Jimquisition: The Xbox One: A Lying Failure Machine

[COMaestro]

There never will be a "true next gen experience" we are at the end of CPU and GPU performance improvements physics has beaten us.

I think that is what bugs me the most about rants like Mr. Sterling's. Next gen should not have been about graphics(obviously they would get better). It should not have been about games(obviously there would be new ones). And honestly, for all the complaining he has done in regards to how publishers have become lazy and dishonest, you would think he would have understood the concept of a next gen console that was not centered around games. Instead, MS is "dishonest" for trying to do something different. All of this anti-consumer crap he is spouting is nonsense.

Always online:

- faster less obtrusive updates
- device inter-connectivity
- expanded cloud services

Alternative Control Perpherals

- more connectivity
- more interactivity
- less fiddling for non gamers

To name a few. The assumption that these things were included for the sole purpose of hurting the consumer, makes very little sense, from both a business and technology standpoint. I feel it is he short sightedness of gamers like Jim that is the reason that current Gen doesn't feel quite so impressive.

Your always online points are fine when they are an option, not mandatory. My PS4 is always online because I choose to leave it that way, not because it HAS to be. The concept of a gaming console that will lock you out of ALL your games if it does not call home once a day is just ludicrous, and THAT is what everyone had a problem with. Especially those who have poor or spotty internet access. Even though they said it was a small file that could easily be done using a phone as a hotspot for just a minute, how is that convenient or even wanted by the consumer? It's not! It was essentially a draconian form of DRM that only provided a benefit to MS and none to the consumer.

As for alternative control peripherals, aka the Kinect, many people already stated they did NOT want one after seeing how the original worked. Many don't like the idea of a camera in their house that is "always watching", even if it can be turned off. MS was insistent that the device was an integral part of the console so it could not be disconnected. This was enough to turn people away from the system, despite the later backpedaling by MS allowing the Kinect to be removed. Many feel that motion controls of any sort are just a gimmick and want nothing to do with them. That's well within their rights and if they invested in an Xbox One then they are welcome to just not use the Kinect features. However, the device added $100 to the asking price, which made the console as a whole much less appealing, so many who would have otherwise purchased an Xbox One without a Kinect chose to forego the console entirely.

If MS had truly had faith in their vision of a next-gen console, they should have stuck to their guns and released the Xbox One the way they originally intended. If it was as great as they were claiming, then people would have realized it in time and invested in this "revolutionary" console. But they didn't. Why? Because they saw poor pre-order numbers and realized that their anti-consumer policies and vision were not going to fly with the majority of consumers.

I will agree that graphics do not make a console "next-gen" however I disagree with your idea that next-gen should not be about games. Of COURSE it should be about games when it comes to a GAMING console! For these consoles, NOTHING should be more important than advances in the games. Not just graphics, as you said that should come naturally, but in the AI, in the gameplay, in the expanse of levels and maps. Just "doing something different" does not automatically make something better or more advanced. The Wii did something different with motion controls, setting off the whole shebang of motion controls that MS and Sony both tried to copy, but that didn't make the Wii a better console over the 360 or PS3 to many people. Especially considering all the shovelware that later released on the platform, leaving very few quality games for the system.

MS is not "dishonest" for trying to do something different. They are dishonest for claiming that the Xbox HAD to work a certain way, then later changing their tune when sales reports were poor in order to try to move more consoles, then changing it yet again from the way it HAD to work when sales still weren't good enough. THAT is why MS is dishonest.

 

[Strazdas]

thats it guys and girls, he has a mysterio painting, we lost, lets take our things and go home.

seriusly now: this episode seems to not had the same vibe as others, maybe you werent agressive enough or something. i do agree with this one completely except the could be appreciated part, even if we ignore all the lies, and thats a huge if, its still a shitty machine. and also they have INCREASED its price too.
before: Xbox 300 dollars, Kinect 200 dollars
Kinect-Free: Xbox 400 dollars, Kinect bought seperately 200 dollars

Jim, I am pretty sure that tie is suppose to look like a penis.

All hail the penis tie.

all ties are supposed to look like a penis. the sole purpose of a tie is a huge arrow pointing toward your penis, which makes it extremely cringeworthy when a woman wears one.

Shouldn't this site be flooded with WiiU, handheld console, PC games coverage while Xbox One and PS4 get maybe 1/10th the attention of those? Wouldn't this be sending a more positive message about the gaming industry through your actions?

The site posts what its users want to read. they express that by, well, clicking on the article and giving escapist advertisement revenue. if you look at comment threads, the negative Xbox/PS4 threads are oberwhelmingly dominating comapred to other news. so its given that much attention because people actually keep reading that and discussing. if noone clicked on those articles they would be gone quickly.

I have to say that I don't agree with Jim's analysis of the Xbox being a failure because it isn't what Microsoft said it would be. Microsoft said that it would be an all-in-one entertainment hub, and that's exactly what it is.

My Xbox One gets more use than any other system I've ever owned as I do more than just play games on it. I watch TV on it, I Skype with it, I stream my home media to it, I stream Amazon Instant video, Xbox video, Netflix, and Vudu on it.

Sometimes I use the Kinect voice commands to do all this because I have a 2 year old running around the house and chasing her means I don't always have the TV remote in my hands. This is amazing if you have kids, trust me.

