Quantcast
Microsoft is deserving of praise, not criticism, for XBox 1 not having many exclusives

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft is deserving of praise, not criticism, for XBox 1 not having many exclusives

Lauster said:

Sony has its wrongs, I don't say otherwise but I think "anti-consumer" is not the good term because it's not an action desired or controlled by them, or else all companies are thus anti-consumers. Each of them can be (or is already) compromised.

I disagree. Sony had it's network vulnerable. It had users information stored vulnerably.
And that is contempt for it's userbase. It was unacceptable, a massive multi-billion dollar tech company should have known better.

Lauster said:

Maybe it could had been a 100% software-based BC (more than just the EE replaced with software for PAL version), but that was not the solution Sony chosen at this time. You said it yourself, they were pretty convinced by the success of their system ("too expensive for you ? Just get a second job !") and they had to react when they had to face reality. Maintain a top tier offer that already proved that it doesn't sell while you're bleeding money ? Well, good luck with that !
Your "if" and "could" aren't a solution too when you have to quickly react. But all of this is only conjectures, the most important for qualifying if it's anti-consumer or not is : What did consumers were expecting most ? a lower price or a feature 80%-90% of them have nothing to do ? hint : see the sales


That just an excuse. Not a solution. I never stated Sony should do *anything*. Just provided examples to reinforce the fact that there are solutions to excuses.
And if they do not provide adequate solutions, then they open themselves up for criticism. No need to be apologetic towards them.

Lauster said:

I don't make excuses for Sony

You have constantly made them in this discussion.


Lauster said:

When you know your arm is gangrened, you cut your arm (and Linux was more a small toe than an arm for the majority of consumers, and I'm still generous).

Poor analogy.
If you can cure your arm that has gangrene, you try and cure it. Not cut it off.

Technology is also not biology.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Lauster said:

Sony has its wrongs, I don't say otherwise but I think "anti-consumer" is not the good term because it's not an action desired or controlled by them, or else all companies are thus anti-consumers. Each of them can be (or is already) compromised.

I disagree. Sony had it's network vulnerable. It had users information stored vulnerably.
And that is contempt for it's userbase. It was unacceptable, a massive multi-billion dollar tech company should have known better.

Ok, so you miss my point... Unacceptable, yes of course ! Anti-consumer, no.

Definition of anti-consumer : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

Please explain me where were the interests of Sony in this attack.

 

Lauster said:

Maybe it could had been a 100% software-based BC (more than just the EE replaced with software for PAL version), but that was not the solution Sony chosen at this time. You said it yourself, they were pretty convinced by the success of their system ("too expensive for you ? Just get a second job !") and they had to react when they had to face reality. Maintain a top tier offer that already proved that it doesn't sell while you're bleeding money ? Well, good luck with that !
Your "if" and "could" aren't a solution too when you have to quickly react. But all of this is only conjectures, the most important for qualifying if it's anti-consumer or not is : What did consumers were expecting most ? a lower price or a feature 80%-90% of them have nothing to do ? hint : see the sales


That just an excuse. Not a solution. I never stated Sony should do *anything*. Just provided examples to reinforce the fact that there are solutions to excuses.
And if they do not provide adequate solutions, then they open themselves up for criticism. No need to be apologetic towards them.

I already had a PS2 and card readers, and I don't like to pay twice for the same thing. Thus, I were pleased by this solution. Yes, it is damaging that they stop the production of a version that could have interested some people, but that's not anti-consumer (moreover, they warned about the end of production and lessened its price for those who wanted it), and if you think they could have maintained the same offer with a lesser price, you're out of touch of this business.

Lauster said:

I don't make excuses for Sony

You have constantly made them in this discussion.

Come on, I think I showed fair and objective criticism toward Sony. I don't tell they are doing nothing wrong, and I don't tell that every points you mentionned are not bad. I tell you that it's not what we call anti-consumers practices.

And I would have said the same if you accuse Nintendo or Microsoft of anti-consumer practices by stoping one of their products for exemple. By the way, you haven't given anti-consumer practices of Nintendo that you mentioned.

Lauster said:

When you know your arm is gangrened, you cut your arm (and Linux was more a small toe than an arm for the majority of consumers, and I'm still generous).

Poor analogy.
If you can cure your arm that has gangrene, you try and cure it. Not cut it off.

Technology is also not biology.

Technology is not biology, and that's why there are techniques like analogy. Mine may be poor, but don't act like you have not grasped the idea, you're better than that.

So, let us remain pragmatic, where were the interests of Sony over the interests of consumers in this case ?



Lauster said:

Ok, so you miss my point... Unacceptable, yes of course ! Anti-consumer, no.

Definition of anti-consumer : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

Please explain me where were the interests of Sony in this attack.

