Support NeoGAF

[MogCakes]

Can we stop saying "anti consumer" when we actually mean "bad value proposition"?

Anti consumer implies that a company is misleading, changing the rules for existing customers or being otherwise duplicitous. None of that applies here - they've not launched the product and the reason you're here complaining about it is because they've informed you prior to purchase of the limitations imposed. You are not forced to buy this. You are an adult who can presumably weigh up the pros and cons of each purchase you make.




And to answer your question; yes. If this sharing mechanism works as per the official word to date, then yes many people will want to buy the Xbox One. You see a lot of people defend Steam because while there are no trade-ins, the value for money of the service is quite high. A large swathe of people here don't really care about "customer rights" - they care about value for money.

And that's frankly very sad. But, I'm not going to harp on you for your choice. Not here at least. I WILL combat you on calling it anti-consumer however, because no matter how you spin it, taking away private reselling of the game discs is anti-consumer. Full-digital cuts out the physical disc and the associated expectations and wouldn't run into this problem. But the discs exist, and so the expectation of being able to do what we want with them is there. Not everyone feels this way, obviously, as you and others that share your viewpoint have asserted, but MANY people do, and it's evident. MS's policies with the Xbox One are both anti-consumer and by default a bad value proposition to a great number of people; the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Eh... I don't think it is a good idea to discard OFFICIAL communication channels. So far the countless contradictions and ambiguities only reinforce the idea that we should wait for a formal, concrete and official response before making any decision.

The Xbox Support twitter has a record of being unreliable, and it makes sense because...it's a support twitter. The employees running it won't know a whole lot of stuff we don't already know about the system.

 

[Walshicus]

And that's frankly very sad. But, I'm not going to harp on you for your choice. Not here at least. I WILL combat you on calling it anti-consumer however, because no matter how you spin it, taking away private reselling of the game discs is anti-consumer. Full-digital cuts out the physical disc and the associated expectations and wouldn't run into this problem. But the discs exist, and so the expectation of being able to do what we want with them is there. Not everyone feels this way, obviously, as you and others that share your viewpoint have asserted, but MANY people do, and it's evident. MS's policies with the Xbox One are both anti-consumer and by default a bad value proposition to a great number of people; the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

And we come back to the Steam argument where you can't sell your retail discs (in a usable state anyway) or your digital purchases, but it's okay because the value the service offers is so good.

And they're not taking away rights, because you've never HAD the right to freely distribute your Xbox One game licenses. Nobody here HAS an Xbox One and nobody here will be forced to buy an Xbox One.

 

[Alx]

taking away private reselling of the game discs is anti-consumer. Full-digital cuts out the physical disc and the associated expectations and wouldn't run into this problem. But the discs exist, and so the expectation of being able to do what we want with them is there. Not everyone feels this way, obviously, as you and others that share your viewpoint have asserted, but MANY people do, and it's evident.

Like you say, it's a matter of perception. If it was a real right, what MS offers would be illegal and we wouldn't have all those discussions. It's not about consumers right. It's about what consumers consider are their rights, which is no written rule.
So in the end it does come down to value for money. "If I pay for a game, I think I should be able to do that. If I can't, no deal." What you can and cannot do with your game is part of its value.

 

[Nutter]

anyone still interested in actually buying this anti consumer product? I cant for the life of me understand why anyone would want to hand over their hard earned money to this anti consumer company.

The next time you use a PC with Windows, just remember you are helping support an anti-consumer company.

 

[tafer]

The Xbox Support twitter has a record of being unreliable, and it makes sense because...it's a support twitter. The employees running it won't know a whole lot of stuff we don't already know about the system.

After checking other threads looks like you are right about their shabby record, however, I still think we should wait for a formal and hopefully concrete answer.

Like you say, it's a matter of perception. If it was a real right, what MS offers would be illegal and we wouldn't have all those discussions. It's not about consumers right. It's about what consumers consider are their rights, which is no written rule.
So in the end it does come down to value for money. "If I pay for a game, I think I should be able to do that. If I can't, no deal." What you can and cannot do with your game is part of its value.

