How could MS miss judge what people wanted so bad.?

  • 136 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by tormentos (18890 posts) -

This is something that still strike me,how could MS get the idea that people wanted and always online console,that restrict its users from loaning games to each other,that force you into getting something that the majority of the user base did not support a gen before kinect,why did MS actually believe that people wanted a more TV box experience out of the console.?

And how well do you think that everything will fall down for them knowing that backtracking all this policies,and dropping several requirement basically force them to take a route they did not plan on.

Was it the console curse.? Or simple miss interpretation of what people wanted.? How about Greed would that play a big part MS actually wanting a more profitable xbox brand from go.?

#2 Edited by Gaming-Planet (14030 posts) -

Because they thought they could get away with something they wanted.

They were being arrogant like how Sony was with the PS3.

#3 Posted by playmynutz (6147 posts) -

The playstation 2 will increase sells in third world countries since next gen requires online

#4 Edited by casharmy (6836 posts) -

They didn't.

They tried to test the limits of what they could get away with based on the what former fans allowed them to get away with their former platforms.

Basically, they were not thinking of people wanted only what they wanted and were seeing if people were stupid enough to go along with their selfish and consumer robbing scheme.

#5 Edited by ManInFlames-77 (291 posts) -

i'm digging the new avy, tormentos

#6 Posted by svetzenlether (3082 posts) -

@casharmy said:

They didn't.

They tried to test the limits of what they could get away with based on the what former fans allowed them to get away with their former platforms.

Basically, they were not thinking of people wanted only what they wanted and were seeing if people were stupid enough to go along with their selfish and consumer robbing scheme.

Yeah, this. If people were stupid enough to continue buying a ridiculously faulty console, AND pay $50 for the privilege of playing online, AND get suckered into Kinect, then why wouldn't Microsoft keep trying to fleece them?

#7 Edited by Gue1 (10419 posts) -

My theory is that Sony sent Phil to sabotage the launch of the Xbox One. And they planned it way ahead so people didn't get suspicious about it.

#8 Edited by LadyBlue (3929 posts) -

Arrogance , and greed

#9 Posted by Davekeeh (4019 posts) -

Microsoft doesn't care about it's fans, unlike Sony

IMO Sony saved console gaming

#10 Edited by GravityX (715 posts) -

They looked at the current technological landscape. Everyone is connected or wants to be connected. Social media also was a driving force. And gaming models such as gaming apps, Steam and others coming out with digital gaming models.

The reactions were also very angered. MS being a large company automatically gets branded as greedy, money grumbing sharks.

The ironic thing is everyone complaining is connected to the internet.

#11 Edited by remiks00 (1972 posts) -

@GravityX said:

They looked at the current technological landscape. Everyone is connected or wants to be connected. Social media also was a driving force. And gaming models such as gaming apps, Steam and others coming out with digital gaming models.

The reactions were also very angered. MS being a large company automatically gets branded as greedy, money grumbing sharks.

The ironic thing is everyone complaining is connected to the internet.

Yeah, but no one is "forced" to be connected to play a "single" player game. They really could have created a better method of handling that "always online" fiasco. Funny thing is, Microsoft sucked at explaining why their way was better. They really didn't have a clue of delivering better messaging to their fans. So yes, it came off as them being greedy since they gave no valid explanation of why it would've been better to have all of those restrictions except a"teh power of the cloud"...

give me a break..

#12 Edited by FragTycoon (6430 posts) -

MS is used to a market with little competition (operating systems, office programs). Every time they venture into hardware with real competitors they fall short.

MS fans seem to operate under the assumption that because they are a large corporation that had success with a particular market,,, that somehow that will automatically carry over to a new market.

Gaming is not a captive market, we have options, and I chose to go with what I want, not what MS wants me to want.

#13 Posted by GravityX (715 posts) -

@remiks00 said:

@GravityX said:

They looked at the current technological landscape. Everyone is connected or wants to be connected. Social media also was a driving force. And gaming models such as gaming apps, Steam and others coming out with digital gaming models.

The reactions were also very angered. MS being a large company automatically gets branded as greedy, money grumbing sharks.

