Support NeoGAF

[FranXico]

Some of my fellow gamers continue to puzzle me to no end. I look at the statements such as this one or the recent Phil Spencer comment, and I can find nothing controversial about them. Nada. Zilch. It's clear to me as day that they're absolutely true. And yet they cause such shitstorms on places like GAF. I guess some of you guys are in for a rude awakening, that's precisely the direction the whole of this industry is taking.

Because Microsoft says so, right? Microsoft don't have a monopoly on this industry yet.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

If I recall, you were getting the Xbox even with the DRM, weren't you?

Yes, it was mostly good news for me since I don't give a fuck about used games, and I couldn't live without a decent internet connection anyway. I was forced to for the past month (thankfully, I should finally be getting a new 20 Mbit/s connection on Monday), and it wasn't pretty.

You didn't find anything wrong with "power is subjective" at all?

No, what he said about that was entirely true. You know, the whole explanation, not just the soundbite.

 

[Amir0x]

No, what he said about that was entirely true. You know, the whole explanation, not just the soundbite.

Yes, this is very true:

"Power is a subjective term. We look at all of the capabilities we put in the box, our investment in cloud, Kinect, and all-in-one entertainment, and our investment in the operating system for fast task-switching.

"We think we've built a very powerful system. I don't think there's any one vector of power that you can focus on and say we win because this number is bigger than that number. It's like a car. Is it horsepower? Is it torque? There's a bunch of things that you look at to see what it's capable of.

"Our proposition with Xbox One starts with the games: we've got a great launch line-up of over 20 games. We've got some great franchises, great third-party relationships. And we've built a system that natively understands you and your entertainment."

Except of course it's classic PR misdirection. "Power" is not subjective. What he is describing is value. The VALUE proposition is subjective. Yes, you consider Kinect, you consider cloud, you consider whatever - but there is nothing subjective about power. His car analogy is absurd in that context.

See, they need to stop trying to muddy the waters. That's the whole goal of every statement they make. They want consumers to think that Xbox One is more powerful in some places, and PS4 is more powerful in others. It's a trade off here and there, don't you see! That's why they consistently obfuscate their intentions through clever language tricks and pathetic sleights of hand.

But it's not. PS4 is more powerful in every conceivable way available. It is not an opinion. It is not subjective. It is a fact.

PS4 is NOT more valuable in every way. That is subjective.

I don't get the Xbox fan Stockholm Syndrome going on, but it's a damn pity. Can't call a spade a spade. Literally paralyzed with fanaticism.

 

[Massa]

Yes, it was mostly good news for me since I don't give a fuck about used games, and I couldn't live without a decent internet connection anyway. I was forced to for the past month (thankfully, I should finally be getting a new 20 Mbit/s connection on Monday), and it wasn't pretty.

Interesting, did you play games during that period?

 

[Mumford]

I'm not going to try to masterfully analyze this as others in this thread have done, but I will say this:
MS's overall arrogance and inability to outwardly admit failure has caused me to be unable to recognize the Xbone as a legitimate platform for my purchase down the road. The fact that they seem ready, able, and willing to unleash their DRM & systems that got them to this point at any moment is absolutely disgusting.

 

[spookyfish]

Yes, it was mostly good news for me since I don't give a fuck about used games, and I couldn't live without a decent internet connection anyway. I was forced to for the past month (thankfully, I should finally be getting a new 20 Mbit/s connection on Monday), and it wasn't pretty.

I feel so sorry for you that MS, with its reversal, had taken away your ability to go all digital at the expense of allowing others to keep, trade and sell their discs ... Oh wait. How did the reversal affect gamers like you exercising their choice of ownership at all? Oh, yeah ... It didnt.

 

[BakedSardine]

Because MS keeps prodding at the issue every time they repeat their "consumers weren't ready" mantra, and their continued effort to rewrite the narrative from shitty DRM to digital future shows a total lack of respect for the consumers' intelligence.

The problem with this line of talk from Panello is that it blames the consumers - not doing that is PR 101. MS Could have created a system that was all digital and done a good job selling it and people would have been on board if there were tangible benefits - and I think there were, they just were never sold.

 

[EGM1966]

Yes, this is very true:



Except of course it's classic PR misdirection. "Power" is not subjective. What he is describing is value. The VALUE proposition is subjective. Yes, you consider Kinect, you consider cloud, you consider whatever - but there is nothing subjective about power. His car analogy is absurd in that context.

See, they need to stop trying to muddy the waters. That's the whole goal of every statement they make. They want consumers to think that Xbox One is more powerful in some places, and PS4 is more powerful in others. It's a trade off here and there, don't you see! That's why they consistently obfuscate their intentions through clever language tricks and pathetic sleights of hand.

But it's not. PS4 is more powerful in every conceivable way available. It is not an opinion. It is not subjective. It is a fact.

PS4 is NOT more valuable in every way. That is subjective.

