MCV - Simple guide to what MS is saying about ownership, second-hand and always-on.
no matter how u spin it it still sucks Wii u and ps4 for me
And then just Wii U when PS4 does it. Right?
True. I don't agree with the Xbox 1's policies either and i won't be getting it, but i don't understand why so many people are saying "I'll be getting a PS4" They don't know anything about the PS4 yet so i don't get why they are saying this.
no because ps4 will not do it. are u a troll? Sony has already confirm no Kinect like crap in box and you can play offline. so as long as I can let my friends borrow my games which I can because theres no online check and play offline then the software is mine. I do not have to rely on a M$ server to play my games on PS4. So ps4 and wii u for me on consoles. I play PC also
I promise I will stop playing video games the day all consoles have those drm policies.
The third console curse continues
I assure you, we're not ants.
Haha sorry. The pic was bigger on reddit. But ..Whatever. You get the point
How the hell did it get so bad? The best has got to be "When offline, you can still enjoy live TV and Blu Ray movies." Really! Thanks Microsoft! You let me use my cable subscription. You guys aren't so bad. May I also go the store and get milk during these offline hours? That's some seriously obnoxious stuff right there. They're actually touting the ability to watch the tv you paid for, and the cable subscription you pay for monthly, FROM A PROVIDER THAT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THEM! They're letting you use your HBO. My god that's so obnoxious. The claiming of another's services and the permission thereof.
We have to protect consumers rights all together.
Those consumer rights were a fantasy to begin with: http://www.t3.com/news/micr... On-topic, - Always On: "This is also the backbone supporting the licensing and ownership policies above." Which is why people are wondering how publishers on the PS4 will do this because Sony has said repeatedly that it is up to them if they want online DRM. Why would Microsoft care about how 3rd party titles are handled unless they requested it? You never did own the game licensing you bought, it was just never enforced before. Now the big boys will enforce it. "But it must connect after a day to "verify if system, application or game updates are needed and to see if you have acquired new games, or resold, traded in, or given your game to a friend"." Which is why Microsoft wanted an always on system, to have instant gaming, to allow persistent worlds, to allow up to 10 people to access your content, to have automatic updates. When you require a system to do certain functions this pushes developers to utilize those new features. Just like how every Xbox 360 game allowed custom music backgrounds. Now they know every Xbox One owners will be connected, this opens up other possibilities. MMO's work this way. We are blending single player games with online connectivity. Forza 5 will show this tomorrow and everyone will go "ahh, I get it now". Destiny will show this with their new game as well and it too will require a connection on the PS3 and Xbox 360. The PS4 will not require an online connection because that is not the direction they are taking. However Gaikai will be a key component and Playstation Plus will advance, both will require being connected. Consumers will want to be connected. I understand not everyone wants to be or wants to be forced to but each has their own vision of the direction they want to go. - Game Ownership This is probably the most talked about. Again this is the direction Microsoft wants to take so that it allows them to have the system function the same for everyone. It is software based so of course they could be more lenient about it. The system could potentially allow loaning games to anyone, as many times. I'm not defending their decision on this. What I will say is there are a few trade-offs. "You can also allow up to ten friends or family log in to your library remotely from any Xbox One and play your games. You can even be playing different games from your library at the same time from different locations." Not sure how this will work as to who you can put down and if you drop one and the ability to add a replacement. Still, now you have an inner circle all playing your games and their games without each person buying them. Chances are you won't be able to play the same game at the same time and will likely require a Gold membership. "The games you buy are tied to your account." Much like how Steam works but you need to be signed in much like how Playstation Plus works. "That way, you can sign into any Xbox One device and play all your games." It also takes the need of downloading and installing games to be bypass on those systems since a copy of your games are in the cloud. So as we can see it's different and will take time getting used to. It can be tweaked at any time and hopefully renting and loaning will come.
You gotta be kidding. It doesn't make any sense, if we can't update your games and system everyday we take away all your gamingprivileges. That's what they're saying. And it's bullshit, because games and systems don't need updates everyday. You can give a game to a friend...but that friend can't give it back. You can sell a game to everybody...after 30 days of being friends. Trade a game? Go overthere. Play online? Pay. No online. Go watch TV.
