Gaming Microsoft Completely Changed Its Xbox One Strategy

[The Helper]

After being criticized heavily for the choices it made with regards to its upcoming console, the Xbox One, Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has done a complete 180 and revised its policy.

Now, Microsoft will no longer require Xbox One consoles to be connected to the Internet every 24 hours. Games will remain on the disc, rather than being installed and activated, and gamers are free to resell their games and lend them to their friends.

Ultimately, this could really benefit GameStop (NYSE: GME), while Sony’s (NYSE: SNE) PlayStation 4 could face more competition this fall.

After the Xbox One’s policies were laid out, gamers across the Internet were overwhelmingly united in their opposition to Microsoft’s next console. The Windows-maker was seen as being anti-consumer, as the rights gamers once enjoyed were going to be taken away from them.

Specifically, gamers would no longer be able to resell their games, or pass them among their friends. And those gamers without reliable Internet connections would be left in the cold.

Microsoft’s chief console rival, Sony, took advantage of the backlash with a short online video poking fun at the Xbox One’s restrictive policies.

Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) Completely Changed Its Xbox One Strategy

Now, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) will no longer require Xbox One consoles to be connected to the Internet every 24 hours. - All Parts

www.insidermonkey.com

 

[Accname]

I am not quite sure what i think about this.
On one hand, microsoft has adapted to the feedback of the community, thats always a good reaction by a company.
On the other hand, it seems like they were just testing the water how much money they could potentially squeze out of us. When it was clear that the people wont pay for this, microsoft quickly changed their policy to sell more consoles.

 

[camelCase]

I keep telling everyone this is Microsoft we're talking about. It's become their recent trend. (Remembers VS 2012 debacle)

 

[Sim]

I am not quite sure what i think about this.
On one hand, microsoft has adapted to the feedback of the community, thats always a good reaction by a company.
On the other hand, it seems like they were just testing the water how much money they could potentially squeze out of us. When it was clear that the people wont pay for this, microsoft quickly changed their policy to sell more consoles.

We're talking about a company here. It's to be expected of them...

Companies aren't good Samaritans: their only goal is money. You could replace "Microsoft" in your sentence with just about any company out there.

 

[Accname]

We're talking about a company here. It's to be expected of them...

Companies aren't good Samaritans: their only goal is money. You could replace "Microsoft" in your sentence with just about any company out there.

Thats not true. It doesnt happen very often that a company just changes its product this much shortly before release.
This was not a small upset; the next Xbox was likely to become a total disaster for them.

I dont know of any other occurence of a similar situation from the top of my head.

 

[FireCat]

It's amazing to see them "thinking smartly" for a change!
But, If it's true what they say, that's another matter altogether.

 

[The Helper]

Glad to see that they listened to the people. It is true too, if nobody would have kicked up a fuss over this they would have happily instituted the new policy.

 

[Accname]

Just imagine, if sony would have had the same policy for their playstation 4 this would have probably never happened. And we would all be boned.

 

[WolSHaman]

I can't remember where I heard this but it seems accurate: Microsoft took a gamble with this, hoping that the PS4 would also have a draconian used games policy, but when it turns out that the PS4 doesn't view its customers with complete contempt, Microsoft was out of luck. They gambled and failed, and now they're paying for it.

 

[Dan]

IMHO, the original setup for Microsoft was far from what people were acting it was. Your system had to check in ONCE every 24 HOURS.... That's hardly a big deal at all 99% of the time...

In any case, it's obvious that they don't want to scare off customers and that they can make a better profit if they simply keep to a regular model. They would like to protect their interests and offer more services for monetary gain, but in this case they are going to go with the competition and not get too bold.

I will never understand the outrage that people have over simple things. XD People need to get with the times and buy a gaming PC. XD

 

[Accname]

IMHO, the original setup for Microsoft was far from what people were acting it was. Your system had to check in ONCE every 24 HOURS.... That's hardly a big deal at all 99% of the time...