I don't get the Xbox fan Stockholm Syndrome going on, but it's a damn pity. Can't call a spade a spade. Literally paralyzed with fanaticism.

Totally agree on the deliberate mixing of power with value proposition and nicely put. MS is really trying hard to confuse terms and context as much as possible to nullify what are clear and objective comparison points.

I totally understand someone might see more value for them in XB1 vs PS4 but the console will always be objectively less powerful.

There's gonna be months of this stuff coming too, particularly if PS4 does perform better worldwide out the gates.

 

[King Tubby]

It's been said before in this thread, but it really is this simple. Nobody is saying that the market isn't moving towards digital, probably all-digital eventually. That's where people's preferences are headed as internet infrastructure and hardware improves. But the market moves there organically, because it has a choice to make and it chooses digital when the benefits compared to physical outweigh the negatives. MS wanted to make that choice for you and make digital the only option as opposed to simply making digital more attractive. They didn't want the hassle of making digital more appealing so that consumers would naturally gravitate towards it, they arrogantly believed they could just dictate the terms to the marketplace as though it were inevitable that their competitors (primarily Sony) would follow suit, release a clearly inferior product, or simply be ignored. E3 proved that they were dead wrong on all counts. They could have continued with their original plans, but it's clear that if they did they would be slaughtered. Sony's strong competition forced them to release a more appealing product. Exactly what they wanted to avoid in the first place.

 

[Finalizer]

One of the worst posts I've seen in this forum.

Reprehensible on several levels.

At least "fuck you I got mine" is a much more honest position.

And by the way, yes, game discs are going to become useless on their own. In fact, they'll be going away entirely as the primary way of distribution. How someone can argue that that's not going to happen in the next 10-15 years is beyond me.

This line of thinking is probably part of the reason MS got themselves into their digital-only DRM mess in the first place. The folks [EDIT: in charge] at Redmond likely got themselves caught in an echo chamber of Remember Citadel, Raydeen, etc. types who were totally convinced this was the natural course of evolution for the industry. They saw Netflix, iTunes, Steam, etc, and failed to realize these were the end result after various efforts, after several refinements, not natural, pre-destined courses for each industry. They didn't understand the circumstances surrounding the transitions in those industries, merely assuming they happened for the sake of happening, and that console gamers would naturally accept following suite no matter what was presented for their own digital counterpart.

And they had a rude awakening. They'll have it again if they assume they can simply mandate a digital future on their terms.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

http://www.cinemablend.com/m/games/...ut-Xbox-One-DRM-So-Why-Didn-t-They-60430.html

cinamablend responding to penello.

sad.

Another good article from CinemaBlend that takes Microsoft to task.

 

[Amir0x]

This line of thinking is probably part of the reason MS got themselves into their digital-only DRM mess in the first place. The folks at Redmond likely got themselves caught in an echo chamber of Remember Citadel, Raydeen, etc. types who were totally convinced this was the natural course of evolution for the industry. They saw Netflix, iTunes, Steam, etc, and failed to realize these were the end result after various efforts, after several refinements, not natural, pre-destined courses for each industry. They didn't understand the circumstances surrounding the transitions in those industries, merely assuming they happened for the sake of happening, and that console gamers would naturally accept following suite no matter what was presented for their own digital counterpart.

And they had a rude awakening. They'll have it again if they assume they can simply mandate a digital future on their terms.

For the record, crazy buttocks on a train has consistently said that's not even the case. Crazy said there was quite a bit of debate, and many people inside Microsoft said precisely what was said in post 657 - the corporate heads weren't having it. It was design-by-committee, not designed for gamers.

So people spoke up. They just weren't listening. Which is... well, explains everything.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Aside from the Steam sales, what makes Valve's system better than Microsoft's original plan for the Xbox One?

You still don't own your Steam games. You can't sell or trade them in. You can't lend them to a friend. If there is a big issue over licensing or royalties between companies, the games can be taken off. If Valve goes bust and Steam closes down, you will lose games. (And yes I know of the Valve 'kill switch'. This would only apply to Valve's games, there is no way in hell they have any system in place for EA, Ubisoft etc. to remove DRM).

For me it all comes down to price.

I don't collect games. I don't replay games. I don't lend games to friends (none of my local friends game). I only sell games off due to the fact I don't collect or replay. If games were priced at Steam sale levels, I'd be fine paying those prices to just play once. Renting doesn't work as it takes me too long to find time to beat games.

More of the story, I have no problems going all digital if pricing is like Steam with a lot of great sales as the prices get low enough that I'd pay the same or less per game on average as I do now after beating and re-selling.

But I'll never jump into a system like current console digital game prices as those stay too high, for too long, with hardly any big games going on huge discounts until 3+ years later. So MS's plan was terrible, and not something I would have ever bought into.