"It doesn't make any sense, if we can't update your games and system everyday we take away all your gamingprivileges." Consoles require you to have the latest system updates, otherwise some functions will not even work. Sure you can download it off of the PC and transfer it but you still need to connect it. "You can give a game to a friend...but that friend can't give it back." According to the article they can. You just can't lend it out again. Which yes, it is restricting access. "You can sell a game to everybody...after 30 days of being friends." 'Licensed' retailers don't care if they are your friend, they are not part of that 30 day restriction.
I don't care if you think MS's direction is a good or bad one. That's your outlook. What shocks me is that you are actually defending mandatory online checks and used games blocking. There is ZERO reason why you should HAVE to connect to the Internet to use your games that are self-contained physical discs. If a game is purely single player, why in hell on Earth should anyone require to connect to the Internet to play it? CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, you can use these offline. Clothes, jewelery - basically any other physical good - you don't need the Internet to have permission to use. The gaming industry thinks it's special and that it's entitled to block your ownership of physical goods. Publisher blaming consumers for used games. I mean do they really expect gamers to be able to buy their games for $60 each all the time? Do the really think that keeping a used game at $60 for as long as they see fit will really solve their problems? No the problems are brought on by their own corporate greed. It won't make gamers able to afford their games any more than before. Basically the choices MS made when designing their console was to screw the consumer to try and make money off a physical product that should BELONG to a person once sold, again and again and again. If you think there is nothing wrong with abusing a person's first-sale rights you are so blindly loyal and deluded that you might want to seek help. Either that or you're just a fanboy apologiser who's willing actions will shape the industry into something undesirable for both gamers and consumers.
DigitalRaptor, You have the right to be behind a walled garden when you buy an IPhone or you can have an Android phone that has many more issues. Apple fans like IOS devices because it's symmetrical with everything they use. What else does Microsoft do? Oh that's right, computer operating software that's probably on 80% or more computers out there. That's is where the money is. It's not by selling the most smartphones, it by selling software. Who makes money on computers anymore? Apple rakes in billions on software each year. How much is Sony making off of the PS3 now? How long did it take them to make money on it? How about Vita or the Wii U? The market has changed and Sony seems content this hardcore crowd is all they need. Not so, watch E3 as they now market well beyond games. They will do the opposite approach Microsoft did. You're looking at this from the inside, not from a distance. Microsoft's vision goes well beyond the Xbox, you know that with how they are going after the TV market too. They too are going the route of Apple. They want to be behind a walled garden, where it's much easier to control. Where everyone gets the same updates and where everyone has the same experience. They also take a **** kicking with piracy. Every new game has been leaked on torrent sites. We also see time after time retailers breaking street dates. Microsoft is partnered with these big game publishers and cable providers, they don't want to have a system that infringes on their intellectual property. They need to have the highest standards of cloud technology. Sorry to say but Sony can't pull this off. They can't invest in 300,000 servers and get these sort of deals done right now. They are broke in comparison. Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company. The Xbox brand goes well beyond gaming. It is still at its heart a gaming console but there is much more to it. They started by pushing online way back in 2002. Sony on the other hand had to push bluray, they had TV's to sell. They got away with having a $600 game console. Nintendo could never get away with that. Nintendo is the only one of the 3 who's main roots still remain to this day is about gaming. They don't even allow the ability to watch TV's. They cannot afford to have the Wii U not sell. Microsoft however can spend billions of dollars making sure the Xbox One is a success and watch, it will be. This underground movement if you will are from those who despise government, those who hate control. Those who hate the idea of executives making billions of dollars. They are the ones who hide behind the mask while crying out they are invading our privacy. Protesting on the street hiding their faces as they break windows. Watch how they conduct themselves. They are the most aggressive, the most vocal, the ones who try and fear-monger to everyone else. Emotionally unstable and socially inept loners reaching out to anyone who will listen.
