"Microsoft did a big mistake by listening to customers", says Jesse Schell

Veteran game designer Jesse Schell just shared his idea that listening to users regarding the DRM policy change was a mistake by Microsoft.

[aaron5829]

Wha...??!?!

You can be Steam if you want to... But i just wanna borrow some games from my friends and vice versa...

[HammadTheBeast]

If they want to be steam, the need to go all the way or go home. Prices need to drop hard, major sales need to happen, discounts, steam-type rewards etc.

[zeal0us]

Honestly if Microsoft kept the drm, I highly doubt we would've seen sales or even the standard price of games drop.

When people like Schell used the Steam comparison they obviously not seeing the big picture. For one, major publishers like EA, Capcom, Activision isn't going to drop their prices even if Microsoft go "Steam". Just look at some of their games on Steam. Sure those publishers' older games are cheap but their newly released games are usually priced at $60.

[Shadonic]

Thats the thing too people say that this would of lead to sales and stuff like steam but when you really add in the fact that its Microsoft its highly doubtful. I mean they were the only guys being payed for there service for years before PS plus and they still gave us basically crap.

This isnt the players fault alone, its MS's as well because of there absolutly horrible description of the service while leaving out how easy it actually would of been with the DRM when everyone has a kinect and such.

[zeee]

No offence but Jesse Schell just made a big mistake by thinking that MS reversed DRM because they listened to gamers. They did that because of poor pre-orders. The numbers weren't there and they were FORCED to change their stance.

[Insomnia_84]

They went to the neighbor's home lol looks like the neighbors were doing much better and decided to stick with them.

[torchic]

@zee

yup you're spot on. Microsft listened to the Excel spreadsheet with projected sales over the next 12-18 months

had Xbox One pre-orders been close with PS4 pre-orders it would still have all the original features like DRM, no indie self-publishing, family share etc.

[JackBNimble]

Zeee
Is it not the gamers who place the pre-orders?

[Kayant]

Exactly what they did was half assed. The cost/distribution of physical disc was still there. Physical disc were just becoming digital copies to limit customer control, the used market and reduce piracy with the 24 hr checks.

When they release a console with no disc drive then they are fully digital then maybe we will get cheaper prices, discounts etc like steam until then they should offer options to consumers not forcibly turn physical copies to digital copies when these same games were going to be available day on digitally anyway.

[The_Con-Sept]

I booed the announcement of the DRM policy at my screen at home when I heard this. Even though I did not plan on buying the Xbox one anyway I still got angered by this DRM policy. And I am glad that it was abolished. But for someone to say they made a mistake by retracting the DRM? No. This guy I will not listen to. I won't respect his opinion, and I won't respect his ideals.

Forcing that type of DRM only makes me lose another right to gaming that has yet to be protected.

Good bye Jesse.

[JokesOnYou]

Its funny because the biggest anti-drm talking point is "I don't want to give up my rights" then the same people acknowledge Steam is great but only because Steam is cheaper....which of course is true. So lets come down off the moral high horse and put this into perspective, the "my rights" propaganda was BS if its just really about price. Micro was right digital is the future but like I said they screwed up the message by not giving the consumer tangible incentive up front, basicly they just came out and said "hey no more used games", if they would have said "hey no more used games but here are the benefits you get in return" then I think the strategy would have been widely accepted. Also saying just do everything on the digital side is not as simple as it sounds because now that creates more management of a two tier policy structure, theres alot that goes into making everything mesh behind the scenes, and is it beneficial for them, however I suspect at least some of their original plans will be back as they have stated publicly.

[redwin]

That's why I'm getting the Xbox, it's a cross between steam and the 360. And I'm going to down load all my games. Hopefully they'll be rereleased a few weeks before the physical game.

[trafalger]

it does sound like an oxymoron telling us m$ made a mistake by listening to there customers. but if you do sit back and think rationally and take a deep breath there is some credibility to what the author says, even if i dont agree with it.

article,
"Why is it that big companies fail when the technology changes? It happens in every industry, so what's the pattern? What are they all doing wrong? Everyone says, 'Oh, it's because they're stupid."

they might not be stupid but it would be stupid to alienate your customers and that is how some feel when they make comments like buy a x360 if you want to be offline. but when you look at someone such as nintendo you get the feeling they are too wrapped up in history. it hurt them with the rise in hd as it put them behind in development. it hurt them with the explosion of online gaming as we can see with many features still being years behind.

it does take a bold move to change direction. look at how aggressive m$ was with kinect. some may argue they had to do that to make it successful. they spent a lot of money on advertising where many thought should have been put in game development. there needs to be a balance and instead of having kinect as an additional concept it looked like m$ held back on making new games and shifted focus. can you imagine if sony did that with the vita and stopped ps3 game development? did nintendo balance wii game development while supporting the 3ds properly? m$ had less of an excuse, they dont have a handheld market to support. even now many dont see many benefits with kinect. at least when it comes to gaming.

article,
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different."

true and false. some new games like dishonored did fairly well. but games like tomb raider had very vocal supporters and non-supporters. that had a mixed crowd. the new devil may cry had a very vocal fanbase that hated the changes but it ended up being a good game. so to generalize doesnt do much good but there is some truth in it. many of us complain about call of duty each year but it ends up being the top seller. we are our own worse enemies and all these sequels show that. but at the same time you need an established franchise to help push hardware sales. gamers want that familiarity buying next generation hardware. they want new and created games but also known titles like killzone and forza for example. the hardcore wants both it seems. would a game like the last of us have succeeded like it did if we didnt know naughty dog was behind it? probably but having that name recognition certainly doesnt hurt and new intellectual properties can be hit and miss. yet on the other hand titanfall is getting lots of attention for its fun gameplay. the media will certainly help sell that title from feedback, otherwise it being a new game might be ignored.

it is true that m$ will have a harder time than someone like valve and steam. history has shown m$ is not as eager to drop prices (look at hardware prices and how hesitant they are at price drops). many fear software wont drop like it does on steam. its a bit more complicated because of the retail end and partnerships. that makes it more difficult for consoles.

if games like destiny show real benefits or forza then gamers will naturally gravitate to that ecosystem. they just dont like being told you have to be connected and not know why. its far easier for apple to sell songs online because they never sold cd's. they dont have that hurdle. steam didnt sell hard copies and then move to digital. but what they did do is offer consumers a good alternative with more affordable prices, unlike the xbox store.

[SilentNegotiator]

Consoles will NEVER be like steam.

Steam exists on an open platform where it must be competitive with other services. Once you buy a console, your only option to buy games is through one service, but when you have a PC you have lots of options.

Unfortunately, we will continue to see idiots beg for Microsoft to give them DRM because of this misconception.

[H0RSE]

@zeee

"No offence but Jesse Schell just made a big mistake by thinking that MS reversed DRM because they listened to gamers. They did that because of poor pre-orders. The numbers weren't there and they were FORCED to change their stance."

- I see this argument a lot and all I can say is, who cares? Who cares why they changed it? Are laws being broken as a result? Is criminal or malicious or violent activity taking place as a result? No? Then who cares...

