Soxbadger

QUOTE (Capn12 @ Jun 20, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) Its funny, because I'm sure there was a time, not too long ago, when people were saying, "Why would I ever buy a PC without a 3.5" drive in it?" or "I'll just keep this cassette deck in my car, it is way cheaper to buy music that way." Do the old methods still work? Sure, absolutely. Are they the most efficient way? Nope, not anymore. And neither is depending on physical media to be actually present, to play a game. But, that can be chalked up to opinions, and why we're discussing it on a message board, and not in a Sony/Microsoft boardroom. Record to 6 track to tape to cd. In each of those cases they were replaced by another item that I could physically buy. I dont buy music from itunes. I still buy cds of albums I really want. I want to know I have the physical media, even if it costs me a few extra dollars.

QUOTE (Capn12 @ Jun 20, 2013 -> 10:48 AM) See, I agree. Why not have the physical media version of a game, regular price. Also, a digital download version of the game, a bit cheaper, but requires the connectivity of the console, etc. Why can't that system be implemented? Clearly, they have the capabilities. I'd love to not have to keep up with physical media anymore. lol Well this is the point all along. Its never in the best interest of the customer to limit themselves, unless the cost is so great that the limit makes economic sense. I bet that if they made a no optical drive Xbox itd cost like $50 less. How many people are going to cheap out on $50 if it means that they cant use their system to play blu ray and dvd. That is basically a step back in home media integration.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jun 20, 2013 -> 10:44 AM) Why wouldn't I want a drive? It's taking up valuable space that I can use for an SSD that would actually be used everyday and make my computer run incredibly better. does not compute, wouldnt a SSD eventually replace your normal HD? Why would you want 2 types of HD and no type of optical drive? This now just seems to be an argument into absurdity to try and justify the fact that you called a Steam system (available in 2003) the future, when in fact its old tech that most gamers are seriously on the fence about even after 10 years of use. Maybe you just dont play a lot of computer games and thus arent well versed in Steam like systems, I dont know, but I personally would not buy a system/computer without an optical drive.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jun 20, 2013 -> 10:29 AM) Why would you ever need an optical drive on a computer? Boot disk in a pinch maybe? You need to install a program that is only available on disc? I buy physical copies of all my computer programs. Unless steam is considerably cheaper, I always just go to the store and buy the game, install it and then have the disk if anything goes wrong. Steam has been around since 2003, Ive had many steam games (its exactly the future system you are referring to), I just prefer to have the physical game and run it from my own computer. In fact one of my favorite games (Civilization) was kind of screwed up when it went to Steam, because Steam regulates the amount of modding, thus it was more difficult for 3rd parties to create new scenarios/etc because it was all regulated by Steam. Let me ask you a better question: Outside of cost, why would you not want an optical drive or to actually have the physical media? Why would you want someone else to have complete control over something you paid your own money for? (edit) Buerhle, I didnt realize that. All of the Civ modders were complaining about how Civ going to steam ruined it. I dont program or mod, so I just took what they said as true. And yeah, even Steam allows you to play your game offline. But that is because you dl the entire thing.

While Taylorst and Capn can insult everyone in the thread, it just does not make logical sense what they are arguing from a consumer perspective. Most reasonable people agree that choice is better than no choice. So why would anyone want to have no choice to buy a physical game and instead have to rely on a steam like system. And even though I have a steam account, I prefer to buy the games in the store and have the physical media. That way I dont have to worry about steam not working, steam screwing up or steam going out of business and not having access to the game. So yeah, there are plenty of great reasons why I would actually want to have something tangible in my possession. And if Xbox wants to make systems with no optical drive, all online, what is stopping them? Its not impossible. So you can go buy that if you want. Ill keep buying my computers with optical drives, on the off chance I might need one. Because it doesnt slow my computers performance, it doesnt make my computer all of a sudden go from good to bad, so I have no idea why it would at all impact the Xbox performance. I guess Steam has been around so long I didnt realize that was any sort of future. I thought the gaming industry realized that while some people may be okay with a steam like platform it wasnt for everyone. Saving $5-$10 per game isnt worth not having my own disk to put under my pillow at night, especially as an optical drive does other things like play dvd, blue ray, etc, so I would still rather my next generation machine could do that. Call me old fashioned though.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 19, 2013 -> 04:50 PM) The real question is how many people got the old info and never end up getting the revised info? It's always hard to change a story that gets spread around, ask every politician ever. Well the entire plan by Xbox was terrible. Something like this youd generally hide so deep in a EULA that no normal human would ever understand the consequences until they already bought the product. But for whatever reason Xbox decided that not only were they going to be upfront about this DRM stuff, but they were going to act like it was somehow advantageous to the consumer. A better strategy in general would have been to either 1) completely slow play it (if Xbox didnt tell us, would anyone even have known about the DRM today? Its not like there is some sort of disclosure law when it comes to video games) or 2) test the waters by leaking rumors and seeing the overall reaction. Either way it seems like the inmates are running the asylum over there because I assume Xboxone has been in development for years and to make such an about face shows that they dont know where they are going.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 19, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) I'd like to see PS4 answer back by re-re-clarifying their DRM policy, because if what is posted is true they become more restrictive. At least they would still let me stream movies, White Sox for free and it costs a hundred less up front. What Sony posted should be the same for Xbox. Both companies are always subject to the licensing agreement of the developer. Thus EA can make someone pay $5 for Madden Online if they really want to and Xbox/Sony arent going to get involved. Or EA can make a game that wont work if its not online, and Sony/Xbox wont get involved. Why would they? Its your call whether to buy an EA game, and if people hate this so much, it would probably behoove EA not to put any silly restrictions on it. But yeah, at least Xbox was able to see the terrible train wreck and avoid it. Which is good for us all because now Sony will have to still compete with xbox and Ill get my Ps4 cheaper.