 

[Finalizer]

For the record, crazy buttocks on a train has consistently said that's not even the case. Crazy said there was quite a bit of debate, and many people inside Microsoft said precisely what was said in post 657 - the corporate heads weren't having it. It was design-by-committee, not designed for gamers.

So people spoke up. They just weren't listening. Which is... well, explains everything.

I'd suspect it was those very suits in charge that were caught in the kind of misunderstanding I was talking about. It sounds like there's plenty of level-headed folks over there who've been repeatedly smacking their heads in disbelief in what they have to deal with, and not having the power/influence to do anything about it.

 

[Seanspeed]

I cant wait til the word 'ether' stops being used like this.

 

[-PXG-]

Yes, this is very true:



Except of course it's classic PR misdirection. "Power" is not subjective. What he is describing is value. The VALUE proposition is subjective. Yes, you consider Kinect, you consider cloud, you consider whatever - but there is nothing subjective about power. His car analogy is absurd in that context.

See, they need to stop trying to muddy the waters. That's the whole goal of every statement they make. They want consumers to think that Xbox One is more powerful in some places, and PS4 is more powerful in others. It's a trade off here and there, don't you see! That's why they consistently obfuscate their intentions through clever language tricks and pathetic sleights of hand.

But it's not. PS4 is more powerful in every conceivable way available. It is not an opinion. It is not subjective. It is a fact.

PS4 is NOT more valuable in every way. That is subjective.

I don't get the Xbox fan Stockholm Syndrome going on, but it's a damn pity. Can't call a spade a spade. Literally paralyzed with fanaticism.

It's 2006 all over again

 

[Nosgoroth]

How ironic that Foxix's post starts with "I've got no fucking clue", regardless of context.

 

[Amir0x]

It's 2006 all over again

The more things change, the more things stay the same I guess

 

[Diddy Kong]

Post 657 forever

 

[inner-G]

If by 'people' Penello means 'MS themselves', then yes, he's right.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

I cant wait til the word 'ether' stops being used like this.

Me ether

 

[Guerilla]

Penello said Microsoft hasn't given up on a fully digital future. "We just think that's the way the future's gonna go," he said. "We may have been right. What we were wrong about was that it's just too soon. People just weren't ready to make that leap right away."

So when will Microsoft decide that "people are ready for it"? Could it be during the new generation? They obviously still think it's a good idea so how can anyone trust Microsoft that they won't screw them mid-gen?

 

[newsguy]

I cant wait til the word 'ether' stops being used like this.

Blame Nas

 

[jsnepo]

I'm reading very good arguments in this thread. Why can't these gaming journalists bring up the same things?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

So when will Microsoft decide that "people are ready for it"? Could it be during the new generation? They obviously still think it's a good idea so how can anyone trust Microsoft that they won't screw them mid-gen?

I can't see them doing that, after the shitstorm resulting from the reveal.

I think they'll spend this way trying to come up with ways to get people to buy more games digitally. Be it sales, some early releases, reward system for digital purchases (like Nintendo has with the Wii U E Shop) etc.

Then with the X1 successor we'll see them try something similar again, or maybe go fully digital. Maybe have it be more of an HTPC since they are a PC company after all, and want to rule the entertainment center.

 

[Finalizer]

MS Could have created a system that was all digital and done a good job selling it and people would have been on board if there were tangible benefits - and I think there were, they just were never sold.

I'm still waiting for MS to clearly explain their Family Sharing system and all its benefits. I'd imagine plenty of others are still very interested as well.

That's just it though, we had plenty of things to be pissed off about, and hardly had anything to be excited to look forward to. The best folks could go on was speculation that games would get cheaper "because Steam has good sales and its all digital lol." Or have faith that MS' plans for family sharing would end up being pretty cool, and that's asking for faith in the company that had been so reluctant to approach the DRM topic for months before. There just wasn't much to get on board about - folks who prefer all-digital and have the net connections to support it already can do so on the PS360, and have been able to enjoy general benefits of digital for years now. The only ones it really benefited were people who wanted to be able to install digital games through physical media and never have to use the disc again, not minding severe restrictions being added in the process - a tiny minority, clearly. If MS was really interested in a digital-oriented console, they would be trying to convince consumers of a digital future through benefits like proper digital sharing, allowing trades, implementing some sort of used games market (or at least enacting a proper digital return policy ala Origin), and most importantly they would just leave the existing physical media market alone; incentivize the transition to the digital counterpart, don't just say fuck you to a massive portion of your fanbase.

It's why it's extremely difficult for me to imagine the whole move as anything remotely consumer oriented. The entire effort just rank of pro-corporate fuck-you-give-me-money bullshit as it was.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

/end rant

I know you didn't make this post to get the attention you are getting but because you actually feel that way.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to put into words what many of us are thinking.

It's really baffling that at no moment did MS as a whole realize something as simple as this. And it's even more baffling that some are blindly defending this and buying into all the PR twisting. Some may even read your post and think that it is just a rant, but it's just a simple look at what's wrong with the original idea and the current lack of vision and PR trainwreck coming from the company.

