Did Microsoft's Damage Control Change Your View Of Xbox One?
It had to happen, didn't it? But does that change your stance?
On the surface it should: Microsoft has announced today that its rescinding its controversial policies for the Xbox One. Specifically, the "24-hour online check-in" and the restriction of used games.
Now, it has been confirmed that next-gen Xbox will not impose any restrictions on pre-owned games; you can buy them, trade them in, and share them with your friends at your leisure. And after the initial system setup, you won't have to be connected online to play offline games. So, that's all good, right? Doesn't that change your viewpoint entirely? I mean, it's pretty similar to the PlayStation 4 now, right? Well, not so fast...
The Xbox One is still $100 more. Developers have been proclaiming their love of the PS4's architecture for months, several saying it's up to 50% more powerful than Microsoft's console. PlayStation Plus offers more in the way of valuable perks (in my eyes) with early access to betas, discounts and free games, cloud storage, etc. as compared to Xbox Live. The edge in exclusive software will inevitably fall in Sony's favor if it hasn't already. But above and beyond all that, can we really forget Microsoft's initial plan for their new system? Did that not say something?
Did they listen to feedback or did they simply bow to immense consumer pressure? Is this really about pleasing your fans, or is it about panic and damage control? The original announcement showed such a shocking detachment; i.e., it proved to me that Microsoft knows little about what gamers really want and worse, that they don't really care. They lost me right then and there. They could package the Xbox One with a diamond-encrusted controller and I still wouldn't buy it now. ...well, okay, maybe I would then. But after hocking the controller, I'd return the system.
6/19/2013 9:03:16 PM Ben Dutka