Support NeoGAF

[avaya]

Anyone thinking that the messaging is what lead to them reversing hard is batshit delusional.

The hardcore can see straight through the always-online marketing speak for exactly what it is. DRM.

Microsoft attempted so heinously anti-consumer that no matter what they did they would have been ass-reamed for it. The fact they even thought they could sell this after the debacle that was Sim City further cements the point that they live in an echo-chamber over there.

The article is complete garbage. DRM, Kinect, shitty specs. These are not things the base wanted. They couldn't have tried to antagonise their core gamer base any better. The blowback is well deserved as it was for Sony in 2006.

 

[BlackGoku03]

They were applying digital sales restrictions to physical media. STEAM has no physical media. It's not like STEAM at all. Why do these people not see that?

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

People also forget that while Steam games are locked to your account, old games dont stop working because you upgrade your computer. The Xbone +1 ain't gonna play Xbone games.

But your XBL subscription covers over the spectrum, so it still allows you to play your 360 games on your 360 and XBO games on your XBO for the single subscription.

That's the last I heard of it, anyhow. Who knows if they've changed things.

 

[PG2G]

They were applying digital sales restrictions to physical media. STEAM has no physical media. It's not like STEAM at all. Why do these people not see that?

Not sure that is a big enough difference to say it isn't like Steam. The physical media was just an alternative delivery mechanism for what was basically a digital purchase.

 

[Jomjom]

What are:

Wal-Mart
Best Buy
Gamestop
Amazon
Target
Sam's Club

Are they not competition? Do they not compete with one another, including XBL?

They are not competition because they have to sell new games at $59.99 for the most part because of nearly non-existent profit margins on non-LE games. Microsoft could not go and release every game on their digital service day 1 for a discount like pretty much every single game on Steam does because brick and mortar retailers would simply stop carrying Xbox games. The Xbox One would die if all retailers stop selling their games.

If Microsoft was really serious about "being Steam", they would have to take the risk of making their console fully online, where every game needed to be purchased online, where the only retail presence was the console itself, accessories, and points cards. Buuuuuut of course they didn't want to give up their sweet, sweet physical retail presence.

 

[Version 3.0]

All of those stores listed have tons and tons of deals and sales for video games, regularly, so that proves you wrong.

Wal-mart never, ever has sales on remotely new games. Ever. Gamestop rarely does. Other outlets use them - as was mentioned - as loss leaders.

 

[Vodh]

Not sure that is a big enough difference to say it isn't like Steam. The physical media was just an alternative delivery mechanism for what was basically a digital purchase.

WIthout those restrictions, i.e. as it is right now, it's already more like Steam than it was with the ridiculous DRM and check-ins.

 

[Jomjom]

Wal-mart never, ever has sales on remotely new games. Ever. Gamestop rarely does. Other outlets use them - as was mentioned - as loss leaders.

To add to that, when old games finally do go on sale at retail, it's to clear out space for new games as well as to act as loss leaders.

 

[PG2G]

WIthout those restrictions, i.e. as it is right now, it's already more like Steam than it was with the ridiculous DRM and check-ins.

I'll agree with this, primarily because the implementation of off line mode is the only place where it really differed from Steam and now that is gone.

 

[GrizzledGrump]

uh, no. They were pretty clear about their DRM. It was very clear message.

There were very unclear about "family" plan and everything else that started "leaking" after their DRM strategy was rejected by gaming population.

You can spin it all you want, all day and night.

I'm not spinning anything. You're the one jumping to conclusions to fit your narrative.

I'm just stating what was obvious. The fact that they didn't have a consistent script when it came to their policies shows that it was still fluid and under development.

This happens when a company is forced to talk about something before they're ready to. Look at their indie policy. They weren't going to talk about it until Gamescon but then it leaked and they were forced to comment on it before they had all of the details.

No company crafts policy decisions by putting everyone in a room for 4 hours and coming to a consensus and leaving it at that. Policies are fluid, evolving, debated on and tweaked until they're ready to be implemented. MS problem is that the policy debates end up outside of their four walls and they have to react to it before it spirals out of control.

