And I'm saying that tying any benefits arbitrarily to mandatory online will NEVER be received well because it's unnecessary and savvy consumers know that. Any attempt to convince us otherwise amounts to artful BS.uro vii said:
Molyneux: Microsoft's E3 Conference Was "Unprofessional"
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
erhm. That's not what his initial reaction to microsoft's conference was. When asked about his views on MS's performance by Geoff Keighley, Molyneux's answer was "redemption".
just putting it out there. Someone please tell him to make up his bloody mind.
just putting it out there. Someone please tell him to make up his bloody mind.
The one point I'll disagree on is that the "frat boy" attitude of Microsoft/Sony is a bad thing
I was pretty concerned that they might collaborate to institute these draconian authentication policies across the board, so I'm glad to see their still competing for our affection to some degree
I was pretty concerned that they might collaborate to institute these draconian authentication policies across the board, so I'm glad to see their still competing for our affection to some degree
Alright, well then I suppose I simply think your wrong there. I don't think necessity has much to do with it. As I pointing out with the Steam example, people are more than willing to put up with unnecessary inconvenience if they believe they're benefiting enough from it.timboo_drow said:
I agree. Nintendo easily had the best E3 Conference. Just Iwata coming out and 40 minutes of going "Here's the games. I hope you like them. I am sorry I you are annoyed by delays".
No buzzwords.
No bullshit.
No famous people.
No talk about great innovation.
JUST FUCKING GAMES.
No buzzwords.
No bullshit.
No famous people.
No talk about great innovation.
JUST FUCKING GAMES.
Seriously, I'm starting to think there's some kind of conspiracy going on here. I think Mattrick must have a LOT of Sony stock or something. I mean, the XBone reveal was bad enough, but every - single - thing that they've done since the reveal has just been one horrible PR move after another. Every interview they give they come off like arrogant pricks...they're trying to put out a fire by pouring gas onto it. I don't know who, but SOMEONE at MS has to stand to make a LOT of money if the XBone fails.Spot1990 said:
Amazing, isn't it? To think that gamers - that is, people who actually BUY game consoles - just want to be able to play games? No bells and whistles necessary. Just build us a frickin' machine that plays frickin' games and everyone will be happy.Palademon said:
"Unprofessional?" you don't say?
Mr. Molyneux seems to be backpedaling himself, it seems that now he wants to go with the understatement route. Next game he's going to announce he'll be like "the dialogue system is ok i guess..." and then it's going to be revolutionary.
Mr. Molyneux seems to be backpedaling himself, it seems that now he wants to go with the understatement route. Next game he's going to announce he'll be like "the dialogue system is ok i guess..." and then it's going to be revolutionary.
Indeed. Peter really should check a mirror once in a while. He's been so wrapped up in empty promises that he's never once considered how the consumer is impacted.dragongit said:
On the one hand, yeah, both are to fault for their message. On the other, it's worth noting the differences.
Microsoft shows a "gaming console" that, while it has games, it treats its consumers like criminals: needing to prove that the games they bought are legally owned every 24 hours and removing said "privileges" if the consumer fails to do so; forbidding them to trade games between themselves; forbidding them from selling their games without a pre-approved middleman; telling it's costumers that if they don't like the Always On they can suck on... You know what? I'm not gonna spend half the day listing these. We're abundantly clear on that and they keep adding more shit to the pile anyway.
Sony shows an actual game console: also has games; it's not region locked; doesn't restrict it's userbase in any way apart from the new PS+ measures and even then, it's a much more attractive service than XBLG, with a lower subscription price and patently good free titles for download every week. The only way they might be called unprofessional, is due to the whole "Haha, Look, we're not Microsoft. Microsoft is stupid, but we're not, haha!" thing. Could it have been done better and more transparently? Yes, absolutely. Shouldn't it be done at all? Hmm, well, if Microsoft were an innocent being, I'd say so but lately? Oh yeah, I love the barbs Sony's been throwing at M$.
The Fat Houses analogy can be said of the entire Industry at this point, with the notable exception of the Indie market and 1 or 2 AAA developers and publishers.
Hmm, now that you mention it, I specifically remember a certain developer who overhypes features on the games he makes, only for said features to disappear as the day of release approaches. This is so frequent in fact, that said developer has become more and more of a joke about this, to the point that if a game of his features all features from beginning of production to end it's heralded as an actual miracle. Could he have behaved better and been more transparent? Yes, absolutely. Should he have done it? Of course, it's his word afterall. Why didn't he and why does he expect others to behave as he should when he doesn't? No idea. We should ask him, really.
Microsoft shows a "gaming console" that, while it has games, it treats its consumers like criminals: needing to prove that the games they bought are legally owned every 24 hours and removing said "privileges" if the consumer fails to do so; forbidding them to trade games between themselves; forbidding them from selling their games without a pre-approved middleman; telling it's costumers that if they don't like the Always On they can suck on... You know what? I'm not gonna spend half the day listing these. We're abundantly clear on that and they keep adding more shit to the pile anyway.
