Xbox One Exec Acknowledges Failure to Communicate
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oops. Used the wrong term. Spell check doesn't catch that kind of thing (and it totally should).KeyMaster45 said:
Anyway, that's another point. Add in the OS, Kinect's programming, game saves, browser, Skype, TV related things, and whatever Apps you have on it, and how much of that 500 Gigabyte will be left? Even assuming it could hold ten games, how many people have more than ten games?
Sure, you could delete them off the hard-drive after the fact, but then, if you ever wanna play them again, you have to download them all over. You know what's great about all my old systems? I can plug them in, pop in a game, and play. Something that is lost in Xbox One.
Yes, you were very bad at communicating, but the best you could have done is polish the turd better.
There was nothing good forconsumers about 24 hour forced checkin (and eventual total system death when servers are shut down) or adding no-use DRM to disk based games.
There was nothing good forconsumers about 24 hour forced checkin (and eventual total system death when servers are shut down) or adding no-use DRM to disk based games.
I think it's worth pointing out that two of the most popular "signatures" on this "surprisingly popular" petition include such lines as:
Are there people who were genuinely interested in some of Microsoft's digital features? Yes, absolutely.
Are they anything like a majority, or even a significant minority...? No, and probably not. And even of the ones who liked some of those features, there seems to be an awful lot of picking and choosing from the earlier policies. "Oh, it's great it's no longer region locked, but I want to be able to share games digitally!... I'm glad I'll be able to trade in physical games again, but I want always-on networking for cloud computing options!" And so on. If you're looking for people who whole-heartedly supported everything Microsoft was bringing to bear, you're going to be looking at a sub-group of a sub-group of a fringe.
Admittedly, I'm biased. I'm still not 100% sold on the "inevitability" of this all-digital marketplace- and I'm sure as hell not interested in the version Microsoft wants to own.
and
...
Are there people who were genuinely interested in some of Microsoft's digital features? Yes, absolutely.
Are they anything like a majority, or even a significant minority...? No, and probably not. And even of the ones who liked some of those features, there seems to be an awful lot of picking and choosing from the earlier policies. "Oh, it's great it's no longer region locked, but I want to be able to share games digitally!... I'm glad I'll be able to trade in physical games again, but I want always-on networking for cloud computing options!" And so on. If you're looking for people who whole-heartedly supported everything Microsoft was bringing to bear, you're going to be looking at a sub-group of a sub-group of a fringe.
Admittedly, I'm biased. I'm still not 100% sold on the "inevitability" of this all-digital marketplace- and I'm sure as hell not interested in the version Microsoft wants to own.
So they pulled a Ultimo Dragon?tippy2k2 said:
Okay, that's unfair to Ultimo. All he did was trip on his cape.
Microsoft... want to communicate to me why you think it's acceptable to have your system be $100 more expensive because of a negative-value device that I'm not sure I can actual set up anywhere where I have my console?
Want to communicate why no two people in your PR structure have the same answer to some basic questions?
Want to communicate why you tried to kill my method for choosing what games I buy (rentals as demos)?
Want to communicate why no two people in your PR structure have the same answer to some basic questions?
Want to communicate why you tried to kill my method for choosing what games I buy (rentals as demos)?
ObsidianJones said:
I said it. I freaking called it the second I read how so many people thought it would be for the lulz to troll and sign this thing. And you guys did it anyway, and now they are rethinking things.
Great. Keep doing what you're all doing. It was so funny in the moment and you gave stupid people more fuel for the fire. Lovely.
I'm assuming the number is based on the usual "1 GB=1000 MB" system used for advertising, so I'm assuming formatting will bring it down quite a bit in itself. Saves and apps like Skype and Netflix tend to be small, but you're already looking at a sizable chunk off for the marketing. TV functionality will probably eat up a fair share if you use it.Saltyk said:
To the question of "who has more than ten games?" The average software attach rated a year or two into the Xbox 360's life was 7 games. Now, even assuming that was ignoring multiple console purchases for dead consoles (RROD was common and before the extended warranty led to quite a few new systems), you'd think Microsoft would hope for a repeat (or better). And that's two years into the life cycle.
