to buy it anyway. I don't play military shooters - hence why I don't post in threads about them, I don't lose sleep over the fact that people like them.
Maybe they will just make it subscription/contract based eventually. So for example you not only get the xbox one console for your monthly subscription fee but you also get all the other services netflix and spotify and multiplayer and tivo capabilities etc
Maybe they will just make it subscription/contract based eventually. So for example you not only get the xbox one console for your monthly subscription fee but you also get all the other services netflix and spotify and multiplayer and tivo capabilities etc
I kind of suspect that the generation of Xbox after this one is going to go the other way, and be like a cable box.
You lease the console. You pay every month to have it on your shelf, all your saved games are stored in the cloud that you pay more every month to access, and if you don't pay they come and get the hardware (or bill you an obscene amount and send it to collections).
I can see Sony, Microsoft, and possibly even Nintendo going that route.
Maybe they will just make it subscription/contract based eventually. So for example you not only get the xbox one console for your monthly subscription fee but you also get all the other services netflix and spotify and multiplayer and tivo capabilities etc
It's already happening with the 360 - I wasn't aware it went past small test markets but it's apparently been in full swing for about a year now.
Like I mentioned, there's 50 million cable subscribers in the US, the Xbox One also handles streaming media and they'll probably continue their own Movie rental/purchase system as well so it's really a bridge system.
My bluray comment was just making fun of internet idiocy - yes it can play bluray movies much like it can play pretty much every 3rd party next gen game that's been announced so far :P
The problem at present is that those 50 million cable subscribers aren't going to leap onto the XBox One right out of the gate. They might enjoy those TV integration features once they have them. But they won't be nearly enough for them to actually acquire an XBox One.
It would be a different story if the XBox One was able to serve as a cable box in its own right. But it can't, and Microsoft has confirmed this. It is just a pass-through and control unit, you can't use it as a cable box by itself. If that had been the case, than cable companies could have offered discounts on the hardware along with contract bundles. THAT would have been a great way to get the TV-consuming populace on board.
There is still some possibilty there. They could bundle the XBox One with upgraded or new cable subscriptions. That could actually work pretty well, and would be a good way to get the box in people's houses. But Microsoft is not going to be able to sell the XBox One to the TV crowd with subsidized XBox Live subscriptions. The gaming crowd might be willing to jump on a deal like that, but the TV crowd won't.
The Blu-Ray feature isn't huge, Blu-Ray players have gotten much cheaper. But it is a nice extra, and no one is going to object to it being there. I use my PS3 for Blu-Ray movies all the time. If the XBox One proves to be a capable Blu-Ray player, I could easily imagine myself using it for those purposes.
The problem at present is that those 50 million cable subscribers aren't going to leap onto the XBox One right out of the gate. They might enjoy those TV integration features once they have them. But they won't be nearly enough for them to actually acquire an XBox One.
What if it was free with a 2 year cable + Live Subscription? There's a whole market of people that are intrigued by the Wii but are still confused by switching TV inputs and don't like holding controllers. My prediction is this could either be a breakout hit or the Wii U is a preview of what's to come and the sales are going to be lower in this next generation.
so what's you're issue with the Xbox One? You never were going to buy it anyway. I don't play military shooters - hence why I don't post in threads about them, I don't lose sleep over the fact that people like them.
It represents problems that ripple throughout the industry, not just for the people that buy it, but for others that have a stake in the future of gaming. In the XB1 we have a device heavily burdened with DRM, even more than the 360 and they're tying in just about every other entertainment medium out there to it. I don't like the direction it takes us. It bodes poorly for those of us that want to be free to find entertainment from services online on our terms. This console might end up being the way all media goes for distribution and they'll be able to segment the hell out of it. I don't like that idea. It gives them the power to limit choice.
What if it was free with a 2 year cable + Live Subscription? There's a whole market of people that are intrigued by the Wii but are still confused by switching TV inputs and don't like holding controllers. My prediction is this could either be a breakout hit or the Wii U is a preview of what's to come and the sales are going to be lower in this next generation.
There is no way on earth that they are going to release a bundle like the one you are describing. This system is expected to be no less than $400 just by itself. They don't release phones for free that cost that much.
And bundling a Live subscription WITH a cable subscription would be a terrible idea as well. The general consumer just isn't going to want that kind of deal. They won't understand why they are being required to pay an additional subscription for their new XBox One. Trying to squeeze two different subscription packages together is going to be too much. This is especially true when Microsoft is the ONLY competitor still doing this. The Wii U and PS4 are both going to support on-line multiplayer without any additional subscription.
The latter scenario you are depicting is far more likely than the former. If the XBox one is going to succeed anywhere, it will be in the U.S. In the rest of the world it's almost dead before arrival. The PS4 will likely be quite expensive, and will have a slow road to market penetration. Sony would actually be wise to shoot for a gradual transition from the PS3 to PS4. And we've already seen that the Wii U isn't going to be the runaway smash hit that the Wii was. (no surprise there) 2013 will be a notable year for game enthusiasts, but the general consumer is hardly even going to notice these new machines. Expect PS3 and 360 sales to dominate the charts in holiday this year.
There is no way on earth that they are going to release a bundle like the one you are describing. This system is expected to be no less than $400 just by itself. They don't release phones for free that cost that much.
Dish gives away a "free" 16gb iPad2 (about $400 retail) to new subscribers who sign up for the Hopper. Even Google thinks it needs to give away a free Nexus 7 tablet to entice you to get their Fiber + TV package. Yes it's a long shot but MS has snuggled up with Time Warner in the past.
Dish gives away a "free" 16gb iPad2 (about $400 retail) to new subscribers who sign up for the Hopper. Even Google thinks it needs to give away a free Nexus 7 tablet to entice you to get their Fiber + TV package. Yes it's a long shot but MS has snuggled up with Time Warner in the past.
All of those products are regularly sold at a profit. Those prices are what happens when you sell hardware expecting to earn some degree of margin off of the sale. The prices for home gaming consoles haven't worked that way for a long time. Microsoft and Sony will be a bit more limited in terms of what kinds of discounts they will be able to offer on their hardware.
The cable + XBox Live package is a bit more likely in terms of covering the cost of an XBox One. But as I pointed out, it would be far too convoluted for the average consumer. And any such deal is going to have consumers wondering why they shouldn't just pick up a current-gen console instead of getting an XBox One.
The success and ubiquitous selection of the PS3 and 360 are going to be the biggest impediments to the next-gen consoles. (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Wii-U) All three of those options are available for $300 or less. If either Microsoft or Sony try to force a swift hardware transition, they will pay for it dearly. Expecting a slower, more gradual transition would be a much better strategy going into the holidays. While some developers are eager for the next console generation, the general consumer populace can easily squeeze a few more years out of the current offerings.
oh sure, I know it's going to be a slow transition like the last generation.
