Xbox One Exec Acknowledges Failure to Communicate

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

tippy2k2:
You think?

At the pre-E3 press conference, you could ask five different Microsoft reps the same question and get five different answers. Even after they clarified some of the stuff at E3, there were a LOT of questions that they just, for whatever reason, felt were not worth answering.

The Xbox One had some neat potential but you needed to convince us that the negatives (DRM, Kinect, etc.) were outweighed by the positives (Cloud gaming....and...uh.....I'm sure there's more). You failed. You not only failed, you failed in the most spectacular way you could.

You were the heavy favorites in this next-gen boxing match and not only did you not even get into the ring, you fell over and knocked yourself out on the ring post when you were show-boating coming in...also, your pants fell down before a bird flew into the arena and pooped on your head.

Not to mention the other boxer had just given the greatest underdog speech in the history of the sport, and had rabble roused the entire stadium to his side.

Saltyk:

Anyway, that's another point. Add in the OS, Kinect's programming, game saves, browser, Skype, TV related things, and whatever Apps you have on it, and how much of that 500 Gigabyte will be left? Even assuming it could hold ten games, how many people have more than ten games?

I'm assuming the number is based on the usual "1 GB=1000 MB" system used for advertising, so I'm assuming formatting will bring it down quite a bit in itself. Saves and apps like Skype and Netflix tend to be small, but you're already looking at a sizable chunk off for the marketing. TV functionality will probably eat up a fair share if you use it.

To the question of "who has more than ten games?" The average software attach rated a year or two into the Xbox 360's life was 7 games. Now, even assuming that was ignoring multiple console purchases for dead consoles (RROD was common and before the extended warranty led to quite a few new systems), you'd think Microsoft would hope for a repeat (or better). And that's two years into the life cycle.

Assuming a system space no larger than the current one, and games near ot at 50 GB in size, that's still only 9 games and change available. For a system that's supposed to be TEH FYEWCHUR! That's not very future proof.

Now, I suppose there's an issue of whether or not that's fair. After all, I suppose the question is "how many people play ten concurrent games?"

On the one hand, there's the fact you already pointed out: if you want to play a game again, you have to reinstall. Plus, you have to delete and install new games, period. And honestly, if I'm going to have to download and install games, I'd rather do it for my new, shiny PC. Well, new and shiny in the sense I upgraded most of it. On the other, more and more people seem to be treating games as disposable. If you only play play a game, and effectively chuck it, does it matter? Probably not.

But then, I don't know the ratio of disposable games to keepers, so....

I'll just copy paste here what I said in the facebook comments of this article.

"I believe we've added on choice for people; we realized people wanted some choice; it's about adding that choice (between offline and online modes)."

I'm sorry, forgive me for being so blunt here, but why the fuck was it so difficult for a billion dollar company to realize their consumers would want choice! Microsoft basically won the last generation with the 360, or at least they won it against Sony for the longest time /by having a console that was actively online and offline all at the consumer's whim just because that fucking makes sense/. Everything worked. Everything was fine. It might have cost a bit much, but damn, almost everything out there that's worth money costs a little too much (mainly just due to universal greed, but I digress).

Honestly, all of this crap worked. It worked fine, it worked well enough and the only thing that really didn't do all that well for MS was the Kinect... so... they decide to do the opposite of what they were doing, focus solely on trying to make the Kinect awesome all while adding DRM that of course people didn't want. Then they backtrack, fix their "mistakes", and then they basically flat out state, "Oh, darn, consumers want choice? However could we have guessed that?" Honestly, something's not right about this whole scenario. It's just too fucking stupid.

Saltyk:

Small thing about not needing a disk. You would need to download the full game to the system. That would take time. So you'd come home from the store and want to play your game? Too bad. Wait one hour. Maybe it'll be ready. Which completely undermines one of the tenants of console gaming. Pick up and play. And the system has a 500 Gigabit hard-drive, which can't be removed. How many full games will that hold?

not that its an exact science, but im using about 500 GB in space for my pc games and i have 52 installed.
OS installed on a seperate SSD. so it'd depend how much of that 500GB MS are offering would be for downloads etc and how much is firmware dedicated. either way, hope it gives you a bench mark

MFW this petition is just trolls and Sony Fanboys. Also yes they did a horrible job of PR.

