Why did Microsoft Reverse their policies when the damage is already done?

[Lilani]

Kinect won't ever go away. It is there along with the recently removed online policy to ensure to developers all the players will have these things available so they can spend time developing for them. B/c the old Kinect only a handful of ppl had and they were basically all casual gamers, so guess what kind of games came out for the Kinect? Also the Kinect is one of the main ways to navigate the X1's OS and multimedia features.

Because that's how you market something--force it down the customer's throat until they thought it was their idea.

But really, they could have gotten the same effect simply by selling the Kinect with the console and allowing the player to hook it up whenever they see fit. Making it to where it always has to be hooked in is just ridiculous, and rather unfair to people who aren't blessed with lots of square footage (like college students, young people with small apartments, kids with small rooms, members of the military...you know, a few of their biggest demographics).

I hope they do re-reverse this once ppl are like "oh the HUGe majority of ppl buying a next gen console in a first world country have access to the internet, durrr"

Why? Also, you do realize the 24 hour check-in also completely eliminates the military as a customer base. Which Microsoft should be taking seriously, because games and consoles are a big market on military bases, and these days troops love to have consoles around to share and play on in their spare time while overseas. There is no way you can spin this positively, so please don't even try. Your entire argument revolves around the idea of, "It doesn't inconvenience too many people!"

Well that's great and all, but you know something that would reduce that number to zero? Not requiring the check-in at all.

All of those features need a 24 hour, or whatever hour check-in to stop piracy which would be REALLY EASY on a all digital console. Steam offline mode requires a check-in as well, but its once every 2 weeks. But Steam doesn't let you share or sell games.

Um...no they don't require a check-in. If the system is essentially transferring use of the license, then once the transfer is complete and logged in the system they shouldn't need to "check-in," just as the original owner of the license didn't need to "check-in" before. And I played Steam offline for a long-ass time while I my apartment had shitty Internet. Sometimes it would try to connect, but I can recall going easily 1 and a half to 2 months without it ever fully updating.

And I'll give you that Steam doesn't let you trade games, but when I buy stuff on Steam I'm never worried about selling them back. You can buy a fairly recent game used at a retailer for about $45 or $50, depending on the location and demand. And you can sell it back for like $10-$15 at most (again, depending on demand. If demand is low, don't count on more than $8). Even under ideal circumstances in which you buy it for $45 and sell it for $15, that's still $25 you spent on a game that you can never play again.

But if I buy a new game on Steam during the Steam Sales, I can get it for $15-$20 and I'll have it forever. And that price only gets sweeter as the game gets older, while older games in retail only depreciate in trade-in value. Unless the game is unpopular or going on a decade old, you'll never pay less than $20 for a used console game at retail. Within a couple of years, a game on Steam will be about $15, and you can pick them up for $2 or $5 during the summer and winter sales.

 

[Lilani]

The casual audience for this thing definitely has internet access... ppl willing to fork over 500 bucks for a gizmo to let them watch TV better and play Dance Central 13 on an HDTV in a first world country almost CERTAINLY have internet access. It would be like predicting the iphone would fail since the main way of getting it is by getting a data plan as well.

And active-duty personell STILL can't use it until they've patched it day one. And the thing was it was trashed in the mainstream, so the damage will be done, like 6 years from now ppl in the mainstream will still think the X1 has ridiculous DRM b/c they saw it on Jay Leno once or something.

Okay...so at what point did I mention the casual audience in that post? That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

And do you realize that what you said about active-duty personnel only loses you more points, right?

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

I, for one, wanted Microsoft to stick to their original plan. Not because I like the whole "check in every day" thing, or any of their other idiotic policies. I wanted them to stick to it, so they'd fail. But it's not because I love my PS3, but I thought that if MS got kicked so ruthlessly hard in the wallet (and the nuts) by the consumers they screwed, then with the following generation (if there hopefully is one), they'd be bending over backwards and forwards to please their customers and it would only cause Sony to try even harder. Because when the big two (don't really count Nintendo these days...sadly) are fighting for every buck, we win.

 

[theuprising]

The casual audience for this thing definitely has internet access... ppl willing to fork over 500 bucks for a gizmo to let them watch TV better and play Dance Central 13 on an HDTV in a first world country almost CERTAINLY have internet access. It would be like predicting the iphone would fail since the main way of getting it is by getting a data plan as well.

And active-duty personell STILL can't use it until they've patched it day one. And the thing was it was trashed in the mainstream, so the damage will be done, like 6 years from now ppl in the mainstream will still think the X1 has ridiculous DRM b/c they saw it on Jay Leno once or something.

Okay...so at what point did I mention the casual audience in that post? That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

And do you realize that what you said about active-duty personnel only loses you more points, right?

Points? Are you an active duty serviceman? Are you friends with one? If not why do you care? I only care about the X1 uturn b/c it affects me. You're telling me you want random products and companies to change their strategy and vision to appease an incredibly small percentage of their userbase? Should all HDTV's come with built in generators in case you are on duty and watching TV in an area with spotty electricity?

 

[Lilani]

Points? Are you an active duty serviceman? Are you friends with one? If not why do you care? I only care about the X1 uturn b/c it affects me. You're telling me you want random products and companies to change their strategy and vision to appease an incredibly small percentage of their userbase? Should all HDTV's come with built in generators in case you are on duty and watching TV in an area with spotty electricity?

The fact that you do not personally care about a group of people does not in any way change their status as a valid pool of customers. And please, again, tell me which part of their "vision" was compromised by the lack of a 24 hour check-in? Please, prove to me that there was NO WAY to have the game-exchange system without a 24-hour check-in. Prove it. Because as far as I can tell, it should have been pretty simple. Obviously people can play the game since they are approved to have the license, right? So make a system in which they can give somebody else the license. Once the person has the license and the game is installed on their device, it functions just as it would for the other person and does not require a check-in (in other words, just as the system will now). That way, everybody's happy. People who do want to trade games can, and people who either don't want to or don't have access to the Internet all the time can just not.

This isn't an all-or-nothing game, no matter how much Microsoft tries to spin it that way. The Kinect doesn't have to be required to be plugged in all the time if all they want to do is make sure every Xbox owner has a Kinect so developers have a good idea of how big their pool of customers is. People don't need to check in every single day if all they want to do is have a license-exchange system.

