| |ieolusSupport The Clecs
EA and Comcast So the two WORST companies in their respective industries get together? Classic. This will go well.
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
Re: Future where you don't own anything
said by FreedomThink :disc format is going away. you don't own the content on Netflix doesn't stop 30 million people form subscribing. You can bet the PS5 or XBox Two( if they come to be ) will not use a disc.
I just don't get why people would conform to using services that they have 0 control of the accessibility of the content. When you buy old school consoles and games in a disc format you can play the game when you insert the disc (choice of the consumer). In the new architecture that is being pushed onto consumers the content can be pulled or changed at anytime.
Lets take for example the original gta. I purchased the game before sept 11th and have the version where you can fly a plane into a building. They changed the game after sept 11th and if you buy a copy now the game has been modified to not allow you to fly a plane into a building.
I am sorry but I don't trust the content distributors to allow free flowing content that in the future won't be modified to align with this crazy politically correct world we are turning into. There are many games that they can't pull from society because of the old school method of delivering hard content.
Think about it
Re: Future where you don't own anything Discs aren't going away anytime soon. Blu-ray and DVD sales are up and that trend isn't going away.
A man must have a code -Bunk
| || I actually liked where Microsoft was going. I could buy a game, install it, and forget about it. Didn't have to get up and swap discs, would be available to anyone on my own console, and I could include my framily to access the game. And I could sell rights to it (though they had to be on my friend list for a set amount of time). I could log in to a friends console, and download the game to there and play it while away. It fit my lifestyle perfectly. But then everyone said how draconian it was, they couldn't sell the game on ebay or gamestop....Well, I looked at it like this, I spend 60$ for a game, play it for a month, go to gamestop and sell it back for what a $10 in store credit?!? And they then go sell it for 40$ None of that goes to the studio that produced the game. The only thing I didn't like about it was the always on internet connection. They could have taken a more liberal track on it, like check in once a month or something like that, but no, it was always on. Both consoles require the game to be installed on the hard drive. And honestly, I love that I can quickly switch games without swapping disks in the drive. If I'm waiting for a match, I can play another game, and when the match is ready, just switch to it.|
Re: Future where you don't own anything
said by LancPAGuy :The fact that the game is supplied on a physical disc doesn't prevent the game from being run without the disc once it's been installed to the hard drive. If you can't run the game without putting the disc in the drive, even after it's been installed, that's the fault of the game company, not the medium it's delivered on.
Both consoles require the game to be installed on the hard drive. And honestly, I love that I can quickly switch games without swapping disks in the drive.
With the way gaming is headed, not only do you not have a physical copy to keep for the future, companies will be able to kill your games if you do anything they don't like. A couple years ago, Valve said one of their subscribers was trying to sell his Steam account, which is apparently a big no-no, so they deactivated his account, which basically bricked all of the Steam-crippled games that were tied to that account. They eventually reversed their decision and turned his account back on, but it should freak people out that a company can just instantly kill all the games that you supposedly "bought".
What if at some point in the future, Microsoft decides that you need to pay a monthly fee to keep your games working? Or what if they decided to charge people a set fee each time they played a game, or the charge was based on how long they played it for?
If you could back the files up and re-install them at will with no restrictions, I'd be all in favor of digital distribution, but not when it comes with heavy DRM and a built-in killswitch.
Re: Future where you don't own anything
said by battleop:In other words, most people are dumb.
Because most people:
A. Don't know any better.
B. Don't care.
C. Are just fine with it.
D. All the above.
I'm sorry, but there's no other way to describe this.
Imagine how many movies, TV shows, songs, books, etc. would now be unavailable if they were all distributed in this manner. As soon as something was no longer popular, they'd drop it in favor of something new.
Just look at how many online-only games are no longer around. Aliens Online, City of Heroes, Star Wars Galaxies...
In the future, you'll still be able to play games that are 30+ years old, but you probably won't be able to play anything that's 10 years old, because it will no longer be offered on the streaming service.
It's all part of the push to ensure that consumers don't actually own anything.
Re: Future where you don't own anything Really, that's what the courts say, or that's what content companies are doing to rig their content so that people can not fairly use a product that they purchased? ...because when you buy a DVD and then you want to sell the DVD or play the DVD on your mother's DVD player. ...or do whatever you'd like with it, it's called fair use; and that's how it worked with VHS tape and with software until recently with all the DRM crap. So, that's what the courts say? I wonder what Congress says?
