theApoc said:
Okay, looking at your posts throughout the thread, there are a couple of consistent points you bring forth that seem to be missing something.
1) You've said a few times that Microsoft was not, and at no point was ever, forcing consumers to purchase the Xbox One as it was originally advanced. Whether it was with the old digital policies, or with the Kinect as an attached peripheral; you pointed out that people had the option, always had the option, simply not to buy it, or to instead buy the competitor's product. You outright said that disliking a direction the company has taken is not the same as 'being forced to endure some draconian policy.'
I actually agree with you. Completely, a hundred percent; while it could be argued that using something like Halo as a lure for less popular features isn't going to be a beloved move, especially around the hardcore Halo fans who dislike Kinect, at no point was Microsoft forcing anyone to buy the Xbox One. Besides which, using exclusive franchises as a selling point is par for the course anyway, so it all but cancels itself out. All consumers, be they gamers or otherwise, had the option to vote with their wallets and simply not hand over their money. So on that note, you and I are most certainly on the same page; it was always the decision of the customer whether to buy it or not.
However. What you should know- and perhaps I've simply misinterpreted what you've been saying- is that even though Microsoft isn't forcing the consumers to purchase their device 'as is,' it is still their primary goal to get the machine into as many houses as possible, for obvious reasons. That, above all else, is their aim, and they will do anything necessary to accomplish it. They initially believed that they could accomplish this primary goal with the original vision- advancing the idea of a futuristic, unique console that would completely set it apart from the competition and, by extension, cause it to radically outsell the 'Same Old, Same Old' machine that Sony was advancing. They also believed that by 'broadening the audience,' and trying to reach non-gamers, they would expand their market, and radically expand their sales.
And, to be fair, it did indeed set them apart from the competition... only not in a positive way. Instead of being viewed as a device that was desirable and advanced, it was viewed as restrictive, and ultimately being handled by a marketing staff that was fumbling the ball at every opportunity and displaying Sony-PS3 levels of arrogance. But again! At no time was Microsoft forcing anyone to purchase it; but because they weren't forcing anyone to purchase it... well, they found out that not many people were purchasing it. And, once again, what's Microsoft's primary goal?
Microsoft does, yes, have the right to say 'Our Way Or The Highway.' But when enough people start saying; 'Well, Highway It Is!' then the company faces a choice; first, they can either stick to their guns, and try to wait out the market in the hopes that, sooner or later, things will swing back in their favor because their product is so darned awesome. Sony did that with the PS3 in the early days, ignoring warning signs on the Internet, figuring that their device would be so gosh darned wonderful that, sooner or later, people would come to see things their way. This decision pretty much obliterated them in the U.S, because by the time Sony finally gave up their game of Chicken and started their own backpeddles and consumer-coaxing initiatives like PS Plus, Microsoft had gained so much of a lead they were pretty much unstoppable, and continued to hold that lead even after Xbox 360 exclusives were barely trickling out, and almost no Non-Kinect, non-Halo/Forza/Gears/Fable exclusives were being released in over three years.
Microsoft did say it's a marathon, not a sprint, and that's true. However, Microsoft wasn't expecting to be behind
at all. This wasn't some master plan, 'Oh, we'll fall behind the PS4 for three years, and after that, BAM. Domination.' They were expecting, from the get-go, far more sales than they've gotten up-to-date, and when they realized they were losing ground, they decided that what they were doing just flat-out wouldn't work.
In conclusion; people have a choice on whether or not to buy something. Lotsa people didn't buy it. That's why Microsoft's changing it. Same as Sony in the PS3 days.
---
2) You've advanced the idea that Microsoft's focus, their vision, was to appeal as an entertainment hub, not simply as a game console. I swear to God, we must have had this discussion before, because you seem familiar, but even if we did, let me reiterate,
The Xbox One's chances of succeeding as a game console are far greater than its chances of succeeding as a multimedia device. There are simply too many 'Pure-Blooded' devices, entertainment gizmos that range from being half the price, to one quarter the price of even the Kinectless SKU, for Microsoft to gain any traction in the wider market, and that was their miscalculation. They might have come in 'too early' for an Online-Focused Console, but they came in far too late to release a 'Media Box,' especially one so hilariously overpriced.
