All I got from Peter here is; "In the future we must all simply bow down to always-online, and Microsoft was just helping us to achieve servitude."
I guess that clears things up then.
I guess that clears things up then.
Xbox One Backlash Was "Unfair," Molyneux Says
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Being online and being socially connected to others I don't think was the problem. The problem was specifically the implementation of this vision that Microsoft had. The vision seemed more to the sole benefit of the corporations while corralling the gaming into specific channels of behavior. Further more, it was the forcing of this vision upon the consumer and the nature of the games themselves. There was the implication that all experiences must be online, however, as we know or have seen, this does not work properly for all experiences. Given also the tenuous nature of the online experience (as far as I know, always-online is not a reliably maintained state, even under the best of circumstances), there is a possibility that the gamer could be deprived of a paid-for service/product whose nature is such that such depravation is not an inherent necessity but an artifice of imposing this ideal. Only certain types of games, for example, MMOs and team-play FPSs, have an inherent nature such that the always-online state is a reasonable requirement of the gameplay and experience. But, for many other games, notably single player games, attaching an always-online requirement is grotesquely inappropriate. Even if the game itself does not require always-online, the very fact the platform on which the game is played is rendered inoperative due to lack of connectivity transfers an always-online requirement to the game, because the game simply can not be played unless the equipment to do so is functioning. It's just bad design and implementation.
Long story short, I could see where Microsoft may have been trying to do, but they did it wrong.
EDIT: change of phrasing for clarity.
Long story short, I could see where Microsoft may have been trying to do, but they did it wrong.
EDIT: change of phrasing for clarity.
I like Molyneux. For all his faults he seems genuinely passionate about the games he creates, and he does attempt to innovate and move the genres of his games forward, even if sometimes it doesn't pan out. That said, he's completely off the mark in this instance.
1. It was the absolute lack of confirmation of any of the rumours about always online until way, way, way after a time that would have been sensible to confirm them.
2. It was that then the executives that did provide information were so darn vague about what they were saying that it just raised further questions when we tried to work out what the heck they just said,
3. Or else they contradicted what another executive had also said on the issue
4. Or else they insulted the gamer base and were downright rude about our personal preferences for not being always online or wanting backwards compatibility.
5. It was the launch that epitomized everything gamers were fearing about the new console generation: Focus on extra crap like Social media, other entertainment, adverts, motion controls and bloody Call of Duty.
5. Add to this the news of things like Polish developers CD Projekt finding out on the news that Microsoft would not be launching their console in Poland, so it would be impossible for them to use the console to develop for (and this right after they came out in a press release defending Microsoft's ideas)
6. Let's not forget the later press releases about Kinect being always on, gathering data about how many people are in the room so it can refuse to play films etc. until you pay to 'upgrade your license' mining your personal belongings and conversations for brand name and logo keywords to focus advertising on.
7. And then they announced that the dashboard was designed "with advertising in mind"! not "gamers" not even "developers". No. the dashboards primary role is not to provide the best UI for the customer, it's to provide the advertisers with the best control over what the customer sees. Lovely.
These are just a few of the reasons the Xbox One backlash was so bad. It was not unfair.
Microsoft isn't a immature teenager spouting crap on Facebook, it isn't a small company, it's one of the largest gaming companies out there. It should have known to not pull this crap on us. It should have knownto communicate properly the pros of the system. It's executives should have known not to insult their userbase. This was all Microsoft's fault.
Don't blame the internet for your frosty reception, don't blame gamers or entitlement. Blame your PR department that made the biggest series of corporate blunders in launching a new product since 'New Coke'.
It wasn't just the always Online that we were judging.
1. It was the absolute lack of confirmation of any of the rumours about always online until way, way, way after a time that would have been sensible to confirm them.
2. It was that then the executives that did provide information were so darn vague about what they were saying that it just raised further questions when we tried to work out what the heck they just said,
3. Or else they contradicted what another executive had also said on the issue
4. Or else they insulted the gamer base and were downright rude about our personal preferences for not being always online or wanting backwards compatibility.
5. It was the launch that epitomized everything gamers were fearing about the new console generation: Focus on extra crap like Social media, other entertainment, adverts, motion controls and bloody Call of Duty.
5. Add to this the news of things like Polish developers CD Projekt finding out on the news that Microsoft would not be launching their console in Poland, so it would be impossible for them to use the console to develop for (and this right after they came out in a press release defending Microsoft's ideas)
6. Let's not forget the later press releases about Kinect being always on, gathering data about how many people are in the room so it can refuse to play films etc. until you pay to 'upgrade your license' mining your personal belongings and conversations for brand name and logo keywords to focus advertising on.
7. And then they announced that the dashboard was designed "with advertising in mind"! not "gamers" not even "developers". No. the dashboards primary role is not to provide the best UI for the customer, it's to provide the advertisers with the best control over what the customer sees. Lovely.