This whole debate makes me remember when I was a young fanboy declaring the PS2 would be a failure because it couldn't compete with the PC master race.
oh sure, I know it's going to be a slow transition like the last generation.
This whole debate makes me remember when I was a young fanboy declaring the PS2 would be a failure because it couldn't compete with the PC master race.
It's not going to be a slow transition like the last generation. It's going to be significantly slower.
Microsoft dropped the original XBox with the quickness. That thing was a huge burden on them, and they kicked it to the curb as soon as they could. It was one of the fastest transitions imagineable. And Nintendo dropped Gamecube support very rapidly as well. Everyone jumped over to the Wii. The PS2 was the only previous console to linger.
This time, we have a much different scenario. The Wii is the only console that has been abandoned by the market. The Wii-U stands a good chance of moving units, it just needs to get down into the $200 - $250 price range, and get some of that sweet first-party Nintendo loving.
The PS3 and 360 are still completely viable systems from the perspective of the general consumers. Neither has really dipped below the $250 range. Shift the prices on those devices a little lower, and keep the games coming, and both can continue selling strong for several more years, no problem. If either Sony or Microsoft attempt to forcefully cut off support for those systems in order to push their new devices, they will be leaving money on the table.
The PC is looking better than it has for years, but mainly due to the success and popularity of Steam. (as well as Blizzard's efforts) Steam combines a lot of the convenience that console's boast of with a very capable store front and lots of great support for developers. But PC gaming still can't match consoles for convenience. PC's will always be the go-to platform for do-it-yourself gamers, but the less technically capable will continue to gravitate toward the simpler console solution. It helps that both Microsoft and Sony seem to understand this, and have taken steps to make the update process for their new systems more convenient and less intrusive.
You could ask the same question of any service. The internet isn't unique in that regard.
I know, but I hope it illustrates why so many of us fear the turning of products into services. I know that if my Internet goes down I can enjoy any of my digital products that I have physical containers for and don't rely on Internet services. If my electricity goes down I can get a generator or read a book.
Also I'll restate my claim to my mirth at your posts since I did sound a bit flame-baiting. But I want to promot healthy discussion.
I found them funny because now I finally understand your viewpoint (thanks to previous arguments) I'm remain confounded by how you dislike closed-media practises like DRM etc. (where makers exert control) and praise creative products becoming services (where the makers exert control). That and when you bring it up you make it sound like your vision of creative works/products/services are desirable for everyone; that everyone here should see the 'truth' eg.
TV, BR, phone, and radio are relics of the past.
They are relics of the present and the concepts that govern their use are are relevant to people today.
I secede that you are likely the one looking toward the future while guys like me are looking back to the past. It's my flaw in this case, but like others who are so backward in thinking, what they see is the solution to all the problems we are arguing about here.
concepts of ownership? no problem
lend games to friends? no problem
buy/sell used games? no problem
games consoles not about games? no problem
superfluous devices that could spy on the user? no problem
I know, but I hope it illustrates why so many of us fear the turning of products into services. I know that if my Internet goes down I can enjoy any of my digital products that I have physical containers for and don't rely on Internet services. If my electricity goes down I can get a generator or read a book.
Also I'll restate my claim to my mirth at your posts since I did sound a bit flame-baiting. But I want to promot healthy discussion.
I found them funny because now I finally understand your viewpoint (thanks to previous arguments) I'm remain confounded by how you dislike closed-media practises like DRM etc. (where makers exert control) and praise creative products becoming services (where the makers exert control). That and when you bring it up you make it sound like your vision of creative works/products/services are desirable for everyone; that everyone here should see the 'truth' eg.
They are relics of the present and the concepts that govern their use are are relevant to people today.
I secede that you are likely the one looking toward the future while guys like me are looking back to the past. It's my flaw in this case, but like others who are so backward in thinking, what they see is the solution to all the problems we are arguing about here.
concepts of ownership? no problem
lend games to friends? no problem
buy/sell used games? no problem
games consoles not about games? no problem
superfluous devices that could spy on the user? no problem
But don't you see? They're all services. They're only seen as products because they've been fixed to proprietary media and devices. Content is clearly a form of speech and you can't call speech a product, but speaking is a service. Yes, providing a service does put control in the hands of the one performing the service, but it also frees everyone else to view the results not as a product, but a marketing tool for that service. DRM is antithetical to providing good services and maintaining strong social connections with the audience.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with physical storage, just proprietary physical storage. I see nothing bad about downloading your favorite movies, music, and books to your preferred device. It would actually add value if you could. Streaming is just a convenient way to avoid filling your hard drive with content that could be better stored on a server. If your internet does go down, you would likely have your local games, movies, TV shows, and music to keep you. You don't have to stream everything. Mainly TV shows and movies you don't want to keep offline. I've never personally seen any downtime since I got away from DSL and went with cable (yes, I use cable for my ISP, just not their TV).
But don't you see? They're all services. They're only seen as products because they've been fixed to proprietary media and devices. Content is clearly a form of speech and you can't call speech a product, but speaking is a service. Yes, providing a service does put control in the hands of the one performing the service, but it also frees everyone else to view the results not as a product, but a marketing tool for that service. DRM is antithetical to providing good services and maintaining strong social connections with the audience.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with physical storage, just proprietary physical storage. I see nothing bad about downloading your favorite movies, music, and books to your preferred device. It would actually add value if you could. Streaming is just a convenient way to avoid filling your hard drive with content that could be better stored on a server. If your internet does go down, you would likely have your local games, movies, TV shows, and music to keep you. You don't have to stream everything. Mainly TV shows and movies you don't want to keep offline. I've never personally seen any downtime since I got away from DSL and went with cable (yes, I use cable for my ISP, just not their TV).
Well I do agree that the things we perceive as products were created by services and do agree that the bound container allows us to reign in artistic works provided by services as products, but where I feel our point of difference lies is in the value of these perceptions.
To me a service is something that you pay for that disappears when the work is complete and is therefore unable to be perceived as an ownable product. To me, when I get a plumber in to fix my sink, I'm not paying for a new sink, or paying for my old sink again; instead I am paying for the plumber's time and action to the duration of my desired budget or result, of which disappears from my use once my sink is functioning.
Indeed a game or film may have been created by people who were spending time and action into some form of result, but by transferring that into a package: something that represents "completion", it can be assigned value as a product.
Perceptions change immediately - What is this thing worth?
Not the accumulated hours of value claimed by its makers. But instead the value the user claims it is worth in trade. Do I own it?
Yes, it takes up 'space' (digital as well) within my purveyed land.
That is something that I value, it makes an important variable in my decision to trade money and consume content.