A good thing happened for many gamers. MS either changed or removed like 90% of the things people were upset about - gamers essentially got what they wanted. You should be happy....but no...people like you still have to find a way to turn it into a negative event - this is MS after all...

MS is a business, and thus, they made a business decision, that happen to be an overall positive one - accept it for what it is. MS is not some non-profit charity running off donations, so I wouldn't be too upset when decisions are made from a business perspective, rather than a humanitarian one.

[Dee_91]

Just read the article...
This guy just like to hear his self talk..
Apparently to him any change is positive change, and since consumers were against an anti consumer policy, we want MSFT to not change anything... WTH is this dude going on about.

@H0RSE
We care why they changed it because if they changed it for the wrong reasons, they don't see why their policies were bad, which means they are ignorant to what the consumers want, which means that down the line they may try to pull something similar again.
Imagine a murderer apologizing for a murder because he got caught... yea.

I see this "MS is a business" argument all the time.What you fail to realize is that companies know that its a partnership with its consumers, because without the consumers they will fail.They cant just say , f' all consumers and some how still make money.

[SilentNegotiator]

@H0RSE
"I see this argument a lot and all I can say is, who cares?"

Maybe because there's a major distinction between the two? In one situation, they listened to their customers, and in the situation grounded in reality, they did not.

They got caught with their pants down, not deciding to listen to the very loud majority.

[H0RSE]

@Dmarc
"We care why they changed it because if they changed it for the wrong reasons, they don't see why their policies were bad, which means they are ignorant to what the consumers want, which means that down the line they may try to pull something similar again.
Imagine a murderer apologizing for a murder because he got caught... yea."

What a completely inaccurate and pointless rebuttal...

First off, whether directly or in-directly, there decisions come down to the wants of the consumer, since consumers fuel their revenue. So regardless if MS changed their stance due to simply wanting to make the X1 more marketable and try to gain more customers, or if they changed due to a guilty conscience and feeling sorry for offending the playerbase, it doesn't matter - consumers were a result for the change either way, so the "ignorance" you see, is largely subjective.

Second, the murderer analogy...really poor example...

MS wasn't caught being involved in illegal activities, effectively "forcing" them to change their stance - they did so on their own. It was a choice they made. So to make your analogy more accurate, it would be like a murderer turning himself in, but not because he felt guilty for what he did, but rather because he was sick of running from the cops and he thought this may result in a shortened sentence.
--

@SilentNegotiator
"Maybe because there's a major distinction between the two? In one situation, they listened to their customers, and in the situation grounded in reality, they did not."

But as I listed above, it comes down to the customer one way or another. Either directly - "sorry you don't like the features, we're going to change them specifically for that reason,"

or in-directly - "our numbers aren't where we'd like them, so lets change the less desirable features to try and boost them."

In either case, you the customer, were a result for the change.
---

"They got caught with their pants down, not deciding to listen to the very loud majority."

Again, your point? MS had a poor explanation for the initial policies of the X1, which led to an embarrassing PR shitstorm along with confusion, frustration and extreme backlash from the community, which in turn, whether for moral or business reasons, resulted in MS doing an "about face" and changing much of the features customers weren't happy with. I'm not really seeing the "sinister plot ending" that I should be upset with...

[Dee_91]

@Horse
Apparently you dont see the major distinction between the two reeasons.Some people including myself do.If your too stubborn to see how and why we think theres a distinct difference why are you asking? I mean its obvious your not trying to see how and why people think theres a diffrence between the two because you basically just reworded your first comment.

Btw
How is your analogy any different from mine?The murderer still doesnt apologize for the murder.
People saying things they dont understand is pointless and doesnt make seems to be becoming the norm on here.

[Kryptix]

@HORSE

Like Dmarc is saying, listening to your consumers is different than waiting till preorder numbers to drop. Remember, a business cannot profit without it's consumers and when a consumer's comments get ignored, they turn around because they're not guaranteed to get what they want as soon as possible. If Microsoft would of listened, I could guarantee you that they would of announced the removal of the DRM before E3 and that would of been much more respectable versus waiting till pre order numbers to drop and having that to help you make a decision. It shows Microsoft do not know what the consumers want, what if they do another mistake in the future? Are they going to wait a month for sales numbers and make a decision off that? Bring up something really dislikable in the beginning of the month then wait a whole month to change it? I would of rather see Microsoft make quick fast decisions based on consumer critism rather than to take longer for sales charts to be presented at a meeting. Consumers know best, and guess what? They were right the whole time before the first pre order numbers popped up for the console. If they would of listened, trust me, most of this negativity would of died a long time ago. Most of it is because MS takes too long to give answers. They need to listen more and they'll do much better and that would mean more consumers for them.

[ShinMaster]

Microsoft DIDN'T LISTEN to their customers. You'd be naive to believe that.
They saw how terrible they were doing in the pre-sale market. People were pre-ordering the PS4 almost tenfold. It's about the money.

Not saying Sony isn't doing things for the money as well, after all, they are a business. But there are good and bad ways to do it.
Make your product appealing to your target audience = Good.
Make your product a hostile anti-consumer machine for profit = Not as good.

[DigitalRaptor]

@ JokesOnYou

Please stop these distractions rather than focussing on the point at hand.

Steam IS a great service which came at the cost of true ownership if you decide to use that service. Steam is not a gaming machine though is it? Steam the most popular, but it is not a PC or a Mac's exclusive point of sale (well it is for certain games, but that's not the point). You can buy games from GOG.com, Humble store and other no-DRM outlets. You can buy discs, and use them on your PC, or Mac or on Linux.

It's not comparable. Microsoft's DRM plan meant afford the consumer zero choice if they wanted Xbox One. The only point of sale is the Xbox Store. You couldn't have bought non-DRM versions of games on XBox One. It was a stranglehold, nothing less. And they wouldn't have offered benefits to counter any negative reaction. The game sharing was never going to be what people were led to believe. People reacted how they should have for something that was forced system-wide DRM on a gaming console, that doesn't have the same benefits or flexibility of a computer.

[HammadTheBeast]

No well said bubble yet?

Wow, tough crowd lol.

[LastDance]

You don't DO a mistake. You MAKE a mistake.

Moron. Grade A journalist can't even use grammar correctly

[H0RSE]

@Dmarc
Wow...is there really this much miscommunication between us?! Jesus Christ.. let's try breaking this down...

"Apparently you dont see the major distinction between the two reeasons..."

- I do see the distinctions. I figured this was evident in the fact that I explain the 2 viewpoints and their differences, numerous times, in my posts.
---

"If your too stubborn to see how and why we think theres a distinct difference why are you asking?"

- The word that sticks out here is "thinks."
You say, " why we THINK theres a distinct difference." Are you implying that you (and others) simply "believe" there is a difference, even if there actually isn't?

As I mentioned, I know the differences. If you would have read the first paragraph from my first post, you would have seen that it isn't about me not seeing the differences, it's about me not caring about them, because in the context of the situation, I see the end result - MS changing their policies - more important than their reasoning for why they did it.

