Support NeoGAF

[Kai Dracon]

The axiom that people want the same thing but different is rather true. Basic psychology.

The article seems to be misapplying it here though. What upset people about Microsoft's proposal wasn't that something new and different was being offered. In order to have those new features, Microsoft was taking away something absolutely basic. It was a poor value proposition and people called them on it.

 

[JaggedSac]

Honestly, I would have liked to have the ability to purchase retail games, install them to the hard drive, and be able to do the fast game swapping without changing discs. I would have also been able to have sold them back to Gamestop. Now I can either purchase a retail disc and lose the fast swapping capability but have the ability of resale, or purchase the digital version but lose the ability to resale. But, thats just me, someone who doesn't care about always online.

 

[Opiate]

Not to be rude, but I like to imagine that Schell just got a copy of "The Innovator's Dilemma" for his birthday, plowed through it in a night and had an "epiphany" not dissimilar to that of a teenage boy reading "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time.

And this article, sadly, is the result.

I agree with this.

Generally speaking, I definitely see how companies in the gaming industry are captured by their fans and struggle to expand out to new markets because their established fans are hostile to changes to the formula.

But I don't think the examples cited in the OP are very well chosen. It seems he chose examples of the concept seemingly at random, without actually considering how well they applied in this particular case. Some choices are made because you are trapped by your audience, but other choices are made because the other options are just generally disliked by everyone. This seems far more like a case of the latter.

 

[patjburns89]

It just seemed that MS was trying really hard to control the consumer with a semi-no used games rule, online check-in and a higher price point. And then pushing this cloud BS without actually showing us anything worth while.

I don't see how those hamper innovation. If people want to keep their system online at all times, they surely have the right to and MS can still do the "innovation" that they're hope for.

Comparing DRM to genocide? Come on, man.

 

[N2NOther]

I certainly see where this is coming from, but I'm not sure it was phrased correctly.

This is why Sony's PS4 reveal was so well liked by gamers but relatively disliked by economic analysts, for example. The PS4 is (or seems to be) great for traditional console gamers, but doesn't seem well positioned to capitalize on rapidly expanding, highly profitable market segments collectively known as "casual." As the Wii clearly shows, traditional console gamers are frequently resistant to if not outright hostile toward "casual" elements being integrated in to a system, so any attempt to appeal to this expanded base of consumers risks the ire of the established base.

The reason highly successful, highly profitable platforms like iOS and Android have expanded so rapidly is that they are unfettered by the demands that traditional gamers place on manufacturers like Sony and Microsoft. They are able to make exactly what expanded audiences want because there is no pressure on iOS developers to produce a PS1/PS2-like ecosystem.

I think that iOS and Android have success because the psychology of price. $1-$5 games and miniscule costs for upgrades or advancement as opposed to a $60 game. There is perceived to be incredibly little risk to spend $1 on a game sight unseen as opposed to spending $60. If AAA games released at $10, there would be a HUGE increase in that games sales numbers because of the low risk. If that would translate into profit I have no idea, because iOs games don't cost as much as AAA games do to produce but I have zero doubt that a AAA game released at $10 would sell huge numbers.

 

[D4Danger]

How dare you question your corporate overlords, peasants. Microsoft knows what's best for you so just shut up and give them your money.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

1> Customers make the market, not content providers

2> Nothing is stopping Microsoft from implementing their ideas in a more reasonable fashion. It's MS' fault for pushing for too much restriction with little pay off.

3> It wasn't like Steam at all.

4> MS themselves seemed to not have enough faith in their vision to move ahead with it.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Yes.

Obviously Steam is much better due to a bunch of extra features, but the core appeal of Steam has always been "buy once, play anywhere," which was the same way the original XBox One system worked. When you add in the obtrusive DRM and other features, of course it's much worse, but that doesn't stop it from being the same core idea.

