Out of Control – Fears Overs Privacy Strike the Xbox One & PS4

With the PS4 set to get an Eye and the Xbox One to get a Kinect Two, Daily Reaction’s three hundred and sixty staff members, Seb and Dan, discuss whether inviting big brother into your living room is a good idea. - PSLS

[Foolsjoker]

They should have called it the Xbox Sauron.

[doctorstrange]

Talk about a red ring.

[Foolsjoker]

yeah, always watching till it dies.

[Williamson]

My 360 just got one this month....

[sengoku]

i'll bet you none of the xbox execs will have and xbox one in there living room. they cant have there own workers spying on them.. LOLz

[jaredhart]

Seriously, I don't want a camera and microphone "always on" in my house.

[knifefight]

Same. I already have a TV audience that lives inside my brain. I don't need it to become real. I am a jackass in front of them. :(

[Foolsjoker]

That is what I told the FBI.

[BitbyDeath]

Just watch out for those audible claps.

[ftwrthtx]

If I can't unplug it, I don't want it.

[doctorstrange]

Then you don't want it

[supremacy]

ouch lol

[insertnamehurr]

You can unplug it on ps4, they made a different port for that, same as the xboxone, but, i heard you have to have your kinect on always to play anythin.

[T2]

I doubt pseye will even be boxed with the ps4

[TrendyGamers]

Stop looking at me!

[T2]

Stop looking at me swan ....

[ceballos77mx]

Aww now ill have to wear clothes to play, thanks a lot next Gen :(

[SOULJER]

I'm calling it the shitone. Because that's what Microsoft did, They let one go all over every core gamer that watch that reveal.

[pop-voxuli]

Naw, just the XBO.

[Godmars290]

As bad or hypocritical as it sounds, I don't mind "that" much if PSN is keeping track of my purchases, downloads and general use of PSN so that it tries to anticipate what I might be interested in, but what MS is talking about with Kinect is far more intrusive. Has it actually watching you, collecting information which can then be either used by MS or sold to any other company.

And of course the real kicker is that you're paying to be watched.

Also: Yes. If Sony has *ANY* plans on doing anything similar with their camera - its a deal breaker!

[ACEMANWISE]

...and just yesterday I was accused of wearing tin foil hats or being paranoid for saying the exact same thing.

Believe what you will. Most people here can find some merit in the credibility in what is being said. For most of the gaming crowd it can be reasonable to say that these consoles aren't following at least one of your prized gaming wishes.

The movement toward online seems pushed rather than from consumer demand. Sure gamers are in demand for gaming related things like digital for convienance, multiplayer for social connection, and improvements with online updates. However these perceived benefits are coming packaged with a price to pay that far exceeds the money you pay.

It is a sacrifice you must accept in order to receive a benefit to you. Ignore the fact that gamers bypass the terms of use. Let's focus on why they are making gamers give something in order to take something.

Let's focus on why key gamer needs are not even offered while others are...why they offer a service or feature when it happens to double as a benefit to them too.

Gamers simply want great games to be made for their console. They want to be able to play their games anytime, anywhere they want...whether it be in 2 weeks or 10 years. They want everything to last and be reliable, a reasonable expectation by any consumer who spends a considerable amount of money. They want to be able to hand someone a dollar amount that makes the purchase final and complete...without any further problems in the future. That would mean that whatever you can do with the product should be as free as the choices the company can make with the money just gave them. Whether that be loaning the game to a friend, sharing it within the household, or selling the item to someone else. How can that be so hard for these companies to accept? They aren't limited in the currency they received, are they?

I would love to hear that every digital game I bought would be unrestricted in the event the service goes under, yet I never do. I, as a gamer, would love to hear that I can use the cloud for game saves without a need for a subscription because game saves are suddenly a copyrighted entity, something transferable on any past console until this one.

I would love to hear that any disc I bought would give access to a digital copy just for the convienance of not having to get up and that feature is a reward for being that honest consumer. But no none of those topics have been asked by either the gamer nor the press. Though it has been known that consumers who demand something from a product are belittled into some kind of unearned entitlement. As if money from a silent consumer is most valued these days.

Please take some time to yourself and ask yourself what you wanted from gaming. Then compare it to what they have to offer. Think about why some features are included with little to no demand while others are excluded despite petitions, uproars, and public pressures.

Then you may be able to see the difference between a corporate agenda and consumer demand, the real driving force toward making a product a market is willing to buy.

[TheDivine]

This is ridiculous. I won't buy games if they have to be online, can't be resold or borrowed, and aren't physical. The only way I would is if the games are very cheap like under five dollars. Full games? HE'LL NO! I honestly don't see how pc guys love steam which makes you be online, can't resell games, no physical disks exc. it's the same exact thing were talking here. Steam does it and people praise them, MS does it and people go ballistic. Double standards much?

One thing that would help is being able to borrow dd games or trade with friends like kindle books. Maybe anyone on your friends list can trade games or borrow for up to a month. Devs would hate it but you can't go full on digital and also strip disk reusability in one fell swoop. Online passes are bad enough, use those and let us exchange dd games.

If they could create a vibrant ecosystem of media from movies, music, and games that's fairly priced and let's you exchange it and even trade games in for credits (like a rental) than it could be alright. iTunes did well because it was cheap and convenient, all songs are one dollar instead of fifteen bucks an album that has only four good songs. Steam works because they have sales which are dirt cheap, without this nobody would buy full price dd games. The App Store works because games are a dollar. It's cheap, convenient, and has a huge library to browse through. Create a huge ecosystem, cheap prices, and the ability to trade and borrow coupled with disks that have a five dollar used pass and it will work. Force online and block used games and goodbye MS. I actually think the borrowing dd games would be brilliant on consoles.

[ACEMANWISE]

People go ballistic because they expect something different.

If I go to a Redbox I expect to be renting. I know the rules of what renting entails, therefore I can judge it's worth based on what I'm getting for the money.

Steam it's the same concept. They have excellent deals that reflect their true worth.

For a console people expect ownship for the prices they pay. Why, well because they are getting the same product as Steam but without the same prices. These console companies are, in reality, no different than Steam except the fact that they are keeping the illusion that it is something more.