Question for the haters, detractors, and Xbox critics...

#21CyricsServantPosted 8/20/2014 4:24:53 AM(edited)
a687947 posted...
holden4ever posted...
I bought an XB1 but I'll give my opinion. If they had stuck with the no used games policy I would've bought a PS4, even though I really wanted Forza 5. I'm still going to buy a PS4 but if they had stuck with no used games I probably wouldn't have bought an XB1.


Except there wasn't a "no used games" policy... There was a "trade in your digital copies and physical ones to licensed retailers" policy.


I'm highly skeptical that such a policy would have ever been implemented. It was only really raised after the backlash and the backpedaling began.

Worst case scenario?

No used games, no trading/loaning/borrowing games, fewer sales and price reductions (as a result of the elimination of the second-hand market), more Kinect-focused games with poor controls (think the majority of 3rd party Wii games), greater focus on securing "exclusive" television content rather than "exclusive" game content, greater focus on being a multi-media box rather than a game system, greater advertising of no non-game related products and services on the dashboard, and the death of non-Kinect related exclusive games on the X1 (with the exceptions of Gears, Halo, Forza, and maybe Fable).

That was the worst case "nightmare" scenario from my perspective. MS has rebounded with their policy changes and their shift of focus . . . but they still haven't done a great job differentiating themselves from Sony (imo), and offering a compelling reason why gamers should get the X1 over the PS4.
#22SoulTrapperPosted 8/20/2014 4:35:30 AM
Fenriswolf posted...
SoulTrapper posted...
Mandatory kinect,

24-hour check ins,

Arrogance of some of the higher ups,

DRM,

After removing the DRM they continued to complain about how people didn't understand it and that would bring it back eventually instead of just accepting that it's not what people want,

Removing kinect after claiming it was an integral part of the console. Although I think it was a good thing, it showed they didn't have any real plans for doing anything with it outside of getting more revenue through datamining


Disregarding the fact that they removed the idiot Don Mattrick after E3 2013, and actually gained back a large amount of goodwill with Phil Spencer's gaming focus? How long did it for Sony to "retire" Kutaragi after Sony's $599 fiasco? The Kinect is simply an attempt trying to gain Wii's casual audience, nothing more, and it's hilarious to see people accusing MS of "datamining" when you can achieve the same with any camera phone or laptop.

Their comments on DRM and Kinect are simply trying to save face to their shareholders and wasn't really aimed at gamers. It's hilarious to see how many people take personal offense yet white-knight Sony in response, a company with just as much a history of f***ups like PSN outage in 2011.


It's irrelevant that they removed someone after he messed up doesn't take away what he messed up before that.
Spencer also has yet to prove himself, although I do agree he seems like the right man for the job, but buying multiplatform games into exclusivity instead of making an actual exclusive isn't the way to go about it.

This is about the Xbox, not about Sony.
If you want to discuss Sony, I suggest the PS4 board.

It's not an accusation, it's simply what it was intended to do:

http://wegotthiscovered.com/gaming/surprise-microsoft-sell-xbox-one-kinect-user-data-advertisers/

According to Advertising Age, after the speech, one unnamed “marketer” was extremely excited about the Xbox One’s ability to “work like [a] TV that watches you, bringing marketers a huge new trove of data about what’s going on in living rooms.”

They also changed that later on from being able to opt-in to charing your data to having to opt-out if you didn't want to share it.

Stating that you can achieve the same with a camera phone or laptop is ignoring all the features the kinect has over those other devices.
Specifically, the ability to watch how you respond to commercials and to have you interact with them.
Both of these features would have made a ton of extra revenue money.

The kinect was pushed because of it's data mining potential, the rest was just an added bonus.
As proven by the fact that are hardly any games made for it, outside of the usuals.

It's irrelevant who those comments are for, if they're made in public. What they say is what matters and fact is, they lied about the kinect.

Once again, this isn't about Sony, if you want to talk about Sony, do it on the PS4 board.
#23holden4everPosted 8/20/2014 5:04:59 AM
a687947 posted...
holden4ever posted...
I bought an XB1 but I'll give my opinion. If they had stuck with the no used games policy I would've bought a PS4, even though I really wanted Forza 5. I'm still going to buy a PS4 but if they had stuck with no used games I probably wouldn't have bought an XB1.


Except there wasn't a "no used games" policy... There was a "trade in your digital copies and physical ones to licensed retailers" policy.


To me that's the same thing. They wanted games tied to gamertags much like pc games with serial numbers being tied to an account. If you wanted to sell your game you had to take it to a licenced retailer. It's fair to assume that publishers were behind this as a way to stop used game sales and Microsoft thought it was a good idea until customers complained about their decisions. If I buy a game then I should be able to do what I want with it if I decide I no longer want it.

I also don't see how publishers think they are entitled to profits from used game sales. They got the only money they are entitled to when the game was first sold. If I sell a game to EB Games, any profit from that sale belongs to me and me alone. If they want part of that profit then they can pay an equal share when I buy it. The same goes if EB resells that game. It's their profit. I don't agree with EB policies and practices but as a business it's their right.
---
http://thebulldogs.com.au/media/logo_2010.png http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j137/holden4ever/ripqld.jpg
#24LapanuiPosted 8/20/2014 5:09:49 AM
holden4ever posted...
a687947 posted...
holden4ever posted...
I bought an XB1 but I'll give my opinion. If they had stuck with the no used games policy I would've bought a PS4, even though I really wanted Forza 5. I'm still going to buy a PS4 but if they had stuck with no used games I probably wouldn't have bought an XB1.


Except there wasn't a "no used games" policy... There was a "trade in your digital copies and physical ones to licensed retailers" policy.


