Is MS really screwing up?
- Thread starter BaronVH
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Jumping in without any info is what the internet is all about 
Seriously though, MS has already won this gen. The reveal was not supposed to appeal to gamers (that's E3) so much as families and it worked well in that regard. Family units want one box that can do everything and babysit at the same time. That's pretty much what the xbone will do. Gamers want a whole bunch of question answered that MS wasn't thinking they'd have to deal with until E3. Is it really their fault that gamers don't listen? (Okay, yes it is. MS allowed publishers to make games easier and then the players get used to be spoon fed and it goes on from there.) Just bear in mind that people are getting all the stupid mis-placed hate out of their systems now and a lot of attitudes will change after E3.
Yeah WiiU failed so much it was sad. I saw the reports that sales went up 875% (?) when the Xbox One was revealed. Which sounds awesome until you read the other part where it only sold 7,000 units in May. Meaning it's still the worst selling console on the market. (though it is the BEST selling console of its generation!)
I know i'm holding off on any new console until I find out whether or not you actually need to be on Cloud. Cloud is subject to the Patriot Act which means the US government can look at anything on it at any time without asking. That's fine if you're a US citizen, but i'm not.
Seriously though, MS has already won this gen. The reveal was not supposed to appeal to gamers (that's E3) so much as families and it worked well in that regard. Family units want one box that can do everything and babysit at the same time. That's pretty much what the xbone will do. Gamers want a whole bunch of question answered that MS wasn't thinking they'd have to deal with until E3. Is it really their fault that gamers don't listen? (Okay, yes it is. MS allowed publishers to make games easier and then the players get used to be spoon fed and it goes on from there.) Just bear in mind that people are getting all the stupid mis-placed hate out of their systems now and a lot of attitudes will change after E3.
Yeah WiiU failed so much it was sad. I saw the reports that sales went up 875% (?) when the Xbox One was revealed. Which sounds awesome until you read the other part where it only sold 7,000 units in May. Meaning it's still the worst selling console on the market. (though it is the BEST selling console of its generation!)
I know i'm holding off on any new console until I find out whether or not you actually need to be on Cloud. Cloud is subject to the Patriot Act which means the US government can look at anything on it at any time without asking. That's fine if you're a US citizen, but i'm not.
1. Alienating the customer base by destroying existing and loved institutions (pre-owned games) in ways other industries (like the movie industry) don't do
2. Invading the privacy of consumers in a way that many people find fault with.
3. Forcing the kinect on users in a way that will inflate the price of the system.
4. Functionally forcing always online onto developers and users by making a less powerful system geared towards cloud computing. Even if we had the infrastructure to handle streaming cloud computing this is still something gamers don't want.
5. Failure to show any game examples. I understand that they plan to make some serious reveals at E3 but to not do any of them here was a mistake when the gaming audience is considered.
Doing all the above when the competition is putting up a serious alternative that doesn't appear to be setting those traps is an awful step. Whether intentionally or not, Microsoft is stating loudly and with purpose that the customer is wrong and that they can't do anything about it. I don't know what impact these things will actually have on the end results but this has probably detracted from their market share in a meaningful way. It's Sony's turn to make their own mistakes or to take advantage of this mistep. In any event, the 360 did not have the number of exclusives that the ps3 enjoyed so I'm not yet sure if I'll have the Xbone this time around unless something changes.
Screwing up/mistake? Absolutely. Death of the console? No, not likely. Later on when it turns out that a significant number of gamers don't have the infrastructure to maintain stable and reliable connections to enable meaningful cloud computing in addition to online gaming then we may see an "oops" moment that is even worse than Sim City's mistake.
2. Invading the privacy of consumers in a way that many people find fault with.
3. Forcing the kinect on users in a way that will inflate the price of the system.
4. Functionally forcing always online onto developers and users by making a less powerful system geared towards cloud computing. Even if we had the infrastructure to handle streaming cloud computing this is still something gamers don't want.
5. Failure to show any game examples. I understand that they plan to make some serious reveals at E3 but to not do any of them here was a mistake when the gaming audience is considered.
Doing all the above when the competition is putting up a serious alternative that doesn't appear to be setting those traps is an awful step. Whether intentionally or not, Microsoft is stating loudly and with purpose that the customer is wrong and that they can't do anything about it. I don't know what impact these things will actually have on the end results but this has probably detracted from their market share in a meaningful way. It's Sony's turn to make their own mistakes or to take advantage of this mistep. In any event, the 360 did not have the number of exclusives that the ps3 enjoyed so I'm not yet sure if I'll have the Xbone this time around unless something changes.
