Microsoft Was In A “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t” Situation Post E3 2013, Says Aaero Dev

"To Microsoft’s credit, despite it completely disrupting their launch, they did listen to the feedback and went out of their way to address it."

[WePlayDirty]

No. They were only in a “Damned if you don’t change it back” situation. MS tried to implement changes that were anti-consumer at its core. Changing the formula meant backlash.. not changing it back would mean the end of the Xbox as we know it. There was nothing ‘damning' about keeping the formula relatively the same as the Xbox 360, but with newer hardware.

[darthv72]

Tell me exactly what was anti consumer and do it without bias and clear open minded view please.

Since they didnt happen, i want to hear what people remember in relation to exact words from MS and compare/contrast the interpretations objectively.

[Sam Fisher]

Everything tv, they were going games made to influence on the tv market (quantum break and defiance)

Drm online all the time- screw everyone that doesnt have great connections or rural areas

License to the games- couldnt trade in or sell games, hence at the time gamestop was going to boycott xbox

500$- selling a console that expensive but not stronger than its competitor

There are more but this was the heavy hitters imo, and i said it without being biased, this all really happened. If you would like proof ill get you videos and/or articles to prove each statement

[dcbronco]

Microsoft did make a mistake in not keeping always on as an option. They should have dropped the need to check in to play your games but always on adds to a games experience if fully utilized.

[TFJWM]

@dcbronco "Microsoft did make a mistake in not keeping always on as an option. They should have dropped the need to check in to play your games but always on adds to a games experience if fully utilized."

What was the benefit of always on at a hardware level? If a game wants you to be always on for mp functionality the games still do it. If you want to be logged in all the time you can do it, there was no reason to force always on and I don't see how an option to have always on would change anything from what it is now

[Christopher]

Anti consumer:

Removing the option to own and fully control what you buy.

Download only games in a world with data caps.

Internet required access for playing games where many consumers play on last gen hardware that rarely connects to the internet. It's why some countries have this stuff set up at shops for people to play.

[dcbronco]

@TFJWM

The key is you don't see a reason. But I've explained reasons several times. People disagree because some are sheep and see what others did. Some know they were told to not like the idea years ago. Some just don't see the advantages it would offer and some see who commented and automatically down vote it.

[WePlayDirty]

Got nothing to say, Darth?

[dcbronco]

@TFJWM

Here's a simple example of what always on brings that Sony fanboys thought was great and never complained about once.

Demon's Souls. You can't have certain elements of that game without being connected. Works fine without a connection but is better with one. There are many enhancements that can be done in single player if you have a connection.

[andrewsquall]

Here is my view. Its funny the way YOU say "i want to hear what people remember in relation to EXACT WORDS from MS"

That is the problem right there. It was a complete and utter disaster of communication. Every single higher up was saying something different everyday after the worse games console reveal in history. Right before the time of the actual 180, Microsoft even did a complete 180 on HOW you were going to be able to sell your games back. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... Look at the "updates" this article had back in the day with an eventual link to THIS article http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
It went from "Its okay Microsoft will allow you to sell back your games on Xbone" to "Actually its going to be up to each and every single publisher if THEY want to allow you to sell back the game. In other words, there was now an extra step/obstacle that was in the way. Of course when publishers were asked to comment at the time, they had no answers whatsoever for this sudden and out of nowhere change in policy that pretty much threw them into the lion's den.

Everyone else above me has given enough other open minded reasons why it was anti consumer, this is just mine and I GUARANTEE you had NO IDEA about that publisher related bit because the news of the actual real 180 cancelled out everything else then.

Lol, feel free to jump back in there with your defense darthv72 whenever you are ready. Open minded and NO bias please i.e. no random defending without any reason to back up the thing that is the original strategy for Xbone .

[TFJWM]

@dcbronco "Some just don't see the advantages it would offer and some see who commented and automatically down vote it."
"Demon's Souls. You can't have certain elements of that game without being connected. Works fine without a connection but is better with one. There are many enhancements that can be done in single player if you have a connection."

Once again what is the benefit of forcing always on at a hardware level, any game can have always on if it wants. And you can stay logged in and be "always on" if you want to download updates and such right now. What would having an option of putting always on even do...

[Thunder_G0d_Bane]

The simple list:

Internet connection required
No trading in games
Forced on Kinect raising price of console
Kinect always on watching and listening in your home.

Yeah it was very anti consumer and anti privacy. Microsoft not only dug the hole of their own grave but they laid in it and closed the coffin themselves.

[Gameseeker_Frampt]

Forcing me to buy a Kinect if I wanted to get the next generation XBox console. Making someone buy something they don't need in order to get something they want is anti-consumer.

[darthv72]

"License to the games- couldnt trade in or sell games, hence at the time gamestop was going to boycott xbox"

this is an interesting one because as I seem to recall it was GS that MS was partnering with in order to trade in games. So.... how was there a boycott from the very company that was part of the proposed deal???

Not to mention there was also a much wider base to trade/lend games with your friends. Much larger and easier than even Sony's video promoted of one person to another. while some would say its easy to just hand you game to a friend. It's actually even easier to just let your friend use your digital game. Especially if they live elsewhere and are not within "handing over" distance. (Funny vid nonetheless)

The 1 time in a 24 hr check in... again that is an interesting one because we do live in an always online and always connected world. Games like destiny, overwatch, GT Sport all requiring some semblence of connectivity in order to play and enjoy that aspect. So are our systems NOT connected online??? Do they not have the ability to download patches and updates while we sleep and work / go to school?

People proclaim these things to be anti consumer and dont even realize they exist around them anyway and from other companies/means. MS was at least trying to be honest about it.

"Download only games in a world with data caps." we have that anyway, especially with how popular digital stores like Steam are. And it goes with your previous statement about not owning or having choice to buy. Again we have that now with Steam as a good example. You buy the license and can even return that license if you wish. It isnt just MS that is doing it so I fail to see how this falls only on them.

The kinect part... yeah i will give you guys that one. Was rather dumb to force it as they could have done like what Sony did and make it optional. But keep in mind that even sony with their PS4 camera being an option is required by certain things. So it's only optional if you never plan to use the social part of the PS4 (or vr) otherwise it was designed with the camera in mind to see your friends (cant see them if you dont have the camera).

And I guess i should get rid of my smartphone because it's always listening for me to say a specific set of keywords in order to respond to voice commands. Hell... xfinity and their cable remote offers the same thing but lets blame MS for it.

