Callonia wrote...
Schroude wrote...
Callonia wrote...
Schroude wrote...
Callonia wrote...
Jonny107 wrote...
Well, if it's naked ladies you want, I'm pretty sure Microsoft added some type of flash player to play more online videos, thus meaning more porn sites. Also, if its the gaming part that you're worried about, they said that they were going to release much more about the gaming experience at E3 in June.
Does the part where you pay for license to play a game fail you?
It means you don't own the game, you're "renting".
Clearly you missed the big fucking memo on how all commercial virtual goods are sold. Whenever you purchase any piece of software you are likely only getting a "license" to use that software, you don't actually own any of it. If you did that would mean you could just rip the code, put a different name on the product, call it your own and redistribute it. It doesn't matter whether you get your game from a retail store, Steam, D2D or any other outlet, you're only getting a license to use it and if you go against the terms of the license you no longer get to use the fucking product.
/rage
I'm well aware of it.
Then why the fuck are you shitting on them for doing something that has been going on since the inception of virtual goods?
So Dvds is virtual goods now?
So used game is to be resold as a brand new game?
You support microsoft's attempts in destroying the used game market?
You wanna pay 60$ for a used game?
Way to dodge the matter at hand, a poor attempt at saving face but whatever, I'll answer your questions anyways.
DvDs are just physical mediums for the transportation of virtual goods, when you obtain a DvD, you are obtaining a virtual good and you pay for the license to use the virtual good on the DvD, not the fucking two cent DvD. If at any time the two cent DvD becomes damaged, a new one can be shipped out to you at little cost.
No, I don't support Microsoft's attempts at destroying the used game market, because Microsoft is not destroying the used game market. Do you honestly think a company would do something as stupid as completely destroying their reputation within the electronic entertainment world? Furthermore, the title of the article is "What we
THINK we know about what Microsoft isn’t saying about the Xbox One.", not "What we
KNOW Microsoft isn’t saying about the Xbox One."
In case you missed English 101, that means everything within the article is completely unconfirmed and the writer is likely just jumping on the MS hate bandwagon to get more hits on his stupid website.
I do not want to pay $60, or $20, or $40 for a "used" game, because first and foremost, it is illegal. Within almost every game's ToU it says you are not allowed to resell the game under any circumstances, and this clause has been in almost every game's ToU since the days of the NES, probably earlier. Second, when I do that there is no legal transfer of rights over the virtual good, the person who sold me the game still has the license, not me. Part of what Microsoft is trying to do is solve that problem, so that there isn't this giant cluster-fuck of license mismanagement and contractual breaches going on.
If you want to point your finger at someone, point it at the mega-publishers like EA who are the ones pushing for Microsoft to do something about this catastrophe.