Ouya, the company behind the Ouya Android-based microconsole, is now accepting payments using Bitcoin, according to a tweet from the company's official account.
The tweet includes a picture of a checkout page on Ouya's website with an Ouya console and controller in the cart. At the bottom of the screenshot, the Bitcoin payment option is clearly visible.
Bitcoin is an open source, peer-to-peer electronic currency network that utilizes cryptography to complete and secure monetary transactions. Bitcoins are tied to generated addresses that can be stores on users' hardware, in online services or as printed paper notices.
For a detailed look at how Bitcoins work and the digital currency's origin, read Polygon's feature about our hunt to find the man who created it.
Update: Ouya confirmed in a tweet that Bitcoin can only be used to pay for consoles at this time. The Ouya console store currently does not accept payment with Bitcoins for paid games.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Today, IGN can confirm that the spirit of Sony Liverpool has officially returned, and it’s done so in the form of Firesprite, a studio made of remnants from the defunct studio. The team’s first project together was helping a still-functioning Sony-owned developer – Studio Japan – with the bundled-in PlayStation 4 game The Playroom.
Before people immediately start comparing them to Rare-style purgatory:
“We have been working hard on creating a new game engine and tool chain that allows us to put the creative power in the best hands – the artists and designers,” Firesprite’s Technical Director, Chris Roberts, said. “That puts us in a great position delivering the best experiences for players. It also allows us to get our games running on multiple platforms including mobile – so we can deliver platform specific features that make the best games.”
As for what that game is, Firesprite is mum. “Unfortunately, I can’t talk about the next game yet, [but] sometime soon I hope,” Ankers said. “We do love playing with new ideas and technology and have put a lot of work into building a game engine. We’re excited about the future. It’s a great time to be making games and it’s what we love.”
No immediate link to a new WipEout, though, sadly.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
So they aren't even saying you can't do it, just that you can't do it while you're doing your LoL stream or right before or after? We just had how many pages about that dumb shit?
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Ouya, the company behind the Ouya Android-based microconsole, is now accepting payments using Bitcoin, according to a tweet from the company's official account.
The tweet includes a picture of a checkout page on Ouya's website with an Ouya console and controller in the cart. At the bottom of the screenshot, the Bitcoin payment option is clearly visible.
Bitcoin is an open source, peer-to-peer electronic currency network that utilizes cryptography to complete and secure monetary transactions. Bitcoins are tied to generated addresses that can be stores on users' hardware, in online services or as printed paper notices.
For a detailed look at how Bitcoins work and the digital currency's origin, read Polygon's feature about our hunt to find the man who created it.
Update: Ouya confirmed in a tweet that Bitcoin can only be used to pay for consoles at this time. The Ouya console store currently does not accept payment with Bitcoins for paid games.
The only response I have to this is "lmao." They really aren't going to give up on that thing are they?
So they aren't even saying you can't do it, just that you can't do it while you're doing your LoL stream or right before or after? We just had how many pages about that dumb shit?
There is apparently some language in the contract that prevents you from doing it at all, if they want to enforce it. TotalBiscuit did a video on it. I know he's a controversial figure and not everyone likes him, but he was fairly unbiased about the whole thing and made some good points on both sides.
I feel like I can always tell who in these threads IS a boss and who isn't.
I can assure you that there's not some Machiavellian soul drinker at Riot viewing his players as puppets on strings. (S)he probably loves League of Legends, thinks it's a fun game, and badly wants all of the pro players to enjoy it too. They just also have a brand to market so they keep their jobs, and they're signing big checks to get this program running.
Calling LCS a monopoly is just silly. Silly silly silly. League of Legends is a MOBA product and LCS is a tournament on it. You really, really can't say, "Well their monopoly on LCS tournaments." Maybe that'd be an expression that made sense if Riot had a monopoly on VIDEO GAMES or at least MOBA's, but "monopoly on LCS" doesn't make sense. Coca-cola doesn't have a monopoly on 20 ounce bottles of Coca-Cola, that's not a monopoly.
Riot CREATED the LCS to promote their brand, and anyone wanting in on that gravy train has to join the brand marketing.
Of course Riot created the LCS to promote League of Legends. And they created League of Legends to make money. It follows intrinsically from that that Riot needs good, popular players to participate in LCS for it to succeed and be profitable. It does not follow intrinsically that Riot needs to invade participants' personal lives for LCS to succeed. If they wanted to pay popular streamers to stream in order to control their content, they could do that. Pinning that stipulation onto the LCS application form is just taking advantage of the influence they wield because they can.
"Monopoly" was a stupid choice of words, but it can't be denied Riot commands WAY more influence over competitive LoL than Valve or Blizzard does over professional Dota or Starcraft.
This isn't the worst deal employees are getting, but just because a very large number of American jobs pay poor wages, low benefits, have unreasonable restrictions, or otherwise are dogshit doesn't mean that a company that is otherwise pretty awesome shouldn't also be criticized for pushing forward the awful status quo instead of taking industry leadership to promote good or even great working conditions for professional players as well as their "real" staff.
You're comparing the pay grade of these LoL players, and the comfort of working from home (aside from being on location for events), to getting unlivable wages from a single job with constant hazards around you.
What the hell is going on with people's perspectives? If you want to argue about rights people should have in America, argue for fast food employees, please. Not fucking pro video game players who actually have it super good by comparison.
Not even "by comparison." Unequivocally.
Getting paid 50k plus performance bonuses to professionally play video games part time from the comfort of your home is a really, really nice deal for people who want it.
Citation needed for 50K / year. I've seen half to two thirds that as the most reliable figure. Which is cool, don't get me wrong, but $25K with no benefits whatsoever is not a real full time job, and thus an employer isn't entitled to make off-work demands.
Also, I've been saying that American employment culture is broken for almost my entire adult life, because it is, so I get to criticize a not particularly egregious example without being prey to Henroid's derailing attempts that since it isn't the worst case, we're not allowed to complain about it.
But they're NOT making off work demands. That's the entire point!
For example, how any of you remember those 'I want to be like Mike' Nike ads with Michael Jordan? Let's say Nike are nice guys and hey it's his free time, we won't restrict him with a non-compete....and Jordan goes out and makes a Reebok commercial. Well, now their target audience can 'be like Mike!' by buying a competitors product, in which case they've effectively subsidized a competitor's marketing efforts. Why in the fuck would they do that?
For another one, Gerber has a survival knife endorsed and named after Bear Gryls, the reality TV guy. If a fan and in the market for a knife and turn on his show (which Gerber doesn't fund) and he's using a competitor's product what does that say to me as a potential consumer?
With these promotion contracts, you're paying to attach your product to the name. If they're free to also do the same with your competitors, it completely defeats the purpose. Nike probably doesn't give half a fuck if Jordan also signs a deal with a bank or an auto manufacturer, but they'll laugh you out of the room if you insist on a contract that allows you to work other endorsement deals that compete with them directly and probably also deals that would reduce your value to their target audience (ie, Ed's House of Used Sex Toys or whatever). And they should, because they aren't paying you for their time they're paying you to connect their product to your image.
Those are endorsement deals. Michael Jordan is only of value to Nike inasmuch as he perpetuates the lie that he gives a crap about Nike for the purposes of public exposure. By breaking that illusion, he renders the deliverable of his contract entirely valueless.
HotshotGG or whoever isn't valuable to Riot because he's a celebrity and they need celebrities to endorse their game. He's valuable to Riot because he's good at the game and people like watching him be good at the game at tournaments. That's the deliverable. HotshotGG hypothetically playing a few rounds of Hearthstone on his personal stream wouldn't in any way impede his ability to draw a crowd at LCS. That's what makes it stupid and arbitrary.
The product isn't the stream, the product is ultimately the game. If you're on the stream for ENDORSED PRODUCT and you're seeing the streamer play something other than ENDORSED PRODUCT in his or her spare time it can send the wrong message about the quality of what her or she is being paid to play. LoL wants you playing their game and spending your money there, not through an indirect channel like advertising in streams, and they feel like this is less likely to occur if you see the pros playing other shit.
The game isn't the product, as far as the contract is concerned. Anyone can play or stream League of Legends without a contract, and the contract does not pay the signer to play or stream LoL outside of tournament games or require them to do so at all (except inasmuch that they probably need to practice to do well enough to be invited back next year, obviously). LCS is the product. The players are being paid to participate in the LCS. Riot is using their monopoly on the LCS to also make personal demands of participants that go well beyond the scope of the LCS, which is what bothers people.
Of course Riot would love for the players to endorse League full-time. They would love to control every aspect of their lives to milk them as efficiently as possible. I'm sure my boss would love to ban me from playing video games at home in hopes that I spend that time learning to be a better programmer instead, but he doesn't get to do that.
Is there a scan or some other form of the contract around? I'm phone posting so I may have missed it.
