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....

enditall727 said:
fordy said:


Well of course icrosoft want more control over their market, but any company could just say "Hey let's be an asshole corporation and fuck over consumer rights to help our bottom line", but the problem with that is that they know they'll get consumer backlash, and I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to willingly fall into that hole, because it's an incredibly difficult place to get out of.

Were there external influences? It's possible. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if Microsoft went up to somebody like EA and said "Hey we have this great idea for optional DRM that we're going to put in the Xbox One", and those developers backed up and said that if they don't add these extra oversights (which IMO seem tacked on to the original idea, whether it was Microsoft's idea to do that, or somebody else), then they wont get their 3rd party support. Ultimately that means that while the Oversightsmight not have been Microsoft's original idea, they're the ones responsible for the consumer backlash, since they're the ones who were trying to shift the goalposts without consideration of consumer rights.


Well it looked like MS originally tried to ignore the backlash. They tried to stand their ground with their drm policy but were forced to retreat when the pre orders came in heavy in favor of the PS4. Then they tried to act like they were listening to the backlash.

 

You know how everybody implies that the internet is irrelevant to the real world? 

 

They knew about what was going to be hampered and tried to say "look at the benefits" at the end of the day

 


It's the case with all new controversial products/services. There will be a degree of backlash from it, but Microsoft most likely underestimated the extent of that, thinking their vision was a good one for consumers AND developers, but their vision on the consumer rights front was a little shortsighted. 

Let me ask this: How many of the people protesting consumers rights knew the reasons as to why Microsoft decided to go this way? (As stated in the OP?) A large, unruly mob doesn't always know both sides of the story...



Around the Network
wilco said:
I think the biggest misconception is that ms is more greedy than sony or nintendo. No they are all greedy and they all care only about profits. The difference is sony is smart enough to know the proper way of going about it. MS on the other hand are completely out of touch with consumers.


You'll find that ANY major company can be subject to a lot of negative press if the wrong spin on something they do gains momentum. Like I said in the OP, I was orignally thinking that Microsoft had completely lost their minds, but a little more information from another side gave some insight into why they probably tried to go this way...not that I agree with the ends, but I see now how they probably ended up in this situation...



enditall727 said:

@ thread title

 

That's what they all say..

Lucifer supposedly said the same thing aswell

 

User was banned for this, and this post.

yo_john117

Pardon me, but how is this a bannable comment?

He's correct: people throughout history have justified their evil, malicious, and stupid things under the guise of "oh, well, we never meant to do any harm..." when it's pretty clear that, even if that were true, it's a feeble defense for their actions. This is the source of the aphorism "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" only I don't think anyone believes--for a minute--that MS had good intentions, at least as defined from the consmer's point-of-view, just like the story of Lucifer, where his motivation was to set himself up as god and to hell with everyone else.

(In this analogy, the consumer is god and the loyal angels, and Lucifer is MS' management and shareholders.)

Would you, perhaps, prefer "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Would that be acceptable? And if so, why is that OK but his is not?



ECM said:
enditall727 said:

@ thread title

 

That's what they all say..

Lucifer supposedly said the same thing aswell

 

User was banned for this, and this post.

yo_john117

Pardon me, but how is this a bannable comment?

He's correct: people throughout history have justified their evil, malicious, and stupid things under the guise of "oh, well, we never meant to do any harm..." when it's pretty clear that, even if that were true, it's a feeble defense for their actions. This is the source of the aphorism "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" only I don't think anyone believes--for a minute--that MS had good intentions, at least as defined from the consmer's point-of-view, just like the story of Lucifer, where his motivation was to set himself up as god and to hell with everyone else.

(In this analogy, the consumer is god and the loyal angels, and Lucifer is MS' management and shareholders.)

Would you, perhaps, prefer "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Would that be acceptable? And if so, why is that OK but his is not?


Care to elaborate? I know what MS did would be classed as shortsighted, but I wouldn't go as far to say they had nothing but bad intentions to the consumer about this. If that were the case, then people would not have gotten any of the benefits of DRM, only the bad points...



fordy said:
ECM said:
enditall727 said:

@ thread title

 

That's what they all say..

Lucifer supposedly said the same thing aswell

 

User was banned for this, and this post.

yo_john117

Pardon me, but how is this a bannable comment?

He's correct: people throughout history have justified their evil, malicious, and stupid things under the guise of "oh, well, we never meant to do any harm..." when it's pretty clear that, even if that were true, it's a feeble defense for their actions. This is the source of the aphorism "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" only I don't think anyone believes--for a minute--that MS had good intentions, at least as defined from the consmer's point-of-view, just like the story of Lucifer, where his motivation was to set himself up as god and to hell with everyone else.

