Xbox Boss: Xbox One DRM Controversy "Hurt Me Personally"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Ed130 The Vanguard:

Alex Co:

Xbox head Phil Spencer claims he was hurt personally regarding the Xbox One's DRM/always-online controversy since he believes Microsoft builds Xbox "for the right reasons."

The right reasons for the customer or the distributors Mr Spencer?

Well, the end goal of any responsible company is to do the right thing for its investors (by raising shareholder value). Whether that's the best approach in terms of the relationship between corporations and society is debatable, but that's the reality.

Of course in the long term that necessitates maintaining a loyal customer base too, hopefully

The right reasons for who ? Your shareholders ! Honestly this guy is so full of it, whist i agree that a digital distribution system is not a bad thing you have to implement it correctly and you did not do this.

Take steam for example (putting aside the current new old games thing for a moment) you cannot trade in a steam game and you have to be online to activate / install the game, but that's it no checking in every x hours no disabling your games if you don't go online. If you are online it will check the game when you launch it, if you are offline it wont. You can buy on steam or you can buy on green man or buy physical and activate the code on steam, the microshaft system would have stifled the competition and let them charge what the hell they wanted ( they do this anyway), on steam you get sales and genuine competition, as a result the games are cheaper so you dont need that extra cash from trade ins.

But what Microsoft wanted to do was to own everything rip people off AND have DRM up the arse, never has the phrase "wanted to Eat there cake and have it too" been more accurate. ( and yes this quote is backwards but it make more seance this way )

Oh and microsoft and sony and EA listen up

Digital games cost less to produce and distribute so should cost less to buy!

Developers

Stop spending money like its water and possibly then your over inflated budgets will allow you to sell games at less than £60 and you have to sell 10067 million copies to break even. This is also known as the from software method.

Y'know, if consumers were given a choice, it actually would've been harmless and good. Full installs and discless-but-DRM'd play for those who want it, and DRM-free but disc-required play for the rest. Give us the option, and everybody's happy.

P.S. Thanks

Enough of this stupid all-words damage control. We know already that every overpaid exec at M$ is hurt that the general populous said a triumphant "Fuck You!" to the worst console DRM ever, therefore ruining their sales predictions and under the counter deals with the stupid, equally greedy, paranoid publishers.

What MS needs to do now is speak with actions.

People don't like the Kinect. It raises the price, will never be used right, and doesn't interest a good deal of the potential xbox customer base. Drop that thing, now.

Requiring Gold to use Netflix and similar services is petty. Make that free and entice people to get a gold subscription with free weekends of real gold features. Online multi-player and the monthly free games are a fair paid subscription offer, not charging someone extra to stream from a third party that they already payed.

MS's whole public image needs an overhaul. Stop giving mixed answers. Explain why you did something a certain way, instead of turning your argument into a list of selling points that won't even work on the world's most gullible man.

If MS does not address these and many more issues by E3, I'm pretty sure many people, myself included, are going to only ever be entertained by the xbone by reading online about its many fumbles. Instead of giving a company that won't fix, or even admit, its flaws my money, I'll save up for some new PC parts and maybe a Wii U.

Imo the only reason so many gamers said NO! to DRM was because of the other failings of the console compared to the PS4 which wins out on horsepower and price.

Whatever the case I'm glad MS are eating some humble pie since they've really become ignorant of the customer this past couple of years (more so than usual).

Every single time someone makes a stupid decision they insist that 'they just didn't communicate their message'. No-one ever has the guts to admit when they're just plain wrong.

It's the equivalent of Sega insisting the CD 32X weren't absolute disasters, they just 'failed to explain the benefits of charging the customers for two pieces of s**t.' To be honest I'd rather they were idiots and move on.

This is getting repetitive. Adam Orth's "Deal with it" should have been early enough warning sign to reverse the decision.

Cry me a fucking river!

You make shit products, just look at the last device you made and its abominable failure rating, and you're intentions are downright evil because you're trying to force DRM down peoples throats.

You should not feel hurt because your ego got bruised by the backlash, you should feel ashamed for the things you have done and are still trying to do.