It's Anti-Consumer because Sony obviously didn't give a crap to take proper precautions in the first place. Don't be apologetic about it. They are a multi-billion dollar business. They deserve the criticism they receive for this blatant abuse of consumer information.

Lauster said:

I already had a PS2 and card readers, and I don't like to pay twice for the same thing. Thus, I were pleased by this solution. Yes, it is damaging that they stop the production of a version that could have interested some people, but that's not anti-consumer (moreover, they warned about the end of production and lessened its price for those who wanted it), and if you think they could have maintained the same offer with a lesser price, you're out of touch of this business.

I was making a point. Removal of features is not okay. I had it lumped in with the removal of backwards compatability and linux, so now you are just picking and playing with semantics.

 

Lauster said:

Come on, I think I showed fair and objective criticism toward Sony. I don't tell they are doing nothing wrong, and I don't tell that every points you mentionned are not bad. I tell you that it's not what we call anti-consumers practices.

And I would have said the same if you accuse Nintendo or Microsoft of anti-consumer practices by stoping one of their products for exemple. By the way, you haven't given anti-consumer practices of Nintendo that you mentioned.

Can't forget Sony's attack on Emulators either. Thankfully Emulators won, Sony's exploding battery fiasco years back...

You don't want me to get started on Microsoft and Nintendo either...

Microsoft's RROD was a colossal stuff up that inconvenienced and left some consumers out of pocket, they peddled a paid-subscription wall, always-online, kinect, list goes on.

Nintendo has typically shied away from adopting industry standards like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, peddled inferior hardware that pushes multi-platforms away... Attacked their userbase via it's attack on Youtube channels, fan-made projects... And so on.

None of this is okay. And yet, there is a subset of the community that constantly finds excuses for each and every single one of these, you being a prime example in past posts with our current discussion.

Lauster said:

Technology is not biology, and that's why there are techniques like analogy. Mine may be poor, but don't act like you have not grasped the idea, you're better than that.

I do understand your points. I just don't agree with them.
Also, please quote properly. :P



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Seventizz said:
What brand has that on lock when it comes to exclusives that it's not even a contest?

 

What good is an exclusive if you won't buy it?  It's a non issue.

How does that have anything to do with what I asked lol? And what exclusive is not being bought that you are talking about? That seemed like a question dodge at it's best.

I have to give it to you....you shoot a random shot at Sony and its games and you disappear. You are VERY consistent with that. I get that you are an Xbox guy and that is cool and there is nothing wrong with that. As long as you are enjoying your gaming experience then that's all taht matters.....no need for you to take a shot a Sony almost every single time that you post......



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

TheBlackNaruto said:
Seventizz said:

What good is an exclusive if you won't buy it?  It's a non issue.

How does that have anything to do with what I asked lol? And what exclusive is not being bought that you are talking about? That seemed like a question dodge at it's best.

I have to give it to you....you shoot a random shot at Sony and its games and you disappear. You are VERY consistent with that. I get that you are an Xbox guy and that is cool and there is nothing wrong with that. As long as you are enjoying your gaming experience then that's all taht matters.....no need for you to take a shot a Sony almost every single time that you post......

What 'shot' did I make at sony?  I simply said their exclusives don't interest me.  Did I say no one should be interested in them?  No, I said they're not for me.  Also, I was hinting that MS has multiplayer gaming on lock - I wasn't saying their games are better.  Taste is relative so no one can claim any such nonsense.



Around the Network

I think PC gamers and also those who game on PC are really praising them because they don't have to bother with Xbox. Having said that their exclusives is very lackluster anyways.

Personally as a console gamers exclusives and IP are very important and one of the main reason to own a particular console. Definitely for hardcore gamers. May be for casual gamers it is not so relevant. Also I think people are disappointed that Microsoft does not care and might quit console gaming



 

double post



 

Seventizz said:
TheBlackNaruto said:

How does that have anything to do with what I asked lol? And what exclusive is not being bought that you are talking about? That seemed like a question dodge at it's best.

I have to give it to you....you shoot a random shot at Sony and its games and you disappear. You are VERY consistent with that. I get that you are an Xbox guy and that is cool and there is nothing wrong with that. As long as you are enjoying your gaming experience then that's all taht matters.....no need for you to take a shot a Sony almost every single time that you post......

What 'shot' did I make at sony?  I simply said their exclusives don't interest me.  Did I say no one should be interested in them?  No, I said they're not for me.  Also, I was hinting that MS has multiplayer gaming on lock - I wasn't saying their games are better.  Taste is relative so no one can claim any such nonsense.

You never said their exclusives don't interest you. You said what if you don't like jrpgs or story driven games like that is all they have(semi-shot).....is that all they have? No I didn't think so. Then when i asked you a question to what brand had it on lock when it came to the exclusives that you said. And your response which made no sense to the question i asked was. What good is an exclusive if you won't  buy it? It's a non issue(yet another shot).......also I never said that you did say MS games are better lol. Last gen I would have agreed that MS had multiplayer gaming on lock....this gen they are just not the same.....which sucks because they were my preferred console when it came to multiplayer gaming last gen.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

Pemalite said:
Lauster said:

Ok, so you miss my point... Unacceptable, yes of course ! Anti-consumer, no.