Choice is becoming a huge factor in technology these days. You have a million choices of what sort of device you want, and what you want to do with it. Microsoft is going the total opposite direction from this. They are telling people EXACTLY how they want their device to be used and EXACTLY the circumstances under which they get to use it. No ifs, ands, or buts. Want to play offline because you want to avoid exceeding your Internet cap? TOO BAD, CHECK IN OR CHECK YOURSELF OUT. Want to bring your console over to a friend's house or someplace that doesn't have Internet? TOO BAD. Want to let your friend borrow a physical game? TOO BAD, THEY GET TO PAY A FEE. Want to play even though you can't afford a $1200 Smart TV? TOO BAD. Want to play without the Kinect hooked in? TOO BAD. Want to play on a Snow Day when the Internet's out? TOO BAD. Want to travel overseas and play? TOO BAD. Want to live in South America, Japan, Poland, China, Singapore, Russia, or countless other countries that have the Xbox 360 and play the new Xbox One? TOO BAD.

The world is becoming a technological wonderland full of choice and consumer control, and they're turning their product into the console Hitler would have endorsed. Perhaps they do have some sort of "vision," but it's too bad their telescope is wedged too far up their ass to see anything useful.

EDIT: And one more thing. Bases and encampments overseas tend to have very reliable power. They sort of rely on that shit for like...everything. It's broadband Internet that can be spared to be used for recreational purposes that they lack.

 

[michael87cn]

You know some ppl actually wanted those policies and were ready for a brave new digital age, but why did MS change course? I haven't heard ONE person say they are getting an XB1 and most don't even know XB1 did a Uturn. What was the point but alienate the ONLY ppl who were going to buy it in the first place? No no one is going to buy your console b/c all you did was make a console that was just a repeat of last gen. Like the PS4 but more expensive. Skipping this gen of consoles...

Brave new digital age? Maybe for companies and profiteers and marketeers and... basically anyone trying to make money off that damn thing, instead of, you know, the people BUYING the damn thing trying to enjoy it as a product.

For fucks sake, every thing about it screamed "HAH! Try pirating now!". As someone who legitimately buys systems and games, preferably new copies, but has a rather shitty modem that likes to work when it wants to, I like how this 'obsolete manual age' works, thank you very fucking much!



I also think online communities are horrible things. Yes I realize that is very ironic. But I believe I'm right when I say there will never be a perfect digital age where all of humanity comes together and everything is friendship and sparkles and technological wonder. You'll just have teenagers screaming obscenities at you, just like its always been. That stuff can fuck off.

 

[SeventhSigil]

The casual audience for this thing definitely has internet access... ppl willing to fork over 500 bucks for a gizmo to let them watch TV better and play Dance Central 13 on an HDTV in a first world country almost CERTAINLY have internet access. It would be like predicting the iphone would fail since the main way of getting it is by getting a data plan as well.

And active-duty personell STILL can't use it until they've patched it day one. And the thing was it was trashed in the mainstream, so the damage will be done, like 6 years from now ppl in the mainstream will still think the X1 has ridiculous DRM b/c they saw it on Jay Leno once or something.

Okay...so at what point did I mention the casual audience in that post? That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

And do you realize that what you said about active-duty personnel only loses you more points, right?

Points? Are you an active duty serviceman? Are you friends with one? If not why do you care? I only care about the X1 uturn b/c it affects me. You're telling me you want random products and companies to change their strategy and vision to appease an incredibly small percentage of their userbase? Should all HDTV's come with built in generators in case you are on duty and watching TV in an area with spotty electricity?

Small percentage? Oh Jebas. Let me boil it down to something very simple.

The way the console was currently built, not enough people were interested in purchasing it. Some of them would have moved to PC, some of them will have moved to PlayStation and some Would have just decided to wait a couple of years before getting involved in next-generation consoles at all. The only people who were outright angry about things, felt genuine passion, were people who dedicated years of their lives and their income to supporting the Xbox 360 and found themselves, horrifyingly, realizing that they now actually liked Sony more. Perhaps, like me, they would like to bring their game console to the cabin for game session when the mosquitoes outside are nearing flesh eating proportions. Perhaps they were indeed friend or family to a service man and felt insulted on their behalf. Perhaps they lived in one of the many other countries Where the console wouldn't function at all, even if they imported it in from a launch country. Or maybe all this just smacks of the same bullshit that more than a few gamers went through for SimCity and Diablo 3.

Whatever their reason, they were not going to buy it. Simple as that. Microsoft doesn't care about the vocal minority. They care about the spending majority. And the PlayStation 4 was absolutely destroying the Xbox one in pretty much every preorder market out there. It is still destroying them in the United Kingdom, which has been a predominantly Pro Xbox market before the one. But not NEARLY as badly as before.

Blaming everyone because they didn't want to spend their money on the console is ridiculously self-centered. Like seriously. It's fine if you had an issue with people raising a ruckus about it, but if your problem is that everyone was buying a PlayStation instead, then that really is too bad. Just like you're looking out for number one, so is everybody else, and unfortunately for you, most people decided that looking out for number one meant passing on the One. Aw well.

 

[Smeggs]

Because this way they get more money from people who were otherwise totally against buying it with all of the DRM in place. Now, only some of the DRM is in place.

Less Bad=>More $$$

 

[Gatx]

Um, think about it like this - some crazy psycho announced that they were going to kill someone on a certain date, and everyone is like "What the hell, man?!" He then backs out and does not kill that person. There is damage done to that psycho's reputation, sure, but it's obviously better than if he went through with killing the person he was planning too.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Your argument assumes that I'm not getting a PS4 as well. Your argument, is invalid.

Well played. However, if the check in once every 24 hours would have dissuaded your purchase of it in the first place then my comments are incredibly apt. A likely future of always on when the XBO is specifically designed (weakened) with that in mind would be 100 times worse than a mere once daily check in. That's why Microsoft isn't marketing to people without the internet. That's why their CEO said people without the internet should buy a 360. Because future games will be unplayable on their system by design.

The kinect stuff is only an issue if that kind of thing bothers you. The problems caused with a significantly smaller number of gamers on the XBO is side stepped if you have a ps4 but would still be huge for a person with only one console. But that cloud computing looming over it is about to rain (in my household, we punch eachother for such puns, or should I say we punnnnch eachother for it ).

I don't mean to be rude, but a good portion of your points are based solely in speculation. No one is saying that Microsoft did a good job of getting the message out. That's not up for debate. But going strictly with what we do know, and the backlash they've already received from it, it would be foolish for them to twirl their mustaches waiting for enough people to buy in only to immediately reverse the policies they've put in place now.

A 24 hour check in is a deal breaker. End of story. But taking out such a restrictive method, adding back the ability of choice to whether I want a physical or digital copy, that was enough. I don't care about the Kinect. And who knows, the 2.0 version may be interesting. Even if it's not though, I'll likely never play a game for just the Kinect anyway. If it adds some interesting voice features, then so be it. I like barking orders at my 360 so who knows.

