Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The PA Report - Living with the Xbox One: Thoughts after the launch

2

Posts

  • WizarDruWizarDru Registered User regular
    @DESOLATION0 As Gungan points out, she is an outlier, not the norm. Are there older folks who use technology handily? OF COURSE. Before he passed, my father was writing his own HTML code for his website, ripping DVDs and building databases. But my Mother-in-Law, who was born 10 years later than him, has trouble using Facebook or an iPhone regularly. For that matter, my non-technical sister-in-law and her husband have enough trouble switching the TV to the WiiU or BD player.

    The issue is not whether they CAN learn to use the technology...it's whether they will consider it worth the effort. Without a really clean and simple UI, they never will.My MiL has learned how to use an iPhone, but despite my instruction, she still refuses to use Siri, because it is unreliable for her a significant portion of the time. The average consumer doesn't want to tolerate inconsistencies...and I don't think that's an unreasonable position. An 'ON' button on a remote always works. Having a console that is so smart that it actually seems stupid isn't something a consumer isn't going to want.

  • supergg2ksupergg2k Registered User regular
    Ben, if you didn't have to have one of the latest consoles for professional reasons would you have waited until next year to get one?

  • Dark JaguarDark Jaguar Registered User regular
    Er, you CAN share your real name on XBox. You, wait for it, "tell people". If that's not your speed, put it in one of the many "note" sections of your profile and then "lock" that to friends only. The thing that bugs me about modern netterwebs is just how many of them want to know my real name. Sure, for you that isn't a problem, but for a lot of us, it is the one thing preventing us from signing up for the Facespaces or Google+s of the world.

  • HeadhunterHeadhunter Registered User regular
    My experience has been pretty similar, except for the absence of Kinect as I force myself to use convention controls to get a better feel for it. It's pretty cumbersome: not only are there more options than the 360, but the order in which the console backs out of a game or app can be inconsistent.

    I think almost every major complaint or bug so far can be addressed with software, which is a good sign: if problems such as the friends list, parties and rare app freezing/crashes can be fixed and improved, the system should be really impressive by its next major system iteration.

    "Perception is reality." -unknown
  • mrthewhitemrthewhite Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    @DARK JAGUAR I really hope you can understand the difference between a username and a note...

    mrthewhite on
  • Booda VBooda V Registered User new member
    "Being able to watch a show or movie while playing is something I thought was silly, but it's quickly become one of my favorite features."

    Sounds like the perfect console to play WoW on.

  • xaoxao Registered User regular
    @Casey Reese

    Nerje's whole point was that he couldn't do that on a cell phone given his intended audience. So no, you didn't manage to transmute his machine to a smaller form factor. You can keep wearing the hat though.

  • MutonMuton Registered User regular
    @Casey Reese

    "Sorry. But video game consoles are video game consoles. In that respect - shouldn't the emphasis be on the games?"

    No. It's over. Forget it. It's done and gone.

    30 years ago people hooked up an 8 bit machine via coaxial cable to their VCR to play Zelda or Metroid and tuned their radial dial to Channel 3 to play the games while marveling at science fiction movies like Blade Runner where a man spoke commands to his screen to analyze a picture, but that technology didn't exist yet. How amazing and futuristic!

    15 years ago people plugged in their VCRs, their DVD (or Laser Disc) players, their stereo and surround sound systems and their subwoofers all into some home entertainment behemoth; I recall seeing pyramids of electronic devices all plugged into televisions with cables streaming all around it like ancient temples to forgotten media gods.

    Come forward to today, and that technology is here. The simple fact is that while gamers are a specific and valuable market, they are by and large dwarfed by the entire media consumption market. The technology has arrived that now a company can provide movies, television, internet access and all it's information overload on the television screen in just a single box. I see entire product lines of Sony disappearing; DVDs, Blu-Ray players, stereos etc., all with different market segments, all winnowed down into a single Playstation line. I see Microsoft's digital publishing empire all focused around a single box in the living room.