Yes, it certainly was a failure to communicate what your console can and can't do. For instance, I bet if you had explained how the "Family Sharing Program" was actually just your term for letting the consumers be the source for glorified demos in which the person "borrowing" the game only gets to play for a short while before being prompted to "buy" and download the full product - effectively using the consumers as a source for free advertisement to others - then many more people would be against it.

PS: You are right about one thing, consumers always value having a choice in the matter......kinda like how they'd like to have the CHOICE of having a Kinect attached to their console or not.

From what I've read on the net (even here on Escapist) , this whole shitstorm regarding Xbox One "DRM" were based on very skewed, if not outright false, perception of what those restrictions actually would work.

I could probably find like half a dozen examples in this thread alone.

Is this due to Microsoft not doing a good enough job communicating with their consumers? Not mainly. Look at the whole Kinect thing, something most people on the net still seems to think will spy on you all the time when it fact you'll be "in complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears", which is written on Microsoft's bloody website and has been for weeks.

What does all this tell us? Well people are too busy reading stupid, populist headlines on video game websites and Reddit comments to actually go on to Microsoft's official website and read for themselves. Which, if it's true, means that the "consumers' supposed "victory" of the Xbox DRM is just another case of a bunch of people on the Internet ranting about things they don't know.

For shame

RJ 17:
Yes, it certainly was a failure to communicate what your console can and can't do. For instance, I bet if you had explained how the "Family Sharing Program" was actually just your term for letting the consumers be the source for glorified demos in which the person "borrowing" the game only gets to play for a short while before being prompted to "buy" and download the full product - effectively using the consumers as a source for free advertisement to others - then many more people would be against it.

Where did you read that? It seems to go completely against what Microsoft's own very engineers had said and promised about the system they coded. You can your game library on second party consoles, share games with up to ten people globally and digitally, and give games away completely if you want to. How is that anything like sharing "glorified demos"? If anything, it's a sharing system about ten times lest restrictive than that of Steam, which most people seem to be fine with.

TomWiley:

RJ 17:
Yes, it certainly was a failure to communicate what your console can and can't do. For instance, I bet if you had explained how the "Family Sharing Program" was actually just your term for letting the consumers be the source for glorified demos in which the person "borrowing" the game only gets to play for a short while before being prompted to "buy" and download the full product - effectively using the consumers as a source for free advertisement to others - then many more people would be against it.

Where did you read that? It seems to go completely against what Microsoft's own very engineers had said and promised about the system they coded. You can your game library on second party consoles, share games with up to ten people globally and digitally, and give games away completely if you want to. How is that anything like sharing "glorified demos"? If anything, it's a sharing system about ten times lest restrictive than that of Steam, which most people seem to be fine with.

I actually read it in an article right here on The Escapist. A "Hearbroken MS Employee" (edited to correct that he wasn't an exec) specifically said in a direct quote that the sharing program would let the people borrowing the game play it for 45 minutes to an hour, or some other brief time period, and then be prompted to purchase the full game themselves. Forgive me for being too lazy to dig through the archives to find the exact article as unfortunately I have absolutely no recollection as to what the headline of the article was, but here's a link to a forum topic which in turn has a link to the direct source of the information that the Escapist article was based off of:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.819460-Poll-Heartbroken-Microsoft-Employee-Explains-How-Family-Sharing-Would-Have-Worked

RJ 17:

TomWiley:

RJ 17:
Yes, it certainly was a failure to communicate what your console can and can't do. For instance, I bet if you had explained how the "Family Sharing Program" was actually just your term for letting the consumers be the source for glorified demos in which the person "borrowing" the game only gets to play for a short while before being prompted to "buy" and download the full product - effectively using the consumers as a source for free advertisement to others - then many more people would be against it.

Where did you read that? It seems to go completely against what Microsoft's own very engineers had said and promised about the system they coded. You can your game library on second party consoles, share games with up to ten people globally and digitally, and give games away completely if you want to. How is that anything like sharing "glorified demos"? If anything, it's a sharing system about ten times lest restrictive than that of Steam, which most people seem to be fine with.

I actually read it in an article right here on The Escapist. A "Hearbroken MS Employee" (edited to correct that he wasn't an exec) specifically said in a direct quote that the sharing program would let the people borrowing the game play it for 45 minutes to an hour, or some other brief time period, and then be prompted to purchase the full game themselves. Forgive me for being too lazy to dig through the archives to find the exact article as unfortunately I have absolutely no recollection as to what the headline of the article was, but here's a link to a forum topic which in turn has a link to the direct source of the information that the Escapist article was based off of:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.819460-Poll-Heartbroken-Microsoft-Employee-Explains-How-Family-Sharing-Would-Have-Worked

Thanks. I'm actually familiar with that source.
It should be mentioned that this information is based on a comment posted by a guy online who claims to work for Microsoft, but neither Microsoft nor any official source outside the company has confirmed that this guy is actually an engineer from Microsoft.