The difference between the Indie leak and the DRM leak is that for the former MS actually announced a product and could directly comment on it.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It did? Just because a NYT Tech blogger mentions it in an article it's still aimed at the enthusiast market.

It did reach the mainstream. Prime time TV from THE DAY BEFORE THE POLICY CHANGE WAS ANNOUNCED.

The biggest problem Microsoft made is they didn't spend enough time convincing gamers why digital was better.
They shouldn't have spent 1/4th of their conference talking about COD, they shouldn't have talked about Halo TV.
They should have been spending that time talking about the benefits of digital.

Such as...?

 

[GoofsterStud]

When you compare yourself to steam on a closed platform...

You already lost the intelligent consumer's faith.

 

[Jomjom]

Not sure that is a big enough difference to say it isn't like Steam. The physical media was just an alternative delivery mechanism for what was basically a digital purchase.

There's a big difference. While the disc was basically going to be a delivery mechanism for a digital purchase as you've stated. The physical product itself still meant significant costs to the publisher and retailers in the form of disc printing, cases, instruction manuals (or the 1 sheet of paper we call instruction manuals now), shipping, stocking, inventory storage, retail space, etc.

All of those costs make it impossible for it to be like Steam, because digital games on Steam have none of those costs.

Sure if MS wanted to say, "With the Xbox One we are going fully digital!" I would believe that they truly wanted to be Steam. But that's not the case, they wanted their cake and to eat it too. You can't insist on having retailers sell your discs and still pretend you want to be Steam. That's just a flat out lie.

 

[soul creator]

I'll agree with this, primarily because the implementation of off line mode is the only place where it really differed from Steam and now that is gone.

likely the only reason for the 24hr check was because they tried to preserve (limited) resales of disc games, which is a point over Steam (Steamworks games on a disc are useless after installation)

I think the tradeoff in that case was limited trade-ins with 24hr check, or no trade-ins at all with no 24 hr check. Of course, trying to appease that audience basically meant no one was happy, haha.

Sure if MS wanted to say, "With the Xbox One we are going fully digital!" I would believe that they truly wanted to be Steam. But that's not the case, they wanted their cake and to eat it too. You can't insist on having retailers sell your discs and still pretend you want to be Steam. That's just a flat out lie.

There are still Steam-only games that come on a physical disc. Granted, the amount is dwindling as time progresses, but it still exists.

 

[megaspiderweb]

Who is this guy?, i doubt he understands the industry enough to be making media comments cause not only is he wrong, he sounds all over the place. The Xbox One was not like Steam, also digital gaming is not the reason people were upset, it had to do with the policies of always online and all that draconian BS Microsoft was trying to pull, also whats with all this Microsoft pandering, cause last time i checked Microsoft didnt change their policies cause of consumers feedback, it was because the PS4 pre orders were giving them a boardroom headache, also whats with these Microsoft apologist acting like digital gaming does not exist now, have they not heard of PS+ cause for some reason some people seem to be beating this stick saying microsoft were pioneering the future, as if it doesnt exist today.
Seriously some people need to research the issue before openning their mouths and spilling total BS

 

[madmackem]

Ms have no one to blame but themselves, you cant make a complete mess of explaining your product and then moan when people dont like/dont understand your policy. I dont think ive seen a consumer product explained or shown so badly ever. Complete mess and people cant call out consumers for not just going along with and accepting something given how badly it was explained.

 

[mckmas8808]

Nah. Microsoft's biggest problem was having a competitor that was ready and willing to take full advantage of MS's underhanded, greedy, draconian, bullshit.

You want us to move into a digital only future, fine. But give us INCENTIVE to do so. Don't just try and force it down our throats and expect us to just swallow that pill. Fact of the matter is, MS couldn't provide that incentive at the moment and they knew it, so they went with the old tactic of "You'll have it and you'll damn well like it!" too bad that shit blew up in their faces thanks to Sony giving gamers an alternative.

