SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I'm saying they already offer the option to buy digital downloads, and they don't bother competing on price at all. They don't put digital games on sale ever. It's not going to change because of Xbone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jesse Schell: Listening to customers was Microsoft's big mistake
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
I'm saying they already offer the option to buy digital downloads, and they don't bother competing on price at all. They don't put digital games on sale ever. It's not going to change because of Xbone.
It's great that you're fine with that but lot's of people (me included) think it's insane that you are REQUIRED to pay extra (MP fee let's call it) in order to even play most games coming out nowadays, you can't justify it with a ''hbo app'' or ''pizza hut app'' it just makes you look like you're in denial that you're getting screwed, you're paying for something that should be free.
I guess i could comment on the exclusives but my consoles have been collecting dust for years so.
Steam was the better option on PC. I mean when I bought a Diablo 3 physical copy I put it in the computer, waited for it to install, then waited even longer for the internet update. No one huddles around their monitor for local multiplayer gaming so having portable copies doesnt matter as much. Going digital in the first place just makes more sense on PC.
Consoles on the other hand are pretty much throw in and play(apart from some PS3 games with long ass installs and day 1 updates). Sure alot of people want steam on consoles, the vast majority of people would like an option for both.
Consoles on the other hand are pretty much throw in and play(apart from some PS3 games with long ass installs and day 1 updates). Sure alot of people want steam on consoles, the vast majority of people would like an option for both.
Nib95 will spin anything so it's a positive for the PS4, but I don't necessarily think the "hardcore" image of the PS4 will really hurt it much. The casual audience isn't typically the type to get new consoles early in the generation. So even if the Xbone has more appeal to the casual audience, it's unlikely it would be much of a benefit this early in the generation. If you didn't notice, MS also pushed the Xbone as a hardcore console at E3.
Casuals matter, but hardly at the beginning of a generation.
dream431ca
Banned
From the very start of the XB1 reveal, it's been one of the worst PR disasters, ever, in gaming history. Microsoft could have sold everything they had prior to the "180" if they handled it a lot better in the PR department, but they left consumers in the dark, did not focus on the consumer while mentioning their product, Phil Harrison opening his mouth, and a conglomerate of other things.
Neither Sony nor MS can be another Steam as long as the physical disc model is in place. You can't expect them to be with the current retail system. MS does have big digital sales already, but they can't reach the same level of Steam discounts with a hybrid model.
Again many people miss the point of Schell' message, it isn't that Xbox One DRM was a good idea, it is about how you handle change as a grounded company in a market. His point of Steam and Xbox One was in quotes. He tries to say that Microsoft thought, they created something like Steam.
A good example of smart change is Sony introducing an fee for there online-functions. They first gave away free games without any drawback, now they slowly place in a small fee and most people don't mind it. In the future there could be a higher fee, but also more games to play, which the people don't own and have to be played through a stream or another possibility. All this can be seamless change over time, thanks to a smart start.
A good example of smart change is Sony introducing an fee for there online-functions. They first gave away free games without any drawback, now they slowly place in a small fee and most people don't mind it. In the future there could be a higher fee, but also more games to play, which the people don't own and have to be played through a stream or another possibility. All this can be seamless change over time, thanks to a smart start.
The same people who believed "family plan" aka "legalized piracy for 10 internet strangers with almost no inconvenience", i bet.
Steam is strictly a service. XBone is a hardware device. Apples to apples is to compare a PC to the XBone and it is then that we can see that a PC'er has options for retail games and digital only games that includes Steam. The XBone was not going to allow other digital services for online competition with sales, and no retail games. It has always been a foul comparison.
A} It wasn't just the hardcore turning their back on the XBone (see the point above), and B} he needs to quote them accurately:
"We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely better."
Fixed.
Doesn't matter if the outcry on message boards was from a "small section" of the audience. The scoreboard was black and white - the XBone was getting creamed in pre-order sales. That was no small section of protesters by any stretch.
A} It wasn't just the hardcore turning their back on the XBone (see the point above), and B} he needs to quote them accurately:
"We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely better."