I'm sure it did hurt you personally, and when I say personally I mean your pay was lowered when everyone refused to buy or preorder an xbox so you and your dipshit finance department decided to stop trying to force people to buy something and assume they'd just be okay with renting everything from microsoft.

Aw, did your feelings get hurt?

Let's get real for a moment. 'The right thing' we're talking about here is not in the favour of the customer. You wanted to stop pirates, and you didn't hesitate to treat all your actual customers like trash and tell them the horrendous DRM is 'a feature.' Your feelings got hurt because your customers didn't like having their rights molested? Cry me a river.

"We build Xbox for the right reasons."

Translation: "Gamers don't appreciate the fact that we know what's best for them."

Microsoft needs to change their name to NannyCorp.

I think Microsoft genuinely thought they were making something that benefited the consumer, video games manufactures and the industry as a whole. I feel like the saying "Never attribute to conspiracy what can just as easily be caused by incompetence" comes into effect here.

Microsoft were genuinely shocked when we turned round and told them what we didn't like the Xbone before they changed it, because they thought we would like it. They also thought "Xbox One" was a good name. They probably still do.

Britishfan:
I think Microsoft genuinely thought they were making something that benefited the consumer, video games manufactures and the industry as a whole. I feel like the saying "Never attribute to conspiracy what can just as easily be caused by incompetence" comes into effect here.

Microsoft were genuinely shocked when we turned round and told them what we didn't like the Xbone before they changed it, because they thought we would like it. They also thought "Xbox One" was a good name. They probably still do.

Nobody is claiming conspiracy, just sleazy business practices. There was no conspiracy to sneak these things in behind our backs, they tried to cram them down our throats AND tell us we like them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJDZvXUv0Lk

See if you can spot the DRM in this video!

SilverStuddedSquirre:

Britishfan:
I think Microsoft genuinely thought they were making something that benefited the consumer, video games manufactures and the industry as a whole. I feel like the saying "Never attribute to conspiracy what can just as easily be caused by incompetence" comes into effect here.

Microsoft were genuinely shocked when we turned round and told them what we didn't like the Xbone before they changed it, because they thought we would like it. They also thought "Xbox One" was a good name. They probably still do.

Nobody is claiming conspiracy, just sleazy business practices. There was no conspiracy to sneak these things in behind our backs, they tried to cram them down our throats AND tell us we like them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJDZvXUv0Lk

See if you can spot the DRM in this video!

I somehow find it extremely unlikely that a company with such capacity for market research like Microsoft somehow couldn't figure out ahead of time that this was going to be an unpopular announcement. They just didn't anticipate that we'd actually vote with our wallets. They knew what they were doing, they were just hoping that, as usual, the internet was full of rage instead of actual action.

When it was announced, how many people said positive things? I remember an early poll on the forums that were blasting the xbone 10:1 against this move. Yes, we're a die-hard elitist sub group of gaming, but still. Anyone, and indeed everyone knew this wasn't gonna fly. I'm still waiting to even see a Ps4 at my local gaming store right now.

Yozozo:

SilverStuddedSquirre:

Britishfan:
I think Microsoft genuinely thought they were making something that benefited the consumer, video games manufactures and the industry as a whole. I feel like the saying "Never attribute to conspiracy what can just as easily be caused by incompetence" comes into effect here.

Microsoft were genuinely shocked when we turned round and told them what we didn't like the Xbone before they changed it, because they thought we would like it. They also thought "Xbox One" was a good name. They probably still do.

Nobody is claiming conspiracy, just sleazy business practices. There was no conspiracy to sneak these things in behind our backs, they tried to cram them down our throats AND tell us we like them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJDZvXUv0Lk

See if you can spot the DRM in this video!

I somehow find it extremely unlikely that a company with such capacity for market research like Microsoft somehow couldn't figure out ahead of time that this was going to be an unpopular announcement. They just didn't anticipate that we'd actually vote with our wallets. They knew what they were doing, they were just hoping that, as usual, the internet was full of rage instead of actual action.

When it was announced, how many people said positive things? I remember an early poll on the forums that were blasting the xbone 10:1 against this move. Yes, we're a die-hard elitist sub group of gaming, but still. Anyone, and indeed everyone knew this wasn't gonna fly. I'm still waiting to even see a Ps4 at my local gaming store right now.