To me a piece of data I own on a disc is no different from a piece of data I own on a HDD or server (with the exception that the disc also has attributable value on its own). As far as I am concerned with buying these 'products' is that I didn't pay for for somebody to arrange 1s and 0s in '010011100111000010110' but instead I own an arrangement of 1s and 0s as '010011100111000010110' Yes somebody did pay the original creator to do that as a service, but I bought the result as a product.
So in reference to this topic of used-games and why so many people are up in arms and when it can get so heated with supporters of used-games being 'entitled' or 'don't care about developer money' is that in this debate they're the ones on the defensive, they're the ones with something to lose. Things that are currently perceived as products are being turned into what's being perceived as services and in that process a component of value is lost - the consideration of ownership and its transferability.
I'd personally love to believe in a glorious Star Trek future where there is no concept of ownership or separated worth of products or services, but that would require the very kind of pure communism where nobody cares for anything but each other, where their personal lives are rewarded by serving their own purpose happily. But I can't right now because anybody who wants to push such an agenda is doing it for MONEY and CONTROL.
tldr: some of us don't look forwards to a convenient service/subscription/cloud/streaming etc. because it doesn't offer anything better than what we currently enjoy.
Well I do agree that the things we perceive as products were created by services and do agree that the bound container allows us to reign in artistic works provided by services as products, but where I feel our point of difference lies is in the value of these perceptions.
To me a service is something that you pay for that disappears when the work is complete and is therefore unable to be perceived as an ownable product. To me, when I get a plumber in to fix my sink, I'm not paying for a new sink, or paying for my old sink again; instead I am paying for the plumber's time and action to the duration of my desired budget or result, of which disappears from my use once my sink is functioning.
Indeed a game or film may have been created by people who were spending time and action into some form of result, but by transferring that into a package: something that represents "completion", it can be assigned value as a product.
Perceptions change immediately - What is this thing worth?
Not the accumulated hours of value claimed by its makers. But instead the value the user claims it is worth in trade. Do I own it?
Yes, it takes up 'space' (digital as well) within my purveyed land.
That is something that I value, it makes an important variable in my decision to trade money and consume content.
To me a piece of data I own on a disc is no different from a piece of data I own on a HDD or server (with the exception that the disc also has attributable value on its own). As far as I am concerned with buying these 'products' is that I didn't pay for for somebody to arrange 1s and 0s in '010011100111000010110' but instead I own an arrangement of 1s and 0s as '010011100111000010110' Yes somebody did pay the original creator to do that as a service, but I bought the result as a product.
So in reference to this topic of used-games and why so many people are up in arms and when it can get so heated with supporters of used-games being 'entitled' or 'don't care about developer money' is that in this debate they're the ones on the defensive, they're the ones with something to lose. Things that are currently perceived as products are being turned into what's being perceived as services and in that process a component of value is lost - the consideration of ownership and its transferability.
I'd personally love to believe in a glorious Star Trek future where there is no concept of ownership or separated worth of products or services, but that would require the very kind of pure communism where nobody cares for anything but each other, where their personal lives are rewarded by serving their own purpose happily. But I can't right now because anybody who wants to push such an agenda is doing it for MONEY and CONTROL.
tldr: some of us don't look forwards to a convenient service/subscription/cloud/streaming etc. because it doesn't offer anything better than what we currently enjoy.
You don't own the content. That's a common mistake since it appears to the uninformed that you own it if you control it. As a consumer, you own that particular copy, but the content is no one's property. Copyright is a distribution monopoly, the content is on loan to the artist to exploit for profit and after the term expires, they lose their monopoly. But that's only how the law sees it. Set laws aside for a moment. Your ownership of the content as a consumer exists only so long as you possess it. You either have it or you don't. That's as far as it goes.
A service doesn't have to be something that disappears after it's completed. Construction is a service. Landscaping is a service. A service is actually the act of changing one thing into another, such as games. Repair services aren't paying for your stuff twice, what you get is something that was broken turned into something that works. Games are ideas that have been transformed into an expression. Then the developers, under contract, transfers the copyrights to the publisher, a distributor.
Offering content as a service is actually better for everybody but the publisher. Publishers are middlemen. A direct transaction between artist and audience means that the artist keeps more profit and the audience gets content that suits their tastes, not what the publishers think will hit the widest demographic. It allows people of all levels of means to contribute money towards the creation of the content. The artist has the power to decide when he creates and for how much. Nobody can take away sales from the artist because his income doesn't come from sales, it comes from his audience. It would make commercial infringement pointless and without profit.
I have to beg to differ with your assertion that fixing a data to a physical medium makes it into a product. That data is technically separable from the medium and therefore is not actually part of any product. It is a product in the sense that it is the product of labor, but it does not exist as a commodity as food or clothing is considered a commodity. A valuable commodity is an exclusive and rivalrous good. This means it has to be scarce in supply, which software is not. It's abundant. Any thing that is abundant drives down demand until the price reaches an equilibrium with the supply, which is zero. Now contrast that with labor, which is a product of work over time. Time is very scarce and only a finite amount of work can be done in a given unit of time.
I also disagree with the notion that concepts of ownership and transferability are lost, they where never really there in the first place and were actually artificially created. Like I said before, you're thinking of games as a commodity and they're not. That's the thing with used games, the industry doesn't want them treated as goods that can be traded, yet they place restrictions on the very traits that make that true and they become a commodity through physical media. Take away physical media restriction such as DRM and the software looses all existence as a commodity again. Actually if content became service oriented, physical media from the creator could become a premium good for those that have to have a box and disc to collect. It could have some added value extras like hand signed copies or a USB drive styled with art from the game.
tl;dr
It actually does create value we didn't previously have because it allows for more choice, convenience, and freedom.
Overlord we've been through all this and I'm not trying to make you change your mind or anything. I'm just trying to 'translate' for you. On behalf of all of the people who quite literally do not see this situation the way you do I'm trying to explain why they are upset. I'm not the only person out there that thinks of their collection of movies/games whatever as products. Misguided or not, this is what governs their sense of value regarding such things. We've already agreed to disagree before, I only reply because I'm concerned that you think it's ok to brush aside people's concerns about the transformation of service/product because they are being silly ning-nongs and should totally get the 'common sense' you offer.
You should also note that the majority of things you have replied to in your last post were not what I was claiming, you should re-read it. I apologise because I know that I am not the best communicator.
I never said I own the IP or the idea or the expression. I was indeed only referring to owing a 'copy' but to me owning a copy is one-up from owing a license. I am not misinformed, I do know about the lack of ownership an EULA describes, and I flagrantly disregard it because I do not treat my things that way and nobody can police that... until they start locking things like the Xbox One is designed to do.
