By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JoeFlex on 19 June 2013
Edit Thread
gergroy said:
JoeFlex said:
JWeinCom said:
I think the important thing is the policies are gone. Clearly this is not what they desired, but they realized that the market would not buy what they were selling, and they changed it. I don't really need our desires to be aligned, I need them to cater to my desires if they want my money, and they seem to be doing that. I'm not looking for a soulmate here, I'm looking for a game console. Microsoft's "desires" are quite irrelevant to me so long as they make good games and don't put unwanted restrictions on them


That's one way too look at it, and while I disagree with you, I respect your opinion. Those polices could be short term - a bandaid - in the sense that they were only done to please people in the short run before reverting to their original agenda.  And their desires are not irrelevant, otherwise people would not have made such a fuss over their policies.

part of their clarifaction later in the day said they would not be going back on the policies for the rest of the gen.  Makes sense, you can't really change a product like that once it is on the market.  

That being said, I don't think Microsoft even knew what they desired.  Their executives were out their promoting this thing half heartedly and aimlessly.  They never even came close to making a case for it.  Obviously there was a lot of inner turmoil going on within the company as their messaging was all over the place.  The problem isn't that Microsoft had misaligned desires, it is that Microsoft didn't even know what their desires were.  

Perhaps, now, Microsoft can take a step back and re-calibrate.  Figure out what kind of product they actually want the x1 to be and get the thing back on track.  


Hello, thank you for your contribution. Well said ..

I do not expect them to rollback on their policies. I believe that would be foolish. But that doesn't mean they won't try to revert in some other way down the line.

Well ... that's an interesting interpretation of things. I viewed it as them fully knowing their desires, but unable to communicate it in such a way to accommodate gamers, especially since the majority of us clearly do not care for the direction they are interested in. It seemed like their vision required gaming as an additional feature and not the core. I would say that I agree with you in the sense that they did not fully know their desires, but with respect to gaming. I am sure they are aware of their overarching vision. Plus, I got the sense some of the execs only backtracked and contradicted other speakers due to the overwhelming negative reaction to their policies. I'm not suggesting I disagree with you, but I'm just expressing what I thought initially.

And I too hope they will take the time to regroup and decide what is best, given the response of consumers.