JCreasy
Member
So Time, Forbes, NBC are all reporting on a video games issue.
Wonder what might be keeping the video games website Polygon from acknowledging this. $750,000?
HOLY SHIT!
So Time, Forbes, NBC are all reporting on a video games issue.
Wonder what might be keeping the video games website Polygon from acknowledging this. $750,000?
Like someone said earlier, it's like pouring gasoline on a fire that already existed.Hmm, I see more and more of the larger, more mainstream news outlets picking up on this now. It's very interesting, how this guy stirred up such a large 'hornet's nest' quickly by saying all this crap.
It's pretty clear that they are incredibly influenced, whether it's conscious or not.Why wouldn't they report on this though? They reported on something as silly as Kaz saying "the competition can go first". They've reported on numerous rumors in the industry. Why not this?
This is what he did:Is all this hate over defending ea with simcity? Hardly seems deserving. I've heard many a gaffer say far more ridiculous things. Only they're not journalists.
They've made the same baseless assumption that Sony did with PlayStation 2 and Nintendo did with the Wii. They're under the perception that Xbox 360 customers are entrenched and will happily go wherever they provide content.
Except they didn't go to Windows Phone. And they didn't go to Surface.
And they probably won't be going to Durango unless they're given a reason to ask themselves "why wouldn't I upgrade?"
Hopefully they've got several good reasons lined up to answer that question.
Then again, those customers left will be a lot more valuable to Microsoft and publishers at large: their behavior inside (and possibly outside) of the game will be closely monitored until it can be adequately anticipated, taken into account for future products and maybe later even manipulated a little. Instead of an unpredictable mass of people they'll be left with a still gigantic collection of intimately familiar customers.That's why I have a hard time believing it will be constant online. You can just cut out 32 million customers.
You know that RROD fiasco is instructive, but I have a different takeaway.
Back then MS was the underdog in the console business. They had big ideas for multiplayer and Xbox Live, and while there was always talk of the 360 being a trojan horse for attacking the living room, their focus and creativity was directed to one thing above all else - the games.
They came up with probably the best damn controller out there, standardized a set of features across all games, including custom soundtracks, achievements, trials for arcade titles and integrated chat and party systems.
Back then they had to fight for their position, and they won it with advanced services, solid games, regular updates, and by swallowing their pride and charges from RROD.
But somewhere along the line they stopped and changed direction. Competitors now have comparable services, and have kept multiplayer free. How did Microsoft respond? They raised the price of Gold. They 'added value' to their membership by cutting features from Silver. They shut down their previous Xbox service, and yet we havent seen the service upgrades that was supposed to make way for. But we have seen them drop the family plan.
This isn't the same scrappy and creative Xbox team that existed at launch and for those first few years. Its seemingly been handed over entirely to the bean counters, marketing teams and casual/media entertainment group.
What they're seemingly forgetting, if the rumors are true, is that they still have to fight for every single customer if they want to succeed next gen. They have to continue to raise the bar - their competition has not been sleeping.
If this whole shitstorm acts as a wake up call, then maybe everybody can win here. I won't count them out until we have all the details, but they are fully responsible for their public face and perception and distrust right now.
I find the "Sweet Billy" thing more disturbing than the tweets or an always-online console... seriously who demands that co-workers call them Sweet Billy??
I mentioned this earlier in this thread...
PLAY ANYTHING. ANYTIME. ANYWHERE. WITH ANYONE.
PLAY ONLINE.
PLAY OFFLINE.
PLAYSTATION.
-->found this hilarious:
What is your point? To not talk about it because we dont know for sure? Clearly, at the very least, MS doesnt think an always online console rumor is a damaging idea to their brand, that alone is enough to give pause. We are not talking about just some normal ass company, we are talking about a publicly traded company in the tech industry, where consumer awareness is kind of a big deal in terms of how well something does.
If they thought this was actually going to hurt them and they were not planning on doing it, they would say something. So either they dont think always online consoles are a bad thing but they are not doing it or they dont think always online consoles are a bad thing and they are doing it. Either way it seriously should concern consumers that this is the case.
what are the chances the always-on thing will turn out to be false?