[AmUnRa]

Really darthv2?? You really mean that?? O boy🙄
"Since they didnt happen"....o my God you are delusional🙄.
Read what Sam Fisher wrote, he is spot on.

[Dragonscale]

@darth, always online, no second hand/shared games, everything behind a paywall, enforced drm, enforced kinect, 500 bux...

That anti consumer enough for you. Lol.

[Imalwaysright]

Basically DMR. Wanting to control a console that would be mine with daily internet connections that without I wouldn't be able to play my games is a huge NO!

"we do live in an always online and always connected world" How many devices do you own that require an internet connection to basically do what you bought them for?

"Games like destiny, overwatch, GT Sport"

That's it? 3 games when literally hundreds of games are released each year most of them not ever requiring an internet connection for you to be able to play them? That weak argument isn't going to convince anyone.

@ dcbronco

Mistake? If saving their own hides is a mistake then I sure as hell am glad that they did that mistake because as a consumer I want MS in this industry for it to not going downhill even more than it has already gone. Competition is essential and anyone saying otherwise is a complete fool.

[darthv72]

@ra, the only thing MS is actually guilty of was the $500 price point of the system and it being lesser than the competition.

Everything else that Sam wrote was potentiality not actuality. Actuality is if they actually happened and there was nothing done to rectify it. As it turns out, MS did their infamous "180's" on everything at launch (some before) so I stand by my statement of "they didnt happen".

We could argue the potential of them happening but lets just call the situation an "almost". Personally i dont have a viewpoint one way or the other. If they did happen then sure i could pick some reasoning as to why they were dumb ideas or brilliant ones but as it is we only have the hypothetical aspect.

on a side note... It really isnt hard to look back and interpret what 'could have been' as something beneficial or buffoonish. It really depends on if the message and understanding are clear, and honestly it wasnt. Some aspects were sound but then you had individuals that were trying to elaborate and couldnt convey with certainty how it was supposed to work.

It's as if they werent prepared for the questions of "how" or more specifically, those who had the answers were not there to explain so we were left with the feeling of he said he said. I commend their efforts to be open and honest but I condemn them for their lack of preparedness to handle the barrage of questions that followed.

Like squall said, it was their communication that really failed.

@imalways... you can feel free to replace those few games I chose as an example with any number of games that fit the same narrative of requiring an active connection to play.

[v_eno_m]

@darthv72 - I'd like to add to the list that Sam FIsher gave, and this one broke the straw off my back....

xbox family gold - Before the always online/DRM drama, they pitched way before the E3 announcement that xbox family gold wasn't going to change, so a family of four could share the online experience for the price of two...

i believe at the time, the single gold account was rated at $60, family gold was at $99 for 4x accounts. Then comes E3 and the completely changed their tune....converting the 4 gamertags into 4x separated gold accounts....

so my $99/year subscription changed into $240/year. This was a complete bait and switch cash grab tactic. You should have seen their support forums, alot of military families where screwed because of this.

I never regretted switching my subscriptions over to PSN.

[WePlayDirty]

@Darth, So you’re justifying anti-consumer practices? Oh boy! You should have been part of MS PR team if ‘communication’ was the only problem... you would have made it all better...

[Fearmonkey]

I was a big time Xbox guy until MS tried to pull that baloney and then I bought a PS4. Glad I did, PS4 has been the console to own this generation. I blame Don "Man I love my media" Mattrick who ruined Xbox in my opinion. it was all about being the new watercooler, TV, Kinect, and less about being a games machine. Sony made a great Gaming machine and thats what consumers wanted, and PS4 tore it up in sales.

Not being able to share games..... That Sony vid on how to share games on PS4 was hilarious. I buy alot of used games from Gamefly, couldnt do that on MS's original Xbox plan. The baloney about Gamestop having a key register that allowed for trading in games was a headache waiting to happen. MS could still do it with digitial games, Steam does!

Always online, for military being on a sub or ship at sea meant you couldnt use it. if I happen to lose internet for over a day, no games, so no thanks. I dont want to be told I cant play when I bought the console and games.

The physical copies you buy were essentially worthless, as it had to register them online anyway, some people like physical copies of games still. It just had the game but worked as a digital game once installed.

Forcing Kinect when not everyone wanted it wasn expensive and bad idea. I never bought a kinect for the Xbox 360, and I didnt want it for the Xbox One.

I look forward to the next generation past Xbox One, maybe Xbox can once again wow us. Im not sure the Xbox One X will be that successful, but I hope for MS it is.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

Selling information gathered from Kinect to potential advertisers, paywall to use entertainment apps, constant online monitoring, 24 hour internet based system checks, parity clause.

[morganfell]

Really Darth?

https://www.theverge.com/20...

[Imalwaysright]

darthv72

Those games wouldn't exist without an internet connection as we know them to be today. Consoles don't need an internet connection to function and the same is true for the majority of games released on the market. Your argument doesn't explain why the console itself needed to be connected once a day. It's a weak argument and you know it.

BTW you spoke of MS messaging and while I agree that it wasn't the best (Adam Orth and Penello come to mind how disrespectful and arrogant they were) but even if it was on point there is no sugarcoating DMR and taking control away from consumers. It was a lost battle for MS PR from the get go.

[rainslacker]

Their initial policies were anti-consumer as they took away too much control and ownership from the consumer, allowed for data collection from users which included but was not limited to focusing advertising on said user, and requiring a connection to play one's legally purchased software as a system wide feature put total control of the software in the hands of MS and the publisher. The removal of being able to sell one's games without them being an intermediary was anti-consumer, although not illegal by ways of TOS, but the removal of commonly accepted practices is one common indication that something is anti-consumer....although not always the case depending on the situation, so bringing in anecdotal or potentially corralary situations isn't always a good way to show that it's not, as some things may be accepted elsewhere, and still be anti-consumer.

Changing them wasn't anti-consumer, it was their way of keeping Xbox relevant this gen.

Anti-consumer is often attributed to anything that isn't wholly good for the consumer. However, anti-consumer is actually defined as things which are "not favorable to the consumer", or "Improperly favoring the interests of business over the interests of the consumer."

In this case, it's the latter definition which is relevant, because MS policies very much favored business over the consumers rights and expectations.

Even though no one was forced to buy into the X1 with it's initial policies, it doesn't mean the policies themselves weren't anit-consumer.

@dc

I think your demon souls example falls short.

"Works fine without a connection, but is enhanced with one".

I think the key here is that it works fine without, and having a connection gives you features which would only be available with a connection anyways.

As a corralary to the X1's initial policies though, it makes no sense, because without a connection in that case, it wouldn't work fine, it wouldn't work at all.