That's not the core idea of Steam. That is otherwise called having an Ecosystem. It's nothing new and certainly isn't something that makes it solely similar to Steam. I believe Steam gets more credit for its low prices and smaller tight ecosystem than just what you quoted. It was trying to be an all digital console, that's the only thing it had in relation to steam.

 

[sechsterangriff]

The PC is an open platform, consoles are not. Just on this simple fact by default the Xbox, PSN, eShop whatever service that comes on a closed platform will never be like Steam. When all transactions are controlled by the "platform holder" you really just can't compare. Steam faces direct competition on its sales and as result it's on Valve's interest to have sales and keep their customer happy.
Such a simple yet fucking important and defining fact that a lot of people seem to forget.

Not to mention, Microsoft didn't really just listen to a vocal hardcore minority. They took notice of pre-order numbers which were probably very underwhelming, and that's direct feedback from the market.

 

[Marmaladefire]

MS didn't change because they listened to consumers, they changed because they were going to lose. Their "partners" are running on some anti consumerist "entitled gamers" platform, with MS being the one who would get the heat for their shitty DRM because it was implemented across the whole system. If the Xbone was the only console launching this year, and its only competitor the Wii U, do we really think they would have changed policies? If they had a bunch of long term proven IPs as X1 exclusives, they might not have changed them. In the end, consumers have an option here, and the Xbox One was the more pricy and less attractive option. Is the profit loss higher on people played used copies of halo, but still having an XBL sub, or is it higher on people just choosing not to buy your console at all?

 

[Oppo]

Yeah can't agree with the shallow premise of the article. But I do think its pretty simple.

Microsoft's problem is that they listened to Microsoft.

They got a foothold on the console space, and decided they could fight Sony on the games front as well as Apple on the TV front with one (One) überbox. And now they have the futon of consoles.

Also deciding that they could fundamentally alter the nature of bought disc games didn't help at all.

Honestly if I have to read "Microsoft's vision" one more time I'm gonna barf. There are super smart engineers at that company but as usual, their upper management makes ridiculous moves that hamstring otherwise nice efforts.

 

[Opiate]

How dare you question your corporate overlords, peasants. Microsoft knows what's best for you so just shut up and give them your money.

The concept isn't really as weird as it sounds.

An established consumer base may have very particular tastes and those tastes may be significantly different from the tastes of consumers broadly. In those situations, a company risks losing its established base if it tries to expand outward and appeal to people who do not share their particular tastes of the "core" or established consumer.

It's a completely rational idea and it is definitely true that some game developers and manufacturers run in to this problem. I just don't think the Xbox One is a very good example of the concept. Virtually no one liked the sound of the Xbox One, not just "hardcore" gamers.

 

[Metal B]

I believe many here miss the point of Schell's message and get hocked up by one sentenced, which should be in quote sign in my opinion. He is talking about having the courage to develop something new and stay to it. Just making the same things again, just brings us stagnation. Even so, many people bring up Nintendo, at least they had the spirit to be different. Sometimes it works (DS, Wii) and sometimes it doesn't (WiiU), but at least they tried or make the best out of it (3DS). Even so the Xbox One looked like a bad idea and the trend of online-privacy have bit them in the ass.

Schnell also brings up the old saying, that consumers not always know what they real want. I like my PS3, but do i really want hanging out another half a century with his similar looking big brother (or younger brother). Instead i actually looking more forward to the Oculus RIft. Change is scary and unwelcome as it is wanted and needed.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Microsoft didn't make the change because of an outcry from "small section of the gaming audience." They made the change because their advance sales were disastrous in comparison to their primary competitor's.

A company like Microsoft doesn't give a shit about what people on gaming message boards say as long as it's good for their bottom line. The problem here was that they were already being put at a drastic sales disadvantage months before launch.

Microsoft didn't listen to their customers. They listened to the money.