These are just a few of the reasons the Xbox One backlash was so bad. It was not unfair.
Microsoft isn't a immature teenager spouting crap on Facebook, it isn't a small company, it's one of the largest gaming companies out there. It should have known to not pull this crap on us. It should have knownto communicate properly the pros of the system. It's executives should have known not to insult their userbase. This was all Microsoft's fault.
Don't blame the internet for your frosty reception, don't blame gamers or entitlement. Blame your PR department that made the biggest series of corporate blunders in launching a new product since 'New Coke'.
The problem, Peter, is not being online and interacting with other people. The problem is being FORCED to be online and interacting with other people. There's also the issue that Microsoft can't be counted on to keep up their end of the always online bargain. I don't particularly relish the idea of not being able to play my games because Microsoft is having server issues.
If life was fair, I'd be on a tropical island drinking coronas and hanging out with super models. Sadly this isn't a fair world.
I think gamers would have reacted differently had Microsoft released information ahead of time, like when they announced that they were developing a console back in 2012. Now they have to suffer the consequences.
I think gamers would have reacted differently had Microsoft released information ahead of time, like when they announced that they were developing a console back in 2012. Now they have to suffer the consequences.
I think we've just seen the sort of customer backlash to being forced to be online, any future where we are always online will have to overcome that first, and I really don't see that happening soon.
Now a world where everyone is very frequently online and making much use of all the advantages being online brings but having the ability to go offline at will or continue using their devices to at least some extent when either servers or their own internet fails is a very real possibility. In many ways we are already there.
Now a world where everyone is very frequently online and making much use of all the advantages being online brings but having the ability to go offline at will or continue using their devices to at least some extent when either servers or their own internet fails is a very real possibility. In many ways we are already there.
Well if the Prophet of unrealized expectations and failure to communicate what features will be in something says it is so, he must have a point, right?
:/
No, Microsoft pretty much had it coming. They gambled that treating the customers like scum would be something that they could get away with, and had to backtrack quickly. They deserved every second of scorn and should not be lauded for backtracking, since they would have gotten away with it were it not for the uproar.
:/
No, Microsoft pretty much had it coming. They gambled that treating the customers like scum would be something that they could get away with, and had to backtrack quickly. They deserved every second of scorn and should not be lauded for backtracking, since they would have gotten away with it were it not for the uproar.
I don't know about the US or other countries but here in New Zealand we are definitely not ready for a 'always online future.'
Thanks to Telecom dragging its heels and refusing to end its monopoly (in the end the govt had to introduce a law ordering it to break up), the city I live in and around fourth biggest in the country is still having streets torn open for fibre installation.
I imagine rural areas will be worse off.
Thanks to Telecom dragging its heels and refusing to end its monopoly (in the end the govt had to introduce a law ordering it to break up), the city I live in and around fourth biggest in the country is still having streets torn open for fibre installation.
I imagine rural areas will be worse off.
[qupte]Whether as consumers we like it or not, just like every form of technology interaction, there's an inevitability of online. 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. [/quote]
I disagree Mr Mol... uh... thing. Not everyone wants to be constantly connected. I, for example, will not buy a piece of technology if it requires an internet connection to function.
I disagree Mr Mol... uh... thing. Not everyone wants to be constantly connected. I, for example, will not buy a piece of technology if it requires an internet connection to function.
Bold and interesting? maybe. The backlash wasn't as much aimed at the console itself as it was on the way MS handled the situation. It's not the always-on requirement that buried them; it was their 'deal with it' attitude. It's was how after they told us 'don't like what we're doing? then suck it' they expected us to do just that. It was Don Mattrick addressing a legitimate concern consumers raised with 'we've got you covered with our 7-year-old system'.
No Peter, we didn't overreact. We didn't attack microsoft without thinking first. We were provoked by their arrogance and their treatment of us, the customers.
No Peter, we didn't overreact. We didn't attack microsoft without thinking first. We were provoked by their arrogance and their treatment of us, the customers.
So... this is coming from a guy that makes massive promises and never fails to delivering them... oh, wait. I mean, "never fails to fail delivering them."
Honestly, I can see consoles as always being on, and I dont see a problem with it... save for one glaring problem, and that is that not everyone has internet access. I have a friend who packs his 360 up and takes it with him to his camp (where there is no internet connection) and plays some games there. Yet with something like the XBone, he wouldnt be able to do that.
Theres nothing wrong with the idea from one perspective, but until there is high speed wireless internet available everywhere in the world (hell, until its available everywhere in the US) a console that reqiures always on will never be a good idea.
Honestly, I can see consoles as always being on, and I dont see a problem with it... save for one glaring problem, and that is that not everyone has internet access. I have a friend who packs his 360 up and takes it with him to his camp (where there is no internet connection) and plays some games there. Yet with something like the XBone, he wouldnt be able to do that.
