Don't know where the quote is from, but I suspect the magic words are "connected online nearly 24 hours a day". I manually log in to Steam when I want to play a game. And my laptop is not on 24 hours a day...
Wait, what the hell?We have 48 million Xbox 360 users connected online nearly 24 hours a day. That is much more than any of our closet competitors and vastly more than Steam.That'd be the Steam with 57 million users? What a cretinous statement from Microsoft.
Also why people were pissed about the DRM. Few people are always online or even online once a day consistently for their whole lives.
Microsoft has confirmed (on two different official Twitter accounts in the last few hours) that family sharing was not time limited (and called the idea/rumor "silly"), and that they're still investigating other digital options.
(Which makes sense, given that there's no reason they'd want to limit what is essentially demo play to only "family" members)
Microsoft has confirmed (on two different official Twitter accounts in the last few hours) that family sharing was not time limited (and called the idea/rumor "silly"), and that they're still investigating other digital options.
(Which makes sense, given that there's no reason they'd want to limit what is essentially demo play to only "family" members)
I have stopped trying to understand the minds at Microsoft. They are creatures beyond comprehension.
As to the unwanted Kinect: if the very first Xbox had been issued with some kind of motion sensor instead of it being sold as an add-on to the 360 years later, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The griping comes from being conditioned to think of the sensor as an add-on feature. Granted I don't think I'll ever use it, but there are many features on my smartphone that I never use either...
Umm... I would say the exact opposite. Your scenario seems to assume that by including the Kinect with the 360, that would have conditioned ALL videogame players (including PS3 players?) to not mind paying extra for a feature that they don't personally like or use. I mean, perhaps some people would resign themselves to that scenario, but I can guarantee that people would still complain and debate about that, particularly if they aren't interested in/ don't enjoy what the Kinect does/enables.
The reason XBox is getting slammed is the classic mistake the leader in sales seems to keep making. They forgot what made them the leader and assume it will always continue.
I don't think MS can really be classed as the leader in sales last gen, within the US sure, but not globally. I do get the impression that MS pays more attention to the US market though, but on a material basis that doesn't really hold up, 360/PS3 basically ended up on par. Which is why I say that merely starting at the same time is giving Sony a structural advantage this generation.
XBox won the last round because they were cheaper and better. PS3 gambled that the Blue Ray would cover the gap in pricing, and they were wrong. They forgot that it is the game system, stupid. You buy a console to play games. If it also has cool sensors, or a blue ray player, great.
And I would say that most people with these consoles WOULD get usage out of a Blu-Ray player with their HD television, since watching movies on your HD television is something the vast majority of people like to do occasionally, while appreciation of things like Kinect may vary wildly. I would say the majority of 360 owners either also bought a PS3 or bought another standalone Blu-Ray player, and the PS3's price was not unreasonable for what they got. But I guess that emphasises the point, even WHEN it is a useful feature they would otherwise purchase independently (eventually) and that is "a deal", people don't like to be forced to buy a "package deal" (at least within the US, based on PS3 case, since PS3 won outside the US market).
I kind of doubt that is a real "MS employee" from many factors...
As Scott said, there's no reason to limit "Demos" to just 10 "family members".
I mean, there could be some limitations, but not as described.
Alot of other aspects of the "leak" scream fake to me as well.
The reason we even have a PS3 is because it was a cheap blue-ray player
I kind of doubt that is a real "MS employee" from many factors...
As Scott said, there's no reason to limit "Demos" to just 10 "family members".
I mean, there could be some limitations, but not as described.
Alot of other aspects of the "leak" scream fake to me as well.
Which is unfortunate. CBoaT supported the rumor, and he's normally seen as very reliable and in-the-know. He'll lose a lot of credibility for trying to back up a false rumor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is unfortunate. CBoaT supported the rumor, and he's normally seen as very reliable and in-the-know. He'll lose a lot of credibility for trying to back up a false rumor.I kind of doubt that is a real "MS employee" from many factors...