That is what makes it anti-consumer. It's relying on a secondary party to provide a service that not all people can have at all times, nor a service that all people may want to utilize at all times. Some people being OK with it doesn't remove the anti-consumer nature of the policy itself.

Obviously, everyone seems OK with requiring a connection for games where a connection is necessary for functionality, but not OK with that being a requirement across the board, regardless of if the software itself requires said connection to operate properly.

MS was forcing a connection regardless of need or desire, and that is anti-consumer.

@Thunder

I never thought the Forced connect was anti-consumer. That's one of those things where it was just part of the product. While all those other things were too, the forced connect was not in the same league.

Now, what MS openly stated as a selling point due to Kinect inclusion(focused ads and data collection) could certainly be seen as anti-consumer, and it was the reason for the inclusion without a doubt. But the actual inclusion as part of the product I think treads the line, and was only an issue due to the reasons for it's inclusion, and the fact it made it more expensive despite people's interest in the feature

[darthv72]

@venom, I wasnt aware of a change to family gold but then again I wasnt really interested in family gold at the time. I do know that with a single gold sub on the xbo you can have anyone share it. My son does that with his profile and i am the one with the gold membership. So there is some sort of family gold still in effect.

@dark, "So you’re justifying anti-consumer practices?" no, I'm actually looking for people's input on what was anti consumer about their ideas. If DRM is anti consumer then why do we have it today in all current digital content you purchase from steam, psn, xbl? It seems that no matter which direction MS was going, it was going to be met with criticism (judging from all the comments people have made).

So there has to be some reasoning with the whole situation. I am under the impression that it wasnt really so much what was said but who was saying it. In the court of public opinion you can have two people say the exact same thing where one is revered and the other not. The one who is revered would likely get praise and compliments for their words while the other would get criticism. That's just the way things go.

[Christopher]

***"Download only games in a world with data caps." we have that anyway, especially with how popular digital stores like Steam are. ***

No we don't. Consoles have survived in many countries because they are retail driven. We do not 'have that already' and saying as such is playing down the fact of the matter. The fact that we rate the success of a game on its regional retail sales success should tell you that much (digital isn't included in those).

I notice you ignored data caps and full control/ownership of the game to resell or trade as you see fit.

***People proclaim these things to be anti consumer and dont even realize they exist around them anyway ***

You mean the people who are online all day talking about games? Not the mass majority of gamers who don't do that? The millions of people who don't play online but play single player games? The people who have to control when they buy a game and patch it so they don't go over their data caps?

These people exist. They may not be every consumer, but making it harder for them to play offline games is absolutely anti consumer.

[morganfell]

" Works fine without a connection but is better with one."

A 1GB connection is btter than a 1.5MB connection. What is the point?

What is really hilarious is ignoring the fact one works better with an internet connection but without it...it still works. Whereas one doesn't work...AT ALL.

[rainslacker]

@darth

"trading games"

Yeah, that's fine, except MS was applying it to physical games, which is where the problem was. If they had just kept it in the digital realm, then no harm done, and it'd actually be a big step forward for digital distribution. I dunno if publishers would go for it though. Seems counter productive to the bellyaching they had for the entire gen about used game sales. I'm sure they'd be fine with getting some revenue from physical used game sales though.

"mandatory check in"

Except not everyone wants to do that, and what practical purpose does it serve for physical games? There is no need for it, and one has to wonder, what do we have to check in about? What is MS checking? What was the point outside of DRM, and likely data collection. For the most part, the discs themselves serve as their own DRM, and outside exceptional conditions, such things aren't even necessary for digital games nowadays as there are better ways to handle it without restricting the customers.

As far as citing examples of where we're connecting anyways, so what? Games that require connections, updates, or whatever, you will have to connect. Just because people have to, or do so anyways does not mean that the system should do it at a core level. Needing a connection to use features isn't the same as requiring a connection regardless of if those features are used. People accept that certain features or software require a connection. When it's applied to places where it shouldn't be necessary, we get upset, and don't like it.

If what you say about we do it anyways is so common, then why would MS try to force it. What was the purpose? If MS knows everyone's going to connect anyways, then why do something they had to know would be met with skepticism, and run the risk of alienating customers....which they did.

Are you still insinuating that this was some misplaced conception on part of the consumer, as opposed to just being something the consumer at large just did not want? If the consumer at large just didn't want it, maybe you should ask yourself why that is. Then you realize there are many more reasons to not have this requirement over reasons to actually have it.

As far as spouting off the advantages of what MS was going to offer, most of that is either assumption, or iplied to be the case retroactively after the fact. While it's easy to say now, "oh, but then we could have been able to do this", doesn't work, because MS in most cases never said so. The only time they tried to say what benefit it would bring was post 180's where the friend sharing thing was explained, and even that was unlikely to ever have happened the way MS stated due to Sony having something similar and being forced by publishers to go from 5 to 2 users within a couple years. MS was blowing smoke to try and make people feel guilty about complaining, and to make themselves look like they had grander plans than they really did. That should have been something day one if it was the case, but MS couldn't be bothered to come up with any real benefit for the consumer when approached by media or the community.

On the smart phone corollary....you realize that's optional right? not forced. You can use it if you want. You had no choice with the X1's original policies....thus, it was anti-consumer.

[Jaqen_Hghar]

not being able to sell physical games is a big one. A man doesn't always keep his games. And don't give a man that digital trade-in BS

[Golden_Mud]

@andrewsquall

Now, now... you cannot claim the Xbox One reveal event was the worst in consoles' history. You cannot claim that without mentioning the disasters of other consoles. E3 2006 PlayStation 3 reveal was an extremely bad console reveal event (this is a generally-shared opinion, so it isn't my own opinion only), I would even dare to say it was worse than Xbox One's reveal (this is my opinion).

[dcbronco]

@TFJWM

Love the way you ignore the part of my post about the game being fine without being online despite quoting it. I will say maybe it is a simple misunderstanding of the phrase always on. I mean that it is an "option" that the player can turn off and on that enhances the game when on. My understanding of Demon's Souls was you had to log off to keep it from adding the additional elements which, if you still want online features like messages and chat, makes it sorta always on. I just believe it should have been an option and should still be for games where the developers utilize it.