To me that's the same thing. They wanted games tied to gamertags much like pc games with serial numbers being tied to an account. If you wanted to sell your game you had to take it to a licenced retailer. It's fair to assume that publishers were behind this as a way to stop used game sales and Microsoft thought it was a good idea until customers complained about their decisions. If I buy a game then I should be able to do what I want with it if I decide I no longer want it.

I also don't see how publishers think they are entitled to profits from used game sales. They got the only money they are entitled to when the game was first sold. If I sell a game to EB Games, any profit from that sale belongs to me and me alone. If they want part of that profit then they can pay an equal share when I buy it. The same goes if EB resells that game. It's their profit. I don't agree with EB policies and practices but as a business it's their right.


I don't think it's the fact that they aren't getting money from a game this is sold used, it's the fact that the person who bought it didn't buy it new, so they pretty much just lost a sale.
---
GT: Zichu PSN: Zichu NNID: Zichu1
#25Exodus_PrimePosted 8/20/2014 6:13:13 AM
It would've been a real "Dirty Fart" if they would of stayed with their original views of the Xbone. I wouldn't of bought one.


---
---
Bungie's "Destiny" Has Reached A New Level Of Gaming
(Only On Multi Consoles)
#26SoulTrapperPosted 8/20/2014 7:06:12 AM
Lapanui posted...
holden4ever posted...
a687947 posted...
holden4ever posted...
I bought an XB1 but I'll give my opinion. If they had stuck with the no used games policy I would've bought a PS4, even though I really wanted Forza 5. I'm still going to buy a PS4 but if they had stuck with no used games I probably wouldn't have bought an XB1.


Except there wasn't a "no used games" policy... There was a "trade in your digital copies and physical ones to licensed retailers" policy.


To me that's the same thing. They wanted games tied to gamertags much like pc games with serial numbers being tied to an account. If you wanted to sell your game you had to take it to a licenced retailer. It's fair to assume that publishers were behind this as a way to stop used game sales and Microsoft thought it was a good idea until customers complained about their decisions. If I buy a game then I should be able to do what I want with it if I decide I no longer want it.

I also don't see how publishers think they are entitled to profits from used game sales. They got the only money they are entitled to when the game was first sold. If I sell a game to EB Games, any profit from that sale belongs to me and me alone. If they want part of that profit then they can pay an equal share when I buy it. The same goes if EB resells that game. It's their profit. I don't agree with EB policies and practices but as a business it's their right.


I don't think it's the fact that they aren't getting money from a game this is sold used, it's the fact that the person who bought it didn't buy it new, so they pretty much just lost a sale.


That's faulty reasoning.
It's assuming that person would have bought the game new or at full price, if it wasn't being sold used.
There is no way to prove that they would.

This isn't an issue in any other industry, so I really don't see why it should be in the video game industry.

And if it really is such a huge loss, developers and publishers should open up their own stores to buy in and sell those used games.
#27realyoshdawgPosted 8/20/2014 7:12:35 AM
ExDios posted...
I wasn't going to buy an Xbox One if the original policies had stayed in place. There was so much BS and it seemed like Microsoft wanted to take something that's supposed to be fun and complicate the hell out of it. To this day I despise Don Mattrick, especially after he said that players who want an offline device should buy a 360 instead.


I agree he shouldn't have said that. But didn't Sony say people should "work more hours" to afford the PS3? They were real cocky with that system and price point. Point being - all companies are the same. In the end all they want is our money, no matter what corporation it is.
#28ElPedoSucio(Topic Creator)Posted 8/22/2014 12:24:28 AM
CyricsServant posted...
a687947 posted...
holden4ever posted...
I bought an XB1 but I'll give my opinion. If they had stuck with the no used games policy I would've bought a PS4, even though I really wanted Forza 5. I'm still going to buy a PS4 but if they had stuck with no used games I probably wouldn't have bought an XB1.


Except there wasn't a "no used games" policy... There was a "trade in your digital copies and physical ones to licensed retailers" policy.


I'm highly skeptical that such a policy would have ever been implemented. It was only really raised after the backlash and the backpedaling began.

Worst case scenario?

No used games, no trading/loaning/borrowing games, fewer sales and price reductions (as a result of the elimination of the second-hand market), more Kinect-focused games with poor controls (think the majority of 3rd party Wii games), greater focus on securing "exclusive" television content rather than "exclusive" game content, greater focus on being a multi-media box rather than a game system, greater advertising of no non-game related products and services on the dashboard, and the death of non-Kinect related exclusive games on the X1 (with the exceptions of Gears, Halo, Forza, and maybe Fable).

That was the worst case "nightmare" scenario from my perspective. MS has rebounded with their policy changes and their shift of focus . . . but they still haven't done a great job differentiating themselves from Sony (imo), and offering a compelling reason why gamers should get the X1 over the PS4.


You win the thread. I appreciate the fact that you were the first and possibly only person who answered my question directly. I only hear others say "You lost me, MS!" and that's it! That's not a proper answer. It's just outrage for the sake of being outraged. Most people who are mad at MS seem ill-informed to me. They've adopted the next thing the internet has deemed acceptable to hate and ran with it with the mentality of lemmings. So I appreciate a well-though out response.

If it's okay, I'd like to prod you a bit more. What do you mean by further price reductions? Also, if all other forms of media are being bought and sold, without too many people complaining, why should "console" games be different? I don't hear anyone complaining and campaigning against Google or Apple because they can't resell the songs they purchased from iTunes or Google Play?

And to those saying the Kinect was a spying device for the NSA and the U.S. Government, do you own smartphones and what makes the less of a threat than the Kinect when you're basically carrying one where ever you go? They're devices that are typically always online, have a camera, and a microphone.