Fixed.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Again, this doesn't matter because there's a ton of other places you can buy games which all compete with one another (brick & mortar stores and Amazon). MS could have their digital games at full price, MSRP, forever, for eternity, and it wouldn't matter because the consumer has a litany of other options to purchase their games from, who all compete with one another.
alexandros
Banned
So here's a question. Why is it that everyone compares themselves to Valve and/or Steam everytime they want to enforce some shady practice? A few months ago we had cliffyb say that Valve and EA are basically the same except Valve has better PR, now this guy (among others) says that the canned Xbox system was "just like Steam".
Both me and Brad Pitt have two arms, two legs and a penis. That doesn't mean that I'm "just like Brad Pitt".
Both me and Brad Pitt have two arms, two legs and a penis. That doesn't mean that I'm "just like Brad Pitt".
Yes that happened around 2007/8, years later than HL2.
I was looking around for a timeline but couldn't find anything good. Found a youtube link. There was some pretty nasty stuff even in the 90s but it was on a game by game basis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjEbpMgiL7U
Does appear that the ubiquitous use of bad DRM didn't occur till later like you say.
Who was the source/what website? Regardless, judging from the actual information released during the reveal conference and E3, it was obvious that xbone resembled very little to Steam.
The Brad Pitt comparison also works to answer the question: all these companies want to be Brad Pitt. Or at least look like him from a distance.
Sony didn't try this due to their financial situation IMO. This will happen in some way; just not this generation. MS had an opportunity to implement something cool but botched it due to a coherent message and ridiculous restrictions. I just don't get why they couldn't have got rid of what made the original idea shitty and kept the rest. Scrapping it altogether was a bad move.
Chû Totoro
Member
I didn't want what Microsoft had to offer but I kind of agree here since what I'm asking the most is more choice.
Having Microsoft not changing anything could have hurt them at first but at least they would have a solid community clearly supporting their vision. It's what I'm trying to do while supporting Nintendo even if there is not a lot of games on Wii U yet and even if they clearly fuc*ed their launch and almost the year they had in advance.
Now it's also my fault in a way because I posted here to explain why I didn't find what they had to offer a good thing. They just should have take into account with a lot more importance their core audience inputs.
Anyway it's not like they really changed everything, they can switch on all these features whenever they want so we may end with a very good generation.
Just make your choice and shut up
(aka we don't care if you just want Nintendo to be like Sony or Microsoft to be like Sony or Sony to be like Nintendo etc.).
It takes balls to push change or just to keep faith in the quality of what you have to offer when a lot of backslash is coming. Do it Microsoft, do it Nintendo. You'll please some gamers and maybe a better community than the ones who are just asking for something and just don't care at the end because they won't buy your system anyway.
Having Microsoft not changing anything could have hurt them at first but at least they would have a solid community clearly supporting their vision. It's what I'm trying to do while supporting Nintendo even if there is not a lot of games on Wii U yet and even if they clearly fuc*ed their launch and almost the year they had in advance.
Now it's also my fault in a way because I posted here to explain why I didn't find what they had to offer a good thing. They just should have take into account with a lot more importance their core audience inputs.
Anyway it's not like they really changed everything, they can switch on all these features whenever they want so we may end with a very good generation.
Just make your choice and shut up
(aka we don't care if you just want Nintendo to be like Sony or Microsoft to be like Sony or Sony to be like Nintendo etc.).It takes balls to push change or just to keep faith in the quality of what you have to offer when a lot of backslash is coming. Do it Microsoft, do it Nintendo. You'll please some gamers and maybe a better community than the ones who are just asking for something and just don't care at the end because they won't buy your system anyway.
soul creator
Member
The only place the Steam comparison is more directly valid is if you're discussing with someone who says "consumer rights, ownership, and resale" are super important to them. So if they happen to buy a ton of games on Steam (or iOS), while complaining about losing consumer rights on Xbox One then that is a somewhat hypocritical stance.
Even if they say "but Steam/iOS games only cost $1-$10!", that just means that "consumer rights" isn't the issue, but value is. Which is totally fine, and something I agree with.
