Top
200°

Microsoft’s backwards policies are hurting the Xbox One

Since the Xbox One was revealed last May, Microsoft has made some major course corrections. The draconian always-online requirements were scrapped, and the execution of used game dealers was stayed, but a number of serious issues still plague the Xbox One. Worst of them all, Microsoft is demanding launch parity for indie [email protected] titles. Because of this short-sighted policy, many notable indie devs are steering clear of the Xbox One completely.

Read Full Story >>
extremetech.com
The story is too old to be commented.
trywizardo1268d ago

that was before a year , and i don't think so , they made it more appalling for a lot of people
i liked the old polices , they felt like a new gen , like a next gen , but having a game on disc with cover art is awesome :D

Kingthrash3601268d ago

^^somebody looking for dat raise.
lol you do realise that the only reason they flipped these outrageous policies is because the preorders were looking like ouya's, right. the x1 would have failed already if thet'd kept them policies, they saved themselves from doom by doing the 180.
maybe you liked the policies, and you know what thats fine. your opinion is yours but dear god its such a unsettling one....wait..you have 1 bub? lol explains alot.

alexkoepp1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

It had similar policies to the ones already commonplace for PC games, and you know what - PC gaming is just fine. Microsoft was ready for the future as a lot of us are. Unfortunately there are a lot of people stuck in current procedures and resistant to change, which is really too bad for those of us who are ready to take things to the next level. Oh well... guess we don't get to share our digital games with friends now, thanks guys.

PS - I love being stuck in a disc based console world </s>

Steam and digital FTW.

EL Lanf1267d ago

@alexkoepp

Remember the PC is a more open market. With the policies MS were going with, MS would have likely been the only retailer of XB1 games. Monopolies are bad for consumers (MS has 100% of the XB1 game market).

Steam has resellers such as GMG as well as competition from other digital stores like origin, uplay, gamersgate, GOG etc. Not to mention that PC as a platform isn't intrinsic to steam unlike XB1 and MS.

IMO MS would be better holding off a generation until internet speeds are higher and more reliable and having some anti-monopoly system in place.

Having steam like policies would be progressive (I don't like having a disk library either) but you have to remember half the advantages of steam are because of PC's different nature with things such as no backwards compatibility issues since games aren't tied to a generation of consoles.

At the end of the day, us gamers should want what is good for the consumer and MS's policies had a large element of anti-consumer (although features like family sharing would be great). Why has Sony trumped MS so hard already? Their choices were highly pro-consumer. I actually think MS has a better vision for a long-term console future that justifies consoles as different from PCs though but Sony has shown us repeatedly it can adapt fast and be one step ahead whereas MS are constantly playing catchup.

Tiqila1267d ago

@alex
last time I checked I could play my steam games offline. And on PC I can decide on a game basis whether I am ok with DRM or not. People would abandon Windows if it would force an always online policy on its users.

ramiuk11267d ago

exactly.
to alexx below the difference with pc games is the fact there alot cheaper than console games,MS would not allow new games to be sold digital for £22-26 in uk like all pc games are.

look at digital on the stores(boths sides) they charge more than retail for digial.

If MS said it would be £25 for all AAA games then i would accept the online DRM like i do with pc.

styferion1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

@alex : PC has options,
whether you want to always online or play games offline, or whether you want DRM games or DRM-free games.

I don't recall old Xbox One has this options.

The keyword is not "policies", it's "forced policies". The old Xbox One policies should be just fine if they make it an option like PC gaming did.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1267d ago
iamnsuperman1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

The policies were essentially Microsoft taking a large dump on its fan base. The tried to implemented a policy but gave nothing back/a reason for people to accept the policy. I said this at the time. If Microsoft said "We have always on DRM but because of this we are going to lower the prices of our Xbox One exclusives to £$..30-40" I would have been all over it and supported them for making an educated and well thought out step in a good direction. $60 games are too expensive and the model doesn't work. Also these companies (well mainly smaller companies) do loose out to the second hand market

But what they actually did was to come out and say "We have always on DRM" and preceded to stick two fingers up at everyone (the Mattrick 360 comment was just an insult to everyone who had support the 360 and Microsoft's endeavours)

They also proceeded to screw a lot of indie developers with some out dated, restricting, policies. It was only until Sony decided to come up with its own answer to the $60 model problem (I personally think due to the bad press DRM has and now, thanks to Microsoft's attempt, will always have) that they changed for the better

I am glad they have changed (argument for why competition is healthy) as the policies are much healthy but they still have a way to go. The do need to sort out Games with Gold (I actually think owning the game out right is going limit that service) and remove the pay wall for some applications

cfc781268d ago (Edited 1268d ago )

Don Mattrick certainly did the most damage in my opinion was like music to my ears when he was sacked the guy had no idea about what gamers want,Phil Spencer on the other hand being a real gamer (in my opinion) will only push xb1 forward to a brighter console future but he can't do it on his own he needs microsoft to back his plays in an honest way and prove to gamers that they're not the green devil they're perceived to be,theres still lots to be changed but it's early days i hope they make the right decision on launch parity it needs to go it's not helping anyone.

porkChop1268d ago

Mattrick was a moron and he caused severe damage to the Xbox One. Phil really does seem like a more genuine guy though so I'm hoping he can bring some much needed change.

