Confirmed: Xbox One No Longer Requires Online Connection, Supports Used Games

[Kemyran]

Any company that operates soley based on what consumers what is doomed to fail. Customers have to be TOLD what they like. Its clear you know nothing about running a business friend.

And where the hell did anyone say "fukk the customers?" Just because you and the rest of the effeminate Sony fanboys claim customers were being fukked doesn't make it so, especially when people don't have the complete story. Having access to all my games on any Xbox One, as well as the ability to share with 10 other family members is already a HUGE advancement over my current gen set up, so please explain how we were being fukked again?

Freaking sheep...

Again, you keep making stupid assumptions. It wasn't just Sony fans, it was CURRENT MS CUSTOMERS/360 OWNERS who also complained about MSFT's plans. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing that. People on both sides of the coin did NOT WANT what MS was pushing. If they had their own fukking base in line, don't you think it would have been gravy?

Furthermore, yeah... I get your point about telling the consumer what they want, but the opposite of what you said is true as well. You're helping make my point. If you operate solely on what you think the consumer wants w/o listening to them, you're destined to fail as well. In this case... they tried that and the consumer told them to fukk off. If you have definite proof that your plan is going to backfire or fail (as in, you didn't get nearly the number of pre-orders you thought you would and you've been battling a PR firestorm for most of 2013) you may want to revisit your plans. And people who are paid to make these decisions decided to do just that. You claim people didn't have "the complete story." It's MSFT's story to tell. It's MSFT's fault that they didn't tell it in a compelling way and chose to keep obfuscating issues, ducking and hiding. They looked ridiculous, unprepared and were clearly unwilling to deal with the aftermath of their decisions. LOL @ being mad at consumers who saw this and decided they didn't want any part of that.

So stay mad, breh. Consumers overwhelmingly decided that the ability to play completely offline and to lend or resell their games with no issues outweighed your need to share games with 10 other people. You wanna trade games, give up the discs.

 

[The_Sheff]

Again, you keep making stupid assumptions. It wasn't just Sony fans, it was CURRENT MS CUSTOMERS/360 OWNERS who also complained about MSFT's plans. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing that. People on both sides of the coin did NOT WANT what MS was pushing. If they had their base in line, don't you think it would have been gravy?

Furthermore, yeah... I get your point about telling the consumer what they want, but the opposite of what you said is true as well. You're helping make my point. If you operate solely on what you think the consumer wants w/o listening to them, you're destined to fail as well. In this case... they tried that and the consumer told them to fukk off. If you have definite proof that your plan is going to backfire or fail (as in, you didn't get nearly the number of pre-orders you thought you would and you've been battling a PR firestorm for most of 2013) you may want to revisit your plans. And people who are paid to make these decisions decided to do just that.

Stay mad, breh. Consumers overwhelmingly decided that the ability to play completely offline and to lend or resell their games with no issues outweighed your need to share games with 10 other people. You wanna trade games, give up the discs.

These dumb ass consumers also complain about how games are too expensive and don't drop in price fast enough on consoles. Why can't they see that's directly because of the retail environment. The sooner that middleman is cut out the sooner prices will drop. But I guess gamefly and GameStop are too tempting for people to give up on.

 

[King Sun]

Again, you keep making stupid assumptions. It wasn't just Sony fans, it was CURRENT MS CUSTOMERS/360 OWNERS who also complained about MSFT's plans. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing that. People on both sides of the coin did NOT WANT what MS was pushing. If they had their own fukking base in line, don't you think it would have been gravy?

Furthermore, yeah... I get your point about telling the consumer what they want, but the opposite of what you said is true as well. You're helping make my point. If you operate solely on what you think the consumer wants w/o listening to them, you're destined to fail as well. In this case... they tried that and the consumer told them to fukk off. If you have definite proof that your plan is going to backfire or fail (as in, you didn't get nearly the number of pre-orders you thought you would and you've been battling a PR firestorm for most of 2013) you may want to revisit your plans. And people who are paid to make these decisions decided to do just that. You claim people didn't have "the whole story." It's MSFT's story to tell. It's MSFT's fault that they didn't tell it in a compelling way and chose to keep obfuscating issues, ducking and hiding. They looked ridiculous, unprepared and were clearly unwilling to deal with the aftermath of their decisions. LOL @ being mad at consumers who saw this and decided they didn't any part of that.

So stay mad, breh. Consumers overwhelmingly decided that the ability to play completely offline and to lend or resell their games with no issues outweighed your need to share games with 10 other people. You wanna trade games, give up the discs.

you're talking to a guy that stans m$ phones and tablets. This Is like talking to a brick wall

 

[Kemyran]

These dumb ass consumers also complain about how games are too expensive and don't drop in price fast enough on consoles. Why can't they see that's directly because of the retail environment. The sooner that middleman is cut out the sooner prices will drop. But I guess gamefly and GameStop are too tempting for people to give up on.

Do it in a way where it does not APPEAR you are screwing people. Be transparent. Be concise and clear. Have your house in order. Give the consumer a compelling incentive. Not empty promises (which MS never gave, this is just your own speculation based on Steam and other digital distro avenues) of lower prices.

Is that too much to ask?

They fukked up and now they have to backtrack because their bottom line was clearly going to be affected if they moved forward. Be mad at Microsoft, not the consumer making a choice based on unclear information that MS was in complete control of.

 

[Rekkapryde]

I stopped fukking with Rapestop for years now...