As Scott said, there's no reason to limit "Demos" to just 10 "family members".
I mean, there could be some limitations, but not as described.
Alot of other aspects of the "leak" scream fake to me as well.
Doubt it. CBOAT's earned the trust of people with constant reliability, while Microsoft.. haven't.
XBox won the last round because they were cheaper and better. PS3 gambled that the Blue Ray would cover the gap in pricing, and they were wrong. They forgot that it is the game system, stupid. You buy a console to play games. If it also has cool sensors, or a blue ray player, great.And I would say that most people with these consoles WOULD get usage out of a Blu-Ray player with their HD television, since watching movies on your HD television is something the vast majority of people like to do occasionally, while appreciation of things like Kinect may vary wildly. I would say the majority of 360 owners either also bought a PS3 or bought another standalone Blu-Ray player, and the PS3's price was not unreasonable for what they got.
This didn't entirely work for Sony because Blu-Ray was only an iterative advancement over DVD: an evolution, not a revolution. PS2 sold an insane number of copies partially because of its DVD player, which was a huge deal at the time of release, and convenient for some time afterwards.
Blu-Ray is and has been a harder sell to customers (I've spent the last year doing this). Getting people to buy a Blu-Ray player alongside their new HD TV has been surprisingly tricky in the last year, let alone back in 2007. I myself didn't have one until 2011, although I was quickly converted to the format's superority. But for the four years before that I didn't give a toss about it at all.
The format's gained ground incredibly slowly here in the UK. It's only in the last year or so that Blu-Ray sales on some releases (and still not all) have accounted for 50% or more of sales, with the rest remaining on DVD. Stand-alone Blu-Ray players have just started creeping south of £50 (after six years of the format's lifespan, as compared to DVD players hitting that price about three years into that format's lifespan) and reaching the point where non-tech-inclined people will buy them because the price is reaching parity with DVD players. But it's been a ridiculously long slog. And as we've seen from the sales of the 360, millions of people were happy to get the rival, cheaper console even when it didn't have a Blu-Ray player. In the case of the PS3 the Blu-Ray, although nice to have, was not a unit-shifter in the same way DVD was for the PS2.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PS1 also used disc, making the PS2 only an evolution.
Doubt it. CBOAT's earned the trust of people with constant reliabilityWhich is unfortunate. CBoaT supported the rumor, and he's normally seen as very reliable and in-the-know. He'll lose a lot of credibility for trying to back up a false rumor.I kind of doubt that is a real "MS employee" from many factors...
As Scott said, there's no reason to limit "Demos" to just 10 "family members".
I mean, there could be some limitations, but not as described.
Alot of other aspects of the "leak" scream fake to me as well.
That's the point. He was, until now, pretty reliable. This is a blemish on his otherwise solid record, and people will wonder why he got this one wrong.
EDIT: Nevermind. CBoaT was apparently wrong about a number of things from this year's E3. So not a great source of rumor confirmation at all, it seems.
while Microsoft.. haven't.
I'm going to stop you there. Microsoft might not have earned your business. They might not have earned your appreciation. Heck, they might have even made you a little upset (about something that really just boils down to a purchasing decision), but they were the ones who came forward with that information. It was not exposed by some third party, and it wasn't a scandal that they tried to cover up. Just a set of policies that they outlined, and then decided to reverse. Trust doesn't enter into it. It's not like they released the console and then told you that it had DRM. By the time the Xbox One came out, you were going to know exactly what you were getting into. You didn't have to trust in anything.
For an illustration of what a breach of trust actually looks like, see the most recent PS3 update. (Or, for a more Microsoft-hater-friendly example, the RRoD issue.)
That's the point. He was, until now, pretty reliable. This is a blemish on his otherwise solid record, and people will wonder why he got this one wrong.
Could there be Bias? Just now he suddenly has a single stain on his solid record?
