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.
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.
Article is correct. Nothing is next gen about the upcoming gen. It's just a new coat of paint. Everyone is afraid to ruffle feathers and move things forward even if initially it's a step back.
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.
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.
Virtually all major new Steam games are MSRP or 10% off MSRP when they come out, which completely throws that part of your argument out the window. This is a very common misconception.
GMG has those 20-25% off deals ONLY if there's a coupon code out. Also, they don't even sell Ubisoft games in the U.S.
Toys R Us has buy two get one free deals for new games every year, by the way. The brick & mortar stores ARE competing with one another. They compete for deals and for which one drops the price fastest after launch and by how much.
There's no competition between storefronts because there are no other storefronts inside wall-garden consoles. What you're talking about is competition between games themselves, which is a completely different thing that has nothing to do with the topic.
You can say this about any corporation selling a product. Microsoft's problem is that they had a leak about a planned policy and lost control of the messaging (you can't defend or deny a policy about a product that hasn't been announced). Then they attempted to defend and explain a policy that wasn't complete. When you lose control of an issue and it becomes a distraction, you get rid of the issue. That's PR 101.
MS intended to communicate their plans on their own terms, but loose lips sink ships. They wanted to lay out the benefits of their all digital policy. It would have been a great policy if it was actually all digital.
For most of the debate, consumers didn't know exactly what MS was giving them. For months and months before there was even a product announced, there was already a big festering issue that defined their product.
It's akin to a politician being involved in a "bimbo eruption" before he even announces he's running for office.
The problem with this is that Microsoft had started the Day One pre-order scheme on the day of E3. They were already selling the product before the policy was finalised.
When exactly where they planning to tell us? This summer? A couple of weeks before launch? Not at all and hope that people are so enamoured with their new console that they'll put up with it and take to the forums/Twitter/Facebook do the damage control for them?
We should be thankful for the leak. We were able to call Microsoft out on their bullshit before it was too late.
So what's the difference without the change?
What are kind of innovation is this article talking about?
CD versions is still gonna be around in both situations, digital version is still gonna be around and Microsoft is still gonna push it regardless of the change, what innovative change besides you can't do lend shit and online check ups is gonna do?
Besides being a frustrating and undesirable console, what is this going to do? apparently its what is holding back Microsoft from being Steam, apparently it can't be steam now.
And No, we don't have to accept it since we can just go to the alternative, apparently who ever wrote this never looked at the difference in preorder numbers.
In the last few weeks, it has altered or removed almost every feature of the Xbox One that truly distinguished it from both its competitors and the current generation of hardware.
I see this mindset parroted by a lot of people all over online. That the two consoles are becoming "indistinguishable" now that Microsoft has done a 180 on some of its policies. I really have to ask - would you honestly prefer Microsoft keep inferior policies just to have a point to distinguish their product from its competitors? It's the most absurd concept and it truly boggles my mind that people honestly believe that it's for the worst that MS would choose to change aspects of their policies to make a better product. Remove obnoxious, unnecessary DRM? Stop being like Sony! Make a platform that's more open to indie development? Stop being like Sony! Nevermind that these are only beneficial things (unless you honestly believe there was anything to the Family Sharing Plan nonsense), people seem to just want MS to have an alternate take out of sheer principle, even if it leaves them for the worse. And above all, people forget that, if you want a purely digital library, you can already do that on both the Playstation and Xbox systems - MS wasn't bringing anything new in that front by introducing obtrusive, always-online DRM. But no, lets introduce this crap for the sake of being different. Even if it's stupid.
Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?' And we all said, 'No, we hate that. We hate you. You're an idiot to do that.'
And this one is even worse. I see it all the time. "What MS was doing was like Steam! People love Steam, so why wouldn't they like what Microsoft was doing with the Xbox One?"
Microsoft's DRM scheme for the Xbox One was not like Steam. This is a false equivalency as it completely ignores how Steam came to be the leading digital platform on the PC in the first place.
