By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft's original idea was not meant to be intentionally malicious....

fordy on 20 June 2013
badgenome said:
fordy said:

I think they get enough money from Halo to say "Hey, lets be greedy fuckers and get more!".

Yeah, that doesn't sound like Microsoft at all...

I think you are way overthinking this thing. Microsoft saw a chance to make even more money while having absolute control over all of your content and getting all the third parties to hail them as the savior, so they went for it. Then it blew up in their faces quite spectacularly, but sadly not quite as spectacularly as it would have if they had actually gone through with it. Period.


I would have agreed, had they not shown it so openly to the consumer. You don't think it's weird that a console manufacturer would just opnely say "You know what? Screw the consumer. We want more money", when it's in heated competition with two others? Nintendo got arrogant when it had a clear market majority, Sony got arrogant when it had a clear market majority. I wouldn't expect Microsoft to pull of similar arrgance unless.....you guessed it.....it had the clear market majority.



Around the Network
enditall727 on 20 June 2013
fordy said:


So you think that Microsoft's original thought was "let's screw our base over"? I don't think any reputable company would ever think in such a way, especially with a company like Microsoft that has gotten to a level that it has...I'd say the logical outcome is that they had a vision that was shortsighted, and attempted to have oversights fixed with more oversights, which ended up in a huge mess....


They knew what they were doing. They just didn't see it as being malicious

 

I bet the Nazi's look at themselves as the good guys..

Moderated,

-Mr Khan



Fifaguy360 on 20 June 2013
Stinky said:
It's the standard knee-jerk hate one finds on the internet. Observe that the loudest opponents of MS' DRM on this site are also vocal opponents of MS in general. This would hold true across the internet.

Not true. Have a look at the official Xbox forums. Too many Angry Birds there. Also pre-orders were low. Opponents of MS won't preorder, but where did the fanbase go?



badgenome on 20 June 2013
fordy said:

I would have agreed, had they not shown it so openly to the consumer. You don't think it's weird that a console manufacturer would just opnely say "You know what? Screw the consumer. We want more money", when it's in heated competition with two others? Nintendo got arrogant when it had a clear market majority, Sony got arrogant when it had a clear market majority. I wouldn't expect Microsoft to pull of similar arrgance unless.....you guessed it.....it had the clear market majority.

So you think they were just saying, "You know what? Fuck you," entirely by mistake? Even when all the signs are there that they really are as arrogant as Sony or Nintendo ever were at the height of their dominance? I don't find it hard to believe at all.



Stinky on 20 June 2013

Digital distribution is the future, even Sony acknowledges this in their recent PS4 interface promo. But digital distribution today is a poor compromise which is heavily in favour of the game producer;, we need a better way.



Around the Network
fordy on 20 June 2013
badgenome said:
fordy said:

I would have agreed, had they not shown it so openly to the consumer. You don't think it's weird that a console manufacturer would just opnely say "You know what? Screw the consumer. We want more money", when it's in heated competition with two others? Nintendo got arrogant when it had a clear market majority, Sony got arrogant when it had a clear market majority. I wouldn't expect Microsoft to pull of similar arrgance unless.....you guessed it.....it had the clear market majority.

So you think they were just saying, "You know what? Fuck you," entirely by mistake? Even when all the signs are there that they really are as arrogant as Sony or Nintendo ever were at the height of their dominance? I don't find it hard to believe at all.


As I mention before, they started off with a vision for a next generation, most likely one not so reliant on physical media, and they tried their best to stick with it, even though as time went on, they probably started to come more and more to the realisation that it couldn't work, but still tried to stick with it, and that's where I think they crossed the line. Was it arrogant? It could be seen that way. Probably not as clear as other cases (though the "No internet? Buy a 360" WAS definately an arrogant "dig your heels in" statement).

Do I think it's wrong to think that Microsoft went the direct "fuck you" route? Absolutely. I'd put it more of them thinking too much on one side without enough thought put into the other side (their idea would have been that developers are happy with the DRM and consumers would be happy with the convenience of not constantly requiring the physical media that the game came one, so everybody's happy, right?)



noname2200 on 20 June 2013
badgenome said:
HappyHenry said:
NO of course they didnt set out to piss gamers off. I cant believe the abuse theyve got on the internet its not justified at all . i can see the advantages of drm for me family sharing and having all my games in one place to access instantly is a step forward we live in a digital world. seems like a lot of people dont like change.im hoping that MS might bring an opt in drm sometime down the line

Are you aware of the fact that "family sharing" didn't mean sharing full games, it meant that people could demo your games for <1 hour? Is that really worth giving up physical ownership of your games?


Oh, shut up with your nitpicking bullshit and Jump In already.

Oh wait, you can't anymore, because you whined so much. Hope you're happy now.



fordy on 20 June 2013

A lot of people need to realise that despite digital distribution systems like Steam being around for quite awhile, the technology is still classed as a new frontier, and as such, there are no clearly defined "rules" that consumers and developers happily agree with. Consumers see it as potential convenience with an incredibly worrying afterthought of developer lockdown/dictatorship and loss of consumer rights. Developers see it as a convenient and cheap medium to publish, but are scared to death at how easy it is to have their work so easily copied/pirated with such a method.

The only company that has come close to solving these problems would be Valve, but in order for this to happen, Steam needs to be an online-only medium. There is no offline-capable method of digital distribution that consumers/developers are comfortable with yet...



slowmo on 20 June 2013
enditall727 said:
fordy said:


So you think that Microsoft's original thought was "let's screw our base over"? I don't think any reputable company would ever think in such a way, especially with a company like Microsoft that has gotten to a level that it has...I'd say the logical outcome is that they had a vision that was shortsighted, and attempted to have oversights fixed with more oversights, which ended up in a huge mess....


They knew what they were doing. They just didn't see it as being malicious

 

I bet the Nazi's look at themselves as the good guys..


Disgusting comment



badgenome on 20 June 2013
fordy said:

As I mention before, they started off with a vision for a next generation, most likely one not so reliant on physical media, and they tried their best to stick with it, even though as time went on, they probably started to come more and more to the realisation that it couldn't work, but still tried to stick with it, and that's where I think they crossed the line. Was it arrogant? It could be seen that way. Probably not as clear as other cases (though the "No internet? Buy a 360" WAS definately an arrogant "dig your heels in" statement).

Do I think it's wrong to think that Microsoft went the direct "fuck you" route? Absolutely. I'd put it more of them thinking too much on one side without enough thought put into the other side (their idea would have been that developers are happy with the DRM and consumers would be happy with the convenience of not constantly requiring the physical media that the game came one, so everybody's happy, right?)

I guess we're maybe agreeing in the main while disagreeing on the finer points. You just attribute it to incompetence or a vision that got away from them somehow while I attribute it to not giving consideration to anything other than what's good for Microsoft. I don't think Microsoft intended to fuck people over, or felt like they were fucking people over, or that they're a bunch of evil sorcerers conspiring in their dark tower to enslave mankind with their shitty DRM. I just think they simply don't care about consumers at all, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't manage to articulate one single benefit to the consumers that resulted from any one of their new policies. Not a one.

Basically, they thought about what they'd like to do and then half-assedly tried to slap together a PR message to sell it to people, but fortunately everyone (or most everyone) saw it for the glitter-covered turd that it was.