Well deserved praise, Foxix.

 

[BitStyle]

/end rant

Damn, posts like this are why I joined GAF. Eloquently put.

 

[eighty(one)]

Yes, this is very true:



Except of course it's classic PR misdirection. "Power" is not subjective. What he is describing is value. The VALUE proposition is subjective. Yes, you consider Kinect, you consider cloud, you consider whatever - but there is nothing subjective about power. His car analogy is absurd in that context.

See, they need to stop trying to muddy the waters. That's the whole goal of every statement they make. They want consumers to think that Xbox One is more powerful in some places, and PS4 is more powerful in others. It's a trade off here and there, don't you see! That's why they consistently obfuscate their intentions through clever language tricks and pathetic sleights of hand.

But it's not. PS4 is more powerful in every conceivable way available. It is not an opinion. It is not subjective. It is a fact.

PS4 is NOT more valuable in every way. That is subjective.

I don't get the Xbox fan Stockholm Syndrome going on, but it's a damn pity. Can't call a spade a spade. Literally paralyzed with fanaticism.

Fantastic post. I encourage your sentiments and logical dissections.

This is spot on.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

I'm reading very good arguments in this thread. Why can't these gaming journalists bring up the same things?

Being too cozy with devs. Depending on advertising from these companies and the fear of losing out on that revenue if they're critical.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Interesting, did you play games during that period?

Yes, and I would also be playing them if I had a pre-reversal Xbox One, I would just need to use mobile internet (something I've been relying on for the past moth) to ping their servers once a day. But even if that wasn't possible, my backlog of games for the offline platforms that I own is some 200 titles long.

I feel so sorry for you that MS, with its reversal, had taken away your ability to go all digital at the expense of allowing others to keep, trade and sell their discs ... Oh wait. How did the reversal affect gamers like you exercising their choice of ownership at all? Oh, yeah ... It didnt.

It did, actually. For instance, now I'll have to either go full digital (which I still may do, although I doubt it - it is a bit too early for me) or I'll still have to swap discs, which is not a huge hassle, but not being obliged to do that would result in a much smoother experience. Their proposed solution was a nice hybrid, far preferable to either of the two options that we'll have now, from my perspective.

And that's not touching on the secondary benefits I believe the elimination of the used games market as it exists now would provide in the long term.

This line of thinking is probably part of the reason MS got themselves into their digital-only DRM mess in the first place. The folks [EDIT: in charge] at Redmond likely got themselves caught in an echo chamber of Remember Citadel, Raydeen, etc. types who were totally convinced this was the natural course of evolution for the industry. They saw Netflix, iTunes, Steam, etc, and failed to realize these were the end result after various efforts, after several refinements, not natural, pre-destined courses for each industry. They didn't understand the circumstances surrounding the transitions in those industries, merely assuming they happened for the sake of happening, and that console gamers would naturally accept following suite no matter what was presented for their own digital counterpart.

And they had a rude awakening. They'll have it again if they assume they can simply mandate a digital future on their terms.

Well, one of us is deluded all right, only time will tell which one. I can wait.

 

[BlackClouds]

This just shows that MS shit the bed, and they have no idea how to clean it up. I'm not going to talk in a self rightous way like post #657 though. It's obvious they are selling this box towards dudebros who now have jobs and discretionary income and that is not necessarily the audience that frequents neogaf. So I'd say MS's focus is more clear than in that post. They have a long term strategy without the short term enthusiasm. Then again, just because a console starts out slow doesn't mean things can't be turned around, just look at the ps3.

 

[Marceles]

Great post by Foxix, I've been saying for the longest time that what little identity that MS started forming, they've completely lost it. "Cheaper third party console with a better online experience" is gone. "Buwahaha Miis, who wants that? We're hardcore. We play games." Here comes Kinect and Xbox avatars. It's gotten to a point where people turn on their 360s to do everything but play games. I don't know if MS is fine with that, but it seems like they've lost focus on what they were doing earlier.

My understanding before Kinect came into play was: Nintendo was a casual speciality and party system, Playstation was arguably the single player exclusive console of choice (of course subjective), and Xbox had their "we're hardcore, talk shit online for cheap, play PC ports from MS studios" lane and they were doing quite well.

Now I don't know what the fuck they're doing. I'm glad they finally left Rare develop something. I guess it's ok that they let you seamlessly switch from console to TV without changing your input/source. But right now they're all over the place, trying hard as hell to take a piece off of everyone's plate and charging an extra $100 to do all of it in mediocrity.

 

[sixamp]

He is right that alot of console gamers are not ready for all digital. The always on drm was wrong and forcing players to not be able to play single player games is 100% wrong but the vision they had for the Xbox 1 was a good vision just implemented wrongly.

