New Sony terms of service. Get your tinfoil ready?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plainview said:
Turns out though that 720 is in fact >>>>>> than 1080. :eek:
unionvgf.com/index.php?threads/polygon-call-of-duty-ghosts-xbox-one-review-update-say-x1-ps4-version.1601
Click to expand...

Ru Roh...another negative Sony/Playstation Post. People might start labeling you a fanboy:surprise::surprise:
 
A7MAD said:
Wow some of you guys are very serious, I thought we were having a laugh? :S

I'm glad you're happy PV, enjoy your victory bro lol.
Click to expand...
Has nada to do with me. With how much nonsense that was directed towards Xbox fans over the res difference this brings everything back to normal and the fact that the people that said "resolution doesn't always matter," have been proven correct. But let's move this talk to that thread if you want to continue it.
 
menace-uk- said:
Ru Roh...another negative Sony/Playstation Post. People might start labeling you a fanboy:surprise::surprise:
Click to expand...
He is a Xbox fanboy but he still does a good job of keeping the site balanced.:D
 
Last edited:
Plainview said:
How quickly we conveniently forget that all of Kinect's features will be able to be turned off. That was a common theme for people looking to attack MS and the Xbox One. People seem to always ignore that you were able to turn everything off. And having to check in your console has absolutely nothing to do with privacy concerns.
Click to expand...
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-requires-kinect-to-function-509112572

Before the big series of 180s, kinect was in fact required to be attached for the console to function. "Kinect does require to be connected to Xbox One in all cases, yes,"

Mandatory internet check-ins where a console has an opportunity to send home whatever info it wants has more privacy concerns compared to an offline capable console. That's not "absolutely nothing".

Good thing MS 180'd most of those insane policies, but apparently the fact that they existed is being memory holed already. So yes, I maintain that pre-180 Xbox One had far more privacy implications than PS4 ever did. Most of that criticism over Xbox privacy issues was well deserved.
 
Last edited:
consolewarz said:
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-requires-kinect-to-function-509112572

Before the big series of 180s, kinect was in fact required to be attached for the console to function. "Kinect does require to be connected to Xbox One in all cases, yes,"

Mandatory internet check-ins where a console has an opportunity to send home whatever info it wants has more privacy concerns compared to an offline capable console. That's not "absolutely nothing".

Good thing MS 180'd most of those insane policies, but apparently the fact that they existed is being memory holed already. So yes, I maintain that pre-180 Xbox One had far more privacy implications than PS4 ever did.
Click to expand...
Always online has zero to do with privacy concerns.

And I didn't say anything about the Kinect not needing to be connected. I said it could be turned off before they reversed on it being mandatory. The features could always be turned off.
 
consolewarz said:
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-requires-kinect-to-function-509112572

Before the big series of 180s, kinect was in fact required to be attached for the console to function. "Kinect does require to be connected to Xbox One in all cases, yes,"

Mandatory internet check-ins where a console has an opportunity to send home whatever info it wants has more privacy concerns compared to an offline capable console. That's not "absolutely nothing".

Good thing MS 180'd most of those insane policies, but apparently the fact that they existed is being memory holed already. So yes, I maintain that pre-180 Xbox One had far more privacy implications than PS4 ever did.
Click to expand...
Connected, but could be turned off from the console. Though I'd admit, doesn't make much sense as a difference than now being able to remove it altogether.
 
Regardless, pretty much console owner business as usual, but Yoshida should be panned for his feedback of "just things lawyers do". Really?!? And people shouldn't be more concerned after that answer?
 
Ceger said:
Regardless, pretty much console owner business as usual, but Yoshida should be panned for his feedback of "just things lawyers do". Really?!? And people shouldn't be more concerned after that answer?
Click to expand...

