@TJ_Hooker: It's a public statement still. A company can't lose face whatsoever, so they wrapped all of the vitriol in nice words. @Awong124: Companies exist to make money. They aren't charities. Of course Microsoft also did this because they were afraid to lose money. But change is still better than if there had been no change at all. Besides, there's no DRM and no always-online policy anymore. I'd say it's a win-win situation for both the customers and Microsoft in this case.
Anyone who can admit that they were wrong and fix their mistakes deserves respect in my opinion.
They only pulled back and apologised because they were found out about it. It's like you only feeling sorry for stealing from your mother's cookie jar if she caught you red-handed: it doesn't mean they deserve much at all, least of all the cookie.
They only pulled back and apologised because they were found out about it. It's like you only feeling sorry for stealing from your mother's cookie jar if she caught you red-handed: it doesn't mean they deserve much at all, least of all the cookie.
To be fair, they publicly and proudly announced that they stole from the cookie jar and that they would continue to steal from the cookie jar in the future. And now they're promising to not touch the cookies anymore because they learned their lesson.
They weren't 'found out', it wasn't a dirty secret, it was a major feature. Of course it's all about profits, but count how many times the Internet has exploded in rage about something a product it didn't like and the company that produces the product actually said "Right, it was stupid, we're changing the whole thing".
Generally, I don't understand the hate for a company that does what companies do; make a product that'll sell so they can make money. They figured out that their product would lose money because of certain features so they changed it. Now they get hate for removing the things people didn't like about it. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Anyone who can admit that they were wrong and fix their mistakes deserves respect in my opinion.
They only pulled back and apologised because they were found out about it. It's like you only feeling sorry for stealing from your mother's cookie jar if she caught you red-handed: it doesn't mean they deserve much at all, least of all the cookie.
Found out about it? They were up front about what the limits and features of Xbox were from day one. They were listening to publishers instead of listening to their customers. They truely believed they had a product that consumers would be happy about and purchase even with the limitations thrust down their throats. They realized these limitations would cost them sales (not just a handful but a shitload) so they reversed their policy to save money before heads roll.
One thing to note, is that it completely puts pressure in the publishers corner. Yes you can go to a store and purchase a usable playable disc, however, nothing is stopping distributors of going digital only so consumers don't have that option. I wouldn't put it past companies like EA and Capcom to adopt this model.
When I hear digital downloaded games all I can think about is error 37.
@Drugar and @deltago: Well, let me change my metaphor a little, then. It's like taking a cookie from the jar right in front of their mother, relying on her not making a too much of a big deal about it. When she did, they automatically apologised.
Just like that child might feel, I'm not sure they have even understood they have done anything wrong, or gotten any real lesson about it. They are just listening to their consumers and trying to fix up the mess in order to get back on the game.
@TJ_Hooker: It's a public statement still. A company can't lose face whatsoever, so they wrapped all of the vitriol in nice words. @Awong124: Companies exist to make money. They aren't charities. Of course Microsoft also did this because they were afraid to lose money. But change is still better than if there had been no change at all. Besides, there's no DRM and no always-online policy anymore. I'd say it's a win-win situation for both the customers and Microsoft in this case.
This is true; companies need to make money, but you obviously can't make money if you haven't any customers, and I think if Microsoft had done a little market research they'd have anticipated the backlash.
Still, it's good that they have started to listen now, although a lot of damage may have already been done as they'll have lost the trust of a lot of people. Personally, I'll probably still get the PS4 first, but maybe an Xbox One later down the line if there are enough games I'd be interested in.
@Drugar: Completely agreed. Most companies just keep on pushing their own vision upon their customers and refuse to adapt. But it seems people still aren't satisfied. Yeah, well, what do you want Microsoft to do? Beg for forgiveness at your bare feet or something? Company -> Product -> Money -> Company and so on. It's one of the basic things economics is based on.
You really think they did this due to consumer feedback? There has been negative feedback about this long before E3. The only reason they did this 180 was because Sony totally kicked their asses. If Xbox One was the only new system coming out, they wouldn't have given two shits about the negative backlash. Even directly after E3 one of their executives basically said "screw you" to the consumers who didn't like the always online feature.