I think it was a bit of both. Us vocal gamers without a doubt helped make a difference. We told the masses that this was bad and they of course were like really? See we all have friends who play games but they don't follow it like we do. So who do they go to when they wanna know about what new game or console is coming? Us. So by us telling them oh this one has all this anti consumer bs while this one don't it did change things. I know from the Gamestop I went to when people would ask about it and were told what the Xbox One entailed they were like oh shit really? Well I guess I'll preorder that other console then. Granted were weren't alone in this. Some of the press did a good job of helping put out the facts too.

The final nail in the coffin I think was when Jimmy Fallon of all people gave MS shit over DRM and mentioned it on his show and made fun of it. That's when you know that you have a problem. When the late night comedians are making fun of your console over it then you have a massive problem.

 

[FStop7]

Going for a two-for-one? False equivalency comparisons to Steam AND blaming the customer? Rock on, Jesse.

 

[Jack_AG]

Innovators dilemma used to describe DRM.

You need some long arms to stretch for that shit.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

I certainly see where this is coming from, but I'm not sure it was phrased correctly.

This is why Sony's PS4 reveal was so well liked by gamers but relatively disliked by economic analysts, for example. The PS4 is (or seems to be) great for traditional console gamers, but doesn't seem well positioned to capitalize on rapidly expanding, highly profitable market segments collectively known as "casual." As the Wii clearly shows, traditional console gamers are frequently resistant to if not outright hostile toward "casual" elements being integrated in to a system, so any attempt to appeal to this expanded base of consumers risks the ire of the established base.

The reason highly successful, highly profitable platforms like iOS and Android have expanded so rapidly is that they are unfettered by the demands that traditional gamers place on manufacturers like Sony and Microsoft. They are able to make exactly what expanded audiences want because there is no pressure on iOS developers to produce a PS1/PS2-like ecosystem.

This is a decent point. I don't think it 100% applies however, because mobile platforms built their audience from scratch, whereas I presume Microsoft intends to have it's current audience integrate into the hypothetical expanded one. It was a poorly conceived notion on Microsoft's part (trying to get both audiences to coexist on a single platform) and the only reason Nintendo pulled it off was because we didn't have $0.99 games in 2006.

 

[Rolodzeo]

Well... I don't like Steam. I didn't like Xbox 180 when was called DRM One, and I don't like DRM.

I love games. I love gog.

 

[dionysus]

I agree with this.

Generally speaking, I definitely see how companies in the gaming industry are captured by their fans and struggle to expand out to new markets because their established fans are hostile to changes to the formula.

But I don't think the examples cited in the OP are very well chosen. It seems he chose examples of the concept seemingly at random, without actually considering how well they applied in this particular case. Some choices are made because you are trapped by your audience, but other choices are made because the other options are just generally disliked by everyone. This seems far more like a case of the latter.

Is convergence of the two markets possible? Ever since Apple introduced the iphone every tech analyst has had convergence on the brain, except technology often if not more often goes in the opposite direction. Especially as markets mature they actually tend to fragment as suppliers try to distinguish themselves from the "commodity" pricing a mature market adopts.

Trying to bring together the $60 game market with the online only $10 or less market may just end up resulting in a frankenstein neither market wants.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Yes, blame the customer for your mistakes, good strategy.

 

[sleeping_dragon]

But the customers are always right. Right?

 

[Opiate]

This is a decent point. I don't think it 100% applies however, because mobile platforms built their audience from scratch, whereas I presume Microsoft intends to have it's current audience integrate into the hypothetical expanded one. It was a poorly conceived notion on Microsoft's part (trying to get both audiences to coexist on a single platform) and the only reason Nintendo pulled it off was because we didn't have $0.99 games in 2006.

Completely agree. I've already rephrased that post a couple times, but it can be summarized this way: yes, the concept of a gaming company being trapped by its audience is a real thing, and it happens frequently. But in the specific case of the Xbox One, I think it was just a bad product. Evidence: the Xbox One reveal seemed to please no one, not just its established base.

 

[Tuck]

There is a huge difference between giving customer what they don't know they want and giving customers what they clearly don't want.

Microsoft completely misread their customers and paid big for it. Of course they were going to change their minds.