    The reality is that 30 years ago there were different products focused for different consumer needs because the technology of the time limited us to that. That's not true any more. Now, one box can fit the needs of all media consumers, be it sports fans or movie watchers or music lovers or gamers. MS and Nintendo and Sony all have their foot in the door, but if they don't go the route of including all media consumption in their product, someone else will (Apple, Samsung, hell even smaller guys like Valve are already moving this direction). The market is too big, the potential is too huge, and both Sony and MS have other business lines that can synergize very well with this. It's inevitable that it would come, and they'd be fools to not go this route.

    The sole reason for the existence of a dedicated game box was the limitations of the technology at the time. Technology has surpassed those limitations, and the market is shifting organically to compensate. The dedicated game box is dead and gone.

  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    @MUTON
    Now, one box can fit the needs of all media consumers, be it sports fans or movie watchers or music lovers or gamers.

    No it can't, because it's still a shitty universal remote that can't do everything required of a universal remote (let alone do what it can do correctly on a consistently basis), and you still need a separate receiver to use surround sound, and it is unable to switch your TV's current input away from the Xbone by design.

    Movie aficionados and audiophiles have absolutely no use for the Xbone as a music or home theatre platform. It's designed specifically for people with little more than a TV and a cable box who don't care about the terrible audio quality associated with TV speakers.

    Gungan on
  • csdxcsdx Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    Re: Video game consoles should only play video games.
    You know I used to have somewhat of that theory, except with cell phones, rather than video game consoles. I mean why would I want a camera on my cellphone, after all a cell phone ought to just make calls. But hey, I can change, especially with the maturation of technology, I see the advantages of just one device to be a phone/texting/internet machine in your pocket.

    csdx on
  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    @GUNGAN: He didn't say it could do it WELL, just that it could do it. ;)

    His point is still pretty valid and the devices will continue to improve over time. I mean, two of your three beefs are simple software fixes.

    I agree with you as well though, for now, the "one box for everything" only works for people with pretty simple setups and undemanding standards. That's not me. But you know, I think Apple products are for suckers and I seem to be in the minority with that one...

  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    @DBROWDY

    You and me both brother.

    As for the universal remote thing, software fixes will only go so far, particularly for larger than normal setups, and it's clear MS doesn't want you switching the video source on your TV away from the Xbone anyway so don't hold your breath on that one. How are they going to sell your eyeballs to advertisers if you switch to a different video source?

    Gungan on
  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    Er, you CAN share your real name on XBox. You, wait for it, "tell people". If that's not your speed, put it in one of the many "note" sections of your profile and then "lock" that to friends only. The thing that bugs me about modern netterwebs is just how many of them want to know my real name. Sure, for you that isn't a problem, but for a lot of us, it is the one thing preventing us from signing up for the Facespaces or Google+s of the world.

    Some people are really taking that one throw away line by Ben way too seriously. That or somehow really over emphasizing what it is.

    It's simply a matter of convenience, and I applaud Sony for thinking of it. Rather than seeing xXxWilliexXx12 I see "Bill" on my friends list if he's agreed to let me see his name after I requested it. For most people who play with small groups of friends, this is a nice addition. When you play random games, you'll still see handles for the the random players, or for the players who are on your friends list but you only know them as their handles, but for the real world friends you have that you game with you'll see their real name.

    Not sure how anyone can see anything negative about it.

  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    @GUNGAN: That's what my Harmony remote is for, I guess. I'd love to have the voice commands on the XBone work for everything, but it already doesn't even work for my AVR so the Harmony stays around.

    As long as I have more than a TV and Xbone in my entertainment center, I don't care if MS tries this stuff. It's a very easy workaround. I think it's a wasted opportunity on their part but it's MS so it's not surprising.

  • Dark JaguarDark Jaguar Registered User regular
    Siddown, what worries me is that it seems like a baby step towards REQUIRING my real name to use the service. If you consider that unrealistic, I would cite Google +'s steady creep into every other Google service. Sony may never actually require it, but if the all-mighty hand of the market thus speaketh to their Randian priests and say "the time is now right, this year's harvest will be bountiful if we gather the true names of all the hidden imps upon our service", well then, then they'll ask for my name. I'd... rather not... is I guess my main "bullet point" here.