As a result of their "change of heart," no orphans died, no criminal act was perpetrated, no malicious or violent activity took place as a result, so what really is the big deal?
The only reasoning I can think of that people would be so upset, is because they feel neglected and/or worthless, like MS didn't give enough of a shit about them or their opinion to care, until after it stared effecting them personally.

If that is it (and I really hope it isn't) that is such a trivial, juvenile take on the situation, and only a individual with an over-inflated sense of self importance could take things in such a personal manner, where essentially "getting what you want" (MS's change in polices) amounts to nothing, because of the "principle" of the manner...is this really an issue of being upset because your feeling were hurt, and MS didn't acknowledge it? I really hope it isn't that petty.

The end result is the focal point, so I don't care if MS personally shook the hands of every disappointed and offended gamer, and offered their change in stance as a peace offering, or if they simply saw all of us as potential lost dollar signs and reacted accordingly. A good thing happened, and nothing "evil" took place as a result nor was it the intent, so I really don't care.
---

"How is your analogy any different from mine?The murderer still doesnt apologize for the murder."

- The difference is that in your analogy, there was no choice on behalf of the criminal to turn himself in. He actually didn't turn himself in - he got caught, and that isn't what happened with the MS debacle - MS made a choice to change their polices. The reasoning may not have been up to your standards, but that isn't the point. The point is they changed them.

As for not apologizing? I don't see what MS has to apologize for, other than poor communication. The policies themselves need no apology, nor does their choice or reasoning to changer them. Just because you and others didn't see "eye to eye" with MS and their initial plan, doesn't mean they need to apologize to anyone for it - A disagreement in this regard, doesn't warrant an apology.

[H0RSE]

@Kryptix
"...listening to your consumers is different than waiting till preorder numbers to drop."

- The reasons why take backseat to the end result.
---

"...when a consumer's comments get ignored, they turn around because they're not guaranteed to get what they want as soon as possible."

- "get what they want as soon as possible?" sounds a little over self-entitled, don't you think?
---

" If Microsoft would of listened, I could guarantee you that they would of announced the removal of the DRM before E3 and that would of been much more respectable versus waiting till pre order numbers to drop and having that to help you make a decision. "

- Something you're not factoring in is that MS didn't "have" to change anything. Regardless what you and others say, and regardless of the ore-order numbers, MS could have stuck to their guns and went ahead with their initial plan.
---

"It shows Microsoft do not know what the consumers want..."

- since when do consumers even know what they want?
---

"what if they do another mistake in the future?"

- you're implying that their initial plan was a
mistake - that is opinion. The only "mistake" MS made, was how they went about explaining everything and responding to the community. Just because you and others didn't approve of it, doesn't make it a mistake.
---

"Bring up something really dislikable in the beginning of the month then wait a whole month to change it?"

- So they "had" to change, because it was "really dislikable," despite the fact that it wasn't explained that well from the start and hadn't actually been experienced first-hand by anyone complaining,...MS didn't have to change anything. The fact that they did at all, should be seen a plus.
---

"Consumers know best..."
- lol, really? Do they? Consumers are constantly bombarded with commercials and ads telling them what to wear, what to watch, what to eat. They are told what's cool, what's not, what they just "HAVE" to have. They form allegiances to companies and products based off nothing more than brand loyalty, and hate on other for the same reasons. They are manipulated on a daily basis to think that that their every want and desire is more important than actual necessitates of life. Yeah...consumers really know best...
People in general don't really know what the hell they want, just what they think they want.

The instance where "consumers know best," tends to be when leaving reviews or other feedback about products based on hands-on experience. In the case of MS and the DRM fiasco, not only did they have zero experience with the product/service they were complaining about, they literally knew nothing about it, other than what was revealed and explained to them. For all you and others know, the original policies of the X1 may have made for an exceptional gaming experience, perhaps to the point that it turned out to be more desired than what the consumer(s) originally thought they wanted.
---

"They were right the whole time before the first pre order numbers popped up for the console."

- This was never a matter of being "right or wrong." It was simply a difference in opinion.
---

" If they would of listened, trust me, most of this negativity would of died a long time ago."

- Although you make a point, trust me, it will still die down. MS will still sell a lot of X1's and lots of people will still be having fun playing them.

[TheSaint]

It would never happen, it's MS.

[Dee_91]

I don't see the mis communication,I just see your lack of understanding and your stance that "the end result is all that matters as long as no one got killed" as a result of your lack of understanding.
You notice the differences but you don't understand the substantial differences,between doing it for the right reasons and wrong reasons.My apologies for not making it known that I meant understand instead of notice when I said "see".
If you actually understood the differences you would see that changing for the wrong reasons would mean the current end result wouldn't be the actual end result, making this current end result no where near as important as their reasonings for change as I said earlier.Therefore the current end result isnt the focal point.

The word "think" has nothing to do with the point of that sentence, so I don't understand why put so much emphasis on that one word and take it out of context?We don't "think" theres reason to worry about their reasonings for change, we know there is reason to worry.You did however answer my question. I see its not stubbornness its instead ignorance ( im mot calling you ignorant )or lack of understanding on the subject

An analogy isn't an example,nothing should be taken literally from an analogy .MSFT apologizing has nothing to do with the point of the analogy..
"People saying things they dont understand is pointless and doesnt make sense seems to be becoming the norm on here."
To make it clearer for you, my analogy meant, if you dont understand why what you did was wrong, your bound to do it again.Something parents have been teaching kids since day 1

[_-EDMIX-_]

@HORSE

Buddy...just stop. Its clear you either are being paid by MS or should be or are some sort of blind fanboy. Even the most die hard fanboy is STILL A GAMER! I'm not really sure what you are.

MS was in the wrong. Period. No they didn't listen to gamers. That is such a load and everyone knows it.

They had almost 3 months of rumors of there whole DRM and used games blocking system and it came with a whole flood of negative backlash mind you...they were RUMORS!

So...your MS...want to listen to your fans? How about not adding in that feature that is getting the whole net up and arms? Not only do they get to leave looking like heros, they don't even EVER have to admit that those rumors were true, they can chalk it up to "here say" or "rumors" etc. But....MAY 21st....they drop the bomb and confirm it.

Not enough? Well the hate continues after for about 3 weeks...E3 comes around and they are STILL down with DRM.

PS4 is shown, price announced etc.

MS.....ARE STILL DOWN WITH DRM? So...where on earth did you get this was for some damn fans? Cause...they had a awful long time to change it for um...."da fanz" and yet they STILL had it in and were very much ok with it.

PS4 outselling it in pre-orders 4 to 1 might of had something to do with it or debuting on Amazon UK at NUMBER 70 while PS4 debuted at NUMBER 4 (mind you in 24 hours becoming the second best selling system that year)

So...why does it matter? Um...this company needs to show face, it sorta..kinda MATTERS A WHOLE LOT! They just sat there and tried to pull this DRM crap over consumers and mind you...if Sony didn't have PS4 like PS3 or Wii U didn't have Wii U like Wii...or really every other damn Nintendo system, MS would had just went ahead and did it and really..I'm not even too sure about THAT! You need to understand that MS said on RECORD that they were not going to change XONE polices over PS4's reveal at E3. So...what did you change it for if not that?