@Imalwaysright

Speaking of options, there is nothing wrong with the option for developers to make their games always on to enhance the experience. But it could be optional for the end user. Microsoft has an issue of not fully explaining things or not having a fully fleshed out vision for some of their ideas. But the biggest problem is sheep and fanboys because games have existed that were always on before Xbox One and nobody complained. The majority of this debate is fanboys and their lack of a life.
@Rain

The ability to toggle the connection on and off is what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with used games or activating the console. Just enhanced experience versus non-enhanced. But you're mistakenly if you believe the majority of this isn't just anti -Microsoft nonsense. This is mainly about fanboys and sheep. And a lack of character with far too many who ignore facts pretending it's about personal choice.

[CaptainObvious878]

It's because of complete and utter delusional ms fanboys like darth that I wish ms had kept their original draconian vision, so they could suffer through their policies the whole generation long.

Of course, normally I'd never wish ill on someone, but when they actively defend the worst gaming policies in the history of this great industry, they don't deserve the freedoms they currently have.

[GamingCentaur]

Forced Kinect bundling.

[Tallpine]

Don't forget mandatory kinect.

[DJStotty]

@Samfisher

to correct your points

Tv - all consoles involve tv now and both xbox one and ps4 still do.

Drm - that is why they only planned to launch the console in certain countries. Game sharing was a great idea and the only way to make that feasible was with some form of drm, otherwise 1 person could buy a copy and pass it around the world.

Trade in - Yes you could still trade in games, this is where people were misinformed and did no research. You would have been able to trade your games in at "selected stores" and then the stores purchased a new "license" from microsoft for the traded in game so they could resell. That was to tap into the pre-owned market and at least keep the developers with a little bit of support from the pre-owned market.

Most consoles have a launch price of around $500 regardless of power difference

[angelusbrz]

You're the kind of dude who will buy Shadow of Mordor micro-transaction lmao...

[FPS_D3TH]

Requirement that Kinect stays connected along with always online internet. First you're just cutting out a large playerbase by sticking to always online and 2nd the Kinect is known to be hackable. Doesn't help that Microsoft was involved with the NSA and information sharing. I know a big one among my friends was games not being shareable or traded.

[Nineball2112]

@ Fearmonkey
"Not being able to share games..... That Sony vid on how to share games on PS4 was hilarious."

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

LOL

[indyman7777]

Darthv72 what do you think Microsoft reversed course on? And why was everyone satisfied? You think it was all made up fanboyism? If so it would not have went away when Microsoft reversed course.

This is happening NOW in China after they reverse course in the USA and Europe.
A retail game can only be activated ONCE EVER which means it is worthless as a trade in or resale.
http://www.gamnesia.com/new...

https://arstechnica.com/gam...

[rainslacker]

@dc

yeah, i get what you were saying about enhanced with online, but I fail to see how that's relevant to the discussion here. YOu discuss the toggle, yet MS removed the switch. It's fine if they still have the toggle, and let people decide, but they weren't letting people do that, which is why I fail to see the relevance.

While they could still offer up some of those features in some places by including the option, they completely removed any stated advantage or reason for it's purpose when they did the 180's....or came out afterwards and said those would be a reason why it would be advantageous.

It was the lack of the option which made a bulk of their policies anti-consumer. For the other things, it was the shifting of advantage to the company rather than the consumer which made it anti-consumer.

There are plenty of things people are willing to accept on a case by case basis, which have all been cited as reasons why MS policies wouldn't have been a big deal, but all those citations ignore that it's always optional, while MS proposal was not.

I don't think this was something where it was mostly just the fan boys who were upset. There were people upset everywhere. Even on MS forums, where people with extensive gaming scores and a long history of being pro-MS were upset. Known Xbox fans on here(not the Xbox fan boys who were silent until they could be told what to argue much later by people who can spin things better than they can), were upset, or shocked. I was shocked, and I've been distrustful of MS longer than they've been in the console business...but I digress.

Kotaku, and every major media outlet was shocked, and they put the screws to MS. Were they anti-MS given that the whole gen they have been accused of being anti-Sony and paid off by MS? Kotaku in particular I thought would become a decent rag there for a bit as they really were harsh against MS over this. Were Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, GameSpot, all anti-MS publications? Was GameStop, despite being a likely benefactor in this scheme of MS being against the idea and actively moving people to PS4 an anti-MS company?

Sorry, but the notion is was some vocal minority is just wrong on so many levels, and I know you are better than that and smarter than that to make such an assertion. Even today, no one outside the most hardcore Xbox fan boy(and you now which is shameful) cares to try to defend MS over this stuff. Even MS doesn't try to defend it anymore.

[rainslacker]

@some others about trading in games

Perhaps you don't give people enough credit when you think people didn't understand what MS was trying to do here. Most people were well aware of how it worked.

Sure, MS had a system in place to trade/sell games. It was that system that was the problem. Why should anyone give MS, or the publishers, or the devs a cut of the money for a product they are selling? We already paid for that, and now we're selling that license. That's how it's been done with physical software for decades now, and while technically in the TOS it's not ours, see how well that plays out in a court of law, where expectation will triumph.

Publishers could have put a stop to used games long ago. The console makers could have put a stop to used games long ago. It wouldn't have been that hard. The reason they didn't is due to customer expectations. Those expectations are what drive sales, and if they don't meet them, then they lose sales. No matter how much the big gaming execs want used games to go away, they know they can't just strip people's rights, and hopefully now, they know that people won't want them as intermediaries to their arbitrary desires to make a profit off something they have no actual legal right to profit off of, as again, TOS really means next to nothing in a court of law, and these companies know they wouldn't win out in any attempt to try and enforce such a policy.

People already complain about GS trade in prices, imagine how paltry they'd be with MS getting a cut, then imagine how much of a hassle it'd be to do so individually for people like on Ebay. This service wasn't about giving back to the developers, it was about mitigating used game sales altogether, all while getting some profit in the process. They wanted trading/selling to be a hassle, so people wouldn't do it.

You think the prior 10 years of publisher bitching about used game sales was just some smoke? No, this was an attempt at reducing it to virtually nothing.

How, in any way can the actual practice be defended regardless of the intended purpose behind it though? What kind of consumers are you to just allow companies to take things away from you with open arms like that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Zero_Suit_Samus]

“they did listen to the feedback and went out of their way to address it."

As if they had a choice. If they didn’t address the issues it would’ve destroyed Xbox.

[BlackTar187]

Hell it still almost did.

[indyman7777]

Good point, and most people will not do business with someone they don't trust which is why they still lost a lot of customers. This is what put circuit city out of business.

[DarXyde]

I don't think it would bring about "the end of Xbox as we know it". Very likely would have hurt even its current sales considerably. If anything, they'd drop the Xbox One and move on to the next generation by now.