Construction is a service, but the result is a building that a person owns. If that person sells that building, the new owner has paid for no service. This is not necessarily a second-hand sale because business allows the building to be constructed solely for the purpose of first sale if need be. (we've totally had this discussion in another thread already)
I also was not complaining about the great new ways to support artist directly without middlemen. I don't even care about the middlemen, they can have as many as they want. I just want the end result: the thing the artist makes. It doesn't matter who I traded money with to get it, or if I did it before it was made.
I still disagree that finite commodity makes a product. A product is a thing somebody can have. It doesn't have to be scarce in supply it just has be something a consumer wants. If they don't want to be a pirate then they will trade money for that thing. It doesn't matter if everyone else can trade money for that thing and the makers will never run out.
It also doesn't matter that the ownership and transferability are artificial, they retain value and will still be lost. Actually instead of just firing at each other with our definitions I'll ask a question: In this (admittedly nice) future, how would someone exercise transferability? If I 'bought' a game/license/whatever and then felt that I could bear to lose it in exchange for something... like cash: what would I do?
*(especially since as you say there could be cool physical special editions which if you ask me would rock the boat of this productless future)
*(and don't say "you can't" because that's exactly what people currently enjoy and are complaining that they will be losing!)
It also doesn't matter that the ownership and transferability are artificial, they retain value and will still be lost. Actually instead of just firing at each other with our definitions I'll ask a question: In this (admittedly nice) future, how would someone exercise transferability? If I 'bought' a game/license/whatever and then felt that I could bear to lose it in exchange for something... like cash: what would I do?
*(especially since as you say there could be cool physical special editions which if you ask me would rock the boat of this productless future)
*(and don't say "you can't" because that's exactly what people currently enjoy and are complaining that they will be losing!)
In this service-oriented future, nobody would buy copies, so this need to have transferability wouldn't exist. That's where I think you're getting confused. The content would not have any resale value because such a thing would be free to share. The thing that is paid for is the artist's time spent in creating it, which is basically what we already have, except the publisher pays the artist rather than the audience. Consider, if you will, that you're an artist and you currently make, for example, $50K a year. Then logically, any project that would take up a year of your time would be worth $50K for your contribution. If you keep putting in your 40 hours a week and get your regular salary, what would you or your friends care if people share around that work? It's free advertising and you're already getting paid what you ask for. I would think everybody would be happy. Then, you don't need to ascribe a commodity value to content you make or consume. The commodity being traded is time.
As a consumer, you pay the artist for the time you don't want to invest in creating for yourself. That's pretty much the basic concept of a service. They get their profit and costs covered. You and everyone else gets a copy of the result. Those that paid in would get something more, similar to what DF is doing in their Kickstarter campaign.
I don't understand what is so upsetting about my comments. I'm only expressing an opinion and ideas on a potential alternative. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to agree with me, but I will do my best to persuade them. You're free to brush my ideas aside and move on without a second thought if you think it's nuts. It's as simple as, "I think we have a problem with..." and "I think the solution is...". Is that so terrible? It's just my opinion, a very thought out and elaborate opinion, but an opinion just the same. I see a social conflict and it's in my nature to try to come up with an idea that might solve it. I like to talk about social issues, especially issue nears and dear to my heart. I want the industry to survive, but I can't see it being done by fighting the changes that are coming just so the industry can stay the same as it has always been. I have seen the future and it is ubiquitous sharing. I think the industry should adapt to that, not resist it.
I will buy one, when I feel like it has the lineup we all want
Right there with you, for all the new systems. I've been holding off on the WiiU until they get a larger lineup of games to play, and I'll do the same with the PS4 and the XB:One. E3 is painfully close.
I don't understand what is so upsetting about my comments. I'm only expressing an opinion and ideas on a potential alternative. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to agree with me, but I will do my best to persuade them. You're free to brush my ideas aside and move on without a second thought if you think it's nuts. It's as simple as, "I think we have a problem with..." and "I think the solution is...". Is that so terrible? It's just my opinion, a very thought out and elaborate opinion, but an opinion just the same. I see a social conflict and it's in my nature to try to come up with an idea that might solve it. I like to talk about social issues, especially issue nears and dear to my heart. I want the industry to survive, but I can't see it being done by fighting the changes that are coming just so the industry can stay the same as it has always been. I have seen the future and it is ubiquitous sharing. I think the industry should adapt to that, not resist it.
That's fine, we all get to express our opinions and I don't want to be the first to squash that freedom. It's so very difficult to be sure of each others tone and intent through the Internet forum.
I don't think your vision is nuts. I just don't want it to happen. Not because it isn't nice, but because right now it simply won't, simply can't. It doesn't just require systems like the Internet and Kickstarter to work out, it needs guys like me to completely change their world-view. We can't have the people who treat the world of these artworks as products living with the people who treat them as services: one side of the consumer base will always be upset and disappointed.
Right now the majority is centred on product since their world-view is "haves and have nots" rather than free access for all. Right now I don't think it scales: how much is your time worth? How much is someone else's? Who is going to make that decision? In a world of free sharing, who is going to pay for it and who is not? What if I regret paying for something? What makes the difference between paying for something and getting it for free if it is already free? When does that occur? (as in for older content, when does something paid become something free?)
Most importantly right now I don't want it to happen because all the people with the power to make sweeping changes to the world I don't trust. This Xbox One is a perfect example to me of business showing me a brave new world they want where my product-oriented world is stripped of values they previously had all for the sake of them making more money. Being the fuddy-duddy that I am I simply don't trust the world to do any better than this:
-Here is a thing I made, you can buy it for $X
--I dunno I would rather pay $Y, I can get it for $Z second-hand
-Okay I will sell it for $Y and you get to own it and do what you want with including resell it and stuff
--thanks
*world continues to turn*
I appreciate your honesty and open mindedness. I only wish more people could be more forward-thinking and socially aware, like I am. It might mean a huge leap in progress. I am disappointed that so many are stuck in the past and are unwilling to loosen their grip.
Personally I think these changes will have to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. Technology is democratizing the content industry to the point that the only barrier to making good content is skill and knowledge. The technology is accessible to nearly everyone. A voluntary movement of people who choose to abandon the old guard and take up a new perspective is what we need going forward. Technology and abundance is going to slowly replace control and scarcity. I don't trust the old boys club either, which is why I think it has to come from us refusing to play their "game" and starting a voluntary, self-organizing model for people to join.
The XB1 is just a tiny sliver of the problem, but it does point out a glaring myopic perspective on how to handle the coming age of abundance.
I appreciate your honesty and open mindedness. I only wish more people could be more forward-thinking and socially aware, like I am. It might mean a huge leap in progress. I am disappointed that so many are stuck in the past and are unwilling to loosen their grip.