Sony shows an actual game console: also has games; it's not region locked; doesn't restrict it's userbase in any way apart from the new PS+ measures and even then, it's a much more attractive service than XBLG, with a lower subscription price and patently good free titles for download every week. The only way they might be called unprofessional, is due to the whole "Haha, Look, we're not Microsoft. Microsoft is stupid, but we're not, haha!" thing. Could it have been done better and more transparently? Yes, absolutely. Shouldn't it be done at all? Hmm, well, if Microsoft were an innocent being, I'd say so but lately? Oh yeah, I love the barbs Sony's been throwing at M$.
The Fat Houses analogy can be said of the entire Industry at this point, with the notable exception of the Indie market and 1 or 2 AAA developers and publishers.
Hmm, now that you mention it, I specifically remember a certain developer who overhypes features on the games he makes, only for said features to disappear as the day of release approaches. This is so frequent in fact, that said developer has become more and more of a joke about this, to the point that if a game of his features all features from beginning of production to end it's heralded as an actual miracle. Could he have behaved better and been more transparent? Yes, absolutely. Should he have done it? Of course, it's his word afterall. Why didn't he and why does he expect others to behave as he should when he doesn't? No idea. We should ask him, really.
I think the biggest PR fuck-up that Microsoft's done lately is the combination of this week's "Can't be online? Get a 360" and last week's "Backwards capability is for the backwards thinking" remarks from executives. That's a PR nightmare for any company. Even my local rock radio station is talking about how bad the next Xbox is going to be and they never talk about gaming.
I'm just wondering if Microsoft can change this bad reputation around in the next 6 months. Or will they keep the "Deal with it" comments coming?
Or will it mean nothing in 2 years when all the launch games have come out? Look at Sunset Overdrive. That's fucking Insomniac Games. That's gonna be real hard for me to skip out on. But if I have to spend $120 for Xbox Live on top of a premium internet connection and the Xbox One itself to play it, it's gonna be real easy to skip.
I'm just wondering if Microsoft can change this bad reputation around in the next 6 months. Or will they keep the "Deal with it" comments coming?
Or will it mean nothing in 2 years when all the launch games have come out? Look at Sunset Overdrive. That's fucking Insomniac Games. That's gonna be real hard for me to skip out on. But if I have to spend $120 for Xbox Live on top of a premium internet connection and the Xbox One itself to play it, it's gonna be real easy to skip.
Isn't Curiosity his creation? How much bullshit was that?! Something "Life-changing" ended up being an announcement for a new game in development. If he sold chocolate, he'd start advertising it six months in advance as a new form of oral sex that cured hepatitis, and even now we'd still be disappointed every time we put some in our mouths.Zachary Amaranth said:
Actually, Sony is specifically getting at Microsoft's throat BY remembering the consumer. They're doing it so thoroughly that they're even able to mock Microsoft and we laugh along with videos like how used games can be transferred. So I don't think that we're looking at both parties forgetting the consumer, just one and the other capitalizing on it.
I also don't think the issue is poor communication. It's what is being communicated. The more they say the less we like so better communication isn't the issue. It's just that Microsoft and several publishers believe that we should want these things and that we will benefit from them. They see it as inevitable. They, for some reason, don't get that consumers don't want this. We like ownership of our stuff. We like having freedom to arrange things appropriately and to not be pushed around by the people we're literally paying to meet our needs. Microsoft is straining that relationship and is somehow baffled that we don't want it.
I also don't think the issue is poor communication. It's what is being communicated. The more they say the less we like so better communication isn't the issue. It's just that Microsoft and several publishers believe that we should want these things and that we will benefit from them. They see it as inevitable. They, for some reason, don't get that consumers don't want this. We like ownership of our stuff. We like having freedom to arrange things appropriately and to not be pushed around by the people we're literally paying to meet our needs. Microsoft is straining that relationship and is somehow baffled that we don't want it.
Saw what you will about Molyneux, he's one of the best salesmen going. He can get you excited to buy a product even if he's made you excited to buy a product from him and then let down more than once. If he lived in the old west, he's have a snake oil empire. That's not necessarily saying anything against him, just complimenting his impeccable marketing skills. He's got MS's problem down to the simplest point: they need to convince customers that their online restrictions are good for them. They have not done anything so far to fight the perception that these restrictions are for the benefit of Microsoft and publishers at the expense of the gamer. They've just been bashing people who criticize it (if you're backwards compatible you're backwards; offline capability is so yesterday). They need to show the 70 million people with Xbox 360's that exhibiting brand loyalty is not an indictment of their intelligence.
They missed the boat on me so they can word on the other 69,999,999 360 owners -- PC-ward ho!
They missed the boat on me so they can word on the other 69,999,999 360 owners -- PC-ward ho!