All these things it does without having to change inputs and wait for other devices to fire up, it does it faster and simpler with access to more content than any smart TV has ever done (despite Jim's assertions).

Most importantly for me, it eliminates the barriers between content. TV, media streaming, Blu-rays/DVDs, and video games are all easily and quickly accessible. If I haven't touched a game in a few days, but have been watching TV and movies, I can flip back to Guacamelee, and there it is, already loaded, resuming instantly from where I left off. That's a "next-gen" experience for me, regardless of graphics resolution.

It has become the center of my entertainment system, the "all in one" entertainment hub, just like Microsoft promised. Does it do it exactly the way Microsoft originally envisioned? No. Does it change the fact that it's still successful in this? Not all.

so basically you use it like a 200 dollar multimedia PC, except it costs you 500 dollars instead. Oh and yes its gaming power could warrant a 450 dollar PC or so but you claim its hardly central use.

 

[ace_of_something]

People will forget this. Like how they forgot the crazy high amount of RROD's on xbox360's for the first few years.

Also, I know it's been said but it bears repeating; That is totally a penis tie.

 

[hydrolythe]

Any reason to give Microsoft shit, eh? Same with EA, Ubisoft, etc. People can't get enough of not just criticizing these big companies but rather making a big deal out of everything, and if they decide to reverse course and do something smart? By all means lets shame them for that as well. If anyone wonders why they don't seem to care about "you" as a customer, maybe its because "you" have a tendency to badmouth them no matter what they do. If it were me I'd care very little about the opinions of folks who never had one good thing to say about me, yet go out of their way to talk shit.

How do you explain how Jim Sterling was insulting the indie community in the early access episode?
How do you explain that he criticized the cycle of apologies the developers are throwing at us and insulting us for accepting that because we like seeing the big corporate industries say that they are wrong?

Secondly, there are moments in which he actually defended big corporate industries against the consumer (he defended nintendo when they were fixing the gay marriage option in Tomodachi Life).

 

[hydrolythe]

Still not buying a One 'til I see something worth buying, and right now that's limited to Sunset Overdrive and whatever the next Mass Effect game is going to be.

Considering Mass Effect:The Next One will also release on PC (and Sunset Overdrive is rumored to as well) there is really no reason to buy an Xbone. Even if SO doesn't come to PC, it's not worth buying the Xbone.

My computer isn't very good...I am shamed.

Why spend $400 on an Xbone when you can spend that $400 on PC hardware so you have a better PC? I mean, a decent "above modern console grade" PC is about $700 give or take, and from then on it's just upgrading what you already have one piece at a time whenever you feel like you have the cash to spend on it. And Steam sales means, if you wait to buy games until they're on sale, you spend WAAAAAAAAAAY less on games.

Because on a console developers exactly know how far they can go in terms of graphical capabilities. They can see the limitations of a console and use them as their own. For the PC there are way too many graphic cards on the market and developers will just have a hard time figuring out how developed the PC will be for the average consumer base.

The above is the reason why there are so many games on consoles that never see their transition to PC. I could understand that games that do not rely on graphics did only have the PC to reside in, but with Sony and Microsoft's new policies to get indie developers quicker working for them on colsoles that advantage minimizes over time.

And yes, there is steam, but it just keeps getting less and less relevant over time, due to the fact that lots of games on steam are never played.

Secondly, ever tried to purchase games on last-gen consoles? You can get a last-gen console for like 150$ and most of the games only cost around 15$ (and if you are already happy with primitive graphics, check out the games for even older consoles, most consoles cost around 40$ and their games around 5$). Steam has nothing on this.

 

[SeventhSigil]

There never will be a "true next gen experience" we are at the end of CPU and GPU performance improvements physics has beaten us.

I think that is what bugs me the most about rants like Mr. Sterling's. Next gen should not have been about graphics(obviously they would get better). It should not have been about games(obviously there would be new ones). And honestly, for all the complaining he has done in regards to how publishers have become lazy and dishonest, you would think he would have understood the concept of a next gen console that was not centered around games. Instead, MS is "dishonest" for trying to do something different. All of this anti-consumer crap he is spouting is nonsense.

Always online:

- faster less obtrusive updates
- device inter-connectivity
- expanded cloud services

Alternative Control Perpherals

- more connectivity
- more interactivity
- less fiddling for non gamers

To name a few. The assumption that these things were included for the sole purpose of hurting the consumer, makes very little sense, from both a business and technology standpoint. I feel it is he short sightedness of gamers like Jim that is the reason that current Gen doesn't feel quite so impressive.

Okie, first I do have to question exactly what it is you're blaming the 'shortsighted gamers' for here. Is it just that they're vocally outraged on the internet? Cause... you realize that Internet anger wasn't the primary motivation behind the removal of the Kinect, right?

At least during the DRM reversal, there was a bit of wiggle room in terms of the 'Pfffft, abysmally low preorders didn't make Microsoft reverse the DRM policy, they did it cause they liiiistenn to gaaameeers.' But this is significantly more cut-and-dry; Microsoft might have, via the various expressions of discontent on the Internet, learned WHAT to do to try and improve its image and boost its sales numbers, but bottom line they only did it because those sales numbers so direly needed boosting in the first place, right? If we were hearing, literally, exactly the same level of discontent here on the Internet, but the Xbox One was selling at, or especially above the PS4's level with the Kinect still a mandatory attachment, there's no way in Hell Microsoft would have done removed it, correct? The desire to change, whether it was the Kinect, or removing the paywall around apps, etc, came not from fluffy love in their heart, but rather from recognition that their numbers weren't going to reach whatever targets they had set, and therefore seeking to take steps to fix it. o.o

So, if gamers are at fault of anything, it's that they didn't buy the console before the Kinect-removal.