Personally I think these changes will have to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. Technology is democratizing the content industry to the point that the only barrier to making good content is skill and knowledge. The technology is accessible to nearly everyone. A voluntary movement of people who choose to abandon the old guard and take up a new perspective is what we need going forward. Technology and abundance is going to slowly replace control and scarcity. I don't trust the old boys club either, which is why I think it has to come from us refusing to play their "game" and starting a voluntary, self-organizing model for people to join.
The XB1 is just a tiny sliver of the problem, but it does point out a glaring myopic perspective on how to handle the coming age of abundance.
It will be indeed be interesting to watch and see. So while you are marching forward into the bright light with optimism, I'll remain hunched-up in the dark corner clutching ideals of the nostalgic past.
Oh and I totally agree with someone mentioning that it's not going to fly how Microsoft requires Gold for (paid) services like Netflix. I just signed up for Netflix, and had a big "f*ck you Microsoft" moment when it turned out I needed to pay AGAIN to even be able to use Netflix on 360!
Hopefully their stance on the Gold membership will change. Paying for multiplayer is fine by me if they host the servers. Paying for accessing a web browser or Netflix is utter bullshit.
@Crazyeyes: I wouldn't get my hopes up. If the developers have to put DRM in for the XBone, there is a good chance they will also use it on PS4.
Hopefully their stance on the Gold membership will change. Paying for multiplayer is fine by me if they host the servers. Paying for accessing a web browser or Netflix is utter bullshit.
That's exactly what I was hoping to hear at the presentation. A re-imagining of Gold, in a way that was less intrusive. Live has evolved to make the console almost useless, unless you have Gold. It's the reason I haven't used my 360 in over a year, and the reason I was already planning to skip the next xbox (that, and the hardware issues of my 360).
If they had come out with a Gold announcement, that catered more to the user, than to MS, then I might have been on board with XBone. Instead, they went the opposite route, and did more to restrict the consumer. It's their choice, just like it's my choice not to buy it.
Hopefully their stance on the Gold membership will change. Paying for multiplayer is fine by me if they host the servers. Paying for accessing a web browser or Netflix is utter bullshit.
@Crazyeyes: I wouldn't get my hopes up. If the developers have to put DRM in for the XBone, there is a good chance they will also use it on PS4.
Perhaps. But, I'd rather be positively hopeful that the contrast scuttles Microsofts console biz. Or at the very least humbles them in a big way.
It seems like Sony is taking the idea of "Do the opposite of what Microsoft is doing."
It's working. They've sold me a PS4 at this point and MS lost an XBox sale. And I've been on XBox Live for damn near 10 years now. But I'll be dropping the service once the PS4 hits. This user hostile direction they're taking is extremely distasteful, IMO.
I also find it distasteful how some people will drop whatever standards they have in the face of a video game. "Well, I wasn't going to install a user hostile device in my living room with a forward facing camera and microphone but ... well, they have that game I want to play so let's do it!"
That page isn't working. Also US gets 1 to 1 pound to dollar conversions.
And currently you pay at most 40£ for a new game. Except for maybe the newest CoD or Battlefield where some retailers ask a lot more. So more than doubling seems unlikely.
Either way, f*ck that, I'm definitely not paying that sort of money!
Replies
I don't need a console for that and I don't care about Blu-ray. Blu-ray is already obsolete when compared to streaming services.
The all digital crowd isn't big enough to be a core market - the tv features are to draw the people who still subscribe to cable, roughly 50 million people in the US. You tend to forget that kids are a big market as well and parents are the gatekeepers, you can't be a successful console only focusing on the 20-30 crowd. Now if you're just coming here to convince everyone how much you don't like it personally, that takes one post, doesn't it?
As far as price - the rumored $500-$600 range is about the cost of a no contract smart phone. If we don't see contract subsidized consoles in the next generation I will eat a hat!
No, that's not true at all. It isn't the "features" TV offers, it's the lack of convenient alternatives. They make token efforts to provide digital services, but they burden it with restrictions and hold back on the content so that TV looks better by comparison. If they wanted to provide the service, they could. But they make a load of money on those excessive subscription fees and market segmentation. Why charge people once for access when you can divide it into "packages" and charge a separate price for each? So, it's not that the digital crowd isn't big enough, it's them holding it back so they don't get to be a majority.
there are already contract subsidised tablets and laptops in the UK, and i'm almost certain there are places that do consoles on them as well (or at the very least as "gifts" when you buy a shitty phone), so i don't doubt for a second that there will be contract consoles.
Both Vudu and Netflix have been streaming 1080p content. Vudu calls it HDX and Netflix calls it Ultra HD (or something along those lines). It's not exactly as good as blu ray because the bitrate is not as good, but I think it's close enough considering I don't have to get my lazy ass off the couch to put in a disc anymore.
I wasn't talking about the features being offered by a cable subscription rather the integration features on the Xbox One. Like I mentioned, there's 50 million cable subscribers in the US, the Xbox One also handles streaming media and they'll probably continue their own Movie rental/purchase system as well so it's really a bridge system.
My bluray comment was just making fun of internet idiocy - yes it can play bluray movies much like it can play pretty much every 3rd party next gen game that's been announced so far :P
I have Charter 30 Mbps, I can stream 1080p easily. There is no such thing as BR quality, BR is a storage medium and my point was that physical disc as a distribution channel is pointless when I can download an HD movie or stream it. Why bother buying a bunch of discs to clutter up your home when it can just sit on a hard drive on a server and you can just stream it? TV, BR, phone, and radio are relics of the past. They're just video and audio data to a computer. Any internet connected device can serve the function of all of those services at the same time. So why should I pay for cable? Why should I buy a console? Why do I need to buy minutes for my phone? I can do this all over the internet. The only thing I need is the internet and my PC.
so what's you're issue with the Xbox One? You never were going to buy it anyway. I don't play military shooters - hence why I don't post in threads about them, I don't lose sleep over the fact that people like them.
What are you going to do when the Internet goes down? Or services are closed (for literally whatever reason)
*oh no I have had this argument before.
I kind of suspect that the generation of Xbox after this one is going to go the other way, and be like a cable box.
You lease the console. You pay every month to have it on your shelf, all your saved games are stored in the cloud that you pay more every month to access, and if you don't pay they come and get the hardware (or bill you an obscene amount and send it to collections).
I can see Sony, Microsoft, and possibly even Nintendo going that route.
It's already happening with the 360 - I wasn't aware it went past small test markets but it's apparently been in full swing for about a year now.
The problem at present is that those 50 million cable subscribers aren't going to leap onto the XBox One right out of the gate. They might enjoy those TV integration features once they have them. But they won't be nearly enough for them to actually acquire an XBox One.