I also think Microsoft's partnering with TWITCHtv rather than Sony's route of making a proprietary platform is savvy business. Gamers who want to stream, do so on TWITCH. Gamers who want to watch streams, do so on TWITCH. I know I've spent hours watching streams. More than I do television or movies at this point. And who knows, if the hardware is already built in I might even get into streaming my Dead Rising run through at some point.

To bottom line it: Microsoft simply has more games I'm interested in right now. And with the reversal of the issues I did have, there's no reason to just assume it's all going to be shit. I'm getting both, and I plan to enjoy both. But if they do pull a second one-eighty (a 360! bad pun quota met), then we'll all just take the machines back to GameStop, trade them all in, and now they know we aren't sheep because of how we spoke up post E3.

I know it's not common to be civil on the internet, but I do want to say thanks. I feel like your concern is legitimate and I do appreciate your taking the time to write it out. But I would warn about being too fond of Sony as well. It wasn't that long ago that they were the anti-consumer one. Their new stance isn't born of a love of you or me or needing a hug. They had no other option. They went from industry leader to industry punch-line overnight with their bad PR and poorly thought out and difficult to program for console. But every gamer I know still ended up with a PS3 on their shelves once they got their heads out of their asses. It's important to remember that none of these companies are in it for the love. They are the gaming division of huge multinational corporations which have share holders to answer to. They're not our friends, they're not our buddies, and they're not making the console because they feel good about pushing the medium forward. That's the developers jobs. The platform holders job is to get out in front and make hardware, to sell hardware, and provide dev kits all in service of building an install base. MS got spanked early so hopefully they'll right the ship. And if all I get out of it is new Dead Rising, new Halo, Sunset Overdrive, and Titanfall, well that's still more franchises that I'm invested in than on Sony's platform at this current time. Though I'm hopeful that this will change since they showed off such an impressive selection thus far.

If MS were to truly and wholly fail, it's not good for any of us. This market cannot sustain itself without competition. At least not here in the states where I live (I don't know where you hail from and I don't want to assume anything). Because Nintendo is barely a contender at this point. I don't want to beat them up when their down, and I love my 3DS, but in the home console market they just haven't brought out enough that appeals to people outside their core audience to get real market penetration. Though I'm holding out hope that Pikmin will move some consoles and that we might get a new Kirby game announced eventually so I can get excited about their platform as well. But as it stands now, MS is looking to have the games I want most, Sony second, and I'm hoping Nintendo will show up with a big killer app any day.

I hate to sound like an optimist in this cynical world, but I hope all 3 will end up doing well. And I'll stand by that so long as they're bringing out games I want to play.

 

[Madame_Lawliet]

The console launch is still 6 months away. consumers have extremely poor memory. they will forget about it in a month and go order their Xbine version.

This.
The collective consumer base has quite the short memory, and the Xbox brand has allot of push in western gaming culture, also now that they can wave the "We listened to consumer feedback! LOVE US!" flag. I wager they're still make ends meet and be a competitive force in this console war (at-least in the western market, seeing as how the eastern market historically never cared about the Xbox and don't seem to be starting now, hence Microsoft labeling Japan a "tier two country").

 

[Cheese of Borg]

The console launch is still 6 months away. consumers have extremely poor memory. they will forget about it in a month and go order their Xbine version.

This.
The collective consumer base has quite the short memory, and the Xbox brand has allot of push in western gaming culture, also now that they can wave the "We listened to consumer feedback! LOVE US!" flag. I wager they're still make ends meet and be a competitive force in this console war (at-least in the western market, seeing as how the eastern market historically never cared about the Xbox and don't seem to be starting now, hence Microsoft labeling Japan a "tier two country").

Plus I give them MAJOR credit for literally saying "Shame on US" for the poor communication and marketing. Companies almost never admit to a mistake. Hell, even after the entire internet exploded over ME3, BIOWARE never owned up to their mistakes.
---

I'm buying one now that they reversed their shitty policies. So your logic is kinda defeated right there.

Make that two.

My only real gripe was the 24 hour check in. I have pretty crappy internet sometimes. It's great when it works, but storms can see us with outages longer than 24 hours if history ever repeats itself around here. And when I don't have the internet to occupy my twisted brain, the voices come. So I play video games to sooth them while I wait for the service to return.

Make that four.

I was thinking of switching my pre-order to PS4 before they reversed their policies. My closest friend was getting a PS4 before switching to XbOne after they reversed.

 

[Strazdas]

Plus I give them MAJOR credit for literally saying "Shame on US" for the poor communication and marketing. Companies almost never admit to a mistake. Hell, even after the entire internet exploded over ME3, BIOWARE never owned up to their mistakes.

Only if you think ME3 ending was a mistake.

 

[Cheese of Borg]

Plus I give them MAJOR credit for literally saying "Shame on US" for the poor communication and marketing. Companies almost never admit to a mistake. Hell, even after the entire internet exploded over ME3, BIOWARE never owned up to their mistakes.

Only if you think ME3 ending was a mistake.

No flaming from me, I was more pointing to the fact that when millions of fans blew up they never admitted that they were at fault for anything. Weather you believe the fanpochalipse was necessary or not is your decision.

By comparison, Microsoft owned up to their mistakes. A very rare moment in the corporate world.

 

[Strazdas]

Plus I give them MAJOR credit for literally saying "Shame on US" for the poor communication and marketing. Companies almost never admit to a mistake. Hell, even after the entire internet exploded over ME3, BIOWARE never owned up to their mistakes.

Only if you think ME3 ending was a mistake.

No flaming from me, I was more pointing to the fact that when millions of fans blew up they never admitted that they were at fault for anything. Weather you believe the fanpochalipse was necessary or not is your decision.

By comparison, Microsoft owned up to their mistakes. A very rare moment in the corporate world.

Maybe that was because they were never at fault for anything. If i dont like a game does not mean it is developers fault for creating "game i didnt like". its mine for not liking it and i will go to another game. Microsoft has done a PR stunt that it was forced into. If anything Bioware releasing the addition to ME3 is MORE than what MS did. Biowared addes something. MS removed shitty part that was never going to work anyway and in the process removed good features (family sharing).

 

[Snotnarok]

Because they know people will now buy their console despite them spitting in their faces. I'm surprised there's actually 2 posts here that I've glanced over of interest in the device.

Did none of their insults bother you guys? Did you just not care they were willing to ignore basic consumer respect and ownership so they could milk you more effectively? They literally were telling you to deal with their new DRM policies, which they can at any time, legally turn it back on and tell you again to "Deal with it".

What crap convinced you to have any interest in such stupid marketing and bullshit? What do they offer better than the competition? Don't quote me telling me dead rising or some other exclusive, that's just not a good reason... that is BOUND to jump to other platforms 1 year later with more content.