 

[mhayze]

Aside from the Steam sales, what makes Valve's system better than Microsoft's original plan for the Xbox One?

You still don't own your Steam games. You can't sell or trade them in. You can't lend them to a friend. If there is a big issue over licensing or royalties between companies, the games can be taken off. If Valve goes bust and Steam closes down, you will lose games. (And yes I know of the Valve 'kill switch'. This would only apply to Valve's games, there is no way in hell they have any system in place for EA, Ubisoft etc. to remove DRM).

Differences between pre-180 DRM and Steam?

1. Steam exists on multiple open platforms without fixed hardware specs and therefore, planned obsolescence. Games will run into the future, after future upgrade on new OS', new hardware, etc.

2. People can download, backup and access their steam game files on open platforms. If steam went down, playing those 'marooned' games would be a whole lot easier (for offline play) than on a console, whether it was a Valve game or not. Patching old games to remove DRM without assistance from the platform holder is quite feasible.

3. The Steam pricing advantage is real, not a hope, or theory. There is no retail channel to piss off or compete with. Valves pricing strategies / comissions totally kill what's in place for Xbox. Not every company is on-board, but those who are see the big sales. I vote with my wallet.

4. Steam = PC. All the benefits apply. I don't want to derail this thread with what I like about the Steam/PC experience but if you want to know:

Spoiler

I can 'upgrade' my game experience by upgrading my hardware. A lot more games tend to be moddable on PC. I can choose my game controller - gamepad, keyboard and mouse, Hydra, whatever. When the Oculus Rift comes out, I don't need the platform holder to support it, it will work. If I don't like the field of view in a game, I can change the config files and add it in. I can force super-sampling AA, and get a game to render at quadruple my screen resolution and downsample it. I can apply filters that the game designers never anticipated. I can play every game in 3D. I can run a game across 3 monitors. I can record every gameplay experience to *my hard drive* in whatever format I choose.

There are also downsides to the Steam/PC experience, no doubt. I love consoles and own all of them. Just saying, the PC/Steam experience is not comparable to what Microsoft proposed, and I'm spelling out why that is (for me).

Spoiler

Also, while it certainly sounds like a copycat idea, Steam is implementing 'family sharing'. I believe it's in beta now.

 

[3rdamention]

Penello just sounds like a lost soul, without a leader, without a boss. Poor guy. Who is going to tell him to shut up? Nobody, everyone else is out doing their own PR thing.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Yeah, ya know what? I think this seals it for me. I don't think I'll ever buy an Xbox console at any point and time with these people at the helm. No fucking way man...

Microsoft: I'm not going to magically no longer care about my consumer rights a few yeas down the line. I'm either going to be just as upset that you tried this bullshit or even more so. There will be no scaling back of my contempt for this type of business practice. Period.

This DRM shit, the way you're trying to implement it, benefits no one but you and your partners. So fuck off with it.

This is how I feel. And I say that as someone that purchased an Xbox when it first released and waited all night on line @ Best Buy for my 360. I loved the Xbox brand. But their shitty DRM scheme pushed me firmly into PS4 territory.

 

[Finalizer]

Well, one of us is deluded all right, only time will tell which one. I can wait.

Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against the idea of digital in itself - I'm p. cool with Steam as it is, for example - MS has just given me little reason to believe they'll be the ones to bring all-digital in suitable form to consoles by themselves. Props to them if they can prove me wrong, but I ain't exactly holdin' my breath.

 

[Amir0x]

Differences between pre-180 DRM and Steam?

1. Steam exists on multiple open platforms without fixed hardware specs and therefore, planned obsolescence. Games will run into the future, after future upgrade on new OS', new hardware, etc.

2. People can download, backup and access their steam game files on open platforms. If steam went down, playing those 'marooned' games would be a whole lot easier (for offline play) than on a console, whether it was a Valve game or not. Patching old games to remove DRM without assistance from the platform holder is quite feasible.

3. The Steam pricing advantage is real, not a hope, or theory. There is no retail channel to piss off or compete with. Valves pricing strategies / comissions totally kill what's in place for Xbox. Not every company is on-board, but those who are see the big sales. I vote with my wallet.

4. Steam = PC. All the benefits apply. I don't want to derail this thread with what I like about the Steam/PC experience but if you want to know:

Spoiler

I can 'upgrade' my game experience by upgrading my hardware. A lot more games tend to be moddable on PC. I can choose my game controller - gamepad, keyboard and mouse, Hydra, whatever. When the Oculus Rift comes out, I don't need the platform holder to support it, it will work. If I don't like the field of view in a game, I can change the config files and add it in. I can force super-sampling AA, and get a game to render at quadruple my screen resolution and downsample it. I can apply filters that the game designers never anticipated. I can play every game in 3D. I can run a game across 3 monitors. I can record every gameplay experience to *my hard drive* in whatever format I choose.