Assuming a system space no larger than the current one, and games near ot at 50 GB in size, that's still only 9 games and change available. For a system that's supposed to be TEH FYEWCHUR! That's not very future proof.
Now, I suppose there's an issue of whether or not that's fair. After all, I suppose the question is "how many people play ten concurrent games?"
On the one hand, there's the fact you already pointed out: if you want to play a game again, you have to reinstall. Plus, you have to delete and install new games, period. And honestly, if I'm going to have to download and install games, I'd rather do it for my new, shiny PC. Well, new and shiny in the sense I upgraded most of it. On the other, more and more people seem to be treating games as disposable. If you only play play a game, and effectively chuck it, does it matter? Probably not.
But then, I don't know the ratio of disposable games to keepers, so....
I'll just copy paste here what I said in the facebook comments of this article.
"I believe we've added on choice for people; we realized people wanted some choice; it's about adding that choice (between offline and online modes)."
I'm sorry, forgive me for being so blunt here, but why the fuck was it so difficult for a billion dollar company to realize their consumers would want choice! Microsoft basically won the last generation with the 360, or at least they won it against Sony for the longest time /by having a console that was actively online and offline all at the consumer's whim just because that fucking makes sense/. Everything worked. Everything was fine. It might have cost a bit much, but damn, almost everything out there that's worth money costs a little too much (mainly just due to universal greed, but I digress).
Honestly, all of this crap worked. It worked fine, it worked well enough and the only thing that really didn't do all that well for MS was the Kinect... so... they decide to do the opposite of what they were doing, focus solely on trying to make the Kinect awesome all while adding DRM that of course people didn't want. Then they backtrack, fix their "mistakes", and then they basically flat out state, "Oh, darn, consumers want choice? However could we have guessed that?" Honestly, something's not right about this whole scenario. It's just too fucking stupid.
"I believe we've added on choice for people; we realized people wanted some choice; it's about adding that choice (between offline and online modes)."
I'm sorry, forgive me for being so blunt here, but why the fuck was it so difficult for a billion dollar company to realize their consumers would want choice! Microsoft basically won the last generation with the 360, or at least they won it against Sony for the longest time /by having a console that was actively online and offline all at the consumer's whim just because that fucking makes sense/. Everything worked. Everything was fine. It might have cost a bit much, but damn, almost everything out there that's worth money costs a little too much (mainly just due to universal greed, but I digress).
Honestly, all of this crap worked. It worked fine, it worked well enough and the only thing that really didn't do all that well for MS was the Kinect... so... they decide to do the opposite of what they were doing, focus solely on trying to make the Kinect awesome all while adding DRM that of course people didn't want. Then they backtrack, fix their "mistakes", and then they basically flat out state, "Oh, darn, consumers want choice? However could we have guessed that?" Honestly, something's not right about this whole scenario. It's just too fucking stupid.
not that its an exact science, but im using about 500 GB in space for my pc games and i have 52 installed.Saltyk said:
OS installed on a seperate SSD. so it'd depend how much of that 500GB MS are offering would be for downloads etc and how much is firmware dedicated. either way, hope it gives you a bench mark
Yes, it certainly was a failure to communicate what your console can and can't do. For instance, I bet if you had explained how the "Family Sharing Program" was actually just your term for letting the consumers be the source for glorified demos in which the person "borrowing" the game only gets to play for a short while before being prompted to "buy" and download the full product - effectively using the consumers as a source for free advertisement to others - then many more people would be against it.
PS: You are right about one thing, consumers always value having a choice in the matter......kinda like how they'd like to have the CHOICE of having a Kinect attached to their console or not.
PS: You are right about one thing, consumers always value having a choice in the matter......kinda like how they'd like to have the CHOICE of having a Kinect attached to their console or not.
From what I've read on the net (even here on Escapist) , this whole shitstorm regarding Xbox One "DRM" were based on very skewed, if not outright false, perception of what those restrictions actually would work.
I could probably find like half a dozen examples in this thread alone.
Is this due to Microsoft not doing a good enough job communicating with their consumers? Not mainly. Look at the whole Kinect thing, something most people on the net still seems to think will spy on you all the time when it fact you'll be "in complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears", which is written on Microsoft's bloody website and has been for weeks.