I have to agree with you, they OUGHT to be able to see this crap coming, and yet they also said that Windows Vista, Windows XP (shudder) and now windows 8 were good things too.

It ultimately doesn't matter what the Company's reason for making it is if it's not in sync with the consumers. You can make the best licorice flavored apple in the world but if people like regular flavored apples and not licorice flavored apples then the "why" part of you making it simply doesn't matter since the result is still licorice. You shouldn't get personally hurt because it didn't occur to you that most of your customers don't like that flavor.

This is the same thing with Win8. They had good reasons for making the OS that way. They believe it was how the future was going to look. But clients still wanted keyboard/mouse friendly desktops that organized things in ways that made it easy for them to find applications. Win8 ruined that to force something onto pc users that they simply didn't want. The end result is the customer feeling like they're being forced to do something they don't want to do.

It isn't rocket science.

I'm worried. With all Microsoft's talk of "it was the right thing to do" "We just didn't explain ourselves correctly" "WWWWAAAAAAAHHHH YOU COCKSUCKERS DON'T APPRECIATE OUR GENIUS!!!!" it makes it sound like they're just biding their time until they can reinstate all these hated features. Imagine going to bed one night and the next day: "NO INTERNET CONNECTION DETECTED STOP ALL YOUR CONSOLE ARE BELONG TO US STOP" This is another reason I'm never going to buy an XBone in the future, and probably not going to ever buy a Microsoft console ever again. They don't care about the colossal backlash, when they see a mistake they don't think about correcting it, they see about "correcting" it.
I'm worried. If this is how one of the major console manufacturers is allowed to behave without any real repercussions (how many millions has the XBone sold again?) then it speaks volumes about the future of the games industry as a whole.
Not to mention that the Xbone is inferior to the PS4 in every single way on an objective level, that also doesn't help.

SilverLion:
I'm worried. With all Microsoft's talk of "it was the right thing to do" "We just didn't explain ourselves correctly" "WWWWAAAAAAAHHHH YOU COCKSUCKERS DON'T APPRECIATE OUR GENIUS!!!!" it makes it sound like they're just biding their time until they can reinstate all these hated features. Imagine going to bed one night and the next day: "NO INTERNET CONNECTION DETECTED STOP ALL YOUR CONSOLE ARE BELONG TO US STOP" This is another reason I'm never going to buy an XBone in the future, and probably not going to ever buy a Microsoft console ever again. They don't care about the colossal backlash, when they see a mistake they don't think about correcting it, they see about "correcting" it.
I'm worried. If this is how one of the major console manufacturers is allowed to behave without any real repercussions (how many millions has the XBone sold again?) then it speaks volumes about the future of the games industry as a whole.
Not to mention that the Xbone is inferior to the PS4 in every single way on an objective level, that also doesn't help.

Exactly,this is the most concerning part of the subject. They believe they were right and the product was good but we were just too dumb to "get it". Going XBO now means building up a library that will be in the same hands later when they do it again. If they do.

And the DRM bullshit hurt me personally. Can I get an outrageous salary now with a free license to fuck up simple things at will now?

Didn't communicate "it" the right way?

A.K.A., you didn't disguise Microsoft's DRM intentions with enough meaningless corporate drivel and so consumers actually figured out what those intentions were? Oh, the horrors!

I HATE this type of nonsense. You did it for the right reasons for Microsoft, not the right reasons for gamers. You did it to exert more control over your platform to cut down on piracy and out of region selling, and especially to eliminate used games sales, which Microsoft does not see a cut of like they do with new games.

There is literally nothing "right" about this for gamers who only gave up options. They would have given up the option to play offline. They would have given up the option to buy a used game. They would have given up the option to sell their used games. They would have given up their option to lend their buddy a game, or to borrow a game from their buddy.

If this guy came out with a real mea culpa I would at least have some respect for him, but instead he is boo hooing that us gamers just don't understand but Microsoft was screwing us over for "the right reasons"?

This guy can get bent.

Seriously.

Ed130 The Vanguard:

Alex Co:

Xbox head Phil Spencer claims he was hurt personally regarding the Xbox One's DRM/always-online controversy since he believes Microsoft builds Xbox "for the right reasons."

