Xbox One Backlash Was "Unfair," Molyneux Says

[shirkbot]

The thing was, you HAD to have an online check-in or your games stop working. Nobody is worried about a future where we have the ability to be online 24/7. but I think you'll find very few people willing to fight for a future where you must be connected "or else." And this says nothing of the fact that the entire plan reeked of corporate skulduggery.

 

[faefrost]

Xbox One Backlash Was "Unfair," Molyneux Says





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 -

No he really doesn't. This is a common Microsoft Marketing spin. I think they learned it from the Obama administration. The "We just failed with the messaging" Bullsh@t. It isn't nor has it ever been that Microsoft FAILED TO EXPLAIN to customers what the benefits of being online are. Customers fully know and understand what the potential benefits from being online are. They play online games every single day. They watch Netflix and do voice chat. They understand the concept. What Microsoft failed to do is provide any actual benefit to customers that would in turn make up for the loss of ownership to their new model. Steam succeeded because there was a clear choice to migrate to it. Doing so provided a benefit to the customer as well as the provider. But the XBox One's actual benefits were rather clearly solely Microsofts. Consumers are not stupid. But Mr. Molynieux's claims, like those of his Microsoft masters pretty clearly show that they generally assume that we are.

 

[Neverhoodian]

You know what I think is unfair? Trying to force a draconian "always online" policy on a public that never asked for such a thing and an infrastructure that can't reliably support it.

Also, Microsoft is a big boy. It doesn't need apologists like you to defend it.

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."

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

Sorry Molyneux, but I'm not buying your "join or die" stance.

 

[SeventhSigil]

You know what I think is unfair? Trying to force a draconian "always online" policy on a public that never asked for such a thing and an infrastructure that can't reliably support it.

Also, Microsoft is a big boy. It doesn't need apologists like you to defend it.

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."

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

Sorry Molyneux, but I'm not buying your "join or die" stance.

.....oh my God, the Cube even has a black and green color scheme! It all makes sense now! :O

 

[Neverhoodian]

.....oh my God, the Cube even has a black and green color scheme! It all makes sense now! :O

Heh, I didn't even notice that. Good catch.

 

[SilverBullets000]

No is wasn't....and no, game designers, constantly telling us we over reacted to something that was threatening to neuter the used games market, spy on us, limit our ways of sharing the game, and keep us on the internet whether we wanted to be or not is not helping with your image.

Captcha: Smelly Socks. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Griffolion]

No, the backlash was completely warranted. We talk a lot about the games industry being too short sighted, but there's such a thing as being far too long sighted, too. Microsoft were too long sighted in their original XB1 product offering that they completely failed to see the situation the world at large is in right now. Namely, internet connections are nowhere near robust enough to accommodate Microsoft's vision. They may not even be robust enough in 7 years time when they're announcing the console to succeed the One. And this is before we even begin to touch the surface of consumer rights issues that, rightfully, brought the original offering to its knees.

Whether done out of ignorance, or arrogance, Microsoft were not allowed to get away with a product offering that severely compromised the power balance of the consumer in relation to the corporation. We railed against that. Calling that "unfair" is a bit like saying it's unfair for one country to defend itself against an invading one.

It's sad to see Peter get something this wrong.

 

[PBMcNair]

i think this article, amongst many of the ones i've read on the escapist, is still bias towards blowing up the Xbone fiasco as more than its worth.

Firstly, small grammar issue. You're not the first person I've seen do it, you're just the first I've replied to.
It's biased. Someone is biased towards something. You exhibit bias but are biased.

Secondly, I'm not really seeing how the gaming community failed here.
Going to borrow Hero in a half shell's points he makes the points I'd like to make:

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'.

Basically, a lot of the community tried. They asked questions, talked to executives, listen for the newest rumours then came to sites like this to discuss them. When they heard bad rumours of always online or ideas to cut out used games they went to execs and asked if they were true. And in return they got silence, we'll explain later or "deal with it".

And when the unveiling happened, what did the community get ? Features that weren't useful for games, if they even work in your country, daily online checks and a mandatory camera that seemed to always be watching. And when they questioned these things ? Either that it would be explained later or that the feature was here to stay. Microsoft only changed policies after the surge in PS4 orders and all the backlash.

Some people do keep up the hate/pressure. Some do it because they're on Team Playstation, some because they hate Microsoft. Some people just love to ride the hate train. When I speak against the Xbone/Microsoft, it's because I remember what they were willing to do and how vehemently they were sticking to their guns until they saw we weren't buying it. The infamous 180 was a business move, and that wins no points with me. It just stops you losing more.

Reversing a decision doesn't magically fix your rep.


TL;DR : Community tried, Microsoft didn't. Backlash justified.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Eh, I kind of agree with him - to a point. At least on the Xbox One as a whole

While I was (and still am) strongly against the idea of an always-online console, the amount of bile they have received at every move they have made since - including the removing of the aforementioned always-online! - is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Vaccine]

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.

Won't be a matter of choice.
Rejected completely when the issue was pushed.

Yeah, not happening Moly.

 

[Korsgaard]

Somehow, I wouldn't consider the guy who hasn't made a decent game since the original Fable a glowing endorsement.

They can try and do damage control all they want, but the Xbox One was, and for the most part still is, a needlessly restrictive, poorly planned and designed and openly user-hostile not worth the time of day, let alone $600.

 

[Geekeric]

I wonder if Mr. Molyneux can make any excuses about why Windows 8 sucks so badly? Oh, sorry, I was being "unfair". People aren't buying that, either.