 

[Curufinwe]

I think starting the Xbox project in the first place was Microsoft's big mistake. They haven't come close to making back all the money they have spent on it since 1999, (let alone the opportunity cost) and even now the division which includes Xbox makes up a tiny fraction of their Operating income. Imagine if they spent all that time and money investing in tablets instead.

 

[KageMaru]

IMO the direction they were trying to take wasn't so much the problem, instead it was the way they were going in this direction that rubbed many the wrong way.

They could have had their digital future with DRM, but they needed to make the DRM consumer friendly as we've seen with Steam, not something that locks you out of the content you pay for. If they set up a single authentication system that allowed us the ability to manage the licensing rights and play offline, I'm sure their policies would have been better accepted.

 

[fastford58]

This is the first time I heard xbone compared to steam. I laffed.

 

[WillyFive]

I wonder where the Steam comparisons with the Xbox One started. It seems like such a random comparison, especially since Steam is nothing like what the Xbox One wanted to be. I guess since Steam is a digital service people like, Microsoft just wanted to be associated with it. But it might as well also be associated with ice cream and kittens.

 

[Interfectum]

Completely agree. I've already rephrased that post a couple times, but it can be summarized this way: yes, the concept of a gaming company being trapped by its audience is a real thing, and it happens frequently. But in the specific case of the Xbox One, I think it was just a bad product. Evidence: the Xbox One reveal seemed to please no one, not just its established base.

Yup. The focus on cable TV (lol wat) and 'always online' killed them from day One. They thought they would win back hardcore gamers at E3 but no game could break the narrative that was forming around the system. Thinking back on Xbox One even now makes me cringe... it's amazing how badly the fucked up the reveal of this thing.

 

[quest]

Microsoft didn't make the change because of an outcry from "small section of the gaming audience." They made the change because their advance sales were disastrous in comparison to their primary competitor's.

A company like Microsoft doesn't give a shit about what people on gaming message boards say as long as it's good for their bottom line. The problem here was that they were already being put at a drastic sales disadvantage months before launch.

Microsoft didn't listen to their customers. They listened to the money.

This is the winning answer. MS did not do the 180 till they got back initial pre-order numbers from retailers after E3. If they would of revered before E3 and pre-orders that guy might of had a point.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Is convergence of the two markets possible? Ever since Apple introduced the iphone every tech analyst has had convergence on the brain, except technology often if not more often goes in the opposite direction. Especially as markets mature they actually tend to fragment as suppliers try to distinguish themselves from the "commodity" pricing a mature market adopts.

Trying to bring together the $60 game market with the online only $10 or less market may just end up resulting in a frankenstein neither market wants.

I agree 100 percent. There is a reason that gaming took off on IOS/Android/Facebook etc. It was a market that traditional console gaming had ignored for the most part. It really isn't even the same in my opinion. On one hand you have small time wasters that you can spend 5 mins on and then not touch again for awhile. The other market you have games that are long drawn out and complicated. Both cater to a specific group of people and by trying to shove them together you're going to end up with something that instead of doing something really well is going to be a master of doing nothing very well.

 

[nib95]

I certainly see where this is coming from, but I'm not sure it was phrased correctly.

This is why Sony's PS4 reveal was so well liked by gamers but relatively disliked by economic analysts, for example. The PS4 is (or seems to be) great for traditional console gamers, but doesn't seem well positioned to capitalize on rapidly expanding, highly profitable market segments collectively known as "casual." As the Wii clearly shows, traditional console gamers are frequently resistant to if not outright hostile toward "casual" elements being integrated in to a system, so any attempt to appeal to this expanded base of consumers risks the ire of the established base.

The reason highly successful, highly profitable platforms like iOS and Android have expanded so rapidly is that they are unfettered by the demands that traditional gamers place on manufacturers like Sony and Microsoft. They are able to make exactly what expanded audiences want because there is no pressure on iOS developers to produce a PS1/PS2-like ecosystem.