They backpedalled at the very last instant when they realized they weren't going to get away with it. So they deserve respect because they shat on their fanbase, then went back on it just to save their own asses? If you feel that way, then you're very easy to please.
Sure, companies are out to make money, but there is also a thing called consumer trust, and I don't think they've done enough to regain it. This just looks like a cowardly attempt to save their own skin.
This issue confuses me though, am I completely out of touch with real life, or is Microsoft?
Not sure what you mean... why has Microsoft made the internet so angry?
I don't know about all the stuff about Kinect spying on you. Really, there are two main issues.
One is about used games. See, gaming is actually quite expensive for most people, and used games are the only way it becomes affordable. But some in the gaming industry think that the used game industry hurts sales of new games, so have been trying to restrict it. Many aren't really convinced used games really do have a significant impact. New games typically have short shelf lives anyway, and if people have to pay full price for all their games they'll probably just buy fewer games, and at least when they buy used games there's a good chance they might buy DLC as well. Also, if you've paid £40 or $60 for a game, then why shouldn't you be able to give it away or trade it for something else if want to (especially since most games you'll probably be done with in week anyway)? There's none of this fuss around movies on Blu-Ray or DVD; Ford doesn't design it's cars to automatically self destruct after a certain number of years so that people have to buy their newest models...
Which is the other issue; connecting to the internet obviously isn't really a problem for most people today, but what happens in, say, ten years (being generous; could happen a lot sooner the way things are looking) if Microsoft decide to no longer support the Xbox One? They could promise patches etcetera, but really there's no guarantee that you wouldn't just be left with an ugly, unwieldy paperweight that you spent a lot of money on.
I think people are pissed off about the internet connection requirement mostly because it seems like Microsoft has a totalitarian attitude to always have to check up on them like Big Brother, at least that's my impression.
I think people are pissed off about the internet connection requirement mostly because it seems like Microsoft has a totalitarian attitude to always have to check up on them like Big Brother, at least that's my impression.
Maybe. As a PC gamer as well I'm quite used to the idea of activating games over the internet, although having to do it every day would be annoying. I suppose it would also that if your internet connection were down, the phone company doing work on the line or something, then you'd be sat in the house unable to play any of your stuff.
I think people are pissed off about the internet connection requirement mostly because it seems like Microsoft has a totalitarian attitude to always have to check up on them like Big Brother, at least that's my impression.
Maybe. As a PC gamer as well I'm quite used to the idea of activating games over the internet, although having to do it every day would be annoying. I suppose it would also that if your internet connection were down, the phone company doing work on the line or something, then you'd be sat in the house unable to play any of your stuff.
Well, after the first time it would be automatic, so it shouldn't be annoying. But you might constantly feel like you were being monitored.
I think people are pissed off about the internet connection requirement mostly because it seems like Microsoft has a totalitarian attitude to always have to check up on them like Big Brother, at least that's my impression.
Maybe. As a PC gamer as well I'm quite used to the idea of activating games over the internet, although having to do it every day would be annoying. I suppose it would also that if your internet connection were down, the phone company doing work on the line or something, then you'd be sat in the house unable to play any of your stuff.
Well, after the first time it would be automatic, so it shouldn't be annoying. But you might constantly feel like you were being monitored.
In any case, there doesn't seem to be much good reason for any of it, other than trying to kill used/second hand games being in circulation.
I think people are pissed off about the internet connection requirement mostly because it seems like Microsoft has a totalitarian attitude to always have to check up on them like Big Brother, at least that's my impression.
Maybe. As a PC gamer as well I'm quite used to the idea of activating games over the internet, although having to do it every day would be annoying. I suppose it would also that if your internet connection were down, the phone company doing work on the line or something, then you'd be sat in the house unable to play any of your stuff.
Well, after the first time it would be automatic, so it shouldn't be annoying. But you might constantly feel like you were being monitored.
In any case, there doesn't seem to be much good reason for any of it, other than trying to kill used/second hand games being in circulation.
That's exactly what I thought. Seemed like a pointless thing to shoot themselves in the foot over.
I wonder what would have happened if you were traveling or moving and your Xbox stayed off line for, let's say... a week...