Which means your criticism for these 'shortsighted' gamers... is that they didn't just shut up and buy the console they didn't want to buy? That many of them, God forbid, wanted to wait for worthwhile Kinect-centric software to be released, software that would coax them into the fold, instead of just assuming it would someday (eventually) maybe (probably) happen? Especially those who eagerly bought the first Kinect, only to end up with a device that, by accounts given, did noooot live up to its promises?

Please tell me it isn't that, because I don't think my heart can take the thought that we've come to the point of blaming other gamers, literally, for being cautious and reasonable consumers and not buying into pure hype. It's like getting cross at gamers for not pre-ordering games just because 'yeah, they'll probably be good! What, the last installment was kind of rubbish? Pffft nonesense, all on board the pre-order train! No refunds!' o.o


Second... you already HAVE the 'Alternate Control Peripheral,' because when it comes to 'less fiddling for non gamers' at least, the Kinect is still going to exist, right? If this decision to remove it has impacted anything, it's how many Kinect-centric game titles might be developed for it, but its capabilities are a sort of Xbox-equivalent Siri and such won't be affected. Anyone who wants to buy it, and even buy the bundle, can still do so, and let's face it, there is a slim chance non-gamers will BUY the Kinect console (meaning they might win it or get it from some cable deal or something) but there is literally no chance non-gamers will buy the Kinectless one instead.



Finally, I think you're forgetting just how bad Microsoft's marketing was. Their 'new direction' was so incredibly innovative, they didn't seem to have any idea how to actually make it sound appealing to most consumers. Between mixed messages from different executives, features that weren't properly explained until, ironically, after they were cancelled, outright cancelled interviews and axed round table discussions that would have given them the perfect chance to explain things before everything got out of hand, the message Microsoft was giving off through its desperate efforts to avoid giving a message was 'Well, we already know exactly why this is a good idea for OUR side of the fence. You guys... we're still trying to figure out how to make you not hate it, and make it sound like something you'll actually like as a group. Just... sit there, we'll figure out a way to spin this as a good idea.'

If this was intended to be a consumer benefit, (even if the benefit was split evenly between consumer and corporation,) then why did Microsoft so thoroughly mess up what should have been a simple thing to explain? Why were they so afraid of the press? Not like they didn't have months before E3 to work on it.

 

[hydrolythe]

You know what Jim, I made this account just so I could write this, just for you.
Just to put things in context. Im 37, own all consoles, work in animation and freelance for the industry, oh and teach animation so I know my field, just as you claim to. I have been frequenting this site for years and Zero Punctuation is possibly one of the greatest shows I have ever seen. I watch you on occasion and am amused from time to time.

Recently though, you seem to have made it your responsibility to rag on the xbox one, so I am taking it upon myself to dish out some truth nuggets just for you.

For starters, We all know what turmoil the xbox 1 went through from its initial reveal under the grip of Don Mattrik, we also know how the company changed the proposition to match what gamers wanted, post Matterik. All this sh1t your slinging at them shows exactly what is wrong with society these days. Unashamed, egotistical, demanding, whining little b1tches, who take no responsibility for their own actions. You are one of the many causes for the rampant immature behaviour that is rife across the gaming internet forums. You have a greater responsibility than most as you have a public platform yet you choose to feed your ego rather than use some of that grey matter for good use and start a real debate, as you claim that you are.

They way you present yourself, you leave little room for debate because your so pig-headedly blinded by you self appointed importance. I try to look for the humour in your words but they are heavily laced with venom so the funnies don't taste so good, If you could see yourself from a detached perspective you would see that you are coming across as a whining fanboy that is jumping on the same old bandwagon and beating the same old drum that had been booming since last may. Get over it! We all know the score, we can make up our own minds as to which console to buy to suit out needs. Some of us actually are pleased with what Xbox has managed to accomplish in such a short time since the doombox was announced.

I am a strong supporter of Kinect and use it regularly without issue. But... then again, I am able to follow instructions and speak to the kinect the way It needs to be spoken to. I'm sorry that the Kinect is not aware of your self proclaimed importance so its no wonder it doesn't work for you when your shouting things like: "Dont you know who I am! I'm fuck1ng Jim Sterling, Now play my fuck1ng games..."

I get home in the evening, walk into my living room, say "Xbox on" and smile as I see my tv, surround system and xbox all switch on and greet me on screen. Then depending if I wanna play or watch tv I can then just say "Xbox, play watchdogs. or Xbox, go to 4od, play the it crowd." and blam, I'm in tech heaven. So I can only imagine how you have been trying to interact with your Kinect, actually, maybe I don't wanna know what you do behind closed doors, by the look of it, neither does Kinect

So, anyways. I'm sure none of these word will make any difference to you and I'm sure you will continue to smoke that sony pole. But, while your catching your breath between blowing your move controllers maybe you could do some real journalism and approach this new console generation without Sony's jizz all over your face.