Sales maybe? So...if the number was right...MS was NEVER going to change it? It make me wonder if XONE got some more pre-orders if MS would had ever really changed it.

and yes Dmarc and Zeee are 100% correct. Just saying...look at the agrees and you can see what everyone is agreeing with the most. Sorry but getting caught during a damn murder and then saying sorry and making it seem as if "no harm no foul"? I have to ask you? Are you slow? Thank GOD you are not a damn police officer or don't have anything to do with public policy, I feel you might be out of your mind. So if someone tried to kill someone in your family...you would befriend them because they were STOPPED? I mean.....buddy...you may need some damn help. Your getting to the point were its almost funny because you sound like a Good Guy Greg meme.

MS is not doing this cause they like you...they are doing this because they were losing money. They don't have a vested interest in you, they have it with your money. Yes business is about making money...but sorry it is about making a damn connection with your consumers too, I need to equally want something just as much as you want my money. MS seems to miss the good old days when they had zero competition and you just had to "dealwithit".

With Google, Linux, Apple, Sony etc its getting hard for them to just make there "F U" products. They now need to "offer" something for us to want in return. No more handouts MS...its time you competed a bit. Competitions is good! =)

[insomnium2]

I never want to read another wall of BS from HORSE again. Gotta love that ignore-button.

[jimbobwahey]

If you look at what games Jesse Schell has made, you'll see that he's a talentless hack, which is why he's so opposed to used games.

Maybe he would sell more copies of his games if they were actually good and worth buying? Might be an idea to take a good look at himself before he starts blaming his failures as a developer on everybody else.

[MASTER_RAIDEN]

the xbox brand cannot and never will be anything like steam with their console mentality. steam is probably the most inexpensive way to game EVER. right this moment, sleeping dogs is on there for 6 dollars. dishonored is about 10 bucks. the console software pricing strategy is absolute garbage compared to steam on just about every level.

[Tetsujin]

That's the biggest factor in the whole used sale argument - bad devs are the ones who favor online passes, hates used games, etc however good devs find ways around it.

[fermcr]

""Microsoft did a big mistake by listening to customers", says Jesse Schell"

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

Why listen to costumers ? It's not like it's them that buy their product... oh wait...

[dc1]

Correct. The X1 would have had a very short console shelf life (3DO).

One of, if not 'the' most important thing that MS did this generation is listen to the customers (through the pre order and post launch sells projections).

[Christopher]

He's concept is that, more often than not, customers don't actually know what they want or what is "good" for them.

I have issues with this since the people who manage digital game pricing and DRM on consoles are publishers. Publishers have not shown any signs of caring about their customers, so I'm not sure his evaluations holds up very well.

The reason Steam does so well is because they are like most retailers and only care about their profit from the games sold. On the consoles, it is a two-party system of Sony/Microsoft getting their flat rate per sale and the publishers deciding the pricing based on that. The publishers want the most money for as long as possible and keep prices high for long periods of time, rarely ever getting game prices down to what you can get on disc 6 to 12 months after release (a price controlled by retailers much moreso than publishers, though game sales to retailer costs on disc also diminish much faster than digital).

[kneon]

@cgoodno

Well he's right about that, in general consumers are pretty stupid, just look at how often inferior products outsell their competitors even when priced the same or higher.

So you just need to deal with the fact that customers are are stupid, so you either need to educate them or do what they want. It's almost always easier to do what they want.

[Information Minister]

@ kneon

People buy the games that better suit their preferences, same as you. It's not right to deny them choice just because they don't share your perspective on quality. That's the equivalent of saying "voters are stupid, so lets choose the government for them".

Developers and publishers are the ones making a big mistake if they think suppressing the used games market will make that money fly straight into their pockets.

I really don't understand the business logic of these people! Do they even have any? Do they truly believe that an unhappy costumer will come back to spend more money?!

[LoveOfTheGame]

@information
Voters are consumer and they are both stupid, doesn't matter what each political candidate actually believes my state will vote Republican every time.

[hardcorehippiez]

all im going to say on the matter is first impressions last. first impressions of things are always what sticks in peoples heads and make their minds up for them and im sorry but as a gamer what microsoft tried to do is unacceptable and no amount of twisting and reversal of policies is going to do anything except bring back a few of the xbox diehards that backlashed against micro in the first place.

[Christopher]

This article seems to support that Microsoft did a 180 on its designs because it listened to its customers and therefore lost its advantage with advancing the technological aspects of the market. Can't Microsoft still do this with all digital products instead of just dropping all elements of the new delivery concepts? Why can't Microsoft be like Steam when it comes to digital content delivery? Why does their stances on used game sales when it comes to disc-based games affect their overall big picture plans with digital content delivery?

[dc1]

This is what most of the rational gaming community was thinking.

It gives us pause to think that most of the online only benefits were either BS (..not finalized and unsupported by some of the major devs) or was not going to be available at launch.

Either way, I'm sure that we will see a form of their online roll out in the next couple of years.

[nukeitall]

I think the messaging would still confuse consumers. You still kind of have the "hated" system, so MS probably decide on being cautious and just completely distance itself from it.

Besides, like any change there is a two way street meaning having a hybrid system wasn't enough (benefits to MS) so they scrapped it along to avoid the bad reputation.

Possibility is one thing, good business decision is another.

[LoveOfTheGame]

Didn't MS state they were still going to implement this, or at least some features, into digital content?

[RememberThe357]

Theres the issue of retail partner ships. Sony and MS can't price out their own partners or those partners will start to disappear. Thats a non factor for Steam, they can do basically what they want. Sony and MS might have to start waiving their fee and run their stores like regular retailers. It's going to be a tricky transition to digital.

I'm also starting to worry about the monopolies Sony and MS are going to have on their consoles and how thats going to effect pricing, when they finally do go fully digital. We can't rely on good faith when it comes to money and I think we deserve to know how these companies intend on keeping prices reasonable when the digital era finally begins.

/highmind

[CerebralAssassin]

Well if you read reports about the drm, you would know that you could do that at any time. Even to people you dont actually know. You let me borrow it digitally. We lost more then we gained in MS turning on the original policy.

While I agree that if they were to focus on going digital we should see more discounts, a lot more. We still lost more then we gained.

WOW!! I get to hand my game to someone instead of hitting a button on my menu to do the same thing.

AWWW I always have to be online?? Wtf?? My xbox is connected all the time anyway but thats bullshit I "have" to be atleast once every 24 hours so I can have access to my games over cloud. This is just MS trying to be big brother taking my choices away.

Positive out weighed the negative with the oroginal policy. Backtracking turned the xbox one into the xbox 360.5

[nukeitall]

No, the 24-hour check is to prevent you from illegally keeping the game after you sold, traded, or gifted away your digital games.

How else is MS going to enforce it?

However, I agree that we lost way more than we gained. Physical disc is stone age technology, and we just got held back another half a decade, maybe more!

[CerebralAssassin]

@nuke I knew that. I forgot to say that. Thanks for including that. Got distracted with my rant.