Bring in Paul Christoforo and Lauren Wainwright for the real #TeamAllStar.Sweet Billy and Jeff Bell need to team up and do an E3 presentation.
Again, they stand nothing to gain by denying it now, and everything to lose by confirming it now. So this "no comment" tells us absolutely nothing.
Free negative publicity. The kind that pushes customers to competitors.Again, free publicity based on speculation and rumors.
You know that RROD fiasco is instructive, but I have a different takeaway.
Back then MS was the underdog in the console business. They had big ideas for multiplayer and Xbox Live, and while there was always talk of the 360 being a trojan horse for attacking the living room, their focus and creativity was directed to one thing above all else - the games.
They came up with probably the best damn controller out there, standardized a set of features across all games, including custom soundtracks, achievements, trials for arcade titles and integrated chat and party systems.
Back then they had to fight for their position, and they won it with advanced services, solid games, regular updates, and by swallowing their pride and charges from RROD.
But somewhere along the line they stopped and changed direction. Competitors now have comparable services, and have kept multiplayer free. How did Microsoft respond? They raised the price of Gold. They 'added value' to their membership by cutting features from Silver. They shut down their previous Xbox service, and yet we havent seen the service upgrades that was supposed to make way for. But we have seen them drop the family plan.
This isn't the same scrappy and creative Xbox team that existed at launch and for those first few years. Its seemingly been handed over entirely to the bean counters, marketing teams and casual/media entertainment group.
What they're seemingly forgetting, if the rumors are true, is that they still have to fight for every single customer if they want to succeed next gen. They have to continue to raise the bar - their competition has not been sleeping.
If this whole shitstorm acts as a wake up call, then maybe everybody can win here. I won't count them out until we have all the details, but they are fully responsible for their public face and perception and distrust right now.
This is what he did:
- Defending EA and Sim City DRM: "If you don't work at Maxis, you have literally no idea
what you are talking about"- Refusing to pay a $10 bill to a Gaffer after he lost a bet and a Mod confirmed that he lost it
- Being a white knight and supporting an extreme feminist person that attacked Notch for apparently paying women to socialize with people at a party without presenting any evidence. Turned out she is just crazy and delusional. EviLore declares that Arthur Gies is officially the "most disreputable person in the enthusiastic press"
I find the "Sweet Billy" thing more disturbing than the tweets or an always-online console... seriously who demands that co-workers call them Sweet Billy??
0.001% that it's false.what are the chances the always-on thing will turn out to be false?
Third console arrogance? Third console arrogance.
His name's not even Billy! I don't understand it at all.I find the "Sweet Billy" thing more disturbing than the tweets or an always-online console... seriously who demands that co-workers call them Sweet Billy??
You've also made the assumption that the average consumer reads neogaf, cheezburger or gamefaqs. They walk into a store and go HEY XBOX 720 THAT'S MORE THAN 360, I NEED IT.
No one had a windows phone to begin with, apples and windows comparison... (see what i did there)
Who know's anything about surface, again average consumer is stupid.
Have you ever seen apple fanboys, I would pretty much put them in the same category as xbox fans. BIGGER NUMBERS MUST BE BETTER! Here's all my money. Don't under estimate the lack of knowledge of the mom, dad or whoever walking into walmart.
They aren't going to change their plans to roll out Durango, plans likely years in the making, because of the narrative generated by this guy's tweets. Nor should they. You'll hear about when they want you to hear about it.
Again, free publicity based on speculation and rumors.
Given the groundswell of rumours it's very likely to be true as of this moment. I'd say it's also fairly likely they backtrack on the policy before the official announcement after this shitstorm and allow single player games to be played offlinewhat are the chances the always-on thing will turn out to be false?
Gah! creative directors are executives now? he isnt in that big of a role...somebody here mentioned that he only has one person reporting under him and its not even a gaming related project..
what are the chances the always-on thing will turn out to be false?
