If this is true... Then... Wow...

[Requia]

It doesn't make a lick of sense. Multiplatform games are *also* on the Xbox, not showing them hurts both companies, not just Sony.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Well, today is the day we find out if it's true or not. Let's see what happens.

Assuming Sony doesn't implement similarly horrible anti-consumer features (big assumption at this point, btw), this is shaping up as a war between Sony+Consumers and MS+Publishers.

Actually, Sony has said 3rd Parties can implement their own DRM and Always-Online Requirements. This isn't a fight between Sony and Microsoft, this is really a fight between Nintendo and Microsoft (Who are opposite ends of the Spectrum), with Sony caught in between (And borrowing things from both of them).

We've sorta had this out in another thread, but no. Sony can't stop publishers from doing whatever they want - and neither can Nintendo or any other hardware manufacturer. There's a big difference between that unfortunate reality and what Microsoft is working towards.

You're the only person I've seen try to frame this as "WiiU vs Xbone". I don't get it. Nintendo's machine is a practically last-gen console with a gimmicky controller no one asked for and virtually nonexistent third party support.

 

[Vale]

That would be slightly too unsubtle, even for Microsoft.
I have no doubt however that they'll do every dirty thing they think they can get away with to hurt Sony, because saving face is likely going to be too difficult for MS at this point.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

There was also something I heard about Microsoft having sit on Reddit down-voting any negative X Box One comments.

 

[floppylobster]

Just Wow Microsoft. Just wow. If what I read is true, Microsoft is going to try to make the PS4 look Barren, by baring PS4 version of Multiplat games from E3. Just... Wow! This is, by far, the worst rumor about them I've heard! This is worst then Always On (Semi-Confirmed), no used games (Still Confused, but it seems like it's true in some sense), and mandatory Kinect (Completely Confirmed), I'm just... Wow!

You might want to invest in a thesaurus or wait until the shock has worn off so you can post some more coherent thoughts on the matter. I don't think "just wow" is going to register with Microsoft. In their current state of market awareness they might actually read it just as "Wow!"

 

[loc978]

um... didn't they do that exact thing all through the last generation to promote the 360? ...and variations on it involving TV spots, et cetera? I remember a lot of multiplatform releases advertised as "only... on Xbox 360" (notice the pause. Pretty sure they put it in so it could be considered a slogan, rather than a statement). Including games I've got for PC.

Public relations has always been Microsoft's strong suit. Making actual quality products... not so much.

 

[Generic4me]

What's up with the Microsoft hate all of a sudden?

They did this stuff with COD DLC, they do timed exclusives (GTA 4's "Expansions" anyone?), how is this any different?

I don't hate Microsoft, Sony's going to be doing the exact same bullshit for next-gen, at least Microsoft's willing to admit it and at least attempt to keep the fans happy.

Microsoft isn't idiotic, they're weighing their options and this is what their INTELLIGENT, TRAINED, and PAID management people decided on. Making us happy by removing the always-online, and being OK with used games would lead to a publisher boycott. A real boycott, like, no games at all. As opposed to a consumer boycott, which we all know will have broken by day 3.

 

[Astoria]

If this is true then I'm settled on not buying a Xbone. Clearly Microsoft doesn't give a damn about their customers and they'd rather muck around so screw 'em looks like I'm jumping ship and maybe getting a PS4. (Even if it's not true it's still sad that this is even a rumor).

 

[Something Amyss]

I would expect nothing less from Microsoft.

And I would expect nothing less from unsubstantiated rumours on the interwebs.

 

[Something Amyss]

I love how everyone reacts to this as "grr bad Microsoft!".

Imagine what Apple would do were they involved in the console wars?

Come now. We all know it's different when Apple or Nintendo does something.

So, just because one company would do worse, it's not bad? What kind of logic is that?

It depends. If the logic is "we as a collective blindly accept the worst of Apple's policies but scream and whine about even rumours of Microsoft's policies," it's pretty sound and earnest logic.

y'know what do think would happen if 1 or 2 years into this launch someone came into the console market...say a Chinese firm...with a multi manufacturer licensed (like MSX) games console using standard parts and sold it cheap as chips. could have a linux based OS and dev kit specifically constructed to be so simple a child could use it. 60 FPS at 1080p...that's all it really needs to do y'know.