The right reasons for the customer or the distributors Mr Spencer?

Funnily enough, you go high enough up the corporate ladder in these companies and you'll hear them using the term 'customer' to describe their shareholders and distributors, not the actual people who buy their products, which is insane, but when you get that high up you are so far removed from the actual product your company is producing that all your work revolves around abstract monetary amounts and making figures look good on presentations to obscenely rich business folks.

The way Microsoft reps go on about it, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the Xbone was designed for curing cancer and decontaminating drinking water.

As opposed to a machine which they marketed variously as an expensive set top box for NFL fans, a 500 dollar corporate tax write off, a tv for people too lazy to use a remote, and a gaming device with barely any games which at one point you couldn't play without an internet connection.

F#[email protected]%d if I know. Are there people in Microsoft's game division who sincerely wanted to build the XBox One the way they did out of reasons that were motivated through a sheer love of the medium? Yeah, quite possibly; I doubt the structure could hold for very long if it consisted entirely of drones out to make money in a process with long cycle portions where their business isn't going to make much money and vultures happily speculate that it never will. Sounds like a great way to engender burn-out, quite frankly, and god knows there's enough of that in the video games business as there is.

That said, it does take a certain level of self-delusion and tunnel-vision to belong to a company like Microsoft and be sufficiently unaware of Microsoft's reputation that you utterly fail to see how the measures you're proposing are likely to be interpreted. At best, Microsoft has often seemed toxic in its desire to destroy its competition, overly-willing to tell its customers what they ought to like, and ready to try to use its financial and market clout to force everyone and everything attached to go its way kicking and screaming. At worst, especially of late, they seem to be all of the above combined with a rather pathetic inability to recognize that they no longer have the clout to make everyone do that, that their market does indeed have competitors now, and that their customer base has other strong alternatives for nearly everything they might want to do.

You may have a bright and shining vision for the future, but it pays to be sure the people necessary to accomplish that vision actually share it.

iseko:

Ed130 The Vanguard:

Alex Co:

Xbox head Phil Spencer claims he was hurt personally regarding the Xbox One's DRM/always-online controversy since he believes Microsoft builds Xbox "for the right reasons."

The right reasons for the customer or the distributors Mr Spencer?

God damnit! ninja'd.
Yea pretty much this. Good is a point of view. You're going to have a be a bit more specific.

Captcha: dogs and cats living togheter
I feel this is appropriate somehow

I concur. Are sure about that, Phil? Do you really believe that, or are you just saying what we want to hear? And for that matter, elaborate. Also, here's a hint Phil: If you're going to lie about something, and you get caught, it can help to be...you know, consistent? Also, on the subject of the captcha: It IS, good Lord! XD

Ten Foot Bunny:
Didn't communicate "it" the right way?

A.K.A., you didn't disguise Microsoft's DRM intentions with enough meaningless corporate drivel and so consumers actually figured out what those intentions were? Oh, the horrors!

It'd probably be like if Fox News suddenly started telling the truth. People might get wise that they're being messed with. But hey, we can dream, eh?

So much fo dat secret sauce eh Microsoft? Something told me DRM is alive and well. They did all that 180 just for Phil feeling hurt by DRM not working.

Well gee I wonder why Xbox is not selling like ps4. Microsoft lost sight of games and gamers. Halo tv, past halo.

personally, I thought Microsoft learned. Well I'm console agnostic. Just not letting em pull the whool

Gaming should about games and gamers, not appeasing stockholders...

double posted accidentally

Prolly gonna grab a ps4. Tired of Microsofts bumbling mishaps and sad ass excuses. But be forewarned Xbots ahoy will attack.

Oh boo fucking hoo you complete tool. Everyone knew your DRM bullshit was bad from a mile away and you did absolutely nothing to prove otherwise. You have noone but yourself to blame.

"It was a mistake sugar coating the DRM controversy"
"We were doing it for the right reasons"

I'm not the only one who noticed that, right?

Adam Jensen:
I don't give a shit about your emotions Phil. That was a colossal mistake and it's amazing how no one at Microsoft saw the backlash coming. A bunch of incompetent Apple wannabes.