If they made what GAMERS wanted they would make a VIDEO GAME MACHINE, NOT A MULTIMEDIA DEVICE.

Secondly, Jim Sterling is criticizing the problems of the game industry because he wants the industry to be better as a whole. If you accept that the video game industry takes all money from your bank account it is fine, but at least let the people whine who don't want that, because this is a way the industry knows that they go too far and that they will make more policies that cater towards those with little money.

Another thing out of note is that the character that Jim Sterling acts like on the screen is in fact a neonazi. Of course he wants you to think for yourself (he even said at a moment that he is thankful that people disagree with him because it allowed him to have a better opinion), but the character he acts as is obviously preventing him from doing that.

Also, your joke of Jim Sterling not being able to speak correctly to the kinect is tasteless.

I also love how you are saying that Jim Sterling is a Sony fanboy, mainly because he said in a video that he thought that the Xbox 360 was a great console in 2006, all the while bashing the PS3. Everybody said that Jim Sterling was a Microsoft fanboy. Look at how the times have changed.

 

[FoolKiller]

That moment:

You preach about not joining the newest gen of consoles swearing to hold out on a PS4 and Xbox One only to realize you have a Wii U, a 3DS XL, and a Vita sitting in your room.

I feel most sorry for the devs like Harmonix who based their creations on the belief that the Xbox One is going to have a Kinect. I wonder if they could get some money out of MS who committed fraud in terms of guaranteeing attach rates.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Snip

Wait! Wait! You forgot some truth nuggets!

Firstly! ^_^ You do realize that there are gamers who aren't even Playstation fans, who hate the Xbox One not because they love the Playstation 4, but juuuust because they dislike the Xbox One entirely on its own merits, right? The Escapist forums, in fact, are an excellent example of this fascinating phenomenon, because there are quite a few PC gamers, and back during the whole hullaballoo, the ones who had zilch interest in the Console Peasants were of the following opinion; 'I would need a lobotomy to lower myself to the point of buying one of those overpriced, underpowered, featureless messes called a gaming console. That being said, I would need a substantially larger lobotomy to pick the Xbox One over the PS4.' It wasn't a wave of love for Sony, wasn't even a wave of like for Sony, as the best that could be gained from many was 'Well, meh, they didn't completely fuck it up this time, did they? Nah, guess they didn't.' But comparatively speaking, 'Not Completely Fucking It Up' was still light-years better than what Sony's main competitor was doing, so what you were seeing as 'Love For Sony' was, in fact, 'A Lack Of The Same Utter Contempt And Dislike That Was Being Dished To The Xbox One.'

The height of that hilarity was back before the DRM reversal, where there were Xbox players, ON the official Xbox Forums, sizable linked gamertags and all, raising holy hell about their violent dislike of the DRM policies... something completely forgotten by the DRM policy supporters, who only a month later were insisting on the same forum that all the whining that had led to those policies being reversed was from Sony Fanboys, and no, the console would have sold fine if it went ahead with the DRM policies, cause everyone complaining about it was a Sony Pony that was going to buy a PS4 no matter what and just came here to troll!

Second! Yes, they reversed the things that have been so criticized, and that should be recognized. They have been. It isn't that they reversed the policies that is being criticized, it's how vehemently, how desperately, Microsoft tried to bluff their way through the situation in the first place. Just look at the Kinect. Rather than, from the earliest point, saying 'Okay, we hear where you're coming from, and we will take everything under consideration; we are making no announcements, no promises, etc, but we hear you,' they instead decided to double down on the Kinect by saying; 'What? No! Pfft. It's integral! It's as important to the console as the controller! You don't think we'd ever sell an Xbox One without the controller, do you? It's a part of the wider experience, we can't just cut it away! It IS the Xbox One experience, so yeah, not gonna be removing it!'

It was a calculated bluff, the belief that if they could convince the gamers that the Kinect was going to stick around for the forseeable future, then those gamers should finally shut up and buy the thing regardless of whether they wanted the peripheral. As it turned out, though, they were only half right; because even though the anti-Kinect sentiment was indeed dying down to a low, irritated grumble, there was no corresponding rise in sales. No boom to catch them up to the PS4; in fact, if Sony's statistics on the composition of their new console's userbase were accurate, then Microsoft might have been actively in the process of losing its 7th Generation userbase to its 8th generation competitor.

So, realizing they the bluff had failed, they whirled around, changed their minds, and had the gall to use the same reasons ("Consumer CHOICE!") that the device's detractors had been unsuccessfully using since before the console even came out. When coupled with the undeniable fact that they were getting trounced in every market by the competition, their move wasn't seen as a 'Pro-Consumer Move.' It was seen as 'Oh Dear God, Sony Has A Missile Lock, Fire The Flares!' Just as Sony's large price cut to the PS3 wasn't seen as a 'Pro-Consumer Move,' it was seen as 'Oh Dear God, Microsoft Has A Missile Lock, Fire The Flares!"