  • xaoxao Registered User regular
    @Dark Jaguar
    I'd... rather not... is I guess my main "bullet point" here.

    Then... don't? You have to explicitly allow each individual person to see your name on the PS4. If you don't want to give out your real name all you have to do is... nothing.

  • mrthewhitemrthewhite Registered User regular
    @SIDDOWN I feel like the downside most people are going to is the conspiracy theory "soul stealing" they think will happen once their real name is out on the internet.

  • status253status253 puyallupRegistered User regular
    I like the system. My TV being old it only has 3 hdmi ports on it. So 360, Blu-ray surround sound, and satellite box have always occupied it. So I ran the sat box through the x1, and it worked fine. I use my tv remote to switch inputs if I wanted to play 360 or go to my bluray player. My tv has audio outs on it so I hooked those up to my bluray sterio. So I can turn that on and have the surround sound effect. While thats not the best, it does do a good job. I will still watch movies on the bluray player to get full effect of surround sound.

  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    Siddown, what worries me is that it seems like a baby step towards REQUIRING my real name to use the service.

    Doesn't PSN require your name, email and credit card already? Everything on PSN is paid now ($5 a month I believe), so if you're online playing games with extensive friend's list (on either network), they already have your name and credit card info.

  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    @MRTHEWHITE: When's the last time you played a highly competitive multiplayer game online? There are plenty of people in those game who I do NOT want knowing my real name. It's disingenuous to make a straw man argument about "soul stealing". It's about all the fucking assholes that I want to keep far away from me and my family.

    I can hope that real names for everyone means that the number of people telling me to go kill myself is going to go down. It would be wonderful if we could all hold hands and be friends. But realistically speaking, humans don't work that way.

    I don't tell my name and address to everyone I pass on the street or meet in a bar, why should I be forced to do so online?

  • xaoxao Registered User regular
    @Dbrowdy

    So... don't give those people your name? Again, we're not talking about any kind of general distribution of personal information. It's only disseminated to people that you specify.

    The reason phrases like "soul stealing" are being used is because of the disingenuous panic being fomented by people who claim things like "There are plenty of people in those game who I do NOT want knowing my real name", as if random people on PS Plus will magically steal your information. It's reminiscent of the apocryphal stories of cameras being shunned by cultures who believed that the device would magically steal your soul.

  • NerjeNerje Registered User regular
    @casey_reece

    Sorry, mate. I fail to see the point you're making; your smartphone is a personal, single-user device and not to be shared by anyone who uses the living room.

    Cute side note: When my girlfriend sits down and the Xbox says "Hi!" she responds with a chirpy "hello!". And her sister has been telling it things like "Xbox, kill Drew Barrymore" or "Xbox, spare me from this shitty film PLEASE."

    @muton

    To elaborate another point in this article, Ben said "Sony is poised to make some serious gains this generation."

    But like you said, their product line is narrowing. Their marketing is, too, by focussing on a smaller niche market. Microsoft are expanding and broadening both their demographic and their product line. One of these practices leads to significant long-term company growth. The other will reap benefits in the short-term but where do they go from there?

    Hate Microsoft all you like, but they're doing some very clever things lately.

  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    @XAO: Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the end of the slippery slope where everyone is forced to give out their real name. I agree that the voluntary method implemented on the PS4 currently is pretty decent. I don't think it should be forced and that's what I was referring to. Sorry for not being more specific.

  • mrthewhitemrthewhite Registered User regular
    @DBROWDY since when did addresses become required? I must have missed that announcement.

    To answer your question I play competitive multiplayer games every day and I'm still find with giving my name especially if its required of everyone.

  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    Am I the only one who reads the comments in sequential order?

    DARK JAGUAR commented "... what worries me is that it seems like a baby step towards REQUIRING my real name to use the service. If you consider that unrealistic, I would cite Google +..."

    That's where I though the discussion had moved to. I think it's pretty well established that the current implementation on the PS4 isn't what's freaking people out. It's what DJ mentioned above.

    The worry that one little change will lead to this other horrible event is called a "slippery slope". Thus, when I mention "the end of the slippery slope" in my reply, it is meant to indicate that I'm talking about a hypothetical future event.