There isn't an incentive big enough.

 

[Jomjom]

There are still Steam-only games that come on a physical disc. Granted, the amount is dwindling as time progresses, but it still exists.

I agree with you, but there's also a reason why those games are also the ones that are the slowest to get massively discounted on Steam. Also a reason why those games are not stocked by many retail stores.

 

[GQman2121]

Professor Schell is really failing to realize a whole lot of what actually happened and why they made changes.

I know people are busy, but you should refrain from comments if you're going to take the lazy route.

 

[BlackGoku03]

Not sure that is a big enough difference to say it isn't like Steam. The physical media was just an alternative delivery mechanism for what was basically a digital purchase.

Steam has no physical media (barely). Xbox One does. Microsoft tried to apply rules and limitations that normally accompany digital retail services like Steam but it's a console. That's a huge difference not to mention the low prices and sales. It's completely anti consumer.

 

[Yazuka]

Time will tell if they made the right decision. I think they did great in starting to listening to what people want. If it was right or not, we'll see.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

Thats right! Don't listen to the people who will be buying your product.

What a smart thing to do!

Sheeesh! Where do they get these morons? I cannot believe these obtuse idiots are given positions of distinguishment and influence in the industry.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I actually agree. I think they made a mistake, and the Xbox One isn't nearly as exciting a console now as a result of Microsoft overreacting to customer feedback. I still believe even now that had they stuck to their guns, and released the Xbox One exactly as they originally intended to, It would most certainly have found a successful market. It doesn't need to outsell the PS4 to be a success. The Xbox One would have been fine and a success exactly as it use to be.

So many of the features of the console aren't nearly as exciting now as a result. Everytime I think about the Xbox One, I hate the fact that we now need to have the game discs in there in order to start games. Switching between games isn't nearly as convenient now, because you need the discs. It's not enough to tell people to just buy everything digital. That isn't enough. I liked the convenience of buying physical discs that then became full digital property that I owned. I liked letting people borrow and play my games without having to give them my physical discs. I liked my games traveling with me over the cloud without needing any of the physical discs for anything other a faster install. I wanted a more online focused gaming system. I liked the thought of a digital platform with the features that the Xbox One had. I wasn't all that bothered by the internet requirement. The internet has consistently been a part of my everyday life every single day since I was in the 8th grade. The Xbox One requiring an internet connection didn't intimidate me.

 

[Palette Swap]

Time will tell if they made the right decision. I think they did great in starting to listening to what people want. If it was right or not, we'll see.

The thing is, even of the console is a failure, it will be hard to prove it was because of this decision.
Short of a parallel universe, no one can ever know for certain how it would have turned out, which explains why every opinion column about it is so thin argument wise.

 

[PSGames]

The check-in policy was nothing like Steam, though; Steam's Offline Mode doesn't expire.

You understand that's because Steam's version was actually worse than MS's version? Can you resale a Steam disc bought game? Can you share your library with 10 other people?

There were benefits.

 

[J-Rzez]

I continue to fail to see how the Xbone is anything like Steam. If it's MS that came up with that, they're just trying to save face or make people feel bad because they know most like Steam, and they were going to be just like it, they swear! I missed that message in the always online, DRM-fest, expensive IR TV remote, less powerful hardware, $100 more expensive, force peripheral that many won't care about talk. You know, those changes the Hardcore demanded for while staying the same!

 

[spwolf]

I'm not spinning anything. You're the one jumping to conclusions to fit your narrative.

I'm just stating what was obvious. The fact that they didn't have a consistent script when it came to their policies shows that it was still fluid and under development.

This happens when a company is forced to talk about something before they're ready to. .

no, this happens when company is forced to change their decisions 4 months before launch, when changes can not be realistically made.

I am not jumping to conclusions on anything - we know what MS officially stated about DRM - it was all bad for the consumer. Only "positive" things were "leaked", never officially explained completely.