Edit: For my orginal post, after rereading it i can tell where people are confused. It was ment to be sarcastic. I was totally for everything ms was going for. I knew thats why we had a 24hr "check-in".

[blackmanone]

Good post, but to nukeitall, I understand you might want an all digital world, but there are still many people out there that want to own their products forever.

I like Steam and digital, but in 20 years can you say for sure digital options such as Steam will be around? Maybe. Maybe not; but I do know that I can always pop in my Atari and Nintendo cartridges and play them whenever. I know they could always break down, but it's going on over 20 years now and they're still working fine.

I get the appeal of an an all digital future, but I'll always want a physical option.

[UnHoly_One]

Does anyone on this site actually read the article, or do you just read the headlines and then come on here to spout some nonsense that has nothing to do with the content of the article?

Please, all of you, I'd like you to read the article, and if you already did, go re-read it.

He is not talking about them "listening to their customers" and reversing the DRM policies. He is talking about them implementing the DRM policies in the first place because they thought that digital was the future of what people wanted, when the customers weren't actually ready for that kind of change.

Seriously, go read it again.

"Your customers want you to stay the same, even if it drives you into the ground," Schell says. "Somehow, Microsoft didn't seem to think that would be a reality, or even a problem.

"The reality is that they can't do what the customers want. Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?' And we all said, 'No, we hate that. We hate you. You're an idiot to do that.'

"They came out and said, 'We're gonna do this new thing.' And the customers said, 'No, we don't want that, we hate that' - even though it's what they really want and what they will ultimately buy. So now Microsoft has had to say they won't do all that stuff, but someone will.

[Tetsujin]

It's N4G, most of the people here read headlines, maybe the first couple of paragraphs, and comments instead of actually spending 5 minutes to read the article; they'd rather spend 30+ min to read comments and base their opinions off someone elses wording.

OT

"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' (in the article)

The problem with the majority, they aren't specific enough in what they want/looking for. Biggest examples are people who read what someone else wants, copy/paste, then complain because it's either changed too much or not enough; instead of taking the time to post individually to at least get your voice heard. I see countless times (Especially on this site) people arguing in favor/against something, then the next article 180 their entire posting going on about what they like/hate when in the previous article it was the opposite (Without playing/testing the game/console first). I get surveys all the time from Sony involving psn+, the Vita, PS3, etc and I always take the time to fill them out; yes I have seen some changes (not to say I'm the only one however I do see I can help make a difference), and yes I understand I'm only one person, however if I can take the few minutes to get my voice heard, and at least vote what "I" want, so can other people.

[RedHawkX]

microsoft is dumb dont waste your 500 hard earned bucks on them when you can do so much better.

[ZeroX9876]

much better, while spending 100$ less! :)

[JsonHenry]

Microsoft didn't listen to consumers. They read the writing on the wall and looked as the pre-order numbers and realized that they would have to backtrack if they wanted to compete.

Mark my words though- you WILL get what they attempted the first time around eventually. They are just going to implement it one piece at a time.

[Revvin]

Absolutely, if there was a backlash online against their DRM but enough lemmings went ahead and pre-ordered those voices of discontented gamers would have been ignored, it all came down to pre-orders of the PS4 vastly outnumbering the XBOX One on key indicators like Amazon etc. They will introduce this DRM at some point, they will not waste the development of it, it will be mothballed and then slowly brought in, probably for big blockbuster titles like Halo, Gears or Forza where they will claim its for the greater good and will make your games better if they can check every 24 hours in case you need an update. By then people will have already bought the XBOX One thinking the DRM is gone and will be suckered into buying because they just HAVE to play Halo and won't have a choice.

In the meantime I'll enjoy my Steam games collection where I'm not forced to authenticate every 24 hours, can play offline if I wish and enjoy a large collection of games many of which I picked up for knock down prices in the regular sales. Or I might just go and play one of my non Steam games because choice is good.

[showtimefolks]

yes its not like almost all of their fanbase was pissed at them so that's right they did wrong by listening to us

jackass

[ZeroX9876]

well, I think the person who wrote that article didn't check the pre-orders charts before and after the DRM changes....

Microsoft did it because things were going bad.

[iamnsuperman]

No it was a mistake to announce DRM without any give to the consumer. It was just plain arrogance which was highlighted in the "if you want to play used games get a 360". Have DRM all you want but reduce the price of games. Give us something for making the service more restricted than before. Game sharing was not enough

Since the change the One has become a more attractive proposition

[M-M]

Please never allow this guy to speak again. I'm not trying to be mean, but when I hear/read about game designers and developers supporting DRM, all I hear/read is "My game is probably not all that great, so let's make sure that it can't be resold to maximize game sales". That's the problem nowadays, developers putting out games they don't have faith in.

[00]

They would have had no customers if they continued.

[zeal0us]

They would had customers. You recall the petition a month ago people demanding MS return the drm? People like them would've brought the Xbox One day one.

[iamnsuperman]

They were most likely trolls. Did you read the comments on the petition page. It was stuff like "sign if you want the One to die" or "PS4 rulzzzz" (note I spelt rules wrong because that is the calibre we are dealing with here)

[FlunkinMonkey]

hardly anyone signed it in the grand scheme of things.

[Alexious]

Well, that's a bit of a stretch, but certainly it would have been less popular.

[iceman06]

There are plenty of people on this very forum that "have no problems" with the previous DRM ideas. Plus, the mass market consumer wouldn't probably even educate themselves enough to know what DRM means. With Xbox having such a strong brand in the US, at very least there would be many US loyalists. That being said, once they found out about the limitations, would they be willing to stay with the Xbox One for the long haul?

[PeEsFour]

Yes, less players on Ps4.

[slimeybrainboy]

Are you the same person that wrote the headline 'did' a mistake? What on earth are you trying to say?

[KingKelloggTheWH]

The only real mistake is they made all their claims about their vision look like BS :/

[Kevlar009]

You know what they always say: "The customer is always wrong" -_-

MS did a terrible job of explaining the need for DRM and used game fees, it was basically "we want more money and control, here's some things we could've given you anyways with Gold but decided not to".

M$ could've not listened, but they would've been in a deep whole to start.

[Whitey2k]

No matter what microsoft do fanboys still be up there ass even if there get crapped on and thats fact sony has done wrong to but least they support games

[theWB27]

Really....can you not go out and buy games for Xbox? Isn't there the ability to also buy exclusive games for the Xbox? Or is it that same worthless argument that Sony makes more? Not that everyone is of high quality, just the fact that they make more...

I swear people act like Sony pumps out nothing but Naughty Dog quality exclusives...like they are all fighting each other for GOTY year awards or something.

[thehitman]

I think a Sony Exclusive was nominated for GoTY EVERY year almost, cant say the same for Xbox. Hell there still is a title for ps3 going to probably get GoTY cant even name a xbox exclusive. People talk about the ps4 lineup well Sony could have easily told NaughtyDog to make TLOU a ps4 launch title, along with GT6 and Beyond:Two Souls but they are supporting their current fanbase knowing they will have a shit load more titles down the road. So ya Sony does pump out mostly GoTY titles maybe if you had a Playstation you would know that and get to play them on a yearly basis and not just the rehash cod and occasional halo/gears.

