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

I have no problem with MS putting their games on PC, they can also put them on Playstation for all I care.
I do think that their output has been extremely lacking though, XB1 lineup doesn't suck cause the games are on PC as well, it sucks because there's so few games funded by MS to begin with and barely any of those few are good.



Around the Network
Zoombael said:
KLAMarine said:

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.

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.

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.

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

More choice in the sea of mediocre games. Sssplendid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Zoombael said:

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. 

Not sure I'm following the logic here. If you're saying that Microsoft porting their otherwise XBox-exclusive games to Windows will discourage Microsoft from supporting XBox or investing in new IP, I counter that developing for XBox means not only supporting XBox but also supporting Windows as well and increasing the likelihood of XBox owners who don't care for PC gaming paying for online play.

Zoombael said:

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?

Microsoft trying to set up a PC storefront of their own gives people more choice when it comes to what digital storefront to buy their PC games from. Gives developers more storefronts out of which to sell their games as well.

Zoombael said:

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.

Plenty of exclusive franchises that don't get sequels either or suffered declining sales as well.

Zoombael said:

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.

I don't mind it either. Anything that supports PC gaming is great in my book and it's not like XBox exclusives are rendered unplayable when they are ported to Windows.



S.T.A.G.E. said:

 Its not anti-consumer to have improper safeguards.

It is Anti-Consumer when it is blatant neglect and disregard for it's consumers and their information.

Sony's incompetence with it's security at that time was extremely stupid. Thankfully they have rectified it, but it was a *massive* lesson that was taught to the entire industry.
I will not accept excuses. That would be silly.



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

S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pemalite said:

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.

You dont understand the concept here. It was Sonys responsibility to safeguard customers info. They had the options to do so yet never took them. Xbox and Nintendo seem to have done a good job safeguarding info..why couldnt Sony? It took a major mistake for them to finially realize it and fix it. How many times has Sony been hacked now? Not many. They didn't want to spend the time and resources on something they believed wasnt important enough.

How many times have you heard that the Government systems have been hacked and lost heaps of customer details? I cant recall many.



Pemalite said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

 Its not anti-consumer to have improper safeguards.

It is Anti-Consumer when it is blatant neglect and disregard for it's consumers and their information.

Sony's incompetence with it's security at that time was extremely stupid. Thankfully they have rectified it, but it was a *massive* lesson that was taught to the entire industry.
I will not accept excuses. That would be silly.

I get it... you can't answer my questions, repeat the same mantra tirelessly, and it seems you see excuses from someone for this hack when there is not.

Well, have a good day, and keep up your crusade sir.

 

Azzanation said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

 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.

You dont understand the concept here. It was Sonys responsibility to safeguard customers info. They had the options to do so yet never took them. Xbox and Nintendo seem to have done a good job safeguarding info..why couldnt Sony? It took a major mistake for them to finially fix it. How many times has Sony been hacked now? Not many. They didn't want to spend the time and resources on something they believed wasnt important enough.

How many times have you heard that the Government systems have been hacked and lost heaps of customer details? I cant recall many.

The concept here is called Client Data Security Fault, it can be punished by law but is not related to anti-consumer practises.

By the way,

Microsoft (& others) :
https://www.komando.com/happening-now/357041/top-story-273-million-passwords-stolen-from-google-yahoo-microsoft-in-major-security-breach

Nintendo (pretty good, but not perfect everywhere) :
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/07/05/nintendo-reward-program-site-hacked-members-names-email-addresses-and-phone-numbers-possibly-compromised/
https://www.databreaches.net/hacker-blackmails-nintendo-with-personal-data-from-4000-gamer/

Government (you can't have missed this) :
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hackers-got-data-of-millions.html




Around the Network
Lauster said:
Pemalite said:

It is Anti-Consumer when it is blatant neglect and disregard for it's consumers and their information.

Sony's incompetence with it's security at that time was extremely stupid. Thankfully they have rectified it, but it was a *massive* lesson that was taught to the entire industry.
I will not accept excuses. That would be silly.

I get it... you can't answer my questions, repeat the same mantra tirelessly, and it seems you see excuses from someone for this hack when there is not.

Well, have a good day, and keep up your crusade sir.

 

I have repeated the same mantra, because it's an appropriate response. Don't like it? Stiff.


Lauster said:
The concept here is called Client Data Security Fault, it can be punished by law but is not related to anti-consumer practises.

Sony being hacked was entirely it's own fault. That's the ultimate difference here.



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

Pemalite said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

 Its not anti-consumer to have improper safeguards.

It is Anti-Consumer when it is blatant neglect and disregard for it's consumers and their information.

Sony's incompetence with it's security at that time was extremely stupid. Thankfully they have rectified it, but it was a *massive* lesson that was taught to the entire industry.
I will not accept excuses. That would be silly.

Hackers are anti consumer in the sense that they are anti-barrier and a security risk. You cannot stop them. Microsoft cannot stop them and neither can Sony. Sure, Microsoft has better security, but Microsoft has recently had issues as well as others with Sony in the past. No one is beyond it. Anyone who thinks in the information age that security is iron clad is kind of losing touch with reality.



If i shelled out $500 for an Xbox One I'd be crying out for the exclusives to justify my purchase.

But as a ps4 and pc owner I have nothing but praise for their lack of exclusives. The best case scenario!



S.T.A.G.E. said:
Pemalite said:

It is Anti-Consumer when it is blatant neglect and disregard for it's consumers and their information.

Sony's incompetence with it's security at that time was extremely stupid. Thankfully they have rectified it, but it was a *massive* lesson that was taught to the entire industry.
I will not accept excuses. That would be silly.

Hackers are anti consumer in the sense that they are anti-barrier and a security risk. You cannot stop them. Microsoft cannot stop them and neither can Sony. Sure, Microsoft has better security, but Microsoft has recently had issues as well as others with Sony in the past. No one is beyond it. Anyone who thinks in the information age that security is iron clad is kind of losing touch with reality.

I've been with Xbox Live since the beginning and I've never been hacked.  I've been with PSN since 08' and I've been hacked twice.  The last time I was told by sony's customer service that they won't refund my account again.  I bought a game digitally to clear out my account and I cancelled my account and haven't went back.  The nerve of sony trying to say their crappy service was my fault for getting hacked!  Good riddance!



S.T.A.G.E. said:

Hackers are anti consumer in the sense that they are anti-barrier and a security risk. You cannot stop them. Microsoft cannot stop them and neither can Sony. Sure, Microsoft has better security, but Microsoft has recently had issues as well as others with Sony in the past. No one is beyond it. Anyone who thinks in the information age that security is iron clad is kind of losing touch with reality.

Except... Other companies tend to make hackers lives at-least slightly difficult.
They don't blatantly "leave the door open" like what Sony did.

Seventizz said:

I've been with Xbox Live since the beginning and I've never been hacked.

Xbox live has been exploited, had downtime etc'. But nothing on the same level as Sony. Sony had shit security, they neglected it's customers information and they paid for that incompetence in spades. The result was a massive overhaul of the Playstation Network and months and months of downtime.

Microsoft has pretty much managed to avoid being exploited to the same degree because they *are* more proactive at security.



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