History lesson - you remember when Steam first came out? When it was the only way to play Half-Life 2? People fucking hated it! It was slow, buggy, required an internet connection at least once to use (you couldn't just switch to offline mode from the start - it had to be connected at least once to verify the content or some-such), and was seen basically as obnoxious DRM in the same manner as MS' Xbone offerings, or SecuROM, or any of our other favorite PC DRM schemes. It took years for Valve to reverse that notion - years of strong support, of development of the platform, of offering good deals and sales on their platform that made it worth investing into in the first place. Hell, as my personal, anecdotal point, I only ever had Valve games on Steam for the longest time - without a home internet connection, I had to lug my PC across a local park to a friend's house, borrow his 'net connection for an hour, get a connection to do the verification for new games, and make sure to enter/exit all my games at least once while offline before leaving to make sure they all worked before I could actually play any games on Steam at my own home. (Fun note - I learned to do the enter/exit thing the hard way, when I assume a game updated while connected to Steam while I was verifying something else, and I couldn't play the older game by the time I got home after that. Good times) It was a pain in the ass, so you can be sure I kept that to an absolute minimum when at all possible.
And that's the key point right there - While Steam was in its infancy, PC gamers had the choice to avoid the digital platform in favor of traditional retail outlets to continue playing games as they'd always done. When I bought Company of Heroes, I didn't bother with a Steam version, I got a boxed retail copy. Same with UT3, same with Crysis, and a bunch of other games. Even when I finally got a home 'net connection, I still got retail copies. I stayed away from Steam (besides the aforementioned Valve games) until, really, not that long ago. Only once I deemed Steam as a compelling platform personally did I bother to invest into it. And that's fine - Valve proved it was a viable alternative after all those years; they took the time to make it happen.
And therein lies the key difference between Microsoft's Xbox One ecosystem and that of Valve - They weren't offering the choice; it was do-or-die. If you wanted an Xbox One game back when it had the DRM, you had no choice but to follow MS' rules, go by MS' guidelines. If you fell outside their parameters, poof, no games for you buddy. Nobody competes within the Xbox ecosystem for digital outlets, it's all lead by MS, so if you didn't want to abide by MS' strict guidelines, tough luck - go play somewhere else. (Another key point in the Steam comparison - you've got plenty of other digital distributors in the PC realm, all which force Valve to stay on their toes, lest they fall to the wayside as a competitor sweeps up the scene for themselves)
So here's the thing - at the end of the day, the current set-up, where consumers have a choice between online digital distribution and traditional retail outlets mirrors Steam's development much more closely than what Microsoft was ever doing with the Xbox One's DRM and always-online policies. By giving consumers a choice, you give them time to adjust to the new distribution platform, and time to show the consumers what's in it for them. As I said earlier, I didn't bother with Steam until I personally believed it to be worth my money, and many feel the same way - I'd imagine the same situation applies here. Prove to the consumers that it's worth switching over to digital-only. You say games could be cheaper; make them cheaper. You say there's potential for cool digital sharing policies, then show us these sharing policies. Folks aren't going to invest $500 to play a wait-and-see game. As much as MS fans may applaud MS' efforts to bring a new digital era to consoles, ripe with digital-only features, for all the rest of us knew they may as well have been trying to become the Gamestop of digital distribution.
Anyway, that's my rant. Something I've been wanting to get off my chest for a while honestly.
inb4 missed the point of the article, but those specific sections just got me too bothered to not say something.
EDIT - Just remembered one other point I wanted to make: If MS (And Sony & Nintendo) really wanted to prove to consumers that they wanted to play a fair game in the digital distribution front, one of the best things they could do is allow other companies to put up their own digital storefronts on the respective platforms. As in, allow Valve, GoG, etc. to put in store apps on the Playstation 4, Xbox One, etc, and introduce competition in the digital space of those platforms. I doubt it'd happen in a million years, but if it did, it'd say a lot more to me about their dedication to a pro-consumer all-digital future than any smoke and mirrors over "look at all these features we'll bring" kind of talk.
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?
My marketing professor would be crying tears when reading this.
"Doing what your customers wants is MS biggest mistake"
So dear Schell, if the customers are getting pissed because they don't get what they actually want who will buy all their goods then?
They forgot how to market.
It's basically saying "Do what we want you to do because WE know what YOU will like"
Microsoft did a big fucking mistake and I think they realised that now. They tried to force something on their customers and got a fist in their face back. The normal reaction. They are really trying hard now to redeem what they have done but it will be branded in their customers what they did and they cant change that.
MS should shuffle it's bosses and marketing strategies because they suck so hard that even people who don't have to learn that stuff realise how much they suck.
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.
To put it mildly, MS came accross as utterly unprepared. The point of marketing is to master your narrative, communicate it and ideally have your customers convey it. From the start, they had a very thin grasp of the first part and the other two fell to pieces.