I agree with much of your post but disagree with the assertion that the PS4 is not as well poised to capture the casual market. Contrary to that, despite not having motion controls built in, it does have a cheaper price, more indie game support, PS+ with lots of free content and games, along with more F2P titles too. Imo the PS4 is better poised to capture the casual market than the Xbox One, irrespective of what investors might think. Unless you meant versus other markets like Android and iOS.

 

[Apenheul]

Based on some of the reactions in this thread I think something about the interview was lost in translation. Jesse Schell is one of the very few true visionary people in the game industry, his book on game design is one of the best, his DICE talk caused a storm, he's one of the most respected speakers at GDC, I cannot believe he meant what people here assume he meant from the very few quotes.

 

[Ardenyal]

Steam is free, XBone is $500. That is a difference of infinite%.

 

[Dragon]

Hopefully Sony doesn't gimp the PS4 the way they did the Vita and PlayStation Mobile.

Steam is free, XBone is $500. That is a difference of infinite%.

Not exactly fair as other people have explained. Steam is free, Xbone is 60 bucks a year is a bit more like it though!

 

[quest]

I wonder where the Steam comparisons with the Xbox One started. It seems like such a random comparison, especially since Steam is nothing like what the Xbox One wanted to be. I guess since Steam is a digital service people like, Microsoft just wanted to be associated with it. But it might as well also be associated with ice cream and kittens.

It was from a faction of games who want all digital with retail pricing on a console. They have seen pricing on XBL and PSN and know digital pricing will suck next generation. But retail pricing as of late for most games is not so bad with quick steep discounts after first few weeks most games go on sale. So they defended it by trying to attach it to steam which is so popular.

 

[Xater]

1. It would not have been like Steam.

2. MS didn't listen to us they listened to pre-order numbers. I have no doubt that if those went well they would have gone ahead with their plan.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Castigating consumers as luddites with a faulty comparison. Microsoft's biggest mistake was arrogantly thinking that the consumer was going to lie down, open their mouths, and willfully eat the shit sandwich that they concocted.

 

[Photolysis]

Microsoft are wrong for finally listening to their customers?

Bullshit.

If anything, MS need to listen more to their customers. See: Windows 8.

If you're a business, you only exist because of your customers. Anyone who suggests disregarding them is foolish at best.

 

[Kalamari]

MS clearly wants to hop on the digital distribution trend. However, there is a right and a wrong time to adopt trends. Adopting too early or too late can be costly.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I cant stand this arrogant attitude that companies can do what they like and eventually we will just fall in line like sheep. There maybe some truth there but it doesnt change that that attitude stinks.

 

[gigantor21]

As long as the consoles are closed ecosystems dependent on retail sales, their digital storefronts will never be like Steam. Certainly not where it counts--i.e. price, by far the biggest reason I like Steam in the first place.

Devs and publishers butthurt over having to deal with Gamestop for another gen can yell "Steam" as much as they want. But I'm not buying it.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I won't even go near the Xbox One. I was a big fan of the 360 and Microsoft somehow managed to take all that good will and flush it down the toilet. I don't even care that they reversed all of those shitty policies. The mere fact they tried to do it in the first place is enough for me. I hope their new console crashes and burns.

That's not to say that Sony are perfect but they are easily the lesser of two evils right now.

 

[flatearthpandas]

You'd think the author would have had enough time by now to figure out it wasn't remotely close to being like Steam

 

[b0bbyJ03]

this is absolutely ridiculous. an article that says "don't listen to your customers." i think ive seen it all now. People love change, as long as it makes things better. it has to offer something that is more beneficial then the other thing that you are taking away. all MS wanted to do with their model was take, take, take. There was no indication that they were planning on giving anything back other than a few features that didn't make up for the rights I was losing as a customer.

there is no question in my mind that everything they wanted to would have made a much better experience then what is available now had they provided the vaule. If for example, they decided in return for losing the ability to trade/sell/lend your games you would only have to pay $30 per title, not many people would have been complaining. who wouldn't love being able to have all your games on your hard drive and switching seamlessly between them? but at what cost? that's the question they didn't expect everyone to ask. what the hell where they thinking.

