Support NeoGAF

[boredandlazy]

What part did you like?

The part where it was Microsoft's idea.

 

[wapplew]

I think they can still make one with original plan, just make extra sku call it Xbox one always online edition.
More option always good for customer.

 

[AndrewRyan]

Used games were *only* through accredited re-sellers. Think buying/selling games at Game Stop - their prices are so far removed from market prices you're pretty much considered a moron if you use their service. It's better than what we have now for digital games, but no-one wants a sudo Game Stop style market where prices are insulting and your end of the bargain is to be willingly ass raped.

 

[Matt]

I think they can still make one with original plan, just make extra sku call it Xbox one always online edition.
More option always good for customer.

No, they can't.

 

[cakely]

Used games could be sold as either physical or digital without a fee. This was only for Microsoft published games. 3rd party publishers had the option to add a fee for the transfer of licenses. 3rd parties could allow or deny you the ability to sell, trade, or lend their games, not Microsoft.

The re-selling of digital games was never part of Microsoft's pre-180 Xbox One vision.

Digital loaning or trading could be done but only to friends on XBL and you would have needed to be friends on XBL for 30 days or longer. There would have been an option for the amount of time you wanted to lend your game(people never return shit on time so this makes perfect sense, lol). You would initially be limited to loaning each game once.

Again, Microsoft proposed a convoluted system for exchanging physical games, but digital trading and reselling was never mentioned.

Family Sharing would have allowed up to 10 members(household or not) to have access to the entire game library of the main account. On any designated Xbox One(any of the 10 selected), as long as the main account is logged in, up to 10 Xbox Ones could access the entire library at once. The main account holder could still access any of their games and also play online with anyone of the designated members. You could literally buy one copy of a game and share it with up to 10 people in your country. Anyone outside of your country would then be subject to the loaning policy.

That is an incredibly optimistic interpretation of "family sharing", and there was never a chance that it was going to work that way. Do you honestly think publishers would be fine with a persistent "Buy One, Get Nine Free" deal on their games?

The only reason I would have liked to see Microsoft keep it's pre-180 Xbox One vision is so I could stop hearing about about the fantasy versions of it.

Microsoft correctly realized that their original version of vision would have been a spectacular failure, and that's why they ditched it pre-launch.

 

[Colonel Nasty]

I would not have minded the original vision but I imagine I'm an outlier. Digital benefits plus retail prices sounds great. I almost never trade games and if I do it's never to anything but a store. I can't think of an instance of where I've lent a game to a person on any platform this gen.

 

[KingJ2002]

They would have less market share and a fragmented third party experience.

People who lacked the internet wouldn't be able to play it... so no money is coming from this market.

Also, most gamers that gave Microsoft another chance after removing their 24hr check / licensing system would have rejected them entirely and went ps4 or stuck with their Xbox 360.

Then there's third parties... this was right around the time companies were starting to get off that DRM system that required some 5-10 fee for used titles... if they were to implement that into the system design itself... gamers would have to deal with "which title has resale value, which one does not."


The idea of physical = digital is great but coming with the rest of those anti-consumer non-sense still makes this plan a terrible one.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Way worse off. They didn't explain their points properly because they were all negative for the consumer. That's why they explained them improperly to make them sound good for the consumer.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Yeah, and enough people weren't going to buy it so obviously that impacted MS decision. The potential didn't outweigh the risks, and rightly so.

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

 

[hawk2025]

Holy crap at the rosy fairy tale in the OP.


So much of it is a myth and was contradicted by their own execs during E3.

 

[BobJustBob]

But what does that have to do with anything else you talked about? How is this decision leading to the downfall of consoles?

Incremental consoles will kill the console market, because that turns consoles into overpriced underpowered PCs you have to replace every couple of years, and I don't see any market for that while actual PCs exist. That's sort of a separate issue, but I think the Xbone reaction was a big factor in the plans to move to incremental consoles. Microsoft spent years designing an always-online digital-first system based around the Kinect, and the public reaction caused them to drop half of that, then the other half. Waiting so many years to unveil something that people might immediately reject is just too risky, especially when something as safe and inevitable as moving to digital provokes such ire. I can see the thought process being that more frequent, incremental hardware changes might be safer now, even if it dooms them in the long run.