With AMD deciding to push itself as a sort of gaming standard, I could easily see someone else building a console for relatively low costs and running with it. The question is, would it be supported? Publishers like control, and I'm not sure the likes of EA have learned from the failure of online passes yet.

Microsoft, do you know what will do GREAT? REMOVING THE NO USED GAMES, ALWAYS ONLINE, AND MANDATORY KINECT BULLSHIT

Yes, but that would be the LOGICAL response to being taken aback by negative feedback. The GAME DEV response is to try and take your shitty hardware/software and make it look better by making the other guy's look shittier.

While I wouldn't put it past Microsoft, I kinda doubt it, said Devs/Pubs would be hurting them selves by going a long with it, especially since we're in times when 3 million sales is a 'failure', the more awareness the better for them.

Occam's Razor for the win.

I somehow doubt publishers would agree to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Surely it's common knowledge for this too? When I see David Beckham wearing an Addidas hat I say 'oh, he must have been paid by Adidas.' But when I see a game being displayed or shown on a particular console I think 'oh, they must have been paid by that consoles manufacturer.' Noone has ever told me I just presume...

Surely it's a non issue, right? How is it unethical? A company paying to get their product seen... how is that different to product placement anywhere else? How is that manipulative?

The "official" reason for advertising is to increase awareness of your product - people can't buy it if they don't know about it.

When it get's manipulative ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv3qPM8BLdE

well, less just say it become quite the grey area.

While society tolerates manipulative advertisements. Pushing it too far can earn the companies a PR black eye - e.g. advertising to easily influenced young children; banned in some countries.

That isn't manipulative. Besides that is a comedy bit that is over exaggerating what companies say to get you to buy their product, it maybe pandering to situational feelings and just random situations that involve the product, but I wouldn't really call it manipulative.

Companies have to do something to get people to buy their product. They can't just say, our product is proven and good for use. At most that would only get a couple of percentage points of people to switch.

The world of marketing and sales is about:

1.)Creating a better light for your product to be in.

You and your competitor(s) may have the exact same product that both are pretty much identical, so in the end it comes down to who can paint the picture of their product better; who can appeal to the consumer's emotions better.

2.)Marketing to the right demographic, but also to the widest amount of them.

Chances are that, you can't reach all demographics, because many times making one happy will piss off the other. A company has to pay attention to the middle road, is the people in between two demographics big enough.

Microsoft playing to the sports and TV/movie loving demographic with the Xbox One. It will still have games, because it is a console for games. They are counting on the middle demographic of people that like sports and TV and/or gaming and don't mind the Kinect and other "negative" points to some gamers. They are weighing the loss of some core gamers, to the gain from all the extra entertainment points.

All things considered, as much as people want Microsoft to fail because of the things it is doing, and how it is marketing, it isn't going to happen. They will still have a margin that will keep giving them money, and any losses will be balanced by their gains from new comers.

That is what happened with Nintendo and the Wii. Nintendo alienated a large chunk of the core market, but with all the family and casual people they picked up, along with the core people that didn't mind the console and liked the newness of it, they made a killing because the gains out stripped the losses.

The reason I say that what you point out isn't manipulative, is that the word brings the image of harmful, that what a company does with their advertising, will actually hurt someone. Which in most cases, such advertising doesn't, and any that truly is harmful, will get removed/have action taken against it.

And really, even if the Xbox One destroyed the used games market as we see it now, it isn't a harmful thing. It is just bringing the games market up to the monetary standards of all the other industries, TV/movies, music, books, etc.

 

[SweetShark]

Surely it's common knowledge for this too? When I see David Beckham wearing an Addidas hat I say 'oh, he must have been paid by Adidas.' But when I see a game being displayed or shown on a particular console I think 'oh, they must have been paid by that consoles manufacturer.' Noone has ever told me I just presume...