Now if you think that Microsoft didnt know what they were doing exactly with their DRM or Indy policies 4 months before they launch the console - you are either being very naive or trying to spin this as positive.


Their indy policy is all new, completely - nobody knew about it until 10 days ago. Developers certainly didnt know and they certainly didnt get contacted by MS or gotten those dev kits so they can develop.

These were all last minute changes and hence you wont see these guys developing for XB1 for a while, they simply did not have any info or knew anything about it nor do they have kits to develop on.


Once again, did you think that Microsoft was waiting for day before launch to "clear" these things up? On the contrary, is there or was there anything unclear from Sony?

Do you really think that MS strategy was to make us hate them for few months and then present positive things about DRM only before launch?

 

[Dreamgazer]

Many people seem to be missing his point:

"When you want to do something really different - the solution to the innovator's dilemma - you can't take your big brand and say it's going to be completely different. You need to set up something up on the side, and big companies are hesitant to do that. It's how Valve could do it [with Steam], because they had nothing before.

The classical solution to the innovator's dilemma will require MS to setup two separate brands/lines. One brand (ex: XB1) is to focus on the existing market, while the other is suppose to sell the disruptive new tech to niche markets that needs it. The idea is that consumers will gradually see the benefit and adopt to the new tech or force the existing market to revolutionize.

Imagine if MS was to start a Steam-like service of their own, separate from the XBOX brand. If that turns out to be successful, people would be much less hesitant to adopt to the original XB1 model. (If not successful, no harm is done to XBOX.)

The problem is that MS attempted to be both the existing market leader and the new market innovator. They wanted to have everything under the xbox brand, force a disruptive innovation onto the existing market, keep all their old customers and eat cake at the same time. Obviously - this will obviously result in consumer backlash, and they somehow didn't see it.

Hence why the the contrast to Valve - Valve didn't have to deal with innovator dilemmas because 1) Steam was a brand built from scratch & 2) They started off the concept from a niche market (valve fans) and then gradually adopted it into the more mainstream front.

None of Schell's points are wrong.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

There isn't an incentive big enough.

I think guaranteed backwards compatibility for the online library + tradable digital licenses with publisher/developers getting a cut of that license transfer would help a LOT. First to do that wins next gen, I think.

 

[Nibiru]

This was a different scenario than the "customers don't want change" or Xbox doing a 180 prevented an evolution of gaming.

Nothing at all was revolutionary about what MS was doing. They just said it so much that some started to believe it. Always online DRM is NOT revolutionary its an anti-piracy measure which by the way that has not been proven to even work. It in no way was to make any of our gaming experience better.

DRM is not innovation.

 

[malboroking]

He's right, customers don't like change until they do like it. That put Microsoft in their bind and has hurt them over and over. They have long been in the business of keeping things the same, it almost killed them in the mid-1990s when they didn't see the internets coming and it did kill them in the 2000s when they didn't see the iPod and iPhone coming. In 2000 they envisioned a future revolving around desktops using Internet Explorer on Windows forever.

The world is moving towards digital, people won't be using discs and looking at grody racks at GameStop forever. Of course, customers can't imagine this.

I already have an all digital library on my Vita, and it doesn't require me to check in with Sony HQ every 24 hours. I don't understand why people are still defending the horrible X1 policies, you can go all digital without the draconian measures Microsoft had put into place.

 

[Dizzy]

All I want is to be able to own my own games. I never asked for anything more than that. Fuck giving power and authority to Microsoft for no benefit.


I don"t like the drm on steam either but the prices are so good its easier to swallow. If a game was £12.99 on ps4 and £3.99 on xbox one, then yeah maybe we would have taken their bs drm but due to the nature of consoles its very very doubtful that they could have matched steam pricing.

Plus lets not forget that your purchases are essentially tied to your box, and by that I mean to play an xbla game now and in the future you have to dig out your 360 due to no bc on xbox one. Pc games dont have this issue,and so your steam account and games can be used forever on any pc you have.

