sparkyb wrote:I disagree with your way of looking at it, I think that is much too pessimistic.
I'd call it reasonable skepticism. I don't like assuming that I'm being screwed by the big bad companies either, but I'll look at the facts and make my own judgements. They explained a bunch of policies that negatively affects consumers, and merely alluded to the way in which it would positively affect consumers. I think the people who defend MS in this whole fiasco are reading far too much into those allusions and aren't rationalizing what the changes truly represent.
If they want to bundle kinect with their console, I'm okay with that. It's not ideal for people who don't care for it and could have paid less for the console, but they're free to sell their product at whatever price they like. If they want to force the kinect to be connected and fully operational for the xbox to function, I'm not okay with that. There's no good reason for that on top of there being several reason why you wouldn't want that. It increases the malfunction rate of the console by adding a hardware requirement, it limits options in console resale/trade, it feels like its been shoved down your throat... There's no good reason why the kinect couldn't have an on/off/listen mode and several reasons why you wouldn't want it to be always on. There's the paranoia of government and megacorporations, and then there's simply the limiting of options/capability for the consumer. You would have to address both and then tell me why I would want it at all before I would support it. It's extremely narrow-sighted to only shrug off the first concern as an unlikely conspiracy while also ignoring the other. If you don't care, you will get taken advantage of eventually.
I'll play kinect games if and when I want to, and I certainly don't at this point. If it's a vicious cycle of lack of interest in the hardware leading to a lack of development in the software, having the kinect bundled with the console should be enough to remedy that. That argument can't be extended to justify the other limitations in my opinion.
Above all else, people should never be dragged kicking and screaming anywhere in this context, even when the anywhere is towards corruption and monopolization (the frog boiling analogy). Imagine if everyone was forced to adopt Windows 7 (we kind of were in little ways, but that's another topic), thus prompting MS never to fix the issues with it because there was no money incentive to do so. It would only benefit MS, and likewise in this case, you haven't and can't explain how the positives outweigh the negatives. We never got the details. Since they backed out, I think it's safer to assume that it wasn't the case. Otherwise they would have cleared the confusion and not thrown the millions in contracts, R&D, and general PR out the window.
This is all kind of a pointless argument now, even petty, but I wanted to explain that your veil of optimism and defending MS is making it harder for the rest of us by not considering these issues. You can be a sucker if you like and ignore your diminishing consumer rights, but don't argue that it's a good thing unless you have some stronger ideas. And to speak to the pettiness, I think I'm a little more passionate about it because it's depressing enough to see the industry become increasingly top heavy and watching games and franchises and studios crippled under it without hearing gamers argue that it's a good thing.