Surely it's a non issue, right? How is it unethical? A company paying to get their product seen... how is that different to product placement anywhere else? How is that manipulative?

The "official" reason for advertising is to increase awareness of your product - people can't buy it if they don't know about it.

When it get's manipulative ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv3qPM8BLdE

well, less just say it become quite the grey area.

While society tolerates manipulative advertisements. Pushing it too far can earn the companies a PR black eye - e.g. advertising to easily influenced young children; banned in some countries.

That isn't manipulative. Besides that is a comedy bit that is over exaggerating what companies say to get you to buy their product, it maybe pandering to situational feelings and just random situations that involve the product, but I wouldn't really call it manipulative.

Companies have to do something to get people to buy their product. They can't just say, our product is proven and good for use. At most that would only get a couple of percentage points of people to switch.

The world of marketing and sales is about:

1.)Creating a better light for your product to be in.

You and your competitor(s) may have the exact same product that both are pretty much identical, so in the end it comes down to who can paint the picture of their product better; who can appeal to the consumer's emotions better.

2.)Marketing to the right demographic, but also to the widest amount of them.

Chances are that, you can't reach all demographics, because many times making one happy will piss off the other. A company has to pay attention to the middle road, is the people in between two demographics big enough.

Microsoft playing to the sports and TV/movie loving demographic with the Xbox One. It will still have games, because it is a console for games. They are counting on the middle demographic of people that like sports and TV and/or gaming and don't mind the Kinect and other "negative" points to some gamers. They are weighing the loss of some core gamers, to the gain from all the extra entertainment points.

All things considered, as much as people want Microsoft to fail because of the things it is doing, and how it is marketing, it isn't going to happen. They will still have a margin that will keep giving them money, and any losses will be balanced by their gains from new comers.

That is what happened with Nintendo and the Wii. Nintendo alienated a large chunk of the core market, but with all the family and casual people they picked up, along with the core people that didn't mind the console and liked the newness of it, they made a killing because the gains out stripped the losses.

The reason I say that what you point out isn't manipulative, is that the word brings the image of harmful, that what a company does with their advertising, will actually hurt someone. Which in most cases, such advertising doesn't, and any that truly is harmful, will get removed/have action taken against it.

And really, even if the Xbox One destroyed the used games market as we see it now, it isn't a harmful thing. It is just bringing the games market up to the monetary standards of all the other industries, TV/movies, music, books, etc.

I don't know if you are 100% correct with your opinion, but I salute you for your crystal clear and understandable post you wrote.
Also I think you are right about this: MS "selected" only a specific type of costumers it things will bring more cash.
Maybe the most of us say how many stupid decisions MS made or be the "looser" of all other consoles, but I think in the end will win from this. Heck, call me crazy if you like, even MS name the console like that because we the gamers are VERY predictable to our reactions....

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

I don't know if you are 100% correct with your opinion, but I salute you for your crystal clear and understandable post you wrote.
Also I think you are right about this: MS "selected" only a specific type of costumers it things will bring more cash.
Maybe the most of us say how many stupid decisions MS made or be the "looser" of all other consoles, but I think in the end will win from this. Heck, call me crazy if you like, even MS name the console like that because we the gamers are VERY predictable to our reactions....

Seriously, I been doing that a lot today. Today's post amount is a little abnormal for me. Though, it doesn't get this way when actually care about what I'm commenting about.

But back on the Microsoft matter:

You mention predictable reactions from gamers, well, I think Microsoft is also banking on the people that will cave and get the the system anyway, when a game comes out that they really want to play and they know they can't get it on anything else. And if Microsoft Studios is really coming out with 15 exclusives within the first year of the console, and 8 of them being new IP, then they will get those people that normally cave and maybe more people breaking down to get the system.

If people really want something, they will accept even having the things they most abhor about the console, and will get the thing anyway. There are a great deal of gamers that are weak about standing up for what they fight against, and I guarantee it will be just enough that it won't matter to Microsoft on how many people they do lose and what their image becomes.

Seriously, look at EA, as bad as their image is among many gamers, if it effected them in actual severity comparatively, they would have crumbled and been no more over a year ago.