Because Sony got the same flak for the PS3, not simply because of what they did to it during its initial launch, but because they also tried to bluff against the consumer. They ignored the building discontent, made super confident and chest-puffing statements about how awesome it was, how the price was totally necessary and worth it, etc, etc, etc. And then they watched as their more expensive, less multiplatform-capable, far more loathed product got steadily outsold in the U.S., a market they had previously dominated. (Any of that sound familiar?) I wouldn't have TOUCHED a PS3 when it launched, and I didn't get one at all until a bit under three years ago, after my 360 died; before that, I was Xbox 360 all the way, because PS3 royally shat the bed, and even after they had mopped it up, the smell lingered.

Microsoft has opened a window, yes, and tidied up their rampant diarrhea. But the smell is something that's going to linger for awhile longer, as much as they're running around frantically spraying Febreeze everywhere. And frankly? It should. This mentality of 'Well, they went back on their bullshit, LET'S SHOWER THEM WITH PRAISE!' will only encourage publishers and the like to test the 'line' every chance they get, knowing that if they overstep their bounds there'll be no harm done. If a company steps out of line- Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, whichever- they should get such a thorough ass-kicking, they'll still be aching two years down the road... and those aches might well remind them not to try it again, at least for awhile.

In conclusion, The concept that gamers can look at the Xbox One's history, its marketing, its very messaging, and deem its handling to be almost hilariously incompetent, not based of some emotional attachment to its competitor, but based upon a completely objective assessment, must be too traumatic for you to endure. Because rather than admit 'Well, yeah, they royally messed up, to a cataclysmic degree, and just like the PS3 before it are likely going to get a whipping from many gamers for a loooong time before the newly tilted rudder actually, finally corrects their course,' you instead use 'NOPE, SONY FANBOYS' like you're a small child clutching his favorite, snot-and-drool-streaked safety blanket.

Seriously. Accept the fact that there are folks who simply don't like the Xbox One right now; not only Sony's gamers, but plenty of Nintendo's gamers, the PC's gamers, hell, there are former Xbox gamers who jumped ship. While there are undoubtedly elements that operate based on 'Sony Fanboyism,' because this is the Internet, trying to insist that any criticism, even outright hostility, must automatically be coming from that group is incredibly naive, and sounds like the desperate, whimpering excuses of a small, particularly dim little lad. ^_^

Would you like some dipping sauce with that?

 

[theApoc]

Notice how we already have these very things (updates, content delivery, and diagnostics) on modern systems and computers and how adding required online-always doesn't add anything to the users experience that they didn't already have? Oh sure its useful for Microsoft but none of this is useful for me. I'm still forced to go through updates, online checks and other very obtrusive demands on their command, not when I decide I want to or need to.

It literally takes all of two seconds for my computer to realize its not on the internet and connect... does that mean that I should have to be online for everything I do on said computer? No. Your telling me in this modern Fiber Optic connected world, that you can't be bothered to wait 2 seconds for it to connect BEFORE it updates. And if that's not enough the NOT ALWAYS ONLINE Wii U can actually do system updates while its turned OFF. It still has that amazing convenience of not having to wait without restricting my access to all my software and discs in case the internet connection goes out. And honestly as much as I dislike Steam, you can still use cloud features with it while having access to your games offline, if need be. Yes you have to be online at the time of use, but I'm not (and apparently not many others either) giving up my freedom to use software and hardware when I want just so that I can have 2 secs free of connect time. And if your internet, their server or your ISP goes offline at anytime you get kicked out of the game/software your using and at best case scenario (with the 24 hour check) you don't get kicked, but if internet problems persist, as they usually do, then you can't play period. For what? So we can have 2 seconds to connect not wasted? Those 2 seconds that are going to be prevalent when you first connect after a disconnect anyways. EVERY TIME YOU TURN ON THE CONSOLE. You know unless you want the console to be using electricity for no reason when your not using it. And of course we're forgetting the activation connection that would have been required to access servers every time you boot a game after not playing said game for 24 hours. Is 2 seconds saved for connection time really worth all that?

And that being said I'm a computer enthusiast, there are always instances where you might want to stay on current hardware or drivers and not update. This is because of things like beta drivers and software that don't work properly and occasionally ruin other software programs. One example of this was when Sony actually caused Fat PS3s to burn up due to an update that had an issue with how it handled resources on the system. And it was an avoidable issue with the ability to stay offline, not update and still use your device.

In fact a modern example of this is Star Wars Jedi Knight Dark Forces 2. On current AMD Video Drivers the game doesn't work properly, but if I revert (something companies with online control won't let you do normally) back to old drivers against the will of the AMD auto updater I can magically play my game again. In your paradigm of always online, if a new update ruined my system or rendered games unplayable I would be stuck until Microsoft has decided its worth their time to fix it. Its the same problem that we've seen time and time and time again with other always-online software, such as Assassin's Creed 2, SimCity and Diablo 3. Your ignoring the fact that they do not do this as a service to the customer, but to control the user's experience and leave the freedom of the individual to use the hardware that THEY PURCHASED on the whim of the manufacturer (Microsoft in this case).

You make some good points, however my question still remains, how is any of this MS's fault? How can they be considered anti-consumer when these things are the reality of an age where we are moving more and more towards digital distribution? How exactly did they lie to us? I play Dark Souls 2, every time I load that game it connects to their servers to check for updates and patches. I requires a constant connection to experience all of the aspects of the game. Same thing with Borderlands, Halo, Titanfall, etc. Features that consumers have proven time and time again to want as part of their gaming experience. I get it, people want to retain control, but those days are quickly passing us by. I use Netflix, I enjoy it for the convenience, in order to do so, I need to be online for streaming, as such, my "library" of content is controlled COMPLETELY by their company. Server goes down, no netflix. Too much traffic, no netflix. Bad business deal? My favorite show is now no longer available. I sacrifice control for convenience.