Either way, one can assume that sharing a game with up to ten people; anyone, anywhere, was never gonna be the full game for all foreseeable future. That system would be absolutely disastrous. The notion that you'd be able to buy a game and then just give the full game to ten friends is retarded, and I doubt (and hope) that nobody actually thought that this is how it would work. At least I assumed there was some kind of time-limit as to how long you can play before you have to pay for the thing. Sounds reasonable to me if you compare it to, let's say Steam, which doesn't offer any sharing to begin with and people seem fine with that.

However, the idea of the sharing being a "demo", like a limited, special-version of the full game, sound's insanely stupid if it was true, as the OP in the thread you link seem to suggest. But nothing in the link seem to suggest that's the case, and if it was still gonna be the full game and comparing it to a demo is, at least in my opinion, misleading.

TomWiley:
Snip.

A demo lets you get a glimpse of the game before it's out to encourage you to buy it when it comes out. If the game is already out, it gives you a glimpse of the game then says "buy this". I don't see how it's misleading to call what that link describes a "glorified demo" since...that's really what it would do: let you play the game for a bit then say "buy this".

Either way, one can assume that sharing a game with up to ten people; anyone, anywhere, was never gonna be the full game for all foreseeable future. That system would be absolutely disastrous. The notion that you'd be able to buy a game and then just give the full game to ten friends is retarded, and I doubt (and hope) that nobody actually thought that this is how it would work. At least I assumed there was some kind of time-limit as to how long you can play before you have to pay for the thing. Sounds reasonable to me if you compare it to, let's say Steam, which doesn't offer any sharing to begin with and people seem fine with that.

Beyond that, you said yourself that it would be a disastrous business plan to let people share the full game with one another with no drawbacks, sooooo even if that wasn't a real MS employee describing how the system would work that....kinda implies that that's exactly how it would work: allow the "borrower" to play the game for a while before asking them if they'd like to buy the full version.

The reason Steam doesn't offer any sharing at all is because it really would be nothing but a glorified demo. Why bother letting people share a game that can only be played for a short time period before they're asked to buy the full game when there's already demos of games that do the exact same thing?

So really, even by your own admission, regardless of if that post from a "heartbroken MS employee" was a hoax or not, that's really the only way the system COULD work. It's all a smoke-screen either way you look at it. At worst it's an attempt to get free advertising off the consumers, while at best it's just a complete wash: nothing is lost or gained for the consumer at all.

I wonder if microsoft did really read that petition. Most people there are just trolling.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Still not convinced that this "petition" isn't done by hardcore Sony fans to completely destroy Microsoft.

Yes, because obviously "losing" the console war against Sony would completely destroy Microsoft, what with games and the Xbox being about five percent of their revenue stream.

RJ 17:

TomWiley:
Snip.

A demo lets you get a glimpse of the game before it's out to encourage you to buy it when it comes out. If the game is already out, it gives you a glimpse of the game then says "buy this". I don't see how it's misleading to call what that link describes a "glorified demo" since...that's really what it would do: let you play the game for a bit then say "buy this".

Either way, one can assume that sharing a game with up to ten people; anyone, anywhere, was never gonna be the full game for all foreseeable future. That system would be absolutely disastrous. The notion that you'd be able to buy a game and then just give the full game to ten friends is retarded, and I doubt (and hope) that nobody actually thought that this is how it would work. At least I assumed there was some kind of time-limit as to how long you can play before you have to pay for the thing. Sounds reasonable to me if you compare it to, let's say Steam, which doesn't offer any sharing to begin with and people seem fine with that.

Beyond that, you said yourself that it would be a disastrous business plan to let people share the full game with one another with no drawbacks, sooooo even if that wasn't a real MS employee describing how the system would work that....kinda implies that that's exactly how it would work: allow the "borrower" to play the game for a while before asking them if they'd like to buy the full version.

The reason Steam doesn't offer any sharing at all is because it really would be nothing but a glorified demo. Why bother letting people share a game that can only be played for a short time period before they're asked to buy the full game when there's already demos of games that do the exact same thing?

