Support NeoGAF

[soulassssns]

Still going to buy one and still going to enjoy it Jim.

 

[Brad Grenz]

The internet try google search, but your timelines are faulty, the major exploits all came about after otherOS removal. Most of that came as a reaction to the restrictive practices that Sony put in place.

The PS3 jailbreak guys credited Geohot's research into exploiting OtherOS as instrumental in their achievement. Even still, the real timeline has little to do with OtherOS being removed, and everything to do with the theft of a PS3 service dongle.

 

[EGM1966]

Yeah, I realized that Sony Too™ is a rather stupid idea after E3 2013, but my reasoning at the time was that Microsoft's then-current strategy was a stupid idea that would've basically made their console DOA if Sony wasn't also in on it... And as we all saw, that strategy was a stupid idea that basically made their console DOA until the 180s since Sony wasn't in on it. In any case, that global strategy is the reason why Sony is successful in the console market, so of course, they'd try to continue it.

Clearly MS and certain developers did feel the policy could succeed otherwise why back it? I think the idea Sony would be in on it is understandable on the terms you note although with hindsight it's obvious that after PS3/360 Sony was seen as somewhat irrelevant to making it happen. The policy would first and foremost target US with the expectation XB1 would dominate right out the box and people would gravitate to it for CoD and BF.

If all went well the policy would expand country by country and Sony would be forced to join in (perhaps even Nintendo) if they wanted to get certain big games.

The spanner in the works was the obviously unexpected backlash. MS and their publishing supporters clearly felt the gaming market really would just #Dealwithit and got a very nasty surprise.

Sony was gifted a huge PR win for free and a huge swing of public confidence and preference and we are where we are.

Personally I believe the initial XB1 policy reveal will turn out to have cost MS any chance of being the WW number one console this gen and will probably see the XB1 sell less than 360 WW and possibly in every region too unless they act quickly in US/UK. Ironically the plan probably did need an "all in" to work (i.e. have Sony onboard too) but MS and EA and others clearly thought that given 360 dominance in US that was enough of a wedge to get acceptance for the new policies.

 

[Peltz]

On paper, the Xbox One seemed so cool to my non-gaming friends when I told them about all of the features it would have back at the first reveal.

It's amazing to me that they didn't snare more of the casual crowd. I'm seeing a girl who bought one at launch for only the multimedia features and has yet to play a game on her Xbox One console.

But really, I guess techie-nerds like her are an even more-niche crowd than console gamers.

 

[Game Guru]

Clearly MS and certain developers did feel the policy could succeed otherwise why back it? I think the idea Sony would be in on it is understandable on the terms you note although with hindsight it's obvious that after PS3/360 Sony was seen as somewhat irrelevant to making it happen. The policy would first and foremost target US with the expectation XB1 would dominate right out the box and people would gravitate to it for CoD and BF.

If all went well the policy would expand country by country and Sony would be forced to join in (perhaps even Nintendo) if they wanted to get certain big games.

The spanner in the works was the obviously unexpected backlash. MS and their publishing supporters clearly felt the gaming market really would just #Dealwithit and got a very nasty surprise.

Sony was gifted a huge PR win for free and a huge swing of public confidence and preference and we are where we are.

Personally I believe the initial XB1 policy reveal will turn out to have cost MS any chance of being the WW number one console this gen and will probably see the XB1 sell less than 360 WW and possibly in every region too unless they act quickly in US/UK. Ironically the plan probably did need an "all in" to work (i.e. have Sony onboard too) but MS and EA and others clearly thought that given 360 dominance in US that was enough of a wedge to get acceptance for the new policies.

Funny thing in regards to MS viewing Sony as irrelevant is that I kept my eye on worldwide sales and well, PS3 did better in Europe by a similar amount that 360 did better in North America, and conversely 360 did worse in Europe by a similar amount that PS3 did worse in North America. Xbox's best console was a North American success that could achieve a decent amount of sales in Europe. PlayStation's worst console was a European success that could achieve a decent amount of sales in North America. In regards to how the console market was, I correctly saw that even though Sony basically tied MS this round, they were still in the better position overall in the market. Looking at worldwide sales, I would have never called Sony irrelevant, and thus came to my conclusion about MS's game plan on the basis that MS also considered Sony to still be relevant to the console market.

 

[R_thanatos]

The internet try google search, but your timelines are faulty, the major exploits all came about after otherOS removal. Most of that came as a reaction to the restrictive practices that Sony put in place.

Without the other Os discoveries, None of it would have been possible.
It has nothing to do with restrictive practices.

And the fate of the PSP, or for that matter any companies platforms are not my concern, (actually I was a bit annoyed that the Dreamcast died) If you are a consumer look out for yourself. If they Change a product before you pay for it, then all well and good. If they take something from a product that you have already paid for, call the cops.

The psp was doomed and lost support because sony didn't react in time to the various hack that were discovered.
In the end , thanks to very low sales third party support became 0, sony wouldn't risk to repeat the same thing with PS3

I hope you can understand those 2 simple points.

 

[jem0208]

Oh my! lol

And when we openly say that we don't want to buy said console due to those reasons, we are painted as fanboys, am I right?