Wisconsin gets a verbal from Austin Kafentzis http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p...amp;nid=6107423 I guess it will be interesting to see how recruiting Utah works.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 19, 2013 -> 11:27 AM) Essentially, they view it as a hipster paradise and want to bring in a really progressive culture to help rejuvenate the city. I have also seen them mention a lot about the Ilitch's buying out a ton of land and buildings in Detroit and they are worried that the city will be run by 2-3 companies/families and they'll be able to do pretty much anything they want to do. I have seen the future and it is Robocop.

Moby at the Mid was a good time.

Ive kept all my video games since I was a kid Not that I ever play them, but maybe one day instead of a book shelf Ill have a Video game shelf.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jun 14, 2013 -> 07:25 PM) I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but 3rd party publishers have to pay licensing fees to the console manufacturers to sell games on their systems. Sony & Microsoft don't have to issue these licenses to developers and therefore can set up whatever used game policies they like. Right and Sony is saying "We arent going to force game developers to have DRM". There are 2 licenses, what Sony is saying is that they will not require developers to do anything and will leave it up to the developer. And yes Sony could tell game developers that they wont allow them to sell on Sony if they have DRM, but Sony never said that they would do that. So I dont get where this is going. I never said Sony couldnt do it, Ive just said that Sony has been 100% honest about the fact that they will not require DRM. /shrugs Not exactly sure the relevance, but yes there are reciprocal licensing agreements, no one has said otherwise.

I like the look. dont like the scary latin.

Unfortunately as of now HBO GO is not on Playstation Thankfully I have a Samsung that gets it

Itd be a tough spot for the Lakers. Blake is better than nothng.

Tease it back... Show off your hot PS3 gaming hands.

What matters is that you are incorrectly associating Sony's policies with a 3rd parties policies. There is a very large difference, and you are either 1) purposefully pretending not to recognize it so that you can continue your faulty argument or 2) just incapable of understanding how licensing works. Im leaning towards 1, but I have no clue why you are being such a Microsoft apologist. (edit) I dont buy used game, so this policy does not at all impact me. Its just your argument is annoyingly faulty.

Looks good. I doubt itll change my life, but likely keep me entertained for a 1.5 hours.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 14, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) He wanted to work on his own with LeCharles Bentley in Arizona My guess is that he was told that they were trying to move him so he just stayed away Its just odd. But whatever its the past. Carimi gets to play with Bostad so its pretty much a big win for him.

Looks like Iggy will be a free agent.

Sony told no half truths. You just still do not understand the concept of licensing. Sony does not own the other companies. Sony does not "own" the games. The developers do. So Sony is subject to the license of the developers. This is how it has always been. So Sony is being honest, you are just trying to unfairly impute the decision of the licensor on the licensee. So the only option Sony would have is to bar developers who limit, but that would ultimately hurt the player because they would completely lose access to the game. Thus it will be up to the players/game developers to reach a decision on what the market will bear. Quick recap: Sony is not Square Enix. So if Square Enix imposes new DRM its not Sony, its Square Enix. Thus there is no "half truth", unless Sony imposes DRM.

He keeps it in his pants, which is not part of his desk.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 13, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) I forgot to put on deodorant this morning before leaving for work. Here is a graph of my comfort level as the day has gone on, with the Y-Axis being noon Pro-tip Leave a stick of deodorant in your desk.

Have tickets to sox game, wondering how early they will call it if things are supposed to be this bad.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Jun 11, 2013 -> 03:07 PM) Mario Kart 64 is the best in the series. End of Discussion. Fact Taylor, Playstation can try to control how a 3rd party licenses their product, but ultimately that contract is between 3rd party and end user. So Sony theoretically could have said "We wont allow any publisher who restricts rights to make games for Playstation", but Im pretty sure no one expected that. Square Enix can do what it wants with Square Enix stuff. When you buy a Square Enix title, you are bound to the terms of the agreement with SE. Not sure why Sony would get involved...