| trasharmdsister12 said: I disagree with this notion, particularly when it comes to MS. That might seem like a bias against MS, but it totally isn't. I'm a UWP developer. I've developed things for Xbox 360, Windows Phones, Windows 8 Tablet, and Xbox One. Up until a couple of months ago I was a Windows Phone user, and I still happily use my Windows 10 desktop and tablet, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. Due to this, I'm very in the loop on MS's commitments and promises and how often they back-pedal and break said promises. What I'm about to say doesn't come from a place of hate; it comes from the perspective of wanting Microsoft to succeed and not pissing away the millions of hours of effort they put into their offerings through a poor handling of messaging. In regards to PC gaming MS doesn't have that liberty of trust to do the right thing due to their history and their first impression with this attempt only makes things worse. Due to their history with PC gaming, they needed to build their credibility by doing the consumers right from the get go. They could've done this one of two ways: 1. Have things much of the way the community wants it day 1. This can be seen as an unrealistic expectation, but even getting major parts right would've gone a long way to people accepting Microsoft's claims to be working on the rest that they didn't get right. 2. They really needed to get their messaging right BEFORE backlash. They should not have left these limitations up to the discovery of consumers. Instead they went ahead and released poor product to a marketplace just looking to throw things back in MS's face. MS's only choice then was to be reactionary. If before releasing anything they has said "Okay guys. We're bringing Xbox content over to PC but it's going to be shoddy at first because the Windows Store wasn't exactly built to cater to conventional gaming... But here's a roadmap/time-line of features we're aiming to get out to you by the end of the year." people would have been like "Cool. That sort of sucks but at least we know you're working on it. Thanks for letting us know when we should look again." People would've been upset, but more understanding. The problem is that they did NEITHER of those things. So the consumer base's immediate reaction was "WTF?! GFWL 2.0!!!" and now MS has a bigger up-hill battle than ever. Me personally? I've already said I'm going to play the wait and see game. I look at the industry with a calm head and know that if MS doesn't do what we want, we'll just drop them and they'll either be forced to change it to something we do like or drop their effort altogether. At most, I'm invested in seeing MS do well because I do like some of their products and believe they take a lot of unnecessary flak in the industry. Plus genuine competition is good for us, consumers. But in this case, MS have only themselves to blame. |
This sums up much of why the backlash is justified. Responding to obvious problems after the fact does not inspire confidence. It gives the impression that they're only going to give as much as they must in order to break into the market.
On a personal level, I'm fully aware that I'm biased against Microsoft in the PC gaming space--but that's not without reason. Dealing with GFWL was, in complete honestly, the worst experience I've ever had in gaming. Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games of all time but the frustration of getting GFWL to work just so I could play a game almost ruined it. It was pure garbage that was forced on the consumer and they deserve every hard feeling they've gotten in return. Microsoft earned that lack of faith. I remember buying BioShock awhile afterward without realizing it was GFWL, as well--it still sits on my shelf, secure in the original shrink wrap. Now that I think about it, Microsoft got me again with that ridiculous "points" systems, where I had to over-buy points just to get the much cheaper Fallout 3 DLC. I let them keep that money rather than play anything else on that platform.
Deep breath, calm thoughts.
So, yeah, I don't trust Microsoft to do what's best for the consumer. They have to do what's best for the consumer first, though even then I'll still be suspicious. Fool me once ...