I've never said that. Before the policies were retracted I thought they were a completely legitimate reason not to purchase the console.

If you think every business on the planet is so hell bent on profit over every single other facet, then you might be either overly cynical, or overly corporate apologist. (Or just naive)

If a company puts profits over customer satisfaction, how will they continue to earn profits? There absolutely has to be a balancing act between making money and satisfying your customers. When you start to take your customers for granted and start treating them like you have the monopoly on console gaming when you don't, all for the sake of "profits at all costs" motive, you end up in this exact situation MS find itself in. Reputation so damaged it may never recover and sales to match.

There is also a fundamental respect level that each of these three corporations have towards their customers, and Microsoft continues to prove that they don't think very highly of us.

Just because every company wants to make a profit, that doesn't mean every one of them sees us all as faceless wallets whose only purpose for existing is for them to squeeze money out of.

The point is that they are focusing on customer satisfaction as a means of increasing profits. And as you can clearly see it's worked out very well for Sony. The point I'm trying to make is that Sony, Nintendo and MS aren't making these changes/policies because of their moral opinions and to be the "friend" of gamers. They're doing as a means of getting more money out of us. The reason I'm making this point is because I think it's a bit ridiculous that people are disregarding the changes MS are making because "all they want is to get us to buy it, they don't actually care about us" then turning around and saying the exact opposite for Sony/Nintendo when the only reason Sony is being so "consumer friendly" is to earn more money from us.

 

[wildfire]

This should make for an interesting discussion. MS dodged a deserved bullet and got applause for it.

MS gave most people what they wanted with the reversal of their policies. That's why they get the applause. At the same people did acknowledge when certain things were reversed and dicked over companies that deserve better like Harmonix but it's more important for them to be catered to over Harmonix because they have to be convinced to buy the console in the first place.

Even tough I'm pretty confident that Microsoft 180'd only because Sony is crushing them right now, and not because of a renewed sense of customer-centric marketing, I'm planning on picking up an XB1 later this year. We punished Microsoft for what they did wrong with the XB1, I think they should be rewarded for trying to make things right.

They don't deserve shit for trying to treat us like shit. Buy the console because the features are actually appealing to you and not because you are taking pity on a company that clearly wants to violate you if you give them the opportunity.

 

[Swass]

The point is that they are focusing on customer satisfaction as a means of increasing profits. And as you can clearly see it's worked out very well for Sony. The point I'm trying to make is that Sony, Nintendo and MS aren't making these changes/policies because of their moral opinions and to be the "friend" of gamers. They're doing as a means of getting more money out of us. The reason I'm making this point is because I think it's a bit ridiculous that people are disregarding the changes MS are making because "all they want is to get us to buy it, they don't actually care about us" then turning around and saying the exact opposite for Sony/Nintendo when the only reason Sony is being so "consumer friendly" is to earn more money from us.

The problem is these moves are coming out of desperation which makes them feel far less genuine than if they had made them at the height of the 360, or even months before the Xbox One reveal. I think most, myself included, feel that if these tactics were to succeed and Microsoft were to gain the number one spot, they would revert back to 2009 Microsoft and go back to shitting on the core, and that's just how people are going to feel until they prove otherwise.

 

[Maxim726X]

The problem is these moves are coming out of desperation which makes them feel far less genuine than if they had made them at the height of the 360, or even months before the Xbox One reveal. I think most, myself included, feel that if these tactics were to succeed and Microsoft were to gain the number one spot, they would revert back to 2009 Microsoft and go back to shitting on the core, and that's just how people are going to feel until they prove otherwise.

Yep, that's how I feel.

It's impossible to say what Sony and Nintendo would do because they never tried to pull the BS Microsoft did. There is a precedent set, and I don't want to see them get into position to try something like this again.

 

[EGM1966]

Funny thing in regards to MS viewing Sony as irrelevant is that I kept my eye on worldwide sales and well, PS3 did better in Europe by a similar amount that 360 did better in North America, and conversely 360 did worse in Europe by a similar amount that PS3 did worse in North America. Xbox's best console was a North American success that could achieve a decent amount of sales in Europe. PlayStation's worst console was a European success that could achieve a decent amount of sales in North America. In regards to how the console market was, I correctly saw that even though Sony basically tied MS this round, they were still in the better position overall in the market. Looking at worldwide sales, I would have never called Sony irrelevant, and thus came to my conclusion about MS's game plan on the basis that MS also considered Sony to still be relevant to the console market.

Yah totally get that. When the policies were announced my first thought was whether such plans would include Sony or not as well as Nintendo.

I was more talking that with hindsight its seems that the move was seen as starting US centric and that MS market share alone would be enough to make it work.

Before Sony made their stance known I wondered whether they'd been invited to join the scheme and we're still deliberating on it.

 

[Beer Monkey]

We shouldn't be ever so thankful that microsoft decided to stop fucking us over. We are not in any way beholden to them (at least I am not) and therefore they don't get to dig themselves out of a hole by doing the bare fucking minimum.

You do not earn praise through doing what should be standard in the first place.

I'm thankful that Sony learned from $599 and I'm thankful Microsoft is learning lessons this generation.