That wouldn't be a problem, unless you wanted to play the Xbox before your internet was set up. There wouldn't have been a penalty for having the machine offline, it will just connect at the first opportunity it got.
I like this quote: "Why ... it's almost as if major publishers aren't looking for ways to make games cheaper for us, and instead will squeeze as much money out of us as they can get away with, simply because they can."
@Awong124: *sigh* Look, read my previous post. I never said that I fully appreciate of Microsoft's behaviour. I even mentioned how the Xbox One's reputation's probably already damaged to a point of no return for most gamers. I just wanted to point out that we, as consumers, just should be happy that they in the end DID remove some of the most glaring restrictions people were complaining about. And yeah, again, they're a BUSINESS. They aren't a charity. Their point of interest is mainly making money. Just like any other business out there. This does NOT mean I approve of all of their business strategies and consumer traps, though. But the customer stil has the option to choose what to spend their money on, what DLC to buy, etc. I don't approve of the system as it is, but I doubt it will change anytime soon. Just be glad that some customers have gotten what they wanted this time. Also, if you dislike Microsoft so much, simply buy a PS4 instead, like most people seem to do. Hope I made myself clear enough this time.
Their original plan to squeeze every penny out of consumers will now cost them money. Not very good business sense to begin with if they wanted to make money. Now a lot of consumers will choose not to buy them. I am very happy that their arrogance will cost them dearly.
I also don't dislike Microsoft. I like their PC products just fine, at least a hell of a lot more than Apple. I just dislike their approach to this issue.
Microsoft should have done better research, such as looking at the negative criticism directed at EA and others over their DRM things, foreseen that there would be backlash that Sony could capitalize on... which is exactly what they've done. It's just been very bad business on Microsoft's part.
If the xbox were the only new console coming out, then they might have pushed on regardless of any negative feedback. But that's why we have laws against monopolies; to stop companies from taking advantage of consumers like that... in theory anyway. But it does seem to have worked well in this case, as everyone's gotten what they want now. But if Playstation were all there was, Sony might start doing the same stuff. As it is, they saw the opportunity made by the other company's mistakes and they took it.
You really think they did this due to consumer feedback? The only reason they did this 180 was because Sony totally kicked their asses. If Xbox One was the only new system coming out, they wouldn't have given two shits about the negative backlash.
This pretty much supports what I said before, and this is from someone who's defending Microsoft.
And they've just proven how easy it is for them change their policies, and now to let the wave of gulliable fools buy a One, and then in about 6-8 months they reinstate everything since they made their money and people now have the horrible system they were so deadset against.....no thanks....X-box exclusives are all shooters or Kinect games, no variation at all, and none of them are even good, just the latest flavor of the same thing shooters have been doing since games began.
If X-box had quality games, I'd have had a big library of them...they're too narrowly defined and aren't even good at it. The only exclusive I bought a 360 to play isn't even mentioned, it wasn't a system seller and likely no one has ever even heard of it due to being a niche title, but it was a good game to me...and it's technically the only X-box game I own now...traded all my others in for PS3 versions or towards other games.
Yeah, those 'internet whiners' are a part of what prompted Sony, and saw Microsoft's preorders plummet. I doubt MS will change it again, at least not until the next generation of consoles, since they now know that many of their customers will go over to their competition.
The fact that this is a backtracking... It means they didn't really have a backup plan in-case the public didn't approve of what they were planning and their only real choice was to drop all their plans.
@Kaltzor: What kind of back-up plan would they have needed to have, then? And what if the roles were reversed? What if it were Sony would have needed a back-up plan?
Meh, I'm still calling it a trick. Yes the system doesn't require check ins now, but all their exclusives might require cloud computing in order to function (they mentioned they were gearing their games to take advantage of cloud processing to try and beat the PS4 in performance, more cheaply), effectively rendering them always online, regardless of their content...you could still play cross-platform titles without internet access, but they might burn you on the exclusives.
Comments
I am now considering an Xbox over an PS4 - if I get a new console.
@Awong124: Companies exist to make money. They aren't charities. Of course Microsoft also did this because they were afraid to lose money. But change is still better than if there had been no change at all. Besides, there's no DRM and no always-online policy anymore. I'd say it's a win-win situation for both the customers and Microsoft in this case.