 

[Lightknight]

Hey, I know this is kind of a lengthy point-for-point response but I'm really interested in this dialogue with you. It sounds like you're the exact kind of person I wanted to speak with on this. A level-headed person who believes that Microsoft has the most to offer. In the following points, I'm not saying you shouldn't buy the system you want. I'm just levying criticism at the product in the hopes that you have some information to alleviate my concerns or to legitimize them if valid. So hopefully you don't feel like I'm just up for a debate or talking past you. I'm interested in the both of us becoming more informed.

I don't mean to be rude, but a good portion of your points are based solely in speculation. No one is saying that Microsoft did a good job of getting the message out. That's not up for debate. But going strictly with what we do know, and the backlash they've already received from it, it would be foolish for them to twirl their mustaches waiting for enough people to buy in only to immediately reverse the policies they've put in place now.

A 24 hour check in is a deal breaker. End of story. But taking out such a restrictive method, adding back the ability of choice to whether I want a physical or digital copy, that was enough. I don't care about the Kinect. And who knows, the 2.0 version may be interesting. Even if it's not though, I'll likely never play a game for just the Kinect anyway. If it adds some interesting voice features, then so be it. I like barking orders at my 360 so who knows.

My argument isn't that Microsoft will reenact the 24-hour check in. That is something they did away with. If they rebounded again that would be a huge mistep. I am concerned with the current petitions that are trying to get them to do exactly that. Microsoft can potentially use that as a tool to act like they've listened to "us".

My argument is a de-facto 24-hour check where gaming is concerned. It is entirely regarding Microsoft's clearly articulated push for cloud computing to be used on their system. They even targeted weaker system specs to encourage that later on. They did this not for our benefit, but to make their other clients, game makers, rely on them and pay for server farms. I'm sure you're aware of the debacle with Sim City requiring an always on connection. Do you recall their reasoning why? It was that the server was processing information for the game. That ended up being a lie as people hacked the game to function wihtout a server just fine. But the points were all the same, that if you can encorporate cloud processing you can legitimize an always online connection. The ultimate form of DRM. In creating the XBO this way, Microsoft is pushing that mandate. By offline a small but necessary component for a server to process, companies can legitimately claim that it needs cloud computing to run without making any claim as to whether or not the game could have fit on the console.

If you merely thought that the 24-hour check in was unfair and don't mind always online single player games, then this doesn't matter. As for the kinect 2, the point there was a lot of people are upset about it being required for every game and that it's always watching you. I don't care and I'm guessing you don't either. But they plan to use the voice recognition to place ads specific for the users. For example, say someone mentions Pizza out loud while playing the game, or the word hungry. Suddenly the ads in the dashboard will be Dominoes or something like that. If you're ok with that kind of practice then ok. I'll note that the ps3's clean add-free dashboard was vastly preferred for media use this past generation. If I just want to watch a movie or stream netflix/huluplus, the ps3 has a simple design that isn't cluttered with the kind of ad crap that is littered through Live's dash.

I also think Microsoft's partnering with TWITCHtv rather than Sony's route of making a proprietary platform is savvy business. Gamers who want to stream, do so on TWITCH. Gamers who want to watch streams, do so on TWITCH. I know I've spent hours watching streams. More than I do television or movies at this point. And who knows, if the hardware is already built in I might even get into streaming my Dead Rising run through at some point.

Why? Sony is an actual player in the entertainment market, especially regarding motion pictures, so I wouldn't think they'd need a third party product when they already have one themselves (Video Unlimited) developed independently of the gaming market (they built it to compete with Netflix). It has been running since 2010. But I haven't used TWITCH TV and I'm not going to use Video Unlimited. I use HuluPlus and Netflix and my cable TV/DVR. I do not have any kind of unmet TV needs or movie needs so their services side step me entirely. Microsoft announcing a TV service/function was like white noise to me just as Sony's and Amazon's have been for the past few years.

To bottom line it: Microsoft simply has more games I'm interested in right now. And with the reversal of the issues I did have, there's no reason to just assume it's all going to be shit. I'm getting both, and I plan to enjoy both. But if they do pull a second one-eighty (a 360! bad pun quota met), then we'll all just take the machines back to GameStop, trade them all in, and now they know we aren't sheep because of how we spoke up post E3.

Good games are the best reason to buy a machine. If Microsoft has more games that you like (a subjective decision that no one else can make for you), then by all means jump on it. You said you're getting both systems and if that's the case then I don't need to tell you the games that Sony has lined up either. Comparing the two systems, the only game I'd miss seeing right now is Quantum Break. On the PS4 I'd miss the Order 1886 and the new inFamous game. Frankly, I don't think either system has a ton of gold in the game department. I do feel like Sony is doing a better job with Indies (though I don't particularly care for Hohokum's art direction) and I have been very impressed with Sony's exclusives (Demon's Souls, Heavenly Sword, Heavy Rain, inFamous*, Journey, Little Big Planet, The Last of Us, Uncharted) this past generation while my 360 was only used for a few major titles (Halo, GOW, and... ? Kinect Sports?). It just felt like any game I would have loved on the 360 was available or even better on my pc. With that in mind I have every confidence that Sony will keep up their exclusive track record. One that they've been VERY impressive with since the ps1 largely stole my money away from Nintendo. The Xbox got my attention with that huge list of games but since I got a computer they've been considerably less important.

*my favorite exclusive series of the past generation. I was quite fond of Halo but lost interest at Halo 3.

I know it's not common to be civil on the internet, but I do want to say thanks. I feel like your concern is legitimate and I do appreciate your taking the time to write it out.

Yeah, I heard you say that the 24-hour check in was going away and thought you should be aware of the implications Microsoft pushing cloud computing will have. That's not to say Sony won't/can't offer that as well, just that Microsoft has made the intention clear whereas Sony hasn't said a word about it. Likewise, even if Sony allows developers to do it, it's estimated to be 50% more powerful than the XBO so it won't be a necessary thing as soon in the generation.

But I would warn about being too fond of Sony as well. It wasn't that long ago that they were the anti-consumer one. Their new stance isn't born of a love of you or me or needing a hug. They had no other option. They went from industry leader to industry punch-line overnight with their bad PR and poorly thought out and difficult to program for console. But every gamer I know still ended up with a PS3 on their shelves once they got their heads out of their asses. It's important to remember that none of these companies are in it for the love. They are the gaming division of huge multinational corporations which have share holders to answer to. They're not our friends, they're not our buddies, and they're not making the console because they feel good about pushing the medium forward. That's the developers jobs. The platform holders job is to get out in front and make hardware, to sell hardware, and provide dev kits all in service of building an install base. MS got spanked early so hopefully they'll right the ship. And if all I get out of it is new Dead Rising, new Halo, Sunset Overdrive, and Titanfall, well that's still more franchises that I'm invested in than on Sony's platform at this current time. Though I'm hopeful that this will change since they showed off such an impressive selection thus far.