I actually don't know the guy we're talking about, so I wouldn't know how reliable the source is. I should note that until a final product is released there tends to be a lot of conjecture and the like, especially over subjects people get highly emotional about(Hobbies, money, etc.) Another thing is that as different things are thrown around a lot of talk goes around, and sometimes there's a big change(like the one we just had with XBone.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to stop you there. Microsoft might not have earned your business. They might not have earned your appreciation. Heck, they might have even made you a little upset (about something that really just boils down to a purchasing decision), but they were the ones who came forward with that information. It was not exposed by some third party, and it wasn't a scandal that they tried to cover up. Just a set of policies that they outlined, and then decided to reverse. Trust doesn't enter into it. It's not like they released the console and then told you that it had DRM. By the time the Xbox One came out, you were going to know exactly what you were getting into. You didn't have to trust in anything.For an illustration of what a breach of trust actually looks like, see the most recent PS3 update. (Or, for a more Microsoft-hater-friendly example, the RRoD issue.)
Microsoft never properly explained or outlined these policies. They relied on a few interviews full of conjecture. They relied on obfuscation, thinking that people would just buy their new console without knowing about the features/drawbacks of the new console. Now that the feature no longer exists, they can talk it up as some kind of magical 'share games with 9 other people all the time', when that was never going to happen.
If CBOAT says it was a sixty minute sharing plan, then that's what it was. He's more believable on the matter than anyone from Microsoft, frankly.
^^^^This^^^^^
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if people really think this was some sort of magical way where you could share your brand new £40/$60 game with 9 other people with no restrictions, you're wrong. You really think that publishers and MS, so eager to kill used games dead because they cost publishers money, would happily agree to a new policy whereby they'd lose £360/$540 every time a game is sold? That's fairytale stuff.
Had MS managed to pull something that magical off, they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops. Not burying it deep in amongst a bunch of interviews that never explained the policy.
|
|
They relied on obfuscation, thinking that people would just buy their new console without knowing about the features/drawbacks of the new console.How do you know?
Cause they said as much.
And the negativity? Well, it may not matter so much to Microsoft. Sure, core gamers complain, but the folks who don't really pay attention and who just want a fancy box will be fine with Microsoft's Xbox One. "In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details," said Mehdi. "We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points."
Also, just look at what they did. They had TWO press conferences where they could have laid everything out in calm, clear language, and chose not to, instead focusing on wonderful abilities like being able to watch TV on your TV.
Microsoft never properly explained or outlined these policies. They relied on a few interviews full of conjecture. They relied on obfuscation, thinking that people would just buy their new console without knowing about the features/drawbacks of the new console.
The console doesn't come out for half a year. In that intervening time, it is absolutely certain that every policy that wasn't already fully explained would be fully explained, because news outlets would be battering down Microsoft's doors if they didn't.
Now that the feature no longer exists, they can talk it up as some kind of magical 'share games with 9 other people all the time', when that was never going to happen.
They were "talking it up" as that before they walked back their DRM. That was actually the plan.
If CBOAT says it was a sixty minute sharing plan, then that's what it was. He's more believable on the matter than anyone from Microsoft, frankly.
CBoaT was wrong about multiple things this year. The consensus is that it's no longer clear that he has reliable insider information anymore. Combine that with the fact that a time-limited sharing plan doesn't make any sense from the business side, and it starts to paint a pretty clear picture of how someone decided they'd troll the internet by creating a legitimate-sounding rant that just happened to "reveal" that one of the most anticipated Xbox One features had a huge drawback.
This wouldn't be the first time this has happened with the Xbox One, either. A few weeks ago someone pretended to work for the social marketing firm Microsoft uses and "revealed" on reddit that the firm was using paid shills to post pro-Microsoft content on social media sites like reddit. By the time the moderators got around to verifying that this was (of course) not happening at all and that they were just being trolled, angry internet people who really wanted to believe the paid shill bit was true were organizing harassment squads and posting personal contact information for anyone who posted anything even remotely defensive or laudatory of Microsoft or the Xbox One.