That aside, Mad Fellows certainly looks to either be a devil's advocate or partial to Xbox. I've been seeing them cropping up a bit in pro-Xbox articles; more than other developers anyway. That's no issue, but it does offer some perspective on their comments that might be perceived as unpopular. They mentioned something about strongly disliking the negativity surrounding One X before. I sincerely wasn't made aware of any "widespread outrage" that would warrant these statements.

[porkChop]

I'm glad they changed it back, but it was in fact a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. When they announced all those features, gamers freaked and said they wanted MS to remove them. So MS did remove them. And then many gamers who liked those features still freaked out because MS was taking the family sharing and such away. No matter what MS did, they were going to get a ton of backlash. I'm glad MS made the decision they did, but a lot of gamers weren't.

[WePlayDirty]

The amount of people who ‘liked’ those features warranted a such a situation: “alot”?? I dont’ believe you.

[indyman7777]

The people that liked the features did not understand that the 'Feature' to be able to share your game 10 times was actually less than infinite amount of times.

They didnt understand that a trade in activation 'feature' meant they could not resale without a retailer that had the ability to make it reusable for a FEE.

This whole article tells me that Microsoft has NOT learned a thing if they think they was damed if they retreated. Eventually all people would have the truth once they went to trade in a game. And everyone would go to PS4 only.

[Obscure_Observer]

Xbox looks promissing now. They need to release more first party games and new ips sure, but Spencer already said he will not talk or announce any Xbox exclusive too soon anymore.

Looks like the idea of Xbox exclusives on PC, really pay off. PC exclusives are now comming to Xbox as well. PUBG, Path of Exile and Black Desert will have their debut on consoles first on Xbox and i think the Xbox One X will benefit greatly from this trade.

[Kingthrash360]

Naw...there is no room for excuses anymore for ms this past e3 was do or die for them..they showed no new AAA ips for over 2 years now the new ip they had then was recore and that's only a AA game.... just no.. no more excuses...we hit nintendo hard due to lack of games, ms deserves that same hit....especially since they are the richest company in gaming.

[PFFT]

The fact of the matter is that the Xbox One X will not be lacking any games. Exclusive or otherwise. So it doesnt matter. It only matters to the Hardcore Sony fanboys that wont even buy one to begin with. Sure MS conforms too much no doubt and they have no new IP's BUT who cares? Early Access is doing wonders for them and it works. As long as i have Early access i am happy. Cant wait to get my hands on Conan and Playerunknowns Battlegrounds! Freaking HYPE!!!!!

[Obscure_Observer]

@Kingtrash360

You made some valid points which i do agreed. But, "do or die"? What´s that supposed to mean? Did you sold your Xbox One after E3, Kingtrash? Did you? Have you trade it your Xbox One by some PS4 exclusive games?

No offence, but, are we dealing with hipocrisy, here? You said you´re all about the truth, right? Answer the question, i´ll wait.

[letsa_go]

What really pisses me off about Microsoft, is that they are sitting on so many great franchises and not doing anything with them. I mean, they have Age of Empires, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Banjo Kazooie, Battletoads, RC Pro Am, Blood Wake, Conker, Crimson Skies, Fable, Fuzion Frenzy, Hydro Thunder, Jet Force Gemini, Kameo, Mech Warrior, Monster Truck and Motorcross Madness, Perfect Dark, Rallysport Challenge, Snake Rattle & Roll, Viva Pinata, and Wizards and Warriors. Like what the hell? That would be an amazing game library if they released just half of them! Or a quarter of them! Instead, they give us the annual forza, with gears and halo sprinkled in. Who wanted Crackdown 3 anyway???

[zerocarnage]

Games are coming, just because one doesn't have as many exclusives as the other console dev so what, the approach is different between them all.

How many console exclusives make it big compared to third party's, really it's no where near as many it's a risky business.

I've not once ever said to myself my Xbox needs more exclusives, why because there ha e been so many games I've had choice over that have gripped me and 90% have been third party's.. Yeah I said 90% but do you know what that was the same when I owned Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, I've always preferred thirds over first.

This whole charade that haters and fanboys keep on pumping out that a console needs exclusives is absoloute rubbish, if that was the case neither the xb1 or ps4 would of solt the first two years we all knew it was nothing but remastered games.

The game preview ms have is ace also,sure a game is unfinished and in early stages but devs can bring games on early, I picked up fortnite and I'm loving it, not played anything else as of late, I'll also be getting Conan exiles this wednesday.

People say Xbox doesn't have games, you lot who say that need your heads checking, that's like me saying McDonald's doesn't do bigmacs and sell them by the millions each day.

[Kingthrash360]

I never said anything about me selling anything. It was do or die for ms...they boasted about power...hell they boasted about having big games....it was do or die. People are tired of waiting for games for a gaming console. People may not be selling xboxone but people aren't too keen on buying an xboxone or xboxone x either. It's been the worst generation of xbo history

[DJStotty]

i cant speak for you but i dont have a lack of games, exclusive or third party

[jznrpg]

Looks the same to much worse, they stop support of their consoles quickly, actually less games than last gen by a lot and some old or bs

[Rude-ro]

Phil also said they want to focus on first party game and not keep content off of other consoles...
So if they are talking about third party games that are a year away from releasing with an exclusive window but stay mum on first party games... how far away are they?

That is the continuing issue... pr statements that they go against constantly

[BlackTar187]

Funny to say it's paying off for them then go on to say most of those games will come to other consoles as well.

That doesn't spark the same intent you're implying with them getting them cause of PC inclusion into the system.

[Kyizen]

PUBG, PoE, and Black Desert are all coming to PS4 so using MS term exclusive is not right. Console first yes but not exclusive by any means.

[rainslacker]

I think as far as the system goes, it's much more attractive than it was at/before launch, but realistically, their complete lack of focus on the software front is making it much worse overall. Not just the "lack of games", but also the all over the place message of what exactly the Xbox brand, and it's related software, really is. MS is pushing Xbox as a service to help bolster windows and their own software sales, but it puts the Xbox in a position of is it an Xbox platform, or a Windows platform or both.

While no matter the answer to the above question, it should be fine, it's the lack of clarity on what the brand means which makes it a harder thing to really get behind. MS is using Xbox to push windows, and MS is using Xbox to push gaming on windows. They're playing both sides of the fence, which might be OK except that it doesn't really give much identity to either brand itself. The commonly stated, "It's a windows platform" to throw away this "exclusive" notion we see of late, isn't helping the Xbox brand itself, and to me, that seems to devalue the nature of the hardware and Xbox brand itself.