Yep. Here's the page that's currently at dispute... news reports indicate that the full contract is out there , but I wasn't able to find a good link to it. The outlet that reported this was given an excerpt of the contract, not the whole thing.
edit: And here's a reddit post by a Riot employee confirming the excerpt
Yeah, there's nothing objectionable in there at all. Hell if that's their entire non-compete it's pretty lax.
+4
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
I feel like I can always tell who in these threads IS a boss and who isn't.
I can assure you that there's not some Machiavellian soul drinker at Riot viewing his players as puppets on strings. (S)he probably loves League of Legends, thinks it's a fun game, and badly wants all of the pro players to enjoy it too. They just also have a brand to market so they keep their jobs, and they're signing big checks to get this program running.
Calling LCS a monopoly is just silly. Silly silly silly. League of Legends is a MOBA product and LCS is a tournament on it. You really, really can't say, "Well their monopoly on LCS tournaments." Maybe that'd be an expression that made sense if Riot had a monopoly on VIDEO GAMES or at least MOBA's, but "monopoly on LCS" doesn't make sense. Coca-cola doesn't have a monopoly on 20 ounce bottles of Coca-Cola, that's not a monopoly.
Riot CREATED the LCS to promote their brand, and anyone wanting in on that gravy train has to join the brand marketing.
Of course Riot created the LCS to promote League of Legends. And they created League of Legends to make money. It follows intrinsically from that that Riot needs good, popular players to participate in LCS for it to succeed and be profitable. It does not follow intrinsically that Riot needs to invade participants' personal lives for LCS to succeed. If they wanted to pay popular streamers to stream in order to control their content, they could do that. Pinning that stipulation onto the LCS application form is just taking advantage of the influence they wield because they can.
"Monopoly" was a stupid choice of words, but it can't be denied Riot commands WAY more influence over competitive LoL than Valve or Blizzard does over professional Dota or Starcraft.
It's a condition of participation. It's not "invading participants' personal lives" to prohibit them from engaging in other kinds of commercial activity. It's NOT their personal lives - its their professional lives.
I feel like I can always tell who in these threads IS a boss and who isn't.
I can assure you that there's not some Machiavellian soul drinker at Riot viewing his players as puppets on strings. (S)he probably loves League of Legends, thinks it's a fun game, and badly wants all of the pro players to enjoy it too. They just also have a brand to market so they keep their jobs, and they're signing big checks to get this program running.
Calling LCS a monopoly is just silly. Silly silly silly. League of Legends is a MOBA product and LCS is a tournament on it. You really, really can't say, "Well their monopoly on LCS tournaments." Maybe that'd be an expression that made sense if Riot had a monopoly on VIDEO GAMES or at least MOBA's, but "monopoly on LCS" doesn't make sense. Coca-cola doesn't have a monopoly on 20 ounce bottles of Coca-Cola, that's not a monopoly.
Riot CREATED the LCS to promote their brand, and anyone wanting in on that gravy train has to join the brand marketing.
Of course Riot created the LCS to promote League of Legends. And they created League of Legends to make money. It follows intrinsically from that that Riot needs good, popular players to participate in LCS for it to succeed and be profitable. It does not follow intrinsically that Riot needs to invade participants' personal lives for LCS to succeed. If they wanted to pay popular streamers to stream in order to control their content, they could do that. Pinning that stipulation onto the LCS application form is just taking advantage of the influence they wield because they can.
"Monopoly" was a stupid choice of words, but it can't be denied Riot commands WAY more influence over competitive LoL than Valve or Blizzard does over professional Dota or Starcraft.
I'm pretty sure if Valve tried to exercise any sort of muscle over competitive DOTA the very established community would collectively kick them in the dick. Valve ain't that stupid. It'd be like Capcom suddenly trying to give the FGC marching orders.
So they aren't even saying you can't do it, just that you can't do it while you're doing your LoL stream or right before or after? We just had how many pages about that dumb shit?
There is apparently some language in the contract that prevents you from doing it at all, if they want to enforce it. TotalBiscuit did a video on it. I know he's a controversial figure and not everyone likes him, but he was fairly unbiased about the whole thing and made some good points on both sides.
Update, 11:20AM PST: onGamers has confirmed with the team representatives that LCS players are disallowed from streaming the games listed below outright, not just when adjacent to a League of Legends stream. Under Section 3 Rule 4 of the new contract handling 'Non-League Events and Streaming', it states that "... the [LCS] Team shall ensure that, during the Term of this Agreement, its Team Members do not publicly stream gameplay of the titles set forth on Exhibit B". Exhibit B states "the specific restrictions on streaming are set forth in the Sponsorship and Streaming Restricted List, as updated by the League from time to time", which is the document listed below.
Outright. Never. Even when it's midnight and they're just want to get drunk, listen to The Protomen Act 2, and play Diablo 3 during their own, personal time. Their off hour behavior IS being affected by this contract which means that if they are not being paid to cover what is essentially now a full time job then they are being fucked.
One aspect on this whole Riot thing that just occurred to me: the NFL has been around since, what, 1920? American Football has been around for a long time, and the rules of the game are largely set, not changing very often. An NFL player can devote themselves to the NFL brand and be assured a very long career, as the brand has a great deal of longevity.
League of Legends has been around since 2009; it's already four years old, which is nearly ancient in the world of PC gaming. Not only does no one expect NFL-levels of longevity from the LoL Brand, but the rules of the game itself have constantly changed with the addition of new mechanics, champions, and constant balance changes. As such, there's far less incentive for a player to make a long-term commitment to any specific gaming brand, as, at least right now, we have no reason to believe that you can build a full, lengthy career off of a single game, and far more incentive to promote their own brand as a player and entertainer than as a representative of any single game that could be gone or replaced in just a few years.
As such, I'm not sure how well modelling pro sports is going to work in this industry; I think we'll continue to take cues from it, but we're going to have to adapt and get creative to deal with the unique benefits and drawbacks of videogaming as a spectator media.
I feel like I can always tell who in these threads IS a boss and who isn't.
I can assure you that there's not some Machiavellian soul drinker at Riot viewing his players as puppets on strings. (S)he probably loves League of Legends, thinks it's a fun game, and badly wants all of the pro players to enjoy it too. They just also have a brand to market so they keep their jobs, and they're signing big checks to get this program running.
Calling LCS a monopoly is just silly. Silly silly silly. League of Legends is a MOBA product and LCS is a tournament on it. You really, really can't say, "Well their monopoly on LCS tournaments." Maybe that'd be an expression that made sense if Riot had a monopoly on VIDEO GAMES or at least MOBA's, but "monopoly on LCS" doesn't make sense. Coca-cola doesn't have a monopoly on 20 ounce bottles of Coca-Cola, that's not a monopoly.
Riot CREATED the LCS to promote their brand, and anyone wanting in on that gravy train has to join the brand marketing.
Of course Riot created the LCS to promote League of Legends. And they created League of Legends to make money. It follows intrinsically from that that Riot needs good, popular players to participate in LCS for it to succeed and be profitable. It does not follow intrinsically that Riot needs to invade participants' personal lives for LCS to succeed. If they wanted to pay popular streamers to stream in order to control their content, they could do that. Pinning that stipulation onto the LCS application form is just taking advantage of the influence they wield because they can.
"Monopoly" was a stupid choice of words, but it can't be denied Riot commands WAY more influence over competitive LoL than Valve or Blizzard does over professional Dota or Starcraft.
I'm pretty sure if Valve tried to exercise any sort of muscle over competitive DOTA the very established community would collectively kick them in the dick. Valve ain't that stupid. It'd be like Capcom suddenly trying to give the FGC marching orders.
So they aren't even saying you can't do it, just that you can't do it while you're doing your LoL stream or right before or after? We just had how many pages about that dumb shit?
There is apparently some language in the contract that prevents you from doing it at all, if they want to enforce it. TotalBiscuit did a video on it. I know he's a controversial figure and not everyone likes him, but he was fairly unbiased about the whole thing and made some good points on both sides.
Outright. Never. Even when it's midnight and they're just want to get drunk, listen to The Protomen Act 2, and play Diablo 3 during their own, personal time. Their off hour behavior IS being affected by this contract which means that if they are not being paid to cover what is essentially now a full time job then they are being fucked.
No, they are not - streaming a game on the non-compete list publicly is effectively endorsing a competitor. If they want to get bombed and play some D3 for shits and grins all they have to do is not bring it into their public, and as a contracted promoter professional lives, is to not stream it. Done. It's essentially EXACTLY the same as Nike saying 'no you can't wear Reebok in public or at other appearances', and it will not be going away if you expect this kind of thing to exist at all.
[edited to trim massive preview, hopefully without screwing anything up.
As such, I'm not sure how well modelling pro sports is going to work in this industry; I think we'll continue to take cues from it, but we're going to have to adapt and get creative to deal with the unique benefits and drawbacks of videogaming as a spectator media.