 

[TurboButts]

Some serious revisionist history going on here. It had near universal hatred for a reason. Everyone was scared as shit at the end of the 360/PS3 lifecycle about these new console before we had official details, and Microsoft confirmed everyone's suspicions with that original Xbox One vision.

 

[EGM1966]

Xbox would be barely ahead of Wii U and PS4 would have even larger install base.

Meltdowns and people being banned would be even more prevelant.

Certain journos would look even more biased as they desperately find a way to manipulate data and charts to spin positive slant for Xbox.

Probably.

But don't read too much into it.

 

[barneystuta83]

The way it was presented was a disaster. Simple as that.

For me though, I was always on board.

As an all digital gamer sharing my library already with my 'home' and brother, this would have been 10 times better. Literally.

If they did all of it mentioned in the OP and sold it effectively, then it may have been different.

 

[Matt]

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

No, MS had very real presale and market research data showing them this was a plan that would massively impact their user base.

 

[TheSpoiler]

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

If someone tells you of a pretty anti-consumer thing, you, as a consumer, don't necessarily have to give it a chance. They provide you with a product, and you either buy it because it suits your needs, or don't buy it because it doesn't. As a consumer, you also have the right to vent your frustrations in hopes of change. Otherwise, without what I've just said, companies can do whatever they want with your money.

Remember: it's your money.

And there's no quantifiable data stating that it was "largely" from people who weren't going to buy an Xbox One in the first place. You had many people here interested, but lost interest, when they heard the plans. It doesn't even matter anyway - businesses don't operate on what immediate buyers want. They need the whole pie, and that includes potential buyers.

The way it was presented was a disaster. Simple as that.

For me though, I was always on board.

As an all digital gamer sharing my library already with my 'home' and brother, this would have been 10 times better. Literally.

If they did all of it mentioned in the OP and sold it effectively, then it may have been different.

The stuff in the OP wasn't even in the original plan, nor would it have happened in any format. They could have presented it so sweetly that you thought it was a sexy sexy individual asking you to remove your clothing, and it'd still be vile due to the core problems. You can't dress that shit up enough.

 

[Matt]

Incremental consoles will kill the console market, because that turns consoles into overpriced underpowered PCs you have to replace every couple of years, and I don't see any market for that while actual PCs exist. That's sort of a separate issue, but I think the Xbone reaction was a big factor in the plans to move to incremental consoles. Microsoft spent years designing an always-online digital-first system based around the Kinect, and the public reaction caused them to drop half of that, then the other half. Waiting so many years to unveil something that people might immediately reject is just too risky, especially when something as safe and inevitable as moving to digital provokes such ire. I can see the thought process being that more frequent, incremental hardware changes might be safer now, even if it dooms them in the long run.

You are seeing a connection that does not exist.

 

[Blanquito]

Matt once again is laying down the truth.

 

[hawk2025]

Microsoft currently has the worst online store and the worst online discounts of the two by a wide margin, and some of you guys actually want us to believe the bullshit of lower prices with restricted used sales?

Give me a break.

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

I await your evidence.

 

[Canucked]

Games as a service and not as a product. They would have made more money off each individual game. But they would have even less marketshare overall.

But I'm more happy they're downplaying kinect than I am about downplaying the digital scope.

 

[farisr]

No, MS had very real presale and market research data showing them this was a plan that would massively impact their user base.

Yup. And I remember preorders picking up by a good amount after the 180.

 

[Swass]

If they had stuck with the original idea, Xbox would be nothing more than an icon on the Windows 10 start menu.

I still can't believe the traction the "family sharing" nonsense gets even today. Gamertag radio podcast were speculating it could even be announced at this year's E3.. lol

 

[theecakee]

I think it would have been just the same, the first impression set the tone for it. I know people way after Xbox One release that thought it still had the DRM stuff.

