A Winner Is You

[Deadcyde]

This article feels like it's been written specifically to express exactly what consumers want to hear. I think the reality is a bit more complicated like this

http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905

And the author of that sounds like a corporate apologist with too much faith in Microsoft. He believes that Microsoft had entirely good intentions and will do things like drop prices on digital titles because it's the only sensible thing to do. Microsoft has done little, if anything, to earn our trust and this whole Xbox One controversy is in part proof of that distrust. Perhaps people would be more open to these ideas if they had garnered more good will.

It also doesn't help that Microsoft PR had been incredibly dodgy and deflective with questions regarding the Xbox One and it's features. The behaviour of MS PR didn't do anything to help the growing suspicions and distrust regarding the system and Microsoft themselves.

Perhaps you, and everyone, should read this comment I found on the article. It presents the most reasonable argument in why Xbox Ones new features were change and I find it sad that the author will probably never read it.

Spoiler: Most reasonable comment on the whole article

I'll have to politely disagree, because frankly, I'm tired of cat fights.
Given that this is a matter of faith on Microsoft, but I have a hard time seeing prices going down, and several other speculations made on why it's worse now only because of DRM.
I'll repeat once again something that I said on other discussion: Comparing it to Steam is not fair, isn't accurate, and is very very misleading.
If we were comparing it to a console system by some other company that switched DRM on and that this suddenly provoked a drop of prices, then yes.
Steam is running in a whole other environment, and I absolutely disagree with the idea that only because Steam games became cheap, it must mean that a similar system in a console should also make that happen.
Microsoft has no competition inside the XBox One, it will only sell games that has publishers behind them, and the games are all for XBox One (I mean, no backwards compatibility).
Steam not only has tons of other similar markets that are popping up everyday following it's success (at any time some other service could just open with better options, more exclusive titles, and a cross platform integrated system to be a big competition to Steam), lots of the games available there could also be bought sometimes directly from developers, or on other digital shops.
Steam is competing against indie bundles, GOG, and exclusive shops like Origin.
It's open to indie developers, and that's were you'll find most outrageous sales. Big games are also forced to drop prices because of that. And then comes the fact that tons of games on sale are x years old - no need to worry (much) about backwards compatibility.
And then, numbers. From Steam's statistics, we have currently 3 million users logged in, and a peak of 4 million today. Varied tastes and a huge library of games to buy. They can do huge sales because they can almost always guarantee that the number of units sold will be enough to justify the price. Will that really be the case for XBox One? No one can tell for shure.

But here's the thing: in the end, Microsoft is the only one to blame.
People who criticized the new system had all the reasons to do so, and this is a consumer win, not otherwise.
If it had incredible new uses and features for shure, it made a piss poor job at marketing it. If they were so shure that the new features were worth the flak, they wouldn't have backpedaled on them.
For those who are feeling grateful to Microsoft for hearing the complaints, feel no guilt about it.
Also, if Microsoft has big reasons for the benefit of gamers behind the policies, they can just prove to us later on, and put the whole thing back in place. It was easy to withdraw, it's easy to turn back on too.

said this on another post that wiley decided to post that link on and i'll say it here

And that's worth the dodgy kinect, the higher price tag, less trustworthy hardware, the constant need to be online?

no way, besides, Microsoft could have struck a happy medium, but it didn't.

That's in no way our fault.

Seriously, if they had made the kinect optional and lowered the price tag accordingly, added digital game trading and depreciation so we'd actually trust they wouldn't just take control of the gaming market with digital only content and screw us over with prices like they did with xbla*, as well as adding trustworthy hardware; it would be definitely worth getting. But no, they wanted to screw us over and when we said no, they decided to be childish about it.

So they won't get my business and i certainly won't feel guilty about it.

*tell me you never noticed how digital games are the same price as retail despite lower costs with no discs or shipping, or how they don't seem to depreciate in value with games like sleeping dogs and bioshock still at 50 bucks despite being 15 for new copies at gamestop? and you trust them to not gouge you once they corner the market? Not going to happen.

 

[JenSeven]

No Bob, we haven't yet won.
There are still too many lose ends.