There are some aspects of pro sports that are absolutely retarded but there are things that are in place for good reason. Like the aformentioned way sponsorships work and the leagues making sure their players aren't doing something stupid like going on air saying shit like "yeah, I love my team, but man, it was so much better when it was at that other city and that manager Steve was in charge." Riot has a very good point in controlling their brand image and making sure their big draw, tourney players are helping to promote Riot and LoL, however, that also means paying them the salary that sort of commitment requires. It's not exactly an accident that pro sports players are all union members.
No, they are not - streaming a game on the non-compete list publicly is effectively endorsing a competitor. If they want to get bombed and play some D3 for shits and grins all they have to do is not bring it into their public, and as a contracted promoter professional lives, is to not stream it. Done. It's essentially EXACTLY the same as Nike saying 'no you can't wear Reebok in public or at other appearances', and it will not be going away if you expect this kind of thing to exist at all.
If you want to just stream something else to your fans while at home and cannot then guess what, that is being affected. That's not even a subjective opinion, it's pretty black and white. My entire argument is that it's not a bad thing unless they're being paid shit for having to monitor their out of game public behavior. Then it's a pretty crummy deal precisely because it is an endorsement.
TOGSolid on
+1
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2013
So Gamespot have a really interesting article on the sales of the PS4 vs. Xbone titled "Xbox One and PS4 sales numbers don't matter right now (But you don't care)". The article is most notable for a couple of graphs that I haven't seen before that are exceptionally interesting, but I'll quote the lead up to these from the article then post the two graphs in question:
We’re in a war of numbers.
The PlayStation 4 sold one million consoles in 24 hours
Then the Xbox One did too
But the PS4 only launched in two countries compared to the XB1’s 13
After the PS4’s global launch across 32 countries, Sony reported 2.1 million console sales.
Microsoft says that currently the XB1 is seeing "unprecedented" demand
But sifting through all the noise, these numbers don’t really mean anything. Not yet anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re big, impressive numbers for consoles that aren’t even a month old. After all, Nintendo’s Wii only sold 600,000 in its first week, and the PlayStation 2 only sold 500,000. But nobody is arguing that those consoles weren’t incredibly successful.
All those numbers really mean is that Sony and Microsoft have been more prepared for consumer demand than at any previous console launch. If more consoles were currently available for either system, they’d sell even more.
Sales numbers are meaningless for determining how “successful” either console is until after supply starts to surpass demand. Until you can walk into a store and pick one up. At that point, you’ll get objective numbers, minus the spin, and the popularity contest winner will be revealed.
But you probably already know that it’s going to be the PS4.
Going over the results from data provided by the market research portal GameSpot Trax, you can see a clear preference for Sony’s console among general gamers. In a series of surveys over the last year where respondents were asked to rate their likelihood to purchase either an XB1 or a PS4, here were the results. Although both consoles were relatively close around this time last year, the gulf widened considerably as we approached launch.
The graphs are pretty interesting in themselves:
This graph shows those who were definitely buying one of the two consoles (either a PS4 or Xbone) and then compares it with this graph, which shows who is not wanting to buy one of these consoles:
That's pretty incredible really, although on the second Graph the Xbone made a recovery it really does show how much damage Microsoft did to themselves in a couple of months of sheer madness with their terrible reveal in April and then E3. I am really going to be curious to see if the Xbone has given themselves a major albatross around their neck post-E3 that affects them dramatically by this time next year or if they are able to recover. Given that Sony recently crowed about selling 2.1 million consoles and Microsofts recent response was to tell people some 3 billion (or whatever the number was) zombies were killed in Dead Rising 3, I am thinking Sony may have a substantial enough lead by this time next year.
Recent reports of "government snooping," including unauthorized Internet surveillance, has drawn an indignant response from Microsoft. Writing on the company's blog, Microsoft corporate affairs executive Brad Smith said he is "alarmed" by these revelations and pledged that Microsoft will enhance encryption efforts for its products and services.
A report from this summer, based on documents provided by Edward Snowden, pegged Microsoft as having closely collaborated with United States intelligence services to allow its users' communications data to be intercepted.
"Many of our customers have serious concerns about government surveillance of the Internet. We share their concerns. That's why we are taking steps to ensure governments use legal process rather than technological brute force to access customer data," Smith said.
"Like many others, we are especially alarmed by recent allegations in the press of a broader and concerted effort by some governments to circumvent online security measures--and in our view, legal processes and protections--in order to surreptitiously collect private customer data," he added.
In particular, Smith called out the reports of governmental interception and collection of customer data as it travels between users and servers.
"If true, these efforts threaten to seriously undermine confidence in the security and privacy of online communications," he said. "Indeed, government snooping potentially now constitutes an 'advanced persistent threat,' alongside sophisticated malware and cyber attacks."
As a result of these allegations, Smith said Microsoft will take "immediate and coordinated action" by expanding encryption efforts, reinforcing legal protection for customer data, and enhancing transparency of software code to make it obvious that products do not have back doors.
Any specific implications for the Xbox platform were not specified. A company representative was not immediately available to comment. Microsoft previously attempted to quell privacy concerns for the Xbox One by outlining in a privacy document that data captured through the system does not leave the console.
Smith made it clear that Microsoft has no direct evidence that its customer data has been breached by unauthorized government access, but will still pursue a "comprehensive engineering effort to strengthen the encryption of customer data across our networks and services." This includes major portals like Outlook, Office 365, SkyDrive, and Windows Azure, Microsoft's cloud network that powers some Xbox Live cloud services.
All of Microsoft's new encryption efforts, including expanding current encryption to use 2,048-bit keys, will be in place by the end of 2014, though much of it is effective immediately, Smith said.
"Ultimately, we're sensitive to the balances that must be struck when it comes to technology, security, and the law," Smith said. "We all want to live in a world that is safe and secure, but we also want to live in a country that is protected by the Constitution. We want to ensure that important questions about government access are decided by courts rather than dictated by technological might. And we're focused on applying new safeguards worldwide, recognizing the global nature of these issues and challenges. We believe these new steps strike the right balance, advancing for all of us both the security we need and the privacy we deserve."
For more details on Microsoft's plan to protect consumer data from "government snooping," check out Smith's post on Microsoft's website.
Microsoft of course was caught with its pants down around its ankles around June (IIRC) helping the NSA spy on people, which is what led to a large backlash against the Kinect being an always on peripheral required for the console to function. They backtracked on that about a month (IIRC) later and now the Kinect is no longer required for the Xbox One to operate.
All I know is I read the article above and lost one of my best irony meters instantly.
As such, I'm not sure how well modelling pro sports is going to work in this industry; I think we'll continue to take cues from it, but we're going to have to adapt and get creative to deal with the unique benefits and drawbacks of videogaming as a spectator media.
There are some aspects of pro sports that are absolutely retarded but there are things that are in place for good reason. Like the aformentioned way sponsorships work and the leagues making sure their players aren't doing something stupid like going on air saying shit like "yeah, I love my team, but man, it was so much better when it was at that other city and that manager Steve was in charge." Riot has a very good point in controlling their brand image and making sure their big draw, tourney players are helping to promote Riot and LoL, however, that also means paying them the salary that sort of commitment requires. It's not exactly an accident that pro sports players are all union members.
No, they are not - streaming a game on the non-compete list publicly is effectively endorsing a competitor. If they want to get bombed and play some D3 for shits and grins all they have to do is not bring it into their public, and as a contracted promoter professional lives, is to not stream it. Done. It's essentially EXACTLY the same as Nike saying 'no you can't wear Reebok in public or at other appearances', and it will not be going away if you expect this kind of thing to exist at all.
If you want to just stream something else to your fans while at home and cannot then guess what, that is being affected. That's not even a subjective opinion, it's pretty black and white. My entire argument is that it's not a bad thing unless they're being paid shit for having to monitor their out of game public behavior. Then it's a pretty crummy deal precisely because it is an endorsement.
Yes, but your stream is something broadcast to the public, and it's something for which you are being compensated and adds to your professional brand. It's not personal, it's public. Whether it's a crummy deal or not depends on each streamer's revenue from advertising that is impacted by the deal. I expect it will be a good deal for most and bad for the biggest names.
kaliyama on
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
What caused them to start drifting apart before April?
EA is trying their damndest to make Battlefield dethrone CoD, but it's never going to happen as long as this shit continues. Activision has never released a Call of Duty that was as flat out broken as BF4.
Yeah, but that almost counts as cheating considering the game still looks like toasted shit due to them using ancient, proven engines. The last three big BF releases have all featured massive engine overhauls which always results in a bug apocalypse. Not saying it's a good excuse but the comparison is kinda unfair to a degree.
I am arguing that the stream is a product, too. The stream is entertainment provided by the entertainer. The entertainer's unique way of how he plays the games is the entertainment being provided.
Riot games believes that League of Legends is the only product here. I am arguing that the stream is a product, and Riot Games is infringing on the revenue that product brings in by limiting the choices that the entertainer can make on the stream.
Edit: I've sort of relapsed into very legalistic language here so I can try to make my point more clear. Sorry if it turns anyone off.