I completely understand that Sony's decision to go pro-consumer was just them doing good business. They aren't my buddy, they are a business. But that they realized that just trying to offer consumers what they want and not to take the greed route that MS tried to take means a lot. It means they recognize the value of customer friendly actions. It means they respect consumers enough to think we know what we're buying. Most importantly, it means that they were actually able to listen to us enough to actually know what we want. If Microsoft heard during this whole thing, their response was calloused. "Don't want to connect to the internet? We have a product for that, buy a 360" to paraphrase their exec. They are willing to drop entire countries to implement it. This is not a company that I currently feel confident to have my game library even when the x86 setup should allow backwards compatibility going forward.

If MS were to truly and wholly fail, it's not good for any of us. This market cannot sustain itself without competition. At least not here in the states where I live (I don't know where you hail from and I don't want to assume anything). Because Nintendo is barely a contender at this point. I don't want to beat them up when their down, and I love my 3DS, but in the home console market they just haven't brought out enough that appeals to people outside their core audience to get real market penetration. Though I'm holding out hope that Pikmin will move some consoles and that we might get a new Kirby game announced eventually so I can get excited about their platform as well. But as it stands now, MS is looking to have the games I want most, Sony second, and I'm hoping Nintendo will show up with a big killer app any day.

I certainly don't want MS to fail overall. I want them to learn and failing in this generation will do the trick. I believe that Microsoft is capable of great and terrible things. I just want them to remember who pays the bills and how quickly things can go downhill if they forget it.

I hate to sound like an optimist in this cynical world, but I hope all 3 will end up doing well. And I'll stand by that so long as they're bringing out games I want to play.

I generally hope all 3 do well. But this generation I'm beginning to hope that Nintendo fails on home consoles to the point that their software gets sold on other systems like Sega does. Their handheld market is really great and they should focus on that hardware instead. Since their consoles haven't been able to handle the AAA titles at full capacity since the N64 (gamecube, wii, and now wiiU), I just feel like my favorite classics are being held hostage for no good reason. If I buy their consoles now I buy them exclusively for Nintendo Softare. That makes Nintendo just a really big publisher, perhaps the biggest and best (certainly most established/beloved), but not enough to carry a whole console anymore. Having grown up with the systems, I know that's a particularly heinous blasphemy, but I also believe in the value of companies specializing in what they do best instead of overextending themselves to do most things poorly. Also, I'm no longer cool buying an entire console to play less than ten games in an entire generation. I'll be buying the system at the end of the generation at a steep discount and only then am I going to pick up those ten games at a discounted price. That's unless they can come up with a reason that I should get it now. But as is, it's shaping up to be no different than the wii and I've already got one of those and can already get the AAA games on other more powerful systems.

I do feel like Steam has created a more legitimate competitor with the pc in the gaming market. Enough to behave like a serious competitor in a few ways. If we start seeing a legit steambox then things will start getting very interesting, very fast. In any event, I want the ps4 to be extremely well rewarded to exceding client expectations. Do you think you'd go XBO if you had to only choose one console?

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

extreme pruning (i.e. snip)

OK I'm horrible at forum code and every time I've tried to do the point by point quote/reply thing it's always resembled the Hindenburg disaster. So bear with me as I try to offer my stance on these issues. And if I miss anything, please feel free to point it out because it's not intentional.

The Xbox One reveal was a horrible failure. But if you look at it from a slightly different perspective, some of the things kind of make sense to me. Or at the very least I can see the logical chain that led to them. Let me start from the beginning if I may:

The initial "REVEAL" broadcast. This was a flop to most gamers because we didn't feel MS was even talking to us. We felt like they were reaching for some hypothetical metrics driven non-person who barely exists. But take a step back from it and look at it without the net rage factor (for the record, this isn't aimed at you sir, just the net in general and sites like the Kotakus and Escapists which have turned news posts into basically netnerd opinionated forum headers rather than "news"). Each and every E3, what do people say? "They spend all this time talking about features, I want to know about the games!" "E3 should be about GAMES!" etc etc. So why not use the big reveal to show a couple of popular games that sell systems like CoD, then show the features there with the promise of spending E3 focused on the games. That's what people say they want anyway. But of course, this was taken as a negative. And it was. But I can see the logic in it, even if it didn't pan out. And once they got to E3, MS managed to do a couple of things I wasn't expecting, like announce a game I'd never even heard of (Sunset Overdrive) and a sequel to my favorite game of this generation (Dead Rising) as an exclusive. Those were nice surprises for me, but that's just personal and won't apply to everyone.

Now you've mentioned many of the negative points by pointing to Don Mattrick. And those points are certainly fair. He was doing the company no favors in his vein effort to do damage control. But take him out of it. He's already gone. And we can talk about intent all day, but this dude screwed up. There are too many variables to know if this was his perspective, or Microsoft's perspective. So I'm laying most of this at his feet. I don't think he's an idiot, but I don't think he belongs in front of a camera without a teleprompter and a different dude writing his copy.

Now before I go any farther here, I want to add in something personal. While E3 was going on, my "gotta catch em all" attitude toward the consoles was not in play. I was an not the first in line to pre-order a X1. I did pre-order a PS4. Because even though Microsoft has more games and franchises I enjoy than Sony, I was going to forsake those with the 24 hour check in and dubious attitude towards used games. And I never buy games used anyway, I'm just not a fan of companies crushing the last ability we have to get a slight return on our investment by trading in a game in the case of a poorly made game. See your SimCity example of all we need to point at on this one. Sorry MS, but you don't get to crush "right of first sale" without some backlash. Even from me, an admitted fan of your previous consoles.

I did a little checking with some friends who work at GameStop (here in Texas, where they're based, they are so ubiquitous you can't be a gamer and not know a few people who work there). I asked a friend of mine who manages a GS location what the pre-order numbers were like. At the time I pre-ordered my PS4 (the day after announcement) they were at 25 pre-orders for the PS4. The X1 hadn't cracked double digits and it had been on offer for twice as long due to Sony's presser coming later in the day I guess (that's assumption on my part, not fact).

Basically, what I'm hoping for is that Microsoft is trying to right the ship before they make the biggest mistakes. And that may be stupid on my part. But I've never seen a major company like them spend a week trying to build up an item and fall back because of customer outcry. Sony took years before they would even acknowledge that the PS3 had a problem. Nintendo still has trouble with assuming they can keep the same course and stay relevant in today's market. So while it may be foolish on my part (only time will tell), the reversal of these policies speaks volumes to me.