 

[JarinArenos]

Because we still care about what Peter says about anything... why? No, seriously, what has he done to make him at all relevant to the industry? His outdated ideas and just plain bad ideas abound, without a creative concept in sight.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Relax everyone. It's just Peter Molyneux being a corporate tool once again. He can suck a fat dick as far as I'm concerned.

 

[faefrost]

No, the backlash was completely warranted. We talk a lot about the games industry being too short sighted, but there's such a thing as being far too long sighted, too. Microsoft were too long sighted in their original XB1 product offering that they completely failed to see the situation the world at large is in right now. Namely, internet connections are nowhere near robust enough to accommodate Microsoft's vision. They may not even be robust enough in 7 years time when they're announcing the console to succeed the One. And this is before we even begin to touch the surface of consumer rights issues that, rightfully, brought the original offering to its knees.

Whether done out of ignorance, or arrogance, Microsoft were not allowed to get away with a product offering that severely compromised the power balance of the consumer in relation to the corporation. We railed against that. Calling that "unfair" is a bit like saying it's unfair for one country to defend itself against an invading one.

It's sad to see Peter get something this wrong.

The thing is, most of the backlash wasn't really concerning the Internet. And a better INternet infrastructure would not have prevented it. Most of the backlash was more over a complete and total disregard for consumer agency. Stripping both choice and value away from the customers and reserving it for the corporation. That was the big underlying no no. And honestly it will be a long long time before Microsoft fully regains that trust. Anyone who has encountered licensing issues regarding a new computer running Windows 8 will understand that this removal of agency was not a fluke of the XBox line, or something unintended. It is Microsoft's current corporate philosophy. Considering that the company was founded in large part in order to provide agency to customers, and became one of the worlds largest most valuable companies by doing so, this recent change in approach is a sign of deep deep trouble overall. Not simply involving a game console.

 

[Caiphus]

http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/08/e3-molyneux-on-fable-the-journey-%E2%80%9Cits-not-on-rails%E2%80%9D/

http://www.destructoid.com/review-fable-the-journey-236153.phtml

First of all, you get told that Fable: The Journey is not "on-rails."

It's on-rails.

How about no, ok Peter?

Besides, it's not as though Molyneux doesn't have a financial interest in Microsoft.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

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.

Spoiler

Couldn't have said it better myself. I shouldn't need "permission" from anyone to use my software or data and I hate it when people try to defend "its da future". Electricity became well established some time ago, but I don't need a battery or an outlet to read a paperback book. Because that's what always online is

 

[Atmos Duality]

"It's quite an unfair thought that Microsoft are trying to control our gaming, they're trying to force us to be online all the time," he said. "[People] didn't really think that through."

Oh bull-fucking-shit.

It's been their dream to wrest total control of their product and shape the behavior of their customers.
And if not Microsoft, then companies like Activision-Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft. All of whom who have been trying to force Always Online on the market.

Any why? Control. Control that goes WAY BEYOND fighting Piracy.
Why offer better when you don't have to?

If you make Always Online a standard, the user loses any and all say in the matter.
In the US, gamers already has NO refunds, NO legal recourse (no class action; good luck affording a lawyer and legal fees on your own, asshole!), and now you're asking us to trust them with providing a service that they aren't even legally obligated to provide?
[sub](thanks to some fantastic legal precedence that lets them waive liability; read your EULAs kids, it's in every one of them, now)[/sub]

Do you think I'm that fucking stupid, Peter? Do you think we're all so stupid as to not see how that can backfire?

In reality, the only recourse gamers have is generating bad press, and walking away from doing business with them entirely. And that is EXACTLY what they did when Microsoft showed them the raw deal that was the original Xbone.

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.

"Just accept this because...it's inevitable."
Yes, it's inevitable. Just as the Nuclear Holocaust was inevitable during the Cold War.

This is less "inevitable" and more "I'm trying to convince you into buying into something you have absolutely no logical reason to buy into."

"A mobile device is more and more non functional without a connection to the internet, and why should that be any different for consoles?"

Oh, I dunno...BECAUSE THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF ANY 'MOBILE DEVICE' IS COMMUNICATION, WHILE A GAME CONSOLE IS PLAYING FUCKING VIDEO GAMES.

Last I checked, consoles were more than just txt-ese web browsers with touchscreens.
So the real question is: Why on earth *should* we hold them to those standards?

You've got to give consumers the real benefit of why being online is a great thing for them. Why it's great for gaming, why it's great for their pockets and why it's great for the experiences they're having.

"If you have an online experience where millions of people interact together, something unique happens," he said. "And we don't use that enough in gaming."

I play games with my friends; sometimes I make friends online, but most often I play one game with them and then never hear or think about them ever again. It isn't "unique" anymore, it's routine. This ain't 1998 anymore, where the concept of playing with people across the country, let alone the globe, was radical.

But even if I were to buy into that wishy-washy "Online Experience" bullshit, it still cannot change the fact that offering the consumer a choice is ALWAYS going to be better than forcing the matter. Always Online, for the vast majority of game archetypes is a STRICT DOWNGRADE.

I can only conclude that Molyneux apparently thinks 'Online' is this magic fairy dust that makes EVERYTHING better, somehow. Online interaction? Oh goody! I could communicate and play with random nobodies before, but it's so much better now that I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE IN THE MATTER!

It's magic!
*waves a magic wand, shedding dazzling sparkles that form into a suspended 'ONLINE'*


At best the game is 100% multiplayer centric and it essentially changes nothing; at worst, you're adding a completely unnecessary point of failure that adds nothing to the game. Given how most games aren't 100% multiplayer centric, I'm hoping you can see the problem here.