People should react exactly as they would if it were Microsoft and Spencer rather than Sony and Yoshida. I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nisemono and Ceger
MS said nothing about being able to "turn it off" before privacy concerns were raised, it may have been another 180. In any case, that didn't reassure me and most people, we wanted the option to have it detached from the system, for various reasons. Just like the option to keep it offline if desired.

But nevermind, I guess the massive backlash and privacy concerns over XB1's policies were totally unfair, and consumers should be outraged at some anti-piracy legalese that's been in computer software TOSes for years. What a bunch of hypocrites us consumers are.
 
consolewarz said:
MS said nothing about being able to "turn it off" before privacy concerns were raised, it may have been another 180. In any case, that didn't reassure me and most people, we wanted the option to have it detached from the system, for various reasons. Just like the option to keep it offline if desired.

But nevermind, I guess the massive backlash and privacy concerns over XB1's policies were totally unfair, and consumers should be outraged at some anti-piracy legalese that's been in computer software TOSes for years. What a bunch of hypocrites us consumers are.
Click to expand...
The privacy concerns were unfounded and started by people driven by an agenda. If someone is concerned about privacy they shouldn't own a phone that's been made this past decade and they surely shouldn't be using the internet. After MS was questioned about privacy they answered it and said the features can be tuned off and opt out of them at anytime.
 
I think people eased up about this all when MS basically told everyone what Kinect does, what is shared and what is not...

It's not an MS vs The world thing, MS sorted it and people calmed down, Sony has basically done the same with this, the part I never understood is why people are 'draining it' on when this was a TOS for the PS3 and things will continue as they have...

We got consoles launching and people are still going on about this when it's been done and dusted.

Rock on bro's!
 
consolewarz said:
MS said nothing about being able to "turn it off" before privacy concerns were raised, it may have been another 180. In any case, that didn't reassure me and most people, we wanted the option to have it detached from the system, for various reasons. Just like the option to keep it offline if desired.

But nevermind, I guess the massive backlash and privacy concerns over XB1's policies were totally unfair, and consumers should be outraged at some anti-piracy legalese that's been in computer software TOSes for years. What a bunch of hypocrites us consumers are.
Click to expand...
From before E3 http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/privacy. Was never a 180. The privacy concerns were blown way out of proportion due to the recent NSA/Prism leaks that showed that MS complied with government regulation (like every other company that deals with communication). The fact that the X1 was able to be sold in Germany showed how little of a privacy concern there really was outside of the overblown paranoia.
 
Uhh, the XB1 privacy issues made the mainstream national news in the USA. It was a perfect storm combined with the NSA Snowden leaks. This went far larger and wider than "a couple GAF fanboy trolls with an agenda".

Kinect with its advanced monitoring capabilities has a wider range of privacy implications than a cellphone or even a laptop with a webcam attached. People have different expectations over a video game console than a cellphone. It's possible to be very private on "the internet" if desired, especially on devices you have more control over like PCs and even some jailbroken cellphones.

This is irrelevant anti-piracy legalese that has been in software TOSes for years and has nothing to do with privacy. Compare that to far reaching privacy concerns about XB1 that made it into the national news and public consciousness. Yet we're hypocrites for not being "equally outraged". Okay. Let me know when the story on this TOS clause hits CNN.
 
Last edited:
It only hit the mainstream media because of the NSA leaks. The 'concerns' were widely blown out of proportion and only garnered traction due to the MS hatetrain fueled by the DRM/Always on issues. If the NSA leaked hadn't happened and linked MS to PRISM then none of it would have hit the mainstream, it was sensationalism.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

~Thomas Jefferson
 
consolewarz said:
Uhh, the XB1 privacy issues made the mainstream national news in the USA. It was a perfect storm combined with the NSA Snowden leaks. This went far larger and wider than "a couple GAF fanboy trolls with an agenda".

Kinect with its advanced monitoring capabilities has a wider range of privacy implications than a cellphone or even a laptop with a webcam attached. People have different expectations over a video game console than a cellphone. It's possible to be very private on "the internet" if desired, especially on devices you have more control over like PCs and even some jailbroken cellphones.