The ironic thing is everyone complaining is connected to the internet.

Yeah, but no one is "forced" to be connected to play a "single" player game. They really could have created a better method of handling that "always online" fiasco. Funny thing is, Microsoft sucked at explaining why their way was better. They really didn't have a clue of delivering better messaging to their fans. So yes, it came off as them being greedy since they gave no valid explanation of why it would've been better to have all of those restrictions except a"teh power of the cloud"...

give me a break..

Yeah they did a piss poor job explaining the benefits. And you can play offline you just have had to sign in within 24 hours. I believe Steam allows you to play offline but only after you sign in online. If that is the way it worked, then it should not have been a big deal. Plus MS had an overall vision but not every aspect of that vision was thought out or set up. Its tough to explain or outline something before they know exactly what it would entail or look like.

They were also coming from a point of view of having the same experience for everyone. With Original Xbox the mandated an ehternet port for broadband, people freak out too, X360 they wanted an HD experience . And with Xbox One they wanted a connected console for all. But again they did not explain the benefits or why it was important to us.

#14 Posted by Kaszilla (1718 posts) -

Bcuz they suck ;)

#15 Edited by LadyBlue (3929 posts) -

@FragTycoon:

Ms has really lost it. All they do is a failures, and flops. From the zune, windows phone, windows surface, windows 8 to whatever the future holds.

#16 Posted by remiks00 (1972 posts) -

@GravityX said:

@remiks00 said:

@GravityX said:

They looked at the current technological landscape. Everyone is connected or wants to be connected. Social media also was a driving force. And gaming models such as gaming apps, Steam and others coming out with digital gaming models.

The reactions were also very angered. MS being a large company automatically gets branded as greedy, money grumbing sharks.

The ironic thing is everyone complaining is connected to the internet.

Yeah, but no one is "forced" to be connected to play a "single" player game. They really could have created a better method of handling that "always online" fiasco. Funny thing is, Microsoft sucked at explaining why their way was better. They really didn't have a clue of delivering better messaging to their fans. So yes, it came off as them being greedy since they gave no valid explanation of why it would've been better to have all of those restrictions except a"teh power of the cloud"...

give me a break..

Yeah they did a piss poor job explaining the benefits. And you can play offline you just have had to sign in within 24 hours. I believe Steam allows you to play offline but only after you sign in online. If that is the way it worked, then it should not have been a big deal. Plus MS had an overall vision but not every aspect of that vision was thought out or set up. Its tough to explain or outline something before they know exactly what it would entail or look like.

They were also coming from a point of view of having the same experience for everyone. With Original Xbox the mandated an ehternet port for broadband, people freak out too, X360 they wanted an HD experience . And with Xbox One they wanted a connected console for all. But again they did not explain the benefits or why it was important to us.

That's true, they really did a piss poor job at selling the system with all those policy's.

#17 Posted by TheKingIAm (985 posts) -

@Pete-B: The zune was actually good tho...better than an ipod

#18 Edited by LadyBlue (3929 posts) -

It really wasn't, they were always two steps behind. Their best effort was the zune hd, which in the end was no competition for the ipod touch.

#19 Posted by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

they didnt mis-judge anything. I want something more out of my console besides just games, and I want all the big games like Titanfall.

I DONT want crappy cheap indie games that look like sega genesis graphics.

#20 Posted by TheKingIAm (985 posts) -

@Pete-B: The zune was superior to the ipod as a music device. Ipods always had sub par audio quality and all the zunes had wifi, the ipod was inferior the zune in every way but storage capacity.

#21 Edited by CanYouDiglt (7520 posts) -

Seems like a very good console now. In many ways it is better then the PS4 such as features, online, games, cloud function and others.

#22 Posted by timbers_WSU (5753 posts) -

I can't take your post seriously anymore. All you do is complain about Microsoft.
And what is Davekeeh doing back? I thought we finally got rid of him?
Microsoft doing its 180 actually earned some respect from a ton of people I play with on XBOX Live. People who was not gonna get an XBONE has now pre-ordered one. So in a way, they helped themselves.

#23 Posted by TheKingIAm (985 posts) -

@timbers_WSU: Oh, quit your whining. Tormentos makes good points, but you're too brainwashed by ms to understand he's right and ms sucks

#24 Edited by Evo_nine (1758 posts) -

Misjudge?

Xboxone is everything I could ever want in a console

better games

better online

better features besides gaming

I think they've done a really good job

#25 Posted by timbers_WSU (5753 posts) -

@TheKingIAm: - And yet my PS3 collection is probably better than yours and his.

#26 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

@tormentos:

1: they was trying keep part of the benefits of selling/trading games but also provide the benefits of digital. Only way do that was to have system where you had to check in once per day.

2: kinect has near 25 million sales~ clearly someone wants it. People need get it in their head that kinect is part of the xbox one not just a add on. That's what MS wants for their product

3: MS from day one of the 360 brand They called there system entertainment center/hub not a gaming console... That's why they was first to add apps, and they are still the first to add newer apps, They want the xbox be the main hub of entertainment center

#27 Posted by TheKingIAm (985 posts) -

@timbers_WSU: You're right, I don't own a ps3, not that it matters

#28 Edited by timbers_WSU (5753 posts) -

@TheKingIAm: I love people like you. Talk about shit you don't even own or played. So dumb. Let me guess "I played it at a friends one time!"
Go away.

#29 Posted by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

@playmynutz said:

The playstation 2 will increase sells in third world countries since next gen requires online

huh??? no it doesnt require online.

#30 Posted by Midnightshade29 (5364 posts) -

@TheKingIAm said:

@Pete-B: The zune was superior to the ipod as a music device. Ipods always had sub par audio quality and all the zunes had wifi, the ipod was inferior the zune in every way but storage capacity.

True the zune was better than the regular IPOD ( I had the original and loved it) . .. but when the touch came out there was no competition. M$ didn't offer the apps like the ipod touch had. Essentially making the device a mini pocket computer.

#31 Posted by lightleggy (16067 posts) -

@tormentos: They weren't judging the people's desires. They were trying to get away with an extremely greedy model. They were only thinking about their own benefit, not their fans.

#32 Posted by Shewgenja (9827 posts) -

I don't think they predicted the domino effect that the Snowden NSA fiasco would cause for them. People became VERY weary of an always online console with a standard camera attached. The TVTVTVSPORTSPORTS was just a comical mis-step.

The original XBox reveal was so terribly contrived, that people immediately distrusted everything about it and it truly serves them right for trying to pull that shit. Inundating people with an hour of TVTVTVTV and Call of Duty while using the press as a lapdog to disseminate all the real information like specs and online policy was about as scheisty a move as has ever been attempted. They wanted money from Live fees and the sale of marketing info. They wanted complete and utter control over your purchased game library. They implemented a massive cloud system to store your every move (What, you thought ghost cars in Forza was the end of it, you muppets?).

Anyone who actually trusts MS and the XBox brand at this point is just dense. Luckily, it seems like the same 7 or so posters here who were chearleeding the 360 after the Kinect years (2009 and on) are the only ones eating it up. Steambox will be here soon enough to bulldoze what is left of the XBox brand name. I look forward to that day.

#33 Edited by SonofK (1066 posts) -

@Davekeeh said:

Microsoft doesn't care about it's fans, unlike Sony

IMO Sony saved console gaming

Sony doesn't give two sh*ts about you either, if Sony could take your house and leave you homeless and do it legally, they would without a second thought.

#34 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28437 posts) -

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-399-is-magic-price-for-ps4/1100-6415498/

""Sony originally planned to include a PlayStation Eye with all PlayStation 4 units, but to keep the system at the "magic price" of $399, the decision was made not to bundle the camera, executive Masayasu Ito told Business Spectator in a new interview.""

http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-files-patent-curb-access-used-video-games-1005876

Hmmmm so it looks like Sony had all the same plans but saw the consumer reaction to just rumors of it and saw the lost sales this would entail so removed the camera and never went forward with the DRM policies.

#35 Edited by iampenguin (223 posts) -

Bad managedment

#36 Posted by edidili (3449 posts) -
@tormentos said:

why did MS actually believe that people wanted a more TV box experience out of the console.?

Because they actually do? All those TV box experiences are something Sony does or will copy in the future too. Added value is added value and there is nothing wrong with it. I bet you said the same thing when Netflix appeared on 360.

#37 Edited by Sagem28 (10498 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

Because they thought they could get away with something they wanted.

They were being arrogant like how Sony was with the PS3.


Pretty much this.
At least MS is trying to turn it around instantly, Sony just rolled with it for a few years.

#38 Edited by remiks00 (1972 posts) -

@WilliamRLBaker said:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-399-is-magic-price-for-ps4/1100-6415498/

""Sony originally planned to include a PlayStation Eye with all PlayStation 4 units, but to keep the system at the "magic price" of $399, the decision was made not to bundle the camera, executive Masayasu Ito told Business Spectator in a new interview.""

http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-files-patent-curb-access-used-video-games-1005876

Hmmmm so it looks like Sony had all the same plans but saw the consumer reaction to just rumors of it and saw the lost sales this would entail so removed the camera and never went forward with the DRM policies.

@WilliamRLBaker So Will, if they both suck, why choose either? Is Steam really any better? Not to be too cynical, but they may go down the same road eventually. You have to pick the poison that tastes the best I guess. lol

I mean, I personally was a fan of Xbox since the 1st for the experiences and great games it delivered, judging by console exclusives (Jade Empire, KOTOR, Phantom Dust, Kingdom Under fire, etc), and naturally I migrated to the 360. But they really changed since kinect was revealed and J.Allard left. Since then, I've really enjoyed many Ps3 titles (Uncharted,TLoU, Killzone, Dragons Crown, etc.). I burned out on the Gears & Halo series, played them for years, and thats mainly all they kept releasing in rotation tbh. Ever since that Xbox One reveal, they really proved to me that they truley lost focus on what got them so popular in the 1st place. Both systems launch titles are mediocre at best, but I'm willing to invest my money into Sony this time more because of their clear messaging on what their focus is.

Microsoft couldn't clearly explain the benefit of all those restrictive policy's.., which is pretty much showed greed to the eyes of most fans. Yeah, I know that changed all of that now, but THAT was their true vision. Maybe once they get Balmers ass out of there , they can start making money again. Because the entire entity that is Microsoft is pretty unfocused. I was even let down by Windows Phone 7-8, they just never seemed to really "try" to compete...but that's another story

#39 Posted by wiouds (5294 posts) -

@remiks00 said:

@WilliamRLBaker said:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-399-is-magic-price-for-ps4/1100-6415498/

""Sony originally planned to include a PlayStation Eye with all PlayStation 4 units, but to keep the system at the "magic price" of $399, the decision was made not to bundle the camera, executive Masayasu Ito told Business Spectator in a new interview.""

http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-files-patent-curb-access-used-video-games-1005876

Hmmmm so it looks like Sony had all the same plans but saw the consumer reaction to just rumors of it and saw the lost sales this would entail so removed the camera and never went forward with the DRM policies.

So Will, if they both suck, why choose either? Is steam really any better?

Not really since Steam like all DD keep the legal right to stop you from playing the game if they deem it.

#40 Posted by always_explicit (2973 posts) -

Who is this MS Judge woman???

or is it miss Judge??

Or MRS Judge....the confusion.

:(

#41 Posted by tormentos (18890 posts) -

@kingoflife9 said:

they didnt mis-judge anything. I want something more out of my console besides just games, and I want all the big games like Titanfall.

I DONT want crappy cheap indie games that look like sega genesis graphics.

What the hell does Titanfall has anything to do with blocking used games,and requiring online check every 24 hours.?

Titanfall is not even exclusive you don't need and xbox one to play that game,and regardless of how MS implemented things Titanfall was coming any way.

#42 Edited by Floppy_Jim (25809 posts) -

Third console curse. 'Tis a real thing.

#43 Edited by tormentos (18890 posts) -

@WilliamRLBaker said:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-399-is-magic-price-for-ps4/1100-6415498/

""Sony originally planned to include a PlayStation Eye with all PlayStation 4 units, but to keep the system at the "magic price" of $399, the decision was made not to bundle the camera, executive Masayasu Ito told Business Spectator in a new interview.""

http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-files-patent-curb-access-used-video-games-1005876

Hmmmm so it looks like Sony had all the same plans but saw the consumer reaction to just rumors of it and saw the lost sales this would entail so removed the camera and never went forward with the DRM policies.

Yes and they planned $399 not $500 but it was to much loss so they drop it,the decision to drop the camera was based on loss,not on media reaction.

And sony had a patent to block used games,sony own tons of patents it doesn't use,including one file on December 2012 about dual GPU,i guess the PS4 has 2 GPU right.?

Sony spoke about used game an they claim is was never on the radar,that the block of used games was never part of the console and it shows,if you buy and xbox one you need to update it on launch because each console will come with the DRM on if some one buy an xbox one and it doesn't have internet on 24 hours its console will shutdown because the xbox one requires a day 1 patch,no such crap happen with the PS4.

Trying to make see that sony had the same ideas as MS is a joke they did not,and it shows since day 1 they talked about games,on February they talk about games,while MS talked about TV TV TV,MS knew this was coming and didn't care,it wasn't until the pre-orders gates were open that they saw how bad the pre-orders were, that they decide to drop everything,but they knew this people was mad with this.

People have more than 1 year fighting on forums all over the world about the leaks specs and bad policies MS wanted to implement,MS saw it and did not care,they actually tough that most people would buy an xbox one any way,so they carry on,the spec were leak on early 2012 if i am not mistaken,policies as well,by February this year MS knew people did not wanted a weak console with drm and online check.

They just did not care,it was so funny Major nelson actually talked about not been able to eliminate the policies because it wasn't like flipping a switch,the xbox one was build around those policies,but when the pre-orders numbers started to roll in and the PS4 started to leave the xbox one on the dust,they flip was switched in a heart beat,and now MS message has change from TV TV TV,and how great DRM is,to trying to convince people that the xbox one is as powerful as the PS4 which is not,a last minute GPU and CPU up clock tell the whole story about how bad things are for MS,that they will risk over clocking the unit at last minute from the original numbers,something that can affect the unit greatly.

They way sony mock MS about how easy it was to share games on PS4,really hit MS hard.

#44 Edited by WilliamRLBaker (28437 posts) -

@remiks00 said:

@WilliamRLBaker said:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-399-is-magic-price-for-ps4/1100-6415498/

""Sony originally planned to include a PlayStation Eye with all PlayStation 4 units, but to keep the system at the "magic price" of $399, the decision was made not to bundle the camera, executive Masayasu Ito told Business Spectator in a new interview.""

http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-files-patent-curb-access-used-video-games-1005876

Hmmmm so it looks like Sony had all the same plans but saw the consumer reaction to just rumors of it and saw the lost sales this would entail so removed the camera and never went forward with the DRM policies.

@WilliamRLBaker So Will, if they both suck, why choose either? Is Steam really any better? Not to be too cynical, but they may go down the same road eventually. You have to pick the poison that tastes the best I guess. lol

I mean, I personally was a fan of Xbox since the 1st for the experiences and great games it delivered, judging by console exclusives (Jade Empire, KOTOR, Phantom Dust, Kingdom Under fire, etc), and naturally I migrated to the 360. But they really changed since kinect was revealed and J.Allard left. Since then, I've really enjoyed many Ps3 titles (Uncharted,TLoU, Killzone, Dragons Crown, etc.). I burned out on the Gears & Halo series, played them for years, and thats mainly all they kept releasing in rotation tbh. Ever since that Xbox One reveal, they really proved to me that they truley lost focus on what got them so popular in the 1st place. Both systems launch titles are mediocre at best, but I'm willing to invest my money into Sony this time more because of their clear messaging on what their focus is.

Microsoft couldn't clearly explain the benefit of all those restrictive policy's.., which is pretty much showed greed to the eyes of most fans. Yeah, I know that changed all of that now, but THAT was their true vision. Maybe once they get Balmers ass out of there , they can start making money again. Because the entire entity that is Microsoft is pretty unfocused. I was even let down by Windows Phone 7-8, they just never seemed to really "try" to compete...but that's another story

I'm choosing neither ill get a ps4 eventually but I'm going to likely go pc this generation and I may pick up an xbox dOne at the end of this gen but not till then.

the only thing unfocused was the PR otherwise they had everything set behind the scenes, they just didn't get the memo like sony did that no one wanted a part of it.

#45 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28437 posts) -

@tormentos:

blah blah ps3 controller, bottle of water, cold, pet grooming kit. SONY ELTORMO!!!

you're an idiot if you believe Sony didn't have DRM in the works and got scared away by the negative feedback.

#46 Posted by always_explicit (2973 posts) -

PS4 looks boring to me.

I play games watch movies and my wife and kids love the old kinect. The only thing PS4 has going for it is the fact its a "hardcore" games console. Im not of the age or disposition were being a "hardcore" gamer even means anything to me any more. I dont want to be one, I dont even have time to be one. What I do want is a system in my living room that seamlessly switches between all of my entertainment something for my whole family. I can play games while my wife is elsewhere, then when she comes back in the room I can instantly switch back to watching Netflix.

I know Sony fanboys like to think this gen is going to be terribly one sided. Gotta remember us game forum dwellers are the minority, theres a whole world out there....and believe it or not "hardcore" gamers are a very small but very vocal sector of it. The performance gap between the consoles is so marginal that the only people who will care enough about it are the Hardcore sub sector. Id trade minor graphical performance for the benefits of the X1 any day. I already own a PS3 the PS4 is just an upgrade. Maybe they will return with something new and interesting with the PS5 an peak my interest again.

#47 Posted by tormentos (18890 posts) -

@k2theswiss said:

@tormentos:

1: they was trying keep part of the benefits of selling/trading games but also provide the benefits of digital. Only way do that was to have system where you had to check in once per day.

2: kinect has near 25 million sales~ clearly someone wants it. People need get it in their head that kinect is part of the xbox one not just a add on. That's what MS wants for their product

3: MS from day one of the 360 brand They called there system entertainment center/hub not a gaming console... That's why they was first to add apps, and they are still the first to add newer apps, They want the xbox be the main hub of entertainment center

No dude 3rd party had complete control over your games,they could decide if you could trade it or resell it,hell if you loaned a game to your friend the game become his and you loss it,unless he was sign in with your account on his system.

What do you think developers would have do.? Oh and MS blamed developers for it,when it latter came to light that is was MS plan all alone and developers had nothing to do with it.

Kinect has nearly 25 million units on a almost 80 million user base,that means the great majority of the xbox user base doesn't care about Kinect.

What.? the xbox 360 was brand as the console for games,in fact what was xbox 360 fans first defense against Blu-ray and the PS3.? The xbox 360 is a gaming console,MS since day 1 introduce the xbox 360 as a console is was all about games,not movies and crap like that,and the xbox 360 was app less basically,hell sony got youtube video upload before MS did,on PS3,the PS3 didn't need and app for Facebook,twitter or even Hulu,the PS3 had a browser in which all those worked,i watched a hell of allot of Hulu on my PS3 before it was block,and before MS even had an app for it,the same with facebook,twiter you tube and so on.

Trying to imply that the xbox 360 was not all about games is a joke,is the PS3 the one that got 7.1 sound and HD movies,not the xbox 360,the xbox one use to be about games,until MS ran out of those on 2010 and started a mary go round with Halo,Gears,and Forza.

#48 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28437 posts) -

lol oh el tormo

#49 Posted by tormentos (18890 posts) -

@WilliamRLBaker:

Let say they did how does that change the fact that sony was smart enough to change it way back and not facing a backlash for it.?

Dude that patent was summit on september 2012,and it was reveal on january 2013,the PS4 was reveal on February and not a single part of the reveal even hint DRM or block of used game,all you have to go for it a patent sony has,they have tons they don't use like dual GPU submit last year to.

#50 Posted by COVAtheNOVA (185 posts) -

They misjudged it so bad that preorders for the X1 are sold out and MS has had to refill them multiple times for multiple retailers just to keep up with the demand. They also expect to sell nearly 7 million X1s by June of 2014. They completely botched it, LOL!