And you are quite correct actually. If Riot Games seeks to limit what the player does in their off time then that means the player is essentially always "at work" and absolutely should be paid as such in compensation. That is basic employee rights 101. Hell, why do people think endorsement deals are so specific AND lucrative? You are always "on the job" for Nike, Reebok, or whoever when you sign that dotted line. Riot is basically asking that their players not only go kick ass in tournaments but to also shill for them outside of the tournament by only being allowed to stream LoL. That is an endorsement deal and as such the players need to demand better pay.
No, that's not it at all. The player can do whatever they want in their spare time, but when they STREAM, they are profiting from fame that is being paid for by Riot.
I am arguing that the stream is a product, too. The stream is entertainment provided by the entertainer. The entertainer's unique way of how he plays the games is the entertainment being provided.
Riot games believes that League of Legends is the only product here. I am arguing that the stream is a product, and Riot Games is infringing on the revenue that product brings in by limiting the choices that the entertainer can make on the stream.
Edit: I've sort of relapsed into very legalistic language here so I can try to make my point more clear. Sorry if it turns anyone off.
If you want to have your product as the stream itself, then don't sign into a contractual obligation to represent a certain brand.
If the stream is your product, then be your own brand. When you represent a brand of any sort, it is your obligation to show confidence in said brand. Anything less and the people paying your paycheque are going to have stern words with you or kick you to the curb for damaging their brand.
I, for instance, had to sign a contract saying that I will represent the brand I work for even outside the work place. That means I can't say/do anything that might impact the brand negatively on the internet even in my free time. This sort of business code of conduct applies across all sorts of industries.
So Gamespot have a really interesting article on the sales of the PS4 vs. Xbone titled "Xbox One and PS4 sales numbers don't matter right now (But you don't care)". The article is most notable for a couple of graphs that I haven't seen before that are exceptionally interesting, but I'll quote the lead up to these from the article then post the two graphs in question:
We’re in a war of numbers.
The PlayStation 4 sold one million consoles in 24 hours
Then the Xbox One did too
But the PS4 only launched in two countries compared to the XB1’s 13
After the PS4’s global launch across 32 countries, Sony reported 2.1 million console sales.
Microsoft says that currently the XB1 is seeing "unprecedented" demand
But sifting through all the noise, these numbers don’t really mean anything. Not yet anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re big, impressive numbers for consoles that aren’t even a month old. After all, Nintendo’s Wii only sold 600,000 in its first week, and the PlayStation 2 only sold 500,000. But nobody is arguing that those consoles weren’t incredibly successful.
All those numbers really mean is that Sony and Microsoft have been more prepared for consumer demand than at any previous console launch. If more consoles were currently available for either system, they’d sell even more.
Sales numbers are meaningless for determining how “successful” either console is until after supply starts to surpass demand. Until you can walk into a store and pick one up. At that point, you’ll get objective numbers, minus the spin, and the popularity contest winner will be revealed.
But you probably already know that it’s going to be the PS4.
Going over the results from data provided by the market research portal GameSpot Trax, you can see a clear preference for Sony’s console among general gamers. In a series of surveys over the last year where respondents were asked to rate their likelihood to purchase either an XB1 or a PS4, here were the results. Although both consoles were relatively close around this time last year, the gulf widened considerably as we approached launch.
The graphs are pretty interesting in themselves:
This graph shows those who were definitely buying one of the two consoles (either a PS4 or Xbone) and then compares it with this graph, which shows who is not wanting to buy one of these consoles:
That's pretty incredible really, although on the second Graph the Xbone made a recovery it really does show how much damage Microsoft did to themselves in a couple of months of sheer madness with their terrible reveal in April and then E3. I am really going to be curious to see if the Xbone has given themselves a major albatross around their neck post-E3 that affects them dramatically by this time next year or if they are able to recover. Given that Sony recently crowed about selling 2.1 million consoles and Microsofts recent response was to tell people some 3 billion (or whatever the number was) zombies were killed in Dead Rising 3, I am thinking Sony may have a substantial enough lead by this time next year.
Recent reports of "government snooping," including unauthorized Internet surveillance, has drawn an indignant response from Microsoft. Writing on the company's blog, Microsoft corporate affairs executive Brad Smith said he is "alarmed" by these revelations and pledged that Microsoft will enhance encryption efforts for its products and services.
A report from this summer, based on documents provided by Edward Snowden, pegged Microsoft as having closely collaborated with United States intelligence services to allow its users' communications data to be intercepted.
"Many of our customers have serious concerns about government surveillance of the Internet. We share their concerns. That's why we are taking steps to ensure governments use legal process rather than technological brute force to access customer data," Smith said.
"Like many others, we are especially alarmed by recent allegations in the press of a broader and concerted effort by some governments to circumvent online security measures--and in our view, legal processes and protections--in order to surreptitiously collect private customer data," he added.
In particular, Smith called out the reports of governmental interception and collection of customer data as it travels between users and servers.
"If true, these efforts threaten to seriously undermine confidence in the security and privacy of online communications," he said. "Indeed, government snooping potentially now constitutes an 'advanced persistent threat,' alongside sophisticated malware and cyber attacks."
As a result of these allegations, Smith said Microsoft will take "immediate and coordinated action" by expanding encryption efforts, reinforcing legal protection for customer data, and enhancing transparency of software code to make it obvious that products do not have back doors.
Any specific implications for the Xbox platform were not specified. A company representative was not immediately available to comment. Microsoft previously attempted to quell privacy concerns for the Xbox One by outlining in a privacy document that data captured through the system does not leave the console.
Smith made it clear that Microsoft has no direct evidence that its customer data has been breached by unauthorized government access, but will still pursue a "comprehensive engineering effort to strengthen the encryption of customer data across our networks and services." This includes major portals like Outlook, Office 365, SkyDrive, and Windows Azure, Microsoft's cloud network that powers some Xbox Live cloud services.
All of Microsoft's new encryption efforts, including expanding current encryption to use 2,048-bit keys, will be in place by the end of 2014, though much of it is effective immediately, Smith said.
"Ultimately, we're sensitive to the balances that must be struck when it comes to technology, security, and the law," Smith said. "We all want to live in a world that is safe and secure, but we also want to live in a country that is protected by the Constitution. We want to ensure that important questions about government access are decided by courts rather than dictated by technological might. And we're focused on applying new safeguards worldwide, recognizing the global nature of these issues and challenges. We believe these new steps strike the right balance, advancing for all of us both the security we need and the privacy we deserve."
For more details on Microsoft's plan to protect consumer data from "government snooping," check out Smith's post on Microsoft's website.
Microsoft of course was caught with its pants down around its ankles around June (IIRC) helping the NSA spy on people, which is what led to a large backlash against the Kinect being an always on peripheral required for the console to function. They backtracked on that about a month (IIRC) later and now the Kinect is no longer required for the Xbox One to operate.
All I know is I read the article above and lost one of my best irony meters instantly.
Please be realistic, MS didn't "help" the NSA spy on anyone, they were legally obliged to by the government. This kind of hyperbole isn't promoting any meaningful discussion.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
+3
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The statement about "technical brute forcing" is a PR spin attempt, because the government was doing it by legit legal means already.
Also maybe out of the scope of this thread.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
What caused them to start drifting apart before April?
That's pretty simple as that was when Sony showed their hand first with the PS4, which probably caused the slight dip just by being "first". People saw the shiny new console and was like "I would like to buy that!" but the dip in February isn't huge by any stretch. Adam Orth and #dealwithit started on April 4 and that's when you see the first significant dip in the graph. Depending on the time they took the survey for this the initial disastrous presentation of the Xbone may also have caused the dramatic april dip as well (TV TV TV SPORTS!!!).
It's going to be fascinating to see if the initial backlashes and terrible PR of the Xbone has significantly affected its sales a year from now or if they can recover (the graphs both suggest a recovery for Microsoft by the time of release - makes me wonder if there is going to be data for November soon?).
Please be realistic, MS didn't "help" the NSA spy on anyone, they were legally obliged to by the government. This kind of hyperbole isn't promoting any meaningful discussion.
Well if that's the way you want to spin it, go for it but I don't agree that using the word help as opposed to assisted, supported or similar is really describing it any differently or is "hyperbole". Regardless of if they were legally obligated to do so, it doesn't change what they were doing and you don't have to be a willing participant to be giving "assistance" or "Help" or any other word I could think of.
What caused them to start drifting apart before April?
That's pretty simple as that was when Sony showed their hand first with the PS4, which probably caused the slight dip just by being "first". People saw the shiny new console and was like "I would like to buy that!" but the dip in February isn't huge by any stretch. Adam Orth and #dealwithit started on April 4 and that's when you see the first significant dip in the graph. Depending on the time they took the survey for this the initial disastrous presentation of the Xbone may also have caused the dramatic april dip as well (TV TV TV SPORTS!!!).