[theWB27]

@thehitman
Would you like my PSN tag? I could give it to you. You can see that I have a Playstation. No, there wasn't a Sony exclusive nominated every year.

Uncharted series was up there. Journey...most years it was a multiplatform. The game this year was made by who else, but Naughty Dog. I didn't say their top games weren't high quality, I said people act like the breadth of their exclusives are all GOTY quality when they aren't.

Again, let me know if you'd like that tag buddy, and oh I can give you my gamertag too. I stray on both sides and know quantity doesn't equal quality...Sony guys like to throw out numbers when it's strange that Microsofts exclusives have outsold Sony's by at least 10 million copies even though they don't have as many this gen. Hhmm...

[Major_Glitch]

@theWB27 lol. Uh...yes, a Sony exclusive was nominated for GOTY every year. And Sony exclusives won the title far more than xbox exclusives did. In fact, I challenge you to name the last xbox exclusive that won GOTY. Don't worry I'll wait.

[Foxgod]

GOTY, gimme a break, the ps3 title with the most awards is Journey, nice product, but hardly a game.

[thehitman]

@ WB games that were nonimated or won GoTY

MGS4
GoW3
UC1,2,3
Journey
LBP
This year: Will probably be TLOU

Thats 8 titles over 7 years with GoTY quality at the very least. There are even more titles like Heavy Rain Demon Souls Infamous that were amazing and unique in their own ways. To downplay the other studios and to say Sony doesnt put out constant quality is a very ignorant statement. If you do have a PS3 I doubt you play anything worthwhile then with the way you come across.

[LoveOfTheGame]

@hitman Games that were nominated or won GOTY:
GeOW 1,2,3
Dead Rising
Halo 3,Reach
Bioshock ( exclusive during awards )
Mass Effect( exclusive during awards )
Fable 2

[Hicken]

Not every game made by anybody is high quality, per se.

But you can't- well, you CAN, if you're being an ignorant buffoon- argue that Sony doesn't ALSO pump out quality. hitman and Major have already provided the proof of that, and it's not like it was some secret; the games they mention are well-known in gaming.

@wb: You act as if there aren't 360 fanboys that don't have PS3s, or don't have PSN accounts. That's been the fall back for some time now to try and assuage any claims of fanboyism. "Oh yeah, well look at my PSN."

Cuz that REALLY changes your comments and attitude.

Hell, I have an XBL account I only ever used for Rock Band and Lost Odyssey on my roommate's 360. So what?

The fact that you and Foxgod try to disregard the quality of the many first party titles Sony puts out is telling, all by itself. We don't need your PSN.

[Tetsujin]

@wb

I can name non fps/tps games on PS3 that could still be GotY material; and years later still be enjoyed by the fans. I guarantee you can't say the same for Xbox, which is a big reason why I sold the system both times I owned one; no variety in games outside Indies and the occasional RPG.

[Kayant]

@Foxgod
"GOTY, gimme a break, the ps3 title with the most awards is Journey, nice product, but hardly a game."

What you said right there is stupid. So what is classed as a game?

Ofc it's a product hmm that's what games are in the first place.

[N7Lukas]

Yeah right, they shouldn't have listened to the people that give them their profits, that makes sense. /S

The industry will "move forward" when the gamers are willing to pay for it, not when the big wig suits tell us we are ready for it.

[thehitman]

"The answer's not obvious," he says when we meet later. "Last time round, there were people who picked PlayStation 3, and that was wrong - very wrong. But when people make bad predictions about what happens with technology, it's not because they don't understand technology - it's because they don't understand psychology."

From the title I already knew this was going to be the stupidest shyt I was going to read today. 9/10 The customers are always right business 101. Microsoft would have been dead out the gates if they didnt switch their policies. Hell they are still in trouble I still have people when they talk about ps4 and xb1 they say they dont know about getting a xb1 because of the drm shit and thats after they reversed it. One time I found myself defending the xb1 saying na they reversed it now etc etc to realize, I should've said welcome to the ps family! People talk with their money and MS was being hammered not only from social media and press, but from pre-order sales compared to Sony. Thank god these people dont run a company or it be out of business already.

[Mrgolden79]

Agreed! Definitely the dumbest shit I've read all day. How can he say that people who picked the PS3 to be on top this gen was very wrong? What fantasy land has he been living in? Last I checked PS3 is outselling the xbox360 worldwide even while coming out a whole year later than the 360, and that's what counts. If he's only looking at the US market then his claims are skewed and null and void and aren't facts. On top of that, saying listening to customers is the worst thing they can do? Shaking my head. Just because you are a developer does NOT prove that you are smart or that people should listen to you. Let's all agree to just ignore this idiot.

[Festano]

Listen users only lead to the extremely beneficial for Microsoft. In fact, even if at the time the console Sony is selling more, xbox one began to take its share of the market.

[Clarence]

M$ did listen to gamers. The gamers decided to preorder the PS4. When M$ realized how bad the preorders for the Xbox 1 were they changed their DRM policies.

[_LarZen_]

As a PC gamer I don't see what all the noise is about...about time console gamers joined the rest of us the digital sphere.

[mmj]

This sentence pretty much sums the situation up:

"It understood the needs of its partners, and its own needs as a business, but it badly misjudged the psychology of its customers."

It's a case of "how can we fool the masses of idiots into giving away their consumer rights so that we can increase our profits?".

[iceman06]

Translation---BUFU....Buy Us...F@#K YOU!!!

[pabadamus1]

People who would have stood to gain from X1's old policies have been extremely vocal as of late. The Cliffy Bs, Jesse Schelles and the like are pouring out of the woodwork to admonish and analyze gamer response to MSFT's DRM visions for X1. Their tone has been antagonistic and their regard for our sensibilities has been nonexistent. According to them we don't know what is good for us. We are irrational and entitled and we should let others determine our path since they are innovators and know better.

For all of their "industry knowledge" these idiots just don't see that DRM and used game restrictions will not be tolerated on a platform where physical media is still prevalent. The comparisons to Steam are irrelevant and moot because X1 still utilizes a disk based distribution system. If MSFT truly wanted to move to an always online, digital distribution model, they should have removed the disk drive from their design. At that point there would have been no confusion and the barriers to entry would have been obvious.

These idiots are also trying to marginalize the tenets of the console experience in an effort to move everyone to a more restrictive PC like environment. Right now they abhor our right to first sale. They would love to do away with ownership and move us all to license agreements -- like Steam. But again they miss the point. People don't use steam because they want to relinquish their rights of ownership or because Gabe Newell looks like Santa. They use steam for the convenience and the sales. Simple as that. MSFT never articulated any such benefits.

