TomWiley said:
Good you like reading them, because you're going to end up with another long one. Joy be the world. xP I've tried making revisions, but the difficulty is that there is only so much I can shave away from the post before it either skips important issues, or simply fails to adequately explain my own countering theory. There's seriously no rush to read and reply, I'm probably going to be busy for a few days anyway, on vacation for another week and want to make the most of it.
---
Yeah, the Pastebin posts didn't really help clear the waters. As for the two benefits you listed, the first one, downloading a digital title on day one, was the thing that Microsoft in particular has been dragging its heels on. Nintendo and Sony have had day one digital titles for major games for quite awhile now, on current-gen systems no less. The fact that Microsoft hasn't implemented it has been entirely its own choice, leaving it the odd man out, But I believe that even in the light of these changes, all three companies will be implementing day one digital next gen.
And while I cannot speak for the 360, or the Xbox One, I do know that the PS3 has cloud save files for PlayStation Plus members that can be accessed from any console, and of course any digital purchases are kept in the cloud automatically, allowing you to re-download earlier digital purchases at any time, from any console, so long as you are logged into your account.
In other words, unless I misread you, you're speaking about two benefits that are already in place on consoles operating under the old regime. The fact that Microsoft is only now catching up to them is more indicative of the fact that, well, Microsoft is kind of slow on the uptake. That being said, again, I might have misunderstood. I'm not much of a PC gamer, I just use the computer to get my fix on RTS titles, So there could be some distinction between the way it is handled on the PC platform and way the consoles are pursuing it.
---
So, the old policies were undertaken to Encourage people to use digital purchases, as opposed to conventional retailers? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was actually intended to discourage purchasing from conventional retailers, and by extension going digital as an alternative? Generally speaking, one encourages a particular method or product by adding benefits to it, making it look better than it used to by comparison. What they did seemed more akin to trying to reduce the desirability of the opposing option, in this case physical media.
The distinction is important because the backlash is specifically about these alterations to physical media, from those who for whatever reason simply prefer it. The day the reasons to get digital outweigh, on a personal basis, the reasons to get physical media, these people will do so. Screwing around with physical media to try and force the issue is just inevitably going to lead to displeasure, especially when the competition is offering an alternate option that is more appealing to this crowd.
If promoting the digital marketplace is really so important to Microsoft, then they should have designed strategies to set it further apart from physical media. I'm talking about benefits that could not be found in GameSpot at conventional retailers, advantages. Even leveling the playing field By adding extra bits of content in the same way publishers do for individual retailers. If nothing else, they certainly should have at least incorporated day one digital titles with the 360, something that to my knowledge still hasn't happened. This vision of theirs seems about as abrupt and unplanned as all of their changes to it, as they have shown no real signs before their announcement of seriously pursuing means to encourage digital distribution, In a way that is above and beyond the efforts of the competition.
As for the idea of cutting out retailers, as I also said, they weren't going to. They even designed their used game system to specifically include these retailers, giving them a place in the universe.
Because if these distributors thought for even a second that they were in genuine danger of being squeezed out, then wouldn't they have used the same clout you have attributed to them? If they can discourage digital price reductions and other policies by threatening not to carry products, what's kept them from taking action against something designed to make their entire business fade away? You don't think they would trust Microsoft not to wipe them out, without some kind of concrete and measurable guarantee? As I said in a previous thread, the difference between 'won't' and 'can't.'
-----------
As for your last point, The wording does make me hesitate, as I find that anti-consumer is a strong term. That being said, I don't believe that Microsoft considered catering to the customer nearly as important as catering to its fellow companies, advertisers and game publishers alike, Something that was reflected in its policies.
While it goes without saying that any company is in this to make profit, there are still different ways that a company can go about it. They might seek to expand their audience, or cement their loyalty, by making their platform more appealing with the addition of features and benefits. The PS plus service, or Microsoft's intention to make their console a media box are examples, As even though they are undertaken for the base purpose of benefiting the company in the long run, they do this by catering directly to the customer first with bright, shiny things.
On the flip side, a company might seek to increase their profit off each individual customer, squeeze them as it were; the addition of advertisements to the dashboard is an excellent example, as it provides very little benefit to the consumer but provides immediate monetary benefit to the company. (It should be noted, the addition of particularly intensive ads to Microsoft's Xbox 360 dashboard didn't occur until a few years after its release, when its US dominance was secure.) While you might come across an ad here or there that actually interests you, therefore granting it some level of use in your life, it wasn't added to make the platform more appealing to consumers, just more profitable, or more appealing to other companies.