Point being, these companies are in business. They provide a service and we choose to pay for it, or we don't. How they provide the service is up to them, and it is up to me to decide if that is acceptable. And in the case of MS, not liking how they did something, or what they had planned to do, is not the same as being forced to endure some draconian policy.

No however, the problem with this analogy (even if we ignore the ridiculous difference in cost to the user) is that with TVs I can just go buy a TV that doesn't have 4 HDMI slots and a USB slot. There are many brands of televisions. There is true choice there. Microsoft is the only one developing and allowed to sell Xbox One. Microsoft (at time of release) didn't give anyone the choice of not paying the ridiculous extra fee of having Kinect.

Sure they did, which is why I am still using my XBOX 360. If a person feels that the latest and greatest content is worth being a beta tester for hardware and missing out on future refinements and updates, that is on them, not the company making the product. Apple is a BS company that has made a fortune on incremental updates, but the primary fault of that practice falls on the consumer not the company.

Your analogy would be more fitting to, say, computers. I can buy tons of different models of computer all with different power variants and slot types and number of slots/hard drives. If I didn't need 2 DVI slots on my video card I would find a cheaper model with no such slots. Aside from this the Kinect didn't give the user anything of value. Maybe I don't need 4 HDMI slots, but I do NEED HDMI slots and might need more in the future depending on what I buy, since you need HDMI for output of most devices these days. I don't need Kinect and already know I don't want any of the software built for it so why should I have to buy it to get the console?

YOU don't need a kinect, so YOU don't need to upgrade to a system that was meant to use it. Yes, it is optional, but that was not what they had in mind, and a lot of people, who decided to actually embrace the technology, like it just fine as part of the device. I have gen 1 Kinect, it works as well as can be expected, but I still enjoyed the experience and I understand what they were going for. Regardless, making Kinect part of the initial package was not "anti-consumer", they are trying to do something different, bring the technology to the average home, and IMO they should continue to do so. No one forced people to upgrade, my XBLA account still has 100% functionality a year after the launch of "next gen". Had they shut down all of the old systems, then maybe Jim would have a point, as it stands, he doesn't.

On note of Blue Ranger, He was being incredibly arrogant towards you and I'll go ahead and apologize to you for him, but you doing the same to him doesn't really make your claims any more correct or incorrect.

I responded in kind, if nothing else it made me smile.

 

[theApoc]

Your always online points are fine when they are an option, not mandatory. My PS4 is always online because I choose to leave it that way, not because it HAS to be. The concept of a gaming console that will lock you out of ALL your games if it does not call home once a day is just ludicrous, and THAT is what everyone had a problem with. Especially those who have poor or spotty internet access. Even though they said it was a small file that could easily be done using a phone as a hotspot for just a minute, how is that convenient or even wanted by the consumer? It's not! It was essentially a draconian form of DRM that only provided a benefit to MS and none to the consumer.

If you have spotty internet connection then maybe next gen is not for you. And I am sorry but these claims about the whole thing being some kind of EA level DRM control is ridiculous. In order to do just about anything that involves multi-media, and a lot of features available to games, I need to be connected to the internet. I could play an un patched, non updated version of halo, doing only the Single player, but that would kind of defeat the point of paying 60 bucks for a game with a huge multiplayer community and service. The claim that MS did this to screw consumers is just silly. Sorry, but it is.

As for alternative control peripherals, aka the Kinect, many people already stated they did NOT want one after seeing how the original worked. Many don't like the idea of a camera in their house that is "always watching", even if it can be turned off. MS was insistent that the device was an integral part of the console so it could not be disconnected. This was enough to turn people away from the system, despite the later backpedaling by MS allowing the Kinect to be removed. Many feel that motion controls of any sort are just a gimmick and want nothing to do with them. That's well within their rights and if they invested in an Xbox One then they are welcome to just not use the Kinect features. However, the device added $100 to the asking price, which made the console as a whole much less appealing, so many who would have otherwise purchased an Xbox One without a Kinect chose to forego the console entirely.

And many people, like myself, think the peripheral is a great addition, and as it improves, and the voice recognition and motion control gets better, it will make for a very useful part of the device. For gaming? No. I don't think it will every be good for gaming, but to me that should not be the focus of Kinect anyway.

If MS had truly had faith in their vision of a next-gen console, they should have stuck to their guns and released the Xbox One the way they originally intended. If it was as great as they were claiming, then people would have realized it in time and invested in this "revolutionary" console. But they didn't. Why? Because they saw poor pre-order numbers and realized that their anti-consumer policies and vision were not going to fly with the majority of consumers.

I will agree that graphics do not make a console "next-gen" however I disagree with your idea that next-gen should not be about games. Of COURSE it should be about games when it comes to a GAMING console! For these consoles, NOTHING should be more important than advances in the games. Not just graphics, as you said that should come naturally, but in the AI, in the gameplay, in the expanse of levels and maps. Just "doing something different" does not automatically make something better or more advanced. The Wii did something different with motion controls, setting off the whole shebang of motion controls that MS and Sony both tried to copy, but that didn't make the Wii a better console over the 360 or PS3 to many people. Especially considering all the shovelware that later released on the platform, leaving very few quality games for the system.