The first sale doctrine is a thing and it's part of the law.

 

[Joco]

I feel like publishers will potentially be more opposed to this than used game sales...

 

[MogCakes]

And we come back to the Steam argument where you can't sell your retail discs (in a usable state anyway) or your digital purchases, but it's okay because the value the service offers is so good.

Like you say, it's a matter of perception. If it was a real right, what MS offers would be illegal and we wouldn't have all those discussions. It's not about consumers right. It's about what consumers consider are their rights, which is no written rule.
So in the end it does come down to value for money. "If I pay for a game, I think I should be able to do that. If I can't, no deal." What you can and cannot do with your game is part of its value.

You make good points. However, if that is the case, then to people who believe they should have freedom to do what they will with their game discs, such policies are anti-consumer; people who make the trade-off do not see it as anti-consumer. In which case, you can't tell someone to stop calling it anti-consumer if they feel it is.

 

[Walshicus]

The first sale doctrine is a thing and it's part of the law.

You're free to sell the disc for as much as anyone will pay for it.

You make good points. However, if that is the case, then to people who believe they should have freedom to do what they will with their game discs, such policies are anti-consumer; people who make the trade-off do not see it as anti-consumer. In which case, you can't tell someone to stop calling it anti-consumer if they feel it is.

But they're not being mislead. It's not anti-consumer because when or if they purchase the system they will have decided to agree with the limitations set therein. If they don't agree then they won't buy the system. Owning a games console isn't a right and you don't have to buy an Xbox One.

 

[MogCakes]

You're free to sell the disc for as much as anyone will pay for it.

Except you can't. You can only trade it in at approved retailers. Private reselling is impossible with the Xbox One.

But they're not being mislead. It's not anti-consumer because when or if they purchase the system they will have decided to agree with the limitations set therein. If they don't agree then they won't buy the system. Owning a games console isn't a right and you don't have to buy an Xbox One.

Being able to privately resell and lend discs is a right, which the XB1 doesn't allow. Saying 'you don't have to buy it' doesn't mean anything; If reselling cars was suddenly restricted to turning them in to dealerships, saying 'you don't have to buy it. You could just ride the train' would make people furious.

 

[tafer]

You're free to sell the disc for as much as anyone will pay for it.

But the disc lacks value thanks to an artificial imposition.

But they're not being mislead. It's not anti-consumer because when or if they purchase the system they will have decided to agree with the limitations set therein. If they don't agree then they won't buy the system. Owning a games console isn't a right and you don't have to buy an Xbox One.

The whole cloud thing is quite misleading.

 

[ShinobiFist]

And we come back to the Steam argument where you can't sell your retail discs (in a usable state anyway) or your digital purchases, but it's okay because the value the service offers is so good.

And they're not taking away rights, because you've never HAD the right to freely distribute your Xbox One game licenses. Nobody here HAS an Xbox One and nobody here will be forced to buy an Xbox One.

I bought Riddick DRM free from GOG. Other options besides Steam. And the biggest gripe that I have and others as well is the 24hr check in. That right there is fucking bullshit. And no way anyone can defend that non sense.

 

[Walshicus]

Except you can't. You can only trade it in at approved retailers. Private reselling is impossible with the Xbox One.

I can walk down the street and sell an Xbox One disc to ANYONE I want.

Being able to privately resell and lend discs is a right, which the XB1 doesn't allow.

You can still do that.

But the disc lacks value thanks to an artificial imposition.

The disc has no (effective) value. The license bundled with the disc has value.

I bought Riddick DRM free from GOG. Other options besides Steam. And the biggest gripe that I have and others as well is the 24hr check in. That right there is fucking bullshit. And no way anyone can defend that non sense.

That's great; I bought Star Control 3 from there a few months back. Other options exist beside Steam just as other options exist beside Xbox One. But that doesn't stop Steam from being far more "anti-consumer" with re-sell rights than Xbox One is; though we tolerate it because as MANY people will attest, the value the service brings is so high.