The problem is not the time. Whether its ever 24 hours, every 24 years or every 24 seconds is not important.
What is important is the idea behind it. Microsoft wants to control the customers. They want to observ them. This is just unethical and I can only agree with the haters here.

It is like saying: "What was so bad about hitler? He was only opressing one group of people, not all of them."
Its not about the numbers here, its about the general idea and how microsoft is treating us like slaves.

 

[Dan]

The problem is not the time. Whether its ever 24 hours, every 24 years or every 24 seconds is not important.
What is important is the idea behind it. Microsoft wants to control the customers. They want to observ them. This is just unethical and I can only agree with the haters here.

It is like saying: "What was so bad about hitler? He was only opressing one group of people, not all of them."
Its not about the numbers here, its about the general idea and how microsoft is treating us like slaves.

See I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Even though this is how people FEEL about the situation, it doesn't make it any more true. I believe that Microsoft was legitimately coming from the direction that keeping their customers up to date with the latest versions of software and games would benefit both the consumer and the corporation. Microsoft wants more brand control and the ability to offer more services after they market their consoles and games. it is a realistic approach to keeping money flowing after their consoles get sold.

Consoles are inherently risky for companies. They often lose money on the console itself in order to make up for the loss after people buy games. The reason why xbox sold so well over PS3 was basically BECAUSE of it's LIVE service. PS3 was released without an online experience. In these times, it is unthinkable to offer a console that does not have the option of online connectivity. xbox live is a very great service and puts Sony's to shame... so the next obvious step is to push the xbox live service another step forward with the next generation console.

This is the last chance for consoles to show their quality, imo. Already, we have tons of independent projects and the small companies trying to compete in the console market. Realistically, we are already in the age where consoles are an illusion of necessity. They offer NOTHING that a gaming computer doesn't already offer, other than a streamlined experience. I feel that we will soon see all of these services flood over to PC in a way that makes a console indistinguishable from a PC in the coming years. Things like cloud storage, backup, and syncing technology is necessary for that next (and final) step to occur. This is not the age of Nintendo 64 anymore. Consoles are becoming antequated.

The real problem is that in order for our society to reap the benefits that connectivity has to offer, we need better infrastructure for internet connections and either more competition between companies or some kind of government sponsored internet program. One day, we won't be able to comprehend a house with bad or no internet!



But I do understand how people FEEL about the subject. I just think that they are being a little unfair.

 

[iPeez]

This, out right, puts them in a some what better light, but it still shines SCARED AS FUCK, I think this is even better for the PS3. I dont like either companies, too much money going around, too much they dont tell me as a customer and user of their systems. Or maybe they do, but I never bother reading user agreements. I wish companies like Sony and Microsoft would be more like Steam / Valve. Which I think have kept an almost clean record, while providing awesome services and amazing games.

 

[KMilz]

To be fair, PS3 connected more easily to the internet than the original 360. It had built in wi-fi and didn't cost any money to play games online as long as you had a connection, unlike with Xbox Live.

The key to keeping the console alive is to invent things that it can do that the PC can't... but given that it's just a computer itself, I imagine that'd be pretty difficult. I'd say the biggest thing consoles have on PC is the best part of the consoles, and that's the multi-player experience. Sure, you can play online with people great on both platforms, but no one has three of their other friends huddled in around them so they can take turns playing a game on the PC. The PC promotes individual play, removing the true social aspect of gaming, and I don't think that that's the right way to go with things.

Consoles, represent.

 

[Dan]

To be fair, PS3 connected more easily to the internet than the original 360. It had built in wi-fi and didn't cost any money to play games online as long as you had a connection, unlike with Xbox Live.

The key to keeping the console alive is to invent things that it can do that the PC can't... but given that it's just a computer itself, I imagine that'd be pretty difficult. I'd say the biggest thing consoles have on PC is the best part of the consoles, and that's the multi-player experience. Sure, you can play online with people great on both platforms, but no one has three of their other friends huddled in around them so they can take turns playing a game on the PC. The PC promotes individual play, removing the true social aspect of gaming, and I don't think that that's the right way to go with things.