MS is not "dishonest" for trying to do something different. They are dishonest for claiming that the Xbox HAD to work a certain way, then later changing their tune when sales reports were poor in order to try to move more consoles, then changing it yet again from the way it HAD to work when sales still weren't good enough. THAT is why MS is dishonest.

It was never just a gaming console, they never said it was, they never wanted it to be. It, like the 360 before it, is best described as a multi-media hub. It has replaced every other device in my living room for nearly 2 years now, and yes I do actually play games as well. Changing business strategy is a part of the industry. Did they screw up in presenting the device? Ayup. Was that some plot to screw the consumer, nope.

 

[theApoc]

Good job in proving to all of us you have no god damned clue what you are talking about. Nothing you said was factual. Just a load of garbage.

Everything you said is so god damned stupid and out of touch with reality. Nothing you said has convinced any of us that Xbox One NEEDS to be always online. In fact, these features you keep mentioning are already here, on systems that don't require a constant internet connection. So where is this convenience you keep talking about?

Kinect is the only way to control and use your system? Really? Did you forget about the actual xbox controller? Of course you did, because you aren't using your brain. Your HDMI example just proves you need to shut the hell up and actually educate yourself. That isn't even a proper analogy, considering HDMI port are required to access high definition. Not to mention, Samsung isn't the only company making TVs. Nice try, buddy.

I did not say it was the only way, what I did was ask a rhetorical question, something you kind of missed. My point was exactly what you said, there is nothing forcing you to use the device, or buy a system that charges for the device. What MS said was that they system was designed to work best with kinect, not that it would only work with kinect.

And MS isn't the only company making game consoles. And they aren't even only making ONE console. Again, the point of the analogy was that you pay for the features YOU want. If you don't want them, don't buy the device. The implication that MS is forcing people to buy and XBOX ONE with a kinect is silly. There was no reason at launch to upgrade unless you simply wanted to be on the "cutting edge". Almost every game released had a 360 version. XBLA works the same as it did before, and everyone knew they would release more system options. It is silly to blame them for wanting to be a beta tester for the "next gen". If they had stopped all support of the 360, you would have a point. As such, you don't.

 

[yogyog]

The Kinekt is quite clearly a low-cost motion-capture device that for some reason is being sold as a gaming peripheral rather than the tool for animators and hackers that we all know it really is.

 

[Knarral]

Still not buying a One 'til I see something worth buying, and right now that's limited to Sunset Overdrive and whatever the next Mass Effect game is going to be.

Considering Mass Effect:The Next One will also release on PC (and Sunset Overdrive is rumored to as well) there is really no reason to buy an Xbone. Even if SO doesn't come to PC, it's not worth buying the Xbone.

My computer isn't very good...I am shamed.

Why spend $400 on an Xbone when you can spend that $400 on PC hardware so you have a better PC? I mean, a decent "above modern console grade" PC is about $700 give or take, and from then on it's just upgrading what you already have one piece at a time whenever you feel like you have the cash to spend on it. And Steam sales means, if you wait to buy games until they're on sale, you spend WAAAAAAAAAAY less on games.

Because on a console developers exactly know how far they can go in terms of graphical capabilities. They can see the limitations of a console and use them as their own. For the PC there are way too many graphic cards on the market and developers will just have a hard time figuring out how developed the PC will be for the average consumer base.

The above is the reason why there are so many games on consoles that never see their transition to PC. I could understand that games that do not rely on graphics did only have the PC to reside in, but with Sony and Microsoft's new policies to get indie developers quicker working for them on colsoles that advantage minimizes over time.

And yes, there is steam, but it just keeps getting less and less relevant over time, due to the fact that lots of games on steam are never played.

Secondly, ever tried to purchase games on last-gen consoles? You can get a last-gen console for like 150$ and most of the games only cost around 15$ (and if you are already happy with primitive graphics, check out the games for even older consoles, most consoles cost around 40$ and their games around 5$). Steam has nothing on this.

1. No they don't. See: Every single 30 fps game on Xbone and PS4 ever. They have no idea how shiny they can make it without tanking the hardware. I'm not even talking about how it's only 30 fps, I'm talking about how frequently it dips BELOW that. Also, developers up to now haven't had too difficult a time optimizing for the PC, so I really don't see your point.

2. There aren't many games that are on consoles that aren't on PC. The ones that aren't are not on PC for other reasons. Like the first party devs being assholes.

3. We're not talking about last gen machines, we're talking about current gen machines. I don't give a fuck about an xbox 360, it's a 10 year old piece of junk. If we want to go back to before last gen, the PC has emulators. For free. Yeah, I don't care that the gamecube is $25 at your local gamestop and Super Mario Sunshine is $2.25 on sale, I can just download dolphin emulator and play it on my PC for free (albeit the legality of doing so is slightly questionable, though literally nobody in the entire world gives a fuck), using a dualshock 4 instead of a gamecube controller, AND it'll run at 1080p if I decide I want it to.