So once again, it's not pro/anti consumer that's the fault line. It's high/low perception of value. And I really think that applies to all but the most hardcore of ideologues.

 

[MogCakes]

I can walk down the street and sell an Xbox One disc to ANYONE I want.


You can still do that.

Alright, let me re-paste what I edited into my upper comment.

Saying 'you don't have to buy it' doesn't mean anything; If reselling cars was suddenly restricted to turning them in to dealerships, saying 'you don't have to buy it. You could just ride the train' would make people furious.

You can sell an Xbox One disc to anyone, but the software won't work if it isn't deactivated from your system at an approved retailer as dictated by MS's policy on used games. That renders private reselling useless. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[Walshicus]

Alright, let me re-paste what I edited into my upper comment.

Saying 'you don't have to buy it' doesn't mean anything;

In this scenario it means everything. Games consoles are not essential goods, they're luxuries. There is no monopoly, there are rivals offering differentiated products. You haven't bought the system thinking retail works as per the last generation because it isn't out yet and because Microsoft have kept you informed as to their policies.

It isn't anti-consumer. It's just (to you) bad value for money.

If reselling cars was suddenly restricted to turning them in to dealerships, saying 'you don't have to buy it. You could just ride the train' would make people furious.

They can be furious, but provided it wasn't a new limitation imposed on older cars it wouldn't be anti-consumer. Consumers would be free to purchase new cars from a rival car manufacturer.

You can sell an Xbox One disc to anyone, but the software won't work if it isn't deactivated from your system at an approved retailer as dictated by MS's policy on used games. That renders private reselling useless. What part of that don't you understand?

None. What part of it don't you understand?

 

[MogCakes]

In this scenario it means everything. Games consoles are not essential goods, they're luxuries. There is no monopoly, there are rivals offering differentiated products. You haven't bought the system thinking retail works as per the last generation because it isn't out yet and because Microsoft have kept you informed as to their policies.

It isn't anti-consumer. It's just (to you) bad value for money.

They can be furious, but provided it wasn't a new limitation imposed on older cars it wouldn't be anti-consumer. Consumers would be free to purchase new cars from a rival car manufacturer.

Ah okay, so your argument is that because there are options, MS taking away the ability to privately resell and lend games isn't anti-consumer. That's bollocks.

http://consumerism.askdefine.com/

Anti-consumerism is the socio-political movement against consumerism. In this meaning, consumerism is the equating of personal happiness with the purchasing material possessions and consumption.

Taking away those options is most definitely anti-consumer. Saying 'you don't need to buy it, you have options' doesn't make it less anti-consumer.

EDIT: Lol, used anti-consumerism instead of anti-consumer. Dumb mistake on my part. I should go to sleep instead of trying to argue longer. In fact, having read up on anti-consumerism and the actual definition of anti-consumer, you may be right, it's the wrong word to use. 'Bad value proposition' is a retarded way to put it though, and your reasoning is still bollocks for using 'options' as a crux. Just because competitor products exist doesn't mean that particular product isn't restrictive of rights granted by first sale doctrine.

 

[Walshicus]

Ah okay, so your argument is that because there are options, MS taking away the ability to privately resell and lend games isn't anti-consumer. That's bollocks.

It's not taking them away. They've never been offered with this product. You can't take away something that was never there.

 

[tafer]

Ah okay, so your argument is that because there are options, MS taking away the ability to privately resell and lend games isn't anti-consumer. That's bollocks.

http://consumerism.askdefine.com/


Taking away those options is most definitely anti-consumer. Saying 'you don't need to buy it, you have options' doesn't make it less anti-consumer.

EDIT: Lol, used anti-consumerism instead of anti-consumer. Dumb mistake on my part. I should go to sleep instead of trying to argue longer. In fact, having read up on anti-consumerism and the actual definition of anti-consumer, you may be right, it's the wrong word to use. 'Bad value proposition' is a retarded way to put it though, and your reasoning is still bollocks for using 'options' as a crux. Just because competitor products exist doesn't mean that particular product isn't restrictive of rights granted by first sale doctrine.