Definition of anti-consumer : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

Please explain me where were the interests of Sony in this attack.

It's Anti-Consumer because Sony obviously didn't give a crap to take proper precautions in the first place. Don't be apologetic about it. They are a multi-billion dollar business. They deserve the criticism they receive for this blatant abuse of consumer information.

 Its not anti-consumer to have improper safeguards. Not even the government has proper safeguards against hackers. Are the anti-security? They've dedicated billions of tax dollars into national security. Where there is something to crack there will always be hackers. Precaution doesnt mean the reason for caution wont prevail. Hackers are involved in  criminals to the extent are anti-consumer, because they are a threat to the consumer. The blame is being put in the wrong place.



KLAMarine said:
Aeolus451 said:

Unless the Microsoft games are also coming to Steam over time which is a good thing. The more available these games are, the better.

Which they aren't. The games were talking about are the brand exclusives (exclusive to X1 and win 10). 

Killer Instinct is coming to Steam soon: https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/19/killer-instinct-coming-to-steam/

This is after Quantum Break came to Steam some time before: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/quantum-break-coming-to-steam/1100-6442517/

It's not much but it's a start. I can't see this as anything but a good thing for the consumer and Microsoft deserves props for moves like these.

Aeolus451 said:

But the XBox 1 still has value since it can still play games, exclusive or not.

So you're agreeing that it did lose value, then. By the way, I didn't say all value was lost earlier. 

It depends. Prior to Killer Instinct getting ported to PC, the game was ONLY playable on XBox 1. Now with a PC port, people have more choice with regards to what platform to get the game on. If someone prefers their fighters on console over PC and love physical media then the console version is the way to go. If they want it on PC because they don't want to pay the yearly subscription or whatever then PC is the way to go.

The consumer has more choice now than when KI was X1 exclusive.

Aeolus451 said:

So you prefer a game only being available on a single platform versus that game being made available on more than one therefore giving people more choice?

Yes. Especially yes in the situation of xbox one and windows 10. People aren't gonna buy games on windows store because MS isn't allowing mods so it doesn't add any meaningful choice for gamers. It's just MS trying to incentivise people into using windows store by pilfering would be exclusive games from xbox. Also, MS is dialing back it's production of exclusives in general.

However you try to spin the situation, MS' actions are not offering more choice but rather just less. Less people will buy the xbox one because it's not gonna have any games exclusive to it and less exclusives of all types because ms is dialing back on them for xbox one/win 10. So it's really the console of less options. 

I'm seeing more choice. Prior to Killer Instinct coming to PC, it was ONLY available on X1. Now with it coming to Steam soon, its availability is greater than ever and someone looking to play it can now choose from more hardware on which to play it on.

They can play it on X1 because they like playing games on their wide screen while sitting on their big couch or on their PC because they like using their DS4 or Switch Pro Controller for gaming.

 

Props to ya Microsoft. This is some pro-consumer stuff. Well done.

Aeolus451 said:

That's why I said "Here's to Microsoft becoming more competitive against Steam in the near future". If that means Microsoft reversing any restrictions they might have on mods then so be it.

That would be great wouldn't it?

It would help and it would be nice for xbox gamers but I doubt that MS would change their mind.

Again, that is why I said "here's to Microsoft becoming more competitive against Steam".

 

More choice in the sea of mediocre games. Sssplendid.

The irrefutable pro of exclusives, is the motivation to exceed and enhance the common standard with variety, quality and innovation, to promote and sell a platform to a targeted audience. Sony does it, Nintendo does it. Microsoft doesn't do it.

With outsourcing "exclusives" to other platforms the incentive for costumers to buy a console and the support of the platform holder, is cancelled out. A severe lack of prominent and original games/IPs is and always was an indicator, that Microsoft doesn't have an understanding of the nature of console hardware. As the majority of the games community. With even big IPs (Halo and Gears of War) being less well received as their predecessors, lacking in quality, it is clear that they don't have the intention to make a competitive stand and try to contribute with meaningful highlights, pushing the medium video games forward as a whole. 

More competitive against Steam? I suppose this a good thing in your humble opinion. And how is this suppose to work out when the majority of "exlusives" come to Steam anyway?

Pro consumer? An empty plattitude, not considering consequences. Pretending as if publishing games on multiple platforms is a blessing and universal guarantee. The high percentage of failing multiplatform games prove otherwise.

But, actually i don't mind Microsofts recent course that much. Since there is the possibillity of falling flat on their noses and/or staying out of the way of those who understand this business.



Hunting Season is done...