Assassin's Creed Creator: Microsoft Didn't Need To Mention Internet

[Something Amyss]

Translation: The idiot suggested that Microsoft should have falsely advertised their product to get them out before people realised, regardless of whether the customer could use or wanted to use such a system. Yeah that's a smart choice....


.....Moron.

Yeah, there was no way they were getting around the 24 hour thing. They had to ignore it completely or lie about it. Neither was a good option.

Also, I don't get the "we're moving into the future, embrace this one stupid thing because FUTURE!"

We are moving into the future. The future doesn't need constant online checks, even if we're all always or most always connected.

This is especially good timing when Darkspore is evidently going dark.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

The man is not entirely wrong. At least half of the Xbones PR problem was Microsoft absolutely refusing to explain themselves competently.

Had MS actually told things to sweeten their bitter message rather then say ''We are going to make things much harder for you and somehow it will work to your benefit '' their problem would not nearly have been as big.

I sort of agree with you but the thing is, this would have only appealed to xbros and people who aren't savy enough to understand what Microsoft was implying. When they say cloud computing, we can usually tell it's horse shit but other people might prefer take Microsoft's word for it. Basically, it's better it came out this way with no sugar coating so more people weren't tricked

On topic, I'm taking note of this guy's name and not buying his games. Not that it'll make a difference but screw this guy. All he cares about is making his over priced AAA's profitable. I'm surprised he didn't fit right in at Ubisoft

 

[DJonos]

never buying an Assassin's Creed game ever again!

 

[Smooth Operator]

This ofcourse coming from the company that lies about putting DRM into their games then refuses to fix their shit.
Not to mention how amusing it is corporations are standing in line to hail Microsofts first megacorp control steps... clearly they wouldn't be biased in this.

And no we haven't got a problem with digital, we have a problem with your lying asses controlling the shit we pay for.

 

[Something Amyss]

So wait, let me get this straight..
He's claiming that Microsoft could have avoided a P.R. disaster.. by committing a lie of omission.

Possibly more, since the rumours were everywhere.

So, in -his- world.. everyone would have just quietly accepted this detail once the cat was out of the bag, with the knowledge that Microsoft hid the information from them until it leaked out.
*Slow clap* I now present him with the 110% Sarcastic Award for the Illuminated Genius.

This is a company that made a console they KNEW was going to break down just so they could be first to market, so I have to ask: is it really that far-fetched someone would think this is a good idea?

EDIT: Microsoft, bviously, not the AC team.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

Are the PR reps on vacation or something! This is exactly what you don't want say to the general public!

"Microsoft should not have brought up the always online." If that had happened, nobody in their right mind would ever buy their console. We wouldn't have seen a policy reversal, or the return of physical discs. Sure they lost the sharing option but oh well! Going completely digital still has some horrific downsides that need to be addressed before making it a MAIN feature in a console.

I will however agree with this statement: Microsoft was trying something different, and suffered for it, but that doesn't mean Microsoft was doing the wrong thing. It just means Microsoft was incredibly bad at expressing itself, and lost out as a result.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

The future may eventually be all digital, and as such we consumers have the right to demand a digital future that benefits us not just publishers. That means that things like drm, servers, infrastructure and consumer rights need to be resolved to build a foundation for a digital future. Trying to jump to the future without this prep work would be like building a house directly on sand, it will fail spectacularly; kind of like the xbone announcement.

 

[Gorrath]

"I just think, 'come on, guys, the future is going to be digital,'" says Patrice Desilets, creator of Assassin's Creed. "And maybe right now we don't fully understand it, so we don't know how to communicate what digital is and how it will actually work."

You see, we already have a good model for digital distribution. It's called GOG. It sells you the products you want to buy for an acceptable exchange of money and no always online bullshit sandwich to eat with it. You and your cohorts might not fully understand it, but it seems a whole bunch of consumers who don't have degrees in product engineering, sales and marketing or corporate doublespeak do.

If companies want to go digital, we as a bulk of consumers will go for it, but we're also going to be on the lookout for the rat you're trying to sqeeze in there too. If we so much as smell one, you can bet your ass we're going to call you on it, whether you you are upfront about it or not.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Translation: The idiot suggested that Microsoft should have falsely advertised their product to get them out before people realised, regardless of whether the customer could use or wanted to use such a system. Yeah that's a smart choice....


.....Moron.

Actually, his message was that they never explained why we might want the feature. The focus was on how it could break not what it could allow. Much the same way that a GPS manufacturer isn't particularly likely to talk about the myriad situations where a map and compass would be the better option for navigation because of the limitations of the GPS network.