Sell your shyt privately through Amazon, Craigslist, or Ebay (what I use... @Mook )

 

[Fatboi1]

Again, you keep making stupid assumptions. It wasn't just Sony fans, it was CURRENT MS CUSTOMERS/360 OWNERS who also complained about MSFT's plans. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing that. People on both sides of the coin did NOT WANT what MS was pushing. If they had their own fukking base in line, don't you think it would have been gravy?

Furthermore, yeah... I get your point about telling the consumer what they want, but the opposite of what you said is true as well. You're helping make my point. If you operate solely on what you think the consumer wants w/o listening to them, you're destined to fail as well. In this case... they tried that and the consumer told them to fukk off. If you have definite proof that your plan is going to backfire or fail (as in, you didn't get nearly the number of pre-orders you thought you would and you've been battling a PR firestorm for most of 2013) you may want to revisit your plans. And people who are paid to make these decisions decided to do just that. You claim people didn't have "the whole story." It's MSFT's story to tell. It's MSFT's fault that they didn't tell it in a compelling way and chose to keep obfuscating issues, ducking and hiding. They looked ridiculous, unprepared and were clearly unwilling to deal with the aftermath of their decisions. LOL @ being mad at consumers who saw this and decided they didn't any part of that.

So stay mad, breh. Consumers overwhelmingly decided that the ability to play completely offline and to lend or resell their games with no issues outweighed your need to share games with 10 other people. You wanna trade games, give up the discs.

You might as well had wrote that post in an email and send it to mailer daemon because that dude will not see reason. fukking Shill.

 

[Artificial Intelligence]

.......................

 

[EQ.]

Where did MS say that they planned on reducing game prices if the drm thing panned out? Or was that all conjecture/false hope?

 

[The_Sheff]

Do it in a way where it does not APPEAR you are screwing people. Be transparent. Be concise and clear. Have your house in order. Give the consumer a compelling incentive. Not empty promises (which MS never gave, this is just your own speculation based on Steam and other digital distro avenues) of lower prices.

Is that too much to ask?

They fukked up and now they have to backtrack because their bottom line was clearly going to be affected if they moved forward. Be mad at Microsoft, not the consumer making a choice based on unclear information that MS was in complete control of.

It doesn't matter how clear he message was when the response was that people should be able to do whatever they want with their property. The only way to avoid that response was to not have physical discs at all and they couldn't go that route either.

This was turned into a consumer rights issue.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Where did MS say that they planned on reducing game prices if the drm thing panned out? Or was that all conjecture?

It was MS

MS is the last company I'd trust to do right by the customer. Look what it took for them to change their tune with this shyt. It wasn't "we took the advice of our customers and feedback", it was those preorders. Plain and simple.

 

[Kemyran]

Where did MS say that they planned on reducing game prices if the drm thing panned out? Or was that all conjecture/false hope?

Conjecture/false hope. I don't recall them officially going on the record about that. There was some supposed insider working for them that claimed this but nothing was ever official. If they could get people to eat their shyt at full price, which several members here have demonstrated they'd gladly do, what incentive would they have to lower prices?

 

[marcuz]

These dumb ass consumers also complain about how games are too expensive and don't drop in price fast enough on consoles. Why can't they see that's directly because of the retail environment. The sooner that middleman is cut out the sooner prices will drop. But I guess gamefly and GameStop are too tempting for people to give up on.

if that's the case, i'd rather the middle man stay.

buying a game at launch, and selling it on craigslist for 45 a month later >> buying a game digitally and saving 5-10 bucks.

if m$ wanted to prove that was their intention, new titles would already be available for a cheaper price on XBL.

 

[King Sun]

really?

https://www.change.org/petitions/xbox-one-give-us-back-the-original-xbox-one

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Again, you keep making stupid assumptions. It wasn't just Sony fans, it was CURRENT MS CUSTOMERS/360 OWNERS who also complained about MSFT's plans. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing that. People on both sides of the coin did NOT WANT what MS was pushing. If they had their own fukking base in line, don't you think it would have been gravy?

Furthermore, yeah... I get your point about telling the consumer what they want, but the opposite of what you said is true as well. You're helping make my point. If you operate solely on what you think the consumer wants w/o listening to them, you're destined to fail as well. In this case... they tried that and the consumer told them to fukk off. If you have definite proof that your plan is going to backfire or fail (as in, you didn't get nearly the number of pre-orders you thought you would and you've been battling a PR firestorm for most of 2013) you may want to revisit your plans. And people who are paid to make these decisions decided to do just that. You claim people didn't have "the complete story." It's MSFT's story to tell. It's MSFT's fault that they didn't tell it in a compelling way and chose to keep obfuscating issues, ducking and hiding. They looked ridiculous, unprepared and were clearly unwilling to deal with the aftermath of their decisions. LOL @ being mad at consumers who saw this and decided they didn't want any part of that.

So stay mad, breh. Consumers overwhelmingly decided that the ability to play completely offline and to lend or resell their games with no issues outweighed your need to share games with 10 other people. You wanna trade games, give up the discs.

He's a Black Republican. Allergic to logic...actively battling his own best interests...easily bamboozled...blame the victim...Stockholm Syndrome...

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

How does PS3 sharing games work??

I ask cause Sony has the WORST marketing in the world (what the fukk was that black goo shyt on ps3 launch). Then they have game sharing and never even mention it.

Now it's e3, Microsoft drops its sharing family plan. Sony says zero words about theirs.

Now Microsoft is dropping the family sharing plan. But ps4 supposedly still has the same setup. So now it's the ONLY system with game sharing.





And still not a word of press from Sony, about that. And I've had a ps3 collect dust from saints row the 3rd till I just copped last of us. I just found out last week that they got sharing

So what is it??