 

[@____@]

What are:

Wal-Mart
Best Buy
Gamestop
Amazon
Target
Sam's Club

Are they not competition? Do they not compete with one another, including XBL?

No they don't. Talking about NEW releases, Amazon is the only one that offers any type of sale for the most part. As others have said, you're not going to find sales on NEW releases for retail copies like you do on Steam/GMG. Retailers hardly make ANY profit on disc based games. They make profit on accessories. You're not going to find them releasing NEW games for 20% off like you do on GMG or Steam. They can't afford to.

Microsoft isn't going to offer preorders for 20% off for digital sales either since that would undercut the retailers and the retailers wouldn't have incentive to give the XB1 the showcase that MS needs. The reason that Valve and GMG can offer such discounts is because they're not beholden to the retailers. They also make up the difference in volume.

Look at Nintendo/Sony. They're offering 10% discounts for digital purchases and acting as though it's a SIGNIFICANT discount when it isn't. Microsoft won't be any diffferent.

 

[malboroking]

You understand that's because Steam's version was actually worse than MS's version? Can you resale a Steam disc bought game? Can you share your library with 10 other people?

There were benefits.

Lol if you think you we're honestly going to be able to share your library with 10 people. Some people will believe anything.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Is there a reason folks keep asserting Microsoft is the market leader? The actual market leader made very different decisions and the second in line kept things largely the same.

 

[bigboss370]

but they didn't listen to customers >_>

if they did, they wouldn't have doubled down on the DRM at E3...instead they were forced to change their policy when pre-orders numbers came in.

 

[GamerTime]

Microsoft didn't listen to their customers or they wouldn't of tried Online DRM in the first place. The net was on meltdown once everyone heard of the next Xbox having Online DRM long before the May 21st reveal, yet Microsoft still went through with it. Not long after E3 (3 Weeks after the May 21st reveal with many pissed the whole time) MIcrosoft reversed their decision, but only after a fulll week of pre-orders showed that the PS4 was in far higher demand than their XBO.

MIcrosoft did it for themselves, not their customers.

 

[BruiserBear]

You understand that's because Steam's version was actually worse than MS's version? Can you resale a Steam disc bought game? Can you share your library with 10 other people?

There were benefits.

This fairytale is never going to die for some people.

 

[Dreamgazer]

This fairytale is never going to die for some people.

You can't prove a black swan doesn't exist.

 

[Nibiru]

Well their DRM allowed them to unlock a digital license for every physical game license, which enabled those with poor internet to enjoy the benefits of the digital license.
Anyone could do the family sharing, instant switches, etc.
So I don't think they should have completely ditched the disc drive.

No one ever knew for certain how any of this worked it was all speculation. We can't speak to some great thing we missed out on when there was no clear message as to what it was. This lack of a clear message isn't because they are inept it is because they weren't even sure how flexible it actually was and didn't know how to convey it.

Everyone seems to assume that because MS failed at communicating that by default that means that what they were selling was great. Logic dictates that the service was actually not very good and the trouble they had was spinning(communicating) that it was.

 

[Saikyo]

You understand that's because Steam's version was actually worse than MS's version? Can you resale a Steam disc bought game? Can you share your library with 10 other people?

There were benefits.

About resale, it was really limited and not worth it what they noticied about.

And the sharing...it wasnt just for 1 hour and only one person per game?

 

[malboroking]

This fairytale is never going to die for some people.

Yep, there is absolutely no reason Microsoft couldn't still do this with digital titles, but they won't because it was bullshit from the start.

 

[ChorusLindarr]

Sorry I seem to be missing something here?

In what world and on what planet is MS the current market leader?

They've more or less been outsold by the PS3 and both were merely fighting for second place against the Wii?