Let me start with things that are clear.
Region locking is gone.
The fact that the XboxOne shuts down the console part of being a game console after not getting on the internet for more than 24 hours is gone.

That's all clear, now lets see what things are strange.

"An internet connection will not be required to play offline Xbox One games"
The problem with this is what exactly Microsoft considers "offline games". Titanfall is a pure multiplayer game, so that is certainly not an offline game.
But what about games with online components, such as competitive multiplayer? Even if you don't want to play the multiplayer part of the game it could be that that game will not be considered an offline game. This could mean that more and more games will have crappy tacked on multiplayer so that Microsoft can force us online.

Also that brings up another part of the problem here.
When Microsoft announced they would use the "infinite power of the cloud" to enhance the gaming experience, what could that mean?
Now that the mandatory internet is cut off, would that mean that the cloud was just a load of hot air since the games obviously didn't need it?
Or is the cloud power now being used to brand single player games as needing an online component to "access the cloud" and again making them not offline games again?

Second point:
No mention was made of Xbox Live. Would signing onto Xbox Live do something? Would that make the new Xbox into the mandatory online Xbox again? What limitations does connection to Xbox Live have?
There was no mention of this, so we don't know. Although we can probably assume the worst.

Third point:
Second hand games will work as they do today.
Today second hand games work with Online Passes in most cases.
Does Microsoft mean this? I wouldn't expect them to pull this old joke again under a different name.

So yeah, it may not be the outcome you expected.
I hope I am wrong, but I kinda expect I will be proven right.
Thanks for reading.

 

[Lightknight]

If people want to say that video games are art, then people need to stop getting indignant every time a game doesn't end the way they want it to. Books don't all have happy fun-time endings. Movies don't all have happy fun-time endings. Why are gamers entitled to dictate that a game series should?

You can't have it both ways.

What? Are you aware that the practice of having artists and writers change things has been going on for some time in every form of media? Hell, people bitched at Charles Dickens about the original ending of Great Expectations being too sad and so he actually changed it.

But just because people have changed endings before doesn't mean that they were right in doing so. And while I disagree with the statement that changing an ending disqualifies something from being art, I do think that it diminishes it. After all, something that is great art already doesn't need changing and I don't think I've ever seen an instance where changing an ending made something so substantially better that you could almost objectively say that it had been elevated to great art.
Mostly the opposite is true. "I am legend", for instance, had a far better ending in the book, but the film made it far more mundane and simply took away all the depth that was present in the writer's original artistic and intellectual drive. You simply can't mimic originality.

Oh, whether or not it should be done is an entirely separate and subjective subject. That it is and has been done in most any form of media for centuries is the point I'm driving at. Some developers doing does not bring the media itself into question. It just brings the work into question.

Whether or not you've seen an instance where altering the ending or whatever made the game substantially better is besides the point. It also doesn't mean that it can't be done. That's the funny thing about "I've never seen X" comments. They don't preclude said "X" happening.

 

[Syzygy23]

If people want to say that video games are art, then people need to stop getting indignant every time a game doesn't end the way they want it to. Books don't all have happy fun-time endings. Movies don't all have happy fun-time endings. Why are gamers entitled to dictate that a game series should?

You can't have it both ways.

What? Are you aware that the practice of having artists and writers change things has been going on for some time in every form of media? Hell, people bitched at Charles Dickens about the original ending of Great Expectations being too sad and so he actually changed it.

But just because people have changed endings before doesn't mean that they were right in doing so. And while I disagree with the statement that changing an ending disqualifies something from being art, I do think that it diminishes it. After all, something that is great art already doesn't need changing and I don't think I've ever seen an instance where changing an ending made something so substantially better that you could almost objectively say that it had been elevated to great art.
Mostly the opposite is true. "I am legend", for instance, had a far better ending in the book, but the film made it far more mundane and simply took away all the depth that was present in the writer's original artistic and intellectual drive. You simply can't mimic originality.

Are we arguing about the ME3 ending STILL? That was proved to be objectively terrible and complete shit already. Observe:


Anywho, as to the topic at hand...

