Something went wrong. Try again later

Hashbrowns

This user has not updated recently.

690 29 9 15
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Hashbrowns's forum posts

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

@hashbrowns said:

The underlying sentiment behind most of the Xbox One reactions is what's most disturbing: a belief that these electronic devices are in some way owed to us, and therefore any terms, prices or features that we don't want are considered tantamount to attempted theft. That mindset is self-defeating and inevitably encourages an attitude of perpetual victimhood, and so it's little wonder why people react with unhealthy rage when an entertainment device might not live up to their expectations.

If the devices are owned by us, then we have a right to bitch if something is not to our liking. I don't care about buying used games nor do I sell games. What I do do (ha!) is take games over to my buddies house sometimes and let them borrow games. The hoops that these rumors seem to suggest you will have to jump through just to be able to do this are ridiculous; there must be a better solution.

You certainly have a right to Free Speech, and I would never tell you not to complain. Voice your desires and expectations, absolutely. But if the Xbox One doesn't meet your standards, then you probably shouldn't buy one. Why buy something you don't want? There's a distinction here, and it's important. It isn't the opinions about Microsoft's poorly explained business model at issue; it's the premise behind many of the complaints that I wanted to address. I don't like any of these used-game limitations either, and it's likely why I won't buy and Xbox One. But I never had a right to own an Xbox One, just as Microsoft didn't have a right to my money. They don't offer what I want, I don't buy. It's incredibly liberating, really.

I can't stress this enough: if you don't like the features of Xbox One, VOICE YOUR OPINION! By all means! Tell'em that you won't buy an Xbox One unless they change the policy.

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

@golguin: I think there's confusion here between contractual rights (wherein the producer and consumer are both compelled to abide by established agreements and laws) with the consumer "right" to dictate the terms of the purchase (a right which does not exist).

Consumers have rights, certainly, I never stated otherwise. We do not, however, have a right to buy an Xbox One on our own exclusive terms, nor is Microsoft obligated to sell us one in the first place. Microsoft isn't compelled by law to meet our expectations. There are two parties to the transaction, the seller and buyer, and each has to voluntarily enter into it.

If you buy an Xbox, and then Microsoft proceeds to breach the terms of that purchase, you absolutely have the right to litigate, but that isn't at all what the current discussion is about. I was addressing the false presumption that consumers have rights to certain features before the purchase is even made. Unless you have a standard such as a contract (terms of service), there is no standard by which to determine if a violation has occured. You can't break a law or contract that doesn't exist.

Just to be clear, if we all bought Xbox Ones with the current features and business models of the current Xbox 360 (no used game fees, optional online) and THEN Microsoft suddenly said "Guess what? Always online, and all the games you already own now have retro-active DRM!" Well, THEN they would have breached the original terms of the contract we entered into when buying the console. But again, that's not what's being discussed.

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#3  Edited By Hashbrowns

This probably won't go over well, but here goes nothing.

A consumer has no more "right" to a product than the producer has the "right" to the consumer's money. The producer offers a product for a given price and terms, and the consumer decides whether to buy or not. That's all there is. There is no "Just Price", no objective absolute you can point to and declare what a game or system is intrinsically worth. And exactly who would decide these values for everyone?

Lots of people buy Call of Duty every year for $60 plus DLC packs. I don't. They're not wrong, and neither am I. It's worth it to them, not to me. There's nothing else to it, no Good vs. Evil here.

It's very possible I won't be getting an Xbox One. Things can change, but it just hasn't yet appealed to me. But that doesn't equate to a moral, ethical, or spiritual failure on Microsoft's part. The only failure is in their product not appealing to me as one potential customer, but it might very well appeal to another person. If they appeal to enough people, they succeed. If they don't, they won't.

The underlying sentiment behind most of the Xbox One reactions is what's most disturbing: a belief that these electronic devices are in some way owed to us, and therefore any terms, prices or features that we don't want are considered tantamount to attempted theft. That mindset is self-defeating and inevitably encourages an attitude of perpetual victimhood, and so it's little wonder why people react with unhealthy rage when an entertainment device might not live up to their expectations.

