| Jereel Hunter said: "but it was is things No one actualy asked for from a gaming console." No, many of it's planned features were things people asked for... Most people weren't ready for what that entailed, however. "Cloud gaming? yes please. Oh wait, in order for a machine built for cloud based gaming? I have to always be online??? WTF???" "It will struggle mightly to even achice half the sales 360 did." It's on better pace than the PS3 was. Did it struggle in the long run? It's doing fine, just not as fine as the PS4. Xbox's initial misteps were, granted - mismarketting. All of it's awesome features were easily painted as restrictions by the competition. And changing it's focus greatly limited some potential. (i.e. A system always connected can offload to the cloud any time, and can have games that function requiring the cloud. A non connected console can't) Ultimately, they swung for the fences, while Sony doubled down on consumer ignorance. And if there's one thing history teaches us, that's the safest bet. |
Bolded is not true, and is a complete exaggeration of the point.
MS wanted to give gamers what they wanted, but only in the way MS saw profit to be made.
There was no reason to tie PHYSICAL OWNERSHIP to a digital ownership. MS controlled everything! And if you wanted to do a trade-in, you had to do it at an authorized retailer who had integrated MS' new retailer Azure system INTO their retail sales software, and MS would get a cut! There was no reason to require MS to be paid for trade-ins at gamestop for used games. It would only increase consumer costs, or hurt gamestop.
Fact: There was NO way to trade your disc-based games that you physically own on ebay or any other marketplace. MS got a cut of every used sale because it HAD to be done through Azure at an authorized retailer. Look it up. This isn't FUD. There was no reason for this.
Fact: You couldn't play your disc-based games without an online check-in. A certain someone was even fired for mocking people about being always online. Yet somehow steam is able to allow offline play of digital games. MS couldn't do it WITH physical discs. Funny.
Fact: You could not play your disc game on a friend's xb1. There were literally arguments defending this saying "oh I'll just bring my xb1 to my friend's house, big deal". Or "I can if I log-in with my profile", yet if you let a friend borrow game A and you wanted to play game B, you physically could not play different games at the same time on different xb1s, because you could not use the same login at two places at once. It's like "*ring ring* Hey bill, it's me, I let you borrow halo, but I want to play fifa now, so can you please log out of my account. I'll text you when I'm done".
Fact: The family share has literally NEVER EVER BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED. EVER. IN HISTORY.
There were no features that had to be done the way MS wanted to do them. And we know this because most of them are already done, a better way, by their competition. MS just decided what the most profitable way was, and made all their decisions based on that. That's not a terrible way to make money, but it's also important to wonder whether a consumer will actually support that. They did not.
Sony gave gamers what they wanted. MS tried to take physical ownership away from gamers.
That is what happened.