Now, If Microsoft released, say, a Kinect camera and enough hardware to handle video streaming and multimedia, maybe even simple indie games, (but none of the big blockbusters like Halo, or whatever, I mean like Ouya-level stuff,) and priced it very competitively, (Say 150, 200 dollars maximum, ideally just 100,) then I can see that device decently doing well in the non-Hardcore-gaming market. That would truly be 'catering to consumers.' The Kinect, the One Guide, they are worthwhile features, and I do think that they could draw in a non-gaming audience. (Although, in your case, I guess it would just be the Kinect, since you mentioned you cut cable.)
But the price. The
price. It's a massive ball-and-chain around their ankle, and pretty much guarantees they will get viciously outsold by less feature-rich, but far more affordable, entertainment devices. Beyond Kinect and One Guide, the only real feature the Xbox One has over those FAR cheaper competitors is that it can play big, fancy games, and
only gamers are going to care about that.
So, really, the Xbox One SHOULD focus on being a gaming device, because that's the only battle they might actually be able to win.
---
3) Finally, this idea that 'the hardcore gamer's opinion doesn't matter' is, frankly, ludicrous. When it comes to products, especially games or consoles, the most powerful force in advertisement is word-of-mouth, because you are significantly more likely to listen to a friend saying 'You should try this' than television commercial number 204 saying 'You should try this.' All the flashy television commercials in the world can't make a difference if it's not mingled with positive word-of-mouth, with enough regular consumers- which, in this case, would be gamers because why would anyone else have paid attention to the Xbox One before its release day- telling friends and relatives 'This thing is awesome.' On the flip side, one of the most destructive forces to a product's success is when a large enough group of people- and God knows there was a large enough group- decide that a product sucks Donkey Balls, for whatever reason. Because if someone either really really likes, or really really dislikes a product, you can bet your bottom dollar that they're going to express their opinion to everyone they know.
It's like going to a restaurant a few times, finding the food disgusting every single time, and when your friend asks you 'Hey, how about that place you went to last week?' you answer 'Bleeegh.' Chances are good, regardless of how fancy the banner is out front, your friend won't be going because he heard from you that it wasn't worth it.
The Internet has only magnified the power of word-of-mouth, allowing it to stretch across the entire globe, which is why sometimes companies have been caught paying people
just to say positive and/or negative things about a certain product online. Enough people doing it, it makes a significant difference.
Just look at what happened! Many Unimportant Gamers hated the PS3, and the PS3 fell into third place, getting outsold what, 30 months STRAIGHT in the U.S., even in the later half of the generation? It was only able to achieve a Global second because of its dominance in Europe and Japan. Many Unimportant Gamers hated the Xbox One, and it's getting outsold by the PS4 in almost every single market, including its strongholds, and in recent months having trouble even outselling the Wii U globally, while the PS4, which plenty of the same Unimportant Gamers deemed the superior product, has catapaulted to first, DESPITE not having many titles on it; it's been propelled by hype and word-of-mouth alone. Heck, Many Unimportant Gamers didn't see the point of the WiiU in the first year, and it sold terribly! Companies don't simply need the individual sales of hardcore gamers, they need- they crave- the positive word-of-mouth that gets more units into the hands of gamers' less-researched friends and associates.
You might disagree with the opinions of gamers, fine, but if the voices decrying your product as shite outweigh the voices saying it's spun gold... don't expect to sell well.
((By the way, I know what you might say; 'But what about the Wii?! That's in first, hardcore gamers weren't all fans of that!' But before you forget, the Wii had a price advantage over its competitors, (which the Xbox One does not,) had an existing Nintendo-loving user base who spread positive word of mouth, (which for the Xbox One would only help in the gaming market, not help it in the wider entertainment market) and was designed to cater to a casual GAMING audience, not a casual entertainment audience.))