Screwing up/mistake? Absolutely. Death of the console? No, not likely. Later on when it turns out that a significant number of gamers don't have the infrastructure to maintain stable and reliable connections to enable meaningful cloud computing in addition to online gaming then we may see an "oops" moment that is even worse than Sim City's mistake.
So we're just going to ignore the whole online 24hour check thing right? right... We're just going to trust that when the Xbox one launches there servers are going to run just fine and have no downtime, or when the new COD or Halo comes out that huge jump in users will go off without a hitch, or if it ever gets hacked like with the PS3 and they have to take down the servers you'll still be able to use your Xbox One right?
Keep in mind Microsoft is releasing the Xbox One in multiple countries at the same time...
I will be perfectly honest, I don't like the idea that I'll only be able to play my purchased games when Microsoft tells me, I didn't log into the internet for what ever reason? Microsoft now sees me as not worthy to play the games I legally purchased from them, because I might have sold them or given them to my friend or some shit.
Oh and the Kinect POS, I'm sure if Microsoft requires you to always have it plugged in just blocking it with a book will result in a game pause and "the Kinect is obstructed, please unobstruct to continue playing", I mean maybe it will still work but why the hell require it to be connected at all times in the first place then?
As for used games, Sony patented the ability to implement that feature, they've said nothing about actually using it and to say they're being vague is a pretty shitty way to say they have said nothing about used games. Microsoft on the other hand has said they plan to implement some feature controlling the use of used games, hence the required internet access to make sure you haven't sold the game.
Also stove the anti-Gamestop bullshit, used games offer a viable legal alternative to piracy and helps spread gaming to a much wider audience, instead of a single shelf of games at Walmart we see Gamestops on every street corner, I would argue that this has brought gaming away from a niche hardcore audience to a much larger audience resulting in many more sales.
Just look at PC gaming for a more niche hardcore audience.
Valve and DRM, I paid at most $20 for games from Steam, I can still play them offline without the bullshit 24hour check in (I think it's weekly?) If I pay $60 for a game I want to play it even when I'm in a hotel with shoddy internet access that bars my Live from connecting.
Keep in mind Microsoft is releasing the Xbox One in multiple countries at the same time...
I will be perfectly honest, I don't like the idea that I'll only be able to play my purchased games when Microsoft tells me, I didn't log into the internet for what ever reason? Microsoft now sees me as not worthy to play the games I legally purchased from them, because I might have sold them or given them to my friend or some shit.
Oh and the Kinect POS, I'm sure if Microsoft requires you to always have it plugged in just blocking it with a book will result in a game pause and "the Kinect is obstructed, please unobstruct to continue playing", I mean maybe it will still work but why the hell require it to be connected at all times in the first place then?
As for used games, Sony patented the ability to implement that feature, they've said nothing about actually using it and to say they're being vague is a pretty shitty way to say they have said nothing about used games. Microsoft on the other hand has said they plan to implement some feature controlling the use of used games, hence the required internet access to make sure you haven't sold the game.
Also stove the anti-Gamestop bullshit, used games offer a viable legal alternative to piracy and helps spread gaming to a much wider audience, instead of a single shelf of games at Walmart we see Gamestops on every street corner, I would argue that this has brought gaming away from a niche hardcore audience to a much larger audience resulting in many more sales.
Just look at PC gaming for a more niche hardcore audience.
Valve and DRM, I paid at most $20 for games from Steam, I can still play them offline without the bullshit 24hour check in (I think it's weekly?) If I pay $60 for a game I want to play it even when I'm in a hotel with shoddy internet access that bars my Live from connecting.
However it might seem, the fact is that they haven't actually confirmed that they'll be doing something like this - as such, no one is spewing hate at them, because they haven't actually done anything yet. If Sony does announce nonsense like this, then people will start spewing vitriol. In that case, however, Sony's stupidity wouldn't make up for Microsoft's stupidity - they'd both be damned stupid, and plenty of folks will abandon consoles for dead. Although, in all likelihood, even if Sony does pull some nonsense out, it likely won't match the plethora of stupid moves Microsoft's just made.BaronVH said:
Also, regarding what Microsoft needs to do to win the generation,
1. Sony's always been able to attract exclusives better than Microsoft - they get more of them, what they get is often better quality, and they last through the whole generation (I'm dying to try The Last of Us).
2. The Kinect being bundled with every Xbone means that, because competitive pricing is such an issue, the PS4 will either be cheaper, stronger, or have some kind of other technological peripheral, which will likely be of more value to me than the Kinect 2.0.
3. While it would be smart for them to abandon paid Xbox Live, their used game nonsense shows that their philosophy is focused more on sucking continual profits from wherever they can - I'd say the odds are 3 to 1 that they'll go that route. And even if they do, it only brings them up to par with the PS4.