So really, even by your own admission, regardless of if that post from a "heartbroken MS employee" was a hoax or not, that's really the only way the system COULD work. It's all a smoke-screen either way you look at it. At worst it's an attempt to get free advertising off the consumers, while at best it's just a complete wash: nothing is lost or gained for the consumer at all.

Alright, so there first thing we seem to disagree on here is the difference between a demo and getting to play the full game in 45 minutes. Because for me, that difference is huge. The OP from the thread linked the text and summarized it by saying that it basically let's you share a commercial demo, which as I wrote in my last pose, is misleading.

Now, it doesn't matter if it's a hoax or not, and I noted that we don't know the reliability of the source more as a sidenote. A would freaking love a system which allows me to let my friend play the first 45 minutes of The Last of Us to see if it's any good. He'd get immersed and would probably buy the game if he enjoys it. That's a perfect social feature which allows you to share an experience with a friend which at the same time does not allow for the system to be abused. A demo, on the other hand, is more often than not not a part of the real game. It's more like a mini-game which demonstrates the basic mechanics, let's you play one level or part of the map or give you a limited amount of characters or cars to whatever to chose from. It's like a bad, watered-down reflection of the real game, and often a pretty lousy experience (at least if you ask me). Or, in the case of Mirror's Edge, a misleading and false representation. It's a reason it's called a "demonstration" rather than trial or something like that.

But the full game limited to 45 minutes is something else entirely. That's a good deal, one that I would very much love to use with my friends.

TomWiley:
Snip.

What you just described, my friend, is indeed not a demo...it's a "glorified demo". The keyword being "glorified". Yes, you have full access as though you had the game for 45 minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still just a trial-run to tempt you to buy the game...that is to say: a demo.

shintakie10:
Wasn't the petition started in order to get the sharing of digital library games back since MSoft pulled support for that idea when they took away the DRM?

The loss of the DRM took away a lot of things, very good and awesome things that didn't get enough attention. Accessin digital libraries from anywhere on your account. Not needin discs in the drive to play non digital games. Really cool ideas that got axed because apparently MSoft felt that if they couldn't 100% guarantee someone wasn't a dirty pirate then no one got the cool toys.

There was never going to be sharing of games as people seem to think there would, regardless MS has already said it will be back just not avaliable on release day as they need to change the system.

RJ 17:

TomWiley:
Snip.

What you just described, my friend, is indeed not a demo...it's a "glorified demo". The keyword being "glorified". Yes, you have full access as though you had the game for 45 minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still just a trial-run to tempt you to buy the game...that is to say: a demo.

Stop me if I'm on the wrong track, but doesn't Steam sometimes put certain games on the 'free to play' list for a weekend so that people can try a game out before they buy it? Personally, I'd use that example in your argument.

For example, if you have slow and limited internet, there's really no point downloading, say, a 8 GB game that's on a F2P weekend, because that will take the best part of those two days, and after that weekend you've gone and eaten up a good part of your bandwidth with nothing to show for it but a lump of data saying "insert credit card to unlock".
This is barely tolerable IMO if you only had a day to trial a game that took a day to download and ate up half your bandwidth, but 45 minutes? Maybe two hours at best? Hell no.
This is obviously different in one major way, seeing as a friend is lending it to you rather than Microsoft or Steam, but I think it still stands as a comparable existing example.

Infernal Lawyer:

RJ 17:

TomWiley:
Snip.

What you just described, my friend, is indeed not a demo...it's a "glorified demo". The keyword being "glorified". Yes, you have full access as though you had the game for 45 minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still just a trial-run to tempt you to buy the game...that is to say: a demo.

Stop me if I'm on the wrong track, but doesn't Steam sometimes put certain games on the 'free to play' list for a weekend so that people can try a game out before they buy it? Personally, I'd use that example in your argument.

For example, if you have slow and limited internet, there's really no point downloading, say, a 8 GB game that's on a F2P weekend, because that will take the best part of those two days, and after that weekend you've gone and eaten up a good part of your bandwidth with nothing to show for it but a lump of data saying "insert credit card to unlock".
This is barely tolerable IMO if you only had a day to trial a game that took a day to download and ate up half your bandwidth, but 45 minutes? Maybe two hours at best? Hell no.
This is obviously different in one major way, seeing as a friend is lending it to you rather than Microsoft or Steam, but I think it still stands as a comparable existing example.

