The following is a reflagged article from yahoo:
Long before sales figures and game releases dominated the headlines, the only thing any gamer wanted to talk about was Microsoft’s radical online strategy for the Xbox One. As it was originally described, theXbox One was going to be an online-only console in the strictest sense — if you weren’t connected to the Internet, the device wouldn’t function. After several unsuccessful attempts to reach a middle ground with consumers, Microsoft threw in the towel and reverted to the standard policies of the previous generation.
In an interview at SXSW, Phil Spencer, head of Microsoft Studios, admitted that he and his team did not approach the delicate situation in an ideal manner.
HFFL: You don’t say? First, having suits deliver the message for the next console was a HORRIBLE idea. Yes, they want some limelight and yes, by showing themselves, they tried to give the perception that they believe in their product. But honestly, I think we can all just about agree that the reveal last year weeks before E3 was a monumental failure. I personally would have rather had celebrities come out and pawn the new system off to me than some suits in the high-up offices of MS. A music act would have been great too. In fact, having a live show ALSO being shown live on the XBOX One would have been a GREAT way to demonstrate it.
Total Xbox has taken the time to transcribe some of the more interesting quotes:
“I look at last summer and that wasn’t a high point for me, coming out of the announcement of Xbox One and E3, where I thought our messaging around what we believed in was confused,” said Spencer.
HFFL: The biggest failure was not showing what the gaming portion of the system could do as well as conflicting information about the always online format. It of course didn’t help that we as a nation had just gone through reports of revealing info about the NSA’s involvement with wire-tapping and potentially through gaming consoles as well. Having the Kinect be a mandatory part of the console which raised the cost by $100 AND the NSA spook stuff really REALLY hurt MS. Not to mention Don Mattrick’s advice to those who didn’t want Kinect. That was (paraphrased), if you don’t want Kinect, stick with your 360. Man, that was a kick in the nuts to many a gamer, even the loyal ones.
“I learned a ton last summer as leader of our groups about being true to your core vision about what a product is, not being confusing, and frankly, when you’re going to say something to a consumer that might put them off, it’s better to just be direct and honest, rather than trying to sugar-coat something that might be controversial. I’d rather deal with the controversy of what we’re doing, and have an above-table conversation about that topic, rather than trying to sugar-coat it with some other news.”
HFFL: Not what I’m hoping that in-house developers, especially 343, gains from this is that they too MUST follow suit. Be DIRECT AND HONEST. That was one thing that really hurt Halo 4. The whole “perks” thing. Secrecy for secrecy sake, when after what was revealed was more of a let down than anything that merited being kept secret in the first place. I am SO much for honesty even if it means you “rat” yourself out. ‘Fess up to your mistakes from the onset and people WILL be more understanding then than trying to hid things and hope for the best later.
Had Microsoft been more forthcoming at the outset, explaining in detail how its new online strategy could affect the next generation of consoles for the better, consumers might have given the Xbox One the benefit of the doubt. Instead, confusing, drawn out reveals and a refusal to answer basic questions resulted in outrage. If there was anything to be gained by Microsoft’s bold plans, the awkward delivery assured that we’ll never know.
HFFL: It’s possible many gamers may have accepted the new format if it were presented in a better light. The complete mismanagement of the reveal and subsequent showing at E3 really deflated what SHOULD be an otherwise stellar next-fen console. So again, I reiterate that as this pertains to Halo, I hope like heck 343 learned from the mistakes of not just themselves, but those of their superiors AND how those superiors responded. The bolded-underlined portion above is the biggest thing I hope they get.
/End reflagged article…
You’ll forgive me if it seems like I’m harping on either MS or 343. I make no money from this site, so it shouldn’t really affect me, right? Well, yes and no. See, I have a real passion for Halo. So if MS screws things up for the XBOX One and 343 had a less than stellar game, well that affects the Halo community in general. Sure those BIG sites who are well diversified might be fine, but those like mine that are SOLELY focused on one franchise will have a harder time going forward.
I just do not want to go through another hyped up launch of a Halo title only for it to fall flat a month or two after launch. If Halo is to rebound, the hype has to start earlier. It also has to be honest and sincere.
Just as MS/XBOX execs sugar coated the XBOX One, so too did 343 do with Halo 4. perks WERE/ARE perks. Maybe not exactly the same, but close enough. Saying that they were bring Halo back to it’s core, when what they should have said was bring the Halo campaign back to it’s core… I’m sure I’m not the only one that thought they meant bringing multiplayer back to it’s core. Leading us to believe that Spartan Ops was to be an on-going series, only to have the can it after the first season…
They just can NOT do that stuff anymore. Their own execs have said as much for the console and that trickles down to the in-house devs for the respective games/franchises as well.
Okay, sorry, rant over. I just needed to get that off my chest…again. It’s been a VERY slow Halo week. That, plus the fact that I was sick for a few days last week just didn’t give me much to work with/on for the blog.
-Sal