There are also downsides to the Steam/PC experience, no doubt. I love consoles and own all of them. Just saying, the PC/Steam experience is not comparable to what Microsoft proposed, and I'm spelling out why that is (for me).

Spoiler

Also, while it certainly sounds like a copycat idea, Steam is implementing 'family sharing'. I believe it's in beta now.

You forgot a core point.

On PC, Steam doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's one of a bunch of digital game selling services. Therefore, competition is thriving and Steam is consistently becoming better.

On the Xbox One, there is no competition for their digital distribution set up - it's their way or the high way. If you want to try another one out, you'd have to spend an additional $300-$400 for a different console. Therefore, almost by definition, the values could never have been equal to or as consistent as Steam.

Once you eliminate many of these Steam benefits you mention, nobody wants an all-digital platform then. Because what you're giving up is way fucking more than what you're getting.

 

[Jedi2016]

Ditto on the kudos for Foxix. We're all thinking it, you just managed to put it into words, more eloquently and less assholish than I would have.

Microsoft's biggest problem, IMO, is that they don't understand the concept of what customer's actually want. Not just the details, but the actual concept that a customer might want a particular thing from a product. MS has gotten into the habit of simply releasing a product and effectively demanding that the customer want it. They're telling us what we want rather than asking us what we want. This also applies to the way they view their own products... they appear to actually believe everything that appears in their advertisements. Of course, all companies spin things in their advertising, but most of them are keenly aware of that spin practice, and make no allusions as to what the product actually is. Not so for MS. They actually seem to buy into their own bullshit.

The biggest example, I think, is Windows 8. They released it, touting, and truly believing, that it was the greatest operating system ever created by the hands of gods or men. And no one bought it. This quite literally baffled them... they actually couldn't understand why people didn't want it, and especially why they didn't want it shoved down their throats. The telltale part of this is the blame game they played, trying to put the problem on OEMs for not making enough PCs pre-loaded with it (while the OEMs, on the flip side, blamed Win8 for decreased sales). And, like Xbox, trying to blame the customer for not understanding their "vision" for the future of Windows. They blame everyone... except the people that actually made the product that no one wanted. Those guys got a million dollar bonus and a new summer house in Tahiti, and they're exceedingly proud of the wonder they created. I guess the world just wasn't "ready" for that, either.

The Xbox One is what it is. No amount of PR is going to change that, it's far too late. The box has to stand on its own now. And it will either succeed, or it will fail. MS isn't doing much to effectively change this, so now it's up to the customers... the ones who will buy the product. Or they won't.

 

[Special C]

Well in all fairness. I was ready for it. Using disks as a delivery system and I get to have all my games digitally available? Sounds awesome. Of course I don't do rentals or used games and also have stable internet so I can see all the outrage.

 

[semiconscious]

Well, one of us is deluded all right, only time will tell which one. I can wait.

there's nothing delusional about the idea of catching more flies with honey than vinegar. the vinegar aspect of ms' version of drm was glaringly apparent, while the honey part was vague to the point of incoherent...

you want customers to see things your way? you seduce them, you offer choice. you don't just blatantly coerce them...

 

[strangedopamine]

I've got no fucking clue. MS has collectively had its head up it's own ass for a while now. I want to critique this whole mess but frankly they've bungled this thing up so hard it's difficult to know where to start.

Albert, I know you read Gaf. You need to stop talking about this. Period. Full stop. No more. Shush.

Every time you or any other MS representative goes on the record to discuss the DRM policies you take an inherently anti consumer approach even if it's not your intent. Which at this point I'm going to assume it's your intent given the frequency with which you and your cohorts put this bungle on the consumer. You can't claim that consumers weren't ready for your vision of the future. We will never be ready for your vision of an all digital future because neither you nor anyone else at MS has never, not once, made it clear what exactly that vision is, or was, could be or will be.

Simply state that Microsoft misread the market. You operated in a vacuum under the assumption that your consumers wanted certain things that we didn't and now you're having to back track. That's fine. You guys made a mistake, it happens. It's time to reread your audience and try again. What you can't do is continue to allude to the fact that consumers weren't ready for your product. That's insulting, and it insinuates that you still have plans to fuck us over in the future. Consumers are naturally entitled. We have to be. We're paying large sums of cash, in this case a premium, for your product. We have certain expectations based on how you present that product and once that transaction is complete we're naturally entitled to complete ownership over that product. We also have expectations for your product based on competing products and services from other manufacturers. You do not operate within a vacuum and this relationship does not work in reverse. You are not entitled to my money.

The DRM strategy as we know it is beneficial to no one but Microsoft and its partners. This statement is true based on the information you have given us. You can claim that miscommunications and disorganization led to dissemination of inaccurate rumors, but the truth of the matter is that the only time you've detailed any consumer benefit was AFTER you shut the DRM down. We also had it on good insider authority that those claims regarding game sharing were complete bullshit and you're lying to us. All the "facts" you attempted to detail to consumers were completely contradictory during the period of time immediately following the initial announcement. Every further clarification only led to further confusion as your company continued to contradict itself. Repeatedly. These are not signs of miscommunications. These are signs of a critical lack of vision and fundamental misunderstanding of your target audience and it shows.