And the sad thing is? I really prefer the 360 - good controllers, it's served me well, my friends have it, etc. It's just that the Xbone looks like it's just making all these stupid moves, I dunno.
It has screwed up quite badly among the core gamers so far, but it's too early to say whether it has screwed up infinitely more than Sony or whether it has screwed up amongst the rest of the gaming audience enough to truly be a real disaster.
E3 will probably be our clearest indication of the level of screwed for both Sony and Microsoft, because if it turns out that half of Microsoft's new exclusive games (that I actually thought was their one shining, golden example of a good announcement) are nothing more than Kinect games while the other half is unoriginal, uncreative samey bullshit, then that's probably a death knell.
E3 will probably be our clearest indication of the level of screwed for both Sony and Microsoft, because if it turns out that half of Microsoft's new exclusive games (that I actually thought was their one shining, golden example of a good announcement) are nothing more than Kinect games while the other half is unoriginal, uncreative samey bullshit, then that's probably a death knell.
1. Eh, it makes sense why they have it. But if Sony can do it then it's a little embarrassing that Microsoft can't/won't. I'd more realistically expect Sony to start charging this cycle than for Microsoft to stop.BaronVH said:
2. In order to announce awesome exclusive games you have to have had them, months if not years prior to be able to show off gameplay. But Microsoft failed this the entire past console generation so I don't know why this would do any better. If the launch humbles them then we may see some investment in that area show up.
3. How would this help them?
4. This is certainly shaping up to be a generation where Sony conquers a significant market share.
As I said above, the worst part about microsoft trying to force developers to use their cloud computing services in game development is that we won't just need to have a daily internet connection to check in, but we'll actually be required to have a good and stable connection when playing even solo player games because the cloud computing will be running calculations and trying to stream results to your Xbone in real time. This isn't just always online that we're about to face, it's always online AND dependent on appropriate speeds. Lagging in a solo game is something I actively avoid experiencing.
I don't think the Xbone is going to be great, but I'm not sure it's going to be as bad as made out to be. I just think their PR department is high or something, they've made a real pig's ear of things.
It's going to be exactly as bad as it's being made to be unless they change something. The things we're mad at now aren't rumors, they've been confirmed by microsoft. Hell, some have even been introduced as a feature.TheRightToArmBears said:
What I expect is that Sony will end up introducing some of the same stuff. For example, I'm betting that they'll also kill off used games. We know that they filed for a patent to do exactly that and they haven't confirmed that they won't be doing that. If both major players do it at the same time then we don't really have any options.
I also anticipate a significant push for social involvement in video games. This will effectively frustrate gaming for me. I have friends that game, but I don't want to involve them in my solo gaming process.
PS4 supposedly won't be always online. Sony has also gone on record saying that the PS4 will be able to play used games. The XBone is clearly marketed to the 'dude bro' people (as TB called it) as it mixes sports, TV, social media and oh yes...also games as an afterthought. The PS4, so far, appears to be more of a gaming console still. Not that I will be getting either of them, most likely. I want a GAMING console. Not a gaming/social media/Netflix/whatever console.
The Xbone will also be "able" to play used games, you just have to pay a price to do so.sanquin said:
I've heard that Sony announced this but a cursory glance around the internet rejects that premise, saying that Sony is vague about it and that fans are rallying to beg Sony not to do it too:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/05/sony-still-vague-on-ps4-used-games-drm-issue/
The fact is that Microsoft's actions significantly benefit game publishers and Sony could be at a significant disadvantage in attracting some titles if they don't also do this. Or, publishers will still make games for both regardless because they still appreciate money. I also suspect that EA only said they were going to get rid of online passes because they knew at least Microsoft was going to do this. I don't know that they would have said that if Sony wasn't going to either.
Do you have a source in which Sony actually confirmed that there will be no such used game fee?
As for the always online bit, Sony will not require this and I'm pleased about that. That's already a huge step forward in my opinion.
Interestingly enough, I vastly preferred the ps3 as my media console. I felt like the dashboard was much easier to navigate and I didn't have to purchase a ridiculous pass to be able to use it to access things on the internet (The 360 requires a membership to even be able to browse Netflix, something that has nothing to do with their network).