 

[cakely]

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

You're claiming this as fact: "Internet outrage over the initially announced Xbox One vision was largely from people that still haven't bought an Xbox One."

Do you have anything to back that claim up? Because right now, it sounds like pure bullshit.

 

[BlastProcessing]

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

I am going to believe that a company the size of Microsoft did some market research on this once the cat was out of the bag. A company like Microsoft doesn't make billion dollar decisions just because they are spooked by forum posts.

You don't think a data driven company would make such a huge course correction without hard numbers?

Spoiler

Also that isn't irony, it's causality, I blame Alanis.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

The Wii U would have had some company sitting outside that window with the rain coming down.

But yeah, the rose tinted version outlined in the OP reads like fiction. Or at the very least a revised version of what they were offering to make it sound more enticing.

 

[Rymuth]

Matt once again is laying down the truth.

Thank god for him.

I'm trying to dig up the post where it was either him or Cosmic, desecibing first hand how even the Devs were off-put by MS plan and, to paraphrase the post 'trickled back and then flooded over to Sont'

Wish I could find it.

 

[Caronte]

Seems like we get a new revisionist thread about this every couple months now.

 

[RowdyReverb]

If they had made the hardware itself or the exclusives more enticing, they might have been able to stick to their guns. Like, if they had sold the consoles at a $100 loss or something and beefed up the GPU and founded a few new AAA first party studios a few years prior, they might have been able to overcome the negative impression of the console, but they really failed spectacularly in that regard.
It was the weaker console, with features that the core gaming audience didn't care about, and too strong a focus on Kinect. Add to that a new and scary DRM strategy and the console would sink.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

They would've bombed harder than the Wii u tbh

 

[Triggerhappytel]

The funny thing is, if they'd made all of their awful plans elective rather than mandatory then there probably wouldn't have been any backlash at all. People like Adam Sessler and Tim Dog could have gone for it in the firm belief it was a good move, while the majority would have probably opted out and had a system much like the Xbone as it is now.

 

[gofreak]

IIRC, the only need for *all* of the technical ins and outs of the original system was the ability on Microsoft's part to regulate second hand trade or exchange of physical games. Everything else could have been achieved with a less burdensome system. The only thing that needed it all was that control of the disc beyond the first purchase.

This makes talk of benefit to resell value rose-tinted in the extreme, I'm afraid.

 

[aygomyownroad]

It's all ifs, buts, and maybes.

They were caught out with the draconian always online, they had people associated with them answering valid questions with stuff like "why would I want to live there" and "we have a console for that its called the Xbox 360"

If they had been completely honest from the start maybe more people would have given them a chance, as let's face it the majority of consoles are on a network but the answers and reveal were very poor.

Same as the kinetic is necessary rubbish

 

[RionaaM]

Well not right away but they could have done better in the long run with great word of Mouth. If all AAA games were 50 dollars on Xbox one then ya they would buy it. Then if their were crazy like steam sales where games cost dollars then everyone would be talking about that sale. People would look at the console different and just not see a weaker ps4

So why isn't this happening now? There's nothing preventing this scenario from occurring today. If it doesn't happen in a more open platform, what makes you think that would have been the case in an extremely closed one?

And the stuff you wrote in the OP is mostly made up, as has been already said several times in this thread. 10-people family sharing? Reselling of digitam games? That makes no sense, and even then, it could be applied today without ruining physical discs as the original plan would have done. Seriously, how can "publishers can allow discs to be resold at participating retailers" be considered a good thing?

The Xbox One original plan was a complete disaster, and I'm glad it never saw the light of day.

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

It would have been an absolute failure.

It wasn't a case of people misunderstanding their shitty anti-consumer ideas, it was the opposite, where people were fully aware of how awful the original model was to the point of them making their 180 after so many people called them out on their bullshit.