(In this analogy, the consumer is god and the loyal angels, and Lucifer is MS' management and shareholders.)

Would you, perhaps, prefer "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Would that be acceptable? And if so, why is that OK but his is not?


Care to elaborate? I know what MS did would be classed as shortsighted, but I wouldn't go as far to say they had nothing but bad intentions to the consumer about this. If that were the case, then people would not have gotten any of the benefits of DRM, only the bad points...

I define "good intentions" as good for the consumer--not what's good for MS, and I find it very dificult to believe that *anyone* really believes what MS was going to do was a boon--or even a minor benefit--to the consumer.

WItness the one MS exec--who was summarily fired for taking shots at rural America--did that sound consumer-friendly to you? 

At best, it was clueless--at worst, it was malicious, but MS isn't so stupid that they woldn't have known, internally, that what they planned was going to be embraced by any stretch of the imaginatoin.



Around the Network
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?

That is incorrect. All games will have demos available to play from day one. That has no relation to the game sharing system. You would be able to play the full game as long as you want. The rules are you need to be part of the family for at least 30 days and you can't play at the same time the other person is playing. The person playing the game from your library gets polled every hour he/she is playing. Further, the reason behind this is once people start sharing games they will want to play each other and click to buy. No need to D/L the game again or go to the game store to pick up. The logic was this will actually create extra sales.



ECM said:
fordy said:
ECM said:
enditall727 said:

@ thread title

 

That's what they all say..

Lucifer supposedly said the same thing aswell

 

User was banned for this, and this post.

yo_john117

Pardon me, but how is this a bannable comment?

He's correct: people throughout history have justified their evil, malicious, and stupid things under the guise of "oh, well, we never meant to do any harm..." when it's pretty clear that, even if that were true, it's a feeble defense for their actions. This is the source of the aphorism "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" only I don't think anyone believes--for a minute--that MS had good intentions, at least as defined from the consmer's point-of-view, just like the story of Lucifer, where his motivation was to set himself up as god and to hell with everyone else.

(In this analogy, the consumer is god and the loyal angels, and Lucifer is MS' management and shareholders.)

Would you, perhaps, prefer "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Would that be acceptable? And if so, why is that OK but his is not?


Care to elaborate? I know what MS did would be classed as shortsighted, but I wouldn't go as far to say they had nothing but bad intentions to the consumer about this. If that were the case, then people would not have gotten any of the benefits of DRM, only the bad points...

I define "good intentions" as good for the consumer--not what's good for MS, and I find it very dificult ot believe that *anyone* really believes what MS was going to do was a boon--or even a minor benefit--to the consumer.

WItness the one MS exec--who was summarily fired--for taking shots at rural America--did that sound consumer-friendly to you? 

At best, it was clueless--at worst, it was malicious, but MS isn't so stupid that they woudln't have known, internally, that what they planned was going to be embraced by any stretch of the imaginatoin.


I'd say that their original idea probably had potential, but as it was worked out in more detail, it was getting way too complicated. That's where they should have stopped, but they kept going for some reason.

So not being firmly reliant on physical media is not a benefit? I'd say in a time where companies are trying to find ways to get into the digital distribution market while not burning their bridges on the physical media market, and make them both integrate seamlessly, I'd say this was a logically sound solution to such a problem, even if it didn't take some important factors into consideration...



ItNetPro said:

That is incorrect. All games will have demos available to play from day one. That has no relation to the game sharing system. You would be able to play the full game as long as you want. The rules are you need to be part of the family for at least 30 days and you can't play at the same time the other person is playing. The person playing the game from your library gets polled every hour he/she is playing. Further, the reason behind this is once people start sharing games they will want to play each other and click to buy. No need to D/L the game again or go to the game store to pick up. The logic was this will actually create extra sales.

No, you wouldn't. Perhaps they're not mere "demos", since you are actually downloading a full game, but they were going to be full game trials, a la PS+. After a certain period of time (exceeding no more than one hour) you would have been stopped from playing and asked to buy the whole game. They were toying with the idea of letting you decline and continue playing a certain number of times, but not enough so that you could just finish every game without buying it. They were glorified demos, and the whole idea was a terrible trade off for being able to play offline and actually own your games.



The road to hell is paved with not intentionally malicious intentions.



In the end, MS's messaging was horrible and haters fanned the flames. Shame.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.