It would be a different story if the XBox One was able to serve as a cable box in its own right. But it can't, and Microsoft has confirmed this. It is just a pass-through and control unit, you can't use it as a cable box by itself. If that had been the case, than cable companies could have offered discounts on the hardware along with contract bundles. THAT would have been a great way to get the TV-consuming populace on board.
There is still some possibilty there. They could bundle the XBox One with upgraded or new cable subscriptions. That could actually work pretty well, and would be a good way to get the box in people's houses. But Microsoft is not going to be able to sell the XBox One to the TV crowd with subsidized XBox Live subscriptions. The gaming crowd might be willing to jump on a deal like that, but the TV crowd won't.
The Blu-Ray feature isn't huge, Blu-Ray players have gotten much cheaper. But it is a nice extra, and no one is going to object to it being there. I use my PS3 for Blu-Ray movies all the time. If the XBox One proves to be a capable Blu-Ray player, I could easily imagine myself using it for those purposes.
What if it was free with a 2 year cable + Live Subscription? There's a whole market of people that are intrigued by the Wii but are still confused by switching TV inputs and don't like holding controllers. My prediction is this could either be a breakout hit or the Wii U is a preview of what's to come and the sales are going to be lower in this next generation.
It represents problems that ripple throughout the industry, not just for the people that buy it, but for others that have a stake in the future of gaming. In the XB1 we have a device heavily burdened with DRM, even more than the 360 and they're tying in just about every other entertainment medium out there to it. I don't like the direction it takes us. It bodes poorly for those of us that want to be free to find entertainment from services online on our terms. This console might end up being the way all media goes for distribution and they'll be able to segment the hell out of it. I don't like that idea. It gives them the power to limit choice.
There is no way on earth that they are going to release a bundle like the one you are describing. This system is expected to be no less than $400 just by itself. They don't release phones for free that cost that much.
And bundling a Live subscription WITH a cable subscription would be a terrible idea as well. The general consumer just isn't going to want that kind of deal. They won't understand why they are being required to pay an additional subscription for their new XBox One. Trying to squeeze two different subscription packages together is going to be too much. This is especially true when Microsoft is the ONLY competitor still doing this. The Wii U and PS4 are both going to support on-line multiplayer without any additional subscription.
The latter scenario you are depicting is far more likely than the former. If the XBox one is going to succeed anywhere, it will be in the U.S. In the rest of the world it's almost dead before arrival. The PS4 will likely be quite expensive, and will have a slow road to market penetration. Sony would actually be wise to shoot for a gradual transition from the PS3 to PS4. And we've already seen that the Wii U isn't going to be the runaway smash hit that the Wii was. (no surprise there) 2013 will be a notable year for game enthusiasts, but the general consumer is hardly even going to notice these new machines. Expect PS3 and 360 sales to dominate the charts in holiday this year.
Dish gives away a "free" 16gb iPad2 (about $400 retail) to new subscribers who sign up for the Hopper. Even Google thinks it needs to give away a free Nexus 7 tablet to entice you to get their Fiber + TV package. Yes it's a long shot but MS has snuggled up with Time Warner in the past.
All of those products are regularly sold at a profit. Those prices are what happens when you sell hardware expecting to earn some degree of margin off of the sale. The prices for home gaming consoles haven't worked that way for a long time. Microsoft and Sony will be a bit more limited in terms of what kinds of discounts they will be able to offer on their hardware.
The cable + XBox Live package is a bit more likely in terms of covering the cost of an XBox One. But as I pointed out, it would be far too convoluted for the average consumer. And any such deal is going to have consumers wondering why they shouldn't just pick up a current-gen console instead of getting an XBox One.
The success and ubiquitous selection of the PS3 and 360 are going to be the biggest impediments to the next-gen consoles. (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Wii-U) All three of those options are available for $300 or less. If either Microsoft or Sony try to force a swift hardware transition, they will pay for it dearly. Expecting a slower, more gradual transition would be a much better strategy going into the holidays. While some developers are eager for the next console generation, the general consumer populace can easily squeeze a few more years out of the current offerings.
This whole debate makes me remember when I was a young fanboy declaring the PS2 would be a failure because it couldn't compete with the PC master race.
It's not going to be a slow transition like the last generation. It's going to be significantly slower.
Microsoft dropped the original XBox with the quickness. That thing was a huge burden on them, and they kicked it to the curb as soon as they could. It was one of the fastest transitions imagineable. And Nintendo dropped Gamecube support very rapidly as well. Everyone jumped over to the Wii. The PS2 was the only previous console to linger.
This time, we have a much different scenario. The Wii is the only console that has been abandoned by the market. The Wii-U stands a good chance of moving units, it just needs to get down into the $200 - $250 price range, and get some of that sweet first-party Nintendo loving.
The PS3 and 360 are still completely viable systems from the perspective of the general consumers. Neither has really dipped below the $250 range. Shift the prices on those devices a little lower, and keep the games coming, and both can continue selling strong for several more years, no problem. If either Sony or Microsoft attempt to forcefully cut off support for those systems in order to push their new devices, they will be leaving money on the table.
The PC is looking better than it has for years, but mainly due to the success and popularity of Steam. (as well as Blizzard's efforts) Steam combines a lot of the convenience that console's boast of with a very capable store front and lots of great support for developers. But PC gaming still can't match consoles for convenience. PC's will always be the go-to platform for do-it-yourself gamers, but the less technically capable will continue to gravitate toward the simpler console solution. It helps that both Microsoft and Sony seem to understand this, and have taken steps to make the update process for their new systems more convenient and less intrusive.
You could ask the same question of any service. The internet isn't unique in that regard.
I know, but I hope it illustrates why so many of us fear the turning of products into services. I know that if my Internet goes down I can enjoy any of my digital products that I have physical containers for and don't rely on Internet services. If my electricity goes down I can get a generator or read a book.
Also I'll restate my claim to my mirth at your posts since I did sound a bit flame-baiting. But I want to promot healthy discussion.
I found them funny because now I finally understand your viewpoint (thanks to previous arguments) I'm remain confounded by how you dislike closed-media practises like DRM etc. (where makers exert control) and praise creative products becoming services (where the makers exert control). That and when you bring it up you make it sound like your vision of creative works/products/services are desirable for everyone; that everyone here should see the 'truth' eg.
They are relics of the present and the concepts that govern their use are are relevant to people today.