There seems to be this expectation at microsoft that the value of some of their maneuvers is obvious to the consumer. Kinect, for example is seen as something that needs no justification or explanation. Pointing to the nebulous concept of the "cloud" as a justification for the always online requirement means little when you've done such a poor job of actually defining what you mean by "the cloud". Waving to a things like the a relative amount of computational power is silly because the average consumer neither understands nor do they care to understand what that means. Even in the handful of use cases outlined, (Drivatars, dedicated servers), from the end user perspective this is nothing new or exciting.

 

[Dryk]

I guess it's asking a lot but can people from the games industry stop acting like fucking dicks?

Their response to a herd of people walking somewhere by their own volition is to whip them to make them get there faster... I don't think they can stop.

I'm also starting to wonder if anyone in the console industry was even paying attention when Steamworks became a thing. You're supposed to add extra beneficial features to digital versions, then once people are used to them you tell them that they can have them for physical copies too as long as they make some sacrifices. It wasn't very hard, most rejoiced when it was announced.

 

[prinnyzeta]

I'm pretty sure that digital will eventually become the norm across all platform because it's just generally more continent but you don't need to force a always on/check in connection. Just make it so if you are online you have access to extra content on the system that (with in reason) needs to have a connection to work properly.

 

[LosButcher]

"If you feel you shouldn't mention any bits and pieces because you believe it won't sit well with the consumer, then it's a shitty selfish idea."

Well said Is that your own quote so I can quote you on that?

 

[Nazulu]

"If you feel you shouldn't mention any bits and pieces because you believe it won't sit well with the consumer, then it's a shitty selfish idea."

Well said Is that your own quote so I can quote you on that?

I guess it is. I reckon you can word it better though.

 

[Seydaman]

I get what he's saying yea, but I don't think any amount of charisma would have changed the problem. Peter Molyneux said it best
"As a consumer, just show me why I should be always online and I'll be happy with it. At the moment, it just means game sale authentication. I don't want that. But if there's some way you can give a huge benefit for the consumer, and make the message super clear, [it would be accepted].""
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124958-Molyneux-Microsofts-E3-Conference-Was-Unprofessional

 

[gamegod25]

Yet another industry idiot who doesn't seem to get why people were pissed off. Not only that he apparently thinks MS should have kept it a secret from us, which they kinda did. MS didn't mention any of the DRM bullshit at the presentation, it took the media asking them directly about it afterward. And even then MS didn't seem to know themselves what the fuck was going on with their console so of course they couldn't properly communicate it.

All digital may be the future though I think having a physical copy will always be an option like with books. Regardless of the system it doesn't excuse blatantly anti-consumer bullshit. A product that takes and demands and gives nothing back in return is a shitty product that only the demented or ignorant could support.

They want to be the next Steam but without the competition (which Steam does have) or doing anything in return to foster happy consumers.

 

[Rakschas]

Digital retail is only attractive when the platform is open, otherwise there is no competition and therefor no incentive to provice an advantage for the customer.

People use physical retail for various reasons, because they like to collect copies, because they want a fancy collectors edition, because they are old fashioned, want to gift it, or because there is simply no place to trade in used digital copies and to get some of that sixty dollars back.

You can sugarcoat it all you like but there is only so far you can go without simply lying straight to your customers face.

 

[Kargathia]

People keep talking about false advertising but that isn't true. It'd be false advertising if they claimed that it didn't have it or if it didn't mention it on the box or in the products description in retailers. Simply not bringing it up at the announcement would not be false advertising, nor would it be lying by omission.

It would still be an absolutely idiotic idea though, because as soon as people discovered that it did have it, people would have reacted even more strongly than they did already.

Correct. Having to connect to the internet once every 24 hours is nowhere near enough an impairment to warrant legal action.

Also correct in that if Microsoft would try and hide it until launch, there would be a shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Which, come to think of it, certainly would qualify Xbone as an "all-in-one entertainment box".

 

[RonHiler]

Besides, he says, most hardcore gamers will pick up both consoles anyway.

I'm just going to go ahead and call Bullshit on this statement right here.

I'm a hardcore gamer. I've been doing it since my parents bought a Commodore 64 back in the early 80s. I spend hours per week playing games. It's what I do to relax after work (the wife watches TV, I play games). Never in all that time have I owned more than one console at a time, in addition to my gaming PC. Last generation I owned an XBox 360, but not a PS3. (We also own a Wii, but I don't count that, that's the kid's toy, I've nearly never played on it myself).

For the next generation, if indeed I buy a new console at all (and that is most certainly NOT a given, I may very well just end up sticking to the PC games exclusively this time around), I am going to buy the PS4. Why? Because it is $100 cheaper and it doesn't have a spy camera. (Also, Naughty Dog puts out some interesting games and I'd like to give them a try next generation, too bad the PS4 won't play their PS3 games or I'd pick up their back library).

But buying both consoles? Not a chance. Of course, that's just me, perhaps I am atypical for a hardcore gamer. But I suspect not.