See, that is what I am concerned about. I want my single player games to always work. If a game is dependent on the cloud, what happens if the developer goes under? Remember Hellgate London? I actually liked that game and enjoyed playing it single player. The developer went under and the game went kaput. First and foremost I am a movie fan. This is why I like blu-ray and will not want to be reliant upon a "cloud" to watch my movies. Let's say I have a bunch of movies on iTunes. Not likely, but what if Apple goes under? Not liklely, but it is possible. It seems that MS is taking notice, so heres hoping that the online check goes away and they revamp the thing. I think they need a quick PR turnaround and show what happens when you are playing the system without an internet connection or one that goes away. To me, this all looks like the RROD before it is even released.Lightknight said:
The thing is, online checks or not, if a game gets developed needing to be always online and connected to the cloud your pretty much screwed either way. And they'll even do it for single player or games that want to be " more online focused" but still single player I.E. diablo 3/sim city
This assumes that showing what happens would somehow reveal something better than we expect.BaronVH said:
Heh, I wish there were more posters like you. Explaining things in a calm manner and bringing good arguments.Lightknight said:
Indeed, I wasn't able to find a direct source that Sony announced that they wouldn't require a fee for used games. If they're smart they won't do it though, imo. As If you can play used games normally on their system they will have a much larger userbase, which will automatically give developers incentive to develop for their system. If they go the used games for a fee route as well though, to me, that is an indication that the two companies made a deal with each other.
I too like the PS3 better than the Xbox 360. (I own a PS3, and before it a 360) Dashboard is indeed better, no subscription for online features is a huge plus, and the games that are out for it too have my preference. (I wish tales of vesperia was on the PS3 as well but oh well I guess.)
Considering we don't know what to expect one way or the other, that can only be a plus.Lightknight said:
Considering I've heard next to no positive things spoken about the Xbox One, I'd have to say that yes.
They have indeed screwed up or are in the process of doing so.
When you release information on an entertainment product, the last thing you want is an overall negative reception.
Simply put, it's bad for business and a warning sign for upcoming flack.
They have indeed screwed up or are in the process of doing so.
When you release information on an entertainment product, the last thing you want is an overall negative reception.
Simply put, it's bad for business and a warning sign for upcoming flack.
One thing I don't really understand is the rage about backwards compatibility. It's impossible to have backwards compatibility of PS3 and 360 games on the PS4 and xbox 3. They use a different architecture, and as such, would have to use software emulation, and the PS4 and xbox 3 doesn't have nearly enough computational power for that. Hell, even top-tier gaming PCs doesn't.
When emulating a different architecture, every action that's being emulated needs multiple actions on the hardware you're using. That's why you need a 3+GHz CPU to emulate the 299MHz CPU of the PS2. You'd need at least 20-30GHz to emulate the PS3 and the 360.
The other option would be to include the hardware of the previous generations in the case to play them natively, but that'd drive up the price substantially.
Although, the original xbox also uses x86, so its games could technically be made to run on the xbox 3 relatively easily, similar to how PSX games run on the PSP.
When emulating a different architecture, every action that's being emulated needs multiple actions on the hardware you're using. That's why you need a 3+GHz CPU to emulate the 299MHz CPU of the PS2. You'd need at least 20-30GHz to emulate the PS3 and the 360.
The other option would be to include the hardware of the previous generations in the case to play them natively, but that'd drive up the price substantially.
Although, the original xbox also uses x86, so its games could technically be made to run on the xbox 3 relatively easily, similar to how PSX games run on the PSP.
It is certainly nice to have adult discussions that don't devolve into tantrums and arrogant displays of penile puffery in which neither side can afford to admit defeat.sanquin said:
Heh, penile puffery. I'm writing that down.
The smartness of the decision depends on a few questions and their respective answers. How much money do they stand to gain by doing this? What do they stand to lose by not doing this? What kind of market share would this help them acquire? Are there any in-between alternatives that would allow them to look better than Microsoft while also not alienating their publishers? Off the top of my head, what if they made the used-fee option available for developers but did not push it across the board automatically? They could effectily and quite legitimately claim that the console allows used games while pointing the finger at publishers who utilize the feature and the money grubbers.
My business degree and my time spent in marketing has ruined my ability to see things as so black and white as I used to. Opportunity costs is the name of the game now and I think a lot of business are undervaluing the opinion of the consumers in their evaluation of it.
Sony's exclusives have been remarkable. I'm really not sure why microsoft drops the ball there when they stand to profit from decent exclusives. No one could claim that Halo and Gears of War haven't made them some cash.
I own both systems currently. I prefer the PS3 dashboard because it isn't wastefully cluttered like the 360's is and is easily navigated.
How can it only be a plus? If they show us anything other than the game still being playable then it will only justify our concerns. Perhaps you mean it can only be better than what we're thinking but I'm pretty sure it's what they said it is or they'd have corrected that by now. Instead, we may see them change that "feature" in response. That's the only feasible "positive" step. But there's not a whole lot of ways to spin what they said.KarmaTheAlligator said: