Anyone else still mad MS back outta the original plan for X1

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

I would of rather actually seen what MS original plan was for the X1, steam like service, game sharing, and everything else. Them back stepping out of that is really what make me question getting the X1, if you want to do something that is potentially revolutionary to the console world commit to it and do it. You could still get hard copy's of games, still trade them in at gamestop, still buy used. I wanted to see the allowing up to 10 people to game share what that experience would of been like. See how the system worked as a whole, now it's been changed and the system is gimped cause of all the back peddling, and for what?

Avatar image for XBOunity
XBOunity

3837

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By XBOunity
Member since 2013 • 3837 Posts

yeah it sucks but I hope they add it in on opt in. mark whitten has hinted at it. the always on stuff was awesome, sucks, but still better than ps4 In my opinion. I just wish they said **** you and did it. hope its an option in the future.

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

I know right, they wanted to do something had a vision then bailed on it cause no one likes change. Who buys game consoles to play offline? There was no deal breaker in anything MS said at E3, everything sounded cool, innovative, and trying to push consoles in a new direction. MS could of done so much with what they had planed, Gamefly coulda partnered with them to send digital downloads of games to your console as a rental basis. There is just so much that coulda happened with it now it's like were stuck with Sony's plan of meh what ever the developers wanna do with DRM is what we will do at least MS had a plan and every game was gonna be the same.

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

no game sharing... That's the only thing you guys lost in exchange for no DRM. A feature that not even M$ themselves knew how it was gonna work with all the flip-flopping. First they said you would share the game with 9 other people (yeah right, lol) and then changed it to a 2 hours demo where you were forced to pay full price to continue playing.

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

@Gue1: It changed the whole infrastructure of the console. it was going to always be online getting information, updates, making it easier for devs to add fixes and patches. Took away the game sharing, put DRM back into the hands of devs. People were afraid of the change didn't give anything a chance and MS caved which I think was a poor move on their part.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8
deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8

22399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8
Member since 2007 • 22399 Posts

Am I mad that if I ever do opt into the X1, I'll actually own the games I buy? Why would I be mad about that?

Avatar image for Heil68
Heil68

60681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 Heil68
Member since 2004 • 60681 Posts

@darkspineslayer said:

Am I mad that if I ever do opt into the X1, I'll actually own the games I buy? Why would I be mad about that?

indeed.

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

You guys do know why there is DLC, microtransactions, and every little thing for games right?? It's because the developers/publishers want you to keep that game, not trade it in so someone else can buy it used and take money out of their pockets!!! Then ultimate additions of games get released like Injustice Gods Among Us and people get DLC purchasing the game. So if MS would of stuck to the plan of digital download, DRM, you'd see more DLC that you didn't have to pay for, developers/publishers wouldn't be bleeding money in used game sales. It was all for bettering gaming and the experience, but keep thinking you need a little plastic disc to say "I own a game" lol

Avatar image for cainetao11
cainetao11

38026

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 77

User Lists: 1

#10  Edited By cainetao11
Member since 2006 • 38026 Posts

@xxyetixx said:

I would of rather actually seen what MS original plan was for the X1, steam like service, game sharing, and everything else. Them back stepping out of that is really what make me question getting the X1, if you want to do something that is potentially revolutionary to the console world commit to it and do it. You could still get hard copy's of games, still trade them in at gamestop, still buy used. I wanted to see the allowing up to 10 people to game share what that experience would of been like. See how the system worked as a whole, now it's been changed and the system is gimped cause of all the back peddling, and for what?

Selling better? They may have been trying revolutionary things, and I was a fan of that part, but they would have seen WiiU like numbers out the gate. I don't blame a company for listening to the masses because that's who they are trying to sell to.

Avatar image for millerlight89
millerlight89

18658

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By millerlight89
Member since 2007 • 18658 Posts

@xxyetixx said:

You guys do know why there is DLC, microtransactions, and every little thing for games right?? It's because the developers/publishers want you to keep that game, not trade it in so someone else can buy it used and take money out of their pockets!!!

Proof? Please

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

@millerlight89: http://www.edge-online.com/features/microsofts-xbox-one-eighty-a-big-win-for-consumers-not-so-fast/

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

I didn't like Microsoft's original plan for the XB1 and nothing they showcased appealed to me. In fact I made an oath to never buy one based on their old rules. Luckily that changed and they reversed all that garbage and now I'm a happy owner of an Xbox One.

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

@BattleSpectre: Yeah but I hope MS slowly tries to transition it all back in, all the while having the people like you that lacked the vision, think it's great along the way, and saying they should of done this all along every year at E3 they are adding these "new" features making the X1 even better lol

Avatar image for Nonstop-Madness
Nonstop-Madness

12303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#15 Nonstop-Madness
Member since 2008 • 12303 Posts

It would have buried the Xbox One, period. They would have handed Sony the entire generation on a golden platter.

Avatar image for 1oh1nine1
1oh1nine1

779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By 1oh1nine1
Member since 2007 • 779 Posts

I am mad because MS are getting off too easily and deserve to burn for such tomfoolery.

Avatar image for clr84651
clr84651

5643

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By clr84651
Member since 2010 • 5643 Posts

I'm made they didn't go through with it, because then Sony would've Royally Kicked their butts in instead of just winning.

Way-way too many people buying X1 although MS wanted to royally screw their consumers over. They should be shunned for their evil intent by way more people.

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

@xxyetixx said:

@BattleSpectre: Yeah but I hope MS slowly tries to transition it all back in, all the while having the people like you that lacked the vision, think it's great along the way, and saying they should of done this all along every year at E3 they are adding these "new" features making the X1 even better lol

The day I lose my right to trade in rent and buy used games on my Xbox One Is the day I get rid of it. My vision is not lacking when I spend $600AU on an Xbox One I expect to be able to do whatever the hell I want with my games. Now look what you've done, you've made me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry....

Avatar image for Dire_Weasel
Dire_Weasel

16681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#19 Dire_Weasel
Member since 2002 • 16681 Posts

Two words, OP: "Stockholm Syndrome".

Avatar image for Jakandsigz
Jakandsigz

6341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 Jakandsigz
Member since 2013 • 6341 Posts

There are an estimated 3 million+ people that are mad with petitions up and harassing customer service (though the later has died down.)

The ONLY issues they really had was used games. That is what set the fire and made everything else they did seem worse. That and borrowing.

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

44503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#21 lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 44503 Posts

not upset at MS, they had no choice since Sony was holding out, used games could have been killed and Sony blew it, and not out of idealism mind you, they were pandering to their base because they need the PS4 to be as successful as possible with the company's equity withering away

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#22 Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

@xxyetixx said:

@Gue1: It changed the whole infrastructure of the console. it was going to always be online getting information, updates, making it easier for devs to add fixes and patches. Took away the game sharing, put DRM back into the hands of devs. People were afraid of the change didn't give anything a chance and MS caved which I think was a poor move on their part.

A chance to do what?

Just look at yourself, you can't even come up with a single justification only nonsense.

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

@xxyetixx said:

You guys do know why there is DLC, microtransactions, and every little thing for games right?? It's because the developers/publishers want you to keep that game, not trade it in so someone else can buy it used and take money out of their pockets!!! Then ultimate additions of games get released like Injustice Gods Among Us and people get DLC purchasing the game. So if MS would of stuck to the plan of digital download, DRM, you'd see more DLC that you didn't have to pay for, developers/publishers wouldn't be bleeding money in used game sales. It was all for bettering gaming and the experience, but keep thinking you need a little plastic disc to say "I own a game" lol

lol, Valve tried to give free DLC for L4D and M$ didn't allow it! That's the kind of company they are... Meanwhile Sony gave all the Uncharted 3 maps for free and Killzone SF's competitive maps will all be free.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/l4d1-dlc-pricing-not-valves-decision

Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts

@clr84651 said:

I'm made they didn't go through with it, because then Sony would've Royally Kicked their butts in instead of just winning.

Way-way too many people buying X1 although MS wanted to royally screw their consumers over. They should be shunned for their evil intent by way more people.

This... Sony releases the ps3 at $500 and $600 respectivly and the internet and xbot crew online persecute them for years.... M$ does way worse (and also charges $500)and then says , "oh we saw the pre-orders and changed our minds" and the xbot crew is like "we forgive you , give it here , daddy m$..." uggh.....

Its so messed up how much the xbox fans let them get away with shyte... and where are all the people complaining about all of M$ games having micortransactions and pay to win schemes on full priced games? Crickets....

Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#25 Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts

@Gue1 said:

@xxyetixx said:

You guys do know why there is DLC, microtransactions, and every little thing for games right?? It's because the developers/publishers want you to keep that game, not trade it in so someone else can buy it used and take money out of their pockets!!! Then ultimate additions of games get released like Injustice Gods Among Us and people get DLC purchasing the game. So if MS would of stuck to the plan of digital download, DRM, you'd see more DLC that you didn't have to pay for, developers/publishers wouldn't be bleeding money in used game sales. It was all for bettering gaming and the experience, but keep thinking you need a little plastic disc to say "I own a game" lol

lol, Valve tried to give free DLC for L4D and M$ didn't allow it! That's the kind of company they are... Meanwhile Sony gave all the Uncharted 3 maps for free and Killzone SF's competitive maps will all be free.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/l4d1-dlc-pricing-not-valves-decision

yep... and shall we get into the forza microstransactions where you have to pay real money($100) or play 20000 hours to get some of the limited number of cars in the game?