 

[Mass Effect]

Consoles wouldn't be on the verge of collapse like they are now. Digital is the future (by which I mean the past, as mobile and PC have been digital-only for years) and everyone knows it, but the massive backlash of idiots poisoned that well for a long time to come. Does anyone think a PS5 or Xbox 4 could implement similar features even years from now after that freakout? And then you're talking about pushing 2025 with boxes still relying on discs. That couldn't happen. I think the mass of gamers drawing a line in the sand and saying we'll accept progress up to here, but no further, is exactly what led to the current plans of incremental console upgrades, which will destroy the console market.

Edit: And of course MS would be doing better if they had stuck to the plan, not just because the whiners were a minority, but because it was the Xbone's big distinguishing feature. Now it's just a weaker PS4 with nothing that makes it stand apart.

And how would an always-online Xbox that would have more than likely done far worse than its doing now helped the situation?

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

That's no one's fault but Microsoft's. They could have gone ahead anyway.

 

[Blobbers]

"You guys are not even willing to give MS a chance"

I'm gonna ask the same thing I asked in an UWP thread once. Why does this argument permeate through every microsoft thread? Why does Microsoft, out of all companies, deserve all of the benefits of the doubt? Was I really supposed to just throw caution to the wind and believe these guys would usher in a new glorious era of digital where you can't resell your game unless it's a "select" retailer and where you have to check in every 24 hours?
How about that army guy who complained that he wouldn't be able to play XBox One because there's no online where he's stationed? What was microsoft's response to his curious situation?

It feels like the real life version of the "shitting on plate" meme. Sure there's a naked guy squatting over your plate and there's a little brown coming out of his ass, but you still have people saying "how do you know it's gonna be shit?"

These guys are some of the biggest control freaks I've seen. Seriously, if there's anything I've learned about microsoft from their XO and UWP initiative, it's that they want to control EVERYTHING.
At least other companies show some semblance of restarint. These fuckers go gung ho.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Solution was simple. Don't buy it if you don't like it. I liked it and thought it had real potential.

If I'm not mistaken, that was One of the reasons for the back track... Crap preorder numbers.

So it actually happened as you described, people didn't like what Ms was selling and thus they weren't going to buy it.

It would've been interesting to see them actually go ahead and burn to ashes in the process - if only for the excuses they and/or the fanboys would have concocted.

 

[bishoptl]

fairy tale nonsense

That 2:1 sales disadvantage we're currently seeing would be 4:1, if not higher.

It feels like the real life version of the "shitting on plate" meme. Sure there's a naked guy squatting over your plate and there's a little brown coming out of his ass, but you still have people saying "how do you know it's gonna be shit?"

 

[Caronte]

Consoles wouldn't be on the verge of collapse like they are now. Digital is the future (by which I mean the past, as mobile and PC have been digital-only for years) and everyone knows it, but the massive backlash of idiots poisoned that well for a long time to come. Does anyone think a PS5 or Xbox 4 could implement similar features even years from now after that freakout? And then you're talking about pushing 2025 with boxes still relying on discs. That couldn't happen. I think the mass of gamers drawing a line in the sand and saying we'll accept progress up to here, but no further, is exactly what led to the current plans of incremental console upgrades, which will destroy the console market.

Edit: And of course MS would be doing better if they had stuck to the plan, not just because the whiners were a minority, but because it was the Xbone's big distinguishing feature. Now it's just a weaker PS4 with nothing that makes it stand apart.

I love this way of thinking. "Digital is the future! Which means they have to force it down on us for it to happen!".

PC didn't became mostly digital by not selling physical games. It happened because users saw value in the convenience of it, and cheaper prices. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from doing the same on consoles. They simply do not want to.

 

[Pyramid head]

Solution was simple. Don't buy it if you don't like it. I liked it and thought it had real potential.

Indeed it was. And not buy it is exactly what people did. Companies don't just reverse huge plans like this at the last minute just because a vocal minority laughing at them on the internet. The pre-order figures for the Xbox One must have been disasterous. Everything around the reveal of the thing was an absolute catastrophy.