This is what he did:
- Defending EA and Sim City DRM: "If you don't work at Maxis, you have literally no idea
what you are talking about"- Refusing to pay a $10 bill to a Gaffer after he lost a bet and a Mod confirmed that he lost it
- Being a white knight and supporting an extreme feminist person that attacked Notch for apparently paying women to socialize with people at a party without presenting any evidence. Turned out she is just crazy and delusional. EviLore declares that Arthur Gies is officially the "most disreputable person in the enthusiastic press"
So Time, Forbes, NBC are all reporting on a video games issue.
Wonder what might be keeping the video games website Polygon from acknowledging this. $750,000?
umm, what? How would quashing a rumor that is clearly derisive to consumers "nothing to gain"? Or do you think this kind of publicity doesn't matter? They have nothing to lose by saying "ya, no always online consoles for us". Again, you are seemingly missing the point as well. If they thought that an always online system was something damaging to their brand, they would have already come out and denied it. While this doesnt mean they are doing it, it does give you a mentality that at the very least should be worrisome.
no, a little thing called journalistic integrity. they aren't going to stake their reputation on some dumb rumor started up on a no-name video game web forum on the internet.
Nothing stops this train!
Free negative publicity. The kind that pushes customers to competitors.
the answer is simple, the people in charge of the 360's early prowess are long gone and now you have the kinect people running the ship
what are the chances the always-on thing will turn out to be false?
I had to sleep all day and the thread jumped up 50 pages. Can anyone give a recap of what's gone down?
I doubt they'll even do that. They'll probably just go right along with the always online at this point since certain features and functions may already be set in place. Removing it may delay the console and that's something they more than likely don't want. Anyways, I hope you're right.Given the groundswell of rumours it's very likely to be true as of this moment. I'd say it's also fairly likely they backtrack on the policy before the official announcement after this shitstorm and allow single player games to be played offline
no, a little thing called journalistic integrity. they aren't going to stake their reputation on some dumb rumor started up on a no-name video game web forum on the internet.
So Time, Forbes, NBC are all reporting on a video games issue.
Wonder what might be keeping the video games website Polygon from acknowledging this. $750,000?
This wouldn't have been a such a clusterfuck if MS had held a Xbox 720 conference shortly after the PS4 one. The news would have been out. We'd have had MS's reasons for the always online and dealt with it by now.
I've no idea why they keep on being silent. It's frustrating.
Huh? You don't have to roll out the durango to say they don't have any plans of supporting an always online ecosystem. Any publicity is good publicity is great for movie starts, not tech companies, where perception often times is reality for the consumer.
Microsoft: Our next xbox is amazing..always online...always connected, you can download updates in the back ground and it is ready to go when you turn it on
Customer: Ok, can I play it offline?
Microsoft: No! Why would you want that?
Customer 1: My back room in my house where I have my xbox, the wifi is spotty
Microsoft: well sorry we don't want you as a customer
Customer 2: My internet drops multiple times,
Microsoft: We don't want you as a customer
Customer 3: I actually have great internet, but I have a second xbox at my parents house I play when I visit, they go to bed early, and they don't have internet.
Microsoft: we don't want you as a customer
Customer 4: This seems to be a form of DRM and I am uncomfortable supporting it
Microsoft: WE DEFINITELY don't want you as a customer
Customer 4's friend: Wait, I don't have a problem with DRM, but I have 3 kids in my home, each with their own xbox. I recently bought a Lego game and they each took turns playing it
Microsoft: we don't want you as a customer unless you want to buy that game 3 times.
Customer 5: I buy used games from time to time, but I also buy new games.
Microsoft: we don't want you as a customer, unless you only buy new
Customer 5: But some new games I buy with used money...and others I buy new after playing them used..like Gears 1 I bought used, but I bought Gears 2 and 3 new
Microsoft: We don't want that. We don't want you as a customer
Customer 6: I am in the military and play my xbox, but can't connect
Microsoft: we don't want you as a customer.
Customer 7: SO the only reason always online is a form of DRM...
Microsoft: no comment.