So they cannot blame us when we protest and it is absolutely disrespectful to suggest that MSFT should ignore us. The X1 was presented only as platform that took everything away without concession. MSFT and friends stood to benefit at the detriment of consumer rights. If MSFT wanted to push DRM they would have extolled the benefits to be gained from such restrictions. A family plan was not enough. I don't think they really thought this one through. So these idiots need to be less critical of gamers and more critical of MSFT for failing to plan their communication and communicating their plan. All digital and DRM are coming but MSFT lost their opportunity to be vanguard and really screwed the pooch on this one.

[redwin]

I totally agree with you, before the Xbox was announced I expected it to be an all digital games machine but I was disappointed when they did not a announce that the games would be more affordable. So I said, I like the idea of all digital and possibly getting the game sooner but I will be buying a lot less games this time around if the prices are not lower, we all feel that if its digital it should be more affordable than physical disks.

[shibster88]

LaZen move out of your mums basement and stop working at a supermarket.
like.most console gamers weh have jobs and familys lives ie children to look after and support, and consoles for us are just easy and do what we need them to.
man I hate pc gamers they always think they are kings, they forget people have lifes and better things todo than sit on a piece of office equipment.

[Excalibur]

Who the Hell is Jesse Schell?

[Gaming_Guru]

I think I understand what the author is trying to say but repeats themselves over and over without actually explaining anything. The best way I can put it is that it's most likely customer inertia, but I think this has nothing to do with Microsoft losing market share.

First it's the way Microsoft handled a digital only environment, because there are other models out there that wasn't so restrictive. Secondly listening to your consumers isn't a bad thing, it's how you listen to the consumers that can turn into problems. Lastly, they should have supported both models meaning having the physical disk model how it is on the XBOX 360, but when buying digital have the new digital model there coexisting.

I have a feeling they took everything away because the family share feature was an actual glorified demo else why take it away if it was loved and perceived correctly?

Microsoft made some poor decisions and reversing everything they talked about makes consumers second guess them more. I understand a company needs to make money and will over price products but at the same time it must be at a value to the consumer in the current market state.

[Gaming_Guru]

I meant to say, the current state of the market," lol.

[WeAreLegion]

"did a big mistake..."

Can we stop calling English a universal language now?

[schlanz]

I think all this flip flopping on everything makes the company look weak and lacking leadership and vision. They should have stuck to their guns if they truly believed in it. Maybe they would have struggled at launch but they should have thought long-term.

I'll never own an xbox regardless of which way they went, I just don't like MS.

[Picnic]

"There's one mistake that they all make, and that mistake is listening to their customers."

Exactly!

If something is worth having, it is worth having on its own terms. Not on the terms of people who do not take a large financial risk and who had no design or marketing input in to the thing. People are not called 'CONSUMERS' for nothing - they will CONSUME all the profits of your business if you let them.

I personally was put off buying an Xbox360 by the cost of playing online. But I knew that it wasn't my right to say what Microsoft should do - and they knew there were enough people interested in online to always charge for it.

So this generation Microsoft do something that doesn't negatively affect any true financial supporter of the industry (who buy new because it goes to the games makers).
And then they end up feeling forced to reverse it.
Thus true supporters end up losing the family share plan.
And we get games shops selling tons of anything except new games once their brief window of opportunity has passed.

Thanks greedy masses!

[BLAKHOODe]

"Thus true supporters end up losing the family share plan."

What exactly was the family share plan, though?

I don't remember who it was, but he was an insider with a history of good information, he revealed that the "family share plan" was similar to what Playstation Plus offers on some games.. a 1 hour, full game trial. This would actually make sense, too, because how would it be profitable to developers if 11 people (you and 10 "family" members) was all playing 1 copy sold of a game? I doubt even used games see that much turn around.

[iceman06]

Your statement is really a double-edged sword. True, consumers have NO right to tell a business what to do. However, the business would not exist without the consumers. MS saw that the tide was swinging heavily in the favor of their competition and felt that they needed to make a move...several moves.
DRM was not some altruistic attempt to restore the industry to it's former glory; or some means of forging a new and prosperous industry for all. It was simply a way to seize dollars that it didn't have...used games. Your thought of buying new "because it goes to game makers" is only partially true. Buying new supports the PUBLISHERS first and foremost, followed by the "game makers" (developers). The real issue is not really used games, as that could be settled by freezing GameStop out of the market (see how GameStop stock falls every time there is a mention of something anti-used games?). The issue is getting better deals for developers. They are not getting their just dues and because it's a much more difficult fight to tear money from the greedy hands of publishers, they lash out at the "easier" cash grab...used games.
In the end, I just don't believe that consumers should continue to foot the bill for publishers that are unwilling to take chances, continuously force games to market that they KNOW aren't complete or even as good as they could be, and don't provide the PR and advertising needed to make games a hit. Much like in the music industry, game developers are seeing that being independent (though not as lucrative) provides advantages in quality control, perception, and the opportunity to choose who to work with and when.

[BLAKHOODe]

I actually like what Microsoft was doing with the DRM, but they went about it all wrong. Instead of forcing gamers to download their games, they should have gave us time to adapt and used the last few years to push Games On Demand with huge sales and discounts. Sony has done a great job preparing us for what Microsoft was trying to do with Playstation Plus, as I've downloaded dozens of games though that service and have become accustomed to it. With that in mind, had Sony introduced the DRM policies instead of Microsoft, it might have went over a lot better, esp. with Plus subscribers.

[_-EDMIX-_]

LOL!...no. "had Sony introduced the DRM policies instead of Microsoft, it might have went over a lot better"

No..no and no. This issue is "Sony" vs "MS" vs "PC" vs "Nintendo" etc. This is about a "company" vs "consumers" It had NOTHING to do with "how" MS told people about the DRM, it had everything to do with MS EVEN DOING DRM IN THE FIRST PLACE! The idea that they had a install ONLY system, blocks used games, needs to be online ever 24hours etc.

If Sony did this...you can believe they would have got the hate, why? Its not cause its Sony...its not cause its MS...its CAUSE ITS BEING DONE PERIOD!

Did the PSPGO just set the world on FIRE cause Sony did it? Understand that the hate and the issue with this isn't them wanting to put DRM on DIGITAL GAMES! Its about them wanting to put it on ALL GAMES PERIOD...THEY SYSTEM IS DRM! Now if they just had it for downloading games, sure no big deal, just buy the disk based version if you feel just. What ever they feel just into having a digital game, is fine. But trying to do it with the whole system, blocking used games etc, this was a huge power move on the used game market.

I question...is there a reason why this wasn't an option? We have FULL games on PSN AND XBL AND VC! Yet...we are being forced with XONE to have ALL our games on the HDD? Sounds a bit fishy to me. This isn't about tech..its about business. Why take away an option you just had this gen? LOL! Sorry but they got caught trying to take a piece of the pie.

PS3 for a few games has an option to install the full game. (all while still needing the disk for disk based DRM of course)

Remember they said that the bluray drive wasn't used to play games off of JUST installing (you could....while it was INSTALLING ONLY), yet magically...it can play games off of it all of a sudden? So...you choice to NOT let someone have the option of playing the damn game off the disk drive?....WHY? Sounds to me like they are FORCING YOU! Again...why not give the option if they just want it is a disk based game vs a download?