Right now, Xbox One is in a better state than when it was unveiled but I'd love to know the story behind the scenes that led to such a failure from the unveiling to E3.
To be fair, while I agree on the approach to solving the dilemma, the article discusses a fictional Steam like service that definitely wasn't the one MS showed. The biggest was, and remains, that they had a weak value proposal that brought nothing new to the table and had little to show in the way of consumer benefits.
In that light, even spinning off a different brand wouldn't have solved systemic product flaws, such as the completely arbitrary online DRM that offered no use case as a compensation. The onus was on MS to present an acceptable tradeoff for this disruption to be meaningful to the consumer. The fact they did not is all on them, not consumers being conservative.
Listening to customers isn't bad. A company ought to stand by their vision when they truly feel it is the best direction for them to go in. The fact that Microsoft did not stand by their vision because of consumer criticism shows that they did not feel very strongly about what they were doing. Not having a clear vision is the problem.
At least for myself, I'm fine with more of the same--just with better graphics.
This generation was awesome IMO. Most I've gamed since the 16 bit era. I'm happy with the types of games, love current controllers (and hate motion/voice/touch screen BS), love being able to sell my games to recoup some costs etc.
PS4 just being a PS3 with better graphics, more features, a new OS etc. is perfectly fine by me. Just give me more of the same, but better (not different).
I've bought recent games on sale from Wal Mart. When AC: Brotherhood came out I got it there. Wal-Mart had it on sale for $35 just a week or two after it came out. They do Black Friday sales on new releases, too.
"The reality is that they can't do what the customers want. Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?' And we all said, 'No, we hate that. We hate you. You're an idiot to do that.'"
Oh, this thread again. Pretending that buying digital (Which always has been and still is a choice) was equivalent to locking down physical discs and requiring daily check-ins.
There was absolutely zero benefit to the old model for consumers. It was all to make publishers and MS more cash hand over fist and to create artificial scarcity of titles to keep prices high, rather than fighting the $5 bargain bin years down the road.
So now that there's a 5 page thread about this article how much longer will it be until the author or another journalist takes to Twitter to bitch about NeoGAF and "The Internet"?
So now that there's a 5 page thread about this article how much longer will it be until the author or another journalist takes to Twitter to bitch about NeoGAF and "The Internet"?
Virtually all major new Steam games are MSRP or 10% off MSRP when they come out, which completely throws that part of your argument out the window. This is a very common misconception.
GMG has those 20-25% off deals ONLY if there's a coupon code out. Also, they don't even sell Ubisoft games in the U.S.
Toys R Us has buy two get one free deals for new games every year, by the way. The brick & mortar stores ARE competing with one another. They compete for deals and for which one drops the price fastest after launch and by how much.
GMG has 20-25% off deals for almost every single preorder AAA game there is. I haven't paid more than $38 for a AAA preorder in almost a year. Regarding Steam, they do have 20% off preorders plus incentives with tiers for preorders. Look at Rayman Legends right now or the new XCOM game. You're not getting that on the XB1. Look at the TF2 cards. I sold my TF2 cards for Bioshock Infinite preorder for about $20. The game ended up costing me $20. You're not finding that on XB1.
GMG has 20-25% off deals for almost every single preorder AAA game there is. I haven't paid more than $38 for a AAA preorder in almost a year. Regarding Steam, they do have 20% off preorders plus incentives with tiers for preorders. Look at Rayman Legends right now or the new XCOM game. You're not getting that on the XB1. Look at the TF2 cards. I sold my TF2 cards for Bioshock Infinite preorder for about $20. The game ended up costing me $20. You're not finding that on XB1.
I've bought recent games on sale from Wal Mart. When AC: Brotherhood came out I got it there. Wal-Mart had it on sale for $35 just a week or two after it came out. They do Black Friday sales on new releases, too.
If you say so. I personally have never seen a game on sale at Wal-Mart that wasn't several years old. After the Wii was launched, they still had Eternal Darkness and Wave Race: Blue Storm on the rack at full price. They don't mark down product without getting that co-op money from their supplier (ie. publisher). Wal-Mart has margin requirements, and video games have so little margin, they can't meet them if they do any markdowns.