Theres nothing wrong with the idea from one perspective, but until there is high speed wireless internet available everywhere in the world (hell, until its available everywhere in the US) a console that reqiures always on will never be a good idea.
Ok I don't usually react to these things. I like to think of myself as a person of fairly even temperament, except maybe where "System Shock" is concerned. (Yes, I'm a fanboy. Sue me.) But this is just too much.
I mean, does anybody else find the unconscious arrogance demonstrated in Molyneux's words here as breathtaking as I do? Let's ignore the fact of whether the "always on" system is, or could ever actually be, a good thing for the majority of consumers (most of whom don't have 20Gbps cable broadband). Let's ignore the potential benefits and pitfalls and just focus on how Microsoft was able - or more accurately, unable - to convey the information about their vision to us, their consumers.
Microsoft have FAILED to convince the majority of consumers that there is any benefit whatsoever to an "always-on" experience in a single-player game, let alone one that outweighs the obvious downsides (I won't list them here, I think the other commentators here have done a stellar job there).
They have also FAILED to show any evidence at all that they have any kind of long-term plan to rectify the problems that many, many people have highlighted with their business strategy.
So... now that they've failed on two accounts, both of which would seem essential to their success in a market that's increasingly populated by tech-savvy consumers who will make purchasing decisions based on this kind of information, their only recourse is to claim, essentially, that it's actually the consumers who are "overreacting"?
I mean, the clear inference here is that Microsoft's long-term vision is inevitable, and it's in all of our best interests to just get in line and accept it. I'm not reading too much into that, am I? It seems pretty clear that that's what Molyneux is claiming.
Yeah... you know what happens to companies that try to preach to their customers what they SHOULD buy, instead of looking at what their customers actually want? They end up losing those customers. Lose enough, and the results aren't good for that company.
I mean, does anybody else find the unconscious arrogance demonstrated in Molyneux's words here as breathtaking as I do? Let's ignore the fact of whether the "always on" system is, or could ever actually be, a good thing for the majority of consumers (most of whom don't have 20Gbps cable broadband). Let's ignore the potential benefits and pitfalls and just focus on how Microsoft was able - or more accurately, unable - to convey the information about their vision to us, their consumers.
Microsoft have FAILED to convince the majority of consumers that there is any benefit whatsoever to an "always-on" experience in a single-player game, let alone one that outweighs the obvious downsides (I won't list them here, I think the other commentators here have done a stellar job there).
They have also FAILED to show any evidence at all that they have any kind of long-term plan to rectify the problems that many, many people have highlighted with their business strategy.
So... now that they've failed on two accounts, both of which would seem essential to their success in a market that's increasingly populated by tech-savvy consumers who will make purchasing decisions based on this kind of information, their only recourse is to claim, essentially, that it's actually the consumers who are "overreacting"?
I mean, the clear inference here is that Microsoft's long-term vision is inevitable, and it's in all of our best interests to just get in line and accept it. I'm not reading too much into that, am I? It seems pretty clear that that's what Molyneux is claiming.
Yeah... you know what happens to companies that try to preach to their customers what they SHOULD buy, instead of looking at what their customers actually want? They end up losing those customers. Lose enough, and the results aren't good for that company.
i think this article, amongst many of the ones i've read on the escapist, is still biased towards blowing up the Xbone fiasco as more than its worth. For example, the comment about how at least nobody died was a bit over the top in my opinion, their were many positives to take from this situation, such as a mega company actually listening to its consumers and delivering them what they wanted. Also, i don't think labeling the backlash as unfair is itself unfair. It was unfair. Their was failure on both sides, microsoft failed to sit down and calmly explain the situation, what always online would bring to the table whilst the fans were very hyped up on a band wagon once it formed and failed to jump off it once new information surfaced in order to digest said information. It was unfair on Microsoft and unfair on the fans.
Peter is sport on with this, it is the future. its a future we are not ready for on consoles but a future none the less. Although said games do not require it, i'd wager most PC's that run steam are online when they play games. indeed, always on isn't required but they are always on. Game ownership has vanished from the minds of PC gamers where we are now contracted to games instead of buying them.
It also was an over reaction i feel. yes, microsoft did a terrible job of handling the situation but none the less, the product itself didn't deserve the hate levied at it. The company? yes.
EDIT: yay grammar!
Peter is sport on with this, it is the future. its a future we are not ready for on consoles but a future none the less. Although said games do not require it, i'd wager most PC's that run steam are online when they play games. indeed, always on isn't required but they are always on. Game ownership has vanished from the minds of PC gamers where we are now contracted to games instead of buying them.
It also was an over reaction i feel. yes, microsoft did a terrible job of handling the situation but none the less, the product itself didn't deserve the hate levied at it. The company? yes.
EDIT: yay grammar!