And for the record, I think the greed argument is silly. All companies are in this for the money. But you know what, I don't work and expect to not get paid for it either. That's not greed so much as it's common sense. Compensation for one's efforts is the basis of capitalism and here in the States, that's practically the national religion at this point (sad though that may be).

There's also a few other points that I'll throw in here regarding the big 2. Sony's entire stage show is reactionary. These aren't proactive policies they put in place back in February. These are decisions they made on the fly. So they get no points from me regarding them. They had enough games that looked good (Seriously, Transistor looks amazing) that it warranted attention. But their policies only came into being in service of opportunity. And I don't see the video of "game sharing" as all that professional. Sure, we all remember the SEGA/Nintendon't commercials and it's a cute call back. But again, no points for doing nothing at all while the other guy crashes and burns. That's just rubbing salt in the wound. And I bet if MS had made a "How do you not get your data stolen" video when Sony was screwing the pooch, no one would have laughed.

I guess my point is that brand loyalty is just a fool's errand. My loyalty has to be earned, and maintained. I was the biggest Sony fan in the world during the PS1 and 2 era. But I still loved playing games on my original Xbox and Gamecube. And over time, Microsoft became my console of choice for no other reason than the software they offered. But when Sony took an anti-consumer stance with the PS3, I said no until they fixed it. When MS looked to be doing the same, I was prepared to throw them under the bus as well. I see the reversal (the ONE-80), as a bold choice. And I honestly believe that had Sony done similar back in 2006, the PS3 would not be third in the States. I don't know world figures so I'm not going to assume anything, but where I live even though most people own the PS3, they don't use it as their main system. And attach rates as well as "mindshare" seem to reflect the position. These aren't facts, just observations. And let's be honest, like birds in the wild we often flock toward our own breed. I play Halo, I'm more of an Xbox 360 guy, so those are typically the people I'm talking to. That may not be the case everywhere. Just in my experience.

The ad thing, the Twitch TV thing (which isn't actually tv, it's the main website where games are streamed), these are all just subjective points to me. The hardware and cloud computing things as well. You can see them as shoehorning in control, that is certainly your right and privilege to choose to, but that is the same stance Valve took with STEAM. And everyone hated that too at first. "I have to install this client to run my game? BLASPHEMY" were the cries I recall. But that bold step that once seemed anti-consumer is now regaled as the savior of PC gaming. Used in every "We are the PC gaming master race" thread all across the internet. iTunes as well was once lamented and is now most everyone's go-to way to purchase music. Formerly seen as draconian and anit-consumer but now rallied behind. Why wouldn't a company like Microsoft try and do a console version of that?

If I remember the news articles correctly, Sony was the first to patent anti-used games technology. Kudos to them for not implementing it of course. That one does earn points. But if I had to assume, and this is nothing other than an assumption, I'd wager that both companies were under pressure from the big publishers to do that. Used games don't even effect the platform holders that much. It's the EAs and the Activisions who want to end that trend. But again, that's just me trying to see beyond the veil, not any hard evidence.

The SimCity example is troubling. I was part of that debacle and it was a mishandled situation without equal. Even Diablo 3 wasn't that bad as SimCity continues to be broken and all but unplayable, though they still have my $60 so I'm going to own that one. I should have known better. I'm a well informed gamer who took a gamble, and it didn't pay off. But if gaming is going to grow, sometimes the riskier side doesn't seem so crazy. If I take an objective look at all the options before me at the current state (remember this is post ONE-80, post Mattrick views), then Microsoft are still the ones I see trying a couple of new things, while Sony seems to be fitting the same mold they've occupied for a while, and Nintendo is still dreaming of riches past. That's just one man's take on it, feel free to assume I'm an idiot. But I don't mind the idea of a digital copy of my collection that I don't have to put in the disc tray each time. I like the idea of being able to share my games with a set "family" that I can control. And digital trading needs to happen. It should have already happened. And I'm hoping that this is one of the things that makes it to the Xbox One. Digital property needs to have some options and that is part of managing our rights to our products. Our digital rights. Digital Rights Management can be seen from a negative or a positive, it just depends one whether you stare from above it or below it.

For the record, I'm not championing the Xbox One. I'm not recommending it to anyone either. It's a personal choice and if someone who didn't game much asked me, I'd be hard pressed to tell them to buy one. I'm looking at it as a gamble that I know will pay some small dividend in the games I want to play mostly coming out there. Halo (up until Reach at least) was my favorite game franchise with Dead Rising a close second. (Fallout being the third if you care). But more than just those, I prefer Forza as my racing game. Always have. I like Fable as well, and I'm excited to see what Lionhead can do without Peter Molyneux gushing about all the leaves on the trees. I liked Killer Instinct back in the 90s as well so I'm excited to see if they cock that one up or if it's actually interesting. And more than that, I'm excited for the games that are unknown quantities. Sunset Overdrive, Titanfall, and Quantum Break specifically. They may all suck, but I'm interested. Comparatively, Sony is offering me a new InFAMOUS, which is exciting, and the indie focus which I plan to support in earnest. Especially Transistor. But most of their stage show were games I could get for either. Kingdom Hearts, Watch Dogs, these aren't exclusive titles. Destiny will be ubiquitous and available on both next gen as well as both current gen offerings.

If I take the step back and look at it objectively, counting only the gaming that I truly care about. X1 makes far more sense for me now that they've reversed the policies I didn't like. But that is just for me and my personal needs and desires. And again, I'm going to get both. I've never been in a position (financially or hype level wise) to be able to do that before in my entire lengthy gaming life (and I'm 41, so it's been through pretty much gamings entire history). And more than not being able to, I've never wanted to before. Even the 360 had to get Dead Rising and Saints Row before I was really invested in it. I got it a few months after launch, the PS3 2 years after it's launch and only because I wanted the version that did software backward compatibility. I did buy the Wii on launch, but only because my daughter wanted it. I've spent more time with real Katana in my hands than a WiiMote. And in case you're wondering, I'm not a samurai. My sword is usually just a decoration unless I'm showing it off to someone.

The last small point I'm going to hit on is the hardware thing. I think it's too early to start comparing hardware or saying definitely that any specs were pushed a certain way to do this or that. I do think it's regrettable for MS that Sony went for the better RAM and they didn't. But in practice, none of us know how it's going to pan out. MS's system on a chip design may pan out or it may be a spectacular failure. Either way though, no system has ever "won the gen" by being the most powerful or technically advanced and they're both x86 anyway. At the end of the day, most games will probably be built on Frostbite 3 or Unreal 4 anyway. And the ones that aren't will likely be optimized better since the hardware is far more similar now than ever before. Basically, while mildly concerned, until we have more than supposition and nebulous hardware specs, I don't want to have a big discussion about it. I'm simply not well versed enough to speak with any kind of authority on the matter so I would not want to spread misinformation here. I hope that doesn't sound like a cop out. But I wouldn't go to a gun fight without my Magnum and I'm not prepared to debate a topic that I haven't researched in earnest. Essentially though, I think it's the least interesting thing going on right now because as long as the software runs well, I don't really think it's the biggest talking point. I keep going back to the games and that's where each company will earn my money and support.