It's going to be fascinating to see if the initial backlashes and terrible PR of the Xbone has significantly affected its sales a year from now or if they can recover (the graphs both suggest a recovery for Microsoft by the time of release - makes me wonder if there is going to be data for November soon?).
So Gamespot have a really interesting article on the sales of the PS4 vs. Xbone titled "Xbox One and PS4 sales numbers don't matter right now (But you don't care)". The article is most notable for a couple of graphs that I haven't seen before that are exceptionally interesting, but I'll quote the lead up to these from the article then post the two graphs in question:
We’re in a war of numbers.
The PlayStation 4 sold one million consoles in 24 hours
Then the Xbox One did too
But the PS4 only launched in two countries compared to the XB1’s 13
After the PS4’s global launch across 32 countries, Sony reported 2.1 million console sales.
Microsoft says that currently the XB1 is seeing "unprecedented" demand
But sifting through all the noise, these numbers don’t really mean anything. Not yet anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re big, impressive numbers for consoles that aren’t even a month old. After all, Nintendo’s Wii only sold 600,000 in its first week, and the PlayStation 2 only sold 500,000. But nobody is arguing that those consoles weren’t incredibly successful.
All those numbers really mean is that Sony and Microsoft have been more prepared for consumer demand than at any previous console launch. If more consoles were currently available for either system, they’d sell even more.
Sales numbers are meaningless for determining how “successful” either console is until after supply starts to surpass demand. Until you can walk into a store and pick one up. At that point, you’ll get objective numbers, minus the spin, and the popularity contest winner will be revealed.
But you probably already know that it’s going to be the PS4.
Going over the results from data provided by the market research portal GameSpot Trax, you can see a clear preference for Sony’s console among general gamers. In a series of surveys over the last year where respondents were asked to rate their likelihood to purchase either an XB1 or a PS4, here were the results. Although both consoles were relatively close around this time last year, the gulf widened considerably as we approached launch.
The graphs are pretty interesting in themselves:
This graph shows those who were definitely buying one of the two consoles (either a PS4 or Xbone) and then compares it with this graph, which shows who is not wanting to buy one of these consoles:
That's pretty incredible really, although on the second Graph the Xbone made a recovery it really does show how much damage Microsoft did to themselves in a couple of months of sheer madness with their terrible reveal in April and then E3. I am really going to be curious to see if the Xbone has given themselves a major albatross around their neck post-E3 that affects them dramatically by this time next year or if they are able to recover. Given that Sony recently crowed about selling 2.1 million consoles and Microsofts recent response was to tell people some 3 billion (or whatever the number was) zombies were killed in Dead Rising 3, I am thinking Sony may have a substantial enough lead by this time next year.
Recent reports of "government snooping," including unauthorized Internet surveillance, has drawn an indignant response from Microsoft. Writing on the company's blog, Microsoft corporate affairs executive Brad Smith said he is "alarmed" by these revelations and pledged that Microsoft will enhance encryption efforts for its products and services.
A report from this summer, based on documents provided by Edward Snowden, pegged Microsoft as having closely collaborated with United States intelligence services to allow its users' communications data to be intercepted.
"Many of our customers have serious concerns about government surveillance of the Internet. We share their concerns. That's why we are taking steps to ensure governments use legal process rather than technological brute force to access customer data," Smith said.
"Like many others, we are especially alarmed by recent allegations in the press of a broader and concerted effort by some governments to circumvent online security measures--and in our view, legal processes and protections--in order to surreptitiously collect private customer data," he added.
In particular, Smith called out the reports of governmental interception and collection of customer data as it travels between users and servers.
"If true, these efforts threaten to seriously undermine confidence in the security and privacy of online communications," he said. "Indeed, government snooping potentially now constitutes an 'advanced persistent threat,' alongside sophisticated malware and cyber attacks."
As a result of these allegations, Smith said Microsoft will take "immediate and coordinated action" by expanding encryption efforts, reinforcing legal protection for customer data, and enhancing transparency of software code to make it obvious that products do not have back doors.
Any specific implications for the Xbox platform were not specified. A company representative was not immediately available to comment. Microsoft previously attempted to quell privacy concerns for the Xbox One by outlining in a privacy document that data captured through the system does not leave the console.
Smith made it clear that Microsoft has no direct evidence that its customer data has been breached by unauthorized government access, but will still pursue a "comprehensive engineering effort to strengthen the encryption of customer data across our networks and services." This includes major portals like Outlook, Office 365, SkyDrive, and Windows Azure, Microsoft's cloud network that powers some Xbox Live cloud services.
All of Microsoft's new encryption efforts, including expanding current encryption to use 2,048-bit keys, will be in place by the end of 2014, though much of it is effective immediately, Smith said.
"Ultimately, we're sensitive to the balances that must be struck when it comes to technology, security, and the law," Smith said. "We all want to live in a world that is safe and secure, but we also want to live in a country that is protected by the Constitution. We want to ensure that important questions about government access are decided by courts rather than dictated by technological might. And we're focused on applying new safeguards worldwide, recognizing the global nature of these issues and challenges. We believe these new steps strike the right balance, advancing for all of us both the security we need and the privacy we deserve."
For more details on Microsoft's plan to protect consumer data from "government snooping," check out Smith's post on Microsoft's website.
Microsoft of course was caught with its pants down around its ankles around June (IIRC) helping the NSA spy on people, which is what led to a large backlash against the Kinect being an always on peripheral required for the console to function. They backtracked on that about a month (IIRC) later and now the Kinect is no longer required for the Xbox One to operate.
All I know is I read the article above and lost one of my best irony meters instantly.
Please be realistic, MS didn't "help" the NSA spy on anyone, they were legally obliged to by the government. This kind of hyperbole isn't promoting any meaningful discussion.
Well if that's the way you want to spin it, go for it but I don't agree that using the word help as opposed to assisted, supported or similar is really describing it any differently or is "hyperbole". Regardless of if they were legally obligated to do so, it doesn't change what they were doing and you don't have to be a willing participant to be giving "assistance" or "Help" or any other word I could think of.
Are you kidding me? "Forced" is a better word. The government forced them to release the data. They didn't help, or support, or encourage, the government forced them to give it up. They didn't fucking sell it, dude, and this is normal data that is to be expected to collected by a company like that. It's no different than the CIA forcing me to tell them what I know about you: That you're Australian (right?), you like to get outraged, you hate Microsoft, and your avatar is green. They didn't plant me here to find that out, I just know it. And now I might go to prison if I don't tell them that.
**edit** Just read up on what the whole thing was about, please.
Less than two years after opening a game design studio in downtown Victoria, Microsoft has closed its doors, leaving at least 30 people out of work.
In a brief statement released to the Times Colonist, the company said it was part of a plan to consolidate its resources.
“This was not an easy decision, but one guided by our desire to centralize development in our Vancouver studios,” the company said. “We are working closely with all employees affected by this change to identify open positions in other studios, and we remain committed to doing business in British Columbia.”
Microsoft did not make anyone available to speak to the media Wednesday. The company would not say how many employees were affected.
“It was great to have a large, well-known brand like Microsoft come to town and we’re sorry to see them go, but in the end it wasn’t a giant studio,” said Dan Gunn, executive director of the Victoria Advanced Technology Council. “Fortunately, we have seen the game-design sector start to expand here since 2007 and I think a lot of these people will get picked up by other studios, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two of them started a studio of their own.”
Gunn wouldn’t theorize on why Microsoft shut its doors, though he dismissed the idea that it could be tied to Oak Bay resident Don Mattrick, the head of Microsoft’s gaming division, leaving the company earlier this year to join game developer Zynga.
“I think we all hoped they would continue to expand. Don Mattrick was obviously a massive champion for that office and seeing him go caused us to take notice, but it’s tough to know the inner workings of a large corporate giant like Microsoft,” he said. “When a head office is in another country and making large corporate decisions, often a smaller outpost can be a victim to a broader strategy.”
Microsoft opened the Victoria studio in early 2012 in the Dogwood Building at 1019 Wharf St. At the time, the company said there were plans to expand to as many as 150 employees over the next three years.
The company initially leased four floors in the building at the corner of Wharf and Fort streets, but the studio used only two of them.
Microsoft said it chose Victoria for its proximity to company headquarters in Redmond, Wash., and its livability, which was expected to help attract the best and brightest in creative, production and design in the global gaming industry.
The closing was met with some surprise within the game-design sector, which has grown to 18 local studios employing about 240 people.
“This was not expected,” said Kixeye general manager Clayton Stark. “But it has nothing to do with our sector, it has to do with a big company making a decision and does not herald a slowdown.”
Stark said Microsoft’s closing may actually give the sector a boost.
“Is it a blow? I don’t think so for selfish reasons — it helps the rest of us because there is some talent there and this means more people in the available talent pool,” he said.
Alex Mendelev, CEO of newly opened TinyMob Games, said his company has taken advantage of the opportunity and hired some of the Microsoft staff.