Which brings us to the original check-in/used game policies. Microsoft has already stated it wouldn't be taking a direct monetary cut from used game sales, but it was never about the money, it was about making Its box more appealing to the publishers, in comparison to the competition. Even if Sony maintained the same overall sales parity it has this generation, Xbox One games would (in theory) have brought in more revenue. The platform therefore would have been more appealing for extra content, perhaps even exclusive titles, which Microsoft could have used to further widen gap, because naturally it would have been in the interest of these publishers to support platform where they could maximize their income. In a perfect world where the consumers hadn't backlashed so strongly, publishers would have added their own surcharge to used game sales, and naturally that price would have been passed directly onto the customer so the retailers wouldn't have their own margins gobbled up. This in and of itself was not a feature, and certainly wasn't intended to benefit the consumer, In much the same way that Microsoft's old indie game publishing practices weren't intended as an indie developer, or consumer, benefit so much as a publisher and Microsoft benefit.
But when they decided to implement that used game system, they had to find a way to sell it as a benefit to the consumer as well. They eventually came up with family share, (which frankly is a discussion of economics and marketing all its own.) However, the introduction of such a system would have had complications of its own, just in terms of preventing outright piracy, And so to strike a balance, the mandatory Internet check-in was added.
In my view, the Xbox One's old policies and feature set was essentially a tower built upon the foundation of increasing the base profitability for larger publishers from used game sales, Not one of making a platform that the bulk consumer base would be enticed to participate in. Their reason for pursuing it might be the same pride that tripped up Sony with the PS3's launch, a belief that the fanbase from their 360 platform would automatically translate to an equal or greater audience base with their newest venture. "We've got the US market in the bag, now how do we get the most out of them?"
It would certainly explain how they were so utterly incapable of dealing with it. It was like they were legitimately surprised by the extent of the backlash.
The same could be said for digital distribution; As you said, it's going to happen sooner or later anyway, but Of all the measures Microsoft could have taken to encourage it, and I repeat, Sony's PS+ Subscription is actually an excellent way to promote the digital marketplace, Microsoft selected the least enticing, and certainly most volatile manner possible to achieve this. What their strategy was however, was the most cost-effective, assuming of course it had worked to begin with. And I can't imagine they would suddenly drop this frugal nature after their success and shave down their profit margins even though their digital consumer base swelled in numbers.
Because meanwhile, the conventional retailers would continue to survive perhaps bringing in fewer people, but likely raising bargain bin game prices to compensate. And while they continued to exist, they would continue to serve as a reason that Microsoft can't lower digital prices.
-----
The basis I use for this hypothesis is the very same PR that has been so enthusiastically bashed.
While the benefits to the production side of the industry were pretty self-evident, when it came time for them to explain the benefits to the customer, there was stammering, contradiction on details, vague detail when made at all, a pointed avoidance of a no-holds-barred interview, and all whole lot of 'Future of Gaming!' talk that sounded like little more than a smokescreen. When Microsoft actually flat out canceled their interviews and roundtable discussions directly in the wake of the E3 conferences, it suggested supreme lack of confidence in their ability to deal with the hard questions, to essentially justify the decisions they had made in a way other than '...more monies for us?'.
In other words, their terrible communication shouldn't just be criticized for its own sake. It should lead one to ask whether they really had that much solidly worked out TO communicate.
For example, (dead horse, But in this case it really is one of the best examples, bear with me,) since they were giving publishers a considerable amount of control, when it came to whether or not they wish to add fees to used game sales. Would major publishers have the option to opt their games out of family share? Would new releases become shareable on day one, or is there a period of inability intended to at least make sales off the really impatient people? If not, what about indie games? What about multiplayer modes? What about DLC? If I can add or remove people from my family share list, is there any limitation as to how often? Do they need to be on my friend list for a certain period, like it is with gifting game licenses? There were numerous blank spots, areas that could have been misleading because they were left unspecified, areas that are pretty important not just for the consumer, but in terms of the development of game content on the platform. Microsoft had opportunities to sit down and hammer everything out, but not only did they not, but they seemed to be avoiding that opportunity at times.
Were we not able to ask these questions because they felt somehow like they weren't obligated to answer them, or were they still trying to figure out the answers?