Curious, I'm finding that there is no such thing as "anti-consumer", or at least, there isn't a formal definition for it.

 

[MogCakes]

It's not taking them away. They've never been offered with this product. You can't take away something that was never there.

First sale doctrine isn't offered by a product, it's granted by a law. By that token, a product that doesn't allow usage of rights given by the first sale doctrine means it has taken them away. Semantics.

Curious, I'm finding that there is no such thing as "anti-consumer", or at least, there isn't a formal definition for it.

Yeah, the way people use it seems to have 'defined' it, but there's no actual word definition. Funny that.

EDIT: In any case, we should get back on topic.

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

Damn, this seals it for me. XBOne day one. I was off the band wagon too. I don't even care if only 1 person can play at 1 time. If their entire library opens up to me and vice versa. Holy crap. I can play games they bought years ago that I never got around to. Most people only play a few games at a time... lots of people spend all their time on their current game of choice. This would open up all their past games to me and when they move on from their current game, I'll play it. For free I can wait a few weeks/months/even years.

Holy shit this is a deal maker for me in a BIG BIG way! I can have access to 10 friends libraries at once. A lot of games will be doubled up with 10 people, so even if 1 person is playing the latest game, Joe Shmoe is at work and his version is there for me to play now.

I don't like DRM at all and online checks sucks. But to be completely honest, this would never ever cause a real issue for me. I've been online 100% of the time for years and years now. I don't like the idea, but it would not actually ever affect me in any way. At all. So it was more of a principle thing that made me jump out. But this 10 person family thing puts me in right now and in a HUGE way. This is fucking SWEET!

You don't even know for sure how this works yet, but you are already over this like fat guy on a pizza...

 

[mhayze]

I'm definitely interested in the fine print here. Could mean a lot of different things..

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

http://i.imgur.com/zPVV1u3.png

This totally contradicts itself. First he says that you can play your games on any console with your profile and Your family can play any games in the library ON YOUR CONSOLE (so that totally disagrees with your family member being "3000 miles away"

Then next he says the 6 different family members and 6 games on 6 consoles.

The guys there are either stupid as fuck or are completely clueless or have a mission to confuse people.

 

[RevDM]

This requires at least 10 people to purchase the Xbone. The idea is flawed already.

 

[statham]

you guys really need to stop with the xboxsupport posts.

 

[derFeef]

is there a list so we can friend each other to already be set for gaf-game sharing?

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

Like you say, it's a matter of perception. If it was a real right, what MS offers would be illegal and we wouldn't have all those discussions. It's not about consumers right. It's about what consumers consider are their rights, which is no written rule.
So in the end it does come down to value for money. "If I pay for a game, I think I should be able to do that. If I can't, no deal." What you can and cannot do with your game is part of its value.

:/ are you serious mate? In Europe rights are rights, they are not what we CONSIDER to be our rights, they are fixed and most of them are pro-consumer.

Never understood why americans don't stand up and fight against these anti-consumer bullshit.

 

[op_ivy]

is there a list so we can friend each other to already be set for gaf-game sharing?

when there is we should try to match up in various time zones. would be pretty cool for me in the US to share with someone in europe (assuming that is allowed what with region locking) as the times we'd be likely to play wouldnt overlap much.

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

The next time you use a PC with Windows, just remember you are helping support an anti-consumer company.

I have a Mac. Oh wait... That isn't any better is it? FUCK

 

[Epcott]

Only 10 people over a period of 6-7 years of owning an Xbox One?

Oh MS, how generous you are! That's almost like, 2 people a year!

 

[Danneee]

I really hope that this is how it is supposed to work but with all the DRM debacle is seems unlikely.
I don't think I know even 2 people who are going to buy it anyhow but for a lot of people I can see how it would justify a purchase.