Right now Sony is assaulting you with precision strikes in the market that matters the most during launches, the core gamer audience. You need to buckle the fuck down and figure out what your product is, and who it's for. Right now I can't figure out who this product is for, or why anyone should want it. If it's for the hardcore gamer what are the benefits of paying for XBL over PSN+? You're entering a new generation and Sony is catching up significantly. Voice chat is no longer an appropriate answer. You've failed to clarify on the future of the Games With Gold promotion. At first it was temporary, now it's not? The offerings have been substandard when compared to PS+ over the period of time since it was first announced. Your product is no longer the preferred place to play multiplatform titles and you have virtually no first party resources to draw from. The last entry of your largest IP, halo, was not received well by it's audience and you've lost a chunk of your third party exclusive content over the past generation. As a consumer why should I believe that this won't happen again? Why should I, as a gamer, buy a Xbox One when judging by your track record you've nearly abandoned the 360 halfway through it's life and let a massive series like Mass Effect go multiplatform. It seems to me like this will probably happen again and most major titles I can just wait for.

Is this for the casual gamer? If so why aren't we seeing more kinect games? If so why is it the most expensive console on the market? Where is the content that's going to blow the casual market away? The original kinect was successful because it was a novel add on. A new way of interacting with a product you already had in your household. This is not the case for you any more. The original Wii took off because it was something entirely new, original, and extremely affordable. It was a novelty. This is also not the case for the Xbox One. The family/casual market, if there's much of one left, is going to Nintendo. They have the stronger family friendly IPs. You either need to focus on them or drop the kinect.

Is this a device for the mass market? Designed to integrate into television and media services? It can't be, once again it's the most expensive console no the market. It can't compete in price to something like the Apple TV, or even the Vita TV, a device that at least makes sense as a cheap complimentary purchase to a product a consumer will already own. If that's the case then why haven't we heard more about these television and film products? Where is the info on Remedy's new game that's supposedly blending video games and television entertainment? We know virtually nothing about how it plays, and we know virtually nothing about the television series. Are there other projects like that in the works? If it's designed to compliment a cable subscription why can't it function as a DVR? What benefit is there to a $500 black box that functions as little more than a glorified TV remote? Why aren't you partnering with cable providers? Why are the TV services so severely limited globally?

Microsoft, who is this product for? On the surface you seem to be approaching this device as a jack of all trades type of console. The problem is that the title of "jack of all trades" implies a level of competency in these services that is glaringly absent from your strategy. You lack vision. Period. Stop making excuses. Stop blaming the consumers.

Shut the fuck up, buckle the fuck down, figure out who you're targeting, and fix this.

/end rant

Very good read, well put and to the point. Microsoft are blaming everyone but themselves on the misteps they have taken since the Xbox One announcement and it is definately getting tiresome.

 

[Htown]

I cant wait til the word 'ether' stops being used like this.

good luck with that

not sure why it would bother you in the first place

 

[GANGSTERKILLER]

I've got no fucking clue. MS has collectively had its head up it's own ass for a while now. I want to critique this whole mess but frankly they've bungled this thing up so hard it's difficult to know where to start.

Albert, I know you read Gaf. You need to stop talking about this. Period. Full stop. No more. Shush.

Every time you or any other MS representative goes on the record to discuss the DRM policies you take an inherently anti consumer approach even if it's not your intent. Which at this point I'm going to assume it's your intent given the frequency with which you and your cohorts put this bungle on the consumer. You can't claim that consumers weren't ready for your vision of the future. We will never be ready for your vision of an all digital future because neither you nor anyone else at MS has never, not once, made it clear what exactly that vision is, or was, could be or will be.

Simply state that Microsoft misread the market. You operated in a vacuum under the assumption that your consumers wanted certain things that we didn't and now you're having to back track. That's fine. You guys made a mistake, it happens. It's time to reread your audience and try again. What you can't do is continue to allude to the fact that consumers weren't ready for your product. That's insulting, and it insinuates that you still have plans to fuck us over in the future. Consumers are naturally entitled. We have to be. We're paying large sums of cash, in this case a premium, for your product. We have certain expectations based on how you present that product and once that transaction is complete we're naturally entitled to complete ownership over that product. We also have expectations for your product based on competing products and services from other manufacturers. You do not operate within a vacuum and this relationship does not work in reverse. You are not entitled to my money.

