Xbox One Backlash Was "Unfair," Molyneux Says

[Andy Chalk]

Xbox One Backlash Was "Unfair," Molyneux Says

Peter Molyneux says the backlash against the Xbox One was "unfair," as Microsoft was simply trying to execute a bold long-term vision for a future in which everyone is always online.

Microsoft's handling of the Xbox One is fated to go down as one of the most poor-executed product launches in history. The best thing you can say about it is that at least nobody died. But having reversed course [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125204-Microsoft-Drops-Xbox-One-DRM-Restrictions-UPDATED] on many of the design choices that drove gamers nuts, the company is now facing smaller-scale (and more easily ignored) criticism from people who say it should have stayed the course; and while Molyneux, he of Fable and Curiosity fame, doesn't go quite that far, he does say that a lot of people "didn't really think" before they reacted to the plan.

"I know Microsoft, I know they were only doing things because they thought they were long-reaching and long-thinking," he told TechRadar. "But the world we live in now is that we have to realize, especially if you're a big corporation, if you make one step wrong, the world will leap on you, and unfairly, very unfairly, they will judge you."

Molyneux said Microsoft failed to properly explain to gamers the benefits of being online and interacting with other people, but also declared that the time is coming when being online won't be a matter of choice. "Whether as consumers we like it or not, just like every form of technology interaction, there's an inevitability of online," he said. "We know that online is so much a part of our existence now that we're going to be in a world very soon where we have to be online all the time."

He makes a valid point - Microsoft did a horrid job [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124891-Microsoft-Exec-Offline-Gamers-Should-Stick-With-Xbox-360] of selling its vision during E3 - but he also overlooks a few rather important practical facts about the console as it was originally designed. The concept of game "ownership" is evolving but a lot of folks still like to cling to the idea that they do actually own their games and may play them as they wish rather than at the pleasure of a great, overseeing corporation; and as much as I love the idea of sharing my experiences with millions of gamers around the world, infrastructure unevenness makes such a system almost inevitably exclusionary. Maybe Microsoft could have sold its plan with the right spin, but broadly labeling the backlash as "unfair" seems rather unfair in itself.

Source: TechRadar [http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/xbox-one-backlash-has-been-unfair-says-peter-molyneux-1172502]


Permalink

 

[mxfox408]

Its not unfair to call them on their corporatism mentality, Microsoft attempted to sell its ability to take ownership away from gamers who buy a product and own it, and then claim its the way of the future.... Yeah right people saw right through their bullshit, and they they cry foul? I guess they forgot consumers make them who they are not the other way around, but i guess we needed to remind them of that and they did not like it.

 

[04whim]

He's probably right that one day the entire world will be always online. But how about we wait until such a time that everywhere has an internet connection and the internet never drops out on us? At this time we can't always be online and so Microsoft making something that is always online is still unsustainable.

 

[Dominic Crossman]

Guy who only has games on microsoft consoles defends microsoft
No one is suprised and world keeps on going.

 

[omega 616]

At the moment we don't live in a world where microsoft's plan would work. Things are still very patchy and unstable, so while the idea of always online might be the future, it's not the present.

When we get to the point where we can have fast, reliable internet all over the world ... from the tippy top of the tallest mountain to the bottom of the deepest trench (okay, that's a slight exaggeration), then we can have always online.

Microsoft are trying to put trees on mars and everybody is saying "can we start off trying to reliably get there first?"

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

Oh yes, oh wise Molyneux tell us the consumer how we're wrong and you're right.
Tell us why Microsoft should get away with spearheading the movement to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property.
Tell us why Microsoft should get away with attempting something mildly Orwellian.
Tell us again why you should get away with lying about the feature of every fable game to one degree or another.
Tell us why you think we should listen to you at all.
Tell us why you're so full of yourself.

Molyneux you sound charismatic but I just don't care what you have to say anymore.

 

[Smeatza]

Why does an always online world necessitate always online consoles and games?
Are we going to end up with always online toasters?

 

[MCerberus]

Another person who made a lot of money with Microsoft failing to realize there's more to this than 'we should have explained more'.

Explained like, how did you want to get more third-party games in a growing international market when you're only launching where it's safer?
How am I personally going to set up your little sensor when my TV takes up all of its stand and it's cramped where I have it anyway?
Why should I care that you're shoving stuff I don't want down my throat?
Speaking of which, you making any progress with alternate business models and indies?.. wait Sony's still pulling ahead

And more importantly, why should I spend $100 more for a technically inferior product that I get less functionality from?

 

[Best of the 3]

While I can understand him when he says Microsoft were aiming for an all online audience, it was doing it at the corporation's benefit, not that of the consumer. Some of the ideas Microsoft had for the Xbone would have been rather good if they actually benefited the people who bought the product. But since it was so greedy I actually see the backlash as completely fair game.

 

[Yelchor]

Can the varying communities in this industry overreact and recklessly jump into conclusions regarding controversial matters? Certainly. But I'd rather have it be this way than the majority of people being unquestioning and boundlessly faithful to the "authorities".

Concept-wise, I'd love to be connected to high quality communication and entertainment on a global scale. But the infrastructure simply isn't there yet, and probably won't be for decades. Microsoft's plan was too large, too soon (and not with the consumer's rights in mind). Most importantly, they did not provide any choice on the matter. In short, if there ever was a time to question a company's motives, this was certainly it.

Corporations, just like any person or group of people, need to be called out and held responsible for their actions and policies. As well as being skeptically interrogated at all times, at every opportunity. This isn't meant to be out of malice of any kind. It is simply a fail safe so that the consumers are the ones ultimately in control, not the monopoly-hungering organizations with the majority of finances.