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

I can walk down the street and sell an Xbox One disc to ANYONE I want.

O RLY!? and who would buy that? Is anyone stupid enought to pay YOU for a useless piece of plastic (provided you already installed it on you xbone), and then PAY the FULL PRICE again?
You and me live in very different world my friend.

 

[Alx]

Only 10 people over a period of 6-7 years of owning an Xbox One?

Oh MS, how generous you are! That's almost like, 2 people a year!

It's about friends and family. You don't change those every year...

 

[BigDug13]

Anti is a prefix meaning against. Consumer is me and you. Microsoft's policies are against the vast majority of consumer desires. Anti-consumer.

 

[Alx]

Anti is a prefix meaning against. Consumer is me and you. Microsoft's policies are against the vast majority of consumer desires. Anti-consumer.

That's the keyword here. Not against the consumers, but against their desires.
You can label it unpopular, or anti-trendy. Anti-customer it isn't.
Besides, not all of the strategy is in contradiction of the consumer desires. There are pros and cons, that are meant to balance themselves.

 

[EvilFiek]

That I have to pay 60$ for a new game is very much against my desire to pay nothing for them. Such anti-consumerist policies!

 

[Vyse The Legend]

That's the keyword here. Not against the consumers, but against their desires.
You can label it unpopular, or anti-trendy. Anti-customer it isn't.
Besides, not all of the strategy is in contradiction of the consumer desires. There are pros and cons, that are meant to balance themselves.

You're arguing semantics. Against desires/feelings/thoughts/hopes/wishes is still anti-consumer.

Right now, this is the only benefit to Microsoft's system: being able to share your library with a friend. However, it is odd that they haven't advertised this benefit yet. Plus, CBoat said that one of their DRM policies was worse than their letting on, and he was right about everything else he predicted, so... I'm remaining skeptical on this benefit, and taking a wait-and-see approach for now. I could see some publishers placing restrictions on this functionality.

 

[Fruitster]

As it is, this sounds like a great perk. It being Microsoft however, I can't believe it'll actually work like this in practice.

 

[Alx]

You're arguing semantics.

Of couse I'm arguing semantics. We were discussing whether "anti-consumer" is the appropriate term. That's nothing else but a semantics question.
The starting point :

Can we stop saying "anti consumer" when we actually mean "bad value proposition"?

 

[tfur]

It is because it is anti consumer, that it is a bad value proposition.

 

[RevDM]

Only 10 people over a period of 6-7 years of owning an Xbox One?

Oh MS, how generous you are! That's almost like, 2 people a year!

Look how long 360/PS3 lasted. This is will likely be a 10-15 year generation, with updated hardware 2.0 versions coming out periodically.

 

[Klocker]

In this scenario it means everything. Games consoles are not essential goods, they're luxuries. There is no monopoly, there are rivals offering differentiated products. You haven't bought the system thinking retail works as per the last generation because it isn't out yet and because Microsoft have kept you informed as to their policies.

It isn't anti-consumer. It's just (to you) bad value for money.


They can be furious, but provided it wasn't a new limitation imposed on older cars it wouldn't be anti-consumer. Consumers would be free to purchase new cars from a rival car manufacturer.



None. What part of it don't you understand?

finally someone using logic and reason

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

finally someone using logic and reason

Sounds more like glorified PR.

 

[Klocker]

Sounds more like glorified PR.

That's just what logic sounds like to people who are being illogical
and unreasonable

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

That's just what logic sounds like to people who are being illogical
and unreasonable

Haha, good comeback. Although I still don't agree with this. "It's not anti-consumer, it's just against your desires!!!".... What a load of bollocks..

 

[Klocker]

It is because it is anti consumer, that it is a bad value proposition.

the features they are offering in this VERY thread disprove the point of this being anti consumer.

 

[WhyIsTheRumGone]

the features they are offering in this VERY thread disprove the point of this being anti consumer.