All I've been trying to tell Tom is that "Demo Trial is Demo." You might have full access to the game, but it's still just a demo to tempt you into buying it. Indeed, comparing it to those Steam free trial weekends is similar in concept, but no matter which way you slice it, it's still nothing more than a "glorified" demo. I shouldn't HAVE to compare it to Steam's free trial weekends. :P

RJ 17:

Infernal Lawyer:

RJ 17:
Snip

Stop me if I'm on the wrong track, but doesn't Steam sometimes put certain games on the 'free to play' list for a weekend so that people can try a game out before they buy it? Personally, I'd use that example in your argument.

For example, if you have slow and limited internet, there's really no point downloading, say, a 8 GB game that's on a F2P weekend, because that will take the best part of those two days, and after that weekend you've gone and eaten up a good part of your bandwidth with nothing to show for it but a lump of data saying "insert credit card to unlock".
This is barely tolerable IMO if you only had a day to trial a game that took a day to download and ate up half your bandwidth, but 45 minutes? Maybe two hours at best? Hell no.
This is obviously different in one major way, seeing as a friend is lending it to you rather than Microsoft or Steam, but I think it still stands as a comparable existing example.

All I've been trying to tell Tom is that "Demo Trial is Demo." You might have full access to the game, but it's still just a demo to tempt you into buying it. Indeed, comparing it to those Steam free trial weekends is similar in concept, but no matter which way you slice it, it's still nothing more than a "glorified" demo. I shouldn't HAVE to compare it to Steam's free trial weekends. :P

Well, I suppose I was trying to say that 'glorified demo' is still too nice a term for what essentially quickly becomes a massive waste of bandwidth, HDD space and time (even if it was a little off topic). After all, depending on how much time you give said friend to play the game, either you're letting them play the entire game for free, or they end up downloading a shit ton of data they may never use.

In any case, as you're probably trying to imply to TomWiley, it would be stupid to call such a system 'family sharing' if it resembled something more like a demo system or trial system that could easily be run off the Xbone online Shop.

Bullest shit I've ever heard. If Microsoft thinks a failure to communicate is the main problem, it's their heads on the chopping block. Even when some of the would-be features were elucidated by more sensible humans they seemed needlessly terrible, especially when you realise that region lock would negate the use of their now-sort-of-known-to-be limited time free demo service to those who would make best use of it.

So......What is the One supposed to do again? I mean, Christ are they reading from a handbook in ancient Nordic?

I think they may be taking the petition a little to seriously....

RJ 17:

Infernal Lawyer:

RJ 17:
What you just described, my friend, is indeed not a demo...it's a "glorified demo". The keyword being "glorified". Yes, you have full access as though you had the game for 45 minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still just a trial-run to tempt you to buy the game...that is to say: a demo.

Stop me if I'm on the wrong track, but doesn't Steam sometimes put certain games on the 'free to play' list for a weekend so that people can try a game out before they buy it? Personally, I'd use that example in your argument.

For example, if you have slow and limited internet, there's really no point downloading, say, a 8 GB game that's on a F2P weekend, because that will take the best part of those two days, and after that weekend you've gone and eaten up a good part of your bandwidth with nothing to show for it but a lump of data saying "insert credit card to unlock".
This is barely tolerable IMO if you only had a day to trial a game that took a day to download and ate up half your bandwidth, but 45 minutes? Maybe two hours at best? Hell no.
This is obviously different in one major way, seeing as a friend is lending it to you rather than Microsoft or Steam, but I think it still stands as a comparable existing example.

All I've been trying to tell Tom is that "Demo Trial is Demo." You might have full access to the game, but it's still just a demo to tempt you into buying it. Indeed, comparing it to those Steam free trial weekends is similar in concept, but no matter which way you slice it, it's still nothing more than a "glorified" demo. I shouldn't HAVE to compare it to Steam's free trial weekends. :P

Oh really now, let's not make this into a semantic discussion regarding the word "demo". I already said that glorified demo is misleading in my opinion. That's really all I'm saying, which is way most of my previous comment was just explaining why I think 45 minutes is a pretty decent value proposition, and I still don't see why it wouldn't be...

TomWiley:
Snip.

Evidently, yes, we do have a vastly different opinion on what a demo is. So alright my friend, what would YOU call something that's a limited-time trial-run of a game that is meant to encourage you to buy the full game and prompts you to do so after the time limit is up?

"Glorified Demo" isn't misleading in the slightest. As you said, you can do a lot more than you could in a demo, that's why it's a "glorified" demo, as I've been calling it the entire time. When you boil it down to the core elements, it's still a limited-time trial-run meant to encourage you to purchase the game.

