NPD: Why should publishers report digital sales? *spawn*

I think I fully understand the value (def. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something) of communities like GAF, IGN (another huge gamer community) and B3D.

You'll need to be more explicit about what you're referring too about what you think Microsoft learned in 2013. Equally I don't see any Sony hubris. Sony really aren't saying or doing anything much other than making well-selling machines and serving up a decent supply of exclusive games.

 

What you called a "vocal minority" had the power to completely change the direction of a billion dollar product business. So if that same "vocal minority" starts changing the discussion & it gets enough ground swell then I'm sure Sony should take notice.

Tommy McClain

 

What did they change direction on in 2013?

 

Clearly AzBat is talking about the always online aspect if not/as well as the TV TV TV focus. Whether that was 2013 or 2012 or whatever doesn't really matter. It's a decent bit of evidence that big companies are being shaped by internet voices, regardless how many people constitute those voices. Whether big companies continue to follow the internet voices, or learn to ignore them, is something to be seen.

But in the case of MS, it was the gaming press that also complained, not just forums, which is significantly different.

 

This is the part I debate - credit/blame to the internet for this change.

Nobody was clear on Microsoft's DRM policy in early June 2013 and that included Microsoft's own executives at E3, the media trying to report it and the rest of us. The 44-page thread on this forum show there were a lot of people embracing the DRM model, particularly game sharing with family and friends. The same is true for the other communities I participate which includes GAF.

So how did Microsoft conclude overwhelmingly that DRM had to be reversed and not tweaked or clarified? There was a lot of both positivity and negativity so, you know, another day on the internet. Pre-orders for Xbox One began on 10 June 2013 and Microsoft reversed the DRM policy nine days later. You want to know what reversed that policy? Low pre-order numbers. Don Mattrick's rhetoric about "hearing" gamers is PR. If Pre-order numbers were good they would not have reversed those DRM policies regardless of the predictable internet vitriol.

 

But the internet noise is what gave them an idea of what to change, no? If there weren't angry voices on the interwebz saying always online DRM fascist control-freak scum meant they'd avoid the console, would MS have changed their DRM policy in response to low preorders? Seems to me the internet was being used to learn what the consumer (thought they) wanted, to interpret low interest and adapt accordingly.

 

I felt it was obvious from the manner in which the gaming press reported the DRM policies that Microsoft would know it was going to be a divisive issue, even before the internet began hammering their keyboards.

There are always angry voices on the internet. It's the internet!!! There are gaming media personalities whose entire schtick is being angry about nothing much with the aim of making others irate. The internet is full of people with opinions on everything but no conviction and you only have to look at the array of gaming memes like "Pre-order cancelled" to realise that the "voice" of gamers on the internet has no credibility. There are long-standing members on this board who think one thing one week and something entirely different the next. Companies can't possibly make product decisions based on internet feedback.

If anything, the internet noise gave Microsoft an excuse to avoid saying pre-order numbers were bad. Hey guys, we hear ya. We're changing that thing. It was good PR. Bullshit, but good PR.

 

That doesn't really answer my question. If people refused to buy XB1 because of its DRM policy but didn't tell MS as much by expressing their opinions on the internet, would MS have removed the DRM policy or would they have done something else?

 

I can't answer your 'what if' question. I'm sure others will provide wild speculation.

 

It's very simple. They heard fans feedback so they changed their policies. However other events might be influential as well (e.g. Gamestop anti Xbox activities).

 

What Sony hubris?

 

You quoted the wrong post.

To respond, though. It's pretty obvious what AzBat is saying, We have two generations of console manufacturers taking their core supporters (for lack of a better word) for granted and suffering the consequences. He's not saying Sony are showing hubris now, he's saying that if they do, by disregarding the desires of their most vocal and influential consumers, it could hurt them as it has before.

 

Thanks MrCorbo, you expained it better than I could.

Tommy McClain

Sent from my LG-H634 using Tapatalk

 

It's absurd to equate online DRM and digital download sales.

 

That's not what was being argued. What was being argued was that companies can ignore internet outrage, regardless of the cause. Go back and look.

DSoup said this:

And, in response to that, AzBat said this.

 

False equivalency.

 

Explain.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

 

Tommy McClain

 

What hubris?