 

[deadish]

Surely it's common knowledge for this too? When I see David Beckham wearing an Addidas hat I say 'oh, he must have been paid by Adidas.' But when I see a game being displayed or shown on a particular console I think 'oh, they must have been paid by that consoles manufacturer.' Noone has ever told me I just presume...

Surely it's a non issue, right? How is it unethical? A company paying to get their product seen... how is that different to product placement anywhere else? How is that manipulative?

The "official" reason for advertising is to increase awareness of your product - people can't buy it if they don't know about it.

When it get's manipulative ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv3qPM8BLdE

well, less just say it become quite the grey area.

While society tolerates manipulative advertisements. Pushing it too far can earn the companies a PR black eye - e.g. advertising to easily influenced young children; banned in some countries.

That isn't manipulative. Besides that is a comedy bit that is over exaggerating what companies say to get you to buy their product, it maybe pandering to situational feelings and just random situations that involve the product, but I wouldn't really call it manipulative.

Companies have to do something to get people to buy their product. They can't just say, our product is proven and good for use. At most that would only get a couple of percentage points of people to switch.

The world of marketing and sales is about:

1.)Creating a better light for your product to be in.

You and your competitor(s) may have the exact same product that both are pretty much identical, so in the end it comes down to who can paint the picture of their product better; who can appeal to the consumer's emotions better.

2.)Marketing to the right demographic, but also to the widest amount of them.

Chances are that, you can't reach all demographics, because many times making one happy will piss off the other. A company has to pay attention to the middle road, is the people in between two demographics big enough.

Microsoft playing to the sports and TV/movie loving demographic with the Xbox One. It will still have games, because it is a console for games. They are counting on the middle demographic of people that like sports and TV and/or gaming and don't mind the Kinect and other "negative" points to some gamers. They are weighing the loss of some core gamers, to the gain from all the extra entertainment points.

All things considered, as much as people want Microsoft to fail because of the things it is doing, and how it is marketing, it isn't going to happen. They will still have a margin that will keep giving them money, and any losses will be balanced by their gains from new comers.

That is what happened with Nintendo and the Wii. Nintendo alienated a large chunk of the core market, but with all the family and casual people they picked up, along with the core people that didn't mind the console and liked the newness of it, they made a killing because the gains out stripped the losses.

The reason I say that what you point out isn't manipulative, is that the word brings the image of harmful, that what a company does with their advertising, will actually hurt someone. Which in most cases, such advertising doesn't, and any that truly is harmful, will get removed/have action taken against it.

And really, even if the Xbox One destroyed the used games market as we see it now, it isn't a harmful thing. It is just bringing the games market up to the monetary standards of all the other industries, TV/movies, music, books, etc.

It's a comedy bit about how manipulative ads can be. The jesters are always the ones to point out the emperor has no clothes.

I don't know about you, but for most part I don't like being manipulated.

Considering MS's recently announced "features" for the Xbone, no shit, people want them to fail.

If MS wants to be Nintendo 2.0, effectively being irrelevant in the broader game industry, and go for the "TV sports" crowd into direct competition with established cable companies who know how the "content game" is played ... Well it's their business.

 

[NiPah]

LoL is this the next rumor escapists are going to swallow faster than a Thai hooker? Sounds laughable on its face. I don't think I've ever seen such crazy bias in a community ever lol.

You signed up early today and already you've racked up 17 posts which are either "It's too soon to say if Xbox One is good or not" and "Wow Sony is doing this stupid thing".
It's clear where your bias lies, it's also clear you're judging a community on a topic which most people have said is most likely BS, please think a little bit more before you make 18 or more posts.

 

[FalloutJack]

LoL is this the next rumor escapists are going to swallow faster than a Thai hooker? Sounds laughable on its face. I don't think I've ever seen such crazy bias in a community ever lol.

Ah, Mr. Green! So nice of you to join us here!

(GET IT? HE'S A PLANT!)

OT: Ah, this wouldn't even work if they tried. Microsoft's "Throw money at it!" strategy doesn't quite cover such grandscale bribery.