 

[FauX]

Nintendo jokes on this thread are unnecesaary and show how much ignorance people have on the topic.

Now, MS shouldn't have change features of Xbone, they should even force its entry like they always do with their prosucts. Mandatory!

However, even when gaming tendency goes to "always online", MS should have lower the barrier to customers (example: price) so they can easily adapt.

I've notice that hardcore gamers are unreceptive to changes and want games and hardware to the lowest price or even free. Gaming have always been a luxury, MS should't listen to morons.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I won't even go near the Xbox One. I was a big fan of the 360 and Microsoft somehow managed to take all that good will and flush it down the toilet. I don't even care that they reversed all of those shitty policies. The mere fact they tried to do it in the first place is enough for me. I hope their new console crashes and burns.

That's not to say that Sony are perfect but they are easily the lesser of two evils right now.

I agree 100%. Reversing course doesn't change the fact that head scratching policies and design choices were in the cards at one point. If they thought those type of things were good ideas then what in the hell else do they think will fly?

 

[njean777]

Based on some of the reactions in this thread I think something about the interview was lost in translation. Jesse Schell is one of the very few true visionary people in the game industry, his book on game design is one of the best, his DICE talk caused a storm, he's one of the most respected speakers at GDC, I cannot believe he meant what people here assume he meant from the very few quotes.

Even brilliant people can be wrong.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Yeah, always-online DRM is the wave of the future! We just weren't ready!

It's totallly a brand new thing!

It's next level shit that we're just too short-sighted to appreciate!

Great examples right there of why this type of heavy handed DRM never works. I honestly see DRM going away. You're starting to see it happen in other mediums. You're seeing music with less DRM and even Ebooks already.

DRM never works. All it does is waste time and resources because it's a war that will never end. As long as you have something digital then you'll have someone who has no intention of ever buying it who instead is cracking it and stealing it. As a result all you accomplish in this war is that you hurt your legitimate consumers who even if they can get it for "Free" choose not to because it's wrong. So the best thing you can do is realize that making them feel like criminals is not the right thing to do and only drives them away. Instead you cater to those who legally buy your product and give them the best experience you can. You make them feel that you respect their choice to spend their money with you.

That's my opinon and one that I really don't think I'm alone on. Look at how people are now going out of their way to find DRM free materials. I know when I download an Ebook or a song and find out it's got no DRM I tend to think twice and do tend to more heavily lean toward those atists, authors, publishers, studios, etc who don't treat me like a criminal. That's how you get consumers on your side. Don't treat them like crap because some other asshole is stealing your work. Remember they didn't steal your work. They supported you and bought it with their hard earned money.

 

[fantomena]

Just leaving it here...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7586-Why-PC-Gaming-Gets-Away-With-It

 

[LeeFowler.CU]

I agree with much of your post but disagree with the assertion that the PS4 is not as well poised to capture the casual market. Contrary to that, despite not having motion controls built in, it does have a cheaper price, more indie game support, PS+ with lots of free content and games, along with more F2P titles too. Imo the PS4 is better poised to capture the casual market than the Xbox One, irrespective of what investors might think. Unless you meant versus other markets like Android and iOS.

How are ANY of these things you've listed system sellers to a casual audience? What is your pitch?

"You're not necessarily interested in Killzone or God of War but I want you to buy our box. It's $399, but doesn't include our camera or motion control devices, those you have to buy seperately. You can buy PS+ for $50 a year which lets you rent games for free but only months after they come out. It also has free games which you've probably already downloaded on your computer if you were remotely interested in them. And it has all the same indie games you've played on your laptop or iPad!"

I'm just saying, the PS4 is a great games box. But it has almost nothing going for it with the casual market, which will hurt it's prospects outside of "hardcore" gamers.