Also, this^

Hairless Mammoth:
Online multi-player and the monthly free games are a fair paid subscription offer

I have to ask an unrelated question here, why is it ok charging customers a subscription fee to play online MP games? PC does just fine without it, so what's the deal? Does Microsoft provide the servers? If so, why should gamers give a toss, if a developer/publisher doesn't provide the servers, but relies on MS for that, why shouldn't they be the ones charged, seeing as they're getting the service (as opposed to the game who is already paying the full price for the game, that's more expensive than a PC game in the first place)

Vrach:

Hairless Mammoth:
Online multi-player and the monthly free games are a fair paid subscription offer

I have to ask an unrelated question here, why is it ok charging customers a subscription fee to play online MP games? PC does just fine without it, so what's the deal? Does Microsoft provide the servers? If so, why should gamers give a toss, if a developer/publisher doesn't provide the servers, but relies on MS for that, why shouldn't they be the ones charged, seeing as they're getting the service (as opposed to the game who is already paying the full price for the game, that's more expensive than a PC game in the first place)

Actually, those are good questions. I haven't used a console for online play in almost 2 years and have no interest in either Sony's or Microsoft's offerings this gen. So, I might not be the best to explain what I'm about to, but here's what's in my head:

Thanks to MS and now Sony, the console side now thinks the paid subscription thing is fair while the PC side still sees it as blasphemy to dare charge for multiplayer unless it's an MMO. MS was taking a chance back when Live first came out by charging for it. But it was new for most console gamers and was the first really successful[1] online service for a console and is still working. It was also required broadband before that was as widespread, therefore many saw it as a premium service and either dismissed it or bought into it. And since it was slightly better until PS Plus came around, its price was accepted by many. Now with the monthly free games both services give out, the prices are a little more justified.

PC users expect the free multiplayer because it's their norm. Most developers and publishers are smart enough to support the servers for a long time or let the players host their own dedicated servers. Whenever they don't, the game's PC sales don't look pretty and the publisher spews out the usual "PC is dead" spiel that no one with a brain listens to. I would hate to wake up wanting to play some TF2 and find out Valve wants $2-5 a month to play their games, while I paid for maybe 2 full years of Live.(Though, I did finally grow tired of the increasing numbers of guys that did have/use their mics, kids who should be mute IRL, and guys who think they'll be rewarded with something of real value if they won the match.)

As for justifying the subscription cost outright. I'm beginning to wonder if they are ripoffs. Every game for 360 I've ever played only used MS's servers to perform matchmaking, then the guy with the lowest ping to everyone else becomes the host server. With the fact that MS only needs to provide and maintain servers to track stats and match up players, the fact that the paywall doesn't keep out trolls and jackasses and the glaring fact they make a lot on the marketplace, maybe they shouldn't charge for online multi-player. It's even more insultingly greedy that many publishers are taking away four player split-screen and LAN options, so group of people wanting to play something like Nazi Zombies just together in the same building needs a copy of the game, a system, a tv, and a online account for every 2 people along with the necessary network hardware and internet connection. The Netflix deal is still petty greed when other devices let that service be used for no extra cost and still provide updates to keep Flash, HTML, Netflix and Youtube working.

If the publishers provided their own game servers they'd charge the players extra. FFXI and FFXIV both have an extra subscription fee on top of MS's fee for Live. I don't even think it's fair that MS pulls money from someone if the only online game they play is on a third party sever that is already payed for. And hypothetically, if MS took over that responsibility they would either keep those players paying the extra price as long as they played those games or raise the base price of Live if enough games went that way.

[1] Playstation's online was still a splintered mess with multiple third party systems for PS2, if I remember correctly. And Dreamcast's online might have been successful, if the system lasted for more than 2 years.

I'm going to be the outlier here. I'm an occassional gamer (3-4 AAA purchases, 6-10 smaller/discount games per year), many of which are on Steam. I see absolutely no difference between what was being proposed and Steam, and I, for one, would have loved it. I have lots of hardcore gamer friends who could just jet me the game when they were done, SAVING me even more money. They never sell their games (don't know why), and I think this would have been huge.

Just me.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

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