I don't know why Sony didn't go along with microsofts scheme. You'd think that a big corporation like them would jump at the chance to start an oligopoly the way the Internet Service Providers have (in the USA at least)

Guess maybe their senior staff still have a good head on their shoulders, or keep some ACTUAL gamers around for advice.

 

[Lightknight]

I don't know why Sony didn't go along with microsofts scheme. You'd think that a big corporation like them would jump at the chance to start an oligopoly the way the Internet Service Providers have (in the USA at least)

Guess maybe their senior staff still have a good head on their shoulders, or keep some ACTUAL gamers around for advice.

Well, remember that the ps1 sold 102 million consoles when the N64 only sold around 33 million. The ps2 sold over 150 million while the Xbox and the Gamecube sold at 22 and 20 million units respectively.

They made some misteps on the current generation but history would indicate that they know what they're doing. They probably saw this for what it is, an opportunity. Their goal wasn't to do ok this time around. They wanted to crush the opponent and when Microsoft started doing that for them, Sony became the alternative that prevented consumers from begrudgingly giving into this as if it were inevitable.

I mean, holy crap on a cracker. Bravo Sony. I genuinely thought that Sony had lost touch with us over the past 6 years and was leaning towards Microsoft before all this.

 

[Chloe Berg]

My opinion: It's silly to divide "Sony" and "the gamer community". BOTH the gamers and the people at Sony have a part in this victory. It's not "their" victory , it's everyone's. It's a good idea winning over a bad one.

 

[Olas]

Not having backwards compatibility is suffering an indignity now? Isn't that a little dramatic?

I think we can agree Bob tends to be a little dramatic. Not that I mind, especially when the core of what he's saying is true.

Ironic that Bob takes this stance, when he blasted the same culture who complained about the poor quaility of the Mass Effect 3 ending, Because like the Xbox One, the company in charge of that product essentially bullshitted the fans and screwed them over.

There's a difference though, the ending to Mass Effect 3 was an artistic choice. An artist, in this case Bioware, should be free to make their own artistic decisions, even if they're unpopular.

The problems with the Xbone were functional, not artistic (though many people have complained about the look of the thing as well). And more importantly they were an attempt to change the dynamic between producers and consumers.

 

[LetalisK]

Not having backwards compatibility is suffering an indignity now? Isn't that a little dramatic?

I think we can agree Bob tends to be a little dramatic. Not that I mind, especially when the core of what he's saying is true.

Ironic that Bob takes this stance, when he blasted the same culture who complained about the poor quaility of the Mass Effect 3 ending, Because like the Xbox One, the company in charge of that product essentially bullshitted the fans and screwed them over.

There's a difference though, the ending to Mass Effect 3 was an artistic choice. An artist, in this case Bioware, should be free to make their own artistic decisions, even if they're unpopular.

The problems with the Xbone were functional, not artistic (though many people have complained about the look of the thing as well). And more importantly they were an attempt to change the dynamic between producers and consumers.

Perhaps this is me being cynical, but I think the ME3 ending was less of an artistic choice and more of a budgeting and time management choice.

 

[Imre Csete]

Not having backwards compatibility is suffering an indignity now? Isn't that a little dramatic?

I think we can agree Bob tends to be a little dramatic. Not that I mind, especially when the core of what he's saying is true.

Ironic that Bob takes this stance, when he blasted the same culture who complained about the poor quaility of the Mass Effect 3 ending, Because like the Xbox One, the company in charge of that product essentially bullshitted the fans and screwed them over.

There's a difference though, the ending to Mass Effect 3 was an artistic choice. An artist, in this case Bioware, should be free to make their own artistic decisions, even if they're unpopular.

The problems with the Xbone were functional, not artistic (though many people have complained about the look of the thing as well). And more importantly they were an attempt to change the dynamic between producers and consumers.

Well, BioWare's/EA's false marketing cost folks 60$+, while Microsoft's stupidity saved some of us 500$, so that's why I don't really compare the two outbursts

 

[Lightknight]

My opinion: It's silly to divide "Sony" and "the gamer community". BOTH the gamers and the people at Sony have a part in this victory. It's not "their" victory , it's everyone's. It's a good idea winning over a bad one.