To top it all off, while the X1 isn't really lacking games when you look at the entire line up of games to come, MS actual game software output and apparent commitment of resources is paltry compared to what we saw the first couple years and before launch. We went from MS having 5-6 "exclusive"(no matter how you define it) games, some of them new IP's(1st or 2nd party who really cares?), to having 2 major games they're promoting....2 of which they've had included in the aforementioned 5-6. There is a definate deviation from their prior software quantity compared to earlier this gen, and to me, it's undeniable.

While I understand that MS may not want to show them off too early, that only makes sense to do on a business level when you have plenty of other things to show. I think a lot of people right now are doubting what they'll have to offer in the future, and MS is to blame for not showing us. Trying to take a road of only showing later because somehow some people appreciate it more, and don't want the same criticism of their competition isn't helping them, it's hurting them. A lot of people aren't going to buy the X1 of any form without something to look forward to. While some still will of course, they're simply losing sales with this tactic. This is one case where they need to ignore the bitching of the community, and give the potential customers something to look forward to.

[DJStotty]

Well i am getting the xbox one x on day one. (As soon as preorders open)

I have never thought to myself "i wish this had more exclusives", the exclusives i have for xbox one i enjoy and primarily play third party games.

I'm happy with my choice and so are all the other xbox owners. If they werent wouldnt "needs more exclusives" be near the top of the requested items?

They have a program where you can request a feature and exclusives is nowhere on it, ill drop this here

https://xbox.uservoice.com/...

If you want more exclusives or you think MS need more exclusives, get it requested or stop throwing toys around

[zerocarnage]

Yeah ms are doing great bringing more pc games to Xbox. Conan exiles Wednesday coming looks great.

I have always been a fan of the approach ms have taken, to me a console doesn't need exclusives galore, just need games and the Xbox has them.

I'd rather exclusives get announced anyway when they're ready or near enough, I hate announcements only to see a game get delayed over and over and my looking forward to a game turning into an I can't now be bothered with it.

I've always been happy with my Xbox a d that's what counts to me.

[DJStotty]

Also full mouse and keyboard support is apparently coming to the xbox one, which hopefully will translate into more strategy games coming over to xbox one which i have requested and been pushing for lol.

used to be addicted to games like command and conquer, dune 2000, age of empires, civilization etc

[EddieNX]

They got too cocky after 360 and thought they could do shit like DRM and mandatory connect... Theyve gone to shit tbh, as much as I loved Halo 5 and the Forza games, Gears etc...

[Krysis]

I don't think they've gone to shit, I do think they have a huge identity crisis and need to figure out what they are trying to accomplish and stick with it.

[Cmv38]

I've said before the biggest issue with the xb1 was its identity. Especially after several 180s. No the xbx seems to have identity, as simply the strongest console. Not sure that's enough, wasn't enough in the ps2s2 era.

[rainslacker]

There is an obvious lack of direction with the XBox brand right now. Either that, or MS isn't making their direction obvious.

I think the fact that one can question if it's an Xbox platform, a Windows platform, or both, highlights that the Xbox brand itself is in a state of flux. Whether that is due to an actual lack of direction, or a direction passed down from MS higher ups I couldn't say, but it's apparent that the Xbox brand isn't quite what it used to be.

While I would never say that the brand always has to stay the same, it should always have it's own identity that people can connect with, as it helps bolster confidence with the brand itself, thus leading to more sales of the hardware, and eventually the software.

Even now, despite the "no players left behind", MS seems more focused on future ambitions than trying to make this gen what it should have been for the Xbox players. The lack of hardware wasn't the problem early on, because they did have some good games to go with it to drive interest in lieu of that. But now, the lack of software overall is going to hurt the X1X more. Given that even MS doesn't seem to know, or at least won't really say, where the brand is going, I can't see why anyone would invest in the platform regardless of what it is. Maybe some games to come? Fine, but what are they? Better multi-plats....that might appeal to some, but overall, you're still spending a lot of money on a brand with no clear direction for future support.

[PhoenixUp]

I wish Nintendo were as attentive and aggressive in fixing Wii U's flaws as Microsoft was with Xbox One

[DivineAssault]

They thought they could do whatever they wanted & run the industry.. Glad that was halted.. M$ is mostly greedy corporate fools that only care about numbers.. Force a kinect on people.. Have no physical media. Hyping TV.. Region locked. So many dumb decisions.. Now if they went back to the old way when the original xbox had sega exclusives and they had bigger variety of genre's i wouldnt mind getting it.. I refuse just for GTA clones, shooters, & racing games..

[FallenAngel1984]

You mean "more damned if they don't"

[ApocalypseShadow]

Microsoft's original course for the console industry had to be thwarted at all costs. Not just for themselves but for gamer's rights above bad corporate policies, misleading statements and trickery. They got cocky from throwing money around trying to control their image through the media by buying off journalists with swag bags and advertising. Leading to ridiculous PS3 comparison videos where sites like game trailers were caught either doctoring images or deleting comments or threads from the backlash. Or sites like Gamespot giving lower reviews on PS3 titles because of "too much variety." Or sites like Edge that almost always gave Sony titles a lower score. EGM magazine with images of tossing tomatoes at PS3. The outright negative behavior was above and beyond any previous generation because of payouts and free laptops,consoles,games and marketing dollars.

Internally, they introduced pay to play with no benefit of free games to try. Then raised the fee in 2010 with no benefit. But still had things like Netflix behind paywalls. Abandoned core gamers for kinect. Abandoned the 360 and took titles over to Xbox one to front load its launch. Then tried to sell the idea that they were a media giant like Sony who offer movies, music, TV and games because they **MAKE** them and pushed TV TV TV while trying to get rid of the used game market and personal control of your physical media like on PC, offered a camera to watch you for advertising dollars and wanted you to log in every 24 hours to check if your games were legal. And thought that somehow, the whole world games online when half don't even play online or are connected.

No, they needed to be stopped. They may have sold third parties on the idea of DLC because content didn't fit on a DVD like it would have on a Bluray disc. But everything else was wrong that needed countering fast. And if anyone thinks you would be sharing your games with other gamers,THINK AGAIN. Third parties want to make money, not give it away. One game shared across multiple Xboxs is a ridiculous notion. Case in point: third parties are still not on board play anywhere because that would mean giving away a free PC copy. Good for gamers yes. But companies aren't crazy.