I secede that you are likely the one looking toward the future while guys like me are looking back to the past. It's my flaw in this case, but like others who are so backward in thinking, what they see is the solution to all the problems we are arguing about here.
concepts of ownership? no problem
lend games to friends? no problem
buy/sell used games? no problem
games consoles not about games? no problem
superfluous devices that could spy on the user? no problem
But don't you see? They're all services. They're only seen as products because they've been fixed to proprietary media and devices. Content is clearly a form of speech and you can't call speech a product, but speaking is a service. Yes, providing a service does put control in the hands of the one performing the service, but it also frees everyone else to view the results not as a product, but a marketing tool for that service. DRM is antithetical to providing good services and maintaining strong social connections with the audience.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with physical storage, just proprietary physical storage. I see nothing bad about downloading your favorite movies, music, and books to your preferred device. It would actually add value if you could. Streaming is just a convenient way to avoid filling your hard drive with content that could be better stored on a server. If your internet does go down, you would likely have your local games, movies, TV shows, and music to keep you. You don't have to stream everything. Mainly TV shows and movies you don't want to keep offline. I've never personally seen any downtime since I got away from DSL and went with cable (yes, I use cable for my ISP, just not their TV).
Well I do agree that the things we perceive as products were created by services and do agree that the bound container allows us to reign in artistic works provided by services as products, but where I feel our point of difference lies is in the value of these perceptions.
To me a service is something that you pay for that disappears when the work is complete and is therefore unable to be perceived as an ownable product. To me, when I get a plumber in to fix my sink, I'm not paying for a new sink, or paying for my old sink again; instead I am paying for the plumber's time and action to the duration of my desired budget or result, of which disappears from my use once my sink is functioning.
Indeed a game or film may have been created by people who were spending time and action into some form of result, but by transferring that into a package: something that represents "completion", it can be assigned value as a product.
Perceptions change immediately -
What is this thing worth?
Not the accumulated hours of value claimed by its makers. But instead the value the user claims it is worth in trade.
Do I own it?
Yes, it takes up 'space' (digital as well) within my purveyed land.
That is something that I value, it makes an important variable in my decision to trade money and consume content.
To me a piece of data I own on a disc is no different from a piece of data I own on a HDD or server (with the exception that the disc also has attributable value on its own). As far as I am concerned with buying these 'products' is that I didn't pay for for somebody to arrange 1s and 0s in '010011100111000010110' but instead I own an arrangement of 1s and 0s as '010011100111000010110' Yes somebody did pay the original creator to do that as a service, but I bought the result as a product.
So in reference to this topic of used-games and why so many people are up in arms and when it can get so heated with supporters of used-games being 'entitled' or 'don't care about developer money' is that in this debate they're the ones on the defensive, they're the ones with something to lose. Things that are currently perceived as products are being turned into what's being perceived as services and in that process a component of value is lost - the consideration of ownership and its transferability.
I'd personally love to believe in a glorious Star Trek future where there is no concept of ownership or separated worth of products or services, but that would require the very kind of pure communism where nobody cares for anything but each other, where their personal lives are rewarded by serving their own purpose happily. But I can't right now because anybody who wants to push such an agenda is doing it for MONEY and CONTROL.
tldr: some of us don't look forwards to a convenient service/subscription/cloud/streaming etc. because it doesn't offer anything better than what we currently enjoy.
You don't own the content. That's a common mistake since it appears to the uninformed that you own it if you control it. As a consumer, you own that particular copy, but the content is no one's property. Copyright is a distribution monopoly, the content is on loan to the artist to exploit for profit and after the term expires, they lose their monopoly. But that's only how the law sees it. Set laws aside for a moment. Your ownership of the content as a consumer exists only so long as you possess it. You either have it or you don't. That's as far as it goes.
A service doesn't have to be something that disappears after it's completed. Construction is a service. Landscaping is a service. A service is actually the act of changing one thing into another, such as games. Repair services aren't paying for your stuff twice, what you get is something that was broken turned into something that works. Games are ideas that have been transformed into an expression. Then the developers, under contract, transfers the copyrights to the publisher, a distributor.
Offering content as a service is actually better for everybody but the publisher. Publishers are middlemen. A direct transaction between artist and audience means that the artist keeps more profit and the audience gets content that suits their tastes, not what the publishers think will hit the widest demographic. It allows people of all levels of means to contribute money towards the creation of the content. The artist has the power to decide when he creates and for how much. Nobody can take away sales from the artist because his income doesn't come from sales, it comes from his audience. It would make commercial infringement pointless and without profit.
I have to beg to differ with your assertion that fixing a data to a physical medium makes it into a product. That data is technically separable from the medium and therefore is not actually part of any product. It is a product in the sense that it is the product of labor, but it does not exist as a commodity as food or clothing is considered a commodity. A valuable commodity is an exclusive and rivalrous good. This means it has to be scarce in supply, which software is not. It's abundant. Any thing that is abundant drives down demand until the price reaches an equilibrium with the supply, which is zero. Now contrast that with labor, which is a product of work over time. Time is very scarce and only a finite amount of work can be done in a given unit of time.
I also disagree with the notion that concepts of ownership and transferability are lost, they where never really there in the first place and were actually artificially created. Like I said before, you're thinking of games as a commodity and they're not. That's the thing with used games, the industry doesn't want them treated as goods that can be traded, yet they place restrictions on the very traits that make that true and they become a commodity through physical media. Take away physical media restriction such as DRM and the software looses all existence as a commodity again. Actually if content became service oriented, physical media from the creator could become a premium good for those that have to have a box and disc to collect. It could have some added value extras like hand signed copies or a USB drive styled with art from the game.
tl;dr
It actually does create value we didn't previously have because it allows for more choice, convenience, and freedom.
You should also note that the majority of things you have replied to in your last post were not what I was claiming, you should re-read it. I apologise because I know that I am not the best communicator.
I never said I own the IP or the idea or the expression. I was indeed only referring to owing a 'copy' but to me owning a copy is one-up from owing a license. I am not misinformed, I do know about the lack of ownership an EULA describes, and I flagrantly disregard it because I do not treat my things that way and nobody can police that... until they start locking things like the Xbox One is designed to do.
Construction is a service, but the result is a building that a person owns. If that person sells that building, the new owner has paid for no service. This is not necessarily a second-hand sale because business allows the building to be constructed solely for the purpose of first sale if need be. (we've totally had this discussion in another thread already)
I also was not complaining about the great new ways to support artist directly without middlemen. I don't even care about the middlemen, they can have as many as they want. I just want the end result: the thing the artist makes. It doesn't matter who I traded money with to get it, or if I did it before it was made.
I still disagree that finite commodity makes a product. A product is a thing somebody can have. It doesn't have to be scarce in supply it just has be something a consumer wants. If they don't want to be a pirate then they will trade money for that thing. It doesn't matter if everyone else can trade money for that thing and the makers will never run out.
It also doesn't matter that the ownership and transferability are artificial, they retain value and will still be lost. Actually instead of just firing at each other with our definitions I'll ask a question: In this (admittedly nice) future, how would someone exercise transferability? If I 'bought' a game/license/whatever and then felt that I could bear to lose it in exchange for something... like cash: what would I do?