Exactly. It should also be noted that Sony provided the leverage that is an alternative to hold over Microsoft's head. Had both parties decided to act in unison, this would have played out very differently. So Sony not only deserves not to be seperated, but even deserves a seat of honor at the celebration feast.

 

[Banzaiman]

As with most of what MovieBob says, I strongly agree with most of his points (of course, no comments means no one else knows that I do). He puts it in a good way and is right on the mark with the fact that, in the end, Microsoft's reversal of policies is due in large part to the communities of gamers finally yelling loud enough to scare a giant mega-corporation. We should totally take this as a point for us and not for any corporation that happened to help a fair deal.

Though there is one small thing I'd like to disagree with, or at least challenge, is the assumption that we 'forced Sony's hand' at E3. Make no mistake, those guys aren't saints and I'm sure as hell not going to lavish them with praise and commendation, but the underlying assumption that we forced Sony to join the side of reason I think is something that should be called into question.

As Mr. Sterling said in his Doing Nothing Means Everything episode, Sony could easily have put DRM and destroyed used games on the PS4 as well and we'd have no choice but to, in actuality, deal with it. With Microsoft already on board for the completely digital game thing and the 24-hour check-in BS (which I cannot fathom a good excuse for), all Sony had to do was quietly stick it on their console as well and we'd have to pick one evil or the other going into the next gen (still don't think we're ready, but what the hell the industry's already going forward). Microsoft had already borne the brunt of the blame, and though some will probably deny it the chance that a majority would boycott both consoles I think was very slim were such a situation to happen.

So either MovieBob's right and they simply didn't have "the stones" or they actually gave a damn about the consumers. Either way it's a good thing, but I think claiming that we "forced Sony's hand" is a bit of a bold claim. I'm open to being corrected however.

On the whole, an inspirational speech - er, column - from MovieBob reminding us that we did, indeed, do it. Write on, good sir.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Isn't it great that Bob has a written column about movies that he uses to talk about whatever's on his mind? It's not like he has a video show where he does that and this past week used it to talk about that fucking Superman movie again.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I would like to interject that I consider Sony a hero for standing up for gamers.

Sony did no such thing.

They saw a weakness in their competitor's market strategy and exploited it. If you think they "stood up" for gamers, then you are self-centered and delusional and Sony is banking that you are. They only care about you so long as you have money that you give to them. This really isn't about your rights. It's about a console manufacturer offering a new market structure and the audience soundly rejected it and one of its competitors went along with the crowd. This really isn't a victory. This is a sign of the market stagnating even more than before. This is worse than the most popular games being brainless shoot fests or sports sim roster updates.

 

[tdylan]

This is a sign of the market stagnating even more than before.

You consider the public's aversion everything microsoft hoped to implement with the XB180 "a sign of the market stagnating?"

I would like to interject that I consider Sony a hero for standing up for gamers.

Sony did no such thing.

They saw a weakness in their competitor's market strategy and exploited it. If you think they "stood up" for gamers, then you are self-centered and delusional and Sony is banking that you are.

Perhaps the fact that Sony made their decisions with the intent of capitalizing on their competitor's many, monumental, mistakes, rather than out of some sense of benevolence to gamers, was the reason for me quoting "The Dark Knight," choosing to paint Sony as:

"A hero. Not the hero we deserved but the hero we needed."

 

[HyenaThePirate]

SNIP

Your language is colourfull. You are also impolite and wrong.

Your assumptions about my person are irrelevant, because a thing like an assumption only has worth if the person behind it has credibility.

My proficiency in the english language is indeed questionable, as it is not my native language.

The toilet you mention is not innovative. I can however, given your overall tone understand why you have choosen to outfit it with spikes and a noozle. Please take to Guy Kawasaki for a short entertaining lesson.

Your choice not to inconvenience the unfortunate minority for whom excemptions from the guidelines could have been made postlaunch is very honorable. I'm sure innovation works best when being mindfull of minorities. Except, you know it does not.