They weren't 'found out', it wasn't a dirty secret, it was a major feature.
Of course it's all about profits, but count how many times the Internet has exploded in rage about something a product it didn't like and the company that produces the product actually said "Right, it was stupid, we're changing the whole thing".
Generally, I don't understand the hate for a company that does what companies do; make a product that'll sell so they can make money. They figured out that their product would lose money because of certain features so they changed it. Now they get hate for removing the things people didn't like about it. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
One thing to note, is that it completely puts pressure in the publishers corner. Yes you can go to a store and purchase a usable playable disc, however, nothing is stopping distributors of going digital only so consumers don't have that option. I wouldn't put it past companies like EA and Capcom to adopt this model.
When I hear digital downloaded games all I can think about is error 37.
Just like that child might feel, I'm not sure they have even understood they have done anything wrong, or gotten any real lesson about it. They are just listening to their consumers and trying to fix up the mess in order to get back on the game.
Still, it's good that they have started to listen now, although a lot of damage may have already been done as they'll have lost the trust of a lot of people. Personally, I'll probably still get the PS4 first, but maybe an Xbox One later down the line if there are enough games I'd be interested in.
They backpedalled at the very last instant when they realized they weren't going to get away with it. So they deserve respect because they shat on their fanbase, then went back on it just to save their own asses? If you feel that way, then you're very easy to please.
Sure, companies are out to make money, but there is also a thing called consumer trust, and I don't think they've done enough to regain it. This just looks like a cowardly attempt to save their own skin.
I don't know about all the stuff about Kinect spying on you. Really, there are two main issues.
One is about used games. See, gaming is actually quite expensive for most people, and used games are the only way it becomes affordable. But some in the gaming industry think that the used game industry hurts sales of new games, so have been trying to restrict it. Many aren't really convinced used games really do have a significant impact. New games typically have short shelf lives anyway, and if people have to pay full price for all their games they'll probably just buy fewer games, and at least when they buy used games there's a good chance they might buy DLC as well. Also, if you've paid £40 or $60 for a game, then why shouldn't you be able to give it away or trade it for something else if want to (especially since most games you'll probably be done with in week anyway)? There's none of this fuss around movies on Blu-Ray or DVD; Ford doesn't design it's cars to automatically self destruct after a certain number of years so that people have to buy their newest models...
Which is the other issue; connecting to the internet obviously isn't really a problem for most people today, but what happens in, say, ten years (being generous; could happen a lot sooner the way things are looking) if Microsoft decide to no longer support the Xbox One? They could promise patches etcetera, but really there's no guarantee that you wouldn't just be left with an ugly, unwieldy paperweight that you spent a lot of money on.
That wouldn't be a problem, unless you wanted to play the Xbox before your internet was set up. There wouldn't have been a penalty for having the machine offline, it will just connect at the first opportunity it got.
"Why ... it's almost as if major publishers aren't looking for ways to make games cheaper for us, and instead will squeeze as much money out of us as they can get away with, simply because they can."
I also don't dislike Microsoft. I like their PC products just fine, at least a hell of a lot more than Apple. I just dislike their approach to this issue.
I wonder if people even remember it, or what caused it? Those who don't remember are doomed to repeat, and so forth.
If the xbox were the only new console coming out, then they might have pushed on regardless of any negative feedback. But that's why we have laws against monopolies; to stop companies from taking advantage of consumers like that... in theory anyway. But it does seem to have worked well in this case, as everyone's gotten what they want now. But if Playstation were all there was, Sony might start doing the same stuff. As it is, they saw the opportunity made by the other company's mistakes and they took it.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/415453/sony-forced-microsofts-hand-not-the-internet-whining-says-bleszinski/
If X-box had quality games, I'd have had a big library of them...they're too narrowly defined and aren't even good at it. The only exclusive I bought a 360 to play isn't even mentioned, it wasn't a system seller and likely no one has ever even heard of it due to being a niche title, but it was a good game to me...and it's technically the only X-box game I own now...traded all my others in for PS3 versions or towards other games.
http://allthingsd.com/20130701/exclusive-microsofts-entertainment-head-don-mattrick-leaving-to-take-top-role-possibly-ceo-at-zynga/
The whole Xbox One story keeps getting better.