I hope that covered everything, but let me know if I missed anything.

 

[SeventhSigil]

extreme pruning (i.e. snip)

Sniiiip

Just a few things; this isn't intended to be a rebuttal or argument, but the reason I'm replying directly to you is mostly cause you strike me as a reasonable chap, and I am thus curious as to your input. =D

---

The Reveal!

The issue with the reveal, from my point of view, did bring to mind that old saying that has been tossed about, "Jack of All Trades, Master of None." The reveal was largely intended for the Press, which was fairly obvious given the TV, Football, Skype focus, as it seemed almost crafted to throw out the idea that the Xbox One was not 'just a game console,' but instead intended to be this big, flexible, do-it-all multi-tool. Yusuf Mehdi himself said as much, to quote; "We think you can go broader than a game console, that?s our aim, and you can go from 400 million (for the entire console generation, mind you) to potentially upwards of a billion units. That?s how we?re thinking of the Xbox opportunity as we go forward." They're not just looking to gain gamers as their core audience, they're looking to draw in TV watching aficionados, football fanatics, etc, etc. A recent release from the 'Director of Consumer Camp' at Microsoft has even said; "What is being positioned as an excellent entertainment device can be just as enticing for you and your small business. In fact, it?s entirely justifiable to make the Xbox One a business expense. The Xbox One, priced at $499 [£429], is an affordable option for small business owners, as there are many features built into the console that could help it rival even the most modest of video conferencing and networking platforms."

Here's the rub; normally, we think about the number of consoles sold because it can have a correlation to the size of market that game publishers and developers have to spread their product around. More game consoles sold means more consumers ready to buy the newest FPS, and while there is some spread in the market- some might prefer RPGs, or loathe puzzle games- you at least know that you have a solid market of gamers to cater to.

But what, then, if you no longer have that assurance? What if the install base isn't populated mostly by gamers? Even if you have a certain console outselling another two-to-one, if the superior-selling platform's available market has less interest in the purchase of games- or, for that matter, big publisher titles- than even the console selling LESS total units can provide a more appealing market for larger publishers. Much like how the Kinect sold 24 million units, but a low attach rate and relative lack of interest in Kinect-only titles kept development on that platform pretty sluggish. It wasn't that they didn't sell an impressive number- 24 million is impressive, after all- but if that large bulk of moved units isn't accompanied by a large number of Kinect-y games purchased, publishers are going to steer clear pretty quickly... especially if they're third-party, and can make loads more money by selling a cross-platform title. It's why cross-platforms are unlikely to have more than 'Wii Waggle' when it comes to the Kinect, as few developers will pack on loads of exclusive content or features when it only benefits one segment of the market.

Or, as another example, there was a time when the Wii was gaining flak from the 'core gamer' market as being more interested in catering to the 'casual gaming' crowd with innumerable Wii-Sports-And-Friends. As someone who never owned a Wii, I am admittedly going on Internet rumblings (and some of my friends' grumblings) more than anything else, but what might then happen if the Casual Gamer Market just turns into the Casual Market?

----
Innovation!

I should point out that everything is relative. The Kinect 2.0 is a better version of the original Kinect, which is a better version than the Playstation Eye, which is a better version of the EyeToy... the belief that packaging it with every system will improve the development base has had two defects; first, there is still no explanation as to why it cannot be unplugged and stored away UNTIL someone wishes to use it, (which in the wake of the PRISM leaks could prove disastrous,) and second, Microsoft has yet to announce anything genuinely groundbreaking on the gaming market that absolutely NEEDS the Kinect. Ryse was a 360 Kinect game originally, but even now, on the X1, is a controller-centric affair. D4, a touted Kinect title, will be playable with controller. These policies, this mandatory attachment, would be a great deal easier to swallow if there was a carrot of similar size to match the stick.

As for innovation in policies, they didn't do enough. They tried to insist that digital was the future, that disc-based media was dying or dead, and yet they're still releasing numerous titles ON disc. It was a hypocrisy that made their claims about moving towards the Future ridiculous, because it all boiled right back to Jack of All Trades; it's unlikely they would ever drop disc-based games in the X1's lifespan, and instead decided to just strip what benefits could be found from physical media by making it 'Exactly Like' digital purchases, to try and essentially shoehorn the market into buying games online anyway cause, you know, why drive to the store if the physical game's capabilities and policies are identical to the digital's? Only once everyone had already stopped buying game discs, with no profit left to be had, would they dare leaving the market behind.

If they had wanted to really move forward, they should have taken that extra step and made the console a digital-only affair. No disc-based game sales at all, everything purchased online. Sure, it would have resulted in backlash all its own, but at least the lines would have been drawn in the sand; "If you don't want to download all your games, this console is not for you." Instead, they were trying to make it Same As Before, But Not, and the unwillingness to commit to one side or another just hurt them considerably.

In any case, removing the capabilities of one medium is trying to negatively entice your market, by taking something away from them and insisting that what you're giving instead is 'Better.' Maybe it is, but when you're causing them to lose something they had before, generally a market will focus on that first and foremost. Just look at the PS+ being needed for most multiplayer on the PS4; while the backlash isn't nearly as grumbly as it had been for Microsoft back during the 360 launch, there are still plenty of people horrified, even though PS3 multiplayer remains free.

Far more effective, in any case, is positive enticement, and in that respect, Microsoft's been well behind. Look at what Sony has done over the past couple of years. They added Day One Digitals to their market, as did Nintendo something designed to blur the lines between physical and retail copies in a way that could improve the lot of those who took advantage of it, but did not in any way effect those who could or would not buy it online. Microsoft is only now catching up to that, after having previously stated they saw no point in doing so. They added the Playstation Plus program, which was in my opinion a very crafty way to work up to pay-to-play multiplayer, but also had a side benefit; the free games got you through the door, true enough, but the discounts it offered on select titles also encouraged people to browse and make constant, perpetual use of the Store, if only to take a gander at these cheaper games.

They gave you perks and toys that, yes, NEEDED a strong connection and an unlimited data cap, but without taking from those who had neither. These were small, subtle changes and programs, nothing big, brash and spectacular like the Xbox One's 'Future of Gaming' vision, but it certainly seems to have served Sony a lot better than a 24-hour-checkin served Microsoft.