I am quite certain no one mentioned "single installation discs" when he talked about digital retail. Oxymeron.
Digital retail is not innovation for innovations sake, it is DRM and maximizing profits by cutting out the retailer and forgoing distribution costs of physical copies as you surely know.
A always on cinnect may be moraly questionable, but Im sure noone wants to watch what overpriviledged overweight shirtless white 20's something basement dwellers in their heaps of mountain dew cans do when playing 8 hours of skyrim a day in the middle of summer.

/sarcasm off

As i mentioned before, i have deliberately exagerated the post you refer to. The industry as a whole has, as Jim has very accurately described on destructoid, a lot to prove to its customers. The PC had to go a long way of trial and error to arrive at the point digital marketing is now and to work hard for its customers trust.

In a world with finite resources there is always a choice to be made between improving upon existing possibilities and exploring completely new ones. A huge imbalance in the distribution of resources devoted tends to be a problem though. I see a temporary tendency towards that.

Only visionless tools devise and market a product towards a very defined demographic and clientel, even IF that means creating a product for any and all. What you try to do is to provide a product that is both unique and valuable.
If a product is not unique but valuable you have to compete on price.
If a product is unique but not valuable, congratulations you have created a retarded unicorn.
If a product is not unique and not valuable, you have officially fucked up.
But - IF - you have a unique and valuable product and you can convince your customers that this is what you offer, you are a winner. Microsoft tried to tell customers thats what their product is and for various reasons they failed.

This already went on too long. Im sure anyone can figure out the rest in time.

1. As a person fluent in English language, as I am bilingual in both forms (American and British), I can assure you that you're understanding, if not your spelling, exceeds a host of native English speakers. Don't feel insulted by anyone, especially since the majority of people who speak English do so at the most basic of levels and exclusively, generally because they couldn't be bothered with actually learning more than one thing at a time during their formative years.

2. You are thinking WAY outside the box, and I commend you for this. I also agree with you 100%. The parrots and armchair experts think this was some sort of victory because they shot down change in a barrage of ignorant rage. The most ridiculous thing about this whole scenario is the people back-patting themselves as if they accomplished something of which a MINORITY of whom probably have any clue about the actual thing they railed against. They heard everyone ELSE get all sandy vagina'd over the always on Kinect and the 24 hour check in and since everyone ELSE was in a frenzy, they're desire to belong to something with minimal effort drove them to hitch their wagon to the "we don't like stuff different from what we like!" wagon. Again, everyone complains about endless sequels in gaming, recycled FPS's, nobody likes QTE's... but deviate from the norm even a tiny bit (Dante's hair color changed??! RIOT in the streets!) and the fanboys and so-called hardcore gaming enthusiasts who for some reason believe they comprise the ideological frontlines of the gaming community will cry big fat salty greasy tears of hate-rage that someone tried to elevate them out of a comfort zone. As all things have become in American society at least, the wails of the minority outweigh the voice of the majority. In fact, I truly question if the backlash was as large at people tried to make it seem. In the end, I don't think the majority of Xbox users would have jumped ship. I don't think the mainstream casual market who doesn't sit on the internet waging fan wars day in and day out would have batted an eye. Most Xboxers I'd have gambled wouldn't have wanted to give up their established realms in the Xbox universe... their Live accounts.. their friend's lists full of people they party chat with while watching cartoons on netflix... their gamer scores and avatar items, and MS points and achievements, etc... As we just observed, GAMERS HATE CHANGE right?? They don't like being forced off of their rocks into swimming with the other toads.

So yeah... maybe it might have been a bad thing. Or maybe it might have been beneficial in the long run. The problem? We don't know and probably will never know. Again, irony: I see people here talking about how they should have made the changes in bite sized snippets.. which is basically admitting that they might like it if they had been given it in teeny amounts to accommodate for their inability to accept innovation all at once.

Thank you for being one of the few outside of the box thinkers.

 

[Arkynomicon]

I'm surprised people are quick to overlook the camera and the microphone is always on in the light of the prism scandal.

But yeah, I always think consumers need to stand up for themselves because no one else will most of the time.

 

[WarpZone]

I love how within the day, they had an article on gamasutra going "No, really, it was Sony! Not consumers! Sony! Consumers can't do jack, we promise!" Like the suits are all huddled around the flaming wreckage trying to reassure each other that this was a fluke and can never happen again.