    Again, my apologies for not being super clear. I guess my brain zigged when it should have zagged.

    Now regarding your comfort with giving out your name to those folks... you're a braver man than I. Perhaps that's the real crux of the issue. To me, it's not about retaining my anonymity so I can be an internet fuckwad; it's about retaining my anonymity to protect me from internet fuckwads. YMMV

  • mnihilmnihil Registered User regular
    A brief disclaim-y history of me: Loved Playstation 2/Hated Xbox. Loved Xbox 360/Hated Playstation 3. (Speculative) Will love Playstation 4/Will hate Xbox One.

    There is no loyalty with me; or if there is, it's fickle.

    If all the reviews I read, and the PR I warily peered at through my fingers is true in its diluted form, and the interviews contained enough honesty, then I will embrace the wholesome philosophy of the Playstation 4. It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to focus on the issue here, because the issue is massive: The way we use technology.

    I think the way we used technology in the 90s was better. I think not having a massive distraction in my pocket at all times was better. I think sitting somewhere, waiting and collecting my thoughts has value; over slicing the next batch of fruit, certainly. I think movies or episodes should be watched in one sitting. I think it's fine to do just one thing at a time and do it with commitment, as much as I indulge in massive multi-tasking* in my life, and I think it's comforting to have a dedicated machine for something. I think it's fine to have to push a button to switch something on.

    *also, "task"? Really? Nothing one does on a console is really that tasking, is it?

    As far as a multi-media hub goes; well... I felt very much there already. Music, films, games - multiple media right there, accessible, at this time, through my 360. A better interface for navigation is always welcome, sure, but beyond that functionality, there's nothing lacking, and certainly no secret ingredient that is the access to the future. Chat, twitch, instant switching yadda-yadda. No, thanks, actually. Advertisement and achievement integration? No, f- you, actually.

    I understand I'm anomalous. Perhaps it's because I empathize with creators who put their effort into a product and cannot bear the thought of people reducing it to a two inch screen they glance at while simultaneously grinding something, somewhere. I'd rather not invest my time in that at all, then. But I like a bold statement, nowadays, especially if its bolstered by the right kind of attitude, and that's just where Sony seems to be at. "We screwed up with the PS3, but, look, we're genuinely sorry!" I just feel more understood as a gamer, more respected as a customer and better represented as a person by their brand at this point in the game, which are three things that you don't even need to have to buy a product, but serve as reasons to do so, for sure.

  • MutonMuton Registered User regular
    @Nerje

    Exactly, however I see a huge potential for Sony. The trick is they have specific products that fill an exacting niche: music lovers by stereos, movie lovers by Blu-Ray players, gamers by Playstations. However, today, right now, the Playstation can do the same thing the stereo and the Blu-Ray player can do; while it doesn't have the software now to stream movies or music, there is no reason it could not be adapted to do so. The trick for them is to get the music lovers and the movie lovers to come over and buy Playstations, and phase out all the other electronics in their lines.

    Sony produces movies and music too, so they are also a content provider. MS does not provide content, but is dipping into that realm now. So MS has a leg up in the digital sphere, in that they understand software and interfaces etc, but they're new to the content game. Sony is not, so they have the opportunity to leverage their content development capabilities to provide a unique experience that MS cannot match today, but is starting to.

    These are all long term changes, 5-10 years down the road. But the foundation has been poured; the technology to do all this exists. They now need to present it to the market and get the market to come around to this new dynamic and you'll see an entire shift in the way media is consumed. This is not a small task, but using one reviewers anecdote, Ben initially thought he would not like this setup, but it quickly became his favorite aspect of the XBone.

    A lot can change in 5-10 years. 10 years ago smart phones were a niche market, limited to business applications through Blackberry and solely for email and phone calls. 6 years ago, in 2007, Apple unvelied the iPhone. Today even my technophobe parents have iPhones.

  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    @MRTHEWHITE

    Identity theft is hardly conspiracy theory "soul stealing".