So if someone is comparing Xbox One and Steam from the standpoint of which has more value, then obviously Steam is way ahead of the game, and there's mostly no comparison (though I tend to think that the market would've eventually forced Xbox One to develop a better value, since $60 games seem unsustainable). If someone is comparing Xbox One and Steam from a "consumer rights" standpoint, then there's a much closer comparison to be made, since both have "DRM" to some extent (Yes, I know Steam has a better offline mode due to no 24hr check...but it currently doesn't support transferring licenses/resale of games like Xbox One would have because of that 24hr check)
Even if they say "but Steam/iOS games only cost $1-$10!", that just means that "consumer rights" isn't the issue, but value is. Which is totally fine, and something I agree with.
So if someone is comparing Xbox One and Steam from the standpoint of which has more value, then obviously Steam is way ahead of the game, and there's mostly no comparison (though I tend to think that the market would've eventually forced Xbox One to develop a better value, since $60 games seem unsustainable). If someone is comparing Xbox One and Steam from a "consumer rights" standpoint, then there's a much closer comparison to be made, since both have "DRM" to some extent (Yes, I know Steam has a better offline mode due to no 24hr check...but it currently doesn't support transferring licenses/resale of games like Xbox One would have because of that 24hr check)
The notion it was just hardcore gamers in uproar is nonsense and needs to be put to bed.
My father, who doesn't own or play a console, knew about it and thought it was one of the craziest and most stupid ideas he'd heard of - god knows where from.
My sister, whose 360 has been connected to the Internet *once*, knew about it and has pre-ordered a PS4. She's definitely a hardcore gamer though - 6 years of playing WoW and she almost has a max level character!
The reversal wasn't caused by a few loudmouths, in the same way that Mass Effect 3s new ending wasnt caused by a few loudmouths. Companies don't spend time and money changing things if its just a few people, and they don't make these decisions based on a few bad articles in the press. They make the decision off hard numbers, and that's why MS changed course. When someone who has only ever owned a 360 and hasn't ever contemplated a playstation puts money down for a PS4 you have a real issue - like one of the guys who works for me did.
My father, who doesn't own or play a console, knew about it and thought it was one of the craziest and most stupid ideas he'd heard of - god knows where from.
My sister, whose 360 has been connected to the Internet *once*, knew about it and has pre-ordered a PS4. She's definitely a hardcore gamer though - 6 years of playing WoW and she almost has a max level character!
The reversal wasn't caused by a few loudmouths, in the same way that Mass Effect 3s new ending wasnt caused by a few loudmouths. Companies don't spend time and money changing things if its just a few people, and they don't make these decisions based on a few bad articles in the press. They make the decision off hard numbers, and that's why MS changed course. When someone who has only ever owned a 360 and hasn't ever contemplated a playstation puts money down for a PS4 you have a real issue - like one of the guys who works for me did.
MrCookiepants
Member
I don't understand. If you want to go exclusively digital on Xbox One, what's stopping you?
The only difference now is the people who still like buying physical aren't getting screwed over.
The only difference now is the people who still like buying physical aren't getting screwed over.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
They wouldn't have been getting screwed over then, either.
You say it like the 24 hr checkin was some minor and inconsequential thing. It was one of the main problems with the entire system.
As a prior military member who would spend 6 months at a time gaming with no Internet, it was a pretty big deal. Steam lets me do it, XBO wasn't.
dickgumshoe
Member
Microsoft most certainly didn't backpedal because they listened to the outcries on gaming forums, but because they listened to pre order numbers.
soul creator
Member
Though I do agree MS made the right decision to keep with traditional console policies, I have to admit that I find it somewhat ironic someone who pays $15 a month for 6 years ($1080!) on a single always online game would complain about having to connect a system to the internet
User Name Here
Member
Yup.
DragonSworne
Banned
Jesse Schell makes the mistake of thinking Xbox One DRM was anything like steam.
I will never repeat the mistake of reading anything written by Jesse Schell again.
I will never repeat the mistake of reading anything written by Jesse Schell again.
MrCookiepants
Member
Not being able trade, resell, borrow or rent games sounds like being screwed over to me. I still would like the option to do all those.
dream431ca
Banned
Though I do agree MS made the right decision to keep with traditional console policies, I have to admit that I find it somewhat ironic someone who pays $15 a month for 6 years ($1080!) on a single always online game would complain about having to connect a system to the internet
World of Warcraft transcends all logic!