2. How does Fair Use fit with Copyright Law?
Copyright law embodies a bargain: Congress gave copyright holders a set of six exclusive rights for a limited time period, and gave to the public all remaining rights in creative works. The goals of the bargain are to give copyright holders an economic incentive to create works that ultimately benefit society as a whole, and by doing so, to promote the progress of science and learning in society. Congress never intended Copyright law to give copyright holders complete control of their works. The bargain also ensures that created works move into "the public domain" and are available for unlimited use by the public when the time period finishes. In addition, as part of the public's side of this bargain, U.S. Copyright law recognizes the doctrine of "fair use" as a limitation on copyright holders' exclusive right of reproduction of their works during the initial protected time period.
The public's right to make fair use of copyrighted works is a long-established and integral part of US copyright law. Courts have used fair use as the means of balancing the competing principles underlying copyright law since 1841. Fair use also reconciles a tension that would otherwise exist between copyright law and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has described fair use as "the guarantee of breathing space for new expression within the confines of Copyright law".
4. What's been recognized as fair use?
Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
Now there was the 2009 ruling where district court concluded that RealNetworks violated the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA when the DVD copying software RealDVD bypasses the copy protection technologies of DVD. I also know about the 2007 California Superior Court case against Kaleidescape, a manufacturer of high-end media servers capable of copying copyrighted DVD content to the servers. These cases are about bypassing the DRM, but the 2007 case was "an important recent test of fair use precedent, since it circles the question of whether a consumer who has legally purchased a DVD can copy or backup that DVD to whatever end the consumer desires."
This is not a cut and dry issue!
Re: Gaming technology in a set top box? Keep in mind the target audience. The latest incarnations of consoles are north of $400 or $500. That is no longer for the occasional gamer. MSFT has made it painful to keep an XB360 so I cancelled my service, and they can screw.
Now my kids are perfectly happy with apps on their istuff. Consoles are vanquished from my house. tablets are taking over for the casual gamer (read 90%). A 2014 istuff/android is a perfectly capable gaming platform for the masses, and it's portable.
Now for the casual user, are people going to drop $500 for 3 XB1 throughout the house for different TV's? No.
The Comcast platform allows them to go after the casual gamer, and with rendering farms all GPU processing is done in a farm.
EA is trying to stop from dying, because as console gaming moves to the cloud they need to keep up w/ the Jones.
The XB1/PS4 are probably the last consoles to exist. In the future you will have everything rendered in the cloud. Once that happens tablets will become even more useful and in need of less power.
As to controllers, the casual gamer probably doesn't care too much. they can make it sony or msft-like and everyone will be happy. Make them wireless and go in between Comcast consoles and you have a winner.
This will most assuredly not go against caps. They will treat it like VoD on their own channel. "Net neutrality" is already dead. Does Comcast phone count against caps? No but my Anveo VOIP would... Does Netflix count against caps? Yes, does VoD, NO
Lets not sling the bullshit. Neutrality is a theory, nothing more. It's going to erode away over time. Not saying that's right but if telcos are not treated as a utility, then it is inevitable.
Re: Gaming technology in a set top box?
said by elefante72:I don't own a tablet and I've only used my friend's Android tablet a few times, but I didn't like it at all. He had some emulators on it and most of them don't let you configure the controls at all. You plug in a controller and either it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, there's not much you can do about it. He showed me a couple native Android games, which used the touch screen. Of course you can't be too precise when moving your finger over a 7" screen so it was hard to control them. Gaming on tablets just seems so primitive compared to a computer, or even a console.
tablets are taking over for the casual gamer (read 90%). A 2014 istuff/android is a perfectly capable gaming platform for the masses, and it's portable.
This is another example of discriminatory treatment It's all data moving through Comcrap's pipes. It should ALL be treated the same and all count towards the caps.
If EA gets a free pass from caps because they partner with Comcrap, that's exactly the same scenario as what is proposed in the new FCC rules. It's the Fast Lane for EA.
EVERYONE must be treated the same. No exceptions.
Re: This is another example of discriminatory treatment
said by mpellegrini:Just like all of the Comcast TV you watch and digital calls you place via Comcast's voice service? If it's separate from the channels used to provide your access to the Internet, then why should it all count the same?
It's all data moving through Comcrap's pipes. It should ALL be treated the same and all count towards the caps.