This is irrelevant anti-piracy legalese that has been in software TOSes for years and has nothing to do with privacy. Compare that to far reaching privacy concerns about XB1 that made it into the national news and public consciousness. Yet we're hypocrites for not being "equally outraged". Okay. Let me know when the story on this TOS clause hits CNN.
Click to expand...

Hi, June called. Apparently you've overstayed your welcome and you don't have to come to November, but you can't stay there.
 
I was replying to "And anybody that claims this is not a big deal but called MS on it is a hypocrite." Don't blame me.
 
consolewarz said:
I was replying to "And anybody that claims this is not a big deal but called MS on it is a hypocrite." Don't blame me.
Click to expand...
None of this has anything to do with the privacy issues though? It was about people bitching at MS for not allowing them to resell games, but not giving the same concern to Sony with their TOS, although it's all standard stuff anyways. Why bring up the privacy stuff at all?
 
Privacy issues were brought up, I was replying to them. Kind of sad that I get the blame just for replying to things other people brought up (just like the Xbox thread, actually).

As far as used game sales, you've always been able to resell game discs. So again an unfair comparison.
 
consolewarz said:
Privacy issues were brought up, I was replying to them. Kind of sad that I get the blame just for replying to things other people brought up (just like the Xbox thread, actually).

As far as used game sales, you've always been able to resell game discs. So again an unfair comparison.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point a bit.

Microsoft talks about restricting used game sales: OMGWTFBBQ This cannot be, we cannot stand for this!! pitchfork ready lynch mob marches on.

Gamers discover Sony's TOS includes clause allowing them to restricted used game sales should they want to: Ah ok, it's cool, that's no different then before. Sony would never do that, they care about us.

See the disconnect? It has nothing to do with who is doing what, it's about the disconnect in reaction. Microsoft is under a microscope and everything that happens tends to get blown up..much wider than it really needs to be, whereas Sony usually gets by with a much more disproportionate reaction with similar but maybe not exact situations.

For instance, while the PSN outage caught big attention, and many were upset about it and what not, the reaction regarding the fact that the passwords were not salted was not as large as I would have expected it to be. That's a pretty serious fubar in regards to IT security, especially for a multinational conglomerate such as Sony. If Microsoft was caught not salting passwords for any of their online services heads will most certainly roll.

The adverse gamer reaction from Microsoft's policies was warranted, but the scale of the hate mongering went to epic levels that were not proportionate with the issues at hand, things have calmed down and we can look back at it now logically and rationally and discuss the issues without them being exploded with hyperbole, but that doesn't mean the reactions are not still disproportionate between events
 
You could legally sell those pre-180 Xbox discs, they'd just be useless because the game isn't authenticated to your account.

You can also legally sell your PS4 discs, they can't prevent you from doing it via the TOS. Since there's no mandatory online authentication on those discs, they will be playable when one person sells it to another.

So once again, not the same thing. Sony can say whatever they want in their TOS, it doesn't restrict your right to sell or give away the physical property you own (aka the disc). And as long as there's no mandatory online authentication like Xbox was going to do, there's no issue here whatsoever. Sony has repeatedly, categorically denied they were ever going to do this.

The clause mentions trying to sell PSN games which you can't resell anyway as it's licensed to your account only.
 
Last edited:
consolewarz said:
You could legally sell those pre-180 Xbox discs, they'd just be useless because the game isn't authenticated to your account.

You can also legally sell your PS4 discs, they can't prevent you from doing it via the TOS. Since there's no mandatory online authentication on those discs, they will be playable when one person sells it to another.

So once again, not the same thing. Sony can say whatever they want in their TOS, it doesn't restrict your right to sell or give away the physical property you own. And as long as there's no mandatory online authentication like Xbox was going to do, there's no issue here whatsoever.
Click to expand...
No they couldn't physically restrict you selling them, but if they really wanted to they could stop stores from accepting trade in's leaving only a secondary used game market, and/or persue a legal course of action on people selling their games..although that would be entirely cost ineffective. The point is the option is there, and pre-180 MS had policies that would still allow game selling..they just were communicated horribly and/or not fully.