Consoles, represent.

HDMI cable... your computer doesn't need to hook up to a computer monitor... it can hook up to your tv now. (protip) There won't be a place for consoles in the not so distant future, my friend. Instead, these companies will be supporting their services most likely and offering a pre-built console that allows you to hook up to it. Alternatively, anyone with a computer will be able to use the same services. All it takes is a few peripheral changes and some support.

We have come to a place where computer cpu's are so good that most improvements go unnoticed to all but the very intensive video rendering aand virtual environment programs. Our computers can handle all that we NEED them to handle as basic gamers... All this means is that since the cost benefit of getting out extra computations and renders from our computers is going down. It's very likely that in order to compete and keep us buying products, that computers will have to get streamlined and sold as consoles themselves. This is why you already see tablets and smartphones getting so much attention as is.

 

[KMilz]

I don't see how spending two to three times as much for a quality gaming PC and then buying all the peripherals that would essentially turn it into a console would be preferred to buying a console and its peripherals for a much lower price that can do all the same things you bought that PC for.

Or am I missing a piece of this puzzle?

(And I use an HDMI cable, actually, it's great for watching free TV or Netflix. It's obnoxiously short, but a ridiculously nifty device.)

Edit: Looks like I did miss a piece at the end of what you said now that I've gone back and read it. Yeah, computers will be streamlined and sold as consoles, but they'll still have a place, and it seems you agree... so I guess there's nothing to argue.

 

[Accname]

See I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Even though this is how people FEEL about the situation, it doesn't make it any more true. I believe that Microsoft was legitimately coming from the direction that keeping their customers up to date with the latest versions of software and games would benefit both the consumer and the corporation. Microsoft wants more brand control and the ability to offer more services after they market their consoles and games. it is a realistic approach to keeping money flowing after their consoles get sold.
[...]

Yes of course they do it for the money; that is pretty obvious.

The problem is not them being greedy or anything; i dont have a problem with people who want to make more money. Thats a natural desire these days.
The problem is their approach to this.
The way they wanted to make more money was to remove our rights as customers. Give us less freedom, less power.
No giving your games to your friends to play. No selling your used games to somebody else. No cracking or cheating or anything; they are watching you, every 24 hours...

Its offensive to me. Their strategy is a threat to my freedom as a customer. And I will fight for that.
It has been enough.

Microsoft was hoping here, that sony would go the same way. If both companies had equally restricting policies then the gamers would not have any other choice.
Fortunately for us, the people at sony have a little bit of decency and respect. Or maybe they just wanted to screw those bastards at MS over.

 

[thewrongvine]

I agree with Dan's sentiments.

 

[Dan]

Yes of course they do it for the money; that is pretty obvious.
No giving your games to your friends to play. No selling your used games to somebody else. No cracking or cheating or anything; they are watching you, every 24 hours...

WRONG. That was not what Microsoft was going to do.

THIS is what Microsoft was going to do.

Xbox One will also allow you to give up to 10 family members access to "log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One.

But people THINK what you think because they don't actually research things.

In any case, it's all good. It will all work out in the end.

 

[FireCat]

WRONG. That was not what Microsoft was going to do.

But it was like that before they reverse it.

Microsoft reverses course on Internet connection and used game policies of Xbox One

Always-on? Not so fast.
In a stunning turnaround, Microsoft on Wednesday announced plans to change some of the controversial features and policies built into their upcoming Xbox One game console.

The news was first reported by Giant Bomb and later confirmed by Xbox head Don Mattrick, who posted a statement on the Xbox One website detailing changes coming to the two biggest thorns in the company’s side: required internet access for the system to work and their somewhat draconian approach to used game sales.

"Since unveiling our plans for Xbox One, my team and I have heard directly from many of you, read your comments and listened to your feedback," he wrote. "I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your assistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One. You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have today with games delivered on disc. The ability to lend, share, and resell these games at your discretion is of incredible importance to you. Also important to you is the freedom to play offline, for any length of time, anywhere in the world."

Read more here.