The brutal irony is that many of the people being manipulated into anger and harassment by these trolls actually believed that everyone else was being manipulated by Microsoft.
Cause they said as much.
And the negativity? Well, it may not matter so much to Microsoft. Sure, core gamers complain, but the folks who don't really pay attention and who just want a fancy box will be fine with Microsoft's Xbox One. "In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details," said Mehdi. "We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points."
I'm not sure how you get "We're relying on people not paying attention!" from an article whose headline is about how the exact same guy wants to educate consumers.
Unless, of course, you're trying to twist what he's saying to match an agenda by quoting him out of context. But if you do that, you probably shouldn't post the source along with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The console doesn't come out for half a year. In that intervening time, it is absolutely certain that every policy that wasn't already fully explained would be fully explained, because news outlets would be battering down Microsoft's doors if they didn't.
Yet they had two press conferences, including one at E3, where they could have calmly explained these things and knocked back a lot of the criticism. I don't think Microsoft were entirely unaware of people's concerns prior to the launch, but rather than addressing them, they chose the path of obfuscation and had plenty of contradictory claims made by various Xbox figures in various interviews.
They were "talking it up" as that before they walked back their DRM. That was actually the plan.
Oh, I'm aware of what some of them were talking it up as. But I would be truly astonished if it was even close to what people were thinking it was. Publishers would not agree to a mechanism by which they'd lose £360/$540 on every sale of a game. It runs contradictory to everything Microsoft were doing with the always online component and killing of used games.
CBoaT was wrong about multiple things this year. The consensus is that it's no longer clear that he has reliable insider information anymore. Combine that with the fact that a time-limited sharing plan doesn't make any sense from the business side, and it starts to paint a pretty clear picture of how someone decided they'd troll the internet by creating a legitimate-sounding rant that just happened to "reveal" that one of the most anticipated Xbox One features had a huge drawback.
Consensus amongst whom? Cause I'm on NeoGaf right now and everyone there is still taking CBOAT's word over people like Aaron Greenberg. The time limited sharing plan makes perfect sense really, when you consider what Microsoft were doing elsewhere.
They relied on obfuscation, thinking that people would just buy their new console without knowing about the features/drawbacks of the new console.How do you know?
It's because you don't know that you do.
|
|
I'm not sure how you get "We're relying on people not paying attention!" from an article whose headline is about how the exact same guy wants to educate consumers.
Unless, of course, you're trying to twist what he's saying to match an agenda by quoting him out of context. But if you do that, you probably shouldn't post the source along with it.
Because of what they did. Rather than trying to explain the positive upsides of an always on device, they simply assumed that it didn't matter as 'people don't pay attention to a lot of the details'. Rather than have a set response ready to people's concerns, which I'm sure Microsoft would have known about had they paid the slightest bit of attention to gaming websites over the past year, they had various Xbox figures give out contradictory replies to questions in interviews after the launch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cause they said as much.
And the negativity? Well, it may not matter so much to Microsoft. Sure, core gamers complain, but the folks who don't really pay attention and who just want a fancy box will be fine with Microsoft's Xbox One. "In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details," said Mehdi. "We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points."I'm not sure how you get "We're relying on people not paying attention!" from an article whose headline is about how the exact same guy wants to educate consumers.
Unless, of course, you're trying to twist what he's saying to match an agenda by quoting him out of context. But if you do that, you probably shouldn't post the source along with it.
I should note in politics and business its actually quote often that people claim one thing and do something entirely different, in particular stating about how people were "educated" or "knew the facts". Its a tactic that 'obfuscates', and makes the person making the statement look like they were right all the time. Not all that uncommon, no idea if that's what's done here, but its important to note.
