Xbox One wants you to enjoy Dorritos while it controls you.

Xbox One wants you to munch on nummy Dorritos and guzzle hedgehog piss flavored soda while it treats the consumers like a bunch of punk children and controls what it does with the purchases that they (the consumer) spent money for. It wants to own the stuff it already sold you. You get their 'permission' to play games using their video games machine that you spent $500 dollars for. It gets to check in on you every 24 hours to make sure you aren't being a little bad boy. And if you don't have a good internet connection, or live in an area that doesn't have access to good internet, then Microsoft pretty much says 'f*** you.' And yes, I did use an obscenity as I feel it's appropriate here. You can't trade in your games, you have to own them forever because they don't want you to dare do as you please with your property. They want to do what's most convenient for them, and that's controlling the consumer without any sort of benefit to themselves or others because they are scared and want convenience.

This kind of mentality that they feel that they should own the property they sold to someone is freaking scary to me. DRM for the sake of DRM. This kind of control over property is Orwellian, and it scares the living s*** out of me. It's why we have stuff like SOPA and PIPA come up. The want to control what one can and cannot do with copyrighted material, despite fair use.

But anyway enough with negative ol' me. You can get your hands on this disgusting barely edible food by going up to Major Nelson and tell him what XBOX One game you're looking forward the most. Make sure you say the PS4 exclusive Killzone Shadow Fall, that'll really make him happy! Also, don't dare share or trade in those yummy "food" items with anyone, you arew supposed to keep them forever!

Seriously people, I can't dictate how you spend your money, but please know what you're getting into here. And have a nice day.


  • Let me play Devil's Advocate to myself and combat the counter arguments that have been made against my stance.

    "Well you can't trade in movie tickets or use a meal coupon more than once. Why should you be allowed to trade in games?"

    Movies and restaurant meals are services, not products. Video games, DVDs, and the like are products. What's the difference? The former implies an intangible, non-tradeable benefit to the consumer. You obviously can't trade in a service, like a haircut for instance, as it's meant as a peer to peer thing. Person/organization provides service in exchange for benefits for the consumer. The latter, on the other hand, is an item, like jewelry, that once sold belongs to the consumer. You can trade these in as you have ownership of the property, not organization/person. Which brings us to this...

    "Used games are evil because the publisher doesn't get any profit from it."

    My gut response to this is: so? They get their profits from new games. Pawn shops I guess are the spawns of Satan. I have a friend who does work at game retail. He's pretty much forced to push pre-orders and used games. Why? Because the retailer sees about a $2 profit from a $60 game. The publisher already got their money from the consumer, the product so to speak. It no longer belongs to the publisher.

    "Getting rid of the used game market will be beneficial for gamers because publishers get more profit and therefore will lower prices."

    My gut reaction: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, this gets to me for a number of reasons. Reason Uno: You don't know how much money publishers have "lost" because of used games, all anyone can do is guess. Reason Dos: Just because publishers have destroyed their competition doesn't mean lower prices. They now have control over their market and can now do whatever they want with pricing. Will they be altruistic and lower prices? Highly, highly doubtful. Once in a position of great power, people will tend to abuse it to go as far as they can. Once retailers are gone, publishers won't be forced to adapt and change their ways. Once a monopoly is set up, it's never a good thing. It's going to be bad for the consumer. No, publishers don't want to destroy used games to benefit you, they want to destroy used games to benefit them. Reason tres: used games are the best form of advertisement a publisher can have. They show what the publisher publishes and the consumer sees how good it is and is more likely to buy new next time a game comes out from the publisher. And there is the fact that the publisher already made their money off the new game. I've seen this happen MANY times. I, myself have also done the same.

    "But-but-but-but-but Steam...."

    Yes, PC gamers don't have a used market. Steam is a service, you have to be online in order to use it, but in exchange you get great sales, great bundles, good customer service, and many other benefits. It's a great service indeed. But several things come into play here. One, it has some great competition from GOG, Origin, and lots lots more. Whereas if publishers got rid of their competition, they will no longer have to compete and adapt to their environment. And secondly, Valve have proven to be a consumer driven publisher, whereas Microsoft and other publishers....have not. They have done things to try and benefit themselves in exchange for consumer benefit in the past. There is probably more I'm missing too, but I'm tired now.

  • edited March 2014

    Hello, ThePuppetMaster,

    I'm suddenly curious to know what the urine of hedgehogs really tastes like...once it's been sanitized, and made into soda, that is. ;)

    Bye Now, Mrs. Brisby

  • MrsBrisby said:

    Hello, ThePuppetMaster,

    I'm suddenly curious to know what the urine of hedgehogs really tastes like...once it's been sanitized, and made into soda, that is. ;)

    Bye Now, Mrs. Brisby

    I said hedgehog piss "flavored" soda, not hedgehog piss soda. There's a difference :p

    Going back to the main topic, and as someone who ironically owns an Xbox One now, I'm happy that MS changed their DRM policies. That was not an easy business decision, and I thank the consumers who did backlash against these policies. While I can't exactly prove what MS was doing was ultimately anti-consumer, how they were talking and explaining it to us was very poor. They made it sound like it was all for their benefit at the cost of the consumer's trust.

    I don't think having an always online gaming scene is the way to innovate; at least not right now while internet isn't always accessible and servers aren't always stable/always online. I can't say that I'm an engineer, but I think gaming has reached its peak when it comes to innovation, meaning that the only things that can be improved are visuals and performance. Maybe this virtual reality scene will take off, but as for console/PC gaming, I think any sort of "innovation" like motion controls are worthless.

Sign In or Register to comment.