Calling it "Family Sharing" is what's misleading. Sharing implies that they can play the game as much as they want all the way through, as though you were "sharing" it with them by letting them borrow it.

We're going to have to end this conversation now because there's apparently something keeping you from calling a demo a demo, and I'm getting tired of repeating the definition of demo over and over again.

the word is "Listen" not "Communicate" microsoft and it comes from us to you not the other way round.

RJ 17:

I'm getting tired of repeating the definition of demo over and over again.

You mean you're getting tired of repeating what you think a demo is. "Demo" doesn't have any official definition you know. I don't know if you were alive during the 90s, (and I'm growing increasingly unsure), but demo has traditionally been a separate campaign or mission meant to showcase some of the essential mechanics - with other words: nothing like 45 minutes of the full game.

RJ 17:

"Glorified Demo" isn't misleading in the slightest.

Again, it's a question of definition. You can disagree if you want to, but you can't act as if I'm objectively wrong.

RJ 17:

what would YOU call something that's a limited-time trial-run of a game that is meant to encourage you to buy the full game

I would call it a limited-time trial-run of a game. Of course what I'd call it is irrelevant. The real question, and what I've been trying to get at for a while now, is what I think of the value proposition, which still is what I wrote a few posts ago: a perfect social feature which allows you to share an experience with a friend which at the same time does not allow for the system to be abused.

Now tell my why that isn't a great value proposition.

This is far from Microsoft exclusive territory but why is it that so many in this industry come out to make statements trying to respond to a situation end up saying things that are either oblivious to the situation or in resentful and willful defiance of the realities of it?

Why is it simply owning up to making the mistake of trying to tell customers you know what they want and need far better than they possibly can is unfathomable and we get the likes of this, or comments from EA or Activision, Ubisoft or Square Enix and even indie devs/pubs are far from immune that try to shift the blame away from themselves and more often than not onto the consumers instead of just admitting and taking responsibility for the errors they made?

I would have unending respect if one of these entities would just come out and say "Yeah, we have gigantic clanking brass balls and sometimes the sound gets so loud it drowns out any logic and reason that causes us to say/do something stupid. Don't worry, we will fix it"

Valderis:
Microsoft, I think you need to talk less.

"engineering reality time frame type-thing" What the hell does that even mean?!

Everything you people say and do either pisses us of or confuses us. What you need to do is to observe Sony's statements from and since E3, they have been a whole lot more clear on matters that we actually care about.

I second your confusion. I think he was trying to say this system wasn't going to be implemented for a while anyway? If at all?

My theory was they thought this "share-type-thing" up after the initial outcry just so they could pretend the Xbone was losing something when they eventually did their 180.

Maybe I give M$ too much credit. But I can't fathom how such a big company with so much money and smart people could foul things up so completely. Its not like they just shit their pants, its like they downed an entire bottle of laxative before going on stage knowing exactly what was in the bottle and what it did, but never connected the subsequent public defecation until after the fact.

Yahtzee's weird S and M story makes just as much sense as anything in this whole kerfukle.

Holythirteen:

Valderis:
Microsoft, I think you need to talk less.

"engineering reality time frame type-thing" What the hell does that even mean?!

Everything you people say and do either pisses us of or confuses us. What you need to do is to observe Sony's statements from and since E3, they have been a whole lot more clear on matters that we actually care about.

I second your confusion. I think he was trying to say this system wasn't going to be implemented for a while anyway? If at all?

My theory was they thought this "share-type-thing" up after the initial outcry just so they could pretend the Xbone was losing something when they eventually did their 180.

Maybe I give M$ too much credit. But I can't fathom how such a big company with so much money and smart people could foul things up so completely. Its not like they just shit their pants, its like they downed an entire bottle of laxative before going on stage knowing exactly what was in the bottle and what it did, but never connected the subsequent public defecation until after the fact.

Yahtzee's weird S and M story makes just as much sense as anything in this whole kerfukle.

I think Microsoft simply overestimated the intelligence of their consumers. They promised global online sharing, digital used games solution, server-offloading and cloud integration - not realizing that most consumers are too dumb to even see how all that would work, let alone see the advantages of said solutions. Rather, they'd feel confused, scared, angry and they'd turn to the populist, sensationalist "journalism" and Reddit posts to feel in the gaps.

The result, a big angry misinformed mob and, subsequently, a PR disaster.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here