Oh, I'm aware of what some of them were talking it up as. But I would be truly astonished if it was even close to what people were thinking it was. Publishers would not agree to a mechanism by which they'd lose £360/$540 on every sale of a game. It runs contradictory to everything Microsoft were doing with the always online component and killing of used games.
No, it doesn't. It fits right into their new ecosystem of digital content/licensing. Also, I'm not sure how the $540 figure can be tossed around by the anti-DRM crowd, seeing as how one of the main anti-DRM talking points is that the sort of person pirating/sharing/buying used wouldn't buy the game anyway, and therefore pirating/sharing/buying used doesn't translate to lost sales. Is that no longer the case? Or is that argument only useful when you're arguing against DRM, and can be safely discarded in favor of the opposing argument when explaining why a shared games ecosystem would never fly?
Also, how is it that "the publishers won't let it fly" is a valid argument here, while, "the retailers won't let it fly" is somehow invalid when discussing why they can't use digital sharing and traditional disc-based DRM at the same time?
Consensus amongst whom? Cause I'm on NeoGaf right now and everyone there is still taking CBOAT's word over people like Aaron Greenberg. The time limited sharing plan makes perfect sense really, when you consider what Microsoft were doing elsewhere.
No, it doesn't. Time-limiting turns the sharing system into a demo system, and you want to get demo content out to as many people as possible. Limiting it to those whose friends already own the game doesn't make any sense from a business standpoint.
I should note in politics and business its actually quote often that people claim one thing and do something entirely different,
Yeah, but that's not what's going on here. Uzzy is saying this guy is claiming something, when in reality he claims the opposite thing in the exact same article. If you want to illustrate that his actions don't match his words, go for it. But don't say his words don't match his words, and then mangle his words to make that true.
|
|
No, it doesn't. It fits right into their new ecosystem of digital content/licensing. Also, I'm not sure how the $540 figure can be tossed around by the anti-DRM crowd, seeing as how one of the main anti-DRM talking points is that the sort of person pirating/sharing/buying used wouldn't buy the game anyway, and therefore pirating/sharing/buying used doesn't translate to lost sales. Is that no longer the case? Or is that argument only useful when you're arguing against DRM, and can be safely discarded in favor of the opposing argument when explaining why a shared games ecosystem would never fly?
The main anti-DRM 'talking point' is that we like to actually own our games. A radical theory, to be sure, this whole 'ownership' thing.
Anyway, the proposed family sharing plan doesn't make any sense. It's really quite simple. Publishers think that used games mean they lose sales, so they continue to try methods to restrict used sales. So why would they then go and endorse a new system by which they'd miss out on ninety percent of their sales? Remember, to the mind of the Publisher, everytime a game they published is played by a non-paying customer, that's a lost sale, regardless of how that customer obtained that game (piracy, borrowing, used game)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should note in politics and business its actually quote often that people claim one thing and do something entirely different,Yeah, but that's not what's going on here. Uzzy is saying this guy is claiming something, when in reality he claims the opposite thing in the exact same article. If you want to illustrate that his actions don't match his words, go for it. But don't say his words don't match his words, and then mangle his words to make that true.
'This guy', being the head of Xbox Marketing, made the claim that most customers don't care about the details. They then went and constantly obfuscated the details, didn't clarify them or put them down in detail at any point (save for a few statements just prior to E3), safe in the belief that most customers don't care about the details. They took pride in the belief that most customers are idiots, who'd just blindly buy the Xbone out of some misguided brand loyalty.
Sure, he also said he wanted to educated customers, but they had TWO major press conferences where they could do that, where they could explain their plan for always on consoles. They, uh.. didn't.
Game rentals also seem like a big unmentioned element in the whole pre-180 issue.
I have decided that "Family Sharing" was actually a system where Microsoft sold your children into the human trafficking market.
Since Microsoft pulled Family Sharing, we'll never know if this wasn't the case, therefore I'm pissed off that Microsoft was pushing DRM to offer us the "feature" of selling our children into slavery.