The internet has given the crowd a voice on a volume unprecedented.

 

[Something Amyss]

Peter Molyneux says the backlash against the Xbox One was "unfair," as Microsoft was simply trying to execute a bold long-term vision for a future in which everyone is always online.

Yes, and you're intimately familiar with bold visions that are full of shit, aren't you Peter?

Its not unfair to call them on their corporatism mentality, Microsoft attempted to sell its ability to take ownership away from gamers who buy a product and own it, and then claim its the way of the future.... Yeah right people saw right through their bullshit, and they they cry foul? I guess the forgot consumers make them who they are not the other way around, but i guess we needed to remind them of that and they did not like it.

I can actually sort of picture them saying that. "It's unfair that you want to own your games and be able to use them in today's environment!"

He's probably right that one day the entire world will be always online. But how about we wait until such a time that everywhere has an internet connection and the internet never drops out on us? At this time we can't always be online and so Microsoft making something that is always online is still unsustainable.

And even then, will other products go out because we're not connected? I don't lose my phone's other uses if I lose WiFi or 3G (yes, I still have 3G) services. If I have one or the other my phone has a lot of functionality but even if I don't...Well, I still have a lot of functionality. If my net goes out, my PC, which is always connected, can still do most of what I use it for. Including games (excluding online multiplayer and the like). While I know people who use Google Docs as their primary word processor, I actually make money off my scrawlings occasionally and can't afford to lose time on a deadline just because my net is down. My music is still accessible, my videos are still accessible, and otherwise I'm still able to have a functional product.

That's the thing: this "this is the future!" thing is an artificial need. We are already pretty connected. We will be more so. But we will never actually have the need to be this constantly connected, to have this level of hand-holding. It's bullshit trying to sell us on corporate nannying under the guise of "teh fewchur!"

They were caught trying to change the way rights worked, possibly forever. They got caught and rightfully chastised because believe it or not, this isn't a bold vision of the future so much as a bunch of empty promises with little-to-no benefit for the end user. It's a future where we need to ask permission to use our own acquisitions, and maybe we're too late to actually stop that from happening. Microsoft, like many companies, sees the future and wants to control it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Its not unfair to call them on their corporatism mentality, Microsoft attempted to sell its ability to take ownership away from gamers who buy a product and own it, and then claim its the way of the future.... Yeah right people saw right through their bullshit, and they they cry foul? I guess they forgot consumers make them who they are not the other way around, but i guess we needed to remind them of that and they did not like it.

You don't really own games (or indeed most any software) now - at least in the US which, it should be noted, is the biggest market for Xbox. As for it being the way of the future, all signs point to that being true. The people who put up the money for games and take enormous financial risk want to eliminate secondary markets that cut them out of the loop. Software, in general, has long been moving to a service model rather than being considered a product. Digital Distribution is advancing in market share at a staggering rate - a trend you can see across all media.

The fundamental fact is simply that Microsoft made precisely one miscalculation: they never adequately explained why we'd want such a thing. Nervously pointing to the "cloud" as justification for being always online only works if you can better explain what the hell you mean by "cloud". Sure, that explanation eventually came along but that was a month late, from a third party, and long after the story of the Xbox One had been written in the eyes of people who by and large jumped on a moment of zeitgeist rather than actually considering the reality of the moment and the product being offered rationally.

I'm not heaping blame on consumers for this one though: the failure was clearly one of messaging on Microsoft's part. They needed to make a case and they appeared to simply assume it was self explanatory. Forgetting, perhaps, that the word "cloud" is a term that tells you nothing of any note save that it involves some kind of computer resources being used to some end remotely via the internet - and most people don't even know that much.

 

[Charli]

No Peter. No it wasn't. Your bias and scruples are blinding you to the amount of corporate asshats who would abuse this 'glorious step forward of technology'. You might not Peter, but they would.

The backlash was justified. UTTERLY justified, or Microsoft would have gone on with it anyway, and millions of blind and zoned out parents would have invited that spyware infested (to which I believe it still is frankly) piece of junk into their homes for little timmys xmas.

You took away consumer rights with introducing so many authoritarian policies and we saw through the paper thin wall of excuses.

You tried to sell it to us like it was a glorified media center, not a games console and you paid for it from the 'gaming' community.

Also the Kinect still adds nothing to gaming, is still annoying, and is still making it cost 100 dollars more. Shuddup.

Do not make excuses for Microsoft Peter, I know where you live! (About 20mins from me)

 

[SomeLameStuff]

The backlash was entirely fair. The consumer isn't at fault for misunderstanding, Microsoft is at fault for not explaining properly. Microsoft failed, they paid the consequences.

 

[Formica Archonis]

The man who incessantly makes lofty promises of a bold new future in gaming sees Microsoft as a company making lofty promises of a bold new future in gaming.

And true to form, he misses the nearly inevitable next step: Not living up to promises and leaving the people who spent money on said promises feeling screwed.

 

[Louzerman102]

...Microsoft was simply trying to execute a bold long-term vision for a future...

Hitler was trying to execute a bold long-term vision for Germany, but that does not mean that the vision was good, or that the person was going about the vision in the right way.

The main issue is that when Microsoft says to me "I'm taking away your ownership of a product and laying 80% of the ground-work for a monopoly... and it's for your own good." I run the other way really fast.

Molyneux said Microsoft failed to properly explain to gamers the benefits of being online

The issue is also that an always online console that licenses games has massive benefits for a corporation with few benefits to the consumer. When you purchase something and say "I just got screwed." You don't usually become a repeat customer. Valve showed the benefit through ease of purchase and sales, while Microsoft championed the death of used games.