Since you copy and pasted from a comment you made in a blog I shall respond with my response to you from that blog since you apparently don't want to do any real research. In order to address what you say on the legality of EULA, the truth is, is that it's entirely dependent on the court hearing the case. There are many cases that deal with EULA law, and in all those cases the judgements are passed down in such a way to not give any precedence. This is notably why there is no true discerning factor on the legality, ethnicity, or morality of the EULA. In some cases the court decided not to judge anything, only to pass the buck onto the supreme court, who themselves won't take a side on the issue. We could each take prior cases to make our points on whether or not it is legal, both of us would be right within the context of the cases we cite, and the issue would remain, that there is no clear or definitive ruling by any court in the US. It's entirely possible with me living in NC, that the courts would side with me on the matter of whether I have the right to sell a game disc, and you, living in your own little world, don't have the right to sell it due to EULA wording. As such, the only place that truly matters is the place where you originally purchased the game, or possibly first used it, as that is the point at which you would have accepted an EULA(for retail discs, DD is trickier). Once again you speak in an absolute without doing any research into the matter. There are numerous documents through an easy Google search that can help you understand the intricacies of EULA law and how it pertains to consumer rights and more importantly the first sale doctrine. However you decided that what you believe is the true law, and disregard any other information that may contradict what you say. What you say is true completely only in the sense that it is what companies making these products want you to adhere to. That in itself makes sense. But here's the truth of it. EULA law is a gray area, both for the consumers and the liscensor. It's probably not something that software companies really want to get close scrutiny on in a court of law due to the nature of EULA not being a mutually agreed upon contract, and in practice just states, either accept, or don't use. The EULA in itself is restrictive in nature and mostly benefits only the original maker. The courts in general take a dim view on that sort of thing. EULA disagreements are generally brought up by consumers, not the people who write them. In fact, every EULA requires binding arbitration, which in itself isn't enforceable, so it's pretty obvious companies that have them, never want to see these come to light in a big case in a court of law where precedence may be demanded to be set. Edit: I also find it ammusing that you are actually OK with all that. Keep drinking the kool-aid kid.
con't. - Kinect and privacy: "Data will not leave your Xbox One without your explicit permission" it has also added, to those concerned that heart rate monitors (possible with Kinect), or tracking of what photos/videos you look at can be monitored." Controlled by 'YOU' "When the Xbox is in standby mode, it is only listening for one command - Xbox On - to reactivate it, and isn't 'listening' for anything else. You can even turn that off, too." Controlled by 'YOU' EDIT, What I will say is if Microsoft only allows you to transfer your game to a friend (who has been on your friends list for at least 30 days) and that means you can't get it back that is a huge mistake. That I will not defend. It does sound to me that you can still have the game on your hard drive. At least that is how it should work. Otherwise what would be the point of just giving it away for nothing? That so far will only apply to Microsoft Studio games and 3rd party publishers have the right to support it or not.
Whatever helps you sleep at night mike...
According to this article you can get the game back, but you can only do this process once. You should write a blog on your above comment. :)
I really hope Sony doesn't have the same used game system where they give publishers the choice because that would awkward for many people.
They've already said it's up to the publishers, atleast we can decide to boycott those publishers products. Oh and you won't be needing to be online at all on the PS4, so I wonder how the publishers would actually pull this off. Might go the way of registration codes etc.
So what is the difference between Microsoft and Sony on used games then? Nothing correct?
Wrong. The difference is that SONY gamers can still rent their games and sell them to whomever they like. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
And it still sucks hope Sony don't screw up
After reading this, things are a lot more clear. So can someone please explain why they hate Xbox One?
The vocal minority. Honestly if someone could logically explain to me without the mass hysteria why the policies that Xbox One has are wrong and outright anti consumer then I could see.
It astonishes me, and actually leaves me shocked that you can't figure that sh*t out yourself or more so, that you can't even see how it's anti-consumer. I've always said that the Xbox crowd willingly bend over for a thrusting, but you guys are just pretty much confirming it. You no longer own your games under Microsoft. These are physical discs. No other industry stops you from selling on your physical goods. CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, clothes, books, gadgets, etc. etc. etc. No other industry prevents you from playing your physical content offline. Think about it: PHYSICAL CONTENT. Content on a disc that you have bought. You're banned from playing a physical game offline. How is that NOT anti-consumer? How is the removal of your first-sale rights not anti-consumer? Game publishers think they're special and they are enjoying blaming consumers for their own mistakes. They think blocking used games will somehow make people be able to afford to buy full priced games at the same rate, which is simply stupid. Explain to me your logic, because all I see is loyalism to the power of blind. I sometimes think Xbox fans deserve what's coming to them I really do.
dont care for consumer rights? let me guess, american?