“[Victoria’s gaming sector] is a pretty thriving industry and I’m sure these guys will find jobs in one of the other 18 companies,” he said. “They are a very talented bunch of guys, and my understanding is many of them have multiple offers on the table right now. I don’t think they will have any trouble finding work in town.”
skeldare on
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
HAIL HYDRA
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Are you kidding me? "Forced" is a better word. The government forced them to release the data. They didn't help, or support, or encourage, the government forced them to give it up. They didn't fucking sell it, dude, and this is normal data that is to be expected to collected by a company like that.
**edit** Just read up on what the whole thing was about, please.
I have read a lot about it and where you say "Forced" I say "Got caught", which does in fact have a meaningful distinction here. I am aware they were legally being obligated to do so, but I honestly don't think that actually changes anything about the definition of the word "help". You can still be forced to help someone and it doesn't change the end result: Which was widespread outcry against MS and that it definitely had an extremely negative effect on privacy concerns with the kinect immediately after. Just see how many articles focused on what the kinect could and couldn't collect on consumers in the immediate aftermath.
Edit: And this is my last response to you on semantics.
League of Legends professional players have been banned from streaming rival titles by developer Riot Games, prompting a backlash from some gamers.
OnGamers revealed last night that players competing in Season 4 of LCS are forbidden from streaming other games including Dota 2, StarCraft 2, Hearthstone, World of Warcraft and World of Tanks. Now, Riot's director of eSports Whalen Rozelle has defended the decision on Reddit.
"We say this all the time: we want League of Legends to be a legitimate sport," he wrote. "There are some cool things that come from that (salaried professional athletes, legitimate revenue streams, visas, Staples Center), but there's also a lot of structural work that needs to be done to ensure a true professional setting.
"We recognise there may be some differences of opinion in the perception of pro players' streams. In the past, pro gamers only had to worry about their personal brands when streaming and, at most, may have had to worry about not using the wrong brand of keyboard to keep their sponsor happy. Now, however, these guys are professionals contracted to a professional sports league. When they're streaming to 50,000 fans, they're also representing the sport itself.
"I can't stress enough how these guys in the LCS are on the road to being real, legitimate athletes. This is new territory for a lot of teams (especially in eSports), because the transition goes from being a group of talented individuals to being real icons of a sport and a league.
"Similarly, you probably wouldn't see an NFL player promoting Arena Football or a Nike-sponsored player wearing Reebok on camera. Pro-players are free to play whatever games they want - we're simply asking them to keep in mind that, on-stream, they're the face of competitive League of Legends."
Are people trying to argue that the current status quo of how professional sports is handled by the NFL is a good thing, and that's what Riot should be emulating in a new sports league?
Yes they are. And the argument is very much "This is how it is, so deal with it."
I'm just saying that if you don't want to adhere to those stupid rules, don't sign the contract. To an extent, it's not an unreasonable thing to demand. "Your career is based on playing our games. As long as you are, don't promote other people's products."
I would not have a problem with these rules if the salary they pay professional gamers was enough to live off of. As it is, not signing the LCS contract is essentially signing a death warrant for your team. Another team will be snatched up immediately and your team is now boned.
So the choices are either to sign the LCS contract for an amount of money that is not enough to live off of and give up your right to make revenue off other games excepting LoL, or not sign the LCS contract and say goodbye to playing professional LoL. It's a forced choice for anyone who is good enough to have gotten to that level because Riot knows they can get away with it. Riot has all the power, the player has none.
LCS pay is $50k/year plus performance bonuses
It's plenty of money to live off of
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
50k a year to play video games and work almost entirely from home most of that? I think that's a pretty damn good deal compared to many other people and that list of games isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as I thought it would be.
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
It is not unusual in the slightest in the entire business world to have to get approval from your company before engaging in moneymaking activities on the side.
For example, I work as an account manager for a paint supplier. If I wanted to teach piano as a part time job in my spare time, I would be able to do that, but I would NOT be able to go and be a painter.
What caused them to start drifting apart before April?
That's pretty simple as that was when Sony showed their hand first with the PS4, which probably caused the slight dip just by being "first". People saw the shiny new console and was like "I would like to buy that!" but the dip in February isn't huge by any stretch. Adam Orth and #dealwithit started on April 4 and that's when you see the first significant dip in the graph. Depending on the time they took the survey for this the initial disastrous presentation of the Xbone may also have caused the dramatic april dip as well (TV TV TV SPORTS!!!).
It's going to be fascinating to see if the initial backlashes and terrible PR of the Xbone has significantly affected its sales a year from now or if they can recover (the graphs both suggest a recovery for Microsoft by the time of release - makes me wonder if there is going to be data for November soon?).
So Gamespot have a really interesting article on the sales of the PS4 vs. Xbone titled "Xbox One and PS4 sales numbers don't matter right now (But you don't care)". The article is most notable for a couple of graphs that I haven't seen before that are exceptionally interesting, but I'll quote the lead up to these from the article then post the two graphs in question:
We’re in a war of numbers.
The PlayStation 4 sold one million consoles in 24 hours
Then the Xbox One did too
But the PS4 only launched in two countries compared to the XB1’s 13
After the PS4’s global launch across 32 countries, Sony reported 2.1 million console sales.
Microsoft says that currently the XB1 is seeing "unprecedented" demand
But sifting through all the noise, these numbers don’t really mean anything. Not yet anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re big, impressive numbers for consoles that aren’t even a month old. After all, Nintendo’s Wii only sold 600,000 in its first week, and the PlayStation 2 only sold 500,000. But nobody is arguing that those consoles weren’t incredibly successful.
All those numbers really mean is that Sony and Microsoft have been more prepared for consumer demand than at any previous console launch. If more consoles were currently available for either system, they’d sell even more.
Sales numbers are meaningless for determining how “successful” either console is until after supply starts to surpass demand. Until you can walk into a store and pick one up. At that point, you’ll get objective numbers, minus the spin, and the popularity contest winner will be revealed.
But you probably already know that it’s going to be the PS4.
Going over the results from data provided by the market research portal GameSpot Trax, you can see a clear preference for Sony’s console among general gamers. In a series of surveys over the last year where respondents were asked to rate their likelihood to purchase either an XB1 or a PS4, here were the results. Although both consoles were relatively close around this time last year, the gulf widened considerably as we approached launch.
The graphs are pretty interesting in themselves:
This graph shows those who were definitely buying one of the two consoles (either a PS4 or Xbone) and then compares it with this graph, which shows who is not wanting to buy one of these consoles:
That's pretty incredible really, although on the second Graph the Xbone made a recovery it really does show how much damage Microsoft did to themselves in a couple of months of sheer madness with their terrible reveal in April and then E3. I am really going to be curious to see if the Xbone has given themselves a major albatross around their neck post-E3 that affects them dramatically by this time next year or if they are able to recover. Given that Sony recently crowed about selling 2.1 million consoles and Microsofts recent response was to tell people some 3 billion (or whatever the number was) zombies were killed in Dead Rising 3, I am thinking Sony may have a substantial enough lead by this time next year.
Recent reports of "government snooping," including unauthorized Internet surveillance, has drawn an indignant response from Microsoft. Writing on the company's blog, Microsoft corporate affairs executive Brad Smith said he is "alarmed" by these revelations and pledged that Microsoft will enhance encryption efforts for its products and services.
A report from this summer, based on documents provided by Edward Snowden, pegged Microsoft as having closely collaborated with United States intelligence services to allow its users' communications data to be intercepted.
"Many of our customers have serious concerns about government surveillance of the Internet. We share their concerns. That's why we are taking steps to ensure governments use legal process rather than technological brute force to access customer data," Smith said.
"Like many others, we are especially alarmed by recent allegations in the press of a broader and concerted effort by some governments to circumvent online security measures--and in our view, legal processes and protections--in order to surreptitiously collect private customer data," he added.
In particular, Smith called out the reports of governmental interception and collection of customer data as it travels between users and servers.
"If true, these efforts threaten to seriously undermine confidence in the security and privacy of online communications," he said. "Indeed, government snooping potentially now constitutes an 'advanced persistent threat,' alongside sophisticated malware and cyber attacks."
As a result of these allegations, Smith said Microsoft will take "immediate and coordinated action" by expanding encryption efforts, reinforcing legal protection for customer data, and enhancing transparency of software code to make it obvious that products do not have back doors.
Any specific implications for the Xbox platform were not specified. A company representative was not immediately available to comment. Microsoft previously attempted to quell privacy concerns for the Xbox One by outlining in a privacy document that data captured through the system does not leave the console.
Smith made it clear that Microsoft has no direct evidence that its customer data has been breached by unauthorized government access, but will still pursue a "comprehensive engineering effort to strengthen the encryption of customer data across our networks and services." This includes major portals like Outlook, Office 365, SkyDrive, and Windows Azure, Microsoft's cloud network that powers some Xbox Live cloud services.
All of Microsoft's new encryption efforts, including expanding current encryption to use 2,048-bit keys, will be in place by the end of 2014, though much of it is effective immediately, Smith said.