Oh, duh... I forgot... HUMERICA... f*CK YEA!

rolleyes.gif

 

[@____@]

Many people seem to be missing his point:



The classical solution to the innovator's dilemma will require MS to setup two separate brands/lines. One brand (ex: XB1) is to focus on the existing market, while the other is suppose to sell the disruptive new tech to niche markets that needs it. The idea is that consumers will gradually see the benefit and adopt to the new tech or force the existing market to revolutionize.

Imagine if MS was to start a Steam-like service of their own, separate from the XBOX brand. If that turns out to be successful, people would be much less hesitant to adopt to the original XB1 model. (If not successful, no harm is done to XBOX.)

The problem is that MS attempted to be both the existing market leader and the new market innovator. They wanted to have everything under the xbox brand, force a disruptive innovation onto the existing market, keep all their old customers and eat cake at the same time. Obviously - this will obviously result in consumer backlash, and they somehow didn't see it.
Hence why the the contrast to Valve - Valve didn't have to deal with innovator dilemmas because 1) Steam was a brand built from scratch & 2) They started off the concept from a niche market (valve fans) and then gradually adopted it into the more mainstream front.

None of Schell's points are wrong.

The problem is that people don't trust Microsoft. Even if MS were to create a spin off service like Steam people wouldn't use it. Look at Games for Windows Live. It failed and now Microsoft is putting their PC games on Steam.

 

[ManteoMax]

I'd be interested in seeing how business schools teach this as a case study. My perspective is that a company can probably lead the change (isn't this what Apple did to phones with the iPhone?) if it has a completed product that you can demonstrate in full immediately, and have rock solid responses to all questions at the time they're asked. It seemed like Microsoft was too slow in releasing details, which made people panic and speculate, causing a negative reaction to "Just wait until you see it, it's going to be great." I think the reaction would have been different if the complete system had been ready for analysts/press to review as a full package.

 

[Heretic]

My theory is that they're more retarded than the mothers they came out of, but that'd require more study.

wow...

 

[diffusionx]

I'd be interested in seeing how business schools teach this as a case study. My perspective is that a company can probably lead the change (isn't this what Apple did to phones with the iPhone?) if it has a completed product that you can demonstrate in full immediately, and have rock solid responses to all questions at the time they're asked. It seemed like Microsoft was too slow in releasing details, which made people panic and speculate, causing a negative reaction to "Just wait until you see it, it's going to be great." I think the reaction would have been different if the complete system had been ready for analysts/press to review as a full package.

This kind of killed the Surface too. They showed it off way too early, didn't give price or details, issued confusing reports, etc. When it came out it was either the underwhelming Surface RT that nobody bought or the cool but expensive Surface Pro that nobody bought.

 

[Trakdown]

I wish I could've seen the Xbox1 all these apologists are talking about. It sounds awesome, especially compared to what MS put up at E3.

 

[border]

The problem is that they showed up ready to tell us all the bad things about their DRM system and their online requirement, but completely unable to tell us any of the good things about their DRM/online.

Some guy mumbled something about Family Sharing at tiny press event outside of their main unveiling/E3 conference, and after that it was like pulling teeth to get any of them to discuss or elaborate on that feature at all. Why was that feature not pushed front and center during all conferences? Why did they not talk about the SmartMatch feature or the instant game swapping?

Same with trade-ins and rentals. They claimed that they would support retail swapping and have an infrastructure for renting games -- but they were incredibly vague and only promised details later.

You cannot introduce a product only to have your message be "We're going to destroy everything you know and love, and we promise to tell you how we're going to fix it later on." They just completely failed to put their best foot forward.

Not offering an alternative for people in the military service was just terrible PR as well. It boggles the mind that they apparently couldn't see the "Microsoft doesn't care about our soldiers" thing coming, and their only response was "Buy a 360".

This kind of killed the Surface too. They showed it off way too early, didn't give price or details, issued confusing reports, etc..

The Surface was killed by its price. Doesn't really matter how long it was between the unveiling and the release. Nobody was going to buy that thing at $500.

 

[Neuromancer]

This fairytale is never going to die for some people.

It's all they've got left. Let them have it.