----
Now! Self-publishing!

There have been rumors that Xbox One will be dropping its no-self-publishing restrictions, but frankly, this would surprise me CONSIDERABLY, because in the end, small, cheap indie games would become a massive market on a console that may be (as my first section postulated) more adopted by the 'casual' crowd. Indeed, such reasonable pricing has in part fueled the great success of smartphone and tablet gaming, and it could become a genuine tour de force in the near future for consoles.

But wouldn't this mean Microsoft is MORE likely to make it indie friendly? Ehhh...

The thing about it is, how likely would Microsoft be to drop policies that allow it to profit so readily from what is sure to be a huge market? How likely are Publishers going to react favorably to them being dropped, given they profit considerably as well? Current Xbox Live requirements for indie games necessitate that an independent developer cannot release on the Arcade unless he signs up with a disc-based publisher. The time, money and effort invested into securing said publisher generally results in the difficulty of publishing on the Xbox One GREATLY exceeding that of the other platforms. In addition, if you cannot find a Publisher who wants to take you on (and many won't if you don't agree to cut them in on revenue from ALL the platforms you sell on, not just the 360,) you can instead sign on with Microsoft directly. This is where the profiting comes in, because this means Microsoft will be taking a publishing revenue cut, as well as the platform cut, and their deals include a period of timed exclusivity that prevent you from publishing anywhere else for 'x' period of time. This isn't even including the fact that whatever Publisher you end up with, they are the ones with full control over just when your game gets released.

Here's a video, from the developer of Retro City Rampage; he's notable in that he single-handedly organized to have his game released on multiple platforms, and thus offers a unique perspective on the various differences. Truth be told, the entire video is quite interesting, but for the sake of my point, advance to around 33 minutes in; he starts presenting graphs indicating both the Units Sold, Revenue Made, Time Spent and Money Invested for each platform.

http://indiegames.com/2013/06/video_shipping_retro_city_ramp.html

The resulting imbalance might suggest why, even though these policies would technically benefit the publishers and Microsoft itself, it can only hurt the future of the console's available indie material, especially since this dev isn't the first to criticize Microsoft's policies.

----
History Repeats!

Finally... well... all of the hullabaloo that has been going on begins to look rather suspiciously like what Sony went through for its PS3 pre-launch, and look at where that got the console. The PR for it was terrible, legitimately terrible, with the sort of arrogance and 'You WILL Buy This' mentality that, to quote from a 2007 article re-released a few years later, had Sony "take one of the most anticipated game consoles of all time and - within the space of a year - turn it into a hate object reviled by the entire internet. - See more at: http://www.gamesradar.com/the-top-7-pr-disasters/?page=7#sthash.154YE0Zm.dpuf "

That's essentially what Microsoft managed to do with the Xbox One. Like Sony's Playstation 2, the Xbox 360 enjoyed considerable dominance in the U.S., and very strong showing in the U.K. But now, like the Playstation 3, the One has found itself with one heck of an uphill climb to even regain parity in markets that were once notably leaning in its favor.

Now, as you said, they've reacted surprisingly quickly in reversing these policies, but the problem is that, unlike Sony, who through Cerny's Gamelab presentation admitted that they screwed up when it came to designing a Rubix cube of a Cell processor for the PS3, Microsoft's only admittance has been that 'They didn't explain it well enough.' Which is true, but nonetheless insinuates that they knew better than the people they wished to buy the console, and simply did not succeed in sharing this wisdom adequately, which is perhaps why many have looked upon these apologies with more than a little scorn. It sounded like 'I'm sorry you didn't understand how @@*&@ing awesome my idea is.'

Furthermore, there is the issue that they've basically adopted an almost Steford Wives cheeriness to the console, regardless of what happens. They spent over a week constantly building up the console, constantly assuring everyone this was the Future, (Major Nelson used this word alot, it should be noted,) only to completely u-turn on them ....and then, in an interview where they spoke of the reversal, they said they felt good about what the console was now.

In essence, it puts out the image that Microsoft would be cheerfully upselling this product even if it were actively on fire, and while the same could be said for any company, it becomes another matter when it is so blatant and obvious to behold. You begin to ask yourself the question that no company would ever like to cross your mind... "What else are they bull@#&@ing about?"

----

It all highlights a key point; in the end, it doesn't matter how innovative or fantastic a product is. It doesn't even matter how much official positive PR is thrown out there to tell people how innovative or fantastic a product is. If the general, vocal populace believes that the product does not serve their needs or, worse, that the product is being designed to somehow work against them, than all public opinion on the system essentially implodes. It doesn't matter if a Kinect 2.0 camera WILL ever spy on you, your family, etc, but when you combine the revelations of a foreign monitoring program, which Microsoft is a part of, additional leaks by Snowden suggesting MS facilitated access to Skype's video data for the NSA, and combine it with the information that the newest console has a camera that can be 'turned off' but never physically disconnected for 'reasons,' the most positive one being that it's so the camera can be used for targeted advertisements, then there are plenty of people who just aren't that eager to take a multi-billion dollar company's word for it. Again, it is not about what the camera IS doing, sales will be influenced by what people think the camera MIGHT be doing, or COULD do. Some won't care, some will.

While it is true that, yes, polls can easily be skewed and therefore individually should not be relied upon, when a vast majority of polls not specifically hosted on a Sony or Microsoft friendly site, it does start to show a pattern, especially when measured against pre-order trends. Microsoft has greatly weakened its hold on the U.S. It has all but destroyed its standing in the U.K. While there are six months to go, and things could change, it does appear that Microsoft is going to need to MAKE more changes, rather than the problem just vanishing on its own.

----
On a side note, intended mostly for you, ZZombie13, would recommend keeping an eye on GamesCom this August; both Sony and Microsoft have announced they will be revealing new games that they've kept in hiding. =D My personal interests partially derive from the fact that I'm not normally a PC gamer, so some of the Free to Play ports coming to the PS4, like Planetside 2, Warframe, Blacklight Retribution, etc, etc, all have me muchly interested. That being said, I do agree that Sony's E3 show was pretty weak sauce, though some part of me wonders if they scrapped half of their planned reveals because they realized that Microsoft's original policies offered a bright red target and they wanted more time to poke it with a sharp stick. xP

 

[Diddy_Mao]

If the Xbox One bombs, if it's just a critical commercial failure of Virtual Boy proportions, nobody at the Xbox division of Microsoft wants to be the one who has to explain to the boss why they didn't do everything they could when they had a chance.

You see this kind of thing a lot from companies in the public eye, something happens that causes some bad press and the PR machine goes into hyperdrive trying to overcompensate for the potential loss of good will and customers.

See Also: Lionsgate films with Ender's Game