But aside from your personal experience or mine, they've come in dead last among all major retailers in video game pricing, more than once. The only one I can find specific to video games is from 2004, but Wal-Mart is price shopped constantly and they lose in this category when it's referenced.
We didn't like the change that deprived us of freedoms that we used to have. How obvious is that? And how arrogant to frame it like the vocal gamers are knuckle-draggers.
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"
Before I go and trash MS (which I will do in the next paragraph), I need to again point out that many people don't seem to be understanding why it can be bad to pay attention to your customers' needs. It isn't a case where MS thinks they know what their own customers want better than the customers themselves; it's a case where MS' customers have a particular, well defined taste and that these customers are limiting their ability to appeal to other customers they'd like to attract. Consider Harley Davidson as a very simple example of this: when Honda and other Japanese companies began introducing their smaller city bikes in to the US market, Harley Davidson tried to respond by making smaller bikes of their own. However, the established Harley Davidson consumer didn't like how this affected the brand and image that HDavidson had so carefully cultivated. And so, HDavidson was forced to retreat and concede the market for city bikes to Honda and others because they couldn't risk losing their primary consumer base. That is the idea -- sometimes your consumer base can "lock you in" in such a way that expanding outward in to new, profitable market segments is very hard.
Now, with that said, I don't think this is what is happening with the Xbox One DRM at all. Sometimes, yes, the core consumer just doesn't appreciate what other consumers will like, and those core consumers can make it really hard for a company to try to appeal to new audiences without push back from the established audiences. But in other instances, an idea is just a bad idea that nobody likes. If you try making poo flavored ice cream, the problem isn't just that your traditional chocolate flavored consumers don't like it because they don't understand, it's because poo flavored ice cream is terrible and nobody wants it. Xbox One DRM is one of those generally bad ideas that appeals to neither traditional console consumers or the broader audience.
Oh, this thread again. Pretending that buying digital (Which always has been and still is a choice) was equivalent to locking down physical discs and requiring daily check-ins.
There was absolutely zero benefit to the old model for consumers. It was all to make publishers and MS more cash hand over fist and to create artificial scarcity of titles to keep prices high, rather than fighting the $5 bargain bin years down the road.
the tireless effort to create some kinda 'alternate narrative' version of this very simple & obvious description of what was truly occurring has become pretty damn pathetic...
the 'digital future' either will or won't eventually become the digital present. there's no real reason to attempt to foist it onto everyone until that time... well, other than pure greed ...
Before I go and trash MS (which I will do in the next paragraph), I need to again point out that many people don't seem to be understanding why it can be bad to pay attention to your customers' needs. It isn't a case where MS thinks they know what their own customers want better than the customers themselves; it's a case where MS' customers have a particular, well defined taste and that these customers are limiting their ability to appeal to other customers they'd like to attract. Consider Harley Davidson as a very simple example of this: when Honda and other Japanese companies began introducing their smaller city bikes in to the US market, Harley Davidson tried to respond by making smaller bikes of their own. However, the established Harley Davidson consumer didn't like how this affected the brand and image that HDavidson had so carefully cultivated. And so, HDavidson was forced to retreat and concede the market for city bikes to Honda and others because they couldn't risk losing their primary consumer base. That is the idea -- sometimes your consumer base can "lock you in" in such a way that expanding outward in to new, profitable market segments is very hard.
Now, with that said, I don't think this is what is happening with the Xbox One DRM at all. Sometimes, yes, the core consumer just doesn't appreciate what other consumers will like, and those core consumers can make it really hard for a company to try to appeal to new audiences without push back from the established audiences. But in other instances, an idea is just a bad idea that nobody likes. If you try making poo flavored ice cream, the problem isn't just that your traditional chocolate flavored consumers don't like it because they don't understand, it's because poo flavored ice cream is terrible and nobody wants it. Xbox One DRM is one of those generally bad ideas that appeals to neither traditional console consumers or the broader audience.
The entire PC market can't be viewed in a vacuum like that.
Valve has truly fostered an open market with its Steamworks initiative. Valve does not take a cut of games sold from other retailers, they are able to offer lower prices by decreasing their margin.
Being able to buy new games from other retailers for a fraction of the price is what makes PC such a strong platform. We have all been buying Castlevania for $14 the past couple of weeks.
The idea that Steam is like any Microsoft marketplace needs to be put into the toilet, flushed, and fucking plunged till it never surfaces again. "They both sell things" as a comparison is lazy at best and completely ignorant at worst.