Though I do agree MS made the right decision to keep with traditional console policies, I have to admit that I find it somewhat ironic someone who pays $15 a month for 6 years ($1080!) on a single always online game would complain about having to connect a system to the internet
Well this is why sub games are failing and everything MMO is moving to F2P. Casual gamers looked at their credit card statements and felt $15 per month for a game you only casually play is not worth it.
Nothing; the only thing that you can't do now is the ability to tie your games to your account to play them anywhere and sharing digital downloads w/ friends. I really wanted those features but yeah, not happening now.
Though I do agree MS made the right decision to keep with traditional console policies, I have to admit that I find it somewhat ironic someone who pays $15 a month for 6 years ($1080!) on a single always online game would complain about having to connect a system to the internet
Heh, I thought the same until she explained her current situation meant it was easy for her PC to be hooked up but not the 360. Also in her case it was more the mandatory kinect. Odd coming from the land of CCTV, but everyone I have spoken too in the UK really objected to the idea of kinect.
If by almost exactly like Steam you mean nothing like Steam, yes. Xbox One was nothing like Steam. NOTHING.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
I was referring to having physical copies of their games. MS also had some trade-in program looming. But yeah if you were a big renter for example you'd be screwed.
EatinOlives
Member
Being receptive to your consumer base and changing policy based on feedback is a MISTAKE!! Microsoft, you idiots!!
Snowden's Secret
Banned
Let's try this another way:
Premise: The primary motivation for price drops on retail games is inventory risks/costs
Premise: There are no inventory risks/costs associated with digital goods
Conclusion: Because retailers have no risks/costs associated with digital goods, they have no motivation to drop the price
This conclusion is pretty well supported by worldly experience (retailers don't drop the price on digital goods, even if the corresponding physical game is cheaper).
lastflowers
Banned
uh, listening to customers concerns while crafting your policy should have been the plan. Have a forward thinking policy while taking care of the hardcore. They should have known the backlash to a 24 hour check-in far ahead of time, and should have crafted a policy that was much more lenient.
DragonSworne
Banned
The physical copy is worthless after installing the game.
Might as well throw it out, it's as good as trash.*
*Unless you go to participating retailers like GameStop and trade your game in for 5 dollars!
Palette Swap
Member
The thing with half these comments from industry people is that they always rely on an overly simplistic analogy with Steam and fail to see that what brought that 180 wasn't a single thing but an accumulation of details that painted a bleak future where your games and anything you wanted to do with them was in the hands of MS. Some of these details are shared with Steam but some definitely aren't.
The fact all these smart people ignore the differences gives me the impression they're disingenuous in their argument. Because I can't imagine they'd be blind or stupid enough to not get the differences.
The fact all these smart people ignore the differences gives me the impression they're disingenuous in their argument. Because I can't imagine they'd be blind or stupid enough to not get the differences.
DragonSworne
Banned
The non hardcore would have been the majority of customers getting screwed over.
These are the people who lend out games, rent games, and trade in games the most.
GameStop, Best Buy and Walmart will not allow digital prices to be less than their physical price. One reason why PC DD competes so well is that there isn't really a physical retail space for PC games anymore. That used to hold Steam back. The problem is we have a lot of gamers that just discovered Steam in the last couple years after Valve got it to be awesome because Gamestop and other brick and mortar retailers gave up on PC games.
It is nothing like Steam. Microsoft has no track record and cannot compete without physical retail the way PC games can.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I wish Microsoft dropped the disc check and eliminated resale entirely. Make an offline mode for the military people (and it can be half-assed like Steam's too) and that's it. The problem is they didn't want to piss off GameStop too much, because GameStop moves a lot of hardware and accessories for them.
You compare Apple to Microsoft and Apple since the mid-1990s was not afraid of pissing off anybody if they felt it served their vision. MS is a company of half-steps and it shows.
You compare Apple to Microsoft and Apple since the mid-1990s was not afraid of pissing off anybody if they felt it served their vision. MS is a company of half-steps and it shows.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I think Jelle Shell, a man involved in game design, is mistaking psychology for market value.
firstly, It's a console. It's values are nothing like the values that could (and did) work for PC's and Steam in particular. I never felt that Steam was forced on me beyond the scope what is convenient for both myself as well as for the companies involved. ALSO I didn't think Valve's primairy interest for the platform was to control ME or what I (can) do.