And fucking hell, I can't believe people are still whinging about the 'family share' bollocks which MS never made more than a few non-committal and extremely vague remarks about. Do you really think developers would have gone along with having their sales figures potentially divided by 10 on MS's system? Really? Reaaaaaaallly?

It's no secret that the Xbox One hasn't exactly been a runaway success as is, but if MS had stuck to their guns over this, software sales wouldn't have been the only thing divided by 10.

 

[Gamezone]

They didn't promise anything. Yeah, they said you could give away a digital copy to someone who had been your friend for minimum 30 days on Xbox Live, and that's pretty much it. They never said anything selling used copies, other than at specific retailers (probably Gamestop). None of that could compromise for all the DRM bullshit.

 

[bishoptl]

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

I'm calling out this post specifically as utter nonsense. Companies don't turn course on billion dollar, multi year product launches without hard data telling them to.

Again, your post is the Webster definition of "Tales from the Ass".

 

[nillah]

Those are features I'd like to see on all consoles moving forward

 

[Matt]

Those are features I'd like to see on all consoles moving forward

No one is ever going to give away 9 copies of every game you buy.

 

[iMax]

Did you read what you originally quoted?

I'm an idiot. Apologies.

 

[Nzyme32]

It wasn't being well received when they announced it, and it likely would not have continued to be. Very little could be done to change public perception of those policies because it was simply not what the majority of console owners wanted, and was definitely a leap too soon for users that hadn't properly engaged with digital downloads in the first place, and had no guarantee of perpetuity or trust in MS offering similar lower cost games akin to PCs movement towards digital. Particularly with consoles, always online is a big problem.

Family Sharing would have allowed up to 10 members(household or not) to have access to the entire game library of the main account. On any designated Xbox One(any of the 10 selected), as long as the main account is logged in, up to 10 Xbox Ones could access the entire library at once. The main account holder could still access any of their games and also play online with anyone of the designated members. You could literally buy one copy of a game and share it with up to 10 people in your country. Anyone outside of your country would then be subject to the loaning policy.

If memory serves, part of the bigger issues at the time were that Microsoft were extremely evasive of answering the details behind the sharing of games via this "family sharing" and lending practices, giving a variety of responses when different people were ask, but nothing concrete.

It was only when the company did the u-turn that they explained what it apparently was - which is of course very easy to do when you know you won't be following through. So I don't think it was ever intended to work as such.

 

[Gamezone]

Consoles wouldn't be on the verge of collapse like they are now. Digital is the future (by which I mean the past, as mobile and PC have been digital-only for years) and everyone knows it, but the massive backlash of idiots poisoned that well for a long time to come. Does anyone think a PS5 or Xbox 4 could implement similar features even years from now after that freakout? And then you're talking about pushing 2025 with boxes still relying on discs. That couldn't happen. I think the mass of gamers drawing a line in the sand and saying we'll accept progress up to here, but no further, is exactly what led to the current plans of incremental console upgrades, which will destroy the console market.

Edit: And of course MS would be doing better if they had stuck to the plan, not just because the whiners were a minority, but because it was the Xbone's big distinguishing feature. Now it's just a weaker PS4 with nothing that makes it stand apart.

Welcome to the future. You can buy every game digitally if you want. The future should be about being able to choose, not being restricted, so excuse me for sticking with the past.

 

[Kuni]

I'm pretty glad it turned out the way it did. The online check in alone was just a big no no for me, would've made it one of the most locked down devices. Along with that they were seeking to just take away various rights for nothing in return (I, too, don't believe family sharing was the golden goose people.make it out to be). If the games were cheaper or something I dunno but I've been enjoying the ability to trade in my PS4 games freely.

Personally I see it as one of the biggest gaffes in the gaming industry and potentially could've been very damaging overall. Thankfully the marker rejected it very swiftly.

 

[Gamezone]

It was never given a chance. Microsoft got scared by internet outrage, largely from people that - get this - still haven't bought an Xbox One, and never intended to in the first place. How ironic is that?

You can't announce bullshit and be mad at users for not giving them a chance. Announce something that sounds appealing, and then deserve a chance.