What does all this tell us? Well people are too busy reading stupid, populist headlines on video game websites and Reddit comments to actually go on to Microsoft's official website and read for themselves. Which, if it's true, means that the "consumers' supposed "victory" of the Xbox DRM is just another case of a bunch of people on the Internet ranting about things they don't know.
For shame
I could probably find like half a dozen examples in this thread alone.
Is this due to Microsoft not doing a good enough job communicating with their consumers? Not mainly. Look at the whole Kinect thing, something most people on the net still seems to think will spy on you all the time when it fact you'll be "in complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears", which is written on Microsoft's bloody website and has been for weeks.
What does all this tell us? Well people are too busy reading stupid, populist headlines on video game websites and Reddit comments to actually go on to Microsoft's official website and read for themselves. Which, if it's true, means that the "consumers' supposed "victory" of the Xbox DRM is just another case of a bunch of people on the Internet ranting about things they don't know.
For shame
Where did you read that? It seems to go completely against what Microsoft's own very engineers had said and promised about the system they coded. You can your game library on second party consoles, share games with up to ten people globally and digitally, and give games away completely if you want to. How is that anything like sharing "glorified demos"? If anything, it's a sharing system about ten times lest restrictive than that of Steam, which most people seem to be fine with.RJ 17 said:
I actually read it in an article right here on The Escapist. A "Hearbroken MS Employee" (edited to correct that he wasn't an exec) specifically said in a direct quote that the sharing program would let the people borrowing the game play it for 45 minutes to an hour, or some other brief time period, and then be prompted to purchase the full game themselves. Forgive me for being too lazy to dig through the archives to find the exact article as unfortunately I have absolutely no recollection as to what the headline of the article was, but here's a link to a forum topic which in turn has a link to the direct source of the information that the Escapist article was based off of:TomWiley said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.819460-Poll-Heartbroken-Microsoft-Employee-Explains-How-Family-Sharing-Would-Have-Worked
Thanks. I'm actually familiar with that source.RJ 17 said:
It should be mentioned that this information is based on a comment posted by a guy online who claims to work for Microsoft, but neither Microsoft nor any official source outside the company has confirmed that this guy is actually an engineer from Microsoft.
Either way, one can assume that sharing a game with up to ten people; anyone, anywhere, was never gonna be the full game for all foreseeable future. That system would be absolutely disastrous. The notion that you'd be able to buy a game and then just give the full game to ten friends is retarded, and I doubt (and hope) that nobody actually thought that this is how it would work. At least I assumed there was some kind of time-limit as to how long you can play before you have to pay for the thing. Sounds reasonable to me if you compare it to, let's say Steam, which doesn't offer any sharing to begin with and people seem fine with that.
However, the idea of the sharing being a "demo", like a limited, special-version of the full game, sound's insanely stupid if it was true, as the OP in the thread you link seem to suggest. But nothing in the link seem to suggest that's the case, and if it was still gonna be the full game and comparing it to a demo is, at least in my opinion, misleading.
A demo lets you get a glimpse of the game before it's out to encourage you to buy it when it comes out. If the game is already out, it gives you a glimpse of the game then says "buy this". I don't see how it's misleading to call what that link describes a "glorified demo" since...that's really what it would do: let you play the game for a bit then say "buy this".TomWiley said:
Beyond that, you said yourself that it would be a disastrous business plan to let people share the full game with one another with no drawbacks, sooooo even if that wasn't a real MS employee describing how the system would work that....kinda implies that that's exactly how it would work: allow the "borrower" to play the game for a while before asking them if they'd like to buy the full version.
The reason Steam doesn't offer any sharing at all is because it really would be nothing but a glorified demo. Why bother letting people share a game that can only be played for a short time period before they're asked to buy the full game when there's already demos of games that do the exact same thing?
So really, even by your own admission, regardless of if that post from a "heartbroken MS employee" was a hoax or not, that's really the only way the system COULD work. It's all a smoke-screen either way you look at it. At worst it's an attempt to get free advertising off the consumers, while at best it's just a complete wash: nothing is lost or gained for the consumer at all.