"Ultimately, we're sensitive to the balances that must be struck when it comes to technology, security, and the law," Smith said. "We all want to live in a world that is safe and secure, but we also want to live in a country that is protected by the Constitution. We want to ensure that important questions about government access are decided by courts rather than dictated by technological might. And we're focused on applying new safeguards worldwide, recognizing the global nature of these issues and challenges. We believe these new steps strike the right balance, advancing for all of us both the security we need and the privacy we deserve."
For more details on Microsoft's plan to protect consumer data from "government snooping," check out Smith's post on Microsoft's website.
Microsoft of course was caught with its pants down around its ankles around June (IIRC) helping the NSA spy on people, which is what led to a large backlash against the Kinect being an always on peripheral required for the console to function. They backtracked on that about a month (IIRC) later and now the Kinect is no longer required for the Xbox One to operate.
All I know is I read the article above and lost one of my best irony meters instantly.
Please be realistic, MS didn't "help" the NSA spy on anyone, they were legally obliged to by the government. This kind of hyperbole isn't promoting any meaningful discussion.
Well if that's the way you want to spin it, go for it but I don't agree that using the word help as opposed to assisted, supported or similar is really describing it any differently or is "hyperbole". Regardless of if they were legally obligated to do so, it doesn't change what they were doing and you don't have to be a willing participant to be giving "assistance" or "Help" or any other word I could think of.
Are you kidding me? "Forced" is a better word. The government forced them to release the data. They didn't help, or support, or encourage, the government forced them to give it up. They didn't fucking sell it, dude, and this is normal data that is to be expected to collected by a company like that.
**edit** Just read up on what the whole thing was about, please.
I have read a lot about it and where you say "Forced" I say "Got caught", which does in fact have a meaningful distinction here. I am aware they were legally being obligated to do so, but I honestly don't think that actually changes anything about the definition of the word "help". You can still be forced to help someone and it doesn't change the end result: Which was widespread outcry against MS and that it definitely had an extremely negative effect on privacy concerns with the kinect immediately after. Just see how many articles focused on what the kinect could and couldn't collect on consumers in the immediate aftermath.
Edit: And this is my last response to you on semantics.
This isn't semantics. You're suggesting MS "helped" the government, your intention was clearly to denigrate them for holding data they were then forced to reveal. They were forced to reveal data they held which they had no intention of revealing otherwise. It is not a crime to collect any sort of data and Yahoo, Google, Walmart, McDonalds, your local post office, and your boss could all be subject to the same thing at any point - and fuck me when you find out your credit card company is subject to the same stipulations. They have not been "caught" doing anything and your suggestion that Microsoft was reeks of a vendetta. The same thing could happen to Sony, Steam, Origin or MASTERCARD tomorrow, it doesn't make them better or worse companies, it just makes them subject to the laws of the countries they operate in.
Spaffy on
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
+1
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
please trim gigantic quote trees when you're having a very back and forth discussion, it makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to follow the thread.
50k a year to play video games and work almost entirely from home most of that? I think that's a pretty damn good deal compared to many other people and that list of games isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as I thought it would be.
Agreed. I spend £5k ($7k US dollars roughly) just getting to and from work every year, plus food and drink and toilet paper and whatnot. Add that on top. Let's not forget most of these guys clearly have some other financial support because they were playing on top notch rigs and internet connections prior to getting signed. They ain't destitute and the market can clearly support this.
The wording and semantics behind it are meaningless now. Only the aftermath.
Shortly after announcing their system would require a forced camera installation, along with a hilariously murky definition of what defined it being "turned off", news broke that all of those crazy people who were declaring that the government was spying on them turned out to be right. And that Microsoft was a part of it.
It's little wonder why people instantly doubled down on the Kinect hate. Sucky ass timing for MS, but it wasn't unwarranted.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
50k a year to play video games and work almost entirely from home most of that? I think that's a pretty damn good deal compared to many other people and that list of games isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as I thought it would be.
They're room and board is also typically paid for (by the team, not Riot) or at least subsidized as most LCS-caliber teams have a team house
Whether they use encryption or not, if Microsoft (Or Google or whoever) is still the generator and holder of the keys, those keys are up for grabs. They've already demonstrated that they won't say no to Uncle Sam when he comes calling.
This is all just posturing that will fly out the window when the goose poop hits the fan.
The wording and semantics behind it are meaningless now. Only the aftermath.
Shortly after announcing their system would require a forced camera installation, along with a hilariously murky definition of what defined it being "turned off", news broke that all of those crazy people who were declaring that the government was spying on them turned out to be right. And that Microsoft was a part of it.
It's little wonder why people instantly doubled down on the Kinect hate. Sucky ass timing for MS, but it wasn't unwarranted.
No, the distrust wasn't unwarranted at the time, for the 24 hours or so before the facts were actually known. But you, I, and the guys that liked your post should also know that distrusting Microsoft on a personal level IS unwarranted. You've just described a misconception, which is that Microsoft are spying on you.
The alternative is: Your TV is spying on you. Your credit card company is spying on you. HBO is spying on you. Amazon is spying on you. Your webcam is spying on you. Penny Arcade is spying on you (and knows a LOT MORE than Microsoft does).
Because any one of those organisations could be forced to say what they know about you at any time - just like MS was.
Microsoft were not collecting data at the request of the government, that's a fact.
Guess what, no international corporation is going to say no when Uncle Sam comes a knocking with the legal equivalent of a battering ram.
Not Nintendo, not Sony, not Valve, not Apple, not Google, and not Microsoft.
Because doing so would on their part be illegal.
If you want to be mad, be mad that you agree to give vasts amounts of information away freely to companies. Don't be mad that they don't break the law to keep that information away from the government.
Whether they use encryption or not, if Microsoft (Or Google or whoever) is still the generator and holder of the keys, those keys are up for grabs. They've already demonstrated that they won't say no to Uncle Sam when he comes calling.
This is all just posturing that will fly out the window when the goose poop hits the fan.
Asking is just a nicety, one that would likely only be involved should evidence collected be used in larger legal proceedings independent of intelligence collection. There is nothing that can be done to keep out an organization like the NSA, if they can show to the FISA court that collecting data on a user or a network of users through the Kinect is important enough, they will do it. They already know the backdoors and vulnerabilities, hell they probably made some of them.
Can't I be mad at the company that made it mandatory to connect an always on, listening camera to my video game system as long as I wanted to play it. Then finally agreed to ax the idea at the last minute when it became clear they weren't going to get away with forcing customers to accept their bullshit.
No, your right. I shouldn't have gotten mad, I should have just taken my business elsewhere. Which I did.
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Posts
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Before people immediately start comparing them to Rare-style purgatory:
No immediate link to a new WipEout, though, sadly.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
The only response I have to this is "lmao." They really aren't going to give up on that thing are they?
There is apparently some language in the contract that prevents you from doing it at all, if they want to enforce it. TotalBiscuit did a video on it. I know he's a controversial figure and not everyone likes him, but he was fairly unbiased about the whole thing and made some good points on both sides.
Of course Riot created the LCS to promote League of Legends. And they created League of Legends to make money. It follows intrinsically from that that Riot needs good, popular players to participate in LCS for it to succeed and be profitable. It does not follow intrinsically that Riot needs to invade participants' personal lives for LCS to succeed. If they wanted to pay popular streamers to stream in order to control their content, they could do that. Pinning that stipulation onto the LCS application form is just taking advantage of the influence they wield because they can.
"Monopoly" was a stupid choice of words, but it can't be denied Riot commands WAY more influence over competitive LoL than Valve or Blizzard does over professional Dota or Starcraft.
It's a condition of participation. It's not "invading participants' personal lives" to prohibit them from engaging in other kinds of commercial activity. It's NOT their personal lives - its their professional lives.
I'm pretty sure if Valve tried to exercise any sort of muscle over competitive DOTA the very established community would collectively kick them in the dick. Valve ain't that stupid. It'd be like Capcom suddenly trying to give the FGC marching orders.
The originating article: http://www.ongamers.com/articles/riot-season-4-lcs-contracts-stipulate-players-cannot-stream-dota-2-blizzard-games/1100-261/
And here's the important part:
Outright. Never. Even when it's midnight and they're just want to get drunk, listen to The Protomen Act 2, and play Diablo 3 during their own, personal time. Their off hour behavior IS being affected by this contract which means that if they are not being paid to cover what is essentially now a full time job then they are being fucked.
League of Legends has been around since 2009; it's already four years old, which is nearly ancient in the world of PC gaming. Not only does no one expect NFL-levels of longevity from the LoL Brand, but the rules of the game itself have constantly changed with the addition of new mechanics, champions, and constant balance changes. As such, there's far less incentive for a player to make a long-term commitment to any specific gaming brand, as, at least right now, we have no reason to believe that you can build a full, lengthy career off of a single game, and far more incentive to promote their own brand as a player and entertainer than as a representative of any single game that could be gone or replaced in just a few years.