Its not like they can't wipe the disk or even format the disk right after the installation process to make sure people are not scamming the system. Everything about those polices SCREAMED SCAM!

We have a drive (can't play games on it)

The games are on your hdd now to play at any time

(as if you couldn't download full games to begin with)

So..your offering us the worst of something you technically already offer on 360, but permanently with LESS choice? Sounds just GREAT!

[extermin8or]

THis guys an idiot. Seriously if he thinks MS abandoned-no infact have put more effort into reversing what they'd spent time and money implementing into XBL and Xbox One just on the basis that people complained on the internet then he shouldn't be doing his job.... I mean if they were going to do it because of complaints they'd have done it at E3 no they did it when they saw the Xbox ones preorderes weren't going anywhere and the ps4 was being preordered at a ratio of I heard amazon had said 4:1 and that was just in the USA their BEST market. Microsoft weren't making themselves more like steam not really, well unless you class a closed ecosystem in terms of game selling competition. Taking control of what the retailers priced games at, stopping used games, and pushing for digital without the sales or lower pricing Steam offers. Also what they were doing would have damaged some of their key retailers businesses. Places like gamestop and GAME rely on used games-hell even Amazon and Walmart (or ASDA for the uk) and HMV etc deal in used games these days. Really think any of them were going to push the Xbox one long term without constant cheques being handed over? No-because it would've lost them money in the long run and MS don't have their own hardware stores, sony might be able to push for digital more as they have the "sony stores" but generally they hve higher prices and aren't too prominent in high streets-oh and notice they didn't try this.

Just as an example of how to do transitions like this slowly without pissing people off- playstation plus:now required for online gameplay on PS4 but as it's been phased in slowly over two years and hides behind benefits-no one has batted an eyelid. The movie store is doing better now they allow you to redownload your movies etc as many times as you like aswell. Forcing consumers isn't a good idea if you still want to sell products and make money.

[medman]

It takes a special kind of moron to believe anti-consumerism is innovation.

[Funnymonkey013]

Here's what I think it's BS what he saying y cause what ms were doing was very restricted with gamers such as u can't let more then one friends able to play ur games or his wich I always do with my buddies that is a no from me then there is ounce u play that game its urs forever great don't give a F about it y cause there is a fee in playing used games witch means gamefly wich I have is useless. And there's the 24 hour check in hell no sometimes I don't turn my system for more Then 24 hours and ms is telling me it won't work if I don't have connect f that. My point is iMS ideas were to future and not good in this time of modern day.

[NeoTribe]

Why not buy a pc if steam like drm is what you want. Consoles have the perk of being able to lend, barrow and trade games. You take that away and all your left with is a super locked down, under powered pc with a gimmicky camera. Wtf is the point. Some people are just so eager to throw there consumer rights out the window. Plus it would have never been like steam. You would still pay full price for games. Look no further than xbox live. They NEVER give deals.

[p0tat0stix]

I disagree with this article strictly in the business sense. Microsoft didn't make a mistake. They listened to the angry consumers and made a move in the interest of survival. If they hadn't backtracked, they risked losing too many sales.

It was the angry (and mostly uninformed) consumers that made the mistake of being too quick to deem MS a devil when they hadn't been immediately transparent about their goals. MS could have changed the game for the better, but the consumers weren't open to change.

[Sadist3]

This article makes a lot of sense. It's a shame people don't see something so obvious. Guess what, Apple will come and start taking market share, because companies will see how much revenue they can bring in my making games for the IOS (Angry Birds) and guess what, when that Apple TV comes out, and games come out for it, they're going to do to the game industry exactly what they did to the music, movie, and app industry. Does anyone not see this?

[DinoNYC]

This article does make some valid points. Xbox 1 is losing distinguishability and has abandoned it's previous direction for the console they have been developing for over 3 years. Microsoft has little focus for the much changed console and they have little time before launch. Minor changes are fine, but major ones can be problematic. As they say: "Stick to your guns"

[sAVAge_bEaST]

Shame on you consumers, you are always wrong,. The corporation ,. trying to screw you over is always right,.

-follow that line of thinking and you get-

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[WeaseL]

"Microsoft did a big mistake by taking note of poor pre-order sales" - Fixed

[greyhaven33]

Maybe it is the future of gaming, but I have no interest in casual tablet based gaming. Now if one comes out that has an attachable controller and can be hooked up to the tv like he mentioned, I would possibly give it a chance.

If it had all the features and triple a titles the consoles are capable of, until then no thanks

[Kidmyst]

Companies listen to their shareholders, and MSFT knew after the negative press that if they didn't and how the Media and Gamers were upset. If their system released and did poorly, then the stock priced dropped so badly and Sony's went up, their Board of Directors would have gotten hell and changes would have been made. Better make the changes now and do less damage control.
MSFT did the right thing with removing DRM IMO.

[denawayne]

MS will still offer digital downloads, offer perks for doing so, everybody will love it, and by the next console cycle you will see all consoles going the digital route.

[mmj]

50GB downloads yayyy.

[Thomper]

I got as far as the first sentence... "Did a big mistake"

I fear for our education systems....

But yes, they may have a made a mistake.

[Goozex]

@JokesOnYou
ah the usual troll here trying to "spin" MS articles into a positive approach.

[wishingW3L]

All MS did was remove the DRM but digital tittles will still be sold. So what's the mistake? Because I just don't get it. The only feature that was lost was the Family Sharing and MS said they are working on how to implement it to digital tittles.

[Ashby_JC]

Ok....the poor grammar "Microsoft DID a big mistake....."

SMH

Should say ......"Microsoft MADE a big mistake......."

[IaussieGamer]

ROFL another pathetic article with a idiotic topic heading.

[Enigma_2099]

Yup. Obviously. After all, why listen to the consumer?

Oh wait, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WITH THE MONEY YOU WANT!!!!

[b-real]

I agree with most of what he said.

I wish MS didn't change there policies. I was ready for the future that when I purchase a game it was in my cloud collection and I could play where ever I go. I was ready to have sharing with 10 of my friends. I was ready for something to finally kill the used game market so that we can bring some innovation back to game making.

Guess we are in for more of the same this gen with Assassin's creed 8 and COD 16. Gamers did themselves a dis-service by being so narrow minded this gen.

[D-riders]

yeah I don't want a pc connected to my tv

[batbatz]

MS do not give a crap what gamer think, they just looked at the preorders.

[zpoc]

whoever wrote that headline "did" a big mistake by obtaining a mediocre education

[masa2009]

It's the same guy who spoke out presenting biased evidence against game demos.

[glennhkboy]

At the end of day, it is us, the primitive-uneducated-yet-pay-w ith-our-hard-cash CUSTOMER that matter!!!!

MS has learnt may hard lessons on “sticking-to-MS-vision” strategy. The result is a sharp decline in their market share & revenue in the OS & Mobile markets. So, I think they finally learn that they must listen to their customer!

[Dfooster]

Microsoft "did" a big mistake. Or in proper English " Microsoft made a big mistake"

Anyway they didnt, the mistake was announcing the DRM in the first place and not undertaking proper market research.