*(especially since as you say there could be cool physical special editions which if you ask me would rock the boat of this productless future)
*(and don't say "you can't" because that's exactly what people currently enjoy and are complaining that they will be losing!)
In this service-oriented future, nobody would buy copies, so this need to have transferability wouldn't exist. That's where I think you're getting confused. The content would not have any resale value because such a thing would be free to share. The thing that is paid for is the artist's time spent in creating it, which is basically what we already have, except the publisher pays the artist rather than the audience. Consider, if you will, that you're an artist and you currently make, for example, $50K a year. Then logically, any project that would take up a year of your time would be worth $50K for your contribution. If you keep putting in your 40 hours a week and get your regular salary, what would you or your friends care if people share around that work? It's free advertising and you're already getting paid what you ask for. I would think everybody would be happy. Then, you don't need to ascribe a commodity value to content you make or consume. The commodity being traded is time.
As a consumer, you pay the artist for the time you don't want to invest in creating for yourself. That's pretty much the basic concept of a service. They get their profit and costs covered. You and everyone else gets a copy of the result. Those that paid in would get something more, similar to what DF is doing in their Kickstarter campaign.
I don't understand what is so upsetting about my comments. I'm only expressing an opinion and ideas on a potential alternative. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to agree with me, but I will do my best to persuade them. You're free to brush my ideas aside and move on without a second thought if you think it's nuts. It's as simple as, "I think we have a problem with..." and "I think the solution is...". Is that so terrible? It's just my opinion, a very thought out and elaborate opinion, but an opinion just the same. I see a social conflict and it's in my nature to try to come up with an idea that might solve it. I like to talk about social issues, especially issue nears and dear to my heart. I want the industry to survive, but I can't see it being done by fighting the changes that are coming just so the industry can stay the same as it has always been. I have seen the future and it is ubiquitous sharing. I think the industry should adapt to that, not resist it.
Right there with you, for all the new systems. I've been holding off on the WiiU until they get a larger lineup of games to play, and I'll do the same with the PS4 and the XB:One. E3 is painfully close.
That's fine, we all get to express our opinions and I don't want to be the first to squash that freedom. It's so very difficult to be sure of each others tone and intent through the Internet forum.
I don't think your vision is nuts. I just don't want it to happen. Not because it isn't nice, but because right now it simply won't, simply can't. It doesn't just require systems like the Internet and Kickstarter to work out, it needs guys like me to completely change their world-view. We can't have the people who treat the world of these artworks as products living with the people who treat them as services: one side of the consumer base will always be upset and disappointed.
Right now the majority is centred on product since their world-view is "haves and have nots" rather than free access for all. Right now I don't think it scales: how much is your time worth? How much is someone else's? Who is going to make that decision? In a world of free sharing, who is going to pay for it and who is not? What if I regret paying for something? What makes the difference between paying for something and getting it for free if it is already free? When does that occur? (as in for older content, when does something paid become something free?)
Most importantly right now I don't want it to happen because all the people with the power to make sweeping changes to the world I don't trust. This Xbox One is a perfect example to me of business showing me a brave new world they want where my product-oriented world is stripped of values they previously had all for the sake of them making more money. Being the fuddy-duddy that I am I simply don't trust the world to do any better than this:
-Here is a thing I made, you can buy it for $X
--I dunno I would rather pay $Y, I can get it for $Z second-hand
-Okay I will sell it for $Y and you get to own it and do what you want with including resell it and stuff
--thanks
*world continues to turn*
I appreciate your honesty and open mindedness. I only wish more people could be more forward-thinking and socially aware, like I am. It might mean a huge leap in progress. I am disappointed that so many are stuck in the past and are unwilling to loosen their grip.
Personally I think these changes will have to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. Technology is democratizing the content industry to the point that the only barrier to making good content is skill and knowledge. The technology is accessible to nearly everyone. A voluntary movement of people who choose to abandon the old guard and take up a new perspective is what we need going forward. Technology and abundance is going to slowly replace control and scarcity. I don't trust the old boys club either, which is why I think it has to come from us refusing to play their "game" and starting a voluntary, self-organizing model for people to join.
The XB1 is just a tiny sliver of the problem, but it does point out a glaring myopic perspective on how to handle the coming age of abundance.
It will be indeed be interesting to watch and see. So while you are marching forward into the bright light with optimism, I'll remain hunched-up in the dark corner clutching ideals of the nostalgic past.
Lets be friends
http://tech2.in.com/news/console/sony-officially-states-that-playstation-4-will-not-have-drm-against-used-games/875088
Oh and I totally agree with someone mentioning that it's not going to fly how Microsoft requires Gold for (paid) services like Netflix. I just signed up for Netflix, and had a big "f*ck you Microsoft" moment when it turned out I needed to pay AGAIN to even be able to use Netflix on 360!
@Crazyeyes: I wouldn't get my hopes up. If the developers have to put DRM in for the XBone, there is a good chance they will also use it on PS4.
That's exactly what I was hoping to hear at the presentation. A re-imagining of Gold, in a way that was less intrusive. Live has evolved to make the console almost useless, unless you have Gold. It's the reason I haven't used my 360 in over a year, and the reason I was already planning to skip the next xbox (that, and the hardware issues of my 360).
If they had come out with a Gold announcement, that catered more to the user, than to MS, then I might have been on board with XBone. Instead, they went the opposite route, and did more to restrict the consumer. It's their choice, just like it's my choice not to buy it.
Perhaps. But, I'd rather be positively hopeful that the contrast scuttles Microsofts console biz. Or at the very least humbles them in a big way.
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-Xbox-One-Console/dp/B00BE4OUBG/ref=sr_tr_sr_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1370260314&sr=1-1&keywords=xbox+one"]Microsoft Xbox One Console (Xbox One): Amazon.co.uk: PC & Video Games[/ame]
edit:link broken
I also find it distasteful how some people will drop whatever standards they have in the face of a video game. "Well, I wasn't going to install a user hostile device in my living room with a forward facing camera and microphone but ... well, they have that game I want to play so let's do it!"
That page isn't working. Also US gets 1 to 1 pound to dollar conversions.
And currently you pay at most 40£ for a new game. Except for maybe the newest CoD or Battlefield where some retailers ask a lot more. So more than doubling seems unlikely.
Either way, f*ck that, I'm definitely not paying that sort of money!
£40 is low for a game RRP in the UK, most RRP for £45, unless you're COD, then you RRP for £55 because greed.
"Please note that Microsoft has yet to announce cost prices for Xbox One products."
Stay calm.
Bla bla, paranoia, tinfoil hats etc: This is a bit worrying in itself.