  • NerjeNerje Registered User regular
    @muton

    Very true. But this is a critical juncture for the Playstation brand. When a product like this is released, it becomes a hot, new, word-of-mouth topic for a short time. This impression will last for a very long time and will be hard for the brand to overcome at a later date.

    Sony have targeted the gamers, gamers will tell gamers, but non-gamers will not really care. In a year, two years, whatever... People aren't going to be buzzing about this product. When the new features become available and the new market is targeted, people will still think... Isn't this just a game thing?

    Honestly I think gamers have, for years, been very guarded and possessive about their hobby. Now that it isn't such a niche we're very hesitant and jealous and aggressive towards the idea of sharing our playground with others. Our identity isn't such a special thing anymore. We LIKE having it to ourselves. Sony are cashing in on that but it can only be a short term gain, in my opinion...

  • xaoxao Registered User regular
    @Dbrowdy

    Ah, gotchya. I just ignored the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories like Dark Jaguar's and Casey Reece's. They're akin to claiming that letting a Sony or Microsoft console into your living room is the first step on a road that leads to giant killer robots occupying your living room.

    In this case, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy assuming that there are only two possible end states (status quo and the feared/desired outcome). Also, nobody has demonstrated that voluntarily giving your information to friends has any tendency to increase the likelihood of forced information sharing. Dark Jaguar tried with the Google+ example... but Google doesn't actually require you to use your real name. All in all, it's just a ridiculous mess of an argument with no logical grounds supporting it thus far.

  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    @XAO: Slippery slope is always a logical fallacy. Many many thing have to happen to get from A to Z, and I have a feeling that gamer/society backlash will prevent Z from happening. (Just look at how quickly MS backtracked on the always-on stuff.)

    That said, just because you think it's unlikely to happen, I don't think it's fair to call it a "tin-foil hat conspiracy". I think it's important that we voice our opinions on how distasteful it would be to have forced real names. If not, how will the industry know we're vehemently against it? We can't wait until it's already implemented... that would be too late.

  • xaoxao Registered User regular
    @Dbrowdy

    I was taught that you can make a valid slippery slope argument if you consider the intermediate steps required and can demonstrate the likelihood of one step increasing the chances of the next, but that may just be semantics.

    I'm not dismissing others concerns based on my personal opinion regarding the chances of the concerns coming to fruition. I'm dismissing them as "tin-foil hat conspiracies" due to the complete lack of evidence supplied, the utter absence of any resemblance to a logical argument, and the blithe embrace of fallacies. It really is on par with people screaming about how the gummint is coming to take away their phlogiston.

    I agree that I wouldn't want my identity being bandied about on the internet, but we have yet to see any evidence that Sony's policies do anything to increase the chances of that happening. I also don't want to inadvertently trigger the premature heat death of the universe, but I'm not running about blaming Microsoft for facilitating it by implementing the new Kinect.

  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    @NERJE: "Sony have targeted the gamers, gamers will tell gamers, but non-gamers will not really care. "

    I just finished reading the Cut article about "No Girls Allowed" and I found your statement here to be really interesting in that light. MS is targeting "non-gamers" and Sony is targeting "gamers". But, if you believe the arguments made in that article, the perception of "gamers" is actually quite skewed from reality.

    So is MS's strategy good or bad when they are focusing more on "non-gamers"? Makes me think they're a bit more savvy and forward-thinking than we're giving them credit for.

  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    @XAO: I guess I am going to have to disagree that there's "a complete lack of evidence" that it's a valid potential outcome. I don't think anyone will argue that our online privacy has been significantly eroded over the last few years. Just take a look at how Facebook is chipping away at us like we're frogs in a slowly heating pot of water...we are not supposed to notice until it's too late. How about the TSA taking naked pictures of us when we go through the airport? How about all the illegal spying the US government is doing on its own citizens, that we know about because of Snowden?

    Maybe that's all a little melodramatic, but you get the point. Our privacy is not the main concern of big corporations or the government who is supposed to protect us from them. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff, it's just observations.

    Given those observations, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that if Sony or MS thought it was in their stockholders' best interest to make all our names public, they would do it in a heartbeat.