WitWolfy1267d ago

@porkChop Your such a tool, Mattrick only did what the shareholders told him to do at the time. Saying he was the ONLY one who decided to go 24/7 online ALONE is just ignorant.

porkChop1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

@WitWolfy

Yes, the shareholders who care solely about making money told Mattrick to tell people to stick with their Xbox 360's if they didn't want an online-only console, instead of making people understand WHY it was necessary. The shareholders told him to confuse people and literally know next to nothing about how the Xbox One and its services actually work. The shareholders told him to go out of his way to ruin the products image.

Give me a break. He was forced to resign because he was an idiot and did NOT do what he was supposed to do, otherwise he would still be working there. Yet now he's stuck over at Zynga, a dying company, and hasn't come back into the public light since he left Microsoft.

Oh and btw, point me to where I ever said he was the "ONLY one who decided to go 24/7 online ALONE". Oh yeah, that's right, I never said that. Nice try though. Don't put words in peoples mouths.

AngelicIceDiamond1267d ago

@cfc Damn wellsaid.

Lets be honest Don Mattrick would of let this E3 play out in our favor even he wouldn't cancel games for Tv. What I think what could of happen is Don would decline games focused each E3 going forward.

While Phil will sustain the amount of games shown through out future E3's.

"prove to gamers that they're not the green devil they're perceived to be,theres still lots to be changed but it's early days i hope they make the right decision on launch parity it needs to go it's not helping anyone."

Agreed MS also needs to put the final nail on that PR and the final vision of what Xbox is and no more changing afterwards. If X1 is for gamers then its for gamers, like I said no more changing from this point on.

I think that's one of the things that's hurting Xbox brand. An Identity crisis.

ShockUltraslash1267d ago

More articles to remind us of what Xbone did wrong and PS4 did right.

ramiuk11267d ago

defo.
it also seems everything the ps3 did bad/wrong MS has done with xbone.
in UK non of the TV stuff works,all the interactive stuff is for the US.
From the very starteverything MS announced was wrong and i think EA had a fair part in it too,Dropping online passes just before isnt coincidence.

Its gonna take MS a long time to recover from this,thye have lost trust of consumer and the core gamerwith all the TV and KINECT crap.

i didnt even think of getting a ps4,i was loyal to XBOX since day 1 and was gonna preorder xbone as soon as possible unti lthey did the event and then that was it,i decided SONY before sony even showed the ps4 as it was obvious MS had lost there way.

The thing they keep doing is lying all time with reallly bad PR.
cloud is 4 xbones
kinect is needed( yet month later isnt)
DRM cant be changed(but then it is)

it just needs to stop and show some working real proof and not bull PR.

dcbronco1267d ago

If it is true that every Xbox One will be capable of being a developer kit, then any Sony Indie advantage will quickly disappear.You can't make it any more accessible than that.As far as launch parity goes, it's important. Anyone paying attention knows a game launching later on a different platform usually gets killed in sales. Of course they want a more even shot. To not see that is what is short-sighted.

DigitalRaptor1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

Yes.

Limbo on PS3/Vita got killed in sales. /s

Braid on PS3 got killed in sales. /s

Hotline Miami on PS3/Vita got killed in sales, so much that a sequel is on the way. /s

Octodad on PS4 got killed in sales. /s

Fez on PS3/PS4/Vita got killed in sales. /s

I'm sure Guacamelee! on PC got killed in sales. /s

Let's just see how many other of these PC ports that are going to PS4 get "killed in sales". You are just making excuses. Gamers will generally see games as new when they are on a console. Most people only seem to take notice when it's a AAA disc-based game that comes to another console later. And even then look at how well Mass Effect 2 and BioShock did releasing truly late on PS3.

The parity clause is nothing short of Microsoft being anti-competitive and having a large stick up their bottom about developers choosing to go to the more popular, easier to develop for console with almost double the install base.
------

And the "indie advantage" has already have been firmly established. More games will be out, will have been out for over a year, more developers will already have multiple projects already in the works for PS4, and more developers will always be signed on to make games for PS4. So as much as you like clearly like to dream, the indie advantage is one that cannot be removed - only reduced a bit.

dcbronco1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

Someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word usually. Plus if you think Indies won't jump on a $500 dev kit as apposed to one costing thousands you're kidding yourself and the fanboys that will no doubt blindly agree with you. Those developers are Indies for a reason.

DigitalRaptor1267d ago (Edited 1267d ago )

Whilst Sony hands out dev kits? Yeah, I'm sure they have no problems.
http://www.polygon.com/2013... http://www.videogamer.com/n...

But then what happens when those indie devs already have access to a PS4 devkit? They keep on using it, that's what. You're dreaming that the roles will be reversed and devs will completely switch over to Xbone because of a cheaper devkit. A cheaper devkit is still not going to sway from an install base with almost double the potential customers.

uth111267d ago

Microsoft has long has this attitude that they developed from their Windows near monopoly. They think they don't need to listen to what their customers want, instead they should be able to dictate what customers want.

This doesn't work in markets where they don't have a monopoly, just leads to bad PR- but they are slow to learn that!