I also don't see how they couldn't implement this plan with digital downloads.
This where the party is at?
Down with Xbone! Don't want anyone peepin at me while I play halo naked.
I kind of doubt that is a real "MS employee" from many factors...
As Scott said, there's no reason to limit "Demos" to just 10 "family members".
I mean, there could be some limitations, but not as described.
Alot of other aspects of the "leak" scream fake to me as well.
I suspect it was an actual MS employee, and that Marc Whitten's protest to the contrary (that it was "silly") was just yet another situation of MS's left hand not knowing what the right is doing (as we've seen all throughout the Xbone's reveal from May 21 until now).
If used games were such an issue, then what they proposed as this whole "game sharing" plan was inconsistent with their other decisions.
It IS kind of pointless to discuss a feature they refuse to be clear about isn't it? Game sharing is this nebulous "gift" from your friends at microsoft? Microsoft hasn't done anything to date that wasn't aimed at fattening their own wallets, so whatever it turns out to have been (or to be if it's still being planned) is going to cost us at some point. Whether it is worth the cost? I have my doubts otherwise why be so cryptic about how it was going to work?
You know as long as others are speculating... forgive me for speculating a bit myself.
What if this was going to be a sneaky way for microsoft to take over the used game market? Gaining them a monopoly on used game sales for the Xbone digitally. Perhaps they would offer your ten free demos that turned into licensed 2nd hand copies for a fee?
TBO, the console doesn't seem to exist for any reason other than establishing a strangle-hold on all aspects of video game play, I'm thinking the best feature of the xboxone is that it ISN'T compatible with 360 games.
If we're gonna speculate, I think the bone was a sneaky way to keep selling 360s. Don't want always on spycamera? Buy 360. Don't have internet all the time? Buy 360. In the military? Buy 360. Who needs a new generation? We're winning the last generation!!!
It's insane, but then again, Microsoft. Just Microsoft.
If we're gonna speculate, I think the bone was a sneaky way to keep selling 360s. Don't want always on spycamera? Buy 360. Don't have internet all the time? Buy 360. In the military? Buy 360. Who needs a new generation? We're winning the last generation!!!
It's insane, but then again, Microsoft. Just Microsoft.
I'll buy that as a possibility. Are 360's losing out to other consoles, though? Sony did a pretty good job of convincing me to go with the 360 when the PS 3, came out. I believe their pres. personally came out and ranted that the PS 3 should cost more than it did, when there were grumblings about the price of their console. Square-Enix going non-ps-exclusive was just the icing on the cake (to bad they seem hell bent on killing their own franchise. . . grumble).
I, personally, don't have console envy for any games out there that aren't already on the 360. Though I'll admit to being peeved at the Bayonetta 2 situation. Not going to buy a nintendo just for that game, though.
It seems that PS4 online play will require a paid subscription to Playstation plus. Definite difference between it and the PS3. The explanation had to do with the cost of maintaining a stable online environment. The Escapist picked it up from Kotaku. Here's the Escapist story:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125471-Sony-Demands-Cash-For-Play Station-4-Online-Play
That's been known for a while now.
That's been known for a while now.
I thought it was a rumor up until Sony announced it and explained it. Either way, it's just another point of similarity between the two. The only real differences seem to be cost, game line up and Kinect. I'm curious, Microsoft has indicated it's games are going to stay at about $60, have you heard about Sony or are they waiting on that?
Well, there is that you won't need PSN Plus to use video services, that it's $10 cheaper than Live Gold, and you get tons more from it then you do from Gold.
Tons more... what? I play PC, consoles aren't my thing. My kids play both PC and console. $10 cheaper over what length of time and is this the same price structure the PS4 will have? Curious. I suspect my kids will end up with both over time. The question is which first. They already each have the Wii U. And are waiting impatiently for the new Zelda game. My son works and is thinking of pre-ordering an X-box One or PS4. The other is a likely birthday / Christmas present...