  • mrthewhitemrthewhite Registered User regular
    @GUNGAN It takes a lot more than a name to steal an identity. Your name is not a secret and for the vast majority of people its not even unique. See for yourself: http://howmanyofme.com

    @Dbrowdy How are you treating people online that you think they will target you and go through all the hassell of trying to track you down with nothing more than a first and last name? Sure they may call you names online and greif you but it takes a pretty special level of commitment to actually find you in real life.

  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    @DBROWDY,

    I do think you are missing one think in the trip from A to Z though. It doesn't benefit Sony to require everyone to display their real names instead of handles to every player. Forcing that on their customer base would cause mass desertion of PSN.

    Dark Jaguar's statement that this is the first step to requiring your name doesn't apply, because they already know who you are. Because they have your Credit Card they also have your Name and, in the case of the US, Zip Code for the billing address of said card. That doesn't even count the fact that most people register their device as well so if it goes t!ts up they can get it fixed. And let's face it, if you still trust Sony after their security breach of two years ago, that means you are okay with them having that personal information.

    Sony simply had a smart idea, they realize that between friends it doesn't hurt to see someone's real name if both sides agree.

    It's really like the current implementation of Blizzard's Real ID. Back in 2010 or so, Blizzard was going to make it so real names would be required to use the forums but quickly scrapped that idea when they realized just how stupid that would be and after getting massive negative feedback from their players. So it was never implemented, and I'd be very surprised if any company would try it again.
    I don't think anyone will argue that our online privacy has been significantly eroded over the last few years. Just take a look at how Facebook is chipping away at us like we're frogs in a slowly heating pot of water...we are not supposed to notice until it's too late

    I think you have to remember that Facebook and Google have very different business models than Sony and Microsoft. The more public information that is out there, the more money Facebook and Google make. Not forcing customers to reveal their real name is a strength for Sony. Despite all the people that seem to hate Apple that reads these forums, one of the reasons most people like them is they have repeatedly said they have no interest in people's personal data. The entire reason they went with their own sub-standard mapping app is because Google wanted all the personal data where everyone went. Apple doesn't care about that, they make their money from selling hardware.

    Sure, Sony will make money from selling services to people, but at the end of the day they're a hardware company that will make their money selling games for their device. It doesn't behoove them one bit to force it's users to use their real names against their will.
    I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that if Sony or MS thought it was in their stockholders' best interest to make all our names public, they would do it in a heartbeat.

    While I agree with this statement, I think you'd have to answer "what's in it for them?" before getting to this point. There is just no business reason for them to do this.

    Siddown on
  • GunganGungan Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    @MRTHEWHITE

    A simple search of my own name results in my own published work on the first page.

    As for howmanyofme.com, the result is: There are 1 or fewer people with my name in the U.S.A.; only 134 with my last name.

    While I don't live in the U.S.A. myself, that is statistically 1 in 300 million people with my name: that's about 23 people on the entire planet.

    That's only a hop skip and a jump to narrowing down which one I am, cross referencing addresses and Bob's your uncle (I don't have an uncle named Bob).

    I'm playing a little bit of a devil's advocate here, but the point stands.

    @SIDDOWN

    You don't have to store your CC info or billing address on PSN. You can use it when you need to, and remove it when you're done. If they're still holding on to it after you've deleted it, I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

    Gungan on
  • dbrowdydbrowdy Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    @MRTHEWHITE: Some of us have pretty uncommon names. And really, it's not like it's all that hard to find someone based on their name. Again, it's not about me acting poorly, it's about everyone else. Irrational people don't need a reason to harass others.

    @SIDDOWN: First, your example about Blizzard backs up my point about being vocal to deter this kind of thing, so thanks for reminding me of that.

    Second, I agree with you that I can't see any good business reason to do so. But I didn't see a good business reason to release the iPad either... and we know how that turned out. There's a reason I'm not at the helm of a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation.

    You yourself call Sony a hardware company below, but as Ben Kuchera pointed out a couple weeks ago, Sony is trying to sell us their software services by blocking DLNA. We all think that's a shitty idea and they're back-tracking. But the point is that someone there thought it was a good enough idea to move forward with. The names thing could easily be the same situation, IMO. If there's a PERCEIVED benefit to someone important, that's all that's important...