As such, I'm not sure how well modelling pro sports is going to work in this industry; I think we'll continue to take cues from it, but we're going to have to adapt and get creative to deal with the unique benefits and drawbacks of videogaming as a spectator media.
There's Morello, but that's a known quantity.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
[edited to trim massive preview, hopefully without screwing anything up.
There are some aspects of pro sports that are absolutely retarded but there are things that are in place for good reason. Like the aformentioned way sponsorships work and the leagues making sure their players aren't doing something stupid like going on air saying shit like "yeah, I love my team, but man, it was so much better when it was at that other city and that manager Steve was in charge." Riot has a very good point in controlling their brand image and making sure their big draw, tourney players are helping to promote Riot and LoL, however, that also means paying them the salary that sort of commitment requires. It's not exactly an accident that pro sports players are all union members.
If you want to just stream something else to your fans while at home and cannot then guess what, that is being affected. That's not even a subjective opinion, it's pretty black and white. My entire argument is that it's not a bad thing unless they're being paid shit for having to monitor their out of game public behavior. Then it's a pretty crummy deal precisely because it is an endorsement.
The graphs are pretty interesting in themselves:
This graph shows those who were definitely buying one of the two consoles (either a PS4 or Xbone) and then compares it with this graph, which shows who is not wanting to buy one of these consoles:
That's pretty incredible really, although on the second Graph the Xbone made a recovery it really does show how much damage Microsoft did to themselves in a couple of months of sheer madness with their terrible reveal in April and then E3. I am really going to be curious to see if the Xbone has given themselves a major albatross around their neck post-E3 that affects them dramatically by this time next year or if they are able to recover. Given that Sony recently crowed about selling 2.1 million consoles and Microsofts recent response was to tell people some 3 billion (or whatever the number was) zombies were killed in Dead Rising 3, I am thinking Sony may have a substantial enough lead by this time next year.
And because this post was about how Microsoft pissed people off this I saw today was hilarious:
Microsoft of course was caught with its pants down around its ankles around June (IIRC) helping the NSA spy on people, which is what led to a large backlash against the Kinect being an always on peripheral required for the console to function. They backtracked on that about a month (IIRC) later and now the Kinect is no longer required for the Xbox One to operate.
All I know is I read the article above and lost one of my best irony meters instantly.
Yes, but your stream is something broadcast to the public, and it's something for which you are being compensated and adds to your professional brand. It's not personal, it's public. Whether it's a crummy deal or not depends on each streamer's revenue from advertising that is impacted by the deal. I expect it will be a good deal for most and bad for the biggest names.
No, that's not it at all. The player can do whatever they want in their spare time, but when they STREAM, they are profiting from fame that is being paid for by Riot.
Steam: adamjnet
If you want to have your product as the stream itself, then don't sign into a contractual obligation to represent a certain brand.
If the stream is your product, then be your own brand. When you represent a brand of any sort, it is your obligation to show confidence in said brand. Anything less and the people paying your paycheque are going to have stern words with you or kick you to the curb for damaging their brand.
I, for instance, had to sign a contract saying that I will represent the brand I work for even outside the work place. That means I can't say/do anything that might impact the brand negatively on the internet even in my free time. This sort of business code of conduct applies across all sorts of industries.
Please be realistic, MS didn't "help" the NSA spy on anyone, they were legally obliged to by the government. This kind of hyperbole isn't promoting any meaningful discussion.
Steam: adamjnet
Also maybe out of the scope of this thread.
That's pretty simple as that was when Sony showed their hand first with the PS4, which probably caused the slight dip just by being "first". People saw the shiny new console and was like "I would like to buy that!" but the dip in February isn't huge by any stretch. Adam Orth and #dealwithit started on April 4 and that's when you see the first significant dip in the graph. Depending on the time they took the survey for this the initial disastrous presentation of the Xbone may also have caused the dramatic april dip as well (TV TV TV SPORTS!!!).
It's going to be fascinating to see if the initial backlashes and terrible PR of the Xbone has significantly affected its sales a year from now or if they can recover (the graphs both suggest a recovery for Microsoft by the time of release - makes me wonder if there is going to be data for November soon?).
Well if that's the way you want to spin it, go for it but I don't agree that using the word help as opposed to assisted, supported or similar is really describing it any differently or is "hyperbole". Regardless of if they were legally obligated to do so, it doesn't change what they were doing and you don't have to be a willing participant to be giving "assistance" or "Help" or any other word I could think of.
Are you kidding me? "Forced" is a better word. The government forced them to release the data. They didn't help, or support, or encourage, the government forced them to give it up. They didn't fucking sell it, dude, and this is normal data that is to be expected to collected by a company like that. It's no different than the CIA forcing me to tell them what I know about you: That you're Australian (right?), you like to get outraged, you hate Microsoft, and your avatar is green. They didn't plant me here to find that out, I just know it. And now I might go to prison if I don't tell them that.
**edit** Just read up on what the whole thing was about, please.
Steam: adamjnet
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I have read a lot about it and where you say "Forced" I say "Got caught", which does in fact have a meaningful distinction here. I am aware they were legally being obligated to do so, but I honestly don't think that actually changes anything about the definition of the word "help". You can still be forced to help someone and it doesn't change the end result: Which was widespread outcry against MS and that it definitely had an extremely negative effect on privacy concerns with the kinect immediately after. Just see how many articles focused on what the kinect could and couldn't collect on consumers in the immediate aftermath.
Edit: And this is my last response to you on semantics.
No, but you can say what games they can and can't play while streaming your game.
LCS pay is $50k/year plus performance bonuses
It's plenty of money to live off of
For example, I work as an account manager for a paint supplier. If I wanted to teach piano as a part time job in my spare time, I would be able to do that, but I would NOT be able to go and be a painter.
This isn't semantics. You're suggesting MS "helped" the government, your intention was clearly to denigrate them for holding data they were then forced to reveal. They were forced to reveal data they held which they had no intention of revealing otherwise. It is not a crime to collect any sort of data and Yahoo, Google, Walmart, McDonalds, your local post office, and your boss could all be subject to the same thing at any point - and fuck me when you find out your credit card company is subject to the same stipulations. They have not been "caught" doing anything and your suggestion that Microsoft was reeks of a vendetta. The same thing could happen to Sony, Steam, Origin or MASTERCARD tomorrow, it doesn't make them better or worse companies, it just makes them subject to the laws of the countries they operate in.
Steam: adamjnet
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/microsoft-to-harden-networks-code-against-government-snooping/
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
Agreed. I spend £5k ($7k US dollars roughly) just getting to and from work every year, plus food and drink and toilet paper and whatnot. Add that on top. Let's not forget most of these guys clearly have some other financial support because they were playing on top notch rigs and internet connections prior to getting signed. They ain't destitute and the market can clearly support this.
Steam: adamjnet
Shortly after announcing their system would require a forced camera installation, along with a hilariously murky definition of what defined it being "turned off", news broke that all of those crazy people who were declaring that the government was spying on them turned out to be right. And that Microsoft was a part of it.
It's little wonder why people instantly doubled down on the Kinect hate. Sucky ass timing for MS, but it wasn't unwarranted.
They're room and board is also typically paid for (by the team, not Riot) or at least subsidized as most LCS-caliber teams have a team house
It's a pretty sweet gig
Whether they use encryption or not, if Microsoft (Or Google or whoever) is still the generator and holder of the keys, those keys are up for grabs. They've already demonstrated that they won't say no to Uncle Sam when he comes calling.
This is all just posturing that will fly out the window when the goose poop hits the fan.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
No, the distrust wasn't unwarranted at the time, for the 24 hours or so before the facts were actually known. But you, I, and the guys that liked your post should also know that distrusting Microsoft on a personal level IS unwarranted. You've just described a misconception, which is that Microsoft are spying on you.
The alternative is: Your TV is spying on you. Your credit card company is spying on you. HBO is spying on you. Amazon is spying on you. Your webcam is spying on you. Penny Arcade is spying on you (and knows a LOT MORE than Microsoft does).
Because any one of those organisations could be forced to say what they know about you at any time - just like MS was.
Microsoft were not collecting data at the request of the government, that's a fact.
Steam: adamjnet
Not Nintendo, not Sony, not Valve, not Apple, not Google, and not Microsoft.
Because doing so would on their part be illegal.
If you want to be mad, be mad that you agree to give vasts amounts of information away freely to companies. Don't be mad that they don't break the law to keep that information away from the government.
Asking is just a nicety, one that would likely only be involved should evidence collected be used in larger legal proceedings independent of intelligence collection. There is nothing that can be done to keep out an organization like the NSA, if they can show to the FISA court that collecting data on a user or a network of users through the Kinect is important enough, they will do it. They already know the backdoors and vulnerabilities, hell they probably made some of them.
No, your right. I shouldn't have gotten mad, I should have just taken my business elsewhere. Which I did.
They're going to add extra locks to the door but if the government knocks nicely they'll open it for them. This isn't news.