You're again misconstruing the points slightly. One of the most talked about reasons against MS's used game policies was that they did not have the right to restrict you from selling the game. But no one is saying that about Sony's ToS clause, while they both legally have the right to do so...whether one would or has the infrastructure in place to do so is irrelevant.
 
Sony could ASK stores to stop accepting trade-ins, but there's no law stating they have to comply with that request. You seem to be confusing words in a TOS which are restricted to "we might ban your account if you do this" with US law. Any company has the right to put mandatory online authentication on their hardware, but they don't have the right to stop people from selling or giving away a piece of property (aka a disc).

As long as there's no mandatory online authentication, it's not the same thing. Sony can't posthumously alter the data on the Blu-Rays to make them incapable of playing offline anymore. The clause mentions trying to sell PSN games which you can't resell anyway as it's licensed to your account only.

MS execs have said as recently as a few days ago that "you all just weren't ready for the DRM future but trust us it's coming", meanwhile Sony has categorically denied they ever have or will have plans to implement those policies.

It's the exact opposite of this bizarro world scenario where Sony is the one chomping at the bit to DRM-ize everything and that TOS is some kind of proof of it, while everyone else are massive hypocrites for not being outraged. You know, despite that those clauses have been in software TOS for decades, mainly as an anti-piracy measure?

Sorry, the majority of gamers revolted by XB1's DRM/privacy issues and the US media are not hypocrites for ignoring this ""news"".
 
Last edited:
consolewarz said:
"if they really wanted to they could stop stores from accepting trade in"

Sony could ASK stores to stop accepting trade-ins, but there's no law stating they have to comply with that request. You seem to be confusing words in a TOS which are restricted to "we might ban your account if you do this" with US law.

Any company has the right to put mandatory online authentication on their hardware, but they don't have the right to stop people from selling or giving away a piece of property (aka a disc).

As long as there's no mandatory online authentication, it's not the same thing. Sony can't posthumously alter the data on the Blu-Rays to make them incapable of playing offline anymore. The clause mentions trying to sell PSN games which you can't resell anyway as it's licensed to your account only.
Click to expand...
As has been discussed before this does not only tie to PSN games. The clause ties to the software on the disc, and yes if Sony or Microsoft or anyone else that sells software wants to restrict the end user from reselling the software then they have that right. This kind of stuff has happened in the past, someone bought some software at a garage sale and then tried to sell it on eBay; the software company sued and won, as the EULA stated that the software could not be resold without permission. People who bring up right of first sale doctrine do not realize that it only refers to the physical disc, the software on the disc is only licensed. We have the right to sell the physical disc, but we do not have the right to sell the software that resides on the disc. The current laws that cover resale are antiquated and do not cover digital media, which really only falls under copyright law.
 
Last edited:
The long and the short of it is: Like Microsoft, Sony reserves the legal right to implement DRM policies at any time they so choose, and by accepting their terms of use, we've all agreed to it, as well as relenquished any legal recourse where violations of privacy are concerned. Well, if you all have social network accounts, you've already done that across the web, anyway! So cheer up.;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazard71
consolewarz said:
Kinect with its advanced monitoring capabilities has a wider range of privacy implications than a cellphone or even a laptop with a webcam attached. People have different expectations over a video game console than a cellphone. It's possible to be very private on "the internet" if desired, especially on devices you have more control over like PCs and even some jailbroken cellphones.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me???? I would much rather have somebody watching me play COD in my underoos, then have access to my phone camera or web camera where I perform a lot more financial tasks, and share a lot more personal information!
 
I think we've talked this one through. Seems like we're just going over the same territory again and again. I'm going to go ahead and close it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back