1. I hold no allegiance to any company and honestly I was trying to hold a logical conversation but obviously that's something we can't have because you resort to names and false accusations. 2. Microsoft gave the power to the publishers... I guarantee you Sony will do the exact same. So what is your response then? What console do you buy? Or do you shut up and do the logical thing and buy both like I have stated from the beginning. My loyalty is to games and technology and making fun of my view points or labeling me names because I fail to see the issues is ridiculous. This website is getting ridiculous there is one view point only and if you dare say against it the army comes. Pure bullshit.
@DigitalRaptor Well none of those points bother ME. I always have internet access so having an always-online console isn't much of a problem. Selling games is never worth it, especially when your best bet of selling them is at Gamestop or Best Buy which offer less than $5 per game. I always buy new games. I'm a PC gamer but I honestly fail to see the difference between what Xbox One is doing and what I can do on my PC through Steam. My PC is always on. I can't sell my games. I can't led games (with Xbox One, you can though). I always have an internet connection. Only thing is, Steam has a shit load of sales so I never buy games at full price but they are new.
http://www.t3.com/news/micr... You never owned them in the first place. Read the licence agreement on any game manual that nobody ever bothers to read. The same thing applies to using online services, you agree to those terms. They can remove access at any time. With game discs they just never enforced it before. Now the big players are pushing for it such as EA. Why do you think they conveniently dropped online passes (something Sony also adopted in their 1st party games). Things are about to change. They have had enough of this free roaming grey area. Now they want to control sales and have proper data. When they say X game sold 2 million copies that is just new sales. Now they can say they sold 4 million or whatever it may be. It's in a controlled environment and yes, some people will be upset. That's normal, but it was never your property to do as you wish. People are complaining because they have become so accustomed to being free to do what they want. It's kind of the case now that is completely backwards when it comes to music. People now think they shouldn't pay for it. The flip side to all of this is the consumer will still decide. If people don't buy as many new games now that will have an impact, they will have to adapt somehow. They will be forced to have lower prices like we see on Steam but now they can do it in a controlled environment and not have to compete with the free market where there is no control or worry about stores like Gamestop pushing used copies while they rake in all the proceeds and have none of it go back to the people who made and produced it.
Honestly, don't waste your time.. If they want to purchase a console with limited functionality offline so be it. No manner of a stellar games line-up (if there even is one) will win me back... My brother owns a party bus company and he has an Xbox 360 onboard for his customers. Once the 360 is obsolete, do you think he can replace it with the One with confidence? Not if there's a mandatory 24 hour check up... And that's just one instance where the new "features" fail horribly.. @JBSleek: Buy both? If both consoles support this dichotomy, I'll buy neither. I'm done.
@ JBSleek Don't try and take the high ground and claim logic when you were using zero amounts of it. 1) I explained to you factually and logically how it was blatantly anti-consumer. Did you accept that in your response? I cannot tell. The conversation can still go on if you'll accept it to continue. 2) Want to know which console I will buy? Wii U, which I've stated I was going to buy anyway for its exclusives. I will keep my PS3 and since it's being well supported and I still have a HUGE blacklog, it shouldn't be a problem. I'll maintain my gaming PC and play what games come my way through those platforms. I'll look longingly and lovingly at the amazing exclusives on PS4 and Xbox One, perhaps shed a tear or two - but at the end of the day, I'll be glad I didn't become the b***h of these companies. ------- @ AnimeAvenger "I always have internet access so having an always-online console isn't much of a problem. " Typical, not thinking about people other than yourself. I would have thought you'd care about those army service men and women who won't be able to play their games because MS won't allow them to without an Internet connection. And that goes for any other demographic or culture that cannot afford Internet but want to play their single player games. "Selling games is never worth it, especially when your best bet of selling them is at Gamestop or Best Buy which offer less than $5 per game. I always buy new games." Says you. Again, thinking only of yourself. The American way, huh? I always buy games new too (for the most part). But my first-sale rights still exist, and so they do in ANY other industry for ANY other product. "I'm a PC gamer but I honestly fail to see the difference between what Xbox One is doing and what I can do on my PC through Steam." So am I. Steam is a digital platform. DRM is... DIGITAL. We're talking about PHYSICAL games here. I'm comfortable with the fact I don't truly "own" my Steam or PSN games, because I understand how digital licensing works. ------- @ MikeMyers And let me guess? That makes it right huh? "People are complaining because they have become so accustomed to being free to do what they want. It's kind of the case now that is completely backwards when it comes to music. People now think they shouldn't pay for it." Are you THAT backwards? People are complaining because what they are hearing is anti-consumer and first-sale rights are there to protect their ownership status. I buy my music. Again, the problem doesn't lie solely at the consumer's feet. But these big companies like to point the finger at consumers because the easiest way for them to try and get more money is to remove their rights. However, as many DRM restrictions you might have seen in digital purchases, you won't see the music industry ban physical CDs or stop the second hand CD market or stop you lending it to your friends. Like I said game publishers think they're special cases.