This VERY thread is a 50+ page discussion about how it works. We DO NOT KNOW anything for sure. Hence it does not disprove anything YET.

 

[Klocker]

Clearly, we know:

1. you can have 10 people who are not related nor in your house on a "whitelist" on your machine to allow them access to SHARE all of your games.

2. those ten people can play a game from your list on their box (if they have gold) -so long as none of the other ten are playing one (to be confirmed, it might be more allowed at once)

3. As owners we can always be playing our games regardless who on the list is playing

4. It is possible we can both be playing the same game concurrently (like in a multiplayer match)

5. those ten Sharing names can be changed out (all we do not know is how often)

6. The 10 friends/family need to be on our friends list for 30 days prior to activation of sharing

7. up to 3000 miles away people can share our games (to be determined is whether they can cross regions)

 

[Flatline]

Of couse I'm arguing semantics. We were discussing whether "anti-consumer" is the appropriate term. That's nothing else but a semantics question.
The starting point :

So if it's semantics why not let people call it whatever they want? For me the best description for a console where I don't really own the games I bought is anti-consumer. Please respect it.

 

[Klocker]

So if it's semantics why not let people call it whatever they want? For me the best description for a console where I don't really own the games I bought is anti-consumer. Please respect it.

so by that definition Steam is anti consumer and digital games on PSN or X360 are anti-consumer

so is iTunes and such as we own a license for all of that intellectual property not the content




******Back on topic for new page:

Clearly, we know:

1. you can have 10 people who are not related nor in your house on a "whitelist" on your machine to allow them access to SHARE all of your games.

2. those ten people can play a game from your list on their box (if they have gold) -so long as none of the other ten are playing one (to be confirmed, it might be more allowed at once)

3. As owners we can always be playing our games regardless who on the list is playing

4. It is possible we can both be playing the same game concurrently (like in a multiplayer match)

5. those ten Sharing names can be changed out (all we do not know is how often)

6. The 10 friends/family need to be on our friends list for 30 days prior to activation of sharing

7. up to 3000 miles away people can share our games (to be determined is whether they can cross regions)

 

[Vestal]

What really pisses me off about all of this is how bad MS has been in selling their policies.

they have really stunk up the joint. This policy was around for a while why not justify some of the DRM policies through this.

example.

you will be able to share your games with up to 10 people in something we call your Xbox family. No longer will you need to give out your discs or endure playing with your friends in a split screen environment. Now everything is done digitally and across the Xbox network.

now for this policy to be in place we also need to put in some security measures to curb any abuse of this system. Your Xbox will need to check in every 24hrs to validate your library of games, also if you are playing a shared game you will need to remain online. We believe this is a small price to pay in order for us to be able to offer this great new way of sharing and playing with your friends.

I'm sure this can be massaged even better since I just wrote all that from the hip.

 

[Dabanton]

What really pisses me off about all of this is how bad MS has been in selling their policies.

they have really stunk up the joint. This policy was around for a while why not justify some of the DRM policies through this.

example.

you will be able to share your games with up to 10 people in something we call your Xbox family. No longer will you need to give out your discs or endure playing with your friends in a split screen environment. Now everything is done digitally and across the Xbox network.

now for this policy to be in place we also need to put in some security measures to curb any abuse of this system. Your Xbox will need to check in every 24hrs to validate your library of games, also if you are playing a shared game you will need to remain online. We believe this is a small price to pay in order for us to be able to offer this great new way of sharing and playing with your friends.

I'm sure this can be massaged even better since I just wrote all that from the hip.

I don't know what the fuck has happened to MS PR they've been dreadful.

Time to clear house I think. I can only imagine what monday will bring once everyone's back at Redmond from E3.

Although some execs Don Mattrick and Phil Harrison have done there own little shitshows.
How the hell they were let loose in front of the press I will never know. I'm going to guess they weren't properly read up and informed of all the policy's set in place. So were easy to trip up.

The only higher ups's who've come out of this without egg on their faces have been Phil Spencer and Yusuf Mehdi.