I do not feel the same way about EA's Origin and I will not go into bussiness with that offer. Similar system, same platform, no dice. The platform stays in one place, is always connected to the internet (aside from irregularities), and yet the offer doesn't work.
What MS was suggesting in the console space, with very different existing values as well as 'things that I could want from this product', was that I could play what they would 'allow me'. Which is not an offer at all, it's pointing a gun at someone and telling them to like it. Nobody likes that, if that even needed pointing out.
Secondly: Microsoft's main problem is that their offer is a goddamn mess. "TV! VIDEO! GAMES.. SORTA!". I am an experienced and relatively informed gamer and I have no idea what the fuck they want to offer in terms of value to me. In fact, I don't believe they offer anything at all. Tv? I can watch that on a Wii U, and look how that's selling. Or not selling, to be blunt. Video? I mean, seriously? any device on earth will do that. games? same shit, different console. (even bringing back Killer Instinct as a tool... how futuristic! )
I know that they probably took time to think and thought "look at that value!" during board meeting, but the truth is that they don't offer anything worthwhile at all, given their multiple control schemes (like the mess with Wii U....) of which one is the forced Kinect, which gets Hi-fucking-larious when combined with the PRISM leak.
"Listening to the customer" was an act of desperation, not a "mistake" on their part. Why? because they have no real offer and they know it.
/ rant
( I mean: kicking out the Xbox dvision head after presenting the offer? Or actually presenting the offer when you know you're leaving? I mean, reaaaally? How was that not going to look bad to the audience? -yes, my whole world consists of nothing more than consoles and nothing more, but I do think that any type of marketing planning was either ignored or thrown out in this case. Certainly knowing how tight MS is on marketing)
PS: too offtopic?
firstly, It's a console. It's values are nothing like the values that could (and did) work for PC's and Steam in particular. I never felt that Steam was forced on me beyond the scope what is convenient for both myself as well as for the companies involved. ALSO I didn't think Valve's primairy interest for the platform was to control ME or what I (can) do.
I do not feel the same way about EA's Origin and I will not go into bussiness with that offer. Similar system, same platform, no dice. The platform stays in one place, is always connected to the internet (aside from irregularities), and yet the offer doesn't work.
What MS was suggesting in the console space, with very different existing values as well as 'things that I could want from this product', was that I could play what they would 'allow me'. Which is not an offer at all, it's pointing a gun at someone and telling them to like it. Nobody likes that, if that even needed pointing out.
Secondly: Microsoft's main problem is that their offer is a goddamn mess. "TV! VIDEO! GAMES.. SORTA!". I am an experienced and relatively informed gamer and I have no idea what the fuck they want to offer in terms of value to me. In fact, I don't believe they offer anything at all. Tv? I can watch that on a Wii U, and look how that's selling. Or not selling, to be blunt. Video? I mean, seriously? any device on earth will do that. games? same shit, different console. (even bringing back Killer Instinct as a tool... how futuristic! )
I know that they probably took time to think and thought "look at that value!" during board meeting, but the truth is that they don't offer anything worthwhile at all, given their multiple control schemes (like the mess with Wii U....) of which one is the forced Kinect, which gets Hi-fucking-larious when combined with the PRISM leak.
"Listening to the customer" was an act of desperation, not a "mistake" on their part. Why? because they have no real offer and they know it.
/ rant
( I mean: kicking out the Xbox dvision head after presenting the offer? Or actually presenting the offer when you know you're leaving? I mean, reaaaally? How was that not going to look bad to the audience? -yes, my whole world consists of nothing more than consoles and nothing more, but I do think that any type of marketing planning was either ignored or thrown out in this case. Certainly knowing how tight MS is on marketing)
PS: too offtopic?
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Retailers would have been selling PHYSICAL copies of the games, not digital. I don't understand how this is difficult to grasp. They would have been selling a game case + disc + manual, just like it's always been, just like retail PC games. I feel weird defending MS like this but the no competition bullet-point is just stupid.