Does the Xbone allow me to download mods and other things to change my game up? What about pricing? Server browsers? Community features such as specific forums and screenshots?
Well, Major Nelson did say that mods will be supported on the One as long as devs allow it. I'd imagine prices would go down eventually, just like Steam. Xbox does have game specific forums on their website and a lot of community features.
It is comparable to Steam. It just wasn't viable yet. In the future, though, I'd imagine most people would have good enough Internet connections for a digital-only console to be possible (Google Fibre, etc).
The thing about Steam is that everyone can afford the games there. If you want to buy a game day of release and have the money Steam has you covered. If you have a limited income and can wait 6-12 months for a game to drop down to a price you can pay, Steam has you covered. Either way, the developer gets your money and everyone is happy.
Haha yeah. Basically, even on PC there are a lot of competitors that want to be just "like Steam" but very few of them ever come close to matching Steam.
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.
To be fair, I feel the Harley analogy and how your traditional customer base can drag your business development down works with all the TV features.
There's an argument I don't subscribe to that essentially says that if you want to aim for a 200M+ install base, you have to court this demand. I think it's a valid conversation and I can see the benefits to it, namely that this enlarged base will make for a healthy ground for more software to be sold to more customers and in the end, it will positively trickle down to the traditional user base. I don't subscribe to it mostly because I think it's akin to Vita doing 3G: a late and artificial effort to catch up but at least, I can see how the point originally made applies to Xbox. More than with the DRM thing being disruptive for no apparent good reason. Being "almost like Steam" obviously isn't one. Particularly considering the last times an MS product was "almost like" a market leader (see Zune, Windows Mobile and Surface).
The thing about Steam is that everyone can afford the games there. If you want to buy a game day of release and have the money Steam has you covered. If you have a limited income and can wait 6-12 months for a game to drop down to a price you can pay, Steam has you covered. Either way, the developer gets your money and everyone is happy.
When a retailer buys the stock, the publisher/developer gets the money. THQ was one of the only ones who offered to take stock back when it was unsold and look where they are.
Well, there would be less manufacturing costs, and having lower prices gives them a competitive edge, so I'm pretty sure it would have happened. I doubt it will any time soon now, though, with the whole 180.
"The reality is that they can't do what the customers want. Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?' And we all said, 'No, we hate that. We hate you. You're an idiot to do that.'
I'm getting so fucking tired of this. It is NOT what they said. If you look at how they handle digital pricing and sales on XBOX 360 it is NOTHING like Steam.
If MS was a private company, like Valve, and I could trust them to not try and gouge every single penny, then it would be a different story.
That's not even close to being true. There has to be a promotion/coupon code out. They also don't carry Ubisoft games, who have a huge PC presence, in the U.S.
Regarding Steam, they do have 20% off preorders plus incentives with tiers for preorders. Look at Rayman Legends right now or the new XCOM game. You're not getting that on the XB1. Look at the TF2 cards. I sold my TF2 cards for Bioshock Infinite preorder for about $20. The game ended up costing me $20. You're not finding that on XB1.
Very rarely. Almost every big new game is MSRP or "10%" off. You're twisting the truth.
And I just checked Xcom, it's 10% off, which is what I've been saying. So you're wrong, again.
E: You're wrong about Rayman Legends, too. Lmao. It's $39.99, which is its MSRP. I can't tell if you're just spouting BS hoping that someone doesn't go check if it's true or what.
If you have to try and hide major features of your product from consumers, then your product sucks. If a product is good enough you don't have to hide anything.
That's not even close to being true. There has to be a promotion/coupon code out. They also don't carry Ubisoft games, who have a huge PC presence, in the U.S.
Very rarely. Almost every big new game is MSRP or "10%" off. You're twisting the truth.
And I just checked Xcom, it's 10% off, which is what I've been saying. So you're wrong, again.
E: You're wrong about Rayman Legends, too. Lmao. It's $39.99, which is its MSRP. I can't tell if you're just spouting BS hoping that someone doesn't go check if it's true or what.
... Notice O was talking about tiers and extras... You get free games by preordering those. That isnt the case with MS. Also, in terms of spouting false info and hoping noone checks it, do you really want to go back to your Skyrim claims if yesterday? Talking about a gurantee of multiple times more sold on the 360 and provoding a link that was dated 7 months before Skyrim was released? Yeah.
...