Either they turned things around fast or Xbox would have been out of business before 10 million consoles were sold this gen. It's only through the only face at Microsoft that seems less arrogant and corrupt that Phil has gotten some gamers to come back. While Larry, Aaron and Major Nelson have had their mouths shut. How do you share your games this gen? **Any way you like.** You can thank Sony and true Xbox fans with a brain for stopping that train wreck that would have unbalanced the competitiveness of the industry. Or having Microsoft in full control of it. Don't try and create revisionist history to make any of what they were thinking was good.

[The_Sage]

Very well said. I think you hit every nail right on the head.

[LoveSpuds]

👏👏👏 absolutely spot on squire. The thing is, you only have to look at their corporate practices in other markets to see how they would treat the gaming community.

[Destiny1080]

the game sharing thing was just a one hour demo, anyone from your family can download any of your games and demo them for an hour, it would have started with Microsoft only titles and then expanded if third party's allowed

they can still introduce this if they wanted

[russo121]

Resume, comments and opinion well formulated. Better than this is impossible. Thank you for your clarification.

[Dragonscale]

Yup. In a nutshell.

[Relientk77]

It was their own fault

[Cobra951]

*Looks at the calendar*

Time warp? OK, then here's more news: The Civil Rights Act has been enacted. General Lee surrendered at Appomattox.

[stuna1]

And who may I ask put them there??

[bluefox755]

A situation of their own making.

[The_Sage]

They were more interested in monopolizing your living room than they were with gaming, so many gamers were rightfuly upset.

[akaFullMetal]

They kind of damned themselves with their release reveal.

[jznrpg]

Totally their own doing, they thought they were the shit and could make gamers swallow any pill they were offering.

[Miss_Weeboo]

That's bullsht people praise whenever a company do the right thing. I don't see people complaining about Xbox One BC (some might say "well I want new games, bla bla" whatever, but they don't actually criticize the feature. Because it's a good thing being able to play old games you already own: everyone likes that).

[BlackTar187]

BC is a great feature no doubt and one I hope Sony adopts again next console.

I agree with you no one says BC is bad just that it shouldn't be the best feature/most talked about thing on your system

Put it on the table it's still just old games.

[BlackTar187]

@pfft

Yo soak in that MS love with old games and let sony fans soak in that Sony love with exclusive award winning games literally yearly,

[MagicBeanz]

Well lets be honest Microsoft isn't the only game related company to ever be in that situation.

[rainslacker]

Nowadays, most people and companies are usually in that kind of situation, because no matter what they do, there will always be people who want to be upset.

Of course, this time I feel the criticism was justified, while most of the time it's just things blown out of proportion, and people whining about stuff they have no real clue about.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

The title seems to suggest that Microsoft isn't still in a damned if do damned if you don't situation... Sorry, but they still are and it's because of the path they've chosen.

[HeyNowChillax]

So uh, wtf is up with X1X not available for preorder yet? Anyone hear any news on that?

[Rude-ro]

Probably still trying to figure out how to build it... hardware is not their cup of tea

[mogwaii]

Aaero dev are on the ms D.

[defiance187]

To all the people talking about always online. Sony and Microsoft might as well be always online because both companies and third party push games out on disc missing key data that then forces you to connect and download ao that you can access the game. I am a believer that Sony had the same plan, otherwise why have mandatory installs. Sony was wise to do 180 and it pretty much sealed this gen in their favor. The industry is still headed this way. It was just slowed down a bit. I still think all they needed to do was only make checkins mandatory for game sharing. If not online in specified period sharing off. Also they had a system in place for trading games ect. Thats shits definately not happening now. That was a concession for a hard rollout of digital only. With a soft roll over the next few years there will be no concession from either company and ownership will be lost. It's pretty much gone already.

[rainslacker]

Funny how they can offer all that stuff without the requirement isn't it?

It's not a matter of if there are a lot of people do it or not, it's a matter of MS made it so you absolutely had to be in order for the system to function for the purposes people brought it for. As of right now, the systems will still function, and people can play any software that doesn't require a connection.

There is no, "well it might as well have been". As a consumer, you should be saying, "why is it even necessary to mandate?". Look at it from a consumer perspective, then look at the entire user base who may potentially run into problems with this, and when you come to have some empathy for any number of scenarios where the consumer could be hampered by this policy, instead of just accepting something that you see as inevitable so why not, then maybe you'll understand why it's a bad thing.

As of today, not a single one of my games on any system requires me to log in to play it....even my digital titles. I don't play MP. If I did, I'd accept I have to log in to play that portion of the game, but there are many scenarios that come up every year where such a feature would hinder my play time, because the internet is nowhere near where it should be, and I'd rather forgo the occasional inconvenience when it isn't necessary to have in the first place.

They could still have a system in place to trade games if they wanted. There was no reason that had to be stripped out for digital games. THey did so because they were sore losers. If you want that, go demand it. Stop blaming others for MS making poor choices for the larger physical consumer who didn't need any help from MS to sell their games.

If you accept ownership as already lost then so be it. I don't, and will always fight for it. The X1 BS policies delayed a lot of your inevitable future, and the companies can go back to floundering around trying to find new ways to trick the consumer into giving away their rights as opposed just just trying to peddle such a thing as the best thing ever. I'd rather make these companies work for that future if it's what they want, because if we don't, what we end up getting will be terrible.

[defiance187]

Disagree not sore losers. No incentive. I don't really have a dog in this race though. Been on PC pretty much since this gen started. I had one of each but gave the xbone to my kids and sold the ps4. I only rreally sold the ps4 cuz I could get more out of it. It's already 90%digital. I guess I didn't do a good job of articulating my point though. I really just meant that I couldnt imagine owning one without an Internet connection. It would be a paper weight. Always online is bullshit. But it is going there whether or not anyone likes it or not. Its just the direction these companies are headed. Also if you read your eula's and pamphlets inside your game cases you dont own your games already. They are just licenses to use the software. If these companies could police you selling the physical licences (discs) they would. I do understand it's a bad thing. I wasn't advocating for it nor do I want it. I want finished games on disc without required patches. I want to own my games again. I was just pointing out that we dont. Also all game companies are involved in these anti consumer practices and no where did I blame anyone for Microsoft's blunder.

[BLKxSEPTEMBER]

Whoever thinks that a all digital future is not coming your in for a rude surprise. I had no problem with what MS was trying to do but I go all digital anyway. I can see how always online can be an issue for some but I mean who really has their consoles offline these days? The TV push was a little much and Kinect being forced was also a bad move but other than that I was fine with what MS was doing. Hell Sony pushes TV service now but i guess its ok right?...

[Razzer]

Sony didn't design its hardware around TV. There is no HDMI input port on PS4. TV damn near dominated the conversation and Xbox One's reveal. Sony hasn't come close to that.