Also, what do you mean most games on steam are never played? You mean all of that shit that somehow manages to find its way on steam? No, nobody is playing that. All that means is its harder for indie devs, and while I'd love some quality control on steam, that's an entirely different subject for debate. That doesn't make steam any less relevant, considering the sheer amount of people who use it. There are still steam sales where most games are heavily discounted. Also, GoG and Humble are things.

 

[Ukomba]

Why does a free picture from a vandal mean you win anything? People unwillingly get 'free pictures' from them all the time.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Shouldn't this site be flooded with WiiU, handheld console, PC games coverage while Xbox One and PS4 get maybe 1/10th the attention of those? Wouldn't this be sending a more positive message about the gaming industry through your actions?

I'm not saying for Yahtzee or Jim Sterling to stop making videos about this. By all means, point out the injustices to consumers so that we don't forget about this issue. Even the escapists podcasters have almost nothing positive to say about the current gen consoles.

It would be nice if the site could follow it's content creators own advice. Spend more time focusing on promoting positive gaming awareness through companies who make 'less evil' decisions.

On topic: Good summary piece all around.
I didn't need more convincing to never support Xbox One but there you have it.

The thing is, the Xbox One and PS4 audience is the one most willing to join gaming sites, read the news, etc. The Wii U and 3DS is more of a niche and Nintendo games do tend to attract younger audiences who won't join gaming sites and read the news. As for PC gaming... I guess they already have their news site or niche community.

Well I'm a PC gamer exclusively, and I come here daily.

Yeah, I gotta go with Babinro on this one. I'd never ask Jim to stop pointing out horseshit like this, but I'd like to maybe see it balanced with more positive articles about current or recently released games. (I don't count previews or "hype pieces" as "positive". I won't preorder games - Jim would probably approve of this - and I don't care about stuff that hasn't come out yet. Of course, that's just one person's opinion, but it's pretty much where my brain is at.)

 

[Ylla]

"That thing you can play Titanfall on"
You mean a PC? XD
I honestly wonder how can the Xbone be doing well.... At least in my country it was bashed by EVERYONE, even the most ignorant mainstream bloggers made quick remarks about how shitty it was, and i dont know any person who has bought an Xbone.
How can it be selling? even the most "diehard" MS fans that i know hated the Xbone (some of them even switched to PC gaming for the love of not giving Sony any of their money ). Geez, I WAS one of those MS fans, and when i saw the Xbone announcement (or perhaps before when Halo 4 was released) i knew i had to change.
Please explain me who the hell buys an Xbone

 

[YouTubeYaamen]

I'm new here and maybe this has been brought up months ago in a previous video/forum posting so, if it has, I apologize...but what annoyed me about Microsoft's handling of the Xbox One was how you could NOT buy the console on it's own last winter. (If this hasn't be covered before, I'll explain.)

It's November. Xbox One supplies are low. Demand is somewhat high. I walk into a Best Buy and lo and behold, they have a new shipment of Xbox Ones!

Terrific! I stand in line to pick one up. However, when a sales rep finally gets to me, he says they can't sell the console on it's own. I HAVE to choose a bundle package. With the console, I have to buy two games, an extra controller, a year of Xbox Live Gold and their extended warranty plan.

Well, I decide that's a sack of monkey balls so I leave and see if I can order one straight from Microsoft's site. And, as it turns out, I could.

HOWEVER, same deal applies! You CANNOT buy the console on it's own. They force you to buy two games, a year of Xbox Live Gold and a three year extended warranty. On the plus side, an extra controller was optional. Hurray for small miracles.

So I check around town and if anywhere else had Ones, it was only in a forced bundle package. So I have to assume Microsoft was forcing them to do it since they were forcing it on the people on their site.

PS4's were even scarcer during this time but they didn't impose any additional purchases when they became available. I'm sure this helped pad Microsoft's numbers but it sure didn't do anything for their already lackluster image.

 

[CaitSeith]

For starters, We all know what turmoil the xbox 1 went through from its initial reveal under the grip of Don Mattrik, we also know how the company changed the proposition to match what gamers wanted, post Matterik.

If they made what GAMERS wanted they would make a VIDEO GAME MACHINE, NOT A MULTIMEDIA DEVICE.

Microsoft took the gaming market for granted. The Xbox 360 was a hit in the gaming industry, and they supposed that their fan base would always follow them, no matter what (specially hardcore gamers, who eventually buy all the major consoles in each generation). They thought that their next hit would be the multimedia entertainment, and for those who didn't like it, well, "the Xbox 360 would always be there" (they pretty much said that).

They were wrong. Most non-gamers didn't show any interest in the console, and the "unashamed, egotistical, demanding, whining little b1tches, who take no responsibility for their own actions" did what any "unashamed, egotistical, demanding, whining" consumer would do: they looked for an option with their rival company. I just imagine how pale their faces must have gone when Sony made their "How to share a PS4 game" sketch.

 

[CaitSeith]

I don't really understand this episode. Microsoft are liars. Okay. The Xbox One backpedaled. Okay... Personally I'm not even that cynical, they tried one route and it didn't work for them so they changed its course back towards something that works. And then like any sane company they covered it under heaps of PR and misinformation. To think that any other company wouldn't do the same thing is just plain ignorant. So why is this such a big deal?

Pretty much because people has become insensible to the fact that companies lie to their consumers and partners, and don't even apology when they are discovered. Now present us 5 examples of companies that behaved like Microsoft and the consequences they faced.