One thing that will happen. Sales will plummet with limited pre owned sales. It's how a lot of people afford to buy their new games by selling their old games. You make it too complicated and many people will either wait for the price to go down so they can buy it cheaper new or not buy the game at all. I don't think this is what Microsoft and friends (EA and Activision) wants, do you? But it's going to be the reality of the situation...
@DigitalRaptor "Typical, not thinking about people other than yourself." Wow. Really? You go on and on about consumer this and anti-consumer that and now you say that we should take other people into account when we choose which products to support? I thought that the primary aspect of a consumer was buying WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY? This is something you will never understand because you and others just and like you think that your opinion should be gospel. People who want an Xbox One, a PS4, a WiiU, a Ferrari, a Papa John's pizza, an iPhone, a copy of Django Unchained, a Craftsman Power Drill, or pretty much anything else one can buy in the market will buy said product because IT IS WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY. That's what consumers do. You and others like you have made it their goal in life to tell people that they do not actually want to buy what they want to buy. You claim to be "informing the masses", when all you are doing is spouting the same rhetoric over and over again to the same people who have known the facts for as long as you have. Honestly, and I think that I speak for all true gamers (AKA not fanboys) regardless of their console preference, NO ONE CARES. If you don't want an Xbox One, simply do not buy one and stop flooding nearly every One-related thread with the same tired arguments you have since the reveal. Maybe, just maybe, you could talk about things that you actually like (in appropriate threads of course). Maybe you will come off as a cool guy or at least somebody who offers good points to discussions instead of somebody who hijacks threads for a product that (and I can't stress this enough) YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF BUYING. Just some thoughts. Take them as you will.
@JB I believe many people have made it perfectly clear why they are against this stuff. I checked your comment history and it seems you've been online here enough the past couple weeks to know what people are saying, and why they are upset, so please don't act like you are just not understanding the issue as an outsider looking in. Even if you are, you have no right to call us the vocal minority if you have no idea what it is we're saying, or why we're saying it. The "mass hysteria" is because they are upset...and it's not hysteria, it's people that are pissed off, concerned, or down right furious over what's being done. A lot of people upset over something does not indicate mass hysteria, just that a lot of people are mad. @second comment by you You don't know what Sony is going to do, so you can't guarantee anything. As far as I can tell Sony is allowing publishers to implement their own schemes that work like MS does, but it is not available through the system like it is on Xbox. I would assume this would mean something like using Origin for EA games, or some other such nonsense. If you want to hold a "logical conversation", don't be dismissive to the "vocal minority" in your first sentence. Actually state why you don't believe they aren't anti-consumer, or aren't all the other things that people are saying.
looks like we have 2 Microsoft shills in full effect. yes absolutely nothing wrong with how the xbox one is aimed to remove gamer rights and screw every penny it can from the masses...nothing wrong at all.. good god I have gamed since Atari VCS days and this console launch is the saddest I have ever seen...sad because Microsoft really do appear to want to royally screw each and every customer.
First off n4g was already anti xbox and more bias towards sony. However the lending game rule and 24 hour check in policy does need to be changed. However almost every negative comment regarding the x1 or people interested in the x1 is just pure hate. Everything regarding the drm is blown way out of proportion and should be taken with a grain of salt.
head over to xbox forums then because the hardcore xbox fans are not exactly what you would call happy right now!