But I do agree that all digital is coming eventually.

[WePlayDirty]

Physical will always be a reality.

[Tetsujin]

An all digital future will never happen for 2 reasons:

1 - Not everyone has reliable, fast, Internet whenever they want (and some still don't have Internet connection). So some markets have to rely on physical media in order to get some sort of fan base.

2 - Net Neutrality goes under, ISP can easily say, "No, we don't like X and Y games on our service" and ban/block access, forcing customers to basically be stuck with software they can't use because someone else said they didn't like it.

[Captain_J_Sheridan]

Point is, Microsoft never felt "we screwed up" they just thought "not yet" so yeah no one wants to buy consoles from them anymore now that they know what their plans are in the long run

[_LarZen_]

Microsoft should never have changed their plans. Again and again we see that these vocal gamers are totally under representative of the larger gaming community. It may have been Microsoft was a bit early with their always online console in 2013.

But today something like that would make sense as more and more services are online based. Where games are services of their own.

It's coming that's for sure. But if it's Microsoft that does it first remains to be seen.

[rainslacker]

BS. The vocal gamers were the overwhelming bulk of the community. Those that now say they should have done it were barely to be seen in any forum.

Let MS try this again, and those like you that support such things can then come in with your arguments which you didn't 4 years ago and try to make your case, and MS can completely bomb in the console market. The Xbox fan boy back then was nary to be seen outside those that were like, "WTF MS".

Vocal gamers or not, it was the consumer who wasn't pre-ordering the X1. MS didn't change their policies until after they saw the pre-order numbers. Before that, they ignored the vocal gamers, and made excuses for why it should be present. MS didn't listen to feedback, they listened to sales numbers. Numbers speak louder than words to MS, and most companies really.

MS can try again. Some other company can try again. I imagine for the foreseeable future, the'll be met with the same criticism. If anything, MS delayed all this as now companies are not going to be so forthcoming with their plans, or much more hesitant to try to implement them, and will try to push this always connected BS in subtler ways, like publishers were doing last gen with digital, and how MS is now with GaaS being more relevant despite not commanding the largest percentage of total gaming revenue across the board.

MS not only screwed up themselves, they screwed up years of subtle, and sometimes not so subtle attempts from the bigger game industry execs who were trying to get people to accept this crap before MS tried to mandate it.

[Godmars290]

Sadly, the real test is going to be when Sony or even Nintendo try something similar.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

@Larzen
What you meant to say that the all digital future is coming to Xbox Live as a service and if you're an Xbox fan you'd better get used to having limited control over your games. Xbox Game Pass is just the beginning.

[yeahright2]

Except MS didn't listen to those gamers at all. They waited until hey saw horrible preorder numbers and only then changed. So no, it wasn't a vocal minority, it was the silent majority as well
Further, it wasn't *just* always online. It was also no used games, forced Kinect jacking up the price to make it more expensive than a more powerful machine, ok, share games but pay us a fee, the shadiness with machinima "reviews" of the console. Them shopping around Kinect to advertisers using their own fanbase as cattle. etc.

[Godmars290]

"To Microsoft’s credit, despite it completely disrupting their launch, they did listen to the feedback and went out of their way to address it."

Thing is, that feedback came months before E3. They only started listening once pre-orders started being canceled.

[ZombieKiller]

Regardless, they did it to themselves with the new policies that they wanted to implement.

[windblowsagain]

Ms should have waited till they could have a beast. Now they have a Underpowered 4k machine, that needs dynamic scaling and other methods in AAA games to reach 4k.

It's processor is just a big faster then PS4pro.

It will flop.

[BIGBOSS08]

The brand is still in a huge mess. The Xbox brand needs it's own identity. You can see microsoft not even trying to compete with Sony anymore because they know they can't. You can't compete with the playstation brand at the top of its game. It doesn't matter what you do. They need to rebuild the brand with fresh new successful ip, consumer friendliness and treating gamers with respect instead of brainless robots. Lose the corporate pr bullshit and speak to your audience like real people.

[DoubleM70]

Uhmmm why are we still talking about this crap in 2017? The X is about to drop (criickets) Why because people still like to B8**.

[Blu3_Berry]

Microsoft knew that if they didn't revert those changes, they would have lost a ton of support and consumers. Granted it is a win for us, but alot of the damage was done already after e3 with Sony announcing their price point being $100 cheaper, no online check-in every 24hrs, supports used games, trade it, sell it or keep it forever. After that announcement, the damage was done. There was only so much Microsoft could do to damage control it but they lost alot of people there including me.

[InTheZoneAC]

damned if they make games? K............................. ...........

[nRicosS]

Wow so many article about Aaero Dev

[GamingCentaur]

Poor Microsoft.
/s

[NeoGamer232]

Last generation it was Sony. The launch console was over-priced, lacked games, and introduced a lousy network that did not have trophies are pretty much any features for the first two to three years.

This generation MS was over-priced and introduced game and network features that tied it to online only.

I am not sure either company meant any ill-will to gamers and they were just trying to innovate. Gamers tend to be overly harsh on every company. What they don't realize is that the ill will makes companies behave in very negative ways.

[mrdeli]

The Xbone launch taught me three major things: 1) Amazing products like Xbox 360 were built and led by a passionate team. That team had left, and the Xbox One was the result. 2) Marketing influence can hurt a beloved product. Compare the system blade of Xbox 360 to the ad-laden UI of Xbox One. 3) I was an idiot with my money. Xbox managed to sell me a not really functional Kinect -- twice!

[Labtest]

Wait and see

[headblackman]

ms set out to do those things that everyone's talking about in the comments, but they never happened! it was all reversed before the release of the console. so how can a person get mad and hold a grudge about something that never happened. ms heard the anger, felt the sting of people voting with their wallets, they didn't do what the people didn't like, and they've been on a good track since. the only real downside to the release of the x1 was forcing kinect on the consumers. they took away the right for the to choose and it ended up causing the system to cost way more than it should. i say way more than it should, because of it being the weaker system between it and the ps4. but even with that error, they heard the people, fixed the problem, and have been constantly improving daily. so there's no more reason for the hate other than fanboy's looking to see the destruction of the xbox company because they think that it will make their console the only console to claim the top spot because they don't see the nintendo system as a real threat like the ms xbox is. ms has the money and the know how and it scares the company and their fans, so they will do whatever it takes to secure their console (even keep false hatred going). but those kind of people aren't real gamers. they're just people who just like to have a sense of being on a side that helps them to feel like they're on a winning side.

SAD :-/