    EDIT - Oh and I definitely do NOT trust Sony after the credit card fiasco. I removed all my personal information from the PSN after that and only ever reloaded with cards from a store. And that's the single biggest reason I've got an Xbone right now; Sony lost my trust completely. I'd never even considered buying an MS console before.

    dbrowdy on
  • Dark JaguarDark Jaguar Registered User regular
    I would only say that saying I fear some sort of evil robot nightmare is... a strawman. If you're going to trot out "logical fallacies", just be wary not to commit one yourself. Even in the lesser, far milder "bad situation" I'm talking about, I'm not saying that it is the ultimate inevitable future, I'm saying there's a possibility it CAN get to that point, and that without certain safeguards and people, like me, actively complaining about it, it IS certainly possible.

    The fact is, some slopes really are slippery. For example, if I were to say that sliding down the ice at the top of a hill is likely to lead to sliding further and further, possibly culminating in sliding to the bottom, that would be both a literal and figurative slippery slope argument that I think we can all agree is both accurate and reality based. They need to be judged on a case by case basis. I'm not claiming it is "obvious" that this is what Sony secretly wants or that doing what they are doing now can't help BUT lead us to that. I'm saying that this is actually something we can directly observe as the trend happening around us and we can see other companies that actually did go further along my hypothetical "slope". That's what you might call testing a model. This is in direct contrast to the "slippery slopes" trotted out that claim that evolution "leads to Hitler" or that government health care "leads to Stalin", because there are multiple examples all over the world that directly contradict such claims, and not one that demonstrates them.

    It is good that logical fallacies are becoming more well known by the populace at large, but more thought needs to go into them, because that most basic of human fallacies, "overfitting the pattern", applies there too.

  • SiddownSiddown Registered User regular
    edited December 2013
    I can just imagine Ben rolling his eyes as his throw away line about how he liked a simple, logical service on the PS4 has gotten this much attention.
    Gungan wrote:
    You don't have to store your CC info or billing address on PSN. You can use it when you need to, and remove it when you're done. If they're still holding on to it after you've deleted it, I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

    Yes, but to use your CC, you most definitely needed to have your full name and at least billing zip/post code. So even if you remove your credit card info, your personal name is still attached to your handle (as is an email address and a backup contact which often is a cell phone number). You are just proving my point that Sony already knows who you are, so Dark Jaguar's fear that this is a the first step in getting him to give Sony his real name has already happened prior to this.
    dbrowdy wrote:
    First, your example about Blizzard backs up my point about being vocal to deter this kind of thing, so thanks for reminding me of that.

    They floated the idea, their customers hated it, so they didn't do it. Blizzard was the first company to try this and were very naive about why people didn't like the idea (and frankly, it was a lawsuit waiting to happen). I think if anything it shows that companies won't try it again. Plus, let's be honest here, the gap between the Real ID/Sony system and displaying real names to everyone is pretty massive.
    dbrowdy wrote:
    Second, I agree with you that I can't see any good business reason to do so. But I didn't see a good business reason to release the iPad either...

    Apple is a hardware company that had a runaway hit with the iPhone. Releasing a bigger version with the same OS was just a logical extension of their business model. Most people thought it'd fail, but at their massive margin they didn't need it to sell all that well to break even. Frankly, NOT releasing the iPad would have been incompetence by Apple.

    On the other hand, Sony intentionally forcing all players to reveal their names to every random person they play with online is far from their business model, and as they've seen it caused a lot of negativity with Blizzard's customer base. People maybe thought the iPad was dumb, but existing customers didn't view Apple in a negative light because of it, it was just another product in their product line. Comparing the two is comparing Apples to Oranges (pun fully intended).

    @Dark Jaguar, but you still need to explain "what's in it for Sony" to force you to show your real name to everyone on PSN. If you can't explain that, you can't get to your slippery slope. Sony already has your personal information if you are in PSN, and has for years. Google and Facebook have financial incentives to break down the privacy boundaries, but Sony does not.

    Siddown on
2
Sign In or Register to comment.