I never said they were but my statement still stands
So this is confirmed? "You can also allow up to ten friends or family log in to your library remotely from any Xbox One and play your games." Also appears to confirm that you can lend to one friend, as in lend and get the game back, rather than give it away permanently.
that would mean I buy a game and me and 10 of my friends can play it as often as we want? always? from any xbox one? as long as one of us is logged in? so instead of ten people buying a game only one has to buy it? that sounds really anti-publisher to me to be honest, and I dont believe.
Unless we're reading it wrong - or, of course, if MCV has got it wrong. Where are our videogame journalists at?!
you can't play it at the same time is the point I think. So you could timeshare a game but only one person can play it at once. The same as if 10 people time shared a disc now basically.
That's what they make of it, it's still unclear. You can only give it once to a person that's a friend for 30 days, so most likely a friend in real life, but if he can't give it back, and I don't hear them say that, it should be more like you can sell a game to somebody you know, and the re-selling ends there. Also, this allow 10 people to play your games remotely sound great, but how? Streaming, downloading, by using the great cloud? How are they going to do that? Questions that need special meetings with the press at E3, and they cancelled that. Deal with it. But why? What kind of BS is this, that when you can't see if my precious games need an update you just take everything away? Can't play any games at all. Games don't need daily updates, at least I hope not.
Hehe you really think Microsoft and their publisher buddies are going to let you all play the same game from the same account on different xboxes? That would make their DRM totally pointless and their anti-consumer stance on used games null and void :)
I think if you have to have your policies translated for people to understand them, then you aren't a very good policy maker. Game consoles are supposed to be simple. That's why they became popular in the first place. This is the complete opposite of simple.
xbox only listens for one command xbox on when in standby... Sure. And the goverment works for the people too and not the large corporations hmm? the human condition. Ignorant and so stupendously content about it.
If that honestly concerns you I hope you don't use a smartphone or a computer or send emails or anything technology related. The real sad human condition is double standards and hypocrisy.
Just give me my PS4, now!
Apart from the always online (which admittedly is stupid unless you live in the firstest of first worlds) it really isn't that bad. It's basically just Steam on a console. Steam doesn't let you share games, you don't see everyone kicking off about it. Anyway I'm still undecided, I'll wait until E3 but at the moment it's looking like I'll be getting both eventually. One at launch, the other when I can afford it/have beasted all the exclusives.
There seems to be a conflict between their actions and their claimed intent of their actions. Their "harmless" stance doesn't seem to justify any alternative purpose for the implementation of these things. It's like they drew a weapon, pointed it at me, and said... "Don't worry! I'll never fire! I'll just cock it, that's all." So naturally I can't think of a reasonable purpose outside of just shooting me. Are they adjusting their sights? No. Did I catch them in the act and now they are pointing out that a crime hasn't occurred yet cause they didn't pull the trigger...and no intent can be proven? Possible. "Our intent is to point it, for nonshooting-related reasons." So maybe it makes more sense to get as close as you can and keep it there. Justify the existence of pointing it and ask gamers not to generalize things. Removing it is not your main concern...making people accept it as harmless is. They will wait until you forget, and they will try again later.
l'm confused, you can lend a game to a friend as long as he's been registerd for 30 days but only once and only 10 different people. they don't need disc it's just sent to their account. is that right? is the game then locked on your account? is there a time limit? is this system not available day one because they don't know? I don't think i'll be getting xbox and sony's lack of information in the area is making me nervous.
@FRA85 It's a one day of the full game. The idea behind it is that you will be giving your friend the game to try out, and dev. pray you don't finish it in one day and will buy the game after 24 hrs. is done. Sony has this on their psn+. PSN+ is limit too the games they pick, however this is up to dev. on x1 if they want this on their game. Also if its new, this can't be done. Think how Hollywood movies works, its same idea. 1. theatre first, 1-2 months after digital renting, lastly out blu-ray and dvd and VHS.... betamax??
ok i see now, your friend lends you the game, time limit runs out, message pops up " to continue playing pay X amount of money". So essentially the games are locked to one user and if you traded in your game the dev's will have final say in what shop (if any) can purchase it and how much it can be resold for since they'll want a cut. But the games could hardly be described as pre-owned as your just installing. That will kill the pre-owned game market and won't do physical copies of games any favours, step 1 of cutting out the middle man. I don't like it.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.