Avatar image for deactivated-5d6bb9cb2ee20
deactivated-5d6bb9cb2ee20

82724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 56

User Lists: 0

#26 deactivated-5d6bb9cb2ee20
Member since 2006 • 82724 Posts

Nope, now there is actually a chance of me buying the console.

Having said that, it shows me Microsoft had absolutely no confidence in its vision for its product, which doesn't strike me as a desirable trait for a product I would be spending half a grand on.

Avatar image for Gargus
Gargus

2147

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Gargus
Member since 2006 • 2147 Posts

Only thing that irked me about all of this is the complete and utter lack of dignity and backbone Microsoft displayed. Yeah sure they made a ton of bad choices and they caught a lot of shit for it, but they spent months defending it and arguing it and when it was all said and done they completely folded on everything they stood by previously. They could have at least stuck to their guns instead of pussing out because of some internet nerd rage.

If you make a decision you should at least stand by it.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8
deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8

22399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#28 deactivated-5e0e425ee91d8
Member since 2007 • 22399 Posts

@xxyetixx: I'm seeing a lot of conjecture and make-believe in your OP and subsequent posts. I'll offer you the chance to return with official statements that steam like pricing, or any of your other claims, was on the way.

Personally, I wouldn't trust any company with a monopoly, and hold no sympathy for the bloated AAA industry who has the gall to charge a full entry price and still use Free to play elements.

Avatar image for good_sk8er7
good_sk8er7

4327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By good_sk8er7
Member since 2009 • 4327 Posts

@xxyetixx said:

I know right, they wanted to do something had a vision then bailed on it cause no one likes change. Who buys game consoles to play offline? There was no deal breaker in anything MS said at E3, everything sounded cool, innovative, and trying to push consoles in a new direction. MS could of done so much with what they had planed, Gamefly coulda partnered with them to send digital downloads of games to your console as a rental basis. There is just so much that coulda happened with it now it's like were stuck with Sony's plan of meh what ever the developers wanna do with DRM is what we will do at least MS had a plan and every game was gonna be the same.

Me. I play online too.. But I play single player games all the time. And there have been times when I didn't have internet.

Avatar image for OhSnapitz
OhSnapitz

19282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 OhSnapitz
Member since 2002 • 19282 Posts

I move around a lot and to have my $500 console sitting in my mancave/s as a paperweight because my internet hasn't been installed yet is ludicrous. Not only that but I've had my internet go out on me on a handful of occasions.. what they were proposing was not consumer friendly and is one of the reasons why I "jumped out".

Avatar image for TF626
TF626

593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 TF626
Member since 2010 • 593 Posts

No I am glad they didn't, a device that you paid full price for should be able to operate offline, and trading your games in. You own those, and by giving into Microsoft you are giving up control.

I know it's reversed, but I went away from Xbox and went with a PS4. Just the idea of it puzzled me, in a couple years I will get an Xbox One I enjoy a lot of Xbox franchises, but I'm glad they changed there minds and listened to its customers, or it would have been dead on arrival.

Avatar image for GrenadeLauncher
GrenadeLauncher

6843

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 GrenadeLauncher
Member since 2004 • 6843 Posts

I am because then the Xbone would have been DOA instead of struggling behind the PS4.

Then again Xscum happily eat up any old turd MS squeeze out so it probably wouldn't have made much difference.

Avatar image for Salt_The_Fries
Salt_The_Fries

12480

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 Salt_The_Fries
Member since 2008 • 12480 Posts

Gamers are such little crybabies, that's why. Not only you could've shared games with others but also you could trade them in or resell. At least that was the original plan. I think it'd make whole DD model a lot healthier than it is on consoles. Oh and in case you didn't catch it the first time: GAMERS ARE SUCH LITTLE CRYBABIES.

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

If you think your internet going out would brick your console and make it unplayable your crazy, they were 24 hour check ins not the end of the world. I've never gone 24 hours with out internet, I've had it go out for storm related incidents but everything was out and the longest was about 12 hours. You could still trade in games and resell games.

And yes I can only speculate now as there is no evidence or proof of the original plan for X1 being successful or not but I'd rather of seen that then what we got!!!