When are you going to get an Xbox One or PS4?

People are investing money into making product and providing a service, then putting them in a market where other competitors are free to put their products too. You in return can choose to exchange your currency for these products if you think it's something you want, or you could not since there's plenty of alternatives to console gaming, and video games themselves in form of other entertainment media. Seems pretty ethical by most standards.

I know Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo aren't little angels, especially since they all have contracts with Foxcon, who have abysmal working condition for their workers. There are other countless things that I probably don't even know of....but you never brought those up. Making open software or upgradable hardware isn't ethical, it's just an option you can put on your product to make it to appeal to different people. But your point was unethical for them to produce hardware you didn't like and offering it consumers. You just said that the wishes of the forefathers were different than those of Microsoft and Sony, but how exactly are they different, and exactly why are they unethical or immoral?

Are they knowingly producing a potentially harmful product and not warning you? Are they forcing you to buy their products?

True that people do legally accept what they're buying, but most people don't even know just how deep that rabbit hole goes, there's too much legal jargon and nobody ever reads the agreements. There's a pretty heavy reliance in most tech-related use-cases on people not actually understanding what they're getting into. Thinking about it you can also look at it from a different ethical standpoint, consoles are entirely a waste of valuable resources if they're limited so heavily and only capable of performing a few tasks just for the sake of creating a controlled market and user experience.

Holy fucking shit, take it somewhere else, all of you. And seriously, Kestrel, why does casual, hardcore, competitive, all that shit even matter? We're all gamers here, and we all play games our own way. If you have a problem with me being a PC gamer and still dishing out money for consoles, then fine. Freedom of speech and what not. Just shut up when I'm trying to concentrate on good games, especially exclusives for that system.

Anyway, going back on topic: I won't be getting an X1 ever, and a PS4 in the distant future. I'm actually considering getting the current handhelds first, then a Wii U, because (like how all gamers should) I find a lot of games on the Wii U more appealing right now than what the other two have.

Will this generation of gaming be extremely expensive for me with that mindset? Definitely. Do I care enough to not want the games on my wishlist now, though? Hell no. I'm a gamer, I game. That's all that really matters to me.

Looking back I realize I did say that, I meant to make the comparison software instead of hardware but likely got confused over the simultaneous arguments that were ongoing. My apologies, though I will explain my previous reasoning as it is still valid otherwise.

If I give you $20 and tell you to go and buy food that will feed your family, is it not wrong to then spend that money on booze and indulge in your own personal pleasure? People like Vint Cerf and John Atanasoff pioneered computing technology with the thought in mind that it would be used to create a completely open and interconnected world of information. They both condemned any person or company who sought to limit user or developer experience purely for personal gain, which is exactly what Microsoft and Sony are doing with consoles. Microsoft and Sony owe their success to these men, yet they choose to completely disregard their wishes for how the technology they had given them should be used.

Pyre also raised a good point, console hardware offers the full capacity to handle a multitude of applications, but the limitations imposed on it via software cause a waste of resources. It is like only being able to buy an entire bag of apples from a certain company and then entering into a legal obligation to have you only eat one per day, most of those apples will go stale over time and become inedible, rendering them useless. But the company that produces these apples boasts that this is the true way to eat those apples, that they can only be enjoyed that way. Through grand marketing schemes they trick the greater masses into believing this and thus people don't even realize the full potential of what they have, yet they fork over the money to get more for less. Though it is entirely legal, it is still an unethical way of doing business. The Earth gave life to us, we owe it greatly, so is it not wrong to then not use it's soil to it's full potential?

The bag of apples analogy is a good one, though you might want to include in the future that only that company sells those particular apples (exclusives) and knowingly so they abuse that for their greater gain.

I need you to stop making comparisons/analogies.
You neither owe my 20usd, nor do I owe you any legal or moral obligations in this scenario.



I'm a pretty big on civil liberties and freedom of speech so I would tend to agree with you that whether it be strings of words, numbers or code, that information shouldn't be legally owned by any group or person. But at the same time it's no immoral for someone who creates a certain product or service to put their product/service/information out there.

An open market is the best kind of market, whether it be digital, physical goods, food, etc. etc. If people can find a way to get those services for the least amount of money wasted out there, that should be fine too.



You praised games that require "skill", that was a selling point for them. They brought in the developers, producers, publishers, artist, etc. etc. cash, regardless of what they that cash, they still gained something from it personally? Why do you praise them will condemning others for doing the same thing?

Why is personal gain not obtained through the initiation of force or disrespect of person hood so bad?



"Should be used". Again, why only your way?




They don't really block the release of information that they're not on open hardware/software, if anything they market themselves on that because supposedly it gives their product more "security" among other things. That's not necessarily morally wrong or right.
Not to mention if you modify the software, more than likely there's nothing they can do other than deny online privileges or other small inconveniences. More than likely people will just eat their apples or seek another business that won't post such bothersome restrictions. That company will be either forced to change if they want to continue existing or try and reap their existing userbase for more. They are neither morally right or wrong.



I would disagree that we owe it anything. Sure we can as humans try to treat each other and the world we live in better, but in the end of the day it's not really immoral for someone to not release the greatest software/OS/completely free, no restrictions on how to use it, etc. etc.

Are you saying that neglecting the good will of another in pursuit of your own greedy pleasure isn't unethical just because you have no legal obligation to do so? Are legal obligations the entirety of what falls into the wrongs and rights of ethical behaviour to you? Abusing the system and kindness of another purely for your own selfish desires is unethical.



I don't disagree with, by all means I don't care if a company puts their product or service out there, I do care however when that product or service is needlessly limited, when companies falsely advertise those limitations as a mandatory part of their product or service.

The limitations placed on console software do not in any way make them more "secure". If people were given the ability to use the hardware they buy to a fuller extent the market would be even more open, we would have things like 3rd party companies or even non-profit communities helping out developers with anti-hack programs and exploit solutions. There's already proof out there that this helps games and developers thrive, at the end of the day there isn't any point in limiting consoles to only being able to perform a few certain tasks other than to control user experience and reap greater profits for their producers. It doesn't help the developers, it doesn't help the consumer, it only helps the console producer.



I am not implying that all personal gain not obtained through those methods is bad, I am stating that completely disregarding the ideals of those who are literally responsible for your own success is.



It is not only my way, did you miss the fact that we're talking about Cerf and Astanoff here? The former literally invented the internet, the latter was the first hacker out there. Nothing will change the fact that Sony and Microsoft are brushing aside the wills of those who came before them and slapping their ideals in the face in pursuit of greed. Seems I'm not the only one who agrees on that part.



You're taking my argument out way of context, not once did I say that a company or person had to release their software completely free of charge. Nowhere in my analogy did I imply that either, did I say they had to give the apples away for free? No, it is not implied in Cerf's and Astanoff's quote either.

A child's mother gave birth to it, often together with a father they help nurture that child through life and give it what it needs to survive in the world. In the same way the Earth gave life to us and nurtured us with all that we would need to evolve to the point we are today. I'm pretty strong on the opinion that we have an ethical obligation to make sure we use the resources it gives us to their fullest extent and for the best purpose.

I'm sorry I added the free part because I personally believe that a lot of information is better off free for all to access. Didn't mean to make it sound like it was something you were arguing for.

in the end of the day we disagree on a fundamental level, and that's fine.
Me = voluntary interaction
You = Obligation

I will probably buy a PS4 a year or two after release, when all the kinks are worked out of the original build.

6-8 Months after the release gonna wait out until the price foes down enough and all the bugs debug before I buy a PS4