The DRM strategy as we know it is beneficial to no one but Microsoft and its partners. This statement is true based on the information you have given us. You can claim that miscommunications and disorganization led to dissemination of inaccurate rumors, but the truth of the matter is that the only time you've detailed any consumer benefit was AFTER you shut the DRM down. We also had it on good insider authority that those claims regarding game sharing were complete bullshit and you're lying to us. All the "facts" you attempted to detail to consumers were completely contradictory during the period of time immediately following the initial announcement. Every further clarification only led to further confusion as your company continued to contradict itself. Repeatedly. These are not signs of miscommunications. These are signs of a critical lack of vision and fundamental misunderstanding of your target audience and it shows.

Right now Sony is assaulting you with precision strikes in the market that matters the most during launches, the core gamer audience. You need to buckle the fuck down and figure out what your product is, and who it's for. Right now I can't figure out who this product is for, or why anyone should want it. If it's for the hardcore gamer what are the benefits of paying for XBL over PSN+? You're entering a new generation and Sony is catching up significantly. Voice chat is no longer an appropriate answer. You've failed to clarify on the future of the Games With Gold promotion. At first it was temporary, now it's not? The offerings have been substandard when compared to PS+ over the period of time since it was first announced. Your product is no longer the preferred place to play multiplatform titles and you have virtually no first party resources to draw from. The last entry of your largest IP, halo, was not received well by it's audience and you've lost a chunk of your third party exclusive content over the past generation. As a consumer why should I believe that this won't happen again? Why should I, as a gamer, buy a Xbox One when judging by your track record you've nearly abandoned the 360 halfway through it's life and let a massive series like Mass Effect go multiplatform. It seems to me like this will probably happen again and most major titles I can just wait for.

Is this for the casual gamer? If so why aren't we seeing more kinect games? If so why is it the most expensive console on the market? Where is the content that's going to blow the casual market away? The original kinect was successful because it was a novel add on. A new way of interacting with a product you already had in your household. This is not the case for you any more. The original Wii took off because it was something entirely new, original, and extremely affordable. It was a novelty. This is also not the case for the Xbox One. The family/casual market, if there's much of one left, is going to Nintendo. They have the stronger family friendly IPs. You either need to focus on them or drop the kinect.

Is this a device for the mass market? Designed to integrate into television and media services? It can't be, once again it's the most expensive console no the market. It can't compete in price to something like the Apple TV, or even the Vita TV, a device that at least makes sense as a cheap complimentary purchase to a product a consumer will already own. If that's the case then why haven't we heard more about these television and film products? Where is the info on Remedy's new game that's supposedly blending video games and television entertainment? We know virtually nothing about how it plays, and we know virtually nothing about the television series. Are there other projects like that in the works? If it's designed to compliment a cable subscription why can't it function as a DVR? What benefit is there to a $500 black box that functions as little more than a glorified TV remote? Why aren't you partnering with cable providers? Why are the TV services so severely limited globally?

Microsoft, who is this product for? On the surface you seem to be approaching this device as a jack of all trades type of console. The problem is that the title of "jack of all trades" implies a level of competency in these services that is glaringly absent from your strategy. You lack vision. Period. Stop making excuses. Stop blaming the consumers.

Shut the fuck up, buckle the fuck down, figure out who you're targeting, and fix this.

/end rant

What a great post, respect Foxix. This explains exactly why I as a Xbox original and 360 owner is going PS4 only. Same goes for a lot of my friends who only have a Xbox.

I'm just sick and tired of MS.

 

[Neuromancer]

Yeah this is a good summary as to why I think Foxis' post went a tad overboard and overthought the current situation. I still don't know why people are so emotionally invested in this situation . A console is launching on the 22nd that is unlike what was pronounced in it's original vision. it's a matter of whether the features and games on it appeal to you. For me, they do. Not sure I agree with the reaction to a post that summarizes one side of the issue. Nor do I understand how at any point in time, Microsoft blamed us for anything. When the reversal happened, they said they heard us loud and clear and delivered what we wanted. Yet the piling on still continues.

We'll stop piling on when they stop saying dumb shit. I promise.

 

[Tobor]

While this is an excellent post, what he's talking about is kinda business 101. I'd be more interested in knowing what happened behind the scenes to have this huge breakdown in basic business strategy.

That's simple. Microsoft took over.

The Xbox division ran as it's own entity from inception through the beginning of the 360 era. They were the exception to the rule. The one "cool" division that bled money by the bucketload but at least understood how to build a gaming platform.

Now, they have been folded back into Microsoft proper and are just another cog in the boredom machine.

 

[Thoraxes]

Came for the ether headline in the title, did not leave disappointed. Holy shit.

 

[Jac_Solar]

The only way that an all digital solution could work (For consumers.) on a console is if they opened it up, like a PC, so that other companies could sell games. But that is extremely unlikely.

If Microsoft were the only ones allowed to sell games on their own console, there's little doubt that the prices would become ridiculous - there would be no competition, except with other platforms. Once the installed base reached a certain number, they'd probably go all out on the prices as well.

 

[DietRob]

Love the new tag. Noses certainly being smacked.