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

@xeirus said:

@hashbrowns said:

@oginam said:

tl:dr - NextBOX won't read 360 discs but it'll probably still run 360 games via emulation.

Blu-ray drives can read DVDs.

Um I believe that's because there are two separate lasers, not because one reads the other...

And those two separate lasers are both in the Blu-ray drive, therefore Blu-ray drives can read DVDs. I can't think of a single Blu-ray drive that's been built that excludes DVD playback. To think that Microsoft will be commissioning a custom Blu-ray drive that EXCLUDES such a ubiquitous, common and basic feature seems absurd on the face of it.

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

@oginam said:

tl:dr - NextBOX won't read 360 discs but it'll probably still run 360 games via emulation.

Blu-ray drives can read DVDs.

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#6  Edited By Hashbrowns

@oginam said:

@banefirelord: I agree with most your points except backwards compatibility. No reason I shouldn't be able to play all my downloadable games on the next console. Whether disc-based games will work or not is something else entirely.

How is it different?

If the next console isn't backwards compatible, then it isn't backwards compatible. There's no difference between digitally distributed games and games on a disc as far as compatibility goes. If the hardware isn't in there to run a X360 game, then the next Xbox won't run it. Arcade games are running on the same CPU and GPU in the X360 just as much as disc-based games.

Now, would some of the Arcade titles be easier to make an emulator for? Maybe, but that's a whole different problem. Castle Crashers and Shadow Complex aren't exactly similar, engine-wise. Is MS likely to create an emulator to cover such a wide range of games? Who knows?

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

@frobie said:

What @rchen says is true. All the set top apps and phone apps are tied to the API to retrieve data unfortunately.

The roku app makes just one call to the video resource which grabs the 100 most recent videos of the selected category. I'll look into adding pagination, but it'll be a pretty low on the priority list.

That would be fantastic. The subscriber category has become frustrating in that the weekly installments of things like Thursday Night Throwdown pile up, pushing rarer and, frankly, better content like Random PC Games off the accessible list. Maybe breaking those weekly "events" off into their own category might alleviate the issue?

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#8  Edited By Hashbrowns

@big_jon: That's probably the best review of Halo 4 I've read, and that's including all professional reviewers I frequent. You went into actual detail, describing gameplay elements and fundamental design issues. All your criticisms are completely fair and, more importantly, well articulated and reasoned.

This might be the first useful review I've read on Giant Bomb, period.

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#9  Edited By Hashbrowns

@Darkstorn said:

@deadrody said:

@chrissedoff said:

@NinjaTard: There's a lot wrong with Barack Obama's presidency, but using executive orders to enact sensible restrictions on the second amendment

Let that part sink in for a bit. Then change it to "sensible restrictions on the first amendment" and see how you feel about that.

The US constitution is sacrosanct. If you want to change it, there is a process for that. Get on with it. Otherwise, there ARE no "sensible restrictions" to my god given rights. And if you dispute that "god given" part, maybe you ought to go re-read the Declaration of Independence.

Rights are given by governments, not 'God.' Otherwise we wouldn't need a historical government document to come to that conclusion. Also, there was debate among the founders on whether or not the Constitution was static or if it would change and grow with time. Strict constructionism vs. loose constructionism wasn't invented by Constitutional scholars by any means.

If there isn't an authority beyond civil government, there are no rights. Rights come from God, and governments are insituted to protect and preserve those rights. Without that, we are left with either mob rule or authoritarian dictatorships. Not all the founders were completely sound, theologically speaking, but they were able to agree on the premise of "the Law of Nature and Nature's God" as the standard from which they based all their complaints against the Crown. In one of the singular moments in human history, the architects of a new government acknowledged that they themselves (government) were the greatest threat to liberty, and codified limits to their own power in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

The secular-humanist view, either from statists (Marxism, National-socialism) or anarchists (Ayn Rand adherants) both put all their stock in the nature of man, either collectively or individually. If one thinks that an invisible Creator-God is a foolish idea, how can you put faith in the historically obvious evil nature of man?

Avatar image for hashbrowns
Hashbrowns

690

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

15

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#10  Edited By Hashbrowns

It's probably been mentioned, but seeing a zentraedi battlepod from Robotech in that Half-life demo was really weird.